Drilling Fluids Lab PETE 3265 Section 1.

Spring 2015.

Lab partners: Briana Dodson, Aziz Al-Umairy

Alan Alexeyev

Experiment #1:

Basic WBM preparations; MW (mud weight), FV (funnel viscosity) and

pH measurements; Error Analysis

Date performed: 2/11/2015

Date submitted: 2/18/2015

1
Purpose:

The purpose of this experiment was to analyze and examine the mixing of water with
bentonite, to measure the pH, weight and drainage speed of the water. Also, to learn the
tools, procedures and machines that will be used in later labs.

Abstract:

In this experiment we were experimenting with mixing the water multiple times (10 to be
exact), measuring the funnel viscosity, and the pH level. I think this is all needed in order to
practice calculating the error, standard and average deviations, because the more samples
we can get, the more accurate it will be. There are some obvious observations, for
example, that draining a mud will take longer than a clean water. Plus we needed to
consider the errors during the measurements, accidental spills, etc. This all could affect the
precision of the results but wont affect the conclusions much.

Introduction:

We will start with introducing some common definitions for the procedures we were
conducting:

Mud Weight: it is the density of the drilling fluid. It can be decreased or increased by
removing or adding the clay (gel). Mud cleans and cools down the drilling bit while it is
drilling, helps cleaning it from the gravel and cuttings during drilling, and controls the
hydrostatic pressure. Its weight and density must be carefully calculated for each well, and
the specifications must fall within the API (American Petroleum Institute) standards.

pH: is a chemical way of presenting the concentration of a certain fluid, in other words it is
the hydrogen ion concentration. It has a range from 0 to 14. The pure water has a pH of 7,
which tells us that it is a neutral solution. Basic solutions are from 7 to 14, and acidic are
from 0 to 7.

Viscosity: is the measure of how easy fluid flows in general. In Funnel viscosity we were
measuring how fast it would go through the hole. Obviously, the more viscous the fluid is,
the longer itll take for it to go through the hole.

In the analysis section we were asked to calculate the average value, standard deviation,
and error percentages. Below there are the definitions for them.

2
Average value: is the number that is calculated by adding the samples together and
dividing it by its quantities. An example could be to add 10 quantities and then divide that
by 10.

Standard Deviation: as defined by the dictionary, it is a measure of dispersion in a

frequency distribution, equal to the square root of the mean of the squares of the
deviations from the arithmetic mean of the distribution.

Error Percentage: is the change between the measured value and theoretical value divided
by the theoretical value, presented in percent.

Equipment and Materials used:

Beakers, pH Meter, Blender, Marsh Funnel, Stopwatch, Mud balance

Water, Bentonite, caustic solution
Towel, safety glasses, lab coat

Procedure:

To measure the water balance: we started filling the cup with the water. Then we closed
the lid and manually sucked in more water into the cup using the manual fluid pump. Once
the cup had enough of water, it was put into the mud balance weights, where the mass of
the water in the cup could be read from the scale. This process was repeated 10 times.

To measure the funnel viscosity: After the measurements of the tap water were recorded,
the water was poured into the funnel. From there we measured the time it would take for
it to drain. For that the stopwatch was used, and then the times were recorded.

To measure pH: first, the device to measure pH was calibrated in the neutral fluid. Initially, I
thought well be measuring the pH the other way, where we take the sample paper and
put it into the fluids, and depending on which color it becomes, we can determine the pH
level by matching the color with the known pH levels. However, that wasnt the case, and
instead it was measured electronically. Once calibrated, we had the water in the small
beaker and put the device into it so that it could read the pH level. After that the pH levels
were recorded.

To prepare the mud: we needed to prepare the 5.5 lab bbl of mud by mixing 20 lbm of gel
(bentonite) per bbl of water. The tap water was used and the blender was used to mix it

3
for 5 minutes. We took about 120g of the mud from the mud container. The bentonite was
then mixed with the tap water and placed into the mixer.

Once the mud was prepared, then its mud weight was measured 5 times, funnel viscosity 3
times, and pH 10 times following the same procedures as described above, just instead of
the water there was mud.

Results:

Below there are the measurements:

Table 1. Water measurements:

MW
lb/gal lb/ft^3 FV, s pH
1 7.75 57.5 45.73 7.1
2 8 60 46.23 7.1
3 7.4 55 45.32 7.1
4 8.5 64 46.89 7.2
5 8.45 63.5 46.22 7.1
6 8.4 63 46.28 7
7 8.3 62.4 45.91 7.1
8 8.75 65.5 47.22 7.1
9 8.3 62.4 45.77 7
10 8.9 67 47.93 7
8.275 62 46.35 7.1 averages
0.451079 3.621863 0.785734 0.063246 Std Dev

4
 Table 2. Mud
MW
lb/gal lb/ft^3 FV, min pH
1 9.2 69 1.32 7.5
2 9.7 72 1.3 7.6
3 9.5 71 1.3 7.8
4 9.6 71.5 7.6
5 9.65 72 7.6
6 7.7
7 7.5
8 7.6
9 7.6
10 7.6
9.53 71.1 1.31 7.6 averages
0.198746 1.24499 0.011547 0.08756 Std Dev

This is how the average values were calculated:

7.75 + 8 + 7.4 + 8.5 + 8.45 + 8.4 + 8.3 + 8.75 + 8.3 + 8.9

: = 8.275
10

57.5 + 60 + 55 + 64 + 63.5 + 63 + 62.4 + 65.5 + 62.4 + 67

, : = 62
10

45.73 + 46.23 + 45.32 + 46.89 + 46.22 + 46.28 + 45.91 + 47.22 + 45.77 + 49.93
= 46.35
10

The muds weight calculations were followed the same principle.

Below the tables you could see the averages and standard deviations calculations, I used
the corresponding Excel functions to calculate them.

5
To get Fractional Standard Deviation, I divided Standard deviation by the Average (or
mean) values. For water it turned out to be:

0.054511 0.058389 0.016952 0.008933 Frac. Std Dev

Lb/gal Lb/ft^3 FV, s pH

For mud we got:

0.020855 0.01751 0.008837 0.011506 Frac. Std Dev

Lb/gal Lb/ft^3 FV, s pH

Discussions:

I would say that the equipment was calibrated. At least as far as the electronic device that
measures pH, we could see that the standard deviation is very small and that all the
measurements are very consistent and close to each other. The differences in the weights
of the mud may be different due to slightly different volumes of fluid inside the cup, or
errors in reading the scale.

1 1
=

5.5 (5.5 20 )
= = 0.057
( = 350 ) (5.5 350)

Waters weight was supposed to be 8.33 ppg, yet the average we got was 8.275, so the
error was (8.33-8.275)/8.33 = 0.66%

Muds weight wasnt calculated because we didnt record exact volumes. We needed to add
masses of water and mud divided by their volumes to get the calculated mud weight.

Judging from the physical properties, it was expected to see that muds weight would be
heavier than the pure water because of the added bentonite (sometimes called as gel, or
Wyoming Bentonite). I am curious why it is called Wyoming specifically, is it because it is
being made in Wyoming, being used in Wyoming, or this kind of bentonite is found only in
Wyoming?

6
pH of the water was slightly bigger than 7. The percentage error was (7.1-7)/7 = 1.4%.
Maybe the container where the pH was measured had molecules from of the previous mud,
and it gives us slightly more than 7; or the calibration device was not a 100% calibrated to
7 therefore we got a small error. The fact that our pH for the mud was about 7.5-7.7 tells us
that this solution is basic.

As we can see from the funnel viscosity measurements, it took almost 2 times longer for
the mud to drain compared to the pure water. That tells us that perhaps its viscosity is 2
times bigger.

Mud got increased by about 1.3 ppg, thats about 15% increase, even though we added
about 120 grammes of mud to 1925 g of water, which is 6.5%. So that may tell us that mud
is very heavy materials, having a dense consistency.

Safety Comments:

Regarding the safety, we were using the goggles, lab coats and gloves. One needed to be
careful when measuring, filling up the water to avoid spilling or break the equipment.
Another important thing was to pour the fluids very carefully to a) avoid spillage, so that
we will not lose any amount of fluids for further measurements, b) spilling fluids in general
may be dangerous as they may contain chemical that negatively impact on the health and
environment.

Comments:

This was the first lab in the course Drilling Fluids Lab, and it was a good introduction to the
course. It gave the idea of how the lab itself looks like, what to expect. I especially wanted
to thank my partners in the lab, it was great and fun working with them. In this lab the
focus was to measure the physical properties (such that volume, weight, density, viscosity)
of the water and the mud. After that we needed to analyze the results, see why they were
different from the theoretical ones, and understand the pattern that may lead to those
results. I think in general the results were pretty consistent, based on 10 sample
measurements. However, I was surprised why some samples were a lot bigger than the

7
other, it mustve been the measurements errors. Viscosity showed the most consistent
results, each of 10 measurements were almost identical to each other. The same goes for
pH measurements (perhaps due to the fact that it was done electronically and not
manually). The biggest deviation was shown in the mud weight calculations, thats where
the probability of making an error was the highest.

Conclusions:

The conclusion here is that if all the measurements were done with the calibrated
electronic devices, the errors will be much smaller than when humans do the
measurements. Thats why in the industry it is more common to use a lot of specific built
tools to eliminate large errors. Of course the electronic devices themselves may produce
errors, but they tend to be a lot smaller than human errors.

In the future labs Id like to understand more about why we need the mud, and what to
expect from it. If it is useful, how make it even more efficient for the drilling operations.

I believe the lab served its purpose and the purpose of the lab was met. We got introduced
into measuring the mud and water weight, mixing the mud, measuring the viscosity and
pH. We learned how to operate measurement tools, how to perform the error analysis.

Regarding the report itself. Since this is the 1st drilling lab I am writing, Im looking forward
to getting the feedback and hopefully I can improve the outline and the writing in the
consequent labs.

References:

1. Pages 7-11. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 1953, 1957. 2nd edition.
2. Adam T. Bourgoyne, Martin Chenevert, Keith Millheim, F.S. Young Jr., Applied Drilling
Engineering, Vol.2, SPE, Richardson, TX. 1986