SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Lessons Learned in Drilling Fluids Projects during MPD and MCD

Operations in Brazil's Offshore Wells

G. T. Teixeira, F. Fabri, L. S. de Almeida, P. H. P. da Silva, and R. B. Vadinal, Petrobras

Copyright 2017, IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2017 IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling & Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 28–29 March 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
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 or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Drilling fluids play great importance to the success of MPD (Managed Pressure Drilling) and MCD (Mud
Cap Drilling) operations. On MPD projects, the correct design of the drilling fluids properties, such as,
density, rheology, anchor point position and compatibility should be precisely adjusted in order to operate in
good and safe performance, especially in a statically underbalance MPD projects. Exceptional importance
should be addressed to the initial mud density to provide useful capacity to carry out a Dynamic Porous
Pressure Test (DPPT).
MCD operations require a suitable drilling fluid project due gas migrations, costs and cuttings
transportation issues, related to LAM (light annular mud) and sacrificial (SAC) fluids.
The objective of this paper is to present the lessons learned in drilling fluid projects during MPD and
MCD operations in Brazil's offshore wells. The study will focus on desired properties, simulations, adjusted
hydraulics models, formulations and involved costs, considering water and olefin based drilling fluids.

Introduction
Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) is an adaptative drilling process used to precisely control the annular
pressure throughout the wellbore. The objectives are to ascertain the downhole pressure environment
limits and to manage the annular hydraulic pressure profile. Examples of various MPD variants include:
SBP (Surface Back Pressure), PMCD (Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling) and FMCD (Float Mud Cap
Drilling).1 MPD technique currently used by Petrobras requires the following equipment for successful
implementation:

• RCD (Rotating Circulation Device)

• Flowmeter device

• Automatic choke valve

2 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

RCD allows pressurizing the well against a tubular element. The automatic choke valve applies and
control surface back pressure on the well to maintain specific pressure at a specific depth in the well, named
anchor point.2
The MPD technique has been proved to be an indispensable tool to drill specific critical zones in some
Petrobras wells.2,3,4,5 However, the Drilling Fluids Design plays special role to the success of MPD (Managed
Pressure Drilling) and MCD (Mud Cap Drilling) operations. In MPD projects, the correct design of the
drilling fluids properties, such as, density, rheology, anchor point position and chemical compatibility with
the whole MPD system should be precisely adjusted in order to operate in good and safe performance,
especially in statically underbalance MPD projects. Exceptional importance should be addressed to the
initial mud density to provide useful capacity to carry out a Dynamic Porous Pressure Test (DPPT).
Successfully MPD operations require an in-depth understanding of the hydraulics during all phases of
the operation. Most of the dynamics involved in hydraulics have been traditionally mistreated due to the
fact that is often complicated to model.6
In order to expand the oil recovery in the deep water brown fields Petrobras evaluated the underbalance
drilling (UBD) technology to exploit depleted zones. However, in the current petroleum economic scenario
the UBD technology was not the best choice. Thus, Petrobras launched the challenge of applying the FMCD
technique in these fields as a way to develop an efficient and lower cost technique in substitution to UBD.
MCD has been a powerful technique to drill highly fractured zones where severe losses are expected and
conventional drilling technique is not suitable. MPD and MCD operations are two extremes in which no
losses (or few losses) and severe losses are desired, respectively. Mostly, the MCD is preceded by MPD
mode and it is performed with synthetic or water base mud until a high permeable fracture is crossed during
the drilling and leads to a severe fluid loss. Once in a total loss circulation, an injection test it is performed
with SAC in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the cuttings injection into the formation. In case of good
cutting injection, the MCD mode should be proceeded, however, bad cutting injection due to ineffective
cutting conductivity through the fracture zone or fracture plugging by the cuttings is not acceptable and may
render drilling unfeasible with both techniques. That is, partial losses or bad cuttings injection may not be
able to allow proceed in MPD mode or switching to MCD technique. This is situation is commonly called
"grey zone" in MCD/MPD projects and should have special care in the project decision tree definition, once
the partial losses must be suppressed to keep drilling on MPD mode or highly increased to allow switching
to MCD.
Mud Cap drilling is divided into two modes, pressurized (PMCD) and floating (FMCD), and the choice
between them is made during the project step and depends on the pore pressure of the reservoir and the
possibility of using a LAM. PMCD mode is a safer technique than FMCD, once it is possible to precisely
monitor the bottom hole pressure by the MPD surface system, whereas FMCD is chosen only when PMCD
is unfeasible, due to the high deplete zones and the impossibility of such low density LAM to run on PMCD
mode. In PMCD operations the LAM is statically underbalanced and its density is designed considering
its hydrostatic pressure above the highest pore pressure.1 The bottom pressure on the annular section is
monitored by both BOP pressure gauge and drill string PWD tool. This monitoring, especially PWD reading,
is quite important and indispensable, in which (depending on the pore pressure), the annular level can be
found hundreds of meters below the surface level. SAC may be pumped from both MCD line and booster
line, however, pumping from the booster line is simpler.
After the injection test, the MPD technique is switched to MCD by bullheading the annular mud with
LAM for PMCD mode or SAC for FMCD mode. However, PMCD stops annular bullhead when the annular
section is completely filled up with LAM while FMCD continues pumping SAC until the end of the drilling
operation.
Thousands barrels of SAC and at least twice the volume spent on a conventional drilling is expected to
be used in the MPD/MCD operations. So, the mud type is an important issue that needs to be defined in the
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 3

