Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

A new method for determining the minimum gas injection rate

required for hole cleaning in horizontal gas drilling
Xuyue Chen a, *, Deli Gao a, Boyun Guo b, Limin Luo c, Xiaobo Liu c, Xin Zhang c
a
MOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
b
Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA
c
CNOOC International Limited, Beijing 100010, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Horizontal gas drilling has been considered as an innovative technique for tight gas reservoir develop-
Received 21 September 2014 ment. Given currently there are few effective models to determine the exact minimum required gas
Received in revised form injection rate in a wide range of ROP of horizontal gas drilling, in this work a new method for deter-
4 November 2014
mining the minimum required gas injection rate for hole cleaning in horizontal gas drilling is developed,
Accepted 6 November 2014
Available online 14 November 2014
meanwhile a new terminal velocity model and a new required minimum gas velocity model are
developed in the “build” section of horizontal well based on the widely used Gray's model to extend the
minimum velocity criteria to be applied in horizontal gas drilling. Analysis using field data in the pub-
Keywords:
Gas drilling
lished article demonstrates that the new method can accurately determine the minimum required gas
Horizontal well injection rate of horizontal gas drilling in a wide range of ROP (or cuttings size) and provides drilling
Hole cleaning engineers a practical tool for designing the appropriate gas injection rate in horizontal gas drilling.
Cuttings carry © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Terminal velocity
Gas injection rate

1. Introduction
Tight gas is the principal unconventional resource. The
increased demand for more sources of clean energy has forced the
industry to explore the more challenging tight gas sands and tight
shale reservoirs. By some estimates, by 2020, 45% of the gas pro-
duction would result from these unconventional resources (Shu
and Mohan, 2013). Yet, tight gas reservoirs are often character-
ized by complex geological and petro-physical systems as well as
heterogeneities at all scales. Drilling tight gas wells is both tech-
nically and commercially challenging due to the large subsurface
uncertainty and low expected ultimate recovery per well. So it is
vitally important to seek innovative drilling techniques for tight gas
reservoirs development. Drilling horizontal well with gas recently
has been considered as an innovative technique for tight gas
sandstone reservoir and shale gas reservoir development. It can
increase footage capacity by nearly 60% (Ford et al., 2011) and
reduce drilling cost. However, unlike conventional mud drilling, gas
drilling can't improve hole cleaning efficiency by optimizing the
drilling fluid's rheological properties. Due to low cuttings-carrying
* Corresponding author. College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum-Beijing, 18 Fuxue Road, Changping, 102249 Beijing, China.
E-mail address: chenxuyue2011@163.com (X. Chen).
energy of gas in horizontal gas drilling, large cuttings not only can't
be circulated out of down hole in time but also can't be reground by
the bit teeth as in vertical gas drilling do. As a result, cuttings bed
could be easily formed, which would lead to the accidents such as
wellbore plugging and pipe sticking. Therefore, an adequate gas
injection rate is vitally important for lifting and removing drill
cuttings to prevent pipe sticking problem in horizontal gas drilling.
Several criteria and methods for determining the minimum
required gas injection rate have been used in the gas drilling in-
dustry for hole cleaning of solids accumulation. They fall into two
categories: 1) the minimum kinetic energy criterion, and 2) the
minimum velocity criterion (Guo and Gao, 2013).
Angel (1957) was first to propose the minimum energy criteria.
The minimum annular velocity to effectively remove solid particles
from the borehole is assumed to be 15 m/s, or 50 ft/s, under at-
mospheric conditions. Angel assumed that air or gas with this same
specific kinetic energy would be sufficient to transport drilled
cuttings regardless of depth, temperature, or pressure. However,
the specific kinetic energy was believed to be only high enough to
remove dust-like particles in gas drilling. Then numerous in-
vestigators were motivated to develop more accurate models.
These models include those presented by McCray and Cole (1959),
Schoeppel and Spare (1967), Capes and Nakamura (1973), Sharma
and Crowe (1977), Ikoku et al. (1980), Machado and Ikoku (1982),
Mitchell (1983), Puon and Ameri (1984), Sharma and Chowdry

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.11.009
1875-5100/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090 1085

(1984), Wolcott and Sharma (1986), Adewumi and Tian (1989), We propose the following equation for the apparent suspension
Supon and Adewumi (1991), Tian and Adewumi (1992), Guo et al. velocity in the “build” section of horizontal well (derivation is given
(1994), Liu and Liu (2008), Samson et al. (2012), Li et al. (2013). in Appendix A):
Although the minimum required gas injection rates obtained from
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  !
these models are more and more close to the field-applied mini- 4ds rs  rg g j
mum gas injection rate, currently there are few effective models to va ¼ þ vtr $ (1)
3Crg cos q 1 þ ds =dh
determine the exact minimum required gas injection rate of hori-
zontal gas drilling, especially in a wide range of ROP (cuttings size).
The minimum velocity criterion suggested that successful When the cutting transport velocity is equal to zero in the
cleaning occurs whenever the gas velocity exceeds the cuttings vertical direction (vtr cosq ¼ 0, namelyvtr ¼ 0), a cutting will start to
terminal velocity at the deepest large annulus, and it appears to be deposit in the wellbore, then we get the cutting terminal velocity in
more general. The terminal velocity of a cutting is a function of the “build” section of horizontal well.
many factors, including size, shape, and density of the cutting,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
density and viscosity of the fluid and flow regime. Among many
4ds rs  rg g j
mathematical models proposed to account for the effects of these vt ¼ $ (2)
3Crg cos q 1 þ ds =dh
factors, Gray's (1958) model has been widely accepted for small-
size hole drilling because it considers particle-wall interaction
(Guo and Liu, 2011). However, all these mathematical models can In gas drilling, the minimum and safety cutting transport ve-
only be applied in vertical gas drilling, which restricts the minimum locity is as follows (Guo and Ghalambor, 2006)
velocity criterion only be applied in vertical gas drilling.
In this paper, a terminal velocity model and a required mini-  
pd2b Rp
mum gas velocity model are developed in the “build” section of vtr ¼ (3)
4Cp A 3600
horizontal well to extend the minimum velocity criteria to be
applied in horizontal gas drilling, meanwhile a new method for According to Bradshaw, the safety cutting component is
determining the minimum required gas injection rate for hole Cp  0.04 (Bradshaw, 1964). Setting Cp ¼ 0.04 and inserting Eqn. (3)
cleaning in horizontal gas drilling is also developed. Due to into Eqn. (1) yield the minimum required gas velocity for cuttings
cuttings-transporting difference between vertical and horizontal carry in the “build” section of horizontal well.
section, this new method uses the concept of terminal velocity to
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   !
determine the minimum required gas injection rate of horizontal 4ds rs  rg g pd2b Rp j
well at the most difficult cuttings transport section instead at the vm ¼ þ $ (4)
3Crg cos q 0:16A 3600 1 þ ds =dh
deepest large annulus.

where this model is only for suspension flow, in high angle and
2. Mathematical model horizontal section, the cuttings are mainly transported in rolling or
saltation and the gas flow rates requirements are slightly lower
The minimum velocity criterion uses the concept of terminal than the build section. So if q > 65
, set q ¼ 65
.
velocity to determine the minimum required gas velocity at the Then the minimum gas injection rate required for hole cleaning
deepest large annulus. This assumption is suitable for vertical gas in high angle and horizontal gas drilling is expressed as
drilling, but not quite suitable for horizontal gas drilling. In hori- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   !
zontal gas drilling, the deepest large annulus is always in the hor- 4ds rs  rg g pd2b Rp j
Qg ¼ Avm ¼ A$ þ $
izontal section, where cuttings can be transported in rolling or 3Crg cos q 0:16A 3600 1 þ ds =dh
saltation, and the gas flow rates requirements can be not much
high. As earlier study demonstrated, the toughest section for hole (5)
cleaning is the“build”section rather than the vertical or the hori-
where if q > 65
, set q ¼ 65
.
zontal section (Larsen, 1990; Jalukar, 1993; Jeff and Sccot, 2001).
According to the gas law, we can get the minimum required gas
Several underbalanced wells drilled to date also showed no signs of
injection rate for hole cleaning in high angle and horizontal gas
hole-cleaning problems in the horizontal section. However, prob-
drilling in standard conditions
lems have occurred cleaning the build section, probably resulting
from the fact that much of the build is commonly at the critical hole sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
angles of 30e65
(Leising and Walton, 2002). Hole angles between 520PA 4ds rs  rg g
Qgo ¼ $
30
and 65
are considered as very critical not just because a cut- 14:7  144T 3Crg cos q
tings bed forms but because the bed slides downward against the  ! (6)
flow, and it is considered as the most difficult cuttings transport pd2b Rp j
þ $
section (Jeff and Sccot, 2001; Azar and Alfredo, 1997; Tomren et al., 0:16A 3600 1 þ ds =dh
1986). The flow rate requirements for adequate hole cleaning peak
at approximately 65
and slightly decrease around 70
towards where if q > 65
, set q ¼ 65
.
horizontal section (Azar and Alfredo, 1997; Bilgesu et al., 2007; In the equation, cutting diameter is the initial cuttings size
Tahmineh et al., 2010; Slavomir and Azar, 1986), and the height of estimated on the basis of ROP and rotary speed (Guo and
cuttings bed slightly increase at about 65
e70
(Pilehvari et al., Ghalambor, 2006): D ¼ ROP/(60 N). For sandstone Gray found
1999). For sand/steel, sliding occurs for hole angles below that the cuttings were sub-rounded in shape, with an average drag
approximately 65
(Leising and Walton, 2002). Therefore, it is coefficient of 0.85, and for limestone and shale he found that the
vitally important to ensure the cuttings in suspension flow pattern cuttings were flake shaped with an average drag coefficient of 1.4
at the hole section annulus for hole angles below 65
, but not at the (Gray, 1958). Gas density can be got according to the gas law, while
deepest large annulus to improve cuttings carrying capacity in the pressure at any point of the bottom hole can be calculated by
horizontal gas drilling. the following equation (Guo and Liu, 2011)
1086 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  2a
ab Ts þ GS cos q G ab
Pb ¼ P 2t þ T 2s  ½Ts þ GS cos q2 (7)
ða  GÞcos q Ts ða  GÞcos q

If the angle-building section has a constant radius of curvature circulating fluid. In well A, the widely used modified Angel's model
R, there is no need to divide the curve section into a series of slant- (Guo et al., 1994) and the new model predict the minimum required
hole segments with different hole angles. The gas pressure at the gas injection rate respectively of 42.815 stdm3/min and
bottom of an arc section below the kick-off point can be determined 61.599 stdm3/min. In well B, the minimum required gas injection
by rates predicted by the two models are close to each other. As shown
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi in Fig. 1, the minimum required gas injection rates are
 ffi
2 2aR sin q 41.229 stdm3/min for the modified Angel's model and
Pb ¼ P K þ 2abRTav qe (8) 42.102 stdm3/min for the new model. With ROP controlled to
Tav
downsize the initial cuttings at the bit, the horizontal or deviated
with gas drilling's field-applied minimum gas injection rate is always
recommended twice as high as the vertical gas drilling's minimum
Sg Qgo þ p4 d2b Ss Rp þ Sf Qf þ Sw Qw required gas injection rate given by the Angel's model (Meng et al.,
a¼ (9) 2005; Xiang and Liu, 2007). Based on this field experience, the
Qgo
field-applied minimum gas injection rates are recommended as
high as 76.742 and 73.75 stdm3/min respectively in well A and well
2
fQgo B. The minimum required gas injection rates given by the new
b¼ (10)
gA2 dH model are more close to the field recommended values.
