Stabilization of Hard, Fractured Shales Whilst Drilling

S. Young, E. Stamatakis, M-I SWACO,

Paper No. 039/drlg2
This paper was presented at the Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 28-30, 2007. It
was selected for presentation by the OMC 2007 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the authors. The Paper as presented at OMC 2007 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT
With increasing wellbore complexity, drilling into more technically demanding areas and
increasing pressure to improve drilling economics, the requirements to minimize drilling fluid
losses and optimize wellbore stability have become a necessity. In areas of hard and
fractured shales these concerns become compounded especially as wells of higher
inclination and drilling into depleted reservoirs are becoming more commonplace. In such
formations natural fractures can readily extend and drilling-induced fractures occur, resulting
in high risk of wellbore failure and/or lost circulation.
The development of unique drilling fluid additives which can aid in increasing wellbore
stability and minimizing fluid losses, coupled with the development and correct use of drilling
fluids designed to optimize stability of the wellbore have been a key in achieving the desired
operational goals. Developing efficient treatments and engineering techniques tailored to the
formation requirements have been equally important. The net result of the correct application
of these unique systems and additives has been to minimize the incidence of drilling induced
lost circulation, to minimize fluid lost to formation, and to minimize drilling down-time required
for treatment of losses and wellbore instability.
The development and application of a uniquely engineered water-based drilling fluid is
described that demonstrates enhanced shale-stabilization properties across an extensive
variety of shale types, thus allowing water-based fluids to be used in applications previously
reserved for invert emulsion systems. In addition, the development and use of a unique class
of sealing additives is outlined, showing how further stabilization of the wellbore and
minimization of losses can be accomplished. Unique laboratory test data on both the fluid
system and sealing additives is shown along with initial data from the first field wells using
the new system.
The authors discuss the design of these unique drilling fluid additives, reviewing all aspects
of additive selection. The treatment techniques required to ensure optimal wellbore stability
and minimal induced fracture losses are also reviewed along with the engineering tricks
required to ensure successful application of such treatments. The authors also review the
results of field trials.

INTRODUCTION
Invert emulsion drilling fluids (IEM), have traditionally been the fluids of choice when drilling
demanding wells. Such wells require a highly inhibitive fluid to minimize interactions between
the fluid and water-sensitive formations (mainly claystones and shales), a fluid which is
capable of ensuring high rates of penetration (ROP), coupled with good lubricity and low
potential for stuck pipe. The development of a water-based drilling fluid which could exhibit
similar drilling characteristics to an invert emulsion drilling fluid has been an ongoing
endeavor of the drilling fluids industry for some time. A number of fluids research and
development projects have reached fruition over the last few years and these water-based
fluids have been applied in the field on wells where traditionally IEM would have been used.
The decision to utilize such water-based fluids has generally been taken when risks
1

associated with the use of IEM (such as poor logistics, high levels of lost circulation,
environmental compliance concerns and economics) are deemed to be unacceptable. Even
allowing for the successes of a number of these fluids, invert emulsion drilling fluids are still
universally recognized as being the most efficient drilling fluids. This is primarily due to the
absence of contact between the drilled formations and water, and the inherent lubricity
characteristics of these fluids.
Several water-based drilling fluid (WBF) systems have been developed over the past ten
years with the goal of approaching the drilling performance of an IEM.1-7 A few of the more
successful systems have been potassium/PHPA fluids, salt/glycol fluids, cationic fluids,
CaCl2/polymer fluids, silicate fluids and polyamine fluids. The approaches taken with these
fluids have not, however, completely met the desired performance target of IEM.
Many of these fluids have exhibited performance limitations. For example, potassium/PHPA
fluids cannot reach the inhibition levels of an IEM. Cationic polymer systems give a more
IEM-like inhibition, however, the cost of running the system, toxicity of cationic polymers, and
their incompatibility with other anionic drilling fluid additives has resulted in only limited
success. CaCl2/polymer fluids have limitations with respect to polymeric control over fluid
properties, logistics, and fluid density. Silicate fluids exhibit highly inhibitive properties, but
have problems related to logistics, tool compatibility and flexibility in mud formulations.
Over and above these system developments, there have been a number of developments of
individual products designed to further enhance the performance characteristics of these
systems. Many of these products have been designed in an attempt to bring these fluids
closer to IEM performance in a particular geographic area, combining the development with a
detailed knowledge of area geology and requirements. Custom-designed lubricants and
lubricant blends, specific surfactants for ROP enhancement, alternate shale encapsulators,
and more efficient filtration-control polymers are some examples.
These developments have all resulted in various WBF s which are relatively finely tuned to
perform in certain areas while drilling through specific shale types. The recently developed
polyamine fluids have certainly come closest to the overall performance of an IEM with their
custom-designed, triple-inhibition mechanism, and anti-accretion performance. It was with
these fluids in mind, and with knowledge of the small failings in the polyamine fluid
performance, that the development of a new high-performance water-based system was
approached.

