An Analytical Approach to Removing Mud

Solids
One of the prime functions of a rig circulation system is to remove the drilled solids
from the mud before recirculation, since all solids adversely affect drilling rate. A
major problem in reducing drilling costs has been the inability to remove these solids
effectively. Since very fine solids, such as clays, are exceedingly detrimental to
drilling rate, they are kept at a minimum by extending them. This is done by using
additives that make a smaller amount function like a larger amount. Low-solids mud
contain bentonite (which is added to obtain desired mud properties) and the drilled
solids that are produced while properties) and the drilled solids that are produced
while making hole; these solids may also contain bentonitic material.
Removing solids by dumping the mud into the reserve pit, or sump, is always costly
and inefficient. The solids removal problem must be approached systematically. First,
the given flow stream is analyzed to determine particle size, then the coarse particles
are separated by screening; the next-size particles, in the medium or intermediate
range, are removed by mechanical means; and the fine particles can be moved by
flocculated settling particles can be moved by flocculated settling. In this way, process
efficiency is assured.
The present API designation of particle size is of limited use. In terms of volume
percent, it defines as sand the particles larger than 74 microns, and as silt those
smaller than 74 microns. This has become known as an abrasive test because it is
based on the assumption that all solids larger than 74 microns are abrasive sand.
However, this assumption is not necessarily valid. Some of the particles larger than 74
microns are nonabrasive, and some of those in the silt category are abrasive. Another
breakdown for classifying solids is needed, since solids in a mud system can be from
less than I micron to more than 3,000 microns. In addition, the solids content should
be expressed as a weight percent rather than a volume percent. As noted above, the
percent size classification percent. As noted above, the percent size classification does
not indicate the nature of the particles definitively enough; however, it is still the only
method of classification being used.
Table 1 is a suggested particle-size classification. In a weighted system, the same
particle-size classification can be used by considering two specific gravities: 4.2 for
barite, and 2.65 for the remainder of the solids. The suggested classification deals
with size rather than type of solids since this is the most important criterion. Table 2
compares various common particle sizes to illustrate how small the ultrafine particle
sizes to illustrate how small the ultrafine and colloidal mud solids are in relation to
other common particles.
Field Method for Determining Particle Size

After deciding how to classify solids according to size, the next step is to develop a
procedure to measure particle sizes in the field. Although several laboratory methods
are available they are complicated, not necessarily accurate, and require too much
time to obtain results.
We propose a field method for measuring solids sizes on the job. It is simple and easy
to use and should improve the efficiency of solids control. There will be some
sacrifice in accuracy; however, only the relative weight percentage distribution of the
particles is needed to allow constructive steps to remove these particles.
To choose the proper equipment, it is necessary to analyze the particle-size
distribution in the mud at a given time. The return stream from each piece of
equipment should be analyzed to determine what solids remains and require
processing in the next stage of solids control. By using this procedure on a well being
drilled, information can be obtained to select the proper solids control equipment for
the next well in the area.
The procedure developed for ascertaining the amount of each particle size down to 44
microns, using vibrating screen (shale shaker screen), is outline in the appendix. The
series of shaker screens to use in the analysis was chosen after testing many mud
samples. It assures that plugging will not occur. The circular Tyler screens and
vibrator are capable of handling viscous mud and mud of high solids content without
difficulty, although water dilution is sometimes necessary. Certain of the screens may
be removed or added to the series as necessary. Nomographs have been developed for
field use to provide a qualified measurement of the total solids (Figure 2, 3, and 5).
The amount of particles smaller than 2 microns can be obtained by a methylene blue
test, and the ultrafine category can thus be determined by subtraction. The mehylene
blue test (API RP 13B, Sec.9.32) measures the cation exchange capacity of drilling
mud solids, which is basically a measure of the equivalent benonite content of a mud.
It is known that these particles are mostly less than 2 microns in size; thus the
methylene blue test gives a quantitative determination of this particle size. The test is
not completely accurate since some larger particles will exhibit a limited cation
exchange capacity, and some particle below 2 microns will not exhibit a cation
exchange capacity. However, it is accurate enough for field measurements.
Table 3 is an example analysis of a desander discharge stream to further illustrate how
the particle-size distribution can be obtained. It is important to dry the solids before
weighing them because of the weight of water involved and because the adsorbed film
of water attracts particles. Adsorbed water can cause an error as great as 40 percent if
the solids are small and therefore expose a large surface area. In the example given,
there was 27 percent adsorbed water by weight.
When the weight percent of each particle-size category has been determined, it is
helpful to plot the distribution to obtain a profile of particle size. The most
satisfactory representation is one developed by darling, an example of which is show
in Fig 1.
Material Balance Technique

Once he particular size range of the mud solids is known, the next step is to select the
equipment to handle these solids and to determine how efficiently each piece of
equipment is operating. To do this, a material balance technique is used. A balance can
be run on shale shakers, cyclones (mud cleaner, desander, desilter) or decanter
centrifuge, provided care is exercised in sampling. Of course, to balance weighted
systems, two specific gravities are required,and the technique is slightly more
complicated.
In any piece of solids to be control equipment the stream containing the solids to be
processed will be called the feed stream, or stream No. 1. The stream that goes back
into the mud system will be called the return stream, or Stream No. 2. The stream that
is being discharged or thrown away will be called the discharge stream, or Stream No.
3.
A material balance can be obtained if we know only four of the six unknowns. For
example, knowing one flow rate and three weights, or three flow rates and one weight,
we can calculate the other two unknowns.
In a hydrocyclone operation the feed stream comes from a centrifugal pump with a
buried suction and is thus difficult to measure accurately. The flow rate of the return
stream is also hard to measure, since it is high. However, this rate can be obtained if a
large enough measuring tank is used. The flow rate of the discharge stream is
normally low enough that it can be measured fairly accurately. Samples for weight
can be obtained at the feed, return, and discharge. It is important that the samples be
representative and that the weights be measured carefully. It should be pointed out
that we are concerned with the weight of only the solids and not the water.
In balancing the shale shaker, it is best to use a measured return flow rate if possible
or a calculated circulation rate for the feed stream. The discharge rate for the shale
shaker is almost impossible to measure because only solids are being discharged off
the screens with adsorbed water.
In balancing a decanter centrifuge, the rate of the 0 to 5-micron fluid discharge
(Stream No. 2) is the only rate that can be measured accurately. The larger solids
discharge stream (Stream No. 3) is extremely viscous and therefore difficult to
measure. The feed stream (Stream No. 1) is supplied by a Moyno pump and is also
difficult to measure.
A solids settling tank can be balanced using only the rate flowing out of the tank and
the change in solids content of the stream from inlet to outlet.
Two nomographs have been prepared (Figs.2 and 3) for determining pounds of solids
in 1 gal of slurry. Fig.2 covers flow rates up to 100gal/min and is used for
low-flow-rate stream such as the discharge stream from a hydrocyclone. Fig. 3 covers
flow rates to 1,500 gal/min and is used for the high-flow-rate stream such as the feed
and return. The nomographs also provide the solids rate in pounds per minute.
Normally, the first thing to determine is the rate at which the solids are removed from
the mud system. The next thing to determine is the concentration of solids in the feed
stream. Further, one must determine what portion of the solids entering is being
removed, and what portion is being returned to the system.
It is possible to determine the amount of particles in each size range being removed
by using the flow rates and the percentage of solids in each stream that fall in a
particular category. The solids in each stream must be analyzed to determine the
percentage of that solids size range in each stream.
To further illustrate the use of this technique, example calculations on a hydrocyclone
balance are provided in Fig. 4.
From the example provided, the median cut would be somewhere in the fine category
at 60 microns. Expressing the median cut, however, is somewhat meaningless, since
the median reflects the parcel size range that comprises only 17 percent of the
particles. A more meaningful statement would be that the hydrocyclone is removing 6
percent of the ultrafine particles, which constitute 56 percent of the solids in the mud
(Stream No. 1); that is, it would be more meaningful to express the percent removal of
each solids category, as shown in the discharge stream (No. 3) in Fig. 4.
The example in Fig. 5 shows that 18 lb of solids is being generated each minute in
drilling at 8 ft/hr in a 12-1/4 in. hole. This is adding 0.04 lb/gal to the mud weight
when circulation is at 500 gal/min. if the penetration rate were 50 ft/ht, we would be
adding more than 100 lb of solids per minute to the mud system, or 0.2 lb/gal more
mud weight at the same flow rate. If these solids are not being removed at the surface,
the mud solids content will increase and the mud weight will rise.
If solids are not being removed efficiently, it is probable because they are so fine that
the mechanical solids control equipment cannot efficiently remove them and they are
re-circulated and broken down into even smaller particles. An analysis of the solids
categories in the mud at the well outlet and at the feed streams going into solids
removal equipment will indicate what the predominant particle size is and what
proportion the equipment is removing. If these particles are not being efficiently
removed, the proper equipment must be selected to remove the particles of
predominant size sequentially, starting with the largest particles.
A solids material balance can be determined in the field with: (1) a set of vibrating
screens, (2) the methylene blue test kit, (3) a mud balance, and (4) the solids
nomography (Figs. 2, 3, and 5). If there are solids removal problems at a given
location this approach will determine where the problem lies and indicate constructive
steps to rectify the situation. From this example test and many others, conducted on 6
in. hydrocyclone, we conclude that cones of this size cannot remove very much of the
ultrafine solids. If this type of analysis had been performed on the well, it would have
been obvious that a 4-in. hydrocyclone would be more effective for use on the next
well in the area.

