IPTC-19205-MS

Less Damaging Drilling Fluids: Development and Lab Testing

Sara Alkhalaf, Mohammed Alawami, Vikrant Wagle, and Abdullah Al-Yami, Saudi ARAMCO

Copyright 2019, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26 – 28 March 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The properties of the selected drilling fluid must be carefully planned to have minimal effects on the near-
wellbore pore spaces. Proper mixing, monitoring, and maintenance of the drilling fluid throughout the
drilling operations are as critical as the careful planning. Solids control equipment should be operated to
remove the cuttings and maintain the density and rheological properties consistent.
The characteristics of an effective reservoir fluid system include stability at high pressures and
temperatures, proper and stable density, good filtration control, ability to transport cuttings, and minimal
damage to formation pore spaces, Davidson et al. 1997. Selection of the most suitable drilling fluid additives
takes into consideration numerous factors such as downhole conditions (pressure and temperature),
formation type and petro physical properties, and the objective of the drilling operation.
The experimental work in this paper involved rheological properties, thermal stability, API and HT/HP
filtration and acid filter cake removal efficiency.
Tangentional flooding showed that water based Mn3O4 drill-in fluid has the highest return permeability
compared to the typical drill-in fluids (KCl/CaCO3/Barite and potassium drill-in fluids). Potassium
formate drill-in fluid filtrate was not compatible with brine. This incompatibility explained its low return
permeability in spite of its low solids content. Oil based drilling fluid was developed and tested with good
acceptable results. Filter cake removal efficiency was showing more than 95%, indicating its removable
formation damage.

Introduction
Utilizing drilling fluids in oil & gas drilling operations cannot be avoided. Selection of the best and most
applicable drilling fluid system maximizes well's productivity and reduces drilling cost without damaging
equipment or the surrounding environment (Hestad et al. 2018). Drilling fluids are evaluated during the
planning phase based on the technical requirements of the well and the environmental regulations of the
region (Fornasier et al. 2017). The chemical properties of the fluid are also critical since they directly affect
drilling performance and, most importantly, formation damage in productive zones.
The design and selection of drilling fluids have been the focus of countless research and experimental
studies. McCaskill and Bradford have detailed some factors that should be considered in the design of
2 IPTC-19205-MS

drilling fluids. Formation permeability, for example, should determine the filtration characteristics of the
fluid. Temperature and formation sensitivity to water determine the most suitable polymer type and type of
drill-in fluids. Other factors suggested by the authors include the rheological properties of the fluid that are
critical to provide a sufficient carrying capacity and minimal filtration losses.
Carico and Bagshaw presented different polymers that can be used to control filtration loss, viscosity
and shale stabilization. Each polymer has its own advantages and shortcomings in how they impact the
rheological properties and filtration of drilling fluids. Some polymers, such as xanthan gum and starch,
degrade at high temperatures and lose their viscosity due to their instability in harsh environments. Some
polymers are not effective in salt solutions because salt inhibits the hydration of the polymers and thus
reduces their effectiveness. Assessing the compatibility between the polymers and the drilling fluids
is essential to achieve solids suspension, good rheology, and filtration control. These properties ensure
effective hole cleaning and minimal formation damage.
The objective of this research is to highlight reservoir-friendly water-based and oil-based drilling fluids
that display low formation damage and/or acid-soluble filter cake.

