Purpose:

By doing this experiment we become familiar with the procedure

which we should follow to make the basic drilling mud (water&bentonite)
without additives. Also to be familiar with the properties of the drilling fluid
(using mud balance & V_G meter) which are due to the addition of the
bentonite, that is making the drilling mud denser and also other important
property which is causing the drilling mud to be viscose and increasing the
electrostatic forces of drilling fluid (called gel strength) to suspend and carry
the cuttings to the surface.

This experiment also helps us to distinguish the type of fluid from view
point of rheological properties.

Results & Interpretations:

The data taken from the experiment are as follows:

For MW=8.58ppg (bentonite weight=28gr):

θ 12 8.5 7 5.5 2.5 2

ώ(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

For MW=8.68ppg (bentonite weight=40gr):

θ 25 20 17.5 14.5 13 12

ώ(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

www.petroman.ir
a) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (on 3*5 log-log scale):
1)
Apparent viscosity Vs. Shear rate
for MW=8.58 ppg (log-log)
100

viscosity
apparent
10

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
shear rate

apparent 6 8.5 10.5 16.5 12.5 20

viscosity(cp)
shear rate 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

2)
apparent viscosity Vs. shear rate
for MW=8.68 ppg (log-log)
10000

1000
viscosity
apparent

100

10

1
1 10 shear rate 100 1000

apparent 12.5 20 26.25 43.5 650 1200

viscosity(cp)
shear rate 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

www.petroman.ir
 3

www.petroman.ir
b) Shear stress vs. shear rate:
1)
shear stress Vs. shear rate
for MW=8.58 ppg
8000
shear stress 6000
4000
2000
0
0 500 1000 1500
shear rate

Shear 6130.8 4342.65 3576.3 2809.95 1277.25 1021.8

stress

shear 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

rate

2)
shear stress VS. shear rate
14000 for MW=8.68ppg
12000
shear stress

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
shear rate

Shear 12772.5 10218 8940.75 7408.05 6641.7 6130.6

stress

shear 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

rate

www.petroman.ir
 5

www.petroman.ir
c) Gel strength vs. time:
1)
gel strength vs. time(min)for MW=8.58ppg
10
8
gel strength
6
4
2
0
0 5 time(min) 10 15

Gel strength 6 8

Time(min) 0.667 10

2)
gel strength vs. time(min) for MW=8.68ppg
25
20
gel strength

15
10
5
0
0 5 time(min) 10 15

Gel strength 15 19.5

Time(min) 0.667 10

www.petroman.ir
 7

www.petroman.ir
D) Effective viscosity vs. shear rate:
1)
effective viscosity vs. shear rate
for MW=8.58
60
50

viscosity(cp)
effective 40
30
20
10
0
0 500 shear rate 1000 1500

Effective 6.8307 2.7314 4.44 7.3461 11.549 50

viscosity
(cp)

shear 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

rate

2)
effective viscosity vs. shear rate
for MW=8.68
80
viscosity(cp)

60
effective

40

20

0
0 200 400
shear600
rate 800 1000 1200

Effective 0.4206 7.889 8.2931 7.6545 12.65 70.089

viscosity
(cp)

shear 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

rate

www.petroman.ir
 9

www.petroman.ir
E) Mud weight vs. %solid by weight:

m w (ppg) vs. %solid by w eight

8.7

8.65

8.6
mw(ppg)

8.55

8.5

8.45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
%solid

Mud 8.58 8.5 8.5 8.68 8.6 8.65

weight(ppg)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

10

www.petroman.ir
 F) Plastic viscosity vs. %solid by weight:

plastic viscosity vs. % solid by weight

6

plastic viscosity
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8
%solid

Plastic 3.5 3 4 5 4 5
viscosity
(cp)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

11

www.petroman.ir
G) Apparent viscosity vs. %solid by weight:

apparent viscosity vs.%solid by weight

14

apparent viscosity
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8
%solid

Apparent 6 6 6.5 12.5 10.5 11.5

viscosity(cp)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

12

www.petroman.ir
H) Initial gel strength vs. %solid by weight:

initial gel strength vs. %solid by weight

20

initial gel strength

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8
%solid

Initial gel 6 4 4 15 5 13
strength(lbf/100ft2)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

13

www.petroman.ir
I) 10 min gel strength vs. %solid by weight:

10 min gel strength vs. persent solid by

weight
50
10min 40
gel 30
20
10
0
0 2 4
%solid 6 8

10 min gel 8 11 5 19.5 43 17

strength(lbf/100ft2)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

14

www.petroman.ir
J) Yield point vs. %solid by weight:

yeild point vs. %solid by weight

20

15
yield point
10

0
0 2 %solid 4 6 8

Yield 5 6 5 15 13 13
point(lbf/100ft2)
%solid 3.88 4.41 4.9 5.45 5.96 6.5

15

www.petroman.ir
Conclusions:

As it can be seen from the graphs, the behavior of the fluid is as

nonnewtonian pseudo plastic behavior. But there are some sources of errors
which has caused some deflections in the resultant diagrams which are as
follows:
1. The fresh water used has some contaminants.
2. Some errors occurred in the calibration of the mud
balance.
3. Some errors due to not being familiar with the way of
working with the V-G viscometer.
4. And also errors occurred when reading the dial.
And etc.
How ever this experiment is very useful to analyze the types of the fluids,
their behavior and the key properties to distinguish them.

Answer to the questions:

1) The bentonite used for drilling mud has the composition of the
montomorillanite but some Al3+ cat ions replacing Mg 2+ which causes
the montomorillanite structure to have an excess of electrons which
this negative charge is satisfied by loosely cat ions from the associated
water so the sheet like structure of the montomorillanite is stacked
with water and loosely held cat ions between them. polar molecules
such as water can enter between the unit layers and increasing the
interlayer spacing cause the bentonite to swell and build up the
viscosity.
2) Number of bbls of drilling mud can be made by 1 ton of clay with the
apparent viscosity of 15 cp when the shear rate of the viscometer is
600rpm.
3&4) if we want to model our fluid as Bingham plastic we do need two
parameters called plastic viscosity (µp=θ600- θ300) and yield point
(τy= θ300-µp).in fact µp is the resistance of Bingham plastic fluid to shear
after it has been reached to its yield point. And the yield point is the
maximum stress that fluid can sustain so that up to this point γ=0 and it
doesn’t move. These parameters depend on the some factor such as
temperature, pressure, MW, %solid by weight, the strength of the bonds
and etc.

16

www.petroman.ir
5) gel strength is another parameter to determine the non Newtonian fluid
and is obtained when dial deflects the maximum point when the
viscometer is turned at 3 rpm after the mud has remained static for 10
sec. this parameter shows the strength of the bonds which is needed to
hold and carry the cuttings to the surface.
6) Yield point shows the strength of the molecular bonds between the
molecules of the fluid but gel strength shows the strength and is the point
up to which the shear rate is zero and this much is needed to dominate the
molecular bonds and force the fluid to move. But gel strength is the
maximum force needed to break the bonds at some low rotor speed.
Yield point is obtained by comparison between two high rotor speeds but
gel strength is obtained directly from viscometer.

17

www.petroman.ir
Purpose:

Doing this experiment we want to move a step further and be familiar with
other component of drilling fluid which mainly its function is to make the
drilling fluid denser and heavier to produce a required hydrostatic pressure
and also knowing how to calculate the amount of this component to reach
the desired MW.
In this experiment also we want to study the effect of this weighting material
on rheological properties of the mud.

Results and interpretations:

Data of the experiment:
Mbentonite=36gr vwater=700cc
MWi=8.55 ppg
Reqired barite=251gr
 MW=11.92 gr
Other properties of this mud are as fallowes:

θ 35 26 22 19 13 10
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3
2
Initial gel strength=12 lbf/100ft
10-min gel strength=16 lbf/100ft2
V1=400cc
=>(v2(experimentally)=460 gr v2(theoretically)=458.441)

Amount of water should be added to reach the MW=10ppg calculated by

formula =411.6 cc
MW=9.9ppg

θ 16.5 11 7 5 3 1
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3
2
Initial gel strength=5.5 lbf/100ft
10-min gel strength=7 lbf/100ft2 (transition between one phase& two
phase)

www.petroman.ir
A) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale):
app vis vs shear rate log-log scale
(Barite added)
MW=11.92ppg
1000
apparent vis
100
µa; cp
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
shear rate ; 1/s

shear
rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109
µa; cp 17.5 26 33 57 650 1000

app vis vs shear rate log-log

(Water added)MW=9.9ppg
1000
apparent vis

100
µa; cp

10

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
shear rate ; 1/s

shear
rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109
µa; cp 8.25 11 10.5 15 150 100

www.petroman.ir
 3

www.petroman.ir
b) Shear rate vs. viscosity:

shear stress vs shear rate (Barite

added)MW=11.92ppg
40

shear stress
30

20

10

0
0 500shear rate; 1/s
1000 1500

stress;lbf/100ft2 37.3 27.7 23.5 20.3 13.9 5.4

shear rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

shear stress vs shear rate (Water

added)MW=9.9ppg
20
shear stress

15
10
5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

shear rate; 1/s

stress;lbf/100ft2 17.6 11.7 7.5 5.3 3.2 1.1

shear rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

www.petroman.ir
 5

www.petroman.ir
c) Gel strength vs. time:

gel strength vs time

(Bariteadded)MW=11.92ppg
20
gel strength;
lbf/100ft2.
15
10
5
0
0 5 time;min 10 15

gel strength;lbf/100ft2 12 16
time; min 0.167 10

gel strength vs time (Water added)MW=9.9ppg

8
strength;lbf/100ft2.

6
gel

4
2
0
0 5 time;min 10 15

gel strength;lbf/100ft2 5.5 7

time; min 0.167 10

www.petroman.ir
 7

www.petroman.ir
D) Effective viscosity vs. shear rate:

effective vis vs shear rate

(Barite added)MW=11.92ppg
1200
1000
vis µa; cp
effective

800
600
400
200
0
0 500
shear rate ; 1/s 1000 1500

µe; cp 17.5 26 33 57 650 1000

shear
rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

app vis vs shear rate (Water added)MW=9.9ppg

200
apparent vis µa;

150

100
cp

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
shear rate ; 1/s

µe; cp 8.25 11 10.5 15 150 100

shear
rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109

www.petroman.ir
 9

www.petroman.ir
Conclusions:

Considering the following table which is the good comparison between the
types of the mud (data from experiments 1&2):

Water Water Water

+bentonite +bentonite+barite +bentonite+barite
(MW=8.55ppg) (MW=11.92ppg) (MW=9.9ppg)
µa(cp) 6.5 17.5 8.25
µp(cp) 4 9 5.5
2
τy (lbf/100ft ) 5 17 5.5
10 min gel 8 (≥3; enough 16 7
2
strength(lbf/100ft ) to suspend the (nearly two phase)
barite particles)

Comparing the above data we can reach the following results:

 Addition of the barite causes the increase in τy(most rapidly), µa(most
rapidly), µp which are of negative effects of the barite.
 In last stage adding the water and decreasing the MW to about 10ppg
strongly decreases the mud rheological properties which the most
negative effect of this process is the decrease in 10 min gel strength
because excess water weakens the electrostatic forces between
molecules and causes the solid particles to settle down.

Answer to the questions:

1. To increase the weight of the mud which as result increasing

the hydrostatic head at the bottom of the well and this; in turn
helps the controlling the formation pressure because the only
way to control the high pressure formations is the pressure of
the mud.
2. barite(barium sulfate),galena(lead sulfide), hematite(iron
oxide),magnetite(iron oxide),calcium carbonate(lime
stone),potassium chloride…

10

www.petroman.ir
 3. Some factors which make a substance to be the suitable
weighting material are; hardness (which is important from
abrasive point of view), particle sizes (important from the
carrying capacity point of view), specific gravity (important
because of pump power needed to circulate the mud) & etc.
since barite has the suitable hardness, particle sizes& specific
gravity to do normal drilling operation (which needs the
MW<15ppg) so frequently it is used as weighting material.
4. If mud isn’t viscous enough, then mud wouldn’t have enough
gel strength to suspend barite particles and they will settle down
the well bore and will cause some problems such as decrease in
carrying capacity, decrease in rpm and etc.
5.
v1 =initial volume of the mud, bbl
v2 = final volume of the mud, bbl
ρ1=initial mud density, ppg
ρ2 = desired mud density, ppg
ρm = density of added material, ppg
m = weight of added material, ppg

ρ2v2=m+ρ1v1 (1) & v2= v1+m/ρm (2)

Putting v2 in equation (1) well get:

ρ2 (v1+m/ρm )=m+ρ1v1

Now solving the equation for m:

m (lb*bbl/gal)= ρm(lb/gal)* v1(bbl) (ρ2- ρ1)/ (ρm- ρ2) & 1bbl=42 gal

So;

m (lb)= ρm(lb/gal)*42(gal/bbl)* v1(bbl) (ρ2- ρ1)/ (ρm- ρ2) (3)

Now, for finding v2 we put equation (3) in to the equation (2) we will
get to:
v2= v1(ρm- ρ1)/ (ρm- ρ2)

11

www.petroman.ir
 6. P=γ h=ρ(g/gc)h
So;
P=15.5(lb/gal)*[(32.175 ft/s2)/ (32.175 ft *lbm/lbf*s2)]*1550 ft (1 gal / 0.135
ft3)*(1 ft2 /144 in2) =1235.85 psi

References:
 Applied drilling engineering (Adam T.Bourgoyne jr. Keith
K.Millheim Martine E.cheneveret F.S.young Jr.)
 Hand out of drilling eng. (Dr. shadi zadeh)

12

www.petroman.ir
Purpose:
In this experiment we want to simulate and investigate another process
which is occurred by drilling mud as it is circulated in the well bore during
drilling operation which s filtration.
Doing this experiment we can see; how this process occurs and most
importantly how it’s being affected by some mud additives; so that it should
be taken in account as we want to design the drilling fluid for drilling
operations at several types of formations.
Also in this experiment we became familiar with other mud additive (used
generally for thinning the drilling the drilling fluid) and its effect on
rheological properties of the mud.

Results and interpretations:

Mudcake thickness for basic mud made from three equivalents bbl(3*350cc)
of mud with 18 lb/bbl of bentonite:
(0.0014)*32inches

After adding 10ml phosphate in to the two third of the above basic mud the
properties of result mud are as follow:

Mudcake thickness= (0.001314)* 32inches

MW=8.55 ppg

θ 11.5 7 5.5 4 2 1
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

Initial gel strength=3.5 lbf/100ft2

10-min gel strength=8 lbf/100ft2

www.petroman.ir
 1) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale):
a) For basic mud
b) For basic mud with phosphate added
Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale)
1000
apparent vscosity (cp) a
100
b
10

1
1 10 100
shear rate (1/s) 1000 10000

shear
rate;1/s 1021.8 510.9 340.6 170.3 10.218 5.109
µa; cp
(For basic
mud) 6.5 9 12 21 200 300
µa; cp
(For basic
mud with
phosphate
added ) 5.75 7 8.25 12 100 100

www.petroman.ir
2) Gel strength vs. time:
a) For basic mud
b) For basic mud with phosphate added
gel strength vs. time
10
strength(lb/100ft^2)
8 b
6
gel

4
a
2

0
0 5 T(min) 10 15
gel strength;lbf/100ft2
(For basic mud) 4 5
gel strength;lbf/100ft2
(For basic mud with phosphate
added ) 3.5 8
time; min 0.167 10

www.petroman.ir
3) Volume of filtrate (cc) vs. T0.5:
a) For basic mud
b) For basic mud with phosphate added
volume of filtrate (cc)vs. t^.5(min)
20
volume of filtrate

15 a
10
(cc)

5 b

0
0 1 T^0.5(min) 2 3
a)
Volume of 5 10 12.5 15 17.6 18
filtrate (cc)
T0.5(min) 0.577 1.43 1.88 2.24 2.74 2.84
b)
Volume of 1.5 5.5 6.8 8.4 10 11 12 13 14
filtrate (cc)
T0.5(min) 0.408 0.707 1 1.41 1.732 2 2.24 2.45 2.74

www.petroman.ir
Conclusion:
From above graphs and explanations it’s obvious that addition of phosphate
causes decrease in viscosity which is useful to decrease the corrosion of the
drill string as well as bore hole surface; of course decrease in viscosity
should be up its optimum point.
Also comparing the mud cake thicknesses before and after addition of the
phosphate shows and confirms the above result that is because of thinning
effect of this material.
During this experiment there were some sources of errors which are as
follow:
1. Error in reading volume of graduated tube because of:
a) Rapid increase in the filtrate level at the beginning of the
filtration process.
b) Concavity of the filtrate surface at the graduated tube.
2. Error due to leakage of air from cell because of not compact sealing
the lid of the cell.
3. Other usual error due to dial reading of viscometer either apparatus
error or human error which are more intuitive at low speeds.

Answer to the questions:

1) Fluid loss causes the formation fluid to retreat from the well bore zone
by sinking the filtrates in to the formation and as a result avoids the
kick off from being occurred at high pressure zones. Also, the mud
cake formed at the well bore surface causes the well bore to be
stabilized.
2) Spurt loss volume of the filtrate is the volume which is observed
before the porosity and permeability of the filter cake stabilizes.
3) From formation characteristic point of view; the permeability and
porosity of the formation and from drilling fluid properties point of
view; solid percentage, size and type of the solids are important
factors which control the fluid loss in the formation.
4)
a) In real drilling operations; drilling fluid circulates whereas this
process in the experiment is done when the drilling fluid is in the
static situation.
b) In real drilling operations; this process mostly is done on the
vertical wall but in the experiment we did this on horizontal filter
paper.

www.petroman.ir
 c) The standard pressure acted on the cell is 100 psig which in reality
it may be much more than this amount.
5) High solid content drilling mud assuming to be well chosen (that is
being perfect for well temperature and pressure) , has a positive point
which is ,rapidly filling in pore spaces and avoiding more fluid from
being lost.
But problem which may occur during the drilling is that this high solid
content mud needs more pump power to be circulated and also this mud
will be more corrosive either for well bore or for drill string.

www.petroman.ir
Purpose:
Doing this experiment we are going to be familiarized with effect of other
filtration control materials which are added to drilling mud to control the
excess filtration of drilling mud in to the high porous and permeable
formations.
Of course this addition will cause some changes in rheological properties of
the drilling mud, which we're going to study them in this report.

Results and interpretations:

Raw data taken from this experiment are as follow:

Drilling mud made from two equivalents bbl (2*350cc) of mud with 18
lb/bbl of bentonite and 1 lb/bbl of starch:
MW=8.5 ppg
Initial gel strength=15.5 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=20 lbf/100ft2
Mudcake thickness= ( /32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 40 33.5 30 26 15.5 13.5

ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

Drilling mud made from two equivalents bbl (2*350cc) of mud with 18
lb/bbl of bentonite and 1 lb/bbl of CMC:
MW=8.4 ppg
Initial gel strength=21 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=55 lbf/100ft2

Mudcake thickness= ( /32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 81 57 46 34 17 15
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

www.petroman.ir
1) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale):
a) For base mud
b) For base mud with starch added
c) For base mud with CMC added

Apparent viscosity Vs. Shear rate

10000
apparent viscosity

1000

c
100

a
10
b
1

1 10 100 1000 10000

shear rate

primary mud starch added CMC added

2 2
shear rate(1/s) µa(lb/100ft ) µa(lb/100ft ) µa(lb/100ft2)
1021.8 6.5 20 30.5
510.9 9 33.5 57
340.6 12 45 69
170.3 21 78 102
10.218 200 775 850
5.109 300 1350 1500

www.petroman.ir
2) Gel strength vs. time:
a) For base mud
b) For base mud with starch added
c) For base mud with CMC added
Gel strength Vs. Time

60
Gel strength (lb/100ft 2)

50
c
40

30
b
20

10
a
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time(m in)

Time(min) primary mud starch added CMC added

0.167 4 15.5 21
10 5 20 55

www.petroman.ir
3) Volume of filtrate (cc) vs. T0.5:
a) For base mud
b) For base mud with starch added
c) For base mud with CMC added
1/2
Filtrate Volume Vs. t

16
14
12
a b
Filtrate(cc)

10
8
6
4
2 c
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1/2
t (m in)

primary mud starch added CMC added

1/2
t (sec) Fitrate(cc) Fitrate(cc) Fitrate(cc)
0.408656 1.5 2.6 1.8
0.707107 5.5 3.6 2.2
1 6.8 4.4 2.6
1.414214 8.4 5.4 3
1.732051 10 6.2 3.4
2 11 6.6 3.8
2.236068 12 7.2 4.1
2.44949 13 7.8 4.4
2.645751 14 8.2 4.8
2.738613 14.1 8.5 4.9

www.petroman.ir
Conclusion:
From results and interpretations it can be concluded that the addition of
these filtration control agents is useful for preventing of additional loss of
drilling fluid.
But as it is obvious from the graphs these materials have serious effects on
rheological properties of the mud so, this should be considered so that these
materials don’t face the pumping facilities with crucial problems.
Fortunately this experiment has been done with logical precise as the data
and graphs agree with this fact. Some possible errors may be due to
instruments.

Answer to the questions:

1) CMC and starch are examples of water-soluble polymers which when

added to drilling mud they reduce water loss by increasing the
effective water viscosity which is because of the formation of long
chain polymers.
2) In addition to CMC and starch also some other materials such as
sodium polyacrylate (polymer), lignite (low rank of coal between peat
and subbituminous), humic acid (not well-defined chemically) are
used as filtration control agents.
3) Starch is used in mud with high salt concentration (PH>11.5) also it is
good to say that this material isn’t suitable at temperatures more than
200°F (because of degradation). CMC is useful at temperatures up to
300°Fand is less effective at salt concentrations above 50000ppm.
4) Starch, because it is relatively unaffected by water salinity where
CMC or another agent can't be used.
5) Since starch is subject to bacterial action so, it must be used in
saturated salt water mud or the mud with PH greater than 11.5.

www.petroman.ir
Purpose:
This experiment wants to show the effect of the PH increasing material (NA
OH) and the other mud additive called lignin (used as thinner) on
rheological properties of drilling mud.
So following this experiment will help us to determine the conditions under
which we can use these materials as additives (these conditions are being
dictated by the nature).

Results and interpretations:

Raw data taken from this experiment are as follow:

Drilling mud made from two equivalents bbl (2*350cc) of mud with 18
lb/bbl of bentonite and 0.5 lb/bbl of NAOH:
MW=8.53 ppg
Initial gel strength=42 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=36 lbf/100ft2
Mudcake thickness= (2.416/32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 132 127 122 110 51 40

ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

Drilling mud made from two equivalents bbl (2*350cc) of mud with 18
lb/bbl of bentonite , 0.5 lb/bbl of NAOH and 1 lb/bbl lignin:
MW=8.48 ppg
Initial gel strength=7 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=6 lbf/100ft2

Mudcake thickness= (1.045/32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 14 8 6 4 2 1
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

www.petroman.ir
 1) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale):
a) Base mud
b) NAOH treated mud
c) NAOH treated mud with lignin added

Apparent viscosity Vs. Shear rate

10000

a
apparent viscosity (cp)

1000

100 c

10 b

1 10 100 1000 10000

shear rate(1/s)

primary mud NAOH added NAOH&lignin

shear rate(1/s) µa(cp) µa(cp) µa(cp)
1021.8 6.5 66 7
510.9 9 127 8
340.6 12 183 9
170.3 21 330 12
10.218 200 2550 100
5.109 300 4000 100

A sample calculation is as follows:

µa=300* θN/N

θN=132(lb/100ft2)
=> µa=300* 132/600=66cp
N=600(rpm)

www.petroman.ir
 3

www.petroman.ir
2) Gel strength vs. time:
a) Base mud
b) NAOH treated mud
c) NAOH treated mud with lignin added
Gel strength Vs. Time

45
40
Gel strength(lb/100ft 2)

35
30 b
25
20
15 a
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 c 10 12
Time(m in)

NAOH
Time(min) primary mud added lignin&NAOH
0.167 4 42 7
10 5 36 6

www.petroman.ir
3) Volume of filtrate (cc) vs. T0.5:
a) base mud
b) NAOH treated mud
c) NAOH treated mud with lignin added
1/2
Filtrate Volume Vs. t

20
18
16
14
b
Filtrate(cc)

12
10
a
8
6
4
2
c
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1/2
t (m in)

primary mud NAOH added +lignin&NAOH

1/2
t (sec) Fitrate(cc) Fitrate(cc) Fitrate(cc)
0.408656 4.2 2.8
0.707107 5.5 5.6 3.4
1 6.8 7.2 4
1.414214 8.4 9.6 5.2
1.732051 10 11.7 6
2 11 13.2 6.8
2.236068 12 14.16 7.4
2.44949 13 16 8
2.645751 14 17 8.4
2.738613 14.1 17.6 8.6

www.petroman.ir
 6

www.petroman.ir
Conclusion:
Studying the data taken from this experiment we can conclude that
increasing the PH of the drilling mud causes the great increase in the
viscosity of drilling fluid, so this should be taken in account when drilling
through formations which are more sensitive to high PH environment such
as in shaly formations.
From results and interpretations it is obvious that addition of lignin causes a
great decrease in the viscosity of the drilling mud as well as filtration
volume.

Answer to the questions:

1) Thinners are materials which decrease the viscosity of drilling mud

with reducing the tendency of mud to flocculate.
2) The materials which are used for decreasing the viscosity of the
drilling mud are: phosphates,tannins,lignins,lignosulfonates.
3) Thinners reduce the volume of the filtration as well as decrease in
viscosity.
4) Lignite materials remove calcium by precipitation .it should be
considered that the concentration of lignite shouldn’t exceed from 10
lb/bbl since a rigid gel is formed when calcium enters mud having a
high concentration of lignite.

www.petroman.ir
Purpose:

The main purpose which we are looking for in this experiment is to see how
the NaCl concentration in base mud causes changes in rheological
properties of the drilling mud as well as its effect on the filtration loss.

Results and interpretations:

The data taken from the experiment are as follow:

(16 gr bentonite +350cc water+3.5gr NACL)*2:
MW=8.48 ppg
Initial gel strength=8 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=9 lbf/100ft2
Mudcake thickness= (0.0428/32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 18 13 11 8 5 4
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

(16 gr bentonite +350cc water+52.5gr NACL)*2:

MW=9.1 ppg
Initial gel strength=8 lbf/100ft2
10-min gel strength=10 lbf/100ft2
Mudcake thickness= (0.106/32) inches

θ(lbf/100ft2) 24 20 17 15 7 4
ω(rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

www.petroman.ir
 1) Apparent viscosity vs. shear rate (log-log scale):
Apparent viscosity Vs. Shear rate
1000

100
viscosity

10

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
shear rate

3.5 gr salt 52.5 gr salt primary mud

primary 16
gr mud mud+3.5 gr salt mud+52.5 gr salt
µa
γ (1/s) (lb/100ft2) µa (lb/100ft2) µa (lb/100ft2)
1022 6 9 12
511 9 13 20
340.66667 10.5 16.5 25.5
170.33333 15 24 45
10.22 150 250 350
5.11 300 400 400

A sample calculation is as follows:

µa=300* θN/N

θN=18(lb/100ft2)
=> µa=300* 18/600=9cp
N=600(rpm)

As it can be seen from the graph increasing the salt concentration causes the
increase in the apparent viscosity of the drilling mud.
A thing which is more interesting in these graphs is the behavior of the
drilling muds at lowest shear rate which roughly can be said that at lower
shear rate these three types exhibit the same viscosity. So; from here we can
say that salt at low shear rate doesn’t show its effect strictly.
Also salt doesn’t affect the trend of graphs that show decrease in the µa by
increase in the shear rate.

www.petroman.ir
2) Shear stress vs. shear rate:
shear stress Vs. shear rate
25

20
a
shear stress

15

10

b 5
c
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
shear rate

3.5 gr salt 52.5 gr salt primary mud

primary 16
gr mud mud+3.5 gr salt mud+52.5 gr salt
γ (1/s) Τ(lb/100ft2) Τ(lb/100ft2) Τ(lb/100ft2)
1022 12 18.00 24.00
511 9 13.00 20.00
340.66667 7 11.00 17.00
170.33333 5 8.00 15.00
10.22 3 5.00 7.00
5.11 2 4.00 4.00
These graphs also confirm the interpretations of graph set (1). As tangent
lines show, salt contamination also increases the yield point of the drilling
muds.the yield points are as follow:

a(yield point of the base mud+52.5 gr salt)=15.5 (lb/100ft2)

b(yield point of the base mud+3.5 gr salt)=7 (lb/100ft2)
c(yield point of the base mud)=5 (lb/100ft2)

www.petroman.ir
3) Gel strength vs. time:
gel strength vs time
12
gel strength (lb/100ft2) 10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t (min)
3.5 gr salt 52.5 gr salt primary mud

primary 16
gr mud mud+3.5 gr salt mud+52.5 gr salt
t(min) τg(lb/100ft2) τg(lb/100ft2) τg(lb/100ft2)
0.17 4 8 8
10 5 9 10

These graphs show the effect of the salt contamination on the gel strength of
the drilling mud. As it is obvious, the addition of the salt causes the increase
in the gel strength of the drilling fluid.
And the data taken from the experiment show the behavior of the good gel
for these three types of mud.

www.petroman.ir
4) Effective viscosity vs. shear rate:
Effective v iscosity Vs. Shear rate
500

400
viscosity

300

200

100

0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
shear rate

3.5 gr salt 52.5 gr salt primary mud

primary 16
gr mud mud+3.5 gr salt mud+52.5 gr salt
µe
γ (1/s) (lb/100ft2) µe (lb/100ft2) µe (lb/100ft2)
1022 6.5 9 12
511 9 13 20
340.66667 12 16.5 25.5
170.33333 21 24 45
10.22 200 250 350
5.11 300 400 400

This graph also confirms the result of graph set (1) and the fact that by
increasing the shear rate viscosity for these three types of the drilling mud
decreases which show the pseudo plastic behavior of them, and also
increasing the salt contamination of the drilling fluid increases the viscosity.

www.petroman.ir
5) Mud weight vs. PPM of salt:

MW vs. ppm of salt

10 salt (ppm) MW(ppg)

9
0 8.5
8
7 1960 8.5
6
4885 8.5
MW

5
4
9722 8.5
3
2 14513 8.5
1
0 46792 8.8
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
salt ppm 128364 9.1

This graph shows that increasing the salt contamination doesn’t affect the
mud weight of the drilling fluid.

www.petroman.ir
6) Plastic viscosity vs. ppm of salt:

plastic viscosity vs. ppm of salt

10 salt (ppm) µp
9
0 3
8
a
7 1960 4
plastic viscosity

6
4885 2
5

4 b
9722 5
3

2
14513 3
1

0
46792 3
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

salt ppm 128364 4

Part (a) shows the effect of the NA+ ions which increase the viscosity up to
max. Point and extra addition of these cat ions cause the formation of the
large particles (aggregation of the clay particles) as a result facing with two
phase fluid and decrease in the viscosity.
Part (b) shows the effect of the CL- ions which increase the viscosity up to
max. Point and extra addition of these anions cause decrease in the viscosity
up to some point and remaining approximately constant.

www.petroman.ir
7) Apparent viscosity vs. ppm of salt:
apparent viscosity vs. ppm of salt (1)
12
11
10
9 salt (ppm) µa
8 0 6
Apparent viscosity

7 1960 8
6 4885 7
5 9722 9
4
14513 6.5
46792 8.5
3
128364 12
2
1
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

salt ppm

This graph also confirms the result of the graph (6), but a great jump in point
(1) seems to be error.

www.petroman.ir
8) Initial gel strength vs. ppm of salt:

initial gel strength vs. ppm of salt

12
11
10
9
initial gel strength

8
τg(lb/100ft2);
7
salt (ppm) 10 S
6
5
0 4
4 1960 7
3 4885 6
2
9722 8
1
0
14513 5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 46792 8
128364 8
s alt ppm

9) 10 min gel strength vs. ppm of salt:

10 m inute ge l stre ngth vs. ppm of s alt

12
11
10
9
10 minute gel strength

8
7 τg(lb/100ft2);
6 salt (ppm) 10 min
5 0 4
4 1960 7
3
4885 6
2
1 9722 8
0 14513 5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 46792 8
128364 8
s alt ppm

These graphs show that salt concentration has the same effect on the gel
strength as on the viscosity.

www.petroman.ir
10) Yield point vs. ppm of salt:

yield point vs. ppm of salt

16
15
14
13
12 a
11
10 salt (ppm) τy(lb/100ft2)
9
yield point

8 0 6
7 1960 8
6
5 b 4885 10
4
3 9722 8
2 14513 7
1
0 46792 11
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 128364 16

salt ppm

This graph shows that the yield point also changes with addition &
increasing the salt content of the drilling fluid.
As it is clear in the graph by addition of the salt we have increase in the yield
point up to point (a) which is because of increase in the electrostatic forces
between the clay particles due to presence of NA+ ions. But as the
concentration of these ions increases from an optimum point, aggregated
particles become larger and we see the decrease in the yield point up to point
(b). After this point the effect of the Cl- ions appears and we can see the
increase in the yield point.

10

www.petroman.ir
11) 30 min fluid loss (cc) vs. ppm of salt:

30 min fluid
salt (ppm) loss(cc)
0 41.8
1960 33
4885 37
9722 37.6
14513 42.2
46792 89.2
128364 162.4

At lower concentrations nearly we have the same fluid losses but as we

increase the concentration of the salt contamination of the drilling fluid we
can see the huge amount of increase in the fluid loss which it may be
because of the decrease in the amount of the flocculated clay particles.

Conclusion:
By studying the stuffs mentioned in the report we can conclude that the
addition of the salt causes the serious changes in the rheological properties
of the drilling fluid which from these changes we can detect the existence of
the salty formation in the drilling section.
Also considering the above results we can use salt to increase the viscosity,
yield point and gel strength (of course at low PPMs) without seriously
affecting in the filtration loss.

Answer to the questions:

1) as NaCl concentration increases in the drilling fluid then Na+ cations
will aggregate the clay particles so that we will face with two phase
fluid which this in turn will cause the decrease in r=the viscosity.
2) At extremely high salt concentrations salt-water clays such as
attapulgite and sepiolite can be used.
3) If we face with continuose decrease in the viscosity then we can say
that this is due to saline water other wise it will be due to facing with
salty formation.
4) By increasing the hydrostatic pressure via increase in the MW.
5) If wash out is in the salty formation then by using the salt saturated
drilling mud so that extra salt can't be dissolved in the drilling mud.

11

www.petroman.ir