Section 6

Drilling Fluids Optimization

In this Section...
• Selection of Fluid Type
- Environmental Issues
- Optimization of Fluid Formulation
- Barite Sag
- Wellbore Stability/Inhibition
- Hole Cleaning Capability
- Mud Lubricity - Torque and Drag Reduction
- Filtration Control/Differential Sticking
- Solids Control Management
- Formation Damage Aspects
• General Considerations
• References
• Contacts

INTRODUCTION
The selection and correct implementation of drilling fluid is crucial to the successful drilling of any well.
The fact that potentially troublesome formations will be exposed for greater lengths, and for longer time
periods, increases the importance of drilling fluid selection for ERD applications. Many fluid related
issues, such as hole cleaning, torque, drag, and hydraulics, that present few problems on vertical wells,
must be addressed in detail when planning an ERD well.

6-1
SELECTION OF FLUID TYPE

Environmental Issues
The selection of fluid type for ERD wells is essentially the same as for conventional wells. Initially, a
choice must be made between an invert emulsion (mineral- or synthetic oil-base) and a water-base
drilling fluid.
• Where feasible, an oil-base invert is the preferred fluid for ERD applications.
• When environmental limitations prevent the use of mineral oil-base mud (OBM), consider using a
synthetic oil-base invert.
• Where environmental, or logistical, limitations completely negate the use of any form of oil-base
formulation, the most suitable water-base mud must be chosen.

The most suitable water-base fluids currently available for ERD drilling when clay inhibition is required
are potassium-based, non-dispersed, polymer muds containing glycol or silicates. When inhibition is not
required, low solids polymer formulations or Mixed Metal Hydroxides can provide the required hole
cleaning and their use, with a suitable lubricant, should be considered.

When comparing fluids on a commercial basis, it is not sufficient to merely compare costs per barrel.
Consideration must be given to anticipated rig time savings (penetration rates, requirement for wiper
trips, etc.), actual usage per foot, buy backs and/or disposal costs (where applicable). For instance, many
operators find the use of a relatively expensive pseudo oil-base fluid is readily justified by savings in rig
days. High mud costs for the right system are fairly inconsequential in ERD wells when compared to
probable wells costs resulting from use of the wrong fluid.

6-2
Optimization of Fluid Formulation
Having made the choice between an invert emulsion and a water-base mud, experience and/or laboratory
testing must be used to optimize the formulation. These major requirements must be addressed and fine
tuned:

Rheology Plastic Viscosity - The required yield point and low shear characteristics should be
achieved with minimum plastic viscosity. Circulating density becomes an important
factor in long step-out ERD wells, particularly in the smaller diameter holes (8-1/2 and
6-inch intervals). High equivalent circulating density (ECDs) can be produced which
may exceed the fracture gradient of the rock and produce downhole mud losses. To
minimize these effects, rheology (particularly plastic viscosity) should be maintained
at the lowest level that supports efficient hole cleaning and solids suspension.

Gels - Excessive gel strengths must also be avoided. During trips, high gel strengths
may result in surge and swab pressures that can in turn lead to downhole losses or have
a destabilising effect on the wellbore. When high bottom hole temperatures (i.e.
>300°F) are anticipated, test results that demonstrate the fluid's rheological behavior at
elevated temperatures must be made available by the service company. Many labs are
available to perform testing and verify these results.

Inhibition If an oil-base mud is selected, the correct water phase salinity must be determined so
as to minimize transfer of water from the mud to the formation, and vice versa. Water
phase salinities in the region of 180g/lt is a good starting point for marine shales with
somewhat lower levels (100g/lt) being appropriate for freshwater shale. When a water-
base mud is to be used in sections where clays are exposed, the optimum level of
chemical inhibition should be determined in laboratory tests.

Lubricity Effective lubricants must be identified that will produce workable coefficients of
friction and be compatible with both the mud and the environment.

Reservoir The potential for products to cause formation damage in the reservoir must be
compatibility considered. Products known to be potentially damaging to the producing formations
should not be considered for use in reservoir sections unless perforating or fracturing
beyond the invasion area.

6-3
Barite Sag
Barite settlement (sag) is a key issue for high angle wells. The current thinking is that barite sag can
never be totally eliminated. In practice the problem needs to be managed. This can be achieved by a
combination of mud design and good operational practices.

Barite sag in deviated wells can result in:

• Fluctuations in mud weight in and out
• Well control problems
• Downhole mud losses
• Induced wellbore instability
• Stuck pipe

Recent studies into the problem demonstrated:

• Sag is a DYNAMIC phenomenon which may not occur when mud is static
• Sag is exacerbated by low annular velocities
• Hole inclinations close to 75 degrees are most critical
• Drillpipe rotation significantly reduces sag
• Mud rheology at low shear plays a key role in controlling sag

Wellbore Stability/Inhibition
Borehole instability due to overpressured or water-sensitive formations must be minimized when drilling
an extended reach well. Mud/rock interaction must be minimized by careful screening of mud type and
properties. A wellbore stability study should be instigated for any initial ERD project in a particular
asset. This will address optimum mud weight selection and highlight any possibility of instability.

For further information see Section 5, “Mechanical and Chemical Wellbore Stability”.

6-4
Hole Cleaning Capability
Flow rate (i.e. annular velocity) is the single most important factor relating to hole cleaning in deviated
wells. Typically, most problems associated with hole cleaning occur in the 30 - 60 degree section where
gravity effects can cause cuttings beds to slump down the hole. The BP Hole Cleaning Model should be
used in the planning of all wells, most especially in extended reach applications. Generally, higher flow
rate is better if it can be economically achieved. Typical flow rates to aim for in ERD wells are:

Hole Size Typical Flow Rates

17-1/2 in Aim for 1100 gpm. Some rigs achieve 1250 -1400 gpm.
12-1/4 in Typically 950 - 1150 gpm. If not available, ensure that tripping
procedures are in place for probable dirty hole.
8-1/2 in Aim for 500 gpm.

High rotary speeds greatly enhance hole cleaning potential. Discuss limitations of rotary speeds when
using downhole motors with the directional drilling company. Trend sheets should be used to log all hole
cleaning parameters for future use, i.e. flow rate, rpm, mud rheology vs. depth, and evidence of dirty hole
on trips, etc. Trip procedures should be prepared in advance, with guidance on tripping intervals,
backreaming rates, and maximum overpull. These procedures can be modified over the well as necessary.

See Section 11, “Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics”, for more information.

Mud Lubricity - Torque and Drag Reduction

In extended reach drilling, frictional forces may limit the possible extent of step-out. It is therefore
important that every effort is made to reduce the coefficient of friction of the mud to levels that allow the
well to be successfully drilled. In both the laboratory and the field, water-base muds exhibit a higher
coefficient of friction than oil muds. The friction coefficients of water-base muds can be improved by the
addition of lubricants. The currently available lubricants are only of significant benefit in low weight,
low solids muds. By virtue of its film forming capability, oil is inherently a better lubricant than water.
Some of the synthetic (pseudo) oil-base fluids exhibit lubricity superior to conventional mineral oil-base
muds. Some lubricants are available for use in OBM. However, their use is restricted, as a correctly
formulated oil mud will normally exhibit sufficient lubricity for most wells.

• When using water-base mud, adequate supplies of an approved and compatible lubricant must be
available at the rigsite prior to drilling critical intervals.
• After additions of lubricant, surface torque must be monitored to assess the effectiveness of the
treatment.
• Mechanical devices typically have a more positive effect than chemical additives, and should be
considered prior to fluid enhancement.

Many lubricants are available on the market. The rapid development in mud lubricants makes it
inappropriate to nominate specific lubricants. Also, the specific requirement depends upon the mud
system being run and the particular downhole environment. Consult your local Fluids Specialist and/or

6-5
XTP Fluids Team to get an update on currently available high-performance lubricants and recommended
concentrations.

6-6
Filtration Control/Differential Sticking
Maintain good filtrate control when drilling in an overbalanced situation through porous formations,
particularly when these formations are a potential reservoir. Low filtrate helps minimize potential
formation damage and reduces the possibility of differential sticking. Oil-base muds (including pseudo-
oil muds) generally exhibit lower fluid loss than water-base fluids and consequently lower sticking
tendencies. For this, and other reasons discussed above, they are the preferred fluid for extended reach
wells. Additives are available for both oil- and water-base fluids that will reduce differential sticking
tendency. These include filtrate reducers, lubricants, and bridging agents. Filtercake thickness increases
with time when the mud is static in the hole - keep such periods of non-circulation to a minimum. High
gel strengths should be avoided, as they increase the likelihood of sticking and make the spotting of pipe
releasing agents more difficult. Pipe freeing procedures must be reviewed prior to drilling in porous
formations. Details of options and procedures can be found in the Stuck Pipe Handbook.

Solids Control Management

The control of low gravity solids is paramount in the successful and economical application of all drilling
fluids. Effective removal of drilled solids will minimize pressure losses, optimize filtercake
characteristics, and reduce formation damage potential. In ERD applications, the problem of the removal
of the drilled solids is exacerbated by down hole attrition of the solids, by saltation, and mechanical re-
grinding between the drill pipe and the wall of the hole. This attrition may be so effective as to reduce the
solids to sizes too small to be removed by conventional shale shaker screens. The lack of cuttings seen at
the shakers could then lead to the potentially false conclusion that the hole was not being cleaned. A
subsequent increase in rheology would reduce the effectiveness of the secondary equipment
(hydrocyclones and centrifuges) that offer the only means of removing these fine solids. This larger-than-
normal fine drilled solids content requires that care is used when assessing the requirements for solids
removal equipment for ERD applications. Experience has shown that even with the use of the best
available solids control equipment, ultrafine solids inevitably build up in muds used on ERD wells. High
rheology and gel strengths will result and it may prove necessary to change out mud systems (or part of
the system) with the solids-laden mud being returned for treatment (i.e. dilution). The stage at which this
would be initiated is judgemental by the mud engineer. The decision would normally be based on
ineffective removal of solids by the high-speed centrifuges and by the requirement for greater than
normal surfactant additions.

As stated above, primary removal of much of this fine material will be difficult with conventional
elliptical motion shakers. Linear motion shakers will allow the use of fine screens (200 or 230 mesh)
assuming that sufficient units are available to handle the anticipated flow rates. In unweighted, water-
base muds, desilters and clay ejectors (small 1 inch diameter hydrocyclones) may have an application
assuming that all underflow is discarded. Mud cleaners are not recommended, as they allow the return of
the very fine material that needs to be removed.

6-7
Hydrocyclones are not recommended for use with weighted, water-base muds or oil muds of any kind. In
these applications, the preferred mechanism for the removal of fines is by centrifuge. High speed
centrifuges are required to remove fine solids from viscous mud. In the case of weighted muds, a low
speed unit in series with a high speed unit is required. In some cases, it is commercially advantageous to
return the barite underflow from the low speed centrifuge to the active system via some mixing
equipment. When running in this “barite recovery” mode, the overflow from the low speed unit is fed to
the high speed unit, which is capable of removing some of the fine LGS and barite. High speed
centrifuges are rarely capable of processing more than 1.0 bbl/min. Remember this when assessing the
requirements for solids removal equipment.

To aid in the determination of the suitability and efficiency of solids removal equipment, two
spreadsheets, the Super Volume Estimator and the Equipment Performance Evaluation Spreadsheet, have
been generated by XTP.

Formation Damage Aspects

Minimizing formation damage is critical to the success of an ERD well. The fact that the reservoir is
often drilled at high angle in such wells results in longer sections of reservoir being exposed for greater
amounts of time. Any potential damage caused by mud filtrate and solids can be expected to be
exacerbated under these conditions. Compatibility of mud filtrate with formation fluids and interstitial
clays must be established at the earliest opportunity. For production wells, the required information
regarding reservoir characteristics should be available for use in well planning. Core samples may even
be available to allow appropriate testing to be carried out. When prior knowledge of reservoir
characteristics is not available, avoid using known, potentially damaging products. Mud solids can enter
porous rock if the fluid possesses high spurt loss before an adequate filter cake is built up. This can
usually be minimized by the addition of a small concentration of correctly sized bridging material. Again,
knowledge of the pore diameters of the reservoir will allow the selection of suitable bridging material at
the planning stage. An understanding of how an ERD well is to be completed is essential when selecting
a mud. The drill-in fluid properties will need to be modified according to the completion type to ensure
maximum productivity. For example, the filter cake clean-up potential of a mud becomes very important
for a well with a non-perforated completion.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Fluid related aspects of ERD wells require considerably more planning than conventional wells.
Consequently, planning must be started at an earlier stage to allow fluid selection, wellbore
stability, hydraulics, and rig modifications to be addressed and completed in a timely manner.
• Run two mud engineers with ERD experience on the rig.
• Mud systems are large in volume. Treatments take a long time to effect because of this.
• Do not rely on high rheologies for hole cleaning. Pump hard. High rheologies make casing
cementations difficult.
• It is not unusual to have lost circulation problems when running long casing strings, the tendency
to pack off, and ECD values running close to frac gradient. Have a logistics plan to cover losses
running the casing. Consider circulating occasionally to reduce gel strengths when tripping long
strings of casing.

6-8
REFERENCES
1. BPX Horizontal Drilling Manual
2. BPX Well Productivity Manual
3. Critical Technologies for Success in ERD - M L Payne et al SPE 28293 (1994)
4. Stuck Pipe Handbook
5. The Super Volume Estimator Spreadsheet
6. The Equipment Performance Evaluation Spreadsheet
7. BP Barite Sag Guidelines, P. Bern, November 1995.

CONTACTS
Specialty Name Location Telephone Fax
Mud Programming Bryan Chambers PSR Dyce 44 (0)1224 833635 44 (0)1224 833577
Pete Wilson XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 763346 44 (0)1932 764183

Torque and Drag - Phil Hearn XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 763226 44 (0)1932 764183
Prediction/Monitoring
Hole Cleaning Peter Bern XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 763469 44 (0)1932 764183
Yuejin Luo XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 762424 44 (0)1932 764183

Mud Lubricity Greg Elliot XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 764213 44 (0)1932 764183
Torque Reducers Colin Bowes XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 762049 44 (0)1932 764183
Kamal Jardaneh XTP Dyce 44 (0)1224 833664 44 (0)1224 833586

Phil Hearn XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 763226 44 (0)1932 764183

Solids Management Paul Page XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 763125 44 (0)1932 764183
Formation Damage Sarah Browne XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 762068 44 (0)1932 764183
Well Clean-Up Dan Ryan XTP Sunbury 44 (0)1932 762859 44 (0)1932 764183

6-9