Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 364–379, Article ID: IJMET_10_03_037
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Jos, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This study applied diesel oil, and oil from two non-edible plant seeds which are
Hura crepitans and Calophyllum inophyllum. These non-edible oils were extracted
from their seeds using the soxhlet extractor and used in the oil-in-water emulsion mud.
Mud lubricity tester was used to determine the torque, coefficient of friction, and mud
lubricity coefficients were calculated at different revolutions per minute and
concentrations of the oil. The rheological properties of the mud were also tested. The
results obtained from the experiment showed that Hura crepitans in water-based mud
have the highest mud lubricity coefficient, and next is oil from Calophyllum
inophyllum. It was also discovered that diesel oil in the water-based mud has a
negative effect on the coefficient of friction, the mud formulated with the plant oils has
the lowest volume of fluid loss when compared to ordinary water-based mud and that
of the diesel oil. The mud formulated with oil from Hura crepitans has relatively
higher plastic viscosity most especially at concentrations above 15 ml, and the
addition of Calophyllum inophyllum has the highest yield point values and gel
strength. The plant oils most especially Calophyllum inophyllum used in mud
formulation reveals lower pullout force and greater potential for minimizing
differential pipe sticking.
Key words: Coefficient of friction, Fluid loss, Calophyllum inophyllum, Hura
crepitans, differential pipe sticking
Cite this Article: Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi,
I. T. Seteyeobot, I., The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum
Inophyllum Plant Oil in Water-Based Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking,
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(3), 2019, pp.
525–540.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
1. INTRODUCTION
In drilling engineering, high torque and drag, friction and wearing of downhole equipment or
drilling tools are common problems. The high torque values are caused by friction triggered
by dog-legs, key seats, bit balling and hole unsteadiness. The friction and high torque values
are as a result of the increase in the area of contact between the wellbore and the drill
pipe/casing, which sometimes leads to differential pipe sticking and even lose out of well [7].
Differential pipe sticking (DPS) is a major challenging cost to the drilling industry associated
with negative impact of unproductive rig days, this occurs due to downtime caused by
termination of drilling operation or freeing of the drill pipe when it gets stuck [9]. This
technical challenge in wells result to high well budget cost accumulated from when pipe get
stuck, freeing the pipe, and further impact of the stuck pipe problems in the well.
Several authors have come up with some statistics that show the severity of substantial
losses due to stuck pipe. In 1991, research conducted discovered that British Petroleum (BP)
had spent more than $30 million per year for stuck pipe issues. Between 1985 and 1988, an
average of $170,000 was spent per well due to stuck pipe [4]. On the other hand, a survey
within Sedco Forex in 1992 showed that stuck pipe accounts for 36% of total drilling
problems [11]. stuck pipe incidents cost the oil industry $200-$500 million per year [15].
Micro emulsion was used in the removal of mud cake which is a mud parameter that facilitate
the occurrence of stuck pipe [5]. Stuck pipe constitutes negative consequences on drilling
efficiency and well costs. It can be caused by inaccurate mud properties, well trajectory,
formation characteristics, and improper drilling parameters. accurate analysis and
understanding of mud parameters is key to managing, preventing, and significantly reducing
stuck pipe stuck pipe tendencies [14].
One of the special functions of drilling mud is in lubricating the drill string thereby
reducing stuck pipe. Plant Oil from Jatropha, Moringa, and Canola seed have been used in
improving the lubricating effect thereby preventing corrosion [6]. Oil-based mud (OBM) are
known to have better lubricity than the water based mud (WBM). However, improving water
based mud and its application are preferred in areas where OBM have previously been used
due to their low toxicity and cost [10]. OBM are in varying degree of toxicity and it is quite
costly to dispose in an environmentally cordial way [13]. The occurrence of wearing and
friction in water based drilling mud is as a result of the inherent higher coefficient of friction
(CoF), this can be reduced via increasing the lubricity of the mud through lubricant
application [12].
