See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266671122

Lost Circulation Materials Capability of Sealing Wide Fractures

Article · September 2014

DOI: 10.2118/170285-MS

CITATIONS READS
9 706

4 authors:

Mortadha Turki Alsaba Runar Nygaard

Australian College of Kuwait Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
36 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    89 PUBLICATIONS   725 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Arild Saasen Olav-Magnar Nes

Universiy of Stavanger AkerBP
273 PUBLICATIONS   1,141 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Drilling fluid technology View project

CO2 Injection in Unconventional Reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mortadha Turki Alsaba on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-170285-MS

Lost Circulation Materials Capability of Sealing Wide Fractures

Mortadha Alsaba and Runar Nygaard, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Arild Saasen, Det Norske
Oljeselskap ASA and University of Stavanger; Olav-Magnar Nes, Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 10 –11 September 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of 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 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Lost circulation prevention or mitigation is a major challenge while drilling. Conventional lost circulation
materials (LCM) are often implemented to prevent/cure seepage or partial losses. When it comes to severe
losses, often caused by larger fracture sizes, special treatments are being applied. Curing severe losses
with specialized treatments requires more time because some treatments can’t be applied in the presence
of downhole tools, where special equipment and procedures are required. In addition, polymer and cement
treatments require time to be activated or cured after being pumped.
Evaluating the performance of LCM and their effectiveness in sealing wide fractures is required in
conjunction with an optimized LCM combination to ensure their ability in curing losses. This paper
presents investigations about the possibility of sealing relatively large fracture using conventional LCM
instead of the other approaches such as cement or hydratable LCM pills. Two specifically developed
apparatuses were used to optimize LCM combination and investigate their ability in sealing wide fractures
at different pressures. A set of tapered slots that simulate sealable fracture widths with different fracture
aperture (2.5 – 5 mm) and tip sizes (1-2 mm) were used in this study.
A total of 160 tests were conducted to optimize LCM combinations and concentrations in addition to
30 tests to evaluate the integrity of the seal formed under elevated pressures with apparatus capability of
up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa) fracture differential pressure. The effects of varying LCM’s type, concentration,
particle size distribution and fracture width were studied with respect to differential pressure and fluid
loss. The results showed that LCM’s that have irregularity in particles shapes and a degree of deform-
ability such as nut shells are capable of sealing wide fractures when used individually or in combination
with other LCM’s. In addition, a strong relationship between fluid loss values and the seal integrity was
observed, i.e. lower fluid loss, gave higher sealing efficiency.
There is a good potential for conventional LCM’s to be reconsidered as a corrective approach for partial
or severe losses when the proper LCM’s size, type and concentration are selected for a wider range of
fracture widths. Curing losses using conventional LCM’s for a wider range of fractures widths is
advantageous since it can cut time and cost compared to current practices.
2 SPE-170285-MS

Introduction
Lost circulation events, defined as the loss of drilling fluids into the formation, are known to be one of
the most challenging problems to be prevented or mitigated during the drilling phase. In addition, lost
circulation events, because they halter further drilling, are well-known for their contribution toward highly
priced drilling operations. Lost circulation events are often encountered when drilling into cavernous,
vugular, high permeability, naturally fractured formations or as a result of drilling induced tensile failures
(DTIF).
The loss mechanism differs for each candidate formation. On one hand, drilling fluid losses into natural
fractures, cavernous, vugular and high permeability formation are triggered as soon as the drilling fluid
pressure exceeds the pore pressure. On the other hand, losses into induced fractures are initiated when the
drilling fluid pressure exceeds the fracture pressure (Howard and Scott, 1951). The loss rate in bbls/hr is
usually used to define the severity of these events into seepage (1-10 bbls/hr.), partial (10 to 500 bbls/hr.)
and severe (⬎500 bbls/hr.) (Nayberg and Petty, 1986). By identifying the loss severity, proper remedial
action takes place to mitigate or stop the losses. Seepage and partial losses are often cured using
conventional lost circulation materials; however, when it comes to severe or total losses, special
treatments are used.
There are various special treatments that have been introduced to overcome the sever losses incidents,
including but not limited to: cement (Messenger and McNiel, 1952; Messenger, 1981; Morita and Fuh,
1990; Fidan et al. 2004;), chemically activated cross-linked pills (CACP) (Bruton et al. 2001; Caughron
et al. 2002), cross-linked cement (Mata and Veiga, 2004), deformable-viscous-cohesive systems (DVC)
(Whitfill and Wang, 2005; Wang et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2008), nano-composite gel (Lecolier et al. 2005),
gunk squeezes (Bruton et al. 2001; Collins et al. 2010).
Concentrated sand slurries can be applied to reduce lost circulation as discovered by Saasen et al.
(2004). This was observed during initial testing the use of such sand slurries for temporary plug and
abandonment (Saasen et al. 2011). However, this method has so far not been applied actively for curing
lost circulation.
The majority of these treatments require time for preparation, placement or setting. Some of them
require tripping out of the hole to avoid damaging down hole tools or to RIH with an open ended drill
string. For example, gunk treatments require two fluids through the annulus and the BHA and once it is
pumped it will need time for bentonite to hydrate and swell (Savari et al. 2013). Another example is the
cross-linked polymer systems, this type of treatments require time to clean the pits and hydrate the
polymer prior pumping (Whitfill and Wang 2005). In addition to the time requirements for such
treatments, the applied pressure for squeeze techniques is limited by week formations (Soroush et al.
2006). The ability to cure severe losses using conventional LCM is of a great benefit in terms of reducing
the costs and time associated with special treatments.
Evaluating the performance of conventional LCM to investigate their capability of sealing wide
fractures is required prior to field application. Particle plugging apparatus (PPA) and high-pressure
high-temperature (HPHT) fluid loss apparatus are often used to evaluate LCM treatments in mitigating/
curing losses in conjunction with slotted/tapered discs that simulate natural/induced fractures (Kumar and
Savari, 2011; Mostafavi et al. 2011) or ceramic discs that simulate a porous formation. In the experiments,
fluids containing LCM are forced to flow at constant pressure through the discs and the amount of fluid
loss within 30 minutes is measured. Treatments with lower fluid loss values are considered to be the best
in terms of mitigating the losses. However, the fluid loss value is not a good indicator of the formed seal
integrity due to the fact that there is no pressure change acting on the seal when these tests are done. In
reality, the seal is subjected to pressure changes as a result of surge, swap, higher pump rate or higher
ECDs.
SPE-170285-MS 3

Figure 1—(a) Low pressure LCM testing apparatus (LPA), (b) Snug-fit spacer, (c) TS1, (d) TS3, (e) Sealed tapered disc, (f) High pressure LCM testing
apparatus (HPA)

The main objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using conventional LCM to seal wide
fractures in order to avoid the use of special treatments. In addition, a full understanding of the factors
affecting fracture sealing will be established from the comprehensive laboratory evaluation. A new
parameter for evaluating the integrity of the seal formed within the fracture is introduced here to define
the pressure limitation of the formed seal and use it as an indicator to rank LCM treatments along with
fluid loss values.
Laboratory Evaluation of Lost Circulation Materials
LCM’s performance evaluation is a crucial step that involves different factors that contributes to the
overall sealing efficiency. The sealing efficiency of LCM’s is defined here as the maximum pressure at
which the formed seal breaks and fluid starts to flow again through the slotted area. Two specifically
developed apparatuses were used to optimize the combination of LCMs combination and investigate their
ability in sealing wide fractures at different pressures. The effects of varying LCM type, concentration,
particle size distribution and fracture width were studied with respect to differential pressure and fluid loss
volume.
Considered Parameters
The effect of varying the fracture width was investigated by using a set of manufactured tapered discs
(Fig.s 1(c) and 1(d)) that simulate sealable fractures with different fracture aperture (2.5 – 5 mm) and tip
sizes (1-2 mm) (See Table 1).
A simple water-based mud (7% Bentonite in fresh water) was used to avoid the interference of other
additives such as viscosifiers, fluid loss reducers on LCM performance. To study the effect of concen-
tration, two different LCM concentrations were used. A total LCM’s concentration of 15 ppb (5.26 kg/m3)
and 50 ppb (17.5 kg/m3) were used to represent continuous treatments and concentrated pills, respectively.
These two concentrations were used only for individual LCM’s treatments. For combinations, three blends
of LCM’s were selected from previous studies to benchmark our results.
In order to study the effect of particle size distribution (PSD) on the sealing efficiency, 4 different
formulations for each LCM type and total concentration were tested. Table 2 shows the percentage of total
concentration of each LCM to formulate any given case when used individually or in combinations. For
4 SPE-170285-MS

Table 1—Tapered Discs Specifications

Diameter Thickness Fracture Aperture Fracture Tip

in mm in mm microns mm microns mm

TS1 2.5 63.5 0.25 6.35 2500 2.5 1000 1.0

TS2 2.5 63.5 0.25 6.35 3000 3.0 1500 1.5
TS3 2.5 63.5 0.25 6.35 4000 4.0 2000 2.0
TS4 2.5 63.5 0.25 6.35 5000 5.0 2000 2.0

Table 2—LCM’s Concentration and PSD when used individually or in combinations

example, to mix 1 bbl for a 15 ppb case#1 using graphite only, the formulation will be 3 ppb (D50 ⫽ 50
microns), 3 ppb (D50 ⫽ 100 microns), 4.5 ppb (D50 ⫽ 400 microns), and 4.5 ppb (D50 ⫽ 1000 microns)
respectively. Case#1 has the widest range of particle sizes (Fine, medium and coarse) and as the case
number increases, the amount of coarser particles increases.
Prior to running the sealing efficiency experiments, a set of tests were run using different LCM’s at
different concentrations and particle size distribution using the low pressure testing apparatus (LPA)
shown in Fig. 1(a). The main objective of these tests is to serve as a screening stage in order to exclude
the ones that didn’t establish a seal (Fig. 1(e)) at low pressure from being tested at higher pressures. After
the screening phase, the formulation that gave the best results in term of the fluid loss were tested at higher
pressures to evaluate their sealing efficiency using the high pressure apparatus (HPA) shown in Fig. 1(f).
Experimental Setup
The low pressure apparatus design was simply modified from the standard API filter press. The same
concept of applying a constant pressure of 100 psi (0.69 MPa) was also implemented. A snug-fit spacer,
shown in Fig. 1(b), was manufactured to serve as a holder for the tapered discs. The test can be simply
run by filling the cell with the fluid containing LCM’s and then slowly apply a 100 psi to force the fluid
to flow through the tapered disc until no more fluid is coming out. The two most important parameters
here are the fluid loss volume and the shut off time. These two qualitative parameters can tell if the
concentration, PSD is able to seal a specific fracture width. The LPA is a simple, quick indicative
measurement of LCM’s performance and based on its results, further investigation at higher pressure can
be investigated using the HPA.
SPE-170285-MS 5

Figure 2—Pressure vs. Time Plot for Test #6 (50 ppb Graphite using TS1 with 2.5mm aperture and 1mm tip)

The high pressure apparatus was designed and manufactured to be capable of holding pressures up to
10,000 psi (69 MPa). The experimental setup consist of 4 main components labeled on Fig. 1(f); (I) a
plastic accumulator used to transfer the drilling fluids to the metal accumulator, (II) a metal accumulator
used to inject the drilling fluids into the cell, (III) testing cell that is capable of holding pressures up to
10,000 psi, and (IV) Isco™ pump (DX100) used for fluid injection and is connected to a computer for data
logging.
The test is run by injecting fluids containing LCM’s at a flow rate of 25 ml/min until a rapid increase
in the injection pressure is observed. This increase indicates the seal formation. Once the seal has formed,
a fluid containing no LCM is injected continuously until the sealing efficiency is reached. A significant
drop in the pressure is observed as a result of breaking the seal. However, the test is repeated as cycles
until no further seal can be formed. The reason for repeating the cycles is to ensure that the sealing
efficiency or in other words the seal integrity is repeatable.
Fig. 2 below shows a sample of the HPA test results using 50 ppb graphite to seal a 1000-micron
tapered disc. It is clear that every time the seal breaks, LCM’s particles tend to re-form the seal and reach
almost the same sealing pressure.

