SPE 92002

Drilling Further With Water-Based FluidsSelecting the Right Lubricant

D. Knox and P. Jiang, M-I Swaco
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2 4 February 2005.
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 acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-9529435.

Abstract
This paper summarises the results of extensive laboratory
work carried out in recent years to determine the
performance of a number of experimental and commercially
available lubricants for reservoir applications. The laboratory
work included a series of tests to determine formation
damage potential in both completion brines and low-solids,
water-based reservoir drilling fluids, as well as reduction in
friction coefficient.
The testing to evaluate formation damage potential
included brine miscibility, greasing and emulsion formation
potential, as well as return permeability testing on outcrop
sandstone.
Introduction
In recent years, improvements in equipment and fluids have
allowed extended reach wells to be drilled to and beyond
limits that were unthinkable previously.
Environmental and technical requirements can make
water-based reservoir drilling fluids the preferred option.
Good drilling practices and the inherently thin filter cake and
lubricious nature of the polymer additives of low-solids,
brine-based reservoir drilling fluids can reduce the torque
and drag values associated with water based fluids.1
However, in many cases, an additional chemical lubricant is
required to drill these extended reach wells to total depth.
The choice of the correct lubricant for water-based
reservoir drilling and clear brine completion fluids is
primarily driven by technical performance and environmental restrictions. In the last few years, increasingly strict
environmental legislation imposed in many parts of the
world has changed the choice of chemistries utilised for
water-based fluid lubricants. Whereas hydrocarbons and
fatty acids previously constituted the majority of effective
additives, there has been a move towards more
environmentally acceptable alternatives, such as esters and

naturally occurring vegetable oils. These chemical families

are a source of highly lubricious materials that can
significantly reduce metal-to-metal and metal-to-rock
coefficients of friction in water-based fluid environments, in
some cases by as much as 70% in laboratory tests.
Typically, the most effective additives have a relatively
high degree of surface activity, which improves their
adhesion to materials (i.e. metal casing or drilling mud
solids), and so enhances the lubricity of the surface.
However, this surface activity makes them more capable of
reacting with other components of the fluid whether
deliberately added, or present as a contaminant. For example,
many effective water-based fluid lubricants may act as an
emulsifier in the presence of even small quantities of oil.
Under moderate shear conditions, the combination of oil,
lubricant and brine can produce an ultra low oil:water ratio
invert emulsion with the consistency of cottage cheese. This
highly viscous material is at best a drilling hazard, stripping
lubricant from the fluid and possibly blinding shaker screens.
At worst, the cheese may damage the production zone or
plug the completion assembly, particularly where sand
screens are applied.
Another potential problem is the reaction between the
lubricant and divalent ions, resulting in the formation of a
grease-like precipitate. Depending on the chemical nature of
the lubricant, this grease may be formed with relatively low
concentrations of calcium or magnesium ions, in some cases
with concentrations as low as 1000 mg/L, which may easily
be encountered in freshwater or monovalent salt fluids while
drilling. The potential consequences of the formation of this
grease are similar to those of the creation of the cheese-like
emulsion.
These issues need to be addressed when selecting
suitable lubricants for water-based drilling fluids most
importantly those used for drilling reservoir in order to
prevent fluid related formation damage.2 In addition, the
effect of the lubricant on the reservoir fluids needs to be
evaluated, in case of any interaction with lubricant in the
filtrate.
Another important consideration is the suitability of the
lubricant for use in clear brine completion fluids. Extended
reach wells that are completed open hole will often require
clear brine fluids in the casing while running the sand
screens. In some cases a lubricant is necessary to reduce the
metal-to-metal coefficient of friction sufficiently to allow the
screens to be run all the way to total depth. The concerns
addressed above with respect to possible lubricant reactions
are equally applicable to brines. In addition, the effect of the

