One Eye Industries · Magnetic Filtration Technology

The damage you cannot see, in the fluid you cannot clean.
Why sub-4-micron wear particles never settle out.

Below about four microns, ferrous wear debris stops behaving like a solid and starts behaving like part of the fluid. Gravity does not remove it. Settling tanks do not remove it. Centrifuges do not remove it. Media filters cannot remove it without stripping out the barite you paid for. It circulates, and it keeps cutting. This is the physics — and the one technology that beats it.

Act 01 — The suspension trap

A settling tank is a size filter, and the fines fail to qualify.

Drop steel wear debris into drilling mud and watch. The coarse swarf a ditch magnet is built for hits the bottom in minutes. The fine fraction — the abrasive that actually cuts your pumps, motors and MWD tools — is still hanging in the fluid weeks later. Press play and run the clock forward.

100 µm — coarse swarf 40 µm — visible grit 4 µm — clearance-killer 2 µm — invisible abrasive 0.5 µm — sub-micron

Compressed view raises every vertical rate to the power 0.75, so all five classes move visibly in one window. Real settling spans 40,000:1 — at any single playback speed the coarse fraction would hit the floor before the fines had twitched. Ordering, ratios and Brownian dominance are all preserved; only the spread is squeezed. The true full-drop times in the readout below are always the real Stokes values. Switch to True Stokes for uncompressed physics.

Why it happens

Settling speed is governed by Stokes' law, and it scales with the square of particle diameter. Halve the particle and it falls four times slower.

v = (ρp − ρf) · g · d² ⁄ 18µ

Cut a 100 µm chip down to 2 µm and you have not made it 50 times slower. You have made it 2,500 times slower. Twenty-eight minutes becomes forty-eight days.

Three things gravity is fighting

1 · Brownian motion. Below roughly 1 µm, random molecular bombardment jostles the particle further each second than gravity pulls it down. It performs a random walk, not a descent.

2 · Gel strength. A 2 µm steel particle presses down on the mud at about 0.09 Pa. A typical water-based mud gels at 2.4–14 Pa. The particle is physically not heavy enough to break the gel. It is held, not falling slowly.

3 · Circulation. Its Stokes number is around 6 × 10⁻⁸. It has no inertia of its own. Wherever the fluid goes, it goes — and the fluid goes round the well.

A 400 bbl active system turns over every 28 minutes.
A 2 µm particle needs 48 days of perfectly still fluid to fall two metres. It would have to survive roughly 2,500 complete system turnovers first. It never gets the chance. It is not settling slowly — on any operational timescale, it is not settling at all.

Act 02 — The gap in the train

Every stage of conventional solids control is sized for something bigger.

Solids-control equipment was designed to remove drilled cuttings, not machined wear debris. The train is a coarse-to-fine cascade — shakers screen first, because hydrocyclones plug and erode on unscreened flowline returns, and everything downstream depends on the shakers having gone before it. Follow one batch of fluid through and watch what each stage takes out — and what walks straight through to the pump suction.

All counts are normalised to 1,000 particles entering the flowline, so the figures mean something regardless of how long the simulation has run. Every particle arriving at stage 8 has already survived all seven conventional stages — that population is what reaches your pump on a rig with no CleanMud fitted, so the same run gives both answers at once. Hit CleanMud: IN SERVICE to bypass the unit and watch the outlet fill.

Conventional solids control removes 99.8% of the ferrous mass
and 12% of the particles that actually cut metal.
This is the whole misunderstanding, in one line. Mass is dominated by the coarse chips, because mass scales with the cube of diameter — a single 100-micron chip outweighs eight million half-micron particles. Shakers, cyclones and centrifuges take nearly all of that mass out, the returns look clean, and everyone concludes the system is working. But metal is not worn away by mass. It is worn by the number of hard particles small enough to enter a running clearance — and almost every one of those is still in the fluid.

That is why the first two cards below disagree so violently. Judge the train on mass and it scores 99.8%. Judge it on the sub-4-micron count that destroys pumps, motors and MWD tools, and it scores about 12%. A rig can be removing 99.8% of its ferrous debris and still be circulating essentially all of the damage.

