TECHNICAL NOTE

Hole Cleaning Performance of

Light-Weight Drilling Fluids During
Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling
M.E. Ozbayoglu, M. Sorgun, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
A. Saasen, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, and Statoil Hydro
K. Svanes, Statoil Hydro, Stavanger, Norway
Abstract
Hole cleaning is a major consideration at both the design and
application stages of a drilling operation. If the fluid velocity is
lower than a critical value at horizontal or high inclinations, a
stationary bed develops which may cause various problems, such
as high drag, higher probability of stuck pipe and higher hydraulic requirements, etc., if not removed properly. Therefore, this
becomes important and essential to identifying critical velocity.
This study aims to estimate the critical fluid-flow velocity for
preventing the development of a stationary bed using empirical
correlations that can be used easily at the field. Also, a rough
estimation of bed thickness is introduced if the flow velocity
is lower than the critical velocity. For this purpose, extensive
cuttings transport experiments with water, called the Cuttings
Transport Flow Loop, were conducted by the Petroleum and
Natural Gas Engineering Department at Middle East Technical
University (METU) in order to determine various inclinations,
flow rates and rate of penetrations. The inner pipe is subject to
a sagging, therefore more realistic annulus representation is achieved. Observations showed that a stationary bed can be developed even when the inclination of the wellbore is down to 50.
Results showed that the critical velocity could be estimated using
the proposed correlations with reasonable accuracy when compared with the experimental results. Also, for flow velocities less
than the critical values, the thickness of the stationary bed can be
detected mostly within an error range of 15%.

Introduction
Efficient removal of cuttings from the wellbore is among the
major considerations during both the design and operational stages
of a drilling process. Inadequate hole cleaning may give rise to serious drilling problems, such as increase in torque and drag, stuck
pipe, density control loss, difficulty when running and cementing of
casing, etc.(1,2) If the situation is not handled properly, these problems can ultimately lead to the loss of a well. A single stuck pipe
incident may cost over USD $1 million(3). To avoid such problems,
generated cuttings have to be removed from the wellbore with the
help of the drilling fluid. The ability of the fluid to lift such cuttings
is generally referred to as carrying capacity of the drilling fluid. The
major factors affecting the carrying capacity of drilling fluids may
be listed as fluid annular velocity, hole inclination, drilling fluid
properties, penetration rate, pipe/hole eccentricity, hole geometry,
cuttings properties and drillpipe rotation speed(4). In fact, fluid-flow
velocity is the dominant drilling variable on hole cleaning because
of its direct relation to shear stress acting on the cuttings bed(5). It
has been stated that in order to remove cuttings from a horizontal
or deviated wellbore, a sufficient shear stress should be applied
to the cuttings bed surface in order to lift the particles and erode
the developed bed. Such a lifting process, of course, is directly
April 2010, Volume 49, No. 4

dependent on not only the fluid properties, but also the cuttings
properties, such as shape, compaction properties, etc.(57) Additionally, it is reported that because the interaction between the
drilling fluids, cuttings and gel formation within the developed cuttings bed occurs, which significantly increases the required shear
force needed to erode the bed, the cuttings particles are lifted up
from the bed(6,7). Studies on cuttings transport have been in progress over the past 50 years(2). These studies can be separated into
two basic approaches: empirical and theoretical. Tomren et al.(4)
investigated the effects of pipe rotation and hole inclination angle,
eccentricity and flow regimes on cuttings transport performance.
Becker et al.(8) conducted an experimental study comparing the effects of fluid rheological parameters [fluid yield point (YP), plastic
viscosity (PV), YP/PV ratio, power law exponent, consistency
index, etc.] on annular hole cleaning, using a large scale flow loop.
They pointed out that turbulent flow improved cuttings transport
for highly-inclined wellbores, and the effects of fluid rheology
dominated at low inclinations. Sifferman and Becker(9) stated that
the variables influencing cuttings bed thickness were mud annular
velocity, mud density, inclination angle and drillpipe rotation (with
the first two being the most important). Sanchez(10) examined the
effect of drillpipe rotation on hole cleaning during directional well
drilling. He observed that bed erosion improved with pipe rotation.
He noted that pipe rotation also caused irregularities in bed thickness along the test section. Yu et al.(11) proposed a new approach
to improve the cuttings transport capacity of drilling fluid in horizontal and inclined wells by attaching gas bubbles to the surface of
drilled cuttings using chemical surfactants.
Also, numerous theoretical and mechanistic models were introduced for describing the mechanism of bed development and
cuttings transport in inclined and horizontal wells. Two and threelayer models are introduced(2,1215). Some of these model performances were tested using experimental data collected in different
cuttings flow loops. Also, there were attempts for determining the
critical fluid velocity for preventing bed development, either theoretically or experimentally. Larsen et al.(16) presented a new cuttings transport model that predicted critical velocity needed to
keep all cuttings moving for horizontal and high-angle wells. Cho
et al.(17) developed a three-layer model similar to Nguyen and Rahmans(14) model. They developed a simulator and compared the
results with existing models as well as the experimental data conducted by other researchers. They developed charts to determine
the lowest possible pressure gradient to serve as an operational
guide for drilling operations. They also observed the minimum
critical velocity for preventing a stationary bed development using
the simulator results. Masuda et al.(18) conducted both an experimental investigation and numerical simulation for different flow
conditions to determine the critical fluid velocity in inclined annulus.
This study aims to propose easy-to-use empirical correlations
for estimating the critical fluid velocity required to prevent a stationary bed in horizontal and highly-inclined wellbores.
21

Theory

1 =

It is generally accepted that the thickness of a cuttings bed (i.e.,

ratio of the cuttings bed area and total flow area within the wellbore) is essential information for observing the hole cleaning performance and for conducting a successful drilling operation. Major
independent drilling variables directly or indirectly affecting the
development of a stationary cuttings bed in a wellbore can be summarized as:
Abed
Awellbore

ROP, Q, P, , D , D ,
o
i
= f

,, rpm, c , dc , g

...................................................... (1)

Because P is a function of conduit geometry (Do and Di) and

shear stress, and shear stress is a function of , v, Do and Di, P can
be omitted from Equation (1) for dependency concerns. In order to
develop a comprehensive model valid for a wide range of drilling
conditions, it is eminent to describe the variables influencing hole
cleaning phenomena in terms of dimensionless groups. Thus, a dimensional analysis is conducted using independent drilling variables. The drilling variables in Equation (1) are simplified and
presented as:
Abed
Awellbore

C , v , , D , ,
hyd

= f C

, , c , dc , g ............................................................... (2)

2 =

v Dhyd

v2
g Dhyd

3 = CC

4 =

5 =

6 =

.......................................................................................... (5)

........................................................................................... (6)

.................................................................................................. (7)

.................................................................................................... (8)

dc
Dhyd

.............................................................................................. (9)

dc v

........................................................................................... (10)

where

CC =

7 =

ROP Abit
RT Q

..................................................................................... (3)

and
v=

2
D Di 2
4 o
................................................................................... (4)

In Equation (3), (reference number 2), RT is defined as the ratio

of the transport velocity of the cuttings particles to the average
annular flow velocity of the drilling fluid. Because there are 10
independent variables and three dimensions, seven dimensionless
groups will be developed. After applying Buckingham- theorem,
dimensionless groups are determined as follows:

Dhyd
v

......................................................................................... (11)

Here, Dhyd = Do Di. Thus, hole cleaning performance, in terms

of cuttings bed area as a non-linear function using the developed
dimensionless groups, can be expressed as:
Abed
Awellbore

1
= a0
5

( ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 )
a
a
a
( ) ( 6 ) ( 7 )
a1

a2

a3

a4

......................................... (12)

Based on the dimensional analysis conducted for the cuttings

bed area, critical fluid velocity can be expressed as a function of
major drilling parameters, such as:

vcrt = f ROP, , Do , Di ,, , g

) ............................................................. (13)

FIGURE 1: Middle East Technical University, Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering, Cuttings Transport Flow Loop.

22

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

0.7

90
80
70
60
50

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

70

0.3

60

Abed / Awellbore

0.6

Stationary

0.5

Moving

0.1
0

0.2
0.1
8

10

Fluid Velcoity, ft/sec

FIGURE 3: Experimental observation of fluid-flow velocity and
averaged bed behaviour for 90 inclination, 30 ft/hr ROP.

for an average cuttings specific gravity of 2.65 and average cuttings size of 3 mm with no pipe rotation, assuming steady-state
flow conditions and including constant flow rate, ROP and unchanged fluid properties. This correlation is improved and simplified using the experimental data, and presented in the Results
and Discussions section. As previously presented, the shear stress
acting on the wellbore walls and cuttings bed surface is the controlling parameter for hole cleaning. In the dimensional analysis,
this scope can be inverted to find the critical fluid velocity for hole
cleaning.

Experimental Work
Extensive hole cleaning experiments have been conducted in
METUs Cuttings Transport Flow Loop (Figure 1). The flow loop
consists of a 4 in. 2 in. annular test section with a length of 15
ft that can be set in any inclination from horizontal to vertical. A
centrifugal pump is mounted with a flow capacity of 250 gpm, and
the flow rate is controlled and measured using a magnetic flowmeter and a pneumatic flow controller, respectively. Cuttings are
injected using a helical screw controlled by a motor assisted by a
speed frequency controller in order to adjust the ROP. ROP is measured by weighing the cuttings injection and collection tanks. Because the 4-in. pipe is transparent acrylic, cuttings movements and
developed bed can be seen. The cuttings and fluid are separated
using a static screen located in a separator.
Experiments were conducted using water to demonstrate light
drilling mud flow conditions. ROP ranged from 10 ft/hr 100 ft/hr,

10

12

flow rates were between 40 gpm 250 gpm and inclinations varied
from 90 50. Drillpipe was fully eccentric for all experiments.
Cuttings stationary bed thicknesses were recorded at five different
stations on the test section. For each test, the fluid-flow rate was
set to the desired value. Then, the cuttings were injected into the
test section with a constant mass rate using the cuttings injection
system. When the steady-state conditions were reached, the bed
cross-sectional area (either stationary or moving) was recorded by
visual observation at each station. During each test, pressure drop,
flow rate and ROP values were recorded.
Figure 2 is the average annular fluid-flow velocity vs. the stationary cuttings bed observed in the test section for all ROPs. In
this study, for simplification purposes, fluid velocity is defined as
the flow rate over the total wellbore cross-sectional area. The data
is categorized for different inclinations; however, it is observed
that the effect of inclination on a cuttings bed for high inclination values is slight. Also, in Figure 3, an example of how bed
behaviour changes from stationary to moving for a horizontal well
alignment is presented. It is observed that the bed starts moving
when the fluid velocity reaches to 5 ft/sec 6 ft/sec, and the bed
(either moving or stationary) totally vanishes when the fluid velocity is above 8 ft/sec 9 ft/sec.

Results and Discussions

Data collected from cuttings transport experiments with water
for numerous inclinations and ROPs were used for analysis. Because the flow loop dimensions (i.e., Do and Di) as well as cuttings properties (i.e., dc and c) were constant, and the drillpipe
was not rotated during all experiments conducted, dimensionless
groups 5, 6 and 7 were not considered, but ignored for this
study. Thus, the cuttings bed area described in Equation (12) is
reduced to:
Abed
Awellbore

( ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 )

= a0 1

a1

a2

a3

a4

............................................ (14)

The relationship between each of the dimensionless groups

present in Equation (14) and developed stationary cuttings beds
was analyzed and the results are presented in Figures 4 7. As seen

0.7

0.7
90

0.6

80

0.5

75

0.4

70

0.3

60
50

0.2
0.1

Abed /Awellbore

Abed /Awellbore

FIGURE 5: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and

dimensionless Group No. 4.

0.3

P2

0.4

50

0.2

0.7

75

0.4

FIGURE 2: Experimental observation of fluid flow velocity and

stationary cuttings bed for different inclinations (ROP values are
ranging from 10 100 ft/hr).

80

0.5

Average Fluid Velocity, ft/sec

90

0.6

Abed /Awellbore

Cuttings Bed Area,

Abed /Awellbore

0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

P1
FIGURE 4: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and
dimensionless Group No 1.

April 2010, Volume 49, No. 4

80,000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

P3, %
FIGURE 6: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and
dimensionless Group No. 3.

23

0.7

0.6

0.6

Abed /Awellbore,
calculated

Abed /Awellbore

0.7

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.1

0.2

FIGURE 7: Relation between the stationary cuttings bed and

dimensionless Group No. 4.

from Figure 4, because 1 increases, a reduction is observed in

the stationary bed. A similar trend is also observed for 2, shown
in Figure 5. This trend observed is caused by both dimensionless
groups including a fluid velocity term, and increasing fluid velocity
causes a reduction in the developed cuttings bed because of the
drag force applied by the fluid on cuttings particles. Interestingly,
shown in Figures 4 and 5, it can be concluded that there exists a
velocity at which no stationary bed can develop in the wellbore
(i.e., critical fluid velocity). If Figures 6 and 7 are analyzed, it can
be seen that no significant relationship exists between the dimensionless groups 3 and 4 and the stationary cuttings bed area. Because both dimensionless groups do not include any fluid velocity
term, one can conclude that the major factor on the bed development is the fluid-flow velocity. It should be noted that only water is
used to demonstrate the light drilling fluid in this study, so the fluid
viscosity is constant for all cases. Therefore, fluid-flow velocity is
the only variable that has direct impact on the shear stress acting
on the cuttings bed surface. Thus, the major variable influencing
the hole cleaning performance is actually the shear stress, which
agrees with the previously conducted studies on this area(5-7).
Experimental data was used to calculate each dimensionless
group, and a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the
equation coefficients of Equation (14). The proposed relationship
between the dimensionless groups and the cuttings bed area is presented as:

0.1023 0.0340
v Do Di

= 0.7524

0.2933
2

0.2108
v

D
D

Abed
Awellbore

()

( )

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

FIGURE 8: Comparison of measured and calculated stationary

cuttings bed area.

vcrt

0.0378 D 0.4686 ROP0.2343

o

0.2343

D
+
D

o
i
= 3.9835
0.0220
0.1137
Do Di

0.1137
................................................ (16)

where vcrt is in ft/sec, is in cp, is in ppg, D is in inches, is in ,

and ROP is in ft/hr. Using this equation, an average of 9.6 ft/sec is
obtained for this system as the critical fluid velocity. Thus, above
this velocity, no cuttings bed will develop, and below this velocity,
a cuttings bed (stationary or moving) is expected to develop. This
velocity is the minimum fluid velocity that is required to sweep the
cuttings bed (stationary or moving) and transport the cuttings in
a dispersed flow pattern. Below this, cuttings tend to arise, settle
and accumulate in the lower side of the wellbore. However, the accumulated cuttings may still be in a dynamic state (i.e., a moving
bed). Critical average fluid velocity described in this study is the
lower limit of the required velocity n order not to have any kind of
accumulation of cuttings in the wellbore.
Alternatively, after the analysis of Figures 4 and 5, simpler critical fluid velocity definitions can be developed. According to
Figure 3, a cuttings bed will diminish when 1=100,000. As mentioned earlier, shear stress acting on the bed surface and wellbore
walls is the dominating parameter on hole cleaning. Shear stress
can be expressed as a function of friction factor, 1. Using the
shear stress definition as a function of the friction factor, while
applying the critical value of 1=100,000 and solving for fluid velocity, the
critical fluid velocity can be defined based on this criteria as:

................................ (15)

Based on Equation (15), one can solve this equation for a zerobed area, and determine the critical fluid velocity. However, because of the nature of the proposed equation, the left hand side
cannot be 0 because only a trivial solution will be obtained.
Thus, a numerical limit operation is applied in the light of the experimental observations, and Equation (15) is solved for critical
fluid velocity based on this limit. The obtained equation for critical
fluid velocity, which has a good agreement with the experimental
results, is presented as:

vcrt = 132

where v is in ft/sec, is in cp, is in ppg, D is in inches, is in

and CC is in %. Here, variance is 0.83 and R2 is 0.943, which is reasonably accurate. The performance of the proposed equation was
tested using the actual data obtained from the experiments and is
presented in Figure 8. In Figure 8, the x-axis is the actual bed area,
and the y-axis is the calculated bed area using the proposed model.
The solid line represents the perfect match, and dashed lines represent a 20% error margin. It was observed that most of the points
are within this error margin. However, the equation shows poorer
performance if the bed area occupied is less than 15% within the
wellbore.

24

0.3

Abed /Awellbore, measured

P4 (degree)

Do Di

) ............................................................................ (17)

where vcrt is in ft/sec, is in cp, is in ppg, and D is in inches.

Also, as shown in Figure 5, the cuttings bed vanishes when 2=17.
Therefore, another critical fluid velocity definition is proposed as:
vcrt = 6.754 Do Di

............................................................................ (18)

where vcrt is in ft/sec and D is in inches. In Equation (17) critical

fluid velocity is calculated as 9 ft/sec, and using Equation (18),
critical fluid velocity is, again, estimated as 9 ft/sec. A comparison of estimated critical fluid velocities as a function of wellbore
Table 1: Comparison of estimated critical velocities.
Critical Fluid Velocity (ft/sec)

Inclination Bed Equation

90
80
70
60
50

9.8
9.6
9.8
9.2
9.5

9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0

9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

inclination is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that these

equations are valid for relatively less viscous and light fluids.
Thus, a critical fluid velocity of 9 ft/sec is enough to prevent a cuttings bed development inside the wellbore, and to make sure all
cuttings are transported without any means of accumulation. Interestingly, experimental observations showed a critical fluid velocity
of approximately 6 ft/sec for a stationary cuttings bed and approximately 8 ft/sec for a vanished cuttings bed, which is in reasonably
good agreement with the calculated values.
The critical fluid velocities estimated in this study are also compared with the results available in the literature. Many researchers
have observed a critical fluid velocity of 6 ft/sec to prevent a stationary bed development, at which the cuttings can be continuously transported(19). In order to transport the cuttings in a dispersed
system, annular flow velocities of 8 ft/sec is required(17). Thus, the
estimations obtained from this study are also in agreement with the
results presented in the literature.

Conclusion
Empirical correlations for estimating the critical fluid velocity
to prevent stationary bed development, as well as any cuttings accumulation at the lower side of the wellbore, are proposed, based
on the cuttings transport experiments conducted at METU Cuttings
Transport Flow Loop using water for different ROPs and wellbore
inclinations. Also, for lower fluid velocities, an empirical correlation for estimating a cuttings bed area is based on dimensional
analysis. The following has been concluded:
Proposed equation for estimating stationary cuttings bed area
can predict with an error of 15% in most cases.
Critical fluid velocity is estimated based on three different
methods. Critical fluid velocity is calculated to be 9 ft/sec
and measured to be 8 ft/sec in order to prevent cuttings accumulation in the form of either a stationary or moving bed
inside the wellbore.
From dimensional analysis, it is observed that the major variable influencing the cuttings bed thickness is the shear stress
acting on the cuttings bed surface.

Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank Statoil Hydro for their support in this
study.

Nomenclature
A
CC
D,d
g
Q
rpm
ROP
RT
P


v

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

area, L2
cuttings concentration
diameter, L
gravitational constant, L/t2
flow rate, L3/t
pipe rotation speed
rate of penetration, L/t
transport ratio
pressure drop, m/Lt2
inclination
viscosity, m/Lt
velocity, L/t
dimensionless group
density, m/L3
rotation, 1/t

Subscripts
c
= cuttings
hyd
= hydraulic
i
= inner
o
= outer
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft
3.048*
E 01 = m
April 2010, Volume 49, No. 4

gal
1 gpm
in.
1 lb
1 ppg

=

=
=

3.785 412
6.3E-5 m3/s
2.54*
453.6 gr
0.12 g/cc

E 03 = m3
E + 00 = cm

*Conversion factor is exact.

References
1. Brown, N.P., Bern, P.A., and Weaver, A. 1989. Cleaning Deviated
Holes: New Theoretical and Experimental Studies. Paper SPE 18636
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 28
February3 March. doi: 10.2118/18636-MS.
2. Ozbayoglu, M.E., Miska, S.Z., Reed, T., and Takach, N. 2003. Using
Foam in Horizontal Well Drilling: A Cuttings Transport Approach. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 46 (4): 267282.
3. Bradley, W.B., Jarman, D., Plott, R.S., Wood, R.D., Schofield, T.R.,
Auflick, R.A., and Cocking, D. 1991. A Task Force Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Paper SPE 21999 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,1114 March. doi: 10.2118/21999MS.
4. Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., and Azar, J.J. 1986. Experimental Study
of Cuttings Transport in Directional Wells. SPE Drill Eng 1 (1): 43
56. SPE-12123-PA. doi: 10.2118/12123-PA.
5. Kjsnes, I., Lklingholm, G., Saasen, A., Syrstad, S.O., Agle, A.,
and Solvang, K.-A. 2003. Successful Water Based Drilling Fluid Design for Optimizing Hole Cleaning and Hole Stability. Paper SPE
85330 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2022 October. doi:
10.2118/85330-MS.
6. Saasen, a. and Lklingholm, g. 2002. The Effect of Drilling Fluid
Rheological Properties on Hole Cleaning. Paper SPE 74558 presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2628 February. doi:
10.2118/74558-MS.
7. Saasen, A., Eriksen, N.H., Han, L., Labes, P., and Marken, D. 1998.
Is Annular Friction Loss the Key Parameter? Oil Gas European Magazine: International Edition of Erdl Erdgas Kohle 24 (1): 2224.
8. Becker, T.E., Azar, J.J., and Okrajni, S.S. 1991. Correlations of Mud
Rheological Properties With Cuttings-Transport Performance in Directional Drilling. SPE Drill Eng 6 (1): 1624; Trans., AIME, 291.
SPE-19535-PA. doi: 10.2118/19535-PA.
9. Sifferman, T.R. and Becker, T.E. 1992. Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale
Inclined Wellbores. SPE Drill Eng 7 (2): 115120; Trans., AIME,
293. SPE-20422-PA. doi: 10.2118/20422-PA.
10. Sanchez, R.A., Azar, J.J., Bassal, A.A., and Martins, A.L. 1999. Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning During Directional-Well
Drilling. SPE J. 4 (2):101108. SPE-56406-PA. doi: 10.2118/56406PA.
11. Yu, M., Melcher, D., Takach, N., Miska, S.Z., and Ahmed, R. 2004.
A New Approach to Improve Cuttings Transport in Horizontal and
Inclined Wells. Paper SPE 90529 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2629 September. doi:
10.2118/90529-MS.
12. Gavignet, A.A. and Sobey, I.J. 1989. Model Aids Cuttings Transport
Predictions. J Pet Technol 41 (9): 916922; Trans., AIME, 287. SPE15417-PA. doi: 10.2118/15417-PA.
13. Clark, R.K. and Bickham, K.L. 1994. A Mechanistic Model for
Cuttings Transport. Paper SPE 28306 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September. doi: 10.2118/28306-MS.
14. Nguyen, D. and Rahman, S.S. 1998. A Three-Layer Hydraulic Program for Effective Cuttings Transport and Hole Cleaning in Highly
Deviated and Horizontal Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 13 (3): 182189.
SPE-51186-PA. doi: 10.2118/51186-PA.
15. Kamp, A.M. and Rivero, M. 1999. Layer Modeling for Cuttings
Transport in Highly Inclined Wellbores. Paper SPE 53942 presented
at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April. doi: 10.2118/53942-MS.
16. Larsen, T.I, Pilehvari, A.A., and Azar, J.J. 1997. Development of a
New Cuttings-Transport Model for High-Angle Wellbores Including
Horizontal Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 12 (2): 129136. SPE25872-PA. doi: 10.2118/25872-PA.
17. Cho, H., Subhash, N.S., and Osisanya, S.O. 2000. A Three-Segment
Hydraulic Model for Cuttings Transport in Horizontal and Deviated
Wells. Paper SPE 65488 presented at the SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 68 November.
doi: 10.2118/65488-MS.
25

 18. Masuda, Y., Doan, Q., Oguztoreli, M., Naganawa, S., Yonezawa,
T., Kobayashi, A., and Kamp, A. 2000. Critical Cuttings Transport
Velocity in Inclined Annulus: Experimental Studies and Numerical
Simulation. Paper SPE 65502 presented at the SPE/CIM International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 68 November.
doi: 10.2118/65502-MS.
19. Pilehvari, A.A., Azar, J.J., and Shirazi, S.A. 1999. State-of-the-Art
Cuttings Transport in Horizontal Wellbores. SPE Drill & Compl 14
(3): 196200. SPE-57716-PA. doi: 10.2118/57716-PA.

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Hole Cleaning

Performance of Light-Weight Drilling Fluids During Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling (TN2007-210; SPE Paper 136689), first presented
at the 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 58th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 1214, 2007, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review March 26, 2007; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) January 5, 2009; revised manuscript received March 10, 2009; paper approved for pre-press November 18, 2009;
final approval March 15, 2010.

Authors Biographies
Evren M. Ozbayoglu is an associate professor at the University of Tulsas petroleum engineering department. Until 2009,
he worked as a faculty at the Middle East
Technical University (METU) in the Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department. His work is mostly focused on
drilling engineering-related topics. He was
awarded the Allen Chapman Distinguished
PhD Student Award in 2002, and the Prof.
Dr. Mustafa Parlar METU Educator of the
Year Award in 2003, 2005 and 2006. He holds B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees from METUs Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Tulsa. He has
been an SPE member since 1994.

26

Mehmet Sorgun is a research assistant

at Middle East Technical University in
Turkey and is pursuing his PhD degree in
petroleum and natural gas engineering at
Middle East Technical University. He was
a visiting scholar at the petroleum engineering department at Texas A&M University for 9 months. His research interests
deal with drilling engineering, directional
and horizontal drilling, fluid-flow systems,
fluid rheology and computational fluid
dynamics. Sorgun holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in civil engineering from Dokuz Eylul University and Celal Bayar University
in Turkey, respectively.
Arild Saasen is a technology advisor in Det
norske oljeselskap ASA and an adjunct professor at the department of petroleum engineering at the University of Stavanger.
He has previously worked as a specialist in
fluid technology at Statoil Hydro ASA. He
holds a degree in fluid mechanics from the
University of Oslo, Norway and a Ph.D. degree in rheology from the Technical University of Denmark in Lyngby.
Kare Svanes is the drilling plan manager of
a support group for different assets located
in Stavanger, Norway, where his main task
at present is QA/QC of well activity programs, ESP wells, liner drilling and coil
tubing drilling. Before joining Statoil in
1992, where he has worked as a drilling
engineer, lead drilling engineer, drilling
supervisor, advisor in drilling and completion fluid and specialist in drilling fluid, he
worked on onshore production facilities as
a production engineer and offshore drilling fluid engineer. Svanes
holds a degree in petroleum engineering.

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology