AADE-11-NTCE-50

Scavenger Slurries: Recycling Vintage Technology for Improved Zonal Isolation and Economic
Optimization
Debby Duckworth, Baker Hughes, Inc.

Copyright 2011, AADE

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2011 AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition held at the Hilton Houston North Hotel, Houston, Texas, April 12-14, 2011. This conference was
sponsored by the American Association of Drilling Engineers. The information presented in this paper does not reflect any position, claim or endorsement made or implied by the American Association of
Drilling Engineers, their officers or members. Questions concerning the content of this paper should be directed to the individual(s) listed as author(s) of this work.

Abstract
Development drilling projects operate under more
stringent economics. Any operationally sound and HSE
compliant technology that yields net savings and improved
outcomes should be investigated no matter how vintage. One
such opportunity lies in reducing behind pipe losses of oil
based mud. When oil prices rise and/or budgets are more
constrained, the ability to reclaim and recycle an expensive
commodity like oil based mud (OBM) is worth pursuing.
Additionally, this technology becomes more attractive if it is
easily implemented, economically prudent and has no adverse
effect on other phases of the drilling and completion
operations. This paper presents the challenges and rewards of
designing, implementing and evaluating the success of an
OBM recovery program through the use of vintage technology
such as scavenger slurries in two development areas, the
Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming and the north Texas Barnett
Shale. It demonstrates how vintage technology is recycled,
refined and successfully applied in todays oil and gas drilling
operations (i.e. everything old is new again.)
Introduction
The use of scavenger slurries was not new technology.
Scavengers were used for decades as spacers between the mud
and cement to minimize primary cement slurry contamination
and to displace the drilling mud from the annulus. The known
advantages of scavenger slurries included ready availability of
materials, ability to pump on the fly and make real-time
density adjustments, simplicity of design and low cost. In
many cases the engineering involved little more than loading
extra lead cement slurry and adding water to retard gel
strength development, increase the yield and attain the desired
density. Not much effort was made to understand the
properties of scavengers or to optimize their effectiveness.
Often, no post job analysis was performed to determine their
effectiveness.
In designing the scavenger systems for these development
drilling projects, several key parameters were identified and
addressed to insure the end result yielded effective mud
displacement, competent zonal isolation, adequate cement
bonding to the casing and cost effective recovery of the OBM.
These parameters included:

Determining the scavenger slurry rheologies and

properties
Testing for compatibility with the drilling mud
Optimizing scavenger slurry volume and pump rates
Modeling mud displacement efficiency and ECDs

In the Wyoming Pinedale Anticline project the wellbores

were S-shaped with <20 inclination. The productive sections
were drilled underbalanced through managed pressure drilling
(MPD) operations. Care was taken to minimize losses while
controlling gas flow. The shale intervals were sensitive to
fresh water and subject to sloughing. The advantages of
drilling with OBM not only included greater ROPs and
reduced washouts but also clay control and maintaining hole
stability. The shales were not productive zones but rather
lenses between multiple pay zones extending across a vertical
section 6,000 8,000 in length. Behind pipe losses of OBM
averaged 150-200 bbls per well.
In North Texas, the wells were drilled horizontally with
4,000 laterals (85 - 95 inclination). The density of the
OBM was low (8.7 9.2 ppg) due to weak zones up hole and
low pay zone frac gradients. While heavier muds provided
better solids removal, the equivalent circulating densities
(ECDs) generated by denser fluids during the drilling
operations could fracture and damage the productive zones.
These same reservoir conditions required the spacer and
cement densities to be reduced as well. Loss of returns during
cementing compromised the actual cement tops and adversely
affected completion operations in the productive shale
intervals. Most of the North Texas area operators used
inexpensive water based drilling fluids but some discovered
that oil based mud could be used to reduce drilling and
cementing costs by increasing ROPs and minimizing
washouts. Unfortunately these savings were reduced by the
higher costs associated with oil based drilling fluids. Behind
pipe losses on these wells ranged from 150 300 barrels
depending on the designed cement tops (TOCs).
In both areas the opportunity existed to reduce overall
drilling costs by recovering more OBM and minimizing
behind pipe losses. The recovered drilling fluid could be
reconditioned and used on future wells.

Debby Duckworth

Designing Effective OBM Scavenger Slurries

There are many excellent spacer systems available for
displacing OBM. It is generally not cost effective to pump
several hundreds of barrels of these spacers to displace all the
drilling mud in the annulus. Often the cement spacers cost
more per barrel than the drilling fluids. Scavengers become
attractive alternatives for reducing behind pipe losses.
Like all OBM spacers, the scavenger slurry spacers need to
be designed not only for cost effectiveness but to remove the
drilling fluid with minimal formation damage and leave the
casing water wet to insure the cement adequately adheres to
the casing surface. Establishing a water wet surface behind
the OBM can be difficult. Testing is required to determine the
best mixture of surfactants and solvents to be added to the
spacers and scavenger slurries. The design of effective
scavenger slurries involves understanding mud displacement
mechanics and chemistry. These are addressed in industry
standards commonly referred to as Cementing Best
Practices.
A Review of Mud Displacement Best Practices
Good mud removal and hole conditioning are keys to
successful cementing. Choosing the correct spacers and
scavenger slurries to pump ahead of the cement is critical.
The correct spacer/scavenger slurry should be designed
within the guidelines of industry recommended Cementing
Best Practices. Adhering to these guidelines is especially
critical when designing spacers and scavengers to displace oil
based drilling fluids. The following are recommended steps
for designing spacers (and scavenger slurries).
Spacers should be compatible with the preceding
fluid as determined by lab testing with actual drilling
fluid samples prior to the cementing operations
Spacers should leave the casing water wet ahead of
the cement slurry
Spacers should be densified (on average 10% heavier
or 1 ppg greater than the preceding fluid) as well
control and reservoir conditions allow.
Spacers should be designed to establish a friction
pressure hierarchy (exerting 20% greater friction
pressure than the preceding fluid)
Spacers should be capable of breaking the gel
strength of the preceding fluid throughout the annulus
Spacers should be modeled to determine optimal flow
regimes
Spacers should be of sufficient volume to allow for
the greater of 10 minutes of annular contact time or
2,000 of linear fill.
Designing OBM Scavengers for the Wyoming
Development Wells
In 2007-2009 Wyoming the operators drilled the
production string intervals with OBM that averaged $135/bbl.
By leaving 200 bbls of drilling mud behind pipe they were
throwing away $27,000.00 of reusable materials per well.
The cost savings from recovering and recycling the mud offset

AADE-11-NTCE-50

about half of the production string cementing costs. The total

savings for the annual 80 well drilling program generated
enough money to pay for the drilling and completion of an
entire well (Table 1). With this in mind the cementing service
company was challenged to come up with a cost effective
method of reducing the OBM losses. Scavenger slurries were
suggested as a possible solution.
The production string intervals were drilled with 12.5
14.0 ppg mud. There were doubts about the ability to design a
scavenger slurry that was heavy enough to displace the mud
and remain fluid. The operator questioned if the scavenger
slurry would develop early gel strength or set-up if mixed at
the densities required for effective displacement when
subjected to downhole pressures and temperatures. Another
concern was potential incompatibility between the scavenger
slurry and OBM.
Incompatibility could reduce mud
displacement efficiency and result in poor zonal isolation.
Testing commenced to determine the most effective
scavenger slurry chemistry. To avoid issues with high gel
strength and cementation the scavenger was designed using
100% flyash and water with a dispersant added to thin the
slurry and reduce the ECDs. Retarder was added to inhibit any
cementation properties the slurry exhibited. Surfactants and
gelling agents helped maintain slurry stability and left the
casing water wet while fiber and particulate material
controlled losses (LCM).
Compatibility testing was conducted with the mud after the
slurry was designed. The mud and scavenger slurry were
incompatible and created a viscous mixture. The solution was
to design a dual spacer/scavenger system. The cementing
operations initiated with 20 bbls of the conventional OBM
spacer successfully used in offset wells. This was followed by
the scavenger slurry. The fluids were mixed at the same
density (1 ppg greater than the drilling mud). The viscosity
was sufficient to break the gel strength of the mud ahead and
the total contact time exceeded 30 minutes.
The final step was to model the displacement efficiencies
and determine the pump rates which maximized the mud
removal without creating high ECDs that would fracture the
pay zones and result in losses. The modeling showed the
scavengers could not be pumped in turbulent flow without
creating excessive ECDs in the annulus. The plug flow rates
were impractical so the fluids were designed to be pumped in
laminar flow. The casing was sufficiently centralized so
effective laminar flow was achieved on both the wide and
narrow side of the annulus.
Designing Scavengers for the North Texas
Development Wells
The operators drilling with oil based drilling fluids in the
north Texas Barnett Shale wells were equally cost conscious
and actively sought technology to reduce costs without
compromising job quality. Recovering behind pipe losses was
a possible solution. The challenge to design an effective
displacement fluid was more daunting due to the lateral
extensions, the low density drilling fluids and the low frac
gradients of the producing shales.

AADE-11-NTCE-50

Scavenger Slurries: Recycling Vintage Technology for Improved Zonal Isolation and Economic Optimization

After discussing the success of the Wyoming project with

these operators, the cementing service company was asked to
provide a solution. The same three step process was used:
design the slurry, test for compatibility and model
displacement efficiency. This scavenger slurry design was
more challenging because the choice of suitable additives was
more limited and slurry settling in the lateral sections was a
concern. The low density scavenger slurry contained few
solids but high water volumes. The solids settled rapidly
which was problematic in the lateral and build sections. The
solution was to use flyash and gel as the base resulting in a
reduction of the mix water requirement and settling
tendencies. (Lightweight beads also lowered the density by
replacing some of the water content but the beads were cost
prohibitive.) Surfactants and solvents were added to water
wet the casing ahead of the cement. LCM was added as
needed based on recorded losses encountered during drilling
operations.
With the slurry design completed, compatibility testing
was conducted with the mud (Table 2). Once again the mud
and scavenger slurry were incompatible and created a viscous
mixture. The solution was to replace the current lightweight
water preflushes with the conventional OBM spacers pumped
ahead of the scavengers in Wyoming. The OBM spacer and
scavenger slurry were weighted between 9.5 9.8 ppg. Due
to the low frac gradients and a narrow ECD window, the
spacers and scavengers were only 0.5 ppg heavier than the
mud. To compensate for the diminished density and friction
pressure hierarchies the pump rates were lowered to increase
the contact time. The viscosities and rheologies of the spacer
and scavenger slurry were lower (Table 3) but still sufficient
to break the gel strength of the mud ahead as long as the mud
was sufficiently conditioned prior to the cement job.
The modeling predicted hole cleaning efficiency and
effective displacement of the drilling fluid. It also showed
pump rates in excess of plug flow would breakdown the well
towards the end of the job (Graphs 1, 2 and 3). This had been
a common problem in the offset wells and the result was low
cement tops with potential loss of pay. The jobs were
designed to be pumped at 5 bpm or less. After determining
the maximum pump rates, the scavenger was again tested to
confirm stability for longer periods of time at lower rates.
Adjustments were made as needed.
Results
Post job analysis indicated engineering and operational
successes. In Wyoming there was a 1:1 recovery ratio as
every barrel of spacer and scavenger pumped displaced a
barrel of OBM. The north Texas operators experienced full
recovery of the OBM, improved bonding, a reduction in losses
and higher cement tops.

Tables
1.

Calculated Cost Savings

(Wyoming Wells)

2.

Example of Compatibility Testing

(North Texas Wells)
BHCT = 132 F

3.

RPM

100
Mud

300
200
100
60
30
6
3

23
19
12
9
7
4.2
3.6

75:25
Mud
Spacer
45
34
21
16
11
6.9
4.8

50:50
Mud
Spacer
84
67
47
38
29
18.3
13.3

25:75
Mud
Spacer
107
95
79
72
64
42.9
29.3

100
Spacer
66
56
43
37
30
19.7
15.1

Fluid Rheologies
(North Texas Wells)
BHCT = 132 F
Fluid System
OBM
Spacer
Scavenger
Cement

Viscosity
@ 60 rpm
60
90
90
105

app @
65 sec-1
76
97
144
191

app @
82 sec-1
68
89
121
165

Debby Duckworth

Graphics

AADE-11-NTCE-50

3.

Modeling Output Flow Regimes

The graphics below illustrate the modeling of the

scavenger slurry pumped in the north Texas wells.
1.

2.

Modeling Output Displacement Efficiency

Modeling Output ECDs

Conclusions
Operators can look for answers to drilling and completion
challenges in yesterdays technology. Scavenger slurries are
one example of recycling and improving upon vintage
technology. These systems are still relevant if they are
designed and implemented for success. The process doesnt
have to be complicated but it should be engineered than just
adding water to the lead slurry. Success arises from adherence
to industry Cementing Best Practices for spacer design,
modeling to optimize displacement efficiency and creating a
dynamic plan that easily adapts to the changes in the well as
drilling progresses.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Baker Hughes Inc. for their
support in preparing and presenting this material.
Nomenclature
HSE = Health, Safety Environment
OBM = Oil Based Mud, bbls
ROP = Rate of Penetration, feet per hour or minute
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density, ppg
MPD = Managed Pressure Drilling
TOC = Top Of Cement, ft
BPM = Barrels Per Minute
LCM = Lost Circulation Material

AADE-11-NTCE-50

Scavenger Slurries: Recycling Vintage Technology for Improved Zonal Isolation and Economic Optimization

References
1. Cementious Materials for Concrete. ACI Education Bulletin
E3-01, 2001
2. Mud Displacement for Primary Cementing. Recommended
Practices Series, BJ Services, Inc.
3. Smith, Dwight K. 1990 Cementing. Monograph Series, SPE
Richardson, Texas.4.