very beginning of the drilling fluid project for MCD. In FMCD, two different fluids are used, the project
must consider their compatibility with completion design, stimulation type, rock-fluid interaction, amount
of mud additives, rig pit capacities, and more. In addition, once seawater is usually used as SAC, biocide
and anti-scaling additives must be considered for souring and scaling reasons.
The objective of this paper is to present the lessons learned in drilling fluid projects during MPD and
MCD operations in Brazil's offshore wells. The study will focus on desired properties, simulations, adjusted
hydraulics models, formulations and involved costs, considering water and olefin based drilling fluids.

Drilling fluid project and simulations

Drilling Fluid Weight Definition - Previous section
Normally, in order to guarantee the training of the rig crew, MPD is used on the section prior the reservoir,
at the first job of the rig. Frequently, during this section the salt formation is drilled. Petrobras developed an
in-house software to predict adequate mud weight in order to avoid salt fluency based on the lithology of
the well and a large history of wells drilled in pre-salt zones. This software is able to predict the mud weight
with very good precision.7 With this information associated with hydraulics simulations, it is possible to
determine the suitable mud weight and surface back pressure.

Drilling Fluid Weight Definition - MPD/MCD

During the drilling fluid weight definition, it is important to determine if the project will consider the drilling
fluid statically overbalance or underbalance. Using statically underbalance drilling fluid to MPD operations
has some advantages, such as:

• It reduces annular hydrostatic and dynamic pressures

• Provides ability to perform the dynamic pore pressure test

• In case of PMCD operations during total losses situation, the same fluid can be used as LAM (Light
Annular Mud).
This decision will be made considering many variables, such as particularities of the reservoir, RCD
maximum pressure, availability of drilling fluids and reserve pits on the rig, logistics, and so on.
Involved risks of each mud weight should be evaluated during HAZID meeting.3

Rheological and Compressibility Models

Most of commercial hydraulic software does not include accurate calculus of compressibility, thermal
expansion and cuttings load. It has brought many misinterpretations during MPD jobs.
Olefin based drilling fluids, normally used in offshore operations, have rheological properties that are
more sensitive to pressure and temperature conditions, especially in deep water operations.8,9
Most of the time, properties measured under surface conditions are used to estimate pressure losses and
ECDs, leading to a poor agreement.10
Petrobras has been developing, for several years, a proprietary hydraulic software named SIMCARR
(Figure 1). It has the advantage that it can be customized in according to actual necessities.
4 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Figure 1—SIMCARR - Petrobras' hydraulic simulator.

In order to reduce misestimating, rheological and volumetric properties (PVT) of olefin based drilling
fluids, as a function of pressure and temperature (Figure 2 and Figure 3), have been studied and improved
on SIMCARR software.11 It has been noted that olefin based drilling fluids has exacerbated compression/
expansion behavior comparing to paraffin based fluids. For this reason, laboratory studies have been carried
out at different Oil/Water rates, in order to map how it can influence on those parameters.

Figure 2—Density variation of Olefin Base A, at different temperatures and pressures.

SPE/IADC-185277-MS 5

Figure 3—Density variation (ppg) of Olefin Base, comparing to downhole conditions.

As of the results of these improvements, the ECD values from PWD while drilling in SBP mode had
been showing differences no more than 0.05 ppg when compared to the simulations done in the Petrobras'
software, SIMCARR.2
Besides using SIMCARR software, it was possible to determine calculation mistakes in other hydraulics
simulators.

Calibration of Hydraulic Model

During MPD operations on the rig, a previous step named Fingerprinting, is performed in order to evaluate
all sort of static and dynamic pressure behaviors and calibrate the system, as well.
It is done before drilling the next section cement plug, once the well is isolated and in safe condition,
and normally it consists of changing many variables, for instance: stand pipe and booster flow rates, surface
back pressures, running speeds, surface alignments and valves, hydraulics model on the control system and
so on. After this step, it is expected to figure out some outputs, such as:

• Surge and swab pressures

• Suitable rheological model

• Friction pressures

• Pump efficiency

One important thing to highlight is that it is important to compare the ECD simulated by the control
system with the real ECD from PWD tool, in order to calibrate or adjust the simulator and the rheological
model, as well.
Normally, the Power Law is the model that best fit after the calibration steps. MPD project engineers
avoid to consider PV and YP from Bingham model to carry out simulations, due its poor agreement with
real data, instead, it is used the 6 readings from viscometer to obtain the suitable model from the simulator.
(Figure 4)
6 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Figure 4—Rheological models to olefin base drilling fluid.

Every data from calibrations and PWD tool is recorded and used as input to next projects, even if it will
be necessary to perform some further modifications on that.

Surface Friction Losses

The estimation of the surface friction losses during MPD project elaboration, sometimes is challenging.
Mainly because it depends on the rig's line characteristics, such as curves, rugosity and elbows. A first
estimation is done through simulations using SIMCARR.
The second step is done during MPD fingerprinting operations at the rig. The determination of surface
friction losses, including flow spool hoses and buffer and choke manifold lines, is carried out using the
following formula:

Once it is calibrated; For next projects it is found a similar geometry on SIMCARR that could behave
with the same pressure drop pattern for that specific rig.
It is relevant to emphasize the importance of correct input parameters of the hydraulic model set in
drilling MPD mode. There are situations that a mismatch model during software calibration is not suitable
for the rheological model of fluid, it results in operational problems, especially during pump withdrawals.
As each model responds by a different frictional loss profile, depending on the flow rate, the result is a higher
pressurizing and / or abrupt depressurizing performing the pump withdrawal, an undesirable situation that
has no effect on monitoring as subsurface pressures with the PWD system.
The Petrobras team observed the situation in the first intervention using a DP rig. During connections
in the automatic pressure mode, the choke does not respond as expected when reducing the flow rate to
withdraw the pumps, slightly relieving a pressure in the bottom hole a little bit below the porous pressure
(deducted only after the gas readings on the surface after the connection's bottom up).
The immediate solution was to set the surface back pressure mode, keeping manually the bottom hole
pressure above the porous pressure and, consequently, increasing the connection time at sensible values (45
to 75 minutes). It was later verified that the MPD operators selected Bingham rheological model to represent
the drilling fluid behavior, instead Power Law model. After performing a new fingerprinting during a drill
maneuver, the system was configured correctly, and connections could be made in automatic pressure mode
without problems, with reduced connection time to 15 minutes.
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 7

Cuttings Load Estimations

The most difficult modelling in MPD drilling hydraulics perhaps is the pressure profile based on cuttings
distributions. In fact, the main source of error in ECD estimations is the presence of solids on the annular.
Drilling fluids engineers has been using two approaches to overcome this issue during MPD projects:
steady state and transient modelling. For steady state simulations the "standard" software SIMCARR is
normally used, as mentioned earlier, due its simplicity and processing speed.
Regarding the second approach, Petrobras has developed an in-house software to optimize drilling
operations, named PWDa (Figure 5), that employs transient modeling, pattern recognition and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) strategies.12,13 The PWDa software has a predictor module to model cuttings transient
transport. It receives real time PWD and mudlogging data during drilling job and predicts a solids
concentration profile (for each time step), and the pressure profile as well.14 (Figure 6) Postmortem analysis
can be performed with these data and the engineers can adjust and calibrate their MPD project simulations
to the next wells.

Figure 5—Real time analysis, PWDa Software.

8 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Figure 6—Cuttings transient transport analysis, PWDa software.

In addition, engineers have been developing a transient modulus on SIMCARR software for better
evaluation of cutting loads while drilling.

Customized Sheets
Special care should be addressed to the Anchor Point position (AP), once it depends on the good annulus
pressure drop estimation.
Anchor Point is a specific position on the well with a specific pressure to be maintained. During project
steps it is important to figure out how it changes through the depth, with the aiming to avoid influx or
fracture issues.
Historical fingerprints of correlated wells are used to recalibrate the software and customize sheet for
next projects.
In order to define the AP position, it is important to know:

• Operational margin

• Surface pressure limitations (equipment)

• Annulus and Surface Frictional losses

As earlier mentioned, to perform a reliable MPD project, engineers have been working on SIMCARR
software to improve its accuracy. However, it takes time. In the interim, the project team use customized
sheets calculate every variable necessary to the hydraulic project.
MPD engineers should also be aware of ECD and ESD values at others depth than the anchor point,
especially at very narrow operational margin. It can get problematic situations, for instance, influx or losses.
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 9

Lost circulation control in MPD and MCD operations

The lost circulation in carbonate zone may be very difficult to be suppressed, especially in a high permeable
fractured zone. In MPD project the employ of granular or laminar calcium carbonate is considered for slight
fluid losses, however, for expressive fluid losses it is necessary relaxed filtrate LCM or reticulated gels to
achieve better results. In MCD operations the fluid losses are difficult to be suppressed, once the fractures
are extremely permeable, even for cuttings. In this case, the granular or laminar material are less effective
and the preliminary use of relaxed filtrate LCM or reticulated gels are considered prior to cement plugs.

SAC for PMCD

Fluid designs include the use of sacrificial fluids for MCD scenarios composed primarily of seawater and
additives. Depending on the specificity of the reservoir and the well purpose, it would be necessary to use
specific additives, such as anti-scaling and / or bactericide. Reservoir simulations carried out by Petrobras
research center (CENPES) indicate that the employ of bactericide in SAC during MCD / PMDC drilling is
only necessary for producing wells. Souring may occur in a specific downhole condition of temperature and
pressure in the first 24 hours and may lead to the in situ generation of H2S from sulfate-reducing bacteria
and it will be produced along with the starting oil.
In this condition, several wells were drilled at Petrobras, between production and injection wells, using
the MCD technique without evidence about the impact on expected productivity.
Regarding the hole cleaning in MCD applications, the Petrobras software SIMCARR was used estimate
the minimum cleaning flow rate. However, technically, periodic displacement of high a viscous pill during
the drilling job was used to drive the cuttings to the loss zone. The volume and periodicity of the pill
displacement will depend on the geometry of the well and / or the dynamic drilling conditions. As reference,
it is common to displace a viscous pill per section, that is able to undergo changes through variations of
torque and abnormal drags.

LAM for PMCD

For PMCD scenarios, a synthetic fluid, base-water or seawater plus additives is considered as LAM. The
fluid depends on the required weight and availability. Due to the solubility of hydrocarbons in synthetic
fluid, the rate of migration when using this type of fluid is lower, this results in a smaller volume of injection
fluid. Already the use of LAM composed of base-water fluid and / or seawater plus additives, implies a
faster migration rate of hydrocarbons, which requires a continuous injection of fluid by the annular.
In Santos Basin Pre-Salt, Petrobras has already drilled two wells in PMCD, one of them using a water-
base fluid as LAM. In this case, the drilling was performed using seawater plus additives due its availability.

Cuttings in OBM
A constant concern for the maintenance of rheological properties is the incorporation of fine cuttings
inherent to the drilling system used in the pre-salt reservoirs. The first application with the technology
showed a constant scenario of increasing of weight, sometimes submitting use of centrifuges and dilutions
with an organic base.
With a new environmental legislation that required the replacement of the organic base of the synthetic
fluid, the new olefin system shows a great sensibility to fines incorporation and a strong impact on rheology,
including very progressive gels.
A high efficiency solids control systems is required to keep them under control, since treatments for
properties conditioning during MPD operations can significantly change the rheological model, resulting
in constant updates to the equipment calibration, which can show inefficiency and / or exceed hydraulic
limits of the project.
10 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Cuttings in WBM
Solid control in water base mud during MPD is an important issue to be considered during the drilling
planning, especially when the project mud weight value is in 8.4 – 8.6 ppg range. Fine cuttings are
incorporated to the mud while drilling and this increases the mud density. During MPD operations with water
base mud and an initial mud weight on 8.4 ppg, it was required constant dilution with drill water associated
with chemicals renovation and centrifuge processing to keep it around 8.5 – 8.6 ppg. The rheological impact
of the incorporated solids was in the mud was not critical once constant dilution and treatment was made.
In general, at the end of the drilling in MPD mode twice the whole system volume was spent due to the
constant dilution and mud replacements.

FMCD drilling fluid project

Six wells located at deep water sites (water depth from 1,000 to 1,450 m) with depleted carbonate zones
were selected as candidates for FMCD technique. All of them were directional or horizontal (23° to 90°)
extending from 370 to 800 m with and producing casing design based on 7″ standalone perforated liner set
on 9 ⅝″ casing or combined 10 ¾″ × 9 ⅞″ casings. This was an important and determinant issue concerning
MPD drilling fluid project. It was established in the main drilling project that, in case of drilling the whole
reservoir section on MPD mode, in other words, without applying FMCD mode (no severe loss), the drilling
fluid should not be changed by completion fluid in open hole at least before running the perforated liner
in hole and setting its packer in place. This was due to the high risk of severe loss in this operation. Based
on this premise, the drilling fluid could be confined in the annular space between the 8 ½″ open hole and
the 7″ perforated liner, as represented in Figure 7.

Figure 7—Schematic drawing of confined fluids in the open hole-liner annular space.

The synthetic base mud would be the best choice for drilling purposes, as it would be possible to drill with
lighter mud weight, which in this case is desired to minimize the overbalance upon the depleted reservoir.
Nevertheless, the choice of the drilling fluid base was made upon the premise of the confined fluid in
open hole-liner annular space (Figure 7), once this fluid should be compatible with the stimulation type.
The stimulation project was elaborated based on concentrated HCl bullheading, which is the best way to
communicate the natural fractures in this kind of formation. Therefore, water base mud was found to be
the most suitable for this job, because of its compatibility with SAC during the drilling operation and with
acidic solutions in stimulation job. Whereas, synthetic base mud could block the full contact of the acidic
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 11

solution with the formation during stimulation job, as a consequence, lead to a uncontrolled divergency and
a highly heterogeneous stimulation of the reservoir.
The water base mud for these projects was designed upon the following premises:

• Drill-in fluid type

• Suitable rheology for hole cleaning

• SAC compatible

• Fast preparation to face long periods of partial loss or to return back to MPD mode in case of
fracture plugging by cuttings.
• Stimulation compatibility

The water base drill-in fluid formulation was elaborated from a widely used drill-in fluid from Petrobras.
The drill-in fluid was formulated considering the use of drill water without weighting or sealing agents.
The reason for that was to minimize the mud weight. Preliminary lab tests indicated that the minimum
mud weight for this formulation was 8.4 ppg. It was assumed that the drilling fluid would naturally
incorporate fine calcium carbonate from the formation and, consequently, the mud weight would raise.
Another assumption made was that unstimulated carbonate reservoir, differently than sandstone, is a very
heterogeneous permoporous system with long extensions of low permeability, which would not lead to
differential stuck pipe. However, hydroxypropyl starch was considered as filtrate-reducing agent.
Considering that total losses could not happen and FMCD could not be applied during the drilling
operation, it was planned to pump and place a drill-in pill containing 1.0 Lb/bbl of magnesium peroxide in
the open hole setting the 7″ liner in the bottom to allow the polymer chain break during the acid stimulation.
This oxidant was not considered in the start drill-in mud because of its high cost and the high possibility
of total loss.
The seawater was selected as SAC due to FMCD operations large amounts of SAC are expected to be
injected into the reservoir along with cuttings. A previous study was made to evaluate the potential of scaling
deposition due to the non-desulfated SAC injection. The study indicated that the whole SAC should be
dosed with 25 to 100 mg/L of anti-scaling.
The injection of non-desulfated SAC in reservoirs with pore pressure below 400,0 kg/cm2 associated to
the wellbore cooling by SAC could lead to H2S generation by sulfate-reducing bacteria in the first 24 hours
from SAC injection interruption. The Petrobras R&D center (CENPES) estimated that around 4.4 m radius
would be the critical zone for souring. Depending on the open hole extension it should be injected around
20,000 – 30,000 bbls of SAC with bactericide to avoid H2S in situ generation. The concentration of active
matter of glutaraldehyde in SAC was estimated in at least 420 mg/L, which correspond to 0.367 lb/bbl of
commercial glutaraldehyde at 40 % (v/v).
The SAC annular flow rate was defined by shut-in equation in 123 and 184 gpm considering the hole
with and without drill string, respectively.

