Blog

Mar 01, 2025

Experimental investigation of deformable additives as loss circulation control agent during drilling and well construction | Scientific Reports

Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 30423 (2024) Cite this article 1704 Accesses Metrics details Lost circulation is known as one of the most important challenges during drilling. In

Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 30423 (2024) Cite this article

1704 Accesses

Metrics details

Lost circulation is known as one of the most important challenges during drilling. In addition to high costs due to mud loss and nonproductive time, lost circulation may lead to several consequences, including stuck pipes, wellbore collapse, poor hole cleaning, and well control issues. Different materials and techniques have been tested in the literature and recommended to prevent and control drilling fluid loss. One of the most common solutions is using conventional Lost Circulation Materials (LCMs) that are widely used in the industry. This paper aims to investigate the performance of two deformable LCMs, rubber and synthetic fiber, in order to control fluid loss in fractured formations. This deformability helps the LCM to be compressed and forced into openings of different sizes and shapes. The effect of LCM formulation, Particle Size Distribution (PSD), LCMs combination, fracture width (1000 and 2000 microns), temperature, and fine particles (i.e., smaller than 297 microns) on the ability of LCMs to mitigate lost circulation in water-based drilling fluids was studied. The sealing efficiency of LCMs was investigated through the dynamic sealing tests to optimize the particle size distribution and assess the maximum pressure that the LCMs can withstand in the fractured formations to prevent further fluid loss. The results indicated that the fracture sealing significantly depends on the formulation design of LCMs, so PSD optimization should be considered for better control of fluid loss. Adding fine particles and using a broad PSD increases the sealing pressure and fracture sealing rate. The comparison of the two LCMs showed that rubber has a higher sealing rate and less fluid loss compared to synthetic fiber. Furthermore, the synergistic use of LCMs is a better loss control solution compared to their individual employment.

Lost circulation, which is defined as the uncontrollable loss of drilling fluid (partial or complete) into the formation due to the pressure difference between the well and the formation, is one of the most common problems during drilling-related operations and well construction1,2. Lost circulation is usually observed in four types of formations, including high permeable formations, natural or induced fractures formations, unconsolidated formations, and vugular formations3. Lost circulation affects up to 75% of all drilled wells. Among the expected consequential challenges associated with the lost circulation, wellbore stability, well control issues, poor hole cleaning, formation damage, stuck pipe, and packoff can be highlighted as the most significant ones2,4.

Conventional LCMs have been widely used in drilling jobs as an effective way to prevent and control fluid loss with different degrees of success. Particulate LCMs are mixed at the rig, pumped downhole, and placed in the loss zone to plug the flow pathways into the formation5. Based on their appearance and properties, these materials can be divided into granular, flaky, and fibrous6,7. The type, shape, size, strength, composition, and concentration of conventional LCMs are the key properties that should be properly considered for designing an efficient treatment8. Conventional LCMs can make a bridge across the fracture’s opening and seal the open space of the fractures. The bridge should also tolerate the remarkable stress that the fracture surface and drilling fluid applied to it9. Granular LCMs can form a bridge both on the formation face and inside the formation matrix. The latter sealing forms a more permanent bridge because the condition of the well and the movement of the pipes cannot remove these particles from inside the formation10,11. Due to the flexibility, the fibers have a significant effect on the plugging capacity and stability of LCM. Fibrous materials are best suited for controlling loss in porous and highly permeable formations because they form a mat-like bridge over the pore openings. The mat reduces the size of the openings to the formation, allowing the colloidal particles in the drilling fluid to create a filter cake rapidly. Flake LCMs are also designed to form a mat on the formation face, often showing acceptable results when used to treat losses in fractured and highly permeable formations12,13. In general, the selection of type, concentration, and particle size of LCMs needs an estimate of the average size of fractures and drilling conditions. First, the intensity of lost circulation is checked by placing the drilling bit on top of the loss zone. Then, the designed LCMs are added to the drilling fluid, and the rate of mud loss is monitored until the plug is formed in the fractures. The optimal particle size can be corrected based on the changes in fluid loss intensity. Experimentally, evaluation of an LCM capability for sealing the wide fractures is required prior to its field application. High-Pressure High-Temperature (HPHT) fluid loss apparatus and Particle Plugging Apparatus (PPA) are often used to evaluate LCM treatments in mitigating/curing losses in conjunction with slotted/tapered discs that simulate natural/induced fractures or ceramic discs that simulate a porous formation14,15.

There are several models for the selection of the lost circulation materials, which are based on the particle size for the purpose of keeping mud loss at a minimum. According to the Abram method, the median particle size of the bridging material has to be equal to or slightly greater than 1/3 the median pore size/fracture size (λ) of formation. D(50) = λ/3. This rule addresses the size of particle to initiate a bridge16. It is important to note that the rule doesn’t give an optimum size for the ideal packing sequence for minimizing fluid invasion and optimizing sealing.

