SPE 165099

Development and Field Trial of a New Exploration HPHT Reservoir

Drill-in Fluid

Irene M. Frgestad, SPE, Russell Watson, SPE, M-I SWACO, A Schlumberger Company; Cameron Strachan,
SPE and Jorunn Johannesen, Statoil
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 57 June 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The newly developed high-temperature high-pressure (HPHT) exploration oil-based reservoir drill-in fluid (RDF) was
specifically designed with formation damage, pressure logging and geochemical analysis in mind. Requirements for a
reservoir drill-in fluid that performs well under HPHT conditions, has good pressure log response and is geochemically
distinguishable from reservoir fluids were the driving forces for the development of this system. The high-performance, lowdamaging system combines several new products. Laboratory results have shown good rheology profiles, tight HPHT fluid
loss control, high return permeability values and excellent long-term fluid stability. The system was developed to replace
todays standard paraffin systems which occasionally struggle with irregular and too high viscosities with poor fluid stability
over time. This occasionally leads to various drilling issues and barite sag problems during low shear or static conditions.
Laboratory testing has documented the qualities of the new system, followed by a very successful field trial, where low
impact on geochemical tests was obtained. This paper details the development of the fluid, the testing performed to qualify it
for the field trial and the successful results from that field trial. Furthermore, the paper also details the high return
permeability values and the mechanisms within the system that allow these goals to be achieved. The fluid has properties that
make it an extremely strong candidate for reservoir drilling in general.
Introduction
In 2010 the supplier was requested to develop a new HPHT oil-based reservoir drill-in fluid for an operator field in Norway.
The request was based on the need for a system with good barite sag stability in combination with improved rheology profile
for low equivalent circulating density (ECD) impact. The field referred to is a high pressure, high temperature gas and
condensate field offshore Norway. Reservoir temperatures are up to 155oC and drilling fluid densities of up to 1,90SG are
currently required. However, progressive reservoir depletion has created a very narrow operational pressure window, hence
the requirement for a fluid that exhibits a low ECD contribution. In order to control and limit ECD it is essential that the
drilling fluid used is able to maintain stable rheology, achieve barite sag stability, and still be able to operate within a narrow
operational window. Further, the components of the new high-performance system were chosen based on their minimal effect
on the geochemical sampling and analysis process.
The main drivers behind first use of the system for the operator were:
Using an oil-based fluid system that enables efficient and safe drilling operations while causing minimum impact on
geochemical analysis of formation fluid samples.
Qualifying a more reliable, low-ECD RDF with HPHT-stable properties, without adding extra cost.
A set of first use acceptance criteria was established by the operator in agreement with the drilling fluids supplier:
Formation fluid samples with low contamination for improved lab data analysis. Small impact on quality of sampled
reservoir fluids in particular the presence of any unexpected biomarkers or undesirable C15+ hydrocarbon fractions:
In fresh drilling fluid samples (used for fingerprinting),
In used drilling fluid samples
In formation fluid or rock samples taken during operations.
No significant formation losses caused by induced fractures related to poor ECD management, ECD performance or

SPE 165099

any other adverse effects on drilling operation caused by excessive viscosity or other fluid parameters.
Stable fluid density. No significant differences between fluid density in and fluid density out should be observed,
including after roundtrips and potential disconnect situations. This parameter should be evaluated based on
comparisons with the performance of previously used drilling fluid. The barite sag parameter should be evaluated
based on comparisons with the performance of standard oil-based fluid used under similar conditions.
Measured fluid properties, including rheology, fluid loss and barite sag, should not deviate from set specifications by
more than 10%. Rheology is expected to drop after static periods, but shall not drop to the level that it induces barite
sag. The new fluid will be used for drilling the 8-in. and the 12-in. sections. The maximum inclination in this
operation is 30; further information on well design in confidential as this is an exploration well.

The operator assessed and qualified the new HPHT RDF system using a recently modified technology qualification
process. The technical viability of the new system was tested and optimized by the supplier by standard laboratory testing
relative to specifications set by the operator, and under conditions representing the expected downhole environment. Once the
required specification had been achieved the new HPHT RDF was considered ready for first use according to the operators
internal requirements.
The fluid property specifications directed by the operator, together with the corresponding properties of the previously
used solids laden fluid, are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Fluid Specifications set by the operator

Property

600-rpm Dial Reading (50C )

100-rpm Dial Reading (50C)
3-rpm Dial Reading (50C)
30 minute HPHT fluid loss on 30 micron disk (150C)
Sag Stability, Mw = (SG bottom Mw)

Operator Specifications
As low as possible
2
< 24 lb/100 ft
2
5-10 lb/100 ft
< 3ml
< 0,15 SG after 3 days
< 0,15 SG after 5 days

Previously used fluid

2

103 lb/100 ft
2
33 lb/100 ft
2
12 lb/100 ft
10-12 ml
3 days: 0,16 SG
5 days: 0,30 SG

High return permeability values, low fluid loss, thin easily removed filter cakes with very low solids invasion and little or
no alteration of wettability were targets for the fluid with respect to preventing formation damage. In-house return
permeability testing with post-test analysis of the samples was the key to measuring the fluids capability to achieve the
targets.
This new RDF was successfully developed to comply with all set requirements as provided by the operator for this target
field, including low ECD and minimal impact on geochemical analysis of formation fluid samples. A comprehensive
laboratory testing process was executed, screening a number of suitable products to determine the best candidates for the
system. Products were selected on the basis of their ability to provide low or very low impact on geochemical tests, and on
their general technical performance. The combination of products in this fluid proved to be superior to conventional HPHT
drilling fluid with regard to; good rheology profile, low potential for barite sag as well as minimal geochemical impact. The
operator performed analyses prior to the field trial, showing that the new system had very low potential for impacting the
geochemical testing.
Theory
Due to the diversity in the scopes and test methodology, the theory, terms and test procedures will be presented in subsections and include Return Permeability, Geochemical Testing, Fluid Properties and Pressure Logging.

Return Permeability
Developments in reservoir drilling fluids have for many years focused on the reduction of formation damage. When
designing a drilling fluid that is intended for logging in HPHT, the major considerations are:
Is the fluid suitable for drilling the intended intervals?
Impact on reservoir pressure measurements?
Impact on geochemical measurements?
The design of a new HPHT RDF considered, in depth, that return permeability testing at reservoir temperature and
pressure was the most suitable way to determine the fluids effect on downhole pressure logging. Watson et al. (2012)
described a case study where inconclusive logging results led to the abandonment of a field for more than a decade. It was
later proven that components of the drilling fluid had created an effective seal in the near wellbore region preventing accurate
pressure measurements from the HPHT exploration well. Laboratory evaluation is now considered critical to avoid potential
downhole problems.
Geochemical Testing
The composition of drilling fluid chemicals may interfere with hydrocarbon shows and consequently complicate geochemical
interpretations. With regards to geochemical sampling, formation fluid and rock (cuttings) samples should exhibit small and

SPE 165099

acceptable contamination from the drilling fluid. For improved lab data analysis of sampled reservoir fluids and reservoir
rocks the drilling fluid composition should have the following properties:
No/low light hydrocarbon fraction < nC10 in the used drilling fluid
No/low content of n-alkanes nC15 to nC35 in the used drilling fluid
No/low concentration of biomarkers (terpanes and steranes) in the used drilling fluid
No/low concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in the used drilling fluid.
Drilling Fluid Properties
Drilling Fluid property tests for the new HPHT oil-based RDF were run according to API 13I at 150C. Optimization of the
new system for this exploration well focused on rheology, HPHT FL (fluid loss) and sag stability as well as meeting the
requirements for Geochemistry tests. The fluid was to have a density of 1.75SG, an oil/water ratio of 80/20 and was aged at
150C. The 12-in. and 8-in. sections were to be drilled with 1.4SG (120C) and 1.6-1.77SG (150) fluid respectively;
however development work focused on 1.75SG fluid (150C) as per operator request.
Pressure Logging
The use of formation mobility testing tools during exploration drilling and logging is a vital part of modern reservoir
characterization. This is due to the insight it provides of the subterranean environment and its potential for production of
fluid. As more and more high-cost, high-risk environments are encountered in the global search for energy, a complete
understanding of reservoir pressure, mobility and fluids is of increasing importance. It is also vital that new HPHT RDFs
allow good communication with the native formation in an exploration well.
Experimental and Measurements

