International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 364–379, Article ID: IJMET_10_03_037
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
THE LUBRICITY PERFORMANCE OF HURA
CREPITANS AND CALOPHYLLUM INOPHYLLUM
PLANT OIL IN WATER-BASED MUD IN
ANALYSING DIFFERENTIAL PIPE STICKING
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Jos, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This study applied diesel oil, and oil from two non-edible plant seeds which are
Hura crepitans and Calophyllum inophyllum. These non-edible oils were extracted
from their seeds using the soxhlet extractor and used in the oil-in-water emulsion mud.
Mud lubricity tester was used to determine the torque, coefficient of friction, and mud
lubricity coefficients were calculated at different revolutions per minute and
concentrations of the oil. The rheological properties of the mud were also tested. The
results obtained from the experiment showed that Hura crepitans in water-based mud
have the highest mud lubricity coefficient, and next is oil from Calophyllum
inophyllum. It was also discovered that diesel oil in the water-based mud has a
negative effect on the coefficient of friction, the mud formulated with the plant oils has
the lowest volume of fluid loss when compared to ordinary water-based mud and that
of the diesel oil. The mud formulated with oil from Hura crepitans has relatively
higher plastic viscosity most especially at concentrations above 15 ml, and the
addition of Calophyllum inophyllum has the highest yield point values and gel
strength. The plant oils most especially Calophyllum inophyllum used in mud
formulation reveals lower pullout force and greater potential for minimizing
differential pipe sticking.
Key words: Coefficient of friction, Fluid loss, Calophyllum inophyllum, Hura
crepitans, differential pipe sticking
Cite this Article: Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi,
I. T. Seteyeobot, I., The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum
Inophyllum Plant Oil in Water-Based Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking,
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(3), 2019, pp.
525–540.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
364
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
1. INTRODUCTION
In drilling engineering, high torque and drag, friction and wearing of downhole equipment or
drilling tools are common problems. The high torque values are caused by friction triggered
by dog-legs, key seats, bit balling and hole unsteadiness. The friction and high torque values
are as a result of the increase in the area of contact between the wellbore and the drill
pipe/casing, which sometimes leads to differential pipe sticking and even lose out of well [7].
Differential pipe sticking (DPS) is a major challenging cost to the drilling industry associated
with negative impact of unproductive rig days, this occurs due to downtime caused by
termination of drilling operation or freeing of the drill pipe when it gets stuck [9]. This
technical challenge in wells result to high well budget cost accumulated from when pipe get
stuck, freeing the pipe, and further impact of the stuck pipe problems in the well.
Several authors have come up with some statistics that show the severity of substantial
losses due to stuck pipe. In 1991, research conducted discovered that British Petroleum (BP)
had spent more than $30 million per year for stuck pipe issues. Between 1985 and 1988, an
average of $170,000 was spent per well due to stuck pipe [4]. On the other hand, a survey
within Sedco Forex in 1992 showed that stuck pipe accounts for 36% of total drilling
problems [11]. stuck pipe incidents cost the oil industry $200-$500 million per year [15].
Micro emulsion was used in the removal of mud cake which is a mud parameter that facilitate
the occurrence of stuck pipe [5]. Stuck pipe constitutes negative consequences on drilling
efficiency and well costs. It can be caused by inaccurate mud properties, well trajectory,
formation characteristics, and improper drilling parameters. accurate analysis and
understanding of mud parameters is key to managing, preventing, and significantly reducing
stuck pipe stuck pipe tendencies [14].
One of the special functions of drilling mud is in lubricating the drill string thereby
reducing stuck pipe. Plant Oil from Jatropha, Moringa, and Canola seed have been used in
improving the lubricating effect thereby preventing corrosion [6]. Oil-based mud (OBM) are
known to have better lubricity than the water based mud (WBM). However, improving water
based mud and its application are preferred in areas where OBM have previously been used
due to their low toxicity and cost [10]. OBM are in varying degree of toxicity and it is quite
costly to dispose in an environmentally cordial way [13]. The occurrence of wearing and
friction in water based drilling mud is as a result of the inherent higher coefficient of friction
(CoF), this can be reduced via increasing the lubricity of the mud through lubricant
application [12].
Biobased lubricant have excellent lubricity, and are environmentally friendly in
comparison to the petrobased lubricant. These advantages enhance their application in waterbased mud. The lubricity effect is due the bonding ability of the lubricant to the metal surface
thereby increasing the thin film strength. The adhering ability of plant oils acting as lubricant
in water-based mud reduces torque, drag, and frictional forces between the pipe and formation
[16]. By this, energy is saved from 5 to 15% of the equipment operation [2]. The word
“lubricity” alludes to the slipperiness of the films of lubricants formed in boundary
lubrication. The effect of spotting oil, lubricants, and several additives in increasing the
lubricity of drilling mud have been studied by several authors and the positive effect have
been discovered in freeing stuck pipe [3;8;17].
This research work is aimed at comparing the impact of diesel oil and oil from two nonedible plant seeds called Hura crepitans and Calophyllum inophyllum in water-based and
their effect on the lubricity and differential pipe sticking. A diagrammatic representation of
DPS is shown in Figure 1.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
365
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
Figure 1 Differential pressure sticking
2. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND PROCEDURE
2.1. Sample Preparation
Laboratory conditions were used in the preparation of the samples for analysis.
2.1.1. Mud additives
The materials and equipment used in carrying out this research work include de-ionized water
(350 ml), bentonite (20 g), CMC (2 g), and potassium hydroxide (0.2 g) to formulate the
water-based mud. Diesel oil, oil extracted from seeds of Hura crepitans and Calophyllum
inophyllum acting as lubricating agent, Soxhlet apparatus, oven, n-hexane solvent, and filter
papers.
2.1.1.1. Preparation of mud samples
350 ml of water was measured using a measuring cylinder. Then poured into the mixer and
agitated with the correct mixture of each additives in intervals of 15 minutes for homogeneity.
The lubricants were then added to the water-based mud at different concentrations of 5 ml, 10
ml, 15 ml, 20 ml, and 25 ml.
2.1.1.2. Mud properties
The physical properties analysed in this study are the pH, mud density, viscosity, gel strength,
yield point, and fluid loss 2.1.2. Oil extraction from their seeds
The seeds of Calophyllum inophyllum and Hura crepitans were collected from Canaan
land, Ogun state. It was further pilled, oven dried in the oven at 103 °C for 17+-1hr. 60 g of
the individual pulverized seed sample was packed into a thimble, and then to the extraction
chamber of the Soxhlet extractor, mounted on the round buttom flask containing 250 ml NHexane Fig. 2.1. The Soxhlet was then mounted on a heating mantle at 69 °C and allowed to
reflux for about two hours. The extract was then filtered to remove dirt’s that may be present
and distilled using a distillation evaporator set up to isolate the solvent (Fig. 2.1). The
percentage of the oil yield was evaluated by measuring the weight of the oil recovered per 60
g of the seed sample.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
366
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
2.1.2.1. Physical properties of oil
The viscosity index, flash and fire point, oil density/specific gravity, and pH were measured
for the plant oils using the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) method. The
properties are as shown in as shown in Table 3.1.
2.2. Lubricity
Two different non-edible plant oils from the seeds of Calophyllum inophyllum and Hura
crepitans, and diesel oil was used as lubricant in the drilling mud in different concentrations
of 5 to 25 ml to determine their effect on the lubricity efficiency of the mud.
2.2.1. Lubricity test
The lubricity test is designed at laboratory conditions to determine the performance of the
lubricant at different revolution per minute and pressure which the drill pipe bears against
wellbore wall or the casing. In this study, the lubricity tester was used to determine the
lubricating qualities of the drilling mud. The torque, mud lubricity coefficient and coefficient
of friction analysis was done at different speeds (rpm) or rotation and concentrations of the
lubricants. The lubricity tester is as shown in Fig. 2.2.
