SPE 140720

Development of Environmentally Friendly Oil Based Mud using Palm- Oil

and Groundnut-Oil
Prof. Adewale Dosunmu, SPE and Ogunrinde Joshua.O, SPE; University of PortHarcourt Nigeria

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.

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 also functionally as efficient as the ones formulated with

The development of an oil-based mud from palm oil and
ground-nut oil was carried out in this work. It also
compares the eco-toxicological properties of conventional
base oil of diesel and vegetable oils derived from palm oil
and groundnut oil.
A drilling mud was formulated with both palm oil and
groundnut oil and standard additives were added.
Complete mud check was conducted on the mud in order to
determine the rheological properties. Toxicity of diesel,
palm oil and groundnut oil were compared by exposing
corns planted on humus soil beds prepared with palm.
Also, groundnut oil-based mud with an oil/water ratio of
90/10 was formulated successfully. When the humus beds
planted with corn were exposed to diesel, palm oil and
groundnut oil, the corn exposed to diesel lost its greenness
and died while that exposed to palm oil and groundnut oil
retain its greenness. Palm oil-based mud having 90/10
oil/water ratio and groundnut oil-based mud exhibited a
20% and 12% average rate of growth without losing all its
greenness.
Palm oil based mud formulated with different oil/water
ratios congealed during the course of formulation. They
exhibited high viscosity and progressive gel
characteristics.
In conclusion, oil based mud developed using Palm oil and
groundnut oil should be encouraged since its highly
biodegradable, have better eco-toxicological properties
and the cost of treatment of the cuttings are lower
compared to Oil-based drilling mud formulated with
diesel, mineral and conventional synthetic oil. They can
also be a source of income to the farmers producing the
palm oil in large quantity and help in the growth of the
Nigerian economy since we can supply the palm oil to oil
and gas companies that need it to produce their mud for
drilling operations. In addition to these benefits, the oil
based mud formulated with palm oil and groundnut oil is
diesel and conventional synthetic oils.
Introduction
Drilling fluid is a circulating fluid used in rotary drilling to
perform the various functions required in drilling
operations. In designing a drilling fluid, the factors
considered include; the well design, anticipated formation
pressures and rock mechanics, formation chemistry,
temperature, environmental regulations logistics and
economics. The rheology of the fluid determines its
effectiveness in a drilling hole.
Oil-based drilling fluids are widely used in drilling,
especially in highly technical and challenging wells
because it performs better than water-based mud. Oil-
based drilling mud provides good wellbore stability, good
lubrication that leads to faster rate of penetration,
temperature stability, reduced risk of differential sticking
and low formation damage. However, the disposal of oil-
contaminated drill cuttings causes’ environmental hazard.
The industry has been replacing highly aromatic oils (e.g.
diesel) with low aromatic mineral oils as well as synthetic
oils. However, as environmental legislation and controls
become more stringent, even the newer and less polluting
mineral and synthetic oils in vogue now may be adjudged
unsuitable because of their non-biodegradability. Indeed,
today, in many parts of the world, like the USA, United
Kingdom, Holland, Norway, Nigeria and Australia, the use
of diesel and mineral oil-based drilling fluids in offshore
operations is already either severely restricted or banned
because of their toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation.
A typical well may generate between 1000 and 1500tonnes
of cuttings. With average oil retention of 15%, around 150
- 225tonnes of oil from the drilling fluid is discharged into
the sea for each well that is drilled, thereby causing a large
area around the drilling site being affected. The disposal of
2 SPE 140720
the cuttings raises a concern over the ecological impact on
marine life.
In summary, mineral oils and most petrochemical synthetic
fluids can pollute the marine environment by dumping the
cutting piles overboard or accidental spillage because of
its;
1. Low biodegradability, particularly in anaerobic
conditions
2. High toxicity from the presence of aromatic
compounds
3. Severe impact on the seafloor sediments and food
chain.
Shale and clay-rich geological formations remain a
constant challenge in drilling due to their instability and
water sensitivity. Compared to oil-based mud, water-based
