Designing Invert Drilling Fluids to Yield Environmentally Friendly Drilled Cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing Invert Drilling Fluids to Yield Environmentally Friendly Drilled Cuttings F.B. Growcock; F.B. Growcock M-I Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar G.W. Curtis; G.W. Curtis M-I Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar B. Hoxha; B. Hoxha M-I Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar W.S. Brooks; W.S. Brooks M-I Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J.E. Candler J.E. Candler M-I Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, February 2002. Paper Number: SPE-74474-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/74474-MS Published: February 26 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Growcock, F.B., Curtis, G.W., Hoxha, B., Brooks, W.S., and J.E. Candler. "Designing Invert Drilling Fluids to Yield Environmentally Friendly Drilled Cuttings." Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, February 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/74474-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractAn invert emulsion drilling fluid has been developed that possesses the drilling properties of conventional invert muds, yet can be discharged onto land as a soil enhancer. The individual components of this Soil-Enhancing Synthetic Based Mud (SE-SBM) — base fluid, internal polar phase, emulsion stabilizers, wetting agents, fluid-loss-control agents and weighting material — also possess these attractive features.One version of the SE-SBM produces mud-laden cuttings that can be land-farmed directly without pretreatment. Where discharges are severely restricted with respect to salt, oil and/or grease content, another version of the SE-SBM is particularly well suited for pretreatment of the cuttings in a bioreactor or other rapid biotreatment technique.IntroductionDevelopment of synthetic-based muds (SBM) as alternatives to conventional oil-based muds (OBM) in offshore operations was precipitated by toxicity and biodegradability concerns. These focused on the fate and effects of mud-laden drilled cuttings discharged into the sea, as well as worker safety. Cuttings disposal is of paramount importance also for onshore applications. However, the environmental issues focus primarily on usability of the land on which the cuttings are discharged and contamination of ground water1,2 with chloride salts and hydrocarbons. Although the advent of SBM has greatly improved the environmental acceptability of non-aqueous drilling fluids both offshore and onshore, current SBM formulations still present problems for direct land treatment (spreading and farming) of mud-laden cuttings generated in onshore operations. The concerns with pollution of soil and groundwater by SBM and OBM have led to increasingly strict government regulations.Although land treatment is considered among the most acceptable waste disposal methods for cuttings from onshore operations, there is a litany of other ways to deal with invert mud-laden cuttings. 3 These include the following:landfill disposalbioremediation—composting, phytoextraction, vermiculture and bioreactionstabilization/solidification—briquetting and fixation with silicates or fly ashextraction or washing—oil, detergents and solventsthermal treatment—incineration and distillation, including thermal desorption and hammermillingOne of the most serious disadvantages of land treatment is the increasingly stringent limit on total oil and grease, salts (electrical conductivity) and heavy metals. For land treatment to continue to be a viable disposal option, OBM- and SBM-laden cuttings need to be (a) pretreated to remove the offensive constituents, or (b) designed from the outset to yield an innocuous product, or better yet, a product that enhances the value of the soil. Recently, a rapid bioreactor technique was developed that can reduce residual Synthetic on Cuttings (RSC) to < 1% w/w within days. 4 Whether or not drilled cuttings are pretreated before land application, environmental requirements need to be considered as much as drilling properties in the design of the drilling fluid.Invert emulsion muds generally contain some components, such as excess lime and clays, that are intrinsically beneficial to many soils. 5 Low pH (< 5. 5) is detrimental to most agricultural crops, and often soil needs to be treated with an alkaline material-like lime to counteract the effects of low pH. Clays can act as soil conditioners, especially for sandy soil, by improving its texture and increasing its water-holding capacity. In addition, some organics, especially those similar to humus, serve as nutrients and conditioners. 6,7The major components of invert emulsion muds, on the other hand, may not be so beneficial. These include (a) base fluid; (b) emulsifier/wetting agent; (d) internal (aqueous or polar) phase; (e) fluid-loss-control agent (FLCA) and (e) weighting material. Any one of these may affect seed germination, plant growth and/or the life cycle of native fauna, e. g. earthworms. A typical SBM used onshore is a hydrocarbon-based fluid formulated with a surfactant package of moderate toxicity, CaCl2 brine, an asphaltic material and barite. Keywords: drilling fluid selection and formulation, drilling fluids and materials, growcock, toxicity, drilling fluid property, emulsifier package, curtis, emulsifier, internal phase, drilling fluid chemistry Subjects: Drilling Fluids and Materials, Drilling fluid selection and formulation (chemistry, properties) This content is only available via PDF. 2002. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".