Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drillin PDF

INSTITUT ALGERIEN
ALGERIAN PETROLEUMDUINSTITUTE
PETROLE
Boumerdes School
Professional Project in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the degree
of Specialized Magister in Drilling & Production Engineering
Theme
Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drilling Fluid in Hassi Messaoud

Field from the 16” Hole Section
Executed by: Supervised by:
Mr. BENAΪSSA Ali Mr. DADDOU Miloud
December 2014
Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

Defense Authorization
I, the undersigned, Mr. Miloud DADDOU. The supervisor of thesis of Mr. Ali BENAΪSSA and on
the following theme: Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drilling Fluid in Hassi Messaoud Field
from the 16” Hole Section. I certify that this work carried out and the results are worthy to be
supported by the jury. Thus, I give a favorable opinion to the defense of this report
Supervisor:
Name: DADDOU
First name : Miloud
Signature
Promotion: December 2014

Dedication
There is in the world human being dears, to we owe them almost everything, it
really does mean a lot, so on behalf of all of us here; and nothing could be done
to make them what they brought us in life.
I would like to dedicate this modest work to:
 My parents: Thank you for your unconditional support with my studies.
I am honor to have you as my parents. Thank you for giving me a
chance to prove and improve myself through all my walks of life. I love
you.
 My brothers and sisters: Hoping that with this research I have proven
to you that there is no mountain higher as long as God is on our side.
Hoping that you will walk again and be able to fulfil your dreams.
 My family: Thank you for believing in me; for allowing me to further
my studies. Please do not ever doubt my dedication and love for you.
Ali
Acknowledgements
We thank Almighty God for giving us the courage and the determination,
as well as guidance in conducting this research study, despite all difficulties.
We want to express our sincere appreciation to our supervising professor, Mr.

DADDOU Miloud. We thank him for their valuable advice,
guidance, and encouragement throughout the course of this study.
We would like to give our thanks to all members of MI-SWACO

research group of Mr. Gasem for their review and helpful suggestions.
We hanks are also sincerely expressed to Dr. Ali Merdji, Dr. Kheira
Kinane, Mr. Nouredinne Rebouni and Dr. Ahmed Zaid for their
valuable assistances and for always being there to lend a helping hand when
called upon during carried out of this thesis.
Sincere gratitude is extended to the Algerian Petroleum Institute and

especially the department of Drilling and Production for their support of this
research work.
Finally, we thank all those who assisted, encouraged and supported me during
this research.
Abstract
The development of drilling fluid has become more efficiency and challenging in latest years, it has
gained a wealth of experience and been a front-runner in developing new fluid technologies and
practices. The conventional water-based mud systems (WBM) do not provide the technical aptitude
required to drill these wells efficiently. As a result, operators choose to use oil-based mud systems
(OBM) to reach their drilling objectives. Despite their technical merits, OBMs are often a costly
solution with regard to waste disposal, lost circulation and the strict environmental regulations enacted
by different governing bodies, moreover to the negative impact on the frequent uses of OBM in HMD
field and the potential contamination of the groundwater aquifers, the national oil company Sonatrach
has taken a decision to replace the oil based mud system by ecofriendly and highly inhibitive water
based mud system to drill the phase 16."
A new high-performance water-based mud system (HP WBM) represents a leap forward in water-
based technology in addressing the limitations and disadvantages of current WBM high performance
fluid applications, allowing it to effectively compete with Non aqueous fluid systems in drilling
performance.
In this investigation attempts have been made to do a comparison and evaluation of the interest of
drilling the 16” hole section by using the high performance water base mud, Ultradril system which is
proposed as an alternative to the conventional diesel oil base mud. The objective of the run in
OMJZ#32 well was to drill as far as possible the 16” section starting from the Senonian and
Anhydriteque with an acceptable ROP, using the Water Based Mud (for example: ULTRADRIL) for
the third time in HMD field as a trial.
Key Words : Drilling Fluid, HP WBM, Phase 16", performance, Environment.

‫ملخص‬
‫أأحضى تطور سوائل احلفر أأكرث حتداي وكفاءة يف الس نوات ا ألخرية‪ ،‬فقد اكتسبت هذه ا ألخرية خربة واسعة واكنت الاوفر حظا نتيجة تطور التكنولوجيات واملامرسات يف‬
‫جمال احلفر والتنقيب‪ .‬فاس تخدام ا ألنظمة التقليدية لسوائل احلفر مثل الطني اذلي أأساسه املاء )‪ (WBM‬ال توفر الكفاءة الفنية املطلوبة حلفر الآابر البرتولية اب ألداء والفاعلية املرجوة‪.‬‬
‫كنتيجة ذلكل‪ ،‬خيتار املشغلون اس تخدام سائل حفر ذو أأساس زييت (‪ )OBM‬من أأجل بلوغ أأهداف احلفر املسطرة‪ .‬وابلرمغ من املزااي التقنية اليت يوفرها هذا ا ألخري‪ ،‬اال انه غالبا ما‬
‫يكون حال ملكفا ابلنظر العادة تدوير اخمللفات الناجتة أأو يف حاةل التخلص منه‪ ،‬خسارة السائل أأثناء معلية احلفر وا ألنظمة البيئية والتشيعية الصارمة اليت سنهتا احلكومات وجمالس‬
‫االدارات‪ ،‬عالوة عىل ذكل التأأثري السليب لالس تعامل املتكرر لهذا النوع من سوائل احلفر ذات ا ألساس الزييت عىل املنظومة البيئية حلايس مسعود وكذا التلوث املمتل للمياه اجلوفية‪.‬‬
‫وبناءا عىل لك هذه السلبيات سالفة اذلكر‪ ،‬اختذت رشكة سوانطراك قرارا ابستبدال سوائل احلفر ذات ا ألساس الزييت بأأخرى ذات أأساس مايئ صديقة للبيئة من أأجل حفر املرحةل‬
‫‪."61‬‬
‫ميثل النظام سوائل احلفر اجلديد ذو ا ألساس املايئ وا ألداء العايل (‪ )HP WBM‬أآخر ما توصلت اليه التكنلوجيا احلديثة وقفزة اىل ا ألمام من اجل جتاوز القدرات‬
‫واالماكنيات املدودة وتفادي العيوب لسوائل احلفر التقليدية ذات ا ألساس املايئ (‪ )WBM‬وذكل مما يسمح لها ان تنافس بفعالية عدة نظم من سوائل احلفر الغري مائية من حيث‬
‫الكفاءة وا ألداء العايل للحفر‪.‬‬
‫الهدف من هذه ادلراسة هو تقيمي حفر املرحةل ‪ " 61‬للبرئ ‪ OMJZ # 32‬ابجلودة والرسعة املمكنة بداية من الطبقتني ا ألرضيتني ‪ Senonian‬و‪ Anhydriteque‬مع‬
‫معدل اخرتاق )‪ (ROP‬مقبول ابس تعامل نظام (‪ Ultradril‬عىل سبيل املثال) عوضا عن اس تعامل السوائل احلفر التقليدية ذات ا ألساس الزييت كثالث مرحةل جتريبية يف حقل حايس‬
‫مسعود‪.‬‬
‫اللكامت ادلاللية‪ :‬سائل احلفر‪ ،HP WBM ،‬املرحةل ‪ ،" 61‬ا ألداء واملنظومة البيئية‪.‬‬
Table of contents
List of symbols
List of tables
List of figures
General introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1 : Drilling fluids overview ................................................................................... 3

1.1. Function of a drilling fluid............................................................................. 3
1.1.1. Remove cuttings from the well .............................................................. 4
1.1.2. Control formation pressures .................................................................. 4
1.1.3. Suspend and release cuttings ................................................................ 4
1.1.4. Seal permeable formations .................................................................... 5
1.1.5. Maintain wellbore stability ................................................................... 5
1.1.6. Minimize reservoir damage ................................................................... 6
1.1.7. Cool, lubricate, and support the bit and drilling assembly .................. 7
1.1.8. Transmit hydraulic energy to tools and bit ........................................... 7
1.1.9. Ensure adequate formation evaluation ................................................. 7
1.1.10. Control corrosion .................................................................................. 8
1.1.11. Facilitate cementing and completion .................................................. 8
1.2. Composition of drilling fluid .......................................................................... 8
1.2.1. Water based fluids ................................................................................. 9
1.2.2. Oil based fluids .................................................................................... 12
1.2.3. Aerated fluids ....................................................................................... 13
1.3. Properties of drilling fluids.......................................................................... 13
1.3.1. Density.. ............................................................................................... 13
1.3.2. Rheology ............................................................................................... 14
1.3.3. Viscosity ............................................................................................... 14
1.3.4. The yield point ..................................................................................... 15
1.3.5. Get strength ......................................................................................... 15
1.3.6. Filtration .............................................................................................. 15
1.3.7. Corrosivity............................................................................................ 16
1.3.8. PH…….................................................................................................. 16
1.3.9. Alkalinity ............................................................................................. 17
1.3.10. Lubricity ............................................................................................. 17
1.4. Rheology ....................................................................................................... 18
1.4.1. Basics of Rheology................................................................................ 18
1.4.2. Time-Dependent Behavior ................................................................... 21
1.4.3. Rheological models ............................................................................... 22
1.4.4. Viscoelasticity ...................................................................................... 25
1.5. Annulus Wellbore Hydraulics ..................................................................... 26
1.5.1. Fluid Mechanics ................................................................................... 26
1.5.2. Flow Regimes ....................................................................................... 27
1.6. Challenges Related to Drilling Fluid .......................................................... 28
1.6.1. Loss of Circulation ............................................................................... 28
1.6.2. Stuck pipe ............................................................................................ 29
1.6.3. Shale Instability .................................................................................. 30
1.6.4. Hole cleaning........................................................................................ 30
1.6.5. Salt formations and rubble zones ........................................................ 31
1.7. Calculation of the flow rate of invasion....................................................... 31
Chapitre 2 : Overview on Geological of HMD Oil Field ............................................................... 34
2.1. History of Hassi Messaoud oil field ............................................................. 34
2.2. Geological setting of Hassi Messaoud field ................................................. 35
2.3. Reservoir description ................................................................................... 36
2.3.1. Characteristics of Hassi-Messaoud reservoir ...................................... 38
2.3.2. The structure of Hassi-Messaoud resrvoir .......................................... 39
2.3.3. Areas and numbering of wells ............................................................. 41
2.4. Stratigraphic overview ................................................................................ 42
2.4.1. Cenozoic ............................................................................................... 42
2.4.2. Mesozoic ............................................................................................... 42
2.4.3. Paleozoic ............................................................................................... 44
2.4.4. Basement ............................................................................................. 45
2.5. Shale problems and water based drilling fluid in the Hassi Messaoud oil
field… ............................................................................................................ 47
2.5.1. Shale instability ................................................................................... 47
2.5.2. Clay swelling ........................................................................................ 50
2.6. Role and composition of drilling fluids ........................................................ 50
2.7. Filtration and inhibition .............................................................................. 52
2.8. Shale characterization and inhibition techniques ...................................... 52
Chapitre 3 : HP WBM drilling fluid in 16” hole section ....................................................... 54
3.1. Ultradril system Presentation..................................................................... 55
3.2. Ultradril System Components ..................................................................... 55
3.2.1. Primary Inhibitor ................................................................................ 55
3.2.2. Secondary Inhibitor ............................................................................ 55
3.2.3. Viscosifier ............................................................................................ 56
3.2.4. Fluid Loss Control Agents .................................................................. 56
3.2.5. Anti-accretion/Lubricant .................................................................... 56
3.3. Ethology of HMD field on 16” hole section .................................................. 57
3.4. Mud properties & Formulation ................................................................... 59
3.5. Fluid Formulation for 1.30 SG Ultradril .................................................... 59
3.6. HP WBM Attributes .................................................................................... 60
3.7. Trial of water based mud for 16”top hole .................................................... 60
3.8. Application of Ultradril in Algeria .............................................................. 60
3.9. Well description ........................................................................................... 61
3.10. Potential problems ..................................................................................... 62
3.11. Run analysis .............................................................................................. 64
3.11.1. 1st Run .............................................................................................. 65
3.11.2. 2nd Run ............................................................................................. 67
3.11.3. 3rd Run ............................................................................................. 68
3.11.4. 4th Run at 1854 m ............................................................................ 69
3.11.5. 5th Run Neocomien & Malm: (1884 - 2111 m) ................................. 70
3.11.6. 6th Run Malm, Dogger Argileux & Dogger Lagunar at (2111 - 2375
m)…… ........................................................................................................... 71
3.11.7. Run in hole the casing 133/8" and Cementation ................................ 71
3.12. Discussion .................................................................................................. 72
3.13. Properties analyses and performance of the ULTRADRIL ...................... 73
3.13.1. Mud weight ....................................................................................... 73
3.13.2. KCl Content ...................................................................................... 73
3.13.3. Rheology ............................................................................................ 73
3.13.4. API fluid loss ..................................................................................... 74
3.13.5. Solids control ..................................................................................... 75
3.13.6. MBT… ............................................................................................... 76
3.13.7 PH, ULTRAHIB, ULTRACAP and ULTRAFREE concentration ..... 77
3.13.8. Inhibitor ............................................................................................ 77
3.13.9. Removal of hydration (ULTRAHIB) ................................................. 78
3.13.10. Possibilities for improved encapsulation (UltraCap) ..................... 78
3.13.11. Anti-flocculation (ULTRAFREE) .................................................... 78
3.13.12. Initial and final properties of ULTRADRIL in third trial test used
during drilling the 16" phase in OMJZ#32 well …… .................................. 79
3.14. Application and performance of OBM in OMJZ#21 for 16" hole section .. 79
3.14.1. OBM properties ................................................................................. 79
3.14.2. Problems encountered....................................................................... 79
3.15. Products used and cost estimation of Ultradril ........................................ 82
3.15.1. Cost of Ultradril drilling fluid used in OMJZ#32 well ..................... 82
3.15.2. Cost of drilling fluid used in OMJZ21well drilled by OBM ............. 83
3.15.3. Comparative study between costs of Ultaradril (OMJZ#32) and OBM
(OMJZ#21) .................................................................................................... 83
Conclusion and Engineering recommendations ................................................................... 85
Conclusion… ....................................................................................................... 85
Engineering recommendations........................................................................... 86
References……. .................................................................................................................... 88
List of symbols
ASTM : American System Testing Material

BHA : Bottom Hole Assembly
API : American Petroleum Institute
BHST : Bottom Hole Stabilizer
CAL : Caliper
CHDP : Chip Hold Down Pressure
CEC : Cation exchange capacity (méq/100 g)
CST : Capillary suction time
d : Mud density.
DCM : Dielectric Constant Measurement
DSC : Downhole Simulation Cell
DSCA : Differential Strain Curve Analysis
SDT : Slake durability test
ECD : Equivalent Circulating Density.
ERD : Extended Reach Drilling
GR : Gamma Ray.
HMD : Hassi Messaoud
HZN : Hors Zone Nord
hc : Depth of formation crossing [m].
HAP : Hydrocarbures Aromatiques Polycycliques.
HSI : Horse power per Square Inch [hp/inch2].
HTHP : High Temperature High Pressure (500 psi/250 °F).
GST : Gravimetric Swelling Test
K : Permeability [mD or m2].
k : Indice de consistance. / index of stability
LCM : Lost Circulation Material.
LD : Lias Dolomite.
LGS : Low Gravity Solids.
LS : Lias Salifère.
L300 : Reading at 300 tr/min
L600 : Reading at 600 tr/min
MBT : Methylene Blue Test.
MD : Measure depth
MW : Mud Weight.
NPT : Non Productive Time.
OBM : Oil Based Mud.
TS : Trias salt
TCI : Tricone bit
P : Formation pressure [Kgf/cm2].
PAC : Polyanionic cellulose
PAG : Polyalkyle neglycols
PHPA : Partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide
XRD : Xray diffraction
PDC : Polycristalline Diamond Compact.
POOH : Pulling out open hole
ROP : Rate Of Penetration [m/h].
RPM : Revolution Per Minute (Tour par minute).
RIH : Run in hole
SBM : Synthetic based muds (Boues à base d’huiles synthétiques).
TD : Total Depth.
G : Storage modulus
TS : Trias Salifère.
Ta : Taylor number
VA : Apparent Viscosity [cP = mPa.s].
VP : Plastic Viscosity [cP= mPa.s].
WBM : Water Based Mud.
HP WBM : High Performance Water Based Mud
WOB : Porosité de la formation.
R : Reservoir
Re : Reynolds number
WOC : Waiting On Cement (Attente après cimentation).
TR : Trouton ratio
F : Force
dx : Displacement of all elements of the material in the x-direction
dy : Displacement of all elements of the material in the y-direction
A : Area
YP : Yield Point [Pa ou lb/100ft2].
γ : Strain velocity [s-1].
𝜸̇ : Shear rate
ε̇ : Tensile strain rate
μ : Constant of proportionality.
μp : Plastic viscosity [cPs].
τ : Shear stress of mud [N/m2].
τv : Yield-value [lb/100ft2].
η : Viscosity
qmf : Flow rate of mud-filtrate invasion
n : The power law index
List of tables
Table 1-1: Common brine systems. ...................................................................................................... 12
Table 3-1: Ethology of HMD field on 16” section ............................................................................... 57
Table 3-2: stratigraphy column of 16” section in HMD field ............................................................... 58
Table 3-3: Mud properties and Formulation of Ultradril ...................................................................... 59
Table 3-4: Fluid Formulation for 1.30 SG Ultradril ............................................................................. 59
Table 3-5: Application of Ultradril in Algeria. ..................................................................................... 61
Table 3-6: Description of OMZJ#32 well............................................................................................. 62
Table 3-7: mud properties used for drilling the Senonien Anhydritique formation .............................. 66
Table 3-8: mud properties used for drilling the Senonien Salt formation ............................................. 66
Table 3-9: mud properties used for drilling the Turonien formation .................................................... 66
Table 3-10: mud properties used for drilling the Cenomanien formation ............................................. 67
Table 3-11: mud properties used for drilling the Barremian formation ................................................ 68
Table 3-12: mud properties used for drilling the Neocomian formation ............................................... 69
Table 3-13: mud properties used for drilling Neocomien & Malm formations ..................................... 70
Table 3-14: mud properties used for drilling the Malm, Dogger Argileux & Dogger Lagunar formations
............................................................................................................................................................. 71
Table 3-15: Oil based mud properties .................................................................................................. 79
Table 3-16: Products and costs of Ultradril drilling fluid used in OMJZ#32 well ................................ 82
Table 3-17: cost of drilling fluid to drill OMJZ21 well with OBM ...................................................... 83
Table 3-18: cost of drilling fluid to drill OMJZ#32 well with WBM ................................................... 84
List of figures
Figure 1.1: Seal permeable formations. ..................................................................................................5
Figure 1.2: Conglomeration of loose material around pore throat. .........................................................6
Figure 1.3: Kaolinite stack almost completely disaggregated. ...............................................................7
Figure 1.4: Arrangements of clay particles. .......................................................................................... 11
Figure 1.5: Flow between two parallel plates illustrating shear stress, free after. ................................. 18
Figure 1.6: This graph illustrates fluids with and without time-dependent viscosity under static shear
condition. ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1.7: Plot showing the most used rheological models in the drilling industry for different fluids.
............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1.8: Principle of differential sticking (modified from Santos. ................................................... 29
Figure 2.1: Geological setting of Hassi-Messaoud field. ...................................................................... 36
Figure 2.2: Map of the different zones in the HMD field. .................................................................... 37
Figure 2.3: Reservoir structure and the different producting formations of HMD field. ...................... 38
Figure 2.4: West-East section of Hassi-Messaoud field. ...................................................................... 40
Figure 2.5: production zones of HMD field.......................................................................................... 41
Figure 2.6: Zones and numbering of the wells. ................................................................................... 42
Figure 2.7: stratigraphic section type.................................................................................................... 46
Figure 2.8: Representation of drilling fluid destabilization (Khodja et al., 2010) (Phase separation: low
viscosity and high filtrate). ................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.1: The three mechanisms of Ultradril. .................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.2: thickness that were drilled for each formation. .................................................................. 64
Figure 3.3: Rate of penetration by formation........................................................................................ 65
Figure 3.4: PDC drill bit balling ........................................................................................................... 67
Figure 3.5: PDC drill bit balling .......................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.6: the first tricone bit when came out to the surface ................................................................ 70
Figure 3.7: the second tricone bit when came out to the surface ........................................................... 71
Figure 3.8: Balled up of stabilizer and PDC ......................................................................................... 72
Figure 3.9: variation of PV and YP as a function of depth in OMJZ#32 well during drilling the phase of
16”........................................................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 3.10: The change in the API Fluid Loss as a function of depth while drilling the phase 16 " in
OMJZ 32. ............................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3.11: Good quality of cuttings in the third trial of used Ultradril on OMJZ#32 well ................ 75
Figure 3.12: LGS variation versus depth during drilling 16” phase in OMJZ#32 well. ........................ 76
Figure 3.13: Concentration of MBT while drilling 16 " phase in OMJZ#32 well. ............................... 77
Figure 3.14: Inhibitor concentration of ULTADRILL mud while drilling phase 16 " in OMJZ#32 well
as function of depth (m). ...................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 3.15: Initial and final properties of the mud in the third trial test of Ultradril in HMD field. .... 79
General introduction
Drilling fluids, which represent till one fifth of the total cost of well petroleum drilling, must generally
comply with three important requirements: they should be: easy to use, not too expensive and
environmentally friendly. The complex drilling fluids play several functions simultaneously. They are
intended to clean the well, hold the cuttings in suspension, prevent caving, ensure the tightness of the
well wall, flood diesel oil or water and form an impermeable cake near the wellbore area. Moreover,
they also have to cool and lubricate the tool, transfer the hydraulic power and carry information about
the nature of the drilled formation by raising the cuttings from the bottom to the surface.
Conventional WBM systems have given way to OBM due to the technical benefits and ease of use
associated with OBM systems. These inherent advantages provided by OBM are, however, being
offset by regulations, disposal costs and concerns over the environmental impact associated with the
system. Operators are constantly challenged to balance performance requirements with environmental,
waste disposal, economic and logistical drivers.
The use of high-performance water-based drilling fluids or “muds” (HP WBM) is becoming more
widespread as many operators seek alternative, environmentally acceptable, drilling fluid solutions for
technically demanding drilling operations. Provided that all of the HP WBM components satisfy local
environmental regulations, in most operational areas there are no limitations on the amount of HP
WBM which can be discharged.
Continuing interest of SONATRACH to protect the environment, especially the water bearing
formations, associated to diesel supply problems for drilling operations, provided the impetus for the
introduction of high performance WBM systems as alternatives to non aqueous fluids systems. Its
execution was discussed recently in the Hassi Messaoud field.
This mud is called Ultradril System is a WBM with features of OBM. The Ultradril system is used to
provide a water-based system of high efficiency to replace OBM fluids technically requiring in
sensitive environments.
The present study include three chapters; the first chapter will hold a literature review of drilling fluids,
functions, types, parameters, additives and a comparison between OBM and WBM. The second
chapter gives an overview on geological of HMD oil field, therefore its contains the history of the field,
geological setting, reservoir description, stratigraphic study, shale characterization and inhibition
techniques.
The third chapter intended on the evaluation of using of a new system of water based mud (for example
Ultradril) in the field of HMD from the 16" phase (challenging section) as the third trial, in order to
compare the performance between two types of drilling fluid HP WBM and OBM and help decide
Performance evaluation of HP WBM drilling fluid in HMD field from the 16” hole section 1
which type of mud is the best and suitable for drilling the 16” hole section in HMD field by considering
the application of each one in different wells (OMJZ#32 and OMJZ#21).
Chapter 1: Drilling fluids overview
Chapter 1 : Drilling fluids overview
Introduction
According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), a drilling fluid is defined as a circulating fluid, used
in rotary drilling to perform any or all of the various functions required in drilling operations. It is the single
component of the well-construction process that remains in contact with the wellbore throughout the entire
drilling operation. Drilling-fluid are designed and formulated to perform efficiently under expected
wellbore conditions.
The drilling fluid is related either directly or indirectly to almost every drilling problem. This is not to say
that the drilling fluid is the cause or solution of all drilling problems, but it is a tool that can often be used
to alleviate a problem situation. The drilling fluid in the drilling process can be seen as the equivalent to
the blood in the human body, the mud pump is the heart, and the drilled out shale (cuttings) represent the
slag products.
The active drilling-fluid system comprises a volume of fluid that is pumped with specially designed mud
pumps from the surface pits, through the drillstring exiting at the bit, up the annular space in the wellbore,
and back to the surface for solids removal and maintenance treatments as needed. A good drilling fluid is
simple and contains a minimum number of additives. This allows easier maintenance and control of
properties. It is desirable to have a mud system that is flexible enough to allow changes to be made to meet
changing requirements as they occur
1.1. Function of a drilling fluid

