"Although acceptable

substitutes have been

developed for some
additives, the search
for adequate
replacements for
environmentally
objectionable systems
continues to be the
highest research
priority in drilling
fluids."
832
Selecting a Drilling Fluid
Roger Bieler, SPE, M-I Drilling Fluids Co.
Introd",ctlon
Selection of the proper drilling fluid is im-
portant to the success of a drilling operation.
No fluid is suitable for all situations. Fluids
with different base liquids, different domi-
nating cations in the aqueous phase, different
chemical additives, or broadly diverse phys-
ical characteristics have different behaviors,
making for a large menu of choices.
The names of drilling fluid types typically
are formed by stringing together one or
more of the descriptors in Table 1. The
string is as long as necessary for the desired
degree of precision (e. g., seawater ligno-
sulfonate mud, saturated salt mud, potassi-
um mud, relaxed-fluid-Ioss oil mud, gypsum
mud, and polymer mud).
Drilling-fluid selection can require con-
sideration of numerous factors. The most
important are safety, evaporite zones, high
temperatures and pressures, environment,
loss zones, shale problems, well trajectory,
and economics. Taking these one at a time,
and in order, will in most cases lead to a
proper choice of drilling fluid.
FluldSelectlon Factors
Safety Issues (Well Control, Gas Hy-
drates, H
2
S). Safety is paramount. The
fluid must be able to carry the mud weight
required to control the well, and circulating,
surge, and swab pressures must not be ex-
cessive. Speed and ease with which a mud
will accept weighting materials can be im-
portant in kick situations. Although most
mud types are satisfactory in these respects,
at mud weights above about 15 Ibm/gal,
polymer muds will need some dispersant and
oil muds will need oil/water ratios higher
than 50/50.
Gas hydrates can interfere mechanically
with well-control operations in deepwater
drilling.
1
Salt muds are currently the fluids
of choice in deep water because high salinity
tends to suppress hydrate formation. The ef-
fect of mud composition in preventing hy-
drates is the subject of ongoing research in
several laboratories.
The safest fluids for drilling H
2
S-bearing
zones contain at least 10 Ibmlbbl excess lime
plus a sulfide scavenger. Lime and oil muds
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
are the only two mud types that are truly
compatible with this requirement.
Evaporite Zones. Massive evaporite zones
tend to leach out excessively into water-
based drilling fluids unless the fluids are
pre saturated with the evaporite before the
zone is drilled. Gypsum muds are a natural
choice for massive anhydrite sections. Thick
salt sections require a saturated salt mud or
an oil mud. A properly formulated oil mud
is a good choice for any evaporite zone.
High Temperatures and Pressures. High-
temperature gelation and fluid-loss-control
problems occur for most water-based mud
types at downhole temperatures of 250 to
350F. Specially formulated water-based
muds are stable to 400 to 450F at mud
weights up to 18 Ibm/gal. Oil muds are a
viable, and sometimes less costly, alternative
at these elevated temperatures and pressures.
Environmental Considerations. Permit re-
strictions can limit the choice of mud type.
Environmental considerations are many and
varied, depending on the well location. They
have led to avoidance of oil muds in some
areas, salt muds in others, and high-pH or
chromium-treated muds in still others. Drill-
ing-fluid bioassay tests are useful for assess-
ing the toxicity of special additives. 2
Although acceptable substitutes have been
developed for some additives, the search for
adequate replacements for environmentally
objectionable systems continues to be the
highest research priority in drilling fluids.
Severe Loss Zones. Lost-circulation mate-
rials are added to muds to seal off thief zones
when mud losses occur downhole. Some
zones may be known in advance as being
prone to losses and difficult to seal. If it is
anticipated that large volumes of mud may
be lost in an interval, the mud type should
be simple and inexpensive if possible. This
tends to rule out oil muds and heavily treated
water-based muds. In subnormal-pressured
intervals, aerated fluids may merit consid-
eration. 3.4
Shale Problems. Shale formations can
swell, disperse, or slough into the hole. In-
July 1990 JPT
TABLE 1-ATTRIBUTES THAT DIFFERENTIATE DRILLINGFLUID TYPES
Base Fluid
Fresh water
Seawater
Salt water
Native brine
Saturated salt water
Diesel oil
Mineral oil
Dominant
Cation
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Other
deed, shale problems are probably the most
common and vexing mud-related drilling
problem encountered around the world.
Some shale problems are basically me-
chanical in nature, and increased mud
weight is then essential to the solution. More
often than not, the mud type is at least equal-
ly important in avoiding a serious shale
problem. 5
Experience and theory suggest that dis-
solved salts (such as KCl) reduce shale
swelling, long-chain water-soluble polymers
reduce dispersion, and asphaltic materials
reduce sloughing. The applicability of this
wisdom can depend on the particular shale
drilled, with sometimes subtle differences
between shales being the controlling factor.
Physical
Characteristics
Mud weight
Fluid loss
Viscosity
Other
Distinguishing
Additive
Lignosulfonate
Lime
Gypsum
Salt
Polymer
Lignite
Starch
Specialty product
Laboratory tests on the swelling and disper- .
sive characteristics of the problem shale in
various fluids often are helpful in choosing a
fluid where offset experience is inadequate.
Although no water-based mud has been
universally successful, many shale problems
have been solved through the use of potas-
sium, polymer, lime, gypsum, and salt
muds, muds treated with asphaltic additives,
and combinations of these.
In most cases, oil muds eliminate shale
problems, provided that mud weight is ade-
quate and the salinity of the aqueous internal
phase is high enough. To prevent osmotic
transfer of water into the formation, the
aqueous-phase salinity should equal or ex-
SPE TechIWlogy
Today SERIES
ceed that of the water in the pore spaces of
the shales drilled.
Well Trajectory. Recent studies on hole
cleaning in high-angle holes underscored the
role played by low-shear-rate viscosities. 6
Certain additives can elevate low-shear-rate
viscosities with minimal increases in plastic
viscosity and yield point. Some polymer
muds have naturally elevated low-shear-rate
viscosities but may require a lubricant for
long-reach wells. Oil muds have good
lubricity characteristics and can be treated
to raise low-shear-rate viscosities.
Other Factors. In some areas, experience
has repeatedly shown that one drilling mud
Ocean Floor 2,000', 40F
Normal
Pressure
Interval
Geopressure
Transition Zone
Abnormal
Pressures
Fig. 1-0ffshore well with some factors affecting mud selection.
JPT July 1990
"Gumbo" Shales
Salt Section
Target 15,500' Depth

285 F, 35 Dev.
833
Author
Roger Bieler is
vice president for
research and engi-
neering at M-I Drill-
ing Fluids Co. In
more than 15 years
with the company,
he has held various
technical and man-
agement positions.
'--___ __ ---' Bleier holds a BS
degree from the U. of Texas and a
PhD degree from Tulane U., both in
mathematics.
"Many wells do not
require expensive,
complicated muds."
834
type offers significant penetration-rate ad-
vantages over another. Additional factors in-
fluencing selection include differential-stick-
ing tendencies, formation-damage concerns,
or special logging requirements.
Economics. The factors previously dis-
cussed dominate economic considerations:
ignoring them invites lost drilling time. loss
of hole, or worse. With these factors duly
considered, the remaining viable drilling-
fluid candidates can be subjected to a direct
economic comparison. This should include
the cost of the base fluid, makeup and main-
tenance costs, mud-related disposal costs,
and for oil muds, buy-back provisions. Dis-
posal costs have become increasingly impor-
tant in such calculations. Certain other
cost-requirement differences between sys-
tems, such as better solids control or mud-
mixing equipment, can be offset by increases
in expected penetration rates or reduced
mud-material consumption.
Many wells do not require expensive,
complicated muds. Examples of low-cost
muds for problem-free areas include
unweighted-gel freshwater muds, lignite
muds, lightly treated lignosulfonate muds,
and native-brine starch muds.
Example
The well in Fig. 1 is in water deep enough
for hydrates to occur under shut-in condi-
tions, even at the lower mud weights. A salt
mud or an oil mud would suppress hydrate
formation, but oil mud is environmentally
undesirable in the riser if it has to be pulled.
The salt mud will be weighted up as pore
pressures increase and salt-saturated before
drilling of the salt section. The 35
0
devia-
tion is sufficient to warrant elevating low-
shear-rate viscosities if sag or cuttings-bed
problems become apparent.
The salt will inhibit the swelling of gumbo
shales to some extent. In most cases, a
specialty product or polymer will be advan-
tageous when used with the salt to reduce
gumbo problems. The particular product is
best determined by experience in the area
or by experimentation.
In addition to the specialty product, vis-
cosifier, and salt, the drilling fluid will
generally need a fluid-loss reducer, an alka-
linity agent, and at the higher mud weights,
a deflocculant. All additives must be chosen
with an eye to environmental acceptability
of the resulting fluid, the well cost, and fi-
nally the mud cost.
Afterword
The very large number of available mud
types and the many drilling-related factors
to be considered suggest a computerized ap-
proach to mud system selection. Afleck and
Zamora
7
describe one computer-based ex-
pert system. The sophistication and use of
such systems can be expected to increase in
the future.
References
1. Barker. J.W. and Gomez. R.K.: "Formation
of Hydrates During Deepwater Drilling Op-
erations." JPT(March 1989) 297-302; Trans.,
AIME. 287.
2. Leuterman. A.J. et al.: "New Drilling Fluid
Additive Toxicity Data Developed," Offshore
(July 1989) 31-37.
3. Lorenz, H.: "Field Experience Pins Down
Uses for Air Drilling Fluids," Oil & Gas J.
(May 12, 1980) 132-39.
4. Westennark, R.V.: "Drilling With a Parasite
Aerating String in the Disturbed Belt. Gallatin
County, Montana," paper SPE 14734 present-
ed at the 1986 IADCISPE Drilling Conference,
Dallas; Feb. 10-12.
5. Kelly, J.: "Drilling Problem Shales," Oil &
Gas J. (June 3, 1968) 67-70.
6. Seeberger, M.H., Matlock, R.W., and Han-
son, P.M.: "Oil Muds in Large Diameter,
Highly Deviated Wells: Solving the Cuttings
Removal Problem," paper SPE 18635 present-
ed at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, Feb. 28-March 3.
7. Afleck. N. and Zamora, M.: "PC-Based Sys-
tem Aids Optimum Mud Selection," Pet. Eng.
IntI. (Jan. 1987) 38-41.
Sl Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
OF (OF-32)/1.8 'C
gal X 3.785412 E-03 m
3
Ibm x 4.535 924 E-Ol kg
*Conversion factor is exact.
This paper is SPE 20986. Technology Today Series arti-
cles provide useful summary information on both classic and
emerging concepts in petroleum engineering. Purpose: To
provide the general reader with a basic understanding of
a significant concept, technique. or development within a
specific area of technology.
JPT
July 1990 JPT