IADC/SPE 151413

Rheological Properties of Invert Emulsion Drilling Fluid under Extreme

HPHT Conditions
John Lee, M-I SWACO; Arash Shadravan, Texas A&M University; Steve Young, M-I SWACO

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition’;

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Limited amount of rheological data generated under extreme high-pressure, high-temperature, (HPHT) conditions
(>500°F/30,000 psi) have been published due to lack of suitable viscometer and drilling fluid for such conditions. This paper
compares the rheological properties of invert emulsion drilling fluid generated from four types of HPHT viscometers and
provides a simple rheological model that can be used to predict the behavior of OBM under extreme-HPHT conditions.
Previously most of the HPHT studies were limited to 20,000 psi and 500°F. Recently more than one extreme-HPHT
rheometers have become commercially available, which can measure the rheological properties of drilling fluids at conditions
up to 600°F and 40,000 psi. These viscometers have been used to test various invert emulsion drilling fluid samples to the
maximum capacity of the equipment. Parts of the data generated from one particular instrument have been compared with
data obtained from other rheometers that are operated at lower temperature and pressure.
The data indicated several factors can critically affect the rheology measurements, including drilling fluid chemistry,
instrument set up and test schedule. Rheological properties measured by various instruments differed slightly from each
other perhaps due to design differences. Temperature and pressure not only affect the rheological properties of the test fluid
but may also impact the performance of the critical mechanical parts used for rheology measurement. In addition, HSE
experience gained from working with extreme-HPHT instruments is also included in this paper.

Introduction
The global growth in hydrocarbon demand is driving oil and gas industry to drill deeper reservoirs. The main challenge in
such environments is dealing with the extremes in temperature and pressure. Figure 1 shows the distribution of some HPHT
wells located in the US, North Sea, Middle East and South East Asia. The development of HPHT wells has come as an
inevitable consequence of the widening of the oil industry's net in a bid to find new reserves as conventional reserves
dwindle. Globally, 87 percent of industry players are involved in HPHT assets in some capacity and some 60 percent of
these are expecting to put in place an HPHT program within the next two years (Loth 1998, Schlumberger 2011). HPHT
operation is defined as wells that have an initial reservoir temperature greater than 300°F and a reservoir pressure greater than
10,000 psi (69 Mpa) or an initial reservoir overpressure greater than 3000 psi (23 Mpa) (Loth 1998). In the current work, the
extreme-HPHT condition is used to designate temperature and pressure conditions greater than 500°F, 20,000 psi.
Developing HPHT reservoirs with reduced risk requires the understanding of rheological properties of the drilling fluid.
Rheological behaviors of oil-based drilling fluids and challenges of HPHT drilling fluids have been previously reported
(Houwe and Geehan 1986, Bland et al. 2006).
Invert drilling fluid is often used to drill challenging HPHT wells owing to its inherited thermal stability when compared
to water-based drilling fluid. Most of the invert drilling fluids can handle temperatures up to 400°F without significant
issues. However, when temperature is above 400°F, the chemicals used in the drilling fluid can become unstable and thermal
degradation can occur over a short period of time resulting drastic changes in rheology and other fluid properties. In order to
study the performance of invert drilling fluids under simulated downhole conditions, HPHT viscometers are often used to
evaluate the flow properties and thermal stability of test fluids.
2 IADC/SPE 151413

Fig. 1- Locations of High-Pressure, High-Temperature Operations around the Globe.

Typical HPHT viscometers can reach 500°F and 20,000 psi test conditions; however, recently there are several new ones
on the market that can reach 600°F and 30,000 psi test conditions, and another one that can even reach 600°F and 40,000 psi.
The design of such HPHT viscometers for extreme test conditions is somewhat different from each manufacturer and hence
the measurements from each instrument may be different. The authors compared the rheological properties of invert drilling
fluid obtained from four HPHT viscometers, including Chandler 7600, Chandler 7500, Grace M7500 and Fann 75 models.
The Chandler 7600 was also used to generate rheological data under extreme conditions for some modeling work.

Experimental Method

Extreme-HPHT Schedule
There are different ways of running the HPHT schedule in an HPHT viscometer. A typical way is to perform a “rheology
sweep” at a fixed temperature with two pressures then alternate to a fixed pressure with two temperatures, and continue
alternating two pressures and two temperature steps until the maximum temperature and pressure is reached. Considering the
amount of data points to be collected, time of operation and types of HPHT viscometers involved, it was decided that a
simple sequence should be used for this evaluation. This schedule would allow rheological data generated from different
viscometers to be compared. The HPHT schedule used is shown in Table 1. When the test fluid is at temperature and
pressure, the 6-speed sweep readings are taken, followed by 10-second and 10-minute gel-strength measurements before
moving to the next temperature/pressure step. The first data point was collected at 150°F with no pressure. This provided a
quick check of the instrument calibration and fluid properties against a set of data previously obtained at 150°F using Fann
35A viscometer. The HPHT viscometers should provide readings at least 90-95% consistent with the Fann 35A readings,
otherwise calibration or other services may be needed.
Table 1 – Temperature/Pressure Schedule Used for HPHT
Rheology Measurement of Invert Drilling Fluid
Temperature Pressure
(°F) (psi)
150 0
150 5,000
250 5,000
250 10,000
300 10,000
300 20,000
400 20,000
500 20,000
550 30,000
600 40,000
IADC/SPE 151413 3

HPHT Test of Mineral Oil

Because a low-toxicity mineral oil was used to formulate the HPHT invert drilling fluid, it is prudent to understand the
behavior of the low-toxicity mineral oil as a function of temperature and pressure. The 600- and 300-rpm readings of the
mineral oil were measured under temperature and pressure ranging from ambient to 300°F and 35,000 psi using the Chandler
7600 viscometer. Figure 2 shows the 600-rpm readings as a function of pressure for different temperatures. The viscosity of
the mineral oil increased exponentially as the pressure increased at ambient temperature as well as at higher temperatures.
This behavior is in agreement with the Arrhenius equation that was used to describe viscosity of oil mud as an exponential
function of pressure (Houwe and Geehan 1986).

600‐rpm Reading of Low Tox Min Oil
250

72F 150F 260F 305F

200
Dial Reading

150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Pressure, psi

Fig. 2- Viscosity of Low-Toxicity Mineral Oil as a Function of Pressure at

Different Temperatures. The Dashed Lines Are Calculated Profiles Based
on Exponential Equation and the Dots Are Actual Data.

The 600-rpm readings dropped rapidly as temperature was increased and the mineral thinned out. As a result, readings
at temperatures above 300°F were not taken, because they became too low to be meaningful even at 35,000 psi. When the
data were plotted against the temperature, the viscosity as a function of temperature did not show a good correlation due to
limited data points, but the relationship appeared to be exponential as well.

Extreme-HPHT Test of Conventional Invert Drilling Fluid

Most of the invert drilling fluids can be easily formulated for normal HPHT applications as the chemistry of most of the
products used should be thermally stable at temperatures up to 400°F. But the same invert drilling fluid may become
unstable when the thermal stability limit is exceeded. To understand how conventional invert drilling fluid would behave
under such conditions, two conventional invert drilling fluids were tested using the Chandler 7600 viscometer. Figure 3
shows a plot of dial readings from several sweeps of a conventional invert drilling fluid run based on temperature/pressure
schedule shown in Table 1.

600 35000
Sample Temp (°F)
30000
Dial Reading and Temperature (°F)

500 Dial Rreading (deg.)
Pressure (PSIg)
25000
400
Pressure, psi

20000
300
15000
200
10000

100 5000

0 0
0:00:05
0:18:30
0:34:52
0:39:10
0:57:36
1:03:36
1:18:10
1:36:35
1:49:57
1:57:10
2:14:59
2:18:40
2:36:09
2:46:43
2:56:44
3:15:09
3:23:26
3:35:43
3:54:08
4:05:53
4:14:51
4:33:16
4:50:02
4:53:52
5:12:19
5:20:45

Time, hh‐mm‐ss

Fig. 3 -Thermal Breakdown of Conventional Invert Drilling Fluid as Indicated

by Drastic Changes in Dial Readings under extreme-HPHT Conditions
(Shown by the Dashed Line Circles).
4 IADC/SPE 151413

The conventional invert drilling fluid showed 600-rpm readings less than 100 at temperature/pressure conditions up to
400°F/20,000 psi. This is somewhat expected as the exposure time to temperature and pressure at this moment is roughly 4
hours. However, while heating up to 500°F at 20,000 psi, the fluid started to show erratic 100-rpm readings, which suggested
that thermal degradation of certain products was taking place. When the temperature/pressure condition was increased to
500°F/30,000 psi, a dramatic change in the dial readings was observed. The fluid became very viscous as indicated by the
high readings. When the cell was disassembled, the fluid had separated into two phases with a thick paste at the bottom of
the cell and a clear oil phase on the top. Apparently the fluid had completely failed under the extreme-HPHT conditions.
A second conventional invert fluid system was also tested to the same extreme-HPHT conditions and a similar fluid
behavior was observed, although the failure was less apparent when just examining the dial reading plot. These two tests
confirmed that fluid failure would occur when pushed over their design limit. Thermal degradation of products which may
lead to loss of suspension and/or emulsion stability is believed to be the primary cause of this failure. However, if the HP
HTviscometer could not reach the extreme-HPHT conditions to induce this failure, the invert drilling fluid might be
mistakenly considered thermally stable, especially when the extreme-HPHT properties are extrapolated from data obtained at
lower temperature/pressure.

Extreme-HPHT Test of Extreme-HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid

To ensure the fluid to be used for the testing would not fail under the extreme-HPHT conditions, the thermal stability of the
test fluid was evaluated by heat aging at different temperatures up to 525°F and then determining fluid properties. Table 2
shows the initial and heat-aged properties of a 19-lb/gal invert drilling fluid after aging at temperatures indicated.

Table 2 – Properties of 19-lb/gal Extreme-HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid before

and after Heat Aging at Temperatures Indicated
Hot Rolled at Hot Rolled at Static Aged at
Rheology at 150°F Initial
250°F 400°F 525°F
600 rpm 119 119 120 143
300 rpm 67 66 69 82
200 rpm 48 50 51 60
100 rpm 27 29 33 39
6 rpm 6 7 9 10
3 rpm 3 6 7 8
10-sec Gels 5 6 8 9
10-min Gels 7 9 10 11
PV 52 53 51 61
YP 15 13 18 21
ES, V @ 150°F 1551 1310 1157 1880
HPHT at 350°F - - 1.6 2.2

This drilling fluid contains HPHT products specifically designed to handle extreme-HPHT conditions up to 600°F. The
extreme-HPHT invert fluid showed very stable properties after heat aging, suggesting good thermal stability for extreme-
HPHT testing. This fluid was prepared in a large batch to ensure consistency for subsequent testing. When it was tested to
the maximum capacity of the extreme- HPHTviscometer at 600°F, 40,000 psi, no fluid failure was observed. A typical graph
of the run is shown in Figure 4.

700 45000
Sample Temp (°F)
40000
600
Dial Reading and Temperature (°F)

Dial Rreading (deg.)
Pressure (PSIg) 35000
500
30000
Pressure, psi

400 25000

300 20000

15000
200
10000
100
5000

0 0
0:00:05
0:23:41
0:40:30
0:54:37
1:07:36
1:25:32
1:49:07
2:03:05
2:20:04
2:30:12
2:50:59
3:05:08
3:21:55
3:40:14
3:52:49
4:16:24
4:34:33
4:47:20
5:10:55
5:34:30
5:43:02
6:05:25
6:18:08
6:36:27
7:00:08
7:23:49

Time, hh‐mm‐ss

Fig. 4 -Thermally Stable extreme HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Shows No

Significant Changes in Dial Readings under extreme HPHT Conditions,
Compared to Conventional Invert Drilling Fluid. The Dashed Line
Represents Response of Fluid Rheology to Temperature.
IADC/SPE 151413 5

The dashed line in the graph represents rheological changes in response to the temperature and pressure changes. The
response appeared to be more sensitive at low temperature/pressure, and less sensitive at extreme-HPHT conditions. This
response sensitivity could be highly dependent on the fluid formulation and product stability.

Effect of Heat Stress History

The heat stress history can affect the behavior of an invert drilling fluid under extreme- HP HTconditions, especially when
the test fluid has been previously stressed under HPHT conditions. A quick comparison was conducted to investigate this
effect using an unheat-aged and a 400°F heat-aged HPHT invert drilling fluid. Figure 5 shows the rheology profiles of these
two fluids at 400°F/20,000 psi and 600°F/40,000 psi conditions. The 400°F heat-aged fluid (dashed lines) always shows a
lower rheology profile, particularly at low shear rates, when compared to the unheat-aged fluid (solid line). The difference
was less significant at 400°F/20,000 psi, but more significant at 600°F/40,000 psi. The exact cause of this difference is not
clear but it is believed to be a result of thermal modification of the system. If the fluid had been pre-heat aged at a higher
temperature, the drop in rheology could be more significant when it is tested again under extreme- HPHTconditions.

1000
NoHR, 600F/40K
400HR, 600F/40K
NoHR, 400F/20K
400HR, 400F/20K
100
Dial Reading

10

1
1 10 100 1000
RPM
Fig. 5 – Rheology Profiles of Invert Drilling Fluids to Compare the Effect
of Pre-heat Aging on Fluid Viscosity under extreme-HPHT Conditions.
The Dashed Lines Are the Unheat-aged Drilling Fluid; the Solid Lines
Are the Drilling Fluid Pre-heat Aged at 400°F.

Comparison of HPHT Viscometers

The same extreme-HPHT invert drilling fluid was subsequently tested on four HPHT viscometers to compare the 6-speed
readings using the schedule shown in Table 1 up to 400°F/20,000 psi. Some data were collected at higher temperatures and
pressures on some instruments but the conditions were different so comparison is somewhat difficult. The test fluid used
was not heat aged before testing; however, each sample was sheared to about 120°F using a high-shear mixer before testing.
Each viscometer was calibrated using the procedures recommended by the manufacturer with a suitable calibration fluid. All
the tests were run on an automatic mode where temperature and pressure were increased in a pre-determined schedule. The
heating rate may vary slightly from instrument to instrument because of the differences in sample volume. The capacity and
some specifications of each HPHT viscometer are listed in Table 3 for comparison.

Sample Vol, Magnetic material

T, °F P, psi Design Cell wt., lbs
mls in test fluid
Fann-75 500 20,000 175 Jewel/pivot/spring Not recommended 30
Chandler 7500 600 30,000 105 Jewel/pivot/spring Not recommended 12
Grace M7500 600 30,000 132 Ball bearing/spring Not recommended 15
Chandler 7600 600 40,000 200 Jewel/pivot/spring Compatible >40

A plot of the 6-speed readings obtained at 150°F, 0 psi from HPHT viscometers in comparison with another set of
readings from the Fann 35A at 150°F is shown in Figure 6. The data indicated that all these instruments can generate 6-
speed readings reasonably close to each other when there is no pressure. But under HPHT conditions, the results are different.
The 6-speed reading profiles from HPHT viscometers obtained at higher temperatures and pressures up to 600°F/40,000
psi are plotted in Figure 7, 8, 9 and 10 for comparison. The differences between the profiles became more apparent and
significant at higher temperatures and pressures, and they are likely a result of the different designs of the instrument,
6 IADC/SPE 151413

although some of the profiles displayed similar slopes. Since most of these instruments rely on an ideal “frictionless” pivot
and jewel design to provide the readings, the ideal condition may not be met especially when the test can be affected by quite
a few factors including temperature, pressure, solids content, type of solids and time of usage. This certainly can impact the
quality of the data generated under the maximum capacity of the instrument.

