NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

24-Pet-A4 Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Completion · May 2013

Question 3 of 5: Bit Selection by Minimum Drilling Cost per Foot

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

98-Pet-A4 — Oil and Gas Well Drilling Completion · National Exams, May 2013 · 3 hours, open book, non-communicating calculator only · four (4) questions constitute a complete exam paper (the first four as they appear in the answer book are marked), all questions equal value — all five questions are solved below as a complete study resource.

Reference texts: Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E. & Young, F.S., Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series (rig hoisting/derrick loads, drilling hydraulics, bit hydraulics and nozzle sizing, rate-of-penetration models, bit economics, well control, casing design); Rabia, H., Well Engineering & Construction (casing design methodology); Alberta Energy Regulator, Directive 010: Minimum Casing Design Requirements (Canadian regulatory casing-design context).

Question 3: Bit Selection by Minimum Drilling Cost per Foot (equal value)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Given. ROP: $dD/dt=200\,e^{-0.0002303D}$ starting at $D_{in}=10{,}000$ ft; bit X: life $30$ hr, cost $\$25{,}000$; bit Y: life $20$ hr, cost $\$5{,}000$; $C_R=\$1{,}000/\text{hr}$; $t_t=0.001\,D_{out}$ hr; connection $=2$ min per 30-ft single, i.e. per 30 ft drilled.

Find. Which bit gives the lower drilling cost per foot, assuming each bit is run to the end of its rated life.

Approach. Integrate the ROP equation to find how much footage each bit drills over its rated life (bit life fixes rotating time $t_d$), then build the total cost of that bit run (bit cost + rig time for drilling, tripping and connections) and divide by footage drilled to get cost per foot; the lower $C_f$ wins.

  1. Footage drilled to the end of bit life. Separating variables in $dD/dt=200e^{-aD}$ ($a=0.0002303$) and integrating from $D_{in}$ to $D_{out}$ over the bit's rated life $t_d$: $t_d=\dfrac{1}{200a}\left[e^{aD_{out}}-e^{aD_{in}}\right]$, so $\boxed{e^{aD_{out}}=e^{aD_{in}}+200a\,t_d}$, solved for $D_{out}$ per bit.
  2. Bit X ($t_d=30$ hr). $e^{aD_{in}}=e^{0.0002303(10{,}000)}=10.004$; $200a\,t_d=200(0.0002303)(30)=1.382$; $e^{aD_{out}}=11.386\Rightarrow D_{out}=\ln(11.386)/a$, so $\boxed{D_{out,X}=10{,}562\ \text{ft}}$, i.e. $\Delta D_X=562\ \text{ft}$ drilled.
  3. Bit Y ($t_d=20$ hr). $200a\,t_d=0.921$; $e^{aD_{out}}=10.925\Rightarrow D_{out}=\ln(10.925)/a$, so $\boxed{D_{out,Y}=10{,}383\ \text{ft}}$, i.e. $\Delta D_Y=383\ \text{ft}$ drilled.
  4. Non-drilling time per run. Trip time $t_t=0.001D_{out}$; connections $=\Delta D/30$ singles $\times2\ \text{min}$. Bit X: $t_t=10.56$ hr, connections $=562/30=18.7\Rightarrow t_c=0.62$ hr; total non-rotating $+$ rotating time $=30+10.56+0.62=41.19$ hr. Bit Y: $t_t=10.38$ hr, connections $=383/30=12.7\Rightarrow t_c=0.42$ hr; total time $=20+10.38+0.42=30.81$ hr.
  5. Cost per foot. $C_f=\dfrac{C_b+C_R(t_d+t_t+t_c)}{\Delta D}$. Bit X: $C_f=\dfrac{25{,}000+1{,}000(41.19)}{562}=\dfrac{66{,}186}{562}$, so $\boxed{C_{f,X}=\$117.8/\text{ft}}$. Bit Y: $C_f=\dfrac{5{,}000+1{,}000(30.81)}{383}=\dfrac{35{,}808}{383}$, so $\boxed{C_{f,Y}=\$93.6/\text{ft}}$.
Check: assumes each bit is run to the full end of its rated life (no earlier pull for a formation-change or planned casing point, since none is stated) and that the connection-time footage count is not rounded up to a whole number of 30-ft singles — both standard simplifications for this style of bit-economics comparison.
QuantityBit XBit Y
Footage drilled, $\Delta D$562 ft383 ft
Total run time (drill+trip+connection)41.19 hr30.81 hr
Total run cost$66,186$35,808
Cost per foot, $C_f$$117.8/ft$93.6/ft

Selection: Bit Y gives the lower cost per foot ($93.6 vs. $117.8) — run bit Y from 10,000 ft downwards.