SPE-195398-MS

Insights into Eco-Friendly and Conventional Drilling Additives: Applications,

Cost Analysis, Health, Safety, and Environmental Considerations

Abo Taleb T. Al-Hameedi, Husam H. Alkinani, Shari Dunn-Norman, Hussien W. Albazzaz, and Mohammed M.
Alkhamis, Missouri University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Symposium: Asia Pacific Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social Responsibility held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 23 - 24 April 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Drilling fluid additives play an important role in drilling engineering. Drilling fluids assist in transporting
the cuttings to the surface, control formation pressure, and cool the bit. The most common fluid additives
that are used in drilling fluids are the chemical additives such as barite, bentonite, caustic soda and many
more. Each chemical additive has its own set of applications. Chemical additives are used for rheological
properties, filtration controls, and many more. These traditional chemical additives give promising results,
but they have some side effects that are commonly ignored. These side effects include cost, health, safety,
and environmental concerns.
This paper presents a new alternative for drilling fluid additives which are the food waste products that are
discarded by people. The main objective is to be able to use food waste products as drilling fluid additives to
improve the mud rheological properties and avoid any environmental issues that are commonly caused by
conventional chemical additives. The food waste products are available everywhere and are easily accessible
making them a good candidate for further investigation. The cost of food waste products is less compared to
the cost of chemical additives and food waste products are friendlier to the environment. The average total
cost of drilling operations is expensive, and part of that expense includes the cost of drilling fluids, which is
also generally high. By using food waste products, the total cost for drilling operations reduces, providing
a better economic solution. Food waste products account for about 8.2% of greenhouse gas emissions and
they can be utilized for better uses such as drilling fluid additives. It is also generally safer to handle food
waste in comparison with chemical additives as some chemical additives have hazards that require proper
equipment in order to be handled.
Food waste products have the potential to compete with traditional chemical additives and they might be
a good alternative. Several investigations have been carried out by people using food waste products. From
the previous work and experiments carried out by people, it has shown that food waste products generally
improve the mud rheological properties and fluid loss control. From the previous work, there are several
shortcomings that can be avoided suggesting more evaluations. Further investigation and experiments
should be carried out to gain more information and results of food waste products as a drilling fluid additive
in order to be used for future drilling projects.
2 SPE-195398-MS

Introduction
Drilling mud is an important part of drilling engineering that has been used throughout the history of drilling
engineering. Drilling mud is important when it comes to drilling because it has many functions that give
an advantage when trying to extract oil from the surface. There are many functions of drilling mud which
are cooling the bit, teeth, and lubricating the drill string. When using drilling mud in drilling operations, it
can help reduce heat in the drill bit to allow for better performance in drilling (Basra Oil Company, 2007).
The drilling mud can also control the formation pressure in the wellbore as well as giving the strength to
transport the cuttings from the wellbore to the surface. It is important to use drilling mud to control the
pressures in the wellbore to prevent the hole from collapsing (Saasen, 2003). During drilling operations,
cutting can be generated by the drill bit and it must be removed to prevent drilling issues and shear failure
such as borehole caving. When circulating drilling mud, it can help carry the cuttings from the bottom of
the hole to the surface to prevent drilling problems. Drilling mud can be a good resource for the evaluation
and interpretation of well logs and it can help stabilize the wellbore.
Drilling fluid is a complex system that includes a fluid phase, a solid phase, and a chemical phase
(Amanullah et al., 2007). There are many types of drilling fluid that are used and selected in drilling
engineering. Selecting the appropriate type requires skills and knowledge of drilling engineering to avoid
any drilling problems encountered. The main types of drilling fluid that are commonly used are water-based
mud, oil-based mud, and emulsion mud. Water-based mud consists of liquid water, reactive solids, inert
solids, and chemical additives. The mechanism for reactive solids can be complex in which clays play an
important part in the reactive solids. Clays are used to provide some viscosity and yield strength. There are
two types of clay that are used in reactive solids which are bentonite clay and attapulgite clay. The bentonite
clay is used within freshwater systems; while the attapulgite clay can be used in both fresh and saltwater
systems. Inert solids include low gravity and high gravity. Inert solids are referred to as weighting materials
where each type of gravity plays a role in increasing or decreasing mud weight and density. High gravity
increases the mud weight, and there are many types of mud that are commonly used to increase the mud
weight. These types include barite, lead sulfides, and iron ores. Also, within water-based mud are chemical
additives used to control the mud properties and are split into two parts, which are thinners and thickeners.
Mud thinners reduce viscosity and include phosphates, lignite, and surfactants. Mud thickeners increase
viscosity and include lime, cement, and polymers. Oil-based mud contains water that is in oil emulsion
and diesel or crude oil. It is used to drill hole with severe stability and is excellent to drill productive
zones because it reduces formation damage and preserves original permeability. Oil-based mud also has
many disadvantages as it has environmental risks and contamination. In the early stages of drilling, little
consideration was placed into environmental risks of using oil-based muds (Amanullah et al., 2007).
Drilling fluid additives are commonly used to aid drilling in boreholes. There are many types of drilling
fluid additives used in drilling and each additive has its own set of characteristics. The commonly used
drilling additives can be classified as conventional drilling additives, which include bentonite, barite,
attapulgite, phosphates, polymers, and many more. Some additives can increase the mud weight while others
can decrease the mud weight. Each additive has its own impact on the mud properties. While conventional
drilling fluid additives bring success to the drilling operation, conventional additives can also have some side
effects on health, safety, and environment as well as high cost. Some drilling fluids can be very toxic which
can lead to the contamination of the environment and can cause health and safety concerns for personnel
if handled inappropriately (Basra Oil Company, 2007).
While conventional drilling fluids have been successfully used for a long period of time, high cost as
wells as health, safety, and environmental considerations have led to the effort of finding some alternatives.
Looking at some unconventional options, a decision was made to focus on biodegradable materials such as
food waste products instead of the traditional non-biodegradable chemical additives. There are many food
waste products available such as banana peels, potato peels, corncob, sugar cane, grass, and many more.
SPE-195398-MS 3

Food waste products cause less contamination in the environment. Food waste products are available in
every part of the world and are abundant. Thus, it costs less than conventional chemical fluid additives.
Food waste products are also safer to handle than chemical fluid additives (Al-Saba et al., 2018).
This paper provides insights into the conventional and biodegradable drilling fluid additives in terms
of applications, cost, health, safety, and environmental considerations as well as examining the feasibility
of using food waste products as environmental friendly drilling fluid additives. In addition, to highlight
the importance of following the trend of developing biodegradable environmental friendly drilling mud
additives to contribute towards reducing the effect on the environment and personal safety as well as the
total cost of drilling operations and drilling waste handling.

Importance of Drilling Mud and its Consequences

One of the most important parts of drilling operations is to select an appropriate mud to be circulated
in the borehole. Selecting an appropriate drilling mud requires careful planning and skills to avoid any
unwanted consequences that can happen. Drilling mud has many important functions and each function
plays a significant role in drilling operations. Drilling mud is mainly used to transport the cuttings to the
surface, control the formation pressure, cool and lubricate the bit, stabilize the wellbore, and bottom hole
cleaning (Moore, 1974). By adding clays additives such as bentonite to the drilling base-fluids, an increase
in the viscosity and gel strength can be obtained. Thus, giving the ability to transport the cuttings to the
surface (Moore, 1974). Transporting the cuttings is important as it provides an efficient well cleaning to
be able to drill wells to the target depths. There are many types of drilling mud that can be selected in
drilling operations and each type of drilling mud has its own set of unique properties. Depending on the
drilling phase and the degree of the formation complexity, the drilling mud type can be selected to control
the formation pressure and stability by either decreasing or increasing the mud properties. Therefore, it is
very important to select an appropriate type of drilling mud based on the conditions of your wellbore to
avoid unwanted consequences. Briefly and in one sentence, it is more practically applicable that the drilling
mud should be designed and formulated based on the formation characteristics, and not on the beliefs that
the formation will adapt to the mud or one mud can fit all formations.
By selecting an appropriate drilling mud type, it will contribute to avoiding troublesome drilling problems
that are directly or indirectly related to a bad selection of the drilling mud, including but not limited to, mud
loss circulation, mechanical and differential stuck pipes, kick, bit damage as shown in Figure 1(Basra Oil
Company, 2008). Lost circulation and mechanical stuck pipe are the most expensive and complicated issues
that are directly related to an inappropriate selection of the drilling fluid. Mud loss circulation is when the
drilling fluid flows through different paths in the geologic formation instead of flowing through the annulus
to the surface. Basically, it is the uncontrolled flow of mud in a geologic formation. The main causes of
mud loss circulation are induced fractures and formations that are cavernous. Induced fractures occur when
excessive mud weight is used leading to an uncontrolled flow of mud in the formation and wellbore. Another
unwanted consequence related to using inappropriate drilling fluid is an improper hole cleaning caused by
not using a sufficient viscosity to transport the cuttings. As the cuttings accumulate, the formation begins to
have a cutting bed phenomenon, which leads to having pipe sticking. In order to avoid these costly problems,
various chemical additives are used to control these problems. Thus, requiring careful well planning and
accurate selection of the required drilling mud (Zamora et al., 2000; Basra Oil Company, 2013).
In short, drilling fluids play an important role in managing most problems that are associated with
drilling operations. In different words, more than 90% of those serious drilling obstacles are resulted due
to an inappropriate selection of the drilling mud and bad design of the drilling mud properties (Basra Oil
Company, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to carefully choose the type of drilling fluid formulation and
correctly design properties depending on the type of formation.
4 SPE-195398-MS

