Cuttings-Transport Problems and Solutions

in Coiled-Tubing Drilling
L.J. Leising, SPE, and I.C. Walton, SPE, Schlumberger

Summary
In spite of the many technological advances that have accompanied the growth of coiled-tubing (CT) drilling, one significant
challenge remainseffective cuttings transport, particularly in deviated wells. This paper presents a summary of cuttings-transport
problems and current solutions. It is shown that, in many circumstances, hole cleaning is more efficient if a low-viscosity fluid is
pumped in turbulent flow rather than a high-viscosity fluid in
laminar flow. Case studies are presented that illustrate both cuttings-transport problems and routine applications without cuttingstransport difficulties. The proposed hole-cleaning models are used
to interpret these data and to suggest possible alternative approaches.
Two novel approaches to understanding hole cleaning are introduced. First, for laminar flow, the distance that a particle will
travel (downstream) before it falls across the annulus clearance is
calculated with Stokes law and the local viscosity while flowing.
This analysis may easily be applied to optimize mud selection and
wiper trips. Applying this model to high low-shear-rate-viscosity
(LSRV) gels shows that they may perform well inside casing but
are expected to do a poor job of hole cleaning in a narrow, openhole, horizontal annulus without rotation. Second, for turbulent
flow in horizontal wells, the concept of using annular velocity
(AV) as a measure of hole cleaning is shown to be insufficient. A
more complete term, annular velocity/root diameter (vARD), is introduced and should be used to compare cuttings transport in turbulent flow in horizontal wells of different cross-sectional areas.
Introduction
Horizontal wells are a significant application for CT drilling. Cuttings transport in horizontal wells remains a challenge. With rotary
drilling, drillstring rotation acts to keep the cuttings in suspension.
With CT, tubing rotation is not yet possible; thus, muds and techniques that have been borrowed from rotary drilling are often only
marginally effective with CT drilling. Underbalanced drilling can
reduce transport problems by providing extra annular flow from
the formation, but cuttings beds in the curve can still be a problem.
One major application of CT drilling is through-tubing sidetracks in casing. This provides a special challenge because the
small bottomhole assembly (BHA) required to drill through tubing
must provide enough flow to adequately clean the much larger
casing section usually found between the tailpipe and whipstock.
Many factors are important for mud selection when drilling
overbalanced with CT. A few of these are:
High lubricity for maximum horizontal reach.
Good hole stability, which is critical for slimholes.
Minimum formation damage.
Low solids content to increase the rate of penetration (ROP)
and reduce friction.
Rapid solids removal for fine cuttings with small mud volumes.
Fluid-loss control to prevent differential sticking with highsolids muds.
Compatibility with elastomers.
Adequate cuttings transport.
Low friction pressure to allow maximum flow rate and minimize CT fatigue.

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 77261) was revised for publication from paper SPE 39300, first presented
at the 1998 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 36 March. Original manuscript received
for review 23 February 1999. Revised manuscript received 21 January 2002. Paper peer
approved 30 January 2002.

54

Of these parameters, all of which must be considered when

selecting a drilling fluid, only the last two are considered here.
Typically, there is a compromise between flow rate and viscosity,
both of which contribute beneficially to cuttings removal and detrimentally to frictional pressure losses in the CT and annulus. As
experimentally observed by Zamora and Hanson,1 an increase in
annular velocity improves hole cleaning regardless of the flow
regime. Although this is evident in turbulent flow, in laminar flow
the outcome is not so clear. An increased flow rate results in an
increase in the settling velocity (owing to shear thinning) and,
consequently, a decrease in the settling time, which is offset by
more rapid axial transport.
In this paper, cleaning horizontal wells with turbulent flow
whenever possible is recommended. This is consistent with the
experimental observations of Brown et al.,2 who reported that
water is more efficient than a polymer in cleaning a horizontal
concentric annulus. This is attributed to the difference in flow
regime, which is turbulent for water and laminar for the polymer.
Water also outperformed the polymer in an eccentric annulus.
Theory of Cuttings Transport. The maximum flow rate available
for hole cleaning with CT is limited by the pressure at the surface
and the flow-rate limitation of the downhole motor/BHA. Typical
278-in. positive displacement downhole motors (PDM) have flowrate limitations in the range 2.0 to 3.0 BPM (318 to 477 L/min).
Surface pumping pressures (SPP) are typically limited to between
3,500 and 4,000 psi while drilling. CT fatigue is magnified greatly
at high pressures and is the main limitation to higher SPP. A complete
discussion of these tradeoffs is presented by Leising and Newman.3
The traditional guidelines for hole cleaning with unweighted,
unviscosified fluids are a minimum annular velocity of 50 ft/min
(0.254 m/sec) in vertical holes and 100 ft/min (0.508 m/sec) in
horizontal holes. These values are lower than would normally be
applied in conventional drilling because of the high downhole
motor revolutions per minute (rpm) and low weight on bit (WOB),
resulting in small cuttings with CT drilling. Annular velocities can
be reduced further if viscosified fluids are used. Another simple
rule of thumb for vertical wells is that the annular fluid velocity
should be twice the cuttings fall velocity. Clearly, lower velocities
are required for more viscous fluids and smaller cuttings. These
rules of thumb cannot capture the complicated physics that contribute to cuttings transport, particularly in highly deviated wells,
and, for that reason, they can never provide more than a rough
guide as to favorable conditions for efficient hole cleaning. A
clearer estimate is provided by examining the physics of hole
cleaning in more detail.
There are two major points of departure that distinguish hole cleaning
in CT drilling from hole cleaning in conventional rotary drilling.
In rotary drilling, the drilling fluid must be able to support the
cuttings while the pumps are switched off making a connection; in
CT drilling, shutting down flow is infrequent.
In rotary drilling, the rotation of the drillpipe contributes to
hole cleaning by continually entraining cuttings back into the
mainstream from the lower side of the hole; in CT drilling, the pipe
does not rotate above the motor.
These differences are substantial and require a new paradigm or
mindset for the design of fluids for CT drilling. Thus, the central
requirement of a high-yield stress in rotary drilling is neither necessary nor sufficient in CT drilling. Instead, we must carefully
examine the mechanisms of hole cleaning in the different geometries that occur in CT drilling to determine the optimum rheologMarch 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 2Velocity profiles in laminar flow for various values of the

power law index.
Fig. 1Viscosity profiles of xanthan, HEC, and guar in 2% KCl.

ical properties and pump rates. Of these geometries, the most

difficult to clean are:
Openhole annulus (e.g., 2.375-in. CT inside a 3.75-in. openhole) near the bit and typically at a high inclination.
Casing annulus (e.g., 2.375-in. CT inside a 7-in. casing) farther up the well and typically at a lower inclination.
A typical well will have both sections. For the remainder of this
paper, these two geometries are assumed for the calculations and
tables of openhole and casing flow parameters.
Hole-cleaning techniques may be divided into three classes.
High-viscosity, gel-like fluids in laminar flow.
Medium-viscosity fluids in laminar/turbulent flow.
Low-viscosity fluids in turbulent flow.
High-Viscosity (LSRV) Fluids in Laminar Flow. One school
of thought48 supports the use of certain viscoelastic fluids that
possess very high LSRV values. Most polymeric fluids are shear
thinning at moderate shear rates but show a leveling off of viscosity at low shear rates (Fig. 1). Other fluids, including high
concentrations of xanthan gum, continue to demonstrate power law
behavior to much lower shear rates and, consequently, have
LSRVs of approximately 100,000 cp or more (measured at a nominal shear rate of 0.06 sec1). This behavior was developed to
promote supporting cuttings in a stationary fluid for rotary drilling.
We next examine the benefit of these fluids to CT drilling. (Further
discussion of the viscoelastic structure of these fluids and its impact on cuttings transport is given in Appendix A.)
The power law index (n) of these high LSRV fluids is low,
typically approximately 0.2, which leads to a velocity profile in
laminar flow that is much flatter in a central region than for fluids
with larger values of n, as shown in Fig. 2 (the velocity profile in
a pipe is used for illustration). Consequently, near the wall, the
shear rate is high and the viscosity is relatively low; in the central
(plug) region, the shear rate is low and the viscosity is high. It is
believed that this structure is conducive to good hole cleaning,
even in highly deviated wells. The argument in support of the use
of high LSRV fluids is that high wall shear stirs the cuttings up
from the bed and entrains them in the core; once in the core, they
are held there by the high LSRV.
In an eccentric annulus, the plug region is confined to a small
region on the wide side, as shown in Fig. 3. Note that there is substantial shear in the circumferential direction as well as in the radial
direction. Also, as pointed out by Kenny et al.,9 cleaning the hole on
the narrow side of an eccentric annulus with a power law fluid that
has a low value of n is particularly difficult because the flow is
preferentially diverted to the wider side of the annulus, which outweighs any advantage offered by its higher suspension capability.
The main questions to be answered are:
How high should the LSRV be to provide good hole cleaning
in the two geometries considered here?
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

What should the pump rate be to provide good hole cleaning

in the two geometries?
Are these rheologies and pump rates within the bounds set by
the requirements of the motor and the pressure limitations on the CT?
As the particle falls across the annular gap, it will encounter a
range of fluid viscosities, depending on the shear rate. Fig. 4 shows
how the shear rate varies with radial position in a pipe. It is
apparent that the advantage of a fluid with a low power law index
(e.g., n0.2) is that the shear rate remains very low over a central
core, extending approximately halfway across the pipe. Nevertheless, the shear rate is comparable with that at the wall over a large
cross section, especially in an eccentric annulus (see Fig. 3).
An analytic estimate of the axial distance the particle is carried
by the fluid in the time it takes to fall across the annulus clearance
is provided in Appendix B. In terms of the average axial fluid
velocity U, the axial transport length (see Fig. 5) Lt is
Lt =

18Kn
p

f gd P2

sin

U nDo Di 2 n, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1)

and in terms of the flow rate Q,

Lt =

18Kn 14 n QnDo Di 2
p f gd 2p sin

Do + Di n

2n

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2)

Fig. 3Velocity contours for power law fluid (n=0.5) in an eccentric annulus.
55

Fig. 4Shear rate dependence on radial position.

in which Dothe outside diameter of the flow path and Dithe

inside diameter of the flow path (Fig. 5). The transport length is
different in each section of the hole because of changes in viscosity
and fall distance. This model provides only a rough estimate of the
axial distance the particle is carried by the fluid because it assumes
that the particle falls a distance equal to the hydraulic diameter of
the annulus, travels axially at the mean fluid velocity, and experiences an average fluid shear rate given by U/(DoDi), in which
a scaling parameter. Typically, >1 (e.g., the wall shear rate of
a fluid with n0.2 in a pipe has w16). For this paper, we have
assumed that the average shear rate is one-half the wall shear
(w/2). For n0.2 in a pipe, then 8. A more exact determination of the transport length is beyond the scope of this work
and would involve not only a detailed calculation of the shear-rate
and axial-flow distributions in the annulus but also tracking the
trajectories of an ensemble of particles originating at some specified initial points in the annulus.
Table 1 shows horizontal transport lengths for 300-m (0.012in.) particles (this size is assumed for all calculations in this paper)
in xanthan gels in the two specified openhole and casing geometries. It is apparent that with the weaker gel (for which K10,000
eq. cp) in the openhole annulus, cuttings will be carried approximately 200 ft before they are deposited as a bed. In many wells,
they would not be carried out of the horizontal section, and serious
hole-cleaning problems may result. On the other hand, they would
be carried up to 1,880 ft in the casing annulus before falling out,
which may be a sufficient distance to take them into the vertical

section, where transport proves relatively little problem. Note that

if this casing annulus section is deviated at 45, then the fall time
and distance are 40% longer. The stronger gel (for which K
30,000 eq. cp) carries the particles farther, but, again, it is doubtful
whether it could clean the openhole horizontal annulus. Higher
rates are more effective, although there seems to be little advantage
in pumping at 5 BPM over 3 BPM (shear thinning reduces the time
available for transport). In any case, it is doubtful whether these
high rates could be achieved for most CT jobs.
Eqs. 1 and 2 supply useful information about the dependency of
the transport length on the average axial fluid velocity and on the
hydraulic diameter of the annulus. First, transport length increases
with annular velocity to the power n, which is typically a very
weak dependence for drilling muds used in laminar flow in the
annulus. Thus, for a high LSRV fluid with n0.2, doubling the
flow rate would project the particle only 15% farther (the fall
velocity is increased because of a reduction in fluid viscosity
caused by shear thinning). Second, for a fixed flow rate, the transport length increases with the hydraulic diameter to the power
(22n) (the settling time increases according to the distance fallen
and because of the viscosity increase resulting from shear rate
reduction, but it decreases because the annular velocity is reduced). The ratio of transport length to hydraulic diameter varies
as the hydraulic diameter to the power (12n). With typical values
of n, Do, and Di for high-viscosity muds, a rough (but intuitively
enlightening) rule of thumb is that the average particle will be
carried approximately the same number of hydraulic diameters as
whatever section of the wellbore it is in.
Eqs. 1 and 2 also show that the transport length is inversely
proportional to the square of the particle diameter. Thus, smaller
particles are transported much further than larger particles. Typically, CT drilling with low WOB, PDC bits, and high-speed downhole motors produces very fine cuttings. However, with tricone
bits in soft formation and when drilling underbalanced, cuttings
may be much larger, which will reduce transport length, requiring
more frequent wiper trips. Fortunately, with underbalanced drilling, the annular return flow rate, Q, is increased by production
while drilling, aiding cuttings transport immensely.

Fig. 5Schematic illustrating horizontal cuttings-transport length and annuli flow areas.
56