The ideal packing theory (IPT) addresses either pore sizing from thin section analysis or permeability information, combined with particle size distribution of bridging material, to determine ideal packing sequence17. The Vickers method tries to exceed the bridging efficiency gained in IPT. For minimal lost circulation in the formation, the following criteria should be met:

D(90) = largest pore throat

D(75) < 2/3 of largest pore throat

D(50) =  +/− 1/3 of the mean pore throat

D(25) = 1/7 of the mean pore throat

D(10) > smallest pore throat18.

Based on the Halliburton method, the D(50) of the PSD is set equal to the estimated fracture width to offset uncertainty in the estimation. In that situation, enough particles smaller and larger than the fracture are present to plug smaller and larger fracture width19.

Alsaba et al. studied laboratory evaluation of sealing wide fractures using conventional LCMs. Parameters such as LCM type (graphite, CaCo3, nutshell, and cellulosic fiber), concentration, particle size distribution (PSD), temperature, tapered slot size (up to 2000 µm fracture width), and injection rate on the possibility of sealing wide fractures were investigated during their assessments. They concluded that the proper selection of LCM concentration and size is critical in sealing the fractures20. In another study, Alsaba et al. used wedge foam as an unconventional LCM. They showed that wedge foam could seal fractures up to 5 mm where conventional LCM fails to seal them21. Akhtarmanesh et al. reported that barite nano/microparticles with LCM seal fractured formation better in weighted water-based drilling fluids. In their laboratory evaluations, barite nano/micro particles were prepared chemically and mechanically, substituted 3% by the total sample weight of API barite in the base case. Based on the obtained results, the combination of both nutshells and nano/micro particles improved the sealing pressure by more than 205% using the mechanically generated nanoparticles compared to the base case22. Ramasamy et al. studied the natural date tree waste as eco-friendly fibrous LCM. The sealing efficiency of fibrous LCM was evaluated using a pore-plugging apparatus with a 2 mm slotted disk. They concluded that this fibrous LCM is suitable for controlling moderate lost circulation under HPHT conditions23. Savari et al. designed an acid-soluble blend that contained particulate-based LCM and fibers with various shapes to seal large fractures in the reservoir formation. Particulate-based LCM was an engineered acid-soluble composite with a multimodal PSD. The purpose of the multimodal PSD was to provide the particle size required to plug a range of fracture widths. They showed that the designed composite can plug the fractures up to 5000 µm in laboratory conditions24. Wang et al. used a wedge foam-based system as an unconventional LCM. This system is used to address uncertainties in fracture size and shape. This LCM consists of two main components: wedge foam that is highly deformable and micron-sized particles. Once the openings are filled with the foam, they form a highly permeable filtration bridge for the second component. The second component consists of high fluid loss fine particles that will form a solid plug on the filtration bridge25. Ashoori et al. investigated the performance of oak shell, wheat, cane, and mica as conventional LCMs to control lost circulation in fractured formations. Experimental results showed that the appropriate combination of LCMs, especially mica and oak shells, can create high sealing pressure in fractures with different widths2.

Figure 1 shows the systems currently used in the industry to treat drilling fluid losses.

Classification of treatments26.

Cross-linking refers to the linking of two independent polymer chains by cross-linking agents to form a gel structure. crosslinked gel systems consist of a polymer base and cross-linker. Polymer gels have an intermediate state between liquid and solid and show viscous and elastic behavior due to their network structure. To ensure the success of gel treatments, the main properties of gels such as pumpability, final gelation time, long-term stability and final gel strength should be well studied and controlled27,28,29.

Dilatant slurry is composed of sized solids and polymers that are both soluble and insoluble in water. The ability of these fluids to thicken irreversibly as they pass through the drilling bit makes them suitable for controlling fluid losses in highly permeable and fractured formations30.

High Fluid Loss Squeezes are a combination of LCMs that lose water rapidly and deposit a thick cake of residual solids in the loss zone. This type of pill is particularly useful for preventing the propagation of induced or natural fractures, as the deposited solids prevent the transfer of drilling fluid pressure to the tips of the fractures. The main high fluid loss pill contains calcium carbonate and attapulgite31.

Special cement formulations such as thixotropic cements or cross-linked cements are more common to use in lost circulation control. Portland cements are also being used as lost circulation treatments only after other techniques have proven unsuccessful, or if experience has shown it to be the method of choice32,33,34.

