IADC/SPE 62731

The Top 10 Reasons to Rethink Hydraulics and Rheology

M. Zamora and S. Roy, M-I L.L.C.

Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1113 September 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
After a century of need, the drilling industry finally has the
tools to properly analyze and optimize drilling fluid
hydraulics.
This is indeed fortunate, because most
unscheduled trouble events in drilling are still hydraulics
related. Emerging results from these tools and recurring field
problems and challenges provide many good reasons to
rethink drilling hydraulics and rheology, especially in criticalwell applications. This paper is about the reasons that made
the Top 10 list.
Real-time downhole pressure measurements, powerful /
inexpensive computers, and quality HTHP / LT viscometers
are among the most notable new diagnostic tools. Individually
and collectively, they continue to remind the industry, for
example, that downhole mud properties are different than
those measured under surface conditions.
Failure to
compensate for significant differences in density, rheology,
pressure loss, and other parameters can cause great
difficulties, especially in wells drilled in HTHP and deepwater
environments.
Items in this Top 10 list cover a wide range of hydraulics
and rheological issues.
Some focus on specific well
conditions, some address new findings, and others dispel longstanding oilfield paradigms. All are practical and useful for
solving common and unique well problems. Field examples
are given where appropriate.
Introduction
Following four wells lost and abandoned due to running
quicksand, the fifth and final well spudded October 27,1900.
The Hamills solved the quicksand problem early. Curt had
found that when the drilling fluid was heavy, the sidewalls of

the hole seemed to hold better. He hit upon the idea of driving
a herd of McFaddins cattle into the slush pit to muddy up the
water. The sixty-foot quicksand problem was that easy and
with that act an idea was born for drilling mud. Without it
today there would be few oil wells drilled [On January 10,
1901], the Lucas gusherspouted oil a hundred feet over the
top of the derrick out on the hummock that the world would
soon know as Spindletop.1
After this historic breakthrough, rotary drilling spread
across the U.S. Gulf Coast and into California, where drilling
crews mixed mud by shoveling clays from surface deposits
into the drill water. Interestingly, little attention was given to
mud properties, and for years afterwards the terms heavy
and thick were used interchangeably.2
The 100-year period since Spindletop has seen dramatic
advancements in drilling fluids technology, driven by the need
to keep pace with new drilling challenges, economic realities,
and environmental concerns.
Both in success and in
disappointment, the important contributions of hydraulic
parameters have been well documented along the way hydrostatic pressure, cuttings transport, pressure loss,
rheology, flow regime, hydraulic power, among others.
Finally, after a century of need, tools have been developed
to properly analyze and optimize drilling fluid hydraulics.
Real-time downhole measurements from PWD (pressurewhile-drilling) technology, powerful / inexpensive computers,
and quality HTHP / LT (high-temperature / high-pressure /
low-temperature) viscometers are among the most notable new
tools.
Eye-opening data from these diagnostic tools are helping
resolve unexpected field experiences, create new field and
research opportunities, and dispel long-standing oilfield
paradigms. However, recurring field problems in critical
wells provide many good reasons to rethink conventional
hydraulics and rheology. This paper discusses the wide range
of issues that make the Top 10 list.
1. Most unscheduled trouble events in drilling are
still hydraulics related.
This is despite a century of improvements in technology.
Although todays challenges are greater by several orders of
magnitude, stabilizing borehole walls is as critical and
problematic now as it was during the early days of rotary
drilling. The same is true of other hydraulics-related problems

M. ZAMORA AND S.ROY

that have beleaguered the drilling industry for years.3 The

more prominent and recognizable of these are lost circulation,
stuck pipe, bridging, pack-off, hole fill, excessive torque and
drag, barite sag, borehole enlargement, loss of well control, bit
balling, and slow drilling rates.
Improving hydraulics can mitigate and even eliminate
common drilling problems; but this requires simultaneous
focus on technical, practical, and field perspectives, such as
the task-force approach4 used to reduce stuck-pipe problems.
Ideally, any specific problem needs to be:
well understood (as much as possible),
supported by quality laboratory and field data5,
converted into understandable concepts,
disseminated to wellsite personnel, and
continually emphasized, monitored, and revisited.
2. Hydrostatic pressure does not equal 0.052 x MW
x TVD.
The most basic equation in drilling does not apply to certain
critical wells. The MW term traditionally refers to a mud
weight measured at the surface. However, while it is well
known that mud density depends on temperature and pressure,
correction for downhole conditions had been almost
universally ignored until recently. Table 1 illustrates the
range of hydrostatic pressures that can be calculated when
mud PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) characteristics are
included. HTHP and deepwater wells6, 7, 8 have forced this
issue to the forefront, because they experience hot and cold
temperature extremes, respectively, and are often drilled under
threat of very narrow operating windows.
Equivalent static density (ESD) is the proper density term
to determine true downhole hydrostatic pressure.7 The wide
range of ESD values that can exist in a well is illustrated in
Fig. 1, which compares a synthetic-based (SBM) and a waterbased mud (WBM) in contrasting HTHP and 8,000-ft
deepwater environments.
The graph assumes that the
measured density of both muds was 15.0 lb/gal at 120oF, and
the surface temperature was 80oF. Clearly, mud weight for all
mud types should be forever linked to the measurement
temperature.
There is an important distinction between mud density
corrected for temperature and pressure and ESD that may
not be self-evident. Mud density refers to a single sample,
while ESD relates to a column of fluid consisting of many
individual fluid samples.
Both values increase with
decreasing temperature and increasing pressure depending on
the PVT characteristics of the muds liquid and solids
fractions. However, the only way to know the true static
pressure on the mud sample at the bottom of the column is to
numerically integrate the hydrostatic-pressure contribution of
each of the samples above.9
The standard temperature concept has been proposed as
a means to correlate surface MW and downhole ESD in HTHP
Perhaps misnamed, standard
and deepwater wells.8
temperature is defined as the temperature at which the two
densities in question are numerically equal. This approach is

IADC/SPE 62731

said to be helpful for maintaining the proper, uniform mud

weight in the pits, regardless of actual mud-pit and flowline
temperatures. However, means to calculate the expected ESD
under downhole conditions is required to use this technique.
There are other interesting issues that involve downhole
densities. Here are some of them:
Understandably, it is unacceptable for critical wells to
determine downhole ECD by calculating annular
pressure losses with seemingly great precision and then
adding the result to surface-measured mud weight.
Current API standards10, 11 do not specify the
temperature at which mud weight should be measured.
They simply recommend to measure the temperature of
the mud and record on the Drilling Mud Report Form.
The defacto standards are the flowline or pit
temperature, depending on the sample source.
Lost circulation can occur with SBMs or OBMs (oilbased muds) at surface-measured mud weights as much
as 1.0 lb/gal less than those of WBMs. This can be
partially explained by contrasting temperature and
pressure effects on downhole ESD, rheology, and ECD
for the different mud types.
In hydraulics (and mud solids-concentration) equations,
the most commonly used density for fresh water is 8.345
lb/gal. This is indeed the highest possible value for
water, achieved at 39.2oF. However, the density of fresh
water is only 8.245 lb/gal at 122oF.
3.
Hydraulics behavior depends on downhole
properties.
The value of analyzing hydraulics using downhole properties
has been formally recognized for some time.12 It had not been
fully exploited until the wide-spread availability of PWD to
measure downhole conditions and responses, viscometers to
measure temperature and pressure effects on rheology, and
computers to process large amounts of data. For maximum
benefit it is important to identify all relevant parameters and
find efficient methods for evaluation.
A detailed, but certainly not exhaustive, list of key
downhole mud properties and physical parameters is provided
in Fig. 2. Since each should be quantified throughout the
well, it follows that the drill string and annulus can be
subdivided into short segments. A finite-difference technique
can then be used for analysis. This is precisely the method
used to numerically integrate the fluid column to find ESD as
described earlier. This fundamental concept has been used
successfully to yield step improvements in hydraulics planning
and analysis.13
The method of finite-differences is well suited for and
easily managed by todays computers. For most cases,
optimum segment lengths are 50-100 ft, with allowances for
discrete changes, like at casing points. The data array can be
populated from different sources and interrelated calculations.
For example, mud temperature in a given segment can be
obtained directly from a temperature profile, but pressure

