See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229127488

On the physical and chemical stability of shales

Article  in  Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering · June 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0920-4105(03)00034-2

CITATIONS READS
163 481

1 author:

Eric van Oort

University of Texas at Austin
158 PUBLICATIONS   1,399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wellbore Stability : Fluid-Shale Compatibility View project

Nanoparticles in Drilling Operations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric van Oort on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213 – 235
www.elsevier.com/locate/jpetscieng

On the physical and chemical stability of shales

Eric van Oort
Shell E&P Company, New Orleans, LA, USA

Abstract

The stability of clay-rich shales is profoundly affected by their complex physical and chemical interactions with drilling
fluids. In this paper, an attempt is made to clarify the intricate links between transport processes (e.g. hydraulic flow, osmosis,
diffusion of ions and pressure), physical change (e.g. loss of hydraulic overbalance due to mud pressure penetration) and
chemical change (e.g. ion exchange, alteration of shale water content, changes in swelling pressure) that govern shale stability.
It is shown that shale – fluid interactions can be manipulated to enhance cuttings and wellbore stabilization as well as improving
hole-making ability in shale formations. The mode of shale-stabilizing action of a wide variety of water-based fluid additives is
discussed and the merits of various mud systems are ranked. It is shown that shale stabilization normally achieved using oil-
based/synthetic-based muds is now becoming achievable with economical and environmentally friendly water-based drilling
fluids.
D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Physical stability; Chemical stability; Borehole stability; Shales; Water-based mud (WBM); Oil-based mud (OBM); Synthetic-based
mud (SBM)

1. Introduction to reduced annular velocities in enlarged hole sec-

tions, to full-scale stuck pipe as a result of well caving
The problem of wellbore stability in shales has and collapse.
frustrated oil-field engineers from the start of oil and Wellbore stability is almost a trivial issue with oil-
gas well drilling. Wellbore instability is in fact the based and synthetics-based muds. Once mud weight
most significant technical problem area in drilling and and invert emulsion salinity are properly established,
one of the largest sources of lost time and trouble cost stability can virtually be guaranteed (except for a few
(van Oort et al., 1996a). A typical example of prob- cases such as fractured shale formations, which may
lems encountered in the field is given in Fig. 1. The 8 be rapidly destabilized by such muds when they
1/2 in. section of this well, drilled with a water-based penetrate the fracture network, lubricate fracture sur-
mud, was enlarged up to 25 in. despite the presence of faces, and equilibrate pore pressure with wellbore
additives used especially for shale-stabilization pur- pressure). Moreover, oil and synthetic based muds in
poses. Operational problems that derive from such general drill wells much faster than water-based muds
instabilities may range from high solids loading of the as they are much less prone to cause bit balling.
mud requiring dilution, to hole cleaning problems due Much more problematic and enigmatic have been
the adverse interactions of shales with water-based
fluids. Such muds are potentially attractive alterna-
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. van Oort). tives for oil and synthetic muds from an environ-

0920-4105/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0920-4105(03)00034-2
214 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

and (3) implications of these changes for mechanical

and chemical shale stability.

2. Fundamentals of shale behavior

2.1. A balance of forces

Fig. 2 gives a simplistic but practical model for the

forces acting on a shale system containing clays and
other minerals (primarily quartz) at silt size. They can
be subdivided into mechanical and physio-chemical
forces. The former include:

the in-situ vertical (overburden) and horizontal

stresses;

the pore pressure;

the stress acting at intergranular contact points, e.g.
at cementation bonds.

The latter, acting primarily in the clay fabric,

include:

the van der Waals attraction;

the electrostatic Born repulsion;

short-range repulsive and attractive forces that are
derived from hydration/solvation of clay surfaces
Fig. 1. Typical caliper example of shale instability and wellbore
problems. This 8 1/2 in. hole (dotted line) was enlarged up to 25 in.
in the shale sections, whereas the sands are near-gauge to slightly
under-gauge due to the presence of a poor quality filtercake.

mental point-of-view, but they are still outmatched by

the latter in overall drilling performance (exclusive
focus in this paper is on shale stability—note that
additional factors, such as fluid loss control, lubricity,
mud rheology, etc., need to be considered also when
comparing differences in drilling performance between
mud types).
The central issue explored in this paper is: ‘‘which
means can be exploited to achieve shale stabilization
and improve operational drilling performance with Fig. 2. A schematic representation of downhole forces acting on a
water-based drilling fluids?’’ The fundamentals of shale system, simplified as a single set of clay platelets connected to
a pore. The forces include the in-situ vertical and horizontal stresses,
the shale instability problem must be understood first
the pore pressure, the swelling pressure acting between the clay
in order to answer this question. This requires appre- platelets, and tensile or compressive forces in the cementation
ciation of: (1) transport processes in shales, (2) developing upon compressive or tensile loading of the shale
physio-chemical changes caused by this transport, material, respectively.
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 215

and the ions that are present in interlayer spacings The pressure profile displays oscillations that relate
(adsorbed or free). to the layering of water between the clay platelets. The
density distributions in Fig. 3b show that Na-mont-
The latter forces are usually lumped together to morillonite during swelling jumps from two water
form the ‘‘hydration stress/pressure’’ or ‘‘swelling layers at a platelet spacing of 9.7 Å, to three layers
stress/pressure’’, since they are responsible for the at 12.0 Å, to five layers at 15.5 Å, to seven layers at
characteristic swelling behavior of clays and shales. 18.3 Å, etc. The states in-between, i.e. four, six and
The term ‘‘swelling pressure’’, well-accepted in oil- eight water layers, were all found to be strongly
field practice, will be used exclusively below. repulsive and therefore unstable. The simulation
results show good correlation with experimental deter-
2.2. The swelling pressure minations of the equilibrium states of Na-montmor-
illonite (Karaborni et al., 1996). This example shows
The van der Waals attraction and Born repulsion the complicated nature of the swelling pressure and
were combined successfully in DLVO theory (van explains why attempts to explain clay – shale swelling
Olphen, 1977), which has worked well in explaining behavior on the basis of simplistic models (such as the
the behavior of clay colloidal suspensions. However, osmotic model of swelling) have met with little
DLVO is a continuum theory that breaks down at success.
small clay interplatelet distances (i.e. distances < 20 For decades, the standard oil-field solution to clay –
Å) present in most well-consolidated shales encoun- shale problems has been ‘‘inhibition’’, a term originally
tered in the field. At such distances, short-range derived from the ability of certain additives, most
repulsive forces that bear the mark of the discrete, notably salts, to ‘‘inhibit’’ yielding of bentonite in
quantized nature of matter become dominant. water (Darley and Gray, 1988). The term is confusing
Fig. 3a shows the results of a molecular dynamics since the colloidal behavior of clays and swelling in
(MD) study to simulate the swelling pressure in well-consolidated shales are two separate and, to a
sodium montmorillonite (Karaborni et al., 1996). large extent, unrelated issues. For instance, the effi-

Fig. 3. (a) Swelling pressure in Na-montmorillonite as a function of interplatelet distance/basal spacing d100. Contribution of DLVO forces is
not included. Stable states are indicated by arrows. (b) Density distribution of oxygen atoms in water as a function of the distance Z from the
octahedral sheet. Results are shown for the stable states with spacings at 9.7, 12.0, 15.5, 18.3 and 20.7 Å.
216 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

ciency of clay flocculation governed by DLVO forces increase. Similar effects have been documented in
decreases with ion valence (the well-known Schulze – open literature (e.g. Christenson et al., 1987; Israel-
Hardy rule, see e.g. van Olphen, 1977). By comparison, achvili, 1991).
swelling pressure governed by non-DLVO forces such These contra-intuitive results are explained by
as ion hydration follows quite the reverse trend, e.g. K+ considering the increased ion repulsion that derives
is much more effective than Ca2 + or Mg2 + in reducing from the introduction of an excess of hydrated ions in
the swelling pressure in montmorillonite. In the follow- the interplatelet clay spacings. At first, the introduc-
ing, the well-accepted oil-field terms ‘‘inhibition’’ and tion of low concentrations of potassium salt is bene-
‘‘inhibitor’’ will apply strictly to additives that are ficial in lowering the swelling pressure due to K+ ions
aimed at reducing the swelling pressure. ‘‘Inhibition’’, replacing ‘‘less-inhibitive’’, more hydrated ions at the
however, is not necessarily a synonym for ‘‘shale- clay surface. However, the swelling pressure will
stabilization’’ as we shall see. increase when an excess of hydrated cations and
The effectiveness of K+ ions in minimizing swel- anions with increased mutual repulsion builds up in
ling pressures in montmorillonite is believed to be the interplatelet clay spacings.
related to the small degree of hydration of these ions Note that the above results were both obtained for a
in water, resulting in low ion repulsion (Karaborni et shale system with very high-salinity brine as the only
al., 1996). The effects of ion hydration, however, are fluid between the clay platelets. Such situations will
non-trivial. Fig. 4 shows the results of oedometer hardly ever occur in actual field practice, where trans-
experiments, measuring the degree of swelling of a port of solutes from the mud to the shale (e.g. diffusion
pre-loaded montmorillonite-rich shale sample that was of ions) dilutes the concentration of solutes. These
immersed in concentrated solutions of KCl and results should therefore not be used as an argument to
KCOOH. Swelling was measured during an unloading discard concentrated KCl or KCOOH brines as base
sequence and was quantified in terms of a swelling fluids for shale muds. The results just serve to place
index. At low salt concentrations, i.e. < 20% w/w, a swelling pressure in a different light and to highlight
reduction in swelling (showing as a reduced swelling the complexity of ion repulsion phenomena.
index) was seen with an increase in K+ content. At A full discussion on other unique features of the
high salt levels, however, swelling was again seen to swelling pressure, most of which are ill-understood in
current oil-field practice, falls beyond the scope of this
paper. An excellent review can be found in Israel-
achvili (1991) for interested readers. Important to the
present discussion are the following:

1. The swelling pressure is always present in clay-rich

shales, acting as a tensile force on clay platelets: it
does not suddenly develop when the shales are
contacted by water-based drilling fluids. However,
chemical changes caused by shale-drilling fluid
interactions may change its magnitude (either
beneficially or adversely).
2. Even the best inhibitors cannot bring the swelling
pressure down to zero (see Fig. 4 and Israelachvili,
1991; Bol, 1986; Bol et al., 1992); there will always
be residual repulsion between the platelets due to
Fig. 4. Oedometer test result for a shale containing 68% total clay, hydration of the clay surfaces and sterical interfer-
of which 76% montmorillonite, immersed in solutions of KCl and
ence between hydrated ions and water molecules,
KCOOH of increasing salinity. The test shows an initial decrease in
swelling for increase in salinity (note that the swelling index does unless complete dehydration and platelet collapse
not go to zero, i.e. there always is a residual swelling pressure), after occurs. Studies claiming otherwise (Steiger, 1993)
which swelling increases again with the increase in salt content. usually do not take into account the fact that
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 217

swelling pressure can be compensated by forces in Table 2

the cementation bonds, such that no net swelling Results of transport experiments determining permeability, mem-
brane efficiency and ion diffusion rates in Pierre type I shale
will be apparent in macroscopic experiments.
Test Permeability Membrane Cation
3. Swelling pressures are highly clay-specific. Thus,
(nD) efficiency diffusion
the effectiveness of ‘‘inhibitors’’ in reducing (%) rate
swelling pressures will be different for different
35% CaCl2 2.0 5.0 D(Ca2 +) =
clays. For instance, whereas potassium has a strong 2.6  10 10 m2/s
effect on swelling of montmorillonite, it has hardly 21% NaCl 1.9 3.8 D(Na+) =
any effect on illite and may actually increase the 2.9  10 10 m2/s
swelling of kaolinite. 26% KCl 2.2 2.2 D(K+) =
1.9  10 10 m2/s
72% KCOOH 1.5 7.9 D(K+) =
In our attempt to stabilize shales we should be 1.3  10 10 m2/s
aiming to control and reduce the swelling pressure. 21% NaCl – 7.5% 5.4a (before 61 D(Na+) =
This, however, may not be enough to guarantee stabil- Na – silicate mud exposure), below detection
ity, as shown in the following discussion on transport in mud < 0.1 (after limitb
mud exposure)
shale and the requirements for shale stability.
a
The permeability of the shale was determined before and after
exposure to the silicate drilling fluid—a dramatic drop in
permeability was observed after exposure, consistent with the
3. Transport in shales mechanism of pore blocking caused by silicate gellation and
precipitation.
b
An overview of direct and coupled flows that can The diffusion coefficients were below the experimental
occur in shales and their driving forces is given in detection limit of 0.5  10 10 m2/s.
Table 1. Well-known direct flows are Darcy flow of
water, driven by hydraulic gradients, and diffusion of osmotic membranes’’ that sustain chemical osmosis,
solutes, driven by chemical potential gradients which is the flow of water driven by chemical
between the drilling fluid and the shale. In previous potential gradients. The membrane character derives
publications (van Oort et al., 1995, 1996a) it was from by the mobility difference of water and hydrated
shown that shale –fluid systems may act as ‘‘leaky solutes that exists in the clay-rich, low-permeability
matrices of shales. Using high-salinity fluids, it is
Table 1
possible to stimulate osmotic backflow of shale pore
Overview of flows in shales driven by gradients in hydraulic water towards the wellbore in order to (partially)
pressure, chemical potential, electric potential and temperature offset the hydraulic inflow of mud filtrate. All direct
Driving Hydraulic Chemical Electric Temperature and coupled flows combined give rise to exchange of
force pressure potential potential gradient water and solutes/ions that will change the swelling
flow gradient gradient gradient pressure, water content and pore pressure.
Fluid Convection Chemical Electro- Thermo- Let us assume that we are drilling a shale at
(water) (Darcy’s osmosis osmosis osmosis hydraulic overbalance, such that we comply with the
Law) mud weight requirements for mechanical stability (see
Solutes/ Advection Diffusion Electro- Thermal
ions (Fick’s phoresis diffusion
below). The drilling fluid’s ion content exceeds that of
Law) (Soret the shale pore fluid slightly. Diffusion of ions from the
Effect) mud to the shale will occur due to the chemical
Current Streaming Diffusion Electric Thermo- potential gradient. For simplicity it is assumed that
current current conduction electricity no coupled flows occur. The question now is: ‘‘what
(Ohm’s (Seebeck
Law) Effect)
will the shale pore pressure, ionic content and water
Heat Isothermal Dufour Peltier Thermal content look like after some time, and how will the
heat effect effect conduction changes affect stability?’’.
transfer (Fourier’s Contrary to the behavior in permeable media, dif-
Law) fusion is a more prominent, faster process than Darcy
218 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

flow in low-permeability shales. Ion diffusion coeffi-

cients in shales have been shown to be typically in the
range of 1 –10.10 10 m2/s (see e.g. Ballard et al., 1992,
1993 and Table 2 for examples). For shales with per-
meability in the nano-Darcy range (k = 10 9 D – 10 21
m2), ion diffusion is then one to two orders of magni-
tude faster than hydraulic flow (see Appendix A).
There is, however, another important process that
takes place faster than ion diffusion. The Darcy flow
of virtually incompressible water into a high-stiffness
shale matrix will have a profound effect on pore-
pressure. Because of their low base permeability,
shales cannot dissipate pore pressures fast enough to
the far field. As a result of the water influx, pore-
pressure will be elevated in an extended zone around Fig. 6. Schematic overview of the development of various fronts
around a wellbore in a shale in time. From the central wellbore
the wellbore. We thus see that drilling with a water- going out into the formation, the filtrate invasion front is preceded
based mud at overbalance will ‘‘charge’’ the near- by a solute/ion invasion front, which in turn is preceded by the mud
wellbore pore pressure in time. pressure invasion front. There is one to two orders of magnitude
For low-permeability shales, the pore-pressure difference in penetration depth between the various invasion fronts.
front is expected to exceed the ion diffusion front
by one to two orders of magnitude (see Appendix A pore-pressure diffusion front. A good rule-of-thumb is
and Fig. 5). The situation depicted in Fig. 6 is created that where bulk water invasion proceeds at millimeters
where the mud filtrate invasion front is preceded by an a day, ion diffusion will diffuse over centimeters a day
ion diffusion front, which in turn is preceded by a and pressure will diffuse over decimeters a day.
Ions diffusing into shales will exchange at clay sites,
altering the swelling pressure. Invading mud pressure
will elevate the pore pressure. If osmosis occurs, the
shale may be dehydrated in the near-wellbore zone.
Such changes will all affect the stress state and/or the
strength of a freshly drilled shale in time. Their impli-
cations for wellbore stability are now discussed.

4. Requirements for stability

Fig. 7 shows a Mohr – Coulomb representation of

the stress state of shale after drilling (dotted curve).
The stresses on the vertical axes are inter-granular
stress, also know as effective stresses. In an extension
to Terzaghi’s (1943) concept of effective stress, these
are denoted as:

reff
i ¼ ri  Ppore  Pswelling ð1Þ
where r are the in-situ formation stresses and Ppore
and Pswelling denote the pore and swelling pressure,
Fig. 5. Pressure penetration and ion diffusion in shale. Profiles were
obtained by applying an approximation to Eq. (A4) for short time respectively. Note that the swelling pressure and pore
frames and using a diffusion constant of 1  10 8 m2/s for pressure pressure have been completely decoupled here. This
diffusion and 1  10 10 m2/s for ion diffusion. approach remains to be validated. The Mohr – Cou-
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 219

2. Elevation of the swelling pressure (e.g. due to

unfavorable cation exchange at clay sites), reduc-
ing the effective stresses.
3. Chemical alteration and weakening of the cemen-
tation bonds. This effect cannot be accounted for in
the present representation of effective stress. It may
be taken into account by adjusting the shale
strength and failure parameters (e.g. cohesion and
friction angle), thus shifting the position and the
slope of the failure envelope in time.
Fig. 7. Mohr – Coulomb representation of shale failure: the increase
in pore pressure and/or swelling pressure will reduce all effective Note that the opposite holds true also: a more
normal stresses (note that shear stresses remain unaltered) until the stable situation may arise when pore pressure or
stress state touches the failure envelope and the shale fails for a hydration stress are reduced, or if chemical alteration
given orientation around the wellbore.
strengthens the shale.
Fig. 7 shows what happens to our initially stable
state when the effective stresses are reduced in time:
lomb failure envelope, which reflects the shale’s the stress state will move towards the failure envelope
strength, is defined as (Jaeger and Cook, 1979): until for a specific point around the wellbore (i.e. a
specific combination of normal and shear stresses) the
s ¼ rtan/ þ C ð2Þ envelope is reached and failure occurs (see solid curve
in Fig. 7). To maintain stability, there is only one
where s represents shear stress, / is friction angle and option available: to increase mud weight in order to
C denotes cohesion. It is assumed that the shale is change the stress state (i.e. shift the Mohr circle back
stable initially after drilling, meaning that the applied to the right) and keep the hole open. This, however, is
stresses, pore pressure, hydration stress and cementa- only a temporary fix as the process that is reducing
tion forces are all balanced in the shale and do not the effective stresses will continue to move the stress
overcome its strength. This requires first of all the state towards failure. Moreover, progressively weight-
application of the proper radial support on the well- ing up the mud will eventually erode the available
bore wall, i.e. the right mud weight (Aadnoy and drilling margin ( = difference between fracture gra-
Chenevert, 1987; Wong et al., 1991). If the mud dient and mud weight required for well control and
weight is too low, then immediate (local) tensile or borehole stability), ultimately leading to exceeding
shear failure will occur. Tensile fracturing may occur the fracture gradient, tensile wall fracturing and mud
on the other hand if the mud weight is too high. Note losses.
that such immediate failures are not dependent on We now pose the following question: ‘‘can the
mud type (be they oil-based, synthetic or water-based elevation of pore-pressure by mud pressure penetra-
muds), but are governed solely by the magnitude of tion be compensated by lowering the swelling pres-
the mud weight. Mud weight is therefore the main tool sure by an equivalent amount using the appropriate
at the driller’s disposal to guarantee initial shale inhibitors?’’ At a more basic level, this becomes a
stability. However, having the right mud weight frequently asked question in oil-field practice: ‘‘can
initially does not necessarily guarantee stability over inhibiting mud additives be used effectively to prevent
time, as we shall see. shale problems, and if yes, what kind of additives
There are basically three mechanisms by which should be used?’’ Reviewing Eq. (1), we are asking if
exposure to the drilling fluid can lead to instability in an increase in Ppore can be offset by a reduction in
time. These are: Pswelling.
Invoking the earlier arguments on transport, the
1. Elevation of the pore pressure due to mud pressure answer to the above questions should be that there
invasion, reducing the effective stresses. are cases in which shale instability cannot be prevented
220 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

whatever kind of inhibitors are used (remark that It is concluded that a strategy for shale stabilization
inhibitors were defined earlier as agents that reduce based solely on the use of inhibitors can only be
the swelling pressure). The reason for this is that in partially successful. Clearly, something more than
intact, non-fractured shales, the inhibitor-diffusion ‘‘inhibition’’ is needed for shale stability, which ties
front lags behind the pore-pressure front. As shown in with field experience. As emphasized in a number
in Figs. 5 and 6, instability cannot be prevented in the of previous papers (van Oort, 1994; van Oort et al.,
zone with elevated pore-pressure between the two 1995, 1996a), the prevention of water/mud filtrate
fronts as the inhibitor will not have reached this zone influx in shale and concomitant prevention of mud
yet. Assuming that the pore-pressure has been equili- pressure penetration in shales holds the key to shale
brated to the mud pressure (i.e. Ppore = Pm) in the mud stabilization. The recipe for achieving physio-chem-
pressure invasion zone not yet reached by inhibitor ical shale and wellbore stability is as follows:
diffusion, the effective radial stress acting in this zone (1) Apply radial support stress to the wellbore wall
becomes: by using the appropriate mud weight to achieve
mechanical stability. Without the right mud weight,
reff
r ¼ Pswelling ð3Þ any formation may yield and fail whatever mud
system is used.
which means that the full native swelling pressure, not (2) Maintain this radial support in time by prevent-
in any way attenuated by inhibitors which are lagging ing mud filtrate invasion and concomitant pore pres-
behind, is acting in tension on the clay fabric. However, sure elevation by:
even when inhibitors would be present, the swelling
pressure cannot be brought down to zero (see above),
reducing shale permeability, e.g. by blocking off
such that there will always be an effective tensile force pore throats;
remaining. When this net tensile force overcomes the
increasing filtrate viscosity, thus reducing the rate
shale’s tensile strength (which is normally low in shales of hydraulic inflow from the mud to the shale;
anyway) than yielding will be imminent at the weakest
balancing hydraulic inflow from the mud to the
sites in this zone, which may trigger subsequent full- shale by an induced osmotic backflow from the
scale failure. Particularly detrimental in this respect shale to the mud.
are annular pressure fluctuations (e.g. during swab
and surge events) which, by changing the hydraulic (3) Attempt to improve stability by:
radial support, may deliver the ‘‘final blow’’ to an
already weakened and yielding shale, failing the ma-
stimulating osmotic backflow of pore fluid to
terial and dislodging shale fragments from the well- reduce the shale’s near-wellbore water content and
bore wall. pore-pressure so that strength and effective stress
The time-lag in the transport of inhibitors is increase (Colback and Wiid, 1965);
regarded as one of the main reasons behind their
using solutes in the drilling fluid that have the ability
short-comings as shale-stabilizers. ‘‘Inhibition’’ will to diffuse into the shale, exchange at clay platelets
only be effective if mud pressure penetration and and reduce the swelling pressure effectively;
inhibitor diffusion can go side-by-side, and if the
using solutes in the drilling fluid that invade shales
nature of the shale and the inhibiting agent are such and chemically react with shale components to
that the swelling pressure can indeed be reduced to an increase the cementation forces.
extent that offsets the pore-pressure increase. Note
that such conditions will only be satisfied for shales
with significant amounts of ‘‘swellable’’ clays such as 5. Shale problems and solutions
smectites. For low to non-reactive clays such as
kaolinites, inhibitors will almost never provide any Three types of shale problems and their unique
solution, which explains why inhibitive muds have solutions are now discussed: (1) cuttings disintegra-
historically performed poorly when used in drilling of tion, (2) wellbore instability and (3) bit balling. From
such clays. a mud engineering standpoint, the challenge is to
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 221

devise an overall drilling fluid strategy that satisfies quickly circulated out of the hole. A bigger problem
the requirements for cuttings and wellbore stability is the reduction in hydrostatic pressure (i.e. reduction
and the prevention of bit-balling at the same time. in Pmud) experienced by the cutting as it travels up the
annulus. This reduction in the compressive force act-
5.1. Cuttings disintegration ing on the cutting reduces the stronghold on the
swelling pressure, which may now overcome the
Fig. 8 demonstrates the effects of drilling on our cementation’s strength and separate the clay platelets
model shale system. With the release of the cutting by drawing water from the mud. The material will
from the rock matrix, the in-situ stresses are suddenly loose its integrity as water invades radially inward,
removed and replaced by the uniform mud pressure. A typically creating an ‘‘union type’’ pattern of a hard,
single radial effective stress/pressure will be acting on dry interior and progressively softer outer shells of
the cutting, given by: more dispersed material.
There essentially two approaches to cuttings insta-
reff
r ¼ Pmud  Ppore  Pswelling ð4Þ bility:

1. Inhibition and encapsulation. Inhibitors have been

Note that this stress/pressure acting on the cutting’s
applied with good success in stabilizing cuttings.
cementation will be in compression when the mud
Indeed, what is called for is control over the
pressure exceeds the combination of pore pressure and
detrimental effects of the swelling pressure, which
swelling pressure, but will shift to tension if the latter
is usually achieved by the combined action of an
combination exceeds the mud pressure. Direct local
inhibitor that targets the swelling pressure directly
failure at weak sites within the cutting followed by
and an ‘‘encapsulator’’ polymer (the term may not
hydration and dispersion may occur if the stress
be entirely accurate as there is hardly ever any real
overcomes the tensile strength of the shale.
encapsulation/coating of the cuttings) that may
Let us assume that the mud pressure and the
hold shale material together and prevent it from
cutting’s cementation are able to control failure and
disintegration. The matter is treated in more detail
dispersion initially, i.e. right after drilling. The mud
in the discussion on salt/PHPA muds below.
pressure may invade the cutting and equilibrate its pore
2. Shut-off of the water influx by filtrate viscosity
pressure in time, but this is a relatively slow process
enhancement, pore blocking, or stimulated osmotic
which will not reach its full effect if cuttings are
backflow of pore fluid. The idea is simple: when
there is no water available to satisfy the demand of
the swelling pressure, than there will be no swelling
and disintegration (which is essentially the way oil
and synthetic mud stabilize cuttings; moreover, in
those muds the invasion of bulk mud into the shale
fabric is prevented by capillary entry pressures).
Any cavitation of pores within the cutting itself will
be counteracted by capillary pressures in the pores,
which can attain very high values in shales (on the
order of several hundred bars).

Preferably, these approaches should be run in

parallel to maximize the stabilizing effect on cuttings.

5.2. Wellbore instability

Fig. 8. Pressures acting on cuttings. When a shale is drilled, cuttings
experience relief of in-situ stress. The combination of mud pressure
and cementation forces will need to contain swelling pressure and Cuttings and shale stability have historically been
pore pressure to avoid disintegration. equated to being one-and-the-same problem. How-
222 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

ever, there are essential differences that necessitate a The concept of clay plasticity is well known from
separate approach to wellbore instability. Two of these soil mechanics (Mitchell, 1993), where it is conven-
differences are: iently captured in terms of the so-called Atterberg
limits. Increasing the water content of an initially dry
1. The in-situ stress conditions and geometrical clay will first lead to a dry zone below the plastic
effects. limit (see Fig. 9). In this zone, the material is too dry
2. The timing. Normally, wellbores are exposed for to have significant tendency to stick. Above the
much longer times to drilling fluids than cuttings plastic limit at higher water contents, however, stick-
are, unless the latter are not cleaned out of the hole ing tendency rapidly increases. If the water content is
effectively and are, e.g. buried in a cuttings bed. As increased even further, the liquid limit is reached
transport proceeds with time, different modes of such that the material has very limited inherent
failure are encountered. strength and will disperse. The material may readily
wash off the bit by the agitation of the fluid circu-
The strategy for ensuring wellbore stability was lation. In this view, it is seen that there is a clear
outlined in the previous section. ‘‘danger zone’’ for bit balling: the plastic zone, at
intermediate water contents. This position of this
5.3. Bit balling zone will depend on the type of shale, its specific
clay type and clay content, and therefore its swelling
Bit balling strongly affects rate-of-penetration pressure.
(ROP) and hole-making ability, concomitantly affect- If a shale with pronounced balling tendency is
ing drilling costs. Despite its obvious importance, it is drilled one should design the drilling fluid so that
still a poorly understood phenomenon that is usually (see Fig. 9):
approached on a trial-and-error basis by empirically
testing additives for their effect on ROP (Cheatham 1. The cuttings are dehydrated, such that they are
and Nahm, 1990; Cheatham et al., 1985). An attempt taken from the plastic zone into the dry zone
is made here to explain the drilling fluid aspects of bit whereby their tendency to stick disappears. This
balling on the basis of the shale model presented in may be accomplished by using mud systems that
Fig. 2, and to offer ways of minimizing bit balling and can build membranes and can osmotically dehy-
maximizing ROP through improved water-based mud drate the shale. Note that electro-osmosis (i.e. the
design.
After drilling, the stress experienced by the cut-
ting is given by Eq. (4). The stress release may
immediately trigger hydration. The swelling pressure
is like an unloaded spring which is in need of water
to effect the separation of the clay platelets. The
cuttings will draw water from any available source,
which may be the water layers on top of the steel
surface of the bit or water from other nearby cut-
tings. Cuttings are in close contact right after drilling
due to the relatively small bit clearances and the
mechanical ‘‘kneading’’ action by the bit. In drawing
water inwards, cuttings may ‘‘vacuum’’ themselves
onto the bit and onto each other, causing the bit to
ball. The likelihood that the cuttings are going to
Fig. 9. Model for bit balling. Shales in the plastic zone will have a
remain attached to the bit, i.e. persist in sticking and
tendency to ball the bit and BHA, causing ROP reduction. The
cause a problem, will depend on their strength and tendency to ball disappears when the shale is either dehydrated
plasticity which is a function of their water and clay (taken over to the dry zone) or hydrated (taken over to the liquid
content. zone).
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 223

flow of shale pore water stimulated by a negative Of course there are other factors that play an
potential applied at the bit, see Table 1) which has important role in (the prevention of) bit balling prob-
been shown to minimize bit balling and improve lems, like weight-on-bit, bit rotation, hydraulics, the
ROP works in a similar way (Roy and Cooper, clearance around the bit available for cuttings
1993). removal, the sharpness and finish of PDC cutters,
2. The cuttings are hydrated, such that they enter the etc. These issues fall outside the scope of this paper
liquid zone, disperse, and are easily washed of the (see, e.g. Roy and Cooper, 1993 and references
face of the bit. This may be accomplished using therein).
dispersive mud systems. Note that these systems
may give problems with wellbore stability as well
as overall mud rheology due to their solids 6. Shale stabilizing additives and systems
dispersing tendency.
3. The cuttings are coated (e.g. made oil-wet) at their Now that the framework for the behavior of shales,
outer periphery to prevent them from sticking their interactions with water-based drilling fluids and
together and latching onto the steel surface of the the problems that derive from these interactions has
bit. Old oil-field practice dictated the use of a few been outlined, we can start to address the action of
percent of base oil or synthetic in the mud to specific additives and systems used throughout the
overcome balling problems. More recently, special industry for shale stabilization. The number of com-
ROP enhancing additives were developed (for a mercial shale stabilizers is impressive; rather than
much more detailed discussion, see van Oort et al., discussing each of them individually they are generi-
2000) that can beneficially wet cuttings and steel cally grouped together.
surfaces, and help to brake up cuttings strands (e.g.
the typical cuttings ‘‘ribbons’’ generated by PDC 6.1. Salts
bits) to help cleaning of cuttings around the bit-
face. 6.1.1. Potassium chloride
Potassium chloride (KCl) is probably the best-
Care is advised for approaches (1) and (2): they can known inhibitor in the oil-industry. Its popularity
only be applied confidently if the water content and derives mainly from its ability to reduce swelling
sticking tendency of the shale is known upfront, i.e. pressures in smectite clays. It has therefore been
one would typically apply these strategies when there applied very effectively in drilling young, reactive
is an apparent balling problem and the shale drilled is ‘‘gumbo’’-type shales which usually contain extensive
known to be in the plastic zone. If not, then: amounts of these clays. Together with PHPA (partially
hydrolyzed poly-acrylamide) a system is formed that
(i) Using the approach of cuttings hydration, one may is highly effective in stabilizing cuttings (Clark et al.,
take cuttings initially in the dry zone over to the 1976).
plastic zone, thus creating a bit-balling problem The main performance shortcoming of KCl is its
where there first was none. This situation may inability to prevent filtrate invasion and mud pressure
happen in the field when well-consolidated, low- penetration in shales. The viscosities of KCl solutions
reactivity shales are drilled with dispersive muds are close to that of water, even at salt-saturation
(e.g. lignosulphonate-based). levels. KCl cannot plug pore throats or modify shale
(ii) Using the approach of cuttings dehydration, one permeability. Thus, the hydraulic conductivity gov-
may take initially wet cuttings from the liquid erning the extent of Darcy flow into shales is unal-
zone over to the plastic zone, again creating a tered by KCl (see Fig. 10). In addition, osmotic
problem where there was none to start with. This pressures generated by concentrated KCl solutions
situation may happen in the field when young, are moderate (typically < 20 MPa) and membrane
high-reactivity shales are drilled with very efficiencies are low (typically 1 – 2%) due to the
inhibitive muds or muds with strong osmotic relatively high mobility of KCl in shale. Thus,
dehydration tendencies. osmotic backflow of shale pore fluid induced by
224 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

providing the osmotic gradient for shale dehydra-

tion.

6.1.3. Calcium/magnesium/zinc chloride/bromide

(CaCl2, CaBr2, ZnCl2, MgCl2, MgBr2, ZnBr2)
Concentrated brines of Ca2 +, Mg2 + and Zn2 + are
popular as base fluid for high-density, low-solids
drilling and completion fluids. Two factors make
them suitable for shale drilling: (i) their filtrate
viscosities are high which will slow down hydraulic
flow, and (ii) they can generate very high osmotic
pressure (on the order of 1000 bars; however, mem-
Fig. 10. Pressure transmission result for a saturated KCl mud, tested
on Pierre type I shale at T = 65 jC. Note that the rate of pressure
brane efficiencies are on the order of 1– 10% so that
transmission is the same as the pore fluid standard curve, i.e. KCl the effective osmotic pressure acting is attenuated to
does not in any way retard mud pressure penetration. 10 –100 bars) that may be used to (partially) offset the
hydraulic mud overbalance. There is downside also,
however. Divalent ions will diffuse into the shales
KCl muds (with effective osmotic pressures in the since the fluid – shale membrane is leaky and allows
range 0.1– 1.0 MPa) will be negligible. As a result, for ion transport from the mud to the shale. When
KCl-based mud systems usually are not suitable for these ions exchange at clay sites for more inhibitive
drilling older, less-reactive shales. First, ion diffusion ions such as K+, then the swelling pressure may
is lagging behind mud pressure diffusion. Secondly, increase, leading to shale instability. When these
these shales have gone through a process of dia- muds are used, one should carefully balance their
genesis which has changed the smectites into less beneficial effect on shale water content and pore
swellable clays such as illites. Concomitantly, there is pressure, and their potentially detrimental effect on
less swelling pressure in these shales for KCl to act the swelling pressure.
upon. These shales will typically fail due to the
effects of mud pressure penetration at prolonged 6.1.4. Formate and acetate salts (MCOOH,
exposure to the invading mud filtrate. MCH3COOH. M=Na+, K +, Cs+)
In conclusion, KCl is recommended for primarily The above also holds true to a large extent for
for cuttings-stabilization of relatively young, more concentrated formate and acetate brines; their filtrate
reactive shale types that contain significant amounts viscosities are high and they generate very large
of smectites. osmotic pressures. These monovalent salt systems,
however, may have a much more beneficial effect
6.1.2. Sodium chloride on the swelling pressure. Especially potassium for-
Na+ is not as ‘‘inhibitive’’ as K+. Use of sodium mate (KCOOH) seems especially suitable for shale
chloride (NaCl) for shale control, however, does drilling (see also van Oort et al., 1996a) by reducing
have certain advantages over use of KCl. NaCl swelling pressure, shale water content and pore pres-
solutions near saturation have elevated base viscos- sure at the same time. This claim is supported by field
ities and have lower water activities than concen- experience (Howard, 1995). Note that the above-
trated KCl solutions, giving rise to higher osmotic mentioned benefits will only be obtained for highly
pressures. Therefore, they are better equipped to concentrated salt solutions.
reduce filtrate invasion in shales. Although concen-
trated NaCl solutions do not make good shale 6.2. Polymers with special shale affinity (e.g. cati-
drilling fluids by themselves, they are very effective onics, amines, PHPA)
when run in combination with systems that can
enhance shale membrane efficiency (such as sili- Several polymer alternatives, among them cati-
cates, polyols and methylglucoside, see below) by onics, amines, etc., have been developed essentially
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 225

as alternatives for KCl (Beihoffer et al., 1990; Retz et Fig. 11 shows the spreading of PHPA on a surface of
al., 1991). The fact that K+ ions could be exchanged calcite, as imaged using transmission electron micro-
only at single clay sites was perceived as a disadvant- scopy. The image reveals a ‘‘spider-like’’ web formed
age that could be remedied using a polymer with by PHPA showing as an elevation above the shale
functional groups that adsorbed onto clay surfaces at surface.
multiple sites (Himes et al., 1991). Such multiple- Fig. 11 also clarifies the deficiencies of high-mo-
‘‘anchored’’ polymers would be much more resistant lecular weight shale stabilizing polymers like PHPA:
to exchange than a single K+ cation. Also, environ- their coverage of the shale surface and pore-blocking
mental legislation prohibits the use of KCl in several efficiency is minimal. As a result, mud pressure
drilling areas in the world either by environmental penetration is not in any way retarded by them as
sensitivity to potassium (e.g. offshore Gulf of Mexico) shown in Fig. 12. For low-molecular-weight polymers
or to chlorides (e.g. onshore Canada, Thailand, etc.). actually entering shales, their diffusion rates are much
The argumentation given for the action of KCl lower than pore-pressure diffusion rates, i.e. they are
essentially also holds for these polymers. They are lagging behind the pore-pressure front. Following this
good inhibitors of clay swelling, especially those of argumentation, the recommended use for these addi-
low molecular weight (< 10,000 a.w.u.) that can enter tives is cuttings stabilization.
the pore system and penetrate the clay fabric. The
higher-molecular-weight species (>10,000 a.w.u.) will 6.3. Asphaltenes, gilsonites, graphites
have lost this ability to penetrate shales and modify
the swelling pressure due to size restrictions, but they Asphaltenes, gilsonites and graphites are used for a
may latch onto the outer surfaces of the shale. Well variety of purposes, among them shale stabilization.
known in this respect is the action of PHPA, which These types of additives have no effect on the swelling
adsorbs onto multiple sites on the clay surfaces and pressure. Also, their significant bulk size prevents them
may thereby combat disintegration of shale material. from entering shales and effectively blocking pore

Fig. 11. TEM image of PHPA spread out on a calcite surface. Lighter areas are elevated above the shale surface (scale is from 0 to 10 nm). PHPA
is seen to form a web-like structure that ‘‘encapsulates’’ the formation.
226 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

Saccharides are recommended for cuttings-and

wellbore stabilization. A restriction to their use is that
relatively high product concentrations (typically>30%
w/w) are necessary to achieve the desired benefits,
which may affect the economics of these systems and
lead to high base mud viscosity. When systems are
formulated that can dehydrate shales effectively, they
may also be applied in reducing bit balling and
increasing ROP. Systems that stand the best chance
of achieving this are mixed glucoside –salt systems
(see below).
Fig. 12. Pressure transmission result for a 10 ppb KCl/PHPA mud,
tested on Pierre type I shale at T = 65 jC. Note that the rate of 6.5. (Poly-)glycerols and (poly-)glycols
pressure transmission is the same as the pore fluid standard curve,
i.e. PHPA does not retard mud pressure penetration. (Poly-)glycerols and (poly-)glycols (although not
entirely accurate, they are denoted in the following
simply as glycerols and glycols) have been widely
throats. Thus, filtrate invasion and mud pressure pen- applied in shale drilling fluids (Chenevert, 1989;
etration will proceed unretarded. Fig. 13 shows the Bland, 1991, 1992; Bland et al., 1995; Reid et al.,
result of a pressure transmission test, in which the rate 1993; Downs et al., 1993; Cliffe et al., 1995; Twynam
of mud pressure penetration in shale is measured. et al., 1994). Low-molecular weight ( < 10,000 a.w.u.)
Evidently, the gilsonite mud used had no effect on polymers viscosify filtrates and retard thereby filtrate
retarding the rate by which water invades. The effect of invasion in shales. Fig. 14 shows the measured
such additives on shale stability is therefore concluded reduction in pressure penetration rates versus the
to be very limited. Note that the 8 1/2 in. hole section increase in mud filtrate viscosity, as measured in
shown in Fig. 1 was drilled using a gilsonite as the sole pressure transmission tests for various glycols. There
shale stabilizing agent in the drilling fluid. These is a one-to-one relationship. Note that even small in-
additives are best applied the help seal (micro-)cracks creases in filtrate viscosity can be significant for shale
in fractured formations. stability: when filtrate invasion is causing shale insta-
bility, then an increase in filtrate viscosity by a factor
6.4. Sugars and sugar derivatives 2 will increase troublefree open-hole time by the same

Saccharides (sugars) are well known low-molec-

ular-weight viscosifiers which have the advantage of
being very environmentally friendly. They viscosify
mud filtrates effectively when used at appropriate
concentrations, thus reducing the hydraulic flow of
water in shales (van Oort, 1994). In addition, they
lower water activities and therefore generate osmotic
pressures that may be utilized to dehydrate the shale.
These sugar systems are vulnerable to attack by bio-
logical organism, which may make preservation of
mud and base additives at the rigsite difficult. Most of
these problems were circumvented using methylglu-
coside, a methylated saccharides-species that is less
Fig. 13. Pressure transmission result for a mud containing 5% w/w
sensitive to biological attack (Simpson et al., 1994). gilsonite, tested on Pierre type I shale at T = 65 jC. The rate of
Methyl glucoside essentially works by the same token pressure transmission is the same as the pore fluid standard curve,
as other saccharides. i.e. gilsonite does not retard mud pressure penetration.
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 227

High-molecular weight glycerols and glycols

(>10,000 a.w.u.) are screened out on the surfaces of
shales. Surface coverage and pore blocking will not be
very effective, similar to PHPA (see Fig. 11). Con-
sequently, such additives have little merits as wellbore
stabilizers.
Clouding-or TAME (thermally activated mud
emulsion) glycols (Bland et al., 1995; Downs et
al., 1993) have an additional mechanism by which
they can stabilize shales (see Fig. 15). These glycols
display reverse solubility and cloud-point behavior
in water. This means that they are water-soluble
below a certain temperature known as the cloud-
point temperature (CPT), but will phase-separate
Fig. 14. Pressure transmission results for solutions of five types of forming an emulsion above this temperature. This
(poly-)glycols, varying in concentration. The retardation of mud effect is utilized in stabilizing shales. In a normal
pressure penetration is directly related to the reduction in rate of
drilling situation the mud will be at bottom-hole
Darcy flow due to the filtrate enhancement by these (poly-)glycols.
circulating temperature (BHCT), drilling a shale
factor. This may ‘‘buy’’ enough time to run casing and initially at bottom-hole static temperature (BHST).
cement before operational problems become signifi- The mud is engineered such that the CPT (which is
cant. a function of glycol-type and mud salinity) and

Fig. 15. Thermal activation mechanism for TAME muds: polyglycols in solution (present as small micelles) invade shale pores, experience
temperature elevation, cloud-out and form emulsion barriers in the shale that prevent further mud filtrate and pressure invasion.
228 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

BHCT coincide. Thus, at the bit the glycols are just 6.7. Silicates
on the verge of clouding. Water-soluble glycols will
now invade the shale and experience temperature Silicate-based drilling fluids were reintroduced in
elevation due to the higher BHST. This will trigger the oil-field industry (van Oort et al., 1996b; Ding et
phase-separation and emulsification. The emulsion- al., 1996; Ward and Williamson, 1996) in the 1990s.
block thus created will hamper further fluid inva- These inexpensive and environmentally benign muds
sion and mud pressure penetration, stabilizing the combine a set of unique characteristics that make
shale. them excellently suited for shale stabilization. Soluble
An alternative explanation of the shale-stabilizing silicates will invade shales and rapidly react with
action of (non-clouding) glycols has been presented available polyvalent ions in the shale pore fluid (e.g.
(Cliffe et al., 1995). Water is displaced from clays as Ca2 + and Mg2 +) to form insoluble precipitates. Also,
certain polyglycols are adsorbed to form ordered the neutral-to-acidic pH of pore fluids will trigger
mono-or bilayer complexes (depending on the pres- silicate gellation. The barrier formed by gelled and
ence of potassium ions), thus lowering swelling pres- precipitated silicates will prevent any further mud
sures. Although the mechanism is not contested here, filtrate invasion and pressure penetration, as shown
it is not clear how this could play a major role in shale in Fig. 16.
stabilization: Fig. 17 shows a SEM image of a shale after
treatment with a silicate-based mud: a 10-Am-thick
1. Shales are inhomogeneous media that contain other silica barrier is clearly visible on the surface exposed
materials besides clays (e.g. quartz silt) and have to the mud. In fact, the gellation/precipitation mech-
pores ranging from nanometer up to microns (see anism has been shown to seal small cracks and
Fig. 17 for a SEM image of shale fabric). fractures in shales (van Oort et al., 1996b). Thus,
Molecular mono- or bilayers of glycol adsorbed silicate-based muds can stabilize formations that are
onto clay surfaces would not be able to exclude in-situ fractured, or where fractures have been either
mud filtrates and prevent pressure penetration. induced by mechanical action of the drillstring or by
2. Solute transport (glycol diffusion) into shales will annular pressure swabs that have (locally) failed the
be slower than pressure penetration. Thus, the shale.
reduction in swelling pressure effected by the An additional feature of the silicate barrier is that it
glycols lags behind the increase in pore-pressure constitutes a highly efficient osmotic membrane (see
effected by the overbalance. Table 2, note that the barrier restricts hydraulic flow of

Low-molecular-weight glycerols and glycols are

recommended for cuttings and wellbore stabilization.
Direct spotting of high-concentration glycol pills has
been shown to improve ROP in the field also (Twy-
nam et al., 1994).

6.6. Mixed polyol – salt systems

Combinations of various polyols (including poly-

glycerols, polyglycols, and methylglucoside) and salts
(e.g. NaCl, CaCl2) are far more effective in stabilizing
shales than their individual base components (van Oort
et al., 1995). It was found that these systems work by
synergy through increasing the shale –fluid membrane
Fig. 16. Pressure transmission result for a sodium silicate mud,
efficiency. Through the osmotic pressure generated by tested on Pierre type I shale at T = 65 jC. The pore system was
the salinity (i.e. lowering of the drilling fluid’s water plugged by the silicates, preventing mud filtrate invasion and mud
activity), shales can be effectively dehydrated. pressure penetration completely.
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 229

Fig. 17. SEM photograph of Pierre type I shale after exposure to a silicate-based drilling fluid. The picture shows a silicate-‘‘cake’’ of 10 Am
thickness on the shale’s surface. This cake prevents mud filtrate invasion and pressure penetration, and at the same time acts as a leaky
membrane with high efficiency (typically 30 – 80%) that enables osmotic transport. Using a high-salinity/low water-activity brine as base fluid,
it is possible to dehydrate a shale using this silicate membrane.

water but not diffusive/osmotic transfer of water) that follows: Type I < Type II < Type III V Type IV V Type
can be exploited to dehydrate the shale and improve V. Type V fluids are regarded to be most suited to
stability. To this extent, the water activity of the protect cuttings, to stabilize wellbores and to mini-
drilling fluid should be lowered to generate an effec- mize bit balling/maximize ROP.
tive osmotic pressure. This can be done by using
various monovalent salts (e.g. NaCl, KCl) in the mud 7.1. Type I: non-inhibitive, dispersed/dispersive
formulation. WBMs
Silicate muds are recommended for all shale-stabi-
lization uses. Examples: lignosulphonate mud, gypsum mud,
lime mud.
These muds in general offer little to counteract
7. Classifying mud systems shale instability in general. Over time, the WC, SP
and PP will all be increased in the FI zone; SP and PP
Specific shale drilling fluid formulations are now will be increased in the SI zone; and there will be
classified based on the effect of these mud systems on increased PP in the PI zone. As a result, there will be
water content (WC), swelling pressure (SP) and pore- rapid dispersion of cuttings and progressive enlarge-
pressure (PP) for the three invasion zones introduced ment of wellbores over time. The dispersion of solids,
previously: the filtrate invasion (FI) zone, the solute- however, may have a beneficial effect on bit balling
invasion (SI) zone, and the pressure invasion (PI) zone. and ROP, as explained previously. Note that lime mud
Fig. 18 represents the qualitative changes in WC, SP may be an exceptional case. Although the above is
and PP that will have occurred after the shale has been expected to hold true, lime mud may have a beneficial
exposed for some time to the mud systems. The effect by promoting in-situ cementing of the shale
changes are shown as increases or decreases from fabric (Hale and Mody, 1993).
native shale values. It will be a challenge to future
R&D to properly quantify the effects of transport and 7.2. Type II: conventional inhibitive WBMs
chemical change in shales on rock-mechanical stability.
The shale-stabilizing ability of the various drilling Examples: KCl/PHPA mud, high-KCl mud, ami-
fluid systems is regarded to increase with type as nated/cationic muds.
230 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

Fig. 18. Qualitative effect of drilling fluids on water content, swelling pressure and pore pressure in shales for the filtrate invasion (FI) zone, the
solute/ion (SI) invasion zone and the mud pressure invasion (PI) zone. Changes are shown relative to the properties of the native shale, indicated
by the dotted lines.

These muds are definitely a step in the right pressure diffusion and solute diffusion run approx-
direction when reactive shale formations (i.e. shales imately in parallel, the PP and SP effects may cancel
with a high smectite content and concomitant high out, resulting in a more-or-less stable situation.
swelling pressure) are drilled. PP will be enhanced in These muds also offer satisfactorily solutions to
all three invasion zones, but SP may be reduced due cuttings stability. The inhibitive solutes will reduce
the action of the inhibitive solutes diffusing into the the SP and the high-molecular-weight polymers that
shale and exchanging at clay sites. When mud are run in conjunction (e.g. PHPA) may hold material
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 231

thereby avoiding disintegration. However, these muds (i.e. they are balanced), then there will be no
clearly fall short when older, less-reactive shales are osmotic water transport.
drilled as explained earlier. Their primary use, there-
fore, is for cuttings stabilization. 7.5. Type V: low/non-invading osmotic WBM/OBM

7.3. Type III: osmotic WBMs Examples: low-activity silicate mud, low-activity
invert emulsion mud, mixed polyol – salt induced
Examples: CaCl 2/MgCl 2-based mud, KCOOH membrane muds.
mud, methylglucoside mud. Type V drilling fluids are formed by combination
The ‘‘leaky membrane’’ action of shale –fluid sys- of Type III and IV muds. First of all, the mechanism
tems is exploited in osmotic WBMs (van Oort et al., that prevents filtrate invasion in shales is exploited,
1995, 1996a). These drilling fluids employ low-mobi- such as the capillary entry pressure mechanism with
lity solutes to generate the membrane efficiency and to invert emulsion muds and the plugging mechanism in
depress the water activity such that an osmotic pressure silicate muds. Secondly, the ability of these systems
gradient, directed from the shale to the mud, is gen- to generate highly efficient osmotic membranes is
erated. The effective osmotic pressures generated have used to enhance stability. This is accomplished by
been shown to be strong enough to offset the hydraulic lowering the drilling fluid water activity to generate
mud over-balance altogether, leading to dehydration of an osmotic pressure that may stimulate the osmotic
the shale. As shown in Fig. 18, the WC and PP are flow of water from the shale pores to the mud. This
expected to be reduced, resulting in a more stable water flow may reduce near-wellbore WC and PP (it
situation. is unclear at present what actually happens to the
This type is subdivided based on the effect of the SP: it will probably not be significantly affected).
mud on SP. Type IIIA will elevate the SP in the FI and These muds are highly effective in dealing with all
SI zones, due, e.g. to unfavorable exchange of clay types of shale problems, as demonstrated by high-
cations, which may undo some of the beneficial effect salinity IOEMs (oil or synthetic muds) being the
of WC and PP, possibly leading to instability. Type industry standard for drilling troublesome shales.
IIIB will lower the SP in the FI and SI and provide
additional stability. Note that Fig. 18 displays the most
favorable scenario for type IIIB muds, in which 8. Conclusions
osmotic back-flow of pore water overtakes the
hydraulic inflow of mud filtrate completely. 1. Swelling pressures in clays at small platelet sepa-
rations are governed by complicated non-DLVO
7.4. Type IV: low/non-invading WBM/OBM forces such as ion hydration. Simplistic models
cannot be used to accurately predict the behavior of
Examples: TAME mud, balanced-activity silicate the swelling pressure.
mud, balanced activity oil/synthetic mud, all-oil/all- 2. Pressure transmission in intact, non-fractured
synthetic mud. shales is at least one to two orders of magnitude
These drilling fluids act through a specific faster than solute/ion diffusion, which in turn is one
mechanism that prevents them from invading shales to two orders of magnitude faster than Darcy flow
and changing WC, HS and PP; these properties are of mud filtrate.
therefore essentially left unchanged. Examples are 3. Shale failure due to the effects of mud pressure
all-oil/synthetic systems, which are restricted from penetration cannot be prevented by inhibitive
invasion due to capillary entry pressures (van Oort, solutes/ions when these lag behind the invading
1994; van Oort et al., 1996a). TAME polyglycol pressure front.
muds create temperature activated in-situ emulsions 4. Shale cuttings and wellbores can be stabilized by
that plug pore throats; silicates do likewise by controlling the water flow into shales. The best
creating in-situ precipitates and gels. When the shale-stabilizing muds currently available accom-
water-activities of the shale and the mud are similar plish this by either viscosifying filtrates, plugging
232 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

pore throats, stimulating osmotic backflow of shale Applications and Research (SEPTAR) laboratories in
pore water, or a combination of the above. Rijswijk and Houston. I would like to thank Arthur
Examples of these mud systems are silicate muds Hale and Gerard Bol in particular for the challenging
and mixed polyol – salt muds. discussions on shales and the way forward with water-
5. High-molecular weight (z 10,000 a.w.u.) additives based muds. Shell E&P Company is acknowledged
such as PHPA, gilsonites, graphites, etc., are for permission to publish this paper.
screened out on the surfaces of shales and cannot
prevent filtrate invasion and mud pressure pene-
tration. Their ability to promote wellbore stability Appendix A
is therefore limited.
6. The mechanism of bit balling has been explained on The basic equations governing pressure diffusion,
the basis of a soil-mechanics model. Bit balling may ion diffusion and mud filtrate invasion around a
be minimized and ROP may be enhanced by either cylindrical wellbore are summarized here. The low-
dehydration or hydration of balling shales, such that permeability medium in which transport occurs is
they will loose their tendency to stick. Moreover, it regarded to be semi-infinite bound internally by a
has now become possible to use special ROP cylinder (the wellbore) with radius r = a. The diffusion
enhancing additives that minimize the sticking of equation for pressure P is given by:
cuttings to BHA components and to each other.
2 
7. A summary on the action of various additives used BP B P 1 BP
¼K þ ðA1Þ
throughout the drilling industry for shale-stabiliz- Bt Br2 r Bt
ing purposes has been given based on the new
with K given by:
understanding of transport processes in shales.
8. Shale drilling fluids have been qualitatively classi- k
K¼ ðA2Þ
fied in five categories of increasing shale-stabilizing lbue
ability based on their effect on shale water content,
swelling pressure and pore pressure. where k represents permeability, l is fluid viscosity
and ue is effective porosity given by:
Nomenclature and units
br  ð1 þ uÞbs
r stress [Pa] ue ¼ u þ ðA3Þ
P pressure [Pa] b
s shear stress [Pa] with u being true porosity, b, br and bs denoting the
/ friction angle [radians] compressibility of the fluid, bulk rock and grains,
C cohesion [Pa] respectively.
Solutions to Eq. (A1) are given by (Carslaw and
Subscripts Jaeger, 1959):
eff effective
Z
pore relating to pore pressure PðtÞ  P0 2 l u2 Td
¼1þ e
i stress indicator (radial, tangential, vertical) Pm  P0 p 0
swelling relating to swelling pressure J0 ðuRd ÞY0 ðuÞ  Y0 ðuRd ÞJ0 ðuÞ du
mud relating to mud pressure 
J02 ðuÞ þ Y02 ðuÞ u
r in radial direction
ðA4Þ
where Pm and P0 are mud pressure and pore pressure,
Acknowledgements respectively, Td and Rd represent dimensionless time
and radius given by:
This paper combines the ideas, thoughts and efforts
of many individuals that have been working on shale Kt r
Td ¼ ; Rd ¼ ðA5Þ
stability for the past years in the Shell E&P Technical a2 a
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 233

and the Bessel functions Jx(u) and Yx(u) (x = 0, 1, 2, Substituting A = 2prh and reformulating in terms of
. . .) are defined by: dimensionless time Td we obtain:
 1 xþ2n Z
X
l
ð1Þn 8a2 hbue ðPm  P0 Þ Td
2u
Jx ðuÞ ¼ ; V¼
n¼0
n!Cðx þ n þ 1Þ p 0
"Z 2
#
l
eu Td du
 dTd : ðA12Þ
Jx ðuÞcosxp  Jx ðuÞ 0 uðJ02 ðuÞ þ Y02 ðuÞÞ
Yx ðuÞ ¼ : ðA6Þ
sin xp

The solute diffusion equation takes the same form The radius of filtrate invasion ri can now be deter-
as Eq. (A1): mined by substituting V=p(r i2a2)hue in Eq. (A12).
For the dimensionless radius of invasion Rdi = ri/a we

2  obtain:
BC B C 1 BC
¼ D* þ ðA7Þ Z
Bt Br2 r Br 8bðPm  P0 Þ Td
R2di ¼ 1 þ
p 0
"Z #
where D* is the apparent diffusion coefficient. The l u2 Td
e du
solution to Eq. (A7) is similar to Eq. (A4), only  dTd : ðA13Þ
0 uðJ02 ðuÞ þ Y02 ðuÞÞ
with the dimensionless time given by:
Example: For a shale with 1 nD ( f 10 21 m2)
D*t permeability, 20% effective porosity at a temperature of
Td ¼ : ðA8Þ 65 jC (150 jF) (water viscosity is 4.34  10 4 Pa s,
a2
water compressibility is 4.48  10 10 Pa 1), we
obtain a pressure diffusion coefficient K of 2.5 
To calculate the position of the fluid invasion front 10 8 m2/s. With ion diffusion coefficients in the range
in time, we evaluate the flux F at the wellbore wall 1– 10.10 10 m2/s (see Table 2) it is seen that pressure
(r = a): diffusion is some two order of magnitude faster than
ion diffusion.

 SI Metric Conversion Factors
kA BP
F¼ : ðA9Þ
l Br r¼a
bbl  1.589 873 e  01 = m3
cP  1.0 e  03 = Pa s
Substituting Eq. (A4) in Eq. (A9) we find: inch  2.54 e00 = cm
ft  3.048 e  01 = m
psi  6.894 757 e  03 = MPa
Z l lbf  4.448 222 e00 = N
4kAðPm  P0 Þ 2 du
F¼ eu Kt : lbf/100 ft2  4.788 026 e  01 = Pa
alp2 0 u½J02 ðuaÞ  Y02 ðuaÞ D  0.986 9 e  12 = m2
Å  1.0 e  10 = m
ðA10Þ
jF (jF  32)/1.8 = jC

The total volume V that has penetrated the for- References

mation after time t is given by:
Z t Aadnoy, B.S., Chenevert, M.E., 1987. Stability of highly inclined
V ¼ FðtÞdt: ðA11Þ boreholes. SPEDE, 364 – 374 (December).
0 Ballard, T.J., Beare, S.P., Lawless, T.A., 1992. Fundamentals of
234 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235

shale stabilisation: water transport through shales. Paper SPE Ding, R., Qiu, Z., Li, J., 1996. Soluble-silicate mud additives inhibit
24974 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, unstable clays. Oil and Gas J., 66 – 68 (April).
Cannes, 16 – 18 November. Downs, J.D., van Oort, E., Redman, D., Ripley, D., Rothmann, B.,
Ballard, T.J., Beare, S.P., Lawless, T.A., 1993. Mechanisms of shale 1993. TAME—a new concept in water-based drilling fluids.
inhibition with water-based muds. Paper presented at the IBC Paper SPE 26699 presented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
Conference on Preventing Oil Discharge from Drilling Opera- Aberdeen, September 7 – 10.
tions—‘‘The Options’’, Aberdeen, UK, June 23 – 24. Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K., 1993. Mechanism for wellbore stabiliza-
Beihoffer, T.W., Dorrough, D.S., Schmidt, D.D., 1990. The develop- tion with lime-based muds. Paper SPE/IADC 25706 presented
ment of an inhibitive cationic drilling fluid for slim-hole coring at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February
applications. Paper IADC/SPE 19953 presented at the IADC/ 23 – 25.
SPE Drilling Conference, Houston, February 27 – March 2. Himes, R.E., Vinson, E.F., Simon, D.E., 1991. Clay stabilisation in
Bland, R.G., 1991. Development of new water-based mud formu- low-permeability formations. SPEPE, 252 (August).
lations. Chemicals in the Oil Industry: Developments and Ap- Howard, S.K., 1995. Formate brines for drilling and completion:
plications. Spec. Publ.-R. Soc. Chem., Springer-Verlag, vol. 97, state-of-the-art. Paper SPE 30498 presented at the SPE Annual
pp. 83 – 98. Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22 – 25 October.
Bland, R.G., 1992. Water based glycol systems: acceptable substi- Israelachvili, J.N., 1991. Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 2nd ed.
tute for oil-based muds. Oil Gas J., 54 (June). Academic Press, London.
Bland, R.G., Smith, G.L., Eagark, P., van Oort, E., 1995. Low Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechan-
salinity polyglycol water-based drilling fluids as alternatives ics, 3rd ed. Chapman & Hall, London.
to oil-based muds. Paper SPE/IADC 29378 presented at the Karaborni, S., Smit, B., Heidug, W.K., Urai, J.L., van Oort, E.,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 28 – 1996. The swelling of clays: molecular simulations of the hy-
March 2. dration of montmorillonite. Science, 1102 (23 February).
Bol, G.M., 1986. The effect of various polymers and salts on bore- Mitchell, J.K., 1993. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 2nd ed. Wiley,
hole and cutting stability in water-base shale drilling fluids. New York.
Paper SPE 14802 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Confer- Reid, P.I., Elliott, G.P., Minton, R.C., Chambers, B.D., Burt,
ence, Dallas, February 10 – 12. D.A., 1993. Reduced environmental impact and improved
Bol, G.M., Wong, S.W., Davidson, C.J., Woodland, D.C., 1992. drilling performance with water-based muds containing gly-
Borehole stability in shales. Paper SPE 24975, presented at cols. Paper SPE 25989 presented at the SPE/EPA Exploration
the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, Nov. 16 – 18. and Production Environmental Conference, San Antonio,
Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C., 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd March 7 – 10.
ed. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Retz, R.H., Friedheim, J.E., Lee, L.J., Welch, O.O., 1991. An en-
Cheatham, C.A., Nahm, J.J., 1990. Bit balling in water-reactive vironmentally acceptable and field-practical, cationic polymer
shale during full-scale drilling rate tests. Paper IADC/SPE mud system. Paper SPE 23064 presented at the Offshore Europe
19926 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Hous- Conference 3 – 6 September.
ton, February 27 – March 2. Roy, S., Cooper, G.A., 1993. Prevention of bit balling in shales—
Cheatham, C.A., Nahm, J.J., Heitkamp, N.D., 1985. Effects of preliminary results. SPEDC, 195 (September).
selected mud properties on rate of penetration in full-scale shale Simpson, J.P., Walker, T.O., Jiang, G.Z., 1994. Environmentally
drilling simulations. Paper SPE/IADC 13465 presented at the acceptable water-base mud can prevent shale hydration and
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March. maintain borehole stability. Paper IADC/SPE 27496 presented
Chenevert, M.E., 1989. Glycerol mud additive provides shale at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15 – 18 February.
stability. Oil Gas J., 60 – 64 (July 17). Steiger, R.P., 1993. Advanced triaxial swelling tests on preserved
Christenson, H.K., Isrealachvili, J.N., Pashley, R.M., 1987. Proper- shale cores. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 30
ties of capillary fluids at the microscopic level. SPE Reservoir (7), 681.
Eng., 155 (May). Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics Wiley, New York.
Clark, R.K., et al., 1976. Polyacrylamide – potassium chloride mud Twynam, A.J., Caldwell, P.A., Meads, K., 1994. Glycol-enhanced
for drilling water-sensitive shales. J. Pet. Technol., Trans AIME water-based muds: case history to demonstrate improved drill-
261, 719 – 726 (June). ing efficiency in tectonically stresses shales. Paper IADC/SPE
Cliffe, S., Dolan, B., Reid, P.I., 1995. Mechanism of shale inhib- 27451 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
ition by polyols in water-based drilling fluids. Paper SPE 28960 February 15 – 18.
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield van Olphen, H., 1977. An Introduction to Clay Colloid Chemistry,
Chemistry, San Antonio, February. 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Colback, P.S.B., Wiid, B.L., 1965. The influence of moisture con- van Oort, E., 1994. A novel technique for the investigation of drill-
tent on the compressive strength of rocks. Proceedings 1965 ing fluid induced borehole instability in shales. Paper SPE/
SPE Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, p. 65. January. ISRM 28064 presented at the SPE/ISRM Conference on Rock
Darley, H.C.H., Gray, G.R., 1988. Composition and Properties of Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, August 29 – 31.
Drilling and Completion Fluids, 5th ed. Gulf Publishing, van Oort, E., Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K., 1995. Manipulation of coupled
Houston. osmotic flows for stabilisation of shales exposed to water-based
 E. van Oort / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 213–235 235

drilling fluids. Paper SPE 30499 presented at the SPE Annual lems. Paper SPE 35059 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22 – 25 October. Conference, New Orleans, March 12 – 15.
van Oort, E., Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K., 1996a. Transport in shales van Oort, E., Bland, R., Pessier, R.A., 2000. Drilling More Stable
and the design of improved water-based shale drilling fluids. Wells Faster and Cheaper with Water-Based Muds. Paper IADC/
SPEDC. September; also van Oort, E., Hale, A.H. and Mody, SPE 59192 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
F.K. ’’Critical parameters in modeling the chemical1 aspects of New Orleans, 23 – 25 February.
borehole stability in shales and in designing improved water- Ward, I., Williamson, R., 1996. Silicate water based muds—a sig-
based shale drilling fluids’’, SPE28309, presented at the 1994 nificant advance in water based drilling fluid technology. Paper
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or- presented at the IBC Conference on the prevention of oil dis-
leans, 25 – 28 September, 1996. charge from drilling operations, Aberdeen, June 18 and 19.
van Oort, E., Ripley, D., Ward, I., Chapman, J.W., Wiliamson, R., Wong, S.W., et al., 1991. The rock-mechanical aspects of drilling a
Aston, M., 1996b. Silicate-based drilling fluids: competent, North Sea horizontal well. Paper SPE 26736 presented at the
cost-effective and benign solutions to wellbore stability prob- Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, September.

View publication stats