TESTING PROTOCOLS FOR OPTIMIZED DRILLING FLUID DESIGN

S. Young, M-I Swaco, J. Friedheim, M-I Swaco.

This paper was presented at the Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 25-27, 2009. It
was selected for presentation by the OMC 2009 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the authors. The Paper as presented at OMC 2009 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

With increasing wellbore complexity, drilling into more technically demanding areas, and
increasing pressure to improve drilling economics, the drivers to improve and optimize drilling
fluid performance have never been greater.

The development of greater performing drilling fluids, in particular water based fluids, has
been traditionally carried out via a few “standard” test protocols which give a very broad
overview as to the potential performance of the fluid. With the development of significantly
more advanced and specific drilling fluids over the last few years, a number of newer testing
and evaluation protocols have also been developed. Utilizing the results from these newer
testing protocols to evaluate the true potential for the performance of a drilling fluid can be
misleading and can easily lead to a misapplication of the developed drilling fluid, resulting in
at best a poor drilling fluid performance, and at worst a highly expensive mistake.

This paper will review the various testing and evaluation protocols currently utilized for drilling
fluid development, pointing out both the advantages and shortcomings of each of these
protocols, both from a drilling performance standpoint and from an applicability standpoint.
The paper will also indicate which combination of testing protocols will be more relevant for a
given drilling scenario.

The Authors will also discuss the development and field usage of a high performance water
based drilling fluid showing how the application of the appropriate testing and evaluation
protocols has both defined the correct application for these fluids, and has shown areas that
require further development

INTRODUCTION

With an ever increasing focus on environmental footprint and optimizing drilling economics,
there is a great drive to provide water based drilling fluids that are tailored to optimize
performance and economics for a given drilling project. Many of the problems associated
with the use of water based fluids are caused by incompatibilities between the fluids and the
shales encountered. These incompatibilities can result in washouts, poor penetration rates,
increased drilling costs due to solids handling, rig time, dilution requirements, shale
sloughing, borehole encroachment and wellbore instability.

The choice of drilling fluid type is based on contributing factors of technical performance,
environmental compliance or impact and cost. If one focuses only on the performance
aspect of a fluid, invert emulsion or non-aqueous fluids (NAFs) typically are the fluid of
choice. These performance benefits that NAFs provide include lubricity, tight fluid loss, thin
filtercake wellbore and shale stability, ease of engineering, increased rate of penetration, and
system durability to mention a few. Probably the most revered benefit of NAFs is that of
wellbore and shale stability. Both of these aspects are accredited in big part to the chemistry
of the NAF in that the continuous phase is NOT aqueous and the emulsifiers and brine
internal phase combine to often strengthen shale sections mild dehydration though an

1
osmotic type mechanism. Providing a stable wellbore reduces non-productive time (NPT)
and provides near gauge holes and allows for more successful logging and casing runs. The
stabilization of swelling and dispersive shale in the form of drill cuttings reduces the dilution
of the overall system and lends itself to greater system stability and lower treatment costs.

Therefore, fundamental to the design of any high performance water-based mud* (HPWBM)
is that of shale stabilization. This attribute alone is quite complex as shale is itself.
Dispersion, swelling, accretion, hardness, hydration are all qualities of reactive shale that are
directly related to the chemistry of the aqueous phase of a water-based mud and thus need
to be determined and measured prior to the field testing of any new HPWBM. The subject of
shale compatibility with drilling fluids has been a lifelong study for many, and the reactivity of
shales on exposure to certain aqueous fluids and with various additives has been well
studied and documented (References 1-4). Numerous testing techniques have also been
proposed in the literature to characterize the inhibitive properties of drilling fluids (References
5 – 11). Often such test techniques have been developed to specifically highlight the
performance characterstics of a specific type of shale inhibitor. This paper deals with the
various methods of shale stability testing of drilling fluids and what exactly these tests are
able to tell the fluid designer about the viability of the drilling fluid in the field. In many (if not
all) of these methods, the focus is on a single attribute about the shale-fluid interaction such
as swelling or dispersion. Individually they provide only a small snapshot of the shale
stability landscape, but together they may provide a fairly vivid representation of the picture
of one could expect when drilling reactive shale.

Shales are characterized by having a high content of clay minerals, relatively low quartz
content and an extremely low permeability. Shales can react severely on exposure to certain
aqueous fluids depending on several compounding factors: mineralogical composition, pore
fluid composition, presence of interbedded minerals and microfractures, wellbore stresses,
and interactions with the drilling fluid chemistry. It may be possible to minimize and even
eliminate this reaction by selection of the most suitable drilling fluid chemistry and properties,
coupled with optimized drilling practices.

SHALE SAMPLES

Prior to conducting any type of shale inhibition testing, the foremost step is to secure relevant
shale material to test against. The mineralogical makeup and physio-chemical nature of a
shale are both highly important criteria in how a shale will behave on exposure to aqueous
media. The latter characteristc can be drastically altered by exposure of the shale to an
environment (stress, temperature, humidity, chemistry) that is other than its natural state. It is
this critical that shale samples to be used be treated carefully to avaoid completely altering
their characteristics and thus nullifying the value of any testing conducted. It is also important
to note that shales with a similar mineralogy and measure water reactivity can behave very
differently on exposure to the same aqueous fluid based on their depositional environment.
This can be seen in figure 1 below where three shale samples, all with a measured cation
exchange capacity of 15 milliequivelants per 100g, were exposed to seawater.

Figure 1: Shale behavior on exposure to seawater for 2 hours

Offshore Arabian gulf Offshore Nigeria Offshore New Zealand

2
Obtaining shale samples from the field specific troublesome formation(s) that are driving an
aqueous fluid development can be critical. 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 whilst drilling the well can also be used for some
developmental testing. The use of a balanced activity invert emulsion fluid would provide the
most usable samples. Cuttings from drillling with an aqueous based fluid, even if quickly
washed and packed at the rigsite, will have been severely altered by fluid exposure and can
yield false results.

In the absence of field shale samples, outcrop shales of similar mineralogy can be utilized.
This is particularily useful for extensive fluid development work. The advantage to such
shales is the ease of availability of large shale quantities with similar composition and
properties that allows a better comparison between the performance of various fluids or
additives. The disadvantage of such shales is that typically their chemical makeup is one of
higher water activity and structurally of poorer consolidation (less exposure to stress). Using
a range of different outcrop samples that span the shale types that contain clays from highly
swelling (high montmorillonite content) through mixed clays to highly dispersive (high
kaolinite content) can be very useful when determining the scope of applicability of an
aqueous fluid development.

Synthetic shale can also be used. This has the advantage of providing a very consistent
shale matrix for comparison testing. In its simplest form, synthetic shale is usually made by
first dry-mixing commercially available sodium montmorillonite powder (typically 10 - 30
wt%), kaolin powder (typically 20 – 40 wt%) and silica flour (typically 50 – 60 wt%). After
thorough blending, a pore fluid (commonly 3% NaCl solution) is thoroughly mixed into the
blend to form a uniform paste (approximately 15 wt% brine is used). The paste is then
packed into a Hassler cell and a constant pressure of 1200 – 1500 psi is then applied for 48-
72 hours. Without any natural cementation, this synthetic shale is both highly dispersive and
highly swelling, these properties making such shales a worst-case scenario for aqueous fluid
inhibition testing.

TESTING PROTOCOLS

Shale Hydration Test (Bentonite Hydration Test)

The Shale Hydration Test (SHT) is probably the simplest shale stability test from a sample
preparation, test apparatus and evaluation perspective. Although extremely simple to
conduct, this test 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.

The SHT can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of certain organic chemistries by
evaluating the hydration of API bentonite. This test procedure uses pint or liter jars that are
filled with one barrel equivalent of tap water (350 ml) and 10.5 ppb (10.5 g) of an organic
shale hydration inhibition agent (an appropriate amount of inorganic salt could be
substituted). Neat tap water was used as a control sample. All samples were adjusted to at
least a pH of 9.5 with hydrochloric acid and treated with a 10 ppb (10 g) portion of API
bentonite at a medium sheer rate. After stirring for 30 minutes, the samples were heat aged
overnight at 150 °F. After the samples were cooled, their rhelologies were recorded at
ambient temperature using a Fann 35a Rheometer. The process of adding an addition 10
ppb (10 g) of API bentonite is repeated and this procedure was carried out for each sample
until all were too thick to measure. Figure 2 illustrates with representative data the effect that

3
an organic shale hydration inhibition displays in repressing the yield of the bentonite which
thus indicates the suppression of hydration.

Figure 2: Shale hydration test results

160

140
B as e
KCl
120 C o m m e rc ia l S h a le In h ib ito r
S h a le In h ib ito r

Yield Point (lb/100 sq ft)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 1 20
B e n to n ite (lb \b b l)

Hot Rolling Dispersion Test

This relatively simple test protocol was designed to attempt to simulate the action of cuttings
being circulated up the wellbore annulus. The test can utilize sized cores, cavings, outcrop
shales or even cuttings, and although primarily a laboratory test, can also be conducted at
the wellsite. The test involves exposing a weighed quantity (typically 30 grams) of sized
shale pieces (typically 4 – 6 mm) to a formulated fluid in a conventional roller oven cell. The
test provides a 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
comparisons.

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 remaining are recovered, washed, weighed,
dried overnight at 210°F and re-weighed. 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 shale hydration. Figure 3 illustrates
with representative data the comparative effects that can be seen using four different fluid
types and also the relative effects of these fluids on four different outcrop shale types.

Figure 3: Hot Roll dispersion test results

120 Shale inhibition comparison by Dispersion Testing
Raw
Bentonite
Percentage shale recovery

100
Oxford
Clay
80
Foss
Eikeland
60 Arne Clay

40

20

0
IEM NaCl/PHPA KCl/Silicate SW/Polyam ine

Slake Durability Test

This test protocol was designed to simulate the action of cuttings being circulated up the

4
wellbore and over the shale shakers. This test exposes the shale to a harsher, more abrasive
environment than the hot-roll dispersion test and tests in particular the effectiveness of the
encapsulation properties of a drilling fluid. The test can utilize sized cores, cavings, outcrop
shales or even cuttings, and is primarily a laboratory test. The test involves placing a
weighed quantity (typically 30 grams) of sized shale pieces (typically 4 – 6 mm) in a wire
mesh cage, which is placed into a roller motor clamp and partially submerged into to a
formulated fluid in a test cell (figure 4). The cage with cuttings is rotated through the fluid for
a 4-hour period at room temperature. During rolling, any sensitive shale will tend to hydrate,
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 fluid tested should be
designed to be similar to minimize any inaccuracies in cross-fluid comparisons.

After rolling, the shale pieces remaining in the cage after the test period are recovered,
washed, weighed, dried overnight at 210°F and re-weighed. The moisture content of the
shale and the percentage recovery of the shale are determined. For some of the less water-
sensitive clays, the testing period can be extended to eight hours. The relative inhibition
levels of fluids can be 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 protect against shale hydration. Figure 4 illustrates with
representative data the comparative effects that can be seen using four different fluid types
and also the relative effects of these fluids on four different outcrop shale types. Comparing
this to figure 3 (which uses the same test fluids and outcrop shales) highlights the difference
that can be seen between these two test methods.

Figure 4: Slake Durability test apparatus and results

HPWBM Development - Raw Bentonite
Slake Durability test results Oxford Clay
120 Foss Eik eland
Arne Clay
100

80
% shale recovery

60

40

20

0
OBM NaCl/PHPA HP Fluid#1 HP Fluid#2 HP Fluid#3
Fluid Type

Bulk Hardness Test

The bulk hardness (or shale extrusion) test protocol 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 properties of the fluid being evaluated. The test can utilize sized
cores, cavings, outcrop shales or even cuttings, and can readily be conducted at the wellsite
to give some information on the ongoing performance of the drilling fluid. Shale which
exhibits a tendency to adsorb liquid from a test fluid will become softer, and this can translate
into a weaker wellbore during drilling and/or increased tendency for drilled shale to
compact/accrete, resulting potentially in bit/BHA balling, tight hole, poor tripping and pack-off
in the wellbore.

In this test, sized shale pieces (typically 30g of 4-6 mm shale) 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-mm sieve, washed gently with
brine to remove excess fluid and then placed into the bulk hardness tester (Figure 5). The
shale is extruded through a perforated plate using a torque wrench which permits measuring
the maximum torque required for each turn in compression. Depending upon the condition of
the cuttings, the torque may reach a plateau region or may continue to rise during the
extrusion. Harder, more competent shale pieces will give higher torque readings. When

5
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, 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 four different fluid types

Figure 5: Bulk Hardness test apparatus and results

Shale Hardness Testing - Oxford Clay
350

300 IEM
NaCl/PHPA
250
KCl/Silicate

Torque (ftlbs)
200 SW/Polyam ine
Shale
150

100

50

0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of Turns

Capillary Suction Time (CST)

The Capillary Suction Time (CST) Test has been used since the 1970's as a fast and reliable
method for characterizing fluid filterability and the condition of colloidal materials in water
treatment facilities. It was originally developed in England to study the filterability of sewage
sludge and has usually been applied to determine the state of flocculation of clay-bearing
fluids. In the petroleum industry, the CST has been used to characterize shale and to
optimize the electrolyte concentration in drilling fluids for minimizing its effect on shale
formations. It has found utility in both the laboratory and at the rig-site.

CST studies of filtration characteristics of aqueous suspensions of ground shale utilize the
capillary suction pressure of a porous paper to affect filtration. The capillary suction
pressure generated by standard filter paper (typically a Whatman No.17) is used to generate
the differential pressure required to draw the water from the suspension. The rate at which
water permeates through the filter paper varies depending on the condition of the filterability
of the cake formed on the filter paper. The CST is obtained from two electrodes placed at a
standard interval from the suspension. The time taken for the water front to pass between
these two electrodes constitutes the CST. Essentially, this time can be an indirect indication
of hydration (or lack of hydration) of a shale; the higher degree of hydration, the longer the
CST, the less hydration, the faster the CST. These results indicate what additives may be
used in a fluid for drilling specific shale that will reduce the amount of swelling of that shale.

Like the shale hydration test, the CST will test suspensions of bentonite or ground shale in
water, brine or water treated with an inhibitor. Drilling fluids are typically not used due to the
problem with the viscosity of the aqueous phase and the artefacts that this may bring to the
test. Although this test is still quite popular in the sewage treatment business to screen
flocculants, it has become somewhat limited in use for drilling fluids.

Accretion Test
One of the primary failings of many inhibitive WBM has been a tendency for accretion (or bit
balling), where partially hydrated shales are agglomerated onto the drilling assembly,
resulting in poor drilling performance. This is a complex process, being very dependent on
shale type, drilling parameters and hydraulics, as well as fluid type and properties.

The simple laboratory accretion test consists of placing a sized steel cylinder steel in a
sealable container with the test fluid. A known weight of sized shale pieces (typically 30g of
4-6 mm shale) are placed evenly around the centralized accretion bar. The container is
sealed and rolled in a roller oven at room temperature for a specific period of time (typically
20 minutes). After rolling, the cylinder is removed and a photo is taken for visual
documentation. The percent weight of the cuttings adhering to the cylinder and the inside of
6
the container is determined after removing, gently washing the cuttings, and drying the
sample at 210F overnight. The test can utilize sized cores, cavings, outcrop shales or even
cuttings, and is primarily a laboratory test and again the rheological properties of the fluid can
highly influence the test results by altering the amount of agitation and thus the shale/shale
and shale/steel contact. Interactions between specific types of shale and specific fluids that
allow for a rapid shallow hydration of the shale pieces tend to lead to “sticky” shale pieces
which readily agglomerate both onto the cylinder and container and aggregate together.
Rapid hydration suppression and high levels of encapsulation in a fluid can minimize this
type of interaction. In addition specific additives that minimize the interactions between shale
pieces and steel surfaces or between other shale pieces have been designed using this type
of test. Figure 6 shows representative data from outcrop shale from Norway tested against
three differing WBM systems.