Research and Development

A research and development commitment was taken to look into the potential for improving
upon existing polyamine-based (and other) high-performance water-based drilling fluid
(HPWBM) technologies. Throughout the development, focus was maintained on the entire
performance spectrum of an IEM, and did not limit the focus to shale-inhibition. The following
were the key criteria determined.
Highly inhibitive system across a wide range of shale types
Significant reduction in clay dispersion and hydration
Lower risk of accretion and cuttings agglomeration
Environmentally acceptable
Highly flexible in formulation with ready controllable filtration and rheology profile, and
usable with various base brines
Highly tolerant of contamination
The test matrix involved testing in four different base fluids (freshwater, seawater, 10% KCl,
and 20% NaCl). Testing was conducted primarily on four differing shale substrates (from
highly swelling to highly dispersive), and used a variety of inhibition test methods (shale
dispersion, bentonite tolerance, shale swelling, shale hardness, shale accretion and
unconfined shale fracture development) which are briefly described later. In addition to the
2

above, the formulated fluids were also subject to performance testing (lubricity, filtration,
rheology, contamination tolerance, thermal stability, etc.) to evaluate their overall
performance. The test results achieved were compared to three baselines of a mineral oilbased fluid, a KCl/glycol water-based fluid, and a polyamine high-performance water-based
fluid. Generalized formulations for the novel HPWBM and the three baseline fluids are
shown in Tables 1a-d.
Table 1a
Typical Composition of New HPWBM
Seawater (mL)
330.0
Filtration controller (g)
3.0
Polymer viscosifier (g)
1.0
Dispersion suppressant (g)
3.0
Hydration suppressant (mL)
8.0
Accretion suppressant (mL)
7.0

Table 1b
Typical Composition of Polyamine Mud
Seawater (mL)
327.0
Polyamine inhibitor (mL)
10.5
Polymeric encapsulator (g)
2.5
Anticrete (mL)
7.0
Fluid loss agent (g)
3.0
Polymer viscosifier (g)
1.0

Table 1c
Typical Composition of KCl/Glycol Mud
Seawater (mL)
323.0
KCl (g)
30.0
Soda ash (g)
0.5
Polyglycol (mL)
10.5
Fluid loss agent (g)
3.0
PHPA (g)
1.0
Polymer viscosifier (g)
0.75

Table 1d
Typical Composition of Oil-Based Mud
Mineral oil (mL)
255.0
Primary emulsifier (mL)
9.0
Secondary emulsifier (mL)
4.0
Lime (g)
7.5
Fluid loss agent (g)
2.0
Organoclay viscosifier (g)
6.0
25% CaCl2 Brine (mL)
75.0

The final result of this research and development project was a new water-based drilling fluid
which exhibited laboratory performance characteristics in the realm of those achieved by
invert emulsion fluids, far exceeded those exhibited by other water-based fluids, and were
superior to those exhibited by the polyamine HPWBM. This fluid was then taken to the field
test stage.
Shale Inhibition
As discussed above, several test methods were utilized to evaluate the inhibitive properties
of the new HPWBM. The shale substrates used were outcrop shales, which spanned the
range from highly swelling (Wyoming bentonite) to highly dispersive (Arne Clay), and
included two mixed shales (Foss Eikeland and Oxford Clay). In addition problematic field
shales were evaluated
Nahr Umhr shale from the Middle East and Los Monos shales of
southern Latin America were utilized for the unconfined shale fracture testing and linear
swelling testing. The inhibition test methods used along with some sample results are
outlined below.
Bentonite Inhibition
The ability of a chemical to prevent bentonite from yielding and to maintain a low rheological
profile is the simplest of tests for the evaluation of shale inhibitors. This procedure was
designed to simulate the incorporation of high-yield clays into a drilling fluid. The test method
determines the maximum amount of API bentonite that can be inhibited by a single (8.0lb/bbl) treatment of shale inhibitor over a period of several days. For this test, 350 mL of
fresh water containing 8.0 lb/bbl of shale inhibitor is treated with 10-lb/bbl bentonite every
day. After heat aging at 150F for 16 hours, the rheological properties are measured before
adding another portion of bentonite. These daily additions of bentonite and aging are
continued until the sample becomes too viscous to measure.
The performance of the selected shale inhibitor in the HPWBM, compared with seawater,
potassium chloride, and a commercial polyamine shale inhibitor, is shown in Figure 1.

160

Base (S eaw ater)

140

KCl
Polyam ine
New Shale Inhibitor

Yield Point (lbs/100ft2)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

Be ntonite (lb/bb l)

Figure 1

Bentonite inhibition test results comparing the yield point of three shale
inhibitors and the base fluid.

Hot Roll Dispersion Test

This test involves exposing a weighed quantity of sized shale pieces to a formulated fluid in a
conventional roller oven cell. The test provides a long-term exposure of the shale to the fluid
under mild agitation conditions. Under such conditions, dispersion of the shale into the fluid
will occur depending on the tendency of the shale to disperse and the inhibitive properties of
the fluid. The fluid and shale are rolled together in a roller oven for 16 hours at 150F.
Following cooling to room temperature, the fluid is poured out over a 1-mm sieve, and the
shale pieces remaining are recovered, washed, weighed, dried overnight at 210F, and reweighed. The moisture content of the shale and the percentage recovery of the shale are
determined.
The test results obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown in Figure 2, being
compared to IEM, a KCl/silicate fluid, a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
Raw Bentonite

Oxford Clay

Foss Eikeland

Arne Clay

Percentage shale recovery

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
IEM

Figure 2

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Hot roll dispersion testing results comparing the shale recovery of three
WBM and an IEM to the new HPWBM.

Slake Durability Test

This test is similar in design to the hot rolling dispersion test, but provides a harsher, more
abrasive environment. This test is designed to simulate exposure of cuttings to the fluid in a
well annulus, and subsequent removal at the shaker screens. The evaluation consists of
placing a weighed quantity of sized shale pieces in a round cage semi-immersed in the test
fluid. The cage with cuttings is rotated through the fluid for a 4-hour period at room
4

temperature. During rolling, any sensitive shale will tend to hydrate, break up, and disperse,
passing through the cage screen. The shale pieces remaining in the cage after the test
period are recovered, washed, weighed, dried overnight at 210F and re-weighed. The
moisture content of the shale and the percentage recovery of the shale are determined.
The test results obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown in Figure 3, being
compared to IEM, a KCl/silicate fluid, a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
Raw Bentonite

Oxford Clay

Foss Eikeland

Arne Clay

120

Percentage shale recovery

100
80
60
40
20
0
IEM

Figure 3

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Slake Durability testing results comparing the shale recovery of three WBM
and an IEM to the new HPWBM.

Bulk Hardness Test

This test is designed to give an assessment of the hardness of shale following exposure to a
test fluid. The hardness of the shale can be related to the inhibitive properties of the fluid
being evaluated. Shale, which exhibits a tendency to adsorb liquid from a test fluid, will
become softer, and this can translate into a weaker wellbore during drilling and/or increased
tendency for drilled shale to compact/accrete. In this test, sized shale pieces are hot rolled in
the test fluid for 16 hours at 150F. After hot rolling, the shale pieces are recovered on a 1mm sieve, washed with brine to remove excess fluid and then placed into the bulk hardness
tester. Using a torque wrench the shale is extruded through a perforated plate, measuring
the maximum torque required for each turn in compression. Harder, more competent shale
pieces will give higher torque readings.
The test results obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown in Figure 4, being
compared to IEM, a KCl/silicate fluid, a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
Foss Eikeland Clay

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

IEM

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Shale

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Shale

350

350

300

300

250

250

Torque (ftlbs)

