SPE 135704

Comprehensive Approach to Severe Lost Circulation Problems in Russia

Natalia Collins, Andrei Kharitonov, Don Whitfill, and Matthew Miller/Halliburton, Konstantin Kulakov/Orenburgneft,
TNK-BP

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 26–28 October 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
Introduction
In the past, a favored approach may have been used to treat most or all lost circulation incidents. However, improvements in
understanding all aspects of lost circulation show that the “favored approach” method can be technically unwise today. The
delineation of fracture geometry induced during drilling, based on rock properties, may point out significant differences in the
length and width and severity of anticipated induced fractures. Major differences in permeability between shale, sandstone and
vugular limestone also show immediately that “one-size-fits-all” solutions are not going to be effective or efficient. When
possible, these types of information need to be incorporated into any plan for controlling lost circulation.
Lost circulation is a principal culprit in drilling non-productive time (NPT). Generally speaking, the drilling industry
handles lost circulation much as it did many years ago, but new modeling and operational techniques are changing industry
perceptions. The petroleum industry has invested a significant effort into understanding the mechanisms behind lost
circulation, developing new tools to help locate the thief zone, and implementing new steps to minimize or eliminate this
problem.
Controlling loss of circulation during well construction is more than just selecting the proper type of lost circulation
material (LCM). A fully engineered wellbore stress management (WSM) approach is required. During the planning phase, this
approach incorporates borehole stability analysis, equivalent circulating density (ECD) modeling, leak-off flow-path geometry
modeling, plus drilling fluid and LCM material selection to help minimize effects on ECD.
During the execution phase, real-time hydraulics modeling, pressure-while-drilling (PWD) data, connection flow
monitoring techniques, and timely application of LCM and treatments are proving to minimize and in some cases eliminate
losses in high-risk areas.

Prevention of Induced Fractures

The WSM application strategy has two components: prevention (pretreatment) and correction (remediation). In some cases,
prevention may be more effective than remediation. Important information obtained from Drilling Engineering Association
joint industry experiments (DEA 13) performed on 30x30x30-in. blocks gave insight into the prevention of lost circulation in
general, and in oil-based fluids versus water-based fluids in particular.1 The experiments demonstrated that an adequate
loading of properly-sized materials causes “tip screen out” immediately after the fracture is initiated, preventing pressure
transmission to the fracture tip with subsequent further growth and propagation.2
A recent joint industry project was conducted through the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI 2000 Project DC3)
to leverage this effort. A key insight developed from the GPRI 2000 Project was the significantly greater effectiveness of a
special graphitic carbon versus all other single materials used in the study. Field experience had indicated the superior
performance of the special graphitic carbon material, but the GPRI 2000 Project contributed the significant laboratory
confirmation needed.3
The following practices are advocated to provide the best available technology:
• Pre-treat with selected LCM before drilling high risk lost circulation zones.
• Add subsequent treatments in the form of sweeps, rather than adding into the active drilling fluid system in the
suction pit. Making sweep additions will help ensure the wellbore sees a higher concentration of particulate materials
in general, and the larger particles in particular. These preventive sweeps should contain a nominal 50 lb/bbl of the
selected materials. This is recommended when treating the entire mud system with a high particulate concentration is
not acceptable.
2 SPE 135704

• Base the amount of LCM on volume rather than weight. Conventionally the industry has calculated the amount of
LCM to use on a weight basis, either equal weights of material combinations or some weight ratio based on previous
experience. The authors propose that the treatment be calculated on a volume basis, normalizing the weights by using
the specific gravity (SG) of the materials. Comparing fibers to calcium carbonate is a good example. A nominal SG
for many fibers that are used may be as low as 0.9, while calcium carbonate has an SG of 2.7. If equal weights of
these materials (1:1 weight ratio) are used, the volume ratio of fibers to calcium carbonate is 3:1.
• Have remediation materials on site for immediate application if needed.

Remediation of Lost Circulation in Fractured Formations

Some formations do not lend themselves to preventive techniques. Foremost among these are carbonates that contain natural
open fractures and large openings that are referred to as “Vugs”. A vug may be an opening that is a few millimeters in size, or
it may be as large as a door going into a larger room. The latter case is recognized by indicators such as the drill bit dropping
several feet, or meters, before contacting additional intact rock. These types of formations create the greatest lost circulation
challenge facing the industry today, and the challenge which the industry is least able to solve. In many cases, engineering
around the problem is necessary, by drilling blind or using mud cap drilling. For these instances, “logistics” is the problem,
rather than “physics.”
It must be recognized that for large fractures and vugs, treatment with particulate material is unlikely to solve the lost
circulation problem. A measurable lost circulation rate may be treated with particulate material; however, instances of “total
losses” -- or the inability to maintain fluid at a specified level in the wellbore -- generally indicate that some type of chemical
sealant (possibly used with particles) may be necessary. Cements have long been used as the final solution for these types of
losses, but there are many cases where cement is not successful, or requires innumerable squeeze treatments to stop the losses.
“Gunk-type” treatments, where a high viscosity is developed by a treatment in the wellbore, may be the most successful in
these cases.
In other cases, the presence of fractures that are tectonically induced may be treated with particulate material, since they
may be much smaller in width and are not necessarily open when first encountered. Losses do occur when the fractures are
opened, or reopened by the pressure of the drilling fluid. In these cases, there is no fracture initiation required and losses will
occur when the wellbore pressure exceeds the pore pressure. This is the type of situation encountered in shale gas drilling
operations that are being pursued in many geographic locations.

Bridging Particle Size Distribution and Fracture Modeling

The modeling software and materials can be applied in support of wellbore pressure containment and techniques to more
accurately predict and optimize LCM selection, concentration and target particle size distribution. Based on pore size, or
estimated fracture widths, the model can utilize the proper types and sizes of materials to plug the pores and/or an initiated
fracture. For pore bridging in the reservoir these materials are selected from a full range of ground marble products with d50s
ranging from 5 to 150 microns. For borehole stress treatments, these materials generally are selected from a full range of
specialized resilient graphitic carbon and ground marble products, with d50s ranging between 5 and 1200 microns.
Which components should be used and how much of each are important questions in establishing an effective bridging
strategy (Fig. 1). The modeling software can assist in predicting the materials required and in turn model the PSD of the final
mix, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. This will provide the maximum concentration of materials that cover the anticipated range
of pore throat sizes, permeability specific to the reservoir, and formations to be bridged or protected (Fig. 4). Modeling can
also be used to determine and predict fracture width (Fig. 5). This will allow a more engineered approach to LCM selection in
treatment pill design and also help identify preventative background treatment recommendations.

Wellbore Stress Management Engineered Process

Drilling depleted zones with a high overbalance significantly increases the risk of borehole tensile failure, with subsequent lost
circulation. To minimize these risks, appropriate engineered treatments should already be present in the drilling fluid as new
formations are exposed.
The conventional solution of treating the system with additional fluid loss material may result in thicker filter cakes and the
increased probability of differentially stuck pipe. Often these materials are fibers, asphalt materials and lignite, all of which
can “plaster” to the wellbore wall, but in so doing increase the filter cake thickness.
What is required is properly sized particulate material that can use both “near size” pore throat plugging as well as
aggregating in the pores. In order for these materials to be applied in the drilling fluid they should not adversely affect the
rheology or increase the ECD. An engineered approach for sizing the material to the application should be taken to achieve full
benefit.
The application strategy has two components: prevention (pre-treatment) and correction (remediation). The following
practices are advocated to provide the best available technology:
• Pre-Treatment. Pre-treat with optimally sized LCM (a combination of the finer grinds of sized resilient graphitic carbon
and sized calcium carbonate) before drilling high risk lost circulation zones, such as depleted sands.
SPE 135704 3

• Subsequent Treatment. Add subsequent treatments in the form of sweeps, rather than adding material directly into the
active drilling fluid system via the suction pit. This type of addition will help ensure the wellbore sees a higher
concentration of particulate materials in general, and the larger particles in particular.
• Dynamic Stress Cage Treatment. When logging-while-drilling (LWD) data indicates that the bit is entering the next
depleted sand, a treatment containing larger sized resilient graphitic carbon and sized calcium carbonate to enhance “near
size” plugging and build a stress cage around the wellbore is applied in a sweep. These sweeps are continued until the bit
enters the next shale. Alternatively, the smaller and larger size materials are applied, depending on whether a sand or shale
is being drilled.
• Corrective Treatment. Keep remediation materials on site for immediate application if needed, should wellbore breathing
and loss of circulation occur. The selection process here will depend on the severity of the losses and the potential risk.

Wellbore strengthening treatments are preventative rather than remedial. They may not be successful if they are applied to
seal the fractures after induced losses occur. Stress caging is the name given to a method for effectively increasing the fracture
resistance of rock formations by increasing the hoop stress in the near wellbore region. By increasing the hoop stress, the
ability of the wellbore to contain a higher pressure may be used to drill above fracture gradient without inducing mud losses.

Fig. 1: Considerations for determining optimal particle size distribution.

Fig. 2: Modeling predicts the types of materials required.

4 SPE 135704

Cumulative
CumulativeVolume
VolumeFraction
Fraction

Composite
CompositeProducts
ProductsPSD
PSD

Individual
IndividualProducts
Products
PSD
PSD

Fig. 3: Modeling demonstrates the PSD of the various products.

Fig. 4: Modeling indicates the maximum concentration of materials needed to address the anticipated range of pore throat size and
permeability specific to the formation to be bridged or protected.
SPE 135704 5

Fig. 5: Fracture modeling can help estimate fracture width and potential for propagation.

Laboratory Development
The development and testing of lost circulation materials in a laboratory is hampered by the scale of the tests that are possible,
versus the scale of the application in the field. If actual fractures are initiated and propagated, as done in Drilling Engineering
Association Project 13 in the mid-1980s, the 30-in x 30-in test blocks and equipment are on a “pilot scale” which is both
expensive and difficult to manage.1,2 If scaled down to 4-in diameter core, as was done in GPRI Project 2000 “Mitigating Lost
Circulation in Synthetic-Base Fluids”, the testing becomes more manageable, but still very time consuming and expensive.3
By combining a particle size design modeling capability with standardized lab screening tests, one major drilling fluids
provider has been able to design new lost circulation materials that have proven successful in the field. These standard test
procedures still do not solve the problem of scale related to lab versus field applications, but are capable of doing a good job in
screening the best candidates for field evaluation.
The design model and lab results for two different development projects, along with field application results from one of
the systems, are described below.

Fluid Loss Tests. Initial screening tests for lost circulation are run on a 190-micron ceramic disk in a particle plugging test
apparatus (PPA) at 150°F (65°C) and 250°F (121°C) and 1000 psi pressure differential.
Those formulations selected for further study are evaluated in a second set of tests run with the base fluid weighted to 12.0
ppg to validate the effect of weighting material on the results.
After formulations for further consideration are developed, a third set of lab tests is done using either particle plugging test
equipment or HPHT fluid loss cells that are fitted with metal disks in which 0.02-inch (508 micron) and 0.04-in (1016 micron)
slots, respectively, are cut. These tests are also run at 150°F (65°C) and 250°F (121°C) and 1000 psi pressure differential. The
weight of fluid that flows through the slots is determined at the end of the test. These tests are very short duration, with either a
quick shut-off occurring or all of the fluid expelled in a matter of a few seconds time. Other slot sizes may be used for specific
field-related projects.
Screening tests for designing bridging material combinations to plug formation pores are run on 35-micron ceramic disks at
150°F (65°C) and 250°F (121°C) and 1000 psi pressure differential. Confirmation data may then be run on 10-, 20-, and 190-
micron disks to confirm how wide a range of pore sizes can be plugged with the formulation. Ideally, consistent results will be
obtained on all three sizes. The data captured during all the tests using ceramic disks are shown in Table 1 and 2.
Finally, a series of tests under the same conditions of temperature and pressure are run on different types of drilling fluids
that are maintained as a standard. These are a 12.0 ppg dispersed water based fluid, fresh water non-dispersed fluid, salt water
non-dispersed fluid and a non-aqueous fluid, respectively.

Selected Lab Results

Selected Lab Results. Because the products in this study are not experimental, the full series of tests was not performed. In
fact tests were conducted only on slotted discs with openings of 0.04, 0.06, and 0.08 inch (1016, 1524, and 2032 micrometers,
respectively) and a tapered slot from 0.1 to 0.04 inch (2500 to 1000 micrometers) over 1.4 in. (3.5 centimeters).
6 SPE 135704

The following lab tests, selected from Table 1, were run to illustrate the screening techniques used for this study. In this
example testing, slotted discs were used for data collection. As can be seen from Table 2 and Fig. 1, the performance of the
lost circulation material formulations depends a great deal on the size of the material used. In Acid Soluble Current 2, few of
the particles are larger than 1000 micrometers and it is difficult for the formulation to plug the 0.06 inch slot and the tapered
slot and it did not plug the 0.08 inch slot. The formulation Acid Soluble Recommended 1 contains some Ground Marble (GM)
1200 and Flake Carbonate (FC) M which include material over 1000 micrometers in size and the performance improves for all
tests with control of fluid loss for all slots tested. The particle size is higher still in Acid Soluble Recommended 2 because
more GM 1200 and FC M were added to the fluid and the performance improves again with good control for all tests except
the one using the 2032 micrometer slot. Finally, the Non-damaging formulation quickly seals all the slotted discs because it
contains many large particles in addition to having a higher volume of lost circulation material.

TABLE 1. RECOMMENDED TREATMENT FOR LOST CIRCULATION.

Material Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Non-Damaging
Current 2 Recommended 1 Recommended 2 (ppb)
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
Ground Marble 10
(GM)150
GM 400 20
GM 600 30
Resilient 20
Graphitic Cargon
Cellulose Fibre/x- 20/4 20/4 20/4 20/4
link
Man Made Fiber 20 10 20 20
Reservoir LCM 70 40 40
GM 1200 10 10
Flake Carbonate 10 10
M
Vol % LCM 8.5 8.8 8.7 12.3

TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE OF RECOMMENDED RESERVOIR FORMULATIONS.

Fluid loss (mL) Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Non-damaging
at 65.5 °C Current 2 Recommended 1 Recommended 2
(150 °F)

1016 μm slot 40 30 10 7
1524 μm slot 240 100 56 24
2032 μm slot N/C 420 172 52
tapered slot 500 100 54 10
SPE 135704 7

600

500
500

420

400
Fluid Loss (mL)

300

240

200
172

100 100
100
56 54 52
40
30 24
10 7 10
0
Acid Soluble Current 2 Acid Soluble Recommended 1 Acid Soluble Recommended 2 Non-damaging
Formulation

1016 mm slot 1524 mm slot 2032 mm slot tapered slot

Fig. 6: Graph of fluid loss data.

Field Applications. Severe lost circulation zones present one of the major challenges facing drilling and fluids service
companies. Thief zones are common problems in drilling that result in unpredictable increases in fluid cost, NPT, wellbore
instability and, depending on the fluid type, possible adverse impact on the environment.
The Olhovskoe field in Buzuluk region, near South Ural, is a complex, low permeable limestone reservoir with naturally
fractured cavernous/vugular formations that cause severe or even total fluid losses in many drilling operations. The typical loss
rate is difficult to predict in Buzuluk field and could vary from 7m3/hour up to total losses. Bridging the thief zone is
challenging. Planning and establishing a strategy prior to drilling a potential thief zone is critical for preventing and controlling
fluid loss. It is a common practice in the Orenburg region to use water-based drilling fluid and to pump lost circulation pills or
cementing plugs in case losses occur.
Olhovskoe Field. In a deviated well drilled in the Vishnevskoye field, the operator experienced loss of returns using a
fresh-water, clay-free polymer fluid system with the following fluid properties:

OLHOVSKOE FIELD.
Density, g/cm3 1.18
Funnel Viscosity, sec 50
API Fluid Loss, cm3/30min 5
Gel 10sec/10min, lb/100ft2 5/8
Plastic Viscosity, mPa 12
Yield Point, lb/100ft2 23
pH 10
MBT, kg/m3 28
LGS, % 9.6

The proper process and decisions for managing the thief zone must be taken in a timely manner. Once the severe losses
started, using conventional LCM typically does not control the losses. Most of the LCM treatments are either made with large
particles that it is hoped will bridge across the thief zone, or high viscosity fluids that chemically plug the formation.
To improve performance, engineered LCM treatments were selected for placement in the loss zones. The treatment
optimization was based on laboratory work to optimize formulations that can plug as large a fracture width as possible. The
treatment details are described in the Tables 4 and 5.
Lost circulation in cavernous/ vugular formations cannot be completely avoided. However, the following preventive
measures can be applied:
• Utilize background treating materials to plug smaller fractures and vugs.
• Maintain a minimum safe fluid density
• Have a plan in place with accepted materials on location for quick application.
8 SPE 135704

• Avoid excessive downhole pressures caused by improper drilling fluid rheology, hydraulics, high flow rate, thick
filter cakes, and surge pressure during tripping, and bridges occurring in the well.

After evaluating the reservoir characteristics and field history data, the optimum LCM and treatment were selected. A
blend of acid-soluble materials with an optimized particle size distribution (PSD) and a polymer carrier was selected for
treatment in the payzone section. Solid materials in the form of blended calcium carbonate particles and flakes, plus an acid
soluble fiber, are designed to provide excellent plugging results when combined with a cross linked high viscosity non-
damaging carrier fluid. This allows the placement of the solids in the zone of interest to plug the losses in the formation. The
large surface area of LCM materials and amorphous structure allows bridging across the loss zone and could be easily
removed with weak acid treatment, if necessary. Many of the LCM tested by the industry has limited capability of blocking
pore-throat openings (in case of clastic) and open cracks and fractures (in case of carbonates).
The treatment details are as follows:
Formation type: Limestone
TMD: 3695m
TVD: 3034m
BHT: 55°C
Drilling fluid: fresh water polymer system, 1.18-1.20 SG, weighted with CaCO3 5 and 50 grades.

Approximately 29 m3 of Engineered Particulate Combination (EPC) pill was premixed in a separate tank to avoid drilling
fluid contamination with low gravity solids. Each treatment was a modified blend of EPC and LCM simultaneously placed to
the thief zone.

.
Product description Concentration D50/Microns
Fiber 40 kg/m3 400
Graphitized carbon based material 57 kg/m3 400
Nut shell 50 kg/m3 2000
CaCO3 As needed 50
Polymer For suspension

After reaching 3005 m true vertical depth (TVD) with an inclination of 15-20 deg, a loss rate of 150 m3/hour to total losses
was recorded in a vugular/cavernous type of formation. The static fluid level was 200m. While pulling out of hole (POOH), 15
m3 of a conventional treatment (Table 3) with a combination of fiber, walnut, and sized calcium carbonates was pumped, but
did not achieve the desired effect (Table 3). Pump pressure was 155 atm with a pump rate of 31 l/s. The treatment was placed
in the wellbore at a low pump pressure of 18 atm. When POOH to the shoe, additional high-vis pills (Table 5) were pumped
every 30 minutes with no returns.

. HIGH VISCOSITY PILL FORMULATION.

Product description Concentration D50/Microns
Polymer 10 kg/m3
Engineered Particulate Combination (EPC) 130 kg/m3 400

An additional treatment pill (Table 4) was prepared with an EPC containing a water swelling polymer and placed utilizing
a mud pump at 20 l/s. The result of the treatment was a ~50% reduction in the loss rate from 150m3/hour to 70 m3/hour. The
static fluid column was measured at 120m level.
SPE 135704 9

TABLE 6. SECOND LOST CIRCULATION PILL FORMULATION.

Product description Concentration D50/Microns
Engineered Particulate Combination (EPC) 130 kg/m3 400
Angular carbon based material 60 kg/m3 400
Nut shell 40 kg/m3 2000
CaCO3 As needed 50
Polymer For suspension

A supplementary treatment with 6 m3 of cement was placed as a balanced plug across the thief zone. After the cement plug
was placed some squeeze pressure was applied in the annulus side to push cement into the loss zone so that a competent
wellbore could be achieved. The static fluid column was measured at 150m.
The combination of LCM treatment and cement plug was successful in curing a loss-prone problem formation. The
cementing log data indicated that the cement slurry was able to cure the losses without deep invasion into the loss zone. Such a
result was achieved by the initial bridging of the lost circulation pill and using appropriate LCM pill techniques. If additional
work can be done to improve the performance of the EPC, additional advantages of the system can be realized. It is easy to
mix and place on the rig, with no need for special tanks or equipment.