SPE 165919

Drill-Cuttings Analysis for Real-Time Problem Diagnosis and Drilling

Performance Optimization
Moji Karimi, SPE, Weatherford

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 22–24 October 2013.

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
Drill cuttings have always been used to gather data from subsurface formations. Since the onset of the drilling industry, mud
loggers have used cuttings to plot the lithology column. Reservoir drill cuttings have also been used to further understand
formation properties, such as porosity and permeability. In addition, cuttings have been the subject of waste management
research for years. Cuttings analysis is an important aspect of real-time drilling operations and the correct sampling,
measurement, and interpretation of cuttings help prevent problems and improve drilling performance. The first part of this
study describes the sampling and measurement of drill cuttings, while the second examines data interpretation.

Historically, cuttings analysis has been done by the solid control crew to enhance solids-removal efficiency and by mud
loggers to obtain subsurface data. Although these two groups communicate their analyses with the drilling engineer, current
visual inspection and sampling procedures provide information that is potentially unreliable for real-time drilling decisions.
Cuttings affect drilling fluid properties, annular-pressure losses, hole cleaning, wellbore stability/integrity, penetration rate and
many other drilling considerations. Cuttings properties such as particle-size distribution, volume, shape, etc., can reveal the
start of a drilling problem or offer justifications for decisions to improve performance. Reliable measures must be in place for
taking accurate samples and reporting related properties to enable the drilling engineer to make meaningful correlations. This
study intends to provide guidelines on sampling and measurement methodology for the benefit of drilling engineers.

With recent advancements and the introduction of real-time particle-size distribution and Coriolis in-line flowmeters, new data
sources are available. These tools provide plenty of valuable information, but decisions need to be made about where, when,
and how to take samples for reliable output data. Particles mixed with cuttings that are not generated by bit action, e.g.,
cavings and mud additives, also need to be accounted for and differentiated while sampling and measuring cuttings.There are
correlations between drilling problems and cuttings properties; however, if detected early, these problems can be prevented to
enhance drilling performance. Early detection is contingent upon a reliable sampling method, which represents the annular
cuttings, interacting with the formation. Thus, a procedure is proposed for proper sampling and measurement of cuttings.

Introduction
Cuttings can provide much valuable information on drilling-process efficiency because they result from bit, rock, and fluid
interaction. Although automation and real-time measurements have simplified cuttings analysis, the logic behind the process
still needs to be decided by the drilling experts. As a result, a procedure is proposed for the visual inspection of cuttings
properties and their correlation to drilling problems and performance. Ensuring reliable data and using it properly remain the
challenge to improve drilling performance. The use of accurate data also justifies the operator’s upfront investment in
additional equipment.

Apart from cuttings, cavings also can be interpreted as a sign of wellbore instability and depending on the shape the problem
root can be diagnosed, i.e. pressure induced vs. mechanical cavings. This denotes the importance of observing shale shakers on
a continuous basis, especially while drilling through wellbore instability zones. Real-time cutting monitoring systems has
made this task easier, for example a PSD (Particle Size Distribution) analyzer coupled Coriolis flow meter can be programmed
2 SPE 165919

to identify cuttings vs. cavings based on shape factor and return volume and send an alarm to the drilling engineer once the
percentage of cavings started to escalate.

Sampling and measurement

From a drilling perspective, ideal cutting samples should be the same as the ones found in the annulus, where drilling fluid is
interacts with the formation, directly affecting the drilling process. The closest place possible to have access to cuttings is the
flowline that directs the return flow to the shakers.

From an automation perspective, there are several ways of obtaining and analyzing cuttings in the mud flow, including:

- In-Line Measurement: Instrument is inserted into tubular (or pipe) and takes measurements as the mud circulates
- At-Line Measurement: Sample is collected and tested manually on-site
- On-Line Measurement: Sample is collected and tested via bypass line
- Off-Line Measurement: Sample is collected and tested manually in a laboratory setting

Regardless of the automation stage, to achieve drilling performance objectives the sample needs to be taken from flowline
locations. The flowline is usually a constrained pipe, which makes it difficult to gather samples unless modifications are made
to the pipe beforehand. Fig. 1 shows one of the earliest setups (left) for this purpose along with a modern arrangement (right).

Fig. 1—(Left) Simple sampling setup and (right) recent sampling set-up with PSD analyzer. Photo courtesy of Canty.

If it is not possible to obtain samples from the flowline, the next place to gather cuttings is the “possum belly,” which is the top
part of the shale shaker that holds the flow before it passes through the shaker sieves (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2—Possum belly.

SPE 165919 3

Concentrations of drill cuttings changes depending on their location in the possum belly. Cuttings settle and accumulate on the
possum belly floor very quickly, leaving a cutting concentration gradient. Figs. 3 and 4 are good examples of the mentioned
concentration and PSD gradient in both directions; going towards sides and also going deeper. Some cuttings gathered from
earlier depths could tumble in the possum belly for hours before they flow out to shaker screens.

Fig. 3—Cuttings from the middle sample.

Fig. 4—Cuttings from the side samples.

Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate how the cuttings concentration changes depending on the sample’s location. More cuttings are gathered
toward the sides and from deeper samples. The question is where should the sample be taken from to be most representative of
the mud in the flowline? There are several designs of possum belly and some don’t have the issue with cuttings settling. A
survey need to be done prior to drilling to identify the best location for taking output samples.

Cuttings should not be taken from the shale shaker outlet. As seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the cuttings taken from the possum belly
are a more accurate representation of the mud than the cuttings taken from the end of the shaker, where the cuttings stick
together in large lumps on the screens. Depending on the sizes of the shaker screens, many of the cuttings’ PSD may pass
through, resulting in a loss of valuable data.

Fig. 5—Cuttings taken from the possum belly. Fig. 6—Cuttings taken from the end of the shaker.
4 SPE 165919

A common way of collecting cuttings samples is by using sieves (the same sieves used in sieve analysis). In Fig.7, the sieve is
left exposed to sun until the cuttings are dried.

Fig. 7—Cuttings sampled with an API 10 mesh sieve, 2,000 microns.

The benefit of using sieves is that they filter out cuttings that are outside the particle-size range of interest, such as particles
larger than 2,000 microns. A drawback of using sieves is that if too small of a sieve is used, it may be impossible to collect the
right dry cuttings from it. Fig. 8 demonstrates this problem with API 400 mesh size (cut point 37 microns). Viscous mud
cannot easily flow through the sieves, and what mud does make it through will stick together, making it impossible to gather a
representative dry particle sample.

Fig. 8—Fine cuttings and drilled solids on 400 mesh.

For these cases, sieves are useless for collecting samples (usually fine sands) and it is recommended to collect mud samples
from the possum belly and analyze the PSD.

Depending on cuttings lithology and the size range interested, the proper sieve size should be used to collect the cuttings
samples. Fig. 9 shows how, if the big-size sample is selected, almost all the sand cuttings will pass through a 2000 micron
sieve.

Fig. 9—Few cuttings gathered on the sieve after washing huge amounts of sand. 95% of the cuttings are definitely sand.
SPE 165919 5

When sieves are used to collect samples, additional information should be recorded and accounted for, including: bottoms-up
time (to estimate what depth cuttings are from), drilling parameters, mud properties and additives, estimated cuttings
concentration and sweeps.

Other factors determining the cutting size and shape are the bit type and cutting mechanism. Fig. 10 shows some of these
variations. Performance of the bit can be evaluated by analyzing the cuttings.

Fig. 10—Depending on cutting mechanism, cuttings will look different. (from Besson et al. 2000)

Fig. 11 shows samples gathered from the same formation using two different bit types.

Fig. 11—Polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) vs. tri-cone cuttings from the same lithology.

Drilling Fluids Particle Size Analysis:

One of the most important properties of drilling fluid to be aware of is PSD. Particles in the drilling fluid are usually clays,
barite and drilled solids (cuttings). Fig. 12 shows a typical distribution (laser diffraction measurement) of these three elements
(trimodal PSD).

Clays

Barite

Drill solids

Fig. 12—Drilling fluids PSD elements.

A drilling engineer should be aware of where different material fits within this graph and be able to interpret PSD data to
evaluate the efficiency of the solid control equipment and drilling performance (due to limitations of laser diffraction and
sampling location and preparation the graph doesn’t show cuttings larger than 200 microns). For example, if drilled solids are
6 SPE 165919

not removed from the fluid system, they are continuously broken down into finer solids; thereby, increasing the surface area of
the same initial volume of solids (increased plastic viscosity). When the increased number of particles and surface area as
solids are broken down, it also increases chemical treatment requirements to accomplish the same desired effects. Increased
plastic viscosity decreases the hole cleaning capability of drilling fluids. This reduces rate of penetration (ROP) and generates
finer cuttings. Increased PV also increases equivalent circulation density (ECD) and bit wear, requires more dilution to
maintain desired rheology and increases chemical consumption and base fluid additions. Real-time PSD analysis can help
prevent these problems.

PSD Measurement methods

Sieve analysis:
Measurement is done by passing the sample through a series of sieves while being agitated. The constant vibration makes the
cuttings go through the sieves until samples are distributed. Sample weight before and after each sieving determines the weight
percentage of cuttings in that size bracket. Sieve analysis is a two-dimensional (2D) measurement and is strongly influenced
by the width of the particle (Fig. 13).

Sieve Analysis

100

90

80

70

60

Percent finer
50

40

30

20

10

0
D50
10 100 1000 10000
Particle diameter, micron

Fig. 13—Sieve Analysis.

Laser Diffraction:
A laser beam is projected through a sample cell that contains a stream of moving particles suspended in a liquid. Light rays
that strike particles are scattered. The scattered light forms an angular pattern which is measured by photodetector arrays.
Data received from the photodetectors is processed by a computer, which generates a multichannel histogram. (Fig. 13)

Fig. 14—Laser Diffraction

Image analysis:
Individual particle images are captured from dispersed samples and analyzed to determine their particle size, shape and other
physical properties. In contrast to other sizing methods, image analysis allows multiple size and shape parameters to be
extracted from individual particles. 2D analysis measures length and width, whereas three-dimensional (3D) measures length,
width and thickness (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15—Image Analysis

Focused Beam Reflectance Measurement (FBRM):

A laser beam is projected through the sapphire window of the FBRM probe to detect particles suspended in a liquid medium.
SPE 165919 7

Chord length of the particles is measured (50,000 to 200,000 particles per second) and is transcribed into a PSD graph (Fig.
16).

Fig. 16—FBRM.

Ultrasonic Extinction (USE)

The ultrasound based particle size analyser is capable of performing on-line and in-line particle size distribution and solid
content measurement of drilling muds. USE applies sound waves instead of light and therefore overcomes the limitations of
optical instruments. USE operates in totally opaque media with concentrations up to 70%vol. Similar to laser diffraction; also
USE is a volume based method that allows for measuring the relative amount of material in cubic meters or kilograms. An
electrical high frequency generator is connected to a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer. The generated ultrasonic waves are
coupled into the suspension and interact with the suspended particles. After passing the measuring zone the ultrasonic waves
are received by an ultrasonic detector and converted into an electrical signal. The extinction of the ultrasonic waves is
calculated from the ratio of the signal amplitudes on the generator and detector side

Fig. 17— Ultrasonic Extinction

Table 1 summarizes different PSD measurement methods in a comparative manner.

Table 1—Five different methods of PSD measurement

Method Measurement Min size Max size PSD Lab or rig Recommended Advantage for Limitation for cuttings
method measuremen compatible for real-time? cuttings measurement
t frequency measurement
Sieve Off-line API 635 6730 μm 1 hour / test lab No No Upper size Lower size limitation
Analysis At-line ~ 20 μm* limitation** and lengthy
measurement
Laser Off-line 0.04 μm 2000 μm 10 min / test lab No Lab availability Upper size limitation
Diffraction At-line
Image On-line 20 μm 3000 μm 3 min lab & rig Yes Identify particle
Analysis At-line type
Off-line
FBRM In-line 1 μm 2000 μm 1 second lab & rig Yes Measurement Upper size limitation
frequency
Ultrasonic Off-Line 0.01 μm 3000 μm 30 seconds lab & rig Yes Volumetric
Extinction On-line solids
In-line concentration
*for wet samples the lower limit depends on fluid properties and chemical additives.
**lower and upper size limitations totally depend on overall objective of cuttings evaluation and size interval of interest.

Cuttings and ECD

Cuttings concentration can vary depending on ROP and flow rate, in addition to well inclination, PSD, and shape factor (Al-
Kayiem et al. 2010). An increase in ROP or reduction in flow rate leads to increased cuttings concentration, causing ECD to
increase (Xiang et al. 2012). The relationship between flow rate and ECD can be elusive at times, depending on how the
change in flow rate affects ROP. While drilling with large casing, it has been observed that increasing flow rate could result in
decreased ECD if cutting concentration in the annulus is decreased significantly. In that case eccentricity of the casing string
8 SPE 165919

can affect the ECD as well (Dokhani et al. 2013, Mokhtari et al. 2012). Due to this eccentricity casing contact with wellbore
can grind down the cuttings lowering the PSD, triggering the plastering effect (Salehi et al. 2013).

It has also been observed that as the volume of low-gravity solids begins to increase from the introduction of drilled solids, the
fluid’s gel strength will begin to rise (also PV, as mentioned before). As gel strengths begin to increase, more force is required
to initiate fluid flow than previously required because of the need to break the gel bonds formed. The increase in force required
to initiate fluid flow is directly correlated with brief increases in ECDs.

Coriolis flow meter:

Another tool that has gained popularity for flow/density measurements is the Coriolis flow meter (Fig. 18). It measures the
mass per unit time (e.g., lbs/sec) flowing through the device. The working principle is based on the vibrations resulting from
the flow in the tube, which is proportional to the mass flow rate passing through the tube.

Fig. 18—Coriolis flow meter. Photo courtesy of Emerson.

Coriolis flow meter was first introduced to drilling for MPD operations. Soon, other benefits were realized, including:
(Norman, 2012)

• Hole-cleaning efficiency
• Quantifying sweep effectiveness
• Monitoring the circulating bottoms up
• Monitoring environmental compliance
• Formation fluid losses
• Enhanced kick detection
• Ballooning
• Pump efficiency

The amount of cuttings traveling upwards in the annulus also affects drilling and hole-cleaning performance due to a
phenomenon referred to as “hydraulic lift.” Cuttings exert drag force on the pipe surface as they travel upwards. If there is a
significant amount of cuttings in the annulus or larger pipe is used to drill the resultant, drag force can be noteworthy. This
phenomenon has been first observed in casing-while-drilling (CwD) operations. When a simple pump off/on test is performed,
the difference in hook load shows the amount of hydraulic lift. This value needs to be considered in the desired weight on bit
(WOB) while drilling since the hydraulic lift reduces the effective weight transferred to the bit. A sudden increase in the
amount of hydraulic lift can denote pack off in the annulus or warn about wellbore-cleaning inefficiency. If measures are not
taken to clean the hole, excessive hydraulic lift can lead to lost circulation.

Cuttings and lost circulation

It is common practice to add lost circulation material (LCM) to the mud to prevent losing fluid to the formation. This happens
by creating a strong impermeable mudcake on the wellbore wall. The question becomes can cuttings help creating a better mud
cake? Several tests were performed by adding cuttings of different lithology and size (sand and shale cuttings, 200-500 µm) to
drilling fluid performing filtration tests, and it was noticed that cuttings can help reduce filtration (for losses into pore throat,
not fractures, vugs and caverns). A scanning electron microscope (SEM) also verified the presence of cuttings in the mudcake.
SPE 165919 9

Fig. 19 shows the PSD and mudcake formed with adding shale cuttings to drilling fluid. The SEM picture of the filtercake
shows the imbedded cuttings.

Fig. 19—Scanning electron microscope picture of filter cake with 3% bentonite and shale cuttings of 200-500 μm. (From Kelessidis et al. 2012)

Fig. 20 shows the same for sand cuttings.

Fig. 20—Scanning electron microscope picture of filter cake of 3% bentonite and sandstone 200-500 μm. (From Kelessidis et al. 2012)

Authors (Kelessidis et al. 2012) also report lower filtration rate for both sand and shale cuttings in comparison to a base fluid
filtration test. Results from a similar pore plugging test (PPT) show cuttings can help decrease fluid loss. In one set of
experiments three different-sized cuttings were added to mud and PPT was performed using a 20 micron pore-throat size
alloxite disk (Karimi et al. 2011). Results can be seen in Fig 21. (D50 amounts reported for cuttings are from the PSD tests on
drilling fluid after the cuttings has been added.)

Fine-sized cuttings (D50=12 μm) Medium-sized cuttings (D50=21 μm) Coarse-sized cutting (D50=28) μm)

Fig. 21—PPT value comparison for mud sample.

10 SPE 165919

These PPT results show that the medium cutting mud with the D50 value of 21 microns has the ability to seal the pore throat
diameter of the 20 micron disk better than the other PSD cuttings. Moreover, based on the results of the PPT, if the PSD of the
drill cuttings is in proper range, they can actually be used as lost circulation material to plug the porous interface between the
wellbore and the formation.

Cavings and wellbore instability

Cavings can be a sign of wellbore instability in case of an enlarged wellbore or wellbore collapse or due to drilling through
pebble zones. Cavings shape can help understand the cause; usually the shape could be tabular, angular or splintered. Cavings
interpretation is not always easy, multiple failure modes could coexists under different circumstances and cavings shape could
change due to grinding as they travel up the annulus. Table below summarizes three common types of cavings, their causes
and solutions:

Caving Type Shape Description Cause Solution

Tabular Flat and parallel surfaces Rubble zones, brittle rock Adjust mud weight, change mud
type, reduce surge and swab

Angular Non-parallel angular edges, rough Borehole break-out, shear failure Increase mud weight and flow rate
surface structure

Splintered Long, concave shape Enlarged wellbore, tensile Increase mud weight, change
failure, stress in massive shales trajectory

Due to large size of cavings current real-time PSD measurement systems can’t be used and frequent visual inspection needs to
be done while drilling through zones prone to wellbore instability. However, data provided by PSD analyzer and Coriolis flow
meter can be used to identify cuttings vs. cavings. Shape is not the only useful information about cavings, especially for areas
where wellbore instability is expected ahead of time. In that case cavings volume, transport and bridging analysis can be done
as described previously in the literature (Chien 1994 and Wilson 2012).

Conclusions and Recommendations

- Cuttings should be continually observed while drilling. Changes in cuttings properties can be correlated to drilling
efficiency and provide input for optimizing the solid control equipment.
- Real-time PSD monitoring systems can be used to automate the cutting evaluation.
- Coriolis flow meters can be used to detect slight changes in flow and density that could be due to cuttings
accumulation.
- Cuttings of the right size and distribution can help with lost circulation.
- Shale shakers should be continuously monitored while drilling through wellbore instability zones for any signs of
cavings and proper action should be taken based on cavings shape and characteristics.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Weatherford for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks go to the following
companies: Synergy Fluid Services, Canty, RGS scientific, Mettler Toledo, MudSizer, Emerson and Malvern.

References

Al-Kayiem, H.H., Zaki, N.M., Asyraf M.Z., Elfeel, M.E., “Simulation of the Cuttings Cleaning During the Drilling Operation”
American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2010.

Besson A., Burr, B., Dillard, S., Drake E., Ivie B., Ivie C., Smith R., Watson G., “On the cutting edge” oilfield review, Fall
2000.

Chien, S.F.: “Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shaped Particles”, SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1994.

Dokhani, V., Shahri, M. P., Karimi, M., Salehi, S. “Evaluation of Annular Pressure Losses while Casing Drilling” SPE
166103, SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, 30 September – 2 October, New Orleans, LA, 2013.

Karimi M., Ghalambor A., Montgomery M., Moellendick E., “Formation Damage and Fluid Loss Reduction due to Plastering
Effect of Casing Drilling” Paper SPE 143656 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conferenceheld in Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, 7–10 June 2011.
SPE 165919 11

Kelessidis V.C., Chatzistamou, V., Repouskou, E., Zografou , M., Karimi, M. “Use of PHPA Polymer for Modification of
Rheological and Filtration Properties of Water Based Drilling Fluids Used for Conventional and Casing Drilling” Paper
presented at the 23rd Oil-Gas AGH 2012 Conference, Krakow Poland, May 29-31, 2012.

Mokhtari M., Ermila M.,Tutuncu A.N., Karimi M.,” Computational Modeling of Drilling Fluids Dynamics in Casing Drilling”
Paper SPE 161301 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, 3–5 October 2012.

Norman J., “Coriolis sensors open lines to real-time data” Drilling Contractor, December, 2012.

Salehi, S., Karimi, M., Shahri, M. P., Aladsani, A., Ezeakacha, C. “All in One for Casing while Drilling Technology:
Numerical, Analytical, and Experimental Results and Field Observations” Paper SPE 166112 to be presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, 30 September – 2 October, New Orleans, LA, 2013.

Williams R. D., Ewing S. P. .Jr.,” Improved Methods for Sampling Gas and Drill Cuttings” Paper SPE 16759-PA, SPE
Formation Evaluation, June 1989.

Wilson, S.M. “A Wellbore Stability Approach for Self-Killing Blowout Assessment” Paper SPE 156330, presented at SPE
Deepwater Drilling and Completion Conference held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 20-21 June 2012.

Xiang, Y., Liu G., “Impact of Cuttings Concentration on ECD during Drilling” Paper AADE-12-FTCE-7, presented at AADE
Fluids Technical Conference and Exhibition held at the Hilton Houston North Hotel, Houston, Texas, April10-11, 2012.