You are on page 1of 13

IADC/SPE 128129

Design Methodology and Operational Practices Eliminate Differential


Sticking
Fred E. Dupriest, William C. Elks Jr., Steinar Ottesen, SPE, ExxonMobil Development Company

Copyright 2010, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition


This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 24 February 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper discusses a successful initiative begun six years ago to eliminate differential sticking across global operations. In
the five year period from 2004 through 2008, there were only 3 differential sticking events in 3,476 wells drilled with the
recommended practices. There were an additional 17 sticking events with designs that did not conform to recommended
practices, and 14 of these were freed. The drilling environment was diverse. Overbalances in excess of 1,000 to 2,000 psi
were common in multi-darcy rock and high angle, and depleted reservoirs have been drilled with overbalance as high as
7,800 psi in vertical wells.
The early focus of the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices was the elimination of differential sticking. However, some level of
sticking occurs routinely in drilling operations and these events only become problematic if the force required to initiate pipe
movement exceeds what can be delivered to the stuck point. It is now accepted that sticking cannot be prevented and that
elimination of sticking is not a proper design objective. The philosophical objective has now shifted from elimination of
sticking to "maintaining conditions that allow the pipe to be pulled free, assuming that it will become differentially stuck.
The desire to maintain this ability to move the pipe has required the implementation of a range of practices, some of which
were not common in the industry.
Changes were made in bottomhole assembly (BHA) design, fluid design, real-time cake shear strength recognition, and realtime cake remediation practices. A finite element (FE) model was also applied to redesign new systems or applications that
lie outside the operator's previous experience. The stochastic model predicts cake growth and sticking force and the
probability that it will be possible to deliver a force that can free the pipe for any given still-pipe time. The model inputs
were calibrated through pullout tests with a variety of fluids to determine mechanical cake strength properties, the rate at
which those properties develop, changes in the pressure transient through the cake as it matures, and the cake contact areas
and geometry at any point in time.
Engineering and operations training also contributed greatly and allowed relatively uniform implementation to be achieved
across a large, globally diverse operation in less than one year. A small number of non-compliant designs continued to be
used and these contributed greatly to the incidence of stuck pipe in the first three years. Last year, there was only one
incident of stuck pipe with a non-compliant design.
The paper describes the underlying sticking concepts, the engineering design and field practices used, the modeling
capability, and the field results.
Introduction
Differential sticking occurs when the drillstring, wireline, or other surfaces are held against the borehole wall by forces that
develop an area of contact with permeable formations. The dominant force is usually associated with the pressure differential
between the borehole and formation in the contact area, though adhesion and cohesion may also contribute some resistance to
pipe movement (Helmick and Longley 1957). Many of the most common contemporary practices for combating the problem
were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s and have been utilized successfully for more than 50 years. Examples
include rig crew training, minimizing still-pipe time, stabilization of the BHA, management of filter cake quality, and
minimization of overbalance. The reason differential sticking became a major concern was the increased incident rate of

IADC/SPE 128129

differential sticking as the industry moved into abnormal pressure and high overbalance in the Gulf of Mexico. Low-angle,
directional drilling from offshore structures also became common.
The stuck pipe incident rate increased again in the late 1990s as the number of high angle and extended reach trajectories in
the operator's well mix grew. The high inclination had multiple negative effects. The contact force on the inclined pipe was
higher, higher mud weight (MW) was required for stability which increased the overbalance, and the measured footage and
contact surfaces become larger when permeable formations were penetrated at high angle. Furthermore, the likelihood of
successfully freeing the pipe declined at high angle, and rig time and sophisticated logging while drilling (LWD) tools in the
stuck BHA increased the cost of sidetrack operations.
In response to the increasing frequency of stuck pipe events, a comprehensive body of practices was developed in 2002 to
reduce the sticking risk. The Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices were incorporated into various training forums and
implemented in operations during 2003. By 2004, design and operating practices were fairly uniform across the global
organization and there has been little modification to date. There are numerous elements in the practices, none of which are
based on new scientific models or fundamental new research. The mechanism through which sticking occurs is well
described, as is the general morphology of filter cakes and the manner in which this can be manipulated. However, the
known science has not necessarily been translated into effective field practices. Furthermore, the practices that are known to
be effective may not be applied uniformly or in the appropriate situations. The Stuck Pipe Avoidance effort has been
successful due to a combination of training, uniform global expectations, and the development of a few new practices that are
consistent with the fundamental science that is known to control the sticking process.
Theory and Practices
In 1957, Helmick and Longley published the concept that differential sticking occurred due to the pressure differential across
the contact area between the drill collars and formation. Others have expanded on the forces that may develop in this contact
area, as well as the manner in which these may create the sticking resistance. Brief summaries of key early concepts can be
found in Hunter and Adams, 1978. The pressure decline that occurs within the cake when the pipe sits still is shown in
Fig. 1. This data was collected using the operator's sticking test apparatus. A significant feature of this device is that it
allows pressure within the cake itself to be measured continuously so the development of cake strength can be studied and
understood from direct measurement of effective stress.
When the pipe becomes stationary, the pressure within the contact area begins to decline immediately. This continues as
long as there is sufficient differential pressure between the cake and formation to extract filtrate from the cake. When flow
from the cake stops, the pressure within it will be close to that of the formation. As the fluid pressure declines, the
differential force across the pipe is transferred to the solids in the cake. The stress between the solids is referred to as the
effective stress. In very low permeability, some of the pressure drop may occur in internal cake within the formation itself
so that less stress develops within the cake (Courteille and Zurdo 1985). However, in higher permeability where differential
sticking is more problematic, virtually all of the pressure drop and stress may occur across the cake (Isambourg and Ottesen
et al. 1992). The increase in effective stress results in the development of 1) shear strength within the cake and 2) increased
contact force between the cake solids and pipe (Outmans 1958). In order to move the pipe, it is necessary to apply sufficient
force to either overcome the shear strength of the cake so that the cake itself fails, or to overcome the frictional resistance
between the steel and cake so that the pipe slides across the surface of the cake.
Cake Pressure vs Time
Pullout Force

Differential
Differential
P
x Area
Pressure
Pressure

CakePressure
Pressure
(PSI)
(PSI)

Shear

Pcake

600
600

Stationary
Stationary
Pressure
declining,
Differential
technically
stuck
increasing

500
500
400
400

Embedment

Pullout and
repeat

Pull

300
300
200
200

Not Stuck force that


Equivalent
be delivered
Totalcan
resistance
exceeds available pull
Stuck
Pipe
immovable

100
100

00

20
20

40
40

60
60

80
80

Time (Minutes)
Time
(Minutes)

100
100

120
120

SPE 105560

Fig. 1Internal pressure of cake after pipe motion stops as measured at the borehole wall. Pipe can be pulled free at any point in
time until the decline in cake pressure creates sufficient effective stress that cake shear strength exceeds the axial and torsional
pullout force that can be delivered to the stuck point.

