15.03.2018 Views

BAKER HUGHES - Drilling Fluids Reference Manual

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

RESERVOIR APPLICATION FLUIDS<br />

Numerous laboratory studies have been conducted concerning the flow velocity required to<br />

completely remove drill solids from a high-angle wellbore. The general conclusions from all of<br />

these studies indicate that there is a critical velocity (CTFV-Critical Transport Fluid Velocity) that<br />

must be exceeded to ensure a complete sweep of the wellbore. If the fluid velocity is below this<br />

value (SCFF – Sub-Critical Fluid Flow), cuttings will start to accumulate in the wellbore. This<br />

accumulation continues until the flow velocity over the top of the cuttings bed exceeds the CTFV,<br />

at which time an equilibrium condition is created.<br />

It has been determined that through these testing programs, the most difficult wellbore angle to<br />

clean is between 65° and 75°. However, the increase in required flow velocity only varies slightly<br />

over the complete range of well deviations for 55° to 90°. Since the transport mechanism changes<br />

from rolling to lift, studies indicate that the critical velocity is significantly lower at wellbore<br />

deviations from vertical to about 50°.<br />

To summarize, it was observed in flow loop simulations that the removal of a cuttings bed with a<br />

viscosified fluid was in fact detrimental in high angle wellbores (assuming zero to low drill pipe<br />

rotation), and that low viscosity fluids are more beneficial.<br />

Based on these studies and in-house work, Baker Hughes <strong>Drilling</strong> <strong>Fluids</strong> has settled on a value of 5<br />

ft/sec (300 ft/min) as the recommended flow velocity to clean out the wellbore for particles. In<br />

addition, this displacement rate has been tested and proved effective in numerous field applications,<br />

especially before screen and gravel placement.<br />

Indirect versus Direct Displacement<br />

There are two general types of displacement used in the oil industry today. One is an indirect<br />

displacement and the other is a direct displacement. Each type has its advantages and<br />

disadvantages. Utilize BHDF’s DISPLEX Simulation Model to determine the pill volumes<br />

required for spacer contact times and flow rates.<br />

Indirect Displacement<br />

An indirect displacement is usually associated with a displacement of the mud system to seawater<br />

(or drill water) in a drilling liner or production casing before displacing to the next fluid system.<br />

For example, if oil-based drilling mud is in use, the operator may wish to displace and clean the<br />

drill string and casing with seawater before displacing to brine. The seawater would be preceded<br />

by a series of spacers and solvents to clean and water-wet the casing. With this method, a thorough<br />

cleansing can occur with minimal product usage due to the circulation of inexpensive water. Later,<br />

the displacement to the clean brine will occur without contamination.<br />

For indirect displacements, a good cement bond log is necessary because high differential pressures<br />

on the casing could cause a breakdown of cement or collapse of the casing.<br />

Indirect displacements may also be recommended for the production casing. In this instance, the<br />

drill-in fluid would be displaced to drill-water before finally being displaced to clear brine.<br />

Caution must also be exercised in this displacement because a possible reduction in hydrostatic<br />

pressure across the production interval could lead to casing collapse.<br />

<strong>BAKER</strong> <strong>HUGHES</strong> DRILLING FLUIDS<br />

REFERENCE MANUAL<br />

REVISION 2006 6-84

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!