*m..

Society

iADC/SPE 39391

of Petroleum

Engineers

Friction Analysis for Long-Reach Wells

B.S. Aadnoy, Stavanger U., and Ketil Andersen,* Statoil
IADCMember
Copyright

1998, lADC/SPE

Drilling Conference

This paper wss prepared for presentation

Dallas, Texss 3-6 Msrch 199B,

at the 1998 lADC/SPE

Drilling

Conference

Introduction

held in

~is
psper MS selected for presentation
by an lADC/SPE Program Comtittee
following
review of information contained In an abstrsct submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International
Association
of Drilling
Contractors
or the Society of Petroleum En~ineers and are subpct to correction
by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IAM. or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the lADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees
of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any pert of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
ia restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 word% illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of tiere
and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, PO. Box 833636, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U. S. A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

The oil industry is in general producing the easiest accessible

oil first, as it gives best economy. However, as existing fields
are being produced, it becomes important to drain these in an
optimum way. The drilling technology plays an important role
here as the horizontal reach is more than doubled during the
last decade.
It has become evident that well friction is a limiting factor in
extended-reach drilling. Sheppard et.al. showed that an
undersection trajectory can have reduced drag compared to a
conventional tangent section. Banks et.al.2 gives a summary of
extended-reach capabilities. McC1endon and Anders3 studied
the catenary well profile and demonstrated advantage over
conventional methods. The driving force for this development
was the need for longer wells.

Abstract
Presently wells are drilled in the North Sea approaching a
horizontal reach of 8 km. Plans for the near future is to extend
these towards and beyond 12 km. Well friction is one of the
most important limiting factors in this process.
Torque and drag prognosis are today developed on in-house
simulators. Although a good tool for planning, improvements
are made on an trial and error basis, and, these simulators have
limited availability. To provide more insight into the frictional
aspect, a larger study was undertaken. Explicit analytical
equations are derived to model drill string tension for hoisting
or lowering of the drill string. The equations are developed for
straight sections, build-up sections, drop-off sections and side
bends. Both constant curvature models and a new modified
catenary model are derived. The new catenary model is
developed for arbitrary entry and exit inclinations. Equations
to determine well friction in fully 3-dimensional well profiles
are also given. Furthermore, based on the tension equations,
expressions for torque and drag are developed. Equations for
combined motion and drilling with motor are also given.
Using these equations, the total friction in a well is given by
the sum of the contributions from each hole section.

In Norway this development became very important not only

to drain older fields more efficiently, but to reduce the number
of offshore platforms on new development projects. EekOlsen et. al.45and Alfsen et. al.6 demonstrates the evolution
from a 3 km reach to more than 7 km horizontal reach. Justad
et.al.7 show the planning and drilling of a complex long reach
designer horizontal well to develop marginal satellite fields
from an existing platform, while Blikra et.al.8 addresses both
the achievements and the cost-benefits. Benesch et. al.0
addresses an extended reach well in Japan.
Aarrestad and Blikra9 gives a good review of the various
aspects of torque and drag problems encountered in extepdedreach drilling. A good, but more general review is given by
Payne et. al.lO.
Gou and Miska2 and Wiggins et.al.3 defines equations to
calculate the well trajectory.
When the well trajectory has
been determined, the complete well must be designed. A
recent review over design considerations and potential
problems is given by Guild et. al., while Aadn@y5 describes
the complete well design process. Sheppard, Wick and
Burgess formulated the torque and drag models that are
implemented in most simulators.

A field study offshore Norway is included in the paper. Using

the equations derived in the paper, the well path is chosen to
minimize the torque on the rig, which is the limiting factor.
The paper also summarize a number of guidelines for
extended-reach WC1ldesign, and shows the design of an ultrareach well of more than 12 km reach.

819

lADC/SPE 39391

B. S. AADNOY AND K. ANDERSEN

bracket defines the weight of the string, the second term

defines the additional frictional force required to move the
pipe. The change in force when initiating motion either up- or
downwards is found by subtracting the weight from the forces
defined above. The weight is:

This paper will focus on the planning of the well path.

Previous approaches used numerical simulators to plan the
well. In this paper analytical expressions for build, drop, hold
and side profiles are derived, and also a new modified catenary
profile. Using these equations a friction analysis can be
carried out without requiring a simulator.
Torque

WASCOS

(2)

The same principle also applies for the rotating friction, the
torque. The applied torque is equal to the normal moment
(wAsr) multiplied with the friction factor A The torque
becomes:
(3)
T = ,uwAsrsina

and drag models

Applications. The drag and torque solutions presented below

are derived independently.
Therefore their applications are as
follows.
The drag equations applies when tripping in or out of the
well. This may also apply to coiled tubing, logging,
completion or workover operations. The torque equations
applies to pure rotation while drilling. The equation governing
combined motion, both axial movement and rotation, is also
given. Reaming, for example, can therefore also be modeled.

For this case the axial force has no influence. The torque can
be considered independent of the direction of rotation. Later
in this paper combined rotation and pulling will be addressed.
Provided the straight drill string section has a length A, the
vertical and horizontal projections shown in Fig. 1b are:

The buoyancy factor given in Eqn. 5 is valid if the mud density

in the annulus is equal to the mud density inside the drillpipe.
If this is not the case, corrections must be applied.

Ax= Assina

(4)

Az=Ascosa
The unit mass of the drillpipe, or the weight must always be
corrected for buoyancy. The buoyancy factor is given by:

The paper use the models to analyze the drilling phase of the
well. However, the equations are valid for other phases as well
completions, provided a correct scenario is defined.

@=~_

Pm~~

(5)

Pdrillpipt.

Drag and torque along straight sections. Before proceeding

with various frictional models, we will define the basic
principles for well friction. All equations to follow are based
on the soft string model. String stiffness is neglected as it is
giving negligible contribution to the tension. Figure la
defines the forces acting on an inclined drillstring:

and the buoyed unit mass is:

w=

Pwdrillpipe

(6)

Here wdri//pip?refers to the unit weight of the pipe in air.

Please observe that the buoyancy correction defined in Eqn. 5
is valid only for cases of equal fluid densities on both sides of
the drillpipe as discussed earlier.

