Drilling Fluid Selection For Shale Gas Drilling

Drilling Fluid Selection for
Shale Gas Drilling
By:
SIRINE TRICHILI
A thesis submitted to the Chair of Drilling and Completion Engineering

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor’s degree
in
International Study Program in Petroleum Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF LEOBEN
October, 2015
Leoben, Austria
Bachelor Thesis: Drilling Fluid Selection for Shale Gas Drilling | SIRINE TRICHILI
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to all the
engineering students who may need it
to help them have an idea about the shale gas drilling
in general and the used drilling fluids for this practice in particular
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Declaration of originality
The material presented in this thesis is entirely the result of my own independent
research under the supervision of Professor Michael Prohaska. All published or unpublished
material used in this thesis has been given full acknowledgement.
Name: Sirine Trichili Date: 22/10/2015
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The main purpose of this thesis is to convey the challenges and specifications of shale gas
and tight oil drilling in terms of drilling fluids selection and design.
A focus on the well construction difficulties faced in shale gas/oil drilling dictates the
design of drilling fluids in order to match the demands of this new practice as it requires more
lateral sections than conventional drilling. Additionally, drilling fluids performance is not the
only objective since both costs and environmental concerns limit the mud design. Thus, the
drilling fluids are balanced between reaching high performances and matching the economic
and safety standards.
However, such a compromise is hard to achieve especially that the shale plays are
different from each other. To this end, it is helpful to learn from previous experiences which are
multiplying particularly in the United States. Additionally, performing laboratory tests on cores
from formations improves the understanding of the particularity of the shale formation. As a
result, drilling mud could be customized and adapted to each shale play and consequently the
drilling operation could take place faster, safer and at lower costs as it will be seen in the
different case studies presented in this thesis.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Michael
Prohaska for the continuous support of my bachelor studies as well as the required research and
writing for my bachelor thesis, for his patience, motivation, and immense knowledge.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank my family and particularly my parents who have
always been very supportive and on whom I could always rely in rocky times whether during my
studies or in my life in general.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
2. General information about drilling fluids and shale gas drilling ...................................................... 12
2.1 Drilling fluids: Objectives and types ....................................................................................... 12
2.2 Drilling fluids: Global market.................................................................................................. 13
2.3 US shale gas ........................................................................................................................... 14
3. Wellbore stability challenge ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Chemistry of shale interactions with drilling fluids ................................................................ 16
3.2 Mechanical instability ............................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Optimizing mud design .......................................................................................................... 24
4. Other well construction challenges .............................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Hole cleaning ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Torque and drag .................................................................................................................... 29
5. Formation evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 OBM challenges in formation evaluation ............................................................................... 31
5.2 Dielectric dispersion logging .................................................................................................. 31
6. Environmental challenge .................................................................................................................................. 32
6.1 Chemicals toxicity .................................................................................................................. 32
6.2 Cuttings disposal .................................................................................................................... 33
7. Costs challenge ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.1 General costs ......................................................................................................................... 34
7.2 Decreasing costs by increasing ROP....................................................................................... 38
8. Case studies............................................................................................................................................................. 39
8.1 Some applications of customized drilling fluids ..................................................................... 39
8.2 Case study: The Eagle Ford shale play ................................................................................... 43
9. Conclusions and Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 52
10. References ............................................................................................................................................................... 54
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of US shale gas plays ........................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2: Mobile formation problem: Shale swelling ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 3: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction diagonal to the bedding ................................................... 20
Figure 4: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction perpendicular to the bedding ........................................ 20
Figure 5: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction parallel to the bedding ..................................................... 21
Figure 6: Swelling rate for7% KCl mud parallel to the shale bedding ..................................................... 22
Figure 7: Swelling rate for OBM mud parallel to the shale bedding ......................................................... 22
Figure 8: Stuck pipe ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Inhibition effect on swelling shale ....................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Poor hole cleaning ................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 11: Drilling fluid costs ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure12: Lost circulation .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 13: Fayetteville/Morrowan shale after 24 hour freshwater vs. SHALEDRIL F
soak ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 14: “Evolution” lubricity performance .................................................................................................... 41
Figure 15: “Evolution” drilling days performance ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 16: Approximate lithology of Eagle Ford shale play formations ................................................. 43
Figure 17: The trend in types of wells drilled in the Maverick basin over time .................................. 44
Figure 18: Distribution of drilling fluid types for the horizontal Eagle Ford wells ............................ 45
Figure 19: Development and enlargement of micro-fractures after the shale sample was
exposed to WBM ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 20: Drilling performance of different operators with OBM ........................................................... 49
Figure 21: Drilling performance of an operator with WBM ......................................................................... 50
Figure 22: Comparison of wells drilling costs when using Terra-Max Vs. other drilling
fluids .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Tables
Table 1: Technically recoverable resources by shale play ............................................................................ 16
Table 2: Example of mineralogy by XRD .............................................................................................................. 26
Table 3: Shrimp Toxicity results for Nanosilica and new WBM ................................................................. 33
Table 4: Drilling costs for one well in Marcellus shale play ......................................................................... 35
Table 5: Drilling days per 1000 ft for the surface hole ................................................................................... 45
Table 6: Drilling days per 1000 ft for a well design using an 8 ¾ -in intermediate section
and an 8 ½ -in curve and lateral section .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 7: Wells with major wellbore instability issues .................................................................................... 47
Table 8: Eagle Ford mineralogy from X-ray results ......................................................................................... 47
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nomenclature and Abbreviations
WBM: Water-based Mud
OBM: Oil-based Mud
SBM: Synthetic-based Mud
CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity
ECD: Equivalent Circulating Density
PHPA: Partially Hydrated Polyacrylate
ROP: Rate of Penetration
WOB: Weight on Bit
TVD: True Vertical Depth
FE: Formation Evaluation
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Shale formations have always been challenging while drilling through them. In
conventional wells, shale mostly represents the cap rock that traps the hydrocarbons beneath it.
Thus, drilling through shale was usually a common issue to deal with. Shales are very reactive
formations that cause numerous problems and represent a serious obstacle for the drilling
operation. To this end, these formations have always required special considerations including
the design of the drilling fluid to be used.
Recently, the shale is no longer only a cap rock, yet, it has become the target formation.
Some shales are the source rocks for hydrocarbons and by the means of horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing, gas and oil are nowadays being produced from shale.
The United States are focusing on shale gas and tight oil extraction and more wells are
drilled in the US shale plays. This means that more drilling fluids are also being used and being
improved to increase the drilling performance.
This thesis indeed discusses the different challenges faced in shale gas drilling and
influencing the drilling fluid design. Some case studies of drilling operations in the US shale plays
are presented in order to follow the evolution in the drilling fluid design for this particular type
of drilling.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. General information about drilling fluids and shale gas drilling
Hydrocarbons could be found in two different forms: Conventional and unconventional.
Conventional: the gas or oil are present in permeable rocks called “reservoir rocks” where
hydrocarbons had migrated from an original source rock.
Unconventional: the gas or oil are present in the source rock. As hydrocarbons are formed, they
do not migrate like in the conventional case, yet they remain in the shale source rock. In this
case, the shale is both the source and the reservoir rock. Conventional ways are not applicable to
extract such gas or oil. A combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is required
to produce the natural gas or tight oil from impermeable shale formations.
2.1 Drilling fluids: Objectives and types
Drilling fluid selection is extremely important in the drilling process because of the variety
of functions a drilling mud has.
One of the major objectives of a drilling fluid is the well control (1). In fact, using the mud
is the drillers’ means to maintain overbalance. Additionally, the drilling fluid needs to be able to
stabilize the walls and minimize the formation damage. This could be achieved by a thin and low
permeable filter cake around the wellbore as well as a sufficient level of inhibition.
Furthermore, the drilling fluid carries the cuttings out of the hole when circulating and suspends
them in mud during non-circulating phases.
Last but not least, numerous decisions on wellsite require log interpretations. Hence, the
drilling fluid should allow logging operations and a good quality of logs which means that a
conductive mud is preferred for resistivity logging.
In order to fulfill the objectives mentioned, the design of a drilling fluid considers some basic
properties such as the viscosity, the gel strength, the yield point, the weight, the filter cake
filtration quality and the solids content. Designing a drilling mud means controlling all of these
properties:
 Viscosity which is achieved by clay or polymers

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Density which is achieved by weighting material
 Low filtration properties which are reached by polymers
More additives are used as well to define the other properties.
Three drilling muds are distinguished, which are Water-based muds (WBM), Oil-based
muds (OBM) and Synthetic-based muds (SBM).
Water-based muds are fluids where water is the continuous phase. Oil-based drilling fluids are
formulated using a continuous oil phase. Synthetic fluid is the continuous phase in Synthetic-
based muds and their design is similar to oil based fluids but with low aromatic content.
OBMs have a better performance in most cases, particularly when drilling through shale as
this is a very reactive formation. Yet, OBMs are harmful for the environment especially when it
comes to their cuttings disposal. This is why, despite their good performance, OBMs are not
always preferred. In contrast, WBMs are environmentally friendly. Thus, since environmental
regulations are stricter in Europe, OBMs are pretty common in US while in Europe, they are
quite problematic.
From an economic angle, OBMs are more expensive. Yet, they could be reused more
frequently than WBMs. Thus, the choice between and OBM and a WBM strongly depends on the
operating company strategy and budget.
2.2 Drilling fluids: Global market
The drilling fluids market witnesses various changes and more modifications are expected
to take place. A research report published by Transparency Market Research (2) states that the
global market for drilling fluids was worth US$7.20 billion in the year 2011, and is projected to
be worth an estimated US$12.31 billion by 2018, growing at a CAGR (compound annual growth
rate) of 8% during the forecast period.
Since the government has been supporting the Asia-Pacific drilling fluids market in terms
of tax holidays and subsidies, this region is expected to witness significant growth in the coming
years. On the other hand, South and Central America have been using advanced technology and
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
methods such as horizontal drilling to deal with the new situation as drilling activities have
increased in regions such as Venezuela and Brazil, which makes this region the fastest-growing
region of the global drilling fluids market. Furthermore, the shift to unconventional resources of
energy, as awareness increased regarding the benefits of shale gas, has resulted in growing
exploration activities in Canada and the U.S. Consequently, North America dominated the global
drilling fluids market in 2012, accounting for more than 55% of the overall industry (2).
Whereas, the growth of the drilling fluid market is still limited by environmental concerns
about the usage and disposal of drilling fluids. This implies the interference of certain
geopolitical issues which tend to restrain the market growth.
2.3 US shale gas
During the last decade, a US shale gas revolution has taken place as the US has
transformed from the biggest natural gas importer to a country that had achieved self-
sufficiency in gas resources.
The US is estimated to possess a 100-year supply of natural gas at current consumption
rates (3).
One of the recent reports released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced
that the US will overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by 2015 and will become the largest
oil producer by 2017. Besides, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the
US has more than 750 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas, and estimates that
there could be in excess of 24 billion barrels of on-shore technically recoverable tight oil
resources. To this end, technology to develop the shale gas extraction is constantly improved.
Researches and development of better methods for drilling, production… are made in order to
reach higher productivity, higher profitability and more environmentally-friendly operations.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Map of US shale gas plays (3)
The Bakken and Eagle Ford plays account for about two-thirds of oil production growth;
the Marcellus play accounts for about three-quarters of natural gas production growth (4).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Technically recoverable resources by shale play (3)
3. Wellbore stability challenge
Wellbore stability is an extremely important issue as the incidents caused by wellbore
instabilities represent in average 10 to 20% of total drilling costs. Some other statistics suggest
that wellbore instability in difficult formations results in the loss of nearly US$ 2 billion/year
where shale formations stand for almost 90% of wellbore stability incidents (5).
3.1 Chemistry of shale interactions with drilling fluids
A complicating factor that distinguishes shale from other rocks is its sensitivity to certain
drilling constituents, particularly water (6). Shale stability is affected by properties of both shale
(e.g. mineralogy, porosity) and of the drilling fluid contacting it (e.g. wettability, density, salinity
and ionic concentration).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The chemical instability problem is time dependent unlike mechanical instability. This is
why reducing the shale exposure time is important. This instability can be prevented through
selection of proper drilling fluid, suitable mud additives to minimize and delay the fluid/shale
interactions.
The chemical interactions taking place between the shale and the drilling fluid are caused
by the water present in the shale.
This water is present in the shale in three different forms:
 Intercrystalline water: found in association with the cations neutralizing the charge
caused by elemental substitution.
 Osmotic water: present as an adsorbed surface layer associated with the charges on the
clay. The swelling associated with this type of mechanism occurs when sedimentary
rocks are unloaded as it occurs in drilling. It happens as an ionic diffusion called
“Osmosis” takes place between the drilling fluid and the shale native pore fluid across a
semi-permeable membrane due to differences in pressures and concentrations of the
two fluids.
 Bound water: present in the clay molecule itself as structurally bonded hydrogen and
hydroxyl groups which under extreme conditions, temperatures of 600-7000 C, separate
from the clay to form water.
A close look on the chemical interaction taking place between the shale and the drilling fluid
shows that the original cations present in the shale and the newly introduced positively charged
species from the drilling fluid do not have the same compatibility to the negatively charged sites.
Thus, some of the cations of the clay are easily replaced with other positively charged species.
The attraction happens from both sides:
On one hand, the implicated cations present in the shale, also called “exchangeable bases”, are
primarily calcium (Ca++), potassium (K+), magnesium (Mg++) and sodium (Na+). These cations,
originally present in the clay, are poorly bounded to the negatively charged sites in the shale.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the other hand, if the example of a Na-Bentonite water-based drilling fluid is considered, the
Montmorillonite contained in this WBM has an atomic structure of Si-Al-Si sandwiches (1).
These sandwiches are surrounded by an exchangeable cation layer, Na+ in this example. The
bonding between the cations in the mud is too weak that they can be exchanged easily.
Once the drilling fluid reaches the shale formation, cations from shale mix with the other cations
dissolved in the drilling fluid for an extended period of time. During which, the cations of the
drilling mud, also called “the CEC reagents”, are strongly attracted to the shale’s negatively
charged sites. Consequently, they are sucked out of the solution and bounded to these sites. In
return, the Mg++, Ca++, K+ and Na+are driven from the shale into the drilling solution. The
presence of Ca++ cations in the mud creates higher attractive forces. Hence, the distance between
sandwiches becomes smaller. Thus, the drilling fluid’s viscosity, gel strength and yield point
increase. Consequently, free water is released from the mud and sucked into shale.
3.2 Mechanical instability
Mechanical instability occurs as soon as we drill new formations. It is caused mainly by the
shale’s swelling and the shale’s mechanical failure.
Taking into consideration the chemical reactions happening between shale formations and
drilling fluids, the swelling and sloughing that they cause are followed by mechanical changes in
the near wellbore region.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: Mobile formation problem: Shale swelling (7)
They depend on two factors: the direction of drilling relatively to the shale bedding and the type
of drilling fluid i.e whether it is WBM or OBM.
In horizontal sections, the shale bedding is usually also horizontal. In this case, the
swelling is higher as drilling takes place in a direction parallel to the shale bedding (8).
An experiment on cores from a shale formation shows the influence of the drilling direction on
swelling.
Six cores were taken from the Eagle ford formation:
 Two perpendicular to the bedding
 Two diagonal to the bedding
 Two parallel to the bedding
Dimensions of the six samples are the same (diameter = 1.5 in and length = 3 in).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
First, samples were half submerged in a 7% KCl for two days. Then, swelling rates were then
recorded for different bedding directions. The results are translated into Figure 3, Figure 4 and
Figure 5.
Figure 3: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction diagonal to the bedding (8)
Figure 4: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction perpendicular to the bedding (8)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5: Swelling rate Vs. time for direction parallel to the bedding (8)
Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that the maximum swelling rate recorded for a mud
invasion diagonal or perpendicular to the bedding is approximately 0.00004 in/hr while for the
parallel direction, the maximum swelling rate is around 0.00007 in/hr. This confirms that the
maximum swelling rate occurs in the direction parallel to the bedding whilst the minimum is
reached when drilling perpendicular or diagonal to the bedding.
Therefore, the needed horizontal drilling usually parallel to the shale bedding results in more
wellbore instability in terms of swelling.
When it comes to the type of drilling fluid, WBM and OBM are compared.
Using the same cores, samples were half submerged in a 7% KCl for two days and in an OBM for
