SECTION 1 CANDIDATE SELECTION

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1-ii

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

SECTION 1Candidate Selection

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
CHAPTER 1.1Basic Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1-1
CHAPTER 1.2Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-1
WHERE UNDERBALANCED DRILLING HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-1
THE EVOLUTION OF UB TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-4
CHAPTER 1.3 Benefits of Underbalanced Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
CHAPTER 1.4 Limitations of Underbalanced Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4-1
CHAPTER 1.5Geological and Reservoir Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-1
CHAPTER 1.6The Well Candidate Vs. Specific Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOLUTIONS TO DRILLING PROBLEMS WITH UB DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOLUTIONS TO COMPLETION PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.6-1
1.6-4
1.6-4
1.6-5

SECTION 1REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ref. 1-1

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1-iii

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1-iv

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.1Basic Definitions

Underbalanced (UB) drilling is defined as deliberately drilling into a formation where the
formation pressure or pore pressure is greater than the pressure exerted by the annular fluid or gas
column. In this respect, balanced pressure drilling is a subcategory of underbalanced drilling
because the annular pressure is expected to fall below the formation pressure during pipe movement.

MEI

The term pseudo-underbalance has been used to describe conditions where the well is
presumed to be drilled underbalanced, but in actuality, during pressure surges, connections, trips, or
completion operations, the annular column pressure exceeds the formation pressure. For the purpose
of this manual, that definition will not be used. Instead, it will be considered that the underbalanced
condition was mechanically or hydraulically violated in pseudo-underbalanced operations.
Underbalanced mud may be conventional drilling mud, water, oil, aerated systems (aerated
mud or foam) or pure air with or without mist. Air or aerated systems may use air, natural gas,
nitrogen, or a combination of gases. Within this manual, the term gas will be used to refer to air,
natural gas, nitrogen or any other gas, except where noted.
As a broad generalization, underbalanced drilling is undertaken for only three reasons:
1. To improve the drilling rate
2. To limit lost circulation
3. To protect the reservoir formation

Each of these three goals has numerous subcategories. However, if underbalanced drilling does
not reduce the cost of drilling or improve production, it is of marginal value.
The ultimate purpose, therefore, is to reduce the cost of producing the reservoir.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.1-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.1-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.2Historical Perspective

Underbalanced drilling is not new. The first drillers to use underbalanced techniques were the
cable tool operators in the early oil fields. With the advent of rotary tools, drilling muds were
gradually developed to the point where well kicks and blowouts could be avoided. Underbalanced
drilling with air was first revisited in hard rock areas in an attempt to increase penetration rate.

MEI

Lyons (1984) states that the first oil and gas well using air as a drilling fluid was completed at
Peters Point, Utah in 1953 by El Paso Natural Gas Co. However, there are references to a Hughes
Tool Company technical document in 1952 that proposed volumes for air and gas drilling, and
Brantley (1975) lists California wells drilled with natural gas in 1938. This would suggest that there
were earlier UB drilling efforts.
The first recorded aerated mud was used in Big Lake field, Regan County, Texas in 1934
(Brantley, 1971). They used natural gas in mud to avoid lost circulation. Aerated muds were used
sporadically through the rest of the 1930s and 1940s. For example, Poettmann (1955) refers to
aerated mud equipment in a service company catalog in 1945. Starting in 1956, the technical journals
were full of air and gas drilling articles. Angel (1957) published the Air Volume Requirements
tables and Goins (1961) discussed mist drilling.
In the 1950s and 1960s, underbalanced drilling with aerated muds and foams was used to avoid
or limit lost circulation in the mountainous areas of the U.S. and Canada. Foams were first commonly
used by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for drilling 12-ft diameter holes 30005000 ft
deep in Nevada. The AEC developed stiff foam to lift the powdered rhyolite out of emplacement
holes at French Mans Flats in Nevada. Chevron in California used foam to clean sand out of
production holes and wash over production liners. The same techniques were used with air and
aerated muds in North Africa, Iran and other scattered areas. Aerated muds were well developed by
1963 (Rehm, 1963).
In the following sections, most of the technical emphasis is on the use of air, gas, or nitrogen
as a drilling medium or to reduce mud weight. However, since far more wells are drilled
underbalanced by simply reducing mud weight, conventional muds that create an underbalanced
situation (i.e., flow drilling) are also an important part of this discussion.
WHERE UNDERBALANCED DRILLING HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED
The first major use of underbalanced drilling procedures to protect the reservoir was in the
Austin Chalk starting in 1988. Since 1988-1990, underbalanced drilling in the fractured Austin Chalk
of Texas and Louisiana has become a standard practice. In the Austin Chalk, conventional water-base
drilling fluids are used in the horizontal holes with the mud weight low enough to balance or
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

underbalance the formation. Because of open fractures, there is no practical method to maintain mud
density high enough to kill a potential kick. The long chalk fairway, which is up to 50 miles wide and
1000 miles long, stretches from Southwest Texas, northeast into Louisiana. With a total of about
7000 underbalanced horizontal wells, this area tends to dominate the statistics. However, there has

MEI

been significant UB activity around the globe (Figure 1.2.1).

Figure 1.2.1. Underbalanced Drilling Areas

By 1990, serious efforts were also underway in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada to extend
the benefits of underbalanced drilling to these reservoirs (Figure 1.2.2). While underbalanced drilling
in limestone or chalk reservoirs is not unusual in the U.S., the greatest efforts in underbalanced
drilling technology in sandstones have been in Canada.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI

Figure 1.2.2. Number of UB Wells in Canada

(Knoll, 1996 and Murch, 1998)

Geothermal underbalanced drilling is a special case that is most often undertaken to improve
penetration rate and avoid lost circulation. Air (including air with steam) and aerated mud have been
the most successful underbalanced fluids in geothermal drilling. High temperatures, which are often
above the limits of chemical foam agents, tend to limit the use of foams.
The use of underbalanced drilling and completion technology is expected to grow steadily over
the next several years. Based on an industry survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,
application of underbalanced drilling in the U.S. and around the world is predicted to grow rapidly
(Figure x-1) in a manner reminiscent of horizontal drilling after its modern introduction in the mid1980s.

Figure 1.2.3. Projected Underbalanced Drilling in the

U.S. (Duda et al., 1996)

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-3

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

THE EVOLUTION OF UB TECHNOLOGY

MEI

Gas drilling was an obvious idea (Figure 1.2.3), since U.S. law allowed free use of lease gas on
the lease. It was popular starting in the 1950s. With the increase in value of natural gas, the use of
gas drilling has decreased.

Figure 1.2.4.

Gas Drilling Blooie Line with

3 MMcfd

Air drilling became common in quarries in the 1940s, but large portable air compressors had
to be developed before it could be applied in the oil field. Well Completions Co. of Denver, the first
air drilling service company, started in 1954 with Gardener-Denver two-stage WEN and WEK
compressors run by two-cycle diesel GM engines (Figure 1.2.4). Joy JN102 two-stage compressors
were common by 1958. Boosters were available at the same time and allowed pressures up to about
900 psi. Larger compressors from Dresser (four-stage Clark CFB-4) and Ingersoll Rand 4HH3 (three
stages and boosters) became available in 1966. The introduction of the air hammer to the oil field in
that same period extended the use of air drilling into crooked-hole problem areas in West Texas. Air
and aerated drilling are still conducted extensively in the Western U.S., Canada, and the steam fields
at the Geysers in California.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-4

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI

Figure 1.2.5. WEK Compressor Package (Western Air Drilling, 1954)

There were and still are technical problems with air drilling. There were major efforts to develop
chemical squeezes during the 1960s and 1970s to squeeze off wet zones. This work was largely
unsuccessful both technically and economically. Other problems included damp formations that were
unstable when wet with mist, corrosion of the drill pipe, and downhole fires (burn-offs). Some newer
technologies developed in the 1990s helped remedy these problems. New misting agents that inhibit
sloughing shales are extending the application of air drilling. Corrosion has been largely controlled
by inhibitors, and nitrogen defeated fires and oxygen corrosion problems.

Foam systems for drilling never became popular beyond certain specialized uses. These included
AEC big holes, Arctic surface holes, and workover cleanouts. A resurgence of interest in foam
occurred in 1990 in the Hugoton field in Kansas, Canada, and Oman and Yeman in the Middle East.
Aerated muds for lost circulation likewise had problems with pressure surging (slug flow),
corrosion in the drill pipe, and in general, unstable drilling fluid operations. Many of these problems
have been overcome with better fluid technologies, the availability of nitrogen as a drilling fluid, and
better modeling and/or understanding of flow regimes.

The modern resurgence in underbalanced drilling began in Canada. There has always been air
drilling in the foothills and aerated systems in use elsewhere in the plains. In the late 1980s and
continuing today, formal technical efforts were undertaken to extend aerated systems to drill reservoirs
underbalance. The development of the closed surface system, nitrogen as a gas for drilling, better
reservoir and rock strength analysis, and formalized techniques for maintaining constant hole
pressureall were derived or improved in Canada.
It is now evident that there is wide potential application for underbalanced drilling in the U.S.
and around the world (American Oil & Gas Reporter Staff, 1998). Benefits of the technology are
becoming widely recognized and include:
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-5

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Formation damage is minimized

Completion costs are reduced (often no need for stimulation)

Lost circulation and differential sticking are prevented

ROP is improved

The formation can be analyzed during drilling operations in real time

MEI

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.2-6

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.3 Benefits of Underbalanced Drilling

The candidate well for underbalanced drilling must meet some simple evaluation criteria. Since
a new underbalanced drilling project may involve extra costs and/or additional risk, there needs to
be at least one firm economic and technical reason to change from the conventional overbalanced
drilling program. It is also not realistic to assume that if a new project meets the evaluation criteria,
it will be a technical or financial success. There is still the phenomenon of the learning curve. The
evaluation of a single candidate well can be used to screen obviously inappropriate applications.
Measuring success, however, requires a more statistical view provided by evaluating several wells.

MEI

Underbalanced drilling can help resolve drilling cost problems or completion damage problems.
The first step in screening a prospect is: does it appear that underbalanced drilling will provide a
solution to one or more of the following technical problems?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

PROBLEM SITUATIONS THAT CAN BE SOLVED WITH

UNDERBALANCED DRILLING
Slow drilling rate in hard rock
Slow drilling rate in crooked hole
Lost returns
Drilling into depleted zones or in depleted fields
Differential pressure sticking
Limited water availability
Skin damage from mechanical plugging
Skin damage from shale hydration
Fluid sensitivity
Fractured reservoirs

Drilling situations that may benefit from the use of underbalanced drilling include:
1.