Drilling fluid functions describe tasks which the drilling fluid is capable of performing, although some
may not be essential on every well. Removing cuttings from the well and controlling formation pressures
are of primary importance on every well [1].
Though the order of importance is determined by well conditions and current operations, the most common
drilling fluid functions are:
1. Remove cuttings from the well;
2. Control formation pressures;
3. Suspend and release cuttings;
4. Seal permeable formations;
5. Maintain wellbore stability;

6. Minimize reservoir damage;
7. Cool, lubricate, and support the bit and drilling assembly;
8. Transmit hydraulic energy to tools and bit;
9. Ensure adequate formation evaluation;
10. Control corrosion;
11. Facilitate cementing and completion.
1.1.1. Remove cuttings from the well
Circulating drilling fluid carries cuttings (rock fragments created by the bit) to the surface. Maintaining the
fluid’s ability to transport these solid pieces up the hole (its carrying capacity) is key to drilling efficiently
and minimizing the potential for stuck pipe. To accomplish this, drilling fluid specialists work with the
driller to carefully balance mud rheology and flow rate to adjust carrying capacity while avoiding high
equivalent circulating density (ECD) the actual mud density plus the pressure drop in the annulus above a
given point in the borehole. Unchecked, high ECD may lead to lost circulation. [2]
1.1.2. Control formation pressures
For safe drilling, high formation pressures must be contained within the hole to prevent damage to
equipment and injury to personnel. The drilling mud achieves this by providing a hydrostatic pressure just
greater than the formation pressure. For effective drilling, the difference between the hydrostatic and
formation pressures should be zero. In practice, an overbalance of 100 to 200 psi (trip margin) is normally
used to provide an adequate safe guard against well kick. The pressure overbalance is sometimes referred
to as chip hold down pressure (CHDP), and its value directly influences penetration rate. In general,
penetration rate decreases as the CHDP increases. When an abnormally pressured formation is
encountered, the CHDP becomes negative and a sudden increase in penetration rate is observed. This is
normally taken as an indication of a well kick. [3]
1.1.3. Suspend and release cuttings
Drilling fluids must suspend drill cuttings, weight materials and additives under a wide range of conditions,
yet allow the cuttings to be removed by the solids-control equipment. Drill cuttings that settle during static
conditions can cause bridges and fill, which in turn can cause stuck pipe or lost circulation.
Weight material which settles is referred to as sag and causes a wide variation in the density of the well
fluid. Sag occurs most often under dynamic conditions in high-angle wells, where the fluid is being
circulated at low annular velocities.
High concentrations of drill solids are detrimental to almost every aspect of the drilling operation, primarily
drilling efficiency and ROP. They increase the mud weight and viscosity, which in turn increases
maintenance costs and the need for dilution. They also increase the horsepower required to circulate, the
thickness of the filter cake, the torque and drag, and the likelihood of differential sticking.
1.1.4. Seal permeable formations
Permeability refers to the ability of fluids to flow through porous formations; formations must be
permeable for hydrocarbons to be produced. When the mud column pressure is greater than formation
pressure, mud filtrate will invade the formation, and a filter cake of mud solids will be deposited on the
wall of the wellbore. Drilling fluid systems should be designed to deposit a thin, low-permeability filter
cake on the formation to limit the invasion of mud filtrate.
This improves wellbore stability and prevents a number of drilling and production problems. Potential
problems related to thick filter cake and excessive filtration include “tight” hole conditions, poor log
quality, increased torque and drag, stuck pipe, lost circulation, and formation damage. [1]
Figure 1.1: Seal permeable formations. [4]
1.1.5. Maintain wellbore stability
The basic components of wellbore stability include regulating density, minimizing hydraulic erosion and
controlling clays. Density in maintained by slightly overbalancing the weight of the mud column against
formation pore pressure. Engineers minimize hydraulic erosion by balancing hole
geometry against cleaning requirements, fluid carrying capacity and annular flow velocity. The process of
clay control is complex. Clays in some formations expand in the presence of water, while others disperse.
To some degree, these effects can be controlled by modifying the properties of the drilling fluid. Regardless
of the approach used, controlling the fluid’s effect on the formation helps control the borehole and the
integrity of the cuttings and leads to a cleaner, more easily maintained drilling fluid. [2]
1.1.6. Minimize reservoir damage
Protecting the reservoir from damage that could impair production is a big concern. Any reduction in a
producing formation’s natural porosity or permeability is considered to be formation damage. This can
happen as a result of plugging by mud or drill solids or through chemical (mud) and mechanical (drilling
assembly) interactions with the formation. Frequently, formation damage is reported as a skin damage
value or by the amount of pressure drop that occurs while the well is producing (drawdown pressure).
Some of the most common mechanisms for formation damage are:
Mud or drill solids invading the formation matrix, plugging pores.
1. Swelling of formation clays within the reservoir, reducing permeability;
2. Precipitation of solids as a result of mud filtrate and formation fluids being incompatible;
3. Precipitation of solids from the mud filtrate with other fluids, such as brines or acids, during
completion or stimulation procedures;
4. Mud filtrate and formation fluids forming an emulsion, restricting permeability.
The possibility of formation damage can be determined from offset well data and studies of formation
cores for return permeability. Drilling fluids designed to minimize a particular problem, specially designed
reservoir drill-in fluids or workover and completion fluids, all can be used to minimize formation damage.
Figure 1.2: Conglomeration of loose material around pore throat.
Figure 1.3: Kaolinite stack almost completely disaggregated. [5]
1.1.7. Cool, lubricate, and support the bit and drilling assembly
Considerable frictional heat is generated by mechanical and hydraulic forces at the bit and where the
rotating drillstring rubs against the casing and wellbore [1]. As the drilling fluid passes through and around
the rotating drilling assembly, it helps to cool and lubricate the bit and drilling assembly by absorbing this
heat and releasing it, by convection and radiation, to the air surrounding the surface pit tanks. The mud
also, provides lubrication by reducing friction between drillstring and borehole walls. Lubrication is
normally achieved by the addition of bentonite, oil, graphite etc. [3]
1.1.8. Transmit hydraulic energy to tools and bit
Drilling fluid is discharged through nozzles at the face of the bit. The hydraulic energy released against the
formation loosens and lifts cuttings away from the formation. This energy also powers downhole motors
and other hard ware that steer the bit and obtain drilling or formation data in real time. Data gathered
downhole are frequently transmitted to the surface using mud pulse telemetry, a method that relies on
pressure pulses through the mud column to send data to the surface. [2]
1.1.9. Ensure adequate formation evaluation
Accurate formation evaluation is essential to the success of the drilling operation, particularly during
exploration drilling. The chemical and physical properties of the mud affect formation evaluation. The
physical and chemical wellbore conditions after drilling also influence formation evaluation. During
drilling, the circulation of mud and cuttings is monitored for signs of oil and gas by technicians called mud
loggers.
They examine the cuttings for mineral composition, paleontology and visual signs of hydrocarbons. This
information is recorded on a mud log that shows lithology, ROP, gas detection and oil-stained cuttings
plus other important geological and drilling parameters. [1]
1.1.10. Control corrosion
The drilling fluid in most cases will have water that contains dissolved salts as its base liquid. This serves
as a medium in which corrosion takes place. If corrosion is suspected, then the cause should be determined
and steps taken to prevent damage of the equipment. It has been found that in muds containing oil as the
continuous phase, little or no corrosion occurs.
1.1.11. Facilitate cementing and completion
The drilling fluid must produce a wellbore into which casing can be run and cemented effectively and
which does not impede completion operations. Cementing is critical to effective zone isolation and
successful well completion. During casing runs, the mud must remain fluid and minimize pressure surges
so that fracture-induced lost circulation does not occur. Running casing is much easier in a smooth, in
gauge wellbore with no cuttings, cavings or bridges. The mud should have a thin, slick filter cake. To
cement casing properly, the mud must be completely displaced by the spacers, flushes and cement.
Effective mud displacement requires that the hole should be near-gauge and the mud must have low
viscosity and low, non-progressive gel strengths. Completion operations such as perforating and gravel
packing also require a near-gauge wellbore and may be affected by mud characteristics. [1]
1.2. Composition of drilling fluid

Out of these different functions, the composition of a particular mud system does depend on the actual
requirements of the individual well or well section. Wells are drilled through different formations that
require different mud properties to achieve optimum penetrations and stable borehole conditions.
Therefore economics, component and additives availability, temperature and contamination are just a few
of the major factors that determine the design of a particular mud program.
All the possible mixtures that form drilling mud can be generally characterised by the following system.
Further sub-classifications do exist.
 Water based fluids;
 Oil based fluids;
 Aarated fluids.
1.2.1. Water based fluids
The term water-base mud refers to any drilling fluid where the continuous phase, in which some materials
are in suspension and others are dissolved, is water. Thus any water-base mud system consists of a water
phase, inert solids, a reactive solids phase and chemical additives. Each of these parts contribute to the
overall mud properties.
The individual contributions are:
 Water: create initial viscosity ;
 Inert solids (low-gravity solids like sand and chert and high-gravity solids like barite and lead
sulfides): produce required mud weight;
 Reactive solids (low-gravity solids like bentonite and attapulgite clays): cause further viscosity
and yield point;
 Chemical additives (mud thinners like phosphate, chrome, lignosulphonate, lignites, and
surfactants, and mud thickeners like lime, cement and polymers): aid to control viscosity, yield
point, gel strength, fluid loss, pH-value, filtration behavior.
To control corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement and the solubility of Ca2+ and Mg2+, a high pH value is
required and can be controlled with caustic (NaOH).
Clear Water and Native Muds
To drill compact formations which are normally pressured (formation pressure equals hydrostatic pressure
caused by formation fluids), fresh water and salt-saturated water can be used as drilling mud. As the name
indicates, native muds are a mixture of water and clays or shales from the cuttings drilled. Here the clays
or shales are dissolved by the water and returned to the surface.
Clear water and native muds are the cheapest mud systems since no additional material to form the mud is
needed. They are also environmentally best accepted. [6]
Inhibited water based fluids
An inhibited water based mud is often used to minimize hole sloughing problems. “inhibition” refers to
retarding the rate at which formation clays hydrate. Hydration reduces the structural stability of the
borehole, allowing it to fall, or slough, into the wellbore. Common inhibited muds such as lime muds used
calcium to retard hydration, while others used high concentrations of various salts.
Four common mud systems that ca be classified as inhibited muds are gyp muds, lime muds, seawater
muds, and saturated saltwater muds. Lime muds have been widely used for many years as inhibited fluids.
The hydrated lime, which is calcium hydroxide, reduces the amount of water attached to the clay structure.
Dispersed muds
A dispersed mud usually uses chemicals that cause the clay platelets to “disperse” or separate, within the
liquid phase. These dispersed muds tend to have better viscosity control, higher solids tolerance, and better
filtration control than nondispersed systems. Dispersed systems are used frequently in drilling young, high-
activity clays. [7]
Dispersed mud systems consist of: fresh or salty water, bentonite, lignosulphonate, caustic soda and
colloidal polymers (carboxy methyl cellulose or stabilized starch). [6]
Nondispersed Muds – KCL/Polymer Muds
To drill water sensitive and sloughing shales such as productive sands which are prone to formation
damage, fresh water nondispersed muds are applied. Commonly, nondispersed muds are associated with
low mud weights and low solid concentrations. Nondispersed mud systems consist of: fresh water or brine,
potassium chloride (KCl), inhibiting polymer, viscosifier, stabilized starch or carboxy methyl cellulose,
caustic soda and lubricants.
Low-solids polymer mud systems are widespread in the industry since they offer advantages like increased
penetration rate, hole stability, shear thinning ability, hole cleaning with maximum hydraulics and lower
equivalent circulation density over conventional deflocculated muds. With all these advantages, they also
have disadvantages like instability at temperatures above 250 F, irreversible absorption of the polymer on
clay, a higher dilution and an adequate solids removal equipment is required as well as they are more
corrosive. [6]
Flocculated Muds
Flocculated muds posses generally a dynamic increase in filtration, viscosity and gel strength. Flocculation
refers to a thickening of the mud due to edge-to-edge and edge-to-face association of clay particles. The
flocculation is commonly caused by high active solids concentration, high electrolyte concentration and
high temperature. To reduce the flocculating tendency of the mud, chemical additives, also called
deflocculants or thinners are used. Thinners like phosphates, tannins, lignins and lignosulphonate are
applied to lower the yield point and gel strength. When deflocculants are added, the pH-value is controlled
by NaOH. [6]
Figure 1.4: Arrangements of clay particles. [7]
Salt-saturated Muds
Salt-saturated muds are used to drill through salt domes and salt sections. These mud
systems are saturated with sodium chloride (NaCL) that prevents severe hole enlargements due to
washouts of the salt formations. Swelling of bentonitic shales is controlled by adding of polymer
[6]. Table 1.1 shows some of the more commonly used salt systems.
Table 1-1: Common brine systems. [7]
Approximate maximum
Single- salt brines Density, Ib/gal
Potassium chloride (KCl) 9.7
Sodium chloride (NaCl) 10.0
Calcium chloride (CaCI2) 11.6
Calcium bromide (CaBr2) 14.2
Two-salt brines
Calcium chloride/ calcium bromide 15.1
(CaCI2/CaBr2)
Three-salt brines
Calcium chloride/ calcium bromide/ zinc 19.2
Bromide (CaCI2/CaBr2/ZnBr2)
1.2.2. Oil based fluids
Oil based fluids use crude or refined oils as the continuous phase. These muds may have water emulsified
in the oil. Two types of oil based fluids are commonly used. An oil mud has less than 5% water. An invert
emulsion has a water concentration greater than 5% [7]. The oil base fluids are generally used for specific
purposes, such as drilling sensitive production zones or problem shales, drilling salt section and formation
that contain hydrogen sulfide, danger of stuck pipe problems, and drilling at bottom hole temperatures that
are permissible by water base muds.
Low-gravity solids content has to be monitored closely when drilling with oil-base muds since at this
environment solids do not hydrate which causes low-gravity solids contents to exceed acceptable levels
often. This results in reduction of penetration rate, formation damage and increase in risk of differential
sticking.
Since oil-base muds contain substantially less colloidal particles, they exhibit a spurt fluid loss. Due to the
higher filtration rates, the monitoring of high-pressure high-temperature filtration as well as the drilling
conditions are important to ensure that excessive filtration or filter cake buildup does not lead to problems.
[6]
1.2.3. Aerated fluids
Aerated fluids used in drilling operations include air, natural gas, mist, foam, or aerated muds. These fluids
allow high penetration rates because of the reduced hydrostatic pressure, thus allowing the drilled rock
fragment to explode into the wellbore. Lost circulation problems are minimized when using aerated fluids
[7]. These drilling fluids are used when their pressure is lower than that exerted by the petroleum located
in the pores of the rock formation. These fluids are called ‘underbalanced fluids’. This underbalanced
drilling technology is generally adopted for poorly consolidated and/or fractured formations. [8]
Problems associated with air or natural gas drilling are often due to insufficient air volumes for removal of
the cuttings. Annular velocity below 2500 ft/min may not remove the chips. In addition, these high
velocities commonly erode and enlarge the wellbore such that a volume previously satisfactory before the
erosion will not lift cuttings after the erosion. [7]
1.3. Properties of drilling fluids

As the formulation of muds, control and characterization of drilling muds are made according to specific
standards published by the API (API 13A, 2010). Tests for the study of the characteristics of drilling fluids
are generally based on four parameters: density, viscosity, filtrate and reactivity.
Some measures are carried out systematically during Drilling (viscosity, density, filtration) and others
depending on the needs (gas rate, alkalinity). From the measurements taken and knowledge required is
adjusted if necessary the composition of the mud in "real time" by adding certain products or enreformulant
mud. Historically, grand problems found in initial drilling, the density is the first basic parameter for the
characterization of drilling fluids.
1.3.1. Density
The starting point of pressure control is the control of mud density. The weight of a column of mud in the
hole necessary to balance formation pressure is the reference point from which all pressure control
calculations are based. The required weight of the mud column es-tablishes the density of the mud for any
specific case. The density of a mud is increased by adding barite, a commercial grade of barium sulfate.
Barite is used as a standard weighting agent because of its low cost, high specific gravity, inertness, and
low abrasiveness.
The pres-sure exerted by the mud on the walls of the well, is given by the following expression:
hc d
P (1)
10
with P: Formation pressure (kgf/cm2), hc: Depth of formation crossing (m) and d: mud density.
Muds maintained at densities higher than required to control formation pressures cause a
variety of problems. They decrease penetration rates, increase differential pressure sticking,
increase possibility of lost circulation, increase mud costs, and thus increase overall well cost.
Consequently, density should be controlled even in unweighted muds. [8]
1.3.2. Rheology
The rheological properties of a mud are those properties which describe the flow char-
acteristics of a mud under various flow conditions. In a mud circulating system, flow occurs at a
variety of rates in conduits of different sizes and shapes. In order to know or predict the effects of
this flow, we need to know the flow behavior of the mud at the various points of interest in the
circulating system. To simplify the measurement procedure, we make only a limited number of
measurements.
The objectives principal to determine the rheology of mud are to:
1. Minimize viscosity at high shear rates in order to maximize penetration rates;
2. Maintain adequate viscosity at annular shear rates to lift cuttings and sloughing and clean
the hole;
3. Minimize viscosity at annular shear rates consistent with good hole cleaning when lost
circulation may occur due to excessive annular pressure drop;
4. Provide adequate gel strength at all points in the system to suspend barite;
5. Prevent excessively high gel strengths from developing downhole during long periods of
quiescence in order to prevent high pump pressures required to break circulation, and high
swab and surge pressures. [8]
1.3.3. Viscosity
Viscosity is defined as the liquid’s resistance to flow, or a measure of the liquid’s internal
friction (mechanical and dispersion or attraction) [9]. Viscosifiers are usually added to increase the
viscosity of drilling fluids to improve their cleaning and suspension functions.The viscosifiers must
enhance both psuedoplastic and thixotropic properties of the drilling fluids [10]. Excessive
viscosity is undesirable because of the pressures that can be generated by higher viscosity in the
borehole when pumping horizontally.
We define two types of viscosity: apparent viscosity (VA) and a plastic viscosity (PV) often related
to the size of particles, and their shape.
L600
VA  (2)
2
VP  L600  L300 (3)
L600 and L300 which represent readings at 600 and 300 tr/min on the Fann rheometer 35.
1.3.4. The yield point
The yield point is a resistance to flow due to dispersion or attraction between solids. It
depends on the type of solids, associated chargers, the concentration of these solids, and the type
and concentration of salts or other ions may be present [9]. The yield point is primarily associated
with two mud functions: the hole cleaning capability and the pressure control characteristic of a
mud. A higher yield point increases the carrying capacity of a mud and increases the circulating
pressure drop in the annulus [8]. We define the yield point by the following equation:
Y P  L300 VP  (VA VP )  2 (4)
1.3.5. Get strength
Gel strength is the shear stress of drilling mud that is measured at low shear rate after the
drilling mud is static for a certain period of time. The gel strength is one of the important drilling
fluid properties because it demonstrates the ability of the drilling mud to suspend drill solid and
weighting material when circulation is ceased.
1.3.6. Filtration
In order to prevent formation fluids from entering the borehole, the hydrostatic pressure of
the mud column must be greater than the pressure of the fluids in the pores of the formation.
Consequently, mud tends to invade the permeable formations. Massive loss of mud into the
formation usually does not occur, because the mud solids are filtered out onto the walls of the hole,
forming a cake of relatively low permeability through which only filtrate can pass. Muds must be
treated to keep cake permeability as low as possible in order to maintain a stable borehole and to
minimize filtrate invasion of, and damage to, potentially productive horizons. Furthermore, high
cake permeabilities result in thick filter cakes, which reduce the effective diameter of the hole and
cause various problems, such as excessive torque when rotating the pipe, excessive drag when
pulling it, and high swab and surge pressures. Thick cakes may cause the drill pipe to stick by a
mechanism known as differential sticking, which may result in an expensive fishing job.
Two types of filtration are involved in drilling an oilwell: static filtration, which takes place
when the mud is not being circulated and the filter cake grows undisturbed, and dynamic filtration,
which takes place when the mud is being circulated and the growth of the filter cake is limited by
the erosive action of the mud stream. Dynamic filtration rates are much higher than static rates, and
most of the filtrate invading subsurface formations does so under dynamic conditions. [11]
1.3.7. Corrosivity
Corrosion has been found to be the principal cause of drill pipe failures. Corrosion of the
surface of the drill pipe is monitored by placing steel rings in the tool-joint box recess at the end of
the pin and determining the loss in weight after a selected time of exposure to the drilling fluid.
Observation of the type of corrosive attack is frequently more significant than observation
of the loss in weight. For example, pitting may result in a relatively small weight loss in comparison
to generalized corrosion, but it may be responsible for far more instances of drill pipe failure.
Monitoring by steel rings reveals how pitting may relate to failure, but gives no information on
hydrogen embrittlement, stress corrosion cracking, or other forms for fracture.
In planning the drilling fluids program, attention must be given not only to the possible
corrosive effects of the corrosion inhibitors on the drilling fluid itself. Some corrosion inhibitors,
for example, may severely affect the properties of water muds. Sources of corrosive agents, their
composition, and methods of counteracting them are factors to be considered in selecting the
drilling fluid. [11]
1.3.8. PH
The pH of a solution is a measure of its hydrogen ion concentration. At each hydrogen ion
(H+) concentration, there is an equilibrium concentration of hydroxyl (OH-) ions. By measuring
the hydrogen ion concentration, we are, in effect, also measuring the hydroxyl ion concentration.
In pure water, the H+ and OH- concentrations are the same. This is the neutral point, or a pH of 7.
When acid is added to water, the pH decreases on a scale from 7 to 0. When a base (caustic) is
added to water, the pH increases on a scale from 7 to 14. The pH scale is logarithmic.
This means the hydrogen or hydroxyl ion concentration changes by a factor of ten for each
unit change in pH. In other words, a solution at pH 10 has 10 times the hydroxyl ion concentration
of a solution at pH 9.
The additional hydroxyl ions required to raise the pH of water from 7 to 9.5 is the same as
is required to raise the pH from 9.5 to 9.8. This shows that the reserve of hydroxyl ions is very
small below a pH of 9.5. The reserve is subject to rapid change if anything that will react with
hydroxyl ions, such as acid gas or clay solids, is introduced into the mud.
Maintaining an adequate pH in a mud is important for a number of reasons.
1. Corrosion rates are suppressed at a pH above 10;
2. Hydroxyl ions neutralize the H+ ions from H2S and prevent hydrogen embrittlement. A pH
above 11 should be maintained if H2S is anticipated
3. Organic additives such as lignite and lignosulfonate require a pH above 9.5 in order to
function effectively;
4. The rate of thermal degradation of lignosulfonate is reduced at a pH above 10;
5. Magnesium is precipitated from sea water at pH 10;
6. Calcium solubility is reduced as pH is increased. [8]
1.3.9. Alkalinity
Alkalinity measurements are made to determine the amount of lime in lime-treated muds.
The mud is titrated to determine the total amount of lime, soluble and insoluble, in the system (Pm)
The filtrate is titrated to determine the amount of lime in solution (P f). The amount of undissolved
lime is calculated from Pm-Pf. Measurements of the alkalinity of water samples, and of filtrates of
very lightly chemically treated muds, can be used to calculate the concentration of hydroxyl (OH),
carbonate (CO3), and bicarbonate (HCO3) ion in solution. [11]
1.3.10. Lubricity
One of the functions of the drilling fluid is to lubricate the drill string. The requirement for
lubrication is especially critical in directional and crooked holes, and in avoidance of wall-sticking.
The Timken lubricant tester has been modified and a method devised to funish comparative results
on which to base recommendations for treatment of the mud.
1.4. Rheology
1.4.1. Basics of Rheology
Rheology is defined as the science of deformation and flow of matter. As a theoretical subject,
rheology is a branch of physics and physical chemistry; commonly classified as a branch of fluid
mechanics [12]. Rheology itself has been acknowledged as a separate scientific branch since the
mid 1920's [13].
All real materials will deform to some extent when subjected to stress. If the material is an ideal
liquid it may "deform continuously" or flow, when a force is applied. For ideal solids the
deformation will be elastic. The relationship between the applied force and the resulting
deformation is a unique function of each specific material. For fluids, i.e. liquids and gases, this
function is known as a rheological property of the material
In all fluid flows there are different sub-layers of fluid that move with different velocities. If
the flow in a circular pipe is laminar, the fluid flow rate adjacent to the pipe wall will be zero, while
the flow will be at the maximum velocity in the center of the pipe [14]. This phenomena, named
the velocity profile, implies that the molecules are moving relative to each other when in motion.
The relative movement and rotation of molecules are caused by internal friction forces, leading to
a certain flow resistance.
Consider a two-dimensional (2D) system of two parallel plates with a fluid between the plates,
where one of the plates is stationary and the other is moving in one direction parallel to the first.
The fluid will then be sheared due to the friction acting between the plate and the fluid. Figure 1.5
illustrates how the plate causes the fluid to be sheared.
Figure 1.5: Flow between two parallel plates illustrating shear stress, free after [13].
The upper plate in Figure 1.5 is moved by a force F, and the plate acts on the fluid with an
area A. The displacement of that plate results in relative movement of all elements of the material
in the x-direction, resulting in deformation and fluid flow. Assume that the displacement of a given
element is dx at the location dy, the shear strain is given by
dx
 (5)
dy
Shear stress
The shear stress exerted on the fluid is defined as the relationship between force F and area
the force acts upon A.
F
 (6)
A
The relationship between shear strain and shear stress defines shear dependent viscosity of
the material. If the material is a fluid, a constant force on the upper plate will result in a constant
velocity u. The deformation, or flow, can be described by the time rate change of shear strain, also
referred to as the shear rate [12].
Shear rate
Given the velocity du at the position dy the shear rate is:
d  d  dx  1 d du
    dx   (7)
dt dt  dy  dy dt dy
The shear rate is the same as the velocity gradient illustrated in figure Figure 1.5. In other
words, it is the rate of which the shear is applied on the fluid. All shear dependent fluids will change
viscosity when exposed to different shear rates.
Viscosity
Viscosity is the representation of the internal resistance to deformation, a fluid shows under
stress. In everyday language one usually refers the viscosity to "how thick" the fluid is, meaning
the "thicker" the fluid is the greater the internal friction is. Viscosity is the most elementary property
dealt with in rheology [15].
For some fluids the viscosity can be expressed through a coefficient, but for most fluids it
is more a factor dependent on other properties. These properties can be, but not limited to,
temperature, pressure, shear rate, on how the fluid has been treated before, and under which regimes
the shear has influenced the fluid.
In order to properly predict how a fluid will act, it is important to have knowledge on how
fluids change under different external conditions. The SI unit for viscosity is Pas, while in the
industry centiPoise (cP) is also used. A centiPoise is equivalent to 1 mPas. Water at 20°C has the
viscosity of 1.002 centiPoise and thus serves as a useful reference.
Viscosity is defined by the American Petroleum Institute (API), as the ratio of shear stress to shear
rate.

 (8)

Other scientific communities define viscosity as:

 (9)

and uses 𝜂 = 𝜇 , if 𝜂 is only shear dependent.
The viscosity of fluids is dependent on the temperature. For Newtonian fluids the viscosity
generally decreases when the temperature is increased. As mentioned earlier the pressure will also
influence viscosity. With isotropic pressure increase, the fluid's viscosity will grow exponentially.
When performing measurements and analysis in a laboratory, a change in absolute pressure the
magnitude of one bar, will have a negligible effect on the viscosity [15]. On the other hand, a
change in temperature will have a significant effect on the measurements, and should subsequent
be recorded. Preferably temperature changes should be avoided, when measuring viscosity. In a
real situation, i.e. in a real well, the fluid will experience a range of different temperatures and
pressures, both in significant orders. Therefore it is important to have a basic understanding on how
drilling fluids behaves under various external conditions.
Extensional viscosity
Not all fluid flow is determined by shear stress. Tensile flow are natural occurring, and the
internal friction of the two flow types are not the same for such applications as for shear dependent
flow. Extensional viscosity is the term with the notion 𝜂𝐸 , for the internal resistance of such flows.
For ideally viscous fluids, when the values of tensile strain rate 𝜀̇ and shear rate 𝛾̇ are the same, the
following relationship is valid:
˙
E    3 ( ) (10)
For applications where the tensile strain rate is greater than the shear rate, the Trouton ratio
expresses the relationship [13]:
˙
˙
TR  E ( ) /  ( ) (11)
1.4.2. Time-Dependent Behavior
Some fluids have a viscosity behavior depending on time or what kind of shear stress they
have previously been exposed to, sometimes called the shear history. These should not be confused
with Pseudoplastic (shear-thinning) and Dilatant (shear-thickening) fluids, although their names
are somewhat similar. Figure 6 illustrates the concepts of time-dependent fluids.
Thixotropy
Thixotropic fluids are showing signs that the viscosity is reduced when the shear force is
constant for some time, i.e. the fluid flows easier with time under static shear stress. They develop
a solid state structure when at rest or with decreasing shear rate, like a gel. The gel structure strength
depends on the time at rest and when sheared. The gel will begin to break as shear is initiated, and
will ultimately break completely when exposed higher and prolonged shear. A fluid could be
described by a simple rheological model, i.e. Bingham Plastic or Power Law, and simultaneously
be thixotropic. Examples of thixotropic fluids are mayonnaise, paints and inks, and also some
drilling fluids.
Rheopectic
Rheopectic fluids are less common than fluids with thixotropic behavior. They show a time-
dependent increase in viscosity, meaning that the longer they undergo shear stress the thicker they
will be, i.e. the higher viscosity they will have.
Figure 1.6: This graph illustrates fluids with and without time-dependent viscosity under static shear
condition.
1.4.3. Rheological models
Fluids are classified by their rheological behavior American Petroleum Institute (2010). All
fluids are classified as either Newtonian or Non-Newtonian, the clearest distinction be-tween
different types of fluids. Figure 1.7 illustrates a graphical representation on how different fluids
react, when exposed to increased shear rate.
Figure 1.7: Plot showing the most used rheological models in the drilling industry for different fluids.
1.4.3.1. Newtonian
The Newtonian fluid model is valid for fluids that does not change properties during time
or shear stress variations, i.e. time independent and consistent. Newtonian fluids have a linear
proportional relationship between the shear stress τ and the shear rate γ ̇, where μ is the constant of
proportionality. In mathematical terms this means:
   (12)
This constant is the viscosity of the fluid [14]. The viscosity is not a real constant, i.e.
constant regardless of which system it is measured in, but dependent upon temperature and
pressure. In relation to Figure 5 this means that if the force F is doubled, the plate velocity u will
also double. Pure water is the typical example of a Newtonian fluid.
Other material examples are glycerin and light oils. A single measurement will provide the
viscosity of the fluid, regardless of the shear force, for the specific pressure and temperature.
1.4.3.2. Bingham Plastic
The Bingham plastic model, also known as the Yield Point (YP) model or simply the
Bingham model, describes a fluid with a yield stress component and a Newtonian component.
The fluids that fit this model require a certain amount of shear stress before flowing. After
exceeding the critical stress value, the fluid yields and will thereafter behave as a Newtonian fluid
with increasing shear stress. Everyday examples of Bingham fluids are mayonnaise and ketchup.
This model also include fluids that hold solids suspended [15].
Common drilling fluids often tend to gel during longer periods of standstill. The fluid then forms
a solid state, i.e. the fluid is not 100 % liquid any more, thus more rigid. This gelling requires a
certain shear stress to be overcome, and this is the yield point of the fluid. The model is therefore
used when describing some drilling fluids.
The definition is:
   y   pl  (13)
Where τy is the yield stress and μpl is the plastic viscosity.
1.4.3.3. Power Law
Power law fluids are defined as:
  Kn (14)
Where K is the consistency index and n is the power law index. There are two basic forms of power
law fluids, depending on the value of the coefficients in the power law equation, K and n.
Pseudoplastic
Pseudoplastic fluids are shear thinning, meaning they will have less viscosity with higher
shear rates. For pseudoplastic fluids the flow behavior index is below one, n < 1. Shear thinning
behavior is found in polymers and polymer solutions, among them many drilling fluids. A
pseudoplastic fluid is displayed in Figure 1.7.
Dilatant
Dilatant fluids are shear thickening, and less common than shear thinning fluids in nature.
Dilatant fluids increase their viscosity exponentially when the shear force is increased, i.e. the flow
behavior index is greater than one, n > 1. The best known example of a dilatant, made famous by
various Hollywood movies, is a mixture of sand, clay and water, also known as quicksand.
From the movies we know that the harder a person stuck in quicksand struggles, the less is
the effort worth. That means the viscosity will increase with movement (shear), thus making the
movement more difficult.
1.4.3.4. Herschel-Bulkley
The Herschel-Bulkley model is also called the Yield Power Law (YPL) model, since it takes
both a yield point and a power law development into account. Effectively it is a combination of the
Bingham and power law fluid models.
˙
 y  K  n (15)
The Herschel-Bulkley model is often used to describe oil-well drilling fluids, since it
considers both a yield point and power law development with increasing shear rate. The yield point
factor is due to gelling.
1.4.3.5. Other models
Rheology models are used in many other industries than the drilling industry, and hence
other rheology models are developed to better fit the viscoelastic fluids in use. Rheology models
are made for predictions, due to the fact that is would be very time consuming, or impossible, to
measure fluid properties under all possible conditions. Other models not commonly seen in the
drilling industry, are among other:
Casson
   y   (16)
Collins-Graces
  ( y  K  )(1  e   ) (17)
Robertson-Stiff
˙ n
  K ( y   ) (18)
1.4.3.6. Rheological Modeling in the Drilling Industry
The Herschel-Bulkley model is the most commonly used model for drilling fluids in the oil
industry today. The fluids used for drilling oil and gas wells will experience a wide range of
different shear rates, and the YPL model has been found to be a simple and applicable model when
considering the whole range of different shear rates (American Petroleum Institute, 2010).
Knowledge on drilling fluid rheology is important for the following applications, all of them of
importance for the drilling process (American Petroleum Institute, 2010):
 Calculating frictional pressure loss in annuli and pipes;

 Estimating equivalent circulating density (ECD) of the fluid under downhole
conditions;
 Determining flow regimes in the annulus;
 Estimating hole-cleaning efficiency;
 Estimating surge and swab pressures;
 Optimization of the circulating system for improved drilling efficiency.
1.4.4. Viscoelasticity
According to Mezger (2011) [13] the behavior of "all real materials are based on the
combination of both a viscous and an elastic portion and therefore it is called viscoelastic". The
extremities of reactions to shear behavior are flow of ideally viscous liquids and deformation of
ideally elastic solids. Mezger (2011) [13] suggests that this is rarely the case. Viscoelastic materials
are showing both viscous and elastic behavior at the same time.
Viscoelastic fluid behavior can be explained by two parameters, the storage modulus G” and
the loss modulus G”. These parameters are measured in shear, and the relationship is the
relationship of stress and strain. The storage modulus represents the elastic part of the material
behavior. This modulus is a measure of the deformation energy which is stored by the material. If
the energy is 100% stored, the material will reclaim it's original structure, thus be a ideal elastic
solid. The loss modulus G” is the measure of loss of deformation energy during the shear process.
1.5. Annulus Wellbore Hydraulics

When researching drilling fluids and their behavior it is not beneficial to only describe the
rheological side of things. Fluid mechanics should also be part of such research.
1.5.1. Fluid Mechanics
Fluid mechanics is the study of the forces involved in both still and flowing fluids.
Reynolds number
Reynold introduced a dimensionless number in order to compare fluid flow independent of
which medium surrounded them and other variables. The Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial
forces to viscous forces in fluid flow (American Petroleum Institute, 2010). The ratio is
dimensionless and defined for circular pipes as:
dV 
Re  (19)

Where d is the diameter of the flow channel, V is the average flow velocity, 𝜌 the density
of the fluid and 𝜇 the fluid viscosity. For other circumstances the equation will be different, or
compensated by choosing a different value for d.
Taylor number
G.I. Taylor (1923) introduced a dimensionless number that characterizes the importance of
inertial forces relative to viscous forces in a fluid rotating around an axis. The physical meaning of
the Taylor number is comparable to the Reynolds number [16], they are both a ratio between
viscous and inertial forces. The definition for the Taylor number for the flow between two
concentric cylinders is:
Ω 2  2 R1 ( R 2  R1 )3
Ta  (20)
2
Where Ω is the characteristic angular velocity, 𝜌 the density of the fluid, 𝜇 the viscosity, R1 the
external radius of the inner cylinder, and R2 the internal radius of the external cylinder.
1.5.2. Flow Regimes
Fluid flow in circular pipes can behave in different ways. Most common fluids are
transported in circular pipes. This is because pipes can withstand a large difference in pressure
between the inside and outside of the pipe, without being significantly distorted.
The theory behind fluid flow is commonly well understood, yet only fully developed
laminar flow is theoretically obtained. Therefore flow with other characteristics, like turbulent
flow, must rely on experimental and empirical relations. The borderlines between laminar,
transitional and turbulent flow regimes are set by the Reynolds number of the flow. For laminar
flow, the viscous forces dominate, while for turbulent flow the inertial forces play the bigger role
American Petroleum Institute (2010). All fluid flow inside a pipe has the velocity profile of zero at
the pipe wall due to no-slip condition to a maximum at the center of the pipe.
Laminar
Laminar flows are relatively easy to describe both mathematically, physically, and
graphically. Laminar flow is characterized by smooth streamlines and a highly ordered motion. In
general they have low Reynold number values, and can therefore be described as slow flowing.
For circular pipes the flow regime is generally laminar if the Reynold number is under 2300
[17]. The pressure required to move fluid under laminar conditions increases when velocity or
viscosity is increased. The velocity profile of a laminar flow is quite easy to depict. In pipes, the
cross section along the pipe, the velocity profile will be parabolic.
Turbulent Flow
Turbulent flows are characterized by velocity fluctuations for a single element particle and
a highly disordered motion. The reason behind these fluctuations is rapid mixing between the fluid
particles from adjacent layers. This leads to a momentum transfer between fluid particles, and
thereby increasing the friction force on the pipe wall [17]. Since the friction is higher for turbulent
flow than laminar, a higher pressure drop is needed for turbulent flows, which in reality often means
artificial power (pumping).
Fluids flowing in circular pipes will act turbulent if the Reynold number is higher than
approximately 4000. For other geometries other boundary values are valid. It is quite complicated
to model the flow under such conditions, due to the irregular and unstable nature of turbulence.
Transitional Flow
The transition from laminar to turbulent flow does not happen suddenly. It occurs over some
regions where the flow fluctuates between laminar and turbulent. It is therefore described as a
separate regime. The transition is controlled by the relative importance of viscous forces and
inertial forces on the flow, that is the Reynolds number.
1.6. Challenges Related to Drilling Fluid

All drilling challenges relate to the fundamental objective of maintaining a workable wellbore
throughout the well-construction process. A workable wellbore can be drilled, logged, cased,
cemented, and completed with minimal nonproductive time. The design of the drilling-fluid system
is central to achieving this objective.
Most operational problems are interrelated, making them more difficult to resolve are:
1.6.1. Loss of Circulation
A lost-circulation incident exacts a heavy cost that goes far beyond the price of products
that are used to treat it. Lost circulation always causes nonproductive time that includes the cost of
rig time and all the services that support the drilling operation. A loss of circulation into a depleted
zone causes a drop in hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore. When the hydrostatic pressure falls too
low to hold back formation fluids, the loss incident can be compounded by an influx of gas or
water, known as a flow or (when more severe) a kick. In these circumstances, the operator should
increase the fluid density to stop the kick, yet avoid exacerbating the lost-circulation problem.
Furthermore, the pressure differential created at the loss zone can cause the drillstring to become
embedded in the wall cake, a situation called differential sticking. The drillstring should be freed
quickly by mechanical or chemical methods because the longer it remains stuck, the lower the
likelihood of freeing it. Failure to free the pipe can require an expensive fishing job that cannot be
undertaken until the well is under control. [18]
1.6.2. Stuck pipe
Complications related to stuck pipe can account for nearly half of total well cost, making
stuck pipe one of the most expensive problems that can occur during a drilling operation.[19] Stuck
pipe often is associated with well-control and lost-circulation events—the two other costly
disruptions to drilling operations—and is a significant risk in high-angle and horizontal wells.
Drilling through depleted zones, where the pressure in the annulus exceeds that in the
formation, might cause the drillstring to be pulled against the wall and embedded in the filter cake
deposited there (Figure 1.8.). The internal cake pressure decreases at the point where the drillpipe
contacts the filter cake, causing the pipe to be held against the wall by differential pressure.
In high-angle and horizontal wells, gravitational force contributes to extended contact

between the drillstring and the formation. Properly managing the lubricity of the drilling fluid and
the quality of the filter cake across the permeable formation can help reduce occurrences of stuck
pipe.
Figure 1.8: Principle of differential sticking (modified from Santos. [20]
Mechanical causes for stuck pipe include keyseating, packoff from poor hole-cleaning,
shale swelling, wellbore collapse, plastic-flowing formation (i.e., salt), and bridging. Preventing
stuck pipe can require close monitoring of early warning signs, such as increases in torque and
drag, indications of excessive cuttings loading, encountering tight spots while tripping, and
experiencing loss of circulation while drilling.
Depending on what the suspected cause of sticking is, it might be necessary to increase the
drilling-fluid density (to stabilize a swelling shale) or to decrease it (to protect the depleted zone
and avoid differential sticking). A drilling fluid’s friction coefficient is an important factor in its
effectiveness in preventing stuck pipe and/or enabling stuck pipe to be worked free. OBFs and
SBFs offer the maximum lubricity; inhibitive WBFs can be treated with a lubricant (typically 1 to
5% by volume) and formulated to produce a thin, impermeable filter cake that offers increased
protection against sticking. High-performance-polymer WBFs that are designed specifically to
serve as alternates to OBFs and SBFs exhibit a high degree of natural lubricity and might not
require the addition of a lubricant.
1.6.3. Shale Instability
Drilling overbalanced through a shale formation with a WBF allows drilling-fluid pressure
to penetrate the formation. Because of the saturation and low permeability of the formation, the
penetration of a small volume of mud filtrate into the formation causes a considerable increase in
pore-fluid pressure near the wellbore wall. The increase in pore-fluid pressure reduces the effective
mud support, which can cause instability. Several polymer WBF systems have made shale-
inhibition gains on OBFs and SBFs through the use of powerful inhibitors and encapsulators that
help prevent shale hydration and dispersion.
1.6.4. Hole cleaning
Effective drilling-fluid selection and management is important to the successful outcome

of a high-angle or horizontal extended-reach drilling (ERD) operation. In addition to formation
protection, the most important ERD challenges include the narrow margin between the pore
pressure and the fracture gradient, ECD management, adequate hole cleaning, reduction of torque
and drag, wellbore stability, barite sag, and loss of circulation. Years of operational data indicate
that hole angles of between 30 and 60° create the most difficult hole-cleaning conditions. Good
management of annular velocities, drilling-fluid viscosity, pipe-rotation speed, and pipe
eccentricity can help minimize hole-cleaning problems.
Because of their reliable performance under adverse downhole conditions, invert-emulsion

drilling fluids (OBFs and SBFs) usually are the first choice for ERD operations; however, the use
of invert-emulsion muds is becoming more restricted because of environmental considerations, and
several inhibitive WBF systems have been developed for use as alternatives.
1.6.5. Salt formations and rubble zones
The four major problems that typically are associated with drilling of salt formations are
bit-balling and packoff because of reactive shales within the salt, wellbore erosion when drilling
through the salt formation and/or through shales above or below the salt formation, excessive
torque and packoffs caused by salt creep, well-control issues, and excessive mud losses. The rubble
zone that might lie beneath or adjacent to the salt section usually consists of a series of highly
reactive shale stringers that are embedded in unconsolidated sand. The zone could be overpressured
at the entry point because of a gas pocket under the salt, then underpressured for the remainder of
the section.
Catastrophic mud loss below the salt is the most challenging of these problems and prevents
most operators from drilling rubble zones with OBFs and SBFs. The decision about whether to use
an SBF or a salt-saturated WBF usually is based on the known risk of lost returns. The SBF can
provide increased drilling efficiency and a faster ROP, but a salt-saturated WBF provides adequate
control over hole enlargement and might be preferable where the potential for large losses exists.
[21]
1.7. Calculation of the flow rate of invasion

In the process of OBM-filtrate invasion, the magnitude and time evolution of the flow rate of
invasion (qmf) remains uncertain. Static filtration governs the initial mud-cake growth, whereas the
role of dynamic filtration is to limit the growth itself [22]. The formulation for WBM-filtrate
invasion assumes buildup of mud cake on the borehole wall. For the specific case of OBM-filtrate
invasion, however, Warner and Rathmell (1997) [23] concluded that the filter cake “should be
mostly a cake formed within the pore space of the rock.”
The time evolution of the thickness of mud cake (hmc) and flow rate of invasion depends on
mud properties and formation properties, such as permeability (k), porosity (𝜙), water saturation
(Sw), capillary pressure _Pc_, and relative permeability (kri). Capillary pressure is a function of
water saturation and is given by
Pc S w   Pnw  Pw ' (21)
Where P is pressure and the subscripts w and nw refer to wetting (water) and nonwetting
(oil or gas) fluid phases, respectively. Dewan and Chenevert (2001) [22] performed laboratory
experiments of WBM filtrate invasion on rock samples and used Darcy’s equation to describe the
flow rate of invasion, namely,
k mc t  A  Pm  Pmc (t ) 
q mf t     (22)
mf  hmc (t ) 
where t is time of invasion, kmc is permeability of mud cake, A is the core’s cross-sectional
area, 𝜇𝑚𝑓 is viscosity of filtrate, hmc is thickness of mud cake, Pm is mud pressure, and Pmc is
pressure across the mud cake.
Permeability (kmc) and porosity (𝜙𝑚𝑐 ) of mud cake are given by Dewan and Chenevert, 1993 [24].
k mc 0
K mc t   v
(23)
Pmc (t )
And
mc 0
mc t    .v
(24)
Pmc (t )
Respectively, where kmc0 is reference mud-cake permeability defined at 6.9 kPa differential
pressure, 𝜈 is a “compressibility” exponent in the range of 0.4–0.9, 𝜙𝑚𝑐0 is reference mud-cake
porosity, and 𝛿 is a multiplier in the range of 0.1–0.2 that captures the difference in power- law
behaviors of porosity and permeability of compressed mud cake.
The flow rate of mud-filtrate invasion is calculated using the method advanced by Wu et al.
(2005) [25] that enforces mass balance for the total flow rate through the entire 1D model.
Therefore, the inlet filtrate flow rate is dynamically coupled to fluid flow in the invaded formation
by the expression Wu et al., 2005 [25].
2 h  Pm  Pw ,N (t ) 
q mf t   (25)
ln  ri 1   ln(ri )   r 

N 1
 mf ln  w 
i 2
 k nw   Pc ,i t   Pc ,i 1 (t )   k nw k w  k mc (t )  rmc (t ) 
       
 nw i  Pw ,i t   Pw ,i 1 (t )   nw w i
Chapter 2: Overview on Geological of HMD Oil Field
Chapitre 2 : Overview on Geological of HMD Oil Field
2.1. History of Hassi Messaoud oil field

The end of the 19th century saw the first stage of exploration in Algeria. Early efforts were
concentrated in the Chelif Basin. This first phase of oil exploration relied on surface indications
and as a result of this the first wells were shallow, with some indicators being exploited by simply
digging galleries.
The first commercial discovery was made in 1948 at Oued, 150 kilometres south of Algiers.
Oil production from this small field and the details of its geological characteristics remain
enigmatic. The field continues to produce without showing signs of depletion.
Algeria's second significant discovery was recorded in 1953 in the extreme south of the
Sahara when Berga, a well drilled on a surface structure, began producing dry gas. In 1956 another
surface structure was drilled at Edjeleh, where oil was discovered.
The Hassi Messaoud oil field was discovered on January 16, 1956 by Company National
of Oil Exploration in Algeria (SN REPAL). The first survey Messaoud 1 (MD1) encountered an
oil accumulation in the Cambrian reservoir Ra to 3338 m depth.
Exploration concepts, methods and means have evolved over the years and more than 16
billion m3 of oil equivalent have been discovered in place. However, the under-explored Algerian
subsurface is far from having revealed all its secrets or wealth; a fact emphasised by recent
discoveries of oil in the Eastern Erg Basin (Ghadames) and gas in the Timimoun Basin.
In 1957, the French oil company in Algeria (CFPA) after obtaining the northern part of the
oil field, they confirmed this result by drilling OM1 located about 7 km north - northwest of the
wells MD1. The Hassi Messaoud oil field was divided into two licenses allocated to the CFPA for
the northern part and the southern part of the SN.REPAL which was the father of discovery. The
production started in 1958 with 20 development wells since the discovery of Hassi Messaoud field;
several works were done and are still dedicated.
In 1960, Millot et al. studied the evolution of Cambro-Ordovician sandstones of the central Sahara.
In 1963, A.Tillous and J.Malenfer detailed stratigraphic, structural and reservoir aspects, in the
same year, Montadert brought the first reflections order of sedimentlogiques which applicable for
reservoir of Hassi Messaoud.
In 1970, A. Balduchi and G. Pommer specified the structure of Hassi Messaoud by placing it in a
regional context.
In 1971, S.Beuf et al. established a synthesis of the sedimentlogique evolution and Paleogeographic
lower Paleozoic of the sahara.
In 1972, J.Gautier, D.Massa et al. studied the fracturing of the reservoir field and highlighting the
main tectonic phases that have affected the region.
In 1979, the IFP made several works which led to the delimitation in the field of Hassi Messaoud
of 25 productive areas.
There are also internal reports Sonatrach. We can mention many studies were conducted by R.
Kerdali and N. Hadibi on Hamra Quartzite in November 1996. [26]
2.2. Geological setting of Hassi Messaoud field

The field of Hassi Messaoud is an important source of hydrocarbon. It contributes more
than 50% of the Algerian production. It is located about 650 km south-southeast of Algiers, 350
km from the Tunisian border and 80 Km to the East of Ouargla. The concession of Hassi Messaoud
field whose area is about 4200 Km (figure.2.1).
Figure 2.1: Geological setting of Hassi-Messaoud field. [27]
2.3. Reservoir description

The Hassi Messaoud field known as a giant oil field in Algeria producing mainly from the
Cambrian reservoirs, shows at it’s flanks a significant oil potential in the lower Ordovician play
which is defined by the occurrence of the Hamra Quartzites reservoir; this unit which is eroded on
the central part of the Hassi Messaoud dome, constitutes a potential petroleum play in the southern
periphery along the flanks where it subcrops beneath the Hercynian Unconformity. The Hamra
Quartzites reservoir evokes a great petroleum interest considering the hydrocarbon quantity
extracted and/or still existing within this Ordovician formation. Despite that this reservoir is
considered as tight reservoir having low porosity and permeability and a question “challenge”
related to the effective production and the main parameters controlling the drainage (matrix and/or
fractures) remains unanswered. The objective of this study is to seek a geological explanation of
the Hamra Quartzites reservoir quality by pointing out the main parameters controlling its quality.
[26]
The Hassi Messaoud field is a very thick sandstone reservoir covering an area of 2000 km 2.
It is a flattened anticline and its location is on the north of the El- Biod-Hassi-Messaoud elevation
formed by a sequence of horsts and grabens contained by faults in a submeridiene direction. The
faults are in general SSW to NNE oriented and cover all the layers of the producing reservoir; the
Cambro-Ordovicien (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Map of the different zones in the HMD field. [27]
The field consists of some 25 separate zones that have distinct petrophisical properties. In
addition all wells existing outside the zones known boundaries are gathered and divided into the
Hors Zone Nord (HZN) and the Hors Zone Sud (HZS) Most of the zones are under pressure
maintenance by means of water or gas injection. Sonatrach is currently extending pressure
maintenance to cover the whole field.
The producing reservoir, which occurs at an average depth of 3400 m, consists of four
different formations - R3, R2; Ra; Ri in addition to a [Zone d’Alterance] – and each formation is
subdivided into drains that are characterized by variable petrophisical properties (Figure 2.3). The
properties impacting on productivity (including porosity, shaliness and permeability), remain
unpredictable despite the knowledge accumulated from more than 800 wells continuously cored
over the past 40 years.
Figure 2.3: Reservoir structure and the different producting formations of HMD field. [28]
2.3.1. Characteristics of Hassi-Messaoud reservoir
Hassi Messaoud reservoir is located in the Cambrio Ordovician to 3300 m, it is Anticlinal

shape. The rocks are covered by complex clay sandstone and salt from the Triassic. The structure
developed in a general direction north and south-East. These are Cambrian sediments saturated in
oil, consisting mainly of fine heterogenic sandstone to very coarse silvery. The reservoir consists
of 4 stacked zones having fundamental differences characteristic physical and petrographic.
 Reservoir R3
It consists by a medium sandstone, coarse micro-conglomeratic illitic clay cement (25 - 35 ℅). The
average granulometer including rollers with size 1cm.
We note 2 ℅ of silica, porosity Φ = 11 %, permeability K <0.1m D.
 Reservoir R2
The clay mineral of predominant cement is illite. It shows the variation of thickness, about 80 m.
The R2 is considered a transition zone between the silica and R3 clay Φ = 10%, K = 205 mD
 Reservoir Ra
It is the main productive reservoir entire field. it is characterized by average anisometric sandstones
at microconglomeratiques. The cement is composed of kaolinite and illite in small quantities and
micas. The silise varies from one well to another and from one zone to another. its thickness varies,
depending on erosion, from 90 to 156 m. His average characteristics are; K = 15 mD; Φ = 8 %;
cracked well beyond a few Darcy.
 Reservoir Ri
It is characterized by a quartzite sandstone isometric passes, and presence of siltstones and presence
of tigillites and also with the presence of cracks and breccia with illitic cement. Its petrophysical
characteristic is:
K = 1mD; Φ = 7%.
2.3.2. The structure of Hassi-Messaoud resrvoir
The structure of Hassi Messaoud field is presented as a large anticlinal dome flattened in
general direction West / Southwest and bordered to the north-west and south-east by depression.
On the ridge a good part of the geological series is absent removing any witnesses to the geological
history for 200 million years. Accidents affecting the reservoir are of two types:
 The sub-meridienne-trending faults North-North-East / South-South-West and other faults

that are perpendicular direction Northwest / Southeast, this emphasizes the tectonic nature
in horst and graben. Figure 2.4
 The breaks without releases that have a great effect on the fracturing of the reservoir
Figure 2.4: West-East section of Hassi-Messaoud field. [29]
Can be used to some extent, the most comprehensive data in the neighboring depressions
to reconstruct the history of the formation of the deposit, we can count the main steps:
At the beginning of Paleozoic time, the Cambrian (about 570 million years ago), the sea covers a
granite base portion for about 70 million years ago, she filed a detrital series of 600 to 700 m thick,
which constitute the sandstone reservoirs of the field towards the end of this period involved some
deformation layers, strains whose magnitude is uncertain but could be a first trap. [30]
During the Ordovician appear first clays (clays El Gassi), but it is in the Silurian sea deposits
a really thick shales. All these clays are dark, rich in organic matter and sometimes bituminous. It
is they who have likely played the role of rock and produces hydrocarbons from the formation.
Sedimentation continues for the rest of the Paleozoic; It is unknown the exact thickness of
sediments deposited on the ridge of Hassi Messaoud but in nearby depressions, more than 1000-
1500 m of sediments cover the sandstone reservoirs and submit rocks to a landfill to produce
hydrocarbons. If the deformity appeared at the end of the Cambrian period is sufficient, all
conditions are met to form a deposit of Hassi Messaoud this time, i.e. There are 300 million years:
presence of a reservoir topped by rocks, formation of hydrocarbons that could migrate to the tank
and to accumulate in a structure caused by the first deformation of geological history. At this time,
the coverage of the deposit is constituted by rocks themselves that are impermeable clays.
At the end of the Paleozoic, about 250 million years ago, much larger movements deform
the layers and create a large dome (Hercynian orogeny). These movements result in a regional
character back from the sea; the region is subject to intense erosion may remove 800m of sediment
in Hassi Messaoud, leaving only the dome on the sandstone base where they found traces of reliefs
and valleys of the time; the field are destroyed for lack of adequate protection. At most a few traces
of hydrocarbons were altered remain in relatively protected areas, traces found in the form of
bitumen in the current field.
In the Triassic, the sea covered the area again gradually drowning the reliefs of Hassi
Messaoud; she will not leave the area until the early Tertiary. During this period 200 million years
ago, it deposited approximately 3000m of various sediments: sandstones, clays, anhydrite, salt and
carbonates. A good level of continuous and sufficiently thick clay (clay Triassic) provides a new
cover to the resrvoir; the dome of Hassi Messaoud increases and acquires its present form the
Albian (100 million years).
The supposed source rocks are now separated from the producing reservoir by a screen
compact and siliceous sandstone; it is difficult to imagine the migration of hydrocarbons, and it
must be assumed that this screen disappears outside the limits of the deposit.
The deposits of some 250m of sand and clay Mio-Pliocene not change the situation of the deposit.
[31]
2.3.3. Areas and numbering of wells
The evolution of the pressures of the wells base on production allowed to subdivide the
deposit of Hassi-Messaoud field in 25 areas of production Fig.5, variable expansion. These areas
are relatively independent and correspond to a set of communicating between them and not with
those of the surrounding areas, and well behaving in the same manner from the point of view
pressure of deposit. The same area wells jointly drain a quantity of oil in well established place
(Figure 2.5). Any time it is important to note that the pressure factor cannot be the only criterion
for the characterization of areas.
Figure 2.5: production zones of HMD field. [32]
The Hassi-Messaoud oilfield is subdivided into two sectors:
 North sector: contain a geographical numbering completed by a chronological numbering;

 South sector: It is mainly chronological supplemented by a geographical numbering based
on abscissa and ordinate equal to 1.250 km interval and aligned with the Lambert
coordinates.
Figure 2.6: Zones and numbering of the wells. [33]
2.4. Stratigraphic overview

It involves the study of lithology and terminology formations zone of Hassi-Messaoud, it
consists of top and bottom by the following layers (figure 2.6):
2.4.1. Cenozoic
 Miopliocène: 0-201 m
Sometimes yellowish white to pinkish sand, medium to coarse with intercalation of clay, limestone
and marl sandy.
 Eocene: 201-337 m
White limestone dolomitic limestone with flint presence module.
2.4.2. Mesozoic
 Cretaceous
a) Sunonien: it consists of:
Carbonate; an average thickness of 99 m, consists of limestone and dolomite anhydrite. This level
is represented by two layers:
 The first anhydrite with an average thickness of 214 m composed of anhydrite, marl and
dolomite.
 The second saliferous with a thickness of 138 m made of solid salt anhydrite trace.
b)Turonian: Consists of dolomitic limestone, it contains an aquifer represented by odor sulphurous

waters used for the injection of an average thickness of 123 m.
c) Cenomanian: It is represented by sandstones and silty clays alternating it contains a freshwater

aquifer used for injection with a thickness of 151 m.
d) Albian: Represented by sandstones and silty clays in alternating, it contains an aquifer

freshwater used for injection and general purposes. with thickness of 363 m.
e) Aptian: Represented by a ban clay crystalline dolomite with an average thickness of 25m.
f) Barremian: Represented by clay sand and sandstone with an average thickness 264 m.
g) Neocomian: Represented by dolomite, marl and clay passed with thin sandstone with average
thickness of 182 m.
 Jurassic:
a) Malm: Represented by clays, it has an average thickness of 238 m, it contains a drinking water
aquifer.
b) Dogger: Represented by two levels:
- Clay: dolomitic marl passed to fine sandstone with average thickness of 103 m.
- Lagunaire: anhydrite, dolomite, marl gray with average thickness of 205 m.
c) Lias: divided into five levels:
- LD1: anhydrite and dolomite clay E = 83 m.
- LS1: salt anhydrite has an average thickness of = 82 m.
- LD2: dolomite and marl has an average thickness of 48 m.
- LS2: dolomite and marl has an average thickness of 57m.
- LD3: dolomite and dolomitic marl has an average thickness of 37 m.
 Trias:
a) Salt: it is divided into three horizons:
- TS1: anhydrite and dolomitic clay has an average thickness of 58 m.
- TS2: massive anhydrite intercalation salt has an average thickness of 171
-TS3: massive trace of salt clays has an average thickness of 201 m
b) Clay: Clay dolomitic or siliceous has an average thickness of 80 m.
c) Sandstone: sandstone with clay for cement has an average thickness of 18 m.
d) Eruptive: Andesite alternately alleys of siderite alternates with (Hercynian) on the grounds of
primary has an average thickness between 0 and 92 m. [33]
2.4.3. Paleozoic
 Ordovician
In its most complete representation is constituted by four terms:
- The Hamra quartzites (e = 12 to 75m) quartzites locally coarse, sometimes with clay
intercalations.
- El Atchane sandstone (e = 25m) sandstone clay with fine cement, on Omj 76.
- The clays of El Gassi (e = 50m) shales, carbonates, green and black, glauconitic carbonate
with or fauna (graptolites) indicating medium marine deposits. This formation is especially
encountered in the peripheral areas of the field.
- Alternating zone: (e = 20 m) clays indurated, alternating with isometric quartzitic benches
between thin sandstone to medium size.
The Ordovician series is present only on the sub-southern part of the structure, due to erosion. The
center of the structure, the area most susceptible to erosion, Trias rests directly on the Cambrian.
 Cambrian
Mainly composed of heterogeneous sandstone fine to very coarse, interspersed with clay-
micaceous past Siltstone. There are three litho-zones (Ri+ Ra) R1, R2 and R3.
- Litho-area Ri: corresponds to isometric reservoir. It has been intersected essentially at the
periphery of the field, where the series is complete; quartzite sandstone are average
isometric for cement to clay, with many past silty. It rests on the upper surface by a Ra
abrasion. (e = 50m)
- Litho-zone Ra: represents the main reservoir. In its upper and middle part (e = 20 to 60
m), it is formed by sandstone, quartzite, anisometric, medium to coarse sand cement - clay
(kaolinite) locally consists of quartzites free. In the lower part are inserted so irregular
centimeter past clayey siltstones. (e = 100 to 120)
- Litho-area R2: consists of quartzite and sandstone quartzite sandstone, medium to coarse,
anisometric, sometimes with micro-conglomeratic levels, fairly abundant cemented clay
(Illite). There is a millimeter of silt interbedded (e = 100m)
- Litho-zone R3: is based on the Infracambrian, and sometimes directly on the granite base,
it is a series of filler with an average thickness of 300 m, it consists of coarse sandstone
with feldspar micro-conglomerats, grains are misfiled, cement is clayey nature sometimes
ferruginous sandstone areas, with intercalations of silty clays. The "R3" is no interest of oil.
 Infra-Cambrian
Recognized the oldest unit in the North of the structure by the Omg47 drilling to a depth of 4092
m. It consists of red clay sandstone. (e = 45 m). [34]
2.4.4. Basement
Encountered around the depth of 4000m, it consists essentially of porphyritic granite with pink
color in two-mica.
Figure 2.7: stratigraphic section type. [33]
2.5. Shale problems and water based drilling fluid in the Hassi Messaoud oil
field
The physical properties and behaviour of shale exposed to a drilling fluid depend on the
type and amount of clay in the shale. Generally, OBM provide excellent wellbore stability and
afford good lubricity and temperature stability. However, their use becomes restricted by
environmental regulations, so that there is a great need for environmentally friendly WBM able to
provide the same acceptable requirements (borehole stability) as OBM.
The drilling performances of 100 Algerian wells located in the Hassi Messaoud (HMD)
field were compared. Results show that major problems occur in the 12 1/4" (actually 16") interphase
and are observed at 700–950 m depth as a consequence of variable rate of penetration (ROP),
varying from 8 to 24 m/h. Several problems are mentioned such as lost circulation, specially in
Turonian and Salt Senonian formations, shale instabilities, hole cleaning problems due to a
reduction of annular velocities in enlarged hole sections, well caving and collapse.
Dispersion tests were carried out on Algerian cuttings samples and the results are discussed and
compared with field experiments. Cuttings samples containing clay with different characteristics
(type, size, content, cation exchange capacity) were chosen from various wells and at different
depths. Numerous tests were performed in different experimental conditions:
1. conventional dispersion tests with original cuttings samples;

2. observation tests of confined shale pellets of different sizes in contact with muds;
3. filtration tests through shale compacted in API cell within different pressure ranges;
4. filtration tests through shale and/or core samples compacted in Hassler cell under actual
field conditions (pressure and temperature).
For all these experiments, the influence of parameters, such as fluid type, cuttings mineralogy,
pressure and temperature was studied. [35]
2.5.1. Shale instability
Wellbore instability is the largest source of trouble, waste of time and over costs during
drilling. This serious problem mainly occurs in shales (principally clays), which represent 75% of
all formations drilled by the oil and gas industry. The remaining 25% are composed of other
minerals such as sand, salt, etc. The physical properties and behavior of shale exposed to a drilling
fluid depend on the type and amount of clay in the shale. [36]
Wellbore stability issues were not seriously addressed until the end of the 70s, when a
famous published paper initiated great interest for this topic in the industry. Since that time, wells
became more complex and drilling operations were routinely carried out in more difficult
environments. In addition to a technical challenge, the occurrence of any wellbore instability-
related problems will significantly add to the already high well costs. It is estimated that at least
10% of the well budget is used to perform unplanned operations resulting from wellbore instability.
This cost may approach $1 billion/yr. worldwide.
Figure 2.8: Representation of drilling fluid destabilization. [37]
A: Undesirable dispersion with an inhomogeneous additive repartition. Solid-liquid,

polymer-solution, dispersed phase-continuous phase are inhomogeneous and unstable.
B: Optimal dispersion with a uniform repartition of additives. The mud system is stable and
exhibits good rheological and filtration characteristics.
C: The mud system is unstable for one of the following reasons: dramatic filtration conditions (pressure and
temperature), use of incompatible additive (contaminant) or of poor quality products, or considerable aging.
Solids, polymers, and salt in WBM, dispersed phase, emulsifiers or others additives in OBM are separated
from continuous phase. The system presents a phase separation, involving a degradation of rheological
parameters and a high filtrate volume.
Various aspects of wellbore instability have been presented recently. Shale–fluid

interactions can be manipulated to enhance cuttings and wellbore stabilization as well as improving
hole-making ability in shale formations [38]. A membrane transport model was developed for
calculating the diffusion potential and the reflection coefficient in shales under different conditions.
The ionic composition of the fluid saturating the shale appeared to control the magnitude of the
membrane potential. This suggests that at least at early time, the type of cations in the drilling fluid
is much less important than their concentration since this parameter controls the water activity.
Thus, the stability of clay-rich shales is profoundly affected by their complex physical and chemical
interactions with drilling fluids.
Most borehole stability and drilling fluid-related problems can be handled with present
technology in well-defined environments if stringent quality control actions are maintained.
Nevertheless, severe complex drilling situations still present serious challenges to economically
viable drilling. Efforts and progress by several Companies have led to new proprietary, or patented
technologies usually available for license, applied in the field but rarely used in laboratories and
scarcely published in the accessible literature. When wellbore walls become unstable, the spilling
of cuttings causes a disastrous change in the rheological properties of the mud [38]. Several studies
on shale-fluid interactions confirm that various causes are at the origin of borehole instability: water
adsorption, osmotic swelling and cation exchange.
Different approaches to WBM design have been suggested depending on given shale
formations [39]. Other recent studies focused on shale-fluid interactions [40]. Consideration is
given to maintain borehole stabilization in reactive shales by reducing hydration (swelling) and/or
dispersion. This process is generally referred to as ‘inhibition’. Clay wettability and inhibition
properties were studied by analyzing the behaviour of water-clay-polymer-electrolyte systems.
These properties are connected to the rheological and filtration characteristics for both mud and
filtrate. Considering the replacement of OBM by WBM, Van Oort (2003) showed that additives,
such as polymer and KCl, tend to reduce shale instability. Cuttings characterization is a key
parameter to explain how salt, added to WBM, affects shale stabilization.
Although, as in most engineering disciplines, a wide gap appears between R&D studies and
field applications, some important research areas could yield significant advances and benefits. In
addition to new development, efforts should be made to transfer some of the old existing
technologies that could immediately solve problems encountered in borehole stability or formation
characterization and validation. The main critical parameters that should be determined are the
constitution and strength of the formation, its discontinuities as well as abrasivity, permeability,
pore pressure and stress state.
Studying clay stabilization problems, Kelley met contradictions [37], showing that some
clay formations can be drilled easily meanwhile similar ones are dispersed. Several studies were
conducted in order to understand these contradictory data and propose adequate mechanisms and
solutions for drilling. Aadnoy intended to visualize that a good field modeling, based on the
understanding of the underlying physics is the key for development of wellbore technologies and
practices [38].
2.5.2. Clay swelling
Clay swelling is at the origin of well instability during drilling. Low and Anderson
presented osmotic pressure equations for determination of the swelling properties, considering
clays like semi-permeable membranes [39]. Chenevert stating that the main reason of instability
during drilling by WBM systems is the swelling of clays adjusted the water activity of OBM
systems, to prevent water adsorption on clays. Steiger studied clay hydration in a triaxial apparatus
by measuring the swelling pressure of clays exposed to different drilling fluids with different water
activities. He showed that the addition of potassium salts could reduce the water activity of clay
and consequently the swelling pressure. In experiments conducted on site, he observed that the
presence of KCl in the drilling fluid improves the stability of clay formations. Mody and Hale
developed a model of stability supporting the interaction between drilling fluids and clay formation.
This model identified the optimum drilling fluid parameters, such as density and salinity, for the
elimination of instability problems during the use of WBM and OBM. They reported that the
chemical potential difference between water in the clays and in the drilling fluid is the most
important parameter. Simpson et al, using an experimental approach, showed that OBM containing
an emulsified water phase can prevent moisture and thus the weakening of the clay. According to
these authors, the use of ahydrophilic organic compound, namely cyclic with multiple hydroxyl
groups (methylglucoside) can also afford other characteristics similar to those of OBM, such as
lubrication. [39]
2.6. Role and composition of drilling fluids

Drilling the wellbore is the first and the most expensive step in oil and gas industry.
Although OBM give greater shale stability than WBM [40], several WBM systems have been
developed to replace OBM in order to respond to environmental regulations [36-39].
For laboratory tests, a typical mud contains several additives at concentrations commonly
used, including a viscosifier (xanthan gum with or without bentonite), a fluid loss reducer
(polyanionic cellulose: PAC), and different polymeric swelling inhibitors such as partially
hydrolysed polyacrylamide (PHPA), sodium silicate and polyalkyle neglycols (PAG or “glycol”)
to improve shale stability.
Bentonite, a worldwide0used drilling fluid additive, is added to fresh water to increase hole
cleaning properties and to form a thin filter cake of low permeability. Its main functions are to
viscosify the mud and to reduce the loss of fluids in the formation. In order to stabilise clay particles
and to prevent their swelling/dispersion behaviour in the presence of water, other additives, such
as polymers cited above, are added. Clay–polymer interactions are thus important in drilling fluids
[41]. The challenge is then to find which type of polymer based drilling fluid should be used.
PHPA is a water soluble anionic synthetic polymer, which is commercially available in dry
(granular powder) or emulsified form.
The most commonly used in drilling for borehole stabilisation in shale formations is the partially
hydrolysed (30%) polyacrylamide.
PHPA–clay slurries tend to form a relatively thin filter cake at the borehole wall, a
characteristic often cited as an advantage [37]. Moreover, silicate containing fluids show good shale
swelling inhibition, low depletion rate and high rate of penetration (ROP) and additionally they are
environmentally friendly [38].
In WBM, poly(glycerols) and poly(glycols) (abbreviated in the following as glycerols and

glycols) have been widely applied in shale drilling fluids [41]. They prevent cuttings from
dispersing into the medium. Therefore, they increase drilling rates.
Moreover, potassium salts have been used for a long time as swelling inhibitors in WBM.
The inhibition is explained by the possible penetration of small non hydrated ions into the porosity
of the shale, thus forming an effective semi permeable membrane. Organic (xanthan gum, PAC,
PHPA and PAG) or mineral (sodium silicate) polymers are probably too large to enter shale pores.
Some theoretical models [41] explain the reduction of the filtrate flow into shale by both
mechanisms, an increase of the viscosity leading to a reduction of shale permeability and a flow of
mud filtrate into the shale driven by osmotic pressure. [39]
2.7. Filtration and inhibition

The knowledge of the filtration properties is very important in the design of drilling fluid
formulation. Some works [41] have shown that the filtration across the cake depends on several
parameters such as initial clay content, particle or aggregate association, water retention and
permeability, experimental conditions, etc., show that 70% to 90% of the total filtrate volume,
flowing through permeable formations, occurs during mud circulation. During this dynamic
filtration, the invasion radius reaches a value of 85%. A constant flow rate is reached when filtration
forces, leading to the formation of a mud cake, are balanced by hydrodynamic forces, i.e. mud
circulation that erodes the mud cake.
2.8. Shale characterization and inhibition techniques

The main methods developed for shale characterisation and fluid inhibition performances deal
with composition, reactivity, mechanical and physico chemical properties of shales (or clay) [40]:
 Xray diffraction (XRD) analysis to determine qualitative mineral content,
 Cation exchange capacity (CEC) and methylene blue test (MBT) to evaluate reactivity and
shale factor of drilled cuttings. The MBT method was recommended by API 13I, Section
11 (2003),
 A gravimetric swelling test (GST), used to measure water and ion motion during shale/mud
interaction,
 Capillary suction time (CST) for determination of filtration properties and salt
concentration optimisation,
 Penetrometer to estimate the degree and the depth of softening or “Bulk Hardness Test”
designed to give an assessment of the hardness of shale following exposure to a test fluid ,
 Dielectric constant measurement (DCM) to quantify swelling clay content and determine
specific area ,
 Triaxial test for pore pressure measurements, carried out in downhole simulation cell (DSC)
for compressive stress/strain behaviour,
 Oedometer test for pore pressure modification and chemical potential influence,
 Slake durability test (SDT), a standard method originally used in geotechnical studies when
measuring the weathering and stability of rock slope: ASTM D 4644097 (ASTM, 2000),
reapproved 1992,
 Jar slake testing, a qualitative method designed to evaluate shale relative durability in
contact with a given fluid. describe details of this method using six indices,
 Differential strain curve analysis (DSCA) for in0situ measuring stress orientation and
intensity,
 Hot rolling dispersion test (shale disintegration resistance or cuttings dispersion test), the
most widely used technique in optimising drilling fluid. Appreciated for its simplicity, low
cost and duration, it has been recommended by several laboratories and adopted by API
(1997). It consists of adding a known amount of shale cuttings to a standard volume of test
fluid contained in a steel bomb. The bomb is rolled for a fixed time, usually 16 h, at a given
temperature; the shale is then recovered on a sieve. The amount of recovered shale is
expressed as a percentage of original weight. High percent recoveries and low moisture
contents are indicative of inhibitive fluids. Clearly with a poorly inhibitive fluid, cuttings
will disperse into the fluid and zero recovery (and therefore no moisture content
determination) will result. If two fluids give the same recovery ratio, the fluid which gives
the lower moisture content is regarded as being slightly more inhibitive. Indeed, a lower
water uptake by the cuttings reduces the risk of dispersion or swelling in the wellbore. A
comparative measure ment of inhibition can be obtained by considering the relative cuttings
weights retained on each screen size,
 Shale pellet inhibition (pellet dispersion test): shale cuttings are dried and ground to less
than 80 mesh, then mixed into homogeneous paste with 10 wt.% water. Pellets are made by
pressing approximately 20 g of this paste in a carver using a hydraulic press under 7000 psi
for 2 min. Pellets and fluid are introduced in a steel bomb and processed as above
(hot0rolling dispersion test). For comparison and reference, an OBM system is generally
used,
 Pressure transmission test, used for confined or unconfined shale described an apparatus
designed to evaluate shale–drilling fluid interaction and estimate shale permeability,
coefficient of reflectivity (membrane efficiency) as well as ionic diffusion coefficient,
 Microbit drilling equipment, requiring core sample availability and costly investment. [41]
Chapter 3: HP WBM drilling fluid in 16” hole section
Chapitre 3 : HP WBM drilling fluid in 16” hole section
Introduction
In order to meet the requirements of environmental protection and reduce drilling cost, in house
engineers and abroad are in search for a kind of water-based drilling fluid that has oil-based drilling
fluid performance [42-45], and have adopted various methods to improve the performance of water-
based drilling fluid, such as adding inorganic or organic salt, cationic polymer and polymeric
alcohol etc. However, the drawback of these drilling fluids could be seen in inhibiting shale swelling
and hydration [46-48]. In recent years, a novel type of high performance water-based drilling fluid
system is introduced which is mainly composed of organic amine shale hydration inhibitor, cationic
polyacrylamide encapsulator, rheology modifier, and lubricant and filtration reducer. The system
has obtained wide application around the world with great success because of excellent inhibition,
lubrication and stable rheology. As the key additive, organic amine has higher inhibitory and anti-
balling abilities. It can be used in various water-based drilling fluids and has a good compatibility
with them. It can meet environmental protection requirements and has film-forming effect, and the
performance of water-based drilling fluid made from it is almost the same as oil-based drilling fluid
system [49-52].
The present study provides a detailed technical overview of the newly system of water based
mud, As the third WBM trial to be drilled in HMD field with HP WBM ( for example: Ultradril)
and for the sake of lowering and mitigating the risk of some operational issues and trouble zones
possibly exists while drilling this challenging interval and running the 13 3/8" casing, the profile of
the second phase of OMJZ#32 third trial has been designed and programmed to be drilled from the
185/8" casing shoe (4m) to prognosis section TD at ± 2375m utilizing 16" bit and bottom hole
assembly for achieving the objective and target set and benchmarked for this section with enhanced
performance and minimal environmental impact. Being the third successful utilization of Water
Base Mud to drill this problematic interval in Hassi Messaoud, ULTRADRIL system could be the
viable alternative to Oil Base Mud in Algeria.
3.1. Ultradril system Presentation
ULTRADRIL is currently one of the most successful new technologies implemented by M-I
SWACO in worldwide field operations. Research and development, facilitated by the M-I SWACO
technical centers in Houston, Stavanger and Aberdeen, insured that the resulting system would
consider drilling challenges from various regions of the world by focusing on specific
performance goals for the system design.
The Ultradril design employs a triple-inhibition mechanism approach to provide optimal

shale inhibition. The base fluid for the ULTRADRIL system can be anything from freshwater
to saturated monovalent brines. The system employs three patented additives: a specially
engineered shale inhibitor, an encapsulating polymer, and a specifically developed accretion
inhibitor. The specially changes when exposed to an aqueous environment. The ULTRACAP /
ID Cap D encapsulating polymer eliminates shale dispersion and minimizes shale accretion by
limiting water penetration into clays and by providing a polymeric bridge between clay particles.
The ULTRAFREE™ anticrete anti-accretion and lubricant agent, is a special blend of surfactants
and lubricants that coat the cuttings and metal surfaces providing lower friction coefficient and
minimized tendency for sticking of hydrated clay solids.
3.2. Ultradril System Components

3.2.1. Primary Inhibitor
ULTRAHIB is a liquid additive that acts as a clay hydration suppressant, by intercalating

and reducing the space between the clay platelets so that water molecules will not penetrate
and cause shale swelling. Recommended concentrations is 3 % v/v, which was the appropriate
value learnt from the previous trial. ULTRAHIB chemistry additionally provides alkalinity.
Proper concentration of ULTRAHIB will insure a pH in the 9.0– 9.5 range, eliminating any
additions of caustic soda (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH).
3.2.2. Secondary Inhibitor
ID Cap D, additive is a low-molecular-weight, dry acrylic acid copolymer is designed to

be used to provide cuttings encapsulation and clay dispersion inhibition. It is designed in fluids
based on fresh and saline water environments. The IDCAP D encapsulator provides minimal
viscosity contribution, and can enhance filtration properties. Typical concentration of the IDCAP
D additive is 5.7 kg/m.
Due to the low molecular weight of this polymer, the mixing process requires less shear
than polymers with higher molecular weights. The resulting fluid will pass through fine shaker
screens without blinding. The IDCAP D agent should be added to the mud system via premix,
to ensure proper hydration and shearing, but can be mixed directly into the active system if
needed. Best results are obtained when mixing the polymer through a powerful hopper and
then passing once through a shear unit.
ULTRACAP, a mildly cationic acrylamide polymer, provides cuttings encapsulation and
shale stabilization. A system concentration of 4.28-8.56 kg/m3 provides a protective polymer
sheath that gives good cuttings integrity and prevents sticking to the shaker or each other.
3.2.3. Viscosifier
The optimum rheology profile of the ULTRADRIL system is achieved using

Xanthan gum biopolymers such as DUO-VIS. Concentrations ranging from 1.42– 5.68 kg/m3
are required, depending on hole diameter and well profile.
3.2.4. Fluid Loss Control Agents
POLYPAC UL has been very effective in controlling fluid loss in fluids incorporating
salts (NaCl, KCl brines). A concentration of 5.7-11.4 kg/m3 fluid loss agent should insure a
low fluid loss (<5.0 ml/30min).
Also the combination, POLYPAC UL/Polypac supreme and POLYSAL can be used. A
combined concentration of 5.7-17.1 kg/m3 should insure a low fluid loss (<6.0 ml/30min).
3.2.5. Anti-accretion/Lubricant
ULTRAFREE, contains blends of surfactants that minimize accretion, adherence of shale

cuttings to metal surfaces (e.g. BHA or bit). ULTRAFREE also provides additional lubricity. It
is recommended to add ULTRAFREE last in the mixing order and to mix vigorously
for good and uniform incorporation. Optimum concentration is 3% v/v, resulting from the
previous trial.
Figure 3.1: The three mechanisms of Ultradril.
3.3. Ethology of HMD field on 16” hole section
Table 3-1: Ethology of HMD field on 16” section. [53]
Senonien (Anhydritique ) Anhydrite, and Dolomite.

Senonien (Salifere ) Salt.
Turonien Chalky limestone.
Cenomanien Anhydrite, and Shale.
Albien Sandstone and Silty Clay.
Aptien Dolomite.
Barremien Shale and Sandstone.
Neocomien Claystone and Sandstone.
Malm Shale, Limestone, and
Dogger Argileux Sandstone.
Shale, and Sandstone.
Dogger Lagunaire Anhydrite.
Table 3-2: stratigraphy column of 16” section in HMD field. [53]
Geo-mechanical study conducted previously showed that

Potential Losses in 16" Hole while drilling with high MW > 1.3 SG
Potential of Shale instability when usingWBM with MW< 1.3 SG
3.4. Mud properties & Formulation
Table 3-3: Mud properties and Formulation of Ultradril. [53]
Mud Weight, sg 1.30

Funnel Viscosity, sec/qt 50 - 60
PV, cp ALAP
YP, lb/100 sq ft 28-34
Gels 10 min/10 sec, lb/100 sq ft 10-14/15-20
6 RPM, lb/100 sq ft 8-12
API Fluid Loss, ml 3-6
pH 9.5 – 10.5
KCl , % wt 6
NaCl, % wt 19.5 - 23
Ca++, mg/l <400
MBT, kg/m3 < 30
pf, mf, pm 5.0-6.8/6.9-8.1/5.0-7.9
LGS, % by volume <6
3.5. Fluid Formulation for 1.30 SG Ultradril

Table 3-4: Fluid Formulation for 1.30 SG Ultradril. [53]
Product Concentration (kg/m3)
Water 0.796
Soda Ash 2
KCl (6%) 65.75
NaCl (Salt) 235.6
Ultrahib 30
ID CAP / Ultra Cap 5.7
Ultrafree 26
Duovis 2.28
M-I PAC UL / Polypac 3.5
Supreme
Polypac UL 5
Barite 140.35
3.6. HP WBM Attributes
Water-based drilling fluids that are designed to emulate the performance attributes of OBMs
are referred to as “high performance water-based systems.” The key attributes that make OBM
effective in difficult wells are:
 Shale stability through a reduction of pore pressure transmission
 Control of reactive clays;
 Control differential sticking tendencies;
 High rate of penetration (ROP);
 Lubricity to minimize torque and drag;
 Easy of engineering.
HP WBM are designed to provide all of these characteristics collectively. Many times,
however, not all of the attributes are necessary for a given well or for a particular interval. A new
HP WBM has been developed that can be custom fit to a particular field that has a proven superior
performance record and is competitive in cost to a conventional WBM.
3.7. Trial of water based mud for 16”top hole
 The 16” hole is to be drilled with Water Based Mud as a trial. Ultradril WBM system of MI
is to be used for both 16” hole.
 A particular attention is to be paid to this 3 rd trial with ULTRADRIL system after the 1st
one on TAMW#1 and the second on MD654 for 17”½ section.
 Successful WBM systems for HMD would enable Sonatrach to drill with minimum impact
to environment and minimize diesel consumption.
 Substitute the conventional Oil Based mud system by a Water based one, would preserve
environment and personnel health as well.
3.8. Application of Ultradril in Algeria
After the successful of ULTRADRIL job in the well TAMW-1 in the north of Algeria and
MD#654 in HMD field, this successful utilization of the ULTRADRIL system for drilling almost
2000m and 1927m of 17 ½” hole size through highly reactive shale in North and Hassi Messaoud
field respectively, where previous attempts with performing WBM of different drilling fluids
companies failed, came to confirm the adaptability and versatility of ULTRADRIL system
utilization.
It is important to note that, despite the good performance resulting in achieving gauge hole
with only 3.37 % washout without drilling problems, the moderate ROP obtained due to controlled
drilling parameters and inadequate bit hydraulic parameters, will be considered for improvement in
future applications. The following table shows the application of ULTRADRIL in Algeria.
Table 3-5: Application of Ultradril in Algeria.
Year Location Name of well Phase

2011 North TAMW#1 16"
MD#654 16"
2012 Hassi Messaoud OMJZ#32 16"
ONM#413 16"
2013 Berkine HBNEP#1 16"
3.9. Well description

OMJZ#32 is a horizontal development oil producer well to be drilled in the OMJ subdivision of
Hassi-Messaoud field. OMJZ#32 was drilled across the Cambrian reservoir to a total depth of
±3422m TVD /4107m MD.
Table 3-6: Description of OMZJ#32 well. [54]
Well Name OMJZ#32

Field Hassi Messaoud
Block OMJ
Well Classification Development
Operator Sonatrach
Drilling Contractor Nabors
Drilling Rig F22
LSA Latitude X = 802.14, Y = 142435.04

Longitude N = 31° 50' 08.8923"
Surface Located E = 05° 54' 31.7509"

X = 775 303.950
UTM Zone 31 Y = 3 525 655.041
Well Located in UTM Zone 31 on North Sahara, Clarcke 80
coordinate System
(This system will be used as reference in all documents)
Ground Level 133.4 m above Mean Sea Level
(AMSL)
Elevation
Rotary Table Elevation 9.3 m above Ground Level (AGL)
Rotary Table Elevation 142 m above Mean Sea Level

(AMSL)
Well TD MD/TVD 4107m (3422m TVD)
3.10. Potential problems
Wellbore instability problems, i.e., hole caving, tight hole, back reaming and high torque and
drag, have been experienced in the 16” section in the HMD field. Most problematic formations
have been the Dogger Argileux, Necomenian, Albian, Dogger Lagunaire and bottom of Malm that
contain highly reactive shale. The Ultradril system with its highly effective inhibitors and lubricants
should eliminate the problem as long as Ultrahib and KCl concentration are maintained within
program range. Not only inhibitors are necessary to provide excellent hole stability, also proper
mud weight need to be maintained in order to prevent mechanical movements of stressed shale and
to hold back sloughing and reactive shale. Hole conditions will dictate the required mud weight.
OMJZ#32 Well spudded on 25/03/2012. The section 16’’ was drilled using ULTRADRIL water
base mud. This section was planned to drill to TD 2375m in 12.38days (P50).The section was
drilled in 25.68days with 13.30 days behind plan. The problems were encountered during drilling
operation of 16" phase are summarized in the following:
1- The section was drilled to 944m (444m) first by a PDC FX96R (9x12) bit, TFA to 0.994in 2
with an average ROP 12.11m/hr, observed slow ROP(in Cenomanian) 4- 3.76m/h, Pooh with
back reaming some tight hole in salifere and anhydritic. At surface found almost fully bit
balled up;
2- Clean bit and Ran the same PDC FX96R (9x12) bit with same TFA to 0.994in2. Continue
drilling with repair on TDS several times to 1024m (524m) with average ROP 5.82m/hr.
Pooh with back reaming some tight hole in turonien and salifere. At surface found almost
fully bit balled up;
3- A RC bit RC436 (3x18, 0.74 TFA) was ran and drilled to 1460 (436m) with an ROP of
5.04m/hr, POOH for slow ROP in Barremian. Had Hard back reaming in some tight hole in
Albian, cenomanian, turonian and salifere. No bit balling observed when bit at surface. We
continue drilling with repair on TDS several times;
4- Run again with the same bit PDC FX96R (9x12) to 1460m and drill to 1734m 274m (15m in
side Neocomien) but ROP dropped to 2m/h at this depth, with an average ROP 3.21m/hr for
barremien and 2.61m/h for neocomien formation, Pooh bit. At surface found almost fully bit
balled up and bit grading 1-1-BT-A-X-I-BU-PR;
5- A RC bit RC436 RR was ran again with an additive 16/32 central nozzle and drilled from
1734m to 1854 (120m) with an ROP of 3.5m/hr, POOH for reached a number of revolutions.
Had Hard back reaming in some tight hole in Albian, cenomanian, turonian and salifere. No
bit balling observed when bit at surface. Continued drilling with repair on TDS several times;
6- Ran another RR Q609F PDC with (6x12 +3x11, 0.941 TFA), to improve the HSI impact and
good bit blade cleaning. Difficult advancement from 1879m. Pump 8m 3 of LCM without
success. POOH at 1883m (29m). at surface totally bit balled up;
7- Clean same bit and Ran in hole. Difficult to drill and no progress, POOH at 1884 (1m). Bit
balled up;
8- Ran with New TCI bit RC436, (3x18 + 1x16, 0.942TFA) drilled to 2111m (227m), very low
ROP last 3m and abnormal torque. POOH, found bit 7-5 with failed bearing. No bit balling;
9- Ran New TCI bit RC436, drilled to 2144m. POOH to casing shoe due to not enough gasoil.
Ran back and drilled to 2323m (212m) get slow ROP and abnormal torque (almost bit hours).
POOH;
10- Performed logging; tagged at 2065m (Malm bottom), POOH logging and ran PDC bit Q609F
RR, get hard reaming down from 2050m to bottom. Continued drilling to new section TD at
2375m;
11- POOH, get soft to medium back reaming from 2375 to 2000 m;
12- Performed short trip from 2000m to bottom, get hard down reaming from 2350 to 2375m;
13- POOH with medium back reaming to 2305m then freely to casing shoe;
14- Run 13 3/8 casing freely to bottom at 2375m;
15- In cementing job, lost 8.5m5 while cement entered annulus. [55]
3.11. Run analysis

As the third WBM trial to be drilled in HMD field with HP WBM (for example: Ultradril)
and for the sake of lowering and mitigating the risk of some operational issues and trouble zone
possibly exists while drilling this challenging interval and running the 13 3/8” casing, the profile of
the 2nd phase of OMZ#32 third trial has been designed and programmed to be drilled from the 18 5/8”
casing shoe (494m) to prognosed section TD at ± 2375 m utilizing 16” bit and bottom hole
assembly for achieving the objective and target set and benchmarked for this section with enhanced
performance and minimal environmental impact. The two following figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the
thickness that were drilled for each formation and the rate of penetration by formation respectively.
250
200
Meters Drilled
150
100
50
0
y lt ien ien ian ian
An Sa
on an m m
en en r re co
ni ni Tu no
m r
eo
no no e Ba N
Se Se C
Formation
Figure 3.2: thickness that were drilled for each formation.
30
25
ROP (m/hr)
20
15
10
2nd Run
3rd Run
5 1st Run
0
y lt en ien -- ien -- ian ian
An Sa ni an an m
e n ien ro re om
n i n Tu
no
m om ar e oc
no no Ce Ce
n B N
Se Se
Formation
Figure 3.3: Rate of penetration by formation
3.11.1. 1st Run
Prior to making-up the PDC bit to the BHA the 16” FX96R was dressed with 9 x 12/32”
nozzles giving a TFA of 0.994 in2.
The bit was made up to the BHA with a make-up torque of 60,000 ft-lb and run in the hole without
incident on the 02nd of March 2012.
Drilling Out Cement and Casing Shoe:
The cement and the shoe were drilled with reduced parameters 50 rpm, 3-5 tons. The Shoe was
tagged at 500 m. No problem was experienced while drilling out.
Formations were drilled in the 1st run
Senonien Anhydritique
The Senonian Anhydrite was the first formation encountered. It was mainly composed
of Claystone interbedded with hard Anhydrite layers. The first 20 meters were drilled with
reduced parameters until all of the stabilizers were out of the casing shoe 5-8tons WOB, with
90RPM and a flow rate of 3300lpm. Then parameters were increased in order to get an
acceptable ROP and avoiding the bit balling; 130-140RPM and 10tons as a max WOB with
a flow rate of 3400 l/min. providing a stand pipe pressure between 1900-2050 psi. The 165
meters of this formation were drilled with an average ROP of 11.77m/hr.
Table 3-7: mud properties used for drilling the Senonien Anhydritique formation. [56]
Mud Weight Mud Type PV / YP Solids (%)
1.30 WBM 34/26 16
Senonien Sal
The top of the Senonian Salt was tagged at 666 m. This formation was 177 m thick and was
composed of salt intercalated with anhydrite and claystone beds. The parameters were restricted in
this formation especially in the salt layers; 5-10 tonns as WOB and 120-140 rpm with a good flow
rate of 3500 l/min to get better cleaning of the hole and hence to avoid the bit balling. This
formation was drilled with an average ROP of 13.66 m/hr.
Table 3-8: mud properties used for drilling the Senonien Salt formation. [56]
1.30 WBM 29/31 16
Turonien
The Turonian was drilled with controlled parameters; 5-10 tons WOB and 140rpm, the flow
was maintained at 3500 lpm in order to keep good hole cleaning and better bit cooling. Generally
this formation was composed of chalky limestone and was drilled without any problems. The
average ROP was 20.09 m/hr.
Table 3-9: mud properties used for drilling the Turonien formation. [56]
1.30 WBM 30/35 16
Cenomanien
The Cenomanian formation from 924 m was a highly interbedded formation between
claystones and anhydrite with layers of Dolomite. Once the bit topped the claystones, the torque
dropped to 2-5kft.lbs and the ROP dropped to less than 1m/hr, this indicated the bit balling. 3
LCM’s plugs were pumped to clean the hole with no success then the drilling continued with slow
ROP until 944m where the decision was to POOH. The 20m of this formation were drilled with
an ROP of 4m/hr.
The bit came on surface completely Bulled up and graded as 1-1-BU-A-X-I-CT-PR.
Table 3-10: mud properties used for drilling the Cenomanien formation. [56]
1.30 WBM 37/29 16
3.11.2. 2nd Run
Re-RIH the bit again and the drilling resumed with the following parameters;4-10WOB,
150-170rpm with a flow rate of 3500l/min. LCM plugs were pumped at 960 m, 965 m to clean the
hole but the torque was ranged between 2-10k.ft.lbs and low ROP’S were recorded. At 1024m
depth the decision was to pull out of the hole due to the poor penetration rate. The 80m were drilled
with an ROP of 4.2 m/h.
Once the bit on surface, it was graded as: 1-1-BU-A-X-I-BT/CT-PR.
The pictures below shows the state of the bit while it came on surface.
(a): Before using it (b): After using it
Figure 3.4: PDC drill bit balling. [57]
Changing a PDC bit with Tricone at 1024m
To reduce the tendencies of bit balling, a tricon bit (HCC TCI RC436) was made up and
resumed drilling freely from the reminded of Cenomanien, Albian and Aptian formations. At the
Cenomanien formation from (924m to 1068m) then processed to Albian formation (1068m to
1433m) where a sign of seepage losses (2.8 m3 /hr) also a soft reaming was observed from 1026m
to 1193m between Cenomanian and Albian. In addition a sign of seepage losses was detected in
Aptien from (1433m to 1458) (total volume lost 34 m 3) whereas the risk of formation losses in
general is possible to encounter in this formation as well as Barremian Malm, Albian and Dogger
specially at the situations when the existed ECD exceeded the formation strength.
However, due to the new configuration and change made on the nozzles sizing and TFA of the
Tricone bit, some increases in the bit hydraulic (Jetting velocity and HST) was clearly observed
from 1024m to 1460m.
This resulted in improving ROP (8.21 m/hr) and reducing the tendency of bit balling while
drilling through the sticky reactive interbedded clays within Albian (which has max CEC as per
HMD Shale analysis).
3.11.3. 3rd Run
Barremian
The PDC bit was re-RIH for the third time and the drilling continued in the
Barremien formation from 1460m. The first 20 meters were drilled with an acceptable ROP even
with reduced parameters then the drilling torque was dropped to 2-4 kft.lbs and the ROP decreased
to 2 m/hr, 2 LCM’s plugs were pumped to clean the hole which gave good result allowed the bit
to continue the drilling in the Barremian formation without problems. This formation was drilled
with an average ROP 2.58 m/hr.
Table 3-11: mud properties used for drilling the Barremian formation. [56]
1.30 WBM 36/29 17
Neocomian
Once the bit tagged the Neocomian at 1718 m depth, the ROP slowed down to 1m/hr and
the torque dropped to 2-3 kft.lbs even with a high RPM and high WOB, whereas hard
reaming was observed from 1833 m to 1854 m in Neocomian. 3 LCM’s plugs were pumped with
no success, the decision was to pull out of the hole and re-RIH with previous TCI. 16 m in this
formation was drilled with an average ROP of 2.66 m/hr.
Table 3-12: mud properties used for drilling the Neocomian formation. [56]
1.30 WBM 38‐35/25‐27 17
3.11.4. 4th Run at 1854 m
The bit was immediately cleaned and was run in hole for the second time. Before tagged
the bottom they circulate 15mn and pumped 5m3 of LCM to clean the bottom. They started drilling
with 5t and 80rpm, no torque response was noticed. We tried to increase the WOB gradually to get
an optimum drilling torque but without success. The bit drilled just 60cm and was POOH for PR.
Once on surface the bit came out balled up for the second time.
Figure 3.5: PDC drill bit balling. [57]
At this moment and due to slow and notable drop in the ROP at 1884m (ROP= 0.4m/hr) a
decision was made to trip out of hole, when the drill string get out to the surface, found bit balled
up as per Sonatrach daily drilling reports (SH DDR) dated on 16th April. Sonatrach plan was
changed PDC bit to Tricone bit (3x8+1x16) and decide to continue drilling until the end of 16"
hole section using only Tricone bit to resume drilling.
3.11.5. 5th Run Neocomien & Malm: (1884 - 2111 m)
Before starting drilling formation 5m3 of HiVis was pumped in order to avoid balling up
the bit from the beginning. The bit drilled 13m in the Neocomian without any problem. Once the
bit tagged on the Malm a very important axial vibrations were observed during drilling the hole
thickness due to inappropriate drilling parameters. After that, proper parameters were found to
minimize bit bouncing 20t and 110 RPM. In addition, a sign of torque fluctuation was observed at
the end obliged him to stop drilling and POOH. Then, the bit came out on surface in great damage,
broken teeth were observed on all area of the bit due to the persistent axial vibrations in the Malm
formation even proper parameters were found and applied. Several lost teeth on the middle row
cone number 2 due to the erosion caused by the flow rate witch also become junk and increased
the number of broken teeth. Also shirttail was observed due to junk left in hole caused by lost teeth.
Erosion on the lower part of the cone number 3 (blocked and can rotate on surface) caused
by the flow. Eroded part is exposed to the direct stream of the nozzle figure 3.5. This formation
was drilled with an average ROP 2.79 m/hr.
Table 3-13: mud properties used for drilling Neocomien & Malm formations. [56]
1.30 WBM 38/27 17
Figure 3.6: the first tricone bit when came out to the surface. [57]
3.11.6. 6th Run Malm, Dogger Argileux & Dogger Lagunar at (2111 - 2375 m)
Another RC436 tricone bit was planned to continue the remainder of the 16” section. As
the previous run and before starting drilling formation a 5m3 of HiVis was pumped in order to clean
the hole from the avoid balling up the bit from the beginning and clean it from teeth left by the
previous tricone bit. The new tricon bit drilled 20m in the base of the Malm. Persistent axial
vibrations were noticed. Moreover, an axial vibration appeared from time to time in Dogger
Argileux above and became serious in the 50m last meters in this formation.
On the other hand, very important axial vibrations were observed during drilling large
layers of Anhydrite in Dogger Lagunar and the torque fluctuation was observed at the end obliged
us to stop drilling and POOH. The 264 meters of this formation were drilled with an average
ROP of 3.75 m/hr.
Table 3-14: mud properties used for drilling the Malm, Dogger Argileux & Dogger Lagunar formations.
[56]
1.30 WBM 45/27 19
Figure 3.7: the second tricone bit when came out to the surface. [57]
3.11.7. Run in hole the casing 133/8" and Cementation
After RIH of casing 133/8", the POOH was made freely to the surface (the drill bit and
"3/8
stabilizers were clean), then the 13 CSG 68 # N80 BTC was easily down to 2356m where the
last two joints were washed down and adjusted the column to 2375mm of CSG and cemented
according to the program without any problem.
3.12. Discussion
Based on the assessment made to the operation history and the different parameters utilized
while drilling the 16" hole section of OMJZ#32, the possible causes for the events of bit and BHA
balling up at (500m to 2375m) revealed to be attributing to the following:
 The primary dull characteristic was recorded as Balled Up. It is due shale hydration caused
by the contact with the WBM;
 It crucial to ensure tightening and Lessing the filtration to the lowest possible limit while
drilling this section to minimize and prevent chance of hydration and interaction with
cuttings of sticky and clays interceded which in turn will alleviate the tendency and
likelihood of cutting dispersion, accretion and adherence to the bit and BHA, thus
contribute considerably in reducing bit balling and mud ring problems;
 The Second dull characteristics were recorded as CT and bit tagged which were probably
due to the bad cooling of the cutting structure while the bit ballling. Gauge – the bit was in
gauge;
 Nozzles – all nozzles were present and didn’t present obstructions;
 Stabilizers- all stabilizers were Balled Up.
(a): PDC Bit (b): stabilizer
Figure 3.8: Balled up of stabilizer and PDC. [57]
3.13. Properties analyses and performance of the ULTRADRIL

The properties of ULTRADRIL mud that have obtained from daily drilling fluid report
showed that change in drilling fluid properties was maintained during the drilling phase 16" in
OMJZ#32 well. It signified to be stable over time and adjusted according to the characteristics of
mud program and we can get high performance and arrive our objectives.
3.13.1. Mud weight
As per the results given by the second trial, the mud weight is maintained at an initial value
1.3 SG during drilling all of the phase 16” in OMJZ#32 well, because the results given by the
second trial (MD654 well), shown that 1.30 sg seems to be the adequate MW since it gave the
required balance and maintained the wellbore, thought a back reaming has been experienced while
POOH. The density out was 1.31 sg from 615m to 2375 m Depth, this value of the density out
indicates a good stability, the best use of all the solids control equipment to remove the drilled
cuttings efficiently and to decrease the chances of losing circulation in the sand formation.
The equivalent circulation density (ECD) was not more than 1.32 SG even when the flow rate equal
to 3452 tr/min, because the pressure drop in the annulus is lower than 37 Psi.
3.13.2. KCl Content
The recording "in and out" KCl concentrations while drilling all of the 16" phase in
OMJZ#32 well was 6%, and the experience has shown that 6 % KCl level has provided (with
combination of the others ULTRADRIL additives) cuttings dry inside, not sticky on shakers, small
to medium in shape. This optimum concentration of KCl allow to a regular basis while drilling to
determine the depletion rate, and adjust the KCl content in the circulating system accordingly.
3.13.3. Rheology
As all rheological properties such as the Yield Point have been sufficiently maintained
according to (25-32 lb/hft2) for good hole cleaning which has been significantly altered and has
contributed consequently the ease of the drilling operation and achieve the TD without problems
concerning the hole cleaning. Therefore consideration should be given on the next trial designs,
simulate and optimize changes in rheological properties ranging be projected to the 16" phase in
order to ensure an efficient hole cleaning exhibiting increased PV and YP (fig. 3.9). Two of the
most important rheology parameters are the 3 RPM reading which defines the lifting capacity at
very low flow rates, and the 10 Sec gel strength which defines the suspension capability of the
system. It is important that these two parameters are within the specifications to ensure that hole
cleaning is optimum and that the build-up of cuttings is reduced to a minimum. Since the annular
velocity is relatively low because of hole geometry, hole cleaning will depend mainly on the yield
point. It should not get below 30 lbs/100 ft² to ensure good carrying capacity & cuttings removal.
In addition, it is recommended to sweep hole frequently with high viscous pills to avoid loading
annulus with cuttings, which could result in loss circulation.
48
PV (cP)
2
45 YP (lb/100 ft )
42
YP (lb/100 ft )
2
39
PV (cP)
36
33
30
27
24
21
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth (m)
Figure 3.9: Variation of PV and YP as a function of depth in OMJZ#32 well during drilling the 16”phase
3.13.4. API fluid loss
Fluid loss is one of the principal properties of WBM systems, the most effective method to
minimize the interaction between the drilling fluid and the formation should be isolated from each
other. This isolation is provided by minimizing the fluid invasion into the formation to prevent the
swelling and dispersion of clays.
A consistent API fluid loss, together with a thin and slick filter cake, indicates a sufficient amount
of free available polymer. Maintain the fluid loss in the range of 3-6 cm3/30 min by adding Polypac
Supreme and POLYPACUL.
In OMJZ#32 well, the change in the API fluid loss was between 2.4 and 3.3 cm3/ 30min (fig
3.10 and 3.11), by adding the SAFE-CARB. The SAFE-CARB treatment will minimize seepage,
differential-sticking tendencies and add reinforcement to the thin, tough impermeable filter cake.
Additionally, continuous treatments with G seal was recommended to enhance lubricity and
improve filter cake quality. Furthermore, the addition of G Seal / C Seal to improve filter cake
quality, increase lubricity and increase wellbore strengthening.
4.50
4.25
Max= 4 cm3
4.00
3.75
API FL (cm /30 min)
3.50
3.25
3
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth (m)
Figure 3.10: The change in the API Fluid Loss as a function of depth while drilling the 16 "phase in
OMJZ #32.
Figure 3.11: Good quality of cuttings in the third trial of used Ultradril on OMJZ#32 well. [57]
3.13.5. Solids control
The definition of low-gravity solids (LGS) that they are formation of particles that have been
drilled up by the drill bit; so when they come to the surface they should be taken out so that they
are not pumped back down the hole to be drilled even finer. Their content causes adverse effects:
Drilled solids add to the annulus mud weight, which increases wellbore pressure against the
formations, which can cause fracture and lost circulation of the mud and the finer size the particles
are the more detrimental effect on drilling rates (ROP). So, it is recommended to maintain the
LGS’s in the 4-5% range and monitor closely.
It is clearly indicated that it was extremely used efforts by controlling and eliminating the
accumulation and integration of drilling solids (LGS between 2 to 4.5%) fig. 3.12, during drill the
OMJZ#32 well, this was effectively controlled by equipping the shale shakers with the finest
screens and emptying the sand trap periodically. Moreover, installing all equipment existed in
solids control with its maximum efficiency as well as to dilute the system with fresh mud of
Ultradril to decrease the unfavorable influence of LGS. Generally, this has contributed to
improving the properties of fluid during drilling this section that has increased drilling efficiency
and global performance.
4.5
4.0
LGS %
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Depth (m)
Figure 3.12: LGS variation versus depth during drilling the16” phase in OMJZ#32 well.
3.13.6. MBT
The methylene blue test (MBT), is used to determine the cation exchange capacity of the solids
present in a drilling mud. Only the reactive portions of the clays present are involved in the test
and materials such as barite, carbonates and evaporates do not affect the results of the test since
these materials do not absorb methylene blue.
Therefore the experience shows that to avoid flocculation in mud, we must maintain the MBT
value at < 30 kg/m3 at all times through solids control and dilution (this value is depend on the
rheology displayed ).
From the daily drilling report, the variation of methylene blue capacity values was between
14-35 Kg/m3 in OMJZ#32 well, by maintain the Bentonite content between 70 and 110 Kg that
will help to seal off the porous, unconsolidated surface formation, resulting in seepage losses
reduction. The increase of MBT value during drilling 16” hole section due to across the Albien,
Necomenien, Malm and Dogger Argileux formation which their following value was 21 Kg/m 3 ,
28 Kg/m3, 35 Kg/m3, 28 Kg/m3 respectively figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13: Concentration of MBT while drilling 16 "phase in OMJZ#32 well.
3.13.7 PH, ULTRAHIB, ULTRACAP and ULTRAFREE concentration
A PH values are maintained on 9.1 during drilling 16” phase in OMJZ#32 well. This pH will
be provided by the proper ULTRAHIB concentration between 2.7% to 4%, to provide superior
shale stabilization in the reduction of shale swelling (Fig.3.14).
3.13.8. Inhibitor
It is essential to demonstrate that the degree and level of inhibition were correctly maintained
while drilling this phase, the condition and the dryness of the cuttings seen over the screen during
the drilling of the different layers of interspersed clay in the Necomenian, the Malm and Dogger
Argileux, the variation of main inhibitors of Ultradril versus depth are shown in below:
Removal of hydration (ULTRAHIB)
In all operations, this was realized by considering a regular UlTRAHIB addition, this key
product is the main inhibitor for Ultradril to adapt itself between the clay platelets and bind both
thereby significantly reducing or eliminating the tendency of clay to absorb water from the aqueous
environment.
Possibilities for improved encapsulation (UltraCap)
The concentration of ULTRACAP while drilling 16” phase was between 4.8% to 5.6% have
played a significant role in maintaining cuttings encapsulation by providing a cationic acrylamide
polymer to reducing a minimum trends clay dispersion reactive.
Anti-flocculation (ULTRAFREE)
This was maintained at 3% all the time to improve the lubricity, the rate of
penetration (ROP) and provide the perfect coating. Therefore, a minimum chance for
flocculation of cuttings and bit balling.
Figure 3.14: Inhibitor concentration of ULTADRILL mud while drilling phase 16 " in OMJZ#32 well as
function of depth (m).
3.13.9. Initial and final properties of ULTRADRIL in third trial test used during
drilling the 16" phase in OMJZ#32 well
Ultrafree v%
Ultrahib v%
UltraCap Kg/M3
LGS, % by volume
MBT, kg/m3
Final
NaCl, % wt
Initial
KCl , % wt
pH
API Fluid Loss, ml
Gels 10 min/ lb/100 sq ft
YP, lb/100 sq ft
PV, cp
Funnel Viscosity, sec/qt
Mud Weight, sg
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 3.15: Initial and final properties of the mud in the third trial test of Ultradril in HMD field.
3.14. Application and performance of OBM in OMJZ21 for the 16" hole
section
3.14.1. OBM properties
Table 3-15: Oil based mud properties. [58]
MWT SG 1.25
YP, Ib/100 ft2 18 - 24
HPHT FL ML <10
EST MV > 600
O/W Ratio 70/30 - 85/15
LGS % <5
Av Pump Rate 3000
3.14.2. Problems encountered
 Drilling 16" hole section to 822m with slow ROP less than 2 m/h in Senonian Salifere and
Turonian formations;
 Tight spots with heavy back-reaming required on POOH to change the drill bit in
Senonian Salifere and Turonian formations from (658m to 822 m);
 Drill bit and all stabilizers were balled up required circulation, hole clean and POOH to
surface in Cenomanian formation from (915m to 943m)
 High torque observed at this depth (915m to 943m)
 Partial Formation Losses were detected during this section in the following formation:
 APTIEN: (from1433m to 1458m); recorded 0.5m3/h losses rate and lost 5m3.
 DOGGER ARGILEUX AND DOGGER LAGUNAIRE: (from 2131 to
2246m/2376m TD) recorded 0.4- 0.8m3/h losses rate detected at 2164m, total
volume lost 57m3.
Recomendation
Good circulation and hole cleaning: Hole cleaning can be affected by many factors. The
following procedures need to be strictly followed to improve the hole cleaning:
 The most important is to use as high pump rates as possible, to achieve highest possible
annular velocity;
 Increase the 3-RPM if hole cleaning problems occur. The low-end rheology is an important
mud property to affect hole cleaning in this system. Using Modified Starch with
supplement the 6 RPM reading and assist in hole cleaning;
 Prior to connections, the cuttings should be circulated well above bottom, and preferably
above the BHA in case of high ROP to minimize the risk of getting cuttings accumulated
in the narrow annular section around the drill collars which may act as bridge between the
DC, stabilizers, and the formation leading to stuck pipe tendency, this in addition to risk of
packing off after connections;
 The hole should be circulated clean before starting to POOH or back reaming;
 If the hole is back reamed to the casing shoe or above prior to logging/casing, additional
wiper trip is highly recommended;
 At bottom, the hole must be circulated clean before pulling out. Always circulate hole
clean, not bottoms-up only;
 High-Vis sweeps should be pumped intermittently and evaluated as to their effectiveness.

These sweep volumes can range between 12 and 15m3 and the frequency determined by
the evaluation. High viscosity sweeps weighted or un-weighted should be prepared form
active mud and treated with 2 or 4 kg/m3 Duo-vis;
 Prior to trips the hole should be circulated for a period of at least 1 ½ x bottoms-up. This
will prevent tight hole on the way out and bridges, fill etc., on the way back in. Ample
hydraulics will be imperative;
 Monitor cuttings size, shape and amount at shakers. Adjust flow rates and/or mud
properties as needed;
Bit balling/ROP
The system is designed to optimize ROP and minimize bit balling potential. Any indications
of bit balling, or poor ROP as a result, should be alleviated by additional 1.0% v/v ULTRAFREE,
which can be added directly to the system or maintained through premix addition.
Bit and stabiliser balling is an indication of poor inhibition and can occur in any reactive shale
formation. The drilled cuttings are generally soft and mushy at the shakers, and when the bottom
hole assembly arrives on surface it is covered in large lumps of soft, sticky clay.
Accretion refers to the gradual build-up of a compacted layer of cuttings on the drill string
(mainly on the drill collars, stabilizers, and bit). It is formation-specific, occurring in some wells
but not in others, even when mud systems with similar formulations are used. Accretion is thought
to occur when shale formations are maintained at a critical level of hydration (moisture content) by
the inhibitive nature of the mud, thus rendering them plastic and sticky and able to compact onto
the bottom hole assembly. [58]
For the hydraulic parameters that must be considered to minimize the tendency for bit balling, the
following should be considered:
 HSI >2.0 (Optimum 2.5 – 5.0)
 Jet Viscosity > 60 m/sec
 Pressure at bit >15%
3.15. Products used and cost estimation of Ultradril

3.15.1. Cost of Ultradril drilling fluid used in OMJZ#32 well
Table 3-16: Products and costs of Ultradril drilling fluid used in OMJZ#32 well. [59]
Products Used Units Nb units Cost/unit Cost $

Barite (1.5 MT) 1.5 MT 40 339.000 $13,560.00
SODA ASH 25Kg 120 28.887 $ 3,466.44
ULTRAHIB 55Gal 165 2799,041 $ 461,841.72
ULTRAFREE 55Gal 104 2816,268 $ 292,891.91
ULTRAFREE 1000L 1 14081.342 $ 14,081.34
ULTRACAP 50Lb 294 507.802 $ 149,293.66
ULTRACAP 25Kg 70 559.746 $ 39,182.22
ID CAP D 25Kg 102 395.821 $ 40,373.69
POLYPAC 25Kg 35 217.242 $ 7,603.45
SUPREME UL
POLYPAC 25Kg 140 156.829 $ 23,210.66
KCl 1MT 61 2210.000 $ 134,810.00
NaCl 1MT 150 180.000 $ 28,440.00
DUO VIS 25Kg 24 301.863 $ 7,244.71
MICA M 50Lb 85 26.693 $ 2,268,905
NUT PLUG M 25Kg 200 41.181 $ 8,236.25
DD 55Gal 21 487.941 $ 10,246.7677
Total Cost $ 1,236,751.717
3.15.2. Cost of drilling fluid used in OMJZ#21well drilled by OBM
Table 3-17: cost of drilling fluid to drill OMJZ#21 well with OBM. [60]
Hole size Depth (m) Mud MW(SG) Days Cost ($)

Pre-hydrated
26" 492 Bentonite WBM 1.05 5 52 689.14
16" 2351 Versadril OBM 1.25 14 391 596.41
12 ¼" 3270 Versadril OBM 2.04 10 283 879.84
8 ½" 3388 Versadril OBM 1.45 8 85 286.45
6" 4274 Versadrill OBM 1.42 60 264 616.71
Total Depth 4274 m
TVD 3381 m
Drilling Days 97
Total Cost $ 1,078,068.55
3.15.3. Comparative study between costs of Ultaradril (OMJZ#32) and OBM

(OMJZ#21)
According to Tab.25, it can be notice that using HP WBM (Ultradril) cost $ 2,071,908.21
which is much higher than the OBM cost (HP WBM cost small double than OBM) shown in tab 26
($ 1,078,068.55) as a global cost to drill the well. In addition, we can observe that the using of HP
WBM (Ultradril) cost ($ 1,296,776.262) which is much higher than the OBM cost (HP WBM costs
more three times than OBM) as shown in Tab 26 ($391,596.41) for drilling the 16” hole section.
Therefore, it seems that using HP WBM is very expensive, compared to the conventional
OBM which is well known for its stability, high inhibition and less drilling problems. However,
because drilling with OBM requires the used mud and drilled cuttings to be contained, treated and
hauled to an approved site (waste management), therefore the cost of OBM will be comparable to
the cost of HP WBM.
Table 3-18: cost of drilling fluid to drill OMJZ#32 well with HP WBM. [59]
Hole size Depth (m) Mud MW(SG) Days Cost ($)
26" 500 Spud Mud 1.07 8 93587.413
16" 2375 Ultradril WBM 1.3 29 1296776.262
12 ¼" 3273 Versadril OBM 2.02 15 177696.688
8 ½" 3383 Versadril OBM 1.45 7 63699.375
6" 4107 Versadrill OBM 1.42 99 440148.474
Total Depth 3940 m
TVD 3411 m
Drilling Days 105
Total Cost $ 2,071,908.21
Conclusion and engineering recommendations
Conclusion and Engineering recommendations
Conclusion
Too much time was spent to drill the 16” section on OMJZ#32. During drilling this section,
Sonatrach has faced several problems when drilling with HP WBM systems in HMD shaly
formations may cause many problems compared with OBMs such as wellbore instability due to
drill string vibration when using the tricone drill bite that have generated intense and serious axial
vibrations while drilling a hard formation such Malm and Dogger Lagunar, in which have decreased
bit life, high torque, and balling up of drill bit and stabilizer. Therefore, HP WBM often exhibit low
penetration rates. Drilling soft, reactive formations can present issues in regard to bit balling and
reduced penetration rates, there is no clear consensus on whether or not they match the performance
standards of OBMs, furthermore the highly cost of HP WBM. However, OBM is more tolerant to
high reactive shale conditions and therefore it will cause less drilling problems compared to HP
WBM as this report shows. Based on the case study, it can be concluded that the best choice to drill
the 16" hole section in HMD field is OBM drilling fluid if not violating the environmental
regulation. HP WBMs adequately address the issue in this field brought the following benefits:
 Resolve diesel supply problems resulting from diesel shortage;
 Protect the underground water from OBM contamination;
 Protect people health from diesel vapors;
 Drill gauge hole with WBM;
 Better cement adherence to the formation than with OBM which results in better and
secured isolation of aquifer formations from salty ones to preclude the later from being
dissolved in the former, thus reducing the risk of natural disaster of formation collapse;
 Easy logistic using simple means which may contribute to NPT reduction associated
to delivery time.
 Reduce online waste management treatment resulting in:
- Rig footprint reduction;
- Injuries risk reduction due to reduction in minimizing rotating equipment;

- NPT reduction resulting from failure of on line treatment.
Engineering recommendations
In order to adopt this newly type of drilling fluid, we suggest some additional and effectual
measure for enhancing and optimizing the overall performance of HP WBM (for example Ultradril)
in the future, the following recommendations should be applied:
 It would be best to drill the hole section with 17 1/2" instead of 16" in order to avoid the
tight hole and shale reactive problems (as MD654 well)
 Bit design:
The selection of PDC bit to drill with WBM should consider the following criteria:
- A PDC bit with no more than 7 blades.
- Maximum open face volume.
- One nozzle per junk slot.
- Large cutter size.
- Large junk slot area.
 Drilling practices:
As experienced in this trial, bit balling is highly expected to occur with WBM, therefore,
the following advices should be respected:
- Minimize open hole exposure time to drilling fluid, especially in static
conditions.
- Drilling parameters should be clearly defined and communicated to the
driller, mud engineer and bit man.
- Whatever drilling fluid performance, first trials should be run by experienced
bit men and drillers with WBM, they should have better understanding of the
bit behavior change under different conditions, predict the parameter(s) to
change and what should be the change.
 Drilling parameters:
Drilling parameters should be selected based on the following:
- Previous successful field experiences.
- Software simulations.
- Consider the “Mechanical specific energy (MSE)” of the bit for

optimum performance.
- A PDC bit with 7 blades is required, and the HSI bit required should be in
the range of 3-10, the highest blades number is, the highest HSI will be
required.
 Drilling fluid handling:
- Accurate monitoring of the depletion rate of the main inhibitors of the
Ultradril system for future optimization.
- Optimize the ratio of the re-used mud in the circulating system for the future.
- Introduce new bit balling suppressants such as “Drilzone” and “Dril- Free”
in the system to mitigate bit balling potential.
- Monitor high shear viscosity and keep it as low as possible to minimize bit
balling probability.
 Ensure drilling this section with the maximum possible flow rate programmed and
recommended by Sonatrach for each section ( 3200 LPM for 16" hole) in order to maximize
cutting removal and prevent bit balling tendency which in turn will improve ROP and
drilling efficiency.
References
References
[1] M I Swaco campany, Drilling Fluid Engineering Manual”
[2] D. Williamson, “Drilling Fluids Basics”, Schlumberger, Spring 2013.
[3] M.S. Farahat “Drilling Fluids”
[4] “Documentation of Halliburton Company”, 2008.
[5] M I Swaco company, “Function of drilling fluids”
[6] F. Wolfgang Prassl, “Drilling Engineering”. Department of Petroleum Engineering. Curtin University
of Technology,
[7] B. Michell, “Advanced oil well drilling engineering” 10 th Edition, 1st Revision, July 1995.
[8] M. Khodja, M. Khodja-Saber, J. P. Canselier, N. Cohaut and F. Bergaya. “ Drilling Fluid Technology:
Performances and Environmental Considerations“. Sonatrach/Division Technologies et Innovation
[9] R. Boudour “Cours of drilling fluid” Ecole de Boumerdes (IAP), Algérie
[10] M. Khodja “ Etude des performances et considerations environnementales “, Thèse de doctorat,
l’Université des sciences et de Technologie Houari Boumediene d’Alger.2008
[11] R. C.Henry, C. H. Darley,George Robert Gray, “Composition and Properties of Drilling and
Completion Fluids”, Sixth Edition.
[12] R. Darby “ Viscoelastic fluids An Introduction to Their Properties and Behavior ”, volume 9. Marcel
Dekker, 1976.
[13] T.G. Mezger, “ The Rheology Handbook ”. European Coatings Tech Files, 3rd revised edition, 2011.
[14] Jr. A. T. Bourgoyne, K. K. Millheim, M. E. Chenevert, and Jr. F. S Young “Applied Drilling
Engineering”, volume 2. Society of Pretoleum Engineers. 1986
[15] I. Sandvold, “ Gel evolution of oil based drilling fluids “, Master's thesis, NTNU, 2012.
[16] A. Saasen, “Annular friction losses during drilling - the effect of drillstring rotation“. 2013
[17] Y. A. çengel, J. M. Cimbala, “FLUID MECHANICS Fundamentals and Applications “, volume 2.
McGraw-Hill, 2010
[18] D. L, Whitfill, T. Hemphill,. “All Lost-Circulation Materials and Systems Are Not Created Equal”.
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8 October. SPE-84319-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84319-MS, 2003.
[19] P. Isambourg, S. Ottesen, S. Benaissa, et al. “ Down-Hole Simulation Cell for Measurement of Lubricity
and Differential Pressure Sticking”. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 9–
11 March. SPE-52816-MS.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/52816-MS, 1999
[20] H. Santos, “Differentially Stuck Pipe: Early Diagnostic and Solution”. Presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23-25 February. SPE-59127-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59127-
MS, 2000.
[21] D. Whitfill, G. Rachal, G. Lawson, et al. 2002. Drilling Salt—“Effect of Drilling Fluid on Penetration
Rate and Hole Size”. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 26–28 February. SPE-
74546-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74546-MS, 2002.
[22] W. C. Chin, “Formation invasion with applications to measurement while-drilling, time-lapse analysis,
and formation damage”: Gulf Publishing Co, 1995.
[23] Jr. H. R. Warner, and J. J. Rathmell, “Mechanisms controlling filtration at the core bit for oil-based
muds”: SPE Drilling & Completion, 12,111–118, 1997.
[24] J. T. Dewan, and M. E. Chenevert, “Mudcake buildup and invasion in low permeability formations”;
application to permeability determination by measurement while drilling: Presented at Society of
ProfessionalWell LogAnalysts/CanadianWell Logging Society Symposium, 1993.
[25] Wu, J., C. Torres-Verdín, K. Sepehrnoori, and M. A. Proett, “The influence of water-base mud
properties and petrophysical parameters on mudcake growth, filtrate invasion, and formation pressure”,
Petrophysics, 46,14–32, 2005.
References
[26] M. Aliev, “ Structures géologiques et perspectives pétrolières du Sahara algérien “. Edition Altamira
Rotopress, Madrid. Espagne, 1974.
[27] M. Aliev, “ Structure et perspectives en pétrole et en gaz du Sahara algérien “. Edition Altamira
Rotopress, Madrid. Espagne. 1976
[28] A. Amata, “ Caractérisation de la fracturation du gisement de Hassi Messaoud, impact sur la qualité
des réservoirs “. Rap. Interne Division Production, SONATRACH, 2002.
[29] A. Balducchi, J. P. Blan, “ Structure de Hassi Messaoud. Etude de subsurface “. Rap. Interne
SNREPALE, 1960.
[30] B. Franlab, “ Zone périphérique du champ de Hassi Messaoud, réservoir cambro-ordovicien “. Rap.
Interne CRD SONATRACH, 1979.
[31] B. Franlab, “ Révision du modèle géologique du champ de Hassi Messaoud “. Rap. Interne CRD
SONATRACH, 1995.
[32] M. Belhouchet, “ Contribution de géologie à la reprise des puits en Short Radius à Hassi Messaoud “.
MFE. Ing d’état, FHC.UMBB Boumerdes, Algérie, 2001.
[33] P. Bellair, et C. Pomerol, “ Eléments de géologie. Edition Armand COLLIN “, 1982.
[34] B. Benrabah, et P. Kaprov, “ Relation entre la lithologie et les caractéristiques pétrophysiques dans
les grès cambriens de la zone I de Hassi Messaoud “. Rap. Interne CRD SONATRACH, 1980.
[35] S. Beuf, Charpal, O.J. Debyser,et al, “ Le cambro-ordovicien du Tassili des Ajjers. Rech.Sedement “,
vol. I, fasc. I. Rap. IFP, inédit, 1962.
[36] S. Beuf, Biju-duval, B. Charpal, (O de), “ Les grès du Paléozoïque inférieur du Sahara. (Sédiment et
Discont. Evolution structurale) “ .Thèse, Strasbourg, 1971.
[37] D. W. Boardman, Porjesz et E. Reimpot, “ Using geostatisticto locate Short Radius side-tracks in
depleted heterogeneous reservoir “. Publication SPE n° 38709, 1997.
[38] A. Boudjemaa, “ Evolution structurale du bassin pétrolier (triasique) du Sahara Nord Oriental (Algérie)
“. Thèse. Univ Orsay .Paris. France, 1987.
[39] F. Boudjemaa, “ Approche géostatistique à la géométrisation des réservoirs Ra et Ri de la zone 2Ext,
2S et 20A du champ de Hassi Messaoud “. MFE. Ing d’état, INH Boumerdes, Algérie, 1998.
[40] G. Busson, “ Le Mésozoïque saharien “. Thèse, Edition du CNRS, 1970.
[41] J. P. assan, A. Izzo, (1963). “ Rapport préliminaire sur le réservoir de Hassi Messaoud “.
Rap.REPAL, inédit, 1963.
[42] A. Al-Ansari, K. Yadav, S. Aramco, D. Anderson, R. Leaper, W. Dye, N. Hansen, B. Hughes, “ Diverse
Application of Unique High-Performance Water-Based-Mud Technology in the Middle East“.
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition 12-14 September 2005,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2005.
[43] J. Montilva, E. van Oort, R. Brahim, B. Dye, J. Luzardo, M. McDonald, and L. Quintero, “ Improved
Drilling Performance in Lake Maracaibo Using a Low Salinity, High Performance Water Based
Drilling Fluid“, American Association for Drilling Engineers; AADE , Houston, AADE 2007.
[44] Z. Han-yi, Q. Zheng-song, and H. Wei-an, “Properties evaluation and application of polyamine high
performance water-based drilling fluid ”, Science Technology and Engineering, vol. 1, p. 1, 2013.
[45] J. Montilva, E. van Oort, R. Brahim, B. Dye, J. Luzardo, M. McDonald, and L. Quintero, “ Improved
Drilling Performance in Lake Maracaibo Using a Low-Salinity, High-Performance Water-Based
Drilling Fluid“, American Association for Drilling Engineers; AADE , Houston, AADE 2007.
[46] K. Morton, B. Bomar M. Schiller, J. Gallet, S. Azar, “Selection and Evaluation Criteria for High-
Performance Drilling Fluids”, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas 9-12
October 2005.
[47] M.A. Ramirez, S. Benaissa, G. Ragnes, A. Almaraz, “ Aluminum-Based HP WBM Successfully
Replaces Oil-Based Mud To Drill Exploratory Well in the Magellan Strait, Argentina“, SPE/IADC
Middle East Drilling and Technology Conference, Cairo, Egypt, 22-24 October 2007.
[48] M.A. Ramirez, E. Moura, E. Luna E, and A. Aragao, and H. Taira, “ HP WBM as a Technical
Alternative to Drill Challenging Wells Project“: Lessons Learned in Deepwater Brazil, Latin American
& Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 2007.
References
[49] W. Jian-hua, Y. Jie-nian, and D. Tong-wei, “Progresses in the researches on high performance water
base muds”, Drilling Fluid & Completion Fluid, vol. 1, p. 1, 2007.
[50] X. Wenfa, X. Xingjin, and W. Changjun, “Study and application of a water-based drilling fluid system
containing alcohol ether”, Chemical Engineering of Oil and Gas, vol. 4, p. 1, 2004.
[51] Z. Ke-qin, H. Lun, and A. Shu-fang, “An introduction to the high performance water base muds
abroad”, Drilling Fluid & Completion Fluid, vol. 3, p. 1, 2007.
[52] Z. Qi-gen, C. Fu, L. Yi, “Development of high performance water base muds abroad”, Drilling Fluid
& Completion Fluid, vol. 3, p. 1, 2007.
[53] M I Swaco, “Drilling fluid proposal, WBM field trial, Hassi Messaoud” Well: OMJZ#32, Rig:
Nabors#F 22.
[54] Sonatrach company, “drilling program of OMJZ#32 well” Rig: Nabors#F 22, 24 march 2012.
[55] M I Swaco, “End of interval report, Horizontal development well HMD”, Well: OMJZ#32, Rig:
Nabors#F 22, 05/09/2012.
[56] M I Swaco, “Daily drilling fluid report: Ultradrill” Well: OMJZ#32, Rig: Nabors#F 22.
[57] Hallliburton campany, “Drilling bit run report 16”FX96R, S/N: 11802334”, Well: OMJZ#32, Rig:
Nabors#F 22, 2012.
[58] Sonatrach company, “drilling program of OMJZ#21 well” Rig: F 21, 04 July 2011.
[59] M I Swaco,” Mud recap Horizontal development well HMD”, Well: OMJZ#32, Rig: Nabors#F 22,
05/09/2012.
[60] M I Swaco,” Daily drilling fluid report, OBM: Versadrill relaxed”, Well: OMJZ#21, Rig: F 21.
Appendix

Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drillin PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drillin PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drillin PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSTITUT ALGERIEN

Professional Project in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Performance Evaluation of HP WBM Drilling Fluid in Hassi Messaoud

Executed by: Supervised by:

Mr. BENAΪSSA Ali Mr. DADDOU Miloud

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

First name : Miloud

Promotion: December 2014

We want to express our sincere appreciation to our supervising professor, Mr.

We would like to give our thanks to all members of MI-SWACO

Sincere gratitude is extended to the Algerian Petroleum Institute and

Key Words : Drilling Fluid, HP WBM, Phase 16", performance, Environment.

General introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1 : Drilling fluids overview ................................................................................... 3

ASTM : American System Testing Material

Chapter 1 : Drilling fluids overview

1.1. Function of a drilling fluid

5. Maintain wellbore stability;

1.1.1. Remove cuttings from the well

1.1.2. Control formation pressures

1.1.3. Suspend and release cuttings

1.1.4. Seal permeable formations

Figure 1.1: Seal permeable formations. [4]

1.1.5. Maintain wellbore stability

1.1.6. Minimize reservoir damage

Figure 1.2: Conglomeration of loose material around pore throat.

Figure 1.3: Kaolinite stack almost completely disaggregated. [5]

1.1.8. Transmit hydraulic energy to tools and bit

1.1.9. Ensure adequate formation evaluation

1.1.10. Control corrosion

1.1.11. Facilitate cementing and completion

1.2. Composition of drilling fluid

1.2.1. Water based fluids

Clear Water and Native Muds

Inhibited water based fluids

Nondispersed Muds – KCL/Polymer Muds

Figure 1.4: Arrangements of clay particles. [7]

Table 1-1: Common brine systems. [7]

1.2.2. Oil based fluids

1.2.3. Aerated fluids

1.3. Properties of drilling fluids

1.3.4. The yield point

Y P  L300 VP  (VA VP )  2 (4)

1.3.5. Get strength

1.4.2. Time-Dependent Behavior

1.4.3. Rheological models

1.4.3.2. Bingham Plastic

Where τy is the yield stress and μpl is the plastic viscosity.

1.4.3.3. Power Law

Power law fluids are defined as:

1.4.3.5. Other models

1.4.3.6. Rheological Modeling in the Drilling Industry

 Calculating frictional pressure loss in annuli and pipes;

1.5. Annulus Wellbore Hydraulics

1.5.1. Fluid Mechanics

1.5.2. Flow Regimes

1.6. Challenges Related to Drilling Fluid

1.6.1. Loss of Circulation