IADC/SPE 128129

Whether one believes the cake shears or the pipe slides on the cake is of some operational interest because the techniques
used to reduce these resistances may vary. Despite published data showing that sliding is possible, the failures that have been
observed in the operator's lab tests have consistently been shear failures within the cake. Consequently, the authors believe
shear within the cake to be the dominant mechanism in the field.
If the pullout force is dependent on cake shear strength, the sticking tendency can be reduced by practices that reduce this
strength. It is useful to apply traditional soil mechanics concepts to describe the increase in effective stress as Outmans did in
1958. However, the conclusion drawn at that time was this increased stress acted at the pipe's surface and methods were
studied to reduce the sliding friction (Annis and Monaghan 1962). Since pullout is seen to occur most often within the cake
(Courteille and Zurdo, 1985), it is the shear strength of the cake that is being overcome and the sliding resistance must
typically be a higher value. The Mohr-Coulomb view of cake strength would suggest that it is dependent on the effective
stress acting between the filter cake solids and the angle of friction of the solids. It is interesting to note that when papers are
examined that have been written on factors that effect pullout force, it is seen that the proposed practices to alter the sliding
friction would also be expected to change the internal shear strength by altering the angle of friction (i.e., lubricants,
emulsified oil, surface active agents). Unfortunately, experiments that focused on friction reduction have not generally
reported the point of failure, only the change in pullout force. When assessing field data and practices, the authors assume
the angle of friction is the factor that is being modified rather than sliding friction.
Another significant observation is the pullout force is time-dependent. The reason for this can be seen in Fig. 1. Because the
pressure decline is time dependent, the effective stress and shear strength that develops from this must also be timedependent. One operational implication is that it is impossible to develop a very high sticking force (shear strength) the
instant the pipe stops moving. Although some sticking force develops immediately, time is required for sufficient filtrate loss
to occur that the shear strength and pullout force become high. An interesting consequence of the relationship between
filtrate loss, strength development, and time is that thin cakes may develop shear strength much faster than thick cakes
because they may require less time to lose their internal pressure. In addition, even though thick cakes result in more contact
area between the dissimilar curvatures of the borehole and the pipe, they tend to have less shear strength (Annis and
Monaghan 1962 and Bushnell and Panesar 1991). Another finding with operational implications is the sticking force does
not tend to be dependent on the formation permeability (Courteille and Zurdo 1985). With time, the cake's internal pressure
will decline to the same level, which will result in the same shear strength. The permeability will only affect the rate of
decline. Even this influence is minor because cake permeabilties are very low relative to even tight formations. The safe
pipe stationary time depends primarily on the pressure differential, contact area, and properties of the cake itself, and not the
permeability of the formation it is lying against.
Design Principle
When the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices were initially implemented, the stated objective was to avoid differential sticking.
This perspective has change in an important philosophic sense as the sticking process has become better understood. As
previously mentioned, Fig. 1 shows that the pressure drop across the contact area cannot instantly rise to a high value;
however, some pressure drop does occur immediately, which means there will be some measurable amount of shear strength.
We are technically stuck. This is seen routinely in operations after connections are made when a small pull is necessary to
initiate pipe movement. Differential sticking occurs in the permeable sections in all operations, each day. As shown in
Fig. 1, we are only concerned if we cannot deliver sufficient force to overcome the shear strength of the cake in the given
well. In recent years, this has translated to a design principle. The objective of the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices is to
"ensure conditions are maintained at all times that allow pulling force to exceed sticking force."
This would seem to be an ambitious design principle, but field experience over the four-year period suggests that it may be
feasible in virtually all operations. A modeling process has been developed and calibrated to allow design of contact areas
and BHAs to ensure the sticking force can be overcome. However, this model is only used in high-risk scenarios with
unproven designs or to hind cast sticking events that have already occurred. The operator does not use this quantitative tool
to design each well. Operational experience has shown that it is not necessary if key design principles are applied
consistently, most of which relate to minimizing the available contact area. Specific modeling is now done for only extreme
conditions, unique fluids, or unique BHA and completions designs such as swell packers.
Stuck Pipe Avoidance Practices
Practices that Minimize Contact Area
The earliest publications recognized the importance of contact area in differential sticking. For example, operators
understood the value of stabilizing drill collars in the 1950s, even before the first differential sticking concepts were
published. As each technique for minimizing contact area was developed, opposing arguments were made that it
compromised other drilling priorities. Generally speaking, when the BHA is changed, something else is changed we have to
change something else to address the risk that the new configuration creates. This has been a recurring theme over the last 50
years and it is true of many of the practices presented in this paper. Consequently, in addition to describing the practices,
some discussion of the concerns is provided as well as the mitigations for those concerns.

IADC/SPE 128129

Use Heavyweight Drillpipe (HWDP) to Apply Weight on Bit (WOB)


Stiff, large diameter drill collars (DCs) have traditionally been used to apply weight to the bit. Their stiffness is desired
because it prevents buckling. In addition, because they are thick-walled, their weight per ft is high and very little length
must be put into compression to achieve the desired WOB. Unfortunately, conventional collars exposed significant contact
area to differential sticking. This has been recognized from the earliest research, so much so that studies of the phenomena
have uniformly focused on this area of the BHA (as will be discussed later, new practices have moved the concern to a new
area). The collars are prone to sticking for two reasons: 1) the ratio of the curvature of their outside diameter (OD) may be
close the curvature of the borehole wall so that as cake thickness increases the cake contact area goes up rapidly; and 2) they
make contact along their entire length (30 ft) because their outside diameter (OD) is uniform and flush with the borehole.
An option that greatly reduces the contact area is the use of heavyweight drillpipe in compression to apply WOB. Typical
joints of conventional and HWDP are shown in Fig. 2. The wellbore contact area with HWDP is reduced from 30 ft to about
6 ft per joint. The wear pad section in the middle of the tube also helps to prevent contact along the tube body. By
convention, the tube outside diameter of HWDP is the same as conventional drillpipe, but the inside diameter (ID) is reduced
so the tube body is thick-walled. This increases the weight per ft as well as the buckling resistance so that it can be used in
high compression to apply WOB. It is not as stiff as a DC, but may be adequate for most applications.

Fig. 2Comparison of the upset contact areas in conventional (upper) and heavy weight drillpipe (lower).

The use of HWDP in compression to provide WOB became common in directional wells in the 1980s and by the mid 1990s
operators had eliminated the majority of the collars above the top stabilizer. However, directional drillers often continued to
request that a small number of unsupported DCs be run between the top stabilizers and the HWDP (usually three to four). It
was also felt that transition members were required above the top stabilizer. This design persisted to the time when the Stuck
Pipe Avoidance practices were implemented in 2003 and the operator prohibited the use of any unsupported DCs in
directional wells. The reason was the contact area in only one these unsupported DCs may easily be sufficient to prevent the
pipe from being pulled free in many situations. Because a collar has five times the contact area of a joint of HWDP, the
sticking event that would require only 40k lb of pullout force per joint might require 200k lb per DC. In directional wells,
and especially high angle wells, it may not be possible to deliver the required force to the stuck point if only a small amount
of DC contact is allowed, regardless of the tensile pull capability at the surface.
In addition, there was no particular value found in having the unsupported collars in the assembly for directional steering,
vibrational stability, or stress fatigue reduction. The current practice in directional wells with low to intermediate angles is to
run sufficient HWDP above the stabilized BHA to provide the required WOB, and to make the HWDP up directly to the top
stabilizer so there are no unsupported DCs. At higher angles there are new issues that have been identified with even the
contact area in the HWDP, which is discussed in a separate section.
The industry did not move as quickly to replace DCs with HWDP in vertical wells as it did in directional wells. The operator
began this practice in the mid-1990s and achieved a major, immediate reduction in stuck pipe events. The pipe
manufacturers provide guidelines for the use of HWDP in vertical wells in various combinations of pipe and hole sizes.
Sinusoidal buckling will occur, but field experience suggests that the associated stress levels are acceptable. The guidelines
do not explicitly account for operating conditions, actual vibrational fatigue, or the level of buckling stress over the life of the
pipe. And yet, over the last decade, the failure of HWDP used in compression in vertical wells based on these guidelines has
been rare. From field experience, the notional guidelines appear to be conservative.
Another factor that has probably affected the failure rate of HWDP in compression is that polycrystalline diamond bits
(PDCs) are often run at low WOB. A typical BHA used by the operator has 90-120 ft of stabilized DCs, with HWDP above.
As the driller lowers the string to apply WOB, the first 15-25k lb WOB would come from the DCs, logging while drilling
(LWD) or other stabilized members before further slack off would place the HWDP into compression. Bit weights in soft

IADC/SPE 128129

formations tend to range from 5-20k lb, in which case the HWDP is never actually compressed. While some teams have
been running HWDP far into compression in vertical wells with 35-40k lb WOB, the majority of the operator's statistical
experience is at lighter weight with low levels of sinusoidal buckling in the HWDP. Based on the low historical failure rate
and large impact on differential sticking, the design practice for both low angle and vertical wells is to use a minimal number
of stabilized DCs and run compression in the HWDP up to the point of helical buckling.
Use Stabilized BHAs
Slick assemblies are not recommended for any application. All BHAs are fully stabilized, meaning that stabilizers are used
and their number and spacing ensures there is no wall contact between the DCs and the formation. The initial guidelines
allowed only one to two DCs above the top stabilizer for vertical holes. It was assumed the flex would be limited to the point
that there is no significant wall contact in the first 60 ft above the top stabilizers. However, sticking events still occurred and
in recent years this has been reduced to zero to one DC. In directional wells, it is recommended the HWDP be made up
directly to the top stabilizer so there are no unsupported DCs.
Slick assemblies are common in the industry, particularly in hard formations drilled with bent housing motors. There are a
variety of reasons why directional drillers prefer slick assemblies: 1) they believe the stabilizers hang up and reduce the
ability to slide the motor when steering, and 2) the build rate (bit tilt) with a slick assembly can be adjusted by changing the
WOB. The build rate of any steering system is determined by the geometry of the first three contact points because the three
points define the radius of curvature. In a stabilized assembly, these three points are the bit, sleeve stabilizers at the bottom
of the motor, and the top stabilizer above the motor. In a slick assembly, they are the bit, the sleeve stabilizer, and the first
contact point between the BHA and borehole. By adjusting WOB, the directional driller can flex the BHA and move the
contact point in the collars downward or upward. This provides them some flexibility if needed to catch up with the planned
trajectory if they get behind the desired build rate, or to slow down if the build rate is greater than desired.
Unfortunately, this variability also translates to rougher holes with larger doglegs and increased bit whirl due to variability in
WOB. The slick assembly then slides more easily in this rough hole with vibrationally induced trajectory patterns. In some
sense, the slick assembly becomes essential only because of the patterns it creates in the borehole in the first place. In each
field area where slick assemblies have been replaced by stabilized assemblies, steering objectives have been achieved and
overall borehole quality has been improved. The most significant gain is that it becomes possible to run low clearance casing
through high build rates, the certainty of any casing being run to bottom is improved, and differential sticking has been
reduced.
Eliminate HWDP at Higher Angles and Extended Reach Sections
Though HWDP has significantly less contact area than a drill collar, a further reduction can be achieved in higher angle wells
by using conventional drillpipe with shorter tool joints. Conventional drillpipe can be used at low angles but only to a limited
extent due to the low force at which it buckles helically. However, at intermediate and higher angles buckling is suppressed
and a significantly greater compression can be put into the thinner tube body of the conventional pipe as documented by
Dawson and Paslay 1984. The use of conventional DP with shorter tool joints reduces the contact length with the borehole
from about 6 ft with HWDP to less than 3 ft per joint as illustrated in Fig. 2. This results in a significant reduction in pullout
force required to overcome the shear strength in the contact area. This further reduction becomes important at high angle
because the measured depth required to traverse even thin sands becomes large at high angles. Wells are now being drilled
routinely with tool joints lying on 300-3000 m of sand with over 2,000 psi of overbalance.
The current recommended practice for intermediate and high angle wells is to use only one to three joints of HWDP above
the top stabilizer. If a jar is used above this, the stiff HWDP allows the jarring force to be transmitted to the BHA should it
become stuck. This stiffness could also be achieved by putting the jars within the collars, but the presence of the HWDP
provides tool joints below the jars with lower make-up torque, should it become necessary to back off with a string shot
charge to retrieve and replace the jar.
Use Stand-off Subs With Jars
In terms of its differential sticking potential, a drilling jar poses the same risk as an unsupported drill collar. A single jar has
been found to be the root cause in several sticking events. Consequently, standoff subs are recommended on all jars to
prevent wall contact. The design of these subs varies with vendor.