Hard RockLow Penetration Rate

Drilling penetration rate in sediments increases as the differential pressure between the
wellbore and pore pressure in the rock decreases. The curves shown in Figure 1.3.1 shift on the axis
for different formations and conditions but retain their general shape. If it is possible to reduce the
differential pressure to the inflection point on the curve, a major improvement in penetration rate may
be expected. Rate increases of ten-fold are not unusual.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI
2.

Figure 1.3.1. Drilling Rate vs. Differential Pressure in Two

Alberta Fields (Plaxton et al., 1997)

Hard RockCrooked Hole

Drilling in hard, dipping formations results in low penetration rates because a low bit
weight is a necessary part of the pendulum effect required to keep the hole straight. Reduced
differential pressure (underbalanced drilling) allows a higher drilling rate at light bit weight. This is
best performed using air or a light air/mist system. The air hammer, which requires very little bit
weight, provides a spectacular drilling rate increase while allowing the hole to be kept straight.
Straight holes with drilling rates of up to 20 times conventional are not unusual.
3.

Lost Returns

Drilling fluid is lost to the formation because the pressure exerted by the column of drilling
fluid is greater than the fracture pressure of the formation, or there are open fractures, vugs, or
channels in the formation that have less internal pressure than is exerted by the drilling fluid column.
The obvious solution is to reduce the mud column weight rather than trying to plug the fractures
and/or holes.
4.

Depleted Formations (Low Pressure Formations)

Pressure depletion in older oil fields leads to lost circulation in new wells, re-entries or
workovers. Horizontal re-entries into depleted formations have become a common procedure in the
last few years. The formation is subnormally pressured and lost returns or differential pressure sticking

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

is to be expected. Mud column pressure needs to be reduced to below the formation pore pressure
or reservoir pressure to prevent these problems.
5.

Differential Pressure Sticking

MEI

A reduction in differential pressure sticking (Figure 1.3.2) is normally a bonus that is

enjoyed when underbalanced drilling is applied for other reasons. While reduced sticking is a
justification often mentioned in underbalanced proposals, the literature cited at the end of the chapter
contains little information on the subject. Cited material is often anecdotal because sticking did not
occur. It appears that underbalanced wells are not often drilled solely for the purpose of eliminating
differential sticking. This problem was more often addressed with a slight reduction of mud weight
to a minimum value or the use of an oil mud.
6.

Limited Water Availability

In desert or dry areas, limited water supplies

have encouraged air drilling or the use of foam or aerated
mud to combat lost circulation.
7.

Skin Damage Due to Mechanical Plugging

of the Pore Throat

Skin damage, which involves the mechanical

plugging of the pore throats (or permeability passages) in
the immediate area around the wellbore (Figure 1.3.3), is
one of the major constraints to production. The plugging
may be on the surface of the wellbore or internal to the
pore throat. There are several methods employed to avoid
this problem:

Figure 1.3.2.

Differential Pressure
Sticking

a. Ultraclean drill-in fluids,

b. Non-invasive filter cakes,
c. Underbalanced drilling.
The approach with underbalanced drilling is to avoid flow into the reservoir and instead
allow the reservoir to flow outward. This is the ultimate solution to avoid mechanical plugging of the
face of the wellbore.
A promising solution is to employ two or more of the above methods. This presents
problems along with the potential benefits. It is impossible to keep an ultraclean drill-in fluid clean,
although it may be kept clean enough to limit skin damage. The non-invasive filter cake may cause

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-3

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

later problems with a completion using screens, and it is difficult to keep produced oil from emulsifying
in the mud so that it can be separated and sold.
Bennion (1996) argues, based on core testing in the laboratory, there is some glazing and
pulverization of the wellbore from the drill pipe that may cause skin damage even in UB conditions.
This is a real possibility but appears to be impossible to avoid (Table 1.3.1).

MEI

Given no perfect solution for skin damage, UB drilling still seems to be an excellent
method for limiting these problems.

Figure 1.3.3. Plugging of Pore Throats (Bennion, 1996)

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-4

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI

TABLE 1.3.1. Potential Formation Damage Mechanisms in Different Reservoir Types

(Bennion, 1996)

8. Skin Damage due to Shale Hydration

Dirty formations containing shale or clay elements are another of the major elements
of skin damage. There are a number of approaches to this problem:
a. Underbalanced drilling,
b. Inhibitive mud or circulating fluids,
c. Special drill-in fluids.
In this case, a combination of approaches is best. The main problems are that inhibitive
muds may cause mechanical skin problems, and special drill-in fluids are expensive in both product
cost and time.
9. Reservoir Fluid Sensitivity
Some, or perhaps all, reservoirs are sensitive to fluid invasion (Figure 1.3.4). There
may be oil in an oil-wet reservoir or water in a water-wet reservoir or some chemical or scale reaction

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-5

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI

in the pore space. In any case, one of the obvious solutions is to not penetrate the reservoir with the
drilling and completion fluid, or to limit fluid penetration even with what appears to be a non-damaging
fluid.

Figure 1.3.4.

Mechanism for Formation Blocking Fluid

Sensitivity (Bennion, 1996)

10. Fractured Reservoirs with Production from Fractures

In fractured reservoirs like the Austin Chalk, the mud column balances against the
fluid pressure in the fracture system, so it is really more properly described as a type of balanced
pressure drilling (Joseph, 1995) (Figure 1.3.5). Modern seismic and logging techniques are
demonstrating that more reservoirs produce from fractures than were previously considered.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-6

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI
Sec. 1

DEA-101

Figure 1.3.5. Fluid Losses and Gains (Bennion, 1997)

1.3-7

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.3-8

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.4 Limitations of Underbalanced Drilling

MEI

There are important problems to consider when the mud column pressure against the formation
is reduced (Figure 1.4.1). Most drilling procedures use the mud column pressure as a seal against
well kicks or blowouts, heaving shales (geopressured shale), broken or fractured formations, general
borehole instability due to techtonic stresses or weak formations, and salt. With deliberate
underbalanced drilling, this type of protection is no longer available.

Figure 1.4.1. UB Drilling Problems

The technology to deal with reservoir protection is still evolving, but it is clear from the literature
and field experience that underbalanced drilling and completions using current technology will not
solve all problems of low well productivity. UB drilling is not a production enhancement technique
or a panacea for all problems.
If a reservoir will not produce without fracturing, it probably is not a good candidate for
UB drilling. UB drilling can only solve skin damage and fracture plugging.
New UB projects are often undertaken in wells where there is very little chance for success and
therefore little risk of damaging the reservoir or incurring extraordinary costs. A poor well will never
become a winner and, in the end, poor results or poor production will detract from the potential of
a promising technology.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.4-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

The following is only a summary partial screening process for drilling a candidate well. If any
of these conditions appear, they must not be in the open-hole section for underbalanced drilling, but
behind casing. Thus, by definition, these require that underbalanced drilling be halted in that open-hole
interval. However, very little is absolute and local conditions and practices may modify this screening
process.

MEI

THE ABSOLUTE RULE FOR UB OPERATIONS

ITS NOT WHAT YOU KNOW THAT HURTS YOU
ITS WHAT YOU KNOW THAT ISNT SO !!

THE NO-GO SCREEN

If the following occurs within the open-hole section:
NO, DONT DRILL UNDERBALANCE
1. Weak formations will collapselimit underbalance
2. Dipping fractured formations
3. Thick coal beds
4. Young geopressured shales
POSSIBLE, BUT DRILL IT AND CASE IT QUICKLY
5. Thick shale section or older geopressured shales
6. Hard, thin salt beds
EXPENSIVE
7. High pressure water flows
8. Hydrogen sulfide

The Dont Do It Screen

1. Do not drill with extreme UB in weak formations. Weak formations will collapse unless
supported by a mud column (Figure 1.4.4). Early work in the Gulf of Mexico indicated that the
Miocene shale would collapse or slough at an underbalance of about 600 psi. Other formations have
other limits. Literature cited at the end of the chapter mentions this problem (Bieseman, 1995,
McLellan, 1994, McLellan, 1996, and McLellan and Pratt, 1995), but little specific data are given.
What is clear from experience and recognized by many of the authorities, is that wellbore collapse

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.4-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

does not follow simple rules and is not as common as rumored. Limit the UB to the minimum
necessary differential pressure.

MEI

2. Fractured dipping formations will cave into the wellbore unless supported by the mud
column.

Figure 1.4.4. Underbalanced Drilling Problems (McLellan, 1996)

3. Thick coal beds. The coal beds in the Western U.S. and Canada are often fractured from
techtonic activity and are very unstable. They will immediately collapse to their critical angle of repose.
This is not necessarily true of massive unfractured coal beds, such as are common in the Eastern U.S.
Large washouts or hole enlargements upset the otherwise delicate hole-cleaning ability of
underbalanced drilling fluids. The result is cuttings left in the hole, heading of the fluid column, and
pressure surges, all of which aggravate the problem.
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.4-3

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

4. Geopressured shale or clay. These are a recipe for disaster. It is not always apparent that
a shale is pressure sensitive. The Mancos Shale of Colorado, its equivalent Pierre Shale in Montana,
and the Fort St. John Shale in Alberta, Canada will only stand against reduced borehole pressure for
five to seven days. They then start to slough into the wellbore. In all cases with shale, even the small
volume of water in mist drilling aggravates the problem. However, some of the new misting agents
may stabilize these shales for longer periods. (These types of formations are often air or foam drilled,
or drilled with aerated mud to increase the drilling rate; however, the hole will only stand open for
a limited time.)
5. Thick shale sections. In general, thick shale sections cause problems with underbalanced
drilling. They slough or cave into the hole. This is probably due to thick shale sections having some
elements of laminating, geopressuring or sensitivity to water. In all cases, even the little water in mist
drilling aggravates the problem. These formations need to be put behind casing within a few days.

MEI

6. Thick salt beds. Salt will flow toward the point of least pressure. For underbalanced drilling,
that is the wellbore. However, there are some anecdotal reports of drilling salt successfully with air.
Potential Problems in Underbalanced Drilling:

7. Shallow high-pressure water flows or

artesian flows make underbalanced drilling
difficult and always expensive.
When
underbalanced drilling with water or mud, the
water influx only dilutes the mud, which may be
tolerable. It is possible, but expensive to drill
underbalance with air, mist, foam, or aerated
mud in the presence of an artesian water flow.
8. H2S poses a special problem for UB
operations, but can be controlled with newly
evolving closed systems.

9. Noncontinuous underbalanced conditions can be a significant problem and an

indication that UB drilling may not be suitable.
Greater damage than would be incurred with
overbalanced operations may occur if UB
conditions are not maintained coutinuously
throughout drilling and completion operations.
Real-time measurements (Figure 1.4.5) are
essential to ensure success. Coiled tubing
represents an important technological solution to
avoid pressure pulses during connections.

Figure 1.4.5. Maintaining UB Conditions

(Bennion, 1997)
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.4-4

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.5Geological and Reservoir Perspectives

Since the geological disciplines are often the basis for decisions about underbalanced drilling,
the considerations of UB drilling need to be briefly reviewed on a geological basis.

UNDERBALANCED DRILLING DOES NOT NEED TO BE

LIMITED TO HARD ROCK!

MEI

1. Rock Types and Depositional Conditions (Borehole Stability). There is general

agreement that limestones and hard sandstones are good candidates for underbalanced drilling. What
is now apparent is that shales, clay shales (young shales) and many poorly consolidated sands are also
excellent candidates for underbalanced drilling and completions. The hard Devonian Shales of the U.S.
Eastern Provinces have produced gas and oil for decades. The Bakken Shale of North Dakota is a
big producer from a relatively thin formation.

The soft Miocene sands and clay shales of the worlds marine basins have been drilled
underbalanced and shown excellent results. A good example is the pressure-depleted Miocene fields
in Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, where aerated mud has reduced lost-circulation problems and
improved production.

2. Pore Pressure (Formation Damage, Lost Circulation). Pore pressure is the major
determinant for the borehole pressure from the mud column. Short of having actual production
pressures, pore pressures from well logs are the main source of data on formation pressure. Before
starting an underbalanced drilling project, pore pressure estimations should be available for all the open
sections of the hole.
3. Fracture Pressure (Lost Circulation). Fracturing is a function of pore pressure. Fracture
pressure based on calculations using pore pressure or field data is an important part of underbalanced
drilling studies.
4. Fractures (Lost Circulation and Well Kicks). Open or partially open fractures always
add to drilling and completion opportunities and problems. For a period of time, it was believed that
open fractures would not be present at significant depths. Now it is apparent that fractures can be held
open by the reservoir fluid. In open or loosely sealed fractures, the lost circulation pressure and the
pressure at which the well flows are essentially the same. A well can be controlled under this condition,
but it will always be flowing or losing fluid to some degree.
5. Permeability (as Reflected in Differential Sticking). Differential sticking occurs when
drilling fluid leaks into the formation, leaving a fairly impermeable layer of solids on the wellbore. If
the drill pipe or tubing is in contact with the wellbore, the filtrate can leak away from behind the pipe
and create a low-pressure zone. The differential pressure over the area involved creates forces that

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.5-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

cause pressure sticking or differential sticking of the pipe. This cannot happen if the well is
underbalanced. Stuck pipe can be freed by changing the well condition to underbalance.
6. Water-Sensitive Shales (Borehole Stability). Water-sensitive shales are usually obvious.
Shale samples soaked in water swell or dissolve. Some older shales (Cretaceous and older) are not
obviously water-sensitive from a soak test, but are actually quite sensitive to water under wellbore
conditions. An excellent example of such a shale is the Bakken Shale of the Williston Basin. Such
shales can soak in water in the laboratory for months and not show any swelling or softening. In the
wellbore, their reaction is quite different. So while not all shales are water sensitive, for underbalanced
drilling, the assumption should be made that they are, and appropriate mud, foam, or mist properties
need to be used. When laboratory data are used to determine shale stability, the proper questions need
to be asked and all pertinent information needs to be given to the laboratory.

MEI

7. Tectonic Stresses (Borehole Stability). This is a real example of What you know that
is not true will hurt you. Considerable rock mechanics work has been focused on rock stability.
Studies and field examples by McLellan (1994) show that elastic yielding of rock is quite complex
and occurs at greater differentials and at lower rates than is normally assumed. This is important when
looking at UB horizontal drilling in pressure depleted reservoirs where theoretical calculations based
on the depleted pore pressure would lead to the conclusion that the wellbore structure is very fragile.
In addition, Warren, McLellan, and Pratt (1995) in a study of stability in the unconsolidated oil sands
in Peace River, Alberta, Canada, pointed out the importance of filter cake (from the drilling mud) in
controlling the yielded zone. This is another area of underbalanced drilling where the seemingly
obvious may not be true, and careful analysis and laboratory work need to be undertaken (Figure
1.5.1).

Figure 1.5.1. Wellbore Stability (Warren et al., 1995)

8. Rock Hardness (ROP). Apparent rock hardness in drilling is in part a function of the
pressure from the borehole fluid column. Another major component is the strength of the rock itself.
Finally, there is the problem of cleaning the bottom of the hole. In underbalanced holes, there is always
the possibility of drilling faster than the bottom can be cleaned.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.5-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 1.6The Well Candidate Vs. Specific Procedures

The final screening procedure in the study of an underbalance candidate is to go back to the
original reason for considering the underbalance and relate it to the various procedures available.
There may be governmental regulations that affect the decision process (see Section 12).

MEI

When it is possible to use a straight liquid system, these have a significant advantage because
they do not have the potential for major pressure surges and velocity surges possible when using gas
or air. Pressure and velocity surges are the cause of most problems with compressible underbalance
fluids.

Figure 1.6.1. Fluid Type Vs. Density

MIST

AERATED

FOAM

99.8%

500/1
100/1

98%

50/1
30/1
10/1

90%
QUALITY

INJECTION
RATIO

DEA101 Manual

Figure 1.6.2. Air Ratio Vs. System Type

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.6-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Underbalanced drilling procedures are compared below and are presented beginning with
maximum pressure reduction.

