Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Society of PetroleumEngineers
SPE 28306
A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport
R.K. Clark, * Shell Development
SPE Member
A
Copyright
Engineers,
Inc.
Conference
.Septemb.ar 1994,
This papw was SaIected for presentation by an ePE Program Curnmittee following review of lnfomliai cantdnad In an aksfracf silbmitted by the authm($~ contents of the paper,
as presents-d, have nof bee reviewed by the !Mety
of Petroleum Engineers and am subjwt to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Sodety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented af SPE meetings are subject 10 publication re.dew by Ed[torial Committees of the Sodety
of Petmle.m Engleers, permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of net ore than SCU words. IIlusttafions may not be copied. The abstract sfm.ld wn!ah conspicuous .Mmwfedgmem
of wher8 and by whom the paper Is preswtod, write Llbrarlan, SPE, P,O. Box 632s!36, Richardson, TX 7503S-3336, U .e,A, Telex, 183245 SPEUT,
ABSTRACT*
Acuttinggeneratedatthebit maybe transported to the surfacaby
several different mechemismsas it moves along the wellbore. The
specific mecbenism depends on the wellbore angle. For high
angles, where a stationery cuttings bed can form, transport is vie a
rolling mechanism. In intermediate angles, where a churning,
moving cuttings bed can form, transport is via a lifting
mechaniem. At near-vertical angles, particle settling determines
transport. The model described below combinee fluid mechanical
treatments ofthese mecbanisme intoaforrnat for easy analysis of
cuttings transport in wells of any configuration.
INTRODUCTION
Of the many functions that aeperformedbythe drillingfluid, the
most important ie to transport cuttinge from the bit up the
amndue to the surface. If the cuttinw cannot be removed from the
wellbore, drilling cannot proceed for long. Transport is usually
not a problem if the well is near verticaI. However, considerable
difficulties caa occur when the well is being drilled directionally
as cuttings may accumulate either in a station~ bed at hole
angles above about 500 or in a moving, churning bed at lower hole
! angles, Drilling probleme that may result include etuckpipe, lost
circulation, high torque end drag end poor cement jobe. The
severity of such problems depends on the amount smdlocation of
cuttings distributed along the wellbore.
The problem of cuttings transport in vertical wells has been
studied for memyyesm, with the earliest analysis of the problem
being that of Pigott.l The transport efficiency in verticrd wells is
.
..
*References end Table 3 at end of paper.
139
,
2
SPE 28306
builds, the mud velocity over the bed increases. The cuttings
buildup process continues until the mud veloeity over the beds
surface eventually reaches the critical value. At that condition,
the bed height remains unchanged. If additional cuttings axe
deposited onthebed, themudvelocityin theneighborhoodofthat
region exceeds the critical velocity As aresr.dt,the stronger fluid
forces will dislodge the protruding outtinge. After these extra
used in my
welis due to limited pump capacity and/or high
eurfeee ordownhole dynamic pressures. Thw ie particularly true
for high angles with hole @eZ@ger
then 12?4 in. High rotary
speeds and backreamin g are often used when flow rate does not
suffice.
Drilling fluid rheology plays en important role, _although
often there are exmflicting statements as to whether the mud
should be thick or thin for effective transport. It is common when
drilling high-angle wells for elevated low shem-rate theologies to
7<
Wellbore
U(
Cuttings
-.
J
Formation
-%
MODELS
patterns
140
SPE 28306
+FJ+
lz\@.
-Fp)+g(F,
-F,)=O
(1)
where the length of the moment arm for the buoyancy and gravity
forces is
t =
Moreoveq O <as
shows
Izl(sina
+ cosa/ten@)
(2)
the figure
@ = arctan(z/x).
(3)
When the dynamic forces exceed the static forcee, the cuttings
tend to roll along the bed in a moving cutting zone. The dynamic
forces generally increase with mud velocity. Exceptions may be
possible; for example, Coleman20 and Davies and Szmad2s
experimentally observed that the lift force is negative in a smell
range near a particle Reynolds number of 100 and is positive
elsewhere.
Lifting Mechanism. This condition was obsqwed to eccur at
intermediate wellbore angles. Namely the cuttings were not
motig in the z-direction while resting on the wellbore wall. The
cutting would start its motion in thex-direction. It would move up
into the region where the axial mud velocity carried the cutting
downetreem. AS it accelerated up to the mud velocity, it would
start to settle back toward the w.dlbore wall because the slip
velocity between the cutting and the mud was too low to sustain
lift. For the Iiftingcese, FRis aesumed to equal the 2UIUOfFDand
F~ The other forces are summed in the x-direction; that is,
F~
FP+(Fb-F.Jeina
= O.