Solids Generation

To handle solids removal on the surface we must know the amount of solids being
generated as drilling proceeds. The nomograph shown as Fig. 5 provide a means of
measuring the pounds of solids being generated per minute vs the penetration rate and
the pounds of solids that are being added per gallon of mud, according to flow rate. Of
course, the accuracy of this nomograph becomes somewhat questionable when the
hole is sloughing or when the cuttings are not being cleaned from the hole. Thus, this
calculation us only a relative indication of the solids being put into the mud system
for a given penetration rate.
By determining relatively how many solids are being added to the mud system during
drilling, and comparing this with the cumulative solids removal rate of several pieces
of equipment in the surface circulation system, the efficiency of the over-all process
can be determined.
In evaluating the efficiency of a solids removal system, the solids being removed must
be equated to the solids being produced. The lower the efficiency, the more dilution
required to maintain a given mud weight. The mud maintenance costs will also
increase in direct proportion to a lowering of the solids removal efficiency.

Result

A number of field mud systems were analyzed using the suggested solids
classification. Four of these systems are shown in Table 4. The suggested
classification groups the particles in categories that are more descriptive than those
obtained by the present API method of dividing at the 74-micron level.
Extensive analysis indicates that most of the solids found in presently used field mud
are in the ultra-fine category, smaller than 44 microns. In the four mud analyzed in
Table 4, an average of 67 percent of the solids were in this category, This is primarily
because the solids are re-circulated and are continuously broken up into finer particles.
Insert bits and diamond bits generate finer solids particles than do bits with
conventional teeth; also, soft upper shale sections break down into very fine particles.
Thus, the result, after a number of days of drilling, is a high concentration of ultra-fine
particles in the mud system.
Since drilling solids have an adsorbed film of water that causes particle attraction,
finer particles are attached to larger particles or are held together to form a larger
particle (see Table 3). The retention effect is particularly noticeable with flocculating
polymers. This is one of the reasons why more solids are removed by the shale shaker
screen when polymer mud are used. With dispersed mud there is less particle
attraction, so the particles remain smaller and are more difficult to remove.
Table 5 provides field examples of material balance calculations, on a total solids
basis, from various pieces of equipment on different wells. These examples are not
shown in detail as to each solids category, but they do demonstrate that the
effectiveness of solids removal can be easily analyzed for any piece of equipment.
There is still a large percentage of fine and ultrafine solids left in the mud system after
it has passed through the shale shaker, the desander, and the desilter. Of course, the
bentonite or coI1oidal solids are also left in the mud, but this is desirable. The only
practical way to remove the remaining undesirable drilled solids is to settle them and
dump them out of the system. The existing flat-bottom circulating tanks are highly
inefficient for this operation. Therefore, solids settling tank is proposed to improve the
removal of very fine mud solids.

Recommended Circulating System

Solids Settling Tank

A design for a solids settling tank (Fig. 6) was developed from extensive testing of
scale model in the laboratory. Laboratory prepared mud containing various amounts
and sizes of drilled solids were used, as were mud obtained from actual field mud
system. The tests demonstrated that the tank was capable of removing 60 to70 percent
of the total solids in a mud system. The efficiency varies somewhat, depending on the
properties of the mud and the concentration of the solids. At minimum efficiency in
thick mud of high solids content, 30 percent of the solids were removed. This contrast
with field tests of actual performance on existing circulation systems in which, on the
average, only 10 percent of the total solids were removed. These field tests included
both the mechanical removal and the settling of solids in the surface pits. This
comparison of removal rates is based on one pass through the surface circulation
system and the solids settling tank.
The tank prototype is a scale model of a 210-bbl field tank. The final version of the
field tank, which has now been completed, can be made entirely automatic. This is a
great advantage, considering the difficulty of training personnel to dump the settled
solids systematically and efficiently. In extreme climatic conditions, such as in the
Arctic, automation would be particularly helpful.
The vertical solids-settling tank is placed in the surface circulation system where
solids would normally be settled in a horizontal surface tank. It is fed by a centrifugal
pump, which overcomes the 15 ft of head. Because the circulation is at a somewhat
higher rate than in normal down-hole operations, a bypass is needed. It appears that
the circulation rate through the tank for most normal low-solids mud systems would
be about 1,000gal/min. This would vary somewhat, depending on the penetration rate
rate, the circulation rate, the amount of solids, and the viscosity of the mud system.
The mud enters at the bottom of the tank and is discharged at the top. A flocculants
solution is introduced into the mud stream before it enters the tank. The mud rises
through the tank and is forced to flow over the flow diffusers, across the inclined flow
plates and the baffles, where sufficient shear is obtained to allow the solids to settle
behind the baffles onto the plate. From here the solids slide down to the center of the
plate and then to the solids drain. From the drains, the solids fall to the bottom and are
subsequently dumped. The hopper arrangement on the bottom will allow the settled
solids to be dumped without losing good mud. On the bottom of the hopper is a
hydrostatically actuated valve that dumps the solids automatically. In thick, viscous
mud, water must be added. The water, which can be added through jets located behind
each baffles, lowers the viscosity and shears the mud so the solids will settle more
readily. This added water will also flush the settled solids down the plates to the drain.
The jets can be used for steam injection to clean out the tank in cold weather prior to a
move.
The tank is inexpensive to build, relatively maintenance free, and can be incorporated
into existing rig circulation systems with very little di5iculty. With skids mounted on
the side and bottom, it is easily transported by truck, and is not subject to damage as is
some mechanical solids removal equipment. This solids settling tank for removing
fine and ultrafine drilled solids makes the solids removal system complete.

Optimum Rig Circulation System

As the mud leaves the well, carrying its load of drilled solids, it is processed to
remove those solids. First, the shale shaker removes the largest particles. Second, the
next-largest solids are removed by the desander, and an intermediate cut is taken by
the desilter. Then the mud goes to the solids settling tank for the final cut before going
to the suction tank and down the hole. If a decanting centrifuge is being used, it can
be put between the solids settling tank and the suction tank, or in front of the solids
settling tank, depending on which stream is to be saved.
Chemicals as well as water and oil should be added close to the flow line of the well
rather than in the suction tank. This facilitates thinning the mud to improve solids
removal, both in the mechanical equipment and in the solids settling tank. In addition,
the mud is more uniformly mixed before it reaches the suction tank. Water can also be
added through the nozzles in the settling tank.

Conclusions

It is possible to achieve solids control by following the analytical approach. These are
steps involved:
1. Analyze the solids content in terms of particle size for any give flow stream.
2. Classify the solids into the proper size category.
3. Plot the particle distribution profile to see where the solids concentration is.
4. Determine the performance of each piece of solids control equipment by material
balance.
5. Equate the rate at which solids are being generated to the total rate at which they
are being removed.
6. Be certain to follow the recommended approach with respect to the order in
which the solids are removed.
7. Where solids removal is indicated by the forgoing steps to be inefficient, adjust or
replace individual equipment to achieve satisfactory performance.
It should be noted that until more data have been collected by the technique described,
we do not know what performance efficiency can be considered satisfactory.