The force required to pull a drillstring along an inclined plane

is:
F = rngcosa + ptngsina

Eqn. 1 indicates that the following condition is required for the

drillstring to slide downwards: cosa >pina..
The following
condition for the maximum sail angle of a well is therefore:

If the drillpipe instead is lowered, the friction again acts

opposite to the direction of motion, resulting in a top force of

(7)
F = rngcosa - ptlgsin a
This is a Coulomb friction model. From a stationary position,
increasing or decreasing the load an equal amount will lead to
upward or downward movement of the drillstring. For a
drillstring of weight nlg (=w4) and an inclination a, the axial
weight and the drag force in a straight section becomes (Fig.
lb):
(1)
F2 = F1 + vtIAs(coscY &pina)

Drag and torque in drop-off and build-up sections. Figure

2a and 2b shows these scenario. Force F, refers to the bottom
of the section, while force F2 refers to the top. The
inclinations at top and bottom are also shown. The equations
for friction in a drop-off section is derived in Appendix Al,
whereas Appendix A2 shows the derivations when a build-up
section is considered. The solutions are very similar as shown
below.

The plus sign defines pulling of the pipe, whereas the minus
sign defines lowering of the pipe. The first term inside the

The top force when pulling the pipe through a drop-off bend
(Eqn. Al .4), and the top force when lowering the pipe through

820

FRICTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG-REACH

lADCISPE 39391

WELLS

a build up bend is(Eqn. A2.6):

F2 = F1ev(a2-a)
+o

ltIR

(1 pz)(sinaz

ep(a-a) sinal)

(8)

(13)
wheie:

L(~2-~1) ~os~, )
1
[ 2p(cosa2 e
Here a sign constant is used;
~ = +1, for pulling in a drop-off bend
l+p2

o = +1, for the case of pulling the pipe

6 = -1, for lowering of the pipe

o = -1, for lowering in a build-up bend

The torque for a side-bend is given by Eqn.A3.9:

Similarly, the equations for for lowering in a drop-off bend

(Eqn.Al .5), and pulling in a build-up bend(Eqn. A2.4) is:
-p(~2-crI) + ~L.~ sin a2 e P(a2al ) sin ~,
(9)
1
{
Here the sign constant is:
cr = -1, for pulling in a build-up bend
(s= +1, for lowering in a drop-off bend

The arc length and the displacements in the x and y directions

for the side bends of Figs. 2C and 2d are:

F2 =Fle

A.s=R(@2 -@,)
AX= R(cos #l

The torque in a drop-off section(Eqn.

section(Eqn. A2.7) is:

~=~(Fl+@~sin~l)(~2

Al .8) and in a build-up

-~l)+2~~~R(os~2

We will use an approximation by first computing the friction

projections horizontally and vertically. Then we will compute
the vector sum of these. The total well friction then becomes
the vector sum of the drop- or build- projection and the side
projection. The resulting equations are:

If the change in force when initiating pipe motion is of interest,

the weight of the pipe should be subtracted from the solutions
above. The weight of the pipe is:
(11)

Pulling or lowering of the drill pipe:

The arc length of the bends presented in Fig. 2a and 2b, and
the displacements in the x and y directions are is given by:

F2

As= R(az -a} )

-Cosa,

(15)

Drag and torque in combined bends. In some cases the well

is building or dropping and turning sideways simultaneously,
resulting in a fully 3-dimensional profile. The exect equations
for the friction are complex, since they involve forces acting
in two different planes. The resulting differential equation
must be integrated through the well path.

-cos~l)
(lo)

Ax= aR(cosal

COS $2

Ay = R(sin 42 sin @l)

The sign constant is:

c = +1, for a build-up bend
6 = -1, for a drop-off bend

wR(sin a2 sin al )

(14)

T= pr(@2 - @l)~w

~ F22bui[d

.r

drop

F;

sidebend

(16)

Torque:

(12)

T =

AZ= oR(sin ~z sin al )

where:

b~ild

or drop

,~debend

(17)

Drag and torque in modified catenary sections. As defined

in Appendix B2, an ideal catenary profile results in no contact
between the hole and the borehole wall, and hence no friction.
However, during hoisting or lowering of the pipe, the tension
at the ends of the catenary section changes due to friction
elsewhere in the drillstring. This deviation in tension results in
friction. As an equation:

c = -1, for a build-up bend

cr = +1, for a drop-off bend
Drag and torque in side bends. For this case the weight of
the pipe has no effect on the normal force. The side bends are
shown in Figs. 2C and 2d. The friction force through the bend
is defined by Eqn. A3.7:

AF = F1(tripping out) F1(drilling)

(18)

The tension in the top of the catenary is shown in Fig. 2e and is

821

...

IADCISPE

B. S. AADNOY AND K. ANDERSEN

for the entrance to the catenary are:

defined by Eqns. B 1.1 and B2.4 for the pulling case:

Fz = ~F:

As= Raz

+ ( }vAs)2 + 2wAsFI cos a,

&=
WAS

+@Ftan-*

F,

COS a,

The total drag and torque. A given well can be analyzed by

adding the contribution from each geometry starting from
bottom. The result is the friction at surface due to contact
friction along the borehole. The total friction is the sum of the
surface friction and friction to the drilling fluid and cuttings.
The actual hook load and the rotary torque is given by:

During lowering of the pipe, the top tension is:(Eqn.B2.4)

F12 +( WAS) 2 + 2wAsFl

COS a,

AF (20)

and the tension at bottom is:(Eqn.B2.5)

wk i- FJ COS
F] @F

tan-

Ft.P

~c)p

F2

Fmu(i

Fbit

(28)

~,

FI sin al

(27)

R(l-cosa2)

Ay = R sin O!z

(19)

F, sin a,

39391

(21)
}

T+

Tmud

~it

Here Fz and T represent the cumulative drag and torque

throughout the well.

The torque through the catenmy profile is:(Eqn.B2.6):

Todays practice is to use an overall coefficient of friction(that
is: FmU~= TmUd=0). In the analysis to follow this will be done.
However, for future work it will become important to
distinguish the friction as shown in Eqn. 28. The equations for
the mud friction are not yet derived. However, established
knowledge may demonstrate the effects.

WAS+ F1 cos al
ATCot= prAF tan~

F, sin al

(22)
}

In the design of the catcnary profile, the parameters F1 and al

must be known. In addition one must decide the horizontal
reach x as seen in Fig. B 1.2. With these parameters known,
the length of the catenary is determined with Eqn. B 1.5:
}$X
As= ~

sin al sinh
[{

F, sin al

Bourgoyne et. al. d derive equations for pressure drop

associated with moving the pipe up or down the hole. The
total mud drag is then proportional to the pipe length, the pipe
and hole dimensions, the viscosity of the fluid, the mud
velocity and the velocity of the moving pipe. Similarly,
Bourgoyne et. al.d also derive equation for a Farm viscometer,
which can be used as a first approximation for the rotating mud
friction. Again, the rotating mud friction is a function of
geometry and length, viscosity and rotating speed. Preliminary
studies indicate that the mud friction is small compamd to the
mechanical friction between the drill string and the borehole.

+ sinh -(cot~l)}-cosffl]
(23)

The vertical height is given by Eqn.B 1.4:

w
cosh
[{

F, ~~al

+ sinh- (cot al)

cosh{sinh(cot

When bit load is applied, the string is lowered resulting in a

reduction of the hook load. The tension in the drill string is
reduced the same amount. Therefore the bit load applied
should be subtracted when studying drag during drilling.

al )}

1
(24)
and the inclination at the top of the catcnary is obtained by
inserting the measured length (Eqn. 23) into Eqn. B 1.2:
WAS+ FI
tan a2 =

During drilling, the torque required to turn the drillbit must be

added. This is difficult to quantify, and is not included in the
field case to follow. Torque maybe measured on some of the
modern MWD tools. As a rule of thumb, during rotary
drilling the torque is in the order of 4-6 kNm for a 12- 1/4 in.
PDC bit.

COS ~,

F, sin al

(25)

As discussed in Appendix B3, the catenary has a non-vertical

inclination at the top, which is given by Eqn. 25 above. A
build-up curve will be used to cover this transition from
vertical. This is shown in Fig. 2f. The radius is:(Eqn. B3.5)

R=

FO+ (wAs)2 + 2wAsF0 COSal

WFOsin al

Combined friction if simultaneous hoisting and rotation is

an issue that needs to be addressed. During tripping, tight
hole conditions may occur. The remedy is typically to rotate
the drillstring while pulling, or to pump to provide hydraulic
support beneath the drill bit. During reaming, the bit and

(26)

The length along the wellpath and the x and z axis projections

822

IADCISPE 39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

WELLS

stabilizers may remove tight spots. Another effect is that

rotation will reduce the axial drag compared to a non-rotating
pipe. This will be explained below.
Here C is a constant, P is the power, T is the torque and n is
the rotational speed of the drill bit. Let us now assume that the
two scenario above consumes the same power at the bit. For
this case, the bit torque when drilling with a motor can be
expressed as:

Figure 3a shows a pipe section of weight YVAS. If pulled along

a surface, the drag is equal to the normal force (weight)
multiplied with the coefficient of friction, WVAS. If the pipe
instead is rotated, the torque (T/r) ratio is also equal to ,uwAs.
In other words, the weight and friction coefficient results in the
same frictional resistance regardless of whether the movement
is axial or rotational.

(30)

If the pipe is subjected to both motions simultaneously, the

resultant friction is still limited by the normal weight
component. The direction of the friction is determined by the
velocities in the two directions. Fig. 3b illustrates this. If the
pipe is only pulled, a drag of IOVASresults in the axial
direction. If pure rotation a T/r ratio of ,uwAs results in the
tangential direction. If a combined motion is applied, the same
resultant frictional force applies in some other direction.
However, now the torque and the drag arc related by the
following equation (Fig. 3b):
T2

()

+ Fz = (#wAs)2 = FC,lP

Thus, if the bit speed when drilling with a motor is for example
twice the rotary speed during conventional drilling, the
corresponding bit torque is just one half. Equation 30 above
can be used to normalize torque data for motor drilling, to be
made comparable to rotary drilling data. Also, using downhole
motor may be a mean to minimize torque when there are
severe torque limits on the rig:
Field case
In the following a friction analysis will be performed on a
long-reach well in the Yme field in the North Sea. It was
decided to drill a well into a target which was located at a
depth of 2950 mTVD (measured from RKB). The total well
depth is 3100 mTVD with a horizontal reach of 7528m. A
jack-up rig is permanently located and is serving as a
production platform. The rig has a hoisting capacity of
4454kN ( 1,000000 Ibs), and a top drive torque of 35 kNm
(25,800 ft-lbs). The hoisting capacity is sufficient, but it was
found that the top drive was a limiting factor. It was decided
to investigate which well profile would result in lowest
friction. Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the planned well with
the present record welis.

(29)

The term on the right side of this equation is given by the drag
under no rotation, and may be defined as the frictional capacity
of the pipe. If combined axial and rotational movement is
applied, Eqn. 29 can be used to compute the reduction both in
torque and drag. The angle 71is (.lcfined from the velocities:
q= tan- (v, / v~), wher e v, is the tangential (peripheral)
speed and )1,,is the axial speed of the drillpipe. From Fig. 3b
we deduce that the axial drag is reduced to a minimum while
reaming out of the boreholc.
Torque when drilling with downhole motor is an issue to be
discussed. Using downhole motor or turbine, the drill bit
rotates at a much higher speed than during rotary drilling.
The bit speed is the sum of the speed of the motor, and the
rotational speed of the drill string. The string is often rotated
at a low speed to reduce axial friction, as explained above.

The beneficial reductions in torque achievable with catenary or

under-section profiles were identified as early as 1985. A
comparison between different well profiles such as modified
catenary, undersection, and minimum dog-leg versus a
conventional profile was performed to find the profile which
generated lowest torque. By dividing up the total torque for a
well profile into the torque for the build-up curve and the
torque for the hold section, an understanding of the relative
contributions emerged.

Experience shows that the surface torque is lower when using

downhole motorl~. The power source is downhole, and the
reactive bit torque must be balanced by friction in the borehole
and surface torque. Often one discard data taken during
drilling with downhole motor when analyzing well data,
because they are not comparable to rotary drilling.

Figure 5 shows the four well profiles considered.

All well
paths were designed to build from vertical to a sail angle,
which was kept into the reservoir.

Let us compare two scenario. The first scenario is a

conventional rotary drilling operation, whereas the second
scenario is drilling with a downhole motor. The power
consumed at the drill bit for the two cases can be expressed as:

me maximum sail angle was determined from the friction

coefficient from the previous well (Yme A-2A), about 0.15
average in open and cased hole. To ensure that the drillstring
will slide when orienting, the inclination should not exceed
tan-l( 1/0. 15) = 81.470 (Eqn. 7). Fig. 6 shows the maximum
823

IADCISPE 39391

B. S. AADNOY AND K. ANDERSEN

Fz = 1252 -t-0.786x0.34016kN

sail angle as a function of well friction.

