SPE 84314
Field Verification: Invert Mud Performance from Water-Based Mud in Gulf of Mexico
Shelf
Aaron L.Klein, BP America; Catalin Aldea, James R. Bruton, Williams R. Dobbs, M-I L.L.C.
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 – 8 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A uniquely designed water-based mud (WBM) was used in
two shelf areas of the Gulf of Mexico to drill highly reactive
gumbo sections. The drilling performance and inhibition in
these shale intervals resembled that of synthetic-based muds
(SBM) previously used in offset wells. Owing to new
environmental regulations, obtaining the drilling performance
characteristics of a synthetic-based fluid and the stability of a
water-based fluid is a high priority for Gulf of Mexico
operators.
A special characteristic of this fluid is its ability to deliver
SBM-like shale inhibition without using any salts, through an
ideal combination of a polyamine shale inhibitor, a polymeric
encapsulator and an anti-accretion additive.
This paper presents field data comparing the drilling
performance and the inhibition in gumbo shale sections
between the new WBM and previously used SBM. With
instantaneous rates of penetration up to 85% higher than
synthetic-based fluids used in similar well sections, the
average time required to drill identical intervals was reduced
dramatically. No accretion or bit balling was noted on
bottomhole assemblies during bit runs, and the cuttings drilled
were well encapsulated and protected from hydration.
Economic savings were realized by reducing the drilling time
and by not requiring the essential waste management
equipment and engineering associated with SBM cuttings
discharge. Furthermore, the new high-performance WBM was
easily prepared at the wellsite using seawater, which also
translated into cost savings by reducing the volumes handled
by the workboats.
These field applications demonstrate that this uniquely
designed water-based fluid can effectively replace invert-
emulsion fluids in many highly reactive shale sections without
sacrificing drilling performance or increasing environmental
risk.
Introduction
Drilling the “gumbo” shale sections in the Gulf of Mexico has
always been challenging. When a WBM is used to drill this
section, problems such as severe bit balling, stuck pipe and
plugging of the flow line with large pieces of soft shale are not
uncommon. The severe washout associated with the lack of
shale inhibition may also lead to ineffective cementing of the
casing strings.
In the past five years, the drilling problems encountered
prompted more and more operators to drill these sections with
synthetic-based drilling fluids. However, recent changes in
environmental regulations imposes a limit of 6.9% oil-
retention-on-cuttings for olefin SBM and 9.4% for paraffin
SBM. This translates into using cuttings dryers before
discharging the cuttings into the ocean, and also running daily
compliance testing and reporting. The hole size of the
intermediate gumbo sections may vary from 14 to 17-in.,
generating a significant amount of cuttings to be processed.
A highly inhibitive water-based mud (HIWBM) was designed
to provide near-SBM drilling performance without the limiting
aspects of environmental compliance.1-5 The fluid has a very
simple formulation and it can be mixed in freshwater,
seawater or NaCl brine up to saturation. A seawater-based
HIWBM was used in two shelf applications in the Gulf of
Mexico with very good drilling performance and wellbore
stability, comparable to offset wells drilled with SBM.
Previous Inhibitive Fluids
a. While potassium-based fluids provide good shale
inhibition, due to the K+ ions fitting perfectly
between the clay platelets, they tend to promote
dispersion of certain shales. Another limitation of
these fluids is related to the environmental impact of
the potassium-sourcing salts. In the Gulf of Mexico,
maximum KCl concentration is approximately 3%
w/w, to satisfy the toxicity requirements. Potassium-
based fluids have been enhanced by introducing an
encapsulating polymer (PHPA).
b. Silicate fluids provide very good shale inhibition and
wellbore stability by forming a true shale membrane.
However, the limits of these fluids include lubricity,
solids and hardness contamination and interaction
with some drilling / logging tools. There also are
engineering issues related to high depletion rates of
the silicate in young shale formations.
2 SPE 84314
c. Glycol fluids provide inhibition by plugging the shale
micro pores or fractures. They require the use of a
salt and may also promote dispersion in certain
formations.
d. Amine-based fluids generate hydration inhibition
similar to K+ fluids by intercalation between the clay
platelets. Early amine inhibitors only provided
limited shale inhibition, were solids sensitive and
also were restricted by mud weight, temperature and
toxicity.
New-Generation Water-Based Fluid Development
The new HIWBM was designed to provide a three-pronged
shale inhibition, with specific products to inhibit shale
hydration, shale dispersion and accretion or bit balling. The
system consists of five newly developed synergistic products.
A brief description of these components follows:
a) Shale Hydration Suppressant – a multi-functional
complex amine-based molecule, this component is
completely water-soluble and exhibits low marine
toxicity. The compound is compatible with other
common drilling fluid additives used in WBM and
exhibits a pH-buffering effect that eliminates the use
of any caustic material. The unique molecular
structure of this compound has been shown by
molecular modeling techniques to provide a perfect
fit between clay platelets. This mechanism tends to
collapse the clays hydrated structure, thereby greatly
reducing the clay’s tendency to imbibe water from an
aqueous environment. The compound is equally
stable in fresh water and in high salinity and hardness
environments.
b) Shale Dispersion Suppressant – a low-molecular-
weight co-polymer, this component is fully water
soluble and exhibits good biodegradability and low
marine toxicity. The polymeric additive is designed
to have a molecular weight and charge density that
impart superior encapsulation by limiting water
penetration into the clays. The low molecular weight
of the polymer allows significant flexibility in a wide
range of mud densities and mud formulations. The
cationic charge provides improved clay surface
binding of the polymer and tolerance to high salinity
and hardness. The compound has the ability to
control both swelling and dispersion of water-
sensitive clays without having any significant adverse
effects on rheological properties
c) Accretion Suppressant – this component is a unique
blend of surfactants and lubricants designed to coat
drill cuttings and metal surfaces, thus reducing the
accretion tendency of hydrated solids on the surface
of metals and the agglomeration tendency of hydrated
cuttings with each other. This blended component is
designed to be compatible with highly solids-laden
(high mud weight) fluids. The component exhibits
low marine toxicity. The accretion suppressant agent
aids in preventing any buildup of drill solids below
the bit, allowing the cutters good contact with new
formation for improved rates of penetration. As a
secondary functionality, the component also lowers
torque and drag by reducing the coefficient of
friction.
d) Rheology Modifier – Xanthan gum (XCD) was
chosen as the optimum rheology control agent for the
fluid, based on the high efficiency of the polymer,
and its tolerance to salinity and hardness. The
presence of the hydration suppressant stabilizes the
Xanthan gum in solution, giving optimum rheological
control at temperatures up to 150°C (300°F). The
elevated low-shear viscosity and efficient carrying
capacity of the polymer optimizes rheological control
to improve fluid performance in extended reach and
deepwater environments.
e) Filtration Controller – An ultra-low viscosity, PAC
material was chosen as the optimal filtration-control
agent for the system. This polymer is stable in low to
high salinities, and at high hardness levels. The low
viscosity contribution of the polymer allows for
optimal filtration control, to be achieved even at high
solids loading (high mud weights).
Each of these components was selected after being compared
with a multitude of similar products to ensure the optimum
performance, and improve the flexibility of the overall system
design. The resulting HIWBM performs in a wide variety of
base fluids, over a wide density and temperature range.
Laboratory Testing
To verify the applicability of the fluid and fine-tune the final
formulation, various fluid and shale inhibition tests are
conducted before any new application. The typical inhibition
tests are dispersion, accretion and bulk hardness.4 For this
application the testing included a comparison between a 20%
NaCl and a chloride- free HIWBM. Because of the presence of
NaCl this test was required to quantify the additional shale
inhibition. Another series of inhibition tests was conducted to
compare similar HIWBM, SBM and a typical Salt/PHPA
WBM. This test also analyzed the effect of time exposure on
shale integrity. The test results are presented in Tables 1-4 and
Fig. 1-4. The laboratory tests demonstrated there is minimum
difference between the shale inhibition of a freshwater and a
20% NaCl HIWBM. It was also shown that the inhibitive
character of this fluid is very similar to that of a SBM and yet
superior to a typical WBM such as Salt/PHPA. The shale
integrity did not change between 24 and 96 hours of exposure
to the drilling fluids.
Environmental Compliance in the Outer Continental Shelf
of Gulf of Mexico
Early in the summer of 2001, a new permit for offshore
discharge of SBM was applied by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).6 The permit requirements focus on
two issues: stock limitations on base fluids and discharge
limitations on cuttings. The base fluids used in SBM have to
pass three different tests: sediment toxicity, anaerobic
biodegradation and content of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). The SBM cuttings have to meet several
