IADC/SPE 112620

How Effective Is Current Solids Control Equipment for Drilling Fluids

Weighted with Micron-Sized Weight Material?
Jarrod Massam, Shannon Stocks, Jaime Martinez, Doug Oakley, Colin Bremner M-I SWACO

Copyright 2008, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. , 4–6 March 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/ SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract su bmitted 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 ac knowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Centrifuges and shakers are the first defense when managing a drilling fluid against wellbore cuttings and solids
contamination. The buildup of drill solids in a fluid can have a detrimental effect on its performance and properties. Much of
the solids-control equipment in the field was designed with conventional API-grade weighted fluids in mind, but the increasing
use of drilling fluids in the field weighted with micron sized particles has presented a challenge in the use of existing solids-
control technologies to achieve effective solids removal.
With a decanting centrifuge, the particle size and density of API-grade barite is such that the centrifugal force tends to
remove much of it from the fluid together with the undesired solids. Similarly, the wire mesh size for shaker screens is selected
to be effective in removing the cuttings, but consequently, the coarser fraction of the weight material is removed. A significant
reduction in weight material particle size has the potential to demonstrate a different behavior. This paper will present data
obtained from both the field and from specifically designed yard tests conducted on micronized weighted drilling fluids.
The data discusses solids removal efficiency using different centrifuge designs as well as shaker screen performance, and
demonstrates how these can be optimized for the preferential removal of undesirable contaminants and minimize removal of
the desired weight material. The operating parameters of the centrifuge have been defined to provide the optimum solids
removal efficiency.
Solids analysis, particle size and density results that provide definitive centrifuge parameters for processing fluid weighted
with micron-sized material; the results are compared with those parameters obtained from a conventional API-barite weighted
fluid showing that lower torque, higher throughputs and lower wear and tear on equipment can be achieved with micronized
weighted fluids.

Introduction
The increasing use of micron-sized weighting agents in drilling and completion fluids has presented a new challenge for
solids-control equipment commonly used in the field. Drilling fluids weighted with micronized materials significantly reduce
the sag potential of the weight material, allowing fluids to be formulated with a lower rheological profile compared with fluids
1,2
weighted with conventional API-grade materials. Micronized weighted drilling fluids generally do tend to be more tolerant
towards contamination than conventional weighted fluids, but nevertheless solids control is crucial to maintaining drilling
performance.
While drilling, the equipment used to remove the drill solids incorporated into the fluid is essential in maintaining the
condition of the drilling fluid. The buildup of drill solids, namely low-gravity solids (LGS), in any drilling fluid can have a
detrimental effect on its physical properties requiring conditioning via treatment chemicals and/or dilution of the fluid volume,
both of which increases the cost of the operation. There are various designs of mechanical equipment available for solids
control each aimed at a specific particle size target range, such as (from largest particle to smallest) settling tanks, shaker
screens, desanders, desilters, hydrocyclones and centrifuges. The primary solids-control equipment used in the field include
shaker screens and centrifuges. Shaker screens or shale shakers are often the first line of defense in removing drill cuttings and
the type and mesh size of screens used is hugely important and is dependent on a number of factors including, type of
formation drilled, the fluid viscosity and the shakers available on the rig. Clearly, the finer sized mesh that is used, the greater
the amount of undesirable solid contaminants removed from the fluid. However, the size of mesh is restricted by the viscosity
of the fluid, the nature and abundance of the drill cuttings, and the particle size of the weight material. For instance, if too fine
a mesh is used when using a conventional API-grade weighted drilling fluid, the particle size of the weight material is often
2 IADC/SPE 112620

such that a significant amount of it will be removed along with the undesired drill solids, creating density fluctuations, screen
blinding and general fluid maintenance issues. When weight material and cuttings are removed by the shaker screens the
viscosity of the drilling fluid can influence the quantity of fluid removed with the solids. This is very important when
considering oil-based drilling fluids where the percent oil retained by the cuttings is often subject to environmental legislation.
Thicker fluids tend to be retained to a greater extent on the screened out solids than thinner fluids. Also, the finer mesh screens
tend to be less robust than coarser screens, which if exposed to a heavy abundance of cuttings and weight material, severely
reduce the screen life.
Centrifuges are typically used as a secondary line of defense toward undesirable solids removal via accelerated
gravitational force. Whole fluid is pumped into a rotating cylinder where solid material is thrown to the inside wall of the
cylinder via large centrifugal forces and discharged from the centrifuge via a screw conveyor. The discharge of particulate
material is influenced by a number of factors, including the viscosity of the fluid, the density and size of the particle, the
rotating speed and diameter of the cylinder, and the flow rate of the fluid pumped into the centrifuge. The solids-removal
process of a centrifuge is based on the principle of Stokes’ law. For conventional API-grade weighted fluids with high solids
loading and high viscosity, the fluid often requires dilution prior to its introduction into the centrifuge to improve the operating
efficiency; this can be impractical when centrifuging non-aqueous fluids. In field applications the low rheology associated
with using micronized weighted fluids negates the requirement for any fluid dilution.
This paper discusses the solids-control performance of shaker screens from the field and centrifuges from specifically
designed yard tests where actual field fluids weighted with specially treated micronized weighting agent were used. It should
be noted that despite over one hundred drilling applications worldwide using these micronized weighted fluids, there exists
little centrifuge data from the field. This is mainly due to the utilization of finer mesh shaker screens for some of these
applications, which have proven to be effective in removing solid contaminants, but it is also due to the fact that many of the
rigs have old and inefficient centrifuge equipment which is rarely employed as a method of solids control for micronized
weighting agent applications.

Performance

Centrifuge Performance. A yard test was conducted to determine the operating parameters best suited for removal of
undesirable low gravity drill solids from a low rheology micron-sized weighted drilling fluid. The properties of the oil-based
fluid used are given in Table 1.

Table 1 – Feed Fluid Properties

Fluid Properties
Fluid Density (lb/gal) 13.2
Oil/Water Ratio 68/32
LGS / HGS (%) 8.5/16.4
Rheology Fann 35 at 120 oF
600/300 (rpm) 79/44
200/100 (rpm) 32/19
6/3 (rpm) 4/3
10min Gel Strength (lb/100 ft2) 7
Plastic Viscosity (cP) 35
2
Yield Point (lb/100 ft ) 9
Particle Siz e
d50 , d90 (µm) 4.3, 55.2

Centrifugation of micronized weighted fluid was conducted using two different high-speed decanting centrifuges: a small-
bowl, high-volume centrifuge (diameter <400 mm) and a big-bowl, high -volume centrifuge (diameter >400 mm).
The objective set for the trial was to define the main operating parameters i.e., the feed rate and bowl speed required to
achieve optimum low-gravity solids removal without significant removal of the desired high-gravity solid (HGS) weight
material. The liquid effluent and solids discharge samples collected were analyzed for particle size, density, oil/water/solids
ratios, chlorides and salt content.

Centrifuge Processing Rates. The maximum feed rates obtained for each centrifuge processing the 13.2-lb/gal micronized
weighted fluid were significant, and much higher than those achieved when processing a fluid of similar density weighted with
conventional API-grade barite weight material, as shown in Fig. 1. At centrifuge bowl rotating speeds resulting in centrifugal
forces of 700 and 1200 G, the small-bowl centrifuge processed 56% and 75% more fluid, respectively, compared to the
processing rates of a conventional 13-lb/gal fluid. At bowl speeds resulting in 1200 G, the big-bowl centrifuge processed 93%
IADC/SPE 112620 3

more micronized-weighted fluid compared to conventional 13-lb/gal fluid.

100%
93%
Fluid processing rat e increase

80% 75%

60% 56%
(%)

40%

20%

0%
Small-bowl Centrifuge Small-bowl Centrifuge Big-bowl Centrifuge

700 G 1200 G 1200 G

Fig. 1 – Throughput increase with a micronized weighted

fluid compared to a conventional fluid.

9
Raw Micronized Weight Material
8 Big-Bowl at 1550 G, 30 gal/min
Big-Bowl at 1000 G, 140 gal/min
volume pe rc ent differe ntial

7 Feed Fluid

0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Particle Size (micron)
Fig. 2 - PSD of liquid effluents compared with feed fluid and weight material.

Low-Gravity versus High-Gravity Solids Removal. Unlike conventional fluids, where large and heavy solids are
preferentially removed via the centrifugal force over light and fine solids, the centrifuges were found to process the micronized
weighted fluids differently. When centrifuging drilling fluids weighted with conventional API barite, typically a two-stage
process is used: high-density barite sized 1 – 100 microns is easily removed using low speed centrifugation, and is commonly
recycled directly into the active drilling fluid system. The centrifuge effluent containing the low-gravity drill solids is the
processed through a high-speed centrifuge to remove as much of the detrimental fine solids as possible before returning the
fluid phase to the active system.
The behavior of a fluid weighted with treated micronized weighting agent processed by a decanting centrifuge is somewhat
different. Due to the very small size and hindered settling effect of the treated weighting agent, the larger low-gravity drill
solids are preferentially removed by the decanting centrifuge, returning both the valuable weighting agent and the liquid phase
of the drilling fluid back to the active fluid system in one step, eliminating the need for dual-stage centrifugation of weighted
drilling fluids.
Fig. 2 illustrates the particle size distribution of the micronized weighted feed fluid as well as for the liquid effluents from
the centrifuge at two different parameters. These distributions are compared to the raw treated micronized weighting agent.
The results demonstrate that, for this centrifuge, at high speeds (1550 G) and low flowrates (30 gal/min) considerably more
low-gravity solids are present than at lower speeds (1,000 G) and high flowrates (140 gal/min).
4 IADC/SPE 112620

To determine the extent of low-gravity solids separation from the micronized weight material, the exact composition of the
feed fluid, liquid effluent, and solids discard streams were analyzed using retort analysis for the small-bowl centrifuge
processing the 13.2-lb/gal micronized weighted fluid. The small-bowl centrifuge was operated at 3 different bowl speeds
resulting in G-forces of 700, 1200 and 1550 G, while processing three different flowrates of 50, 100 and 140 gal/min.
Fig. 3 details the composition of both the liquid effluent stream and solids discard streams, in comparison to the micronized
weighted feed fluid entering the centrifuge. The results confirm that the effluent stream contains significantly less low-gravity
solids than the feed stream for the entire range of operating parameters, while the overall concentration of desirable micronized
weight material returning to the active system is greater than the feed stream The analysis also confirms that the solids discard
stream has a very large concentration of detrimental fines (LGS) whereas the discard of the desired oil phase is minimized and
discard of micronized weight material is reduced. Finally, the composition of the solids discard stream indicates that the
overall removal of LGS is optimized at both high bowl speeds and greater fluid processing rates.

100%

80%
Effluent (vol %)

60%

40%

20%
LGS
0% HGS
100% Water
Oil
80%
Solids (vol %)

60%

40%

20%

0%
Feed 50 100 140 50 100 140 50 100 140 gal/min

700 G 1200 G 1500 G

Fig. 3 – Fluid stream composition analysis from the small-bowl centrifuge.

Solids Removal Efficiencies. The performance of a decanting centrifuge can be expressed by a number of qualifications
including solids-removal efficiency (SRE), separation efficiency and D50 cut point. When comparing centrifuges of different
geometries the amount of force acting on the fluid due to bowl speed can be expressed in terms of the Sigma Factor which is a
3
function of the centrifuge bowl speed and geometry . Previous centrifuge qualification tests have confirmed that the
centrifuge’s ability to remove solids increases as bowl speed (and G-Force) increase, but decreases with increasing feed rates.
Therefore, performance data will be presented in this paper in terms of Q/∑, otherwise expressed as feed flowrate (Q) divided
by the Sigma Factor (∑). Solids-removal efficiency was obtained using retort analysis and dividing the volume percent dry
solids in the solids discharge by the total dry solids in the feed.
Fig. 4 shows that the solids removal efficiency was best at lower flowrates and higher bowl speeds, as indicated by the
lower Q/∑value (toward the origin). At lower bowl speeds and higher processing rates, the overall residence time of the fluid
within the bowl is decreased, resulting in a lower overall solids removal efficiency. At equivalent Q/∑, the bigger bowl
centrifuge appears to be more efficient at removing solids compared to the smaller bowl centrifuge.
IADC/SPE 112620 5

40%

35% Big-bowl Centrifuge

Solids Removal Efficiency [vol %]

30% Small-bowl Centrifuge

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
2
Q/Sigma (gpm/m )
Fig. 4 – SRE of big-bowl centrifuge versus small-bowl centrifuge.

Particle Size Distribution and D50 Cut Point. The performance of a decanting centrifuge processing unweighted drilling
fluids and fluids weighted with conventional weight material is best described by determining the D50 Cut Point, defined as
4
the particle size at which 50% of the particles exit the effluent stream and 50% exit via the solids discard stream. However, in
the case of fluids weighted with micronized weighing agent a significant quantity of high-density, sub-micron-sized particles
remain in the fluid, and are not removed via centrifugal force. Therefore, of primary importance is the overall particle size
distribution of the liquid effluent stream returning to the active system, which can be described by focusing on the D90 of the
distribution. D90 is defined as the particle size corresponding to the cumulative volume of 90%. The Liquid effluent streams
with a lower D90 for its particle size distribution indicate a greater quantity of solids, including detrimental LGS, have been
removed.
Fig. 5 shows the liquid effluent D90 particle size as a function of feed rate and Sigma Factor. At higher feed rates and
lower bowl speeds (larger Q/values), the overall particle size of the liquid effluent increases which therefore increases the
risk of returning detrimental low-gravity solids to the active system. The most effective solids removal, in terms of a smaller
particle size, occurs at lower flowrates and higher bowl speeds (low Q/valued, towards the origin) where more of the low-
gravity solids are removed, allowing the valuable micronized weight material to be returned to the active system. It is
inevitable that those solid contaminants with particle sizes near those of the micronized weighting agent will still remain in the
fluid system. As with any other drilling fluid, a continuous build up of very fine low-gravity solids into the system can lead to
poor fluid conditions and could adversely affect the drilling operation. The rate at which these detrimental solids become
incorporated into the fluid can be significantly reduced by effective centrifuge operation and shaker screen selection.
Centrifuge Liquid Effluent D90 [micron]

14

12

10

4 Big-bowl Centrifuge

2 Small-bowl Centrifuge

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
2
Q/Sigma (gpm/m )
6 IADC/SPE 112620

Fig. 5 - d90 of the liquid effluent as a function of flowrate and bowl-speed.

300 600
Top Screen Bottom Screen Flowrate (gal/min)

250 500

Flowrate ( gal/min)
Screen Mesh Size

200 400

150 300

100 200

50 100

0 0
Micronized Conbventional Micronized Conventional
Weighted Fluid Fluid Job 1 Weighted Fluid Fluid Job 2
Job1 Job 2

Fig. 6 – Screen mesh size increase with micronized weighted fluids.

Shaker Screen Performance. As discussed earlier, the combination of a low-rheology fluid and micron-sized particles means
that theoretically the shaker screens used to remove solids from the fluid can be of a much finer mesh than those normally used
when drilling with a conventional API-grade weighted system. This has indeed proven to be the case in the field applications
where an oil-based drilling fluid system weighted with treated micronized barite has been used and in doing so has allowed
low dilution rates and stable fluid properties.
To a certain extent this is illustrated in Fig. 6 which shows how on two drilling applications in the North Sea the shaker
5
screens were easily screened up from 210 to 250 mesh while maintaining the same flow rate. The result of this relatively
minor change to the screen mesh sizes was that the dilution rates for these jobs were reduced from 26 and 54 bbl/bbl when
drilling with a conventional weighted fluid to 16 and 42 bbl/bbl when using a treated micronized weighted fluid.
In drilling a number of wells offshore Eastern Canada as well as in the UK and North Sea 400-mesh screens have been
used successfully. As an example, when an operation switched from using conventional fluid to micronized weighted fluid, the
shaker screens were changed from 270 to 400 mesh.6 This was achieved for both 12¼-in. and 8¼-in. sections while
maintaining the equivalent flow rate of 898 – 1136 gal/min and 476 – 581 gal/min respectively.
In some cases where the screen life of these finer mesh screens can be somewhat shorter than typically observed while
using coarser screens, an economic benefit still may be realized by requiring less fluid dilution and less chemical treatment due
to a greater drill solids contaminant removal efficiency. In applications where cuttings re-injection is typically used as the
disposal method for drill cuttings, less wear and tear has been observed on the reinjection equipment due to the lack of barite
weighting agent. With a micronized weighted fluid system the weight material is not screened out and therefore does not
contribute to the slurry reinjection volume. There are also screens which have been specifically designed for micronized
weighted fluids which have a 500-mesh, although to date there have not been any applications where these have been used.
In fluid systems where coarse fluid-loss additives or bridging material is included in the formulation, such as for reservoir
drilling fluids, using these finer mesh screens is likely to remove a certain amount of these additives and therefore, steps need
7
to be taken to achieve best operating practices. In most cases, any bridging material should only be added to the fluid
circulating system at a selected meterage prior to the reservoir and then testing should be performed to monitor the effects on
the fluid bridging capabilities, i.e., aloxite discs tests. In many field applications where micronized weighted fluids have been
used the screen of choice has been 325 and 270 mesh.

Conclusion
When using a drilling fluid system formulated with micron-sized weight material it is important, as with any other system, to
select the solids-control equipment according to what suits both the operation and the fluid. Clearly, much finer shaker screens
can be utilized with this type of fluid and the finer the screen the better the defense against solids contamination.
Economically, the cost of potentially reduced screen life needs to be considered against the economic cost of fluid
contamination and consequently increased dilution and treatment. Similarly, using a finer screen mesh may result in the
removal of other desirable formulation additives which need to be replenished accordingly. Ultimately, as with other fluid
systems, shakers screens remain the primary and most effective line of defense against solids contamination.
The centrifuge yard tests have demonstrated that high-volume, high-speed centrifuges can be effective in removing fine
low-gravity solids from a micronized weighted fluid without removing a significant amount of the desired weighting agent
particles. The tests conducted have defined best operating parameters; however, further field data is required to fully evaluate
the capabilities of the centrifugation of a micronized weighted fluid.

Acknowledgments
IADC/SPE 112620 7

The authors wish to thank M-I SWACO for the opportunity to present this paper and are very grateful to Arjen Hoekman, the
M-I SWACO Mantovani & Vicentini testing facility in Berra, Italy, and the Aberdeen Technical Centre for their valuable
assistance.

Nomenclature
API = American Petroleum Institute
PSD = Particle Size Distribution
Lb/gal = Pounds per Gallon
G = G force
SG = Specific Gravity
Gal/min = Gallons per Minute
BBL = Barrel
SRE = Solids Removal Efficiency
LGS = Low Gravity Solids
HGS = High Gravity Solids

SI Metric Conversion Factors

(°F-32)/1.8 = °C
bbl x 1.589 *E-01 = m³
Lb/gal / 8.345 = SG
lb/bbl * 2.85 = kg/m³
gal/min * 3.785 = L/min

References
1. Oakley, D. “Specially Treated Drilling Fluid Weighting Agent Facilitates Development of Maturing Reservoirs.” AADE-06-DF-HO-
27 , AADE Houston Chapter Fluids Conference, Houston, April 11-12, 2006.
2. Massam, J., Popplestone, A. and Burn, A. “A Unique Technical Solution to Barite Sag in Drilling Fluids.” AADE-04-DF-HO-21,
AADE Houston Chapter Drilling Fluids Technical Conference, Houston, April 6-7, 2004.
3. Records, A. and Sutherland, K. Decanter Centrifuge Handbook. Elsevier (2001).
4. Fromet, T, D., Rodt, G, M., Houwen, O, H., and Titreville, B. “A Drilling Contractor Tests Solids Control Equipment.” SPE 14753,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, February 9-12, 1986.
5. Fimreite, G., Asko, A., Massam, J., Taugbol, K., Omland, T.H., Svanes, K., Kroken, W., and Andreassen, E., “Invert Emulsion Fluids
for Drilling Through Narrow Hydraulic Windows.” SPE 87128, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, March 2-4, 2004.
6. Bolivar, N., Young, J., Dear S., Massam J. and Reid T. “Field Result of Equivalent Circulating Density Reduction with a Low-
Rheology Fluid.” SPE 105487, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 20-22, 2007.
7. Kågeson-Loe, N., Watson, R., Prebensen , O.I., Van Der Zwaag, C. and Taugbøl, K. “Formation-Damage Observations on Oil-Based
Fluid Systems Weighted with Treated Micronized Barite.” SPE 107802, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen,
The Netherlands, May 30 – June 1, 2007.