The geometries of the four well paths are defined in Table 1.
Please observe that the measured lengths are different. The
length and horizontal/vertical projections are calculated using
Eqns.4, 12, 15 or Eqns. 23,24,27.

I mx300m = 1332kN

This short example demonstrates the application of the

equations derived in this paper. Similar calculations can be
performed for pipe lowering and for torque. One element of
particular interest is the application of the equations to the
drilling mode. From above it is seen that the buoyed weight of
the bottomhole assembly is. 0.786 x132.2 kN = 104.3 kN.
From Eqn. 1 the axial component providing bit force is given
by: 104.3 kNcos8 1.47 = 15.47 kN. During sliding, there is
very little bit force to be applied because the well is designed
to barely allow sliding. However, when rotation is initiated the
axial friction will reduce as shown in Eqn. 29, resulting in an
increased bit load.

Table 2 shows the torque for the four well profiles. The
modified catenary profile gave lowest torque. The
undersection profile gave a little higher torque, but were better
than the standard well profile. and the minimum dog-leg
profile. Most of the torque is generated in the long sail section.
The hook loads for the four well profiles are shown in Table 3.
The hook loads are similar, but the standard profile gives a
higher pick-up load than the other profiles. The maximum
load is still less than half of the capacity of the drill pipe.
Therefor tension is not the limiting factor.

The complete bottom-hole assembly will be in compression,

but the remainder of the drill string will be in tension. If a
higher bit load is applied, the neutral point (transition
compression/tension)
will move the drill pipe up. In general
it is acceptable to keep the bottom hole assembly in
compression. However, we try to place the drilling jar away
from the neutral point, that is, either in tension or in
compression. Usually we design the bottom-hole assembly to
just provide the required bit load, keeping the weight at a
minimum.

From the evaluation of this particular well, the modified

catenary profile gave lowest torque. The minimum dog-leg
profile can be preferred because it can be drilled with a
constant build rate.
To demonstrate the application of the analytical equations, an
example of determining the hook load during hoisting will be
performed. The minimum dog-leg trajectory is used.

One advantage the modified catenary profile has compared to

the minimum dog-leg profile is the fact that the build-up
friction is generated over a shorter length(975m vs. 2758 m).
Friction reduction subs may therefore be applied over a much
shorter length, resulting in less cost. A significant part of the
friction of the modified catenary is due to the build-up before
the catenary starts. If a slant rig could be used, this friction
could be reduced to a minimum. See discussion in Appendix
B3.

The buoyancy factor is from Eqn. 5, with a mud density of

1.68 s.g.: ~ = 1-1 .68/7 .85 = 0.786. From Table 4, the total
weight the bottom-hole assembly is: 117 kN.
The weight of the bottom-hole-assembly
and the drillpipe in
the sail section is: 117 kN + 0.34016 kN/m (5948-6 1)m =
2152 kN. The buoyed weight is: 0.786 x 2152= 1691 kN.
During pulling of the string, the total pull-load is for this
section (Eqn. 1):

Guidelines

1691 kN(cos 81.47 + 0.15 sin 81.47) = 501.6 kN.

to obtain a low friction well profile

Based on the study the following general guidelines will be

proposed to obtain a low friction well profile.

The pulling load at the top of the sail section is the load at the
entrance of the build-up section. The section builds from
vertical to 81.47 degrees, an angle of 8 1.477r/I 80 =
1.422rad. 5 I/Z in. drillpipe is used from the start of the sail
section to surface. The pulling load at the top of the build
section becomes (Eqn.9):

1. Keep as high inclination as possible on the sail section.

results in a low tension at the end of the build-up section.

This

2. The weight of the bottom-hole assembly should be as low as

possible. Providing the required bit load is sufficient. The
drill string should also have minimum weight.

F2 = 501.6e015-*4z2
+ 0.786x0.34016(kN

3. If different pipe sizes are used, place the heaviest pipe in the
vertical section.

/ ))z)xI 93 l(m)eO154z2 sin 81.47 =

= 621+ 632= 1252kN

4. Maintain a minimum dog-leg through the well. Also keep
the tortuosity at a minimum.

The tension at the top of the well isthe tension at the kick-off
point plus the weight of the vertical pipe, or:

5. Use a modified catenary profile or a minimum dog-leg

824

lADC/SPE 39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

Today drill pipes are available both in aluminum, titanium and

composites.

profile if possible. For horizontal wells, the catenary is not

recommended as the low tension results in a high buildrate. If
lightweight composite drillpipes are used, tension reduces
correspondingly, reducing the need for a catenary profile.

In the following an example of extending the Yme well from a

reach of 7528 m to 12 km will be shown. Figure 6 shows the
resulting well path. Maintaining the same sail angle, this well
will reach the target at a depth of 3767 mTVD (from RKB).
The build-up section is the minimum dog-leg profile.

6. The modified catenary often has a shorter build-up section

compared to the minimum dog-leg profile. This may reduce
the cost of friction-reducing subs if used. Use torque reduction
subs where the side forces arc highest

A analysis of the hydraulics and hole cleaning problems of

such a long well resulted in the conclusion that the drill string
should have an outer diameter of at least 5.5 in. The analysis
is therefore assuming a 6 5/8 in drillpipe in the upper 2755 m,
and 5.5 in drill pipe down to the bottom-hole-assembly.

7. Use low weight drill pipe, with small outer diameter tool
joints and hard banding, with self-lubricating matrix. This
reduces weight, increases buoyancy and results in less well
friction.

Due to the fact that most of the drill string is located in the sail
section, the hook load is reasonably low. Table 4 shows the
results. The hook load is not a limiting factor during drilling
of the well.

8. Select a sufficient high flow rate to ensure adequate hole

cleaningd. Keep annular cuttings concentration 10W6.
Johansik, Friesen and Dawson8 shows the field analysis of
torque and drag.
Example of ultra-long

WELLS

Table 5 shows the torque for the case of using 5.5 in. drillpipe
throughout. The total predicted torque is 53.9 kNm.
Although a few drilling rigs can handle torque of this
magnitude, it is too high for Yme, which has an upper torque
limit of 35 kNm.

reach well design

The record long-reach wells today is approaching 8 km

horizontal reach. However it is fully feasible to extend this
towards and even beyond 12 km by a well planned design and
a operational follow-up. Below arc a few points of concern.

It was decided to try with a light drillpipe. Most of the torque

is generated from tension from the sail section which is
converted into torque in the build section. The sail section was
therefore first modeled with a drill pipe made of titanium. As
seen in Table 5, the torque drops to 33.1 kNm. Since
composite drill pipes now are available]G (8.72 lb/ft), the sail
section was also modeled with this as well. The cumulative
torque was now down to 19.7 kNm. Bit torque must be added.

The well profile should be as simple as possible consisting of a

vertical section, a build section and a sail angle towards the
target. Avoid drop-off into the reservoir if possible to
minimize friction.
The sail arlgle should in general be as high as possible, to
reduce axial tension and hence friction in the curved hole
sections. Usually the reservoir depth is such that the target is
within reach only if a very high sail angle is used. The
maximum sail angle is given by the friction coeflicie~zt.
Therefore, another requirement is low friction. This can be
obtained by using oil muds or friction reducers.

From this study it is concluded that it is fully possible to drill

extended reach well to 12 km. Actually, by using lighter drill
pipes as shown, it should be possible to drill several
kilometers beyond that.

The wells will often be designed with a constant sail angle into
the reservoir. The transition from vertical to this sail angle
may follow a modified catenary curve or a minimum dog-leg
profile, as these will provide minimum friction.

Other elements

of long-reach

wells

This paper has primarily focused on well friction, which

provides strong limitations as the wells become long.
However, a number of other elements must be handled as well
in order to drill a successful well. In the following, the most
important of these are discussed.

To limit the load on the drillpipe, a high blloyarzcy can be

beneficial. The disadvantage of a dense fluid is the
compromise between buoyancy and friction. Usually more
particles in the mud will increase the frictions.

Casing wear may become excessive in long wells. This is a

direct result of well friction. Therefore, all measures
addressed above to minimize friction leads to reduced casing
wear.

In long wells hydraulic friction may limit the flow rate, thus
leading to poor hole cleaning. Increased pipe size will reduce
this problem. Since increased pipe size leads to increased pipe
weight, drill pipes of alternative materials may be required.

Borehole stabili~ problems may lead to drilling problems.

825

B. S. AAUNUY AND

l~u~/arK

K. ANDtH5kN

dY6Y

Fz = force at top of section

T= torque along drillstring (kNm)
P = power(kW)
n = rotary speed (rPm)
C = conversion constant
a = inclination of string from vertical (rad)
$= azimuth of the section (rad)
AF = additional force applied to catenary
WOB = weight-on-bit
BHA = bottom-hole-assembly
R = radius of bend (m)
r = radius of tool joint (m)
TVD = true vertical depth (m)
RKB = drill floor reference
DL = dog-leg; angular change in well path
DLS = dog-leg severity; rate of dog-leg
=30 (m) x 57.3 (O/rad)/R(m)
cr = sign constant for various directions
and geometrys
F ,.aP= frictional capacity of the drill string
q = tangential speed/axial speed of the drillpipe

Examples are circulation losses, and borehole collapse which

mayresult in stuck pipe. Thedrilling fluid should be
composed to handle this. Inparticular, the mudweight playsa
key role. Aadn@y15discusses optimal mudweight selection.
Holecleaning provides another constraint. Cuttings
accumulation in the annulus may lead to higher bottom-holepressure, which sometimes leads tocirculation losses. Another
consequence ofcuttings accumulation may be stuck pipe. The
operational procedures must ensure good hole cleaning*5.
Also, the flow rate must be adequate to transport cuttings to
surface. Aadn@y*5propose optimization criteria for flow rate
and bit nozzle selection.
Conclusions
In this paper friction models for a number of different well
geometrys are derived. Explicit equations are derived to
model both the rotary torque and the drag forces associated
with hoisting or lowering of the drill string. Equations to
compute well friction for a fully 3-dimensional well path is
also given. Equations for combined motion and for drilling
with a motor are also given. These equations can be applied
to any type of well using e.g. a spreadsheet.

References
1. Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C. and Burgess, T. Designing well
paths to reduce drag and torque. SPE Drilling Engineering,
Dec., 1987, pp. 344-350.

The models are applied to a long-reach well offshore Norway.

It is shown that by proper well path design, the torque and drag
can be reduced to a minimum.
The models are furthermore used to study ultra-long-reach
wells. It is fully possible to drill beyond 12 horizontal reach,
provided that light-weight drill pipes are used.

2. Banks, S.M,, Hogg, T.W. and Thorogood, J,L. Increasing

extended-reach capabilities through wellbore profile
optimization. Paper IADC/SPE 23850 presented at the 1992
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 18-21.

The most important factor in drilling ultra-long wells is to use

low weight drillpipe. This reduces tension and increases
buoyancy, leading to less friction and less casing wear. Other
key elements are low friction coefficient, and high buoyancy
by using adequate mud density.

3. McClendon, R.T. and Anders, E.O. Directional drilling

using the catenary method. Paper SPE/IADC 13478 presented
at the 1985 SPWIADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, La.,
March 6-8.
4.Eek-Olsen, J., Sletten, H., Reynolds, J.T. and Samuell, J.G.
North Sea advances in extended reach drilling. Paper
SPEIIADC 25750 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, Feb. 23-25.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Tor Iver Sakkestad, Statoil Bergen
and Odd Bj@rnar Ness, Statoil R&D for support in developing
the models. Also, we wish to acknowledge Statoil as. for
permission to publish the paper.

5. Eek-Olsen, J., Drevdal, K.E., Samuell, J. and Reynolds, J.

Design directional drilling to increase total recovery and
production rates. Paper SPE/IADC 27461 presented at the
1994 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 1518.

Nomenclature
X,y = coordinates in the horizontal plane
z = vertical coordinate
S, A.s= measured length along hole section
~, ,4y, & = projected distances
w = unit weight of drillpipe (kg/m)
F= force along drillstring (kN)
F1 = force at bottom of section

6. Alfsen, T.E., Heggen, S., Blikra, H. and Tj@tta, H. Pushing

the limits for extended reach drilling: New world record from
platform Statfjord C, well C2. Paper SPE 26350 presented at
the 68th Ann. Tech. Conf and Exhibition of the SPE, Houston,
Texas, Oct. 3-6.

826

iADC/SPE

39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

Appendix

7. Justad, T., Jacobsen, B., Blikra, H., Gaskin, G., Clarke, C.

and Ritchie, A., 1995. Extending barriers to develop a
marginal satellite field from an existing platform. Paper
SPE/IADC 28294 presented at the 69h Ann. Tech. Conf. of the
SPE, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

Al:

Drag and torque in drop-off bends

We will in the following derive equations to calculate drag

forces when a drillstring is pulled or lowered through a bend.
Figure Al. 1 shows the forces acting when a pipe is pulled
through a drop-off section. Before doing the actual analysis, a
few parameters need to be defined. Due to the bend, a normal
force N results between the driIlstring and the hole. While
pulling the string, a frictional force Q resist the motion. The
weight of the string is the unit weight w multiplied with the
length of the differential element, wRda Choosing a X,Z
reference system the weight can be decomposed into the
following components:

8. Blikra, H., Drevdal, K.E. and Aarrestad, T.V. Extended

reach, horizontal and complex design wells: challenges,
achievements and cost-benefits. Presented at the 14t}World
Petroleum Congress, Stavanger May 29-June 1, 1994.
Proceedings VO1.2, pp. 191-201.
9. Aarrestad, T.V. and Blikra, H. Torque and drag - two
factors in extended-reach drilling. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Sept., 1994, pp. 800-803.

P = wRdacosa

10. Payne, M. L., Cocking, D.A. and Hatch, A. J. Critical

technologies for success in extended reach drilling. Paper SPE
28293 presented at the SPE 69}Ann. Tech. Con$ and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

~Fx = O:

(F+ dF)cosd&

ZFZ = O:

N -0 -(F+

- Fcosdd2-

dF)sind&

Q-P =O

- Fsindd

=O

The resisting friction force Q is equal to the coefficient of

friction v multiplied with the resulting normal force, that is: Q
= pN. Furthermore, for small arguments, cosda/2 = 1, and
sindu/2 = dci12. The force balance above can be shown to
become:
(All)
dF= Q i- P = Q i- wRdacosa

12. Gou, R., Lee, R.L. and Miska, S.. Constant curvature
equations improve design of 3-D well trajectory. Oil and Gas
Journal, Apr. 19, 1993, pp. 38-47.
13. Wiggins, M. L., Choe, J. and Juvkarn-Void, H.C. Single
equation simplifies horizontal, directional drilling plans. Oil
and Gas Joltrnal, Nov. 2, 1992, pp. 74-77.

(A1.2)

N = Fda+ O = Fda i- wRdasina

Combining the equations above, the equation for the tension in

the drillstring becomes:

14. Guild, G. J., Hill, T. H. and Summers, M. A. Designing and

drilling extended reach wells. Petroleum Engineer
International, Jan. 1995, pp. 35-41.

dF=

{FF +wR(pina

(A1.3)

+ cosa)) da

Integrating equation A 1.3, the final solution for the

additional force through the bend is given by:

6336

16. Bourgoyne, A. T, Millhcim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E. and

Young, F. S. Applied drilling engineering. SPE Textbook
Series, Vol. 2., first ed. 1986. ISBN 1-55563-001-4.

Fz = Fe#t%-alj
WR

+
1+p2

17. Hareland, G., Lyons, W. C., Baldwin, D. D., Briggs, G. and

BratIi, R.K. Extended reach composite materials drill pipe.
Paper SPEIIADC 37646 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 4-6.
18. Johansik, C.A., Friesen, D.B. and Dawson, R. Torque and
drag in directional wells - prediction and measurements. Paper
IADC/SPE 11380 presented at the 1983 IADC/SPE DriIIing
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Feb. 20-23.

and O = wRda.rina

Performing a force balance in the x and z directions results in

the following equations:

11. Benesch, J. M., Camacho, G., Matsuzawa, S. and Dawson,

C.R. Planning a record extended-reach well in Japan.
Petroleum Engineer International, April, 1996, pp. 59-67.

15. Aadn@y, B.S. Modern Well Design. First edition.

Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands 1996).ISBN905410

WELLS

(1p2)(sina2e
[ 2p(cos a2 e

~(az~1) sin al)

(Al .4)

,u(a2-cY,
) Cos ~, ~
}

Here F1 refer to the tension at the bottom and F2 to the tension

at the top of the bend.
The above equation is valid for the case of pulling the
---- drillstring upwards. If the drillstring is lowered into the well,
the forces F and F+dF interchange places in Fig. Al. 1, and the
friction force Q change direction. The force balance now
become:
dF= Q - P = Q - wrdacosa
827

B. S. AADNOY AND K. ANDERSEN

io

N= Fda+O=Fda
+wRdasina,
following differential equation:

IADCISPE

Finally, for the case of lowering the pipe through the build-up
bend results in: dF = Q - P

resulting in the

dF=
dF=

{pF+i~tR(/6ina-cr~sa}da,

39391

{,F-wR(pinci

+ cosaj da

(A2.5)

which gives the

which solved again defining F2as the top force, becomes:

solution:
(A1.5)
-~(az-ffl ) +)ltR sin~~ e -P(az-rrl) sina,
{
}

Fz = Fle

Note thatthe forccshave forthis case been redefined.

always referring to the force in the top of the string.

F1e~(a2-al)

F,=

(lpz )[sin ffz e p(a2-a, ) sln. al 1

_ WR

Fzis

l+p2
[

The frictional torque isequal tothe normal force multiplied

with the pipe radius, integrated over the length of the bend,
ds=rda.
Thetension inthepipe forastatic pipe is:

Thegeneral expression forthetorque

A.1.3, and 1.6:

cosaz e fl(~2-al ) Cos a,

Repeating the process for build-up bends as given in Eqn.

A 1.7, the torque becomes:
T=

(A1.6)

F = F, wR(sin a sin al )

2p

(A2.6)

~r{(F1

becomes, using Eqn.

+wRsinal)(~2

-~l)}+2~wRr(cos~2

-coSal)

(A2.7)
Appendix A3: Drag and torque in side-bends
(A1.7)

T= JprN

In a side bend another complexity arise, which can be

described as follows.