Water Based Drilling Fluids

Fresh water, seawater, and brines are the most typical based for the water base fluid. Weighting agents are
material added to increase density to control formation pressure. Barite is a typical additive to increase
density, however, barite sagging is a big concern that can lead to many problems such as stuck pipe, also
barite is not acid soluble, Caenn et al. 2017.
Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is another common weighting agent additive that used to increase drilling
fluid density; also, CaCO3 is used as a bridging agent to improve filtration control. CaCO3 is acid soluble
and is suitable additive for both oil base and water base drilling fluids, Caenn et al. 2017. However, it has
lower specific gravity compared to barite (2.78 vs. 4.2 for barite).
Zinc oxide (ZnO), and Zirconium oxide (ZrO2) could also be used as weighting additives, both have
high specific gravities of 5.6 and 5.7 respectively. ZnO and ZrO2 are soluble in different acids such as
Hydrochloric acid (HCl), Hydrofluoric acid (HF) and Sulfuric acid (H2SO4), Caenn et al. 2017.
Small particle size, spherical shape, high specific gravity (4.8 g/cm3), and acid solubility make Manganese
tetraoxide (Mn3O4) an ideal weighting agent, Moroni et al. 2008. Manganese tetraoxide (Mn3O4) used in
water based fluid and oil-base fluid resulted in less formation damage, Al-Yami et al. 2008.
Starch is a natural polymer used in water-based drilling fluid as fluid loss controller, However, starch
tends to degrade at high temperatures which affect fluid viscosity, increase fluid loss and lead to formation
damage. Previous study showed that degradation problem of starch could be eliminated by chemical
modification, Al-Yami et al. 2008.
A viscosifier is an additive used to increases viscosity of drilling fluids. Xanthan gum is a typical
viscosifier required for drilling fluids to have sufficient carrying capacity and cuttings suspension, Navarrete
et al. 2000 and, and Caenn et al. 1996.
Xanthan gum is a polymer of five ring-repeating units comprising of two rings backbone and three rings
as a side chain, Fig.1. Viscosfying properties of xanthan come from the various functional groups that are
attached to the rings in the side chain, thus xanthan has the ability of forming hydrogen bond between the
hydrogen and the side groups creating a tangled network of a bound molecules.
IPTC-19205-MS 3

Figure 1—Chemical structure of xanthan gum

CMC and HEC are polymers for increasing viscosity and controlling fluid loss. CMC and HEC
are derivatives from natural polymer (cellulose) that is insoluble in water, Fig.2. When hydrogen in
Hydroxymethyl group (CH2OH) in the cellulose chain substituted with anionic Caboxymethyl group
(CH2COO-Na+), then Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is produced and that is water-soluble, however when
the degree of polymerization increase, the molecular weight will increase too, thus the viscosity become
higher.

Figure 2—Chemical structure of cellulose

4 IPTC-19205-MS

On the other hand, when hydrogen in Hydroxymethyl group (CH2OH) in the cellulose chain substituted
with another non-ionic Hydroxymethyl group (CH2OCH2OH), then Hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) is
produced, even though the polymer is non-ionic but the Hydroxyethyl group has the efficiency to make it
water-soluble.

Oil Based Drilling Fluids

Oil base drilling fluid have advantages over water based fluids such as inhibiting shale formation,
maintaining good rheological properties (PV, YP and gel strengths), controlling filtration control, increasing
lubricity, and enhancing temperature stability. Base oils for this type drilling fluids are mineral oil, diesel,
synthetic or vegetable oil. Mineral oil and diesel are toxic to the environment, thus vegetable and synthetic
oils are excellent environmental friendly alternatives because of their non-aromatic content.
Similar to water based drilling fluids, weighting agents are used in oil base drilling fluids. Examples are
CaCO3, barite, ilmenite; iron titanium dioxide (FeTiO3), and hematite iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3). Ilmenite and
hematite have higher densities more than barite (4.79 and 5.26) respectively, Tehrani et al. 2014.
Organophilic clay were modified from clays such as bentonite to provide required properties to the
oilbased drilling fluids. The clay modification requires agents such as quaternary amine or ammonium salt
to form gel structure shown in Fig.3. To achieve the desired yield point and gel strength of the drilling
fluid, optimum concentration of organophilic clay need to be used, Roos et al. 1987. Excess amount of
organophilic clay could lead to negative impact on other drilling fluid properties, which will demand extra
treatment, Wagle et al. 2018.

Figure 3—General chemical structure of organophilic clay

Organic thinners are additives that are added to drilling fluids to reduce gelation and thickening. Excess
gelation and thickening of drilling fluids cause several problems such as:

• Increases in pump pressures required to circulate the mud,

• Slows down drilling rate

• Makes drilling pipe rotation challenging in some cases.

Heavy metal lignosulfonates (HMLS) and mixtures of sulfomethylated tannin (SMT) and a chromium
compound are the most common thinners. Organic thinners are effective at low concentrations at wide range
of temperatures, Borst et al. 1971.
IPTC-19205-MS 5

Since oil base drilling fluid has oil and water oil phases, they will separate immediately, due to the
interfacial tension and repulsion forces. In order to make this mixture a homogenous solution, an emulsifier
is added to be dispersible in the oil phase. Emulsifiers are surfactants (Fig.4) that are partially soluble in each
phase (oil and water), soluble in water due to hydrophilic (polar) head, and soluble in oil due to hydrophobic
(non-polar) tail, Al-Yami et al. 2018.

Figure 4—surfactant structure

Emulsifiers are bipolar molecules, which partially soluble in both emulsion phases, the emulsifier's non-
polar tail will be extended into the non-polar oil phase, and the polar head will be extended into the polar
water phase, Al-Yami et al. 2018.
Based on the internal phase (dispersed phase) and external phase (continuous phase), there are three types
of emulsion; water–in-oil, oil-in-water, and multiple or complex emulsions. The main principal of emulsion
is interfacial film that is formed between oil/water to reduce interfacial tension, and to allow dispersion and
droplet emulsification Al-Yami et al. 2018.

Drilling Fluids in Reservoir Section

One of the most critical segments of drilling operations is drilling the reservoir section. Extra caution must
always be taken in order to ensure the well is delivered with a maximum potential for productivity. The
properties of the selected drilling fluid must be carefully planned to have minimal effects on the near-
wellbore pore spaces. Proper mixing, monitoring, and maintenance of the drilling fluid throughout the
drilling operations are as critical as the careful planning. Solids control equipment should be operated to
remove the cuttings and maintain the density and rheological properties consistent.
The characteristics of an effective reservoir fluid system include stability at high pressures and
temperatures, proper and stable density, good filtration control, ability to transport cuttings, and minimal
damage to formation pore spaces, Davidson et al. 1997. Selection of the most suitable drilling fluid additives
takes into consideration numerous factors such as downhole conditions (pressure and temperature),
formation type and petro physical properties, and the objective of the drilling operation.
6 IPTC-19205-MS

Filter Cake Properties

As a drilling fluid is circulated in and out of the wellbore, the fluid builds up a filter cake along the sidewalls
of the wellbore. The quality of the filter cake is dictated by the properties of the drilling fluid in terms of
particle sizes and concentration in addition to the mud type, Mohamed et al. 2010. Drilling fluids contain
several additives of various particle sizes and chemistries that may results in an ineffective filter cake if
not sized and selected properly. An effective filter cake is especially critical in reservoir sections since the
damage in these sections would affect the productivity of the well. The objective often is to create a thin
filter cake with low permeability that strengthens the wellbore and minimizes the volumes of fluid filtrate
that penetrate the formation, Salehi et al. 2015.

Formation Damage
Formation damage can be defined as "any process, which would cause a reduction in the productivity and/
or injectivity" (Qutob and Byrne. 2015). The causes of formation damage can be categorized as either due
to chemical incompatibility or blockage of formation pores, Mohamed et al. 2010. One example of the
blockage of pores is the invasion of added solids into the reservoir formation, which signifies the importance
of additives selection. The invaded particles settle deep into the formation and block pore spaces. As the
permeability of the reservoir increases, the risks of deeper solids penetration increases. Other forms of
damage caused by blockage include a bad external filter cake created by the fluid and improper solids control
of the drilling fluid, Mohamed et al. 2010.
According to Reed (1989), the filtrate-rock interactions are the most significant mechanisms of formation
damage. The drilling fluid filtrate can penetrate the formation deeper than the added solids, which can
interact with formation fluids and minerals that could swell or result in a scale that plugs the pore spaces.
Invasion of emulsifiers can have a negative impact as well. The emulsifiers can change the formation
wettability and hence affect the permeability of the formation, Mohamed et al. 2010.

Formation Damage Control

The best approach to control formation damage is through the optimization of the drilling fluid design. He
and Stephens (2011) concluded that the bridging particle size distribution is critical to formation damage
control, and in order to achieve a proper distribution, the porosity of the formation must be evaluated. Some
methods include thin section analysis, mercury injection, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis
(He and Stephens. 2011). Another important factor is the filtration control of the drilling fluid. Designing
a drilling fluid that builds an effective filter cake can reduce the invasion of the drilling fluid filtrate and
thus the potential for formation damage.
Evaluation of a drilling fluid design prior to field implementation is essential to avoid irreversible
consequences in terms of formation damage, and laboratory testing is one approach to do so. The return
permeability test through a return Permeameter is one method that can be used to assess the depth of invasion
and the potential formation damage, Ezeakacha et al. 2018. The test fluid is injected into a core sample of
the reservoir formation to evaluate the change in permeability before and after the fluid's injection. The test
can also provide insights on the effectiveness of post-drilling treatments that are employed to restore the
permeability of the formation.

Formation Damage Post-Treatment

In cases where formation damage cannot be mitigated, common solutions to overcome the effects on
the productivity of the well are through acid treatments and fracturing (Reed. 1989). Using the returned
permeability test that is described above, various types and concentrations of acid can be injected into
the core after the injection of the drilling fluid. The permeability of the core sample post acid treatment
IPTC-19205-MS 7

is compared to the original permeability prior to drilling fluid injection to measure the percentage of
permeability that was recovered. The return in permeability can be as low as 0% of the original permeability
and as high as 95% recovery, which is highly dependent on the drilling fluid selection and its compatibility
with the formation type.

Experimental Study
Designing of Fluids
Evaluation of different fluids required testing the following characteristics:
1. Rheological properties
2. API and HP/HT standard filtration, and
3. Thermal stability

Core Flood Testing

The potential formation damage caused by the drilling fluid was evaluated using the dynamic mud loop
apparatus. A schematic diagram of the dynamic mud loop system is shown in Fig. 5. The leak-off core holder
was utilized to measure the permeability before and after the circulation of the drilling fluid. It is designed
to permit a linear flow through the sample (parallel to the face of the sample) in order to simulate the actual
mud circulation that occurs in the well bore. The core holder has a three-way connection to circulate the
mud on the face of the core plug and inject the condensate through the core sample in order to measure the
permeability. A sleeve inside the core holder is used to hold the core plug and apply a confining pressure
on the core plug. Thermocouples are used to measure temperature in the oven and the core holder.

Figure 5—A schematic sketch of the core flood system

The fluids are delivered using pumps at constant flow rates with variable speeds up to 400 cm3/min. The
pumps were used to measure the base and return permeability, and to circulate the drill-in fluids through
8 IPTC-19205-MS

the accumulators. The accumulators have a floating piston and were used to inject the different fluids. The
pressure drop across the core is measured through differential and absolute pressure transducers. A back
pressure regulator (BPR) was used to control the pressure in the flooding system. An air-circulated oven
with a controlled temperature was used to simulate the reservoir temperature. The system is designed to
permit the flow in both forward and reverse direction to simulate the formation-wellbore and the wellbore-
formation directions.
The core sample was saturated under vacuum for more than 2 hours with synthetic formation brine. The
sample was placed in the core holder with a pressure of 1,000 psi. Brine was circulated through the sample
at a pore pressure of 500 psi. More than 10 pore volumes were injected into the core until the pressure drop
across the core is stabilized. More than ten pore volumes of liquid condensate were then pumped at room
temperature to displace the brine and reach reducible water saturation (Swir).
The core holder was placed in the oven with a temperature of 300°F. The liquid condensate was then
injected into the core in the production direction (formation to well-bore side). The baseline permeability
was measured at different flow rates of 1, 2 and 4 cm3/min. The drill-in fluid was poured in the 2 L
accumulator. The end piece of the core holder (from the well bore side) was raised to allow the drill-in fluid
to be placed on the sample face opposite to the production direction. The filtrate was collected from the
outlet line of the sample for 30 minutes at an overbalance pressure of 300 psi.
The dynamic stage was followed by the static stage for 16 hours after the drilling fluid circulation. An
overbalance of 300 psi was applied on the sample during the static mode and the filtrate was collected
in a graduated cylinder. A 10 ml graduated cylinder was placed on the top of the balance to collect and
weigh the leak off during circulation. The data acquisition records the change in weight as a function of
time. The data acquisition has the software to control the variables of the experiment such as the fluid flow
rate, confining pressure and flow direction. Experimental data was collected using an Excel sheet program
installed in the software.
Liquid condensate was then injected through the core sample in the production direction to determine
the return permeability. The core was flooded with liquid condensate at constant flow rate until the pressure
drop across the core becomes stable. At this stage, permeability was measured in a similar way to the base
permeability. Return permeability was measured after circulating the drill-in fluid. The return permeability is
determined using Equation 1. Equation 2 was used to calculate original and post drilling fluids permeability.

(1)

Where,
KR : Return permeability, %
Kd : Post drilling fluid permeability, md
Ko : Original permeability, md

(2)

Where,
 k : Core permeability, md
Q : Flow rate, cm3/min
μ : Fluid viscosity, cp
L : Core length, cm
ΔP : Differential pressure, psig
A : Cross-section area, cm2
IPTC-19205-MS 9

After determining the return permeability, the oven was turned off and the pressure was depleted from
the system. The core sample was then removed from the core holder and the physical appearance of the
sample and filter cake was checked.

Filtrate Compatibility with Brine

Core samples were saturated with a synthetic brine similar to the field to assess the compatibility of the
formation brine with the fluid filtrate. Compatibility tests are conducted by mixing the formation brine with
the fluid filtrate at different ratios and evaluating the damages on the permeability of the core sample. The
tests are conducted at room temperature and reservoir condition. The see-through cell is used to assess the
compatibility at high temperature and pressure.

Filter Cake Removal

The effectiveness of different acids and acid precursors to remove the filter cake were evaluated using HPHT
filter press. A filter cake was initially prepared on a 50µ ceramic disk at 250°F using a 500 ml HPHT cell
according to API 13B-1. The tests were performed by contacting the filter-cake breaker fluids with the filter
cake with a soaking time of 4.5 hours at 250°F. The efficiency of the filter-cake breaker fluids in the removal
or breaking of the filter cake is determined by the following formula:

(3)

Wf = Weight of the filter cake before treatment with breaker fluid

Wa = Weight of the filter cake after treatment with breaker fluid

Results and Discussion

Water Based Drilling Fluids
Tables 1-3 show three water based drilling fluid formulations.

Table 1—Conventional CaCO3/barite drilling fluid formulation

Additive Function Field Unit Field Amount Lab Unit Lab Amount

Water Base Bbl 0.8 grams 280.0

Deformer Anti-foam Gal 0.01 grams 0.83

XC-Polymer Viscosifier Lb 1.0 grams 1.0

Starch Fluid Loss Lb 6.0 grams 6.0

PAC-R Fluid loss/ Viscosifier Lb 0.75 grams 0.75

KCL density and shale inhibition Lb 41.0 grams 41.0

KOH pH control Lb 0.5 grams 0.5

Lime pH control Lb 0.25 grams 0.25

Barite Weighting Material Lb 205.0 grams 205.0

CaCO3 (fine) Weighting Material Lb 7.0 grams 7.0

CaCO3 (medium) Weighting Material Lb 3.0 grams 3.0

Sodium Sulfite Oxygen Scavenger Lb 0.75 grams 0.75

10 IPTC-19205-MS

Table 2—Conventional CaCO3/potassium formate drilling fluid formulation

Additive Function Field Unit Field Amount Lab Unit Lab Amount

Water Base Bbl 0.14 grams 48.65

Potassium Formate density and shale inhibition Bbl 0.86 ml 301.14

Starch Fluid loss Lb 6.0 grams 6.0

Deformer Anti-foam Gal 0.01 grams 0.08

XC-polymer Viscosifier Lb 0.5 grams 0.5

PAC-R Fluid loss/Viscosifier Lb 1.0 grams 1.0

PAC-R-Low Fluid loss/Viscosifier Lb 4.0 grams 4.0

Soda Ash pH control Lb 1.0 grams 1.0

Sodium bicarbonate Buffer Lb 0.5 grams 0.5

CaCO3 (fine) Weighting Material Lb 15.0 grams 15.0

CaCO3 (medium) Weighting Material Lb 5.0 grams 5.0

Sodium Sulfite Oxygen Scavenger Lb 0.75 grams 0.75

Table 3—Water based Mn3O4 drilling fluid formulation

Additive Function Field Unit Field Amount Lab Unit Lab Amount

Water Base Bbl 0.822 grams 287.7

Deformer Anti-form Gal 0.01 grams 0.08

XC-polymer Viscosifier Lb 1.5 gams 1.5

PAC-R Fluid loss/ Viscosifier Lb 1.25 grams 1.25

Resinated lignite HT Fluid loss Lb 6 grams 6

KCI density and shale inhibition Lb 41 grams 41

KOH pH control Lb 0.5 grams 0.5

Mn3O4 Mn3Q4 Lb 205 grams 205

Potassium formate (Table 2) has numerous benefits and advantages such as:

• Dissolves in water, and can form high-density fluids (Howard 1995),

• Creates a very thin filter cake,

• Stabilizes shale, and

• Minimizes differential sticking risks

However, potassium foramte is corrosive due to its reactivity with CO2 that forms formic acid and
precipitation of potassium chloride. Such precipitation damages the formation by plugging the pores, Al-
Yami et al. 2010. Earlier study by Al-Yami et al. 2008 showed that potassium formate could also cause
scaling issues based on the salinity of the formation brine, Fig.6.
IPTC-19205-MS 11

Figure 6—Potassium formate drill-in fluid filtrate and formation brine mixtures were incompatible

Laboratory studies have shown that manganese tetroxide (Table 3) is a better performing weighting
agent and represents an excellent alternative to barite (Table 1) and potassium formate, Table 2. Manganese
tetroxide has a relatively high specific gravity with small particle sizes, which have a positive impact on
the reduction of particle settling and sagging in high-density fluids. Manganese tetroxide particles have
a spherical shape of 4 µm in size and a specific gravity of 4.8 g/cm3. There characteristics result in less
contact between particles (particle-to-particle interactions) as indicated by Al-Yami et al. (2010). Manganese
tetroxide in oil-based drilling fluids have resulted in less formation damages and higher productivity as
shown in the field studies (Al-Yami et al. 2010). Al-Yami et al. 2007 designed a KCl water-based drilling
fluid utilizing manganese tetroxide and Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3). CaCO3 was utilized to enhance the
filtration control of the fluid. Manganese Tetroxide in water-based drilling fluids have shown the highest
return permeability, Table. 4.

Table 4—Flood experiments results of the three drilling fluids

Dynamic
Return Flow Initiation Static Filtration,
Drill-In Fluid Filtration,
Permeability, % Pressure, psi ml/16 hours
ml/30 minutes

CaCO3/Barite Drill-In Fluid 40 2.5 5 15

Potassium formate 42 4 3 2

Mn3O4 Drill-In Fluid 70 2.5 9 13

Oil Based Drilling Fluids

Reservoir friendly reservoir oil based muds were formulated in the presence of acid soluble manganese
tetroxide. 95 pcf oil based drilling fluid was formulated with 70/30 OWR and 220K WPS. The formulated
fluid was hot rolled at 300°F for 16 hrs after which the fluid properties was measured.
12 IPTC-19205-MS

Table 5 gives the rheological and filtration properties of 95pcf oil based drilling fluid after hot rolling
(AHR) for 16 hours at 300°F. The PV and YP of the 95 pcf oil based drilling fluid was within the required
specifications i.e. 25cp and 19 lb/100ft2 respectively. The low plastic viscosity (PV) indicates the fluid
presents lower shear stress values at the higher shear rate values that are typically observed inside the drill
pipe or in slim hole well designs. The PV suppression in turn ensures that the proposed fluid presents low
ECD contribution while drilling/ circulating.

Table 5—Rheological and filtration properties of 95pcf oil based mud

Viscometer Fann 35 AHR

Rheology @ 150 °F

600 rpm 69

300 rpm 44

200 rpm 34

100 rpm 23

6 rpm 8-10 8

3 rpm 7

PV, cP cP <35 25

YP, lb/100ft2 lbs/100 ft2 <25 19

10 sec, lb/100ft2 lbs/100 ft2 10-14 10

10 min, lb/100ft2 lbs/100 ft2 12-15 12

30 min, lb/100ft 2 14

ES @ 150°F volts > 400 280

HPHT filter paper (@ 300 °F)

30 min FL 0.4

2×30 min FL < 4 ml 0.8

Cake Thickness ≤ 2mm 0.8

The dynamic suspension properties are considered optimal for hole cleaning as indicated by compliance
with 6rpm specification range.
The 10sec and 10min gel-strengths were 10 lb/100ft2 and 12 lb/100ft2 respectively. The fluid exhibits
desired gel structure formation as indicated by the rapid increase in gel strengths relative to low shear (3rpm)
values measured. The rapid gels provide the desired suspension characteristics when the fluid is static.
The measured 30min gel strength was 14 lb/100ft2, which indicated that there was not a progressive
gelling tendency of the fluid. This characteristic indicates that lower pressure would be required to break
gel structures and initiate circulation.
The HTHP fluid loss after the 30min test was measured as 0.8ml with a cake thickness of 0.8mm. The
tight fluid loss indicates that the fluid formulation has excellent sealing characteristics from the synthetic
polymer and bridging material additions. The all oil nature of the filtrate confirms adequate emulsification
of the oil based drilling mud system formulated with manganese tetroxide. The non polar nature of the all
oil filtrate ensures that there is compatibility issues between the filtrate and formation or formation fluids.
The thin filter cake measured suggests low contact area of the tubulars with the open hole thus reducing
the risk of differential sticking which can be associated with high angle intervals with high over balance.
IPTC-19205-MS 13

Filter-Cake Breaking Studies of 95pcf Fluid

Filter-cake breaking of the 95 pcf oil based mud was performed using a combination of mineral acid and
an organic acid. The cleaning fluid used in the filter-cake breaking studies is given in Table 6. The cleaning
fluid formulated with a combination of 1w/w% mineral acid and 9%w/w organic acid gave a filter-cake
removal efficiency of 95%, Fig.7.

Figure 7—Filter-cake breaking studies of 95pcf oil based mud

Table 6—Cleaning fluid used for the filter-cake breaking studies

Cleaning fluid formulation

Water As needed

Mineral acid 2 w%

Organic acid 9 w%

Water wetting agent 0.2 vol%

Corrosion inhibitor 2.5 vol%

Conclusions
1. Tangentional core flooding showed that water based Mn3O4 drill-in fluid has the highest return
permeability compared to the typical drill-in fluids (KCl/CaCO3/Barite and potassium drill-in fluids).
2. Potassium formate drill-in fluid filtrate was not compatible with brine. This incompatibility explained
its low return permeability in spite of its low solids content.
3. Oil based drilling fluid was developed and tested with good acceptable results
4. Filter cake removal efficiency was showing more than 95%, indicating its removable formation
damage.

Nomenclature
AHEW = Active hydrogen equivalent weight
API = American Petroleum Institute
Bbl = Barrels
14 IPTC-19205-MS

Bc = Bearden units of consistency

BHCT = Bottom hole circulating temperature
BHST = Bottom hole static temperature
Csg = Casing
DETDA = Diethyltoluenediamine
EEW = Epoxy equivalent weight
Gal = Gallon
Gpm = gallon per minutes
HP/HT = High pressure and high temperature
Hrs. = Hours
pcf = Pounds per cubic foot (lbm/ft3)
Sec = Second
SG = Specific gravity
Tg = Glass transition temperature

Conversion factors

Gal =0.134 ft3

GPM =0.134 ft3/min =0.0283 m3/min
Klb = 454 kg
Klb *ft =138.5 kg*m
Pcf = 0.117 lbm/gal=16.02 kg/m3
Psi =6894.8 Pa

References
Al-Yami, A.S., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Majed A. and Menouar, H.: "Innovative Manganese Tetra-Oxide/KCl Water-Based
Drill-in Fluids paper SPE 110638 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Anaheim, California, U.S.A., November 11–14.
Al-Yami, A.S., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Bataweel, M.A., Al-Majed, A.A., Menouar, H.: Formation Damage Induced by
Various Water-Based Fluids Used To Drill HP/HT wells," paper SPE 112421 presented at the 2008 SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., February 2008
Al-Yami, A. S., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Al-Shafei, M. A., & Bataweel, M. A. (2010, February 1). Impact of Water-
Based Drilling-In Fluids on Solids Invasion and Damage Characteristics. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi:
10.2118/117162-PA.
Al-Yami AS, Wagle Vikrant, Al Shaikh Abrar and Al-Bahrani Hussain. (2018, November 11). Emulsifiers Used in
Designing Emulsion Based Drilling Fluids., Journal of Chemistry. E-ISSN: 2319-9849.
Borst, R. L., & Shell, F. J. (1971, October 1). The Effect of Thinners on the Fabric of Clay Muds and Gels. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/3110-PA.
Carico, R.D. and Bagshaw F.R.: "Description and Use of Polymers Used in Drilling, Workovers, and Completions," paper
SPE 7747 presented at 1978 Production Technology Symposium, New Mexico, Oct. 30-31.
Davidson, E. and Stewart, S. 1997. Open Hole Completions: Drilling Fluid Selection. Presented at the SPE/IADC Middle
East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, 23-25 November. SPE-39284-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/39284-MS.
Ezeakacha, C. P., Salehi, S., Ghalambor, A. et al. 2018. Investigating Impact of Rock Type and Lithology on Mud Invasion
and Formation Damage. Presented at the SPE SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage
Control, 7-9 February, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 7-9 February. SPE-189471-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189471-
MS.
Fornasier, F. C., Campo, M., Djuric, A., & Obando, D. M. (2017, May 17). Designing Environmentally
Conforming Drilling Fluids: Challenges and Considerations in Latin America. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/185492-MS
IPTC-19205-MS 15

He, W. and Stephens, M. P. 2011. Bridging Particle Size Distribution in Drilling Fluid and Formation Damage. Presented at
the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 7-10. SPE-143497-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/143497-MS.
Hestad, V., & Gulbrandsen, A. (2018, January 29). Drilling Fluids Automix. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi:
10.2118/189344-MS.
Howard, S.K.: "Formate Brines for Drilling and Completion: State of the Art," paper SPE 30498 presented at the 1995
Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
McCaskill, J. and Bradford, W.: "Drilling Fluid System for Deep Drilling-An Interrelated Approach," paper SPE 3912
presented at 1972 Deep Drilling Symposium in Amarillo, Tex., Sept. 11-12.
Mohamed, M. S., Rabba, A., Philips, J. E. et al. 2010. Minimizing Wellbore Damage in Sandstone Reservoirs Using
Effective Mud Management Practices. Presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing,
China, June 8-10. SPE-130341-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/130341-MS.
Moroni, L. P., Fraser, J. R., Somerset, R., Jones, A., & Guarneri, A. (2008, January 1). Manganese-Tetraoxide-Weighted
Invert Emulsions as Completion Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/112313-MS.
Navarrete, R. C., Himes, R. E., & Seheult, J. M. (2000, January 1). Applications of Xanthan Gum in Fluid-Loss Control
and Related Formation Damage. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/59535-MS.
Qutob, H. and Byrne, M. 2015. Formation Damage in Tight Gas Reservoir. Presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference and Exhibition, Budapest, Hungary, June 3-5. SPE-174237-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/174237-
MS.
Reed, M. G. 1989. Formation Damage Prevention during Drilling and Completion. Presented at the SPE
Centennial Symposium at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, New Mexico, October 16-19. SPE-20149-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/20149-MS.
Roos, A. J., Cline, J. T., & Schmidt, D. D. (1987, January 1). Evaluation of Additive That Promotes Thixotrophy in Oil-
Based Muds. Petroleum Society of Canada. Doi: 10.2118/87-38-90.
Ryen Caenn, George V. Chillingar, Drilling Fluids: State Of The Art, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
Volume 14, Issues 3–4, 1996, 221-230.
Ryen Caenn, HCH Darley, George R. Gray, Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids, Gulf
Professional Publishing, 2017, 0128050497, 9780128050491.
Salehi, S., Ghalambor, A., Saleh, F. K. et al. 2015. Study of Filtrate and Mud Cake Characterization in HPHT: Implications
for Formation Damage Control. Presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition,
Budapest, Hungary, June 3-5. SPE-174273-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/174273-MS.
Tehrani, A., Cliffe, A., Hodder, M. H., Young, S., Lee, J., Stark, J., & Seale, S. (2014, March 4). Alternative Drilling
Fluid Weighting Agents: A Comprehensive Study on Ilmenite and Hematite. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi:
10.2118/167937-MS.
Wagle, V., Al-Yami, A. S., & AlSafran, A. (2018, August 16). Designing Invert Emulsion Drilling Fluids for HTHP
Conditions. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/192192-MS.