SPE1l892,/1

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE &: PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF

LESS TOXIC OIL MUDS

by

R C De Wolfe
G B Coffin
R V Byrd

Dresser Magcobar

INTRODUCTION

Studies in the past have looked at the pressure and temperature effects in
respect to diesel-based mud systems, but with the introduction of new
mineral-base oils, the need for pressure/temperature testing has again
become an item of great interest.

Questions have been raised as to the possible differences in characteristics

which muds might have in the areas of annular flow dynamics, bit
hydraulics, and carrying capacity under actual downhole temperatures and
pressures.

The prime reason that there has been little inspection into these areas has
been the lack of good base data which could be used in some of the
already existing calculation methods available to the industry.

This lack of data is due primarily to the shortage of high-

pressure/temperature viscometers and good procedures under which the
existing equipment can be used.

Thi~ paper will propose general procedures used in collecting base data
concerning oils, laboratory-prepared oil-base muds, and oil-base muds which
have been exposed to field use. Some of the trends which have been
observed while testing various oil base muds will be noted.
This paper is concerned only with establishing a general framework of
temperature and pressure relationships. Specific problems should be
examined using measured data which pertains to the borehole under
inspection.

OIL VISCOSITY/DENSITY TESTS

In order to establish the differences between oils, before any solids or

chemicals were added to create oil-base muds, a series of tests was run on
five less toxic oils plus diesel.

The oils were exposed to gauge pressures of 0, 500, 3,000, 7,000 and 10,000
psi at temperatures of lOooF, 200 0 F, 3000 F and 3500 F.

A centipoise viscosi ty and an oil density were measured at each

temperature/pressure.

189
 SPEl189Z/Z

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE 8£ PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF LESS

TOXIC OIL MUDS

The testing instrument for viscosity was a rolling-ball viscometer which is

normally used for testing hydrocarbon viscosities under reservoir conditions.
The instrument measured viscosity by recording the time a rolling ball took
to pass end to end in a test chamber in which the oil of interest was held
under preset conditions of temperature and pressure.

To test the density of an oil, the changes in oil volume with applied
pressure were compared to the constant sample weight at constant
temperature.

The oils run were as follows:

1. Diesel Oil with + 3 CSTK Vis. @ 40 0 C

Z. Naphthenic oil With + 6 CSTK Vis. @ 400 C
3. Paraffinic oil with +-4 CSTK Vis. @ 400 C
4. Paraffinic oil with +" 3 CSTK Vis. @ 400 C
5. Naphthenic oil with-+ 3 CSTK Vis. @ 400 C
6. Solvent oil with less -than Z.O CSTK Vis. @ 400 C.

The results of this oil study set general trends which, it was hoped, would
be observed in the oil-base muds.

mGB-TEMPERATURE/HIGH-PRESSURE ROTA'nONAL VISCOMETER

The papers by McMordie and McMordie, Bennett and Bland have described
the effects of temperature and pressure on the rheological characteristics of
diesel oil muds using a BHC viscometer (Refs. 1 and 2).

For the purpose of the following tests, a high-temperature/high-pressure

rotational viscometer (Fig. 1) was used. This viscometer was capable of
measuring drilling fluids properties from ambient to 500 0 F at gauge
pressures from 0 to 12,000 psi.

The viscometer consisted of upper (dial) and lower (bob) chambers of

precision-machined Monel KR 500*, connected to a stainless-steel body.
The bomb, when assembled, contained a rotating sleeve, bob, dial and torque
springs. The rotating sleeve had magnets installed in the base and was
'driven by an external rotating "C n shaped magnet.

The sleeve rode on a Teflon bearing and was centred by a pin centraliZer
at the bottom and by a sleeve guide with slip ring at the top. The bob
was suspended from the dial and was centred at the bottom on a jewelled
point at the top of the pin centraliseI'.

The three-part bomb was sealed with metal pressure seals b.,_-'-:' had a well
for a thermocouple which measured the temperature at the centre of the
bob. The bob was perf orated at the top and botto- and the rotating
sleeve was vaned to encourage mud circulation and .. .J.Jperature unif ormity.

* Huntington Alloys, Division of International Nickel, trade name.

190
 SPEl189Z/3

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE It PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF LESS

TOXI C OIL MUDS

The mud sample was placed in the bottom section of the bomb and a
synthetic-hydrocarbon traction lubricant, which was suited for high
temperature and pressure conditions, was used as a hydraulic head oil to
apply pressure to the sample.

The mixing of head oil and sample was eliminated by placing the oil/oil
mud interface high in the narrow channel through which the bob shaft ran.
By placing this interface just below the hydraulic port, it was removed from
the turbulent area near the rotating sleeve and placed into the area where
the only movement is the gradual motion of the bob shaft.

One design feature which greatly assisted the maintenance of fluid

separation was the cooling-fin arrangement on the bomb. Little or no
temperature increase was experienced above the fins in the upper bomb,
thus reducing temperature effects on the torsion spring. All temperature
and fluid expansion occurred in the lower bomb where the sample was
contained. This ensured that the sample totally filled the test chamber to
the hydraulic port during testing; a fact that could clearly be seen by the
mud discharge observed during bleed-down of pressure as temperature was
applied.

LABORATORY TEST MUDS

The main objective in testing the laboratory-formulated drilling fluids was

to compare different oils mixed with water, surfactants and solids. To
make base muds similar to those that would be used in a drilling situation,
no attempt was made to influence or equate rheological properties because
of the enhancing or retarding effects that different base oils might have on
different products. No simulated drill solids were added to the laboratory-
prepared muds. However, several field muds were tested and the results
are displayed.

Five less toxic oil muds were checked over three different weight ranges:
9.5 lb/gal, 13.0 lb/gal, 18.0 lb/gal. Within each weight range, the
concentration of the emulsifier, wetting agent, lime, and organophillic clay
was the same for each mud. The oil/water ratios were adjusted to give a
75/25 oil/water ratio in the 9.5 lb/gal muds, 83/17 oil/water ratio in the
13.0 lb/gal muds and a 90/10 oil/water ratio in the 18.0 Ib/gal muds. The
calcium chloride concentration was 25% by weight in the internal phase (Aw
0.775). After mixing, the muds were heat-aged at 250 0 F for 16 hours in
a rolling oven, recombined and
,
mixed again.

The oils were selected by the fact that they are in field use at the present
time and that a reasonably wide range of properties would probably be
observed.

Each mud, in each weight range, was submitted to a pressure check while
holding the temperature steady at lOOoF, 200 0 F and 300<>F.

191
 SPEl189Z/4

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE &: PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF LESS

TOXIC OIL MUDS

Pressures were taken at gauge readings of 0, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4000,

6000, 8000, 10000 and 12000 psi at lOOoF. At 200 0 F, the base pressure
was 2000 psi, and at 300 0 F the base pressure was 3000 psi to control mud-
loss volumes.

The rotation speeds were 600, 300, 200, 100, 60, 30 and 3 rpm.

Mud checks were performed on each sample and the initial weight, flow
properties, and gels were recorded. After the sample had been exposed to
the temperature and pressure study, it was removed from the bomb and
again checked for mud weight and rheological properties. A table, (Fig. 2),
of the before-and-after checks for the 13.0 Ib/gal muds is contained at the
end of this paper. All checks were run at 1000 F (as opposed to 115 0 F) as
a time saving procedure during the testing. From these results it can be
seen that the samples were relatively unchanged during testing.

Prior to the start of testing, the high-temperature/high-pressure viscometer

was cross-calibrated with a standard pre-calibrated 6-speed rotational
viscometer. The thermocouple was checked against two high-temperature
mercury thermometers.

After the test series was run, a curve-fit programme was executed using
the recorded data. The results indicated a close correlation to the Hershel
Bulkley (modified power law) rheological model. This fact coincided with
earlier findings by McMordie, Bennett and Bland (Ref. Z).

PRESENTADON OF RESULTS

For the purpose of presentation, the following legend will be used to

describe, in generic terms, the oils and oil muds which were investigated.
This legend should be applied to all graphs and charts which follow:

A. Primarily naphthenic oil with:: 6.0 CSTK viscosity at 40°C

B. Primarily paraffinic oil with:!:. 4.0 CSTK viscosity at 40 0 C

C. Diesel oil with!. 3.0 CSTK viscosity at 400 C

D. Solvent oil, primarily paraffinic, with less than Z.O CSTK viscosity

This legend is applicable only to the specific examples which follow. It is

not the intention of this paper to promote the concept that all oils classed
as naphthenic are more viscous than oils classed as paraffinic.

192
 SPE11892/S

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE &: PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF LESS

TOXIC OIL MUDS

The reasons for the selection of these particular oils were as follows:

1. They had all been used in field applications and were readily
available.

Z. They showed a substantiallY wide range of properties under certain

temperature and pressure conditions.

The first noticeable effect is the rise in viscosity which occurs when less
toxic oils and oil muds are observed under the constant temperature of
lOOoF with increasing pressure (Figs. 3 and 4). The solvent oil tends to
show the lowest viscosity increase while the naphthenic and paraffinic oils
showed somewhat higher rates of increase.

The next graphs (Figs. 5 and 6) show the viscosity versus pressure
relationships of oils and oil muds at 3000 F. All the isothermal curves have
been considerably decreased in magnitude and scope, indicating that the
increase in temperature has a significant effect on viscosity reduction in
spite of pressure increases. Also, the relative differences between
viscosities of the selected oils is considerably reduced. There is a similar
reduction in the corresponding oil muds.

The presentation of the relationship of viscosity to increasing pressure of

individual oils at lOOoF, ZOOoF and 300 0 F (Figs. 7, 8, 9 and 10) shows that
the major decrease in viscosity during these tests occurs within the 1000 F
to ZOOoF range. The graphs of the laboratory-prepared oil muds (Figs. 11,
lZ, 13 and 14) show the same trend of a major viscosity reduction in the
1000 F to ZOOoF range.

The next four graphs (Figs. 15, 16, 17 and 18) present field muds from
various locations. Once again, a large viscosity decrease in the 1000 F to
ZOOoF range can be seen in all four displays.

Graphs of viscosity versus temperature at constant pressure (Figs. 19 and

ZO) show the pressure/temperature relationship from a different perspective.
These graphs highlight the need f or further work to more accurately define
the curves of laboratory and field muds at less than ZOOoF at various
pressure intervals. Circulating temperatures across much of the depth of an
average North Sea well falls within this area.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Less toxic oils become more viscous as pressure is increased.

Z. Temperature has the greatest effect on the viscosity reduction of oils

and oil muds below ZOOoF.

3. The magnitude of viscosity differences between oils tend to decrease

with temperature in spite of increased pressure. This indicates the
dominant effect of temperature over pressure. The same effect can
be seen in oil muds.

193
 SPE1l89Z/6

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE &; PRESSURE RHEOLOGY OF LESS

TOXI C OIL MUDS

4. It is observed from the results that the rheology of less toxic oil
muds, over the normal range of field operations, are influenced
primarily by temperature, mud density, solids content and chemical
treatments. These criteria determine mud rheology significantly more
than pressure-induced viscosity.

5. There is a reliable method to check and compare the viscosities and

densities of oils at temperature and pressure. Any oil which is
proposed for a field mud should be checked before use.

6. There is a viable method to check temperature and pressure effects

on drilling fluid rheology through the use of a high temperature, high
pressure viscometer. Field drilling fluids should be inspected on a
regular basis using these methods and data collected to assist in
making better judgements when dealing with bit hydraulics and
annular flow dynamics.

Copyright 1983

Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was prepared for the Offshore Europe 83 Conference in

conjunction with the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AI ME, held in
Aberdeen, 6-9 September 1983. Permission to copy is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom
the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere is usually granted upon
request provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

194
 THERMOWELL TOP AND SEAL

SAPPHIRE WINDOW

TORQUE SPRING AND SCALE

~~t---- __ SEAL

COOLING FINS

1tl.ooI~-- HIGH PRESSURE OIL INLET

r j~~~~~~~lllt-=-~-~-~-~-~- --0 IL I MUD IN TE R F ACE

SUPPORT RING

15.6 IN. ~IW--";~"':-'~*---- TOR QUE TUB E

SEAL

ROTOR GUIDE

10......- - HEATING ELEMENT

OPEN ENDED SHEAR BOB

L~W--t;;?~--- THERMOWELL TUBING

~~.J;;~~t- __ SHEAR ROTOR WITH
CIRCULATION PORTS

I=~~~S§I;:::==:-SUPPORT SPINDLE WITH

JEWEL POINT
N

D RIVING MAGNETIC
TORQUE COUPLER

EFLON ROTOR STABILIZER

CROSS SECTION Q.f CELL ASSEMBLY

Figure 1
195
 Examples of Dens~and Rheology Tests Taken Before and After
Pressure/Temperature Studies
Figure 2

Naptheni c Base Paraffinic Base

In Out In Out
Test Temperature 100°F 200°F 300°F Test Temperature lOOoF 200°F 300°F
Density lb/gal 12.91 12.92 12.94 12.91 Dens ity 1b/ga 1 12.94 12.91 13.08 12.97
PV cps 51 50 52 50 PV cps 38 37 40 38
YP lb/100 ft.2 21 23 18 23 YP lb/100 ft.2 19 18 17 17
..... Gels lb/100 ft.2 12/14 12/14 11/13 12/14 Gels lb/l00 ft.2 12/14 10/12 11/13 10/12
-0
0'-

Diesel Base Solvent

In Out In Out
Test Tem~erature 100°F 200°F 300°F Test Temperature 100°F 200°F 300°F
Density lb/gal 12.97 12.91 12.97 12.91 Density lb/gal 12.97 12.89 12.96 13.32
PV' cps 29 30 29 30 PV cps 22 21 20 24
YP lb/l00 ft.2 15 13 15 11 YP lb/l00 ft.2 8 8 10 11

Gels lb/l00 ft.2 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 Gels lb/l00 ft.2 7/9 6/8 6/8 8/10

These rheologies were all taken on a standard calibrated 6-speed rotational viscometer @ 100°F. //tr9~
 VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE RPPRRENT VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE 100 F
SELECTED 0 I lS 13. 0 PPG lAB PREPARED 0 J l MUDS.

18~----------------------------~L--------; ISO~--------------------------------,r-----,

15 125

(f1
<L " ""
""
U
12- ~

""
100
en >-

/" "
<l...
w (f1
o /
u //
-en 9 ::: 75 /
> //
c
w r- /,'"
en z. /
>
~ 50+------...... _.-.
.. ... . _.. -_ .. ~" ---------------------------------
-- ...:..~------.-----.-.-.-.-.
a+------r----~r_----~----_r----_.r_--~ 0+-----_r-----.------~----~------r-----4
a 2 4 6 8 10 12 o 2 4 6 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS

[] --- B
• •• C
--- D
Fig. 3 Fig. 4-

VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE 300 F APPRRENT VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE 300 F

SELECTED OILS 13. a PPG lAB PREPARED all HUDS.

18~--------------------------------------.

15

(f)
<l...
U
~ IDa

(f)
o
u
(f) 75
>
I-
Z
lJJ
~ SO
<l...
<l...
a:

25

- ............... ..
........... - .. -":." -- - .. - : -.:"'-.. ':"
------------ :

O+-----_r----~r_----~----~------r-----~
12 2 6 8 10 12 14
PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSRNDS

,-----;:;-,

[]
' 1--- AI
--- B i ;--- B 1
• •• C' 1- - - C I
_.- D
Fig. 5 1--- 01
Fiq. 6

197 / / a9tJ...
VI seos I TY VS PRESSURE 100.200. 300 F I VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE :00.200.300 F
NAPTHEN I C BASED ~ IL PARAFF[NIC BASED O[L

18.,------------------;>.k-------,

15 15

12
(f)
<L
U

>-
I- (f)

-(f) 9 ""
u 9
c (f)
u
(f) ;'

--- ---
--- ---
----_ ---- --_
...
D+----.---,--~--_,---._-~
--- ---
_----_ ....
.. --------
.. '1----------------------
o
-----_ .. -----------------
I I I
--------
I I
o 4 6 8 10 12 o 2 4 6 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS PRESSURE, PSI IN THOUSANDS

100 F
I tOoFl
200 F
300 F
1------
200 F !
I
300 F
Fig. 8
Fig, 7

VISCDSITY VS PRESSURE 100.200.300 F VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE 100.200.300 F

DIESEl all SOLVENT BRSED Oil

1B'~-----------------~ lB,-------------------,

15 15

12 12
(f) (f)
<L <L
U u
>-
I-
-
(f)
9 - 9
U1
c
u ""
U

-
(f)

>
(f)

>

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 o 2 4 6 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI I:-.J THOUSANDS PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSRNDS

1-- 1--=---100Fl,
1---
---
1---
,
1---
200
300F
, ____
F '
_ ----.JI
I

Fig. 9 Fig. 10

1139:'"
198
VrSCClSITY V5 PRESSURE 100.200.300 F VI SCClS I TY V5 PRESSURE 100.200. 300 F 1
13.0 PPG LAB PAEPARED NAPTHENIC OIL KUD. 13. a PPG LAB PREPARED PARAFFINIC OIL MUD.

150~------------------------------~------. 150T-------------------------------------~

125 125

(f') U1
tl.. a...
W w
}-' 100 ,.: 100
I- I-

m U1
\!J \!J
u W
m 75 m 75
> >
I- I-
Z Z
W lJ..j
cr:: SO ii
-- --
a: 50

---- -- --
Cl.. a...
tl.. tl..
a: a:

25
----- --- 25

a O+------r------r-----,-----~------r_----~
a 4 6 8 10 12 o 4 6 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN TH~USANOS PRESSURE. PSI IN TH~USANOS

lor F
200 F
300 F
fig. 11
Flq. 12

VISCClSITY VS PRESSURE 100.200.300 F I VISCClSITY VS PRESSURE 100.200.300 F

13. D PPG LAB PREPARED DIESEL OIL MUD. 13. a PPG LAB PREPRREO SOLVENT OILHUD.

150~-------------- ______________________- - ,
150

125 125

en U1
tl..
w a...
w
,.: 100 ,.: 100
I- I-
m U1
c \!J
w W
m 75
>
I-
-
U1

>
75

I-
Z Z
W W
cr:: cr::
a: 50 a: 50
tl.. a...
tl.. a...
a: a:

-------- -----:
I
25 25
------ ----
----------------------------
a a
a 2 4 6 e 10 12 0 4 > 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN TH~USANOS PRESSURE. PSI IN TH~USANOS

r=
I
100 F
II l~l()~oFl
; - - - 200 F i
i --- 300
1--- 200 r i
F '
._-.:....J i --- 300 F I
Fig. 13 Fiq. l4

199 Jlrg9~
 VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE
10.5 PPG PARAFFINIC FIELD MUD.
VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE
10 .. 0 PPG PARAFFINIC FIELD MUD
I
I

150 150

125 125

<11 en
a.. a..
u u
,.: lOa ,.: lao
....
<11 en
o::l o::l
U u
<11
75 en 75
> >
....z I-
Z
UJ UJ
a:: 50
a::
cr: a: 50
a.. <L
a.. a..
a: cr:
--_ ..
25
---- --- ---
--- 25

_.. - .. ------ --_ .. -

a
0 4 6 8 10 12
aI 0 4 6 8 10 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS

1- tOOFl
1--- 200 F i I lOOFl
- - - 200 F :
1--- 300 F 1 ---~_o~
Fig. 15 Fig. 16

VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE VISCOSITY VS PRESSURE!

10. B PPG SOLVENT BASED FIELD MUD. 17.0 PPG SOLVENT BRSED FIELD MUD.
I
150 150.----------------------------------7~----_,

:'25 125l
I
(f)
<11
a.. a..
u u
,.: 100 ,.: lOa
.... ....
.,
if) (f)
o::l
U
u If)
if)
75 75
> >
I- I-
Z Z
UJ
a::
cr: 50

--- ---
W
a::
cr: 50
--- -- ------- 1

------1'
a.. a..
1 --- --- ---------
a.. a..
cr:

---- --- ---

a:
_ - - - - .. - .. - - - - - - - - I

25
.. ----- -.--
...
25
------ \

-~--------- .. -----
a a
a 4 6 8 10 12 0 4 6 8 io 12
PRESSURE. PSI IN THOUSANDS PRES5~RE,P51 IN THOUSRNDS

r--lOOFl
I
[ - - - 200 F
--- ~~-~~
Fig. 17 Fig, 18

JIt9J-
zoo
 VISC~SITI VS TEMPERRTURE, 3000 PSI
SELECTED OILS

'"~
15

CJ1 12
a...
u

>-
f-

Ul
o
u

-
CJ1

> 6
..........
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
3 ..... .....
.....
-.. ------- .. -:--...: ...""'----

80 1~0 160 260 2~0 280 320

TEMPERATURE. F

fig. 19

VISC~SITI VS TEMPERRTURE, 3000 PSI

13. a PPG LRB PREPRRED CJ L MUDS.

'''1
125

CJ1 100
a...
u

.;
f-
75
CJ1

'".,
-
> 50
..... .....
..... ,
, .....
..... .....
-
25 -------- -----:...:-~:~
- -- -',-
.....

0
90 120 160 200' 240 280
TEMPERATURE. F

1- _ .. C i
o !
------'
Fiq. 20

201 ) /f9:!1.
- I [[