seven days.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
21
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 6: Swelling rate for7% KCl mud parallel to the shale bedding (8)
Figure 7: Swelling rate for OBM mud parallel to the shale bedding (8)
When recording the samples’ swelling rate, it is shown that the maximum swelling rate when
using the WBM is nearly 0.00007 in/hr while this value does not exceed 0.000015 when using
the OBM (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). This experiment therefore suggests that using OBM results
in less swelling than WBM, particularly in horizontal sections (parallel to the bedding).
However, swelling is not the only problem when drilling through shale.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
22
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually, in overbalanced drilling, the drilling fluid’s pressure is higher than the pore pressure,
thus a mud filtrate invades the formation. The drilling fluid compresses then the pore fluid and
causes a pressure front to be diffused into the formation. Consequently, initial mechanical
stability of the rock is largely disturbed as stresses change and increase around the wellbore
which brings the shale to failure.
The situation is even worse if we have fractured shale or weak bedding plane regions. The
shale’s stability is then destroyed as the fluid penetrates the formation. In this case, large blocks
of the fractured shale are more likely to fall into the hole. Thus, the drilling pipe is stuck which
requires pulling the whole equipment out of the hole or some workover interventions (fishing).
Figure 8: Stuck pipe (7)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In Norway Valhall field, this phenomenon is suspected to be one of the major causes of
shale instability. Preventive measures include use of effective sealing agents for fractures, e.g.
graded CaCO3, high viscosity for low shear rates, and lower ECD (6).
3.3 Optimizing mud design
The key to solve the shale drilling problem is inhibition. It aims at avoiding the interaction
that takes place between the shale and the drilling fluid whether by minimizing the filtrate
entrance or by encapsulating the shale so that it does not slough.
Taking the example of KCl PHPA polymer mud, the PHPA surrounds the clay while the K +
replaces the Ca++ in the formation which forces the shale layers to become closer encapsulating
the clay. Thus, it inhibits sloughing.
Swelling is significant when non-inhibitive mud is used with highly stiff reactive shale as shown
in Figure 9. Inhibitive mud design usually relies on stopping the filtrate from entering the shale.
Thus, some blocking agents could be added to the mud such as poly-acrylamides PHPA, asphalts,
gilsonites…
Figure 9: Inhibition effect on swelling shale (5)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inhibition could also be achieved using the capillary pressure. In the case of a water-wet
shale and an oil based mud or a synthetic based mud (using esters, poly-alpha-olefin and other
organic low-polar fluids) for example, the capillary pressure developed at oil/pore water contact
is large because the interfacial tension is large while the shale pore radius is small (6).
PC = 2γ cosθ/r
Where: PC is the capillary pressure
γ is the interfacial tension between the drilling fluid and the pore fluid
r is the shale pore radius
Since the capillary pressure is high, the drilling fluid cannot penetrate the pores. Hence, there is
no filtration and no pressure diffusion into the formation. Therefore, swelling does not occur and
its wellbore instability consequences are avoided.
However, it would be more efficient to choose the drilling mud according to the properties of
the formation being drilled in order to achieve the optimum inhibitive system. To this end, a
variety of tests could be made on samples from the formation in order to determine the
concentration of the chemical inhibitor to be optimized and their results would be the key to
make effective decisions (9).
1- X-ray diffraction analysis
The chemical interactions between the shale and the drilling fluid depend on the mineralogy of
the shale, particularly clay minerals. For example, shale with more Smectite (surface area - 750
m2/gm) has more affinity for water (adsorbs more water) than Illite (surface area - 80 m2/gm)
or Kaolinite (25 m2/gm).Thus, knowing the mineralogy of the clay-type formation may help
evaluate its reactivity and the X-ray diffraction is one of the methods to obtain a formation’s
mineral composition.
In this test, samples are bombarded by X-rays and the resulting reflections are measured in
order to determine the mineralogy of the core. The results are weight percentages of the mineral
constituents of the sample.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Example of mineralogy by XRD (9)
2- Cation exchange capacity test (CEC test)
The drilling fluid exchanges cations with shale. The CEC test therefore measures the quantity of
the individual cations of the clay that are replaced and left in the drilling fluid using inductive
coupled plasma (ICP) or atomic absorption spectroscopy (AA). The results of this test are
valuable because clays’ reactivity is not the same.
3- Linear swelling test (LSM)
A measure of the increase or decrease in length over time of a reconstituted or intact shale using
the linear-swell meter apparatus determines the hydration or dehydration of shale. The result is
the swelling rate of the sample.
4- Shale dispersion test or shale erosion test
It is a measure of the dispersive effect a mud can have on a specific type of shale and is
performed on core samples. Two screens are used: an 8-mm screen and a 4-mm screen. Equal
weights of the shale are put into the drilling fluid which is then hot rolled at 150°F (65°C) for 16
hours and screened through the 8-mm screen. The solids retained on the second screen (the 4-
mm) are washed, dried and weighed. Afterwards, the erosion percent is calculated.
5- Particle plugging test
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
26
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This test is realized using a particle-plugging apparatus. It is indeed a static inverted high
temperature high pressure filter press with a ceramic disk as a filter. The result is a measure of
the pore plugging ability of the drilling fluid. The output of this test is the initial spurt loss and
the total volume loss over 30 minutes.
6- Lubricity test
Using a lubricity meter, the friction coefficient is measured. This test is useful for torque and
drag consideration as they need to be reduced in lateral sections.
In addition to these tests, it is important to know the properties of drilled shale formation.
Therefore, the past compaction history and the current in situ stresses and temperature should
be taken into consideration. For example, affinity (thirst) for water of the shale at any depth
depends on compaction/loading history, in situ stresses, clay composition, and temperature.
They also dictate the shale porosity,permeability and the amount of water squeezed out (6).
4. Other well construction challenges
4.1 Hole cleaning
A shale gas “reservoir” is not a true one since there is no trap holding the hydrocarbons. It
is a continuous formation. Thus, to produce the maximum out of the shale, vertical drilling is not
enough. Horizontal drilling is a must in shale gas drilling. Yet, it is more challenging than the
conventional drilling.
The main issue drillers face is the poor hole cleaning while drilling a horizontal section.
Cuttings transport in horizontal wells is more difficult and critical than in vertical ones. Actually,
the vertical component of the flow velocity decreases and hence is no longer sufficient to carry
the cuttings to the surface (10). Besides, the gravity effect pulls the drill pipe to the low side of
the wellbore and consequently, the fluid flows on top of the drill pipe. As a result, a “cuttings
bed” is formed on the lower side of the wellbore (11).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If they are not removed, they can reduce the performance of the bit and ball the cutting element
which results in a slower drilling rate. Additionally, cuttings accumulation can lead to hole pack-
offs, stuck pipe, formation fracture and high torque and drag. Therefore, inadequate hole
cleaning costs time and money.
Figure 10: Poor hole cleaning (7)
Concerning drilling fluids, OBMs are preferred to WBMs when it comes to hole cleaning
since OBMs guarantee a better cuttings transport. This could be explained by their different
interactions with the cuttings. Actually, there is no contact between the cuttings and the water
when drilling with oil based drilling fluids. In contrast, the polymers present in WBMs connect
the drilling fluid to the cuttings which results in a “cuttings bed”.
In order to enhance the hole cleaning and avoid the problems caused by the cuttings
accumulation in the wellbore, sweeps are added to the drilling fluid (12).
“Drilling fluid “sweeps” are specific fluids specially formulated to transport cuttings that cannot
be removed by ordinary drilling fluid circulation.” (10)
Sweeps have a density higher than the drilling fluid in order to improve the cuttings transport.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
28
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
They are used in case normal fluid circulation is not efficient to remove the cuttings or cuttings
accumulated in sections where the hole cleaning is poor.
Sweeps are categorized into:
 High-viscosity
 High density
 Low viscosity
 Combination of two categories
 One category followed by the other
For horizontal drilling, the type of sweeps needed is the high-viscous one. When this sweep
reaches the bottomhole, it acts like a piston which pushes the cuttings away from the wellbore.
This results in a better hole cleaning.
4.2 Torque and drag
The prediction of friction pressure losses is among the main challenges of drilling fluids
design. Usually, empirical equations are used to estimate these losses but they depend on
various parameters related to pipe specifications, fluid behavior and flow regime.
In pressure calculations, the term friction factor is relevant. “It is a dimensionless coefficient that
accounts for the coefficient of friction along with a variety of other immeasurable characteristics
within a wellbore that will contribute to drag. “ (13)
For non-Newtonian pseudo-plastic fluids in laminar flow in straight tubing, Metzner and Reed
16
(1955) suggested the following equation in Blasius form to estimate the friction factor:f= .
𝑁𝑟𝑒𝑔
