TECHNOLOGY FOCUS

Drilling and
Completion Fluids

When you take a look at the oil industry these days, what is the one thing you Brent Estes, SPE, is a Drilling
hear and read about the most? “Shale plays.” Operators are developing resources, Fluids Specialist for Chevron Energy
purchasing acreage, and purchasing companies that have acreage in the USA and Technology Company supporting world-
in countries around the world, now more than ever before. wide drilling operations. Previously,
For long-term economic stability of these projects, they need to be drilled as
inexpensively and as fast as possible—basically, they need to be “factory-type he was with ExxonMobil and Baroid
wells.” The main fluid-related challenges associated with shale drilling are Drilling Fluids. Estes earned a BS
rate of penetration (ROP), shale stability, torque and drag, and waste manage- degree in petroleum engineering from
ment. Many of these wells are being drilled with nonaqueous fluids (NAFs) Texas A&M University. He has a broad
to meet these challenges, with the only real issue being waste management. background in all aspects of drilling
However, there are technologies being used that reduce the amount of waste
and completion fluids, including fluids
generated with NAFs, such as premium solids-control systems and thermal-
desorption methods. research and development and work-
In an effort to eliminate NAF waste-management issues, drilling-fluids com- ing as a drilling engineer. Estes has
panies have developed fit-for-purpose water-based drilling fluids for each of the authored several SPE papers and serves
major shale plays. The shale regions around the world vary in depth, mineralogy, on the JPT Editorial Committee.
temperature, and other characteristics, and a single fluid formulation does not
fit all circumstances. Each fluid is customized to the unique characteristics of a
particular shale region. Fluids companies have specific products and chemistries
that are designed for a specific type of shale and drilling operation.
As technological advances enable exploitation of shale resources around the
world, the challenge will be to find the most-cost-effective solution. As always,
the lowest overall well cost may not result from the lowest-cost-per-barrel drill-
ing fluid. One has to take into account ROP, torque and drag, wellbore stability,
and waste management when determining the most-cost-effective solution.
There were many good papers written this year, and I have tried to choose a
variety of universal topics. Please take time to read them and the papers listed as
additional reading. JPT

Drilling and Completion Fluids additional reading available

at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org
SPE 144214 • “Crude-Oil-Compatibility Method Significantly Minimizes
Volumes Required” by Katrina Schultz, SPE, Baker Hughes, et al.
SPE 142008 • “Chemical Properties Affecting the Environmental Performance
of Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids for the Gulf of Mexico” by P.B. Dorn, SPE,
Shell, et al.
SPE 139623 • “Drilling-Fluid Design Enlarges the Hydraulic Operating
Windows of Managed-Pressure-Drilling Operations” by Doug Oakley, M-I
Swaco, et al.
SPE 139534 • “Preliminary Test Results of Nanobased Drilling Fluids for Oil-
and Gasfield Application” by Md. Amanullah, SPE, Saudi Aramco, et al.