Biobased lubricant have excellent lubricity, and are environmentally friendly in
comparison to the petrobased lubricant. These advantages enhance their application in water-
based mud. The lubricity effect is due the bonding ability of the lubricant to the metal surface
thereby increasing the thin film strength. The adhering ability of plant oils acting as lubricant
in water-based mud reduces torque, drag, and frictional forces between the pipe and formation
[16]. By this, energy is saved from 5 to 15% of the equipment operation [2]. The word
“lubricity” alludes to the slipperiness of the films of lubricants formed in boundary
lubrication. The effect of spotting oil, lubricants, and several additives in increasing the
lubricity of drilling mud have been studied by several authors and the positive effect have
been discovered in freeing stuck pipe [3;8;17].
This research work is aimed at comparing the impact of diesel oil and oil from two non-
edible plant seeds called Hura crepitans and Calophyllum inophyllum in water-based and
their effect on the lubricity and differential pipe sticking. A diagrammatic representation of
DPS is shown in Figure 1.
2.2. Lubricity
Two different non-edible plant oils from the seeds of Calophyllum inophyllum and Hura
crepitans, and diesel oil was used as lubricant in the drilling mud in different concentrations
of 5 to 25 ml to determine their effect on the lubricity efficiency of the mud.
2.2.1. Lubricity test
The lubricity test is designed at laboratory conditions to determine the performance of the
lubricant at different revolution per minute and pressure which the drill pipe bears against
wellbore wall or the casing. In this study, the lubricity tester was used to determine the
lubricating qualities of the drilling mud. The torque, mud lubricity coefficient and coefficient
of friction analysis was done at different speeds (rpm) or rotation and concentrations of the
lubricants. The lubricity tester is as shown in Fig. 2.2.
Figure 2.1. Overview of soxhlet extractor (left) and distillation apparatus set-up (right)
The contact area is a function of the arc length and length of the pipe body portion
√( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
The coefficient of friction, mud cake thickness, mud weight, and data from table 2.1 were
imputed into the pullout force equation for the DPS calculation.
Table 2.1. Parameters used for calculating the pullout force for all the mud samples
( ) 9
( ) 6
TVD (ft) 10000
( ) 4000
( ) 20, 30, 40
3.1.1. The performance analysis of the lubricant added to the water-based mud
Fig 3.1 shows the analysis of all the lubricants added to the mud at different concentrations of
the lubricant and at 600 revolutions per minute (rpm), detail analysis is shown in the appendix
A (Table A.2-A.5). It can be seen that the oil from Hura crepitans (HCO) has the best
lubricant performance with diesel oil having the poorest. It is also observed that the lubricant
performance increases with the concentration of the various lubricants. Fig 3.2, Fig 3.3, and
Fig 3.4 shows the plot the lubricity efficiency of diesel oil, Hura crepitans oil, and
Calophyllum inophyllum oil respectively. It can be seen that the lubricity performance for all
the lubricants increases with the concentration of the lubricants, this implies that the lubricity
efficiency of the mud is at its best as the concentration of the oil increases within the range of
study. The lubricity performance, as can be seen in Fig 3.2, Fig 3.3, and Fig 3.4., decreases
with increase in the speed of rotation (rpm). This implies lower friction, torque and drag are
expected with increase in concentration and most especially in the presence of the oil from
Hura crepitans (HCO). The reduction of the coefficient of friction is as a result of the
adsorption of the oil or the formation of thin film between surfaces. The lubricity efficiency
was found to be inversely proportional to the coefficient of friction.
Figure 3.1. Performance analysis of the diesel, Calophyllum inophyllum, and Hura crepitans oil in the
WBM at 600 rpm
Figure 3.2. Performance analysis of the Diesel oil in the WBM at varying rpm
Figure 3.3. Performance analysis of the Hura crepitans oil in the WBM at varying rpm
Figure 3.4. Performance analysis of the Calophyllum inophyllum oil in the WBM at varying rpm
Figure 3.5. Plastic viscosity values of the WBM with the lubricant oils
Figure 3.6. Yield point values of the WBM with the lubricant oils
3.2.2. Fluid loss analysis
Fig 3.7 shows a plot of the volume of the fluid loss observed when the lubricant oil was
added, it can be seen that the volume of the fluid loss reduces with increase in the
concentration of the lubricant oils. The WBM formulated with the oil from HCO have a lower
fluid loss than oil from diesel and Calophyllum inophyllum, and this is evident in all the
concentrations from 5-25 ml. The properties of the ordinary WBM formulated without any
lubricant oil as shown in Table 3.2 produces a higher volume of fluid loss than the API
acceptable range. Drilling mud with moderate fluid loss have greater potential to prevent
drilling challenges such as differential pipe stuck and formation damage etc. The cake
thickness is considered acceptable since it’s not greater than 2/32”. The rheological property
values are still within the API standard. Drilling mud with lower API fluid loss is
recommended.
Figure 3.7. Fluid loss analysis of the WBM with the lubricant oils
3.2.3. Mud density, electrical stability and pH analysis
There is a little change on the mud density and pH value as concentration of the different
lubricant oil was added and this can be seen in Table A.1. WBM formulated with diesel oil
shows increase in the density and pH values as the oil concentration increases, WBM
formulated with Calophyllum inophyllum (CIO) showed increase too but decreased at 15 ml
concentration of the oil, WBM with addition of oil from Hura crepitans (HCO) showed a
decrease and increased from 15 ml oil concentration. The electrical stability (ES) values
increases with the concentration of the oil samples.
Figure 3.8. Effect of contact area on the pullout force at varying length of embedded pipe body
Figure 3.9 reveals the effect of cake thickness on the pullout force in the presence of
diesel and the plant oil in the WBM, the pullout force required to free pipe when stock
increases when the cake thickness increases in increasing percentage. The plant oils
performed better than the diesel oil and ordinary WBM.
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the result analysed, the following conclusions was made:
The mud with high lubricant performance is obtained from the plant oils, with Hura crepitans
revealing the highest and then Calophyllum inophyllum, and lastly the diesel oil.
The lubricity efficiency of the mud when the various oil was added increases with the
concentration of the lubricant and this is evident in the mud formulated with the plant oils.
The addition of diesel oil to water based mud reveals a negative influence on the mud as this
increases the CoF and pullout force when compared to conditions of ordinary WBM.
The plant oils reduce the volume of the fluid loss compared to the diesel oil, the oil from Hura
crepitans performed better than that from Calophyllum inophyllum,
Mud with high lubricity have greater tendency to reduce the volume of fluid loss, the mud
with Hura crepitans reveals better lubricity performance and so volume of fluid loss is low
compared to other lubricating oil used. Hence, the lubricity coefficient is inversely
proportional to the volume of fluid loss
The lubricating oil has influence on the rheological properties. The mud formulated with oil
from Hura crepitans has relatively higher plastic viscosity most especially at concentrations
above 15 ml, and the addition of Calophyllum inophyllum has the highest yield point values
and gel strength.
The plant oils have good potential of minimizing the tendency of stuck pipe as they reduce the
pullout force required to pull out the pipe when compared to diesel and ordinary water based
mud.
APPENDIX A
Table A.1: Properties of the Various Oil-In-Water Emulsion Mud
properties 5 ml 10 ml 15 ml 20 ml 25 ml API
C H D C H D C H D C H D C H D
I CO I I C I I C I I C I I C I
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
pH 9.25 9.14 9.35 9.54 8.92 9.42 8.50 8.83 9.56 8.48 8.87 9.68 8.77 8.86 9.87 8.5-10
MDens 8.20 7.80 8.20 8.50 8.35 8.50 8.10 8.40 8.50 8.10 8.60 8.55 8.40 8.60 8.60 7.5-22
(ppg)
FL(ml) 22 21 20 21 20 19 21 18 19 18 16 19 17 15 18 10-25
ES 87 58 94 106 95 99 108 95 105 177 109 107 223 112 112 > 400
GS10s 12 13 8 23 11 6 24 19 15 23 18 21 25 14 21 3-20
( ))
GS10m 13 15 9 24 12 9 23 20 15 23 18 21 25 12 22 8-30
( ))
CT (1/32”) ≈ ≈ ≈ > ≈ ≈ > > > > > > > > > 2/32”
2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32”
PV ( ) 8 15 7 11 11 15 11 8 8 8 21 10 12 21 11 < 65
AV ( ) 21 28 15 26 20 18 29 23 20 29 28 27 30 28 28 -
YP 25 26 16 30 18 15 35 30 24 42 14 34 36 14 34 15-45
( )
Table A.2: Test result of water-based mud formulated with lubricant oil
SAMPLE
Ordinary WBM without lubricant oil Value
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp) 42
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp) 40
PV (cp) 2
Apparent Viscosity (cp) 21
YP (lb/100ft2) 38
Gel strength, 10 secs 16
Gel strength, 10 mins 17
pH 9.58
Specific gravity 1.02
Mud density (ppg) 8.6
Emulsion stability 55
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins 26
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins 21
Mud Lubricity coeffecient at 60RPM 0.155
Coefficient of friction (COF) at 60RPM 0.157
Table A.3: Test result of water-based mud formulated with diesel oil
Oil concentration
DIO in WBM 5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml 25ml
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp) 30 35 40 54 56
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp) 23 20 32 44 45
PV (cp) 7 15 8 10 11
Apparent Viscosity (cp) 15 17.5 20 27 28
YP (lb/100ft2) 16 5 24 34 34
Gel strength, 10 secs 8 6 15 21 21
Gel strength, 10 mins 9 6 15 21 22
Table A.4: Test result of water-based mud formulated with Calophyllum inophyllum oil
Oil concentration
CIO in WBM 5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml 25ml
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp) 41 52 57 58 60
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp) 33 41 46 50 48
PV (cp) 8 11 11 8 12
Apparent Viscosity (cp) 20.5 26 28.5 29 30
YP (lb/100ft2) 25 30 35 42 36
Gel strength, 10 secs 12 23 24 23 25
Gel strength, 10 mins 13 24 23 23 25
pH 9.25 9.54 8.03 8.48 8.77
Specific gravity 0.99 1.02 0.98 0.98 1.01
Mud density (ppg) 8.2 8.5 8.1 8.1 8.4
Emulsion stability 87 106 108 177 223
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins 22 21 21 18 17
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins 17.8 17.2 16.8 16.7 16.2
Mud Lubricity coefficient at 60RPM 0.176 0.170 0.166 0.165 0.160
Table A.5: Test result of water-based mud formulated with Hura crepitans oil
Oil concentration
HCO in WBM 5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml 25ml
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp) 56 40 46 56 56
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp) 41 29 38 35 35
PV (cp) 15 11 8 21 21
Apparent Viscosity (cp) 28 20 23 28 28
YP (lb/100ft2) 26 18 30 14 14
Gel strength, 10 secs 13 11 19 18 14
Gel strength, 10 mins 15 12 20 18 12
pH 9.14 8.92 8.83 8.87 8.86
Specific gravity 0.94 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.03
Mud density (ppg) 7.8 8.35 8.4 8.6 8.6
Emulsion stability 58 95 95 109 112
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins 21 20 18 16 15
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins 16.9 16.7 15.8 15.7 15.4
Mud Lubricity coefficient at 60RPM 0.167 0.165 0.156 0.155 0.152
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I write to thank covenant university for their financial support towards to publication
REFERENCES
[1] Azar, J., & Samuel, R. (2007). Drilling Engineering. Tulsa, oklahoma: PennWell
Corporatio.
[2] Bilal, S. (2013). Production of biolubricant from Jatropha curcas seed oil. Journal of
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, 4(6), 72–79.
[3] Bland, R. G., Micho, W. T., Fluids, M. D., Howard, H. J., Murphy, E., & Co, P. (1992).
Application of New Glycol/Resin Differential Sticking Preventative. In 87th Annual
Conference and Exhibition (pp. 467–480). Washington, DC: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[4] Bradley, W. B., Jarman, D., Plott, R. S., Wood, R. D., & Schofield, T. R. (1991). A Task
Force to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference (pp. 841–846).
Amsterdam: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[5] Emmanuel Emeka Okoro, Deinpribo Kio-Lawson, Kevin C. Igwilo, Evelyn Bose Ekeinde.
(2018). One Stage Process Removal of Filter Cake using MIcro Emulsion. International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2890-2894
[6] Fadairo, A., Falode, O., Ako, C., Adeyemi, A., and Ameloko, A. (2012). Novel
formulation of environmentally friendly oil based drilling mud. In New Technologies in
the Oil and Gas Industry (pp. 49–80). INTECH.
[7] Foxenberg, W. E., Ali, S. A., Long, T. P., & Vian, J. (2008). Field experience shows the
new lubricants reduces friction and improves formation compactibility and environmental
impact. In SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control
(pp. 13–15). Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[8] Heitmann, N., & Burgos, E. C. (2015). Freeing Differential Stuck-Pipe with Nitrogen
Reduces Significantly Lost-In-Hole Drill Strings. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and
Exhibitions (pp. 1–6). London: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[9] Isambourg, P., Elf, E. P., Ottesen, S., Company, M. T., Benaissa, S., Inteq, B. H., &
Tarbes, E. N. I. (1999). Down-Hole Simulation Cell for Measurement of Lubricity and
Differential Pressure Sticking. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference (pp. 1–7). Amsterdam:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[10] Ismail, A. R., Hadi, A., Rosli, W., Sulaiman, W., & Zaidi, M. (2017). Drilling Fluid Waste
Management in Drilling for Oil and Gas Wells. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56,
1351–1356.
[11] Jardine, S. I., & Barber, S. S. (1992). An Advanced System for the Early Detection of
Sticking Pipe. In IADC/SPE Drilling Conference (pp. 659–667). 1992: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
[12] Johnson, P., Coragliotti, A., Dicicco, c. d, & Nagatani, R. A. (2014). Field Results for
Encapsulated Oil as an Additive to Water-Based Drilling Fluids : Operational
Improvements in the Alliance / Northern Denver-Julesburg and Heath Basins. In
American Association of Drilling Engineers (pp. 1–6). Houston, Texas: AADE.
[13] Kanna, A. R., Mohiuddin, S. S., Khan, U. A., Reddy, C. H. G. N., & Kumar, M. (2017).
Determination of Oil , Water , Solid and Clay Content in Various Concentrations of
Bentonite & Sodium Silicate. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 6(4), 6929–6937.
[14] Marbun, B., Somawijaya, A., Novrianto, A. R., Hasna, H., & Anshari, M. R. (2016).
Study of Prevention and Mitigation of Stuck Pipe in Geothermal Drilling. In 41st
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (pp. 1–12). California: Stanford
University.
[15] Okwu, A. E., Dosunmu, P. A., & Studies, P. (2013). A Risk Based Model to Quantify
Differential Sticking Risk in Drilling Depleted Reservoir Formations. In Nigeria Annual
International Confeence and Exhibition (pp. 1–24). Lagos: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[16] Onuh, C.Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Efeovbokhan, V., Adebisi, A. (2017).
Transesterification of Non-Edible OIl for Lubricant Applications in Water-Based Mud: A
Review. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(18), 7397-7401.
[17] Simon, K., Gaurina-Međimurec, N., & Pašić, B. (2005). Drilling Fluids Differential
Sticking Tendency Determination. Rudarsko-Geološko-Naftni Zbornik, 17(1), 31–35.
[18] Sönmez, A., Verşan Kök, M., & Özel, R. (2013). Performance analysis of drilling fluid
liquid lubricants. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 108, 64–73.