This equation has been experimentally proven to be applicable for flow of polymers, surfactants,
foams, bentonite fluids and drilling fluids in circular straight tubing. The friction factor is then
used to estimate the friction pressure losses.
In order to reduce these friction pressure losses, some drag reducing fluids are used. However,
drag reduction phenomenon is limited to turbulent flow regime and therefore no drag reduction
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
29
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
is seen in laminar flow. In fact, drag reducing fluids exhibit higher friction pressure losses under
laminar flow conditions due to the viscosity increase.
Normally, inside drill string in drilling operation, turbulent flow prevails while laminar flow may
be encountered in the annulus between drill string and casing/hole (14).
The challenge is even higher for horizontal sections. Actually, drilling high angle wells
faces the difficulty to remove the cuttings that tend to deposit on the lower part of the horizontal
annular section. The description of the complex solid-liquid flow taking place during this
removal, in which non-Newtonian drilling fluid is used, requires information about the
interactions among the different materials involved, namely, fluid, rock cuttings, rock formation
and pipe. These properties are necessary inputs for friction pressure losses calculations (15).
As the well paths drilled in shale plays tend to have challenging well geometries, this results in
significant levels of drag. The use of mud motors also exacerbates the challenge from a drag
perspective. If a three degree per 100 ft curve is desired, mud motors may build at a rate of 12
degrees per 100 ft for 25 ft and switch to rotary drilling where the motor ceases to build for the
next 75 ft. This results in doglegs that are much higher than the overall three degrees per
hundred of the curve.
The fluid density in the wellbore will have a significant impact on the torque and drag
calculations because it affects the buoyancy of the string (13).
5. Formation evaluation
Formation evaluation is performed to assess the quantity and producibility of fluids from a
reservoir. It is a very important step as it guides wellsite decisions, such as placement of
perforations, hydraulic fracture stages, reservoir development and production planning.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.1 OBM challenges in formation evaluation
Formation evaluation includes a combination of measurements and analyses of formation
and fluid properties through examination of formation cuttings or through the use of tools
integrated into the bottomhole assembly while drilling, or conveyed on wireline or drillpipe
after a borehole has been drilled (16).
As discussed in previous sections, OBM is more common than WBM in shale gas drilling as it has
shown a better performance. However, FE using electrical wireline logging in OBM is a real
challenge as some log measurements and eventually log interpretation may be affected. In fact,
OBM, being nonconductive, prevents log measurements using logging tools that require passing
current into the formation.
A typical logging suite comprises resistivity, sonic, neutron –density measurements and
borehole imaging.
A nonconductive OBM prevents resistivity measurements using low frequency electrode-type
tools, which require passing current through a conductive mud into the formation. Hence,
electromagnetic propagation tools have been introduced and developed to obtain resistivity in
formations drilled in non or slightly conductive fluids. The dielectric dispersion logging tool is
another electromagnetic device that has found application in this environment.
5.2 Dielectric dispersion logging
Dielectric dispersion logging uses electromagnetic (EM) propagation to measure the
permittivity and conductivity of the medium. These two parameters measure the sensitivity of
the medium to an EM excitation through the dielectric polarization constant (17). In addition,
dielectric dispersion analysis provides a very accurate micro-resistivity log in boreholes drilled
with OBM.
Similarly to WBM, dispersion processing in OBM uses permittivity and conductivity acquired at
multiple frequencies to determine water filled porosity, flushed zone resistivity, formation water
(Bean et al., 2013), and potentially the water tortuosity factor mn.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
31
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
However, even dielectric dispersion logging is more complex in nonconductive environments
such as OBMs. In fact, a large borehole signal comes back to the receivers. Thus, the borehole
effects are amplified in OBM-filled boreholes. To this end, further corrections need to be made to
avoid processing complexities even though the new dielectric dispersion tool is a pad tool,
designed to minimize the borehole signal contribution.
As the design contribution is not enough, job planning is required in order to determine the
optimal conditions for acquiring good dielectric dispersion logs in nonconductive mud.
Better measurements are obtained when the oil/water ratio, hole size, and hole rugosity are
suitably small and the formation resistivity is suitably large.
6. Environmental challenge
Environmental and health consideration is one of the most critical decisions in mud
selection. When it comes to shale gas drilling, complication rises from the use of the oil-based
mud type. In fact, efficiency and economics dictate the choice of this drilling fluid type. On the
other hand, its mud system cuttings treatment as well as its disposal strategy represents a real
problem.
Taking into account these safety issues, governments are more likely to impose strict regulations
concerning the use of systems which consume a lot of chemicals.
6.1 Chemicals toxicity
Since many shale plays are in environmentally sensitive or densely populated areas, the
traditional drilling fluid designs utilizing either strong chemical inhibition or conventional invert
emulsions in order to deal with the drilling issues encountered in shale drilling may not meet
future environmental requirements. The toxicity of conventional OBM comes mainly from the
high aromatic content. Besides, fluids containing chlorides are viewed as dangerous tothe
environment in many areas of land drilling. Thus, the challenge is to design water based fluids
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
32
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
because they are environmentally-friendly which can also meet the shale drilling demands in
terms of performance.
One of the new designs (Chenevert and Sharma Al-Bazali, T.M., Zhang, J., Chenevert, M.E.,
Sharma, M.M.:”Factors Controlling the Membrane Efficiency of Shales When Interacting with
Water-based and Oil-based Muds.” SPE 100735, the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 5-7 December 2006) uses a silica additive to enhance the
new WBM performance (18). This additive is usually nanoparticles, in this case SiO2 which plug
the fissures in the shale and prevent them from enlarging. Toxicity work was performed on both
the nanosilica additive itself and on the formulated new WBM which contains no chloride.
Table 3: Shrimp Toxicity results for Nanosilica and new WBM (18)
Table 3 gives toxicity values using the Gulf of Mexico mysidopsis bahia Shrimp test protocol.
These results show that both the nanosilica and the formulated WBM as a system show little
impact on toxicity. Combining this data with a formulation that contains no chlorides and has a
low electrical conductivity, the overall mud system should be able to be safely disposed of on
land with minimal environmental impact.
6.2 Cuttings disposal
The major drawback to the use of OBM is the environmental issues that could be
associated with the continuous phase (base oil; e.g. diesel) and the internal phase (brine) and
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
33
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
thus problems associated with its disposal. The use of OBM, particularly those prepared with
low-toxicity paraffinic oils results in the discharge of contaminated cuttings overboard. The
problem with the toxic OBM cuttings is that they are not biodegradable (19). Consequently, they
have cumulative impact on terrestrial, coastal and marine habitats if deposited offshore.
In fact, the cuttings generated using diesel OBM need special treatment before discharging them
in order to prevent contamination of water with free oil.
Because of these OBM drawbacks, many synthetic oil-based muds were developed. Most of them
passes the current toxicity tests that is why their drill cuttings are allowed to be discharged into
the marine environment. However, the problem with poor biodegradability remains and with
the stricter environmental regulations, some of the synthetic oil-based muds cannot be used in
some locations.
The new environmentally-friendly formulations tend to be based on fresh water which
would avoid the use of chlorides because of the issues with disposal on land. Yet, the problem
remains with the low performance of WBM in shale drilling.
Considering the environmental issues related to OBM and the low performance of WBM, a
vegetable oil-based fluid design was created (20). Vegetable oils actually have superior thermal
characteristics than OBM. For example, they have lower fire hazard risk compared to a mineral
oil during transportation and handling operations. Additionally, vegetable oils have higher
biodegradability and negligible toxicity characteristics due to their organic nature. To sum up,
the preliminary test results of vegetable oil-based muds show that it is possible to achieve the
technical characteristics of a mineral oil-based mud along with the environmental properties of
WBM.
7. Costs challenge
7.1 General costs
Reducing the costs is one of the main objectives that oil companies tend to focus on.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
34
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To have a better view of the drilling costs and particularly costs related to drilling fluids, the
example of Marcellus play is considered (21).
Table 4: Drilling costs for one well in Marcellus shale play (21)
Table 4 suggests for this example that the drilling fluid cost for the vertical section is 10000 $
and for the horizontal section it is 127800 $. This means that the drilling fluid costs for each well
is 137800 $, that is 7% of the total drilling costs.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
35
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7%
1Other drilling costs

