THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA

COLLEGE OF EARTH SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF MINES AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY ENGINEERING

LABORATORY PRACTICAL ON

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT AFFECTS THE PROPERTIES OF THE

DRILLING MUD DURING DRILLING PROCESS

COURSE CODE: PE 326.

STUDENT NAME: AKILIMALI, FORTUNE CHRISTIAN.
REG NO: T/UDOM/2013/04556.
DEGREE PROGRAM: BSc PETRLEUM ENGINEERING.
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2015/2016.
SUBMISSION DATE: 15th July 2016
ABSTRACT
This report concerns the analysis of the basic techniques of formulating, testing and studying the
properties of drilling fluid in contamination with different material encountered during drilling
process.

This report consists of six chapters with four experiments for measuring the physical properties of
drilling fluid such as mud weight (density), rheology (viscosity, gel strength, yield point) sand
content, wall building and filtration characteristics. The first chapter consists of introduction and
theoretical principals of the experiment.

The first experiment was about measurement of mud properties (viscosity density and pH). The
second experiment was on mud properties test particularly control of mud weight. This is divided
into two parts, Part A was about effect of adding bentonite on mud properties for fresh and salt
water base mud and part B was about the effect of adding weight material (barite). It was
observed that the viscosity and mud weight increases on the addition of salt to the fresh water
mud. Also the addition of barite to the mud affects only mud weight but not viscosity because
barite doesn’t have flocculating or deflocculating properties

The third experiment was about drilling fluid contamination test. In this test we were studying the
effect of contamination of monovalent chemicals (NaCl and KCl) and divalent chemicals that
cause contamination are calcium sulfate (CaSO4), cement (Ca(OH)2, and Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O).
It was observed that Sodium chloride increases density of the drilling mud as well as the viscosity
of mud since it is flocculant. Cement has a tendency of absorbing water from the mud and
increase viscosity, but cement seems to have no any impact on mud weight.

Experiment 4 was on determination of sand content of the drilling mud. This is a simple test
designed to measure the level of particles in the mud of greater that 200 mesh or 75 microns.
From the results obtained in this test and the general field experience shows that the sand content
must not be permitted to rise above 2%, otherwise wear on pumps and tubulars will be the result.
Any increase in sand content must be investigated since it is often an indication of poor solids
removal efficiency.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... i
List of figures .................................................................................................................................................iv
List Of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Mud Weight Control ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Viscosity. .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Drilling Mud Contamination ................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1 Cement Contamination And Treatment: ....................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Salt Contamination And Treatment ............................................................................................... 6
1.3.3 Alkalinity and pH-Control Materials............................................................................................. 7
1.3.4 Flocculating Materials. .................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................................................ 9
MUD PROPERTIES TEST WATER BASED MUD .................................................................................... 9
(Density, Viscosity, pH) ................................................................................................................................. 9
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 10
(A) Density Test ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.0 Test Equipment............................................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1 Test Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 11
(B) Mud Viscosity Test ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.0 Test Equipment............................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Test Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 13
(C) Hydrogen ion Concentration (pH) Test. ............................................................................................ 13
1.3 Result And Discussions. ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................................... 16
CONTROL OF MUD WEIGHT .................................................................................................................. 16
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Testing Equipments ............................................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Test Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 19
3.4 RESULT AND DISCUSION ............................................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 Effect of adding Bentonite to drilling Mud ................................................................................. 21
ii
 3.4.2 Effect Of Adding Weight Material (Barite) ................................................................................ 23
3.4.3 Effect of adding water to the drilling Mud .................................................................................. 25
3.5 CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................................ 29
DRILLING FLUID CONTAMINATION TEST ABSTRACT ................................................................... 29
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.1 EQUIPMENTS................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Testing Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 32
4.4 TREATMENT OF THE CONTAMINATED DRILLING FLUID ................................................... 32
(A) SALT CONTAMINATION: ......................................................................................................... 32
(B) CEMENT CONTAMINATION: ................................................................................................... 33
4.5 RESULT AND DISCUSION ............................................................................................................. 34
Mud Contamination Results. ................................................................................................................ 34
A) Effects Of Contaminants On Viscosity. .......................................................................................... 35
B) Effects Of Contaminants On mud Weight....................................................................................... 36
C) Mud treatment for salt and Cement. ................................................................................................ 37
4.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 40
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................................... 41
SAND CONTENT DETERMINATION: .................................................................................................... 41
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 41
5.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 42
5.2 EXPERIMENT EQUIPMENTS: ....................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Test Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 44
5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 45
5.4.1 PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................................ 45
5.5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................................................ 47
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 47
6.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 47
6.2 Recommendation. ............................................................................................................................... 48
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................. 49

iii
 List of figures
Figure 1. 1:Material`s Specific Gravity .......................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1. 2:Salts Used To Boost Mud Weight ............................................................................................... 4

Figure 1. 3:Drilling Mud Contaminants And Their Properties In Mud. (Kennedy j, 2007) ........................... 7

Figure 2. 1:Baroid Mud Balance .................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 2. 2:The Marsh Funnel ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2. 3: The pH Meter ............................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 3.1: Mud Balance(a) and Marsh funnel (b) ....................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.2: Viscometer ................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3. 3: The Graph of Mud Weight before and after addition of 20.6 ml 10% salt water ..................... 21

Figure 3. 4: The Graph of viscocity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water ............................ 22

Figure 3. 5: The Graph of Mud Weight before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water ...................... 23

Figure 3. 6: The Graph of Viscosity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water ........................... 24

Figure 3. 7:The Graph of pH before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water....................................... 25

Figure 3. 8:Mud weight Vs addition of water .............................................................................................. 26

Figure 4. 1: Measuring Cylinder, pH meter, Marsh Funnel and Mass balance ............................................ 31

Figure 4. 2: The Graph Viscosity Vs Mass of Gypsum, Nacl and Anhydrite added ................................... 35

Figure 4. 3: The Graph of Mud Weight Vs Mas of Gypsum, Nacl and Anhydrite added............................ 36

Figure 4. 4: Variation of Mud weight on addition of SAPP ......................................................................... 38

Figure 4. 5: Variation of Viscosity Vs addition of SAPP............................................................................. 39

iv
 List Of Tables
Table 2. 1:Viscosity at the temperature of the measurement ......................................................... 13

Table 3. 1: Addition of bentonite on mud fresh and salt water base mud: .................................... 21

Table 3. 2: Effect of adding weight material (barite) to the fresh water base mud. ....................... 23

Table 3. 3:Effect of adding water to the drilling Mud.................................................................... 25

Table 4. 1: Treatment of cement contaminated mud. ..................................................................... 37

Table 4. 2: Treatment of salt contaminated mud. ........................................................................... 37

Table 5. 1: Sand Content Determination ........................................................................................ 45

v
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
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.

Generally, 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.
Running a mud system consists primarily of controlling the type and amount of solids in the mud
and their chemical environment. All mud properties are controlled by controlling these
compositional factors. Accurate mud tests are necessary for proper control of the mud properties.

The main functions of drilling fluids include providing hydrostatic pressure to prevent formation
fluids from entering into the well bore (controlling formation pressure), remove cuttings from the
well, suspend and release cuttings, seal permeable formation, maintain wellbore stability,
minimize reservoir damage, cool, lubricate and support the bit and drilling assembly, transmit
hydraulic energy to tools and bit, ensure adequate formation evaluation, corrosion control,
facilitate cementing and completion and minimize impact on the environment.

