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

net/publication/334817021

Evaluating the Performance of Local Anionic Emulsifier as a Possible Emulsifier

for Synthetic-Based Mud System for Drilling Operations

Conference Paper · August 2019

DOI: 10.2118/198817-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 303

4 authors:

Richard Amorin Engr Prof Eric Broni-Bediako

University of Mines and Technology University of Mines and Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 305 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joel Adanvor Prince Opoku Appau

University of Mines and Technology Ghana National Gas Company
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Amorin on 26 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-198817-MS

Evaluating the Performance of Local Anionic Emulsifier as a Possible

Emulsifier for Synthetic-Based Mud System for Drilling Operations

Richard Amorin and Eric Broni-Bediako, University of Mines and Technology; Joel Bright Adanvor, Tullow PLC
Ghana; Prince Opoku Appau, China University of Petroleum

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 5–7 August 2019.

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

Abstract
In the process of formulating oil-based muds, emulsifiers or surfactants are added to help build a strong oil-
water emulsion. Currently, all the emulsifiers used in mud formulation in Ghana are imported increasing
drilling cost. This also do not promote the local content and local participation policy of the country in the
oil and gas sector. There are equally potential local emulsifiers that could be used in these mud formulations
to reduce cost. This research, therefore, evaluated the performance of local anionic surfactant as a possible
emulsifier for an ester-based oil mud system for drilling operations. A Synthetic-Based Mud (SBM) was
formulated with varying concentrations of both local (L) and commercial (C) emulsifiers from 0% to 100%
at a step of 25% after which their rheological properties evaluated. The rheological properties were evaluated
for unaged samples at temperatures of 80 °F, 120 °F, 180 °F and aged samples at a temperature at 180 °F.
The performances of the mud samples were tested using Gel Strength at 10 seconds and 10 minutes, Plastic
Viscosity, Yield Point and pH at each varied concentration of emulsifier following closely the American
Petroleum Institute (API) standard test procedures. The overall performances of the mud samples in order of
descending were; BL100% > AC100% > EC25%L75% > CC50%L50% > DC75%L25%. It was observed that the local emulsifier
performed equally well and even better than the commercial emulsifiers at the test conditions presenting
the local emulsifier as a potential emulsifier for the formulation of SBMs for the oil and gas industry.
Keywords: Drilling fluid, Rheology, Ester-based mud, Emulsifier, Temperature

INTRODUCTION
Drilling fluids are used in the process of drilling oil and gas wells. The drilling fluid according to API is
defined as a circulating fluid used in rotary drilling to perform any or all of the various functions required
in drilling operations (Fink 2011). The critical functions of drilling fluid include carrying cuttings to the
surface, control formation pressures, seal permeable formations, maintain wellbore stability, cooling and
lubricating drill bit, etc (Growcock and Harvey 2005). The drilling mud must also suspend the cuttings while
not circulating and drop the cuttings out of suspension at the surface. Depending on the geologic formation,
environment, application and well objectives, drilling fluid systems are customised to meet performance
2 SPE-198817-MS