ADVANTAGES

PROBLEMS

MEI

1. DRY GAS: NATURAL GAS OR NITROGEN

A. Maximum drill rate
A. Wet formations
B. No downhole fires
B. Some hazard from natural gas on the
surface
C. Nitrogen is the most expensive but
safest
C. Cost, especially with nitrogen
D. No corrosion
D. Cost in large diameter holes
E. Might be possible to drill deeper with
E. No wellbore support
nitrogen or natural gas because they
are inherently drier than air.
2. DRY AIR
A. Maximum drill rate
B. Least expensive
C. No corrosion inside the DP. Corrosion
of the outside of the drill pipe possible
with dampness (see Mist).

A.
B.
C.
D.

Wet formations
Possible downhole fires
Cost with large diameter holes
No wellbore support

3. MIST: AIR, NITROGEN, OR NATURAL

A.
A. Makes it possible to continue drilling
in damp formations
B.
B. Generally represses downhole fires
C.

GAS W/WATER, MUD & OIL

Lower drilling rate than with dry conditions
Requires more air or gas
Dampness causes corrosion in the drill
pipe with air
D. Dampness may cause shale instability
E. No wellbore support

4. FOAM: NITROGEN OR AIR

A. Exceptional lifting capacity
B. Variable wellbore pressure
C. Wellbore pressure can be closely
controlled
D. Needs less gas than any other procedure

Sec. 1

DEA-101

A. Complex mixing system

B. Wets the formation
C. Corrosion in the drill pipe possible with
air
D. There may be foam disposal problem
E. Reusable foams require more equipment
at the surface
F. No oil foam available

1.6-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

5. NITRATED WATER OR OIL

A. Little nor no danger of downhole fire
B. Little or no corrosion in fresh water
C. Nitrated oil (crude or diesel)no
corrosion

A. Pressure surges are major problems

B. Potential for corrosion with formation or
salt water
C. Further potential for corrosion with H2S
with water

6. AERATED MUD
A. Can take advantage of mud
properties (density, filter cake,
inhibition)
B. Easy to increase mud density or
mud up if there is a problem
C. Only limited special surface equipment

MEI

A.
B.

7. O IL OR INVERT EMULSION
A. Simple but limited to about 7.5 ppg
(0.9 SpG) with diesel oil or 8.0
(0.96 SpG) with invert emulsion
B. No water wetting of the formation
C. No pressure surges

8.

C.

Wets the formation

Strong potential for drill pipe
corrosion
Pressure surges

A.
B.
C.
D.

Expensive
Environmental laws
Disposal problems
Oil or water will calcify in the mud

WATER OR LIGHTWEIGHT MUD

A. Nondamaging filter cake possible
A.
B. No pressure surges
B.
C. Can use ultraclean drill-in fluid

Oil emulsifies in the mud

Disposal problems

9. GLASS BEADS IN THE DRILLING FLUID (Medley et al., 1997)

A. Simple, but limited to about 7 ppg
A. Special equipment needed for solids
(0.84 SpG) in mud
control
B. No pressure surges
C. No corrosion
10. CONVENTIONAL MUD USED IN AN UNDERBALANCED CONDITION

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.6-3

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

SOLUTIONS TO DRILLING PROBLEMS WITH UB DRILLING

In all of the following areas, horizontal wells add a further dimension.
1. Hard RockLow Penetration Rate. If the candidate well passes the formation screening,
there is an abundance of literature and experience to guide well design for air or mist drilling. Since
penetration rate is affected by differential pressure in the wellbore, any method of reducing the mud
column pressure should improve the drilling rate. The question then becomes economics, safety, and
regulations.
2. Crooked HoleLow Penetration Rate. Increasing the penetration rate is limited by low
bit weights. The air hammer with air or gas is an ideal solution. The addition of a light mist represses
penetration rate. Foam or other techniques have less effect on bit weight versus penetration rate and
the economics of these techniques needs to carefully considered.

MEI

3. Lost Circulation. This is a simple matter of downhole pressure. With lost circulation, the
depth of the fluid column can be measured and the bottom-hole pressure calculated.
It is always best to use noncompressible fluid solutions to avoid pressure surges in the hole.
Greater pressure reductions are possible with foam, and maximum reduction with air or gas. Where
other problems relating to mud properties are present, and some mud column pressure is required,
it might be necessary to plan ahead to use a parasite string and aerated mud.
4. Depleted Reservoir. This problem combines lost circulation with differential pressure
sticking and often slow drilling rates. The reservoir pressure needs to be balanced with the most
suitable fluid. The added requirements to control reservoir flow and protect against reservoir damage
require special care in defining the boundaries of the problem. Any pressure surge above the reservoir
pressure will cause some damage from the drilling fines, if from nothing else. The best solutions are
dry gas or nitrogen, possibly oil mist with nitrogen or one of the noncompressible light fluids. It is
difficult to avoid pressure surges with aerated fluids and difficult with any UB system to complete the
well without overbalancing the pressure. Drilling with coiled tubing may be an effective solution for
these conditions.

5. Differential Pressure Sticking. The best solution for sticking is to determine the pore
pressure of the permeable formation where the sticking is occurring and reduce the formation pressure
to below that level. Oil might serve a dual purpose in this case.
SOLUTIONS TO COMPLETION PROBLEMS

1. Skin Damage. It is probably impossible to avoid some skin damage when drilling into the
reservoir even under balance. Bennion (1996) makes an excellent point that glazing of the formation
from the pipe and fine solids, and capillary inbibition in low water saturation reservoirs may defeat
the best UB plans. Nevertheless, it is apparent that skin damage to low pressure and low energy
reservoirs, where there is a major problem with future production, can be limited by drilling into them
underbalanced. Dry natural gas or nitrogen is a good solution if flow from the reservoir can be handled
at the surface. A UB mud with the new type of nondamaging filter cake should be considered.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.6-4

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

INBIBITIONCapillary pressure in fine grained sandstones with

permeabilities in the range of 1 md may be greater than the
underbalance force. (Bennion, 1996)

2. Fluid Sensitivity, which here is used to define several problems relating to the chemistry
of the fluids and geometry of the permeability, is important in UB considerations because often no
thought is given to mist or foam water. Bennion (1995) notes that foam can be an excellent blocking
material in some pore spaces. Emulsifiers found in foaming and misting agents can also cause emulsion
blocking. True underbalanced drilling, when the completion is done underbalance, may not resolve
all the reservoir damage problems relating to pore material chemistry and geometry. Laboratory
screening for potential problems may help define the limits to damage with various fluids and pressures
(Bennion, 1996).

MEI

3. Depleted Reservoirs, which have some energy, can often clean up if not extensively
damaged during the entry. Many of the same comments above apply for a depleted reservoir with the
additional concern of avoiding the loss of whole mud to the well. If it is possible to handle surface
flow, the sandstone zones are best drilled with gas.
4. Fractured Reservoirs. In fractured limes like the Austin Chalk of Texas, the fractures
appear to clean up even from whole mud if large volumes of high-solids mud are not lost to the
formation. Drilling with a continuous kick and overpressure surges during connections, which
approximate an aerated mud, appear to do little long-term harm.

5. Horizontal Wells using open-hole completions or screens benefit from a stringent

underbalanced drilling and completion regime. The primary problem is to avoid pressure surges which
will overbalance the reservoir.
CONCLUSION

There is no guarantee of a unique solution to underbalanced drilling problems. Air, gas, mist,
and foam are all variations on a system. There is a gradation between aerated mud and foam.
Procedures using light fluids overlap with some aerated mud techniques. The best approach might
be to eliminate the negatives; whatever is left is the most appropriate solution.

Examine all possible solutions and discard those that are incorrect.
Whatever is left, however unlikely or irrational, is the best solution.
Sherlock Holmes Solution

Experience is a good teacher in downhole problems. It is generally impossible to calculate all

the conditions and potential problems because the basic downhole parameters are not known. What
remains then is a best guess.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.6-5

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

MEI
Sec. 1

DEA-101

1.6-6

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

SECTION 1REFERENCES

Allen, J.H., 1976: A Review of Reverse Circulation Air Lift Methods for Big Hole Drilling, World
Mining, January.
American Oil & Gas Reporter Staff, 1998: UBD Holds Wide Potential Application, The American
Oil & Gas Reporter, April.
Bennion, D. Brant, 1997: Reservoir Screening Criteria for Underbalanced Drilling, Harts
Petroleum Engineer International, February.
Bennion, D. Brant, 1996: Selecting Proper Fluid Critical to Successful UBD Operation, The
American Oil & Gas Reporter, August.

MEI

Bennion, D.B. 1996: Screening Criteria Help Select Formations for Underbalanced Drilling, Oil
& Gas Journal, January 8.
Bennion, D., and Thomas, F.B, 1994: Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal Wells: Does It Really
Eliminate Formation Damage? SPE 27352, February, 1994
Bennion, D.B., Brent, T.F., Bietz, R., Bennion, D.W., 1994: Underbalanced Drilling, Praises and
PerilsLab and Field Experience, SPE/CIM Conference Horizontal Wells, Calgary, Canada,
November 21.
Bieseman, T. and Emeh, V., 1995: An Introduction to Underbalanced Drilling, 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Burge, P., 1995: Further Advances in Underbalanced Drilling and Completion, 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Cuthbertson, Robert L., 1998: Why Work Underbalanced? Harts Oil and Gas World, October.

Deis, P.V., Yurkiw F.J., and Barrenechea, P.J., 1995: The Developments of an Underbalanced
Drilling Process: An Operators Experience in Western Canada, 1st International Underbalanced
Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Duda, John R., Medley, George H., and Deskins, W. Gregory, 1996: Strong Growth Projected for
Underbalanced Drilling, Oil & Gas Journal, September 23.
Essery, R.L. and Rogers, E.E. 1976: Techniques and Results of Foam Redrilling OperationSan
Joaquin Valley, CA, SPE 5715.
Falk, K. and McDonald, C., 1995: An Overview of Underbalanced Drilling Applications in Canada,
SPE 30129, May.
Francis, P.A., Patey, I.T.M., Spark, I.S.C, 1995: A Comparison of Underbalance and Overbalanced
Drilling-Induced Damage Using Reservoir Conditions Core Flood Testing, 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Gedge, Ben, 1997: Recent Developments in Underbalanced Drilling, presented at the 1997 IADC
European Drilling Issues Conference, Berlin, June 5-6.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

Ref. 1-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Gray, R. 1995: Laboratory Evaluation of Underbalance Formation Damage Compared to Neutral

and Overbalance Conditions, 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague,
Netherlands, October.
Guo, B., Hareland and G., Rajtar, J.M., 1995: Design of Aerated Mud Drilling Programs, PDVol.65, Drilling Technology, ASME.
Jokhoo, K., 1976: Aerated Foam Drilling in Trinidad, Petroleum Engineer, June.
Joseph, Robert A., 1995: Underbalance Horizontal Drilling, Part 1: Planning Lessens Problems, Gets
Benefits of Underbalance, Oil & Gas Journal, March 20.
Kaitsios, E. et al, 1994: Underbalanced Drilling Through Oil Production Zones With Stable Foam
in Oman, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX.

MEI

Larsen, V. and Birkeland,R., 1995: Underbalance Drilling Offshore, 1st International Underbalanced
Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Leising, L.J., Rike, E.A., 1994: Underbalance Drilling with Coiled Tubing and Well Productivity,
SPE 28870.
Lorenz, H., 1980: Field Experience Pins Down Uses for Air Drilling Fluids, Oil & Gas Journal,
May 12.

Lorenz, H., 1980: Why Air, Mist, or Foam Drilling?Applications and Experience, Drilling
Technology Conference, March 18.
Lunan, B. and Curtis, F., 1997: An Integrated Team Approach to Underbalanced Drilling, paper
97-75, presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society, Calgary, June
8-11.

Lunan, B. 1995: Under-Balanced Technique Yelding Positive Impact, The American Oil & Gas
Reporter, April.
Lunan, B. 1994: Underbalanced Drilling - Two Case Histories, Western Canadian Basin, 6th
Annual International Conference on Horizontal Well Technologies and Applications. Philip C.
Crouse & Assoc. Houston, Texas, November.
Lyons, William C., 1984: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
MacDonald, R., 1995: Winning with Underbalanced Drilling, Paper No. 95-104, CADE/CAODC
Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, Canada, April.
McCaffery, F.G., 1973: The Effect of Wettability, Relative Permeability and Inbibition in Porous
Media, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary, September.
McLellan, P.J., 1994: Assessing the Risk of Wellbore Instability in Horizontal and Inclined Wells,
SPE/CIM/CANMET.
McLellan, P.J., Wang, Y., 1994: Predicting the Effects of Pore Pressure Penetration on the Extent
of Wellbore Instability, SPE/ISRM 28053.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

Ref. 1-2

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Medley, George H. et al. 1997: Field Application of Lightweight Hollow Glass Sphere Drilling
Fluid, SPE 38637, presented at SPE 72nd Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, October 5-8.
Mullane, T.J. et al., 1995: Benefits of Underbalance Drilling: Examples from the Weyburn and
Westerose Fields, Western Canada, 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The
Hague, Netherlands, October 5.
Murch, Colin B., 1998: Underbalanced Drilling: An Integrated Approach, Drilling Contractor,
July/August.
Plaxton, B.L. et al., 1997: Modeling Drilling Rate of Penetration in Underbalanced Horizontal Wells
A Case Study, paper 97-122, presented at CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling Conference,
Calgary, April 8-10.
Pratt, C.A., 1995: Modifications to and Experience with Percussion Air Drilling, SPE/IADC 16166.

MEI

Rehm, W., 1963: Lost Circulation Your Problem? Dont Overlook Aerated Mud, Oil & Gas
Journal, December 2.

Rommetveit, R., Vefring, E.H., Bieseman, T., Faure, A.M., 1995: A Dynamic Model for
Underbalanced Drilling with Coiled Tubing, SPE 29363.
Russell, B.A., 1993:How Surface Hole Drilling Performance Was Improved 65%, SPE 25766.
Saponja, J., 1995: Comparing Conventional Mud to Underbalanced Drilling in a Depleted
Reservoir, 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands,
October.
Scott, S.L., Wu, Y., Bridges, T.J. 1994: Air Foam Improves Efficiency of Completion and Workover
Operations in Low Pressure Gas Wells, SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo, TX,
SPE 27922, May.
Scott, S.L., Yulin Wu, 1994: Air Foam Improves Efficiency of Completion and Workover Operations
in Low-Pressure Gas Wells, SPE 27922.
Springer, S.J., et al., 1994: A Review of the First 1500 Horizontal Wells in Western Canada,
SPE/CIM Conference on Horizontal Wells, Calgary, Canada, November.
Stone, R., 1995: The History and Development of Underbalanced Drilling in the U.S.A., 1st
International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.
Surewaard, J. 1995: Underbalanced Operations in Petroleum Development Oman, 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, October.

Teel, M. 1995: Whats Happening in Drilling: Pseudo-Underbalanced Drilling and Beyond, World
Oil, April.
Warren, B.K., McLellan, P.J., Pratt, C.A. 1995: Wellbore Stability, Drilling fluids Design, and the
Drilling Performance of Horizontal Wells in Unconsolidated Oil Sands at Peace River, Alberta.
SPE/IADC.
Wilson, G.E. 1981: A General Overview of Air Drilling and Deviation Control, SPE/AIME.
Sec. 1

DEA-101

Ref. 1-3

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

World Oil Staff, 1995: Underbalanced Drilling, Concept and Considerations, World Oil, June.

MEI

Yee, S., Comeaux, B., Smith, R., 1995: Recent Advances in Underbalanced Horizontal Well
Drilling, 7th Annual International Conference on Horizontal Well Technologies and
Applications, Philip C. Crouse & Assoc. Houston, Texas, November.

Sec. 1

DEA-101

Ref. 1-4

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.