*
m.,
lADC/SPE 36398
Cesium Formate - The Beneficial Effects of Low Vkcosity and High Initial Fluid Loss on
Drilling Rate - A Comparative Experiment
Mak S. Ramsey, P. E., SPE, Texas Drilling Associates; Jon A. Shipp, SPE, Cabot Specialty Fluids; Bill J. Lang, SPE,
Baker-Hughes INTEQ; Alan Black, SPE, TerraTek; David Curry, SPE, TerraTek
COPvnght 1996, SocIefV of Petrolaum Engmmrs, Inc.
Thl! 090w wa$ graomed hat presentation a! lhe IADCISPE Asta Pacific Onlling T.chnofogv
Conference m K..la L.rnour. Mnlays,a, 9.11 Sem.mb.r 1996,
Th!s papw was $elected for prmaen!aoon by an SPE Program Cwnmirlm following IWIWV
O( mtormarnm coomined m an abstf$cf submmea by du Wttior[sl. Commls of tho papw,
m preseotad, have no! been rev!ewod by tho SocImV of Petroleum EnQtoeeIs am Me
S.b!ect 10 correction by tho authorlsl Th8 ma!er! al, as poammed, does nol n~cessmily
IOIIOCI anv oosl! (on O( the Socmw of Patrolaum Eng#nnars, ,!$ of ftcnrs, of membws. Papers
presenred at SPE mnermgs am Sublecf to publtcarm” mvmw by Editor(al Commm..s 0/ Ift.
SOCIOIY01 Peuoleum En9meefs. Pwmmwon to coPv M fosu,clbd to m abslrsct of not mm+.
tfmn 300 words. Illustratmns may not b8 coPma The abslrlcl SIWUIOconlmn Con$gtcuws
●cknolwea9men1 of wfwra ma f)y wnom lho paper was masantad. Wnto Llbraflwi, SPE,
P O EOK 833836, R,charmon TX 75083.3836, U S A , fax 01.214.952.9435
Abstract
Full scale drilling tests using industry accepted protocols have
been conducted to investigate drilling rates achievable with a
new, high density, environmentally acceptable, clear brine
fluid. Importantly, control experiments using a hematite-
wcightcd waler based field mud were also conducted.
This paper presents the data and the authors’ analysis,
wilh an emphasis on fluid loss measurements conducted
during the tests. The fluid of interest consists of
approximately 18.7 ppg Cesium Formate with polymeric
additives for viscosity and fluid loss control.
It is believed that the fluids used in these tests are the
highest density ever used in published fidl scale laboratory
drilling tests.
Summary Results
Results of the tests show dramatic increases in drilling rates
as compared with the centrol water based hematite field mud
of similar density as the cesium formate mud. The
formulations used exhibited apparently high so-eatled “spurt
losses”, yet API fluid loss was low. The authors attribute the
exceptional drilling rates to both the low base fluid viscosity
and high initial fluid loss of the cesium forrnate based drilling
fluid.
Background
Cesium Formate, a new compound being actively tested in
263
Society of Petroleum Engineers
laboratories today for possible oilfield application, is
chemically classified as an alkali-metal salt of formic acid. It
offers properties that in many respects are superior to
alternative compounds such as Zinc Bromide and Catcium
Bromide.
Due to its high volubility in water, a “clear brine” of
Cesium Formate in water ean reach 19.8 ppg (2.4 Sg) density.
In achieving this high density, cesium formate retains
exceptionally low viscosity. Referring to Figure 1, a sodium
formate liquid at 1.2 Specific gravity (Sg, wates=l ghnl) has
a viscosity of only slightly over 2 cP. Potassium formate at
about 1.4 Sg has about a 3 CPviscosity, and is only about 10
CPor so at 1.5 Sg. Cesium Formate’s viscosity at a density of
19.2 ppg (2.3 Sg) is less than 3 pseudo-centipoise.4’9
The advantages of a solids-free system are significant. The
plastic viscosity of a mud is greatly affected by the quantity of
suspended solids. Figure 2 shows suspended solids
concentrations for bante and hematite water based muds as
density is increased.’s Being free of particulate, clear brine
systems in general will exhibit lower plastic viscosities than
conventional mud systems. This will result in lower
equivalent circulating densities (ECDS) and lower parasitic
pressure losses down-hole resulting in greater drilling
eff]cieney. These two effects are particularly important in
slim hole drilling where, because of the reduced pipe and
annulus diameters, minimizing down-hole pressure losses
(and hence ECDS) is essential to ensure good rates of
penetration while preventing fracturing of the formation.’g
Of increasing importance to today’s production operations,
the forrnates are considered to be more environmentally
friendly and less toxic than available alternatives, and have
been shown to be essentially non-corrosive.4’s’*’9 The
formates are largely compatible with conventioml oil field
polymers, and are thought to be relatively non-damaging to
productive formations as compared to conventional fluids,
making them excellent candidates for selected “drill-in” fluid
markets.
While many of these properties lend themselves toward
testing, completion, packer fluid, and kill fluid applications,
this paper focuses on cesium formates performance as a
2 RAMSEY, SHIPP, LANG, BLACK, AND CURRY
drilling or drill-in fluid.
Cesium Formate Fluid Design
Since one of the more attractive features of Cesium Formate
is that it is non-damaging to formations, the design of the
drilling mud was such that this non-damaging characteristic
would be preserved as much as possible.
High density drilling fluids, due largely to a high solids
content, typically exhibit high viscosities. While this
viscosity is needed to support weighting material, at high
densities it may not be needed in order to remove cuttings
from the wellbore. However, with virtually all high density
fluids this is a moot issue, since there are not effeetive means
to substantially reduce viscosities caused by the high solids
loading.
Cuttings Carrying Index. To illustrate that high viscosity is
increasingly less important for hole cleaning as fluid density
increases, a measure of hole cleaning, the” Canying Capacity
Index” (CCI), proposed by Robinson, will be used.11’12This
CCI has proven to be an effective measure of whether hole
cleaning is sufhcient to remain out of trouble in vertical
wellbores.
The CCI is defined by the equation:
(1)
K, the power law low shear rate viscosity, may be calculated
by the equation:
K = 511( ’-”)(PV+YP) (2)
and n, the power law exponent, is calculated by the equation:
2PV+YP
n = 3.322 Log (3)
PV+YP
Refernng to equation (l), the denominator has a value of
400,000, chosen empirically such that good hole cleaning is
experienced when the value of the CCI equals or exceeds
unity. Values less than unity give one ease for concern that
poor hole cleaning may lead to trouble, and values exceeding
unity indicate hole cleaning is tilcient to avoid trouble.
Note that in addition to amtdar velocity, the two factors
atTecting the CCI are the mud weight and the viscosity.
Higher mud weight improves hole cleaning by reducing the
settling velocity of the cuttings. Henee, as mud weight
increases, the viscosity required to sufficiently clean the hole
decreases. For example, if one has a water based mud with a
264
3a3ea
PV of 10, a YP of 12, a MW of 11.2 ppg, and an annular
velocity of 130 feet per minute, the CCI eakulates to a value
of 1.40, If one then assumes a density of 18.7 ppg (as used
for the eesium formate fluid for these tests), and keeps all
other variables constant, the CCI becomes 2.45. For the 18.7
ppg mud to achieve a CCI similar to the 11.2 ppg mud, then
the PV and YP are required to be only 2 and 4, respectively.
This results in a CCI of 1.46.
Those skilled in the art recognize that increased
turbulence and the resulting flatter flow veheity profile also
enhanee hole cleaning. Fluids such as Cesium Formate can
aid in increasing turbulence via their low viscosities as
compared with other high density fluids.
The result of this is that for high density fluids, one
should give serious consideration whether viseosity-
increasing polymers or other additives are really necessary.
While Cesium Formate is quite capable of having such
extraordinarily low viscosities at high densities, it was
deeided for these experiments to boost viscosity somewhat to
values that might be considered more “normal”, at least for
lower density fluids,
While various polymer combinations were examined
during a pilot testing phase, a simple two polymer system was
chosen as both the best and simplest to nm. The cesium fluid
was viseosified with xantham gum, and low viscosity
polyanionic cellulose (PAC) was seleeted to aid in fluid loss
control.
To provide particles for bridging the pore spaces in the
Berea Sandstone and hence further reduee fluid loss, a
seketed size distribution of calcium carbonate was added to
the last two eesium formate fluids used. This addition also
provided suspended particulate that helped simulate the
effect of small amounts of drill solids, as would be expeeted
from imperfect solids removal during use as a drill-in fluid.
The first two tests were run solids-free except for the drill
solids from the immediate and prior tests.
Note that only a single quantity of eesium formate was
available for testing+and hence solids were added sequentially
between tests to reach desired concentrations.
The approximate polymer and calcium carbonate
concentrations used for each of the cesium formate tests are
shown in Table L The 15 ppb concentration was chosen
based on previous work by Shell, and the 38 ppb
concentration was chosen as being similar to what is typically
found in drill-in fluid formulations.l Once pilots
demonstrated acceptable theologies, the formulation was
slowly added to the base eesium forrnate through an ordinary
venturi mud hopper, and sheared for a short time through the
test rig’s circulating system prior to initiating eaeh drilling
test series.
Hematite Weighted Control Fluid Design
For comparison purposes, two additional tests were conducted
30398 CESIUM FORMATE - THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF LOW VISCOSITY AND HIGH INITIAL FLUID LOSS ON DRILLING RATE
A COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENT 3
using a hematite-weighted water based mud. This mud was a
field mud from a well site close to Salt Lake City, Utah, that
was weighted to achieve a density of 18.3 pounds per gallon,
slightly lower than but comparable to the cesium formate mud
that was 18.7 pounds per gallon.
Early in the test program, the choice of comparison mud
was scrutinized. Informal contacts with industry personnel
were made. The deeision to use a water based control mud
was based on that feedback coupled with the thoughts of the
investigators.
Hematite was chosen as the weighting agent over ordinary
barite in order to minimize solids loading and hence viscosity
of the control mud. It is filly anticipated that had a barite
weighted mud been used, the cesium formate fluid would
have performed even better by comparison!
A water based field mud was located in the area and
transported to an area liquid mud plant for conditioning. The
comparison fluid was weighted with hematite to
approximately 17.0 ppg and transported to the TerraTek
testing facility. The water based mud was transfemd into the
circulating system and checked. Additions of hematite and a
great deal of conditioning materials were introduced into the
system to bring the fluid into planned specifications, giving
the fluid the best opportunity to perform. The water based
field fluid exhibited typical properties of a heavily treated
water based drilling fluid containing solids. The comparison
fluid was tested in both Berea Sandstone and Mancos Shale
drilling simulations. The properties of the fluid were tested
and recorded after each simulator run (Table 2).
Facilities
Drilling tests were conducted in the wellbore simulator at the
Drilling and Completion Laboratory of TerraTek, located in
Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. The rock sample stresses, the
pore pressure and the borehole pressure were controlled to
simulate downhole drilling conditions. Direct measurement
of fluid passing through the Berea sandstone cores was
possible with this test apparatus. Detailed descriptions of this
well known facility may be found in references 14-16.
Experimental Design
The experimental design consisted of the drilling of six
discreet rock samples, two of Mancos shale and four of Berea
sandstone. The Mancos was chosen as being one of the
strongest standard shales used for lab investigations. The
Berea was chosen as being the most representative of
standard sandstones used in lab work. Two mud systems
were used, one being the cesium formate fluid and the second
being a control mud, (described above) used for comparison.
In order to extend previous investigators’ work into the
higher density ranges, a standard 6 1/8” J33 roller cone bit
265
-
was used for all tests. This bit was fitted with three 12/32
inch diameter tungsten carbine bit nozzles. Flowrate was
maintained at approximately 225 gpm for all tests, resulting
in a bit pressure drop of around 750 psi and a hydraulic
horsepower of around 98, (3.34 hsi).
This design of the experiment accomplished several items.
First, it provided comparison data between the cesium
forrnate fluid and the reference hematite mud. Second, it
adhered to previously published protocol closely, enabling
extension of that work.’3 Third, it permitted several
concentrations of calcium carbonate to be introduced to the
fluid. Fourth, it provided “repeat” data within each rock
sample drilled to help estimate pore fluid flow effects (for
Berea sandstone tests). Fiflh, it optimized testing with the
limited volume of cesium formate available. The
experimental matrix is shown in Table 3.
For each individual test series, suitable ranges of weights-
on-bit and rotary speeds were selected. The conditions and
the order of those conditions were such that secondary effects
such as pore pressure effects in the Berea could be examined.
Several ‘repeat’ points were conducted as well. Slight
differences in the loading matrices from one test series to
another occurred due to operational considerations and a
tailoring of the tests based on prior results. A representative
loading condition matrix is shown in Table 4. A
representative data set obtained by drilling a single test rcxk
sample is plotted in Figure 3.
Unscheduled Event: Fluid Contamination
As the pristine clear brine was circulated through the test
apparatus prior to mixing with polymers and commencing of
the drilling tests, it became contaminated with small amounts
of residues and scales from the inside of the flow paths, even
though the circulation system was far cleaner than would be
expected under field conditions. While visually distressing,
pilot testing indicated the performance of the base fluid was
relatively unimpaired. Some decrease in the effects of
polymers on viscosity was noticed, leading to more polymer
being used than originally planned in order to reach the
viscosity levels desired. Other than the visual cloudiness of
the fluid and the reduced yield of the polymers, the fluid was
extremely tolerant of contaminants.
Drilling Rate Results
Drilling results will be discussed by comparing control mud
results and cesium fluid results for similar test conditions. In
general, the primary variables were rock type, fluid
composition, rotary speed, and weight on bit.
Figure 4 compares the drilling rates achieved in similar
Mancos Shale rock samples under similar conditions with
both the hematite control mud and the cesium forrnate based
4 RAMSEY, SHIPP, tANG, BLACK, AND CURRY
mud at 120 RPM and various bit weight loadings, In nearly
every case, the improvement in drilling rate of the cesiurn
fluid over the control hematite mud was 100’?4o or more.
Figure 5 presents the same 120 RPM data, with the
addition of 60 RPM data, only expressed as a percentage
improvement over the nominally similar hematite control
mud results. As em be seen, improvement approaching
100% and greater than 150% was achieved for the 60 RPM
and 120 RPM cases, respectively. Note too, that the 120
RPM and 20,000 pound force weight on bit condition, which
is close to the recommended maximum loading for the
particular bit used, achieved nearly 250% drilling rate
improvement over the control mud ease!
Figure 6 is a similar plot as Figure 5, only the sample
drilled was Berea Sandstone at 120 RPM. As before, the
results are shown as a percentage improvement over the
reference hematite mud, with the data unadjusted for the mud
weight difference. Since three different eesium forrnate muds
were used, three total bar groups are present, representing the
38 ppb calcium carbonate Cesium Forrnate mud the 15 ppb
calcium carbonate Cesium Formate mud and the “clear”
Cesium Formate mud with no calcium carbonate added. In
all cases, the hematite control mud is the baseline, or zero
percent improvement. Importantly for directional drilling
applications, the drilling rates achieved at low bit loading
conditions with the Cesium Formate mud were comparable to
the hematite mud rates at higher bit loadings!
Note that penetration rates decrease with increased solids
(calcium carbonate) loading as would be expected, Even at
the full 38 ppb loading, the average improvement over all bit
weights exceeded 100°/0,and drilling with the clear brine
(with polymers but no crdciurn carbonate), as one might do in
drilling a pay zone, resulted in penetration rates about 350%
higher than the control mud rates.
Figure 7 is a composite of all drilling rate data take~
boiled down to four Cesium Formate percentage improvement
numbers, referenced against the hematite results as “zero”
percent.
Discussion
These improved drill rates can be readily explained by the
exceptionally low base fluid (and bulk fluid) viscosities of the
cesium formate test fluids. However, the mechanism by
which this low viscosity fluid aids in drilling rate is somewhat
different for the cases of shale and sandstone drilling.
For the case of the non-porous shale, it is important that
the micro+ macksformed by the bit are rapidly filled with
borehole fluid, since flow from the rock itself is essentially
non-existent. With the low viscosity fluid, these microaacks
are rapidly filled with bore hole liquid, and thus the
“holddown” force is minimized or eliminated. Additionally,
with fluid filling the cracks at the reek face, (and hence
maintaining pore pressure as the crack volume increases),
266
36398
failure mode remains “brittle” rather than tending towards a
plastic failure as is often the ease in drilling tough shales with
conventional muds.
For the case of porous rocks such as the Berea sandstone,
the relatively high spurt loss of the fluids creates a near
wellbore zone, especially just beneath the bit that is closer to
the borehole pressure than is the mtive undisturbed far field
pore pressure. This near well bore pressuring has essentially
the same effixt on rock strength as does drilling near to
balance with far field pore pressure. Hence, a safer way to get
the benefits of drilling “close to balance” might be to drill
with a higher fluid loss fluid, at least for porous formations.
Referring to Figures 8 and 9, the effeets of high shear rate
viscosity and the filtrate flow through the reek can be clearly
seen. In Figure 8, as the solids content of the eesium fluids
increases with additions of calcium carbonate, and henee the
Farm 600 readings increase, the resulting drilling rate slows
accordingly. In a nearly linear relationship, the hematite
mud, with its extremely high solids loading and henee high
Farm 600 readings, drills proportionately slower. This effect,
while dramatic, should not be surprising given field
experiences with lower density fluids. In addition, it has been
reported by several investigators that penetration rate is a
direct function of plastic viscosity.17
Figure 9, while not as linear as Figure 8, demonstrates a
clear relationship between fluid loss through the Berea
sandstone and drilling rates. Note that in the ease of the
cesium fluids, there was a high fluid spurl loss while drilling
was in progress. However, even though only lightly treated
with polymers and in two cases, calcium carbonate, the fluid
loss rate through the formation essentially stopped when
weight on bit was removed, even though fidl pump pressure
and rotary speed remained. VLsudly obsewd, this effect was
nearly instantaneous when the bit weight was removed. For
the case of the hematite control mud, the fluid loss ramped
down over a period of 60 seconds or so in a fashion similar to
that typically observed in labs when taking API fluid loss
measurements on water based gel-lignosulfonate muds.
In addition to the reek failure meehanics, for both the
shale and the sandstones, (and any other rock), the low
viscosities (at all shear rates) of the cesium fluids will
undoubtedly lead to improved bit hydraulics, more energy
available to power down hole tools, drilling deeper with
similar downhole hydraulic energy levels, or combinations of
these uses of hydraulic energy. Importantly, this feature of
low viscosity is one of the most attractive features to
companies using forrnates primarily for slim hole drilling. 10
Conclusions
While improved drilling rates as compared to the hematite
control muds were anticipated, the drilling rates of the low-
viseosity cesium forrnate based drilling fluid surpassed
expectations. These improvements exceeded 100’?40 for nearly
3639a CESIUM FORMATE - THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF LOW VISCOSITY AND HIGH INITIAL FLUID LOSS ON DRILLING RATE -
A COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENT 5

all test conditions. In several test conditions, improvements YP = Yield Point, pounds force per 100
exceeding 200°Awere observed. square feet
The cesium based fluid was relatively unaffected by
contaminants, and was compatible with readily available
polymers for viscosity and fluid loss control purposes, Of
economic importance, while the apparent “spurt loss” was Acknowledgments
judged to be high, the static filtration rate rapidly dropped to The authors wish to thank Cabot Corporation, who sponsored
nearly zero for most formulations. the work, the staff of the Drilling and Completions
Applications for this fluid include both “drill-in fluids” Laboratory at TerraTek, who pefiormed the experiments with
and/or “drilling fluids” to enhance ROP in high cost, slow enthusiasm and professionalism, and Baker Hughes INTEQ,
drilling areas requiring high fluid densities. In additio~ due who provided great assistance in pilot and test fluid
to its low viscosity at high densities, it is also an excxdlent formulations.
solution for deep slimhole applications and extended reach
wells where hydraulics constraints may effectively limit the
achievable measured depth of the well. Finally, since the References
material is essentially non-corrosive and non-damaging to
formations, it is an excellent candidate for HPHT 1. Ramsey, Mark, Shipp, Jon, Lang, Bill, “Cesium Formate
completions, well testing, and workover applications, Drilling and Drill-In Fluids - Results of Full-Scale Laboratory
Development is ongoing and will continue based on both Drilling Tests”, paper presented at the AADE Drilling Fluids
theoretical expectations and the results of these full scale Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 34, 1996.
drilling tests. 2. Ramsey, Mark, Shipp, Jon, “Forrnate Brines - New Fluids For
DriIIing And Completions”, Petroleum Engineer International,
Full scale drilling tests of Cesium Forrnate fluids under
January 1996, pp 33-37.
simulated downhole conditions indicate interesting potential 3. Oort, E. van, Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K.: “Manipulation of
for improvement in drilling rate performance. Coupled Osmotic Flows for Stabilisation of Shales Exposed to
Water-Based Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE 30499 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas
Nomenclature (October 22-25, 1995).
4. Howard, Siv K.: “Formate Brines for Drilling and Completion:
AJ/ = Annular Velocity, feet per minute Nate of the Art,” paper SPE 30498 presented at the SPE
bbl = oilfield barrel, (42 gallons) Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas
(October 22-25, 1995).
r= degrees Centigrade
s. Huntingdon Research Center, ‘Cesium Forrnate Metaphase
CCI = carrying capacity index, dimensionless Chromosome Analysis of Human Lymphocytes Cultured In
CP = viscosity, centi-Poise Vitro,” repofi, March 16, 1995.
CSCOOH = Cesium Formate 6. Svendsen, Ojvind, To!kn, J.K., Marshall, D.S., Herrnansson,
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density, ppg/Sg C.L.: “Use of a Novel Drill-In/Completion Fluid Based on
T= degrees Fahrenheit Potassium Formate Brine on the First Open Hole
gal = US gallon Completion in the Gullfaks Field,” paper SPEYIADC29409
gpm = gallons per minute presented at the SPE./lADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam
hsi = horsepower per square inch (Februmy 28-March 2, 1995).
7. Oort, E. van, Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K., Roy, Sanjil “Critical
in = inch
Parameters in Modelling the Chemieal Aspects of Borehole
K= power law low shear rate viscosity, Stability in Shales and in Designing Improved Water-Based
effective centipoise Shale Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE 28309 presented at the SPE
lb, = pounds force Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans
Ibm = pounds mass (September 25-28, 1994).
&fw . mud weight, pounds per gallon 8. Downs, J.D., Killie, Siv, Whale, G.F., Inglesfield, Christopher
—
. power law exponent, dimensionless “Development of Environmentally Benign Formate-Based
PA: = pcdyanionic cellulose Drilling and Completion Fluids,” paper SPE 27143 presented
ppb = pounds per barrel at the International Confmerw on Health, Safety, and
Environment in Oil& Gas Exploration and Production, Jakarta,
PPg = density, pounds per gallon
Indonesia (JanuqI 25-27, 1994).
psi = pounds force per square inch 9. Downs, J.D.: “Formate Brines: Novel Drilling and Completion
Pv = Plastic Viscosity, effective centipoise Fluids for Demanding Environments,” paper SPE 25177
ROP = Rate of Penetration presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Sg = specific gravity, dimensionless Chemistry, New Orleans (March 2-5, 1993).

267
 6 RAMSEY, SHIPP, lJING, BLACK, AND CURRY 3639a

10. Downs, J.D.: “Formats Brines New Solutions to Deep Slim- Amsterdam,(February- March1995)pp. 333-341.
Hole Drilling Fluid Design Problems,” paper SPE 24973 18. Marshall, David S.: “CLEAR-DRILLm $s@-iLs,” FM&w

presented at the Europeerr Petroleum Conference, Cannes, Hughes INTEQ Drill-ii Fluid Reference Manual, 1995.
France (November 16-18, 1992).
11. Robinson, Leon, “Empirical Correlation For Borehole
Cleaning Developed,” Petroleum Engineer International,
(September 1993, pp 3742).
12. Singh, Baldeo, end Robinson, Leon, “Graphical Technique S1 Metric Conversion Factom
Simplifies Borehole Cleaaing~, Petroleum Engineer
International,(February1995,pp 55-58). T x 1.0 E43= Pas
13. Chcduun,C.A., Nahm, J,J., Heitksmp, N.D.: “Effcets of “F (°F-32)/l.8 E +00 = “C
Selected Mud properties on Rate of penetration in Full-scale bbl X 1.589 E-01= m3
Shale Drilling Simulations~ paper SPIMADC 13465, New X 3.785 E-03= m3
I@
&leans, (March 1985) pp. 365-373.
in X 2.54 E+OO= cm
14. Black, A.D,, Dearing, H.L., and DiBona, B.G., “Effects of
Pore Pressure and Mud Filtration on Drilling Rates in a Ibr X 4.448 E+OO= N
Permeable !%ndstone~, Journal of Petroleum Tcehnology, I& X 4.536 E-01= kg
(September 1985, pp. 1671-1681. lbf / 100ft2 X4,788 E~l= Pa
15. Black, A.D.: “Laboratory Testing Downhole Tools:, psi X 6.895 E+O1 = kpa
Petroleum Engineering, (July 1977) pp. 68-78.
16. Black, A.D.: “Effects of Size on Three-Cone Bit Performance Farm is a registered trademark of Baroid Technology, Inc.
in Laboratory Drilled Shale,” Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal, (August 1985),
17. Bmk, F.E., Powell, J.W., Zamora, Mario: “me Effeet of
Rheology on Rate of Penetration”, paper SPIMADC 29368
presented at the 1995 SPWIADC Drilling Conkrenee,
Table 1
Cesium Formate Mud Formulations

Test Mud Xantham Low Vise. Calcium

Series Density Gum PAC Carbonate
1 18.7 ppg 1.0 ppb 0.5 ppb None
2 18.7 ppg 1.0 ppb 0.5 ppb None
3 18.7 ppg 1.0 ppb 1.5 ppb 15 ppb
4 18.7 ppg 1.5 ppb 2.0 ppb 38 ppb

Table 2- Test Fluids’ Properties

I Cesium Formate Brines ~ Water Based Hematite
T
Test Sample 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
Measurement Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Rock Type Berea Berea Mancos Mancos Berea Berea Berea Berea Berea Berea Mancos Mancos
CaCO~ ppb 15 15 36 38
Density, ppg 18.7 18,7 18.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 18.7 18.7 16.3 18,3 18.3 18.3
\ 600 31 34 34 34 42 42 49 47 74 59 56 62
300 21 21 21 20 27 27 31 31 59 46 42 48
200 18 18 18 17 18 20 25 24 51 41 29 26
100 13 12 13 12 13 14 16 17 48 37 34 48
6 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 42 35 41 45
. c . . . . .-l . A .4 39 40 45
A.V. 15.5 17 17 17 21 I 21 24.5 23.5 28 30 26 32
Pv. 10 13 13 14 15 15 18 16 15 13 14 14
Y.P. 11 8 8 6 12 12 13 15 44 33 28 34
Gels 616 5}5 515 4/5 5f5 4/5 314 415 37144 26141 21/40 25145
API Filtrate 6 (3 69 53 35 25 35 35 142 14.6 +6 15.5

268
3e39e CESIUM FORMATE - THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF LOW VISCOSITY AND HIGH INITIAL FLUID LOSS ON DRILLING RATE -
A COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENT 7

Table 3
Experimental Test Matrix - Rock Samples and Mud

Test Rock Mud Calcium Mud Bore Hole Pore

Series Sample Type Carbonate Density Pressure Pressure*

1 Berea CSCOOH None 18.7 2000 1000

2 Mancw CSCOOH None 18.7 2000 0
3 Berea CSCOOH 15 ppb 18.7 2000 1000
4 Berea CSCOOH 38 ppb 18.7 2000 1000
5 Mancos Hematite 18.3 2000 L%1OOO 0
6 Berea Hematite 18.3 2000 1000

● Nominal, varies while drilling through the rocksample

Table 4
Representative Loading Conditions

Test Point RPM WOB

in Series
1 60 10000
2 60 15000
3 60 20000
4 60 25000
5 60 10000 (repeat)
6 120 15000
7 120 20000
8 120 25000
9 120 10000
10 120 15000 (repeat)
11 60 15000 (repeat)

269
8 RAMSEY, SHIPP, LANG, BLACK, AND CURRY

Figure 1 Figure 2
Forrnate Viscosities
75& 120 deg. F, (after Downs) Comparisond SolidsComtenIIn MudWeigMadwilh
withVariouaWetgMMakiak
al,
I I I I I I I I I

1’ ,/
Sg, gmtrnl -J
2

1
/

+
,’
4’

12 14
.... . .. . ...
1.6 la
l-t-i
, 1
1 1.2 1,4 1.6 1.6 2 22 2.4
2.0 2.2
PP G .------ 8.3 100 ii7 t3.3 15 t 16.7 18.3 W8~M (S0)
&MIS~ (Sg gmhl ●nd PPG) + CaCXJ3 + Swie + Fommte BtinD

——— —— - NaCOOli 75F Cscoo+l 75F

— – KCOOH 75F c#cooli 120F

Figure 3
#4-CsCOOH, 38 ppb CaC03, Berea Sandstone
(Time vs. Depth, RPM and WOB)

150 30000

125 25000

20000

10000

25 5000

0 0

Time, seconds
Weight on Bit RPM
mmmm

270
3639a CESIUM FORMATE - THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF LOW VISCOSITY AND HIGH INITIAL FLUID LOSS ON DRILLING RATE -
A COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENT 9

Figure 4 Figure 5

f 20 RPM - Mancos Shale

% Improvenwnt in ROP of Ceaium Mud over Hematita
35- I - (Both W and 120 RPM Teata Mamma)
0 Hematite b
30-
300%, I I I 1
~ Cesium WI 0 ppb CaC03
25- -
250% I I I
20-

15- — —

.-lo -

5- < J 1

0? ~
5000 10000 150C41 20000 25000 30000
,, -,... . . . . . ... , llxlMl 15000 20303 m
WOB, poundsforce

Figure 6 Figure 7

Percentage Improvement in ROP of Ceaium Mud over

Hematite -60 RPM Teata, Berea Averaged ‘A Improvement in ROP

600% , 1
B3ep@ceC03 N15@Glco3 ❑loppbcaca
5m% -
n
400%
I I
hdli m i

%1
1a)%
Per
o% HematiteMancoaBerea3S Sarea 15 BereaO
ICKIOI 15C@0 20000 2xmo Shale P@ PPb P@
WOB, fxxm&
Teal Condition

271
10 RAMSEY, SHIPP, LANG, BLACK, AND CURRY

Figure 8
600 RPM Reading vs. Drilling Rate
(Berea, 120 RPM, 15k WOB)
eo
A
50
4

A
4(3
A
30 ●

20

10 ●
Drill o
+

2530 s5404s50 ss60e570

Farm Reading, 600 RPM

● CSCOOH, Oppb CaC03 A CSCOOH, 15 ppb CaC04
■ CSCOOH, 38 ppbCaC05 ● Hematite

Figure 9
ROP vs. Fluid Loss
(15k WOB, 60 RPM, Berea)
35
●
30
25- A
QP
20 .
?
15
10
● ● @
5
Drill o
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fluid Flow Through Rock Sample, mlkec

● CSCOOH,OppbCaC03 A CSCOOH, 15 ppbCaC04
MCSCOOH, 38 ppbCaC05 ● Hematite

272