Integrating the equation above, the resulting torque for a dropoff bend becomes:
T=pr

Appendix

F1wRsincil

Figure A3. 1 shows the situation. One extreme is that the drill
pipe is weightless. For this case pure tension applies, and the
pipe will assume a position in the middle of the borehole.
Based on previous derivations, we can define the end force of
the bend due to tension as:

}(~2-~1)-~~R(cos~2-cos~l)

(A1.8)
A2: Drag and torque in build-up bend

Figure A2. 1 shows the forces in a build-up section. The basic

definitions are the same as for the previous case. A force
balance now results in:
ZF.V = O:

(F -t dF)cosd&

ZFy = O:

N + O -(F+

- Fcosdd2-

dF)sind&

F21 = F1ep(&4)

The normal force on the borehole wall is the tension multiplied

by the angle, or:

Q-P =O

- Fsindd2

=O

dF= Q + P = Q -!-wrdacosct

(A2.1)

N = Fda -0 = Fda - wRdasina

(A2.2)

The other extreme would be to assume the the pipe weight is

the dominating factor, resulting in the pipe lying on the bottom
of the hole. The normal force is then:
dN~ = wRd@

Repeating the previous analysis, it can be shown that the pull

force now is defined by:
(pF -wR(pina

- cosa)) da

p(az-a2 )
F2=F1e -~(ff~-ffl) _ wIR sin az e
sin al
{
}

(A3.2)

dN, = Fd@

Repeating the previous analysis, the force balance above

becomes:

dF=

(A3.1)

(A3.3)

In reality, neither of the two extremes exist. The drillpipe may

assume a position at the bottom of the hole when entering the
bend, and move towards ~ = 90 at the exit of the bend. We
will assume that the resultant normal force is the vector sum of
Eqns. A3.2 and A3.3.

(A2.3)

(A2.4)
dN = ~dN;

828

+dN;

(A3.4)

lADC/SPE 39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG-REACH

The friction in the boreholc is equal to the resultant normal

force, multiplied with the coefficient of friction, or:

11

WELLS

EFr=O+Fcosa

FOsincrl

=0

ZFZ =O+Fsina

ws F1cosal

=0

or combined:
dF=p~F2

+(wR)2d@

(A3.5)

F =

(B1.1)

F,* + (WS)2 + 2wsF, COSa,

Integrating Eqn. A3.5, the general solution is:

The slope is given by:

,og{F+-}=PfP+c

(A3.6)

ws+ F, COSal

dz
tarif f=-=
dx

The constant of integration, c, is determined by inserting the

initial condition (Fl, $l). Applying the other end condition, the
tension at the upper end of the side bend is given by:

(BI.2)

F, sin a,

The length of the string is still given by:

2

ds2=dx2+dz2+

s(x)=]

(BI.3)

1+ ~

o /7
Combining Eqns, B 1.2 and B 1.3 results in the following
differential equation:
(A3.7)
A similar expression results for lowering of the pipe. The
difference is that the exponents changes sign.
The pipe position on the borehole wall can be determined by
defining a tangential force balance as seen from Fig. A3. 1:

By introducing the hyperbolic trigonometric function dtidx =

sinhu, and differentiating, Eqn. B 1.2 can be shown to become:
du

dx

F, sin al

Inserting zero friction into Eqn. A3.7, one observe that F2 = Fl.
For pure rotation , the torque is generated by a constant normal
force (weight) as defined in Eqn. A3.4. The total torque
becomes:
=~e(@2
Appendix

-@*)

which integrated becomes:

u = F, sin al

X+c,

To determine the constant of integration, at the lower point of

the string, x=O and z=O. Furthermore at this point the slope or
the derivative is no longer zero, but equal to sinh(fl-al).
Inserting these conditions into the equation above results in
C1=sinhl(cotal).
The solution can now be written:

(A3.9)

B1: The modified catenary profile

& = Sinhu = Sinh

dx

In the catenary profile the rate of inclination build increases

continuously to mimic the shape of a hanging cable.
Theoretically, a catenary produces very low torque and drag as
a result of very low contact forces between the string and the
wall of the hole.

Wx

{ F, sin a,

+sinh-l

(cot al)
}

which when integrated results in:

z=

The classical catenary profile is limited as it requires a

horizontal end condition at bottom. This is illustrated in Fig.
B 1.1. Here we will derive a more general solution with
arbitrary inclinations at the bottom and at the top. Fig.B 1.2
illustrates the end section assuming this. We have chosen to
introduce the well inclination al and tension force F, to define
the end condition at the bottom.

F, sin al
w

cosh

w~.~
{ F1 sin al

+sinh-l

(cot al

+ C2
}

But z = Oat x = O. This determines the constant Cz. The final

expression for the free-hanging string now becomes:

z=

Fl sin al

cosh
[{

The force balance is:

w
Wx

Fl sin al

+ sinh l(cota,)}-cosh{sinh(cotal)}]
(B 1.4)

829

12

B. S. AADNOY AND K. ANDERSEN

Equation B 1.4 gives the shape of the curve. The total length
measured along the string tnust be determined next. From
Eqn. B 1.2, the total length of the string becomes:
F1
s =;

F2 i- AFCal

If the pipe is lowered, the tension in the top is reduced with

-AF, and the tension at the bottom of the catenary is:

F] sin al

+ sinh -I(c~t~,)}-cos~,]

Ft AFCa,

ATCO,= ~ prANds = prAF tan

The rate of change at any point along the string is determined

by differentiating Eqn. B 1.2 with respect tos. This buildrate
can be shown to vary along the string as follows:
tLIF1sin ffl
F12+ (WS)2

Appendix
profiles.

Appendix
curve

F2

(B1.6)

B2: Drag and torque in modified catenary

Figure B 1.2 shows that the catenary starts at an angle crz from
vertical. We will choose to add a short constant curvature
build-up section on top to go to vertical. To make the
transition smooth, we will design the intersection between the
two functions to have the same curvature.
Eqn. B 1.6 defines the curvature for the modified catenary.
the top of the catenary, the inclination and curvature is:
tanaz

The normal force caused by this additional force can be

calculated at any point using the equation:
daAF
(B2.1)
ds
Assuming a coefficient of friction, p, in the borehole,
force seen at top of the catenary is given by:

dz
==
dx

ws + FOCOSal
FOsin al

da2
WFOsin al
.
ds F02+ (WS)2 + 2WSF0 cOSal

At

(B3.1)

(B3.2)

A build-up section on the top of the catenary is defined by:

the drag

As = Rcr2

(B3.3)

and its derivative:

dcz~ds = I/R

(B2.2)
Inserting Eqn. and B 1.6 into B2.2, and integrating, the
following equation results:
AFCut = pAF tan

(B2.6)
to the catenary

We will define a simple function to make a continuous smooth

transition from vertical to the start of the catenary.