requirements (Story and Lee 2001). Drilling fluids are broadly classified as Water-Based Mud (WBM), Non-
Aqueous Drilling Fluids (NADFs) which include diesel, mineral oils, Low-Toxicity Mineral Oils (LTMOs)
and Synthetic-Based Fluids (SBFs) and Pneumatic (air, mist, foam, gas) drilling fluid (Bourgoyne et al.
1986; Story and Lee 2001; Oghenejoboh et al. 2013). The main factors governing the selection of a specific
type of drilling fluid is based on the types of formations to be drilled, the range of temperature, strength,
permeability and pore fluids pressure exhibited by the formation (Dhiman 2012).
Water based mud is the cheapest and most economical based mud but exhibits major downhole challenges
in deeper wells therfore Synthetic-Based Mud (SBM) or Oil-Based Mud (OBM) are used at such depths due
to their increased lubricity, optimal shale stability, enhanced shale inhibition, low torque and drag, corrosion
protection, resistance to contaminati (Neff et al. 2000; Cameron et al. 2004; Moritis 2011; Amani et al. 2012;
Awele 2014; Sauki et al. 2015; Dankwa et al. 2018). SBM are preferred to OBM because of their lower
toxicity (Story and Lee 2001; Shah et al. 2010). SBFs are classified into synthetic hydrocarbons, ethers,
esters and acetals with esters being the most biogradable and less toxic (Salager 2002).
Special additives such as emulsifiers, filtration additives, foaming additives, lost circulation additives,
thinners/dispersants, viscosifiers, wetting agents, surfactants among others are added to a drilling fluid
to achieve its basic function (Rabia 2000). Oil and water are normally immiscible therefore emulsifiers/
surfactant are added to produce a homogeneous fluid phase (strong emulsion) to which the barite, clays
and other solids are added and blended before being introduced into the drilling rig mud system (Barnes
and Hartley 2005; Hirsch 2015). There are four types of surfactants namely; nonionic, anionic, cationic and
zwitterionic (Argillier 2001; Salager 2002; Schramm et al. 2015). In the petroleum industry, surfactants are
used in formulating gas/liquid systems (foam drilling and fracturing fluid), liquid/liquid systems (emulsion
drilling fluids, enhanced oil recovery in situ emulsions) and liquid/solid systems (drilling mud dispersant)
etc. (Schramm et al. 2015). Surfactants or emulsifiers also acts as a wetting agent, gelling agent and fluid
and temperature stabilizer, controls rheological and filtration properties, reduces viscosity when used in a
drilling mud formulation (Huang et al. 2011; Jha et al. 2014; Pierson 2018).
Currently in Ghana, all the surfactants used in mud formulation are imported increasing the overall
drilling cost. It also does not promote the local content and local participation policy of the country. This
paper therefore evaluates the performance of local anion emulsifier or surfactant as a possible emulsifier for
synthetic-based mud system for drilling operations so as to promote the local content and local participation
policy of Ghana in the oil and gas sector, reducing overdependence on imported products (additives) and
also reduce the overall cost of drilling fluid formulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials
The materials used in this experiment were Ester oil (XB 1000), emulsifier (commercial and local),
clay, barite, lime, calcium chloride and mix water. Table 1 shows the various additives used in the mud
formulation process as well as their quantities used. Note: XC is the concentration of commercial emulsifier
while XL is the concentration of local emulsifier. Where X is sample A, B, C, D, or E.
SPE-198817-MS 3

Table 1—Mud Sample Formulations

Additive Sample ID
AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

Oil (ml) 245 245 245 245 245

Emulsifier C/L (ml) 8 8 4/4 6/2 2/6
Clay (g) 4 4 4 4 4
Lime (g) 3 3 3 3 3
Water (ml) 70 70 70 70 70
Calcium Chloride (g) 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5
Barite (g) 169 169 169 169 169

Experimental Procedure
Five different mud samples were prepared as shown in Table 1 in accordance with API 13B-2 recommended
practices for oil-based mud preparation and testing. An 80/20 formulation was prepared for each sample.
The concentrations of the emulsifiers were varied from 0 to 100 % at a step of 25 %. The rheological
properties of the samples were determined for both unaged and aged conditions. The mud samples were
aged in a consistometer at 180 °F for 4 hours and then the rheological properties of the mud determined.
For the unaged samples, their rheological properties were determined at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F.
i. The unaged rheological properties were taken at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F.
ii. The samples were aged at 180 °F for 4 hours in an atmospheric consistometer and the aged
rheological properties determined.
The Plastic viscosity and yield point were estimated using equations 1 and 2 respectively.
(1)
(2)
where; θ600 is the dial reading at 600 rpm and θ300 is dial reading at 300 rpm, rpm is revolution per minute.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
Experiments were carried out on the rheological properties (gel strength, plastic viscosity, and yield point)
for all mud samples. The values recorded for the unaged mud are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
4 SPE-198817-MS

Table 2—Recorded Values for Unaged Mud at 80 °F

Parameter Sample ID
AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

600 rpm 83 90 47 44 42
300 rpm 48 69 28 25 22
200 rpm 36 59 19 18 16
100 rpm 24 46 11 10 10
6 rpm 10 23 3 3 3
3 rpm 9 21 2 2 2
Gel @ 10 sec 12 21 3 3 3
Gel @ 10 min 16 23 6 6 6
PV (cP) 35 21 19 19 20
YP (lb/ 100 ft2) 13 48 9 6 2
pH 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0
Flow Index (n) 0.79 0.38 0.75 0.82 0.93
Cons. Index (k) 0.34 6.45 0.26 0.15 0.07

Table 3—Recorded Values for Unaged Mud at 120 °F

Parameter Sample ID
AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

600 rpm 65 76 50 45 44
300 rpm 44 55 26 23 23
200 rpm 32 44 13 15 15
100 rpm 21 31 10 8 8
6 rpm 9 14 3 3 3
3 rpm 8 10 2 2 2
Gel @ 10 sec 8 11 3 3 3
Gel @ 10 min 10 13 7 5 6
PV (cP) 21 21 24 22 21
YP (lb/ 100 ft )
2 13 48 9 6 2
pH 9.1 9.1 8.9 9.2 9.0
Flow Index (n) 0.56 0.47 0.94 0.97 0.94
Cons. Index (k) 1.34 2.93 0.07 0.05 0.07
SPE-198817-MS 5

Table 4—Recorded Values for Unaged Mud at 180 °F

Parameter Sample ID
AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

600 rpm 26 35 35 31 30
300 rpm 15 20 19 15 16
200 rpm 9 15 12 10 11
100 rpm 5 11 7 6 7
6 rpm 2 6 2 2 2
3 rpm 2 5 1 1 1
Gel @ 10 sec 3 4 4 3 2
Gel @ 10 min 5 4 5 4 5
PV (cP) 11 15 16 16 14
YP (lb/ 100 ft2) 4 5 3 -1 2
pH 9.0 9.0 9.1 8.9 8.9
Flow Index (n) 0.79 0.81 0.88 1.04 0.91
Cons. Index (k) 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.05

Discussion of Results for Unaged Mud Samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F
To ensure the validity of the experiment performed, the analysis of the results was conducted based on the
API specification standard for oil-based drilling.
Rheology Test Analysis. Rheology is defined as the study of the deformation and flow of matter (Kazemian
et al. 2012). Rheology study is an important factor in drilling fluid because it allows the fluid to be
specifically analysed in terms of fluid viscosity, pressure loss, hole cleaning and equivalent circulating
density and many more (Malkin and Isayev 2017). At a temperature of 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F, the models
exhibited by mud samples A, B, C, D, and E is that of a non-Newtonian fluid as shown in Figs. 1 to 3. From
the shapes of the flow curves, since all the graphs have yield values (Tables 2-4) and with flow index of
less than one with the exception of sample D for 180 °F, showing unstable fluid because of the negative YP
(-1), it can be concluded that, all the samples follow that of Yield Power Law model. Sample B recorded
the highest resistance followed by A, with sample E recording the least resistance.
6 SPE-198817-MS

Figure 1—Unaged Samples Shear Stress against Shear Rate Relationship for Mud Samples at 80 °F

Figure 2—Unaged Samples Shear Stress against Shear Rate Relationship for Mud Samples at 120 °F
SPE-198817-MS 7

Figure 3—Unaged Samples Shear Stress against Shear Rate Relationship for Mud Samples at 180 °F

Plastic Viscosity
Plastic viscosity refers to the resistance to flow due to friction (Azar and Samuel 2007). The friction
is caused by solids concentration, size and shape of solids and viscosity of the fluid phase. Per API
recommendation, any oil-based fluid must have a plastic viscosity less than 65 cP and should be as low as
possible to prevent sagging of solids and for purposes of easy hole cleaning. This is because low PV implies
lower Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) exerted at bottom while high PV triggers an increase ECD
because high pumping pressure is needed to break the gel (Irawan et al. 2017). The plastic viscosity values
of the mud samples at all investigated temperatures were below the 65 cP as recommended by API. At 80
°F, apart from sample A with 100% commercial emulsifier recording 35 cP, all others local and blended
emulsifiers recorded values from 19 to 21 cP. At 120 °F, both commercial and local emulsifiers recorded
values from 21 to 24. At 180 °F too, both commercial and local emulsifiers recorded values from 11 to 16
cP. Overall, all the mud samples met the API specification.
8 SPE-198817-MS

Figure 4—Plastic Viscosity for Unaged Mud Samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F

Yield Point
Yield point is the initial resistance to flow caused by electrochemical forces between particles, due to the
charges on the surface of the particle (Irawan et al. 2017). It describes the ability of mud to carry cuttings
from the wellbore. API recommends that for a mud to effectively carry cuttings, its yield point should be
between the numerical values of 15 – 45 lb/100 ft2. Fig. 5 depicts a plot of yield point against mud samples.
From the plot the yield point of mud sample B at 80 °F (48 lb/100 ft2) exceeded the API specification.
According to Nmegbu et al. (2014), when such mud is used to drill, a high pumping pressure would be
need to cause it to flow which is undesirable in the industry while Amani et al. 2012 asserted that mud with
high yield point can carry cuttings better than mud with similar density but lower yield poin. All the other
mud samples failed the test with sample D recording the least and would therefore need some modification
with their formulations.

Figure 5—Yield Point for Unaged Mud Samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F
SPE-198817-MS 9

Gel Strength
Gel strength refers to the attractive forces present in a drilling fluid when it is under static conditions.
Practically, gel strength describes the ability of the mud to suspend cuttings when mud is static. The
knowledge of gel strength development with time is so important to detect any possible rheological problem
in a mud system (Amani et al. 2012). Mud with high gel strength is not favorable in drilling operation
as it requires high pumping pressure in order to break circulation after the mud is static for long period.
Moreover, excessive gel strength may increase the swabbing and surging effect during tripping operations
(Sauki et al. 2015). Therefore, API recommends a gel strength of between 3 – 20 lb/100 ft2 for 10 seconds
gel and between 8 – 30 lb/100 ft2 for 10 minutes gel for optimal drilling. All the samples were able to satisfy
the API recommended 10 seconds range with the exception of A and C at 80 °F. Again, all the samples were
able to satisfy the API recommended 10 minutes range with the exception of, B and C at 80 °F.

Figure 6—10 sec Gel Strength for Unaged Mud Samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F

Figure 7—10 min Gel Strength for Unaged Mud Samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F
10 SPE-198817-MS

Hydrogen Potential (pH). Hydrogen Potential (pH) indicates the level of acidity or basicity of a fluid. API
recommends that any oil-based mud used in the oil and gas industry should be in the range 8.5 – 10. This
is low mud pH tends to reduce the rheological properties such as plastic viscosity yield point and the gel
strength thereby reducing the overall performance of the mud as a result. Decrease in mud pH can also lead
to the corrosion and damage of downhole equipment leading to increased expenditure cost. On the other
hand, increasing pH will lead to a decrease in the API fluid flow volume probably due to increasing viscosity
of the mud (Alaskari and Teymori, 2007). The pH meter was used to determine the pH of the mud. The mud
samples recorded pH between 9.1 – 9.7 making them efficient for use in drilling operations (Tables 2-4).

Discussion of Results for Aged Mud Samples at 180 °F (Temperature Stability test)
After the mud samples were subjected to a temperature of 180 °F for 4 hours with the aid of an atmospheric
consistometer in order to simulate downhole conditions encountered during drilling operations, the values in
Table 5 were recorded. Temperature stability test helps the mud engineer to know the temperature at which
the rheological parameters of the drilling fluid, such as plastic viscosity, yield point and gel strength, will
reduce dramatically resulting in significant reduction in the fluid's ability to convey the drilling cuttings.

Table 5—Recorded Values for Aged Mud at 180 °F

Parameter Sample ID
AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

600 rpm 32 47 44 51 30
300 rpm 16 28 24 28 16
200 rpm 11 19 16 20 9
100 rpm 7 12 9 12 5
6 rpm 2 3 3 3 2
3 rpm 1 2 2 2 1
Gel @ 10 sec 1 4 4 3 1
Gel @ 10 min 3 7 6 6 4
PV (cP) 16 19 20 23 14
YP (lb/ 100 ft )
2 0 9 4 5 2
Flow Index (n) 1 0.75 0.87 0.86 0.91
Cons. Index (k) 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.13 0.05

