Drilling and Fluids and Cement - Carrying Capacity of Drilling Muds

The trend toward deeper drilling, together with the attcndant increase in power requirements for circulation of the drilling fluid, has emphasized the need for a critical examination of the factors affecting the removal of bit cuttings from the hole by the drilling fluid. The ability of drilling fluids to lift cuttings is called their carrying capacity. A series of laboratory and field experiments has been conducted to determine the minimrim annular velocity necessary to remove cuttings, and to investigate the effects of properties of drilling fluids on their carrying capacities. Consideration of the results of these experiments led to the following conclusions: 1. Turbulent flow in the well annulus is most desirable from the standpoint of cutting removal. 2. Low viscosity and low gel are advantageous in removing cuttings. 3. Increase in mud weight is effective in increasing carrying capacity. 4. The carrying capacity is higher when the pipe is rotated than when it is not. 5. If turbulent flow can be maintained, an annular velocity slightly higher than the slip velocity of the largest cuttings to be transported should keep the bore hole clean. This implies velocities of 100 to 125 ft per minute rather than the presently used 175 to 225 ft per minute. INTRODUCTION Power Savings by Reduction of Annular Velocities A large portion of the power expended in drilling operations is consumed in circulating the drilling fluid. An important factor in establishing the rate of mud circulation is the minimum velocity in the annulus necessary to remove bit cuttings. Empirically, it has been found that average annular mud velocities of about 200 ft per minute will remove cuttings. It was not definitely known, however, whether annular velocities of about 200 ft per minute were just above the minimum necessary to remove cuttings, or whether such velocities could be materially reduced without sacrifice of the ability of the mud to remove cuttings. It is apparent that if annular velocities could be reduced without impairment of cutting removal, a considerable saving in power requirements would result. Need for Research on Carrying Capacity The ability of a drilling fluid to transport cuttings is called its carrying capacity. Although it has been recognized that the carrying capacity of a mud is affected by mud properties such as viscosity and density1,2,3,4 there have been various views in the industry as to the effects of these mud properties on carrying capacity. The economic importance of the problem of carrying capacity and the scarcity of information on the subject indicated that research on the problem was needed. THE FACTORS AFFECTING CARRYING CAPACITY Qualitative Determination of Factors The mechanism of cutting transport is closely related to that involved in the separation of material by settling processes. A considerable amount of research has been done on settling problems, and discussions of sedimentation theory can be found in standard texts.5,6 Consideration of the information available from these sources, together with consideration of the mechanism of cutting transport, leads to the conclusion that the factors affecting carrying capacity are the dimensions of the system, the physical properties of the cuttings. and the physical properties of the drilling fluid. system Dimensions and Their Effect The dimensions of the fluid circulating system of importance to carrying capacity are the bore hole size, drill pipe size, pump capacity, and pump speed. These dimensions determine the annular velocity of the drilling fluid. Physical Properties and Their Effects The physical properties involved in the interaction between mud and cuttings are the density and shape of the cuttings and the density, viscosity and gel strength of the drilling fluid. The effect of the density factor on carrying capacity is fairly obvious; high density difference between cuttings and fluid results in a low buoyant force and therefore decreases carrying capacity. The effect of cutting shape is less obvious. Although