ROCK-FLUID INTERACTION

ABSTRACT
During drilling operations there is always a concern about borehole instability, behind the common
goals of well construction and well productivity. Many times when the problem arises, drilling fluid
becomes the first suspect, usually when working with water-based mud (WBM). It is the aim of this
paper to show that it is possible through simple laboratory testing, to provide assessment and
control strategies to avoid potential borehole instability problems, if the fluid was the real cause of
the mentioned problem. Representative formation material characterization in both composition and
structure were analyzed. The presence, abundance and spatial arrangement of reactive mineral clays
were determined first. Second, a set of lab testing in rock-fluid interaction that included: Cation
Exchange Capacity (CEC), Capillary Suction Time, Swelling, Dispersion, Bulk Hardness and Clear
Fluid Contact Integrity with time, correlate and provide trends for a better fluid selection. The paper
covers basic principles and description of these techniques. Finally, if fluid contact or invasion is
identified as problem source, pore geometry determination for bridging agent selection is combined
with HPHT filtration testing to achieve the lowest invasion profile. Field examples considering this
method are presented and show the benefits of this lab support approach.

INTRODUCTION
Invasion of either filtrate fluid or whole mud during the process of drilling is generally associated
with an initiation stage of borehole instability that may get worse with time giving as a result the
possibility of loosing even the well or lack of productivity once the well is set to produce
hydrocarbons. Due to the high heterogeneity of the geological column, it is hard to find a general
solution to these problems.
If a mechanism of the process of drilling or rock breaking is established in a simple fashion
(Figures 1 and 2), and if this mechanism can be simulated properly in the laboratory, a solution for
the mentioned problems is possible by optimizing the fluid properties to fit the rock suite on each
case. This is called fluid design based on rock formation attributes.
Following a certain group of conventional and simple techniques1,2 to analyze and evaluate specific
rock attributes becomes the first stage to provide a solution to the problems associated with fluid
invasion consequences (Figure 3 ). This first stage is generally overlooked because the geological
and petrophysical information available is not in the language of perception for Drillers, who are
fluid-rheology and filtration properties driven. As an example application of this approach, a
representative core sample taken from a well section with reported instability and fluid losses
problems has been analyzed to give the base line for an optimized fluid design. The techniques
involved are briefly explained to illustrate the reader on its simplicity.

1. WORK DEVELOPMENT
Rock-Fluid Interaction lab testing was performed on fine grain type material by means of Cation
Exchange Capacity (CEC) by MBT method, swelling, dispersion, capillary suction time (CST),
bulk hardness and integrity after fluid contact. Representative samples were required for this task,
as well as sample treatment to perform testing. Rock Mineralogy by XRD provided the type of
mineral association and relative abundance of clay minerals.

1.1 Representative samples

Fragments from conventional cores, sidewall cores (drilled, percussion) and drill cuttings from
OBM or highly inhibited WBM operations with reported origin (depth) are suitable as samples.
Lithological Log correlation is also useful. These samples should be treated to be dry and clean
from fluid remains. The samples in our case are representative, with known depth correlated with
lithology logs.

1.2 Techniques Principles and Procedures

1.2.1 Cation Exchange Capacity (1 g/sample)
Aluminum-silicate (clays) structures contain exchangeable cations (Na, Ca) when in contact with
fresh water. As this exchange capacity increases, so the swelling tendency of the material.
• Values of less than 9.0 meq/100 g are considered as low CEC or non-reactive clay CEC
region.
• Values ranging from 9.0 to 18.0 meq/100 g get into the moderate reactive clay CEC region.
• Values ranging from 18.0 to 30.0 meq/100 g get into the reactive clay CEC region.
• Values of more than 30.0 meq/100 g of CEC are considered for highly reactive clays.

1.2.1 Linear Swelling (5 g /fluid tested)

Two swelling mechanisms are usually observed: (1) Physical swelling as a result of water
absorption, a surface phenomenon. This occurs in most formation material that contains very small
grain particles, such as clay and silt. In MISwaco lab instrument, expansion values of reconstituted
pellets can be up to 60% for this type of swelling. (2) Chemical swelling that involves both ion
exchange and diffusion resulting from the interaction of formation material and contacting aqueous
fluids. Expansion values of reconstituted pellets can be up to 250% or more in very reactive shales.
This phenomenon is time dependant, usually is observed after minutes in brine solutions to hours in
whole mud systems. Room temperature and pressure conditions are used.

1.2.2 Dispersion (10-20 g /fluid tested)

It measures the tendency of formation material to disaggregate into smaller pieces when in contact
with aqueous fluids under dynamic conditions. All clay material gets dispersed and particle size
influences the degree of dispersion, then forming colloids. This phenomenon is the first to occur in
time, in matter of seconds to minutes. It is calculated as final mass of dried material retained by a
sieve device of a predetermined mesh size ( # 30 U.S. mesh) against original weighted material
retained by a larger mesh set (#6-#10 U.S. mesh) before contact with aqueous fluids .

1.2.3 Bulk Hardness (20-30 g /fluid tested)

After contacting WB fluids in dynamic conditions, similar test procedure as the Dispersion test is
followed but keeping the sieve retained material wet instead. This material is placed inside an
extrusion press and a pressure torque is applied. The material either flows as “spaghetti” or it
becomes a pellet with little flow. The torque applied indicates how soft or hard the wet material is,
with the highest values for those that turn into a pellet.

1.2.4 Capillary Suction Time (3 g /fluid tested).

Measures rock-fluid interaction as contact time, counted in seconds. Longer contact times indicate
higher interaction. This interaction is the result of both dispersion and swelling phenomena. This
technique cannot discriminate dominant mechanism of interaction. Fifty seconds or more is
indicative of growing rock-fluid interaction.

1.2.5 Integrity after Fluid Contact (1 squared cm).

This is a qualitative test that shows (video, photographs) how formation material structure interacts
with clear aqueous fluids, either brines or fresh water, as time is measured. Formation integrity after
contacting fluid is followed, making possible to observe if rock remains stable or if it collapses in
time. Good condition shale fragments are required. The stabilization effect of brine type and
concentration upon formation structure can be easily monitored.
2. Field Example
In the area of Lankahuasa field, offshore Mexico, fluid losses and borehole instability have been
reported as common problems in horizons suspected to be made of “reactive” shales. Are the fluids
responsible of this situation?
To answer this question XRD mineralogy (Figure 4) was performed and it showed diffraction
patterns at three different depths were similar and relative compositions also showed little variation.
Reactive clay material (smectite) is not abundant; Kaolinite and Illite are dominant clays.
Predominant minerals include Calcite and Quartz.
CEC value obtained by MBT method was 13 meq/100 g, within the moderate reactivity region.
Swelling and Dispersion testing indicated low reactivity with the WBM formulated and tested,
including a field mud (Figures 5 and 6). Bulk Hardness with low salinity 3% KCl shows low rock-
fluid interaction as a pressed pellet of material is obtained instead of typical high rock-fluid
interaction “spaghettis”, as seen in one experiment using reference reactive shale with three
different type of fluids (Figure 7). Capillary Suction Time for 3% KCl was 26 seconds, again an
indicator of low reactivity for water based fluids.
Finally, when whole pieces of rock contacted fresh water and 3% KCl, they developed fractures that
ended up in a collapsed structure as smaller blocks (Figure 8).
Thin sections were analyzed by Petrographic Image Analysis and an estimated pore opening was
determined (Figure 9) to be used as input information for bridging material selection. Using
proprietary software3 a sized calcium carbonated blend (Figure 10) was calculated and used in two
different fluid formulations (Table 1) as alternatives for an upcoming field Job (Figure 11).
HTHP static filtration testing in ceramic disks simulating the sample porous geometry had validated
the hypothesis of fluid invasion as a source of borehole instability. High solids concentration of
solids is related to higher fluid losses even if using the same ratio of bridging material. Field results
with the proposed formulations reported no borehole instability problems in the sections where they
were used.
Testing indicates that there is an instability problem when fluid and rock get in contact, in which
swelling is not the cause for this problem. Dispersion occurs; somehow it is controlled by WBM as
for the results of dispersion testing (97% recovery). It is the location of dispersible material
(Kaolinite/Illite) within the rock structure the possible cause of instability when contacting filtrate.
Adding chemical additives to increase inhibition in the system won’t do any good. Creating a
mechanical barrier to water fluid filtrate spreading, e.g. bridging with appropriate solids and sealing
with higher starch concentration was helpful as from the field trials of lab formulations.
3. CONCLUSIONS
• Data analysis and correlation suggest that chemical reactivity between Lankahuasa rock
section under study and water base fluid is low. It seems that clean fluids (filtrate) invade
the rock through microfractured paths or very small size pores, created by dispersion of
Kaolinite and brittle Illite, lowering cohesion among rock grains that extends as a fracture
network in time, ending up in collapsing blocks.
• Inhibition is not an issue on the rock suite under study, and invasion control through the
used of designed bridging material improves remediation on the borehole instability and
fluid invasion problem.
• Data from the HTHP filtration testing suggests that not only the correct sizing of bridging
material is important but also its concentration and that a high solids concentration
deteriorate good filtration properties in a fluid.
• Simple laboratory techniques used on this paper provided a simple way to assess the
mechanism of borehole instability in terms of its association to rock-fluid interaction.

REFERENCES
1. Nesbitt, L.E., King, G.P. and Thurber, N.E.: “Shale Stabilization Principles” SPE 60th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985.
2. Wilcox, R. and Fisk, J.: “Tests Show Shale Behavior, Aid Well Planning” Oil and Gas J.
September 12, 1983
3. Dick, M.A., Heinz, T, Svoboda, C. and Aston, M.: “Optimizing the Selection of Bridging
Particles for Reservoir Drilling Fluids” paper SPE 58793 presented at SPE Formation
Damage Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, 23-24 February 2000.

Acknowledgements
We thank the managements of PEMEX, and M-I SWACO for their permission to publish this paper.
We would also like to thank Ms. Mary Dimataris for editing this paper.
ATTACHMENTS (Figures and tables)

Figure 1. Sequential Drilling Process

1
1. Rock Breaking

2. Filtercake Formation 2

3. Invasion Front Development 3

Figure 2. Depth of Invasion Profile versus Time

1 2 3

(1) Ideal Situation

(2-3) Real Situation
 Figure 3. Rock Properties that are affected during Invasion

Hardness

Cohesion

Chemical Inertness

Main Objective of Drilling Fluids Design is to avoid or

or minimize changes on the mentioned properties

As a result of these changes it can happen:

Erosion .......Instability...........Hole Collapse

Figure 4. Mineralogy XRD and CEC for Lankahuasa DL-1

Mineralogy XRD Quartz K-Feldspar Calcite Kaolinite Illite

2223 m
38 10 22 20 10

2480 m 44 11 20 15 10

2633 m
40 10 24 14 12

CEC 13 meq/100 g
 Figure 5. Swellmeter Testing
5 g pellets @ 25000 psi

Fluid: Water DI
70
2480 m

Swelling (%)
60

50
2223 m
40
30 2633 m
20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (min)

Fluid:
(1) Water DI (2) Field Mud (3) FLOTROL NT (4) Polymeric/ Glycol (5) Polymeric/ Sea water (6) Polymeric/ Fresh water

70
2480 m (1)
60

50 (2)
Swelling(%)

40
(3)
30
(4)
20 (5)
(6)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (min)

Figure 6. Lankahuasa Dispersion test results with Water (10% recovery) and
FLOPRO NT Na-Formate Based (97 % recovery).
Figure 7. Bulk Hardness results on a reference shale sample exposed to three different
WB inhibited fluids. A pellet is a typical result for low rock-fluid interaction
and “spaghetti” texture for high rock-fluid interaction. Bottom Image was
the pellet obtained for the Lankahuasa sample after exposure to a WBM.
Figure 8. Sample Integrity after contact with some clean water based fluids.

Dry sample

3% KCl/4 hours

Fresh Water/4 hours

 Figure 9. Petrographic Image Analysis on a sidewall sample
(2920 meters/ Well Lankahuasa DL-1)
O bj# D iam etro (µ )
1
1 15
4 3 2
2 13 7 5 6
3 15
8 10 9
4 16 11 12 13
5 15
14 15
6 15
20 21 16 17 18
7 12 22 24 23
8 15
9 16 25 26
10 13
27
11 15
28 29
12 9
13 10
31 30
14 17
15 15 33 32 34
35 38 36
16 16
42 39 40 43 41
17 15 44
18 12
45 47
20 12 48 49
21 10 50 52 51 53
22 15 55 54
23 15 56
24 12
59 58 57
25 15 61 62
26 14 64 63 65
27 13 66 67
28 10
29 16
30 12 70 69 68
71
31 16
72
32 9
75 74 76 73
33 15
79 78 77
34 14
35 10
36 13 81 80
38 16
39 15
40 17
41 13
42 16
43 11
44 10
45 15 100
47
48
23
15 90 Pore geometry Statistics
49 16
50 16 80
51 17 Min Value 9 microns
52 15
70
53 15
54 15
60 Max Value 23 microns
Frecuencia

55 15
56 13
57 15 50 D10/D50/D90 11/15/19
58 18
59 12 40
61
62
13
17 30
Input to Optibridge:
63 18
64 13 20 Largest Pore Size = 23
65 15
66 15
10
67 9
68 17
69 17
0
70 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
71 17
72 13 Diametro Garganta Poral 2920 m (µ)
73 15
74 15
75 15 Pore throats were the measured parameter (red circle/green number). From these values a
76 15
77 15 frequency chart is made for cumulated percentile (red line) percentile histogram (blue line).
 Figure 10. Optibridge selection of optimum bridging material

Operator: PEMEX Largest pore size : 23 microns

Well Name: Lankahuasa DL-1 Sand Control Device :
Location: Mexico
© 1999-2001 M-I L.L.C - All Rights Reserved Comments: Optimum Blend

Optimum Bridging Agent Blend

1.0
D10 - D50 - D90
Target__ D10 Target / Blend: 0.3 / 0.5 microns
0.9 __Blend D50 Target / Blend: 7.1 / 6.3 microns
D90 Target / Blend: 23.0 / 22.2 microns
Cumulative Particle-Size Distribution

0.8 Optimum Blend for 0 to 100 % CPS Range

Brand Name Bridging Agent (lb/bbl) Vol %
A=Safe-Carb 2 (VF) 8.3 25.96
0.7 B=Safe-Carb 10 (F) 23.7 74.04

0.6

0.5
A
26.0%
0.4

0.3

0.2 B
74.0%

0.1
Simulation Accuracy
Calcium Carbonate added : 32 lb/bbl
0 Avg Error 0 - 100 % CPS Range : 2.07 %
1x10 -2 1x10 -1 1x10 0 1x10 1 1x10 2 1x10 3 1x10 4 Max Error 0 - 100 % CPS Range : 4.79 %
Particle Size (microns)

After Pore Size determination (23 microns) OptiBridge suggests an optimum blend of bridging
SAFECARB. The amount of it is 32 lb./bbl. Somehow this is not a limiting feature. The final
amount selected from the formulation is Kept as a percentage as indicated. For example in the
case of 40 lb./bbl we have:
SAFECARB (2) 40 x 0.2596 = 10.38 lb./bbl
SAFECARB (10) 40 x 0.7404 = 29.62 lb./bbl

So for the FLOPRO NT Sodium Formate Formulation, the amount to use in Kg/m3 is :

SAFECARB (2) 40 x 0.2596 = 10.38 lb./bbl = 25.58 Kg./m3

SAFECARB (10) 40 x 0.7404 = 29.62 lb./bbl = 84.50 Kg./m3
Table 1. One bbl equivalent formulation. Density = 1.30 S.G.

Product Concentration Product Concentration

Sea Water 0.7677 bbl Sea Water 0.8051 bbl
3 3
Na-Formate 318 Kg/m KCl 16.47 Kg/m
3 3
DuoVis 4.28 Kg/m DuoVis 4.28 Kg/m
3 3
FloTrol 71.25 Kg/m FloTrol 71.25 Kg/m
3 3
Klagard 8.55 Kg/m Klagard 17.10 Kg/m
3 3
Lube 100 5.70 Kg/m Lube 100 5.70 Kg/m
3 3
Soda Ash 1.43 Kg/m MgO 2.85 Kg/m
3 3
NaHCO3 1.43 Kg/m Biocide 0.71 Kg/m
3 3
SAFECARB (2) 28.58 Kg/m SAFECARB (2) 108.75 Kg/m
3 3
SAFECARB (10) 84.50 Kg/m SAFECARB (10) 310.16 Kg/m

Formulation (1) Formulation (2)

Figure 11. Control of Invasion /HTHP filtration testing/Sea Water Based

HTHP Cells/ Ceramic Disks 20 µ/ Differential Pressure 500 psi /Temp. 180ºF

Formulation (1) Formulation (2)

Time (min) Vol. Filtrate (ml) Tiempo (min) Vol. Filtrado (ml)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 5.2 0.5 5.6
1.0 6.0 1.0 7.2
2.0 6.8 2.0 9.6
4.0 8.0 4.0 12.2
8.0 9.6 8.0 15.6
16.0 11.6 16.0 21.4
30.0 13.8 30.0 28.4
45.0 15.6 45.0 34.0

50.0
45.0
40.0
Volume of Filtrate (ml)

(2)
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0 (1)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Time (minutes)

(2)
(1)