IADC/SPE 151469

A New SBM for Narrow Margin Extended Reach Drilling

John Lee, Daryl Cullum, Jim Friedheim & Steve Young, M-I SWACO

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in San Diego, Californi a, USA, 6–8 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its offi cers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Pet roleum 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) wells drilled nowadays can reach a step-out of 10 km (33,000 ft) and thus present many
drilling challenges, including torque and drag, hole cleaning, wellbore stability, equivalent circulating density (ECD)
management, lost circulation management, just to name a few. These challenges can severely limit the desired well depth or
increase the operation time, particularly in deepwater environment. A new synthetic-based flat rheology drilling fluid (SBM)
with new emulsifier and rheology modifier package has been designed for narrow margin ERD wells.
This newly developed flat-rheology SBM utilizes a novel, single emulsifier to simplify fluid formulation, improve
emulsion stability, enhance thermal stability, and provide surface wetting and fluid lubricity. This allows the system to be
formulated for any ERD applications with mud weights up to 18.0 lb/gal and temperatures up to 350°F. In addition, the
system uses a new rheology modifier that provides temperature-independent rheology profile for better hole cleaning, barite
suspension, ECD management and lost circulation control.
A recent field trial conducted in deepwater GoM indicated that the new system is easy to handle and provides good fluid
performance in terms of drilling rate, ECD management, lost circulation control and hole cleaning. The SBM at one time
was severely contaminated due to salt water flow but the fluid held together without any problems. Similar results on drilling
performance were observed with another onshore field trial that used a non-synthetic-based fluid.
This article describes the new flat-rheology SBM system with examples showing typical mud formulations, fluid
properties, barite sag performance data, field test data and computer hydraulics simulation of ECD impacts.

Introduction
Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) operation is commonly defined as having a measured depth (MD) greater than two times the
true vertical depth (TVD). An ERD well is often drilled from a fixed or limited drilling site to enhance production by
accessing different parts of reservoirs. With recent advances in directional drilling tools and techniques, such as rotary
steerable drilling assembly, real time equivalent circulating density (ECD) measurements, ERD casing running techniques
and managed pressure drilling (MPD) tools, ERD becomes a common practice in many areas. A horizontal step-out over 10
kilometers nowadays is not considered an extreme. Quite a few ERD records have been set and broken during the past 10
years. The most recent world record of the longest ERD well was drilled in Sakhalin Odoptu field. The well reached a total
measured depth of 40,500 feet with a world record horizontal displacement of 37,648 feet. A few other wells drilled in the
past several years also had achieved comparable measured depth, such as those in BP’s UK Wytch Farm and Maersk’s Qatar
field. An integrated approach from planning to execution with rigorous process and right people has been recognized as the
main contributors to the success of record-breaking ERD wells (Meader et al. 2000; Kidd et al. 2005; Sonowal et al. 2009).
In the process of drilling ERD wells, the long, inclined section can present various types of operational challenges.
Typical problems may include high torque and drag, high surge and swab pressures, poor hole cleaning, wellbore instability,
barite sag, cuttings bed formation, excessive ECD, lost circulation, etc (Rae et al. 2005; Bolivar et al. 2007). An ERD well
with narrow margin environments, such as drilling in deepwater or with depleted zones, can be even more complicated as
most of these problems can occur concurrently and become difficult to handle, especially if the drilling fluid is not versatile
and stable to handle these situations. All these problems can add up to the non-productive time and drilling operation cost.
Although various physical parameters affecting ERD operation can be changed by modifying well planning, drilling tools
and hydraulic management in order to minimize the potential risks of having problems, it is preferred to have a simple and
reliable solution that can modify the chemical and rheological parameters of drilling fluid in order to deliver the required
2 IADC/SPE 151469

performance necessary for drilling narrow margin ERD wells. This is because the common denominator of all these potential
problems can be attributed to and to a certain degree remediated by drilling fluid design and properties. A new synthetic-
based drilling fluid (SBM) system has thus been developed for this type of application. The new SBM is expected to exhibit
the following features:
Enhanced suspension to keep hole cleaning and barite suspension in control and minimize backreaming
Improved gel structures to ease break-circulation pressure and minimize surge-and- swab effects
Improved solids tolerance so rheological properties are not significantly affected by drilled solids
Enhanced flow rates with low ECD impacts to minimize lost circulation potentials
Improved fluid stability to handle wellbore strengthening treatment products
Reduced rig-site inventory and waste containers for disposal
Improved operation cost as a result of reduced losses, product consumption, dilution, etc.
The development, lab evaluation and field trial of the new SBM as compared with existing system are given below.

Development of New Flat Rheology Synthetic- Based Drilling Fluid (NFR SBM)
The viscosity and density of invert drilling fluids are known to vary with temperature and pressure due to the physical nature
of the base oil used. Typically, viscosity and density increase with decreasing temperature and increasing pressure, and vice
versa. Figure 1 shows the viscosity and density of a synthetic base fluid as a function of temperature. These physical
changes lead to fluctuation of viscosity and mud weight in a deepwater environment where temperature can vary from 40°F
to 350°F, and have been blamed for many operational issues, such as high ECD, poor hole cleaning, barite sag and lost
circulations, particularly when drilling ERD wells in deepwater. Figure 2 is a plot of bottomhole static temperature versus
mud weight and fluid viscosity as a function of depth of a typical deepwater well. The plastic viscosity (PV) and yield point
plots look similar to the viscosity profile, as these are derived properties of the viscosity. However, these plots did not
consider the effects of pressure, which can further change the profile appearance, depending on true vertical depth.

6
Viscosity (cp)/Density (ppg)

5
Density
4
Viscosity
3

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature (F)
Figure 1. An illustration showing the variation of viscosity and density of synthetic base fluid as a
function of temperature from 40°F to 225°F. Other base fluids show similar behavior.
IADC/SPE 151469 3

0 100 200 300

12.5 13.5 14.5 0 20 40 60
0 4 4

5000 5004 5004

10000 10004 10004

Depth, ft

15000 15004 15004

20000 20004 20004

Temp, F Mud Wt, ppg Viscosity, cp

25000 25004 25004
Figure 2. An illustration showing the profile of temperature, mud weight and fluid viscosity as a
function of depth in a deepwater well. The effect of pressure is not considered in this illustration.

A flat rheology SBM (FR SBM) was introduced about a decade ago to minimize the temperature dependence of certain
rheology profiles by using combinations of various additives, such as emulsifiers, wetting agents, rheology modifiers and
viscosifiers (Lee et al. 2004). This flat rheology SBM provided rather constant low-shear rate readings, yield point and gel
strengths in a wide temperature range (Figure 3). Compared to the conventional SBM used at that time, the FR SBM
provided several benefits in the field including improved ROP, higher flow rate, lower ECD, minimal barite sag and reduced
lost circulation incidence that were previously related to cold-temperature gelation and high-temperature barite sag of
conventional invert drilling fluids. Consequently this original FR SBM has been used as a preferred drilling fluid system for
many offshore applications including ERD wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

YP 6-rpm 10' Gel

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40F 100F 150F

Figure 3. Rheology profile of a 14-lb/gal original FR SBM in the temperature

range from 40°F to 150°F showing the typical flat profiles of yield point (YP), 6-
rpm reading and 10-minute gel strength (10’ Gel).

As an effort of continuous improvement, several areas of the original FR SBM were identified for enhancement. Since
the original system is rather complex in product usage, the primary area of improvement was to simplify the system
formulation for better field engineering and training. The second area of improvement was to reduce the gel strengths of the
system in order to minimize potential impact on wellbore stability when the fluid is loaded with fine low-gravity solids or lost
circulation prevention materials. The third area of improvement is to improve high-temperature stability while retaining the
flat rheology characteristics. All these improvements are aimed to benefit the highly demanding low-margin ERD
operations.
4 IADC/SPE 151469

Chemical Parameter Modification - New Flat Rheology (NFR) SBM for Low-Margin ERD Applications
In the process of developing the NFR SBM, it was decided that the backbone of the system should be the emulsifier package
and rheology modifier, although other additives also may impart various degrees of influence on the final rheology profiles.
As a result, the first step was to identify proper surfactant and rheology modifier chemistry that would work synergistically to
achieve some of the desired features including flat rheology profiles, lower gels and higher temperature stability of the flat
profiles. Numerous lab testing of specially synthesized emulsifier and rheology modifier samples was conducted before the
final emulsifier and rheology modifier combination was identified.
The new emulsifier has a chemistry that exhibits dual-function providing both emulsification and wetting at the same
time. It is not a physical blend of emulsifier and wetting agent, but it does contain a carrier and a pour-point suppressant.
The emulsifier is effective and efficient for emulsification and wetting such that no additional wetting agent is required for
high density fluids. An 18-lb/gal NFR SBM with 80/20 synthetic/water ratio (SWR) can be formulated without using an
excessive amount of the emulsifier. The chemistry of the emulsifier allows a greater tolerance to drill solids and enhances
flat rheology effects along with the rheology modifier. The main benefit of the emulsifier is that it helps to keep the gel
strength profile lower than the original products when used in combination with the rheology modifier.
The new rheology modifier is based on a chemistry that is different from the previously used rheology modifiers. It is
more efficient and temperature stable than the previously used rheology modifiers. It can tolerate drill solids better than the
fatty acid based products with less significant impacts on gel strengths. The rheology modifier also provides good suspension
property and minimizes barite sag tendency. Both the emulsifier and rheology modifier have been successfully tested up to
350°F with 18 lb/gal mud weight without any problems. Table 1 shows a typical fluid formulation of the new SBM.

Performance Comparison - NFR SBM vs Original FR SBM

Basic Rheology, Fann 70, Solids Tolerance & HPHT Limits

To understand the rheological characteristics of the NFR SBM, fluids with mud weights from 10 to 18 lb/gal were prepared
using the product concentrations shown in Table 1, then heat aged overnight at different temperatures from 150 to 350°F.
After heat aging, the rheological properties were then measured at 40, 100, and 150°F. Table 2 shows the rheological
properties of these fluids at 150°F, before and after heat aging at designated temperatures. The fluid system showed good flat
profiles and thermal stability after heat aging up to 350°F.

Table 1 – Typical fluid formulation of the new FR SBM, which

now uses fewer products when compared with the original FR
SBM introduced a decade ago
Product New FR SBM
Base Fluid, bbl For desired SWR
Organoclay, lb/bbl 0.5-1.5
Lime, lb/bbl 3.0-4.0
New Emulsifier, lb/bbl 8.0-12.0
CaCl2 Brine, bbl For desired SWR
New Rheology Modifier, lb/bbl 0.5-1.5
Fluid Loss Control Additive, lb/bbl 0.5-2.0
Barite, lb/bbl As needed for MW

Table 2. Rheological properties of the NFR SBM of different mud weights

before (initial) and after heat aging (AHR). All the test fluids contained 25-lb/bbl API Evaluation
Clay as simulated drill solids.
10 lb/gal, 12 lb/gal, 14 lb/gal, 16 lb/gal, 18 lb/gal,
Mud Wt, Aging Temp.
150°F 180°F 250°F 300°F 350°F
Synthetic/Water Ratio 70/30 70/30 75/25 80/20 85/15
Rheology at 150°F Initial AHR Initial AHR Initial AHR Initial AHR Initial AHR
600-rpm 78 71 71 76 92 80 109 83 167 122
300-rpm 55 51 48 51 62 54 74 55 110 72
200-rpm 47 44 39 40 53 45 61 45 89 56
100-rpm 37 35 29 30 40 34 45 34 63 39
6-rpm 22 29 13 15 19 17 21 15 24 16
3-rpm 19 27 11 14 18 15 18 14 21 15

PV, cP 23 20 23 25 30 26 35 28 57 50
2
YP, lb/100 ft 32 31 25 26 32 28 39 27 53 22
2
10-sec Gel, lb/100 ft 25 30 16 18 22 18 23 17 22 19
2
10-min Gel, lb/100 ft 32 32 21 23 30 22 29 22 27 24
ES, volt 560 449 540 467 960 508 1066 697 1145 839
IADC/SPE 151469 5

When compared to the original FR SBM of the same mud weight and SWR (Figure 3), the NFR SBM has flat profiles
similar to the original FR SBM in the given temperature range; however, the NFR SBM exhibits noticeably lower 10-min
Gels and higher yield point (YP) and 6-rpm readings (Figure 4). Since both systems contained similar amount of simulated
drill solids, the NFR SBM has shown better solids tolerance with less impacts on 10-min Gel Strengths. These differences in
flow properties and solids tolerance are attributed to the special chemistry of the emulsifier and rheology modifier used.

50 YP 6-rpm 10' Gel

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40F 100F 150F
Figure 4. Rheology profile of a 14-lb/gal NFR SBM in the temperature range from 40 to 150°F. The
NFR SBM has slightly higher YP and 6-rpm with lower 10-min Gel readings when compared to the
FR SBM of comparable mud weight and SWR.

The emulsifier and rheology modifier package is also versatile such that it can be used with different base fluids. Table 3
shows the HTHP rheological properties of three fluids made with different base fluids. These fluids showed reasonably flat
rheology profiles in the temperature/pressure range up to 250°F and 15,000 psi, which would cover most of the ERD
applications.

Table 3. HTHP Rheology Profile of NFR SBM Prepared with Different Base Fluids
6-rpm PV YP 10-sec Gel 10-min Gel
2 2
Temperature/Pressure Reading (cP) (lb/100 ft ) (lb/100 ft )
2
(lb/100 ft )

13-lb/gal with Paraffin base fluid, 70/30 SWR

40°F/0 psi 13 82 22 17 26
120°F/3,000 psi 14 29 23 14 15
150°F/5,000 psi 14 25 22 13 14
200°F/10,000 psi 14 20 24 13 13
250°F/15,000 psi 14 16 28 14 13
14-lb/gal with Olefin base fluid, 70/30 SWR
40°F/0 psi 14 76 23 20 28
100°F/3,000 psi 14 40 21 14 21
150°F/5,000 psi 14 27 22 14 18
200°F/10,000 psi 16 22 25 13 15
250°F/12,500 psi 18 18 29 14 13
16-lb/gal with Mineral Oil base fluid, 85/15 SWR
40°F/0 psi 9 42 12 13 13
100°F/2,000 psi 7 27 6 6 8
150°F/5,000 psi 6 23 5 5 6
200°F/10,000 psi 6 22 3 4 5
250°F/12,000 psi 7 20 4 7 8
6 IADC/SPE 151469

The NFR SBM was also tested under extreme-HPHT conditions to demonstrate the improved thermal stability of the
rheology modifier. Table 4 shows the rheological properties of a 14-lb/gal NFR SBM as a function of temperature and
pressure which was increased stepwise to 500°F and 20,000 psi. Here the fluid exhibited relatively flat profiles of 6-rpm, YP
and 10-min Gels with respect to temperature and pressure.

Table 4. HPHT Rheology of a 14-lb/gal NFR SBM Stable up to 500°F/20,000 psi

6-rpm PV YP 10-sec Gel 10-min Gel
Temp/Pressure 2 2 2
Reading (cP) (lb/100 ft ) (lb/100 ft ) (lb/100 ft )
150°F/0 psi 8 30 17 8 9
150°F/5,000 psi 9 41 17 9 12
250°F/5,000 psi 8 25 16 9 15
250°F/10,000 psi 8 25 19 9 16
300°F/10,000 psi 6 22 15 6 8
350°F/20,000 psi 6 31 10 8 9
400°F/20,000 psi 6 20 14 6 5
500°F/20,000 psi 3 13 20 14 10

Barite Sag
Barite sag control is another critical area requires competent performance on ERD wells. Under severe conditions, the barite
may drop out and form a barite plug, which can induce fracture thus affecting wellbore stability and ECD management
during low-margin operations. The original FR SBM has been proven in the field to provides better barite sag than the
conventional (non-flat-rheology) SBM. In order to evaluate the barite sag control performance of the NFR SBM, sag flow-
loop tests were conducted against the original FR SBM. In these tests, each lab-prepared test fluid was circulated inside a
flow loop under reduced flow rates to simulate certain operations such as tripping and logging, and the mud weight change
over a period of time was monitored using a densitometer. The results of the flow-loop tests are shown in Figure 5. The
relative rheology of each fluid is shown in Table 5 for comparison. Both the NFR SBM and the original FR SBM have
similar barite sag tendency under lab test condition.
Barite sag control can be further improved to meet more stringent requirement by combining the current NFR SBM
chemistry with micronized barite thus creating a low-rheology profile fluid that would minimize ECD impact and eliminate
barite sag at the same time. The low barite sag tendency of a 14-lb/gal NFR SBM made with micronized barite is also shown
in Figure 5.

NFR SBM with API Barite Original FRSBM with API Barite NFR SBM with Micronized Barite
14.2

14
Mud Weight, ppg

13.8

13.6

13.4

13.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time, min
Figure 5. Barite sag tendency of original FR SBM and NFR SBM with different grind-size barite. The micronized barite
showed the least barite sag tendency, while the original and new FR SBM showed similar tendencies.
IADC/SPE 151469 7

Table 5. Rheological Properties of Fluids used to Compare the Barite Sag

14-lb/gal Original FR 14-lb/gal NFR SBM 14-lb/gal NFR SBM
SBM API Barite API Barite Micronized Barite
Rheology Temperature 40°F 100°F 150°F 40°F 100°F 150°F 40°F 100°F 150°F
600-rpm 204 111 83 187 92 73 178 84 46
300-rpm 116 68 52 106 56 50 106 51 28
200-rpm 83 50 40 78 43 41 79 38 21
100-rpm 48 32 27 49 31 31 49 24 14
6-rpm 14 12 13 16 14 17 13 7 4
3-rpm 12 10 12 14 13 16 10 6 4
PV, cP 88 43 31 81 36 23 72 33 18
2
YP, lb/100 ft 28 25 21 25 20 27 34 18 10
2
10-sec Gel, lb/100 ft 19 20 26 22 25 25 13 8 5
2
10-min Gel, lb/100 ft 39 38 34 33 29 33 16 10 6
ES, volt 254 622 623

Hydraulics Simulation for ECD, Surge/Swab, Hole Cleaning

The benefits of the NFR SBM are not realized until the hydraulic impacts from the original and new fluid systems are
compared using hydraulic modeling. Two different Gulf of Mexico model wells were used for this simulation (Table 6).
The rheological data used are given in Table 7.
The first model well is not an ERD well, but it has a relatively long 8.5-in. section, about 15,000 ft, at 25-degree
inclination. Minor hole cleaning and ECD issues are expected with this hole geometry and 5-in. drillpipe. Simulation results
show that the difference between the two fluid systems is marginal. However, the NFR SBM definitely could have an edge
over the original FR SBM for ECD management under critical conditions, and the pump pressure required to break
circulation is also lower due to the low gel strengths. However, when the NFR SBM containing micronized barite was used
for the simulation, a much lower ECD value was observed. The ECD margin was improved by 0.4 lb/gal by this fluid.

Table 6. Comparison of the Hydraulic Impacts from the Original and New Flat Rheology SBM using
Two different Well Simulations
Simulation #1 Simulation #2
Measured Depth (ft) 28000 31500
True Vertical Depth (ft) 26000 12000
Mud Weight (lb/gal) 14.0 14.0
Synthetic/Water Ratio 75/25 75/25
Hole Diameter (in.) 8.5 8.5
Flow Rate (gal/min) 350 375
Inclination (°) Max. 25 Max. 75
Hydraulic Impacts
Original Micronized Original Micronized
NFR SBM NFR SBM
FR SBM NFR SBM FR SBM NFR SBM
Estimated Standpipe Pressure, psi 4788 4612 4149 4800 4454 3595
ECD at TD with cuttings, lb/gal 15.17 15.06 14.66 16.15 15.7 14.67
Breaking Circulation Pump
1214 755 256 1982 1153 323
Pressure, psi
Hole Cleaning Index (%) 85 85 75 78 77 72
8 IADC/SPE 151469

Table 7. Rheological Data used for the Comparison of the Hydraulic Impacts
of the Original and New FR SBM
Original FR SBM NFR SBM Micronized NFR SBM
Rheology Temperature 40°F 100°F 150°F 40°F 100°F 150°F 40°F 100°F 150°F
600-rpm 196 100 79 200 100 80 178 84 46
300-rpm 110 61 54 114 62 54 106 51 28
200-rpm 80 48 45 82 50 45 79 38 21
100-rpm 48 34 36 49 36 34 49 24 14
6-rpm 14 19 24 18 18 17 13 7 4
3-rpm 12 18 23 16 17 15 10 6 4
PV, cP 86 39 25 86 38 26 72 33 18
2
YP, lb/100 ft 24 22 29 28 24 28 34 18 10
2
10-sec Gel, lb/100 ft 19 27 29 25 20 18 13 8 5
2
10-min Gel, lb/100 ft 39 39 38 30 26 22 16 10 6
ES, volt 560 508 623

The second model well is an ERD well with 23,500 ft of wellbore inclined at about 75 degrees. Again, the simulation
uses the same 8.5- in. wellbore diameter and 5-in. drillpipe parameters. The simulation now shows that the NFR SBM
imposes an ECD that is 0.45 lb/gal less than the original SBM. In addition, it generates 300 psi lower standpipe pressure and
about 40% less breaking circulation pump pressure than the original SBM while the hole cleaning index remains
uncompromised. When the NFR SBM with micronized barite was used for comparison, the improvement in standpipe
pressure, ECD and break-circulation pressure was dramatic. The graphic presentation of the simulation results can be found
in Figure 6a, 6b and 6c. Because of the wide ECD margin and lower standpipe pressure, the flow rate actually can be
increased to enhance bit hydraulics, ROP and hole cleaning without breaching the ECD limit. These differences can make a
non-drillable low-margin ERD ©1995-2010
well drillable.
M-I L.L.C. Original FR SBM MD: 31500
* Mark of M-I L.L.C .
TVD: 12017
ft
ft
Operator: M-I SWACO
Well Name: Simulation

VIRTUAL HY DRAULICS*SnapShot*
14 ppg, 75/25 SWR
Bit Size: 8.5 in Location:
Date: 11/10/2011 Country:
Depth Formation Geometry Angle Density PV (cP) Temperature Va Hole Clean Pressure Distribution
(ft) Top MD/TVD Csg OD/ID (°) (lb/gal) YP, LSYP (lb/100ft²) (°F) (ft/min) Index (%)
(ft) (in) 0 45 90 13 14 15 16 17 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 0 300 600 VG G F P Bit = 5.5 Ann = 33.8 DS = 60.8

2000 1908 13.415

1908 1908 12.415

4000

6000

8000 Drilling Fluid

8259 13.375
RHELIANT
6700 12.415
Mud Weight 14 lb/gal
10000
Test Temp 75 °F
System Data
12000
Flow Rate 375 gal/min
Riser Flow 450 gal/min
14000
Penetration Rate 70 ft/hr
Rotary Speed 110 rpm
16000
Weight on Bit 10 1000 lbf
Bit Nozzles 12-12-12-12-12
18000
12-12-12- 0 - 0

20000
Pressure Losses
Modified Power Law
Drill String 2547 psi
22000 MWD 443 psi
Motor 43 psi
24000 Bit 229 psi
Bit On/Off 50 psi
26000 Annulus 1416 psi
26779 9.625 L Surface Equip 30 psi
10199 8.535
28000 U-Tube Effect 41 psi
Total System 4800 psi
30000 ESD ECD +Cut
Csg Shoe 13.81 15.97 16.03
31500 8.500
32000 TD 13.82 16.09 16.15
12017
Top

Top
Btm

ESD PV HCI V R D H - V er sion 3.2 Fann 35

ECD YP Annulus Bed Ht %
Turb Lam Turb 0 Bed Vol % 100 File - E MS 4200E R D .MD B
34000 ECD+Cut LSYP Drill String

Figure
36000 6a. Hydraulic simulation of an ERD well with 14-lb/gal original FR SBM. The graph shows good hole cleaning with

an ECD estimation of 16.15 lb/gal when drilling at 70 ft/hr. See Table 7 for rheology data.
IADC/SPE 151469 9
©1995-2010 M-I L.L.C. New FR SBM MD: 31500 ft Operator: M-I SWACO
* Mark of M-I L.L.C .
TVD: 12017 ft Well Name: Simulation

VIRTUAL HY DRAULICS*SnapShot*
14 ppg MW, 75/25 SWR
Bit Size: 8.5 in Location:
Date: 10/25/2011 Country:
Depth Formation Geometry Angle Density PV (cP) Temperature Va Hole Clean Pressure Distribution
(ft) Top MD/TVD Csg OD/ID (°) (lb/gal) YP, LSYP (lb/100ft²) (°F) (ft/min) Index (%)
(ft) (in) 0 45 90 13.6 14.4 15.2 16.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 0 300 600 VG G F P Bit = 6 Ann = 29.5 DS = 64.5

2000 1908 13.415

1908 1908 12.415

4000

6000

8000 Drilling Fluid

8259 13.375
RHELIANT
6700 12.415
Mud Weight 14 lb/gal
10000
Test Temp 75 °F
System Data
12000
Flow Rate 375 gal/min
Riser Flow 450 gal/min
14000
Penetration Rate 70 ft/hr
Rotary Speed 110 rpm
16000
Weight on Bit 10 1000 lbf
Bit Nozzles 12-12-12-12-12
18000
12-12-12- 0 - 0

20000
Pressure Losses
Modified Power Law
Drill String 2481 psi
22000 MWD 443 psi
Motor 43 psi
24000 Bit 229 psi
Bit On/Off 50 psi
26000 Annulus 1136 psi
26779 9.625 L Surface Equip 30 psi
10199 8.535
28000 U-Tube Effect 41 psi
Total System 4454 psi
30000 ESD ECD +Cut
Csg Shoe 13.81 15.53 15.60
31500 8.500 TD 13.81 15.63 15.70
32000 12017

Top

Top
Btm
ESD PV HCI V R D H - V er sion 3.2 Fann 35
ECD YP Annulus Bed Ht %
Turb Lam Turb 0 Bed Vol % 100 File - E MS 4200E R D .MD B
34000 ECD+Cut LSYP Drill String

Figure
36000 6b. Hydraulic simulation of an ERD well with 14-lb/gal NFR SBM. The graph shows good hole cleaning with an ECD
©1995-2010 M-I L.L.C. New FR SBM MD: 31500 ft Operator: M-I SWACO
estimation of 15.7 lb/gal when drilling at 70 ft/hr. See
* Mark of M-I L.L.C .
TVD: Table
12017 7 for
ft rheology data.
Well Name: Simulation

VIRTUAL HY DRAULICS*SnapShot*
14 ppg MW, 75/25 SWR
Bit Size: 8.5 in Location:
Micronized Barite Date: 11/10/2011 Country:
Depth Formation Geometry Angle Density PV (cP) Temperature Va Hole Clean Pressure Distribution
(ft) Top MD/TVD Csg OD/ID (°) (lb/gal) YP, LSYP (lb/100ft²) (°F) (ft/min) Index (%)
(ft) (in) 0 45 90 13.6 14.0 14.4 14.8 0 12 24 36 60 120 180 240 0 300 600 VG G F P Bit = 7.7 Ann = 16.5 DS = 75.8

2000 1908 13.415

1908 1908 12.415

4000

6000

8000 Drilling Fluid

8259 13.375
RHELIANT
6700 12.415
Mud Weight 14 lb/gal
10000
Test Temp 75 °F
System Data
12000
Flow Rate 375 gal/min
Riser Flow 450 gal/min
14000
Penetration Rate 70 ft/hr
Rotary Speed 110 rpm
16000
Weight on Bit 10 1000 lbf
Bit Nozzles 12-12-12-12-12
18000
12-12-12- 0 - 0

