Method To Quantify Viscosity Eftects

on Dispersion Test Improves Testing

of Drilling-Fluid Polymers
A.H. Hale, Shell Development Co.

Summary. Many of the available polymers are claimed to inhibit cuttings dispersion effectively. The experiments done to support
these claims show the effectiveness of the polymers in inhibiting dispersion of sized shale through the hot rolling dispersion test. One
of the most significant factors in this test is the viscosity of the test fluid. The fluid viscosity can create the illusion that a particular
product effectively inhibits cuttings dispersion. A method is presented in which the dispersion-inhibiting effect of viscosity can be sub-
tracted from the amount of shale retained to obtain a more accurate determination of the effectiveness of a driliing-fluid additive to
inhibit cuttings dispersion. A comparison is presented that clearly demonstrates that the partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA)
polymer is the best available polymer to inhibit cuttings dispersion cost-effectively.

Introduction
One of the major problems in studying the effects of drilling fluids
on shales is the lack of a quick, inexpensive test. Chenevert and
Osisanya 1 extensively reviewed current methods for testing and
characterizing shales and proposed new methods for doing some
of these tests at the rig site. Other tests 2-5 have been devised that
either attempt to simulate downhole conditions or attempt to gather
data about the molecular interactions of drilling-fluid additives and
shale. These tests usually require sophisticated equipment and con-
ditions and have positive and negative attributes, with the interpre-
tation more or less left to the investigators and their biases.
Although many tests are available, the most commonly run test
in service and operator laboratories is the hot rolling dispersion test
developed by Amoco and studied extensively by others. 5-8 The test
is easily run with a minimum amount of equipment and shale. Mul-
tiple comparisons can be done in a relatively short time. These ad-
vantages have made the test popular.
Although the hot rolling test has advantages, the test also has many
limitations. 7,8 The limitations are centered around the equipment,
the rock, and the test fluid. The principal factor for equipment is
the oven. Variation in temperature can be a factor; however, the
principal error observed in our laboratory is the difference in roll-
ing rate between ovens. These differences can result in significant
error (> 20%). For comparison purposes, we do all of our testing
in one oven or in ovens with comparable rolling rates.
The heterogeneity of the rock is a critical problem. A given shale
type will vary not only in composition and exchange capacity but
also in strength. Our strategy, when possible, is to do all our test-
ing with one shale sample that is ground and mixed before any test-
ing is done. This increases reproducibility and improves relative
comparisons between test solutions.
In our testing, the shale is sized between 6 and 10 mesh. A com-
posite sample is used for all the test comparisons under identical
water contents. After preparation of the test fluid, each sample to
be tested is screened again to ensure that no disintegration of the
sized shale occurred during storage. This has a significant impact
on the reproducibility of our results.
As Beihoffer et al. 7 show, the water content can significantly
affect the results. Our work* also has shown that the water content
is critical to the observed dispersion rate. Controlling the native
water content, however, is difficult, especially during the grinding
process. In our laboratory, we use native cored shale with its na-
tive water content if possible; however, many samples we receive
have already been exposed to air. Two approaches can be taken:
we can try to reconstitute the shale with a presumed native water
content, or we can allow the sample to air dry and then stabilize
the shale to a specified water activity (for our laboratory, usually
SO%). Our choice depends on time and what we know about the
shale. We never oven dry because this can significantly alter the
·Propr1My.
~ 11181 80eiIIy 01 P....oIIum Eng'"""
rock. Whatever the approach, the water contents for all the test
samples for a given shale are always identical.
Testing time is also an important parameter. Generally, 16 hours
is used; however, results from our laboratory have shown that the
time needed to distinguish one test solution from another can vary.
Depending on the mechanism of disintegration inhibition, a given
test fluid may not differ from another; however, given time, the
two fluids begin to distinguish themselves.
Probably the one parameter recognized by most as important to
the interpretation of this test is viscosity. It has been shown
repeatedly7,8 that viscosity affects the results; higher viscosities
typically cause greater amounts of cuttings to be retained. The
difficulty is that in formulating muds or viscosified test solutions,
it is virtually impossible to obtain identical viscosities. In this report,
we try to demonstrate a means by which the impact of viscosity
on the percent retained can be estimated and, this being subtract-
ed, to observe more clearly the chemical impact of different ad-
ditives.
Results and Discussion
For testing purposes, 2.5 g of shale ground between 6 and 10 mesh
is added to 100 mL of a preheated (l500P) test solution. The shale
test solution is then hot-rolled for different lengths of time. At the
end of a given time, the suspension is screened over 10-, 30-, and
8O-mesh screens. The screens and the test container are washed
twice with approximately 100 mL of base test solution, fresh water,
or alcohol, depending on whether the wash procedure has been
shown to be critical for the given shale. The retained shale is then
dried at 221°F for 24 hours, and the shale weighed for each screen.
The data typically are expressed as the percent total retained for
all three screens. The size variation as a function of time, how-
ever, is often analyzed to determine dispersion characteristics and
mechanisms of inhibition.
Table 1 and Fig. 1 show the dispersion of Pierre shale as a func-
tion of time and viscosity. The results clearly demonstrate that as
the viscosity increases, the percent retained increases. For this test,
the viscosity was modified with drilling-grade gel. Table 1 also
shows an equation determined by regression analysis that predicts
the percent retained as a function of time. The curve-fitting approach
provides a means to calculate a single time for a given percent dis-
persed (as shown in Table 1, 50% dispersion time).
Table 2 shows results from a similar experiment using fumed
silica (325 mesh). In fresh water with fumed silica as the viscosifying
agent, the percent retained increases as the viscosity increases. One
interesting fact is that the yield point for the fumed-silica suspen-
sions was effectively nonexistent, suggesting that apparent viscosity
is the primary factor in this test. Again, curve fitting was done to
provide a means to calculate a single time for a given percent re-
tained. Fig. 2 compares the 50% dispersion times for bentonite and
fumed silica.
SPE Drilling Engineering. March 1991
TABLE 1-DISPERSION OF PIERRE SHALE AS A FUNCTION TABLE 2-DISPERSION OF PIERRE SHALE AS A FUNCTION
OF VISCOSITY IN FRESH WATER/BENTONITE OF VISCOSITY IN FRESH WATER/SILICA

Bentonite Silica
(Ibm/bbl) (Ibm/bbl)
2 4 8 10 0 70 140 210 262
0
-- - - - - - - --- --- --- -350
--
Apparent 1.5 3 6 8 Apparent 2 3 6 7 9
viscosity, cp viscosity, cp
Yield point, 0 2 3 4 Yield point, 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ibf/l00 ft2 Ibfll00 ft2

Time Amount Retained Time Amount Retained

(hours) (%) (hours) (%)
0.001 94.3 93.7 96.7 98.4 96.6 0.001 94.3 94 97.2 98.3 97.0 98.4
0.5 62.3 85.7 89 93.3 92.4 0.5 62.3 83.4 88.7 92.0 93.4 94.0
1 45.3 70.6 80.2 92.6 89.5 1 45.3 72.3 80.1 86.8 88.0 90.1
4 26.2 54.5 70.1 85.2 87.1 4 26.2 52.1 64.1 76.1 79.4 81.0
6 16.2 48.2 64.1 81.0 85.6 6 16.2 43.8 58.4 73.0 77.1 79.1
8 15.0 42.7 62.6 80.2 85.4 8 15.0 40.2 55.0 72.1 74.1 76.5
16 8.4 32.1 51.2 72.3 81.6 16 8.4 27.7 45.3 65.0 68.4 71.9

Correlation Correlation
Constants· Constants·
A -35.94 -34.2 -23.4 -13.68 -6.41 A -35.94 -36.2 -28.4 -17.8 -16.4 -14.03
B 48.13 73.6 81.9 91.3 90.28 B 48.13 72.4 80.3 86.2 88.1 89.3

50 0Al 50 0Al
Dispersion Dispersion
Time (hours) 0.9 4.9 23.1 1,044.7 1.92x 10 6 Time (hours) 0.9 4.2 11.7 108.1 210.5 632.6

'To obtain viscosity. subtract Fann TM 600 reading from apparent viscosity and
divide by two. (Correlation equation: P-A log 1+8. where P-the amount 'To obtain viSCOSity. subtract Fann 600 reading from apparent viscosity and
retained In percent and I-time.) divide by two. (Correlation equation: P-A log 1+8.)

Fumed silica was tested because the viscosity imparted to the fluid
is relatively insensitive to salts. Table 3 shows the percent of Pierre
shale retained in a variety of base test solutions with fumed silica
as the viscosifying agent. As the viscosity and the salinity increase,
the percent retained increases. By curve-fitting techniques, equa-
tions can be determined that describe the dispersion characteristics
as a function of viscosity; therefore, a given percent retained can
be determined for each test at a given viscosity.
With these data, it would be possible to determine whether other
additives, such as polymers, tested in these base solutions would
affect the shale's stability. Table 3 shows results of experiments
in which the stabilization is caused by PHPA. The viscosity is shown
relative to each test solution. By calculating the percent retained
owing to viscosity (predicted) and subtracting that from the meas-
ured (experimental) percent of shale retained, the normalized per-
cent retained owing to the addition of the PHPA can be determined.
Table 4 shows the results of experiments where polymers were
tested in fresh water for their apparent ability to inhibit the disper-
sion of Pierre shale at a fixed point in time. Based on the viscosity
effects imparted to dispersion, an equation was obtained that re-
lated viscosity to the percent retained in fresh water with bentonite
as the viscosifying agent. For these experiments, the measured (ex-
perimental) percent retained was determined along with the vis-
cosity of each test solution. The predicted percent retained owing
to viscosity was subtracted from the apparent percent retained to
arrive at a normalized percent retained. The normalized percent
retained reflects the true chemical capability of the polymer to in-
hibit cuttings dispersion. As Figs, 3 through 5 show, the PHPA

1584.9
100
1000.0 0

00 631.0
398.1
80
251.2
;;;
70 rs
0
158.5

~
0
80
.,;:
UI
100.0
UI 83.1
z
"
;:: /BENTONITE

~ 50 z
0
39.8

25.1
o. ~ 0
ill0 UI
a:
f
40 III
is
15.8

10.0
.
~
~FUMEDSlL1CA
.0
8.'
0
o LB/BBL lAY· 1.01 4.0
20
2.5

10 1.6

1.0

0.•
10 12 14 16

TIME I HOURS)
APPARENT VISCOSITY (CPI )

Fig. 1-EHect of apparent viscosity (AV) on dispersion Fig. 2-Relatlonshlp of dispersion time and viscosity (Pierre
(bentonite vlscoslfler). shale).

SPE Drilling Engineering. March 1991 45

 TABLE 3-FUMED SILICA vs. GEL AS A VISCOSIFYING AGENT IN SALT SOLUTIONS, pH=10.0·

Fresh Water Seawater

Fumed Apparent Amount Retained Fumed Apparent Amount Retained
Silica Viscosity (%) Silica Viscosity (%)
(Ibm/bbl) (cp) Experimental Predicted Normalized (Ibm/bbl) (cp) Experimental Predicted Normalized
----
0 1 8.4 3.4 0 1 22.5 23.5
70 2 27.7 30.4 70 2 45.9 47.4
140 3 45.3 45.7 140 3.5 64.8 65.2
210 6 65.0 64.9 210 6 n.O 76.7
262 7 68.4 68.1 262 7 79.3 79.2
350 9 71.9 73.5 350 10 83.7 84.6

PHPA
0.15Ibm/bbl 3 67.4 45.7 21.7 PHPA
0.15 Ibm/bbl 2 81.4 47.4 34.0
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%) KCI (3 wt%)
Fumed Apparent Amount Retained Fumed Apparent Amount Retained
Silica Viscosity (%) Silica Viscosity (%)
(Ibm/bbl) (cp) Experimental Predicted Normalized (Ibm/bbl) (cp) Experimental Predicted Normalized
----
0 1 60.5 47.3 0 1 45.0 44.1
70 2.5 80.9 68.9 70 2 59.7 59.8
140 3.5 88.0 76.8 140 3 69.7 69.6
210 7 97.0 89.1 210 6 82.9 83.2
262 8 98.0 90.9 262 7.5 86.5 86.4
350 11 97.4 95.2 350 9.5 89.2 89.5
PHPA
0.15Ibm/bbl 1 96.6 47.3 49.3 PHPA
0.15Ibm/bbl 2 97.4 47.4 50.0
Equations
Fresh water: P = - 99.39 exp( - 0.6421') + 53.4 + 2.2641'.
Seawater: P = - 89.9 exp( - 0.6391') + 69.4 + 1.541'.
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%): P = - 61.3 exp( - 0.5321') + 82.1 + 1.211'.
KCI (3 wt%): P= -60.8 exp(-0.512Jt) + 79.4+ 1.111'.

'Samples were hot·rolled at 150°F for 16 hours. Apparent viSCOSity, p., measured with a Fann 35A tool (600-revlmin dial reading/2). Yield point for all test values was
<1.0 Ibf/l00 ft2.

polymers are the only materials that inhibit cuttings dispersion at
reasonable concentrations. As shown above, the viscosity signifi-
cantly affects the measured (experimental) percent retained. Figs.
6 and 7 show results of experiments done to determine whether
any of these polymers could inhibit linear swelling. Test solutions
were incubated with 9.6 g of reconstituted Pierre shale powder (325
mesh). Swelling was measured with a linear variable transducer.
The results demonstrate that essentially no inhibition of swelling
could be observed for any of the polymers. We did observe, how-
ever, that the rate of swelling could be altered.
Field Example. This technology was developed to identify which
polymers in the drilling industry were good inhibitors of cuttings
dispersion. However, this technology has lent itself to field prob-
lems. In an analysis to determine what fluids might reduce well-
bore instability owing to shale, it was determined that PHPA might
be useful; however, it was not clear whether salinity would im-
prove stabilization.
The first well drilled with a freshwater PHPA system experienced
tight hole and severe blinding of the shaker screens. As a result,
experiments were done to investigate whether salinity could reduce

28

2.

2'

~ 22
g CARBOXYMETHYL CELLULOSE

.'" ,.,.
z 20

~
GUAR
~ PHPA '3

"~
g "
... 12

..:s
~
10
z -1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0 .• 0.8

CONCENTRATION (LB/BeLl
0.0 0.' 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.' 2 .•

CONCENTRATION IlB/BBll

Fig. 3-PHPA. Fig. 4-Xanthan gum, carboxymethyl cellulose, guar.

46 SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1991

 TABLE 4-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYMERS IN INHIBITING DISPERSION IN FRESH WATER

Amount
Retained Difference of
Predicted Experimental
Activer Experimental From and Predicted
Polymer Apparent Amount Apparent (Normalized Amount
Concentration Viscosity Retained Viscosity Retained)
Polymer" (Ibmlbbl) (cp) (%) (%) (%)
PHPA 1 0.025 2 52,3 35.3 17.0
0.05 3 66.7 46.4 20.3
0.1 4 77.1 55.7 21.4
0.25 5.5 88.9 67.1 21.8
0.3 6.5 92.6 73.2 19.4
0.4 8 96.4 80.5 15.9

PHPA 2 0.02 1 24.3 22.1 2.2

0.03 2 38.7 35.3 3.4
0.08 2.5 55.2 41.0 14.2
0.125 3 65.3 46.4 18.9
0.16 3.5 75.4 51.3 24.1
0.25 4 81.9 55.7 26.2
0.3 4.5 83.4 59.9 23.5

PHPA 3 0.025 1.5 32.8 29.0 3.8

0.05 2.0 41.2 35.3 5.9
0.075 3.0 55.4 46.4 9.0
0.1 3.5 65.2 51.3 13.9
0.25 4.5 76.4 59.9 16.5
0.4 6 83.7 70.3 13.4
0.5 7 92.6 75.9 16.7
0.75 10 98.5 87.6 10.9

Xanthan gum 0.1 2 32.5 35.3 -2.8

0.25 3 44.6 46.4 -1.8
0.5 5 61 63.7 -2.7
1 11 88.4 90.2 -1.8
3 17 98.2 97.8 0.4

Carboxymethyl 0.1 2 38 35.3 2.7

cellulose 0.25 3 49 46.4 2.6
(low-viscosity) 0.5 4 58 55.7 2.3
1 9 84 84.4 -0.4

Guar gum 0.1 3 50 46.4 3.6

0.25 4 57.7 55.7 2.0
0.5 6 72 70.3 1.7
1 10 88 87.6 0.4

Starch 0.5 1 20:3 22.1 -1.8

1 1 23 22.1 0.9
3 2 35 35.3 -0.3

Terpolymers of 0.25 2 35 35.3 -0.3

vinyl monomer 0.5 3 52 46.4 5.6
1 4 65.8 55.7 10.1
3 5 82.4 63.7 18.7
4 6 93 70.3 22.7

Polysaccharide 1 2 33 35.3 -2.3

2 3 47 46.4 0.6
4 7 74.9 75.9 -1.0
5 10 88 87.6 0.4
6 14 93.5 95.4 -1.9
7 18 97.4 98.2 -0.8

·Samples were hot·rolled at 150°F for 10 hours. Apparent viscosity measured with Fann 35A tool: P= -111.1
exp( -0.158,,)+ 117.71-0.7274".

the problem. Table 5 shows measured (experimental) percent-
retained data for a variety oftest solutions (without PHPA) as a
function of time. The results suggest that an increase in salinity
reduces dispersion slightly. The addition of potassium chloride has
a modest positive effect.
The addition of PHPA to the base solutions (fresh water, sea-
water, etc.) had a significant impact on dispersion. However, the
problem as shown in Fig. 8 was that the small differences observed
between the base solutions suggested that little benefit resulted from
the salt/PHPA combination. As Table 5 shows, the apparent vis-
cosity was significantly different between the different solutions.
As a result, a series of hot rolling dispersion tests were done with
fumed silica in the base solutions (Table 6). From these curves,
equations were identified that related the apparent viscosity with
the percent retained (Table 7). From these equations, the percent
retained resulting from simple viscosity effects could be calculated.

SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1991 47

 '0

•• 10•

••
18
! oo
0 18
w TERPOLYMERS OF VINYL MONOMERS
z
~
0:
10
0
I.
...z "
w
z
w
0
0: •• ~
f '">- 70

:il ffi
()
!:!
;I
:I
r 10
0:
0
Z

50

-.
-0

TItlE (HOURS)
CONCENTRATION (lB/BBll

Fig. 5-Starch, terpolymers of vinyl monomers, polysac- Fig. a-experimental percent retained from PHPA test solu-
charide. tions (field example).

0.28 100
80" SEAWATER/20" NaCI
0.24 /~-- XAHTHAN GUM (1.0 La/sal) 90

0.22 ~7"''----- POlYSACCHARIDE (3.0 lBI88L1

80
0.20 ~-,4I-:------ TERPOLYMERS OF VINYL MONOMERS (1.0 LB/BBLl
70
0.18 fI--hL----- STARCH (3.0 la/BBll
0
iii 0.16 ~ 80
!I!
~ 0.14 S 50
!il 0.12 S
i 0.10

0.08
~ 40

30

0.08 20

0.04
10
0.02
0
0.00 31.8 50.1
2.0 3.2 5.0 7.8 12.8 20.0
O£+OO 2£+01 4E+01 8E+01 8£+01
(THOUSANDS) TIME (HOURS"
TIME (SECONDS)

Flg.9-Normallzed percent retained from PHPA test solutions

Fig. 6-Swelllng of Pierre shale In polymer solutions. (field example).

0.26
0.40
0.24

0.22 0.35

CARBOXYMETHYL CELLULOSE 13.0 LB/BBLI

0.20
PHPA #, (1.0 LB/BSL) 0.30
FRESH WATER
0.18
QUAR (1.0 La/BBLl
ill
%
0.16 ! 0.25

"~ 0.14
i SEAWATER
3
!il
~
0.20
0.12
3w
~ 0.10 '"~ 0.15
:;
0.08
90"" SEAWATEAI10"" NaCI
0.06 0.10
90.. SEAWATER/10"" NaCI PHPA CO.15 LB/BaLl
0.0"-
0.05
0.02

0.00 0.00
OE+OO 2E"'01 4E·01 8e·01 8E·01 20 40 80 80 100 120 100
(THOUS~NDSJ
TIME (HOURS)
TIME (SECONDS)

Fig. 7-Swelllng of Pierre shale In freshwater and polymer

salt solutions. Fig. 10-Llnear swelling (field example).

48 SPE Drilling Engineering. March 1991

 TABLE 5-FIELD APPLICATION OF HOT ROLLING DISPERSION TEST

Experimental Amount Retained (%)

Apparent Time
Viscosity (hours)
Test Fluid· (cp) 1 2 5 14.5 62
Fresh water 1
-
65.2
-
39.6
-
20.8
-
13.6
-
5.2
-92
Seawater 1 73.6 49.6 30.4 18 9.6
Seawater/NaCI (90110 wt%) 1 76 54 30.8 18.8 11.2 8
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%) 1 83.2 56 35.2 25.6 12
Seawater/NaCI (90110 wt%) + lime (4Ibm/bbl) 1 81.2 54.4 33.2 20.8 13.6
Fresh water + KCI (4 Ibm/bbl) 1 71.2 44 30.8 18 12
Seawater + KCI (4 Ibm/bbl) 1 76 51.6 32.4 24 14.4
Seawater/NaCI (90/10 wt%)+KCI (4 Ibm/bbl) 1 78 56 32.8 21.6 12.4
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%) + KCI (4 Ibmlbbl) 1 84.4 58.4 40 25.6 14.8
Fresh water + PHPA (0.15 Ibmlbbl) 3 96 91.2 83.2 68.4 45.6
Seawater + PHPA (0.15 Ibm/bbl) 2 99.2 94.8 91.6 80.8 52
Seawater/NaCI (90/10 wt%)+PHPA (0.15 Ibm/bbl) 1.5 99.6 96.4 92.8 86 50.4 20.4
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%) + PHPA (0.15 Ibm/bbl) 1 99.6 97.2 94.4 79.6 46.4

'Samples were hot-rolled at 150°F. Apparent viSCOSity was measured with a Fann 35A tool.

TABLE 6-VISCOSITY CURVES WITH FUMED SILICA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE

Fumed
Silica Amount Retained (%)
Apparent
Viscosity Time (hours)
14.5
Test Fluid·
Fresh water
(Cp)
1
1
-64.2 2
-40.2 5
-21.1 -13.0 -
5.0
62
-92
2 87.1 64.2 51.9 40.1 30.6
3 95.3 78.5 70.4 54.1 44.2
4 98.3 87.0 82.6 61.9 51.6
5 99.4 92.1 91.7 66.8 55.8

Seawater 1 73.9 49.0 29.8 18.5 9.4

2 92.9 73.9 59.5 45.8 35.7
3 97.7 86.5 75.4 59.7 48.8
4 99.0 93.0 85.2 67.5 55.6
5 99.3 96.3 92.4 72.5 59.6

Seawater/NaCI 1 76.3 54.1 30.4 18.9 11.0 8.0

(90/10 wtoAl) 2 94.0 78.8 59.9 47.0 37.4 34.4
3 98.2 90.3 75.7 61.7 50.2 47.2
4 99.1 95.5 85.4 70.3 56.8 53.8
5 99.3 98.0 92.6 76.2 60.7 57.7

Seawater/NaCI 1 83.1 56.3 34.7 26.4 12.0

(80/20 wtoAl) 2 96.9 80.6 63.7 54.2 38.4
3 99.2 90.9 78.7 67.8 51.2
4 99.6 95.2 87.8 75.7 57.9
5 99.7 97.0 94.5 81.1 61.9

'Samples were hot-rolled at 150°F. Apparent viscosity was measured wHh a Fann 35A tool. Apparent viscosity was
adjusted wHh fumed silica to obtain comparable values,

As Table 7 and Fig, 9 show, the normalized percent retained with
the percent retained from the base fluid added back clearly distin-
guished the effectiveness of the different test solutions. The addi-
tion of salt (seawater) in the presence ofPHPA increased the stability
of the cuttings substantially. Subsequent additions of salt improved
the stability but to a lesser degree of improvement. Fig. 10 shows
linear swelling, which indicates that increasing salinity with sea-
water is beneficial; however, higher levels of salt do not improve
inhibition of swelling as dramatically. Again, the addition of PHPA
reduced only the rate of swelling, not the fmallevel of swelling.
Conelu.lon.
1. A technique is available that can distinguish viscosity effects
from chemical effects in the hot rolling dispersion test.
2. PHPA is the most effective product for inhibiting cuttings dis-
persion.
3. Polymers in general may inhibit the swelling rate, but not the
final level of swelling.
Reference.
1. Chenevert, M.E. and Osisanya, S.O.: "Shale/Mud Inhibition Defined
With Rig-Site Methods," SPEDE (Sept. 1989) 261-68.
2. Simpson, J.P., Dearing, H.L., and Salisbury, D.P.: "Downhole Simu-
lation Cell Shows Unexpected Effects of Shale Hydration on Borehole
Wall," SPEDE (March 1989) 24-30; Trans., AIME, 287.
3. Clark, R.K. et aI.: "PolyacryIamidelPotassium-Chloride Mud for Drilling
Water-Sensitive Shales," JPT(June 1976) 719-27.
4. Chenevert, M.E.: "Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption," JPT (Sept.
1970) 1141-48.
5. Anderson, D.B. and Edwards, C.D.: "Fluid Development for Drilling
Sloughing and Heaving Shales," Pet. Eng. Inti. (Sept. 1977) 105-18.
6. O'Brien, D.E. and Chenevert, M.E.: "Stabilizing Sensitive Shales With
Inhibited, Potassium-Based Drilling Fluids," JPT (Sept. 1973)
l089-1100.
7. Beihoffer, T.W., Dorrough, D.S., and Schmidt, D.D.: "The Separa-
tion of Electrolyte Effects From Rheological Effects in Studies of Inhi-
bition of Shales With Natural Moisture Contents," paper SPE 18032
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, Oct. 2-5.

SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1991 49

 Author 8. Bol, G.M.: "The Effect of Various Polymers and Salts on Borehole
and Cutting Stability in Water-Base Shale Drilling Fluids," paper SPE
14802 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Feb. 10-12.

Arthur H. Hale Is a senior research Sl Metric Conversion Factors

chemist In Shell Development Co.'s Pro-
duction Operations Research Dept. at
bbl X 1.589 873 E-01 m3
the Bellaire Research Center In Houston. cp x 1.0* E+OO mPa·s
He holds a·PhD degree from the U. of Il- °F (°F-32)/1.8 oc
linois. in. x 2.54* E+OO em
lbf/100 ft2 X 4.788 026 E-01 Pa
Ibm X 4.535 924 E-01 kg
'Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Feb. 27, 1990. Paper accepted for publica-
tion Jan. 3, 1991. Revised manuscript received Nov. 14, 1990. Paper (SPE 19954) first
presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held In Houston, Feb. 27-March 2.

TABLE 7-NORMALIZED PERCENt RETAINED FOR FIELD EXAMPLE

Amount _Re_tain~d (O/o)

Time (h_ours)
Test Fluid 2 · 5 14.5 62 92
Fresh water'+ PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl)
Experimental 91.2 83.2 68.4 45.6
Viscosity-predicted 79.5 10.6 54.2 44.3
Normalized* 52.3 33.4 27.8 6.5
Seawater+ PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl)
Experimental 94.8 91.6 80.8 52.0
Viscosity-predicted 73.8 59.6 45.9 35.6
Normalized 70.6 62.4 52.9 26.0
Seawater/NaCI (90/1 0 wt%) + PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl)
Experimental 96.4 92.8 86.0 50.4 20.4
Viscosity-predicted 68.8 47.6 35.3 26.6 23.5
Normalized 81.6 76.0 69.5 35.0 4.9
Seawater/NaCI (80/20 wt%) + PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl)
Experimental 97.2 94.4 79.6 46.4
Viscosity-predicted 56.2 34.8 26.5 12.0
Normalized 97.0 94.8 78.7 46.4

Time
Equations for Viscosity-Predicted Percent Retain~d (hours) Equation_
Fresh water+ PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl) 1 -100 exp( -1.017~-t)+ 100.1
2 - 99.1 exp(- 0.524~-t) + 99.1
5 -100 exp(- 0.683~-t) + 65.9 + 5.86~-t
14.5 -99.9 exp(- 0.75~-t) + 57.9 +2.27~-t
62 - 99.9 exp(- 0.651 Jt) + 56.5 + 0.65~-t

Seawater+ PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl) 1 - 99.5 exp(- 1.365~-t) + 99.3

2 -99.6 exp(-0.67Jt)+99.9
5 .... 100 exp(- 0.823~-t) + 68.9 + 5Jt
14.5 - 99.4 exp( :- 0.8Jt) + 60.4 + 2. 77It
62 -99.98 exp(- 0.767~-t) + 54.2 + 1.47~-t

Seawater/Nl;lCI (90/1 0 wt%) + PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl) 1 -99.7 exp( -1.47~-t) + 99.3
2 - 99.6 exp(- 0. 77Jt) + 100.2
5 - 100 exp(- 0.812~-t) + 69.6 + 5.08~-t
14.5 -99.6 exp( -0.79~-t)+ 60.5+3.51~-t
62 -100 exp(- 0.8Jt) + 54.3 + 1.6Jt
92 -100 exp(- 0.798~-t) + 51.3 + 1.6Jt

Seawa~er/NaCI (80/20 wt%) + PHPA (0.15 lbm/bbl) 1 -99.9 exp( -1.8~-t) + 99.6
2 -99.9 exp( - 0 : 867~-t) + 98.2
5 - 99 exp(- 0.86~-t) + 71.9 + 4.81 It
14.5 - 99.4 exp(- 0.89~-t) + 63.5 + 3.8Jt
62 - 100 exp(- 0. 792~-t) +55. 7 + 1.64Jt
• Normalized percent retained= (apparent percent retained- viscosity-predicted percent retained)+ percent retained from base fluids (salt- or freshwater
solutions). ·

50 SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1991