SPE-170576-MS

Laboratory Evaluation of Sealing Wide Fractures Using Conventional Lost

Circulation Materials
Mortadha Alsaba and Runar Nygaard, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Arild Saasen, Det Norske
Oljeselskap ASA and University of Stavanger; Olav-Magnar Nes, Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2729 October 2014.
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
Preventing or mitigating fluid losses caused by the presence of natural fractures is a major challenge faced
by operators when drilling exploratory wells in the Barents Sea. Natural fractures widths vary significantly
which makes it difficult to design treatments using conventional lost circulation materials (LCMs).
Different solutions have been used to overcome this problem, such as chemical sealants, hydratable
LCMs pills, rigid-plugs and cement. This study intends to expand the usage of conventional LCMs in
sealing wide fractures.
Experimental evaluation of LCMs is a crucial step prior to field application. Currently, particle
plugging apparatus is often used to evaluate LCMs performance using straight slots or tapered slots by
applying a constant pressure and measuring the fluid loss. However, fluid loss values are not a good
measure of the formed seal integrity. Therefore, another means of evaluating LCMs performances is
required. In this work LCM sealing efficiency was defined as the seal/bridge maximum breakdown
pressure. The tests were conducted on a fit-for-purpose apparatus designed to evaluate the performance
of LCMs by measuring the sealing efficiency under high pressures (10,000 psi) and temperatures.
This paper presents an extensive laboratory evaluation to investigate the feasibility of sealing wide
fractures using conventional LCMs. The ability of different LCMs in sealing fractures was evaluated
using a set of tapered slot sizes up to 2000 microns fracture width. Four different types of conventional
LCM with 13 different particle sizes (D50) and one new foam wedge based LCM were investigated. A
total of 200 tests were run to investigate the effect of different parameters on the overall performance of
both conventional and unconventional LCM. These parameters include LCMs type, concentration,
tapered slot size, particle size distribution (PSD), temperature, and injection rate. Ground walnut shell
showed a superior performance in sealing large fractures (sealing pressure up to 2200 psi) when used as
a concentrated pill. Microscopic studies revealed that this performance is due to the ability of these
materials to deform and plug fractures under elevated pressure. However, selecting the right LCM
concentration is critical to avoid screen out at the fracture openings. Unconventional LCM used in this
study was able to seal fractures up to 5 mm where conventional LCM failed to seal. Laboratory procedures
to evaluate high fluid loss squeezes by means of hesitation squeeze were developed and recommended
injection rates were determined.

SPE-170576-MS

This research highlights the different factors affecting LCM sealing efficiency and seal integrity. A full
understanding of the factors contributing to successful treatments for sealing fractures is very important.
Appropriate laboratory evaluation of LCM treatments is an important step prior to field application. The
authors believe that a better understanding of these factors will improve the way LCM treatments are
designed.

Introduction
Drilling fluid losses into the formation is one of the most challenging problems to avoid or mitigate while
drilling. The related consequences such losing the costly drilling fluid, non-productive time (NPT), losing
the wellbore, and in some cases blowouts are worse than the losses itself. In a recently conducted SPE
workshop on lost circulation (Dubai, UAE 2014), the amount of drilling fluids lost were estimated to be
approximately 1.8 million bbls per year. This huge number demonstrates the operational challenges faced
in the drilling industry.
Lost circulations are often caused by natural fractures or induced fractures. Mitigating natural fractures
requires the knowledge of fractures size in order to design the appropriate treatment and it is difficult to
determine the size of fractures. However, induced fractures can be avoided and mitigated by means of
equivalent circulation density (ECD) management or wellbore strengthening.
Conventional LCM treatments are often used to mitigate seepage or partial losses; however, there is no
industry common approach to dealing with severe losses. Different solutions to prevent/mitigate severe
losses have been introduced in the literature and can be categorized in two main categories; LCM solutions
and mechanical solutions. LCM solutions include but are not limited to concentrated LCM pills, cement
(Messenger and McNiel, 1952; Messenger, 1981; Morita and Fuh, 1990; Fidan et al. 2004;), chemically
activated cross-linked pills (CACP) (Bruton et al. 2001; Caughron et al. 2002), cross-linked cement (Mata
and Veiga, 2004), deformable-viscous-cohesive systems (DVC) (Whitfill and Wang, 2005; Wang et al.
2005; Wang et al. 2008), nano-composite gel (Lecolier et al. 2005), gunk squeezes (Bruton et al. 2001;
Collins et al. 2010), and concentrated sand slurries (Saasen et al. 2004; Saasen et al. 2011).
Mechanical solutions include expandable liners (Filippov et al. 1999; Lohoefer et al. 2000; Perez-Roca
et al. 2003; Abouelnaaj et al. 2013), and casing/liner drilling (Shepard et al. 2002; Warren et al. 2004;
Karimi et al. 2011). The mechanical solutions often come at the end of the solution list due to the high
cost associated with them as well as the required logistics limitation. Therefore, LCM solutions are often
applied first. Even though some of these LCM treatments were successful, the underlying mechanisms are
not well understood. As a result, what worked for one case might not work for other cases.
When evaluating the performance of LCM treatments, the results are often evaluated based on the fluid
loss volume. Particle plugging apparatus (PPA) and High-Pressure-High-Temperature (HPHT) fluid loss
in conjunction with slotted/tapered discs or ceramic discs are often used to measure the fluid loss volume
of LCM treatments (Whitfill, 2008; Kumar et al. 2011; Kumar and Savari, 2011). These two tests might
give a good indication of how much of the drilling fluid might be lost into the formation. However, the
formed seal integrity, defined as the maximum pressure at which the formed seal breaks and fluid loss
resumes, is not measured.
Due to the importance of laboratory evaluation prior to field application, several testing equipment
were developed recently. Hettema et al. 2007 introduced a high pressure testing apparatus to evaluate
LCM treatments for fractured permeable formations in order to investigate the effect of leak-off through
permeable fractured formations on the sealing properties. Fracture sealing was found to be highly
dependent on both particle size distribution and concentration. In addition, it was concluded that the fluid
loss parameter does not represent the sealing efficiency of LCM treatments. Similar testing apparatus that
simulates fractures in impermeable formations where the fracture faces were simulated by an opposed
piston that uses two matched uneven aluminum platens was presented by Sanders et al. 2008. The main
objective of this apparatus was to understand the mechanism of fracture sealing in impermeable fractured

SPE-170576-MS

formations. Proper PSD was found to be a critical parameter for fracture sealing. It was also concluded
that higher LCM concentration of larger particle sizes will improve the sealing capabilities.
In general, PSD is often used as the designing parameter for LCM treatments based on different models
such as Abrams median particle-size rule (Abrams, 1977), ideal packing theory (IPT) (Andreasen and
Anderson, 1930), and Vickers method (Vickers et al. 2006). Kumar et al. (2010) evaluated other LCM
properties apart from PSD, such as crushing resistance, resiliency, and aspect ratio. PPA in conjunction
with both constant area and tapered slots was later used to evaluate the effect of these properties on the
overall performance of LCM treatments in terms of fluid loss (Kumar and Savari, 2011). It was concluded
that higher crushing resistance and resiliency are desirable for both controlling fluid losses and wellbore
strengthening applications.
Savari et al. 2014 introduced the maximum pressure at which an LCM plug inside the tapered slot
would hold before further fluid loss was resumed. PPA was used in conjunction with one tapered slot
(2.5mm opening and tapers down to 1.0mm) to measure the pressure. However, this work had some
limitations. The highest pressure measured was 2100 psi, which was the equipment limitation. Only one
tapered disc was used throughout this work and therefore, the fracture width effect was not investigated.
Only LCM combinations were evaluated, i.e. the performance of individual LCM was not investigated.
In this paper, comprehensive laboratory evaluation of conventional LCM in terms of the seal integrity
was carried out. LCM performance was evaluated when used individually or in combination. The effect
of fracture width on the seal integrity was studied by using a set of different tapered slots. The effect of
increasing the total LCM concentration was also investigated. The effect of temperature on LCM
performance was also investigated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and optical microscopy were
used to look at both LCM particles and the formed seal within the tapered slots. In addition, unconventional LCM system was evaluated using fracture width up to 5mm. Laboratory simulation of hesitation
squeeze techniques was developed and used to evaluate the performance of high fluid loss pills.

Experimental Methodology
LCM treatment design is complex due to the different factors contributing toward the overall performance
of these treatments. These parameters include LCM type, concentration, particle size distribution (PSD),
and fracture width. Laboratory testing of the designed treatments is often performed prior to field
application to ensure their ability in curing fluid losses. The laboratory evaluation should answer the
following questions; what should be the total LCM concentration? What are the recommended LCMs?
Is the PSD optimized enough to seal a specific fracture width? How long it will take to stop the losses?
How much fluid will be lost into the formation before the fracture is completely sealed? How good is the
formed seal? Or in other words, what is the seal integrity?. The seal integrity is defined here as the
maximum pressure at which the formed seal breaks and fluid loss resumes.
40 different blends were screened previously (Alsab et al. 2014) using the low pressure apparatus (Fig.
1a). Based on the screening results reported in previous work, 12 blends were selected for further
evaluation using the high-pressure LCM testing apparatus (Fig. 1b).
The high pressure apparatus introduced previously (Alsaba, et al. 2014), was improved to be capable
of running tests at high temperatures by attaching insulated heating blankets that can heat up the system
up to 300 F. The experimental setup consists now of 4 main components labeled on Fig. 1b; (I) a plastic
accumulator used to transfer the drilling fluids to the metal accumulator, (II) a metal accumulator used
to inject the drilling fluids into the cell, (III) testing cell that is capable of holding pressures up to 10,000
psi and can be heated up to 300 F using the attached heating blanket, and (IV) Isco pump (DX100)
used for fluid injection and is connected to a computer for data logging.
A set of manufactured tapered discs (Fig. 2a) that simulates fractures was used in both the screening
and high-pressure evaluation of conventional LCM. In addition, two commercially available slotted

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 1(a) Low Pressure LCM Testing Apparatus (LPA), (b) High Pressure LCM Testing Apparatus (HPA)

Figure 2(a) Manufactured tapered discs, (b) 3mm Straight slot, (c) 5mm Straight slot
Table 1Tapered and Straight Slot Discs Specifications
Disc

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Fracture Aperture (mm)

Fracture Tip (mm)

TS1
TS2
TS3
TS4
SS1
SS2

63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5

6.35
6.35
6.35
6.35
6.35
25.4

2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
5.0

1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
5.0

(Fig.s. 2b and 2c) discs were used to evaluate the performance of unconventional LCM at high pressure.
Tapered and straight slot specifications are shown in Table 1.
The LPA fluid loss results for the 12 blends using different tapered discs as well as the formulations
of these blends are shown in Table 2. The LPA fluid loss values were used in constructing the high
pressure testing matrix. In other words, the blends that failed to seal a specific fracture width and resulted
in non-controlled (NC) fluid loss that is more than 100 ml were not tested at high pressure using that
specific fracture width. The failure of these blends is because the largest particle size is less than the
fracture width. The D50 values of the used LCM are also presented in the table below.
Conventional LCM Testing
The test is run by injecting fluids containing LCMs at a flow rate of 25 ml/min until a rapid increase in
the injection pressure is observed. This increase indicates the seal formation. Once the seal has formed,
a fluid containing no LCMs is injected continuously until the maximum sealing efficiency is reached. A
significant drop in the pressure is observed as a result of breaking the seal. However, the test is repeated

SPE-170576-MS

Table 2Selected LCMs Treatment Formulations for Seal Integrity Evaluation using HPA

as cycles until no further seal can be formed. For

tests at high temperature, fluids containing LCM
were poured into the high pressure cell and were
heated up to 180 F before running the test. After
running the tests, the formed seals were removed
from the tapered discs for further evaluations using
optical microscopy and scanning electron images
Figure 3Wedge Foam of Three Sizes (Wang, 2011)
(SEM).
Unconventional LCM Testing
Wedge foam based system was used here as an unconventional LCM. This system is used to address
uncertainties in fracture size and shape (Wang 2011). This system consists of two main components: foam
wedges that are highly deformable (Fig. 3) and micron-sized particles. This characteristic allows the foam
wedges to be compressed and forced into openings of different sizes and shapes. Once the openings are
filled with the foam, they will form a highly permeable filtration bridge for the second component. The
second component consists of high fluid loss fine particles that will form a solid plug on the filtration
bridge.
To evaluate unconventional LCM, hesitation squeeze techniques were used. The main objective of
these techniques is to ensure placing those LCM in the fracture and forming the seal within the fracture.
Continuous cycles of injection followed by shut off time using the Isco pump were applied during the
test to simulate the hesitation squeeze. Continuous injection with no shut off period will allow the foam
wedges to pass through the fractures before forming a seal. Once the injection stops, the remaining
pressure in the system will push the fluid into the fracture but at a reduced pressure. Different injection
rates were used to determine the optimum injection rate that would form the seal.
The testing procedures can be summarized into three main steps; seal initiation, plug development, and
plug integrity evaluation. The seal is initiated by injecting fluid at a constant flow rate for 40 seconds and
then stopping injection for 60 seconds. The step is repeated until pressure starts to increase. This process
is continued to develop the plug until significant pressure increase up to 100 psi is observed. Finally, the
plug is further developed and its integrity is tested by injecting fluid until the pressure goes up to 500 psi
and then injection stops for 60 seconds. This step is repeated and pressure is increased by 500 psi each
time until the seal breaks.

SPE-170576-MS

Table 3Summary of LPA and HPA Testing Results for the Selected Conventional LCM Blends

Seal Integrity Evaluation

A total of 34 tests were performed to evaluate the integrity of the seal formed using conventional LCM.
The maximum sealing pressure and total fluid loss were measured and the average fluid loss per cycle
value was calculated for conventional LCM tests in order to compare it with the fluid loss values obtained
under low pressure.
Conventional LCM Results
The results are tabulated in Table 3. For a better understanding of the results, pressure (P) versus time (t)
plots were constructed and grouped in a way to visualize the effects of both increasing the fracture width
and LCM concentration. A bold dashed line representing the maximum sealing pressure observed for base
case (1 mm tapered disc) was used as a reference to compare the other cases (dotted line).
Fig. 4 shows the maximum sealing pressure for nut shells blends when tested at different fracture width
and two different concentrations; 15 ppb (Fig. 4a) and 50 ppb (Fig. 4b). A 78% increase in the sealing
pressure for 15 ppb nut shell blend was observed when the fracture width was increased from 1mm to
1.5mm (Fig. 4a). However, when the concentration was increased to 50 ppb, the sealing pressure was
relatively similar for tests using TS1, TS2, and TS3 (Fig. 4b). When TS4 was used, the sealing pressure
using both 15 ppb and 50 ppb nut shells dropped significantly by 55% and 66% respectively.
Based on the low pressure apparatus results that served as a screening stage, graphite blends were only
tested using 1.0mm tapered discs at both low and high concentrations. Sized calcium carbonate blends
evaluation included both 1.0 and 1.5mm tapered discs at high concentration only. Fig. 5a shows that
increasing graphite concentration increased the sealing pressure by only 8%, however, it is obvious that
the fracture was sealed much faster at higher graphite concentration. Fig. 5b shows a significant drop of
72% in the sealing pressure when the fracture width was increased by 50% from 1.0mm to 1.5mm.
Pressure versus time plots for cellulosic fiber blends are shown in Fig. 6. An increase of 170% in the
sealing pressure was observed (Fig. 6a) as the concentration increased by approximately 233% from 15
to 50 ppb. A 43% drop in the sealing pressure was observed as the fracture width increased by 50% from
1.0 to 1.5mm Fig. 6b.
For LCM combinations of graphite and nut shells (Fig. 7a), the maximum sealing pressure improved
by 22% as the total concentration was increased from 20 to 40 ppb. When the fracture width increased
by 50%, a significant drop of 66% was observed for the lower concentration of graphite and nut shells

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 4 HPA Pressure vs. Time Plot for nut shells (a) 15 ppb and (b) 50 ppb showing Max. sealing pressure at different fracture widths

Figure 5HPA Pressure vs. Time plots for (a) Graphite and (b) CaCO3 showing Max. sealing pressure at different fracture widths

blend. However, a 40.7% reduction in the sealing pressure was observed for the higher concentration (40
ppb) when the fracture width was increased from 1.0 to 1.5mm. When the concentration increased from
20 to 40 ppb for 1.5mm tapered disc, the sealing pressure increased from 805 to 1713 psi (113%). It can
be concluded that the amount of increase in the sealing pressure due to increasing the concentration is
more significant for wider fractures. For graphite and sized calcium carbonate (Fig. 7b), moderate
increase from 487 to 584 psi (20%) in the maximum sealing pressure for 1.0mm tapered disc was observed
as the concentration increased from 30 to 80 ppb. When the fracture width was increased from the base
case TS1 to TS2, the maximum sealing pressure was reduced by 61.6% for 80 ppb graphite and sized
calcium carbonate.
Fig. 8a shows the effect of fracture aperture on the maximum sealing pressure for 40 ppb graphite and
nut shells blend. Increasing the fracture aperture from 4.0 to 5.0 mm (25%) reduced the sealing pressure

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 6 HPA Pressure vs. Time plots showing Max. sealing pressure for cellulosic fiber at different (a) concentration, (b) fracture widths

Figure 7HPA Pressure vs. Time plots for showing Max. sealing pressure (a) graphite and nut shell, (b) graphite and calcium carbonate

by only 18%, hence the effect is insignificant. Graphite, calcium carbonate and cellulosic fiber blend (Fig.
8b) exhibited almost the same percentage of reduction in the sealing pressure for graphite and calcium
carbonate (Fig. 7b) as the fracture width was increased from 1.0 to 1.5mm.
Results Repeatability
To ensure the repeatability of the results, 40 ppb nut shells tests were repeated for TS1, TS2, and TS3
(Fig.9a). In addition, 50 ppb cellulosic fiber test using TS1 was repeated as shown in Fig. 9b. Nut shells
gave comparable results with insignificant variation of 8% for TS1, 12% for TS2, and 0.2% for TS1. For
cellulosic fiber repeated test gave higher sealing pressure (2925 psi) compared to the first test (2160 psi)
with a variation of 35%.

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 8 HPA Pressure vs. Time plots showing Max. sealing pressure for (a) graphite and nut shells, (b) graphite, calcium carbonate, and cellulosic
fiber

Figure 9 Repeated tests for (a) nut shells blends and (b) cellulosic fiber

Temperature Effect
It is known that the temperature will affect the rheological properties of the drilling mud carrying these
LCM. However, there is no understanding of how the temperature might affect LCM properties. The
effect of temperature on the performance of different LCMs was investigated by repeating some tests at
higher temperature (180 F).
For graphite and calcium carbonate blends, the sealing pressure dropped slightly from 584 to 537 psi
(8%) as shown in Fig. 10a. This insignificant change is thought to be due to the thermal stability of both
graphite and calcium carbonate. When 40 ppb graphite and nut shells blend was tested at higher
temperature, the maximum sealing pressure dropped by 30.5% from 1713 to 1190 psi (Fig. 10b). This
drop is believed to be as a result of the graphite lubricity. When the total LCM concentration of graphite

10

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 10 Effect of temperature on (a) 80 ppb graphite and CaCO3 using TS1, (b) 40 ppb graphite and nut shells using TS2

Figure 11Effect of temperature on (a) 20 ppb graphite and nut shells using TS2, (b) 50 ppb nut shells using TS4

and nut shells blend was reduced by 50%, the sealing pressure was only reduced by 11% as shown in Fig.
11a. When nut shells blend was tested at higher temperature using 2mm tapered disc, the sealing pressure
was significantly increased by 54% as shown in Fig. 11. The increase in pressure is believed to be due
to the swelling of nut shell particles.
Based on these tests, temperature is another factor that affects the performance of LCM. The effect
could be either favorable as observed with individual nut shells blend or unfavorable as witnessed with
graphite and nut shells blend. However, the effect might be insignificant when LCM with high thermal
stability such as graphite and sized calcium carbonate are used. Repeating the selected test at higher
temperature also validated the repeatability of the testing results.

SPE-170576-MS

11

Figure 12Comparison between fluid loss values from the LPA and the calculated average fluid loss per cycle from the HPA
Table 4 HPA results for foam wedges based system

Test #

Fracture
Width
(mm)

Injection Rate
Prior to
Pressure
Increase
(ml/min)

Injection Rate
After
Pressure
Increase
(ml/min)

Time at
Pressure
Increase
(min)

28
29
30
31
32

1.5 (TS2)
2.0 (TS3)
2.0 (TS4)
3.0 (SS1)
5.0 (SS2)

5
5
10
25
5

10
5
25
25
25

65
70
20
20
55

Max. Sealing
Pressure
Psi

MPa

Total
Fluid
Loss (ml)

2571
764
101
340
1077

17.7
5.3
0.7
2.3
7.4

180
183
196
190
187

LPA Fluid Loss vs. Average Fluid Loss per Cycle

The fluid loss per cycle values from HPA tests showed a strong correlation with fluid loss values from
LPA tests as shown in Fig. 12 below. The cycle here is defined as any drop of the pressure that is equal
or greater than 100 psi. Some fluid losses per cycle values were significantly higher than the LPA values.
This is due to the continuous injection of drilling fluid through a permeable seal that was not sealed well.
The high seal permeability is due to larger LCM particles screening out at the fracture surface. This
comparison also highlights the effect of higher LCM concentrations on the fluid loss.
Unconventional LCM Results
This system was evaluated by applying hesitation squeeze techniques. The injection rate for evaluating
this system using hesitation squeeze procedures was established first. This system was injected continuously at different injection rates prior to pressure increase observed to determine the injection rate that
would result in high seal integrity. This unconventional system tested contains small pieces of wedge
foam. While conventional LCM werent able to seal fractures wider than 2.0mm, this unconventional
system was able to seal fracture widths up to 5.0mm. If medium and larger pieces of wedge foam are also
added in, it is anticipated that this unconventional system is able to seal much wider fractures. The resulted
maximum sealing pressures at different injection conditions are tabulated in Table 4.
It is understood that the seal is formed by filtration, which requires time. A slower process is beneficial
for initiating a seal. Otherwise, a just initiated seal can be broken over before the seal becomes strong
enough by the injection pressure quickly ramping up. It was observed that injection rates of higher than
5 ml/min resulted in low seal integrity (Test # 30 and 31). Tests with injection rate of 5 ml/min showed
higher seal integrity (Test # 28, 29, and 32). Therefore, an injection rate of 5 ml/min is recommended for

12

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 13HPA Pressure vs. Time plots showing the maximum sealing pressure for foam wedges based system using different fracture widths; (a)
TS2, (b) TS3, (c) TS4, and (d) SS2

Figure 14 Side view of the formed plug using SS2

Figure 15Top view of formed plug using 5.0mm SS2

the tests. This is consistent with the old oilfield saying: Time is your friend when curing lost circulation.
The effect of the injection rate after initiating a good seal was not significant. There is only a certain
amount of liquid that can be squeezed out of the slurry for each test. Higher fluid loss values or effluent
volumes mean that there are more solids going through the slotted disk since the solids can go through
the disk only before the seal forms. The fluid loss values indicate that, in Test 28, 29, 32 with low injection
rates, the seal started to form earlier with relatively smaller effluent volumes. However, in Test 30 and 31,

SPE-170576-MS

13

Figure 17TS4 Nut shells (From the back)

Figure 16 Top view of the formed plug using 3.0mm SS1

Figure 18 TS1 Graphite & Nut shells (From the back)

Figure 20 CaCO3 @ 40x (D50 400 microns)

Figure 19 Graphite @ 20x (D50 400 microns)

Figure 21Nut shells @ 40x (D50 620 microns)

with higher injection rates, the seal started to form later with relatively larger effluent volumes allowing
much more solids going through the disk as slurry. Further testing using the recommended injection rates
is required to ensure the repeatability of the results.
Fig. 13 shows pressure versus time plots for different tests at different fracture widths and injection rates.
On one hand, tests with initial injection rate of 5 ml/min shows a stable growth in the seal strength (Fig.s. 13a
(Test 28), 13b (Test 29), and 13d (Test 32)). So it is important to ensure a strong seal has been initialized. On
the other hand, Fig. 13c (Test 30) shows unstable growth of the seal strength, which resulted in relatively low
sealing pressure due to the high injection rate. At a high rate, there is not enough time for the initialized seal
to become strong enough before the seal is broken over by further pumping-in fluid. Placing this system at high
injection rate allowed the foam wedges to pass through the fracture opening due to their high deformability.
This property can also be used to pump the slurry at a high rate through bottomhole assembly without plugging.
However, after the slurry has been pumped into fractures, a slow pumping or even shut-down period is
necessary to allow a good seal being initiated and developed inside the fracture. Since fractures widths are
unknown, an appropriate pump rate can hardly be well defined either. It is obvious that pump shut-down is
preferred to initialize the seal. A dashed line was used to show the time at which the seal was formed. Fig.s.
14 - 16 below shows the resulting solid plugs at different fracture widths.

14

SPE-170576-MS

Figure 22Cellulosic Fiber @ 20x (D50 1060 micron)

Figure 23Formed Seal of Graphite & Nut shells in HPA @ 20x

Figure 24 Formed Seal of Graphite, CaCO3, and Cellulosic Fiber in

HPA @ 40x

Figure 25SEM Image of Nut shells Seal (x30)

Figure 26 SEM Image of Graphite and CaCO3 Seal (x300)

Figure 27SEM Image of Graphite, CaCO3, and Cellulosic Fiber Seal

(x35)

LCM and Seal Characterization

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) and optical microscopic images were taken for both LCM particles
before and after forming the seal within the fractures. Microscopic images were used to take a closer look
at the particles surface, the formed seal, and how tight is the formed seal. The main objective of this step
is to investigate how LCM physical properties such as shape and roughness contribute to the seal integrity
as well as the structure of the formed seal under high pressure.
After running HPA tests and while cleaning the tapered discs, it was hard to remove the formed seals
when nut shells were used because the particles were stuck at the tip (Fig. 17 and 18). This indicates the
degree of deformability and strength of nut shell particles which resulted in higher sealing integrity.
The formed seal samples were prepared by removing the seal gently from the tapered discs after
running the test. After that, the seals were left to dry and solidify in order to be able to look at them using
the SEM. For LCM particles, it was observed that both graphite and sized calcium carbonates (Fig. 19 and
20) have relatively smoother surfaces compared to nut shells and cellulosic fiber (Fig. 21 and 22). The

SPE-170576-MS

15

smoother surface is believed to have contributed toward the low seal integrity values obtained from HPA
for these materials.
Fibrous materials showed a wide variance in the particle sizes and rough surfaces, these favorable
properties explain the superior performance of fibrous materials. It is believed that LCM with rough
surfaces will maintain higher sealing pressures due to the higher friction. The formed seal microscopic
images (Fig. 23 and 24) show how small particles contributed to sealing voids within the formed seal
itself.
Fig.s 25-27 shows images taken using SEM. The dark area represents the void spaces within the formed
seal sample. On one hand, we can see that nut shell particles (Fig. 25) formed a very tight seal due to the
presence of a wide PSD within the blends and thus higher seal integrity. On the other hand, graphite and
calcium carbonate formed seal (Fig. 26) exhibited more void spaces compared to nut shells. This was
translated into lower seal integrities for graphite and calcium carbonate blends. Fig. 27 shows the formed
seal using graphite, calcium carbonate, and cellulosic fiber with less void spaces than Fig. 26 due to the
presence of cellulosic fiber which has wider PSD.

Conclusion
A total of 160 tests were conducted to optimize conventional LCM combinations

and concentration in addition to 30 tests to evaluate the integrity of the seal formed
under elevated pressures and temperatures using both the low and high pressure
apparatuses that were developed in house.
Laboratory procedures to evaluate high fluid loss squeezes by means of hesitation
squeeze were developed and recommended injection rates were determined.
Injection rate used was found to affect the sealing pressure significantly. Pump
shut-down is recommended after injection into fractures.
Unconventional LCM used in this study was able to seal fractures up to 5 mm where
conventional LCM failed to seal.
The calculated fluid loss per cycle from the HPA for conventional LCM is
comparable with the observed LPA fluid loss.
A 54% increase in the sealing efficiency was observed when nut shells were used
individually at high temperature; the increase in the nut shells sealing efficiency at
higher temperatures can be explained due to the swelling of nut shell particles.
Even though nut shells performance was improved at higher temperatures, blends of
graphite and nut shells were negatively affected and the sealing efficiency decreased
significantly; this decrease can be explained due to the friction reduction caused by
graphite particles.
The temperature didnt have any effect on graphite and CaCO3 blends and this can
be explained due to the high thermal stability of both materials.
The effect of temperature on the fluid loss is not significant.
From the microscopic images, it was observed that particles with rough surfaces
such as nut shells and cellulosic fiber will create more friction and as a result they
will maintain higher sealing pressures.
It addition to the roughness, it was observed under the microscope that there is a
very fine particulate attached to LCM particles such as nut shells and cellulosic
fiber. These fine particulate helped in the fracture sealing process.

16

SPE-170576-MS

The SEM images showed clearly that LCMs particles relocate themselves under

pressure in a specific way to ensure sealing the fracture.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA for the financial support under
research agreement # 0037709; Hong (Max) Wang from Sharp-Rock Technologies and Jason Scorsone
from Halliburton for their valuable support; Mike Bassett from Missouri University of Science and
Technology for his assistance in manufacturing the testing apparatuses, Dr. Wisner and Dr. Wronkiewicz
from Missouri University of Science and Technology for their help with the microscope work.
Acronyms
BHA

CACP

CF

DVC

ECD

HPA

HPHT

LCM

LPA

NC

NS

PPA

PPB

PSD

SCC

SEM

SS

TS

Bottom Hole Assembly

Chemically Activated Cross-linked Pills
Cellulosic fiber
Deformable, Viscous, and Cohesive Systems
Equivalent Circulation Density
Graphite
High Pressure Apparatus
High-Pressure High-Temperature
Lost Circulation Materials
Low Pressure Apparatus
Non Controlled Fluid Loss
Nut Shells
Particle Plugging Apparatus
Pounds per Barrels
Particle Size Distribution
Sized Calcium Carbonate
Scanning Electron Microscope
Straight Slot
Tapered Slot

References
Abouelnaaj, K. K., Baker, R., Andrews, S. K., Shaikh, A., Duran, R. C., & Fritsch, J. W. 2013. First
Installation of 16-in. Solid Expandable Liner Solves Shallow Drilling Problems; Open New Doors for
Hole Size Preservation. SPE 166701, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference &
Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 7-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/166701-MS
Abrams, A. 1977. Mud Design to Minimize Rock Impairment Due to Particle Invasion. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. Vol. 29, pp. 586 592. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5713-PA
Alsaba, M., Nygaard, R., Saasen, A., and Nes, O. Lost Circulation Materials Capability of Sealing
Wide Fractures. SPE 170285, SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, USA,
10 11 September 2014.
Andreasen, A.H.M. and Andersen, J. 1930. Kolloid Z. 50: 217228
Bruton, J. R., Ivan, C. D., and Heinz, T. J. 2001. Lost Circulation Control: Evolving Techniques and
Strategies to Reduce Downhole Mud Losses. SPE 67735, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, 27 February-1 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67735-MS
Caughron, D. E., Renfrow, D. K., Bruton, J. R., Ivan, C. D., Broussard, P. N., Bratton, T. R., and
Standifird, W. B. 2002. Unique Crosslinking Pill in Tandem with Fracture Prediction Model Cures

SPE-170576-MS

17

Circulation Losses in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. SPE 74518, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Texas, USA, 26-28 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74518-MS
Collins, N., Whitfill, D., Kharitonov, A., and Miller, M. 2010. Comprehensive Approach to Severe
Loss Circulation Problems in Russia. SPE 135704, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135704-MS
Fidan, E., Babadagli, T., and Kuru, E. 2004. Use of Cement as Lost-Circulation Material: Best
Practices. PETSOC-2004-090, Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 8-10
June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2004-090
Filippov, A., Mack, R., Cook, L., York, P., Ring, L., and McCoy, T. 1999. Expandable Tubular
Solutions. SPE 56500, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6
October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/56500-MS
Hettema, M. Horsrud, P. Taugbol, K. Friedheim, J. Huynh, H. Sanders, M. W. and Young, S.
Development of an Innovative High-Pressure Testing Device for The Evaluation of Drilling Fluid
Systems and Drilling Fluid Additives Within Fractured Permeable Zones. OMC-2007-082, Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 28-30 March 2007.
Karimi, M., Petrie, S. W., Moellendick, E., and Holt, C. 2011. A Review of Casing Drilling
Advantages to Reduce Lost Circulation, Augment Wellbore Strengthening, Improve Wellbore Stability,
and Mitigate Drilling-induced Formation Damage. SPE 148564, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 24-26 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
148564-MS
Kumar, A., and Savari, S. 2011. Lost Circulation Control and Wellbore Strengthening: Looking
Beyond Particle Size Distribution. AADE-11 NTCE-21, AADE National Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 12-14 April.
Kumar, A., Savari, S., Jamison, D. E., and Whitfill, D. 2011. Application of Fiber Laden Pill for
Controlling Lost Circulation in Natural Fractures. AADE-11 NTCE-21, AADE National Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 12-14 April.
Kumar, A., Savari, S., Whitfill, D and, Jamison, D. E. Wellbore Strengthening: The Less Studied
Properties of Lost-Circulation Materials. SPE 133484, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133484-MS
Kumar, A., Savari, S., Whitfill, D., and Jamison, D. E. 2010. Wellbore Strengthening: The LessStudied Properties of Lost-Circulation Materials. SPE 133484, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133484-MS
Lecolier, E., Herzhaft, B., Rousseau, L., Neau, L., Quillien, B., and Kieffer, J. 2005. Development
of a Nanocomposite Gel for Lost Circulation Treatment. SPE 94686, SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94686-MS
Lohoefer, C. L., Mathis, B., Brisco, D., Waddell, K., Ring, L., and York, P. 2000. Expandable Liner
Hanger Provides Cost-Effective Alternative Solution. SPE 59151, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 23-25 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59151-MS
Mata, F., and Veiga, M. 2004. Crosslinked Cements Solve Lost Circulation Problems. SPE 90496,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/90496-MS
Messenger, J. 1981. Lost Circulation. PennWell Corp., Tulsa.
Messenger, J. U., and McNiel, J. S. 1952. Lost Circulation Corrective: Time-Setting Clay Cement.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. Vol. 4, pp. 59 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148-G
Morita, N., Black, A. D., and Fuh, G-F. 1990. Theory of Lost Circulation Pressure. SPE 20409, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 23-26 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/20409-MS

18

SPE-170576-MS

Perez-Roca, E., Andrews, S., and Keel, D. 2003. Addressing Common Drilling Challenges Using
Solid Expandable Tubular Technology. SPE 80446, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 9-11 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80446-MS
Saasen, A, Wold, S, Ribesen, B.T., Tran, T.N., Huse, A., Rygg, V., Grannes, I., and Svindland, A.
2011. Permanent Abandonment of a North Sea Well Using Unconsolidated Well Plugging Material.
SPE Drilling and Completions. Vol. 26, pp. 371375. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133446-PA
Saasen, A., Gody, R., Breivik, D.H., Solvang, S.A., Svindland, A., Gausel, E., and Fryland, K.
2004. Concentrated Solid Suspension as an Alternative to Cements for Temporary Abandonment
Applications in Oil Wells. SPE SA-34, SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, 15-17 May.
Sanders, M. W., Young, S. and Friedheim, J. Development and Testing of Novel Additives for
Improved Wellbore Stability and Reduced Losses. AADE-08-DF-HO-19, AADE Fluids Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, USA, 8-9 April 2008.
Savari, S., Whitfill, D. L., Jamison, D. E., and Kumar, A. 2014. A Method to Evaluate Lost
Circulation Materials - Investigation of Effective Wellbore Strengthening Applications. SPE 167977,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 4-6 March. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/167977-MS
Shepard, S. F., Reiley, R. H., and Warren, T. M. 2002. Casing Drilling: An Emerging Technology.
SPE Drilling and Completion. Vol. 17, pp. 4 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/76640-PA
Vickers, S., Cowie, M., Jones, T., and Tywnam, A.J. 2006. A New Methodology that Surpasses
Current Bridging Theories to Efficiently Seal a Varied Pore Throat Distribution as Found in Natural
Reservoir Formations. AADE-006-DF-HO-16, AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 11-12 April.
Wang, H., Sweatman, R. E., Engelman, R. E., Deeg, W. F. J., and Whitfill, D. L. 2005. The Key to
Successfully Applying Todays Lost Circulation Solutions. SPE 95895, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95895-MS
Wang, H., Sweatman, R. E., Engelman, R., Deeg, W. F. J., Whitfill, D. L., Soliman, M. Y., and
Towler, B. F. 2008. Best Practice in Understanding and Managing Lost Circulation Challenges. SPE
Drilling & Completion, Vol. 23, pp. 168 175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95895-PA
Wang. H. Is It Really Possible to Efficiently Form A Strong Seal inside Subterranean Openings
without Knowing Their Shape and Size?. AADE-11-NTCE-25, AADE National Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, USA, 8-9 April 2011.
Warren, T., Tessari, R., and Houtchens, B. 2004. Casing Drilling with Retrievable Drilling Assemblies. OTC-16564-MS, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 May. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4043/16564-MS
Whitfill, D. L., and Wang, H. 2005. Making Economic Decisions To Mitigate Lost Circulation. SPE
95561, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/95561-MS
Withfill, D., and Miller, M. L. 2008. Developing and Testing Lost Circulation Materials. AADE08-DF-HO-24, AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 8-9 April.