Shape memory particles (SMPs) have the ability to deform and fixed into a temporary shape. They can return to their original permanent form only when exposed to a specific external stimulus such as pH, temperature, magnetic field, or light. For example, rubber can change its shape whenever it is loaded, but when the load is removed, the rubber immediately returns to its original shape. However, when shape memory particles deform under loading, they have the ability to trap mechanical energy as internal energy, and release this energy whenever an external stimulus causes a change in molecular relaxation rate35.

Viscoelastic surfactant (VES) is another type of material used as a lost circulation treatment. This system consists of surfactants that self-assemble into worm-like micellar structures that act like polymers and increase fluid viscosity at low shear rates36.

In addition to the mentioned LCMs, there are various special treatments to overcome the loss circulations, including but not limited to: deformable-viscous-cohesive systems37,38, gunk squeezes39,40, concentrated sand slurries31,41, hybrid plugging fluid42,43, and oil absorbent polymers44.

This study intends to assess the applicability of two deformable additives, synthetic fiber and rubber, to mitigate the loss of drilling fluid into Fractured formations. Deformable LCMs have a high potential in sealing fractured zones and these two materials have not been studied before as conventional LCMs. The potential of these materials is assessed experimentally with respect to their PSD, maximum sealing pressure, and corresponding total losses at low and high temperatures.

In this study, two flexible materials, rubber and synthetic fibers (Fig. 2), were evaluated as potential LCMs through a series of experiments. Synthetic fiber and rubber are made of chemicals derived from petroleum byproducts. These deformable materials are made of polymer molecules and elastomers. Long chains that give them flexibility and strength. The flow-chart depicted in Fig. 3 displays the steps done to support the main idea behind this research. A base mud with known formulation and rheological properties was prepared as the drilling fluid for LCMs. Tables 1 and 2 show the composition and characteristics of the base mud. The simple water-based drilling fluid formulation was selected in order to directly diagnose the effectiveness of the materials as LCM and remove the effect of other additives from the analysis. After measuring the PSD and D50 of the additives, different formulations/combinations were made from both of them and then mixed in the base fluid. Afterward, low-pressure fluid loss was done on the made fluids for primary assessment of the used rubber and synthetic fiber. Then, the cases with low-pressure fluid loss volume of fewer than 100 ml were selected for further assessment, testing them at high pressures. Eventually, the effect of temperature, synergic use of rubber and synergic fiber, and addition of fine particles of cellulose fiber into the LCMs formulation are summarily reviewed.

(a) Rubber, (b) Synthetic fiber.

The implemented experimental procedure in this study.

The first phase in testing is preparing the LCM and measuring PSD. PSD measurement is performed using sieve analysis based on weight. By plotting the cumulative percentage versus particle size, the value of D50 (cumulative wt% = 50%) is obtained for the specified range. For instance, the method of D50 determination for rubber is described in Figs. 4 and 5. Figure 4 depicts the PSD corresponding to rubber in the range of 0–0.707 mm (0–707 µm). Figure 5 demonstrates the cumulative distribution and D50 for rubber particles at the mentioned range. In this case, it is evident that D50 for rubber is 0.470 mm (≈ 470 µm). D50 for both additives in other mesh ranges are listed in Table 3.

Particle size distribution of rubber.

Rubber cumulative particle size distribution (0–707 µm).

As shown in Table 3, different formulations from each LCM type and total concentration were tested to study the effect of PSD on sealing efficiency. Table 3 shows the percentage of the total concentration of each LCM to formulate any given case when used individually. For example, in the fluid made from 20 g case #4 rubber, the mixture contains 2 g (D50 = 470 µm), 4 g (D50 = 930 µm), 6 g (D50 = 1510 µm), and 8 g (D50 = 2430 µm), respectively. Case #3 and case#4 have the broadest range of particle sizes (fine, medium, and coarse) for rubber and synthetic fiber, respectively. As the case number increases, the amount of coarser particles increases.

Prior to running the sealing efficiency experiments, a set of tests was run using different LCM cases at different particle size distributions (Table 3) using the low-pressure testing apparatus (LPA). The main objective of these tests is to sever as a screening stage in order to determine those cases that do not establish a seal at low-pressure (fluid loss greater than 100 ml), and consequently remove them from further evaluations. After the screening phase, the best cases in terms of low-pressure fluid loss were subjected to high pressures to evaluate their sealing efficiency employing the High-Pressure Apparatus (HPA). Low pressure fluid loss test is simply run by filling the transfer vessel with the 500 ml fluid containing LCM’s and then slowly applying 100 psi by air compressor to force the fluid to flow through the cell until no more fluid is coming out. The most important parameter here is the fluid loss volume in 30 min. If the fluid loss value goes over 100 ml, it is considered Non-controlled (NC). This parameter can specify if the concentration and PSD are able to seal a specific fracture width. The effect of fracture width was investigated by setting two cells with two different fracture widths, 1000 µm (C1) and 2000 µm (C2). The cells and their dimensions are shown in Fig. 6. To increase the test accuracy, low-pressure tests were repeated twice, and the highest fluid loss for each formulation was reported.

