SPE 160574

Optimised solids control in arctic environments

Bjørn Dahl, OptiPro AS; Tor Henry Omland, SPE, Statoil ASA; and Arild Saasen, SPE, Det norske oljeselskap ASA
and University of Stavanger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 16–18 October 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A significant cost issue is related to solids control ant the affiliated waste production during drilling. This cost issue includes
the reduced drilling efficiency due to poor solids control when the drilling fluid temperature is low. The primary solids control
device is the shale shakers. The preferred shakers have two or three decks that all separate particles from the drilling fluid.
Especially when the temperature is low, the flow through the screens on these shakers is limited leading to a large discharge of
drilling fluid along with the drilled cuttings.
To increase the efficiency of the shakers a new header box is developed that change the direction of the drilling fluid
entering the shakers top deck. On several North Sea operations this device has successfully been used to divert the flow onto
the entire top deck screen. This made it possible to run the equipment with finer screens than usual; leading to operating with
cleaner drilling fluids than usual and thereby faster drilling rate at the same time as the occupational hygiene in the shaker
room was significantly improved. The paper describes in detail how the shakers were modified with the header box and how
the shakers were run to optimise drilling performance even when the drilling fluid was cold.

Introduction
Correct use of solids control equipment is essential to maintain drilling fluid within its desired properties with the correct
particle size distribution of solids and to avoid generation of unnecessary waste streams during drilling (Bouse and
Carasquero, 1992). Since the early 1930s the shale shaker has been the dominating device for primary solids removal (AADE,
1999). Additional equipment like desilters, desanders and centrifuges were often used in the past to maintain proper solids
control. Although it is dependent on the choice of correct shaker screens, at present most shakers have a sufficient
performance to be able to act as the sole solids control device without the use of desanders and desilters.
The optimum solids control design for a particular drilling fluid may not be generally valid for all fluid types (Lal and
Hoberock, 1988). A combination of shaker and screens applicable for treating water based drilling fluids may for example not
be suitable for treating oil based drilling fluids. Furthermore, the suitability of the screen and shaker combination may change
during drilling because the drill cuttings morphology changes.
Throughout the last decades major shaker design improvements have been made. The circular motion shakers used up to
the 1980s have been replaced by elliptical motion and linear motion shakers. Furthermore, integral cascade units like double
deck or triple deck shakers have been implemented in the industry. See for example ASME Shale Shaker Committee, 2010.
Sinusoidal formed screens have been implemented on some shakers to increase the flow capacity (Neidhart, 1995). Different
alternatives to shakers have also been tested to improve HES issues like hydrocarbon vapour and mist in the shaker room.
Botnmark et al. and Saasen et al. tested one type of equipment where cuttings were fed into the inner part of a rotating drum.
However, their system has not yet been commercialised. Another recent system feeds the cuttings onto a rotating screen belt
(Kroken and Vasshus, 2012)
Shaker operation has also been automated. Scott (2006) claims that use of this automated system leads to an increase in
shaker screen life. However, Scott (2006) does not reveal the screen selection for this case. Therefore it is difficult to use this
information in the present analysis. Removal of solids with a particle diameter larger than 120- 150μm, can be achieved
without problems on most shakers today by the application of the correct screen size (Wollherr and Krobok, 1998). There are
many types of screen on the marked. The following analysis is general and does not compare any products or designs.
Shaker efficiency is strongly dependent on the rheological properties of drilling fluids. The most important drilling fluid
rheological properties for determining the shaker performance include viscosity profile, gel formation and extensional
viscosity. In Arctic environments, the temperature at the shakers can be very low. These low temperatures may in many cases
2 SPE 160574

increase the viscosity and gel strength and thereby significantly reduce the shaker performance. In the following it is
described how to maximise the flow capacity of different two deck shakers at the same time as the drilling fluid will be
properly cleaned for drill solids.

Shaker screen selection

Particle separation
Earlier the screen separation was determined by image analysis. The D50 size being the particle size where 50% of the
particles will be transported through the screen and 50% were removed was named the Cutt point. The Cutt point is named
after Cutt (1991). In addition the D16 and D84 were also determined by image analysis. However, the image analysis is not
very accurate because it cannot include the tortuosity of the screen flow paths. Often the wires are significantly thicker than
the opening widths, implying that the errors can be large in case of multi cloth screens. Therefore, new standards has been
recommended (American Petroleum Institute, 2010) where the D100 is determined based on experiments with aluminium oxide
particles. Datta et al. (2007) measured the particle size distribution (PSD) using mixed sands to determine both the D50 and the
PSD skewness. For a practical drilling operation where particle sizes are important, application of D100 is difficult. Omland et
al. (2007) had to use both the experimentally determined D50 and the skewness to be able to optimise the drilling fluid for
formation strengthening application. For information about how to strengthen the formation by particle addition, please
consult Aston et al. (2004).

Selection of screens
Based on practical experience and particle separation physics, Dahl et al. (2008) presented optimum operation of double deck
shakers. The top deck should be set up with as fine mesh screens as possible to remove 95-98 % of the drilled cuttings. The
bottom deck should be set up with the fines mesh screens as possible without being vulnerable for creating holes in the screen
and as its primary function is to fine-filter the drilling fluid.

Shaker vibration and G force

Current shakers are vibrating in a way that generates close to seven G in inertia forces. These high G forces still require a
fairly thick drilling fluid level above the screen to be efficient. It is straightforward to calculate the necessary inertia force to
remove a gelled drilling fluid, or a drilling fluid with a yield stress, for a case with drilling fluid within the screen but without
any fluid layer above the screen. To create an approximation one can assume that a unit cell has the opening width equal to d,
a wire thickness equal to D, a fluid density, r , and a gel strength t g. For a gelled drilling fluid to be able to flow through the
screen, the screen must have an acceleration, a, sufficiently large such that mass times acceleration becomes larger than the gel
resistance of the same volume. This gel resistance can be approximated by a four walled cube with a height equal to the wire
thickness. The relation of these forces is described in Equation 1.

ρd 2 Dg > 4dDτ g 1

If it is assumed that the density is that of water, gel strength is 5Pa and that the opening width is 75 micron the necessary G
force number to remove this volume of drilling fluid would be 26.7 G or similar to the gravitational force at the surface of the
visible sun. This calculation is an inaccurate approximation of course. Even with as much as 50% error the calculation still
shows G forces twice as the forces produced on current shakers. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate a different mechanism
for the flow through the shaker screens.

Fig. 1. Effect of vibration on viscosity and yield stress. Left hand figure shows measurements on a polyanionic cellulose based
polymeric liquid while the right hand figure shows the measurements on a sample of laboratory made oil based drilling fluid. From
Fard et al. 2007.
SPE 160574 3

Fard et al. (2007) conducted a series of experiments showing the effect of vibration superpositioned onto a shear flow of
drilling fluids. They added three levels of vibration onto the cup of a standard viscometer. As expected from rheology
fundamentals they did not observe any effect of vibration on viscometer readings if a simple polymeric liquid was evaluated.
This is shown in the left hand figure of Fig. 1. If a particle suspension or an emulsion like the oil based drilling fluid was
evaluated, however, a significant difference was observed. This is shown on the right hand figure of Fig. 1. The vibration
quickly removed the yield stress or gel stress of these drilling fluids. These drilling fluids now became low viscosity fluids
that were easier to flow through the screen. At this point the effect of the G forces re-enter the analysis, because now it is
important that there is sufficient G forces to increase the flow of this non-gelled fluid, at the same time as the G forces were
sufficiently small not to break up cuttings particles.

Optimised efficient flow area of double deck shaker top screens

Normally the drilling fluid returning from the well enters the upper deck of the shakers with a horizontal momentum co-
current with the direction of the shaker’s vibration directions. In this way, the back part of the shaker’s upper screen is poorly
used for separation. Furthermore, the fluid has a momentum reducing the contact time onto this upper deck screen. A method
developed by Dahl (2011) changes the inflow direction from the header box to counter-current to the screens vibration
direction. The system is illustrated in Fig. 2. The left hand part shows the device mounted onto the shakers on a Det norske
operation and the right hand part shows an illustration on how it was used on a Statoil operation. This device has been applied
both on Det norske and Statoil operations in the North Sea and significantly increases the effective separation area of the top
screen as well as increase the contact time of the drilling fluid onto this screen.

Fig. 2. Shaker inflow direction modifier device in accordance with Dahl (2011)

Fig. 3. Drilling fluid entering the shaker’s to deck without inflow device (left) and with inflow device (right)
4 SPE 160574

Table 1. Effect of changing the flow direction into the shaker top screen in accordance with Dahl (2011). The comparison is based on
measurements of drilling fluid on cuttings and low gravity solids made in accordance with industry standards (American Petroleum
Institute, 2005).
Operator Det norske Statoil
Increase in capacity ~100% ~160%
Screen wear reduction >80% >90%
Reduction in drilling fluid on cuttings >60% >60%
Reduction in personnel exposure time in the shaker room ~50% ~50%
Reduction in drilling fluid low gravity solids ~40% ~40%

In both operations the improvements made from changing the inflow direction were significant. The inflow is shown in
Fig. 3. On the left picture it is shown how the flow splashes in along the screen close to the centre of the screen. When the
inflow device was used, the flow changed direction and the flow was distributed more evenly across the screen.
The results of using the shaker inflow direction modifier device in accordance with Dahl (2011) are shown in Table 1.
The results are from field operations in the North Sea for the Norwegian operators Det norske oljeselskap and Statoil. Two
different shakers were applied. The shakers used in the Det norske operations were by far the oldest. For both operations the
capacity is increased, shaker screen wear is reduced and drilling fluid properties are properly maintained. All these effects
lead to a less need for personnel being in the shaker room; thus leading to less exposure to hydrocarbon damp and mist.
As is shown in Table 1, it was possible to significantly increase the capacity of both shakers. This implies that if one
shaker is operating with less than maximum capacity, it is possible to use finer screens on the shaker’s top deck. The
consequence for arctic operations is that cold drilling fluid is handled significantly better than in absence of the inflow device.

Consequences for triple deck shaker performance

The use the shaker inflow direction modifier device in accordance with Dahl (2011) on a three deck shaker is anticipated to
give similar effects. It is anticipated to be less need of capacity increase. However, proper use of screen sizes on such
machines will also contribute to reduced need for manual work on the shakers. Like for two deck shakers, screen wear is
anticipated to be reduced.

Conclusion
Field experience has demonstrated that by implementation of a shaker inflow direction modifier device it is possible to:
• Increase flow capacity of the shakers
• Reduce screen wear
• Reduce the volume of drilling fluids on cuttings
• Reduce low gravity solids in drilling fluids
• Reduce the need for personnel exposure in the shaker room.

The increased flow capacity makes it easier to handle cold drilling fluids like in the Arctic areas.

Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the support from Det norske oljeselskap and Statoil to make this paper.

References
American Association of Drilling Engineers (AADE). 1999. Shale Shakers and Drilling Fluid Systems, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
American Petroleum Institute. 2010. Recommended Practice on Drilling Fluids Processing Systems Evaluation. API Recommended
Practice 13C, Fourth ed. Washington DC.
American Petroleum Institute. 2005. Recommended Practice for Field Testing of Oil-based Drilling Fluids, API Recommended Practice
13B-2 Fourth Edition, Fourth ed. Washington DC.
ASME Shale Shaker Committee. 2010. Drilling Fluid Processing Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington.
Aston, M.S., Alberty, M.W., McLean, M.R., de Jong, H.J., Armagost, K. 2004. Drilling Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening”, paper SPE
87130 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 2-4 March.
Botnmark, K., Mikalsen, K., Jensen, O.D., Saasen, A., Hoset, H., Kalvenes, Ø., Sørgård, E. and Mathiassen, S. 2001. Optimized
Performance by the Use of Rotating Separators as an Alternative to Shale Shakers. Paper SPE 71381 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Lousiana, Sept. 30 - Oct. 3.
Bouse, E.E. and Carrasquero, J.E. 1992. Drilling Mud Solids Control and Waste Management, paper SPE 23660 presented at the Second
Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference of the SPE held in Caracas, March 8-11.
Dahl, B. 2011. En forbedret tilløpskanal til fordeling av væske og partikler for en brønnsiktemaskin. Norwegian patent NO330993.
Dahl, B., Saasen, A. and Omland, T.H. 2008. Successful Drilling of Oil and Gas Wells by Optimal Drilling Fluid Solids Control – A
Practical and Theoretical Evaluation, SPE Drilling & Completion, 23, 409-414.
Datta, B.K., Saasen, A., Hafenbrädl, F.O. v., Haugen, P.O. and Omland, T.H. 2007. Norwegians Develop New Method to Measure Shaker
Screen Performance, Oil & Gas J., Nov. 19, pp. 37-46.
Fard, A.–R., Omland, T.H. and Saasen, A. 2007. Shale Shaker’s Effect on Drilling Fluids Rheological Properties, Ann. Trans. Nordic
Rheology Soc., 15, 227-230,.
SPE 160574 5

Kroken, A. and Vasshus, J.K. 2012. A New Waste Management Method Utilizing a Compact Lightweight Solids Control System Reducing
Waste Volume and Improving Filtration. Paper AADE-12-FTCE-18 presented at the 2011 AADE National Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 12-14.
Lal, M. and Hoberock, L.L. 1988. Solids-Conveyance Dynamics and Shaker Performance. SPE Drilling Engineering, 3, 385-394.
Neidhardt, D. 1995. Pyramid shaker screens help reduce oil mud losses, Oil & Gas J., vol. 93, no. 29, pp. 62-63, July
Omland, T.H., Dahl, B., Saasen, A., Taugbøl, K. and Amundsen, P.A. 2007. Optimisation of Solids Control Opens Up Opportunities for
Drilling of Depleted Reservoirs. Paper SPE 110544 presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held
in Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October –1 November.
Saasen, A., Botnmark, K., Mikalsen, K., Jensen, O.D. and Dale, J.F. 2003. Field Evaluation of a Rotating Separator as an Alternative to
Shale Shakers, paper SPE 79823 presented at the the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–21
February,
Scott, E.L. 2006. Automatic Shaker Control. Paper SPE 99035 presented at the the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Miami, Florida,
USA, 21-23 February.
Wollherr, H. and Krobok, K. 1998. Feststoffkontrolle beim Einsatz mineralisch bschwerter Ton-Salz-Spülungen, Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle,
114, 321-325. .