It is necessary to ensure that the drilling fluid properties such as density, viscosity, filtration, etc.
should not change during the drilling operation. However, in practice, this never occurs. In the
field, some drilling fluid properties will eventually change even if the condition of the hole is
stable. Contamination of the drilling fluid system can come from any one of the following
sources: materials coming from the formation, thermal degradation of organics in mud, aeration
or overtreatment at the surface. These different contaminants have different effects and
consequences which lead to necessary treatment to minimize and avoid drilling problems. The
common contaminants present are:-
1. Drilling Solids
2. Anhydrite/Gypsum
3. Cement
4. Salt Formations/Salt Water Flow

1
 5. Carbonates and Bicarbonates
However in these laboratory experiments, we tried to study the necessary conditions and different
aspects which can cause drilling mud properties such as pH viscosity, density and…… to change
during drilling by preparing water base mud and contaminate it with different things such as
cement, salt, barite and others as it can be contaminated during drilling.

The effect contaminant in the drilling fluid was tested by testing the drilling fluid properties
before and after contamination and evaluating the change in each of those properties. This means
that the drilling fluid properties should be determined as accurately as possible using a repeatable
and properly selected test procedure.

The hydroxide ion may compound the problem if the temperature >250°F, which may solidify the
lime mud system. If the amount of cement contamination is relatively small, the contaminated
drilling fluid can be treated with chemicals. The three common basic products used to treat out
cement are bicarb, soda ash, and SAPP. SAPP performs better than the other two, but has a
temperature limitation of 180°F. Bicarb is preferred over soda ash.

2
1.0 THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES
1.1 Mud Weight Control
The density of the drilling fluid must be controlled to provide adequate hydrostatic head to
prevent influx of formation fluids, but not so high as to cause loss of circulation or adversely
affect the drilling rate and damaging the formation. Normal pressure gradient by water is equal to
(0.433 psi/ft) and equal to 433 psi/1000 ft. (Bourgoyne Jr AT, 1986)

The equation for calculating hydrostatic pressure is:

Hydrostatic Pressure, psi = (depth, ft.) x( mud weight, lb./gal)(0.052)

Density is not greatly affected by downhole conditions. Increased temperature causes the density
to decrease, but increased pressure causes an increase in density. Downhole, these effects oppose
one another and tend to equalize. (Caenn, 2011)

To avoid this problem, the densities of both muds should be checked at the same temperature.
Weighting agents are used to prevent blowouts by maintaining the borehole pressure (Sadiq et.al.,
2003). Barite (barium sulphate) is the main and preferred weighting agent, due to its relatively
high specific gravity of 4.5. Ilmenite, haematite (iron oxide), siderite, dolomite and calcium
carbonate are also used as weighting agents (Caenn and Chillingar, 1996). Haematite sometimes
replaces barite for use in deep drilling within a high density mud (Neff, 2005).

Figure 1. 1:Material`s Specific Gravity

3
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. Commercial barite is a mined product that undergoes very little processing
other than grinding. Its specific gravity averages about 4.25. Pure barium sulfate has a specific
gravity of 4.5, indicating that some impurities are present in the commercial grade. The impurities
vary depending upon the source of the barite. (Bourgoyne Jr AT, 1986). Ilmenite has a specific
gravity of 4.5 to 5.0 and is mainly used within the Norwegian sector of the North Sea (Neff,2005).

NOTE: Although sodium chloride and calcium bromide increase the density of water-base and
oil-base fluids, they are usually added for reasons other than to increase density. Fluid densities
ranging from 9.0 to 21.5 ppg can be attained, depending on the salt(s) used. The Table below
outlines the maximum densities that can be attained for single-salt systems at a temperature of
70°F. (Kennedy j, 2007)

Figure 1. 2:Salts Used To Boost Mud Weight

1.2 Viscosity.
Viscosifiers improve a drilling fluid’s ability to remove cuttings from the wellbore and to suspend
cuttings and weight materials during periods of no circulation. Clays and natural or synthetic
polymers are the materials most commonly used as viscosifiers. Viscosifiers are used with all
types of drilling mud and are generally added in the form of clay. Viscosifiers build viscosity
through complex interactions with the emulsions (Caenn and Chillingar, 1996). The clay forms a
thick gel in the well bore preventing the settlement of drill cuttings and barite (Neff, 2005). There
are commonly two types of clay components in drilling mud, the most used being sodium
montmorillonite, commonly called bentonite.

4
Bentonite also helps to prevent fluid loss by coating the wall of the borehole (Neff, 2005). The
other clay in general use is attapulgite, commonly known as salt gel (Caenn and Chillingar,
1996). With WBM, organic polymers derived from cellulose and natural biopolymers are also in
general use. These act as a replacement for clay when drilling in soft formations (Neff, 2005). A
list of some of the materials used to provide viscosity to drilling fluids are Bentonite,
Sodium/calcium aluminosilicate, Sepiolite, Hydrous magnesium silicate, Attapulgite, Hydrous
magnesium aluminum silicate and Organophilic Clay.

Bentonite is added to fresh water or to fresh-water muds for one or more of the following
purposes; to increase hole-cleaning capability; to reduce water seepage or filtration into
permeable formations; to form a thin, low-permeability filter cake; to promote hole stability in
poorly cemented formations; and to avoid or overcome loss of circulation. (Bourgoyne Jr AT,
1986)

Sepiolite is hydrated magnesium silicate that closely resembles attapulgite. Sepiolite gives stable
viscosity to 700° F. It is apparently converted to a smectite when the temperature of the drilling
fluid exceeds 300° F. Sepiolite is used in geothermal drilling as a viscous sweep for hole cleaning
and as a substitute for attapulgite (Bourgoyne Jr AT, 1986)

Organophilic Clay: Clay minerals whose surfaces have been coated with a chemical to make them
oil-dispersible. Organophilic attapulgite and sepiolite are used in oil muds strictly to build gel
structure, which may not be long lasting due to shear degradation as the mud is pumped through
the bit. (Bourgoyne Jr AT, 1986)

1.3 Drilling Mud Contamination

1.3.1 Cement Contamination And Treatment:

Drilling wells requires drilling cement after each casing or liner is set. Cement chemistry is
complex. In water-based drilling fluids, hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) solubilizes in the water phase
-
producing hydroxyl (OH ) and calcium (Ca2+) ions. The major contaminant is calcium, similar to

gypsum contamination, except the hydroxyl ions raise the pH (pH > 11.5). The degree of
contamination depends the amount of cement drilled, the extent to which the cement cured, pre-
treatment of chemical, and solids type/concentration. When the pH exceeds 11.7, lime (cement)
becomes insoluble. If a large amount of green or soft cement is expected, the original fluid system

5
may be converted to lime mud system, which is tolerant to cement contamination. (Neil Trotter,
2015)

Cement contamination treatment can be achieved by adding SAPP in drilling mud. SAPP
(Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate) inorganic thinner, is a commercial chemical used as a thinner and
dispersant in freshwater drilling fluids and as an aid in water well development.

The use of SAPP inorganic thinner assists and promotes the following applications and functions:
1. Reduction of viscosity and gel strengths in freshwater drilling fluids
2. Effective dispersion of reactive clays
3. Dispersion of clay particles and sediments so they can be removed during well
development.
4. Effective chemical treatment for cement contaminated fluids. (Caenn, 2011)

1.3.2 Salt Contamination And Treatment

Common salt formations include salt domes, salt stringers, massive complex evaporates, and
brine flows. Sodium chloride is the most common salt encountered. (Conevari GP., 1969)
Potassium chloride, calcium chloride, and magnesium chloride are sometimes drilled in complex
evaporites. These salts will flocculate the system, lower the pH, and likewise affect the properties
of the drilling fluid. There are physical and mechanical differences in salt structures. Salt is
impermeable and plastic. Salt formations often contain other evaporate minerals, i.e., anhydrite,
gypsum, kieserite, limestone or dolomite. (Bourgoyne Jr AT, 1986)

During salt or brine flows, the initial task is adjusting the density of the drilling fluid to prevent
further influx. The next task is to condition the mud. Possible treatments include:

a) Increasing salt concentration to saturation to prevent hole enlargement.

b) Increasing salt concentration to slightly below saturation to encourage hole enlargement,
minimizing the risk of stuck pipe.
c) Converting the system to a salt-tolerant drilling fluid.
d) Displacing to a salt-tolerant fluid system, such as non-aqueous system.

Symptoms of salt formations/salt water flow contamination in water-based fluid properties are
shown in Figure A-3.

6
The comparison change of the each property before and after the contaminations. Four conditions
of every change of property are possible:
1. “↑” Increase.
2. “↓” Decrease.
3. “Inc” Inconclusive (may do either).
4. “Same” No change.

Figure 1. 3:Drilling Mud Contaminants And Their Properties In Mud. (Kennedy j, 2007)

1.3.3 Alkalinity and pH-Control Materials.

Alkalinity and pH-control additives are used to optimize pH and alkalinity in water-base drilling
fluids. The control of many drilling fluid system properties is dependent on pH (e.g., the detection
and treatment of contaminants such as cement and soluble carbonates). pH also affects the
solubility of many thinners and divalent metal ions such as calcium and magnesium, and
influences the dispersion or flocculation of clays.

Among the most common materials used to control pH are the alkali and alkaline earth
hydroxides: NaOH, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and Mg (OH) 2 (Max R. Annis, 1996)

1.3.4 Flocculating Materials.

Flocculating materials cause solids to coagulate so that they can be more easily removed from
water-base systems. They also work to change the viscous properties of the drilling fluid. Salt,
hydrated lime, gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), and synthetic polymers are often used to

7
promote flocculation and the subsequent removal of colloidal-size drilled solids. (Bourgoyne Jr
AT, 1986) Lime and gypsum are also used to increase the carrying capacity of water-base spud
muds by flocculating the bentonite and drilled solids. Flocculation is promoted by modification of
the surface charge of the solid particles, as with salts, or by adsorption and bridging between
particles, as with high-molecular-weight polymers. (Neil Trotter, 2015)

8
 CHAPTER TWO
MUD PROPERTIES TEST WATER BASED MUD
(Density, Viscosity, pH)

ABSTRACT
This chapter involves the experiment on mud properties test. The main focus of this experiment is
to test and measure different mud properties that are basically density, viscosity and pH. It
consists of three parts, in which Part A was about measurement of density, part B was about the
measurement of viscosity and part C was about the pH measurement.

The base mud (bentonite+water) was prepared using 400 ml of normal tape water followed by
addition of different grams of bentonite (10g,15g,20g and 25g )successively. For each measured
mass of bentonite, the mixture was stirred for at least 5 minutes and density, viscosity and pH was
measured and recorded.

However the recorded data was plotted on graphs which gives the conclusion that viscosity and
mud weight tends to increase on the addition of bentonite.

9
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The density of the drilling fluid must be controlled to provide adequate hydrostatic head to
prevent influx of formation fluids, but not so high as to cause loss of circulation or adversely
affect the drilling rate and damaging the formation. Normal pressure gradient by water is equal to
(0.433 psi/ft) and equal to 433 psi/1000 ft.

The viscosity of a fluid is defined as its resistance to flow. The desired viscosity for a particular
drilling operation is influenced by several factors, including mud density, hole size, pumping rate,
drilling rate, pressure system and requirements, and hold problems. The indicated viscosity as
obtained by any instrument is valid only for that rate of shear and will differ to some degree when
measured at a different rate of shear. For field measurements the marsh funnel has become the
standard instrument.

10
(A) Density Test

2.1.0 Test Equipment

The Baroid Mud Balance as shown below in figure 1-1 is used to determine density of the drilling
fluid. The instrument consists of a constant volume cup with a lever arm and rider calibrated to
read directly the density of the fluid in ppg (water 8.33), pcf (water 62.4), specific gravity
(water=1.0) and pressure gradient in psi/1000 ft. (water 433 psi/1000 ft.)

Figure 2. 1:Baroid Mud Balance

2.1.1 Test Procedure

1. The lid was removed from the cup, and completely the cup was filled with the mud to be
tested.
2. The lid was replaced and rotated until firmly seated, making sure some mud is expelled
through the hole in the cup.
3. Mud from the outside of the cup was washed or wiped.
4. The balance arm was placed on the base, with the knife-edge resting on the fulcrum.
5. The rider was move until the graduated arm is level, as indicated by the level vial on the
beam.
6. At the left-hand edge of the rider, the density on either side of the lever in all desired units
was read without disturbing the rider.
7. The mud temperature corresponding to density was note down and plotted as shown in
table 1.3.

11
(B) Mud Viscosity Test

2.2.0 Test Equipment.

The Marsh Funnel is a device that is common to every drilling rig. Details of the Marsh Funnel
and receiving cup are shown in Figures 1-2, and 1-3. The viscosity is reported in seconds allowed
to flow out of the funnel.

Materials used.
a) Beaker.
b) Electronic balance.
c) Spatula.
d) Marsh funnel.
e) Water.
f) The pH Meter.

Figure 2. 2:The Marsh Funnel

Figure 2. 3: The pH Meter

12
2.2.1 Test Procedure
1. With the funnel in an upright position, the orifice was covered with a finger and pour the
freshly collected mud sample through the screen into a clean, dry funnel until the fluid
level reached the bottom of the screen (1500 ml).
2. Immediately the finger was removed from the outlet and the time required was measured
for the mud to fill the receiving vessel to the 1-quart (946 ml) level.
3. The result was recorded and reported report to the nearest second as Marsh Funnel
Viscosity at the temperature of the measurement in degrees Fahrenheit or Centigrade.

(C) Hydrogen ion Concentration (pH) Test.

Methods of measuring pH used in the laboratory:

The pH Paper: The pH paper strips have dyes absorbed into the paper display certain colors in
certain pH ranges. It is useful, inexpensive method to determine pH in fresh water muds. The
main disadvantage is that high concentrations of salts (10,000 ppm chloride) will alter the color
change and cause inaccuracy.
The pH Meter: The pH meter is an electric device utilizing glass electrodes to measure a
potential difference and indicate directly by dial reading the pH of the sample. The pH meter is
the most accurate method of measuring pH. See figure 1.3

1.3 Result And Discussions.

Recorded temperature
Experiment Composition Room temp Sample temp Observations
o
1 20g - Bentonite Digital - 27.5 C Digital – 38.5oC Prescience of bubbles
o
2g - Duovis Analog - 38.5 C Analog – 35.5oC It is homogeneous mixture
400 cc - water It is heavy
2 20g - Bentonite Digital - 22.2oC Digital – 36.7oC Bubble still exist
1g - Duovis Analog - 24.0oC Analog – 35.0oC More light compared
400 cc - water sample 1
Homogeneous mixture
Light brown
3 20g - Bentonite Digital - 27.2oC Digital - 33.1oC Homogeneous mixture
0g - Duovis Analog - 25.0oC Analog - 35.0oC Little bubble exists
400 cc - water Lighter compared to 1&2
4 15g - Bentonite Digital - 25.8oC Digital - 31.2oC Very light
0g - Duovis Analog - 24.5oC Analog - 35.5oC Homogeneous mixture
400 cc - water Brown color

Table 2. 1:Viscosity at the temperature of the measurement

13
After blend of all samples above:
Final mud weight 1.03g/cm3 or 8.6 ppg
Final viscosity 60 sec/quart (946ml)

In this experiment, we used the same amount of bentonite(20g) in sample 1, 2 and 3. In these
cases only duo-vis was varied. In sample 1 when 2.0 g of duo-vis were added and stirred the
mixture appears to be heavy(very viscous), this means duo-vis is the viscosifier. However the
solution become as lighter as the amount of duo-vis decreases. The bubbles observed were air
bubbles and probably were due to the mixing process.

14
2.4 Conclusion
Measurement of drilling fluid properties is very important. The knowledge of measurement
should be well known in order to provide the accurate measurement data. However the measured
data obtained should be carefully analyzed in order to provide good control and management of
the drilling process. For instance the density of the drilling fluid must be controlled to provide
adequate hydrostatic head to prevent influx of formation fluids, but not so high as to cause loss of
circulation or adversely affect the drilling rate and damaging the formation. When the density
exceeds the parting formation pressure, the formation will fracture. So, any measurement should
be well taken and interpreted for safe control of the drilling process.

15
 CHAPTER THREE
CONTROL OF MUD WEIGHT

ABSTRACT
This chapter involves the experiment on mud properties test particularly control of mud weight.
The main focus of this experiment is to test and measure different mud properties that are
basically density on the addition of weighing material (for this experiment barite was used). This
was devided into two parts, Part A was about effect of adding bentonite on mud properties for
fresh and salt water base mud and part B was about the effect of adding weight material (barite)

In part A, The base mud (bentonite + water) was prepared using 400 ml of normal tape water by
addition of 2, 4, 6 and 8 grams of bentonite and stir for 10 minutes followed by the addition of
20.6 ml of 10% by weight salt water to every batch and Stirred for 5 minutes. Then the density
and viscosity of mud was measured after each successive addition of bentonite and salt.

In part B, the The base mud (bentonite + water) of 8.6 ppg was prepared using 400 ml of normal
tape water followed by the addition of calculated amount of barite required to increase the
density of each batch from 8.6 ppg to 9, 10, 11 and 12 ppg.

In Part C, Water was added incrementally and measure the Mud weight every time to reach 10.5
ppg and same (9.5) pH.

However the recorded data was plotted on graphs which gives the conclusion that the viscosity
and mud weight increases on the addition of salt to the fresh water mud. Also the addition of
barite to the mud affects only mud weight but not viscosity because barite doesn’t have
flocculating or deflocculating properties

16
3.0 INTRODUCTION
Since 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 establishes the
density of the mud for any specific case.

Density is not greatly affected by downhole conditions. Increased temperature causes the density
to decrease, but increased pressure causes an increase in density. Downhole, these effects oppose
one another and tend to equalize.

As the formation pressures increase, the density of the drilling fluid is increased to help maintain
a safe margin and prevent “kicks” or “blowouts.” However, if the density of the fluid becomes
too heavy, the formation can break down. If drilling fluid is lost in the resultant fractures,
a reduction of hydrostatic pressure occurs. This pressure reduction also can lead to an influx from
a pressured formation. Therefore, maintaining the appropriate fluid density for the wellbore
pressure regime is critical to safety and wellbore stability.

The well is said to be “balanced” if the mud hydrostatic pressure is equal to the formation
pressure. It is said to be “underbalanced” if the mud hydrostatic pressure is less than the
formation pressure and “overbalanced” if the mud hydrostatic pressure is greater than the
formation pressure.

The mud balance should be level and out of the wind. Air currents are often sufficient to tip the
balance and affect the reading.

17
 3.1 Testing Equipments.

Materials used.
a) Beaker.
b) Electronic balance.
c) Spatula.
d) Marsh funnel.
e) Water.
f) The pH Meter.
g) Mud balance

(a) (b)

Figure 3.1: Mud Balance(a) and Marsh funnel (b)

Figure 3.2: Viscometer

18
3.3 Test Procedures
2.3.1 EFFECT OF ADDING BENTONITE ON MUD PROPERTIES FOR FRESH AND SALT
WATER BASE MUD:

1. To every 400 c.c batch of fresh water base mud 2, 4, 6 and 8 grams of bentonite was
added and stirred for 10 minutes.
2. The density lb/gal, viscosity c.c. (apparent and plastic) was measured for every batch.
3. 20.6 ml of 10% by weight salt water was added to every batch and Stirred for 5 minutes
and step (2) was repeated.
4. All the results (density, viscosities, yield) for every batch were recorded in a convenient
table and Ploted versus the amount of bentonite in gram in two plots, one for fresh water
and the other for salt water.

2.3.2 EFFECT OF ADDING WEIGHT MATERIAL (BARITE)

Test Procedure
1. We calculated and listed the amount of barite required to increase the density of each
batch from 8.6 ppg to 9, 10, 11 and 12 ppg.
2. We obtained 400 cc of original base mud (density 8.6)
3. The quantity of barite required to raise the density of a given volume of mud a specific
amount was readily calculated from the relation, in consistent units Using the equation
below:-

19
 4. The calculated amount of barite was added to each batch and stirred for about 2 minutes
and measured the Apparent and Plastic Viscosities
5. Step 3 was repeated for Salt water-base mud.
6. The results was tabulate and plotted for the density (ppg ), viscosity (apparent and plastic)
versus the amount of barite added.

2.3.3 WATER-BACK (ADDING WATER TO A CHEMICALLY TREATED MUD):

1. We Obtained a 350 c.c. of water base mud of 13.5 ppg weight and 9.5 pH.
2. Water was added incrementally and measure the Mud weight every time to reach 10.5 ppg
and same (9.5) pH.
3. The viscosity and gel-strength were measured and checked if any change occurred.
4. List of results were recorded in an appropriate table.

20
3.4 RESULT AND DISCUSION

3.4.1 Effect of adding Bentonite to drilling Mud

Part A, results of effect of adding bentonite on mud properties for fresh and salt water base mud:

Before addition of salt After of 20.6 ml of 10% wt salt water

bentonite (g)

Temperature

Temperature
Mud weight

Mud weight
added

(ppg)

(ppg)
C

C
o

o
sample pH viscosity pH viscosity
1 10 32.3 8.67 8.5 27.73 27.4 8.31 8.5 29.31
2 15 34.9 8.65 8.6 29.15 27.5 8.25 8.6 33.53
3 20 37.3 8.64 8.6 30.3 27.4 8.63 8.7 40.73
4 25 36.5 8.69 8.65 34.61 27.8 8.65 8.75 59.65

Table 3. 1: Addition of bentonite on mud fresh and salt water base mud:

The Graph of Mud Weight before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10%
salt water
8.8

8.75

8.7
Mud Weight (ppg)

8.65
Before Salt addition
8.6
After Salt addition
8.55

8.5

8.45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
mass of bentonite(g)

Figure 3. 3: The Graph of Mud Weight before and after addition of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

From the graphs above represented as figure 3-3 and figure 3-4, both graphs suggest that the
addition of bentonite to the fresh water mud tend to increases both viscosity and mud weight. And
this is also true from the literature reviews of this report. Bentonite is one of the weighing agent

21
although it is not as efficient compared to Barite in which the amount of bentonite can be used to
rise the density to a certain value is always larger than that of barite.

Also from figure 3-3 above, it is seem that when the salt water was added to the base mud it
seems to boost the density to a certain higher significant value. Salt is one of the flocculants
material, Flocculating materials cause solids to coagulate so that they can be more easily removed
from water-base systems. They also work to change the viscous properties of the drilling fluid.
Although sodium chloride and calcium bromide increase the density of water-base and oil-base
fluids, they are usually added for reasons other than to increase density.

The Graph of viscocity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10%

salt water
70

60
viscosity (sec/quart)

50

40
Before Salt
30 addition
20 After Salt
addition
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of Bentonite (g)

Figure 3. 4: The Graph of viscocity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

Also, one of the reasons for which Bentonite is added to fresh water or to fresh-water muds is to
improve viscosity for good hole-cleaning capability and helps to prevent fluid loss by coating the
wall of the borehole. This is possible by improving the viscosity of the drilling mud.

Also from the graph (figure 3.4) this theory can be proved, it is seen that viscosity tends also to
increase with the addition of bentonite. There are commonly two types of clay components in
drilling mud, the most used being sodium montmorillonite, commonly called bentonite..
Bentonite is proved to be among the viscofiers in this experiment in which the more bentonite is
added is the more viscous mud will become.

22
The addition of salt in the mud have shown a bit big increase of the mud viscosity Usually for
good hole clearing ability mud should have at least high viscosity, but the viscosity should not be
very high because it will cause pumping problem. Since the effect of salt on viscosity is too high
In this case to avoid the significant increase in mud viscosity due to salt it is highly recommended
that, salt should be added to its saturation point.

3.4.2 Effect Of Adding Weight Material (Barite)

Part B, effect of adding weight material (barite) to the fresh water base mud.
After of 20.6 ml of 10% wt salt
Initial mud weight

Before addition of salt water

Added barite (g)

Mud weight (ppg)

Final Mud weight
Temperature oC

Temperature oC
Sample pH (ppg) viscosity pH Viscosity
1 8.6 0 32.3 8.75 8.6 30 25 8.75 8.6 30
2 8.6 25.65 40.9 8.8 9 37 26 8.57 9.2 43
3 8.6 93.26 39.6 8.77 10 37 25 8.52 10.4 45
4 8.6 166.3 32 8.88 11 35 25 8.44 11.5 42
5 8.6 245.5 33 8.76 12 37 25 8.44 12.7 44
Table 3. 2: Effect of adding weight material (barite) to the fresh water base mud.

The Graph of Mud Weight before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

13

12
Mud Weight (ppg)

11
Before Salt addition

10
After Salt addition

8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mass of Barite (g)

Figure 3. 5: The Graph of Mud Weight before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

23
In reference to the graph above (figure 2.5) the weight of mud increases with the addition of
barite. This proves that barite is the one of the weighing agent used in the drilling mud. Due to its
relatively high specific gravity of 4.5 Barite (barium sulphate) is the main and preferred weighting
agent. However to boost the density of the mud salt is being used.

From the theory part (section 1.1 above) barite can be used to rise the density of the fresh water
base mud up to 15 ppg. To attain the fluid densities ranging from 9.0 to 21.5 ppg salt water is
commonly used at its saturation point, depending on the salt(s) used. This is also true and is has
been observed in laboratory during this experiment in which the graph which can be used to prove
this scenario is represented graphically as figure 2,5.

The Graph of Viscosity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10%

salt water
60
55
Viscosity (sec/quart)

50
45
Before Salt addition
40
After Salt addition
35
30
25
0 100 200 300
Mass of Barite (g)

Figure 3. 6: The Graph of Viscosity before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

After increasing the weight of the mud, salt water can be used to regulate the viscosity. With
reference to the graph above (figure 2.6) the addition of 20.6 ml of 10 wt% salt water has caused
the effect of the increase the viscosity of the mud. This is because salt (NaCl) is a flocculent.

Flocculation is promoted by modification of the surface charge of the solid particles, as with salts,
or by adsorption and bridging between particles, as with high-molecular-weight polymers. Salt,
hydrated lime, gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), and synthetic polymers are often used to
promote flocculation and the subsequent removal of colloidal-size drilled solids.

24
 The Graph of pH Vs Mass of Barite before and after additon of
20.6 ml 10% salt water
8.95
8.9
8.85
8.8
8.75
8.7
pH 8.65 Before Salt addition
8.6
After Salt addition
8.55
8.5
8.45
8.4
0 100 200 300
Mass of Barite (g)

Figure 3. 7:The Graph of pH before and after additon of 20.6 ml 10% salt water

Apart from being a flocculant, NaCl also has the effect on the pH of the mud. In field drilling
activities pH control is very important and should be carefully observed because the control of
many drilling fluid system properties is dependent on pH (e.g., the detection and treatment of
contaminants such as cement and soluble carbonates). pH affects the solubility of many thinners
and divalent metal ions such as calcium and magnesium, and influences the dispersion or
flocculation of clays. At the pH Above 12 no more Ca2+ will dissolve in the mud. (Section 1.3.3)

However the pH mud pH should be at least above 9, for main two reasons; first since in drilling
processes, acidic condition are very dangerous, to avoid the corrosion effect that can be caused by
acidic environment the pH of the mud must be at least higher in order to neutralize the acid during
drilling process. Also pH controls the dissolution of almost all compounds, significant higher pH
will reduce the mud contamination.

3.4.3 Effect of adding water to the drilling Mud

Total volume volume of water Mud Weight

350 0 13.5
420 70 12.5
490 140 11.9
560 210 11.5
630 280 11.15
700 350 10.85
770 420 10.65
840 490 10.4
Table 3. 3:Effect of adding water to the drilling Mud

25
 Mud weight Vs addition of water
16

15

14
Mud weight (ppg)

13

12
Mud weight…
11
10.5
10

8 466
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Commulative adition of water (ml)

Figure 3. 8:Mud weight Vs addition of water

From the graph it is observed that the addition of water decrease the mud weight. The amount of
water required to reduce 13.5 ppg water based mud to 10.5 ppg can be calculated from the graph
as shown. It was found to be 466 ml.

26
PROBLEMS

The advantages obtained by adding weighting material to mud; is to provide adequate

hydrostatic head to prevent influx of formation fluids, but not so high as to cause loss of
circulation or adversely affect the drilling rate and damaging the formation.

The other names of weighting material which can be used are; Ilmenite, haematite (iron
oxide), siderite, dolomite and calcium carbonate

The disadvantages of adding solids to the water based mud; Solid material enables to control
of rheological and filtration property of a mud is the amount and type of solids in the fluid. To
properly control solids, it is necessary that we know the amount of each of the various types of
solids in a mud. A good estimate of the amounts of the various types of solids can be made from
tests that are normally performed on a mud. The aim is to minimize plastic viscosity for increased
penetration rate, provide sufficient yield point or effective annular viscosity to clean the hole
without causing unnecessarily high circulating pressures, and provide sufficient gel strength to
suspend barite and cuttings.

27
3.5 CONCLUSION.
Barite (barium sulphate) is the main and preferred weighting agent, due to its relatively high
specific gravity of 4.5. Ilmenite, haematite (iron oxide), siderite, dolomite and calcium carbonate
are also used as weighting agents. Although sometimes Haematite replaces barite for use in deep
drilling within a high density mud.

Also bentonite has more than one effect on mud; acts as viscofier and at the sometime acts as a
weighing agent.

Salt can be used to boost the density of the drilling mud especially when want to attain very high
mud density and at the sometime. Sodium chloride is used to increase density and shale inhibition
and reduces formation salt desolation, freeze point and gas hydrate potential in wide variety of
water and oil base drilling fluids. Salts like Potassium chloride, calcium chloride, and magnesium
chloride are sometimes drilled in complex evaporites. These salts will flocculate the system,
lower the pH, and likewise affect the properties of the drilling fluid. In this case mud pH should
checked all the time.

28
 CHAPTER FOUR
DRILLING FLUID CONTAMINATION TEST ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT
The main focus of this chapter is on drilling mud contamination and treatment. This experiment
was conducted in laboratory to test for the possible contaminations encored during drilling
processes and the effect of each contaminant on the drilling mud. This is to say we observe the
behavior of drilling mud when meet with different rocks downhole.

This chapter consists of two parts; part A concerns with mud contamination in which three
contaminants was involved; NaCl, Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) and anhydrite (CaSO4-2H2O). To a
400 ml base mud, 0.75, 1.5,2.5,3.5,and 5 grams NaCl, Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) and anhydrite
(CaSO4-2H2O) was added by repeating using new mud after each addition (stirred ever time).

Part B concerns treatment of the contaminated mud in part A; part C concerns the test that drilling
mud is treated before contamination to observer the behavior of the treated mud when meet
different contaminants from different rocks during drilling process.

However the recorded data was plotted on graphs which gives the conclusion that Sodium
chloride increases density of the drilling mud as well as the viscosity of mud since it is flocculant.
Cement has a tendency of absorbing water from the mud and increase viscosity, but cement seems
to have no any impact on mud weight. In part C it has been observed that the it is better to treat
drilling mud before contamination because some contaminants such as cement have much bigger
effect on mud properties even if they are present in small amount. Cement can cause bit stack
although the effect might take time up to be noticed at the surface.

29
4.0 INTRODUCTION
In this test we will study the effect of contamination of monovalent chemicals (NaCl) and divalent
chemicals that cause contamination are calcium sulfate (CaSO4), cement (Ca(OH)2, and Gypsum
(CaSO4- 2H2O). These soluble salts are commonly encountered during drilling, completion or
workover operations.

In this experiment it is expected that when the mud is in contact with gypsum viscosity will
decrease because gypsum increases water in the mud as crystallization water. When is
contaminated with monovalent chemicals (NaCl) result in a viscosity and gel strength increase, if
the bentonite is placed in salty water or water containing dissolved hardness (calcium or
magnesium) the hydration and subsequent dispersion by agitation is reduced.

Also when the mud is contaminated with cement also viscosity will increase because cement has
the tendency of absorbing water from mud. Drilling wells requires drilling cement after each
casing or liner is set. Cement chemistry is complex. The degree of contamination depends the
amount of cement drilled, the extent to which the cement cured, pre-treatment of chemical, and
solids type/concentration. When the pH exceeds 11.7, lime (cement) becomes insoluble. If a large
amount of green or soft cement is expected, the original fluid system may be converted to lime
mud system, which is tolerant to cement contamination.

30
 4.1 EQUIPMENTS

Materials used.
h) Beaker.
i) Electronic balance.
j) Spatula.
k) Marsh funnel.
l) Water.
m) The pH Meter.
4.2 Mud balanc

a) Mass Balance b) Marsh Funnel

d) Measuring Cylinder
c) pH mixture

Figure 4. 1: Measuring Cylinder, pH meter, Marsh Funnel and Mass balance

31
4.2 Testing Procedures
1. A mud with mud weight of 8.6ppg was prepared, and being tested for weight ppg,
viscosity and PH.
2. To a base 400 ml base mud, 0.75, 1.5,2.5,3.5,and 5 grams NaCl was added by repeating
step (1) after each addition (stirred ever time).
3. To a new 400 ml base mud 0.75, 1.5,2.5,3.5,and 5 grams Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) was
added by repeating step (1) after each addition (stirred ever time).
4. To a new 400 ml base mud 0.75, 1.5,2.5,3.5,and 5 grams anhydrite (CaSO4-2H2O) was
added by repeating step (1) after each addition (stirred ever time).
5. The results were recorded in convenient table (table 2.1) for the three contaminants and
plotted in three different plots the effect of contaminants with salt, gypsum, and anhydrate
on mud density and viscosity.

4.4 TREATMENT OF THE CONTAMINATED DRILLING FLUID

(A) SALT CONTAMINATION:

Test Procedure

1. 525 ml of the base mud sample was tested for weight ppg, viscosity cp, yield point lb/100
ft2 and pH.
2. To the base mud sample (525 ml) 27 ml of 10% by wt salt water (NaCl) was added and
stirred for 2 minutes Aged for about 15 minutes and stirred again for 2 minutes. Then the
viscosity, density and pH was measured.
3. 1/2 cc increments was added to the contaminated sample until the original viscosity was
restored.
4. Continue to add (SAPP) in 1/2 cc increments until the original viscosity is restored.
5. The result was Plotted on a curve showing the viscosity and pH as a function of (SAPP)
concentration.

32
(B) CEMENT CONTAMINATION:
Test Procedure

1. 525 ml of the base mud sample was tested for weight ppg, viscosity cp, yield point lb/100
ft2 and pH.
2. The base mud (525 ml) was contaminated by 1.75g class G cement and stirred for two
minutes. Aged for 15 minutes and tested.
3. To the contaminated sample 1/2 cc (SAPP) was added until the original viscosity is
restored measure pH every time.
4. The result was plotted on a curve showing the viscosity and pH as function of (SAPP)
concentration. Figure 4.5 and figure 3.4
5. To the base mud 1.5 cc (SAPP) was added and 1.0 Sodium Bicarbonate and stirred for 10
minutes.
6. 1.0 gr of cement was added while mixing the sample after aging and tested.
7. Experimental Results was Tabulated in the appropriate table and present graphs where
necessary. Table 44.5

33
4.5 RESULT AND DISCUSION

Mud Contamination Results.

34
A) Effects Of Contaminants On Viscosity.

The Graph Viscosity Vs Mass of Gypsum, Nacl and Anhydrite

added

45
viscosity (sev/quart)

40

NaCl
35 Gypsum
Anhydride
30

25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Addition mass (g)

Figure 4. 2: The Graph Viscosity Vs Mass of Gypsum, Nacl and Anhydrite added

For salt contamination, in this experiment the results shows that the addition of NaCl always
tends to increase the viscosity, this is also true as have been stated in the theory part of the
experiment, but this scenario is true only for the range up to its saturation point. After the
saturation point has been reached salt has no more effect on mud viscosity property. Saturated salt
muds are used to prevent solution cavities from occurring in salt domes and stringers when they
are penetrated by the bit, and to minimize hole washout in salt or carbonate beds.

From the literature review (section 1.3.1), Cement has a tendency of absorbing water from the
mud and increase viscosity, cement doesn’t have any impact on mud weight. When gypsum
dissolves in water based mud, the concentration of Ca(aq)2+ increases. It has been seen that if
water contains a lot of calcium or magnesium salts, it is referred to as “hard water”. The harder
the water, the more difficult it is to get bentonite to yield, thus requiring more bentonite to make a
good gel. Excess calcium contamination may cause abnormally high water loss and fast gel rates.

But from the graph above figure 4.2 (The Graph Viscosity Vs Mas of Gypsum, Nacl and
Anhydrite added) shows the increment in viscosity only for the addition range up to 1.5g of
cement, and decrement in viscosity for more addition of cement. This scenario is not valid, there

35
are possibilities of errors during the conduction of this experiment. This is because that the field
experiences shows that addition of cement always increases the viscosity.

B) Effects Of Contaminants On mud Weight

The Graph of Mud Weight Vs Mas of Gypsum, Nacl and

Anhydrite added
8.66
8.64
8.62
mud weight (ppg)

8.6
8.58
8.56 NaCl
8.54 Gypsum
8.52 Anhydrite
8.5
8.48
8.46
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Addition imass (g)

Figure 4. 3: The Graph of Mud Weight Vs Mas of Gypsum, Nacl and Anhydrite added.

From the graph above figure 3.2 it is seen that NaCl doesn’t have any effects on Mud weight,
which is not valid from the theory. In field observations, Sodium Chloride brine are normally
used extensively in low density, clean fluid workover and completion activities such as shallow ,
low pressure wells which do not require high density.

So there is a possibility for the data obtained in this experiment to have significant errors. One of
them could be short dissolution time we assumed was not enough for it to dissolve and react with
bentonite. However the in this experiment there were no availability of fresh water, we used tap
water which contain some amount of dissolved salt and other impurities which in one way or
another has affected the result obtained. If salt water is used, it will limit the dissolution of salt
hence the effect of salt contamination in mud could be negligible.

Anhydrite doesn’t show specific effect, this suggest that when drilling the rock containing
anhydride there will be unstable fluctuation of the mud weight.

36
Saturated salt muds are used to prevent solution cavities from occurring in salt domes and
stringers when they are penetrated by the bit, and to minimize hole washout in salt or carbonate
beds.

C) Mud treatment for salt and Cement.

Mud
Weight Viscosity pH
Original base mud 8.6 28 8.50
After addition of 1.75g Cement 8.65 31 11.5
0.1 8.65 30 11.0
0.2 8.65 28 10.5
Adding SAPP in 0.1g 0.3 8.65 28 11.0
increment to the 0.4 8.65 27 11.5
contaminated mud 0.5 8.65 28 12.0

Table 4. 1: Treatment of cement contaminated mud.

Mud
Weight Viscosity pH
Original base mud 8.6 28 8.5
After addition of 10% wt Salt
water 8.6 26 8.0
0.1 8.6 26 8.0
Adding SAPP in 0.1g 0.2 8.6 26 7.5
increment to the 0.3 8.6 26 7.0
contaminated mud 0.4 8.6 26 7.0
Table 4. 2: Treatment of salt contaminated mud.

37
 Variation of Mud weight on addition of SAPP
14
12

Mud Weight (ppg)

10
8 Cement Treatment

6 salt Treatment

4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Grams of SAPP added

Figure 4. 4: Variation of Mud weight on addition of SAPP

From the theory part of this experiment (section 1.3.1), SAPP can be used to treat the effect of
cement and salts. This is true also in the field observations that salt increases the density of the
mud. And this effect can be treated by using SAPP, this is also true and has been proved in this
experiment where by the salt treatment results were presented in figure 3.3 in which the graphs
shows the decrease in density of the salt contaminated mud with the addition of SAPP.

But for the case of the cement contaminated mud this experiment doesn’t show the successive
treatment of the effect of cement on mud weight since from the filed observations there should be
decrease in mud weight with the addition of SAPP. This can be due to the use of tap water which
already contain impurities (dissolved salt); water hardness

38
 Variation of Viscosity Vs addition of SAPP
30.5
30
29.5

Viscosity(sec/quarts)
29
28.5
salt treatment
28
27.5 Cement Treatment

27
26.5
26
25.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Grams of SAPP added

Figure 4. 5: Variation of Viscosity Vs addition of SAPP

The same to mud weight, SAPP can be used to treat the effect of cement and salts on viscosity.
This is true also in the field observations that cement increases the viscosity of the mud. And this
effect can be treated by using SAPP, this is also true and has been proved in this experiment
where by the cement treatment results were presented in figure 3.4 in which the graphs shows the
decrease in viscosity of the salt contaminated mud with the addition of SAPP.

But for the case of the salt contaminated mud this experiment doesn’t show the successive
treatment of the effect of salt on mud weight. From the field observations there should be
decrease in viscosity with the addition of SAPP because SAPP is the thinning (dispersant) agent .
This can be due to experimental errors.

39
4.6 CONCLUSION
Sodium chloride increases density of the drilling mud as well as the viscosity of mud since it is
flocculant. Cement has a tendency of absorbing water from the mud and increase viscosity, but
cement seems to have no any impact on mud weight. In part C it has been observed that the it is
better to treat drilling mud before contamination because some contaminants such as cement have
much bigger effect on mud properties even if they are present in small amount. Cement can cause
bit stack although the effect might take time up to be noticed at the surface.

Saturated salt muds are used to prevent solution cavities from occurring in salt domes and
stringers when they are penetrated by the bit, and to minimize hole washout in salt or carbonate
beds. Also it is recommended that there should be carefully observation of mud pH since pH
influences much the dissolution of different contaminants during drilling process.

SAPP can be used to treat the effect of cement and salts on viscosity. This is true also in the field
observations that cement increases the viscosity of the mud.

40
 CHAPTER FIVE
SAND CONTENT DETERMINATION:

ABSTRACT
The main focus of this chapter is on determination of sand content of the drilling mud, The
drilling mud program contains many tests such as filtration rate and filter cake properties to select
the proper drilling fluid additives that yield the standard ranges of the viscosity, filtration rate, etc.

This is a simple test designed to measure the level of particles in the mud of greater that 200 mesh
or 75 microns.

Mud additives are generally of smaller particle size, unless specialised materials such as sized
Calcium Carbonate are added to the mud. Consequently, material reported as sand tends to be
very hard and abrasive formation particles.

However, the physical and chemical changes in the mud composition during the mud circulating
will cause changes to the filter cake properties. The changes in the filter cake properties should be
considered in the mud design program to prevent the problems associated with the change in the
drilling fluid properties.

From the results obtained in this test and the general field experience shows that the sand content
must not be permitted to rise above 2%, otherwise wear on pumps and tubulars will be the result.

Any increase in sand content must be investigated since it is often an indication of poor solids
removal efficiency, torn screens

41
5.0 INTRODUCTION
The sand content of the drilling fluid defines sand-sized particles larger than 74 µm in size. The
volume of sand, including that of void spaces between grains, is usually measured and expressed
as volume percent. Sieve analysis is the preferred method for sand content determination because
of the reliability of the test and simplicity of equipment.

Excessive sand may result in the deposition of a thick filter cake on the wall of the hole, or may
settle in the hole about the tool when circulation is stopped, thus, interfering with successful
operation of drilling tools or setting of casings. High sand content also may cause excessive
abrasion of pump parts and pipe connections

The primary source of control of rheological and filtration properties of a mud is the amount and
type of solids in the fluid. To properly control solids, it is necessary that we know the amount of
each of the various types of solids in a mud. A good estimate of the amounts of the various types
of solids can be made from tests that are normally performed on a mud.

The solids in a mud can be roughly divided into two types, inert and active. The inert solids are
those that have very little tendency to react with each other or to a change in environment. These
are non swelling solids which are essentially electrically uncharged and easily dispersed. They
consist of such materials as sand, silt, limestone, feldspar, and barite. With the exception of barite,
these solids are undesirable in a mud. They increase the plastic viscosity and crowd the system so
that more desirable solids cannot be added.

42
5.2 EXPERIMENT EQUIPMENTS:
Baroid Sand Content Set/Kit:

The Sand Content Kit consists of special developed sieve with mesh size 0,08 mm (200-mesh), a
proper plastic funnel and a special modeled measuring tube. A mark at the measuring tube
indicates the amount of the filled in drilling fluid. The percentage of sand may read off directly
from the measuring tube graduated from 0 to 20%.

Figure 5. 1: Baroid Sand Content Set/Kit

43
5.3 Test Procedure
1. The mud was poured into the Baroid Sand Content Tube until it fills up to the mark labeled
"Mud to Here". Then water was added to the mark labeled "Water to Here" and the mouth of
the tube with thumb covered and shacked vigorously.
2. Then the mixture was poured through the screen, being careful to wash everything out of the
tube with clear water through the same screen. Wash sand retained on screen with a stream of
water to remove all mud and shale particles.
3. The funnel was fitted down over top of screen, invert slowly turning tip of funnel into mouth
of tube, and wash sand back into tube with a fine spray of clear water on the back side of the
screen. Allow the sand to settle.
4. The quantity of sand settled in the calibrated tube was Observed as the sand content of the
mud.

44
5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS
Base mud was prepared with the following compositions

Category Composition Properties

Base mud 20 g Bentonite
500 ml tape water Mud weight 8.5 ppg
On addition of barite 40.08g barite 9.0 ppg
Gypsum - 2.0 g
Mud contamination Anhydrite CaSO4 - 2.0 g
components NaHCO3 - 2.0 g
SAPP - 4.0 g pH 7.5
Salt - 2.0 g viscosity 29sec/quart
Duovis - 1.0 g
Sand - 44 g
Table 5. 1: Sand Content Determination

Part II
Determination of sand content of the base mud by filling the mud into the glass measuring tube up
to 30ml and the tap water was added up to 100 ml.

From the above procedure, the percentage volume of sand obtained was 0.8%.

5.4.1 PROBLEMS
Correlation between the mud weight of the sample and the % sand by volume; The primary
source of control of rheological and filtration properties is the control of the amount and type of
solids in the fluid. The importance of controlling the solids in a mud can not be overly

From the experiment, the addition of sand doesn’t have a significant change in mud properties.
This is because it doesn’t have any chemical reactions/ chemical modification on mud. In case if
there is reaction between mud and sand, the changes in mud properties is inevitable.

The problems are you likely to encounter during drilling operations if you have a high sand
content in your drilling mud; Excessive sand may result in the deposition of a thick filter cake
on the wall of the hole, or may settle in the hole about the tool when circulation is stopped, thus,
interfering with successful operation of drilling tools or setting of casings. High sand content also
may cause excessive abrasion of pump parts and pipe connections.

45
5.5 CONCLUSION

The sand content must not be permitted to rise above 2%, otherwise wear on pumps and tubular
will be the result. Any increase in sand content must be investigated since it is often an indication
of poor solids removal efficiency, torn screens. High sand content also may cause excessive
abrasion of pump parts and pipe connections.

46
 CHAPTER SIX
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusion.
It was observed that the viscosity and mud weight increases on the addition of salt to the fresh
water mud. Also the addition of barite to the mud affects only mud weight but not viscosity
because barite doesn’t have flocculating or deflocculating properties

During mud contamination with monovalent chemicals (NaCl and KCl) and divalent chemicals
that cause contamination are calcium sulfate (CaSO4), cement (Ca(OH)2, and Gypsum (CaSO4-
2H2O). It was observed that Sodium chloride increases density of the drilling mud as well as the
viscosity of mud since it is flocculant. Cement has a tendency of absorbing water from the mud
and increase viscosity, but cement seems to have no any impact on mud weight.

From the results obtained in this test and the general field experience shows that the sand content
must not be permitted to rise above 2%, otherwise wear on pumps and tubulars will be the result.
Any increase in sand content must be investigated since it is often an indication of poor solids
removal efficiency.

The effect of cement and salts can be treated by using SAPP. However the pH mud pH should be
at least above 9, for main two reasons; first since in drilling processes, acidic condition are very
dangerous, to avoid the corrosion effect that can be caused by acidic environment the pH of the
mud must be at least higher in order to neutralize the acid during drilling process. Also pH
controls the dissolution of almost all compounds, significant higher pH will reduce the mud
contamination.

47
6.2 Recommendation.
The experiment should be carried out with full attentiveness so as to understand the variation of
the properties of mud during drilling process. However the in this experiment there were no
availability of fresh water, so all experiments were taken using tap water which contain some
amount of dissolved salt and other impurities which in one way or another has affected the result
obtained. If salt water is used, it will limit the dissolution of salt hence the effect of salt
contamination in mud could be negligible.

Also we failed to perform the treatment of gypsum contamination due to the lack of soda ash
(Na2CO3) However the study of the effect of each contaminant on mud properties is very
important, so next time soda ash should be available in this lab.

Also there were lack of equipments such as measuring cylinder, mud mixer, mash funnel which
forced the student to perform these experiment by combining mud, and test together.

48
Bibliography
Bourgoyne Jr AT, M. K. (1986). General information on drilling and drilling Mud Engineering.
Texas,USA: Sosiety of Petroleum Engineering.

Caenn, R. D. (2011). Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids (Sixth
Edition ed., Vol. Volume I). (J. J., Ed.) Boston: Elsevier, Inc.

Conevari GP. (1969). The role of Chemical dispersants in he oil clean up. In Houth, pg29. New
York: Plenun.

Jim Sampey and Mark Devries. (1982). New Field Procedure . World Oil,.

Kennedy j. (2007). Drilling Fluids Engineering Manual. Newpark Drilling Fluids.

Max R. Annis, M. (1996). Drilling Fluid Technology. Exxon Manual.

Moseley HR. (2005). Summary of API onshore drilling and produced water Environmental
tudies,. New Orleans.,: SPE 11398 presented at IADC/SPE drilling conference,.

Neil Trotter, J. T. (2015). Software for Analysis of Drilling Fluid Contamination. (American
Association of Drilling Engineers, Ed.) Texas,, Newpark Drilling Fluids: Chevron Energy
Technology Company.

49