2 Drilling fluid costs
93%
Figure 11: Drilling fluid costs
The high cost of the horizontal section compared to the vertical one is due to the use of OBM in
the horizontal section. Usually, the vertical section is drilled using WBM while the horizontal one
is drilled using OBM. However, OBMs and SBMs are more expensive. In fact, OBM costs depend
on base oil price and it is usually 10 to 15% more expensive than WBM but it reduces the drilling
days. But sometimes, the additional OBM cost is covered by the less drilling days compared to
WBM but this is not always the case.
In most cases, the drilling mud can be reused for a certain period of time before it begins to
break down and needs to be disposed of properly. For example after completing this well, the
mud is recycled and used for the next well drilling operation.
Additional costs are actually required for waste disposal as OBM is not environmental-friendly
which increases the drilling cost significantly. The average cost of OBM cuttings disposal may
range from 10$/bbl to 40$/bbl (Veil 1998). In this example, disposal of drill cuttings requires
about eighty truckloads, which cost about $250 each. One truckload contains 62,000 pound or
about 28 metric tons of material (Drilling supervisor, personal correspondence, March 25,
2011). As for the landfills charges, they vary per truckload for depositing the cuttings, depending
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
36
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
on the landfill used. These charges are impacted by special permissions that landfills need to
accept drill cuttings from the Marcellus Shale.
The drilling hazards mainly caused by the wellbore instability increases the drilling
costs. In fact, these problems result in a non-productive time where the drilling is stopped and
there is a work-over intervention. And by saying work-over, it is not only the time that is costing
money, but also the operations to fix the downhole problems increase the costs even more. As
discussed in the previous section (wellbore instability), these incidents are more likely to
happen while drilling through shale.
Besides, in overbalanced drilling and as the shale sucks the drilling fluid inside the
formation, an uncontrolled flow of whole mud into the formation takes place and the drilling
process witnesses a huge circulation loss, which is also a money loss. Thus, this lost circulation
problem is one of the main criteria to design an appropriate drilling fluid when drilling through
shale.
Figure12: Lost circulation (7)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
37
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.2 Decreasing costs by increasing ROP
Shale gas drilling faces another challenge when it comes to an economic point of view. As
unconventional drilling wells are relatively new, long term production throughout the well life
has not been tested yet. Thus, companies would not take the risk of high drilling costs.
To this end, the costs consideration is essential while deciding the drilling and production
strategies.
When focusing on reducing the drilling costs and particularly while designing the drilling fluid to
be used, the ultimate objective to reach would be reducing the number of drilling days, i.e.
drilling faster.
Supposing that the drilling fluid was designed to avoid the wellbore instability issues
that could arise and to avoid the lost circulation incident, the next step would be to enhance the
ROP in order to drill quickly.
The main problem with ROP is that it is difficult to predict, it is rather obtained while drilling.
Additionally, this parameter is controlled by numerous factors which are non-linear ones. This
means that an increase in one may lead to a decrease in the other (22).
Starting with the WOB for example, its increase usually increases the ROP. However, in some
cases it may lead to a faster bit wear and thus a reduction in ROP.
Another factor influencing the ROP is the differential pressure dictated by the mud weight. The
best case for the cuttings transport would be a zero differential pressure so that the formation’s
pressure lifts the cuttings up. This is why while adding solids to the drilling fluid in overbalanced
drilling, the ROP decreases.
Besides, as the water causes problems while drilling trough shale, including bit balling problems
for example, drilling fluids which are oil based are more used. Yet, this type of fluid has a high
per barrel cost as well as high waste disposal costs. Thus, the challenge here would be the
drilling days cost versus the drilling fluid costs.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
38
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Last but not least, the salinity of the drilling fluid plays a major role in the ROP enhancement in
shale. This enhancing mechanism is done through a chemical osmosis process. As the salinity of
the drilling fluid is higher than the clay water, a chemical potential gradient is present and an
equilibrium is reached by decreasing the salinity of the drilling fluids in order to obtain two
environments of equal salinity (23). The salinity reduction occurs by pulling the water from the
clay-rich rocks which strengthens the shale formation and boosts the ROP.
8. Case studies
8.1 Some applications of customized drilling fluids
Since the start of the shale gas drilling in the different US plays until nowadays, lessons have
been constantly learnt and drilling contractors have kept improving their drilling fluids by
customizing them according to the properties of the play’s shale being drilled in an attempt to
match the individual requirements of each play (24).
1- Fayetteville shale : Halliburton
The Fayetteville play is located on the Arkansas side of the Arkoma Basin. It extends from
approximately Fort Smith east to beyond Little Rock. The length of this play is nearly 50 miles
from north to south, its thickness is between 50 and 550 ft and its depth ranges from 1500 to
6500 ft.
OBM was initially used then operators switched to WBMs. Yet, they were not that efficient.
Actually, the use of WBMs resulted in high torque and drag, high low-gravity solids in the mud
and wellbore instability issues. Consequently, more non-productive time and more costs.
Thus, new attempts to a better inhibition matching the Fayetteville shale were made. It turned
out that the factor controlling the shale’s inhibition was not related to the water loss into the
formation, but rather to the natural micro-fractures existing in the shale. Actually, the illite
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
39
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
contained in this play’s shale tends to dissolve when exposed to water. The shales then
delaminate and cause the hole to cave in.
The drilling mud formulated by Halliburton as a solution to the Fayetteville shale drilling is a
WBM potassium silicate-treated fluid, the “SHALEDRIL F”. The success features of this
customized product are:
 It met Arkansas environmental regulations.
 The operators’ liquid mud wastes were reduced.
 Drilling rates were comparable to OBMs.
 Overall well costs were reduced because of faster drilling.
 On average, 30-80 ft/hr were achieved when sliding and 100-300 ft/hr while rotating.
Figure 13: Fayetteville/Morrowan shale after 24 hour freshwater vs. SHALEDRIL F soak (24)
2- Haynesville shale : Newpark
This play is located in Louisiana and East Texas extending into Arkansas. The natural gas
production occurs from rocks about two miles beneath northwestern Louisiana, southwestern
Arkansas and eastern Texas. While drilling, two shale beds were found and experts estimate that
Haynesville play holds 20 to 35 Tcf of gas.
OBM was also the choice for the horizontal sections drilling since the formation was
characterized by high bottom-hole temperatures, troublesome formation contaminants, high
pore pressure and wellbore lubricity.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
40
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The drilling fluid developed by Newpark to meet the Haynesville formation requirements is
called “Evolution”. It is a clay-free WBM which includes a synthetic viscosifier/suspension agent.
It also has environmentally sound lubricants as well as a low-end rheology modifier.
The efficiency features of “Evolution” are:
 It matches the environmental requirements since no diesel oil or salt is used.
 Transporting and disposing of mud and cuttings are not needed anymore as the fluid is
built on location.
 It is used throughout the build, turn and horizontal production interval to total depth.
Figure 14: “Evolution” lubricity performance (24)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
41
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Newpark’s customized WBM was also used in Red River Parish characterized by bottom-hole
temperatures exceeding 350°F and elevated chloride levels. “Evolution” made a record for the
operator as a lateral interval of 6100 ft was drilled in six days.
Figure 15: “Evolution” drilling days performance (24)
3- Marcellus shale : M-I SWACO
This play occurs beneath Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York. Marcellus wells are
highly deviated and composed of long shale sections.
Regulations in this area discouraged the use of a conventional diesel-based oil mud.
Thus, M-I SWACO formulated a low-cost WBM with good lubricity, low shear rate viscosity
provided by rheological modifiers such as DUO-VIS xanthan gum biopolymer and low fluid loss
provided by products such as Poly Pac UL and the new Poroseal additive. This WBM was
effective at a low cost. However, the high non-aqueous fluids’ lubricity was not reached.
Therefore, M-I SWACO developed another product called “the Megadril P” which is a synthetic-
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
42
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
based system created via the modification of the “Megadril” oil-based fluid. The formulated SBM
provides a one-drum emulsifying package that includes two liquid emulsifiers and one dry
emulsifier.
Using the “Megadril P”,drilling days required to drill 10000 ft were reduced to 19.9 days from
28.4 days when using WBM.
8.2 Case study: The Eagle Ford shale play
The Eagle Ford shale play is located in the Maverick basin in southwestern part of Texas. It
stretches to south of Dallas. Its width ranges from 40 to 50 miles, its length is over 400 miles and
its thickness has an average value of 250ft, it ranges between 100 and 400 ft near Dallas.
The majority of the production is located at a range of 6000 ft to 15000 ft TVD.
It is trapped between two formations: the Austin chalk and the Buda limestone (25).
Figure 16: Approximate lithology of Eagle Ford shale play formations (25)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
43
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 17: The trend in types of wells drilled in the Maverick basin over time (25)
Figure 17 shows an increase in vertical wells between 2003 and 2008. These wells were mainly
targeting the Edward formation (see Figure 16). Moving to the Eagle Ford shale play, horizontal
drilling took over in 2008.
The true vertical depths of the horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford shale play range between 5000
and15000 ft TVD whereas the lateral sections’ length varies from 4000 to 6000 ft.
When drilling the surface section, drilling days per 1000 ft is most likely 1.25 days. In all of the
wells, water-based spud mud was used to drill this section. Drilling through the surface section
formation usually does not cause much problems and typically about 2 to 4 days of drilling.
Nevertheless, seepage losses were reported in 35 wells and bit balling was an issue in some
occasions.
WBM is the most effective drilling fluid for this section. The one used is a low solids and non-
dispersed spud mud with a mud weight ranging between 8 and 10 lb/gal. Loss circulation
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
44
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
material (LCM) with a concentration of 20 lb/bbl were efficient in curing the seepage losses
(25). Additionally, high viscosity sweeps were pumped in almost 90% of the wells to obtain a
better hole cleaning and the bit balling was minimized by a chemical treatment of the mud.
Table 5: Drilling days per 1000 ft for the surface hole (25)
As for the intermediate and horizontal sections, an 8 ¾ -in hole section is usually drilled
from 2500-6000 ft depth to the target depth which ranges between 11000 and 18000 ft. The
mud weight in this section varies from 10 to 16 lb/gal. Out of 203 horizontal wells in total, 155
wells were drilled with OBM, 38 with WBM and 10 wells did not specify the mud type.
Figure 18: Distribution of drilling fluid types for the horizontal Eagle Ford wells (25)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
45
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In terms of drilling days, OBM has shown a better performance since the drilling days per 1000
ft was most likely equal to 1.47 days in an 8 ¾ _in vertical, curve and lateral section.
In a second typical well design using an 8 ½ -in curve and lateral section after the 8 ¾ -in
intermediate section, a much better performance with OBM was observed. In fact, compared to
the WBM, this section was drilled in 42% fewer days with OBM.
Table 6: Drilling days per 1000 ft for a well design using an 8 ¾ -inintermediate section and
an 8 ½ -in curve and lateral section (25)
The drilling issues were mainly witnessed in this section with the WBMs. A lot of wellbore
instability problems were encountered especially along the curve and lateral section including
tight spots, hole packoffs and stuck pipe. These issues resulted in an additional time spent on
reaming, hole enlargement as well as expensive fishing and sidetracking operations in some
cases. This was the main reason beyond the difference in drilling days between OBM and WBM.
Although these issues are present sometimes even with OBM, they are a lot more severe with
WBM.
Hole cleaning represented a real issue when drilling this section for both WBM and OBM.
Furthermore, an increased torque and drag was observed in many occasions especially in the
curve and lateral sections which is also an indicator of poor hole cleaning. In addition, three
wells experienced severe losses that led to losing expensive oil-based fluids downhole or to
running additional casing string.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
46
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table7: Wells with major wellbore instability issues (25)
Although all of these wellbore instability issues seem to be caused by swelling like in traditional
shale formations, laboratory tests have shown a different feature characterizing organic
shalewhich are the pay-zones in shale gas drilling.
A core sample from the Eagle Ford shale was obtained at Dewitt County and studied in a
laboratory. The X-ray diffraction test showed that Eagle Ford shale has high calcite and low clay
content.
The CEC data indicate that the sample has low reactivity with a CEC of 5.
Table 8: Eagle Ford mineralogy from X-ray results (25)
However, the sample has highly laminated structure with a significant amount of insoluble
organic matter.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
47
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The thin section analysis showed that it has pre-existing fractures which extend along the
bedding plane and the maximum fracture width is 60 microns.
Figure 19: Development and enlargement of micro-fractures after the shale sample was
exposed to WBM (25)
The results of this lab analysis indicates that organic shale plays are very different from
traditional reactive shale. Unlike the shale formations usually encountered in conventional
drilling, organic shale does not show the typical dispersion and swelling. Its shale-fluid
interaction mechanism is rather fracturing and delamination along the bedding planes. In fact, as
the drilling fluid penetrates the formation, it enlarges the pre-existing fractures in the shale and
propagates them mostly in a direction parallel to the bedding planes.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
48
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operators seem to be detecting the source of the problems and continue trying to design
new drilling fluids systems to improve the drilling performance. Some operators can drill in
much fewer days than industry average although their drilling fluid is slightly more expensive.
Some operators managed to drill around 12500-ft long wells using OBM in about 8 days while
the industry average is 18 days. Also using OBM, some other operator drilled a 14000-ft long
well in 15 days which is roughly 6 days below the industry average.
Figure 20: Drilling performance of different operators with OBM (25)
One particular WBM showed a good performance compared to other WBMs used in Eagle Ford.
It is a saturated salt drilling fluid that reached 30 to 35% fewer days than fresh water based
muds. The top performing operator drilled a 15000-ft long well in only 20 days using this salt-
saturated drilling fluid.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
49
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 21: Drilling performance of an operator with WBM (25)
Considering the high cost of OBM as well as its environmental issues, the preference to a WBM
has grown. Yet, the problem was the design of a WBM which could probably reach the
performance of an OBM and be compatible with Eagle Ford formations. One of the attempts to
create such drilling fluid was made by “Baker Hughes” by the mean of their product ”Terra-Max”.
As the main problem with the Eagle Ford shale is the enlargement of fissures, “Terra-Max” is
designed around a sealing compound that once contacts the connate water in the shale, the pH
drops and a material is precipitated and deposited in the shale matrix. Hence, the pore spaces
are bridged and no pressure can be transmitted into shale.
Another component creates a semi-permeable membrane at the near-wellbore region. It is
actually a deformable sealing polymer which acts like a check valve, allowing the transmission of
pressure in a single way.
The other design element is a clay suppressor. An amphoteric material is used to coat cuttings so
that they do not stick to each other or to metal.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
50
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This WBM system achieved an average ROP of 50 ft/hr which is comparable to OBM rates.
Besides, this better performance of a WBM was accompanied with a reduction in the drilling
costs.
Figure 22: Comparison of wells drilling costs when using Terra-Max Vs. other drilling fluids
(24)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
51
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Conclusions and Discussion
The term used in this thesis is “shale gas drilling” while the study does not concern only gas
but also tight oil. Yet, the focus of this work is the drilling fluid design which is not influenced by
the type of hydrocarbons sought. It is rather the shale that is being highlighted.
The variety in the drilling fluids types comes from the necessity to develop a drilling fluid
which meets the needs and specifications of different cases.
The huge changes that the global oil and gas industry is witnessing are influencing the
drilling fluids market as well since new products are required to meet the new drilling
challenges where the shale gas drilling represents one of the new experiences.
The shale revolution in the US makes the American plays the main target for drilling fluid
analysis as numerous wells were drilled and even more will be drilled. This enlarges the study
field with all the experience and the gathered information from previous wells.
Mechanical instability results in NPT (non-productive time) and loss of money. To this
end, predicting and avoiding the drilling hazards are among the prior tasks of drilling fluids
design.
As the lessons are learnt from previous wells, drilling muds are being optimized for the same
play in order to enhance the performance. One of the new ways to improve the drilling fluid is
the lab analysis performed on cores in order to analyze the performance of the drilling mud as
well as the characteristics of the shale formation.
The efficiency of this method suggests that this new core culture would be very useful for a
better development of the drilling fluids design especially for shale gas drilling as this practice is
still new and lacks the needed information.
The laboratory tests performed on cores actually help reduce the incidents and unwanted
surprises during drilling. The more is the information gathered from cores, the more customized
is the mud, the faster and safer are the drilling operations. Among the different tests, knowing
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
52
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the mineralogy of the shale formation is one of the most important ones as the type of minerals
defines the shale reactivity.
Drilling horizontal sections multiplies the chances of mechanical instability as the
problems of hole cleaning as well as the torque and drag are more intense in lateral sections. The
key to overcome these issues lies in the design of the drilling fluid as it is the efficient way to
control the bottom hole.
Drag reducing fluids are worth mentioning as they are used to reduce the friction factor while
drilling lateral sections. Yet, these fluids are performing only in turbulent flow. As the flow is
usually laminar in the annular space, their efficiency is questionable in the drill string and casing
annulus.
It very often occurs that due to a lack of experimental data, researchers use information from the
mining industry, i.e., data obtained from pipe flow of water and mineral grains. This practice,
naturally, is questionable, because those flows do differ considerably from the flow of drilled
cuttings and non-Newtonian fluids in an eccentric annulus (15).
The formation evaluation is one of the credits going in favor of WBM as OBM’s mud
logging has lower quality. Although it is possible to enhance the evaluation quality for OBMs, the
option of enhancing the other WBM properties to reach a better performance is also considered.
The main problem is the need to use OBM for their proved high performance. Yet, they are
expensive and their cuttings disposal presents additional costs.
Despite of the high performance of OBMs, their high costs as well as the growing
environmental regulations dictate the shifting to WBMs yet, accompanied with several
modifications to improve this safer type of mud’s performance. The case studies show that a
huge step was made in this direction as the results of these new customized drilling fluids have
been proven in the field.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
53
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. References
1. Montanuniversität Leoben. Basic drilling muds and solids control lecture notes. Drilling
engineering and well design. 2015.
2. Transparancy Market Research. Drilling Fluids Market (Oil-Based Fluids, Synthetic-Based
Fluids and Water-Based Fluids) for Oil and Gas (Offshore & Onshore) - Global Industry Analysis,
Size Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2012 - 2018. Transparency Market Research. [Online]
07 17, 2013. [Cited: 08 04, 2015.] http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/drilling-fluid-
market.html.
3. Qiang Wang, Xi Chen, Awadhesh N. Jha, Howard Rogers. Natural gas from shale formation –
The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in the United States.
4. Sieminski, Adam. Outlook for US shale oil and gas Argus America Crude Summit. Houston, TX :
EIA, 2014.
5. Reem Freij-Ayoub, CSIRO Petroleum. Wellbore Stability Issues in Shales or Hydrate Bearing
Sediments. Australia : s.n. SPE 120498-DL.
6. Lal, Manohar. Shale Stability: Drilling Fluid Interaction and Shale Strength. 1999. SPE 54356.
7. Montanuniversität Leoben. Wellbore Stability Theory and Industry Application lecture
notes. Advanced drilling engineering & well design. 2015.
8. H.Emadi and M.Y Soliman, Texas Tech University, R.Samuel, Halliburton and L.R Heinze,
R.B. Moghaddam and S. Hutchison, Texas Tech University. An Experimental Study of the
Swelling Properties of Unconventional Shale Oil Rock Samples Using both Water-Based and Oil-
Based Muds. 2014. SPE 170686.
9. Prahlad Yadav, Balraj A.Kosandar, Prakash B. Jadhav, Lawal G.Ishaq, Ajay Kumar
V.Addagalla and Al Rabah Mohammad, Baker Hughes. Customized High-performance, Water-
Based Mud for Unconventional Reservoir Drilling. 2015. SPE 172603.
10. S.G. Valluri, S.Z. Miska, R. Ahmed, M.Yu and N.E. Takach, U. of Tulsa. Experimental Study
of Effective Hole Cleaning Using "Sweeps" in Horizontal Wellbores. 2006. SPE 101220.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
54
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. A. Saasen, SPE, and G. Løklingholm, SPE, Statoil ASA. The Effect of Drilling Fluid
Rheological Properties on Hole Cleaning. 2002. SPE 74558.
12. Terry Hemphill, SPE, Halliburton and Juan Carlos Rojas, SPE, BP Exploration. Drilling
Fluid Sweeps: Teir Evaluation, Timing and Applications. 2002. SPE 77448.
13. John McCormick and David Wilcox, Halliburton. A Work Method to Analyzing Friction
Factors in Torque and Drag Modeling. Calgary, Alberta, Canada : s.n., 2013. SPE 167172.
14. Ahmed H.Ahmed Kamel, University of Alaska Fairbanks and Ali S.Shaqlaih, University
of North Texas at Dallas. Friction Pressure Losses of Fluids Flowing in Circular conduits. Texas,
USA : s.n., 2012. OTC 22884.
15. A, L. Martins, SPE, Petrobras, and C. H. M. S4, Petrobras, and A.M.F. Lourenço, Federal
Fluminense Lt., and L.G.M. Freire,Federal Fluminense U.,and W. Campos, SPE, Petrobras.
Experimental Determination of Interracial Friction Factor in Horizontal Drilling With a Bed of
Cuttings. Trinidad & Tobago : s.n., 1996. SPE 36075.
16. Oilfield Glossary. Schlumberger. [Online] 2015. [Cited: 09 09, 2015.]
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/f/formation_evaluation.aspx.
17. Azzan Al-Yaarubi, Schlumberger and Rifaat Al-Mjeni, Joachim Bildstein, Khaled Al-Ani,
and Maxim Mikhasev,. APPLICATIONS OF DIELECTRIC DISPERSION LOGGING IN OIL-BASED
MUD. 2014. SPWLA.
18. S. Young, J. Friedheim, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger company. ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY DRILLING FLUIDS FOR UNCONVENTIONAL SHALE. 2013. OMC.
19. P.I. Reid, BP IntI. Ltd., and R.C. Minton, SPE, BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. New
Water-Based Muds for Tertiary Shale Control. SPE 23077.
20. Md. Amanullah, SPE, CSIRO Petroleum. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Vegetable Oils
and Preliminary Test Results of Vegetable-Oil-Based Muds. 2005. SPE/IADC 97008.
21. University of Pittsburgh PITT BUSINESS. The Economic Impact of the Value Chain of a
Marcellus Shale Well. 2011.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
55
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
22. Alum Moses A. O, SPE, Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port Harcourt,
Nigeria, and Egbon, F, SPE and Ltd., Total E & P Nig. Semi-Analytical Models on the Effect of
Drilling Fluid properties on Rate of Penetration (ROP). 2011. SPE 150806.
23. Eric Van Oort and Muneeb Ahmad, The university of Texas at Austin, Reed Spencer,
Baker Hughes and Nick Legacy, DMK Drilling Fluids Ltd. ROP Enhancement in Shales trough
Osmotic Processes. 2015. SPE/IADC 173138-MS.
24. Diane Langley, Editorial Coordinator. Drilling mud solutions: Cracking the shale code.
Drilling Contractor. July/August, 2011.
25. Quanxin Guo, Lujun Ji, Vusal Rajabov, and James Friedheim, SPE, M-I SWACO, Christin
Portella, University of South Alabama and Rhonna Wu, Cornell University. Shale Gas
Drilling Experience and Lessons Learned from Eagle Ford. 2012. SPE 155542.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
56

Drilling Fluid Selection For Shale Gas Drilling

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Drilling Fluid Selection For Shale Gas Drilling

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Drilling Fluid Selection for

Shale Gas Drilling

A thesis submitted to the Chair of Drilling and Completion Engineering

International Study Program in Petroleum Engineering

I dedicate this thesis to all the

engineering students who may need it

to help them have an idea about the shale gas drilling

material used in this thesis has been given full acknowledgement.

Name: Sirine Trichili Date: 22/10/2015

and safety standards.

different case studies presented in this thesis.

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Michael

studies or in my life in general.

2.1 Drilling fluids: Objectives and types ....................................................................................... 12

2.2 Drilling fluids: Global market.................................................................................................. 13

2.3 US shale gas ........................................................................................................................... 14

3. Wellbore stability challenge ............................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Chemistry of shale interactions with drilling fluids ................................................................ 16

3.2 Mechanical instability ............................................................................................................ 18

3.3 Optimizing mud design .......................................................................................................... 24

4. Other well construction challenges .............................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Hole cleaning ......................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Torque and drag .................................................................................................................... 29

5. Formation evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 OBM challenges in formation evaluation ............................................................................... 31

5.2 Dielectric dispersion logging .................................................................................................. 31

6. Environmental challenge .................................................................................................................................. 32

6.1 Chemicals toxicity .................................................................................................................. 32

6.2 Cuttings disposal .................................................................................................................... 33

7. Costs challenge ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

7.1 General costs ......................................................................................................................... 34

7.2 Decreasing costs by increasing ROP....................................................................................... 38

8.1 Some applications of customized drilling fluids ..................................................................... 39

8.2 Case study: The Eagle Ford shale play ................................................................................... 43

9. Conclusions and Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 52

10. References ............................................................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 1: Map of US shale gas plays ........................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 2: Mobile formation problem: Shale swelling ...................................................................................... 19

Figure 8: Stuck pipe ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 9: Inhibition effect on swelling shale ....................................................................................................... 24

Figure 10: Poor hole cleaning ................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 11: Drilling fluid costs ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure12: Lost circulation .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 13: Fayetteville/Morrowan shale after 24 hour freshwater vs. SHALEDRIL F

Figure 14: “Evolution” lubricity performance .................................................................................................... 41

Figure 15: “Evolution” drilling days performance ........................................................................................... 42

exposed to WBM ............................................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 20: Drilling performance of different operators with OBM ........................................................... 49

Figure 21: Drilling performance of an operator with WBM ......................................................................... 50

Table 1: Technically recoverable resources by shale play ............................................................................ 16

Table 2: Example of mineralogy by XRD .............................................................................................................. 26

and an 8 ½ -in curve and lateral section .............................................................................................................. 46

Table 7: Wells with major wellbore instability issues .................................................................................... 47

Table 8: Eagle Ford mineralogy from X-ray results ......................................................................................... 47

Nomenclature and Abbreviations

WBM: Water-based Mud

OBM: Oil-based Mud

SBM: Synthetic-based Mud

CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity

ECD: Equivalent Circulating Density

PHPA: Partially Hydrated Polyacrylate

ROP: Rate of Penetration