Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Herrick1932 PDF
Herrick1932 PDF
~
z
8
UJ
I
..... ~q: fI ¥4' ,~.
en
c.§ (3)j'' ~,<f/
~ 200
~j ~ ~., '-~~~~
UJ ~ /;;':.><..
C1. I
~ 150
I
oct ,rf-~~
'" ~ ~~
C>O
c:: L.k' tJ ~. J/-J! ~
~ t~ ~ 'I
<.D -
0
Q;
-0; /
~v..1.....
tf
/c:fl f.---o-"'l.''''
k~i
~ IJ'
compared because of much
ima'ier Sp. GrjVit y.
/
// i
V Vo '
I J
\ (~.1i~i~\
0 ' ~--..,..-
I. _
0/ V -1./-~J-f--- --i : \-lea'll
--"irs-Sec. Saybol'j
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ZO 22 24 26
PRESSURE - INCHES OF WATER
Fro. I.-VISCOSITY OF KETTLEMAN DRILLING MUD AT 75° F.
of the mud. Actually, the viscosity of this mud was only 8 centipoises,
and its yield point was 0.2 lb. per sq. ft. The fact that special methods
are required to determine the viscosity of any suspension of a solid in a
liquid cannot be emphasized too strongly. This fact is well known to
paint and grease chemists, but often is overlooked in oil-field work.
VISCOSITY MEASUREMENT
'" '30#Water 1
U-Tube !
" 4 H Plug· '"
! 4"'Collar .
f k'\pubberTubing .
(
......-.:::=r--~
I
\ I
\. '-- . .,..,. /
2. V = 1001~OD4 (H - h)
where for any point on the line:
Q = grams discharged per second,
D = diameter of efflux tube, inches (exact),
L = length of efflux tube, inches,
V = absolute viscosity, centipoises,
H = pressure, inches of water, corresponding to rate Q,
h = "yield point pressure," inches of water (at point where line cuts
pressure axis),
F = "yield point" (shearing strength of mud), pounds per square foot.
These formulas are an adaptation from the work of Hatschek 1
wherein the English and metric units have been used in the present work
as most convenient under the local conditions.
The diagram, Fig. 1, shows typical results on three samples of mud,
with two liquids similarly plotted to illustrate the difference in physical
properties between liquids and plastic solids. The viscosity is indicated
by the slope of the lines, and it is evident that the viscosity of muds
does not vary greatly, although there is wide variation in their shearing
strengths. The reason for the erratic results with different weights
on the Stormer viscosimeter will be clear when it is considered that
such determinations are equivalent to drawing lines from the origin to
different points on the line representing test results. The slopes (viscosi-
ties) of the two lines so drawn will have no physical meaning, and cannot
check each other.
For the muds tested in California, the" yield point" F in pounds per
square foot is approximately:
F = 0.02[(weight of mud, lb. per cu. ft.) - 65].
1 E. Hatschek: The Viscosity of Liquids, 18. D. Van Nostrand, New York
1928.
480 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD
This r<'la t ion do('s not, apply to muds lighf,!'r than 67 lb. or hC'avier t.han
Ion lh. 1)('1' cu. fl., 01' 1.0 nlllds that have had special chemical treatment.
TplIIpemture variation within ordinary limits does not have much
effect on yield points.
The viscosity varies between 7 centipoises for mud weighing 70 lb.
per cu. ft. and 11 centipoises for 90-lb. mud. It decreases very rapidly
for material weighing less than 70 lb. per cu. ft., but such material
hardly would be considered drilling mud.
FLOW OF MUD IN PIPE
167)0.54
90-lb. mud, Q = 0.97 D2.63 ( P - D
where:
Q = quantity flowing in gallons per minute.
2 E. C. Bingham: Fluidity and Plasticity, 218 et seq. New York, 1922. McGraw-
Hill Book Co.
H. N. HERRICK 481
90POUNDMUD-u~~~~~~~Ww~~~~~~~~~~~~~
80POUNDMUIOW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J-~~~
70POUND~III_
en
Z
o...J
...J
<
<:>
INSIDE DIAMETER
DRILL PIPE
WEIGHT PER roOT
LINE PIPE
FIG. 3.-DATA FOR CALCULATING FLOW OF MUD.
in the field, because they can be used only by "trial and error" to deter-
mine the quantity of mud that can be pumped with a given pressure, or
the pressure necessary to circulate a given quantity of mud through a
given pipe line with various fittings, in series with an annular passage.
In order to simplify the calculation, shearing force and fluid friction
are figured separately, and the same viscosity is used for all weights of
482 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD
mud. Since the actual viscosity range is only between 7 and 11 centi-
poises, this approximation is justifiable for practical work, as the shearing
strength of the mud is the property that is chiefly responsible for variation
in its behavior.
EQUIVALENTS, SHEAR
whence
TABLE I.-Equivalents
Feet of Drill Pipe Equal to Equipment below. Compute Fluid Friction Only No Shear
-
I FeetofofSizes
Drill Pipe Equal to Each Foot between Pipe and Casing
Indicated. Compute Fluid Friction and Shear
Kelly Stems
I
Size, In. Tool Bit I 2:HBitIn. 3-in.
Pipe ,5~4 In. 6% In. 7 In. 8% In. 9 In. 11%ln'113%
Joint 1 2:% In. I-hose 3).2 In. I6 In. I
6 In. 1672 In.
X 33 Ft. X 51 Ft. X 33 Ft. X 33 Ft' l I
2% 4.8
6.65
1 67
43
II 124
79
100
62
0.039 0.0132 0.0081 I \ Fluid
28
17
280
175
0.024 0.0078 0.005 J
55
35
45
29
19
12
I f~iction I
0.76 0.58 0.52 I Shear 1
2H 6.45 --SO---;w----ml--8-6----:no~~--5-4-
I 0.735 0.0.50 ~ 0.0008 -1---1--- 1- - -
8.35
10.4
60
39
260 I
168
210
134
.57 I
39 I
575
375
113 I
74
93
67
40
26
0.545 0.037
0.375 0.026
0.022
0.01;';
0.0006 ~ Fluid fr,. iction '
0.0004 J I 1
I
________ I_______________ i______ ~~~~1 Shear ,_ _ _ 1_ _
3H 8 ..5
11.2
12,; I'
9;;
545
410 I
324
244
217
166
1.640
1.220
338
205
1
I
254
189
125
9.5
0.29.5
0.227
0.149
0.114
0.029
1 0.022
1
I
0.0021
0.0016
I} I
Fluid friction
13.3 71, 310 183 130 970 192 I 142 71 0.179 0.090 0.0175 0.0012 I
1 ' 1.30 1.11 0.72 0.67 Shear
-4}~--- --;)51
13.75 I 93 1
2.0'30
2.000
'~-rn6I'---1.1301--s35
1.170 757 1.110 I 810
448
437 Fluid friction .. {
r 1.68
1.60
I 0.205
10.19.'3
Ii 0.137
0.130
-i(J.Q19'I---
10.018
____ 1~_6_~~~~, _ _ _ ~1~~ l U~ In~5-lUAO Ig:~P,Shear
5~6 22.2 I 100
82
15.720
4.700
3.3~0 2.0,00
I
2.7.00
I
2.3~0 I 2.080
3.!40 2.320
1.910
1.2.50
1.030 Fluid friction .......... {
r 11.!~
1.;'.0
! 1. 0;';
1 0 . 93
i 0.094\
10.083
25.25 78 i 4.400 2.600 1.805 2.440 1.810 975 l 1. 36 ! 0.87 '0.073
I Shear 2.24: 1.87 I 0.96 10.76
~---1-us114.500
25.2 107 13.100 I
8.5.')0
7.!20
'M2Q------S:0005:9001
~.5~0 7.230 5.~20·
3.180
2.870 Fluid friction..................
{ , 106
98
0.3~
0.3,)
i 0.085
0.078
31. 9 90 11.100 6.000 ".100 6.120 4.000 2.440 I Shear
I
83
4.03
0.30
1.47
I 0.067
11.03
484 }'LOW OF DRILLING MUD
which is the pressure drop in pounds per square inch per foot of length to
start and maintain shear in annular passages.
The ratio of this shear pressure drop to that inside the drill pipe is
O.333F:; ~ ~2 D+d
1 dty)2 - d2
O.333F d 1
which is the "factor" by which length of drill pipe having shear resistance
equal to 1 ft. length of annular space is calculated.
For fluid friction the equivalent length of drill pipe for manifold and
hose, driving stem, tool joints, bit, and return space outside the drill
pipe must be computed. Losses in tool joints, etc., are based on limited
test data, which can be improved upon as information accumulates, but
are good enough for ordinary oil-field estimating. An approximation is
necessary in converting orifices such as tool joints to equivalent lengths
of pipe, since the pressure loss in square-edged contractions of this type
varies about as the square of the quantity flowing, while the loss in a
pipe varies as the 1.85 power of the flow. Since it is necessary to convert
the whole system into an equivalent length of one-size pipe in order to
simplify the computations to the point of practical utility, the factors
in the table were calculated for average conditions, but may be in error
up to 10 per cent for very high or very low rates of flow.
The "equivalent factor" for annular passages is different for fluid
friction than for shear. It was calculated by first computing the diameter
of a circular pipe having the same resistance to flow as the annular space,
by the formula
where
d m = diameter of equivalent circular pipe, inches
d = outside diameter of drill pipe, inches
D = inside diameter of casing, inches
The method of using the data for solving mud-flow problems is much
simpler than suggested by the explanation of the reasoning upon which
the method is based. The procedure is as follows:
Given a length of drill pipe and specified fittings, working in a hole of
known diameter, and a known pump pressure and weight of mud, to find
the rate of circulation of mud, the steps are as follows:
1. Figure the equivalent length of drill pipe for shear. This is the
sum of the actual length of drill pipe, plus this length multiplied by
the shear equivalent factor found in Table 1, for the annular space
between the sizes of pipe and casing specified. (Shown by bold face
figures to distinguish from fluid friction factors.)
2. From the diagram, Fig. 3, for the weight of mud used, find the
shear per 1000 ft. of the drill pipe, multiply it by the number of thousands
of feet equivalent length in step 1, to get shear pressure loss. (This does
not vary with rate of flow.)
3. Subtract the shear pressure loss from the actual pump pressure to
get the net pressure available for fluid friction.
4. Compute the equivalent length of (a) manifold and hose, (b) Kelly
stem, (c) drill pipe, (d) tool joints, (e) bit, (f) annular return space, in
terms of length of drill pipe, for fluid friction, and add aU these equivalent
lengths to the drill pipe length.
Divide the net pressure found in operation 3 by the number of thou-
sands of feet of determined equivalent length of drill pipe to get the pres-
sure drop per thousand feet for fluid friction.
5. Enter the diagram (Fig. 3) with size of drill pipe and pressure drop
per thousand feet and read flow in gallons per minute.
Flow of mud in line pipe can be figured with the same diagram,
always remembering to allow for any difference of elevation between the
ends of the line.
Example.-Given: 5200 ft. of 4~~-in., 16.6-lb. drill pipe, 170 tool
joints, working through 8%-in. casing. On 6-in. by 51-ft. Kelly, bit has
2%-in. holes. Pump pressure 850 lb. per sq. inch. How much 80-1b.
mud will circulate?
Solution:
Feet
Equivalent length for shear:
Drill pipe length.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 5,200
Equivalent length outside drill pipe 5,200 X 1.31 ................. , . . 6,812
Feet
Equivalent length, fluid friction:
Drill pipe ...................................................... . 5,200
Tool joints, 170 X 76 ............................................ . 12,920
3-in. pipe and hose, surface ....................................... . 640
6-in. X 51-ft. Kelly .............................................. . 900
Bit, 2%-in. holes ................................................ . 1,630
Space outside drill pipe 5,200 X 0.165 ............................. . 860
DISCUSSION
(H. C. Fowler presiding)
H. C. FOWLER, * Washington, D. C.-In Fig. 3, there are two horizontal dotted
lines, one for 200 gal. per minute and one for 260 gal. per minute. The example cited
in this paper pertains to 200 gal. per minute. A 70-lb. mud was under consideration
in some other work of Mr. Herrick's, but only the 80-lb. mud is discussed in this paper.
By C. P. PARSONs,t Duncan, Okla. (written discussion).-Mr. Herrick makes an
important contribution to a very difficult subject in which the available precedents
are not only few, but some of them are vague and inconsistent. He shows courage
in the manner in which he simplifies reasoning with previous interpretations of pure
physics applied to flow of drilling fluids; and shows resourcefulness in presenting a line
of constructive reasoning, which should be useful in practical problems connected
with the circulating system of rotary drilling.
The paper classifies drilling fluids as "plastic solids," which is reasonable, though
somewhat at variance with previous conceptions. It is a classification that auto-
matically emphasizes the effect of the solids on the flowing nature of a drilling fluid.
After all, a drilling well is usually started with water as the drilling fluid, the flowing
nature of which is practically constant, and after solid matter is picked up or added
to the water the fluid becomes heterogeneous and the flowing nature varies with
the nature and concentration of solid matter.
When the paper mentions measurement of viscosity in "centipoises," it brings
forth a subject that has been bothering many of us who have been studying drilling
fluids for the past few years. Personally, I have reached several stages of satisfaction
with results, only to find later that considerable development was still lacking. As
a result I have been sidetracking absolute viscosity determinations in our records
until we become thoroughly familiar with the vagaries of the subject and feel more
confident of its application to drilling fluids. In the meantime, we have been making
our viscosity determinations on a Stormer viscosimeter and recording these measure-
ments in terms of specific viscosity, rather than in terms of absolute viscosity based
on calibrations with so-called absolute viscosities of standard solutions. Several of
us have tried to make expressions in terms of absolute viscosity but have found wide
variations, although we have been close in our observed measurements. Therefore,
the discrepancies are in the calibrations.
The paper dismisses the Stormer viscosimeter, because in using the instrument
with variable weights proportion is lacking between pressure and flow rate. Our
results also show this to be true, but I still feel that possibly it is due to our lack of
thorough understanding of the instrument.
The theory of fluid friction equivalents set forth in the paper in which the varying
fluid friction in the different parts of a rotary circulating system, exclusive of the
pumps, is brought to a common basis by means of a table of equivalents, is a very
good one and a material contribution to the study of drilling fluids.
As I see it, a practical use of these equivalents will be in calculating expected pump
pressures to meet the resistance of a mud fluid in a circulating system while drilling.
Such calculations will have practical significance in selection or design of pumping
equipment in areas where high circulating pressures are a problem, and in deep-well
drilling in general. We must remember that 1931 went down in drilling history as
the" 1O,000-ft. year"; and when drilling at such depths the flow of drilling fluid is
vitally important from many angles, especially in cementing.
* U. S. Bureau of Mines.
t Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
DISCUSSION 489
I<ufficiently fluid to be rcadily handled by thc pumps. The low viscosity permits
I>eparation of sand and cutt.ings at the surface.
If the sodium silicate treatment is overdone, the cuttings tend to settle through
the mud in the hole. If the mud is too fluid, the velocity of the mud wiII have to be
increased greatly in order to bring the cuttings and sand to the surface. Sodium
silicate must be used with caution; try it in the laboratory before trying it in the well.
B. O. ORAFT, * Baton Rouge, La.-It has been shown, in U. S. Bureau of Standards
Technologic Paper 234, that in working with clays the results obtained with the Bing-
ham plastometer are dependent upon capillary dimensions. If this method of measur-
ing plasticity is to be used, a standard orifice should be adopted and employed in all
tests, in order that the results may be comparable. It is suggested that the orifice
dimensions be the same as those used by Mr. Herrick.
H. N. MARSHt AND M. E. DrcE,t Los Angeles, Oalif. (written discussion).-The
title and introduction of Mr. Herrick's paper indicate that it concerns only the relation
between pressure and rate of flow, which may not be of general interest. As a matter
of fact, it emphasizes and illustrates the importance of considering rotary mud as a
plastic. This should make it of interest and value to everyone concerned with rotary
drilling. While the shearing strength of mud is probably more important than its
viscosity, this property has not been commonly reported and considered in the past.
The adaption of the Bingham plastometer should probably be followed by other
investigators, although it is possible that the same information could be secured
with the Stormer viscosimeter by those who are familiar with this instrument or
otherwise prefer it, provided it were properly calibrated. The statement that tem-
perature does not have much effect on shearing strength or viscosity is important. It
would be interesting to have the data upon which this statement is based in order that
it might be more definitely evaluated. It has been said that pressure has an enormous
effect upon viscosity, and perhaps Mr. Herrick can add some information on this point.
The formulas and charts developed by Mr. Herrick are based on streamline
(viscous) flow. In common practice, is not the flow of mud frequently turbulent, con-
sequently changing the pressure-quantity relations? It is hoped that Prof. W. B.
Gregory, of Tulane University, as well as the author will have comments on this point.
The effect of shearing strength upon settling of sand grains, as explained in the
final section, should be obvious, but is not commonly understood. It explains why
ditches and settling pits are so ineffective wherE'! mud of any appreciable shearing
strength is used.
W. B. GREGORY,§ New Orleans, La.-The writer's experience in pumping mud is
confined to a piece of research work done in the city of New Orleans to determine the
practicability of pumping the material from the settling basins of the city waterworks
plant to the cement plant several miles away. The material pumped contained about
15 per cent solids by weight as it came from the settling basins of the filtration plant.
By allowing it to settle for several days and drawing off the top of the mixture, it
may be concentrated to about 25 per cent solids. To further remove the water by
settling requires considerable time.
The material was actually pumped through a 4-in. cast-iron pipe. Velocity was
obtained from volumetric measurements and the loss in pressure determined in a
length of 200 ft. of pipe. The details of the work are given in Mechanical Engineering
(June, 1927) 609.
* Assistant Pro{essor, Petroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University.
t Production Engineer, General Petroleum Oorporation of Oalifornia.
t Research Engineer, General Petroleum Oorporation of Oalifornia.
§ Professor of Hydraulics, Tulane University.
FLOW OF ORILLING MUD
The experimenl.3 8ho,,,ed th~t for A given ooncentrfLtion the loss of heAd Wi'll!
independent of the velocity up to the eri tiefLl velocity fLnd th:'l.t the losses varied by
little from those found in pumping Imter, beyond the cri ticul I·elothy. Of cOllrse,
there WfLS found the usual zone of uncertainty neA.r the critical velocity, in which the
experimental pressures VAried 8Omewhat, as they do in pumping a ll liquids.
An attempt. was made to mCA8ure the visco8ity of the mntcrial with a Sarbolt
vi!ICosimcte r but th e results were fa r from BatisfA.clory.
"
R. "
••h---1-,.~--~.c-~~".~.~.,".k.!+,--~--~,~--,t--+,-!,-!,-,~,~,~,
Ve loc:ity . feet perS.<;o~d
FIG, 4 . -RESU LTS or l\IAY ASO JVSE EXPERIMEST$. ( R~ 'ProductdJrom tIlech. Eng.,
June, 1927.)
Table 2 gives the physical properties of the material pumped. A chemical analysis
of the material is given in Tahle 3.
Thls lDateria l contained a small amount of Band, whic h was not determined, but
is included in tbe silica residue and classed with the clay.
The obviou8 conclusion from the charts showing losses in pipc ILt different velocities
for these testa (Figs. 4 and 5) is that, for minimum power requirement!l, the slurry o r
mud should be pumped at t he veloci ty that ILpproximates the critical velodty of the
mixture und~r couidemtion. Thill varied from about 1.5 ft. per second for 23.5 per
cent 80lida by weight to 8.5 ft. per second fo r 35.3 per cent solids by weight. It is also
clearly I hown that the two samples used varied somewhat in physical properties.
DISCUSSION 491
The writer has sought in vain for a way to coordinate these results with those given
in the paper by Mr. Herrick. The writer's results are given here in the hope that some
one will be more fortunate in pointing out similarity and difference. An accumulation
of data on the important subject of the flow of mud will contribute to the eventual
solving of the problems.
I
10
~
6
7
Iltl I
6
5 .~
\\05 r
'- 4 ~"'J
~ 'IJ'Ii'/
...~
I
~
3 )f
0 ~tt
....
..."" ~I
'1
'"
0..
~
'Z
/1 /.
...u ~. l
i:i:
.$ •
c 1.0
',0.9
'<t
,,'t:. 0.7
0.8 . . .~ 'tt'
...
.f05
-G'
.Avq. Temp. 65"/: •
+ . /
I II
f
f
~ 04 • Clo.s/~ YO/V8 - f -
e:
II I
/ • oc.J!fs.Yo~e -f0-
.- 0,3 + tWo , 'lG • ~~
1/ x lJec. 2, /926, H'9"
'"'"
0
..J
6 Dec.2,l '26.lorrPressure
0.7
0.1
0.1 o.Z 0,3 0.4 0.5 0.& O.l~ 1.0 'l 3 4 5 6 7 &
Veloc.ity. Feet per Sec.ond
FIG. 5.-RESULTS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER EXPERIMENTS. (Reproduced from
Meeh. Eng., June, 1927.)
I I
L~l
1 48.0 71.0 52.0 29.0 92.0
2 61.2 80.7 38.8 19.3 82.2 1 .32 Slurry pumped in
3 69.0 85.5 31.0 14.5 77.1 1.24 May, June and
4 82.8 92.7 17.2 7.3 .69.6 .1.12 J July
5 88.2 95.2 11.8 4.8 67.2 1.08
6 76.4 88.1 23.6 11.7 73.2 1.17 Slurry pumped in
November and
I December
I I
a Weight of 1 cu. ft. of water at 85° F. = 62.2 lb.
492 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD
100.00
Carbonic acid (C0 2) • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • . . • . • . . • 4.01
Calculated to the dry basis, the approximate analysis would be as follows:
PER CENT
100.00
H. C. MILLER, * San Francisco, Calif. (written discussion).-Mr. Herrick's paper
clears up one of the most troublesome and perhaps least understood points encountered
in problems relating to the flow of mud fluids through pipe lines and the circulation
of mud fluid in wells drilled by the rotary method. I am of the opinion that progress
in mud-fluid research has been slow mainly because engineers (the writer included)
have heretofore considered mud fluid to be a liquid, and consequently attempted to
make the laws of flow of liquids through pipes apply to the flow of mud fluid through
similar media. Mr. Herrick has opened the door to a new thought by pointing out
that mud fluids are not liquids but plastic solids, like paints and greases. This new
conception of the physical characteristic of drilling muds immediately suggests why
we failed in the attempts to solve our problems of flow of mud fluids through pipe
lines by using formulas which are applicable only to calculations of flow of liquids.
Many have wondered why a considerable pressure was required to start the flow of
mud fluid in a pipe line, when a very much smaller pressure caused continuous flow of
water through the same or a similar line. No one seemed to be able to give a satis-
factory reason for this difference in pump pressures required to start the flow. Mr.
Herrick shows that the difference in pressures depends almost entirely upon the differ-
ence in yield points of water and mud fluid. The yield point of water is zero,
consequently a very small force applied at one end of the pipe line will produce con-
tinuous deformation or flow of water from the outlet end. However, because mud
fluid is a plastic solid, its yield point is greater than zero and there can be no flow of
mud fluid through the pipe line until the pump pressure exceeds the pressure necessary
to overcome the shearing strength of the mud fluid. The data show, for example,
that a pressure of approximately 140 lb. per sq. in. is required to overcome the shearing
I sec little pmcticaluse for the formula to derive the mte of circulation of mud when
it is necrssary to assemble a considerable amount of data and go through computations
and then only. arrive at an approximat,e figure, when it could be measured in the mud
pit at the well in a simple manner.
H. N. HEHHICK, San Francisco, Calif. (written discussion).--The variation of
yield point and viscosit~· of mud with temperature, mentioned by Mr. Dice, is not
very clcarly brought out by the data available. Both appear to decrease slightly with
increasing tcmperature up to 200 0 F., which is the highest temperature we have used,
but the variation is of so nearly the same order of magnitude as experimental errors
that a great amount of work would be required to determine it exactly. We have
no data on the effect of pressure on yield point and viscosity of mud, except that the
flow formulas based on low-pressure tests appear to give fairly good results on high-
pressure problems.
Mr. Dice says that the formulas given in the paper apply only to streamline flow.
This is the case only for the formulas relating to the viscosimeter efflux tube, which is
designed to give streamline flow. The diagram and formulas for flow in pipe are
based on Williams and Hazen's formula, which applies to turbulent flow only.
The experimental data given by Prof. W. B. Gregory are difficult to correlate with
the drilling mud data because the yield point of the material used in his tests appears
to be much smaller than that of the drilling mud we have tested. The yield points
of the New Orleans mud, computed from Professor Gregory's Fig. 4, compare with
those of Kcttleman, Calif., muds of corresponding density, as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4.-Yield Points-:oj Muds
Yield Point, Lb. per Sq. Ft.
Solids, Per Cent
by Weight
I Approximate Weight \
per Cu. Ft.
I I
New Orleans Mud Kettleman Mud