SPE/IADC 25758

An Improved Method for Grinding and Reinjecting of Drill Cuttings

Gunnar Sirevag and Arthur Bale, Statoil AlS
SPE and lADe Members

Copyright 1993, SPElIADC Drilling Conference.

This peper was prepered for presentation at the 1993 SPElIADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam 23-25 February 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPElIADC Program Commillee following review of information contained in an abstract submilled by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Intemational Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
meterial, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their officers, or members. Papers presented at SPElIADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contam conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richerdson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
A successful reinjection of oil-wet drill cuttings has been
performed on the Norwegian Gullfaks Field. The reinjection
was carried out in the annulus between two casing strings
through a wear-protected wellhead. An effective way of
grinding cuttings and mixing slurry by use of a new patent
pending method known as SMACCC - Statoil Method for
Autogenous Crushing and Classifying of Cuttings has been
developed.
cuttings, waste mud and oily waste water from drilling was a
following-up project to virtually eliminate the discharge of oily
waste from Statoil's drilling and production platforms. As of
November 1st 1992, a total of 6500 Sm3 (40880 BBL) of
waste drilling fluids and cuttings have been reinjected into
shallow formations on the Gullfaks Field. Reinjection of
cuttings by use of the new crushing and mixing system is now
planned on several Statoil platforms in the North Sea.
This paper

The paper discusses reservoir aspects and presents simulated
fracture geometries as a result of rock mechanical and slurry
in-put property data. Further, the paper describes a 1000 hour
wear test, involved equipment, and gives a derived formula
describing wear from sand slurries on internal wellhead
components.
1. discusses simulated reservoir and rock mechanical data
together with fluid/slurry properties in conjunction with
down-hole disposal operations
2. describes a lOOO-hour combined wellhead and centrifugal
pump sand erosion test. An equation relating erosion to
velocity and sand concentration is given.

3. describes the size and capacity of the new SMACCC

INfRODUCTION system, including an improvedand wear-resistant centrifugal
pump
The basic background to the cuttings reinjection project was
4. presents actual field test data and performance analyses for
1. Statoil's environmental policy to cause the least possible
offshore disposal operations
pollution of the environment, and

2. the company's policy to develop technologies and concepts

meeting low crude prices.
The increasing demand for highly deviated and longer wells
currently necessitates the use of oil-based mud, which is neither
permitted to be discharged into the sea nor to be bomed. With
newly realized environmental concerns, about disposal prob-
lems for drill cuttings and drilling solids residue for oil based
mud systems, several new disposal methods are currently being
considered and investigated by the oil industry.
Since 1988, Statoil has reduced the use of oil-based mud by
about 95% on the Gullfaks Field. The project of reinjecting
References and illustrations at the end of paper
RESERVOIR MODELLING AND
SIMULATION RESULTS
General Considerations
Subsurface injection is a world wide common method of waste
disposal!", and many injection wells have been operating for
years with massive volumes of material being injected. The
major difference between such "normal" disposal operations
and disposal of drilling cuttings and impure mud is the high
percentage of solids to be injected, with the corresponding
requirement for injection above fracture closure pressure - e.g.
it will be necessary to open and probably extend hydraulic
fractures and/or open and extend existing natural fractures.
However, one example of sustained injection above fracture

n3
2 AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR GRINDING AND REINJECTION OF DRll..L CUTTINGS
pressure exists in many waterflood operations where injection
pressures are sufficient to open/extend fractures. Thus one
might (very loosely) compare the expected behavior of long
term injection disposal wells with the observed behavior of
these waterflood fields.
One common phenomena observed in waterflood operations
conducted above frac pressure (when injection water tempera-
ture is similar to or hotter than the formation temperature) is
a continuing increase in injection pressure as reservoir pressure
builds. Eventually, it seems that all such floods culminate with
bottomhole injection pressure equal to about 1.0 to 1.1 psi/ft
(0.23-0.25 bar/m) depth, i.e just about the normal weight of
the overburden, implying that horizontal fractures are probably
being opened or propagated. Injection pressure at this level
then becomes quite constant and injection can continue for
years. A second common occurrence in the vicinity of floods
operated above frac pressure is the "super charging" of
shallower permeable formations. That is, it appears that
significant vertical fracture height growth can occur, allowing
the injection to communicate with overlying formations.
This first phenomena was judged possible in conjunction with
disposal injection on Gullfaks, and tubular pressure limits
were comparedto eventual injection with a bottomhole pressure
slightly above the overburden gradient. However, the effect of
injection on pore pressure in overlying formations probably
should not materialize. Should vertical fracture height occur,
and should the fracture encounter a shallower permeableforma-
tion, fluid loss will immediately start to occur from the solids
laden slurry and a filter cake will form on the fracture face.
Thus, relatively little of the fluid will actual enter the forma-
tion. Continued fluid loss will then tend to dehydrate the
slurry, eventually plugging the fracture and forcing fracture
growth in some new direction. Thus while the continued
fracture growth may, or may not, be a problem, the fracture
encountering any porous, permeable formations should not
significantly effect the pore pressure in these contacted zones -
if the reservoir zone is of "any" extent. Even should the
fracture encounter some shallow gas bearing zone, the fluid
pressure inside the slurry driven fracture will be greater than
the gas formation pressure, thus all fluid movement will be
fluid loss from the fracture into the formation - again resulting
in a filter cake formation and eventual plugging of the fracture.
In fact, should the slurry filled fracture remain vertical,
permeable zones will essentially act as "semi-barriers" to
further vertical propagation. That is, the slurry inside the
fracture will tend to dehydrate due to fluid loss into a porous
permeable zone, eventually plugging the fracture and forcing
fracture extension in a new direction. For a vertical fracture,
this new extension might occur in the form of additional lateral
growth in the impermeable zones underlying the permeable
sand. This lateral growth will, of course, allow "bypassing" of
the older, plugged fracture, and new height growth might again
allow the fracture to contact the permeable formation, where
the slurry will dehydrate, etc., etc.
Another concern in conjunction with downhole disposal
fracturing could be for future wellbores to penetrate an "open"
fracture with internal high pressure. However, in general, it
appears that such consequences would be relatively minor.
Fluid pressure inside the fracture would at most be on the
order of the overburden gradient, giving a fluid pressure with
an equivalent mud weight on the order of 1.9 gram/cc (15.8
774
PPG). This fluid pressure inside the fracture would be much
higher than the actual mud weight being used to drill any new
wellbore which might intersect the "disposal fracture" , thus the
waste drill cutting slurry would start to enter the intersecting
wellbore. This influx, however, should be of a fairly limited
volume (though the initial influx rate could easily be fairly
high) as the disposal fracture starts to close in the area of the
intersection. That is, slurry flowing into the intersection
wellbore will reduce the pressure in the fracture and the
fracture will start to close. Eventually fluid pressure in the
fracture right at the intersection must equal the mud weight in
the drilling well, and the fracture will be completely closed in
the area of the intersection. Thus, after an initial influx, one
would not expect continued flow from the injection disposal
well into any temporarily intersecting wellbore.
Slum Prooerties and Volumes
The initial proposal for cuttings disposal via subsurface
injection involved creating a drilling cuttings/sea water slurry
(DCSWS) by first grinding the cuttings, then mixing with sea
water to give a 1.25 S.G (10.4 PPG) slurry containing 30%
(WIW) solids. Preliminary testing showed that such a slurry
would have typical properties, as outlined in Table 1, where
fluid viscosity data is from the lab measUrements seen in
Figure 1. Interngly. the properties of the DCSWS were
found identical to a typical pre-snud mud. In hydraulic
fracturing "terms", the 75 micron (150 US Mesh) size would
correspond with typical silica flour size fluid loss additives
while 1000 microns is approximately equal to the average grain
diameter of 16/30 US Mesh proppant (e.g. about 50% larger
than quite common 20/40 US Mesh size proppant used in many
propped fracturing applications).
Typical required slurry injection rates were estimated to vary
from 3 BPM (475 LPM) for 12-1/4" holes to 1 BPM (160
LPM) during drilling of an 8-1/2" hole to establish continuous
disposal (e.g. injection rate in-excess of drill cuttings produc-
tion rate).
Fluid loss properties of the DCSWS were tested for fluid loss
into rocks with "darcy" matrix permeability and the lab results B
are discussed in Appendix-A. The fluid loss coeffisient (as
expressed in hydraulic fracturing terms), C, was measured as
0.004 ftI(min.)~ (0.001 m/(min.)11'l) with no significant spurt
loss.
Choice of Disposal FormationlProcedure
For the Gullfaks Field, injection directly into the massive
Utsira Sand, typically found at a depth of 900 m (2950 ft)
(TVD), and/or injection into the shales underlying the Utsira
appeared to be possible disposal scenarios.
On Gullfaks, the 20" casing is set at l1oo m (3610 ft)
(fVD) and cemented in place with cement back to surface.
After drilling to a deeper depth, 13-3/8" casing is cemented in
the well; however, in some instances unplanned cement slurry
loss has resulted in a failure to circulate cement all the up into
the 20" x 13-318" annulus, as illustrated in Figure 2. This was
hoped to leave some formations exposed in the annular region,
and thus allowing disposal injection through the subject annulus
. while simultaneously producing from (or injecting throuP
SPE 25758 GUNNAR SIREVAG AND ARTHUR BALE
tubing into) the main reservoir.
An approximate "Pressure(s) vs. Depth" diagram for the
Gullfaks area is seen in Figure 3. For injection at TVD depths
of 1000 m (3280 ft) (TVD), reservoir pressure should have
an essentially normal gradient (e.g. 0.43 psi/ft or 0.1 bar/m),
with an estimated overburden gradient of about 0.85 psi/ft
(0.19 bar/m) and an essentially normal fracture gradient of
about 0.7 psi/ft (0.16 bar/m). Assuming bottomhole injection
pressure would eventually exceed the overburden pressure by
loo psi (7 bar) gives a maximum bottomhole pressure of
2900 psi (200 bar). With a hydrostatic head of seawater, this
gives a surface pressure of 1400 psi (96 bar). With
wellhead pressure limits on the order of 1600 psi (110 bar)
for injection down the 20" x 13-3/8" annulus (i.e. top-side
collapse pressure of the 13-3/8" casing), higher surface
pressures could be handled by increasing the pressure in the 9-
5/8" x 13-3/8" annulus.
Utsira Sand Jnjeetion
One "class" of shallow injection zones for disposal of the oil
based mud drill cuttings was originally into shallow sand
formations, with the Dtsira Sand, as mentioned above, being a
possible target for the Gu1lfaks Field. Such shallow sands
generally posses relatively high porosity and permeability, with
the Dtsira probably being typical with porosity on the order of
35 percent and "darcy" permeability. Also, since sands
generally tend to have lower fracture closure pressures than
claystones, siltstones, shales, etc., one might generally expect
injection would (at least initially) preferentially break down and
enter such zones in cases where all types of formations are
exposed to fracturing fluid/slurry.
Assuming a normal reservoir pressure gradient (e.g. 0.43 psi/ft
(0.1 bar/m) of TVD depth) and a fracture closure pressure
gradient of 0.7 psi/ft (0.16 bar/m), this would give a
reservoir pressure of 1280 psi (88 bars) and a fracture closure
pressure on the order of 2070 psi (143 bars) for the Dtsira
Sand. For modelling of a fracture rate injection into such a
sandstone formation, the major variables governing fracture
behavior are the modulus of the rock, the fluid loss coefficient,
fluid viscosity (and, of course, fluid volumes & rates), and
most importantly, the fracture height.
The fluid and fluid loss data, as discussed above, and a
"dynamic" Young's modulus of 2x1OS psi (138.000 bars),
based on a sonic log travel time, Ate, of 150 microseconds
per foot (p.s/ft), were used in the simulatiotf. Based on lab data
for Young's modulus from other high permeability, high
porosity sand formations in the area, this estimate for in-situ
"static" Young's modulus may be high by possibly as much as
a factor of 4 or 5. Calculations discussed below show possible
fracture lengths on the order of 1300 ft (400 m), and the effect
of the actual rock modulus being less than the estimated value
would be to reduce this anticipated fracture penetration, e.g.
for "softer" rock the fracture width will be greater and thus
fracture length or radius will be decreased. However, this will
not be a "1 to 1" effect, that is, reducing modulus by a factor
of four might give a calculated fracture penetration reduction
on the order of 25 percent.
A "type" log for the Dtsira Sand will reveal a discrete sand
formation of 130 feet (40 m) (TVD) thickness surrounded by
775
3
claystones and siltstones. For the initial fracture modelling, it
was assumed that a vertical fracture would be created in this
formation, and that this fracture would, at least initially, be
confined to the Dtsira - giving a fracture height of about 130
feet (40 m) (TVD). The modelling assumed an injection of 1
million DS gallons (i.e 1000 M-Gal or 4000 or, representative
of half a year "production" of mud and crushed cutting
disposal volumes) at a constant, average rate of 3 BPM (475
LPM). Since some of the particles in the DCSWS are similar
in size to typical proppants used in fracturing, the slurry was
modelled as a 0.5 PPG (0.5 pound of proppant per gallon of
liquid) (60 kg/m3) stage of a frac treatment. A 0.5 PPG
slurry would have about 2 percent total solids, thus modelling
the DCSWS as a 0.5 PPG frac job stage somewhat implies that
about 5 to 6 percent of the total ground cuttings solids consists
of the larger size particles. In actual frac, about 5 percent of
the DCSWS will consist of particle size greater than 75
microns (150 DS Mesh). It should be noted that in this
analysis, it was assumed that the bulk of the solids (e.g. all
particles <75 micron diameter) were deposited on the filter
cake. In actual fact, however, after the initial filter cake is
formed, the rate of filter cake build-up will probably decrease,
such that additional loss of clean sea water through the cake
will tend to partially dehydrate the slurry - as well as, of
course, continuing to build the cake. Thus totally ignoring the
fines (particles < 75 microns) in predicting the fracture
behavior is probably optimistic (i.e the slurry will tend to
possibly dehydrate and plug the fracture somewhat earlier than
predicted). Actually, as discussed below, even this "optimistic"
modelling shows slurry dehydration/fracture plugging occur-
ring virtually immediately, such that any "error"from ignoring
the fines becomes essentially meaningless.
The first stage of a propped fracture treatment, the pad, is
generally pumped as a sacrificial fluid loss stage, and also
serves to create sufficient fracture width to allow the proppant
to enter the formation. Since a significant volume of the
DCSWS consists of particles similar in size to normal
proppant, some type of "pad" stage should also be used in
initiating any disposal injection. Thus, for the modelling, a pad
stage was assumed of 180 BBL (29 m~ ( one third of an
average 20"x 13-3/8" annulus volume) of seawater injected at
6 BPM (950 LPM). Despite this high injection rate, the
model predicted pressure behavior, as seen in Figure 4, shows
the slurry dehydrating and plugging the fracture (forcing an
increased injection pressure) almost immediately.
This modelling has shown injection pressure increasing
essentially without limit since the model does not allow any
"new" fracture to form. For the actual case, the pressure will
only increase until: 1) injection pressure limits are reached and
the pumps must be shut down; 2) the fracture breaks out of the
Dtsira Sand and begins to grow vertically into the overlying
(presumably impermeable) shales and siltstones; or 3) bottom-
hole pressure reaches a level equal to the weight of the
overburden and a horizontal fracture is formed. Of course it
might also be possible for a new vertical fracture in the Dtsira
Sand to open, however, this new fracture would also immedi-
