Drilling and Completion Fluids
Drilling Fluid Strengthens Wellbore
The full-length paper describes the
approach taken to produce a “designer
mud” that effectively increases fracture
resistance while drilling and can be used
in both shale and sandstone. The design-
er mud works by forming a “stress cage”
using particle bridging and an ultralow-
fluid-loss mud system. The theory is
described, and field data are presented
that quantify the increase in fracture
resistance and demonstrate the value of
the system.
Introduction
Mud losses are a frequent problem encoun-
tered during drilling. Losses occur when the
mud weight required for well control and to
maintain a stable wellbore exceeds the frac-
ture resistance of the formation. Depleted
reservoirs present a particular problem.
There is a reduction in pore pressure as
reserves decline, which weakens hydrocar-
bon-bearing rocks. Neighboring or
interbedded low-permeability rocks
(shales) may maintain their pore pressure.
This can make the drilling of certain deplet-
ed zones virtually impossible when the mud
weight required to support the shale
exceeds the fracture resistance of the sands
and silts. The ability to strengthen the well-
bore has the following applications/benefits.
• Access to additional reserves in deplet-
ed zones.
• Reduced mud losses in deepwater
drilling.
• Loss avoidance when running casing or
cementing.
• Improved well control.
• Elimination of casing strings.
• An alternative option to expandable
casing.
Theoretical Approach
The approach taken was to allow small frac-
tures to form in the wellbore wall and hold
them open with bridging particles near the
fracture opening. The bridge must have a
low permeability to provide pressure isola-
tion. Provided the induced fracture is
bridged at or near the wellbore wall, this
method creates an increased hoop stress
around the wellbore referred to as a stress-
NOVEMBER 2004
cage effect. The goal is to be able to achieve
this continuously during drilling by adding
appropriate materials to the mud system to
produce a designer mud.
Permeable Rocks. In permeable rocks, the
particle bridge need not be perfect because
fluid that passes through the bridge will leak
away from the fracture into the rock matrix.
Thus, there will be no pressure buildup in
the fracture and the fracture cannot propa-
gate. Even if a mudcake forms initially on
the walls of the fracture, the fracture could
grow by a small amount to expose new sur-
face to relieve the pressure. An additional
effect is the initial pressure decline behind
the bridge when the fracture first forms.
This will raise the effective stress across the
fracture and cause closure behind the
bridge, which should provide a stable foun-
dation for the bridge. From these argu-
ments, achieving a stress-cage effect in per-
meable rocks should be straightforward.
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 mudcake inside. The seal-
ing/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 ordi-
nary muds. Interestingly, fracture gradients
observed in sands are usually higher than
those predicted by theoretical models. This
seems to be related to the presence of mud
solids and the deposition of mudcake.
Low-Permeability Rocks. In low-perme-
ability 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,
ways to produce mudcakes with an extreme-
ly low fluid loss (ultralow-fluid-loss muds)
were studied. High-pressure/high-tempera-
ture (HP/HT) fluid-loss values as low as 0.1
mL are achievable. The idea of using
ultralow-fluid-loss mud to achieve wellbore
strengthening is the subject of a patent appli-
cation. It should have a particular benefit in
strengthening shale. The approach also
would work in higher-permeability rocks,
This article, written by Assistant
Technology Editor Karen Bybee, con-
tains highlights of paper SPE 87130,
“Drilling Fluids for Wellbore
Strengthening,” by M.S. Aston, SPE,
M.W. Alberty, SPE, M.R. McLean,
H.J. de Jong, and K. Armagost, SPE,
BP plc, prepared for the 2004 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2–4 March.
and to date there has been no downside in
running ultralow-fluid-loss mud in perme-
able formations. Indeed, an advantage is the
reduced risk of differential sticking.
The driving force for bridge formation
across a shale fracture needs to be consid-
ered 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-based muds
(OBMs), which have an added sealing
action caused by interfacial-tension (capil-
lary pressure) effects. In water-based muds
(WBMs), there may be a slow pressure
leakoff into the shale, but the challenge
then would be to produce WBM with an
ultralow fluid loss so that the bridge at the
fracture mouth has a sufficiently low per-
meability. Despite these concerns and chal-
lenges, initial field tests in shale have been
very encouraging.
In the modeling work, a symmetrical
elliptical fracture with a wing on each side
of the wellbore was assumed. This seems a
reasonable starting point. If many narrow
localized fractures formed around the well-
bore to produce the stress cage, they would
require only very-small bridging particles to
seal them. Field evidence suggests that larg-
er bridging solids are not needed.
Laboratory Testing
Fracture-sealing experiments were per-
formed by use of specially designed test
equipment. In a previous joint-industry pro-
ject, fracture sealing using hollow cylinder-
block samples fractured by drilling-fluid
59
pressure were investigated. The study pro-
duced useful results and pointed toward
blends of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and
graphite as one of the best ways to reduce
mud losses into the fracture.
In the fixed-fracture-width device, the
cell is assembled with spacers defining the
fracture width, which typically is 1 mm
wide at the mouth and tapers to zero at the
tip for a closed fracture or to 0.5 mm for an
open fracture. Sandstone is used to form the
fracture faces. The height of the fracture is
38 mm, and the fracture depth (distance
from the mouth to the tip) is 178 mm. The
cell is bolted together and placed in a reac-
tion 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 pres-
sure transducers at the inlet, middle point,
and exit of the fracture. A valve at the exit
can be closed so that the pressure buildup
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 backpressure regulators and to a mass
balance. The mud sample is poured into a
stirred injection pot and heated as required.