We are concerned about the friction in the wellbore. This is

governed by the normal force between the drillstring and the
hole. Using the equations above, an ideal well profile results
with zero normal force. The objective is to use this condition
during drilling. However, when tripping out, an additional
force must be applied. If we assume that the catenary design
forces applies, the well will have an ideal catenary profile and
there is no contact between the hole and the drillstring during
drilling (ideally). Next assume that the drillstring will be
tripped out of the well. By pulling in the string, it contacts the
borehole wall resulting in drag friction. We assume that the
additional force at the bottom of the drillstring is AF. If the
drill string remains static, this additional force will be reflected
from the bottom to the top of the catenary section.

~_
()

B3: Entrance condition

{Ws;::

It is obvious from Flg.B 1.2 that the modified catenary solution

requires a non-vertical entrance at the top. This problem has in
the past been handled by defining a short constant-curvature
build section from the vertical well to the entrance of the
catenary. In land wells, it is possible to start the well at a given
angle using a slant rig.

WF1 sin ffl

2wsFl COSal

(B2.5)

The torque is given by:

(B 1.5
By inserting Eqn. B 1.5 into B 1.1, the total tension at any point
in the string can be determined.

x=

(B2.4)

}t:Y

sin al sinh
[{

da

IADCISPE 39391

(B3.4)

Equating Eqns. C3.2 and C3.4, the radius of the build-up

section becomes:
~ = FO+ (WS)2 + 2WSF0 COSal

(B2.3)
-{VS;::;U}

WFOsin al

(B3.5)

Here the subscripts 1 refers to the bottom of the modified

catenary, and 2 to the top of the modified catenary. Fig. B3. 1
shows the transition section.

The total load at the top of the catenary during tripping is now
given by:

830

Well

Le&~h

Kisk-off

Total

length(m)

profile

;tidg;p

depth (MTVD)

~nd (~)

sestbn (m)

Build rate
(=/3omfi

Sail angle

():

t
Modified
catenary

9125

300

2340

6485

0.57-3.1

81.47

Minimum
dog-log

8003

300

2755

5948

0.89

81.47

9327

1225

1221

8861

81.47

8102

300

1093

8709

72.85

Under-section

Standard

,Tablel:

Geometry

ofwell

profiles.

Toque
hold section
(kNm)

Surface

Well

buil;p;

Static

Well
profile

pick-up

hmk load
(kN)

load (kN)

Slack-off

load (kN)

profile

;?$:

Modified
catenary

28.57

7.11

21.46

Modified
catenary

845

1360

593

Minimum
dog-log

30.91

11.04

19.87

Minimum
dog-log

843

1332

609

Under-section

29.51

6.88

22.63

Under-section

842

1321

568

30,42

9.05

21.37

Standard

858

1350

543

Standard
Table2:

Table 3: Hook load for the various well profiles.

Torque forthevarious
well profiles.
Bit torque not included.

Length
(m):

)n~ww;~

Drillcoliar, 8

33

3186

82.1

Jar, 8

10

1481

24.9

Heavy weight
drill pipe, 51/2

18

723.3

10

Drill pipe, 51/2

I end of build

340.16

Component:

rota~~:ghl

Drill bit, 121/4

Drill pipe 65/8

2755m

Table 4: Composition

of drill string.

Hook load (kN)

Torque (kNm)

Steel

Titanium
Composite

Hold
eedmn

Total

Static

10.2

43.7

53.9

6.2

26.9

33.1

B;~d~~*

Drillpipe

3.7

16.0

19.7

Pulling

Slack-oft

175

179

60

130

133

60

101

102

Table 5: Comparison of torque and drag in 12 km horizontal

reach well using various drillpipes in the hold section.
* 65/8 steel drill pipe.
831

60

:{-:;,l
I

I
x

a) Forceson Inolinedobject

b) Geometry

and forces

for straight

inclined

hole

Figure 1: Forces and geometry in straight hole sections.

,
I

Ax
K

F2

It

Az

Az

As

Az

As

K
x

a) DrW.off

eeetlon

Ax

\;

b) Build-up aesfien

Y
e) The mcdifled ~tenary

profile

F2
t

Ax

az
el

Az
{~

Riihl sidebend

1 i

Ax

Ax

c)

F,

d) Left side band

0 Entranse 10 the modfti

ca!enary

Figure 2: Forces and geometries of various curved hole

Torque/radius

PWAS

T/r

F=PWAS

T/r.pwAs

a) Drag and torque for a pipe.

b) Combined friction from rotation and axial movement.

Figure 3: Combined friction.

832

Horizmtal dapanure, m

4W0

2m

Im

5m

z-t
#

, ----

. ..

00

\
>,0
-.

~ 4000
.

0
o

7m

6~

,,

-\\

.L . . . .
w,,~r!

Ula
0

00

YEe
\\

\
\

7000

4:

Figure

Present extended reach wells.

3ritical sail
sngle, degrees

90-

Statiard, build rate 2/SOm

._
Mnimum dog-%, 0.09 13~
. . . . Mdifiti
catenary. CMII build 0.57m,
to sta~01 catenav
w.975m
_ under.~~ti~
, 2l%m

85-

1225- \*.\.
2000-

81.47

\.\

..-

80-

___

I
I
.-

3ow-

I
75-

I
I

Figure 5: Profiles considered for the Yme well.

70

I
0.15
0.10

Figure

6:

[
O.w

0120

I
0.40 COeffj~ietOf
friction, u

Critical sail angle versous friction coefficient.

Im

65/8 atsel drillpipe

2000-

3m

4000
1
nTVO

1Oco

2W0

3m

4m

Sm

7m

J
eooo

r
Im

1
Ilow
m horizontal

Figure 7: Extending the Yme well to a horizontal reach of 12 km.

833

,
Izm

reach

-.

d.

F+dF
/fl

F+dF
\

x
\

>

/
\v
wrda

Figure A2.1:

Figure Al.1:

Forces acting on a drillpipe element

in a build-up section.

Forces acting on a drillpipe element

pulled in a drop-off section.

F2
Ax
I

U2>

/
/

/,

I
I

,
/

Figure B3.1: Transition from vertical to modified catenati.

Figure A3. I: Drill pipe position in the borehole for a side bend.

WFZ,.;%$:
.~~
L
*a)

Figure BI.1:

b)

J
z

J
x

Shape of a free-hanging rope.

F1

al

Figure B1 .2: Modified catenary string.