64 JPT • NOVEMBER 2011

DRILLING AND COMPLETION FLUIDS
Improving Compatibility of Drilling Fluid, Completion Fluid,
and Other Well-Treatment Fluids for Deepwater Wells
In Gulf of Mexico (GOM) deepwa-
ter completions, synthetic-based mud
(SBM) has been used widely for drilling
the reservoir section. With increasing
well depth and higher reservoir pres-
sure, higher-density drilling fluids are
used. It has been observed that with
the increased density of drilling fluid,
the incompatibility of drilling fluid,
completion fluid, and other well-treat-
ment fluids can cause additional prob-
lems in drilling and completion activi-
ties. Often, the formation damage
caused by such incompatibility can be
very difficult to remediate. Chemical
additives were studied for prevent-
ing this incompatibility between drill-
ing fluid, completion fluid, and other
well-treatment fluids.
Introduction
In deep water, wellbore cleanup is
critical for drilling and completing
wells. There have been cases in the
GOM in which several extra days
were needed to achieve acceptable
cleanup. Also, when displacement is
not effective, mud residue may cause
formation damage in the subsequent
well completion. One displacement
problem is that when completion
This article, written by Senior Tech-
nology Editor Dennis Denney, con-
tains highlights of paper SPE 141513,
“Chemical Additives for Improving Com-
patibility of Drilling Fluid, Completion
Fluid, and Other Well-Treatment
Fluids for Deepwater Wells,” by
Xiaoping (Victoria) Qiu, SPE, Lee
Morgenthaler, SPE, Eddy Martch,
SPE, Hiep Vu, SPE, Mootasem Chtay,
and Vanessa Farrell David, Shell
International E&P, prepared for the
2011 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands,
Texas, 11–13 April. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.jptonline.org.
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
brine or spacer fluid is mixed with
SBM, the mixture may form very
viscous, paste-like materials that are
difficult to displace or can cause prob-
lems with shaker operations.
In addition to mud displacement,
the compatibility of SBM and injected
fluids during frac-pack operations is
important. Sometimes, loss of whole
mud into the formation is unavoid-
able when drilling and completing a
well at overbalanced conditions. The
mixture of SBM and completion brine
lost into the reservoir may become
viscous and difficult to break and
flow back. Injected frac-pack fluid
or gravel-pack fluid also might con-
tact the mud and form mixtures that
are difficult to move and can reduce
well productivity.
In GOM well-completion opera-
tions, acids are sometimes pumped
before the frac pack or gravel pack
to clean up the post-perforation pill
and to help clean up the perfora-
tions to improve fluid injectivity.
Incompatibility of SBM and acids can
affect well productivity significantly.
Also, HCl, organic acids, and mud
acids (such as HCl/HF or organic-
acid/HF acid blends) may be pumped
to clean up perforations or near-
wellbore damage before the frac-pack
fluid is injected. If mud remains in
the wellbore or if SBM is lost to the
reservoir, acid may come into contact
with the SBM, resulting in the viscous
paste-like mixture that is worse than
the mixture of SBM and brine or SBM
and spacer fluid.
The incompatibility of SBM with
aqueous fluids or acids is caused
mostly by emulsifiers, the oil-wetting
agent used to wet the barite or other
solids, and by organophilic clay in
the mud. Chemical additives that can
change the emulsion stability (e.g.,
surfactants and polymers or copo-
lymers) may be used to lessen the
incompatibility. Solvent and mutual
solvent that alter the emulsion stabil-
ity and solids-wetting nature may be
used for this purpose.
Performance Criteria
of Chemical Additives
For successful displacement, the work
string or casing must be water-wet
and free of SBM film. Further, the
final brine turbidity must be less than
20 nephelometric-turbidity units or
as low as possible. However, there
is no direct correlation between this
guideline and the laboratory-test data.
In mud displacement, rheology of the
fluid circulated out needs to remain
low to allow a high enough circula-
tion rate. Usually, turbulent flow is
ideal, so it is essential not to generate
high viscosity when other fluids come
into contact with mud. In field opera-
tions, mud rheology can be reduced
either by dilution with base fluid or by
chemical treatment.
When whole SBM is lost into the
formation and mixed with lost com-
pletion brine or injected fluids such
as acids, NH4Cl brine, or fractur-
ing fluids, there are no clear criteria
for laboratory-test results. This study
tried to use both rheological measure-
ment and visual observation during
compatibility testing as indicators of
chemical-additive performance. The
following criteria were proposed for
selecting of chemical additives to be
used in the aqueous fluids.
• Low viscosity of the SBM/aque-
ous-fluid mixture
• No viscous or sticky sludge
formed at various ratios of SBM/aque-
ous fluid
Experimental Studies
Several test methods were used to
investigate the incompatibility
65
between SBMs and aqueous fluids
including brine, acid, and fractur-
ing fluid. Mud samples containing
drilled solids or simulated drilled sol-
ids were preconditioned by hot roll-
ing at each well’s bottomhole static
temperature for 16 hours. Each time a
mud sample was taken, the mud was
premixed to allow uniform sampling.
Additionally, for each test batch, a
mud sample was tested as a control
sample for visual appearance and rhe-
ological properties. Whenever pos-
sible, the samples were field samples.
When field mud was not available, a
laboratory mud or plant sample con-
taining simulated drilled solids was
used. The completion-brine samples
were field samples. The 5%-NH4Cl-
brine and acid samples were made
in the laboratory from field samples.
The spacer-fluid samples also were
obtained from the field. The vol-
ume ratios of mud/aqueous fluid were
20:80, 50:50, and 80:20.
Chemical Additives. This study
focused on the effectiveness of chemi-
cal additives such as surfactants and
solvents for minimizing the incom-
patibility of mud and aqueous fluids.
Surfactants (surface-active agents) are
amphipathic molecules consisting of
a nonpolar hydrophobic chain and
a polar head group. The balance of
hydrophobic and hydrophilic proper-
ties in one molecule makes the surfac-
tant associate in water and aggregate
at the boundary layers of immiscible
phases. Surfactants are active at solid/
liquid, liquid/liquid, solid/gas, and
liquid/gas interfaces. Selecting proper
surfactants to use in the aqueous
fluids is not obvious because sev-
eral kinds of surfactants may be used
as emulsifiers in SBM, as oil-wetting
agents for barite and drilled solids,
and for other purposes such as pre-
venting the hydration of organophilic
clay. This study investigated the effect
of various surfactant structures and
charges on the compatibility of SBM
and aqueous fluids, especially acids.
Experiment Results
Several SBMs with densities varying
from 9.6 to 15.8 lbm/gal were tested.
The salt content and densities of the
completion brines were selected to
match that of the mud. Rheology data
suggest that for high-density SBM
66
and zinc-salt-based brine, surfactant
alone may not be enough to reduce
the viscosity of mud/brine mixtures.
Therefore, the effect of solvents,
mutual solvents, and other dispersing
additives also was studied.
These results indicated that for
either CaBr2 or NH4Cl brine, addi-
tion of a solvent can reduce the mud/
brine-mixture viscosity effectively;
however, excessive solvent can break
the emulsion completely and cause
phase separation. Experience has
shown that when mud has formed
clumps with viscosity and density
higher than that of the original mud,
well cleanup can require extra time,
with many more circulations being
required to remove the lumpy high-
solids-content material.
It is likely that the formation of
a viscous mud/aqueous-fluid mix-
ture was the result of at least two
major factors.
• A large amount of free water in
the brine can cause swelling of the
clay in the SBM and stabilize the oil/
water emulsion. This happens mostly
with lower-density-mud/brine combi-
nations.
• For higher-density mud, the main
problem may be the large amount
of emulsifier used in the SBM (to
stabilize the water/oil emulsion and
maintain mud properties) and the
wetting agent (used to make the barite
and drilled solids oil-wet). With high-
density mud, even when high-density
brine (i.e., low free water) is used, the
mud/brine mixture can become very
viscous by forming a stable emulsion
with the emulsifiers.
SBM/Acid Mixtures. Three acids
were tested with 13.0- and 15.4-lbm/
gal SBMs. The acids were 10% HCl,
10% formic acid, and 9% HCl/1% HF,
all commonly used in the GOM. The
samples were taken after hot rolling
for 16 hours at 180°F. No viscosity
was measured because of the phase
separation and very viscous clumps.
The acids contained no corrosion
inhibitor or any other additives that
normally are added to the acids. The
tested SBM/acid volume ratios were
50:50 and 20:80.
The 15.2-lbm/gal SBM mud formed
thicker mixtures than did the 13.0-
lbm/gal SBM for all three acids.
The 50:50 volume ratio also pro-
duced thicker mixtures. Comparing
the three acids, the 10%-HCl/SBM
mixture generated the most viscous
mixture. To prevent the thick mix-
ture, various types of surfactants and
solvents, including mutual solvents,
were evaluated. With selected com-
binations of surfactant and solvents
added to the 10% HCl acid, no vis-
cous mixture formed when the SBM
and acid were mixed together and
hot rolled.
Conclusions
• The laboratory-testing methods
developed in this study can furnish
visual and quantitative indications of
compatibility between SBM and aque-
ous fluids including brine, spacers,
fracturing fluids, and acids.
• From testing SBM with densities
from 9.6 to 15.8 lbm/gal, it was found
that for mud density less than 14 lbm/
gal, the incompatibility of mud and
brine or other aqueous fluid such as
acid could be minimized by use of
surfactant alone.
• For mud with lower density, sev-
eral surfactant types can help mini-
mize the incompatibility.
• When the mud density is greater
than 14 lbm/gal, the viscosity of the
mud/aqueous-fluid mixture is high
and difficult to reduce with surfactant
alone. Solvent, especially a mutual
solvent, in combination with surfac-
tants can minimize incompatibility
and help reduce the viscosity.
• The incompatibility between
higher-density mud and HCl or acetic
or formic acids tended to be more
severe than that between mud and
brine. The formulation of HCl must
be tested carefully.
• To minimize incompatibility
between mud and aqueous fluids,
optimization of chemical additives
(including surfactants, solvents, and
mutual solvents) in aqueous fluids
depends on the mud formulation,
so the additives must be optimized
against actual mud.
This study identified basic guide-
lines for testing compatibility of and
optimizing aqueous-fluid formula-
tions. In future studies, the wettabil-
ity will be measured for the mixture
of mud and aqueous fluids to obtain
further performance indicators and
improve optimization of aqueous-
fluid formulations. JPT
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
the SERVICE COMPANY
for the SERVICE INDUSTRY

TBC-Brinadd is a global provider of non-damaging drill-in, completion and workover and fracturing fluid system additives. Our
product line has evolved through years of providing innovative solutions that have satisfied a variety of downhole applications. Our
ISO 9001:2000 certification, partnered with our R&D/Technical Services laboratory and manufacturing facility, enables us to be the
premier service company for the service industry.