Cell with (a) 1000 µm fracture width, (b) Dimensions of a cell with 2000 µm fracture width.

Among the fluids that passed low-pressure tests, the best of them were evaluated at high-pressure conditions through the setup schematically shown in Fig. 7. This setup can be used in projects related to lost circulation in the oil well drilling industry before the field application stage. This apparatus is capable of testing LCM in high pressure and low loss rate for accurate simulation of conditions in drilling wells. The high-pressure apparatus was designed and manufactured to be capable of holding pressure up to 5000 psi. In order to run the high-pressure tests, 500 ml of pill (mud with LCM) is poured into the transfer vessel. The test is run by injecting fluids containing the LCM formulations at a flow rate of 30 ml/min until a rapid increase in the injection pressure is observed. The pressure is recorded over time and the total fluid loss volume is also measured. A significant drop in dynamically measured pressure is observed as a result of breaking the seal and the development of a pressure cycle. The cycle is defined here as any pressure decline equal to or greater than 100 psi, and also, the sealing efficiency of LCM is defined as the maximum pressure at which the formed seal breaks and fluid starts to flow again through the slotted area.

Schematic of particle bridging testing experimental set-up for high-pressure conditions.

Five different formulations for each LCM type were tested individually at the constant mass of 20 g and two fracture sizes. The fluid loss of 20 LCM patches was overall examined at low pressure.

In order to understand the effect of the particle size distribution, the results of the LPA tests at two fracture sizes were plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 for rubber and synthetic fiber, respectively. The x-axis represents the case number used, and the y-axis represents the measured fluid loss in ml. Comparing two LCMs indicates that the cases of synthetic fibers have a lower fluid loss than that of rubber, and as a result, synthetic fiber has a higher rate of bridge formation on the fractures. According to the results, it is clear that PSD has a significant influence on the amount of fluid lost prior to forming a seal. Also, by choosing the correct formulation and PSD for each LCM, the effect of the fracture width on the amount of fluid loss is reduced. The lowest fluid losses belong to rubber case #3 and synthetic fiber case #4, the formulations made from a wide range of particle sizes. Among all the tests, only three cases of rubber have fluid loss volumes greater than 100 ml (NC), case #1 at 2000 µm fracture size and case #5 at both fracture sizes of 1000 µm and 2000 µm. As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, when fracture width increases from 1000 to 2000 microns, if the concentration and formulation of the PSD are chosen correctly, the fluid loss volume decreases to an acceptable value. Based on the LPA results, it is suggested that for a specific fracture, a portion of the designed LCM should be equal to or slightly larger than the predicted fracture width.

The effect of rubber PSD on fluid loss.

The effect of synthetic fiber PSD on fluid loss.

When the dominant particles in the blend are large particles, the fluid loss increases due to two reasons: accumulation of large particles at the fracture face, results in creating a very permeable porous medium, and the absence of fine particles to fill the smaller pores between the larger particles. The similarity in the observed trends suggests a strong relationship between PSD and sealing capability; therefore, an optimized PSD is required.

A total of 8 tests, corresponding to cases #3 and #4 of both the additives, were conducted to evaluate the integrity of the seal formed during the HPA. The results are summarized in Table 4 for two cells with different fracture widths of 1000 µm and 2000 µm. The applied pressure to the seal formed in the fracture is also recorded dynamically, as a function of time, by a computer. According to the recorded pressure curve, the maximum sealing pressure and also the number of times that the seal is broken (number of cycles) can be determined. Figures 10 and 11 show HPA test results for rubber blends at different fracture widths and two different PSDs (case #3 and case #4). As shown in Fig. 10, by using 20 g of rubber case #3 and case #4 for cell C1 (1 mm fracture width), the maximum sealing pressures are 1170 and 959 psi, respectively. This meant that case #3 provided a 22% improvement in sealing pressure compared to case #4. As Fig. 11 illustrates for the C2 cell (2 mm fracture width), the maximum sealing pressures for rubber case #4 and case #3 are 785 psi and 607 psi, respectively (29% difference in sealing pressure). By increasing the fracture size from 1000 to 2000 µm, 58% and 49% decreases in the sealing pressure for the rubber formulations of #3 and #4 happen. Although the amount of sealing pressure reduction for case #4 (the widest range of particle sizes) is less than case #3 as the fracture width increases, rubber case #3 is preferred over case #4 at both fracture sizes due to its more pressure resistance.

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for rubber cases #3 and #4 at C1 (1000 µm fracture size).

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for rubber cases #3 and #4 at C2 (2000 µm fracture size).

Pressure–time plots for synthetic fiber blends at fracture sizes of 1000 µm and 2000 µm are shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. For the smaller fracture, the maximum sealing pressures in case #3 and case #4 are 502 psi and 619 psi, respectively. By increasing the fracture size, the sealing pressure decreases from 502 to 304 psi and 619 to 436 psi for the cases #3 and #4, respectively. According to these two figures, synthetic fiber case #4 shows a sealing pressure of 117 psi at C1 and 132 psi at C2, higher than the same as case #3. The rate of pressure cycle formation in fiber is higher than that of rubber, and this is due to the higher flexibility of the synthetic fiber used.

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for synthetic fiber cases #3 and #4 at C1 (1000 µm fracture size).

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for synthetic fiber cases #3 and #4 at C2 (2000 µm fracture size).

A Summary of the results obtained from high-pressure tests is listed in Table 4. As can be seen, the higher sealing pressure causes the lower fluid loss. Also, it is found that rubber blends have higher sealing pressure compared to synthetic fiber, but the synthetic fiber blends form a better seal due to their higher flexibility, resulting in less fluid loss. The average fluid loss per cycle values for both LCMs are within an acceptable range except in case 4 for rubber, which may be due to the porous seal resulting from a high concentration of larger particles. In the presence of the 1000 µm wide fracture, the minimum average fluid loss is 8.66 ml/cycle, which belongs to synthetic fiber case #4, and the maximum average fluid loss is 29.75 ml/cycle for rubber case #4. Among the cases relating to the fracture size of 2000 µm, the lowest and highest average fluid losses are 17.8 ml/cycle (synthetic fiber case #3) and 23.66 ml/cycle (rubber case #4), respectively. Generally, it is concluded that rubber is more resistant against pressure, but synthetic fiber is better from the average fluid loss point of view. In order to provide a better comparison of the performance of the LCM formulations, three factors should be considered: the maximum sealing pressure, total fluid loss, and the average fluid loss (total loss divided by the number of cycles). Rubber case #3, compared to rubber case #4, has a higher sealing pressure, less fluid loss as well as fewer fluid loss per cycle. Thus, rubber case #3 is mentioned throughout the paper as the best LCM formulation made of rubber. Although it seems that synthetic fiber case #4 has a higher fluid loss per cycle in comparison to synthetic fiber case #3, it is considered as the best synthetic fiber-based LCM formulation due to its greater sealing efficiency and lower total fluid loss.

Temperature is another factor that could improve, or reduce the seal integrity for some LCM treatments. For fracture width of 1000 µm, rubber case #3 and synthetic fiber case #4 showed better performances among the cases made from each LCM type. Therefore, they were selected to assess the temperature effect on LCM capability to seal fractures. As Fig. 14 depicts, the sealing pressure due to rubber case #3 decreases from 1170 to 983 psi (19%) with increasing temperature from ambient temperature (30 °C) to 80 °C. This insignificant change is a sign of the rubber's thermal stability. According to Fig. 15, for synthetic fiber case #4, by increasing the temperature from 30 to 80 °C, a 67% reduction in the seal integrity (619 psi to 370 psi) is observed. Thus, temperature has an adverse effect on synthetic fiber performance. Based on these tests, temperature should be highlighted for further investigation of LCMs. The effect might be insignificant as observed with the rubber blend, and unfavorable as witnessed with the synthetic fiber blend. Further information on the effect of temperature on the performance of the best cases is tabulated in Table 5. According to Table 5, raising the temperature leads to more fluid loss. At low temperatures, total fluid loss as well as fluid loss per cycle for synthetic fiber case #4 are less than those of rubber case #3, but at high temperatures, the trend is vice versa. Therefore, at high temperatures, rubber is preferred over synthetic fiber. From technical aspects, synthetic fibers can be more effective for shallow formations with low temperatures.

Comparing the dynamic sealing pressure of rubber case #3 at different temperatures (30 and 80 °C).

Comparing the dynamic sealing pressure of synthetic fiber case #4 at 30 and 80 °C

Due to the higher sealing pressure of rubber and the better control of fluid loss for fiber materials, it was tried to assess the performance of their synergic use. To do so, three cases with the formulations shown in Table 6 were designed. While rubber is desirable from the aspects of sealing pressure and thermal stability, its ability to control fluid loss is not as good as synthetic fiber. So, the combined cases are totally made from 70% rubber and 30% synthetic fiber. A summary of the low-pressure and high-pressure tests done for investigating the combined use of the LCMs is listed in Table 7. In the case of using the combination of LCMs, low-pressure fluid loss is clearly less, particularly for case RSF#2, which has the minimum value among all the cases here and fluid loss near to the same as individual use of synthetic fiber. According to the results, the effect of increasing the fracture width on fluid loss is significantly reduced by the optimal combination of LCMs. It should be pointed out that case RSF#2 is equally composed of fine and medium synthetic fiber particles and empty from large fiber particles.

