Hole Cleaning Performance of Light-Weight Drilling Fluids During Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling
Hole Cleaning Performance of Light-Weight Drilling Fluids During Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling
Hole Cleaning Performance of Light-Weight Drilling Fluids During Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling
Introduction
Efficient removal of cuttings from the wellbore is among the
major considerations during both the design and operational stages
of a drilling process. Inadequate hole cleaning may give rise to serious drilling problems, such as increase in torque and drag, stuck
pipe, density control loss, difficulty when running and cementing of
casing, etc.(1,2) If the situation is not handled properly, these problems can ultimately lead to the loss of a well. A single stuck pipe
incident may cost over USD $1 million(3). To avoid such problems,
generated cuttings have to be removed from the wellbore with the
help of the drilling fluid. The ability of the fluid to lift such cuttings
is generally referred to as carrying capacity of the drilling fluid. The
major factors affecting the carrying capacity of drilling fluids may
be listed as fluid annular velocity, hole inclination, drilling fluid
properties, penetration rate, pipe/hole eccentricity, hole geometry,
cuttings properties and drillpipe rotation speed(4). In fact, fluid-flow
velocity is the dominant drilling variable on hole cleaning because
of its direct relation to shear stress acting on the cuttings bed(5). It
has been stated that in order to remove cuttings from a horizontal
or deviated wellbore, a sufficient shear stress should be applied
to the cuttings bed surface in order to lift the particles and erode
the developed bed. Such a lifting process, of course, is directly
April 2010, Volume 49, No. 4
dependent on not only the fluid properties, but also the cuttings
properties, such as shape, compaction properties, etc.(57) Additionally, it is reported that because the interaction between the
drilling fluids, cuttings and gel formation within the developed cuttings bed occurs, which significantly increases the required shear
force needed to erode the bed, the cuttings particles are lifted up
from the bed(6,7). Studies on cuttings transport have been in progress over the past 50 years(2). These studies can be separated into
two basic approaches: empirical and theoretical. Tomren et al.(4)
investigated the effects of pipe rotation and hole inclination angle,
eccentricity and flow regimes on cuttings transport performance.
Becker et al.(8) conducted an experimental study comparing the effects of fluid rheological parameters [fluid yield point (YP), plastic
viscosity (PV), YP/PV ratio, power law exponent, consistency
index, etc.] on annular hole cleaning, using a large scale flow loop.
They pointed out that turbulent flow improved cuttings transport
for highly-inclined wellbores, and the effects of fluid rheology
dominated at low inclinations. Sifferman and Becker(9) stated that
the variables influencing cuttings bed thickness were mud annular
velocity, mud density, inclination angle and drillpipe rotation (with
the first two being the most important). Sanchez(10) examined the
effect of drillpipe rotation on hole cleaning during directional well
drilling. He observed that bed erosion improved with pipe rotation.
He noted that pipe rotation also caused irregularities in bed thickness along the test section. Yu et al.(11) proposed a new approach
to improve the cuttings transport capacity of drilling fluid in horizontal and inclined wells by attaching gas bubbles to the surface of
drilled cuttings using chemical surfactants.
Also, numerous theoretical and mechanistic models were introduced for describing the mechanism of bed development and
cuttings transport in inclined and horizontal wells. Two and threelayer models are introduced(2,1215). Some of these model performances were tested using experimental data collected in different
cuttings flow loops. Also, there were attempts for determining the
critical fluid velocity for preventing bed development, either theoretically or experimentally. Larsen et al.(16) presented a new cuttings transport model that predicted critical velocity needed to
keep all cuttings moving for horizontal and high-angle wells. Cho
et al.(17) developed a three-layer model similar to Nguyen and Rahmans(14) model. They developed a simulator and compared the
results with existing models as well as the experimental data conducted by other researchers. They developed charts to determine
the lowest possible pressure gradient to serve as an operational
guide for drilling operations. They also observed the minimum
critical velocity for preventing a stationary bed development using
the simulator results. Masuda et al.(18) conducted both an experimental investigation and numerical simulation for different flow
conditions to determine the critical fluid velocity in inclined annulus.
This study aims to propose easy-to-use empirical correlations
for estimating the critical fluid velocity required to prevent a stationary bed in horizontal and highly-inclined wellbores.
21
Theory
1 =
ROP, Q, P, , D , D ,
o
i
= f
,, rpm, c , dc , g
...................................................... (1)
C , v , , D , ,
hyd
= f C
, , c , dc , g ............................................................... (2)
2 =
v Dhyd
v2
g Dhyd
3 = CC
4 =
5 =
6 =
.......................................................................................... (5)
........................................................................................... (6)
.................................................................................................. (7)
.................................................................................................... (8)
dc
Dhyd
.............................................................................................. (9)
dc v
........................................................................................... (10)
where
CC =
7 =
ROP Abit
RT Q
..................................................................................... (3)
and
v=
2
D Di 2
4 o
................................................................................... (4)
Dhyd
v
......................................................................................... (11)
1
= a0
5
( ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 )
a
a
a
( ) ( 6 ) ( 7 )
a1
a2
a3
a4
......................................... (12)
vcrt = f ROP, , Do , Di ,, , g
) ............................................................. (13)
FIGURE 1: Middle East Technical University, Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering, Cuttings Transport Flow Loop.
22
0.7
90
80
70
60
50
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
70
0.3
60
Abed / Awellbore
0.6
Stationary
0.5
Moving
0.1
0
0.2
0.1
8
10
for an average cuttings specific gravity of 2.65 and average cuttings size of 3 mm with no pipe rotation, assuming steady-state
flow conditions and including constant flow rate, ROP and unchanged fluid properties. This correlation is improved and simplified using the experimental data, and presented in the Results
and Discussions section. As previously presented, the shear stress
acting on the wellbore walls and cuttings bed surface is the controlling parameter for hole cleaning. In the dimensional analysis,
this scope can be inverted to find the critical fluid velocity for hole
cleaning.
Experimental Work
Extensive hole cleaning experiments have been conducted in
METUs Cuttings Transport Flow Loop (Figure 1). The flow loop
consists of a 4 in. 2 in. annular test section with a length of 15
ft that can be set in any inclination from horizontal to vertical. A
centrifugal pump is mounted with a flow capacity of 250 gpm, and
the flow rate is controlled and measured using a magnetic flowmeter and a pneumatic flow controller, respectively. Cuttings are
injected using a helical screw controlled by a motor assisted by a
speed frequency controller in order to adjust the ROP. ROP is measured by weighing the cuttings injection and collection tanks. Because the 4-in. pipe is transparent acrylic, cuttings movements and
developed bed can be seen. The cuttings and fluid are separated
using a static screen located in a separator.
Experiments were conducted using water to demonstrate light
drilling mud flow conditions. ROP ranged from 10 ft/hr 100 ft/hr,
10
12
flow rates were between 40 gpm 250 gpm and inclinations varied
from 90 50. Drillpipe was fully eccentric for all experiments.
Cuttings stationary bed thicknesses were recorded at five different
stations on the test section. For each test, the fluid-flow rate was
set to the desired value. Then, the cuttings were injected into the
test section with a constant mass rate using the cuttings injection
system. When the steady-state conditions were reached, the bed
cross-sectional area (either stationary or moving) was recorded by
visual observation at each station. During each test, pressure drop,
flow rate and ROP values were recorded.
Figure 2 is the average annular fluid-flow velocity vs. the stationary cuttings bed observed in the test section for all ROPs. In
this study, for simplification purposes, fluid velocity is defined as
the flow rate over the total wellbore cross-sectional area. The data
is categorized for different inclinations; however, it is observed
that the effect of inclination on a cuttings bed for high inclination values is slight. Also, in Figure 3, an example of how bed
behaviour changes from stationary to moving for a horizontal well
alignment is presented. It is observed that the bed starts moving
when the fluid velocity reaches to 5 ft/sec 6 ft/sec, and the bed
(either moving or stationary) totally vanishes when the fluid velocity is above 8 ft/sec 9 ft/sec.
( ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 )
= a0 1
a1
a2
a3
a4
............................................ (14)
0.7
0.7
90
0.6
80
0.5
75
0.4
70
0.3
60
50
0.2
0.1
Abed /Awellbore
Abed /Awellbore
0.3
P2
0.4
50
0.2
0.7
75
0.4
80
0.5
90
0.6
Abed /Awellbore
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
P1
FIGURE 4: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and
dimensionless Group No 1.
80,000
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
P3, %
FIGURE 6: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and
dimensionless Group No. 3.
23
0.7
0.6
0.6
Abed /Awellbore,
calculated
Abed /Awellbore
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1
0.2
0.1023 0.0340
v Do Di
= 0.7524
0.2933
2
0.2108
v
D
D
Abed
Awellbore
()
( )
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
vcrt
0.2343
D
+
D
o
i
= 3.9835
0.0220
0.1137
Do Di
0.1137
................................................ (16)
................................ (15)
Based on Equation (15), one can solve this equation for a zerobed area, and determine the critical fluid velocity. However, because of the nature of the proposed equation, the left hand side
cannot be 0 because only a trivial solution will be obtained.
Thus, a numerical limit operation is applied in the light of the experimental observations, and Equation (15) is solved for critical
fluid velocity based on this limit. The obtained equation for critical
fluid velocity, which has a good agreement with the experimental
results, is presented as:
vcrt = 132
24
0.3
P4 (degree)
Do Di
) ............................................................................ (17)
............................................................................ (18)
9.8
9.6
9.8
9.2
9.5
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
Conclusion
Empirical correlations for estimating the critical fluid velocity
to prevent stationary bed development, as well as any cuttings accumulation at the lower side of the wellbore, are proposed, based
on the cuttings transport experiments conducted at METU Cuttings
Transport Flow Loop using water for different ROPs and wellbore
inclinations. Also, for lower fluid velocities, an empirical correlation for estimating a cuttings bed area is based on dimensional
analysis. The following has been concluded:
Proposed equation for estimating stationary cuttings bed area
can predict with an error of 15% in most cases.
Critical fluid velocity is estimated based on three different
methods. Critical fluid velocity is calculated to be 9 ft/sec
and measured to be 8 ft/sec in order to prevent cuttings accumulation in the form of either a stationary or moving bed
inside the wellbore.
From dimensional analysis, it is observed that the major variable influencing the cuttings bed thickness is the shear stress
acting on the cuttings bed surface.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank Statoil Hydro for their support in this
study.
Nomenclature
A
CC
D,d
g
Q
rpm
ROP
RT
P
v
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
area, L2
cuttings concentration
diameter, L
gravitational constant, L/t2
flow rate, L3/t
pipe rotation speed
rate of penetration, L/t
transport ratio
pressure drop, m/Lt2
inclination
viscosity, m/Lt
velocity, L/t
dimensionless group
density, m/L3
rotation, 1/t
Subscripts
c
= cuttings
hyd
= hydraulic
i
= inner
o
= outer
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft
3.048*
E 01 = m
April 2010, Volume 49, No. 4
gal
1 gpm
in.
1 lb
1 ppg
=
=
=
3.785 412
6.3E-5 m3/s
2.54*
453.6 gr
0.12 g/cc
E 03 = m3
E + 00 = cm
References
1. Brown, N.P., Bern, P.A., and Weaver, A. 1989. Cleaning Deviated
Holes: New Theoretical and Experimental Studies. Paper SPE 18636
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 28
February3 March. doi: 10.2118/18636-MS.
2. Ozbayoglu, M.E., Miska, S.Z., Reed, T., and Takach, N. 2003. Using
Foam in Horizontal Well Drilling: A Cuttings Transport Approach. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 46 (4): 267282.
3. Bradley, W.B., Jarman, D., Plott, R.S., Wood, R.D., Schofield, T.R.,
Auflick, R.A., and Cocking, D. 1991. A Task Force Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Paper SPE 21999 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,1114 March. doi: 10.2118/21999MS.
4. Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., and Azar, J.J. 1986. Experimental Study
of Cuttings Transport in Directional Wells. SPE Drill Eng 1 (1): 43
56. SPE-12123-PA. doi: 10.2118/12123-PA.
5. Kjsnes, I., Lklingholm, G., Saasen, A., Syrstad, S.O., Agle, A.,
and Solvang, K.-A. 2003. Successful Water Based Drilling Fluid Design for Optimizing Hole Cleaning and Hole Stability. Paper SPE
85330 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2022 October. doi:
10.2118/85330-MS.
6. Saasen, a. and Lklingholm, g. 2002. The Effect of Drilling Fluid
Rheological Properties on Hole Cleaning. Paper SPE 74558 presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2628 February. doi:
10.2118/74558-MS.
7. Saasen, A., Eriksen, N.H., Han, L., Labes, P., and Marken, D. 1998.
Is Annular Friction Loss the Key Parameter? Oil Gas European Magazine: International Edition of Erdl Erdgas Kohle 24 (1): 2224.
8. Becker, T.E., Azar, J.J., and Okrajni, S.S. 1991. Correlations of Mud
Rheological Properties With Cuttings-Transport Performance in Directional Drilling. SPE Drill Eng 6 (1): 1624; Trans., AIME, 291.
SPE-19535-PA. doi: 10.2118/19535-PA.
9. Sifferman, T.R. and Becker, T.E. 1992. Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale
Inclined Wellbores. SPE Drill Eng 7 (2): 115120; Trans., AIME,
293. SPE-20422-PA. doi: 10.2118/20422-PA.
10. Sanchez, R.A., Azar, J.J., Bassal, A.A., and Martins, A.L. 1999. Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning During Directional-Well
Drilling. SPE J. 4 (2):101108. SPE-56406-PA. doi: 10.2118/56406PA.
11. Yu, M., Melcher, D., Takach, N., Miska, S.Z., and Ahmed, R. 2004.
A New Approach to Improve Cuttings Transport in Horizontal and
Inclined Wells. Paper SPE 90529 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2629 September. doi:
10.2118/90529-MS.
12. Gavignet, A.A. and Sobey, I.J. 1989. Model Aids Cuttings Transport
Predictions. J Pet Technol 41 (9): 916922; Trans., AIME, 287. SPE15417-PA. doi: 10.2118/15417-PA.
13. Clark, R.K. and Bickham, K.L. 1994. A Mechanistic Model for
Cuttings Transport. Paper SPE 28306 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September. doi: 10.2118/28306-MS.
14. Nguyen, D. and Rahman, S.S. 1998. A Three-Layer Hydraulic Program for Effective Cuttings Transport and Hole Cleaning in Highly
Deviated and Horizontal Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 13 (3): 182189.
SPE-51186-PA. doi: 10.2118/51186-PA.
15. Kamp, A.M. and Rivero, M. 1999. Layer Modeling for Cuttings
Transport in Highly Inclined Wellbores. Paper SPE 53942 presented
at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April. doi: 10.2118/53942-MS.
16. Larsen, T.I, Pilehvari, A.A., and Azar, J.J. 1997. Development of a
New Cuttings-Transport Model for High-Angle Wellbores Including
Horizontal Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 12 (2): 129136. SPE25872-PA. doi: 10.2118/25872-PA.
17. Cho, H., Subhash, N.S., and Osisanya, S.O. 2000. A Three-Segment
Hydraulic Model for Cuttings Transport in Horizontal and Deviated
Wells. Paper SPE 65488 presented at the SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 68 November.
doi: 10.2118/65488-MS.
25
18. Masuda, Y., Doan, Q., Oguztoreli, M., Naganawa, S., Yonezawa,
T., Kobayashi, A., and Kamp, A. 2000. Critical Cuttings Transport
Velocity in Inclined Annulus: Experimental Studies and Numerical
Simulation. Paper SPE 65502 presented at the SPE/CIM International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 68 November.
doi: 10.2118/65502-MS.
19. Pilehvari, A.A., Azar, J.J., and Shirazi, S.A. 1999. State-of-the-Art
Cuttings Transport in Horizontal Wellbores. SPE Drill & Compl 14
(3): 196200. SPE-57716-PA. doi: 10.2118/57716-PA.
Authors Biographies
Evren M. Ozbayoglu is an associate professor at the University of Tulsas petroleum engineering department. Until 2009,
he worked as a faculty at the Middle East
Technical University (METU) in the Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department. His work is mostly focused on
drilling engineering-related topics. He was
awarded the Allen Chapman Distinguished
PhD Student Award in 2002, and the Prof.
Dr. Mustafa Parlar METU Educator of the
Year Award in 2003, 2005 and 2006. He holds B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees from METUs Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Tulsa. He has
been an SPE member since 1994.
26