SPE 159894

Criticality Testing of Drilling Fluid Solids Control Equipment

Bodil Aase; Tor Henry Omland, SPE; Ellen Katrine Jensen; Anne Turid Lian Vestbakke; Bjarte Sivert Knudsen;
Frode Haldorsen; Arvid Nysted; Eystein Ove Storslett; Iren Steinnes; Einar Knut Eliassen; Jørund Enger; Øyvind
Lie; and Vegard Peikli, SPE, Statoil ASA.

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

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

Correct selection and use of solids control equipment is essential to maintain drilling fluid at its desired properties. It has also
shown to be essential to avoid generation of unnecessary waste streams during drilling.
Since the early 1930s shale shakers has been the dominant device for primary solids removal. Additional equipment like
desilters, desanders and centrifuges were often used in the past to maintain proper solids control, but recent years have
demonstrated that although dependent on correct operational procedures, several types of shale shakers have sufficient
performance to be able to act as the sole solids control device without the use of desanders and desilters.
Despite often being the only measure for solids removal, selection of shale shakers, screen and establishment of operational
procedures are often based on biased information (Dahl, B. et al, 2006). In addition it has been recognized that methods and
criteria for verification of shale shakers has not been sufficiently qualified and standardized. To address this, a
multidisciplinary verification test of various solids control concepts has been conducted. The objective of the test has been to
verify equipment performance in a standardized onshore test facility related to:

• Oil mist and vapour emission.

• Ventilation (to obtain satisfactory working environment).
• Flow handling capacity using various drilling fluids.
• Leakage rate, i.e. the volume of fluid bypassing the filtration screen
• Lost circulation material feature
• Noise and vibration level.
• Maintenance and equipment robustness.
• Feature for running lost circulation material reclamation.

The tests were all planned and run in close co-operation with the equipment suppliers to ensure test objective alignment.
Several findings were made throughout the test period providing vital information for design improvements and increasing
the industry’s competence with respect to solids control.

Introduction

Drilling operations are highly dependent upon reliable equipment to perform efficient drilling operations. Suitable drilling
fluid quality, efficient solids removal and low waste production (Bouse, E. E. et al, 1992),  as well as health, safety and
environment (HSE), especially of working environment (WE) in the shaker room, are all aspects relevant for selection and
skilled operation of solids control equipment in the oil industry. Shale shaker is referred to as shaker in the rest of this
publication.
2 SPE 159894

When acquiring new equipment a crucial part of the preparation is to perform a market screening. The information collected
during this phase has historically been based on data obtained from non standardized test conditions as it is challenging to
provide a test facility representing a true circulation system or impossible to get equal test conditions which is the case when
performing tests at a rig site. When various solids control equipment are tested in different test facilities and using various
drilling fluids, screen configurations, and other test conditions (temperatures, formations, and heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems) it is difficult to compare test results. Examples of irrelevant test conditions are smoke tests of
shaker without drilling fluid and capacity tests with water instead of drilling fluid.

Due to the criticality of equipment selection, this verification test of solids control equipment has been performed to provide
an offshore drilling and production rig with an objective basis for equipment selection. The test has been performed as part of
an ongoing rig-upgrade project. The objective of this test has thus been to verify equipment supplier’s specification on
parameters essential for solids control equipment performance. In the test, five different solids control solutions (or shakers)
have been tested. Four conventional shakers and one alternative solids control equipment unit based on vacuum technology
were tested. The traditional shakers include one double deck shaker and three triple deck shakers. The shakers are tested
under as equal conditions as practicably possible with the only changing factor being the equipment itself. Three main areas
of shaker performance were tested; Capacity and filtration efficiency, operation- and maintenance-friendliness as well as
HVAC and WE.

The shaker test was a multidisciplinary test and is a result of cooperation between 13 companies. The companies are
consultants, equipment suppliers and their distributors, the test center and the operator. This cooperation between several
discipline groups has given comparable test results for several aspects of shaker’s performances, and consequently creates a
unique database for testing of equipment under the same conditions. The test also demonstrates the importance of having
focus on solids control equipment performance to obtain high drilling efficiency and satisfactory HSE conditions.

This paper describes in detail the consequences of proper testing has on solids control equipment selection, how each element
important for shaker selection was tested and the results obtained from the test

Statement of Theory and Definitions

There is an economic incentive to base solids control equipment selection on reliable tests as efficient shakers will reduce
drilling fluid loss and waste generated due to adherence on cuttings. Efficient drilling fluid solids control may also reduce the
risk for breakdown of drilling equipment. Significant savings may be gained by running the equipment efficiently and it is
therefore crucial to continuously monitor and optimize the solids control equipment operations with respect to screen wear,
screen selection, flow distribution etc. Optimization studies (Dahl, B. et al, 2006) have demonstrated the importance of the
operator’s skills and routines for inspection, changing, patching and washing of screens and to use the regulation possibilities
of the equipment appropriately. If the efficiency of the shaker is considered as part of the procurement and good operational
routines are implemented and maintained, the drilling cost for the well will be lower.

Description and Application of Equipment and Process

The test methodology has been established through cooperative work between and written by discipline specialists to ensure
the quality and relevance of the applied methodology. Step by step procedures were made and followed for each of the tests
for all tested equipment.

The shaker test was performed at an onshore test center that can simulate the circulation system at a drilling rig. The test
center is set up to provide equal test conditions for all aspects. The test center was also equipped with real time monitoring
instruments that continuously collected data for both drilling fluid properties (flow rate, specific gravity, temperature and
circulating volume) and HVAC flow rates. The evaporation level of volatile organic compounds (VOC) was monitored by
portable VOC monitoring instruments, and the VOC instruments were not integrated part of the test center and were used on
WE tests only. The total pump capacity of the test center’s drilling fluid circulation system is 4050 liters per minute.

The four conventional shakers were installed in the test cell simulating a shaker room on a rig. The approximate size of the
test cell is 5x5x3 meters. The test cell is equipped with a fully adjustable HVAC system which can give ventilation flow rate
in the range of 0-12000 m3/h, and the test cell has 12 air changes per hour. However, a droplet separator was installed in the
HVAC system during the test period due to heavy drilling fluid pollution during the test period. The droplet separator
prevented further pollution but caused pressure loss and the highest achieved ventilation flow rate in the HVAC system after
installation of droplet separator was 7500 m3/h.

The alternative solids control equipment based on vacuum was tested in an adjacent test cell tailor made for this unit; the only
difference between the two test cells was that this test cell was equipped with ordinary room ventilation only.

The test conditions were kept as equal as practicably possible throughout the test. The field used oil based drilling fluid used
SPE 159894 3

in the test was from the same batch and was stored on a reserved tank, circulated and maintained during the test period. The
water based drilling fluid used in the test was new mixed for each shaker as the durability of the water based drilling fluid
degrades rapidly and the drilling fluid properties would change during the test period. Analysis confirmed that the drilling
fluids used to test the five shakers were comparable and as similar as practicably possible. Test temperatures were 50 ºC for
water based drilling fluid and 60 ºC for oil based drilling fluid.

Sand was added to the drilling fluid to simulate cuttings as this is close to inert and would therefore not blend into the drilling
fluid. The sand used in the test was from the same batch and its particle size distribution (PSD) was chosen to fit the screen
aperture. The PSD of the test sand was also representative to the particle size of sandstone formations which are typically
drilled in the North Sea by the operator, see Figure 1.

Drilling fluid processing capacity

To determine the maximum capacity of the shakers, the flow rate of the circulating drilling fluid was increased in steps while
sand was added in each step to keep the same sand content 1.9 % weight/weight (W/W). This represents a drilling rate of 40-
50 meters per hour in a 17 1/2” hole. The flow rate of drilling fluid over the shaker was increased until the shaker flooded,
and the flow rate was decreased until the cuttings throw off from the shaker stabilized, and the maximum capacity of the

shaker was determined to be equal to the flow rate at this stage.

Figure 1. PSD of test sand (bold, black line) and the sand stone formations drilled in the by the operator in the North Sea.

The three main areas which has been focused upon in the shaker test; capacity and filtration efficiency, operation- and
maintenance-friendliness and HVAC and WE, and how these areas have been examined is described the following
paragraphs. All details of the test procedures and test results are not included in this publication because it is too
comprehensive.

The shaker screen configuration has also a significant impact on capacity (Dahl, B. et al, 2006). To obtain equal test
conditions for all the shakers, the filtration screens were set to have a Cutt-point equal to API 170 (API, 2010). For double
and triple deck shakers, the manufacturers were allowed to optimise the upper deck(s) screen configuration to obtain
maximum flow as this has no effect on the fluid quality being filtered through the filtration screen.

Filtration efficiency
Samples of drilling fluid from the shakers’ outlet and inlet and of cuttings from the shakers throw off were collected at
maximum capacity. The drilling fluid and cuttings samples were collected according to a specific sampling and analysis
program, and these samples of drilling fluid and cuttings are the basis for the assessment of the shakers filtration efficiency.
The drilling fluid samples were analyzed using particle size analysis instruments, Malvern Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern) and
Lasentec Focused Beam Reflectance Measurement Instrument (FBRM), while the cuttings samples were analyzed by retort
to determine the adherence of drilling fluid cuttings.
4 SPE 159894

Adherence of drilling fluid on cuttings

The filtration efficiency of the shaker is also expressed in the ability to minimize loss of drilling fluid as adherence on
cuttings. Samples of cuttings from the shakers throw off were collected at maximum capacity. The adherence of drilling fluid
in the cuttings samples was measured by retort analysis of cuttings, and the parameter is oil on cuttings (OOC).
Measurements from the 1990s show a normal OOC content of 5-15 % W/W. The analysis results of these tests are indicative
only due to the challenges of collecting representative samples and uncertainty in analysis method itself.

Screens
To ensure and maintain good filtration and stable properties of the drilling fluid it is important that the screens have a durable
design to resist abrasive wear and fatigue caused by vibration. Reduced function of the screens may have both technical and
economic impact. Holes in screens allows cuttings to re-enter the well, which gives reduced fluid quality of the drilling fluid
e.g. excessive viscosity, poorer fluid loss and resulting in more drilling fluid lost on cuttings.

The maximum processing capacity and filtration efficiency of the shaker should be related to screen wear as holes in the
filtering screens might give a higher maximum capacity and reduced filtering efficiency. New or fully repaired screens were
installed at the start-up of the capacity tests to ensure representative capacity and filtration results.

Screens were inspected before and after test runs as part of the test procedures; the API size and the general condition of the
screens were observed before and after each test. Number and type of holes, tendency to corrosion, clogging, patching
method and user friendliness of the screens were noted. Post analysis of shaker screen wear was made using optical
techniques.

Leakage
The primary function of solids control equipment is to remove solids from the circulating fluid. To ensure good solids
removal it is essential that the drilling fluid returning from the well passes through the shaker screens and not through
leakages in the shakers. Although drilling fluid is designed to seal off fissures in the well, and will seal off fissures in the
shaker as well, drilling fluid may bypass the shaker screens via alternative flow routes. The result is reduced solids removal,
and low gravity solids will be pumped into the well again and reduce the quality of the drilling fluid. The leakage tests were
performed by installing blinded screens in the shaker, filling the shakers with water and observing how fast the water was
leaking out from the shakers. The leakage test were done with the shaker turned off (static leakage test) and with the shaker
running (dynamic leakage test).

LCM recovery
Experience has shown that adding lost circulation material (LCM) to the drilling fluid can significantly improve the
formation strength (Aston, M. S. et al, 2004). One of the practical means for maintaining the correct particle content and size
distribution has led to the development of multiple deck shakers that enables the possibility of re-circulating particles of a
specific size range back to the drilling fluid (Omland, T. H. et al, 2007). By use of this function the recovered LCM material
may be used again and addition of LCM material to the drilling fluid for each cycle into the well can be avoided. Recycling
of the LCM material has both economic and environmental benefits.

Operation and maintenance friendliness

As the shaker operator is the primary stakeholder for proper solids control, user-friendliness and maintenance checks were
performed. This would include an analysis of parameters such as accessibility to critical components, ease of screen
replacements and cleaning. The operation- and maintenance friendliness check of the shakers were performed by a
maintenance specialist who assessed these aspects while the shakers were installed and running in the test center.

HVAC and WE
The shaker room is one of the hot spots for personnel exposure to chemicals on the drilling rig (Steinsvåg, K. et al 2004; and
Steinsvåg, K. et al 2010). In the WE part of the test the compounds in the test cell were measured with different flow rates of
drilling fluid and HVAC system, and different solutions of enclosure of the shakers. The WE test was closely linked to the
HVAC test. The organic compounds measured during the shaker test are oil vapor (OV), oil mist (OM) and VOC. To obtain
an acceptable WE in shaker rooms, various solids control solutions have different ventilation requirements. For each of the
tests using oil based drilling fluid, analyses were performed detecting the VOC, OV and OM levels in the test cell as a
function of air flow rate.

The basis for the test was to use the manufacturer’s standard shaker products. However several of the manufacturers supplied
their shakers with custom made front hoods during the test period to improve their standard product. Customizations were
also performed for some of the hoods to improve the test results.
SPE 159894 5

HVAC
Most of the shakers participating in the test had front hood or other solutions for enclosure as a means to limit the diffusion of
compounds in the working atmosphere. The front hoods and enclosures demonstrate some of the technology development
caused by the shaker test as front hoods is not common equipment on shakers. Only one of the tested shakers delivered a
front hood to the test which was already standard equipment and not designed especially for the shaker test. Another supplier
manufactured a provisional front hood during the test while one shaker was including a prototype enclosure. The alterative
shaker/filtering unit based on vacuum-technology has a fully enclosed design, and there were no need for further
improvements. And finally, one supplier designed a front hood and tested after the shaker test was finished. The front hoods
and enclosures from the different suppliers display diversity of design, but the solutions all have the common purpose to
cover openings in front of and above the shaker to limit diffusion into the shaker room and to facilitate extraction of
compounds through the HVAC system.

WE
The objective of the WE test was to verify if the supplier recommended HVAC flow rate was sufficient to achieve an
acceptable chemical exposure in close vicinity of the shaker. The level of VOC, OV and OM were measured to quantify the
chemical exposure of the WE.

An alternative test methodology was used to carry out the WE and HVAC tests. The procedure was based on parallel use of
the conventional OV/OM sampling with subsequent laboratory analyses, and a real time monitoring instrument for VOC. The
test setup required immediate feedback, thus, it was of significant importance to include real time monitoring to enable
navigation of variables. Comparing OV/OM results from laboratory analyses with real time VOC monitoring represents a
new methodology and a possible technology development.

The OV/OM sampling method is the standard method according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) / Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health (STAMI). The sampling assembly consisted of a membrane
sampling pump (SKC EX, 1.4 l/min) pumping the sampled air through a charcoal tube (SKC 226-01) for collection of OV
and a filter cassette (37mm Millipore, loaded with glass fiber and cellulose acetate filter) for collection of OM. The pump
flow rate was measured before and after sampling (Bios Defender 717-510MA electronically flow meter). Sampling time was
one hour, to avoid over exposure of the filter. Two parallel samples were taken at each sampling point, which were in front of
and on the right side of the shaker. The charcoal tubes and the filters were stored in airtight containers and sent to an external
laboratory where one dedicated chemist extracted and analyzed samples by high performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC). Consequently, it took weeks until the level of OV and OM were known, thus, impossible to use as a navigational
tool to determine the next step in test.

The direct reading instrument for VOC (MiniRAE 3000 photoionization detector, Rae Instruments) was used to analyze the
variations in concentrations of organic vapor. Sampling points were in front of and on the right and left side of the shaker,
and produced real time data and displayed level of VOC immediately. The MiniRAE indicated whether the HVAC flow rate
was sufficient or not, and consequently the output from the MiniRAE was decisive for settling next step in the WE test based
on the shakers performance at the current drilling fluid and HVAC flow rates.

The WE tests were conducted after maximum capacity of the shaker had been determined, at 90 % of maximum drilling flow
rate. The WE test started with the HVAC flow rate as specified by supplier, and the HVAC flow rate was increased or
decreased according to the VOC readings from the MiniRAE’s. The OM/OV method was firstly used to document the levels
at supplier’s specification for HVAC flow rate, and secondly used to document at which HVAC flow rate the OV/OM were
at an acceptable or lowest possible level.

The accept criteria for OV and OM are given as occupational exposure limits (OEL). The operator’s OELs applicable for
Norway are given in table 1. Currently there are no specific limit or acceptance criteria (AC) for the measured VOC level, but
for the evaluation purposes in this project 30 ppm was used as AC. However, the operator’s design criterion is 1/6 of the AC.

Table 1. Acceptance criteria of OV, OM and VOC.

3
Accept Criteria (AC): Oil Vapour 30 mg/m *)
3
Oil Mist 0.6 mg/m *)
VOC 30 ppm**)
*) The measured levels of OM / OV are adjusted for a 12 hour offshore schedule. For an eight hour shift the OELs are 1 mg/m3 and 50
mg/m3, respectively.
**) For VOC there are no official OEL. For evaluation purposes in this project 30 ppm was used as AC.
6 SPE 159894

Noise and vibration

Specific noise and vibration analyses were performed with the equipment were run in normal operating mode. If different
operation settings were possible, the noise tests were to cover all relevant operation conditions including running dry. Noise
measurements were carried out with ventilation extraction as specified by supplier. The tests were performed with 90 and 100
% of maximum capacity fluid flow, and of the shakers running without drilling fluid.

According to the operators’s WE requirements the area noise level limit for a shaker area is 85/90 dBA. Where the lower
limit is unfeasible, a maximum area noise level limit of 90 dBA shall apply. The reason for unfeasibility of 85 dBA shall be
documented. The operator’s requirement for personal exposure to noise during a 12 h working day is LAEq12 = 83 dBA.
Sound power level (SWL) was measured according to the standard ISO 9614-2. Sound pressure level (SPL) at 1.0 meter
distance from the unit was derived from the measured sound power level.

Vibration measurements were carried out on shaker skid (primary structure) to evaluate vibration transmission effects. The
mean value of the vibration level of all the supports points are given in octave bands from 31.5 to 2000 Hz (structural noise /
vibrations) and in third octave bands from 1-80 Hz (human vibrations).

Presentation of Data and Results

According to agreements with the shaker suppliers all performance results are presented anonymously, and please note that
the results presented in the charts cannot be related to a specific shaker. The performance results displayed on the y-axis of
the plot are randomly distributed on the x-axis, and the results illustrate the diversity in performance

Drilling Fluid Processing Capacity

The results from the capacity test illustrates that oil based drilling fluids typically are easier to process than water based
drilling fluids, and all shakers except one obtained a higher capacity with oil based drilling fluid, see Figure 2. The highest
flow rate for oil based drilling fluid is 3950 litres per minute (LPM) and the highest for water based drilling fluid is 3320
LPM. One shaker has a pronounced higher processing capacity than the other shakers. The lowest drilling fluid processing
rates are 1150 LPM for oil based and 900 LPM for water based drilling fluid.

Figure 2. Maximum capacities for Oil Based Drilling Fluid (OBM) and Water Based Drilling Fluid (WBM) for the various solids control
equipment

Please note that the maximum capacities found on the shaker test represent maximum flow for the drilling fluids used on the
shaker test. The variation of the results indicates a difference in drilling fluid processing capacity of the participating shakers.

Filtration efficiency
Analysis of PSD was performed to assess the filtration efficiency of the shakers. The PSD analysis was in the beginning
performed using the Malvern instrument and the D 90 results of the PSD analysis are shown in Figure 3. As drilling fluids are
added significant amounts of weighting material that has the majority of particles in the lower size range (<70 microns), this
would mask the filtration efficiency results. The samples of drilling fluid were therefore prepared for analysis by removal of
SPE 159894 7

the largest and smallest particles by sieving due to the instrument providing relative measurements of the number of particles
only.

The results from the Malvern analysis were however inconclusive; only minor differences in PSD from the drilling fluid
going into the shaker (inlet) and coming out from the shaker (outlet) were found. This is due to the huge number of barite
particles in the fluid masks the true PSD of the drilling fluid samples (Figure 3).

Due to the inaccurate data representation using the Malvern instrument providing relative PSD only, it was decided to
analyze PSD using the FBRM. This instrumentation has been used extensively under both laboratory and field conditions and
has demonstrated to provide accurate particle sizing measurements. The FBRM instrument also provides the possibility of
representing the particle count for the specific size range of interest.

Figure 3. PSD results from the Malvern analysis for the various shakers.

The drilling fluid samples analyzed by FBRM were the parallel samples to the ones analyzed by the Malvern instrument. By
using API 170 screens on the lowest shaker deck it is expected to achieve a D100 separation from the drilling fluid of the
particles larger than 82,5-98,0 µm (API, 2010), see the PSD results in Figure 4, 5 and 6.

The blue columns represent the drilling fluid coming into the shaker (inlet) and the red columns represent the filtered drilling
fluid coming out of the shaker (outlet). The particle counts from the outlet samples (red columns) in Figures 4, 5 and 6 are of
most interest being taken of filtered drilling fluid.

The blue columns in Figures 4, 5 and 6 which represents the drilling fluid coming into the shaker (inlet) display varying
content of particles (barite and sand). The variation in solids loading in the inlet samples content may have be caused by
different sample collection points in central or peripheral of flow at the shaker inlets.

On one of the shakers it was not possible to collect samples from inlet; hence only PSD result from outlet from this shaker is
presented in Figures 4, 5 and 6.
8 SPE 159894

F4. Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size range of 80 to 100 μm using the FBRM instrument.

Figure 5. Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size range of 100 to 200 μm using the FBRM instrument.

The test results show that all shakers in the test have a satisfactory removal of particles in the size interval just above the
designated Cutt point, see Figure 4 and 5. The removal of particles as expected is higher in the size interval 100-200 µm but
there is a corresponding lower content of these lager particles in the drilling fluid going into the shaker. The test results in
Figure 4 and 5 indicates that the D100 for the particles sized 100-200 µm is a theoretical value because all shakers in the test
have particles of this size interval in their outlet samples.

Even though the results are satisfactory for all participants, some shakers have a somewhat higher particle count in the size
ranges 80-100 µm and 100-200 µm. This higher particle count in some shakers may be related to more extensive screen wear
in these shakers.
SPE 159894 9

Figure 6. Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size range of 9-80 μm using the FBRM instrument.

Particles reduction was also observed on 9 – 80 µm particles see Figure 6. Reduction of the coarser particles is expected, but
not of the finer particles. These fine particles are expected to remain in the drilling fluid. This phenomenon is often described
as the “piggy back effect” where finer particles attach to the coarser ones and are thereby removed from the fluid system.

Adherence on Cuttings
Adherence of drilling fluid on cuttings was measured by retort analysis as OOC by an external laboratory, see results in
Figure 7.

Oil on Cuttings

10
Oil on Cuttings, %

0
Shakers - random Order, different in every Figure

Oil on Cuttings

Figure 7. OOC results from retort analysis.

All shakers seem to be performing adequate, best result OOC result is 3 % W/W, and poorest performance result is OOC of 8
%.

Retrieving representative drilling fluid and cuttings samples is often a challenge, and the results of the filtration efficiency
tests should be used as indication only and a further investigation of filtration efficiency will require a higher number of
samples to be collected and analysed.
10 SPE 159894

Screen wear
In these shaker tests screens were inspected before and after test runs. The holes and number of plugs used to seal off holes
were registered after each test, see Figure 8.

Figure 8: Screen wear of screens used in shaker tests.

These screen wear results are influenced by how many screens the supplier brought to the test, but these observations were
performed during the test and the number of holes, no holes and number of screens with plugs were as displayed in Figure 8.
There is large variety in the percentage of screens with holes, from, 100 % intact screens down to 33 % only.
More data on screens and screen wear were collected during the test, like tendency to corrosion, clogging of screens by
solids, method for patching screens and caracterisation of holes (rips, abrasions, size, position and more). These data are
however too detailed to be included here.

Leakage
Leakage tests were performed to detect the average leakage rate that can be expected during drilling operations by each
shaker. Both static (equipment turned off) and dynamic leakage (equipment running) tests were performed; see leakage rates
in Figure 9.
SPE 159894 11

Figure 9: Screen wear of screens used in shaker tests.

The leakage rates for four of the shakers are relatively similar between 2.5 and 3.5 liters / minute, both on the static and the
dynamic test. One shaker has no leakage, and this shaker represents an alternative technology with a based on vacuum and a
rotation screen, hence an alternative procedure had to be used to determine the leakage rate from this unit. The static test only
was performed on the alternative solids control unit.

One of the shakers on the test turned out to be a demo unit which had the final quality chech which was performed prior to
offshore installation. This shaker needed adjustments to avoid excessive leakage, and after the ajustments this shaker had
good leakage results. This incident brings out the importance of quality check before installation on a drilling facility.

LCM recovery function

LCM recovery demonstration was performed for shakers as an optional part of the test because not all of the participating
shakers have this function. Three of the shakers performed a successful demonstration of the LCM function, where the LCM
particles added to the drilling fluid were screened out and recovered.

Operation and maintenance friendliness and screen wear

The operation and maintenance check was performed while the shakers were installed and running in the test center. The
performances of the shakers are ranked by a scale from poor to excellent, see summary of results in table 2 and 3.

Table 2 Operation and Maintenance test, part one.

Shakers, Operation and Maintenance Screen
random Access daily Inspection of Need for lifting Ease of replacing Operation Time to
Order Maintenance Screens during Equipment during Screen change Screens
Operation Maintenance
Excellent Excellent Yes* Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes* Excellent Excellent
Excellent Poor Yes* Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes* Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes* Good + Excellent
* Use of lifting equipment only necessary when engine shall be lifted.
12 SPE 159894

Table 3 Operation and Maintenance test, part two.

Shakers, Cleaning of Screens and bottom Tray Possibilities for Adjustment Robustness
random Cleaning of Screen Cleaning of bottom Tray Adjustment of Flow and
Order Cuttings
Excellent Excellent Good Excellent
Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Excellent Good + Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Poor Good Excellent Excellent

Some shakers has limited possibility to observe screens during operation due to narrow opening between the decks, which
may also be a benefit as the shaker operator has to pull out the screens for which gives a better visual inspection of screen
wear as the shaker operator is forced to take the screens out to observe them. Some shakers have very tight anchorage
solutions for the screens which imply that force and special tools sometimes has to be used. The cleaning of bottom tray and
screens are less convenient in some shakers, and cleaning requires extra attention.

The overall result for the participating shakers is that the maintenance and operation friendliness is prioritized in the design of
the shakers. All five vendors have good products, and each of them can be recommended based on operational, access and
maintenance solutions.

HVAC and WE
All solids control solutions were tested at the manufacturers’ recommended HVAC extract air flow rates. Based on smoke
test and VOC readings the HVAC extract air flows were thereafter adjusted in order to obtain the best possible WE
atmosphere in the room.

Due to differences in design of shakers and front hoods/enclosures it was difficult to test all shakers within the exact same
parameters. It was determined that each shaker had to be tested as dictated by the differences in design of each unit, see
Figure 10.

Because of installation of filter in the test centre’s HVAC system the highest achieved ventilation flow rate after installation
of the filter was 7400 m3/h, and not12000 m3/h which was the initial HVAC capacity. As a consequence it was not possible
to determine the test optimized value for one of the shakers tested later in the test period. Test optimized value is the
ventilation flow rate which gave the best achieved WE results for the shakers.

Vendors specification for HVAC requirement (blue columns) for the tested units and test optimized value (red columns), and
the corresponding ventilation flow rates for shakers tested with and without front hoods or other enclosures are displayed in
Figure 10.

One shaker had an open design and a provisional front hood was built by supplier during the test. However, it was not
possible to determine the test optimized value due to high evaporation level and limitations in HVAC system, and the test
optimized value is set to be equal to vendors recommendation because this was the highest achieved ventilation flow rate for
this unit, hence it was not possible to obtain a satisfactory WE at this ventilation flow rate. The ventilation requirement for
this unit is higher than vendors recommended ventilation flow rate.

One shaker had front hood as extra equipment and was tested with and without front hood, and even with front hood mounted
on the shaker measurements displayed that the unit required higher ventilation flow rate than recommended by vendor.
One shaker was tested in a prototype enclosure, with the front hatches open and closed. It was not possible to test this unit
without the enclosure since the shakers connection to the HVAC system was part of the enclosure. It turned out that this
vendor recommended a higher ventilation flow rate than test results revealed that this unit actually needed.
One solids control unit which is enclosed and based on vacuum technology obtained excellent WE atmosphere at a low
ventilation flow rate, and vendors recommended ventilation flow rate is sufficient.
One shaker only was tested without front hood/enclosure and was tested with suppliers recommended ventilation flow rate,
which proved to be insufficient. Test optimized ventilation flow rate for this shaker was almost double of suppliers
recommended value.

The comparison of ventilation flow rates for the shakers revealed that there were insufficient accordance in vendors
recommended values and test optimized values, see Figure 10.
SPE 159894 13

Figure 10. Ventilation flow rate; vendors recommended value (blue), test optimized value (red) with and without front hood/other
enclosure of shaker.

Comparisons of HVAC measurements indicate that installation of a front hood /enclosure on the shakers had better effect on
the level of OV/OM/VOC than increased ventilation flow rate, and that the effect of the front hood /enclosure seemed to be
improved when sufficient ventilation flow rate was applied simultaneously.

WE
The objective of the WE test was to verify if the supplier recommended HVAC flow rate was sufficient in order to achieve an
acceptable chemical exposure in close vicinity of the shaker. The level of VOC, OV and OM were measured to quantify the
chemical exposure.

OV and OM was sampled with a pump. Two parallel samples were taken at each sampling point, which were in front of and
on the right side of the shaker. VOC was sampled with the direct reading instrument MiniRAE 3000, and sampling points
were in front of and on the right and left side of the shaker. Representative, selected test results from the WE test are
displayed in Figures 11 (measurements in front of shaker) and 12 (measurements on the right side of shaker).

In Figure 11, the OM levels from the shaker with the highest level shaker are truncated. The actual values for Low and High
ventilation flow rate, given as exposure indexes (E/AC), would have been 337 and 297, respectively.
14 SPE 159894

Figure 11. Average of selected OV, OM and VOC levels from each of the shakers measured in the front of the shakers.

Figure 12. Average of selected OV, OM and VOC levels from each of the shaker measured at the right side of the shakers.
SPE 159894 15

In Figures 11 and 12 the average OV, OM and VOC levels from each of the shaker have been compared. The results are
presented as exposure indexes (e.g. measured exposure level (E) / Acceptance Criteria (AC)) for measurements obtained at
the front and the right side of the shakers, respectively.

The results given in Figures 11 and 12 have to be interpreted with caution. However, they show considerable and consistent
differences in OV, OM and VOC levels between the five shakers.

None of the shakers fulfilled the design criteria (1/6 x AC). However, there was one shaker, that came very close having
emissions in the category low (1/6 – 1/2 x AC) for both OV and OM. Another shaker had OV measurements in category high
(1-5 x AC). These two shakers were designed with technical barrier of priority 1 (efficient enclosure of emission sources);
The first of these shakers represent new technology based on vacuum and the second shaker use conventional technology
equipped with an enclosure.

Based on the results from the five shakers tested, one enclosed solids control unit was highly recommended due to its ability
to control the emissions of OV and OM at the pollutant source, resulting in low measured concentration in the vicinity of the
shaker. The second best shaker was also equipped with an enclosure providing an enclosed handling of the emissions
although the test results show higher OV and OM concentration in the atmosphere than expected.

The other three shakers need to develop further towards a close system where the emissions can be better controlled. It was
not possible to fulfill the design criteria, nor the acceptance criteria, with an open shaker. Even with a hood the tested shakers
did not have acceptable emissions levels, especially for OV. It is recommended to develop the open and semi-closed shakers
towards better/full enclosure in order to handle and control the OV and the OM emissions at their source.

Comparisons of the WE measurements revealed that more open shaker designs caused higher level of OV/OM/VOC in the
atmosphere. All conventional shakers in the test were encouraged to develop towards a more closed design.

Noise and vibration

Sound power level (SWL) has been measured in order to obtain the noise emission from one shaker. The area noise level in a
shaker room has then been calculated from the measured sound power level. See results of the shakers sound power level at
90 and 100 % of maximum drilling fluid flow rate, and shakers running dry without drilling fluid, in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Comparison of measured SWL for the different units.

16 SPE 159894

The small size of the test cell caused challenges related to measurement accuracy, but after noise absorbents were mounted
on the tests cell walls noise measurement conditions were improved.

The SWL results given in Figure 13 were the basis for calculation of predicted SPL for comparison with area noise levels of a
shaker room. Only one of the tested shakers has the potential to meet the required area noise limit of 85 dBA in a shaker area.

Three of the tested shakers have the potential to meet an area noise level of 90 dBA, and one of the shakers is above this
highest allowable limit as well. Noise at these high levels has large impact on operational restrictions for individuals in order
to fulfil their personal exposure requirements.

Vibration measurements results are reported according to standards NORSOK S-005 and S-002. Vibration measurements are
also performed on the mud container below the shaker was compared to category three and the measurement made on the
shaker skid (the highest level measurement) was compared to category four. See Figure 14 for comparison of the vibration
measurements.

Figure 14. Human vibration measurements compared to vibration category. Red line is the limit for the red dots, and the blue line is
the limit for the blue dots.

All measurements are within acceptable limits. The shaker representing new technology has the lowest vibration levels on the
skid. However, on the reference point, the difference between the units was small, suggesting good effect of the vibration
isolators used on all units.

Comment to results
To facilitate access to the shakers performances in the various aspects of shaker test, a ranking was done by the discipline
specialists on their respective areas. Because of anonymity agreement with the shaker vendors this ranking is not included in
this publication.

Conclusions

Drilling fluid processing rate: There is significant difference in the drilling fluid processing capacities which for oil based
drilling fluid spans from 3950 lpm to 1150 lpm, and corresponding results for water based drilling fluid are 3320 and 900
lpm.

The filtration efficiency of the shakers was examined by PSD analysis, first with Malvern which was inconclusive and
thereafter by FBRM which produced useful data. The advantage demonstrated by the FBRM analysis indicate that this
instrument should be more used in future PSD analysis, and this experience may be useful for both drilling operations and
further research projects.

The adherence of drilling fluid on cuttings is of economic and environmental importance, since less drilling fluid lost as
adherence on cuttings implies reduced loss of drilling fluid and less drilling waste. All shakers showed good results relative
SPE 159894 17

to the adherence of drilling fluid on cuttings / OOC measurements from the 1990s operations, which demonstrates
improvement of solids control equipment and better procedures for shaker operation.

The challenge of representative drilling fluid and cuttings samples should be taken into account when reading the results, and
a larger number of drilling fluid and cuttings samples should been collected and analyzed in order to achieve more reliable
filtration results.

The screen wear registration displayed variation in the durability of the screens, as some screens were more prone to get
holes. The screen data collected are too detailed to incorporate in this publication, but further testing would benefit from
allocating resources on consecutive registration of screen wear, as screen data are complex.

The leakage rates from the shakers were satisfactory for all participants, but experience done during the test brings out the
importance of checking this aspect before a solids control unit is set in operation.

The maintenance and operation checks revealed that the overall result for the participating shakers is that the user friendliness
is prioritized in the design. Some shakers have minor issues related to change of screens and cleaning.

The introduction of front hood on the shakers seems to improve the WE atmosphere in the test room significantly. This test of
shakers in an enclosed environment indicates that the WE challenges in shaker rooms are very difficult to resolve with an
HVAC solution only. The real exposures of personnel working in shaker modules will depend on working operations, time
spend in the module, personnel protections etc.

A surprising discovery during the HVAC tests is that several of the shaker vendors did not know the ventilation requirement
for their shaker; one vendor believed that the shaker needed a high ventilation flow rate when measurements showed that it
needed a low rate. Another suppliers realised that they had underestimated the required ventilation flow rate for their shakers.

The recommendation based on the HVAC test results is that the conventional shakers should be equipped with a front hood
and the extract ventilation from the shaker should maintain an under-pressure inside the shaker and preferably 1.5 m/s air
velocity through any openings. The front hood design should be further developed in order to improve the effect of capturing
the OV and OM.

The method of using active sampling of OV and OM in parallel with the direct reading instruments for VOC to monitor the
variations in concentrations of organic vapor and the chemical WE as a consequence of changes in ventilation flow rate and
front hood or enclosure represents technology development. This method was used for the first time in the shaker test, and the
possibility to get real time data of the VOC level was used as a navigational tool during the test, as results from OV and OM
samples were available after some time. The VOC levels were used to determine the required HVAC flow rate during the
tests.

The control of hazardous emissions in the WE shall be achieved by technical measures/barriers (in order of priority):
1. Efficient enclosure of emission sources
2. Efficient extraction/exhaust ventilation systems to remove pollutants near the source
3. General ventilation/dilution of contaminants

Only one of the tested shakers had the potential to meet the required area noise limit of 85 dBA, three shakers had the
potential to meet the highest allowable area noise level limit of 90 dBA and one shaker exceeded this highest allowable limit
as well. All measurements of vibration were within acceptable limits.

A positive effect of the test was that the suppliers now see WE performance as an area of competition. These WE tests have
stimulated innovation to improve the WE. All participants with potential to improve their performance on HVAC and WE
have designed and produced front hood or other means of enclosure and have performed smoke tests of their shakers with
front hoods/ enclosures on their own sites.

The shaker test triggered competition amongst the equipment suppliers and stimulated to technology development and
product improvement. This was especially the case for the solutions related to HVAC and WE. Publication of the anonymous
test results will make benchmarking possible for the participants.

Tests of the various aspects of shaker performance called for development of new test methodology. Covering different
disciplines the test was a result of a multi-disciplinary cooperation; the internal specialists from the operator represent the rig
modification project, WE technology; occupational hygiene and noise, HVAC specialists, maintenance and operation
specialist, drilling and well facilities, contracts department, legal department and department for intellectual properties rights,
18 SPE 159894

and the drilling fluids specialists. The external participants are from the test center, drilling fluid supplier, five shaker vendors
and their distributors in Norway, external laboratory, and consultant companies for measurement and of HVAC, occupational
hygiene and noise/vibration.

During the phases of this project lessons have been learned which has given increased competence on test methodology. With
many specialists working together on the same test the new ideas have been conceived and some of them have resulted in
product improvements of the solids control equipments. Some shaker vendors have discovered that there was potential for
improvement on their shakers, and the test experience and results have become a basis for product improvement.

Since all shakers were tested with test conditions as equal as practicably possible and the only variable factor was the
shakers, the test has produced a unique data basis of comparable results. The test results are valid for the test conditions and
performance may be better on other tests, but the unique aspect was that these results were truly comparable and reveals the
differences in shaker performance.

The variation in performance amongst the shakers supports the legitimacy of the test and demonstrates the need for a
standardized test methodology for shakers. The test methodology is considered the main outcome of the shaker test and this
publication may be a step towards a standardized methodology applied on this and similar equipment. In the future a
standardized test methodology for shakers would facilitate selection of the best suitable equipment for the shaker costumers.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the shaker vendors and their distributors, Cubility Test Center, OHS / Proactima, Sinus, Mollier, STAMI and
Halliburton for great service and cooperation before, during and after the shaker test. The shaker test could not been carried
out without their great support and team spirit. Thanks to Jamie Stuart Andrews, Specialist Rock Mechanics, Statoil, who
supplied data for Figure 1.

References

API Recommended Practice 13C, Fourth Edition. ISO 13501 (Modified). December 2010. Recommended Practice on Drilling Fluids
Processing Systems Evaluation, Drilling fluids processing equipment evaluation.

Aston, M.S. et al. 2004. Drilling Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening. Paper SPE 87130 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held
in Dallas, 2-4 March.

Bouse, E.E. et al. 1992. Drilling Mud Solids Control and Waste Management. Paper SPE 23660 presented at the Second Latin American
Petroleum Engineering Conference of the SPE, Caracas, March 8-11.

Dahl, B. et al. 2006 Successful Drilling of Oil and Gas Wells by Optimal Drilling Fluid Solids Control – A Practical and Theoretical
Evaluation. Paper SPE 103934 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, 13–15
November.

Omland, T.H. et al. 2007. Optimisation of Solids Control Opens Up Opportunities for Drilling of Depleted Reservoirs. Paper SPE 110544-
MS presented at Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 30 October-1 November.

Steinsvåg, K., Bråtveit, M., Moen, B. E. 2005. Exposure to oil mist and oil vapour during offshore drilling in Norway, 1979-2004. Annals
of Occupational Hygiene 50 (2): 109-122.

Steinsvåg, K., Galea, K. S., Krüger, K., Peikli, V., Sánchez-Jiménez, A., Sætvedt, E., Searl, A., Cherrie, J. W. and van Tongeren, M. 2011.
Effect of drilling fluid systems and temperature on oil mist and vapour levels generated from shale shaker. Annals of Occupational Hygiene
55 (4): 347-356.