FORM ATE

TE CH N I CA L

M A N UA L

C A B O T

C O M PAT I B I L I T I E S A N D I N T E R A C T I O N S

SECTION B10
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RESERVOIR
B10.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 2
B10.2 Mechanisms of formation damage, and how they apply to formate brines.......................................... 2
B10.2.1 Fluid-fluid incompatibilities...................................................................................................................... 2
B10.2.2 Rock-fluid incompatibilities...................................................................................................................... 3
B10.2.3 Solids invasion.............................................................................................................................................. 3
B10.2.4 Phase trapping / blocking ........................................................................................................................ 3
B10.2.5 Chemical adsorption / wettability alteration...................................................................................... 4
B10.2.6 Biological activity......................................................................................................................................... 4
B10.3 Reservoir condition coreflood testing with formate brines ....................................................................... 4
B10.3.1 Formate testing artifacts and pitfalls ............................................................................................... 4
B10.3.2 How to perform a coreflood test on a formate brine or drilling fluid...........................................7
B10.4 Formation water compatibility testing with formate brines....................................................................... 9
B10.4.1 Scale prediction using modeling software packages ..................................................................10
B10.4.2 Scale prediction using laboratory bottle testing..............................................................................11
B10.5 Comparison of formate brines with other high-density brines..................................................................11
B10.5.1 Comparison with calcium bromide / calcium chloride brines .....................................................11
B10.5.2 Comparison with zinc bromide brine ..................................................................................................12
B10.5.3 Comparison with potassium hydrogen phosphate brine.............................................................12
B10.6 Comparison of formate drilling fluids with solids-weighted drilling fluids...........................................13
B10.7 Published field cases..............................................................................................................................................16
B10.7.1 Oriente, Ecuador, 1997...............................................................................................................................16
B10.7.2 NAM, offshore Netherlands, 1997..........................................................................................................19
B10.7.3 BP, Harding Field, offshore UK, 1999.....................................................................................................19
B10.7.4 ExxonMobil, HPHT gas fields, Germany, 1996 2000....................................................................20
B10.7.5 Western Canada, 1999 2004..............................................................................................................20
B10.7.6 Statoil, Huldra Field, offshore Norway, 2001 2003 .................................................................... 20
B10.7.7 Shell, Brigantine Field, offshore UK, 2000 2001........................................................................... 22
B10.7.8 OMV, Miano and Sawan Fields, onshore Pakistan, 2001...............................................................22
B10.7.9 Norsk Hydro, Visund Field, offshore Norway, 2002 .......................................................................22
B10.7.10 BP, Devenick Field, offshore UK, 2001..................................................................................................23
B10.7.11 Saudi Aramco, Pre-Khuff, Saudi Arabia, 2004 .................................................................................23
B10.7.12 Petrobras, Manati, Brazil, 2008 ............................................................................................................24
B10.8 Analyzes of production data from fields drilled and completed with formate brines ...................................25
References .......................................................................................................................................................................................................27
The Formate Technical Manual is continually updated.
To check if a newer version of this section exists please visit formatebrines.com/manual

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER. The data and conclusions contained herein are based on work believed to be reliable; however, CABOT cannot and does not guarantee that similar results
and/or conclusions will be obtained by others. This information is provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. No guarantee or warranty as to this information, or
any product to which it relates, is given or implied. CABOT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AS TO
(i) SUCH INFORMATION, (ii) ANY PRODUCT OR (iii) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT. In no event is CABOT responsible for, and CABOT does not accept and hereby disclaims liability for,
any damages whatsoever in connection with the use of or reliance on this information or any product to which it relates.
2013 Cabot Corporation, MA, USA. All rights reserved. CABOT is a registered trademark of Cabot Corporation.

VERSION 2 09/13

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

B10.1 Introduction
The introduction of low-solids drill-in and completion
fluids based on halide brines in the 1970s was a major
step forward in reducing damage to reservoirs and
accessing the full economic benefits of horizontal
open-hole completions. However, the brines were not
suitable for all wells. For instance, it soon became
apparent that the higher-density bromide brines had a
number of shortcomings as drill-in fluids. One of these
is incompatibility with reservoirs sensitive to fluids
containing divalent cations. In this context, sensitive
reservoirs include those with soluble SO4 or HCO3 in their
formation waters and those containing H2S in their gas
phase. Also, it was not possible to make a thermallystable drilling fluid from halide brines, meaning that
they could not be used to drill high-angle HPHT wells
completed in open hole for maximum production rates.
This technology gap was filled by the development and
production of formate brines [1][2], which differed from
bromide brines by being compatible with all types of
reservoirs [3][4].
Shell and Mobil were the first companies to prove
and use low-solids formate brines as non-damaging
reservoir drill-in and completion fluids [5][6]. Brines
based on sodium and potassium formate are now
routinely used as drill-in and completion fluids in field
developments where fluid density requirements do not
exceed 1.60 g/cm3 / 13.35 lb/gal, e.g. see [7][8]. Statoil
became the first user of cesium formate brine as drill-in
and completion fluid in the Huldra gas / condensate
field development in January 2001 [9]. Since then,
cesium formate brine has been used as drill-in fluid
by Statoil, BP and Petrobras in 30 deep-gas well
constructions, including five wells drilled in MPD mode.
In all cases, cesium formate brine was also used as the
well-completion fluid.
Formate brines have revolutionized well construction
projects by allowing operators to drill and complete
long high-angle open-hole reservoir sections that can
efficiently deliver recoverable hydrocarbon reserves.
Examples of this are the Huldra and Tune fields, where
formate brines have been used as combined drill-in
and completion fluids [10]. These wells have delivered
almost 100% of recoverable gas and condensate
reserves in only ten years.
Formation damage has never been reported in any
wells drilled or completed with cesium formate brine.
In fact, Cabot is aware of only one instance where
formation damage has been reported from wells drilled
and / or completed with formate brines since formates
PAGE 2

SECTION B10

were first introduced in the early 1990s. In this one

case, the cause of the damage was traced to an overly
generous addition of carbonate / bicarbonate pH buffer
and the problem was simply mitigated by reducing the
amount of carbonate in the brine [11].
This section of the Formate Technical Manual outlines
known mechanisms / causes of formation damage
and explains why formate brines are unlikely to cause
it. The two common methods for testing formation
damage potential of oilfield brines and fluids are then
discussed. These are standard reservoir condition
coreflood testing and formation water compatibility
testing. In addition, the performance of some standard
scale prediction software packages commonly used to
predict scaling with reservoir water is compared. The
section also includes the results of some formation
damage tests with other oilfield brines, and finally, the
excellent field performance of formate brines is reviewed.

B10.2 Mechanisms of formation damage, and

how they apply to formate brines
The apparent absence of formation damage in reservoirs
contacted by formate-based fluids indicates that these
fluids cause minimal permanent changes in the relative
permeability of the reservoir to hydrocarbons. To
achieve this effect, formate brines and additives must
effectively leave the rock matrix, porosity, pore-lining
minerals, and residual reservoir fluids in near-native
condition following their removal from the near-wellbore
area as a result of production. Alternatively, if they
do cause a degree of formation damage, it must be
temporary or they must simultaneously stimulate the
reservoir in such a way that overall measured skin is
relatively low.
In order to understand how formates can have this
effect, it is instructive to look at the known causes of
formation damage and how they might apply to fluids
formulated with formate brines. Bennion and Thomas [12]
have identified the following causes of formation
damage mechanisms in well construction and
intervention operations as detailed below.
B10.2.1 Fluid-fluid incompatibilities
Adverse reactions between invading drilling or
completion fluid filtrates and the in-situ fluids (oil or
formation brine) to form scales, insoluble precipitates,
asphaltic sludges, or stable emulsions [12].

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

Formate brines contain nothing that cause adverse

reactions with formation fluids. Both alkali metal
cations and formate anions are monovalent and
very soluble, so any precipitates that could form
are water-soluble salts. However, levels of divalent
cations in formation waters are not high enough to form
such precipitates with formate brines under reservoir
conditions. Formate brines are free from surfactants and
multivalent ions, making it impossible for them to create
stable emulsions or water-insoluble scales.

(74% reduction in return permeability), whilst in the

potassium formate brine this was significantly reduced
(15% reduction in return permeability). Whether kaolinite
flocculation occurs or not depends on the critical
concentration of electrolyte required for flocculation, i.e.
the flocculation value. The flocculation value is known
to be lower for brines containing divalent ions than for
those based on monovalent ions, something that favors
formates over alternative high-density halide brines
(CaCl2, CaBr2, and ZnBr2), which all contain divalent ions.

Since incompatibility with formation water is a common

problem with other heavy-brine systems used as
well-construction fluids [13], this topic is discussed in
more detail in B10.4. In addition, B10.4 covers possible
incompatibility that can originate from carbonate ions
normally added to formate brines as a pH buffer.

B10.2.3 Solids invasion

Penetration and blocking of reservoir pore throats by
solids suspended in drilling and completion fluids.
The permanent lodging of solids in the formation pore
throats can severely reduce permeability [12].

B10.2.2 Rock-fluid incompatibilities

Adverse reactions between invading water-based
filtrates and sensitive pore-lining clays leading to
fines mobilization and associated reductions in
near-wellbore permeability [12].
Formate brines are known for their ability to stabilize
shale (see Section B11, Compatibility with Shale). This
can be attributed to their very low water activity and the
presence of beneficial ions, such as potassium, cesium,
and formate. Based on this, formate brines are not
expected to cause any formation damage of this type.
Pore-lining smectite clays can swell and disintegrate
when contacted by a filtrate fluid that has lower
salinity than the native reservoir brine. As formate
brines usually contain clay-swelling inhibitors (K and
Cs ions) and are rarely used at salinities lower than the
formation water, it seems unlikely that they cause this
type of formation damage.
Deflocculation of certain types of pore-lining clays is
known to be another cause of formation damage in
low-salinity brines [14]. When low-salinity brines invade
the reservoir, the pore-lining clays undergo a process
of separation and movement through the pore system,
leading to bridging and plugging of pore throats. Formate
brines are normally used at high salinity, so this form of
damage mechanism is also highly unlikely to occur.
In 1997, Bishop [15] found that certain high-salinity
brines can cause formation damage by flocculating
kaolinite-type clays. Bishop investigated the difference
between saturated NaCl brine and potassium formate
brine at the same density. He found that NaCl brine
caused severe formation damage in his coreflood tests
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

Solids invasion is a common source of formation

damage in conventional drill-in fluids containing
solid-weighting agents, such as barite [16].
As formate brines can provide the full density requirements
of drilling and completion fluid, use of intractable solidweighting agents, such as barite, can be avoided. If
solid particles are required in the brine as filter cake or
bridging agents, they can be screened and selected
on their ability to minimize formation damage potential.
When solids are required as filter cake material in
formate-based drilling fluids, it is common practice to use
sized calcium carbonate particles. Calcium carbonate
used as bridging material is advantageous as it can be
sized to fit the pore throat. Furthermore, filtercakes lift
off easily, and are acid soluble.
There have been cases, e.g. in Alaska, where formate
brines have been successfully used as entirely solidsfree drill-in fluids, relying solely on viscosifying additives
to provide fluid-loss control [17]. In contrast to other
high-density brines (CaCl2, CaBr2, ZnBr2), formate brines
have the advantage of being compatible with polymers
to high temperatures, allowing formulation of solids-free
drill-in fluids for all well conditions.
B10.2.4 Phase trapping / blocking
Invasion and permanent entrapment of oil or
water filtrates in the near-wellbore region. These
trapped fluids can substantially reduce the relative
permeability of the reservoir to hydrocarbons [12].
Comparisons of logging data obtained during (LWD)
and after (wireline log) drilling with formate brines
show that formate filtrates are mobile and appear to
disappear quite quickly from the near-wellbore area in
low-permeability gas reservoirs [18]. A suggestion
SECTION B10

PAGE 3

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

of formate brine retention has been obtained in a

coreflood test with very low-permeability (0.35 mD)
sandstone core using gas production phases saturated
with water at room temperature, but this effect is
thought to be a laboratory artifact [19]. After changing
over to a HPHT gas-humidifying system that saturates
the production gas with water at test temperature and
pressure, coreflood test results with cesium formate
brine have been much better [19]. This is explained in
more detail in B10.3.1 below.
B10.2.5 Chemical adsorption / wettability alteration
The alteration of the reservoirs permeability to
hydrocarbons as a result of changes in the wettability
of the pore walls and throat surfaces[12].
Conventional drilling muds and completion fluids may
contain surface-active chemicals, e.g. emulsifiers,
oil-wetting agents, and corrosion inhibitors, which have
been deliberately added to improve fluid performance
and / or mitigate performance deficiencies. Absorption
of these chemicals onto reservoir rock can change
wettability and so alter permeability to hydrocarbons.
Formate brines have no surface activity, and are free
from surface-active agents, so they are unlikely to
cause any changes in the wettability of reservoir rocks.
B10.2.6 Biological activity
Reduction of formation permeability to hydrocarbons
as a result of microbial activity promoted by drilling or
completion operations [12].
Drilling and completion operations can introduce new
microorganisms into reservoirs, or stimulate activity of
native microorganisms already present in the reservoir.
Conventional drilling fluids contain nutrients that
encourage growth of microorganisms.
Formate brines have low water activity and are naturally
biostatic or biocidal at densities higher than 1.05g/cm3 /
8.76 lb/gal (see Section A12, Biodegradability and
Biocidal Properties). For this reason, they do not
biodegrade or support any form of microbial growth,
either at the surface or downhole, when in their
active (concentrated) form. Reservoir waters actually
contain some formates [20], indicating that indigenous
microorganisms are limited (probably by lack of another
essential nutrient) in their ability to use formates as their
carbon and energy source.

PAGE 4

SECTION B10

B10.3 Reservoir condition coreflood testing

with formate brines
The aim of coreflood (or return permeability) testing is to
study the effect of well construction, intervention and
stimulation fluids on the permeability to hydrocarbons
of reservoir materials surrounding the wellbore [21].
The more sophisticated laboratories use reconditioned
reservoir core plugs and simulated reservoir fluids and
gases. They also conduct the tests at close to reservoir
pressure and temperature for realistic time periods.
The relative permeability of the reconditioned plug
to a specific hydrocarbon phase is measured after a
simulated drawdown to remove the filtrate and filter cake
residues introduced by the test fluid.
B10.3.1 Formate testing artifacts and pitfalls
In their most advanced form, conducted at reservoir
conditions with all fluid / gas phases present, coreflood
tests can provide a lot of useful information about the
potential of a fluid to cause formation damage around
a wellbore. However, the process of trying to simulate
the creation of a borehole, followed by well production
start-up, under reservoir conditions in the laboratory
is quite difficult. Yet failure to precisely reproduce the
actual reservoir environment in coreflood tests can
generate wholly misleading results and conclusions.
Byrne et al. published a review of more than 40 core
flooding tests carried out by Corex Ltd. on formate
brines from 1996 to 2001 for a variety of operators [22].
The tests had been conducted on many different
reservoir cores and some of the formation waters were
highly saline with salt concentrations greater than
200,000 ppm.
Although the conclusions of this study are mainly
positive, especially in the case of gas reservoirs, there
are quite a few cases where reduction in permeability
has been experienced in formate brine laboratory tests,
whilst very good production rates were obtained in the
field (Rhum [23][24], Huldra [9], Kvitebjrn [18]). Due to
discrepancies between results of standard coreflood
testing and field experience, further research on
coreflood testing in formate brines has been conducted.
From this, we conclude that the following laboratory
artifacts / pitfalls can contribute to erroneous and
misleading test results for formates as detailed below.
Drawdown with dry gas
Evidence of formate filtrate residues retained inside
low-permeability gas reservoir core plugs has
sometimes been found at the end of the test drawdown
phase. Natural gas in its native environment is in
thermodynamic equilibrium with the connate
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

liquid-water phase and is saturated with water vapor

at reservoir conditions. Full water saturation of gases
used in laboratory coreflood tests may not always be
achieved, and it is known that use of dry gas in such
experiments can artificially reduce core permeability to
gas by dehydrating and crystallizing any brine residues
left within the cores.
This problem of permeability impairment, as a result
of water vaporization by unsaturated gas, might
be expected to become more acute or evident in
laboratory tests with high-pressure high-temperature
(HPHT) reservoir cores containing high-salinity
formation brine and high-density drilling / completion
brine filtrates. These brines may contain salt
concentrations that are already close to saturation
levels and are therefore more susceptible to significant
viscosity gain or crystallization by dehydration.
Unfortunately a lot of the earlier coreflood tests
performed with formate brines used dry nitrogen gas
to simulate the reservoir gas. Formate brine retention
was identified as the main cause of permeability
loss in these tests [22]. A remarkable artifact created
by use of dry gas was seen in a coreflood test with
formate brine at 200C / 392F. A return permeability
of > 100% of the original permeability was measured
in the core sample under reservoir conditions, but
when the core was cooled to 60C / 140F some salt
crystallization occurred within the core and caused
severe permeability reduction. This artifact was

created by cooling brine filtrate residues, which had

been dehydrated by using gas that had not been water
saturated at test temperature.
Cabot has carried out some simple tests to look at the
effect of flowing dry nitrogen gas through formate
brine [25]. A 2.20 g/cm3 / 18.3 lb/gal cesium formate
sample was heated to 65C / 149F and purged with
dry nitrogen gas. Brine density was measured as a
function of purging time. The results are shown in
Figure 1. As can be seen, even at this rather low test
temperature (65C / 149F), a significant increase in brine
density occured as a result of dehydration by dry gas.
A more sophisticated study was carried out by Downs [19]
to investigate the effect of gas humidification levels
on gas permeability of North Sea HPHT reservoir core
material exposed to high-density cesium formate
brine under HPHT conditions in laboratory coreflooding
experiments. Results from the coreflooding experiments
at 200C / 392F indicate that full HPHT-humidification
of the gas phase resulted in higher gas return
permeability when compared with a test using gas
humidified at room temperature and high pressure. The
difference can be explained by studying the equilibrium
water content of nitrogen gas as a function of pressure
and temperature, shown in Table 1. High pressure (34
MPa / 5,000psi) gas saturated with water at room
temperature contains almost 400 times less water
than the same gas saturated at 200C / 392F.
This means that gas saturated at room temperature

2.45

20.4

19.9

2.35
19.4
2.30
Brine at 65C, dry gas
Brine at ambient temperature, dry gas

2.25

18.9

Density [lb/gal]

Density [g/cm3]

2.40

18.4

2.20

17.9

2.15
0

4
Time [hours]

Figure 1 Density of 2.20 g/cm3 / 18.36 lb/gal cesium formate brine as a function of time while sparging with nitrogen gas. The
significant brine-density increase seen in the blue curve is a result of purging dry gas through formate brine held at 65C / 149F.
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

SECTION B10

PAGE 5

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

Table 1 The equilibrium water content of nitrogen gas as a function of pressure and temperature.
(Source: AQUAlibrium 3.1 copyright 2006 FlowPhase Inc.)
Gas pressure
(psi)
14.7
100
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
8,000

Equilibrium water content [ppm]

20C / 68F
23,165
3,479
768
432
267
212
185

75C / 167F
381,987
56,997
12,145
6,543
3,743
2,803
2,324

can pick up a lot of water while passing through the

brine-saturated core under HPHT conditions during the
drawdown phase. This finding highlights the importance
of ensuring that any gases used in HPHT coreflood tests
are fully saturated with water vapor at test temperature
and pressure. It seems likely that the impact of gas
humidification levels is amplified in very low-permeability
cores subjected to high drawdown pressures.
Gravity drainage
As mentioned previously, microscopic examination
of low-permeability gas reservoir cores flooded with
formate brines can sometimes show evidence of
retained formate filtrate within the cores after cleanup
by drawdown. However, comparisons of logging data
obtained during drilling (with LWD) and after drilling (with
wire line) with cesium formate brine show that formate
filtrates in gas reservoirs are mobile and replaced by
gas over time [18]. It is thought that movement of
formate filtrates away from high-angle wellbores is the
result of gravity drainage. Unfortunately this drainage
phenomenon cannot be easily reproduced in laboratoryscale linear coreflood tests with tiny 5 cm core plugs.
This inability to simulate gravity drainage effects in
the laboratory may impact negatively on the results of
coreflood tests with heavy formate brines.
Use of unrealistic gas phase
Return permeability tests on gas reservoir cores should
use realistic gas compositions. The compositions should
include CO2 and H2S if they are present in the reservoir.
The presence or absence of these acid gases can impact
significantly on results of return permeability tests. For
instance, formate brines can contain soluble cesium,
potassium, or sodium carbonate, which are added to
the fluid as part of the pH-buffering package. Although
unseen in coreflood tests, buffered formate brines can
potentially form calcium carbonate precipitates when
mixed with reservoir waters containing a lot of soluble
calcium. In a case where there is reason to believe that
PAGE 6

SECTION B10

125C / 257F

342,427
71,895
37,914
20,865
15,125
10,415

175C / 347F

200C / 392F

275,272
143,983
77,429
55,984
36,631
25,799

476,445
250,102
133,911
94,429
62,114
43,125

carbonate in the buffer can precipitate out with calcium

from formation water, one should consider reducing
the amount of soluble carbonate in the fluid. Soluble
carbonate is added to formate brines so that fluids can
withstand large amounts of CO2 ingress. A large amount
of buffer is therefore only needed in brines used in
reservoirs with significant levels of CO2 gas. In such a
reservoir environment, with a lot of acid gas present,
it is doubtful that calcium carbonate precipitate can
form anyway. Furthermore, any calcium carbonate that
might form is likely to dissolve when the well is put on
production and CO2-containing gas flows through the
pore spaces. In reservoirs without CO2, the buffer can be
reduced to a much lower level and soluble bicarbonate
used rather than carbonate.
H2S in the gas phase is not thought to have any
adverse effects on formate brine, but it causes zinc
sulfide to precipitate from zinc bromide brine. If
the purpose of a coreflood study is to compare the
performance of formate brine with zinc bromide brine
in a reservoir containing H2S, then H2S should always
be included in the test gas.
Duration of drawdown
In the field, it is observed that gas / condensate wells
drilled and completed in open hole with formate brines
take up to seven hours to fully cleanup as they are
gradually beaned up during production tests.
During the cleanup period, the well unloads any brine
previously lost to the formation or left under the packer,
and flow channels are created in the filter cake lining
the borehole wall. Full cleanup is indicated by steady
wellhead pressure, steady hydrocarbon flow rates
and absence of any further brine production. In the
well clean up shown in Table 2, the eventual gas flow
rate or flux at steady-state production was around 0.5
liters per square centimeter of borehole surface per
minute as measured at the surface. Full cleanup takes
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

Table 2 Production start-up data from a North Sea HPHT well drilled and completed with screens in open hole with
cesium formate brine.
Elapsed time
[hours]

WHP
[bar]

Condensate
[m3/day]

Water
[m3/day]

Gas
[MMm3/day]

0
247

2
286
0
630
4.5
508
537
0
5
511
623
258
6
520
660
10
7
520
632
0
8
521
608
0
9
521
618
0
10
521
639
0
11
521
615
0

time because initially the gas tends to channel and finger

through paths of least resistance, by-passing some brine
present in the least permeable areas of the reservoir.
In laboratory coreflood tests, it is important that test
cores are subjected to realistic cleanup times under
realistic beaning up and draw-down conditions. This
applies particularly to time spent flowing the core at the
highest drawdown pressure where the highest gas flux
rates might be expected to achieve most efficient clean
up. Failure to do so can result in incomplete brine clean
up, high residual water saturations and unrealistically
low return permeabilities to gas and condensate.
B10.3.2 How to perform a coreflood test on a
formate brine or drilling fluid
The recommended procedure for conducting a coreflood
test with formate brine on a core from a gas reservoir is
shown in Figure 2.
When assessing return permeability results from
coreflood tests conducted by other parties, always audit
the experimental procedures against this checklist:
Was real (target) reservoir core used? Each reservoir
has its own unique mineral, water and gas chemistry
that interact in their own special way with invading
filtrates.
Was the core properly cleaned (to remove coring
mud) and then reconstituted back to residual water
saturation with simulated reservoir water?
Was water composition a close match to reservoir
connate water sampled from earlier exploration and
appraisal wells?
Was the core equilibrated at reservoir conditions
before testing?
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

0
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4

Roxar
[bar]

660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660

GOR

Comment

Beaning up and unloading

Shut down for 30 minutes

2,181

2,278

2,366

2,330

2,253

2,340

Did original core permeability measured at reservoir

conditions with gas or liquid phases closely resemble
the reservoir hydrocarbons? Was the gas humidified
at HPHT? Was a low gas flow rate used to measure
return permeability?
(For a completion brine) Was the core pre-flushed
with realistic drilling fluid (filtrate) under dynamic and
static conditions to create a flushed zone?
Was the test fluid circulated past the core face for a
number of hours at realistic overbalance pressure?
Was the test fluid then left static, at balance or
closed in, under reservoir conditions for a number of
days to allow hydrothermal chemistry to work?
Was the core then subjected to a realistic drawdown regime, simulating the planned drawdown or
beaning-up operation to be used in the field?
Was the back-flowing gas or liquid flowed at each
drawdown pressure until stable flow had been
achieved?
Were at least 2,000 pore volumes of fluid or gas
back-flowed through the core in total, to take the
core back to irreducible water saturation? Preferably,
was flow maintained at maximum drawdown for at
least several hours?
Was the core's return permeability then measured
at low flow rate, under reservoir conditions, with the
same gas / fluid used to measure initial permeability?
If the reservoir contains CO2, did the test gas contain
roughly the same concentration of CO2? Be absolutely
sure that lack of CO2 does not impact test results.
Was the purpose of the test to compare cesium
formate with zinc bromide? If this was the intent,
was a realistic amount of H2S included in the
drawdown gas?

