I Societyof PetroleumEngineers I

SPE 24599

A New Approach to Preventing Lost Circulation While Drilling

Giin-Fa Fuh, Nobuo Morita, P.A. Boyd, a n d S.J. McGoffin, Conoco Inc.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared f6r presentation at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington, DC, October 4-7. 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author@).Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any positionof the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publicationreview by Editorial Committees of the Society
of PetroleumEngineers. Permissionto copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300words. Illustrations may not be copied. The a b s t r a c t s
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U S A . Telex, 730969 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a new concept, theoretical formulations,
and field test results of the loss prevention material (LPM*)
developed for use in many possible applications such as high-
angle and horizontal well drilling, drilling through severely
depleted formations (to optimize casing requirements), drilling
through highly tectonically active areas (i-e., regions of over-
thrust faults and salt dome structures) where the in situ rock
stresses are high and directionally unequal. Both open-hole
microfractures and 5000-ft open-hole leak off tests using LPM
were successfully conducted in our wells in Newkirk, Oklaho-
ma, and Ventura, California. LPM is a specially selected
(material strength and specific gravity) and narrowly sized
granular material which, after being fully mixed in oil or water
based mud at an optimum concentration, can provide good
protection to formations against lost circulation while drilling.
The idea of lost circulation prevention is not only achievable,
but also practically feasible. Needless to say, lost circulation
prevention is far more cost effective than any remedial action
taken after the occurrence of lost circulation. Especially with
oil muds, losses can be very expensive, unsafe (underground
blowout), and time consuming. It is under this premise that
this new LPM (loss prevention material) product was devel-
oped for use in "lost-circulation-prone"zones or in high-angle
hole drilling when a higher mud weight is required to counter
potential borehole collapse, stuck pipe, tight hole, or other hole
instability problems. Adding LPM to the drilling fluid will pro-
vide the extra margin of borehole protection for mud weights
used and will reduce the degree of uncertainty involved with
any type of work or operation concerning natural geologic for-
mations.

Higher formation fracture resistance resulting from the use of
LPM in drilling fluids can reduce or prevent the occurrence of
lost circulation while drilling. This paper will show that a
remarkable increase of 8.0 ppg in botehole breakdown pres-
sure was achieved in one of our tests in the Newkirk well. An
increase of fracture propagation pressure in the range of 3.0
to 6.0 ppg was recorded in the field tests. These results are in
general agreement with our laboratory findings also discussed
in this paper.
Based on our laboratory test results using large Berea sand-
stone blocks, an optimum LPM concentration can be found
and it varies with mud densities. According to our experimen-
tal investigation and analytical verification: formation fracture
initiation and propagation during well drilling can be prevented
or inhibited by including an effective concentration of LPM (a
specially sized granular material) in the drilling fluid. Our
laboratory findings had determined a specific size range of
LPM particles that were most effective in inhibiting the

References and illustrations at end of paper.

*The subject of LPM technology has been filed and pending

a U.S. patent application by G. F. Fuh and N. Morita of
Conoco Inc. entitled "Method for Inhibiting the Initiation and
Propagation of Formation Fractures While Drilling!"
 G. F. FUH, N. MORITA,
SPE 24599 P. A BOYD, AND S. J. McGOFFIN
a bridging material can seal a fracture tip with We, where We
(Figure 1) is the critical width which can sustain fracture
pressure without breaking. Assume that the pressure in the
fracture is Pf from fracture inlet to the bridging point, and Po
from the bridging point to fracture tip, where P, is the
formation pore pressure as shown in Figure 1. Then, the par-
ticulate screen does not break until the fracture pressure
reaches
where
Equation 2 shows that the fracture propagation resistance,
because of LPM screen-out, increases with elastic modulus of
formation and net in situ stress, but reduces with fracture size.
Figure 2 shows the fracture pseudo-toughness calculated using
Equation 3. Normally, the range of a, - Po is several hundreds
to several thousands psi; the range of W, is .05" to .2"; and
El(1-u2) is .5x106 to 5x10'. Then, the range of fracture pseudo-
toughness may become 5000 to 30000 psi%". Substitutingthis
value into Equation 2 shows that the fracture resistance gained
by LPM screen-out ranges several hundreds to several thou-
sands psi, depending upon fracture size.
Although many particulate materials seal mud fluids, the above
analysis shows that an effective LPM material should have the
following characteristics:
(a) A relatively large and uniform particle size, as specified
in our patent application, can prevent mud leaks after
being packed; a large and uniform particle size does not
significantly change the mud properties, and it can be
easily removed and recycled.
(b) The specific particle sizes are not buried in mud cakes,
hence, their concentration increases with fracture
propagation as mud fluid is lost because of cake accu-
mulation and filtrate.
In addition to the above properties, the following properties
are desired for other considerations.
(c) Similar density to base mud.
(d) Not abrasive and not easily crushed while drilling.
The effects of the LPM upon lost circulation are:
(a) The magnitude of fracture propagation resistance
increases with formation elastic moduli and effective in
situ stress.
(b) Fracture propagation resistance is relatively high with a
high LPM concentration since a high concentration of
LPM induces screen-out while an induced fracture is still
small. Even if it fails to induce screen-out for a short
fracture, it can still stabilize fracture propagation with a
higher fracture resistance than a standard drilling fluid.
(c) It serves as a plugging material for large pores and natu-
ral fractures.
However, the above analysis also shows the LPM material has
the following limitations:
(a) A certain degree of filtrate loss is required to cause
particulate screen-out. Hence, it cannot be applied to an
impermeable shale or limestone. However, the imperme-
able shales or limestones are normally strong or have high
in situ stress. Therefore, unless they have natural frac-
tures, lost circulation may not be induced. Note that
many so-called shale is actually mudstone or sandy silt-
stone, hence, it can form mud cake if fracture is induced.
(b) The fracture propagation resistance is low for low
Young's modulus zones or high pore pressure zone.
However, fracture may not be induced in the low Young's
modulus zone or high pore pressure zone since these
zones may have high in situ stress due to high pore pres-
sure, or they may easily cause screen-out due to high
formation permeability.
(c) Fracture propagation resistance becomes smaller with
fracture size, hence, theareen-out must be induced as
quickly as possible while fracture size is still small.
(d) Once fracture surface is covered with mud cake, the LPM
screen-out is not induced until fresh fracture surface is
created with additional fracture propagation. Hence, it is
not effective to cure an induced fracture (prior to LPM
application), although it can stabilize further fracture
propagation.
Because of the above limitations, the LPM is not always effec-
tive. However, statistics show that approximately 50 percent
of lost circulation occurs in permeable sand zones. In addition,
the rest of the 50 percent induced in shale zones may, in fact,
be partially induced in permeable mudstone formations rather
than perfectly impermeable shale. Hence, the LPM should sig-
nificantly reduce the possibility of lost circulation problems.
Careful applications after examining formation lithology would
significantlyenhance the effectiveness of the LPM applications.
LPM FIELD TEST NO. 1: GRUBB LEASE
NO. 388 WELL,VENTURA, CALIFORNIA
Prior to setting the 9 5/8" casing at about 9,775 ft TVD, there
are 3 major pressuredepleted formations located at 6,386 ft
(First Grubb), 7,981 ft (Second Grubb), and 9,158 ft (Thud
Grubb) TVD, respectively. Mud weights in the 12 114" hole
have been kept below 10.5 ppg since the formation pressure in
each of these zones was estimated to be less than 11.5 ppg.
The actual setting depth for 9 518" casing is governed by these
depleted zones as the formation pore pressure will continue to
increase and require a high mud weight of approximately
13.5 ppg in the 8 lfl hole below the shoe. It was decided to
run a 50004 open hole leak-off test when the 12 114" hole
 A NEW APPROACH TO PREVENTING
LOST CIRCULATION WHILE DRILLING
initiation and propagation of the fractures induced while
drilling. The LPM having this size range was also found to be
optimum in providing an effective sealant for a typical drilling
fluid in a series of "modified" API mud filtrate tests in which
the conventional filter paper was replaced by a 1/2" LPM bed.
As an example of one of the laboratory test results, an increase
of 1,700 to 3,300 psi fracture extension pressure resulted from
the addition of an optimum amount of LPM to a 16-ppg LVT
oil mud. This increase in fracture propagation pressure is
equal to an EMW of 3.2 to 6.3 ppg at a drilling depth of
10,000 ft. The LPM was shown to be effective in both oil and
water based mud systems.
LPM is designed to provide a dual-protection mechanism in
the borehole. Firstly, it stabilizes the borehole by plugging
minute surface flaws and gravel-size pores. If this protection
system fails, the second mechanism will initiate as soon as the
borehole breaks down and fractures start to form. The LPM
in the drilling fluid will then act like a fracture propagation
inhibitor through a "screen-out" or self-condensation at frac-
ture tip. This process is accomplished by the LPM which falls
in a proper size range, since these particles are large enough
to cause a continuous solid screen-out and provide an excellent
fluid sealing property that induces a very large increase in
formation fracture resistance. This narrow particle size range
is also good for a shale shaker screen. A proper selection of
the screen size will not only prevent screen plugging but also
allow recovery of LPM for continuous use.
The preferred LPM materials are nut shells or calcined petro-
leum coke, both of which are environmentally acceptable and
do not sigmficantly alter the rheology of drilling fluid even
when introduced at concentrations up to 100 pounds per bar-
rel in the drilling fluid. As some cuttings have sizes that are
similar to LPM particles and cannot be easily separated from
each other while drilling, two LPM circulation schemes have
been used: (1) recirculate both cuttings and LPM until a lost
circulation zone is drilled through; and (2) add a proper
amount of LPM while removing both larger and smaller
cuttings (than the LPM particles) with shale shakers corre-
sponding to LPM size ranges for continuous drilling. The
cuttings with similar sizes to LPM are removed by cyclone or
settlement in mud pits. In this paper, we will describe and
discuss two recent field test results using LPM in Conoco wells
located in Ventura, California, and Newkirk, Oklahoma. In
both cases, ground calcined coke was used as the LPM. Other
field tests using walnut shells gave very similar findings to those
reported here.
THEORETICAL ASPECT OF LPM: FRACTURE TIP
SCREEN-OUT MECHANISM OF PARTICULATE
MATERIAL
The standard mud is a composite of two materials with signifi-
cantly different sizes, where mud (intermediate size particle)
prevent. leak of base fluid (fine particle) by forming a dense
colloidal particulate cake. This same mechanism was applied
to the LPM mud system with an order of magnitude larger
scale by extending the composite to a compound of three
materials with significantly different sizes, i.e., large LPM,
intermediate size mud particle, and fine base fluid. A properly
sized particulate material was searched to prevent leaks of
SPE 24599
mud, which in turn prevented leaks of base fluid such as base
oil or water. These two chain processes, i.e., (1) a large
particulate material prevents leak of mud particulate drilling
fluid and (2) mud particulate material prevents leak of base
fluid, significantly enhances fracture propagation resistance for
induced fractures and also prevents fluid loss into larger
natural fractures and pores.
The following four conditions should be satisfied to enhance
fracture propagation resistance:
(a) The concentration of particulate material should be
increased with fracture propagation such that it packs
around the fracture tip.
(b) The initial concentration of the particulate material is
sufficiently high to induce screen-out while an induced
fracture is still small.
(c) The packed particulate material should not allow drilling
mud to leak through itself.
(d) The packed particulate material has sufficient strength
which can plug a sufficiently wide fracture tip region.
To clarify the factors involved in the screen-out phenomena,
a simple analysis is shown below. First, an analysis is made for
condition (a) and (b) considering the material balance around
the fracture tip shown in Figure 1. Suppose the LPM particu-
late material is large such that it will not accumulate along the
fracture surface as a part of mud cake. Then, concentration
of LPM particulate increases with fracture growth as mud fluid
volume is reduced around the fracture tip. The mud fluid loss
occurs partly due to mud cake accumulation and partly
because of filtrate loss. As shown in Appendix A, the condi-
tion that LPM particulate material creates sufficient size of
packed screen is:
This equation shows that: (1) a high fluid loss drilling fluid
tends to increase LPM's concentration, (2) a high Young's
modulus and a low fracture toughness creates a narrow frac-
ture tip, resulting in a quick screen-out, and (3) a higher
concentration of LPM, i.e., a lower C,, also enhances LPM
screen-out.
To search for the particle size satisfying condition (c), an
experiment was conducted using a modified version of a stan-
dard API mud filtrate tester by replacing the filtrate paper
with a layer of LPM particulate screen (about 1/2"thick) while
varying the mesh size of LPM for optimum results on mud
sealing. It was found that mud fluid, if Bentonite is included,
seals the particulate screen with a specific mesh size, regardless
of the mud weight or base fluid type. (Note that other types
of fluids, such as a hydraulic fracturing gel, require a finer
mesh particulate to seal.)
The LPM particulate material that bridges around a fracture
tip will break if fracture fracture pressure increases. Suppose
 A NEW APPROACH TO PREVENTING
LOST CIRCULATION WHILE DRILLING
reached the depth of 8,348 ft TVD (or 8,448 ft MD). This
interval covered the first two depleted zones mentioned above.
The objective of this test was to find out if the formation in
the test interval could withstand a pressure of 13.0 ppg EMW
or higher using the LPM in the existing mud system.
A water based mud (CYPAN), having a mud weight of 9.8-
9.9 ppg, was used. The mud was mixed and spot treated with
the LPM as planned. The mud weight was increased to
10.6 ppg after treatment. The volumes of mud injection and
corresponding wellbore pressure were carefully monitored and
recorded during the leak-off test. Pumping was maintained at
a level of 0.5 barrel per minute. The test was terminated after
borehole breakdown. A total injection of 30.5 barrels was
achieved.
The plot for the injection volume (bbl) vs. injection pressure
(psi), as recorded during the open hole leak-off test, is shown
in Figure 3. To facilitate discussion, the curve was divided into
five different stages with explanations given as follows:
Stage 1: The injection pressure started to bend, indicating
a small fracture propagation in the First Grubb
zone (from 12.2 to 12.6 ppg). The fracture propa-
gation remained very stable until it reached the
next stage.
Stage 2: A new fracture propagation suddenly occurred
(12.2 ppg at the Second Grubb zone).
Stage 3. The fracture formed in Stage 2 was arrested while
the first fracture repropagated stably in this stage.
The fracture diameter was estimated to be 32 to
41 ft, based on our analysis.
Stage 4: The fracture propagated slowly at the injection
rate of 0.5 bbl per minute. The LPM screen-out
occurred in the pressure-ascending portion of the
stage. Normally, it would require a pressure of
more then 2,000 psi to break the solid screen-out
at the fracture tip. The final fracture size was
estimated to be an ellipsoidal shape with height
and length around 32 to 40 ft and 55 to 70 ft,
respectively.
Stage 5: An abrupt borehole breakdown occurred at some
other formation (injection pressure of 920 psi), i.e.,
most probably at the 13 5/8" casing shoe point at
3,500 ft. The maximum borehole pressure gradi-
ent reached was 15.8 ppg at the peak of injection.
The very unstable fracture propagation suggested
that the borehole surface was nearly flawless and
the formation permeability should be very small
(s0.01 md). According to the log and drilling
data, the formation at the casing shoe was a very
tight shale or siltstone. The effectiveness of LPM
is not significant in an impermeable formation.
To highlight the effect of LPM on the formation capability to
take additional load because of increased fracture resistance,
Figure 4 shows various pressure gradients vs. depth starting
from the 13 318" casing shoe at 3,500 ft to 12,000 ft. The
SPE 24599
pressure gradients include well pressure during LPM testing,
pore pressure, normal mud weight used, and estimated pres-
sure limit for several depleted Grubb zones. As shown in the
diagram, the mud weight equivalent for the well pressure gra-
dient during LPM testing varied linearly from 15.7 ppg at the
casing shoe point (3,500 ft) to 12.6 ppg at the bottom hole
(8,348 ft). As shown in Figure 4, the pressure gradient was
already far greater than the ordinary mud weights, i-e., 9.0 to
10.3 ppg, used to drill this interval. However, the LPM
pressure gradient could be much higher if it was not limited by
the sudden rupture at the shallowest and the weakest casing
shoe point at 3,500 ft (where the maximum pressure gradient
was encountered). Figure 3 also indicated that the resulting
well pressure gradients in the First Grubb and Second Grubb
were 13.4 and 12.8 ppg, respectively. These were much
greater than the original limit of 11.5 ppg in the pressure-
depleted Grubb zones. The pore pressure and normal mud
weight gradients were shown in Figure 4. The transitional
increase of pore pressure starting around 9,800 ft dictated the
location of the 9 5/8" casing point.
The stable growth of fracture and "screen-out," as observed in
the two Grubb zones (Figure 3), demonstrated that the LPM
is effective in the pressure-depleted intervals likely to induce
lost circulation problems. In general, the lostcirculation-prone
zones have surface flaws (cracks or irregular borehole) and
abnormally high stress concentrations because of hole inclina-
tion andlor thermal stress effects, etc. The stress concentra-
tions induced by these factors would initiate a stable fracture,
but the fracture propagation would be prevented by the sealing
effect of the LPM. (This phenomenon usually occurs when
the fracture length is less than several feet.) Another effect of
the LPM is the screen-out, which will occur at a relatively
longer distance (around 20 to 30 ft) after fracture propagation.
This will most likely occur in a potential-circulation zone in
which the pore pressure has been depleted. As shown in
Figure 3, the LPM screen-out did occur in Stage 4, which
demonstrated the LPM effectiveness in preventing fracture
propagation.
However, the LPM has a limited capability to improve a for-
mation that is very tight, impermeable, and flawless, as shown
by Stage 5 in Figure 3. The breakdown pressure at the 13 518"
casing point could well exceed 15.7 ppg if the formation were
more permeable. The leak-off pressure determined previously
at the same location was 12.7 ppg (without LPM). Neverthe-
less, an impermeable shale zone like this is naturally strong and
will rarely induce lost circulation problems. The average
borehole Young's modulus calculated from the highest slope
-
(near Stage 5) in Figure 3 was in the range of 0.5x106 1.0x106
psi. Using these values in our theoretical model, we were able
to calculate the critical fracture aperture at which the unstable
fracture was induced in Stage 5 (Figure 3). It showed that the
critical fracture aperture, We, was in the range of 0.007" to
0.02" when the maximum effective well pressure was 1,320 psi
(injection pressure of 920 psi plus an effective hydrostatic
stress of 400 psi derived from a 10.6 ppg mud). This value
(W,) was approximately equal or slightly better than that
achieved by water based mud without LPM? This suggested
that the LPM would not increase the breakdown pressure
much further at the 13 3/8" casing shoe because of the for-
mation's tightness and relative impermeability. However, the
 G. F. FUH, N. MORITA,
SPE 24599 P. A BOYD, AND S. J. McGOFFIN
most desirable LPM screen-out mechanism did occur in other
locations of higher formation permeabilities, e.g., the First and
Second Grubb zones, as mentioned above.
LPM FIELD TEST NO. 2: CONOCO 33-5 WELL,
NEWKIRK, OKLAHOMA
Four open hole microfrac tests were conducted in several for-
mations using LPM. Microfracture testing was particularly
chosen to determine the effectiveness of LPM to increase for-
mation fracture resistance in a small and selective interval (6
to 8.5 ft). Microfracturing is a test originally designed for
determining the in situ rock stresses in the f~rmation?~The
test is usually performed at relatively low injection rates of 3
to 25 gpm over a short period of time, such as 3 to 10 min.
Our objective was to run tests in several formations of similar
rock types and mechanical characteristics in order to establish
a good benchmark for direct comparison of fracture initiation
and propagation pressures caused by drilling fluids with and
without LPM additives. In all tests, the water based drilling
fluid (WBS-200) in the 33-5 well was used.
A microfrac test set up is shown in Figure 5, where only one
packer was used for the zone isolation and the microfracture
was created around the bottom of the well. A slight variation
of this setup using two packers (and an anchoring device at the
bottom) for zone isolation in between were used to test those
formation intervals located further away from the bottom.
The selection of test zones was aimed at formation homoge-
neity and some degree of rock permeability. As a result, shale
zones were excluded and the Gamma log from Well 33-6
located nearby (Figure 6) was used to determine the potential
test zones. There were six zones chosen initially. However, it
turned out that only four test intervals were possible because
of tremendous difficulties encountered by the anchoring device
designed to provide a firm grip to the wellbore when two
packers were used to seal off the test zones. Also shown in
Figure 6, four tests were successfully carried out at the fol-
lowing depths based on test sequence:
Test 1 (1473 to 1481 ft, sandstone),
Test 2 (1451.5 to 1463 ft, sandstone),
Test 3 (1431.5 to 1443 ft, limestone),
Test 4 (1416.5 to 1428 ft sandstone).
All the tests were conducted in the 8 ln" hole below the
13 318" casing shoe set at 1364 ft. The injection rate was
maintained in the range of 3-5 gpm for better comparison
among tests. The addition of LPM increased the mud density
to 9.fppg from its original 8.7 to 8.8 ppg. According to the
mud engineer, the change in mud rheology caused by LPM
addition yas not significant.
There were two pressure monitoring transducers: one was the
surface unit which recorded only the injection pressure, the
other the downhole unit (located in the test interval) which
recorded the total pressure consisting of injection pressure and
the hydrostatic pressure column of the drilling fluid. Figure 7
shows a typical recording for the surface pressure and flow rate
during the injection (including flow back) test. The flow rate
was maintained at a level of 3 to 4 gpm, and a total injection
of 15 gallons for each step. The injection pressure and flow
rate versus time of testing were plotted (two fracture reopen-
ing tests were also included). All surface and bottom hole
pressure recordings agreed with each other very consistently.
However, only the bottom hole recordings will be shown for
each test result in order to eliminate any slight ambiguity
and/or possible error from flow friction associated with surface
pressure monitoring.
In order to establish baseline data, Test 1 (as shown in
Figure 8) was conducted to determine fracture propagation
pressure in a sandstone using only the drilling fluid without any
LPM additive. The plot clearly indicated that there was an
existing closed fracture in the tested interval, and the fluid
injection only induced a fracture reopening at a constant level
of approximately 756 psi. One more injection was carried out
in the same interval (shown in Figure 9) confirmed the exis-
tence of a closed fracture. Again, the same fracture reopened
at a pressure of about 760 psi, even though a higher pressure
(777 psi) was achieved at some point, indicating the same frac-
ture surface was slightly extended before the pressure dropped
back to about 758 psi at the end of injection. The test results
were still useful since it provided a direct measurement of the
least principal in situ stress, i-e., 760 psi. The formation frac-
ture gradient, at a mean depth of 1477 ft, was therefore in the
range of 9.9 to 10.1 ppg equivalent. The magnitude was what
we had anticipated prior to conducting the test.
In Test 2, we conducted 4 different injections in the sandstone
formation. The first 2 injections had no LPM, while an LPM
was used in the last two injections. As shown in Figure 10, an
initial breakdawn pressure of 880 psi (or 11.6 ppg equivalent)
was recorded. However, a somewhat constant pressure of 785
to 795 psi (or 10.3 ppg equivalent) was maintained throughout
the test, including those injections with LPM in the drilling
fluid. The results were not surprising as we have always stated
that the LPM will not be effective once a lost circulation had
occurred and an open fracture present. (The fracture surfaces
already covered by mud cake or other solids render LPM
ineffective.) LPM is never intended for a remedial treatment
since the fundamental requirement to trigger the needed LPM
plugging mechanism is to have a freshly created fracture
surface for simultaneous filtration and selfandensing (or
screen-out) action. The fracture reopening pressure was quite
consistent to the one obtained in Test 1 above.
There were 3 LPM injections made in Test 3, as shown in
Figure 11. This was a limestone formation. The maximum
injection pressure achieved was 870 psi, or 11.6 ppg equivalent.
The fracture reopening pressure was in the range of 765 to
790 psi (or 10.2 to 10.6 ppg equivalent) indicating that LPM
was not effective in this formation. The results did puzzle us
during the tests. However, we presumed that the limestone
formation was too impermeable to trigger any LPM plugging
or screen-out mechanism. The latest permeability measure-
ments, based on cores remered from the 33-1 well in the
same depth interval, has confirmed our belief that the lime-
stone was indeed very impermeable. The permeability was
determined to be much smaller than 0.01 md.
 A NEW APPROACH TO PREVENTING
LOST CIRCULATION WHILE DRILLING
After many failed attempts to use the double-packer and an
anchoring device for the next test, we were finally forced to
use the same setup (i.e., a single packer without bottom
anchorage unit, as shown in Figure 5) for Test 4 with some
modifications. The tail unit of the test apparatus was fully
extended to the bottom of the well through the use of correct
length of drill pipes and other fittings. The whole process was
both tedious and time consuming, but there were no other op-
tions at the time. The test turned out to be the best success
for LPM. As shown in Figure 12, there were 4 successful
LPM injections in the test. The initial breakdown pressure was
1440 psi, which was 19.5 ppg equivalent. This was a net
increase of nearly 8.0 ppg as compared to the results (i-e.,
11.6 ppg) obtained from Tests 2 and 3 in which either there
was no LPM used or LPM effect was not significant. During
fracture propagation in the first injection, the pressure was
impressively high in the range of 15.0 to 17.2 ppg before the
injection was stopped. The most desirable "screen-out"
plugging mechanism was started right after the initial break-
down during our close monitoring. To confirm this result,
three additional injections were performed. The fracture
reopening pressure remained very high, i.e., in the range of
15.4 to 18.0 ppg, further indicating an excellent LPM sealing
in the fracture initiated. The fracture reopening pressure, or
commonly called the secondary breakdown pressure, was 5.0
to 7.0 ppg higher than the previous tests. Obviously, the LPM
worked very well in this permeable sandstone. Based on the
recent core test results on permeability, the sandstone in this
interval had a value in the range of 500 to 800 md, which was
very similar to the sandstone formation located in the Test 2
interval (400 to 800 md). The sandstone permeability in the
Test 1interval was determined to be 24 to 86 md. Figure 13
shows the same but a complete test curve, using a different
scale, that is equivalent to Figure 12 for Test 4 described
abwe. A hydrostatic head at the level of about 670 psi (indi-
cating a correct 9.1-ppg mud weight equivalent) is clearly
shown in this diagram.
To highlight the LPM effectiveness to increase formation frac-
ture resistance, Figure 14 was replotted to compare the 2 case
results (Tests 2 and 4 described abwe) in which the LPM was
used or left out. The difference was a very lopsided contrast.
As mentioned earlier, the borehole breakdown pressure was
increased by nearly 8.0 ppg because of LPM effect. The frac-
ture propagation pressure was also increased very impressively
by a range of 5.0 to 7.0 ppg. Obviously, the use of LPM in
this type of formation will not have any likelihood to induce
lost circulation while drilling; even a very high mud weight
must be applied (because of high angle build or some abnor-
mally high pore pressure zones located in the adjacent areas,
etc.) for borehole stability or well control reasons.
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON LPM
The two LPM field tests described abwe were conducted with
water based mud. However, we confirm here that the LPM
will work equally well in both water and oil based muds. This
assertion has been validated and supported by our laboratory
lost-circulation experiments on a number of large Berea sand-
stone blocks (30" cube) using various oil and water muds
injected through a drilled wellbore in the rock samples. The
lost-circulation research project was originally initiated by
SPE 24599
Conoco and sixteen other companies through the Drilling
Engineers Association (DEA-13 project) in 1985. The experi-
mental procedures and test results from DEA-13 have been
published previously in an SPE paper.' In the following
paragraphs, we will briefly present three figures to support the
fact of LPM effectiveness in both oil and water based muds.
For simplicity, only the portion of fracture propagation curves
will be given and compared with other baseline results
established earlier by DEA-13 for all types of muds.
Figure 15 shows the results of a very si@cant increase in
fracture propagation pressures for the 16-ppg LVT mud after
mixing with LPM, as compared with the 16-ppg LVT mud
with no LPM. The pressure increase was about 1500 to
4000 psi, which is large enough to stop fracture growth and
thereby prevent lost circulation from occurrence during drilling.
The data also compares extremely well with the test results
obtained from the joint-industry DEA-13 project on lost circu-
lation. The DEA-13 results shown here include: 16-ppg WB
(water-based mud), 16-ppg DOB (diesel oil based), 16-ppg
MOB (mineral oil based), 10-ppg WB, 10-ppg DOB, and 10-
ppg MOB. It should be noted here that the best performer
established earlier in the DEA-13 test results, i.e., the 16-ppg
WB, was outperformed very significantly (800 to 2300 psi
increase in fracture propagation pressures) by the 16-ppg LVT
oil mud mixed with our new LPM product (i-e., the higher
pressure increase is the better formation fracture resistance).
Figure 16 shows the results of very significant increase in frac-
ture propagation pressures for the 10-ppg LVT oil mud after
mixing with LPM, as compared with the 16-ppg LVT mud
without LPM. A pressure increase exceeding 3000 psi is
shown. The same results from DEA-13 experiments, as ex-
plained in Figure 15 above, are also included here for com-
parison.
Figure 17 shows the results of a very significant increase in
fracture propagation pressures for 10-ppg WB (water-based
mud) after mixing with LPM, as compared with the 10-ppg
WB with no LPM. A pressure increase exceeding 4000 psi is
shown in the figure. The same results from DEA-13
experiments, as explained in Figure 15 above, are also included
here for comparison.
The successful results shown above (Figures 15 through 17)
formed the basis of our drive to field test and apply the LPM
product to our drilling operations.
The concentration of material used as LPM will vary with the
drilling fluid used and the conditions of use. Since the
effective LPM plugging of a propagating fracture is funda-
mentally related to the volume of the material used, the con-
centration of LPM required is thus dependent on the specific
gravity of the material used. Our laboratory findings (given in
Figures 15 through 17) clearly shows that the need for the
LPM additive will coincide with the need for a heavier drilling
fluid. So the mud density or mud weight is an important
factor on deciding the concentration of LPM to be applied.
As a principle, the concentration must be great enough to
provide an effective inhibition of fracture initiation and
propagation, but should not be so high to change mud rheolo-
gy significantly. Based on the laboratory and field testing
 G. E FUH, N. MORITA,
SPE 24599 P. k BOYD, AND S. J. McGOFFIN
results, the most preferred concentration of LPM can be
empirically represented by an equation presented and
explained fully in our patent application?
Based on our experimental and field test results, we have
verified that there is a critical size range of the LPM for
optimum fracture inhibition. A similar concept, but using a
combination of different materials, was recently applied by
Amoco in a water based drilling fluid to successfully drill
through multiple, severely depleted, unconsolidated sandstone
reservoirs? The LPM concept, as introduced here, may sound
a little unusual or out of our normal paradigm today; however,
it is very possible that the LPM technology would soon become
a part of drilling routine to counter many difficult formation
problems and/or borehole instabilities associated with the ever-
increasing demands for high-angle and horizontal wells world-
wide.
SUMMARY
This paper provides the theoretical aspect of the LPM and
documents two LPM field tests successfully conducted in
Conoco wells in Ventura, California, and Newkirk, Oklahoma.
The field results, based on microfracturing and long open hole
leak-off tests as conducted, have confirmed that LPM can sig-
nificantly increase fracture resistance in permeable formations.
A remarkable increase of 8.0 ppg in borehole breakdown pres-
sure was achieved in one of our tests in the Newkirk well. An
increase of fracture propagation pressure in the range of 3.0
to 6.0 ppg was recorded in our field tests. These results are in
agreement with our laboratory findings and are also discussed
in this paper. Higher formation fracture resistance, resulting
from the use of LPM in drilling fluids, can reduce or prevent
the occurrence of lost circulation whiie drilling. LPM can be
continuously mixed in oil or water based muds and will not sig-
nificantly change mud rheology. This paper also presents
several LPM applications in high-angle and horizontal well
drilling, drilling through severely depleted formations, and
drilling in highly tectonically active areas where the in situ
stresses are high and unequal.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The theoretical aspect of the LPM concept is now for-
mulated and presented in this paper. Our field test
results and laboratory findings have supported this new
concept and product development.
2. The field test results have shown that LPM is a very
effective inhibitor of fracture initiation and propagation
(or growth) in permeable formations. A remarkable
borehole-breakdown pressure increase of 8.0 ppg was
achieved in one of our field tests using LPM in a water
based mud. In most cases, the fracture propagation
pressure was increased by 3.0 to 6.0 ppg. These findings
were in agreement with our laboratory results using
LPM in sandstone fracture experiments. Although LPM
is not as effective in formations with extremely low
permeability because of high shale and limy contents,
such formations generally have either high in situ stress
or high rock strength, and thus not likely to have lost-
circulation occurrences (if there are no large natural
fractures or vuggy zones).
LPM can be applied to benefit drilling operations in a
number of ways. By effectively increasing formation frac-
ture resistance as demonstrated in the field tests, LPM is
capable of decreasing the incident of lost circulation,
which can reduce drilling fluid costs and the time required
to drill a well. Since LPM is capable of significantly
increasing borehole breakdown and fracture propagation
pressures, it is feasible that the application of the tech-
nology will allow an increase casing setting depths, thus
eliminating the need for an intermediate casing string.
(We have recently accomplished this important objective
in two of our Midland wells in which the requirements for
a casing string were eliminated while the previously
reported lost circulationswere prevented completely while
drilling.) By eliminating one or more casing strings, we
can significantly reduce casing and cementing costs while
allowing smaller holes to be drilled. This will allow
additional cost advantages, as smaller hole sizes require
smaller volume of drilling fluid and generate fewer drill
solids requiring costly disposal.
The LPM should be effective in both oil and water based
muds. Its application is most promising in formations that
are likely to induce lost circulation. It will be effective for
wells l&ted in tectonically stressed zones, depleted
formations, high-angle or horizontal well drilling, highly
permeable sand (or shale) zones, or strong formations
with highly directional in situ stresses. Since the LPM is
aimed at inhibiting any extensive fracture growth in fairly
compact but permeable formations during drilling, it will
not be effective in preventing lost circulation in zones
having vugular structure, large open fracs, or shallow gas
zones that are loosely consolidated with gravel and/or
large pores.
Prevention of lost circulation is far more cost-effective
than remedial action taken after the occurrence of lost
circulation. Especially when oil base drilling fluids are
used, mud lost to the formation can be very expensive,
unsafe (underground blowout), and time -consuming.
Thus, adding the LPM as a fracture inhibitor to the
drilling fluid will provide a margin of fracture protection
for high mud weights used and reduce the degree of
uncertainty involved with drilling operations. Drilling
through highly depleted formations without losing muds
represents a perfect candidate for immediate LPM appli-
cations.
The mechanisms of LPM to prevent lost circulation
requires that an effective amount of granular material (as
determined by the equation in our patent application) in
a specific size range. Out of this size range, a preference
for at least 75 percent of the additive should be in a
certain narrow mesh cut (as disclosed in the patent appli-
cation) to ensure an optimum fracture inhibition and fluid
sealing. Both nut shells and calcined petroleum coke are
our primary choice for LPM as they performed equally
well in the field tests. However, any other inert granular
 A NEW APPROACH TO PREVENTING
LOST CIRCULATION WHILE DRILLING SPE 24599

material with 1.2 to 2.0 specific gravity would also be an 4. Fuh, G. F., and Morita, N. et al.: "Method for Inhibiting
appropriate candidate for LPM.* the Initiation and Propagation of Formation Fractures
While Drilling," Conow Patent Application (Oct. 1991).
NOMENCLATURE
5. Ali, A , Kalloo, C. L., and Singh, U. B., "A Practical
Fluid loss coefficient Approach for Preventing Lost Circulation in Severely
Liquid concentration of drilling fluid Depleted Unconsolidated Sandstone Reservoirs," Paper
Mud fluid concentration with respect to total mud IADCBPE 21917 presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC
(mud +LPM) Drilling Conference (1991), pp. 189-202.
Moduli of rock
Fracture height APPENDIX A: FACTORS AFFECTING SCREEN-OUT
Rock fracture toughness
Fracture pseudo-toughness Factors forming packed particulate screen around a fracture
Propagation pressure resistance induced by tip are analyzed in this appendix using simple assumptions.
screen-out
Fracture pressure Suppose a large fracture is propagating with a constant velocity
Pore pressure v. Consider a fracture tip section r, (distance r, from fracture
Flow rate tip). Only a unit height is considered (Figure A-1).
Total filtrate loss
Radial distance Suppose fluid loss occurs with
Fracture tip region
Fracture pressure
Spurt loss
Time
Fracture tip velocity The total fluid lost from fracture surface around the fracture
Fracture volume tip is
Fracture width
Fracture width at sealing point when fracture has
stopped (approximately equal to cake thickness if
We is large compared to rock grain size)
Time initiating filtrate loss
Porosity of packed LPM
Horizontal in-situ stress (negative)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the management of Conow Inc. for permission to

publish this paper. Halliburton Services assisted us in carrying
out the field tests as presented.

REFERENCES

1. Morita, N., Black, A. D., and Fuh, G. F., "Theory of Lost

Circulation Pressure," Paper SPE 20409 presented at the where Spis spurt loss and t = (r,-r)k is the time passed since
65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the the fracture tip crossed at r,.
Society of Petroleum Engineers (1990) pp. 43-58.
Approximate half fracture tip width is given by
2. Kuhlman, R. D., "Microfrac Tests Optimize Frac Jobs,"
Oil and Gas Journal (Jan. 1990) pp. 45-49.

3. Daneshy, A. A , Slusher, G. L., Chisholm, P. T., and

Magee, D. A , '!In-Situ Stress Measurements During
Drilling," Paper SPE 13227 presented at the 59th Annual where k; is pseudo-fracture toughness.
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (1984). Then the volume of fracture tip becomes

*As stated earlier, the LPM technology developed and dis-

cussed in this paper has been filed and pending a U.S. patent
application by G. F. Fuh and N. Morita of Conoco Inc.
576
 G. F. FUH, N. MORITA,
SPE 24599 P. A. BOYD, AND S. J. McGOFFIN

Note that the fluid loss coefficient Co and S, are those for
drilling fluid traveling a certain distance through fracture gap,
hence, they should be si@cantly smaller than those measured
with the API specified condition.
Drilling fluid volume, which can be removed from the fracture Equation A-7 shows the screen-out region r, becomes wide if
tip, is the left term approaches to zero or negative. Hence, the con-
dition to stop fracture propagation is
3
-

Since the total mud fluid lost from the tip region is greater or
equal to the mud fluid volume to be removable from the
region to induce screen-out, we have
cO/c,2 ( I - u 2 ) kc, (C" - 4) fi
f i E

Although Equation (A-9) is derived based upon simple

assumptions, it suggests that fracture propagation stops if fluid
loss coefficient Co is high, fracture velocity is low, Young's
modulus is high, pseudo-fracture toughness is low, and mud
fluid content C, adjacent to fracture tip is close to irreducible
Equation (A-6) is simplified as mud fluid content 4.
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Injection Volume (bbl)

Fig. 3--5000-ft open-hole leak-off test using LPM in the Grubb No. 388 Well.

Fig. 1--LPM screen-out at fracture tip.

LPM Field Test

Well Pressure Gradient Est. Pressure Limit for
during LPM Testing lst,2nd,3rd Grubb Zones
. -.. .-..-. .-..- .--*--.
15 ..-...
. -.
Normal Mud Weight
............. Pore Pressure Gradient
--c-
14 . .

. -
.......................*...........* 0
_------_---
............."...........
_---
............................. -_.---I

C - _--- 1st Grubb ( 4 1.5 ppg)

2nd Grubb (<I 1.5 ppg)
8
4 t
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Wc*E*(a,,-Po)/(l-U' ) @si**2*in) Depth (ft)

Fig. 4--Comparisonof LPM pressure gradient with pore pressure gradient and normal
Fig. 2--Fracture pseudo-toughness. mud weight used in the Grubb Lease wells.
 I OPEN HOLE MICROFRACTURING I

TEST 4

TEST 3

TEST 2

--
1 4 8 1 TEST

TEST 1: NO L P M

INJ
1 NO LPM
7 NO LPM
INJ

u INJ
3 LPM
INJ 4 LPN
TEST 3 : LPM
T t s i 4 : LPM
Fig. 5--Field set-up for open-hole microfracture tests (Ref.
Fig. 6--Selection of four open-hole microfracture tests using
LPM (based on Gamma log data) in the Conoco 33-5 Well.

Fig. 7--?lpical recordings of surface pressure and flow rate data during open-hole
microfracture tests in the Conoco 33-5 Well.

579
 Presswe Vs Time
Pressue Vs Time

Fig. &-Test 1: fracture opening test (no LPM used) in a

sandstone formation (with closed fracture). Fig. 9--Test 2: fracture reopening test (no LPM used) in a
sandstone formation.

Pressure Vs Time Pressue Vs Time

(n-

Fig. 10--Test 2: fracture opening test (four injections) in a Fig. 11--Test 3: fracture opening tests (three injections) using
sandstone formation (LPM used in the last two injections LPM in a limestone formation.
only).
 Pressure Vs Time Pressue Vs Time
2.1

2.0

*^
n^
Q 1.2 ' 16

- .
5
;
i f 1;"
0.9
I 0.8

0.4

0.6 0.0

B 8
Fig. 12--Test 4: fracture opening tests (four injections) using Fig. 13--Test 4: complete downhole pressure curves showing
LPM in a sandstone formation. .four injections using LPM in a sandstone formation.

800-
-M
1-ma

700-

-
B m-

I
P
S
=-
1spW LYT (with LPM)

I ,-
300-
Hydrostatic Haad = m pal (9.1 ma)

I n j d o n Time, seconds

- 10 Fig. 15--Comparison of fracture propagation pressures for

different mud types with or without LPM. (The test for 16-
ppg LVT oil mud using LPM is shown.)
4 8 12 16 20
lnjeclion Volume, Gals

Fig. 14--Comparison of well injection pressures using LPM

(Test 4) and without LPM (Test 2) in sandstone formations.
 Fracture cross section \
01 I I I I
120 240 360 480 8
Injection The, seconds

Fig. 16--Comparison of fracture propagation pressures for

different mud types with or without LPM. (The test for 10-
ppg LVT oil mud using LPM is shown.)

\ Fracture tip

lsppg WB (with LPM)

Fig. A-1--Material balance around fracture tip.

lo-ppg WB

0 I I I I
120 240 380 480
Injection lime, seconds

Fig. 17--Comparison of fracture propagation pressures for

different mud types with or without LPM. (The test for 10-
ppg water based mud using LPM is shown.)