Figure 1—Unwanted Consequences Due to an Inappropriate Selection

of the Drilling Mud and Bad Design of the Drilling Mud Properties

The Most Common Traditional Chemical Additives (Non-Biodegradable

Materials) with Their Applications
There are many chemical additives that are used in drilling operations to provide sufficient mud to enhance
the stability of the well. Each chemical additive has its own set of functions and cost. The common chemical
additives that often utilized can be classified as conventional chemical additives. Conventional chemical
additives can be used to prevent drilling problems that may be encountered due to a poor selection of drilling
mud or a bad formulation of properties. The chemical additives used in drilling operations depend on the
wellbore size, depth, and lithology. Thus, it is important to know what type of mud to use based on the
knowledge of its applications and cost to make an appropriate decision. Table 1 will demonstrate the most
common conventional chemical additives along with their applications, addition, and price.

Table 1—The Most Common Conventional Chemical Additives (Basra Oil Company, 2018)
SPE-195398-MS 5

Real Examples of the Drilling Mud Cost

One of the main factors that affect the total cost of drilling operations is the cost of drilling fluid. Drilling a
well is not a straightforward process, as it requires careful planning. One of the important parameters when
planning a drilling operation is the cost. The cost includes the drilling fluid, which is needed to complete
any well and is one of the expenses that make drilling an expensive operation. Drilling fluid prices can be
as high as a million dollar to as low as roughly half a million dollar. These prices are about one-tenth of
the total cost of the drilling operation. Therefore, using food waste products would minimize the drilling
expenses; hence, the total drilling cost would be less than the cost of applying conventional drilling fluid
additives. To provide a numerical overview of the effect of drilling fluid on the overall cost of drilling, data
from two fields in Iraq were gathered and analyzed.
Figure 2 shows the costs of drilling 25 wells in the South Rumaila field, Iraq. The percentage of drilling
fluid cost ranges from 4.66 to 15.2%. The lowest in terms of drilling fluid cost was well 25; the drilling fluid
costed around $279,000 while well 12 costed around $1,893,000, which was the highest cost for drilling
fluid in this field. While Figure 3 shows the prices drilling 25 wells in the North Rumaila field, Iraq. The
percentage of drilling fluid cost ranges from 4.89 to 14.1%, which is similar to the South Rumaila field.
For this field, well 17 had the lowest cost for drilling fluid and well one was the most expensive (Basra
Oil Company, 2018).
6 SPE-195398-MS

Figure 2—The South Rumaila Field Cost of Drilling Operations

Figure 3—The North Rumaila Field Cost of Drilling Operations

Health, Safety, and Environment

When it comes to handling drilling fluid additives, it is important to consider the effects of health, safety,
and environment. Drilling fluid should be handled carefully to avoid unwanted problems. That is why when
handling drilling fluid, it is important for the drilling personnel to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)
to avoid health and safety problems. By wearing the PPE, rig personnel can ensure safety when handling
drilling fluid that can cause severe health problems due to the toxicity of the chemical materials (Deepwater
Well Control Guidelines IADC, 1998). It is also important to make sure that drilling fluids are handled
and managed properly. Handling drilling fluid effectively can be achieved by properly transporting the
drilling fluids in bulk-tote tanks or containerizing it for proper storage. It is important to store it properly
and transport it properly to prevent waste contamination, the risk of harming personnel, and polluting
the environment. Environmental effects mainly consist of waste contamination, which is a rising issue in
the drilling area. Waste contamination includes inappropriate methods of disposing whole mud or dilled
SPE-195398-MS 7

cuttings. Waste contamination also includes runoff generated by rainfall, wave action, and water that is used
at the rig site (Whitfill et al. 2012; Lee et al., 2002).
Drilling fluids have a major effect on the environment due to waste contamination, and the environmental
protection agency (EPA) has set several regulations regarding drilling fluids. The EPA regulations
mainly cover wastewater discharges from field exploration, drilling, production, well treatment, and well
completion processes. The EPA categorized the oil and gas regulations into five subcategories which are
offshore, onshore, coastal, agricultural, and stripper wells. Regarding offshore and coastal regions, the main
points were that produced water is domestic, produced sand is sanitary, and drilling fluids leads to deck
drainage. Regarding the onshore region, the EPA issued pretreatment standards to prohibit the discharges
of wastewater pollutants from onshore unconventional oil and gas. The wastewater can cause severe harm
to people and can harm the environment. The EPA set rules and regulations on wastewater management and
practices. With the use of biodegradable materials, as a substitute for conventional drilling fluid additives,
the regulations of the EPA can be met due to the materials being environmentally friendly. (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2017).
Drilling fluids play a vital role in the health and safety of the drilling personnel. It is important for
personnel to properly handle any drilling mud additives to prevent safety and health problems. Drilling fluids
can be very dangerous if not handled properly, which is why it is important for people who work with drilling
fluids follow a proper procedure to avoid any problems. The material safety data sheet (MSDA) ensures that
people avoid any health or safety related issues as it provides the reader with important information about
the material that will be handled. When it comes to drilling mud additives, the most toxic chemical materials
are the caustic soda, sodium hydroxide, and lime. There are many different drilling mud additives with
different chemical properties each with their own set of safety regulations. To make a clear image about the
safety of chemical additives, Table 2 will discuss some of the traditional toxic additives, the composition,
and consequences (Basra Oil Company, 2017; Halliburton, 2018; Baker Hughes, 2015; NewPark Company,
2018).

Table 2—Some of the Traditional Toxic Additives for the Drilling Fluids (Basra Oil
Company, 2017; Halliburton, 2018; Baker Hughes, 2015; NewPark Company, 2018)
8 SPE-195398-MS

Summary of the Previous Work of Biodegradable Materials (Food Waste

Products)
With the demand for biodegradable materials to be used as alternative drilling fluid additives due to their
low cost and being environmentally friendly, studies on food waste products have grown. Food waste
products can be used as an alternative for traditional non-biodegradable products as they can generate good
results. The popularity of using food waste products is mainly due to its cost and its friendly effect on the
environment. Some of the investigations that have been done regarding food waste products to test their
effects on drilling mud properties as summarized below in the subsequent paragraphs.
Amadi et al. (2018) used a variety of food waste products to evaluate drilling mud properties in water-
based mud to compare them with conventional non-biodegradable drilling fluids additives. Amadi et al.
(2018) used banana peels, potato peels, and Arabic gum as sources of food waste products. The food waste
products were ground into powder and ash to be used as a drilling fluid additive. Based on Amadi et al.
(2018) results, the additives improved mud properties such as mud weight, rheological properties, and
filtration properties. The potato peel powder was an excellent source for fluid loss performance. The banana
peel powder improved the filtration properties. The potato peel powder and the Arabic gum powder reduced
the mud weight. Thus, each set of food waste products has its own set of unique properties.
Al-Saba et al. (2018) conducted an experiment using a variety of food waste products. Al-Saba et
al. (2018) used olive pulp, corncob, corn starch, pomegranate powder, peach pulp, tamarind gum, soya
bean, coconut coir, sugar cane, grass, and henna powder to test them as alternatives for drilling fluids
additives. Based on Al-Saba et al. (2018) experimental results, most of the food waste products improved
the rheological properties and filtration properties. The soya bean peel powder resulted in the most reduction
of fluid loss.
Okon et al. (2014) evaluated the use of rice husk as a drilling fluid additive for fluid loss control. Okon
et al. (2014) gathered the rice husk and placed it in a vacuum oven to dry and then ground them into small
fine particles. Okon et al. (2014) results had a great impact on mud properties and fluid loss. Their results
showed that the rice husk has a greater fluid loss than conventional drilling additives. But for chemical
SPE-195398-MS 9

polymers such as CMC, the rice husk showed similar results in terms of fluid loss. Therefore, rice husk can
be used as a fluid loss additive.
Irawan et al. (2009) used sugarcanes and corn cobs to evaluate them as viscosifiers used in drilling fluids.
Irawan et al. (2009) prepared the additives by drying out the food waste products and then grinding them
into small particles. Irawan et al. (2009) measured density, plastic velocity, yield point, and gel strength.
The plastic viscosity increased when using corncobs and sugarcanes while the yield point and gel strength
were decreased. Irawan et al. (2009) results showed that both the corn cobs and sugar canes could serve
as a viscosifiers for drilling muds.
Nmegbu and Bari-Agara (2014) used corn cob cellulose to evaluate drilling mud properties and see if
it can be used as a drilling fluid alternative additive. Based on Nmegbu and Bari-Agara (2014) results, the
mud density was shown to be higher than that of standard mud. Corn cob cellulose also reduced the fluid
loss in water-based drilling mud. Thus, it can be used as a fluid loss controlling agent.
Omotioma et al. (2014) used cashew and mango extracts to see the effects on rheological properties
of water-based mud. Omotioma et al. (2014) gathered fresh leaves of mango and cashew and performed
analysis of rheological properties. Based on their experimental results, cashew and mango leaves extracts
are suitable additives for water-based drilling mud. The mango leaves extracts showed higher improvement
of rheological properties than the cashew leaves.
Hossain and Wajheeuddin (2016) used grass as an additive to evaluate mud properties as well as fluid loss
control in water-based drilling fluid. The grass was collected and dried to grind it into smaller particles for
the experiment. Hossain and Wajheeuddin (2016) results showed significant increases in mud properties.
Their results showed that grass improved the rheological properties and increased the gel strength, plastic
viscosities, and yield point. The grass also decreased the filtration loss, therefore, it can be used as an
alternative for conventional drilling fluids additives.
Ramasamy and Amanullah (2018) used biodegradable material from date tree fibers as lost circulation
material to help control seepage loss. Ramasamy and Amanullah (2018) collected the date tree fibers that
are considered waste products and cut them into small pieces. Then, the material was ground to be used
in the experiment. Ramasamy and Amanullah (2018) results proved that date tree fibers is an effective
additive for controlling seepage loss and it generated better results from traditional commercial fiber that
is commonly used.
Nyeche et al. (2015) used potato starch to test out the rheological properties and fluid loss properties.
Nyeche et al. (2015) conducted the experiment to seek an alternative drilling fluid additive that can cost
less and cause fewer problems for the environment. Nyeche et al. (2015) collected the samples and ground
them to be used for the experiment. Their results matched the effectiveness of potato starch as a drilling
fluid additive. It improved the rheological properties as well as the fluid loss properties.
With the increase in the investigation of biodegradable environmental friendly drilling additives
generated from food waste products, it is important to expand this investigation. Further experiments should
be carried out using more food waste products and testing their results with different properties. More tests
should be conducted with positive results to popularize the use of food waste products as an alternative for
traditional chemical additives in the future.

The Availability of Food Waste Products

A huge amount of food waste is generated daily worldwide. Food waste can be harmful to the environment
if not disposed properly. Instead of throwing away the food waste products, countries could start utilizing it
for other needs such as drilling fluids. Each country has its own set of food consumption and it differs from
each country. Statistics on the types of consumed food available in each country, which country had the
most food loss in the world, and what regions had significant amounts of food loss. Food waste is a growing
10 SPE-195398-MS

issue, efforts have been made by countries to reduce this rising issue. Figure 4 shows that food waste and
food loss cover-up about 8.2% of greenhouse gas emissions according to the world resources institute.
Figure 5 displays the annual food waste per region and results show that the US, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand combined provide the most food waste in the world ahead of second place Europe. While
the far east Asian countries of Japan, China, and Korea provide the world with the third most food waste.
Additionally, Figure 6 is only example to show the percentage of foods wasted in the United States. The
United States wastes most food through fats, oils, dairy, and grain products (GreenBiz Editors, 2011).

Figure 4—Green House Emission from Food Loss and Waste (FAO, 2015)

Figure 5—Annual Food Waste per Region (FAO, 2011; Wilson, 2012)
SPE-195398-MS 11

Figure 6—Percentage of Various Foods Wasted in the U.S (GreenBiz Editors, 2011)

Food waste and food loss are a rising global issue in the world, with each country having its own problems
in terms of food loss. Food loss and waste are a rising issue in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and
could potentially be the highest rate of greenhouse emissions if not treated and utilized properly. In addition,
food waste products are available everywhere and are easily accessible. Thus, food waste products can be
utilized for better uses such as drilling fluid additives since it is also generally safer to handle food waste
in comparison to chemical additives as most traditional chemical additives have hazards that require proper
equipment and safety in order to be handled properly.

Conclusions & Recommendations

Drilling fluids is an essential part of drilling engineering and there are many types of drilling fluids that can
be used. Improper use of drilling fluids can lead to unwanted drilling consequences and drilling fluids help
regulate wellbore stability. Throughout history, the traditional chemical additives were the main source of
drilling fluids and are still being used. New alternatives are being investigated which are the food waste
products and good results have been shown from the experiments conducted using food waste products.
Chemical additives should be handled carefully because some additives contain dangerous materials
that can cause problems to the health and safety of personnel, while food waste products require much
fewer safety practices. Chemical additives are also costly playing a big part in the total cost of a drilling
operation. Thus, using food waste products can solve some economic issues by providing lower cost
additives in comparison with common chemical additives. Conventional chemical additives cause harm
to the environment as well. Therefore, to find an alternative solution to the side effects encountered
using chemical additives, one solution is utilizing food waste products since they are cheaper, safer, and
environmental friendly additives in comparison with the chemical additives.
Based on this study, the following conclusions were made:

• Food waste products are cheaper than chemical additives providing a better economic benefit.

• Food waste products have much fewer hazards than chemical additives and are generally safer to
handle.
• Food waste products provide less contamination to the environment.

• Food waste products improved mud properties such as the rheological properties and filtration
characteristics.
12 SPE-195398-MS

• Further investigation should be carried out to avoid any shortcomings from the previous work and
to prove that food waste products are practically applicable in the field.
• Environmental awareness across the oil and gas industry and strict environmental regulations,
standards, and guidelines were applied by EPA related to drilling waste management.
• It is crucial to pursue the tendency of evolving environmental friendly drilling mud additives to
give a share in reducing; the impact on the environment, safety of personnel as well as the overall
cost of drilling operations and drilling waste handling.

References
Al-Saba, M. T., Amadi, K. W., and Al-Hadramy, K. O., Australian College of Kuwait; Al Dushaishi, M. F., Texas
A&M International University; Al-Hameedi, A., and Alkinani, H., Missouri University of Science and Technology
2018. Experimental Investigation of Bio-Degradable Environmental Friendly Drilling Fluid Additives Generated
from Waste. SPE-190655-MS, SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, Security, Environment, and Social
Responsibility, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 16-18 April. DOI: 10.2118/190655-MS
Amadi, K., Alsaba, M., Australian College of Kuwait; Robert, I. I., Gordon University; Al Dushaishi, M. F., Texas A&M
International; Al-Hameedi, A., and Alkinani, H., Missouri University of Science and Technology 2018. Empirical
Studies of the Effectiveness of Bio-enhancers (Food Waste Products) as Suitable Additives in Environmental Friendly
Drilling Fluid Systems. AADE-18-FTCE-105, 2018 AADE Fluids Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 10-11 April.
Amanullah, M., SPE, CSIRO Petroleum 2007. Screening and Evaluation of Some Environment-Friendly Mud Additives
to Use in Water-Based Drilling Muds. SPE 98054, 2007 SPE E&P Environmental and Safety Conference, Galveston,
Texas, USA, 5-7 March. DOI: 10.2118/98054-MS.
Baker Hughes. 2010. Specialty Products: Drilling Fluids Solution, http://www.bakerhughes.com/news-and-media/
resources/brochures/specialty-products-brochure (Accessed 24 February, 2019).
Basra oil Company. Various Daily Reports, Final Reports, and Tests for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, 2012, 2013,
2016. Several Drilled Wells, Basra oil Fields, Iraq.
Deepwater Well Control Guidelines IADC, 1–83. 1998. Houston.
FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome.
FAO-Food waste worsens GHG emissions (2015, October 07). Retrieved from https://climatenewsnetwork.net/food-
waste-worsens-ghg-emissions-fao/.
GreenBiz Editors (2010, October 04). American Food Waste Also Wastes Millions in Energy. Retrieved from https://
www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/10/04/american-food-waste-also-wastes-millions-energy.
Halliburton. 2018. Products Data Sheet, http://www.halliburton.com/ (Accessed 24 February, 2019).
Hossain, E., and Wajheeuddin, M. 2016. The use of grass as an environmentally friendly additive in water-based drilling
fluids. Journal of Petroleum Science. Vol. 13, pp. 292-303. DOI: 10.1007/s12182-016-0083-8.
Irawan, S., Azmi, A., and Saaid, M. 2009. Corn Cobs and Sugar Cane Waste as Viscosifier in Drilling Fluid. Pertanika
Journal of Science & Technology. Vol. 17, pp. 173-181.
Lee, B. et al. 2002. Reducing Drilling Fluid Toxicity. Drilling 75 (6): 30.
Moore, P. 1974. Drilling Muds. SPE-1974-05-DPM. DOI: https://doi.org/NA.
Muqeem, M., Weekse, A., and Al-Haji, A. 2012. Stuck Pipe Best Practices – A Challenging Approach to Reducing Stuck
Pipe Costs. SPE-160845-MS, SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi
Arabia, 8-11 April 2012. DOI: 10.2118/160845-MS.
Newpark Drilling Fluids. 2012. Products Data Sheet, http://www.newpark.com/capabilities/newpark-drilling-fluids/
united-states/about-us/product-bulletins (Accessed 24 February, 2019).
Nmegbu, C.G.J., and Bari-Agara, B. 2014. Evaluation of Corn Cob Cellulose and its Suitability for Drilling Mud
Formation. Nmegbu, C. Godwin Jacob et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. www.ijera.com.
Vol. 4, Issue 5, pp. 112-117.
Nyeche, W. E., Godwin, N. C., and Ifeoma, P. J. 2015. Drilling Mud Formulation Using Potato Starch (Ipomoea Batatas).
WamiEmenikeNyecheet al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. www.ijera.com. Vol. 5, Issue 9,
(Part – 3), pp. 48-54.
Oil and Gas Extraction Effluent Guidelines. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017
Okon, A. N., Udoh, F. D., and Bassey, P. G. 2014. Evaluation of Rice Husk as Fluid Loss Control Additive in Water-
Based Drilling Mud. SPE-172379-MS, SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria,
5-7 August. DOI: 10.2118/172379-MS.
SPE-195398-MS 13

Omotioma, M., Ejikeme, P.C.N., and Mbah, G.O. 2014. Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Cashew and Mango
Extracts on the Rheological Properties of Water Based Mud. Omotioma M et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research
and Applications. www.ijera.com Vol. 4, Issue 10 (Part-6), pp. 56-61.
Ramasamy, J., and Amanullah, Md. 2018. A Novel Superfine Fibrous Lost Circulation Material derived from Date Tree for
Seepage Loss control. SPE-192229-MS, SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition,
Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 23-26 April. DOI: 10.2118/192229-MS.
Saasen, A. 2003. Rheological consequences of environmental restrictions and occupational hygiene requirements while
drilling offshore wells. Annual Transactions of the Nordic Rheology Society. Vol. 11.
Wilson, L. (2012). The food wastage footprint is big. Retrieved February 15, 2019, from http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/
the-big-footprint-of-food-waste
Zamora, M., Broussard, P. N., and Stephens, M. P. 2000. The Top 10 Mud-Related Concerns in Deepwater Drilling
Operations. SPE-59019-MS, SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico, 1-3
February 2000. DOI: 10.2118/59019-MS.