Figure 16 shows the sealing pressure versus time for the best synergic combination of the LCMs, case RSF#2. For the LCM formulation, the maximum sealing pressures of 1389 psi and 987 psi are obtained for the fractures 1000 µm and 2000 µm wide, respectively. These values are the best- reached results among all the cases tested for each of the fractures. Thus, this synergic LCM formulation has the most desirable performance at both fracture sizes. For example, the dynamic sealing pressure plots of cases rubber #3, synthetic fiber #4, and RSF#2 for fracture widths of 1 mm are easily compared in Fig. 17. As shown in Table 7, the total fluid loss for case RSF#2 was measured to be 34 ml and 48 ml for fracture width of 1 and 2 mm, respectively. In summary, the maximum sealing pressure and the average fluid loss corresponding to RSF#2 are respectively higher and fewer than those of the individual LCMs, so the combination employing the deformable LCMs is suggested over their individual use.

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for case RSF#2 along with the cells C1 and C2.

Comparison of dynamic sealing pressure plot of the best tested formulations, rubber case #3, synthetic fiber case #4, and synergic case RSF#2 for fracture width of 1 mm.

To investigate the effect of fine particles on the performance of LCMs, cellulose fibers (CF) with particles smaller than 297 µm were combined with rubber and synthetic fiber. For this purpose, the best PSD of rubber (case #3) and synthetic fiber (case #4) were mixed with 10 g of fine cellulose fiber particles and were injected into the fracture with 1000 µm width. The purpose of this experiment was to expand the range of PSD and to study the effect of fine particles on the fluid loss and the sealing pressure of LCMs. The results of low-pressure and high-pressure tests are given in Table 8. Also, Figs. 18 and 19 show the dynamic sealing pressure for case #RCF and case #SFCF, respectively. Based on the results, the combination of both rubber and synthetic fiber with fine particles of cellulose fiber (case #RCF and case #SFCF) resulted in providing higher sealing pressures for the fracture compared to their individual use. The fiber cellulose increases the maximum sealing pressure of rubber case #3 and synthetic fiber case #4 from 1170 and 619 psi to 1572 psi and 763 psi, respectively. According to the results, adding the fine particles into the blends and widening the particle size distribution range also increases the rate of fracture sealing, and reduces the total fluid loss at both low and high pressures. Also, the use of cellulose fiber particles decreases the loss volume per cycle in comparison to the cellulose fiber-free cases. Maximum sealing pressure among all the cases studied is obtained by the synergic use of rubber and cellulose fiber. Thus, cellulose fiber can be used as a supporting agent for the deformable additives to increase the sealing resistivity against pressure.

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for rubber case #3 and case #RCF in the presence of 1 mm fracture width.

Dynamic sealing pressure plot for synthetic fiber case #4 and case #SFCF (1 mm fracture width).

In general, the selection of type, concentration, and particle size of LCMs needs an estimate of the average size of fractures and drilling conditions. First, the intensity of lost circulation is checked by placing the drilling bit on top of the loss zone. Then, the designed LCMs are added to the drilling fluid, and the rate of mud loss is monitored until the plug is formed in the fractures. The optimal particle size can be corrected based on the changes in fluid loss intensity. These deformable LCMs have fewer operational limitations than other type of conventional LCM. in high concentrations, Due to the flexibility of these LCMs, the possibility of plugging the nozzles of drilling bit and other possible restrictions is reduced.

In this experimental study, the evaluation of rubber and synthetic fiber for fracture sealing and the effect of PSD on the performance of these two deformable LCMs was done. In addition to the LCM type, the effects of other factors, including different formulations of the PSD, LCMs combination, fracture width (1000 and 2000 microns), temperature (30 °C and 80 °C), and adding fine particles on LCMs treatment were studied. A total of 40 tests were conducted using the low-pressure fluid loss to optimize the PSD, and the best results were evaluated for fracture sealing with a high-pressure apparatus. From the testing results, the following are concluded:

PSD has a very significant effect on fracture sealing; therefore, optimizing the PSD is the key factor in LCM efficiency.

Synthetic fiber has a higher rate of sealing fracture and less fluid loss compared to rubber blends, but the sealing pressure for rubber is significantly higher. Therefore, the proper combination of these two materials will give better results.

Rubber has a better performance than synthetic fiber in controlling lost circulation at high temperatures.

The optimal combination of rubber and synthetic fiber increases the sealing pressure and reduces the amount of fluid loss.

Widening the PSD range by adding fine particles of cellulose fiber (smaller than 297 µm) to the blends increases the sealing pressure and the rate of fracture sealing.

According to the results, the effect of increasing the fracture width can be reduced by proper selection of particle size distribution and optimal LCM composition.

Individuals with a vested interest can seek permission to obtain the data directly from the corresponding author.

Shokry, A., Basfar, S. & Elkatatny, S. Evaluation of using micronized saudi calcite in ilmenite-weighted water-based drilling fluid. Sci. Rep. 14, 12777. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63839-6 (2024).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Nazemi, R., Ashoori, S. & Moghadasi, J. Experimental investigation of hybrid gel performance in order to control fluid loss in fractured formations. J. Pet. Res. 32(1401–6), 22–36 (2023).

CAS Google Scholar

Nooripoor, V., Nazemi, R. & Hashemi, A. Employing nano-sized additives as filtration control agent in water-based drilling fluids: study on barium sulfate, bentonite, surface-modified bentonite, titanium oxide, and silicon oxide. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1805049 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Nazemi, R., Ashoori, S. & Moghadasi, J. Investigating the performance of non-damaging hybrid gel to mitigate lost circulation in fractured formations: A comprehensive study using Box–Behnken design. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 226, 211730 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Ashoori, S., Bahari Moghadam, M., Nazemi, R., Nooripoor, V. & Ahmadabadi, M. Dynamically evaluating the performance of naturally occurring additives to control lost circulation: On the effect of lost circulation material type, particle-size distribution, and fracture width. SPE J. 27(05), 2590–2612 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Nasiri, A., Ghaffarkhah, A., Moraveji, M. K., Gharbanian, A. & Valizadeh, M. Experimental and field test analysis of different loss control materials for combating lost circulation in bentonite mud. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 44, 1–8 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Basfar, S. & Elkatatny, S. Micronized calcium carbonate to enhance water-based drilling fluid properties. Sci. Rep. 13, 18295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45776-y (2023).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Luzardo, J., Oliveira, E. P., Derks, P. W. J., Nascimento, R. V., Gramatges, A. P., Valle, R., & Inderberg, K. Alternative lost circulation material for depleted reservoirs. In OTC Brasil. Offshore Technology Conference (2015).

Majid, N. F. F. et al. A comprehensive investigation on the performance of durian rind as a lost circulation material in water-based drilling mud. Petroleum 5(3), 285–294 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Pilehvari, A. A. & Nyshadham, V. R. Effect of Material Type and Size Distribution on Performance of Loss/Seepage Control Material (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2002).

Book Google Scholar

Iscan, A. G. & Kok, M. V. Effects of walnut shells on the rheological properties of water-based drilling fluids. Energy Sources Part A 29(11), 1061–1068 (2007).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Kang, Y., Yu, H., Xu, C. & Tang, L. An optimal design for millimeter-wide facture plugging zone. Nat. Gas Ind. B 2(1), 113–119 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Xu, C., Kang, Y., You, L., Li, S. & Chen, F. High-strength, high-stability pill system to prevent lost circulation. In International Petroleum Technology Conference (2013).

Kumar, A. & Savari, S. Lost circulation control and wellbore strengthening: looking beyond particle size distribution. In AADE-11 NTCE-21, AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 12–14 April (2011).

Mostafavi, V., Hareland, G., Belayneh, M. & Aadnoy, B. S. Experimental and mechanistic modeling of fracture sealing resistance with respect to fluid and fracture properties. In ARMA 11-198, 45th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, USA, 26–29 June (2011).

Abrams, A. Mud design to minimize rock impairment due to particle invasion. J. Pet. Technol. 29(05), 586–592 (1977).

Article Google Scholar

Dick, M., Heinz, T., Svoboda, C. & Aston, M. Optimizing the Selection of Bridging Particles for Reservoir Drilling Fluids (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000).

Book Google Scholar

Vickers, S., Cowie, M., Jones, T. & Twynam, A. J. A new methodology that surpasses current bridging theories to efficiently seal a varied pore throat distribution as found in natural reservoir formations. Wiert. Nafta Gaz 23(1), 501–515 (2006).

Google Scholar

Whitfill, D. Lost circulation material selection, particle size distribution and fracture modeling with fracture simulation software. In IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers (2008).

Al-saba, M. T., Nygaard, R., Saasen, A. & Nes, O. M. Lost circulation materials capability of sealing wide fractures. In SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers (2014).

Al-saba, M. T., Nygaard, R. & Saasen, A. Laboratory evaluation of sealing wide fractures using conventional lost circulation materials. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014).

Akhtarmanesh, S., Al-Saba, M., Cedola, A. E., Qader, R., Caldarola, V. T., Hareland, G. & Nygaard, R. Barite nano-micro particles with LCM seals fractured form better in weighted water-based drilling fluids. In ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium ARMA-2016 (ARMA, 2016).

Ramasamy, J. & Amanullah, M. Novel Fibrous Lost Circulation Materials Derived from Deceased Date Tree Waste (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2017).

Book Google Scholar

Savari, S., Whitfill, D. L. & Walker, J. Acid-soluble lost circulation material for use in large, naturally fractured formations and reservoirs. In SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2017).

Wang, H. et al. Best practice in understanding and managing lost circulation challenges. SPE Drill. Complet. 23, 168–175. https://doi.org/10.2118/95895-PA (2008).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Alsaba, M., Nygaard, R. & Hareland, G. Review of lost circulation materials and treatments with an updated classification. In AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Apr 15–16 (2014).

Al-Azmi, B., Al-Mayyan, H., Al-Saleh, F., Godara, V., Panchal, R., Kosandar, B. & Samir, A. A cross-link polymer sealant for curing severe lost circulation events in fractured limestone formations. In SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014).

Jiang, G., Deng, Z., He, Y., Li, Z. & Ni, X. Cross-linked polyacrylamide gel as loss circulation materials for combating lost circulation in high temperature well drilling operation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 181, 106250 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Nazemi, R., Moghadasi, J. & Ashoori, S. Design and experimental study on rheological behavior and sealing performance of shear sensitive fluids to control lost circulation during drilling. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 237, 212830 (2024).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Harrison, T. F. Practical Approaches for Solving Lost Circulation Problems while Drilling. Doctoral dissertation (2011).

Saasen, A. et al. Permanent abandonment of a north sea well using unconsolidated well plugging material. SPE Drill. Complet. 26, 371–375. https://doi.org/10.2118/133446-PA (2011).

Article Google Scholar

Fidan, E., Babadagli, T. & Kuru, E. Use of cement as lost-circulation material: Best practices. In PETSOC-2004-090, Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 8–10 June. https://doi.org/10.2118/2004 (2004).

Mata, F. & Veiga, M. Crosslinked cements solve lost circulation problems. In SPE 90496, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26–29 September. https://doi.org/10.2118/90496-MS (2004).

Jadhav, R. & Patil, S. Acid-soluble thixotropic cement system for lost circulation challenges. In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers (2018) ‏‏

Mansour, A. K. & Taleghani, A. D. Smart loss circulation materials for drilling highly fractured zones. In SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2018).

Samuel, M., Marcinew, R., Al-Harbi, M., Samuel, E., Xiao, Z., Ezzat, A. M. & Nasr-El-Din, H. A. A new solids-free non-damaging high temperature lost-circulation pill: development and first field applications. In SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference SPE-81494 (SPE, 2003).

Whitfill, D. L. & Wang, H. Making economic decisions to mitigate lost circulation. In SPE 95561, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9–12 October. https://doi.org/10.2118/95561-MS (2005).

Wang, H. Is it really possible to efficiently form a strong seal inside subterranean openings without knowing their shape and size? In AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, Vol. 2011, 12–14 (2016).

Collins, N., Whitfill, D., Kharitonov, A. & Miller, M. Comprehensive approach to severe loss circulation problems in Russia. In SPE 135704, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia (2010).

Savari, S., Whitfill, D. L. & Scorsone, J. T. Next-generation, right-angle-setting composition for eliminating total lost circulation. In SPE 166697, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 7–9 October (2013).

Saasen, A., Godey, R., Breivik, D.H., Solvang, S.A., Svindland, A., Gausel, E. & Frayland, K. Concentrated solid suspension as an alternative to cements for temporary abandonment applications in oil wells. In SPE SA-34, SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 15–17 May (2004).

Lewis, S., Tambe, R., Dumbre, M., Ahuja, G. & Sharma, A. Evaluation of LCMs in cement to seal wide natural fractures. In SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2017).

Zhang, H. & Jiang, G. A self-breaking supramolecular plugging system as lost circulation material in oilfield. Open Chem. 18(1), 757–763 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Zhong, H. et al. Mitigation of lost circulation in oil-based drilling fluids using oil absorbent polymers. Materials 11(10), 2020 (2018).

Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Ahwaz Faculty of Petroleum, Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Ahwaz, Iran

Rasoul Nazemi, Ghasem Zargar & Vahid Nooripoor

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

R.N.: Conceptualization, wrote the main manuscript, experimental investigation, analyzing data. G.Z.: Conceptualization, analyzing data, validation. V.N.: wrote the main manuscript, experimental investigation, validation. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Correspondence to Ghasem Zargar.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Nazemi, R., Zargar, G. & Nooripoor, V. Experimental investigation of deformable additives as loss circulation control agent during drilling and well construction. Sci Rep 14, 30423 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66208-5

Download citation

Received: 05 January 2024

Accepted: 28 June 2024

Published: 06 December 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66208-5

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative