Pressure Changes in Drilling Wells
Caused by Pipe Movementt
ABSTRACT
Blowouts c a n be prevented by closer control of
pipe-pulling suction; and circulation l o s s e s c a n be
prevented by closer control of pipe-running pressure.
T h i s paper explains the pressure changes that oc-
cur when pipe is run or pulled, and it includes a
chart for quick, approximate estimates of pipequn-
ning pressure and pipepulling suction. Under quite
ordinary conditions, the pressure changes may be
of the order of several hundred pounds per square
inch.
Previously published field d a t a are explained and
unified. T h e following points are brought out:
1. Balling, or swabbing, is not the c a u s e of run-
ning pressure or pulling suction. Both running pres-
sure and pulling suction must occur even with
c l e a n , open-ended pipe.
2. Running pressure and pulling suction do not
occur merely below pipe bottom. They occur a l l
the way up and down the hole. T h e pressure or
INTRODUCTION
Illany of the expensive blowouts that occur in
drilling operations are c a u s e d by reduction of s t a t i c
pressure during drill-pipe withdrawal. T h e accumu-
lated evidence of s e v e r a l ~ t u d i e s ' . ~ ,w 6~ h a s proved
1'
t h i s beyond a reasonable doubt. T h e recent study
by Ilorn6 of 55 California blowouts gave strong evi-
dence that 9 of those blowouts were c a u s e d princi-
pally by reduction in s t a t i c p r e s s u r e during pipe
withdrawal. In s e v e n other c a s e s , t h i s kind of pres-
sure reduction w a s cited by Horn a s a contributing
c a u s e . T h e s e data are enough to show that pressure
reduction during pipe withdrawal i s s e r i o u s ; but
even t h e s e d a t a d o not s t a t e the c a s e a s strongly
a s i t might be s t a t e d , for a s will be shown in the
present paper, there i s a l w a y s some pressure re-
duction in the hole during pipe withdrawal. T h u s ,
in a s e n s e , it must always be a contributing c a u s e
to any blowout e v e n though i t may not b e a principal
c a u s e or a primary contributor.
Blowout prevention alone would be a compelling
Ir C a l i f o r n i a R e s e a r c h Corp., L a Habra, Calif.
+ P r e s e n t e d a t the spring meeting of the P a c i f i c C o a s t District,
D i v i s i o n of Production, L o s Angele s , June 1953.
' R e f e r e n c e s are at the end of the paper.
suction is largest a t and below pipe bottom,, and
from pipe bottom t o the surface it d e c r e a s e s linear-
l y t o zero.
3. If there is balling, it will aggravate the pres-
sure change only below the depth of the. ball. Ball-
ing d e c r e a s e s the running pressure or p u ~ i n g , & u c -
tion above the depth of the ball.
4 , If the bit is plugged, running p r e s s w e or pull-
ing suction is increased a t a l l points of the hole.
5. Running pressure and pulling suction are pra-
portional to the effective low shearing-rate vis-
cosity, or gel strength, of the drilling fluid. For
deep drilling, increased emphasis should be placed
on the measurement of drilling-fluid viscosities
and gel strengths under simulated bottom-hole con-
ditions. Efforts to improve present measurement
methods will help to control running pressure and
pulling suction, and will be repaid by less l o s t
circulation and fewer blowouts.
r e a s o n to study t h e s e pressure reductions. It hap-
p e n s , however, that the pressure reductions a f e in-
timately related to pressure i n c r e a s e s that occur
when pipe i s run into the hole and t h e s e p i e s s y e
i n c r e a s e s cause, or contribute to the c a u s e of, l o s t
circulation. T h i s s i d e of the c a s e h a s been well
proved by Goins, aieichert, Durba, Dawson,. aqd
Teplitz.' 'lhese authors cited a s p e c t a c u l a r ex-
ample of drilling under carefully controlled condi-
tions to avoid high running p r e s s u r e s . I.ost circu-
lation w a s avoided completely in a controlled well,
e v e n though 79 l o s s e s had occurred while drilling
three previous nearby wells.
D a t a like those collected by the cited authors
should perhaps sulfice to persuade a l l operators
that it i s desirable to minimize the pressure c h a n g e s
that occur during running and pulling of .pipe. Ilow-
ever, surprisingly enough, it i s e a s y to find oper-
a t o r s who s t i l l do not believe that t h e pressure
c h a n g e s even e x i s t in their wells. Why i s t h i s s o ?
One reason that pressure c h a n g e s c a u s e d by pipe
movement are not more widely recognized may be
that they have never been simply explained. A look
a t the history of the s u b j e c t s e e m s to indicate this.
98 W. T. CARDWELL, JR.
It was two decades ago that G. E. Cannon1 perform-
ed the first comprehensive field experiments proving
that large pressure decreases occurred in drilling
wells when drill pipe was pulled upward. He show-
ed also that these pressure decreases depended upon
the gel strength of the drilling fluid, and suggested
that gel strengths should be controlled in the effort
to prevent blowouts. Cannon did not explain the
pressure decreases he found; and, in particular, he
did not explain his most peculiar finding, viz., that
the pressure decreases he measured were not s i g
nificantly affected by the rate of pulling. This finding
seemed unreasonable to L.' K. Laney, one of the
discussers of Cannon's paper.2
In 1951, Goins, Weichert, Burba, Dawson, and
~ e ~ l i t zreported
' a series of field experiments on
bb
pressure surges in wells resulting from pipe move-
ments." The work of these men differed from that of
Cannon in several respects, the essential difference
being that Goins and his associates were'interested
in the pressure increase that occurs when pipe i s
lowered, whereas Cannon had been interested in the
pressure decrease that o c c ~ whens pipe i s raised.
Goins and his associates mentioned the work of
Cannon, but they did not attempt to relate his results
with their own; and, in fact, they discussed the pres-
sure reduction found by Cannon as if it'were a sepa-
rate. phenomenon not affected by the: same drilling-
fluid and hole properties. They did not attempt to re-
concile the fact that their measured pressure changes
were proportional to pipe velocity and Cannon's
measured pressure changes had been insensitive
to pipe velocity.
Even in view of their persuasive experiments and
their remarkable s u c c e s s in practical application,
Coins and his cu-workers appardntIy recognized the
need for a comprehensive explanation of what they
had found. They stated that "the effect of both the
annular clearance and changes in mud properties on
the pressure surges caused by pipe movement needs
to be clearly shown" and they further stated that
they hoped their paper would "encourage further
work in this field."
The work reported herein was begun in an attempt
to provide a simple explanation of running pressure
and pulling suction. Theoretical evidence was soon
cbtained that field experiments have missed several
significant features of the pressure disturbances.
This i s not surprising when it i s considered that
there are a t least half a dozen variables that affect
running pressure and pulling suction. An exhaustive
s e t of field experiments designed to determine the
individual effects of s i x variables might have to
cover, say, three values of each variable while the
others were being held constant. This would require
over 700 separate field experiments. It i s out of the
question to perform 700 field experiments on such
a subject. It would be prohibitively expensive and
time consuming. A strictly experimental approach
to the subject can therefore be well complemented
by a theoretical approach.
A simple theory shows what should be the sig-
nificant factors affecting pipe-running pressure and
pipe-pulling suction, and the theory also shows how
to predict the magnitudes of the pressure disturb-
ances for practical purposes.
The Names of the Pressure Changes
The pressure increase that occurs when pipe i s
run has previously been called "running pressure,"
and this seems to be a good name for it. The pres-
sure decrease that occurs when pipe i s pulled has
been called by the unfortunate name "swabbing pres-
sure." Undoubtedly, this name has hampered under
standing of the pressure change it i s supposed to
represent.
The word "swabbing" in the term "swabbing
pressure" i s unfortunate because it implies that the
effect i s necessarily connected with a swab-like
body, or that the drill bit or drill collar must be
I
balled before the effect i s significant. This i s not
the case, a s will be shown later. The word "pres-
I
sure" in the term "swabbing pressure" i s unfortu-
nate because the term was coined to represent the
effect during pulling, which effect i s a pressure de-
crease, or negative pressure change. The word
pressure" i s not commonly used to represent a
negative pressure change. The word 'Ltension" i s
used to denote negative pressure changes in liquids,
but it i s rarely, if ever, used in that s e n s e in the
1 oil fields.