(4)
141
@MaryEquatione.
-.
. ...
,
SPE 28306
(5)
F&
nda
r~,
(lo)
where
FL = C@
QU9,
(6)
(11)
(7)
= gQ=~
(8)
where CDis the drag coefficient, CLis the lift coefficient, and g is
the gravitational constant.
The following two equations are derived in the appendix
(Equation (A-1) end Equation (A-4)). The plastic force,
Fp = =[$
(9)
u=
-
4[3~@
drl
3Q(C~ + CL tan@)
[.,
(12)
For the csae of lifting, the governing equation for the critical veloci~ is
..
.
1/2
-u =
[
..
-.. .
Both Equation (12) and Equation (13) give a value for the
critical velocity of a cutting. The velocities calculated by these
equations are the undisturbed velocities, that is, the axial velocity
acting above the cuttings bed at a point that would be occupied by
the cuttings center ifit were in place. These equations calculate
the velocities that would either roll or lift the cutting from its
resting place. In general, these two mkulated vekes will be
different. In such cases, the lower value will be the dominent one
providing that other conditions cmemet.
Kelvin-Helmholtz
Stability Model. When the behavior of
the cuttings is observedat low wellbore angles intheflowloop, the
nature of the mud and cuttings slurry is a churning motion. The
process is reminiscent of the behavior of a gas-liquid flow when
its flow pattern is changing from stratfled to slug flow. The
app~ce
Oftie fluidized bed is similar to the liquid layer, and
the mud layer flowingover the bed behaves like the gas layer. The
interface between these layers has a wavy churning nature.
Occasionally, wisps of cuttings are swept up into the mud layer.
There, they are carried downstiefi
and settle back into the
fluidized bed. The process is persistmt, and it appears to be
random.
142
(13)
TJmk >
[
Dqg(Qb Q) sina
Q
@b
Q.(1
l~1w (
(14)
)]]
(15)
w SPE 28306
=D~-DP
(17)
()
cuttings
1
cutting
mm
!
velocity
profile
annular
region
,1,
-
0:
plug
region
,,,
,.!
mixlure
velociiy
profile
:1
k*
Flow Conditions.
Croee-Seetional
Geometry
First, let us define some basic
wellbore geometry. The hydraulic diemeter is defined es four
times the flow ereadividedby the length of the wetted perimeter;
namely,
volumetric flow rate of the cuttings which depends on the bit size
end the penetration rate. In addition, the mixture velocity can be
calculated from the average plug end anmdus velocities in the
equivalent pipq namely,
Dhyd
4 X croes-sectional area
(wetted perimeter)
(16)
143
(22)
.
A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT
Cuttings Concentration.
follows:
(23)
&
=c.(1~)+cJ:.
w)
..
=_.cu.(l c)
c-c.
(25)
where
u.
(26)
= U=(I ~) uq~
(27)
COMPARISON
and
SP =
where
u:
Fz[U~ ,32]
4dg(QC @
3QCD
(28)
1/2
1
(29)
1[2
u~
4
~3
[{
dg(e. - Q)
iccy
1]
dUQ
ReP =
w.
3ty
s = dg(@c Q)
cosa,
(30)
(32)
loop was set both concentric end eccentric with the pipe %-in.
0.05),
Equation (25) becomes
0
above the low side of the annulus. The pipe wee concentric in the
8-in. loop tests. Pipe was only rotated in the 5-in. loop tests.
Two types of test results were obtained (1) a visually
determined critical flow rate and (2) the equilibrium annular
cuttings concentration as a function offlow rate. The criticelflow
rate wee taken to be that at wbichnocuttingsbed was formed; i.e.,
all cuttimgs were observed to be moving upward cind no
The cuttings
accumulation of cuttings was occurring.
concentrationiiithe ennulusisessentially equal totht oftbcfeed
u mix ==0.05-
(31)
(C =
SPE 28306
(33)
144
R. K. CLARK*
SPE 28306
K. L. BICKHAM
measured data for the large cuttings (0.43-in.) and the model
predictions. The quantitative egreement is not so good for the
small cuttings, eithough qusditatively the chsnge in cuttings
Foralltesta,theannular cuttingeconcentrationwasallowed
to reach a steady state, cuttings injection wqs stopped, and the
cuttinge were flushed out of the anmdue end weighed. From the
cuttinge weight and density a volume percent concentration in
the annulus was calculated. This concentration could be
converted to a cuttings bed height knowing the cuttings bed
porosity end the po~tion of the inner pipe.
24
z23-
a
~
,* -
16 -
10-
8-
x
v
Measur6d Concentric
Measured Eccentr?c
Predkted
PFa&h3d
0.42
0.4S
0.18
0.4s
42-
Mud Velocily((pm)
6OW1M13374O1O31SO
Rete
(gpm)
(b
Fig. 6S30
-
2W2222402E02W
Flow
9
40
Plpa Pmiticm
25 -
103-
eeffle
o~
108?2040=
Mud
Pv:
YP:
YZ
ROP
Gum
8.0 IM1OOR2
2.5 b/100it2
50.0 fph
Dsnstiy:
PiPeDiet
Hole Dla
Cuffirsw
,-
~ss
;
Measured concentric
0.18
V
x
v
Measured Eccentric
Measured Concentric
Measur4
Ecmnt,b
Predicled
Pmdided
0.4s
0.43
0.18
0.18
0.42
0
+
ev702090
WelboreAngle, deg
Xanthan
3.5 Cp
gm
~~~&
P 5
E
~ !0-
8.3,ppg
2.2 in.
.5.0 In.
0.18 Io_
5-
IDI
120
140
160
180
2ZU
240
=0
230
FlowRate (gpm)
Pipe PosSiOn
+
Measured Concentric
0
x
Measured Eccen!ric
Measured Concantrio
Sub-Critical Prediction.
Figures 6 through 9 illustrate the
model prediction of the ahmdsr cuttings concentration in the
xsnthan gum fluid for various hole angles, pipe positions, and
cuttings sizes as a fimction of flow rate. The measured cuttings
concentrations tweindicatedoneach figure. The data point at the
highest flow rate represents the vieually determined critical flow
rate. The transport model critical flow rate occurs at the sharp
break in the elope of the concentration versus flow rate curve,
Examination of these figures chows good agreement between the
01
Fig.
145
24
80 IL-Qla
Me&sured Eccenlric
Predicted
s~#~
0.1S
0.1s
0.43
MS
.
SPE 28306
40
*
+
35-
0
x
v
~. -
25 -
20 -
so
%m-
Cultrll
PipePositbn
Size (In
Measured
Concentrk0.18
Measured Eccentk
Measured Concentrb
Measured E.xan!rb
Predbtd
Pred!!t&
0.i8
0.43
0.43
0.18
0.43
2A-
gr2 -
B
~ 18g; :
~ 10-
0
~
15 -
,0
.s8-
580 IW
Fig.
9-
20
280
Fig. 11-
28-
\,
20. Mea%.
20 Pred.
35.Mea,.
30. Pred.
4W Mess.
40- Pred.
to -
30
oil
42o
-~
1WSM3W4WX.3
w07m8m
Flow
ig. 10-
Rate
sm7c08co
FlowRate (~m)
s -
1msN3m4cOs10
(gpm)
FIELD APPLICATION
The Wttings transport model, in its easy-to-use personal
computer format, has been applied to many different drilling
situations. A number of these are discussed below.
DrillingLarge-Dweter
Holes in Deepwater Operations.
Thefwst stringof pipe set duringdeepwater drillingoperetions is
a.SO-in.or 36-in. structural pipejetted several hundred feet below
the mud line. The first interval drilled end cased is for either
20-in. or 26-in. caaing. This interval is usually drilled with
eeawater end viscous sweeps with mud returns to the seafloor.
The large hoIe size smdlow-viscosity drilling fluid (eeawater) will
result in abuildup ofcuttings in the structuraIpipe srmuluswhich
can, if the fracture gradient at the shoe of the structorcd pipe is low
enough, result in loss offluid. This loss is one of several causes for
what ie called shallow water flow, i.e., abreekthrough offluid to
the sea floor mound or away horn the structural pipe.
The cuttings transport model was used to examine this
problem end to identify corrective action. Table 1 lists the
predicted steady state cuttings concentration in the enmdus of a
36-in. structural pipe (34.75-in. ID) es afimction of flow rate. The
pressureat thebaseofthe 200 ftlong, 36-in. pipegeneratedby this
cuttings-laden fluid is also given. If the pressure imposed by the
cuttings-laden fluid exceeds the fracture pressure at the base of
the 36-in pipe, fluid flow to the mud line may occur. For weak,
shallow sediments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, the fracture
gradient may beequivelent to only 30 or 40 psioverhydrostaticor
118 to 128 psi total.
The two portions of thetable correepondta drillinga31%-in.
hole at 50 Whr with seawater end the use of a viscous sweep
(density = 8.9 lbm/gaI, plastic viscosity = 9 CP,yield point =
40 lbf/100 ft2, yield stress = 15 lbf/100 ft2). The cuttings bulk
density is 2.05 g/cm8 and the she ie 0.25-in. The drillpipe size is
5-in. in thie example.
146
.
SPE 28306
Table 2
CUTTINGS CONCENTRATION IN A WASHOUT
F1OW
DrillwithSeawater
DrillwithSweep
Rata
Pressure
Cuttings
Pres9ure
cuttings
(gPm)
Concentration
at Shoe
Concentration
at Shoe
(psi)
(psi)
(%)
(%)
750
51.0
134
21.8
llz
1000
45.0
129
15.4
107
1250
39.8
124
12.3
104
1500
35.3
120
8.6
101
1750
31.1
116
7.0
99
2000
27.2
113
4.5
97
FlowRate
(gpm)
Annular
Velocity
(ft/min)
EquilibriumCuttings
Concentration(%)
Experimental
Predicted
100
25.8
33.0
26.8
125
32.3
24.9
21.5
150
38.7
19.5
16.7
147
Redevelopment
Drilling. Redevelopment of axistiig fields
often involvae reentering an old well, cutting a window, and
rhilling out to a newbottomhole location. Such wells czn have
compkx directional progrmns. This was the rase in a recent
offshore well in which awindow wascut in a curved conductor, the
well kicked to an angle of ovar 40, droppad to near-vertical, and
then turned sharply and eventually completed as a horizontal
wefl. During drilling of the 12]/!-in. hole at an angle near 85,
problems were axperiencad on strip out of the hole at ameseured
depthof 6710 ft (5700ft TVD). It tookexteneivebackresmingand
circulation to compIete the trip out of the hole successftily
The output for en analysis of this situation by the cuttings
trsmsport model is shown in Table 3. The input parameters
include the mud type, the rheology model chosen, the penetration
rate, the mud flow rate, the mud properties (density, plastic
viscosity,yield point, endyield stress), end the cuttings proparties
(density diameter, bed porosity, and angle of repose). The
measured depth, hole angle, hole size, and pipe size complete the
input data required for conducting the analysis. These data are
included in the output es indicatad in Table 3. Note that 133/5-in.
easing (12.347-in. ID)hadbean set at 3010 ftmeamu-eddepth, and
that 5-in. drill pipe end 180 ft of 8-in. drill collars were used.
The results of the emdysis at each depth include the
following: the mud velocity in the open area above the cuttings
bed, the equivalent circrdating density (ECD), the mud pressure
(circulatingwithoutcuttings andtotaIwithcuttinge), thecuttings
concentration (in the circulating mud end total in the anmdus),
the areaopen to flow, andtheheight of the cuttings bed. Figure 12
depicts much of the same information but in a format that allows
the location of cuttings accumulations in the wellbore to be more
readily identified.
The asterisk in the fa right-hand column of Table 3
indicates that the cuttings accumulations at this location me in a
movingbed end will avakmche down the wellbore if the pumps are
turned off without first circulating them out of the well. Where
there are no asterisks (depths from 6310 to 6525 ft), a stationsg.
bed three to four inches in height is predictad.
.
AMECI-IANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT
10
RedevelopmentWell
cam.
FLowArec
v. ma
1
am
.
m.
Drillpip
Wellbore
Fig. 12-
Mu-#el.
E(
PI
Well Cia.
Mud
Pv
v!?
VZ
12.5 ~g
40.0 Cp
17.0 Ib/looitz
6.0 lb/100f12
ROP
Cko. Rate
Cuttisgs
SPE 23306
50.0 @h
620.0 ~m
0.25 in.
Extended-Reach
Drilling. The world record extended-reach
wells drilled by Statoil in 19912s and 1992/9329have been wall
documented. considerable hole cleaning-related problems were
experienced when drilling the 17Yz-in.interval on the C3 well in
1991. Thisintervalwae drilled from5220 fttoaftidepthof9460
ftfollowingonesidetrack. Theholeanglesrangedfrom 60 to71.
Based on this experience, the 17yz-kI. interval on the next
extended-reach well, the C2, was planned and drilled with lower
148
R.K. CLARKANDK.
SPE 28306
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Shell Development Company for
permission to publish this work. We would also like to thank
Dr. J.J. Aser, Dc A Pil.ehvari,Don Richison, and the studentaaud
assistants at the University of Tulsa who assisted with the flow
loop experiments.
NOMENCILWPUR.E
A
ca
CD
dreg coeflkient
CL
lift coefficient
cutting diameter
D4
Dh
D~d
DP
11
L. BICKHAM
Yp
Pp
Q
Q.
angle of repose
@b
bed porosity
S1 METRIC CONVERSION
CP
FACTORS
x 1.0 *
pfl*S
ft
3.048 *
Eol = m
fthr
8.466667
E-05 =
m/S
fvmin
5.08 *
Eo3 =
IdS
gal(U.S)/min
X 6.309020
E-o5
in.
X2,54 *
Eo2 = m
in?
X 6,4516 *
Eo4 = mz
= m8/s
lb/100 ftz
X4.788026
E-01
lbrn/geJ(U.S.)
X 1.198264
E+02 = kg/m3
lbf/in.2 (psi)
X 6.894757
* Conversion factor is exact.
E-o3
= Pa
E+03 = Pa
wFEl@ICES
Fb
buoyancy force
FD
drag force
Fg
FL
FP
gravity force
lift force
plastic force
2.
FAp
pressure force
FR,
reactive force
b
e
n
consistency index
Q.
Q.
Rep
,.
-~
U;ix
u.
U,*
U,p
x
Y.
axial coordhate
a
~.
wellbore angle
wall shcxwstress
~Y
Y
-.
149
.
12
SPE 28306
30.Hill, R.H,:
Ckemical Engineers
31. Perry, R.H, and Chilton, C.H.:
Handbook, 5thcd., McGraw-Hill Book Company New York,
NY (1973).
,.. .
37. Clii, R., Grac+ J.R., sad Weber, M.E.: Bubbles, Drops, and
Particles, Academic Pres~ New York (19781. -
38. Beyer, WH., cd.: CRC Standard Mat~emuticol Tables, 25th
Edition, CRC Press Inc., W Palm Beach, FIorida, (1978) 143.
39. Benedict, R.F!: Fundamentals of Pipe Flow, John Wiley &
Sons, New York (1980).
40.Dodge, D.W?and Metsner, A.B.: Turbulent Flow of NonNewtonian Systems, A.I.Ch.E. J. (1959) 5, No. 2, 189204.
41. Dodge, D.WandMetzner,AB.:
No. 1,143.
Errat%A,LCh.~iJ
(1962)8,
42. Govier, G.W and Asiz, K.: Tke Flow of Complex Mixtures in
Pipes, van Nostrand Reinhold Compeny, New York (1972).
43. Torranca, B.McK.:
Friction Factors for Turbulent
Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow in Circular Pipes, Tks South
&can Mech. Eng. (1963) 13, No. 3, 8991.
150
SPE 28306
R. K. CLARKANDK,
L, BICKHMI
13
APPENDIX
u = = U,(I- p)
in the Stagnfit
Mud Beneath
the
=%
(A-1)
-
-- - eos@ sin~].
[Q + (n/2 ~)smz$
= Ilcds/6
(A-4)
= F,[c>R%, U:,]
is obtained
u *.
Herschel-Bulldey
lZecosity
=_ UA (1 - C)n
(A-5)
=. e0.0811y
-1.19
(A-6)
Sgn(x)
(0.0001 + 0.865 1X1-9V3
and
x
..
.,,
= -1.24 hl(ReP) 4.59.
= QdU/~,
(A-13)
where
KB =
~Y/YP
%yp-
l).
(A-14)
where
n
Law.
(A-11}
cutting; namely,
SettlingVedocity CorrectiouFactcrs.
Perry and Chiltongive
aprocedureforcrdculatingthehinderedsettlingeffect
@q. 5-224,
p. 5-64),s1 They present agraphical method (Fig. 5-82, p. 5-65) for
determining the exponent, n in Equation (A-5), as a function of
Rep Equations (A-6), (A-7), end (A-8) were chosen to fit their
s-shaped curve within 370error.
u.
(A-3)
(A-1O)
(A-2)
= rd sin~.
g = y;o.47.
z = ~Y+ khyn
(A-9)
p=
%[+-351
A-15)
A-v
(&8)
present results
.
151
.SPE 28306
14
582[~~cLs2cm
B
CL=
CLS
=
CL,E= 0.09
arc length
(A-1,)
l-~,
= d cos - l(B),
(A-18)
cL,~
< cm
chord length
where
= d ~,
end
Drag Coefficient.
Clitl et rd. present the best models for
calculating the dreg coet%cient of spherical particle in a
Newtonian fluid.37
Wdlbore Geometry Model. Figure A-1 shows that the regions
of the wellbore cross section maybe iderWzedusing a mmbination
of arcs, chords, andsegmentsofcircular m-eea.Moreover, it shows
that the regions may have different shapes depending on the
position of the chords defining the top end bottom surfaces of the
moving zone and the top sun%ce of the stationmy bed. Their
shape depends on whether these top surfaces exist, and then, if
they are below, touching, or above the drillpipe. The boundaries
that separate these regions are hI and hII.
~
~
The wellbore
Approximate
Mixture
Flow Model.
cross-sectional areawhichisopen to flow is characterized asa tube
instead of as an irregularly shaped channel. This decision was
made primexily to keep the calculations manageable at the
perzonaIcomputer level. The development ofamore physically
accurate flow model would be the basis of a maior research
progikm. Further, a more physically accurab model should be
pursued only after the approximate model is proved inadequate.
The mud rheology is calculated using the Herschel-Bulkley
viscosity law. For both the kaninar end turbulent flow cases, the
velocity profde end the pressure drop equations are required.
The pressure grdlent is sum of three component; namely
dp
Zdza
- 1 +*I. +%If
A-)
1-
!--
D,--
Dh
152
.,
SPE 28306
15
Synthetic-Base
HerscheIBulkley
50.0
620.0
12.5
40.0
17.0
6.0
2.30
0.25
37.0
40.0
Program Reeuke
Survey
Point
Meas.
Depth
(ft)
915
Hole
Ang.
(deg)
Hole
Diem.
(ii.)
0.0 12.347
27.5
12.347
1575
38.6
12.347
1660
43.3
12.347
2165
44,0
12.347
2915
35.9
12.347
33.5
33.5
12.847
12.250
3010
8
9
Soil
3195
32.2
12.250
10
3750
25.1
12.250
11
4320
15.9
12.250
12
4560
12.0
12.250
13
4875
6.0
12.250
14
15
5250
55543
2.2
i2.250
8.9
12.250
16
5700
20.4
12.250
17
5865
33.8
12.250
18
6010
44.9
12.250
19
6105
48.4
12.250
20
6245
47.1
i2.250
21
6275
6310
23
6360
24
6435
25
6525
26
6526
27
6610
28
6709
29
6710
50.0
52.7
57.2
62.0
70.0
70.0
80.7
84.3
84.3
12.250
22
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
Pipe
OD
(ii.)
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
8.000
8.000
8.000
8.000
Mud
Vel.
(fpm)
ECD
120
12.5
128
12.7
606
144
12.9
15
1002
147
12.9
18
1158
148
13.0
22
1315
139
13.2
31
1698
136
137
13.2
13.2
32
32
1752
1752
136
13.2
34
1858
1.23
13.2
40
2180
123
13s
46
2522
123
13.1
48
2675
123
13.1
51
2679
123
13.0
54
123
13.0
57
3126
3325
123
13.0
59
8423
138
13.0
60
3525
149
13.0
62
3608
154
13.0
63
3656
154
13.0
65
3723
154
13.0
65
3737
176
13.0
66
3753
174
13.0
86
3774
170
13.0
68
3801
163
13.0
69
3830
178
13.0
69
3831
178
13.0
71
3851
178
13.1
73
3864
178
13.1
73
3864
(Ppg)
Pressure
Circ. Total
(psi)
(psi)
cuttings
Circ.
TotiJ
%
%
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
*Cuttinge bed may avelanche when circulation stops if hole angle is less than 50 degrees.
153
0.9
4.7
Flow
lwea
%
Bed
Ht.
(in.)
69
93
1.2*
11.0
82
2.4*
12.2
81
2.6*
12.4
80
2.6*
9.4
85
2.1*
8.0
7.8
1.9*
6.9
87
88
69
0.9
99
0.9
99
0.9
99
0.9
99
0.9
99
0.9
99
0.9
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.8
88
1.8
11.3
81
2.5*
13.7
78
2.8*
13.7
78
2.@
13.7
76
2.8*
19.8
68
3.7
19.1
70
3.6
18.1
71
3.5
16.3
74
3.2
0.8
99
0.8
99
0.8
99
0.8
99
1.8*
1.6*
.,:.
.,
..
-.
_.