Analysis the cuttings carry capacities of the two models by the
In the above equation, f is Darcy-Wiesbach friction factor.
minimum cutting-carried gas velocity ratio (MCCGVR ¼ van/vm) and
Nikuradse's friction factor correlation is still the best available for
max carried cutting size ratio (MCCSR ¼ dmc/di). The max carried
fully developed turbulent flow in rough pipe:
cutting size dmc at any point of the bottom can be determined by
2 32 Eqn. (6). The initial cuttings size di can be estimated on the basis of
ROP and rotary speed by the equation (Guo and Ghalambor,
6 17
f ¼6
4  7 5 (11) 2006):D ¼ ROP/(60 N).
1:74  2 log d2e To ensure cuttings in suspension flow pattern and be carried
H
efficiently at the hole annulus, the annulus gas velocity should be
higher than the minimum required gas velocity. Fig. 2 and Fig. 4
show the cuttings carried capacity of the modified Angel's model
3. Application example
and the new model based on the gas flow velocity respectively in
well A and B. As Figs. 2 and 4 demonstrated, MCCGVR values
Analysis uses field data in the published article (Guo and
decrease dramatically with the hole angle increasing. For well A,
Ghalambor, 2006), and the basic data for the application case is
that of the modified Angel's model are less than 1.0 at the hole
given in Table 1. Well A is a deviated well with a constant radius of
angle of nearly 46
, while the new model's MCCGVR values are
curvature. Well B is a horizontal well, a special type of angle build-
above 1.0 at the most difficult cuttings transport section of 30e65
.
and-hold borehole. In the gas drilling section, both well use air as a
In the flow rates requirements peaking annulus, around the hole
angle of 65
, the modified Angel's model's MCCGVR value is 0.776.
Table 1 It indicates that the annulus gas flow velocity based on the modi-
Basic data for sensitivity analysis and case application example. fied Angel's model is inadequate to clean the hole lower than 46
,
Well number A B
and it is apparently insufficient to clean the hole in the flow rates
requirements peaking annulus around 65
. As for the new model,
Depth of kick-off point (m) 2133.6 2133.6
its minimum required gas injection rate can ensure its annulus gas
Depth of the end of slant section (m) 3091
Radius of curvature of the angle build-up section (m) 609.6 609.6
Hole section of gas drilling 2134e3810 3091e4115
Bit diameter (mm) 200 200
Casing depth (m) 2133.6 2133.6
114.3 mm drill pipe inner diameter (mm) 97.2 97.2
171.4 mm drill collar inner diameter (mm) 71.4 71.4
Drill collar length (mm) 152.4 152.4
Specific gravity of rock (water ¼ 1) 2.8 2.8
Borehole roughness (mm) 7.62 7.62
Blooey line pressure (MPa) 0.103 0.103
Rate of penetration (m/h) 15.24 9.144
Rotary speed (r/min) 50 50
Site elevation (m) 609.6 609.6
Ambient temperature (
K) 297 297
Geothermal gradient (
C/m) 0.018 0.018
Relative humidity (%) 80 80
Dewatering efficiency of the water trap (%) 95 95
Misting water rate (m3/h) 0.795 0.795
Formation water influx (m3/h) 1.59 1.59
Fig. 1. Minimum required gas injection rate.
 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090
Fig. 2. Cuttings carried capacity of well A based on gas flow velocity.
Fig. 3. Cuttings carried capacity of well A based on cuttings size.
velocity higher than the minimum required gas velocity in the
critical hole angles of 30e65
. Its cuttings carried capacity is
apparently higher than that of the modified Angel's model in well
A. As for well B, the modified Angel's model and the new model's
MCCGVR values are above 1.0 respectively at 64.2
and 65
, it is less
likely to cause hole cleaning problem. The cuttings carry capacities
of the two models are similar in well B.
The initial cuttings sizes are estimated on the basis of ROP and
rotary speed to be approximately 5.08 and 3.048 mm respectively
in well A and B. Figs. 3 and 5 show the cuttings carried capacity of
the modified Angel's model and the new model based on the cut-
tings size in the two wells. As shown in Figs. 3 and 5, MCCSR values
decline apparently with the hole angle increasing. In well A, as for
the modified Angel's model, it less than 1.0 at the hole angle of
nearly 46
, and around the hole angle of 65
, the max cutting can be
Fig. 4. Cuttings carried capacity of well B based on flow velocity.
1087
Fig. 5. Cuttings carried capacity of well B based on cuttings size.
carried is less than 2.885 mm. It is much smaller than the initial
cuttings size 5.08 mm. It means that if the field applies the gas
injection rate given by the modified Angel's model, a cuttings bed
will form in the hole section lower than 46
, and in this hole angle
the cuttings bed is likely to slid downward against the flow, which
would lead to stuck pipe. Therefore, the gas injection rate is inad-
equate. As for the new model, the max carried cutting is bigger than
5.08 mm at the most difficult cuttings transport section of 30e65
.
It ensures all of the cuttings in suspension flow pattern, and no
cuttings bed will form at the critical hole angles of 30e65
. In well
B, the modified Angel's model and the new model's MCCSR values
are almost above 1.0 at the most difficult cuttings transport section
of 30e65
.
As analyzed in the above, ROP are 15.24 and 9.144 m/h respec-
tively in well A and B. The initial cuttings sizes are approximately
5.08 and 3.048 mm respectively in the two wells, while the mini-
mum required gas injection rate predicted by the modified Angel's
model are very close, 42.815 stdm3/min for well A and 41.229 for
well B. However, the gas injection rate is only adequate for hole
cleaning in well B. This is consistent with the fact that the minimum
kinetic energy is believed to be only high enough to remove dust-
like particles. An assessment of gas technology indicates that ROP
can be increased as much as ten times over that for mud drilling in
equivalent formations, and an ROP as high as 36.576 m/h can easily
be achieved in air and gas drilling (Guo and Ghalambor, 2006).
Obviously, as for horizontal gas drilling with a high ROP, the min-
imum required gas injection rate given by the widely-used modi-
fied Angel's model is inadequate for hole cleaning in the most
difficult cuttings transport section, and the new model is suitable
for determining the minimum required gas injection rate.
4. Sensitivity analysis
This new model uses the concept of terminal velocity to deter-
mine the minimum required gas velocity at the flow rate re-
quirements peaking section of 65
in the most difficult cuttings
transport annulus of horizontal well. It has three main effect fac-
tors: initial cuttings size, hole angle and ROP. The initial cuttings
size is estimated on the basis of ROP.
The effect of these factors on the minimum required gas injec-
tion rate and the cuttings carry capacity of the new model are
investigated using gas injection rate ratio (GIRR) and max cutting
size ratio (MCSR), defined as:
GgoN
GIRR ¼ (12)
GgoA
and
1088 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090
Fig. 6. Effect of ROP on GIRR in minimum required gas injection rate of well A.
dmcN
MCSR ¼
dmcA
where GgoN is the minimum required gas injection rate given by the
new model (Eq. (6)) (stdm3/min); GgoA is the minimum required gas
injection rate given by the modified Angel's model (Guo et al., 1994)
(stdm3/min); dmcN is the max carried cutting size of the new model
(mm); dmcA is the max carried cutting size of the modified Angel's
model (mm).
The base data of the above application example is used in the
following sensitivity analysis.
4.1. Effect of initial cuttings size and ROP
The initial cuttings size is estimated on the basis of ROP. With all
other parameter values set constant in the base case, the effect of
ROP on GIRR is investigated for ROP within the range of field
generally encountered in horizontal gas drilling. The result is
plotted in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. This plot shows that the GIRR is nearly
directly proportional to ROP. In low ROP, the initial cuttings size is
dusk like, GIRR is low than 1.0. As ROP is higher than 9.144 m/h, the
GIRR is much higher than 1.0.
4.2. Effect of hole angle
With all other parameter values set constant in the base case,
the effect of hole angle on GIRR is investigated in the cuttings
suspension flow section of horizontal well. The result is plotted in
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. It displays that GIRR increases apparently with hole
angle in the most difficult cuttings transport section of 35
e65
.
Especially in the flow rate requirements peaking annulus, around
Fig. 7. Effect of ROP on GIRR in minimum required gas injection rate of well B.
Fig. 8. Cuttings carry capacity of GIRR in minimum required gas injection rate of well
A.
(13)
the hole angle of 65
, GIRR increases quickly and higher than 1.0
both in well A and well B.
4.3. Cuttings carry capacity
The cuttings carry capacity of GIRR is investigated for analyzing
MCSR in the cuttings suspension flow section of horizontal well.
The result is plotted in Figs. 8 and 9. This plot reveals that MCSR
increases linearly with GIRR as hole angle increasing. In well A, ROP
is 15.24 m/h, and the cuttings carry capacity of the minimum
required gas injection rate given by the new model is nearly 1.76
times as high as that by the widely-used modified Angel's model,
while its minimum required gas injection rate is nearly 1.44 times
as high as that of modified Angel's model. In well B, ROP is 9.144 m/
s, they are respectively 1.03 and 1.02 times, and the results given by
the two models are very close to each other.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a new method for determining the minimum
required gas injection rate for hole cleaning is developed in hori-
zontal gas drilling, meanwhile a new terminal velocity model and a
new required minimum gas velocity model are also developed in
the “build” section of horizontal well. The new method innovatively
uses the concept of terminal velocity to determine the minimum
required gas injection rate of horizontal well at the flow rate
requirement peaking annulus instead at the deepest large annulus.
It extends the minimum velocity criteria to be applied in horizontal
Fig. 9. Cuttings carry capacity of GIRR in minimum required gas injection rate of well
B.
 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090 1089

gas drilling. Case study demonstrates that the new method can
accurately determine the minimum required gas injection rate of
horizontal gas drilling in a wide range of ROP.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 51221003, U1262201) and
other projects (Grant numbers: 2013AA064803, 2011ZX05009-
005).
force is derived from a uniform gravitational field; and (3) the
particle is transported in suspension flow pattern, and other par-
ticles do not affect the motion of the particle under consideration,
that is, the particle is transported freely. In drilling horizontal well
with gas, the suspension of a cutting is mainly due to three forces:
one acts downward due to gravity, another lifts upward due to
buoyancy, and the third lifts upward again due to viscous friction
around the particle in the vertical direction (Machado and Aragao,
1990).
The first force due to the particle weight can be written as:

p 3
Nomenclature W¼ d rg (A-1)
6 s s
W particle's weight (N) The second force due to buoyancy is expressed by:
B buoyant force (N)
p 3
Fdv drag force in the vertical direction (N) B¼ d r g (A-2)
vg gas velocity (m/s) 6 s g
vtr cutting transport velocity (m/s) The viscous drag force in the vertical direction due to the cutting
vs cutting theoretical suspension velocity (m/s) flow is defined by:
va cutting apparent suspension velocity (m/s)
 2
vt cutting terminal velocity (m/s) p vg  vtr
vm minimum gas velocity required for hole cleaning (m/s) Fdv ¼ C d2s rg cos q (A-3)
4 2
van annulus gas flow velocity (m/s)
q hole angle (
) Once the suspension process reaches dynamic equilibrium, the
rs cuttings density (kg/m3) sum of the buoyant and frictional forces in the vertical direction is
rg gas density (kg/m3) equal to the cuttings weight. Consequently, the annular gas velocity
ds cutting diameter (m) can be expressed as the theoretical suspension velocity:
C drag coefficient sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
j cutting sphericity factor 4ds rs  rg g
vs ¼ þ vtr (A-4)
dH the equivalent diameter of the annulus (m) 3Crg cos q
A cross-sectional area of flow path (m2)
For an annulus, the “wall-effect” factor and sphericity factor by
Rp rate of penetration (m/h)
whichvg: may be modified has been suggested in the widely
Cp cutting component
accepted Gray's (1958) model.
Qg minimum required gas injection rate at the point of
interest (m3/s)  
j
Qgo minimum required gas injection rate under standard va ¼ vs (A-5)
1 þ ds =dh
conditions (stdm3/s)
Pb pressure at the bottom of the annulus section (Pa) Insert Eqn.A-4 into Eqn.A-5, we get the apparent suspension
Pt pressure at the top of the annulus section (Pa) velocity in the “build” section of horizontal well.
PK pressure at the kick-off point (Pa) sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  !
Ts temperature at the top of the annulus section (
K) 4ds rs  rg g j
G geothermal gradient (
C/m) va ¼ þ vtr $ (A-6)
3Crg cos q 1 þ ds =dh
S length of the annulus section (m)
Sg specific gravity of injected gas, for air Sg ¼ 1
db bit diameter (m)
Ss solid specific gravity, for fresh water Sg ¼ 1 References
Rp rate of penetration (ROP) (m/s)
Adewumi, M.A., Tian, S., 1989. Hydrodynamic modeling of wellbore hydraulics in air
Sw specific gravity of injected water, for fresh water Sw ¼ 1 drilling. In: Paper SPE 19333 Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Qw water injection rate (m3/s) 23e24 August 1989, Columbus, Ohio.
Qf formation fluid influx rate (m3/s) Angel, R.R., 1957. Volume requirements for air and gas drilling. Petr.Trans. AIME 210,
325e330.
Sf formation fluid specific gravity, for fresh water Sf ¼ 1 Azar, J.J., Alfredo, R., 1997. Important Issues in Cuttings Transport for Directional
f Friction factor (dimensionless) Well. SPE39020.
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2) Bilgesu, H. Ilkin, Mishra, Nekkhil, Ameri, Samuel, 2007. Understanding the Effect of
Drilling Parameters on Hole Cleaning in Horizontal and Deviated Wellbores
Tav average temperature in the arc section (
K) using Computational Fluid Dynamics. SPE111208.
R radius of curvature (m) Bradshaw, S.K., 1964. A Numerical Analysis of Particle Lift (MS thesis). University of
e average roughness of the conduit (m) Oklahoma.
Capes, C.E., Nakamura, K., 1973. Vertical pneumatic conveying: an experimental
dms max suspension cutting size (m) study with particles in the intermediate and turbulent flow regimes. Can. J.
dmc max carried cutting size (m) Chem. Eng. 33e38.
di initial cuttings size (m) Ford, R., Stone, A., Spedale, A., Slaughter, R., Swadi, S., Dewey, C., 2011. Efficiently
developing fayetteville shale gas reserves: percussion drilling solves application
challenges/reduces drilling costs. In: SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, August
Appendix 17e19, Columbus, OH. Paper SPE 148828.
Guo, Boyun, Gao, Deli, 2013. New development of theories in gas drilling. Pet.Sci. 10,
The derivation of the basic equation for the suspension velocity 507e514.
Guo, B., Miska, S.Z., Lee, R., 1994. Volume requirements for directional air drilling.
is based upon the following assumptions: (1) the solid is a non- In: Paper SPE 27510 Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 15e18
porous, incompressible spherical particle; (2) the accelerating February, Dallas, Texas.
1090 X. Chen et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 1084e1090
Guo, B., Liu, G., 2011. Applied Drilling Circulation Systems. Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 145e150.
Guo, Boyun, Ghalambor, A., 2006. Gas volume Requirements for Underbalanced
Drilling. Translated by Xu Siping. Sinopec Press, Beijing, pp. 24e26.
Gray, K.E., 1958. The cutting carrying capacity of air at pressures above atmospheric.
Trans. AIME 213, 180e185.
Ikoku, C.U., Azar, J.J., Williams, C.R., 1980. Practical approach to volume re-
quirements for air and gas drilling. In: Paper SPE 9445 Presented at the SPE
55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2e5 October 1980,
Dallas, TX.
Jalukar, L.S., 1993. A Study of Hole Size Effect on Critical and Subcritical Drilling Fluid
Velocities in Cuttings Transport for Inclined Wellbores (MS thesis). U. of Tulsa,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Jeff, Li, Sccot, walker, 2001. Sensitivity analysis of hole cleaning parameters in
directional wells. SPE J. 6 (4), 356e363.
Li, J., Guo, B., Liu, G., et al., 2013. The optimum range of nitrogen injection rate in
shale gas well drilling. SPE Drill. Complet. 28 (1), 12e15.
Liu, Gonghui, Liu, Wei, 2008. A new method for calculating the minimum volu-
metric flow rate of air in air-nitrogen drilling. Acta Petrol. Sin. 29 (4), 629e632.
Larsen, T.I., 1990. A Study of the Critical Fluid Velocity in Cuttings Transport (MS
thesis). U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Leising, L.J., Walton, I.C., 2002. Cuttings-transport problems and solutions in coiled-
tubing drilling. SPE Drill. Complet. 17 (1), 54e66.
Machado, C.J., Ikoku, C.U., 1982. Experimental determination of solid fraction and
minimum volume requirements in air and gas drilling. J. Petrol. Technol. 35e42.
Machado, J.C.V., Aragao, A.F.L., 1990, January 1. Gel Strength as Related to Carrying
Capacity of Drilling Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE21106.
Meng, Yingfeng, Zhanghua, Lian, Yongjie, Li, et al., 2005. Research on the cuttings-
carried ability in horizontal gas drilling and its application to well Bai Qian-111.
Nat. Gas. Ind. 25 (8), 50e53.
Mitchell, R.F., 1983. Simulation of air and mist drilling for geothermal wells. J. Petrol.
Technol. 27e34.
McCray, A.W., Cole, F.W., 1959. Oil Well Drilling Technology. University of Oklahoma
Press, Edmund, pp. 44e49.
Pilehvari, A.A., Azar, J.J., Shirazi, S.A., 1999. State-of-the-art cuttings transport in
horizontal wellbores. SPE Drill. Complet. 14 (3), 196e200.
Puon, P.S., Ameri, S., 1984. Simplified approach to air drilling operations. In: Paper
SPE 13380 Presented at Eastern Regional Meeting, 1 October to 2 November
1984, Charleston, West Virginia.
Samson, F.A., Churchill, A., Emmanuel, N., Olugbenga, F., 2012, January 1. Improved
Model for Predicting the Required Minimum Gas Injection Rate for Removal of
Cutting during Underbalanced Drilling. Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/160846-MS.
Schoeppel, R.J., Spare, A.R., 1967. Volume requirements in air drilling. In: Paper SPE
1700-MS Presented at Drilling and Rock Mechanics Conference, 25e26 January
1967, Austin, Texas.
Sharma, M.P., Crowe, C.T., 1977. A novel physic- computational model for quasi one
dimensional gas-particle flows. Trans. ASME 22, 79e83.
Sharma, M.P., Chowdry, D.V., 1984. A computational model for drilled cutting
transport in air (or gas) drilling operations. In: Paper SPE 12236 Presented at
the SPE Southeast Conference on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 6e7
September 1984, Dallas, Texas.
Shu, Luo, Mohan, Kelkar, 2013. Infill-drilling potential in tight gas reservoirs.
J. Energy Resour. Technol. 135 (1).
Slavomir, Okrajni, Azar, J.J., 1986. The effects of mud rheology on annular hole
cleaning in directional wells. SPE Drill. Eng. 1 (4), 297e308.
Supon, S.B., Adewumi, M.A., September 1991. An experimental study of the annulus
pressure drop in a simulated air-drilling operation. SPE Drill. Complet. J. 74e80.
Tahmineh, Nazari, Hareland, Geir, Azar, Jamal Joseph, 2010. Review of Cuttings
Transport in Directional Well Drilling: Systematic Approach. SPE132372.
Tian, S., Adewumi, M.A., 1992. Development of hydrodynamic model based air
drilling design procedures. SPE Drill. Eng. 7 (4), 241e246.
Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., Azar, J.J., February 1986. Experimental study of cuttings
transport in directional well drilling. SPEDE 43.
Wolcott, P.S., Sharma, M.P., 1986. Analysis of air drilling circulating systems with
application to air volume requirement estimation. In: Paper SPE 15950 Pre-
sented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 28e30 October 1986, Columbus,
Ohio.
Xiang, Xinghua, Liu, Hongbin, 2007. New technology of directional drilling with gas.
Drilling Production Technol. 30 (6), 24e29.