Skip links

Case study

Fixedblade Stabilizers compared to Roller Reamers

In two different comparison studies, tested in multiple sections we’ve compared Fixedblade stabilizers to roller reamers.

Location: Saudi Arabia & United States

Read case study
Download case study Saudi Arabia
Cade roller vs

Saudi Arabia | 12″ Hole section

BHA Configuration

No. OD 12 1/4″ Rotary Packed BHA
01 12″ PDC Bit
02 11 7/8″ EDP Fixedblade Nearbit Stabilizer w/ Float
03 8 1/2″ 1 x Short (Pony) Drill Collar
04 11 7/8″ EDP Fixedblade Stabilizer
05 8 1/2″ 1 x Drill Collar
06 11 3/4″ EDP Switchblade Hybrid
07 8 1/2″ 13 x Drill Collar
08 8 1/2″ Drilling Jar

Run Objectives

  • Improve Drilling performance
  • Minimise possible BHA Drift
  • Avoid Pinch Point and/or Stuck Pipe incidents
  • Minimize Backreaming
  • Prevent Introducing any new Risk Factors

Adopted approach

  • Re-assess BHA Design
  • Introduce Advanced EDP Design Tools
  • Replace Roller Reamers
  • Optimize Tool Spacing
  • Optimize Blade Selection
  • Optimize Gauge OD Configuration

Data to compare

Hydraulics

Hydraulics comparison Fixedblade stabilizer vs roller reamer

Mechanics

Mechanics comparison Fixedblade stabilizer vs roller reamer

Performance

Performance comparison Fixedblade stabilizer vs roller reamer

Comparison

Comparison Fixedblade stabilizer vs roller reamer

Results of the comparison

  • All set Objectives have been achieved
  • Record Section ROP | 12% Higher than Offset
  • Higher ROP with Lower WOB & Lower TQ
  • Steadier TQ & RPM indicating reduced Torsional Oscillation and/or Stick-slip
  • Lower Standpipe Pressure with Comparable Flow Rate
  • Enhanced Drilling Efficiency | + 27%
  • All tools came out in Gauge with Minimal to No Wear and are re-runable

United States GOM | BHA Comparison

No. 26″ Section
1 Same bit design
2 Same BHA design 3 Roller Reamers
No. 16 1/2″ Section
1 Same Bit
2 Simular BHA
No. 26″ Section
1 Same bit design
2 Same BHA design 3 Fixedblade Stabilizers
No. 16 1/2″ Section
1 Same Bit
2 Simular BHA

Run Objectives

  • Evaluate Fixedblade Design across 2-hole sizes
  • 2 wells utilized in analysis

Adopted approach

  • 26″ salt evaluation vd roller reamers
  • 16 1/2″ salt and sediment vs roller reamers

Fixedblade Stabilizer vs Roller Reamers Comparison

26″ Section Comparison

26" Section Comparison, Fixedblade Stabilizers vs Roller Reamers

16 1/2″ Section Comparison

16 1/2" Section Comparison, Fixedblade Stabilizers vs Roller Reamers

Results of the comparison

Conclusion in general

No damage or wear noted on fixedblade stabilizers post run in either hole section.

26″ Section

The BHA containing the Fixedblade was able to achieve higher WOB and ROP, with notably lower surface torque as opposed to the BHA containing the Roller Reamers.

26″ Section – Salt BHA Roller Reamers BHA Fixedblade
Start depth 4958 5251
End depth 6004 5990
Total Footage 1046 739
Hours on Bit 8.5 5.8
Avg On BTM ROP 123.1 127.4

16 1/2″ Section

Downhole torque and surface torque equivalent. BHA containing Fixedblade achieved faster ROP, however BHA containing Roller Reamers was control drilled due to vibration.

16 1/2″ Section – Salt BHA Roller Reamers BHA Fixedblade
Start depth 6004 5990
End depth 9591 9303
Total Footage 3587 3313
Hours on Bit 18.3 14
Avg On BTM ROP 196.0 236.6
16 1/2″ Section – Sediment BHA Roller Reamers BHA Fixedblade
Start depth 9591 9303
End depth 12292 12500
Total Footage 2701 3197
Hours on Bit 15.6 16.5
Avg On BTM ROP 173.1 193.8

Related Case Studies