IADC/SPE 103731
HP/HT Drilling Fluids Challenges
Ron Bland, SPE, Greg Mullen, SPE, Yohnny Gonzalez, SPE, Floyd Harvey, SPE, and Marvin Pless, SPE, Baker Hughes
Drilling Fluids
Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Bangkok, Thailand, 13–15 November 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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
International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and 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 International Association
of Drilling Contractors and 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
Accurate knowledge of drilling fluid behavior under actual
conditions is required to maximize operational efficiency and
to minimize cost and drilling fluid related risks on extreme
high-pressure / high-temperature (HP/HT) wells.
This paper identifies and discusses the major HP/HT
drilling fluid challenges, recent innovations in fluid viscosity
measurements under HP/HT conditions, drilling fluid designs
stable to extreme HP/HT conditions, and other considerations
in HP/HT drilling.
Introduction
Worldwide demand for energy continues to increase and is
projected to average 2.0% per year out to 2030.1 Demand is
widespread geographically but the most rapid growth is
projected for nations outside the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (non-OECD nations) averaging
3.7% per year for non-OECD Asia.1 Providing adequate
supply is driving the industry to explore areas previously
unexplored, or minimally explored. A subset of this activity is
HP/HT drilling. HP/HT drilling is not rigorously pursued
during times of price uncertainty or low commodity pricing
due to the relatively high lifting cost. The resurgence in
HP/HT drilling stretches globally and encompasses areas such
as the deep Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, northern India,
Saudi Arabia, and Brunei. Historical HP/HT basins such as
Indonesia, Thailand and northern Malaysia have also seen a
selective increase in HP/HT activity.
Several factors have combined to make deep gas
increasingly attractive worldwide:
• Abundant infrastructure in the way of platforms,
producing facilities, and pipelines that would allow new
production to flow quickly to market.
•
New technology such as 3D seismic and faster computers
to locate potential formations.
Drilling and Drilling Fluid Challenges
Developing HP/HT prospects can require overcoming some
formidable drilling challenges. Rigs capable of HP/HT
drilling are larger due to requirements such as hook load, mud
pumps, drill pipe and surface mud capacity to name a few.
Due to these requirements, these rigs are more expensive.
HP/HT wells, by definition, require a higher density fluid
which typically requires high solids loading. High solids
loading, the resulting higher pressures, combined with the
competency of rock at depth, lead to low penetration rates,
extending time on location and added drilling costs. In
extreme cases, pressure, temperature, and acid gas levels can
limit the selection and function of down-hole tools and fluid
selection. These limitations can be so severe that MWD/LWD
tools become unusable, rendering down-hole annular pressure
measurements used for pressure management, unavailable.
This places additional demands on the drilling fluid and
temperature/hydraulic models as they become our best, if not
our only source for down-hole pressure information. These
models are based on surface inputs and laboratory measured
fluid properties under down-hole conditions. During the
planning stage for several potential record depth deep gas
wells currently drilling or recently TD’d, not only did this
information not exist, laboratory equipment capable of
operation at the required temperatures and pressures didn’t
exist.
Pressure/Volume/Temperature (PVT)
Down-hole pressures are commonly calculated using TVD
(true vertical depth) and surface measured mud weight
reported from the rig. While this approach is adequate for less
demanding wells, critical applications such as HP/HT and
deepwater wells require adjustments for the pressure and
temperature driven compression and expansion characteristics
of the whole drilling fluid. These compression and expansion
effects are quantified in fluid PVT measurement under
expected down-hole conditions which, until recently, ranged
from 15 psi/75°F to about 20,000 psi/350°F which covered
industry needs. HP/HT drilling pressures and temperatures,
however, can far exceed this envelope. Figure 1 illustrates
isobaric PVT results on a commonly used base-fluid.
2 IADC/SPE 103731
Laboratory measured data to 30,000 psi are represented by
the blue circles; a third-degree polynomial (blue line) provides
