See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316583675

The Effect of Viscosifiers on Shale Hydration for KCl-Polymer Mud System

Conference Paper · October 2000

CITATION READS

1 642

2 authors, including:

Abdul Razak Ismail

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
117 PUBLICATIONS   1,067 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cuttings Transport View project

Shale problem View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Razak Ismail on 30 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 C-1

THE EFFECT OF VISCOSIFIERS ON SHALE

HYDRATION FOR KCL-POLYMER MUD SYSTEM

Abdul Razak Ismail & Lee Setz Tsin

Faculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 UTM Skudai
Johor

Keywords: mud system; shale hydration; viscosifiers

ABSTRACT

Borehole instability due to shale formation is still the major problem in the
petroleum upstream activities such as drilling especially when using water-based
systems. This study is focused on the effect of various viscosifiers and their
concentrations on shale hydration using hot-rolling dispersion test. The mud
system used in this study is KCl-polymer whereas the viscosifiers are poly
ascharide cellulose (PAC), carboxyl methyl cellulose (CMC), polyzan and
xanthan gum. The results showed that these viscosifiers could be used to prevent
shale hydration. However, xanthan gum (natural polymer) is the most efficient
viscosifiers compared to the other three viscosifiers (modified polymers) in
preventing the hydration. The results also showed that the higher concentration of
viscosifiers would reduce the shale hydration accordingly. This study also
revealed that the rheological properties of the mud decreased after hot-rolling
test. The test also indicates that xanthan gum has better fluid loss control
compared to PAC, polyzan and CMC.

INTRODUCTION

Shale is sensitive to water and it often causes problems during drilling operation.
The interaction between water and with exposed shales or shale like strata can
cause serious borehole instability in drilling engineering. According to Simpson
et al. (1998), borehole instability in shales has been recognized for over 50 years
as a major cost factor in the drilling and completion of both gas and oil wells.
Cost resulting from the problems associated with unstable boreholes is estimated

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-2

at US $500 million per year. These problems include high torque and drag due to
bridging and fill; stuck pipe; lost circulation; cementing difficulties or failures;
logging failures or poor log interpretations. Part of the reason shale instability
problems have remained unresolved is due to a lack of knowledge and
understanding of the interaction between the drilling fluid and the shale. Most
laboratory studies conducted to date have been flawed due to an inadequate
simulation of down hole conditions or the use of water-saturated shale outcrop
samples that do not accurately represent a shale compacted at depth over
geologic time.

This study will focused on the interaction between water based mud
(WBM) and shale formation. KCl-polymer was chosen as WBM system in this
study. Lumus et al. and Azar et al. (1986) stated that KCl-polymer system is the
only WBM that shows encouraging performance to overcome the shale problem.
Hot-rolling dispersion test that developed by Amoco was used to identify the
effects of viscosifier on shale hydration. Hot-rolling dispersion test is easily run
with a minimum amount of equipment and shale. Multiple comparisons can be
done in a relatively short time by this test.

KCL-POLYMER SYSTEM

There is no specific drilling fluid system in drilling activities that can be used in
all type of shale problems. However, in overall performance point of view, KCl-
polymer system was the best among other WBM. The basic concept that applies
in the study is to prevent the shale from hydration. Potassium chloride was
chosen as inhibitive salt in this KCl-polymer system. Potassium chloride is used
to supply the potassium cation, which has been found to produce the most
effective base-exchange mechanism for preventing swelling and hydration of
shale (Lumus et al. and Azar et al., 1986). The strong interaction of potassium
ions with the surface of clay reduces the hydration energy of the shale, thus
limiting its ability to swell. Tailleur et al. (1963) noted markedly improved hole
stability when mud containing potassium ion replaced the commonly used
sodium or calcium ions to inhibit clay swelling while drilling steeply dipping
shales in the Cerro Pelado area of Venezuela.

There are two type of polymer used in KCl-polymer system: natural

polymer and modified polymer. Natural polymer is polymer produced in nature,
without man’s intervention for example xanthan gum. Modified natural polymer
is very common in drilling fluid for example carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC),
polyanionic cellulose (PAC), and polyzan.

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-3

The KCl-polymer system work so well because they attack the shale
hydration mechanism in several ways:
1. With potassium system, base exchange of potassium for interlayer clay
cations convert the shale and clay to a less reactive state.
2. In salt system, the low activity reduces osmotic swelling and limits softening.
3. In sufficient concentration, polymers work to coat exposed shales
‘encapsulating’ them with a bound layer of polymer – limits the ability of
water to interact with the shale.
4. Polymer also increase the filtrate viscosity of the fluid so the transferred of
water will be slowed.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Shale Sample Preparation

The shale samples are obtained from Batu Bangkong, Kuala Rompin. The sample
was ground before oven dried at 221oF (105oC) until contant weight. Beihoffer et
al. (1988) stated that the water content in shale sample could significantly affect
the result in dispersion test. The shale sample that has been dried was sized
between 6 and 10 mesh. X-ray diffraction is used to determine the mineral
composition of the shale (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Chemical Composition of Shale Sample

Chemical % weight of Chemical % weight of

composition oxide composition oxide
SiO2 67.44 MgO <0.01
TiO2 0.79 Na2O <0.01
Fe2O3 1.15 K2O 4.98
Al2O3 19.36 P2O5 0.11
MnO <0.01 L.O.I. 5.22
CaO 0.01
Total 99.06

Besides that, methyline blue test (MBT) based on API standard (RP 13B)
was also performed to identify the types of reactive clay that persent in the shale
sample.

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-4

Mud System Preparation

Table 2 shows the composition of basic mud system. The mud weight was fixed
at 10 ppg for all kind of tests for comparison purpose. The test solution will
undergo a rheology test before dispersion test.

TABLE 2 – Composition of Basic Mud System

KCl-polymer System
Water (ml) 350
KCl (g) 40
NaOH (ppb) 0.25
Foralys (ppb) 4.0
Barite (g) 63.4

The viscosifiers (polyzan, CMC, PAC & xanthan gum are added into the
basic mud system at various concentration ranging from 0.5 – 3.0 ppb).

Hot-rolling Dispersion Test

For testing purpose, 5.0 g of shale (m1) ground between 6 and 10 mesh is added
to 200 ml of a preheated (65.6oC) test solution. Then, the test solution is then hot-
rolled for 16 hours in roller oven at 150oF.After 16 hours; the suspension is
screened over 30-mesh screen. The screen and the test container are washed
twice with base test solution, fresh water or alcohol, depending on whether the
wash procedure has been shown to be critical for the given shale. The retained
shale is then dried at 105oC for 24 hours, and the shale weighed as m2. The
percentage of shale retained is calculated as follows:

weight of dried shale before hot  rolling

% shale retained   100 %
weight of dried shale after hot  rolling

The test solution will be retest for its rheology properties. The test is then
repeated for difference kind of viscosifiers (CMC, PAC, xanthan gum and
polyzan)

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Mineral Composition

XRD analysis shows that quartz occurs as the major mineral, together with illite
and kaolinite, with some possibility of muscovite also present. The component of
illite was slighly greater than kaolinite. Methyline blue test (MBT) gave the
cation exchange capacity (CEC) between 10 – 25 meq/100 g indicated the
present of kaolinite or chlorite. The shale hydration shown by the dispersion test
probably caused by illite and small amount of montmorillonite. This is why the
percentage shale retained is higher than 90%.

The Effect of Viscosifiers On Shale Hydration

The results obtained show that the four types of viscosifier gave the different
effect on shale hydration. Figure 1 indicated that xanthan gum is the most
effective viscosifier in preventing shale hydration among the others.

(a) Concentration = 1 ppb

100
78.3
% shale retained

80 64.9
60
(%)

40 24.1 24.4
20
0
PAC CMC Polyzan xanthan gum

(b) Concentration = 2 ppb

92.9 97.4
100
% shale retained

80
58.5
60 51.7
(%)

40
20
0
PAC CMC Polyzan Xanthan gum

FIGURE 1 - % Shale Retained for Various Viscosifiers and Concentration

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-6

This is due to xanthan gum that can provide higher filtrate viscosity than others.
The coating capsule form by xanthan gum may also better and effective than
other modified viscosifiers (PAC, polyzan and CMC). PAC and CMC show
lower % retained than xanthan gum and polyzan and this is probably affected by
KCl used in this system because salinity has some effect on polymer’s
performance. Figure 1 also showed that the higher concentration of viscosifier
will increase the % shale retained accordingly and thus reduce the shale
hydration. The result obtained agrees with Hale et al. (1991) who stated that the
% shale retained was increasing with bentonite concentration accordingly.

Rheological Properties of KCl-Polymer

The study indicated that the rheological properties of KCl-polymer increased

with increment of viscosifiers’ concentration. Plastic viscosity of CMC, polyzan
and xanthan gum increased gradually accepted PAC increased dramatically after
concentration of 1.5 ppb as shown in Figure 2(a). Xanthan gum shows a better
plastic viscosity compare with others. Whereas, polyzan gives the highest yield
point among the four types of viscosifiers at low concentration (1.0 – 2.5 ppb) as
shown in Figure 2(b).

(a) Plastic Viscosity (PV)

60

40
PV (cp)

PAC
20 Xanthan gum
CMC
polyzan
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Viscosifier concentration (ppb)

(b) Yield Point (YP)

60
PAC
YP (lb/100 ft^2)

40 polyzan

xanthan gum
20
CMC
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Viscosifier concentration (ppb)

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-7

FIGURE 2 – Rheological Properties Vs Viscosifier Concentration

However, xanthan gum still prefered as a viscosifier by comparing the results of
the two rheological properties because it just need a small amount to obtain the
properties needed.

The gel strength for xanthan gum and polyzan is higher than PAC and
CMC as can be seen in Table 3. Xanthan gum and polyzan have better capacity
in lifting drill cuttings. The overall rheology properties were decreased after hot
rolling.

TABLE 3 – Gel Strength Properties for Different Concentration (before and

after) Hot-rolling

Gel Strength (10 s/10 min)

Viscosifiers 1.0 ppb 2.0 ppb
Before hot- After hot- Before hot- After hot-
rolling rolling rolling rolling
PAC 1/1 0/0 2/2 2/1
CMC 1/1 1/0 3/2 2/1
Polyzan 5/4 3/3 10/10 9/10
Xanthan gum 4/4 4/4 13/14 13/13

Filtrate Loss

It can be seen from Figure 3 that xanthan gum performed effectively among the
other viscosifiers in fluid loss control.

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-8

6
CMC
5
Filtrate Volume (ml)

PAC
4
polyzan
3
xanthan gum
2

0
0 10 20 30 40
Tim e (m inutes)

FIGURE 3 – Filtrate Loss vs Time for Various Viscosifiers

As can be seen from Figure 3, xanthan gum is the most effective fluid loss
control agent and followed by polyzan, PAC and CMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be derive from this study:

1. The viscosifiers can be used to prevent shale hydration.

2. Xanthan gum (natural polymer) is the best viscosifier compare with PAC,
CMC and polyzan (modified polymer).
3. The degree of hydration increase with fluid loss accordingly but it will be
decrease when there is increment in viscosifier’s concentration.
4. Xanthan gum performed better rheology properties relative to the other three
types of modified polymers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank all laboratory technicians who help and
contribute directly along this study.

REFERENCES

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

 C-9

Aloso-Debolt, M. A., Jarrett, M. A. and Baker Huges Inteq. 1994. New

Polymer/Surfactant System for Stabilizing Troublesome Gumbo Shale, SPE
paper 28741, SPE International Petroleum Conference & Exhibition, Mexico,
October 1994.

Gray, G. R. and Darley, H. C. H.1980. Composition and Properties of Oil Well

Drilling Fluids, 4th ed., Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co.

Hale, A. H. and Shell Development Co. 1991. Method To Quantify Viscosity

Effects On Dispersion Test Improves Testing of Drilling-Fluid Polymers, SPE
paper 19954, SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1991.

Lummus, L. L. and Azar, J. J. 1986. Drilling Fluids Optimization: A Practical

Field Approach, Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company.

M-I Company. 1998. M-I Drilling Fluids Engineering Manual, USA.

13th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineers, Putrajaya, Selangor, 30 – 31 Oct. 2000

View publication stats