IADC/SPE 62731

THE TOP 10 REASONS TO RETHINK HYDRUALICS AND RHEOLOGY

depends on the surface-imposed, hydrostatic, and frictional

pressures above. Temperature and pressure help determine
mud rheology in the segment. Rheology, density, velocity,
well geometry, eccentricity, and pipe rotation establish flow
regime and incremental pressure loss. Also, solids can be
electronically transferred from one segment to another to
provide more realistic simulations of hole cleaning and barite
sag. Most importantly, snapshot profiles for any parameters
versus depth can easily be generated to help visualize and
analyze downhole hydraulics and rheology.
4. Temperature profiles are the cornerstone of
hydraulics and rheological behavior.
The impact of mud temperature profiles on mud density,
rheology, and related consequences has long been ignored,
over-simplified, or underrated at best. Generally, mud
properties are much more sensitive to temperature than
pressure. A major reason that deepwater and HTHP wells are
considered critical is that they represent temperature extremes.
Mud temperatures in HTHP wells can exceed 450oF, while
deepwater seabed temperatures can be as low as 39oF in the
Gulf of Mexico and even colder in the North Sea.
Numerous models have been developed over the past 40
years to predict temperature profiles while circulating drilling
fluids and cement. Despite somewhat different mathematical
approaches and boundary conditions, the models all seem to
echo that estimating temperature profiles is a very difficult
process, primarily because of the great number of complex
parameters involved.
Recent offerings that focus on
deepwater applications14 must be designed to handle
complexities greater by an order of magnitude.
Simpler steady-state models are still suitable for most
mud-hydraulics analyses, but are inappropriate for deepwater
applications. For example, considerable cool-down in the
riser can occur when the mud is static for a period of time.
Because of inherently low fracture gradients, the risk of lost
circulation can be great during the first circulation of cold,
dense, viscous mud. ECD values depend on transient
temperatures and temperature and pressure effects on mud
density and rheological properties.15 This is illustrated in
Fig. 3 which profiles a Gulf of Mexico well drilled in 8,000 ft
of water. The lower graph plots inlet and outlet mud
temperatures measured during the first 3 hr of circulation after
a trip to change bits. Calculated ESD and ECD at the 10,240-ft
casing shoe are shown in the upper plot.
Dynamic conditions can exist downhole even when pumps
are off and there is no pipe movement. When circulation
stops, the mud temperature profile immediately begins to
change in the direction of the geothermal profile. This
generally means that the mud towards the surface gets cooler
and muds towards the bottom gets hotter. The changing
profile affects downhole density, which in turn alters the
hydrostatic pressure. Downhole measurements over an 8-hr
period quantified this occurrence under static conditions in a
Gulf of Mexico well.16 The pivot point on a plot of
temperature vs depth was about two-thirds of the well depth,
which implied that more of the mud became cooler. As

expected, the measured bottomhole hydrostatic pressure

increased steadily with time during this period.
5. Some hydraulics-related problems are not what
they seem.
Downhole drilling troubles sometimes are misinterpreted,
misdiagnosed, or simply overlooked. Consequences can be
unwarranted expenditures at best and escalating well problems
at worst. For instance, those misdiagnosed as basic mud
problems, may be helped by concentrated efforts to achieve
ideal mud properties (however defined), but full solutions
usually require concurrent improvements to operational and
overall hydraulics practices. The following are among the
common problem situations for which causes and/or solutions
may not be self-evident.
Poor Hole Cleaning or Wellbore Instability? Mechanical
wellbore instability in directional wells can manifest itself as a
severe hole-cleaning problem. Some relief can be obtained
from conventional corrective actions, such as increasing
annular velocity, elevating low-shear-rate-viscosity, pipe
rotation, and, as a last resort, controlled drilling.17 However,
care must be taken to treat the problem source, not just the
symptoms and consequences. The appropriate remedy for this
type of instability is to increase the mud weight to counteract
excessive compressive stresses attempting to collapse the
wellbore.
Barite Sag: Static or Dynamic Settling? The definitive
indication of barite sag is significant mud-density variations
measured while circulating bottoms up after the mud has been
static for a period of time. For this reason, barite sag was long
thought to be a static-settling problem that was best mitigated
by increasing mud gel strengths. It is now known that barite
sag is primarily a dynamic-settling problem18 that in practice
is best minimized by attention to detail in well planning, mud
properties, operational practices, and wellsite monitoring.19
Formation-Fluid Influx or Wellbore Ballooning? Mud
returns with pumps off are normally associated with a kick
caused by an influx of formation fluids. However, well
control is not the initial issue if the flow is related to wellbore
ballooning, the common term given to the process of slow
mud losses while drilling followed by sizeable mud returns
when pumps are turned off. Detailed analyses of real-time
PWD information clearly indicate that ballooning is likely due
to fracture networks opened and closed by sharp ECD
variations.20 Mud-weight increase to correct a misdiagnosed
ballooning condition could easily exacerbate rather than
mitigate the problem.
6.
Conventional rheological measurements are
inadequate for critical modeling.
Best results are obtained if up-to-date rheological data over the
entire range of expected temperatures and pressures are
available for the fluid in the hole. Standard wellsite
measurements are limited to atmospheric pressure and

M. ZAMORA AND S.ROY

traditionally are taken at 120oF for WBMs and 150oF for

OBMs and SBMs. The challenge has been to use these data to
accurately predict rheological behavior at, for example, 450oF
/ 16,000 psi or 39oF / 4,000 psi. Fortunately, laboratory data
taken over a wide range of temperatures and pressures
typically are available on critical wells, albeit from different
viscometers such as the industry HTHP defacto standard Fann
Models 70/75 (to 500oF / 20,000 psi). For deepwater
applications, these viscometers can be modified to lower test
temperatures below 35oF by circulating an anti-freeze solution
rather than water.
The dilemma of combining measurements collected from
different instruments is solved by incorporating all available
rheological data into a single data cube7 reminiscent of the
ubiquitous Rubiks cube puzzle. The data cube technically is
a 3-D matrix based on temperature, pressure, and shear rate,
where individual cubical elements are populated by
corresponding values for shear stress. Shear-stress values at
downhole conditions are determined by 3-D interpolation.
Ideally, the test conditions should be within the data cube
limits, since extended extrapolation along any axis can
adversely impact accuracy.
On critical wells where rheological measurements under
temperature and pressure are neither available nor current,
valuable data can be obtained by taking wellsite viscometer
measurements at several temperatures. Heat cups can be used
to safely elevate mud test temperatures to 180oF. Ultra-low
temperature measurements for deepwater use can be taken at
the wellsite by using a cooling bath, ice, or a small
refrigerator.
Typically, SBM and OBM rheologies are more sensitive
than WBMs to temperature and pressure. Fig. 4 compares
downhole plastic viscosity and yield point values for 13-lb/gal
water-based and synthetic-based muds with identical surface
properties. Water depth of 8,000 ft was assumed; temperature
profiles were simulated based on steady state, circulating
conditions. Wider differences would be expected for higher
mud weights and higher geothermal gradients.
7. Rapid shear-rate changes can cause excessive
pressure changes, even after breaking circulation.
It is well known that the process of breaking circulation must
be carefully executed to avoid excessive annular and
bottomhole pressures. However, it is not well known that the
same concerns apply even after circulation has been broken.
Rapid shear-rate increases (pumping, pipe rotation, pipe
movement) at any time can intensify downhole pressures. The
significance for wells with narrow operating windows and
muds with high viscosity and gel strengths is that the same
care taken while breaking circulation must be extended until
the specific process has fully stabilized.
Fig. 5 shows a classic textbook graph21 of the combined
effects of mud thixotropy and rapid shear-rate changes
superimposed over a graph of measured data from an offshore
well.16 The ECD field data were obtained during a systematic
step-ramp of flow rate, first up then down. The graphs clearly
illustrate that during the ramp-up sequence, pressures

IADC/SPE 62731

continued to decrease steadily at constant shear rate after sharp

increases (definition of thixotropy). In contrast, pressures
while ramping down dropped almost immediately and then
quickly recovered and stabilized at slightly higher levels.
Shear-rate changes are analogous to acceleration or
deceleration, depending on the direction of change. The
consequences of these are perhaps most critical when tripping
pipe and running casing, where the challenge at the field level
is to avoid rapid velocity changes in either direction. In
critical situations, it is inadequate to develop a trip schedule
based solely on average or maximum allowable pipe velocity,
because maximum surge pressures usually occur just after the
end of the initial acceleration phase. On the other side of the
scale, stopping the drill string or casing too fast (rapid
deceleration) while running in the hole can create sufficient
pressure reduction to swab in the well.22
8.
Some downhole drilling data are invariably
unknown, uncertain, imprecise, immeasurable,
incomplete, and/or not totally reliable.
Fortunately, this reality can be overcome by combining
conventional analytical techniques with fuzzy logic concepts.
The synergism offers several benefits, including (a) practical
solutions to very complex problems, (b) better utilization of
field data, and (c) improved communications with field
personnel. Specific hydraulics-related applications for which
this hybrid approach has been successfully applied include
barite sag, hole cleaning, and mud removal during
displacements.
The fuzzy principle states that everything is a matter of
degree23 and, as such, reasoning can be exercised using
vague or multi-valued sets. In contrast to traditional bivalued sets (true/false, 0/1, yes/no, all/nothing), fuzzy sets
can include a continuum of numbers or linguistic terms. For
numbers, fuzzy theory draws a continuous curve between
opposites, for example, a sigmoid function that represents all
floating-point numbers between 0 and 1. If 1 means all
and 0 means nothing, then 0.75 stands for all and
nothing. Alternatively, a linguistics set could consist of
qualitative terms such as poor, fair, good, very good,
and excellent. The linguistics set could be defuzzified so
that very good could be quantified and set equal to 0.75
from the numerical set.
Hole cleaning in directional is an ideal candidate for
combining analytical and fuzzy logic techniques, because
analysis is complicated by the high number and
uncertainty of parameters,
efficiency clearly is a matter of degree,
parameters, such as pipe-rotation effects, have not been
modeled analytically,
field results are difficult to quantify and correlate to
laboratory flow-loop results, and
status is more meaningful to most drillers if poor is
used rather than cuttings-bed thickness = 1.234 in..
Fig. 6 illustrates how a hole-cleaning efficiency profile
could be generated and displayed vs depth for a typical well.

IADC/SPE 62731

THE TOP 10 REASONS TO RETHINK HYDRUALICS AND RHEOLOGY

The casing program and well inclination are included for

clarity. The continuous cleaning index curve identifies how
well the hole is being cleaned at a given point in time. This
grading scheme has been popularized by some consumer
publications to rate commercial products.
9.
Turbulent behavior significantly impacts
hydraulics, but is not easily quantified.
With few exceptions, most of the circulating pressure losses
occur in turbulent flow. Bit pressure loss is special because it
provides hydraulic power to the drilling process and pressureloss equations are well defined. The remaining parasitic
pressure losses, including those across surface connections,
drill pipe, drill collars, motors, and downhole data-acquisition
tools, are difficult to predict accurately and consistently.
Consequently, this makes it difficult to properly analyze
hydraulics and evaluate field performance.
Until the emergence of PWD technology, pump pressure
and flow rate were among the few field measurements used to
monitor hydraulics and evaluate modeling. It is still not
uncommon to mistakenly equate ECD-calculation accuracy
with proficiency to predict pump pressures. The two are
related, but not linked directly, since pump-pressure prediction
relies heavily on estimating turbulent losses in the drill string.
Turbulent-pressure losses can only be determined from
empirical correlations. Unfortunately for practical reasons,
little information is available on flow of real drilling muds
through downhole equipment. Some data exist for smooth
pipes, but these do not easily scale-up, and the complete
effects of tool joints are rarely considered. A case in point is
that 5-in. drill pipe with NC50 tool joints can be as constricted
as 4 drill pipe and yield higher-than-expected pressure
losses at high flow rates. As shown in Fig. 7, field
16
measurements on 5-in. drill pipe (3-in. and 2.75-in. ID tool
joints) produced an unusually high flow-rate exponent of
1.985, very close to the full-turbulence exponent of 2.0.
Compensation for the effects of sudden contraction and
expansion through the constricted connections24 added to the
pressure-loss calculation but did not appreciably alter the
slope. This implied that full-turbulence effects from one tool
joint did not dissipate until just before encountering another
tool joint 31 ft further down hole.
In contrast, certain newly mixed polymer muds can exhibit
extraordinarily low turbulent-flow pressures, as if
experiencing classic drag reduction. This phenomenon is
beneficial in limited horsepower applications such as coiledtubing drilling. Unfortunately, the effect steadily diminishes
as drilling progresses. Polymer degradation contributes, but
tests have shown that the build-up of fine solids is the major
cause for loss of the effect. The most practical field solution
at this time is to displace with a new fluid once the dragreducing effects of the original fluid have been lost.
10. Real-time problems require in-time solutions.
The significant contributions of PWD not withstanding,
knowing what is is enhanced by knowing what should be.

This implies that accurate models can yield step improvements

in downhole hydraulics analyses, especially if computer
simulations are run concurrently with PWD. However, even
on wells programmed to use PWD, data may not be available
because of excessive well temperatures, general tool failure, or
casing operations (no PWD tools are run). Also, data are not
transmitted to the surface until circulation is re-established
when making connections or when conducting pressure or
leak-off tests. Computer simulation tools now exist precisely
for those instances when PWD data are not available in time
to help with real-time problems.25
Real-time modeling can be applied to all of the key
hydraulics parameters described in this paper, but ESD and
ECD profiles are particularly valuable deliverables. Unlike
the single-depth values provided by PWD tools, these pressure
profiles are useful for monitoring conditions at the last casing
shoe, at total depth, or at any other vital well depths.
The success of real-time simulation is demonstrated in Fig.
8, where measured and calculated ECD values are compared
for a well in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. Despite
the great number of dynamic variables that had to be
considered in steady state and transient settings, the two
values were consistently within 0.1 lb/gal of each other.
For many critical applications, real-time surge-pressure
calculations offer even more immediate benefits. This is
certainly true when running casing in deepwater wells using
SBMs. Calculated ECDs at the shoe displayed at the drillers
station in real time can be one of the most valuable response
values during these difficult operations.
Summary and Conclusions
1. Despite a century of improvements, most unscheduled
trouble events are still hydraulics related.
2. Recurring field problems in critical-well applications and
opportunities created by new diagnostic tools have
prompted a Top 10 list of reasons to rethink hydraulics and
rheology.
3. Failure to compensate for temperature and pressure effects
on downhole mud properties can create difficulties in
critical wells, especially those drilled in HTHP and
deepwater environments.
4. Fuzzy logic and real-time modeling are among the most
promising new technologies to offer step improvements in
solving hydraulics-related problems.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank M-I L.L.C. for permission to publish this paper,
Mary Dimataris for helping prepare the manuscript, and the countless
mud engineers who have walked the pits over the last 100 years.
References
1. Clark, J.A. and Halbouty, M.T.: Spindletop; Gulf Publishing Co.
(1952) 44.
2. Darley, H.C.H. and Gray, G.R.: Composition and Properties of
Drilling and Completion Fluids, 5th ed.; Gulf Publishing Co.
(1988) 41.
3. Kadaster, A.G., et al.: Drilling Time Analysis: Total Quality
Management Tool for Drilling in the 1990s, SPE 24559, SPE
Ann Tech Conf, Washington, D.C., 4-7 Oct 1992.

M. ZAMORA AND S.ROY

4. Bradley, W.B., et al.: A Task-Force Approach to Reducing

Stuck Pipe Costs, SPE/IADC 21999, SPE/IADC Drilling Conf,
Amsterdam, 12-14 Mar 1991.
5. Hutchinson, M. and Rezmer-Cooper, I.: Using Downhole
Annular Pressure Measurements to Anticipate Drilling
Problems, SPE 49114, SPE Ann Tech Conf, New Orleans, 27-30
Sep 1998.
6. Baranthol, C., et al.: Determination of Hydrostatic Pressure and
Dynamic ECD by Computer Models and Field Measurements on
the Directional HPHT Well 22130C-13, SPE/IADC 29430,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conf, Amsterdam, 28 Feb 2 Mar 1995.
7. Zamora, M., et al.: The Top 10 Mud-Related Concerns in
Deepwater Drilling, SPE 59019, SPE Intl Petrol Conf,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 1-3 Feb 2000.
8. Gao, E., et al.: Continued Improvements on HighPressure/High-Temperature Drilling Performance with Extremely
Narrow Drilling Windows Experiences from Mud Formulation
to Operational Practices, Shearwater Project, IADC/SPE 59175,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conf, New Orleans, 23-25 Feb 2000.
9. Peters, E.J., et al.: A Model for Predicting the Density of Oil
Muds at High Pressures and Temperatures, SPE 18036, SPE
Ann Tech Conf, Houston, 2-5 Oct 1988.
10. API RP 13B-1: Recommended Practice Standard Procedure for
Field Testing Water-Based Drilling Fluids, 2nd ed.; API (Sept
1997).
11. API RP 13B-2: Recommended Practice Standard Procedure for
Field Testing Oil-Based Drilling Fluids, 3rd ed.; API (Feb 1998).
12. Fontenot, J.E. and Clark, R.K.: An Improved Method for
Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures
in a Drilling Well, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (Oct
1974) 451.
13. Zamora, M.: Virtual Rheology and Hydraulics Improve Use of
Oil and Synthetic-Based Muds, Oil & Gas Journal (3 Mar 1997)
43.
14. Romero, J. and Touboul, E.: Temperature Prediction for
Deepwater Wells: A Field Validated Methodology, SPE 49056,
SPE Ann Tech Conf, New Orleans, 27-30 Sept 1998.
15. Davison, J.M., et al.: Rheology of Various Drilling Fluid
Systems Under Deepwater Drilling Conditions and the
Importance of Accurate Predictions of Downhole Fluid
Hydraulics, SPE 56632, SPE Ann Tech Conf, Houston, 3-6 Oct
1999.

IADC/SPE 62731

16. White, W.W., et al.: Downhole Measurements of SyntheticBased Drilling Fluid in Offshore Well Quantify Dynamic
Pressure and Temperature Distributions, SPE 35057, SPE/IADC
Drilling Conf, New Orleans, 12-15 Mar 1996 and SPE Drilling &
Completion (Sept 1997) 149.
17. Zamora, M. and Hanson, P.: Rules of Thumb to Improve HighAngle Hole Cleaning, Pet Eng Intl (Jan 1991) 44 and (Feb 1991)
22.
18. Hanson, P.M., et al.: Investigation of Barite Sag in Weighted
Drilling Fluids in Highly Deviated Wells, SPE 20423, SPE Ann
Tech Conf, New Orleans, 23-26 Sept 1990.
19. Bern, P.A., et al.: The Influence of Drilling Variables on Barite
Sag, SPE 36670, SPE Ann Tech Conf, Denver, 6-9 Oct 1996.
20. Ward, C. and Clark, R.: Anatomy of a Ballooning Borehole
using PWD, workshop on Overpressures in Petroleum
Exploration, Pau, France, 7-8 April 1998.
21. Bourgoyne, A.T., et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering; Society of
Petroleum Engineers (1991) 133.
22. Rudolf, R.L. and Suryanarayana, P.V.R.: Field Validation of
Swab Effects While Tripping-In the Hole on Deep, High
Temperature Wells, IADC/SPE 39395, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conf, Dallas, 3-6 Mar 1998.
23. Kosko, B.: Fuzzy Thinking; Hyperion, 1993.
24. Fox, R.W. and McDonald, A.T.: Introduction to Fluid
Mechanics, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, (1978) 371.
25. Roy, S. and Zamora, M.: Advancements in True Real-Time
Wellsite Hydraulics, 2000 AADE Tech Conf, Houston, 9-10 Feb
2000.
SI Metric Conversions
ft
lb/gal
psi
in.
cP
lbsecn/100 ft2

x
3.048*
x
1.198264
x
6.894757
x
2.54*
x
1*
x
0.4788
(F-32)/1.8

* denotes exact conversion

Table 1 Simulation comparing effects of mud type and

temperature profile on calculated hydrostatic pressure
Hydrostatic pressure of 17-lb/gal mud at 15,000 ft TVD = 13,260 psi
For WBM, T0 = 120oF, T15000 = 300 oF, HP =
13,160 psi
o
o
For SBM, T0 = 120 F, T15000 = 300 F, HP =
13,255 psi
For WBM, T0 = 70oF, T5000 = 40 oF, T15000 = 165 oF, HP =
13,470 psi
o
o
o
For SBM, T0 = 70 F, T5000 = 40 F, T15000 = 165 F, HP =
13,620 psi

E+00
E-01
E+00
E+00
E+00
E+00

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

m
g/cm3
kPa
cm
mPasec
Pasecn
C

IADC/SPE 62731

THE TOP 10 REASONS TO RETHINK HYDRUALICS AND RHEOLOGY

0
2

P a r a m e te r s a r e d e fin e d in e a c h
d r ill s tr in g a n d a n n u lu s s e g m e n t

15.0 lb/gal @120F

Surface Temperature 80F

4
Depth (1000 ft)

D e p th , T V D
L e n g th
H o le S iz e
P ip e O D
P ip e I D
C a p a c ity
V o lu m e
A n g le
E c c e n tr ic ity
F lo w R a te
R o ta r y S p e e d
D e n s ity
T e m p e r a tu r e
P ressu re
C o m p r e s s ib ility

SBM
8000 ft Water

6
8
SBM
HTHP Well
W ll

10
WBM
HTHP Well

12
14
16

WBM
8000 ft Water

18
20
14.4

14.6

14.8

15.0

15.2

15.4

15.6

15.8

Equivalent Static Density (lb/gal)

R 6 0 0 ..R 3
G e l S tr e n g th s
H y d r o s ta tic P r e s s
E S D
E C D
P ressu re L o ss
A v g V e lo c ity
V e lo c ity P r o f ile
R e y n o ld s N o .
F lo w R e g im e
C u ttin g C o n c .
C le a n in g I n d e x
C u ttin g s B e d
B a r ite B e d

Fig. 2 List of downhole variables stored in each segment for

hydraulics analyses using method of finite differences.

Fig. 1 Comparison of equivalent static density for SBM and

WBM in 8,000 ft of water and onshore HTHP environments.

Equivalent Density @ Shoe (lb/gal)

10.25

10.20

ECD@Shoe
ESD@Shoe

10.15

10.10

10.05

10.00
90

Temp In

85

Temp Out

5
Depth (1000 ft) .

Temperature (F)

80
75
70
65
60
55

YP (WBM)

YP (SBM)

10

PV (WBM)

PV (SBM)

15

50
45

20

40
0

30

60

90

120

150

Time (min)

Fig. 3 Calculated ECD and ESD based on transient

temperatures after trip to change bits in offshore well in
8,000 ft of water.

180

10

20
30
PV (cP), YP (lb/100 ft2)

40

50

Fig. 4 Simulated downhole rheologies for WBM and SBM

with identical surface properties in an offshore well in 8,000-ft
water.

M. ZAMORA AND S.ROY

IADC/SPE 62731

Equivalent Circ Density (lb/gal) .

11.80

11.75

3,300 ft

11.70
8,000 ft
11.65
12,000 ft
11.60

11.55
15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5
17.0
Test Time (hr)

17.5

18.0

Fig. 5 Effects of mud thixotropy and acceleration / deceleration on

measured ECD (after White, et al.16), with superimposed graph showing
expected results (after Bourgoyne, et al.21).

10000

Angle
Cleaning Index
0 30 60 90 VG G F P

DS Pressure Loss (psi) .

Casing Program
0

Measured Data
Slope=1.985

API-Calculated
Slope=1.633

Very
Good

1000
100

200

300

400

600

800

1000

Flow Rate (gal/min)

Good

Fig. 7 Comparison of measured and API-calculated pressure

losses for 5-in. drill string in a 12,400-ft offshore well.

Fair

15

Equivalent Circ. Density (lb/gal)

Poor

15.0

1000

14.8

800

14.6

600

14.4

400

Calculated ECD

14.2

Flow Rate (gal/min)

10

200

Measured PWD
Flow Rate

14.0
0

20

Fig. 6 Cleaning index based on fuzzy logic concepts plotted

against casing program and hole angle for a typical well.

4
Time (hr)

Fig. 8 Comparison of PWD and ECD calculated in real-time

for a well in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.