IADC/SPE 128129

Manage Risks Associated with the Groove in High Angle Boreholes


During fishing operations to free differentially stuck pipe at high angle, the stuck point is occasionally found to be in the
drillpipe above the BHA. It is often assumed this is due to the progressive sticking of the tool joints during the extensive
time in which the pipe has not been moved. However, the speed with which some sticking events have occurred, and the fact
the contact area in the fully stabilized BHA should not have provided the resistance observed, has lead to continued study of
the fundamental mechanism. There are two issues that may be contributing to sticking in the tool joints, one of which has not
previously been discussed.
The high-resolution, 3D borehole images that are now available show the development of a groove in the bottom of high
angle wells. An example image is shown in Fig. 3. The groove is created by the rotation of the tool joints or tube body
against the bottom of the hole and some level of this feature appears to be present in most high angle wells. The severity
would presumably depend on the rock hardness, normal force, string rotations, and roughness of hardbanding on the tool
joints. It is unlikely that it can be entirely prevented. This bears similarities to key seating, but that term already has another
common use in the oil industry and refers to a mechanical wedging process in doglegs or ledges. The groove persists for
thousands of feet and offers no mechanical resistance that has been noted. However, it creates a significant differential
sticking risk because its curvature will be very close to that of the tool joints that created it, and the increase in contact area
dramatically increases the pullout force. A 5-in. tool joint with a common 7-in. OD might normally have a contact arc of 1
to 2 in. If the tool joint is lying in the groove and has 60 of contact, which might be the situation in Fig. 3, the arc increases
to over 6 in.

Wear Groove

Potential Contact Area

Fig. 3Example wear groove which frequently appears in the three-dimensional images processed from high angle wells.

Differential sticking may also occur more quickly and the shear strength of the cake may be higher. It has been
demonstrated that, all other things being equal, thinner cakes develop shear strength more quickly because they require less
time to lose their filtrate so that the effective stress and shear strength increase more quickly. Also, thinner cakes have been
shown to achieve higher levels of shear strength, presumably because the angle of friction exhibited by the solids is not
reduced by high fluid content within the cake (Annis and Monaghan, 1962). If pipe is rotated without axial movement, the
tool joint may wear the cake down so it is thin, or even so that it does not exist at all. It is also common to ream each stand
of new hole, which may allow the tool joints above the BHA to wear down the cake within the groove just prior to stopping
pipe movement to make a connection. This is certainly speculation and unproven, but it is one model that may explain the
speed with which sticking shear strength has been observed in the field (cakes should not lose filtrate that quickly) and the
high pullout force seen from calculated contact areas that should be quite small.
Another potential contributing factor is suggested by research done by Haden and Welch, 1961. They found the pullout force
for drill collars having upset bands to prevent wall contact exceeded the theoretical resistance of the contact area. They also
found the force required to move the pipe exceeded the force required to move a conventional drill collar with the same
contact area by 60%. Mud cake was observed above and below each band. The tool joints on drillpipe that become
differentially stuck might be viewed as being similar to these standoff bands. The tool joint is held by the shear strength of
the cake in the contact area, but to move the pipe vertically, the mechanical shear strength in the wall cake that may have
grown immediately above the tool joint must also be overcome. The authors view this as a combination of differential and
mechanical sticking. The significant issue is that when collars are stuck, there is only one upset at which the mechanical
strength of the cake must be overcome. When multiple tool joints are stuck, this additional resistance is present at the top of
each upset. This would explain the observation that the multiple standoff bands required 60% higher pullout force than a
collar with the same area.
The groove cannot be eliminated but its impact can be minimized. As previously mentioned, HWDP has been replaced with
conventional pipe at intermediate and high angles. This reduces the vertical load and wear on the bottom of the hole and rate
at which the groove may develop. The shorter tool joints also reduce the contact area within the groove by around 50 to
70%. Other changes in practices have occurred as a result of the operators performance management processes that tend to

IADC/SPE 128129

reduce the wear created by the tool joints in any given increment of hole. These include higher drill rates, reduced
backreaming on connections, and significantly lower whirl levels, both on and off bottom.
Minimize Still-Pipe Time
The time dependence of differential sticking is well known and has been reported by many researchers. As shown in Fig. 1,
differential sticking cannot occur instantly because the cake has little shear strength until fluid is lost and its internal pressure
drops. There are several factors that have been identified that determine the rate of filtrate loss and strength development.
While these factors are understood, the actual strength development versus time cannot be predicted. Field test apparatus
have been developed to alert the crew when changes in fluid properties are increasing the risk of sticking (Reid et al. 1996).
These do not incorporate other factors that determine whether a stuck pipe event is actually imminent. A real-time
surveillance process has been developed to address this.
The operator refers to this as a progressive sticking test and it is conducted prior to making a connection if the risks are
believed to be high. The pipe is allows to sit still for a relatively short and safe period of time and the force required to
initiate movement is measured. The still-pipe time is increased progressively to that which is required to make a connection,
which is typically 5 to 10 min. If the trend in the pullout force is acceptable, the crew proceeds to make the connection.
The progressive sticking test is most likely required when there is potential for tool joint sticking due to contact with very
long sections of permeable rock at high angle, as well as a wear grove in the bottom of the hole. The recommended BHA
design rarely offers sufficient contact area to provide a sticking resistance greater than the pull force. Consequently, if the
pullout force is seen to increase during the progressive sticking test, it is assumed to be due to increasing engagement of tool
joint contact area above the BHA including the possible presence of a wear groove.
Cake Morphology and Fluids Design
Desired Cake Morphology
The desired filter cake would be 1) thin to minimize contact area, and 2) have a slow rate of filtrate loss from the cake to the
formation so the rise of effective stress and shear strength would allow greater still-pipe time. Effective cakes have both
blocking solids to prevent other solids from entering the formation pore throats, and filtration control to prevent the fluid
phase from passing through the blocking solids. Barite is the primary blocking solid in the majority of fluids. However, at
higher permeability, the barite particles may be too small to effectively block the pore throat openings and both solids and
filtrate may begin to enter the formation. Also, low weight fluids may have very little barite present. In either case, the cake
thickens and the sticking risk increases. Cake quality is then dependent on both blocking solids and filtration control design
(Fisk et al. 1990).
The American Petroleum Institute (API) 13B1 and 13B2 Recommended Practices describe testing protocols for fluid loss
(FL) in water-based and oil-based fluid. These include low-pressure FL tests, high-temperature high-pressure (HTHP) tests,
and particle plugging tests (PPT). The proscribed filtration paper for the FL and HTHP tests has openings of 1 to 2 microns
in size. This typical sandstone with pore throats of this size would have less than 5 milli-darcies of permeability. These are
truly filtration tests in the sense that low values can be achieved with filtration material alone and very little blocking solids
in the mud. In contrast, the majority of the operator's differential sticking risk is in higher permeability, often in the 500- to
7,000-millidarcy range, and the differential pressure is routinely 1,000 to 2,000 psi overbalanced. The FL and HTHP tests do
not reflect the actual downhole conditions. Reliance on these tests has resulted in high treatment costs because field
personnel who continue to experience pulls on connections or high drag while tripping through sands may continue to add
product to drive down the fluid loss values.
Consequently, the recommended process for managing differential sticking includes a recommendation to use API Particle
Plugging Tests, which utilize filtration medium that simulate the local permeability, as well as the expected differential
pressure and temperature. The majority of cake problems have been resolved through blocking solids design and not changes
in the level of filtration control as reflected in HTHP tests. More specifically, HTHP values have not being reduced from
those that were common prior to the implementation of the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices.
Barite is an effective blocking solid in most wells. Additional blocking solids may be required to achieve low PPT values in
1) low weight mud that have little barite, 2) permeability above 1 to 2 darcies, or 3) when field experience shows that cake
regrowth is occurring, regardless of the estimated permeability. In these situations, API PPTs are conducted to study the
effects of various combinations of blocking solids and particle size distributions. The most common blocking solid used is
calcium carbonate, and the D-50 of the size distribution typically ranges from 5 to 50 microns, depending on the permeability
or results of PPTs. In addition to sizing material to block pore throats, the smaller particles are often required to enhance the
packing efficiency of the cake itself.

IADC/SPE 128129

Stabilizers and Cake Remediation


Slick assemblies are avoided in order to minimize contact area, but the stabilizers also serve an important role in cake
conditioning. The distribution of solids in the cake that is formed instantaneously at the bit is the same as that in the fluid. In
a lightweight fluid and high drill rate, the initial cake will be largely made up of drill solids. Conversely, in high mud weight
and low drill rate, it will be built primarily from barite. Under the best of circumstances, the cake will contain some quantity
of undesirable drill solids, or low gravity solids that are being carried in the system. In either case, the initial cake quality
may be very poor and filter cakes observed in API tests may bear little resemblance to the downhole cake. As the stabilizers
are rotated, they shear the cake to a point equal to the diameter of the stabilizer, which is very nearly that of the hole
diameter. Much of the original cake may be removed.
Research on dynamic filter cakes has shown that cakes tend to capture only those particles that fit within the gaps between
particles in the exposed surface. Larger material is removed by fluid shear. The result is that over time the size of the
blocking solids in the surface becomes finer so the remaining gaps are more easily sealed by filtration control material (Fisk
et al. 1990). Stabilizers are assumed to work on the same principle. Each time a stabilizer blade shears through and wipes
the surface of the cake, small particles are captured in the re-exposed surface preferentially to larger and the permeability of
the surface of the cake declines. Even though larger drill solids continue to be present in the mud during the stabilizer action,
these are not captured as readily as smaller material and the surface permeability of the cake continues to decline.
The degree of conditioning achieved by rotating stabilizers would logically depend on a variety of factors. As drill rate
increases, any given foot will be wiped less times. For example, assume that three, 3-bladed stabilizers are being used, each
of which is 2 ft long. The rotational speed is 60 rpm and the drill rate is 60 ft/hr. In this scenario, every point in the wellbore
will be wiped 2,160 times. Even at 500 ft/hr, the filter cake is wiped 260 times. If less stabilizers are used, the conditioning
declines, and if slick assemblies are run, the only conditioning provided is that achieved by the gauge area of the PDC bit.
Another key factor in the effectiveness of the stabilizers is the fluid. Filter cakes built from lightweight fluids require more
conditioning due to the absence of barite in the mud. As previously discussed, it may be necessary to add an appropriate
particle size distribution of blocking solids, and this in turn allows the stabilizer conditioning process to be more effective. In
unfavorable conditions, or where there has been a history of cake regrowth (e.g., tight hole on trips), the interval may be
reamed while clean mud is circulated prior to making each connection.
Drill & Seal Procedure
When gas prices increased in the mid-1990s, deeper reservoirs became economic and an increased number of wells were
drilled by the operator through the severely depleted shallower reservoirs. In South Texas and the Gulf of Mexico,
overbalances of 2,000 to 5,000 psi were common with some ranging to 8,000 psi. It was also necessary to obtain pressure
tests and wireline sticking across the shallow depleted sands became a chronic problem. The Drill & Seal (D&S) process was
originally developed in the mid-1990s to reduce the incidence of differential sticking of the wireline, but its use expanded
immediately to eliminate drillstring sticking. It has also been used to remediate the cake created by a very high filtration
water-based mud (WBM) used to continuously build integrity at the bit in severe lost returns intervals (Dupriest 2008).
In the Drill & Seal process, the stabilizers are used to ream the original cake in the presence of a pill that is rich in the
appropriate blocking solids for the given formation, as well as filtration control material. The pill is pumped and timed to
arrive at the bit as the next stand of drillpipe is drilled down. As the pill enters the annulus, the pump rate is reduced to a
very slow rate and the string is reciprocated and rotated as the pill is pumped up the annulus. As the stabilizers are rotated,
they strip the original cake and the rich content of the D&S pill accelerates the fine particle selection process at the reexposed cake face. A low porosity, low permeability cake is formed in a short period of time. After the small pill has
passed across the BHA, the connection is made and drilling resumes. One pill can treat the length of the stabilized BHA plus
the stroke in the derrick while reciprocating. This is often 150 to 180 ft.
After the D&S process was implemented in the first field in 1995, there were over 600 wireline formation tests run without a
sticking incident. Caliper logs typically showed very little detectable cake after five days of exposure in water-based mud
(WBM) at 280F and 3,000 to 4,000 psi of differential. The process has been used for 14 years and is now routine across the
global organization when overbalance is expected to exceed ,2000 psi or where there has been a history of chronic cake
regrowth. It is also used in some situations where it is more economic to treat a short interval with D&S than to treat the
entire mud system with blocking solids and higher concentrations of filtration control additives.
In the rare cases that the D&S process has not prevented sticking, the stuck point has been found in the HWDP above the
stabilized BHA and it is suspected that a wear groove has been present. Recall the purpose of the D&S is to create a thin,
low fluid loss cake. The thin cake is usually desirable as it minimizes contact area between the dissimilar curvatures of the
pipe and borehole wall. However, if a groove is present, there is significant contact area without cake growth, and a thin cake
may depressurize faster so that its shear strength develops very rapidly.

IADC/SPE 128129

Fluid Selection and Design


The use of non-aqueous fluids (NAF), also referred to as oil-based mud, is known to significantly reduce the sticking risk
(Simpson 1962). NAF filter cakes are thin so that contact areas are minimized and they also have relatively low shear
strength under a given effective stress. In the period, since the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices were implemented, there
have actually been no differential sticking events in WBM when the recommended practices for contact areas were followed.
Interestingly, all of the sticking events with compliant BHA designs have been in NAF. While NAF reduces the pullout force
for given contact area, it does not prevent sticking should the area become large. In each case of sticking in NAF, the stuck
point was found to be in the HWDP and the cumulative contact area wear groove may have been the root cause.
Non-aqueous fluids were not common in the early 1960s when much of the early research on differential sticking was
conducted. However, there were many studies of the pullout force associated with various water-based mud (BushnellWatson and Panesar 1961). The effect of additives such as surface-active agents, polymers, and emulsified oil was also
reported (Monaghan and Annis 1963; Hunter and Adams 1978). Significant differences were observed between fluid types
and additives. However, none of these results has been incorporated as a standard component in the Sticking Avoidance
Practices. Wells with the highest sticking risk are usually drilled with NAF. The challenges in WBM have generally been
met with the combination of minimized contact area, the use of appropriate blocking solids, and Drill & Seal operations in
specific sands with severe overbalance.
Mitigation of Mechanical Cake Sticking
It is necessary to distinguish between differential sticking and mechanical sticking in a high strength filter cake because the
mitigations differ. After a cake is established and drilling continues, the thickness continues to grow and the shear strength
increases as the cake loses fluid and the effective stress increases. If this high strength cake has significant thickness, drag
will be observed when the top stabilizer in the BHA arrives at the permeable formation while tripping out of hole. If the
driller continues to increase the pull, the stabilizer will shear further into the cake and become stuck. Because the stabilizer's
diameter is close to that of the borehole, it may be shearing into a very, low-pressure area of the cake with high shear
strength. While the stabilizer is now differentially stuck, the primary mechanism is mechanical sticking.
Both differential and mechanical cake sticking are effected by cake and fluid design and any practice that reduces the cake
thickness and shear strength will be beneficial; however, other mitigations may differ. Mechanical sticking occurs while the
pipe is moving and differential sticking occurs while it is sitting still. Mechanical sticking is easily avoided by stopping
when only a low level of drag is seen, lowering the string and engaging the top drive, and reaming slowly up through the
sand to remove and condition the filter cake. Training is essential to ensure the driller does not pull too far into the cake
before stopping, and a tripping map may be useful so the team is aware of potential trouble zones relative to the top stabilizer.
If drag is seen, this is referred to as cake regrowth because the cake was not there after the initial drilling. Regrowth suggests
the blocking solids or filtration control is not properly designed. The full fluid system may be modified, or if only one area is
problematic, a Drill & Seal treatment may be used to minimize regrowth.
Reduce Overbalance
As overbalance is reduced, the effective stress in the contact area declines and the shear strength declines. If the total shear
resistance can be reduced to below the force that can be delivered to the stuck point, the pipe may be pulled free. An
important observation is that the effect of reducing the MW on success is not linear. For example, if the sticking resistance is
200k lb and it is only possible to deliver 195k lb of force to the stuck point, the pipe cannot be freed. However, in this
hypothetical case, it is only necessary to reduce the overbalance by 3% to free the pipe. In another example, it might be
necessary to reduce the overbalance by a much greater value. There is no value in reducing the MW unless it can be reduced
to the critical level required.
It is usually more practical to reduce contact area than to drill with a lighter MW. Overbalance is often required to control
pore pressure or borehole stability. By drilling with a lower MW, the risk is being shifted from one problem to another.
Contact area is more easily manipulated with very little shifting of risk. For example, a drill collar has five times more
contact area than HWDP. If DCs are replaced with HWDP, the sticking resistance may be reduced dramatically. It may be
impractical to achieve a similar effect from reducing MW. A typical, high-angle well in low strength formations requires 2 to
3 lb/gal of overbalance to maintain stability. It might be necessary to reduce MW by over 2 lb/gal to obtain the same effect
as elimination of the unsupported DCs found in many of the industry's assemblies.
The best result is achieved with the absolute minimum contact area. If the pipe does become stuck, then very little reduction
in MW may be required to reduce the pullout force to below the required critical level. The greater the contact area, the more
the reduction in MW required to allow the pipe to be freed.

10

IADC/SPE 128129

Modeling
A numerical model was developed to better understand the influence of different variables on differential pressure sticking
and to enable prediction of sticking force for a particular drillstring configuration and wellbore condition. This dynamic FE
model incorporates coupled deformation and fluid flow elasto-plastic filter cake behavior, BHA and drillstring bending, and
torque and drag. In the FE procedure, the pipe is embedded into the filter cake and the contact area, fluid flow, and pressure
drop, and shear strength development of the filter cake are modeled. Then incremental axial displacements are applied at the
pipe wall to calculate the force per unit length of embedded pipe required to free the drillstring. The BHA and drillstring
bending model is used to estimate potential contact area across permeable formations including tube body contact, and the
torque and drag model is used to estimate available downhole pulling force at the stuck point. This model is used to generate
the stochastic input to a quantitative risk analysis routine that incorporates uncertainty in input parameters and downhole
conditions. The results from the analysis are presented as probability of success as a function of mud weight (i.e., available
pulling force allows the pipe to be pulled free after being stationary for a given time on a connection, etc.). A typical model
output is presented in Fig. 4. In this example, the centralizer position on a completion assembly is evaluated. In this case,
moving the centralizer from a position adjacent to the coupling to the center of the pipe improves the probability of success
of not getting differentially stuck while making a connection from 75 to 99%.
Centralizer at Midpoint
100

90

90

80

80

Probability of Success %

Probability of Success %

Centralizer at Coupling
100

70
60
50
40
30

70
60
50
40
30

20

20

10

10

0
10

0
12

14

16

18

Mud Weight (ppg)

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mud Weight (ppg)

Fig. 4Example output from stochastic model showing the probability of success improving from 75 to 100% if centralizers are
moved from being adjacent to a coupling to the midpoint of the tube body.

Small scale differential pressure sticking and pullout tests are conducted in an apparatus designed to define the mechanical
properties and time-dependent behaviors of various fluids for use in the FE model. The test apparatus consists of a chamber
that accommodates a 4-in. diameter cylindrical core with a 2-in. hole made from sandstone or ceramic of known
permeability. A schematic of the apparatus is presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5Schematic of apparatus used to characterize filter cake growth and pullout force.

IADC/SPE 128129

11

The tests are begun by circulating through the system at a maximum pressure differential of 500 psi to deposit a dynamic
cake. The filtrate flow rate is measured to allow the permeability of the filter cake to be estimated. Once a steady-state filter
cake has been established, the aluminum rod situated within the simulated wellbore is embedded into the filter cake and the
differential pressure sticking force is allowed to develop. After the desired stationary time, the force required to pull the rod
free is recorded. Pressure transducers on the rod allow the pressure drop in the filter cake between the rod and the wellbore
wall to be monitored and recorded so that the relationship between effective stress and strength development can be
characterized as an input to the FE model. After completion of the test, the thickness of the filter cake and the location of the
shear failure within the cake are determined. Fig. 6 shows a comparison of FE-predicted pullout force versus actual tests
performed using 13.0-lb/gal water-based and NAF mud. In these tests, the geometry of the test apparatus was modeled,
where in real application, the dimensions and boundary conditions for the actual wellbore is used.
Fig. 6 also shows the results of a triaxial test on filter cake material. The triaxial tests were performed to determine the
mechanical properties of cakes built from various fluids for input into the FE model. The percentage of the axial and radial
strain to the differential axial stress illustrates the elasto-plastic behavior of the filter cake that must be modeled.
1.2
1.2

250
250
Pull-Out Force (lbf)

Pullout Force (lbf)

300
300

200
200

150
150

100
100

13.0
ppg WBM
13.0
ppg
WBM
DPS Modelpullout
- WBM
Modeled
13.0
ppg OBM
13.0
ppg
NAF
DPS Modelpullout
- OBM
Modeled

5050
00
0
0

15

30
30

45

60
60

75

90
90

105

120
120

135

150
150

165

180
180

Embedment Time (min)

Embedment Time (min)

1.0
1.0

0.8
0.8

Differential Axial Stress (ksi)

Differential Axial Stress (Ksi)

350
350

0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0

0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0

2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0

% Axial & Radial Strain

4.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

% Axial & Radial Strain

Fig. 6Pullout force predicted by FE modeling versus lab measurements, and an example triaxial test showing the elasto-plastic
behavior of a filter cake.

Results
In the five-year period from 2004 through 2008, the operator drilled 3,476 wells. The differential sticking statistics for the
same period are presented in Table 1. During this period, there were 20 geographically independent drill teams operating.
Training in the Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices was begun earlier, and by 2004, the majority of global operations were
practicing the key elements. However, occasional exceptions have been taken and many of these have lead to additional
sticking events. Consequently, the sticking events that were due to non-compliance are distinguished from those that
occurred when the practices were applied. Also, those events where it was possible to free the pipe with spotting fluids or
reduction in MW are distinguished from those where the pipe and BHA were not successfully recovered.
TABLE 1SUMMARY OF DIFFERENTIAL STICKING EVENTS FROM 2004 THROUGH 2008

Number of Events

Compliant BHAs
Stuck But Freed
Stuck Not Freed
0
3

Non-Compliant BHAs
Stuck But Freed
Stuck Not Freed
14
3

Altogether, there were only three stuck pipe events in wells with BHA designs that complied with the Stuck Pipe Avoidance
practices. Many practices, such as Drill & Seal are critical to success, but are only applied when appropriate for the specific
situation. In contrast, recommendations for the allowed length of unsupported drill collars apply to all wells because this is
believed to be the dominate risk factor. Consequently, wells were classified as non-compliant based only on whether they
contained more than the allowed length of unsupported DCs and not based on the application of other practices. There were
17 incidents of pipe sticking with non-compliant BHAs, all but three of which were freed.
The non-compliant BHAs tended to have only one to two unsupported collars beyond what was recommended. This limited
contact area is believed to have contributed to the high percentage of events in which the pipe was eventually freed. Many
were also in WBM where spotting fluids are effective. None of the three compliant designs that became stuck were freed.

12

IADC/SPE 128129

Number of Differential Sticking Events

All were in NAF and the stuck pipe was found well into the HWDP, which suggests the wear groove may have been a
significant factor. Fig. 7 shows the variation in stuck pipe events over the five-year period. The current low incident rate
reflects increased operational awareness of the risks associated with even small increases in the length of unsupported drill
collars.
10
9

Compliant BHAs
Non-compliant BHAs

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year
Fig. 7Differential sticking events by year.

Conclusions
Some sticking potential exists in the great majority of wells, but not all. For example, wells drilled with clear water in hard
formations do not form a filter cake. Stuck Pipe Avoidance practices have been developed and implemented in those wells
that do have filtration control and solids for over four years. The objective is not to eliminate differential sticking, which is
impossible, but to maintain conditions in which the required pullout force can be delivered to the stuck point should the pipe
become differentially stuck. While this is ambitious, statistical experience suggests that this is achievable in most
circumstances.
The majority of the recommended practices are common in the industry, but are not applied uniformly. Some of the
practices, such as Drill & Seal, are unique but they have developed more from new operational perspectives more than from
new science.
The recommended practices that have proven effective are:
- Minimize contact area, particularly that of drill collars.
- Do not use slick assemblies. The desired objectives can be achieved by other means.
- Minimize overbalance, but only in cases where the risk of borehole instability is not increased.
- Use HWDP in compression for bit weight in vertical and low angle wells within the limits specified by the manufacturer.
- Use conventional drillpipe in compression in intermediate and high angle wells within its helical buckling limits.
- Use stand-off subs on drilling jars run above the stabilized BHA.
- Conduct progressive pipe sticking tests prior to making connections in wells with high sticking potential.
- Do not use API FL or API HTHP tests as an indicator of cake quality except in very low permeability formations.
- Conduct API Particle Plugging Tests and use appropriate blocking solids to improve cake quality.
- Conduct Drill & Seal treatments to enhance cake quality in intervals of high differential pressure or chronic cake growth.
- Model the differential sticking risk quantitatively when planning operations that lie outside of previous experience.
- When planning mitigations, consider the sticking risk associated with wear groove in high angle wells. Additional
mitigations may be required, even when NAF is used and all drill collars are supported.
When the design and practices comply with the Stuck Pipe Avoidance recommendations the likelihood of differential
sticking is statistically very low. However, some sticking events (three in five years) continue to occur in the drillpipe above
the BHA. The most common cause is believed to be the high contact area between tool joints and a wear groove that exists
in most high angle wells. Also, the increasing length of high angle penetrations in the operator's well mix is resulting in a
greater number of tool joints in contact with permeable formations.

IADC/SPE 128129

Nomenclature
American Petroleum Institute
Bottomhole Assembly
Drill Collar
Drill & Seal
Finite Element
Fluid Loss
Heavyweight Drillpipe
High-Temperature High-Pressure
Inside Diameter
Mud Weight
Non-Aqueous Fluid
Outside Diameter
Particle Plugging Test
Polycrystalline Diamond Bits
Water-Based Mud

13

API
BHA
DC
D&S
FE
FL
HWDP
HTHP
ID
MW
NAF
OD
PPT
PDC
WBM

References
Annis M.R., Monaghan P.H., "Differential Pressure Sticking - Laboratory Studies of Friction Between Steel and Mud Filter
Cake," Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1962, Vol 14, 537-543
Bushnell-Watson M., Panesar S.S., "Differential Sticking Laboratory Tests Can Improve Mud Design," SPE 22549 presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991
Courteille J.M., Zurdo C., "A New Approach to Differential Sticking," SPE 14244 Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 22-25, 1985
Dawson R., Paslay P.R., Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined Holes, Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1984, pages
1734-1738, SPE 11167, April 26, 1984
Dupriest F.E., Smith M.V., Zielinger S.C., "Method to Eliminate Lost Returns and Build Integrity Continuously with HighFiltration-Rate Fluid," SPE 112656 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, 4-6 March 2008
Fisk J.V., Shaffer S.S., Helmy S., "The Use of Filtration Theory in Developing a Mechanism for Filter-Cake Deposition by
Drilling Fluids in Laminar Flow, SPE 20438 Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, September 23-26, 1990
Haden E.L., Welch G.R., "Techniques for Preventing Differential-pressure Sticking of Drillpipe, A Laboratory Study, API
Drilling and Production Practices 31 (1961)
Helmick W.E., Longley A.J., "Pressure-Differential Sticking of Drillpipe and How It Can Be Avoided or Relieved, API
Drilling and Production Practices 55 (1957)
Hunter D, Adams, N. "Laboratory and Field Data Indicate Water Based Drilling Fluids That Resist Differential-Pressure Pipe
Sticking, Presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 8-11, 1978
Isambourg P., Ottesen S., Benaissa S., Marti J., "Down-hole Simulation Cell for Measurement of Lubricity and Differential
Pressure Sticking," SPE 52816 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9-11 March
1999
Monaghan P.H., Annis M.R., "Differential-pressure Sticking - The Effect of Oils and Special Additives on Sticking
Coefficients, API Drilling and Production Practices 80 (1963)
Outmans H.D., "Mechanics of Differential-pressure Sticking of Drill Collars, Transcript American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers (Petroleum Development and Technology), 213, 265 (1958)
Reid P.I., Meeten G.H., Way P.W., Clark P., Chambers B.D., Glimour A., "Mechanisms of Differential Sticking and A
Simple Well Site Test for Monitoring and Optimizing Drilling Mud Properties," SPE 35100 Presented at IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, 12-15 March 1996
Simpson J.P., "The role of Oil Mud In Controlling Differential-Pressure Sticking of Drill Pipe," SPE Drilling and Production
Practices Conference, Beaumont, Texas, April 5-6, 1962
Desai C.S., "Mechanics of Material and Interfaces," CRS Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, 2001.

You might also like