SPE 9445

SPE
Society of PetroIet.m Engileers of AIME

PRACTICAL APPROACH TO VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

FOR AIR AND GAS DRILLING
by Chi U. Ikoku, J.J. Azar, The University of Tulsa;
C. Ray Williams, U.S. Department of Energy

This paper was presented at the 55th Annual Fall TechnicalConference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AJME, held in Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
The matenalls subJect to correction by the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT
Air, mist, foam, and other variations of aerated
fluid drilling are utilized in various areas because of
the improved penetration rate when compared to conventional mud drilling. Other proven advantages include immediate and continuous evaluation of cuttings
for hydrocarbon shows, low cost, longer bit life,
better control in cavernous and lost circulation areas,
and minimum damage to liquid sensitive pay zones. The
high compressibility of aerated drilling fluids and
multiphase flow phenomena encountered when using these
fluids have given rise to sophisticated engineering
approach to achieve proper downhole cleaning and material transport.
There have been several attempts to calculate the
minimum volumetric requirements for air and gas drilling. The results of these studies are valid over
limited ranges of drilling rates at best. The reason
is that there are so many variables involved in an air
or mist drilling situation that one general correlation has not been developed to explain what is happening downhole and predict appropriate air or gas
injection rates in the field. The method described
in this paper will permit the driller and drilling
engineer to determine optimum fluid injection rates
in the field. It eliminates the need for complicated
flow calculations used to predict volumetric air requirements.
INTRODUCTION
The term "reduced pressure drilling" is applied
to drilling with a circulating medium having a density
less than the density of water. This drilling method
employs drilling fluids of dry air or gas, mist, foam,
and aerated mud. The injection of compressed air as
a circulating medium is not new to the drilling industry. It has been in common use since the late 1800's.
The 1950's, and the first big uranium boom, provided
the greatest impetus to air and aerated fluid drilling}
Even though initial attempts at air and gas drilling were crude, significant increases in penetration
rate and bit life were obtained. Since these initial
References and illustrations at end of paper.

attempts, development of air and gas drilling techniques has expanded. They are widely accepted today
as a method of reducing drilling times and cutting
costs in many wells. Along with the time and resultant dollar savings, other advantages such as immediate and continuous hydrocarbon detection, minimum
damage to liquid-sensitive pay zones, better control
of lost circulation, and cleaner cores, are obtained.
Aerated fluid drilling is especially advantageous in
highly fractured and cavernous rocks such as carbonates, with secondary permeability. The loss of
drilling fluids using conventional mud is not only
very costly to correct but results in plugging of the
formation.
The lack of understanding, rather than inexperience, is often the reason for not accepting aerated
fluid drilling. Drilling with air involves special
consideration in the use of equipment and drilling
techniques that are not encountered with other drilling media. For example, air, unlike muds, compresses
readily. Also, in aerated fluid drilling multiphase
flow phenomena involving the concurrent flow of free
gases, liquids, and solids in pipes are encountered.
These require a more sophisticated engineering approach to achieve the desired results.
Table 12 summarizes the salient features of air,
mist, and foam drilling techniques. Air is the ultimate low density drilling fluid. Optimum results and
greatest economy from air drilling depend on several
factors. Hard formations which are dry or produce
relatively small amounts of formation liquids provide
the best results.
One of the primary objectives when using air and
aerated drilling fluids is to increase the penetration
rate by lowering the differential pressure. The effect of fluid column P3essure on penetration rate is
illustrated in Fig. 1.
Actual rock breakage or
cutting is done by subjecting the rock to compressive
loads greater than its ultimate strength. As the bit
rotates the rock is caused to fail or fracture under
this dynamic loading. Crushed formation or chips
literally explode off bottom and are swept into the
air stream and carried to the surface. This explosion
is a result of maximum differential pressure into the

SPE 9445

PRACTICAL APPROACH TO VOLUME REQUIREMENTS fOR AIR AND GAS DRILLING

wellbore. Chips which are removed from the bottom

range in size from fine to coarse. As these particles
start up the annulus, the large sizes are ground and
pulverized by the drill collars and by collision with
one another. These actions reduce the sizes of the
drill cuttings to the small dustlike particles seen
at the surface.
Air, gas, or aerated f~uid drilling has been a
trial-and-error techniques.
The single most important factor to consider in setting up an aerated fluid
drilling operation is the volume of air necessary to
do the work. No upper limit has been established for
air volume requirements in aerated drilling operations
On the other hand, the reason aerated drilling fails
is very often insufficient air volume to clean the
hole efficiently under a varied range of drilling
conditions. The point of most difficult lift is at
the top of the drill collars (Fig. 2). Therefore, if
the air (gas) volume is too low to lift the larger
cuttings through the relatively short zone at the top
of the collars, the accumulation of additional cuttings in the zone will result in solids slugging and
eventual. breakdown of lift.
There have been several attempts to calculate
the minimum volumetric requirements for air, mist,
or foam drilling. 4-15 The results of these studies
are valid over limited ranges of drilling rates at
best. They cannot be used with confidence. The
reason is that there are so many variables involved in
an air, mist, or foam drilling situation that one
general correlation has not been developed which can
be extended from one drilling environment to another.
From drilling of limestone rocks in quarry operations, it was found that air volumes sufficient to
give a standard air annular velocity of 15.24 m/s
(3,000 ft/min) provided both adequate cleaning ahead
of the bit as well as efficient removal of the drilled
solids. Angel, 5,6 McCray and Cole,lO Martin,ll and
Scott 15 all assumed that a linear velocity of 15.24
m/s of standard density air was required to lift the
solid particles. Volumes predicted by some of these
methods have been shown 14 to generally increase in
the order: Martin; Angel; McCray and Cole.
Schoeppel and Sapre 14 presented a method for
predicting volume requirement based on particle lift
analysis. They considered vertical flow, real gas
behavior, gas-wall and solid-wall frictional effects,
and critical slip of the cuttings. Also, average
temperature variation with depth was included in the
analysis. Volumes predicted by Schoeppel and Sapre
are larger than those of McCray and Cole, Angel or
Martin, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In order to compare these methods, a linear velocity of 15.24 m/s
of standard density air was assumed. However,
Schoeppel and Sapre's approach is not restricted to
this standard air velocity.
There is no apparent agreement among investigators as to which method of determining air and gas
volume requirements is the best. It is safe to say
that all of the techniques have their shortcomings
and limitations, which result from thg assumptions
made in their development. Bradshaw l has shown that
a standard air velocity of 15.24 m/s may be too large
or too small for optimum lift. The ideal lifting
air flow rate is theoretically a function of the
horsepower requirements, drilling rate, water influx
(if any), bottom-hole air injection pressure, tempera
ture, solids density, annulus size, particle size

distribution, and frictional effects.

PARTICLE DYNAMICS
When air or gas is used as the drilling fluid,
most of the cuttings recovered at the surface consist
of flour-like powder. However, the shapes of the
particles may vary with the type of formation being
drilled. Fig. 5 shows idealized and typical shapes
and dimensions of particles used in this study.
Particle size can be measured in many ways. For
large particles (> 5mm), direct measurement with calipers and micrometers is possible. For very tiny particles in the microscopic range 0.04 mm), indirect
methods relying on settling rate are used. Between
these extremes lie the particle sizes encountered in
air drilling. 17 These are most conveniently measured
by screening.
The diameter of a spherical particle may be denoted by Dp. For nonspherical particles the diameter
may be def1ned as
(diameter of sphere having the . . . . (1)
volume of the particle)
For irregular, nearly spherical particles a screen
analysis approximates D. If the particles are far
from spherical, a screeR analysis overestimates Dp.
For regular non-spherical particles a screen analysis
may underestimate Dp for flakes and disks or overestimate Dp for rods and slivers, and in general give~
the second largest dimension of the particle. 18
For nonspherical particles, we define spericity,
~s

as
( surface area of sphere
surface area of particle)both of same (2)

~s

volume
Thus, ~s = 1 for spheres, and 0 < ~ <
1 for all
other particle shapes. For sandstones, ~s ranges
between 0.6 and 0.9. 18
A particle falling under the action of gravity
will accelerate until drag force on the particle just
balances gravitational force. The particle will then
continue to fall at a constant velocity known as its
"terminal velocity" or "free-settling velocity," u t .
The terminal velocity can be estimated from fluid
mechanics by
1

- Pf) 2 J ..........
[ 2~(Pp
P PfA CD
P
P

ut =

(3)

Where CD is an experimentally defined drag coefficien

which varies with the shape and Reynolds number of
the particles. For the case of spherical particles,
Eq. 3 reduces to Rittenger's equation.
1

u
t

g
[4 Dp (P p - Pf)
3PfCD

2] ......... (4)

Consider a particle in a rising stream of fluid.

Let uf be the upward velocity of the fluid. The slip
velocity (i.e., velocity of the particle relative
to the fluid velocity), us' is given by
. . . . (5)

CHI U. IKOKU, J.J. AZAR, C. RAX WILLIAMS

SJ;'E 9445

or using the terminal setting velocity

tions.
(6)

The following conditions may be obtained:

(a)

u f = 0, Us = -u t , (particle falling in
stationary fluid at its terminal settling velocity),
u t ' Us = 0, (particle suspended in the
fluid),

(c) u f < u t ' Us < 0, (particle settling at a

relative velocity u t - uf)'
>

0, (particle moving upwards

with the fluid at a relative
velocity, uf - Ut)

Many correlations exist in the literaturISfor

determining terminal velocity (e.g., Fig. 6).
The
following simple and practical correlations are used
in this study. The particle shapes and dimensions
are as given in Fig. 5.
For sandstones,

2g Vp
...- [ CD ~

C'

The pressure difference between two points in

the annulus during air drilling may be determined by
modifying Bernoulli equation to account for the flow
of gas-solid mixture rather than of one phase only.
Consider the annulus inclined upward at an angle Q
from the horizontal, and let solid be introduced at
point 1 as shown in Fig. 7. The gas flows at high
velocity so the kinetic energy of the accelerating
solid may be significant and should be accounted for.
However, since the fraction of solids is small in
pneumatic conveying, the change in gas velocity and
hence in its kinetic energy is small and can be ignored. Under these conditions the pressure difference is made up of three terms which account for the
static head, kinetic energy of solids, and frictional
resistance of the mixture with the walls of the
annulus: IS

Pp - Pf
(

u W
~

~Pf

. . . (10)

gc
where
W

1.03 0.5
]
).

. (7)

(12)

Pf

Wp = u p P p (1 - E:)

0.94

(13)

The acceleration term of Eq. 10 may be written

For shale,
as
1.05

0.315 0.5

].

. . . . . . . (S)

( fU o ) <-!~.)

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

D .

If the solids complete their acceleration in the

annular section then their exiting velocity can be
approximated by i S

mln < 0.6

Dmax

. . . . . (15)

up '" u f - u t

The frictional-loss term in Eq. 10 har been esti

mated a number of ways. Rose and Barnacle 9 suggest
that the frictional-loss term be represented by two
terms:

And for limestone,

0.5
2.3

1.05
u

[
t

2~

Vp

Pp - Pf

CD Ap

Pf

Dmin
Dmax

].

(9)

0.6 < Dmin < 1. 0

Drnax

for the gas alone, and for the solids, or

. . (16)
Fannings equation can be used for

~Pff'

thus

CD

. . . (17)

0.95

ANNULAR PRESSURE DROP

The flowing gas-solid mixture in the annulus
during air drilling is in the very dilute particle
concentration range (less than 4 percent solids by
volume). This falls in the domain of pneumatic conveying. Pneumatic conveying is a highly complex
problem and much of the work in this field has relied
heavily on empirical correlations. Some of these
correlations are applicable to air drilling situa-

where for gas flow, ff has been found experimentally

to be
-0.25
Pfu Dt
0.0791 (____0___
)
]1f

for 3 x 10 3 < Re < 105 .(lS

J,'RACTI,CAL

~PROACH

TO VOLUME REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR AND GAS DRILLING

and
-0.237
for 10

< Re < 10
. (19)

For the last term in Eq. 16 Rose and Barnacle give

1

f
1T

-r;

Pp
(-)

Pf

LW

L1p ff . .

. . . . . . . (20)

where fp is given in Fig. 8.

PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE BIT
The pressure difference across the bit during
air drilling may be calculated from equations for gas
flow through chokes. For adiabatic frictionless flow
of gas through an orifice the volumetric flow rate of
gas is given by20
1
2
1
2
k
k+k
Q

2g k [P2
155.5 CAPI { GT k-l (Pl)-

. . . (21)

The units in Eq. 21 are Q(Mscfd), A(in 2 ), T(oR) ,

g(ft/sec 2 ), and p(psia). Substituting the following
average numerical values: 20 C = 0.86, k = 1.25,
G = 0.6, and T = 520 oR, Eq. 21 reduces to

P2
136 AplF( - ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
PI

where
0.5
P2 1. 6
(-)

[ PI

P2 1. 8 ]

(-)

. . . . . . (23)

PI

The function F(P2/ P l) for various values of downstream to upstream pressure P2/ P l is plotted in Fig.
9.
AIR (GAS) DRILLING

tend to accumulate in the section above the drill

collars and behave as a fluidized bed. They will fal
back and be reground between the drill pipe and the
hole wall, the drill collars and the hole wall, by
the bit, or by collisions with other particles. This
process will continue until the larger particles are
sub-divided to a size such that their terminal velocity is less than the fluid velocity above the collars.
The flow situation just above the drill collars
can be represented by a gas-solid phase diagram (Fig.
10). If the gas velocity is decreased gradually in
a lean-phase lift line and at the same time the solid
mass feed rate is kept constant, a pressure drop
versus superficial velocity curve similar to that of
Fig. 10 results. At point A, the gas velocity is
very high and the lift line is very dilute. As the
lift velocity is decreased from point A to point B,
the gas and solids both rise more slowly. The solids
inventory in the lift line also increases, thus
increasing the static head. However, the frictional
resistance portion of the pressure drop pre-dominates
in this region. Thus, the pressure drop decreases
with the velocity along A-B.
In the region B to C, the decreasing velocity
causes a rapid rise in solids inventory. The static
head now predominates over the frictional resistance
and the pressure drop rises. Near point C, the bulk
density of the mixture becomes too great for the gas
velocity to support and the mixture starts to slug,
or choke. The superficial gas velocity at point C
then is termed the "choking velocity," u ch . The
choking velocity is the minimum velocity that can
be used to transport solids in air drilling operations and is, obviously, an important design parameter. The air (gas) velocity must be maintained
above this value at the top of the drill collars.
The curve in Fig. 10 is for a particular solids
feed (drilling) rate (Wp). Fig. 11 shows cases for
solids feed rates W l' W 2' and only air (gas) flow
(W = 0). The soli~s fe~Q rate represents the penetr~tion rate as given by
W
P

Now we can consider what happens in an air drilling situation. As cuttings are generated by the bit,
they will rise rapidly past the drill collars. However, once the cuttings clear the top of the drill
collars and enter the annulus between the drill pipe
and borehole, the fluid velocity decreases appreciably
because the cross-sectional area increases. The
ratio of the velocity past the drill pipe to the velocity past the drill collars is given by

. . . . . . . . . . . . (24)

In an 8-3/4-in. (222.25-mm) hole with 7-in.

(177.8-mm) drill collars and 4-l/2-in. (114.3-mm)
drill pipe, ufDP/uf~C ~ 0.5. Because of this reduction of fluid veloc~ty, the point of most difficult
lift is located at the top of the drill collars (Fig.
2). Particles larger than the critical diameter
capable of being lifted by the circulating fluid will

sPE 9445

. . . . . . . . . . . (25)

The critical conditions when a lean gas-solid

mixture collaQses into a slugging mass can be represented by 18
. . (26)
Zenz and Othmer 2l suggest that for particles of uniform size the choking velocity can be approximated
by the saltation velocity, u
(minimum velocity for
horizontal flow). For a siz~smixture u ch ~ (1/3 to
1/5)ucs
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING OPTIMUM AIR (GAS) INJECTION
RATE
Considering Figs. 10 and 11, there will always
be a gas flow rate which will provide the minimum
bottomhole pressure, if in two-phase vertical solidsin-gas flow, all other variables (hole size, drill
string size, penetration rate, depth, etc.) are
held constant, and only gas flow'rate is varied. For
air (gas) drilling the optimum injection rate will
be that which provides the minimum bottom hole

SPE 9445

CHI U. IKOKU, J.J. AZAR, C. RAY WILLIAMS

pressure beneath the bit. Injection rates above or

below this optimum value will increase the bottom
hole pressure.

for lifting cuttings at this depth. If not, the

required injection rate will be determined.
1.

The procedure for determining the optimum air

(gas) injection rate based on the principle of minimum bottom-hole pressure is summarized below.
1. While maintaining a constant penetration
rate, record the gas injection rate and gas standpipe injection pressure.

Bottomhole pressure inside the bit.

For a gas flow rate of 1.77 MMscfd or 1,229

scfm, select gradient curves for 1,200 scfm gas flow
in 4-l/2-in. O.D. drill pipe (Fig. 12). At a standpipe pressure (Pinj) of 131 psig the pressure inside
the bit (PBi) = l5U psig or 167 psia (1,151 kPa).
2.

2. Select appropriate gradient curves for the

gas gravity, gas flow rate, and drill pipe diameter
(Fig. 12).

Pressure drop across the bit.

For a 222.25-rom regular bit the nozzle diameters

are assumed to be 17.46 rom (11/16 in.). The pressure
outside the bit (PB) may be calculated from Eq. 21,

3. Enter the gradient curve with the standpipe

pressure and follow the appropriate gradient curve
down to the depth of the bit.
4. Record the pressure at the intersection of
the gradient curve and depth of bit (PBi)' This is
the pressure inside the bit at the bottom of the hole.
However, it does not necessarily reflect the bottomhole pressure in the annulus. When jet bits and
small bits are used, this pressure will be higher
than the annular bottomhole pressure by the amount
of pressure drop across the bit nozzles and air
courses. This pressure drop can be calculated using
nozzle equations. With larger regular bits, above
7-7/8-in. (200-rom), and bits with the center cut
out, the calculated pressure inside the bit is a good
approximation for the annular bottomhole pressure.
5. Plot this bottomhole pressure (PBi) versus
injection rate (Q). This is the first data point of
the procedure.
6. Change the air (gas) injection rate and
record the standpipe pressure and new injection rate.
7. Repeat Steps 1 through 5. If the new gas
injection rate is higher than the old rate and PBi
increased, we are on the right-hand side of the Ushaped gas-solid phase diagram and there is an excess
of gas. If PBi decreased, we are on the left-hand
side of the phase diagram and the gas injection rate
is less than optimum.
8. Adjust the injection rate in the direction
indicated until the minimum PBi is obtained.
9. Then continue drilling with an injection
rate higher than that which will give minimum PBi'
This slightly higher injection rate will prevent
solid load up and increase in bottomhole pressure as
the hole gets deeper.

4.17 x 10-4 Q;-GT

. . . . . . (27)

APBi
For three nozzles, A = 1.114 in
temperature of 660 0 R (367 K),
(4.17 x 10- 4 )(1770)
(1.114) (167)

Using a bottom

0.8 x 660
0.091

From Fig. 8

0.95
PB

0.95(167)

159 psia (1,094 kPa).

And pressure drop across the bit

3.

8 psia (57 kPa).

Density of gas.
The gas density is given by
pM
. . . . . (28)

ZRT
Thus Pf
4.

0.52 lbm/ft

(8.33 kg/m 3 ).

Annular velocity of gas.

The bottomhole annular velocity of the gas may

be calculated from gas laws. Neglecting the drill
collars, for an 8-3/4-in. x 4-l/2-in. annulus, the
annular velocity near the bit for a gas flow rate of
1.77 MMscfd is u f = 8 ft/sec (2.44 m/s).
5.

Terminal velocity.

Assuming an average cutting size and shape as

in Fig. 5(b) for shale,

The above procedure may be utilized as often as

required to insure that the optimum air (gas) injection rates are used for drilling situations encountered.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

Pp

A 0.8 specific gravity gas was being used to

drill an 8-3/4-in. (222.25-rom) hole. The drill pipe
was 4-l/2-in. (114.30-rom) O.D. and a regular air
bit was in use. The formation at 9843 ft. (3000 m)
is shale and the standpipe injection pressure was
recorded as 131 psig (900 kPa~ with a gas volume flow
rate of 1.77 MMscfd (50,000 m /d). We need to determine if the air (gas) injection rate is adequate

0.1 in. (2.54 rom), b

0.4 in. (10.16 rom)

t/b = 0.25

165.4 lbm/ft 3 (2649 kg/m 3 )

From Eq. 8,
ut

= [2 x 32.2 (~) (165.4 _ 0 52 1.05

0.315 0.5
1.1
12
0.52')
(0.25)
1

8.2 ft/sec (2.49 m/s)

~RACTICAL ~PROACH

TO YOLUME REQUIREMENTS

This is slightly higher than the fluid annular velocity at the bottom of the hole. Thus the gas injection rate is not adequate.
Any fluid velocity in excess of u t will lift the
cuttings. Assuming an excess velocity of 1 ft/sec,
required fluid velocity, u f = 9.2 ft/sec (2.80 m/s).
The required gas injection rate to lift cuttings,
Q = 2.08 MMscfd (58, 914 m3 /d).
The gas injection rate should be increased gradually from this value until the point of minimum
bottomho1e pressure is reached. This will then be
the optimum injection rate.

~OR

AIR AND GAS DRILL INC

S1;'E 9445

pressure m/Lt 2

PB

pressure outside the bit (bottomhole pressure), m/Lt 2

PBi

pressure inside the bit, m/Lt 2

Pinj

standpipe injection pressure, m/Lt 2

<lPf

frictional pressure drop, m/Lt 2

<lPff

frictional pressure drop (fluid only), m/Lt 2

PR

penetration (drilling) rate, Lit

volumetric flow rate, L 3 /t

gas constant
Reynolds number, dimensionless
temperature, T

CONCLUSION
u

A method has been presented which will permit

the driller and drilling engineer to determine optimum fluid injection rates in the field during constantly changing air or gas drilling situations. This
method is based on the principle of minimum bottomhole pressure and thus maximum differential pressure
into the hole. The optimum fluid injection rate is
not the minimum required injection rate.

velocity, Lit
choking velocity, Lit
saltation velocity (horizontal transport), Lit
gas velocity, Lit
gas velocity (drill collar region), Lit
gas velocity (drill pipe region), Lit
= gas velocity (empty pipe basis), Lit

The method eliminates the need for complicated

flow calculations used to predict volumetric air (gas)
requirements. It is dynamic in that changes in volume requirements can be made as drilling conditions
change. It can be put in nomograph form for easy,
rapid, and accurate calculation in the field.

particle velocity, Lit

particle slip velocity, Lit
terminal velocity of falling particle, Lit
volume of cutting, L3
W

NOMENCLATURE
A

cross-sectional area of nozzles, L2

area of hole, L2

annular area, L2

Ech

projected area of cutting in the direction of

motion, L2
C

velocity of gas, m/L 2 t

velocity of solids, m/L 2 t

mass velocity at choking conditions, m/L 2 t

void fraction, dimensionless

= void

~f

fraction at choking conditions, dimensionless

gas viscosity, miLt

9s

sphericity of particle, dimensionless

discharge coefficient, dimensionless

density, m/L 3

drag coefficient, dimensionless

Pp

particle density, M/L3

drag coefficient corrected for density and shape,

dimensionless

Pf

gas density, m/L 3

density of gas-solid mixture, m/L 3

angle of inclination of pipe to horizontal

drill collar diameter, L

drill pipe diameter, L
DH

Wpch

= mass
= mass

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

hole diameter, L

This work was performed under DOE Contract No.

DE-AC19-79BC10079. The authors are grateful for the
financial support of the u.S. Department of Energy
and The University of Tulsa, and permission to publish this paper.

minimum dimension (Fig. 4), L

maximum dimension (Fig. 4), L
particle (cutting) diameter, L
pipe diameter, L
Fanning friction factor, dimensionless

REFERENCES

fp

particle friction factor, dimensionless

1.

specific gravity of gas (air

local gravitational acceleration, L/t 2

Hook, R.A., Cooper, L.W. and Payne, B.R.; "Air,

Gas, and Foam Drilling Techniques," paper SPE
6435 presented at the 1977 Deep Drilling and
Production Symposium, Amarillo, TX., April 1719, 1977.

2.

Lorenz, H.; "Air, Mist and Foam Drilling Has

Worldwide Application," presented at the 1980
Drilling Technology Conference of the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
Dallas, TX., March 17-20, 1980.

gc

= conversion

= 1),

dimensionless

factor

height, L

specific heat ratio for gas, dimensionless

1
M
mp

= pipe length, L
= molecular weight
mass of particle, m

CHI U. IKOKU, J.J. AZAR, C. RAY WILLIAMS

SJ;'E 9445
3.

4.

5.

Cunningham, R.A. and Eenink, J.G.: "Laboratory

Study of the Effect of Overburden Pressure,
Formation and Mud Column Pressure on Drilling
Rate," paper SPE 1094-G presented at the 1958
SPE Fall Meeting, Houston, TX., 1958.

13.

Mitchell, B.J., "Test Data Fill the Gap on Using

Foam as a Drilling Fluid," Oil & Gas Jour.
(Sept. 6, 1971) 96-100.

14.

Moore, P.L.: "Problems Associated with Design

Programs for Air and Gas Drilling," Drilling
Contractor (May-June, 1965), 47-48, 64.

Schoeppel, R.J. and Sapre, A.R.: "Volume Requirements in Air Drilling," paper SPE 1700
(1967).

15.

Angel, R.R.: "Volume Requirements for Air or

Gas Drilling," Petro Trans. AIME (1957) 210,
325-330.

Scott, J.O.: "How to Figure How Much Air to Put

Down the Hole," Oil & Gas Jour. (Dec. 16, 1957)
104-107.

16.

Bradshaw, S.K.: "A Numerical Analysis of Particle Lift," M.S. Thesis, University of Oklahoma
(1964).

17.

Bruce, G.H., Simon, L.H. and Whitaker, W.W.:

"Recovery of Large Cuttings in Air Drilling,"
API Paper No. 875-l6-E presented at the Spring
Meeting of the Rocky Mountain District, Division
of Petroleum, Denver, Colorado, April 11-13,
1962.

18.

Kunii, D. and Levenspiel, 0.: Fluidization

Engineering, Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Company, New York (1977).

19.

Rose, H.E. and Barnacle, H.E.:

203, 898, 939.

20.

Nind, T.E.W.: Principles of Oil Well Production,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1964).

21.

Zenz, F.A. and Othmer, D.F.: Fluidization and

Fluid-Particle Systems, Reinhold Publishing
Corp., New York (1960).

22.

Ikoku, C.U. and Azar, J.J.: "Aerated Fluid Dril

ling Research at The University of Tulsa," 5th
DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil & Gas Recovery
and Improved Drilling Methods, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Aug. 22-24, 1979.

6.

Angel, R.R.: Volume Requirements for Air and

Gas Drilling, Gulf Publishing Company (1958).

7.

Beyer, A.H., Millhone, R.S. and Foote, R.W.:

"Flow Behavior of Foam as a Well Circulating
Fluid," paper SPE 3986 presented at the 47th
Annual SPE Fall Meeting, San Antonia, TX., Oct.
8-11, 1972.

8.

Howell, J.N.: "Air-Liquid Drilling Fluids,"

Drilling Contractor (March-April, 1966) 54-56.

9.

Krug, J.A. and Mitchell, B.J.: "Charts Help

Find Volume, Pressure Needed for Foam Drilling,"
Oil & Gas Jour. (Feb. 7, 1972) 61-64.

10.

McCray, A.W. and Cole, F.W.: Oil Well Drilling

Technology, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
OK (1958) 271.

11.

Martin, D.J.: "Use of Air or Gas as a Circulating

Fluid in Rotary Drilling--Volume Requirements,"
Hughes Engr. Bull. No. 23 (Nov. 28, 1952).

12.

Millhone, R.S., Haskin, C.A. and Beyer, A.H.:

"Factors Affecting Foam Circulation in Oil
Wells," paper SPE 4001 presented at the 47th
Annual SPE Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX.,
Oct. 8-11, 1972.

TABLE

Engineer (1957)

AIR, MIST, AND FOAM AS DRILLING FLUIDS

(after Lorenz)

AIR

Advanlage.
High penetration rate
Low bit CIlst
Low water requirement
No mud requirement
Low chemical additive cost

STIFF FOAM
Dllldvanlagl.
Problems arise if water
flow is encountered
Hole erodes if formation is
loosely consolidated
Downhole fire a possibility
if hydrocarbons are
encountered

DlsallYantagl'
Same as above except tor
downhole fire hazard
Cost high if market for gas

exists
Disposal of waste gas can
be a hazard

MIST" FOAM
AIIY.nlagl.
Same as air except chemical

additive cost Increases

Can handle considerable
formation water

DlsallYanlagll
Considerable mud and
chemical costs
Auid breaks down and
loses solids carrying
capabilities when'
(A) Oil is encountered
(8) SaH waler is
encountered
(C) Calcium is encounlered

High penetration rate

low bit cost
High solids carrying
capability
Good hole cleaning
capability
Wall building capability

STABLE FOAM

GAS
AlIYantage.
Same as above

AlIYlntagl'

Dlsadvanlage.
Same as for air above except
can handle some water flow

AlIYantag ..
High penelration rate
Low brt costs

low water requirements

High solids carrying
capability
Good hole cloaning
capability
Compatible willl oil. saH
water and calcium and most
formation contaminants
Can safely absorb
considerable volume of gas
into aqueous foam
rendering it non-flammable
until sumped
Can handle large nows 01

waler

DIIllIYantag..
Considerable foamer cost
careful proportioning requIred
Specialized equipment
required for measuring and
regulating liquid and air
proportions and quantities

1 2 _ - - -.......- - -.......- INDIANA LIMESTONE

150-450 MD. PERMEABILITY
I 1/4 IN TWO CONE ROCK BIT
6000 PSI OVERBURDEN
50 RPM 1000 LB BIT WT

AREA OF
CRITICAL
LIFT

DRILLING
RATE,
ft/hr

....

010~------~20~0~0;:====4;0~0~0===

Fig. 2 - Schematic Diagram of a Portion of the Annulus.

DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, psi

Fig. 1- Effect of Differential Pressure on Drill Rate

(after Cunni ngham & Eeni nk).

25

...

E 27
u

...

E 23

1/1

'2

23

'0

X
ILl
I- 19

X
ILl

et

=>

19

0:
Z
0

Ei...J

AIR
d 0.2"
d 8 -314"
h
d p 5"

21

30 ftlhr

0:
Z 17

fi...J

\I

=>

0
0:

0
0:

(3
16

20

(3 13

1\

Fig. 3 - Comparison of Volume Requirement

Predictions {after Schoeppel & SapreL

10

3
DEPTH X 10- , ft

Fig. 4 - Comparison of Volume Requirement

Predi cti ons {after Schoeppe 1 & Sapre L

~
A
Dmin
Dmax

=....!..
b

(a) Idealized Shale Cutting

2.54mm

t =2.54mm
b = 10.16mm
t
b =0.25

(b) Typical Shale Cutting

(c) Idealized Limestone Cutting

Fig. 5 - Drill Cuttings Shapes and Dimensions.

Fig. 6 - Terminal Velocity Correlations

(after Kunii & Levenspiel).

4
3 XI 0- ,...---..,--T-"..,--r-...--r"""T"""T""""""

.6h lsin 8

0.6 ~I_--'_~---'----!::--~-!----'--!-....L...~

Fig. 8 - Particle Friction Factor Correlation

(after Rose & Barnacle 1,

Fig. 7 - Flowing Gas-Sol id Mixture.

0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14

-_ 0.12

....
g:
CL

...

/'

PRESSURE
DROP,
kPa

/
/
I
I

0.10

0.08
0.06
0.04

l-

LIFT VELOCITY, m/s

0.02
O~~--~~~~~~~__~__

0.1

CHOKING VELOCITY

0.2

O.~

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.1

L--L__J

0.8

O.S

1.0

Fig. 10 - Lean-Phase Gas-Sol id Flow.

RATIO OF DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM PRESSURE

Fig. 9 - Gas Flow Through a Constriction (after Nindl.

SOLIDS RATE

CHOKING
VELOCITY FOR
SOLIDS RATE

Wp1
~

LOG SUPERFICIAL
FLUID VELOCITY,u

Fig. 11 - Phase Di agrams for Di fferent Soli d Feed Rates

(after Zenz & othmer).

STAND PIPE INJECTION PRESSURE (psig)

aa

50

100

150

200

250

300

1\ 1\ 1\ 11
II 1\ 1\ \ \
I \ \ \ I1
I I

2000

3000

rr ,\

:I:

5000

8000

rr
1\

w
7000

I \
I 1

I \
I

6000

a.
0

rr

II

1
lY

!\

10000

11000

100

200

1\
\

II

rr

\
0

rr

II I
I

9000

12000

1\

TT

4000

I-

400

II

1000

::

350

300

400

PRESSURE (psig)

Fig, 12 - Injection Pressure Gradient Curve for 0.8

Gravity Gas in 4 1/2-in, D.O. Drill Pipe - 1200 scfm.