SPE/IADC 91610
Hydraulic Optimization of Foam Drilling For Maximum Drilling Rate
E. Kuru, O.M. Okunsebor, Y. Li, University of Alberta
Copyright 2004, SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11–12 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, their officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal 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
The theory of hydraulic optimization of drilling with
conventional (incompressible) drilling fluids is well known
and has been widely practiced in the industry.
Classical theory of hydraulics optimization for maximum
drilling rate calls for either the use of empirical correlations or
the use of optimization theory to maximize some arbitrary
objective functions such as maximum bit hydraulic
horsepower or jet impact force.
Concept of hydraulic optimization for maximum drilling rate
when drilling with foam, however, is not well investigated.
Compressible nature of the foam makes the use of
conventional optimization theory difficult.
A transient-mechanistic model of cuttings transport with foam
has been developed and numerically solved recently. In this
study, the new model has been used to re-visit classical theory
of hydraulic optimization (i.e. maximum bit hydraulic
horsepower/ jet impact force criteria).
A new methodology has been suggested to determine
optimum gas/liquid injection rates for maximizing drilling rate
when drilling with foam while keeping the bottom hole
pressure minimum.
The new method can be easily used in the field to determine
best combination of gas/liquid injection rates and total bit flow
area (i.e. jet nozzle sizes) such that maximum drilling rate is
achieved.
INTRODUCTION
Foam is often used as a circulating fluid in underbalanced
drilling operations because of its high viscosity and variable
density. Applications of foam as a drilling fluid in many
drilling operations, and the results from various field cases are
well documented 1-6.
Drilling hydraulics has long been recognized as one of the
most important considerations for maximizing drilling
efficiency and minimizing drilling cost.7-10 The concept of
hydraulics optimization for drilling with incompressible fluids
have been well investigated.11-17
Optimization of drilling hydraulics requires calculation of
frictional pressure losses in the system and of the minimum
fluid velocity to carry the cuttings in the annulus. Finding
satisfactory answers for both of these problems has been a
challenge for engineers even for incompressible drilling fluids.
The hydraulic optimization problem becomes more
complicated when drilling with foam due to the compressible
nature of the foam. Determining the optimum back pressure
and gas/liquid injection rates for effective cuttings transport
while achieving maximum drilling rate are some of the major
questions need to be answered.
In this paper, a new methodology is presented for determining
optimum combination of back pressure, gas/liquid ratio and
total flow area in order to maximize the drilling rate when
drilling with foam.
DRILLING HYDRAULICS OPTIMIZATION
Classical theory of hydraulic optimization for maximum
drilling rate calls for either the use of empirical correlations
(such as Fullerton18 charts, or Amoco curves19) or the use of
optimization theory to maximize some arbitrary objective
functions such as maximum bit hydraulic horsepower and jet
impact force.11-17
As stated by Swanson et al.15 “drilling hydraulics
optimization, similar to many other engineering optimization
problems, involves the manipulation of several independent
variables to obtain a maximum (or minimum) in one or more
dependent variables within boundaries imposed by cost, safety
and the physical properties of the system under analysis”.
2 SPE/IADC 91610
The variables include: drilling fluid rheology, the drillstring
geometry, the bit nozzle size, the drilling fluid flow rate, and
the drilling rate. The constraints include: drilling cost,
wellbore geometry, pump capacity (maximum pump pressure
and flow rate capacity) and performance characteristics,
wellbore stability, and the minimum drilling fluid flow rate
required for lifting the cuttings in the annulus.
The variables and constraints are related through calculation
of circulating pressure losses, bit hydraulic calculations and
calculations of minimum flow rates for cuttings transport. In
practice, constraints define boundaries of the path of optimum
hydraulics (Figure 1).14-15 The path of optimum hydraulics is
divided into three sections.
Section 1 corresponds to hydraulic energy required for drilling
the shallow/larger section of the borehole where the drilling
rate is very high and the pump is usually operated at its
maximum flow rate, qmax ,capacity.
The value of qmax is a function of the pump horse power rating
(Hp) and the maximum allowable pump pressure (Equation 1).
1714 H p E
qmax= ------------------------------------------ (1)
( P p ) max
Section 2 defined by the constant parasitic pressure loss,
corresponds to the intermediate depth section of the well
where the flow rate is gradually reduced to maintain parasitic
pressure losses to pump pressure ratio at an optimum level.
For incompressible fluid flow, parasitic pressure loss is
generally assumed to be a power function of the flow rate
(Equation 2).
∆Pd = cQ m ------------------------------------------------- (2)
Where m is the flow exponent and c is a constant that depends
on the drilling fluid properties and wellbore geometry.
Mathematically, two sets of parasitic pressure loss vs. flow
rate data are required for determining values of c and m.
Practically, c and m can be determined by using two field
measurement of pump pressure at two different flow rates.
The parasitic pressure losses corresponding to specific drilling
conditions (i.e., drilling fluid properties, wellbore and
drillstring geometry, bit nozzle sizes, and flow rate) can be
obtained from the equation 3.
∆Pd = P p
− ∆Pb ------------------------------------------ (3)
Where Pp and ∆Pb are the pump pressure and the bit pressure
drop, respectively. For incompressible drilling fluids, an
equation for the bit pressure drop (equation 4) can be derived
from basic energy balance relationship.14
K ρq 2
∆Pb = 12 2 -------------------------------------------- (4)
C d At
Where K1= 8.311x10-5 for field units.
The optimum value of the parasitic pressure loss can be
calculated by finding the mathematical maximum of some
arbitrarily selected hydraulic performance indicator such as bit
hydraulic horsepower, jet impact force, and Reynolds number.
Examples of such theoretical analyses have been presented by
Kendall and Goins11 and Bourgoyne et al.14
Optimum values of parasitic pressure losses can be calculated
by using equations 5 and 6 which were derived by using
maximum jet impact force and maximum bit hydraulic
horsepower criteria respectively14.
2 Pp
(∆Pd )opt = ---------------------------------------- (5)
m+2
Pp
(∆Pd )opt = ---------------------------------------- (6)
m +1
Section 3 corresponds to deeper sections of the well where
higher pressure losses are expected. In section 3, the flow rate
is kept at the lower practical limit. The drilling can be
performed under this flow rate until the total pressure losses
become equal to the pump pressure capacity. The lower limit
of the flow rate is defined by the minimum flow rate, qmin ,
required for transporting cuttings in the annulus.
Fullerton18 gave an empirical chart for the determination of
optimum annular velocity for normal range of hole sizes and
mud weights. Randall20 suggested a flow rate of 30 to 50
gpm/in of bit diameter as a rule of thumb at the bottom of the
hole for effective cutting transport.
More comprehensive theoretical and experimental
investigations for determining minimum flowrate required for
cuttings removal have also been conducted.21-24
Once the optimum flow path is constructed, the next step is to
determine parasitic pressure loss vs. flow rate relationship for
the actual drilling conditions.
The equation 2 implies that a plot of parasitic pressure loss vs.
flow rate in logarithmic scale would result a straight line.
Coefficients m and c can be determined from the slope of the
straight line and the intercept of the line with horizontal axis,
respectively. The intersection of this straight line with the
optimum flow path will define the value of optimum flow rate
(Figure 1).
Once the optimum flow rate and parasitic pressure loss values
are determined, the optimum value of total flow area is
calculated by using the equation 7.
K 1 ρ (Qopt )
2
( At )opt =
----------------------------- (7)
(C d )2 (∆Pb ) opt
SPE/IADC 91610
For the detailed explanation of the graphical technique to
determine optimum flow rate and optimum bit nozzle diameter
reader should refer to Bourgoyne et al.14
HYDRAULICS OPTIMIZATION OF FOAM DRILLING
Optimization of drilling hydraulics requires calculation of
parasitic pressure losses and the bit pressure drop.
Parasitic Pressure Losses vs. Foam Flow Rate
Determining parasitic pressure losses is not a straightforward
task when using foam due to the compressible nature of the
foam. Closed form solutions are not available for finding
pressure losses. Generally simultaneous solution of mass and
momentum balance equations are required for determining
fluid velocity and pressure distribution along the pipe or
annulus.
An example of such solution technique has been recently
presented by Li and Kuru.25
The mass and the momentum balance relationships of Li-Kuru
model are given by equations 8 and 9, respectively.
∂
(C f ρ f ) + ∂ (C f ρ f U f ) = s f ------------------------(8)
∂t ∂x
∂
(C f ρ f U f ) + ∂ C f ρ f U 2f = −C f g c ∂P −
( )
∂t ∂x ∂x
Cf ρ fU f
2
β v (U f − U s ) − C f ρ f g − f Mf
2 DH
-----------------------(9)
In equation 8, s f represents the source term which accounts
for the influx of formation fluids into the annulus when
drilling underbalanced.
The source term is the influx rate of reservoir fluid per unit of
the annulus and is given by equation 10.
ρ j PI j
sf = ∑ ( Pre − P) ---------------(10)
j Aan
j = w, o, and g
PI is the specific productivity index. The solution of the mass
and momentum balance relationships ( equations 8 and 9),
requires the use of numerical analysis technique. For the
detailed description of model development and the numerical
solution, reader should refer to Li and Kuru25.
Using the numerical solution of the Li-Kuru model, foam
drilling hydraulics simulator has been developed. The
3
simulator has been used for determining the relationship
between parasitic pressure losses and foam flow rate.
The results shown in figures 2 and 3 indicate that the parasitic
pressure loss vs. foam flow rate relationship also follows the
power law trend (equation 2). Since foam flow rate is variable,
there will be a question of which flow rate is applicable in
equation 2.
The numerical analyses have shown that the power law
relationship is valid whether the parasitic pressure losses is
plotted as a function of foam flow rate at the surface (Figure
2) or as a function of foam flow rate at the bottom of the hole
(Figure 3). The values of correlation coefficients, c and m, in
equation 2 will be different for both cases.
Note that the power law trend is valid for laminar flow of
foam which is found to be the case for most of the practical
applications of foam drilling.
Sensitivity analyses have shown that the coefficient “m” is
constant. The coefficient c, however, was found to be a linear
function of the depth as shown by figure 4.
Bit Pressure Drop For Foam Drilling.
The bit pressure drop relationship given by equation 4 has
been derived by using Bernoulli equation.14 The equation 4
was derived for the flow of incompressible fluids, therefore,
can not be used to estimate bit pressure drop due to
compressible fluids such as foam..
A model for estimating bit pressure drop for foam flow has
been developed by Okpobiri and Ikoku26.
By using steady-state mechanical energy balance for
compressible fluids, and the equation of state for foam
suggested by Lord27, Okpobiri and Ikoku26 derived the
equation 11 for calculation of bit pressure drop due to foam
flow.
A ⎛⎜ Pbh + E 2 ⎞⎟ ------------------------11
∆Pb = ln vn ⎟
B ⎜⎝ Pbh + ∆Pb ⎠
A=
m Z RT
g
-------------------------------------12
M (m + m )
g L
1
E= ----------------------------------------------13
2A g
c
4 SPE/IADC 91610
B= m L
--------------------------------14
ρ (m + m
g L
)
L
Figure 5 shows a sketch of the flow through bit nozzles
In this study, the approach presented by Okpobiri and Ikoku26
has been adopted to determine bit pressure drop.
Minimum Foam Flow Rate Required for Cuttings
Transport
The minimum flow rate required for effective cuttings
transport during foam drilling has been investigated by
previous researchers26, 28-30.
26
Okpobiri and Ikoku suggested that the foam velocity at the
bottom of the hole should exceed the terminal settling velocity
of the cutting by 10% for effective bottom hole cleaning.
Krug and Mitchell28 recommended 1.5 ft/s as the minimum
foam velocity required at the bottom of the hole for effective
cutting transport.
Guo et al.29 suggested that a critical cutting concentration (4%)
should be specified at the bottom of the hole to determine the
minimum foam velocity for effective cutting transport.
Recently, Li30 conducted a comprehensive study of a cuttings
transport with foam. Li defined the minimum foam flow rate
as the flow rate required for controlling the cuttings
concentration less than 4% while keeping the bottomhole
pressure minimum.
The rate of penetration strongly affects the critical foam
velocity required for effective cutting transport.
For low rate of penetration, the cutting concentration limit of
4% can be accommodated due to low flow rate of solids.
For high rate of penetration, the cutting transport efficiency is
strongly influenced by the drilling rate. Two different
relationships between the minimum foam velocity, umin,
required for effective cutting transport and the optimum
velocity, uopt, to maintain minimum bottomhole pressure are
observed depending on the size of the hole.
For a large diameter hole, the foam velocity that would yield
minimum bottomhole pressure is higher than the minimum
foam velocity required to keep the cutting concentration less
than 4% (Figure 6).
On the other hand, when drilling a small diameter hole, the
cutting concentration at the bottom becomes relatively high. In
this case the optimum velocity needed to maintain minimum
bottomhole pressure would not be sufficient to maintain a
cutting concentration less than 4%. In this case, the minimum
velocity needed to keep the cutting concentration below 4% is
selected as optimum velocity to ensure effective hole cleaning
(Figure 7).
Based on the results of simulation studies, Li30 presented
type curves that can be used for estimating critical foam
velocities for different borehole geometry, drilling rate, and
well depth conditions (Figure-8).
Methodology of Hydraulic Optimization For Foam
Drilling
Hydraulic optimization of underbalanced drilling with foam is
defined as the process of selecting the best combination of
annular back pressure, gas/liquid flow rate and bit nozzle sizes
that would maximize drilling rate and ensure effective cutting
transport while keeping the circulating bottomhole pressure
minimum.
Foam drilling has some special features which do not need to
be considered when drilling with conventional
(incompressible) fluids. For example, a certain back pressure
has to be applied at the flow line to make sure that foam
quality at the surface does not exceed certain limit. Generally,
96% is considered to be the upper limit of foam quality above
which foam becomes unstable and turns into a mist. The
compressibility of foam is another factor which is generally
not considered when designing hydraulics program for
conventional drilling fluids.
Because of the introduction of back pressure, compressibility
of foam and the necessity to maintain certain critical foam
(96%) quality at the top of the well during foam drilling, foam
hydraulic optimization program requires the modification of
the classical hydraulics optimization theory used for
incompressible fluids.
In order to modify the classical hydraulic optimization theory
for foam flow, knowledge of the effect of back pressure on the
bottomhole pressure is required.
The back pressure required to maintain minimum bottomhole
pressure and a critical foam quality at the surface is called as
the optimum back pressure, Pob. Figure 9 shows the effect of
back pressure on the bottomhole pressure at different depth. It
also shows the optimum back pressure at each depth for which
the circulating bottomhole pressure is minimum.
By introducing the effect of back pressure, the pressure
balance during foam drilling can be written as follows:
Pp = ∆Pd + ∆Pb + Pob ---------------------------------- (15)
Li30 has shown that there is a linear relationship between the
optimum back pressure and the depth of the well.
Pob = 20 + 0.01D --------------------------------------- (16)
Where Pob is the optimum back pressure in (Psia) and D is
depth in (feet).
SPE/IADC 91610 5

By introducing the effect of back pressure and foam The minimum of these two pressures can be used as a pump
compressibility and using the maximum hydraulic bit pressure in equations 17-21.
horsepower or maximum jet impact force criteria, the
equations corresponding to optimum foam hydraulics can be The optimum value of the total flow (bit nozzle) area can be
derived. found by introducing optimum bit pressure drop and optimum
foam flow rate values in the equation 11.
The optimum parasitic pressure loss relationship obtained by
using maximum bit hydraulic horse power criteria is given by 2
Q
equation 17.
( At ) =
Fopt ----(22)

(∆P b ) 1 P
opt
B
−
Pp − Pob
(∆P b )
ln bh

(∆Pd )opt = ------------------------------------ (17) EA opt E P bh +

m +1
opt

The optimum parasitic pressure loss relationship obtained by Optimum Gas and Liquid Rates
using maximum jet impact force is given by equation 18.
Equations 16 and 17 can be used to calculate the optimum
2(Pp − Pob )
foam flow rate at the bottom of the well. From the field
(∆Pd )opt = --------------------------------- (18) operational point of view, however, gas and liquid rates at the
m+2 surface need to be determined. In order to determine the
optimum gas and liquid rates at surface conditions, the
Optimum foam flow rate at the bottom hole conditions can be optimum gas liquid ratio (OGLR) is required.
calculated by using equations 19 and 20 which were derived
by using maximum bit hydraulic horse power and maximum Li30 has shown that the optimum gas liquid ratio, Φ c , is a
jet impact force criteria, respectively. linear function of the optimum back pressure, Pob, and can be
1
calculated by using the equation 23:
⎛ Pp − Pob ⎞ m
(Q )
f optbh
= ⎜⎜
⎝ c ( m + 1)
⎟⎟
⎠
------------------------------- (19) (Φ c ) sc
= aPob + b ------------------------------------------ (23)

The value of constants a and b depend on the value of the

⎛ 2(Pp − Pob ) ⎞
1
critical foam quality and the units of OGLR and pressure. Li30
(Q )
m
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ----------------------------(20) found that if critical foam quality at the top of the well is taken
⎝ c(m + 2) ⎠
f optbh
as 96% and the unit of OGLR and pressure are scfm/gpm and
psia respectively, the coefficients a and b take the value of
The derivations of equations 17-20 are shown in the appendix 0.22 and -0.06, respectively.
A.
The optimum gas liquid ratio at the bottomhole condition can
The optimum bit pressure drop can be estimated by using be calculated by using (Φc)sc and the real gas equation of state
equation 21. In equation 21, optimum parasitic pressure loss as shown by equation 24.
values obtained from either equation 17 or 18 can be used.

(∆Pb ) = Pp − ∆Pd − Pob ----------------------- (21)

(Φ c ) = (Φ c ) *
Z T bh P
bh sc -------------------- (24)
opt
bh sc
Z T sc P
sc bh

Pump pressure, Pp, in the equation 21 can be selected from the With the OGLR and the foam flow rate at the bottomhole
operators limit for maximum discharge pressure capacity of conditions known, the optimum gas and liquid flow rates at
the liquid pump or the compressor (choose minimum of the the bottomhole conditions can be obtained by using equations
two). 25 and 26, respectively.

Pump pressure vs. foam flow rate curve (Figure 10) can be ⎛ (Φ ) ⎞
used to determine the critical foam velocity corresponding to
(Q ) ⎜
=⎜ c bh ⎟(Q ) ------------------- (25)
transitions from laminar to turbulent flow regime. The foam
⎜ 1 + (Φ ) ⎟⎟
g optbh f optbh
flow rate corresponding to the critical foam velocity can be ⎝ c bh ⎠
determined by using the borehole cross-sectional area.
Maximum allowable surface gas and liquid flow rates can then ⎛ ⎞
⎜ 1 ⎟
be calculated by using maximum allowable foam flow rate.
(QL )optbh =⎜ (Q f ) optbh -------------------- (26)
The maximum compressor and liquid pump discharge
⎜ 1 + (Φ ) ⎟⎟
pressures corresponding to maximum gas and liquid flow rates ⎝ c bh ⎠
can be determined from the pump/compressor specifications.
6 SPE/IADC 91610

The optimum foam flow rate at the surface conditions, (Qf )optsc , 6. Determine the foam flow rate at the bottomhole
can be obtained from the optimum gas and liquid flow rates at conditions by using:
the bottomhole condition by taking the real gas equation of state
into consideration. The equation 27 can be used to determine
the optimum foam flow rate at the surface condition. (Q ) (Q )
f =
L sc
+
Z T bh P Q
bh sc

Z T sc P
g( )
(Q )
bh sc
sc bh
Z sc PbhTsc
(Q ) f optsc
= (QL )opsct +
g optbh
--------------(27) 7. Set the liquid pump and gas compressor for Qlsc and Qgsc.
Z bh PscTbh Measure the standpipe pressure while pumping the foam
at a rate (QF)sc ((QF)sc =(QL)sc + (Qg) sc ).
In derivation of the equation 26, it was assumed that the liquid
fraction of the foam is not compressible and , therefore, the 8. Repeat the steps 5 to 7 for another combination of gas and
optimum liquid flow rate at the surface is the same as the liquid rates and obtain a second standpipe pressure
optimum liquid flow rate at the bottom of the hole. reading.
Finally, optimum gas and liquid injection rates at the surface 9. Using Okpobiri and Ikoku model26 (equations 11-14)
conditions can be found by using equations 28 and 29, determine the pressure drop across the bit nozzles for two
respectively. different foam flow rates at the bottomhole conditions.

⎛ (Φ ) ⎞ 10. Using the equation 15, determine the parasitic pressure

(Q ) ⎜
=⎜ c sc ⎟(Q ) ------------------(28) drop corresponding to the two foam flow rates.
⎜ 1 + (Φ ) ⎟⎟
g optsc f optsc
⎝ c sc ⎠ 11. Using the two data points, plot the graph of parasitic
pressure loss, ∆PD, vs. foam flow rate at the bottomhole,
(Qf)bh , on a log-log graph.

12. From the plot determine the values of c and m.

⎛ ⎞
⎜ 1 ⎟
(QL )optsc =⎜ (Q f ) optsc ---------------- (29)
⎜ 1 + (Φ ) ⎟⎟
13. The maximum compressor and liquid pump discharge
⎝ c bh ⎠ pressures corresponding to maximum gas and liquid flow
rates can be determined by using pump/compressor
specifications. Select the minimum of the two as the
pump pressure, Pp. Maximum allowable gas and liquid
SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC OPTIMIZATION flow rates can be obtained by using the critical foam flow
PROCEDURE FOR FOAM DRILLING rate and optimum gas liquid ratio at the surface
The hydraulic optimization of foam drilling in vertical wells conditions. Critical foam flow rate can be obtained from
requires simultaneous control of back pressure, foam quality, the critical foam velocity which is the velocity at which
gas /liquid flow rate and bit nozzle sizes to achieve maximum transition from laminar flow regime to turbulent flow
drilling rate and ensure effective cutting transport while regime occurs (Figure 10).
maintaining a minimum bottomhole pressure.
14. Determine optimum foam flow rate at the bottomhole
The stepwise procedure for the hydraulic optimization of foam conditions either by using the equation 19 for maximum
drilling for field operation is given as follows: bit hydraulic horse power criteria or by using the equation
20 for maximum jet impact force criteria.
1. Specify the critical foam quality at the top of the annulus
(usually taken as 96%). 15. Determine the optimum gas and liquid rates at the
bottomhole conditions by using equations 25 and 26,
2. Determine the optimum back pressure, Pob, at the depth of respectively
operation by using the equation 16.
16. Determine the optimum foam flow rate at the surface
3. Determine the optimum gas liquid ratio at the surface conditions by using equation 27.
condition, (Φc)sc , by using the equation 23.
17. Determine the optimum gas and liquid flow rates at the
4. Determine the optimum gas liquid ratio at the bottomhole surface conditions by using equations 28 and 29
conditions , (Φc)bh , by using the equation 24. respectively.

5. Select a liquid flow rate, QLsc, and determine 18. Determine the optimum parasitic pressure losses either by
corresponding gas flow rate, Qgsc (by multiplying the gas using the equation 17 for maximum bit hydraulic horse
flow rate with the optimum gas liquid ratio, (Φc)sc ) at the power criteria or by using the equation 18 for maximum
surface conditions. jet impact force criteria.
SPE/IADC 91610 7

19. Determine the optimum bit pressure drop by using the βv Coefficient accounting for drag force,
equation 21. lbm/(sec⋅ft3)
Φc Optimum gas liquid ratio, dimensionless
20. Determine the optimum total flow area of the bit nozzles Γ Foam quality, dimensionless
by using the equation 22.
ρ Density, lbm/ft3

CONCLUSIONS Subscripts
• The classical hydraulic optimization theory developed for an wellbore annulus
incompressible drilling fluids can not be directly applied b condition at the choke
for hydraulic optimization of foam drilling due to the bh bottomhole
compressible nature of the foam and the need for applying dp drill pipe
a back pressure (to maintain a certain critical foam quality f foam
at the top of the well). g gas
h hole
• For the laminar flow of foam, the parasitic pressure loss is i number of computational cell
a power function of the foam flow rate. In injection
l liquid phase
• A new methodology has been developed for the selection s solids
of the best combination of foam flow rate and bit nozzle sc surface condition.
sizes that would maximize drilling rate while ensuring t total
effective cutting transport. opt optimum
max maximum
• The new method can be easily used in the field to
determine best combination of gas/liquid injection rates
and total bit flow area to achieve maximum drilling rate.
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. Sanghani, V. and Ikoku, C.U. “Rheology of Foam and Its
Implication in Drilling and Cleanout Operations,” J. Energy
This work is supported through the research grant provided by Res. Tech., September 1983, p.362-371
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada. 2. Lage, A.C.V.M., Nakagawa, E.Y., Souza, A.A., Santos,
M.M., “Recent Case Histories of Foam Drilling In Brazil,”
NOMENCLATURE SPE 36098, SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum
a,b Coefficients in equation 19 Eng. Conf., Trinidad and Tobago.
A Cross-sectional area, ft2
3. Meng, Y.F., Lou, P.Y., Jiao, D., Lao, R.K., and Lao, H.,
C Volumetric concentration, dimensionless
Cd Discharge coefficient (0.95), dimensionless. “Horizontal Well Technology with Cycling Using of Inert
DH Hydraulic diameter, ft Foam,”; SPE International Conf. on Horizontal Well
D True vertical depth of a well, ft Technology, Calgary, Canada, 18-20 November, 1996.
E Overall pump efficiency
4. Kitsios, E., Rovig J., Reynolds, E., “Underbalanced Drilling
fM Moody friction coefficient, dimensionless
Through Oil Production Zones with Stable Foam In
g Acceleration of gravity, ft/sec2
Oman,”; SPE 27525, IADC/SPE Drilling Conf., Dallas TX,
gc Newton’s law conversion factor, ft-lbm/lbf-sec2
February 15-18,1994
Hp Pump horsepower, hp
K,K1,K2 Constants depending on units used. 5. Rojas, Y., Vieira, P., Borrell, M., Blanco, J., Ford, M.,
m Constant Nieto, L., Lopez, G. and Atencio, B. ; “Field of Near-
p pressure in wellbore, psia Balance Drilling Using Aqueous Foams In Western
∆Pd Parasitic pressure loss, psia Venezuela,” SPE 74449 Presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conf., Dallas TX, 26-28 February 2002
∆Pb Pressure drop across the bit, psia
Pp Pump pressure, psia 6. Hall, D.L., and Roberts, R.D.: “Offshore Drilling with
Pb Back pressure, psia Preformed Stable Foam,” SPE 12794 presented at the 1984
Pob Optimum back pressure, psia California Regional Meeting, Long Beech, CA, 11-13 April
q Flow rate, ft3/sec 1984.
Q Flow rate, ft3/sec
sf Source term of foam, lbm/(sec⋅ft3) 7. Eckel, J.R. : “Microbit Studies of the Effect of Fluid
u Velocity, ft/sec Properties and Hydraulics on Drilling Rate,” J. Pet. Tech.
V Volume, ft3 (April 1967), pp. 541-546; Trans., 240.
Z Compressibility factor
 8 SPE/IADC 91610
8. Eckel, J.R. : “How Mud and Hydraulics Affects Drill
Rate,” Oil and gas J. (June 1968), pp. 69-73.
9. Sutko, A.A. “Drilling Hydraulics: A Study of Chip Removal
Force Under a Full Size Jet Bit,” SPEJ, (August 1973), pp.
233-38.
10. Cholet, H.J. and Abdullah, H.F. “Improved Hydraulics for
Rock Bits with Extended Slant Nozzle, ”SPE 16701,
Presented at the 62nd SPE ATCE, Dallas, TX, U.S.A.,
September 27-30, 1987.
11. Kendall, W.A., and Goins, W.C.: “Design and Operation of
a Jet Bit Programs for Maximum Hydraulic Horse, Impact
Force or Jet Velocity,” Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1960) Trans., AIME
(1960) 219, 238-248.
12. Miska, S. and Skalle, P. : ” Theoretical Description of a
New Method of Optimal Program Design,” SPE J. August
1981, pp. 425-434.
13. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr. and Young, F.S. Jr.: “A Multiple
Regression Approach to Optimal Drilling and Abnormal
Pressure Detection,” SPE J., August 1974, pp.371-384.
14. Bourgoyne A.T. Jr., Young F.S. Jr., Martin E.C., Millheim
K.K.,: “Applied Drilling Engineering,” SPE Textbook
series, Vol.2 , Second Edition, 1992, p. 128-130, 156-160.
15. Swanson, B.W., Thorogood, J.R., and Gardner, A. : “ The
Design and Field Implementation of Drilling Hydraulics
Application for Drilling Optimization,” SPE 27548
presented at the European Petroleum Computer
Conference , Aberdeen, U.K., 15-17 March, 1994.
16. Gavignet, A.A. and Wick, C.J. : “ Computer Processing
Improves Hydraulic Optimization with New Methods,”
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987, pp. 309-315.
17. Wiright, K., Chukwu, A.A. Khataniar, S., Patil, S. : “ An
Economic Appraisal of Hole Cleaning Using Hydraulic
Horsepower and Jet Impact Force,” SPE83496, presented
at the SPE Western regional Meeting, Long Beach , CA,
U.S.A., 19-24 May 2003.
18. Fullerton H.B.,: “Constant Energy System for Well
Programming” Smith Tool, Irvine, CA, August 1973.
19. James H. A., “How to Relate Bit Weight and Rotary
Speed to Bit Hydraulic Horsepower,” Reprinted from
Drilling-DCW, May 1975.
20. Randall, B.V.: “Optimum Hydraulics in the Oil Patch,”
Pet Eng. Int.., September 1975, p. 36.
21. Sample, K.J. and Bourgoyne, A.T. : “ An Experimental
Evaluation of Correlations Used for Predicting Cutting
Slip Velocity,” SPE 6645, presented at the SPE ATCE,
Denver, CO, U.S.A., October 9-12, 1977.
22. Sample, K.J. and Bourgoyne, A.T. : “ Development of
Improved Laboratory and Field Procedures for
Determining Carrying Capacity of Drilling Fluids,” SPE
7497, presented at the SPE ATCE, Houston, TX, U.S.A.,
October 1-4, 1977.
23. Luo, Y., Bern, P.A., Chambers, B.D. : “ Flow Rate
Predictions for Cleaning Deviated Wells,” IADC/SPE
23884, IADC/SPE Conference, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.,
1992.
24. Luo, Y., Bern, P.A., Chambers, B.D., Kellingray, D. :
“Simple Charts to Determine Hole Cleaning
Requirements in Deviated Wells,” IADC/SPE 27486,
IADC/SPE Conference, Dallas, TX, U.S.A., 1994.
25. Li Y. and Kuru, E.,: “ Numerical Modeling of Cutting
Transport with Foam in Vertical Wells,” Paper Presented
at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, 10-12 June 2003.
26. Okpobiri, G.A. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Volumetric
Requirements for Foam and Mist Drilling Operations,”
SPE Drilling Engineering, February 1986, p.71-88
27. Lord, D.L. : “ Analysis of Dynamic and Static Foam
Behavior,” JPT, January 1981, pp. 39-45.
28. Krug, J.A. and Mitchell, B.J.: “Charts Help Find Volume,
Pressure Needed for Foam Drilling,” Oil and Gas J.
(February 1972), p.61-64
29. Guo, B., Miska, S. and Hareland, G.: “A Simple
Approach to Determination of Bottom Hole Pressure in
Directional Foam Drilling,” ASME Drilling Technology
(1995) PD -Vol. 65, p. 329-338.
30. Li, Y. : Numerical Modeling of Cuttings Transport With
Foam In Vertical and Horizontal Wells, “ Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Alberta, August 2004.
APPENDIX - A
General pressure balance (while circulating the drilling fluid
in and out of the well) is given by equation A1.
Pp = ∆Pd + ∆Pb + Pob -----------------------------------A1
The bit hydraulic horsepower is given by the equation A2.
(Q ) ∆Pb
HPb =
f bh
-----------------------------------------A2
1714
By introducing equation A1 into equation A2, the equation A3
can be obtained as follows:
(Q ) (P − Pob − ∆Pd )
HPb =
f bh p
-------------------------A3
1714
SPE/IADC 91610 9

Parasitic pressure loss is a power function of the flow rate as By introducing the equation A4 into equation A6, one may
given by the equation 3. obtain the equation A7.

∆Pd = KQ m -------------------------------------------------A4 Pp − Pob − (m + 1)∆Pd = 0 -------------------------------A7

Introducing equation A4 into equation A3 would give By solving the equation A7 for parasitic pressure loss;
equation A5.
Pp − Pob
(Q ) (P − Pob − K (Q f ) )
m
bh (∆Pd ) =
m +1
----------------------------------------A8
HPb =
f bh p
------------------A5
1714
Finally by combining the equation A4 and A8 and solving for
In order to find the foam flow rate which would yield foam flow rate, one may obtain the optimum foam flow rate
maximum bit hydraulic horsepower, the first derivative of the (Equation A9) which would maximize the bit hydraulic
equation A5 is taken and set equal to zero. horsepower.

(
d (HPb ) Pp − Pob − K (m + 1)(Q f ) )
m
bh
⎛ Pp − Pob ⎞ m
1

dQ f
=
1714
= 0 --------A6 (Q ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ---------------------------------A9
⎝ c(m + 1) ⎠
f bh opt
10 SPE/IADC 91610

10000

∆Pd as a function of q
section 3
section 2
Pressure, psig

1000

section 1

path of
optimum
hydraulics
100
100 qmin qopt qmax 1000

Flow rate, gal/min

Figure 1- Graphical analysis technique for selection of optimum flow rate

600

500
Parastic Pressure Loss, psi

400
3000ft
5000ft
300
7000ft
9000ft
200

100
Hole Diameter = 8.5 in
Drillpipe = 4.5 in x 3.76 in
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Foam Flow Rate(scm/s)

Figure 2- Parasitic pressure loss vs. foam flow rate at the surface conditions.
SPE/IADC 91610 11

600

500
3000ft
Parasitic pressure loss, psi

5000ft
400
7000ft
300

200

100

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
Foam Flow Rate (m^3/s)

Figure 3- Parasitic pressure loss vs. foam flow rate at the bottomhole conditions.

500

450

400
Constant "c"

350

300

250

200

150
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Depth (ft)

Figure 4 – The relationship between coefficient c of parasitic pressure vs. flow rate equation and depth .
12 SPE/IADC 91610

Drill string

Wellbore
p up
Nozzle

p BH

Figure 5 – Sketch of flow through bit nozzles.

430
TVD:3000 ft
Cs<4% OD:8-1/2 in
420
ID:4-1/2 in
Bottom Hole Pressure (psia)

Cs>4%
ROP:60 ft/hr
410 Pb:50 psia
Cs =4%

400

390

380

370
u min u opt
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Foam Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 6 Optimum and minimum foam velocity, case I

SPE/IADC 91610 13

770

765 TVD:3000 ft
OD:4-1/2 in
Bottom Hole Pressure (psi)

ID:2-7/8 in
760
ROP:60 ft/hr
Pb:50 psia Cs=4%
755

750

745
Cs<4%
740 Cs>4%

735

730
u opt u min
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Foam Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 7: Optimum and minimum foam velocity – case II

TD=3000 ft
ROP=90 ft/hr
3.5
Optimum Foam Velocity (ft/s)

TD=6000 ft
3 TD=10000 ft
ROP=60 ft/hr
2.5

2 ROP=30 ft/hr

1.5
ROP=10 ft/hr
1

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Annulus Hydraulic Diameter (in)

Figure 8: Optimum foam velocity

14 SPE/IADC 91610

6000
TVD=3000 ft
TVD=6000 ft
5000 TVD=10000 ft
Bottom Hole Pressure (psia)

TVD=15000 ft

4000 Hydrostatic
dominated

3000 Buffer
region

2000

1000
Friction
dominated
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Back Pressure (psia)

Figure 9: Optimum back pressure for 8-1/2 in. hole at different depth

1800

1600

1400
Pump pressure (psi)

1200 Laminar Flow

Region
1000

800

600

400
(Uf)max
200

0
0 5 10 15 20
Foam Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 10: Pump pressure vs. foam velocity relationship