MPD Hydraulics and Hole Cleaning

Considering that all six wells were highly depleted, a minimum overbalance should be applied to keep
drilling on MPD mode. However, a previous surface test on the MPD system of the rig showed that the
natural friction loss of the choke and buffer manifold holds at least 60 psi on the expected drilling rate (450
gpm). Although to keep a precise control of the surface back pressure the project set the anchor point at the
top of the reservoir, which should be around 100 to 150 psi, which correspond to 9.0 – 9.1 ppg equivalent
density at these point in these projects.
The 8 ½″ drilling bit was selected with 13 mm cutters to generate cuttings as small as possible and,
consequently, allow cuttings transportation by SAC and injection in to the fracture in case of switching
12 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

drilling mode from MPD to FMCD. The hydraulics and hole cleaning simulations were run with Petrobras
software, SIMCARR. The parameters (e.g. flow rate, drill string rotation, rate of penetration, cuttings
diameter, etc.) for MPD operations were limited and based on the FMCD operation, once during the
technique switching the annular cuttings load should have been suitable for SAC hole cleaning parameters.
In the simulation input, the cuttings diameter was considered as 0.2 inch, although the expected cuttings
size should have been smaller than this. In addition, the Power Law model was considered for hole cleaning
with water base mud for MPD application.

FMCD Hydraulics and Hole Cleaning

The SIMCARR software is able to predict hydraulics and hole cleaning with very precise results of
conventional and MPD drillings. However, the software is not able to predict both results for the MCD
operation at the same time, once it considers only full system circulation and in the FMCD operation the
annular space is partially empty with reversed flow until the top of the injection point and regular flow from
the bit to this point. In this case, it was necessary to simulate only the open hole cleaning. It was possible
once the software calculated this job by annular stages as function of drill string element and annular section
(open hole, casing and riser). For the hole cleaning simulations, it was considered the same parameters as
used in MPD simulation, except the rheological model, which in this case the Newtonian model was used.
The results for open hole cleaning showed that the maximum rate of penetration (ROP) should be 4.0 m/
h, without cuttings bed formation at the minimum flow rate required to BHA tools (350 gpm). However,
to avoid stuck pipe problems it was planned to displace high viscous pills at a rate of 2 pills per drill string
section.
The hydraulics simulations were performed to determine just the friction loss inside drill string, BHA
and bit nozzles to allow estimating the TFA. This was necessary, since in the FMCD operation the only way
to have kept the drill string full with SAC was to allow PWD /LDW tool readings is to compensate for the
hydrostatic fall in the riser with a restriction in the drill string. The TFA estimated for the FMCD projects
ranged from 0.249 in2 to 0.307 in2 for 1,500 to 3,150 psi of predicted annular hydrostatic fall

MPD/FMCD Results
The six selected wells were drilled with the same rig in sequence (A, B, C, D, E and F). Wells A, B and C
were successfully drilled with MPD mode and no losses were faced. As estimated in the project, these wells
spent around 10,000 bbl each of WBM, including start drill mud and dilution/treatment mud. The wells D,
E and F started in MPD mode and during the drilling operation it was observed partial losses from 100 to
350 bbl/h. The drilling was continued with these rates of fluid loss to expose a larger the fracture area until
total loss could happen. In all of these three wells occurred the total loss. The wells D and F were easily
switched from MPD to FMCD mode. The well E had total loss, but, the fracture was plugged by cement,
once this was a sidetrack trajectory, and the partial loss scenario was recovered. Poor open hole cleaning
was observed, showing that the cuttings were not being transported to the fracture. This scenario, called
"grey zone," was not accepted in the drilling project. In addition, due the inconsistent cement plug, it was
difficult to drill in the project trajectory because of that it was decided to abandon with cement plugs and
sidetrack for a new trajectory.
During the drilling of the new trajectory of the well E a partial loss was observed, which suddenly turned
into a total loss. After the injectivity test the MPD mode was switched to the FMCD mode and the drilling
was successfully accomplished until total depth. Along with wells D and F. The wells D, E and F had 200
to 300 m of the section drilled in FMCD. The anti-scaling was added in all SAC volume. The bactericide
was added as planned at the end of the drilling operation. The volume of SAC pumped in these wells are
represented in the Table 1:
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 13

Table 1—Volume of SAC injected during FMCD operations.

WELL Volume of SAC (bbl) Volume of SAC with bactericide

D 200,000 20,000
E 128,000 20,000
F 196,000 30,000

Comparison of fluid costs in MPD/PMCD operations at Petrobras

Table 2 presents the data for the drilling of three wells in the Santos Basin Pre-Salt using MPD/PMCD
techniques. The well G was drilled using synthetic olefin-based mud (SBM), while wells H and I utilized
a simplified formulation of polymeric aqueous fluid. Well I, 112 m were drilled using the MPD technique,
and it was not necessary to convert the system to PMCD. The volume of fluid lost to the formation was
13,823 bbl and the amount spent on the manufacture and treatment of fluid was $ 310,000.

Table 2—Comparison of MPD/PMCD operations using WBM and SBM as LAM

Well G Well H Well I

Well type Productive Injector Productive

Mud SBM WBM WBM
Weight (ppg) 8.8 8.6 8.6
Diameter (in) 8 ½″ 8 ½″ 8 ½″
Drilled extension in MPD (m) 89 134 112
Volume of mud lost to the formation during MPD (bbl) 2,416 5,275 13,823
Drilled extension in PMCD (m) 70 83 -
Volume of LAM lost to the formation during PMCD (bbl) 778 2730 -
Cost* with mud treatment / fabrication $900,000 $180,000 $310,000

*Estimations for references

Wells G and H started drilling in MPD and, after finding a zone of high fluid loss and adequate injectivity,
they were finished using the PMCD technique. In well G, 89 m of reservoir was drilled using MPD
technique, with loss of 2,416 bbl of non-aqueous base fluid. For the next 70 m, the PMCD technique was
used, using seawater as SAC fluid and non-aqueous fluid as LAM. In this scenario, 778 bbl of non-aqueous
fluid were pre-injected into the formation to prevent the migration of hydrocarbons to the surface. The
amount spent on the maintenance and treatment of the non-aqueous fluid during the drilling of the 159 m
in MPD/PMCD was $ 900,000.
On the other hand, well H had 134 m drilled in MPD, with a loss of 5,275 bbl of aqueous fluid for
the formation. When the system was converted to PMCD, seawater was used as SAC fluid and polymeric
aqueous fluid as LAM. During drilling of 83 m of reservoir using PMCD technique, 2,730 bbl of water
based mud (WBM) was injected into the reservoir to prevent migration of hydrocarbons. The cost for
manufacturing and treatment WBM was $ 180,000.
Wells G and H illustrate the difference between the PMCD technique when working with synthetic fluid
or aqueous fluid as LAM fluid: the volume of fluid injected into the formation for prevention of hydrocarbon
migration was about 3 to 4 times greater when water based mud was used as LAM. The difference is due
to the fact that the higher hydrocarbon migration velocity for aqueous fluids. In order to increase the safety
of the operations, in the field, even though there was no increase in pressure during drilling of the wells,
Petrobras chose to make periodic injections of aqueous fluid more frequent (or in larger volumes) than using
a non-aqueous. Summarizing, despite the higher volumes involved, the performance of the aqueous fluid
is more economically advantageous.
14 SPE/IADC-185277-MS

Conclusion
This paper introduced the lessons learned in drilling fluid projects during MPD and MCD operations in
Brazil's offshore wells. The study presented the desired properties, simulations, adjusted hydraulics models,
formulations and involved costs, considering water and olefin based drilling fluids.
As conclusions, we can enumerate the following topics:

• In order to perform a reliable MPD project, engineers have been working on SIMCARR software
to improve its accuracy.
• A historical fingerprint of correlated wells is used to recalibrate the software and customize sheet
for next projects.
• MPD engineers should also be aware of ECD and ESD values at others depth than the anchor point,
especially at very narrow operational margins. It can cause problematic situations, for instance,
influx or losses.
• The most difficult modelling in MPD drilling hydraulics is the pressure profile based on cutting
distributions. Drilling fluids engineers has been using steady state and transient modelling, and
recalibrations using historical analysis as well.
• In FMCD operations two different fluids are used and the project must consider their compatibility
with completion design, stimulation type, rock-fluid interaction, amount of mud additives, rig pit
capacities, and so on. Besides, once seawater is usually being used as SAC, biocide and anti-scaling
additives must be considered for souring and scaling reasons.
• Although the hydraulic and hole cleaning simulations on SIMCARR software had to be adapted
to FMCD scenario, the premises used on these projects has shown to be very suitable.
• FMCD was successfully applied and has shown to be a very useful technique to drill depleted
reservoir.
• Despite the higher volumes involved in PMCD operations, the use of the aqueous fluid is more
economically advantageous.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by Petrobras.

List of Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
DPPT Dynamic porous pressure test
ECD Equivalent circulating density
ESD Equivalent static density
FIT Formation integrity test
HAZID Hazardous conditions identification
LAM Light annular mud
LOT Leak-off test
MCD Mud cap drilling
MPD Managed pressure drilling
PMCD Pressurized mud cap drilling
PV Plastic viscosity
PWD Pressure while drilling
RCD Rotating control device
SAC Sacrificial fluid
SBP Surface back pressure
SPE/IADC-185277-MS 15

YP Yield point

Bibliography
1. Rehm, Bill, et al. Managed pressure drilling. Gulf Publishing Company, 2009.
2. Tomita, R. A., et al. "Successful Case History of Drilling Through Major Loss Zone Using MPD/
PMCD Techniques on a Santos Basin Well." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015.
3. Fernandes, Andre Alonso, et al. "MPD/MCD Offshore Application on a Dynamic Positioning
Rig." SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference &
Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015.
4. Ochoa Lugo, A. J., Acevedo, O. D., Nieto, L., Lambarria, J. E., & Perez, H. (2011, January
1). Successful Application of MPD (Managed Pressure Drilling) for Prevention, Control, and
Detection of Borehole Ballooning in Tight Gas Reservoir in Cuervito Field, Mexico. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/146529-MS
5. Pinheiro, R. S., Santos, A. R., Marques, M., Schnitzler, E., Signorini, D., & Tomita, R. A.
(2015, May 4). Well Construction Challenges in the Pre-Salt Development Projects. Offshore
Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/25888-MS
6. Da Silva, T. P., & Naccache, M. (2016, April 12). Enhanced Fluid Rheology Characterization for
Managed Pressure Drilling Applications. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/180070-
MS
7. Pereira, L. G., Gandelman, R. A., Clemente, R. G., Teixeira, P. H. S., & Teixeira, G. T. (2013,
October 29). Development of Software to Predict Mud Weight for Pre-Salt Drilling Zones Using
Machine Learning. Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/24341-MS
8. Growcock, F. B., Andrews, S. L., & Frederick, T. P. (1994, January 1). Physicochemical
Properties of Synthetic Drilling Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/27450-MS
9. Demirdal, Barkim, et al. "Drilling Fluids Rheological and Volumetric Characterization Under
Downhole Conditions." Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2007.
10. Demirdal, B., & Cunha, J. C. (2009). Importance of Drilling Fluids' Rheological and Volumetric
Characterization to Plan and Optimize Managed Pressure Drilling Operations. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48(02), 8–14.
11. Pinto, G. H. V. P., Gandelman, R. A., & Martins, A. L. (2010, January 1). Development of a
Methodology to Predict Solids Concentration Profile Along the Time During Pumps-off Periods.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/122069-MS
12. Ghilardi, Pedro, et al. "Real Time Drilling Data Diagnosis Implemented in Deepwater Wells-A
Reality." OTC Brasil. Offshore Technology Conference, 2013.
13. Gandelman, R. A., Martins, A. L., Teixeira, G. T., Waldmann, A. T. A., Rezende, M. S. C., &
Aragao, A. F. L. (2009, January 1). A Comprehensive Methodology to Avoid and Remediate
Drilling Problems by Real-Time PWD Data Interpretation. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/124116-MS
14. Martins, A. L., Gandelman, R. A., Folsta, M. G., Resende, E. L., Vega, M., Aguiar, R., Gullo, R.
M. e D. (2013, March 5). On The Path for Offshore Drilling Automation. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/163453-MS