ately "screenout" until eventually one of the three above cases
would occur.
The effects of "Case 1" are obvious (e.g. no further injection
would be possible) and clearly undesirable. However. this
possibility was bome in mind. particularly if the slum
dehydration would occur near the weUbore such that the
4 AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR GRINDING AND REINJECTION OF DRILL CUTTINGS
entrance into the vertical fracture would be restricted or
closed; the possibility of this would probably make direct
injection into a permeable sandstone a low priority pros-
pect. The possibility of this near wellbore plugging would also
be increased by the "startJstop" nature of injections, e.g. semi-
frequent, long, shut/down periods which would occur during
breaks in drilling activity. Such a shut down period would
allow the sluny in the near well fracture to dehydrate, building
an unnaturally thick filter cake in this critical near wellbore
area of the fracture. Eventually, this would totally destroy
wellbore/fracture communication and prohibit any additional
injection into the sandstone from that wellbore.
Ignoring the high fluid loss Utsira Sand, the remaining two
cases were modelled as injection of sluny into a radial fracture
which might represent either unconfined vertical growth or a
horizontal fracture initiated from a structural level equal to the
Utsira Sand. For a horizontal fracture in the impermeable shale
above (or below) the Utsira, 4000 m3 (25160 BBL) of
injected sluny would create a fracture with a radius of 25Om
(82Oft), as seen in Figure 5. For unconfined vertical growth,
fracture propagation will tend to be slightly more "up" rather
than "down" due to the natural increase in fracture closure
pressure with depth. This would result in a final fracture
geometry, as seen in Figure 6, with the fracture top reaching
to 21oo ft (700 m) TVD. This modelling assumed a very
small fluid loss to give a final "fluid efficiency" of 95 percent.
In actual fact, a fracture covering this much area will un-
doubtedly encounter small permeable streaks, natural fractures,
etc. and there would probably be more fluid loss than estimated
in the simulation. Thus these radial fracture extents should be
considered as "upper bound" numbers. In addition, for the case
of vertical fracture growth, the fracture would almost certainly
encounter shallower, permeable zones. Fluid loss into these
zones will again tend to dehydrate the sluny and plug the
fracture over the permeable sand - stopping vertical growth at
that point. This would tend to put a vertical growth cap on the
fracture as discussed below.
Injection below the <High Permeable) Utsira Sand
Another possible injection scenario for the Gullfaks Field
would be to inject into the shaly Hordaland Group at a point
150 to 650 ft (50 to 200 m) (TVD) below the Utsira Sand
(or injection into some other formation at a location below a
porous, permeable sand). Since "shales" tend to have higher
fracture closure pressure than sands, fracture gradient in these
zones could approach the overburden gradient, giving a surface
injection pressure (assuming only a hydrostatic head of sea
water) of 1500 psi ( 100 bar). However, assuming that this
pressure limit could be realized, such injection could give a
favourable final fracture geometry. Illustratively, this fracture
geometry might develop as seen in Figure 7, where initially a
vertical fracture would expand as a "penny" shaped or radial
fracture until the top of the fracture encountered the permeable
Utsira Sand. Shortly after that, as discussed above, the cuttings
laden sluny would start to dehydrate, plugging the portion of
the fracture which is in contact with the fluid loss. Additional
lateral fracturing would then occur (probably at a slightly
higher pressure) as illustrated by fracture "2" until again the
fracture could grow vertically up into the permeable formation
- where it would again screenout, etc. Thus this fracture
geometry could conceivablyallow significantly larger quantities
of injection than might be possible for injection directly into a
ns
permeable formation - although it is possible that the injection
might require slightly increasing pressure with time until, as
mentioned above, a horizontal fracture may form. Also, during
lengthy shutdowns, solid settling in the main vertical fracture
could cover the injection interval forestalling further injection.
In order to aid in preventing this, a significant seawater
overflush should be pumped immediately prior to any lengthy
shutdown. A considerable sea water overflush would also
prohibit fluid/sluny segregation and consequentplugging inside
the casing annulus.
Also, it should be noted that the problems associated with
solids settling would be avoided in the case of a horizontal
fracture. Injection into the potential "high stress" shales
underlying the Utsira Sand could occasion bottomhole pressures
equal (or near equal) to the weight of the overburden - making
a horizontal fracture in the impermeable shale a high probabil-
ity. For that case, as discussed above with Figure 5, it should
be possible to inject on the order of 10,000 m3 (629oo BBL)
of sluny into a fracture covering a relatively small area
(fracture radius on the order of 1300 ft (4oo m.
Further, injection into the shaly Hordaland Group below the
Utsira Sand would at least have three other major advantages:
I. Existing producers and injectors with "open" and formation
exposed 20" x 13-3/8" annulus could be used for disposal
injection since most 20" casings had been set and cemented
at 50 - 200 m (150 - 650 ft) (TVD) below the Utsira
Sand.
2. The shale/claystone interval was according to (sonic) log
studies (ate"" 160 p.s/ft) believed to exhibit ductile prop-
erties and thus behave plastically during and after injection
periods; hence the claystone could act as a "non-return
valve" after shut-in and fracture closure. With reducing
downhole pressures as a consequence of dehydration of the
fracture (due to fluids slowly leaking off through the filter
cake - primarily at the tip of the fracture in the permeable
Utsira Sand), no constant "back-pressure" would be
observed on surface. Thus, execution of wellhead wear
inspection programmes would not be complicated by high
surface wellhead pressure. Nor, would solids flow back
towards the wells and potentially plug the lower part of the
injection annulus. Also, the expected embedment character-
istic of the soft/low stiffness claystone would be favourable
in context of solids/crushed cuttings storage.
3. Injection through the 20" x 13-3/8" annulus would also
enhance safety precautions during disposal injection periods
since the 9-5/8 x 13-3/8" annulus would act as a "barrier"
or buffer if a production/injection tubing leak or 13-3/8"
casing leak would occur during the disposal operations.
The above discussed potential risks associated with disposal
injection directly into the permeable Utsira Sand and the
advantages linked to injection into the underlying non-per-
meable Hordaland Group, called for the choice of the latter
disposal scenario in the Gullfaks Field.
SPE 25758 GUNNAR SIREVAG AND ARTHUR BALE
IDENTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL WELL CAN-
DIDATES AND DESCRIPTION OF FIELD
TEST PROCEDURES
Ev~uation of the 13-3/8" casing cement jobs, with a view to
est~ated top cement, TOC, behind the subject casing, was the
key Issue for selection of disposal well candidates. Several
"?ld" wells on each platform were identified as potential future
dISposal wells. A two step testing program consisting of 1) a
short-term "Communication Test" in order to confirm. forma-
tion communication in the annulus and 2) a long-term "Dis-
placement Test" (if communication was established) in order to
overdisplace the annulus volume down to the 20" casing shoe
(basically consisting of mud with unknown characteristics) by
approximately 50 percent.
Wellhead pressure and pump rate were recorded/loggedby use
of a PANEX 1100A Quarts Capasitance gage and the cement
unit chart recorder, respectively.
Communication Tests
The "Communication Tests" have shown that communication
to the shaly Hordaland Group below the 20" casing shoe was
established in approximately fifty percent of the chosen
~~didate wells; the remaining wells were obviously plugged
mSlde the annulus - caused by either barite settling or cement
plugs. The "Communication Test" procedure is well identified
in Figure 8: After bleeding of the nitrogen cushion in the
annulus, sea water with corrosion inhibitor was injected with
rates vlllYing between 0.6 BPM (95 LPM) and 6 BPM (950
LPM). Injection was shut-in for approximately two minutes
after each 25 bar (360 psi) increase in annulus pressure
basically in order to execute operation control. A programmed
pressure increase in the 9-5/8" x 13-3/8" annulus rendered the
possibility for surface pumping pressures up to 2030 psi (140
bar). However, testing experience revealed that communication
through the 20" casing shoe was never established if surface
pressure exceeded 113 bar (1640 psi).
In wells with an "open" annulus a total volume of approximate-
ly 20 m3 was pumped during the "Communication Test".
Injection rates typically varied between 0.6 BPM (95 LPM)
and 6 BPM (950 LPM), the latter rate, as shown in Figure
8, established during the second half of the injection period.
The wells were normally shut-in for at least one hour. In
hindsight, the pressure fall-off data gave valuable information
with respect to geology, formation stress and fracture
geometry. As an example, the pressure fall-off performance,
identified in Figure 8, is indicative of a tight formation
surrounding the "relatively small" induced fracture; "signifi-
cant" permeable sand lenses below the major Utsira Sand body
contributing to a steady leak-off (and corresponding pressure
fall-oft) can not be identified from the subject data. Further,
the low surface injection and shut-in pressures strongly indicate
the presence of a vertical fracture, perpendicular to an in-situ
minimum horizontal stress on the order of 70 psi (5 bar) less
than the stable shut-in pressure (actual pressure minus net
fracturing pressure). Unfortunately, at this stage, the corre-
sponding downhole pressures can not be accurately estimated
due to the unknown characteristics of the mud still present in
most of the annulus.
777
5
Displacement Tests
Pressure fall-off data after the Displacement Test, visualized in
Figure 9, clearly show a fracture in communication with a
major permeable sand which, in case of a vertical fracture and
according to modelling results, would be the overlying Utsira
Sand. An apparent closure stress can be picked at 50 bar (725
psi) surface pressure, corresponding to 2347 psi (161.8 bar),
or !.43~ g/cc (11.96 PPG) (RKB) equivalentmudweight, at the
20 casmg shoe after having corrected for the sea water head
in the annulus. Also, deducting a reasonable value of net
fracturing pressure from the observed pumping pressures at the
end of the injection period will substantiate the stress level.
Results from other successful Displacement Tests substantiated
the above minimum horizontal formation stress level - well
below the estimated overburden stress of minimum 3000 psi
(207 bar) at the 20" casing shoe and thus confirming the
geometry of a vertical fracture.
Interestingly, the observed stress level in the shaly upper
Hordaland Group, 0.671 psilft (MSL) (0.152 bar/m (MSL)
turned down the possibility of significant shale/sand stress
differences, as discussed in the introduction of this paper.
The surface.injection data from well 34/10-C-3, visualized in
Figures 8 and 9, represent the ideal case of an injection
disposal well: The stable shut-in pressures after the limited
"Communication Test" suggest that (relatively confined) sand
lenses in the vicinity of the 20" casing shoe, or below the
major Dtsira Sand, are not present. Such sand bodies may over
time exhibit charged post-injection pore pressures and cause
problems such as high shut-in surface annulus pressures, as
well as counteract the potential advantage, as discussed
introductory, associated with a pure shale acting as a post-
injection non-return valve. Also, according to the "Displace-
ment Test" any disposal injection slurry volume is proven to
communicate with the overlying Dtsira Sand as a result of
overdisplacing the 20" x 13-3/8" annulus - implying a rapid
pressure decline/fracture closure after shut-in.
ONSHORE PRESTUDIES OF GRINDING AND
,PUMPING EOUIPMENT
January 1990, one of the authors, Gunnar Sirevig, found by a
coincidence a new and very effective crushing mill in a local
quarry, which, with certain modifications, looked promising
for crushing cuttings. This led to contact with universities and
industries for evaluation and testing of alternative potential
cuttings crushing equipment. The research and pilot testing has
proved negative and the autogenous crushing mill found in use
in the quarry was left as the only viable solution.
The SMACCC project was started by testing the modified
autogenous crushing mill lO , Figure 10 and Figure 11, and a
locally made heavy duty fertilizer centrifugal pump, Figure 12,
referred to as the SPASER - Slurry Pump Agitator and Star
Feeder Erosion Resistant - pump in the text below. Full scale
testing of the mill and ancillaIY equipment started in October
1990 and lasted for two weeks, 16 hours a day.
The mill was modified for wet processing and Veslefrikk Field
cuttings were used. Different running modes were tried and
grinding efficiency was analyzed. The goal of grindin~ the
6 AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR GRINDING AND REINJECTION OF DRil"L CUTTINGS

cuttings to maximum 5% above 100 micron (150 US Mesh)
and no grain bigger than 1 rom was achieved. It was also found
that separate sand grains were hard to grind and that the
grinding process was slow due to the low kinetic energy in
small size separate grains of 300 - 600 microns (50-30 US
Mesh) and smaller. Hard clay stone with variable sand content
was easily ground down.
In cooperation with a firm of consulting engineer~ I, a thumb-
rule formula describing the relation between erosional wear,
velocity and sand content was developed, Equation 1. It should
be noted that this equation is only valid for a slurry funnel
viscosity (FV) above 40 sec..
E = 1.1 x 10-s x C x t X V2.1 Eq. 1

Slurry design was also evaluated at this stage. Different where,

viscosifiers, thinners and defoamers were tested. XC-polymer
proved useful for viscosity building. Thinners had no effect. E = Assumed maximum erosional wear (rom)
since aU particles are oil wet. Defoamers had very little C = API test sand concentration (% by volume, VV)
effect. t = Injection time (hours)
V = Injection velocity (m1sec.)

Pre-studies of Erosion Wear on Wellhead and Centrifugal Reinjection offshore proved that the formula is useful to
~ determine maximum allowable injection velocity for the slurry.

The studyll was conducted in the Stavanger area from March *****
to August 1991. High and low-velocity sand slurry jets were
tested against the casing hanger, as shown in Figure 13, the The examples below are included to illustrate applications of
latter mounted in a wellhead rigged up in a workshop. Veloc- Equation 1.
ities in the wellhead varied between 23 and 2.1 m1sec. (15 -
6.9 ftIsec.) into one side of the wellhead. Total time for testing Example 1
of the wellhead and directional jet nozzles was ahout 1000
hours. Directionaljet nozzles of different configurations were C = 10%
tried in the wellhead to avoid erosion on the casing hanger. t = 400hrs
V = 6 m1sec.
Testing with directional jet nozzles proved to be difficult and E = 1.1 x 10-s x 10 x 400 X 621 = 1.89 rom
time consuming. High rates of erosional wear were found with
most nozzles tried and a decision was therefore taken to go If 2 rom is set as maximum allowable wear on the casing
ahead with an open wear bushing to protect the valve-removal hanger, the injection should be suspended.
threads in the wellhead housing. Consequently, only open wear
bushing results are described in this paper. Example 2

Tests run with funnel viscosities (FV) of 40 and 120 seconds,
and a velocity of 23 m1sec. (15 ftIsec.) indicated that the 3 fold
increase of FV reduced the wear by half. This viscosity effect
seems to be strictly valid for velocities as low as 10 m1sec. (33
ftIsec.), as shown in Figure 14. The phenomenon is assumed
to be an effect of the centrifugal force in the 90 tum of the
slurry stream inside the wellhead housing; high centrifugal
force (high velocity) and low slurry viscosity will force more
of the sand in the slurry stream to collide with the casing
hanger. The "W" erosional scar on the casing hanger proved
erosion to be most si~cant on the low side of the eroded
surface, identified as (3) in Figure 15.
- .
The sand used was a rounded, well sorted naturally occurring
beach quartz sand from the Orre area (outside Stavanger,
Norway) with 90% of the particle sizes ranging between 100
and 400 micron ( 150-40 US Mesh). Sieve analyses of the
sand taken after each test showed insignificant size reduction,
identifying equal test conditions throughout the testing pro-
gramme. The sand concentration was kept constantly at 13
percent by adding "new" sand when needed.
A practical experience gained from the erosion testing was that
to avoid excessive wear, the slurry velocity in the wellhead
annulus opening should be below 2 m1sec. (6.6 ftIsec.),
equivalent to pumping 159 lImin (1 BPM) through one port
with a diameter of 40.08 rom (1-37/64"). Also, cuttings
slurries with high sand concentrations should have a funnel
viscosity of 60 to 120 sec. to minimize the centrifugal force
factor in the slurry stream.
na
C = 10%
t = 1100 hrs
V = 2 m1sec.
E = 1.1 x lO-s x 10 x 1000 X '}!-1 = 0.52 rom
Example 2 highlights the importance of low rate injection in
order to minimize erosion on the casing hanger.
Example 3
Problem:
What will be the maximum volume of cuttings slurry to be
injected if the maximum allowable wear on the casing hanger
is 1.6 rom (1116").
Answer:
Eroded wear from each cutting slurry batch pumped should be
ealculated by using Equation 1 and organized as shown in
Table 2. Further, this theoretical approach should be supple-
mented by frequent wellhead inspections using a horoscope. An
inline dummy wellhead on the rig can also be used for inspec-
tion purposes.
*****
The project decided to apply a simplified practical erosional
wear theory to support the use of Equation 1. The equation was
used with the following rules of thumb:
a) Differentiation between steel types is not significant 12.
b) Sand used in the test is representative of field sand
SPE 25758 GUNNAR SIREVAG AND ARTHUR BALE
cuttings.
c) Maximum erosion penetration for steel occurs at impact
angles of about 20 - 30, Appendix-B.
d) The geometry of the eroded surface and surroundings must
be roughly identical.
e) No correction is made for reduced erosion due to high FV.
The Bean Duty "SPASER" Centrifugal Pump
A well proven Norwegian type centrifugal pump, used for
fertilizer mass in farming, was tried for pumping the cuttings
slurry. The initial tests were so promising that the pump was
tested for over 1000 hours in parallel with the erosion wear
testing ofthe wellhead. The following modifications were made
after about 500 hours of testing:
* Small modifications to the pump housing geometry
* Hard-facing of the entire inside pump housing and
impeller
* Improvement to bearings and lubrication system
* Improvement to sealing system
The hard-facing method and material were based on experience
from earlier company projects on diverter lines and valves.
After these modifications the pump was run for 500 more
hours without problems with a bentonite/seawatermud contain-
ing 36 percent quartz sand by weight. The pump was driven by
the power outlet of a farming tractor.
GULLFAKS FIELD TRIAL OF CUTTINGS
AND WASTE FLUID REINJECTION
Description of Equipment Involved Offshore
From the shale shakers to the cuttings mill, hydraulically
driven reinforced farming screw conveyors were used. This is
low-eost standard equipment with 1-2 weeks' delivery time.
The conveyors were driven by a variable-speed hydraulic
motor, powered from the pipe-handling hydraulic powerpack
already on the rig. The screw-eonveyors were easily installed
by simply hanging them in chains hooked up to a superclamp
grip device which fits all steel beam profiles and is mounted in
minutes.
Grinding of the cuttings, plus mixing and shearing it with
waste water or seawater, was efficiently performed with the
newly developed SMACCC unit l3 , visualized on Figures 16 and
17, standing on the open deck. Pumping between the four tanks
of the SMACCC unit was easily done by means of the heavy-
duty SPASER centrifugal pumps.
The SPASER pumps had excellent capacity even when handling
slurry as thick and dense as "toothpaste". In fact suction was
never lost in the pumps during the Gullfaks operation. How-
ever, there were some problems with bearing failures on the
crusher tank SPASER pump which was found and corrected
after 10 days of operation. Since then the SMACCC unit
SPASER pumps were operated without problems.
A common heavy-duty oilfield centrifugal pump, was installed
as a supercharge pump for the high-pressure injection pump,
mainly to compare the two types of centrifugal pumps. The
779
7
oilfield centrifugal pump had a simple packing box sealing
which caused a lot of spill on deck and demanded frequent
maintenance. Later, this packing box was replaced by an
expensive high-tech mechanical sealing which is still in
operation.
The SMACCC Unit autogenous wet-crushing mill proved to
be very effective in grinding the cuttings. Particle and fluid
velocity can be up to 100 m/sec. in the mill, comparable to that
achieved through a drill-bit nozzle. In addition to autogenous
inter-particle collisions, very high hydrodynamic shear forces
help to degrade the cuttings particles. The high shear forces are
also very efficient in making micro-emulsions from oil and
water, giving a very stable cuttings slurry.
Trash containers and big bags were used as a back-up solution
for storage of cuttings if problems occurred during crushing
and reinjection of cuttings, visulized in Figure 16. The trash
containers could also be used for intermediate storage of ready
cuttings slurry. This proved to be a safe, simple, low-eost, and
good solution.
On two occasions, the cuttings had to be temporarily stored in
the trash containers. The filled containers.were then hooked in
the crane hook, and an air-operated 3-tons chain winch was
mounted between the hook and one end of the container. The
cuttings could then easily and safely be dumped into an open
screw conveyor tray ahead of the crushing mill. Cuttings from
big bags hanging in the crane hook were also safely transported
to the crushing mill via the open screw conveyor tray.
From the SMACCC unit and down to the high-pressure (HP)
stationary completion pump, two rubber hoses were used. This
permitted circulation through the suction manifold in the event
of suction loss problems.
From the (HP) pump, flexible HP hoses were used down to the
wellhead where aT-piece allowed pumping into both sides of
the annulus. The pop-off valve was reduced to 110 bars
(1600 psi) on the HP pump. In addition, a torque limit
switch on the pump was used as a back-up device.
The valve-removal plug threads in the wellhead housing
opening were protected by a specially designed thread-protector
wear bushing. This wear bushing was easily put in place with
or without pressure in the annulus, with standard VR plug
tools, described in Figure 18.
On both sides of the wellhead, a back-pressure valve and two
gate valves, as shown in Figure 19, were installed to prohibit
flowback from the well in case of leakage between the HP
pump and the wellhead.
Job Planning? Operations and Safety Aspects
Before the reinjection programme was approved, a Hazop 14
safety study had to be performed. The Hazop analysis, which
involved most leading personnel, identified 10 relations that
had to be improved or clarified. The "Hazoped" programme
was then sent to all leading personnel involved for final
approval.
Safety meetings and pre-job meetings were held regularly and
whenever needed. Local safety aspects were discussed, written
8 AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR GRINDING AND REINJECTION OF DRILL CUTTINGS
down and instructions distributed to all personnel involved.
Written and approved work instructions were given to the
following personnel: SMACCC operator, HP pump operator,
reinjection operation engineer, drilling supervisor. Special log
sheets were also made for all personnel instructed.
The equipment was rigged up according to plan15 Hard cement
from the 12-114" casing shoe and formation cuttings from the
800m (2624 ft) 8-112" horizontal section in well 34/10-A-34,
penetrating a Lower Brent sand formation interbedded with
claystone and limestone stringers, were ground and injected
through the 20" x 13-3/8" annulus of well 34/10-A-29. The
20" casing shoe in well 34/10-A-29 had been set and cemented
back with an inclination of 60. The reinjection did not cause
any drilling delays, despite minor reinjection operational
problems, as discussed below.
Involved Personnel
The following personnel were involved in the operation on each
shift:
2 SMACCC operators
"0.5" Reinjection operation engineer
"0.5" HP pump operator
"0.5" Well pressure logger
Extra service was given by roustabouts when needed.
Concentrations of Chemicals Used in the Cyttinp Slurry
when Viscosifiers were Emploved
Since mainly sandstone was drilled, some viscosifiers had to be
used. It was observed that the effect of XC-polymer as a visco-
sifier was reduced when contamination with 5 - 10% oil-based
mud was present in the seawater. A polymeric viscosifier
similar to XC-polymer proved to be more effective in building
viscosity when the seawater was contaminated with oil-based
mud l3
Additions of dry and prehydrated bentonite were tested out for
viscosity building while drilling sand, but proved to be less
efficient than use of the polymeric viscosifier.
The following additives were used:
Spesific weight of slum under 1.40 eSG) 01.7 PPG):
Idvis 4 - 6 kg/or (1.4-2.1 PPB) (viscosity)
Ironite Sponge 3 kg/m3 (1.1 PPB) (H~ scavenger)
Biocide 0.7 - 2 kg/m3 (0.25-0.7 PPB)
Spesific weight of slurry over 1.40 eSG):
Idvis 4 - 6 kgIor
Biocide 0.7 - 2 kgIm3
Ironite sponge and Biocide were only used if polymeric
viscosifiers were used. The reason for not using ~S scavenger
when injecting high density slurry was that ~S is seldomly
observed in polymer-rich drilling muds with specific gravity in
excess of 1.4 (S.G); the absence of ~ is presumedly caused
780
by iron content in the barite reacting with the H2S - the latter
formed as a result of polymer degradation.
Injection Guidlines and Data Acquisition
All events, pressures, pump rates and relevant slurry properties
were recorded and logged'3 .
The 20"xI3-3/8" annulus pressure was logged for the nearest
wells. Typical slurry specifications are given in Table 2.
The following slurry specifications limits were given:
FV 60 to 200 sec.
Weight no limit
Maximum API test sand concentration equal to 13% VV.
(Later operations excluded this limit).
No cuttings fragments to be observed on the 10 mesh screen
on FV funnel.
The following limitations were set on pump rate through the
two 40.08 mm (1-37/64") openings in the wellhead housing:
Sand content below 1% VV implied a maximum rate of 480
LPM (3 BPM) (later increased to 1000 LPM (6 BPM.
Sand content above 1% VV implied a maximum rate of 160
LPM (1 BPM) (later increased to 240 LPM (1.5 BPM.
(Slurry jet velocity in wellhead with sand concentration
above 1% VV should always be below 2 mlsec.(6.6 ftlsec.
The following annulus pressures limitations were given:
Annulus Max Pressure
32" X 26" 15 bar (218 psi)
26" x 20" 30 bar (435 psi)
20" x 13-3/8" 110 bar (1595 psi)*
13-3/8" x 9-518" 90 bar (1305 psi)
9-5/8" x tubing" 70 bar (1015 psi)
* 140 bar (2030 psi) with pressurized 13-3/8" x 9-518"
annulus
During the period of 28 September through October 26, 1991,
45 batches of crushed cuttings were injected. Total pumping
time accumulated to 40 hours. Average pump rate was 0.25
m3/min (1.6 BPM), implying a slurry velocity of 1.67 mlsec.
(5.44 ftlsec.) into both sides of the wellhead. The Wellhead
injection pressure varied between 45 bar (650 psi) and
75 bar (1090 psi), dependent on injection rate, time
(fracture geometry) and slurry consistancy (the wellhead
pressure throughout the two hours "Displacement Test" for the
subject well was constantly 60 bar ). A total of 4590r (2887
BBL) of slurry, including 75m3 (472 BBL) of cuttings and hard
drilled cement from inside the casing shoe, was reinjected.
Post injection wellhead inspection of the 13-3/8" casing hanger
with the boroscope showed no detectable wear13 Pictures taken
showed that rust, scale and dry mud-cakes were still present on
the hanger, indicating very low erosion from the slurry jet.
Theoretical wear was calculated to be 0.005 mm. The maxi-
mum allowable wear was set to (only) 1.6 mm (1116").
SPE 25758 GUNNAR SIREVAG AND ARTHUR BALE
Equipment & Operational Problems and Solutions
Problems:
1. Three bearing failures of recirculation SPASER pump for
crushing mill tank.
2. Constraints (SD&P-Procedures) on number of activities
related to drilling and production operations undertaken
simultaneously on the rig caused intermittent stops during
the reinjection process.
3. Bad/rainy weather causing unpleasant working conditions on
the SMACCC unit.
4. Difficult to measure and quantify possible wear on the
casing hanger with a Statoil-designed inspection tool,
described in Figure 20.
5. Diaphragm pumps for transfer of cuttings slurry were found
impractible.
6. Suction problems on the HP-pump.
Respective solutions:
I. a) New rig-up of pump on the baseplate to avoid bend in
drive shaft. b) Changed to heavy duty grease.
2. The cuttings from the well or ready cuttings slurry were
stored in open trash containers when reinjection operations
intermittently were called to a halt.
3. To make working conditions more pleasant on the SMA-
CCC unit in bad/rainy weather, a scaffolding and tarpaulin
stored on the platform were rigged up in a few hours.
4. The tool for measuring casing hanger wear proved to be
accurate but impractical in use. The tool consisted of a
graded flange mounted on the inner gate-valve flange.
Through the flange a pressure sealed arrangement permitted
a measuring bar to be pushed through the gate valve and
against the casing hanger. If the measuring bar was just one
mm out of position between repeated measuring points,
deviations were observed. The reason for this was that the
casing hanger surface is rounded and also was covered with
rust, scale and old dry mud even after 40 hours of re-
injection. It was obviously not possible to clearly measure
a few mm wear on this rough surface.
If erosional wear had been present, the casing hanger surface
would have been a shining steel surface. It was therefore
concluded that pictures taken with a boroscope could be used
to prove whether or not erosion had been present, although
not to exactly quantify the wear.
5. Suction problems in the HP pump were eliminated by
lowering the FV of the slurry to below 200 sec. and install-
ing a coarse screen ahead of the suction manifold to catch
bigger rubber fragments from cement plugs and mud motor.
781
9
ECONOMICS
The project used some old equipment to reduce the price.
However, the system proved to be a high quality solution with
a high redundancy and safety level. Saved disposal cost for the
8-112" section of well GFA 34/l0-A-34 was USD 233,000.
The investment to get the whole cuttings reinjection system up
and running was USD 9oo,000. Hence, cuttings and drilling
waste fluid from another four 8-112" hole sections on GFA will
be required to be injected before the installationloperationcosl
of the cuttings reinjection system will be paid off.
Reinjection of cuttings and drilling waste fluid from recent
wells drilled on other Statoil operated fields have proved much
higher cost savings by eliminating onshore disposal costs. On
one well, for example, USD I million was saved, excluding
operational and investment cost for reinjection equipment.
It took six months from ordering the first prototype SMACCC
unit until it was built and in operation on the rig. This included
initial full scale testing onshore and some waiting for the
delayed well to be drilled. As mentioned earlier, the operatior
cost of the SMACCC system included two extra men.
Compared to onshore transport of the cuttings in big bags and
containers only two more hands were used, one cementer and
one injection data logger. However, these two are easily taken
away when the operation is established and optimised on the
platform. Therefore, reinjection of drilling waste fluid and
cuttings is less manpower demanding than onshore transport
and disposal.
FlITURE WORK
The goals for the future work will be:
Train operators to fully understand the reinjection process.
Simplify rigging-up procedures of reinjection equipment.
Continue to improve and simplify programmes and routine!
for reinjection jobs to reduce the risk of plugging the
injection annulus and near wellbore area. Post injectioll
plugging of three disposal well candidates, including well
34/1O-A-29, occurred during the early time reinjectioJ::
period; April 4, 1992 well 34/10-A-29 was shut-in for a fev.
hours with a mixture of sea water and waste drilling fluid!
in the annulus. Upon resuming pumping, injection could nol
be established due to .downhole plugging. However, thE
change to a high rate sea water flush programme (includin~
50 percent annulus volume overflush) seems to have
overcome this problem.
Find good ways to avoid wear on wellhead, such as direct-
ing nozzles, hard-faced casing hanger and in-line dummy
wellhead.
Establish practical subsea reinjection wellhead solutions.
Further optimisation of the SMACCC system.
10 AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR GRINDING AND REINJECTION OF DRILL CUTTINGS
CONLUSIONS
Annular reinjection is proved to be a comfortable, econ-
omical, safe and environmentally optimal method, and is
found overall superior to offshore cleaning and/or onshore
disposal of cuttings.
Continuous subsurface injection of drilling fluid waste and
crushed cuttingll through a vertical fracture initiated at a
depth of 1000m TVD (3280 ft TVD) below the 20"
cuing shoe in the Gul1fakIl Field hall proved sucellllful.
The combination of the plutic nature of the fracture initi-
ation zone and fracture communication to a mullive overly-
ing IlaDd formation rellervoir occuion fracture embedment
and fracture dehydration. Thus, wellhead wear inspection
programmes may easily be undertaken after surface pressure
bleed off. As of November lilt 1992, no maintained surface
pressure (or surface pressure build-up) hall been obllerved on
exillting Gullfakll disposal well candidatell.
A high rate 50 percent annulus volume Ilea water overtlush
prior to any (lengthy) Ilhutdown Ileems to 1lO1ve problems
related to plugging inside the lowermollt annulus or in the
near wellbore formation region.
A new and effective method for wet autogenous crushing
and clusification of cuttings hall been developed.
An equation for elltimating erosional wear on the calling
hanger from a 1l1urry jet containing sand has been derived.
A low cost, foolproof, heavy duty, combined agitator,
centrifugal pump and Iltarfeeder hall been developed for
pumping thick 1l1urries (with high IlaDd concentrations)
without erollional wear problems of concern.
A new Valve Removal Thread Protector Wear Bushing hall
been developed and used with success. The Protector
Bushing can be inIltalled in the wellhead housing with
Iltandard oilfield tools under pressure or under atmospheric
conditions.
The borollCOpe hall been verified all a practical tool for
examination of erosional wear. The borollCope/lltem mUllt be
about 1 m (3.28 ft) long, rigid, Iltraight and have a view
angle of 45 to get good quality picturell. Video cameru can
a1IlO be used with the borollCope.
Annular reinjection practice, training of people and rig
routines are critical for a good job.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank the management of Statoil AlS and
the partners in the Gullfakll License Group, Norsk Hydro AlS
and Saga Petroleum AlS for permission to publish thiIl paper.
Arvid Loksy and Asmund Hovda, Statoil, are specially
mentioned for important contribution to the success of the
project.
A special thanks is given to Michael B. Smith, NSI-Tecbnol-
ogies, for technical contribution related to reservoir enginering
782
and fracturing theory. AlIlo, Dr. O. Kvernevold, Det Norske
Veritas IndUlltri, Norge AlS, is mentioned for invaluable
technical contribution related erosional wear evaluations and
theory.
REFERENCES
1 McCaskill, C.: "Well Annulus Disposal of Drilling Waste". Proceed-
ing of a National Conference on Disposal of Drilling Waatea, 1985.
2 Freeman, B.D. and Wakim, P.G.: "API Survey Results on 1985
Onshore Waatea Volume and Disposal Practices within the US
Petroleum Extraction Industry", 1988 International Conference on
Drilling Wastes.
3 E. Malachosky, B.E. Shannon and J .E. Jackson, An:o Oil and Gas
Inc.: "Offshore disposal of oil based drilling fluid waste. An environ-
mentlllly acceptable solution", SPE Paper 23373 November 10, 1991.
4 A.S. Abou-8ayed, Areo Oil and Gas Inc., D.E. Andrews, Areo
Alaska Inc., and I.M. Buhinta, Areo Oil and Gas Inc.: "Evaluation of
oily waste injection below the permafrost in Prudboe Bay field". SPE
paper 18757. Presented at the SPE California, April 5-71989.
5 Bill Klemt, Sam Pole and Rhonda MacKinnon, Texas Water Com-
misaion: "Industrial Waste Disposal Wells: Mechanical Integrity."
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Subsurface Injection
of Liquid Waatea, New Orleans, La. 1986.
6 Belter, W.G.: "Deep Disposal Systems for Radioactive Wastes" in
UndergroundWaste Managementand Environmental Implications, AA
PO Publications, 1972.
7 JeffReddoch, Apollo Services, Lafayette, La.: "Closing the loop with
onsite cuttings disposal" . Petroleum Engineer International, July 1991.
8 "Fluid Loss Teats With Ground Cuttings Against Formation Cores",
Report No. SN0-090-S181 , Dowell Schlumberger Norway Labora-
tories, December 14, 1990, Statoil Internal Document.
9 "Feasibility Study - Drill Cuttings/Sea Water Slurry Injection, Gull-
fab, Statfjord and Veslefrikk Fields", NSI Technologies, Inc. Tulsa,
Oklahoma, January, 1991
10 Statoil Internal Report. Read Process Engineering AlS, Ankerlskken
Mamn AlS. Statoil Project Order no. T181442. "Grinding of
Cuttings", November 1990.
11 O. Kvemvold, P. Jensen, Veritas Offshore Technology and Services
AlS (Veritec), B. Dale, Moi AlS, "Veritec Rapport, Erosjonateater i
Vetco Gray Bmnnhode, Re-injekajon av Borekaka. Veritec Rapport nr.
91-3442", October 10, 1991.
12 K. Haugen, O. Kvemvold, R. Sandberg and H. Trandem: Det noralte
Veritas Industri, Norge AS "Erosion Characteristics of materials
exposed to sand particle impact", Veritas Report No. 92-3444,
October 10, 1992.
13 Statoil internal Final Well Report: "Reinjeksjon av borekaks fra
Gullfaksbronn A-34 ved bruk av SMACCC". Author: Gunnar Sirevig
B&B BRT, project manager reinjection. Fagomdder: Reinjekajon av
borekaka, SMACCC. Milj" aktivitet boring. Utslipp kontroll. GFA-
34. GFA-29. kontrakt nrlProsjekt nr: T-181902/335517, November
29,1991.
14 K.Y. DavangerS-K DDB Statoil Bergen. "Hazop analyse. Reinjekajon
av borekaka i bronn 34/10-A-29". Statoil internal report. Report no.
S-K 910608R, Apri129, 1991.
15 A. Lokey BBT-DDB, Statoil Bergen. "Program for reinjekajon av
borekaks i bronn 34/1Q-A-29". Statoil internal report. Report No.
BBT/B910511R. Reinjeksjon borekab, September 3, 1991.
SPE 25758 GUNNAR SIREVAG AND ARTHUR BALE 11

APPENDIX-A E Eq. B-1

Fluid Loss Behavior Where;

Fracturing rate injection behavior of Drill Cuttings/Sea Water
Slurry (DCSWS) into any porous, permeable formation will be
largely controlled by the rate of fluid loss into the matrix of the
formation. As the injection creates and propagates a hydraulic
fracture (or opens and extends existing natural fractures), the
solids in the DCSWS will form a filter cake on the fracture
faces, with clean sea water then leaking-off through this filter
cake into the formation. With time, the continued fluid loss
will serve to dehydrate the cuttings laden slurry, finally
resulting in "plugging" the fracture and stopping any future
fracture growth.
The proposed sea water/drill cuttings slurry was tested for fluid
loss behavior through two Gullfaks reservoir cores and one
artificial, high permeability (6 darcy) core. The results',
plotted in Figure A-I, show that fluid loss was fairly linear
with the square root of time which is the typical behavior
expected for a fluid system which forms a "filter cake". In
addition to the "root time behavior" indicating the formation of
a cake, it was also noted in the lab results that no solid
particulate was recovered in the effluent from the tests - e.g.
the particles formed the filter cake on the surface of the high
permeability formation as expected. The approximate fit line,
seen in Figure A-I, yields a calculated fluid loss coefficient of
C = 0.004 ft/(min.)'h (0.001 m/(min.)I~ for use in fracturing
calculations. This is actually a fairly high value for fluid loss
coefficient; however, even this relatively high value ignores the
one late time and "lab quoted" questionable data point showing
even higher fluid loss. The fluid loss coefficient was calculated
from Equation A-I.
mp = Mass flow rate of particles (kg/s)
K = Material constant
F( oc) = Function of impact velocity
Vp = Impact velocity (m/s)
oc = Impact angle
n = Exponent
The coefficients "K, F(oc)" and On" are the parametres which
characterize the material being eroded. These parametres are
generally determined experimentally. The function F( oc),
Figure B-2, includes the characteristics of the material with
respect to ductile/brittle behaviour. Ductile materials obtain
maximum erosion attacks at impact angles on the order of 20-
30 0 , while brittle materials obtain maximum erosion attack at
90 0 impact angle. Steel qualities belong to the ductile materials
while ceramics tungsten carbides and different carbides
generally are brittle.
Experiments, ref. Equation B-1, have shown that all the most
standard steel qualities will obtain the same erosion attack for
condition where erosion is the dominating material degradation
mechanism. This means that the results obtained for the C-steel
wellhead in the subject investigation also will be applicable for
similar wellheads made of other steel qualities.
*****

C (ft/(min.)'h) = 0.0164 m / A Eq. A-I

where Om" is the slope of the fluid loss curve in ml/(minute)'h

and" A" is the flow area (taken to be 5.07 cm2 for a 2.54 cm2 Table 1 DSCWS Rheology Properties
(1 inch) diameter core plug.

Solids 30%
APPENDIX-B 95 % Less Than 75 microns
5% Up to 1000 microns
Erosion. General Aspects J2
Viscosity -
The resulting erosion attack on a material exposed to sand Plastic Viscosity = 15 cp
particle impact depends on a number of parameters; the most Yield Point = 60 lb/loo if
important being:
Power Law Properties
Sand particle impact velocity, (Vp)
n' = 0.26
Sand particle impact angle, oc
Mass of sand hitting the surface (m'~ K' = 0.148Ib/if/sec
Characteristics of the material being eroded.
Apparent Viscosity
The impact velocity and impact angle, described in Figure B-1, at 170 lIsec = 143 cp
are generally determined by solving equations giving the
velocity field for the liquid and equations' determining the Density-
particle trajectories by taking in to account the forces acting on 10Alb/gal
the individual particles from the carrying liquid. SG = 1.25
Generally, model equations used for estimating the resulting
erosion rate are given in the form,

783
12
Table 2 Log Chart for Reinjection of Cuttings

REINJECTION OF CUTTINGS. LOGCHART FOR INJECTION ENGINEER.

Rig: GFA Well drilled: A-34 Injector Well A-29. 20-13 3/8 annulus 10 wellhead opening: 40mm
Seclion: 8 1/2 HP pumpoperalor: Jan Svensson I B. Vatnemo
Mud system: oil mud Injection engineer: G. Sirevag

Date Tine Slurry FV Send Volume CLm. Max. Max. Max. Calculat. Max. Ofw Slurry Pump Cum. Inject.
weight pumped wlume pump pump well1ead erosion ennukls content hours hours Balch
pumped rate press. velocity hanger press. Solids PV YP Gels pLmped no.
SG sec. % m' m' Vmin. Bar mlsec. mm Bar %

10110 22.10 1.SO 60 10 15.5 54.5 375 50 2.50 0.0007 SO 21/79 24 14 57 1 7.14 11
11/10 14.07 1.53 80 18 12.0 66.5 224 'SO I.SO 0.0004 SO 24/76 25 26 81 32180 1 8.14 12
12110 18.35 1.42 82 15 8.0 74.5 190 45 1.30 0.0003 45 29/71 21 13 59 25130 1 9.14 13

13110 15.18 1.27 180 8 13.0 87.5 230 SO 1.SO 0.0002 60 13187 14 29 57 281110 1 10.14 14

14110 01.50 1.45 100 15 13.5 100.5 270 SO 1.79 0.0005 80 21/79 20 19 43 30142 1 11 15

14110 10.41 1.33 90 18 12.0 112.5 191 65 1.27 0.0003 65 12/88 20.5 24 73 27/53 1 12 16

14110 17.23 1.48 90 18 13.0 125.5 224 55 1.49 0.0004 65 22/78 21 35 66 45/SO 1 13 17
15110 00.26 1.12 90 6 13.5 139.0 245 57 1.63 0.0002 85 12188 5 13 57 25/31 1 14 18

15110 15.40 1.51 87 18 11.0 150.0 220 67 1.46 0.0004 1 15 19

15110 20.05 1.57 90 15 13.0 163.0 220 70 1.46 0.0003 37/63 22 40 80 25126 1 16 20
16110 11.08 1.36 65 13 14.0 177.0 220 65 1.46 0.0003 18/82 13 37 43 73/85 1 17 21
16110 16.02 1.23 SO 125 13.5 190.5 245 63 1.63 0.000001 15 42 20125 1 18 22
16110 21.30 1.10 45 125 14.5 205.0 242 57 1.61 0.00003 8 27 14140 1 19 23
17/10 08.30 1.20 45 5 13.5 218.5 225 64 1.33 0.0001 15/85 11 10 34 14/27 1 20 24
17/10 11.35 1.14 48 3 12.0 230.5 225 59 1.33 0.0001 7/93 16 10 36 16/22 1 21 25
17110 18.10 129 54 4 13.5 244.0 225 61 1.33 0.0001 19/81 15 19 56 24/25 1 22 26

Total calculated erosional wear O.004331mm this sheet. Total cummulalive erosion now: O.004555mm.

-
....
C'
III
DEPTH(mJ
TVD MD
WELLHEAp tWHl 4QmMp
REINJECTION ANNULUS
ESTIMATED Toe AT 115mMD

o 100.0
o
.......... 32. CONQUCIQR SHOE

g
\
Slope -
III
III

-
Power Law n' - 0.26
....CD 26- CASING SHOE

en FrT 1.30 SG EMW

.... PV - 15 cp
til

. . . . _--'
YP - 60 CUTTINGS REINJECTION
CD ANNULUS VOLUME 13D.7m
.r:;
en 1 0.0 L-.-.....__~...J...._-~-------
aD- CASING SHOE
20.0 100.0 1000.0 LOT' .56 SG EMW
"-
Shear Rate (1/sec) ESTIMATED TOe AT 1825mMD

Figure 1 Rheology Data for 1.25 SG Drill Cuttings Slurry ESTIMATED Toe AT 2103mMD
'3 u- CASm SHQE
FrT 1.eo SG EMW

TOP OF PACKER
TOP OF r LINER
I sm- CASINO SHOE
FIT 1.113SG EMW

rLINERSHOE
T.O.

Figure 2 Wellbore Schematic - illustration of Disposal Injection

784 Through Casing Annulus into Open Formation(s)
 PRESSURE GRADIENTS GM/C:::-EQUIVALE:-JTS 13

1.0 I~ 2.0
4000

\ ' ...
..\ OVERBURCE~
rn
.:; 3000 /
/
FRACTURE ""... ...
\
\
"0
0..
! \
\
:r 1000 PORE PRESSURE \,
\ 2000

/
\
t- \
...oa. \ \, ...
Q)

, ::J

\ \,
rn
rn
...
Q)
1000
\ ,
I
I
I
0..
U,pressure Exceeds
Weight of
\ , '. \ o
Overburden

200 \\ o 200 400

Slurry Volume (M-Gal)

Figure 3 Predicted Formation Pressure Gradients, Figure 4 Net Fracturing Pressure Response for
Gullfaks Area Utsira Sand Injection

400 1000 Stres5 losJl 2500 -1.00 WIdth !lni UO

Rate .
Unconfined Height lor Horizontal) Fracture
3 BPM
Fluid Elf - 0.95
1900

] 300 2000
2100
rn
::J
'6 2200
~ 200 2300
0
\ 2400
...
til
2500
I
r
l
LL 100
2500
2700
2800
"
r
., ...
I
I

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 2900
Slurry Vol (M**3) 3000
3100
Figure 5 Fracture Radius Versus Injected Slurry Volumes
3200
3300
3400
. Permeable Sand . 3500
3500
3700
:
3800 ~

3900
Max Width UB In

Figure 6 Fracture Width Geometry For Unconfined

Vertical Growth

Impermeable Shale

Figure 7 illustrative View of Possible Fracture Behaviour

for Injection Below the Permeable Utsira Sand 785
14 r-----------------------,

120 --=r--.,-----,r----rr_-;su=.,~Ac;:;(~P;;;:.IlO(=-:;"2--;I:;;,.:;,. rr---------,

WELL NO . .34/10-C-J
8 .06bor 05,-06. l.IAY 1991

I
1/:II: I~ /"Instantonej>us shut -in
Inst n(oneou shul-i

:I '-(" _lnSlantoneo s shut-in pressure

" I 'I( V-Bleed 0 on
II

I:"
I
I
I
adjacent annulus
..
10 ~ =="t-----''r+---f--+--i '0
!
"'+.*+--t-=-t--==!====lO.'

J' 0' 3.' .,

Figure 8 Annulus "Communication Test" for Well 34/10-C-3 Figure 9 Annulus "Displacement Test" for Well 34/10-C-3

Recycle Feed , , , Crushing sane Rotor Feed

With Seawater ....:~ :~~: t - J u t t i n g s and Seawater
~ ..J.~.tt:;. -L
:. .:..~ .~....~. T
.. 'i..~...~..~:
... ~~t.i

Crushing Chamber
~~~~ \ . High Velocity
CultingsWall Rotating Rotor

2024mm

Total cruscher weight: 2.5 ton

Grinding capasity dry rock: up to 75 tonlhr (dry grinding) Figure 11 Cross Section of the Crushing Mill Chamber
Grinding capasity wet rock: over 15 tonlhr (wet grinding)

Figure 10 Wet Autogeneous Crushing Mill Used on

SMACCC Unit for Gullfaks

1 2" rubber hose wah sand slurry

Z Annulus opening in well head
J 13 3/8" casing hanger
~ Cement retum ports
.5. Steel ring
3
Outlet of sand slurry
Z Support leg

Figure 13 Cross Section of Wellhead and Casing Hanger

Figure 12 5" Heavy Duty SPASER" Centrifugal Pump Rig Up for Erosional Wear Testing
786
 SPE25758
5 Tj- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
15
I
I -<l- Low vlSCosily (FV 40 sec.)
41 .-:-- High VISCOSity (FV 120 sec.)

E
,5.3

i
-0/-
~ 2 Point of I
.2
highest erosion 2
E
w on hanger I
surface
(highest flow)
9-11
.,-r,"77777"Tr..-r ErOSion profile
12 18 20 24 on hanger "W"
S1uny joI volocily (.....)

Figure 14 Measured Erosional Wear on Casing Hanger as a Figure 15 Schematic Drawing and Measuring Points of
Function of Slurry Jet Velocity During a 40 Eroded Surface Area on Casing Hanger
Hour Test with 13 % Quarts Sand

Wet Autogenous crushing mill

Classifier

Work
platform
E
Stair E
o
o
co
M
Heavy duty
SPASER pumps

6000mm 3000mm

Slurry Pump Agitator and

Starfeeder Erosion Resistant
Figure 16 Gullfaks A - SMACCC Unit

1 ray for emptying cuttings from

big bags or trash containers.

.oo
Cutting screw conveyor ....

.' -1r
Seawater
. !~
,y
A29

r HP-pum~p ..

20" - 13318" annulus

Transfer pump
Utsirasand
900-9SOrnTVD
CD Back-up storage cuttings, in big bags or trash containers. Claystone

Back-up trash containers (four off) for storage of slurry.

Figure 17 Gullfaks A - SMACCC Hook-Up

787
 SPt25758
16
Wellhead houslng

POS DESCA"""'"
2 1I,..v.&l..VE
LTV.AQ1!02a.w:
,.CIot OC:V: veFIGt M1r~
X~2'/1r E %"FlGl!!102N
:r FIG'.
B.SOW:r FO 1502

. SPACER 111S"

,,".. X-O FIG 1

3"AG15O:f ..-Fill

Figure 18 Wear Bushing for VR-Plug Threads in

..'" x.o~FlO 1
,.HP
AW
.c' HP HOSE PROM NP
PIG ' .

Wellhead Housing
Figure 19 Wellhead Hook-Up for Reinjection
Well, 341l0-A-29

- - - Core --8-- Core --9-- 6 Darcy

215 216 Core

60.0

Wellhead housing
-
:
50.0

40.0
CIJ ,
CIJ ,, l/"
0 30.0
...J
~
Gate valve
'tl .~
'S 20.0
ii:
10.0
MOl ~
- - - - - Measuring rod 0.0
~~
0.0 5.0 10.0 115.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Measuring tool with Root Time (min)

pressure seals
Degree graded scale
Figure A-I Fluid Loss Testing of DCSWS
Erosion measure
points

Figure 20 Statoll Hanger Erosion Measuring Tool

(a)
cilctile

~
e
w

v p .: impact velocity (m1s) (j 30 60 90

impact angle
a =impact angle
Figure B-1 Definition of Erosion Parameters Figure B-2 Erosion Behaviour of Brittle and
788 Ductile Materials