DWM Solids Control Handbook

SOLIDS CONTROL HANDBOOK
Sections 1 13
Appendices A F
January 1998
Dowell ITM-1158
Schlumberger
Dowell
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Master Table of Contents
Dowell Page 1 of 8
MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 100 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 200 ECONOMICS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2 Economic Justification .....................................................................................................2
2.1 Penetration Rate .....................................................................................................2
2.2 Dilution Rate ...........................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Economic Analysis Calculations ....................................................................4
3 Solids Control Economics and Performance Program (SECOP) ......................................8
4 Monitoring System Performance ......................................................................................9
4.1 API Procedure for Evaluating Total Efficiency of Solids Control Systems
(Water-Based Muds) ..............................................................................................10
5 Summary .........................................................................................................................12
Figures
Fig. 1. Effects of solids content on drilling performance. ......................................................3
Tables
Table 1 Solids Control Economic Analysis Parameters........................................................4
SECTION 300 SHALE SHAKERS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
2 Principle of Operation.......................................................................................................4
2.1 Vibration Patterns....................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Circular Motion...............................................................................................5
2.1.1.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput ...........................................5
2.1.1.2 Recommended Applications................................................................5
2.1.2 Unbalanced Elliptical Motion ..........................................................................5
2.1.2.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput ...........................................6
2.1.3 Linear Motion .................................................................................................6
2.1.3.1 Solids Conveyance and Liquid Throughput .........................................7
2.1.4 Balanced Elliptical Motion ..............................................................................8
2.1.5 Vibration Dynamics ........................................................................................9
2.1.5.1 Acceleration ........................................................................................9
2.1.5.2 Frequency (RPM), Stroke Length ........................................................11
2.1.6 Deck Angle ....................................................................................................12
3 Screen Fastening and Support.........................................................................................12
3.1 Hookstrip Screen Panels.........................................................................................13
3.2 Rigid Frame (Pretensioned) Screen Panels ............................................................15
4 Single Deck Shakers........................................................................................................17
5 Cascading Shaker Systems .............................................................................................21
5.1 Unitized Cascading Systems...................................................................................22
6 Integral Tandem Deck Shakers ........................................................................................23
7 Shaker Manifolds .............................................................................................................27
8 Operating Guidelines........................................................................................................30
8.1 Optimizing Screen Life ............................................................................................30
8.2 Screen Selection .....................................................................................................30
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 8 Dowell
8.3 Cuttings Dryness.....................................................................................................30

8.4 Sticky Solids (Gumbo).............................................................................................32
8.5 Polymer Muds .........................................................................................................33
8.6 Blinding, Plugging ...................................................................................................33
8.7 Lost Circulation Material ..........................................................................................33
9 Estimating Number of Shakers Required .........................................................................34
10 Summary........................................................................................................................35
Figures
Fig. 1. Shale shaker components.........................................................................................4
Fig. 2. Circular motion. .........................................................................................................5
Fig. 3. Unbalanced elliptical motion......................................................................................6
Fig. 4. Linear motion. ...........................................................................................................7
Fig. 5. Balanced elliptical motion..........................................................................................8
Fig. 6. Conveyance velocity. ................................................................................................9
Fig. 7. Adjustable vibrator counterweights............................................................................10
Fig. 8. Shaker throughput versus vibrator frequency. ...........................................................11
Fig. 9. Solids bed buildup.....................................................................................................12
Fig. 10. Typical hookstrip screen..........................................................................................13
Fig. 11. Hookstrip screen tensioners. ...................................................................................14
Fig. 12. Shaker fluid endpoints.............................................................................................15
Fig. 13. Rigid screen panel with perforated plate..................................................................16
Fig. 14. Rigid screen panel...................................................................................................17
Fig. 15. Derrick flo-line cleaner plus. ....................................................................................18
Fig. 16. Fluid systems model 500.........................................................................................18
Fig. 17. Swaco ALS. ............................................................................................................19
Fig. 18. Sweco LF-3 oil-mizer...............................................................................................19
Fig. 19. Sweco LM-3. ...........................................................................................................20
Fig. 20. Triton NNF. .............................................................................................................20
Fig. 21. Cascading shaker system. ......................................................................................21
Fig. 22. Brandt ATL-CS........................................................................................................23
Fig. 23. Brandt ATL 1000 .....................................................................................................24
Fig. 24. Derrick cascade system. .........................................................................................25
Fig. 25. Thule VSM 100 .......................................................................................................26
Fig. 26. Poor manifold design...............................................................................................27
Fig. 27. Better manifold design.............................................................................................28
Fig. 28. Best conventional manifold design. .........................................................................28
Fig. 29. Circular manifold design..........................................................................................29
Fig. 30. Overhead manifold design.......................................................................................29
Tables
Table 1 Shakers Required....................................................................................................34
SECTION 400 SHAKER SCREENS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2
2 Separation Performance ..................................................................................................2
2.1 Grade Efficiency......................................................................................................2
2.2 Separation Potential ................................................................................................3
3 Liquid Throughput Performance .......................................................................................4
4 Screen Life.......................................................................................................................4
4.1 Effect of Screen Composition..................................................................................4
4.2 Effect of Vibration Pattern .......................................................................................5
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 8
4.2.1 Linear Motion .................................................................................................5

4.2.2 Circular, Elliptical Motion................................................................................5
5 Shaker Screen Designations ............................................................................................5
5.1 Mesh Count.............................................................................................................5
5.2 API RP13E Screen Designation ..............................................................................6
5.2.1 Screen Name.................................................................................................6
5.2.2 Equivalent U.S. Sieve Number.......................................................................7
5.2.3 Separation Potential (d50, d16, d84) ..................................................................7
5.2.4 Flow Capacity (Conductance, Non-blanked Area) ..........................................8
5.2.5 Transmittance ................................................................................................8
5.2.6 Aspect Ratio ..................................................................................................9
5.3 Field Procedure to Estimate Cut Point (D50) ............................................................10
5.3.1 Equipment .....................................................................................................10
5.3.2 Procedure ......................................................................................................10
6 Summary .........................................................................................................................11
Figures
Fig. 1. Percent separated curve. ..........................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Effect of plate opening size on screen blinding..........................................................9
Tables
Table 1 U.S. Sieve Series ....................................................................................................7
Table 2 Blinding Resistance of Common Screens ...............................................................10
SECTION 500 DEGASSERS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2 Placement and Operation.................................................................................................2
3 Summary .........................................................................................................................3
Figures
Fig. 1. Correct degasser operation. ......................................................................................3
Tables
Table 1 Ranking of Degasser Models ..................................................................................2
SECTION 600 HYDROCYCLONES

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2
3 Performance Parameters .................................................................................................4
3.1 Cone Diameter ........................................................................................................5
3.2 Plastic Viscosity ......................................................................................................6
3.3 Feed Head ..............................................................................................................6
3.4 Underflow Diameter.................................................................................................8
3.4.1 Spray Discharge ............................................................................................8
3.4.2 Rope Discharge .............................................................................................8
4 Desanders........................................................................................................................10
4.1 Recommended Desanders......................................................................................10
5 Desilters...........................................................................................................................10
5.1.1 Recommended Desilters................................................................................12
6 Sizing Hydrocyclone Manifolds.........................................................................................12
8 Troubleshooting ...............................................................................................................15
9 Summary .........................................................................................................................16
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 8 Dowell
Figures
Fig. 1. Hydrocyclone operating principles.............................................................................3
Fig. 2. Cone efficiency..........................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Sensitivity to plastic viscosity. ...................................................................................6
Fig. 4. Sensitivity to feed head. ............................................................................................7
Fig. 5. Rope flow operation characteristics...........................................................................9
Fig. 6. Amoco near optimum core efficiency. .....................................................................11
Fig. 7. Estimated discard rates.............................................................................................11
Fig. 8. Typical hydrocyclone manifold. .................................................................................13
Tables
Table 1 Effect of Variables on Hydrocyclone Performance...................................................5
Table 2 Cone Capacity.........................................................................................................5
SECTION 700 MUD CLEANERS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2.1 Unweighted Muds....................................................................................................4
2.2 Weighted Muds .......................................................................................................4
3 Summary .........................................................................................................................5
Figures
Fig. 1. Mudcleaner combines hydrocyclone and shale shaker..............................................2
Fig. 2. Brandt ATL 2800 mud cleaner...................................................................................3
SECTION 800 DECANTING CENTRIFUGES

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2
3 Performance Parameters .................................................................................................4
3.1 G-Force...................................................................................................................4
3.2 Viscosity..................................................................................................................6
3.3 Cake Dryness..........................................................................................................6
3.4 Pond Depth and Processing Capacity .....................................................................7
3.5 Bowl - Conveyor Differential RPM And Torque ........................................................9
4 Centrifuging Unweighted Mud ..........................................................................................10
4.1 Centrifuging Hydrocyclone Underflow......................................................................10
4.2 Operating Guidelines, Centrifuging Unweighted Mud ..............................................13
5 Centrifuging Weighted Muds ............................................................................................13
5.1 Operating Guidelines, Barite Recovery Mode ..........................................................15
6 Two-Stage Centrifuging....................................................................................................16
6.1 Field Evaluation of Two-Stage Centrifuging Economics ..........................................18
6.1.1 Calculations ...................................................................................................18
7 Centrifuge Selection .........................................................................................................19
7.1 Equipment Descriptions ..........................................................................................23
7.1.1 Hutcheson-Hayes HH5500 (16 X 55) .............................................................23
7.1.2 Alpha-Laval 418/Swaco HS 518 (14 X 56) .....................................................23
7.1.3 Derrick DE1000/Sharples P3400/Brandt HS3400 (14 X 50) ...........................23
7.1.4 Oiltools S3.0 (21 X 62), S2.1 (18 X 56) ..........................................................23
7.1.5 Bird Design Centrifuges - Sweco SC-4, Broadbent, Brandt CF-2,
Derrick DB1...................................................................................................24
7.1.6 Alpha-Laval 414, Swaco 414 (14 X 38), Sharples P3000, Hutcheson Hayes
HH1430 (14 X 30)..........................................................................................24
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 8
8 Summary .........................................................................................................................25
Figures
Fig. 1. Centrifuge components. ............................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Centrifuge operation..................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Effect of G-force on separation. ................................................................................5
Fig. 4. Effect of viscosity on separation performance. ..........................................................6
Fig. 5. Effect of G-force on cuttings dryness. .......................................................................7
Fig. 6. Effect of pond depth on fine solids removal...............................................................8
Fig. 7. Effect of pond depth on coarse solids removal. .........................................................9
Fig. 8. Economics of centrifuging hydrocyclone underflow. ..................................................11
Fig. 9. Fluid routing to centrifuge hydrocyclone underflows. .................................................12
Fig. 10. Internal centrifuge feed compartment design...........................................................12
Fig. 11. Choice of drilled solids removal from weighted mud................................................14
Fig. 12. Benefits of increased G-force on barite recovery.....................................................15
Fig. 13. Two stage centrifuging. ...........................................................................................17
Fig. 14. Centrifuge performance comparison on fine solids distribution................................20
Fig. 15. Centrifuge performance comparison on coarse solids distribution...........................21
Tables
Table 1 Recommended Centrifuges for Unweighted Mud ....................................................22
Table 2 Recommended Centrifuges for Weighted Mud........................................................22
SECTION 900 CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS AND PIPING

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2
3 Sizing Centrifugal Pumps .................................................................................................3
3.1 Centrifugal Pump Sizing Example ...........................................................................4
3.2 Estimating Impeller Size..........................................................................................8
4 Pipe Sizing .......................................................................................................................8
4.1 Suction Head Requirements (NPSH) ......................................................................9
4.1.1 NPSH Example ..............................................................................................12
4.1.2 Suction Line Entrance....................................................................................13
5 Installation and Operating Guidelines...............................................................................13
6 Summary .........................................................................................................................14
Figures
Fig. 1. Typical centrifugal pump. ..........................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Centrifugal pump sizing example. .............................................................................4
Fig. 3. Minimum suction line submergence. .........................................................................10
Fig. 4. Elevation vs. barometric pressure. ............................................................................11
Fig. 5. Vapor pressure as a function of fluid temperature. ....................................................12
Fig. 6. Pump suction pipe entrances. ...................................................................................13
Tables
Table 1 Detailed Worksheet for Pump Sizing.......................................................................6
Table 2 Friction Loss Coefficients for Pipe Fittings...............................................................7
Table 3 Recommended Flow Rates for Pipe ........................................................................9
SECTION 1000 ADDITION/MIXING SYSTEMS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2
2 Mixing Hoppers ................................................................................................................2
3 Bulk Systems ...................................................................................................................4
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 8 Dowell
4 Polymer Mixing.................................................................................................................5
5 Active System Addition ....................................................................................................7
6 Premix System.................................................................................................................8
7 Water Addition .................................................................................................................9
7.1 Waste Pit Water......................................................................................................9
8 Agitation ...........................................................................................................................10
8.1 Agitator Design........................................................................................................11
8.2 Agitator Sizing Example ..........................................................................................13
9 Summary .........................................................................................................................15
Figures
Fig. 1. Jet/Venturi mixer. ......................................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Sidewinder mixer.......................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Jet shear mixer..........................................................................................................6
Fig. 4. SECO (Echols) homogenizer ring..............................................................................7
Fig. 5. Horsepower requirements for canted-blade impellers................................................12
Fig. 6. Horsepower requirements for flat-blade impellers. ....................................................12
Fig. 7. Floor baffles. .............................................................................................................13
Tables
Table 1 Recommended Turnover Rates...............................................................................11
Table 2 Impeller Displacement Rates...................................................................................14
Table 3 Physical Specifications for Mechanical Mixers.........................................................14
SECTION 1100 TANK DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT

1 Tank Design.....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Compartment Equalization ......................................................................................2
1.2 Sand Trap ...............................................................................................................3
1.3 Slug Tank................................................................................................................3
1.4 Equipment Arrangement .........................................................................................4
1.5 General Guidelines for Surface System Arrangements ...........................................5
2 Equipment Arrangements.................................................................................................6
2.1 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Active System ........................................6
2.2 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Hydrocyclone Underflow.........................8
2.3 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Mud Cleaner Underflow..........................10
2.4 Weighted Water-Based Mud - Single-Stage Centrifuging (Barite Recovery)............12
2.5 Weighted Mud - Two-Stage Centrifuging.................................................................14
2.6 Complete System Layout For Both Weighted and Unweighted Mud........................16
3 Summary .........................................................................................................................18
Figures
Fig. 1. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing active system. ...........................................7
Fig. 2. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing hydrocyclone underflow.............................9
Fig. 3. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing mud cleaner underflow. .............................11
Fig. 4. Weighted water-based mud - single-stage centrifuging (Barite recovery) ..................13
Fig. 5. Weighted mud - two stage centrifuging. ....................................................................15
Fig. 6. Generic - complete system........................................................................................17
SECTION 1200 DEWATERING SYSTEMS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2 Economic Overview..........................................................................................................2
3 Monitoring Dewatering Costs and Efficiency.....................................................................7
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 8
4 Equipment Selection ........................................................................................................10

4.1 Dewatering Devices ................................................................................................10
5 Waste Management .........................................................................................................11
6 Summary .........................................................................................................................13
Figures
Fig. 1. Effect of solids on flocculent concentration. ..............................................................5
Fig. 2. Evaluation of dewatering centrate. ............................................................................6
Fig. 3. Material returned in centrate......................................................................................7
Fig. 4. Form for calculating dewatering efficiency.................................................................8
Fig. 5. Dewatering costs, by interval.....................................................................................9
Fig. 6. Dewatering system equipment. ..................................................................................10
SECTION 1300 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A SOLIDS CONTROL PROGRAMS

1 SHAKCAP Spreadsheet Program ..................................................................................1
1.1 Input........................................................................................................................2
1.1.1 Screen Data...................................................................................................2
1.1.2 Mud Data .......................................................................................................3
1.1.3 Drilling Data ...................................................................................................3
1.2 Output .....................................................................................................................3
1.3 Using Shakcap ........................................................................................................4
2 DEWATER Spreadsheet Program .................................................................................5
2.1 Dewatering and Disposal Cost Section....................................................................5
2.1.1 Dewatering Equipment Used..........................................................................6
2.1.2 Manpower Costs ............................................................................................6
2.1.3 Per Barrel Costs ............................................................................................6
2.2 Interval Data and Analysis Section ..........................................................................7
2.2.1 Input Data ......................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Output Data ...................................................................................................8
3 Summary Section.............................................................................................................10
Figures
Fig. 1. SHAKCAP spreadsheet. ...........................................................................................2
Fig. 2. Input section of the DEWATER spreadsheet.............................................................5
Fig. 3. Interval data and analysis section of the DEWATER spreadsheet. ...........................7
Fig. 4. Summary section of the DEWATER spreadsheet. ....................................................10
APPENDIX B CONDUCTANCE CALCULATION

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2 Nomenclature...................................................................................................................2
APPENDIX C SOLIDS CONTROL EQUIPMENT DISCHARGE ANALYSIS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
2 Sample Collection ............................................................................................................1
3 Retort Procedure..............................................................................................................2
4 Alternate Retort Procedure for Air-Entrained Cuttings Samples .......................................2
5 Solids Analysis Calculations.............................................................................................3
6 Example Calculations.......................................................................................................5
7 Calculations .....................................................................................................................6
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 8 Dowell
APPENDIX D SCREEN DESIGNATIONS

1 Brandt - ATL-1000, ATL CS (Main Deck) .........................................................................2
2 Brandt - Retrofit Tandem, ATL-CS (Scalping Deck) .........................................................4
3 Broadbent - Tandem Master (Lower Deck).......................................................................8
4 Derrick - Flo-Line Cleaner, Cascade System, High G Dryer .............................................9
5 Fluid Systems - Model 500, Model 50 ..............................................................................24
6 Harrisburg - Linear Tandem .............................................................................................30
7 Swaco - ALS ....................................................................................................................31
8 Sweco - LM-3 ...................................................................................................................35
9 Sweco - LF-3....................................................................................................................41
10 Thule Rigtech - VSM 100 ...............................................................................................43
11 Tri-Flo - Model 148 .........................................................................................................44
12 Triton NNF Screening Machine ......................................................................................45
APPENDIX E PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVES

Figures
Fig. 1. 4M-21, BJ 5 at 1750 rpm..........................................................................................1
Fig. 2. 4M-18, BJ 6 at 1150 rpm..........................................................................................2
Fig. 3. 4M-19, BJ 6 at 1750 rpm..........................................................................................2
Fig. 4. Mission Magnum 1, 6 x 5 x 11 at 1150 rpm. ..............................................................3
Fig. 10. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1150 rpm. ...............................................................6
Fig. 11. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1750 rpm. ...............................................................6
Fig. 12. Harrisburg curve no. 2013, 5 x 4 x 14 at 1150 rpm. .................................................7
APPENDIX F EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Tables
Table 1 Oilfield Shale Shakers .............................................................................................2
Table 2 Oilfield Shale Shaker Classification .........................................................................18
Table 3 Oilfield Centrifugal Pumps .......................................................................................19
Table 4 Oilfield Degassers ...................................................................................................26
Table 5 Oilfield Hydrocyclones .............................................................................................33
Table 6 Oilfield Mud Cleaners ..............................................................................................44
Table 7 Oilfield Centrifuges ..................................................................................................50
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Introduction
Dowell Page 1 of 2
INTRODUCTION
All drilling personnel recognize the importance of mud in the successful
drilling of a well. One of the primary uses for drilling fluid is to carry unwanted
drilled solids from the borehole. These solids are essentially a contaminant
and, if left in the mud, can lead to numerous operational problems. Three
options are available to maintain acceptable drilling fluid properties:
1. Do nothing and let the solids build up. When the mud no longer meets
specifications, throw it away and start with fresh mud.
2. Dilute the mud and rebuild the system to keep the properties within
acceptable ranges, while dumping excess mud to the reserve pit.
3. Lower the solids content of the mud through solids removal to
minimize the addition/dilution necessary to maintain acceptable
properties.
In recent years, increased public awareness of environmental issues has
provided both regulatory and economic incentives to minimize drilling waste.
In many instances, the first two choices have become very expensive and
unacceptable. This has served to stress the importance of the third option,
efficient solids control. Using solids removal to minimize addition/dilution
volumes is normally most effective and provides the following benefits:
Increased penetration rates
Reduced mud costs
Lower water requirements
Reduced torque and drag
Less mixing problems
Reduced system pressure losses
Lower circulating density (ECD)
Better cement jobs
Reduced instances of lost circulation
Reduced formation damage
Less differential sticking
Reduced environmental impact
Less waste, lower disposal costs
It is apparent from this list that the role of solids control is instrumental in the
maintenance of a good drilling fluid. Solids control equipment has been
standard hardware on most rotary drilling rigs since the early 1960s. In the
early years, many of the solid/liquid separation devices were borrowed from
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Introduction
Page 2 of 2 Dowell
other industries and applied directly to oilfield rotary drilling. Although the
basic operating principles and technology associated with mechanical solids
removal have not changed significantly over the years, refinements in design
specifically for drilling applications have yielded considerable improvements
in performance and reliability.
This manual provides drilling personnel with the information to help
optimize the selection and operation of solids control equipment.
Emphasis is placed on mechanical solids removal equipment and the
factors that impact its performance. Practical operating guidelines are
provided to help achieve maximum performance in the field.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 1 of 12
Economics
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Economic Justification.......................................................................................................2
2.1 Penetration Rate............................................................................................................2
2.2 Dilution Rate ..................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Economic Analysis Calculations...........................................................................4
3 Solids Control Economics and Performance Program (SECOP) ....................................8
4 Monitoring System Performance .......................................................................................9

4.1 API Procedure for Evaluating Total Efficiency of Solids Control Systems
(Water-Based Muds) .................................................................................................. 10
5 Summary............................................................................................................................ 12
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Effects of solids content on drilling performance. ........................................................3
TABLES
Table 1 Solids Control Economic Analysis Parameters...........................................................4
1 Introduction
The impact of good solids control can be very significant and can lead to
substantial cost savings, but often there is reluctance to invest in solids
control for the following reasons:
1. Many of the benefits are indirect and the savings are hard to quantify.
2. Methods to economically justify solids control equipment were not
available.
3. Techniques to measure performance are limited.
4. Disappointing results from ill-chosen or incorrectly-operated
equipment.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Page 2 of 12 Dowell
Although the benefits from good solids control are numerous, the cost
savings are not apparent in normal drilling cost accounting. For example, the
savings due to reduced trouble costs and improved penetration rate,
although substantial benefits, cannot be accurately calculated. Usually the
drilling fluid gets most of the credit (or blame) since mud material
consumption is easily tracked and the mud properties are the only direct
indication of solids control system performance. In a realistic sense, the mud
and the solids control equipment are integral parts of one system. One
cannot plan the mud without considering the solids control system and vice
versa. This does not mean that the benefits of good solids control practices
cannot be measured.
2 Economic Justification
2.1 Penetration Rate

The impact of solids control on penetration rate is best depicted by Fig. 1.
This has become somewhat of a classic illustration of the benefits of a low
solids content mud. For example, a reduction in average solids content from
4.8% (9.0 ppg) to 2.6% (8.7 ppg) results in a 15% reduction in total rig days.
Given a 10,000 ft well costing $700,000 excluding mud cost, the estimated
savings could reach $100,000. If even half of these savings were realized, it
would more than pay for the best solids removal system available.
In soft rock country such as the Gulf Coast, efficient solids removal can
reduce the need to control-drill by limiting required dilution rates to
manageable levels and reducing operational problems due to overloaded
solids removal equipment. The benefits from efficient solids removal, e.g.,
low-silt muds, have been documented for Gulf Coast drilling since the mid-
60s when hydrocyclone use was first advocated.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 3 of 12
Fig. 1. Effects of solids content on drilling performance.

Note: The benefits of low solids contents are most apparent at less than 5% solids.
2.2 Dilution Rate

Solids removal efficiency directly impacts dilution costs. When dilution water
is added to the system, three costs are incurred simultaneously:
1. Dilution water cost.
2. Cost of additives to maintain stable mud properties.
3. Disposal cost.
The savings due to improved penetration rates and reduced trouble time,
while real, cannot be reliably predicted as justification for improved solids
control equipment. In many cases however, the economic advantages due to
reduced dilution and disposal costs are more than enough to justify
expenditures for additional equipment. The economic benefits in terms of
mud consumption and disposal can be determined through a simple mass
balance analysis: Removing a given percentage of drilled solids will result in
a certain dilution volume to maintain the desired maximum concentration of
drilled solids in the mud. The relevant parameters and their symbols used in
the calculations are listed below.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Page 4 of 12 Dowell
Table 1 Solids Control Economic Analysis Parameters

Vc = Volume of drilled solids generated, bbls
Vi = Initial volume in tanks, previous hole/casing, bbls
Vf = Final volume in tanks, previous hole/casing, bbls
Vd = Volume of addition/dilution fluid required, bbls
Vlw = Volume of liquid waste to be disposed, bbls
Vsw = Volume of wet solids to be disposed, bbls
Vt = Total volume of solids and liquids to be disposed, bbls
ki = Initial concentration of drilled solids, vol. fraction

ks = Maximum volume fraction of drilled solids, vol. fraction
X = Drilled solids removed by equipment, vol. fraction
Y = Liquid associated with the cuttings, bbl/bbl
D = Hole diameter, in.

L = Section length, ft
W = Washout, vol. fraction
rd = Density of dilution fluid, ppg

rc = Density of drilled cuttings, ppg
ri = Mud weight at the start of the section, ppg
re = Desired mud weight, end of section, ppg
2.2.1 Economic Analysis Calculations

First, the volume of cuttings generated in a given interval must be calculated:
Vc = 0.000971 x D 2 x L x W
For a given percent of drilled solids removed, X, the required dilution volume
is computed by:
Vd =
(1- k s) (1- X)V - Vi +
ki
Vi
c
ks ks
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 5 of 12
The following equations may be used to calculate the solids removal

efficiency, Xc, and the associated dilution volume required to discharge only
wet solids:
Xc =
( )
Vc - k s Vf + Vc + k iVi
Vc(1+ k s Y)
Vd = (Vf Vi ) + X c Vc (1 + Y)
The required mud weight (density) of the dilution volume, Vd, is based on the
specified starting and ending densities and is calculated by:
Vi
(e i ) c (1 X )(c e )
V
d = e +
Vd Vd
The total volume of solids and liquid generated in an interval is given by:
Vt = Vi + Vc + Vd
The wet solids volume, Vsw, and liquid volume, Vlw, discharged while drilling
the interval is computed by:
Vsw = XVc (1+ Y)
Vlw = Vt (Vf + Vc + Vsw )
The remaining circulating volume includes the volume of solids not removed
by the solids removal equipment. Since the solids are assumed to be too fine
to be removed by the solids control equipment, their volume is counted as
liquid volume for disposal purposes.
When the entire circulating system is to be discharged at the end of the
interval, the total liquid for disposal is calculated by:
Vlw = Vt Vsw
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Page 6 of 12 Dowell
Once the waste volumes are calculated, the total dilution and disposal cost
for the interval may be determined by estimating the equipment rental cost
and the cost/bbl for addition/dilution and liquid/solids disposal:
1. Solids Control Equipment Cost
- Estimate rental, transport, service, and maintenance (e.g., screens)
cost for the interval.
2. Addition/Dilution Cost
- Estimate the cost/bbl by including purchase cost for dilution liquid,
trucking, and additive cost.
3. Liquid/Solids Disposal Cost
- Estimate the cost/bbl by including hauling, disposal, treatment,
reserve pit construction and reclamation.
Example Calculations
Interval Data:
Vc = Volume of drilled solids generated, bbls

Vi = 360 bbls
Vf = 360 bbls
Vd = Volume of addition/dilution fluid required, bbls
Vlw = Volume of liquid waste to be disposed, bbls
Vsw = Volume of wet solids to be disposed, bbls
Vt = Total volume of solids and liquids to be disposed, bbls
ki = 0 (fresh mud, no drilled solids)
ks = 0.06 (6% maximum drilled solids)
X = 0, 0.1, 0.5 (3 cases)
Y = 1.0 (1:1 solids to liquid ratio in wet solids discharge)
D = 12.25 in.
L = 1600 ft
W = 1.10 (10% washout)
rd = Density of dilution/addition fluid, ppg

rc = 2.6 x 8.34 = 21.68 ppg
ri = 8.6 ppg initial mud weight
re = 9.4 ppg final mud weight
Dilution Cost: $5.00/bbl

Liquid Waste Cost: $3.00/bbl
Solid Waste Cost: $5.60/bbl
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 7 of 12
Calculations:
1. Cuttings volume:
Vc = 0.000971 x D 2 x L x W
Vc = 0.000971 x (12.25) x (1600) x (1.1) = 256 bbls

2
2. Dilution volumes for each solids removal efficiency:
Vd =
(1- k s) (1- X)V - Vi +
ki
Vi
c
ks ks
For X = 0.0
(1- 0.06) (1 0)256 360 + 0

Vd =
0.06 0.06
(360) = 3650 bbls
For X = 0.1
(1- 0.06) (1 0.1)256 360 + 0

Vd =
0.06 0.06
(360) = 3250 bbls
For X = 0.5
(1- 0.06) (1 0.5)256 360 + 0

Vd =
0.06 0.06
(360) = 1645 bbls
3. Dilution density:
In this example, the required density will not change with each
case. The parameters for X=1 are chosen for illustration purposes.
Vi
(e i ) c (1 X )(c e )
V
d = e +
Vd Vd
360
(9.4 8.6) 3250 (1 0.1)(217
256
d = 9.4 + . 9.4) = 8.6 ppg
360
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Page 8 of 12 Dowell
4. Solids removal efficiency and dilution volume to achieve zero whole-mud

discharge while drilling:
Xc =
( )
Vc - k s Vf + Vc + k iVi
(
Vc 1+ k s Y)
256 0.06(360 + 256) + 0(360)
Xc = = 0.81
256(1 + 0.06 x 1.0)
Vd = (Vf Vi ) + X c Vc (1 + Y)
Vd = (360 360) + 0.81(256)(1 + 1) = 415 bbls
5. Summary of waste disposal volumes:
Total Volume Wet Solids Liquid While Drilling Total Liquid

bbls bbls bbls bbls
X = 0.00 4266 0 3650 4266
X = 0.10 3866 51 3199 3815
X = 0.50 2261 256 1389 2005
X = 0.81 1030 414 0 616
6. Cost estimate for each case, discarding total liquid volume (last
column in Step 5):
Drilled Solids Equipment Addition/Dilution Disposal Costs Total

Removed Costs Costs Solids Liquids Costs
0% $0 $18,250 $0 $12,678 $30,928
10% $100 $16,250 $286 $11,445 $28,081
50% $500 $8225 $1434 $6015 $16,174
81% $5000 $2075 $2318 $1848 $11,241
The example illustrates how an increase in equipment costs to improve

solids removal efficiency is justified by the savings in addition/dilution and
disposal costs, even without considering savings attributable to higher
penetration rates or reduced trouble costs.
3 Solids Control Economics and Performance Program (SECOP)

A natural question arising from the economic analysis exercise is What
equipment will I need to achieve the optimum solids removal efficiency? It is
also apparent that the determination of an economically-optimum solids
control system can be a time-consuming, iterative process. The equipment
costs to achieve the minimum required dilution volume (commonly called a
closed-loop mud system) may not be economic in all cases. It may not
even be physically possible with available mechanical solids removal
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 9 of 12
technology. The Solids Control Economic and Performance Analysis

Program (SECOP) was developed at APR to assist drilling personnel in the
optimum selection of solids control equipment. It is available as an
Integrated Drilling Assistance Program for use on the PC.
1. The economics of solids control in terms of potential savings in mud
dilution and disposal costs versus the percent drill solids removed.
2. The performance of solids control equipment. It predicts the drill solids
removed by each piece of equipment selected.
3. The loss of weighting material and mud from each piece of equipment
for weighted muds and the predicted recovery from barite-recovery
centrifuging.
4. The performance for different equipment options to determine the
most effective solids control system for drilling a well.
SECOP predicts only the savings in mud and disposal costs. As discussed
previously, no model exists to predict additional savings from higher
penetration rates and lower trouble costs that result from effective solids
control. The program uses models developed as a result of extensive
equipment testing at APR to predict individual equipment and total system
performance. The overall economics calculations are based on the same
equations described above. A complete description of the program is
provided in the IDAP reference manual.
The recommended application of SECOP is to match the performance
history of the solids control system for an offset well. This can be done by
selecting the proper lithology and resulting particle size distribution which
matches the mud volumes and costs for the offset well. Once a lithology
match has been made, different equipment options may be tried to find the
most economically-effective solids control equipment for the proposed well.
A successful economic analysis for future wells will depend on determining a
representative particle size distribution from the offset well which, in turn, is
dependent upon having accurate records of dilution volumes and equipment
operation. This emphasizes the importance of accurately metering water
additions and equipment performance while drilling. SECOP may then be
used to monitor equipment performance and establish representative particle
size distributions for future economic analysis and equipment selection.
4 Monitoring System Performance

The API Recommended Practice 13C contains a field method for evaluating
the total efficiency of the drilling fluid processing system in water-based
fluids. As with any performance analysis, this procedure depends upon
accurate dilution volume information. The API procedure uses the dilution
volume over a given interval to compute a dilution factor, DF, which is the
volume ratio of actual mud built to mud dilution required to maintain a
desired solids concentration with no solids removal equipment. The dilution
factor is used to determine the total solids removal efficiency of the system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Page 10 of 12 Dowell
This total efficiency can then be used in SECOP to establish a

representative particle-size distribution for further analysis and equipment
performance predictions.
4.1 API Procedure for Evaluating Total Efficiency of Solids Control

Systems (Water-Based Muds)
1. Over a desired interval length, obtain accurate water additions and
retort data.
2. From the retort data, calculate:
- The average drilled solids concentration in the mud, ks.
- The average water fraction in the mud, kw.

3. Calculate the volume of mud built, Vm:
Vw
Vm =
kw
4. Calculate the volume of drilled solids, Vc:

2
Vc =0.000971 x D x L x W
5. Calculate the dilution volume required if no solids were removed, Vd:
Vc
Vd =
ks
6. Calculate the dilution factor, DF:
Vm
DF =
Vd
7. Calculate the total solids removal performance, Et:

Et = (1 - DF) Multiply by 100 to calculate as a percentage.
The accuracy of the API procedure depends on a relatively constant solids
concentration in the mud, constant surface circulating volume, and
consistent averaging techniques over the interval of interest. Regardless, the
total solids removal performance should be reported at frequent intervals to
facilitate solids control analysis and planning for future wells.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
Dowell Page 11 of 12
Example Calculation
Interval Data:
Water Added, Vw 1481 bbl

Average Water Fraction, kw 0.9
Interval Length, L 1600 ft
Bit Diameter, D 12.25 in.
Washout, W 10%
Average Drilled Solids Concentration, ks 0.06
Calculations:
1. Calculate the volume of mud built, Vm:
Vw 1481
Vm = = = 1645 bbls
kw 0.9
2. Calculate the volume of drilled solids, Vc:

2
Vc = 0.000971 x D x L x W
2
= 0.000971 (12.25) (1600)(1.1)
= 256 bbls
3. Calculate the dilution volume required if no solids were removed, Vd:
Vc 256
Vd = = = 4267 bbls
ks 0.06
4. Calculate the dilution factor, DF:
Vm 1645
DF = = = 0.386
Vd 4267
5. Calculate the total solids removal performance, Et:
Et = (1- DF) = 1- 0.386 = 0.614
Expressed as a percentage:
Et = 61.4%
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Economics
5 Summary
The economic advantages of good solids control practices, while real,
are usually difficult to predict in terms of improved penetration rates and
reduced trouble time. However, savings in dilution and disposal costs
can be predicted and are often ample justification to invest in improved
solids control equipment.
Solids removal efficiency directly impacts the cost of dilution, material
consumption and waste disposal. A simple mass balance approach
may be used to predict total dilution and waste volumes as a function of
solids removal efficiency. Example calculations show how an
investment in solids control equipment may be easily justified by the
savings realized from reduced addition/dilution and disposal costs.
The solids control economics and performance program SECOP may
be used to select the most effective solids control system. This program
predicts:
- The savings in mud dilution and disposal costs vs. the percent solids
removed.
- The drilled solids removed by each piece of equipment.
- Loss of weighting material and mud from each piece of equipment.
- Recovery from barite-recovery centrifuging.
The program is available as an Integrated Drilling Assistance Program.
The API Recommended Practice 13C contains a field method for
monitoring system performance in the field. This method depends upon
accurate dilution volume monitoring to determine total solids removal
efficiency. The API procedure and example calculations are presented
in this section.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Dowell Page 1 of 36
Shale Shakers
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................3
2 Principle of Operation.........................................................................................................4
2.1 Vibration Patterns ..........................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Circular Motion .....................................................................................................5
2.1.1.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput................................................5
2.1.1.2 Recommended Applications ....................................................................5
2.1.2 Unbalanced Elliptical Motion ................................................................................5
2.1.2.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput................................................6
2.1.3 Linear Motion .......................................................................................................6
2.1.3.1 Solids Conveyance and Liquid Throughput..............................................7
2.1.4 Balanced Elliptical Motion ....................................................................................8
2.1.5 Vibration Dynamics ..............................................................................................9
2.1.5.1 Acceleration.............................................................................................9
2.1.5.2 Frequency (RPM), Stroke Length .......................................................... 11
2.1.6 Deck Angle ........................................................................................................ 12
3 Screen Fastening and Support ........................................................................................ 12

3.1 Hookstrip Screen Panels ............................................................................................. 13
3.2 Rigid Frame (Pretensioned) Screen Panels ................................................................. 15
4 Single Deck Shakers......................................................................................................... 17
5 Cascading Shaker Systems.............................................................................................. 21

5.1 Unitized Cascading Systems ....................................................................................... 22
6 Integral Tandem Deck Shakers ........................................................................................ 23
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Page 2 of 36 Dowell
7 Shaker Manifolds ..............................................................................................................27
8.1 Optimizing Screen Life.................................................................................................30
8.2 Screen Selection .........................................................................................................30
8.3 Cuttings Dryness .........................................................................................................30
8.4 Sticky Solids (Gumbo) .................................................................................................32
8.5 Polymer Muds..............................................................................................................33
8.6 Blinding, Plugging ........................................................................................................33
8.7 Lost Circulation Material ..............................................................................................33
9 Estimating Number of Shakers Required ........................................................................34
10 Summary..........................................................................................................................35
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Shale shaker components............................................................................................4
Fig. 2. Circular motion. ............................................................................................................5
Fig. 3. Unbalanced elliptical motion.........................................................................................6
Fig. 4. Linear motion. ..............................................................................................................7
Fig. 5. Balanced elliptical motion.............................................................................................8
Fig. 6. Conveyance velocity. ...................................................................................................9
Fig. 7. Adjustable vibrator counterweights.............................................................................10
Fig. 8. Shaker throughput versus vibrator frequency. ............................................................11
Fig. 9. Solids bed buildup......................................................................................................12
Fig. 10. Typical hookstrip screen...........................................................................................13
Fig. 11. Hookstrip screen tensioners. ....................................................................................14
Fig. 12. Shaker fluid endpoints..............................................................................................15
Fig. 13. Rigid screen panel with perforated plate...................................................................16
Fig. 14. Rigid screen panel....................................................................................................17
Fig. 15. Derrick flo-line cleaner plus. .....................................................................................18
Fig. 16. Fluid systems model 500..........................................................................................18
Fig. 17. Swaco ALS. .............................................................................................................19
Fig. 18. Sweco LF-3 oil-mizer................................................................................................19
Fig. 19. Sweco LM-3. ............................................................................................................20
Fig. 20. Triton NNF. ..............................................................................................................20
Fig. 21. Cascading shaker system. .......................................................................................21
Fig. 22. Brandt ATL-CS.........................................................................................................23
Fig. 23. Brandt ATL 1000 ......................................................................................................24
Fig. 24. Derrick cascade system. ..........................................................................................25
Fig. 25. Thule VSM 100 ........................................................................................................26
Fig. 26. Poor manifold design................................................................................................27
Fig. 27. Better manifold design..............................................................................................28
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Dowell Page 3 of 36
Fig. 28. Best conventional manifold design. .......................................................................... 28

Fig. 29. Circular manifold design........................................................................................... 29
Fig. 30. Overhead manifold design........................................................................................ 29
TABLES
Table 1 Shakers Required..................................................................................................... 34
1 Introduction
The shale shaker can be regarded as the first line of defense in the solids
removal system. It has proven to be a simple and reliable method of
removing large amounts of coarse, drilled cuttings from the circulating
system. The shale shakers performance can be easily observed; all aspects
of its operation are visible. Shale shakers provide the advantage of not
degrading soft or friable cuttings. When well-operated and maintained, shale
shakers can produce a relatively dry cuttings discharge.
In unweighted muds, the shale shakers main role is to reduce the solids
loading to the downstream hydrocyclones and centrifuges to improve their
efficiency. In muds containing solid weighting agents such as barite, the
shale shaker is the primary solids removal device. It is usually relied upon to
remove all drilled cuttings coarser than the weighting material. Downstream
equipment will often remove too much valuable weighting material.
Enough shakers should be installed to process the entire circulating rate with
the goal of removing as many drilled cuttings as economically feasible.
Given the importance of the shale shaker, the most efficient shakers and
screens should be selected to achieve optimum economic performance of
the solids control system.
Shaker performance is a function of:
Vibration pattern
Vibration dynamics
Deck size and configuration
Shaker screen characteristics
Mud rheology (plastic viscosity)
Solids loading rate (penetration rate, hole diameter)
The impact of each is discussed in detail in this chapter. Guidelines for
shaker and screen selection are also provided.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Page 4 of 36 Dowell
2 Principle of Operation
Simply stated, a shale shaker works by channeling mud and solids onto
vibrating screens. The mud and fine solids pass through the screens and
return to the active system. Solids coarser than the screen openings are
conveyed off the screen by the vibratory motion of the shaker. The shaker is
the only solids removal device that makes a separation based on
physical particle size. Hydrocyclones and centrifuges separate solids
based on differences in their relative mass.
The screens are vibrated by rotating eccentrically-weighted shafts attached
to the basket. The major components of a typical shale shaker are illustrated
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Shale shaker components.

Note: These components are common to most shale shakers.
2.1 Vibration Patterns

Shale shakers are classified in part by the vibration pattern made by the
shaker basket location over a vibration cycle (e.g., linear motion shakers).
The pattern will depend on the placement and orientation of the vibrators.
Four basic vibration patterns are possible: circular, unbalanced elliptical,
linear, and balanced elliptical motion.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Dowell Page 5 of 36
2.1.1 Circular Motion

As the name implies, the shaker basket moves in a uniform circular motion
when viewed from the side (Fig. 2.). This is a balanced vibration pattern
because all regions of the shaker basket move in phase with the identical
pattern. In order to achieve balanced circular motion, a vibrator must be
located on each side of the shaker basket at its center of gravity (CG) with
the axis of rotation perpendicular to the side of the basket. The Brandt
Tandem is a common example of a circular motion shale shaker.
Fig. 2. Circular motion.

Note: All areas of the basket rotate in a circular motion.
2.1.1.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput
Circular motion shakers will not efficiently convey solids uphill. Therefore,
most shakers of this type are designed with horizontal configurations. Fluid
throughput is limited by the deck angle, but augmented slightly by the higher
Gs normally used (see Vibration Dynamics section). The soft acceleration
pattern does not tend to drive soft, sticky solids, such as gumbo, into the
screens.
2.1.1.2 Recommended Applications
gumbo, or soft, sticky solids conditions

scalping shakers for coarse solids removal
2.1.2 Unbalanced Elliptical Motion

The difference between circular motion and unbalanced elliptical motion is a
matter of vibrator placement. To achieve unbalanced elliptical motion, the
vibrators are typically located above the shaker basket. Because the vibrator
counterweights no longer rotate about the shakers center of gravity, torque
is applied on the shaker basket. This causes a rocking motion which
generates different vibration patterns to occur along the length of the basket,
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Page 6 of 36 Dowell
hence the term unbalanced. Refer to Appendix F, Equipment

Specifications, for a list of shakers having unbalanced elliptical motion.
Fig. 3. illustrates how the vibration pattern may change along the length of
the basket. At the feed end of the shaker, an elliptical vibration pattern is
created; the angle of vibration is pointed toward the discharge end. In this
region, forward solids conveyance is good. However, at the discharge end of
the shaker, angle of the elliptical pattern is pointed back towards the feed
end. This will cause the solids to convey backwards unless the deck is
pitched downhill at a sufficient angle to overcome the uphill acceleration
imparted on the solids by the shaker motion.
Fig. 3. Unbalanced elliptical motion.

Note: The vibration pattern changes along the length of the basket.
2.1.2.1 Solids Conveyance and Fluid Throughput
The downhill deck orientation restricts the unbalanced elliptical motion

shakers ability to process fluid; mud losses can be a concern. However, the
deck orientation is beneficial for removing sticky solids such as gumbo.
gumbo, or soft, sticky solids conditions

scalping shakers for coarse solids removal
2.1.3 Linear Motion

Linear motion is achieved by using two counter-rotating vibrators which,
because of their positioning and vibration dynamics, will naturally operate in
phase. They are located so that a line drawn from the shakers center of
gravity bisects at 90 a line drawn between the two axes of rotation (Fig. 4.).
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Dowell Page 7 of 36
Fig. 4. Linear motion.

Note: All areas move in a synchronous linear motion.
Because the counterweights rotate in opposite directions, the net force on
the shaker basket is zero except along a line passing through the shakers
center of gravity. The resultant shaker motion is therefore linear. The angle
of this line of motion is usually at 45-50 relative to the shaker deck to
achieve maximum solids conveyance. Because acceleration is applied
through the shaker CG, the basket is dynamically balanced; the same
pattern of motion will exist at all points along the shaker.
2.1.3.1 Solids Conveyance and Liquid Throughput
Linear motion shakers have become the shaker of choice for most
applications because of their superior solids conveyance and fluid-handling
capacity. Solids can be strongly conveyed uphill by linear motion. The uphill
deck configuration allows a pool of liquid to form at the shaker's feed end to
provide additional head and high fluid throughput capability. This allows the
use of fine screens to improve separation performance. The Derrick Flo-Line
Cleaner is one example of a linear motion shale shaker.
One drawback to linear motion shakers is their relatively poor performance in
processing gumbo. The short vibration stroke length when combined with
long, basket lengths, uphill deck angles and strong acceleration forces tends
to make the soft gumbo patties adhere to the screen cloth. Some success
has been reported by using linear motion shakers with short deck lengths
and horizontal or downhill deck angles.
All applications where fine screening is required.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Page 8 of 36 Dowell
2.1.4 Balanced Elliptical Motion

Amoco's analytical shaker dynamics model has predicted that this is the
optimum vibration pattern for maximum solids conveyance. Unlike
unbalanced elliptical motion, all points on the shaker basket move in phase
with the identical elliptical pattern. The model predicts that a thin ellipse will
provide solids conveyance superior even to linear motion. Because elliptical
motion provides a softer acceleration pattern than linear motion, it is likely
that screen life may also be improved.
Amoco Production Research has recently tested a simple and commercially-
viable method to achieve balanced elliptical motion. The vibrators are
located as shown in Fig. 5. The vertical orientation of the vibrators dictates
the shape of the ellipse. The more the vibrators are tilted out from the shaker
basket, the more circular the vibration pattern.
Fig. 5. Balanced elliptical motion.

Note: This motion is the most efficient in conveying solids.
Full-scale experiments have verified analytical model predictions of improved
solids conveyance with a thin ellipse. In Fig. 6, the numbers in parentheses
are the ratios of major axis length to minor axis length of the vibration
patterns. By adjusting the shape of the ellipse, solids conveyance velocity
can be adjusted without changing deck angle or acceleration normal to the
screen. This feature has potential for optimizing cuttings conveyance with
respect to oil retention on cuttings.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Dowell Page 9 of 36
Fig. 6. Conveyance velocity.

Note: The shape of the ellipse controls conveyance velocity. A thin ellipse
conveys solids faster than linear motion.
2.1.5 Vibration Dynamics
2.1.5.1 Acceleration
During the vibration cycle, the shaker basket undergoes acceleration which
changes in both magnitude and direction. As discussed previously, the
placement of the vibrators determines the vibration pattern and therefore the
net acceleration direction during the vibration cycle. The mass of the
counterweights and the frequency of the vibration determine the magnitude
of the acceleration.
The vertical component of acceleration has the most effect on shaker liquid
throughput. We relate the vertical components of acceleration and stroke
length to frequency by the following equation:
stroke (in.) x RPM2

G's =
70,400
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
where the stroke length is the total vertical distance traveled by the shaker
basket and the G-force is measured from midpoint to peak.
An acceleration of one G is the standard acceleration due to gravity (386
2
in./sec ). Most shakers operate at accelerations within the range of 2.5-5.0
Gs, depending upon the vibration pattern. Field experience has shown this
range offers the best compromise between throughput capacity and screen
life.
Many manufacturers report the acceleration of linear motion shakers along
the line of motion. This yields a larger number and looks good on the
specification sheet. However, unless the angle of vibration is also specified,
it reveals little about the performance of the shaker. The G's for shale
shakers listed in the appendix are calculated for the direction normal to the
screen surface.
Some shakers have adjustable counterweights to vary acceleration (Fig. 7).
Although flow capacity and cuttings dryness improves with increased
acceleration, screen life is negatively affected. By reducing the Gs when
extra flow capacity is available, screen life may be improved.
Fig. 7. Adjustable vibrator counterweights.

Note: Other designs are used, this is the most simple.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
2.1.5.2 Frequency (RPM), Stroke Length
The vibrator frequency of most shale shakers is not normally adjustable. The
vibrators typically rotate at a nominal rpm of 1200 or 1800 at 60 Hz. Stroke
length varies inversely with rpm. A higher rpm will result in a shorter stroke
length at the same acceleration.
The effect of vibrator frequency and stroke length on shaker processing rate
has been evaluated in the laboratory. The results of these tests show
improved shaker flow capacity in the presence of solids with decreased rpm
(or conversely, increased stroke length) at the same G level. (Fig. 8).
Therefore, the term high speed should not be used to mean high
performance since the opposite relationship is often more correct.
Fig. 8. Shaker throughput versus vibrator frequency.

Note: Shaker throughput improves as frequency decreases.
The main disadvantage to lower frequency shale shakers is that the mud
tends to bounce much higher off the screens and cover the area around the
shakers with a fine coating of mud. More frequent housekeeping is required
to maintain a safe environment around the shakers. Longer stroke lengths
also tend to reduce screen life.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
2.1.6 Deck Angle

Because linear motion shakers will convey uphill, most provide an easily-
adjustable deck angle feature to optimize fluid throughput capacity and
cuttings conveyance velocity. Uphill deck angles also provide protection
against overflow due to surges at the flow line.
At deck angles greater than 3, solids grinding in the pool region can be a
problem. Although fluid throughput increases with uphill deck angle, cuttings
conveyance decreases. Solids conveyance within the pool region is slower
than out of the pool due to viscous drag forces and the differential pressure
created across the cuttings load by the hydrostatic head of the fluid. If the
deck angle is too high, a stationary mound of solids can build up in the pool
even though conveyance is observed at the discharge end (Fig. 9). The
vibrating action of the screen and extended residence time will tend to grind
soft or friable cuttings before they have the opportunity to be conveyed out of
the pool. This condition should be avoided since the generation of fines in
the mud is definitely not desired.
To check for this problem, observe the feed end of the shaker at a
connection immediately after circulation is stopped. There should not be a
disproportionate amount of solids accumulated at the feed end. The problem
can be rectified by lowering the deck angle until the solids mound is
eliminated.
Fig. 9. Solids bed buildup.

Note: This may occur when the shaker deck is tilted up to high.
3 Screen Fastening and Support

The type of screen panel dictates the type and amount of support and
fastening system necessary. The screen fastening and support structure
provide the following functions:
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
1. Prevent leakage past the screens

2. Expedite screen replacement
3. Provide even tension on screens to extend screen life
The two types of screen panels are commonly labeled as pretensioned and
nonpretensioned panels. However, these terms do not exactly describe
their construction since many nonpretensioned panels are, indeed,
pretensioned. The terms rigid frame and hookstrip more correctly
differentiate the two main panel types.
3.1 Hookstrip Screen Panels

This is the most common type of panel, consisting of one to three layers of
screen cloth. The cloth is frequently bonded to a thin perforated-metal grid
plate or a plastic grid. Fig. 10 shows the construction of a typical hookstrip
screen. The screen panel is tensioned on the shaker deck by an interlocked
hookstrip and drawbar arrangement located on both sides of the shaker (Fig.
11). Three or more tensioning bolts are used to pull each drawbar down and
towards the side of the basket. This seats the screen on the shaker deck and
distributes even tension along the hookstrip.
Fig. 10. Typical hookstrip screen.

Note: The backing grid, though not necessary, provides support and improves
screen life.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 11. Hookstrip screen tensioners.

Note: This is the most common type of fastening system for hookstrip screens.
These panels are not rigid; the shaker deck must be crowned to maintain
screen-to-deck contact throughout the vibration cycle. Support ribs in the
shaker deck are designed to ensure even support of the screen across the
width of the basket. Full contact with all support stringers is critical,
especially with metal-backed panels. The panels will suffer premature fatigue
failure if flexing is allowed to occur.
Because screen tension is extremely important to ensure good screen life,
the tension should be checked frequently on nonpretensioned hookstrip-style
screens. Spring-loaded tensioning bolts are recommended to aid in
preventing a complete loss of tension and premature failure as the screens
stretch and seat onto the deck. Tensioning springs are not required for
hookstrip panels with metal backing plates since these panels will not
normally stretch.
The crowned deck can cause uneven fluid coverage (Fig. 12). The mud may
extend further out along the sides of the shaker than at the center where
maximum deck height occurs. This reduces the effective screening area of
the shaker, especially at low deck angles. It can lead to whole mud losses at
the discharge and contribute to unacceptably wet cuttings even though the
fluid endpoint along the centerline of the shaker may be well back from the
discharge. The problem can be mitigated by increasing the deck angle and
selecting high efficiency screens to reduce fluid coverage area.
Screen replacement time is usually much longer than with rigid frame
panels. However, Derrick has developed a new tension bolt design which
has improved screen changing on their Flo-Line Cleaner; the tensioning nut
and spring have been replaced by an integral nut and spring assembly which
requires a half-turn to fully operate.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 12. Shaker fluid endpoints.

Note: Crowned decks will cause uneven fluid coverage especially at low deck
angles.
3.2 Rigid Frame (Pretensioned) Screen Panels

In rigid frame screen panel construction, the screen cloth is tensioned and
bonded to an integral steel frame; no additional tensioning is required.
Because rigid frame screens are flat, uneven fluid coverage on the shaker is
not a problem. All other factors being equal, discharged cuttings dryness is
reported to be superior to shakers with hookstrip screen designs.
Since no tensioning is required during installation, the fastening system can
be designed for fast panel replacement. For example, each panel on the
Fluid Systems Model 500 is held in place by two wedges (one on each side).
A tap on the wedge locks the panel in place. The Thule VSM100 has a
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
pneumatically-actuated system. Sweco's LF-3 Oil-Mizer and Brandt's ATL-

1000 also have quick-release fastening systems.
The two most common types of pretensioned panels are shown in Fig. 13
and Fig. 14.
1. The screen cloth is tensioned and glued directly to the steel frame.
Additional glue lines may be included between the frame members to
provide additional support. The bonding pattern divides the panel into 3-
to 4-in. wide strips oriented parallel to the flow. This design is used in
the Fluid Systems Model 500.
This panel design maximizes usable screening area. However, the large
unsupported area normally limits cloth selection to the heavier grades
with lower flow capacity. The panel is not normally considered
repairable.
2. Alternatively, the screen cloth may be bonded to a perforated metal
backing plate similar to a hookstrip screen. The metal backing plate is
then bonded to the support frame to create a rigid panel. The Brandt
ATL-1000 and the Thule VSM-100 use this type of panel.
Usable screen area is reduced by the perforated plated design, but this
is offset by the option of using higher conductance screen cloth,
repairability, and better screen life under high solids loading conditions.
Fig. 13. Rigid screen panel with perforated plate.

Note: The metal grid is bonded to a steel frame.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 14. Rigid screen panel.

Note: The screen cloth is glued directly to a steel frame.
4 Single Deck Shakers

As the name implies, a single deck shale shaker has one discrete screening
layer; the mud and solids fed to the shaker are screened once. One or more
screen panels may be used to provide a continuous screening surface. Deck
profiles of single deck linear motion shakers are usually flat from feed to
discharge, but other profiles are used. For example, the panels of the Fluid
Systems Model 500 and Swaco ALS are arranged in a stairstep pattern:
Each downstream panel is slightly lower than the upstream panel, primarily
for ease of panel positioning. Unbalanced elliptical motion shakers, such as
the Derrick Standard or Swaco Super Screen, have an increasingly negative
(downhill) slope on downstream panels to improve solids conveyance.
Single deck shakers provide the advantage of allowing complete access to
the screening surface. This simplifies maintenance, panel changes, screen
inspection and cleaning. The disadvantage of single deck shakers becomes
apparent under high solids loading conditions; flow capacity, cuttings
dryness and screen life may be greatly reduced. These problems can be
circumvented by using a cascading shaker arrangement. (Refer to the
following section: Cascading Shaker Systems.)
Linear motion single deck shakers are preferred for most applications
because of their simplicity, high flow capacity and fine-screening capability.
Their popularity has spurred numerous companies to manufacture linear
motion shakers. A complete list is provided in Appendix F, Equipment
Specifications. Many of the major manufacturers shakers have been
evaluated in the laboratory at APR. Differences in overall performance were
found to be relatively minor. Examples of single deck linear motion shakers
that will provide acceptable performance are pictured in Figures 15-20. The
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
shakers are listed in alphabetical order, no ranking is implied by the order of

their appearance.
Fig. 15. Derrick flo-line cleaner plus.
Fig. 16. Fluid systems model 500.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 17. Swaco ALS.
Fig. 18. Sweco LF-3 oil-mizer.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 19. Sweco LM-3.
Fig. 20. Triton NNF.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
5 Cascading Shaker Systems

Cascading refers to the use of shakers in series (the mud passes
sequentially through two shakers) to remove drill cuttings in two stages. The
first set of shakers remove or scalp the coarsest cuttings from the returned
drilling fluid. The mud and fine cuttings are then fed to a second set of
shakers with finer screens. This arrangement increases the capacity of the
fine screen shakers through reduced solids loading. This arrangement is
especially effective when drilling fast, large diameter hole sections or gumbo
formations.
Fig. 21 illustrates a 2 over 3" cascading shaker arrangement. This
arrangement usually provides adequate shale shaker solids removal for
drilling most 17-1/2-in. diameter holes. It is important to ensure that valves
are provided to isolate each shaker in the system as required for screen
maintenance and shaker repair.
Fig. 21. Cascading shaker system.
In most instances, unbalanced elliptical or circular motion shakers are the

preferred scalping devices. Soft, sticky cuttings such as gumbo are generally
handled better by these vibration patterns with a flat or downhill deck angle.
However, linear motion shakers have been successfully used as scalpers
when the deck angle is steeply pitched downhill (such as a Derrick Standard)
or when the deck length is short (such as the Fluid Systems two-panel
shaker).
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Because the scalping shakers must be positioned above the fine screen
shakers, sufficient height between the flow nipple and the scalping shaker
weirs must be available to avoid solids settling in the return line. A good rule
of thumb is 1 ft of drop per 12 ft of flowline. Also, additional space is
obviously necessary to accommodate a cascading system.
5.1 Unitized Cascading Systems

A unitized cascading system incorporates two shakers, one stacked over the
other, on a single skid. This design reduces many of the plumbing problems
and costs normally associated with retrofitting a cascading system on a rig.
Also, the unitized system takes up less floor area than a standard cascading
system. Because the top and bottom shaker are separate units, each can be
designed for its specific function without severely impeding screen panel
access or performance. This is an advantage over integral tandem deck
shakers.
There are two disadvantages to unitized cascading systems: (1) They have
high weirs which will limit their application to rigs with sufficient elevation
difference between the flow nipple and the upper shaker weir; and (2) the
upper shaker may be too high to be worked on easily. A permanent walkway
or ladder should be installed to improve access to the upper shakers
screens.
Two systems are currently available: The Brandt ATL-CS (Fig. 22) and the
Fluid Systems Model 50-500. The Brandt is a tandem deck, circular motion
basket over a linear motion basket. The Fluid Systems version uses a short,
two-panel linear motion basket as the scalping shaker over their standard
Model 500 shaker.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 22. Brandt ATL-CS.

Note: This is one example of a utilized cascading shaker arrangement.
6 Integral Tandem Deck Shakers

These shakers incorporate two distinct screening decks stacked in a single
basket. The top deck screen scalps off the coarse solids to reduce the
solids loading to the lower screens.
Tandem deck shakers are available in both circular and linear motion
designs. The superior fluid processing and finer screening features of linear
motion shakers are preferred. In either case, flow back pans are
recommended to improve throughput.
Tandem deck shakers offer a compromise between a true cascading system
and single deck shakers. If the top scalping deck covers the entire basket
width, solids handling capacity is good. However, accessibility to the lower
deck screens and the ability to monitor screen wear is limited. Conversely, a
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
small scalping deck limits solids loading capacity, but improves accessibility
and screen monitoring. Tandem deck shakers are recommended for
medium-high solids loading applications or where space or height limitations
will not permit the use of a cascading shaker system.
The total combined area of both screening surfaces cannot be used to
compare the performance of these shakers to single deck shakers. The
relative processing capacity of tandem deck shakers will depend upon the
size distribution of the solids in the feed, solids generation rate and other
factors. Generally, tandem deck shakers will outperform single deck shakers
when large diameter hole and high penetration rates are encountered.
Examples of linear motion tandem deck shakers are shown in Figures 23-25.
Fig. 23. Brandt ATL 1000.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 24. Derrick cascade system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 25. Thule VSM 100.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
7 Shaker Manifolds
The flowline and manifold system must be designed to provide an even
distribution of mud and cuttings to the shakers. The flow line must have
sufficient drop to prevent solids from accumulating in the line: A drop of 1 ft
per 12 ft of run is a good rule of thumb. Flowline diameter must also be
sufficient to handle the maximum anticipated circulation rates. Diameters of
10 or 12 in. are usually sufficient.
Manifolding can be a problem when three or more shakers are arranged in
parallel. Because the shaker feed is essentially two-phase, liquid being one
phase and solids the other phase, equal division of both phases can become
difficult to achieve with typical manifold designs (Fig. 26 and Fig. 27). Branch
tees should be avoided. The solids will preferentially travel a straight path,
resulting in uneven solids loading to the shakers. Dead end tees will
distribute the solids more evenly. Examples of recommended manifold
designs for multi-shaker installations are provided in Fig. 28, Fig. 29, and
Fig. 30. Overhead or circular manifolds will provide better distribution of mud
and solids.
All shakers should be level with equal weir heights to ensure even flow
distribution. A common shaker box (possum belly) is acceptable for scalping
shakers. It is not recommended for the fine screen shakers since a large
shaker box only serves to collect solids, which can enter the mud tanks if the
bypass gate is opened.
Fig. 26. Poor manifold design.

Note: Distribution to the shakers may be uneven.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 27. Better manifold design.

Note: There are less branch tees in this design.
Fig. 28. Best conventional manifold design.

Note: All branch tees are eliminated.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Fig. 29. Circular manifold design.

Note: Useful for odd number of shakers. Flowline lengths are exaggerated.
Fig. 30. Overhead manifold design.

Note: Excellent for even distribution of liquids and solids, but more complicated to fabricate.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
8 Operating Guidelines
8.1 Optimizing Screen Life

Perforated plate screens usually exhibit longer screen life than other
hookstrip screens. They provide the most support and are repairable.
1. Screen life is inversely proportional to plate opening size. If premature
wear is apparent in the pool region, install panels with smaller
perforated plate sizes at the feed end of the shaker where loading and
wear is greatest.
2. Reduce deck angles to improve solids conveyance, reduce loading and
eliminate solids grinding at the feed end.
3. If premature backing plate failure is experienced, check that all deck
rubbers are in place and in good condition. Check for a buildup of solids
between the screen and the support areas on the shaker deck.
8.2 Screen Selection

1. When possible, run the same screen mesh over the entire deck of a
single deck shaker. When running different mesh cannot be avoided,
the coarser mesh should be run at the discharge end. Do not vary the
mesh size by more than one increment from feed to discharge.
2. Select the finest screens which will give 70-80% fluid coverage on the
shaker (Exception: See cuttings dryness discussion).
3. Use the spreadsheet program, SHAKCAP, to assist in predicting shaker
requirements to achieve a separation target of at least 100 mesh (149
microns).
4. Always run the coarser screens on the top deck of a tandem deck
shaker or on the upstream shaker. The upper deck screen should be at
least two mesh sizes coarser than the bottom deck. It has been
observed that running screens which are too fine on the top deck can
actually impede cuttings conveyance on the lower deck.
5. Select screens for which the new API designations are known to ensure
predictable performance.
8.3 Cuttings Dryness

The volume of drilling fluid lost with the discharged cuttings is becoming
more important in the wake of increasingly stringent environmental
regulations and more expensive drilling fluid formulations. In most cases,
minimizing liquid waste from the shale shakers makes both economic and
environmental sense. A field procedure to determine composition of the
discharge is given in Appendix C, Solids Control Equipment Discharge
Analysis, Oil-Based muds.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
Shaker discharge dryness is heavily dependent upon the size distribution of

the cuttings and the viscosity of the mud. There will always be an irreducible
volume fraction of fluid wetting the cuttings and this will vary inversely with
particle size. Extremely fine solids have substantially higher percentages of
associated liquid than larger solids due to surface area and surface tension
effects. Mud viscosity will also impact the thickness of this fluid layer.
The shaker can remove a portion of this residual wetness by the acceleration
and impact forces imparted on the cuttings after they exit the pool region.
Dryness may depend on the magnitude of these forces and the exposure
time.
Since a substantial portion of the shaker screening area can be covered by
the liquid pool to achieve a desired separation, the remaining dry screening
area may not be sufficient to remove excess moisture carried with the
cuttings. High solids loading rates will also have a negative impact on
cuttings dryness.
Solids loading and dry screening area can be addressed during the planning
phase by ensuring that sufficient shaker area is available to maximize
cuttings dryness:
1. When using SHAKCAP (see Appendix A, Solids Control Programs) to
estimate shaker requirements, provide an additional shaker over the
minimum number recommended by the program when shaker
discharge dryness is critical.
2. Install a cascading system or tandem deck linear motion shakers to
reduce solids loading and fluid coverage.
The following remedial actions may help improve cuttings dryness:
1. Deck Angle Increase - This is the most simple solution. Fluid loss
along the hookstrips is reduced. Solids conveyance will decrease with
steeper deck inclinations, which increases the contact time to remove
excess moisture. Protection against whole mud losses due to flowline
surges is also improved.
The reduction in fluid coverage is not necessarily proportional to the
deck angle selected. Because conveyance is lessened, the solids
remain in the pool longer and can interfere with the ability of the fluid to
pass through the screen, especially at higher solids loading rates. This
may retard the formation of a shorter, deeper pool. Also, solids grinding
may become a problem.
2. High Efficiency Screens - Screens with high transmittance values will
reduce fluid coverage and increase dry screening area. Two new
screens, the Derrick Pyramid and Cagles HCR series offer distinct
advantages in this application. The corrugated Pyramid design may
reduce mud loss along the hookstrips and offers increased screening
area. Cagles HCR cloth has very high transmittance values and has
exhibited service life up to 4 times standard DX designs.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
3. Coarser Screens - This has two effects. First, the fluid endpoint on the
shaker will recede, and second, the average discharged cuttings size
will increase. However, this action usually carries with it the penalty of
poorer separation efficiency and higher costs, unless downstream
solids removal equipment picks up the slack. Try running a coarser
screen at the discharge end before converting the entire deck to
coarser screens. There are special considerations worth mentioning
depending upon the mud system in use:
Unweighted Muds
The importance of fine screening in unweighted muds is typically not as
critical, provided: 1) sufficient hydrocyclones and centrifuges are used,
and 2) the cuttings are not soft and easily degraded by centrifugal
pumps. In fact, significant fluid savings in oil-based muds have been
realized by running coarser screens on the shakers to produce a dry
discharge and transferring a greater share of the solids removal to the
downstream centrifuges.
Weighted Muds
In weighted muds, the importance of the shaker in the solids removal
system generally precludes the option of running coarser screens.
Economics usually dictate that the finest separation possible be made
by the shaker without substantial loss of barite in the discharge. Drill
cuttings missed by the shaker will remain in the circulating system and
eventually contribute to a low gravity solids buildup and subsequent
viscosity increase.
4. G Force Increase - Increased shaker acceleration will help remove
excess liquid by overcoming part of the surface tension forces which
bind the fluid to the cuttings. Conversely, cuttings conveyance velocity
will increase and screen life will decrease. Conveyance velocity can be
reduced by increasing the deck inclination, but screen life will decline
considerably at accelerations above 4 Gs.
8.4 Sticky Solids (Gumbo)

1. Use scalping shakers ahead of fine screen shakers. Circular or
unbalanced elliptical motion shakers or shakers with short basket
lengths are recommended as the scalping shakers. If space is limited,
tandem deck linear motion shakers may be used.
2. Use downhill or flat deck angles. Gumbo will not convey well uphill.
3. Gumbo will not stick as persistently to wet screens. When spray bars
are necessary to keep the screens wet, use low flow rate nozzles which
produce a fine mist with an umbrella or fan-shaped discharge. These
nozzles operate at less than 0.5 gpm. No more than two are normally
required. Do not use high volume or high pressure sprays on a
continuous basis. This will degrade the gumbo patties and drive the
solids through the screens.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
8.5 Polymer Muds

1. Prehydrate and preshear the polymer before adding into the active mud
system to eliminate fish-eyes and blinding at the shaker.
2. Select high efficiency screens to maximize the flow capacity of the
shakers.
3. Expect an overall reduction in shaker flow capacity of as much as 40%.
8.6 Blinding, Plugging

1. Gilsonite (Asphaltenes)
Triple-layer screens are susceptible to plugging by gilsonite or other
asphaltene-based products in the drilling fluid. The problem may be
mitigated by selecting single or double-layer screens. For example, on
Derrick Flo-Line Cleaners, use the PBP HP or GBG HP series. Refer to
Appendix D, Screen Designations, for a complete list of screen panel
descriptions.
2. Sand (Near Size)
Unbonded triple layer screens provide the best resistance to
blinding, but screen life is generally poor.
Single layer, square mesh cloth is most susceptible to blinding.
Select screen series with aspect ratios greater than 1.4. (Refer to
Chapter 4, Shaker Screens.)
If excess shaker capacity is available, try running a finer screen.
The sands may have a relatively narrow size distribution which
might not blind a smaller opening size.
8.7 Lost Circulation Material

1. Do not bypass the shakers to avoid screening out the LCM material.
2. Scalping shakers can be used to recover LCM when high
concentrations are continuously required in the mud, provided:
Cuttings size distribution is sufficiently fine to pass through the
scalping screens.
Solids loading rates do not negatively impact the performance of
the downstream shakers and cause solids buildup in the active
system.
The LCM removed by the scalpers is returned to the active system
downstream of the centrifuge.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
9 Estimating Number of Shakers Required

1. Base the number of shakers required on the economics and the
physical constraints of the specific application. A complete economic
evaluation using SECOP is recommended.
2. As a quick estimate, the spreadsheet file SHAKCAP can be used to
estimate the number of shakers required or the performance of existing
shakers.
3. A ballpark estimate of shaker requirements, based on average drilling
conditions can be made from Table 1. This is a very rough estimate and
should be used only as a guide.
Table 1 Shakers Required
Approximate Number of High Performance Linear Motion Shakers
Maximum Viscosity (cP)

Circulation 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60
Rate (gpm)
300 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
400 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
500 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
600 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
700 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4
800 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
900 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
1000 2 2 3 3 4 4 4
1100 2 3 3 4 4 4
1200 2 3 3 4 4
1300 2 3 4 4
1400 2 3 4
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
10 Summary
The shale shaker is the only solids control device that makes a
separation based on the physical size of the particle. The separation
size is dictated by the opening sizes in the shaker screens.
Hydrocyclones and centrifuges separate solids based on differences in
their relative mass and the fluid.
Shale shakers with linear vibratory motion are preferred for most
applications because of their superior processing capacity and fine-
screening ability. Circular motion or unbalanced elliptical motion
shakers are recommended as scalping shakers in cascading systems.
Vibration of the shaker basket creates G-forces which help drive shear
thinning fluids such as drilling mud through the screens. Vibration also
conveys solids off the screens. Most linear motion shakers operate in
the range of 3 to 4 Gs to balance throughput with screen life. G-force is
a function of vibration frequency (rpm) and stroke length.
High-speed should not be equated with high performance.
Laboratory tests indicate that, in the normal operating range for linear
motion shale shakers, lower frequency vibration and longer stroke
lengths improve throughput capacity. Most linear motion shakers
operate at 1200 to 1800 rpm.
Avoid deck inclinations above 3. High deck angles reduce solids
conveyance and increase the risk of grinding soft or friable solids
through the screens.
Shakers are designed to accept either hookstrip or rigid frame screen
panels. Hookstrip screen panels are the most common and are usually
cheaper, although cuttings wetness can be a concern due to deck
curvature. Flat, rigid frame panels promote even fluid coverage, but can
cost more.
Shakers may have single or tandem screening decks. Single deck
shakers offer mechanical simplicity and full access to the screening
surface. Single deck shakers may be arranged to process mud
sequentially as a cascading system to improve performance under
high solids loading conditions. Tandem deck shakers offer improved
processing capacity under high solids loading conditions when space is
limited.
Manifolds should provide even distribution of mud and solids to each
shaker. Avoid branch tees. Recommended manifold designs are
illustrated.
Operating guidelines are provided for optimizing screen life and cuttings
dryness, handling sticky solids, polymer muds, blinding and LCM
problems.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 300
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shale Shakers
The spreadsheet program SHAKCAP can estimate the number of

shakers required or to determine the screening capability of existing
shakers. A complete economic evaluation using the SECOP program is
recommended to determine the optimum shaker configuration when
designing a system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Dowell Page 1 of 11
Shaker Screens
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2
2 Separation Performance.....................................................................................................2
2.1 Grade Efficiency ............................................................................................................2
2.2 Separation Potential ......................................................................................................3
3 Liquid Throughput Performance........................................................................................4
4 Screen Life ..........................................................................................................................4

4.1 Effect of Screen Composition ........................................................................................4
4.2 Effect of Vibration Pattern..............................................................................................5
4.2.1 Linear Motion .......................................................................................................5
4.2.2 Circular, Elliptical Motion ......................................................................................5
5 Shaker Screen Designations ..............................................................................................5

5.1 Mesh Count ...................................................................................................................5
5.2 API RP13E Screen Designation ....................................................................................6
5.2.1 Screen Name .......................................................................................................6
5.2.2 Equivalent U.S. Sieve Number .............................................................................7
5.2.3 Separation Potential (d50, d16, d84) .......................................................................7
5.2.4 Flow Capacity (Conductance, Non-blanked Area) ................................................8
5.2.5 Transmittance ......................................................................................................8
5.2.6 Aspect Ratio ........................................................................................................9
5.3 Field Procedure to Estimate Cut Point (D50) ................................................................ 10
5.3.1 Equipment.......................................................................................................... 10
5.3.2 Procedure .......................................................................................................... 10
6 Summary............................................................................................................................ 11
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Page 2 of 11 Dowell
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Percent separated curve. .............................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Effect of plate opening size on screen blinding.............................................................9
TABLES
Table 1 U.S. Sieve Series .......................................................................................................7
Table 2 Blinding Resistance of Common Screens ................................................................10
1 Introduction
Shaker screen selection has the largest impact on the overall
performance of the shale shaker. It is therefore important to understand
the factors which may impact screen performance and how to properly
select screens. Shaker screen performance is measured by:
1. Separation Performance - the size of the solids removed
2. Liquid Throughput Performance - the capability of the screen to
transmit fluid
3. Service life
2 Separation Performance
2.1 Grade Efficiency

The separation performance of a shale shaker screen (or any other
solids control device) is commonly represented by its percent-
separated, or grade efficiency, curve. This curve is generated from full-
scale experimental measurements and depicts the percent solids
removed as a function of particle size. It reports the screen's probability
of separating any specific particle size with a given shaker under
conditions specific to the test. Grade efficiency is the preferred measure
of separation performance because it is independent of feed particle
size distribution.
An example of a percent-separated curve is shown in Fig. 1. In this
example, the median size separated by the screen was 145 microns.
This means that 50% of the solids with a diameter of 145 microns were
removed. A rough estimate of the median cut point (d50) can be made
in the field by the wet sieve procedure (see Field Procedure to Estimate
Cut Point).
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Dowell Page 3 of 11
Fig. 1. Percent separated curve.

Note: This curve indicates the percentage of solids removed as a function
of particle size.
2.2 Separation Potential

APR has developed a method to characterize the relative separation
efficiency potential of shaker screens without the expense and time
required for full-scale testing. The technique links the relative separation
performance of screens to a volume-equivalent distribution of their
opening sizes.
The screen's openings are measured using PC-based image analysis
technology. Each opening in the screen is then represented by a
spherical diameter corresponding to an ellipsoidal volume calculated
from the image analysis data. The cumulative volume of these
ellipsoids, when plotted as a function of spherical diameter, yields a
curve which correlates well with the standard grade efficiency curve.
This curve represents the separation potential of the screen. The word
potential is used because the screen's separation performance is not
measured directly, but implied by the size of the screen's apertures.
Note: Grade separation efficiencies as measured on the shaker are
subject to specific shaker and flowline conditions. They may not always
agree with separation potential values. For example, the separation
potential value for a screen with rectangular openings may be
pessimistic when drilling clean sand sections producing predominantly
spherical sand grains. The image analysis method assumes solids of all
shapes and sizes are available to the screen. However, on average, the
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Page 4 of 11 Dowell
separation potential values have been shown to adequately represent

the screen's separation performance.
3 Liquid Throughput Performance

The liquid throughput capacity of a screen panel is primarily a function
of screen conductance and usable area. Conductance describes the
ease with which fluid can flow through a unit area of screen cloth. In
simplistic terms, it is analogous to permeability with the length in the
direction of flow (screen thickness) taken into account. Higher
conductances will result in higher flow rates through the screen.
Conductance is calculated from the mesh count and wire diameters of
the screen cloth by the equations given in Appendix B, Conductance
Calculation. Multilayer screens can also be handled by the conductance
equation. The inverse of conductance for each screen layer is summed
to equal the inverse of the net overall conductance:
1 1 1 1
= + +...
Ct C1 C2 Cn
This is valid provided that the screen layers used in the composition are
designed to remain in contact.
Oilfield screens are typically bonded to a perforated metal panel or
plastic grid to provide extra strength and improve service life. This
practice eliminates some of the usable area through which fluid may
pass. Some metal backing plate designs may reduce effective
screening area by as much as 40 percent. Because conductance
describes screen flow capacity per unit area, the usable unblocked area
available for screening must also be considered when comparing the
mud processing capacity of shaker screen panels.
4 Screen Life
The definition of acceptable screen life must be judged within the
context of the total solids removal system economics. Besides screen
replacement cost, consideration must be given to the costs of drilling
mud dilution and waste disposal costs when determining whether longer
screen life is warranted at the expense of solids removal efficiency. In
weighted mud applications, the economic benefits of improved solids
removal efficiency usually outweigh the additional screen costs.
4.1 Effect of Screen Composition

Only very general correlations may be made between screen
composition and service life. Unfortunately, features that lead to
improved life are usually detrimental to flow capacity. Using heavier
wires with greater tensile strength or adding supporting layers of cloth
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Dowell Page 5 of 11
can both reduce conductance. Increasing support through additional

bonding area (smaller plate openings) eliminates usable screening
area. Also, support techniques and screen tension can have a major
effect on screen life. As a result, screen panels are typically designed to
balance flow capacity performance with screen life.
Screen life is heavily dependent upon flow line conditions. Solids
loading rate, drilled cuttings abrasiveness, and shaker dynamics can
easily outweigh composition effects.
4.2 Effect of Vibration Pattern
4.2.1 Linear Motion

The abrupt changes in acceleration during the vibration cycle tends to
cause screens to wear more quickly unless close attention is paid to
tensioning and screen support techniques. Perforated metal backing
plates and pretensioned screen panels have been specifically
developed to address this problem. Linear motion shakers usually
operate at less than 4.0 G's (normal to the screen) to balance screen
life with processing capacity. Regardless, the finer screens normally run
on linear motion shakers cannot be expected to outlast the coarser
screens used in the past. For screens finer than 100 mesh, expect an
average service life in excess of 100 hours.
4.2.2 Circular, Elliptical Motion

The smooth change in acceleration with respect to direction translates
into longer screen life compared to other vibration patterns. However,
many circular motion shakers were designed before the advent of fine
mesh screens and may provide less support for the screens. This will
tend to negate much of the screen life benefit associated with circular
motion.
5 Shaker Screen Designations
5.1 Mesh Count

Shaker screens have traditionally been assigned mesh count
designations by the manufacturer. Unfortunately, they do not
adequately describe screen performance in terms of separation
efficiency or flow capacity.
Mesh count is defined as the number of openings per linear inch of
screen cloth. Mesh count does not establish the size of screen
openings unless wire diameter is known. The opening size, D, is related
to the wire diameter, d, and the mesh count, n, by the following
equation:
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Page 6 of 11 Dowell
1
D = -n
d
With the wide variety of wire diameters used to construct the same
mesh count, the actual separation efficiencies of screens with the same
mesh count designation are rarely consistent:
1. Manufacturers commonly designate layered screens by a single
mesh count number. Experimental separation efficiency tests have
revealed that these designations are predominantly optimistic.
2. Oblong mesh screens may be identified by a single number which
may be the sum of mesh counts in both the horizontal and vertical
direction. For example, a 60 x 40 mesh screen may be labeled
100 mesh. This practice is misleading: The opening sizes of a
60 x 40 mesh screen will pass much larger particles than a
100 x 100 square mesh screen.
5.2 API RP13E Screen Designation

Recently, a new performance-based screen designation system has
been developed. This designation system has been adopted by the API
RP13E as a Recommended Practice for Shale Shaker Screen Cloth
Designations. The API has recommended that all screens be labeled
with the following information:
Screen Name
Separation Potential (d50, d16, d84)

Flow Capacity (Conductance, Total Non-Blanked Area)
A comprehensive list of screen designations for most shakers is
included in Appendix D, Screen Designations. The screen designations
include additional information not specified by the API to further define
screen performance. Each of the designation components are
described in detail below:
5.2.1 Screen Name

This is the mesh count designation or part number used by the
manufacturer to identify the screen. Typically, it consists of a mesh
count number preceded by a letter code which may describe the
screen's cloth type or layering technique. For example, MG100 signifies
a 100 x 100 mesh market grade bolting cloth, a PWP HP100 signifies
a perforated plate, triple-layer screen composed of oblong mesh screen
cloth.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Dowell Page 7 of 11
5.2.2 Equivalent U.S. Sieve Number

This is the U.S. Sieve Number which has the same median opening size, or
d50, as the screen. Table 1 lists the opening sizes of the standard U.S.
Sieve series. In cases where no actual U.S. Sieve exists for a given opening
size, the equivalent U.S. Sieve Number is a linearly-interpolated value. This
value provides a simple scale by which to quickly rank the separation
potential of screens. Caution should be exercised when using this value to
compare screens of different type since it represents only the median
separation potential of the screen.
Table 1 U.S. Sieve Series
U.S. Sieve Opening U.S. Sieve Opening

Number Size Microns Number Size Microns
3.5 5660 40 420

4 4760 45 350
5 4000 50 297
6 3360 60 250
7 2830 70 210
8 2380 80 177
10 2000 100 149
12 1680 120 125
14 1410 140 105
16 1190 170 88
18 1000 200 74
20 840 230 62
25 710 270 53
30 590 325 44
35 500 400 37
5.2.3 Separation Potential (d50, d16, d84)

The separation potential of the screen is represented by 3 points on the
separation potential curve, labeled d16, d50 and d84 (Fig. 1). These points are
the spherical diameters, in microns, corresponding to 16, 50 and 84 percent
of the cumulative ellipsoidal volume distribution of hole sizes present in the
screen. It must be stressed that these values provide a relative measure
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Page 8 of 11 Dowell
of a screen's potential ability to remove solids. They may not necessarily

agree with measured grade efficiency cut points for a given application.
d50
The d50 is the median aperture size of the screen on a volume-equivalent

basis. In experimental grade efficiency terms, it is analogous to the size of
solid that has a 50% probability of separation. The d50 is typically used as a
single value indicator of separation efficiency performance. Because of it's
importance, the d50 is listed first.
d16, d84
The d16 and d84 values indicate the range of hole sizes present in the
screen. The d16 and d84 values can be important when the removal of fines
from an unweighted mud is desired, or when the removal of barite is a
concern. The deviation from the d50 describes the screen's implied
separation characteristics. As the difference between the d16 and d50
increases, it is more likely that some solids finer than the d50 will likely be
removed. Conversely, a smaller percentage of solids coarser than the d50
may be removed as the difference between the d84 and d50 increases. A
multilayered screen will generally have a larger spread between the d16 and
d84 values than a single mesh screen with the same d50.
5.2.4 Flow Capacity (Conductance, Non-blanked Area)

The calculated conductance is reported in units of kilodarcies/millimeter for
the total screen composition.
Non-blanked area is the total effective screening area per panel, in units of
square feet.
Note: Support rails on the shaker deck can reduce the usable area of
screens not mounted on metal backing plates. This area reduction is not
included in the calculation of usable area because it is not a function of
screen panel construction and will vary with the shaker type.
5.2.5 Transmittance
Transmittance represents the net flow capacity of individual screens. It is the
product of conductance and unblocked screening area. Transmittance
permits the comparison of individual screens which differ in usable screening
area.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Dowell Page 9 of 11
5.2.6 Aspect Ratio

Aspect ratio describes the average shape of the screen openings.
It is the volume-weighted average length-to-width ratio of the screen
openings. Aspect ratio serves as an indicator of screen composition and
provides information about the screen's potential resistance to blinding.
Rectangular, or oblong, mesh screens have been customarily employed to
reduce the blinding problems exhibited by square mesh screens when
drilling sand sections. The near-size sand grains lodge in the square mesh
screen apertures and reduce mud processing capability. The longer slots in
the oblong screens are more likely to be only partially blocked by these
spherical particles and thus tend to resist blinding. Aspect ratios in excess of
1.5 are typical of oblong mesh screens (both single and multilayered
designs) used in the oil field. Single layer square mesh screens have aspect
ratios near unity.
Layered, unbonded, square mesh sandwich screens have the capacity to
actively deblind (remove particles) by the interactive movement between
the layers. This feature is lost when the layers are bonded together to
improve screen life. Laboratory tests have shown that blinding increases
substantially when the apertures in the metal backing plate or plastic grid
have dimensions of less than 4 x 4 in. Fig. 2 shows how blinding severely
restricts the flow capacity of the shaker when smaller opening dimensions in
the screen panel are used.
Fig. 2. Effect of plate opening size on screen blinding.

Note: Plate openings with dimensions less than 4 x 4 in. lose their deblinding
ability.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Some improvement in blinding resistance over single layer square mesh

cloth is still apparent in bonded, multilayer square mesh screens: Stacking
one screen cloth over a slightly coarser cloth results in a wide range of hole
sizes and shapes. Only the portion of the screen with openings near in size
to the sand will tend to be blinded. Aspect ratios of layered square mesh
screen compositions range from 1.3 to 1.5. The relationship between screen
composition and blinding resistance is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Blinding Resistance of Common Screens
Screen Panel Composition Aspect Ratio Blinding Resistance
Single or double layer, square mesh < 1.2 poor

Triple layer, square mesh, bonded 1.3-1.5 fair
Triple layer, square mesh, unbonded 1.3-1.5 best*
Rectangular mesh, all types > 1.5 better
* provides active deblinding through layer interaction
5.3 Field Procedure to Estimate Cut Point (D50)

Note: This procedure provides only a rough approximation of the cutpoint. It
assumes that the mass flowrate of the solids discard is negligible
compared to the feed and screen unders. Results may be inaccurate
under high solids loading.
5.3.1 Equipment
U.S. Test Sieves (Enough sizes to bracket expected cut)
Sample Containers
Sand Content Tube and Funnel
5.3.2 Procedure
1. Take equal sized samples of both feed and unders. Avoid taking unders
samples at the point where the fluid enters the sand trap. Where
possible, take them from directly under the screen.
2. Wet sieve each sample and measure the volume retained on each
sieve using sand content tube.
3. Calculate the percent separated for each test sieve by the following
method:
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 400
January 1998
Schlumberger
Shaker Screens
Feed Vol. - Unders Vol.

%Separated = x100
Feed Vol.
4. Plot through the midpoint of each sieve range as a function of volume

percent removed.
5. Read the median cut point (d50).
6 Summary
Shaker screens control the separation and liquid throughput
performance of the shale shaker.
Separation performance may be measured by two methods:
A. Percent-separated or grade efficiency.
Generated from full-scale measurements, a grade efficiency curve
represents the screens probability of separating any specific
particle size under the specific conditions of the test. The median
separation of the screen, commonly called the d50 or cut point,
represents the particle size that has a 50% probability of being
removed. A field procedure is provided to estimate the d50 of the
shaker screens.
B. Separation potential.
This method uses the range of opening sizes in the screen to
indicate the relative separation performance of the screen.
Because the screen is visually analyzed, separation potential is
independent of operating conditions. This method has been
adopted by the API as a Recommended Practice for Shaker
Screen Cloth Designations under API RP13E.
Liquid throughput performance is represented by the screens
conductance and usable screening area. Conductance, calculated from
the physical dimensions of the screen composition, is analogous to the
screens permeability. The conductance equations are included in
Appendix B, Conductance Calculation. Usable screening area is the
area in the screen panel available for fluid flow.
Mesh count designations do not adequately describe screen
performance because wire diameters and opening size.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 500
January 1998
Schlumberger
Degassers
Dowell Page 1 of 4
Degassers
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Placement and Operation ...................................................................................................2
3 Summary..............................................................................................................................3
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Correct degasser operation. .........................................................................................3
TABLES
Table 1 Ranking of Degasser Models .....................................................................................2
1 Introduction
Degassers are necessary to remove entrained gas bubbles from the mud.
Gas-cut mud will impair the performance of centrifugal pumps. Since all
solids removal equipment beyond the shakers requires a pump, the gas
must be removed before it reaches these devices. If left unchecked and
pumped downhole, the entrained gas will reduce mud density, which will, in
turn, reduce the hydrostatic head in the wellbore.
The fundamental principle for all degassers is that gas bubbles must reach
the liquid-gas interface before they will burst. Any action which brings these
gas bubbles to the surface will result in degassing. Four basic mechanisms
exist for bringing gas to the surface: 1) increase the bubble size by drawing a
vacuum, 2) create a thin film, 3) create turbulent action, and 4) impart
centrifugal force on the mud to drive the gas bubbles to surface.
There are two basic types of degassers: atmospheric degassers and vacuum
degassers. Tests conducted by Amoco Production Research have shown
that vacuum degassers provide superior performance in the presence of
2
higher mud weights and yield points greater than 10 lb/100 ft . Atmospheric
degassers are acceptable for unweighted muds with low yield points. The
overall ranking of degasser models resulting from experimental data is given
in Table 1.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 500
January 1998
Schlumberger
Degassers
Page 2 of 4 Dowell
Table 1 Ranking of Degasser Models
Manufacturer Type
Drexel-Brandt Vacuum
Derrick* Vacuum
Wellco Vacuum
Sweco Vacuum
Burgess Vacuum
Swaco Vacuum
Totco Vacuum
Tillet Gas Hog Atmospheric
Drilco Atmospheric
Sweco Atmospheric
Judco Atmospheric
* Not tested but similar in design to Drexel-Brandt

A complete list of available degassers and their processing capacities are
listed in Appendix F, Equipment Specifications.
2 Placement and Operation

1. Provide enough degasser capacity to treat at least 100% of the
circulation rate. Be aware that actual processing rates for gas-cut mud
are much lower than claimed rates for water.
2. Degassers should be located downstream from the shale shakers and
upstream of any equipment requiring a centrifugal pump. The degasser
suction should be installed downstream of the sand trap. The suction
entry should be approximately 1 ft from the floor in a well-agitated
compartment.
3. The equalizer flow between the degasser suction and discharge must
be high. There should be a visible backflow across the high weir,
indicating full processing of the circulation rate. If equalization is low,
the light gas-cut mud entering the suction compartment may not be able
to displace the heavier mud returning from the discharge compartment.
As a result, the light mud may overflow the suction compartment. Fig. 1
illustrates correct fluid routing for degassers.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 500
January 1998
Schlumberger
Degassers
Dowell Page 3 of 4
Fig. 1. Correct degasser operation.

Note: The high weir helps ensure complete processing of gas cut mud.
4. Atmospheric degassers should discharge horizontally across the
surface of the tank to allow large gas bubbles to break out. Vacuum
type degassers should discharge below the mud surface with the flow
turned up towards surface.
5. Vacuum degassers must take power mud suction from their discharge
compartment. Power mud is the mud pumped at high velocity through
an eductor to create the vacuum in the degasser tank. Taking suction
upstream will likely result in the pump becoming gas-locked. Suction
from further downstream will likely cause mud to bypass the
hydrocyclones.
6. The power mud centrifugal pump must supply the necessary feed head.
Install a pressure or head gauge to monitor the feed head at the
eductor.
3 Summary
Degassers are used to remove entrained gas bubbles from the mud to
prevent impairment of centrifugal pump performance, a reduction in
mud density and a subsequent reduction in hydrostatic head in the
wellbore.
There are two basic types of degassers: atmospheric and vacuum.
Vacuum degassers are recommended for weighted muds and yield
2
points over 10 lb/100 ft . Atmospheric degassers are acceptable for
unweighted, low viscosity muds.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 500
January 1998
Schlumberger
Degassers
Page 4 of 4 Dowell
An overall ranking of degasser models resulting from experimental data

is provided in this chapter. Vacuum degassers are generally superior. A
comprehensive list of available degassers is listed in Appendix F,
Equipment Specifications.
Provide enough degasser capacity to process over 100% of the
circulating rate.
Locate the degasser downstream of the shakers and upstream of any
centrifugal pumps.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Dowell Page 1 of 16
Hydrocyclones
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2
3 Performance Parameters....................................................................................................4
3.1 Cone Diameter ..............................................................................................................5
3.2 Plastic Viscosity.............................................................................................................6
3.3 Feed Head.....................................................................................................................6
3.4 Underflow Diameter .......................................................................................................8
3.4.1 Spray Discharge...................................................................................................8
3.4.2 Rope Discharge ...................................................................................................8
4 Desanders.......................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Recommended Desanders .......................................................................................... 10
5 Desilters............................................................................................................................. 10
5.1.1 Recommended Desilters.................................................................................... 12
6 Sizing Hydrocyclone Manifolds........................................................................................ 12
7 Operating Guidelines........................................................................................................ 13
8 Troubleshooting................................................................................................................ 15
9 Summary............................................................................................................................ 16
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Hydrocyclone operating principles................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Cone efficiency. ...........................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Sensitivity to plastic viscosity. ......................................................................................6
Fig. 4. Sensitivity to feed head. ...............................................................................................7
Fig. 5. Rope flow operation characteristics..............................................................................9
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Page 2 of 16 Dowell
Fig. 6. Amoco near optimum core efficiency. ......................................................................11

Fig. 7. Estimated discard rates..............................................................................................11
Fig. 8. Typical hydrocyclone manifold. ..................................................................................13
TABLES
Table 1 Effect of Variables on Hydrocyclone Performance......................................................5
Table 2 Cone Capacity............................................................................................................5
1 Introduction
Although the shale shaker is considered the primary solids removal device
on the rig, hydrocyclones are a cost-effective method of removing many of
the fine solids missed by the shaker in unweighted muds. In some
formations, the solids are too fine for the shakers to remove; hydrocyclones
must be relied upon to remove the majority of the solids. In these instances,
the shaker protects the hydrocyclones from oversize particles which may
cause plugging. Because the hydrocyclone has no moving parts, it can be a
very reliable piece of solids removal equipment when correctly operated and
maintained.
Think of a tornado inside a bottle and you have a rudimentary idea of how a
hydrocyclone operates. Fig. 1 illustrates the basic concepts of hydrocyclone
operating principles. Mud enters the feed chamber tangentially at a high
velocity provided by pump pressure. As the mud spirals downward through
the conical section, centrifugal force and inertia cause the solids to gravitate
towards the wall. The solids settle according to their mass, a function of both
density and volume. Since the density range of drilled solids is normally quite
narrow, size has the largest influence on settling. The largest particles will
settle preferentially.
As the cone narrows, the innermost layers of fluid turn back toward the
overflow creating a low pressure vortex in the center of the cone. This low
pressure area causes air to be pulled in from the underflow outlet. Correctly-
operating cones should exhibit a slight vacuum at the cone underflow. The
air and cleaned fluid then report to the overflow through the vortex finder.
The purpose of the vortex finder is to prevent some of the feed mud from
short-circuiting directly into the overflow.
Solids with sufficient mass cannot make the turn back towards the overflow
because of their momentum and continue out the underflow. Maximum cone
wear usually occurs at or near the underflow exit, where velocities are the
highest. In cones having a balanced design whole mud losses out the
underflow are slight. Only the solids and bound liquid will report to the
underflow. If the solids are too fine to be removed by the cyclone, no liquid
should be discharged. Unbalanced hydrocyclones will discharge mud
without the presence of solids in the mud.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Dowell Page 3 of 16
Fig. 1. Hydrocyclone operating principles.

Note: The dark ribbon indicates the path taken by the mud and solids entering the cone. The
smaller light ribbon shows the exit path of the cleaned fluid and fine solids.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Page 4 of 16 Dowell
Because fine solids have more specific area (surface area per unit volume)
than large particles, the amount of liquid removed per pound of solids is
higher with fine solids than with coarse solids. Therefore, the difference
between the feed and underflow density is not a reliable indicator of
hydrocyclone performance. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between underflow
density and cone efficiency for an unweighted mud. Observe how overall
cone efficiency decreases as underflow density increases.
Fig. 2. Cone efficiency.

Note: Decreasing underflow diameter to improve dryness impairs cone efficiency.
3 Performance Parameters
Oilfield hydrocyclones are available in cone diameters ranging from 1 in. to
12 in. Hydrocyclones were first used to reduce the API sand content (solids
larger than 74 microns). Hence the term desander. By convention,
hydrocyclones with diameters of 6 in. or larger are labeled as desanders.
As the benefits of smaller, more efficient hydrocyclones became apparent,
the term desilter was coined to reflect the smaller silt-sized particles these
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Dowell Page 5 of 16
smaller cones could remove. Hydrocyclones with diameters of less than 5 in.
are usually called desilters. However, these terms are not based on any
particular performance standard. Separation efficiency varies widely among
hydrocyclones classified as desilters.
Amoco Production Research has investigated the operational and geometric
design factors affecting hydrocyclone performance. Over 500 tests were
conducted using bentonite and ground silica slurries. The effect of these
variables on cone performance are summarized in Table 1. Selected
variables are discussed below.
Table 1 Effect of Variables on Hydrocyclone Performance
Major Effect Minor Effect

Cone Diameter Feed Solids Concentration (at constant PV)
Feed Solids Distribution Yield Point
Plastic Viscosity Inlet Type
Feed Head Cylinder Length
Cone Angle Vortex Finder Length
Underflow Diameter
3.1 Cone Diameter

Cone diameter is the main factor in determining processing capacity,
provided the basic design is sound. Larger cone diameters have higher
throughput capacity and generally display inferior separation performance.
Individual cone capacity guidelines are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Cone Capacity
Cone Size, Cone Capacity,

inches gpm @ 75 ft head
2 20
3 (Amoco) 50
4 50
5 75
6 100
8 125
10 500
12 500
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Page 6 of 16 Dowell
3.2 Plastic Viscosity

Hydrocyclone performance is extremely sensitive to the plastic viscosity of
the feed mud. Fig. 3 shows the effect of plastic viscosity on median
separation size (d50) for a constant underflow solids concentration using a
3-in. hydrocyclone. Note how the median separation size increases rapidly
with plastic viscosity from an initial 20 micron cut at PV=6 cp to 50 microns
at PV=24 cp.
Fig. 3. Sensitivity to plastic viscosity.

Note: Hydrocyclone performance declines with increasing plastic viscosity.
3.3 Feed Head

Feed head, or feed pressure, affects hydrocyclone performance as shown in
Fig. 4. Insufficient head reduces fluid velocity within the cone and adversely
affects separation efficiency. Excessive head will cause premature wear and
increased maintenance cost.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Dowell Page 7 of 16
Head is related to pressure and fluid density by the hydrostatic pressure

equation:
P = 0.052 x H x rmud
where P is the feed pressure in psi, 0.052 is a gravitational constant, H is the
head in ft, and rmud is the fluid density in lb/gal.
Since most hydrocyclones require 75 ft of head, the required pressure for a
given mud density can be approximated by:
P = 4 x rmud
Specific head requirements for most hydrocyclones are provided in Appendix
F, Equipment Specifications. A centrifugal pump is used to feed the
hydrocyclones because it provides a relatively constant head at a given flow
rate. However, correct sizing of the pump is critical to ensure that sufficient
head is available at the desired flow rate. Refer to the section on centrifugal
pumps for a more detailed discussion on sizing and selecting centrifugal
pumps for this application.
Fig. 4. Sensitivity to feed head.

Note: This example, for a 3-in. cone, illustrates the importance of maintaining sufficient
feed head.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Page 8 of 16 Dowell
3.4 Underflow Diameter

As underflow diameter is reduced, fewer solids will have sufficient mass (and
momentum) to be discharged. The discharge will be dryer at the expense of
separation efficiency. The appearance of the discharge gives a good
indication of cone performance.
3.4.1 Spray Discharge

A normally-operating cone should have an umbrella-shaped discharge of
liquid and solids. The solids spiraling downward and out the cone bottom
with their associated liquid are said to be in spray discharge. The inside
stream moving up toward the overflow at high velocity will pull air with it in
the vortex. This causes a slight vacuum to occur in the very center of the
cone. The air is replaced by air drawn up through the center of the underflow
opening as shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, the presence of spray discharge and a slight vacuum in the center
of the underflow opening is a good indication of a properly operating
hydrocyclone.
3.4.2 Rope Discharge

If the solids concentration is high, there may not be room for all of the
downward moving solids to exit the underflow. This causes an undesirable
condition known as rope discharge so-called because of the shape of the
underflow stream (Fig. 5).
In rope flow, the solids back up near the exit and decelerate. The underflow
density is very high, since the liquid volume is severely reduced and only the
largest particles will exit the cone. Exit velocities are low; the solids will
appear to be falling out of the underflow nozzle. Many of the solids will not be
able to exit the cone and will return with the liquid in the overflow. High cone
wear will occur in the lower region of the cone.
Corrective action consists of opening up the underflow and making sure the
opening is clear. If the problem still occurs, this is an indication that the
solids loading needs to be reduced by adding more hydrocyclones. If the
problem is with the desilter, ensure that the desander is operating and that
the shakers are running the finest screens possible.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Dowell Page 9 of 16
Fig. 5. Rope flow operation characteristics.

Note: This condition should be avoided; try increasing the underflow opening size.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
4 Desanders
With the improved fine screening capability of shale shakers, the need for
desanders has diminished. The primary role of the desander should be to
reduce solids loading to the desilter cones in unweighted water-based muds.
Desanders are recommended when the shakers are unable to screen down
to 100 microns (140 mesh U.S. Sieve), or when large hole diameters are
drilled at 100 ft/hr or faster.
Considering that 75 microns is probably the best performance that can be
expected from a desander cone, one might conclude they would have an
application in weighted muds as well. This is generally not the case.
Hydrocyclones separate solids based on their mass and the density
difference between the solid particles and the fluid. Since barite's specific
gravity is substantially higher than drilled solids, it will tend to be
preferentially removed by hydrocyclones. Also, as shown in Fig. 3, the higher
plastic viscosities normally associated with weighted muds will greatly
reduce the desander's efficiency.
Desander underflows are normally quite dry and abrasive and should be
discarded directly. When processing expensive muds, the underflow may be
routed to a centrifuge to recover the liquid, provided the solids are not
abrasive and the underflow is diluted with whole mud before centrifuging.
Another option is to screen the desander underflow down to 200 mesh
(74 microns) to remove the larger, abrasive solids before processing with the
centrifuge.
4.1 Recommended Desanders

Ten-inch diameter desander cones are recommended. They provide the best
combination of separation and capacity. The larger 12-in. cones usually
cannot make a fine enough cut to be economic. Smaller cones are limited in
flowrate and may deteriorate more quickly in abrasive conditions.
5 Desilters
Desilters should be used on all unweighted, water-based muds. They are not
recommended for use on weighted muds since barite will be lost. When
using expensive muds, process the desilter underflow with a centrifuge.
APR has developed a 3-in. hydrocyclone which is up to 50% more efficient
than some existing oilfield desilters. Fig. 6 shows the improvement in
performance over a typical 50 gpm, 4-in. cone.
The Amoco-designed, 3-in. cone is not a balanced cone; it will discharge
fluid even when no solids are present. In many cases, this cone's underflow
should be processed by a centrifuge. The economics of centrifuging the
underflow should be checked using the SECOP program. Estimated discard
rates per cone are plotted as a function of underflow diameter in Fig. 7. Size
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
the centrifuge for the calculated underflow rate. Run the cones intermittently
on unweighted mud when no centrifuge is available.
Fig. 6. Amoco near optimum core efficiency.

Note: The 50 gpm Amoco-designed 3-in. cone exhibits greatly improved
performance over a typical 4-in. cone at the same flowrate.
Fig. 7. Estimated discard rates.

Note: Use this chart to estimate underflow rates from the Amoco-designed
3-in. cone.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Since the underflow opening of the 3-in. cone is smaller than a typical 4-in.
cone, it is more susceptible to plugging. Ensure that all of the mud is fine-
screened or run an efficient, properly installed desander ahead of the 3-in.
cones.
Desilters can also be used in certain weighted mud applications to reduce
the barite loading to the centrifuge thereby improving its efficiency in barite
recovery mode (see Chapter 8, Centrifuges). Here, the underflow of the
desilter cones are returned to the active system and the overflow is fed to the
Barite Recovery centrifuge. The upper limit for this application is generally
limited to mud densities of 15 ppg or less due to viscosity and solids content
limitations or cone performance. Use only enough 3-in. hydrocyclones to
match the feed rate to the centrifuge. Blank off the remaining cones. Use the
largest underflow nozzle diameter available to prevent plugging or rope flow.
5.1.1 Recommended Desilters

MPE 3 in. (15 Cone)
MPE 3 in. (10 Cone)
These Amoco-designed cones are recommended because of their superior
performance. They will provide the separation performance of a 2-in. cone at
the flowrate of a typical 4-in. cone.
6 Sizing Hydrocyclone Manifolds

For properly routed hydrocyclones, the minimum number required can be
estimated by:
Maximum Circulation Rate x 1.1

No. of Cones Required =
Single Cone Flow Rate
This equation does not consider solids loading. If penetration rates in excess
of 100 ft/hr are anticipated, the number of cones should be increased.
Specific head requirements and flow capacities for each cone are listed in
Appendix F, Equipment Specifications. Table 2 may be used to estimate the
flow capacity of each cone operating at 75 ft of head.
Hydrocyclones are normally provided in banks of 8, 10, 12 and 16 cones per
manifold (Fig. 8). Increase the required number of cones to one of these
standard manifold sizes.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
Fig. 8. Typical hydrocyclone manifold.

Note: This is an inline manifold. Circular manifolds are also common.
1. Operate enough hydrocyclones to process over 100% of the circulation
rate or to handle the maximum solids loading rate.
2. The hydrocyclone overflow should be discharged to a compartment
downstream from the feed compartment. Use bottom equalization
between compartments.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
3. Mechanically stir all hydrocyclone removal and discharge compartments

to ensure uniform feed. Mud guns should not be used because they can
reduce hydrocyclone efficiency by bypassing a portion of the mud.
4. Do not allow cones to operate with plugged apexes or inlets.
5. Spray discharge at the cone underflow is desired. Rope flow will cause
premature wear and is less efficient. Rope flow indicates that either
more hydrocyclones or finer shaker screens are required or that the
underflow apex size is too small.
6. Because 2-in. cones are extremely susceptible to plugging, consider
using the 3-in. cone instead. It has twice the capacity and equivalent
performance.
7. Do not bypass the shale shaker or operate with torn screens.
8. The hydrocyclone manifold should be located above the mud level in
the active system to prevent accidental loss of mud by siphoning when
the cones are not operating.
9. Replace flanged-type hydrocyclones with the quick-connect type to
improve servicing time.
10. Replace worn, malfunctioning cones immediately. If no spares are
available, remove the cone and blank off the feed and outlet lines.
11. Have a working pressure or head gauge on the manifold feed inlet.
12. Install a siphon breaker on the overflow manifold exit.
13. Size suction and discharge piping to provide flow velocities in the range
of 5-10 ft/sec. Refer to Chapter 9, Centrifugal Pumps & Piping.
14. Use one centrifugal pump per hydrocyclone manifold.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
8 Troubleshooting
Symptoms Probable Causes
One or more cones are not Plugged at feed inlet or outlet - remove cone
discharging - others OK. and clean out lines.
Some cones losing whole mud in a Backflow from overflow manifold, plugged
stream. cone inlet.
High mud loss, conical shape in Low inlet velocity due to partially plugged inlet
some cones - others normal. or cone body.
Repeated plugging of apexes. Too small underflow opening, bypassed
shaker or torn screens.
High mud loss, all cones, weak Low feed head-check obstruction, pump size
stream, conical shape. and rpm, partially-closed valve, solids settling
in feed line, frozen lines.
Cones at discharge end discharge Strong vacuum in manifold discharge line,
poorly with a dryer stream. usually occurs with long drop into pits - install
antisiphon tube.
Cone discharge is unsteady, Air or gas in feed, too small feed lines, air from
varying feed head. upstream equipment discharge.
Motor protection fuses blow. Required input horsepower is higher than
rated horsepower of motor - check for tees
bypassing mud, additional equipment,
manifolding.
Low impeller life. Cavitation in the pump - flow rate is too high -
need larger lines.
Suction line blockage - check for obstructions.
Mud percent solids continues to Solids removal is insufficient, solids may be
increase. too fine to remove, insufficient cones to match
drilling rate - add cones.
Cones are discharging a heavy, Cones are overloaded - use larger apex size,
slow-moving stream. insufficient cones to match drilling rate - add
more cones.
High mud losses. Cone opening is too large - reduce size or
consider centrifuging underflows.
Aerated mud downstream of Viscous mud, return line ends above fluid level
hydrocyclone overflow return. in tank - route hydrocyclone overflow into
trough to allow air to break out.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 600
January 1998
Schlumberger
Hydrocyclones
9 Summary
Hydrocyclones separate solids from fluid by using centrifugal force to
cause solids to be settled from the fluid. There are no moving parts.
Centrifugal force is created by the conversion of centrifugal pump head
into a high velocity stream spiraling within the cone. Solids concentrate
in proportion to their mass near the wall of the cone and are discharged
at the bottom of the cone in the underflow. Clean fluid and fine solids
are returned through the top of the cone in the overflow.
Cone diameter, cone angle, underflow diameter, feed head, and plastic
viscosity have the largest effect on hydrocyclone performance.
Hydrocyclones will produce a relatively wet discharge compared to
shale shakers and centrifuges. Underflow density is not a good indicator
of cone performance. Finer solids will have more associated liquid and
the resultant density will be lower than with coarse solids.
Provide enough hydrocyclones to process at least 110% of the
circulation rate, more if high penetration rates are expected.
Use desanders in unweighted mud when the shakers are unable to
screen down to 140 mesh (100 microns). The role of the desander is to
reduce solids loading to the downstream desilter. Ten inch diameter
desander cones are recommended; they provide the best combination
of separation and flow capacity.
Use desilters on all unweighted, water-based muds. The recommended
Amoco-designed 3-in. cone is up to 50% more efficient than typical 4-in.
cones. This cone is an unbalanced design and will discharge a very wet
underflow. Process the underflow with a centrifuge to recover fluid, if the
economics warrant.
Installation and operating guidelines, along with a troubleshooting guide
are included in this chapter.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 700
January 1998
Schlumberger
Mud Cleaners
Dowell Page 1 of 5
Mud Cleaners
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Operating Guidelines..........................................................................................................4
2.1 Unweighted Muds ..........................................................................................................4
2.2 Weighted Muds.............................................................................................................. 4
3 Summary..............................................................................................................................5
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Mudcleaner combines hydrocyclone and shale shaker.................................................2
Fig. 2. Brandt ATL 2800 mud cleaner......................................................................................3
1 Introduction
A mud cleaner is a bank of hydrocyclones mounted over a vibrating screen
(Fig. 1). Free liquid and particles smaller than the screen openings are
returned to the circulating system. Solids removed by the screen are
discarded. Screen sizes between 100 mesh and 325 mesh are commonly
available. Mud cleaners were originally developed for use in weighted muds
to remove drilled solids down to the size of barite (< 74 microns) when
shakers could only run 100 mesh (149 microns) screens at best. However,
with the fine-screening capability of todays linear motion shakers, the
applications for mud cleaners are limited.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 700
January 1998
Schlumberger
Mud Cleaners
Page 2 of 5 Dowell
Fig. 1. Mudcleaner combines hydrocyclone and shale shaker.

Note: The hydrocyclone underflow is screened to remove solids.
Where possible, the installation of sufficient fine screen shakers is
recommended for weighted muds in lieu of a mud cleaner. Shakers equipped
with fine-mesh screens guarantee that all of the circulation rate is processed,
whereas mud cleaners may treat only a portion of the circulation rate.
Shakers are more dependable and their screens typically last longer.
Barite losses measured over mud cleaner screens are higher than losses
over shaker screens at the same mesh size. This is due to the high viscosity
of the cone underflow and the relatively small screening area of most mud
cleaners. Drexel-Brandt and Derrick, among others, have addressed this by
mounting desilter cones over a full-size shaker deck (Fig. 2). Derrick uses a
specially-designed High-G shaker which they claim also improves cuttings
dryness. Regardless, overall system efficiency would be better served by an
additional shaker at the flowline rather than a mud cleaner in most cases.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 700
January 1998
Schlumberger
Mud Cleaners
Dowell Page 3 of 5
Fig. 2. Brandt ATL 2800 mud cleaner.

Note: This design mounts 28 4-in. cones over a standard ATL shaker basket.
Mud cleaners continue to be a popular solids removal device within the
industry and will be encountered on many rigs. If economics or space
constraints do not justify the installation of additional shakers on an existing
solids removal system, the mud cleaner, when routed and operated
correctly, can be used to advantage in both unweighted and weighted muds.
Refer to the system arrangements section for proper fluid routing and mud
cleaner placement.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 700
January 1998
Schlumberger
Mud Cleaners
Page 4 of 5 Dowell
1. Since the mud cleaner is both a hydrocyclone and a shaker, many of
the operating guidelines listed for these devices apply to mud cleaners.
2. A decrease in solids coming off the screen may indicate a torn screen
which should be replaced as soon as possible.
3. Plugged cones or large solids coming off the screen can imply a
problem with the upstream shale shakers. The likely causes are
bypassed screens, torn screens or dumping the shaker box into the
active system.
4. The desilter cones on the mud cleaner should be 6 in. diameter or
smaller. The median cuts of larger cones are too coarse to be useful.
2.1 Unweighted Muds

1. In unweighted muds, the mud cleaner should be used as a desilter by
blanking off the screen and discharging the underflow directly.
2. Because the mud cleaner is operated as a desilter, it must be run in
parallel with other desilters (same suction and discharge
compartments). As with desilters, the suction should be from the
desander discharge compartment and the overflow discharged to a
downstream compartment.
3. If the hydrocyclone underflow is to be processed by a centrifuge, the
screens may be used to reduce solids loading to the centrifuge. Run the
finest screens possible.
4. In closed-loop systems, route the desanders underflow onto the mud
cleaner screens to help dry the discharge. Note, however, that the mud
passing through the screen should be processed by a centrifuge.
5. The hydrocyclones on the mud cleaner should be run as wet as
possible to improve solids removal efficiency.
2.2 Weighted Muds

1. Use the mud cleaners when 150 mesh (100 micron) screens cannot be
run on the shale shakers.
2. At higher mud weights, the screen may become overloaded with solids.
If the screen overloads, remove enough cones to keep it from
discharging excess fluid.
3. Monitor the composition and rate of losses over the screens, especially
in oil-based muds. Use the same procedure as outlined in the shaker
section.
4. For water-based muds, dilution water added at the mud cleaner screen
may reduce barite losses by reducing the viscosity of the hydrocyclone
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 700
January 1998
Schlumberger
Mud Cleaners
Dowell Page 5 of 5
underflow. However, the amount of drilled solids discarded may also be

reduced.
3 Summary
A mud cleaner is a desilter mounted over a vibrating screen. The
desilter underflow is screened. Fluid and solids finer than the screen are
returned to the active system. Only solids coarser than the screen
openings are removed.
Mud cleaners were originally designed for use in weighted muds when
shakers were incapable of screening down to the size of the weighting
material. With todays fine screen shakers, the applications for mud
cleaners are limited.
Fine screen shakers are recommended in lieu of mud cleaners: Screen
life is better, all of the circulation rate is processed, and barite losses
are reported to be lower.
In unweighted mud, the mud cleaner should be used as a desilter.
Screening the underflow is unnecessary unless the mud cleaner is used
to screen abrasive solids that will be processed by a centrifuge.
Use the mud cleaner on existing solids control systems, when 150
mesh (100 microns) screens cannot be run on the shakers in weighted
mud.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Decanting Centrifuges
Dowell Page 1 of 25
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2
3 Performance Parameters....................................................................................................4
3.1 G-Force .........................................................................................................................4
3.2 Viscosity ........................................................................................................................6
3.3 Cake Dryness ................................................................................................................6
3.4 Pond Depth and Processing Capacity............................................................................7
3.5 Bowl - Conveyor Differential RPM And Torque ..............................................................9
4 Centrifuging Unweighted Mud ......................................................................................... 10

4.1 Centrifuging Hydrocyclone Underflow .......................................................................... 10
4.2 Operating Guidelines, Centrifuging Unweighted Mud................................................... 13
5 Centrifuging Weighted Muds ........................................................................................... 13

5.1 Operating Guidelines, Barite Recovery Mode .............................................................. 15
6 Two-Stage Centrifuging.................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Field Evaluation of Two-Stage Centrifuging Economics............................................... 18
6.1.1 Calculations ....................................................................................................... 18
7 Centrifuge Selection .........................................................................................................19

7.1 Equipment Descriptions............................................................................................... 23
7.1.1 Hutcheson-Hayes HH5500 (16 X 55) ................................................................. 23
7.1.2 Alpha-Laval 418/Swaco HS 518 (14 X 56).......................................................... 23
7.1.3 Derrick DE1000/Sharples P3400/Brandt HS3400 (14 X 50) ............................... 23
7.1.4 Oiltools S3.0 (21 X 62), S2.1 (18 X 56) .............................................................. 23
7.1.5 Bird Design Centrifuges - Sweco SC-4, Broadbent, Brandt CF-2, Derrick DB1 .. 24
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 25 Dowell
7.1.6 Alpha-Laval 414, Swaco 414 (14 X 38), Sharples P3000, Hutcheson Hayes
HH1430 (14 X 30)...............................................................................................24
8 Summary............................................................................................................................25
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Centrifuge components. ...............................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Centrifuge operation.....................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Effect of G-force on separation.....................................................................................5
Fig. 4. Effect of viscosity on separation performance. .............................................................6
Fig. 5. Effect of G-force on cuttings dryness. ..........................................................................7
Fig. 6. Effect of pond depth on fine solids removal..................................................................8
Fig. 7. Effect of pond depth on coarse solids removal. ............................................................9
Fig. 8. Economics of centrifuging hydrocyclone underflow. ...................................................11
Fig. 9. Fluid routing to centrifuge hydrocyclone underflows. ..................................................12
Fig. 10. Internal centrifuge feed compartment design............................................................12
Fig. 11. Choice of drilled solids removal from weighted mud.................................................14
Fig. 12. Benefits of increased G-force on barite recovery......................................................15
Fig. 13. Two stage centrifuging. ............................................................................................17
Fig. 14. Centrifuge performance comparison on fine solids distribution.................................20
Fig. 15. Centrifuge performance comparison on coarse solids distribution............................21
TABLES
Table 1 Recommended Centrifuges for Unweighted Mud .....................................................22
Table 2 Recommended Centrifuges for Weighted Mud .........................................................22
1 Introduction
Since their introduction to the oilfield in the early 1950s, decanting
centrifuges have become an increasingly common addition to the solids
control system. Centrifuges are capable of removing very fine solids that
cannot be removed by any other mechanical separation device. In
unweighted muds, the centrifuge can greatly improve the separation
efficiency of the solids removal system and reduce liquid discharge volumes
when used in conjunction with hydrocyclones. Increasingly stringent
environmental restrictions on drilling waste discharge and the incentive of
reduced dilution and disposal volumes have made the use of centrifuges
economically attractive in many instances. In weighted muds, the centrifuge
is used to reclaim barite while removing colloidal solids which can cause high
mud viscosity, poor filtercake properties, and decreased penetration rates.
The centrifuge is the primary separation device used in a chemically-
enhanced dewatering system to reduce liquid discharge volumes.
Unlike other solids removal devices, decanting centrifuges are usually leased
from service companies. Very few rigs come equipped with centrifuges
because they are relatively expensive to purchase and require specialized
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 25
maintenance. A typical oilfield-ready centrifuge may cost $80-$150

thousand, depending upon size, performance and design features. Lease
rates range from $150 to $300 per day. It is therefore important to
understand the factors affecting centrifuge performance to economically
justify the specific application and to achieve maximum performance.
The major components of a decanting centrifuge are shown in Fig. 1.
Decanting centrifuges separate solids from liquid by imparting high
centrifugal forces on the solid-liquid slurry fed into a bowl rotating at high
speed. The feed stream is pumped into the center of the bowl via a feed
tube. The slurry exits the feed tube and enters an acceleration chamber
housed inside the conveyor. It exits the chamber through feed ports and
enters the bowl area. Here, the slurry is exposed to a high G-force created
by the bowls rotation. The high G-force causes sedimentation of the feed
stream solids. The rotating conveyor has flights similar to threads on a screw
which auger the settled solids up the conical section of the bowl and out of
the liquid pool. The gear box causes the conveyor to rotate at a slightly
slower speed than the bowl. The torque needed to turn the conveyor is
carried through the gear box and emerges at a shaft. This shaft is held by a
shear pin or other safety device so that excess torque will not be applied to
the gearbox or conveyor. The relatively dry solids continue out of the bowl.
The cleaned liquid is decanted off through ports at the opposite end
(Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Centrifuge components.

Note: These components are common to most decanting centrifuges used in
oilfield applications.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 25 Dowell
Fig. 2. Centrifuge operation.

Note: The conveyor augers solids up the conical section of the bowl and out of the
liquid pool.
3 Performance Parameters
The effect of various design and feed parameters on centrifuge performance
have been evaluated by APR. The results of this study are summarized to
assist in the selection and operation of centrifuges. Since many centrifuge
parameters are related, one aspect of performance cannot be discussed
singularly without implicating others. However, in general, centrifuge
performance is affected by the following parameters in decreasing order of
importance:
3.1 G-Force
According to Stokes Law, particle settling velocity is proportional to G-force:
-6
2
aDp (s - L ) 10
VT =
116
where:
VT = Particle terminal velocity, in./sec
2
a = Bowl acceleration, in./sec = .0054812 x bowl Diameter x
2
RPM
2
(1 g = 386 in./sec )
Dp = Particle diameter, microns
S
3
= Solids Density, gm/cm
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 25
L 3
= Feed Slurry Density, gm/cm
m = Feed Slurry Viscosity, (centipoise = gm/100 cm sec)

Since G-force increases with the square of bowl RPM, it is an important
parameter. G-force also increases linearly with bowl diameter. Fig. 3 shows
how solids removal efficiency improves with increasing G-force. For a given
particle size and fluid properties, there is a minimum G-force necessary to
invoke settling. Although high G-force is desirable, the cost is proportional to
the cube of the bowl rpm and there are similar economic limitations on bowl
diameter as well. Thus, the required G-force must be obtained from a
practical combination of speed and diameter. Most oilfield centrifuges have
bowl dimensions from 14 to 28 in. in diameter and lengths from 30 to 55 in.
Rotational speeds range from 1000 rpm to 4000 rpm, depending on the
application. The more expensive, high-G machines can provide up to 3,000
Gs. The specifications for each centrifuge are listed in Appendix F,
Equipment Specifications.
Fig. 3. Effect of G-force on separation.

Note: Higher Gs improve separation performance.
Note, however, that increasing G-force eventually reduces solids
conveyance capacity due to torque limitations. As G-forces increase, more
solids are settled in the bowl and they adhere more tightly. More conveyor
torque is required to move the solids out. Once the torque limitations of the
machine are reached, conveyance ceases.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 25 Dowell
3.2 Viscosity
From Stokes Law, particle settling velocity is inversely proportional to fluid
viscosity. Fig. 4 illustrates the beneficial effects of a feed mud with a low
yield value. This shows the merit of diluting the centrifuge feed to improve
performance. It also helps explain the relatively poor performance of
centrifuges when processing polymer fluids with characteristically high
viscosities at low shear rates.
Fig. 4. Effect of viscosity on separation performance.

Note: Higher yield values degrade centrifuge separation performance.
3.3 Cake Dryness

Discharge dryness is commonly considered a direct indication of centrifuge
performance. However, test results have shown that cake dryness is more
correctly a function of particle size and, therefore, is inversely related to
separation efficiency. Test points which yielded the driest solids
corresponded to the lowest efficiency and coarsest D50 separation. As
shown in Fig. 5, solids dryness occurs at a threshold G-force level.
Subsequent increases in G-force do not remove additional liquid. Length of
the dry beach within the centrifuge bowl (a function of pond depth) also has
little effect on dryness. Dry beach length refers to the distance from the
solids discharge ports to the surface of the fluid pond within the centrifuge
bowl. But, the small difference in dryness made a significant difference in the
appearance of the solids. At 71% by weight, the solids were quite runny and
at 76% by weight, the solids seemed much more stackable.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 25
Fig. 5. Effect of G-force on cuttings dryness.

Note: Above a certain threshold G-force, cuttings dryness does not improve.
3.4 Pond Depth and Processing Capacity

Pond depth controls both fluid residence time and dry beach length. Test
data confirms that increased pond depth residence time increases
separation. However, increased pond depth reduces centrifuge flow capacity.
Maximum flow capacity is controlled by the height of the cake discharge port.
When the fluid depth in the centrifuge bowl reaches this height, drilling fluid
flows out along with the discarded cake. The flowrate at which liquid spills
out the cake discharge port is called the flood-out point. Since one
objective of centrifuging is to limit liquid waste, it is obviously not
advantageous to run the centrifuge at a flow rate beyond the flood-out point.
Flooding is controlled by a combination of pond depth and flowrate. The
pond depth is set mechanically by an adjustable weir. The flowrate increases
pond height according to the viscous drag forces which increase the fluid
head required to drive the liquid through the centrifuge. The head height is
added to the fixed pond depth to give a total depth of fluid in the bowl. For
example, consider a centrifuge with a maximum fluid depth of 3 in. before
flood-out (closed fluid exit ports). If 300 gpm is the maximum flow rate at
floodout with a 1-in. pond depth setting, this means 2 in. of fluid head was
developed. If the pond depth setting is adjusted to 2 in., then only 1 in. of
fluid head is available before the 3-in. flood-out point is reached. Obviously,
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 25 Dowell
the maximum flowrate for this pond depth setting will have to be much less
than 300 gpm.
Maximum flow capacity is achieved when the shallowest pond depth is used
at the expense of separation efficiency. Conversely, deep ponds maximize
separation efficiency at the cost of flowrate capacity. The best combination is
determined by the coarseness of the solids to be separated. Fig. 6 illustrates
how, for a fine solids size distribution, a deep pond depth at lower flow rates
can produce almost the same cake rate as a shallow pond depth at higher
flow rates. This is due to the improved separation efficiency of the deep pond
case. Fig. 7 shows how, for coarse solids, the higher flow capacity of the
shallow pond produces more solids removal than the deep pond case. The
results suggest that, for coarse particle size distributions as encountered in
top hole drilling, shallow pond depths are advantageous, whereas deep
ponds should be used for all other applications.
Fig. 6. Effect of pond depth on fine solids removal.

Note: Deeper ponds are more efficient than shallow ponds when the solids are
very fine.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 25
Fig. 7. Effect of pond depth on coarse solids removal.

Note: Shallow pond depths are preferred for coarse solids distributions.
3.5 Bowl - Conveyor Differential RPM And Torque

Differential RPM is the difference between the bowl RPM and the conveyor
RPM. The differential is provided by the gearbox which transmits power from
the bowl to the conveyor. Differential RPM is simply calculated by dividing
the bowl RPM by the gearbox ratio. Many centrifuge manufacturers provide a
backdrive which can independently alter the DRPM. Backdrive units are, in
effect, hydraulic gear reduction systems used to vary the speed of the
conveyor relative to the bowl. On backdrive units, DRPM depends upon the
rotation of the gearbox pinion and the orientation of the flights on the
conveyor. For these units, DRPM may be calculated by:
DRPM = (Bowl RPM - Pinion Speed)/Gearbox ratio.
DRPM is important because it determines the velocity at which solids are
conveyed through the centrifuge. For example, a DRPM of 50 and a flight
pitch of 3-in. yields a conveyance velocity of 150 in./min. Another expression
takes the flight pitch and number of leads on the conveyor into account to
describe the surface area of the bowl swept by the conveyor flights per unit
time. The faster the rate at which the area is swept, the greater the solids
capacity.
As = 2p rcyl x DRPM x SN
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
where:
As = swept area/unit time
rcyl = cylindrical bowl radius

S = flight pitch
N = number of leads on the conveyor
This equation suggests that solids capacity can be increased by increasing
the DRPM (lowering the gearbox ratio). Low swept area values could indicate
potential torque problems. For example, centrifuges with 130:1 or higher
gearbox ratios and centrifuges with 80:1 gearbox ratios with single-lead
conveyors may be limited in flowrate by torque.
Test data indicates that increasing DRPM reduces torque. Also, torque
increases as feed median particle size increases. Despite the common belief
that high DRPM values agitate the pond and inhibit sedimentation, test
results indicate that the effect of DRPM on solids removal efficiency is slight,
provided sufficient differential exists to remove the solids.
4 Centrifuging Unweighted Mud

Centrifuging unweighted muds provides two major benefits: 1) The removal
of drilled solids that are too fine to be removed by any other solids removal
device, and 2) a relatively dry discharge. Although the centrifuge cannot
remove ultrafine, colloidal solids, it is important to remove the fine solids
before they degrade into these submicron particles. As a rule, at least 25%
of the circulating rate should be centrifuged. It is usually uneconomic (and
logistically unfeasible) to process the entire circulating rate. Regardless, the
benefits of centrifuging to remove fine solids cannot be understated.
High-G, high capacity centrifuges are recommended to maximize separation
performance. Refer to the discussion on centrifuge selection, appearing later
in this chapter. Since separation efficiency varies inversely with feed rate and
residence time, the optimum feed rate is not necessarily the highest possible
rate. Rather, it is the combination of pond depth and feed rate that produces
the highest solids discharge rate. The maximum efficient processing rate for
a large oilfield centrifuge will seldom exceed 250 gpm, even for relatively
coarse drilled solids and low fluid viscosities. If the particle size distribution is
very fine, more solids may be removed with a lower feed rate and deeper
pond depths.
4.1 Centrifuging Hydrocyclone Underflow

When liquid discharge must be strictly controlled due to high mud cost, high
liquid disposal cost or limited reserve pit capacity, the centrifuge should
process the underflow of the desilter cones. In this configuration, the
hydrocyclones are used to concentrate solids to the centrifuge which then
separates the drill cuttings from the free liquid and colloidal solids. System
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
performance can be improved by opening the cone apexes to discharge

more liquid. This improves the separation efficiency of the cones and
produces a less viscous slurry at the underflow. Fig. 8 gives an example of
how centrifuging desilter underflow becomes economic with increasing mud
cost and desilter underflow rates. Enough centrifuge capacity must be
available to process slightly more than the cone underflow rate. Additional
makeup volume should be provided from the active system downstream of
the hydrocyclone feed.
Because the hydrocyclone underflow must be segregated from the active
system, a separate centrifuge feed compartment is required. Fig. 9 and
Fig. 10 illustrate two designs for the centrifuge feed compartment. The
compartment should be small (<50 bbls) to prevent solids settling. Both high
and low equalization should be provided. The low equalizer supplies makeup
volume from the active system during normal processing. A valve (normally
open) should be installed on the low equalizer. This valve may be used to
check that the centrifuge feed rate exceeds the cone underflow rate. If the
centrifuge is to be used in weighted mud to process the centrate of the barite
recovery centrifuge, the valve should be closed to isolate the feed
compartment. The high equalizer is provided to prevent accidental overflow.
Fig. 8. Economics of centrifuging hydrocyclone underflow.

Note: Substantial savings are possible by recovering the liquid from cone
underflows.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 9. Fluid routing to centrifuge hydrocyclone underflows.

Note: The disilter underflow is segregated from the active system for
processing by the centrifuge.
Fig. 10. Internal centrifuge feed compartment design.

Note: The dense desilter underflow will displace the lighter active system
mud from the centrifuge feed compartment.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
4.2 Operating Guidelines, Centrifuging Unweighted Mud

1. When processing the active system, the centrifuge feed should be
taken from the desilter discharge compartment or downstream. The
centrate should be returned to next downstream compartment.
2. Provide enough centrifuges to process at least 25% of the circulation
rate. Large, high-G units are usually required.
3. Run at maximum bowl RPM to achieve highest G-force and best
separation.
4. Operate the centrifuge just below the flood-out point.
5. The best feed rate and pond depth will depend on the size distribution
of the drilled solids. Use shallow ponds and high feed rates when
coarse solids predominate. Conversely, deeper ponds and lower feed
rates are more efficient when fine drilled solids are to be removed. Field
experimentation is necessary to optimize centrifuge setup.
6. Always wash out the centrifuge on shutdown.
7. If the centrifuge is to used on both unweighted and weighted muds, rig
up to allow either option. Both the centrate and solids streams should
be rigged up to allow each to be discarded or returned to the active
system.
8. The solids discharge chute should be angled at greater than 45 to
prevent solids buildup. If this is not possible, a wash line may be
necessary to assist in moving the solids. On land-based operations, use
the reserve pit as a source for wash fluid. Do not create unnecessary
reserve pit volume by using rig water.
5 Centrifuging Weighted Muds

The centrifuge is used in weighted mud applications to recover valuable
weighting material from mud which must be discharged due to unacceptable
colloidal solids content. The centrifuge settles out barite and coarse drilled
solids which are returned to the active mud system to maintain density. The
relatively clean centrate containing liquid and colloidal solids is discarded.
These colloidal solids cause many drilling fluid problems, such as high
surge/swab pressures and ECDs, differential sticking, and high chemical
costs. Usually, the value of the weighting agent in these mud systems makes
it economic to recover the weighting agent from the whole mud before it is
discarded. Fig. 11 gives an example of the economics of centrifuging
weighted muds.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 11. Choice of drilled solids removal from weighted mud.

Note: This example shows the economic advantage of recovering barite.
Ideally, the barite recovery process should remove only colloidal solids
without losing the larger particle sizes used as weighting material. Discarding
potentially reusable barite increases barite use and drilling fluid cost. Barite
losses can be reduced when the centrifuge makes the maximum liquid/solids
separation. As discussed in the previous section, this means operating the
centrifuge at high G-force. Fig. 12 shows the effect of G-force on the amount
of barite discarded in the centrate. At 20 gpm, the difference in barite losses
is 4.58 lb/min. Based on 10 hours per day centrifuging and barite cost of
$6.50 per 100 lb, high G-force centrifuging should save $175 per day.
Centrifuges are usually torque-limited in weighted muds due to the high
solids content. Typically, torque is reduced by slowing bowl RPM. This
reduces G-force and DRPM, resulting in less effective liquid/solids
separation and the likelihood of increased torque from reduced solids
conveyance.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 12. Benefits of increased G-force on barite recovery.

Note: Less barite is lost in the centrifuge centrate with increased G-force.
5.1 Operating Guidelines, Barite Recovery Mode

1. The following procedures are recommended to reduce torque when
operating centrifuges in barite recovery mode to maximize liquid/solids
separation:
A. For a given flowrate, increase the pond depth until the recovered
solids become runny. Buoyant force reduces the torque needed
to convey solids out of the centrifuge. A shallow pond creates a
long beach section. Once the solids exit the pool, the extra energy
required to convey these solids results in higher torque.
B. Process weighted mud continuously at a reduced feed rate rather
than intermittently at higher feed rates. This reduces solids loads
and results in less torque. It also increases residence time which
will result in finer separation.
C. At higher mud weights, use hydrocyclones to reduce the solids
loading in the feed mud to the centrifuge. The cone underflow is
returned to the active system. The overflow, containing fewer
solids, is fed to the centrifuge. Since solids concentration is
reduced, torque from conveying settled solids is reduced and
permits higher G-force centrifuging.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
2. Provide sufficient centrifuge capacity to process 5-15% of the rig

circulation rate. Centrifuge capacity is reduced in weighted mud; the
25% target recommended for unweighted mud is usually difficult to
attain in weighted mud.
3. Add as much dilution water as possible to the centrifuge feed to reduce
the mud viscosity and improve centrifuge separation performance.
4. Return the solids to a well-agitated compartment upstream of the
suction and mixing tanks.
5. Use a high weir between the barite return compartment and the next
downstream compartment to keep the fluid level high. This will promote
better mixing.
6. Always wash out the centrifuge on shutdown.
7. Routinely check the centrifuge performance by measuring the flow rate
and solids composition of the cake and centrate.
6 Two-Stage Centrifuging
Two-stage centrifuging is used in weighted muds when the liquid phase
cannot be discarded for economic or environmental reasons. The most
frequent application is in weighted, oil-based muds where the expensive
liquid phase cannot be discarded. The first centrifuge recovers weighting
material from the weighted mud as discussed in the previous section on
single-stage centrifuging for barite recovery. The centrate, instead of being
discarded, is fed to a second centrifuge operating at higher G-force. This
centrifuge is used to discard the solids and return the cleaned liquid phase
into the active mud system (Fig. 13).
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 13. Two stage centrifuging.

Note: The first centrifuging recovers barite; the second centrifuge dries its centrate
and recovers valuable fluid.
For two-stage centrifuging to be efficient, the first centrifuge must make a
good separation since most of the solids in its centrate will be discarded. The
poorer the separation, the more barite which will be carried over in the
centrate and discarded by the second centrifuge. Similarly, the second
centrifuge must operate at the highest possible G-force to remove the most
solids. Pond depths should also be deepened to just under the flood-out
point for the best separation efficiency.
Economics of two-stage centrifuging are site-dependent. Variables such as
time, drilling fluid, buy-back agreements, and well plans contribute to the
overall economics. Field experience has been mixed on the cost-
effectiveness. As a rough rule of thumb, oil-based muds with barite
concentrations greater than 4 lb/gal (i.e., 12 ppg mud) are usually candidates
for two-stage centrifuging. Below this concentration, centrifuging to strip all
solids including barite may be more economical, especially at lower mud
weights. At intermediate mud weights, dump and dilute may be a viable
option depending upon the conditions of the buy-back agreement. Dump
and dilute in this case means transferring mud laden with low gravity solids
from the active system to storage tanks for return to the mud company.
Clean whole mud is used to replace the dumped mud in the active system.
Another option is to do nothing except screen the mud and dilute when
possible to maintain mud properties. The decision to employ this alternative
should be made judiciously. It is usually better to err on the side of caution.
Over time, low gravity solids will become a large percentage of the weighting
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
material. Filtercake thickness, mud viscosity, and material consumption also

may increase. However, this may be the least expensive alternative when
drilling time is short and hole sizes are small. Oil-based muds are quite
solids-tolerant and can withstand some buildup of low-gravity solids. This
option is not generally recommended for water-based fluids.
6.1 Field Evaluation of Two-Stage Centrifuging Economics

An evaluation of two-stage centrifuging economics can be made in the field.
This method computes the total centrifuging cost (including rental cost and
the value of the mud and barite discarded). This cost is compared to the
value of the whole mud that must be discarded to remove an equivalent
amount of low gravity solids. The following data is required:
Active System Mud Density, rm (ppg)

Barite Concentration, HGS (lb/bbl)*
Low Gravity Solids Concentration, LGS (lb/bbl)*
Centrifuge Discard Sludge Density, rdis (ppg)

Operating Time, t (hrs)
Centrifuge Discard Rate, Qcen (lb/hr)*
Barite Concentration, HGSdis (lb/bbl)*
Low Gravity Solids Concentration, LGSdis
(lb/bbl)
Costs Barite Unit Cost, Cb ($/sack)

Liquid Mud Cost, Clm ($/bbl)
Centrifuge Rental Cost, Ccen ($/day)
*Barite and Low Gravity Solids concentrations in lb/bbl of whole mud are
determined from retort analysis and must be corrected for salt content.
6.1.1 Calculations
Two-Stage Centrifuging Cost
1. Mass Flow Rate of Drilled Solids, (lb/hr):
Mds = Qdis x LGSdis
2. Mass Flow Rate of Barite, (lb/hr):
Mbar = Qdis x HGSdis
3. Mud Discard Rate, (bbl/hr):
Qliq = Qdis - Mds/928 - Mbar/1471
4. Value of Discarded Barite, ($/hr):
$/hr(bar) = Mbar x Cb/100
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
5. Value of Discarded Liquid Mud, ($/hr):

$/hr(mud) = Qliq x Clm
6. Total Two-Stage Centrifuging Cost, ($/hr), ($/day):
$/hr = Ccen/24 + (4) + (5)
*$/day = Ccen + t ((4) + (5))
* Disposal/treatment cost of the centrifuge discard should be added to
the Total Cost, if applicable. Use Qcen for total hourly sludge rate.
Equivalent Whole Mud Disposal Cost

7. Whole Mud Discard Rate, (bbl/hr):
Qmud = Mds/LGS
8. Mass Flow Rate of Barite Losses, (lb/hr):
Mbar(m) = Qmud * HGS
9. Liquid Mud Losses, (lb/hr):
Qliq(m) = Qmud - Mds/928 - Mbar(m)/1471
10. Barite Cost, ($/hr):
$/hr(bar) = Mbar(m) x $/sack x 1/100
11. Liquid Mud Cost, ($/hr):
$/hr(liq) = Qliq(m) * $/bbl
12. Hourly Cost of Discarded Mud, ($/hr):
$/hr = (10) + (11)
13. *Daily Cost of Discarded Mud, ($/day):
$/day = t x (13)
*If using oil-based mud, the buy-back value of the discarded mud should be
subtracted from the daily disposal cost.
7 Centrifuge Selection
Generally, the following features on a centrifuge are highly recommended:
1. Accelerator for the feed to decrease turbulence.
2. Tungsten carbide feed port entries to prevent erosion.
3. Tungsten carbide tiles on the conveyor to improve wear resistance.
4. Universally adjustable pond dams to fine-tune centrifuge performance.
5. Stainless steel bowl and conveyor to reduce corrosion problems.
6. High G-force to ensure maximum separation performance.
Since centrifuges are normally leased, quality of service in the local area
should be a primary consideration when selecting centrifuges. A centrifuge
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
with all the features listed above will not be much use if it cannot be kept
running because of poor maintenance. Contract length should also be
considered. For example, hard-facing on the conveyor instead of tungsten
carbide tiles, or a carbon steel bowl instead of stainless steel is entirely
acceptable if the centrifuge is to be leased for a short term and maintenance
costs are borne by the contractor. Conversely, when drilling in remote areas
or under harsh conditions, the features listed above will help ensure
continued trouble-free operation. Regardless, a full inspection should be
performed before the centrifuge is accepted for lease.
The coarseness of the solids can also influence centrifuge selection. As
shown in Fig. 14, when the solids distribution is fine, a small high G
machine such as the Sharples 14 x 30 may remove more solids at a lower
feed rate than a large bowl, low G machine such as the Bird 24 x 38.
Conversely, the larger bowl machine will provide superior performance when
the solids are coarse (Fig. 15).
Fig. 14. Centrifuge performance comparison on fine solids distribution.

Note: The smaller 14 x 30 High G centrifuge is more efficient when solids are
fine.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 15. Centrifuge performance comparison on coarse solids distribution.

Note: The high flow capacity of larger Low G machines is preferred in the presence
of coarse solids.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 and Table 2 contain recommended common oilfield centrifuges.

Table 1 lists centrifuges recommended for unweighted mud applications.
Table 2 lists centrifuges recommended for weighted mud applications. These
tables are provided as a guideline only. Centrifuges not listed in these tables
may provide equivalent performance provided the performance criteria
discussed previously are met. For example, Sharples builds larger
centrifuges than the P3400. These larger centrifuges will provide superior
performance, but very few are available for drilling application and are not
listed here.
Table 1 Recommended Centrifuges for Unweighted Mud

Centrifuge Bowl Size Maximum Bowl RPM
Hutcheson Hayes HH5500 16 in. x 55 in. 3250
Alpha-Laval 418 14 in. x 56 in. 4000
Swaco HS 518 14 in x 56 in. 3313
Derrick DE1000 14 in. x 50 in. 4000
Drexel-Brandt HS3400 14 in. x 50 in. 3250
Sharples P3400 14 in. x 50 in. 3250
Oiltools S3.0 21 in. x 62 in. 1800
Sweco SC-4 24 in. x 40 in. 1950
Broadbent 24 in. x 38 in. 1900
Derrick DB-1 24 in. x 40 in. 2000
Drexel-Brandt CF2 24 in. x 38 in. 1900
Table 2 Recommended Centrifuges for Weighted Mud
Centrifuge Bowl Size

Alpha-Laval 414 14 in. x 38 in.
Swaco 414 14 in. x 38 in.
Sweco SC-4 24 in. x 40 in.
Broadbent 24 in. x 38 in.
Hutcheson Hayes HH1430 14 in. x 30 in.
Oiltools S3.0s 18 in. x 56 in.
Sharples P3000 14 in. x 30 in.
Sweco SC-2 18 in. x 30 in.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
7.1 Equipment Descriptions
7.1.1 Hutcheson-Hayes HH5500 (16 X 55)

This machine has all of the recommended features including a high capacity
gearbox to minimize gearbox failure. In most applications, it has more flow
capacity and separating power than the other centrifuges listed. The 5500
can be run at 3250 RPM in unweighted muds and approximately 2600 RPM
in weighted fluids. A variable speed controller on the main drive is
recommended for dual purpose applications. Because it is a relatively new
product, few HH5500s are currently available as rental units.
7.1.2 Alpha-Laval 418/Swaco HS 518 (14 X 56)

The Alpha-Laval 418 and the Swaco HS 518 have the same basic design,
although the Alpha-Laval has a higher maximum bowl speed and should
have more separating power than the slower Swaco unit. Plate type pond
dams require total replacement for adjusting pond depth. Adjustment for
three differential RPMs is provided. The flight spacing and 60:1 gearbox ratio
give reasonable performance. The 418 and 518 are not recommended for
barite recovery; the long bowl length is prone to developing high torque in
weighted muds.
7.1.3 Derrick DE1000/Sharples P3400/Brandt HS3400 (14 X 50)

These Sharples-designed centrifuges have most of the desired design
features and will provide superior performance in unweighted muds.
Recently, Sharples was bought out by Alfa-Laval, who reportedly will
discontinue production of the Sharples P3400 and P3000 in favor of their
own 418 and 414 models. The long bowl is susceptible to developing high
torque in weighted muds and is not normally recommended for barite
recovery. Derrick now manufactures this design with some mechanical
improvements, fully-tiled conveyor flights, and the option of variable main
and back drives. With the variable drive, Derrick has been successful in
using this machine as a barite-recovery unit.
7.1.4 Oiltools S3.0 (21 X 62), S2.1 (18 X 56)

These centrifuges are manufactured by Humbolt-Wedag in Germany under a
Bird Machine Co. license. Both can provide reasonably good separation
performance provided they are operated at maximum RPM in unweighted
muds. Both units are fully hydraulic which helps prevent solids overloading
and bowl plugging in barite recovery mode. The S2.1 is normally supplied as
the barite recovery centrifuge. The quality of local service is an important
consideration for these centrifuges as with all hydraulic units.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
7.1.5 Bird Design Centrifuges - Sweco SC-4, Broadbent, Brandt CF-2,

Derrick DB1
This 24 x 38 in. oilfield centrifuge was originally a Bird design. Modifications
to the basic design have been made in accordance to the specific companys
design concepts. Both Sweco and Broadbent build their machines in-house.
Brandt purchases the centrifuge rotating assembly and skids it out in-
house.
These machines will have suitable separation performance above 1900
RPM. All except the Brandt have x-rayed welds to certify operation at this
higher RPM. The Derrick machine has a longer bowl (24 x 45 in.) and will
perform best in unweighted muds. Gearbox ratio and conveyor flight design
vary significantly. The Sweco and Broadbent machines have 60:1 gearbox
ratios and double-lead conveyors that provide good performance in barite
recovery operations. The Brandt CF-2 has a widely-spaced, single-lead
conveyor with a 140:1 gearbox more suited to unweighted mud. The optional
hydraulics package offered by Sweco is recommended when the SC-4 is
used as the high-g centrifuge in two-stage operations. It will provide a slightly
higher bowl RPM and adjustable differential RPM to maximize separation
performance.
7.1.6 Alpha-Laval 414, Swaco 414 (14 X 38), Sharples P3000,

Hutcheson Hayes HH1430 (14 X 30)
These machines have the same features as their longer-bowled
counterparts. The shorter bowl length reduces retention time and makes
these centrifuges less susceptible to high torque in barite recovery
applications. The larger machines are recommended for unweighted mud
applications.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 800
January 1998
Schlumberger
8 Summary
With the emphasis on reduced waste volumes and improved solids
removal efficiency, the centrifuge has become an integral part of the
drilling solids removal system. Centrifuges are capable of removing very
fine solids that cannot be removed by any other mechanical solid
removal device. The solids discharge is relatively dry.
Laboratory tests indicate that centrifuge performance is chiefly a
function of G-force, pond depth, bowl-conveyor differential rpm and mud
viscosity. G-force, a function of bowl rpm and diameter has the greatest
impact on separation efficiency. Pond depth controls both fluid
residence time and flow capacity. Differential rpm is a factor in solids
conveyance and torque limitations. Increasing yield values detrimentally
affect separation efficiency.
Once a minimum threshold G-force is reached, cake dryness is
relatively unaffected by G-force. However, a minor difference in dryness
may change the appearance of the solids from runny to stackable.
Large, high G-force machines are recommended for centrifuging
unweighted muds. Use deep pond depths and lower flow rates for fine
solids distributions. Coarse solids distributions may be more efficiently
processed using shallow pond depths and higher flow rates.
Centrifuging hydrocyclone underflows becomes increasingly economic
as mud formulation and waste disposal costs increase. The centrifuge
should process in excess of the hydrocyclone underflow rate. Two
designs for centrifuge catch tanks are shown. A low-G, high capacity
centrifuge is recommended for these coarse solids.
The centrifuge is used in weighted mud to recover valuable weighting
material from mud which must be discharged due to unacceptable
colloidal solids content. The economics of barite-recovery centrifuging
is usually positive when the liquid phase is inexpensive and disposal
costs are not prohibitive. G-force should be maximized to improve barite
recovery.
Two-stage centrifuging is necessary in weighted muds when liquid
discharge must be minimized. The first centrifuge recovers barite. Its
effluent is fed to a second centrifuge operating a maximum Gs, which
discards solids and returns the liquid phase. Colloidal solids are not
removed. The economics of two-stage centrifuging are site-dependent.
A method for monitoring the cost effectiveness of two-stage centrifuging
is presented in this section.
Recommended features on a centrifuge include: 1) Accelerator for the
feed, 2) tungsten carbide feed port entries and conveyor tiles, 3)
universally adjustable pond dams, and 4) stainless steel bowl and
conveyor. However, quality of service is paramount. Recommended
centrifuges for both unweighted and weighted muds are listed.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Centrifugal Pumps and Piping
Dowell Page 1 of 14

1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2
3 Sizing Centrifugal Pumps...................................................................................................3

3.1 Centrifugal Pump Sizing Example..................................................................................4
3.2 Estimating Impeller Size ................................................................................................8
4 Pipe Sizing...........................................................................................................................8
4.1 Suction Head Requirements (NPSH) .............................................................................9
4.1.1 NPSH Example .................................................................................................. 12
4.1.2 Suction Line Entrance ........................................................................................ 13
5 Installation and Operating Guidelines ............................................................................. 13
6 Summary............................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Typical centrifugal pump. .............................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Centrifugal pump sizing example. ................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Minimum suction line submergence. .......................................................................... 10
Fig. 4. Elevation vs. barometric pressure. ............................................................................. 11
Fig. 5. Vapor pressure as a function of fluid temperature. ..................................................... 12
Fig. 6. Pump suction pipe entrances. .................................................................................... 13
TABLES
Table 1 Detailed Worksheet for Pump Sizing..........................................................................6
Table 2 Friction Loss Coefficients for Pipe Fittings..................................................................7
Table 3 Recommended Flow Rates for Pipe ...........................................................................9
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 14 Dowell
1 Introduction
Centrifugal pumps are ideal for the low pressure, high flow rate requirements
of hydrocyclones and mixing systems. Unlike constant-volume piston pumps,
centrifugal pumps provide constant head. Consequently, the pump and
associated piping system must be correctly sized and designed to deliver the
required flow rate and desired head. This section briefly describes how
centrifugal pumps work and provides guidelines for the design, installation
and operation of centrifugal pumps and piping systems.
The centrifugal pump consists of a rotating impeller mounted inside a casing
(Fig. 1). Fluid enters the casing at the center (the eye of the impeller). As the
impeller spins, the fluid is accelerated to the circumference by the curved
impeller vanes. The accelerated fluid exits the impeller and enters the pump
casing where this kinetic energy is converted into pressure energy. Although
the pump can operate against a closed discharge valve, it is not
recommended. When there is no flow, all the pump power is dissipated into
the fluid. This will cause the pump and motor to quickly overheat.
A drive shaft connected to the impeller transmits power from the driver. A
stuffing box or seal is normally used to prevent leakage. The most common
driver for centrifugal pumps is the a.c., fixed-speed, induction motor.
Variable-speed motors are available, but rarely required for drilling rig
applications. The motor is joined to the pump shaft by a flexible coupling.
Drivers are usually three-phase motors. The rotation of the pump should be
checked when it is installed to make sure that it is rotating in the proper
direction.
Centrifugal pumps are usually constructed of a cast-steel housing with cast-
iron internal parts. Long-life packages offer hard-facing on the high-wear
areas of the pump. Wear-resistant tungsten carbide seals are also available.
Both are highly recommended.
The pump performance curves in Appendix E, Pump Performance Curves,
illustrate that the head generated by centrifugal pumps decreases very little
as the flow rate is increased. Conversely, the flow rate through
hydrocyclones is not affected much by head. Note, however, that
hydrocyclones are designed to operate at a certain amount of head. Less or
more may be detrimental to their performance. Therefore, the pump should
be sized to provide the correct head at the flow rate dictated by the
hydrocyclones.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 14
Fig. 1. Typical centrifugal pump.

Note: Kinetic energy is converted into pressure energy by the rotating impeller
vanes to provide consistent head.
3 Sizing Centrifugal Pumps

1. Determine the total flow rate needed. For a hydrocyclone manifold, the
flow rate is calculated by:
Q (gpm) = # of Cones x Flow Capacity/Cone
2. Determine the total head required. For most hydrocyclones, the
required inlet head is 75 ft. The total head required from the pump is:
Ht = 75 ft + Lift Height (ft) + friction Losses (ft)

where:
Lift Height is the height between the hydrocyclone manifold and the
mud surface (not the pump suction).
Friction Losses are the equivalent loss of head through lines, elbows
and tees. For most installations, this is generally between 2 and 5 ft. If
long line lengths and/or numerous elbows and tees are present, use a
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 14 Dowell
worksheet as shown in Table 1 to calculate the actual friction losses. An

example calculation is provided.
3. Using the pump performance curve for your pump (Appendix E, Pump
Performance Curves), find the intersection of the total flow rate required
(Step 1) and the total head required (Step 2). Choose the impeller size
which corresponds to this point. If the intersection point falls between
impeller sizes, choose the next larger impeller size.
4. Determine the required horsepower to drive the pump. Using the pump
performance diagram for your pump, find the intersection point for the
impeller size determined in Step 3 and the total flow rate (Step 1).
Read the corresponding horsepower required at this point. Interpolate
between the horsepower curves when necessary. This is the
horsepower required to pump water. For any mud weight, the required
brake horsepower (BHP) is calculated by:
mud (ppg) x BHPcurve

BHPmud =
8.34
3.1 Centrifugal Pump Sizing Example

Problem:
Determine the pump requirements, given the following desilter arrangement:
12-50 gpm cones
Required head - 75 ft
Maximum Mud Density - 10 ppg
Piping System as shown in Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Centrifugal pump sizing example.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 14
Solution:
1. Calculate Total Flow Rate
gpm
Q = 12 cones x 50 = 600 gpm
cone
2. Calculate the pump discharge head:

A. Using a worksheet such as Table 1, list the length and size of each
pipe, and the number and size of each fitting.
B. From Table 2, find the friction loss coefficients (C) for each item
listed.
C. Calculate the friction loss for each item.
D. Sum the friction losses to arrive at the total friction losses.
E. The total required head is the sum of the required hydrocyclone
head, the feet of lift and the friction losses.
3. From the Pump Performance Curves (Appendix E, Pump Performance
Curves), select a pump which will provide the required head and flow
rate.
For this example, a Harrisburg Series 250 6 x 5 x 14 pump operating at
1150 rpm with a 14 in. impeller will provide 95 ft of head at 600 gpm.
4. Determine the Horsepower required.
At 95 ft of head and 600 gpm, this pump will require 25 HP to pump
water. Correcting for 10 ppg mud:
mud (ppg) x BHPcurve

BHPmud =
8.34
=
(10) (25)
8.34
= 30 HP
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 14 Dowell
Table 1 Detailed Worksheet for Pump Sizing
Equipment Information
Required Flow Rate Q (gpm) = 600
Required Hydrocyclone Head HH (ft) = 75
Feet of Lift HL (ft) = 6
Tabulation of Friction Losses

N is the length of pipe (ft) or number of Fittings
N Pipe Length or Fitting Type Size 2

N C QR = Friction
(in.) Loss (ft)
1 10 6
1 Extended Entrance 6 (1) (0.664) (600)2 = .02

1 10 6
10 Suction Line 6 (10 ) (0.0664) (600)2 = .24

1 10 6
15 Discharge Line 5 (15 ) (0.1612) (600)2 = .87

1 10 6
2 Short Elbows 5 (2) (1.29) (600)2 = .93

1 10 6
Total Friction Loss, HF (ft) = 2.06

Total Required Head, HT (ft)
HH + HL + HT = HT
75 + 6 + 2 = 83 ft
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 14
2
Table 2 Friction Loss Coefficients for Pipe Fittings
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 14 Dowell
3.2 Estimating Impeller Size

In many instances, we are dealing with existing equipment and need to
determine the pump impeller size to estimate output capacity. The impeller
size of a centrifugal pump can be estimated by the following procedure:
1. The fluid density, pump rpm, a valve on the pump discharge and an
accurate pressure gauge between the pump and valve are required.
2. With the pump running, close the discharge valve and read the
pressure. Note: Limit time to less than 3 minutes.
3. Convert pressure read in Step 2 to head (feet).
4. Plot the head from Step 3 on the pump performance curve for 0 gpm.
Estimate the effective impeller size.
4 Pipe Sizing
As was evident in the centrifugal pump sizing example, the pipe diameter
and the design of the piping system will affect the size of the pump and the
horsepower requirements. Suction and discharge lines should be as short as
practical and sized to flow at velocities in the range of 5 to 10 ft/s. Low
velocities will allow solids to drop out in the lines. High velocities erode
elbows and cause distribution problems in the hydrocyclone manifold.
Inadequate suction line size can cause cavitation in the pump. Also, the
suction line should have no elbows, tees or reducers within 3 pipe diameters
of the pump suction flange.
Pipe velocity can be calculated using the following equation:
v( ft / s) =
Q
(2.48) d2
i
where:
Q = flow rate, in gal/min
di = inside diameter of the pipe, in inches
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 14
As a quick reference, the maximum and minimum recommended flow rates

for common pipe diameters are listed in Table 3.
Table 3 Recommended Flow Rates for Pipe
Nominal Pipe Recommended Flow Rates,

Diameter gpm
Schedule 40
Minimum Maximum
@ 4 ft/s @ 10 ft/s
3/4 7 16
1 12 26
1-1/4 20 47
1-1/2 26 63
2 45 105
2-1/2 60 150
3 95 230
3-1/2 130 310
4 160 400
5 260 625
6 360 900
8 650 1550
10 1000 2550
12 1400 3500
4.1 Suction Head Requirements (NPSH)

The suction line of the pump must be submerged to prevent vortexes in the
suction tank or air locking of the pump. Centrifugal pumps require a net
positive suction head (NPSH) to prevent cavitation and subsequent damage
to the pump. The NPSH required is a function of the pump design and the
flow rate. NPSH curves are included on the Centrifugal Pump Performance
figures to find the minimum NPSH needed. The amount of NPSH available
must then be determined.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
As a shortcut, the minimum submergence for 6 in. and 8 in. suction lines as
a function of flow rate is provided in Fig. 3. These curves may be used for
most applications where the suction line is short and straight.
Fig. 3. Minimum suction line submergence.

Note: Points below or right of the lines should be avoided.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
If the intersection of your submergence depth and flow rate fall near the line,
a detailed determination of suction head should be made using the following
equation:
Pvapor V2
NSPH ( ft ) =
Patm
+ dsubmergence - - s - Hfs
0.052 m 0.052 m 2g
where:
Patm = uncorrected barometric pressure, psi (Fig. 4)
dsubmergence = height from pump suction to fluid level, ft
Pvapor = vapor pressure of liquid, psi (Fig. 5)
pm = mud density, lb/gal
vs = velocity of suction line fluid, ft/s

2
g = gravitational constant = 32 ft/s
Hfs = friction head losses in the suction line, ft
Fig. 4. Elevation vs. barometric pressure.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 5. Vapor pressure as a function of fluid temperature.
4.1.1 NPSH Example

From the previous example, the required NPSH from the Pump Performance
Curves for our flowrate and impeller size is approximately 4.5 ft. Head loss in
the suction line were calculated in the worksheet example to be 0.26 ft.
If the rig elevation is 1000 ft and the mud circulating temperature is 100F.,
the available NPSH is determined as follows:
1. Patm = 14.2 psia (from Fig. 4)
2. dsubmergence = 6 ft
3. Pvapor = 0.95 psia (from Fig. 5)
Q 400
4. v = = = 4.38 ft / s
(2.48) di2 2.48 6.056 2
5. The available NPSH is:
NPSH ( ft) =
14.2
+6
0.95

( 4.38) 2 0.64 = 30.54 ft
0.052 10 0.05 10 2 32.4
Since only 4.5 ft is required, there is sufficient NPSH available.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
4.1.2 Suction Line Entrance

A properly-designed entrance will minimize friction loss, reduce air
entrainment and will reduce the amount of dead volume before suction is
lost. Various designs are compared in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Pump suction pipe entrances.

Note: The recommended designs reduce friction loss and air entrainment.
5 Installation and Operating Guidelines

1. Eliminate manifolding wherever possible.
2. Keep air out of the mud by degassing, having adequate suction line
submergence and installing baffles to break vortices.
3. Do not restrict flow on the suction side of centrifugal pumps.
4. Install a pressure or head gauge between the pump and the first valve.
5. Do not completely close off discharge for more than 3 minutes.
6. Suction and discharge lines should be as short and straight as practical.
7. Size lines to achieve velocities of 5 - 10 feet per second.
8. Install pumps to run with flooded suctions. Check NPSH.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 900
January 1998
Schlumberger
9. Check direction of rotation.

10. To reduce start up load on the electric motor, start the pump with the
discharge valve partially open, then open fully once the pump is up to
speed. This will also reduce shock loading on the downstream
equipment.
6 Summary
A centrifugal pump provides constant head, which is ideal for the low
pressure, high flow rate requirements of hydrocyclones and mixing
systems. Centrifugal pumps are constructed of a cast-steel housing
with cast-iron internal parts. Hardfacing on the high-wear areas and
tungsten carbide seals are recommended.
Centrifugal pumps must be sized to provide the required head. Charts
of head versus flow rate for the most common centrifugal pumps
supplied in Appendix E, Pump Performance Curves. A procedure to
correctly size centrifugal pumps is outlined in this section.
Suction and discharge piping should be short as possible to reduce
friction losses. The piping should be sized to flow at velocities in the
range of 5 to 10 ft/s to prevent solids settling or erosion problems.
Tables and charts are supplied to estimate the friction losses in pipe
and fittings.
The suction line of the pump must be submerged to prevent vortexes in
the suction and subsequent air locking of the pump. Guidelines are
presented for determination of minimum submergence depth. Designs
for suction line entrances are also illustrated.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Addition/Mixing Systems
Dowell Page 1 of 15
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2
2 Mixing Hoppers ...................................................................................................................2
3 Bulk Systems.......................................................................................................................4
4 Polymer Mixing ...................................................................................................................5
5 Active System Addition.......................................................................................................7
6 Premix System ....................................................................................................................8
7 Water Addition ....................................................................................................................9

7.1 Waste Pit Water ............................................................................................................9
8 Agitation ............................................................................................................................ 10
8.1 Agitator Design ............................................................................................................11
8.2 Agitator Sizing Example............................................................................................... 13
9 Summary............................................................................................................................ 15
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Jet/Venturi mixer. .........................................................................................................3
Fig. 2. Sidewinder mixer..........................................................................................................4
Fig. 3. Jet shear mixer. ...........................................................................................................6
Fig. 4. SECO (Echols) homogenizer ring. ...............................................................................7
Fig. 5. Horsepower requirements for canted-blade impellers................................................. 12
Fig. 6. Horsepower requirements for flat-blade impellers. ..................................................... 12
Fig. 7. Floor baffles. .............................................................................................................. 13
TABLES
Table 1 Recommended Turnover Rates................................................................................ 11
Table 2 Impeller Displacement Rates ................................................................................... 14
Table 3 Physical Specifications for Mechanical Mixers.......................................................... 14
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 15 Dowell
1 Introduction
All mud systems require a mixing system for the addition of viscosifiers,
weighting agents and chemicals to maintain desired mud properties. The
method and location chosen for addition can greatly impact material
consumption and the resultant properties of the active system. For example,
if bentonite is not completely hydrated before being pumped downhole, the
viscosity of the mud at the flowline will be much higher than at the suction
pit. Since viscosity negatively impacts solids control equipment performance,
inadequate control of viscosity can lead to higher dilution volumes. Polymers
present special mixing concerns to prevent the formation of fish-eyes; balls
of dry polymer encapsulated by a thick, partially-hydrated layer. Unless
properly wetted and sheared, a significant portion of the polymer will be lost
at the shakers and increase polymer consumption. It is therefore important to
ensure that additions are made correctly and in the right location.
2 Mixing Hoppers
The most common device used to add dry material to the mud is the venturi
mud mixing hopper (Fig. 1). Fluid is supplied to the mixer by a centrifugal
pump. The hopper device works by converting pressure head into velocity
through a jet nozzle. The downstream venturi increases the shearing action
and changes velocity head back into pressure head. Dry material is added
where the jet stream crosses the gap between the nozzle and the venturi.
Here, a low pressure area creates a slight vacuum. This vacuum, along with
gravity, helps draw the material into the fluid stream. The high velocity and
high shear rate of the fluid wets and disperses the dry material. To operate at
maximum efficiency, both the nozzle and venturi must be correctly sized for
the flowrate and head. This type of hopper is available from many
manufacturers. Homemade versions, usually without a properly-designed
venturi, are common.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 15
Fig. 1. Jet/Venturi mixer.

Note: This design reduces dust but entrains more air into the fluid.
Another common mixing device is the Sidewinder hopper (Fig. 2),
manufactured by Swaco. The operation is much like a hydrocyclone. Fluid is
pumped to a tangential inlet which allows pressure energy to be converted to
centrifugal force. The spiraling fluid picks up the dry mud where it undergoes
shear as it travels twice around the mixing chamber. As the fluid exits the
hopper through a tangential outlet, the velocity is converted back into
pressure head.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 15 Dowell
Fig. 2. Sidewinder mixer.

Note: This design does not entrain as much air as the venturi mixer, but
creates more dust.
Laboratory tests conducted at APR with bentonite showed little difference
between the two devices in both capacity and mixing capability as measured
by the resultant mud rheology. Since the Sidewinder does not draw air into
the hopper, dust can be a problem when adding some materials. Conversely,
the Mission Venturi hopper eliminated dust but entrained more air into the
mud. Sizing of the jet nozzle and venturi are critical in obtaining maximum
performance from venturi mixers; homemade versions should be avoided.
3 Bulk Systems
Bulk systems are economical for storing and distributing weighting material
in large quantities. There is less waste and trash than when using sacked
material. Bulk barite is stored in large vertical tanks, equipped with an air
delivery system. Barite is drawn from the tank by a venturi to a bulk hopper
which meters the material into the mud hopper. Bulk systems for other dry
materials are becoming increasingly popular in offshore applications to
eliminate handling and waste associated with sacked material. When
consumption is not high enough to justify bulk tanks, hopper systems using
2200 lb big bags may be an alternative.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 15
4 Polymer Mixing
Conventional mixing hoppers are not generally adequate for mixing and
wetting dry polymers into viscous muds. Problems frequently arise when
attempting to mix dry PHPA powder through conventional mixing hoppers
regardless of whether the polymer is added directly to the active system or to
a concentrated premix. Polymer fish-eyes, excessive viscosities, extensive
mixing times and shaker screen blinding are commonly reported. These
problems can be reduced by using a liquid form of the product, but liquid
formulations contain less active polymer and use an oil as the carrier fluid.
Work conducted at APR on the characterization of polymers such as PHPA
has led to the following conclusions regarding the mixing and shearing of
polymers:
1. PHPA polymers marketed for use in drilling fluids may contain varying
amounts of high molecular weight fractions. Viscosity is a function of
molecular weight. Those products with a higher fraction of high
molecular weight polymer will be harder to dissolve and generate higher
viscosities.
2. Shear-degradation reduces the molecular weight of many polymers,
especially PHPA. Higher shear rates produce lower molecular weights.
Below a certain molecular weight, the inhibitive characteristics of PHPA
are effectively lost.
A mixing and shearing system consisting of a perforated-wafer type of jet
shear mixer coupled with a SECO Homogenizer was found to provide
improved mixing and allow preparation of PHPA concentrations to 6 lb/bbl in
a 50,000 mg/L chloride brine. The Flo Trend Jet Shear Mixer, pictured in
Fig. 3, directs fluid into a mixing chamber through opposing nozzle disks to
impart turbulence and increase contact area. Polymer is added into the
chamber through a conventional hopper. The mixture is then pulled into a
venturi eductor, where further shearing and mixing occurs.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 15 Dowell
Fig. 3. Jet shear mixer.

Note: Designs such as this can improve polymer mixing.
The SECO (Echols) homogenizer consists of a perforated ring that fits
around the perimeter of the impeller blades in a centrifugal pump (Fig. 4).
Test conducted at APR indicate that the SECO homogenizer produces
sufficient shear to degrade the higher molecular weight fractions that make
the product hard to dissolve, but will not shear-degrade below the molecular
weight required for inhibition. The SECO is recommended for premixing
polymer to reduce viscosity and elimination fish-eyes. Do not use this device
for shearing weighted muds; the high solids content will quickly erode the
perforations in the homogenizer ring. Also, barite may be degraded by the
homogenizer.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 15
Fig. 4. SECO (Echols) homogenizer ring.

Note: Recommended for shearing polymers.
The following guidelines should be followed for building concentrated premix
volumes:
1. When possible, use brine instead of fresh water. Polymers will impart
less viscosity in brine than in fresh water.
2. Mix supplemental material into the brine prior to adding the polymer.
3. After mixing the supplemental material, the total amount of polymer
should be mixed through the jet shear mixer into the brine in a single
pass.
4. After mixing the PHPA, the premix should be sheared through the
homogenizer until stable rheological values are achieved.
5 Active System Addition

Dry products such as bentonite and barite should not be added, even
through a hopper, at the suction compartment nor in the solids removal
section. Addition should be made at least one compartment upstream of the
suction compartment to allow time for the material to wet and disperse into
the active system. Both these compartments must be well-agitated either by
mechanical stirrers or mud guns. Mud materials added at the suction can
cause air entrainment at the rig pumps and increase the incidence of drill
pipe corrosion.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 15 Dowell
6 Premix System
A premix system is a separate set of tanks with agitators and a hopper for
batch mixing mud to desired specifications before addition to the active
system. Premix systems are highly recommended for the advantages they
provide:
1. Improved hydration and less air entrainment with dry solids addition.
After mixing dry material in the premix tank, the mud can be agitated
until the dry material is fully wetted. This also provides time for
entrained air to break out of the mud.
2. Better control over active system mud properties.
The properties of the premixed mud can be tailored to meet desired
properties before transferral to the active system. Once properties in the
premix have stabilized, the mud can be transferred over a complete
circulation to ensure even mud properties in the active circulating
system.
3. Less material consumption.
With longer hydration and shearing time, premix tanks offer the benefit
of maximizing the yield from bentonite and polymers before addition to
the active system. Premix tanks are especially effective for polymer
muds and almost essential for oil-based muds. Specialized shearing
and mixing equipment (see Polymer Mixing) may be used on the premix
tank to properly wet polymers at high concentrations and eliminate fish-
eyes, thus reducing polymer consumption.
4. Easier to monitor dilution rates.
The volumes added to the active system are usually much easier to
monitor when transferring liquids of known quantity from a premix tank.
The overall solids removal efficiency can be determined much more
readily when accurate measurements can be made of dilution volumes
and water additions.
5. Less manpower requirements.
Since the premix is prepared in a batch process, material may be added
much more quickly than when making additions over a complete
circulation in the active system. Once the material has been added, the
premix may be left to agitate and hydrate the slurry. After the desired
properties have been achieved, the premix may be metered slowly into
the active system. Both the hydration and transferral operations require
minimum attention, thus freeing up manpower for other duties.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 15
7 Water Addition
Dilution water is necessary in all water-based mud systems to maintain
circulating volume and desired mud properties. Since the amount of dilution
is directly linked to solids removal efficiency, the use of a water meter to
monitor dilution volumes is strongly recommended. Water will be necessary
on the rig floor, in the motor area, and may be required to help move
discarded solids to the waste pit. Water must be supplied to the addition
section and solids removal sections of the mud pits for both volume
maintenance and cleaning. Since water must be supplied to almost every
area on the rig, manifolding is obviously required. Ensure that the water
meter is located to account for all water streams that will end up in the active
system. Water should be recycled wherever possible.
Remember that regardless of its purpose, any water used on and around the
rig will contribute to the total liquid waste volume. This is especially important
on locations where water supply or disposal costs are high. It is imperative
that every water line be equipped with a valve and that no leaks are
tolerated. Use low volume nozzles on the wash water lines. When possible,
wash water should be collected and segregated from the cuttings disposal pit
for recycling or for makeup water in the active system.
Water should be added at the flowline when necessary to reduce the
viscosity of the mud and allow finer screens to be used on the shakers. Any
potential degradation in the cuttings size due to viscosity reduction is offset
by the increased removal rate. Lower viscosity mud will also improve
downstream degasser and hydrocyclone performance.
Because centrifuge performance is sensitive to the viscosity of the feed mud,
water addition at the centrifuge is usually necessary to achieve optimum
performance. Since the centrifuge feed rate is usually much lower than other
devices, the beneficial effect of water addition is proportionately greater at
the centrifuge. Note, however, that dilution water added to the feed of the
barite-recovery centrifuge is discharged with the centrate and the does not
contribute to dilution of the active system unless two-stage centrifuging is
employed.
7.1 Waste Pit Water

In many instances, recycling water from the waste pit makes both economic
and environmental sense. The following guidelines can significantly reduce
overall rig water consumption:
1. Recycle waste pit water to the shaker or centrifuge slides to help flow
discarded solids back to the waste pit.
2. Use clean waste pit water as makeup water for the mud. Design the
waste pit to access this fluid. This water must be checked for chemical
compatibility before addition to the active system.
3. Use the waste pit water as dilution water for the barite-recovery
centrifuge, provided the volume of colloidal solids in the water is low.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
4. Segregate wash water and runoff water from the solid waste pit. This is
especially important when using salt muds or oil-based muds to control
waste pit remediation costs.
8 Agitation
Agitation is necessary to keep weight material suspended and ensure a
homogeneous drilling fluid. Agitation also prevents solids buildup in the mud
tanks. All removal compartments except the sand trap should be well-stirred.
Mechanical (paddle type) stirrers are efficient mixers and are recommended,
especially in the solids removal section. Mud guns impart shear which may
degrade the drilled solids. Mechanical agitation ensures that the solids
control equipment cannot be bypassed. Mud guns are acceptable in the
Addition-Suction compartments downstream of the solids control equipment.
In the addition section, mud guns may help shear and blend newly-added
mud materials.
Mechanical stirrers must be correctly sized. They must be large enough to
adequately mix the fluid and not so large to cause aeration of the mud. The
following method for sizing agitators was developed by the Brandt Company.
This agitator sizing method is based on the desired turnover rate (TOR). The
TOR is the time required, in seconds, for all of the fluid in the tank to move
past the agitator blades:
TOR = Vt / D x 60
where:
Vt = Tank volume in gallons (L x W x H, in feet x 7.481)

D = Impeller displacement in gal/min (from Table 2)
The mud area to agitate should be divided into squares. For example, a 10 ft
x 30 ft tank should be divided into 3 equal parts, each 10 ft x 10 ft. The TOR
would be based on the volume of each 10 ft x 10 ft area.
For proper agitation, the TOR should be between 35 and 90. A TOR less
than 35 may result in vortices; a TOR over 90 will lead to solids settling.
Table 1 gives the recommended TORs for various mud compartment uses.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 Recommended Turnover Rates
Tank Type
Solids
Removal Suction Reserve Pill
Recommended TOR 50-75 65-85 50-80 40-65
8.1 Agitator Design

1. Calculate volume, Vt, (gal).
3
Vt = L x W x H, in feet x 7.481 gal/ft .
2. From Table 1, determine the required TOR, (sec).
3. Calculate the required impeller displacement, D, (gpm).
D = Vt x 60/TOR
4. Choose an impeller from Table 2 with impeller displacement closest to
the value calculated in Step 3. For tank depths > 5 ft, use a canted-
blade (angled blade) impeller. Flat-blade (vertical blade) impellers may
be used in shallower tanks.
5. Locate the impeller diameter corresponding to the chosen impeller
displacement on Table 2. Using Fig. 5 (Canted-Blade) or Fig. 6 (Flat-
Blade), enter the chart at the impeller diameter and follow the horizontal
line until it intersects the maximum anticipated mud weight curve. Read
the recommended horsepower.
6. Determine the recommended agitator shaft length from Table 3.
7. Canted-blade impellers should be located so that the distance between
the tank bottom and the lower edge of the impeller blades is equal to
0.75 times the impeller blade diameter. Flat-blade impellers should be
placed 6 in. above the bottom of the tank, or 2 in. above the bottom
shaft stabilizer.
8. Baffles, as shown in Fig. 7 are highly recommended for flat-bottomed
tanks to help direct the flow towards the corners and eliminate dead
areas in the tank. A baffle is a steel plate 12 in. long, mounted on the
tank floor and extending 6 in. above the top of the agitator blades. The
baffles should be installed 6 in. from the agitator blade tips along a line
from the agitator shaft to each corner of the compartment.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 5. Horsepower requirements for canted-blade impellers.

(Courtesy of Brandt)
Fig. 6. Horsepower requirements for flat-blade impellers.

(Courtesy of Brandt)
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 7. Floor baffles.

Note: These are recommended to eliminate dead areas in flat-bottomed tanks.
8.2 Agitator Sizing Example

Given: Suction Tank, 9 ft L x 7 ft W x 9 ft H
18 ppg mud
1. Vt = (9 x 7 x 9) x 7.481 = 4242 gal
2. Recommended TOR, from Table 1: 75 sec
3. Impeller Displacement Rate:
D = (60) (4242)/75 = 3394 gpm
4. Since tank depth > 5 ft, a canted-blade impeller is selected.
From Table 2, nearest D = 3764 gpm, Impeller Diameter = 32 in.
5. From Fig. 6, for 32 in. diameter and 18 ppg mud, required agitator
horsepower = 5 HP (MA5).
6. From Table 3, for model MA5 agitator and 9 ft tank depth, shaft length
reduction = 10 in.
Total Shaft Length = 9 ft x 12 in./ft - 10 in. = 98 in.
7. Impeller location above tank bottom = 0.75 x 32 = 24 in.
8. Total Agitator Weight = 98/12 x 15.1 lbs/ft + 580 lbs + 50 lbs = 753 lbs.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 2 Impeller Displacement Rates
Impeller Displacement Impeller Displacement Rate

Diameter Weights Rate* GPM at 57.5 (60 Hz) GPM at 48 rpm (50Hz)
(in.) (lbs)
Canted-Blade Flat-Blade Canted-Blade Flat-Blade
12 11 213 246 177 205
16 15 484 560 404 467
20 19 909 1051 760 877
24 21 1645 1941 1373 1620
28 38 2468 2839 2060 2370
32 50 3764 4365 3142 3644
36 61 5402 6273 4510 5237
40 74 7284 8411 6081 7023
44 101 9928 11300 8288 9435
48 118 12512 14401 10445 12024
52 126 16100 18630 13440 15552
3 3
* D = AB x V x 7.481 gal/ft , where AB = projected blade area, ft , V = impeller
velocity, ft/min Canted-blade area based on 60 angle
Brandt data
Table 3 Physical Specifications for Mechanical Mixers
Shaft Minimum Weight Shaft Length

Model HP Dia. Impeller Reduction (in.)**
(in.) Dia. (in.) Shaft Agitator Free Stablized
(lb/ft) (lbs)
MA1* 1.0 1-1/2 12 6.0 200 9 9
MA2* 2.0 1-1/2 20 6.0 310 9 9
MA3* 3.0 1-3/4 24 8.2 406 10 10
MA5 5.0 2-3/8 28 15.1 580 11-1/2 10
MA7.5 7.5 2-3/8 32 15.1 1200 22-1/2 12
MA10 10.0 3 32 24.0 1224 22-1/2 12
MA15 15.0 3 36 24.0 1830 26-5/8 13-1/8
MA20 20.0 3-1/4 40 28.1 1898 27 13-1/2
MA25 25.0 3-1/2 40 32.7 3130 33 13-1/2
* Bottom shaft stabilizer required at 6 ft, all others require bottom stabilizer at 8 ft.
** Shaft Length = Distance from tank bottom to top of agitator support beams - shaft
length reduction.
Brandt data
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1000
January 1998
Schlumberger
9 Summary
Addition/mixing systems must be correctly designed to minimize
material consumption and ensure complete and even mixing.
The two most common mixing hoppers are the venturi type and the
Sidewinder hopper. Laboratory tests conducted with bentonite showed
little difference between the two devices in both capacity and mixing
capability. The Sidewinder does not entrain air like the venturi hopper,
but dust can be a problem when adding some materials.
Bulk systems are economical for storing and distributing material
required in large quantities. There is less waste and trash compared to
sacked material. Bulk systems are also becoming popular for the
accurate metering of dry material and chemicals in low dosages.
Mixing polymers such as PHPA present additional problems such as
polymer fish-eyes, extensive mixing times, and shaker screen blinding.
Polymers with a higher fraction of high molecular weight polymer will be
harder to dissolve and generate higher viscosities. Higher shear rates
produce lower molecular weights, but below a certain molecular weight,
the inhibitive characteristics of PHPA are lost.
A mixing and shearing system consisting of a perforated-wafer type of
jet shear mixer, coupled with a SECO Homogenizer, was found to
provide improved polymer mixing. Guidelines for building concentrated
premix volumes are provided.
Premix systems are highly recommended for the numerous advantages
they provide:
A. Improved hydration
B. Better control over active system mud properties
C. Less material consumption
D. Easier to monitor dilution rates
E. Less manpower requirements
All dilution water streams should be metered to monitor solids removal
efficiency. Water should be added at the flowline to reduce viscosity
and improve shaker performance. Any water used on the rig will
contribute to the total liquid waste volume. No leaks should be tolerated.
Use low volume nozzles on the wash water lines. Recycle water where
possible.
Mechanical (paddle type) agitators are recommended in the solids
removal section of the active system. Mud guns are acceptable in the
addition/suction compartments only. A procedure is provided to
correctly size mechanical stirrers.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Tank Design and Equipment
Dowell Arrangements Page 1 of 18

Arrangements
1 Tank Design.........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Compartment Equalization.............................................................................................2
1.2 Sand Trap......................................................................................................................3
1.3 Slug Tank ......................................................................................................................3
1.4 Equipment Arrangement................................................................................................4
1.5 General Guidelines for Surface System Arrangements..................................................5
2 Equipment Arrangements...................................................................................................6
2.1 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Active System...............................................6
2.2 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Hydrocyclone Underflow ...............................8
2.3 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Mud Cleaner Underflow .............................. 10
2.4 Weighted Water-Based Mud - Single-Stage Centrifuging (Barite Recovery) ................ 12
2.5 Weighted Mud - Two-Stage Centrifuging ..................................................................... 14
2.6 Complete System Layout For Both Weighted and Unweighted Mud ............................ 16
3 Summary............................................................................................................................ 18
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing active system. ..............................................7
Fig. 2. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing hydrocyclone underflow................................9
Fig. 3. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing mud cleaner underflow. .............................. 11
Fig. 4. Weighted water-based mud - single-stage centrifuging (Barite recovery) ................... 13
Fig. 5. Weighted mud - two stage centrifuging. ..................................................................... 15
Fig. 6. Generic - complete system. ....................................................................................... 17
1 Tank Design
The surface pits that comprise the active circulating system should be
designed to contain enough usable mud to maintain mud properties and to
fill the hole during a wet trip at the rigs maximum rated depth. Usable mud is
defined as the mud volume which can be pumped before suction is lost. For
example, a typical 10,000 ft well will normally require a minimum active
system tank volume of 500 bbls.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 18 Arrangements Dowell
The active surface system can be divided into two sections: Solids Removal
and Addition-Suction. All solids removal equipment and degassing occurs in
the Solids Removal section. The Addition-Suction section is used to add
fresh mud to the circulating system and provide sufficient residence time for
proper mixing to occur before being pumped downhole. A slug tank is usually
available to pump small pills such as LCM or barite slugs for tripping.
Each section must be further divided into enough compartments to efficiently
carry out its designed function. The number of compartments needed will
depend upon the amount and type of solids removal equipment, system size
and circulation rate. Each compartment must have enough surface area to
allow entrained air to break out of the mud. A rule of thumb for the minimum
surface area is calculated by:
Area (sq ft) = Maximum Circulating Rate (GPM)/40
To maximize solids suspension and usable volume, the best tank shape is
round with a conical bottom. Next best is a square or rectangular shape with
a V-bottom. The least-preferred shape is the square or rectangular box with
a flat bottom. The ideal tank depth is equal to the width or diameter of the
tank. This design provides sufficient pump suction head and is best for
complete stirring.
1.1 Compartment Equalization

Equalization height between compartments will depend upon the duty of the
compartment. As a rule, an adjustable equalizer is needed only between the
Solids Removal section and the Addition-Suction section. An adjustable
swing-arm equalizer is recommended. Normally, the equalizer will take mud
from the bottom of the last solids removal compartment and discharge mud
near the top of the first compartment in the Addition-Suction section (high
equalization). This keeps the fluid level high in the Solids Removal section to
maintain sufficient suction head for the centrifugal pumps, prevents vortexing
by the stirrers and provides sufficient mixing volume in barite-recovery
operations. In emergencies, the swing-arm can be lowered to provide access
to the full surface volume.
High equalization between the Solids Removal and Addition-Suction sections
also increases the ability to detect volume changes due to influx or losses to
formation. Because the volume of the Solids Removal Section remains
constant, any volume change is apparent as a liquid level change in the
Addition-Suction section only. This increases the sensitivity to volume
fluctuations since the change in fluid level will be more pronounced per unit
volume.
The minimum equivalent diameter of the equalizer for adequate flow
between compartments can be estimated by the following calculation:
1/2
Diameter, in. = (Qmax, gpm/15)
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Recommended equalization between specific compartments is summarized

below:
Location Equalization
Sand Trap Exit High
Degasser High
Desander Low
Desilter Low
Centrifuge Low
Solids Removal - Addition High (Adjustable)
Addition-Blend Low
Blend-Suction Low
1.2 Sand Trap

A sand trap is the settling compartment located downstream of the shale
shakers. It should be the ONLY settling compartment and should not be
used in closed-loop systems. Its main function is to remove large solids
that might plug the downstream hydrocyclones. With the fine-screen
capabilities of todays shale shakers, the sand trap mainly serves as a
backup should the shakers be bypassed or operated with torn screens. The
sand trap should be the first compartment the mud enters after passing
through the shaker screens. Since it is a settling tank, it should not be stirred
and the mud should exit the sand trap over a high weir.
The sand trap floor should have a 45 slope to its outlet. A 20 to 30 bbl
volume is sufficient. A quick opening solids dump valve that can be closed
against the mud flow is recommended to reduce mud losses. The sand trap
should be dumped only when nearly filled with solids, since whole mud is lost
when the sand trap is dumped.
1.3 Slug Tank

A slug tank is a small compartment (10-50 bbls) isolated from the rest of the
active system in the Addition/Suction section. Slug tanks provide the ability
to mix small volumes of specialized fluids and materials. The mud pump
suction is manifolded to provide access to the slug tank. The slug tank is
routinely used to mix small slugs of material to be pumped directly downhole,
such as high density pills for placement in the drill pipe prior to tripping. It is
also commonly used for preparation of LCM pills, spotting fluid for differential
sticking, and viscous sweeps. The mixing hopper must be manifolded to
permit isolation of the slug tank for mixing these pills.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
1.4 Equipment Arrangement

The solids removal equipment should be arranged to sequentially remove
finer solids as the mud moves from the flowline to the suction pit. The
purpose of this arrangement is to reduce the solids loading on the next piece
of equipment. Each device must take mud from an upstream compartment
and discharge into the next compartment downstream. This applies to both
unweighted and weighted mud equipment arrangements. The amount and
type of equipment required will depend upon the drilling conditions and
economics specific to each well. Unless a detailed economic analysis is
made, it is usually better to overestimate solids removal equipment
requirements. Underequipping the rigs will usually result in more dire
consequences, such as low penetration rates, differential sticking, high
material consumption and excessive dilution and disposal volumes.
Proper routing of fluids through the solids removal system is essential to
achieve maximum solids removal efficiency. Mistakes in fluid routing can
drastically reduce separation performance by causing a large percentage of
the circulation rate to be bypassed. These errors are most commonly
associated with mud cleaners and hydrocyclones. In addition to suction and
discharge routing, overflow discharges to mud ditches and mud gun use are
other common sources of routing errors.
Ideally, each piece of solids control equipment should be fed by a single-
purpose pump with no routing option. Mud cleaners, desilters and desanders
should not, under any condition, require multiple suction locations. In
practice, complex routing with multiple suction options is the rule rather than
the exception. When this is the case, the internal configuration of the mud
tanks during rig up must be inspected to trace all lines. Do not rely on as
built schematics; they are usually incorrect. Color-coding of the correct
routing schematic to correspond with color-coded valves on the manifolds
can greatly assist rig crew members in making correct routing decisions.
Hard-plumbed routing errors should be corrected as soon as possible.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
1.5 General Guidelines for Surface System Arrangements

The following guidelines are common to all equipment arrangements.
1. All removal compartments except the sand trap should be well-agitated
to ensure even solids loading.
2. Mechanical stirrers are recommended. Check that they are properly-
sized and installed correctly.
3. Mud guns are not recommended for the Solids Removal section.
4. When installed, the degasser should be located immediately
downstream of the shale shaker and upstream of any equipment fed
from a centrifugal pump.
5. Use a high equalizer between degasser suction and discharge.
6. All solids removal equipment should discharge immediately
downstream of their suction compartments.
7. All equipment except the centrifuge should process at least 100% of the
circulation rate. Backflow should be observed in these compartments.
8. Low equalization between suction and discharge for all solids removal
equipment.
9. Different solids control devices must not share suction compartments or
share discharge compartments unless they are making the same cut.
For example, two desilters may share the same fluid routing, but a
desander and desilter should not.
10. Adjustable equalizer between Solids Removal section and Addition-
Suction section. This equalizer should normally be high except when
access to the additional volume in the solids removal section is desired.
11. No solids removal equipment should discharge into the suction pit.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2 Equipment Arrangements
2.1 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Active System

This arrangement may be used with unweighted muds having low
formulation costs, where liquid disposal costs are negligible. Some whole
mud is discarded with the hydrocyclone underflows. Typically used with
environmentally benign water-based muds. A mud cleaner should be used
only if there are insufficient desilter cones to process the entire circulation
rate; it should be run in parallel with the desilter. Blank off the screen and
discharge underflow. Use of a centrifuge will depend on the economics of the
specific application.
Equipment Median Comments

Separation
Shale Shakers < 147 mm Capable of running 100 mesh (d50=147 microns)
at maximum circulation rate.
Degasser na If required.
Desander 70 mm Processing Rate = 110% of maximum circulating
rate.
Discard Underflow.
Mud Cleaner 25 mm Use as a desilter if required to achieve 110% of
circulation rate.
Run in parallel with other desilter manifolds.
Desilter 25 mm Total Processing Rate (including mud cleaner
cones) = 110% of maximum circulating rate.
Discard Underflow.
Centrifuge 4 mm Process at least 25% of maximum circulating
rate. High G, high capacity machine.
Discard Cake (Solids).
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 1. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing active system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2.2 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Hydrocyclone

Underflow
Used to reduce liquid discharged with cuttings while maintaining high
separation efficiency. This arrangement is preferred when the liquid phase is
expensive or when free liquid discharge must be limited. Hydrocyclones
concentrate solids to centrifuge. Use caution when processing abrasive
desander underflow; it may cause premature centrifuge wear. Centrifuge
should process in excess of hydrocyclone underflow rate, with makeup mud
from the active system. Refer to the centrifuge chapter for details of feed
compartment design and routing.

Separation
Shale Shakers < 147 mm Capable of running 100 mesh (d50=147 microns)
at maximum circulation rate.
Desander 70 mm Processing Rate = 110% of maximum circulating
rate.
Underflow to Centrifuge.
Desilter 25 mm Processing Rate = 110% of maximum circulating
rate.
Underflow to Centrifuge.
Centrifuge 4 mm Processing Rate > Hydrocyclone underflow rate.
High G, high capacity machine.
Feed from hydrocyclone underflows, plus active
system.
Cake (wet solids) are discarded.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 2. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing hydrocyclone underflow.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2.3 Unweighted Mud - Centrifuge Processing Mud Cleaner Underflow

Recommended when large sections of sand are expected and free liquid
must be recovered from desander underflow. The mudcleaner screen
receives desander underflow. Sand is removed by the mud cleaner screen.
Screen unders are processed by the centrifuge. Best alternative is to provide
enough shale shakers to screen down to desander separation efficiency
(74 microns) or use full size shaker to process cone unders.

Separation
Shale Shakers 147 mm Capable of running 100 mesh (d50=147
microns) at maximum circulation rate.
Desander 70 mm Processing Rate = 110% of maximum
circulating rate.
Underflow to mud cleaner screen.
Mud Cleaner 25 mm Total processing rate should exceed maximum
circulating rate.
Both desander and mud cleaner cone
underflows screened before processing by
centrifuge.
Centrifuge 4 mm Processing Rate > Hydrocyclone underflow
rate.
High G, high capacity machine.
Feed from hydrocyclone underflows, plus active
system.
Discard Cake (wet solids) are discarded.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 3. Unweighted mud - centrifuge processing mud cleaner underflow.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2.4 Weighted Water-Based Mud - Single-Stage Centrifuging (Barite

Recovery)
This is the standard equipment arrangement for weighted water-based muds
when fluid costs are low and liquid discharge is permitted. The mud cleaner
may be used when the shakers cannot screen down to 200 mesh, but
monitor barite losses. The centrifuge removes liquid and colloidal solids
while recovering barite. Low centrifuge feed rates at high g-force and
continuous processing are recommended to maximize barite recovery.

Separation
Shale Shakers > 74 mm Capable of screening to 200 mesh at
maximum circulation rate.
Monitor solids discharge for barite content.
Mud Cleaner 74-100 mm Run only if insufficient shaker capacity.
150 mesh screens recommended.
Monitor screen discharge for barite content.
Centrifuge 4 mm Process 10-15% of circulation rate.
Return solids to well-agitated compartment,
upstream of addition section.
Dilute feed.
Discard centrate.
Note: Refer to the Dewatering chapter for addition of chemically-enhanced

dewatering unit to this system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 4. Weighted water-based mud - single-stage centrifuging (Barite recovery)
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2.5 Weighted Mud - Two-Stage Centrifuging

This arrangement is used when liquid discharge must be minimized. The first
centrifuge operates as a barite recovery unit. The second centrifuge,
operating at maximum g-force, processes the centrate (overflow) from the
barite recovery centrifuge. The solids are discharged and the centrate is
returned to the active system. Colloidal solids are not removed.

Separation
Shale Shakers > 74 mm Screen with finest mesh possible, down to 200
mesh (d50=74 microns) at maximum
circulation rate.
Mud Cleaner 74-100 mm Run only if insufficient shaker capacity.
150 mesh screens recommended.
Centrifuge #1 Barite recovery mode, high capacity machine.
Return barite to well-agitated compartment
upstream of addition section.
Dilute feed.
Run at highest G-force conditions will allow.
Centrate to centrifuge #2.
Centrifuge #2 4 mm Run at maximum rpm, high-G machine.
Discard solids.
Return centrate to active system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 5. Weighted mud - two stage centrifuging.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
2.6 Complete System Layout For Both Weighted and Unweighted

Mud
In many cases, multiple suction and discharge locations cannot be avoided.
For example, centrifuges that will process both unweighted and weighted
systems must be located to permit routing both the cake and centrate
streams to either the active system or to discharge. The following
schematics show the fluid routing requirements for a solids removal system
which must process either unweighted or weighted mud.
Note: The centrifuge to be used for barite recovery must be positioned so
the solids may be routed either to discharge (unweighted) or returned
to the active system (weighted mud). Use a high capacity machine
for treating out coarse desilter underflows or recovering barite. The
second unit should be a high-G machine capable of removing fine
solids. If only one machine is used, it should be a high-G unit.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
Fig. 6. Generic - complete system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1100
January 1998
Schlumberger
3 Summary
The mud pits must contain enough usable mud to maintain mud
properties and to fill the hole during a wet trip at maximum depth.
The active circulating system is divided into two sections: Solids
Removal and Addition-Suction. The purpose of each is self-explanatory.
Each section is further divided into enough compartments to carry out
its designed function. Additional tankage includes the slug tank for
mixing and pumping small pills, the trip tank for accurately metering
pipe displacement during trips, and the premix tank discussed in
Chapter 10, Addition/Mixing Systems.
The best compartment shape is round with a conical bottom, followed
by square with a V-bottom. Each must have enough surface area to
allow entrained air to break out.
Equalization height between compartments will depend upon the duty of
the compartment. Refer to the discussion in this chapter for specific
recommendations.
The sand trap, located under the shale shakers, is the only settling
compartment and should not be used in closed loop systems.
Equipment arrangements for a variety of unweighted and weighted
muds are illustrated in this chapter. Also included is a complete system
arrangement when both unweighted and weighted muds must be
processed during the course of the well.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Dowell Page 1 of 13
Dewatering Systems
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Economic Overview ............................................................................................................2
3 Monitoring Dewatering Costs and Efficiency....................................................................7
4 Equipment Selection......................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Dewatering Devices ..................................................................................................... 10
5 Waste Management .......................................................................................................... 11
6 Summary............................................................................................................................ 13
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Effect of solids on flocculent concentration. .................................................................5
Fig. 2. Evaluation of dewatering centrate. ...............................................................................6
Fig. 3. Material returned in centrate......................................................................................... 7
Fig. 4. Form for calculating dewatering efficiency....................................................................8
Fig. 5. Dewatering costs, by interval........................................................................................9
Fig. 6. Dewatering system equipment. ................................................................................... 10
1 Introduction
The use of on-line closed loop circulating systems to achieve drilling waste
minimization is gaining popularity both in the domestic U.S. market and in
other areas around the world. The recent introduction of dewatering devices
to further close the loop of drilling fluid circulating systems and to dewater
reserve pits is derived from technology used in the industrial and sanitary
waste treatment industries.
The optimization of solids control equipment has been of primary concern to
the drilling industry for many years. However, the emphasis in the past has
been to utilize the solids control equipment to help optimize mud properties
in order to control such variables as solids content, solids distribution,
rheology, and fluid loss control. These properties affect important drilling
parameters such as rate of penetration, stuck pipe, borehole stability,
formation damage, and drilling costs. Because these objectives did not
include entirely closing the circulating loop, significant volumes of liquid
drilling wastes were generated. The recent advent of more stringent
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Page 2 of 13 Dowell
environmental regulations and the better understanding of the economics of

running a 100% efficient closed loop system has resulted in the introduction
of dewatering technology to the drilling industry.
The term closed loop has been use quite freely in the drilling industry to
describe various solids control layouts and drilling practices. In the context of
this discussion, a closed loop system is one where all excess mud from
either dilution or effluent from conventional solids control equipment is further
processed using chemically-enhanced separation technology. This results in
all solids being removed from the waste drilling mud while the liquid portion
is recycled back to the active system. Ideally, all other liquid wastes
generated on location are processed and also recycled. Using this
technology often negates the need for a reserve pit.
There are numerous applications for a closed loop dewatering system.
Reasons may include restrictive environmental regulations, small locations
where reserve pit space is limited, or locations where water is in short
supply. Dewatering units can also be used in applications that do not require
a fully closed loop system. The application where the primary desire is to
recycle valuable chemicals or centrate has just recently been explored. This
application may or may not require the fully closed loop system.
The options are limited for an operator faced with a zero discharge or
reduced discharge scenario. A simple solution still widely used today is to
haul off all cuttings and waste fluids to an offsite disposal facility. This can be
expensive and there could be costs involving future liability if the disposal
site is later declared a hazardous area. In certain areas the cuttings and
waste fluids can be spread on nearby land. This can be a cheaper option but
availability, meeting environmental specifications, and long-term liability can
be a problem. Pumping waste fluid back down into the formation is
sometimes used, but possible contamination of groundwater worries some
regulators. Whatever method is used to dispose of drilling wastes, using
good waste management techniques will usually result in substantial cost
reductions. Savings of up to 50% have been realized on disposal and
reclamation costs as well as reduced drilling days by operators using sound
waste management practices.
The use of chemically enhanced dewatering devices is proving to be a
reliable method of reducing wastes generated at the rig site. Several
dewatering devices have been investigated as possible candidates for oilfield
application, including a belt press, horizontal belt/vacuum filter, a vertical
screwpress, and decanting bowl centrifuges. Further detailed studies of
using chemically enhanced dewatering to increase the solids control
efficiency in drilling applications have been documented.
2 Economic Overview
Dewatering flocculation units are practical devices for the control of solids
and liquids. They are not, however, cost effective in all situations. Since they
are often used as an alternative to disposing of liquid mud, operating the unit
in this mode would have to be less expensive than the disposal costs. If an
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Dowell Page 3 of 13
inexpensive mud is to be discarded as waste on location (with no associated

treatment costs), it is unlikely the dewatering unit would be beneficial.
However, if the liquid phase is expensive, or the mud has to be disposed of
at a commercial waste disposal site, then the use of the dewatering
equipment should be investigated further to prove its feasibility.
Some of the costs that should be considered when determining whether or
not the dewatering unit will be cost effective are as follows:
Disposal Costs: The proper use of the dewatering unit can negate the
necessity to dispose of liquid mud until the well is completed. Solids will
have to be disposed of in a manner according to local or national
government regulations. If the estimated disposal costs without a
dewatering unit are higher than the costs associated with the
dewatering unit, then the dewatering unit is definitely cost effective.
Centrate Cost: If the centrate (filtrate) of the liquid water base mud is
expensive to formulate (i.e., saturated brine, glycol, etc.), then
recovering the liquid could be extremely beneficial and cost effective.
Solids Control Equipment: The efficiency of the overall solids removal
equipment will increase considerably with the use of a dewatering
system. The dewatering unit will remove almost all of the insoluble
solids and very little of the dissolved solids. Other than makeup volume,
usually no additional dilution (that would otherwise be needed without
the use of the dewatering system), will be required unless lost
circulation occurs.
Location Costs: The use of the dewatering unit will allow smaller
reserve pits to be built, thereby decreasing overall location costs. Since
no liquid will be discarded, reserve pits can be constructed to
accommodate only solid material. Often reserve pits can be eliminated
completely if solids can be immediately spread on the land or taken off
site for disposal.
To determine the cost effectiveness of using a dewatering closed loop
system, follow this logical order when calculating the economics:
First, look at the costs that would be incurred if a dewatering unit was not
used:
1. Choose the solids control equipment that will be needed and determine
the costs that will be incurred. Estimate the overall efficiency of this
equipment as this will be needed to determine how much of the drilled
solids will be removed.
2. Calculate the total solids per interval that will be generated (including
washouts) as a result of the hole drilled. Determine the amount of solids
that will be removed with the solids control equipment and the cost of
disposing of these solids. Disposal rates at commercial facilities usually
do not vary significantly between the mud and cuttings. Transportation
rates, however, will differ considerably if road transportation is used.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Page 4 of 13 Dowell
Keep in mind that the solids generated will not be dry, but rather will
contain a significant amount of liquid.
The amount of liquid will usually depend on the size and type of solids
generated and can be determined through analysis. For estimation
purposes, a reasonable solids-to-liquid ratio is 1:1 or 50% liquid by
volume.
3. Calculate the dilution volumes that will be required to maintain the
desired drilled solids content. The efficiency of the solids control
equipment selected will play a crucial part in determining this number.
Since this volume will have to be disposed of before dilution can be
added, use this volume to determine the liquid disposal costs. Disposal
rates will usually range from $5.00 to $10.00 per barrel (plus
transportation) depending on the type of mud being discarded.
Next, look at the costs of the dewatering, closed loop system:
4. Dewatering system costs include the equipment, personnel, and the
chemicals used in the flocculation process. Equipment and personnel
costs are relatively fixed, but chemical usage will vary and will be the
most difficult to quantify. The chemical costs will depend on the product
cost and the concentrations required to achieve the correct flocculated
state. Flocculent concentration increases significantly as the solids
content of the feed fluid increases, particularly when the measured
solids is above 5% by volume. Fig. 1 graphically illustrates this point as
the amount of flocculent needed increased from 325 ppm at 4.85%
solids to almost 600 ppm at 5.1% solids to 750 ppm at 5.5% solids.
This demonstrates the need for good solids removal ability upstream of
the dewatering unit.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Dowell Page 5 of 13
Fig. 1. Effect of solids on flocculent concentration.

Note: Flocculent consumption can increase dramatically as solids concentrations
increase.
Different mud systems will also require different flocculating polymer

concentrations. Dispersed muds need more flocculent to achieve
desired results than do nondispersed. Optimum concentrations of the
flocculent are needed to provide the best floc for the lowest price.
Since any excess flocculent used will be returned to the mud system,
keeping this concentration to a minimum is important. Elevated
chemical costs can make the overall dewatering system cost
prohibitive.
5. Solids disposal costs will be slightly higher when using a closed loop
dewatering system as more solids are removed from the mud. It is
assumed that the dewatering unit will be able to remove all the solids
necessary to maintain the drilled solids content at desired levels. This
assumption is based on the fact that enough solids removal equipment
is utilized to help the dewatering unit achieve this goal. If these solids
are to be spread on location, add the costs of the spreading. If the
solids are to be disposed of at a commercial facility, add the costs of
disposal, plus transportation. Assume all liquids not associated with the
solids can be recycled back to the mud system or dewatering unit.
6. Recovering a costly centrate can be a definite economic saving. If the
mud in use is a basic inexpensive fresh water system and if fresh water
is readily available, the liquid phase cost will be minimal. However, if the
centrate contains salts, glycols, or expensive polymers, recycling this
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Page 6 of 13 Dowell
liquid must be included in the economics and may be a significant

factor in deciding whether or not to use a closed loop system with a
dewatering unit. Fig. 2 clearly shows that the amount of material
returned in some centrates can be significant. As shown, a
considerable amount of polymer, fluid loss control agents, and soluble
salts return to the active system in the centrate. As expected, barite,
bentonite and low gravity solids are almost totally removed and
discarded as waste. Fig. 3 shows an example of the cost of the
chemicals salvaged by the dewatering unit versus the cost of the mud
in use. As can be seen, a substantial portion of the mud makeup cost
can be returned.
Fig. 2. Evaluation of dewatering centrate.

Note: The amount of valuable material returned in the centrate can be significant.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Dowell Page 7 of 13
Fig. 3. Material returned in centrate.

Note: The value of the centrate must be considered when estimating dewatering economics.
7. Subtract the portion of the location costs that would not otherwise be
incurred if the closed loop system were not applied. This will normally
include the preparation of the reserve pit system, larger location,
location clean-up and backfill of pits.
After all calculations are completed, compare the costs of having a
dewatering system versus not having one, and decide if a dewatering closed
system is economically warranted. These figures may be crude at first, but
with more precise data and increased experience, the values will become
more accurate.
If the cost per barrel of dewatering is less than the cost per barrel of
disposal, it is obviously economical to proceed in this direction. The
spreadsheet program DEWATER has been provided to assist in making
these calculations. Refer to Appendix A, Solids Control Programs.
3 Monitoring Dewatering Costs and Efficiency

If it is decided that a dewatering system is warranted, monitoring the cost
efficiency on a daily basis is imperative. To approach this, equate all costs
associated with the dewatering unit to a dollar ($) per barrel of mud
processed figure. By equating all costs to $/barrel, comparisons against
disposal costs can easily be made. Fig. 4 is a sample form that can be used
to keep track of these expenses as well as the mud volumes processed. The
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Page 8 of 13 Dowell
contributing factors in determining overall cost efficiency are: a) dewatering

equipment, personnel and chemical costs, and b) volume of liquid
processed. The centrate returned may contribute to the cost savings as well
and should be determined by multiplying the centrate value times the volume
returned.
Fig. 4. Form for calculating dewatering efficiency.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
Dowell Page 9 of 13
As hole size and process volumes decrease, the cost of dewatering ($/bbl)
increases. At some stage it may become evident that the dewatering cost
will be greater than disposal costs. Fig. 5 shows the interval cost per barrel
of a dewatering operation that lasts through five intervals. Note that the cost
usually increases with each subsequent interval. Hole sizes are smaller and
therefore circulating volumes are less. At the point where the cost per barrel
approaches the cost of disposal, a decision will have to be made to either
remove the dewatering equipment, or treat the mud on a batch basis. In
this example, that point is reached at the end of interval #3. Continual
processing of mud in interval #4 is more costly than disposing of the liquid
volume. Two options are available: (1) Cease dewatering operations, or (2)
place the unit on standby until a sufficient volume is accumulated to warrant
the operating cost to dewater. As stated before, the $/bbl efficiency of
dewatering can be decreased either by lowering the costs ($), or increasing
the processed volume (bbl). The economics of maintaining the unit on
standby will depend on the standby rate and anticipated frequency of use.
Fig. 5. Dewatering costs, by interval.

Note: Intervals 4 and 5 are uneconomic to dewater in this example since the liquid
disposal cost is less.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
4 Equipment Selection
4.1 Dewatering Devices

A typical dewatering system consists of a polymer hydration and storage
section, mixing and injection manifold, injection and transfer pumps and a
centrifuge for separation of liquid and solids (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. Dewatering system equipment.

Note: This schematic shows a typical dewatering configuration for a
weighted mud.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
These systems, when operated correctly have the capability of taking a

stream of mud from the active system or storage and separating all of the
solids from the liquid. Depending on the mud type and the solids distribution
in the feed (influent), the liquid content will average 30 to 50% by volume
after separation.
With this ability for separation, the dewatering device makes a very efficient
piece of solids control equipment. If the volume capability of the unit is
adequate, no dilution in excess of circulating maintenance will be required.
Since no free liquid is discharged, the loop is closed.
On the unweighted sections of the hole, the dewatering unit should be
operating on the active system, processing mud after it has passed the other
solids control equipment. If a high volume centrifuge is being used for solids
removal on the unweighted section, it may be advisable to process the
effluent of this unit. This will lower the solids load to the dewatering unit and
decrease polymer consumption. If the centrifuge is not capable of generating
enough effluent to keep up with the solids removal required, then treating
some of the active system should be done. Note also that in some cases,
flocculation may become more difficult when processing only centrifuge
effluent in unweighted mud. Laboratory tests conducted at APR showed that
the presence of some larger solids will aid the flocculation process.
Therefore, the addition of some whole mud to the centrifuge effluent is likely
beneficial to the dewatering process.
On weighted systems where a barite recovery centrifuge is in operation, the
dewatering unit should process the effluent of this unit. Because of this type
of equipment arrangement, no hesitation is necessary in operating the
centrifuge for adjustment of the mud properties. The effluent that is normally
a disposal problem can now be treated and returned to the active system.
5 Waste Management
The operator is responsible for all wastes generated on the drilling location.
Although drilling wastes are not generally regarded as hazardous, the
disposal method must be in compliance with applicable regulations. These
regulations and economic considerations will ultimately dictate how the
drilling waste streams must be handled. Efficient solids control and
chemically-enhanced dewatering systems can greatly reduce the volume of
liquid drilling waste, but they are only a part of a comprehensive drilling
waste management plan. The optimum approach is one that first reduces the
quantity of waste, assures the waste is nonhazardous, and then selects the
least expensive, acceptable disposal method.
An effective drilling waste management plan recognizes that local
environmental regulations and individual well drilling conditions will affect the
design, implementation and economics of the solids control and waste
handling system. There is no single system design that can be
recommended for all cases. However, the following approach can help
implement a solids control and waste handling system which is economically
and environmentally sound:
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
1. Know the regulations applicable to the area. Select a safe and

economic waste disposal process and drilling fluid that is compatible
with these regulations. The potential long-term liability of the waste
disposal options must also be considered, especially when waste will be
hauled off to a central commercial disposal facility.
2. Identify and isolate all potential waste sources both on the location and
in the surrounding environment. This can include location or deck
drainage, effluent from sewage processing, drilling fluids, drilled
cuttings, cement returns and fluids produced from well tests.
3. Check the drilling plan to be sure that all elements of the solids control
plan are compatible throughout the entire drilling stage.
4. Design the location layout, grading plan and reserve pits to support the
solids control and waste handling plan. Allow for the proper segregation
of waste streams to avoid contamination.
5. Evaluate the drilling contractors existing solids control equipment and
mud pits. Modify and/or add to the contractors solids removal system
as necessary to achieve the most efficient and cost effective system.
6. Select drilling fluids and additives that are compatible with the waste
disposal method and the drilling requirements.
7. Coordinate your solids and fluid disposal plans with regulatory
authorities. Be sure advance approval is obtained to handle all disposal
as it occurs during the drilling of the well.
During the implementation phase, the following steps can help ensure that
the operation proceeds according to the plan:
8. Inspect the solids equipment piping and fluid routing well before spud to
provide enough time to make corrections.
9. Educate the rig personnel. The best solids control equipment is of little
value if it is not run correctly. Use a team approach. Make sure the rig
personnel completely understand the system and its purpose. Stress
any limitations on discharge.
10. Monitor solids removal efficiency. Measure the amount of water added
to the system with a water meter. Analyze the solids contents of the
solids control equipment discharge streams. Monitor the efficiency of
the dewatering unit. Maintain performance data records on individual
solids removal equipment and the entire system.
11. Follow up on disposal logistics. Plan ahead for regulatory permitting
requirements.
12. Reinspect the solids control system arrangements between drilling
intervals to be sure that the required changes are made in fluid routing
and equipment operation. Conduct additional rig personnel training.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1200
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dewatering Systems
6 Summary
Chemically-enhanced dewatering units are increasing in popularity due
to more stringent environmental regulations and the incentive of
reduced potential, long-term liability associated with drilling wastes. Use
has also increased because of a better understanding of the economic
benefits attributable to improved solids removal efficiency.
Alternatives to dewatering include hauling the waste to a central
disposal facility, land spreading, or injecting the liquid and/or solid waste
downhole into a suitable formation.
In this context, the term closed-loop is defined as one where all
excess mud from either dilution or solids control equipment effluent is
further processed using chemically-enhanced dewatering technology to
minimize liquid waste volumes. Applications include locations with
environmental restrictions, small locations where reserve pit space is
limited, or where water is in short supply.
The economics of dewatering will depend upon the cost of disposal,
liquid centrate value, solids control equipment efficiency, and location
costs. A procedure is outlined in this chapter to determine the cost
effectiveness of dewatering. A spreadsheet program DEWATER has
been developed to assist in estimating the economics of dewatering up
to four consecutive drilling intervals. The program is described in
Appendix A, Solids Control Programs.
Monitoring the cost efficiency of dewatering on a daily basis is
imperative. All costs associated with the dewatering unit should be
converted to dollar ($) per barrel of mud processed figure. A sample
form for tracking dewatering efficiency is provided.
A typical dewatering system consists of a polymer hydration and
storage section, mixing and injection manifold, injection and transfer
pumps, and a centrifuge for separation of liquid and solids. The liquid
content of the centrifuge cake will average 40 to 50%.
On unweighted muds, the dewatering unit should be rigged up to
process both the centrifuge centrate with additional makeup as required
from the active system. Laboratory tests indicate that the presence of
some larger solids will aid the flocculation process. On weighted
systems, the dewatering unit should process the effluent of barite-
recovery centrifuge. In both cases, the recovered liquid can be treated
and returned to the active system.
Successful drilling waste management requires thorough planning. No
single system design is optimum in all instances. An approach is
provided to help implement a solids control and waste handling system
that is both economically and environmentally sound. These guidelines
do not detail specific waste handling or remediation procedures, but
provide a checklist of issues that must be considered when planning
and operating the system.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1300
January 1998
Schlumberger
References
Dowell Page 1 of 2
References
1. Young, G. A. 1983. Handbook for Successful Solids Control, Amoco
Production Company, 1st Edition.
2. Stone, V. D. Low-Silt Mud Increases Gulfs Drilling Efficiency, Cuts
Costs, Oil and Gas Journal, V. 62, No. 41, October 12, 1964.
3. Lal, M. Economic and Performance Analysis Models for Solids
Control, SPE Paper 18037 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference in Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.
4. Lal, M. and Hoberock, L. L. Solids Conveyance Dynamics and Shaker
Performance, SPE Paper 14389 (1985).
5. Cagle, W. S. and Wilder, L. B. 1978. Layered Shale Shaker Screens
Improve Mud Solids Control, World Oil, April 1978.
6. Hoberock, L. L. 1990. Fluid Conductance and Separation
Characteristics of Oilfield Screen Cloths, Paper presented at the
American Filtration Society National Fall Meeting, Lafayette, 1990.
7. Cutt, A. R. 1992. Shaker Screen Selection, Amoco Production
Company, Research Report F92-P-57 (92352ART0114).
8. Cutt, A. R. Shaker Screen Characterization Through Image Analysis,
SPE Paper 22570 (1991).
9. API Recommended Practice 13E (RP13E) Third Edition, May 1, 1993.
Recommended Practice for Shale Shaker Screen Cloth Designation.
10. Hoberock, L. L. 1982. Shale-Shaker Selection & Operation, Reprint
Series from Oil & Gas Journal, Pennwell Publishing Company.
11. Bray, R. P. 1984. An Experimental Evaluation of Oilfield Degassers,
Amoco Production Company, Research Report F84-P-12
(83269ART0053).
12. Young, G. A. 1987. An Experimental Investigation of the Performance
of a Three Inch Hydrocyclone, SPE Paper 143899, presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, March 1987.
13. IADC Mud Equipment Manual, Handbook 6: Hydrocyclones, Handbook
4: Centrifugal Pumps and Piping, Gulf Publishing Company, 1982.
14. Thurber, N. E. 1988. The Impact of Centrifuge Selection and Operation
on Drilling Economics, Amoco Production Company, Research Report
F88-P-43 (88126ART0171).
15. Young, G. A. 1984. Economic Analysis of Dual Stage Centrifuging,
Amoco Production Company, Internal Report, 84067ART0102.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1300
January 1998
Schlumberger
References
Page 2 of 2 Dowell
16. MacDonald, J. G. 1982. Mud Mixing Hopper Evaluation: Geosource

Sidewinder 400 and Mission Venturi, Amoco Production Company,
Research Report F82-P-37 (82202ART0148).
17. Lal, M. and Thurber, N. E. Drilling Waste Management and Closed
Loop Systems, paper presented at the 1988 International Conference
on Drilling Wastes, April 5-8, 1988, Calgary, Canada.
18. Young, G. and Robinson, L. H. How to Design a Mud System for
Optimum Solids Removal, World Oil, September-November 1982.
19. Young, G. A. 1982. Mud Equipment Manual, Mud System
Arrangement, Amoco Production Company, Research Report F82-P-
28 (82144ART0017).
20. Love, W. W. Engineered Sizing of Mud Agitators Works Well, Oil and
Gas Journal, November 28, 1977.
21. API Bulletin 13C (RP13C) Bulletin on Drilling Fluids Processing
Equipment.
22. EPA, 1983. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment. EPA/530-SW-874, 671
p.
23. Malachosky, E. et al. Offshore Disposal of Oil-Base Drilling Fluid
Waste: An Environmentally Acceptable Solution, SPE Paper 23373
(1991).
24. Moschovidis, Z. A. et al. Disposal of Oily Cuttings by Downhole
Fracture Injection - Part 1: Field Testing and Data Interpretation, APR
Greenback.
25. Williams, M. P. Solids Control for the Man on the Rig, Petroleum
Engineer International, October-December 1982.
26. Svarovsky, L. 1981. Solid-Liquid Separation, (Chemical Engineering
Series), Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London.
27. Advanced Drilling Fluids Training Manual, Volume II, Amoco Production
Company, 1988.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Solids Control Programs
Dowell Page 1 of 10

1 SHAKCAP Spreadsheet Program ...................................................................................1
1.1 Input ..............................................................................................................................2
1.1.1 Screen Data .........................................................................................................2
1.1.2 Mud Data .............................................................................................................3
1.1.3 Drilling Data .........................................................................................................3
1.2 Output............................................................................................................................3
1.3 Using Shakcap ..............................................................................................................4
2 DEWATER Spreadsheet Program...................................................................................5

2.1 Dewatering and Disposal Cost Section ..........................................................................5
2.1.1 Dewatering Equipment Used................................................................................6
2.1.2 Manpower Costs ..................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Per Barrel Costs...................................................................................................6
2.2 Interval Data and Analysis Section ................................................................................7
2.2.1 Input Data ............................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Output Data..........................................................................................................8
3 Summary Section..............................................................................................................10
FIGURES
Fig. 1. SHAKCAP spreadsheet. ..............................................................................................2
Fig. 2. Input section of the DEWATER spreadsheet................................................................5
Fig. 3. Interval data and analysis section of the DEWATER spreadsheet. ..............................7
Fig. 4. Summary section of the DEWATER spreadsheet. ..................................................... 10
1 SHAKCAP Spreadsheet Program

The spreadsheet file SHAKCAP can be used to calculate the flow capacity of
shale shakers for a specified screen. This spreadsheet replaces the flow
curves and hand calculations published in the previous solids control
handbook. The flow capacity equations contained in SHAKCAP are based on
empirical relationships developed from full-scale testing of numerous linear
motion shakers. This model is also available in the solids control economics
program SECOP. Fig. 1 is an example of the spreadsheet.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 10 Dowell
There are three versions of SHAKCAP. They are:

SHAKCAP.WQ1 - for Quattro Pro 3.0 or higher
SHAKCAP.WK1 - for Lotus 123 2.1 or higher
SHAKCAP.WB1 - for Quattro Pro for Windows
Fig. 1. SHAKCAP spreadsheet.
1.1 Input
1.1.1 Screen Data

The new shaker screen designations are required for input to describe the
screen panel. A complete listing of screen designations for the most
common shale shakers is included below the INPUT/OUTPUT window in the
spreadsheet.
1. Screen Name (Optional)
- typically the manufacturer's designation
- use this field to identify screen
2. Conductance (kd/mm)
- conductance value listed in the screen designation
3. Area (sq ft)
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 10
- the usable area of the panel, listed in the designation

4. Number of Panels
- the number of panels required by the shaker
5. Deck Angle
- use 3 degrees as the default angle, lower for sticky cuttings, higher
only when necessary (refer to Deck Angle discussion, Chapter 3).
1.1.2 Mud Data

6. Mud Wt (ppg)
7. Mud PV (cp)
8. Mud Type (Polymer or Non-polymer)
- enter 0.6 for polymer muds (e.g., PHPA).
- enter 1.0 for all other muds.
1.1.3 Drilling Data

9. ROP (ft/hr)
- estimated average ROP for the interval
10. Hole Diam (in)
- bit diameter is normally sufficient
11. Flow Rate (gpm)
- total circulating rate
1.2 Output
2
1. Usable Screen Area, (ft )
- 2/3 of the total available screening area

2. Drl. Solids Generated, (gpm)
- rate at which solids will be returned
3. Solids Loading Factor, (%)
- the percent drilled solids in the mud
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 10 Dowell
4. Flow Capacity-Fluid Only, (gpm)

- the estimated flow capacity of one shaker without solids
5. Flow Capacity-With Solids, (gpm)
- the estimated flow capacity of one shaker with the effect of solids
loading taken into account
6. No. of Shakers Required
- the total number of shakers required to process the entire flow rate
using the specified screens
1.3 Using Shakcap

1. The flow capacities are calculated for single deck shakers. Adjustment
for tandem deck shakers or cascading systems can be made by
reducing ROP by 25-50% to account for the solids removed by the
scalping deck.
2. Acceleration is assumed to be constant for all shaker types. This model
assumes 3.0 g's normal to the screen. This may cause some
discrepancies between actual and predicted flow capacities for shakers
with significantly different accelerations.
3. To estimate the screen size required for a given number of shakers, the
following procedure is recommended:
A. Enter all input data except screen name. Choose a screen series
from the supplied designation tables and use an area value
common to that series. For example, all screens in Derrick's PWP
2
HP series have an area of 5.3 ft .
B. Enter some starting value for conductance as a first guess.
C. Adjust the conductance value in the input column until the number
of shakers required matches the actual number available.
D. Decrease the conductance in 0.2 or smaller increments until the
Flow Capacity-With Solids output closely matches the anticipated
circulation rate per shaker.
E. Find the screen in the series with a conductance that most closely
matches the required conductance. Enter that screen's name and
conductance into the input table. Check that the number of
shakers is correct.
4. The flow capacity for polymer muds, such as PHPA, is impossible to
predict with any certainty. The spreadsheet uses 0.6 as an average
flow capacity reduction factor. Actual throughput will depend heavily
upon the concentration of the polymer and the amount of shear
imparted.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 10
2 DEWATER Spreadsheet Program

This spreadsheet was developed to help assess the economics of using a
chemically-enhanced dewatering unit to reduce liquid discharge volumes.
Dilution volumes, liquid and sludge discharge volumes are predicted for up to
4 drilling intervals with and without the dewatering option. The total costs of
each case are compared to determine the most economical option. The
output also can be used to estimate reserve pit or cuttings haul-off
requirements. Computations are based on the mass balance equations
presented in the economics chapter of the Solids Control Handbook and will
not be repeated here.
The spreadsheet is provided in two formats: Lotus .wk1 and Quattro Pro
.wq1. The spreadsheet is divided into 3 sections: Dewatering and disposal
cost input (Fig. 2), interval data (Fig. 3), and cost analysis summary (Fig. 4).
Required input cells are highlighted or shaded, depending on the
spreadsheet software. Scroll down through the spreadsheet to view the
sections.
2.1 Dewatering and Disposal Cost Section
Fig. 2. Input section of the DEWATER spreadsheet.
Cells A1.G22 contain the input data required for the dewatering economics
calculations.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 10 Dowell
2.1.1 Dewatering Equipment Used

Input the number and unit cost for the listed equipment. These costs can be
obtained from a service company in your area. The spreadsheet uses only
the total equipment cost in the calculations; individual entries do not have to
be precise, provided the total equipment cost is correct.
2.1.2 Manpower Costs

ENGINEER, TECH
Enter the estimated daily cost for each service engineer or technician. The
number of personnel required will be made as a separate entry for each
interval, since the number of service personnel will often depend on the
average daily processing rate.
2.1.3 Per Barrel Costs

VALUE OF RECOVERED LIQUID
This is applicable when the liquid phase recovered from the dewatering unit
can be used to defray the cost of the dilution mud. For example, if the base
fluid is a brine costing $2/bbl, the cost of dilution will be reduced by $2 for
each barrel of liquid recovered by the dewatering unit. If the liquid is to be
treated and discharged, or if the recovered liquid has little value, enter a 0
in this cell.
LIQUID, SOLID DISPOSAL COSTS
Input the estimated cost per bbl for disposal of liquids and solids. The
disposal costs should include any applicable charges for pit construction,
liquid or cuttings haul-off, spreading, and remedial treatment to reclaim the
site. Offshore site charges include cuttings box rental, transportation and
material disposal.
DEWATERING COST
Chemical dewatering cost will depend primarily on the mud and solids type
presented to the dewatering unit. Low solids non-dispersed muds may cost
as little as $1/bbl to treat. Heavily dispersed mud systems and fine, reactive
solids can push chemical treatment costs to near $10/bbl. Refer to the
Dewatering chapter for more information regarding dewatering chemical
costs. When possible, have the service company pilot test a sample of the
mud to provide an estimate of chemical treatment cost to flocculate. Further
chemical treatment, such as pH adjustment, may be necessary to reuse the
recovered liquid in the mud system. This cost should also be included in the
chemical treatment cost.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 10
2.2 Interval Data and Analysis Section

Four intervals are provided in the spreadsheet. Each interval will require an
estimate of drilling time, section length and hole size, existing solids control
efficiency, low gravity solids content and initial circulating volume. The
spreadsheet will calculate the predicted dilution and disposal volumes for the
interval, and provide an analysis of dewatering costs per barrel and interval
dewatering cost.
Fig. 3. Interval data and analysis section of the DEWATER spreadsheet.

(1 of 4 intervals)
2.2.1 Input Data

DRILLING DAYS
Input the number of rotating days anticipated for this interval.
START/STOP DEPTH, ft
Enter the beginning and ending depth of the interval.
BIT SIZE, in.
Enter the bit size for the interval.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 10 Dowell
WASHOUT,%
This is the estimated average volume % washout. This less than 10% for
hard, consolidated formations. Highly dispersive or unconsolidated formation
may wash out as much as 50%.
INITIAL CIRCULATING VOLUME, bbls
Enter the estimated volume in the surface pits and downhole at the
beginning of the interval.
INITIAL/ENDING LGS, %
For the purposes of this spreadsheet, LGS pertains to the drilled solids
content. If the mud is new, enter 0 as the initial drill solids content. The
ending LGS should be the maximum percent drilled solids to be tolerated in
the mud.
EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCY, %
Enter the estimated efficiency of the active system solids control system.
This value can be determined by running the solids control equipment
performance and economics program, SECOP. Usually, this figure will range
from 30% for poor solids control systems and fine drilled solids to 75% for
excellent solids control and coarse drilled solids.
2.2.2 Output Data

SOLIDS GENERATED, bbls
This is the total volume of drilled solids generated in the specified interval.
SOLIDS REMAINING, bbls
The solids left in the mud after processing by the solids removal equipment.
DILUTION REQUIRED, bbls
This is the dilution volume required to reduce the mud system to the
maximum specified LGS content at the efficiency specified for the solids
removal equipment.
MUD VOLUME TO TREAT, bbls
This is the volume of whole mud which must be dumped to accommodate
the required dilution volume.
EQUIPMENT SLUDGE, bbls
The volume of wet solids discharged by the solids removal equipment,
assuming a 1:1 ratio of liquid to solids. This program does not account for
weight material which may be discharged by the equipment. In weighted mud
applications, the actual equipment sludge volume may be higher.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 10
DEWATERING SLUDGE, bbls

The volume of wet solids discharged by the dewatering equipment,
assuming a 1:1 volume ratio of liquid to solids.
TOTAL SLUDGE, bbls
The total sludge volume is the sum of the equipment sludge and the
dewatering sludge volumes.
LIQUID SAVED, bbls
This the estimated total volume of liquid recovered by the dewatering unit.
DEWATERING RATE, bbl/day
This is the average volume which must be treated daily to accommodate the
required dilution volume.
DEWATERING COST, $/bbl
This is the average cost per barrel to treat the expected volume of whole
mud discharged, based on the dewatering chemical cost and the daily
equipment and manpower costs.
INTERVAL COST w/ DEWATERING, $
This is the total waste disposal and dewatering cost less the value of the
recovered fluid.
SAVINGS (LOSSES), $
The interval cost with dewatering is subtracted from the total disposal cost
without dewatering. Positive values indicate savings, or the reduction in cost
attributable to dewatering, for this interval.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix A
January 1998
Schlumberger
3 Summary Section
The summary section begins at line 100. This section of the spreadsheet
provides cumulative cost data on interval savings or losses and total liquid
and sludge discharge volumes. At the bottom of this section, a
recommendation is displayed regarding the deployment of a dewatering unit
based on the economics of each interval. Savings of less than $1000 for an
interval are considered uneconomic.
Fig. 4. Summary section of the DEWATER spreadsheet.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix B
January 1998
Schlumberger
Conductance Calculation
Dowell Page 1 of 2
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Nomenclature ......................................................................................................................2
1 Introduction
Conductance is a measure of the ease with which fluid can flow throughout
the screen per unit area. The conductance of square mesh or rectangular
mesh screen cloth is calculated from the screens mesh count and wire
diameter in both the warp and shute direction. Warp wires run lengthwise
during the process of weaving the screen and are crossed at right angles by
the shute wires. The shute wires are carried by the shuttle in the weaving
process and may also be known as woof or weft wires. In the context of this
discussion it is not important to distinguish which is warp and which is shute.
However, it is important to be aware that there may be wires of two
dimensions which should be considered separately in the equations.
The equations are valid for most standard open-weave oilfield screens with
the exception of some nonstandard polyester weaves and coated screen
cloth.
The conductance, C, in units of kilodarcies/millimeter for a standard weave
screen cloth is computed by:
4095 E2
C=
A2 t
where:
The void fraction of the screen, E, is given by:
1 1

( ) t ( Vw + Vs )
Ns Nw
E=
1 1
( ) t
Ns Nw
The screen thickness, t, in inches, is given by:
t = ds + dw
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix B
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 2 Dowell
The length of the warp and shute wires lw, ls, in inches are calculated by:
1 2 1 2
lw = ( ) + d2
s ls = ( ) + d2
w
Ns Nw
3
The volume of the warp and shute wires Vw, Vs, in inches, are computed
by:
d2 d2
Vw = w l w Vs = s l s
4 4

The wire surface area to volume ratio, A, is computed by:
dw l w + dsls
A=
t
( )
NsNw
For screens composed of two or more layers, the conductances are

calculated for each layer individually. The total conductance of the layered
screen composition is then calculated by:
1 1 1 1
= + + +.....
C t C1 C 2 C 3
2 Nomenclature
-1
A = Wire surface area to mesh volume ratio, inch .
C = Conductance, kD/mm.
CT = Conductance of layered screen composition, kD/mm
ds = Shute wire diameter, in.
dw = Warp wire diameter, in.

E = Void fraction.
ls = Length of shute wire, in.
lw = Length of warp wire, in.
Ns = Mesh count in shute direction, wires per in.
Nw = Mesh count in warp direction, wires per in.

t = Screen thickness, in.
3
Vs = Volume of shute wire, in. .
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
Schlumberger Solids Control Equipment Discharge
Dowell Analysis, Oil Based Muds Page 1 of 7
Solids Control Equipment

Discharge Analysis, Oil-Based
Muds
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
2 Sample Collection...............................................................................................................1
3 Retort Procedure.................................................................................................................2
4 Alternate Retort Procedure for Air-Entrained Cuttings Samples .....................................2
5 Solids Analysis Calculations..............................................................................................3
6 Example Calculations .........................................................................................................5
7 Calculations.........................................................................................................................6
1 Introduction
Analysis of the solids control equipment discharge provides valuable
information about equipment performance and identifies the composition and
rate of the discharge stream. These calculations are designed for oil-based
muds, but can be used for water-based fluids as well.
2 Sample Collection
For shale shakers, a box will be needed to collect the discharge from the
entire width of the shaker screens. A wooden core box can be used, or have
a box fabricated. For mud cleaners, hydrocyclones or centrifuges, a 5 gallon
bucket may be used. The larger the sample collected, the more accurate the
results.
1. Weigh the sample container before collecting the sample.
2. Measure the sample collection time.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
Solids Control Equipment Discharge Schlumberger
Page 2 of 7 Analysis, Oil Based Muds Dowell
3. Record the weight of the container and wet solids.
4. Calculate the mass flow rate of the wet solids, mws, in lbm/min.
3 Retort Procedure
1. Weigh the empty retort W1, gm.:
2. Fill with a representative sample of wet solids and weight, W2, gm.
3. Run retort. Weigh retort and dry cuttings, W3, gm.
4. Record Volume of oil, Vo, and Volume of water, Vw, recovered.

5. Weight of wet solids, gm:
W ws = W2 - W1
6. Density of wet solids:
rs = Wws/Vt
7. Weight of dry solids (including salt), gm:
W ds = W3 - W1
4 Alternate Retort Procedure for Air-Entrained Cuttings Samples

Occasionally, there will not be sufficient liquid on the wet solids to avoid
entrainment of air in the retort. This will cause errors in the retort
calculations. The following procedure may be used if a problem with air
entrainment is anticipated:
1. Place the retort cup lid on the retort cup. Place entire assembly on a
balance. Record the weight of retort cup, lid, expansion chamber and
steel wool as W1, gm.
2. Fill the cup approximately 3/4 full with wet cuttings. Weigh the wet
cuttings, retort cup, lid, expansion chamber and steel wool. Record as
W 2, gm.
3. With a syringe, fill the retort cup with oil until the cuttings are covered.
Carefully stir cuttings to remove entrapped air.
4. Place the lid on retort cup. Using the syringe and needle, fill retort cup
with oil through the hole in the cup lid.
5. Weigh the wet cuttings/oil mixture, retort cup, lid, expansion chamber
and steel wool. Record as W3.
6. Run retort. Record Volume of oil, Vto, and Volume of water, Vw,
recovered.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
7. Allow retort to cool. Weigh dry solids, retort cup, lid, expansion chamber
and steel wool. Record as W4.
8. Weight of wet solids, gm:
W ws = W2 - W1
W ds = W4 - W1
3
10. Volume of oil added by syringe, cm :
Voa = (W3 - W2)/SGoil

3
11. Corrected oil on cuttings Volume, cm :
Vo = Vto - Voa
3
12. Corrected retort Volume, cm :
Vt = 50 ml - Voa
5 Solids Analysis Calculations
Note: Use brine density, rb, and Wt% salt, %S, recorded on mud check.
rws = Wws /Vt

2. Weight of oil, gm:
W o = Vo * SGoil
3
3. Volume of brine, cm :
Vb = 100 (Vw)/(rb(100 - %S))

3
4. Corrected dry solids Volume, cm :
Vs = (Vt - Vo - Vb)
5. Corrected dry solids weight, gm:
W s = (Wws - Wo - (Vb * rb)

3
6. Dry solids density, gm/cm :
rs = Ws/Vs
7. Corrected Volume% solids:
%Vs = 100 * Vs/Vt
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
8. Volume% high-density solids (% of wet slurry):
%HDS = %Vs (rs - 2.65)/(SGHDS - 2.65)

9. Volume% low-density solids (% of wet slurry):
%LDS = %Vs - %HDS

10. High-density solids concentration, lb/bbl:
HDS = 3.5 (SGHDS) (%HDS)

11. Low-density solids concentration, lb/bbl:
LGS = 3.5 (SGLGS) (%LGS)

12. Weight% oil to dry solids:
%Oil = (Wo/Ws) * 100

13. Total discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Qt = (60) (ms)/((350) (rws))

14. Solid discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Qs = (%Vs) (Qt)/100
15. Liquid discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Ql = Qt - Qs
16. High-density solids mass flow rate, lb/hr:
mHDS = (Qt) (HDS)

17. Low-density solids mass flow rate, lb/hr:
mLDS = (Qt) (LDS)

18. Check HDS/LDS ratio of discharge to HDS/LDS ratio of mud
If HDS/LDS > HDS/LDS of mud, then barite is being preferentially
removed.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
6 Example Calculations
The following example calculations are designed to show how the equations
listed in this section may be used to determine the composition and rate of
the solid and liquid discharge streams.
Sample Source:
Shaker discharge
Mud Check Data Symbol

3
Brine phase density, gm/cm rb 1.24
Wt% Salt in Brine %S 26.7

Barite, lb/bbl HDS 100.0
Low Gravity Solids, lb/bbl LDS 75.0
Drilled Solids Specific Gravity SGLGS 2.65
Barite Specific Gravity SGHDS 4.2
Sample Data
Net Sample Weight, lb 60.0

Sampling time, min 1.0
Mass flow rate, lb/min mws 60.0
Retort Data
Weight of empty retort, gm W1 297.0
Weight of retort and wet solids, gm W2 391.5
Weight of retort and dry solids, gm W3 378.0

3
Volume of oil recovered, cm Vo 17.0
3
Volume of water recovered, cm Vw 6.0
3
Total Volume retorted, cm Vt 50.0
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
7 Calculations
1. Weight of wet solids:
W ws = W2 - W1
= 391.5 - 297 = 94.5 gm
rws = Wws/Vt
3
= 94.5/50.0 = 1.89 gm/cm
W ds = W3 - W1
= 378 - 297 = 81 gm
4. Weight of oil, gm:
W o = Vo * SGoil
= (17) (0.84) = 14.28 gm
3
5. Volume of brine, cm :
Vb = 100 (Vw)/(rb(100 - %S))
3
= (100) (6)/(1.24 (100 - 26.7)) = 6.6 cm
3
6. Corrected dry solids volume, cm :
Vs = (Vt - Vo - Vb)
3
= 50 - 17 - 6.6 = 26.4 cm
7. Corrected dry solids weight, gm:
W s = (Wws - Wo - (Vb * rb)
= 94.5 - 14.3 - (6.6) (1.24) = 72.0 gm
3
8. Dry solids density, gm/cm :
rs = Ws/Vs
3
= 72.0/26.4 = 2.73 gm/cm
9. Corrected Volume% solids:
%Vs = 100 * Vs/Vt
= (100) (26.4)/(50) = 52.8%
10. Volume% high-density solids (% of wet slurry):
%HDS = %Vs (rs - 2.65)/(rHDS - 2.65)
= 52.8 (2.73 - 2.65) / (4.2 - 2.65) = 2.73%
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C
January 1998
11. Volume% low-density solids (% of wet slurry):

%LDS = %Vs - %HDS
= 52.8 - 2.73 = 50.07%
12. High-density solids concentration, lb/bbl:
HDSdis = 3.5 (rHDS) (%HDS)
= 3.5 (4.2) (2.73) = 40 lb/bbl
13. Low-density solids concentration, lb/bbl:
LGSdis = 3.5 (SGLGS) (%LGS)
= 3.5 (2.65) (50.07) = 464 lb/bbl
14. Weight% oil to dry solids:
%Oil = (Wo/Ws) * 100
= (14.28/72.04) (100) = 19.8%
15. Total discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Qt = (60) (ms)/((350) (rws))
= (60) (60)/((350) (1.89) = 5.44 bbl/hr
16. Solid discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Qs = (%Vs) (Qt)/100
= (52.8) (5.44)/100 = 2.87 bbl/hr
17. Liquid discharge rate, bbl/hr:
Ql = Qt - Qs
= 5.44 - 2.87 = 2.57 bbl/hr
18. High-density solids mass flow rate, lb/hr:
mHDS = (Qt) (HDS)
= (5.44) (40) = 216 lb/hr
19. Low-density solids mass flow rate, lb/hr:
mLDS = (Qt) (LDS)
= (5.44) (464) = 2523 lb/hr
20. Check HDS/LDS ratio of discharge to HDS/LDS ratio of mud
Discharge HDS/LDS/Mud HDS/LDS
(40/464)/(100/75) = 0.06
Since ratio is << 1.0, shaker is not preferentially removing barite.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Dowell Page 1 of 46
Screen Designations
1 Brandt - ATL-1000, ATL CS (Main Deck) ............................................................................2
2 Brandt - Retrofit Tandem, ATL-CS (Scalping Deck) ..........................................................4
3 Broadbent - Tandem Master (Lower Deck)........................................................................8
4 Derrick - Flo-Line Cleaner, Cascade System, High G Dryer .............................................9
5 Fluid Systems - Model 500, Model 50 .............................................................................. 24
6 Harrisburg - Linear Tandem ............................................................................................. 30
7 Swaco - ALS ...................................................................................................................... 31
8 Sweco - LM-3..................................................................................................................... 35
9 Sweco - LF-3...................................................................................................................... 41
10 Thule Rigtech - VSM 100................................................................................................. 43
11 Tri-Flo - Model 148 .......................................................................................................... 44
12 Triton NNF Screening Machine ...................................................................................... 45
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Page 2 of 46 Dowell
1 Brandt - ATL-1000, ATL CS (Main Deck)

SCREEN SERIES: BHX
Description: Hexagonal opening pattern perf plate bonded to
rigid frame.
Triple layer, square mesh screen cloth similar to
Derrick DX series.
Sources: Brandt (original equipment manufacturer)
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Repairable
Scalping Screens for ATL-1000 shaker:
-S8L, S12L, S20L,B20L(8X20),B40L(20X30).
Brandt BHX Series
Screen U.S. Separation Potential Flow Capacity Aspect Trans.
Name Sieve D50 D16 D84 Cond. Area Ratio
BHX 24 28 625 435 760 34.11 7.28 1.49 248.3
BHX 38 36 494 360 572 22.45 7.28 1.40 163.4
BHX 50 47 327 231 349 8.85 7.28 1.43 64.4
BHX 70 68 219 158 252 4.89 7.28 1.39 35.6
BHX 84 79 181 127 218 3.79 7.28 1.46 27.5
BHX 110 100 149 105 184 3.11 7.28 1.44 22.6
BHX 140 118 127 95 147 1.94 7.28 1.39 14.1
BHX 175 152 98 70 118 1.95 6.76 1.45 13.2
BHX 210 158 82 58 100 1.71 6.76 1.41 11.5
BHX 250 213 69 49 81 1.37 6.76 1.43 9.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Dowell Page 3 of 46
Advanced BHX Replacement Series

BHX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 6.01 1.45 40.7
BHX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 6.01 1.39 28.4
BHX 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 6.01 1.48 21.7
BHX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 6.01 1.46 18.0
BHX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 6.01 1.45 14.0
BHX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 6.01 1.46 11.2
BHX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 6.01 1.47 10.0
BHX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 6.01 1.42 8.9
Southwestern BHX Replacement Series

BHX 38 38 440 313 537 11.86 6.01 1.45 71.3
BHX 50 48 320 234 380 6.77 6.01 1.45 40.7
BHX 84 86 169 119 200 3.09 6.01 1.44 18.6
BHX 110 97 153 107 182 2.89 6.01 1.46 17.4
BHX 140 118 127 91 153 2.32 6.01 1.41 13.9
BHX 210 174 86 60 106 1.67 6.01 1.41 10.0
BHX 250 215 68 48 82 1.23 6.01 1.45 7.4
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Page 4 of 46 Dowell
2 Brandt - Retrofit Tandem, ATL-CS (Scalping Deck)

SCREEN SERIES: BXL
Description: Hookstrip, 2 in. plastic grid.
Triple layer, square mesh cloth.
Sources: Brandt (original equipment manufacturer)
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Use coarser mesh on top deck.
Check tension.
Brandt BXL Series
Screen U.S. Separation Potential Cond. Area Aspect Trans
Name Sieve D50 D16 D84 Ratio
BXL 50 na na 8.50 16.4 na 139.4
BXL 84 70 210 155 240 4.58 16.4 1.35 75.1
BLX 110 82 171 124 195 3.57 16.4 1.39 58.5
BXL 140 116 130 97 150 2.73 16.4 1.39 44.7
BXL 175 144 102 76 121 2.24 16.4 1.42 36.7
BXL 210 158 95 67 111 2.23 16.4 1.40 36.6
BXL 250 203 73 54 83 1.56 16.4 1.36 25.6
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Dowell Page 5 of 46
SCREEN SERIES: BLS

Description: Hookstrip unbonded panel.
Plastic strips at contact with support ribs.
Triple layer, extra-fine square mesh.
Sources: Brandt
Comments: Nonrepairable.
Use coarser mesh on top deck.
Good deblinding characteristics, short screen life.
Brandt BLS Series
Screen U.S. Separation Potential Cond. Area Aspect Trans
Name Sieve D50 D16 D84 Ratio
BLS 50 43 377 263 427 7.31 17.74 1.39 129.6
BLS 80 67 222 160 251 3.53 17.74 1.35 62.7
BLS 120 78 185 137 214 2.70 17.74 1.35 47.9
BLS 150 113 134 95 150 1.77 17.74 1.37 31.4
BLS 180 136 109 80 122 1.37 17.74 1.35 24.4
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Page 6 of 46 Dowell
SCREEN SERIES: S
Description: Hookstrip, unbonded.
Single layer, market grade square mesh.
Sources: Brandt
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Heavy gauge wire, long screen life.
Poor resistance to blinding.
Use as scalping screen.
Brandt S Series
S-8 8 2464 n/a n/a 74.06 17.74 n/a 1313.8
S-10 10 1905 n/a n/a 49.68 17.74 n/a 881.34
S-12 12 1533 n/a n/a 34.97 17.74 n/a 620.30
S-14 14 1306 n/a n/a 29.22 17.74 n/a 518.31
S-16 16 1130 n/a n/a 24.30 17.74 n/a 431.12
S-18 18 979 n/a n/a 19.30 17.74 n/a 342.41
S-20 20 864 n/a n/a 15.93 17.74 n/a 282.62
S-30 33 561 548 578 8.32 17.74 1.05 147.59
S-40 41 402 389 411 4.89 17.74 1.05 86.79
S-50 49 305 298 313 2.88 17.74 1.07 51.01
S-60 61 245 239 252 2.40 17.74 1.04 42.51
S-80 77 188 181 194 1.91 17.74 1.06 33.93
S-100 103 146 141 152 1.44 17.74 1.11 25.51
S-120 121 124 121 126 1.24 17.74 1.04 22.07
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Dowell Page 7 of 46
SCREEN SERIES: HCR

Description: Hookstrip, 2 in. plastic grid Proprietary weave,
openings are long narrow slots.
Sources: Cagle (built by Advanced)
Comments: High conductance, extremely long life.
Cut point will depend on shape of solids.
- near minimum listed D50 for sands.
- near maximum listed D50 for slivers.
Brandt
Screen Name Mesh D50 Range Conductance Area Aspect
Count Ratio
HCR 80 12 X 93 173-250 7.06 16.4 10
HCR 100 15 X 115 141-203 5.58 16.4 10
HCR 150 19 X 158 105-151 4.45 16.4 10
HCR 200 19 X 200 74-107 3.32 16.4 14
HCR 250 20 X 229 61-88 2.50 16.4 17
HCR 325 43 X 259 43-62 1.51 16.4 20
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Page 8 of 46 Dowell
3 Broadbent - Tandem Master (Lower Deck)

SCREEN SERIES: BL
Description: Hookstrip, perforated plate with 2 in. openings.
Layered square mesh cloth composition.
Sources: Broadbent
Comments: Repairable Scalping screens (2 required):
- BG10, BG16, BG20, BG24, BG38.
Broadbent BL Series

BL 60 48 316 238 325 7.03 6.89 1.26 48.44
BL 84 80 177 120 215 3.69 6.89 1.57 25.42
BL 120 100 149 104 187 3.21 6.89 1.50 22.12
BL 140 122 123 87 148 2.46 6.89 1.45 16.95
BL 175 152 98 69 120 2.04 6.89 1.48 14.06
BL 210 168 89 62 106 1.77 6.89 1.47 12.20
BL 250 208 71 50 84 1.25 6.89 1.41 8.61
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Dowell Page 9 of 46
4 Derrick - Flo-Line Cleaner, Cascade System, High G Dryer

SCREEN SERIES: PMD DX, PMD HP
Description: Hookstrip panel with unique corrugated
screening surface, valleys run parallel to flow.
PMD DX - Layered extra-fine square mesh.
PMD HP - Layered extra-fine rectangular mesh.
Sources: Derrick
Comments: This design offers larger screening area and
higher throughput than flat panels; helps reduce
mud losses along shaker rails.
Derrick PMD DX Series
PMD DX 50 48 318 231 389 6.10 7.42 1.45 45.3
PMD DX 70 68 220 158 269 4.18 7.42 1.47 31.0
PMD DX 84 78 181 127 218 3.53 7.42 1.46 26.2
PMD DX 110 100 149 105 184 2.93 7.42 1.44 21.8
PMD DX 140 125 120 86 143 2.29 7.42 1.45 17.0
PMD DX 175 156 96 70 118 1.77 7.42 1.45 13.1
PMD DX 210 174 86 60 104 1.59 7.42 1.41 11.8
PMD DX 250 213 69 49 84 1.39 7.42 1.45 10.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Derrick PMD HP Series

PMD HP 45 44 362 283 388 9.51 7.42 2.02 70.6
PMD HP 50 50 299 234 313 8.20 7.42 1.92 60.8
PMD HP 60 57 263 207 278 6.78 7.42 2.06 50.3
PMD HP 70 71 208 158 221 4.81 7.42 1.92 35.7
PMD HP 80 77 186 145 192 3.93 7.42 1.88 29.1
PMD HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.20 7.42 1.96 23.8
PMD HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.59 7.42 1.88 19.2
PMD HP 140 147 101 79 113 2.24 7.42 1.98 16.6
PMD HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.82 7.42 1.88 13.5
PMD HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.59 7.42 1.86 11.8
PMD HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.31 7.42 2.13 9.7
PMD HP 265 261 55 44 59 0.97 7.42 2.25 7.2
PMD HP 310 300 48 38 53 0.85 7.42 2.52 6.3
PMD HP 460 357 41 31 47 0.60 7.42 2.50 4.5
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: PWP DX

Description: Hookstrip panel, perforated plate with 1 in.
openings.
Two layers, extra-fine square mesh over square
mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Derrick (original equipment manufacturer)
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Has been standard screen series for all Derrick
shakers, slightly less capacity than newer HP
series.
This series is also available for Derrick Model
58 Flo-Line Cleaner (panel area = 7.57 sq ft).
Derrick PWP DX Series
PWP DX 50 48 318 231 389 6.10 5.30 1.45 32.4
PWP DX 70 68 220 158 269 4.18 5.30 1.47 22.1
PWP DX 84 78 181 127 218 3.53 5.30 1.46 18.7
PWP DX 110 100 149 105 184 2.93 5.30 1.44 15.6
PWP DX 140 125 120 86 143 2.29 5.30 1.45 12.2
PWP DX 175 156 96 70 118 1.77 5.30 1.45 9.4
PWP DX 210 174 86 60 104 1.59 5.30 1.41 8.4
PWP DX 250 213 69 49 84 1.39 5.30 1.45 7.4
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Advanced PWP DX Replacement Series

PWP DX 24 25 715 508 824 20.69 5.50 1.42 113.8
PWP DX 38 39 429 317 528 11.86 5.50 1.47 65.2
PWP DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 5.50 1.45 37.2
PWP DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 5.50 1.39 26.0
PWP DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 5.50 1.48 19.9
PWP DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 5.50 1.46 16.5
PWP DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 5.50 1.45 12.8
PWP DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 5.50 1.46 10.3
PWP DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 5.50 1.47 9.2
PWP DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 5.50 1.42 8.2
Southwestern PWP DX Replacement Series

PWP DX 24 25 715 508 824 20.69 5.50 1.42 113.8
PWP DX 38 39 429 317 528 11.86 5.50 1.47 65.2
PWP DX 50 48 320 234 380 6.77 5.50 1.45 37.2
PWP DX 70 73 200 150 241 4.17 5.50 1.48 22.9
PWP DX 84 86 169 119 200 3.62 5.50 1.44 19.9
PWP DX 110 97 153 107 182 3.89 5.50 1.46 15.9
PWP DX 140 118 127 91 153 2.32 5.50 1.41 12.7
PWP DX 175 152 98 70 117 1.90 5.50 1.48 10.5
PWP DX 210 174 86 60 106 1.67 5.50 1.41 9.2
PWP DX 250 215 68 48 82 1.23 5.50 1.45 6.8
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: PWP HP

openings.
Two layers, extra-fine rectangular mesh over
square mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Derrick (original equipment)
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Standard screen series for all Derrick shakers,
slightly higher capacity than older DX series.
Also available for Derrick Model 58 Flo-Line
Cleaner (panel area = 7.57 sq ft).
Derrick PWP HP Series
PWP HP 45 44 362 283 388 9.51 5.30 2.02 50.4
PWP HP 50 50 299 234 313 8.20 5.30 1.92 43.5
PWP HP 60 57 263 207 278 6.78 5.30 2.06 35.9
PWP HP 70 71 208 158 221 4.81 5.30 1.92 25.5
PWP HP 80 77 186 145 192 3.93 5.30 1.88 20.8
PWP HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.20 5.30 1.96 17.0
PWP HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.59 5.30 1.88 13.7
PWP HP 150 147 101 79 113 2.24 5.30 1.98 11.9
PWP HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.82 5.30 1.88 9.6
PWP HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.59 5.30 1.86 8.4
PWP HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.31 5.30 2.13 6.9
PWP HP 265 261 55 44 59 0.97 5.30 2.25 5.2
PWP HP 310 300 48 38 53 0.85 5.30 2.52 4.5
PWP HP 460 357 41 31 47 0.60 5.30 2.50 3.2
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Advanced PWP HP Replacement Series

PWP HP 45 47 353 270 379 9.81 5.50 1.87 53.9
PWP HP 50 61 274 216 301 7.56 5.50 1.79 41.6
PWP HP 60 62 240 184 267 5.75 5.50 2.10 31.6
PWP HP 70 71 208 158 221 5.02 5.50 1.96 27.6
PWP HP 80 77 186 145 192 4.08 5.50 1.95 22.4
PWP HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.44 5.50 1.96 18.9
PWP HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.63 5.50 1.88 14.5
PWP HP 150 147 101 79 113 2.28 5.50 1.98 12.5
PWP HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.91 5.50 1.88 10.5
PWP HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.67 5.50 1.86 9.2
PWP HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.35 5.50 2.13 7.4
PWP HP 265 261 55 44 59 1.00 5.50 2.25 5.5
PWP HP 310 300 48 38 53 0.87 5.50 2.52 4.8
Southwestern PWP HP Replacement Series

PWP HP 45 44 362 283 388 9.96 5.50 1.87 54.8
PWP HP 50 50 299 234 313 8.33 5.50 1.79 45.8
PWP HP 60 57 263 207 278 6.78 5.50 2.10 37.9
PWP HP 70 71 208 158 221 4.81 5.50 1.96 26.5
PWP HP 80 77 186 145 192 3.93 5.50 1.95 21.6
PWP HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.20 5.50 1.90 17.6
PWP HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.65 5.50 1.98 14.6
PWP HP 150 147 101 79 113 2.28 5.50 2.17 12.5
PWP HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.91 5.50 1.93 10.53
PWP HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.67 5.50 1.78 9.2
PWP HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.31 5.50 2.20 7.2
PWP HP 265 261 55 44 59 .088 5.50 2.29 4.8
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: GBG HP

Description: Hookstrip panel, no perforated plate.
Fine, HP-type rectangular mesh expoxy-bonded
at contact points to 8 mesh backing cloth.
Southwestern
Comments: GBG design maximizes screening area, and
flow capacity, but screen life is limited.
Derrick GBG HP Series
GBG HP 25 24 734 622 766 23.38 6.84 1.80 159.9
GBG HP 30 29 610 527 640 18.86 6.84 1.92 129.0
GBG HP 35 36 485 430 492 16.53 6.84 1.54 113.1
GBG HP 40 38 445 400 462 14.26 6.84 1.90 97.5
GBH HP 45 44 368 340 375 11.56 6.84 1.87 79.1
GBG HP 50 49 310 304 316 9.86 6.84 1.87 67.4
GBG HP 60 55 273 250 298 8.43 6.84 2.07 57.7
GBG HP 70 67 221 214 226 7.04 6.84 1.85 48.2
GBG HP 80 76 190 184 197 5.97 6.84 1.74 40.8
GBG HP 100 93 159 141 176 4.97 6.84 1.82 32.8
GBG HP 125 113 134 127 140 3.86 6.84 1.89 26.4
GBG HP 150 136 109 106 112 3.30 6.84 1.87 22.6
GBG HP 180 163 92 90 95 2.75 6.84 1.85 18.8
GBG HP 200 194 77 74 80 2.41 6.84 1.71 16.5
GBG HP 230 215 68 63 73 1.86 6.84 2.04 12.7
GBG HP 265 257 56 54 60 1.38 6.84 2.32 9.4
GBG HP 310 270 52 51 55 1.20 6.84 2.52 8.2
GBG HP 460 301 48 45 50 0.94 6.84 3.23 6.4
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Southwestern GBG HP Replacement Series

GBG HP 45 44 368 340 375 11.66 6.84 1.87 79.7
GBG HP 50 49 310 304 316 9.93 6.84 1.87 67.9
GBG HP 60 55 273 250 298 8.48 6.84 2.07 58.0
GBG HP 70 67 221 214 226 7.08 6.84 1.85 48.4
GBG HP 80 76 190 184 197 5.99 6.84 1.74 41.0
GBG HP 100 93 159 141 176 4.81 6.84 1.82 32.9
GBG HP 125 113 134 127 140 3.87 6.84 1.89 26.5
GBG HP 150 136 109 106 112 3.30 6.84 1.87 22.6
GBG HP 180 163 92 90 95 2.76 6.84 1.85 18.9
GBG HP 200 194 77 74 80 2.41 6.84 1.71 16.5
GBG HP 230 215 68 63 73 1.87 6.84 2.04 12.8
GBG HP 265 257 56 54 60 1.38 6.84 2.32 9.5
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: PBP HP

openings.
Single extra-fine rectangular mesh screening
layer over square mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Derrick
Comments: Highest conductance of Derricks standard
perforated plate panels.
Shorter screen life than standard PWP series,
but more resistant to plugging from sticky
material such as gilsonite.
Derrick PBP HP Series
PBP HP 60 60 252 241 263 6.78 5.30 1.92 35.9
PBP HP 70 69 215 207 223 6.20 5.30 1.76 32.9
PBP HP 80 78 182 149 189 4.91 5.30 1.73 26.0
PBP HP 100 101 148 129 157 4.01 5.30 1.76 21.3
PBP HP 125 115 131 117 137 3.38 5.30 1.79 17.9
PBP HP 150 131 114 98 118 2.95 5.30 2.11 15.6
PBP HP 180 165 91 79 94 2.38 5.30 1.80 12.6
PBP HP 200 189 79 71 83 2.12 5.30 1.66 11.2
PBP HP 230 208 71 65 75 1.76 5.30 2.08 9.3
PBP HP 265 261 55 44 59 1.28 5.30 2.25 6.8
PBP HP 310 300 48 38 53 1.12 5.30 2.52 6.0
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: SWG DX

Description: Hookstrip panel, unbonded, layered, extra-fine
square mesh cloth.
Southwestern
Comments: Original layered screen series.
Good deblinding characteristics.
Screen life is poor.
Derrick SWG DX Series
SWG DX 50 48 318 231 389 7.42 7.60 1.45 56.4
SWG DX 70 68 220 158 269 4.75 7.60 1.47 36.1
SWG DX 84 78 182 129 223 3.93 7.60 1.46 29.9
SWG DX 110 100 149 105 184 3.21 7.60 1.44 24.4
SWG DX 140 125 120 86 143 2.46 7.60 1.45 18.7
SWG DX 175 156 96 70 118 1.94 7.60 1.45 14.8
SWG DX 210 174 86 60 104 1.73 7.60 1.41 13.1
SWG DX 250 213 69 49 84 1.50 7.60 1.45 11.4
Southwestern SWG DX Series

SWG DX 24 25 715 508 824 14.82 7.60 1.44 112.6
SWG DX 38 39 429 317 528 8.46 7.60 1.55 64.29
SWG DX 50 48 320 234 380 7.11 7.60 1.45 54.1
SWG DX 70 73 200 150 241 4.59 7.60 1.47 34.9
SWG DX 84 86 169 119 200 3.93 7.60 1.46 29.85
SWG DX 110 97 153 107 182 3.09 7.60 1.44 23.5
SWG DX 140 118 127 91 153 2.44 7.60 1.45 18.5
SWG DX 175 152 98 70 117 1.98 7.60 1.45 15.1
SWG DX 210 174 86 60 106 1.73 7.60 1.41 13.2
SWG DX 250 215 68 48 82 1.26 7.60 1.45 9.6
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: BXL-D

Description: Hookstrip perforated plate with hexagonal
openings.
Triple layer, extra-fine square mesh cloth,
similar to PWP DX
Sources: Brandt
Comments: Replacement screen offered by Brandt.
Brandt BXL-D Replacement Series
BHX-D24 28 625 435 760 34.11 5.53 1.49 188.62
BHX-D38 36 494 360 572 22.45 5.53 1.40 124.12
BHX-D50 47 327 231 349 8.85 5.53 1.43 48.92
BHX-D70 68 219 158 252 4.89 5.53 1.39 27.05
BHX-D84 79 181 127 218 3.78 5.53 1.46 20.92
BHX-D110 100 149 105 184 3.11 5.53 1.44 17.20
BHX-D140 118 127 95 147 2.97 5.53 1.39 16.41
BHX-D175 152 98 70 118 1.95 5.53 1.45 10.76
BHX-D210 158 95 69 109 1.81 5.53 1.41 10.03
BHX-D250 213 69 49 81 1.44 5.53 1.43 7.96
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: Diamond Back, DX and HP type

Description: Hookstrip panel, perforated plate with triangular-
shaped openings.
HP Type - Two layers, extra-fine rectangular
mesh over square mesh backing cloth.
DX Type - Two layers, extra-fine square mesh
over square mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Advanced
Diamond-shaped plate pattern offers slightly
more usable screening area than standard 1 in.
PWP-type square openings.
Advanced Diamond Back DX Replacement Series
PWP DX 24 25 715 508 824 20.69 5.70 1.42 117.9
PWP DX 38 39 429 317 528 11.86 5.70 1.47 67.6
PWP DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 5.70 1.45 38.6
PWP DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 5.70 1.39 26.9
PWP DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 5.70 1.48 20.6
PWP DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 5.70 1.46 17.1
PWP DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 5.70 1.45 13.3
PWP DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 5.70 1.46 10.7
PWP DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 5.70 1.47 9.5
PWP DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 5.70 1.42 8.5
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Advanced Diamond Back HP Replacement Series

PWP HP 45 47 353 270 379 9.81 5.70 1.87 1.87
PWP HP 50 61 274 216 301 7.56 5.70 1.79 1.79
PWP HP 60 62 240 184 267 5.75 5.70 2.10 2.10
PWP HP 70 71 208 158 221 5.02 5.70 1.96 1.96
PWP HP 80 77 186 145 192 4.08 5.70 1.95 1.95
PWP HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.44 5.70 1.96 1.96
PWP HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.63 5.70 1.88 1.88
PWP HP 150 147 101 79 113 2.28 5.70 1.98 1.98
PWP HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.91 5.70 1.88 1.88
PWP HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.67 5.70 1.86 1.86
PWP HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.35 5.70 2.13 2.13
PWP HP 265 261 55 44 59 1.00 5.70 2.25 2.25
PWP HP 310 300 48 38 53 0.87 5.70 2.52 2.52
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: HCR

Proprietary weave, openings are long narrow
slots.
- near maximum listed D50 for slivers.
Derrick
Screen Mesh D50 Range Conductance Area Aspect
Name Count Ratio
HCR 80 12 X 93 173-250 7.06 5.5 10

HCR 100 15 X 115 141-203 5.58 5.5 10
HCR 150 19 X 158 105-151 4.45 5.5 10
HCR 200 19 X 200 74-107 3.32 5.5 14
HCR 250 20 X 229 61-88 2.50 5.5 17
HCR 325 43 X 259 43-62 1.51 5.5 20
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: HCS

Description: Hookstrip perforated plate with 1 in. openings.
Single layer, extra-fine square mesh cloth over
backing cloth.
Derrick (designated PBP DX)
Comments: High conductance series, less susceptible to
plugging by asphaltenes than triple layer
screens.
Screen life averages 40% less than PWP DX
type.
Derrick
HCS 24 25 715 508 824 20.69 5.30 1.42 109.66
HCS 38 34 522 403 558 14.46 5.30 1.29 76.65
HCS 50 44 367 264 426 9.56 5.30 1.41 50.67
HCS 70 57 266 191 275 6.75 5.30 1.29 35.78
HCS 84 64 234 178 243 5.90 5.30 1.29 31.26
HCS 100 76 189 157 197 4.61 5.30 1.22 24.42
HCS 130 100 149 137 151 3.62 5.30 1.14 19.19
HCS 160 124 121 113 123 3.21 5.30 1.12 17.03
HCS 180 135 110 100 115 3.05 5.30 1.16 16.14
HCS 220 176 85 81 88 1.90 5.30 1.10 10.07
HCS 280 228 63 60 65 1.17 5.30 1.09 6.18
HCS 325 282 51 48 53 0.76 5.30 1.09 4.00
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
5 Fluid Systems - Model 500, Model 50

SCREEN SERIES: MF
Description: Pretensioned, glued to rigid frame, 3 in. spacing
between glue lines.
Square mesh tensile bolting cloth over backing
cloth.
Sources: Fluid Systems (original equipment
manufacturer)
Southwestern
Comments: Screens are not repairable.
Standard screen series for Fluid Systems
shaker.
Fluid Systems MF Series
MF 10 11 1905 na na 49.68 6.61 na 328.4
MF 20 20 863 na na 15.93 6.61 na 105.3
MF 28 24 716 na na 16.14 6.61 na 106.7
MF 30 26 682 671 687 16.60 6.61 1.03 109.7
MF 40 37 476 465 487 9.51 6.61 1.04 62.9
MF 74 61 248 241 252 5.18 6.61 1.08 34.2
MF 100 75 193 186 197 5.13 6.61 1.09 33.9
MF 120 100 149 129 152 2.65 6.61 1.18 17.5
MF 145 126 119 109 122 1.95 6.61 1.14 12.90
MF 165 137 108 99 111 1.79 6.61 1.13 11.85
MF 180 156 96 93 97 1.56 6.61 1.10 10.34
MF 200 172 87 82 90 1.45 6.61 1.10 9.61
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Southwest Replacement Series

10 11 1905 na na 49.68 7.10 na 352.7
20 20 864 na na 15.93 7.10 na 113.1
40 41 402 389 411 6.09 7.10 1.05 43.2
60 61 245 239 252 2.32 7.10 1.04 16.5
74 61 248 241 252 5.18 7.10 1.08 36.8
100 75 193 186 197 5.13 7.10 1.09 36.4
120 100 149 129 152 2.65 7.10 1.18 18.8
145 126 119 109 122 1.95 7.10 1.14 13.8
165 137 108 99 111 1.79 7.10 1.13 12.7
180 156 96 93 97 1.56 7.10 1.10 11.1
200 172 87 82 90 1.45 7.10 1.10 10.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: HCS

between glue lines.
Single layer, extra-fine square mesh over
backing cloth.
Sources: Fluid Systems
High conductance series, shorter screen life
than MF series.
Fluid Systems HCS Series
HCS 38 34 522 403 558 19.08 6.61 1.29 126.1
HCS 50 44 367 264 426 9.60 6.61 1.41 63.5
HCS 70 57 266 191 275 7.93 6.61 1.29 52.4
HCS 84 64 234 178 243 6.78 6.61 1.29 44.8
HCS 130 100 149 137 151 3.92 6.61 1.14 25.9
HCS 160 124 121 113 123 3.45 6.61 1.12 22.8
HCS 180 135 110 100 115 3.25 6.61 1.16 21.5
HCS 220 176 85 81 88 1.98 6.61 1.10 13.1
HCS 280 228 63 60 65 1.20 6.61 1.09 7.9
HCS 325 282 51 48 53 0.77 6.61 1.09 5.1
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: XS
between glue lines.
Single layer, synthetic mesh over steel wire
backing cloth.
Sources: Fluid Systems
Conductance is generally low in this series.
Fluid Systems XS Series
XS 40 44 429 356 439 7.21 6.61 1.17 47.7
XS 60 60 250 242 255 4.14 6.61 1.09 27.4
XS 80 84 171 167 175 3.02 6.61 1.07 19.9
XS 100 100 149 125 152 2.82 6.61 1.17 18.6
XS 120 114 132 128 135 2.16 6.61 1.04 14.3
XS 150 158 95 91 98 1.93 6.61 1.12 12.7
XS 180 174 86 82 89 1.38 6.61 1.06 9.1
XS 250 294 49 48 51 0.58 6.61 1.11 3.8
XS 325 346 42 41 43 0.50 6.61 1.09 3.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: PTP DX, PTP HP

Description: Perforated plate with 1 in. openings bonded to
rigid frame.
PTP DX - Two layers, extra-fine rectangular
mesh over backing cloth.
Sources: Advanced
Comments: Repairable
Advanced PTP DX Replacement Series

PTP DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 5.34 1.45 36.1
PTP DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 5.34 1.39 25.2
PTP DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 5.34 1.48 19.3
PTP DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 5.34 1.46 16.0
PTP DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 5.34 1.45 12.5
PTP DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 5.34 1.46 10.0
PTP DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 5.34 1.47 8.9
PTP DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 5.34 1.42 7.9
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Advanced PTP HP Replacement Series

PTP HP 45 47 353 270 379 9.81 5.34 1.87 52.4
PTP HP 50 61 274 216 301 7.56 5.34 1.79 40.3
PTP HP 60 62 240 184 267 5.75 5.34 2.10 30.7
PTP HP 70 71 208 158 221 5.02 5.34 1.96 26.8
PTP HP 80 77 186 145 192 4.08 5.34 1.95 21.8
PTP HP 100 105 143 113 154 3.44 5.34 1.96 18.4
PTP HP 125 121 124 100 133 2.63 5.34 1.88 14.1
PTP HP 140 147 101 79 113 2.28 5.34 1.98 12.2
PTP HP 180 168 89 67 94 1.91 5.34 1.88 10.2
PTP HP 200 203 76 60 82 1.67 5.34 1.86 8.9
PTP HP 230 230 62 52 72 1.35 5.34 2.13 7.2
PTP HP 265 261 55 44 59 1.00 5.34 2.25 5.3
PTP HP 310 300 48 38 53 0.87 5.34 2.52 4.6
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
6 Harrisburg - Linear Tandem

SCREEN SERIES: Harrisburg
Sources: Harrisburg
Comments: Use coarser mesh on top deck.
Monitor tension for maximum screen life.
Harrisburg Series
24 23 625 435 760 34.11 8.20 1.49 279.7
38 30 494 360 572 10.00 8.20 1.40 82.0
50 42 386 286 406 8.07 8.20 1.29 66.2
70 58 258 252 263 6.15 8.20 1.04 50.5
84 56 260 251 267 5.44 8.20 1.05 44.6
110 113 134 97 166 3.00 8.20 1.50 18.0
140 132 113 77 138 2.38 8.20 1.54 14.3
175 152 98 70 118 1.90 8.20 1.45 11.4
210 158 95 69 109 1.67 8.20 1.41 10.0
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
7 Swaco - ALS
SCREEN SERIES: XL
Sources: Swaco (Southwestern)
Advanced
Comments: Monitor screen tension for maximum screen
life.
Swaco XL Series
XL 50 48 320 234 380 6.17 9.40 1.45 58.0
XL 70 73 200 150 241 3.76 9.40 1.48 35.4
XL 84 86 169 119 200 3.44 9.40 1.44 32.3
XL 110 97 153 107 182 2.75 9.40 1.46 25.9
XL 140 118 127 91 153 2.14 9.40 1.41 20.1
XL 175 152 98 70 117 1.78 9.40 1.48 16.8
XL 210 174 86 60 106 1.63 9.40 1.41 15.3
XL 250 215 68 48 82 1.21 9.40 1.45 11.4
Advanced DX 2 in. Plastic Replacement Series

DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 9.74 1.45 65.9
DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 9.74 1.39 46.0
DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.65 9.74 1.48 35.2
DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 9.74 1.46 29.2
DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 9.74 1.45 22.7
DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 9.74 1.46 18.2
DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 9.74 1.47 16.3
DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 9.74 1.42 14.5
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: ALS

Description: Hookstrip, unbonded, plastic strips at support
rails.
Sources: Swaco
Comments: Higher capacity, good deblinding characteristics
but shorter life than XL series.
Monitor screen tension for maximum screen
life.
Swaco ALS Series
ALS 50 48 320 234 380 6.17 11.75 1.45 72.5
ALS 70 73 200 150 241 3.76 11.75 1.48 44.2
ALS 84 86 169 119 200 3.44 11.75 1.44 40.4
ALS 110 97 153 107 182 2.75 11.75 1.46 32.3
ALS 140 118 127 91 153 2.14 11.75 1.41 25.2
ALS 175 152 98 70 117 1.78 11.75 1.48 21.0
ALS 210 174 86 60 106 1.63 11.75 1.41 19.2
ALS 250 215 68 48 82 1.21 11.75 1.45 14.2
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: HCR

Proprietary weave, openings are long narrow
slots.
- near maximum listed for D50 for slivers.
Swaco
Screen Name Mesh D50 Range Conductance Area Aspect
Count Ratio
HCR 80 12 X 93 173-250 7.06 9.4 10

HCR 100 15 X 115 141-203 5.58 9.4 10
HCR 150 19 X 158 105-151 4.45 9.4 10
HCR 200 19 X 200 74-107 3.32 9.4 14
HCR 250 20 X 229 61-88 2.50 9.4 17
HCR 325 43 X 259 43-62 1.51 9.4 20
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: Advanced DX Replacement Series

mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Advanced
Comments: Check support stringers carefully to ensure full
contact.
Advanced DX 1 in. Metal Replacement Series
DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 9.88 1.45 66.8
DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 9.88 1.39 46.7
DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.65 9.88 1.48 35.7
DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 9.88 1.46 29.6
DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 9.88 1.45 23.1
DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 9.88 1.46 18.2
DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 9.88 1.47 16.3
DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 9.88 1.42 14.7
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
8 Sweco - LM-3
SCREEN SERIES: TBC
Description: Hookstrip, perforated plate, available with 1 in.
or 2 in. openings.
Tensile bolting cloth over coarse backing cloth.
Sources: Sweco (original equipment manufacturer)
Southwestern
Comments: Use 1 in. perf plate as feed end panel and
under heavier solids loading applications.
Sweco TBC 1 in. Series
TBC 30 26 682 671 687 24.33 6.60 1.03 160.6
TBC 40 37 476 465 487 11.63 6.60 1.04 76.7
TBC 50 41 400 381 417 8.45 6.60 1.08 55.8
TBC 60 49 318 306 330 6.58 6.60 1.05 43.4
TBC 70 57 266 261 272 6.10 6.60 1.05 40.3
TBC 80 66 228 222 231 4.34 6.60 1.05 28.6
TBC 94 78 185 181 188 3.07 6.60 1.03 20.3
TBC 105 94 158 154 162 3.00 6.60 1.08 19.8
TBC 120 102 147 144 150 2.68 6.60 1.03 17.7
TBC 145 122 123 118 126 2.14 6.60 1.07 14.1
TBC 165 133 112 108 115 1.95 6.60 1.04 12.9
TBC 200 168 89 86 92 1.56 6.60 1.05 10.3
TBC 230 193 75 73 77 1.34 6.60 1.04 8.8
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Sweco TBC 2 in. Series

TBC 30 26 682 671 687 24.33 7.16 1.03 174.2
TBC 40 37 476 465 487 11.63 7.16 1.04 83.3
TBC 50 41 400 381 417 8.45 7.16 1.08 60.5
TBC 60 49 318 306 330 6.58 7.16 1.05 47.1
TBC 70 57 266 261 272 6.10 7.16 1.05 43.7
TBC 80 66 228 222 231 4.34 7.16 1.05 31.1
TBC 94 78 185 181 188 3.07 7.16 1.03 22.0
TBC 105 94 158 154 162 3.00 7.16 1.08 21.5
TBC 120 102 147 144 150 2.68 7.16 1.03 19.2
TBC 145 122 123 118 126 2.14 7.16 1.07 15.3
TBC 165 133 112 108 115 1.95 7.16 1.04 13.9
TBC 200 168 89 86 92 1.56 7.16 1.05 11.2
TBC 230 193 75 73 77 1.34 7.16 1.04 9.6
Southwestern 1 in. TBC Replacement Series

TBC 30 26 682 671 687 24.33 6.81 1.03 122.6
TBC 40 37 476 465 487 11.63 6.81 1.04 67.8
TBC 50 41 400 381 417 8.45 6.81 1.08 68.5
TBC 60 49 318 306 330 6.58 6.81 1.05 44.8
TBC 70 57 266 261 272 6.10 6.81 1.05 41.5
TBC 80 66 228 222 231 4.34 6.81 1.05 29.5
TBC 94 78 185 181 188 3.07 6.81 1.03 20.9
TBC 105 94 158 154 162 3.00 6.81 1.08 20.4
TBC 120 102 147 144 150 2.68 6.81 1.03 18.3
TBC 145 122 123 118 126 2.14 6.81 1.07 14.6
TBC 165 133 112 108 115 1.95 6.81 1.04 13.3
TBC 200 168 89 86 92 1.56 6.81 1.05 10.6
TBC 230 193 75 73 77 1.34 6.81 1.04 9.1
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Southwestern TBC 2 in. Replacement Series

TBC 30 26 682 671 687 24.33 7.68 1.03 186.9
TBC 40 37 476 465 487 11.63 7.68 1.04 89.4
TBC 50 41 400 381 417 8.45 7.68 1.08 64.9
TBC 60 49 318 306 330 6.58 7.68 1.05 50.5
TBC 70 57 266 261 272 6.10 7.68 1.05 46.9
TBC 80 66 228 222 231 4.34 7.68 1.05 33.3
TBC 94 78 185 181 188 3.07 7.68 1.03 23.6
TBC 105 94 158 154 162 3.00 7.68 1.08 23.0
TBC 120 102 147 144 150 2.68 7.68 1.03 20.6
TBC 145 122 123 118 126 2.14 7.68 1.07 16.5
TBC 165 133 112 108 115 1.95 7.68 1.04 15.0
TBC 200 168 89 86 92 1.56 7.68 1.05 12.0
TBC 230 193 75 73 77 1.34 7.68 1.04 10.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: MG
Description: Hookstrip, perforated plate, available with 1 in.
or 2 in. openings.
Market grade cloth over coarse backing cloth.
Sources: Southwestern
Comments: TBC panels preferred except for extreme
conditions.
Use 1 in. perf plate as feed end panel and
under heavier solids loading applications.
Southwestern 1 in. MG Replacement Series
MG 30 33 561 548 578 9.10 6.81 1.05 42.9
MG 40 41 402 389 411 6.09 6.81 1.05 31.1
MG 50 49 305 298 313 3.23 6.81 1.07 18.8
MG 60 61 245 239 252 2.32 6.81 1.04 15.8
MG 80 77 188 181 194 1.86 6.81 1.06 12.7
MG 100 103 146 141 152 1.69 6.81 1.11 9.6
MG 120 121 124 121 126 1.22 6.81 1.04 8.3
MG 150 138 107 102 110 1.36 6.81 1.07 9.3
MG 200 198 75 73 78 0.86 6.81 1.04 5.8
MG 250 230 62 61 63 0.77 6.81 1.07 5.3
MG 325 325 44 38 47 0.43 6.81 1.14 2.9
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Southwestern MG 2 in. Replacement Series

MG 30 33 561 548 578 9.10 7.68 1.05 69.9
MG 40 41 402 389 411 6.09 7.68 1.05 46.8
MG 50 49 305 298 313 3.23 7.68 1.07 24.8
MG 60 61 245 239 252 2.32 7.68 1.04 17.7
MG 80 77 188 181 194 1.86 7.68 1.06 14.3
MG 100 103 146 141 152 1.69 7.68 1.11 13.0
MG 120 121 124 121 126 1.22 7.68 1.04 9.4
MG 150 138 107 102 110 1.36 7.68 1.07 10.4
MG 200 198 75 73 78 0.86 7.68 1.04 6.6
MG 250 230 62 61 63 0.77 7.68 1.07 5.9
MG 325 325 44 38 47 0.43 7.68 1.14 3.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: DX-Type

Two layers, extra-fine mesh over coarse
backing cloth.
Sources: Advanced
Comments: May provide better resistance to blinding in
some applications.
Usable screening area, flow capacity is better
than 1 in. TBC panel.
Advanced DX 1 in. Replacement Series
DX 38 39 429 317 528 11.86 7.7 1.47 91.32
DX 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 7.7 1.45 52.09
DX 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 7.7 1.39 36.39
DX 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 7.7 1.48 27.84
DX 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 7.7 1.46 23.08
DX 140 127 118 86 143 2.38 7.7 1.45 18.33
DX 175 158 95 66 113 1.86 7.7 1.46 14.35
DX 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 7.7 1.47 12.82
DX 250 205 72 51 85 1.45 7.7 1.42 11.17
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
9 Sweco - LF-3
SCREEN SERIES: CTB
Description: Perforated plate with 1 in. openings bonded to a
rigid frame.
Tensile bolting cloth over coarse backing cloth.
Sources: Sweco (built by Advanced)
Comments: One of two screen types available for this
shaker.
The CTB series should provide longer life than
CHC, at lower throughput.
Advanced CTB Series
CTB 20 18 1041 40.93 7.54 308.6
CTB 30 26 682 671 687 18.00 7.54 1.03 135.7
CTB 40 37 476 465 487 9.96 7.54 1.04 75.1
CTB 70 57 266 261 272 6.10 7.54 1.05 46.0
CTB 120 102 147 144 150 2.68 7.54 1.03 20.2
CTB 145 122 123 118 126 2.14 7.54 1.07 16.2
CTB 165 133 112 108 115 1.95 7.54 1.04 14.7
CTB 200 168 89 86 92 1.56 7.54 1.05 11.7
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
SCREEN SERIES: CHC

Description: Perforated plate with 1 in. openings bonded to a
rigid frame.
Two layers, extra-fine rectangular mesh over
coarse mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Advanced
Comments: High capacity screening option for LF-3 shaker.
Advanced CHC Series
CHC 24 25 715 508 824 20.69 7.54 1.42 156.0
CHC 38 39 429 317 528 11.86 7.54 1.47 89.4
CHC 45 47 353 270 379 9.81 7.54 1.87 73.9
CHC 60 62 240 184 267 5.75 7.54 2.10 43.3
CHC 80 77 186 145 192 4.08 7.54 1.95 30.8
CHC 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 7.54 1.46 22.6
CHC 125 127 120 92 131 2.53 7.54 1.98 19.1
CHC 150 161 107 78 117 2.15 7.54 2.17 16.2
CHC 180 189 85 62 93 1.83 7.54 1.93 13.8
CHC 210 185 81 57 100 1.55 7.54 1.47 11.7
CHC 230 239 60 47 69 1.27 7.54 1.47 9.6
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
10 Thule Rigtech - VSM 100

SCREEN SERIES: Thule TBC
Description: Perforated plate type bonded to a rigid frame.
Tensile bolting cloth square mesh over coarse
mesh backing cloth.
Sources: Thule
Southwestern
Comments: Standard screen series for this shaker.
Thule TBC Series
TBC 52 49 311 222 344 3.99 4.30 1.38 17.2
TBC 84 70 212 n/a n/a 3.08 4.30 n/a 13.3
TBC 105 95 156 130 161 2.38 4.30 1.21 10.3
TBC 120 106 142 118 146 2.18 4.30 1.17 9.4
TBC 140 122 123 118 126 1.81 4.30 1.07 7.8
TBC 165 133 112 108 115 1.67 4.30 1.04 7.2
TBC 200 168 89 86 92 1.37 4.30 1.05 5.9
TBC 230 193 75 73 77 1.20 4.30 1.04 5.2
Southwestern TBC Replacement Series

52 49 311 222 344 4.65 4.30 1.38 20.0
84 70 212 n/a n/a 3.25 4.30 n/a 14.0
105 95 156 130 161 2.48 4.30 1.21 10.7
120 106 142 118 146 2.26 4.30 1.17 9.7
145 122 123 118 126 1.87 4.30 1.07 8.0
165 133 112 108 115 1.72 4.30 1.04 7.4
200 168 89 86 92 1.41 4.30 1.05 6.1
230 193 75 73 77 1.23 4.30 1.04 5.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
11 Tri-Flo - Model 148

SCREEN SERIES: Tri-Flow
Standard DX-style composition.
Sources: Tri-Flow
Comments:
Tri-Flo Series
50 48 320 234 380 6.77 5.09 1.45 34.46
70 73 200 150 241 3.97 5.09 1.48 20.21
84 86 169 119 200 3.61 5.09 1.44 18.37
110 97 153 107 182 2.89 5.09 1.46 14.71
140 118 127 91 153 2.21 5.09 1.41 11.25
175 152 98 70 117 1.83 5.09 1.48 9.31
210 174 86 60 106 1.67 5.09 1.41 8.50
250 215 68 48 82 1.23 5.09 1.45 6.26
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
12 Triton NNF Screening Machine

SCREEN SERIES: TSS
openings.
mesh backing cloth. Middle cloth is rectangular
mesh in some compositions.
Sources: Triton
Advanced
Southwestern
Comments: Standard screen series for this shaker.
Triton TSS Series
TSS 24 21 811 587 889 34.11 6.19 1.36 211.1
TSS 50 48 403 302 429 10.77 6.19 1.32 66.7
TSS 84 66 228 190 237 6.34 6.19 1.21 39.2
TSS 100 98 152 108 188 2.89 6.19 1.47 17.9
TSS 140 117 129 93 143 2.76 6.19 1.37 17.0
TSS 175 133 112 84 123 2.40 6.19 1.36 14.9
TSS 180 138 107 102 110 1.33 6.19 1.04 8.3
TSS 210 144 103 79 110 2.30 6.19 1.32 14.3
TSS 230 200 74 57 82 1.29 6.19 1.36 8.0
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix D
January 1998
Schlumberger
Screen Designations
Southwestern TSS Replacement Series

TSS 24 21 811 587 889 20.69 5.91 1.36 122.3
TSS 38 38 440 313 537 11.86 5.91 1.45 70.1
TSS 50 48 320 234 380 6.77 5.91 1.45 40.0
TSS 70 73 200 150 241 4.17 5.91 1.48 24.7
TSS 84 86 169 119 200 3.62 5.91 1.44 21.4
TSS 110 97 153 107 182 2.89 5.91 1.46 17.1
TSS 140 118 127 91 153 2.32 5.91 1.41 13.7
TSS 175 152 98 70 117 1.90 5.91 1.48 11.2
TSS 210 174 86 60 106 1.67 5.91 1.41 9.9
TSS 230 215 68 48 82 1.23 5.91 1.45 7.3
Advanced TSS Replacement Series

TSS 50 47 324 234 390 6.77 6.23 1.45 42.1
TSS 70 64 234 171 274 4.73 6.23 1.39 29.4
TSS 84 79 181 131 223 3.62 6.23 1.48 22.5
TSS 110 99 151 107 185 3.00 6.23 1.46 18.7
TSS 140 127 118 86 143 2.33 6.23 1.45 14.5
TSS 175 158 95 66 113 1.87 6.23 1.46 11.7
TSS 210 185 81 57 100 1.67 6.23 1.47 10.4
TSS 250 205 72 51 85 1.49 6.23 1.42 9.3
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Pump Performance Curves
Dowell Page 1 of 10

Figures
Fig. 1. 4M-21, BJ 5 at 1750 rpm.............................................................................................1
Fig. 2. 4M-18, BJ 6 at 1150 rpm.............................................................................................2
Fig. 3. 4M-19, BJ 6 at 1750 rpm.............................................................................................2
Fig. 4. Mission Magnum 1, 6 x 5 x 11 at 1150 rpm. .................................................................3
Fig. 10. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1150 rpm. ..................................................................6
Fig. 11. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1750 rpm. ..................................................................6
Fig. 12. Harrisburg curve no. 2013, 5 x 4 x 14 at 1150 rpm. ....................................................7
Fig. 18. Harrisburg curve no. 2007, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1150 rpm. .................................................. 10
Fig. 19. Harrisburg curve no. 2006, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1750 rpm. .................................................. 10
Fig. 1. 4M-21, BJ 5 at 1750 rpm.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 10 Dowell
Fig. 2. 4M-18, BJ 6 at 1150 rpm.
Fig. 3. 4M-19, BJ 6 at 1750 rpm.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 10
Fig. 4. Mission Magnum 1, 6 x 5 x 11 at 1150 rpm.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 10 Dowell
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 10
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 10 Dowell
Fig. 10. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1150 rpm.
Fig. 11. Mission Magnum, 8 x 6 x 14 at 1750 rpm.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 10
Fig. 12. Harrisburg curve no. 2013, 5 x 4 x 14 at 1150 rpm.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 10 Dowell
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 10
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
January 1998
Schlumberger
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Equipment Specifications
Dowell Page 1 of 64
Appendix F. Equipment Specifications

Tables
Table 1 Oilfield Shale Shakers ................................................................................................2
Table 2 Oilfield Shale Shaker Classification .......................................................................... 18
Table 3 Oilfield Centrifugal Pumps........................................................................................ 19
Table 4 Oilfield Degassers ....................................................................................................26
Table 5 Oilfield Hydrocyclones.............................................................................................. 33
Table 6 Oilfield Mud Cleaners ............................................................................................... 44
Table 7 Oilfield Centrifuges ................................................................................................... 50
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 2 of 64 Dowell
Appendix F. Equipment Specifications
Table 1
Oilfield Shale Shakers
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p
5 13
Total Overall
1 Number of 2 3 4 6 Vibrator 7 8 Gas 12 Weir
Mfg. & Screen Screen Screen Screen Vibrator Stroke Acceleration Type Dimensions Weight Comments
Speed Height
Model Angles Mfg. Tension Area Motion LxWxH (lbs)
Decks Screens (RPM) (In.)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Brandt (Division of Drexel Oilfield Services, Inc.)
Junior 1 1 Fixed-13 U.S. N.P.T. 9 B.D. 1390 .188 5.1 UE 25.5 54.75x80.75x41.5 980 Duals available.
Spring
Loaded one
side
Standard 1 1 Fixed-13 U.S. N.P.T. 20 B.D. 1750 .047 2.0 UE 36.25 83.25x63-5/8x44 1880 Duals & triples
Spring available.
Loaded one
side
9
Tandem 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1380 .18 4.9 C 38 79.75x72x52-5/8 2865 Duals & triples
Spring 11 11 available.
1425 4.0
Loaded one
side
9
Total Flow 2 4 Adjust Top O.S. N.P.T. 50 B.D. 1860 .11 5.2 C 40 114.25x82x55.25 5800 Flowback pan;
Cleaner +3, +1.5 Spring Variable speed model
Btm 0, -1.5 Loaded one available.
side
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 3 of 64
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
Model Decks Screens Angles Mfg. Tension Area (RPM) Motion (In.) LxWxH
(Sq Ft) (In.)
9 16
Retro FS 2 2 Fixed 0 O.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1620 .14 5.2 C 38 60-5/16x66-3/8x25-3/16 1430 Flowback pan.
Basket Spring
Loaded one
side
11
ATL-1000 2 4 Adjust Top U.S. Top-N.P.T. 10.8 D.G.B.D. 1765 .068 3.0 L 43 99.5x71x56.75 4300 Variable angle
-0 to -10 Not Spring
25.0
Btm -1:0 to Loaded
-10
15
ATL-CS 2&3: +10 to N.A. Btm-P.T.
0
Broadbent
7 9
DT 2000 2 Top-2 Top Adjust O.S. N.P.T. Top-19.0 B.D 1760 .12 5.3 L 35 110x69x61.5 4180 Duals & triples
-10 to -4, Bonded available.
-5 to +1 Spring
Loaded
Btm-3 Btm Adjust Bot-26.4
0 to +6
Cagle
Ultra-Screen 1 3 Adjust +3 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 23.3 B.D. 1350 .185 4.8 C 30.5 122x71x53 3700 Duals & Low profiles
-4 Spring available.
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 4 of 64 Dowell
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
11
Linear 1 3 Adjust +6 to O.S. N.P.T. 23.3 B.D. 1325 .160 3.6 L 30.5 122x71x64 4000 Duals & Low profiles
Screen -4 Spring available.
Loaded one
side
Dahlory
139 1 3 Adjust 0 to O.S. N.P.T. 27 Direct or 1740 ? ? L 34 112x60x60 5000
+5 Spring Hydraulic
1400-2000
Loaded both
sides
145 1 1 Fixed-13 O.S. N.P.T. 20 B.D. 1750 1/4-3/8? ? UE 18 84x66x54 2000 Duals available.
Spring
Loaded one
side
245 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. Not 40 B.D. 1500 ? ? C ? 156x84x46 5600
Spring
Loaded
Demco (Discontinued Solids Control Product Line)
Tandem 2 2 Fixed-3 O.S. N.P.T. Not 37.5 B.D. 1400 3/8. 5.09 C 33.5 97x73x48 2300 Duals & triples
Screen Spring 11 11 available.
.18 5.0
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 5 of 64
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
1 Number of 2 3 4 Vibrator Weir
Mfg. & Screen Screen Screen Screen Vibrator6 Stroke
7
Acceleration
8 Gas
Type
12
Dimensions Weight Comments
Speed Height
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Derrick
Standard 1 3 Fixed-20, O.S. N.P.T. 23.3 I. 3600 .031 5.7 UE 51.5 118x63x74 4500 Ramp-Lok screen
-25, Spring 11 11 tensioning avail. for all
.022 4.0
-30 Loaded both units. Singles
sides available.
LP 1 3 Fixed-5, O.S. N.P.T. 23.3 I. 1750 .100 4.4 UE 31.5 124x57x58 4500 Duals & triples
10, -15 Spring 11 11 available.
.080 3.5
Loaded both
sides
11 11
Flo-Line 1 3 Adjust +6 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 23.3 I., I. 1750 .078 3.4 L 31.5 123x63x57 5000 Duals & triples
Cleaner 0 Spring available. AWD
Loaded available.
11 11
Flo-Line 1 3 Adjust +5 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 23.3 I., I. 1750 .078 3.4 L 27-44 125.75x73.75x68 6000 Duals & triples
Cleaner (+) -15 Spring available. Deck angles
Loaded adjustable while
drilling.
Flo-Line 1 3 Adjust +5 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 32.9 I., I. 1750 .078 3.4 L 27-44 125.375x91.25x68 6600 Duals & triples
Cleaner -15 Spring available. Deck angles
Model 58 Loaded adjustable while
drilling.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 6 of 64 Dowell
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
DFE/Solids Control (see N L Baroid)
Double Life Corporation
Single 2 2 Adjust +5 to O.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1750 3/16? L 38 84x72x62 3300
Tandem -3 Spring
Linear Loaded one
side
Low Profile 1 3 Adjust +5 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 23.3 B.D. 1750 3/16? L 26" 117.5x66x58 5000
Linear -1 Spring
Loaded
Drexel Oilfield Services, Inc. (see Brandt)

Flo-Trend
9 9
Transition 1 3 Adjust 1:-46 O.S. N.P.T. 35.0 I., I. 1728 .123 4.2 L 49 128x78x56 5100
Screen to-39 2&3:
Separator -10 to +6
(FTS 3600L)
Linear Horizontal (LH) Screen Separator (see MTM RLM 28)

Fluid Systems, Inc.
11
High Volume 1 3 Adjust +5 to N.A. P.T. 25.4 I. 1200 .176 3.7 L 34 115x66x42 2500 Polyester screens
Linear -5 available.
Shaker
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 7 of 64
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Geolograph-Pioneer (has merged with Swaco)
8
24H-100 1 1 Fixed-9 U.S. N.P.T. 8 B.D. 1725 3/16? 7.9 ? UE 28 68x42x50 1360
Spring
Loaded one
side
8
34H-150 1 1 Fixed-9 U.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1725 3/16? 7.9 ? UE 28 68x54x50 1735
Spring
Loaded one
side
8
45H-200 1 1 Fixed-10 U.S. N.P.T. 20 B.D. 1725 3/16? 7.9 ? UE 30 80x66x50 2100 Dual 45H-400
Spring available.
Loaded one
side
8
JT 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1350 3/16? 4.9 C 38 68x60x46 2500 Discontinued, parts
Spring 11 only available.
4.8
Loaded one
side
8
ST 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1350 3/16? 4.9 C 38 80x72x46 3200 Dual DT & Triple TT
Spring available.
Loaded one
side
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Page 8 of 64 Dowell
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
7
Acceleration
8 Gas
Type
12
Speed Height
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Harrisburg
Junior 1 1 Fixed-8 U.S. N.P.T. 8.3 B.D. 1750 .125? 5.4? UE 24.5 54-3/4x55.5x43.5 920
Standard Spring
Loaded one
side
Standard 1 1 Fixed-8 U.S. N.P.T. 20 B.D. 1500 .125? 4.0 UE 30 85-15/16x65x43-3/4 1850 Dual Standard
Spring available.
Loaded one
side
Tandem 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1500 .125 4.0 C 36.75 85-15/16x68.25x52.5 2800 Has flowback pan;
Spring 11 dual & triple tandems
3.5
Loaded one available.
side
9 11
Linear 2 2 Adjust +5 to O.S N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1750 .115 4.5 L 36.75 85-15/16x65x43.75 3200
Tandem -3 Spring
Retrofit Loaded both
sides
Homco Omega (has merged with Sweco Oilfield Services, Inc.)
11 11
Double Deck 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1350 .155 4.0 C 38 80x72x46 3200 Same as Geolograph
Spring Pioneer ST.
Loaded one
side
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Dowell Page 9 of 64
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
7
Acceleration
8 Gas
Type
12
Speed Height
(Sq Ft) (In.)
9
LP 1 3 Fixed-8.5, O.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1750 .113 4.9 UE 30 106x72x49 4500 Same as Totco EVS
-11.5, Spring 24.
-12.5, Loaded both
sides
9
Series 1 4 Fixed-15, O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1750 .113 4.9 UE 59 124.5x72x66 4900 Same as Totco EVS
-18, Spring 32.
-19 Loaded both
sides
Hutchison- 1 1 Fixed-13 U.S. N.P.T. Not 11.3 B.D. 1750 .139 6.1? UE 34.75 91x47x56 1800
Hayes 2760- Spring
JR Loaded
4860-B4 1 1 Fixed-13 U.S. N.P.T. Not 20 B.D. 1750 .054 2.4 UE 36-11/16 91x71x56 2600 Dual 4860-DU
Spring available.
Loaded
4860-EM 1 1 Fixed-8 U.S. N.P.T. Not 20 B.D. 1445 .140 4.4 UE 20-13/16 84x67x38 2100 Dual 4860-EM-DU
Spring available.
Loaded
4860-Su- 2 2 Fixed-13 U.S. N.P.T. Not 40 B.D. 1750 .070 3.1 UE 36-11/16 91x71x56 2800 Dual 4860-SU-DU
Sing Spring available.
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
101 2 2 Adjust -5 to U.S. N.P.T. Not 40 B.D. 1750 .076 3.3 UE 39-5/8 95x75x54 2800 Dual 102 available; air
+3 Spring mounts.
Loaded
201-ST 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1492 .167 5.3 C 37-3/16 92x70x45 2500 Dual 202-DT available;
Spring flowback pan.
Loaded one
side
Quadraflow 1 4 Fixed +6 O.S. N.P.T. Not 37.7 Direct 1200 .16 3.0 L 31 128x68x56.5 4800 Not available for sale.
Spring
Loaded
MTM
7 9
RLM 28 1 3 Adjust +2.5 O.S. N.P.T. Not 28 I. 1740 .125 4.75 L 30 122x70x55 4500 10" flowline
to 5.5 Spring connection.
Loaded
N L Bariod (Bariod sold its line of solids control equipment which is now available from Baker Hughes Treatment Services/Bird Machine Co.)
SM II 2 2 Adjust +3 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 40 B.D. 1303 3/16 4.5 C 37 100x75x47 2600 Tandem SM II
-3 Spring 5.0
11 available; 10" flowline
Loaded connection.
11
Double Deck 2 2 Adjust +3 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 48 B.D. 1424 Adjust .063 /1.8 C 38 124x84x46 4600 Tandem Double Deck
11
-3 Spring .063--.5 .25 /7.2 available; 10" flowline
11
Loaded Norm .25 .5 /14.4 connection.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Petroleum Solids Control (same as Dahlory 139)
Quality Solids Separation Co.
9
Linear 1 3 Adjust +5 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 26.6 I. 1750 .125-.156 3.0-5.5 L 30 115x69x54 4500 Singles & Duals
Motion -5 Spring available. 1500 RPM
Model Loaded available.
QLM-1
Schiffner (available in Oklahoma from Spike Enterprises)
9
Super Sifter 1 2 Adjust 0 to N.A. P.T. 29.4 I., I. 1200 1/16-5/16 1.3-6.4 L 37 124x72x48 4200
+3
Swaco Geolograph
9
Mini-Shaker 1 2 Adjust -3.5 O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 .101-.026 1.13-4.3 UE 27 112x44x38 1600 6-position vibrator.
to -7.25 Spring
Loaded both
sides
9
Over/Under 2 2 Fixed 0 U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1492 .167 5.3 C 37-3/16 92x72x43 2500 Same as Hutchison-
Spring Hayes 201-ST; duals
Loaded one available.
side
9
Super 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1140 .275-.313 5.1-5.8 UE 28.5 132x74x54 4800
Screen Spring 1150
11
3.3
11
Loaded both
sides
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Super 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1150 .24 4.4 UE 37.75 100x74x45 3700
Shaker Spring
Loaded both
sides
11,14
Adjustable 1 2 Adjust -3 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 32 I., I. 1800 ? 3.7 L 33.56 128.75x63x58.32 5200 Vibrator angle
Linear +3 Spring adjustable from 25
Shaker Loaded to 65 in 10
increments.
Sweco
9
Single 2 2 Adjust +2 to U.S. N.P.T. 40 B.D. 1460 .21 6.4 C 39.25 91.5x81.5x46.25 2950 Duals & triples
Tandem -2 Pneumatic 4.0
11 available; deck hung
on cables; flowback
pan.
9
Full-Flo 1 3 Adjust 0 to O.S. N.P.T. 33.7 B.D. 1735 0-.140 0-6.0 L 38 132-1/8x69x71-1/8 5000
9
LM-3 +5 Norm-.094 Norm-4.0
11
2.8
TM
Oilmizer 1 3 Adjust 0 to N.A. P.T. 33.7 B.D. 1735 0-.140 0-6.09 L 38 132-1/8x69x71-1/8 5500 P.T. Screens
+5 Norm-.094 Norm-4.09 secured by
2.8
11 pneumatic seal; unit
designed to achieve
10% or less oil
content on cuttings.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Thompson Tool Co.
10 10
A2R 1 1 Fixed-15 O.S. N.P.T. Not 8 B.D. 2000 ? ? UE 23 83x48x39 1475 Automatic sample
Spring catcher. Discontinued.
Loaded
10 10
B2 1 1 Fixed-15 O.S. N.P.T. Not 8 B.D. 2000 ? ? UE 23 83x38x39 1300
Spring
Loaded
10 10
A3R 1 1 Fixed-15 O.S. N.P.T. Not 12 B.D. 2000 ? ? UE 26 96x63x48 2300 Automatic sample
Loaded
10 10
Spring
Loaded
10 10
A54 1 1 Fixed-15 O.S. N.P.T. Not 20 B.D. 2000 ? ? UE 31 96x73x48 2500 Automatic sample
Loaded
10 10
Spring
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
Thule Rigtech
VSM 120 2 2 Adjust U.S. Top-N.P.T. 46 Hydraulic Variable .079 Variable C 43.75 113-5/8x98.25x53-7/16 6845 Duals & triples
11
Top +11 to Not Spring 1000-2000 1700/3.9 available. Bottom P.T.
N.A.
-6.5 Btm 0 Loaded Btm- 1800/4.4
11 screens secured by
to +8 P.T. 11 hydraulic clamps.
1900/4.9 Flowback pan.
VSM 100 2 5 Fixed O.S. Top-N.P.T. 15 B.D. 1720 .083 3.5 L 41.8 109x74x54 4905 Duals & triples
N.A. Not Spring available. Bottom P.T.
1 Top-0 26
Loaded screens secured by
4 Btm-0, 15 Btm-P.T. pneumatic seal.
Discharge mud
recovery module as
standard.
Totco (Milchem) (Totco no longer in solids control business.)
9
EVS 24 1 3 Fixed-8.5, O.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1750 .113 4.9 UE 30 106x72x49 4500 Dual EVS 48 units
-11.5, Spring were available. Motor
-12.5 Loaded both vibrate.
sides
9
EVS 32 1 4 Fixed-15, O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1750 .113 4.9 UE 59 124.5x72x66 4900 Dual EVS 64 & Triple
-18, Spring EVS 96 units were
-19 Loaded both available. Motor
sides vibrates.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
9
MudMaster 2 2 Fixed 0 O.S. N.P.T. 40 I., I. 900 .5 5.8 L 42-1/8 81x76x39 3900 Resonance brakes.
Spring 11
3.5
Loaded both
sides
Tri-Flo International, Inc.

9
TFI-126 1 2 Adjust -5 to O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 Adjust 1.1-4.4 UE 24 93x44x41 1420 Single only.
-2 Spring .026-.101
Loaded both
sides
9
TFI-134 1 11 Fixed -5 O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 Adjust 1.7-5.8 UE 23 93x44x41 1420 Single only.
Spring .040-.134
Loaded both
sides
9
TFI-146 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1750 Adjust 2.5-6.4 UE 30.5 98x65.5x38 2575 Duals & triples
Spring .057-.147 available.
Loaded both
sides
TFI-148 1 3 Adjust 0 to O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1750 ? ? L 18 117x80x50 4300 Singles only.
+5 Spring
Loaded both
sides
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 1 (Continued)
5 13
Total Overall
Speed Height (lbs)
(Sq Ft) (In.)
9 9
Triton NNF 1 3 Adjust -1 to O.S. N.P.T. Not 27.4 I., I. 1728 .125 5.1 L 33 122x68x60 4960 Singles only.
Screening +5 Spring
.121 3.7
Machine Loaded
NOTES:
1. All shakers end feed.
2. Negative angles mean the screen slopes downward from the feed end, and positive angles mean upward slopes. For decks with screens with different screen angles, the angles of the
individual screens are given in order from the feed to the discharge end.
3. O.S. means overslung and U.S. means underslung. N.A. means not applicable.
4. N.P.T. means nonpretensioned and P.T. means pretensioned.
5. Larger total screen area does not necessarily mean larger fluid or solids handling capability.
6. B.D. means belt drive, I. means integral, and D.G.B.D. means Direct Gear Box Drive.
7. Sometimes referred to as throw. Stroke is twice amplitude and is total motion normal to the screen surface.
2 2
8. G = Stroke (in.) x (vibration speed per minute) divided by 70,400. One G = 386 in./sec . Indicated Gs are zero to peak normal to the screen surface.
9. Indicated G value is per manufacturer.
10. Not available from manufacturer.
11. Measured by Amoco's Grant Young or Al Cutt, OSUs Larry Hoberock, and/or Cagle Oilfield Services, Inc.'s Bill Cagle.
12. Type motion is either circular (C), balanced elliptical (BE), unbalanced elliptical (UE), or linear (L). N.A. means not applicable.
13. L is length, W is width, and H is height. Per manufacturer.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
14. Measured at 80% of maximum eccentricity setting.

15. 15. Advanced Technology Linear Cascading System (ATL-CS) also available. The ATL-CS incorporates a circular motion double-deck scalping shaker above a linear motion single
deck shaker (ATL-1100). Deck angles for ATL-1000 & ATL-1100 are the same. Weir height = 80" Weight = 8000 lbs.
16. Note: The Retro FS Basket replaces the Tandem Basket on existing rig shakers.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 2 Oilfield Shale Shaker Classification

Coarse Medium Fine Extra Fine
10-30 Mesh 40-80 Mesh 80-120 Mesh 130-325 Mesh
Brandt Junior Brandt Tandem Brandt Retrofit FS Brandt ATL1000
Brandt Standard Dahlory 147 Brandt Total Flow Cleaner Broadbent DT-2000
Dahlory 145 Demco Tandem Derrick Standard Cagle Linear Screen
Geolograph-Pioneer 24 H-100, Geolograph-Pioneer ST Flo-Trend Floline Separator Cagle Ultra-Screen
34 H-150, 45 H-200, & JT Harrisburg Tandem NL Bariod Double Deck Dahlory 139
Harrisburg Junior & Standard Hutchison Hayes 101 & 201-ST Oiltools Tandem 800A Derrick LP
Hutchinson Hayes 2760-JR, NL Bariod SM II Swaco Super Screen Derrick Flo-Line Cleaner
4860-B4, 4860-EM, 4860-SU-SING Swaco Super Shaker Totco EVS 32 Derrick Flo-Line Cleaner (+)
Swaco Mini-Shaker Sweco Tandem Totco MudMaster Derrick Flo-Line Cleaner Model 58
Thompson A2R, B2, A3R, B3, Totco EVS 24 Tri-Flo TFI-146 Double like Single Tandem Linear
A54, B54 Double like Low Profile Linear
Tri-Flo TFI-126, TFI-134 Flo-Trend Transition Screen Separator (FTS 3600L)
Flo-Trend Linear
Horizontal Screen Separator
Fluid Systems High Volume
Linear Shaker
Harrisburg Linear Tandem Retrofit
Hutchison Hayes Quadraflow
Quality QLM-1
MTM RLM 28
Schiffner Super Sifter
Swaco Adjustable Linear Shaker
Sweco Full-Flo LM-3
Sweco Oilmizer
Thule VSM 100
Thule VSM 120
Tri-Flo TFI-148 MT
Triton NNF Screening Machine
Note: The above classifications are general and are based on design and performance. In special flow rate, plugging, and/or viscosity situations, any of the above shakers could probably run finer or coarser
screens than indicated.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 Oilfield Centrifugal Pumps1
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n
Shaft Size Required Impeller Size (in.) & Horsepower for 500 gpm &
Mfg. & Impeller Casing Materials of Shaft6 Coupling 75 ft of Head for Various RPMs Mud Weights
Model Size Range Design Constr. Sealing End/Thru
Impeller Horsepower (RPM) Size Water 10 ppg 14 ppg
(in.) Lubrication Packing (in.) Comments
18 ppg
Baker Huges Pumps 2,3,4,5

1780 Series (equivalent to Mission Type W pumps)
2500 Series (equivalent to Mission Magnum 1 pump)
3000 Series (Formerly Galigher Pumps)
4
5x6 9-11 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P. 1-7/8/3.0 1150 >11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Impeller locked on or threaded.
13
(5x6x11) Elastomer 1750 9" 18.0 21.5 30.2 38.8 Clockwise rotation only.
11
Lined
4
6x8 11-14 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P. 1-7/8/3.0 1150 12.25 21 25.2 35.3 45.4 Impeller locked on or threadbare on.
13
(6x8x14) Elastomer Clockwise rotation only.
11
Lined
BJ Hughes3
9
5" 9-13.5 Volute Cast Iron Grease C.P. 1-13/16/1-13/16 1150 13.5 14.0 16.8 23.5 30.3 Suction line should never be smaller
(5x6x13.5) 1750 9 15.5 18.6 26.1 33.5 than suction inlet. Discontinued
manufacturing.
9
6" 10-14.5 Volute Cast Iron Grease C.P. 1-13/16/1-13/16 1150 13.25 15.5 18.6 26.1 33.5 Suction line should never be smaller
(6x8x14.5) 1750 than suction inlet. Discontinued
<10" N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. manufacturing.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
Oilfield Centrifugal Pumps1
18 ppg
Demco3,12 (Demco centrifugal pumps now available from Mattco.)

8
CP 8-12 Circular Cast Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 >12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
11
5x6 Std. 1750 8.5 16.0 19.2 26.9 34.6
(5x6x12)
8
6x8 8-12 Circular Cast Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 12-3/8 17.0 20.4 28.6 36.7
11
(6x8x12) Std. 1750 9 24.0 28.8 40.3 51.9
4 13
XD 8-11.5 Circular Hard Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 >11.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Clockwise rotation only.
5x6x11 Std. 1750 9 15 18.0 25.2 32.4
5x6x14 10-14 Circular Hard Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.5 16 19.2 26.9 34.6
Std. 1750 <10" N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
6x8x11 8-11 Circular Hard Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 <11" N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Std. 1750 9.25 16.5 19.38 27.7 35.7
6x8x14 10-14 Circular Hard Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.75 18.0 21.6 30.3 38.9
Std. 1750 <10" N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
18 ppg
Gorman-Rupp2,3
ID Series 4-7/8-11.25 Volute Cast Iron Grease, oil Grease-lubr. Variable Flow rates up to 3500 gpm: Heads up to 180 ft. Trash pumps. Inspect impeller thru
1.5"-6 seal removable coverplate without
pumps w/spring- removing piping. Self-priming. Handle
loaded 1"-3 size solids depending on model.
grease cup Available with air cooled gasoline or
diesel engines. Pumps mounted on
pneumatic tires or skid base.
80 Series 5-18 Volute Cast Iron Grease, oil Grease-lubr. Variable Flow rates up to 7000 gpm: Heads up to 200 ft. Designed for dirty water & limited
1.5"-12,40 seal solids-handling appl. Self-priming.
Models w/spring- Avail. with air cooled or water cooled
loaded gasoline or diesel engines. Pumps
grease cup mounted on pneumatic tires or skid
base.
Mud 8-11 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.157 1150 >11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
4
Pumps Casing 1750 9" 17.0 20.4 28.6 36.7
6x5x11 w/Ductile
Iron Impeller
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
18 ppg
Harrisburg3,9
178 9-12 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 >12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
5x6 Ductile Iron, 1750 8.5 16.3 19.6 27.4 35.2
or Alum.
(5x6x12) Bronze
6x8 9-13.25 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 12.5 17.5 21.0 29.4 37.8
Ductile Iron, 1750 <9 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
or Alum.
Bronze
Honcho 10-14 Circular Ductile Iron Oil, grease C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.5 17.8 21.4 29.9 38.5 Impeller locking system.
250 1750 <10 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
5x6
6x8 10-14 Circular Ductile Iron Oil, grease C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 13.5 22.9 27.5 38.5 49.5 Impeller locking system. Extra Life
1750 10.5 29.0 34.8 48.7 62.7 Package available for abrasive service.
MCM4,7,12
7
178 8-12 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 >12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. All impellers made of ductile iron.
3 11
Series Hard Iron 1750 8.5 16.0 19.2 26.9 34.6
5x6
(5x6x12)
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
18 ppg
7
6x8 9-13.25 Circular Cast Iron, Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 12.5 17.0 20.4 28.6 36.7 All impellers made of ductile iron.
11
(6x8x13) Hard Iron 1750 9 24.0 28.38 40.3 51.9
250 8-11.5 Circular Ductile Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 >11.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. All 250 Series impellers are open
4
Series 8-11.0 1750 9 15.0 18.0 25.2 32.4 design and right hand rotation only.
5x6x11
5x6x14 10-14 Circular Ductile Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.5 15.1 18.1 25.4 32.6
1750 <10 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
6x8x11 8-11 Circular Ductile Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 >11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
1750 9.25 17.0 20.4 28.6 36.7
6x8x14 10-14.125 Circular Ductile Iron Oil Bath C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.75 18.0 21.6 30.3 38.9
10-14 1750 <10 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Mission - Fluid King Oilfield Products
7 11
Type 8-12 Circular Cast Iron Grease C.P. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 >12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
3,4,7,12
W 1750 9.5 16.9 20.3 28.4 36.5
13
5x6 R&C
13 7 11
6x8 R 9-13.25 Circular Cast Iron Grease C.P. 1-7/8/1-7/8 1150 12-3/8 17.1 20.5 28.7 37.0
1750 9 24.0
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
18 ppg
Magnum 13,4,7
11
6x5x11 11-14 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 >11.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Clockwise rotation only.
1750 9.0 15.0 18.0 25.2 32.4
11
6x5x14 10-14 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 12.5 15.6
1750 <10 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
11
8x6x11 8-11 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 <11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
1750 9.25 16.7 20.0 28.1 36.1
11
8x6x14 10--14-1/8 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 13-1/8 20.7 24.8 34.8 44.7
1750 10 26.0 31.2 43.7 56.2
11
10x8x14 12-14 Circular Cast Iron Grease, oil C.P., M.S. 1-7/8/2.5 1150 14 26.4 31.7 44.4 57.0
1750 <12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Thompson Tool Co.3,4,7,12
10
Type F 8.5-10.5 Circular Hard Iron Grease Packless 1.75/N.A. 1750 8.5 16.4 19.7 27.6 35.4 Type FS Packless self-priming pumps
Packless Std. also available in 5" and 6" sizes.
13
5x6 R&C
13 10
6x6 R&C 8.5-10.5 Circular Hard Iron Grease Packless 1.75/N.A. ? ? ? ? ? ?
Std.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 3 (Continued)
18 ppg
A. R. Wilfley & Sons, Inc.4,11

10 10
ES 13 Volute Hard Iron Oil Bath N.A. 2.12/N.A. 1150 13" gives 82' TDH and requires 17 HP Packingless design; available in a
6x4 2" diam Std. 1750 13" gives 196' TDH and requires 52 HP variety of metals and elastomers.
range Closed impeller design.
8x6 17 Volute Hard Iron Oil Bath N.A.10 2.38/N.A.10 1150 Packingless design; available in a
2" diam Std. variety of metals and elastomers.
1750
range Closed impeller design.
Note: Wilfley impellers are too hard to be turned down as many other manufacturer's impellers can be.
NOTES: 7. Cutdown impellers available in 1/8 increments.

1. All horizontal-type mounted on pedestal or frame except as indicated. 8. Cutdown impellers available in 1/4 increments.
2. Vertical centrifugal pumps available. 9. Cutdown impellers available in 1/2 increments.
3. All impellers of semi-open design. 10. N.A. means not applicable.
4. Impeller has expeller vanes on back side. 11. Also available in more wear-resistant metals.
5. Pumps are elastomer lined. 12. Available in both clockwise and counterclockwise rotation.
6. C.P. means conventional packing; M.S. means mechanical seal. 13. R means clockwise rotation from drive end and C means counterclockwise rotation from
drive end.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
Mfg. & Model Type1 Flow Range Dimensions Weight (lbs) Comments
Rate (in. Hg) LxWxH (in.)
(gpm)
Brandt
4 2
DG-5 Vacuum emptied by 500 7-20 88x54x62 2390 Mud flows over four stacked conical baffles (9956 in area). Jet pump requires
jet pump. max 29 75 ft feed head. All units must be started up before gas cut mud appears to
prevent gas locking.
4 2
DG-10 Vacuum emptied by 1000 7-20 100x60x77 3900 Mud flows over seven stacked conical baffles (32060 in area). Jet pump
jet pump. requires 75 ft feed head.
Burgess & Associates Mfg., Inc.

Magna-Vac 500 Vacuum emptied by 500 10" 39" diam x 64" ht 1000 All units self-contained. All models designed to set down in mud tank. All
self-contained models designed to allow easy passage of lost circulation materials. All units
centrifugal pump. designed to break down into two pieces for portability. All models have vacuum
created by regenerative vacuum blower. All units have positive gas discharge.
Gas separated by vacuum and turbulence. All units must have suction and
discharge submerged to start up. All units run noisy at approximately 85 db,
and ear protection should be worn if working near for extended periods. 20 HP
motor.
Magna-Vac 1000 Vacuum emptied by 1000 10" 44" diam x 73" ht 1475 20 HP motor. Portable unit breaks down into two pieces weighing 875 and 600
self-contained lbs respectively.
centrifugal pump.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
Magna-Vac Vacuum emptied by 1000 10" 44" diam x 58" ht 875 20 HP hydraulic motor. Portable.
1000 H self-contained
centrifugal pump.
Magna-Vac 1500 Vacuum emptied by 1000 15" 44" diam x 73" ht 1675 20 HP drive motor and 5 HP vacuum booster. Portable.
self-contained
centrifugal pump.
Demco (Discontinued Solids Control Product Line - Model 600 degasser taken off market in early 1980's.)
Derrick Equipment Co.

4
Vacu-Flo 500 Vacuum emptied by 500 7-20 93.75x59.5x60 2900 Mud flows over four stacked conical corrugated baffles. Jet pump requires 75 ft
jet. max 29 feed head. Unit must be started before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas
locking. Except for top outlet, bolt-on access door, and corrugated baffles, the
Vacu-Flo 500 is a copy of the Brandt DG-5.
4
Vacu-Flo 1000 Vacuum emptied by 1000 7-20 100x60x77 3900 Mud flows over seven stacked conical baffles. Jet pump requires 75 ft feed
jet. max 29 head. Unit must be started before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
Except for top outlet, bolt-on access door, and corrugated baffles, the Vacu-Flo
1000 is a copy of the Brandt DG-10.
Flo-Trend Systems, Inc. (Discontinued marketing Centri-Vac Ft-600 and FT-1000 degassers.)
Geolograph Pioneer (Geolograph Pioneer now merged with Swaco Geolograph who advised 4/24/91 that Pioneer Solids Control equipment still available. See Swaco-Geolograph for
information about the Geolograph Pioneer Hurricane CD-800 and CD-1400 degassers.)
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
Hutchison-Hayes Intl, Inc. (Discontinued marketing Rhumba Vac-Degasser about 1986.)
Smith International (Drilco)

See-Flo Atmospheric filled by 700 None 69x?x90.5 1000 All units set down in the mud tank. All units separate gas by turbulence and
Standard Pit patented centrifugal impact. Gas disposal vent system (optional) available. Standard and Deep Pit
pump. models are portable. 7.5 HP motor.
See-Flo Deep Atmospheric filled by 700 None 69x?x114.5 1200 10 HP motor.
Pit patented centrifugal
pump.
See-Flo Big (Discontinued this model during early 1980's) 2000 30 HP motor.
Volume
Swaco
D-Gasser Vacuum emptied by 1200 8-15 157x42x89 3350 Gas separated as mud flows over flat plates under vacuum. Jet pump requires
4
Horizontal jet pump. 75-160 feet feed head. TOGA (Total Gas) H2S Containment System available
which consists of a Swaco H2S Mud-Gas Separator working in series with a
Swaco D-Gasser. Unit must be started up before gas cut mud appears to
D-Gasser Vacuum emptied by 1200 8-15 60x42x146 2950 Vertical unit consists of several cascading baffle plates and only recommended
4
Vertical jet pump. for applications with limited space. Not as efficient as horizontal unit. Unit must
be started up before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
Hurricane CD-800 Atmospheric filled by 800 w/water none 42.5x37.5x103 1650 All Hurricane units designed to set down in the mud tank. Uses centrifugal
centrifugal pump force to pump the fluid and to separate the gas. Used to deaerate muds that
action. inherently tend to foam. All Hurricane units originally developed by Geolograph
Pioneer. All units compact and can be broken down for easy transport. 15 HP
motor.
Hurricane CD- Atmospheric filled by 1400 w/water none 57.5x46.5x104 2400 25 HP motor.
1400 centrifugal pump
action.
Sweco
DG-2 Vacuum emptied by 800 9-14 77x49x86 2400 Self-contained unit must set beside mud tank. Vacuum pump creates vacuum
centrifugal pump. in the chamber. Gas separated by combination of centrifugal force, turbulence,
and vacuum. No auxiliary pump required. Vacuum adjusted with a regulator
valve. 15 HP motor.
Note: Sweco at one time marketed DG-3 and DG-4 degassers but has discontinued these two units and now only markets the DG-2.
VG-1 Vacuum emptied by 1000 8-15 144x42x60 2200 Gas separated as mud flows over flat plates under vacuum. Unit must be
jet pump. started up before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking. Unit much like
Swaco Horizontal D-Gasser except vessel is slightly larger in diameter and
vacuum pump and motor both located on the skid.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
Thule Rigtech (Thule markets the Burgess Degasser.)
Tillett Tool Co.

Gas Hog Atmospheric filled by 800-1000 <2 42x42x125 or 150 1200 Unit sets down in tank. Mud pumped into chamber where a spinning disk
impeller pump. 800 optimum & deflects the mud radially toward the wall over three sets of baffles. Gas
1250 separated by impact and turbulence and removed by vacuum blower. Optional
blower available if gas is to be vented more than 200 ft away.
Totco (Discontinued Solids Control product Line.)

4
TSC-500 A Vacuum emptied by 500 w/water 10-26 76x72x72 2200 Unit has microprocessor which monitors oil pressure inside the vacuum pump,
jet pump fed by self- 27 max liquid level inside the suction air scrubber and the load condition on both the
priming centrifugal vacuum pump and the centrifugal pump motor. If any of these conditions
pump. exceed preset limits, the unit shuts down and indicates where the problem is
on the control panel. Gas separated by turbulence, flow as thin sheet over
baffles, and vacuum. Unit must be started up before gas out mud appears to
Note: Totco at one time marketed Milchem's AV vacuum degasser but discontinued the AV in favor of the TSC-500 A.
Tri-Flo
Compact 800 Vacuum emptied by 600 Max 13 48x48x95 2600 Gas separated by vacuum over baffle plates. Gas being separated used to
4
Degasser jet pump. equalize the vacuum rather than air as with other manufacturer's units. All units
must be started up before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
Horizontal Vacuum emptied by jet 1200 Max 13 171x43x72 3900 Gas separated by vacuum over angled baffle plates.
4
Degasser pump.
Well Control
4
8200 Vacuum emptied by 450 8-12 96x36x62 1500 No vacuum pump. Like Model 5200 uses a dual ejector venturi and jet pump
jet pump. with a 1.939" nozzle and a cyclone separator. Jet pump requires 10 to 35 psi.
Gas separated over cone and inverted cone reversing flow baffles. Unit must
be started before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
4
6200 Vacuum emptied by 850 8-12 168x48x76 2600 No vacuum pump. Like Model 5200 uses a dual ejector venturi and jet pump
jet pump. with a 1.939" nozzle and a cyclone separator. Jet pump requires 10 to 35 psi.
Gas separated over cone and inverted cone reversing flow baffles. Unit must
be started before gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
3200 Vacuum emptied by 1100 8-12 91x60x92 6000 Self-contained unit with vacuum pump for drawing mud into the vessel and a
self-priming self-priming centrifugal pump to remove mud from the vessel. Gas separated
centrifugal pump. under vacuum over a series of conical shaped baffles. A 60-75 HP motor used
on self-priming centrifugal pump.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 4 (Continued)
Oilfield Degassers
a b c d
Nominal
2,3 Vacuum5 Overall
(gpm)
4
5200 Vacuum emptied by 1100 8-12 156x60x72 3500 No vacuum pump. Uses a dual ejector venturi jet pump to draw mud into the
jet pump. unit by vacuum and to discharge the mud from the vessel. Gas separated
2
under vacuum over four stacked conical baffles (9328 in ). Mud and gas
mixture discharged by ejector through a cyclone separator which separates the
gas out top and mud out bottom to active mud pit. Mud return line should
extend down to one ft. above bottom of mud tank. Jet pump requires 35 to 55
psi. Uses a 1.939" jet pump nozzle. Unit must be started up before gas cut
mud appears to prevent gas locking.
NOTES:
1. Degassers are classified as either atmospheric or vacuum. To be classified as a vacuum degasser, a unit must maintain a continuous 5 in. of mercury vacuum.
2. Nominal flow rates given are for water. Flow rates for viscous muds are less. Flow rates for heavy, viscous gas cut muds are much less.
3. Values given are per manufacturer.
4. All vacuum units using jet pumps to discharge the mud must be started up before the gas cut mud appears to prevent gas locking.
5. The level of vacuum attained is a function of mud weight, mud viscosity, the height of the degasser above the mud surface, and the capability of the vacuum pump.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 Oilfield Hydrocyclones1
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Mfg. &1 Model Inlet Type Cone Construction Underflow Adjustment at Rec. Special Features/Comments
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc. (Bailey-Parks builds cones for various oilfield solids control companies.)
4
2.5" 2.375 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .125 & cutoff to 6,45 1.25" Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone
Ramp .75"
4
4" 4.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .125 to .50" 50,75 2" Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 2-piece cone
Ramp
4
5" 5.0 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .75" 80,75 2" Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 2-piece cone
4
5" 5.0 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .75" 80,75 2" Flange on inlet; 2" Victaulic on overflow, 2-piece cone
4
10" 10.125 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Adjust .75 to 1.25" 500,75 5" Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone
Baker Hughes Pumps

3" (same as MPE 3" 50 gpm cone with rectangular tangent entry)
4" 4.07 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .125 to .625" 50,32-38 Ceramic insert in apex area for wear resistance, victaulics on inlet and
psi overflow, 2-piece cone
5" 5.07 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .125 to .625" 80,32-38 Ceramic insert in apex area on inlet and victaulic on overflow, either flanged
psi or victaulic, 2-piece cone
10" 9.95 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed 1, 1.25, 1.75" 500, 32- 5" Victaulics on inlet and overflow, fixed apex acts as wear inserts, available
38 psi with ceramic insert
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
Oilfield Hydrocyclones1
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Baker-Hughes Treatment Systems, Inc. (see NL Baroid)
Baroid (see NL Baroid)
Bird Machine Co. (see NL Baroid)
C. E. Bauer (Bauer manufactures a wide variety of cones of common and exotic materials for a wide variety of industrial users and has supplied cones to the oilfield.)
2 2
3"(600-3) 3 Circular Tangent Nylon Fixed .125 and cut off 20,92 17 gpm at 75 ft head Threaded
to .75"
2 2
6"(606-110) 6 Circular Tangent Nylon Fixed .25 and cut off 110,80 108 gpm at 75 ft head Victaulics
to 1.125"
2 2
12"(623-4) 12 Circular Tangent Stainless Steel Fixed 1.0 and cut off 650,115 400 gpm at 75 ft head Victaulics or Flanges
to 2.75"

2" ? ? Polyurethane? Fixed? 20,75 ?2-piece cone, victaulics on feed and overflow, ceramic insert molded into
apex, manifolds available with 4-24 cones
2
4" 3.9 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane? Adjust .125 to .69" 66,75 2-piece cone, victaulics on feed and overflow, manifolds available with 1, 2,
or 3 cones in either vertical or slant mounting
2
12" 12.2 Circular Involute Polyurethane? Fixed 1.5, 1.75, 2.125" 492,75 3-piece cone, victaulics on feed and overflow, manifolds available with 1, 2,
or 3 cones in either vertical or slant mounting
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Dahlory, Inc.
4" 3.9 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjustable .25 to .625" 55,75 Manifolds available with 2-20 4" cones, Victaulics on feed and overflow, 2-
piece cone
10" 10.25 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjustable .5 to 1.75" 500,75 Manifolds available with 1, 2, or 3 10" cones, Victaulics on feed and
overflows, 3-piece cone
Demco (Discontinued Solids Control Product Line; see RETSCO for available Demco cones.)
4
2" 2 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .50" 15,75 All Derrick 2", 3", and 4" cones are designed to fit the same manifold. 2
valves are standard on all circular manifolds optional for all in-line manifolds.
3" (same as MPE 3" 50 gpm cone with rectangular tangent entry)
4
4" 3.813 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .56" 50,75 Polykineticurethane bottom liner, screws together, 2-piece cone, in-line or
Ramp circular manifolds available, 2" valves on inlets, victaulics on inlet and
overflow, manifolds available with 6-20 4" cones
DFE/Solids Control (see NL Baroid)
Drilco (see Smith International)
Flo Trend Systems, Inc.
2" (same as Bailey Parks 2.5"; see Bailey Parks)
3" (same as Hydro-Separation Systems, Inc. 3" 50 gpm cone with rectangular tangent entry)
4 2
4" 4 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .625" 62,75 Victaulics on feed and overflow, 2-piece cone, manifolds available with 4-20
Ramp 4" cones
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
4 2
5" 4.9 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .625" 102,75 Flange on inlet and victaulic on overflow, 2-piece cone; manifolds available
Ramp 0 to .750" with 4-20 5" cones
Geolograph-Pioneer (has merged with Swaco; see Swaco)

Harrisburg
4
4" 3.875 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .75" 50,75 Manifolds available with 8-24 cones, victaulics on feed and overflow, 2-piece
cone
4
5" 4.875 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .75" 80,75 Manifolds available with 8-20 cones, flange on inlet and victaulic on
overflow, 2-piece cone
4
10" 10.0 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Adjust 0 to 1.5" 500,75 Manifolds available with 1-3 cones slant mounted and 1-2 cones vertically
mounted, victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone
Hutchinson Hayes International, Inc.

5" 4.77 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .5" 80,75 Manifolds available with 4-16 cones, flange on inlet and victaulic on
overflow, 2-piece cone
10" 10.2 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Fixed 1, 1.25, 1.50" 500,75 Manifolds available with 1-4 cones, victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece
cone
Hydro-Separation Systems, Inc. (Now MPE)

4
1" 1.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .080" 5,75 All cones designed and developed by Amoco's Grant Young, brass snap-
locks on inlets and overflows, 2-piece cone
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
4
3" 3.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .24, .30, .40, 32,75 All 3" cones made to fit several other manufacturers' 4" cone manifolds, all
.50, .60" 3" have victaulics on inlets and overflows, 2-piece cone
4
3" 3.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .24, .30, .40, 50,75 2-piece cone
.50, .60"
4
3" 3.0 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Fixed .24, .30, .40, 50,75 Fits Brandt 4" cone manifolds, 2-piece cone
.50, .60"
Krebs Engineers
4 2
U4 3.9 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Adjust 3.75 to 1.063" 86,75 Victaulic connections on inlet, and overflow. Replaceable, fixed and
Fixed .375 and cut off adjustable apexes in various sizes. Replaceable vortex finders in various
to 1.5" sizes.
4 2
U4B 3.9 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Same as U4 91,75 Same as above
4 2
PU6 6.0 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Same as U4 180,75 Same as above
4 2
TU10 3.25" 10.0 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Adjust .375 to 3.0" 390,75 Victaulic connections on inlet, and overflow. Replaceable, fixed and
2
vortex 6.3 in Fixed .5 to 2.0" adjustable apexes in various sizes. Ceramic apexes also available.
inlet Fixed ceramic .5 to
3.0"
4 2
TU10 4" vortex 10.0 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane Same as TU10 above 600,75 Same as above
2
9.52 in inlet
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Morganite Canada, Inc. (formerly Permathane; now see Wren Sales (92) Ltd.)
NL Bariod (Baroid sold its line of solids control equipment to DFE/Solids control who sold to Reserve Pits Inc., who sold to Baker Hughes Treatment Services; Baroid solids control equipment now available
from Baker Hughes Treatment Services/Bird Machine Co.)
5" 4.7 Circular Tangent Polyurethane? Adjust 0 to .7" 83,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 2-piece cone manifolds available with 6, 8,
m 12, or 16 5" cones
10" 10.1 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane? ? to 1.3 500,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone manifolds available with 1, 2,
3, or 4 10" slant-mounted cones
Ohio Rubber (Discontinued oilfield hydrocyclone line and sold cone molds to various other companies; see MPE.)
Oiltools
4" 4.0 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .37, .51, .59, 50,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, polyurethane will withstand 185F, 3-piece
.67, .75" cone, manifolds available with 3-16 or more cones
10" 10.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .75, 1.0, 1.25, 500,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, polyurethane will withstand 185F, 3-piece
1.5, 1.75" cone, manifolds available with 1-3 cones
Permathane Ind. (see Wren Sales (92) Ltd.)

4" Model 240 3.813 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane top Adjust .25 to .625" 50,75 Retrofit the Pioneer Siltmaster 4" and Economaster 4" cones and Sweco 4"
section & aluminum cone, manifolds available with 4-24 4" cones, victaulics on inlet and overflow
alloy body with
polyurethane liner
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
6" Model 260 6.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane top Adjust .5 to 1.0" 100,75 Retrofit the Pioneer Sandmaster 6" or Economaster 6" cones, manifolds
section with aluminum available with 3-12 6" cones, victaulics on inlet and overflow
alloy body with
polyurethane liner
12" Model 212 12.0 Circular Tangent Aluminum housing Fixed 1.75, 2.0, 2.25" 500,75 Retrofits the Pioneer 12" Volumemaster cone, manifolds available with 1-4
with aluminum bronze 12" cones, victaulics on inlet and overflow
cone top and feed
nipple, cone liner and
vortex finder made of
hycar rubber, apex
lined with
polyurethane
RETSCO (formerly Demco hydrocyclone line)
2" 2.25 Circular Tangent Cast Iron .3, .18" 20,75 Flanged inlet and overflow, buna or urethane cone liners available
3" 3.1 Circular Tangent Cast Iron .44, .3, .2" 27,75 Flanged inlet and overflow, urethane liner
4" 4.0 Circular Tangent Cast Iron .55, .44, .3, .2" 42,75 Flanged inlet and victaulic on overflow, manifolds available with 2-24 cones
4 2
4H 4.87 Circular Tangent Polyurethane .69, .44, .3, .2" 76,75 Flanged inlet, victaulic on overflow, orifice control plate. Also available in
ductile iron. Manifolds available with 2-24 cones
8" 6.95 Circular Tangent Cast Iron .73, .44, .3, .2" 156,75 Flanged inlets, overflow manifolds available with 1-8 cones, available in
either vertical or inclined mounting
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
4
10" 10.2 Rectangular Involute Polyurethane 1.5" Fixed 640,75 3-piece cone with victaulics on inlet and overflow manifolds available with
1-4 cones
12" 12.81 Circular Tangent Cast Iron Adjustable Valve 400,75 Orifice control valve, manifolds available with 1-4 cones in either vertical or
inclined mounting
Schiffner (some Schiffner 2" and 4" cones available in US from Spike Enterprises)
Smith International
Drilco Division (Discontinued cyclone product line.)
Swaco Geolograph
2" Microclone 1.97 Rectangular Tangent Ceramic Fixed .25" 25,125 20-cone manifolds
50 mm Bit Nozzle
4
2" Microclone 2.3 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .5" 25,125 Ceramic liner in apex, 20-cone manifolds
4 2 2
4" Twin Cone 4.04 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .375 (most 69,91 63 gpm at 75 ft feed head , manifolds available with 8-20 4" cones
common) .5, .625"
Double
4
12" 12.1 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .5, .75 (most 500,75 Manifolds available with 1, 2, or 3 cones in either vertical or slant mounting,
common) 1.25, 1.5" 4-piece cone
Cones formerly available from Geolograph Pioneer

3" Solidsmaster Cast Iron 22,75 All cones have victaulics on inlet and overflow, all Economaster cones have
an aluminum bottom with a replaceable polyurethane liner
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
4
3" Economaster 3.0 Square Tangent Polyurethane 22,75
2
4" Siltmaster 3.75 Circular Tangent Cast Iron Adjust .25 to .625" 48,75 Manifolds available with 4-24 4" cones, 2-piece cone
4 2
4" Economaster 3.75 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .625" 48,75 Manifolds available with 4-24 4" cones, 2-piece cone
4
4" HV 3.75 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust .25 to .75" 80,75
Economaster Ramp
6" Sandmaster 6 Circular Tangent Cast Iron Adjust .5 to 1.0" 100,75 Manifolds available with 3-12 6" cones, 2-piece cone
4
6" Economaster 6 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust up 1.0" 100,75 Manifolds available with 3-12 6" cones, 2-piece cone
12" 12.0 Circular Tangent Cast Iron Fixed 1.75, 2.0, 2.25" 500,75 Manifolds available with 1-4 cones, 3-piece cone
Volumemaster
4
12" Economaster 11.75 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane top Adjustable .75 to 2.25" 500,75 Manifolds available with 1-4 cones, 3-piece cone
Sweco
4 2
4" 3.785 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .620" 52,75 Manifolds available with 8-20 cones, 2-piece cone, victaulics on inlet and
overflow
4 2
5" 4.875 Circular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .685" 80,75 78 gpm at 60 ft feed head , manifolds available with 23 or 16 cones, flange
on inlet and victaulic on overflow, 2-piece cone
4 2
10" 10.0 Rectangular Volute Polyurethane Variable to 1.5" 500,75 506 gpm at 60 ft feed head , manifolds available with 1-3 vertically-mounted
cones and with 2-3 slant-mounted cones, victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-
piece cone
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Thompson Tool Co.
2
4" 4.25 Circular Tangent Cast Iron w/liner Automatic Adjust 0 to 50 psi 40 gpm at 60 ft feed head . Circular manifold, flanges on 45 gpm at 75 ft
2 2
.625" feed head inlet and overflow, manifolds 50 gpm at 90 ft feed head
available with 4-12 4" cones
2 2
8" 7.75 Circular Tangent Cast Iron w/liner Automatic Adjust 0 to 35-40 psi 176 gpm at 60 ft head Circular manifold, flanges on 187 gpm at 75 ft head
2
1.25" inlet and overflow, manifolds 196 gpm at 90 ft head with 1-4 8" cones
Thule Rigtech
4" PH4/LV ? ? Polyurethane? Adjust? 50,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 2-piece cone
4" PH4/HV ? ? Polyurethane? Adjust? 80,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 2-piece cone
Totco (No longer in solids control business)

4
2" 2.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Fixed .188" 15,81 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, cutoff valves on inlets, individual overflows
with patented control rod which acts as adjustable vacuum breaker for
varying the wetness of the solids discharge, unit available with 20-2 cones
4
4" 4.0 Rectangular Tangent Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .5" 60,58 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, cutoff valves on inlets, individual overflows
with patented control rod which acts as adjustable vacuum breaker for
varying the wetness of the solids discharge, units available with 8, 12, and
16-4 cones
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 5 (Continued)
a b c d e f g
Flow Rate5
Cone
Diam.
Head
(in.)
(gpm,ft)
Wren Sales (92) Ltd. (Cones originally available from Permathane and then subsequently Morganite Canada, Inc.)
4 2
2" 2.35 Circular Tangential Polyurethane Fixed .2 to .375" 16,65-70 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone, 17 gpm at 75 ft feed head
Ramp
4
4" 4.06 Circular Tangential Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .625" 39,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflows, 2 and 3-piece cones available
Ramp
4 2 2
5" 5.00 Circular Tangential Polyurethane Adjust 0 to .625" 86,90 Victaulics on inlet and overflows, 3-piece cone, 78 gpm at 75 ft feed head
Ramp
4
10" 10.25 Rectangular Volute Polyurethane Adjust .5 to 1.5" 585,75 Victaulics on inlet and overflow, 3-piece cone
Ramp
NOTES:
1. Original Table compiled by Amocos Grant Young.
2. Value given is per Amocos Grant Young.
3. Value given is manufacturers recommended feed head.
4. Polyurethane is moca-cured type which has a higher temperature stability which is needed for mud temperatures in the 175-200 F range.
5. Value given is per Manufacturer except as otherwise noted.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 Oilfield Mud Cleaners
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
Mfg. &1 Model Manifold1 No. Size2 Rec. Capacity Number of Screen3 Angles Screen4 Screen5 Total Area Screen Speed Comments
(in.) Head (ft) (gpm) Mtg. Tension (sq. ft) Vibrator6 (rpm)
Decks Screens
Mud Cleaner 1 8 4 PU 75 400 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 45x52=16.25 B.D. 1356 Reflux line, feed gauge,
siphon breaker standard.
Self-cleaning sliders
standard.
Chronaloy (No longer available)
Mud Cleaner R 8 4" PU 80 8(87)=696 1 1 Fixed-5 N.A. P.T. 16 I. 1800/3600 Individual cone overflows
each with siphon breaker,
2 2 Fixed-5 N.A. P.T. 32 I. 1800/3600 Krebs cones. Rotex
shaker. Victaulic
connections on all cones.
Demco Siltrite (now available from RETSCO)
4MC6 I 6 4"H 90-100 480_14 ppg 1 1 0-10 O.S. N.P.T. 11 B.D. 1400 Cone inlets flanged,
Spring Victaulics on overflow,
C.I. 240 14-18 ppg Adjust 0 to -10 Loaded see units available with
either metal or urethane
cones.
4MC8 I 8 4"H 90-100 600014 ppg 1 1 Adjust 0 to -10 O.S. N.P.T. 11 B.D. 1400 Cone inlets flanged.
Spring
C.I. 300 14018 ppg Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 (Continued)
Oilfield Mud Cleaners
1 1 2 3 4 5
Mfg. & Model Manifold No. Size Rec. Capacity Number of Screen Angles Screen Screen Total Area Screen Speed Comments
Decks Screens
4MC10 I 10 4"H 90-100 800014 ppg 1 1 Adjust 0 to -10 O.S. N.P.T. 16.5 B.D. 1400 Cone inlets flanged.
Spring
C.I. 400 14-18 ppg Loaded
4MC12 I 12 4"H 90-100 960014 ppg 1 1 Adjust 0 to -10 O.S. N.P.T. 16.5 B.D. 1400 Cone inlets flanged.
Spring
Spring
Spring
Derrick R 8 4" PU 75 8(50)=400 1 2 Adjust -1 to +5 O.S. Ramp-Lok 15.53 I. 1750 All cones have victaulic
Spring connections and 2"
Loaded valves on inlets.
R 16 4" PU 75 16(50)=800 1 3 Adjust -1 to +5 O.S. Ramp-Lok 23.3 I. 1750
Spring
Loaded
R 20 4" PU 75 20(50)=1000 1 3 Adjust -1 to +5 O.S. 32.9 I. 1750
Ramp-Lok
Spring
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 (Continued)
1 1 2 3 4 5
Decks Screens
Geolograph - R 16 4" 75 16(50)=800 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 B.D. 0-1450 All Economaster cones
Pioneer with plastic upper and
R 16 4"HV 75 16(80)=1280 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 B.D. 0-1450
Mud Cleaner urethane lined aluminum
(now Swaco R 8 6" 75 8(100)=800 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 B.D. 0-1450 lower section. Head
Geolograph) gauge. All cones have
R 16 3" PU 75 16(22)=352 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 B.D. 0-1450 victaulic connections.
Screens interchangeable
with Sweco. All units
variable speed, variable
eccentricity.
Harrisburg I 10 5" PU 75 10(80)=800 1 1 Fixed -4 O.S. N.P.T. 42x60 = B.D. 1500 5" cone inlets flanged.
Mud Cleaner Spring 2520 in2 17.5
MC-800 Loaded both
Hutchinson - I 10 5" PU 75 10(80)=800 1 2 Fixed -6 O.S. N.P.T. 28 B.D. 2100 5" cone inlets flanged.
Hayes Rhumba Spring
Mud Cleaner Loaded
NL Bariod I 8 5" PU 75 700 1 1 Adjust +2 to -2 O.S. N.P.T. Not 12 B.D. 1610 All cones have victaulic
Mud Cleaner Spring connections on feed &
(now available Loaded overflow.
from Bird
Machine Co.)
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 (Continued)
1 1 2 3 4 5
Decks Screens
Oiltools Mud I 8 4" PU 75 400 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 I 1800 Self-cleaning sliders.
Cleaner
1500

Mud Cleaner 1 8 6" PU 75 800 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.5 B.D. 1200 All cones have victaulics
Model Q48R on feed and overflow.
16 4" PU 75 800 1750
Swaco Mud All cones have flanged

Cleaner inlets.
4T4 I 8 4" PU 96 600 1 1 or 2 O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 Mini-Shaker

Spring
Loaded
6T4 I 12 4" PU 96 850 1 1 or 2 O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 Mini-Shaker
Spring
Loaded
6T4SS I 12 4" PU 96 950 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1140 Super Screen
Spring
Loaded
8T4SS 16 4" PU 96 1200 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 32 B.D. 1140 Super Screen
Spring
Loaded
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 (Continued)
1 1 2 3 4 5
Decks Screens
7
Sweco I 8 4" PU 9.0/35 8(50)=400 1 1 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 12.57 I 1800 Self-cleaning sliders.
Mud Cleaner Double tub unit. Manifolds
11.0/40 2 2 Fixed 0 N.A. P.T. 25.14 I 1800 with 10 & 12 cones
18.0/55 available. Also available
with 5" cones.
6
Thule I 8 4" PU 75 400 1 2 Adjust 4.5" up on N.A. P.T. 16.0 H.M.D. 900-2000 Upper deck can be added
VSM 200 discard end. for saving LCM. 4
16 4" PU 800
Pioneer Economaster
16 4" PU 1280 fitted at customer's
request.
Totco I 10 4" PU 75 500 1 3 Fixed -8.5, O.S. N.P.T. 24 B.D. 1750 EVS 24 shaker. Victaulic
(Milchem) -11.5, -12.5 Spring connection on cone inlet
Mud Cleaner Loaded and overflow.
Totco I 10 4" PU 75 500 2 2 Fixed 0 O.S. N.P.T. 40 I., I. 900

(Milchem) Spring
MudMaster Loaded both
Mud Cleaner sides
Tri-Flo Fluid
Separators
TFI-8 I 8 4" PU 20 psi 520 1 2 Adjust -5 O.S. N.P.T. 6 B.D. 1750 Feed inlet valves and
Spring individual overflows with
for any mud weight to +2 Loaded both control valves.
sides
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 6 (Continued)
Mfg. &1 Model Manifold1 No. Size2 Rec. Capacity Number of Screen3 Angles Screen4 Screen5 Total Area Screen Speed Comments
Decks Screens
TFI-16 I 16 4" PU 20 psi 1040 1 2 Fixed 0, -5 O.S. N.P.T. 12 B.D. 1750 Victaulic connections on
Spring cone inlets and overflows.
for any mud weight Loaded both
sides
Triton Linear I 16 3"-5 75 3"-800 1 3 Adjust -1 to +5 O.S. N.P.T. Non- 27.4 I., I. 1728 Triton NNF Screening
Mud Cleaner Spring Machine with bolt-on
4"-800 Loaded 16-cone desilter.
5"-1280
NOTES:
1. R means radial and I means in-line.
2. PU means polyurethane, C.I. means cast iron, and HV means high volume.
3. Negative angles means the screen slopes downward from the feed end, and positive angles means upward slopes.
4. O.S. means overslung and U.S. means underslung. N.A. means not applicable.
5. N.P.T. means nonpretensioned and P.T. means pretensioned.
6. B.D. means belt-driven and I. means integral, H.M.D. means hydraulic motor driven.
7. Manufacturer recommends given pressures for given mud weights.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 Oilfield Centrifuges
a b c d e f g h i j k
Bowl Size Rotating2 Bowl/Conveyor Gearbox Speed Range RPM/Gs8 Drive3 Mud4 Pump Capacity6 Mud Comments
Mfg. & Model1 (in.) Assembly Materials Differential Ratio (RPM) Wt/GPM.
of Construction
Alfa-Laval
414 14"x36 SS Adjust w/single lead 57/1 1500-3400 1500/447 E P.D. 9.0/100
Contour conveyor 2500/1243 11.0/80
3400/2299
14.0/60
3400/2299 14.0/70
4000/3182 14.0/70
Baker Hughes Treatment Services (marketing Baroid line of solids equipment.)
Standard Mud 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1300-1800 1300/432 DH, EH P.D. 9.0/45
Centrifuge Conical conveyor 1800/828 12-14/20
14-16/15
>16/10
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
Oilfield Centrifuges
of Construction
High Volume 24"x38 CS Standard Fixed with single lead 140/1 or 80/1 Variable 1500/767 E P.D. or 17.0/10
Centrifuge Contour conveyor 1000-2500 1800/1104 Centrifugal 9.0/25-150
2300/1803
2500/2/31
Bird Machine Co. Note: Bird has supplied 18"x28's (conical & contour) & 24"x38's (contour) to Pioneer, Baroid, Milchem (Totco), & Brandt (Drexel). Also 24"x45 (contour) to Derrick. Bird
offers a variety of centrifuges applicable to the oilfield.
Broadbent, Inc.
Compact Unit 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1000-2400 1000/256 E P.D. 10.0/65 Options available for
Contour conveyor 1500/575 all Broadbent
centrifuges include
2000/1022 variable bowl speeds,
2400/1472 variable
bowl/conveyor
differentials, and a
choice of abrasion
protection materials
for conveyors.
High Volume 24"x38 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 130/1 or 80/1 1000-2400 1000/341 E P.D. 10.0/130
Standard conveyor 1500/767
2000/1363
2400/1963
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Brandt (Division of Drexel Oilfield Services)
1 2 2
Rotosep 6" rotor CS Standard N.A. N.A. Fixed 2300 2300/451 D or E P.D. 15-28 gpm Same as Totco RMS
Centrifuge, except
Rotosep has tungsten
carbide seals.
CF-1 18"x28 CS Fixed with single lead 40/1 1600-2000 1600/654 E P.D. or unwtd/100 Manufactured by Bird
Contour conveyor Rec 1650 usually 1650/696 Centrifugal 9.0/90 Machine Co.
Pump
2000/1022 12.0/60
16.0/30
18.0/25
CF-2 24"x38 CS Fixed with single lead 80/1 1400-2000 1400/668 E P.D. or unwtd/175 Manufactured by Bird
Contour conveyor Rec 1450 usually 2000/1363 Centrifugal 9.0/150 Machine Co.
1900 Pump
12.0/60
16.0/30
18.0/25
HS-3400 14"x49.5 SS Standard Fixed with single lead 52/1 1750-4000 1750/609 E P.D. 9.0/140 Manufactured by
Contour conveyor 2900 normally 2400/1145 12.0/85 Sharples. Patented
tungsten carbide tiling
2900/1672 15.0/25 on conveyor for
3500/2435 18.0/15 abrasion resistance.
4000/3181
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Broadbent, Inc.
High Volume 22"x54 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 130/1 or 1000-3200 1000/312 E P.D. 10.0/230
High Speed conveyor 80/1 1500/703 14.0/90
2000/1250
2500/1953
3200/3199
DS1 14"x49 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 1800-3250 1800/644 E P.D. or 9.0/150 Carbide tiles on
(Sharples 3400) Contour conveyor 2500/1243 Centrifugal 17.0/20 conveyor.
3250/2100
DE 1000 14"49 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 or 1800-3250 1800/644 E P.D. or 9.0/150 Carbide tiles on entire
Contour conveyor 125/1 2500/1243 Centrifugal 17.0/20 length of conveyor.
3250/2100
DB1 (Bird) 24"x45 SS Fixed with single lead 80/1 1500-2400 1500/767 E P.D. or 9.0/230
Contour conveyor 1600 usually 2000/1363 Centrifugal
2400/1963
DB2 (Bird, Bird- 24"x38 CS & SS Fixed with double lead 80/1 or 1500-2400 1500/767 E P.D. or 9.0/150
Broadbent, Contour conveyor 130/1 2000/1363 Centrifugal
Broadbent)
2400/1963
DB3 (Bird) 18"x28 CS Fixed with double lead 80/1 1600-2000 1600/654 E P.D. or 9.0/80
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 Centrifugal 17.0/10
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
DS2 14"x30 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 2000-3250 2000/795 E P.D. or 9.0/120 Carbide tiles on
(Sharples 3000) Contour conveyor 2500/1243 Centrifugal 17.0/30 conveyor.
3250/2100
DDO 16"x49 SS Adjust 10-150 RPM 35/1 1800-4000 1800/736 E P.D. or 9.0/100
(Dorr Oliver) Contour 3000/2045 Centrifugal
4000/3635
DFE/Solids Control (DFE purchased Bariod's line of solids control equipment; DFE sold to Reserve Pits, Inc. who sold to Baker Hughes Treatment Services; see Baker Hughes Treatment
Services/Bird Machine Co.)
Flo-Trend
Model ? (same as Hutchison-Hayes Model 1430)
Model ? (same as Hutchison-Hayes Model 1448)
Geolograph-Pioneer (Merged with Swaco; now Swaco Geolograph.)

Decantmaster 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 DH, EH, P.D. 9.0/10-50 Pioneer Centrifuges
Standard Conical conveyor 2000/1022 or E 10.0/35.0 were manufactured
by Pioneer. Patented
17.0/10.1 conveyor gauging
system for all units.
Decantmaster 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 DH, EH, P.D. 9.0/20-150 Backdrive with
Mark I Contour conveyor 2000/1022 or E 10.0/70.0 variable scroll speed
available for all units.
17.0/20.2
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Decantmaster 18"x48 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 DH, EH, P.D. or 9.0/20-200
Mark II Contour conveyor 2000/1022 or E Centrifugal 10.0/70.0
17.0/20.2
Hutchison-Hayes Intl., Inc.
Model 1430 14"x30 SS Standard Fixed with single lead 52/1 2000-4000 2000/795 E P.D. 9.0/20-100 Manufactured by
Contour conveyor 3250/2100 Diaphragm 10.0/60 Hutchison-Hayes.
pump Weighted mud
4000/3181 17.0/9 capacities at 2100
g's. Slightly higher
capacities at lower
g levels.
Model 1448 14"x48 SS Standard Fixed with single lead 52/1 2000-4000 2000/795 E P.D. 9.0/20-100 Manufactured by
Contour conveyor 3250/2100 Diaphragm 10.0/60 Hutchison-Hayes.
pump Weighted mud
4000/3181 17.0/9 capacities at 2100
capacities at lower
g levels.
Model 5500 16"x55 SS Standard Fixed or Variable single 53/1 2000-3250 2000/909 E P.D. or 9.0/250 Manufactured by
Contour lead conveyor 3050/2114 Centrifugal 10.0/205 Hutchison-Hayes.
Weighted mud
3250/2400 17.0/32 capacities at 2100
flows at lower g
levels.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Hytech Centrifuges, Inc.
Hysep MD 43 16"x50 CS & SS Adjust 1-70 RPM 40/1 Max 2800 1500/575 E, H P.D. 9.0/100 Manufactured by M &
(previously 142) Contour 1500 or 2000 on 2000/1022 12.0/50 J in Denmark.
some units Conveyor can run
2780/1975 15.0/35 approx. 30 RPM
18.0/20 faster than bowl, if
desired. Patented
dual conveyor design.
Hysep MD 20"x69 CS & SS Adjust 1-40 RPM 40/1 Max 2400 2400/1636 E, H P.D. 9.0/160 Manufactured by M &
53(previously 152) Contour 10.0/125 J in Denmark.
Conveyor can run
12.0/65 approx. 30 RPM
15.0/45 faster than bowl, if
18.0/30 desired. Patented
dual conveyor design.
Hysep MD 44 16"x64 SS & Duplex Adjust 1-40 RPM 40/1 Max 3600 3600/2945 E, H P.D. 9.0/135 Manufactured by M &
10.0/95 J in Denmark. New
4:1 single scroll with
12.0/75 unique acceleration
18.0/35 feed chamber.
Hysep MD 54 20"x80 CS & SS Adjust 1-40 RPM 40/1 Max 2400 2400/1636 E, H P.D. 9.0/200 Manufactured by M &
10.0/165 J in Denmark. New
4:1 single scroll with
12.0/105 unique acceleration
18.0/45 feed chamber.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
NL Bariod (Bariod sold its line of solids control equipment to DFE/Solids Control who sold to Baker Hughes Treatment Services; see Baker Hughes Treatment Services.)
Oiltools (No longer in solids control business in USA.)
S2-1G 18"x54 CS Standard/SS Hydraulically variable Hydraulically 0-3400 E P.D. up to 70 gpm S2-1G manufactured
Contour, with single lead Variable by Humboldt. WATER
Counter- conveyor 0-60 DILUTION MUST
Current or NOT BE USED WITH
Co-Current CO-CURRENT
MODEL. Co-Current
model not
recommended for
weighted muds.
S3-0G 20"x60 CS Standard/SS Hydraulically variable Hydraulically 0-2600 E P.D. up to 97 gpm S3-0G manufactured
Contour, with single lead Variable by Humboldt. WATER
Counter- conveyor 0-60 DILUTION MUST
Current or NOT BE USED WITH
Co-Current CO-CURRENT
MODEL. Co-Current
model not
recommended for
weighted muds.

Q30 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 E P.D. 9.0/0-75 Automatic self-
Conical conveyor 2000/1022 10.0/35 cleaning on shutdown
17.0/10.1
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Q100 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 E P.D. or 9.0/100 Automatic self-
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 Centrifugal 10.0/70 cleaning on shutdown
17.0/15
Q200 18"x50 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 E P.D. or 9.0/200 Automatic self-
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 Centrifugal 10.0/150 cleaning on shutdown
17.0/15
Sharples, Inc.7
P-1000 14"x22 SS Not manufactured any
longer.
PM20000 14"x30.9 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 or 2600-4000 2600/1344 E P.D. preferred 9.0/100 Comments for
(P-3000) Contour conveyor 125/1 Sharples Centrifuges
3250/2100 10.0/90 (excluding P-1000):
4000/3181 11.0/60 Sharples centrifuges
17.0/20 have axial flow
PM30000 14"x49.4 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 or 2600-4000 2600/1344 E P.D. preferred 9.0/180 conveyors and
(P-3400) Contour conveyor 125/1 tungsten carbide tiles
3250/2100 10.0/170 on conveyors for
4000/3181 11.0/100 abrasion resistance.
17.0/15-20 P series is older
PM35000 16.75"x49.4 SS Fixed with single lead 52/1 or & does not have axial
Contour conveyor 125/1 flow and tungsten
carbide tiles as
standard.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
PM40000 20"x50.3 SS
(P-4600) Contour
PM50000 20"x76.4 SS Fixed with single lead 47/1 or 95/1 2000-3200 2000/1136 E Centrifugal 9.0/425
(P-4800) Contour conveyor 2550/1847 10.0/425
2800/2227 11.0/300
3200/2908 17.0/100
PM55000 24"x76 SS
Contour
PM60000 25"x65 SS Same as PM70000 except for length.
(P-5000) Contour
PM70000 25"x90 SS Fixed with single lead 47/1 or 95/1 1800-300 1800/1150 E Centrifugal 9.0/700
(P-5400) Contour conveyor 2250/1797 10.0/630
2500/2219 11.0/400
3000/3195 17.0/130
Spike Enterprises, Inc.
Bird 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1500-2000 1500/575 EH, E Centrifugal 90/10-40
Conical conveyor 2000/1022 10.0/30
17.0/5-10
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Broadbent 24"x38 CS Standard Fixed single and fixed 80/1 1000-2400 1000/341 E, D Centrifugal 9.0/150
Contour double lead conveyor 130/1 1500/767 10.0/100
2000/1363
2400/1963
Bird 24"x38 SS Fixed single and fixed 80/1 1000-2400 1800/1104 E Centrifugal 9.0/120
Cylinder double lead conveyors 2000/1363 10.0/85
9 degrees
2400/1963
Bird 24"x38 CS, SS Fixed single lead 80/1 1000-2400 1800/1104 E Centrifugal 9.0/120
2400/1963
Bird 24"x60 CS Standard Fixed with 6" SW, 6 80/1 1800-2500 1800/1104 E Centrifugal 9.0/250
Contour lead conveyor 2000/1363 10.0
2500/2130
Bird 32"x50 SS Standard Fixed with single lead 80/1 800-1700 800/291 Diesel Centrifugal 9.0/450
Contour conveyor variable 1200/654 Direct
1700/1313
Sharples 25"x90 SS Fixed with single lead 47/1 or 95/1 1800-3000 1800/1150 E Centrifugal 9.0/700 Tungsten carbide
P-5400 Contour conveyor 2250/1797 10.0/630 tiles on conveyor just
before feed inlet to
2500/2219 11.0/300 solids discharge end;
3000/3195 17.0/100 no axial flow
conveyor.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Swaco Geolograph (Swaco & Geolograph-Pioneer merged.)
Model 414 14"x36 SS Standard Adjust (3 settings) 60/1 1600-3250 1600/509 E P.D. 9.0/0-60 Swaco 414 & 518
Centrifuge Contour w/single lead conveyor 1800/644 11.0/40 centrifuges
Centrifugal manufactured by
2500/1243 17.0/17 Swaco Geolograph.
Model 518 14"x56 SS Adjust (3 settings) 60/1 1600-3250 2500/1243 E Centrifugal 8.5/90 Model 518 not
High Speed Contour w/single lead conveyor 3250/2100 9.0/75 designed for
Centrifuge weighted muds.
10.0/60
Model 518 14"x56 SS Adjust (3 settings) 60/1 1900 1900/718 E Centrifugal 9.0/250
High Speed Contour w/single lead conveyor 9.5/200
Centrifuge
10.0/150
Mark I (Same as Geolograph-Pioneer Mark I.)
Mark II (Same as Geolograph-Pioneer Mark II.)
Sweco
SC-2 18"x30 CS Standard Double lead Fixed or 59/1 1350-2250 1350/466 E P.D. or 9.0/200 Manufactured by
Contour SS Available variable conveyor 2250/1294 Centrifugal Sweco. Backdrive for
variable conveyor
speed avail.
SC-4 24"x40 CS Standard Double lead Fixed or 59/1 1150-1950 1150/451 E P.D. or 9.0/280 Manufactured by
Contour SS Available variable conveyor 1550 typ. 1350/621 Centrifugal Sweco. Backdrive for
variable conveyor
1950/1296 speed avail.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Z-34 14"x56 CS Standard Single lead variable 140/1 2000-3500 2000/795 E P.D. or 9.0/100 Manufactured by
Contour SS Available conveyor 3500/2435 Centrifugal Flottweg. Backdrive
for variable conveyor
speed.
Omega Mark I 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1350-2000 1350/466 E or DH P.D. or 9.0/150
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 Centrifugal
Omega Mark II 18"x48 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1350-2000 1350/466 E P.D. or 9.0/200
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 Centrifugal
NX 329 20"x62 SS Standard Single lead variable 143/1 1350-2400 1350/518 E P.D. or 9.0/150 Manufactured by Alfa
Contour axial flow conveyor 2400/1636 Centrifugal Laval.
643 16"x54 CS Standard Variable Double 140/1 1350-2500 1350/414 E P.D. or 9.0/125 Manufactured in
Conveyor 2500/1420 Centrifugal Denmark by GVS.
P3400 14"x50 CS or SS Fixed with single lead 141/1 up to 3000 2000/795 E P.D. or 9.0/100 Manufactured by
conveyor 2500/1243 Centrifugal Sharples.
3000/1789
RMS (same as Totco Milchem RMS Centrifuge)
Totco (Milchem) (Totco no longer in solids control business.)

2 2
RMS 6" rotor CS Standard N.A. N.A. Fixed 2300 2300/451 D or E P.D. 15-28 gpm Developed by Mobil
1
Centrifuge in 60's, portable,
does not decant.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
HV 18 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 1800-2000 1800/828 E Centrifugal 9.0/70 HV 18 manufactured
Contour conveyor 2000/1022 10.0/50 by Broadbent.
19.0/20
HV 24 24"x38 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 130/1 1600-1800 1600/872 E Centrifugal 9.0/150 HV 24 manufactured
Contour conveyor 1800/1104 10.0/120 by Broadbent.
19.0/50
Alfa-Laval 14"x56 SS Standard Adjust (5 settings) with 160/1 1500-3400 1500/447 E PD 9.0/140 for Not designed for
418 Contour single lead conveyor 2800/1559 50HP 1800-1900 weighted muds.
2800 typical
3400/2298 9.0/75 for
2800 RPM
Humboldt 24"x54 CS Standard Fixed with single lead 25/1 1638-1850 1638/914 E Centrifugal 9.0/185 Manufactured by
Contour conveyor 1850/1166 Humboldt.
SCS/142 15"x38 CS Variable with double N.A. 2800 variable 2800/1670 EH PD 8.5/60
Contour lead conveyor 50 HP
SCS/152 19.5"x62 CS Variable with double N.A. 2400 variable 2400/1595 EH PD 8.5/100
Contour lead conveyor 50 HP
Wagner International, Ltd. (merged with Wadeco)
Sigma 100 18"x28 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 2000 typical 2000/1022 E Centrifugal 8.5/125
Contour conveyor 50HP 9.5/80
10.5/60
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
January 1998
Schlumberger
Table 7 (Continued)
of Construction
Sigma 150 18"x48 CS Standard Fixed with double lead 80/1 2000 typical 2000/1022 E Centrifugal 8.5/175
Contour conveyor; axial flow 50HP 9.1/140
9.5/120
10.0/65
Sharples 20"x50 CS &/or SS Fixed with single lead 49/1 2800 typical 2800/2226 E Centrifugal 8.5/300 Sintered Tungsten
PM40000 Contour conveyor; axial flow; 100HP Carbide tiles (STC)
STC tiles on conveyor for
abrasion resistance.
Sharples 25"x65 SS Fixed with single lead 47.5/1 2500 typical 2500/2218 E Centrifugal 8.5/400 Sintered Tungsten
PM60000 Contour conveyor; axial flow; 200HP Carbide tiles (STC)
STC tiles on conveyor for
abrasion resistance.
NOTES:
1. All centrifuges are decanters except Totco (Milchem) RMS Centrifuge which is a perforated rotor centrifuge.
2. CS means carbon steel, SS means stainless steel, N.A. means not applicable.
3. DH means diesel-hydraulic, EH means electric-hydraulic, D means diesel, and E means electric.
4. P.D. means positive displacement.
5. Not available from manufacturer.
6. Values given are per manufacturer.
7. The PM Series Sharples centrifuges are newer versions of the older P series. Among the differences are axial flow conveyors with tungsten carbide tiles for abrasion resistance and 360 degree solids
discharge.
2
8. G = .0000142 x Bowl Diameter (in.) x RPM .
CONFIDENTIAL

DWM Solids Control Handbook

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DWM Solids Control Handbook

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SOLIDS CONTROL HANDBOOK

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 100 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 200 ECONOMICS

SECTION 300 SHALE SHAKERS

8.3 Cuttings Dryness.....................................................................................................30

SECTION 400 SHAKER SCREENS

4.2.1 Linear Motion .................................................................................................5

SECTION 500 DEGASSERS

SECTION 600 HYDROCYCLONES

SECTION 700 MUD CLEANERS

SECTION 800 DECANTING CENTRIFUGES

SECTION 900 CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS AND PIPING

SECTION 1000 ADDITION/MIXING SYSTEMS

SECTION 1100 TANK DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT

SECTION 1200 DEWATERING SYSTEMS

4 Equipment Selection ........................................................................................................10

SECTION 1300 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A SOLIDS CONTROL PROGRAMS

APPENDIX B CONDUCTANCE CALCULATION

APPENDIX C SOLIDS CONTROL EQUIPMENT DISCHARGE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D SCREEN DESIGNATIONS

APPENDIX E PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVES

APPENDIX F EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

3 Solids Control Economics and Performance Program (SECOP) ....................................8

4 Monitoring System Performance .......................................................................................9

2.1 Penetration Rate

Fig. 1. Effects of solids content on drilling performance.

2.2 Dilution Rate

Table 1 Solids Control Economic Analysis Parameters

ki = Initial concentration of drilled solids, vol. fraction

D = Hole diameter, in.

rd = Density of dilution fluid, ppg

2.2.1 Economic Analysis Calculations

The following equations may be used to calculate the solids removal

Vsw = XVc (1+ Y)

Vlw = Vt (Vf + Vc + Vsw )

Vc = Volume of drilled solids generated, bbls

rd = Density of dilution/addition fluid, ppg

Dilution Cost: $5.00/bbl

Vc = 0.000971 x (12.25) x (1600) x (1.1) = 256 bbls

2. Dilution volumes for each solids removal efficiency:

(1- 0.06) (1 0)256 360 + 0

(1- 0.06) (1 0.1)256 360 + 0

(1- 0.06) (1 0.5)256 360 + 0

4. Solids removal efficiency and dilution volume to achieve zero whole-mud

Vd = (360 360) + 0.81(256)(1 + 1) = 415 bbls

5. Summary of waste disposal volumes:

Total Volume Wet Solids Liquid While Drilling Total Liquid

Drilled Solids Equipment Addition/Dilution Disposal Costs Total

The example illustrates how an increase in equipment costs to improve

3 Solids Control Economics and Performance Program (SECOP)

technology. The Solids Control Economic and Performance Analysis

4 Monitoring System Performance

This total efficiency can then be used in SECOP to establish a

4.1 API Procedure for Evaluating Total Efficiency of Solids Control

- The average drilled solids concentration in the mud, ks.

- The average water fraction in the mud, kw.

4. Calculate the volume of drilled solids, Vc:

6. Calculate the dilution factor, DF:

7. Calculate the total solids removal performance, Et:

Water Added, Vw 1481 bbl

1. Calculate the volume of mud built, Vm: