WO Hole Cleaning Guidelines

Hole Cleaning Guidelines Page 1 of 22
Workover Hole Cleaning

Guidelines
04/04/22 Rev 0 P. Malpas
Date Status Author

Document Number: XXXX-GEN
1/22
Workover Hole Cleaning Guidelines

Index
Section Title Page

1.0 Executive Summary 3
2.0 Background 4
2.1 Know the Solids 4
2.2 Know the Well Deviation 6
2.3 Avalanche Section 6
3.0 Main Lessons From Drilling for Hole Cleaning 8
3.1 Other Relevant Lessons from Drilling for Hole Cleaning 9
4.0 Main Lessons from Coiled Tubing 10
4.1 Direct Circulation with Coiled Tubing 10
4.2 Reverse Circulation with Coiled Tubing 11
5.0 Turbulent Flow 13
6.0 Hole Cleaning without Losses 15
6.1 Direct Circulation with Rotation 15
6.2 Direct Circulation without Rotation 15
6.3 Reverse Circulation 16
6.4 Examples of Well Cleanout without Losses 16
6.4.1 TCTM-A09 Well Cleanout Cement & Proppant 16
6.4.2 LGN-06 Well Cleanout Sand 17
7.0 Hole Cleaning with Losses 18
7.1 Static Liquid Losses 18
7.2 Dynamic Liquid Losses 18
7.3 Total Liquid Losses 18
7.4 Frictional Pressure Losses 18
7.5 Practical Considerations for Reverse Circulation 19
7.5.1 Annular Pressures 19
7.5.2 Surface Pressure Losses 19
7.6 Losses in a Typical Well 19
7.7 Workover Examples with Losses 20
7.7.1 M’Bya 10 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout 20
7.7.2 M’Bya 11 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout 21
8.0 Guideline Summary 22
2/22
1.0 Executive Summary
The key to effective clean out of a well is to ensure the methodology used is effective at cleaning out
any solids to optimise well production without jeopardising the well productivity by damaging the
formation.
There are very few studies done on hole cleaning in Workover, compared to Drilling and Coil Tubing.
In Drilling the focus on hole cleaning is generally to optimise ROP whereas in coil tubing it is generally
to promote the application of the technology. This guideline leverages drilling and CTU studies.
This guideline reviews hole cleaning where adequate circulation is possible including:
 A brief review of hole cleaning of new wells to appreciate the drilling paradigm
 A brief review of coiled tubing hole cleaning to appreciate the coiled tubing paradigm
 Guidelines for Direct Circulation
 Guidelines for Reverse Circulation
A summary page at the end gathers all of the recommendations on one page.
It does not include hole cleaning where the hole cleaning via circulation is not possible due to
excessive losses and one of the following techniques should be applied:
 Bailing e.g. with the CEPS (Shakira) Pump
 Jet Pump lifting with:
o Concentric Coil Tubing
o Jointed pipe
Although the impact of losses on well cleanout are considered within the guideline it does not cover
Fluid Loss Management Procedures which are addressed in Fluid Loss Management Procedures Ref
PR-DLC-FL.
3/22
2.0 Background Data

It is important that you know what and how much is to be cleaned out and the well deviation.
2.1 Know the Solids

It is essential that before any cleanout job is planned that the type and volume of solids are known. If
there is fill in a well this can be performed by using slickline, subject to the deviation, to run a sample
bailer to determine the:
 Top of Fill/Sediment (TOS)
o This should be done periodically anyway to see how the TOS is changing with time.
 Volume of fill that needs to be removed. It must be noted that the TOS might indicate the top
of a bridge and does not reflect the volume of solids to be recovered – bridges can happen in
wells that have deviations >30°.
 Type of Fill – by recovering a sample to determine what the fill is and if possible an indication
of the particle sizes.
 Fill Surface – if it is difficult to recover a sample then the surface is hard and will require
either mechanical or jetting action to break it up.
Knowledge about the type of solids is important as this has a major impact on how easy it might be
to remove them from a well. In particular the vertical setting velocity of particles in a fluid can be
described as follows:
0.667
Settling Velocity = 175*Pd*(Pw-Mw) ft/min
0.333 0.333
(Mw )*(Cp )
Where:
Pd Particle Diameter (in)
Pw Particle density (ppg)
Mw Mud Density (ppg)
Cp Plastic Viscosity (cp)
This equation clearly shows how the speed with which particles will fall in a stationary fluid is:
 Proportional to the:
o Solid Size
o Solid Buoyant Weight
 Inversely Proportional to the:
o Fluid Density
o Fluid Viscosity
This means that larger and more dense solids will fall through the fluid more rapidly than smaller,
lighter particles and they will not fall as fast through more dense and/or more viscous fluids. Table 1
shows some typical particles we might find in wells.
4/22
Table 1: Settling Velocities and Minimum Annular Velocities Recommended for Vertical Wells
As can be seen in Table 1 the settling velocity in the vertical plane can vary by up to two orders of
magnitude from a few to hundreds of feet per minute dependent on particle density, size and fluid
rheology. The rule of thumb in a vertical well is that the Fluid Velocity should be at least double the
settling velocity to lift solids out of the well. For a given particle type the one factor that can have the
most affect on the settling velocity in a vertical well is an increased fluid viscosity. That is why viscous
pills are very effective at cleaning out solids from the vertical sections of wells, but aren’t as effective
in more deviated well sections.
Settling velocity in a vertical well can be used as follows:

 When calculating the minimum annular velocity to clean out a well use the D90 of the
particle diameter size to determine the settling velocity and then multiply by 2.
 When calculating the settling time to wait after POOH above the original TOS to confirm
where the new TOS is post cleanout use the D50 particle size to calculate the settling
velocity. Use this D50 settling velocity to calculate the time for the average particle to fall to
TD and then multiply this by 2 to determine the total time to wait for settling before running
back in the well.
The liquid velocity is driven by the hole or annular size so the larger the hole the smaller the velocity.
In particular when trying to calculate the annular velocity the equation to use is as follows:
Annular Velocity = 24.5*Q/(Do2-Di2) fpm
Where:
Q = Flow Rate gpm
Do = ID of Hole or Outer Pipe in
Di = OD of Pipe in
i.e. for 5bpm/210gpm being circulated inside 9 5/8” 47ppf 8.681” ID casing and 3.5” Pipe the annular
velocity is 81.5fpm.
5/22
2.2 Know the Well Deviation

Deviation plays a major role in well cleaning and it is important that it is fully taken into account. If it
is vertical well < 30° then a liquid velocity at twice the settling velocity is required and this can be
supplemented by viscous pills. However as the deviation increases hole cleaning is more difficult as
gravity causes the particles to fall on the low side of the well and as they only have centimetres to fall
this process will occur rapidly and needs to be mitigated.
For a well of Deviation Ø from the vertical the liquid flow in the vertical plane can be determined by:
Vertical Lift from Liquid = Annular Velocity * Cos Ø
Well Deviation Cos Ø

0 1.00
30 0.87
60 0.50
90 0.00
Therefore subject to the well deviation solids will travel straight up, or travel only a few joints before
falling to the low side of the well. Of course in horizontal wells the particles just roll along with
saltation flow as happens with waves at the beach or wind in the desert.
2.3 Avalanche Section

As shown in Fig 2 the most challenging phase for hole cleaning is between 30-60° where the particles
can roll back down the well and form bridges and even get tools stuck. The horizontal section of a
well is difficult to clean but is not a threat per se provided the hole is being cleaned effectively.
This avalanche section has to be respected and will be found both in deviated and horizontal wells.
Fig 1: J & S Shaped wells
As shown above in Fig 1 the S Shaped type wells are more difficult to clean out than the J Shaped
wells. This is because it is easy to clean out the lower less deviated section of the well, but then when
the pumps are shut off sand can collect and avalanche in the more deviated section of the well and
even stick downhole tool strings.
6/22
“Vertical” Section 0 - 30°

Solids are brought to surface by
the liquid flow against gravity.
When flow is stopped solids fall –
a more viscous fluid will help to
stop particles falling.
“Deviated” Section 30 - 60°

Solids can form beds on
low side. When flow is
stopped solids fall to low
side almost immediately &
can remain there in an
unstable state or roll down
hole. Solids lying on the
lowside can avalanche due
to gravity and cause a
bridge or tool’s to get
stuck.
“Horizontal” Section 60 - 90°

Solids fall to the low side and
form continuous beds – hole
cleaning is difficult. Solids slowly
roll along in saltation flow. There
is no risk of avalanche in these
high deviations.
Fig 2: The Various Deviated Sections of a Well.
7/22
3.0 Main Lessons from Drilling for Hole Cleaning

Historically drilling has always used mud for the drilling phase because it evolved from drilling vertical
wells and a viscous fluid is best for hole cleaning in this scenario. It also evolved using high annular
velocities e.g. in the 1950’s they were routinely using annular velocities of 200fpm in vertical wells.
Today’s best practises as recommended by K&M Schlumberger Hole Cleaning experts are:
Parameter Vertical Well < 30 Deviated Well > 30

Liquid Mud
Annular Velocity >100fpm >200fpm = Ideal
>150fpm = Minimum
Rotation >70rpm > 70rpm if PHAR < 3.25 – Small Hole
> 120rpm if PHAR > 3.25 – Big Hole
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-7
Viscous Sweeps Very Effective Ineffective
Table 1: Main Parameters for Hole Cleaning When Drilling
Where:
PHAR (Pipe Hole Area Ratio) = Do2/Di2
If PHAR < 3.25 “Small” Hole
> 3.25 “Big” Hole
The larger the hole and the smaller the pipe the more difficult it is to clean out solids from the hole
particularly since the pipe is more eccentred. However higher rotation can compensate for this
because it helps to centre the pipe as well as lift the cuttings via viscous drag up into the zones of
higher velocity (Refer to Figure 3).
Fig 3: Pipe & solids are eccentred so the main fluid flow avoids the solids until the pipe is rotated
“dragging” solids via viscous coupling Into the main flow.
8/22
3.1 Other Relevant Lessons from Drilling

There are other lessons to be learnt from drilling:
 Jetting BOPs & Wellheads
Generally the largest diameter when cleaning out casing is the wellhead and BOP - the
annular velocity inside a 13 5/8” BOP is only 40% of the velocity inside 9 5/8” casing so solids
can easily drop out in the cavities etc. Therefore after a cleanout, milling or cement job it is
strongly recommended to jet the Wellhead & BOPs.
 BHA Profile – Waterways
Never assume the well is clean, drillers don’t and will limit overpull when pulling out of the
hole. If overpull of >5Klbs is observed rather than keep pulling run back in the well up to 3
joints and circulate bottoms up before again attempting to pull up.
Fig 4: Drillers use large water ways on their downhole tools to help pulling out of the hole – this is
not the case with CCCPs for ESP Cables where sand &/or scale can be dragged up & get them stuck
 Barite Sag
Barite (BaSO4) has a density of 4.2sg and can easily fall out of the mud due to its high
density. Remember that when milling scale which is generally BaSO4 the highest possible
velocities are required to clean out the well.
 Keep Pipe Moving
If unable to rotate then reciprocate – drillers do this to prevent getting stuck with differential
sticking, cement etc. On a Pulling Unit it is best to reciprocate over +/-30ft equivalent to the
length of one joint as this allows the coupling to move over the entire length of a joint and
disturb any solids on the low side. On a jacking unit we are limited by the jack stroke, but if
possible move an entire joint. (Also refer to Fig 5 where the velocity required for cleaning
with stationery coil is double that for coil which is being moved.) Therefore for cleanouts
without rotation pipe reciprocation/pipe movement is required to facilitate the cleanout.
9/22
4.0 Main Lessons from Coiled Tubing

Since 30% of all coil tubing jobs are associated with cleanouts, mainly direct circulation, it is obvious
that the technique works even without rotation!
In coil tubing the industry can be split ito two very distinct geographic groups North America and the
rest of the world. Most developments have occurrred in North America and in particular Alaska
where Arco, and then it’s successor, BP pioneered CTU applications on land wells. Here reverse
circulating as well as direct circulating has been used extensively.
4.1 Direct Circulation with Coiled Tubing

Coil tubing has been used successfully for drilling and direct circulation cleanouts. It is most effective
when the coil is not too eccentered i.e. when the PHAR is low. It can be summarised as follows:

Liquid Water/Brine
ROP Cleanout 15-50ft fill & then reciprocate pipe while circulating bottoms up
Annular Velocity >120fpm >240fpm
Rotation 0
Reciprocation Yes
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-7
Viscous Sweeps Very Effective Ineffective in More Deviated Sections
Table 2: Coiled Tubing Hole Cleaning Guidelines with Direct Circulation
This data is based upon various sources of information:

 US DOE 2001 guidelines recommends 140fpm minimum when drilling Vertical Wells & 240fpm
minimum for deviated wells with low viscosity fluids.
 BP Alaska 2008 SOP recommends 122fpm minimum annular velocity when lifting 2000µ sand and
higher for more dense materials in vertical wells.
 Baroid Hole Cleaning Guidelines 2007 recommends a minimum annular velocity of 126fpm
regardless of fluid type.
 SPE Paper 113267 2020 implies that the annular velocity for deviated wells can be more than
double that of a vertical well. (See Fig 5)
Fig 5: Compares liquid flow rates/velocities required for various CTU cleanout modes
10/22
4.2 Reverse Circulation with Coiled Tubing

Coil tubing has been used successfully for reverse circulation cleanouts. This mode:
 Eliminates the coil eccentricity since the solids are carried up inside the pipe
 Can clean out larger diameter holes
 Is relatively unaffected by the well deviation – refer to Fig 5.
 Reduces the risk of the coil getting stuck since the solids are moved up inside the pipe not
annulus.
 Can reduce wellbore cleanout time provided it anticipates the need to move from reverse to
direct circulation to eliminate bridges
 Requires care be taken if handling hydrocarbons at surface.
It can be summarised as follows:

Liquid Water/Brine
ROP Cleanout 15-50ft fill & then reciprocate pipe while circulating bottoms up
Velocity Up Pipe >150fpm
Rotation 0
Reciprocation Yes
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-7
Viscous Sweeps Very Effective Ineffective in More Deviated Sections
Table 3: Coil Tubing Hole Cleaning Guidelines with Reverse Circulation
This data is based upon various sources of information:

 SPE 89505 2004 which recommends the following:
o Annulus pressure to be sufficient to sustain the necessary flow up coil and maintain an
overbalance. (However it should not exceed the annular capabilities.)
o 150fpm min up coil e.g. for 3.5” 9.2ppf tubing this equates to a minimum return flow rate up
through the pipe of +/-55gpm or 1.3bpm.
o ROP should be limited so the maximum amount of solids in the pipe is <10% the flow rate
e.g. if the flow rate is 1.3bpm then inside 7” 26ppf is 0.126bbls/m e.g. the maximum
instantaneous ROP is 1m/min, but in general it is best limited to 10m/hr.
o Water/Brine supply should be continuous and any pumps capable of handling the maximum
loss scenario.
o Hydrocarbons should not be intentionally reverse circulated out of the well unless the
handling at surface is planned and risk assessed. Normally hydrocarbons should be removed
by bullheading or direct circulation before commencing reverse circulation.
o Nozzle at end of pipe should be a combination nozzle a sshown in Fig 5 that has:
 The capability for forward jetting as well as reverse circulation
 An entrance hole smaller than the minium restriction in the pipe above the nozzle
 A large OD to prevent by passing solids as pipe is run in hole – this larger OD can
accelerate instantaneous ROP.
 SPE 113267 2010 which recommends the following:
o Keep the coil moving when circulating
o Annular velocities required for hole cleaning in deviated well sections, even with the pipe
moving up and/or down, are double that required in vertical wells.
o Reverse circulating velocities are relatively constant regardless of the well deviation.
11/22
Fig 6: Typical Reverse Circulating Nozzle
Fig 7: Manifold to facilitate changing from reverse circulation to direct circulation

Reverse Circulation: Valves 3,5 Open Valves 1,2,4,6, Closed
Direct Circulation: Valves 1,2,3,6 Open Valves 4,5 Closed
12/22
5.0 Turbulent Flow.

Why can coil tubing be so effective without any rotation and in workover how do we manage to
clean the hole if we can’t rotate or circulate as aggressively with low viscosity fluids? We do the same
as Coiled Tubing, we rely on turbulence.
Fig 8: A pictorial comparison of laminar flow Fig 9: Contrast between turbulent & laminar flow
above with turbulent flow below – turbulent flow accelerates erosion
The random flow created with turbulent flow disturbs the solids and lifts them up from the side of
the hole into the main flow so the hole can be cleaned without rotation as is the case with Coil
Tubing.
Table 4 below shows how the critical velocity, above which there is turbulent flow, is very much
influenced by the fluid viscosity and yield point. In particular a flow rate some 50x larger is required
with mud compared to water. Therefore there is a distinct advantage of using water and or brines for
hole cleaning that drilling cannot leverage because of the mud rheology.
Annulus Pipe Fluid

Hole Size Pipe OD Pipe ID PHAR Density Viscosity Yield Point Critical Velocity Flow Rate
in in in sg cP lb/100ft2 m/min fpm gpm lpm
8.5 3.5 2.764 5.90 1.03 10 10 66 217 575 2177
8.5 3.5 2.764 5.90 1.03 1 0 1.2 3.9 10 38
Table 4: Comparison of Flow Rates Needed to Achieve Turbulent Flow with Different Rheology
However rotation still helps hole cleaning even with turbulent flow as can be seen by the study
illustrated in Fig 10. This demonstrates that even without significant viscous drag rotation is a useful
tool since to facilitate hole cleaning it helps centralise the pipe.
13/22
Fig 10: 2015 IRJet Study with 1-2cp water with an Outer Pipe ID (Do) of 3.0” and Inner Pipe OD (Di)
of 2.0” clearly demonstrates that even with turbulence pipe rotation of 10 rpm (Orange) has a
significant impact on hole cleaning and the percentage of sand particles (WRP %) recovered within
the test period compared to no rotation (Blue).
Fig 11: Demonstrates that without rotation a flow rate of at least 200fpm is required, but
in this experiment the pipe was centered with only 0.5” standoff. With eccentered pipe &
lower viscosities a higher flow rate is recommended.
14/22
6.0 Hole Cleaning Without Losses

So how do we best apply the knowledge from Drilling and Coil Tubing Operations to Workover.
6.1 Direct Circulation with Rotation

Parameter Vertical Well < 30° Deviated Well 30°-60° Horizontal Well > 60°
Liquid Water/Brine
Proportional to angle
between 30° - 60° i.e.
>120fpm @ 30°
>120fpm >180fpm
Annular Velocity >140fpm @ 40°
>160fpm @ 50°
>180fpm @ >60°
The maximum deviation will drive the minimum required annular velocity
Rotation >70rpm recommended
Reciprocation Reciprocation/Pipe Movement Recommended
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-5 3-7
Viscous Sweeps Effective Relatively Effective Ineffective
ROP 10m/hr (1 joint/hour)
Table 5: Workover Minimum Recommended Direct Circulation Parameters with Pipe Rotating
These minimum guidelines are based on various sources of information:
 BP Alaska 2008 SOP for CTU recommends 122fpm minimum annular velocity when lifting 2000µ
sand and greater for more dense materials in vertical wells.
 Baroid Hole Cleaning Guidelines 2007 recommends a minimum annular velocity of 126fpm
regardless of fluid type
 SPE Papers 27486 1994 recommends an annular velocity 50% greater for horizontal wells.
6.2 Direct Circulation Without Rotation

Parameter Vertical Well < 30° Deviated Well 30°-60° Horizontal Well > 60°
Liquid Water/Brine
Proportional to angle
between 30° - 60° i.e.
>120fpm @ 30°
>120fpm >240fpm
Annular Velocity >160fpm @ 40°
>200fpm @ 50°
>240fpm @ >60°
The maximum deviation will drive the minimum required annular velocity
Rotation 0rpm
Reciprocation Reciprocation/Pipe Movement Necessary to optimise hole cleaning
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-5 3-7
Viscous Sweeps Effective Relatively Effective Ineffective
ROP 10m/hr (1 joint/hour)
Table 6: Workover Minimum Recommended Direct Circulation Parameters without Pipe Rotation

 US DOE 2001 guidelines recommends as a minimum 140fpm for vertical & 240fpm for deviated.
 SPE Paper 113267 2010 which suggests that between 5° and 50° the annular velocity should
increase by a factor of +/-2.
 IRJet Paper 2015 – for centred pipe @ 60° >200fpm is required - far greater for eccentered pipe.
15/22
6.3 Reverse Circulation

Parameter Vertical Well < 30° Deviated Well 30°- 60° Horizontal Well > 60°
Liquid Water/Brine
Annular Velocity >150fpm
Rotation >70rpm – rotation is not essential
Reciprocation Recommended to keep the pipe moving
Bottoms Up 1-2 3-5
Viscous Sweeps Relatively Effective
ROP 10m/hr (1 Joint/hour)
Max Annulus Pressure Dependent on Annular
Table 7: Workover Minimum Recommended Reverse Circulation Parameters with/without Pipe
Rotation

 SPE 89505 2004 which recommends a minimum velocity of 150fpm up inside the pipe.
 SPE 113267 2010 which states that reverse circulating velocities are relatively independent of
well deviation – see Fig 5
6.4 Examples of Well Cleanout without Losses

The following looks at real examples of well cleanout from within Perenco.
6.4.1 TCTM-A09 Well Cleanout – Cement & Proppoant

A remedial cement job was performed on this well over a large interval and proppant was used as a
to support the various cement plugs. When drilling out the cement and proppant 3.5” Drillpipe was
used inside 9 5/8” casing. This well is S Shaped with maximum deviation of 65° at 1250mMDRT. The
top of the cement plugs was at 1496mMDRT where the deviation was <35° - refer to Fig 12. With a
maximum deviation of 65° and 70rpm rotation the minimum annular velocity should be >180fpm.
This equates to a flow rate of >10.8bpm. The maximum flow rate available was 7bpm equivalent to
117fpm – although there were some solids coming to surface it wasn’t enough to clean the hole
effectively and the string frequently got stuck as solids fell out in the avalanche zone. The well was
cleaned more effectively by using reverse circulation @ 5bpm (Equivalent to a liquid velocity of
>600fpm). Note if the well had been vertical the 7bpm supplemented by frequent viscous pills would
have probably been effective.
TCTM-A09 S Shaped Well

Limited flow rate in this S Shaped well made the
clean out difficult and the string frequently got
65° @ 1250m stuck presumably due to solids settling out in the
avalanche zone.
33-35° below 1496mMDRT Systematic drilling and then reverse circulating
out the cuttings and proppant was effective.
Fig 12: TCTM-A09 Drilling out cement in this S Shaped well caused problems
16/22
6.4.1 LGN-06 (Fig 13) Well Cleanout - Sand

The string was stuck because the maximum flow rate available was only 3.4bpm which gave a
minimum annular velocity of 54fpm. As indicated in Table 5 the annular velocity should have been
>140fpm the minimum annular velocity recommended for the 9 5/8” x 2 7/8” annulus at 39°
deviation.
LGN-06 Colombia
Work String
Min Annular
Component
Velocity/Flow
10x 4 ¾” x 7” Liner 140fpm/1.8bpm
2 7/8” x 7” Liner 140fpm/3.5bpm
2 7/8” x 9 5/8” Csg 140fpm/8.7bpm
3.5” x 9 5/8” 120fpm/6.95bpm
Cleanout Parameters:
Parameter Actually Used
Fluid Water + Vis Pills
Rotation 70rpm
Flow Rate 3.4bpm
Min Velocity 54fpm
For an optimum cleanout in LGN-06 with 39°

deviation the minimum annular velocity
required was 140fpm with the pipe being
rotated. The corresponding flowrate for the
largest annulus of 2 7/8” inside 9 5/8” equates
to a minimum flow rate of 8.7bpm. (There
were no losses expected or encountered
initially.)
However the pump capacity was only 3.4bpm

which was enough for the BHA to rapidly
penetrate the sand and even lift it past the 2
7/8” inside the 7” liner but as soon as the
sand entered the 2 7/8” x 9 5/8” annulus the
velocity was inadequate and when the pumps
were shut down the BHA became stuck
because the sand settled rapidly from this
avalanche zone back into the well.
Note reverse circulation could have achieved

189fpm up inside the 5” DP 4.276” ID with
3.4bpm and been far batter.
Fig 13: Example of a well where the annular velocity was inadequate to clean the well.
17/22
7.0 Hole Cleaning with Losses

In the foregoing it has been assumed that there are no losses i.e. the liquid carrying the solids out of
the well is the same as the liquid being pumped into the well which is not always the case during
workovers. It is important that the losses are known prior to the job to ensure there is adequate
pump capacity to clean the well either in direct or reverse circulation. There are two types of losses:
 Static losses due to the hydrostatic being > reservoir pressure and using a clean workover fluid.
 Dynamic losses due to exposing the reservoir to the additional pressure needed for circulating.
7.1 Static Liquid Losses

Static losses are subject to:
 The static overbalance exerted by the hydrostatic column on the formation.
 The well Injectivity Index (II) which can be equivalent to, or even as much as three times greater
than, the Productivity Index (PI).
Static Losses (blpd) = (Hydrostatic Pressure – Reservoir Pressure) * Injectivity Index
7.2 Dynamic Liquid Losses

However when we circulate there are additional frictional losses due to the fluid movement that
need to be taken into account. The two type of losses can be determined as follows:
Dynamic Losses (blpd) = Pressure Losses Due to Liquid Flow * Injectivity Index
7.3 Total Liquid Losses

The total losses calculated in Barrels of Liquid/Day are the sum of the Static & Dynamic Losses and
need to be divided by 1440 to convert it into BPM (Barrels per Minute). The actual flow rate of the
returns should be checked by diverting the flow to an IBC etc and confirming the return is adequate
to lift the solids. Also ensure a continuous source of cleanout liquid will be available to handle the
maximum losses forecast
7.4 Frictional Pressure Losses

The frictional pressure losses can be calculated for turbulent flow with a Bingham Fluid as follows:
Before a workover the losses should be calculated for both Direct & Reverse Circulation scenarios to
determine the best cleanout method. Normally for the same flowrate the pressure loss inside pipe is
greater than the pressure loss in the annulus. However when cleaning out wells the flow rate is a
18/22
consequence of the liquid velocity required to lift the solids and generally when reverse circulating
the net flow rate required up the pipe is lower than the net flow rate required up the larger annulus.
7.5 Practical Considerations for Reverse Circulation

From a practical perspective the following need to be considered when reveres circulating:
7.5.1 Annular Pressures

Because the cleanout fluid is injected in the A annulus the maximum pressure is observed on the
annular rubber. For 1.9” the maximum practical working pressure is <1,000psi. For larger annulars
e.g. 13 5/8” or 11” 5Kpsi it is limited to <3,000psi and it is best if the annular has a stripping bottle
rigged up to it. Ideally an RCD (Rotating Circulating Device) used for MPD is optimum as it will allow
rotation as well as vertical movement, but these are expensive.
7.5.2 Surface Pressure Losses

When direct circulating at higher rates there can be >100psi pressure loss at surface between the
Mud Pump and the top of the Kelly Hose. However when reverse circulating these surface pressure
losses can cause back pressure on the formation of up to 25psi, subject to the standpipe elevation,
manifolds etc. So when considering the application of reverse circulation remember the total back
pressure on the formation will be the sum of the surface pressure losses and the frictional pressure
losses in the pipe.
7.6 Losses in a Typical Well

Let’s consider a typical scenario and the flow rates required:
Well Characteristics
PI = 1blpd
II Max = 3blpd
Casing Size = 9 5/8” 43.5ppf ID 8.755”
Work String Type = 3.5” DP
Work String OD /ID = 3.5”/2.764”
Reservoir Measured Depth = 2000mMDRT
Reservoir True Vertical Depth = 1500mTVDRT
Reservoir Pressure = 1278psi
Reservoir EMW = 0.6sg
Workover Fluid to be Used = FTSW (Filtered Treated Seawater)
Workover Fluid Density = 1.03sg
Workover Fluid Viscosity = 0.5cp @ Formation Temperature
Overbalance = 916psi
Max Static Losses = 1.91bpm
Max Well Deviation = 40°
Rotation Possible = Yes – 70rpm
Minimum Annular Velocity = 140fpm
Annular Equivalent Flow Rate = 368gpm/8.76bpm
Minimum Pipe Velocity = 150fpm
Pipe Equivalent Flow Rate = 47gpm/1.11bpm
19/22
Annulus Pipe Fluid Dynamic

Flow Up Hole Size Length Length Pipe OD Pipe ID PHAR Density Viscosity Yield Point Critical Velocity Flow Rate Velocity Pressure Loss Losses
in m ft in in sg cP lb/100ft2 m/min fpm gpm lpm m/min fpm Type Kpa psi bpm
Pipe 8.5 2000 6562 3.5 2.764 5.90 1.03 0.5 0 0.4 1.3 47 178 46 151 Turbulent 169 24 0.05
Annulus 8.5 2000 6562 3.5 2.764 5.90 1.03 0.5 0 0.6 1.9 368 1393 43 140 Turbulent 105 15 0.03
Direct Circulation up Casing - DP Annulus

Pressure Loss @ 140fpm = 15psi
Max Dynamic Losses = 0.03bpm
Min Net Flow Rate Required = 8.76bpm
Min Pump Flow Rate Required = 10.70bpm/449gpm
Reverse Circulation up Drillpipe

DP Pressure Loss @ 150fpm = 24psi
Surface Pressure Losses = 25psi (estimated)
Max Dynamic Losses = 0.1bpm
Min Net Flow Rate Required = 1.11bpm
Min Pump Flow Rate Required = 3.12bpm/131gpm
So if only a cleanout is required then reverse circulation should be considered if the pumping
capacity is limited.
7.6 Cleanout Examples with Losses

The following are typical examples of well cleanouts.
7.6.1 M’Bya 10 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout

In this Post Frac cleanout even with 3bpm losses the pump capacity of 7.7bpm was sufficient and
because only Filtered Treated Seawater (FTSW) was being used there were adequate liquid supplies.
Casing/Drillpipe 7”/3.5”
Well Max Deviation 30.3°
Minimum Annular Velocity >120fpm
Proppant 12-18 Mesh (1200µ)
Cleanout Liquid Filtered Treated Seawater/1.03sg
Pump Flow Rate 7.7bpm
Total Losses 3.0bpm
Net Flow Rate after Losses 4.7bpm
Annular Velocity 171fpm (>120fpm minimum required.)
Viscous Pills HEC
20/22
7.6.2 M’Bya 11 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout

The brine density was adjusted such that there were no static only dynamic losses that increased as
the pump rate increased so the maximum annular velocity that was achievable was 109fpm with
3.0bpm net flow (1bpm losses), and 127fpm with 3.5bpm net flow (2.5bpm losses) – too low to clean
out the well. According to the pressure loss calculation the incremental pressure loss responsible for
the additional 1.5bpm of losses when the flow was increased from 4 to 6bpm was only 12psi – see
below. Even with a minimum flow of 53gpm for reverse circulation the losses would have been too
high since any losses >1bpm were unacceptable as there was limited NaCl available in country, let
alone the well site.
Pipe Pressure Losses
Annulus Pipe Fluid
Hole Size Length Length Pipe OD Pipe ID PHAR Density Viscosity Yield Point Critical Velocity Flow Rate Velocity Pressure Loss
in m ft in in sg cP lb/100ft2 m/min fpm gpm lpm m/min fpm Type Kpa psi
6 2700 8859 3.5 2.764 2.94 1.15 0.5 0 0.7 2.4 168 636 145 477 Turbulent 2463 357
6 2700 8859 3.5 2.764 2.94 1.15 0.5 0 0.7 2.4 53 201 46 150 Turbulent 309 45
Annulus Pressure Losses

Annulus Pipe Fluid
Hole Size Length Length Pipe OD Pipe ID PHAR Density Viscosity Yield Point Critical Velocity Flow Rate Velocity Pressure Loss
in m ft in in sg cP lb/100ft2 m/min fpm gpm lpm m/min fpm Type Kpa psi
6 2700 8859 3.5 2.764 2.94 1.15 0.5 0 1.1 3.5 126 477 33 109 Turbulent 274 40
6 2700 8859 3.5 2.764 2.94 1.15 0.5 0 1.1 3.5 147 556 39 127 Turbulent 362 52
Well Data
Casing/Drillpipe 7”/3.5”
Well Max Deviation 49.2° - Avalanche Country
Minimum Annular Velocity >160fpm
Proppant 12-18 Mesh (1200µ)
Cleanout Liquid NaCl Brine/1.15sg
Direct Circulation
Pump Flow Rate 4.0bpm (At 6bpm had 2.5bpm losses)
Total Losses 1.0bpm
Net Flow Rate after Losses 3.0bpm
Annular Velocity 109fpm (<160fpm minimum required.)
Viscous Pills HEC
Rotation 70rpm
Reverse Circulation
DP Pressure Loss 45psi
Surface Pressure Losses 25psi Estimated
Min Required Flow Rate 1.26bpm
Max Back Pressure 70psi
Total Losses +/-6.25bpm Estimated
Total Flow Rate Required 7.51bpm
It is always essential to have sufficient cleanout fluid readily available or a contingent means to
recover the fill i.e. CEPs/Shakira Pump etc. (In this well the CEPs pump was tried but the proppant fell
out of the tool because the tool used flappers to retain the proppant and not plungers as have since
been recommended by CEPs.)
21/22
8.0 Guideline Summary
Parameter Direct Circulation Reverse Circulation

If Possible Not Necessary
Rotation Possible Not Possible
70rpm recommended 70rpm recommended
Necessary if no Necessary if no
Reciprocation/Movement Recommended
rotation rotation
Fluid Type Water/Brine
Min Fluid Velocity Dev <30° >120fpm
Min Fluid Velocity Dev >40° >140fpm >160fpm
>150fpm
ROP 10m/hr
No. of Bottoms Up <30° 1-2
No. of Bottoms Up 30 - 60° 3-5
No. of Bottoms Up >60° 3-7 3-5
Viscous Sweeps Work Best in Vertical Wells
Max Annulus Pressure NA Subject to Annular
22/22

WO Hole Cleaning Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WO Hole Cleaning Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hole Cleaning Guidelines Page 1 of 22

Workover Hole Cleaning

04/04/22 Rev 0 P. Malpas

Date Status Author

Workover Hole Cleaning Guidelines

Section Title Page

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Background Data

2.1 Know the Solids

Settling velocity in a vertical well can be used as follows:

Annular Velocity = 24.5*Q/(Do2-Di2) fpm

2.2 Know the Well Deviation

Vertical Lift from Liquid = Annular Velocity * Cos Ø

Well Deviation Cos Ø

2.3 Avalanche Section

Fig 1: J & S Shaped wells

“Vertical” Section 0 - 30°

“Deviated” Section 30 - 60°

“Horizontal” Section 60 - 90°

Fig 2: The Various Deviated Sections of a Well.

3.0 Main Lessons from Drilling for Hole Cleaning

Parameter Vertical Well < 30 Deviated Well > 30

3.1 Other Relevant Lessons from Drilling

4.0 Main Lessons from Coiled Tubing

4.1 Direct Circulation with Coiled Tubing

Parameter Vertical Well < 30 Deviated Well > 30

This data is based upon various sources of information:

4.2 Reverse Circulation with Coiled Tubing

It can be summarised as follows:

This data is based upon various sources of information:

Fig 6: Typical Reverse Circulating Nozzle

Fig 7: Manifold to facilitate changing from reverse circulation to direct circulation

5.0 Turbulent Flow.

Annulus Pipe Fluid

6.0 Hole Cleaning Without Losses

6.1 Direct Circulation with Rotation

6.2 Direct Circulation Without Rotation

These minimum guidelines are based on various sources of information:

6.3 Reverse Circulation

These minimum guidelines are based on various sources of information:

6.4 Examples of Well Cleanout without Losses

6.4.1 TCTM-A09 Well Cleanout – Cement & Proppoant

TCTM-A09 S Shaped Well

6.4.1 LGN-06 (Fig 13) Well Cleanout - Sand

For an optimum cleanout in LGN-06 with 39°

However the pump capacity was only 3.4bpm

Note reverse circulation could have achieved

7.0 Hole Cleaning with Losses

7.1 Static Liquid Losses

Static Losses (blpd) = (Hydrostatic Pressure – Reservoir Pressure) * Injectivity Index

7.2 Dynamic Liquid Losses

7.3 Total Liquid Losses

7.4 Frictional Pressure Losses

7.5 Practical Considerations for Reverse Circulation

7.5.1 Annular Pressures

7.5.2 Surface Pressure Losses

7.6 Losses in a Typical Well

Annulus Pipe Fluid Dynamic

Direct Circulation up Casing - DP Annulus

Reverse Circulation up Drillpipe

7.6 Cleanout Examples with Losses

7.6.1 M’Bya 10 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout

7.6.2 M’Bya 11 Post Frac/Proppant Cleanout

Annulus Pressure Losses