Torque (ftlbs)

Oxford Clay
IEM

200
150
100
50

200
150
100
50

10

11

12

13

14

15

Number of Turns

Figure 4

10

11

Number of Turns

12

13

14

15

Bulk hardness testing results comparing the torque of three WBM and an
IEM to the new HPWBM and native shale.
5

Accretion Test
One of the primary failings of many inhibitive WBM has been a tendency for accretion (or bit
balling), where partially hydrated shales are compressed onto the drilling assembly, resulting
in poor drilling performance. The simple laboratory accretion test consists of placing a steel
bar in a hot rolling cell containing the test fluid. Sized shale pieces are placed evenly around
the centralized accretion bar. The cell is closed and rolled at room temperature for a specific
period of time. After rolling, the bar is removed and a photo is taken. The percent weight of
the cuttings adhering to the bar is determined after removal, washing the cuttings, and drying
the sample.
The test results obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown in Figure 5 being
compared to a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
Raw Bentonite

Oxford Clay

Foss Eikeland

Arne Clay

5 0 0M
NEeM
w SH-P2WB

KGCLl/G
Y lycol
D R IL

U L T R AD R IL
Polyamine

60

% shale recovery

50
40
30
20
10
0
KCl/
Glyc
ol

IEM

Poly
amin
e

New
HPW
BM

Fluid Type

Figure 5

Rolling Bar Accretion testing results for four different clays comparing the
shale adhered of two WBM and an IEM to the new HPWBM.

Linear Swelling Test

The tendency for a shale to adsorb fluid from a water-based drilling fluid can lead to a
swelling of the shales which can translate to decreased wellbore size and wellbore instability
issues. The amount of fluid adsorbed by a shale over time can be determined in the
laboratory using the linear swellmeter. In this test, the shale to be tested is ground into a
powder, then compressed into a sized shale pellet which is placed between a metal plate
and a linear transducer. The pellet is immersed in the test fluid and the change in length of
the pellet is measured over time by the transducer. Both the total change in length over a
given time period, and the constant rate of change can be determined.
The test results obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown in Figure 6 being
compared to a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
KCl/Glycol

New HPWBM

Polyamine

25

Polyamine

Percentage Expansion

20

15

New HPWBM
10

KCl/Glycol

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Time (Minutes)

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Steady Sw elling Rate (%/hr)

Figure 6 Linear Swelling testing results for Nahr Umhr shale showing percent
swelling and swelling rate for KCl/glycol fluid, polyamine fluid and the new HPWBM.
6

Unconfined Shale Fracture Development Test

The tendency for consolidated, older shales to adsorb fluid from water-based drilling fluids
can lead to both an extension and widening of existing natural fractures within the shale and
to the development of new and possibly interlinked fractures within the shale. This can
translate to spalling shale and chemically induced wellbore instability. The effect of a fluid on
consolidated shales can be qualitatively and quantitatively determined using the unconfined
shale fracture development test. In this test a block of shale (preferably from a core) is
immersed into the test fluid after a microscopic thin section has been cut from the block.
Time-lapse photography is then used to qualitatively evaluate the effect of the fluid on the
shale over a 24-hour time period. Following exposure a further microscopic thin section is
taken from the block and fracture number and size are directly measured. The thin sections
also allow a qualitative measure of fracture interconnectivity and fracture mineralogy to be
determined.
The test results on Nahr Umhr shale core obtained from the developed HPWBM are shown
in Figure 7 as compared to seawater, a KCl/glycol fluid and a polyamine fluid.
Une x posed Rock
Seawater

Polyamine

KCl/Glycol

Se aw ate r

KCl/Glycol

Polya m ine Fluid

Ne w HP W BM

new HPWBM

Figure 7 Unconfined fracture development testing showing bulk fracturing and thin
section pictures for Nahr Umhr shale exposed to seawater, KCl/glycol fluid, polyamine
fluid and the new HPWBM.

New Fluid Formulation

From the final results of this extensive suite of testing, a final novel HPWBM emerged
consisting of five synergistic basic products; a brief description of these key components
follows. Typical formulations for this fluid for an offshore well and a land well are given in
Table 2.
Table 2a
Typical Offshore Composition of New HPWBM
Seawater (bbl)
0.92
Hydration suppressant (lbm/bbl)
8.0
Dispersion suppressant (lbm/bbl)
2.5
Fluid-loss reducer (lbm/bbl)
2.5
Viscosifier (lbm/bbl)
1.25
Accretion suppressant (lbm/bbl)
7.0
Barite (lbm/bbl)
43.5

Table 2b
Typical Land Composition of New HPWBM
Freshwater (bbl)
0.925
Na2SO4 (lbm/bbl)
2.0
Hydration suppressant (lbm/bbl)
8.0
Dispersion suppressant (lbm/bbl)
3.0
Fluid-loss reducer (lbm/bbl)
3.0
Viscosifier (lbm/bbl)
1.0
Barite (lbm/bbl)
50.0

Hydration Suppressant
A multi-functional complex substituted cyclic hydrocarbon
material, which is partially water-soluble. The compound is compatible with other common
drilling fluid additives used in WBM, exhibits a pH buffering effect and has no hydrolyzable
functionality. The unique molecular structure allows both adsorption onto the shale surface
(resulting in a solubility change of this compound which blocks access to the shale by water)
and parts of the molecule entering between clay platelets, tending to collapse the clays
7

hydrated structure (greatly reducing the clay s tendency to uptake water). The material
requires minimal salinity for maximum functionality, and is equally stable in high-salinity
environments.
Dispersion Suppressant - A novel, low-molecular-weight, fully water-soluble, copolymer
that exhibits good biodegradability and low marine toxicity. The polymeric additive is
designed to have a molecular weight and charge density that allow superior inhibition by
limiting water penetration into the clays and binding clay platelets together via the end
charges. This also allows rheological flexibility over a wide range of fluid densities and
imparts high salinity and hardness tolerance. The compound has the ability to control both
dispersion and accretion of water-sensitive clays.
Rheology Controller - Xanthan gum was chosen as the optimum rheology-control agent for
the fluid based on the high efficiency of the polymer, and its tolerance to salinity and
hardness. The high LSRV and efficient carrying capacity of the polymer allows for optimized
rheological control to improve fluid performance in extended-reach and deepwater
environments.
Filtration Controller - A low viscosity, cellulosic polymer was chosen as the optimal filtration
control agent for the system. This polymer is stable in low to high salinities, and at high
hardness levels. The low viscosity contribution of the polymer allows for optimal filtration
control to be achieved even at high solids loading (high mud weights).
Accretion Suppressant - A unique blend of surfactant and lubricant designed to coat drill
cuttings and metal surfaces, to reduce the accretion tendency of hydrated solids on the
surface of metals, and to reduce the agglomeration tendency of hydrated cuttings with each
other. This component is formulated to be stable in low- to high-salinity environments, and be
compatible with highly solids laden (high-mud-weight) fluids. The accretion suppressant aids
in preventing any buildup of drill solids below the bit, allowing the cutters good contact with
new formation for improved ROP. The component also reduces the coefficient of friction,
reducing torque and drag.
The selection, chemical design, and concentrations of each of the above components were
fine-tuned to optimize upon the synergies of the materials, and to improve the flexibility of the
overall system design. The net result was a high-performance water-based fluid which
performs in a wide variety of base fluids and over a wide density and temperature range.

New Fluid Performance

Extracts from the laboratory test results obtained from the new HPWBM are shown in
Figures 8-13.
Figure 8 shows the comparative shale inhibition results using the hot roll dispersion
test method
Figure 9 shows the comparative shale inhibition results using the Slake durability test
method
Figure 10 shows comparative shale inhibition using the cuttings hardness test
method.
Figure 11 shows the comparative lubricity measured using the Fann metal/metal
lubricity tester.
Figure 12 shows the comparative effect of solids loading using OCMA bentonite as
the contaminant.
Figure 13 shows the comparative performance of the new HPWBM in different base
fluids by the hot roll dispersion test method.
From these results it can be seen that the new HPWBM significantly outperforms the
KCl/glycol fluid with respect to shale inhibition, and is a close equivalent to the KCl/silicate,
polyamine and IEM fluids.
8

Raw Bentonite
120

Oxford Clay

Foss Eikeland

Raw Bentonite

Arne Clay

Foss Eikeland

Arne Clay

100

% S h a le re c o v e re d

S hale recovery (percent)

100

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

IEM

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

IEM

new HPW BM

Figure 8 - Hot roll dispersion test results

IEM

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPW BM

Shale

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPW BM

Figure 9 - Slake durability test results

12 ppg Fluids
0.4

350

250 ftlbs

0.35

Coefficient Of Friction

300
250

To rqu e (ftlb s)

Oxford Clay

120

200
150
100
50

400 ftlbs

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05

0
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

IEM

KCl/Glycol

KCl/Silicate

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Number of Turns

Figure 10 - Bulk hardness test results

100

IEM

KCl/Glycol

Polyamine

new HPWBM

Figure 11 - Lubricity test results

KCl/Silicate

Freshwater

Seawater

10% KCl

20% NaCl

120

90

Shale recovery (Percent)

YP (lbs/100ft2)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

100
80
60
40
20

10
0
0

Figure 12

50

100

150

ppb OCMA clay added

200

Solids tolerance test results

250

Raw Bentonite

Oxford Clay

Foss Eikeland

Arne Clay

Figure 13 - Inhibition in various base fluids

With an overall laboratory performance of the new HPWBM that was demonstrated to be
comparable directly with the performance of the OBM, the development of the synergistic
chemistry of the new fluid was determined to be a success. Further testing was carried out in
the laboratory to define the operating limits of the system. These were initially set as:
Density range 8.5 to 16.0 lb/gal
Temperature range 30 275F
Salinity range 2% NaCl equivalent 24% NaCl (some ionicity required to minimize
polymer interactions)
MBT range 0 25 ppb

Fracture Sealing and Lost Circulation Prevention

Fracturing during drilling operations typically occurs in permeable rock such as sandstone,
impermeable rock typified by shale formations, or depleted sands and carbonates. Fractures
in a formation are typically induced by drilling overbalanced and generating an increase in
equivalent circulating density (ECD) that exceeds the tensile strength of the rock in a
sensitive lithological area. These fractures allow drilling fluid to be lost from the wellbore
resulting in added well cost.
Induced fractures in relatively impermeable formations have commonly been more difficult to
heal than fractures in permeable zones. The main characteristics of shale and other low
permeable rock which contribute to difficulty in sealing are very low tensile strength and very
low permeability. This ensures very low fluid leak-off rates, resulting in potential fracture
initiation points being exposed to the full pressure exerted by the drilling fluid. Impermeable
formations often contain fractures which will continue to extend beyond the near-wellbore
region, resulting in extensive losses and a high potential for wellbore instability. Bridging and
sealing these fractures quickly and efficiently is essential and necessitates initially sealing the
width of the fracture, then once an initial bridge is formed additional particles will accumulate
to form a seal and reduce mud flow through the fracture, thus preventing further fracture
extension. The stress exerted by the bridge at or near the wellbore can increase the stability
of the near-wellbore region via compression and prevent further fracturing.8,9 The seal
formed must remain to prop the fracture open and continue to exert stress in the nearwellbore region to maintain the enhanced wellbore stability state.
The characteristics of fractured impermeable zones contrasts with those of permeable zones.
Induced fractures in permeable rock formations are typically within a depleted sand or
carbonate. Such fractures are typically more easily sealed due to the potential for filtrate loss
and matrix plugging which creates a particle seal to minimize the extent of any loss.
Reducing drilling fluid loss through a fracture sealing bridge while allowing leakoff into the
permeable formation behind the bridge promotes closure of the fracture behind the blockage.
The tip of the fracture will then be isolated from drilling-fluid-exerted hydraulic pressure and
the pressure within the fracture can potentially fall to be equal to pore pressure, preventing
extension of the fracture and thus further loss and wellbore instability.
In terms of lost circulation prevention and wellbore instability, sealing and prevention of loss
into impermeable zones (shales) poses significantly more challenges to fluid design. Two
methods can be used to minimize losses to induced and natural fractures.
Preventative treatment
Involves adding lost circulation material (LCM) in low
concentrations to the drilling fluid in order to control fractures as they develop in a potential
loss zone. The benefit of this method is that large fractures theoretically will not occur and
losses will be reduced. The difficulty in engineering such preventative treatment lies in the
maintenance of the correct sized LCM within the fluid caused by removal of required coarsesized material by the solids-control equipment.
Remedial treatment Involves drilling until a noticable loss is encountered. At this point, a
high-concentration LCM pill or settable LCM plug is squeezed into the loss zone. The
remedial treatment approach can result in high losses before circulation is regained or the
inability to effectively seal fractures and control the loss, resulting in expensive wellbore loss
remediation operations.

Characteristics of Preventative LCM

Extensive testing and materials analysis has been carried out using a custom-designed
fracture sealing apparatus that evaluates the effectiveness of LCM in sealing a pre-opened,
impermeable, compliant fracture. For testing purposes, corrugated aluminium plates were
used to simulate a fracture. Drilling fluid (with LCM) is introduced into the fracture at a
10

constant flow rate and the pressure within the fracture, as well as fluid lost through the
fracture, are measured as a function of time. If a seal is formed, the pressure will increase
and the fracture will open to a point at which the seal fails. A typical test result from the tester
is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Fracture sealing testing results on impermeable plates showing

performance of ideally sized LCM.
From the results above it can be seen that inclusion of the LCM (in this case 40 lb/bbl of a
graphitic-based material blend) started to seal the 530-micron fracture after approximately
0.1 hours. The seal was maintained as the pressure increased to around 1100 psi over initial
fluid pressure and the fracture opened to about 750 micron. At this point the seal failed and
fluid was lost through the fracture. The fracture remained propped open, a seal reformed,
pressure again increased to the same level, and the fracture was now sealed to
approximately 900 microns before the seal failed.
The effectiveness of many different materials have been tested in this way, and the results
obtained have been compared to the material characteristics of the LCM. This has led to an
understanding of key material characteristics that are desirable for sealing fractures within
impermeable zones.
Particle size and size distribution Larger sizes allow for an increase in ability to
bridge wide fractures, but too many large particles without a range of smaller particles
will lead to increased fluid loss and poor sealing. Size and the distribution of sizes
(particle size range or PSD) are the most critical factor for the performance of an
LCM. Maximum size necessary is determined by the anticipated fracture width that is
required to be bridged.
Particle shape and texture Spheroidal-shaped particles provide optimum close
packing limiting fluid flow paths through a seal.
Particle concentration A more rapid and improved seal can be formed with an
increase in particle concentration in the fluid. A typical minimum concentration to form
an effective seal is 20 lb/bbl.
Particle compressive strength Materials exhibiting a high compressive strength
will provide a more efficient seal.
The best materials shown by testing for consistently sealing fractures were synthetic
graphite, specifically sized ground nut hulls, specifically sized proprietary ground cellulose
particles and calcium carbonates. Utilizing blends of these materials to optimize particle size
and distribution, results in a more successful seal. Thus these blends are recommended to
be used as part of a drilling fluid formulation when drilling through formations that are
sensitive to fracture losses or can exhibit fracture induced wellbore instability.
11

Field Testing
The true test of the success of any fluid development is an evaluation of the fluid
performance over a range of operating parameters and areas during drilling. To date the new
HPWBM has been utilized in the Western Rocky mountain area, and Californian Coastal
area of the United States, and in the South China Sea. The fluid has primarily been used to
drill through sections composed of reactive shales.
From a fluids engineering standpoint, the new HPWBM has proven to be easily and rapidly
mixed at the rigsite. Initial evaluations indicate lower inhibitor depletion rates than those
experienced by previously-used WBF s, making the fluid properties easier to engineer and
maintain. Field tests developed to allow the engineer to directly determine the concentration
of both hydration suppressant and encapsulator have been beneficial in optimizing
engineering of the system. The high levels of inhibition have also translated into low dilution
rates for the fluid, as cuttings from even the most reactive of claystones are readily removed
from the fluid during the initial pass over the shale shaker screens (Figure 15). Briefly, the
fluid has performed well, levels of wellbore stability have been excellent in these areas where
previous conventional WBF s have performed poorly, and drilling rates have been above
average and maintained with no wellbore instability issues. A fluid-cost and drilling-rate
comparison is shown in Figure 16 for offset wells drilled with different fluid systems in the
Western Rocky Mountain area.
At TD with LSND fluid,
wellbore was unstable
and was displaced to
polyamine fluid to
condition.

20
18
16

mud cost/ft
days/1000ft

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
LSND

Figure 15

Very inhibited clay cuttings

POLYAMINE

IEM

New HPWBM

Figure 16 - Cost/perforamnce comparison

Conclusions
A new, high-performance, inhibitive, water-based fluid system has been developed.
Extensive laboratory results show that the system significantly reduces clay dispersion,
hydration and accretion, outperforming previous highly inhibitive WBF and reaching into the
realm of invert emulsion fluids. The inhibitive components of the new HPWBM have been
specifically designed to impart maximum chemical stabilization to both swelling and
dispersive clay formations as well as older, more easily fractured, shales.
The new HPWBM has been designed with a total-system approach. Products have been
specifically chosen to satisfy the requirements of both a highly inhibitive fluid and a highperformance fluid. The new HPWBM is extremely flexible within its design, being
successfully formulated with a variety of base brines from freshwater to saturated NaCl, at
densities ranging from 8.6 to 16 lb/gal and at temperatures to 275F.
Along with the new HPWBM technology, significant work has been done to determine
optimal additives for sealing fractures that can occur in impermeable rock whilst drilling. The
application of these additives will aid in preventing loss of fluid to sensitive, fractured,
formations and can minimize the risk of fracture-related wellbore instability.
12

To better control losses to fractures in impermeable zones, preventative treatments should

include at least 10 lb/bbl of a selected blend of LCM in circulation and will preferably contain
15 to 20 lb/bbl. The best LCM treatments tested involved blends of various grades of the
most effective additives: calcium carbonate, ground nut, and graphite/coke blends.
Initial field trials have proven that the new HPWBM exhibits outstanding drilling performance.
The use of this fluid to drill highly reactive shales confirmed the laboratory predictions for
cuttings integrity and wellbore stability. The overall performance and user-friendliness are
two attributes that bring this drilling fluid close to the goal of matching an OBM.
Combining the improved chemical wellbore stability of the new HPWBM with the wellbore
stability improvements that come from application of a preventative LCM treatment can allow
safe and efficient drilling through highly troublesome shale zones.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank M-I SWACO for permission to publish this paper

References
1. Downs, J.D., van Oort, E., Redman, D.I., Ripley, D. and Rothmann, B.: TAME: A New
Concept in Water-Based Drilling Fluids for Shales, SPE 26699, Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, Sept 7-10, 1993.
2. Simpson, J.P., Walker, T.O., and Jiang, G.Z.: Environmentally Acceptable Water-Base
Mud Can Prevent Shale Hydration and Maintain Borehole Stability, SPE 27496,
SPE/IADE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb 15-18, 1994.
3. Retz, J.R., Friedheim, J., Lee, L.J., and Welch, O.O.: An Environmentally Acceptable and
Field-Practical Cationic Polymer Mud System, SPE 23064, Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, Sept 3-6, 1991.
4. Stamatakis, E., Thaemlitz, C.J., Coffin, G. and Reid, W.: A New Generation of Shale
Inhibitors for Water-Based Muds, SPE 29406, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Feb 28 Mar 2, 1995.
5. Young, S. and Maas, T. Novel Polymer Chemistry Increases Shale Stability AADE 01NC-HO-41, AADE National Drilling Conference, Houston, Mar 27-29, 2001.
6. Patel, A., Stamatakis, E., Friedheim, J.E. and Davis, E.: Highly Inhibitive Water-Based
Fluid System Provides Superior Chemical Stabilization of Reactive Shale Formations
AADE 01-NC-HO-55, AADE National Drilling Conference, Houston, Mar 27-29, 2001.
7. Schlemmer, R., Patel, A., Friedheim, J., Young, S. and Bloys, B.: Progression of WaterBased Fluids Based on Amine Chemistry
Can the Road Lead to True Oil Mud
Replacements? AADE-03-NTCE-36, AADE National Drilling Technology Conference,
Houston, April 1-3, 2003.
8. Alberty, M. W., Mclean, M. R., "A Physical Model for Stress Cages," SPE 90493,
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
September 26 - 29, 2004.
9. Dupriest, F. E., Codifying Fracture Closure Stress and Lost Returns Practices, World
Oil, v. 8., no. 10, (October 2005).

13

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.

The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.