4.5 Article

Experimental investigation of the effects of silica nanoparticle on hole cleaning efficiency of water-based drilling mud

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 1226-1234

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.09.097

关键词

Water-based mud; Drilling fluid; Cuttings transports; Nanotechnology; Cuttings sizes; Nanosilica

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia [Q.J30000.2546.14H50, R.J130000.7846.4F946]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective cuttings transports and hole cleaning is crucial for obtaining an efficient drilling operation. Recently, the use of nanotechnology have been exploited to improve rheological and filtration properties of water-based mud. Herein, water-based mud (WBM) was formulated with nanosilica to enhance cuttings and solid particles transports from the wellbore to the surface. Different weight percent concentrations of nanosilica (0.001-1.5 wt %) at three different flow rates in litres/seconds (0.4, 0.6 and 1.0) and cuttings sizes (small, medium and large) were used to investigate the formulated water-based mud lifting capacity of the drilled cuttings. Experimental results show that addition of the nanosilica concentrations to the WBM enhances the viscosity, thereby increasing the muds carrying and circulating capacity. Moreover, nanosilica water-based mud (n-WBM) displays improved mud stability with high propensity to prevent intrusion of formation fluids. The effect of cuttings size on the wellbore cleaning is minimal. The large cuttings size shows a lower degree of cuttings transportation compared with the small and medium cutting size. Accordingly, the small cuttings size has higher cuttings recovery to the surface. Finally, though increase in flow rate leads to more cuttings recovery, there is every tendency that much fluid flow rate will cause an increase in frictional pressure losses and equivalent circulating density, high pump pressure requirement and potential hole erosion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据