Rheology Test Analysis. The temperature of the drilling fluid when circulating in the well may range from
32 °F to 302 °F and it is important that the drilling fluid maintain acceptable rheological properties within
the whole range. The results from the experiments shows that the local emulsifier can withstand relatively
some high temperatures when it is used in drilling mud formulation. From Fig. 8, the rheometer curves
follow a similar shape of the unaged samples thus exhibiting Yield Power Law models. Sample D recorded
the highest resistance followed by B with sample E recording the least resistance. From Table 5, all the mud
samples that were prepared had their plastic viscosities within the range specified by API (PV < 65 cP). All
PVs were within 14 to 23 cP, satisfying the set standard for optimal drilling. Sample A recorded YP value
of zero suggesting unstable mud condition. Samples B and C passed the test with B recording the highest
value of 9 lb/100 ft2. All the samples were able to satisfy the API recommended 10 seconds range with the
exception of sample A and E, making them unstable to suspend cuttings at such extreme temperature for
long. Altogether, the samples were able to satisfy the API recommended 10 minutes range.
SPE-198817-MS 11

Figure 8—Aged Samples Shear Stress against Shear Rate Relationship for Mud Samples at 180 °F

Summary of Results
A total of 20 analyses were performed on each sample. The analyses were on unaged samples at 80 °F, 120
°F and 180 °F and on aged sample at 180 °F. These included; PV, YP, Gel strength at 10 seconds and minutes
and pH on unaged samples at 80 °F, 120 °F and 180 °F and on the aged sample at 180 °F. mud samples
prepared with 100% local anionic emulsifier performed equally well to the commercial emulsifier. Thus, it
recorded acceptable PY, YP, pH, Gel values for both unaged and aged conditions. Sample B having 100%
local emulsifier performed best with a score of 16 followed by sample A (100% commercial emulsifier) with
15 (Table 6). This was followed by sample E having 75% local emulsifier and 25% commercial emulsifier.
The performance order is as follows: BL100% > AC100% > EC25%L75% > CC50%L50% > DC75%L25%. This shows that the
local emulsifier at the test conditions performed equally well and even better than the commercial emulsifier.

Table 6—Ranking of Mud Samples at all Test Conditions

Sample ID AC100% BL100% CC50%L50% DC75%L25% EC25%L75%

Performance (20) 15 16 13 12 14
% 75 80 65 60 70

CONCLUSIONS
From the values obtained in the experiment by varying the quantities of emulsifiers used in the formulation
of the mud samples, it was observed that:
a. The local anionic emulsifier blended well with all the mud additives indicating a possible good
emulsion;
b. The increase in temperature has a direct effect on the performance of the mud rheological properties.
c. All the mud samples formulated exhibited Yield Power Law models.
12 SPE-198817-MS

d. The mud samples prepared with 100% local anionic emulsifier performed equally well to the
commercial emulsifier. Thus, it recorded acceptable PY, YP, pH, Gel values for both unaged and aged
conditions. The performance order was as: BL100% > AC100% > EC25%L75% > CC50%L50% > DC75%L25%
e. More work would have to be done to ascertain the performance of the local emulsifier under high
temperature conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Petroleum Engineering Department of the University of Mines and
Technology (UMaT), Tarkwa for their support.

REFERENCES
Argillier, J. F., Audibert-Hayet, A., Zeilinger, S. (2001), Water Based Foaming Composition Method
for Making Same. US Patent 6172010, assigned to Institut Francais du Petrole (Rueil, FR); http://
www.freepatentsonline.com/6172010.html.
Alaskari, M. K. G, Teymoori, R. (2007), Effects of Salinity, pH and Temperature on CMC Polymer and XC Polymer
Performance, IJE Transactions B: Applications, 20(3): pp. 283–290.
Amani M., Al-Jubouri, M. and Shadravan, A. (2012), Comparative Study of Using Oil-Based Mud Versus Water-Based
Mud in HPHT Fields. Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 4(2): pp.18–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/
j.aped.1925543820120402.987
Awele, N. (2014), Investigation of Additives on Drilling Mud Performance With "Tønder Geothermal Drilling" As A
Case Study, MS Thesis, Aalborg University, Esbjerg.
Azar, J. J., Samuel, G. R. (2007), Drilling Engineering. Penn Well Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Barnes, G. R., Hartley, D. (2005), Onsite Treatment of Oily Drilling Waste in Remote Areas, Technical Report, AADE,
Texas, 105 pp.
Bourgoyne Jr. A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E. and Young F.Jr (1986), Applied Drilling Engineering. Richardson,
TX: SPE Text Book Series, Vol 2., pp. 502.
Cameron, C., Florence, A. and Temple C. (2004), Water Based Drilling Fluid Helps Achieve Oil-Mud Performance,
American Association of Drilling Engineers Conference (AADE-04-DF-HO-01) on Drilling Fluids, Houston, Texas,
pp. 1–12.
Dankwa, O. K., Opoku Appau P. and Broni-Bediako E. (2018), Evaluating the effects of Monovalent and Divalent Salts
on the Rheological Properties of Water Based Mud. TOPEJ. 11: pp. 98–106; DOI: 10.2174/1874834101811010098.
Dhiman, A. S. (2012), Rheological Properties & Corrosion Characteristics of Drilling Mud Additives, MS Thesis,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Fink, J. (2011) Petroleum Engineer's Guide to Oil Field Chemicals and Fluids, Access Online via Elsevier.
Growcock, F. and Harvey, T. (2005), Drilling Fluids. In ASME Shale Shaker Committe, Drilling Fluids Processing
Handbook. Elsevier.
Hirsch, M. (2018). Surface Active Agents (Surfactants): Types and Applications. Prospector UL LLC. https://
knowledge.ulprospector.com/3106/pc-surface-active-agents-surfactants/. Accessed 20 October 2018.
Huang, T., Crews, J. B., Clark, D. E. and Hughes, B. (2011), Protecting the Reservoir with Surfactant Micellar Drill-
In Fluids in Carbonate-Containing Formations, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, pp.
492 – 498.
Irawan, S, Kinif BI, Bayuaji, R. (2017) Maximizing Drilling Performance through Enhanced Solid Control System, IOP
Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 267 012038: pp. 1–15. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/267/1/012038.
Jha, P. K., Mahto, V. and Saxena, V. K. (2014) Emulsion Based Drilling Fluids: An Overview, Int.J. ChemTech Res 6(4):
pp. 2306–2315.
Kazemian, S., Prasad, A. and Huat, B. B. K. (2012), Review of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids behaviour in the
context of grouts, Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground – Viggiani (ed), Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
Malkin, A. Y. and Isayev, A. I. (2017), Rheology: Concepts, Methods, and Applications, 3rd ed. Elsevier.
Moritis, G. (2011), New Synthetic-Based Muds Allow More Complex Wells, Oil and Gas Journal. 2(2): pp. 68–72.
Neff, J. M., McKelvie. S. and Ayers, R. C. Jr. (2000), Environmental Impacts of Synthetic Based-Drilling Fluids, U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service Bulletin, New Orleans, LA, 118 pp.
Nmegbu, C., Godwin, J. and Bari-Agara, B. (2014), Evaluation of Corn Cob Cellulose and its Suitability for Drilling Mud
formulation. Journal of Engineering Research and Application, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 112–117.
SPE-198817-MS 13

Oghenejoboh, K. M., Ohimor, E. O. and Olayebi, O. (2013), Application of Re-Refined Used Lubricating Oil as
Base Oil for The Formulation of Oil-Based Drilling Mud – A Comparative Study. 4(4): pp. 78–84. doi: 10.5897/
JPTAF2013.0089
Pierson, D. G. (2018), Surfactants and Defoamers: Achieving Balance in Polymer Emulsions. Pierson Adhesive
Consulting, Dresher, PA, USA.
Rabia, H. (2000), Well Engineering and Construction, Graham and Trotman Publication. 1(1):1–265.
Salager, J. L. (2012), Surfactant Types and Uses, FIRP Booklet. 2(1):48.
Sauki, A., Shah, M. S. W. and Bakar, W. Z. W. (2015), Application of Ester Based Drilling Fluid for Shale Gas Drilling,
IOP Conf. Series: Mater. Sci. Eng. 83 012012; doi:10.1088/1757-899X/83/1/012012.
Schramm, L. L., Stasiuk, E. N. and Gerrard Marangoni, D. (2003), Surfactants and their applications. Annu. Rep. Prog.
Chem., Sect. C 99, pp. 3–48.
Shah, S. N., Shanker, N. H. and Ogugbue, C. C. (2010), Future Challenges of Drilling Fluids and Their Rheological
Measurements, AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 6-7, 2010.
Story, J. and Lee, B. (2001), The Detection of Crude Oil Contamination in Synthetic-Based Drilling Muds, Company
Manual, Amoco Corporation, 340 pp.

View publication stats