SPE-199326-MS

Successful Application of Non-Damaging Drill-In-Fluids Proves Oil

Production Improvement in Heavy Oil Reservoirs

Mojtaba Kalhor Mohammadi and Koroush Tahmasbi Nowtarki, International Drilling Fluids Ltd.; Ali Ghalambor, Oil
Centre Research International

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 19-21
February 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production of heavy oil reservoirs are increasing due to the limitation in conventional resources. Despite
the availability of different technologies and methods for recovery and enhancing the oil production from
heavy oil reservoirs, we need to consider the oil production from these reservoirs with their particular rock
and fluid chemical characteristics to prevent serious formation damage during drilling the reservoir. Heavy
oil is intend to build strong microemulsions that blocks the reservoir pores. Unfortunately, this concept is
missed and the heavy oil properties and its viscosity are considered as the main problems. This paper studies
the formation damage and mitigation in heavy oil reservoirs.
Drilling fluid is the first non-indigenous fluid to contact the formation and thus, it provides the first
opportunity for causing permeability damage. The key point in formation damage control is to minimize the
invasion zone into the reservoir section. Controlling the chemical reactions between invaded fluid type and
heavy oil along with the changes in rock properties plays an important role in emulsion blocking which is
the main cause of formation damage in these reservoirs. In addition, we need to consider other parameters
such as lithology and shale dispersant which can be the other source of damage to plug the porous media.
Both Laboratory pilot tests and field application proves the effect and performance of drill-in-fluid in
the heavy oil reservoirs. The designed high performance reservoir compatible drilling fluid replaced oil
based mud which reduced formation damage by keeping the production index at acceptable and higher
level comparing to previously drilled wells. Furthermore, the paper discusses the designed criteria including
formulation, properties and applications of the fluid in detail by comparing lab and field data to prove the
effect of Drill-in-Fluid effect on the well production performance.
It was observed that the high performance, reservoir compatible drilling fluid system, successfully
minimized formation damage by minimizing fluid loss invasion into the reservoir comparing with
conventional OBM with lower skin factor. This recorded a higher productivity index up to 10 times which
is a unique achievement without stimulation. The oil production rate of the nominated well increased more
than that of the nearby wells.
2 SPE-199326-MS

Introduction
Drilling a reservoir section is the most important and challenging part of the petroleum engineering and
requires specific consideration in order to have the optimum and reliable productivity. Damages occurred as
a result of drilling fluids interaction with reservoir rock and fluid can be quite critical. Considering drilling
fluid as a complex media which has liquid and soluble and insoluble solids makes the interaction study
more complicated. This complex medium consists of water, oil, surfactant, polymers and different mono
and divalent ions that requires to have constant rheological stability when exposing to higher temperatures
and interact with incoming contamination from reservoir rock and porous media.
Different companies have done many investigations on the design and proper recipe of reservoir section
drill-in-fluids. This is to minimize the fluid/fluid and fluid/solid interaction and to reduce the invasion of
drilling fluids into the reservoir section. It however continues to be a challenging area to investigate the
design of the right formulation for specific reservoir.
Initially, all physical and chemical reactions along with their interactions should be studied between
drilling fluids and reservoir. Physical damage is mostly related to solid concentration, movement and size
compatibility with pore sizes which can block or bridge the reservoir fluid flow. This can also have a high
impact on the removability of solids during the flow back.
The chemical reaction is also very important and it can occur even in low solids concentration of drilling
fluids. This can change the rock wettability, making strong emulsion and chemical scale which are difficult
to remove especially when the chemistry is not entirely recognized. The reservoir oil type and reservoir
water also have a higher impact on the severity and generation of this kind of damage. They simply block
the porous media which is not easily removable with completion and stimulation practices. Therefore,
controlling the chemical reactions between invaded fluid type and heavy oil along with the changes in rock
properties plays an important role in emulsion blocking which is the main cause of formation damage in
these types of reservoirs. In addition, there are other significant parameters such as lithology and shale
dispersion which can be the other source of damage to plug the porous media. Among the above mentioned
parameters, special consideration should be given to the geological characteristic of the reservoir as it needs
to be evaluated at the initial stage of the drilling fluid selection.
An optimum design of a reservoir drill-in-fluid with efficient properties are to drill wells and prevent
formation damage. The Key performance indicators and requirement should be defined based on the above
mentioned parameters and to be customised for the specific field application. The following steps are
recommended practice for the successful application of drill-in-fluid;
1. Analysing geological characteristics
2. Understanding invasion mechanism of previously used drilling fluids by petrophysical study
3. Formation damage mechanism of previously used drilling fluids on cores
4. Cutting integrity test and stability of different geological layers (if available)
5. Lab testing of proposed drill-in-fluid (Rheological properties and filtration rate at downhole condition)
6. Shale/clay inhibition performance
7. Formation Damage study and bridging design for low invasion
8. Reservoir fluid-drill-in-fluid interaction for emulsion generation, wettability change and precipitation
Ideally Oil based mud is used as a reservoir drill-in fluid for an interbedded geological layers to
minimize the risk associated with drilling operations. In water based mud, reducing filtration by viscosifying
filtrate and minimizing the filtration rate with using bridging particles are the common acceptable practice.
Verifying compatibility between the drill-in fluid and formation fluids and rock can help prevent wettability
alteration, clay swelling, and emulsion blockages from invaded fluid. These are the main factors that create
precipitates or scale that can adversely impact rock permeability. Although, the chemical treatments added
SPE-199326-MS 3

to the fluid can alter formation wettability and/or eliminate emulsion blocks in oil wells or water blocks in
gas wells, it is not a globally accepted practice.
Recent investigation shows that heavier oil has more potential to build up microemulsions in porous
media when exposed to invaded drilling fluid filtrate which contains different types of surfactants.
Microemulsions are isotropic fluids consisting of microdomains of oil and/or water stabilized by an
interfacial film of surfactant molecules which are thermodynamically stable.
Additives in drill-in-fluid filtrate such as surfactants, acids, lipophilic and hydrophilic linkers can generate
microemulsions when they are in contact with reservoir fluids (oil or water). Understanding the formation
damage which is occurred by microemulsions is very important to select the wellbore clean up fluids.
Advance studies such as interfacial tension and phase behaviour are very important to characterize the
emulsion type and stability. The stability of the generated microemulsion is also affected by variables such
as the brine type, filtrate salinity, alkalinity, divalent ions, surfactant type, solvents and oil properties in
reservoir temperature. More detail about microemulsion types and stability has been reported in Modern
Enhanced Oil Recovery, chapter 4 (Sheng, 2011).
The reservoir geological characteristic of the nominated well in this study consists of interbedded
limestone and shale layers which were drilled by oil based mud (OBM) for many years as a successful
practice to provide wellbore stability. The new approach replaced the drilling fluid type into high
performance water based mud by considering all the advantages associated with OBM apart from its
adverse effect on formation damage. More theoretical investigation showed that OBM damage the well
by generating microemulsions and invasion into the reservoir. In the case of damage with oil-based mud,
treatments have been recommended to solubilize the oil and emulsions. The oil-based-mud particles in a
filter cake will disperse, allowing the produced fluid to displace these blocking particles from the damaged
zone into the wellbore. The filter cake fluidize while making the solids and formation rock water-wet.
Eliminating chemical treatment and stimulation after drilling phase can be achieved only by designing
a properly formulated water based mud with mechanism similar to OBM to minimize the filtration rate
and lower wettability alteration with reservoir rock and fluid. The filtrate properties of the drill-in-fluid
should have the ability to solubilize oil and reduces the interfacial tension (IFT) between different phases
to make the reservoir completely water-wet. As the time progress, accumulations of fine migrates and
heavy hydrocarbons are highly expected around the formation tip that normally results in a reduction of
hydrocarbon flow. By designing proper drill-in-fluids with the mentioned properties, the problem can be
eliminated as the filtrate is invaded into the reservoir. In open-hole (OH) completions, this specialized drill-
in-fluid design has proven very effective in removing Oil Base Mud (OBM) damage.

Methodology
The research project was initiated in order to design proper drill-in-fluids to overcome drilling problems in
this field such as, shale stability and preventing stuck pipe. On the other hand, the designed drilling fluids
should prevent formation damage with a lower invasion mechanism. The research plan was consisted of
the following steps:

• Reviewing geological characteristics and well design

• Drill-in-Fluids conceptual design

• Drill-in-Fluids formulation design and laboratory evaluation

• Field trial and application

Geological Characteristics & Well Design

The hole section was contained interbedded limestone and shale as described in Table 1. XRD analysis on
the shale samples showed moderate to high reactivity equivalent to smectite type clay with high potential
4 SPE-199326-MS

of swelling and falling into the hole. This might increase the stuck pipe potential based on the previous
experience. In addition, the production zone was contained pure limestone and dolomite with heavy oil in
the porous media posing additional challenges to the production.

Table 1—Geological information and well design for the nominated well

Interval Key Issues

While drilling through the reservoir, the following issues and drilling challenges were experienced by using
conventional water-based mud and oil-based muds;

• Swabbing of hydrocarbon was experienced during tripping due to the high rheological properties
and small hole size.
• Loss of Circulation was a common problem, which encountered by having higher hydrostatic
pressure or due to the reservoir micro fractures. It was recommended to drill with the lowest
possible mud weight through the reservoir to prevent any losses, which was not possible by
conventional water-based mud.
• Stuck Pipe was a common problem due to the seepage losses and high fluid-loss of conventional
water-based mud and it was experienced in different wells.
• Formation Damage and reservoir blocking was experienced by using OBM despite normal drilling
conditions. Stimulation and Acidizing was the common practice after well completion.

Drilling Fluids Conceptual Design

Based on the previous experience and geological information, all the required considerations and aspects of
the new drilling fluids design were reviewed to formulate a proper high-performance reservoir-compatible
water-based mud (HPRC-WBM). These aspects are as follows:

• To be environmentally friendly drilling fluid comparing with the OBM

• Having OBM equivalent shale/clay stability

• Proper and stable rheological properties at downhole temperature (250 deg F)

• Minimum HPHT fluid losses to limit the invaded zone

• Having ionic balance with the formation ionic potential

• Ability to reduce the seepage losses in order to reduce fluid invasion and pressure transmission
into the formation
• Lower filter cake permeability and thickness with higher lubricity

Drilling Fluids formulation design and Laboratory Experiments

The designed HPRC-WBM had the same component in the normal drilling fluid with special consideration
in order to have thermal stability and lower invasion of filtrate at the downhole conditions. In addition, a
SPE-199326-MS 5

physical bridging agent was also considered in order to cure the expected losses during drilling. More detail
about HPRC-WBM has been summarized in Table 2.

Table 2—HPRC-WBM Component and Mechanism

Drilling Fluids Laboratory Evaluation

The laboratory evaluation was done based on API 13B practices. Required time for mixing chemicals and
polymers for better hydration and activation considered during the fluid preparing stage based on common
practices. After adding the final additives, the fluid mixed for more 20 minutes for better hydration.

Rheological Properties
The rheological properties were measured with OFITE Model 800 viscometer at 120 degrees Fahrenheit
according to API 13B practices. The results are shown in Table 3. The prepared drilling fluid hot rolled for
16 hours at 250 deg Fahrenheit for simulating downhole conditions and evaluating the effect of temperature
on the rheological properties.
6 SPE-199326-MS

Table 3—HPRC-WBM Rheological Properties before & after hot rolling

Shale Recovery & Inhibition Evaluation

The shale-particle disintegration test by hot rolling was evaluated based on API 13I practices by using
high reactive clays (montmorillonite 65%) to simulate the shale layer interbedded in the reservoir. This test
was intended to mimic the exposure of drilled cuttings to a particular drilling fluid. A sample of shale was
grounded and sieved through both a 4 mm (5 mesh) and a 2 mm (10 mesh) sieve. Ground shale particles,
which passed through the 4 mm sieve, but collected on the 2mm sieve, were selected for use in this particular
test.
For each fluid to be tested, a 20-gram sample of sized shale was weighed and selected. Next,
approximately 350 ml of each fluid to be tested was poured into a cell. The 20-gram sized shale sample was
added to the fluid and the cell was capped and shaken to ensure even distribution.
The sample was then placed in an oven and hot rolled at 250 °F for 16 hours. When 16 hours hot rolling
was completed, the sample was cooled down to room temperature. Subsequently, a large quantity blend
of approximately 10 % potassium chloride solution was prepared. The contents of the sample cell were
then poured onto a 500 micrometer (35 mesh) sieve. Inside of the cell was carefully rinsed with potassium
chloride solution and poured again onto the 500 micrometer sieve. The cell was repeatedly rinsed and poured
until all shale had been removed from the cell. Furthermore, the shale retained by the 500 micrometer sieve
was carefully washed with potassium chloride solution. Special care was taken to ensure that none of the
samples spilled over the side of the sieve. The washed particles of shale were then watered to remove any
remnants of the potassium chloride brine. Then, the shale particles were placed in a preheated oven at 220 °F
to dry to a constant weight. Having been dried, the shale sample was then weighed. The recovery percentage
of shale was determined by the following equation:
SPE-199326-MS 7

(1)

The results shows 87.7 percent shale recovery comparing to the original sample which was exposed into
the HPRC-WBM (Figure 1). SEM studies showed a very good plastering on the surface of the clay and
blocking the shale pores which has been shown in Figure 2 comparing to the mineralogy of the original
clay in Figure 3.

Figure 1—Right: Original Montmorilonite Sample & Left: Recovered Shale after hot rolling)

Figure 2—SEM of Montmorlinite Clay Mineral before exposing to drilling fluid

Figure 3—SEM of Montmorillonite Clay Mineral after exposing to drilling fluid

8 SPE-199326-MS

Drilling Fluids Properties Measurement While Drilling

The designed high performance reservoir compatible water based mud was implemented in the field in the
nominated well of which the nearby wells were drilled by OBM. The mud weight was limited to 8.8 – 9.00
ppg. Adjusting the mud weight around 8.8ppg is the main challenge in WBM to keep all properties within
range particularly at downhole condition.
As mentioned before, the geological layer was consisted of interbedded limestone and shale and it is
very sensitive to water and pressure transmission into the formation. The real drilling fluids properties were
measured on regular basis and reported to keep all the required parameters within range. The actual mud
properties are reported in Table 4.

Table 4—HPRC-WBM Rheological Properties While Drilling

The minimum achievable mud weight was designed to drill this section. In order to have a proper
wellbore bridging, a mixture of Sized Calcium Carbonate with different grades were added to the active
mud circulation system to bridge the porous medial and reducing seepage losses.
Mud Rheology was justified to ensure maximum hole cleaning in both dynamic and static conditions.
Using polymeric viscosifier helped to adjust Yield Point and RPM6 & RPM3 for better hole cleaning.
Plastic viscosity (PV) tried to be kept as low as possible by reducing the drilled solids concentrations of
mud using the proper installation of high efficiency solids control equipment.
During normal drilling operations, pH was kept between 9.0 and 9.7 in an attempt to minimize polymer
degradation, to neutralize H2S gas entering from the reservoir into the mud and to reduce the corrosion
rate of the drill string.
The API fluid loss measured regularly and was kept below 3 cc/30min. HPHT fluid loss didn't measured
at rig site due to the limitation on the availability of the required equipment but it was expected to be kept
below 15 cc/30min as the mud recipe evaluation proved it at the design stage.

Drilling Performance Benchmarking

The drilling performance benchmarking showed that the HPRC-WBM had an acceptable rate of penetration
compared to the wells drilled with OBM. In addition, the total tripping time in the well was the same as the
wells drilled by OBM. This is an indication of good hole condition (Figure 4).
SPE-199326-MS 9

Figure 4—Drilling & Tripping Duration Performance Benchmarking

The average loss of circulation volume with OBM was recorded as 325 barrels while the total drilling
fluids loss of HPRC-WBM was 25 barrels that indicates an efficient bridging while drilling (Figure 5).

Figure 5—Lost Circulation Volume Comparison

Wellbore Stability Performance Evaluation

A caliper log is an indicative tool for evaluating the hole stability, especially in shale layers. As shown in
the caliper log the hole stability of HPRC-WBM is equivalent to those wells drilled by OBM and it was
even more effective in some depths as indicated in the below log (Figure 6).
10 SPE-199326-MS

Figure 6—Calliper Log Data

Well Productivity Performance

Well productivity performance of the used HPRC-WBM was evaluated by well test without any stimulation.
It was recorded that there was no productivity in some previously drilled wells without acidizing and the
average production rate was measured around 600 BPD while the productivity of the drilled wells with
HPRC-WBM was recorded around 900 BPD (Figure 7).
SPE-199326-MS 11

Figure 7—Oil Production Rate

The Near wellbore pressure drop was also reduced dramatically from 1900 psi to 200 psi (Figure 8). In
addition the productivity index improved up to 12 BBL/DAY/Psi comparing to the well drilled by OBM
(Figure 9).

Figure 8—Near Wellbore Pressure Drop

12 SPE-199326-MS

Figure 9—Productivity Index of the drilled wells by OBM and HPRC-WBM

Conclusions
This paper reviewed the role of drill-in-fluid selection and compatibility on the wellbore stability and well
productivity in an interbedded shale and limestone reservoir, which was previously drilled by OBM. This
work represents the development of a High Performance Reservoir Compatible Water Based Mud (HPRC-
WBM) drill-in fluid for interbedded limestone and shale reservoir.
1. Rheological stability of the formulated high performance reservoir compatible water based mud
(HPRC-WBM) at downhole condition was satisfactory with good wellbore stability and lower loss
of circulations in comparison with OBM.
2. The fluid loss and invasion were kept in an acceptable range both chemically and physically by having
sized calcium carbonate as a bridging agent.
3. The well productivity was improved due to the exposure of low pressure drop resulting the
productivity index to be improved by a factor of five in comparison with the previous practices.
4. This practice proves the importance of designing and implementing an efficient drill-in-fluid to
prevent formation damage that has a direct effect on the well productivity.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank International Drilling Fluids Co. (IDF) for successfully accomplishing this
research work.

References
1. Woha Godwin Jr., Joel Ogbonna, and Oriji Boniface, 2011, Advances in mud design &
challenges in HPHT wells, Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, 150737-MS
2. John Downs, 2011, Life without barite ten years of drilling deep HPHT gas wells with cesium
formate brine, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, 145562-
MS
SPE-199326-MS 13

3. R.R. Paula Jr., P.R. Ribeiro, and O.L.A., 2009, HPHT Drilling—New Frontiers for Well Safety,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 119909-M.
4. M.L. Payne, P.D. Pattillo II, R.A. Miller and C.K. Johnson, Advanced Technology Solutions for
Next Generation HPHT Wells, 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 11463-MS
5. Xin Zhao, Zhengsong Qiu, Jiangen Xu, Chao Zhao, Jian Gao, 2017, Flat-rheology oil-based
drilling fluid for deepwater drilling, International Journal of Heat and Technology, Vol. 35, No.
1, pp. 19–24
6. Schlemmer, R. and S. F. Khor, 2007, "Development of deepwater drilling fluid and performance
comparison with a conventional fluid for use offshore Sarawak," presented at the Petrotech
International Oil & Gas Conference, New Delhi, Jan. 15–19, 2007.
7. Bedrikovetsky P, Siqueira F D, Furtado C, de Souza A L S. Modified particle detachment model
for colloidal transport in porous media. Journal of Transport in Porous Media, 2011, 86(1):
353–383.
8. Bennion D B. An overview of formation damage mechanisms causing a reduction in the
productivity and injectivity of oil and gas producing formations. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 2002, 41(11): 29–36.
9. Bennion D B, Thomas F B, Bietz R F, Bennion D W. Remediation of water and hydrocarbon
phase trapping problems in low permeability gas reservoirs. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 1999, 38(8): 39–48.
10. Civan F. Generalized Darcy's Law by control volume analysis including capillary and orifice
effects. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2008, 47(10): 1
11. Kang Y L, You L J, Xu X. Prevention of Formation Damage Induced by Mud Lost in Deep
Fractured Tight Gas Reservoir in Western Sichuan Basin. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 2012, 51, 46–51.
12. Kang Y, Xu C, You L, Yu H, Zhang D. Temporary sealing technology to control formation
damage induced by drill-in fluid loss in fractured tight gas reservoir. Journal of Natural Gas
Science and Engineering, 2014a, 20: 67–73.
13. Kang Y L, Xu C Y, Tang L, Li D Q. Constructing a tough shield around the wellbore: Theory
and method for lost-circulation control. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014b, 41(4):
473–479.
14. Kang Y L, Xu C Y, You L J, Yu H F, Zhang B J. Comprehensive evaluation of formation damage
induced by working fluid loss in fractured tight gas reservoir [J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science
and Engineering, 2014c, 18(1): 353–359.
15. Kumar A, Savari S, Whitfill D, Jamison D E. Wellbore strengthening: the less-studied properties
of lost-circulation materials. SPE 133484, 2010.
16. James J. Sheng, "Modern Enhanced Oil Recovery", chapter 4, 2011