requirements such as marine toxicity (LC50), sediment
toxicity, formation oil and retention of oil on cuttings (ROC).
These requirements translate into additional testing and
SPE 84314
reporting to certify the discharge compliance, as well as
additional equipment to ensure ROC values in the acceptable
range.
On the other hand, WBM cuttings can be discharged if the
marine toxicity limits are acceptable, without any additional
equipment or testing. Another major difference is that, unlike
SBM, WBM may if necessary be discharged as whole fluid..
Owing to the good shale inhibition and the environmental
advantages of a WBM, the new water-based drilling fluid was
selected for two offshore shelf applications. The interval
drilled was the intermediate section, characterized by highly
reactive, “gumbo” shales with few sand intercalations.
Drilling Performance Comparison of HIWBM and SBM
Several factors determine a typical selection of a SBM to drill
the intermediate sections of deep shelf wells:
• Excellent ROP in conjunction with polycrystalline
diamond compact (PDC) bits
• Excellent shale and wellbore stability
• Good fluid-loss control and very low potential for
differential sticking
• Very good lubricity and very low corrosion potential
On the other hand, a SBM has distinct disadvantages
when compared to a WBM, including:
• Low fracture propagation pressure and poor fracture
healing ability
• Strong dependence of rheology on pressure and
temperature
• High gas solubility and difficult kick detection and
handling
• High fluid cost when significant losses are
encountered
• Compliance requirements instituted by the new
environmental regulations.
Based on the encouraging drilling performance seen in
the deepwater applications, HIWBM was recommended for
two shelf applications in the West Cameron and Matagorda
Island areas.
West Cameron Well. This was the first application where the
HIWBM was formulated with seawater as base fluid and also
where the fluid was mixed at the rig site. The 9.1 – 12.8-lb/gal
drilling fluid exhibited high stability and performed well from
both inhibition and maintenance standpoints. The gumbo
section was drilled at high ROPs, with good hole cleaning and
practically no accretion on the bit or BHA.
The mud was prepared at the rig, using three 500-bbl pits,
which were equalized and filled with seawater to the desired
level. A shear hopper was used to mix all the sack material
and a shearing unit was used to transfer fluids from one pit to
another. These two units were instrumental in ensuring a quick
and efficient mixing. The hopper and the shearing unit had the
suction and the discharge opposed to each other, to complete
the mixing cycle. After the first 1300-bbl volume was
prepared, it was weighted up to 9.1 lb/gal and pumped to the
workboat for storage. Another 1300-bbl volume was prepared
similarly. It required less than 12 hours to mix the entire 2600
bbl of fluid necessary for the displacement. Initial mud
properties are presented in Table 5. The logistics of mud
3
preparation were simplified by using sea water and not
requiring transportation of NaCl in dry or brine form.
The displacement was done after drilling shoe track and
performing a leak off test with the existing spud mud. Drilling
began using a 9½-in. mud motor and a MWD tool, with a 16-
in. rock bit
Hole cleaning was considered a key issue, due to an
existing rathole and the large size annulus (5-in. drill pipe in
16-in. open hole). Prior to drilling this section, optimum
rheology was calculated using a complex hydraulics software
program. The rheology modifier concentration was increased
to 2.0 lb/bbl to achieve 6 and 3-rpm readings of at least 13/11.
Good hole cleaning was seen even at ROP above 75 ft/hr.
After the low-shear viscosity stabilized and the ROP reduced
slightly, the XCD additions were also reduced.
After drilling began, the cuttings had very good integrity
at the shale shakers. Reactive gumbo cuttings were seen at the
shakers in firm and big pieces. The highest MBT value was 10
lb/bbl after the displacement, with some contribution from the
wall cake incorporated into the fluid from the 22-in. rat hole.
The MBT remained below 7 lb/bbl throughout the highly
reactive gumbo section, down to approximately 6900 ft. To
compensate for the inhibitors consumed while drilling, higher
concentrations were used in the dilution pre-mix (i.e. 3 – 3.5
lb/bbl dispersion inhibitor and 4% hydration inhibitor), Minor
additions into the system were also made when necessary.
The 6521-ft interval was drilled in 20 days, with some delays
due to tool and non fluid-related failures. The drilling
performance and shale inhibition of the HIWBM approached
what is typically seen when drilling with SBM. The first PDC
bit run confirmed the potential for high ROP, with good
cuttings integrity and no bit balling. No accretion was noted
on any of the bit trips (Fig. 5) and the hole remained very
stable during the long time exposure to the drilling fluid.
From an environmental standpoint, the fluid samples had very
low toxicity, with LC50 values in excess of 400,000 ppm.
As previously stated, this interval mainly comprised
reactive shale and sand intercalations. Seepage losses were
encountered when drilling some of the sandy portions of the
interval. A treatment of 0.75-lb/bbl sulfonated asphalt and 2-
lb/bbl CaCO3 fine was applied to the active system. Periodic
sweeps containing a mixture of 5-lb/bbl fiber material and 20-
lb/bbl CaCO3 medium and fine were also pumped. This
combination of a system treatment and a sweep program
reduced the seepage losses to a minimum while drilling this
16-in. interval. Dynamic fluid loss testing performed on 5-
micron ceramic disks confirmed the effectiveness of this
treatment (Fig. 6).
Matagorda Island Well. The HIWBM was used on the 14¾-
in. interval from 4990 to 10905 ft. The fluid was mixed at the
rig site using seawater. This was the first application of the
new mud in conjunction with a rotary steerable tool. These
tools allow rotating the drillstring while drilling directionally
and their performance requires an inhibitive fluid for good
wellbore stability and gauged hole.
The new fluid eliminated all the gumbo-related problems
and exhibited drilling performance equivalent or even superior
to the synthetic-based drilling fluids used in offset wells. The
average ROP on the HIWBM interval was 50 ft/hr, 85%
4 SPE 84314
higher than in an equivalent offset interval drilled with SBM,
where the average ROP was 27ft/hr.
No accretion on the bit or the bottomhole assembly was
noted when tripping out of hole. Quality of the cuttings
resembled that of SBM cuttings (well defined and hard
inside).
Cost savings were generated by not using the waste
management equipment and engineering. The operator also
realized cost savings by reducing the drilling time for this
interval. The 14.75-in. section from 4990 ft to 10905 HIWBM
section was drilled in 10 days, averaging 591.5 ft/day. On an
offset well, a similar 14.75-in. section from 5500 ft to 12138 ft
SBM section was drilled in 15 days, averaging 442.5 ft/day.
A comparison of the average penetration rates of the
HIWBM and SBM for the two areas analyzed here is
presented in Table 6 and Fig. 7.
Conclusions
1. An innovative water-based drilling fluid was used
with good results in the Gulf of Mexico shelf to drill
highly reactive gumbo sections. The intervals drilled
were the intermediate 16-in. and 14.75-in.
respectively.
2. The new HIWBM was prepared with seawater and
provided SBM-like shale inhibition without using
any salts, through an ideal combination of a
polyamine shale inhibitor, a polymeric encapsulator,
and an anti-accretion additive.
3. The average rates of penetration were either
comparable, or as much as 85% higher, than those of
the synthetic-based fluids used in similar well
sections.
4. No accretion or bit balling was noted on bottomhole
assemblies during bit runs, and the cuttings drilled
were well encapsulated and protected from hydration.
5. Seepage losses were addressed with good results by a
combination of a system treatment and an aggressive
sweep program.
6. The use of the HIWBM reduced the well cost by not
requiring the essential waste management equipment
and engineering associated with SBM cuttings
discharge.
7. The described field applications demonstrated that
the HIWBM provided an effective alternative to
SBM in drilling highly reactive shale sections
without sacrificing drilling performance and reducing
environmental risk.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Mary Dimataris for preparing this
manuscript. We would also like to thank to mud engineers
Eric Deshotel and Roderick Huelin for their valuable input
during the two field applications.
References
1. Friedheim, J. and Sartor, G. “WBM with Triple-Inhibition
Mechanism Demonstrates Near-OBM Performance in
Deepwater Gulf of Mexico,” 6th Offshore Mediterranean
Conference, Ravenna, Italy, Mar 26-28, 2003.
2. Lee, J., Sartor, G., Green, T. and Dick, M. “New Fluid System
Good in Deep Water,” American Oil & Gas Reporter (August
2002) 92.
3. Friedheim, J. and Sartor, G. “New Water-Base Drilling Fluid
Makes Mark in GOM,” Drilling Contractor (May/June 2002)
32.
4. Patel, A., Stamatakis, E., Young, S. and Cliffe, S. “Designing
for the Future – A Review of the Design, Development and
Testing of a Novel, Inhibitive Water-Based Drilling Fluid,”
AADE-02-DFWM-HO-33, 2002 AADE Annual Technology
Conference Drilling & Completion Fluids and Waste
Management, Houston, April 2-3, 2002.
5. Patel, A., Stamatakis, E., Friedheim, J.E. and Davis, E. “Highly
Inhibitive Water-Based Fluid System Provides Superior
Chemical Stabilization of Reactive Shale Formations,” AADE
01-NC-HO-55, 2001 AADE National Drilling Conference
‘Drilling Technology – The Next 100 Years,’ Houston, Mar 27-
29, 2001.
6. Friedheim, J.E., Candler, J.E. and Rabke, S.P. “New Testing
Protocols and Regulatory Guidelines to Promote Further
Development of Synthetic-Based Fluid Technology,” SPE
71435, SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, Sept
30 – Oct 3, 2001.
SPE 84314 5

Table 1 – Fluid Formulations for Inhibition Testing – 12 lb/gal

Product HIWBM HIWBM PHPA
Freshwater 20% NaCl Freshwater
Water (bbl) 0.79 0.75 0.84
NaCl (lb/bbl) 67.18
PHPA (lb/bbl) 1.0
Fluid Loss Agent (lb/bbl) 2.0 2.0 3.0
Xanthan (lb/bbl) 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shale Inhibitor (lb/bbl) 10.5 10.5
Dispersion Suppressant (lb/bbl) 2.0 2.0
Accretion Supressant (lb/bbl) 8.9 8.9 8.9
Barite 201.5 142.34 200.66

Table 2 – Rheology at 120ºF, pH and Fluid Loss of Fluids Used in Inhibition Tests
600/300 200/100 6/3 Gels PV/YP pH API-FL
HIAF-Freshwater 68/43 32/20 6/4 5/6 25/18 8.8 4.6 mL
HIAF-20% NaCl 73/44 31/21 6/5 6/8 29/15 8.8 3.0 mL
PHPA-Freshwater 94/71 57/38 11/8 9/11 23/48 9.0 4.8 mL

Table 3 – Fluid Formulations for the Long-Term Inhibition Study

SBM
I.O 1618 (bbl) 0.586
Organophilic Clay (lb/bbl) 4
Lime (lb/bbl) 3
Emulsifier (lb/bbl) 7
Water(bbl) 0.1921
CaCl2 (95%) (lb/bbl) 24
Barite (lb/bbl) 235.64
HIWBM
Water (bbl) 0.681
NaCl (lb/bbl) 59.8
Shale Inhibitor (lb/bbl) 10.5
Dispersion Suppressant (lb/bbl) 2
Filtration Controller (lb/bbl) 2
XCD (lb/bbl) 0.75
Accretion Suppressant (lb/bbl) 8.9
Barite (lb/bbl) 264.1
Salt/PHPA System
Water (bbl) 0.783
PHPA Dry (lb/bbl) 1
Low-Molecular-Weight PHPA (lb/bbl) 1
M-I Gel (lb/bbl) 10
XCD (lb/bbl) 1
Filtration Controller (lb/bbl) 1
Accretion Suppressant (lb/bbl) 8.9
NaCl (lb/bbl) 68.7
Barite (lb/bbl) 138.4
6 SPE 84314

Table 4 - Rheology at 120°F of Heat-Aged Fluids Used in Long-Term Inhibition Study

600/300 200/100 6/3 Gels PV/YP pH
HIWBM 100/64 50/34 9/7 8/10 36/28 8.9 – 9.2
SBM 61/37 28/20 9/8 9/10 24/13 –
PHPA 87/66 57/35 10/7 9/10 21/45 8.9 – 9.2

Table 5 – Initial Properties of the HIWBM Mixed

on the West Cameron Application
Batch #1 Batch #2
Mud Weight (lb/gal) 9.1 9.1
Funnel Viscosity 65@54ºF 74@60ºF
Rheo. Temp. (ºF) 120 120
600 42 46
300 28 32
200 23 23
100 16 16
6 5 7
3 4 6
PV 14 14
YP 14 18
Gels 4/5/4 6/7/7
API Fluid Loss 4.6 4.4
Pm 5.8 5.7
Pf/Mf 4.5/5.3 4.7/5.7
Cl– 17,000 17,000
Hardness 1520 1320

Table 6 – ROP Comparison of HIWBM and SBM in the West Cameron

and Matagorda Island Areas
Min. ROP Max. ROP Avg. ROP
(ft/hr) (ft/hr) (ft/hr)
HIWBM West Cameron 11.6 50.4 23.5
SBM West Cameron 14.6 49.2 26.9
SWBM Matagorda Island 31.4 59.4 50.4
HIWBM Matagorda Island 7.3 41.1 27.4
SPE 84314 7

400

PHPA
350
HIWBM-20%NaCl
HIWBM-Freshwater
300

250
Torque (inch-lbs

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. Turns

Fig. 1 - Bulk Hardness Tests for PHPA, HIWBM with 20% NaCl and Freshwater HIWBM.

100

90

80

70

60
% Accretion

50

40

30
21.8
20

10
4.3 3.7

0
PHPA HIWBM-20%NaCl HIWBM-Freshwater

Fig. 2 - Accretion Tests for PHPA, HIWBM with 20% NaCl and Freshwater HIWBM.
8 SPE 84314

400

HIWBM
350 SBM
Salt/PHPA

300

250
Torque (inch/lbs)

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. Turns

Fig. 3 - Bulk Hardness Tests for HIWBM, SBM and Salt PHPA Fluids after 24 hours.

400

HIWBM
350 SBM
Salt/PHPA

300
Torque (inch/lbs

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. Turns

Fig. 4 - Bulk Hardness Tests for HIWBM, SBM and Salt PHPA Fluids after 96 hours.
SPE 84314 9

Fig. 5 – Zero Accretion on Bit Trips at 6905 ft, after Drilling Gumbo Shales.

HTHP fluid loss at 250F with 5-micron disk

40
35
Fluid loss, mls

30
25 Actual Fluid Loss
20
Extrapolated Fluid
15
Loss
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
Time, hrs

Fig. 6 – Dynamic Fluid Loss Test of the HIWBM Used on West Cameron.
10 SPE 84314

60 Min. ROP (ft/hr)

Max. ROP (ft/hr)

50 Avg. ROP (ft/hr)

40
ROP, ft/hr

30

20

10

nd
d
on
on

la
la
er
er

Is

Is
am
am

da
a
tC
C

rd

or
go
t

es
es

ag
a
W
W

at
at

M
M
M
BM

SB

BM
BM
IW

SW

IW
H

Fig. 7 –Daily Minimum, Maximum and Average ROP of HIWBM vs. SBM (West Cameron and Matagorda Island).