SECTION B10

PAGE 7

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

Formation damage prediction by laboratory coreflooding

Recommended test procedure for formate brines with gas
Select appropriate reservoir core sample and identify best sections to plug (by CT scan, etc.).
Drill core plugs, using clean mineral oil as drill lubricant.
Clean core plugs with solvents under mild conditions.
Measure initial permeability and select suitable plugs for testing.
Carry out dry and cryogenic SEM to determine initial condition of core sample.
Prepare synthetic formation brine, matching composition of water sampled from the reservoir.
Prepare and humidify a gas composition matching reservoir gas. Ensure that gas is humidified under reservoir
conditions. Use nitrogen gas if unable to handle hydrocarbon gases. If realistic amounts of CO2 and H2S are not
added to the test gas, ensure that this does not impact test results.
Prepare core sample to irreducible formation water saturation with humidified nitrogen gas by centrifuging for
24 hours at 4C / 39F.
Determine effective permeability of plug to humidified gas* at ambient pressure and temperature,
and low flow rate.
Load sample into core holder and increase pressure to overburden conditions.
Bring system up to test, i.e. reservoir conditions, and allow system to equilibrate.
Determine effective permeability to humidified gas* under reservoir pressure and temperature conditions in
formation-to-wellbore direction.
Circulate test fluid (brine or mud) across sample wellbore face at overbalance, or inject brine at set flow rate
for 10 20 pore volumes of brine, in the wellbore-to-formation direction all at reservoir conditions. Record
differential pressure across the core as a function of time.
On achieving 10 pore volumes of filtrate volume losses, stop further flow and leave core sample to soak at test
pressure and temperature for a static period of at least 48 hours.
Create drawdown pressure at the wellbore face, and increase in steps up to the highest level to be used in
the field during production cleanup, inducing a gas flow in the formation-to-wellbore direction to clean up the
core. Simulate, as far as possible, the drawdown ramping-up procedure to be used in the production startup program and use representative gas humidified at test conditions*. Maintain each drawdown pressure
until gas flow through the core is stable, recording gas flow rates at each stage. Ensure core is subjected to
maximum drawdown pressure for at least two hours to simulate real production test conditions and create
realistic core dehydration.
If testing with mud, determine filter cake lift-off pressure.
Determine effective permeability of core plug to humidified gas* at reservoir pressure and temperature and
low flow rate in formation-to-wellbore direction.
Cool, depressurize core holder, and offload core sample. Photograph.
Centrifuge to irreducible fluid saturations under gas.
Determine effective permeability of plug to humidified gas* at ambient P/T and low flow rate**.
Take samples from ends (external and internal) of core plug for SEM analysis (normal and cryogenic) for
evidence of changes in mineralogy, fluid distribution, and movement of pore-lining clays.
Carry out dry and cryogenic SEM to determine final plug condition.
* Gas must be humidified at temperature and pressure of the core, otherwise it dries out the core's inside and causes
brine crystallization. Always use realistic levels of H2S gas during comparison with zinc bromide brine. If CO2 can
make a difference to the chemistry inside of the core plug, it should be added to the test gas.
** Cooling and depressurization cause lab artifacts if any formate brine is still present in plug. Any measurements made
after cooling the plug are not representative of how the reservoir behaves with formate brine residues present.

Figure 2 Recommended procedure for coreflood testing of formate brines with gas.

PAGE 8

SECTION B10

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

If the answer to any of these initial questions is "no"

then the results were not obtained under realistic
conditions and cannot be trusted to predict the
outcome of interactions between the well construction
fluid and reservoir. The results certainly cannot be used
to select the best well construction fluid for a high-cost
and / or high-value field development.

B10.4 Formation water compatibility testing

with formate brines
Formation waters are typically solutions of sodium
chloride containing varying and lesser amounts of
multivalent solutes such as Ba, Ca, Sr, Mg, Fe, HCO3, CO3,
and SO4. In some North Sea HPHT fields, the soluble
mineral content of formation waters is as high as 400 g/L,
mostly as NaCl, but with multivalent cation contents of
30 40 g/L in some cases. When drilling or completion
fluid filtrates invade reservoirs containing residual
formation water (typically at 20% v/v of pore space) there
is scope for chemical interactions between the two fluids
to create precipitates. The precipitates are placed in three
groups according to their ease of removal:
i. Water-soluble precipitates: Typically salts where at
least one monovalent ion forms when concentrations
of ions present in the blended solution exceed their
solubility products. Examples of such precipitates
are NaCl, KCl, and K2SO4. These can be re-dissolved
by flushing with low-salinity water.
ii. Acid-soluble scales: Scales of divalent ions that are
dissolved when contacted by acid. Examples of such
scales are CaCO3 and MgCO3.
iii. Insoluble scales: Scales of divalent ions that are
insoluble in both water and acid. Examples of such
scales are BaSO4 and SrSO4. Once formed in the
reservoir, these scales are very difficult to remove.
Whether brine is likely to form scale or not depends
on the nature and concentration of ions in the brine.
Divalent halide brines containing high levels of Ca2+ and
Zn2+ form water-insoluble scales when contacted by
formation waters containing soluble carbonate (CO32-)
or sulfate (SO42-). Another example of multivalent brine
is potassium phosphate brine, which contains the
trivalent ion PO43-. This brine precipitates out waterinsoluble scales when in contact with reservoir water
containing even low levels of divalent cations, e.g. Ca2+,
Mg2+, Fe2+.
Monovalent brines are brines comprising of only
monovalent ions (cations and anions). Formate brines
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

C A B O T

are the only high-density monovalent drilling and

completion brines in use today. Because they only
contain monovalent ions, they can only form watersoluble precipitates of Group i type when mixed
with formation waters. Water-soluble salts that can
theoretically form with formate brines are salts of alkali
metal cations, Na, K, and Cs. All alkali metal salts are
very water-soluble and it is doubtful if any formation
water contains high-enough concentrations of any
divalent anions to form such precipitates. The other
water-soluble salts that can precipitate are formate salts
of divalent cations, such as calcium and magnesium
formate (Ca(COOH)2 and Mg(COOH)2). Such divalent
formate salts are also quite soluble in water, and it is
very unlikely that any formation water is rich enough in
calcium or magnesium to trigger such precipitation.
To verify this, testing was carried out on 2.20 g/cm3 /
18.36 lb/gal unbuffered cesium formate brine and a
1.57 g/cm3 / 13.1 lb/gal unbuffered potassium formate
brine [26]. These unbuffered formate brines were
blended in several ratios with formation waters
containing various amounts of calcium, and the resulting
blends were monitored for signs of precipitation at three
different temperatures (20, 90, and 130C / 68, 194,
and 266F) and several brine-to-formation-water blend
ratios. All samples were seeded with calcium formate
crystals to avoid super saturation. At the highest
temperatures (130C / 266F) both of these formate
brines were fully compatible with formation waters
containing 40,000 mg/L calcium. A slight amount of
precipitate was found with formation water containing
50,000 mg/L calcium when formation water and
formate brine were blended in a 50:50 ratio. At higher
temperatures, solubility of calcium formate is even
greater and higher levels of calcium are tolerated.
If any formation water is so high in calcium that calcium
formate can precipitate from concentrated formate brines,
there is always an option to design less concentrated
formate brines by altering formate brine composition. In a
cesium / potassium formate brine blend, this equates to
increasing the amount of cesium formate and water, while
lowering the amount of potassium formate.
Given that formate brines seem to be almost
incapable of forming precipitates when blended with
formation water, the only sources of precipitates
are contaminants or additives. One frequently used
additive in formate drilling and completion fluids is a pH
buffering compound, potassium carbonate. A common
concern has been that soluble carbonate buffer can
precipitate out with divalent cations in formation
waters to form calcium or magnesium carbonate
SECTION B10

PAGE 9

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

scales. Such precipitation has been seen in laboratory

bottle testing, as described below. However, there are
several reasons to believe that this kind of scaling does
not occur in the field:
Formate brines have been used in the field since
1993, and with the exception of one instance [11], no
formation damage has been reported.
Carbonate scales are always acid soluble, and can
therefore easily be treated with an acid soak. However,
no such treatment has ever been required in any one
of hundreds of field applications of cesium formate
brine. Cabot is also unaware of acid stimulation
required in any potassium or sodium formate jobs.
Buffer concentration is adjustable. Significant
amounts of buffer are only required in applications
where reservoir gas contains significant amounts of
CO2. If any carbonate scale forms in such a reservoir,
it is likely to dissolve when CO2-containing gas is later
produced through this reservoir rock. If the reservoir
gas doesn't contain CO2, no (or very little) buffer is
needed.
In the one and only case of reported formation damage
after drilling with sodium / potassium formate brine-based
drill-in fluid [11], the operator was able to solve the reported
problems simply by reducing the carbonate concentration
in its fluid. The problems occurred in a HPHT gas
reservoir in Germany where formation water contained
unusually large amounts of soluble calcium. The authors
reported that the scaling problem was remedied simply
by adjusting formate brine pH down to 9.5. The pH was
measured on neat (undiluted brine). This is not the
recommended method for measuring pH in concentrated
formate brines (see Section A6, pH and Buffering). In
order to compare recorded pH readings to important
parameters, such as pKa of carbonate / bicarbonate, it is
necessary to dilute the brine before measuring pH. Based
on experience with concentrated formate brines, however,
one can assume that the diluted pH of the German brine
would be in the range slightly above 8.5. Since the pKa of
carbonate / bicarbonate is about 8.2, we can conclude
that the remedial pH treatment converted most of the
carbonate present in the buffer to bicarbonate. The
monovalent bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) does not precipitate
out with divalent calcium ions. An alternative method
for solving the problem is to just add less carbonate
(CO32-) buffer component to start with. Large amounts
of carbonate buffer are only required in completion
applications where reservoir gas contains a lot of CO2.
Two methods are commonly used to predict precipitation
and scaling problems in completion brines. These are:

PAGE 10

SECTION B10

Scale prediction using various modeling software

packages.
Laboratory bottle testing.
Both methods have serious limitations when applied
to formate brines and results should be treated with
caution. Some problems arising from using these
methods with formate brines are discussed below.
B10.4.1 Scale prediction using modeling software
packages
There are several commercial software tools available
that claim to provide predictions about the possibility
of scale and precipitates forming when completion
brines are mixed with formation waters. The software
packages are said to be able to predict the onset of
scale precipitation as a function of temperature and
pressure. When using any of these tools to predict
scaling or precipitation events from mixing formation
waters with formate brines, be aware of the following
limitations:
Some of these software packages do not allow for
cesium formate to be included in the completion
brine as these ions are not available in their
database. The common way for users to solve this
problem is to view cesium formate as water, and only
include the additives, i.e. carbonate / bicarbonate
buffer. The problems with this approach are:
- Any precipitate of cesium or formate will not be
identified. In reality, this is not a problem as cesium
or formate salts are unlikely to precipitate in any
common formation water.
- Water does not have the same solvency and
properties as cesium formate. This is a big problem
as certain scales, such as barium sulfate, are highly
soluble in cesium formate brines, but not in water.
The software may therefore wrongly suggest that
sulfate scales can form in cesium formate brine.
Some of these scale prediction software packages allow
for the inclusion of sodium and potassium formate,
and some even accommodate a cesium formate brine
environment. However, there are still problems:
- These tools do allow for prediction of any Cs, K, Na,
or formate salts that can form. Such precipitates
are, however, highly unlikely to form due to their
high water solubility.
- Although the user is allowed to enter a large
amount of formate brine into the model, the model
treats it as water when it comes to solvency
properties, i.e. the ability of formate brine to
dissolve scales, which is the same problem as
noted above.
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

- The assumed solubility of cesium formate in water

is incorrect, and the software therefore predicts
that self-precipitation takes place in concentrated
brine. Consequently, the user needs to reduce
cesium formate concentration to a level where
self-precipitation is not predicted.
In summary, none of the scale prediction packages
evaluated by Cabot are capable of considering the
solvency properties or water-structuring (salting out)
effects of formate brines. Formate brines are powerful
dissolvers of sulfate scales. If this property is not
considered by the software, any scale predictions
for formate brines are simply wrong. For example,
formate brine contaminated with a certain amount of
divalent sulfate ions (SO42-), can tolerate a large amount
of barium ions in formation water, without forming
insoluble barium sulfate (BaSO4) scale (see Section B12,
Solubility of Minerals and Salts in Formate Brines). Any
scale prediction tool, however, assumes that BaSO4 is
just as insoluble in formate brines as in water, and the
results of the scale prediction exercise are erroneous.
As none of the scale prediction tools available today
are properly calibrated for use with formate brines, they
all give misleading projections. Until the calibration
problem is fixed, the only way to get a realistic picture
of formate brines compatibility with formation waters
under HPHT conditions is to conduct coreflood tests
under reservoir conditions.
B10.4.2 Scale prediction using laboratory bottle testing
It is common practice to perform reservoir water
compatibility checks in the laboratory by mixing
completion brine and formation water together in a
range of different blend ratios in a bottle under ambient
conditions and observe the outcome. The appearance of
turbidity or precipitated solids is taken as an indicator
that the completion brine is incompatible with the
formation water and might cause formation damage.
If such tests are carried out on formate brines, it is
helpful to be aware of the pitfalls:
Leaching silicates: Formate brines can leach
silicate out of borosilicate glass, which is evident
through white precipitate in the brine (see Section
B12, Solubility of Minerals and Salts in Formate
Brines). The rate of this reaction is very dependent
on the concentration of formate in solution and
test temperature. If concentrated potassium
formate brine is heated to around 100C / 212F in a
borosilicate bottle, white precipitate may already be
observed within a few hours. Such precipitate forms
in any borosilicate bottles that contain concentrated
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

C A B O T

formate brines, and interferes with the visual

observation of salt precipitation / scaling. Unfortunately,
the only transparent bottles suitable for testing fluids at
reasonably high temperature are made of borosilicate
glass. Leaching seems restricted to borosilicate glass
and does not occur with sand, quartz or other silicate
materials.
Temperature: With the exception of carbonates,
salt precipitates generally form more readily at
lower temperatures. This means that precipitates
generated in laboratory bottle mixing tests at
ambient temperatures may not form at reservoir
temperature. Formation of precipitates at ambient /
low test temperature is therefore not predictive of
what might happen in the reservoir. Carbonate-type
precipitates exhibit the opposite behavior, where
scales are more likely to form at higher temperature.
Pressure: Testing at low / ambient pressure can
cause similar problems to testing at low temperature,
although the effect may not be as marked. With the
exception of carbonates, salt precipitates generally
form more readily at higher pressures.

B10.5 Comparison of formate brines with other

high-density brines
Full compatibility with reservoir components and
any filtrates from preceding well operations is a
key requirement for any brine used in drilling and
completion. Currently there are four different classes
of brine used in well construction and intervention
operations (see Table 3).
Each of these groups of brines has different degrees
of compatibility with reservoir components and other
filtrates, as described below.
B10.5.1 Comparison with calcium bromide / calcium
chloride brines
Brines composed of calcium bromide (CaBr2) and
calcium chloride (CaCl2) can reach density of about
1.70 g/cm3 / 14.2 lb/gal. These brines contain large
amounts of divalent Ca2+ cations, up to about 4.5 mol/L,
which makes them incompatible with formation waters
containing carbonate, bicarbonate, and sulfate [27]. They
can also form cement-like materials with zinc debris
from perforating guns, and make stable emulsions with
oil-based mud residues, which creates a substance
with consistency of peanut butter [28].

SECTION B10

PAGE 11

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

Table 3 Brine classes used in well construction and intervention operations.

Brine type

Density range
[g/cm3]
[lb/gal]
1.0 1.5
8.3 12.5

Chemical composition

Monovalent halides
Divalent halides
Phosphate brines1)

NaCl, KCl, NaBr, and their blends

CaCl2, CaBr2, ZnBr2, and their blends

1.0 2.3

8.3 19.2

Blends of K2HPO4 and KH2PO4

1.0 1.7

8.3 14.2

1.0 2.3

8.3 19.2

Formate brines
NaCOOH, KCOOH, CsCOOH, and their blends
1) Limited use in China and Indonesia.

B10.5.2 Comparison with zinc bromide brine

Zinc bromide (ZnBr2) is the only commercially available
brine that reaches the same density as cesium formate
brine. Zinc bromide brine is acidic with a pH of less than 2,
hazardous and a priority marine pollutant. It is considered
too high-risk to use in Europe, where it has been replaced
by cesium formate brine, but is still used occasionally in
certain regions of the world, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
Zinc bromide causes extensive formation damage and
tubular scaling in reservoirs containing H2S as it forms
zinc sulfide scale (ZnS). It only needs 2 ppm of H2S
in the reservoir gas to create formation damage [29].
Figure 3 shows the appearance of buffered 2.20 g/cm3 /
18.4 lb/gal cesium formate brine and 2.27 g/cm3 / 18.9 lb/gal
zinc bromide brine after charging with 5 psi H2S and
stirring for 16 hours at ambient temperature. The zinc
bromide solution has turned completely opaque from
precipitation of ZnS.
Zinc bromide also forms scales with formation waters
containing carbonate, bicarbonate and sulfate, and, like
calcium bromide brine, it makes stable emulsions with
oil-based mud residues.
B10.5.3 Comparison with potassium hydrogen
phosphate brine
Potassium hydrogen phosphate brine, comprising of a
blend of dipotassium hydrogen phosphate (K2HPO4) and
potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4), has been used
as completion and workover fluid in China and Indonesia.
The maximum density achievable with potassium
hydrogen phosphate brine is thought to be about
1.78 g/cm3 / 14.9 lb/gal, although lower density brines have
been found to crystalize at ambient conditions.
When these brines invade a reservoir they cause two
types of formation damage:
Formation of insoluble scales on contact with
multivalent cations in formation water. For example,
in a very typical formation water containing soluble
calcium and iron, the trivalent phosphate anion
reacts to form tricalcium phosphate [Ca3(PO4)2],
PAGE 12

SECTION B10

Figure 3 Samples of a 2.27 g.cm3 / 18.9 lb/gal ZnBr2

brine and a 2.20 g/cm3 / 18.3 lb/gal buffered cesium
formate brine after charging with H2S for 16 hours at
ambient temperature. A significant amount of insoluble
precipitate forms in the zinc bromide sample.
hydroxylapatite [Ca5(PO4)3OH], ferric hydroxide
[Fe(OH)3], and strengite [FePO42H2O]. The phosphate
scales form hard bone-like deposits, whereas the
hydroxide forms gels.
Phosphates absorb strongly onto mineral surfaces
where they can form precipitates and complex
insoluble salts from exposure to multivalent cations
[30][31]. These absorption-reaction products block
pore throats and reduce formation permeability.
IPTC 14285 [32] describes a laboratory study that
compares the influence of cesium formate and potassium
hydrogen phosphate brine invasions on gas permeability
of low-permeability sandstone cores invaded by the brine
under HPHT conditions in a coreflood test rig.
The brines tested were:
Cesium formate brine at density of 2.20 g/cm3 /
18.4 lb/gal buffered with 6.25 ppb K2CO3 and
3.75 lb/gal KHCO3. pH = 10.5.
Potassium dihydrogen phosphate / dipotassium
hydrogen phosphate brine blend at density of
1.64 g/cm3 / 13.7 lb/gal. pH = 9.32. The brine was
made from analytical grade phosphate salts
dissolved in distilled water.
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

Table 4 Ionic composition of reservoir water used in Corex coreflood test.

Na
Ion concentration [mg/L]

31,190

Ca

300

2,300

Mg
350

Ba
1,000

Fe

Cl
10

HCO3

53,500

610

Table 5 Permeability measurements on Clashach core plugs before and after exposure to phosphate and formate brines.

Phosphate

175

347

10.2

0.86

Change in
permeability
[%]
-91.6

Formate

175

347

23.0

24.8

+7.8

Temperature

Brine system

[C]

Initial permeability Final permeability

[mD]
[mD]

[F]

The tests were carried out at 175C / 347F in a HPHT

coreflood test rig operated by Corex, a company with
considerable expertise in formation-damage testing. The
synthetic formation brine used in the tests (see Table 4)
was based on water sampled from an HPHT well in the
North Sea.
The source of core plug material for the experiments
was Clashach sandstone with absolute gas permeability
values close to 20 mD. The Clashach sandstone with
porosity of around 10%, low argillaceous content,
and high homogeneity is good standard material for
coreflood tests of completion fluid candidates for tight
gas reservoirs.
The coreflood test was carried out according to
the recommended procedure described previously
(Figure 2). The cleaned core plugs were saturated with
formation water and taken down to irreducible formation
brine saturation. Exposure of the core to the completion
brines was carried out under the following pressure
conditions: Overburden pressure of 8,150 psi, core pore
pressure of 5,800 psi, confining pressure of 2,350
psi, and final drawdown pressure of 100 psi. The cores
were flushed with 10 pore volumes of brine, and given
a 48-hour static soak. Drawdown was then applied to
the wellbore side of the core to create a flow of HPHT
humidified nitrogen gas, which simulates bringing the
well back onto production. Drawdown pressures of 5, 10,
25, 50, 75, and 100 psi were used.
Relative permeability measurements were taken at
the end of each test sequence to determine levels of
permeability alteration caused by exposure to the brines.
Results are shown in Table 5. The core exposed to
phosphate brine lost 91.6% of its permeability, whilst the
core exposed to formate brine gained a small amount of
permeability from the exposure.
SEM and cryogenic SEM analyses show that the core
plug exposed to phosphate brine was clogged with
phosphate scale. The phosphate scale deposits were
up to 35 m in length. See Figure 4.
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

B10.6 Comparison of formate drilling fluids

with solids-weighted drilling fluids
The first fluid to contact the formation is drilling fluid.
Since this contact occurs before the filter cake is laid
down, drilling fluid and drilling fluid filtrates can deeply
invade the formation and cause incompatibility with
both fluids and pore-lining material. Solid-weighting
material can invade the formation before the filter
cake is built and small solid particles may also fail to
be screened out by the filter cake. Solids can cause
severe plugging when allowed to enter into the
formation. In addition, the filter cake itself can cause
damage if it is not easily removed when the well is put
on production. Incomplete removal of the filter cake can
lead to reduced well production due to excessive skin
and expensive stimulation treatments may be required.
One of the problems with traditional water- and oilbased drilling fluid is that solids are needed for density
control, and there is very little control over both particle
size and concentration of solids used. In formate
drilling fluids, density is controlled by brine type and
concentration, and the only solids needed are those
used to form the filter cake. About 43 kg/m3 / 15 ppb
calcium carbonate, containing a blend of various sizes,
has been found to give very low fluid losses.
To avoid established well control problems associated
with traditional weighting material, such as barite,
service companies now offer mud formulations where
barite is replaced with micro-sized weighting particles.
These are particles with an average size in the range of 1
5 m. By using potassium formate as base fluid rather
than oil or water, the amount of particles needed can
be brought down to an absolute minimum. Micro-sized
barite cannot be used with potassium formate due to its
high solubility in potassium formate brine (see Section
B12, Solubility of Minerals). Manganese tetraoxide is
micro-sized weighting material with average particle
size of about 1 m, which is compatible with formate
brines (see Section B5, Compatibility with Additives).
SECTION B10

PAGE 13

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

Before test

After test

Figure 4 SEM photos of unexposed pore throats (left) and pore throats exposed to phosphate brine (right). The sand
grains and pore throats exposed to phosphate brine are covered in a blanket of phosphate scale.
As little is known about the impact of these micro-fine
particles on formation compatibility, a standard coreflood
study was conducted by Corex, UK, to investigate the
effect of micronized particles on formation compatibility
of formate drilling fluids. Two drilling fluids were compared;
one standard low-solids formate drilling fluid based on a
cesium and potassium formate blend, and one potassium
formate drilling fluid weighted to the same density with
manganese tetra oxide [33]:
1. 1.76 g/cm3 / 14.7 lb/gal potassium / cesium formate
drilling fluid.
2. 1.76 g/cm3 / 14.7 lb/gal potassium formate drilling
fluid weighted with micro-fine weight material.
Fluid formulations and fluid properties are shown in
Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
The tests were carried out at 149C / 300F in a HPHT
coreflood test rig. The synthetic formation brine used
in the tests (see Table 8) was based on water sampled
from an HPHT well in the North Sea.

PAGE 14

SECTION B10

The source of core-plug material for the experiments

was Clashach sandstone with absolute gas permeability
values between 20 and 30 mD and porosity of around
10%, low argillaceous content, and high homogeneity.
The coreflood test was carried out according to the
recommended procedure described previously (Figure 2).
The cleaned core plugs were saturated with formation
water and taken down to irreducible formation brine
saturation. Exposure of the core to drilling fluids was
carried out under dynamic conditions for 48 hours and
then followed by a static period of 48 hours. Overburden
pressure was 8,150 psi, core pore pressure was 5,800 psi,
confining pressure was 2,350 psi, and final drawdown
pressure was 100 psi. Drawdown was then applied to
the wellbore side of the core to create a flow of HPHT
humidified nitrogen gas, which simulates bringing
the well back onto production. Gas flow rates induced
by drawdown, as a function of cumulative gas flow
throughput for the two brines, are shown in Figure 5. The
flow rate is about six times higher in the core exposed to
low-solids formate drilling fluid than in the core exposed to
potassium formate drilling fluid weighted with micronized
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

Table 6 Formulations for two formate drilling fluids tested and compared at Corex.
Base fluid
CsCOOH (2.20 g/cm3)
KCOOH (1.570 g/cm3)

CsFo / KFo fluid

Additives
K2CO3
Flowzan
ExStar HT
Aqua PAC ULV
Baracarb 5
Baracarb 25
Baracarb 50
Solid-weighting material (5m)
Total additives

Concentration [ppb]

96.8 mL
240.0 mL

KFo fluid with solid-weighting material

0 mL
314.0 mL
Concentration [ppb]

5.0
0.7
3.5
3.5
5.0
2.5
7.5
0
27.7

5.0
1.0
3.5
3.5
5.0
2.5
7.5
109.0
137.0

Table 7 Properties before and after hot rolling for two drilling fluids tested and compared by Corex.
Properties before
hot rolling
Density g/cm3
pH
Fann 35, 600 RPM
Fann 35, 300 RPM
Fann 35, 200 RPM
Fann 35, 100 RPM
Fann 35, 6 RPM
Fann 35, 3 RPM
Gels 10" [lb/100 ft2]
Gels 10' [lb/100 ft2]
PV
YP
HPHT fluid loss1) [mL]
Spurt loss [mL]
Cake thickness [mm]
1) 500 psi, 149C / 300F.

BHR

95
59
46
29
7
5
6
7
36
23

CsFo / KFo fluid

AHR (16 hours at 149C / 300F)
1.76
10.02
83
50
38
23
4
3
3
4
33
17
6.8
0.2
1.0

KFo fluid with solid-weighting material

BHR
AHR (16 hours at 149C / 300F)

1.76

10.35
180
92
111
58
92
43
60
26
15
4
11
3
14
4
52
16
69
34
42
24

4.8

0.2

1.0

Table 8 Ionic composition of reservoir water used in the Corex coreflood test.
Ion concentration [mg/L]

Na
31,190

K
300

manganese tetraoxide. This is despite initial permeability

of the core plug exposed to manganese tetraoxideweighted fluid being slightly higher (28.7 mD) than the
one exposed to low-solids potassium / cesium formate
fluid (20.9 mD).
Relative permeability measurements were taken at the
end of each test sequence to determine the level of
permeability alteration caused by exposure to the two
drilling fluids. Results are shown in Table 9. The core
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

Ca
2,300

Mg
350

Ba
1,000

Fe
10

Cl
53,500

HCO3
610

exposed to drilling fluid formulated with micro-sized

weighting particles had lost 92.8% of its permeability.
For comparison, permeability loss for the core exposed
to standard formate drilling fluid was 21.1%.
The filter cakes formed during the two tests were
thoroughly inspected. Filter cake from the fluid
weighted with micro-sized particles was about 3 mm thick
and adhered firmly to 100% of the wellbore face of the core
sample. For comparison, the filtercake from the potassium /
SECTION B10

PAGE 15

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

300
Drawdown = 100 psi
250

Gas flow rate [mL/min]

75 psi
200

150

Potassium / cesium formate drilling fluid

50 psi

Potassium formate drilling fluid weighted with manganese tetraoxide

100
10 psi

50

5 psi
5 psi10 psi

0
0

50 psi
200

Drawdown = 100 psi

75 psi

400

600
800
1,000
Cumulative gas throughput [pore volumes]

1,200

1,400

1,600

Figure 5 Gas flow rate as a function of cumulative gas throughput during the drawdown sequence (5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100 psi)
for formate and phosphate brine. The initial permeability of the core exposed to mud weighted up with manganese tetraoxide
was slightly higher (28.7 mD) than the one exposed to potassium / cesium formate fluid (20.9 mD).
cesium formate drilling fluid had a thickness < 1 mm.
Figure 6 shows photographs of the filtercakes and dry
SEM images of the wellbore faces of the two core plugs.
Porelining dry cryogenic SEM analyses (Figure 7) show
that the core plug exposed to potassium formate drilling
fluid weighted with micronized solid weighting material
was largely blocked by micronized manganese tetraoxide
migration throughout the whole core plug.
Based on these results, it is recommended not to use
micro-sized weighting material to give additional density
to formate brines. Such particles appear to cause damage
to the reservoir, both by blocking pore spaces inside of
the formation and by deteriorating the lift-off capacity of
calcium carbonate filter cake.

B10.7 Published field cases

Hundreds of oil and gas reservoirs have been drilled
or completed with formate brines since 1993. The

following summaries of published field case histories

indicate that well-production rates after drilling and / or
completing with formate brines were either as or higher
than expected.
B10.7.1 Oriente, Ecuador, 1997
Several horizontal wells were drilled with sodium
formate drill-in fluid in the Amazon rainforest [34].
The fluid was chosen for its non-damaging and
environmental benefits. Success with the first well
was necessary to prove that the technology was
appropriate for future horizontal drilling.
The well was drilled without any hole problems.
Connections and short trips required no extra circulation
time, and fill was never observed. There was no excess
torque and drag during connections and trips, and there
was no problem in getting weight to the bit and achieving
an excellent penetration rate. The calcium carbonate filter
cake was cleaned up with breaker fluid containing lithium
hypochlorite that was soaked for three hours.

Table 9 Permeability measurement on Clashach core plugs before and after exposure to drilling fluids.

Test fluid
Low-solids potassium /
cesium formate
drilling fluid
Potassium formate
drilling fluid weighted
with Mn3O4
PAGE 16

Total filtrate
volume loss

Base effective gas perm.

at reservoir conditions.
Kg @ Swi

2.86 mL
1.118 pore volumes

20.9 mD

3.18 mL
1.182 pore volumes

28.7 mD

SECTION B10

Effective gas perm.

Kg @ Sr at reservoir
conditions after
drawdown
16.5 mD
-21.1% change in
base permeability
2.07 mD
-92.8% change in
base permeability

Effective gas perm.

Kg @ Sr at 60C
after drawdown
15.5 mD
-25.8% change in
base permeability
1.96 mD
-93.2% change in
base permeability

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

a) Filter cake left on wellbore

face of core exposed to
drilling fluid with micronized
weighting material.
b) Dry SEM photo of wellbore face
after testing with drilling fluid
with micronized weighting
material.

c) Filter cake left on wellbore

face of core exposed to
standard potassium / cesium
formate drilling fluid.
d) Dry SEM photo of wellbore face
after testing with standard
potassium / cesium formate
drilling fluid.

Figure 6 a) Filtercake left on wellbore face after testing with potassium formate drilling fluid with micronized weighting
material, b) dry SEM photo of wellbore face after testing with potassium formate drilling fluid with micronized weighting
material, c) filtercake left on wellbore face after testing with a standard potassium / cesium formate drilling fluid, d) dry
SEM photo of wellbore face after testing with a standard potassium / cesium formate drilling fluid.

V ERSION

0 9/ 13

SECTION B10

PAGE 17

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

a) Pore throat before fluid exposure.

b) Pore throats in a core plug after exposure

to potassium formate drilling fluid
weighted with manganese tetra oxide.

c) Pore throats in a core plug after

exposure to standard potassium /
cesium formate drilling fluid.
Figure 7 Porelining cryogenic SEM of a) unexposed pore throats, b) pore throats in a core plug after exposure to a
potassium formate drilling fluid weighted with micronized manganese tetraoxide, c) pore throats in a core plug after
exposure to standard potassium / cesium formate drilling fluid.
PAGE 18

SECTION B10

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

The horizontal section was drilled in 30% of the AFE

time planned. The well was tested and brought onto
production with zero skin damage, a productivity index
of 14 and production volume of 13,000 bbl/day. These
results far exceed production from an offset well drilled
in the same formation by another operator using a
different mud system.
B10.7.2 NAM, offshore Netherlands, 1997
The development well K14-FB 102 was completed as
a dual-lateral to optimize production capacity and
reservoir drainage from tight Rotliegend sandstone in
an offshore gas play in the Dutch sector of the North
Sea [35][36]. The two 57/8" horizontal production
intervals were drilled and completed in open hole using
sodium formate drill-in fluid. Sodium formate was
chosen to maximize production from an area of the
field with poor reservoir quality.
A previous well, K14-8, had been drilled, completed, and
tested in 1979 in the same area of the field. Despite
being perforated under drawdown conditions, this
well, which was drilled with low-toxicity oil-based mud
followed by mud-acid stimulation, failed to produce at
commercial gas rates.
For K14-FB 102, the fluid was formulated with sodium
formate as base fluid, calcium carbonate as bridging
agent, purified xanthan biopolymer as rheology modifier,
and modified starch for fluid-loss control. The system
was rheologically engineered for the targeted interval
with minimum solids content, and designed around
desired LSRV measured at low shear rate for hole
cleaning, overall drilling performance, and minimizing
filtrate invasion. Sodium formate drill-in fluid, used
instead of mineral oil-based fluid, allowed the operator
to make beneficial modifications to standard drilling
practice, with positive results:
It exhibited superior hole-cleaning qualities throughout
the entire interval and no significant drag was
observed during drilling. It eliminated the need for
pills to assist with hole cleaning.
Flow rates can be increased from typically
195 250 gal/min to 290 gal/min because of the
reduced frictional pressure losses of the brine
system. A pressure reduction of 33% was achieved.
It reduced the need for backreaming out of the hole
for hole cleaning.
It achieved faster-than-expected penetration because
increased flow rates enhanced turbine performance.
As a result of high ROP, a 35% reduction in total
reservoir drilling time was achieved.

V ERSION

0 9/ 13

C A B O T

The well was completed one leg barefoot and one

with a pre-drilled liner (PDL) and lifted into production
using nitrogen pumped through coiled tubing into the
PDL leg. A 1.27 g/cm3 / 10.6 lb/gal sodium / potassium
formate brine was used as completion fluid. No stimulation
or remedial work was applied. The well exhibited selfcleaning behavior, indicating that the planned filter
cake lift-off approach had been successful. Resulting
production capacity was 40% above expectation and a
near-zero mechanical skin indicated that the well had
been completed with minimal residual drilling-induced
damage. The increase in production compared to
expectation was thought to be a combined effect of
the additional drilled lateral and low impairment of the
sodium formate drill-in fluid.
An MPLT log was run to determine cleanup effectiveness,
and the extent that varying permeability zones were
contributing. Significant contribution was seen from the
original hole. This confirmed the wells self-cleaning
attributes as a result of the drill-in fluid and filter-cake
design. Pressure build-up data yielded a near-zero skin
for the well and the low total skin value indicates that the
reservoir interval was completed with minimal residual
drilling-induced damage.
B10.7.3 BP, Harding Field, offshore UK, 1999
A high-angle, openhole, gravel-pack well was drilled
with potassium formate drill-in fluid [37]. The reservoir
consisted of sand / shale sequences with a net-togross of approximately 60%. The intra-reservoir shale
comprised layers varying in thickness from several
meters to less than a millimeter. It also contained a
high level of reactive smectite clay (80% of the clay
content). The individual sand bodies comprised clean,
well sorted, 3 4 Darcy unconsolidated sands.
The potassium / sodium formate drill-in fluid was
chosen because of its ability to stabilize these highly
reactive intra-reservoir clays, as well as its ability to
deliver a gauge hole, give minimal formation damage,
form an easily removable filter cake, and provide
minimal screen plugging potential. The fluid also
couldn't cause HSE-handling or operational problems.
Laboratory work was part of the selection process;
cage dispersion tests on reservoir shale gave
greater recoveries in formate brine, compared with
conventional sodium chloride or sodium / potassium
chloride brines with added glycol. The drilling fluid
formulation was simple, consisting of potassium /
sodium formate brine, 4 lb/bbl biopolymer viscosifier,
5 lb/bbl modified starch for fluid-loss control, and sized
calcium carbonate as bridging agent.
SECTION B10

PAGE 19

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

The reservoir section was drilled without any problems,

and the gravel pack was placed with Viscoelastic
Surfactant (VES) carrier fluid based on 5% sodium chloride.
An enzyme-based breaker fluid was used to remove the
filter cake. The well cleaned up very rapidly.
BP could not gauge the exact magnitude of mechanical
skin due to the uncertain estimate of formation kv/kh.
Nevertheless, BP concluded that the operation was a
complete success based on excellent well performance
data (IPR vs. TPR).
B10.7.4 ExxonMobil, HPHT gas fields, Germany,
1996 2000
ExxonMobil has used formate-based reservoir drilling
and completion fluids in more than 15 high-temperature
gas wells in northern Germany [5]. The performance of
these fluids was reviewed in 2000 [6].
Formate brines were chosen to eliminate drilling
problems that had occurred in previous wells. The
problems encountered with conventional waterbased polymer mud included inadequate solids
suspension, poor solids transport, stuck pipe, and
tight holes. ExxonMobils migration to formate-based
fluids eliminated most problems and brought well
construction costs under control.
The drilling fluids were formulated using sodium
formate, potassium formate, or a blend of the two.
Biopolymers were added for viscosity control, fluid-loss
agents, and sized calcium carbonate (1 3%) for pore
bridging. Laboratory coreflood testing was conducted
to assess potential for formation damage. A sodium
formate-based fluid system was compared to an
oil-based drilling fluid. Core permeability to gas was
measured before and after mechanical cleanup with a
jetting tool. Results indicated a significant increase in
return permeability with formate-based fluid.
Formate brines were used in 83/4" holes drilled
through the pay zone with emphasis on hole cleaning,
minimizing formation damage, and optimal hydraulics.
Maximum fluid density was 1.55 g/cm3 / 12.9 lb/gal.
The majority of wells were drilled and completed in the
reservoir section without any borehole or fluid-related
problems. There was no sticking, no cutting beds
encountered, and torque and drag were immediately
reduced after displacement to formate mud. A number
of wells encountered considerable salt formation.
Total fluid and maintenance costs were significantly
reduced in the overall project. Other benefits attributed
to the formate-based reservoir drilling fluid included:
PAGE 20

SECTION B10

25% lower pump pressure.

25% increased ROP.
100% success rate in running production liner.
Once the wells had reached TD, used drilling fluid was
processed through normal solids-control equipment to
remove the majority of bridging agents and drill solids.
The processed fluid was then used as completion fluid
during the completion phase. The wells were put on
production with a typical production rate 35% higher
than expected (or higher than previous offset wells).
B10.7.5 Western Canada, 1999 2004
Over 300 wells were drilled in Western Canada over five
years with low-concentration potassium formate drilling
fluid. Low-concentration potassium formate brine
stabilized troublesome shales (Blackstone, Fernie, and
Fort Simpson) in Alberta and British Colombia. This shalestabilizing fluid, even in small amounts, not only greatly
improved drilling performance by reducing trouble time
and eliminating stuck pipe, but produced gauge holes
and improved well production [38][39][40].
B10.7.6 Statoil, Huldra Field, offshore Norway,
2001 2003
Huldra is a gas condensate field in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea operated by Statoil ASA. During
drilling and completion of this field, high temperature
and pressure conditions were encountered in the
reservoir section (675 bar, 150C / 302F). The
difference between pore pressure and fracture
pressure gradient was small in the reservoir. The Huldra
gas stream contained 3 4% CO2 and 9 14 ppm H2S.
Wells were drilled at a 45 55 inclination through the
reservoir and completed with 300-micron single-wirewrapped screens.
When the first production well was drilled in this field
with oil-based mud, a severe well kick was experienced
while running sand screens. The main reason was a
loss of drilling-fluid density due to barite sag during
the wiper trip. A cesium formate-based drill-in fluid
was therefore selected for the following wells, primarily
for well control [9]. The cesium formate fluid went
through thorough evaluation and testing. The main
benefits identified with the cesium / potassium formate
brine compared with the oil-based fluid were: no sag
potential, low ECD, less screen-plugging risk, low solids,
use of solids that could be acidized (CaCO3), low gas
solubility, environmentally friendly, and quick thermal
stabilization during flow checks.
Return-permeability testing predicted reduction in
formation permeability after drawdown in the range
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

Table 10 Huldra coreflood test results after drawdown.

Sample

Fluid

perm.
Filtrate loss Base
Kg
@
Swi
[mL]
[mD]

Formate
15.419
field mud
Formate
2B
11.719
field mud
Optimized
6A
10.564
formate DIF
Optimized
3B
8.388
formate DIF
* Possibly due to dry gas used during drawdown.
1A

Perm. after
Perm.
mudcake
after mud % change on removed % change on
drawdown base perm.* and plug
base perm.
[mD]
spun down
[mD]

Filtrate
spun out
[mL]

1,416

881

-37.8

990

-30.8

0.19

2.88

0.982

-65.9

1.17

-59.4

0.083

1,978

1,272

-35.7

1,675

-15.3

0.30

7.47

2.27

-69.6

3.64

-51.3

0.17

Table 11 Huldra coreflood test results after drawdown and dilute acid soak.

Sample

Fluid

7A

Formate
field mud
Formate
field mud
Optimized
formate DIF
Optimized
formate DIF

6B
8A
4B

perm.
Filtrate loss Base
Kg @ Swi
[mL]
[mD]

Perm.
after mud /
Perm. after
drawdown
mudcake
/ remedial % change on removed % change on
acid soak base perm.
and plug
base perm.
/ second
spun down
drawdown
[mD]
[mD]

18.247

2,198

2,341

6.51

2,406

9.46

Trace

12.355

3.47

3.56

2.59

3.81

9.74

0.05

12.484

1,988

1,982

-0.30

2,027

1.96

Trace

10.003

10.9

10.7

-1.83

11.2

2.75

0.05

of 36 70% [22], see Table 10. Further testing showed

that incorporating treatment with dilute organic acid
to remove residual filter cake was effective in restoring
core permeability to its near-native state (Table 11).
Initial return-permeability results were not particularly
good, and in other circumstances might have led to
formate brine being rejected as drilling-in fluid, but
results after acid treatment indicated that the damage
was shallow and tractable. The operator decided to
go ahead and use formate fluid, knowing that any
formation damage could be removed by a simple acid
soak at balance.
The drilling operation itself was characterized by good
hole stability, low ECD and good hole cleaning. Excellent
rheology and thermal stability of the drilling fluid led
to rig-time savings from faster tripping speeds, faster
casing-running speeds, less mud conditioning and fewer
wiper trips. ROP was also good. The drilling fluid was
circulated over a combination of 250, 300, and 400-mesh
shaker screens before the completion screens were run.
After running screens, the drilling fluid was replaced with
filtered potassium / cesium formate completion brine.
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

Filtrate
spun out
[mL]

Statoil reports that the six Huldra wells drilled and

completed with formate brines were each producing
with excellent average productivity indices of around
1.9 million scf/day/psi. In fact, plateau production rates
were achieved from the first three wells of the sixwell project. The Huldra project manager is quoted as
saying: For the specific conditions of the Huldra field
there is no realistic fluid alternative for successfully
drilling and completing the wells. There were no
obvious signs of formation damage in the wells, and
no acid stimulation was required. This suggests that
the coreflood test results were misleading, i.e. too
conservative. With todays knowledge about coreflood
testing of formate brines (see B10.3.1) it seems
probable that the poor laboratory results were an
artifact, perhaps originating from nitrogen gas that was
not humidified at test conditions to flow back the core.
During 2002 2003, average gas production rates
from the Huldra field were 7 8 MMm3/day. The wells,
and the residual filter cake lining the open boreholes,
cleaned up naturally during the early production phase.
Huldra is estimated by the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD) to have recoverable reserves of
SECTION B10

PAGE 21

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

16.6 billion m3 of gas and 5.0 million m3 of oil / condensate.

Production records on the NPD website indicate that
by the end of the seventh year of production the six
Huldra field wells had delivered 77% of recoverable gas
reserves and 87% of recoverable condensate reserves.
Cumulative production is now close to 100% of original
estimates of recoverable reserves (see B10.8).

B10.7.8 OMV, Miano and Sawan Fields,

onshore Pakistan, 2001
OMV has published two papers on the development
and successful use of formate brines as reservoir
drilling and completion fluids in the Miano and Sawan
high-temperature gas fields located in the Sindh area
of Pakistan [42][43].

B10.7.7 Shell, Brigantine Field,

offshore UK, 2000 2001
Between October 2000 and March 2001, Shell drilled
three horizontal wells in the North Sea Brigantine field
and completed them using ESS (Expandable Sand
Screen) technology [41]. For these ESS operations, Shell
required a mud system with the following functionality:

OMV's first paper [42] and presentation slides describe

the development and application of low-solids potassium
formate brine as drill-in and completion fluid for the 6"
hole section of well Miano-9, where the main challenge
was high overbalance of 1,700 psi and high BHST of
177C / 350F. A low-solids formate fluid was vital in the
operation to avoid plugging sand screens. The drilling
operation was trouble-free with zero losses in 10 5,000 mD
sandstone, a perfect caliper and exceptional logging
results. The well was displaced to clean 1.1 g/cm3 /
9 lb/gal potassium formate brine before running an
expandable sand screen and a 22Cr completion. The
expected production was < 20 MMscfd, but when the
well was tested it produced at 47 MMscfd. OMV reported
at another conference [44] that the well has a Darcy skin
of 0 with negligible rate-dependent skin.

Provides a gauge hole.

Maintains borehole stability during drilling and ESS
running / expanding.
Aids good hole cleaning.
Exhibits good fluid-loss control by formation of
an external filter cake on the wellbore.
Maintains hydrostatic well control.
Reduces friction while running and expanding ESS.
Flows through ESS during expansion without
blocking 230-micron screens.
Non-damaging to the formation, sand screens and
the environment.
The mud systems considered were potassium chloride
polymer, sodium chloride polymer, sodium formate,
LTOBM, and sodium / potassium formate. The LTOBM
was rejected because it did not pass the flow test
through the 230-micron screen. A formate system was
preferred over the chloride systems due to beneficial
shale-stabilizing properties demonstrated during
previous use of formates by Shell. This, combined with
the fact that much of the weight was provided by the
base brine, made the formate system the preferred
alternative.

The second paper [43] details how OMV went on to use

the same type of low-solids potassium formate brine
formulation as drill-in and completion fluid for the 6"
hole section of wells Sawan-6 and Sawan-11. OMV states
on page 3 of this paper that (these trials in the Sawan
field have)...established potassium formate as the best
drilling fluid that has delivered exceptional results both
in terms of temperature stabilization, trouble-free drilling,
as well as reducing formation damage. The paper
includes a figure showing that the perforated Sawan-11
well had negative skins. Improved mud technologies
and bit design used in well Sawan-11 allowed the well to
be drilled to TD of around 3,400 m / 11,155 ft in 23 days
against a plan of 32 days. As the Miano well, log results
were better than the norm.

The formate fluid was prepared with a calcium carbonate

particle-size distribution specifically designed not to
plug the 230-micron screens. Testing of this system
resulted in return permeability of 70 90% compared to
15 55% for LTOBM.

The second paper concludes with the following:

Potassium formate RDIF reduces skin damage while
drilling the reservoir section. It is a solids-free, hightemperature stable system which results in trouble-free
drilling, reduces skin and enhances well deliverability.

The three wells were drilled and completed 32 days

ahead of plan, achieving initial gas production rates
23% 40% higher than expectations.

B10.7.9 Norsk Hydro, Visund Field,

offshore Norway, 2002
The Visund field is a subsea development offshore
Norway [45]. Norsk Hydro ASA put the field on
production in 1999. In 2003, the field was taken over
by Statoil ASA.

PAGE 22

SECTION B10

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

Visund has proven to be a highly complicated reservoir

with complex geology. Permeabilities ranged from
300 to 3,000 mD. The wells were drilled and completed
with long horizontal sections to reach several targets
with one well. They have relatively high pressures and
temperatures (440 bar, 115C / 311F). Sand prevention
was obtained by oriented perforating in the direction
of maximum stress.
The drilling time of these wells was long, which resulted
in long exposure of high overbalanced drilling fluids to
the formation. This produced a deep mud filtrate invasion
zone around the wellbore. The first wells were perforated
using a standard oriented perforating system with zinccased charges in 1.65 g/cm3 / 13.8 lb/gal CaCl2 / CaBr2
perforating kill fluid. When the wells were put on stream,
chokes were plugged by large chunks of zinc oxide.
These wells showed significantly lower productivities than
should be expected from the reservoir characteristics.
A study was carried out to evaluate the problems.
Several areas of improvement were identified, including
the fluid system. The CaCl2 / CaBr2 brine formulation
proved to be unstable and viscous, making it difficult
to achieve good cleanup. It was also found to be
incompatible with formation water.
Further laboratory studies showed that reactions
between zinc powder by-products from the perforating
gun charges and CaCl2 / CaBr2 brine caused the kill pill
to lose its fluid-loss-control properties, which then
resulted in formation damage. The idea of replacing the
brine with oil-based mud was abandoned because of
high particle content. A new perforating system was
developed, which among other changes replaced the
zinc charges. The CaCl2 / CaBr2 perforation fluid was
replaced with potassium formate brine containing
sized calcium carbonate particles for fluid-loss control.
Five new oil-producing wells were drilled and perforated
with the new system under dynamic underbalanced
conditions. Productivity indexes for the previous wells
were in the range of 60 to 90 Sm3/day/bar, whilst the
new wells ranged from 300 to 900 Sm3/day/bar. It was
concluded that the combined effect of perforating
system changes, dynamic underbalance, and new fluid
resulted in a three- to six-fold increase in productivity.
The formate mud system is believed to be one of the
main contributors to this improved well productivity.

V ERSION

0 9/ 13

C A B O T

B10.7.10 BP, Devenick Field, offshore UK, 2001

A 1.68 g/cm3 / 14.0 lb/gal potassium / cesium formate
reservoir drilling fluid was chosen by BP to drill a horizontal
HPHT appraisal / development well in the Devenick
field [46]. The low-permeability sandstone matrix of
the Devenick reservoir is very hard and deemed to be
a significant challenge to drill and complete. A long
horizontal wellbore was required to yield sufficient
productivity and penetrate the different reservoir segments.
Formate brine was believed to offer several advantages
over an OBM, and was primarily selected because of
low formation-damage risk, low ECD and potential for
improving ROP and well control. Return permeability
testing on Devenick reservoir core samples (<0.1 mD
permeability) indicated that the potassium / cesium
formate brine causes minimal formation damage
compared to oil-based mud, which was considered
important due to the openhole completion selected.
Also, hydraulic modeling suggested that formate brine
reduces ECD by approximately 300 psi over OBM,
giving wider safety margins between pore and fracture
pressure. Equally important for this well was that
ECD reduction would reduce apparent rock strength
seen by the bit by 23% and arguably yield a similar
improvement in ROP.
Other horizontal HPHT wells drilled previously by BP had
suffered well-control problems, and formate brine was
believed to offer a much-reduced well-control risk over
OBM fluid. Elimination of barite sag and no diffusion of
methane into the horizontal wellbore were the main
reasons for this.
The reported results from the well were promising,
with good production and zero skin. Operationally, the
BP project team felt that the well would have been
difficult to deliver without potassium / cesium formate
brine. In addition to the advantages discussed above,
the team felt that the fluid brought a number of HSE
advantages, such as elimination of skip and ship, no
well-control incidents and better integration between
drilling and completion. Advantages with the fluid far
outweighed the disadvantages, which were fluid cost
and increased complexity in reservoir log analysis.
B10.7.11 Saudi Aramco, Pre-Khuff, Saudi Arabia, 2004
Horizontal drilling in Pre-Khuff formations at 13,000 to
17,000 ft in Saudi Arabia presents a number of major
challenges, including hard and abrasive sandstones
and high bottomhole temperatures in the 121 177C /
250 350F range [47][48]. The interbedding of shale
and sandstone sequences presents unique drilling fluid
SECTION B10

PAGE 23

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

Table 12 Hydrocarbon production rates from Hawiyah-201 compared with offset well.
HWYH vertical producer
Production rate

3 MMscfd

HWYH-201 horizontal producer

27.5 MMscfd
9,410 bpd condensate

Wellhead pressure

1,200 psi

5,190 psi

Table 13 Hydrocarbon production rates from Tinat-3 compared with offset vertical well.

Production rate

TINAT vertical producer (open hole)

16.6 MMscfd
4,750 bpd condensate

TINAT-3 horizontal producer

27.5 MMscfd
Dry

Wellhead pressure

1,396 psi

5,100 psi

density requirements, such that 1.43 1.63 g/cm3 / 12.0

13.6 lb/gal drilling fluids are often required to mechanically
stabilize the shales, while only 1.05 1.43 g/cm3 / 8.8
11.9 lb/gal is needed to balance the reservoir pressures.
The fluid-related challenges faced by Saudi Aramco
in drilling 457 to 1,524 m / 1,500 to 5,000 ft horizontal
sections across the Pre-Khuff are:
Avoidance of formation damage and plugging of long
sections of expandable sand screens.
Avoidance of stuck pipe at fluid overbalances
of 820 1,600 psi.
Maintenance of essential drilling fluid properties
over long periods at high BHST.
Maintenance of low circulating pressure losses
in long sections of 57/8" horizontal hole, to avoid
excessive surface pump pressures and facilitate
use of high-speed turbodrills.
A highly lubricating fluid to reduce torque and drag.
Minimization of drillstring and tubular corrosion.
Saudi Aramco chose formate drilling and completion
fluids as the best solution to these challenges. SPE
paper 92407 [47] and accompanying slides [48]
describe how 1.44 1.68 g/cm3 / 12 14 lb/gal formate
fluids were used sucessfully to drill and complete three
approximately 487 m / 1,600 ft horizontal wells at tvd of
457 to 4,235 m / 13,900 to 14,600 ft.
Aramco reports that one of the wells drilled with lowsolids 1.44 g/cm3 / 12.0 lb/gal formate fluid exhibited
greatly improved drill string / wellbore lubricity and
bit performance, reduced torque and drag, reduced
ECDs and lower pump pressures. Inadequate drilling
fluid density and addition of high levels of weighting
solids masked the full benefits of formate fluids in the
other two wells, although there were no instances of
differential sticking.

PAGE 24

SECTION B10

Wells Tinat-3 and Hawiyah-201 gave excellent flow test

results the best seen to date in their respective fields.
Table 12 and Table 13 show flow rates and wellhead
pressure data for these wells, as presented by Aramco
at the 2005 Middle East Oil Show.
Well Haradh-658, which was drilled with 1.47 g/cm3 /
12.3 lb/gal formate fluid weighted up to 1.68 g/cm3 /
14.0 lb/gal with solid calcium carbonate, produced a
disappointing 3 MMscfd of gas. The authors of SPE
paper 92407 [47] acknowledge in their Lessons
Learned section that soluble cesium formate should
have been used to weight up the formate fluid
formulated for Haradh-658.
B10.7.12 Petrobras, Manati, Brazil, 2008
In 2008, Petrobras reported that it had drilled two wells
in the Manati field with sodium / potassium drilling fluid.
The Manati-6 well, with production of 19.7 MMm3/day,
has later been referred to as Brazils most prolific gas
producer [49]. The wells were drilled as part of Brazils
target to become self-sufficient in natural gas production
by optimizing production from existing fields.
The original development plan for the Manati gas field
included six wells completed in the Sergi formation,
with each well producing no more than 1 MMm3/day.
At such modest production rates there was no need to
fit the wells with sand exclusion devices. However, with
changes in the Brazilian economic situation, more gas
production was required, which brought with it risk
of sand production.
Petrobras dealt with the sand exclusion challenge
by drilling the 184 328 m / 604 1,076 ft vertical
reservoir sections of two wells (Manati-5 and -6) with
non-damaging fluid and completing with openhole
gravel pack. The non-damaging drilling and completion
fluids used in both wells were sodium / potassium
formate brines in the density range 1.4 1.5 g/cm3 /
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

C A B O T

100
Tune and Huldra fields drilled and
completed with formate brines

Recovery of gas reserves

[% of estimated original reserves in place]

90

OBM and
stimulation

80
70
60
OBM

50
40

OBM

30

Huldra 16.0
Tune 18.0
Shearwater 23.9
Marnock 16.9
Erskine 10.5

20
10
0
0

6
8
Time since start-up [years]

10

12

14

Figure 8 Comparison of gas-reserve production versus time from five North Sea HPHT gas / condensate fields of
approximately the same size. Here, production of gas reserves from two North Sea HPHT fields drilled and completed in
open hole with formate brines (Tune and Huldra) was faster and more complete than older fields drilled and completed
with OBM, before cesium formate became available. The Marnock field wells were completed in open hole with OBM, but
sand screens were blocked with mud residues and needed stimulation. The Shearwater and Erskine field wells were
drilled with OBM and completed as cased holes.
11.3 12.5 lb/gal. The impact of this new procedure
was a rig-time reduction of ten days compared with
alternative completion options, and record-breaking
gas production rates from Manati-6.
The paper concludes: Openhole gravel-pack completions
in highly permeable gas reservoirs, such as those in the
Manati field, proved to be a financially advantageous
completion strategy that ensured the required productivity
and reduced rig time. The changes in completion design
were beneficial for the project and (....) made it possible
to meet the increased demand for Brazilian gas.

B10.8 Analyzes of production data from fields

drilled and completed with formate brines
The ultimate measure of the efficacy of reservoir drilling
and completion fluids, like formate brines, is whether
or not they enable the operator to produce estimated
recoverable hydrocarbon reserves before the wells
reach their economic limit. In other words, does the use
of non-damaging formate fluids allow field operators
to make the revenues and profits they project in their
original field development plans?
In order to answer this very important question, one
needs to find data from field developments that match
the following criteria:
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

Reservoir sections of all wells drilled and completed

entirely with formate brines.
Fields should be on production long enough to drain
the majority of expected hydrocarbon reserves at
the start of the development project.
The operator, or local petroleum development
authority, should publicize estimated recoverable
reserves expected from the fields.
The operator, or the local petroleum development
authority, should provide public access to gas and oil
production data from the fields.
Two fields match these criteria: Tune and Huldra, both
offshore HPHT gas / condensate fields in the North Sea.
These two fields were developed in 2001 2002 by drilling
and completing ten high-angle wells in open hole using
potassium / cesium formate brines. Tunes recoverable
reserves brought onto production in November 2001
are estimated by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) to be 15.9 billion Sm3 of gas and 4.9 million m3 of
condensate. Estimated recoverable reserves from the
Huldra field, brought on stream in November 2002, are
18.0 billion Sm3 of gas and 3.2 million m3 of condensate.
The wells in these fields have always been highly
productive. In June 2003, for instance, the Tune field was
reported to be producing 12.4 million Sm3/day of gas
and 23,000 bbl/day of condensate from just four wells.
SECTION B10

PAGE 25

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

100
90

Recovery of gas reserves [%]

80
70
60
50
40

Huldra
Tune

30
20
10
0
0

6
Time since start-up [years]

10

12

Figure 9 Recovery of gas reserves from two HPHT fields drilled and completed with formate brines.