Watch the two magnet stages. Both do real work — the header box takes about three-quarters of the coarse swarf, and the ditch magnets downstream of the shakers pick up much of the coarse ferrous that got through the screens. Neither touches the fines: across everything reaching it, the ditch magnet set removes roughly 1% of the sub-4-micron fraction. Two sets of conventional magnets on the rig, and the material that actually cuts your pumps and tools passes both.

Stage by stage

#StageCut point100 µm40 µm4 µm2 µm0.5 µm
1Header box / possum belly — ditch magnetcoarse ferrousCutSomePassPassPass
2Shale shakers (API 200 mesh)~74 µmCutSomePassPassPass
3Ditch magnets — in the ditch, downstream of shakerscoarse ferrousCutSomePassPassPass
4Sand trap / settlinggravity onlySomePassPassPassPass
5Desander (hydrocyclones > 6 in)~45 µmCutSomePassPassPass
6Desilter (hydrocyclones < 6 in)~20 µmCutCutPassPassPass
7Decanting centrifuge~5–7 µmCutCutSomePassPass
8CleanMud high-gradient magnetic filtration< 0.5 µm ferrousCutCutCutCutCut

The question every engineer asks

"So put a finer filter on it."

You cannot. Barite — the weighting agent you are paying for and depending on for well control — is 2 to 74 microns. A mechanical filter fine enough to catch 2 µm wear debris strips the barite out of your mud at the same time. It blinds off in minutes, the differential pressure runs away, and your mud weight walks off spec.

Mechanical filtration cannot tell the difference between the barite you want and the steel you do not. It only sees size — and at this size, they are the same.

Why magnetics can do what media cannot

A magnetic field does not sort by size. It sorts by magnetic susceptibility.

Steel wear debris is ferromagnetic. Barite is not — barium sulphate is effectively non-magnetic. Bentonite and drilled solids are not. The field reaches into the fluid, takes hold of the ferrous abrasive, and lets everything you actually want flow straight past.

Zero differential pressure. Zero media to blind off. Zero barite loss. That is not a better filter. It is a different physical principle.

Act 03 — Beating gravity by four orders of magnitude

Single pass versus kidney loop.

Left: a ditch magnet. The fluid goes past once, the coarse swarf sticks, the fines carry on. Right: a high-gradient magnetic filtration unit running as a continuous recirculating slip-stream. Modest capture per pass, compounded over hundreds of passes a shift. Watch the two cleanliness curves separate.

On a 2 µm steel particle, a high-gradient field pulls 26,000× harder than gravity.
Gravity moves it 0.48 microns per second. The field moves it 12,600 microns per second. That is the whole argument in one line — and it is why the particle that a settling tank will never see is captured on contact.

Why the loop matters more than the magnet

No single pass through any device is 100% efficient. What matters is how many passes you get.

At a modest 20% capture per pass: five passes gets you to 67%, ten passes to 89%, twenty passes to 99%. A kidney loop on a live active system delivers those passes every shift, automatically, while the well is drilling.

A ditch magnet gets one pass. Ever. That is not a tuning problem — it is the architecture.

What breaks the wear cycle

Wear debris is autocatalytic. Fine abrasive circulating through a pump generates more fine abrasive, which circulates and generates more. Left in the fluid, contamination compounds.

Remove it continuously and the loop inverts: less abrasive means less wear means less abrasive. That is where 30%+ NPT reduction and ~52% longer component life come from. Not from a stronger magnet — from finally taking the fines out.

Stokes settling — calculated

Time for a steel particle to fall 2 metres through still drilling mud.

Steel ρ = 7,800 kg/m³ · mud ρ = 1,200 kg/m³ (10 ppg) · plastic viscosity 30 cP · 60 °C. Brownian displacement from the Stokes–Einstein relation, RMS over one second. The final column is the ratio of random Brownian wander to gravitational fall — above 1.0, the particle is being shaken around faster than it is sinking.

DiameterSettling velocityTime to fall 2 mBrownian (RMS/s)Brownian ÷ gravityStokes number
100 µm1,199 µm/s28 minutes0.018 µm0.001.4 × 10⁻⁴
40 µm192 µm/s2.9 hours0.029 µm0.002.3 × 10⁻⁵
25 µm74.9 µm/s7.4 hours0.036 µm0.009.0 × 10⁻⁶
10 µm12.0 µm/s1.9 days0.057 µm0.001.4 × 10⁻⁶
4 µm1.92 µm/s12.1 days0.090 µm0.052.3 × 10⁻⁷
2 µm0.48 µm/s48.3 days0.128 µm0.275.8 × 10⁻⁸
1 µm0.12 µm/s193 days0.180 µm1.501.4 × 10⁻⁸
0.5 µm0.030 µm/s2.1 years0.255 µm8.513.6 × 10⁻⁹

Gel strength — the particle cannot break through

Buoyant weight spread over the particle's cross-section, versus the shear stress a mud gel resists.

DiameterBuoyant stressvs 2.4–14 Pa gel
100 µm4.32 PaMarginal
40 µm1.73 PaHeld
10 µm0.43 PaHeld
2 µm0.086 PaHeld
0.5 µm0.022 PaHeld

A 2 µm particle exerts roughly 1/100th of the stress needed to move through a gelled mud. When circulation stops, it does not slowly sink. It is locked in place.

Magnetic force vs gravity — 2 µm steel in mud

Saturation magnetisation 1.7 × 10⁶ A/m. Migration velocity from force balance against Stokes drag.

Field gradientForce vs gravityMigration velocity
500 T/m13,100×6.3 mm/s
1,000 T/m26,300×12.6 mm/s
5,000 T/m131,000×63.0 mm/s
— gravity —0.00048 mm/s

The magnetic force scales with particle volume, so it does fall away for the very finest debris — which is exactly why high gradient and many passes both matter. Field strength alone is not the answer; field gradient plus a recirculating loop is.

Kidney-loop compounding

Cumulative removal = 1 − (1 − p)ⁿ, for per-pass efficiency p over n passes.

Per-pass efficiency1 pass5102050100
10%10.0%41.0%65.1%87.8%99.5%99.997%
20%20.0%67.2%89.3%98.8%99.999%~100%
30%30.0%83.2%97.2%99.9%~100%~100%

A ditch magnet lives permanently in the "1 pass" column. That is the entire difference between the two technologies, expressed as a single number.

Basis of calculation. Stokes' law terminal velocity for a rigid sphere at Reynolds number below 1; Stokes–Einstein diffusion for Brownian RMS displacement; particle relaxation time over a 1-second flow timescale for the Stokes number; magnetic body force F = V·Ms·∇B balanced against Stokes drag. Steel ρ = 7,800 kg/m³. Mud modelled as a Newtonian fluid at ρ = 1,200 kg/m³ (10 ppg) and 30 cP at 60 °C — real drilling muds are non-Newtonian and shear-thinning, which makes fine-particle settling slower still, not faster. Equipment cut points are industry-typical ranges and vary by make, screen, feed and operating condition. Capture-down-to-0.5-micron, 30%+ NPT reduction and ~52% component-life figures are OEI / CleanMud vendor field and demonstration data. Representative and illustrative — confirm against field data for any specific application; not a guaranteed result.

Act 03 model. Deliberately conservative. The kidney loop is modelled as treating a 15% slip-stream, not full flow, on a 400 bbl active system turning over 2.14 times an hour. Element capture efficiency saturates at 55% per pass and falls with particle size (about 18% per pass on 2 µm at 1,000 T/m, 6% on 0.5 µm), so the effective removal per system turnover is only 1–8%. Even on those numbers the loop clears roughly three-quarters of the 2 µm fraction over a 24-hour shift, against about 1% for a single-pass ditch magnet. Increase the slip-stream, the gradient or the shift length and the gap widens — the point stands without needing generous assumptions.

Note on wording. Fine particles are not "unaffected by gravity" — gravity acts on them normally. What is true, and stronger, is that the gravitational settling rate is overwhelmed by viscous drag, Brownian motion, mud gel strength and circulation, to the point where settling is irrelevant on any operational timescale. That version survives technical challenge; the first version does not.