a good fit for these measurements. Using a third-degree
polynomial based on historically available ≤ 20,000 psi data
and extrapolating to 30,000 psi (red curve) will substantially
overestimate the degree of compression, introducing
significant errors in down-hole pressure calculations. This
example highlights the necessity for measured data reflecting
down-hole conditions.
In drilling, PVT information is used to achieve an
accurate pressure profile of the well due to hydrostatic
pressure from the drilling fluid. Whole mud density under
downhole conditions can be precisely predicted if the PVT
data on the base fluid and brine phases used in the
composition of the whole mud is available. A retort analysis
from the rig site can be used to determine the volume fractions
of base fluid, brine and solids of the whole mud. The volume
fractions of each component are then used in a compositional
model to determine the change in density due to pressure and
temperature. Peters et al.2 presented a compositional model in
1988 which considers each component in expressing the
density of a whole fluid as a function of pressure and
temperature:
ρo fo + ρw f w + ρs f s + ρc fc
ρ (P, T ) =
⎡ρ ⎤ ⎡ρ ⎤
1 + f o ⎢ o − 1⎥ + f w ⎢ w − 1⎥
⎣ ρ oi ⎦ ⎣ ρ wi ⎦ With the depth horizons of HP/HT drilling expanding, a
Performing the density correction every 100 feet of
vertical depth has proven to be an acceptable method for
Equivalent Static Density (ESD) prediction. Figure 2 shows a
corrected pressure profile, expressed as ESD in pounds per
gallon, due to compressible fluid components and an
uncorrected pressure profile. This example is an 18.21 lb/gal,
89:11 oil/water ratio (OWR) invert emulsion drilling fluid.
Temperature Modeling
Temperature modeling has proven to be an important aspect of
pre-well planning. On an HTHP well the need to predict flow
line temperature (FLT) and bottom hole circulating
temperature (BHCT) are important for the planning process
with regards to types of equipment necessary to drill the well.
From a safety aspect the FLT needs to remain within the
temperature limits of the blow out preventer (BOP): usually
below 200°F. From a cost perspective the BHCT is important
with regards to the downhole tools used for formation
evaluation and geosteering; usually limited to about 350°F
before heat damage occurs. Either or both of these scenarios
could be addressed by the use of mud coolers to reduce
circulating temperatures.
A temperature model should allow the user to input
variables such as thermal conductivity and heat capacity of all
the materials in contact with the drilling fluid. In addition, the
model should allow for the thermophysical properties of the
whole drilling fluid based on drilling fluid composition. Other
functionalities should include the modeling of mud coolers,
insulated drill pipe and risers, multiple lithologies with
variable thermophysical properties and cooling effects from
surface area of the active mud system. Figure 3 shows the
results of modeling with and without mud coolers on an
HP/HT well.
Temperature modeling is also important while drilling is
ongoing. There are situations when tools have failed,
temperatures are too high, or operations do not allow for
downhole tools, such as casing or liner running operations.
Knowing how the circulating temperature profile (CTP)
responds under certain conditions can prevent kicks or
massive losses while tripping. Any drilling situation where
the CTP varies significantly from the geothermal profile can
create a situation where the hydrostatic pressure significantly
varies from what is expected as a result of calculations based
on surface mud weight. Flow rates, mud density, mud
composition and geometry can have an impact on the
differential temperature between the CTP and the insitu
formation temperature profile or geothermal temperature
profile (GTP). Figure 4 illustrates the ESD at CTP and GTP.
In this example the difference in ESD as the CTP reaches GTP
is 0.13 lb/gal at TD. Figure 5 illustrates the temperature
profiles. The upper section of the well is cooling down to
GTP while the lower section of the well is warming. The
overall impact is a net increase in bottom hole pressure from
the pressure under CTP. If tolerances are tight, one tenth of
one pound per gallon could have a significant impact on losses
while running pipe.
Viscometer
technology gap was recognized in the measurement of fluid
viscosity at down-hole conditions. Historical viscometer
technology is limited to measurements at ≤ 500°F/20,000 psig.
Some completed and on-going HP/HT wells have bottom-hole
conditions approaching 600°F and 40,000 psig. Since this was
