SPE 135472

High-Fluid-Loss, High-Strength Lost Circulation Treatments

Mark W. Sanders, SPE, Jason T. Scorsone, SPE, and James E. Friedheim, SPE, M-I SWACO

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 56 October 2010.

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
A new high-fluid-loss, high-strength (HFHS) pill system has been developed and optimized using innovative test methods
and trialed to ensure that it meets field criteria for addressing lost circulation problems. This new HFHS pill system works
over a wide range of loss rates and provides a more effective and stronger seal than traditional treatments.
While the issue of lost circulation is one of the drilling industrys most singular problems, the solutions are numerous and
varied. Estimates of direct and associated costs to the lost circulation problem run into hundreds of millions of dollars
globally, including whole mud losses, cost of treatment as well as lost time and tools. Discrete pills, formulated using a
specific chemical and/or material blend, is one of the more popular approaches for curing severe lost circulation. These pills
are mixed, pumped and spotted with the intention to either seal the loss zone or at least mitigate the losses sufficiently to
regain the ability to circulate the wellbore fluid, control the well, and either continue drilling or set a string of casing.
Using new and innovative laboratory test methods, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of several commercially
available defluidizing lost circulation treatments and discusses the development of a new HFHS lost circulation system.
This new treatment has been designed and optimized using unique methodology to meet a set of ideal criteria for use in the
field. Specifically, it must be easy to deploy, carry a low operational risk, as well as being effective at curing losses.

Introduction
Increased wellbore complexity, coupled with higher extraction costs, has resulted in a heightened awareness of lost
circulation issues within the industry in a drive to improve drilling economics. Estimates of direct and associated costs run
into hundreds of millions of dollars globally (Ivan et al. 2003) including whole mud losses, cost of treatment as well as lost
time and tools. The solutions are numerous and varied. Discrete pills, formulated using either a specialized chemistry and/or
a particulate-based material or blend, is one of the more popular approaches for curing severe lost circulation. These pills are
generally mixed at the rigsite, pumped and spotted with the intention to either seal the loss zone or at least mitigate the losses
sufficiently to regain the ability to circulate the wellbore fluid, control the well, and either continue drilling or set a string of
casing.
Relatively straightforward particulate-based solutions are often all that is needed to regain control, and these are generally
also the most cost effective. Common components, and ad hoc mixtures, often include coarse particles such as marble,
mica or one of the many fibres available, and these work by physically sealing, or blocking, formation pores and fractures.
Previous studies have demonstrated that some products work better than others as loss circulation materials (LCM)
(Sanders et al. 2008). However, unless particular care is taken over formulating for a specific thief-zone, the seal is
invariably weak, with a tendancy to provide only a temporary ineffective cure, particularly at high loss rates. Rapid
defluidizing-type systems are arguably better in that relatively high concentrations of LCM material are delivered quickly,
although both defluidizing rates and overall strength can vary considerably depending on the product (Dupriest et al. 2008).
Many systems are also limited in how they can be made up, be it in aqueous or non-aqueous (NAF) base fluids, which in turn
can affect placement procedures. Weight-up with barite is another serious concern with these types of treatments in that it
has been found that many suffer a potentially detrimental marked reduction in shear strength on placement (Scorsone et al
2010).
The authors believe that a more effective treatment is based on a high-fluid-loss, high-strength (HFHS) pill design that
will work over a wider range of loss rates and in turn provide a more effective and permanent seal. The new HFHS treatment
is designed to defluidize rapidly in permeable zones when differential pressure is applied, leaving behind a high-shear-
strength filter cake that is strong enough to withstand the physical stresses associated with the drilling process. Furthermore,
the pill has been engineered to retain a good degree of strength on weight-up with barite and to be thermally stable up to
2 SPE 135472

350F (~177C). The product is composed essentially of an inert blend of mineral, synthetic and cellulosic fibres with a
unique coating that allows for easy mixing in freshwater, brine or NAF.
This paper explores the effectiveness of a number of commercially available defluidizing lost circulation treatments in
terms of shear strength, and discusses the development of a one-sack HFHS lost circulation product using innovative test
methods. Laboratory data comparing a number of similar type treatments will be presented, together with some discussion
on recent yard trials of the newly developed HFHS system that would help support the further application of this innovative
product in the field. Its improved placement in a non-aqueous environment is also explored.

Dealing with Severe Lost Circulation

When drilling through a permeable formation, one of the (many) functions of a drilling fluid is to deposit a filter cake over
the face of the formation in order to help minimize fluid losses, thereby allowing the borehole to support increased pressures
such as those incurred when drilling overbalanced. Although beyond the scope of this paper, the amount of increase will of
course depend on many other factors, geological properties being amongst them. However, in situations where there are, for
example, natural fractures, vugular formations or highly permeable zones, a good filter cake cannot easily be sustained and as
a consequence relatively high circulation losses can occur into the formation. In addition to the expense of losing valuable
drilling fluid, other potentially costly drilling issues that can attributed to lost circulation include stuck pipe, wellbore
instability, increased non-productive time (NPT) and in some cases curtailed well profiles.
In scenarios where relatively high levels of losses occur, operational decision trees typically dictate the use of a fibrous or
granular blend of LCM in order to mitigate losses. However, these are not always suitable for high-circulation-loss
situations. In these extreme cases, a high-fluid-loss LCM could be best utilised. These products are designed to defluidize
rapidly, leaving behind a high-solids plug. HFHS is an example of such a treatment. Generally, after being spotted as a pill
downhole, the treatment is squeezed into the designated loss-zone, during the course of which it is defluidized and the liquid
carrier component (be it aqueous or non-aqueous based) is lost into the formation. The remaining solids then seal the loss-
zone by forming a strong and hopefully durable plug. Here, the speed of defluidization can help determine how effective the
treatment will be; in essence, the faster the better. As the filtrate is squeezed into the formation and the consolidated matrix
of solids increases in thickness, so does the resistance to differential pressure and mechanical force. Hence, its shear strength
is considered important and thus was a key consideration in the development of the HFHS material (Scorsone et al. 2010).
The efficient placement of this product, particular in a non-aqueous environment, is also covered in this paper.

Evaluating Lost Circulation Products in the Laboratory

Conventional laboratory methods for evaluating lost circulation materials often entail measuring fluid loss as a means of
qualifying sealing ability. The levels of complexity for these procedures vary. The test methods range from using simple,
low-pressure, API-fluid-loss tests that use filter paper, to more sophisticated tests involving slots, ceramic discs or natural
cores (Global Petroleum Research Institute 2000). In some cases, specialized instruments that simulate fractures in both
shale and porous substrates have been developed and utilized (Sanders et al. 2008; Hettema et al. 2007).
Many of these techniques are well established and accepted throughout the drilling industry. However, they are not
necessarily suitable for evaluating the wide range of lost circulation materials and properties. Squeeze pills, such as the
HFHS lost circulation treatment, which rely on a defluidizing or dehydration element to function, are included in this
category of traditionally hard to evaluate.

Shear Strength Measurements

Although there are many and varied ways available to investigate shear strength in cohesive materials, such as the Vane
Shear Strength (Richards 1988) and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (Herrick and Jones 2002), they are not ideal for evaluating
the types of lost circulation additives of interest here. Hence, a new technique was needed.
A modified Push-Out Test Method, based upon a design by BP Sunbury, was used to measure the shear strength of
various severe lost circulation products currently found within the industry. In this test, a defluidized filter cake of
predetermined thickness (20 mm) is first formed onto a 40-m aloxite disc* (OFITE p/n 170-51) at 400 lb/in2 and pressure
maintained for a set period of time at room temperature. A conventional permeability plugging apparatus (PPA) is utilized to
simulate squeeze pressure as would be applied in the field. This stage also allows evaluation of relative defluidizing times,
where appropriate. The produced wet cake is then promptly, and carefully, transferred to the push-out test device, where
hydraulic piston pressure is applied at a constant rate onto the filter cake to the point where maximum shear strength at
failure of the cake is obtained. This value is derived from the yield strength of the plug by dividing the maximum force (F1)
attained by the cross-sectional failure area of the extruded pellet, where t is the cake thickness and d2 is the pellet
diameter (Figures 1 and 2).

*
40-m mean pore throat size (Mercury Injection); known previously as 20-m aloxite discs (to air).
SPE 135472 3

F1 F1
ShearStrength =
( t d 2 )
F1max Yield Strength

Stress
t

d2

Time

Fig. 1 Cutaway view of Push-Out Tester designed to Fig. 2 Shear strength as derived from the maximum recorded
measure the relative shear stress of an extruded pellet. Force (F1) at cake failure.

Using this innovative technique, a number of squeeze pill-type products were compared in terms of their relative shear
strength performance. Both aqueous- and NAF-based formulations were tested under conditions ranging from unweighted to
16 lb/gal. For comparison purposes, an unweighted and hardened oilfield cement formulation has also been included, an
example of another severe lost circulation solution. As shown in Figure 3, in both aqueous- and NAF-based pills, the shear
strength of the unweighted HFHS lost circulation treatment was far higher than all of the other products tested.

ProductComparison
ShearStrengthofUnweightedFormulas
(WaterBased&OilBased)

2692
3000
2546
ShearStrength(lb/in2)

2500

2000
1127 1056
1500 810
518
1000
60 104 371
500 172 WaterBased
31 30 45 35
OilBased
0
HFHS Oilfield Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Cement A B C D E

Fig. 3 Shear strength comparison of unweighted aqueous- and NAF-based lost circulation products.
Respective unweighted treatments were formulated using either freshwater or base oil only.
4 SPE 135472

ProductComparison ProductComparison
ShearStrengthofWeightedFormulas ShearStrengthofWeightedFormulas
3000 3000
(WaterBased) (OilBased)
2692
2500 2500 2546
ShearStrength(lb/in2)

ShearStrength(lb/in2)
HFHS HFHS
2000 2000

ProductC ProductC
1500 1500

965 ProductA ProductA

1000 810 1000
556 546
371
500 271 500
219 172
115
60 36 30 27 TVTM*
32 TVTM*
0 0
Unweighted 12.5ppg Unweighted 12.5ppg
16ppg 16ppg

Density, (ppg) Density, (ppg) TVTM*="TooViscousToMix"

Fig. 4 Shear strength versus density for select aqueous-based Fig. 5 Shear strength versus density for select NAF-based
products. HFHS maintains relatively high shear strength over a products. HFHS maintains relatively high shear strength over a
range of densities. range of densities, although at reduced levels in comparison
with similar aqueous-based blends.

However, on weight up with barite, the shear strength values of those tested decreased significantly, perhaps reflecting the
changing particle size distribution, and effective packing, within the defluidized cake (Figures 4 and 5). Regardless, the
HFHS treatment retained the highest degree of strength of all of the products assessed, and at all three pill densities tested.

Load-Frame Measurements
Using a method originally designed for determining the mechanical properties of cured cement samples, specifically, the
Destructive Compressive Strength Test (API Spec 10A, 2002), a number of aqueous-based squeeze pills were tested on a 30-
ton, force-load frame as a means of assessing their compressive qualities. Testing involved first preparing the sample to a 2:1
length-to-diameter ratio in a cylindrical mold. In the case of the squeeze pills, these were prepared with a PPA cell using a
procedure similar to the methodology described previously, the difference being the volume and length of time required to
defluidize the sample. The wet test cylinders were then placed between the load-frame platens and loaded at a rate no less
than 4000 lbf/min until destruction. For comparison, an extended pozzolanic cement sample was also evaluated. The cement
sample had been allowed to cure for more than 36 hours prior to testing. Axial stress and axial strain values were recorded to
produce a stress-strain curve. For a typical cement sample, the peak stress value obtained would represent its unconfined
compressive strength (UCS). However, for the squeeze pills, this is not necessarily the case. Two of the three tested did
indeed fail. The HFHS sample differed though in that it compressed significantly in length to the point of near maximum
load, without failure. The results are shown in Table 1. Further comparative figures are given in the table for conventional,
low-density and high-density engineered particle cement systems.

Table 1 Comparison of Load-Frame versus Conventional Compressive Strength Measurements

Compressive Squeeze Treatment Cement Type
Strength
Method Extended Low High
HFHS Product A Product B Conventional
(lb/in2) Pozzolanic Density EP Density EP
Load-Frame >13,862 66 78 291 - - -
24-hr Destructive - - - - - 1050b - 2500b -
24-hr Ultrasonic - - - - 1750a - 4770b - 3700a
36-hr Ultrasonic - - - - 3800a - >4000a
a) Jain et al. 2000.
b) Nelson and Guillot 2007.

It is obvious that HFHS and other similar squeeze treatments clearly cannot be compared directly to cured cement
samples in terms of simple compressive strength measurements. However, it is interesting to see how these treatments
perform under strain, thus highlighting the differences between compressive strength and shear strength characteristics.
Compressive strength measures a materials external resistance to compressive force, whereas shear strength measures the
internal resistance to that force. Normally, cement is very rigid and resists compression, although it does not internally resist
that force making it relatively easy to fracture. In contrast, the HFHS product is highly compressible due to its unique
combination of ingredients. As the applied force is increased, the treatment becomes more of a compacted plug, instead of
SPE 135472 5

fracturing like conventional cement. This represents a major advantage for a lost circulation material in terms of its potential
sealing ability and in its tolerance to external mechanical forces.

HFHS Trials and Enhanced Field Placement

Given the promising laboratory results for the HFHS treatment, two sets of yard trials were carried out to address concerns
often associated with pumping a lost circulation material through various jet nozzles and a bottomhole assembly (BHA).
The first yard trial was a jet nozzle test, which was performed in a 30-bbl closed-loop system where 3 x 24/32-in., 3 x
16/32-in., and 3 x 10/32-in. nozzles were each placed in their own respective jet boxes. An aqueous-based HFHS pill, at a
concentration of 40 lb/bbl, was pumped at estimated rates of 100-, 200-, and 400-gallon/min through each jet size. The yard
trial was successful, as no plugging occurred in the nozzles, charger pump or triplex pumps.
A second yard trial was then commissioned in order to further evaluate the products performance, this time through a
BHA in a 35-bbl system. The BHA was composed of a jar, mud motor, MWD tool and a 6-in. bit fitted with 3 x 14/32-in.
nozzles. Once again, a 40-lb/bbl water-based HFHS pill was used, and this was successfully mixed through a hopper and
passed through the BHA at 120 and 240 gal/min without plugging (Scorsone et al. 2010). More recently, the HFHS
treatment has been used successfully in the field, although at the time of publication of this paper, the necessary permissions
were not in place to release the data.
An important element to the success of the HFHS, and similar treatments, is the defluidizing stage. The faster the rate,
the quicker a sealing foundation will develop. The rate of defluidization may also dictate how deep in the fracture the seal
forms, and how effective it is the seal (Kaageson-Loe et al. 2008). When dealing with losses in permeable formations, a
drilling fluid may not only leave an external cake on the face of the formation, it may also form a filter cake inside any
fractures that may be present, inhibiting leak-off into the matrix. Hence, consideration to placement should be given.
Although, many defluidizing treatments can be spotted effectively without the need of complicated spacer trains, a
pretreatment stage, or perhaps a combined-treatment may offer some advantages, particularly when confronted with NAF-
based filter cakes (Montgomery et al. 2008; Brege et al. 2010).
To demonstrate this, a series of laboratory experiments were conducted on NAF-based filter cakes at 200F to show the
potential benefits of a pretreatment for enhanced application of a defluidizing pill. For these tests, a 40-lb/bbl unweighted
NAF-based HFHS treatment was used, in combination with specially selected solvents and solvent/surfactant blends as a
pretreatment. The initial filter cakes were produced under static conditions onto 40-m aloxite discs at 200F using a low-
density, low-toxicity mineral oil (LTMO)-based field mud. Where applicable, a pretreatment stage then followed, whereby,
the filter cake was exposed to the treatment at temperature and pressure (250 lb/in2) for a 15-minute period. The HFHS
application subsequently followed, with both 30-second spurt loss and total fluid loss values being obtained at 500 lb/in2
pressure over a 60-minute period. As can be seen from the results shown in Figure 6, a select pretreatment can positively
impact the performance of the HFHS. The simple base oil pretreatment does show some improvement in terms of increased
overall fluid loss. However, its performance does not compare against those of the specialized treatment solutions.It is also
interesting to see that the major benefits occur in the initial minutes of the pretreatment, with little, if any improvement in
overall penetration rates over time.

TFL TFL
80
SpurtLoss(30second)

70 FluidLoss(30min)
FluidLoss(60min)

TFL=TotalFluidLoss
60

50
FluidLoss(ml)

40

30

20

10

0
NoPre BaseOil TreatmentA TreatmentB TreatmentC TreatmentD TreatmentE
Treatment (LTMO)

Fig. 6 Enhanced application of HFHS in NAF-based environments using a pretreatment stage

Conclusions
Operational decision trees typically dictate the use of a fibrous or granular blend of LCM in order to mitigate losses in
permeable zones. However, in extreme high-loss situations these are not always the best option. High-fluid-loss LCM
potentially offers a workable solution in these cases, and there are a number of commercial treatments available. Although
6 SPE 135472

many of these have been tried and tested over time they are not perfect, especially in terms of mixing agility, defluidizing
ability and overall strength, particularly when weighted-up.
To meet at least some of these concerns, a new high-fluid-loss, high-strength (HFHS) pill system was developed and
optimized using innovative test methods. The treatment was subsequently and successfully trialed to ensure that it meets the
stringent criteria needed for ultimate field application. Based on the shear strength comparisons performed as part of this
study, the new HFHS treatment exhibits superior resistance to shear over a wide density range when compared with similar
type treatments. Defluidizing rates of the new HFHS pill were also found to be at least 25% faster than traditional solutions
under the conditions tested, and the system is compatible with a wide range of base fluids.
The load-frame tests reinforced observations that there are differences between cement and squeeze treatments of the type
evaluated in the way they react under strain. Rigid materials, such as cement, which generally exhibit a high resistance to
compressive forces, but with comparatively low shear strengths, will ultimately fracture under load if that load is great
enough. Conversely, materials, such as HFHS, that are more compressible but with comparatively high shear-strength values
will be more cohesive. As the applied force is increased, the treatment becomes more of a compacted plug, instead of
fracturing like conventional cement. This resiliency gives this novel product an improved ability to withstand the mechanical
stresses involved downhole in lost circulation. Its essentially inert nature also offers other advantages in that no activator or
retarders are needed for it to function when mixed and it does not depend upon temperature to form a rigid plug; there are
also benefits with regard to transport and storage. This study has also shown that placements can be made more efficiently
when a pretreatment step is included, with particular improvements occurring when specialized pretreatment solutions are
involved. Overall, the new HFHS treatment, and technologies like it, offers many benefits where significant mud losses
prevail.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of M-I SWACO for their permission and support in publishing this paper.
Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Mark Aston of BP, to Heath Williams of Schlumberger and also to Catriona Sellick,
Mike Hodder and Dr. Eugene Dakin of M-I SWACO for their respective contributions and comments.

References
API Spec 10A: Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing. 2002. 23rd ed. API.
Brege, J.J., Christian, C.F., Quintero, L. and Clark, D.E. 2010. Improving Wellbore Strengthening Techniques by Altering the Wettability
of Non-Aqueous Fluids Lost to Drilling Induced Fractures. AADE-10-DF-HO-43, AADE Fluids Conference, Houston, April 6-7.
Dupriest, F.E., Smith, M.V., Zeilinger, C.S. and Shoykhet, I.N. 2008. Method to Eliminate Lost Returns and Build Integrity Continuously
With High-Filtration-Rate Fluid. SPE 112656, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, March 4 - 6.
Global Petroleum Research Institute. 2000. Lost Circulation Problems with Synthetic Based Muds in Deepwater Flowlines. GPRI Joint
Industry Project #33.
Herrick, J.E. and Jones, T.L. 2002. A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Measuring Soil Penetration Resistance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
66:13201324.
Hettema M., Horsrud P., Taugbl K., Friedheim J., Huynh H., Sanders M.W. and Young S. 2007. Development of an Innovative High-
Pressure Testing Device for the Evaluation of Drilling Fluid Additives within Fracture Permeable Zones. Paper N. 041/dlg2,
Offshore Mediterranean Conference, Ravenna, Italy, March 28-30.
Ivan, C., Bruton, J. and Bloys, B. 2003. Lost Circulation Can be Managed Better than Ever. World Oil, June.
Jain, B., Raiturkar, A.M.P., Holmes, C. and Dahlin, A. 2000. Using Particle-Size Distribution Technology for Designing High-Density,
High-Performance Cement Slurries in Demanding Frontier Exploration Wells in South Oman. SPE 59134, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, February 23 - 25.
Kaageson-Loe, N., Sanders, M.W., Growcock, F., Taugbl, K., Horsrud, P., Singelstad, A.V., and Omland, T.H. 2008. Particulate Based
Loss-Prevention Material - The Secrets of Fracture Sealing Revealed! SPE 112595, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando,
Florida, March 4-6.
Montgomer, J.K., Keller, S.R., Krahel, N.M., Smith, M.V., and Williamson, R.S. 2008. Managing Lost Returns in a Wellbore. U.S.
Patent Application 2008/0110621 A1, May 15.
Nelson, E.B. and Guillot, D. 2007. Well Cementing, 2nd edition; Schlumberger.
Richards, A.F. (Ed) 1998. Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils; ASTM STP 1014.
Sanders M.W., Young S., and Friedheim J. 2008. Development and Testing of Novel Additives for Improved Wellbore Stability and
Reduced Losses. AADE-08-DF-HO-19, AADE Fluids Conference, Houston, April 8-9.
Scorsone, J.T., Dakin, E.S. and Sanders M.W. 2010. Maximize Drilling Time by Minimizing Circulation Losses. AADE-10-DF-HO-42,
AADE Fluids Conference, Houston, April 6 - 7.