Figure 2.1. Overview of soxhlet extractor (left) and distillation apparatus set-up (right)
Figure 2.2. Overview of a lubricity tester
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
367
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
2.3. Differential pipe sticking Analysis
The force required to pull out a drill pipe when it gets stuck is a function of the differential
pressure that acts on the contact area of the drill pipe in an embedded mud cake ( ), the
contact area itself ( ), and the friction occurring between the cake and the pipe ( ).
The contact area is a function of the arc length and length of the pipe body portion
The arc length (
√(
)as given by [1] is stated below
)
(
)
The arc length equation applies under the following conditions
(
)
Where
(
)
( )
( )
The coefficient of friction, mud cake thickness, mud weight, and data from table 2.1 were
imputed into the pullout force equation for the DPS calculation.
Table 2.1. Parameters used for calculating the pullout force for all the mud samples
( )
( )
TVD (ft)
( )
( )
9
6
10000
4000
20, 30, 40
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The experiment carried out according to the procedure of the lubricity tester, the physical
properties of the mud, and the rheological properties as discussed below.
3.1. Lubricity performance analysis
The name and characteristic of the plant oil used are as shown in Table 3.1., diesel oil was
also used for comparison with the plant oil.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
368
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
3.1.1. The performance analysis of the lubricant added to the water-based mud
Fig 3.1 shows the analysis of all the lubricants added to the mud at different concentrations of
the lubricant and at 600 revolutions per minute (rpm), detail analysis is shown in the appendix
A (Table A.2-A.5). It can be seen that the oil from Hura crepitans (HCO) has the best
lubricant performance with diesel oil having the poorest. It is also observed that the lubricant
performance increases with the concentration of the various lubricants. Fig 3.2, Fig 3.3, and
Fig 3.4 shows the plot the lubricity efficiency of diesel oil, Hura crepitans oil, and
Calophyllum inophyllum oil respectively. It can be seen that the lubricity performance for all
the lubricants increases with the concentration of the lubricants, this implies that the lubricity
efficiency of the mud is at its best as the concentration of the oil increases within the range of
study. The lubricity performance, as can be seen in Fig 3.2, Fig 3.3, and Fig 3.4., decreases
with increase in the speed of rotation (rpm). This implies lower friction, torque and drag are
expected with increase in concentration and most especially in the presence of the oil from
Hura crepitans (HCO). The reduction of the coefficient of friction is as a result of the
adsorption of the oil or the formation of thin film between surfaces. The lubricity efficiency
was found to be inversely proportional to the coefficient of friction.
Table 3.1. Characteristic of the plant oils
Properties
Flash point ( )
Fire point ( )
Density (
)
Kin. Viscosity at 40 ( )
Kin. Viscosity at 100 ( )
Viscosity Index
CIO
154
162
923
18.57
8.84
197
HCO Oil
204
260
908
14.70
7.55
207
API
≥66
≥93
805-820
-
Figure 3.1. Performance analysis of the diesel, Calophyllum inophyllum, and Hura crepitans oil in the
WBM at 600 rpm
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
369
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
Figure 3.2. Performance analysis of the Diesel oil in the WBM at varying rpm
Figure 3.3. Performance analysis of the Hura crepitans oil in the WBM at varying rpm
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
370
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
Figure 3.4. Performance analysis of the Calophyllum inophyllum oil in the WBM at varying rpm
3.2. Effect of lubricant on mud properties of the water-based mud
The physical analyses conducted for water based mud with and without the different lubricant
oil consist of the rheological analysis, fluid loss analysis, pH, mud density.
3.2.1. Rheological analysis
The rheological properties of the mud are important in determining the performance of the
drilling mud. The properties analysed in this section are the plastic viscosity (pv), the gel
strength at 10 sec and 10 min, and the yield point values using the FANN model 35SA
viscometer. The plastic viscosity values are as shown in Fig 3.5. It can be observed that the
plastic viscosity for the mud formulated with oil from Calophyllum inophyllum is much more
stable than that of the other mud. It should be noted that mud with unnecessary higher plastic
viscosity are not desirable as they can negatively impact on the equivalent circulating density,
the plastic viscosity values for mud formulated with Hura crepitans oil increases from 15 ml
oil concentration. However, the plastic viscosity for all the mud with the different lubricant oil
are still within the API range as shown in the appendix Table (A-1).
The yield point values are as shown in Fig 3.6, it can be seen that the yield point values
for HCO is more stable than that of the other lubricant oil, the yield point values for CIO is
higher than that from HCO and DIO. The yield point values for WBM with diesel oil
increased from oil concentration of 10 ml. it should be noted that the increase in yield point
values as a result of the application of lubricant oil in WBM is not advisable as they have
tendency to reduce the transportation efficiency of drilling mud.
Analysing the gel strength values from Table (A-1), the gel strength at 10 sec and 10 min
for oil from Hura crepitans is more stable than that of the other lubricant oil and are within
the API acceptable range. The 10 sec gel strength for oil from Calophyllum inophyllum is not
within the acceptable API range.
Figure 3.5. Plastic viscosity values of the WBM with the lubricant oils
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
371
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
Figure 3.6. Yield point values of the WBM with the lubricant oils
3.2.2. Fluid loss analysis
Fig 3.7 shows a plot of the volume of the fluid loss observed when the lubricant oil was
added, it can be seen that the volume of the fluid loss reduces with increase in the
concentration of the lubricant oils. The WBM formulated with the oil from HCO have a lower
fluid loss than oil from diesel and Calophyllum inophyllum, and this is evident in all the
concentrations from 5-25 ml. The properties of the ordinary WBM formulated without any
lubricant oil as shown in Table 3.2 produces a higher volume of fluid loss than the API
acceptable range. Drilling mud with moderate fluid loss have greater potential to prevent
drilling challenges such as differential pipe stuck and formation damage etc. The cake
thickness is considered acceptable since it’s not greater than 2/32”. The rheological property
values are still within the API standard. Drilling mud with lower API fluid loss is
recommended.
Table 3.2: The Properties of Water-Based Mud
Properties
pH
Mud density (ppg)
Specific gravity
Filtrate loss after 30 mins (ml)
Gel strength @ 10 secs (
Gel strength @ 10 min (
Cake thickness (1/32’’)
Plastic viscosity ( )
Apparent viscosity ( )
Yield point (
)
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
)
)
372
Value
9.58
8.6
1.02
26
16
17
≈ 2/32”
2
21
38
API
8.5-10
7.5-22
10-25
3-20
8-30
2/32”
< 65
15-45
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
Figure 3.7. Fluid loss analysis of the WBM with the lubricant oils
3.2.3. Mud density, electrical stability and pH analysis
There is a little change on the mud density and pH value as concentration of the different
lubricant oil was added and this can be seen in Table A.1. WBM formulated with diesel oil
shows increase in the density and pH values as the oil concentration increases, WBM
formulated with Calophyllum inophyllum (CIO) showed increase too but decreased at 15 ml
concentration of the oil, WBM with addition of oil from Hura crepitans (HCO) showed a
decrease and increased from 15 ml oil concentration. The electrical stability (ES) values
increases with the concentration of the oil samples.
3.3. Differential pipe sticking analysis
The analysis of the differential pipe sticking or the pullout force required to free pipe is based
on the laboratory mud data used in measuring the effect of the mud cake thickness, area of
contact between the mud and the pipe which comprises of the length of the pipe section sunk
in the cake, and the differential pressure. Figure 3.8 is the plot showing the effect of the
contact area on the pullout force as the length of the pipe embedded in the cake thickness
increases, the pullout force increases with increase in the length of the embedded pipe and the
contact area. This effect is due to the adhesive forces acting over the larger contact area
between the pipe and the mud cake. It is also seen that the lubricity of the Calophyllum
inophyllum and Hura crepitans plant oil reduces the pullout force required than the ordinary
WBM and diesel oil. Diesel oil impacts negatively on the lubricity and pullout force required
and this is validated by the work of [18].
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
373
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
Figure 3.8. Effect of contact area on the pullout force at varying length of embedded pipe body
Figure 3.9 reveals the effect of cake thickness on the pullout force in the presence of
diesel and the plant oil in the WBM, the pullout force required to free pipe when stock
increases when the cake thickness increases in increasing percentage. The plant oils
performed better than the diesel oil and ordinary WBM.
Figure 3.9. Effect of cake thickness on the pullout force
Figure 3.10 shows a plot revealing the effect of the differential pressure on the pullout
force, the pullout force increases as the differential pressure increases, and increase in the
pullout force is possibly due to the fact that a higher differential pressure induces a higher
cake strength which impacts on the adhesive forces between the pipe and cake. The lubricity
of the plant oils particularly performs better than the diesel oil and also the ordinary WBM
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
374
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
Figure 3.10. Effect of the differential pressure on the pullout force
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the result analysed, the following conclusions was made:

The mud with high lubricant performance is obtained from the plant oils, with Hura crepitans
revealing the highest and then Calophyllum inophyllum, and lastly the diesel oil.

The lubricity efficiency of the mud when the various oil was added increases with the
concentration of the lubricant and this is evident in the mud formulated with the plant oils.

The addition of diesel oil to water based mud reveals a negative influence on the mud as this
increases the CoF and pullout force when compared to conditions of ordinary WBM.

The plant oils reduce the volume of the fluid loss compared to the diesel oil, the oil from Hura
crepitans performed better than that from Calophyllum inophyllum,

Mud with high lubricity have greater tendency to reduce the volume of fluid loss, the mud
with Hura crepitans reveals better lubricity performance and so volume of fluid loss is low
compared to other lubricating oil used. Hence, the lubricity coefficient is inversely
proportional to the volume of fluid loss

The lubricating oil has influence on the rheological properties. The mud formulated with oil
from Hura crepitans has relatively higher plastic viscosity most especially at concentrations
above 15 ml, and the addition of Calophyllum inophyllum has the highest yield point values
and gel strength.

The plant oils have good potential of minimizing the tendency of stuck pipe as they reduce the
pullout force required to pull out the pipe when compared to diesel and ordinary water based
mud.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
375
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
APPENDIX A
Table A.1: Properties of the Various Oil-In-Water Emulsion Mud
properties
C
I
O
9.25
8.20
pH
MDens
(ppg)
FL(ml)
ES
GS10s
(
))
(
GS10m
))
CT (1/32”)
PV ( )
AV ( )
YP
(
)
5 ml
H
CO
10 ml
H
D
C
I
O
O
8.92 9.42
8.35 8.50
C
I
O
8.50
8.10
15 ml
H
D
C
I
O
O
8.83 9.56
8.40 8.50
C
I
O
8.48
8.10
20 ml
H
D
C
I
O
O
8.87 9.68
8.60 8.55
C
I
O
8.77
8.40
25 ml
H
D
C
I
O
O
8.86 9.87
8.60 8.60
API
9.14
7.80
D
I
O
9.35
8.20
C
I
O
9.54
8.50
22
87
12
21
58
13
20
94
8
21
106
23
20
95
11
19
99
6
21
108
24
18
95
19
19
105
15
18
177
23
16
109
18
19
107
21
17
223
25
15
112
14
18
112
21
10-25
> 400
3-20
13
15
9
24
12
9
23
20
15
23
18
21
25
12
22
8-30
≈
≈
≈
>
≈
≈
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32” 2/32”
8
15
7
11
11
15
11
8
8
8
21
10
12
21
11
21
28
15
26
20
18
29
23
20
29
28
27
30
28
28
25
26
16
30
18
15
35
30
24
42
14
34
36
14
34
8.5-10
7.5-22
2/32”
< 65
15-45
Table A.2: Test result of water-based mud formulated with lubricant oil
SAMPLE
Ordinary WBM without lubricant oil
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp)
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp)
PV (cp)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)
YP (lb/100ft2)
Gel strength, 10 secs
Gel strength, 10 mins
pH
Specific gravity
Mud density (ppg)
Emulsion stability
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins
Mud Lubricity coeffecient at 60RPM
Coefficient of friction (COF) at 60RPM
Value
42
40
2
21
38
16
17
9.58
1.02
8.6
55
26
21
0.155
0.157
Table A.3: Test result of water-based mud formulated with diesel oil
DIO in WBM
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp)
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp)
PV (cp)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)
YP (lb/100ft2)
Gel strength, 10 secs
Gel strength, 10 mins
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
5ml
30
23
7
15
16
8
9
10ml
35
20
15
17.5
5
6
6
376
Oil concentration
15ml
20ml
40
54
32
44
8
10
20
27
24
34
15
21
15
21
25ml
56
45
11
28
34
21
22
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
pH
Specific gravity
Mud density (ppg)
Emulsion stability
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins
Mud Lubricity coefficient at 60RPM
9.35
0.98
8.2
94
20
42.6
0.421
9.42
1.2
8.5
99
19
40.4
0.399
9.56
1.2
8.5
105
19
40.2
0.397
9.68
1.25
8.55
107
19
40.2
0.397
9.87
1.3
8.6
112
18
39.4
0.389
Table A.4: Test result of water-based mud formulated with Calophyllum inophyllum oil
CIO in WBM
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp)
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp)
PV (cp)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)
YP (lb/100ft2)
Gel strength, 10 secs
Gel strength, 10 mins
pH
Specific gravity
Mud density (ppg)
Emulsion stability
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins
Mud Lubricity coefficient at 60RPM
5ml
41
33
8
20.5
25
12
13
9.25
0.99
8.2
87
22
17.8
0.176
10ml
52
41
11
26
30
23
24
9.54
1.02
8.5
106
21
17.2
0.170
Oil concentration
15ml
20ml
57
58
46
50
11
8
28.5
29
35
42
24
23
23
23
8.03
8.48
0.98
0.98
8.1
8.1
108
177
21
18
16.8
16.7
0.166
0.165
25ml
60
48
12
30
36
25
25
8.77
1.01
8.4
223
17
16.2
0.160
Table A.5: Test result of water-based mud formulated with Hura crepitans oil
HCO in WBM
Viscosity, 600 reading (cp)
Viscosity, 300 reading (cp)
PV (cp)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)
YP (lb/100ft2)
Gel strength, 10 secs
Gel strength, 10 mins
pH
Specific gravity
Mud density (ppg)
Emulsion stability
Fluid loss (ml) at 30 mins
Torque (measured) at 60RPM at 5 mins
Mud Lubricity coefficient at 60RPM
5ml
56
41
15
28
26
13
15
9.14
0.94
7.8
58
21
16.9
0.167
Oil concentration
10ml
15ml
20ml
40
46
56
29
38
35
11
8
21
20
23
28
18
30
14
11
19
18
12
20
18
8.92
8.83
8.87
0.99
1.01
1.03
8.35
8.4
8.6
95
95
109
20
18
16
16.7
15.8
15.7
0.165 0.156 0.155
25ml
56
35
21
28
14
14
12
8.86
1.03
8.6
112
15
15.4
0.152
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I write to thank covenant university for their financial support towards to publication
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
377
editor@iaeme.com
The Lubricity Performance of Hura Crepitans and Calophyllum Inophyllum Plant Oil in WaterBased Mud in Analysing Differential Pipe Sticking
REFERENCES
[1]
Azar, J., & Samuel, R. (2007). Drilling Engineering. Tulsa, oklahoma: PennWell
Corporatio.
[2]
Bilal, S. (2013). Production of biolubricant from Jatropha curcas seed oil. Journal of
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, 4(6), 72–79.
[3]
Bland, R. G., Micho, W. T., Fluids, M. D., Howard, H. J., Murphy, E., & Co, P. (1992).
Application of New Glycol/Resin Differential Sticking Preventative. In 87th Annual
Conference and Exhibition (pp. 467–480). Washington, DC: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[4]
Bradley, W. B., Jarman, D., Plott, R. S., Wood, R. D., & Schofield, T. R. (1991). A Task
Force to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference (pp. 841–846).
Amsterdam: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[5]
Emmanuel Emeka Okoro, Deinpribo Kio-Lawson, Kevin C. Igwilo, Evelyn Bose Ekeinde.
(2018). One Stage Process Removal of Filter Cake using MIcro Emulsion. International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2890-2894
[6]
Fadairo, A., Falode, O., Ako, C., Adeyemi, A., and Ameloko, A. (2012). Novel
formulation of environmentally friendly oil based drilling mud. In New Technologies in
the Oil and Gas Industry (pp. 49–80). INTECH.
[7]
Foxenberg, W. E., Ali, S. A., Long, T. P., & Vian, J. (2008). Field experience shows the
new lubricants reduces friction and improves formation compactibility and environmental
impact. In SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control
(pp. 13–15). Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[8]
Heitmann, N., & Burgos, E. C. (2015). Freeing Differential Stuck-Pipe with Nitrogen
Reduces Significantly Lost-In-Hole Drill Strings. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and
Exhibitions (pp. 1–6). London: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[9]
Isambourg, P., Elf, E. P., Ottesen, S., Company, M. T., Benaissa, S., Inteq, B. H., &
Tarbes, E. N. I. (1999). Down-Hole Simulation Cell for Measurement of Lubricity and
Differential Pressure Sticking. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference (pp. 1–7). Amsterdam:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[10]
Ismail, A. R., Hadi, A., Rosli, W., Sulaiman, W., & Zaidi, M. (2017). Drilling Fluid Waste
Management in Drilling for Oil and Gas Wells. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56,
1351–1356.
[11]
Jardine, S. I., & Barber, S. S. (1992). An Advanced System for the Early Detection of
Sticking Pipe. In IADC/SPE Drilling Conference (pp. 659–667). 1992: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
[12]
Johnson, P., Coragliotti, A., Dicicco, c. d, & Nagatani, R. A. (2014). Field Results for
Encapsulated Oil as an Additive to Water-Based Drilling Fluids : Operational
Improvements in the Alliance / Northern Denver-Julesburg and Heath Basins. In
American Association of Drilling Engineers (pp. 1–6). Houston, Texas: AADE.
[13]
Kanna, A. R., Mohiuddin, S. S., Khan, U. A., Reddy, C. H. G. N., & Kumar, M. (2017).
Determination of Oil , Water , Solid and Clay Content in Various Concentrations of
Bentonite & Sodium Silicate. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 6(4), 6929–6937.
[14]
Marbun, B., Somawijaya, A., Novrianto, A. R., Hasna, H., & Anshari, M. R. (2016).
Study of Prevention and Mitigation of Stuck Pipe in Geothermal Drilling. In 41st
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering (pp. 1–12). California: Stanford
University.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
378
editor@iaeme.com
Onuh, C. Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Agbator, S., Ojonimi, I. T. Seteyeobot, I.
[15]
Okwu, A. E., Dosunmu, P. A., & Studies, P. (2013). A Risk Based Model to Quantify
Differential Sticking Risk in Drilling Depleted Reservoir Formations. In Nigeria Annual
International Confeence and Exhibition (pp. 1–24). Lagos: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[16]
Onuh, C.Y., Dosunmu, A., Anawe, P. A. L., Efeovbokhan, V., Adebisi, A. (2017).
Transesterification of Non-Edible OIl for Lubricant Applications in Water-Based Mud: A
Review. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(18), 7397-7401.
[17]
Simon, K., Gaurina-Međimurec, N., & Pašić, B. (2005). Drilling Fluids Differential
Sticking Tendency Determination. Rudarsko-Geološko-Naftni Zbornik, 17(1), 31–35.
[18]
Sönmez, A., Verşan Kök, M., & Özel, R. (2013). Performance analysis of drilling fluid
liquid lubricants. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 108, 64–73.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
379
editor@iaeme.com