Low Pressure Apparatus Results Summary

The LPA was used as a simple, fast reliable test to ensure the selected LCM type and concentration will
seal a specific fracture width. A total of 160 tests were conducted to optimize LCM combinations and
concentration. The results are tabulated below for both individual LCMs and LCM mixtures (Tables 3 and
4). A cut off value of 100 ml was used in all the testing, i.e. if fluid loss value goes over 100 ml, it is said
to be non-controlled (NC). For single LCM testing, four different formulations for each LCM type
(graphite, CaCO3, nut shells, and cellulosic fibers) were tested individually at two different concentrations
(15 and 50 ppb).
Graphite and sized CaCO3 blends were investigated at two different concentrations, 30 ppb (10.5
kg/m3) and 80 ppb (28 kg/m3) to follow the recommendations by Aston et al. (2004). Graphite and nut
shells blends were tested at the concentrations of 20 and 40 ppb (7 and 14 kg/m3 respectively) as suggested
by Hettema et al. (2007). A 55-ppb (19.3 kg/m3) blends combining graphite, CaCO3, and cellulosic fiber
were also investigated following Kumar et al. (2011).
From the screening tests results, the best blends in terms of low fluid loss were selected for further
evaluation using the HPA. Nut shells blends were the only LCM capable of sealing TS3 and TS4 when
used individually and therefore, all the other individual blends were excluded from being tested using TS3
and TS4. Because none of the LCM’s mixtures were able to seal TS3 and TS4 except the one with nut
shells at 40 ppb, all other mixtures were also excluded from being evaluated using TS3 and TS4.
6 SPE-170285-MS

Table 3—LPA Fluid Loss Results in (ml) for Individual LCM

Table 4 —LPA Fluid Loss Results in (ml) for LCM Combinations

High Pressure Apparatus Results Summary

A total of 30 tests to evaluate the integrity of the seal formed under elevated pressures were conducted
using the HPA. The results are summarized in Table 5. The fluid loss values from the screening tests were
included within the table to show how they are comparable with the fluid loss per cycle values. Random
tests were repeated to ensure the repeatability of the results. Some fluid loss per cycle values were
significantly higher than the LPA values and this is due to the porous seal resulting from high
concentration of larger particles.
Results and Discussion
In order to understand the effect of the particle size distribution, the results were grouped in terms of the
concentration (15 and 50 ppb) and the fracture width (TS1-TS4). The x-axis represents the four different
LCMs at different formulations used in the tests and the y-axis represents the measured fluid loss in ml.
Fig. 3(a) show the effect of particle size distribution (PSD) using a total LCM concentration of 15 ppb
to seal a 1000-micron fracture. It is clear that PSD has a huge influence on the amount of fluid lost prior
forming a seal. The lowest fluid loss values were observed when case # 1 formulations of graphite, nut
shells, and cellulosic fiber were used.
As the amount of coarser particles increased in the blends, the fluid loss increased. However, this was
not the case when sized CaCO3 was used due to fact that the finer particles were relatively small with a
D50 values ranging from 5-50 microns. Larger CaCO3 particles where required to form a seal (Cases #
3 and 4). Case # 2 using cellulosic fiber showed a significant fluid loss increase because the D50 was not
enough to form a seal within a 1000 micron fracture. However, when the PSD was increased from 300
to 1000 micron (Case # 3), the fluid loss dropped dramatically.
SPE-170285-MS 7

Table 5—Summary of HPA Testing Results (Note: * for repeated tests)

High Pressure Testing

Total LPA Fluid Total Avg. Fluid

Concn. Loss Max Sealing Pressure Fluid Loss Loss/Cycle
Tapered LCM
Test # Disc Type lb/bbl Case # ml psi MPa ml ml/cycle

1 TSI NS 15 1 4 984 6.8 14 3.5

2 G 15 1 9 414 2.9 50 8.3
3 CF 15 1 12 800 5.5 47 11.8
4 CF 50 1 0 2160 14.9 1 0.5
4* CF 50 1 0 2925 20.2 33 1.7
5 NS 50 1 2 2202 15..2 8 2.0
5* NS 50 1 2 2010 13.9 81 27.0
6 G 50 1 7 449 3.1 53 7.6
7 SCC 50 3 10 589 4.1 93 13.3
8 G & SCC 80 1 2 584 4.0 15 2.5
9 G, SCC & 55 1 2 1011 7.0 28 4.7
CF
10 G & NS 20 1 4 2372 16.4 34 3.1
11 G & SCC 30 1 5 487 3.4 29 4.1
12 G & NS 40 1 5 2892 19.9 24 2.4
13 TS2 NS 15 1 12 1754 12.1 59 11.8
14 NS 50 1 7 2027 14.0 96 19.2
14* NS 50 1 7 2266 15.6 83 27.6
15 CF 50 1 4 1229 8.5 75 4.4
16 SCC 50 3 13 162 1.1 94 31.3
17 G & NS 40 1 7 1713 11.8 35 3.0
18 G & SCC 80 1 8 224 1.5 59 8.4
19 G & NS 20 1 8 805 5.6 71 10.1
20 G, SCC & 55 1 13 391 2.7 85 14.2
CF
21 TS3 NS 15 1 45 347 2.4 93 31.0
22 NS 50 1 15 2237 15.4 95 95.0
22* NS 50 1 15 2242 15.5 92 92.0
23 G & NS 40 1 56 295 2.0 95 32.0
24 TS4 NS 15 1 38 441 3.0 98 24.5
25 NS 50 1 15 755 5.2 73 18.3
26 G & NS 40 1 33 242 1.7 85 42.5

* Repeated Tests

When the total LCM concentration was increased to 50 ppb, the trend was found to be slightly different
as can be seen in Figure 3(b). In general, blends with a wide range of particle sizes exhibited the lowest
fluid loss for all the LCM’s except for CaCOs (Case#1).
Despite the fact that increasing the concentration will reduce the fluid loss volume, a negative effect
on the fluid loss took place as shown in Fig. 3(b) when case # 4 was used for both graphite and nut shells.
When larger particles were the only particles within the blend, the fluid loss increased due to two factors;
larger particles accumulated at the fracture face, which resulted in creating a very permeable porous
medium, and not having fine particles to fill the smaller pores between the larger particles.
When the fracture width was increased from 1000 to 1500 microns as shown in Fig. 4(a), a significant
increase in the fluid loss volume was observed. The similarity in the observed trends suggests a strong
relationship between PSD and sealing capability, therefore, an optimized PSD is required. Again when the
concentration was increased to 50 ppb as shown in Fig. 4(b), a significant reduction in the fluid loss was
observed. However, some cases exhibited the negative increased permeability effect mentioned above.
8 SPE-170285-MS

Figure 3—The Effect of PSD on Fluid Loss Using TS1 at (a) Low LCM’s Conc. (b) High LCM’s Conc.

Figure 4 —The Effect of PSD on Fluid Loss Using TS2 at (a) Low LCM’s Conc. (b) High LCM’s Conc.

Based on the LPA results, it is suggested that the largest particle size to be used for a specific fracture
width be equal or slightly larger than the anticipated fracture width.
The overall performance of LCMs when used individually or in combinations in terms of the sealing
pressures and average fluid loss per cycle is presented in Fig.s 5-7 for each fracture width. The results are
plotted and circled in groups as high to low performance. Cellulosic fiber, nut shells, and blends of
graphite and nut shells performed the best in sealing different fracture widths (Fig. 5). However, the
cellulosic fiber performance was reduced when the fracture widths were increased. Use of blends
containing graphite and sized CaCO3 did not result in high sealing pressure. The low performance of
graphite is due to the fact that graphite particles will have lower friction among themselves which will add
some sort of lubricity and as a result, the formed seals will have lower integrity.
When the same LCM’s and concentrations were evaluated for a slightly wider fracture (Fig. 6), blends
containing nut shells were able to seal the fracture with sealing pressures similar to those observed using
TS1, however, more fluid loss was observed and this indicates that de-fluidization is required for wide
fractures to be sealed. The sealing pressure for blends containing 50 ppb cellulosic fiber was reduced with
43% from 2160 to 1229 psi. The sealing pressure of cellulosic fiber, compared to that of nut shells, was
significantly affected by the PSD; specially affected by the D50 value of the largest particles used.
When the fracture width was increased above 1500 microns, both single and LCM mixture blends
failed to establish a seal within the fractures except for the ones containing nut shells (Tables 3 and 4).
SPE-170285-MS 9

Figure 5—Overall Performance of LCM using 1mm tapered disc (TS1); (a) Higher sealing pressures were observed at lower fluid loss values <5 ml
at small fracture widths, (b) Screen out at the fracture mouth caused higher fluid loss, (c) Lower seal integrity with relatively higher fluid loss value
for some tests.

Figure 6 —Overall Performance of LCM using 1.5mm tapered disc (TS2); (a) High sealing pressures in conjunction with low fluid loss values due
to the wide range of PSD, (b) High sealing pressures were observed for NS at higher fluid loss values >10 ml (De-fluidization was required to form
a strong seal), (c) Moderate sealing pressure and fluid loss values, (d) Very low sealing pressure as well as high fluid loss for SCC.

Figure 7—Overall Performance of LCM’s using 2mm tapered d iscs (TS3 & TS4); (a) Higher fluid loss values were required to seal the fracture with
a relatively moderate sealing pressures, (b) High sealing pressures were observed for NS at very higher fluid loss values (De-fluidization was required
to form a strong seal for fractures wider than 1 mm)
10 SPE-170285-MS

The failure of these blends to seal fracture larger than 1500 microns demonstrates clearly the significance
of the largest particle size to be used for a specific treatment. Nut shells were the only LCM with D50
value greater than 1500 micron. When those blends were evaluated for wider fractures (TS3 and TS4)
using the HPA, the sealing pressure using TS3 for 50 ppb nut shells (Fig. 7) was relatively similar to those
observed using TS1 and TS2 but with much higher fluid loss values. This shows that nut shells blends
were not affected by the increase of the fracture width when used individually. However, when nut shells
were combined with graphite, a significant reduction of 41% on the sealing pressure was observed after
the fracture width was increased from 1000 to 1500 microns. A favorable increase in the sealing pressure
and a decrease in the fluid loss were observed for some tests when the fracture aperture was increased.

Conclusion
This paper presents an evaluation of different LCM types for sealing fractures. In this includes the
development of two testing apparatuses to be used as a tool to optimize and evaluate the performance of
LCM in sealing fracture as well as measuring the sealing efficiency of LCM. The performance of
commonly used conventional LCM was evaluated at different concentrations and PSD using a set of
tapered discs that simulates fractures. A total of 160 tests were conducted using the LPA in order to
optimize the PSD prior running a total of 30 tests using the HPA to investigate the seal integrity. The
effects of varying LCM type, concentration, particle size distribution and fracture width were studied with
respect to maximum differential pressure across the formed seal and fluid loss. From the testing results,
the following was concluded:
● Fibrous materials showed the best performance among all other conventional LCM in terms of
sealing the fractures and maintaining the integrity of the formed seal within the fractures.
● The superior performance of fibrous materials is believed to be due to the wide range of particle
sizes as well as the physical properties of fibrous materials such as the irregularity in particles
shapes and the degree of deformability they have.
● The effect of PSD on fracture sealing is a very significant; therefore optimizing the distribution of
particles sizes is the key for successful treatment.
● Even though granular materials such as CaCO3 and graphite formed a seal when used individually,
the seal integrity was relatively low compared to fibrous materials.
● The results showed that LCM that have irregularity in particles shapes and a degree of deform-
ability such as nut shells are capable of both sealing wide fractures and maintaining a good seal
integrity when used individually or in combination with other LCM.
● In general, it was observed that higher LCM concentration gave better results; however, there is
a critical maximum concentration at which LCM will not penetrate the fracture and no tight seal
will be formed.
● The results revealed a strong relationship between fluid loss values and the sealing efficiency, i.e.
lower fluid loss, gave higher sealing efficiency for fractures up to 1 mm.
● For fracture widths wider than 1 mm, higher fluid loss is required for a strong seal to be
established.
● Our results for the selected LCM combinations are in agreement with previous studies.
There is a good potential for conventional LCM’s to be reconsidered as a corrective approach when the
proper LCM’s size, type and concentration is selected for a wider range of fracture widths. The ability to
cure losses using conventional LCM’s for a wider range of fractures widths is very beneficial in terms of
cutting both time and cost related to specialized treatments.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA for the financial support under
SPE-170285-MS 11

research agreement # 0037709; Jason Scorsone from Halliburton for his valuable support; Mike Bassett
from Missouri University of Science and Technology for his assistance in manufacturing the testing
apparatuses.

Nomenclature
BHA ⫽ Bottom Hole Assembly
CACP ⫽ Chemically Activated Cross-linked Pills
CF ⫽ Cellulosic fiber
DITF ⫽ Drilling Induced Tensile Failure
DVC ⫽ Deformable, Viscous, and Cohesive Systems
ECD ⫽ Equivalent Circulation Density
G ⫽ Graphite
HPA ⫽ High Pressure Apparatus
HPHT ⫽ High-Pressure High-Temperature fluid loss
LCM ⫽ Lost Circulation Materials
LPA ⫽ Low Pressure Apparatus
NC ⫽ Non Controlled Fluid Loss
NS ⫽ Nut Shells
PPA ⫽ Particle Plugging Apparatus
PPB ⫽ Pounds per Barrels
PSD ⫽ Particle Size Distribution
RIH ⫽ Run In Hole
SCC ⫽ Sized calcium carbonate
SS ⫽ Straight Slot
TS ⫽ Tapered Slot

References
Aston, M. S., Alberty, M. W., McLean, M. R., de Jong, H. J., and Armagost, K. 2004. “Drilling Fluids
for Wellbore Strengthening”. SPE 87130, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 2-4 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87130-MS
Bruton, J. R., Ivan, C. D., and Heinz, T. J. 2001. “Lost Circulation Control: Evolving Techniques and
Strategies to Reduce Downhole Mud Losses”. SPE 67735, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 27 February-1 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67735-MS
Caughron, D. E., Renfrow, D. K., Bruton, J. R., Ivan, C. D., Broussard, P. N., Bratton, T. R., and
Standifird, W. B. 2002. “Unique Crosslinking Pill in Tandem with Fracture Prediction Model Cures
Circulation Losses in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico”. SPE 74518, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Texas, USA, 26-28 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74518-MS
Collins, N., Whitfill, D., Kharitonov, A., and Miller, M. 2010. “Comprehensive Approach to Severe
Loss Circulation Problems in Russia”. SPE 135704, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135704-MS
Fidan, E., Babadagli, T., and Kuru, E. 2004. “Use of Cement as Lost-Circulation Material: Best
Practices”. PETSOC-2004-090, Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 8-10
June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2004-090
Hettema, M. Horsrud, P. Taugbol, K. Friedheim, J. Huynh, H. Sanders, M. W. and Young, S. 2007.
“Development of an Innovative High-Pressure Testing Device for the Evaluation of Drilling Fluid
Systems and Drilling Fluid Additives within Fractured Permeable Zones”. 0MC-2007-082, Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 28-30 March.
 12 SPE-170285-MS

Howard, G. C., and Scott, P. P. 1951. “An Analysis and the Control of Lost Circulation”. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. Vol. 3, pp. 171–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/951171-G
Kumar, A., and Savari, S. 2011. “Lost Circulation Control and Wellbore Strengthening: Looking
Beyond Particle Size Distribution”. AADE-11 NTCE-21, AADE National Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 12-14 April.
Kumar, A., Savari, S., Jamison, D. E., and Whitfill, D. 2011. “Application of Fiber Laden Pill for
Controlling Lost Circulation in Natural Fractures”. AADE-11 NTCE-21, AADE National Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 12-14 April.
Lecolier, E., Herzhaft, B., Rousseau, L., Neau, L., Quillien, B., and Kieffer, J. 2005. “Development
of a Nanocomposite Gel for Lost Circulation Treatment”. SPE 94686, SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94686-MS
Mata, F., and Veiga, M. 2004. “Crosslinked Cements Solve Lost Circulation Problems”. SPE 90496,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/90496-MS
Messenger, J. 1981. Lost Circulation. PennWell Corp., Tulsa.
Messenger, J. U., and McNiel, J. S. 1952. “Lost Circulation Corrective: Time-Setting Clay Cement”.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 59 –64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148-G
Morita, N., Black, A. D., and Fuh, G-F. 1990. “Theory of Lost Circulation Pressure”. SPE 20409, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 23-26 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/20409-MS
Mostafavi, V., Hareland, G., Belayneh, M. and Aadnoy, B. S. 2011. “Experimental and Mechanistic
Modeling of Fracture Sealing Resistance with Respect to Fluid and Fracture Properties”, ARMA 11-198,
45th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, USA, 26-29 June.
Nayberg, T. M. and Petty, B. R. 1986. “Laboratory Study of Lost Circulation Materials for use in Both
Oil-base and Water-base Drilling Muds”. SPE Drilling Engineering. Vol. 2, pp. 229 –236. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/14723-PA
Saasen, A., Godey, R., Breivik, D.H., Solvang, S.A., Svindland, A., Gausel, E., and Frayland, K. 2004.
“Concentrated Solid Suspension as an Alternative to Cements for Temporary Abandonment Applications
in Oil Wells”. SPE SA-34, SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
15-17 May.
Saasen, A, Wold, S, Ribesen, B.T., Tran, T.N., Huse, A., Rygg, V., Grannes, I., and Svindland, A.
2011. “Permanent Abandonment of a North Sea Well Using Unconsolidated Well Plugging Material”.
SPE Drilling and Completions. Vol. 26, pp. 371–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133446-PA
Savari, S., Whitfill, D. L., and Scorsone, J. T. 2013. “Next-Generation, Right-Angle-Setting Com-
position for Eliminating Total Lost Circulation”. SPE 166697, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Tech-
nology Conference & Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 7-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/166697-MS
Soroush, H., Sampaio, J. H. B., and Nakagawa, E. Y. 2006. “Investigation into Strengthening Methods
for Stabilizing Wellbores in Fractured Formations”. SPE 101802, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/101802-MS
Wang, H., Sweatman, R. E., Engelman, R. E., Deeg, W. F. J., and Whitfill, D. L. 2005. “The Key to
Successfully Applying Today’s Lost Circulation Solutions”. SPE 95895, SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95895-MS
Wang, H., Sweatman, R. E., Engelman, R., Deeg, W. F. J., Whitfill, D. L., Soliman, M. Y., and
Towler, B. F. 2008. “Best Practice in Understanding and Managing Lost Circulation Challenges”. SPE
Drilling & Completion, Vol. 23, pp. 168 –175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95895-PA
Whitfill, D. L., and Wang, H. 2005. “Making Economic Decisions To Mitigate Lost Circulation”. SPE
95561, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/95561-MS

View publication stats