You are on page 1of 8

SPE 77448

Drilling Fluid Sweeps: Their Evaluation, Timing, and Applications


Terry Hemphill, SPE, Halliburton and Juan Carlos Rojas, SPE, BP Exploration

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. and frequency of application of drilling fluid sweeps and rig
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and time spent circulating out ineffective sweeps can
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September –2 October 2002.
be minimized.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Introduction
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 Drilling fluid sweeps are usually applied in wells to augment
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of hole cleaning, especially in high-angle or extended-reach
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 wells where efficient hole cleaning is more difficult to
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 maintain than in vertical or near-vertical wells. In the deviated
acknowledgme nt of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. wells, the drilled cuttings can accumulate on the lower side of
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
the hole at angles greater than 35 - 40° from vertical. If left
unattended, this accumulation can become severe enough to
Abstract lead to hole pack-offs, stuck pipe, and other unwanted
Drilling fluid sweeps are commonly run in the field to help incidents of non-productive time.
clean the borehole of cuttings that have not been removed with Drilling fluid sweeps are formulated to achieve certain
normal fluid circulation. Typically, these sweeps are used in properties that provide additional lift to cuttings in vertical and
vertical and deviated drilling operations. In high angle or near-vertical wellbores. In high-angle wells, drilling fluid
extended reach wells, their use can be helpful in removing sweeps can be used to scour the top layers of drilled cuttings
cuttings that have accumulated in sections where hole cleaning accumulation and to displace lighter-density areas of the
is not optimized. Sweep types usually fall into the annulus where drilled cuttings accumulation is thought
following categories: to occur.
There is not much information pertaining to use of drilling
• High-viscosity fluid sweeps that is available in the literature, a sign that this
• High-density particular area of investigation has not received much
• Low-viscosity attention among drilling fluids researchers. In a recent paper1 ,
• Combinations of any 2 of the above the authors described various types of sweeps and provided
• Tandem (one type followed by another) field evidence to support improved cleaning with changes in
downhole measurements of annular pressure (PWD). In
Their effectiveness in the field is often quite spotty, often addition, the authors made extensive use of computer
due to the application of a certain sweep type in the wrong modeling to gauge drilling fluid sweep performance. A
drilling situation. Heretofore, there has been lacking a rigorous common problem associated with this approach involves the
method of evaluating the effectiveness of sweeps at the rig inherent assumptions implicit in the modeling process. It
site. Usually sweeps have been evaluated in the field based on would be much better to use actual drilling and drilling fluid
observed or perceived quantities of cuttings coming over the parameters to gauge hole cleaning improvement with use of
shakers, a methodology that can be very subjective. drilling fluid sweeps.
In this paper, a rigorous method of evaluating drilling The use of drilling fluid sweeps having a density higher
fluids sweep efficiency is proposed. Here, information from than the drilling fluid system itself to improve cuttings
pressure-while-drilling (PWD) tools and measured drilling transport is the subject of a U.S. Patent2 . In this patent, small
fluid and sweep fluid properties is used to determine a volumes of drilling fluid commonly weighted up with
mathematical prediction of “cuttings out”. In short, the method specially-sized barite particles were used in deviated
relies on the difference between “mass in” and “mass out”. wellbores, and the changes in ECD and hole cleaning
Examples from field applications are given to illustrate the efficiency were described. Again, any advantages using these
usefulness of this methodology. sweeps in removing cuttings from the wellbore were only
With a more rigorous evaluation of drilling fluid sweep qualitatively described and / or modeled.
efficiency in hand, users can objectively determine the type
2 T. HEMPHILL AND J.C. ROJAS SPE 77448

Data Sources pumped; in this particular case, a drop in ECD of 0.05 lbm/US
In this study, the input parameters and the results shown gal was measured.
herein were obtained on a shallow TVD high-angle project
drilled with 3.125-in OD Advanced Composite Coiled Tubing Modeling of Sweep Efficiency
(ACCT). The use of ACCT has been recently reported in the Reviewing increases in PWD measurements solely to evaluate
literature 3 . No tubing rotation or drill string rotation was used the effectiveness of drilling fluids sweeps is not
during any of the time intervals covered in this paper. The recommended, especially so when high-viscosity sweeps are
4.75-in open hole had a maximum horizontal displacement of used. Often the increases in ECD due to the elevated viscosity
3487 ft. A hole pack-off incident led to the initial open hole of the sweep are enough to add several points to measured
being sidetracked and a second hole was drilled. A 5.5-in ECD readings. The situation becomes even more complicated
string of casing was set at 77 degrees from vertical. Hole when high-viscosity/high-density sweeps are used. Indeed, a
angles on the initial open hole segment and the sidetrack rigorous method of modeling drilling fluid sweep efficiency
ranged between 70 and 85 degrees from vertical in the is needed.
tangent sections. In this paper, such a method is proposed. In this protocol,
In this coiled tubing application, a synthetic-based invert drilling fluid sweep efficiency is evaluated on a “mass flow
emulsion drilling fluid (SBM) was used. Mud densities of the out” and “mass flow in” basis. A schematic of the various
circulating system ranged between 9.4 and 10 lbm/US gal. components is given in Fig.2. In this methodology the
Fluid rheological properties were held in a range deemed following parameters are utilized:
sufficient for cleaning in ERD-type well designs.
With the lack of any drill pipe rotation in this interval, hole • Baseline ECD of the drilling fluid system before the
cleaning in the tangent section was recognized to be poor. sweep is applied (ECD1 )
Hole cleaning modeling of the drilling conditions indicated • Additional ECD resulting from higher density
that the top of the cuttings bed reached to the top of the coiled sweep (ECD2 )
tubing. Accordingly, in the high-angle sections, modeling • Additional ECD resulting from high viscosity of
results showed approximately 50% of the cross-sectional sweep (ECD3 )
annular area only was subjected to fluid flow. • Additional ECD resulting from density of cuttings
removed from the hole by the sweep (ECD4 )
Sweep Dynamics • Total ECD of the sweep as measured by PWD
In the study of drilling fluid sweep efficiency, the step-by-step tools (ECDtotal ).
dynamics of a sweep’s movement through the wellbore should • Time (T = 0 initially and T=T at end of evaluation period)
be recognized. In Fig.1, the measurements of PWD vs. time
depict the various steps in this discussion. Accordingly, the ECD effects are given by: ECDtotal =
In this sweep, a high-density sweep weighing 12.3 lbm/US ECD1 + ECD2 + ECD3 + ECD4 , and the ECD resulting from
gal was used. Its reported volume was 10 bbl. Before the the density of the cuttings carried out by the sweep is ECD4 =
sweep was pumped down the coiled tubing, a 9.6 lbm/US gal ECDtotal – ECD1 – ECD2 – ECD3 .
SBM was being circulated at a rate of 90 US gal/min. Baseline To calculate the ECD effects in terms of mass flow out, the
Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) of the system was ECD profiles are integrated over time. Time intervals can be
measured at 10.7 – 10.75 lbm/US gal. The blue line shows the selected to give sufficient accuracy and maintain speed
measured mud weight in the coiled tubing, and indicates the of calculations.
maximum density in the tubing reached a maximum of 12.28 To calculate the “mass flow in” of a drilling fluid sweep,
lbm/US gal and quickly tapered off as the high density sweep certain properties of the sweep must be known:
flowed into the annulus. Approximately 18 minutes after the
• Density of sweep
high-density sweep entered the coiled tubing its leading edge
• Volume of sweep
began to show on annular pressure measurements. A
• Pump rate
maximum annular density of 11.93 lbm/US gal was recorded.
This density includes the sweep density, annular pressures
From this information, the “mass flowrate in” of the sweep
converted to ECD, and the weight of cuttings picked up by the
can be calculated and subtracted from the “mass flowrate out”
sweep while passing through the wellbore. In all, the transit
of the sweep to finally arrive at a value for the mass of
time of the high-density sweep in the annulus was 27 minutes.
cuttings brought out of the hole by a drilling fluid sweep. In
Once the sweep had passed out of the annulus and over the
the event that the pump rate is not constant during the entire
shakers, the baseline circulating fluid ECD was measured at
sweep process, then the pump rates should be integrated over
10.68 – 10.71 lbm/US gal. Because the high-density sweep
small time intervals to arrive at a final flowrate.
was not isolated from the active system, it became
incorporated in the circulating system and circulating mud
Other Modeling Considerations
weights going in the hole rose to 9.75 lbm/gal. As is usually
Other factors that could be involved in affecting sweep results
seen with effective sweeps, the measured system ECD
should be discussed:
following the sweep is lower than that before the sweep was
SPE 77448 DRILLING FLUID SWEEPS: THEIR EVALUATION, TIMING, AND APPLICA TIONS 3

• Negative “mass cuttings out” values results are found in Table 1. The ECD results for the 7 sweeps
• Drill pipe rotation are also shown in Figs. 4-6 and are segregated by sweep type.
• Turbulent or transitional flow In these figures, the Delta ECD is the measured increase in
• Fairly clean wellbores ECD over that of the baseline drilling fluid ECD.

Sometimes in the calculation procedures, a negative value • Fig.3: 3 high-density sweeps (Sweeps 1, 2, 4)
of “mass cuttings out” can result. A negative value is • Fig.4: 3 high-viscosity sweeps (Sweeps 3, 6, 7)
attributed to inexact or estimated input parameters and, when • Fig.5: Sweep 5
such an incident happens, the “mass cuttings out” value is set • Fig.6: Sweep 4
to zero.
It is known that other factors such as drill pipe rotation can Large differences in sweep performance are seen: Sweep 4
contribute to ECD and/or bring cuttings out of the hole in (high density) and Sweep 5 (combination high density and
drilling applications. In this methodology it is assumed that high viscosity) produced the largest increases in ECD. The
drill pipe rotation is either non-existent or held constant during other 5 sweeps had little effect on increasing ECD and hence
the entire sweep evaluation process. Introducing variable drill would not be expected to bring much in the way of drilled
pipe rotation in the evaluation process complicates cuttings out of the wellbore. Of these 5 sweeps, 2 were high-
PWD interpretation. density sweeps and the others were high-viscosity sweeps.
When increasing the density of a high-density sweep (e.g., When the viscous properties of the high-viscosity sweeps are
with no viscosifiers added), small increases in viscosity are backed out of the ECD increases seen at surface, the
usually seen. Given that the sweep passes through the annulus calculated amount of cuttings brought out by the high-
in the laminar flow regime, these increases in ECD will viscosity sweeps is nil. Clearly, the sweep efficiency
usually be very small. This situation, of course, is quite evaluation technique described in this paper can compare
different for sweeps in transitional or turbulent flow where the sweeps on a quantitative, not just a qualitative, basis.
density component predominates in pressure loss calculations. From ECD results alone, Sweep 5 appears to be nearly as
For sweeps having a higher-viscosity than the circulating effective as Sweep 4. However, when the sweep’s viscosity
system, the additional ECD caused by the high-viscosity and density properties on ECD are evaluated, it is apparent
(ECD3 ) can be either measured if the data is available or that Sweep 5 brought little-to-no cuttings out of the hole. Fig.5
predicted using hydraulic models. If/when hydraulic modeling shows the magnitude of the sweep’s density and viscosity
is applied, the volume of the viscous sweep must be included components relative to measured increases in ECD. This
in the annular volume and the ECD effects must be evaluated example demonstrates the need to look beyond the ECD
in different annular sections to obtain an overall contribution increases in PWD logs to help determine the efficiency of a
to ECD by the viscous sweep. drilling fluid sweep.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that, to be effective, sweeps Sweep 4 clearly brought the greatest amount of cuttings
require the wellbores to have significant levels of drilled out of the hole. When the sweep’s density is backed out of the
cuttings accumulation. The best-formulated sweep will have calculations, a total of 929 lbm cuttings were calculated to be
little effect if the wellbore is clean. In this coiled tubing removed from the hole. Fig.6 shows the split between the
project it can be safely assumed the hole experienced sweep density and cuttings density as functions of the
significant cuttings accumulation when hole angles reached Delta ECD.
30° from vertical or greater.
Sweep Performance Issues
Sweep Efficiency Modeling Results Questions have arisen from these results concerning the poor
In the coiled tubing drilling application, hole cleaning in the performance of some of the sweeps compared to Sweep 4.
high angle zone was poor, as should be expected in non- Observations regarding their performance are given below:
rotating drilling situations. Accordingly, many drilling fluid
sweeps were run while drilling to augment the hole cleaning Sweep size. Compared to the sizes of high-density sweeps 1
efforts. Three principal types of sweeps were run: and 2, Sweep 4 was 67 – 100% larger in volume. In the open
hole, the 10-bbl volume of Sweep 4 is predicted to cover 577
• High-viscosity ft of annular length. While Sweep 4 had the highest density of
• High-density the 3 sweeps, the differences in density were on the order of 2
• Combination high-viscosity / high-density to 5% less only. Clearly, sweep volume is a key parameter in
their success.
These sweeps were run at various places in the annulus,
sometimes in the high angle section of the wellbore and at Sweep viscosity. In none of the sweeps applied in the tangent
other times in the near-vertical section of the annulus. A total section did the elevated viscosity levels help to bring more
of 7 sweeps are discussed in this paper, and the pertinent fluid cuttings out of the hole. In the highly deviated hole sections,
and pumping properties and the calculated sweep efficiency the circulating fluid will take the path of least resistance,
4 T. HEMPHILL AND J.C. ROJAS SPE 77448

which in this case means that the highly viscous fluid will efficiency of drilling fluid sweeps to clean wellbores. This
flow over the top of the coiled tubing. This flow diversion method uses PWD measurements, drilling parameters,
effect has been reported many times in the hole and drilling fluid properties to quantitatively estimate the
cleaning literature. amount of cuttings brought out of the hole by the sweep.
• Of the seven sweeps studied in this paper, the high-
Combination sweeps. From the data presented in this paper, density Sweep 4 was the most efficient. It brought the
the use of combination high-density high-viscosity sweeps largest amount of cuttings out of the hole in the least
does not promote cuttings removal from the wellbore. Indeed, amount of circulation time / “bottoms -up” units. Linked
better performance was seen with the high-density sweep. The to its efficiency were primarily its larger volume and
combination sweep’s viscosity component only served to secondarily its higher density level.
increase ECD and promote flow diversion of the sweep over • In the high-angled sections, the high-viscosity sweeps
the top of the coiled tubing. performed poorly, as did the combination high-viscosity,
high-density Sweep 5. Poor performance is attributed to
Drill string rotation. Since drill string rotation was not the effect of flow diversion.
possible in this coiled tubing application, these tests represent • These results are valid for non-rotating drilling situations
the worst cases for using sweeps to clean highly deviated and thus represent “worst-case scenarios.” In rotary
wellbores. From the drilling literature, we know of the positive drilling operations, drill pipe rotation can improve the
benefits rotation has on hole cleaning in highly deviated situation significantly.
wellbores. However, the general lessons learned in this study • Sweeps can take a long time to circulate out of the hole.
of drilling fluid sweeps are valid for rotary drilling as well. In this study nearly 2.5 “bottoms -up” intervals were
needed to completely re move Sweep 4 from the wellbore.
Sweep Circulation Time In actual drilling situations, large volumes of cuttings
Differences in drilling fluid sweep performance can also be picked up by a sweep may remain in the annulus if
seen when the Delta ECD results are plotted vs. circulation sufficient circulation time is not allowed. In such cases,
time in units of “bottoms -up”. In this way, the progress of the hole pack-offs, stuck pipe, and tight hole incidents may
sweeps through the hole is normalized for changes in pump later occur.
rate and depth of sweep application. In Fig.7, the results for 3 • To work efficiently, sweeps should be built with
sweeps used in the high-angle sections are plotted: sufficient volume. In this study, best-performing Sweep 4
was formulated to cover 786 ft of length inside the casing
• Sweep 4 high-density or 577 ft of length in the open hole.
• Sweep 5 combination high-density high-viscosity
• Sweep 6 high-viscosity
Acknowledgments
A number of observations can be made for the data plotted The authors would like to thank their respective companies for
in Fig.7: permission to present this paper.
• Of the 3 sweeps, the high-density Sweep 4 stayed the
most intact while being circulated out of the hole. The Nomenclature
two sweeps having high-viscosity levels were much more PWD = pressure-while-drilling as measured with downhole
strung out through the annulus. Stringing out is attributed tools
to the flow diversion effect mentioned earlier. ECD = equivalent circulating density
• None of the sweeps were circulated out of the hole after
the first bottoms -up time period. Indeed, for Sweeps 4 and References
5, they had only just begun to increase Delta ECD by this 1. Power, D., Hight, C., Weisinger, D. and Reimer, C.: “Drilling
time. Practices and Sweep Selection for Efficient Hole Cleaning in
Deviated Wellbores,” paper IADC/SPE 62794 presented at the
• To remove the sweeps completely out of the hole,
2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology in Kuala
circulation times ranged between 1.5 and 2.75 “bottoms - Lumpur (11-13 September).
up” intervals. 2. West et al.: “Method and Composition for Sweep of Cuttings
• In the high-angle sections, the high-density Sweep 4 was Beds in a Deviated Borehole,” U.S. Patent No. 6,290,001
the most efficient of all the sweeps in terms of carrying (Halliburton Energy Services).
out the most cuttings in the shortest circulation timeas 3. Dalton, C., Paulk, M., and Stevenson, G.: “The Benefits of Real-
measured in “bottoms -up” units. Time Downhole Pressure and Tension Data with Wired
Composite Tubing,”, paper 2002-220 presented at the Petroleum
Conclusions Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference in
Calgary (13 – 13 June 2002).
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the material 4. Hemphill, T.: “Method for Determining Sweep Efficiency for
presented in this paper: Removing Cuttings from a Borehole,” U.S. Patent Pending.
• A numerical method has been developed to evaluate the
SPE 77448 DRILLING FLUID SWEEPS: THEIR EVALUATION, TIMING, AND APPLICA TIONS 5

Table 1

Key Parameters for Drilling Fluid Sweeps Studied

Sweep Designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sweep Type*** HD HD HV HD HD/HV HV HV
Sweep Density [lbm/gal] 12.0 11.6 9.5 12.3 13.2 9.8 9.8
Sweep Volume [bbl] 5 6 5 10 8.5 7 7
Pump Output [US gal/min] 90 90 80 90 90 90 120
Bottoms -Up Time [min] 20.3 23 27 24 14.5 18 6.7
Mud System Density [lbm/gal] 9.45 9.45 9.5 9.4 9.9 9.8 9.8
Baseline ECD [lbm/gal] 10.7 10.5 10.55 10.75 10.8 10.8 10.8

*** HD = high-density
HV = high-viscosity

13
Density Eq. [lbm/gal]

12

11 MW In

10 PWD

8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Circulation Time [min]

 Mud weight and PWD measurements as functions of time during a typical drilling fluid sweep application.
Fig. 1

12

EC t=0 t =T
D 11.5
[lb
m/ 11
gal
] 10.5

10

9.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Circulation Time [min]

Fluid Density Base ECD Sweep ECD PWD ECD

 Key components of total ECD produced by a drilling fluid sweep bringing cuttings out of the annulus.
Fig. 2
6 T. HEMPHILL AND J.C. ROJAS SPE 77448

1.8

1.5

Delta ECD [lbm/gal]


1.2
#3
0.9 #6
#7
0.6

0.3

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Circulation Time [min]

 Delta ECD vs. time for high-viscosity sweeps


Fig. 3

1.8

1.5
Delta ECD [lbm/gal]

1.2
#1
0.9 #2
#4
0.6

0.3

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Circulation Time [min]

 Delta ECD vs. time for high-density sweeps


Fig. 4
SPE 77448 DRILLING FLUID SWEEPS: THEIR EVALUATION, TIMING, AND APPLICA TIONS 7

1.8

1.5

Delta ECD [lbm/gal] 1.2


Sweep
0.9 Viscosity #5

0.6

0.3 Sweep
Density
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Circulation Time [min]

 Delta ECD vs. time for combination high-density high-viscosity Sweep 5.


Fig. 5

1.8

1.5
Delta ECD [lbm/gal]

1.2

0.9 #4

0.6

0.3
Cuttings
0 Density
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Circulation Time [min]
Sweep
Density

 Delta ECD vs. time for high-density Sweep 4.


Fig. 6
8 T. HEMPHILL AND J.C. ROJAS SPE 77448

1.8

1.5

Delta ECD [lbm/gal]


1.2
#4
0.9 #5
#6
0.6

0.3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bottoms Up Units

 Delta ECD vs Circulation Time in Bottoms-Up Units.


Fig. 7

You might also like