The injection pot is pressurized 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 pres-
sure can be increased stepwise or continu-
ously while monitoring leakoff into the rock
and pressure changes within the fracture.
In tests for a 160-md-permeability rock,
the fracture tapered from 1 mm to zero and
the exit valve was closed at the start so the
driving force for bridge formation was
leakoff into the rock. A 1.16-specific-gravity
(SG) water-based-polymer mud was used
with ordinary fluid-loss control. The mud
had an American Petroleum Inst. fluid loss
of 4.2 mL at ambient temperature and con-
tained CaCO3 bridging solids with no
graphitic particles. The laboratory test was
successful, and a bridge was formed near the
fracture mouth with no pressure buildup in
the fracture The bridge remained intact to
the 1,900-psi maximum injection pressure.
There was an initial spurt and then small
surges each time the injection pressure was
increased. The continuous leakoff rate was
very low but was sufficient to match the flow
rate of any fluid leaking through the bridge.
Tests with OBMs showed similar success on
160-md-permeability (or greater) rock.
Strengthening would seem to be achievable
with CaCO3 and standard muds.
In tests on lower-permeability rock, the
combination of standard OBM or WBM
60
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 with
OBM, it was necessary to use an ultralow-
fluid-loss mud and a combination of
CaCO3 and graphite material.
To simulate the case of a shale, sandstone
that had been sealed with resin to give vir-
tually zero permeability was used. In this
case, it was essential for the fracture tip to be
open at the beginning to allow fluid to flow
into the fracture. Pressure isolation was
achieved at 300-psi injection pressure with
the ultralow-fluid-loss mud and carbon-
ate/graphite blend. The bridge was dis-
turbed and there was some pressure transfer
at 900-psi injection pressure, with full pres-
sure transfer at 1,900-psi injection pressure.
This may have been slight leakage rather
than bridge total failure.
Additional observations from the experi-
mental studies include the following.
• The fluid should contain a smooth/con-
tinuous range of particle sizes, from clay
size (approximately 1 µm) to the required
bridging width.
• Ideal packing theory is useful for select-
ing the optimum size distribution in low-
weight muds.
• High particle concentrations are best for
an efficient seal.
• Fracture sealing has been successful to
300°F and 4,000-psi overbalance pressure
in some tests.
• Mud weight is not a critical factor in
forming a successful bridge.
Field Experience
Example 1—Extended Leakoff Test. The
object of this test was to see if the designer
mud could increase fracture resistance in a
shale formation. The well was a vertical well
in the Arkoma basin in the U.S. After setting
the 95/8-in. casing at 3,012 ft and perform-
ing a casing-integrity test, 10 ft of 81/2-in.
hole was drilled with a regular OBM to
expose the shale formation. After circulating
clean, an extended leakoff test was per-
formed using the regular mud. The mud
had a relatively high HP/HT fluid loss, a 9-
lbm/gal mud weight, and was free of bridg-
ing solids. The formation fractured at
approximately 1,200 psi, at which point the
pump was stopped to minimize fracture
growth. Pressure stabilized at 800 psi,
which is the propagation pressure of the
fracture determined by the far-field stress
state. After bleeding back the pressure to
hydrostatic, the test was repeated and the
pressure plateaued at 800 psi with no indi-
cation of a breakdown pressure; the fracture
was reopening. After pressure bleedoff, the
open hole was displaced to a pill of the
designer mud with a graphite/CaCO3 blend.
During this leakoff test, the earlier fracture
stayed sealed and pressure was increased to
more than 2,000 psi before the seal broke.
Example 2—Schiehallion North Sea Well
204/20-C21z. In this application, a 360-ft
section of sand/shale formation was drilled
with designer mud while exceeding the
sand fracture gradient. The casing was an
81/2-in. sidetrack between the 95/8-in. cas-
ing and the 7-in. liner. In the original well,
two well-control incidents occurred while
drilling thin hydrocarbon-sand stringers
above the targeted reservoir sands. The sec-
ond well-control incident resulted in a
downhole loss/gain situation, and the well
was temporarily suspended to evaluate the
findings and plan a sidetrack.
To prevent an influx, a 1.54-SG minimum
mud weight was required to drill the high-
pressure sand stringers. An OBM containing
equal parts CaCO3 and graphitic material
was used. The carbonate size ranged from
50 to 400 µm, and graphite-particle size
ranged from 160 to 600 µm. The section
was started with 1.51-SG mud weight using
the designer mud. The planned leakoff test
just below the 95/8-in. shoe was stopped at
a 2.15-SG equivalent mud weight, with no
leakoff observed. The formation type at this
point was shale. Test pressure was greater
than the sand/silt and shale fracture gradi-
ents and was even greater than the overbur-
den. On drilling ahead, the mud weight was
increased to 1.54 SG before entering the
high-pressure sand stringers. There were no
mud losses in adjacent formations despite
this mud weight being greater than the
sand/silt fracture gradient.
Major contributors to this success were
drilling the section with controlled drilling
parameters to allow stress-cage building and
using HP/HT drilling parameters because of
the small trip margin and no riser margin.
The large particles were kept in the mud
system by maintenance additions. Mud den-
sity and rheology were carefully monitored.
There was no mud damage to rig equipment
or mud pumps from the bridging particles.
A 7-in. liner was run and cemented with no
losses or gains. JPT
For a limited time, the full-length paper
is available free to SPE members at
www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
NOVEMBER 2004