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Eqs. 1 and 2 show that the transport length is inversely proportional to the difference between the particle and fluid densities.
Thus, high-density fluids would be expected to improve hole
cleaning (float the cuttings). The effect of weighted sweeps can
also be evaluated, but the sweeps may depend on mechanical
agitation to resuspend the cuttings.
The conclusion from this brief assessment of the carrying capacity of high LSRV gels is that they may perform well in wide
annuli but are expected to do a poor hole-cleaning job in a narrow
openhole horizontal annulus.
Some support for the theoretical analysis of cuttings transport
by high LSRV gels comes from published reports of experiments.
Zamora et al.8 described experiments in which biopolymer gels
were pumped through a tube with a 0.69-in. diameter and through
annuli with 0.690.375 in. and 4.01.9 in. dimensions. In the tube,
horizontal-configuration sand beds were formed along the low side
under all test conditions (gel strength up to 4 lbm/bbl and flow
rates up to 0.03 BPM). At a rate of 0.008 BPM, for which the
annular velocity is approximately 16 ft/min, our calculations suggest that for the 2-lbm/bbl gel particles that originated in the lower
half of the tube would fall out to form a bed, whereas for the
3-lbm/bbl gel, only particles that originated in the lower quarter of
the pipe would form a bed. These results are consistent with the
observation of a bed with the weaker gel and virtually no bed for
the stronger gel. In the fully eccentric openhole annulus, it was
reported that the sand bed occupied nearly one-third of the tube
diameter (at 0.008 BPM); our calculations suggest that all particles
in the upper part of the annulus should be removed successfully
from the short (4-ft) tube, but viscous gels clearly have a great deal
of difficulty in removing particles from the lower section of an
eccentric annulus, where the flow rates are low and the shear rates
high. A word of caution in interpreting experimental results is in
order here. Carrying efficiency has been assessed according to
whether particle beds are formed in an annulus of length equivalent to 152 hydraulic diameters. The absence of a bed over such a
short length is no indication that a bed would not form over a
longer interval. For comparison, the length of a typical horizontal
openhole section is approximately 9,000 hydraulic diameters. Furthermore, it was concluded that although biopolymer fluids effectively transported the cuttings when the inner pipe was rotated,
they provided inadequate hole-cleaning performance8 in the absence of drillpipe rotation. In other words, they may be effective in
conventional rotary drilling but are not expected to perform well in
CT drilling. Nevertheless, as we discuss more fully in the following sections, high LSRV gels may still be the best available option
for cleaning larger annuli.
Medium-Viscosity Fluids in Laminar/Turbulent Flow. In an
inclined hole with fluids of low to moderate viscosity, drilled
cuttings fall quickly to the bottom of the hole and form a bed.
Increasing the viscosity reduces the settling velocity and increases
the time taken for the particle to fall to the bed, but viscosity on its
own cannot prevent the formation of a bed. Increasing the annular
velocity but remaining in laminar flow has no impact on the time
taken for the particles to fall to the bottom (except if the fluid is
shear-thinning, which means that it will have a negative impact by
reducing the effective viscosity). As the bed builds up, it constrains
the fluid to flow in a narrow cross section above the bed until an
equilibrium is reached (at a critical depth) between particles falling
to the bed and particles being removed from the bed by hydrodynamic action.
In many of the models of cuttings transport developed in recent
years, the suspension criteria are based on analyses of the forces
experienced by a solid particle on the surface of a solids bed.1013
A critical flow rate is established at which a particle is lifted from
the bed into the main stream of the drilling fluid flowing above the
bed. In a variation of this theme, Rasi14 described a model in
which the critical flow rate is associated with a critical shear stress
at which a bed begins to erode.
Unfortunately, the critical flow rate for bed erosion or particle
lifting is seldom sufficient to maintain the particle in suspension in
the fluid, and the particle falls back to the bed. The process of
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

continual lifting and falling of particles close to the bed is known

as saltation (individual particles hopping along the bed surface).
In this context, it is interesting to examine the literature on sediment transport, which dates back more than 100 years. Raudkivi,15
in his comprehensive textbook, follows the older literature in dividing sediment transport into bed transport (bed load) and suspension transport (suspension load). At low flow rates, particles
are transported only in bed transport, which includes saltation,
gross bed motion (cuttings avalanche), and rolling and sliding of
individual grains along the bed. These can combine into an apparent movement of sand dunes. At higher flow rates, sand transport
is mainly in suspended transport in which the sediment is maintained in suspension against the gravitational fall velocity by the
diffusion of turbulence from the bed.15 The rate of cuttings transport in bed transport is too small to be effective. In the holecleaning context, Ford et al.12,13 distinguished between the minimum transport velocities required to initiate cuttings rolling and
sliding along the low-side wall and to maintain cuttings in suspension;
they remarked that the latter is generally higher than the former.
The implications are clear.
Hole cleaning in bed transport is inefficient.
A suspension condition that relies only on the mechanics of
the removal of particles from the bed will underpredict the flow
rate required for efficient cuttings removal because the rate necessary just to remove particles from a bed is generally insufficient
to prevent them falling back to the bed again; the rate necessary to
maintain them in suspension is generally higher.
Thus, if a low- to medium-viscosity fluid is pumped in laminar
flow, the cuttings will inevitably form a bed. Cuttings transport
occurs, if at all, by the mechanisms of rolling, sliding, or saltation.
In rotary drilling, hole cleaning may be achievable in laminar flow
because drillpipe rotation introduces an additional agitation that
continually recirculates cuttings toward the upper side of the annulus. In CT drilling, there is no mechanical stirring (except during
wiper trips), and we must examine the role turbulence can play in
maintaining particles in suspension.
Low-Viscosity Fluids in Turbulent Flow. As pointed out by
Zamora and Hanson,1 thin fluids in turbulent flow provide superior
hole cleaning in high-angle wells. This is the optimum cuttingstransport method if an adequate flow rate can be achieved in all
areas of the hole. Although models of solids transport by liquids in
turbulent flow have existed in the slurry-transport industry for
more than 30 years (see, for example, Hsu et al.16), only recently
have these models been applied to solids transport in oil wells.1719
In a model for CT sand-fill cleanouts, Walton18 predicted the
conditions under which solids beds are formed and calculated the
minimum flow rate for complete suspension. The model is based
on the idea that particles are held in suspension against the force of
gravity by a combination of viscous resistance and diffusion by
turbulent eddies. Low-viscosity fluids, such as water, provide little
viscous support and must, therefore, be pumped at high rates to
generate sufficient turbulent activity to support the particles, usually much higher than the critical rate needed for turbulent flow.
High-viscosity fluids, while providing good viscous support, must
be pumped at high rates just to achieve turbulent flow. Fig. 6
shows the calculated minimum flow rate for complete suspension
for Newtonian fluids in an annulus bounded by a 7-in. casing and
a 238-in. CT inclined at 45. The minimum flow rate for high
viscosity is identical to the critical flow rate for the onset of turbulent flow. For low viscosity, the required flow rate is far in
excess of the critical flow rate for the onset of turbulent flow. In
almost all cases of practical interest, it was found that fluids of low
to moderate viscosity (5 to 15 cp at a nominal shear rate of 170
sec1) were optimum in the sense that, under these conditions, the
flow rate required to achieve complete suspension is a minimum.
If the chosen fluid is pumped at a subcritical rate, a bed builds
up until there is sufficient turbulent intensity above the bed to
maintain the remaining particles in suspension and an equilibrium
bed height is achieved. The bed may then either slide along the
well, owing to the shear stress exerted on its surface by the fluid
flow (typically shallow beds at high angles of inclination); slide
57

Fig. 6Flow rate vs. viscosity for 2% cuttings concentration at a 45 inclination in 7-in. casing.

back down the hole under the influence of gravity (typically deep
beds at moderate angles of inclination); or, if the sum of the forces
resulting from shear stress and gravity is insufficient to overcome
the limiting friction between the bed and the wall, the bed will
remain at rest.
In the openhole annulus described here, a 3-lbm/bbl xanthan
gel would need to be pumped at 6 BPM to avoid a cuttings bed,
which is simply the rate needed to get the fluid turbulent. A
weaker, 1-lbm/bbl xanthan gel would need to be pumped at only
2.9 BPM. In fact, the optimum gel strength is even weaker, as the
optimum viscosity is only 7 cp at a nominal shear rate of 170 sec1,
for which the required pump rate is only 1.2 BPM. In the casing
annulus, the weaker 1-lbm/bbl xanthan gel would need to be
pumped at 15 BPM, which, again, is the rate needed to get the fluid
turbulent. The optimum viscosity is approximately 9 cp at a nominal shear rate of 170 sec1, for which the required pump rate is
approximately 6 BPM. Table 2 shows the critical pump rates for
various strengths of xanthan in each of the two annular geometries
in the horizontal configuration and for the casing annulus at a
65 inclination.
Generally speaking, cleaning wells in turbulent flows requires
pump rates that are considered high. Water cannot be pumped at
more than a few barrels per minute through most CT strings, and
these rates are certainly too low to remove the cuttings without
forming a bed. However, biopolymers, such as xanthan, exhibit
strong drag reduction in turbulent flow, and it is quite possible, as
the test data in Table 3 indicate, that adequate flow rates could be
achieved. For reference, the friction pressure drop of water at 4
BPM in 2-in. tubing is approximately 4,500 psi.
According to these data, 0.5-lbm/bbl xanthan could safely be
pumped at approximately 5 BPM in a 2-in. CT; for comparison,
water could be pumped only at approximately 3 BPM. A flow rate
of 5 BPM would be more than enough to clean out the openhole
annulus with 0.5-lbm/bbl xanthan, but this fluid and rate would
still not effectively clean out the casing annulus. Thicker gels are

58

even more drag reducing and could, therefore, be pumped at an

even higher rate, but the rate needed for complete cuttings suspension also increases. It is found that gel concentrations as high
as 1.5 lbm/bbl could be used to clean out the openhole annulus
with 10,000 ft of 2-in. CT. This limit is increased for larger CT.
In a vertical well, the standard rule of thumb for efficient hole
cleaning is based on a critical annular velocity (vA). A corresponding result for turbulent flow in a deviated well can be derived as
follows. Based on both particle transport measurements and
theory, it has been shown by Walton19 (and references quoted
therein) that the minimum annular velocity required to maintain all
particles in suspension in turbulent water flow in a horizontal pipe
varies as the square root of the pipe diameter. It is not clear how
this result should be extended to a power law fluid in annular
geometry, but replacing the diameter by the hydraulic diameter and
following the physical argument given in the paper indicates that
the minimum suspension velocity scales according to the hydraulic
diameter to the power n/(1+n).
Thus, for Newtonian (n1) fluids (such as water and diesel),
the annular velocity required for adequate horizontal hole cleaning
will increase as the square root of the hydraulic diameter (DoDi).
The increase observed in actual well cleanouts correlates well with
this model. For weak gels, n is no smaller than 0.5, and, therefore,
this index lies between one-third and one-half.
Thus, for transport with low-viscosity fluids in turbulent flow,
the following annular velocity root diameter (vARD) factor should
be considered the suspension criteria.

ARD = A Do Di n 1+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3)

For Newtonian fluids, this simplifies to

ARD = A Do Di . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4)

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

In these equations, vAthe typical oilfield mean annulus velocity.

In conventional drilling, vA is used as a rule of thumb to evaluate
cuttings transport. For turbulent flow, this is not adequate, and
vARD should be used instead. If an application exists with acceptable cuttings transport in turbulent flow, then vARD may be used to
estimate the flow rate required for a different application (with
similar cuttings size, density, and fluid properties). Eqs. 3 and 4 are
valid only for low-viscosity fluids in turbulent flow. This is the
region to the left of the minimum in Fig. 6. However, this is not a
practical limitation because it is nearly impossible to achieve turbulence with high-viscosity drilling fluids.
Cuttings-Transport Summary. For an openhole annulus in the
horizontal section, the optimum hole-cleaning fluid is a lowviscosity gel, such as 0.5-lbm/bbl xanthan, which would require a
pump rate of approximately 2 BPM (3.75-in. hole) to remove all
the cuttings in suspension and prevent bed formation. This rate is
within the limitations imposed by the safe operating limits of the
CT and by the motor capacity. A gel stronger than approximately
1.5 lbm/bbl would require an unattainably high pump rate to clean
this section in turbulent flow. Pumping a high-concentration gel at
a safe rate would provide poor hole cleaning in the openhole
annulus because the rate would be too low to establish turbulent
flow and the shear rate would be too high to establish a sizable
viscous plug. However, it is unlikely that a weak gel could clean
a casing annulus. According to the results in Tables 2 and 3, it is
not possible to effectively remove the cuttings from a casing annulus with turbulent flow at a 10,000-ft depth with 2-in. CT because the required pump rates are simply too high. For shallower
wells or with larger tubing, attaining turbulence is certainly possible. It may be possible to clean this annulus with a very viscous
gel at a low pump rate (e.g., 4-lbm/bbl xanthan at 2 BPM or
lower), which would indicate that the preferred technique would be
to drill with a low-viscosity gel at a rate sufficient to clean the well
in turbulent flow as far as the wider annular section and then to
perform a wiper trip with a more viscous gel to clean the cuttings
into the vertical section. Once the cuttings are in the vertical section, their removal should present little problem.
The ideas presented in this paper are summarized schematically
in Fig. 7. Turbulent flow with sufficient turbulence and viscosity
provides optimum hole cleaning. With water, poorer hole cleaning
results. The transition region is the worst of all. With laminar flow,
increasing viscosity (or LSRV) will improve cuttings transport.
Increasing the CT size confers a double advantage for cleaning
the openhole annulus in turbulent flow: on the one hand, it reduces
the frictional pressure losses in the CT, allowing a higher pump
rate to be achieved; and on the other, it narrows the annulus,

Fig. 7Schematic of transport length as a function of viscosity.

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

increasing the turbulent intensity and reducing the required pump

rate. The maximum CT size is typically limited by weight and
transportation considerations.3
Critical Inclination Range. A major weakness of all flow cleaning techniques is that they are not able to remove cuttings on the
low side of a fully eccentric horizontal annulus. There will inevitably be a region where a small cuttings bed forms. At present,
there seems to be no technique that will adequately remove this
bed except mechanical agitation (wiper trip).
Particle settling velocity depends on the fluid viscosity, which
is least at high shear rates and is, therefore, weakest in narrower
annuli. Thus, if the fluid is pumped in laminar flow, the tendency
to form beds is highest in narrow annuli.
In turbulent flow, settling toward the low side is resisted by
turbulent eddies, which are more intense in narrower annuli. It is
not immediately apparent whether beds are more likely to form in
a narrow horizontal annulus or a wider annulus at a lower inclination, but the method reported by Walton18 can provide the answer.
By taking all these considerations into account, we may conclude that a cuttings bed is most likely to form at all moderate- to
high-inclination angles (especially toward the bottom of a fully
eccentric annulus). The one remaining and perhaps overriding consideration in determining the most critical inclination is the
beds tendency to slide along the well. A particle bed will slide
downward when the inclination from vertical is less than the friction angle between the bed and the tubing or casing. For sand/steel,
this means that sliding occurs for well inclinations below approximately 65. Lower inclinations have more sliding tendency but
typically thinner, shallow beds. Thus, a range of angles between
30 and 65 may be considered dangerous from this perspective.
Increasing the flow rate generates a higher shear stress on the bed
surface that helps resist the tendency to slide, but, of course, this
effect is weakest in larger annuli. Shallow beds at lower inclinations tend to get broken up by the surface shear stress, and the
cuttings are then entrained in the main stream.
Overcoming Cuttings-Transport Problems
CT Drilling Wiper Trips. A wiper trip is simply the pulling of the
BHA back to a certain point and then redrilling as necessary back
to bottom. (Readers unfamiliar with hole-conditioning methods for
rotary drilling are referred to Appendix CWiper Trips.) A wiper
trip may be called for by several operational reasons unconnected
with hole cleaning, but the ability to circulate while running in hole
(RIH) or pulling out of hole (POOH) inherent with CT drilling can
assist in resolving cuttings-transport problems. In addition to traditional drilling techniques of monitoring drag and returns, the
annular pressure measurement on CT drilling tools is used to
monitor trends in annulus loading. When cuttings beds are suspected,
the following measures are taken, listed in order of preference.
Progressive wiper trips. With CT drilling, more wiper trips
are needed as a substitute for rotation and to monitor bed buildup
behind the BHA.
Raking the low side in low spots (i.e., orienting the bent sub
down and working the bit up the hole, not down).
Wiper trips themselves can be optimized with experience in a
given area. For example, if, during a routine wiper trip, there are
no signs of hole-cleaning problems and the assembly is not pulling
tight, it is probably not necessary to pull back to the shoe every
time. Perhaps simply wiping the hole drilled after the previous
wiper trip is sufficient.
Care and due diligence should always be followed because
there is little benefit in risking the loss of the entire wellbore.
Cuttings-bed problems usually occur in the build section, even
when the horizontal wellbore is clear. Care must be taken when
pulling into the build section so as not to wedge the BHA into the
cuttings bed and risk getting stuck. Caution should be exercised,
particularly when there is a large portion of the wellbore at angles
between 30 and 65.
Typically, with CT, a distance of 50 to 100 ft is drilled, and
then a wiper trip is made to just below the window. Every three
trips, a trip all the way to the tubing tail is made, stopping the flow
59

Fig. 8Cuttings mixing when POOH.

while passing through the window. If there are any weight-transfer

problems or overpull, a wiper trip is usually initiated. Typical
POOH speeds are 40 ft/min, and RIH speeds are 20 to 30 ft/min.
This varies significantly. Flow rates are often the maximum possible.
While POOH (first pass after drilling stops), the cuttings are
stirred by the gauge/junk slots of the rotating bit and, thus, mixed
very efficiently. Unfortunately, the dwell time of the cuttings is
only one-quarter of a second for a 2-in. gauge length. If the bit is
not in contact with the cuttings and they escape the mixing of the
gauge, they will encounter the jetting action of the bit, which will
also mix the cuttings, but these must make a 180 turn or they will
be left in the hole. Cuttings that are mixed by the bit will be carried
uphole by the mud for a distance (transport length) estimated in
this paper. The cuttings fall to the bed within some number of
transport lengths uphole of the bit (Fig. 8). Although the number
of transport lengths before the cuttings are deposited in the bed
appears to be greater than 2 in Fig. 8, the area on the transverse
sides of the annulus is much less than that above the CT (Fig. 5).
Thus, the bed will build up more rapidly once the cuttings have
traveled one transport length.
The bit will chase the cuttings up the hole. All the cuttings from
the wiper trip will accumulate within the transport length, as
shown in Fig. 8. Thus, the cuttings bed will be at maximum just
above the bit and may cause sticking. Once the cuttings are in a
bed, only the bit or turbulent flow can remove them from the bed.
If the horizontal well is 1,000 ft long and the transport length is
100 ft, there are 10 chances for the bit to pass over the cuttings and
leave them in the well. As the bit continues POOH, a largerdiameter casing is usually entered. If the cuttings have dropped
into a cuttings bed in the casing, only turbulence or bit rotation will

mix them sufficiently. It may be advisable to slow the POOH

speed in the casing because this area is often difficult to clean and
to allow time for sufficient mixing with the small bit in the large
casing. When drilling with low-viscosity fluids, hole cleaning will
be good in turbulent flow in the openhole, but a viscous pill may
be needed to sweep the casing and can be timed to arrive as the bit
is traversing the casing while POOH. Fortunately, the casing annulus has much more cuttings capacity than the openhole before it
becomes troublesome.
When RIH, the higher AV caused by metal displacement may
clean more effectively if it results in turbulent flow, but if the flow
is laminar, the cuttings will be expected to fall out, as described
previously. Thus, the cuttings in the preceding example would be
deposited 100 ft uphole of their previous location (Fig. 9). The
RIH wiper trip might be expected to be the most effective, owing
to the higher AV (typically 16%) resulting from steel displacement, but the majority of the cuttings have been observed at surface while POOH (unless the RIH annular flow becomes sufficiently turbulent).
High-Viscosity Sweeps. High-viscosity sweeps are becoming less
popular because of a lack of demonstrated results. This probably
results from a lack of understanding, which it is hoped this paper
will reduce. For deviated holes in the critical range of 30 to 65,
the pill length required is usually high, gives only partial results
(even if there is adequate surface volume to mix it), and may upset
the rheology of the total system with effects on fatigue life caused
by the increased surface pumping pressures that result. There is
always a fear that too viscous a pill may cause a cuttings bridge.
It has been observed that when drilling a horizontal section, if a

Fig. 9Cuttings mixing when RIH.

60

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

viscous pill was used to clean the hole, at surface there would be
no cuttings in the gel, but cuttings would appear shortly afterward.
In CT-drilled wells, the common field use of pumping highviscosity sweep pills to pick up cuttings beds that have already
formed does not work by itself and must be combined with short
trips (rotating bit stirs the bed). As discussed by Zamora and
Hanson,1 low-velocity viscous sweeps usually are ineffective in
high-angle intervals if the pipe is not rotated or reciprocated because interaction between the sweep and the bed is minimal unless
the bed is agitated.
Underbalanced Drilling. For wells with significant inflow, sections in excess of 1,000 ft have been drilled without a single wiper
trip. The inflow (which may nearly double the AV) contributes to
stirring up cuttings from a bed and provides more turbulent mixing
to help maintain cuttings in suspension. Cuttings in underbalanced
drilling will typically be larger than in overbalanced, but this does
not normally present a problem.
Several underbalanced wells drilled to date showed no signs of
hole-cleaning problems in the horizontal section. However, problems have occurred cleaning the build section, probably resulting
from the fact that much of the build is commonly at the critical
inclination angle of 30 to 65.
Underbalanced drilling commonly requires a multiphase mixture (gas and liquid) to achieve the required density. There has
been little research on multiphase cuttings transport, but Oudeman,20 in an experimental investigation of sand transport in horizontal multiphase pipelines, observed that adding 10 vol% to 20
vol% of gas increases sand transport greatly, the increased turbulence caused by the presence of limited amounts of gas helps
keep the solids in suspension, and the increased transport in
multiphase flow can be attributed primarily to the increased turbulence. In addition to the increased turbulence, the expansion of
the gas as it nears the surface will increase AV.
Well Design. With re-entries, there is seldom a chance to design
the well path. However, with re-entries becoming routine, this
should be considered when the well is initially planned.
The length of the hole with inclination from 30 to 65 may have
a cuttings bed that can be time consuming to remove and may
create the potential for a cuttings avalanche. A high buildup rate in
the curve will minimize the extent of difficult-to-clean hole angles.
Monobore completions are the easiest to clean. Large casings
with small tubing nipples are the most difficult.
Gas-lift mandrels in the tubing string can allow underbalanced
drilling with a single fluid instead of multiphase flow.
Case Histories
For simplicity, only horizontal transport lengths are listed in the
tables. Typically, the larger casing is at a lower angle; thus, the
actual transport length would be the horizontal transport length
divided by the sine of the inclination. The transport length for
fluids in turbulent flow is indeterminate and is indicated by dashes
() in the tables. The measured Fann data (Fig. 10) was used to
fit a power law model without any correction for downhole temperature and pressure. For more accuracy, the viscosity at down-

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 10Fann data for Wells M, C, and Y.

hole conditions should be estimated. All case histories use 238-in.

CT and a 3.06-in. BHA, and they have a 334-in. openhole.
Well M. This horizontal drillout well in Europe was drilled into
sandstone with an oil-based mud system (70/30 oil/water)
weighted with calcium carbonate. The calcium carbonate and the
fines increased the viscosity in spite of small shaker screens and
regular centrifuging. The mud properties (122F) are shown in
Table 4. The drillout was through a 412-in. monobore with an
average inside diameter (ID) of 3.94 in. The total horizontal length
at total depth (TD) is 2,523 ft (784 m), of which the last 548 ft (167
m) was drilled with CT. The length of hole from 30 to 65 is 1,210
ft (370 m). The maximum dogleg severity (DLS) was 14/100 ft.
The transport length in the 334-in. openhole was only 111 ft.
After 240 ft (73 m) of hole was drilled with nine wiper trips and
four viscous pills, it was decided to try a jetting run. This allowed
a 50% increase (without the pressure drop of the drilling BHA) in
flow rate and increased the transport length to 139 ft in the openhole (Table 5).
During the first high-flow jetting run, there were a lot of returns
back over the shaker with the nozzle head just barely into the
horizontal. We see from Table 4 that the drilling (74 gal/min)
Reynolds number (based on hydraulic diameter and average velocity) in openhole was only 569, which would indicate laminar
flow, for which cuttings transport is expected to be poor. However,
the jetting (116 gal/min) Reynolds number (Table 5) was only
1,112, which is still laminar and does not explain the observed
increase in cuttings transport. In a concentric annulus, the Reynolds number must be at least 2,000 to generate turbulent flow.21
Two possible explanations for cuttings increasing significantly
while the Reynolds number was in the laminar region are that the
viscosity downhole (150F) is less than that measured at surface

61

and/or that the local velocity at the wide section of the eccentric
annulus has a higher velocity than the mean upon which the Reynolds number is based (see the velocity contours of Fig. 2). The
Reynolds number is calculated from the mean velocity to the (2n)
power; thus, for n0.51, the velocity in the plug region must be
only 50% greater than the mean velocity to have a Reynolds number of 2,000 in the plug. References in the literature have shown a
doubling of the velocity in the plug.
After the first jetting run, 131 ft (40 m) were drilled before a
second jetting run. The well was at TD after drilling 177 ft (54 m)
following the second jetting run. On the second jetting run, the
BHA was not run into the openhole to prevent wall cake damage
(because losses had occurred in the openhole on the first jetting
run). Also, a 5% lower flow rate was used on the second jetting run
with several high-viscosity pills. No large amounts of cuttings
came to the surface on the second jetting run.
The problem with this well was that the mud was more viscous
than planned and the high pressure drop prevented drilling with
turbulent flow. The obvious solution would be a less viscous mud
or the use of a lower-viscosity sweep in front of the high-viscosity
pills. This low-/high-viscosity pill technique was used in Well Y,
as discussed later. The effect of this technique on the entire mud
system requires consideration.
Well C. This well (into a sandstone reservoir in North America)
was drilled with a xanthan-based mud system with an LSRV in the
75,000-cp range. Lubricant was added to the system to reduce
mechanical friction. The mud properties (122F) are shown in
Table 6. The well had 512-in. tubing to 10,050 ft, 412-in. tubing to
10,217 ft, and 7-in. casing down to 11,079 ft. The 334-in. throughtubing sidetrack started at 11,079 ft, and the TD of the well was
12,822 ft. Of the 1,734 ft drilled, 1,350 ft was horizontal. The
maximum DLS in the curve was 52/100 ft. The length of hole
from 30 to 65 inclination was 7,400 ft. The average flow rate at
the end of the well was 110 gal/min.
From Table 6 it is obvious that the mud used is excellent for
cleaning the 7-in. casing because it would transport the cuttings
836 ft before falling out (if horizontal). The actual inclination in
the 7-in. casing was 43, so the actual transport length was 1,225
ft (836/sin 43). The extent of the 7-in. casing in this well was only

62

approximately 862 ft. Unfortunately, the 512-in. string of tubing to

surface would be expected to have a lot of cuttings fall out into a
bed because it had 5,400 ft of 42 to 54 inclination, with an
average of only 578 ft transport length (430/sin 48). In addition,
the transport length around the BHA was only 55 ft. From the low
Reynolds numbers, the flow is obviously laminar.
While drilling the horizontal, a 250-ft sloughing shale was
encountered, which required several short trips to clean up, as
shown in Fig. 11. In total, 9,321 ft (single trip footage) of wiper
trips was used to drill the horizontal. With an average of 30 ft/min
tripping speed, this represents 10.3 hours of wiper tripping (does
not include BHA change) out of the 26.5 hours required to drill the
horizontal (including one BHA change) in this well, owing to both
cuttings-transport and the sloughing-shale problems. Even though
a significant time was spent on hole conditioning (circulating/
reaming/wiper tripping), this is typically 40% less time than with
comparable slimhole rotary drilling. A 278-in. liner with 3.7-in.
centralizers was run to within 7 ft of TD after circulating, conditioning, and tripping.
Optimum design of a high LSRV mud would have the transport
length adequate to carry cuttings to the surface. Observations from
the field and the necessity to perform frequent wiper trips to clean
out cuttings imply that the preceding analysis, although an estimate, is reasonable.
It is not possible to clean the 7-in. casing (at 45 inclination)
with a low-viscosity fluid alone, as shown in Fig. 12 (see Walton18
for details of the calculation procedure). The 6-BPM (250-gal/min)
flow rate required by the optimal 10- to 15-cp fluid is greater than
that achievable with CT at this depth (see Table 3). Water (1 cp)
would require 11 BPM (460 gal/min) to adequately clean the casing. However, a lower-viscosity fluid would clean the horizontal
much better and could be combined with periodic gel sweeps
(timed to arrive with the bit in the 7-in. casing to stir the cuttings)
to prevent excessive cuttings buildup and a cuttings avalanche in
the 7-in. casing.
Well Y. This well is a 334-in. hole, dual lateral sidetracked from a
412-in. liner in the horizontal. It has 958-in. casing down to 3,750
ft (1143 m) and 7-in. casing down to the top of the 412-in. liner at
4,469 ft (1362 m).

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 11Wiper trip footage for Well C.

The first leg was drilled as shown in Table 7. It was 1,063 ft

(324 m) long and had an average ROP of 15.3 ft/hr (4.66 m/hr), the
highest bit run. The mud properties are shown in the Table 8.
There were several wiper trips and regular tandem low-/highviscosity pills. Losses averaged approximately 2 m3/hr. Table 8
shows that the openhole transport length was 109 ft in the beginning of this leg with a Reynolds number of 1,335. At the end of
this leg, the mud had been thinned considerably, and the Reynolds
number was 2,578, which is turbulent and gives an indefinite transport length (Table 9).
The second leg was drilled with a muddy water. It was 1,726 ft
(526 m) long and had an average ROP of 25.6 ft/hr (7.8 m/hr).
Regular viscous sweeps with the mud (with 65 lbf/100 ft2 YP) from
the first leg were used in drilling the horizontal. Four wiper trips
were made. At this legs TD, drilling rates of 49 ft/hr (15 m/hr)
were still being achieved, indicating that further drilling was still
possible. Losses averaged approximately one-third m3/hr. The
drilling flow rate for both legs was approximately 120 gal/min
with a 3,000-psi tubing pressure. The Reynolds number for this leg
was approximately 62,000.
Fig. 13 shows that the ROP increased as the viscosity (at 170
sec1) decreased, both within Leg 1 and compared with Leg 2. Note
that the ROP would normally be expected to decline as the lateral is
drilled; however, for Leg 1, the mud was thinned as drilling progressed, and improvement was noted. While some minor variations in
the pumping rate did occur, this does not explain the observed
relationship. Three possible reasons for this relationship are:
Improved hole cleaning.
Improved bit hydraulics.
Reduced overbalance.
Improved hole cleaning can help explain the trend of increasing
ROP with decreasing viscosity, but this usually manifests itself
more gradually as an inability to develop WOB rather than such a
direct effect on ROP.
Eckel22 evaluated ROP vs. bit hydraulics and found that ROP
increased as a function of the bit nozzle Reynolds number. (Eckel
evaluated the viscosity at a shear rate of 10,000 sec1. For the low
hydraulics used with a PDM and PDC bit, this is an unrealistic
shear rate and does not substantially change the correlation, so the
viscosity was evaluated at 170 sec1 for Fig. 13.) Experimental
evidence exists to suggest that increasing viscosity reduces the
ROP, even when the bit is perfectly clean.21
It is well known that the ROP of a bit decreases with increasing
overbalance.21 The reduced overbalance caused by the density
change (Table 7) will help explain the ROP difference between the
legs but does not explain the trend within Leg 1 because the mud
density was relatively constant and the annular pressure drop was
minimal. This also applies to the effect of the overbalance on
differential sticking.
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 12Minimum suspension flow rate for Well C in 7-in. casing at a 45 inclination.

Thus, the most plausible explanations for the improvement in ROP

with decreased viscosity are improved hole cleaning and bit hydraulics.
Conclusions
It is hoped that this paper provides the necessary justification to
support the development of muds, motors, and BHAs that allow
the higher flow rates required to achieve optimum hole cleaning.
In this paper, we advocate cleaning the hole with turbulent
flow. If this is not possible, a method of estimating the transport
length is presented that will allow basing wiper-trip design on
easily calculated parameters rather than by the seat of the pants.
Fewer short trips and less viscous muds are both potential cost
reducers. Even if the number of short trips is the same, a less
viscous mud will provide lower pump pressure and direct savings
with increased CT life. The only unknown factor in this analysis is
(the effective shear-rate ratio). This may be determined by a
complete particle trajectory analysis, flow-loop testing, or possibly
from data on cuttings return timing. Cuttings-transport flow loops
should at least be as long as the transport length to measure bed
buildup. This is 1,000 to 2,000 hydraulic diameters (DoDi) for the
muds used in the case histories.
Applying the transport-length calculation to study the carrying
capacity of high LSRV gels shows that they may perform well
inside casing but are expected to do a poor job of hole cleaning in
a narrow, openhole, horizontal annulus without rotation.
Three case histories are described in detail. These illustrate
three different techniques to solve hole-cleaning problems
removal of the BHA and running a jetting assembly to allow
increasing flow rate, use of a high LSRV fluid with frequent wiper
trips, and use of muddy water and viscous sweeps. The last approach is recommended by the authors wherever possible because
it uses water in turbulence to clean the horizontal and viscous sweeps
to periodically clean the casing. Fig. 13 demonstrates clearly that
for Well Y, the ROP increased as the fluid viscosity reduced.
Because it is almost impossible to lift the cuttings from a bed
with laminar flow, an additional modification of this approach is to
time the viscous pill to arrive in the casing when the bit is rotating

63

in the casing and use the bit rotation to stir the cuttings bed into the
viscous sweep.
Nomenclature
dp particle diameter, m
Di inside diameter of flow path, m
Do outside diameter of flow path, m
DoDi hydraulic diameter, clearance, m
e eccentricity
g acceleration caused by gravity, m/s2
K consistency index, eq. cp
Lt axial distance the particle is carried by the fluid in
the time it takes to fall one hydraulic diameter, m
n power law exponent (flow behavior index)
r radial distance from the center of the pipe, m
R inside radius of pipe, m
Q flow rate, m3/s
ts settling time for particle to fall one hydraulic
diameter, s
U average axial fluid velocity or annular velocity, m/s
vA annular velocity, m/s
vARD annular velocity/root diameter (suspension criteria for
transport with low-viscosity fluids in turbulent flow), m/s
vp fall velocity of particle through the fluid, m/s
YP yield point, lbf/100 ft2
inclination of well from vertical
p particle density, kg/m3
f fluid density, kg/m3
.
shear rate, sec1
fluid viscosity, Pas
effective shear-rate ratio, sec1
w wall shear-rate scaling parameter, dimensionless
shear stress, Pa
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Schlumberger for permission to publish this
study. We also thank Carel Hoyer, Steve Palubinski, Sarmad Ad-

64

nan, and Mike Hodder for their reviews of the manuscript and
Galin Mumford, Eric Larson, Carel Hoyer, and Rob Graham for
their technical input. Brock Williams, Torsten Braun, and David
Stein were invaluable in answering the many questions concerning
the case histories.
A special thanks is also extended to Wolfgang Mueller of RWEDEA and the joint venture RWE-DEA/Wintershall AG for their
contributions toward the advancement of CT drilling applications.
References
1. Zamora, M. and Hanson, P.: Selected Studies in High-Angle Hole
Cleaning, paper IPA 90228 Proc., Indonesian Petroleum Assn. 19th
Annual Convention (1990).
2. Brown, N.P., Bern, P.A., and Weaver, A.: Cleaning Deviated Holes:
New Experimental and Theoretical Studies, paper SPE 18636 presented at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 28
February3 March.
3. Leising, L.J. and Newman, K.R.: Coiled-Tubing Drilling, paper SPE
24594 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, 47 October.
4. Beck, F.E., Powell, J.W., and Zamora, M.,: A Clarified Xanthan DrillIn Fluid for Prudhoe Bay Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 25767 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 22
25 February.
5. Beck, F.E., Powell, J.W., and Zamora, M.: The Effect of Rheology on
Rate of Penetration, paper SPE 29368 presented at the 1995 SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February2 March.
6. Powell, J.W. et al.: Minimization of Formation Damage, Filter Cake
Deposition, and Stuck Pipe Potential in Horizontal Wells Through the
Use of Time-Independent Viscoelastic Yield Stress Fluids and Filtrates, paper SPE 29408 presented at the 1995 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February2 March.
7. Powell, J.W., Parks, C.F., and Seheult, J.M.: Xanthan and Welan: The
Effects of Critical Polymer Concentration on Rheology and Fluid Performance, paper SPE 22066 presented at the 1991 International Arctic
Technology Conference, Anchorage, 2931 May.
8. Zamora, M., Jefferson, D.T., and Powell, J.W.: Hole-Cleaning Study
of Polymer-Based Drilling Fluids, paper SPE 26329 presented at the

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 13ROP vs. viscosity for Well Y.

1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3

6 October.
9. Kenny, P., Sunde, E., and Hemphill, T.: Hole Cleaning Modeling:
Whats n Got to Do With It? paper SPE 35099 presented at the 1996
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 1215 March.
10. Luo, Y., Bern, P.A., and Chambers, B.D.: Flow-Rate Predictions for
Cleaning Deviated Wells, paper SPE 23884 presented at the 1992
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 1821 February.
11. Clark, R.K. and Bickham, K.L.: A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings
Transport, paper SPE 28306 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September.
12. Ford, J.T. et al.: Experimental Investigation of Drilled Cuttings Transport in Inclined Boreholes, paper SPE 20421 presented at the 1990
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23
26 September.
13. Ford, J.T. et al.: Development of Mathematical Models Describing
Drilled Cuttings Transport in Deviated Wells, paper 931102 presented at the 1993 CADE/COADC Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, 1416 April.
14. Rasi, M.: Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores, paper SPE
27464 presented at the 1994 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas,
1518 February.
15. Raudkivi, A.J.: Loose Boundary Hydraulics, Pergamon Press, Elmford,
New York (1990) Chap. 7.
16. Hsu, F.-L., Turian, R.M., and Ma, T.-W.: Flow of Noncolloidal Slurries in Pipelines, AIChE J. (1989) 35, 429.
17. Martins, A.L. and Santana, C.C.: Evaluation of Cuttings Transport in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal WellsA Dimensionless Approach,
paper SPE 23643 presented at the 1992 SPE Latin American Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Caracas, 811 March.
18. Walton, I.C.: Computer Simulator of Coiled Tubing Wellbore
Cleanouts in Deviated Wells Recommends Optimum Pump Rate and
Fluid Viscosity, paper SPE 29491 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24 April.
19. Walton, I.C.: Eddy Diffusivity of Solid Particles in a Turbulent Liquid
Flow in a Horizontal Pipe, AIChE J. (1995) 41, No. 7, 1815.
20. Oudeman, P.: Sand Transport and Deposition in Horizontal Multiphase Trunklines of Subsea Satellite Developments, SPEPF (November 1993) 237.
21. Bourgoyne, T. et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, Textbook Series,
SPE, Richardson, Texas (1991).
22. Eckel, J.R..: Microbit Studies of the Effect of Fluid Properties and
Hydraulics on Drilling Rate II, paper SPE 2244 presented at the 1968
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, 29 September2 October.
23. Milas, M. et al.: Flow and Viscoelastic Properties of Xanthan Gum
Solutions, Macromolecules (1990) 23, 2506.
24. Gauthier, F., Goldsmith, H.L., and Mason, S.G.: Particle Motions in
Non-Newtonian Media, II: Poiseuille Flow, Trans. Soc. Rheol. (1971)
15, 297.
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Appendix AViscoelasticity and

Cuttings Transport
Many fluids that are viscosified with a polymer exhibit shearthinning behavior. At greater than a critical shear rate, they are
adequately described by the power law model but exhibit Newtonian behavior at lower shear rates (Fig. 1). This critical shear rate
is related to the longest relaxation time of the Rouse spectrum for
the polymeric solution23 and is, therefore, associated with the viscoelastic properties of the fluid. For HEC and weak concentrations
of xanthan, this critical shear rate is approximately 10 sec1, but
for xanthan, it decreases rapidly with polymer concentration
greater than a certain level.23 Thus, strong xanthan solutions continue to exhibit power law behavior to very low shear rates and,
consequently, possess much higher viscosities at these rates (i.e.,
high LSRV) than do weaker xanthan concentrations or other fluids,
such as HEC (Powell et al.7 and the references cited therein).
To this extent, xanthans viscoelasticity can be said to contribute to its enhanced static suspension property (which, for small
particles, is governed by the viscosity at extremely low shear rates,
perhaps even less than the 0.06 sec1 used for LSRV measurement),
but it should be emphasized that this enhancement is not directly
caused by elastic effects in the particle/fluid dynamics. In a flowing fluid, particle settling depends upon the local fluid viscosity,
which, of course, depends on the shear rate. A high LSRV confers
no special advantage except in a low-shear central region. There is
some evidence24 that in a nonelastic shear-thinning fluid, neutrally
buoyant particles migrate toward the region of lower viscosity (i.e.,
the walls). On the other hand, the elastic normal stresses in the
shear flow of viscoelastic fluids induce migration of neutrally
buoyant particles toward the axis. Whether either of these effects
is sufficiently strong to overcome settling caused by gravity has to
be determined.
Appendix BCalculation of Transport Length in
Laminar Flow
A particle of density p and diameter dp will fall through the fluid
at a velocity vp, given by Stokes formula

p = p f gd 2p 18, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-1)
in which fthe fluid density and the fluid viscosity. This
formula is valid whenever the particles Reynolds number is
smaller than 1; typically, its value is very much less than 1 for
these very viscous fluids.
The power law constants may be obtained from the Fann readings by curve-fitting the data when plotted as shear stress vs. shear
rate (Fig. 10). The power law model is

= K n, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-2)
.
in which the shear rate. For a pseudoplastic fluid, n is less than
one, and for a Newtonian fluid, n (power law exponent or flow
behavior index) and K (consistency index) are equal to one. The
unit of K used as in this paper is cp sn1 (equivalent centipoise or
eq. cp).
For a power law fluid, the viscosity is given by
= K n 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-3)
One of the problems in assessing the fall velocity of a particle
as it falls across an annular gap of a fluid in axial shear flow is that
it encounters a range of shear rates. For the present, we will not
attempt to calculate a representative shear rate but merely indicate
that the shear rate will be proportional to the average axial fluid
velocity (U or vA) divided by the annular gap. Thus, we write

= U Do Di, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-4)
in which a proportionality factor that may depend on the power
law index, n, and the annulus eccentricity, e.
Inserting Eq. 3 into Eq. 2 and Eq. 2 into Eq. 1, we arrive at

p =

U
p f gd 2p
18K
Do Di

n 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-5)
65

The time taken by the particle to fall to the lower side of the
annulus depends on the point in the annulus from which it starts.
We shall take as a representative distance the hydraulic diameter
(clearance), or (DoDi). Thus, the settling time ts is given by
ts =

Do Di
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-6)
p sin

where the wellbore inclination.

The axial distance the particle is carried by the fluid in the time
it takes to fall one hydraulic diameter is estimated as ts times the
average axial fluid velocity U. Thus,
Lt =

18Kn

p f gd 2p sin

U nDo Di2 n, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-7)

or, in terms of the flow rate, Q,

Lt =

18Kn 14 n Q nDo Di2

p f gd 2p sin

Do + Din

2n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( B-8)

Appendix CWiper Trips

A wiper trip, or dummy trip, is intended to check a particular
section of hole that has been drilled. A wiper trip is essentially
pulling the BHA back to a certain point and then reaming, as
necessary, back to bottom. Such an action may be called for in
several instances.
Certain formations are prone to sloughing, or swelling.
Reaming to correct a dogleg.
Trends in drag conditions observed during subsequent wiper trips
can provide an early indication of the onset of differential sticking.
Wiper trips are used to check hot spots along the well for
cutting-beds formation.
A wiper trip will usually be done at either preset intervals or as
conditions dictate (drilling x feet of new hole, drilling through a
sticking formation, or experiencing hole drag). As a good drilling
practice, care is generally exercised to stagger the end points of
subsequent wiper trips to avoid instigating a cuttings bed.
Wiper trips are usually accompanied by an attempt at thorough
hole cleaning, but the two are independent of each other. Times
when a bottoms-up circulation may be called for are:
When annulus pressure (as monitored with the BHA) is observed to be increasing.
When annular velocity is relatively low.
When drilling rates are high.
When drilling shale.
At periodic intervals after drilling a specific length of hole.
Before pulling out of the hole completely.
Hole cleaning during RIH/POOH was introduced with top
drives, which allow approximately 90 ft of pipe movement with
circulation. However, CT can be pulled/run with continual circulation (a benefit that is not always appreciated). Pumping while
POOH is a great benefit because it shortens the total time that the

66

hole is left uncirculated when round tripping a BHA. It also allows

for higher pulling speeds because it allows the replacement of the
volume of steel that is being pulled from the hole. Without this
feature, high pulling speeds (especially in tight formations) risk
swabbing the well and causing a kick. The pumping rate during
POOH can be calculated to match the pulling rate and maintain the
well in a static condition. Care should be taken not to overpump to
avoid damaging the wall cake or formation.
Even though a significant time (see Well C) is spent on hole
conditioning with CT drilling (circulating/reaming/wiper tripping),
this is typically much less time than with rotary drilling. With CT,
there is little need to circulate bottoms-up because circulation can
be maintained while tripping. CT wiper trips substitute the mechanical agitation of bit rotation for rotary drillings pipe rotation.
Higher annular velocities are expected while RIH. However, the
reverse of POOH applies here; in tight formations, the combination
of volume displacement introduced into the hole and the flow rate
can cause high wellbore pressures and damage the formation.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp 1*
E03
bbl 1.589 873
E01
ft 3.048*
E01
ft/hr 8.466 667
E05
in. 2.54*
E02
gal 3.785 412
E03
gal/min 6.309 020
E05
lbm 4.535 924
E01
lbf 4.448 222
E+00
psi 6.894 757
E+03

Pas
m3
m
m/s
m
m3
m3/s
Kg
N
Pa

* Conversion factor is exact.

Larry Leising is a senior engineer for Schlumberger in Sugarland, Texas. e-mail: Leising@slb.com. His 26 years of downhole
tool-design experience covers coiled tubing, drilling, measurements while drilling, and hydraulic fracturing. Leising holds a BS
degree from Purdue and an MS degree from MIT, both in mechanical engineering. He was the 199495 SPE Distinguished
Lecturer on coiled-tubing drilling. He has been active in the SPE
Gulf Coast Committee and is currently serving on the SPE ATW
Coiled Tubing Drilling Committee. Ian Walton is a scientific adviser in the Perforating Research Dept. at the Schlumberger
Reservoir Completions Center. He has 29 years of research and
development experience in universities and in the oil and gas
industry covering the areas of fluid flow stability, flow of nonNewtonian fluids, flow of multi-phase fluids, flow in porous
media, solids transport, and rock mechanics. He has been involved in projects on well control, cementing, production logging, sand control, coiled-tubing applications, and perforating. Walton holds a BS degree from University College, London,
and a PhD degree from Manchester U., both in mathematics.

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion