SPE/IADC 52815 New Permeability Plugging Apparatus Procedure Addresses Safety and Technology Issues ,

N. Davis, * ** Consultant (formerly of Chevron Petroleum Technology Company); P. Mihalik**, BP Exploration Operating Company; P. , R. Lundie, * P & M International; Fred Growcock, * ** Amoco E&P Technology Group; G. Calloni, * Eniricerche; and E. Davidson, * , ** Baroid Drilling Fluids
*SPE Members **IADC Members
Copyright 1999, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, Holland, 911 March 1999. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of 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.

The new API procedure addresses the safety issues of the PPA cell designs. Further, to provide consistency between users, the procedure outlines a new method of calculating spurt loss and total filtrate volume parameters based on the test data. The new procedure has been used, both in the laboratory and the field, to evaluate seepage loss additives as well as traditional lost circulation additives. Case histories are provided which demonstrate successful use of the device in evaluating lost circulation material and in the prevention of differential sticking problems while drilling depleted zones as well as designing pills for severe lost circulation.

Abstract
For the past nine years, the drilling industry has used the Permeability Plugging Apparatus (PPA) to assist in evaluating and resolving differential sticking and lost circulation problems which may arise while drilling depleted, weak or fractured zones. The increasing use of open hole completions in horizontal wells also means that more attention has to be paid to the cake forming properties of drilling fluids. The PPA is a high pressure, high temperature filtration device designed to evaluate fluid loss and spurt loss of drilling fluids under filtration conditions that more closely approximate those encountered downhole than the filter paper normally used. Although filtration occurs under static rather than dynamic conditions, pressures as high as 5000 psi (34,500 kPA) and temperatures of up to 500F (260C) may be investigated. The main feature of the PPA is the use of ceramic disks as the filtration medium. These are available in a wide range of porosities and permeabilities to match those properties of the formation much better than filter paper can. There are currently five PPA types with different pressure ratings that are in use in the laboratory and the field. In response to concern about the safe use of these devices, and the reproducibility of the data generated with them, the American Petroleum Institute initiated a program to investigate these issues, and to produce a standardized test procedure.

Introduction
Differential sticking of the drill string has been a problem that has plagued the industry for many years. In many offshore environments such as the Gulf of Mexico, this has been a frequent problem because of the large change in pressure gradients over a few thousand feet. In many cases, a high permeability formation permits large volumes of drilling fluid filtrate to move into the formation leaving behind a thick wall cake on the wellbore. API recommended practices for evaluating filtrate loss and mud cake thickness utilize paper as the filter medium, which obviously does not approximate the porous formations being drilled. The use of porous disks as a filter medium was initiated to address this problem1. A standard high pressure/high temperature (HPHT) filtration unit was modified to accept ceramic disks with permeabilities that approximate those of downhole formations. While this standard unit was normally operated at 500 psi (3450 kPA) when used as a HPHT test cell, the cell assembly had substantially higher pressure specifications. The earlier disk-modified cells were run, in many cases, at pressure differentials of 2000 psi (13,800 kPA) or more and up to 500F (260C) temperature to approximate downhole condition. Drilling fluid samples from field operations were obtained and filtration tests using the porous disk were compared with the conventional API HPHT using glassbacked paper. In most cases filtration test results obtained

NEAL DAVIS FRED GROWCOCK PETER LUNDIE PETER MIHALIK

SPE/IADC 52815

with the modified device, using the porous disks, were substantially higher than the API rates. A frequent problem observed in these early static tests was settling of barite in the bottom of the cell because of the thinning of the mud at HPHT. Since the mud cake is developed on the side of the borehole wall and not on the bottom of the hole, the results from this type of test were considered unacceptable. The equipment was revised to allow filtration in the upward direction, reversing the normal method of collection2. Once it was determined that this revised design was more acceptable, manufacturing began in 1990 on a modified filtration unit called the Inverted HP/HT Assembly. Later the name of the unit was changed to the Permeability Plugging Apparatus (PPA), shown in Figure 1, and the procedure was called the Permeability Plugging Test (PPT)3. The PPA was used to evaluate the filtration and spurt loss of drilling fluids. Armed with this tool, materials such as cellulose fibers and large calcium carbonate chips could be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing filtration losses and mud cake thickness. In addition, the operator could make adjustments on the fly to the mud system to minimize the effects of differential pressure sticking. Several operators were able to modify their mud systems and operating procedures to allow drilling in depleted sands with differential pressures of 5000 (34,500 kPA) to 6000 psi (41,400 kPA) without becoming differentially stuck4. Because of the initial successes in the use of the PPA, two drilling fluid instrument companies began to manufacture additional PPAs. By the mid-1990s, over 200 PPAs had been sold to the drilling industry world-wide5.

API Research Project

The original PPA cells and some of the accessory equipment such as the set screw secured end caps, Figure 2, were rated at a working pressure of 2500 psi (17,250 kPA). The early models were sold without a complete operational manual, resulting in wide variability in operating procedures. Some users employed pressures in excess of 2500 psi (17,250 kPA). As a result, the end caps became warped and the set screws elongated. There were several instances of premature end cap releases with excess pressure in the cells. The PPA manufacturers initiated a safety evaluation of the equipment, which resulted in downsizing the pressure rating on the equipment to 1800 psi (12,420 kPA), or 2000 psi (13,800 kPA), depending upon the manufacturer. The two engineering firms established different safety limits on what appeared to be identical pieces of equipment. These limits were stated in the manuals issued with the new equipment; however, users of those PPAs sold previously were not adequately informed of the changes. Over the next few years, the two manufacturers brought onto the market three additional higher working pressure PPAs using a new threaded end cap, Figure 3. By 1997 there were five different pressure rated PPAs. Only 3 of the 5 types had identifying pressure ratings stamped on the cells. In addition, only one manufacturer produced operating

manuals that provided the necessary information for safe operating conditions3. Because many of the users were uninformed about the correct safety specifications, there were additional unsafe experiences in the laboratory and in the field by inexperienced or uninformed operators of the equipment. Responding to the concerns of many of the oilfield operators and suppliers, the API, in late 1996, provided research money to develop a procedure for the PPA. The original research proposal Test Procedures for Seepage Control Materials was presented to the API for consideration as a 1996 research project by the API Sub Committee 13 International Task Group. The proposal was to identify a safe and standardized laboratory test procedure to ensure that seepage loss materials used to seal off porous rock are suitable for that purpose. Concurrent with the work of the International Task Group was that of another Work Group under the Drilling Fluid Testing Task Group in the United States, which was evaluating certain procedures for the Permeability Plugging Test. The API approved the research proposal and the task of both groups was combined into one research project. A Technical Advisory Committee was appointed, a principal investigator was selected, and the work was initiated in January, 1997. The main objective of the project was to develop a procedure for the PPA, which could permit evaluation in a safe manner of seepage control materials to minimize fluid loss against a permeable medium. The project would be taking a fundamental look at the design and operation of the existing Permeability Plugging Test (PPT) to determine whether simple modifications to the procedure and/or equipment could be made to address the issues described below. Safety. High pressures and temperatures are used, and there is the potential, with the current design, for unsafe operation, including failure of the end caps if excessive pressure is used. Although safety modifications have been made by the manufacturers, safe operating procedures have not been generally established or widely publicized in the earlier equipment. The user must be informed of all safety procedures prior to using the equipment. Filter Medium. There are concerns over the use of the ceramic discs as the filter medium because considerable variability between discs has been observed. It is viewed that a lack of consistent base line data, particularly for the coarser discs, may be due to random variations in pore sizes and permeability of the discs. Ceramic discs have not been well characterized in terms of pore size distribution and this can make matching sizes to a given formation difficult. In addition, there has been considerable variability between disks even within the same manufactured batch that has lead to problems with the reproducibility of filtration data. Finally, no directions were issued by the PPA manufacturers with regard to the use of alternate filtering media, such as sand beds, fractured rock, and cores.

SPE/IADC 52815 - NEW PERMEABILITY PLUGGING APPARATUS PROCEDURE ADDRESSES SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Dead Space Volume. There can be difficulties in accurately measuring small seepage losses due to substantial dead volume down stream of the filter medium outlet. The void space can vary in each piece of equipment and, unless filled with a fluid, can provide results that are not reproducible between laboratories. Cell Orientation. Settling of solids on the filter medium at the initiation of the test can reduce filtration rates and cause reproducibility problems. Orienting the cell upside down or in the filter up mode usually eliminates the problem. However, settling will now generally lead to a measured filtration rate that is too high. Although not perfect, this is considered acceptable because the result gives a conservative (high) result. Of course, the filter up orientation cannot be used with a sand bed as the filter medium. Definition of Spurt Loss and Filtrate Volume. Spurt loss has, until now, not been defined in a very exact manner so that comparison among laboratories of spurt loss values has always been difficult. The research project would provide an optional definition of spurt loss, which could be used by all users. Filter Cake Quality. Guidelines on evaluation of the quality of the filter cake (thickness, hardness, and stickiness) have always been very crude and made characterization of the filter cake a very subjective exercise. Static versus Dynamic Test. The PPA is a static test. Is it possible to modify the cell to provide both static and dynamic filtration? This would be investigated.

became difficult to determine the correct pressure limit as there were no or few marks on the cell identifying the manufacture. One manufacturer did develop a procedure manual that outlined the important safety features in the test. Later the two manufacturers designed a threaded screw type end cap with ratings 3000 psi (20,700 kPA) and 5000 psi (34,500 kPA) by one manufacturer and 4000 psi (27,600 kPA) by the other manufacturer. However, only one manufacture identified the pressure limitation by stamping the cell end cap. In order to provide better safety instructions to all of the users, the API developed procedures that will be included the API Recommended Practices. These will be made available to all users upon request to the API office. The procedures contain a warning: if the safety specification of the apparatus is not known, the operator should use the following as the maximum operating pressure 1800 psi (12,420 kPA) for the set screw secured end cap and 3000 psi (20,700 kPA) for the threaded end cap. Instruction Manual Both manufacturers have instruction manuals for the original PPA equipment. However only one manufacturer has a wellwritten manual for the new, higher pressure apparatus, detailing the safe operation of the equipment. The new procedures available from the API should not replace these manuals but should supplement them. In addition, the new API procedure will outline the correct procedure for running the test and enhance the ability of the user to obtain repeatable results. There are numerous safety recommendations in the procedures, which incorporate suggestions from the manufacturers and operators. Filter Medium One of the sources of the greatest variability in the test results is the permeability and pore throat size of the filter medium. There are presently many different types of filter media that may be adapted for use in a PPA (see Figure 4): a) b) c) d) e) f) Ceramic Disks Berea Cores Sintered or Slotted Metal Disks Sand Beds Resin Coated Sand Beds Resin Coated Disks

Research Project Results

Safety The initial part of the investigation focused on the safety aspects of the PPA design. There are presently two manufacturers of the equipment with five different pressure specifications. These include two devices using the set screw secured end cap (Figure 2) and three using the threaded end cap (Figure 3). The initial design used the set screw-secured end cap. Many operators initially used excessive pressure, 2500 psi (17500 kPA) or more, in conducting the test. As a result, the end caps were often damaged due to the excessive stress. Four main types of damage have been observed: end cap bending, end cap compression, cylinder shear, and cylinder stress. Damage to the caps and thread screws reduces the cells pressure rating. Several incidences of cap failure during a test or disassembly have been reported. As a result, both manufacturers had engineering firms validate the safe pressure limitations on the cells. They arrived at different specifications 1800 psi (12,420 kPA) or 2000 psi (13,800 kPA) for the earlier cells. For the users of the equipment, it

In the field, the ceramic disks are normally used, while under laboratory conditions other filter media are often available and used instead of / or in addition to ceramic disks. With the exception of sintered or slotted metal disks, most of these alternate filter media can possess substantial variation in permeability due to the variance in pore throat.. Ceramic disks are used in most field tests because of the availability of the disks, the economics, and the simplicity of utilization. There are problems with reproducibility of results because of the quality control needed in the manufacturing stage. The disks are usually classified by median pore size and permeability

NEAL DAVIS FRED GROWCOCK PETER LUNDIE PETER MIHALIK

SPE/IADC 52815

that are normally determined by the manufacturer for quality control to ensure consistency. However, test data on the disks of the same nominal pore size/permeability designation often show significant scatter in these properties which can cause substantial variation in filtration results. To rectify this situation, a simple flow test using water or a base fluid, the disks, and the PPA can be used in both the field and in the laboratory to further classify disks from one lot or several lots to ensure better repeatability. It would be advisable to classify the disks when performing comparison tests of seepage materials or cooperative tests between laboratories. This flow test is found in the new API procedure. Dead Space Volume For accurate comparisons of data collected in the PPT, it is important that the dead space volumes in the stem between the outlet valve and receiver tube, and in the space under the receiver tube drain valve be eliminated prior to the use of the equipment. The total dead space volume must be filled with filtrate before any volume of filtrate can be recorded. If the dead or void space were not filled, spurt loss/filtrate volumes measured would be too low by an amount equal to the dead space volume. In the case of a low spurt loss drilling fluid, no filtrate whatsoever may be observed unless the dead space volume is filled. Orientation of the Cells The PPA can easily be modified to run in either type of vertical orientation filter up (normal), or filter down (inverted). In the filter up position, only ceramic disks, metal disks, or cores can be used as a filter medium. If sand beds or other similar types of filtering media are to be used, the orientation should be in the filter down position. Results shown in Table 1 indicate that different results will be obtained when comparing the different orientations. In addition, neither of the two designs of PPA device can operate in both static and dynamic mode. Both manufacturers do offer a dynamic apparatus that may be run under static conditions. In practice, however, the dynamic apparatus are rarely run in a static mode since the systems are considerably more complex and pressure limitations are more severe. After careful consideration it was concluded that it was beyond the scope of the API project to investigate means of converting the PPA cell from static to a dynamic mode. Spurt Loss and Filtrate Volume Spurt loss is generally defined as the filtrate or fluid loss that elutes through the filter medium before a filter cake is established6. However, there is at present no single standard procedure for the measurement of spurt loss. Spurt loss and filter cake qualities are considered critical parameters for determination of differential sticking and formation damage potential. In addition, spurt loss has been the most frequently used parameter for assessing the effectiveness of cellulose fiber and other materials in sealing off seepage and building a

thin wall cake. Different laboratories use different methods to measure spurt loss, e.g. the amount of filtrate collected at the start of a PPA test (over a period of time for example one minute) or the amount of filtrate collected during the pressuring cycle while the receiver tube blows dry. In addition, if a hand hydraulic pump is used to maintain the differential pressure across the filter medium, it is difficult during the first one to two minutes of the test to maintain that pressure constant while trying to measure the spurt loss. Tests performed by several companies provided data that can be used to better define the procedure for spurt loss and filtrate volume collection. One operator collected filtrate volumes at four or five intervals throughout a 30-minute test. Another operator collected filtrate continuously. Both indicate similar results. Using several types of mud systems, with and without permeability plugging sealing material, filtrate volumes collected were plotted vs the square root of time (see Figure 5). The first section of the plot is the spurt regime whereas the second section is the filtrate regime. Extrapolation of the filtration line back to the zero time provides a measure of the spurt loss, which is close to the bend in the plot between spurt and filtration. This result was very close to the measured spurt loss used by other companies (see Table 2). There is greater reproducibility in this method than other methods used by various operators. The new API procedure will therefore define spurt loss as the intercept on the y-axis of the plot of filtrate (in mL on y-axis) vs square root of time (in min on x-axis). It is recommended that at least four measurements be made during the 30 minute test 1, 7.5, 15, and 30 minutes. The spurt loss and the total filtrate should be corrected since the filter medium is usually one-half the area size of the conventional API filter paper. In the PPT, the answers should be doubled. In lieu of plotting the data, estimates of the filtration parameters can be made from the data collected at 7.5 and 30 minute intervals. PPT value, ml = 2 X EV30 where EV30 is the total filtrate collected in 30 minutes ! Spurt Loss, ml = 2 X [EV7.5 (EV30-EV7.5)] where EV7.5 is the filtrate collected in 7.5 minutes. ! Static Filtration Rate mL/min1/2 = 2 X [EV30EV7.5]/2.739 Description of the filter cake should also be attempted including cake thickness, firmness, stickiness and other unusual characteristics.
!

Round-Robin Testing
Following the development of the operating procedures including both safety and technical recommendations, round robin tests were conducted among five participating laboratories. Each laboratory, on the testing day, received calibrated ceramic disks, drilling fluids mixed by the research laboratory, and instructions on the procedure. Each lab ran

SPE/IADC 52815 - NEW PERMEABILITY PLUGGING APPARATUS PROCEDURE ADDRESSES SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

triplicate tests on the drilling fluid in the one day, using the same PPA. Test results, over three trials, indicated that there was good repeatability within each lab, but some margin of difference among labs (Table 3). The margin of difference could be attributed to the filter medium, the differing dead space in each apparatus, mixing procedures for the mud prior to testing, and variability associated with the style of the technician e.g. how rapidly valves were opened. However, the margin of difference fell within the limits recognized by the API.

New API Procedures

At the conclusion of the research project, six new procedures for the permeability plugging tests were written and adopted by the API. The procedures can be used for water-based and oil/synthetic-based drilling fluids in a field or laboratory environment with instructions for both the threaded end cap and the set screw secured end cap. The procedures will be made available by the API by mid-year, 1999. The procedures for the field usage are found in API RP 13-B-1 and B-2, while the procedures for laboratory use are found in API RP 13-I.

In the Gulf of Mexico, some operators and drilling fluid companies are using the PPA to monitor the drilling spurt loss, total filtrate values, and mud cake description during the daily, routine drilling fluid checks. In addition, they are using the PPA test results to minimize mud cake buildup while drilling permeable, depleted sandstone formations. In the Destin Dome area, drilling fluid test comparison between the HPHT and the PPA indicated substantial differences in high temperature fluid loss and cake. The HPHT at 375F (191F) was 52.0 cm3 and 13/32 inch filter cake. The PPA showed total filtrate at 21.2 cm3 and 6/32 inch filter cake. There was substantial barite settling in the HPTC, which was not being experienced in the actual drilling operations. As a result, the mud was only lightly treated and asphalt was added for some minor seepage loss.

Conclusions
1. The Permeability Plugging Apparatus can be used successfully to evaluate seepage control materials and minimize the potential for differential sticking. Five types of PPA cells are being manufactured, each with a different pressure rating. There can be a safety problem if the user does not know the pressure limitations of the equipment. New procedures have been adopted by the API which address the technical and safety issues of the PPA. These procedures will be available by mid-year 1999. New methods of obtaining spurt loss, filtrate, and mud cake characteristics have been described in the new API procedure. The calculations for the spurt loss and total fluid volume have been established. The Permeability Plugging Test can be run on basic mud systems to determine filtration rates and mud cake thickness which may differ markedly from the API fluid loss tests which uses paper as the filter Users of the equipment should know the pressure limitations of the equipment. If these are not available, PPA cells should be operated at pressures no higher than 1800 psi (12,420 kPA) for cells using the set screw secured end caps and 3000 psi (20,700 kPA) for cells using threaded end caps.

2.

Case Histories
The PPA has been used successfully over the past several years to solve many operational problems associated with poor filtration control. One operator in West Africa experienced 84 incidences of stuck pipe in one year, mostly from differential pressure sticking. The operator was required to drill with a high 11.5-12.0 ppg mud weight to provide borehole stability in a stressed shale formation. The underlying sandstone formations were normally pressured. As a result, the sandstone formations were drilled with an overbalance pressure of 15002000 psi (10,350-13,800 kPA). Once the problem was recognized, a PPA was obtained and tests were performed to determine the optimum treatment of seepage control drilling fluid material such as cellulose fiber and Gilsonite. Initial tests of the base mud indicated a high spurt loss and thick wall cake. Treatment with the cellulose fiber and Gilsonite materials greatly reduced the spurt loss and cake thickness. Once the correct treatment was established, the incidences of stuck pipe were reduced by 75%. The same operator in Kazakhstan was experiencing severe loss circulation while drilling a high pressured, extensive carbonate formation. At the request of the operator, the companys drilling fluids laboratory in Houston designed several types of loss circulation pills using the PPA. Filter media ranging from porous ceramic discs to slotted metal disks were employed in the design. Using these pills, lost circulation has been minimized.

3.

4.

5.

6.

NEAL DAVIS FRED GROWCOCK PETER LUNDIE PETER MIHALIK

SPE/IADC 52815

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron Petroleum Technology Company for permission to publish the results from the research project. We also thank Harry Dearing of O-G-S International and Jim Berger of Fann Instruments for providing the historical background of the development of the Permeability Plugging Apparatus. Finally, we would like to thank Keith Morton and Pat Wilder of Chevron for laboratory support in the project development and Tchelinda Washington-Andrews for assistance in the paper presentation.

References
1. Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids, Fourth Edition, G. R. Gray, H. C. H. Darley, and W. F. Rogers, Gulf Publishing Company Book Division. Harry Dearing, O-G-S International, Personal Communications. James Berger, Fann Instruments, Personal Communications. Newhouse, C. C. Successfully Drilling Severely Depleted Sands SPE/IADC 21913, SPE/IADC Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, March 11-14, 1991. Larry Mitchell, O-F-I Testing Equipment, Inc., Personal Communications. The Effects of Mud Filtrate Invasion On the EWR Log A Case History, Phil Holbrook, SPWLA 26th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-20, 1985.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Effluent Volume, ml.

Slope 4.23 Intercept 24.94 Spurt Loss Spurt Regime

Sq. Root Time, min.

Figure 5: Plot Showing Spurt Loss and Filtrate Slope

Run Filter Position Timed Fluid Loss CG 2 min 5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min Total PPT Value Cake Thickness

#1 Filter Up 11.3 12.6 14.3 15.5 16.3 17.4 18.4 36.8 2

#2 Filter Up 12.6 14.4 16.2 17.9 19.0 20.2 24.8 49.6 3

#1 Filter Down 12.5 14.3 15.0 16.9 17.6 18.6 19.6 39.2 2

#2 Filter Down 11.5 13.1 14.9 16.1 17.1 17.9 18.6 37.2 2

Table 1: Comparison of Filtrate Values with Filter Up and Filter Down Positions. Lightly Treated Lignosulfonate with 6 ppb Cellulose Fiber

Cellulose Fiber
Pounds per barrel

Aloxite Disk (m) 10 60 150 10 60 150

Spurt (mL) 22.3 35.2 56.0 5.14 7.41 271

Intercept (mL) 21.1 34.0 53.2 5.71 7.60 270

Mud 1

0 6 30

Intercept 7.5/30-min data (mL) 21.7 (2.7%) 34.3 (2.6%) 53.9 (3.8%) 6.20 (6.7%) 8.02 (8.2%) 277 (2.2%)

Mud 2

0 2 2

Table 2:

Comparison of Y-Intercept Value with Spurt Loss And Intercept estimated from 7.5 & 30-min Data

Test - Day 1
Lab 1 1 Spurt Loss PPT Cake Filter Rate
17 43 3 2.37

Lab 2 3
31 51 3 1.83

Lab 3 3 22.2
51.8 4 2.70

Lab 4 3
30.4 54.4 4 2.19

Lab 5 3
30 61.2 5.1 2.85

2
27 49 3 2.01

1 22
42 4 1.83

2 23.2
50.2 4 2.56

1
31 61 4 2.739

2
33.2 60.4 5 2.483

1
37.2 52.4 4.4 1.39

2
30.8 55.6 4.8 2.26

1
31.5 54.5 7 2.099

2
43.4 71.4 8 2.566

3
42 70 7 2.556

Test - Day 2
Lab 1 1 Spurt Loss PPT Cake Filter Rate 17
43 6 2.37

Lab 2 3 19
45 6 2.37

Lab 3 3
17.0 45.0 4 2.56

Lab 4 3
20 44 3<4 2.14

Lab 5 3
14.8 47.6 4.38 2.99

2 16
46 6 2.74

1
17.8 48.2 4 2.74

2
16.8 47.2 4 2.77

1
20 44 4 2.19

2
20 44 5 2.19

1
13.8 50.6 4.54 3.36

2
14.8 48.4 4.38 3.07

1
22 46 4 2.191

2
29 55 5 2.373

3
28 54 5 2.373

Table 3:

Round Robin Test Results. Mud System Fresh Water Lightly Treated Lignosulfonate with 6 ppb. Cellulose Fiber