Recovery of condensate reserves [%]

120

100

80

60
Huldra
Tune

40

20

0
0

4
5
6
Time since start-up [years]

10

Figure 10 Recovery of condensate reserves from two HPHT fields drilled and completed with formate brines.
The NPDs fact sheets published in November 2009 give
the cumulative production figures for these fields as of
end-August 2009 (Figure 9 and Figure 10). These show
that both fields have produced close to 90% of their
estimated recoverable gas reserves and more than 95%
of estimated recoverable condensate reserves after just
seven years full production. In both cases, at least 70%
of recoverable gas and condensate were produced after
only four years full production. It is notable that none of
the wells in these fields, or in the later Kvitebjrn field,
have needed any form of intervention or workover since
their original construction with formate brines.
PAGE 26

SECTION B10

Figure 8 shows comparison of gas-reserve production

versus time for five North Sea HPHT gas / condensate
fields of approximately the same size [50][51]. Here,
production of gas reserves from two North Sea HPHT
fields drilled and completed in open hole with formate
brines (Tune and Huldra) was faster and more complete
than older fields drilled and completed with OBM, before
cesium formate became available. The Marnock field
wells were completed in open hole with OBM, but sand
screens were blocked with mud residues and needed
stimulation. The Shearwater and Erskine fields were
drilled with OBM and completed as cased holes.
VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

References
[1] Downs, J.D.: Formate Brines: Novel Drilling and
Completion Fluids for Demanding Environments,
SPE 25177, 1993.
[2] Howard, S.K.: Formate Brines for Drilling and
Completion: State of the Art, SPE 30498, 1995.
[3] Howard, S. and Downs, J.D.: Formate Fluids Optimize
Production Rates, AADE paper # AADE-05-NTCE-05, 2005.
[4] Downs, J.D., Howard, S.K., and Carnegie, A.: Improving
Hydrocarbon Production Rates Through the Use of
Formate Fluids A Review, SPE 97694, SPE International
Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5 6 December 2005.
[5] Sundermann, R. and Bungert, D.: PotassiumFormate-Based Fluid Solves High Temperature Drill-In
Problem", Journal of Petroleum Technology 1042,
November 1996.
[6] Bungert, D., Maikranz, S., Sundermann, R., Downs, J.,
Benton, W. and Dick, M.A.: The Evolution and Application
of Formate Brines in High-Temperature/High-Pressure
Operations, IADC / SPE 59191, presented at IADC / SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23 25 February 2000.
[7] Simpson, A., Al-Reda, S., Foreman, D., Guzman,
J., Al-Fawzy, M. and Vice, P.: Application and Recycling
of Sodium and Potassium Formate Brine Drilling Fluids
for Ghawar Field HT Gas Wells, OTC 19801, presented at
2009 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, USA, 4 7 May 2009.
[8] Simpson, A., Al-Reda, S., Foreman, D., Guzman, J.,
Al-Fawzy, M. and Vice, P.: Application and Recycling of
Sodium and Potassium Formate Brine Drilling Fluids for
Ghawar Field HT Gas Wells, OTC 19801, presented at
2009 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, USA, 4 7 May 2009.
[9] Saasen, A. Jordal, O.H., Burkhead, D., Berg, P.C.,
Lklingholm, G. Pedersen, E.S., Turner, J., and Harris, M.J.:
Drilling HT/HP Wells Using a Cesium Formate Based
Drilling Fluid, SPE 74541, 2002.
[10] Norwegian Petroleum Directorate website
(www.npd.no/en).

C A B O T

[12] Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B.: Underbalanced

Drilling of Horizontal Wells: Does it Really Eliminate
Formation Damage?, SPE 27352, SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
7 10 February 1994.
[13] Morgenthaler, L.N.: Formation Damage Tests of
High-Density Brine Completion Fluids", SPE 14831, SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
26 27 February 1986.
[14] Khilar, K.C. and Folger, H.S.: Water Sensitivity of
Sandstones", SPE 10103, SPE Annual Technical Conference,
San Antonio, 5 7 October 1981 and SPE Journal
(February 1983) 55.
[15] Bishop, S.R.: The Experimental Investigation of
Formation Damage due to the Induced Flocculation
of Clays within a Sandstone Pore Structure by a High
Salinity Brine", SPE 38156, SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, 1 3 June 1997.
[16] Francis, P.A., Eigner, M.R.P., Patey, I.T.M., Spark, I.S.C.:
Visualisation of Drilling-Induced Formation Damage
Mechanisms using Reservoir Conditions Core Flood
Testing, SPE 30088, 1995.
[17] Powell, J., Stephens, M.P., Scheult, J.M., Sifferman,
T., Swazey, J.: Minimization of Formation Damage,
Filtercake Deposition, & Stuck Pipe Potential In
Horizontal Wells Through The Use of Time-Independent
Viscoelastic Yield Stress Fluids & Filtrates, SPE 29408,
February 1995.
[18] Berg, P.C., Pedersen, E.S., Lauritsen, ., Behjat, N.,
Hagerup-Jenssen, S., Howard, S., Olsvik, G., Downs, J.D.,
Harris, M., Turner, J.: Drilling, Completion, and Open Hole
Formation Evaluation of High-Angle Wells in High-Density
Formate Brine: The Kvitebjrn Experience, 2004 2006,
SPE 105733, February 2007.
[19] Downs, J.D.: "Observations on Gas Permeability
Measurements under HPHT Conditions in Core Materials
Exposed to Cesium Formate Brine", SPE 121649, May 2009.
[20] Wellsbury, P., Goodman, K., Barth, T., Cragg, B.A.,
Barnes, S.P., and Parkes, J.: Deep Marine Biosphere
Fuelled by Increasing Organic Matter Availability During
Burial and Heating, Nature vol. 388, (7 August 1997)
573; doi:10.1038 / 41544.

[11] Schulze, K., Kersten, C., Verient, G. Oswald,

W. Dammerer-Kerbl, M., Empl, C., Marchel, C., and Karsch, H.:
Prevention of Production Breakdown by Formate
Drilling Fluid, SPE 122178, 2009.
V ERSION

0 9/ 13

SECTION B10

PAGE 27

FORMATE TECHNICAL MANUAL

C AB O T

[21] Marshall, D.S., Gray, R. and Byrne, M.T.: Return

Permeability: A Detailed Comparative Study", SPE
54763, SPE European Formation Damage Conference,
The Hague, 31 May 1 June 1999.
[22] Byrne, M.: Formate Brines: A Comprehensive
Evaluation of Their Formation Damage Control
Properties Under Realistic Reservoir Conditions",
SPE 73766, SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, 20 21 February 2002.
[23] Roy, A., Twynam, A., Parke, J., Morrison, A., Downs, J.:
An Evaluation of Perforating Techniques and Use of
Caesium Formate Kill Pills to Maximise Productivity in
HPHT Gas Wells and Minimise HSE Risks, OTC 19242,
May 2008.
[24] Roy, A., Twynam, A., Parke, J., Morrison, A., Downs, J.:
Perforating Techniques and Use of Cesium Formate Kill
Pills to maximize productivity in HP/HT Gas Wells and
Minimize HSE Risks", Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 61, No. 4, April 2009, pp. 70 72.
[25] Effects of Gas Humidity on Formate Brines,
Laboratory report # LR-207, Cabot Operations and
Technical Support Laboratory, Aberdeen, UK, 2007.
[26] Compatibility between formate brines and
Ca formation water, Laboratory report # LR-580,
Cabot Operations and Technical Support Laboratory,
Aberdeen, UK, October 2011.
[27] Cikes, M., Vranjesevic, B., Tomic, M. and Jamnicky, O.:
A Successful Treatment of Formation Damage Caused
by High-Density Brine, SPE Production Engineering,
May 1990, pp. 175 179.
[28] McBee, J., Evans, B., Umbher, K.: Lessons Learned on
Gulf of Mexico Gas Wells Drilled With OBM and Completed
With Heavy Brine, SPE 109589, November 2007.
[29] Biggs, K.D., Allison, D. and Ford, W.G.F. 1992: Acid
Treatments Remove Zinc Sulfide Scale Restriction,
Oil and Gas Journal, 17, 1992.
[30] Nowack, B., Stone, A.T.: Competitive adsorption
of phosphate and phosphonate onto goethite,
Water Research, 40 (2006), pp. 2201 2209.
[31] Goldberg, S., Sposito, G.: A chemical model of
phosphate adsorption by soils: I. Reference oxide
minerals, Soil Sci.Soc. Am. J., 48 (1984), pp. 772 778.

PAGE 28

SECTION B10

[32] Downs, J.D.: Exposure to Phosphate-based

Completion Brine under HPHT Laboratory Conditions
Causes Significant Gas Permeability Reduction
in Sandstone Cores", IPTC 14285 prepared for
presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 7 9 February 2012.
[33] "Reservoir Conditions Coreflood Tests and
Geological Analyses performed using Clashach
Sandstone for Cabot Specialty Fluids, Report # 2011-149I,
Corex, Aberdeen, UK, March 2012.
[34] Ramses, G.: M-I Performance Report, Oriente,
Ecuador: Flo-Pro", MI-40607, September 1997.
[35] Hands, N., Kowbel, K., Maikranz, S., and Nouris, R.:
Drill-in Fluid Reduces Formation Damage, Increases
Production Rates", Oil & Gas Journal vol. 96, no. 28
(13 July 1998) 65.
[36] Hands, N., Francis, P., Whittle, A. and Rajasingam, D.:
Optimizing Inflow Performance of a Long Multi-Lateral
Offshore Well in Low Permeability, Gas Bearing Sandstone:
K14-FB 102 Case Study", SPE 50394, SPE International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary,
1 4 November 1998.
[37] McKay, G., Bennett, C.L. and Gilchrist, J.M.: High
Angle OHGPs In Sand/Shale Sequences: A Case
History Using a Formate Drill-In Fluid", SPE 58731, SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, 23 24 February 2000.
[38] Hallman, J.H., Mackey, R., and Swartz, K.: Enhanced
Shale Stabilization With Very Low Concentration
Potassium Formate/Polymer Additives", SPE 73731, SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, 20 21 February 2002.
[39] Mackey, R. and Hallman, J.: Low Concentration
Formate Fluids Improve Drilling in Water-Based Muds
in Difficult Shale Environments in Western Canada",
IV SEFLU (Seminarion de Fluidos de Perforacion y
Terminacion de Pozos), Isla de Margarita, Venezuela,
5 8 June 2001.
[40] Hallman, J. and Bellinger, C.: Potassium
Formate Improves Shale Stability and Productivity in
Underbalanced Drilling Operations", CADE/CAODC Drilling
Conference, Calgary, 20 22 October 2003.

VER S IO N

09 / 13

SECTION B: COMPATIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS

[41] Weekse, A., Grant, S. and Urselmann, R.:

Expandable Sand Screen: Three New World Records
in the Brigantine Field", SPE 74549, IADC / SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, 26 28 February 2002.
[42] Oswald, R.J., Knox, D.A. and Monem, M.R.: Taking
non-damaging fluids to new extremes: Formatebased drilling fluids for high-temperature reservoirs
in Pakistan, SPE 98391, presented at 2006 SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, USA, 15 17 February 2006.

C A B O T

[50] Downs, J.D.: A Review of the Impact of the use of

Formate Brines on the Economics of Deep Gas Field
Development Projects", SPE 130376, January 2010.
[51] Downs, J.D.: Life Without barite: Ten Years of Drilling
Deep HPHT Gas Wells With Cesium Formate Brine,
SPE / IADC 145562, October 2011.

[43] Ali Qureshi, M.A. and Preining, P.: Pushing the

limits: Improving the drilling performance of high
temperature gas wells in the Thar desert in Sindh,
Pakistan, SPE 115319 presented at 2008 SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth,
Australia, 20 22 October 2008.
[44] Bregar, U.: Managing formation damage in HPHT
reservoirs paper presented to IQPC Formation Damage
Control Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
10 13 September 2007.
[45] Stenhaug, M., Erichsen, L., and Doornboch, F.H.C.:
A Step in Perforating Technology Improves Productivity
of Horizontal Wells in the North Sea", SPE 84910,
SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, 20 21 October 2003.
[46] Rommetveit, R., Fjelde, K.K., Aas, B., Day, N.M.,
Low, E. and Schwartz, H.: HPHT Well Control; An
Integrated Approach", OTC 15322, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 5 8 May, 2003.
[47] Simpson, M.A., Alreeda, S.H., Al-Khamees, S.A.,
Zhou, S., Treece, M.D. and Ansari, A.A.: Overbalanced
Pre-Khuff Drilling of Horizontal Reservoir Sections with
Potassium Formate Brines, SPE 92407, 14th SPE Middle
East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain,
12 15 March 2005.
[48] Alreeda, S.H.: Overbalanced Pre-Khuff Drilling of
Horizontal Reservoir Sections with Potassium Formate
Brines, presentation slides for SPE 92407, presented
at 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference,
Bahrain, 12 15 March 2005.
[49] Calderon, A., Arago, A.F., Chagas, C.M., Guimares, C.,
Barbedo, R.: The Challenges and Advantages of
Openhole Completions in the Manati Gas Field",
IPTC 123641, December 2008.

V ERSION

0 9/ 13

SECTION B10

PAGE 29