IADC/SPE 87130

Drilling Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening

M.S. Aston, M.W. Alberty, M.R. McLean, H.J. de Jong and K. Armagost, BP Exploration

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 24 March 2004. Elimination of casing strings
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following An alternative option to expandable casing
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). This paper describes development work at BP to produce a
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or drilling fluid that effectively strengthens the wellbore whilst
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by drilling. The fluid can also be used in pill form. The effect is
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper achieved by changing the stress state rather than by altering
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
the strength of the rock itself. Such a system will have great
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The utility if it can be engineered in a practical way.
proposal 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., Previous studies have investigated wellbore strengthening
fax 01-972-952-9435.
with a view to preventing mud losses. One method1 suggests
using temperature changes to alter the stress state around the
Abstract
wellbore. Mud heaters can be used to heat the circulating fluid
There is a clear advantage to drilling if we could strengthen
and increase near-wellbore stresses, thereby giving a
the wellbore and drill at higher mud weights without losing
strengthening effect. However, this method might be difficult
fluid. A major prize is accessing difficult reserves in depleted
to control and would not be suitable in wells with an already-
reservoirs. Another application is in deep water drilling where
high bottom hole temperature. The 1992 paper by Fuh2
the drilling window between pore pressure and fracture
discusses the concept of adding granular particles to the mud
gradient is often narrow. This paper describes the approach
to seal fractures and prevent losses; it is stated this could only
taken by BP to produce a designer mud which effectively
work in permeable rocks where leak-off into the rock allows a
increases fracture resistance whilst drilling, and which can be
cake to build in the fracture. Other work has discussed the
applied in both shale and sandstone. It works by forming a
concept of using fractures to cause stress changes in the rock
stress cage using particle bridging and an ultra-low fluid loss
introducing the idea that fractures could increase the hoop
mud system. The theory is described and laboratory data show
stress around the wellbore. This is discussed by Morita and
how the fluid system was developed. Field data are shown
Messenger3,4. Alberty and McLean5 discuss how mud cake
which quantify the increase in fracture resistance and
deposition in the fractures can affect near-wellbore stresses,
demonstrate the value of the system. Logistics issues are
and they give field examples suggesting large increases in
discussed.
fracture resistance. Recent papers by Sweatman et al6,7 have
taken this concept and developed chemical treatments which
Introduction
could be squeezed into fractures to prop them open and seal
Mud losses are a frequent problem encountered during
them.
drilling. Induced losses occur when the mud weight, required
for well control and to maintain a stable wellbore, exceeds the
Theoretical Approach
fracture resistance of the formations. A particular challenge is
In developing the above ideas, the approach we have taken is
the case of depleted reservoirs. There is a drop in pore
to actually allow small fractures to form in the wellbore wall,
pressure as the reserves decline, which weakens hydrocarbon-
and to hold them open using bridging particles near the
bearing rocks, but neighbouring or inter-bedded low
fracture opening. The bridge must have a low permeability
permeability rocks (shales) may maintain their pore pressure.
that can provide pressure isolation. Provided the induced
This can make the drilling of certain depleted zones virtually
fracture is bridged at or close to the wellbore wall this method
impossible - the mud weight required to support the shale
creates an increased hoop stress around the wellbore, which
exceeds the fracture resistance of the sands and silts. The
we refer to as a stress cage effect. The aim is to be able to
potential prize is clear if we could devise a way to strengthen
achieve this continuously during drilling by adding
the weak zones and thereby access these difficult reserves. In
appropriate materials to the mud system, to produce what we
fact, the value of wellbore strengthening is much more wide-
have termed a designer mud. The concept is illustrated in
ranging and includes the following applications/benefits:
Figure 1.
Access to additional reserves (depleted zones) If we assume a radially generated fracture then the pressure
