SPE Drilling & Completion
Volume 20, Number 1, March 2005, pp. 37-43

SPE-84314-PA

Field Verification: Invert-Mud Performance From Water-Based Mud in Gulf of Mexico Shelf

View full textPDF ( 1,526 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/84314-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84314-PA

Citation

  • Aldea, C., Bruton, J.R., Dobbs, W.R., and Klein, A.L. 2005. Field Verification: Invert-Mud Performance From Water-Based Mud in Gulf of Mexico Shelf. SPE Drill & Compl20 (1): 37-43. SPE-84314-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 1.4.2 Drilling Fluids, Handling, Processing and Treatment
  • 1.2.5 Materials Selection (Casing, Fluids, Cement)
  • 1.3.1 Wellbore Integrity/Geomechanics

Summary

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 (SBMs) 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 the WBM fluid is its ability to deliver SBM-like shale inhibition without use of any salts, through an ideal combination of a polyamine shale inhibitor, a polymeric encapsulator, and an antiaccretion additive.

This paper presents field data comparing the drilling performance and the inhibition in gumbo-shale sections of the new WBM and the previously used SBM. The combination of this inhibitive WBM and the rotary-steerable tool produced an 85% higher rate of penetration (ROP) than in similar wells in the area drilled with SBM and mud motors. No accretion or bit balling was noted on bottomhole assemblies (BHAs) 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 with seawater, which also translated into cost savings by reducing the volumes handled by the workboats.

These field applications demonstrate that this uniquely designed WBM 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 flowline 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 5 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 impose a limit of 6.9% retention-of-oil-on-cuttings (ROC) for olefin SBM and 9.4% for ester SBM. This translates into the use of 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  This fluid has a very simple formulation and can be mixed in fresh water, 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.

View full textPDF ( 1,526 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 27 January 2004
  • Revised manuscript received: 19 October 2004
  • Manuscript approved: 22 November 2004
  • Version of record: 15 March 2005