Figure 6: Rolling Bar Accretion test results

Accretion Potential Comparison by Bar rolling test
80

70

Percentage Shale accretion

60 Foss Eik eland

50

40

30

20

10

0
20%NaCl/Polyamine CaCl2/Polyme r 20%NaCl/PHPA

Linear Swelling Test

The tendency for shale to adsorb fluid from a water-based drilling fluid can lead to a swelling
of the shales which can translate to decreased wellbore size and wellbore instability issues
as well as swollen cuttings which tend to be more adhesive in nature and can, in turn, lead to
bit balling and poor rate of penetration.

The amount of fluid adsorbed by shale over time can be determined in the laboratory using
the linear swellmeter. In this test, the shale to be tested is dried, ground into a powder, and
then compressed into a sized shale pellet which is placed between a metal plate and a linear
transducer. The pellet is immersed in the test fluid and the change in length of the pellet is
measured over time by the transducer. Both the total change in length over a given time
period and the constant rate of change can be determined. The test can utilize sized cores,
cavings, outcrop shales or even cuttings as a shale source. The process of manufacturing of
these pellets artificially generates a shale pellet that has a great tendency to imbibe water.
Another alternative method that has been used is to press or cut shale pellets out from a
larger piece of shale (typically outcrop or core) – this alters the shale structure less and
generates more representative data. As this test involves water absorption, alterations of the
viscosity of the fluid can have dramatic effects on the test results. It is critical that fluid
viscosities remain similar to allow for comparable data. The test is also commonly carried out
using brines that contain the test candidate shale inhibitor that is being evaluated. Figure 7
shows representative data from field cored shale from the Gulf of Suez tested against two
differing WBM systems and a seawater baseline.

Figure 7: Linear Swelling test results

7
 Linear Swelling Test - Gulf of Suez Shale
Linear Swelling Tests - Gulf of Suez Shale
120

100
SW/Polyamine
Percentage Expansion Seawater

80 KCl/Glycol

SW/Polyamine

60
KCl/Glycol

40

20
Se aw ater

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Time (Minutes) Steady Sw elling Rate (%/hr)

Shale Membrane Test

As discussed earlier, one of the fundamental differences between an aqueous fluid and a
non-aqueous fluid was that of shale stability and it particular 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.
Since most wells are drilled in an overbalance of drilling fluid pressure to that of the pore
pressure (typically 100 – 200 psi higher), 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. Details of the SMT and the procedure used to test shale are described elsewhere. A
schematic is shown in Figure 8 with two types of cells

Figure 8 – Schematic of Shale Membrane Tester and cell types

Shale Sample Shale Sample

To simplify the procedure the following is done:

 Assemble cell with shale sample in place

 Place pore fluid on both reservoir side and wellbore side of shale
 Place cell into manifold & in oven and apply desired temperature and pressure
differential to stabilize core and conditions
 Replace wellbore fluid with desired drilling or test fluid
 Differential pressure is applied between wellbore & reservoir fluids (beginning at a
minimum of 200 psi & increasing to required level to determine osmotic effect (see
figure 9 below)

Figure 9 – Example data from the Shale Membrane Tester.

8
These test provide insights to both drilling fluid additives and various shale. Some learning
have indicated that certain performnce enhancing additives to water-based muds may have a
negative effect on the potetial to form a membrane. Also, as expected, the shale fabric plays
a large role in the abilioty to form a membrane with various additives.

Unconfined Shale Fracture Development Test

The tendency for consolidated, older, shales to adsorb fluid from water-based drilling fluids
can lead to both an extension and widening of existing natural fractures within the shale and
to the development of new and possibly interlinked fractures within the shale. This can
translate to spalling shale and chemically induced wellbore instability.
The effect of a fluid on consolidated shales can be both qualitatively and quantitatively
determined using the unconfined shale fracture development test. In this test an
approximately 1-inch square block of shale (preferably from a core, although large cavings
and outcrop samples can also be used) is immersed into the test fluid after a microscopic
thin section has been cut from the block. Time-lapse photography is then used to
qualitatively evaluate the effect of the fluid on the shale over a 24-hour time period. Following
exposure, a further microscopic thin section is taken from the block and fracture number and
size are directly measured under the microscope. The thin sections also allow a qualitative
measure of fracture interconnectivity and fracture mineralogy to be determined. This test
method and the analysis that can be conducted from the generated data are fully described
in the paper by Gomez12.

Figure 10 below shows an example of both the qualitative and quantitative data that can be
generated from such a test method. In this example the testing was conducted on very large
cavings collected following wellbore instability issues experienced on a well in South
America.
Figure 10 – Results from an unconfined fracture test.

Native Shale

6 hours in Potassium Silicate

9
 Fluid Number of Intersecting Maximum Fracture
fractures Fractures width (microns)
No Fluid 13 No 22
Potassium 18 Yes 312
Silicate fluid

Dynamic Flow Through Test

This test was devised to simulate the effect of fluid flow on shale during the drilling operation.
It involves flowing fluid through a hole drilled in a shale core at flow rates that can be scaled
to actual drilling conditions. This type of testing was first used by Darley and Bailey8,9 to
gauge the effects of drilling fluids on shales, and the testing protocol is more fully described
therein. This type of testing is typically carried out on outcrop shales, however smaller scale
test apparatus can be designed that could utilize actual shale cores, or synthetic shale cores.

The cores are placed in a hassler sleeve and a c.1” ID diameter hole is drilled in air (dry)
through the center of the core parallel to the z-axis of the core. After drilling the hole, any
obstructions are cleared and the actual test is run immediately after drilling and inspection to
minimize drying of the core. A pump that is capable of running continuously at c.2-Liters/min
was used to pump fluids through the core. Depending on the actual apparatus used the shale
cores under test can either be simply confined, or can be mechanically stressed (i.e. triaxial
stresses applied to the core to simulate downhole conditions). The apparatus can also be
placed in a heated chamber to allow testing to be conducted under both temperature and
pressure.

Tests are typically run for a period of 2 - 6 hours, after which the borehole was examined for
visible signs of enlargement and damage, plus for stressed core measurements, leakoff of
pressure from the “wellbore” can be monitored. At the end of the testing the core can be cut
in half and any effects of fluid exposure (washout/breakout/fractures) can be observed and
recorded.

Full-Scale Drilling Simulators

Probably the most ambitious and sophisticated approach towards studying the aspect of
shale or wellbore stability is that of employing a Full Scale Drilling Simulator (FSDS).
Currently, these simulators can take one of two forms:

1) Drill Rig & Wellbore Simulator – Collection of equipment that actually simulates the
drilling process by using actual size equipment including a bit, pipe, rock sample,
circulating system and in many cases the ability to apply a degree of confining
pressure and/or temperature to the experimental design under a controlled and
monitored environment.
2) Virtual Drilling Simulator – A combination of geological data, sophisticated
computational software and drilling programs along with state-of-the-art CGI
(computer-graphic imaginary) which allows engineers, scientists and petro physicists
to drill wells, study reservoirs and plan projects interactively while sitting in dedicated
“war” rooms or even at their own desks.

This discussion on shale testing will focus on the former form – “Drill Rig & Wellbore
Simulators” in general for FSDS and specifically the equipment that is located at TerraTek’s
labs in Salt lake City, Utah, USA. This equipment has assisted in the development and
testing of numerous innovative bits, downhole tools and new products as well as drilling fluid
systems and additives. There are numerous FSDS in various locations around the world but
typically found with service companies or universities. Depending on their configuration and
design, they can provide invaluable insight to a variety of drilling situations and have been
the centrepiece of joint industry projects such as DEA 90.

10
The TerraTek FSDS is pictured in Figure 11 below, showing both the Test Rig and a
schematic of the wellbore simulator. For this particular FSDS, an outcrop shale

Figure 11 – TerraTek FSDS Test Rig (left) and Wellbore Simulator

sample of 15.5” in diameter and 36” in length is placed in a cylinder with a steel end cap and
enclosed inside a poly urethane rubber jacket. The jacketed rock sample is then inserted
into the wellbore simulator as part as the top vessel plug assembly, containing the rotary
drive shaft, a conventional PDC drill bit, the high-pressure rotary seal and the vessel seals.
The rock sample is pressurized with a confining fluid to simulate the horizontal earth
stresses. An independent piston applies an axial thrust to the sample, thus simulating the
overburden stress. Drilling fluid is circulated using a 15,000 psi delivery pressure fluid ends
fitted to a 1600 hp triplex pump. The fluid is circulated through the drive shaft and bit, up the
annulus and through a cuttings removal screen.

Numerous transducers have been instrumented into both the drill rig and simulator to
measure and control various drilling parameters. The servo-controlled drill rig permits control
of constant WOB during the drilling tests. The design and data gathering capabilities of this
FSDS allow the measurement of the average ROP (rate of penetration), torque, and bit
pressure which allows other parameters to be calculated such as weighted average drilling
strength or mechanical specific energy. All of these parameters (measured or calculated) will
vary depending on the drilling fluid or additives in that fluid, thus allowing some systematic
investigation of fluid effect on shale under a simulation of a drilling operation. Additionally,
when the wellbore simulator is broken down, this permits visual observation of the cuttings
themselves as well as any signs of bit balling and accretion. The downside to these tests are
that they are expensive, time intensive for preparation and set-up as well as requiring
relatively large quantities (~ 10 – 50 bbl) of the test fluid (typically experimental an fluid).
Multiple tests runs quickly run into several hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the benefit
that can be realized can be worth 100 fold more.

DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW WBM

A research and development project was undertaken starting in 1999 to look into the
potential for developing a WBM that could give similar performance to an OBM. Throughout
the development it was critical that focus was maintained on the entire performance
spectrum of an OBM. Testing was conducted in differing base fluids (from Seawater to
Saturated NaCl), and four differing outcrop shale substrates (from highly swelling to highly
dispersive) were used to cover the full spectrum of shale reactivity (see XRD characterization
of these shales in figure 12). Outcrops were used to allow for sufficient shale quantities to be
available for the extensive test matrix performed.

Figure 12 – XRD Characterization of Outcrop shale samples

11
 Mineralogy of test shales by XR D
70% Foss Eik e land Cla y
Arne Clay
60%
Ra w W yom ing Be ntonite
50% Oxford Clay

a bunda nc e (%w t)
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Qu ar tz
Fe ld s par
Sm e ctite

Illite

Kaolin ite

Ch lor ite

Calcite

Sid e r ite

Pyr ite

Dolo m ite

Cr is to balite
A full suite of test methods (Shale dispersion, Shale swelling, Shale hardness, accretion,
lubricity, filtration, rheology, contamination tolerance, thermal stability etc.) was used to
develop the fluid components and to evaluate overall performance. Results were compared
to three baselines of a mineral oil based fluid and NaCl/PHPA and KCl/Silicate water based
fluids13.

In addition to the above, more complex testing such as molecular modeling of inhibitor
chemical behavior in shale substrates, Shale membrane testing, and full, scale drilling testing
at Teratek was conducted. All of this resulted in a new water based drilling fluid which
exhibited laboratory performance characteristics which were in the realm of those achieved
by invert emulsion fluids.

This WBM has since been utilized on over 500 hundred wells on a global basis and has been
used in a variety of extreme situations where NAF’s would have been the normal fluid of
choice, some of the highlights of its usage are:
 Deepwater record: 9,472 ft water depth, offshore Brazil
 Maximum mud weight: 17.2 ppg, Wyoming US
 Maximum angle built: 96o, United Arab Emirates; Brazil;
 Longest interval: 9,384 ft, S China Onshore;
In all of the areas used, the new fluid has proven itself to exceed the performance of other
WBM’s in terms of improved wellbore stability, improved drilling performance (ROP), and
ease of maintenance of fluid properties, lower dilution rates and improved economics. In
addition the fluid has proven in many cases to show similar drilling performance to invert
emulsion fluids with respect to wellbore stability and drilling rates. (See Figure 13 below).

Figure 13 – Drilling rate and performance comparisons for new WBM

4.00 ROP comparison – Deepwater GOM
Days / 1,000 ft BML = (Days from spud to reaching TD / Depth Below Mud Line) * 1,000
3.50 LR - Lloyd Ridge
80 ft/hr
WR - Walker Ridge M in. ROP
GC - Green Canyon M ax. ROP
3.00 A C - Alaminos Canyon 70 ft/hr
MC - Mississippi
Days / 1,000 ft BML

Canyon
2.50 A V - Atw ater V aley 60 ft/hr
ROP, ft/hr

2.00 50 ft/hr
3.70
3.50
1.50
40 ft/hr
2.98
2.77
2.58
2.12 2.13 2.26 2.30 30 ft/hr
1.00 1.95
20 ft/hr
0.50
10 ft/hr
0.00
ft/hr
BM
)
BM
) M) BM
) M) M) M) M) M) M)
/S /S SB (S SB SB SB SB SB (SB IL 1 2 3 A
5( ra e( a( e( y( e( lls S S S P
RI L RI L 16 da h it ki k i le Ra ad Hi R H
TR
A D AD
id ge
De
n
ea
t W N a Jub
Ca
s c
en A
D LU LU LU lP
TR md
(UL UL lke
rR Gr Ca
R AP AP AP aC
las ey
e( Wa LT V V V N
At wk U O O O %
N N N
20
H a

The enhanced shale inhibition and low risk of accretion has allowed the use of high
performance PDC drill bits to achieve optimal drilling rates even through some extremely
reactive shale formations.

12
CONCLUSIONS

Numerous testing protocols (and variations within these protocols) exist for determining the
effect of a fluid or additive on a shale. It is important to understand the actual effects seen,
and the limitations of the test(s) when evaluating this data, it is also critical to couple the test
results with a full understanding of the shale type and shale condition that was used in the
testing. Of particular benefit in evaluating performance of a new fluid system or material is
benchmarking against a known fluid under the same test protocols.

Utilizing the simpler testing protocols, 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. Detailed testing using both more complex test protocols and field shales can be
conducted on a near-final fluid to validate the development testing and verify field
applicability.

REFERENCES

1. Chenevert, M.E.: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, JPT, (Sept. 1970) 1141.
2. Chenevert M.E.: “Shale Control with Balanced Activity Oil-Continuous Muds,” JPT (Oct.
1970) 1309-1316.
3. O’Brien D.E. and Chenevert, M.: “Stabilization of Sensitive Shales Using Inhibited,
Potassium-Based Drilling Fluids” SPE 4232 presented at the SPE Conference on Drilling and
Rock Mechanics, Austin, Texas (Jan. 22, 1973).
4. Van Oort, E.: “Physico-Chemical Stabilization of Shales,” SPE 37263 presented at SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas (Feb. 18, 1997).
5. Roehl, E.A. and Hackett J.L.: “A Laboratory Technique for Screening Shale Swelling
Inhibitors,” SPE 11117 presented at SPE 57th ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
6. Mondshine, T.C.: “A New Potassium Based Mud System,” SPE 4516 presented at SPE
Fall Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, Sep. 30th , 1973.
7. API 13I “Recommended Practice for Laboratory Testing of Drilling Fluids,” American
Petroleum Institute, July 2004.
8. Bailey, L. et al.:“Effect of Clay/Polymer Interactions on Shale Stabilization during Drilling,”
Langmuir (1994), 1544.
9. Darley, H.C.H.: “A Laboratory Investigation of Borehole Stability,” JPT (July 1969) 883.
10. Bailey, L. et al.: “A Wellbore Simulator for Mud-Shale interaction studies,” J. Pet. Sci. and
Eng. (1994),195.
11. Hale, A.H.: “Method to Quantify Viscosity Effects on Dispersion Test Improves Testing of
Drilling-Fluid Polymers,” SPE Drilling Eng. (Mar. 1991) 44.
12. Gomez, S. et al.: “Laboratory Method to Evaluate Fracture Development in Hard Shale
Formations Exposed to Drilling Fluids,” AADE-06-DF-HO-38 presented at AADE drilling
conference in Houston, Texas, April 11-12, 2006..
13. Young, S et al.:” Organo-Amine Chemistry – An Innovative Key to Achieving Invert
Emulsion Performance with Water Based Drilling Fluids” SPE 80275 presented at the SPE
oilfield chemistry symposium in Houston, Texas, Feb. 5-8, 2003.

13