www.petroman.ir

SPE 92002

lubricant on the formation in the event of fluid losses

becomes a more important factor.
Partially soluble
lubricants may coat out on rock or interstitial clay surfaces
and cause significant loss of permeability in completion
brines. The same lubricant in a drilling fluid based on the
same completion brine may not exhibit similar behaviour.
This may be explained by lubricant coating out on solids in
the drilling fluid. Even fully brine-soluble lubricants may
show some degree of formation damage, either by causing
changes in irreducible water saturation, or possibly due to
lubricant coming out of solution at reservoir temperature
(clouding out). This behavior limits the number of
lubricant chemistries that are suitable for reservoir drilling
and completion fluids.
Laboratory Testing Procedures
The ability of water-based fluid lubricants to potentially
cause formation damage was recognized, and in order to
evaluate lubricant suitability, a series of laboratory tests were
devised. These tests included procedures to determine the
potential to form greases and emulsions. Lubricant
performance (torque reduction) and formation damage tests
were also performed. These procedures have been used to
evaluate a number of candidate lubricants in completion
brines, as well as low-solids, water-based reservoir drilling
fluids based on the same brines.
Wherever possible, the generic chemical description of
the lubricant was documented (Table 1) in order to try and
determine trends in behavior.
Table 1 Generic Chemical Description
of Lubricants Tested
Lubricant 1
Ester/glycol blend
Lubricant 2
Ester blend
Lubricant 3
Ester/glycol blend
Lubricant 4
Ester/glycol blend
Lubricant 5
Nonionic surfactant blend
Lubricant 6
Ester blend
Lubricant 7
No information from supplier
Lubricant 8
Ester/alcohol blend
Lubricant 9
Ester/alcohol blend with antifoam
Lubricant 10
No information from supplier
Lubricant 11
Ester/polyol blend
Lubricant 12
Phosphate ester blend
Lubricant 13
Ester/glycol blend
Lubricant 14
Ester/vegetable oil/glycol blend
Lubricant 15
No information from supplier
Lubricant 16
Ester blend
Lubricant 17
Glycol/surfactant blend
Lubricant 18
Glycol/polyol blend
Lubricant 19
Vegetable oil/glycol blend
Lubricant 20
No information from supplier
Lubricant 21
Ester blend
Lubricant 22
Ester derivative
Miscibility in Completion Brines
The first step in testing the suitability of the candidate
experimental lubricants for use in completion brines was to
determine the miscibility and solution stability at 200F.

This was achieved by mixing 3% v/v lubricant in filtered

1.20 sg (320 g/L) sodium chloride brine, then heat ageing at
200F in a static ageing oven. The degree of miscibility was
determined by visual examination and measurement of the
turbidity of the mixture using a turbidimeter. The samples
were shaken for 1 minute prior to measuring the turbidity to
prevent erroneous results due to phase separation. The results
of these tests are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Turbidity Before and After
Formation Damage Tests
Fluid System
NTU
NTU
3% Lube
Before
After
Blank (NaCl
3
5
1.2SG)
Lube Sample 1
5026
16
Lube Sample 2
8620
13
Lube Sample 3
1379
10
Lube Sample 4
1543
4
Lube Sample 5
185
12
Lube Sample 6
11
284
Lube Sample 7
10
294
Lube Sample 8
2.5
390
Lube Sample 9
4.5
159
Lube Sample 10
3.8
194
Lube Sample 11
1800
26
Lube Sample 12
15
20
The results indicated that some of the added lubricants
had a high degree of miscibility, most notably samples #6
10 and #12, while others displayed varying degrees of
turbidity and/or phase separation.
Regardless of the results of this test, all samples were
then subjected to formation damage testing. After formation
damage testing was completed the effluent turbidity was
checked (Table 2).
Formation Damage Testing
The samples of lubricant in completion brine were submitted
for formation damage testing on samples of outcrop Berea
sandstone. The following test conditions were applied during
the testing:
Test Procedure:
Core Sample:
Size of Core Plugs (DxL):
Temperature:
Confining Pressure:
Pore (or Back) Pressure:
Connate Water Saturation: Brine:

Berea Sandstone
3.80 x 9.2~10.1 cm
200F
1000 psi
72,5 psi
95 g/L NaCl and
5 g/L CaCl2
3% Lube/Brine injection:
200 mL @ 5 mL/min
then shut-in overnight
Oil for Establish Swi and Return flow: (Isoparaffins C11-C15)
Oil flowrate for Swi and return flow: 8 mL/min

www.petroman.ir

SPE 92002

Greasing Test Procedure

1. Add 10 mL of the lubricant to 340 mL of the test brine
in a Hamilton Beach mixing cup. The test brine may be
treated in order to simulate field conditions (i.e. adjust
pH, hardness ion concentration, etc)
2. Mix the blend on a Hamilton Beach mixer for 10
minutes.
3. While blend is mixed on Hamilton Beach mixer prepare
Bchner funnel:
a. Put a piece of filter paper into the funnel and wet it
with water. Remove excess water from funnel.
b. Weigh funnel plus filter paper on electronic
balance.
c. Note the result.
4. After mixing the blend, filter the fluid instantaneously
through the Bchner funnel into the filter flask with help
of the filter pump.
5. Let the residue on the filter paper dry for about a minute
with filter pump running.
6. Weigh the funnel with filter paper and residue again.
7. Estimate degree of greasing based on weight of
precipitate retained on filter paper.
The emulsion potential procedure is as above, but with the
addition of 10 mL of mineral oil to the lubricant/brine
mixture in the Hamilton Beach cup. Results for the greasing
and emulsification tests are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 - Greasing/Emulsion Potential Results
Fluid System
Emulsion
Grease?
Comments
3% Lube
?
Blank (1.2-sg
No
No
NaCl )
Lube Sample 1
No
No
Foaming
Lube Sample 2
Slight
Slight
Lube Sample 3
No
No
Moderate
foaming
Lube Sample 4
No
Slight
Slight foaming
Lube Sample 5
No
No
Foaming
Lube Sample 6
No
Slight
Lube Sample 7
No
Slight
Lube Sample 8
Slight
Slight
Lube Sample 9
Slight
Slight
Heavy foaming
Lube Sample 10
Moderate Moderate
Lube Sample 11
No
No
Lube Sample 12
No
No
Comments
The results from the return permeability tests (Table 4)
suggest that there is little relationship between
brine/lubricant miscibility and permeability impairment.
Indeed, two of the lubricants that appeared to be totally
miscible (samples #6 and #7) faired very badly in the
formation damage testing. The higher turbidity reading for
these products suggests that the lubricant is reacting with one
of the fluids in the core - either the isoparaffin or a
component of the simulated formation water. Although the
cause is unknown, it is clear that the reaction product is
causing severe damage impairment.

Table 4 - Return Permeability Test Results

Baseline
Return
Fluid System
%
Permeability Permeability
3% Lube
Return
(mD)
(mD)
Blank (1.2-sg NaCl )
126
121
96
Lube Sample 1
142
118
83
Lube Sample 2
132
126
95
Lube Sample 3
122
111
91
Lube Sample 4
112
105
94
Lube Sample 5
119
102
86
Lube Sample 6
129
6.6
5.1
Lube Sample 7
138
4.5
3.3
Lube Sample 8
124
0*
0
Lube Sample 9
132
0*
0
Lube Sample 10
116
4.6
4
Lube Sample 11
154
148
96
Lube Sample 12
128
124
96
* Pressure too high for limits of pump and transducer.

Generally, it would appear that a high level of fluid

turbidity does not lead to a reduction in permeability in these
tests (Tables 2 & 4). Many of the seemingly incompatible
lubricants faired very well in the test. The lower NTU
readings for the brine samples after the test is completed
suggest that lubricant may be left inside the core after the
test. Although this has not resulted in a serious reduction in
permeability in this test, it is likely that such behavior may
cause problems in other reservoir rock types.
From these results, lubricant sample #12 has been
recommended as a suitable lubricant for saturated sodium
chloride brines. Further laboratory testing was carried out to
determine the suitability of this lubricant for other types of
completion brine (Table 5).
Table 5 Performance of Lubricant Sample #12
in Various Brine Types
Seawater
Coeff. Of
% Red. in Brine Clarity
Lube Conc.
Friction
CoF
(NTU)
Blank
0.363

18
1
0.159
56.3
22
3
0.165
54.6
20
1.20-sg NaCl Brine
Coeff. Of
% Red. in Brine Clarity
Lube Conc.
Friction
CoF
(NTU)
Blank
0.441

12
1
0.188
57.5
15
3
0.170
61.6
15
1.34-sg CaCl2 Brine
Lube Conc.
Coeff. Of
% Red. in Brine Clarity
Friction
CoF
(NTU)
Blank
0.258

18
1
0.223
13.4
28
3
0.197
23.5
52

www.petroman.ir

SPE 92002

Lubricant Testing in Reservoir Drilling Fluids

Further testing was performed on a variety of lubricants for
use in monovalent brine-based, low-solids reservoir drilling
fluids. In this case, the lubricants selected were based on
performance in laboratory scale lubricity testing, rather than
compatibility with the base fluid, although grease and
emulsion formation potential was evaluated. (Table 6)
Ten lubricants in total were used. Some field-proven
products were included to provide a benchmark for the
experimental additives.
Table 6 - Greasing/Emulsion Potential Results
Fluid System
Emulsion? Grease?
Comments
3% Lube
Blank (1.2-sg
No
No
NaCl)
Lube Sample 13
Moderate
Yes
Lube Sample 14
No
No
Lube Sample 15
Yes
Slight
Foaming
Lube Sample 16
No
Yes
Some foaming
Lube Sample 17
No
No
Slight foaming
Lube Sample 18
No
Slight
Some foaming
Lube Sample 19
No
No
Lube Sample 20
Slight
Slight
Foaming
Lube Sample 21
No
No
Slight foaming
Lube Sample 22
Yes
Yes
Lubricity Testing
A saturated sodium chloride-based, low-solids reservoir
drilling fluid was used as the base fluid for this suite of tests
(Table 7). The lubricant was added at 1 and 3% v/v - a
typical concentration range for field applications.
The effect on coefficient of friction (metal-to-metal) was
then measured using the LEM III lubricity test apparatus.
The test procedure is detailed below. Further information on
the LEM III tester is included as attachment 1.
Test Procedure
1. 1 liter of the specified fluid was prepared before testing.
2. Lubricant was mixed for 10 min with fluid before each
test.
3. The test cell was filled with water and initial fresh
groove was cut on wellbore sample to ensure that bob
and wellbore sample are aligned.
4. Before each test, the cell, bob and metal sample were
rinsed with soap and water, alcohol and acetone.
5. The sample holder was attached to the test cell. Next the
bob was attached to lathe chuck and the cell was filled
up with the test fluid.
6. After set-up bob rotation was set to 250 rpm, a 16-kg
weight was attached to the cart. The oscillation motor
was set to 3.5 rpm and separation (bob and wellbore
sample) to approx. 1 2 mm.
7. A computer collected the test data into a template
starting from test parameters and tare measurement. The
tare torque measurement is necessary to subtract this
value from a torque during main test. If no excessive
tare torque was observed the main test could be started.

8.

9.

Data was collected for 20 minutes with measuring

frequency 10 Hz. After testing, the raw data was
processed with a custom written program to eliminate
points where the bob did not contact the wellbore during
separation. The last 5 minutes of the test data (about
3000 data points) were used to calculate average
Coefficient of Friction.
After the test, the unit was carefully cleaned and dried.

The lubricity tests results for 1 & 3% lubricant concentration

in the water-based reservoir drilling fluid are shown in Table
8.
Table 7 Low Solids Water Based Drilling
Fluid Composition
1.20-sg NaCl Brine,(mL)
950
Xanthan Gum (g)
4.0
Derivatized Starch (g)
17.0
Magnesium Oxide (g)
1.0
Calcium Carbonate (g)
140
Lubricant
As specified
Table 8 Coefficient of Friction Test Results
Lube
Coefficient
%
Conc.(%) of Friction Reduction
Blank
0.365
1
0.274
25
Lube Sample 13
3
0.248
32
1
0.161
56
Lube Sample 14
3
0.102
72
1
0.299
18
Lube Sample 15
3
0.274
25
1
0.241
34
Lube Sample 16
3
0.164
55
1
0.244
33
Lube Sample 17
3
0.204
44
1
0.266
27
Lube Sample 18
3
0.226
38
1
0.237
35
Lube Sample 19
3
0.199
48
1
0.299
18
Lube Sample 20
3
0.234
36
1
0.263
28
Lube Sample 21
3
0.190
48
1
0.285
22
Lube Sample 22
3
0.263
28
Formation Damage Testing
The samples treated with 3% lubricant were then submitted
to formation damage testing.
Test Conditions
Core Sample:
Size of Core Plugs (DxL):
Temperature:
Overbalance Pressure:
Confining Pressure:
Pore (or Back) Pressure:

www.petroman.ir

Bentheimer Outcrop Sandstone

3,72 cm x 9.6 ~10 cm
85C
500 psi;
1000 psi
50 psi

SPE 92002

Table 9 - Return Permeability Test Results, Lubricant Samples in Water-Based Drilling Fluids
Fluid System
Baseline
Return
% Return
Fluid Loss,
Breakthrough
3% Lube/NaClPermeability
Permeability
Spurt/Total (mL) Pressure (psi)
based WBM
(mD)
(mD)
Blank
612
481
79
1.8/15.8
8.2
Lube Sample 13
655
483
74
1.75/16.25
6.7
Lube Sample 14
631
477
76
1.8/15
5.4
Lube Sample 15
612
1.6/15.5
Lube Sample 16
745
576
77
1.8/16.4
5.1
Lube Sample 17
387
345
89
0.75/9.0
20
Lube Sample 18
450
362
80
1.5/11.8
18.7
Lube Sample 19
385
308
80
1.0/15
18
Lube Sample 20
402
283
70
1.3/12.5
18.3
Lube Sample 21
460
350
76
0.8/10.2
18.2
Lube Sample 22
417
382
92
1.75/20.6
21
Core water saturation:
Oil type:
Mud Exposure Time:

brine with 95 g/L NaCl and 5

g/L CaCl2
Light mineral oil Isopar L
~16 hours

The results of the return permeability tests are given in

Table 9.
Comments
The results from these tests indicate that many of the
lubricants tested had similar performance in both reduction
of coefficient of friction and in effect on core permeability.
However, the return permeability test on the fluid containing
lubricant sample #15 indicated that the lubricant caused
severe damage to the core (no flow was possible within the
pressure limitations of the pump). In addition, sample #15
produced one of the lowest reductions in coefficient of
friction in these tests.
Sample #22 gave the best result in the formation damage
testing with respect to return permeability (92%), but was
one of the poorest performers in the lubricity testing.
From this suite of tests, it was concluded that sample #14
gave the best combination of results with respect to reduction
in coefficient of friction and formation compatibility. This
lubricant was selected for field trialing.
Lubricant Emulsion Field Experience
Subsequent to the laboratory work reported above, Lubricant
sample #14 has been introduced to the field as a lubricant for
water-based drilling fluids. Field experience to date has been
very positive, with torque reductions of nearly 50% recorded
and no fluid incompatibilities reported. However, one case
of emulsion formation has been reported in the North Sea.
The reservoir section of the well was drilled with a lowsolids, brine-based drilling fluid treated with 1.5% lubricant.
At one stage during the drilling, the presence of a viscous
emulsion was observed on the shaker screens. Samples of the
emulsion, drilling fluid and lubricant were forwarded to the
laboratory for analysis and formation damage testing.
It was concluded from laboratory analysis of the
lubricant, drilling fluid, and samples on the rig at the time

that the emulsion contained lubricant and reservoir crude.

Attempts to re-create the emulsion using the laboratory
emulsion potential test procedure with mineral oils were
unsuccessful, however testing on a sample of reservoir crude
resulted in the formation of a viscous emulsion similar to
that collected at the rig. The test was repeated using a sample
of reservoir crude from another field in the North Sea, but no
emulsion was created. It was concluded from these tests that
the emulsion formed was specific to the properties of the
crude encountered in this reservoir.
Formation damage testing was carried out on a sample of
the reservoir drilling fluid to determine whether the emulsion
could cause production impairment.
The results suggested that the drilling fluid contaminated
with reservoir crude did not significantly reduce the
permeability of the core. (Table 10)
Table 10 Return Permeability Testing,
Contaminated Field Mud
Fluid System
Baseline
Return
%
Permeability Permeability Return
(mD)
(mD)
Field Mud, no crude
102
99.9
98%
Field Mud + crude
130
99.7
77%
Test procedure as per previous tests. Outcrop Berea sandstone used.

Conclusions
The laboratory testing reported in this paper suggests that
there is a fair degree of variation in the properties of
lubricants used in solids-free completion brines and lowsolids, brine-based reservoir drilling fluids.
A high degree of miscibility in brine does not
automatically equate to a low impact on core permeability.
Similarly, partially miscible and immiscible lubricants can
perform well in such tests. However, great care must be
taken in how these results are interpreted, as under different
test conditions, lubricant residues in the core may result in an
appreciable reduction in permeability.
Lubricants used in water-based drilling fluids may give
acceptable results in formation damage testing, even when

www.petroman.ir

SPE 92002

the chemical appears to be incompatible with the base brine

of the drilling fluid. This phenomenon may be due to the
lubricant coating out on solids added to the drilling fluid,
thereby greatly reducing the concentration in the brine phase.
The potential for lubricants to form emulsions in the
presence of small concentrations of oil should be taken into
consideration. Laboratory-scale pilot testing is recommended
to ensure compatibility. If possible, testing should be done
on samples of reservoir oil, as there is some evidence that the
reaction may be specific to the oil encountered.
The results and conclusions in this paper are from testing
performed on saturated, monovalent brines. The performance
of the lubricants tested using the methods reported above can
vary greatly depending on the chemistry and salt
concentration of the base brine.
The laboratory testing identified two lubricants one for
completion brines and one for low-solids, water-based

drilling fluids that were considered suitable for application

in the field.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the management of M-I SWACO
for permission to present this paper.
References
1. Bleier, R.: Selecting A Drilling Fluid, SPE 20986, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (July 1990) 832.
2. Hodge, R.M., Augustine, B.G., Burton, R.C., Sanders, W.W.,
and Atkinson, B.G.: "Evaluation and Selection of Drill-in
Fluid Candidates to Minimize Formation Damage, paper SPE
31082, presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control
Symposium, Lafayette, Feb 14-15, 1996.

Appendix - LEM III Lubricity Tester Test Apparatus

The LEM III consist of the following components:
1.

Main Drive
Vertical plate

Torquemeter

Pilow blocks

Lathe type chucke

Base plate

To the vertical plate of the unit the main motor is attached and connected to a torque meter with elastic couplings on both sides.
Next, the power is transmitted to a lathe type chuck supported by two sets of bearings. There are several electronic components not
shown on the above schematic. An electronic box controls the motor RPM. The torque sensor is connected to a power supply and
signal conditioner. Next, the signal is sent to a Data Acquisition Board and a computer collects the data.
All sensors are calibrated under static and dynamic conditions according to the ISO Quality Manual.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 92002

2. Test Unit
The Lubricity Unit consists of 0.7-L fluid test cell attached to a cart on linear bearing. The cart is connected to weight to create
contact force between bob (tool joint) and wellbore sample. In the test cell there is sample holder with a rock or casing. The bob,
which rotates against sample, is connected to drive mechanism of the main unit. During a test, the cart is moved periodically by a cam
mechanism driven by separate gear motor. These movements are monitored by the LVDT and the computer. In addition the mud is
circulated by a Randolph pump out of the cell through an opening on the bottom of the cell and back into the cell through the top
opening
The schematic below shows all major components, technical parameters and bases to scale up the tester.

Fluid Circulation
Shaft attached to chuck
Tool joint
Casing or rock sample
Cart with Test Cell
on linear bearings

Base

Linear movement for fluid refreshment

Camshaft
(Oscillation)

LVDT
to monitor oscillation

Technical Data

Scale-up Parameters

Controlled Parameters:
Tool Joint rotation
Camshaft rotation
Contact force
Fluid flowrate

Rotation
Tool Joint 6 3/8" 40 - 120 rpm
Bob 30 mm Dia. 200 - 650 rpm

Wellbore Type
Casing
Rock sample

Camschaft rotation 0 - 60 rpm

Measured by computer
and calculated value
Torque
Coefficient of friction

Contact force
Tool Joint 18"
300 - 1000 lbf
Bob 38 mm long
11 - 38 kG

Tool joint (Bob)

Carbon steel
Surface: smooth
rough (~250 m)

Fluid flowrate

not scaled

www.petroman.ir