Contact us for more information on the following sytstems:

DRILL-IN / COMPLETION SYSTEMS

AO-System™ Ultra Carb

Glysol-Dril Ultra-PF™
Thixsal-Ultra™

WORKOVER / COMPLETION SYSTEMS

Bridgesal-Ultra™ OSS® Pill

Bridgecarb-Ultra™ PBS Plug™
Hysal™

FRACTURING SYSTEMS

Breakers (Ultra Breake M™) Fracsal Waterbase (Aqueous-based Crosslinker)

Fracsal I, II, III (Oil-based Crosslinkers) Inhibicide Biocides
Fracsal Friction Reducers Inhibisal Ultra™ Clay Stabilizers
Fracsal Non-emulsifiers Inhibisal Ultra Scale & Corrosion Inhibitors
Fracsal Ultra (Aqueous-based Crosslinker) Micel Flow-back Enhancer

4800 San Felipe, Houston, Texas 77056

T: 713.877.2727 F: 713.877.2604 www.tbc-brinadd.com
DRILLING AND COMPLETION FLUIDS
Holistic Drilling-Fluid and Waste Management
in the Fayetteville Shale
Successful application of a holistic-
fluid-management (HFM) program
from January 2009 through December
2010 improved drilling-fluid perfor-
mance and reduced waste and costs
in Southwestern Energy’s Fayetteville
shale-gas project in Arkansas. The
HFM program lowered drilling-waste
volumes by approximately 45%, while
reducing drilling-fluid and -waste costs
by 36%. The reduction in combined
costs (i.e., fluid systems, solids-con-
trol equipment, and waste disposal)
totaled USD 69 million while drilling
more than 4,200,000 ft in 705 wells
with oil-based mud (OBM) during the
24-month study period.
Introduction
Like most shale-gas projects, the
Fayetteville shale requires specific
well-construction techniques. Most
of the wells drilled during the project
period were horizontal, with total
measured depths of 8,000 to 9,000 ft
with lateral sections approximately
4,500 ft long. On average, 15 rigs
were active during 2010, each unit
completing approximately 35 wells/
yr. During this 24-month study, 1,000
wells were drilled for a total footage of
more than 5,700,000 ft. Of these, 720
wells were drilled with oil-based mud
This article, written by Senior Technology
Editor Dennis Denney, contains high-
lights of paper SPE 144036, “Holistic
Drilling-Fluid and Waste Management
in the Fayetteville Shale,” by Mark
Mabile, SPE, and David Richardson,
Southwestern Energy, and Steven
Garner, Barry Broussard, and
Richard Smith, SPE, Performance Fluid
Management, prepared for the 2011
SPE North American Unconventional
Gas Conference and Exhibition, The
Woodlands, Texas, 14–16 June. The
paper has not been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.jptonline.org.
68
(OBM) with a total footage of more
than 4,200,000 ft. Fifteen anomalous
wells that exhibited severe lost circu-
lation or other problems were exclud-
ed from the study. The remaining 705
wells drilled with OBM are the subject
of this paper.
Various studies have shown the
economic and environmental benefits
gained by use of drilling-fluid-man-
agement programs for conventional
oil and gas plays. Typically, before
management programs were applied,
procurement of drilling fluids and
associated services accounted for 20
to 30% of the combined costs for
overall fluid management, solids con-
trol, and waste disposal. Reductions
in the quantities of chemicals and
base fluids used and in waste gener-
ated at drilling sites can result in sig-
nificant cost savings and a reduction
in environmental effects.
Drilling-Fluid-Management
Considerations
The solid- and liquid-waste streams
produced in typical well construc-
tion can be grouped into five general
categories—cuttings; drilling fluid
on cuttings; drilling-fluid dilution,
dumping, and tank bottoms; water;
and other waste fluids. The aggregate
volume of the generated waste typi-
cally is 10 to 15 times the overall vol-
ume of the hole drilled. The cuttings
volume cannot be reduced, but all
other waste streams can be reduced.
Project Team
To be effective, the HFM program
must consider the broad interaction
of products, equipment, and activi-
ties that constitutes a drilling project
rather than focus on individual com-
ponents that might be linked to a par-
ticular product or service. Application
of this approach requires a project
team with knowledge and expertise
to identify and address all potential
opportunities to improve operations.
This team should be unencumbered
by allegiance to any product lines or
services and be empowered to exert
control over all aspects of the project.
The team for this study comprised
a representative from the operator’s
drilling department, designated as the
performance champion, and a group
of drilling-fluid and process special-
ists from an independent consultant.
The primary role of the performance
champion was to provide direction
regarding the planning and execution
of the HFM plan.
One of the consultants was desig-
nated as project manager, stationed
in-house and reporting directly to the
performance champion. The project
manager provided daily supervision
of the project. In addition to opera-
tional duties, the project manager
reviewed and analyzed data to facili-
tate comparison with program goals
and targets. The project manager was
supported at the field level by project
coordinators and field supervisors.
These individuals were responsible for
implementation of the HFM-program
elements at the drilling site.
Project Phases and Results
Define Expectations and Program
Objectives. This initial step estab-
lished the work scope and helped
develop specific objectives of the
HFM program. The following expec-
tations were indentified.
• Reduce generated wastes
• Improve the rate of drilling prog-
ress
• Move fluid-management opera-
tions to closed-loop systems
• Reduce net combined cost
The overall work scope examined
only processes at the back end of
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
Fig. 1—Wastes before implementing HFM.
the rig. This approach considered
only the fluid-management, solids-
control, and waste-handling processes
involved after rigging up and did not
include engineered improvements to
the rig or well-construction methods.
Identify Opportunities. The project
team evaluated baseline conditions
for the drilling program and identified
specific operations and aspects having
potential for improvement. Results
from previously drilled wells were
communicated to all field person-
nel. Also, waste-reduction awareness
was fostered by wellsite supervisors
through communication to rig crews
and service-company representatives.
Establish Benchmarks. Benchmark
costs were collected from 45 wells
drilled with OBM by nine rigs from
July to September 2008. The result-
ing combined cost of USD 45.47/ft
was used as the primary benchmark
key performance indicator (KPI)
for the project. Benchmarks were
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
Fig. 2—Wastes after implementation of HFM.
recalculated every 6 months on the
basis of results from the preceding
