IADC/SPE 62794
Drilling Practices and Sweep Selection for Efficient Hole Cleaning in Deviated
Wellbores
D. J. Power, SPE and C. Hight, Baroid, a Halliburton Company, D. Weisinger, SPE, and C. Rimer, SPE, Vastar
Resources Inc.
Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Cuttings transport in highly deviated wellbores is more
challenging and critical than in vertical wells. By optimizing
drilling practices and sweep programs, on bottom drilling time
can be increased and the need for wiper trips minimized. Data
from two geological side tracks drilled from the same vertical
wellbore are used to demonstrate the improved efficiencies
possible when using weighted sweeps rather than high
viscosity sweeps for hole cleaning in deviated wellbores. In
the examples discussed in this paper, over $500,000 in savings
were realized by the operator through using optimized drilling
practices and engineered sweeps. Optimizing the use of
rotation and circulation versus continuous sliding also can
contribute to improved drilling efficiency. In addition,
computer simulation data are presented to support the field
observations. The use of sweep reports is an integral
component of tracking sweep performance.
Introduction
Successful drilling of all wells requires efficient hole cleaning.
When drilling deviated wells the challenge of maintaining
efficient hole cleaning is typically greater than when drilling
vertical wells. Some of the primary factors contributing to
these greater challenges include drill pipe eccentric in the
hole, the need for slide drilling (to build angle and maintain
direction), and the resultant skewed flow distribution in the
annulus1,2.
The rheological characteristics of drilling fluids lead to a
skewed flow distribution in the annulus for drill pipe that is
eccentric in the hole. When drilling deviated and horizontal
wells the drill pipe is usually located on the low side of the
well bore, forcing the majority of the fluid to flow above the
drill pipe. Annular velocity modeling of Herschel-Bulkley
fluids clearly demonstrates this point. The shear thinning
behavior of the fluid, combined with the yield stress
characteristics of the fluid do not favor flow in the restriction
below the drill pipe. Optimizing the rheology of the fluid to
minimize this effect is an important part of well planning and
design. It must be acknowledged that rheology modification
alone cannot overcome the problem.
A compounding factor associated with drill pipe being
eccentric is the fact that drilled cuttings will settle towards the
low side of the annulus due to gravity. Regardless of the
drilling fluid rheology, it is almost impossible to clean a high
angle wellbore without the action of drill pipe rotation3,4. Drill
pipe rotation acts to agitate any settled solids back into the
flow stream. A solids bed will develop over time in the
absence of drill pipe rotation, which can impact on the annular
equivalent circulating density (ECD), cause pack-offs and
result in stuck pipe. Monitoring annular pressure just above
the bit, together with accurate modeling and tracking of pick-
up weight, slack-off weight, torque and drag can provide
valuable insights into the development of a cuttings bed. This
information should be utilized efficiently to detect the onset of
solids build-up down hole before the situation becomes
critical5.
Well Details
The two deviated side track wells were drilled in deepwater of
the Gulf of Mexico from a vertical well with 13-5/8” casing
set at 10,318 ft TVD, after drilling a vertical well, side track
#1. A high angle well, sidetrack #2, encountered a number of
tight spots on tripping, together with significant over-pull on
numerous occasions. The sweeps used on sidetrack #2 were
high viscosity sweeps of 100 bbls in volume, pumped every
300 ft. Typically no increase in cuttings volume was observed
at the shakers when the sweeps reached the surface. Back-
reaming was required on side track #2 when tripping out of the
hole. When tripping out of the hole, any time the pumps were
switched off the hole appeared tight. Once the bit was above
the hole section with angle greater than 19 degrees the pipe
2 D. POWER, C. HIGHT, D. WEISINGER, C. RIMER IADC/SPE 62794

came free. The problems discussed here provide a clear The cost saving to deepwater drilling operations is significant,
indication of poor solids removal efficiency from the well. with in excess of $500,000 saved when drilling side track #3.
When drilling the third side track, a decision was made to
use weighted sweeps alternating with fiberous sweeps on Sweep Selection and Performance
every other stand. The weighted sweeps generated a There are several sweep formulation options available for
substantial increase in cuttings at the surface while the fiber improving hole cleaning performance but often little
sweeps demonstrated a minimal increase in cuttings volume at consideration is given as to what the most appropriate sweep
the surface. After drilling approximately 2,000 ft a wiper trip for the given conditions will be. Factors that need to be
was made, with no apparent tight spots and no over-pull. The considered when selecting sweeps include hole angle, fluid
weighted sweeps were +3.4 ppg over the drilling fluid density density, formation, cuttings diameter, drill pipe rotation and
(11.1 ppg) with a volume of 50 bbl. Beyond this point wiper fracture gradient.
trips were no longer applied. Each weighted sweep resulted in High viscosity sweeps do perform well in vertical and near
an apparent increase in cuttings at the shakers that was vertical wellbores yet they are not the best option for deviated
estimated to be approximately 30 percent above the drilling wells. The high viscosity effects force an even greater skewing
ahead cuttings return rate. Table 1 provides a comparison of of the flow distribution in a wellbore with drill pipe that is
the directional well paths for each sidetrack while Table 2 eccentric in the hole. The path of least resistance will always
highlights some of the key factors differentiating each well. be the wide gap region in an eccentric annulus. A
While the two sidetracks were not identical, an almost compounding effect that is generally not considered is the
impossible task with field wells, the conditions were such that effect of the fluid yield stress. A fluid that has a yield stress
a very valid comparison of drilling practices and sweep requires a stress be applied that exceeds the yield stress of the
performance was possible. Slide drilling and rotary drilling fluid for flow to occur. In the narrow gap region of the annulus
were typically applied, to varying degrees, on each stand for the shear stress is low. Should the fluid yield stress exceed the
both side tracks. prevailing stress conditions no flow will occur in the low side
of the annulus and thus minimal solids transport will occur.
Table 1: Well Geometry High viscosity sweeps can impose these conditions in a
Side Track #2 Side Track #3 deviated wellbore.
MD (ft) Angle MD (ft) Angle Weighted sweeps provide more appropriate action for
10,438 4.1 10,424 2.8 improved solids transport in deviated wellbores. The primary
10,778 11.7 10,710 10.8 factor associated with improved solids transport efficiency is
11,067 14.3 11,096 25.7 the buoyancy effect added to the system with weighted
11,633 22.5 12,062 61.4 sweeps. This reduces the settling velocity of the drilled solids
12,304 44.6 12,637 71.5 as well as allowing the weighted fluid to penetrate more
13,075 51.9 13,509 72.4 effectively the region below the drill pipe. A cost analysis has
14,154 511 15,148 70.6 also shown that using coarse weighting material rather than
14,635 48.3 15,917 69.7 conventional barite can deliver savings by eliminating the
15,504 46.8 16,552 68.9 need to dilute with base oil to maintain fluid density. The
coarse barite is removed by the shaker screens and is not
Table 2: Well Characteristics retained in the mud system. In this example the value was
ST#2 ST#3 estimated to be $5,500 per weighted sweep.
Open hole diameter, in. 12.25 10.625 Solids transport efficiency can also be improved through
Pump rate, gpm. 1210 740 the addition of traditional lost circulation materials. Materials
Annular Velocity, ft/min. 237 210 such as organic fibers or plant derived abrasive materials have
Interval length, ft. 5272 6234 been used with great success. In addition to improved hole
Drilling Time, hrs. 88.5 69.5 cleaning, these materials can also reduce torque values in
extended reach wells. Fiberous materials are useful for
Conditioning Time, hrs. 26 6
transporting large particles while the abrasive materials are
effective at eroding silt beds (beds of finely ground drilled
Value was delivered to the drilling operation on side track
solids and barite). Many record extended reach drilling (ERD)
#3 through the reduction in overall time required to drill the
wells have relied on the use of these materials for successful
well and the time needed for hole conditioning. In this
completion of the well6,7.
instance hole conditioning is referred to as short trips, back
It is important to highlight that the approach applied for
reaming and any other drilling practice that required drilling
fines removal is different to that for course material. Often in
operations to cease in order to dedicate time to improve the
deviated wellbores large solids are transported out of the hole
condition of the hole. Total drilling and conditioning time on
easily with conventional circulation and rotation. Apparent
side track #2 equated to 46 feet per hour while on side track #3
stuck pipe can result though from a build-up of fine solids.
this was improved to 90 feet per hour. Side track #3 required
Field experience has established that circulating an abrasive
39 hours less drilling and conditioning time than side track #2.
lost circulation material (LCM) with a weighted sweep can
IADC/SPE 62794 DRILLING PRACTICES AND SWEEP SELECTION FOR EFFICIENT HOLE CLEANING IN DEVIATED WELLBORES
effectively remove this build-up of fines. When these sweeps
return to the surface a large amount of fines can be seen at the
shakers. At the same time a dramatic decrease in torque and
drag can be reported.
Weighted Sweeps and ECD
It is often considered that weighted sweeps should not be used
in deepwater drilling operations due to the narrow operating
window between pore pressure and fracture gradient. It is
thought that the effect of the weighted sweep on the down hole
pressure will be high enough to lead to formation fracture and
lost circulation. An illustrative example is given to clarify the
effect on equivalent circulating density (ECD) that a weighted
section of fluid in the annulus actually has. A TVD of 10,000
ft is used and a mud weight of 10 ppg. Applying a 200 ft
equivalent volume of fluid in a 12-1/4” open hole section with
a mud weight of 14 ppg results in less than 0.1 ppg increase in
the equivalent mud weight in the annulus at TD. The
hydrostatic head of a 10,000 ft column of 10 ppg fluid is 5,200
psi. A 200 ft column of 14 ppg fluid relative to 200 ft of 10
ppg fluid equates to a pressure increase of 42 psi. The total
hydrostatic pressure with the sweep in the annulus is now
5242 psi, or 10.08 ppg equivalent. Once the sweep is in the
riser the effect will be reduced.
Consideration must be given to the increase in annular
friction loss and also the increased hydrostatic head associated
with the cuttings that are suspended by the drilling fluid and
weighted sweep. Annular pressure losses for real drilling
fluids typically range from 5 to 10 psi per 1,000 feet. For high
viscosity and high density fluids this range may shift to 10 to
20 psi per 1,000 feet. Clearly, a 200 foot section of sweep
fluid has very little impact on ECD due to increased friction
losses.
The primary concern associated with weighted sweeps in
the annulus should be the increase in ECD due to more
efficient solids transport. The higher loading of suspended
drilled solids can greatly influence the ECD. A PWD tool can
be a valuable source of information regarding solids transport
efficiency. When a sweep is in the annulus the suspended
solids loading should increase and be detected by the PWD
tool. When efficient hole cleaning practices are implemented,
the increase in ECD due to the combined effects associated
with the sweep should not be large. Reducing pump flow rate
is a rapid and effective method of decreasing the ECD when
pumping sweeps should the need arise. It is imperative that the
pump rate should not decrease to a level that would allow
particle settling, leading to cuttings avalanching and pack-offs
or stuck pipe.
On sidetrack #3 the ECD while drilling ahead was 11.5
ppg, as indicated by the PWD tool, with an 11.1 ppg surface
density for the drilling fluid. When running 14.5 ppg sweeps
in the annulus the PWD ECD increased to 11.7 ppg until the
sweep reached the surface. This manageable increase in ECD
vindicates the use of high density sweeps in deepwater as a
feasible option for improving both cuttings transport and
overall drilling efficiency. The performance data captured in
3
the field also provides proof of the superior performance of
weighted sweeps over high viscosity sweeps in deviated
wellbores.
Sweep Reports
An effective method for tracking the performance of sweeps is
to use sweep reports. A simple spread sheet can provide a
systematic and objective tool to aid in improving drilling
efficiency. Capturing the key variables associated with sweeps
can help the operator to select the most appropriate sweep for
future use. An example of the sweep reports used on sidetrack
#3 is given in Table 3.
Data obtained while drilling sidetrack #3 clearly indicate
the superior hole cleaning performance of weighted sweeps
over high viscosity sweeps. Fiber sweeps were also run on this
well. Though not noted in Table 3, the weighted sweeps also
brought larger cuttings to the surface. In this instance a
synthetic fiberous material was used in the sweeps. This
material has repeatedly been shown to be very effective in
boosting hole cleaning efficiency in deepwater risers.
Modeling Hole Cleaning Performance
Several modeling approaches are published in the
literature1,8,9,10,11,12. In this work two different approaches are
considered. A modified slip velocity approach that analyses
the average fluid velocity in the narrow gap region of an
eccentric annulus is compared to the settling velocity of
individual cuttings particles. The output from this model is
given as transport efficiency. A detailed discussion of this
model is given eslewhere1,2. A value approaching one
represents excellent transport, whereby the solids are traveling
at the same velocity as the fluid, while a value approaching
negative one indicates poor transport where the settling
velocity is significantly greater than the fluid velocity. A
negative value for the transport efficiency can also indicate
very little flow in the low side of the annulus.
A second model, that incorporates drill pipe rotation,
allows a more detailed approach to drilling simulation. This
mechanistic model, currently undergoing field evaluation,
applies a force balance approach with gravity, drag and
particle movement forces. Drill pipe rotation is modeled by
incorporating agitation, or particle lift frequency, with mean
drill pipe position based on well trajectory and geometry.
Using this model it is possible to study the solids distribution
up the entire annulus, evaluating the effect of rotation and
sliding, as well as modeling the effect on ECD of circulating
sweeps.
Figure 1 shows the output data for side track #2 using the
first model, the transport efficiency model. In this case the
drilling fluid does not appear to perform adequately with
respect to hole cleaning performance, which agrees with the
problems encountered while drilling this well. Simulating the
transport efficiency of high viscosity and weighted sweeps
shows a dramatic improvement, with the weighted sweep
showing the best performance. The actual flow rate used to
drill this well was 1210 gpm for the most part. Similarly for
side track #3 the drilling fluid showed poor cuttings transport
4 D. POWER, C. HIGHT, D. WEISINGER, C. RIMER
efficiency while the weighted and high viscosity sweeps
showed good performance, see Figure 2. The flow rate used
to drill side track #3 was 740 gpm. The average annular
velocities of both side tracks are given in Table 2.
The transport efficiency model does not incorporate drill
pipe rotation. On both side tracks, sliding and rotation were
used for each stand. The output from the transport efficiency
model can be used to indicate a worst case scenario. This
model can also be used for optimizing the fluid properties and
sweep schedule in the design phase. The model is capable of
indicating the performance improvement due to changes in
fluid rheology (FANN 35 data) and fluid density as well as
indicating the effect hole angle and eccentricity have on hole
cleaning performance.
Sweep Performance Modeling
Models can be used effectively to indicate the most
appropriate sweep for specific well conditions. For the
scenarios discussed in this paper the modeling data agrees
with the field observations, i.e., weighted sweeps out perform
high viscosity sweeps in deviated wells. A clearer picture of
why this is so can be formed by considering the effect that
increasing the fluid viscosity and yield stress has on the flow
distribution in the annulus.
Figure 3 presents the effect of fluid yield stress on hole
cleaning performance. Clearly there is an optimal fluid yield
stress for drilling deviated wells drill pipe that is eccentric in
the well. If the fluid has a low yield stress value increasing the
yield stress will improve the solids suspension ability of the
fluid up to a certain point, but beyond a certain value, the
transport efficiency decreases. This is due to the flow in the
narrow section of the annulus decreasing to zero. Up to a
value of 6 lb/100ft2 the transport efficiency is improved.