mud are more environmentally friendly and less toxic.
In order to create a fluid that satisfies both the technical
and environmental criteria, the industry is recognizing the
potential of vegetable oil-based mud.
The first trial of the conventional C12-C14 ester based
drilling fluid, derived from palm oil, took place in 1990 in
Norwegian waters. The trial was technically and
economically successful. Since then over 300 wells
covering Nigeria and other countries in the world have
been drilled with vegetable oil-based mud. With good
additive chemistry, the viscosity and other rheological
properties of natural and refined vegetable oil could be
modified to produce an efficient oil-based drilling fluid.
Both aerobically and anaerobically, vegetable oil-based
mud is readily degradable. They contain no aromatics or
any other toxic hydrocarbon derivatives and thus pose a
smaller health risk to humans. Seabed surveys have
documented short-term recoveries after the disposal of drill
cuttings generated by vegetable oil-based mud. Compared
to diesel or mineral oil based mud, they are less toxic to
benthic (bottom) fauna and do not taint fish or other
commercially exploitable marine resources.
Review of literature
Drilling fluid can be classified into two categories which
include;
ƒ The oil based mud
ƒ The water based mud
Oil-based mud
The solids in an oil base fluid are oil wet, all additives are
oil dispersible and the filtrate of the mud is oil. The water,
if present, is emulsified in the oil phase. There are two
basic classifications of oil-based fluids; invert emulsions
and all-oil mud. The amount of water present will describe
the type of oil base fluid. The oil used in these types of oil
base fluids can range from crude oil, refined oils such as
diesel or mineral oils, or the non-petroleum organic fluids
that are currently available. The latter type fluids -
variously called inert fluids, pseudo oils, non-aqueous
fluids and synthetic fluids - are now considered more
environmentally acceptable than diesel or mineral oils.
Invert emulsions are oil muds that are formulated to
contain moderate to high concentrations of water (Amoco
production company drilling fluid manual 1994). Oil-based
drilling mud and synthetic-based drilling mud have many
inherent advantages over water-based drilling fluids
including temperature stability, tolerance to contamination
and corrosion protection (Dye et.al. 2006) and according to
the Norwegian Oil Industry Association Working Group
(1996).
Oil mud offers many advantages over water-based mud.
The high initial cost of the oil-based mud can be a factor in
not selecting this type of mud system. However, if the
overall drilling costs are considered, the costs
accompanying the use of an oil mud are usually less than
that for a water mud.
WATER-BASED DRILLING FLUID
Water-based drilling fluids or muds (WBMs) use water or
brine as the continous or external phase with the critical
functions (density, viscosity, filtration, lubricity, etc)
achieved by the addition of various materials. Water based
fluids are the most extensively used drilling fluids. They
are easy to build and inexpensive to maintain. Three major
sub-classifications of water-based drilling fluid include:
Non-Inhibitive Fluids: These types of fluids do not
suppress clay swelling.
Inhibitive Fluids: These fluid types appreciably retard clay
swelling and, achieve inhibition in the presence of cations;
typically, Sodium (Na+), Calcium (Ca++) and Potassium
(K+).
Polymer Fluids: fluids that rely on macromolecules, either
with or without clay interactions to provide mud
properties, and are applied in diverse forms.
These fluids can be inhibitive or non-inhibitive depending
on the type of cation used. (Amoco Production Company
Drilling Fluid Manual 1994).
Montilva et.al. (2007). Lists some of the problems created
by water-based mud which include: hole enlargement, bit
balling, accretion, low rates of penetration, and insufficient
hole cleaning.
Methodology
It is a standard practice in the oil industry to conduct tests
on a freshly formulated mud in order to ascertain their
rheological and other relevant properties. These tests are
simulations of down-hole conditions and it enables the
mud Engineer to predict the behaviour of the mud during
drilling operation.
The equipment used in this research include; Weighing
balance, Hamilton beach mixer, Mud cup, Spatula,
SPE 140720
Measuring cylinder, Chemical balance, Retort kit, HP/HT
Filtration unit, Mud balance, pipette, beaker, Rheometer.
Mud formulation
Mud calculator software was used to get the output values
in the table 2 by inputting the values in table 1
Experimental procedure
1) The palm oil was heated in the oven for sometime to
bleach it and cooled afterwards to room temperature.
2) The required quantity of base fluid (bleached palm oil,
groundnut oil and Paradril) was measured out into a
cup with the weighing balance and was placed under
the mixer.
3) Organophilic clay was then added to the palm oil with
OWR (75/25) and Paradril with (90/10 & 85/15).
4) To the other fluid with OWR 90/10, primary
emulsifier, secondary emulsifier and lime was added
in this sequence almost immediately using a spatula.
The mud was left to mix for about 20mins.
5) The already mixed brine (water +Cacl2) was added to
the mixture after the time has elapsed.
6) After five minutes, the fluid loss additive was added
and finally the weighting material (barite) was added.
7) The whole mixture was allowed to stir for some
minutes before switching off the Hamilton beach
mixer.
Results and Discussion
In preparing the palm oil-based mud (75/25 oil/water ratio)
with palm oil bleached for about 45minutes at 250ºF, the
mud congealed after the addition of the emulsifiers. The
formulation was discontinued because there was no need
to add the barite, which is a weighting material. The
oil/water ratio was increased to 90/10 and the mud still
congealed. Also, the oil was bleached for 3 hours. The
mud was completely formulated but it failed to produce
any dial reading because of its excessive viscosity.
To prepare the groundnut oil-based mud, we adopted an
oil/water ratio of 90/10 without adding organophilic clay.
The formulation of the mud was successfully completed.
In the process of preparation, the presence of air bubbles
was noticed and a defoamer was added. A full mud check
was conducted thereafter and it was successful.
The mud resembled sludge because of significant thermal
degradation. Also, organophilic clay was not included as
part of the additives because of the high viscosity of the
ground-nut oil. The primary and secondary emulsifiers,
VERSAMUL (calcium chloride) and VERSACOAT
(barite) were effective in the mud formulation.
An oil-based mud was formulated with PARADRIL with
an OWR of 90/10 in order to compare its properties with
the groundnut oil-based mud. Organophilic clay was added
because of the thinness of the base fluid. After running a
full mud check, the yield point (YP) was discovered to be
3
very low because the mud was sagging i.e. the barite was
settling. The OWR was high compared to the quantity of
viscosifier added. Since groundnut oil is denser than
PARADRIL, using the same formulation with PARADRIL
did not give a favourable result. A fresh mud with an
OWR of 85/15 was prepared with PARADRIL.
Considering the density of PARADRIL, an equivalent
quantity of additives was used in the preparation of the
mud. Desirable rheological readings and mud properties
were obtained.
This mud, exhibited a low-end rheological readings
compared to that of groundnut oil-based mud. This does
not rule out the fact that the groundnut oil-based mud
displayed rheological readings desirable for a virgin mud
before heating.
When the humus beds planted with corns were exposed to
diesel, palm oil and groundnut oil respectively,
earthworms migrated to the surface of the bed those with
diesel in a distressed manner and perished shortly
afterwards. This phenomenon was not encountered in the
beds exposed to palm oil and groundnut oil. This clearly
shows that diesel is highly toxic to earthworms, which are
beneficial soil organisms
Earthworms create channels that aid root proliferation and
water infiltration in the soil. Their cast (excreta) is rich in
plant nutrients.
Under observation, the corn exposed to diesel lost its
greenness the following day and died. The corns exposed
to palm oil and groundnut oil exhibited a 20% and 12%
average rate of growth respectively and slumped after 14
days without losing all their greenness.
the support of build-up analysis. On the other hand, the last
two PI data points show a stable performance. However, a
continuous computation provides a better understanding of
the well performance.
Conclusions
The eco-friendly nature of palm oil and ground-nut oil
based mud makes them very attractive in the present times,
where government, corporate and civil groups are
campaigning for green consciousness. The preliminary
tests indicate that additive chemistry must be employed in
the formulation of the vegetable oil-based mud in order to
make them very functional in a drilling operation. In
conclusion,
1. Palm oil and experimental oil based mud are very
viscous, with the palm oil based mud demonstrating strong
progressive gel characteristics before hot rolling
2. Before hot rolling, the experimental oil based mud
passed all the mud checks. It presented rheological
readings acceptable for a virgin mud before hot rolling.
3. After hot rolling for 16 hours at 250OF, the
experimental oil based mud became highly viscous and
failed to give any reading on the rheometer. It exhibited
significant thermal degradation. It also shows that the fatty
acids components of the oil broke down.
4 SPE 140720
4. The fluid-loss control additive, VG+ is not effective in
controlling the filtration properties of natural vegetable oil-
based mud.
5. Palm oil and groundnut oil are highly biodegradable and
have better eco-toxicological properties compared to
diesel.
6. Most environmental protection regulations are
favourably disposed to vegetable oil-based mud because of
their high biodegradability and minimal impact on the eco-
system and its organisms. Because of this, logistics, cost of
transportation and treatment of cuttings are lower
compared to conventional oil-based and synthetic mud.
This situation reduces drilling cost and enhances the
overall profitability of a drilling operation in the long run.
7. Demonstrating good technical performance and
economics, low viscosity esters, derived from vegetable
oil, have been used all over the world to drill wells at
temperatures not exceeding 300O F.
Recommendation
Esterification process of heating vegetable oil with alcohol
could be used to reduce the viscosity of vegetable oils.
Also, with good additive chemistry, natural vegetable oil-
based mud could be modified and used in down-hole
conditions not exceeding 300OF.
Extra investigative studies to determine environmentally
friendly viscosity reducers and sound fluid-loss control
additives are in order. Addition of some materials like
Carboxylmethylcellulose (CMC) to the fluid loss control
additive can help to boost the control. Further research is
also required in the area of determining an effective
thermal inhibitor that will enhance the thermal stability of
the mud. The oleic acid percentage of the vegetable oils
could be increased with genetic modification or chemical
processing. This will improve the thermal and oxidative
stability without adversely affecting their thermo-physical
(flash point) properties.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Department of Petroleum
and Gas Engineering, University of PortHarcourt for
helping them accomplish this work.
Nomenclature
θ =dial reading
Ibf = pounds force
Ft = feet
Cm = centimeter
S/qt = seconds per quart
Psi = pounds per square inch
Gal = gallon
ºF= Fahrenheit
HTS = High Temperature Stability
ALAP = As low as possible
AHAP = As high as possible
ADR = Above dial reading
AHR = After hot rolling
BHR = Before hot rolling
AR = Above reading
RPM = Rotation per minute
IPO = Isopropanol
OWR = Oil-water ratio
References
1. Amanullah, Md.(2005): “Physio-chemical
Characterisation of Vegetable Oils and Preliminary
Test Results of Vegetable Oil-Based Muds,” paper
SPE/IADC 97008 presented at the Middle East
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Dubai, UAE, September 12-14, pp1-9.
2. Annis, M.R. and M.V. Smith (1996): Drilling Fluids
Technology Revised Edition Exxon Company USA,
Section III.
3. Ayers Jr., R.C., J.M. Neff and S. Mckelvie (2000):
“Environmental Impacts of Synthetic- Based
Drilling Fluids”, U.S. Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Science Publishers, Gulf of
Mexico pp11-50
4. Aalarcon, C., M.A Callahan, A.J. Stewart, and S.J.
Mcmillen (2002): “Effects of Earthworm (Eiseni
Fetida) and Wheat (Triticum Aestivum)”, Straw
additions on selected properties of Petroleum-
contaminated Soils, Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry Vol. 21, No. 8, pp1658-1663
5. Boesch, D.F., J.M. Neff and N.N. Rabalais (1987):
“Offshore Oil and Gas Development Activities
Potentially Causing Long Term Environmental
Effect”, pp149-160\ In: Boesch, D.F. and N.N.
Rabalais, eds. Long Term Effects of Offshore Oil
and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, London.
6. Billy, D. E, Van Oort, M. Mcdonald, J. Trenery, J.
Pablo Luzardo, L. Quintero, R. Brahim, J. Montilva
and S.A. Filial (2007): “Improved Drilling
Performance in Lake Maracaibo Using a Low
Salinity, High Performance Water-Based Drilling
Fluids”, paper SPE 110366 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical conference and Exhibition,
Anaheim, California, USA, November 11-14 p.1
7. Burrows, K., J. Evans, J. Hall and J. Kirsner (2001):
“New Low Viscosity Ester is suitable For Drilling
Fluids in Deep Water Applications”, paper
SPE/EPA/DOE 66553 presented at the 2001 SPE
Exploration and Production Environmental
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, February 26-28
pp.1-14
SPE 140720 5

8. Chien, S. F. (1970): “Laminar Flow Pressure Loss
and Flow Pattern Transition of Bingham Plastics in
Pipes and Annuli”, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp.339-356.
9. “Criteria for Selection and Approval of Drilling
Fluids with respect to the effect on human workers
and marine ecological systems”, Norwegian Oil
industry Association Group (1996)
10. “Drilling Fluid”, Amoco Production Company
Drilling Fluid Manual (1994) pp.3-49
19. Oomen, T.V. (2002): “Vegetable Oils for Liquid
Filled Transformers”, IEEE Electrical Insulation
Magazine, Vol. 18 No.1 pp.6-11
20. “Proposal for a Definition of Synthetic Drilling
Fluids and Experiences on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf SEBA 97/5/5-E”, presented by
Norway at the 1997 Osho and Paris Convention
for the Prevention of Marine Pollution Working
Group on Sea-Based Activities (SEBA) Biarritz,
France, February 17-21.

11. “Drilling Engineering”, Bakers Hughes INTEQ

Drilling Engineering Workbook (1995) pp.1-34

12. Dye, W., K. d’Augereau, N. Hansen, M. Otto, L.

Shoults, R. Leaper, D. Clapper and T. Xiang
(2006): “New Water-based Mud balances high
Performance Drilling and Environmental
Compliance”, paper SPE 92367 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
February 23-24, p.1

13. Egbe, N.O., A.O. Obembe, S.O. Inyang and N.

Egbe (2008): “Palm Oil Deterioration Induced by
Ionizing Radiation,” paper, University of Calabar,
Nigeria.

14. Growcock, F. and T. Harvey (2005): “Drilling

Fluids,” Drilling Fluids Handbook, Gulf
Professional Publishing Company, Burlington,
MA. USA, pp.31-50.

15. Lang, M., M. Smith, Manning (1999): “Research

on the Re-use of Drill Cuttings Onshore,
November 11.

16. Mellot, J. (2008): “Technical Improvements in

Wells Drilled with a Pneumatic Fluid” paper SPE
99162 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, February 21-23,
p.2

17. Mohd, K.S. and S. Von Tapavicza (2004): “Palm

Oil Derived Esters-An Environmentally Safe
Drilling Fluid”, COGNIS Deutschland GmbH
Duesseldorf Germany pp.1-14.

18. “Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category”,

Final effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the coastal subcategory; Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Final rule part III, 40
CFR Part 435, Federal Register 61(242): pp.
66086, 66120-66122.
6 SPE 140720

NPUT
Description Palm Palm Palm Gnut oil Paradril Paradril
oil oil oil

Mud weight 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 17

Weight material SG 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Oil/water ratio(0-100) 75 90 90 90 90 85
SG base(oil) fluid 0.902 0.902 0.91 0.912 0.87 0.87
Salt Cacl2 Cacl2 Cacl2 Cacl2 Cacl2 Cacl2
Salt % weight 25 25 25 25 25 25
Salt % purity 95 95 95 95 95 95

Table 1: mud calculation input

SPE 140720 7

OUTPUT – 1 bbl
Groundnut oil Paradril Paradrill Palm oil Palm oil Palm oil
Products (90/10) (85/15) (75/25) (90/10) (90/10)
UNITS
base oil Bbl 0.774 0.774 0.5127 0.644 0.769 0.772
Cacl2 Ppb 10.56 10.56 11.28 26.35 10.50 10.53
Lime Ppb 6.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Primul Ppb 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Secmul Ppb 2.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Fluid loss Ppb 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Bbl 0.084 0.084 0.0927 0.211 0.084 0.084
Barite Ppb 137.80 137.80 507.41 119.65 140.26 141.31
Organophili Ppb _ 6.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 _
c clay

Table.2: mud calculation output

8 SPE 140720

Experiment Paradril Paradril(85/15) Palm oil

Properties BHR AHR BHR AH BHR AHR bleached 90/10
R
MW(ppg) 10.4 ADR 10.5 _ 17 17 _ _
7
600rpm 139 ADR 21 _ 95 66 ADR _
300rpm 75 ADR 11 _ 56 41 ADR _
200rpm 52 ADR 9 _ 42 32 ADR _
100rpm 31 ADR 6 _ 28 22 ADR _

6rpm 6 228 3 _ 9 11 ADR _

3rpm 5 220 2 _ 8 10 ADR _
10secs 6 ADR 3 _ 9 13 ADR _
10mins 7 ADR 9 _ 13 15 ADR _
PV (cp) 62 ADR 10 _ 39 25 ADR _
YP(Ib/100ft2) 13 ADR 1 _ 17 16 ADR _
AV (cp) 69.5 ADR 10.5 _ 47.5 33 ADR _
ES (volts) 1202 AR 623 _ 613 778 AR _
Chloride(mls) 1.75 _ 1.7 _ 2.3 2.0 _ _
Alkalinity mls 2.3 _ 2.3 _ 0.2 0.3 _ _
FL (mls) 8.6 150 40 _ 5 4.5 _ _
% Oil _ _ 80 _ 60 53 _ _
% Water _ _ 10 _ 11 9 _ _
% Solid _ _ 10 _ 29 38 _ _
O/W ML ML 89/1 _ 85/15 85/15 _ _
1

Table.3: The test results

SPE 140720 9

Comparison of the Rheological Behaviour of oil- paradril (85/15) AHR

based mud AFTER HOT ROLLING THE MUD Judith 011(90/10)

paradril(90/10)
240 Before hot 35
rolling Judith
011

PV,YP, AV and Gel strength

210 30
After hot
Dial reading

180 rolling Judith

011 25
150 Before hot
rolling 20
120 Paradril
(90/10)
15
90 Before hot
rolling
Paradil (85/15)
60 10
After hot
30 rolling 5
Paradril
(85/15)
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 10-second 10-minute gel Plastic Yield point Apparent
Rotational speed (rpm) gel vicosity (PV) (YP) viscosity(AV)
Mud parameters

Figure 4: Viscosity and gel strength change of selected

mud before hot rolling
Figure 1: Comparison of the rheological behaviour of
selected oil muds COMPARISON OF THE RATE OF GROWTH OF
CORN EXPOSED TO OIL TYPES
10

RATE OF GROWTH (cm)

before hot rolling
9
FLUID LOSS COMPARISON after hot rolling 8 PALM OIL 1

160 7 PALM OIL 2

6 GNUT OIL 1
140
Fluid loss(mls)

5 GNUT OIL 2

120 4 DIESEL OIL

1
3 DIESEL OIL
100 2 2

80 1
0
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
40
TIME (days)
20
0 Figure 5: Comparison of the rate of growth of corn of
Judith011 Paradril(90/10) Paradril(85/15) oil types
Oil-based mud
TOXICITY OF OIL TYPES
16
Figure 2: Comparison of the fluid loss characteristics of
14
Duration of survival

selected oil mud 12

10
(days)

Judith011 (90/10) BHR

8
BEFORE HOT ROLLING THE MUD paradril (90/10)
paradril (85/15) BHR 6
80
4
PV, YP, AV and gel strength

70 2
60 0
PALM OIL GNUT OIL DIESEL OIL
50

40 Corn exposed to 70mls 0f selected oils

30 Figure 6: Comparison of the rate of growth of corn and
20 toxicity of oil types
10

0
10-second gel 10-minute gel Plastic Yield point Apparent
vicosity (PV) (YP) viscosity(AV)
Mud parameters

Figure 3: Viscosity and gel strength change of selected

mud after hot rolling at 250ºF