Reduced mud losses in deepwater drilling required to hold open the fracture is found to be a function of
Loss avoidance when running casing or cementing the fracture dimensions and the formation stiffness. The
Improved well control equation is given below:
2 IADC/SPE 87130
w E
P =
(1 )
2
8 R
P is the excess pressure within the fracture (where excess
is the pressure over and above the minimum principal in
situ stress)
w is the fracture width
R is the fracture radius
E is Youngs modulus of the formation
is Poissons ratio of the formation
The above equation which is found in fracture
stimulation theory - is based on a fluid keeping the fracture
open, whereas the intention of the designer mud is to use
particles bridged at or near to the fracture mouth to hold open
the fracture. Hence, the fluid excess pressure is replaced by a
mechanical stress imparted by the bridging solids. Because of
the differences between the way and extent that fluid and
bridging particles keep open a fracture, the equation above for
radial fracturing cannot be used directly to calculate the
expected wellbore strengthening effect from stress caging.
However, the equation is still useful to help understand the
relative importance of parameters.
We have performed a sensitivity analysis using this
equation and some useful observations are:
Increases in effective wellbore strength of around
1000psi could be achieved with fracture widths as
small as 1mm, and a fracture radius of the order of
1metre.
A short fracture, or at least a short propped length, is
best. If the propped length of fracture is long, it will
be easier to re-open and would need to be wider to
achieve the same strength increase.
Softer rocks (low Youngs modulus) will require
larger fracture widths
The equation is not very sensitive to Poissons ratio
This simple analysis suggests short fractures are best and
so it is necessary to arrest the fracture growth very quickly as
the fracture starts to form. This means high concentrations of
bridging additives will be preferable. The additives need to be
physically strong enough to resist the closure stresses, and
sized to bridge near the fracture mouth to produce a near-
wellbore stress cage. Assuming an opening width of 1mm, the
particle size distribution in the fluid would need to range from
the colloidal clays up to values approaching 1mm, to give a
smooth particle size distribution and produce a low
permeability bridge. Maintaining these particles creates some
engineering challenges as discussed later. Now, considering
the two cases of permeable and non-permeable (low
permeability) rocks there are some important differences to
consider:
Permeable rocks. In this case (Figure 2a) the particle bridge
need not be perfect because fluid that passes through the
bridge will leak away from within the fracture into the rock
matrix. Thus, there will be no pressure build-up in the fracture
and the fracture cannot propagate. Even if a mud cake forms
initially on the walls of the fracture, the fracture could grow by
a small amount to expose new surface to relieve the pressure.
A further effect is the pressure decline initially behind the
bridge when the fracture first forms. This will raise the
effective stress across the fracture and cause closure behind
the bridge. This should provide a stable foundation for the
bridge. From these arguments, achieving a stress cage effect in
permeable rocks should be straightforward.
Note if the mud contains particles that are too small to
bridge near the fracture mouth, the fracture could still become
sealed by the build-up of a mud cake inside. The
sealing/bridging will be slower and the fracture length might
extend too far to form a useful stress cage effect. This is borne
out by the mud losses observed in the field with ordinary
muds. Interestingly, though, fracture gradients observed in
sands are usually higher than predicted by theoretical models5.
This seems to be related to the presence of the mud solids and
the deposition of mud cake.
Low-permeability rocks. Figure 2b illustrates that in low
permeability rocks such as shale the bridge will need to have
an extremely low permeability to prevent pressure transfer into
the fracture and fracture propagation. For this reason we have
studied ways to produce mud cakes with an extremely low
fluid loss what we term ultra-low fluid loss muds. Aston et
al8 have reviewed fluid loss mechanisms in oil muds and
described ways to achieve this. HTHP fluid loss values as low
as 0.1ml are achievable. This idea of using ultra-low fluid loss
mud to achieve wellbore strengthening is the subject of a
patent application. It should have a particular benefit in
strengthening shale. The approach would also work in higher
permeability rocks, and to date we have seen no downside in
running ultra-low fluid loss mud in permeable formations.
Indeed, an advantage is the reduced risk of differential
sticking.
The driving force for bridge formation across a shale
fracture needs to be considered carefully. The initial rush of
fluid into the fracture when it forms will deposit the bridging
solids at the fracture mouth, but a pressure difference across
the bridge is required to hold it in place. Pressure decay into
the shale matrix behind the bridge will be minimal especially
with oil muds, which have an added sealing action due to
interfacial tension (capillary pressure) effects. In water-based
muds, there may be a slow pressure leak-off into the shale, but
the challenge would then be to produce water based mud with
an ultra-low fluid loss so that the bridge at the fracture mouth
has a sufficiently low permeability. Despite these concerns
and challenges, the initial field tests in shale (described later)
have been very encouraging.
In the modelling work we have assumed a symmetrical
elliptical fracture with a wing on each side of the wellbore.
This seems a reasonable starting point. If many narrow
localised fractures formed around the wellbore to produce the
stress cage, they would require only very small bridging
particles to seal them. As reported earlier, field evidence
suggests we do need the larger bridging solids.
Laboratory Testing
Fracture sealing experiments were carried out at FracTech
Laboratories, using specially designed test equipment. In a
previous joint industry project carried out elsewhere, BP and
IADC/SPE 87130
other participants had investigated fracture sealing using
hollow cylinder rock samples, fractured by drilling fluid
pressure. The study produced useful results and pointed
towards calcium carbonate and graphitic blends as one of the
best ways to reduce mud losses into fractures. However, the
fracture width was not controllable in these tests. For tests on
the designer mud, we designed a fixed fracture device. The
test cell is shown in Figure 3.
The cell is assembled with spacers defining the fracture
width, which is typically 1mm wide at the mouth and tapers to
zero at the tip for a closed fracture, or tapers to 0.5mm for
open fractures. Sandstone is used to form the fracture faces.
The height of the fracture is 38mm and the fracture depth
(distance from the mouth to the tip) is 178mm. The cell is
bolted together and placed in a reaction frame; there are take-
off points on each side of the cell to collect mud filtrate that
passes through the rock faces. Pressures within the fracture are
monitored by pressure transducers at the inlet (P1), middle
point (P2) and exit of the fracture (P3). A valve at the exit can
be closed so that the pressure build-up can be measured. The
cell can be heated.
The system is vacuum saturated and brine is flowed
through the fracture, through all tubes, and through the leak
lines to back pressure regulators and to a mass balance. The
mud sample is poured into a stirred injection pot and heated as
required. The injection pot is pressurised using a gas supply
and the mud is injected into the cell when required by opening
a valve. After the initial injection of mud, the injection
pressure can be increased stepwise or continuously whilst
monitoring leak-off into the rock and pressure changes within
the fracture.
Many tests were performed under a range of conditions to
investigate the following variables:
Rock permeability
Mud type (OBM versus WBM)
Temperature
Mud injection pressure
Mud weight
Bridging additive type
Bridging additive concentration
Bridging additive size distribution
Mud fluid loss value
Fracture width
The study was not exhaustive, but some important
observations were made by running selected tests.
Figure 4 shows a typical pressure trace for a 160mD
permeability rock. In this test the fracture tapered from 1mm
to zero and the exit valve was closed at the start, so the driving
force for bridge formation was leak-off into the rock. A
1.16SG water based polymer mud was used with ordinary
fluid loss control. The mud had an API fluid loss of 4.2mls at
ambient temperature, and contained calcium carbonate
bridging solids with no graphitic particles. The lab test was
successful and a bridge was formed near the fracture mouth
with no pressure build-up in the fracture. The bridge remained
intact up to the maximum injection pressure of 1900 psi. The
figure shows the fluid leak-off into the rock matrix. There is
an initial spurt and then small surges each time the injection
3
pressure is increased; the continuous leak-off rate is very low
but nonetheless is sufficient to match the flow rate of any fluid
leaking through the bridge. Tests with oil muds showed
similar success on 160mD rock and it is concluded a stress
cage should be formed relatively easily in rocks of medium to
high permeability say 160mD or greater. This would seem to
be achievable using calcium carbonates and standard muds.
In tests on lower permeability rock, the combination of
standard oil based or water based mud and carbonate bridging
particles failed to isolate pressure. This was the case even if
the fracture tip was open initially to increase flow into the
fracture and initiate bridge formation. To achieve success in
oil mud it was necessary to use an ultra-low fluid loss mud
(HTHP fluid loss < 2mls) and a combination of calcium
carbonate and graphitic material. The tests were then
successful see Figure 5. By optimising the system, pressures
of up to 4000psi were sustained in some tests.
The ultimate challenge is to achieve pressure isolation
across a fracture in zero permeability rock (simulating the case
of a shale). This was investigated using sandstone that had
been sealed with resin to give virtually zero permeability. In
this case it was essential for the fracture tip to be open at the
start to allow fluid to flow into the fracture achieved by
opening the exit valve for 3 minutes at first mud injection.
Figure 6 shows a remarkable result using the ultra-low fluid
loss mud and carbonate/graphitic blend. Pressure isolation is
obtained at 300psi injection pressure (within the accuracy of
the experiment). The bridge is disturbed and there is some
pressure transfer at 900psi injection pressure, and then full
pressure transfer at 1900psi injection. This may be slight
leakage rather than total failure of the bridge.
A rough estimate of the permeability of the bridge can be
made using Darcys law, as described elsewhere8. We have
calculated bridge permeabilities as low as 10 nanoDarcy using
ultra-low fluid loss oil muds, and this is comparable to shale
permeability. With such a low permeability bridge the actual
flow rate of fluid into the fracture is extremely small once the
bridge has formed. If pressure builds in the fracture, the
fracture would then only need to grow by a very small amount
to relieve the pressure. Thus it may suffice to achieve a bridge
that has a very low permeability, rather than zero
permeability. This idea needs full confirmation but is borne
out by our initial field tests discussed below.
An important factor in practice will be to form a stable
bridge that is flexible enough to withstand the fluctuations in
pressure and rock movements. The graphitic solid could be a
factor here, providing a reason why this is probably best
included for bridging even in the more permeable rocks.
Additional observations from the experimental studies:
The fluid should contain a smooth/continuous range
of particle sizes ranging from clay size (around 1
micron) to the required bridging width.
Ideal packing theory (the d rule) is useful for
selecting the optimum size distribution in low weight
muds.
High particle concentrations are best and at least
15ppb of bridging mix is required for an efficient seal
4 IADC/SPE 87130
Fracture sealing has been successful at up to 300F
and 4000psi overbalance pressure in some tests.
Mud weight is not a critical factor in forming a
successful bridge.
Further studies are required to investigate alternative
bridging materials, wider fractures etc.
Engineering Considerations
To run the designer mud requires non-standard drilling
practices. In the full application, the circulating system must
be loaded with large solids and the size distribution
maintained through continuous additions of the large bridging
material. Optimally, at least 30ppb of bridging solids must be
kept in the system. The issues arising from this are:
Coarse shaker screens (e.g. 30 mesh) must be used to avoid
stripping out the particles on each circulation.
The mud rheology will climb due to the build-up of drilled
solids (low gravity solids). Attrition of the bridging solids
will also contribute.
Similarly, the mud weight will gradually increase
Concerns about the erosion of mud pumps
Concerns about blocking downhole equipment
Formation damage from particles, especially in naturally-
fractured reservoirs.
Economics
The above effectively provides a list of reasons for not
running a designer mud, and represents the challenges that
must be overcome to achieve the benefits of the system. These
should not be underestimated, but with planning, the system
can be successfully run as shown in the examples given below.
Field experience to date has shown that interval lengths of at
least 400m can be drilled with acceptable levels of system
maintenance, and with the rheology and mud weight staying
well controlled. Mud pump erosion has not been an issue with
marble grade calcium carbonates blended with graphitic
material, and logging has been unaffected. Formation damage
requires further study, although in many cases wellbore
strengthening is needed only across the non-pay intervals. In
terms of economics our experience is that the technique is very
cost effective, not least because of the costs of additional rig
time if lost circulation is left to occur.
The engineering can be greatly simplified by using the
designer mud in pill form. This is feasible if the section can
first be drilled at a mud weight below the fracture gradient,
and then subsequently strengthened by squeezing a pill of the
mud across the weak zone. This amounts to performing an FIT
(formation integrity test). The action of doing this will form a
stress cage, which should remain in place when the pressure is
reduced at the end of the FIT. It is then possible to drill ahead
with a standard mud, having strengthened the formation. This
technique has been used in one of the examples given below.
Field Experience
Example 1 Extended Leak Off Test. The aim of this test
was to see if the designer mud could raise fracture resistance
in a shale formation. The well was a vertical well in the
Arkoma basin, USA. After setting the 9 5/8 casing at 3012ft
and performing a casing integrity test, 10ft of 8 hole was
drilled using regular oil mud to expose the shale formation.
After circulating clean, an extended leak off test was
performed using the regular mud. The mud had a relatively
high HTHP fluid loss (9mls at 250F), a mud weight of 9.0ppg
and was free of bridging solids. Figure 7 shows the extended
leak-off pressure curve. The formation fractures at about
1200psi, at which point the pump was stopped to minimise
fracture growth. The pressure stabilised at 800psi, which is the
propagation pressure of the fracture determined by the far-
field stress state. This curve closely followed the casing
integrity test curve until breakdown, indicating there were no
leaks at the shoe. After bleeding back the pressure to
hydrostatic, the test was repeated (curve not shown) and the
pressure simply plateaued at 800psi with no indication of a
breakdown pressure; the fracture was simply re-opening. After
pressure bleed-off, the open hole was displaced to a pill of the
designer mud. The pill was engineered with an ultra-low
HTHP fluid loss (0.45 mls) and contained 80 ppb bridging
solids ranging from 10 to 800 microns size. A
graphitic/calcium carbonate blend was used. The second curve
in Figure 7 shows the leak-off test using the pill. The earlier
fracture is now sealed and the pressure climbs to over 2000psi
before the seal breaks down. This is an increase of about
850psi breakdown pressure compared to the original state,
equivalent to 5.4ppg mud weight. This is a very significant
result, especially in shale. We then attempted to re-pressurise a
second time with the designer mud (curve not shown) but the
fracture failed to re-seal and the pressure plateaued again at
about 800psi. This is presumably because the fracture had
become too large or too deep for the particles to bridge, or the
earlier bridging particles had become wedged too far down the
fracture. This shows it is important to use the designer mud
concept as a preventative treatment and to plan the
engineering accordingly. It is not reliable to wait for a lost
circulation event, which creates a large potentially propped
fracture, and then expect to form a stress cage.
Example 2 Schiehallion North Sea Well 204/20-C21z
(Slot CW19). In this application, a 110m section of sand/shale
formation was drilled above sand fracture gradient using
designer mud. The section was an 8 sidetrack, between the
9 5/8 casing and the 7 liner point illustrated in Figure. 8.
In the original well, 2 well control incidents occurred while
drilling thin hydrocarbon sand stringers above the targeted
reservoirs sands. They were below seismic resolution and,
therefore, not mappable. The second well control incident
resulted in a downhole loss/gain situation and the well was
temporarily suspended to evaluate the findings and plan a
sidetrack. Increasing the mud weight from 1.20SG to 1.47SG
to kill the well had resulted in mud losses.
Figure 8 shows the sand/silt and shale fracture gradients
and the overburden pressure line. The shaded region is the
difference between the sand/silt and the shale gradients. This
shaded area represents where sand stress cages are required if
mud weight (ECD) is expected to be in this range. The section
of interest ranges from about 1890 1980m TVDBRT depth.
To prevent an influx, a minimum mud weight of 1.54 SG was
required to drill the high-pressure sand stringers. An oil-based
mud was used containing 15ppb calcium carbonate and 15ppb
IADC/SPE 87130
graphitic material. The carbonate size ranged from 50 to 400
microns and the graphitic from about 160 to 600 microns. The
mud fluid loss was engineered at < 1ml/30 mins HTHP @
200F. Large shaker screens (38 mesh) were installed to keep
the particles in the system.
The section was started at 1.51 SG mud weight using the
designer mud. The planned LOT just below the 9 5/8 shoe
was stopped at an EMW of 2.1SG with no leak-off observed.
The formation type at this point is shale. As Figure 8 shows,
the test pressure exceeds the sand/silt and shale fracture
gradients, and is even above overburden. The previous FIT
data point (regular mud system) is also shown. On drilling
ahead, the mud weight was raised to 1.54 SG prior to entering
the high pressure sand stringers. There were no mud losses in
adjacent formations, despite this mud weight being above the
sand/silt fracture gradient.
A major contributor to this success was drilling the section
with controlled drilling parameters to allow the building of the
stress cages, and by using HPHT drilling practices due to the
small trip margin and no riser margin. The large particles were
kept in the mud system by maintenance additions. Mud
density and rheology were carefully monitored. There was no
damage to rig equipment or mud pumps from the bridging
particles
A 7 liner was run and cemented with no losses or gains.
The liner surge was minimised by optimising running speed
and using a Delayed Opening Ball Seat. Cementation of the
liner was planned carefully to minimise ECD. After setting
the 7 liner, the 6 hole was drilled through the reservoir
sands using a much lower mud weight of 1.2SG..
Example 3 Schiehallion North Sea Well 204/20-C22 (Slot
CW18). The planned trajectory of this well had a 12
section consisting of a 2548m main bore, a 680m plug back
and a 291m sidetrack to allow for a sufficient sump for the
perforation guns and produced sand, for completing the well
with 9 5/8 casing. The main bore intersects 4 channel sands,
all with varying pressures ranging from 700psi depletion to an
overpressure of 950psi.
The primary challenge was to overcome the potential over-
pressured channel sands, which required mud weight and kick
tolerance greater than the fracture gradient of the sand/silt
formations above. The procedure was to perform an initial FIT
at the shoe and then drill above the over-pressured zone
(interval length 1159m) with oil based mud at 1.25SG mud
weight. Then, to perform a wiper trip back to the 13 3/8 shoe
and to strengthen the entire exposed formations by spotting a
pill of designer mud across the open hole.
A 600bbl pill of 1.31SG oil based mud was used and an
open hole FIT to an EMW of 1.60SG was performed to create
the stress cage (see Figure 9). The pill, containing calcium
carbonate and graphite, was similar to the designer mud used
in Example 2. The open hole FIT demonstrated the kick
tolerance integrity of the formation and the ability to weight
up the mud system in case the highest expected overpressure
was encountered in the channel sands. The drilling re-
commenced to well TD with 1.31SG mud weight.
This method proved very successful and avoided the need
to drill ahead with a full designer mud over long intervals. As
a precaution some additions of calcium carbonate bridging
5
solids were made whilst drilling to minimise differential
sticking and provide some continuous sealing. Large mesh
shaker screens were run when possible to maintain the
bridging solids in the mud. As a result of the stress cage
technique, there was no requirement to set 9 casing high
and drill 8 hole and the well was effectively completing 10
days ahead of plan.
Conclusions
The theory of using stress cages to strengthen
wellbores has been developed and demonstrated
successfully in the field.
Short fractures are deliberately allowed to form at the
wellbore wall and these are propped and sealed
continuously using a designer mud.
Laboratory tests and initial field trials have shown
remarkable results even in low permeability rocks
(shale).
Engineering and logistics need to be carefully
managed to apply this continuously in the field, but
the system can be conveniently applied in pill form in
some cases.
The application of this technique is far-ranging, for
example avoiding mud losses whilst cementing.
There will be limits to this technique which still need
to be fully identified. Work on alternative sealing
additives, and formation damage studies would be
beneficial.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank FracTech Laboratories for
engineering the fracture test equipment and performing the
laboratory sealing tests. We would also like to thank the many
people in BP and the Service Companies who have assisted
with the development work, field trials and field
implementation. These include Dominic Cumberlege, Bruce
Swanson, Randy Ditmore, Bryan Daire, Kyle White, Ryan
Main, Mick Shutt, Paul McKee, Helen Bonsall, Pete Mihalik,
Bryan Chambers, Juan Carlos Rojas and Jon Tunbridge.
References
1. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A. (1981). Changes in earth stresses
around a wellbore caused by radially symmetrical pressure and
temperature gradients. SPE 10080.
2. Fuh, G-F., Morita, N. Boyd, P.A. and McGoffin, S.J. (1992). A
new approach to preventing lost circulation while drilling. SPE
24599.
3. Morita, N., Black, A.D., and Fuh, G-F. (1990). Theory of lost
circulation pressure. SPE 20409.
4. Messenger, J.U. Lost Circulation, Pennwell Publishing Company,
Tulsa, Oklahoma (1981)
5. Alberty, M.W. and McLean, M.R. (2001). Fracture gradients in
depleted reservoirs drilling wells in late reservoir life.
SPE/IADC 67740.
6. Sweatman, R., Scott, K., Heathman, J. (2001). Formation pressure
integrity treatments optimize drilling and completion of HTHP
production hole sections. SPE 68946.
7. Scott, K., Sweatman, R. and Heathman, J. (2001) Treatments
increase pressure integrity in HTHP wells. AADE 01-NC-HO-42
8. Aston, M., Mihalik, P. and Tunbridge, J., and Clarke, S. (2002).
Towards zero fluid loss OBM. SPE 77446.
IADC/SPE 87130 6

Hoop stress increase s

to form stress cage a fracture forms
bridging particles
and mud cake seal
quickly at the fracture
Pt Pp
mouth
PPmm Well
WellBore
Bore
adjacent rock is put
into compression by
Bridge to prop open the fracture to form a
and seal the fracture
stress cage - the
wellbore is effectively
Pm = Mud pressure
strengthened
For stability Pt ~ P p < Pm
Pt = Pressure at fracture tip
Pp = Pore pressure

Figure 1: Stress cage concept to enhance wellbore strength.

In permeable formations such as sands the bridge can be In shales the bridge must be virtually impermeable
imperfect as pressure can leak away into the rock: to avoid fracture propagation:

Impermeable/no leak off

Figure 2a: Fracture sealing in permeable rocks Figure 2b: Fracture sealing in low-permeability rocks

3000psi prime
(from gas bottle)
Leak-Off Fluid Cooler
Safety Valve

Back Pressure
(set to 0psi for this test)
Gas Pressure Back Pressure Regulator
Intensifier System
(7000psi)
Reinforced Load Frame
PTFE Spacers
Digital
Heated Stirred Injection Pot Leak-Off Lines Balance
(93oC) Top & Bottom
Line
Line Safety Valve
Heaters

Mud Collection
Heater Controller Dump Valve Vessel
& Pot

Pressure Transducers
Front, Middle & Back of Cell
(connected to digital displays) Digital Displays

Figure 3: The Designer Mud test cell and equipment

IADC/SPE 87130 7

2000 3.0 2000

1800 1800
2.5
1600 1600

Cumulative Leak Off (cm 3/10 inch2)

1400 1400
Injection Pressures (psi)

2.0

InjectionPressure (psi)
1200 1200

1000 1.5 1000

800 800
Pressure remains low in fracture
1mm 0.5mm 0mm 1.0
600 600

400 400
P1 P2 P3 0.5
200 200

0 0.0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (minutes) Time (minutes)

Injection Pressure P1 P2 P3 Cumulative Leak Off Injection P1 P2 P3

Figure 4: Laboratory test using 160mD rock; test at 60C, fracture Figure 5: Designer oil mud laboratory test using 0.3mD rock. Test at 60C
tapering from 1mm to zero; KCl/polymer mud 1.16SG with API fracture tapering from 1mm to zero; 60/40 o/w ratio, 1.13SG mud with
fluid loss 4.2mls. Mud contains 50ppb barite, 5ppb simulated HTHP fluid loss of 0.2 mls at 60C. Mud contains 50ppb barite, 5ppb
drill solids (clay), 47ppb calcium carbonate A and 10ppb calcium sim. drill solids (clay), 15ppb graphitic, 18ppb calcium carbonate A
carbonate B. and 18ppb calcium carbonate B.

2000

1800

1600
d10 D50 D90
Additive
1400 (microns) (microns) (microns)
Injection Pressure (psi)

Carbonate A 80 154 280

1200

1000

800 Carbonate B 384 542 716

600
Graphitic 160 360 660
400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (minutes)

Injection Pressure P1, P2, P3

Figure 6: Designer oil mud laboratory test using zero permeability (sealed) rock.
Test at 60C, fracture tapering from 1mm to 0.5mm; oil mud as in Fig. 5.
8 IADC/SPE 87130

2500

2000

Surface Pressure (psi)

1500
Base Mud
Designer Mud
1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20
time (mins)

Figure 7: Extended leak off field test in shale using designer mud

Drilling Example Schiehallion CW19 Drilling Example Schiehallion CW18

Depth (m TVDBRT) Depth (m TVDBRT)
0 0

Mud Weight

400 Sand/Silt FG 400 Sand/Silt FG

Overburden Overburden
20
800 800
Shale FG Shale FG

Stress Cage Territory Stress Cage Territory

1200 1200

FIT
13 3/8 Pore Pressure
Pore Pressure
1600 1600
Mud Weight Open Hole FIT
FIT

2000 2000

9 5/8

2400 2400
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore Pressure & Fracture Gradient (s.g.) Pore Pressure & Fracture Gradient (s.g.)

Figure 8: Designer mud field test 1 in North Sea Figure 9: Designer mud field test 2 in North Sea