6 months.
The pre-HFM-program generated-
liquid-waste/theoretical-wellbore-
volume ratio and the corresponding
drilling-fluid dilution rates were high.
Close examination of the solids-con-
trol equipment (SCE) and operating
practices identified two likely respon-
sible mechanisms. First, the shale
shakers were not operated at optimum
settings for the drilling conditions.
Typically, the shakers were equipped
with 140-mesh screens. Maximum
screen coverage of 50% was used
with flow rates of 540 to 560 gal/min
because of high shaker-bed eleva-
tions. Maintenance issues also were
identified, and some shale shakers
required upgrades or replacement.
Second, each rig was equipped with
a single low-volume fixed-speed cen-
trifuge. On most wells, centrifuges
were operated intermittently, process-
ing less than 10% of the flow in the
well’s build and lateral intervals. Each
centrifuge had the capacity to process
80 to 100 gal/min for the mud weights
used in drilling, but most of the flow
was bypassed while operating.
The combined effect of the SCE
operational problems contributed to
high levels of low-specific-gravity sol-
ids in the fluid. Particle-size analyses
of fluid samples revealed a high frac-
tion of ultrafine solids that could
not be removed by single-stage cen-
trifuging. This increased the quanti-
ties of base oil (diesel) needed for
mud dilution, limited the effective
lifecycle of the drilling fluid, and
increased treatment-chemical use and
waste generation.
Develop KPIs and Targets. The proj-
ect team established KPIs to monitor
progress after improvement imple-
mentation. Dual targets were estab-
lished for all KPIs. The first-level
target typically was the minimum
achievement obtainable with a mod-
erate degree of process change and
effort. A stretch-level target for the
69
same KPI was established that was
theoretically achievable with elabo-
rate potential changes to the baseline
drilling operations and/or increased
effort from staff and contractors. A
review of the initial rig surveys, field
operations, and actual costs estab-
lished the financial and performance
KPIs and targets for the first 6 months
of the project.
Develop the HFM Strategy and Plan.
A performance strategy and plans for
OBM management were developed
by the project team. Establishing a
documented strategy for fluid and
waste management ensured that the
project adhered to the holistic phi-
losophy. The strategy included the
following tasks.
• Manage and coordinate the inter-
action of fluids, solids control, waste
management, and disposal
• Establish best practices, measure
performance parameters, and derive
KPIs
• Plot progress toward established
goals on the basis of KPIs over the life
of the drilling program
• Align service expectations with
the operator’s expectations
• Deliver quality services
• Identify training requirements
and opportunities for rig-personnel
development
• Encourage teamwork
• Generate a culture of continuous
improvement
Manage Change. The tendering pro-
cess used for selection of drilling-fluid
products and services was noted by
the project team as an opportunity
to instill HFM strategies into drill-
ing programs before mobilizing the
rigs. Traditionally, budgets have been
weighted heavily by the selection of
successful bids. However, a tendering
process driven by value-added ser-
vices and performance targets rather
than cost emphasis alone was thought
to aid the HFM process. Fixed-price
contracts for product vendors can
help align the vendors with HFM pro-
grams because there is incentive for
the vendors to minimize the quanti-
ties of fluids for that project. Another
approach is to outline the expecta-
tions for the project in detail through
the tendering process. Tenders and
contracts are established with vendors
to align mutual goals with respect to
70
the financial and technical objectives
of service providers and the operator.
Resistance to operational changes
did affect progress toward HFM goals.
The project team countered this resis-
tance by incorporating monthly and
quarterly feedback along with presen-
tations of results to all stakeholders.
This communication was pivotal in
convincing personnel to embrace the
HFM plan and its goals.
Execute the Plan. The project team
consulted with the drilling staff, prod-
uct suppliers, service providers, and
other contractors to provide clear
direction for implementation of plan
elements. The performance tracking
to compare progress with program
goals was conducted on a well-to-
well basis, and verified scorecards
were generated at 6-month intervals.
Snapshot scorecards also were gener-
ated on a monthly and quarterly basis.
Phase 1 commenced in January
2009, with the replacement of exist-
ing fixed-speed low-volume centri-
fuges with variable-speed large-bowl
centrifuges. Through the first half
of 2009, approximately one-third of
the rigs in service were upgraded to
the new equipment and were oper-
ating properly. The first combined-
cost-reduction target of 14% was met
within 60 days of the program start
date. By June 2009, Phase 1 was 80%
implemented and the corresponding
combined cost was reduced by 23% to
USD 36.60/ft.
Phase 2 modifications consisted of
the addition of mud-recovery systems
to the SCE. By September 2009, 25%
of the operating rigs were equipped
with mud-recovery systems, and
costs reached an annual low below
USD 25/ft by October 2009, for an
overall combined-cost reduction
of 36.2%.
Combined costs rose above
USD 27/ft between October and
December 2009. The project team
identified several factors that affected
project progress negatively.
• There was increased drilling
through difficult geological forma-
tions
• Three new rigs were introduced
into the drilling program in December
2009 (none had been retrofitted with
proper SCE, and their crews were
not fully integrated into the HFM
approach)
• Some rigs (having the new SCE
and operating procedures) reverted
to former operating practices in an
attempt to accelerate drilling progress
through the difficult formations
• Drilling fluid on some rigs did not
meet recommended specifications
Conclusions
The combined-cost performance re-
mained at or above USD 25/ft from
November 2009 to August 2010. The
project team noted that although some
rigs continued to show cost reduc-
tions on par with progress achieved
during the first half of the year, those
cost reductions were being offset by
increased costs on the three new rigs
that had inadequate solids control.
Phase 2 modifications were 80% com-
plete by February 2010 and approached
95% by July 2010.
The final 6 months of 2010 showed
steady improvements, and by year-
end, the project noted combined-cost
reductions averaging USD 24.20/ft
for the period. These improvements
were achieved through an increased
focus on individual-rig performance
and vendor performance. In addi-
tion, centrifuge performance was opti-
mized by use of particle-size-analyses
results for the feed and effluent of
each machine.
Reduction in waste volumes and
management costs was achieved dur-
ing the HFM program. Disposal costs
were reduced from USD 13.93/ft
to USD 6.26/ft. This overall cost
reduction of 44.5% was achieved by
decreasing the quantities of waste and
improving the removal of liquids from
mud and cuttings through upgraded
centrifuge equipment and enhanced
operating practices.
Fig. 1 shows the condition of drill-
ing waste before improvements to the
SCE and operating practices. After the
HFM improvements were incorpo-
rated fully into routine operations, the
liquid content of the drilling-waste
stream was reduced significantly, as
shown in Fig. 2. The reduced liquid
content of the waste presented less
risk for handling and transport, and
fewer and less-expensive dump trucks
could be used in place of vacuum
trucks to transport waste to approved
off-site facilities. The reduction in the
number of trucks transporting waste
led to reduced effects on rural roads
and highways. JPT
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
DRILLING AND COMPLETION FLUIDS
Drilling With a Balanced-Activity Invert-Emulsion
Fluid in Shale: Is It Sufficient for Maintaining
or Enhancing Wellbore Stability?
Most wellbore-stability problems en-
countered while drilling occur in shale
formations. Invert-emulsion fluids (IEFs)
are used to drill reactive shales. Testing
of a deepwater shale was performed
with a new apparatus, which allows
shale samples to be tested under
downhole conditions. Results show that
even at an activity level higher than the
known shale-activity level, water was
able to enter the shale and weaken it.
The “chemomechanical-balance” con-
cept was used to explain measured
results in terms of the coupling of
shale-mechanical properties and IEF
chemical activity and to explain the
resulting consequences of activity-level
selection for IEF.
Introduction
The interaction of invert-emulsion
drilling fluids with exposed shales has
received much study because well-
bore-stability problems occurring in
shale are in the 80% range of all cases
cited in literature. While usually not
found in the reservoir sections, when
these shales become unstable, signifi-
cant nonproductive time is spent in
efforts to stabilize the wellbore, and
sometimes entire drilling intervals are
lost. To understand the interaction
of IEFs with shale during the drilling
process better, it is helpful to review
the pertinent theories used to describe
such action.
This article, written by Senior Technology
Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights
of paper SPE 145969, “Drilling With
a Balanced-Activity Invert-Emulsion Fluid
in Shale: Is It Sufficient for Maintaining
or Enhancing Wellbore Stability?,” by
Terry Hemphill, SPE, Halliburton, pre-
pared for the 2011 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30
October–2 November. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.jptonline.org.
72
4500
Deviatoric Stress, psi
4000
3500
3000
2500
0 1000
Fig. 1—Calculated deviatoric stress vs. confining pressure for mineral oil
and three IEFs tested with the direct-shear-test device.
Semipermeable-Membrane Theory.
At the face of the shale that is exposed
to aqueous fluid, a semipermeable
membrane exists that regulates the flow
of water in or out of the specimen.
Fluids having high membrane efficien-
cies, such as IEFs, have the ability to
pull water from the rock efficiently. But
fluids with low membrane efficiencies,
such as common water-based drilling
fluids, do not pull water efficiently.
There is still uncertainty about whether
the membrane is provided by the IEF
or by the shale itself.
Osmotic-Pressure Theory. Fluids hav-
ing lower chemical activity compared
with the shale-pore fluid can generate
significant amounts of osmotic pres-
sure that can be used to remove water
from the rock. Conversely, an IEF with
higher chemical activity in the drilling-
fluid water phase than in the shale-pore
water can push water into a shale.
Balanced-Activity Theory. An IEF
having a chemical activity equivalent
Mineral Oil
IEF—50,000 ppm)
IEF—200,000 ppm)
IEF—350,000 ppm)
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Confining Pressure, psi
to the activity of the water in the shale
will not allow transfer of water into or
out of the shale, and the shale’s original
in-situ stability is maintained.
Matrix-Stress Theory. Movement of
fluid into shale increases local pore pres-
sure and, accordingly, lowers the effec-
tive rock-matrix stress. Consequently,
the rock becomes weaker. Rock from
which some amount of pore water has
been extracted shows an increase in
its effective local matrix stress, and the
rock strength can increase. It should be
noted that removal of too much pore
fluid from the exposed specimen can
make it inherently brittle or unstable at
some point—a “point of no return” can
exist with the extraction of pore fluid
from a shale sample.
Previous Testing of
the West Africa Shale
The West Africa shale was tested ear-
lier by the operator. Shear-stress tests
were performed on both dry and wet
(after 16 hours of circulation time)
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
 2000
Shear Stress for Failure, psi
1950
Strear Stress for Failure, psi
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
1600
0 50
Water-Phase Salinity, 1,000 ppm CaCl2
Fig. 2—Estimated IEF water-phase salinity to produce shear stress for
failure equal to that of the mineral oil at 4,500-psi normal stress.
states and strengths were measured
at various levels of shear stress. From
those data, Mohr circles were drawn
from which key rock-mechanical prop-
erties (cohesive strength and internal-
friction angle) were calculated. From
those rock-mechanical properties,
rock-failure envelopes were developed
for a wide range of normal stresses.
The results indicated that the higher-
stress-failure envelope resulted when
the shale was tested in the dry state,
and that subsequent testing in water
under dynamic conditions produced
weaker specimens having a lower-
stress-failure envelope. Both the shale
cohesive strength and internal-fric-
tion angle were less when tests were
performed with water. These results
showed that the measured strength of
shale can depend upon the medium
in which it is tested and upon the
interaction of the fluid with the shale.
Later, the operator performed standard
triaxial testing on the shale at various
levels of confining pressure. Effective
confining stresses and the measured
shear stresses for rock failure were
adjusted for pore pressure to obtain
effective-stress values. The predicted
level of shear stress required to fail the
sample increased linearly with increas-
ing levels of confining stress.
Shale Tests
Other studies have been made regard-
ing changes in rock strength of shale
cored from deepwater West Africa. In
these experiments, conducted under
downhole dynamic conditions, the
well-preserved shale samples were
exposed to IEFs having different salin-
ity levels. A test apparatus, called the
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
Mineral Oil
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Inclined Direct-Shear-Test Device was
used in the experiments. Testing and
modeling included the following.
• Total exposure (circulating) time
of the fluid in contact with the shale
was 3 hours.
• Confining pressures of 1,000 and
2,000 psi were applied, levels equiva-
lent to the effective-stress range of
the shale cored from deep water (a
5,000-psi test was run with low-activity
IEF).
• Any increase in local pore pres-
sure caused by application of confin-
ing pressure was allowed to dissipate
before testing with mineral oil and
three IEFs began.
• Three levels of IEF chemical activ-
ity (all other fluid components being
equal in concentration) were used.
° 0.986 activity (50,000 ppm CaCl2
water-phase salinity)
° 0.83 activity (200,000 ppm CaCl2
water-phase salinity)
° 0.521 activity (350,000 ppm
CaCl2 water-phase salinity)
• The base mechanical properties of
the shale were measured first with
exposure to 100% mineral oil.
• Upon finishing the 3-hour circulat-
ing time, the load-frame platens were
engaged slowly until the sample failed
at a recorded level of shear stress.
• From the shear stress for failure
and the confining-pressure data, devia-
toric stresses were calculated and Mohr
circles were drawn to calculate rock-
mechanical properties.
Direct-Shear-Test Results
Several experimental tests at different
confining pressures were performed
on the West Africa shale. From data
shown in Fig. 1, the rock-mechanical
properties were calculated and the
failure envelopes were determined for
increasing normal stress. The devia-
toric stresses for shale exposed to
the 50,000 and 200,000 ppm CaCl2
IEF were lower than that in the min-
eral-oil tests. The deviatoric stress
resulting from the interaction of the
350,000 ppm CaCl2 IEF with the shale
was greater than that in the mineral-
oil tests.
From the measurements of deviatoric
stress, the cohesive-strength and inter-
nal-friction-angle rock-mechanical
properties were calculated. Calculated
cohesive strengths dropped for all three
IEFs, but the least change involved the
350,000 ppm CaCl2 IEF. Conversely,
all the calculated rock-internal-fric-
tion angles increased for the three
IEFs, though fairly similar results were
seen for the 50,000 and 350,000 ppm
CaCl2 IEFs.
Using the calculated values for cohe-
sive strength and internal-friction
angle, the failure envelopes for the four
fluids were found. Plotting for individ-
ual IEFs and the mineral-oil base case
showed the changes in performance in
the calculated rock-failure envelopes.
The IEF chemical activity had a sig-
nificant effect on the calculated failure
envelopes, and the failure envelope for
the mineral oil was not reproduced
by any of the three IEFs. Across the
range of normal stress (except for
some of the very low normal stresses),
the 0.986- and the 0.83-activity IEFs
weakened the shale samples. These
shale strengths were predicted to
approach that of the shale tested with
only mineral oil when normal stress
levels approached 9,000 psi. According
to the theory of osmotic-pressure gen-
eration of IEF, some water passed from
the two IEFs into the shale, raising the
local pore pressure and thereby weak-
ening the rock. In contrast, the lowest-
activity IEF strengthened the shale
for all but the lowest levels of normal
stress. Therefore, theory predicts that
some water in the shale was pulled out
by the low-activity IEF.
Chemical Activity
vs. Shale Strength
In operator testing of the deepwater
West Africa shale, the salinity of the
water in the shale-pore space was
measured at 150,000 to 187,000 ppm
CaCl2 equivalent (i.e., 0.9 to 0.85
73
activity). According to “balanced-
activity” theory, at this level there
should be no transfer of water across
the semipermeable membrane, and the
shale should remain in its native state.
However, the test data did not demon-
strate this assumption. What previous
work missed was that when shales are
tested with actual drilling fluids or
drilling-fluid filtrate, the rocks will fail
at lower levels of shear stress. What is
needed now is an activity level nec-
essary to achieve “chemomechanical
balance,” where both chemical and
mechanical effects are incorporated.
While no tests were performed to
determine the new activity level of
an IEF to achieve mechanical balance
for a given level of normal stress in
this study, it was calculated that for a
normal stress of 4,500 psi for the min-
eral-oil data (as an example), a shear
stress of 1,834 psi would be required
to fail the sample. Fig. 2 shows that
to achieve chemomechanical balance
equivalent to this level of shear stress,
an IEF having a water-phase salinity of
270,000 ppm CaCl2 equivalent (0.704
activity) would be necessary, a level
which is approximately 50 to 80%
greater than the measured chemical
balance of the pore fluid in the shale.
Conclusions
• Shear stresses required to fail a
shale sample will differ, depending on
the fluid medium (if any) used in the
testing. For the same shale, results from
tests performed dry will be different
from those of tests performed dynami-
cally in water, and will be different
from those of tests performed dynami-
cally with the fluid/filtrate used to drill
the shale.
• Results of testing of shales under
confining pressure differed for shales
measured with standard triaxial tests
compared with those measured with
the direct-shear-test device. Results,
however, were in similar ranges.
• Chemical balance is not sufficient
to maintain exposed shale in its undis-
turbed state. The IEF at a level of
chemical activity higher than that of
the known shale-pore water weakened
the shale sample. According to theory,
any fluid that can transfer water to the
shale will weaken it, thereby reducing
its stability over time.
• To help keep shale stable (in an
undisturbed state), the appropriate
level of chemomechanical balance
should be determined. Experimental
testing should be performed using
actual drilling fluids and filtrate to be
used in the drilling process.
• Expect the level of chemome-
chanical balance to be significantly
higher than that of the chemical bal-
ance. In this work, the estimated
level of activity required to achieve
balance after 3 hours’ testing time was
approximately 50 to 80% higher than
the measured activity of the water in
the shale pores. JPT

Faculty Openings for Undergraduate Teaching

Texas A&M University
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering
We have immediate openings at our College Station, Texas campus for engineers who are eager to teach our students how to use their academic skills to solve real world
problems. We are seeking outstanding teachers with extensive industrial experience to give our students exposure to current industry practices through “experiential
learning”.

We are looking for experienced professionals who are experts in one of the following fields: reserves analysis, petroleum economics, reservoir engineering, production
engineering, drilling engineering, formation evaluation, or integrated reservoir studies. Applicants should have a B.S. degree in petroleum engineering or related field and
substantial experience in his or her specialty. An M.S. or PhD degree is not required for these positions. You can apply for a full time or a part time position.

The Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering is a leading petroleum engineering department in the US and is well known in the international oil and gas
community. The Department has 37 faculty members and 672 undergraduate students at its College Station campus. Additionally, there are 358 resident and distance-
learning graduate students. As part of the Dwight Look College of Engineering, the largest engineering college in the US, the Department is well positioned to maintain its
leadership position in the coming years. More information about the department can be viewed at www.pe.tamu.edu.

To apply please submit:

x A detailed resume
x Brief statement of interests that includes ideas for the courses you wish to teach
x Names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of at least three references

Applicants will be considered until the positions are filled. Applications will be evaluated based on current credentials as well as potential for future impact.

Please submit your application to:

Dr. Mike King
Chair, Faculty Search Committee
Texas A&M University
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering
3116 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-3116
(979) 845-1488
mike.king@pe.tamu.edu

Texas A&M University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. The university is dedicated to the goal of building a culturally diverse and pluralistic faculty and staff committed to
teaching and working in a multicultural environment, and strongly encourages applications from women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and covered veterans. Employer paid advertisement.

74 JPT • NOVEMBER 2011

DRILLING AND COMPLETION FLUIDS
Drilling Highly Depleted Formations With
Engineered-Particle Nonaqueous Fluids: South China Sea
A new engineered-particle nonaque-
ous-fluid (EP-NAF) system was used
in the Malay basin of the South China
Sea to drill through highly depleted
sands at elevated densities. The fluid
contains sized particles to bridge and
prop open fractures as they occur
during actual drilling operations.
Formation integrity is gained immedi-
ately and does not require additional
critical-path rig time.
Background and
Well-Design Overview
The Malay basin in the South China Sea
contains multiple oil and gas accumu-
lations, some of which have been on
production for several decades. Many
of these mature fields have economi-
cally recoverable quantities of hydro-
carbons but are challenging because
depleted zones are adjacent to forma-
tions prone to wellbore instability. A
four-well infill development program
was planned in one of these mature
fields. The field is 200 km offshore in
70 m of water. Several platforms were
installed to develop the field, which has
been producing for more than 20 years.
Typically, tender-assisted platform rigs
are used in this field.
Well-Design Challenges
and Planning
All proposed wells would be side-
tracked from existing donor wellbores.
This article, written by Senior Technology
Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights
of paper SPE 139932, “Drilling Highly
Depleted Formations With Engineered-
Particle Nonaqueous Fluids: South China
Sea,” by Michael R. Niznik, SPE,
Adela Lawrence, SPE, and Sabine C.
Zeilinger, SPE, ExxonMobil, prepared for
the 2011 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 1–3 March.
The paper has not been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.jptonline.org.
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
A variety of casing sizes was used in the
donors, and exact cement tops were not
known. The exact sidetrack point was
engineered to take into account colli-
sion avoidance of offset wells, cement
behind casing, formations in which to
sidetrack, and dogleg requirements to
meet geology and reservoir objectives.
The target reservoir was the Group-J
sands that lie below the Group-I reser-
voir, which was completed and put on
production more than 20 years earlier.
The pore pressure of the Group-I res-
ervoir in the area where the proposed
wells would penetrate was determined
to be depleted to a 3.7-lbm/gal gradi-
ent. The target Group-J sands also were
slightly depleted to a 6.8-lbm/gal gradi-
ent because of production in adjacent
fault blocks.
The targeted Group-J reservoir has
lower-permeability sands compared
with the Group-I reservoir above it.
Horizontal wells were planned to
intersect additional reservoir footage
and to maximize productivity and
reserves recovery. The Group-J sands
are highly consolidated, and model-
ing, along with offset-well analysis,
determined that sand control would
not be required. The wells could be
completed open hole with predrilled
liners, which minimized completion
complexity and cost.
A reactive shale above the Group-I
reservoir is prone to wellbore insta-
bility. In offset wells, large cavings
were noted, and elevated mud weights
were required to drill ahead success-
fully. Because of this reactive shale and
the depletion of the Group-I reservoir,
the decision was made to case off
these horizons before drilling the target
Group-J reservoir. Three of the four
proposed wells could be completed
with only a 6-in. hole size because
of donor-well status and directional
issues. Therefore, fewer contingencies
EP-NAF
Immobile mass
at aperture
Fig. 1—EP-NAF bridging concept.
were available if severe losses were
encountered during the drilling of the
depleted Group-I reservoir.
A wellbore-stability study was con-
ducted with existing log and core data.
The results were compared with actu-
al drilling results for confirmation.
NAFs would be required for chemi-
cal stability, and mud densities up to
11.6 lbm/gal would be necessary for
wellbores that intersected the reactive
shales at high angles.
Concept Selection
Three technologies were evaluated to
drill and case the problematic hole sec-
tion successfully. EP-NAF was a new
fluid technology that is based on exist-
ing fracture-closure-stress (FCS) and
drill-and-stress-fluid (DSF) technol-
ogy for water-based muds. The second
was managed-pressure drilling (MPD),
which had a proven track record for
narrow-margin drilling. The third was
expandable liners, which are also used
in the industry.
EP theory is to build formation
integrity while drilling by adding sized
particles in the mud. The particles
are sized such that when a fracture is
initiated (i.e., losses occur), the par-
ticles will form an immobile mass at
the aperture of the fracture, as shown
in Fig. 1. Fluid entry farther into the
fracture is stopped, and no pressure is
transmitted to the fracture tip, prevent-
75
 500
450
400
Required Fracture Width, µm
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 swapped to the 11.5-lbm/gal EP-NAF.
0.6
Fig. 2—Required fracture width as a function of desired FCS increase.
ing the fracture tip from extending.
Also, the fracture is propped open,
thereby increasing formation integrity.
The concept was proved for water-
based fluids but had been tested only
recently with nonwater-based mud
for the operator. An earlier trial had
increased the formation-integrity gra-
dient by 1.3 lbm/gal. The planned
wells would require up to 1.0 lbm/gal
of formation-integrity-gradient in-
crease. Also, no upgrades to the drill-
ing-rig solids-control equipment were
required to handle the expected high
solids content of the EP-NAF mud.
MPD was reviewed because of its
proven ability to drill narrow-margin
wells. Because of timing constraints,
the required rotating heads were not
in the current contracts and modifica-
tions would be required on the limited
number of risers in stock. This technol-
ogy was expected to cost more than the
EP-NAF.
Expandable liners were researched
but also had timing constraints.
Underreaming would be required in
the problematic hole section, which
carried additional risk to implementing
this technology effectively. The overall
cost of this technology was the highest.
The EP-NAF technology was chosen
because of existing experience with
FCS technology for the operator in this
region and because no upgrades were
required for the drilling rig.
76
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Drilling proceeded at controlled rates
Desired FCS Increase, lbm/gal
Base Case Upper Bound Lower Bound
Fracture-Width Determination
The design was to increase the for-
mation-integrity/fracture gradient of
the depleted Group-I sands by 0.6 to
1.0 lbm/gal. A proprietary finite-ele-
ment program that assesses the stresses
in the near-wellbore region was used
to estimate the fracture width needed
to increase the tangential stress (hoop
stress) in the near-wellbore region. The
rock properties of the Group-I for-
mation were known from both core
analysis and offset logs. The formation
modulus of elasticity was estimated
to be 1.5×106 psi, and sensitivities to
variations from 1.0×106 to 2.0×106 psi
were considered. The fracture length
was varied (1 to 3 ft) and assumed a
nominal value of 1 ft. On the basis of
the most likely set of parameters, and
shown in Fig. 2, a fracture width of
approximately 26 to 203 µm should
be created and maintained to increase
integrity by 0.6 to 1.0 lbm/gal in the
relevant sands. The lower range of
fracture width was provided easily by
the weighting agent. For fractures up
to 203 µm, a mixture of sized calcium
carbonate was chosen.
Initial Project
Prespud meetings were held with the
crews. A 600-bbl batch of 11.5-lbm/gal
EP-NAF mud was prepared with twice
the concentration as noted from prior
best practices to minimize fluid swap-
out time when changing to EP-NAF.
The push-the-bit rotary-steerable sys-
tem (RSS) and measurement-while-
drilling (MWD) system were shallow
tested with the EP-NAF to ensure func-
tionality. The shakers were dressed
with 120-mesh screens before reaching
the drawndown sands.
Drilling commenced with the base
11.5-lbm/gal NAF through the reactive
shales (81/2-in. hole), and no borehole-
stability problems were encountered.
At approximately 80 m from the first
drawndown sand, a precautionary
wiper trip was performed to be certain
that the hole was clear. During the trip,
the shakers were dressed with 30-mesh
screens and the fluid system was
to maintain the equivalent circulating
density (ECD) at 13.0 lbm/gal. Dilution
was required to keep the low-gravity
solids (LGSs) below 15%.
Drilling progressed without losses
through the drawndown Group-I sec-
tion, and two interim wiper trips were
performed in the middle and bottom
of the Group-I section because of con-
cerns that the EP-NAF filter cake could
be thick. No losses were observed, and
some backreaming was required while
tripping through the depleted Group-I
section. An RSS failure occurred, and
some backreaming was required to trip
the bottomhole assembly (BHA) to sur-
face for change out.
The base plan was to screen out the
EP-NAF after the Group-I section was
drilled, but concerns developed that
the bridged particles might become dis-
lodged during final drilling or logging
operations. The decision was made to
drill ahead to section total depth (TD),
which was just into the Group-J sec-
tion, with EP-NAF. Further dilution
of the mud was required to keep the
LGSs at or below 15%, with no nega-
tive effect on fluid rheology. The BHA
was pulled out of the hole, the section
was logged, and the hole was plugged
back with cement because it was a pilot
hole to identify exact formation depths
to land the following horizontal well
paths. No losses occurred.
Subsequent Projects
The second EP-NAF well (97/8-in.
hole) was drilled from the drawndown
Group-I sands to section TD with the
11.5-lbm/gal fluid without losses. ECD
was maintained at 12.9 lbm/gal. An RSS
JPT • NOVEMBER 2011
failure in this hole section required a
trip to surface to change out the RSS.
This hole section was landed direc-
tionally per plan, and 7-in. casing was

*HW 0RUH
run without incident with 11.5-lbm/gal
EP-NAF in the hole. Losses occurred
when the preflush reached the most-
drawndown section of the Group-I
sands during the cement job. The max-
imum ECD during the cement job was
14.5 lbm/gal, exceeding the maximum
ECD observed to build integrity. A
cement-top job was pumped with a
hydrostatic packer to isolate the annu-
lus adequately. The losses verified the
estimated FCS value of 13.5 lbm/gal in
the drawndown sands.
An RSS-failure investigation identi- IURP
\RXU
fied excessive wear and erosion of the
bias unit, caused by high LGSs, as the
most probable causes of the failures.
A decision was made to change to a

&RUH
point-the-bit RSS, which is less sus-
ceptible to abrasive wear from the high
LGSs content of the EP-NAF mud.
The third EP-NAF well (81/2-in.
hole) was drilled from the drawn-
down Group-I sands. No RSS problems
occurred with the point-the-bit system,
but an MWD failure required a trip to
surface. During the trip, backreaming With reservoirs becoming increasingly complex,
was performed and a packoff occurred, you need the most accurate information you can
get to better understand your reservoir.
resulting in lost returns (more than
100 bbl/hr). The FCS was calculated
to be 9.5 lbm/gal. A contingency FCS Weatherford Labs helps you get more from your core by
combining an unsurpassed global team of geoscientists,
treatment was pumped with surfactant
engineers, technicians and researchers with the industry’s
preflush, and the formation-integrity most comprehensive, integrated laboratory services
gradient was increased by 1.4 lbm/gal worldwide. From core analysis, sorption, geochemistry
(to a total of 10.9 lbm/gal). Well inclina- and isotopic composition to detailed basin modeling and
tion through the upper reactive shales comprehensive data packages, we provide you with real
ZHDWKHUIRUGODEVFRP
was lower in this hole section com- reservoir rock and fluid information that hasn’t been
pared with the first two wells. The distilled by a simulator or iterated by software.
borehole-stability analysis led to reduc-
We call it “The Ground Truth™” – giving you the accurate
ing the overall EP-NAF mud weight
answers you need for better reservoir understanding. You’ll
to 10.0 lbm/gal. Drilling recommenced call it a better return on your reservoir investment. To learn
with no losses or borehole-stability more, contact TheGroundTruth@weatherfordlabs.com.
issues to TD. The ECD was maintained
at or below 10.9 lbm/gal. Casing was
run and cemented with EPs in the pre-
flush. The cementing and displacement
pump rates were reduced to minimize
ECD, and no losses occurred.
The fourth EP-NAF well (97/8-in.
hole) was drilled from the Group-I sands
to section TD without losses. A mud
weight of 10.8 lbm/gal was used, on the
basis of the prior-hole-section learnings
and further analysis of mud density vs.
inclination from the borehole-stability
study. The casing was run and cemented
(with EPs in the preflush and reduced
pump rates) with no losses. JPT

JPT • NOVEMBER 2011 77