The common word that best denotes negative pres-
sure change i s "suction." Although the employment
of the word b6suction" to denote large negative pres-
sure changes i s not completely supported by the
modern dictionary, it seems to be supported by usage
1 and general understanding. It is, therefore, proposed
to call the pressure lowering caused by pulling of.
pipe pulling suction. The two phrases, running pres-
sure and pulling suction will be used throughout
this paper.
Explanation of Running Pressure and Pulling Suction
At the outset, it should be explicitly stated that
running pressure and pulling suction do not result
from the displacing action of the pipe. They would
occur even if the pipe were infinitely thin, and had
no displacement volume. The effects of displa,ce-
ment add to the effects discussed following, but
they do not constitute a significant addition to those
main effects.
When a pipe moves in a liquid, the part of the
 PRESSURE CHANGES IN DRILLING VELLS CAUSED BY PIP,E MOVEMENT
liquid in contact with the surface of the pipe moves
with the same velocity a s the pipe. Some of the mo-
tion i s transmitted to the rest of the liquid. The
moving pipe therefore drags part of the liquid along
with it. If a pipe (drill pipe, casing, or tubing) i s
moved downward in drilling fluid, it drags part of
the drilling fluid downward with it. The dragging
effect i s illustrated in Fig. la. If the fluid surround-
ing a pipe i s contained in a closed hole, it cannot
have a net downward velocity. If part of the fluid
near the pipe moves downward, part of the fluid
away from the pipe must move upward. T h i s com-
pensating upward counterflow i s illustrate'd in Fig. lb.
Fig. l b illustrates the fact that in both the pipe
and the annulus there i s a region of maximum up-
ward velocity, surrounded by regions of lower ve-
locity. When part of a fluid i s traveling faster than
its adjacent parts, the fluid i s being sheared a t the
boundaries of the fast moving part; and if the fluid
i s viscous, this shearing produces a viscous drag
that tends to hold back the fastermoving part. In
the motion represented by Fig. Ib, this viscous drag
acts in the downward direction; and it causes each
element of fluid to press harder .on the element be-
low it than it would if the viscous drag did not exist.
So the effect i s like an increase in hydrostatic pres-
sure. The pressure in the fluid must increase faster
in the downward direction than does the hydrostatic
pressure.
The usual roles of cause and effect are reversed
here. It i s common to think of a pressure difference
causing a flow; it i s uncommon to think of a flow
causing a pressure difference. Actually, it does not
matter which i s considered to be the cause and which
the effect. In the example under discussion, the up-
ward counterflow must be accompanied by a pres-
sure increase in the downward direction in addition
to the hydrostatic increase. The extra downward
pressure over and above the hydrostatic pressure i s
the running pressure.
Pulling suction i s just the reverse of running
pressure. When pipe i s pulled upward, part of the
fluid i s dragged upward with the pipe. In order for
the hole to remain full, another part of the fluid must
flow downward, and this produces, a pressure de-
crease in the downward direction. T h i s pressure
decrease, below the hydrostatic pressure, i s the pull-
ing suction.
'Ahen pipe i s moved downward, it i s easy to see
that there must be upward counterflow, because there
i s no place for the downwardly dragged fluid to go
except back upward. This i s assuming, of course,
that the hole i s closed or that there i s no lost c i r
culation. On the other hand, when pipe i s moved up-
99
No veloctty o t h o l e r o l l
hlox~mumveloclfl a t p ~ rp
oll,
equol to v e l o c ~ t yo f pnpc l l r e l f
no confnnement of flutd
o \'eloc8t8er t1.ot would r c r u l t f r o r downword plpc motam alone. ~ 8 t h
ot the h o l e bottom
.,
UPra;d ~ c l o c ~ t~n
) annulus t o cornpenrote
for downward veloctty ot p a w r o l l
Flo velocnt) a t h o l e r o l l
Chonge from upward t o downward
vrloc!ty o t some port o f annulus
hlornnum +wnward velocaty ot pipe woll.
equal t o velocnty of pope ~ t s e l l
b Vclocatoer that r c r u l t from do-ward p a w motnon wtth conlnnement ol f l v d at the hole
,
bottom No net d a n w o r d velocity .-
- ,
Fig. 1-Fluid Velocities Produced by Downward
Pipe Motion ;, '
ward, there i s a possible outlet for all the fluid that
i s dragged upward by the pipe. It does not leave the
hole, however, because gravity.keeps it in the hole
by producing a downward counterflow. ~ h downward
k
counterflow, in effect, u s e s up part of the gravity-
produced fluid head and thereby lowers the pressure
in the well.
It i s apparent from the foregoing discussion that
running pressure and pulling suction do not arise
from swabbing. That is, they are not the result of
piston-like action of an enlarged body at the lower
end of the pipe, such a s . a balled bit or drill collar.
Swabbing does have secondary effects, and these
effects will be discussed later; but the primary pres-
sure changes during running and pulling pipe occur
whether or not there i s swabbing. Both running pres-
sure and pulling suction result from relative motion
of the entire pipe with respect to the entire hole.
The foregoing explanation shows also that the
pressure changes are not localized around or below
the bottom of the pipe; they exist all, the way up
and down the hole. If there i s a certain pressure
drop a t the depth of pipe bottom, there will be half
of that drop half way down. a fourth of that drop a
 . . ~. W. T. CARDWELL, JR. ...
100 * .

fourth of the way down, e t c . T h e importance of t h i s tion of running p r e s s u r e s and pulling suct-ions. F o r
fact with r e s p e c t to circulation l o s s e s and blowouts illustrative purposes a n example i s shown of an
will be brought out l a t e r herein. estimation for a hole diameter of 8'4 in., a pipe dia-
Practical Estimation and Control oif ~ " n n i n g~ r e s - meter of 4'4 in., a running (or pulling) time, of 10
sure and Pulling Suction s e c per s t a n d , and, a length of pipe in the hole of
Fig. 2 i s a chart which permits practical estinia- 15,000 ft. T h e running pressure (or pulling suction)
CHART FC< E,STIMATING RUNNING PRESSURE AND PULLING SUCTION .

- Fig.2-PressureChange,Psi
(Running Pressure or Pulling Suct,ion) ,
 PRESSURE CHANGES IN DRILLING WELLS CAUSED BY P I P E MOVEMENT
i s 900 psi. If there were only 7,5OO,ft, of pipe in the
hole, the running pressure or pulling suction would
by 450 psi.
A few calculations with the chart will give the
reader a feeling for the s i z e s of t h e r&ning pres-'
sures and pulling suctions that e ~ i s tin the wells
in which he may be interested. For instance, he will'
appreciate'the fact that the pressure change i s pro-.
portional to the length of immersed pipe and that'
the formations in shallow wells cannot be very much
disturbed by running and pulling effects. On the
other hand, the formations at the bottom, of ,deep, , whenever circulation l o s s e s or blowouts are immi-
wells, s a y 10,000 to 20,000 ft, are subjected to,
large, sudden pressure changes; and it i s reason-
able to expect those formations to be significantly
disturbed, if running pressures and pulling suctions
are not minimized.
If a hole has marked variations in s i z e , the ires-
sure or suction can be approximated by considering
' the sections of different s i z e s a s acting independ-
ently and by adding 'individual pressure changes
estimated from the chart. T h i s procedure is' not
theoretically defensible, but it provides a conven-
ient approximation.
The chart i s not ,intended to permit exact esti-
mates in any case. It would be impossi'ble to make
exact estimates, because the field data that would . - - t i o n i s very sensitive to hole size. For instance,,,
be required are not even measured in present-day,
field operations. The principal uncertain quantity
i s the effective viscosity of the drilling fluid during
the process of running or pulling. Riore will be said
about this later.
The pressure or suction value obtainable from
the chart for a given hole size, pipe size, pipe-
movement rate, and pipe length will be a s accurate
a s can be estimated using present field meas,ure-
men ts.
T o use the dhart, it i s not necessary to know how'
it was derived. Actually, i t was derived from Fig. 3,.
which in turn was prepared from calculations using
formulas derived in the Appendix to this paper.
Fig. 3 i s not a s convenient to use for estimations
a s i s the chart;. but for background purposes, it
shows more clearly how running pressure and pull-
ing suction with the various significant factors.
How can running pressures and pulling suctions
be minimized? - -
In the first place, running pressure and p"lling
suction are proportional to length,of immersed pipe.
T h i s means that the deeper the drilling operation,
the larger will be the running pressure and pulling
'suction. Pipe length i s not a controllable factor. If
a well has to be drilled to 15,000 ft, there i s no way
to avoid having 15,000 ft of immersed pipe. If run-
ning pressures and pulling suctions are t o ' b e mini-
101
mized, it must be done by controlling the other fac-
tors.
If considerations of drilling time and cost were
negligible, the e a s i e s t factor to control would be the
running or pulling rate. If the running or pulling rate
i s cut in half, the running pressure or pulling suc-
tion i s cut in half. (This statement i s not exactly
ture, but it i s ku;! enough for practical,purposes.
See Appendix for more exact statements on this
point.) T o whatever extent it i s economically feas-
ible, running and pulling r a t e s should be minimized
nent. T h i s .point has already been well covered by ~
Goins and his associates.'
' The smaller the pipe and the larger the hole, the
smaller will be the running pressure or pulling suc-.,
tion. Pipe s i z e and nominal~holes i z e are somewhat
controllable, but they must usually be regulated by-
other considerations; and they cannot usually be
considered adjustable for' the purpose of controlling
' running pressures and pulling suctions. However,
the actual hole s i z e may devi,ate in either direction
from the nominal hole size, and. the deviation i s
soniewhat contyollqble. In .this connection it i s im- '
portant to note that when,the hole i s not much larger.
than the pipe, the running pressure or pulling suc-
with 4'4-in. pipe in an 8-in. hole, the running pres-
sure or pulling suction will be increased 50 percent
by a one-half inch filter cake that reduces the;effec-
tive hole s i z e to 7 in. T h i s confirms the speculation
of George Gray, one of the d i s c u s s e r s of the Goins
paper, who stated that: "Mud of high fiIter l o s s
might affect the magnitude of the pressure surges
by the formation of a thick filter cake opposite per- ,
meable beds, thereby reducing the effective dia-
meter of the hole." It i s certainly true' that a high
drilling fluid filter .loss can indirectly cause high
running pressure and pulling suction, and fiIter l o s s
should therefore be minimized.
T h e final controllable factor i s the effective vis-
cosity of the drilling fluid during the process of run-
ning or pulling. As mentioned before, this i s the
principal uncertain quantity in the estimation of run-
ning pressure and pulling suction; and it i s a l s o the
main uncertain quantity in the control of the pres-
sure changes.
Viscometrically, drilling fluids behave in a com-
.
~ l ,
i c a t e dway. When a drilling fluid i s sheared rapid-
ly, it m'ay behave a s though it had a viscosity of
20 centipoises; and when it i s sheared very slowly
after quiescence, the same fluid may behave a s
, though it had a viscosity of 100 or a 1,000 centi-
poises. During the process of running or pulling,
when the drilling fluid i s alternately allowed to $el
102 W. T. CARDWELL, JR.

. .
, , . . Hole size, in.

Fig. 3-Effects of Various Factors on Running

Pressure and Pulling Suction
 PRESSURE CHANGES IN DRILLING VELLS CAUSED BY PIPE MOVEMENT
and de-gel, i t s detailed viscous behavior i s ex-
ceedingly complicated. An adequate description of
that viscous behavior during the entire running or
pulling process would be impossible to obtain by
any currently used method. It i s , therefore, neces-
sary to resort to the use of an estimated "effective
viscosity" during the running and pulling processes.
The value of 300 centipoises w a s picked for this
quantity in the calculations for Fig. 3 and for the
chart, because side calculations showed that the
most viscous drilling fluids encountered by Goins
and his associates in their field experiments had
effective viscosities of that order. Therefore, the
running pressures and pulling suctions calculated
from the chart will usually be high. T h i s i s not ob-
jectionable because the error i s a safety factor.
No measurement i s made in the field a t thepresent
time from which the desired effective viscosity could
be deduced. -Viscosity control i s based on measure-
ments made with the Marsh funnel or the Stormer
viscometer; and although these instruments do good
jobs a s control devices, they do not give the i n f o r
mation needed to make flow-behavior c a l ~ u l a t i o n s , ~
particularly in the low shearing rate range. The
present measurement that will best correlate with
running pressure and pulling suction i s the measure-
ment of gel strength. Qualitatively, i t i s certainly
true that the pressure changes are proportional to
gel strength, and it i s also true that the best way
now to minimize running pressure and pulling suction
through drillingfluid control i s to minimize gel
strength. T h i s may be done by chemical treatment
of the drilling fluid and a l s o by mechanical agitation
of the fluid. When the drilling fluid has a tendency
to develop high gel strength on standing, it i s good
practice to stop every few s t a n d s during both the
running and the pulling operations, and circulate
the drilling fluid to break down the gel. Merely rotat-
ing the pipe i s not as effective a s circulating, be-
cause rotation tends to affect only a layer of drill-
ing fluid next to the pipe. Circulation i s much more
effective.
The gel strength a s now determined i s not a quan-
titative measure of the effective viscosity during
running or pulling; thus, for the time being, it i s not
practical to attempt exact estimates of pipe-running
pressure and pipe-pulling suction.
As drilling goes deeper, more emphasis should be
placed on the measurement of drilling-fluid proper
t i e s under bottom-hole conditions.. Viscometers
should be developed that duplicate the shearing
rates a s well a s the temperatures and pressures
that occur in bottom-hole processes.
Effort's to improve present measurement methods
will help to control running pressure and pulling
103
suction, and will be repaid by l e s s lost circulation
and fewer blowouts.
Balled Bits and Drill Collars, Plugged Bits, and
Their Effects on Circulation Losses and Blowouts
The explanation already given h a s attempted to
make clear that running pressure and pulling suction
are not the result of the swabbing action of balled
bits or drill collars. It i s worthwhile to emphasize
this point because there are many people who believe
otherwise. Even some of the statements by experts
on the subject might be misunderstood to imply that
balling i s essential in the production of running
pressure and pulling suction. For instance, Goins
and his a s s o c i a t e s 7 stated:
66
T h i s led to the conclusion that pressures in ex-
c e s s of necessary hydrostatic pressure, caused by
balling and pipe movements, were breaking down
the formation, after which the circulating pressures
were sufficient to cause the formation to take mud.
It was evident that balling would substantially
raise the pressure below the point of the ball and
working of balled pipe would be expected to mag-
nify this effect. If balling could be eliminated, high
pressures from this source would be avoided."
It should be clear from the explanation given here-
in that both running pressures and pulling suctions
must occur even in the complete absence of balling.
It i s important to appreciate this fact in order to
realize that elimination of balling will not eliminate
running pressure and pulling suction.
It i s true, a s Goins and his a s s o c i a t e s stated,
that balling aggravates the pressure disturbance be-
low the point of the ball. However, i t i s just a s true
that balling decreases the pressure disturbance
above the point of the ball. T o understand why this
must be so, consider the action of a ball in the light
of the explanation already given of running pressure
and pulling suction.
During running, the ball, acting like a piston,
tends to push fluid down the annulus and up into
the drill pipe. The net upward fluid velocity, inside
the pipe must be greater than, it i s when the annu-
lus i s open. The greater net velocity requires a
greater pressure drop from the bottom to the surface
through the drill pipe, and there must therefore be
a greater running pressure a t the bottom.
On the other hand, in the annulus above the ball,
there must be l e s s upward counterflow than would
exist without the ball, and there must therefore be
l e s s pressure increase than would occur with .no
balling. Fig. 4 shows how the running pressure i s
affected by balling. ,.
Reasoning similar to the foregoing applies to pull-
ing suction. A bal1,on the pipe will restrain down-
 DWELL,. JR.
I
Fig. &The Effect of Balling on Pipe-running
Pressure
ward counterflow in the annulus and necessitate'in-
creased counterflow in the pipe, s o more pressure
de'crease or pulling suction will occur below the
ball. But all voints in the annulus above the. ball
will actually experience 'less pulling suction than
they would experienck if there were no balling.
T h e c'onsequences of these facts may be made
clear by some hypothetical examples:
Imagine a 10,000-ft hole with all of the pipe still
in the hole. L e t the pipe size, hole size, and drill-
ing-fluid viscosity be such that when the pipe i s
pulled upward the,pulling suction a t bottom i s 500
psi. imagine first that there i s no balling. If this i s
so, then when the pulling suction i s 500 psi at bot-
tom, it' i s 400 psi at'8,OOO ft, 300 psi a t 6,000 ft,
200 psi at 4,000 ft, and 100 psi at 2,000 ft.
Now assume that there i s a gas sand at 8,000 ft.
The pressure opposing that sand i s reduced 400
psi 'below the.hydrostatic pressure ea'ch time the
drill pipe i s pulled upward, until the first 2,000 ft
of pipe ,are removed. From then on, smaller reduc-
tions in . p r e s s u r e occur. a s the bit travels upward
toward the surface. Imagine that the hydrostatic
head i s initidly.300'psi ,greater than the g a s pres-
sure; Gas will then be drawn into the hole each
time, the p i p e , & pulltd Ipward, both while the bit
is' below 8,000 ft and while it i s above 8,000 ft,
until it reaches 6.000 ft. ,
Let all, the foregoing conditions be the .same'&-
cept that the bit and collar are balled up. In this
case, the. pulling suctioh below the bit will be in-
creased, but above the bit it will. be decreased. If
the balling i s tight enough in the hole, the gas
sand a t 8,000 ft may be held in complete check
until the bit has risen past that depth. Thus, at
least in part of .the pulling operation, the balling
will have been beneficial!
After the bit has risen above the 8,000-ft depth,
the balling will aggravate the pulling suction. The
total effect of the ball during the entire pulling
operation may be beneficial or it may be harmful.
It will all depend upon how tight the ball is, how
the hole changes in size, and even how the ball
changes in s i z e on the way up.
]Vow imagine the opposite sort of case. Imagine
a 10,000-ft hole with all the pipe out. Let the pipe
size, hole size, and drilling-fluid properties be such
that the running pressure i s 50 psi-per 1,000 ft of
immersed pipe.
- .
Imagine a weak formation a t 5,000
ft that i s susceptible to breakdown by excessive
pressure and into which the fluid will be lost if it
breaks down. If there i s no balling, this formation
will be subjected to running pressures each time
the pipe i s moved downward, from the time the first
stand i s run until all the pipe i s in the hole. The
running pressure that i s effective a t 5,000 ft will
start a t 0 psi, increase to 250 psi when 5,000 ft of
pipe a r e ' i n the hole, .and remain a t 250 psi during
the,running of the last 5,000 ft of pipe.
If; however, in this case, the bit becomes balled
up with wall cake during its travel down the first
5,000 ft of hole, the running pressure that i s effec-
tive at 5,000 ft will be increased until the bit has
passed that depth. After that it will be decreased,
and i t may conceivably be decreased s o much & to
be insignificant during the running of the last 5,000
ft of pipe. The total effect of the ball during the
running of the entire 10,000 ft of pipe might there-
fore be quite beneficial. Again, it would depend
upon how tight the ball was, how the hole changed
in size, and even how the ball changed in s i z e
-
during the run.
The point of all the foregoing discussion i s , n o t
just to show that balling could conceivably be bene-
ficial. The mere knowledge of this possibility would
not be helpful in the field.The point .is to show that
-
balling can be harmful or beneficial and that the in-
dividual circumstances must be known before it can
be decided which i s the case.
Some of the statements with reference to balling
are also applicable to bit plugging, but some are
not; Plugging of the bit intensifies either running
pressure or pulling suction. Unlike balling of the
bit, plugging i s a consistent aggravator; it intensi-
fies'the' running pressure' or pulling suction a t all
points of the hole during all parts of the r.unning
or pulling operation. Fortunately, plugging of the
bit rarely occurs during running, when it might
raise the running pressure and tend to cause lost
circulation. However, plugging of t h e bit c a n seri-
o u s l y aggravate pulling s u c t i o n and t h i s c a n be
dangerous when high-pressure water. g a s , or oil
formations a r e s u p p o s e d t o be held back by t h e
hydrostatic head of t h e drilling fluid.
T h e one good feature about a plugged bit, if one
may s p e a k of i t t h a t way, i s that i t c a u s e s a so-
called wet job, and a wet job i s s o disagreeable
that there i s a l w a y s a c o n s c i o u s effort t o avoid the
plugged bit.
Explanation of Field Data Obtained to Date
T h i s s e c t i o n i s not intended t o aid in t h e estima-
tion of pipe-running pressure and pipe-pulling suc-
tion. It i s intended t o a s s i s t t h o s e who a r e more
than c a s u a l l y interested in t h e , s u b j e c t t o u n d e r
s t a n d t h e r e s u l t s of field experiments reported in
the literature. T h e experimental r e s u l t s contain
some apparent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , and i t s e e m s desir-
a b l e to r a t i o n a l i z e t h o s e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in order
to strengthen the impression given by t h e data. It
h a s already been indicated in t h e first of t h i s report
that the e a r l y work of Cannon1 did not receive i t s
proper recognition and that t h i s could have been
due t o a presumption of doubt r a i s e d by unexplained
results. . a t e s might have found i t difficult .or impossible to
T h e two outstanding experimental reports pertain-
ing to pulling s u c t i o n and running pressure are t h o s e
of Cannon1 and of Goins, Weichert, Burba, Dawson,
and Teplitz.' T h e report of Cannon w a s concerned
exclusively with pulling s u c t i o n (then called swab-
bing pressure) and i t did not e v e n mention running
pressure. T h e report of Gpins and h i s a s s o c i a t e s
w a s concerned almost e x c l u s i v e l y with running
pressure. I t did mention pulling suction, but in s u c h
a way a s t o minimize i t s importance r e l a t i v e ' t o t h a t
of running pressure. T h i s w a s b e c a u s e the experi-
ments of Goins a n d h i s a s s o c i a t e s indicated pulling
s u c t i o n t o be a much smaller effect than running
pressure.
Explanation already given in the p r e s e n t report
s h o w s that Cannon on the one hand, and G o i n s and
h i s a s s o c i a t e s on t h e other, were actually working
on the s a m e thing. T h e r e w a s only a change in dir-
ection. Running p r e s s u r e i s j u s t t h e , n e g a t i v e coun-
terpart of pulling s u c t i o n and v i c e versa. T h e effects
did not look t h e s a m e in t h e two s e t s , , o f experi-
ments, but t h e differences were apparent rather than
real, and they c a n be explained.'
In order t o d i s c u s s both s e t s of e'xperiments a t
once, i t i s convenient t o summarize resu!ts in T a b l e 1.
T h e first line in ,Table 1 c o n c e r n s g e l strength.
Cannon found t h a t pulling s u c t i o n w a s p r o p ~ r t i o n a l
t o gel strength. Goins and h i s a s s o c i a t e s apparent-
l y believed there w a s some s o r t of proportionality
between running p r e s s u r e and gel strength, but they
Table 1
Summary of t h e Field Experimental R e s u l t s of
Cannon,' and of G o i n s e t 01.'
E f f e c t s of Various F a c t o r s on Pipe-pulling Suction
(Cannon) and Pipe-running P r e s s u r e (Goins e t al.)
Effect Found ~ f f e c Found
t o
Factor by Cannon by ,Goins et al.
Ge 1 strength proportional* (not measured)+
Viscositv small (not measured)+
Rate of pipe movement small proportional
Length of pipe in hole proportional proportional
Rate of dralnage of bit small "substantial"
Diameter of drill collar small large effect due
to balling of
drill collar
Fluid density none (not measured)
* Proportional m thls table means approximately proportlonal.
Theorv shows that some of the measwed . .
orooort~onal~tres
would have been exact if the field experiments could have
been exactly controlled.
t Coins et al. evidently believed that these effqcts were'ap-
proximately proportlonal. In the drllllng subsequent to then
t e s t s , both vrscoslty and gel strength were "kept'as low as
possible."
did not report confirming evidence. T h e r e i s good
r e a s d n why Cannon might have found t h i s point
e a s y t o d e m o n s t r a t e , , a n d , G o i n s and h i s a s s o c i -
demonstrate: Drilling fluids have changed a lot in
t h e p a s t two decades. T h e drilling fluids in common
u s e a t the time of Cannon's experiments had much
higher g e l s t r e n g t h s ( v i s c o s i t i e s a t low, shearing
r a t e s ) than present-day fluids. At t h e s a m e , time,
their high shearing-rate v i s c o s i t i e s were as low . a s , ,
or lower than, t h o s e of present-day fluids. Flow
p r o c e s s e s i n , which t h e drilling fluid w a s s h e a r e d
after.standing were controlled by g e l strength. T h i s
is not usually true now. Gel s t r e n g t h s are of t h e
order of one-tenth what, they used t o be.Present-
d a y fluids d o not behave s o much l i k e p l a s t i c s o l i d s
t h a t refuse t o flow appreciably until critical shear-
ing s t r e s s e s q e applied. Present-day fluids a r e
more . like Newtonian , l i q u i d s t h a t flow under any
applied s h e a r i n g s t r e s s and flow a t v e l o c i t i e s pro-
portional t o the applied, stress.. T h e y may s t i l l ex-
hibit measurable strengths, but their flow is not
usually gel-strength controlled.
Similar s t a t e m e n t s . apply t o t h e s e c o n d line of
T a b l e 1. If Cannon were.to,.repeat h i s experiments
with present-day drilling fluids, he would find t h a t
v i s c o s i t y (meaning v i s c o s i t y a t moderate or high
s h e a r i n g r a t e s ) w a s more important and that gel
strength, w a s l e s s important.
T h e third 'line i n T a b l e 1 is the most worthy pf
discussion. Cannon found that t h e r a t e of pipe move-
ment had a s m a l l effect on the magnitude of t h e
pulling' suction. T h i s i s t h e finding about which one
of the d i s c u s s e r s of Cannon's p a p e r said:' "All

the discussions that have been drawn from the data
gathered in this work appear entirely logical with
one exception, it seems to me, and that i s the rate
a t which the pipe i s withdrawn indicated very little
effect on the pressure drop. It strikes me that does
not sound entirely logical. 0 1 course, that was dis-
0
counted to a certain extent by the suggestion that
pipe be withdrawn slowly in order to be on the safe
side."
The record does not show that Cannon gave a
responsive answer to these doubts. It would have
been possible for him to give a completely satis-
fying answer. He had been dealing with drilling
fluids that were gel-strength controlled. They be-
haved a s plastic solids that refused to flow until
the applied s t r e s s reached a high value and then
flowed relatively easily when the s t r e s s was further
increased. Or, putting it another way,.if they were
caused to flow a t all, the pressures they exerted
were already relatively large compared to the further
pressures exerted when the rate was increased. In
Cannon's field experiments, it therefore appeared
that pulling suctions were not much affected by pull-
ing speed.
If Cannon were to repeat his experiments today
with modern drilling fluids that are not gel-strength
controlled, he would find ( a s Goins and his asso-
ciates found with respect to running pressures) that
pipe velocity has a significant effect.
T o summarize, the apparent difference between the
Cannon and Goins experiments i s not the result of
a difference in the two effects, pulling suction and
running pressure. It i s because of a difference in
in the kinds of drilling fluids used in the two inves-
tigations. With modern drilling fluids, which tend to
be gel-strength controlled, both effects are approxi-
mately proportional to pipe speed.
The foregoing statements are, of course, general-
izations,and are subject to exceptions. Fluida de-
sribed very recently by Watkins and Nelson" are
undoubtedly gel-strength controlled and would be-
have like the fluids used by Cannon two decades
ago. In fact, if such fluids were brought into general
use, running pressures and pulling suctions would
be more advantageously estimated by a different
method than the one incorporated into Fig. 1 herein.
The disadvantages of fluids with high gel strengths
are, however, s o well recognized that ways will
almost surely be found to avoid their use.
The fourth line in Table 1 concerns the length of
pipe in the hole. Both Cannon and Goins found that
their measured pressure changes were proportional
t o this length. T h e explanation already given of
running pressure and pulling suction shows that
this should be so. Theory indicates that it should
WELL, JR.
be so, whether the drilling fluid i s gel-strength con-
trolled or not.
The next two,lines of Table 1may be convenient-
ly discussed together. Cannon found small effects
from changing the bit-drainage rate and from chang-
ing the diameter of the drill collar. Goins found
large effects. Here again, the apparent difference
i s not caused by a difference between pulling suc-
tion and running pressure; it i s because of the
difference in the drilling fluids used. The effects of
balled collars and plugged bits have been discussed
in a previous section of this report. It was explain-
ed that increases in pulling suction or running pres-
sure are produced because balling or plugging ne-
c e s s i t a t e s higher counterflow velocities in the re-
maining open space. Once again, it need only be
recalled that gel-strength controlled fluids such a s
those used by Cannon do not produce significantly
higher pressures when they are caused to flow more
rapidly. Most of the pressure they will produce has
already been produced when they are caused to flow
a t all. T h i s explains why Cannon's results on bit
drainage differ from the recent results of Goins.
The last line in Table 1 concerns the fluid den-
sity. Cannon found no effect of density; Goins ap-
parently did not look for one. Theory indicates there
should be a negligible density elfect throughout the
pulling or running process.
Most of the differences have now been explained
between the results of Cannon and the results of
Coins and his associates. There remains one more
point that demands explanation. Cannon's paper did
not even mention running pressure. From this lack
of mention, a reader might presume that running
pressure was relatively unimportant. On the other
hand, Goins and his associates did attempt to meas-
sure both running pressure and pulling suction
(which they called "swabbing effect") under com-
parable hole conditions, and their measurements in-
dicated pulling suction to be a smaller efTect. The
explanation given by Coins was a s follows: "In the
t e s t s reported here the mud did not have high gel
strengths. Consequently the swabbing effects were
of a low order." ,
Now, the present report has indicated that running
pressure and pulling suction should be of the same
magnitude and should differ only in direction. It has
also indicated that gel strength must have the same
effect on both running pressure and pulling suction,
s o the absence of high gel strengths could not be
the reason that pulling suction looked smaller than
ruilning pressure in the experiments of Coins. The
true explanation seems to be that pulling i s normal-
ly a slower process than running. If the pulling
suctions of Coins and associates, a s g a p h e d in
 PRESSURE CHANGES IN DMLLING WELLS CAUSED BY PIPE MOVEMENT
their F i g . 10,' a r e multiplied by t h e r a t i o o f t h e
"average time to withdraw one stand" to the "aver-
a g e time to drop 90 ft of pipe," t h e pulling s u c t i o n s
plot very well on their Fig. 4'' with the running
p r e s s u r e s ; and they are j u s t a s large.
REFERENCES
'Cannon,G. E: Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure Due to
Withdrawing Drill Pipe from the Hole, Drrlling and P r o -
d u c t r o n P r a c t r c e , 42 (1934).
Laney, L. K: Ref. 1, p. 47.
Heald, li. C.: Deep-well Drilling Problems and Their
Solution, Drrllrng and P r o d u c t r o n P r a c t r c e , 49 (1936).
4
Anon: Drillrng Mud, 5, July, 1949, (publication of
Baroid Sales Div., The National Lead Co.)
chancy, P. E : Abnormal Pressure Surges and Lost
Circulation, Drrllrng and P r o d u c t c o n P r a c t c c e , 145
(1949).
MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PRESSURE CHANGES RESULTING FROhl P I P E MOTION
An e x a c t mathematical theory of pressure chang-
e s resulting from pipe motion i s impracticable to
formulate. T h i s i s mainly b e c a u s e drilling fluids
have v i s c o s i t i e s that vary non-linearly with the rate
a t which they a r e sheared. T o account rigorously
for t h i s variation would require more labor than the
present problem justifies. It i s f e a s i b l e , however.
to formulate an approximate mathematical theory
that i s satisfactory for practical purposes and which
y i e l d s formulas useful for predictions of a c t u a l pres-
s u r e changes. It i s convenient t o c a l c u l a t e the pres-
s u r e changes that would occur if a very thin-walled
pipe were moved in a hole filled with a liquid of con-
s t a n t viscosity, a so-called Newtonian liquid.
Consider a long cylindrical pipe of r a d i u s S and
negligible wall thickness. L e t t h e a x i s of t h e pipe
coincide with t h e a x i s of a cylindrical hole of larger
r a d i u s R, and l e t a l l the s p a c e inside t h e hole, in-
cluding the s p a c e inside the pipe, be filled with an
incompressible liquid of v i s c o s i t y p. L e t a l l liquid
flow be parallel t o t h e a x i s , and symmetrical about
the axis. and l e t i t be of the type usually c a l l e d
v i s c o u s or laminar flow.
T h e fundamental equation for laminar v i s c o u s
flow with a x i a l symmetry i s the following:*
wherein:
x = d i s t a n c e along the a x i s of flow.
p = pressure.
p = d e n s i t y of t h e fluid.
g = gravitational acceleration.
h = vertical distance.
* ~ o u s e , H: Fluzd Yechanrcs for H ~ d r a u l r c E n g r e e r s .
McGrew-Hill B o o k Company, Inc., New York, 1938.
107
6
Horn, A. J: &ell Blowouts in California Drilling Oper-
ations, Causes and Suggestions for Prevention, Drrll-
rng and P r o d u c t c o n P r a c t r c e , 112 (1950).
7
Goins, W.C., Jr; Weichert, J. P; Burba. J. L., Jr; Daw-
son,D.D. Jr; and Teplitz, A.J: Down-the-hole Pressure
Surges and Their Effect on Loss of Circulation, Drill-
zng and P r o d u c t i o n P r a c t r c e , 125 (1951).
8
Cardwell, W.T., Jr: Drilling-Fluid Viscosirnetry, Drrll-
rng a n d P r o d u c t r o n P r a c t i c e , 104 (1941).
"Watkins, T. E. and Nelson, M. D: Measuring and ~ntkr-
preting High-temperature Gel Strengths of Drilling
Fluids, T r a n s . A m . l n s t . Mrnrng Met. E n g r s . ( P e t r o -
l e u m D e v e l o p m e n t and T e c h n o l o g y ) 198, 213 (1953).
APPENDIX
p = v i s c o s i t y of t h e liquid.
r = d i s t a n c e from t h e a x i s .
v = v e l ~ c i t yparallel t o the a x i s , or
velocity in the x direction.
In t h e present problem, t h e direction of x may be
taken t o be vertically downward. Equation A 1 may
then be written:
( d V)
ap
--pg=TSr a r7 (A21
ax
In simple a x i a l flow, none of the q u a n t i t i e s v a r i e s
in the x direction e x c e p t the pressure, and the pres-
s u r e drop must be the s a m e for a n y increment of x.
s o equation A2 may be simplified to:
wherein:
Ap = total pressure change over t h e length 1.
1 = length of the system. In t h e p r e s e n t problem,
1 is conveniently considered t o b e the length
to which cylinder S i s immersed in cylinder
R.
An approximation i s implicitly introduced in equa-
tion A3. Certain end e f f e c t s a r e neglected. Actually,
there could not b e simple axial flow c l e a r t o the
e n d s of t h e s y s t e m of length 1; but, if 1 i s very large
compared t o R, i t i s permissible to neglect non-
a x i a l flow a t the ends.
It i s convenient now t o rewrite equation A3 in
the form that b e s t s h o w s that t h e p r e s s u r e s being
studied a r e d e v i a t i o n s from t h e hydrostatic head.
L e t P be the deviation from the hydrostatic head:
160,
108 W. T. CAR WELL, JR.
then equation A3 may be written: . ratio, z. It i s graphed in Fig. A l . T h e function be-
Equation A5 i s now t o be used t o find t h e liquid
flux in two regions: 1, inside the pipe of r a d i u s S;
and 2, inside the annulus between the pipe and the
hole of radius R.
Equation A5 must b e s e p a r a t e l y integrated over
the two regions, taking into account the assumption
t h a t the pipe itself i s moving with velocity u. Inte-
gration over the region inside the pipe g i v e s the
following expression for the flux inside t h e pipe, 3:
Equation A6 i s recognizable a s the familiar P o i -
s e u i l l e ' s law for viscous, flow in a pipe, p l u s a
simple added term which a c c o u n t s for the movement
of the pipe, and which is merely t h e product of t h e
pipe a r e a and the pipe velocity,
Integration of equation A5 over the annular region
g- i v e s a more complicated expression for t h e annular
flux, Q;:
Equation A7 c o n s i s t s of two parts, j u s t a s did equa-
tion A6, one of the p a r t s representing t h e flux due
t o the pressure deviation from the hydrostatic head
and t h e other representing the flux due t o the pipe
movement.
Now, if the hole of r a d i u s R i s closed a t ,the bot-
tom,.the two fluxes must c a n c e l e a c h other:
and t h i s g i v e s r i s e t o the equation:
I P i p e Size, In.
I 3
or:
wherein: z = R / S , the r a d i u s ratio. T h e bracketed
.quantity in equation A9 is a function of t h e r a d i u s
g i n s a t the value 2; for t h e c a s e when the pipe h a s
the same r a d i u s a s the hole. A s the radius r a t i o in-
c r e a s e s . the function F ( z ) i n c r e a s e s t o a maximum
and then diminishes asymptotically to zero.
T h e maximum in the F(g) curve s e e m s surprising
a t first examination. Some simple experiments wit1
liquids in variously s i z e d g l a s s t u b e s provide a
clue t o t h e meaning of t h e maximum. 1 f ' a tube i s
pushed downward in a s e c o n d tube only a little
larger than itself, the s u r f a c e in the annulus f a l l s
and the surface inside the inner tube r i s e s . On the
other hand, if a tube i s pushed downward in a much
larger second tube. the s u r f a c e of t h e liquid in the
inner tube will fall and the s u r f a c e in the a n n u l u s
will rise. At some intermediate r a d i u s ratio, there
will be no r i s e or f a l l in either the inner tube or the
annulus. It turns out t h a t the r a d i u s ratio a t which
there will be no net velocity of the liquid either in
the inner tube or in the a n n u l u s i s about 1.7, and
t h i s i s t h e approximate value a t which the maximum
of F(z) occurs. It s e e m s intuitively reasonable that
the .maximum pressure disturbance s h o u l d ' occur
when there i s no net flow tending to relieve the
downward dragging of liquid and i t i s probably b e s t
to think of the no-net-flow condition a s t h e c a u s e of
the maximum of F(z). Actually, the value of z for
no-net-flow i s s l i g h t l y different from t h e v a l u e for
maximum F(z), but the difference h a s little practical
significance.
Equation A10. in conjunction with Fig. A l , per-
mits the calculation of running p r e s s u r e s and pull-
ing s u c t i o n s in s y s t e m s filled with Newtonian liquid.
Equation A10 s h o w s that in s u c h a s y s t e m , t h e pres-
s u r e drop i s proportional t o the length, t o the vis-
c o s i t y of the liquid. and t o the velocity of move-
ment. T h e pressure drop i s positive if the velocity
i s positive ,(downward) and negative if t h e velocity
i s negative (upward).
Equation A10 w a s used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e c u r v e s
in F i g . 3 of the paper. In t h e calculations. drill pipe
w a s assumed t o have no wall t h i c k n e s s , and the
following s i n g l e radii were a s s u m e d t o represent
the conventional pipe s i z e s : ,
Assumed Single Radius, In.
2% 1.3
1.6
4 2.1
Of course, equation A10 (in conjunction with Fig.
A l ) r e p r e s e n t s the behavior of only a Newtonian
fluid, and i t would s e e m d e s i r a b l e t o derive a n equa-
tion that represented a non-Newtonian fluid having
a viscosity that d e c r e a s e d with increasing s h e a r i n g
rate. However, it i s known in a d v a n c e that, if s u c h
 P R E S S U R E C H A N G E S IN D R n L I N G WELLS CAUSED BY PIPE MOVEMENT
Fig. Al-The Function of Hole-to-pipe Radius
an equation could be derived. it would contain a t
l e a s t one more constant than equation A1O. A t l e a s t
two c o n s t a n t s are n e c e s s a r y t o d e s c r i b e the .viscous
behavior of a non-Newtonian fluid. F o r instance, one
may b e a "viscosity," or a "fluidity," and the other
a "yield 'value." Present-day field ,measurements
would not supply those constants.. Until the time
when more elaborate viscometric measurements a r e
made in the field, it s e e m s e x p e d i t i o u s to leave the
theory of running pressure and pulling s u c t i o n in
i t s s i m p l e s t p o s s i b l e form, a form that requires only
one constant t o characterize the fluid. T h i s is on
the condition that the simple theory. i s not in con-
flict with known f a c t s regarding running pressure
109
R tio to Which the Pressure Change i s Proportional
a n d ' pulling suction; and indeed, i t d o e s not s e e m
t o , be. When Cannon performed h i s pulling s u c t i o n
experiments, Newtonian theory would have been en-
tirely inadequate to explain t h e insensitivity of pull-
ing s u c t i o n t o r a t e of pulling. However, drilling
fluids now a c t u a l l y tend t o b e much more New-
tonian. T h e experiments of C o i n s and his a s s o -
c i a t e s , particularly the o n e s graphed in their Fig. 6,
show that modern drilling fluids in the running
or pulling p r o c e s s give pressure c h a n g e s almost
proportional t o velocity, as if they had approximate-
l y constant effective , v i s c o s i t i e s . Therefore, on the
grounds of present 'experimental evidence, i t s e e m s
unwise t o g o t o the added difficulty of deriving a
110 W. T. CARDWELL, JR.
non-Piewtonian the-ory for running pressure and pull-
ing suction.
id^ from a complete characterization of the drill-
ing fluid, it might seem that several other important
factors have been neglected in the theory outlined.
Some of these are:
a. Effects of acceleration and deceleration.
b. Effects of hole irregularities.
c. Effects of tool joints and protectors.
The neglect of accelerative and de-celerative ef-
fects seems justified on the ground that in the par-
ticular type of process considered, the pressure
change results from fluid that i s dragged along by
the pipe, and viscous fluid drag does not develop
instantaneously; it begins in a boundary layer and
spreads outward. Although the pertinent time con-
s t a n t s are unknown, it seems reasonable to assume
that accelerative effects would be damped out, un-
DISCUSSION
George E. Cannon (Ilumble Oil and Refining CO.,
Houston): Mr. Cardwell has presented an excellent
paper on a very important subject. At the time we
made our initial tests, the main problem we were
considering was the cause of blowouts from normal-
pressure wells. In fact, very little was known about
abnormally high formation pressures. Goins and co-
workers had a problem of lost returns in trying to
control abnormally high formation pressures. This
accounts for the difference in emphasis placed on
the data obtained.
In the paper entitled "Changes in Hydrostatic
Pressure Due to Withdrawing Drill Pipe from the
Hole," Fig. 3 shows the type of chart obtained when
the pressure gage was dropped into the bottom of
cased hole and was independent of the drill pipe.
An inspection of this chart will show that, a s the
pipe w a s lowered into the hole and approached the
pressure gage resting on bottom, pressure surges
were recorded of about the same magnitude a s pres-
sure losses.
Mr. Catdwell h a s presented a reasonable explana-
t i o n , a s to the reason viscosity effects were not ob-
served in the report referred to above. Another very
cpntributing factor, however, was probably the chart
speed being s o slow that any effect due to viscosity,
which would be considerably l e s s than that due to
the gelation of the mud, wou1.d appear a t some lower
value on the same line showing the gelation effect.
A s 'for speed of withdrawal, the same probably i s
true-the gelation effect being greater than the vis-
cosity effect. In this s e r i e s of t e s t s the magnitude
of the number would probably have been about the
same had the pipe been moved only a few feet a t
any speed obtainable with the drawworks in use a t
that time.
l e s s experimental evidence indicates otherwise
which, fortunately, it does not. It would be exceed-
ingly difficult to duplicate accelerations and decel-
erations in the operation of running Or pulling pipe;
and, if accelerative effects were significant, one
could hardly hope to obtain data such a s those in
Fig. 6 of Goins that are smoothly dependent upon
average velocity.
Neglect of the effects of hole irregularities. tool
joints, and protectors i s justified on the ground that
running pressure and pulling suction result from the
movement of the entire pipe with respect to the en-
tire hole. Irregularities do not make a significant
contribution to the running pressure orpullingsuction
unless they occupy a significant fraction of the drill
string, or unless they markedly constrict the annu-
l u s a s do balled bits and collais. The effects of
balling were considered in the main body of this
paper.
When the pressure drop caused by pipe movement
i s primarily controlled by mud viscosity and thus
may be considered a s a flow phenomenon, Mr. Card-
well has utilized classical pressure-drop equations
for laminar or viscous flow corrected with a viscos-
ity to correlate the calculated and observed read-
ings. It i s believed that a t least in the mid-continent
and Gulf Coast areas where 300-centipoise muds
are seldom, if ever, encountered and flow under the
conditions being considered i s turbulent, a more
realistic approach to determining the magnitude of
these pressure surges i s to calculate the rate of
flow to which the pipe movement i s equivalent and
add the pressure drops for these rates of flow using
published data on drilling-rig hydraulic systems.
Humble has published some of these data based
on purely experimental observation. The Hughes
Tool Company has published a more comprehensive
manual entitled Hydraulics of Rotary Drilling.
These methods give the same results for 4'4-in.
OD drill pipe in 8)/,-in. hole a t pipe rates of both
10 and 30 s e c per stand, the only values for which
we have experimental data. The Hughes data corre-
late other conditions presented by Cardwell.
Of much more significance i s the pressure drop
caused by running or pulling long strings of drill
collars at high rates. In this case, a linear velocity
distribution across the annular s p a c e i$ probably
justified. In the annular space around the drill pipe
the pressure drop magnitudes are of a low order and
approximation makes practically no difference in the
total pressure magnitude. It should be pointed out
that these pressure drops are of a linear function of
fluid density.
It should be emphasized that when the pressure
drop i s not viscosity controlled, the pressure drop
i s not only independent of the rate of pulling or drop-
 PRESSURE CHANGES IN DRILLING WELLS CAUSED BY PIPE MOVEMENT
ping the drill pipe but a l s o practically no movement
o f the drill pipe is required t o r e a c h the maximam
pressure.
W.C. Goins, Jr. (Gulf O i l Corp., Houston)(written):
Mr. Cardwell h a s made some very interesting obser-
v a t i o n s on the work done by Cannon and by the
group c o n ~ p o s e dof myself a n d a s s o c i a t e s . H i s de-
t a i l e d consideration of f a c t o r s involved in t h e crea-
tion of pressure c h a n g e s due t o pipe movement
should contribute materially to a better understand-
ing of t h i s subject.
Quoting from hid paper: "Running pressure and
pulling s u c t i o n d o ,not occur merely below pipe bot-
tom. T h e y occur all the way up and down the hole.
T h e pressure or s u c t i o n i s l a r g e s t a t and belowpipe
bottom, and from pipe bottom t o s u r f a c e i t decreas-
e s to zero." T h e s e s t a t e m e n t s were apparently de-
duced by Mr. Cardwell from h i s picturization of the
flow c a u s e d by pipe movement. I t should be of inter-
e s t to know that t h e y c a n a l s o be s u b s t a n t i a t e d from
experimental evidence. Cannon measured suction-
pressure effects with a recorder located in some in-
s t a n c e s on the end of the pipe and in other c a s e s
with t h e recorder well below the end of t h e pipe a t
the bottom of the hole. H i s r e s u l t s clearly showed
t h a t the suction p r e s s u r e s e x i s t e d from the end of
the pipe to the bottom of the hole. In more r e c e n t
and unpublished work by my a s s o c i a t e s and myself,
pressure recorders were mounted both a t the end of
t h e pipe and a t points back t o the surface. A s Mr.
Cardwell h a s concluded, w e found. t h a t running pres-
s u r e and pulling s u c t i o n did e x i s t along the pipe
and that they were approximately proportional t o
depth.
Mr. Cardwell w a s a l s o correct in h i s s t a t e m e n t
t h a t a prohibitively large number of experiments
would be n e c e s s a r y t o determine t h e individual effect
of the s e v e r a l f a c t o r s affecting running pressure a n d
pulling suction. A s he s t a t e d , i t would be prohibi-
tively expensive and this, as well as the uncertain-
t i e s connected with a d e q u a t e l y determining the ap-
parent v i s c o s i t y of the muds in the hole, kept my
a s s o c i a t e s and myself from attempting a d e t a i l e d
study.
If, a s hlr. Cardwell believes, there i s a tendency
t o interpret the d a t a in Cannon's and our p a p e r s a s
indicating that balling i s n e c e s s a r y for the creation
of s u c t i o n pressure, i t is unfortunate. Much of the
d a t a w a s obtained when no balling, either r e a l or
simulated by large drill collars, w a s present. Both
p a p e r s indicate that the p r e s s u r e changes due t o
pipe movement a r e large without balling, but that
t h e y will be s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e d if balling is
present.
T h e chart which w a s presented i s a s good as
111
could be made considering the available d a t a and
t h e f a c t that no consideration c a n b e taken of varia-
t i o n s in annular c l e a r a n c e s around tool joints, drill
collars, and protectors, apparent v i s c o s i t y of t h e
mud, and hole enlargements. Comparison of sample
chart readings with available d a t a showed differences
were generally l e s s than 125 psi. T h i s should be
s a t i s f a c t o r y for e s t i m a t i n g purposes.
I t should be emphasized, however, that t h i s chart
i s only useful for e s t i m a t i n g the pressure changes
d u e to running and pulling s t a n d s of pipe. If t h e bit
is plugged, a back-pressure valve or s o l i d 1ift.nip-
ple i s used, or balling e x i s t s , the pressure c h a n g e s
will be s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased. Further, t h e pres-
s u r e s u r g e s due t o movement of pipe without circu-
lation a r e not a s S g t e a t as with circulation. T h i s w a s
shown in my a s s o c i a t e s ' and my paper where the
length of t h e kelly joint w a s spudded while circulat-
ing. It would be u s e l e s s for a n operator t o control
the rate of ,running and pulling drill pipe in a well
and ignore the e f f e c t s of f a s t movement of the pipe
while circulating or reaming. Cardwell might a l s o
find i t p o s s i b l e t o make a chart b a s e d upon t h i s ef-
fect, and i t would be of value equal t o the one he
h a s already presented. He h a s already shown a pos-
s i b l e explanation for the i n c r e a s e s in pressure with
circulation or plugged pipe. In h i s diagram of mud
flow in moving pipe, there i s shown a tendency for.
the pressure change developed below the pipe to be
relieved by flow inside the pipe. If t h i s is plugged
off, or if there i s forced circulation, then i t would
be expected that pressure c h a n g e s below a n d out-
s i d e the pipe would be greater.
T h e author. h a s somewhat misinterpreted our s t a t e -
ments: "In t h e t e s t s reported here the mud did not
have high gel strengths. Consequently the swabbing
effects were of a low order." T h i s w a s not intended
a s a n explanation of the low pulling-suction v a l u e s
a s compared t o high running pressures. Instead, i t
w a s meant t o explain why Cannon recorded high
pulling s u c t i o n when we did not. It may be r e c a l l e d
that he recorded much higher pulling-suction v a l u e s
than we did, e v e n though w e t e s t e d a t r a t e s of with-
drawal of up t o twice a s f a s t a s he reported. T h i s
w a s undoubtedly b e c a u s e of t h e high g e l s t r e n g t h s
of h i s muds. Elad i t been p o s s i b l e with t h e r i g equip-
ment in u s e t o pull pipe a t f a s t e r r a t e s , Cannon
might a l s o have found pulling s u c t i o n t o be propor-
tional t o rate of movement. Cardwell's conclusions
that pulling s u c t i o n would e q u a l running pressure a t
e q u a l pipe-movement r a t e s a p p e a r s reasonable.
It i s n e c e s s a r y t o t a k e i s s u e with only one of the
author's c o n c l u s i o n s and that i s h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t
irregularities c a u s e d b y tool joints and protectors
d o not make a significant contribution t o pressure
s u r g e s . He qualified t h i s s t a t e m e n t by s a y i n g i t w a s
112 W. T. CARDWELL, JR.
true u n l e s s they markedly constrict the annulus, a s
do balled b i t s or drill collars. However, for fear
some may make too liberal interpretation of what
would be a markedly constricted annular s p a c e , the
following i s reported:
In a well a t P e a c h P o i n t with ?-in. c a s i n g a t 10,-
7 2 8 ft and drilling a t 11,095 ft, 3%-in. drill pipe with,^
Ilydril internal-flush tool joints w a s in use. Rubber
c a s i n g protectors were a l s o in u s e on each3-joint
s t a n d t o c a s i n g depth. T h i s left c l e a r a n c e s of 0.638
in. between Protectors and hole, and 0.888 in. be-
tween tool joints and hole. It w a s decided t o sub-
s t i t u t e 3'/,-in. drill pipe with R e e d double-stream-
line, external-internal u p s e t tool joints and t o elim-
inate the protectors. . T h i s increased t h e annular
'Iearances Before gas
was swabbed into the ".'-PP~ mud during
and no g a s w a s found in the mud after the t r i p s with
the streamline pipe, e v e n though mud density had
been reduced to 16.7 ppg. Apparently, the increased
annular c l e a r a n c e s d e c r e a s e d swabbing t o a n e x t e n t
equivalent to 0.6 ppg mud densit), or 340 p s i a t
11,000 ft. Mud properties other than density were
c l o s e l y conirolled durin'g t h i s period and it w a s be-
lieved that they.did not change s o a s t o effect t h i s
event. Had a low-gel lime-treated mud been used in-
s t e a d of the silicate mud, the r e s u l t might have been
l e s s marked, but s u r e l y s t i l l significant.
A frequent question is: Where and t o what e x t e n t
should the methods of running
gnd ~ u l l i n gs u c t i o n be applied? Many w e l l s are s u c -
c e s s f u l l y drilled with only a c a s u a l regard t o ade-
quate annular clearances and low g e l skengths. Most
are drilled without regard to limiting rates of pipe
movement. Because a high percentage do not ex-
perience blowouts and lost it is unrea-
sonable to w g u e thatslowed pipe movements a r e re-
quired a s routine practice. However, there a r e many
areas in which lost circulationis frequently exper-
ienced ir considered probable. As a result, minimum
safe mud densities are also frequently in
these a r e a s . Under s u c h conditions, every precau-
tionmy measure t o prevent swabbing and pressure
surges seems justified.
Appreciation is e x p r e s s e d t o the author of t h e
~ a p e r f o rh i s fine effort. It i s hoped t h a t other con-
tributions will b e made in t h i s field. One specific
need i s for the measurement of p r e s s u r e s resulting
from running c a s i n g , which, b e c a u s e of s m a l l an-
nular c l e a r a n c e s and check v a l v e s in the string, a r e
probably much higher than occur with drill pipe.