SPE 86699

Best Practices for Drill Cuttings & Mud Discharge Modeling

Tim Nedwed, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at The Seventh SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2931 March 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This document describes data needs for performing cuttings
and drilling mud discharge modeling and examples of simple
formats for presenting model predictions. The objective is to
encourage greater acceptance of discharge modeling as an
environmental assessment tool by providing a foundation for
consistent modeling study development and presentation.
Introduction
Drill cuttings and drilling fluid discharge models are available
to predict seabed loading and water-column concentrations of
drilling wastes. These predictions are an important tool for
assessing the environmental impacts of drilling discharges and
are often part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
needed to obtain drilling permits.
One example of a model that predicts the fate of dis-
charged drilling wastes is the Offshore Operators Committee
Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model (the OOC Model).
Several models, however, provide the same types of predic-
tions.
This document describes the process of developing a
discharge model simulation by describing the input data
requirements and methods used to post-process model output
into formats that are useful for EIAs. The goal is to promote
consistent use of discharge modeling as an environmental
assessment tool.
The OOC Model
The OOC Model is a numerical model that predicts the initial
fate of drilling mud and cuttings discharged into the marine
environment. The model is also capable of predicting the fate
of produced water discharges.
The OOC Model, using data describing the discharge
conditions, predicts effluent concentration distributions in the
water column and the initial seabed deposition distributions of
solids discharged from a single point. The model has been
validated using laboratory
(1;2,3)
and field experiments
(4;5,6)
.
Government agencies and industry have used the model to
estimate the fate of drilling mud and cuttings discharged in the
marine environment. A mathematical description of the model
can be found in Brandsma et al.
(1)
and in Brandsma and
Smith
(7)
.
The discussion that follows is specifically applicable to
use of the OOC Model. The general input requirements of the
OOC Model, however, are applicable to all discharge models.
Modeling Process
A stochastic modeling approach is used to predict the fate of
future drilling discharges because it provides probabilistic
results based upon historical information. For stochastic
modeling, historical current speeds and directions are used to
perform a series of simulations of solids movement in the water
column. Each simulation randomly selects current time-series
data from an available current data set. The predicted seabed
accumulations from multiple model runs are combined to give
an overall prediction for a discharge event.

Drilling Waste Discharge Types and Discharge Points.
There are three primary types of solids discharged while
drilling oil and gas wells offshore. These are (1) the whole
drilling mud solids discharged with water-based drilling mud
(WBM), (2) the cuttings and associated drilling mud generated
while drilling with WBM and (3) the cuttings and associated
drilling mud generated while drilling with nonaqueous drilling
fluid (NAF).
Most regions allow discharge of both cuttings and whole
drilling mud when drilling with WBM. When drilling with
NAF, only discharge of the drill cuttings occurs because whole
NAF is recycled and reused.
The solids discharged with whole WBM have slow fall
velocities and wide dispersion when discharged into deep
water. Therefore, simulation of surface discharges of WBM
solids may not be necessary.
A typical deepwater offshore well has two primary points
where drilling solids are discharged. For many wells, the top
portion is drilled using seawater without a riser to the surface.
Riserless drilling results in discharge of cuttings and associated
drilling fluid very near the seabed. After the riser is installed,
drilling solids pass to the rig and discharges occur through the
discharge chute usually within a few meters of the sea surface.
Simulating the different discharge points with the OOC Model
requires separate runs because only a single discharge point is
allowed in a run.
Model Input Requirements
The following information is intended to assist with the
collection of input data needed to perform discharge modeling.

2 SPE 86699
Discharge Volumes. An estimate of the cuttings volume is
made using the well plan (drill bit diameters and interval
lengths) and an estimated amount of washout, i.e., the increase
in hole volume over that predicted by bit diameter and hole
length. Estimates of washout can be obtained from experi-
enced drilling personnel based on the type of formation drilled
and the type of drilling fluid used.
Estimated volumes for discharge of whole drilling mud
solids (only WBM discharged) can be made using the mud
plan. The mud plan is developed prior to drilling and should
include estimates of the quantity of drilling fluid that will be
used drilling the well.

Bathymetry and Model Grid Size. The OOC Model requires
the water depth at the discharge site. For most cases, bathym-
etry data within 1 km of the well site are sufficient. Detailed
bathymetry data are not necessary unless there are significant
bathymetry changes near the well. A flat or tilted plane may
describe many sites. The OOC Model can accept detailed
bathymetry data if available.
The OOC Model tracks the deposition of solids on the
seabed only within a grid array that is specified by the user.
The grid size is limited to 12,100 cells, which allows a square
grid of 110 x 110 cells. Grid cells must be the same size,
however, there are no limits on the size of the grid cell.
Specifying a large grid cell to allow large grid array
coverage will limit the resolution of predicted loadings because
the model provides the total seabed solids loading within a grid
cell (lbs/grid cell). No information about loading variation
within a grid cell is provided.
For most single-well discharges, a grid array that covers 4
km
2
or less is adequate. A 4-km
2
square grid allows a 110 x
110 array and approximately 18 m x 18 m grid cells. The grid
array coverage can be increased or decreased in size to match
specific discharge conditions. The predominant current speeds
and directions combined with particle fall velocities allows the
user to estimate an acceptable grid array size that will maxi-
mize capture of solids within the grid array while maintaining
acceptable resolution.

Ambient Conditions. The OOC Model requires historic time-
series ambient current profiles throughout the water column for
stochastic modeling. Typically, this data is obtained from
Acoustic Doppler Current Profile (ADCP) instruments placed
near the project area.
The accuracy of model predictions depends on how
closely input current data represents the actual current condi-
tions that occur while drilling. In many situations, only limited
data are available. For discharges into deeper water, it is
important to have current data covering the entire water column
because extrapolating surface currents several hundred meters
likely will result in significant inaccuracies.
In addition, the OOC Model requires either temperature
and salinity profiles or a density profile. These data can be
obtained from direct measurements or knowledgeable esti-
mates. The OOC Model will accept time-varying data. In
most cases, however, a single data set is adequate because
changes in these parameters over time will not significantly
alter seabed-loading predictions.

Discharge rate. The OOC Model requires an estimate of the
discharge rate. The model accepts only a single rate within a
run. To simulate changes in the discharge rate, two or more
model runs are developed with different rates. The predictions
from the multiple runs are summed to give the overall predic-
tion. For most modeling, however, detailed information on the
discharge rate is not available. An average rate based on an
estimate of the volume of discharged solids and an estimate of
the time required to drill the well can be used.

Discharge pipe radius, depth, and orientation. The OOC
Model requires the discharge pipe radius, the depth of the
discharge pipe opening, the vertical orientation of the discharge
pipee.g., pointing straight down, and the azimuth orientation
of the discharge pipe.

Discharge duration. The OOC Model requires an estimate of
the discharge duration. An exploration well might require 30
days to drill, however, discharges dont occur over this entire
period. Discharges likely correspond with periods when the
drill bit is advancingperhaps 1/3 of the total drilling time.

Discharge bulk density. The bulk density required by the
OOC Model is the density of the material released at the
discharge point. For cuttings discharges, the discharge is
usually a combination of the cuttings, associated drilling mud
and the seawater used to avoid plugging the discharge chute.
The discharge bulk density for these discharges can be
estimated by assuming an amount of seawater that will be
discharged with the cuttings. For whole mud discharges, a
hole-averaged density can be determined using data in the mud
plan.
Note that the bulk density primarily influences the
behavior of the plume that develops from the discharge. For
surface discharge of cuttings in deep water, the fast falling
particles exit the plume quickly so that plume behavior doesnt
significantly influence the ultimate fate of these particles.
Therefore, predictions of cuttings accumulations on the seabed
are not sensitive to the choice of bulk density.

Solids density and volume fraction. The OOC Model
requires an estimate of the density of the discharged solids and
the volume fraction of the solids in the bulk discharge. Unless
site-specific information is available, 2.65 g/ml (the density of
quartz), can be used for WBM cuttings density. For NAF-
cutting discharges, the cuttings contain adhering NAF, which
lowers the average density. Solids density can be determined
using assumed ratios of cuttings, base fluid, and other mud
solids (e.g., barite) adhering to the mud.
The WBM drilling mud solids are either primarily barite
(4.3 g/ml), bentonite (2.3 g/ml), or a combination of the two.
The volume fraction solids specified should be consistent with
the discharge flow rate and discharge time to allow complete
discharge of all the solids from the well.

Discharge solids fall velocities. The OOC Model does not
calculate fall velocities from an equation such as Stokes Law
rather it requires specification of particle fall velocities. The
modeler can estimate fall velocities from particle-size distribu-
tions and theoretical (e.g. Stokes Law) or empirical correla-
tions. Correlations, however, have limitations. Theoretical
SPE 86699 3
correlations such as Stokes law are valid over a limited
particle-size range. Users should be aware of the size range
limits and other assumptions of these correlations. Addition-
ally, discharged cuttings and associated drilling mud solids fall
as interacting aggregates that can break up or combine such
that the representativeness of velocities developed from
particle-size correlations is questionable. Measured fall-
velocities obtained from column studies may provide more
representative data.
Two general categories of cuttings are identified because
of inherent fall velocity differencescuttings from WBM
drilling and cuttings from NAF drilling.
Generally, cuttings generated with WBM have greater
dispersion of fines as they fall in seawater compared to NAF
cuttings. NAF cuttings and associated drilling mud solids,
because they are coated with hydrocarbons, tend to remain as
aggregates.
Site-specific fall-velocity data are rarely available. In the
absence of site-specific data, the distributions shown in Table 1
for WBM cuttings and Table 2 for NAF cuttings can be used.
Fall-velocity distributions for bentonite and WBM solids are
provided in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 1. Fall Velocity Distribution for WBM Cuttings*
Solids
Class
Solids Density
(g/cm3)
Solids Volume
Fraction
Fall Velocity
(ft/sec)
1 2.65 0.04272 4.430x10
-6

2 2.65 0.03204 5.530x10
-5

3 2.65 0.03738 7.160x10
-4

4 2.65 0.01602 7.638x10
-3

5 2.65 0.01068 4.748x10
-2

6 2.65 0.09612 1.316x10
-1

7 2.65 0.08544 3.214 x10
-1

8 2.65 0.0801 4.435 x10
-1

9 2.65 0.1335 8.522 x10
-1

*Data fromdrill cuttings collected at 2,500 mfroma well in the Lower Cook
Inlet, Alaska
(7)
.

Table 2. Fall Velocity Distribution for NAF Cuttings*
Solids
Class
Solids Density
(g/cm3)**
Solids Volume
Fraction
Fall Velocity
(ft/sec)
1 1.97 0.0882 1.083
2 1.97 0.0882 1.017
3 1.97 0.0882 0.951
4 1.97 0.0992 0.886
5 1.97 0.0375 0.755
6 1.97 0.0176 0.591
7 1.97 0.0055 0.394
8 1.97 0.0166 0.197
*Data fromcolumn measurements on cuttings collected in Brazil Campos Basin.
**Density assumes approximately 10% NAF base fluid on cuttings by weight.

Table 3. Fall Velocity Distribution for Bentonite Particles*
Solids
Class
Solids Density
(g/cm3)
Solids Volume
Fraction
Fall Velocity
(ft/sec)
1 2.30 0.0007 0.3040
2 2.30 0.0300 0.1720
3 2.30 0.0300 0.0746
4 2.30 0.0250 0.0035
5 2.30 0.0050 0.0007
6 2.30 0.0093 0.0002
*Data fromcolumn measurements of bentonite particles used in drilling mud.


Table 4. Fall Velocity Distribution for WBM Solids*
Solids
Class
Solids Density
(g/cm3)**
Solids Volume
Fraction
Fall Velocity
(ft/sec)
1 3.377 0.00053 3.68x10
-2

2 3.377 0.00211 1.40x10
-2

3 3.377 0.01016 2.70x10
-3

4 3.377 0.01016 2.10x10
-3

5 3.377 0.00700 1.68x10
-3

6 3.377 0.00700 1.43x10
-3

7 3.377 0.00528 9.84x10
-4

8 3.377 0.00264 4.86x10
-4

9 3.377 0.00422 2.00x10
-4

10 3.377 0.00370 8.99x10
-5

*Data fromOOC Model manualBrandsma and Smith, 1999.
**Solids density is an average of bentonite and barite.

Simulation Duration. The OOC Model requires the discharge
duration and the simulation duration as inputs. The discharge
duration should be shorter than the simulation duration to allow
time for particles to settle to the seabed.
The time required for slow-falling solids to reach the
seabed could be tens to hundreds of hours for deepwater
discharges. Slow falling particles have wide dispersion and,
under most current conditions in deep water, insignificant
effect on accumulations near the well site. For desktop
computers, memory and computing time considerations make
extended duration simulations impractical or inconvenient.
An appropriate simulation duration can be determined
using the solids fall-velocity distributions and the water depth
to calculate the time required for various solids classes to reach
the seabed. Run times should maximize the total amount of
solids reaching the seabed considering memory and computa-
tion-time limitations. Note that particles that take tens of hours
to reach the seabed will likely be distributed over a wide area
considering the currents in most environments.
Model Output Processing
The OOC Model provides predictions of solids concentrations
in the water column and seabed loading. The predictions of
solids concentrations in the water column can be used directly
to generate plots showing, for example, the water column
concentrations versus distance from the discharge point.
Seabed loading as provided by the model (lbs/grid cell) is
a parameter that is difficult to interpret. The first step in
processing seabed loading predictions is to convert from
lbs/grid cell to lbs (or kilograms)/unit area using the specified
grid-cell size. Seabed loading predictions can be further post-
processed to provide more easily understood parameters, such
as seabed accumulation thickness and seabed-sediment
hydrocarbon concentration. The following discussion presents
assumptions and equations to make these conversions.

Drilling Solid Accumulation Thickness. Converting model
predicted loading to drilling solids thickness improves
comprehension of the magnitude of the accumulations. Several
assumptions are required to convert seabed loading to accumu-
lation thickness. The primary assumption is that the drilling
solids remain on top of ambient sediments. In reality, the
drilling solids would intermix with ambient sediments.
Other important parameters that require assumptions are
as follows:
The weight percent water in the drilling solids on the
seabed
4 SPE 86699
The salinity of the drilling solids pore water
The density of the drilling solids pore water
The density of the discharged drilling solids.
In the absence of site-specific information, the following
values can be used:
The weight percent water (W
w
) in the drilling solids is
30%. The 30% by weight water is based on measure-
ments made on cuttings piles in the North Sea.
The salinity of the drilling solids pore water is equiva-
lent to seawater (ppt=35.03 parts per thousand).
The density of the drilling solids pore water is equivalent
to seawater density (
seawater
=1.02 g/ml).
The density of the discharged drilling solids (
solid
)

is
2.65 g/ml for WBM cuttings. A somewhat lower density
may be needed for NAF-coated cuttings to account for
the adhering drilling fluid.
For a sample area A (see Figure 1), the thickness of drilling
solids over A is
)
) 100 (
1
(

w seawater
w
solid
solid
W
W
M T

+ =
in meters. (1)
where M
solid
is the OOC Model-predicted seabed loading,
) 1000 ( 1 ppt ppt + =
For a complete derivation of equation (1) see Appendix
A.
T
Ambient
Sediment
Deposited
Cuttings
Area of surface
A

Figure 1. Schematic diagram used for drilling solids deposition
thickness estimate.

Hydrocarbon Concentration in Seabed Sediments. The
following assumptions simplify conversion of model-predicted
seabed loading to sediment hydrocarbon concentration:
The WBM solids contain no hydrocarbons.
The NAF drilling solids accumulated on the seabed re-
main on top of all drilling discharges.
The ambient sediments contain no hydrocarbons.
The NAF base fluids remain adhered to the NAF cut-
tings.
The deposited hydrocarbons do not degrade over time.
The NAF cuttings includes the cuttings, the base fluid
adhering to the cuttings, and the barite in the NAF.
In addition, assumptions must be made regarding the
following:
The thickness of a hypothetical control volume (see Fig-
ure 2)a common thickness used for field sampling is
the top 2 cm
The wet-weight percent hydrocarbons adhering to the
deposited NAF drilling solidsan average value for
base fluid retained on cuttings for wells drilled with
similar cuttings cleaning equipment can be used.
The composition of the NAFthe composition should
be based on project-specific mud or, if not available, use
the EPA generic mud from EPA
(8)
(47% base fluid, 33%
solids as barite, and 20% brine by weight).
The density of benthic sedimentsin the absence of
site-specific data, assume the density is the same as that
of the WBM drilling solids.
The porosity of the ambient sediments and non-NAF
drilling depositsin the absence of site-specific infor-
mation, a porosity of 0.4 can be used.
The calculation of hydrocarbon concentration in sediment
is developed using a control volume consisting of an area A
CV

and total thickness T
CV
. This volume is intended to represent
the sediment material sampled for analysis during a hypotheti-
cal field sampling operation. The equation to calculate
hydrocarbon concentration in sediments containing NAF
cuttings is as follows:
For the control volume shown in Figure 2, the hydrocar-
bon concentration can be calculated using the following
equation:
l CV M T
x M
ppm HC
l
) 1 ( ) (
) 10 1 (
) (
6

+ + +
=
(2)
where M
l
=the OOC Model-predicted NAF-cuttings and
associated drilling fluid loading
) ( SW oil BF oil BF F F F F F =
)) 100 ( ( 1 w seawater w solid W W + =
) 1 ( p amb =
pSal seawater =
) 100 ( w w w W W W =
F
BF
=fraction base fluid in NAF
F
oil
=fraction base fluid adhering to cuttings
F
seawater
=fraction of saltwater in NAF
p=porosity of ambient sediments or WBM deposits
Sal=is seawater salinity (kg salt/kg seawater)
Sal Sal) 1 ( =
For a complete derivation of equation (2) see Appendix A.

T
cv
Ambient
Sediment/
WBM
Deposits
Deposited
Cuttings
Area of surface
A
cv
T
NAF

Figure 2. Conceptual control volume needed for converting
model-predicted seabed loading to seabed-sediment hydrocar-
bon concentration. A
cv
should correspond to the area of a
model grid cell as specified in the model input.

Contour Plot Examples. The figures below provide examples
of the type of visuals that can be generated from model
predictions. The plots were generated from modeling the
surface and seabed discharges of a single exploration well in
SPE 86699 5
625 m of water. The bathymetry was simulated as a flat plane.
The concentration of base fluid on the cuttings at the seabed
was assumed to be 10%.

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance East-West (m)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

N
o
r
t
h
-
S
o
u
t
h

(
m
)

Figure 3. Thickness contours for the discharge of all drilling
solids in 625 m water. The cross marks the discharge point.
Thickness contours are in centimeters and the maximum
thickness is 57 cm.

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance East-West (m)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

N
o
r
t
h
-
S
o
u
t
h

(
m
)

Figure 4. NAF base fluid concentration (ppm) contours for the
discharge of all drilling solids in 625 m water. The cross marks
the discharge point. Hydrocarbon concentration contours are in
parts per million and maximum concentration is 100,000 ppm.
References
1. Policastro, A.: Evaluation of Selected Models. In: An Evaluation
of Effluent Dispersion and Fate Models for OCS Platforms. Vol-
ume I, Summary and Recommendations. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Minerals Management Service. Workshop Proceedings. 7-10
February. Santa Barbara, California (1983) 33.
2. Brandsma, M.G., Smith, J .P., O'Reilly, J .E., Ayers, R.C.,Jr.,
Holmquist, A.L.: Modeling Offshore Discharges of Produced
Water. In: Produced Water. J .P. Ray and F.R. Engelhart, Eds.
Plenum Press. New York (1992) 59.
3. Nedwed, T. J., Smith, J . P., Brandsma, M. G.: Verification of the
OOC Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model Using Lab-Scale
Plume Behavior Experiments. J. of Marine Science, in press.
4. O'Reilly, J .E., Sauer, T.C., Ayers, R.C. J r., Brandsma, M.G., Meek,
R.: Field Verification of the OOC Mud Discharge Model. In:
Drilling Fluids. F.R. Engelhart, J .P. Ray, A.H. Gillam, Eds.,
Elsevier Applied Science. New York (1989) 647.
5. Smith, J .P., Mairs, H.L., Brandsma, M.G., Meek, R.P., Ayers, R.C.,
J r. 1994. Field Validation of the Offshore Operators Committee
(OOC) Produced Water Discharge Model. Proceedings of SPE
Annual Technical Conference. SPE28350. New Orleans. (25-28
September 1994).
6. Smith J . P., Brandsma, M. G., Nedwed, T. J .: Field Validation of
the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) Mud and Produced
Water Discharge Model J. of Marine Science, in press
7. Brandsma, M.G. and Smith, J .P.: Offshore Operators Committee
Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model -- Report and User
Guide. Offshore Operators CommitteeP.O. Box 50751New
Orleans, LA 70150-0751 www.offshoreoperators.com (1999).
8. EPA: "Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids and
other Non-Aqeuous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category" EPA-821-B-98-021 (19990) VII-6.
Appendix A
Derivation of Drilling Solid Accumulation Thickness
Equation. Using the assumptions and parameters described in
the main body of the report and with reference to Figure 1, the
volume of drilling solids over A with thickness T is
) ) ( (
seawater salt water solid solid
M M M A A T V + + = = (1)
Therefore
seawater salt water solid solid
M M M T ) ( + + = (2)
where M represents the loading (kg/m
2
) of the individual
components making up the drill solid accumulations; either
cuttings solid (solid), pure water (water), or salt in pore water
(salt). M
solid
is the OOC Model-predicted seabed loading.
The M
salt
can be determined using the assumed pore water
salinity (35.03 g/kg) and the assumed weight percent water.
) 1000 ( ppt M ppt M
water salt
=
(3)
Express M
water
in terms of W
w
(weight percent water) and
M
solids.
) ( 100
salt water solid water w
M M M M W + + = (4)
Substituting M
salt
into (4) gives
)
1000
1 (
100
ppt
ppt
M M
M
W
water solid
water
w

+ +

=
(5)
Let
) 1000 ( 1 ppt ppt + = (6)
then
) 100 (
w solid w water
W M W M = (7)
Substituting M
water
and M
salt
into thickness equation gives
)
) 100 (
1
(

w seawater
w
solid
solid
W
W
M T

+ =
in m. (8)
0363 . 1 = for kg g ppt 03 . 35 =
The following values can be used as an equation check.
If M
solid
=1000 kg/m
2
, W
w
=30%, ppt =35.03 g/kg,
solid
=2650
kg/m
3
, and
seawater
=1020 kg/m
3
then T=0.8197 m.

Derivation of Hydrocarbon Concentration in Seabed
Sediments Equation. Using the assumptions and parameters
described in the main body of the report and with reference to
Figure 2, the equation to calculate hydrocarbon concentration
in sediments containing NAF cuttings is derived as follows:
6 SPE 86699
saltsed saltamb amb Ba BF C
BF
M M M M M M
x M
ppm HC
+ + + + +
=
) 10 1 (
) (
6
(9)
where M
BF
is the loading of base fluid in the control volume,
M
C
is the loading of cuttings in the control volume,
M
Ba
is the loading of barite in the control volume,
M
amb
is the loading of ambient sediment in the control
volume,
M
saltamb
is the loading of salt in the control volume
ambient sediment or WBM solids pore water,
M
saltsed
is loading of salt in the NAF sediment in the
control volume.
Transform (9) into a function of the model predicted NAF
cuttings loading (M
l
) starting with an expression for F
oil
, the
wet-weight fraction of NAF base fluid retained on the cuttings.
) (
SW Ba BF c BF oil
M M M M M F + + + = (10)
where F
oil
is fraction oil in discharged NAF cuttings (oil on
cuttings by retort test), and
M
SW
is mass of the aqueous phase in the NAF that is
discharged with the cuttings.
Ba BF C l
M M M M + + = (11)
Substituting (11) into (10) gives
) (
SW l BF oil
M M M F + = (12)
also
NAF Ba Ba NAF BF BF NAF SW SW
M F M and M F M M F M = = = , ,
(13)
where F
SW
is fraction seawater in the NAF,
M
NAF
is the loading of whole NAF in the discharged
NAF cuttings (M
NAF
=M
BF
+M
Ba
+M
SW
), (14)
F
BF
and F
Ba
are the fractions of base fluid and barite in
the NAF.
Combining equations in (13) and rearranging gives
BF BF SW SW
F M F M = (15)
Substituting (15) into (12) gives
) (
BF
BF
SW
l BF oil
M
F
F
M M F + =
(16)
Solve (16) for M
BF
to give
l SW oil BF l oil BF BF
M F F F M F F M = = ) ( (17)
Now determine M
amb
as a function of M
l
.
) )( 1 (
NAF CV amb amb
T T p M =
(18)
for T
CV
>T
NAF
, zero otherwise
where
amb
is density of ambient sediments,
p is porosity of ambient sediments or WBM drilling
deposits,
T
CV
is the thickness of the control volume,
T
NAF
is the thickness of NAF drilling deposits as defined
in (8).
l w seawater w solid l NAF
M W W M T = + = ) )) 100 ( ( 1 (
(19)
where , W
w
, and
seawater
are defined in the previous thickness
derivation. The value of
solid
is determined based on the
composition of the NAF solids, i.e., the relative loadings of M
c
,
M
BF
, and M
Ba
in M
l
determined by (12) and (13). The determi-
nation of
solid
is as follows:
Ba
Ba
BF
BF
c
C
Ba BF C
Ba BF C
Ba BF C
solid
M M M
M M M
V V V
M M M

+ +
+ +
=
+ +
+ +
=
(20)
where
c
,
BF
, and
Ba
are the densities of dry cuttings, base
fluid and barite, respectively, and V
C
, V
BF
, and V
Ba
rep-
resent the volume of dry cuttings, base fluid, and barite,
respectively, in the discharged drilling solids.
From (10) and (13)
) ( ) (
NAF c oil SW Ba BF c oil NAF BF BF
M M F M M M M F M F M + = + + + = =
(21)
Rearranging gives
) (
oil BF c oil NAF
F F M F M =
(22)
Since
solid
is constant if we assume the ratio of cuttings,
base fluid, and barite is constant, we can let M
c
=1 lb/grid cell
to simplify (20) and (22).
Then
) (
oil BF oil NAF
F F F M =
(23)
Substituting into (20) gives
Ba
NAF Ba
BF
NAF BF
c
NAF Ba NAF BF
solid
M F M F
M F M F

+ +
+ +
=
1
1
(24)
Now, substituting (19) into (18) gives
) )( 1 (
l CV amb amb
M T p M =
(25)
for T
CV
>M
l
, zero otherwise
Next determine M
saltamb
as a function of M
l
.
Sal M M
amb
SW saltamb
=
(26)
where M
SWamb
is mass seawater in ambient sediment or WBM
drilling deposits,
Sal is salinity of seawater (kg salt/kg seawater).
) ( ) (
l CV seawater NAF CV seawater SW
M T p T T p M
amb
= =
(27)
Substituing (27) into (26) gives
Sal M T p M
l CV seawater saltamb
) ( =
(28)
for T
CV
>M
l
, zero otherwise
Finally determine M
saltsed
as a function of M
l
.
saltsed w l
w
saltsed w Ba BF c
w
w
M M M
M
M M M M M
M
W
+ +
=
+ + + +
=
100 100
(29)
) 1 ( Sal SalM M
w saltsed
=
(30)
rearrange (30) to give
Sal M Sal M
saltsed w
) 1 ( = (31)
Substitute (31) into (29) and solve for M
saltsed
.
Sal
Sal
where
W W
M W
M
w w
l w
saltsed

=

=
1
100

(32)
Now substitute (32), (28), (25), (17), & (11) into (9).
l CV M T
e M
ppm HC
l
) 1 ( ) (
) 6 1 (
) (

+ + +
=
(33)
where ) 1 ( p amb = , pSal seawater = , and
) 100 ( w w w W W W =
The following values can be used to check equation (33):
F
oil
0.100
amb
2650 kg/m
3

F
BF
0.47
c
2650 kg/m
3
F
Ba
0.33
solid
(eqtn. 23 & 24) 2166 kg/m
3
F
sw
0.20 p 0.400

sw
1020 kg/m
3
Sal 0.03503 kg
salt
/kg
seawater

BF
780 kg/m
3
Ww 30%

Ba
4200 kg/m
3
T
cv
0.02 m

M
l
HC (ppm) from eqtn (33)
20 89,275
15 61,269
10 37,648
1 3,300