20000
Pressure Losses
Modified Power Law
Drill String 2256 psi
22000 MWD 443 psi
Motor 43 psi
24000 Bit 229 psi
Bit On/Off 50 psi
26000 Annulus 491 psi
26779 9.625 L Surface Equip 28 psi
10199 8.535
28000 U-Tube Effect 55 psi
Total System 3595 psi
30000 ESD ECD +Cut
Csg Shoe 13.80 14.53 14.62
31500 8.500
32000 TD 13.80 14.59 14.67
12017
Top

Top
Btm

ESD PV HCI V R D H - V er sion 3.2 Fann 35

ECD YP Annulus Bed Ht %
Turb Lam Turb 0 Bed Vol % 100 File - E MS 4200E R D .MD B
34000 ECD+Cut LSYP Drill String

Figure
36000 6c. Hydraulic simulation of an ERD well with 14-lb/gal NFR SBM using micronized barite. The graph shows fair to

good hole cleaning with an ECD estimation of 14.67 lb/gal when drilling at 70 ft/hr. The ECD impact is the lowest among the
three simulations.

Toxicity data
Toxicity tests using mysid shrimp and leptocheirus amphipod showed the emulsifier package and rheology modifier have
minimal impacts on aquatic toxicity. The emulsifier actually forms a tighter emulsion that gives lower aquatic toxicity when
compared to other emulsifiers. The mysid toxicity tests of lab-prepared and field mud samples showed LC50 > 200,000 ppm,
and the leptocheirus toxicity tests showed toxicity ratios less than 0.3.

Lubricity
Since lubricity is also an important factor affecting the torque and drag in ERD operation, some lubricity tests have been
conducted to make sure the NFR SBM would not have any particular issues with lubricity. Simple lubricity tests under worst
scenario have shown that the coefficient of friction (CoF) of an 18-lb/gal NFR SBM is around 0.10 – 0.12, and the CoF
would drop to a slightly lower level when the mud weight is reduced.

Field Trial Data

One field trial was carried out on a vertical well with mud weight close to 17 lb/gal. Results from field applications of the
new NFR SBM have shown the NFR system to provide improved rheological properties without sacrificing system
10 IADC/SPE 151469

performance. A comparison of the NFR SBM to a conventional FR SBM with similar density (16.7 vs. 16.6 lb/gal) and
identical low-shear yield point (LSYP) of 9 lb/100 ft2 showed the NFR SBM to have 10-minute gel strength 15% less than
the FR SBM even though the NFR SBM had a synthetic/water ratio of 70/30 compared to a 77/23 for the FR SBM.
Additionally, the NFR SBM exhibited a flat LSYP when measured at 45, 120, 150 and 175°F utilizing a 6-speed rheometer
even though the fluid had been exposed to temperatures in excess of 300°F (Table 8). High-pressure, high-temperature
rheological measurements on the NFR SBM indicated a flat LSYP from 40 to 250°F and a stable profile from 40 to 350°F
(Table 9).

Table 8. Rheological Properties of 16.7-lb/gal NFR SBM from Field Trial

where Bottomhole Temperature is greater than 300°F. The SWR is 70/30.
Rheology Temperature 45°F 120°F 150°F 175°F
600-rpm 292 127 104 90
300-rpm 161 73 62 55
200-rpm 112 56 49 43
100-rpm 62 34 30 28
6-rpm 10 11 11 11
3-rpm 9 10 10 10
PV, cP 131 54 42 35
2
YP, lb/100 ft 30 19 20 20
2
10-sec Gel, lb/100 ft 9 12 12 13
2
10-min Gel, lb/100 ft 27 28 28 27
2
30-min Gel, lb/100 ft 33 33 31 32
ES, volt 412

Table 9. HPHT Rheology of a 15-lb/gal NFR SBM Field M with 74/26 SWR
10-minute
6-rpm LSYP PV YP 10-sec Gel
Temp/Pressure 2 2 2 Gel
Reading (lb/100ft ) (cP) (lb/100 ft ) (lb/100 ft ) 2
(lb/100 ft )
40°F/0 psi 10 8 102 15 14 20
120°F/2,000 psi 10 8 39 18 15 20
150°F/5,000 psi 12 10 34 19 13 18
250°F/10,000 psi 13 11 23 24 15 19
300°F/15,000 psi 16 14 21 29 15 20
350°F/20,000 psi 18 16 20 35 15 21

The NFR system has also been utilized in the field with a low-viscosity mineral oil. The low-viscosity mineral oil
required higher organophilic clay loading than the SBM but a flat LSYP profile was easily obtained. A comparison of the
NFR system to a conventional FR system in the same low-viscosity mineral oil with identical oil/water ratio of 69/31 and
identical 9.7-lb/gal density was made. The comparison showed the NFR system to have a similar 30-minute gel strength of
35 lb/100 ft2 compared to 34 lb/100 ft2 in the conventional FR system when measured at 40°F even though the NFR system
LSYP was 2.3 times greater than the conventional FR system (23 vs. 10).
Table 10 shows the rheological properties of NFR SBM from the top section of the well. Because the well sees a
minimum temperature of 70°F, most of the rheological data were collected between 70 and 170°F for flatness determination.
The section was drilled without any problems or lost circulation event. Due to the low mud weight, salt water flow was
encountered and the SWR was lowered from 70/30 to about 65/35. Base fluid and product addition restored the desired SWR
and flow properties without any problems. The relatively flat profile was maintained till section TD. Compared to the
previously used fluid system, the NFR SBM provided better ROP and hole cleaning. The dilution rate was about 30-40%
less than the previous system and ECD in the section was not an issue.
IADC/SPE 151469 11

Table 10. Rheological Properties of Field Trial of NFR SBM on a Deviated Well Section.
Mud weight varied from 9.6 to 9.9 lb/gal with 70/30 OWR
After displacement Drilled 2300 ft Drilled 4100 ft Drilled 5500 ft
Rheology
40°F 75°F 120°F 150°F 74°F 120°F 150°F 70°F 120°F 150°F 120°F 150°F 175°F
Temperature
600-rpm 126 90 63 58 125 76 69 145 82 70 105 83 70
300-rpm 77 60 45 43 82 52 47 91 55 48 68 54 48
200-rpm 59 50 37 36 65 45 39 72 44 40 56 44 39
100-rpm 41 35 28 28 46 33 29 47 32 30 41 33 31
6-rpm 18 17 16 16 19 17 15 18 18 16 19 17 16
3-rpm 17 16 15 15 18 16 14 17 16 14 18 16 15
PV, cps 49 30 18 15 43 24 22 54 30 22 37 29 22
YP, lb/100ft2 28 30 27 28 39 28 25 37 28 26 31 25 26
10-sec Gel, lb/100 ft2 20 18 17 17 22 18 15 19 18 16 20 18 16
10-min Gel, lb/100 ft2 27 26 26 25 26 22 19 23 23 20 24 22 21
ES, volt 750 600 650 600

Conclusion
The NFR SBM utilizes a new chemistry to deliver improved fluid properties and benefits that can be realized when drilling
low-margin ERD wells. The fluid formulation has been simplified to one emulsifier and one rheology modifier to make the
engineering and treatment simpler and easier. This also appreciably reduces the chemical inventory and waste disposal.
Combining the NFR SBM chemistry with micronized barite technology, a whole new fluid system is created and can be
used to drill low-margin ERD wells without compromising hole cleaning while improving barite sag controls.
Field trial of the NFR SBM showed good performance with some desired benefits confirmed, including reduced lost
circulation, good hole cleaning, good tolerance to contamination of seawater and drill solids, good real time data transmission
and good ECD from the flat rheology profile.

Acknowledgment
The authors want to thank Schlumberger for allowing the publication of this paper. The authors also want to thank the lab
personnel, Tech Services Engineers and Field Engineers for assisting the lab testing and field trial of the NFR SBM system.

Nomenclature
CoF = Coefficient of Friction
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density
ERD = Extended Reach Drilling
HPHT = High-Pressure, High-Temperature
LSYP = Low Shear Yield Point
MPD = Managed Pressure Drilling
NFR = New Flat Rheology
OWR =Oil/Water Ratio
ROP = Rate of Penetration
SBM = Synthetic-Based Mud
SWR = Synthetic/Water Ratio
TVD = True Vertical Depth
YP = Yield Point

References
Bolivar, N., Young, J., Massam, J. and Reid, T. 2007. “Field Result of Equivalent-Circulating-Density Reduction with a
Low-Rheology Fluid.” SPE 105487, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 20-22 February.
Kidd, G.N., Tukshaitov, A. and Najafov, F. 2005. “Learning the Right Lessons – The Key to Delivering a Record ERD Well
in the Caspian.” SPE 95590, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, 9-12 October.
Lee, J., Friedheim, J., Toups, B. and van Oort, E. 2004. “A New Approach to Deepwater Drilling Using SBM with Flat
Rheology.” AADE-04-DF-HO-37, AADE Drilling Fluids Conference, Houston, 6-7 April.
Meader, T., Allen, F. and Riley, G. 2000. “ To the Limit and Beyond – The Secret of World-Class Extended-Reach Drilling
Performance at Wytch Farm.” SPE 59204, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February.
Rae, G., Lesso, W.G. and Sapijanskas, M. 2004. “Understanding Torque and Drag: Best Practices and Lessons Learnt from
the Captain Field’s Extended Reach Wells.” SPE 91854, SPE/IADC Conference, Amsterdam, 23-25 February.
Sonowal, K., Bennetzen, B., Wong, P. and Isevcan, E. 2009. “How Continuous Improvements Led to the Longest Horizontal
Well in the World.” SPE 119506, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 17-19 March.