1000 1000
C‐7600 150F/0psi C‐7600 300F/10K
C‐7500 150F/0psi C‐7500 300F/10K
Fann‐75 150F/0psi
Fann‐75 300F/10K
M7500 150F/0psi
Fann 35A 150F/0psi M7500 300F/10K
100 100
Dial Reading

Dial Reading
10 10

1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
RPM RPM

Fig. 6- A Comparison of the Rheological Profiles of the Extreme Fig. 7- A Comparison of the Rheological Profiles of the extreme
HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Measured from four HPHT Viscometers HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Measured from Four HPHT
and One Regular Viscometer at 150°F with No Pressure. Viscometers at 300°F, 10,000 psi.

1000 1000
C‐7600 300F/20K C‐7600 400F/20K
C‐7500 300F/20K C‐7500 400F/20K
Fann‐75 300F/20K Fann‐75 400F/20K
M7500 300F/20K M‐7500 400F/20K
100 100
Dial Reading

Dial Reading

10 10

1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
RPM RPM

Fig. 8- A Comparison of the Rheological Profiles of the extreme Fig. 9- A Comparison of the Rheological Profiles of the extreme
HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Measured from Four HPHT HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Measured from Four HPHT
Viscometers at 300°F, 20,000 psi. Viscometers at 400°F, 20,000 psi.

1000
C‐7600 500F/20K
F‐75 500F/20K
C‐7600 530F/30K
M7500 500F/30K
100 C‐7600 600F/40K
Dial Reading

10

1
1 10 100 1000
RPM

Fig. 10- A Comparison of the Rheological Profiles of the

extreme HPHT Invert Drilling Fluid Measured from Three HPHT
Viscometers at Maximum Capacity.
IADC/SPE 151413 7

Extreme-HPHT Measurements and Simulation

The 19-lb/gal extreme-HPHT invert drilling fluid was repeatedly tested on the Chandler 7600 using a test matrix given in
Table 4 in order to get as many data points as possible. The 6-speed readings and gel-strength measurements were made at
each desired temperature and pressure combination although sometimes some data could not be captured. For instance, at
150°F, the 600-rpm readings would stop at a maximum value at 25,000 psi, but readings at lower rpm and gel strengths still
could be measured.

Table 4- An Ideal Test Matrix for extreme HP

HTData Collection
P T 150°F 250°F 350°F 450°F 550°F
0 psi

5000 psi

10,000 psi

15,000 psi

20,000 psi

25,000 psi

30,000 psi

35,000 psi

40,000 psi

Once HPHT rheological data were collected, the results were analyzed and then plotted against pressure and/or
temperature. Curve fitting based on exponential function was then applied to obtain constant A & B in the form of µ =
A*exp(B*P) where µ is dial reading and P is pressure. Figure 11 shows a plot of several sets of dial readings collected at
220°F against pressure. A similar approach could be used to evaluate the constant in the form of µ = A*exp(B/T), where T is
temperature. However, due to limited data points in terms of temperature, curve fitting for temperature dependence
correlation was not as good as for pressure dependence correlation.

Dial reading vs Pressure @ 220°F
600‐rpm 300‐rpm 200‐rpm 100‐rpm 6‐rpm 3‐rpm
250

200
Dial Reading

150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Pressure, psi
Fig. 11- Plots of the 6-speed Readings of 19 ppg Invert Drilling
Fluid at 220°F with Different Pressures. The solid Lines
Represent Curve-fitting Using Exponential Function for each
Sweep.

Because the two constants thus determined are only pressure dependent and the temperature dependence could not be
obtained confidently, an alternative approach was used to determine the temperature dependence. The two constants of each
equation at different pressures were plotted against temperature and an exponential function was fitted over the curves. The
exponential equations used were A = a*exp(-b*T) and B = c*exp(-d*T), where constants a, b, c and d were graphically
determined. Thus the original pressure dependent exponential equation can be used to correlate viscosity with pressure and
temperature, in which now both A and B are temperature dependent. This is the equation used to simulate rheology of invert
drilling fluid under different temperature/pressure conditions.
A plot of the simulation results against the real data collected under HPHT conditions is shown in Figure 12. The
simulation appeared to be reasonably close for runs carried out at 150°F, 220°F, 450°F and 550°F, whereas it was
considerably off for the mid-temperature ranges. The cause of the deviation is partly due to the data quality and partly due to
the temperature correction constants. But the simulation clearly demonstrated that the behavior of invert drilling fluid can be
8 IADC/SPE 151413

simulated, if the thermal stability of the invert drilling fluid can be proven. The simulation also can be used to estimate
rheological properties that cannot be directly measured under certain temperature/pressure conditions using any
HPHTviscometers, such as low-temperature, high-pressure or low-pressure, high-temperature. Figure 13 shows a plot of the
simulation results against temperature.
600‐rpm Reading as a function of Pressure 600‐rpm Reading as a function of Temperature
300 300
150F 0 psi
220F 5000 psi
250 250
250F
10000 psi
360F
200

600‐rpm reading
200 15000 psi
600‐rpm reading

450F
20000 psi
550F
150 150 25000 psi
150F Real
30000 psi
220F Real 100
100 35000 psi
250F Real
40000 psi
350F Real 50
50
450F Real
550F Real 0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Temperature, °F
Pressure, psi

Fig. 12- A Comparison of the Simulated 600-rpm Readings of Fig.13- A Simulation of the 600-rpm Readings of the 19 ppg
the 19 ppg Invert Mud versus the Actual Test Matrix Data Invert Mud as a Function of Temperature Based on the Test
Collected at Different Temperatures and Pressures. Matrix Data Collected at Different Temperatures and Pressures.

Equipment and HSE Aspect

The HPHT viscometers allow invert drilling fluids to be evaluated under HPHT conditions, however, the extreme-HPHT
conditions may be difficult to achieve and maintain unless the instrument is kept at a superlative condition as the instrument
will be pushed to its maximum capacity in most tests. Through the usage and evaluation of these HPHT viscometers, the
following has been identified as concerns for extreme-HPHT works.
1. Jewel and pivot design. This is an issue under extreme conditions. Fast wearing of pivot and fracturing of the
jewel can take place easily and quickly at 600°F and 40,000 psi for a variety of reasons. Long running time, high
speed of rotation and high solids content of the test fluid are just a few of the factors that can shorten the life of
jewel and pivot. If any damage happens to either part, the readings, especially at low shear rates, would be erratic
and less useful. However, an improvement has been made by one manufacturer and this can improve the life span
of the design. Figure 14 and Figure 15 compare the development of fracture on a jewel after a single test against a
new jewel, and a worn pivot against a new pivot. It is highly recommended that the jewel and pivot should be
examined carefully under a microscope after each test and replaced if necessary to ensure the quality of the data.

Fig.14- A Cracked Jewel (shown left) Can Introduce Erratic Fig.15- A Comparison of a New Pivot (on the right)
Readings on Subsequent Tests If the Crack Happens to against a Worn Pivot (on the left). The Worn Pivot
Coincide with the Pivot Contact Point. A New One is Resulted in Erratic Low Shear Rate Readings due to
Shown on the Right for Comparison. Uneven Contact Surfaces.

2. Temperature and pressure controls. These controls may become difficult to maintain under extreme-HPHT
conditions. Because of the location of temperature sensors, the volume of test fluid used and the massive amount of
metal in the test cells, temperature control becomes a tricky task under prolonged HPHT testing. Overheating and
under heating has been observed when the temperature was supposed to be held constant while testing at two
different pressures. The temperature can continue to rise while waiting for the 10-minute gel. The issue is of less
concern for instruments with lower temperature and pressure capacity.
3. Automatic mode vs manual mode. Often times the HPHT is run in automatic mode for data collection to free
resources for other tasks. However, this can create dangerous situations when one of the temperature and/or
pressure regulating components is not functioning properly. The risk of occurrence and the severity associated with
the risk both increase with extreme-HPHT conditions. When this happens, it can cause severe personnel and/or
IADC/SPE 151413 9

property damages. To avoid sudden pressure losses, it is necessary to pressurize the instrument to maximum
capacity at room temperature to ensure proper sealing of the whole system before actual testing is conducted.
Rigorous maintenance and regular inspection also help to minimize such incidence from happening.

4. Maintenance and calibration. The temperature and pressure gauges on the HPHT viscometers should be
calibrated regularly to make sure they are functioning properly. In-line filters also should be cleaned or replaced to
extend the life of pressure regulators. Discharge of solids through lines could cause internal regulator damage and
lead to hazardous situations. Calibration of the accuracy of the torque spring also must be conducted regularly and
attention should be paid to the low-shear-rate readings. The extreme-HPHT test conditions can profoundly impact
the service life of the equipment. Certain internal seals must be replaced after each HPHT run as they are designed
to be consumable. Consumption of other parts, maintenance and repair cost of extreme-HPHT viscometer are
expected to be a lot higher than regular HPHT viscometers.
5. Mixing of confining fluid and test sample. This has been a controversial issue for some time, although different
cell designs have been used to minimize the mingling of the two fluids. In our testing, the exact capacity of the cell
was measured and the fluid level is controlled within ±5 mL to minimize the mixing. Certain unexpected drop in
rheology at extreme-HPHT conditions could be due to the influx of confining fluid under extreme pressure.
6. Fluid composition and thermal stability. Proper fluid composition and product chemistry is required to ensure
sufficient thermal stability of the test fluid under extreme-HPHT conditions. The development of suitable products
for extreme-HPHT formulation would require more efforts and resources than just running the extreme-HPHT test.
Without proper thermal stability, simulation using properties obtained at lower temperature and pressure will not be
reliable.

Conclusions
Comparison of HPHT rheology measurements from four different viscometers using the same test fluid and test
schedule indicated that there are differences between the viscometers. The most likely cause of the differences
probably can be related to the instrument design. The Fann-75 instrument seems to generate a slightly lower
rheology profile than the other three viscometers under HPHT conditions. However, at 150°F without any pressure,
all four instruments can generate reasonably close rheology profiles. Thus, comparison of data obtained from
different instrument can be difficult and sometimes impossible.
1. The extreme-HPHT conditions produced by one particular instrument offered a great opportunity to look at the
behavior of invert drilling fluid under such conditions. Conventional invert drilling fluid can fail completely before
the maximum capacity of the instrument is reached. Without sufficient thermal stability, testing of such drilling
fluid may not yield any valuable rheological information under such harsh conditions.
2. With a thermally stable invert drilling fluid that can survive the extreme-HPHT conditions, rheological
measurements showed that the fluid behavior is quite normal and the impacts from temperature and pressure are
predictable. Simulation has suggested that both temperature and pressure exponentially affect fluid viscosity. The
rheological properties of this fluid could not be validated by a different instrument that can reach the maximum
temperature and pressure capacity of the Chandler 7600.
3. To ensure top quality data can be generated under the extreme-HPHT conditions, proper maintenance and
calibration of the HPHT viscometer is vital. Because of high operation cost and long operation hours, the extreme-
HPHT viscometer is more suitable for research works than for routine tech service works.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to appreciate M-I SWACO for allowing the publication of this article and Mahmood Amani, Jerome
Schubert and Gene Beck for their valuable points of view. Also special thanks to Mario Zamora for his great technical
supports.

References
Bland, R., Mullen, G., Gonzales, Y., Harvey, F. and Pless, M. 2006. “HP/HT Drilling Fluids Challenges.” SPE 103731, IADC/SPE Asia
Pacific Drilling Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, November 13-15.
Houwe, O.H. and Geehan, T. 1986. “Rheology of Oil-Base Muds.” SPE 15416, SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana, October 5-8.
W.D. Loth & Co Ltd, Subsea Engineering for Health and Safety Executive. 1998. HPHT Wells: Perspective on Drilling and Completion
from the Field. Sudbury: HSE Books, ISBN 0-7176-1594-4.
Schlumberger. 2011. “Worldwide HPHT Projects.” www.slb.com.