SPE-96798-PP

High-Performance, Water-Based Drilling Fluid Helps Achieve Early Oil with Lower
Capital Expenditure
Derek Reynolds (Apache), Andy Popplestone, SPE, Mike Hodder SPE, Paul Gwynne, Bob Kelly, SPE (M-I SWACO)
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Abstract
The Forties field was discovered in 1970 and at its peak
produced 500,000 bbl of oil per day (bopd). To re-start
major drilling operations using oil-based drilling fluids on
some of the fields old platforms would have required
significant capital expenditure (CAPEX) to ensure total
containment of both the fluid and cuttings. An alternative
approach on three of the fields platforms has been
successfully employed. The first utilisation in the North Sea
of a high-performance, environmentally friendly, waterbased drilling fluid has helped the operator achieve early oil
with much lower CAPEX. It has also proved possible to drill
side-track wells through the Eocene overburden and through
the reservoir in one hole section. This was not previously
considered possible - historically intermediate casing was
set and the reservoir drilled with a smaller hole size.
Expensive retrofitting of aging platforms to meet
environmental obligations for total containment may be
unnecessary when a high-performance, water-based fluid is
utilised.
This paper describes the characteristics and field
performance of this innovative drilling fluid system. Six
wells have been drilled from three different platforms during
2004 and early 2005. This paper describes how the fluid
performed drilling reactive formations that have only been
successfully drilled in the past using oil-based muds. The
paper presents a cost model of the alternative approaches to
developing Forties using either oil-based muds with total
containment or high-performance, water-based fluids with
cuttings discharge. This paper will be of interest to
Operators of aging assets looking to continue drilling
without heavy CAPEX investment for Total Containment.

economic sense, Apache needed to improve production as

soon as possible with a minimum of upfront capital
expenditure. A significant number of new wells would be
needed from several of the Forties platforms. Legislation in
the UK precludes the use of oil-based drilling fluids without
total containment. Upfront modifications to the platforms to
allow the use of oil-based drilling fluids would have proved
not only very expensive, but would also have required the
investment before production had generated the cash to pay
for the alterations. This was not an option.
Faced with this challenge, Apache investigated the
possibility of using High-Performance Water-Based Drilling
Fluids (HPWBF) to help it achieve its primary objective of
early oil, with minimal capital expenditure. A substantial
laboratory investigation was carried out prior to contract
award. This involved testing the inhibitive properties of the
HPWBF, described in this paper, against a competitive
system, using sized Foss Eikeland shale. The test regime
included Slake Durability, Hot Roll Dispersion Testing, and
Cuttings Hardness tests. A control test was run using native
Alba shale taken from an offset well. Contamination tests
were also carried out on weighted fluid to check the effects
of 10% v/v seawater, 35-lb/bbl Hymod Prima clay
(representing drill solids), 10-lb/bbl cement powder and
additions of sized (2 4 mm) Foss Eikeland shale in
concentrations up to 180 lb/bbl. All fluids were hot rolled
for 16 hours at 150 deg F before testing. In addition, the
lubricity was assessed using a Falex Lubricity tester on 12
lb/gal mud.
The field history, and the fluids-related problems form
the backdrop to the challenges faced by Apache
redeveloping the Forties field. The HPWBF selected by the
company was originally developed as a water-based
alternative to oil-based fluids (OBM) for wide application,
and was first used in the Gulf of Mexico. Its exceptional
performance as a real alternative to oil-based drilling fluids,
has now led to its use in over 200 wells worldwide. An
overview of the evolution of this system from the first
glycol-based drilling fluids in use at the end of the 1980s
follows the field history.
The field performance of the HPWBF on Forties has
been excellent and details of this along with the impact of
the new wells on hydrocarbons production and a cost model
is presented.