identified as a major technology gap and fluid behavior had
never been evaluated at these extreme conditions, we set out to
develop a new viscometer suitable for HP/HT drilling.
Criteria for the new HP/HT viscometer included:
• Working pressure up to 40,000 psig
• Working temperature up to 600°F
• A magnetic coupling design that allows accurate viscosity
measurements on fluids containing magnetic materials
(ferromagnetic and magneto-rheological fluids).
The first two criteria are rather obvious but the third may
not be quite as apparent. Current HP/HT viscometers use a
magnetically coupled drive to rotate the outer sleeve. These
magnets are located in the lower portion of the measurement
chamber and are immersed in the test fluid. Weight materials
such as hematite and ilmenite typically contain only small
amounts of ferromagnetic material but the concentration is
large enough to collect on the magnets, disrupting the flow
and introducing uncertainty in the viscosity measurements.
Barite is typically free of ferromagnetic material but this is not
necessarily true of barite-weighted drilling fluids. Rotation of
the drill string inside casing results in metallic wear particles
that are typically ferromagnetic. Ditch magnets may remove
the larger particles but the finer particles tend to concentrate in
the mud with time interfering with surveys3 and introducing
IADC/SPE 103731
uncertainty in viscometers that use magnetic coupling in
contact with the mud. Figure 6 illustrates the behavior of
these fluids following the insertion of a magnet into a field
mud from the North Sea.
We began working on the development project with a
partner engineering firm, and after six months of design
review meetings and fabrication, a new HP/HT viscometer
capable of testing fluids used for deep gas drilling was made
available to the industry. Figure 7 shows this new
viscometer, the Chandler 7600, which has met the design
criteria – 40,000 psig/600°F and is capable of accurate
measurements in fluids containing ferromagnetic material.
Drilling Fluid Formulation
Invert emulsion fluids have been utilized for drilling HP/HT
wells and the technology is adequate for temperatures up to
500°F, but recent HP/HT activity presents even harsher
environments with estimated Bottom Hole Temperature
(BHT) approaching 600°F. Recognizing the need for fluids
with higher temperature stability, we set out to develop a line
of products specifically engineered to withstand the extreme
BHT conditions of wells drilled beyond 25,000 ft TVD. An
engineering project was launched which resulted in a new line
of products capable of withstanding extended exposure up to
600°F.
The choice of products utilized for a particular drilling
project is based on anticipated bottom-hole temperature. Each
fluid is engineered to meet specific requirements of the
operator. Table 1 illustrates the generic name and functions of
the specialty additives used in the formulation of HP/HT
invert emulsion fluids. These systems use synthetic, low
aromatic/low toxicity base fluids or diesel oil. The new
additives perform well in these base fluids and are designed to
be stable to temperatures in excess of 550ºF. The invert
emulsion system can be weighted to densities above 19.5
lb/gal using barite or alternative weight materials, such as
ilmenite, hematite or manganese tetroxide. Typical OWR are
in the 85/15 - 90/10 range.
Early design work, prior to the construction of the
Chandler 7600, utilized a consistometer to evaluate relative
fluid stability under conditions beyond the capability of a Fann
70/75, as shown in Figure 8. Consistometer results have
demonstrated the new fluid system to be stable after 16 hours
at 590°F and 29,500 psig. The new system was custom
formulated and recently utilized to drill a deep HP/HT well in
an environment beyond the temperature / pressure envelope of
conventional invert emulsion fluids.
Hydraulics Modeling & Well Monitoring
As wells get deeper, temperatures increase beyond the
temperature limits of down-hole tool components rendering
the tools unusable. Yet adequate knowledge of down-hole
pressure is essential to adequately manage kicks, stuck pipe
and to reach deep reservoir targets safely. Accurate hydraulics
software can provide the operator with some of these pressure-
related parameters such as Equivalent Circulating Density
(ECD), Equivalent Static Density (ESD), and overall system
pressure losses for Stand Pipe Pressure (SPP) predictions.
Accuracy of the model is dependent on the accuracy of the
3
input variables and a sound theoretical approach. An effective
model must utilize:
• Rheological properties measured on a HP/HT viscometer
operating at down-hole pressures and temperatures.
• Base-fluid density adjusted for the measured PVT
behavior of the fluid at down-hole pressures and
temperatures.
• Drilling fluid compositional model reflective of the actual
mud used.
• The Herschel-Bulkley rheological model to calculate
circulating system pressure losses.
Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the sensitivity of down-
hole pressures on rheology of invert emulsion drilling fluid.
The lines labeled “Good Fit” are data modeled from
viscometer measurements taken under downhole conditions
that the wellbore actually experiences. The lines labeled
“Poor Fit” are data modeled from viscometer measurements
taken that did not reflect the full spectrum of pressure and
temperature the actual wellbore would experience. Therefore,
the model has to extrapolate rheological coefficients from data
that was insufficient for this case and the results are
significantly different as compared to the “Good Fit” data.
Gas Solubility/Kick Detection
The detection of gas kicks can be more difficult when using
oil muds due to the solubility of gas in the mud’s base fluid.
Gas entering into solution in an oil mud creates less of an
observable pit gain than an equal influx in water-based mud.
It has been well documented that gas solubility varies with the
composition of the gas and with the type of base fluid.4 In
general, gas solubility increases as the specific gravity of the
gas increases and as the specific gravity of the base oil
decreases. Solubility also increases with pressure but may
either increase or decrease with temperature, depending on
factors such as gas and drilling fluid composition. The most
gas-soluble component of the invert emulsion system is
typically the base oil, so as the brine and solid phases increase
in a drilling fluid’s composition, the gas solubility of the
whole mud decreases. Often, as the density of an emulsion
drilling fluid increases (and its solids content increases) the
OWR is also increased so these compositional factors
somewhat offset and pressure is the more dominant factor in
gas solubility.
The way that gas is distributed as it enters in the wellbore and
mixes with the drilling fluid can also influence detection. As
oil mud is circulated at higher rates past the influx zone, the
gas is distributed in larger amounts of fluid, therefore the
gas:oil ratio (GOR) decreases and the pit gain is decreased
accordingly5. The fluid volume increase is typically greater if
the influx is taken while the fluid is static, such as during a
flow check. Pit gains may be more subtle as compared to
kicks in water-based mud and may take longer to manifest an
observable gain, so extended flow checks (ten minutes or
more) are advisable when using oil muds. This difference in
response should be included in rig crew training when drilling
deep gas wells. Figure 11 shows a comparison of methane
solubility in different base oils and in brine.
4 IADC/SPE 103731
When gas enters the wellbore and mixes with a water-based
fluid, gas solubility is low so the gas remains in discrete
bubbles and buoyancy tends to force the gas to migrate up
through the heavier mud. When gas enters into solution in an
oil mud, it does not migrate as free gas does in water-based
mud, but the GOR will make the fluid less dense than the mud
above it and some fluid migration may take place. If an oil
mud reaches saturation due to a gas phase influx, then any
further gas entering the wellbore will exist as discrete gas
bubbles and will be subject to migration. If this migration
brings the gas in contact with under-saturated fluid then the
migrated gas may enter into solution until conditions change
and bubble point is reached.
Bubble point is the set of conditions where gas comes out
of solution, accompanied by a sudden and sometimes dramatic
increase in volume. When a gas influx in oil mud is circulated
up during well control operations, the reduced hydrostatic
pressure in the annulus often allows the gas to reach bubble
point in the upper few thousand feet of the wellbore; however
in some instances the gas can remain in solution until it is
downstream of the choke. Circulating gas in solution up an
open wellbore creates a very hazardous situation. As bubble
point is reached and gas comes out of solution, the resulting
expansion pushes mud from the wellbore and decreases the
annular hydrostatic pressure. This decreased hydrostatic
pressure can increase the influx and also moves the bubble
point deeper into the wellbore. Increased gas liberation may
occur as the bubble point moves downhole and more
hydrostatic is lost. Rig crews should be trained that gas kick
behavior in oil muds is different than in water-based muds and
early detection through flow checks and pit gains are critical.
Trip gas may not always be caused by swab pressures or
insufficient hydrostatic pressure. Gas diffusion occurs when
gas enters a wellbore containing oil-based mud, despite an
overbalance of mud hydrostatic. This is a process similar to
osmosis as gas diffuses from higher concentrations in the
formation to lower concentrations in the fluid. Diffusion
occurs slowly, with an initial diffusion rate on the order of 1
bbl/hr and slowing with time. Wellbore flows of this
magnitude may be overlooked or masked by thermal
expansion of the fluid. Over long periods of time such as
extended logging programs or storm evacuations, this amount
of gas can become significant, causing a well control event or
deteriorating the drilling fluid’s properties to cause sagging or
settling6.
Advances in computer modeling have improved well
control simulations and have been validated in full-scale field
tests at lower temperatures and pressures. These simulations
can be useful in estimating the resulting pressures during well
control events and for sizing of surface equipment for the
anticipated volume of gas. However more research is required
to better understand what happens to gas, oil muds, and the
mixture of gas and oil muds at extreme pressure and
temperature. Large gas kicks may alter the properties of oil
muds, making suspension of barite, emulsion stability, and
filtration control difficult. Field reports indicate that a large
gas influx may cause rapid settling of barite in oil muds,
sometimes packing off around the drillstring and preventing
circulation.
Drilling Efficiency
HP/HT drilling, almost by definition, requires a higher density
drilling fluid which typically is achieved by adding dispersed
weight material such as barite. The addition of the dispersed
weight material increases the dispersed solids concentration,
increases drilling fluid viscosity, limits available hydraulic
horsepower at the bit and reduces cutting efficiency. The
reduced hydraulic & cutting efficiency combined with higher
competency formations at depth, high compressive strengths
of those formations due to the higher confining stresses at the
high bottomhole pressures and use of heavy set bits typically
required for the higher competency formations result in very
low drilling efficiency, low penetration rates, low depths of
cut and fine drill solids. These fine drill solids are difficult to
remove with surface solids control equipment and tend to
build up in the drilling fluid adding to the drilling fluid
viscosity further reducing drilling efficiency, adding to time
on location and increased drilling costs.
Alternate Weighting Materials
HT/HP applications require special drilling fluids with low
ECD and reduced sag tendencies to avoid downtime due to
mud conditioning and to prevent rigs from having to operate at
or near hydraulic limits. Such fluids would also be less likely
to result in downhole losses and the often considerable cost of
lost circulation.
Higher specific gravity weight materials (relative to barite)
provide lower solids content at equivalent mud densities. In
the past the use of these materials was limited by the
availability and higher abrasion as a result of greater hardness.
During the last five years, three products − ilmenite,
manganese tetroxide and finely ground hematite − have been
used successfully in different parts of the world7. Some of the
special HS&E considerations like dusting and skin stain have
been adequately addressed with the use of proper PPE and
barrier creams applied before coming into contact with treated
fluids.
The results obtained during thru-tubing rotary drilling
(TTRD) and HT/HP applications include: low abrasion of
tubular goods, higher rates of penetration due to lower solids
loading and lower pressure loss for increased hydraulic
horsepower. In addition, these alternate materials resist
attrition and build-up of fines during shearing, relative to
barite, and they are considered more environmentally
acceptable due to generally lower concentration of trace heavy
metals.
Other Considerations
Trip time increases with depth and consequently exposure of
the drilling fluid to temperature and pressure under static
conditions. Staging into the hole after a trip not only helps
minimize surge pressures but also helps normalize fluid
temperature and weight by circulation. Running to bottom
and circulating cooler, denser fluid around can significantly
increase the chances of fracturing the formation. The
swabbing effect when tripping out also generally increases
with depth, but has also been shown to occur when tripping in
IADC/SPE 103731 5

the hole, due to drillstring elasticity and oscillation8. PVT = Pressure Volume Temperature
Hydraulic modeling can help optimize trip speed to prevent psi = Pounds per Square Inch
formation fracture or influx. T = Temperature
High flowline temperatures are also a concern with regard TD = Total Depth
to rig crew safety and well control equipment elastomers. TVD = True Vertical Temperature
Mud coolers or chillers have made significant contributions to TTRD = Thru Tubing Rotary Drilling
reducing mud temperatures while circulating. Some mud f = Volume fraction
coolers have been shown to reduce mud circulating
ρ = Density, ppg
temperature by approximately 15ºF per cooling unit. This
temperature reduction also benefits down-hole tools and
Subscripts
temperature-sensitive mud products while reducing the
c = Chemical
possibility of the drilling fluid reaching its flash point at the
i = Elevated pressure and temperature
surface.
o = Oil
s = Solids
w = Water
Conclusions
Due to the inherent conditions of HT/HP wells, rigorous
laboratory testing is necessary to generate detailed engineering
SI Metric Conversion factors
guidelines for HP/HT drilling fluids. PVT behavior of the
base fluid, rheological properties at extreme conditions, proper Bblx1.58987 E-01 = m3
formulation of specialty products, temperature and pressure cp x 1.0 E – 03 = Pa.s
effects on hydraulic calculations, alternate weighting cu ft. X 2.831685 E -02 = m3
o
materials, and gas solubility are some of the more important F (oF – 32)/ 1.8 = oC
considerations for effective HP/HT fluid design and ft. x 3.048 E – 01 =m
management. gal x 3.785412 E - 03 = m3
Effectively engineering and formulating a reliable HT/HP lbf x 4.448222 E + 00 =N
invert emulsion depends also on experience. Servicing lb/gal x 2.853 E – 00 = Kg/m3
previous HP/HT wells has not only provided valuable psi x 6.894757 E + 00 = kPa
experience for fluid engineers but also offers valuable
opportunities to field test new products, equipment, and
validate modeling software under operating conditions. References
Actual operations often expose a wide array of challenges,
some of which may be easily overlooked in the well planning 1 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information
Administration. June 2006. International Energy Outlook 2006.
stages. While the focus of this paper has been on fluid
Report #DOE/EIA-0484(2006).
technology, experience has shown that servicing these critical 2 Peters, E.J., Chenevert, M.E. and Zhang Chunhai.: “A Model for
wells also places higher demands on supply facilities, mud Predicting the Density of Oil Muds at High Pressures and
plants, and inventory, as well as operational personnel. Temperatures,” SPEDE (June 1990) 141-148.
3 Wilson, H. and Brooks, A.G.: “Wellbore Position Errors Caused
by Drilling Fluid Contamination,” paper SPE 71400 presented at
Acknowledgments the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
The authors wish to thank Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids for New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3.
permission to publish this paper, Andy Brooks with Baker 4 O’Bryan, P.L. et al.: “An Experimental Study of Gas Solubility
in Oil-Based Drilling Fluids” SPEDE (March 1988) 33-42.
Hughes INTEQ for the magnetic fluid image and David
5 O’Bryan, P.L., Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr.: “Swelling of Oil-Based
Schwertner & Bill Gusler with Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids Drilling Fluids Resulting from Dissolved Gas,” SPEDE (June
for their advice and counsel on deep gas drilling. 1990) 149-155.
6 Bradley, N.D. et al.: “Gas Diffusion – It’s Impact on a
Horizontal HPHT Well” SPE 77474 presented at the SPE
Nomenclature Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio,
29 Sept – 2 Oct. 2002.
BHCT = Bottom Hole Circulating Temperature
7 Franks, T., Marshall D.: “Novel Drilling Fluid for Through-
CTP = Circulating Temperature Profile Tubing Rotary Drilling” paper IADC/SPE 87127 presented at
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 2–4
ESD = Equivalent Static Density March 2004.
GTP = Geothermal Temperature Profile 8 Rudolf, R.L., Suryanarayana, P.V.R.:“Field Validation of Swab
FLT = Flow Line Temperature Effects While Tripping-in the Hole on Deep, High Temperature
HT/HP = High Pressure High Temperature Wells,” IADC/SPE 39395, presented at SPE/IADC Drilling
OWR = Oil Water Ratio Conference in Dallas, Texas, March 3-, 1998.
P = Pressure
6 IADC/SPE 103731

Table 1. Components of HT/HP Invert Emulsion System

GENERIC PRIMARY SECONDARY

PRODUCT FUNCTION FUNCTION
Polyamides Emulsifiers
Fatty acid
Emulsion stability Solids tolerance/ HPHT FL
amidoamide
Organoclay 1 Primary viscosifier HPHT fluid loss
Organoclay 2 Sag preventer Rheology modifier
Treated inorganic
HPHT fluid loss Rheology modifier
materials
Fatty acids Syneresis suppression Emulsifier

Mineral Oil Sensitivity Analysis

Data Measured @Temperature = 498.2°F

0.85

Extrapolated

0.8

0.75
Density, g/cc

0.7

0.65

0.6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Pressure, psi

30,000psi 20,000psi Poly. (30,000psi) Poly. (20,000psi)

Figure 1: Extrapolated versus measured density of a commonly used base-fluid as a

function of pressure.
IADC/SPE 103731 7

Corrected ESD for Temperature and Pressure

ESD, ppg
18.15 18.2 18.25 18.3 18.35 18.4 18.45 18.5 18.55 18.6 18.65 18.7
0

-5000

-10000
TVD, feet

-15000

-20000

-25000

-30000

ESD (corrected) ESD

Figure 2: Equivalent Static Density with and without Pressure and Temperature Corrections

Modeling Circulating Temperature

Temperature, °F
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0

-5000

-10000
TVD, feet

Mud Cooler
-15000 w/o Mud Cooler
Geothermal

-20000

-25000

-30000

Figure 3: CTP with and without Mud Cooler

8 IADC/SPE 103731

ESD at CPT and GTP

ESD, ppg
17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8
0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000
TVD, feet

-10000

-12000

-14000

-16000

-18000
17.59 17.72

-20000

ESD (CTP) ESD (Insitu-Geothermal)

Figure 4: ESD at CTP and Geothermal Temperature Profile

Circulating Temperature Profile vs Insitu-Geothermal Temperature Profile

Temperature, °F
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000
TVD, feet

-10000

-12000

-14000

-16000

-18000

-20000

CTP Insitu-Geothermal

Figure 5: CTP and Geothermal Temperature Profile

IADC/SPE 103731 9

Figure 6: Fluid attracted into a vertical flux gap. One pole of the magnet is submerged in
the ferromagnetic recycled oil-based field mud while the other is visible.

Figure 7: Chandler 7600 HP/HT mud viscometer designed for ≤40,000 psi
and ≤600°F operating conditions.
10 IADC/SPE 103731

HT/HP Viscometers Data

140
Fann 75 Technical Limit
120
100
dial reading

Fann 75 / 600 Reading

80
Fann 75 / 300 Reading
60 Chandler 7600 / 300 Reading
Chandler 7600 / 300 Reading
40
Chandler 7600
20 Extended Range

0
150 250 303 526 Temperature o F

14.7 9,500 14,300 33,000 Pressure, psig

Figure 8: Viscosity Evaluation Using Fann 75 and Chandler 7600at different HT/HP conditions
using a reformulated 18.0 lb/gal invert emulsion fluid

Downhole Model Coefficients

-5000

-10000
MD=TVD, ft.

-15000

-20000

-25000

-30000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
n, unitless : k, Pa*s^n

GoodFit_n GoodFit_k PoorFit_n PoorFit_k

Figure 9: Calculated Rheological Coefficients Fit From HP/HT Viscometer Data

IADC/SPE 103731 11

Downhole Viscosity Affect on ECD

-5000

-10000
MD=TVD, ft.

-15000

-20000

-25000

-30000
19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 20
ECD, ppg

GoodFit_ECD PoorFit_ECD

Figure 10: ECD Results with calculated coefficients in Figure 4

Methane Solubility in Various Fluids

at 100 F
500

450

400 Mineral oil A

Methane solubility, SCF/ bbl

Diesel oil
350 Mineral oil B
Brine
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure, psia

Figure 11: Methane solubility in various fluids at 100ºF with increasing pressure.
(from SPE 15414)