SPE 89324 Prediction of Critical Foam Velocity for Effective Cuttings Transport in Horizontal Wells

Yibing Li and Ergun Kuru / University of Alberta

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2324 March 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 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, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 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 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.

Examples of critical fluid velocity (or critical flow rate) correlations for drilling with conventional (incompressible) drilling fluids have been presented by Luo et al.1, and Larsen et al.2 Optimization of hole cleaning in horizontal wells becomes even more complex when compressible fluids such as foam and aerated mud are used as drilling fluids. Foam is favorably used as a drilling fluid in many horizontal wells because of its low density, superior cuttings transport ability and stable flow characteristics with low tendency of slug formation. 3-6 Good cuttings transport ability of foam has been demonstrated in the field6, although formation of stationary cuttings beds has been reported by some experimental studies. 7-9 In this study, a critical foam velocity (CFV) correlation has been developed by using the Li and Kuru10 model presented earlier. The effects of foam quality, borehole size, horizontal well length, bottomhole pressure (BHP), and temperature on the CFV have been analyzed and the results are presented in this paper. Mathematical Model of Cuttings Transport with Foam in Horizontal Wells Recently, Li and Kuru10 developed the transient multiphase flow model of cuttings transport with foam in horizontal wells. The brief description of the model is given in the following section. Model Description The conservation of mass relationships for foam fluid and solid phases are given by equations (1) and (2) respectively.
( Ao C f f ) + ( Ao C f f u f ) = Ao (s f s f ) t x

Abstract A mathematical model and a numerical analysis of the cuttings transport with foam in horizontal wells have been presented earlier. The model has been incorporated into a computer program and used for finding a closed form critical foam velocity (CFV) correlation. The new CFV correlation can be used to predict minimum foam flow rate required to remove, or prevent the formation of stationary cuttings beds on the low-side of the highly deviated and horizontal wells. Effects of key drilling parameters (i.e. drilling rate, annular geometry, foam quality, bottomhole pressure and temperature) on the critical foam velocity have also been investigated. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate how the CFV correlation can be used to determine required gas and liquid flow rates at the downhole conditions Introduction When planning or drilling highly deviated or horizontal wells, one of the key parameters which must be determined is the minimum drilling fluid velocity required to transport drilled cuttings up to surface and the keep hole clean. This minimum fluid velocity is called the critical fluid velocity (CFV). If insufficient flow rate is used, cuttings will deposit on the low side of the wellbore and form a large stationary bed which result in severe drilling problems such as high drag and torque, hole packingoff and stuck pipe. It is, therefore, crucial to know the CFV when planning and drilling a deviated well so that the adequate and economical drilling equipment can be selected and optimum parameters determined.

(1)

( Ao C s s ) + ( Ao C s s u s ) = Ao s s t x

(2)

In equations (1) and (2), sf and ss represent the rates of change of mass of foam and solid particles per unit volume of the wellbore due to the mass transfer between layers, and sf denotes mass influx rates of water, oil and gas from the reservoir per unit volume of the wellbore.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

The conservation of momentum relationships for foam fluid and solid phases are given by equations (3) and (4) respectively.
(AoC f f u f ) + AoC f f u f 2 = t x ( Ao p ) 1 2 C f Ao v (u f u s ) C f f f f u f S o x 2

ucf = ucl (1 )

(8)

where u cf and u cl are the critical deposition velocities in (3) foam and in the liquid, respectively. The parameter is the foam critical deposition velocity index that represents the extent of the deviation of the critical velocity in foam from that in liquid. Boundary Conditions Mechanisms of cuttings transport in highly deviated and horizontal wells are significantly different than that of the vertical wells. Therefore, in order to analyze the cuttings transport in horizontal wells, we have focused only on the horizontal section of the well. Figure 1 shows the geometry of typical horizontal well section. The pressure at the heel of the horizontal wellbore section largely reflects the effect of the true vertical depth of the well. The numerical solution of the model for horizontal wells requires that the pressure at the heel of the horizontal wellbore is specified as a boundary condition. The foam quality at the heel of the horizontal wellbore section largely reflects the combined effects of injection gas liquid ratio (GLR) and back pressure at the surface, which also needs to be specified to investigate its effect on cuttings transport. Critical Foam Velocity (CFV) The critical foam velocity in a horizontal well is defined as the minimum foam velocity which yields no cuttings bed deposition. In an attempt to find a closed form expression for critical foam velocity, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted by using the foam-cuttings transport model developed by Li and Kuru10. Drilling rate, wellbore geometry, horizontal well length, foam quality, botomhole pressure and temperature are some of the most important factors affecting the critical foam velocity. The following section provides the discussion of the effects of some of these most important parameters on the critical foam velocity Effect of Foam Quality on the CFV The quality of foam controls the foam viscosity and the density, and therefore affects efficiency of cuttings transport significantly. As the foam quality increases, the foam viscosity also increases, which is favorable for cuttings removal. On the other hand, the foam density decreases with increasing foam quality, which is unfavorable for cuttings transport. The effect of foam quality on the CFV is shown in Figure 2. Generally, the effect of foam quality on the CFV is negligible when the foam quality is between 50% to 70%. When the foam quality is higher than 70%, the CFV increases noticeably as the foam quality increases. In this case, the foam density

( Ao C s s u s ) + Ao C s s u s 2 = t x ( Ao p) 1 2 C s + Ao v (u f u s ) C s f s s u s S o x 2

(4)

To solve the model, injection gas and liquid rates and pressure at the heel of the horizontal section need to be specified as the boundary conditions. The simultaneous solution of the equations (1) to (4) provides the unsteady state variations of pressure, fluid velocity, and cuttings concentration along the horizontal wellbore. Shook et al.,11 suggested that the most suitable critical velocity correlation for high viscosity liquids is the one from Oroskar and Turian12. Shah et al.,13 also confirmed that Oroskar and Turians correlation (equation (5)) is applicable to transport of solids in horizontal well by using high viscosity fluids.
uc = 1.85C s
0.1536

gd s ( s 1) f

d (1 C s ) 0.3564 s D

0.378

~ 0.09 N Re X 0.3

(5)

where

~ N Re is a modified Reynolds number defined by

equation (6).
D f ~ N Re =

gd s (

s 1) f

(6)

In order to introduce the annular geometry into the critical deposition velocity correlation, a hydraulic diameter is used to replace pipe diameter, D, in equations (5) and (6). Note that the effective fluid viscosity should be used in equation (6). In this study, the foam is assumed to behave like a power law type fluid. The effective viscosity of power law fluids is given as follows:14
n 1

e = K

3n + 1 4n

8u f D H

(7)

In order to determine the critical foam velocity, the equation (5) was modified by introducing the effect of foam quality as shown in equation (8):

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

affects the cuttings transport efficiency more than the foam viscosity. The general relationship between the CFV and the foam quality, , can be described by a 2nd order polynomial function:

where d1 and d2 are correlation coefficients, and p BH , is the bottomhole pressure. Effect of Bottom Hole Temperature on the CFV Figure 7 shows that for a foam of fixed quality, foam specific gravity decreases slightly with increasing temperature. For the bottomhole temperature variation between 30 oC to 100oC, the effect of temperature on the CFV is negligible (Figure 8). This conclusion is also supported by the experimental results recently published by Lourenco et al.,15 where they found that the rheology of foam (with a fixed foam quality) was not influenced by increasing temperature. Effect of Horizontal Well Length on the CFV The pressure at the toe of the horizontal well section is higher than the pressure at the heel of the well. The difference is due to the frictional pressure losses and increases as the horizontal well length increases. Therefore, the foam quality increases as the foam flows away from the bit in the horizontal well section. By using the base data given in Table 1, foam quality changes along the horizontal wells (with 1500 ft length and 4500 ft length and 6.0 ft/s foam velocity) are calculated. The results are shown in Figure 9. The dimensionless distance in Figure 9 is defined as:

CFV = a1 + a 2 + a 3 2

(9)

where a1, a2 and a3 are correlation coefficients, and is the foam quality. Effect of Drilling Rate on the CFV The effect of rate of penetration (ROP) on the critical foam velocity (CFV) for various wellbore geometry with 60% foam quality and 850 psia bottomhole pressure is shown in Figure 3. Regression analyses have shown that CFV is a logarithmic function of R, the ROP. The general correlation can be written as: CFV = b1 ln(R) + b2 Where b1 and b2 are correlation coefficients. Effect of Wellbore Geometry on the CFV The effect of wellbore geometry on the CFV is shown in Figure 4. It is found that CFV is also a logarithmic function of wellbore hydraulic diameter (DH). CFV = c1 ln(DH) + c2 (11) (10)

L* =

Li HL

(14)

where c1 and c2 are correlation coefficients, and DH is hydraulic diameter defined by equation (12). DH = DB - DP (12)

where Li is the horizontal distance from the drill bit and HL is the total length of the horizontal well. It is seen that the foam quality variation is very small along the horizontal well. For a 1500 ft well, the foam quality increase at the heel is negligible. For a 4500 ft well, less than 2% foam quality increase is observed at the heel of the well. Horizontal well length has a slight effect on the CFV. Figure 10 shows that CFV increases as the length increases. This is because the foam quality at the heel of the well is slightly higher than at the toe of the horizontal well (Figure 9). Generalized Correlation For Critical Foam Velocity The method used for deriving the generalized correlation for the CFV is similar to the one that was proposed by Larsen et al.,2 to calculate critical fluid velocity for conventional drilling fluids. Based on the data presented in Figures 3 and 4, the CFV correlation for 60% foam quality and 850 psia BHP can be written as follows:

Effect of Bottomhole Pressure on the CFV Cuttings transport is significantly affected by foam specific gravity (or foam density) since terminal settling velocity of solids decreases as the carrier fluid density increases. As shown in Figure 5, for a fixed foam quality (in this case 60 %), the foam specific gravity increases with the increasing bottomhole pressure (BHP). Figure 6 illustrates the effect of bottomhole pressure (BHP) on the CFV for 60% quality foam. A lower foam velocity is required to remove all the cuttings at higher BHP. This is mainly due to the fact that bottomhole foam density increases as the BHP increases (Figure 5), and the foam with higher density can suspend and transport the cuttings more effectively. The general relationship between the CFV and the BHP can be described by a power law function:

CFV = d 1 ( p BH ) d 2

CFV = 0.111 (ln R + 6.788) (ln( DH ) + 2.278)

(15)

(13)

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

The value of CFV obtained from equation (15) needs to be corrected for bottomhole pressures other than 850 psia and the foam qualities other than 60%. Based on the CFV vs. BHP relationship shown in Figure 6, the regression coefficient, d2, in the equation (13) is found to be equal to 0.0533. The correction factor, CBHP, for the effect of BHP other than 850 psia on the CFV can be determined as follows:
p C BHP = BH 850
0.0533

When the same problem is solved for foam quality of 70%, CFV increased slightly to 4.03 ft/sec with corresponding downhole gas and liquid rates of 39 ft3/min and 124 gal/min, respectively.
Conclusions The CFV is a strong (logarithmic) function of borehole diameter. Higher foam velocity is needed to completely remove the cuttings from a larger size wellbore.

(16)

The CFV is also strong (logarithmic) function of the drilling rate. Higher foam velocity is needed to completely remove the cuttings at higher drilling rates. The CFV is moderately affected by the BHP. A power law function can be used to describe the effect of BHP. Other variables such as foam quality and bottomhole temperature have negligible effects on the CFV. The generalized CFV correlation presented in this paper provides important insights into cuttings transportability with foam in horizontal wells. The generalized CFV would be useful for drilling engineer to determine the required gas and liquid flow rates for effective hole cleaning in horizontal wells using foam.
Nomenclature a1,a2,b1,b2,c1,c2,c3,d1 and d2 coefficients in CFV correlations A cross-sectional area, ft2 Aan cross-sectional area of the annulus, in2 C volumetric concentration, dimensionless CBHP correction factor for the effect of BHP, dimensionless correction factor for the effect of foam quality, CQ dimensionless CFV critical foam velocity, ft/sec wellbore diameter, in. DB hydraulic diameter, in. DH DP drillpipe outer diameter, in. foam friction coefficient, dimensionless ff fs solids friction coefficient, dimensionless g acceleration constant of gravity, ft/sec2

Based on the CFV vs. foam quality relationship shown in Figure 2, regression coefficients, a1, a2, and a3, of equation (9) are found as 4.6, -2.2, and 2 respectively. The correction factor for the effect of foam quality other than 60% on the CFV can be found by dividing the equation (9) with the value of the equation (9) when the foam quality is 60%. The equation (17) gives the final form of the correction factor for the effect of foam quality other than 60% on the CFV. CQ = 1.15 -0.55 + 0.5 2 (17)

Finally, the CFV for any BHP other than 850 psia and any foam quality other than 60%, can be calculated by multiplying the CFV from equation (15) by CBHP and CQ.
Gas and Liquid Volumetric Rates at the Downhole Conditions The gas and liquid flow rates corresponding to CFV at the bottomhole conditions can be calculated by using the definitions of foam quality and velocity. The final form of the equations for downhole gas and liquid flow rates are given by equations (18) and (19), respectively.

q g = 0.417 CFV Aan

(18) (19)

q L = 3.12 (1.0 ) CFV Aan

Sample Calculation of the CFV Wellbore Diameter: 7-7/8 in. Drillpipe OD : 4 -1/2 in. Bottomhole Pressure: 1200 psi Bottomhole Foam Quality: 60% Drilling Rate: 40 ft/hr

L*
p R sf S u

CFV corresponding to 60% foam quality and 850 psia is calculated from equation (15) as 4.06 ft/sec. The correction factor for BHP of 1200 psia is calculated from equation (16) as 0.98 The corrected CFV is calculated as 3.99 ft/sec. The bottomhole gas and liquid flow rates are calculated from equations (18) and (19), as 33 ft3/min and 163 gal/min, respectively.

uc
v

dimensionless distance pressure in wellbore, psia rate of penetration, ft/hr source term of foam, lbm/(secft3) wetted perimeter, ft velocity, ft/sec critical deposition velocity, m/s foam critical deposition velocity index, dimensionless coefficient accounting for drag force, lbm/(secft3) foam quality, dimensionless density, lbm/ft3

Subscripts f foam l liquid

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

o s

open flow area in the upper layer solids

Acknowledgement This work is supported through the research grant provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.

12.

13.
Reference 1. Luo, Y., Bern, P.A. and Chambers, B.D.: Flow-Rate Prediction for Cleaning Deviated Wells, paper SPE 23884 presented at 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 1821, 1992. 2. Larsen, T.I., Pilehvari, A.A. and Azar, J.J.: Development of A New Cuttings-Transport Model for High-Angle Wellbores Including Horizontal Wells, SPEDC, p.129-135, June 1997. 3. Cade, R., Kirvelis, R. and Jennings, J.: Does Underbalanced Drilling Really Add Reserves, paper SPE 81626 presented at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 25-26 March 2003. 4. Teichrob, R. and Baillargeon, D.: The Changing Face of Underbalanced Drilling Technology Part III Six-Year Case History of Pressure-Depleted Reservoir Exploitation in Western Canada and Evolution of Cost-Saving, Integrated UBD Package, World Oil, p.79-82, June 2000. 5. Giffin, D.R. and Lyons, W.C.: Case Histories of Design and Implementation of Underbalanced Wells, paper SPE 59166 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000. 6. Rojas, Y., and Vieira, P., Borrell, M., Blanco, J., Ford, M., Nieto, L., Lopez, G. and Atencio, B.: Field Application of Near-Balanced Drilling Using Aqueous Foams in Western Venezuela, paper SPE 74449, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February 2002. 7. Ozbayoglu, E.M., Miska, S.Z., Reed, T. and Takach, N.: Cuttings Transport with Foam in Horizontal & Highly-Inclined Wellbore, paper SPE 79856 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21 February 2003. 8. Martins, A.L., Lourenco, A.M.F. and de Sa, C.H.M.: Foam Property Requirements for Proper Hole Cleaning While Drilling Horizontal Wells in Underbalanced Conditions, SPEDC, p.195-200, December 2001. 9. Saintpere, S., Marcillat, Y., Bruni, F. and Toure, A.: Hole Cleaning Capabilities of Drilling Foams Compared to Conventional Fluids, paper SPE 63049 presented at the 2000 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000. 10. Li, Y. and Kuru, E.: Numerical Modeling of Cuttings Transport with Foam in Horizontal Wells, JCPT, p.54-61, Oct. 2003. 11. Shook, C.A., Gillies, R.G., Kristoff, B.J. and Small,

14.

15.

16.

M.H.: Sand Transport Mechanism in Horizontal Wells, 4th petroleum Conf. of South Saskatchewan section, Petroleum society of CIM hold with CANMED, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, Oct.7-9, 1991. Oroskar A.R. and Turian R.M.: The Critical Velocity in Pipeline Flow of Slurries, AIChE Journal, 26, p.550-558, 1980. Shah, S.N. and Lord, D.L.: Hydraulic Fracturing Slurry Transport in Horizontal Pipes, SPEDE, p.225-232, Sept. 1990. Skelland, A.H.P., Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat Transfer; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1967. Lourenco, A.M.F., Miska, S.Z, Reed, T.R., Pickell, M.B. and Takach, N.E.: Study of the Effects of Pressure and Temperature on the Rheology of Drilling Foams and Frictional Pressure Losses, paper SPE 84175 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003. Saponja, J.: Challenges with Jointed-Pipe Underbalanced Operations, SPEDC, p.121-128, June 1998.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

Table 1: The base data

Pressure (psia) 850 Temperature (oC) 65.6 Hole size (in) 8-1/2 Drill pipe OD (in) 4-1/2 Eccentricity ROP (ft/hr) 30 Particle size (in) 1/2 Foam quality (%) 60 Horizontal length (ft) 1500

1.0

Pressure Temperature Foam Quality

Horizontal Length

Figure 1: Schematic view of the horizontal section

4.5
8-1/2, 4-1/2 in

Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

4.3

4.1

3.9

3.7

3.5 30 40 50 60 Foam Quality (%) 70 80 90

Figure 2: Effect of foam quality on the CFV

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

6 Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

4-1/2, 2-7/8 in 4-3/4, 2-7/8 in 6-1/4, 3-1/2 in 8-1/2, 4-1/2 in 12-1/4, 5 in

1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drilling Rate (ft/hr)

Figure 3: Effect of Drilling Rates on the CFV

Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

3
ROP=1 ft/hr ROP=10 ft/hr

ROP=30 ft/hr ROP=60 ft/hr ROP=90 ft/hr

1 1 2 3 4 5 Hydraulic Diameter (in) 6 7 8

Figure 4: Effect of Wellbore Geometry on the CFV (60% foam quality )

1 Foam Specific Gravity (Water=1)

0.8
20C 100C

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Pressure (psia)

Figure 5: Foam specific gravity change with pressure

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

6 Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

5
8-1/2, 4-1/2 in

1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) 5000 6000

Figure 6: Bottom hole pressure effect

1 Foam Specific Gravity (Water=1)

0.8
800 psia 4000 psia

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 20 30 40 50 60
o

70

80

90

100

Temperature ( C)

Figure 7: Foam specific gravity change with temperature

6 Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

800 psia 4000 psia

1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 o Bottom Hole Temperature ( C) 90 100 110

Figure 8: Effect of Bottom hole temperature on th CFV

www.petroman.ir

SPE 89324

70

65 Foam Quality (%)

1500 ft 4500 ft

60

55

50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Dimensionless Distance From Bit

Figure 9: Foam quality variation along the well (uf=6.0 ft/s)

6 Critical Foam Velocity (ft/s)

8-1/2, 4-1/2 in

1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Length of Horizontal Well (ft)

Figure 10: Effect of horizontal well length on the CFV

www.petroman.ir