Introduction
Apache acquired all of BPs interests in the Forties field in
2003. At its peak the field was a huge producer of oil for
both BP and for the UK. At one time production reached
500,000 bopd. At the time of the acquisition, production
stood at only 30,000 bopd. For the project to make

History of the Forties Field

The Forties field is located in the Central North Sea over
block 22/10 and 22/6b. The field was discovered in 1970
and is the largest ever discovered in the UK sector of the
North Sea. After thirty years, and approximately 2.5 billion
barrels of production, it is still ranked eighth in the UK for

This paper was prepared for presentation at Offshore Europe 2005 held in Aberdeen,
Scotland, U.K., 69 September 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject
to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented
at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-9529435.

current production and reserves. The principal oil reservoir

is the Palaeocene Forties Group Sandstones.
There are several challenges associated with drilling
from the Forties Platforms, these are both drilling and
topside related. The platforms are old and have only basic
drilling equipment; no top drives, limited pump capacity,
basic mixing equipment, low mud-pit capacities and small
sack stores. The decks are also small and have a relatively
limited capacity in terms of loading.
Figure 1 shows a generalised lithology for the Forties
field. The Formations penetrated in Block 21 are regionally
continuous with similar characteristics. The Red Bed
mudstones are overlain by the Hordaland / Nordland Group
Claystones and Siltstones. Sand stringers may be present in
the first 600m (TVD) presenting the possibility of shallow
gas. Below the red beds is the Balder Formation, which
itself overlies the Sele Shales and then the Forties Sands.
There are several challenges associated with successfully
drilling these formations:
The Tertiary Hordaland / Nordland Group has some
extremely sandy sequences which can be identified as
potential loss or differential sticking zones. The
Nordland sequence is also known to have highly
reactive and unstable sticky shale sections which can
cause potential hole-stability problems
The Sele Shale is a weak zone with potential for losses
or hole instability.
The Miocene and Eocene Formations are overpressured up to 1.40 s.g. down to the Balder formation
where pressures return to a normal gradient of 1.04 s.g.
However, the Forties reservoir is now highly depleted
and fractured due to the number of wells drilled in close
proximity.
As Forties is not equipped to date to handle total
containment, nearly all the historical wells have made use of
water-based mud (WBM), mainly KCl-polymer. Many of
these wells have suffered significant drilling problems
(72%) with 10% of the wells being lost as a result. A
detailed review of the wells drilled in the Forties and
surrounding fields with KCl-based systems highlighted the
following:
The upper (surface) sections, drilled with seawater,
were in general trouble-free, with at worst some losses
being encountered and occasionally clay swelling.
The intermediate sections are potentially problematic
due to the dispersible, unstable mudstone / shale
formations encountered in the Upper Tertiary
formations. Most of the wells drilled with water-based
drilling fluid suffered similar drilling problems in the
Miocene clays, including gumbo and mud ring
problems. These are consistent with a lack of inhibition
and were avoided on the few wells that were drilled
with oil-based drilling fluids.
As the well deepens, the thick Tertiary claystone / shale
sequences are interspersed by stringers or lenses of
sandstone and limestone. The drilling problems here
have included swelling claystones and both losses to,
and stuck pipe in the exposed limestone and sandstone.
The stability of the exposed wellbore tends to be time
sensitive due to the swelling claystones. This has
contributed to a number of instances of packing off,
hole collapse and stuck pipe and casing.
In contrast, the wells sections that were drilled with oilbased mud (OBM) had very few problems.

96798

The reservoir section is characterised by variable

lithologies in a number of formations, which can lead to a
variety of drilling problems. The Balder Tuff, Sele and
Forties Formations are potential loss and wash-out zones.
There are differential sticking and seepage concerns in the
sand members if the overbalance is too excessive. This is
usually the case on Forties, due to the reservoir being highly
depleted. Instability around the casing shoe in the Balder
and Sele formations often leads to hole collapse.
Figures 2 and 3 show the occurrence of problems
throughout Block 21 (not just on Forties) for various hole
sections and drilling fluid systems. Figure 4 then shows a
similar breakdown of problems over fifty of the most
recently drilled 12-inch and 8-inch sidetracks on Forties
before its acquisition by Apache. All the wells in this
analysis were drilled with KCl-based fluids and hence it is
not further broken down into drilling fluid system type.
Figure 4 shows that 28% of the wells evaluated did not
have any significant drilling related problems; by inference
therefore 72% of them did! 10% of these wells were actually
lost as a result of the problems that arose. The biggest
culprit (with the exception of general poor hole which
includes such things as tight hole) was pack-off, often
resulting in stuck pipe.
The Tertiary shale overburden is porly compacted and
with the exception of balled bits, instantaneous ROP of over
100 m/hour are easily achievable. The combination of an
overpressured shale with a deviated trajectory results in a
high potential for instability and an overloaded annulus.
With limited flow rate and no top drive, the result is often
poor hole cleaning leading to frequent pack offs with loss of
circulation. Historically the mud weight has been increased
as a response to signs of well bore caving but this has
resulted in unsustainable ECDs when they exceed the
minimum 13-inch window FIT of 1.65 s.g. equivalent.
Positioning of the 9-inch casing shoe appears to be
critical to the success of the well. Due to the change from
over-pressured Miocene to normally pressured formation in
the Balder, this is where the shoe has to be set the mud
weights required to stabilise the Eocene approach the
fracture gradient for the Sele formation. This however still
means that the Sele shales and possibly some of the Balder
shales are left open when drilling the reservoir. Wellbore
stability and differential sticking then both become issues as
the mud weight required to stabilize the shales is more than
2000 psi overbalance on reservoir pressure. This represents
a more difficult operating window for WBM as compared to
OBM.
As a new entrant into the North Sea, it was essential that
Apache made their acquisition of the Forties field an early
success. In order to achieve this, oil production had to be
increased as quickly as possible with minimum capital
expenditure. It is clear however that this was unlikely to be
achieved without changing the way the wells were drilled.
The most obvious option would have been to upgrade the
platforms for total containment and to make use of an oilbased drilling fluid. However this strategy would have
entailed significant capital outlay at the start of the project.
High-Performance, Water-Based Drilling Fluid
(HPWBF) Development
One main driver for the development of improved waterbased fluids came when stricter environmental controls were
placed on the use and discharge of oil-based fluids. In the

96798

Gulf of Mexico, synthetic-based muds, (SBMs) had been

used for some time,1 with good drilling performance and
high rates of penetration, both important factors in the
deepwater sector where rig rates are very high. The use of
SBM allowed cuttings to be discharged to sea with
minimum treatment; however a regulatory change was
proposed which might have required total containment of
contaminated cuttings. Alternative drilling fluids based on
salt/PHPA, glycol and silicates, had historically shown poor
drilling performance in this area. In addition, the
environmental legislation in the Gulf of Mexico does not
permit high concentrations of potassium ion to be used,
which has a negative impact on the performance of most
glycols. There was therefore a clear need for an improved
performance of potassium-free, water-based fluid to provide
a viable alternative to SBM.
At the same time it was recognised that in the North Sea
area, there were many cases where zero-discharge
operations with OBM were expensive, impractical or
logistically difficult and that these operations also posed
questions concerning safety and long-term liability for waste
disposal. A successful high-performance, water-based fluid
would thus provide a viable alternative in this area.
Design Objectives. The design objectives for the new
water-based fluid were as follows:
Improved wellbore stability and drilling performance
Reduced clay dispersion, accretion and bit balling
Ability to function without potassium ion
Acceptable HSE profile for both Gulf of Mexico and
North Sea areas
Improved manual handling and logistics
Excellent lubricity
Compatibility with elastomers and down-hole tools
Evolution and Components. The era of modern waterbased fluids started in the late 1980s with the introduction
of polyglycerols to improve wellbore stability. These
relatively low-molecular-weight, mainly water-soluble
additives are able to intercalate between clay platelets,
inhibiting the ingress of water and thus minimizing
hydration and dispersion of shales. The polyglycerols were
replaced relatively quickly by the more efficient
polyalkalene glycols. However most of these products
require the presence of the potassium ion to function
properly (Figure 5) and hence had limited applicability in
the Gulf of Mexico. A further development led to the cloudpoint glycols, where, it is claimed, the emulsion droplets
produced when the glycol partially precipitates downhole,
further reduce water penetration into the shale.
The key enabling step in the development of improved,
(high-performance) water-based fluids was the
development of a new shale inhibitor based on diamine
chemistry.2 This product is strongly adsorbed onto the basal
clay surfaces but is more efficient than the glycols and does
not require potassium ions. Indeed, significant inhibition is
achieved in freshwater, thus opening up possibilities for land
drilling operations where tight restrictions on the salinity of
discharged water often apply.
The principle components of the high-performance
water-based fluid are summarized in Table 1. The fluid also
contains an encapsulating polymer to reduce cuttings
dispersion in the annulus (and hence dilution rates) and also
a rate-of-penetration (ROP) enhancer designed to prevent bit

balling and accretion. Viscosity and fluid loss are achieved

with regular polymers. All the products used are gold-rated
under the North Sea environmental risk assessment scheme
(CHARM) and pass Gulf of Mexico toxicity test
requirements. A side benefit of the main inhibitor, is that it
maintains a mildly alkaline pH, such that further additions
of caustic soda are not required, thus eliminating the need to
handle this corrosive chemical a definite HSE bonus.
Laboratory Performance
The HPWBF has been comprehensively tested in the
laboratory using a variety of techniques and clay substrates.
An excellent overview is given in by Young, et al.2 This
paper highlights some recent results.
Figure 6 shows the results of a cuttings recovery (hotroll dispersion) test using shale from Bohai Bay, China
Upper & Lower Ming, Guanto, and Dongying formations.
The shale is first cleaned and dried then ground to produce
particles between 2 and 4 mm. These are hot rolled in
various fluids for 16 hours and the weight recovered on a 2mm sieve then calculated. This test is a reasonable indicator
of performance but emphasizes the role of encapsulating
polymers rather then inhibitors in controlling dispersion. In
this test the HPWBF formulated in seawater gives similar
performance to a silicate fluid. Best recovery is obtained
from the HPWBF with KCl brine phase.
Figure 7 shows the results of an unconfined swelling
test using a claystone from Bangladesh with a cation
exchange capacity of 12 meq/100 g. The graph shows the
linear expansion as a function of exposure time to different
fluids. Freshwater fluids produce significant swelling (30%)
within two hours. This is controlled to 10% by KCl/PHPA
or freshwater/potassium silicate and to 6% by either the
HPWBF or the KCl/silicate fluid.
Figure 8 shows the results of tests designed to measure
accretion and ROP enhancement. Accretion refers to the
build up of a compacted layer of sticky cuttings on the BHA
or bit and often leads to bit balling, reduction in ROP and
tight trips. It is caused by poor bit hydraulics combined with
hydration effects that make the rock plastic and sticky. This
process can be evaluated in the laboratory by rolling a small
quantity of a suitable clay substrate in a cell together with an
iron bar for a few minutes and recording the amount of
material that sticks to the bar (right-hand picture).
ROP enhancement is best measured using a small-scale
drilling machine as illustrated on the left-hand picture. The
bar charts superimposed on the picture show the ROPs
obtained in Pierre shale with different additives. These tests
are expensive to perform but are a reasonable reflection of
true drilling conditions.
Field Performance. The HPWBF has been used on over a
200 wells worldwide to date since its launch in 2001. Recent
experiences from the Gulf of Mexico area are presented by
Klein, et al3 and Watson, et al.4 This section reviews its
performance on six wells drilled on the Forties Alpha, Bravo
and Delta platforms. The drilling equipment on these
platforms had been mothballed for some time with the
inevitable detrimental effect on reliability once drilling restarted. It is in this context that the HPWBF performance is
presented. The well performance data for six wells is
summarised in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 9 and 10 and is
split depending on either overburden or reservoir lithology
exposure. Average ROP and open hole hours per 100 meters

were calculated from extracted DIMS (well data base) data.

In the case of average ROP, all codes indicating that footage
was being made were used. As these included making
connections with a Kelly and may have included periodic
circulating time to improve hole condition, on-bottom ROP
is hidden. This is reported as a range when it was included
in the DIMS description.
The overburden sections all had similar hole problems
but the open hole time varied greatly. The deeper the
section, the lower the overall ROP and the longer the open
hole time. This is in line with the expectation of reduced
hydraulic efficiency and more compacted lithology with
depth. A lower average drilling ROP however did not
necessarily mean a higher open hole time if the impact of
hole problems was less significant. A high percentage of the
open hole time is spent circulating and working pipe in poor
hole conditions, exacerbated by waiting time for surface
equipment repair. Most of the reservoir sections had
overburden exposure as result of setting the intermediate
casing high but only when the exposure included the
Tertiary clay did that result in a lost drilling or completion
target (stuck liner in reservoir). All other reservoir sections
were relatively trouble free even with Balder and Sele shale
exposure using mud weights as low as 1.20 sg.
Among lessons learnt from drilling with the HPWBF is
that the degree of annulus overload has a direct impact on
inhibitor consumption in the larger hole sizes. Once the rate
of cuttings generation and removal deficit exceeds a certain
level, the deterioration of mud condition accelerates to point
where the specification has to be restored with aggressive
conditioning. If the hole is kept clean and the solids
removed on the shakers, the chemical consumption is not
manifest to the same degree. Interestingly the hole remained
in good condition for extended periods even when full of
fluid that was considered well out of specification. In one
well the casing was run after an extended period of waitingon-weather with much less trouble than expected. This may
well have been a benefit of the inhibitor chemistry. Bottomhole assembly accretion and surface clay problems were not
experienced, apart from the beginning of a section with
shallow window depth (577-m MD) and was cured by
restoring inhibitor levels.
Recently, sustainable on-bottom penetration rates of over
100 meters/hour have been achieved with an OBM on a
Forties platform using CRI and top drive without hole
problems. The ROP penalty of HPWBF compared to OBM
is not clear but an assumption was made for the cost model
that translates to 30% higher open hole time, not considering
time imported by hole problems. A valid comparison
between the two options in terms of drilling performance is
diffcult to make unless they are applied on a similar
trajectory using the same mud weight, drilling parameters
and upgraded surface equipment.
Fluid Selection Economic Model. The use of a waterbased fluid was preferred due to the cost and time required
to upgrade the platform to use OBM. This would have
entailed an upfront capital cost of around $5m and a 90-day
rig refit to install a Cuttings Re-Injection (CRI) unit and a
top drive. The former is required for cuttings disposal in a
zero-discharge environment and the latter to take advantage
of the increased drilling performance offered by the OBM
and to allow more distant targets to be reached.

96798

The effect of this investment on discounted cash flow is

shown in Figure 11, which covers a 12-month, 6-well
program. It is assumed that wells would be drilled in 45
days with OBM + top drive and 60 days with WBM. CRI
and top drive rental were estimated at $8,100/day and mud
costs at $180,000/well for OBM and $400,000/well for
HPWBM. Other costs, for example rig rental will be the
same in both cases and so are ignored. Each well is assumed
to produce 1500 bopd.
Figure 11 assumes oil at $30/bbl and interest rate of 10%
p.a. The crossover point, where cash flow with OBM and
the ugraded rig exceeds that with the WBM, would not
occur within 2 years with this model, even if the oil price
was $50/bbl. If the oil price is increased to $50/bbl, and the
interest rates reduced to 8%, the cross over is reached after
24 months.
This model is simplistic, for example, it makes no
allowance for decreasing production from the wells drilled.
Nevertheless it clearly illustrates the cash flow advantages
of the WBM option in the first year of operations, given all
realistic economic predictions of oil price and interest rates.
Given the uncertainties that accompany all enterprises of
this sort, a longer term view would carry additional risk.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank M-I SWACO and Apache
for permission to publish this paper and also many
colleagues in the UK and around the world who have
supplied help and information, especially Ted Hibbert for
his support on the project initially and for his assistance in
compiling information for the paper.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048*
E-01 = m
in x 2.54*
E-01 = mm
(F 32) 5/9
= C
bbl x 1.589 87
E-01 = m3
lb/bbl x 2.85301
= kg/m3
lb/gal x 1.11983
E+02 = kg/m3
bbl/ft/ x 5.21613
E-01 = m3/m
* exact conversion constant

List of acronyms
HPWBF
High-performance, water-based fluid
FIT
Formation integrity test
OBM
Oil-based mud
CAPEX
Capital expenditure
PHPA
Partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide
ROP
Rate of penetration
SBM
Synthetic-based mud
WBM
Water-based mud
MD
Measured depth
TVD
True vertical depth
ECD
Equivalent circulating density
BHA
Bottomhole assembly
bopd
bbl of oil per day
DIMS
Drilling information management system
CRI
Cuttings re-injection
References
1. Candler, J.E., Rushing, J.H. and Leuterman, A.J.J.:
"Synthetic-Based Mud Systems Offer Environmental Benefits
Over Traditional Mud Systems," SPE 25993, SPE/EPA
Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, San
Antonio, Mar 7-10, 1993.

96798

2. Young, S., Patel, A., Cliffe, S., Stamatakis, E.: OrganoAmine Chemistry An Innovative Key to Achieving Invert
Emulsion Performance with Water Based Drilling Fluids,
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, 58 February 2003.
3. Klein, A.L., Aldea, C., Bruton, J.R., Dobbs, W.R.: Field
Verification: Invert Mud Performance from Water-Based
Mud in Gulf of Mexico Shelf, SPE 84314, SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Denver, 5 8 October 2003.
4. Watson, P., Meize, B., Aldea, C., Blackwell, B. Eastern Gulf
of Mexico: Inhibitive Water-Based Drilling Fluid Sets UltraDeepwater Records, IADC/SPE 87131, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, 2-4 March 2004.

96798

Table 1 High Performance Water-Based

Drilling Fluid Formulation
Component

Concentration

Inhibitor
Encapsulator
ROP Enhancer
Brine Phase
Viscosifier (Xanthan)
Fluid Loss Additives (PAC,
Starches)
Brine phase options are

2-4% v/v
1-2 lb/bbl
2-4% v/v
As required
1-2 lb/bbl
3-4 lb/bbl
Freshwater
Seawater
KCl Brine
NaCl Brine to Saturation

Table 2 Overburden hole sections

Section
length
meters
1138

Platform Well
Delta 1
casing shoe
Delta 2
casing shoe
Delta 3
casing shoe

Hole Size
8 1/2"

Casing
size
P&A

8 1/2"

7"

340

8 1/2"

7"

844

Delta 2 ST
casing shoe

8 1/2"

7"

933

Bravo 1
casing shoe

12 1/4"

9 5/8"

1144

Alpha 1
casing shoe

12 1/4"

9 5/8"

1409

Formations
drilled
Tertiary
Balder
Tertiary
Balder
Tertiary
top Balder
Tertiary,
Balder, Sele
Forties
Tertiary
Hordaland
Tertiary,
Balder, Sele
top Forties

On bottom
ROP
m/hr
13-60

Average
ROP
m/hr
11.9

Open hole
hours/100
m
33.4

Total
OH
Days
15

03 - 35

12.4

2.9

03-30

10.0

19.7

13-60

17.5

17.8

Hole problems
cavings, pack off
losses
cavings, losses
pack off
pack off
losses
stuck pipe in
reservoir

25-44

22.7

13.3

pack off,
sticky clay cuttings

26-32

17.5

18.7

fines, cavings,
tight trips

13

5
8

Table 3 Reservoir hole sections

Platform Well

Hole Size Liner size

Section
length
meters

Formations
drilled

On bottom
ROP
Average Open hole
meters/hour ROP m/hr hours/100m

Hole problems

Total open
hole Days

Delta 2
Well TD

6"

P&A

207

Balder, Sele,
Forties Sand
base Forties

02-18

6.3

33.4

none

Delta 3
Well TD

6"

4 1/2"

268

Balder, Sele,
Forties Sand
base Forties

10 - 20

10.3

29.3

none

Delta 2 ST
Well TD

6"

4 1/2"

148

08-18

7.3

54.8

none

Bravo 1
Well TD

8 1/2"

7"

1031

18-24

14.6

10.7

Liner set off depth

Alpha 1
Well TD

8 1/2"

7"

384

02-30

9.6

4.2

over pull, torque

chalk stringers

Forties Sand
base Forties
Tertiary,
Balder, Sele
base Forties
Forties Sand
Maureen

96798

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Oil-Based Fluids

Gumbo

Losses

High Gas

KCl/PHPA
Influx

Cavings

Excess W/Out

Overpull > 50 Klb

Gypsum/Lignosulphonate
Tight Hole

Frequency

Figure 1 Forties Geological Forecast

Common Hazards

Figure 2 - Occurrence of Drilling Hazards in the 12-inch Sections

96798

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

SBM
KCl/PHPA

Losses

High Gas

Stuck Pipe

Influx

Excess W/Out

Overpull > 50 Klb

Gypsum/Lignosulphonate

Tight Hole

Frequency

Common Hazards

Figure 3 - Occurrence of Drilling Hazards in 8-inch Sections

Incident Occurence
35

% Occurence

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No
Wash-out
Hole
Problem
collapse

Losses

Pack-off

Stuck
Pipe

Stuck
Logs

Poor Hole Hole Fill

(general)

Section
Lost

Incident

Figure 4 - Occurrence of Drilling Hazards in all Sections in the 50 Most Recent Wells.
All Wells Drilled with KCl-Based Drilling Fluids.

96798

glycol
potassium

glycol
glycol

Figure 5 - Glycol adsorption onto clay platelets (schematic)

Dispersion Results

100
95
90

Recovery (%)

85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
FW Polymer

FW Glycol

KCl PHPA

FW Silicate

SW Ultradril
HPWBF
(SW)

KCl Ultradril
HPWBF
(KCl)

Figure 6 - Cuttings recovery (hot-roll dispersion test) on Bohai Bay shale

10

96798

40

35

% Volume Expansion

30

Fresh Water
FW/Lime
KCl/Glydril/Hibtrol/IdcapD
KCl/PHPA
FW/Sildril K
KCl/Sildril
KCl/Ultradril
HPWBF (KCl)

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

12

14

16

Hours

Figure 7- Shale Swelling Test on Claystone From Bangladesh

49.1

18.2

17.8

18.9

39.6

14.1

7.1

32.7

110.5

HPWBM
20% NaCl

Glycol/ PHPA20% NaCl

CaCl2/polymer

91.3

Figure 8 - Accretion and ROP enhancement testing. Bar charts superimposed on the
left hand picture are ROP data in ft/hr with different additives

96798

11

Overburden Hole Sections

25

40

30
25

15

20
10

15
10

ROP
Openhole Time

5
0

0
Delta 1

Delta 2

Delta 3

Delta 2
ST

Bravo 1 Alpha 1

Figure 9 Drilling Performance Summary (overburden section)

Reservoir Hole Sections

14

50

12
40

10

30

8
6

20

4
10

2
0

Openhole Time (hr/100m)

60

16

Average ROP (m/hr)

Average ROP (m/hr)

20

Openhole Time (hrs/100m

35

0
Delta 2

Delta 3

Delta 2
ST

Bravo 1 Alpha 1

Figure 10 Drilling Performance Summary (reservoir section)

ROP
Openhole Time

12

96798

Discounted Cash Flow ($m

Discounted Cash Flow Model

40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
-5.00
-10.00

OBM
WBM

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
15-Day Periods

Figure 11 - Discounted Cash Flow Model