ARMA 11- 502

Testing and Evaluation Techniques for Drilling Fluids-Shale

Fluids Interaction
and Shale Stability
Friedheim, J., Guo, Q., Young, S., and Gomez, S.
M-I SWACO,, Houston, TX 77072, USA

Copyright 2011 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, June 26–29,
2011.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical cri review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
pos of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written conse
consent of ARMA
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 acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Wellbore instability caused by the failure of shale formations represents a major challenge
cha to
drilling in the oil and gas industry. Incompatibilities of drilling fluids and shale formations are often the root
cause of shale instability or wellbore instability. The most common and effective solution to shale instability
is through drilling fluids design and selection, although drilling fluids-shale
fluids shale interaction and shale stability are
complex and not well understood. There is no single testing or modeling method to solve this complex shale
instability problem. Addressing drilling fluids and shale interaction requires a holistic approach.

Geomechanics engineers and mud engineers have the same goal of minimizing shale instability by selecting
the optimum mud weight and chemistry, but their methods of addressing shale instability are quite different.
dif
This paper highlights and shares with geomechanics engineers some of the important laboratory and well-site
well
testing techniques that are often used by mud engineers for characterizing and remediating drilling fluids and
shale interaction. Each testing
ng technique is effective and useful in eliminating or confirming one single
attribute of fluids-shale
shale interactions. When these test results are put together, they give a more complete
picture and the root cause of shale instability and thus a potential solution
solution options.
options

Many of the problems associated with the use of drilling

1. INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability arguably is the most prevalent
underlying cause of non-productive
productive time during well
construction. While a number of parameters affect
wellbore instability, the mud density and chemistry
invariably play the major role. The optimum mud
weights are often based on geomechanics wellbore
stability modeling studies by geomechanics engineers,
engineers
while the mud type and chemistry are selected based on
fluids performance lab testing and environmental
compliance considerations by mud engineers. engineers
Geomechanical wellbore stability studies generate
boundaries for operating mud weight windows and
recommended mud weight strategies, based on analyses
of offset log data, well histories, and rock mechanics
models.. Drilling fluids or mud engineers perform a suite
of lab tests to evaluate drilling fluids performance,
mostly to evaluate shale-fluids
fluids interaction and shale
stability, and to recommend the optimum drilling fluids
chemistry and formulations for the mud program.
fluids type and chemistry are caused by incompatibilities
between the drilling fluids and the shale formations
encountered. These incompatibilities can result iin
washouts, poor penetration rates, increased drilling costs
due to solids handling, rig time, dilution requirements,
shale sloughing, borehole encroachment and other
wellbore instability events.
events Drilling fluids-shale
interaction and shale stability are co
complex and not well
understood,, although there are many published model
studies [1-5] and laboratory techniques and studies [6-8].
Various lab testing techniques have been developed in
the literature to address or screen the above stated issues.
issues
Each testing g technique is developed to characterize or
evaluate a single attribute about the shale-fluidshale
interactions,, and many of these tests are often
qualitative, rather than quantitative. There is no single
testing or modeling method to solve this complex shale
instability problem. Addressing drilling fluids and shale
interaction requires a holistic approach.
2. MOTIVATIONS
Geomechanics and drilling fluids engineers have the
same goal of minimizing wellbore or shale instability by
selecting the optimum mud weight and chemistry,
although their methods of addressing shale instability are
different. The method used by geomechanics engineers
for studying shale-fluids interaction and their impact on
wellbore stability is to model ionic transport effects on
the pore pressure and stresses in shales, and fluids
effects on shale strength. These models have more than a
dozen modeling parameters and many of them are either
not available or difficult to obtain [1-5]. When there are
too many modeling parameters and we cannot measure
them with reliably and confidently, then we have to rely
strongly on model calibrations with experimental or field
data in order to make the model practical and useful for
well-site engineers.
On the other hand, drilling fluids or mud engineers are
wellbore stability “experts” in the sense that they have a
long history of recommending proper mud weights,
rheology and chemistries even before the level of
technology and information required for today’s critical
wells was available. Their techniques for addressing
wellbore stability issues are testing-based, rather than
model-based. Most of the testing techniques are simple
but effective and useful in eliminating or confirming one
single attribute of fluids-shale interactions. However,
when the test results of various tests are put together,
they give a more complete picture, which often points
the mud engineers to the root cause or right direction of
shale instability and thus a potential solution options.
It is useful for geomechanics engineers to understand the
approaches and tools used by the mud engineers and
vice versa. It is the objectives of this paper to overview
the various lab testing techniques used by mud engineers
to evaluate shale-fluids interaction for recommending
the optimum mud chemistry and additives to mitigate
shale instability problems.
3. SHALE SAMPLE SELECTION AND
CHARACTERIZATION
The testing shale sample can be from the field specific
troublesome formation(s), outcrop shales of similar
mineralogy, or synthetic shale depending on the
availability of shale samples and the purpose of the tests.
Under ideal situations, the use of a correctly preserved
shale core sample would provide the most accurate
information. Such samples are very rare due to the high
cost involved in obtaining these. Next in line would be
the use of large cavings returned from wellbore
instability issues associated with these formations. These
can yield shale pieces large enough to conduct some of
the more advanced testing and also have an inner area of
shale that has had minimal exposure to the drilling fluid
used. Shale cuttings taken from formations while drilling
the well can also be used for some tests. The advantage
of outcrop shales and synthetic shale is that they provide
a very consistent shale matrix for comparison testing.
This is important during the development phase of
drilling fluids chemistry and formulations when we
focus on one issue at a time.
3.1. Shale Sample Characterizations
Shale characterization tests are part of the shale-fluids
interaction studies to understand the geologic features of
the shale formations and relate the characteristics with
the different behaviors of the shale samples in fluids.
The following methods for shale sample analyses and
characterizations should be considered and performed
whenever possible:
 Macroscopic Examination: Careful examination
and identification of bedding structures,
fractures, burrows, color and consolidation.
 Thin Section Analysis: Examination of thin
sections with optical microscope for
examination and identification of texture,
microfractures, organic materials, mechanical
support and bedding structure.
 X-Ray Diffraction: Identification of the minerals
in the shale sample using x-ray diffraction
patterns unique for each mineral, particularly for
the reactive minerals.
 Scanning Electron Microscopy: Three
dimensional observations of texture, minerals
and organic materials, micro fracture, pores and
cementations.
 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): Measures the
exchangeable cations present on clay minerals.
The CEC value is an indicator of the reactivity
level and it is closely related with the content of
highly reactive clays minerals such as Smectite.
 Water Activity: Measures the chemical potential
for water transfer between the shale and drilling
fluids. This is the basis for designing balanced-
activity drilling fluids. There are a number of
techniques for measuring water activity of shale
sample; one of the methods is to measure the
relative humidity of an enclosed space
containing the shale sample.
4. CONVENTIONAL DRILLING FLUIDS AND
SHALE INTERACTION TESTS
The following tests are the conventional fluids and shale
interaction tests performed either at the lab or the well-
site. The shale samples can be cavings, cuttings or cores.
4.1. Shale Hydration Test
The Shale Hydration Test (SHT) provides insights into
the fundamental potential for additives to inhibit or
suppress the adsorption of water into reactive shale.
Adsorption of water into shale results in several
destabilizing effects including shale swelling, dispersion
or sloughing and thus leading to shale instability for both
wellbore and drill cutting.
This test procedure uses pint or liter jars that are filled
with one barrel equivalent of tap water (350 ml) and
10.5 lb/bbl (10.5 g) of an organic shale hydration
inhibition agent (an appropriate amount of inorganic salt
can be substituted). Neat tap water is used as a control
sample. All samples are adjusted to at least a pH of 9.5
with hydrochloric acid and treated with a 10 ppb (1 (10 g)
portion of API bentonite at a medium sheer rate. After
stirring for 30 minutes, the samples are heat aged
overnight at 150° F. After the samples are cooled, their
rheologies are recorded at ambientent temperature using a
Fann 35 Rheometer. The process of adding an addition
10 ppb (10 g) of API bentonite is repeated and this
procedure is carried out for each sample until all are too
The fluid and shale are rolled together in a roller oven
(typically for 16 hours at a temperature of 150° F).
Following cooling to room temperature, the fluid is
poured out over a sieve (typically 1 mm mesh), and the
shale pieces
eces remaining are recovered, washed, weighed,
dried overnight at 210° F and reweighed. The moisture
content of the shale and the percentage recovery of the
shale are determined. The relative inhibition levels of
fluids can be crudely determined using this test method –
fluids that provide a higher level of recovery are deemed
to protect against shale dispersion, and those that
minimize the uptake of water by the shale are deemed to
be more protective towards
owards shale hydration. Figure 2
illustrates with representative
sentative data the comparative
effects that can be seen using different fluid
fluids.
Dispersion Test Nigeria Shale
90.8

thick to measure. Figure 1 illustrates with representative 100

73.6
data the effect that an organic shale hydration inhibition
Recovery %

80 59.05

displayss in repressing the yield of the bentonite

bentonite, which 60 37.25
34.5
thus indicates the suppression of hydration.
hydration
40

160 20
Base fluid
140 KCl 0
Yield Point (lb/100 sq ft)

120 Shale inhibitor #1 DI Water CaCl2 NaCl NaCl/KCl NaCl/KCl/Amine

Fluids
Shale Inhibitor #2
100

80 Fig. 2 An example of hot rroll dispersion test results.

60
40
20
0 test exposes the shale to a harsher, more abrasive
0 20 40
Bentonite (lb/bbl)
Fig. 1 An example
xample of shale hydration test results.
4.2. Hot Rolling Dispersion Test
This test is designed to simulate the action of cuttings
being circulated up the wellbore annulus. The test is
often performed using cavings and cuttings.
cuttings The test
involves exposing a weighed quantity (typically 20
grams) of sized shale pieces to a formulated fluid in a
conventional roller oven cell. The test provides a long-
long
term exposure of the shale to the fluid under mild
agitation conditions. Under such conditions,
disintegration of the shale pieces into the fluid will occur
depending on the tendency of the shale to disperse and
the inhibitive characteristics of the fluid. The rheological
properties of the fluid can highly influence the test
results by altering the amount of agitation in the rolling
phase. For these tests, the rheological parameters of each
fluid tested should be designed to be similar to minimize
any inaccuracies in cross-fluid
fluid comparisons.
comparisons
4.3. Slake Durability Test
This test, which is very similar to the hot rolling
dispersion test, iss designed to evaluate the effectiveness
of the encapsulation properties of a drilling fluid.
fluid This
60 80 100 120
environment than the hot-roll
hot dispersion test. The
difference is that the Slake Durability Test is designed to
simulate the action of cuttings being circulated up the
wellbore annulus. The test is often performed using
cavings, and cuttings. The test involves placing a
weighed quantity (typically 30 g of sized shale pieces
(typically 4 to 6 mm) in a wire mesh cage, which is i
placed into a roller motor clamp and partially submerged
into a formulated
rmulated fluid in a test cell (Figure
(F 3). The cage
with cuttings is rotated through the fluid for a 4-hour
4
period at room temperature. During rolling, any sensitive
shale will tend to hydrate,
ate, break up and disperse, passing
through the cage screen. Again the rheological properties
of the fluid can highly influence the test results by
altering the amount of agitation in the rolling phase. For
these tests, the rheological parameters of each ffluid
tested should be designed to be similar to minimize any
inaccuracies in cross-fluid
fluid comparisons
comparisons.
 Bulk Hardness Test
African Shale Formation
250

200

Torque ( inch-lb)
150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Turns
Fig. 3 A Slake Durability Test appratus.
appratus K Acetate/Polymer Fluid Oil base fluid Base Polymer system

4.4. Bulk Hardness Test

The bulk hardness test is designed to give an assessment
of the relative hardness of shale following exposure to a
test fluid. The hardness of the shale can be related to the
inhibitive propertiess of the fluid being evaluated as the
shale that exhibits a tendency to adsorb liquid from a test
fluid will become softer.
In this test, sized shale pieces
eces (typically 30 g) are added
to the test fluid in a conventional roller oven cell and are
then hot rolled in the test fluid for typically 16 hours at
150°F. After hot rolling, the shale pieces are recovered
on a 1-mmmm sieve, washed gently with brine to rremove
excess fluid and then placed into the bulk hardness tester
(Figure 4). The shale is extruded through a perforated
plate using a torque wrench that permits measuring the
maximum torque required for each turn in compression.
Harder shale pieces will give ve higher torque readings.
When evaluating different fluid types and inhibition
mechanisms, this test will typically give greater
information on the relative levels of hydration
suppression. It is also possible to run this test on the
native (unexposed) shale,ale, to allow a comparison of the
effects of fluid exposure on the hardness of the shale.
Figure 5 illustrates with representative data the
comparative effects that can be seen using three different
fluid types.
Fig. 5 An example of bulk hardness test results.
results
4.5 Swelling Test
The linear swelling tester measures free swelling of a
reconstituted shale pellet after the shale has been in
contact with drilling fluids. The amount of swelling
that the shale undergoes es after it is in contact with the
fluid is a measure of the reactivity of the shale to the
fluids. The pellets are prepared by compression of dry
ground material using a hydraulic press. The initial
thickness of the pellet is entered in the computer
program and then the sample is placed under a sensor
that will send the data to the computer to calculate the
percent linear expansion during the fluid exposure time.
The swelling mechanisms in shale samples are related to
the content of expandable clay mineral such as smectite
and mixed layers. The results of this test are associated
mainly with the direct chemical interaction
interac of the clay
minerals uniformly distributed in the pellet and the
fluids. Changes and d effects of the fluids in the structural
features of the rock samples are not evaluated using this
technique because the pellets do not replicate the
distribution of the
he minerals and the natural
natu structure of
the rock. Figure
igure 6 shows a graph with the swelling
profiles of a shale sample in different fluids.
fluids

Fig. 4 A Slake Durability Test appratus.

appratus
 and thin sections. The inhibition efficiency of the testing
Swelling Test
Middle East Shale formation fluids is related directly with the control of the
40 propagation of fractures and development of new
35 fractures in the piece of core.
30
Expasion %

25
Freshwater noninhibited system
20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time ( min)
26% NaCl 19.2 % wt NaCOOH 3% v/v Amine in water

Fig. 6 An example of shale swelling test results.

5. SPECIAL DRILLING FLUIDS AND SHALE

Silicate inhibited system
INTERACTION TESTS

5.1. Shale Fracture Development Test

The shale fracture development test was developed to
evaluate the interaction of low-reactive or hard-
consolidated shale formations that tend to crack and
fracture when they contact the fluids [7]. The method
integrates the time-lapsed photography to track the
development of fractures in core pieces and post-testing
thin section analyses to compare the changes in the
micro-structure of the rock pieces exposed to different
fluids. The test can be conducted at different
temperatures and the exposure time ranges from 24
hours to few days. Long-term exposures up to 3 - 4
weeks may be required for samples with very low Salt/Amine inhibited system
reactivity. This test is conducted preferentially with
well-preserved core samples for qualitative and
quantitative comparison of the changes in the network of
fractures during and after the fluid exposure.
Observation of the behavior of the samples in the fluids
and the post-thin section analyses helps to identify the
weak areas where the samples tend to fail. These areas
could be related with presence of clay-rich beddings,
thin laminated structures preexisting fractures,
slickenside, boundary zones and other natural features in
the formations. The fracture development test is a
relatively simple technique that can be used to assess the Fig. 7 An example of shale fracture development test
reactivity of low reactive fissile/organic-rich shale
results with various fluids.
formations typically encountered in “shale gas”
reservoirs.
The thin section analyses may also include quantitative
Figure 7 shows photos of core samples from a Middle evaluation of the fractures for comparison of the fracture
East shale formation after 24 hours of exposure to sizes (widths) for very low reactive shale formations
different fluids. Significant differences in the network of where the changes occur in the rock structure in a micro-
fractures were captured with the photographs. The scale. This is especially true for organic shale formations
fracture propagation direction, development of such as shale gas formations. Figure 8 shows two thin
intersecting fractures and complexity of the network of section images of organic-rich shale formation. The first
fractures are analyzed carefully using the photographs photograph shows the initial condition of a core sample
before fluid exposure. Few preexisting fractures were
present in the rock. Fractures extended along the
bedding plane. The second photograph presents the thin
section of a sample taken from the same core after fluid
exposure.
Fig. 8a An example of thin section photos.
Fig. 8b An example of thin section photos.
5.2. Scratch Test
The scratch test was designed to test rock unconfined
compressive strength. This test has been used to study
the effects of exposing shale samples to various drilling
fluids for different lengths of exposure time. This test
has been proven useful as a screening tool for evaluating
shale-mud compatibility and mud effects on shale
strength, particularly for organic shales that are
nonreactive shale in the traditional sense.
Scratch tests are conducted by scratching the external
surface of shale samples, after exposing the samples to
mud for certain length of time, with a cutter at a
predetermined depth of cut and a constant velocity,
while continuously measuring the horizontal and vertical
forces on the cutter. Figure 9 shows a scratch test
apparatus. Results from scratch testing provide the
relative intrinsic specific energy required to remove a
unit volume of rock, which is directly related to its
unconfined compressive strength. The shale samples can
be various sizes, but often about 1-inch in diameter and a
few inches long. Scratch testing on the “dry” or as-
received sample establishes the reference value. After
the dry sample is soaked in a mud for a certain length of
time, subsequent scratches with identical depth of cut are
conducted sequentially over the same area. The
sequential scratches measure directly the shale strength
as a function of depth. Comparison of the results from
these scratches with the initial scratch result, i.e., the
base-line results before the shale sample is soaked gives
the effects of mud on shale strength and the depth of
penetration of the shale-mud interaction, as shown in
Figure 10. Knowing how long the shale is exposed to
fluids and the depth of fluid penetration, one can also
estimate the rate of penetration of the shale-mud
interaction.
Fig. 9 A scratch test appratus.
Mud Invasion Depth and Effect on Shale Strength
6000
UCS = ~5500 psi before the shale was soaked in a mud
5000
Unconfined Compressive Strengthen (psi)
4000
3000
UCS values determined from sequential scratches
after the shale was soaked in a mud for 4 hours
2000
1000
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cumulative Stratch Depth (mm)
Fig. 10 An example of scratch test results.
5.3. Shale Membrane Test
One of the fundamental differences between an aqueous
fluid and a non-aqueous fluid is that of shale stability
and particularly wellbore stability. The creation of
wellbore stability associated with non-aqueous or invert
drilling fluids is not simply accredited to their lack of an
external aqueous phase that may cause destabilization of
native shale but the formation of an membrane (of sorts)
on the shale surface that not only inhibits interaction of
the shale with the fluid, but actually can strengthen the
shale by slightly dehydrating the shale via an osmotic
effect, through this membrane or pseudo-membrane.
This means small water molecular (solvent) can pass
through the membrane while solute molecules such as
salts and polymers can’t. Since most wells are drilled in
an overbalance of drilling fluid pressure to that of the
pore pressure, this osmotic effect is quite substantial.
The significance of this effect depends on the amount of
differential pressure to be overcome, the activity
difference between the internal phase of the invert
drilling fluid and that of the pore fluid and the efficiency
of the membrane itself. It is these three factors that most
shale membrane testers will focus on, manipulating the
first two while trying to measure the last one.
Geomechanics engineers are familiar with the shale
membrane test (SMT) and often use membrane
efficiency as a modeling method in their wellbore
stability models. Therefore, this test technique of
studying fluids-shale interaction will not be repeated
here. Details of the SMT and the procedure used to test
shale are described elsewhere [6, 9-10].
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Wellbore instability arguably is the most prevalent
underlying cause of non-productive time during well
construction. Incompatibilities of drilling fluids and
shale formations are often the root cause of shale
instability or wellbore instability. Geomechanics
engineers and mud engineers have the same goal of
minimizing shale instability by selecting the optimum
mud weight and chemistry, although their methods of
addressing shale instability are quite different. This
paper highlights and shares with geomechanics
engineers, the various testing techniques used by mud
engineers for identifying the root cause of shale
instability and for selecting the optimum drilling fluids
chemistry.
It is important to understand that each testing technique
is developed to characterize or evaluate a single attribute
about the shale-fluid interaction, and many of these tests
are often qualitative, rather than quantitative. There is no
single testing or modeling method to solve complex
shale instability problem. Addressing drilling fluids and
shale interaction requires a holistic approach. It is critical
to couple the test results with a full understanding of the
shale type and shale condition that was used in the
testing.
Utilizing these various testing results, coupled with a
series of differing shale types, can allow for a detailed
screening process to be used for efficient development of
an effective new fluid or for recommending the most
effective drilling fluid for a specific shale or well
formation.
It is also important to point out that many of these
testing techniques were developed for reactive shale
formations. With increased interests on organic shales
such as shale plays, new methods are required to
evaluate the shale-fluids interactions for these relatively
low reactive shales.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank M-I SWACO for supporting this
effort and for giving permission to publish this paper.
The authors also would like to thank Mary Dimataris
and Dr. Lou Ji of M-I SWACO for their review and
contribution to this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Sherwood, J.D. and L. Bailey. 1994. Swelling shale
around a cylindrical wellbore. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser.
A. 444, 161-184.
2. Chen, G., M.E. Chenevert, M.M. Sharma, and M. Yu.
2003. A study of wellbore stability in shales including
poroelastic, chemical, and thermal effects. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 38, 167-176.
3. Chen, G., M. Yu, and R.T. Ewy. 2005. Chemoporoelastic
effects on wellbore stability. The 40th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Anchorage, Alaska, 25-29 June 2005.
4. Ekbote, S. and Y. Abousleiman. 2005. Porochemo-
thermoelastic solution for an inclined borehole in a
transversely isotropic formation. ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 131, 522-533.
5. Q. Guo, Z. Jin, and Y. Feng. 2008. Pore pressure and
chemical stresses around a borehole in a shale formation.
Paper # 309, San Francisco 2008, the 42nd US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and 2nd U.S.-Canada Rock
Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, June 29-July 2.
6. Schlemmer, R., J.E. Friedheim, F.B. Growcock, J. B.
Bloys, J.A. Headley, and S.C. Polnaszek. 2002.
Membrane efficiency in shales – an empirical evaluation
of drilling fluid chemistries and implications for fluid
design, SPE 74557, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Dallas, TX, 26 – 28 February.
7. Young, S., and J.E. Friedheim. 2009, Testing protocols
for optimized drilling fluid design, Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna,
Italy, March 25-27.
8. Gomez, S. and W. He. 2006, Laboratory method to
evaluate the fracture development in hard shale
formations exposed to drilling fluids”. AADE-06-DF-HO-
38, AADE Fluid Conference, Houston, April 11-12.
9. van Oort, E., A.H. Hale, F.K. Mody, and S. Roy. 1996,
Transport in shales and the design of improved water-
based shale drilling fluids. SPE Drilling & Completion,
Sept, 137-146.
10. van Oort, E. 1994. A novel technique for the investigation
of drilling fluid induced borehole instability in shales.
SPE 28064, SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, August
29-31.