Above this value the performance decreases rapidly. Under
these conditions, with no drill pipe rotation, the shear stress in
the narrow gap region is below the yield stress of the fluid and
thus the fluid does not flow.
When planning for intervals with angle build sections the
fluid yield stress must be considered in the fluid design phase.
Allowing time for rotating and circulating together with the
application of engineered sweeps should be considered, even
though this does involve rig time. The use of sweeps in this
scenario reduces the time needed to circulate the hole clean, or
to establish a manageable concentration of drilled solids in the
annulus.
Figure 4 compares the performance of fluids with
increasing densities. In each case the rheology is held
constant, using the FANN 35 data from the actual 11.1 ppg
fluid used to drill each side track, something that does not
generally hold in actual drilling operations when applying
weighted sweeps. Increasing the fluid density from 11.1 ppg
up to 13.1 ppg shows a dramatic improvement in hole cleaning
performance when simulating slide drilling. The higher
density provides buoyancy to the cuttings as well as helping to
increase flow into the low side of the annulus. The data
illustrated in Figure 4 clearly show the dramatic improvement
IADC/SPE 62794
in cuttings transport that regular application of weighted
sweeps in deviated wells can deliver.
Data generated using a more advanced drilling simulator is
presented in Figures 5 and 6. This newly developed simulator
generates data for the entire wellbore, factoring into the
calculations the actual mode(s) of drilling used. In this way
hole cleaning under sliding, rotating or combinations of both
can be modeled as a function of the rate of penetration (ROP).
Data for sidetrack #2 are shown in Figure 5. Poor hole
cleaning in the case of slide drilling is indicated by the high
concentration of drilled cuttings below 14,000 ft. Extended
periods of sliding while drilling this interval could be expected
to rapidly lead to torque and drag problems. Even
combinations of sliding and rotating, as well as 100% rotating,
show that the cuttings concentration in the annulus is high.
Assuming a 50/50 split between sliding and rotating, which is
close to what was actually applied in the field, gives a cuttings
concentration high enough to cause stuck pipe and pack-off
problems. These types of problems were regularly
encountered drilling sidetrack #2. Short trips were required
frequently and pumps were always needed on trips due to
apparent tight spots.
Figure 6 shows the data generated from the drilling
simulator for side track #3. The cuttings concentration in the
annulus for this well is significantly lower than for side track
#2, even given the lower average annular velocity and higher
angle. For this well the number of short trips was dramatically
reduced and no incidences of packing-off were reported.
Overall, the well was drilled much more efficiently, resulting
in significant time and cost savings. Modeling the drilling
process using only slide drilling shows moderate cuttings
concentration through most of the annulus with a small region
of high cuttings concentration towards the bottom of the well.
One key factor of the model data is the very small
difference in annular cuttings concentration for 100 percent
rotating and 50/50 sliding/rotating. Side track #3 was actually
drilled using 50 to 55 ft of slide drilling per 100 feet drilled,
with the rest drilled using the rotary. This serves to highlight
how critical and efficient rotation is for cuttings transport in
deviated wells. Without drill pipe rotation the efficiency of
cuttings transport is greatly reduced.
For both side tracks #2 and #3 the drilling simulator data
gave solid indications of the actual hole cleaning performance
while drilling these wells, demonstrating the power of the tool
for planning and executing drilling operations. The drilling
simulator can allow the user to plan and optimize drilling
practices as well as troubleshoot drilling operations should
problems develop.
Optimizing Drilling Schedules
In Figure 7 a comparison is made of the overall annular
cuttings concentration for each well using different drilling
modes. Clearly the inclusion of periods of rotation greatly
improves the solids transport efficiency in deviated wells.
When building angle, the data suggest that time should be
dedicated to rotating and circulating out cuttings that
accumulate while sliding. After making connections is an
IADC/SPE 62794 DRILLING PRACTICES AND SWEEP SELECTION FOR EFFICIENT HOLE CLEANING IN DEVIATED WELLBORES
appropriate time to apply rotation and circulation, as well as
circulate sweeps in the annulus, as the cuttings can be agitated
into the fluid flow stream and shifted into the vertical or near
vertical region prior to going static for a connection. In
addition, once in this region the cuttings should not settle and
cause pack-offs or stuck pipe while slide drilling is used to
drill ahead. Problems often develop in drilling operations
when cuttings settle around tool joints or the bottom hole
assembly in high angle sections. Keeping these sections clean
can help to eliminate time consuming pack-offs and stuck
pipe.
A number of opinions exist in the industry as to what a
safe concentration of cuttings should be. In order to minimize
ECD and minimize the potential for lost drilling time,
modeling data suggests that the average cuttings concentration
be kept below 1 percent by volume. Average annular cuttings
concentrations greater than 1 percent can have a significant
impact on ECD. When applying slide drilling for extended
periods it must be acknowledged that a large portion of the
drilled cuttings will deposit in the deviated section of the well.
When rotation is applied the action of drill pipe rotation will
agitate these cuttings into the flow and create a heavier drilling
fluid. If cuttings are allowed to accumulate, this sudden
increase in effective fluid density when applying rotation can
lead to lost circulation. Having agitated these cuttings and
switching back to slide drilling without circulating out the
cuttings can lead to stuck pipe and pack-off when the cuttings
settle out of the flowing fluid. Regardless of the rheological
properties of the drilling fluid, the fluid will not suspend
cuttings indefinitely in a high angle wellbore. The cuttings
will settle within a short period of time. Allowing regular
circulation periods with rotation while the bit is off bottom
and utilizing engineered sweeps can minimize the build-up of
cuttings beds in deviated wells.
Summary
Optimizing drilling practices and application of engineered
sweeps can greatly improve drilling efficiencies when drilling
deviated wellbores. When drilling angle build sections,
periods of rotation with circulation should be applied to agitate
any cuttings bed that may develop. Circulating weighted
sweeps at this time can also facilitate more efficient solids
removal from the wellbore. Field data, together with modeling
data, support the use of weighted sweeps as the preferred hole
cleaning sweep for deviated wellbores. PWD data demonstrate
that weighted sweeps do not place excessive loads on the
wellbore in deepwater wells, and thus can be used safely in
deepwater drilling operations. Appropriate planning and the
use of accurate drilling simulators contribute to the success of
drilling operations. In deepwater operations hundreds of
thousands of dollars can be saved through optimized design
and execution of hole cleaning procedures.
References
1. Kenny, P., Sunde, E., Hemphill, T., “Hole Cleaning Model:
What Does the Fluid-Flow Index Have To Do With It?”, JPT,
November 1996.
5
2. Green, M., Power, D., “Cuttings Transport Performance
Evaluation in High Angle Wellbores”, CADE/CAODC Spring
Drilling Conference, Calgary, Canada, April 7-8, 1999.
3. Easton, M. D. J., Nichols, J., Riley, G. J., “Optimizing Hole
Cleaning by Application of a Pressure While Drilling Tool”,
paper SPE 37612 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 4-6, 1997.
4. Sanchez, R. A., Azaar, J. J., Bassal, A. A., Martins, A. L., “The
Effect of Drill Pipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning During
Directional Well Drilling”, paper SPE 37626 presented at the
1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, March 4-6, 1997.
5. Green, M. D., Thomesen, C. R., Wolfson, L., Bern, P. A., “An
Integrated Solution of Extended-Reach Drilling Problems in the
Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part II – Hydraulics, Cuttings Transport
and PWD”, paper SPE 56564 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October
3-6, 1999.
6. Naegel, M., Pradie, E., Beffa, K., Ricaud, J., Delahaye, T.,
“Extended Reach Drilling at the End of the Earth”, paper SPE
48944, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 27-30, 1998.
7. Meader, T., Allen, F., Riley, G., “To the Limit and Beyond –
The Secret of World-Class Extended-reach Drilling Performance
at Wytch Farm”, paper SPE 59204 presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,
February 23-25, 2000.
8. Rasi, M., “Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores”,
paper SPE 27464 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, February 15-18, 1994.
9. Clark, R. K., Bickham, K. L., “A Mechanistic Model for
Cuttings Transport”, paper SPE 28306 presented at the 1994
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994.
10. Chien, S. F., “Effect of Hydraulics and Fluid Rheology on the
Transportation of Drill Cuttings in Horizontal Drilling”,
presented at the 8th Annual International Energy Week
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, January 28-30,
1997.
11. Santana, M., Martins, A. A. L., Sales jr, A., “Advances in the
Modeling of the Stratified Flow of Drilled Cuttings in High
Angle and Horizontal Wells”, paper SPE 39890 presented at the
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Villahermosa, Mexico, March 3-5, 1998.
12. Nguyen, D., Rahman, S. S., “A Three-Layer Hydraulic Program
for Effective Cuttings Transport and Hole Cleaning in Highly
Deviated and Horizontal Wells”, paper SPE 51186, SPE Drilling
and Completion, September 1998.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Vastar Resources Inc. for permission to
publish this work. Thanks must also be given to Dale Jamison and
Baroid Drilling Fluids for development of the drilling simulator
model.
6 D. POWER, C. HIGHT, D. WEISINGER, C. RIMER IADC/SPE 62794

Table 3: Sweep Report from MC 127 ST#3

Date Hole Depth Type Rate Vol. MW PV/YP Formulation Results
10/22/99 10.625 14075 hi vis 745 100 11.1 34/44 4 ppb viscosifier 5% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 14171 hi vis 745 100 11.1 31/43 4 ppb viscosifier 10% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 14268 hi vis 745 100 11.1 30/44 4 ppb viscosifier 5% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 14388 wt’d 745 50 14.5 42/23 125 sxs barite 25% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 14601 fiber 745 100 11.1 31/18 2 ppb fiber 5% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 14820 wt’d 745 50 14.5 41/22 125 sxs barite 30% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 15075 fiber 745 100 11.1 32/18 2 ppb fiber 5% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 15220 fiber 740 100 11.1 32/18 2 ppb fiber 5% cuttings increase
10/22/99 10.625 15445 wt’d 730 50 14.5 44/20 125 sxs barite 30% cuttings increase
10/23/99 10.625 15820 wt’d 735 50 14.5 43/22 125 sxs barite 30% cuttings increase
10/23/99 10.625 16552 wt’d 730 50 14.5 44/20 125 sxs barite 20% cuttings increase

Figure 1: MC 127 Side Track #2 Cuttings Transport Efficiency

IADC/SPE 62794 DRILLING PRACTICES AND SWEEP SELECTION FOR EFFICIENT HOLE CLEANING IN DEVIATED WELLBORES 7

Figure 2: MC 127 Side Track #3 Cuttnigs Transport Efficiency

Figure 3: Transport Efficiency for Side Track #2 - Dependency on Drilling Fluid Yield Stress
8 D. POWER, C. HIGHT, D. WEISINGER, C. RIMER IADC/SPE 62794

Figure 4: Cuttings Transport Efficiency for Side Track #2, Effect of Density

Figure 5: ST #2 Influence of Drilling Mode on Simulated Annular Cuttings Concentration

IADC/SPE 62794 DRILLING PRACTICES AND SWEEP SELECTION FOR EFFICIENT HOLE CLEANING IN DEVIATED WELLBORES 9

Figure 6: ST #3 Influence of Drilling Mode on Simulated Annular Cuttings Concentration

Figure 7: Total (averaged) Annular Cuttings Concentration (vol%)