Return Permeability
Fluid design included return permeability testing and analysis of core plugs.
The availability of representative exploration reservoir core was limited. Therefore all initial testing was performed on
outcrop core material and all latter testing was performed on reservoir core material for production wells. The outcrop
material was selected based on the formations expected to be encountered in the exploration wells. Berea core plugs of
approximately 50 to 100-mD permeability range and Ohio Sandstone of 1 to 10-mD permeability range were selected to
represent formations likely to be encountered in the target field.
Core Selection and Preparation. Solvent-cleaned outcrop Berea and Ohio sandstone core plugs were trimmed and tested
to determine base parameters such as grain density, porosity and permeability. The core plugs were then vacuum saturated
with synthetic formation water. As described by Byrne et al. (2000), the cores were ultra centrifuged to irreducible water
saturation (Swi) in order to obtain a consistent and representative saturation relatively quickly. The cores were then mounted
into a hydrostatic core holder with an annulus at the wellbore end. One of the Berea core plugs was aged with crude oil to
allow the wettability to approach a more mixed wet state than the normal very strongly water wet state of Berea core plugs.
Equipment. The hydrostatic core holder was vertical with the wellbore annulus underneath the core and the formation end
of the core vertically up. The test apparatus was the same for all drilling fluid return permeability tests regardless of test fluid,
or whether they are using high or low permeability core. The effect of gravity on immiscible fluid segregation was detailed
by Guo Y et al. (1991) and is a significant consideration for return permeability test apparatus design. Van der Zwaag et al.
(2010) looked in detail at core holder direction and concluded that core holder position affected the outcome of laboratory
formation damage tests. If the core holder prevents natural drainage of the sample, any aqueous phase will be artificially
trapped in the core and spacer annulus. This can provide erroneous results if the trapped aqueous phase is expelled from the
core during high flow rates and is then allowed to imbibe back into the core when static or at lower flow rates. For this
reason, the core was positioned vertically above the wellbore annulus.
A spacer ring was placed at the wellbore end of the core to create an annulus with sufficient room for a filtercake to build
during the overbalance period of the test. The tubing in and out of this annulus had an internal diameter large enough to allow
the flow of drilling fluids and small pieces of back-produced filtercake. In some drilling fluids the filtercake breaks up into
larger pieces. To be sure those larger pieces are not blocking the exit of the annulus; an extra permeability measurement is
recorded with the filtercake removed. Some test procedures call for the core to be ultra-centrifuged after the test and the
permeability re-measured (Byrne and Patey 2003). The use of high capillary pressures during ultracentrifugation would not
have been representative of the forces applied to the near wellbore area during logging. It was therefore decided that the new
HPHT RDF would need to allow high return permeability values after back production and after removing the filtercake.
As described by Byrne et al. (2000), the wetted surfaces of the tests equipment were composed of corrosion resistant
material to avoid corrosion artifacts interfering with the test. The core holder was mounted in an oven to allow stable
temperature to be applied to the core and all fluids flowing within the system. Any unrecorded alterations in temperature
could potentially allow for the wrong viscosity to be used in permeability calculations.
Test Sequence. After mounting into the core holder, overburden pressure and pore pressure were applied followed by
temperature. Once the core was at stable pressure and temperature, the permeability was measured in the formation to

SPE 165099

wellbore direction with mineral oil (Ko1). The drilling fluid was then pumped through the wellbore annulus at overbalance
and filtrate loss into the core plug recorded with a Quizix pump in constant pressure mode. After 20 hours, the overbalance
was reduced and the core underwent a production simulation by allowing hydrocarbon production in the formation to
wellbore direction. Once the back production rate was stable, the permeability was measured in the production direction at 4
low flow rates (Ko2). The core was then cooled and de-pressurised, removed from the core holder, photographed and
described before being remounted in the test apparatus without the filtercake (Ko3). Permeability was then re-measured in the
formation to wellbore direction. The sample was then prepared for post-test analysis to determine the reason for any change
in permeability.
Geochemical Analyses
A potential problem with regards to geochemical analyses of cores and produced petroleum is contamination by drilling fluid
components like base oils, emulsifiers/surfactants and fluid loss control additives (Bennet and Larter 2000). These
contaminations may affect the geochemical analyses significantly. Pre-drilling tests are commonly performed to map the
possible disturbing effects of the drilling fluid planned for use. For this well the following petroleum geochemical methods
were used:
Rock Eval / TOC
Extraction / de-asphalting / group type separation
Gas chromatography of whole oils
Gas chromatography of saturated hydrocarbons (GC-FID)
Gas chromatography / mass selective detection of biomarkers (GC-MS)
Gas chromatography / mass selective detection of diamondoids (GC-MS)
Gas chromatography / mass selective detection of aromatic hydrocarbons (GC-MS)
The preparative and analytical methods used are based on guidelines given by the Norwegian Industry Guide to Organic
Geochemical Analysis NIGOGA (2000).
Fluid Properties
The rheological properties of the drilling fluid were measured using a Fann 35 viscometer. Rheology at 50C was measured
before and after 16 hours hot rolling (aging) at 150C.
HPHT fluid loss was measured at 150C using a 10-micron ceramic disk over a 30-minutes duration.
Static aging was conducted in a 350-mL steel cell. Static sag was measured after 16 hours, 3 days, and 5 days. The
measurement is done by separating the fluid that has been static aged into 6 layers, the first being any separated free fluid,
followed by five layers of fluid. The mud weight (Mw) of layers 1, 3 and 5 (top, middle and bottom) was measured, yielding
the sag potential of the sample. Barite sag, Mw, was calculated using Equation 1:
, = .......................................................................................... (1)

Pressure Logging
Three distinct technologies exist for pressure testing of a drilled reservoir section.
Well testing where a packer is lowered into the well on tubing or a drill pipe. The volume produced for a given
drawdown can provide an evaluation of the production potential.
Wireline formation testing where measurement devices are lowered into the well on a cable to a specified depth so
that accurate measurements of pressure and fluid type can be recorded. This method also allows limited productivity
data to be measured.
Formation pressure while drilling takes real-time measurements of pressure in a similar way to wireline formation
testing; however the measurement tool is mounted above the drill bit to capture data while drilling and the data is
used to facilitate geo-steering decisions.
All of these formation pressure measurement techniques acquire data from the wellbore wall which is subject to influence
from the drilling fluid. Any alteration to permeability in the near wellbore area will affect the mobility. Mobility is described
as the ratio of effective permeability to phase viscosity.
Results and Discussion
Return Permeability
Four of the most recent return permeability test results are presented in Table 2 below. The highest return permeability (91%)
was measured on a core that had undergone crude oil aging to provide a more representative initial wettability. The
temperature for that test was 135C which is below the 150C HPHT cut off. However the results are interesting because the
same test was repeated without aged core material and a 10% reduction in permeability was observed. The fluid loss for these
two tandem tests was very similar. Oil-based drilling fluids contain emulsifiers that can potentially change the wettability of a
formation which has the potential to reduce the effective hydrocarbon permeability. The two Berea tests show that the HPHT

SPE 165099

RDF will not significantly alter the wettability of the formation behind the filtercake. These tests are discussed in more detail
by Viste et al. (2013).
The lowest return permeability (66%) was recorded in the HPHT environment of 188C with a mud weight of 2.02SG.
Even in this harsh environment the HPHT RDF allows for good communication between the formation fluids and the
wellbore in the production direction.
The 78% return permeability was recorded for the 1.75SG HPHT RDF used in the exploration well discussed in this
paper. This result and the results from the logging in the exploration well provide a strong indication that the HPTH RDF is a
low/non damaging drilling fluid.
Table 2 - Return Permeability Values for Four Outcrop Coreflood Tests
Fluid

Core Material

Test
Temperature
(C)

1.85 SG
RDF

Not aged
Berea

135

1.85 SG
RDF

Crude oil aged

Berea

135

1.75 SG
HPHT RDF

Not aged Ohio

150

2.02 SG
RDF

Not aged Ohio

188

Fluid loss
ml (Pore
Volumes)

Ko1
Base
Permeability
@Swi (mD)

Ko2
After Back
Production
with Cake on
(mD)

7,52

69,5

56,5

55,5

% Rtn

Ko3
After
Cake off
(mD)

% Rtn

81 %

56,7

82 %

50,7

91 %

50,6

91 %

1,55

1,21

78 %

1,21

78 %

2,07

1,37

66 %

1,37

66 %

0,76
7,10
0,72
6,89
0,64
8,20
0,72

Figure 1 Image of the 1.75SG filtercake showing the surface that was adjacent to the core plug.

The filter cake (Figure 1) was thin in all tests (approximately 2-3mm) and was not attached to the wellbore face when the
core was taken out of the core holder. When re-measuring the permeability without the filtercake, there was very little change
in permeability. As the filtercake was not attached to the core, when taken out of the core holder, and the cake on (Ko2) /
cake off (Ko3) permeability measurements were very similar, it can be concluded that the filtercake had undergone lift off
or pop off (where the filter cake is removed in sheets from the formation surface at a given differential pressure) during the
back production. Byrne and Patey (2003) stated that a mud cake that lifted or popped off the formation would satisfy many
well clean up requirements. This filtercake quality was seen as very positive for the HPHT RDF as this feature would allow
a logging tool rapid access to the pressurised formation fluids.
Backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BSEM) of inside the wellbore end of the Berea core plug showed that
directly behind the filtercake, the pores of the rock were open and not filled with drilling fluid components. Backscattered
electron imaging detects differences in atomic number and displays dense minerals as bright areas of the image and less

SPE 165099

dense as darker. Figure 2 shows a section through the wellbore end of the core plug with the dense drilling fluid filtercake
remnants seen as the bright area at the top of the image.

Figure 2 - Backscattered SEM image of the wellbore end of a Berea core after return permeability testing with the HPHT RDF. Drilling
fluid solids were only observed on the wellbore face of the plug.

Geochemical Testing
When the operator looked at significant geochemical and logging results, the new HPHT RDF system proved well suited for
drilling this exploration well. Pre-well analysis of six oil-based fluid systems (Table 3) demonstrated that this new drilling
fluid is a considerable improvement with regards to impact on geochemical analysis. The drilling fluid was found to have low
to no impact on most analyses. Whole oil gas chromatography of this drilling fluid confirms a relatively limited hydrocarbon
range from C10 to C14 with a very low concentration of biomarkers and aromatics. By comparison, several of the other
systems, as listed in Table 3, were found to severely impact the majority of analysis techniques. The systems with the most
severe effect on analysis commonly use a base oil that covers a wide hydrocarbon range, often including <C 10 fractions and
nC15 to nC35 n-alkanes, but also due to the presence of biomarkers and aromatics. However, emulsifiers, fluid loss chemicals
and viscosifiers can all have an impact on geochemical analysis.

SPE 165099

Table 3 Ranking of Base Fluids and HPHT RDF by Impact on Geochemical Analysis
Product
Base fluid 1

System

Rock
Eval/
TOC

Extraction
/ SARA

Whole oil
<C20

Saturates
C10+

HPHT
***
***
*
system
Base fluid 2
OBM 2
***
***
***
Base fluid 3
OBM 3
***
***
**
Base fluid 4
OBM 4
***
***
**
Base fluid 5
OBM 5
***
***
**
HPHT
New
system
HPHT
*
*
system
HPHT
Used
system
HPHT
**
***
system
No fill= No impact, * = Low impact, ** = Medium impact, *** = Severe impact

Biomarkers

Diamondoids

Aromatics

***
**
**
**

***
*
***
***

*
*
*
*

**

NA

**

**

The operator performed geochemical analysis on the unused fluid, used fluid from the well, drill cuttings from the well
and formation fluid samples. The results were as follows:
The fresh drilling mud has a low to very low impact on most analyses, but may impact the evaluation of hydrocarbon
shows. N-alkanes between C12 and C14 are observed in the saturated fraction. Saturated biomarkers are not present; however
traces of diamondoids and aromatic biomarkers may hamper geochemical interpretation.
The used HPHT drilling fluid from the exploration well show a high content of saturates, traces of C15+ n-alkanes as well
traces of biomarkers (both terpanes and steranes). However it is believed that this minor contamination came from the oil
based drilling fluid used in the previous 17-in. section. The fluid used in that section had a different composition to the
HPHT fluid and is known to interfere with geochemical testing. All the used HPHT drilling fluids analyzed from the well had
a similar geochemical signature, including the uppermost fluid sample; this suggests that the fluid was contaminated before
contact with other hydrocarbon sources during drilling.
Impact on formation fluid: The concentration of C15+ n-alkanes and terpanes in the used HPHT RDF is low and should not
have any effect on fluid samples, except possibly for condensates with low biomarker concentrations.
Impact on drill cuttings: The new HPHT RDF has some impact on the geochemical data from drill cuttings samples, both
in the case of evaluating weak petroleum shows as well as source rock evaluation. It may also hamper the geochemical
interpretation of GC-data (n-alkane fraction) and biomarker data (both terpanes and steranes) in the case of low biomarker
concentrations.
Based on these results the operator concluded that compared with the drilling fluid previously used in this exploration
well the new HPHT drilling fluid was a considerable improvement with regards to impact on geochemical analysis.
Fluid Properties
All tests performed show that the new system is superior to the conventional oil-based system previously used. The fluid
formulation and main properties after aging for the new system are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 New HPHT RDF 1.75-SG, 80/20 OWR formulation

Material

Base oil
Emulsifier
Organophillic Clay
Lime
Fluid loss additives
CaCl2 pwd
Fresh water
Weighting material

Units
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L

Quantity
402
23
12
23
25
25.7
137
1102

SPE 165099

Property

Table 5 New HPHT RDF Properties (averaged)

Density
600-rpm Dial Reading
100-rpm Dial Reading
3-rpm Dial Reading
10-sec Gel Strength
10-min Gel Strength
Plastic Viscosity
Yield Point
HPHT Fluid Loss
Sag Mw 16 hrs/ 3 days/ 5 days
600-rpm Dial Reading 3/ 5 days Static
100-rpm Dial Reading 3/ 5 days Static
3-rpm Dial Reading 3/ 5 days

Units

sg
2
lb/100 ft
2
lb/100 ft
2
lb/100 ft
Pa
Pa
cP
Pa
mL
SG
lb/100 ft

Value

1.75
67
20
6
7
8
27
8
1,8
0,01/ 0,06/ 0,06
65/ 85
18/ 26
6/ 9

Figure 3 shows the measured rheology after 16 hours dynamic aging at 150C for the new HPHT RDF versus the
previously used drilling fluid system.

Figure 3 Rheology profiles for the new HPHT RDF versus the previously used drilling fluid measured at 50C after
dynamic aging 16 hours at 150C.

All of the drilling fluid specifications set by the operator with regards to rheology, barite sag stability and fluid loss
control were successfully achieved with the new HPHT RDF. Fluid stability was very good; the measured barite sag (Table
5) was 0,06 SG after five days, well below the target point of Mw = 0.15. Also, the fluid rheology was stable over time
(Table 6), showing that properties change very little over time and the measured HPHT fluid loss is well within the 3-mL
specification.
Field Experience
The operator reported that all pressure tests taken in the 12-in. section were successful. During the section, pressure points
were taken using the drilling assembly. A modular formation dynamics tester (MDT tool) was successfully run on a wireline
logging string to take fluid samples and pore pressure points. As this was an exploration well the details of the logging runs
cannot be disclosed in this paper. However the HPHT RDF allowed good communication between the reservoir and the
logging tools.

SPE 165099

Post well evaluation of the first use acceptance criteria concluded the following:
The fresh HPHT RDF showed low to no impact on most geochemical analyses. N-alkanes between C12 and C14 were
observed in the saturated fraction as expected. Saturated biomarkers are not present; however traces of diamondoids
and aromatic biomarkers may have hampered geochemical interpretation.
o The used drilling fluid from the well show a high content of saturates, traces of C15+ n-alkanes as well
traces of biomarkers (both terpanes and steranes). The minor contamination was found to originate from the
oil-based fluid used on the previous well section..
o Impact on formation fluid: The concentration of C15+ n-alkanes and terpanes in the used drilling fluid was
low and should not have had any effect on fluid samples, except possibly for condensates with low
biomarker concentrations.
o Impact on drill cuttings: The drilling fluid may have had an impact on the geochemical data from drill
cuttings samples, both in the case of evaluating weak petroleum shows as well as source rock evaluation. It
may also have hampered the geochemical interpretation of GC-data (n-alkane fraction) and biomarker data
(both terpanes and steranes) in the case of low biomarker concentrations. Compared with traditional OBM
systems, the new HPHT RDF was a considerable improvement with regards to impact on geochemical
analysis.
Losses were experienced during the drilling of the well, however the losses experienced were attributed to the
uncertainties in the fracture and pore pressure prognosis.
o The fluid rheology remained in specification at all times during drilling (Table 6) and software simulations
performed, correlated well with the actual ECD experienced in the 8-in. section (Table 7).
No barite sag issues were reported even after waiting on weather (drilling stop as weather is too rough to drill) or
during wireline operations. Four wireline runs for data acquisition and fluid sampling were conducted at TD. During
this time the fluid column was static for 4 days without barite sag issues.
Fluid parameters were not reported to deviate by more than 10% of the provided specifications. In-house laboratory
contamination tests (cement, seawater, drill solids) of field fluid samples showed acceptable performance at 150C
BHT.
Table 6 Measured rheology
Property

Units

600-rpm Dial Reading

100-rpm Dial Reading
3-rpm Dial Reading

lb/100 ft
2
lb/100 ft
2
lb/100 ft

Specification
_
< 24
5-10

12-in. section
Average value

8-in. section
Average value

47 4.1
19 2.5
8 1.5

63 3.7
20 1.7
7 1.1

Table 7 Simulation input parameters and ECD calculation

Fluid system

Depth
MD/ TVD [m] (confidential)
Surface density @ 50C [SG]
Down hole mud weight (ESD) [SG]
Pump rate [lpm]
Pump pressure [bar]
ROP [m/ht]
ECD @ previous casing shoe [SG]
EDC @TD [SG]
2
TFA [in ]
RPM

New HTHP RFD

Field sample

Previously used fluid

Field sample

MD/ TVD
1.69
1.681
2000
269
15
1.755
1.762
0.72
160

MD/ TVD
1.69
1.682
2000
319
15
1.786
1.795
0.72
160

Tests performed offshore by the suppliers Technical Service engineers concur with the operators findings and showed
that there were no fluid-related problems during the entire field trial. The system was easy to maintain throughout the
duration of the drilling. ECD, rheology and fluid loss values were within specifications throughout the operation. Maximum
ECD reported from operator was 1.768SG, which corresponds to the simulated ECD of 1.762 in Table 7. ESD was measured
to 1.70SG
The long-term static sag testing also yielded good results; The 7-day static sag for the 12-in. section at 120C gave an
average MW, including the contaminated samples, below 0.3 SG, whereas the samples from the 8-in. section at 150C
gave an average of around 0.3 SG (excluding the cement contaminated sample).

10

SPE 165099

Conclusions
A HPHT RDF exploration fluid has been successfully developed to meet all desired specifications.
Return permeability testing showed that the high-performance, high-pressure, high-temperature exploration RDF
allows low filtration and thin filtercakes, which are easily removed during back production and enables good
production communication with the formation.
Both unused and used fluid show low impact on the majority of the geochemical analyses. Based on these tests the
operator stated that compared to the drilling fluid previously used in this exploration well, this new fluid is a
considerable improvement with regards to impact on geochemical analysis
Through extensive laboratory testing the fluid has proven to have good rheology profile and temperature stability,
low barite sag and good fluid loss control.
The systems field test results concurred with laboratory findings, showing very low stability issues when left static
for several days, easily maintained viscosity and tight HPHT fluid loss control and gave low and stable ECD
contribution. The measured properties kept within specifications throughout the operation.
Pressure logging is a vital part of reservoir characterization and the new HPHT fluid allowed for good
communication between the reservoir and the logging tools, providing successful pressure tests and fluid sampling
throughout the operation.
This paper looks at exploration drilling; however the results from the testing and field trial show that the fluid is
ideal for reservoir drilling of production wells and will not cause significant formation damage.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the operator and the supplier, for permission to publish this work. The authors also thank
Monica Norman, Arne Ask, Egil Rons, Richard Gyland and Beathe Pettersen for valuable input during the development
phase and Harald Vik, Joachim Kyllingstad, yvind Siegesmund, Patrick Viste and Raymond Lauritzen from M-I SWACO
laboratory for their contributions in this project. Claas Van Der Zwaag and Tor Henry Omland, Statoil D&W, are
acknowledged and thanked for their significant contribution to the implementation of this technology. The Statoil Exploration
Drilling Group is also acknowledged for the excellent co-operation toward the first field trial, with particular thanks to
Vedran Secic and Gisle Vaaland.
Nomenclature
BHT
= Bottomhole Temperature
BSEM = Backscattered Scanning Electron Microscopy
ECD
= Equivalent Circulating Density
ESD
= Equivalent Static Density
GC
= Gas Chromatography
GC-FID = Gas Chromatography Flame Ionization Detector
GC-MS = Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
HP
= High Performance
HPHT = High Pressure, High Temperature
Ko
= Permeability to oil
mD
= Milidarcy
MD
= Measured depth
MDT = Modular formation dynamics tester
NIGOGA = Norwegian Industry Guide to Organic Geochemical Analysis
OBM = Oil-Based Drilling Fluid
% Rtn = Percent Return
RDF
= Reservoir Drill-In Fluid
Rock Eval = Standardized Pyrolysis Technique
RPM
= Rotation per minute
SEM
= Scanning Electron Microscopy
SG
= Specific Gravity
Swi
= Irreducible Water Saturation
TOC
= Total Organic Carbon
TD
= Total depth
References

American Petroleum Institute. 2009. API RP13I: Recommended Practice for Laboratory Testing of Drilling Fluids (ISO 10416), Eighth
Edition; API, Washington, DC.
Bennet, B. and Larter, S.R. 2000. Polar Non-Hydrocarbon Contaminants in Reservoir Core Extracts. Geochemical Transactions 2000
1:34 (DOI: 10.1039/b005237j). Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1467-4866-1-34.pdf.

SPE 165099

11

Byrne, M.T., Spark, I.S.C., Patey I.T.M., and Twynam, A.J. 2000. A Laboratory Drilling Mud Overbalance Formation Damage Study
Utilising Cryogenic SEM Techniques. SPE 58738, SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 2324 February.
Byrne, M. and Patey, I. 2003. Formation Damage Laboratory Testing A Discussion of Key Parameters Pitfalls and Potential. SPE
82250, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13-14 May.
Guo, Y., Nilsen, V. and Hovland, F. 1991 Gravity Effect under Steady-State and Unsteady-State Core Flooding and Criteria to Avoid It.
SCA9125, Society of Core Analysts Conference, London, 20-22 May.
NIGOGA. 2000. The Norwegian Industry Guide to Organic Geochemical Analyses, Edition 4.0, 30 May.
Available at:
http://www.npd.no/engelsk/nigoga/default.htm.
Van der Zwaag, C., Olsen, H. and Lohne, A. 2010. Significance of Selected Set-Up Parameters in Return Permeability Measurements
Used for Formation Damage Quantification. SPE 127994, SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 1012 February.
Viste, P., Watson, R. and Nelson, A. 2013. The Influence of Wettability on Return Permeability. SPE SPE-165160, SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 5-7 June 2013.
Watson, R., Viste, P. and Lauritzen, J. 2012. The Influence of Fluid Loss Additives in High Temperature Reservoirs. SPE-151662, SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1517 February.