A Comparative Study of Hole Cleaning Performance — Water Versus Drag Reducing Fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective hole cleaning in horizontal and extended reach wells (ERD) often requires use of high circulation rates, which may not be always achievable due to the risk of circulating bottom hole pressure reaching the fracture limit of the rock. Achieving good hole cleaning while keeping the circulating bottom hole pressure within the safe operational window is very often the major engineering challenge. A drag reducing fluid with good hole cleaning ability could be a potential solution in this case. In order to see if it is possible to use a drag reducing fluid and still achieve a good hole cleaning, an experimental program was designed and conducted. The main objective of this experimental study was to compare the hole cleaning performances of water and a drag reducing fluid. The hole cleaning experiments were conducted using a 9m long horizontal flow loop with concentric annular geometry (Outer Pipe ID = 95 mm, Inner Pipe OD = 38 mm, ID/OD ratio = 0.4). The drag reducing additive was a commercially available partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA). Water and two drag reducing fluids with 0.07% V/V and 0.1% V/V PHPA concentrations were used. Critical velocities for the initiation of cuttings movement with rolling, saltation/dunes, and suspension modes were determined and compared when using water and drag reducing fluids as a carrier fluid. Critical velocities for the initiation of cuttings movement were found to be lower with water than that of drag reducing fluid in all transport modes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".