SPE 8901

SPE
Society ofPetroletm~of AIME

FIELD EVALUATION OF SOLIDS CONTROL EQUIPMENT

by Jeffery W. Planck, IMCO Services

@Copyright 1980·
This paper was presented at the 1980 50th Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AI ME held in Los Angeles, California, April 9-11, 1980. The
material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT been cited numerous times' in trade publica-

tions 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, Despite this, a con-
Programs for field evaluation of solids scious, deliberate plan for solids control at
control equipment have been developed for a the field level receives only sporadic con
hand-held programmable calculator. The eval- cern. Perhaps this lack of concern stems
uation yields significant information using from old ideas combined with no easy field-
typical field equipment. hand method of evaluating the equipment at
the rigsite. Old ideas are hard to change,
Such an analysis is useful for economic however, rigsite data usage has increased
decisions at the wellsite, regarding a water with the widespread acceptance and use of
based drilling fluid, when equipment effi- hand-held programmable calculators.
ciency is a consideration. Such economic con-
siderations as barite loss, expensive fluid There have been manyl attempts to evalu-
phase loss, and actual cleaning efficiency of ate "efficiency" of solids control equipment
equipment (to determine if adjustments are in the field. Some of these have been non-
needed) can be done in the field. The pro- field usable, requiring tests and equipment
gram is easily adjusted for brine systems and that would require a mobile laboratory, or,
can be designed for a specific fluid on a those which would have us try to estimate
specific well. Examples are included herein, parameters (only known by log analysis at the
as well as the formulas used (for a fresh end of a well) as constant variables while
water system) and wellsite testing procedures. drilling. As once stated', " ... Simplicity
is the key to (solids control) equipment
Program input data reflect density, rate, use ... " 6 Simplicity is also a key to field
and component percentage. The output data evaluation of solids control equipment.
yields total solids removed (in pounds per
hour), average specific gravity of the solids, A program designed for a Texas Instru-
the percent and amount (in pounds per hour) of ments Model 59 calculator (program steps in
high and low gravity solids, and the amount of Appendix C), using field applicable equations
fluid lost (in barrels per hour). to evaluate solids control equipment is pre-
sented here. It requires input data which
INTRODUCTION can be obtained using equIpment normally
found at the rigsite and in the mud test kit
Solids control is basic to any drilling carried by a drilling fluid service company
fluid system. The cleaner a fluid is kept, representative. The calculated output gives
the more functional it is. In many cases, usable information to evaluate performance of
adequate solids control reduces the chances mechanical solids control equipment.
of stuck drill pipe and loss of circulation,
and reduces the operating cost of maintaining PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
the system. Reduction of fluid maintenance
costs, improved penetration rates leading to Data Gathering. For, the most useful
reduction of rig operating time cost, and re field appllcatlon, the data for the program
duction of the chances of fluid-related drill- input can be generated using common rigsite
ing hazards by controlling drill solids has equinment The input information required
are a rnu~ weight, percent by volume of liquid
and solids, and a rate of discharge flow.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
 FIELD EVALUATION OF SOLIDS CONTROL EOUIPMENT
Input 1, the mud weight, in pounds per Total Solids Removed (bbl/hr). The
gallon (lb/gal), ca~ be measured using a mud Total Sollds Removed is a functlon of mud den-
balance (a true-weight type balance is prefer- sity and processing rate. The equation for a
red if available). Inputs 2 and 3, the per- fresh water system is:
cent by volume of the liquid and solids, re-
spectively, can be determined by retorting TSR = [D-(8.34 x VuJ xC . . . (1)
the mud. If an unweighted system is being R
used, the solids will be all low gravity, and
a chart, such as Figure 1, may be used to The conversion factor (C) is dependent
determine the percent solids by volume. on the rate of discharge flow. If the rate is
observed in sec/qt, C=900. If the rate is ob-
Input 4, the most important, and often served in sec/5gal, C=1800.
the most difficult, data to obtain is the ratE
of discharge flow. On location the two most Average SpeCific Gravitt (SIT). The
readily available containers are a mud cup ane Average Specific Gravlty of t e suspended sol-
a 5-gallon bucket. Either may be used (or an' ids can be estimated if the specific gravity
calibrated container), depending on the vol of the liquid is known, the percent (by vol-
ume of flow of material. Using a stopwatch, ume) of liquid and solids are known, and the
the rate is measured in seconds per unit vol- mud weight is known. For a fresh water sys-
ume (e.g. sec/qt, sec/5gallons, etc.). tem, the equation is:
Naturally, the accuracy of the results i~
dependent on the accuracy of the input data. . . • . . . . • • (2)
Other data needed to insure the most reliable
results are the specific gravity of the make-
#lP water, the salt content of the mud, and thE or,
oil content of the mud. Adjustments in the
program's calculations can be made to accomo- "S"G" = D (8.34 x VL) . . . . (3)
date any deviation of the fluid attributed to (8.34 x VS)
these factors.
Output. The output is a calculation of Solids Percent b~ Weight. If we assume
that all of the suspen ed SOllds are either
total solids removed (lb/hr) and the average high gravity barite (+ 4.3 sg), or low gravity
specific gravity of the suspended solids, the drill solids and bentonite (+ 2.6 sg), then
percentages and amounts (lb/hr) of the high the percent by weight of low-gravity solids
and low gravity solids being discarded, and can be found by the equation:
the volume of fluid (bbl/hr) involved. Fig-
ures 2.and 4 illustrate 'examples of input dat~
and output generated by the program. LG(%wt) = 4.3 - SG x 100
T.7f1S . . . . . (4)
Figure 2(a) and (b) illustrate the "DATA The percent by weight of high gravity
ERROR" feature of the program when a printer solids may be determined by subtracting the
is used. If this occurs, it means that the low gravity solids percent by weight from
percent by volume of the liquid/solids, deter 100%, or:
mined by the retort, is in error and should bE
re-tested. The program calls for a test of HG(%wt) = 100 LG(%wt) . . . . . (5)
the calculated average specific gravity of
suspended solids to see if it falls between Solids Removed (lb/hr). Since the total
2.5 and 4.3, the programmed lower and upper solids removed (lb/hr), and the respective
limits of the solids involved. If the calcu- percentages of low and high gravity solids by
lated value of the average specific gravity weight are known, the equations for finding
falls within this range, the rest of the cal- the removal of each component are:
culations proceed as programmed. If the valu(
of the average specific gravity falls outside LGSR = TSR x LG . . (6)
this range, "DATA ERROR" is printed out and
the program stops. (If a printer is not be- and,
ing used, 0.00 will flash in the display if
this condition occurs.) HGSR TSR x HG . . . . . . . . (7)
CALCULATIONS or,
The calculations contained in this sec- HGSR = TSR - LGSR . . . . . . . . (8)
tion are in American units and for a fresh
water system containing no (or minimal) salt, Fluid Discharged (bbl/hr). Using the
and no oil. (For convenience. equations for rate in seconds per unit measure, and the per-
SI/Metric units are found in Appendix B.) If cent by volume of liquid (VL), the fluid dis
the fluid being evaluated contains appreciabl( charged by the equipment can be found by the
salt, the density (specific gravity) of the equation:
fluid must be substituted in these equations,
and in the associated program steps, and the FD = 3600 x VI. . . . . . . . . . . (9)
retort readings must be corrected before en- R x Cv
tering the data.

2
 J W. PLANCK
Cv , the conversion factor for volume would indicate the accuracy and, hence,
units, is dependent on the unit measure of thE the usefulness of this method of field
rate of discharge flow. For example, if the evaluation.
unit measure is a quart, then Cv = 168. If
the unit measure is five gallons, then Cv =
8.4. Exam¥le 2. The data illustrated in Fig-
ure 4 is rom a more recent southern Califor-
EXAMPLE DATA and INTERPRETATION nia well. Again, it is data gathered from the
underflow of a desilter, however, the desilteI
Example 1. Figure 2(c) illustrates data is of a different design than the one investi
from the underflow of a desilter on a well in gated above. Due to the large differences in
south-central Texas, using a fresh water sys- the discharge flow rates, the rate could not
tem with a mud weight of + 9.6 lb/gal. The be averaged. Therefore, each "functioning"
input data gathered was: -mud weight (under- cone was analyzed separately and the results
flow) = 10.6 lb/gal (using a mud balance), a added to give a more accurate quantitative
liquid/solids percentage of 85/15 (using a analysis. This was an unweighted fresh water
20ccretort), and rate of 3 sec/qt (averaged system (flowline mud weight + 9.6 lb/gal).
for 6 cones). The calculated output yielded The fluid discharge, with thIs design, is low
a total solids removal of 1053 lbs/hr with an (+ 43 BBL/Day). It is interesting to note
average specific gravity of 2.81. The barite, that the longer the discharge rate (R), the
or high gravity solids, contained in the dis- higher the discharged mud weight (D), and,
charge, was 13%, or an hourly loss of 137.4 therefore, the higher the percentage of sol-
lbs/hr. The low gravity solids in the same ids.
discharge was 87%, or almost 916 lbs/hr.
Fluid was being discharged at the rate of Observation. Both of these examples were
6 bbl/hr. Interpreting this, yields the fol taken from mud systems which encountered a
lowing information: solids problem. The first example became
severe when the desilting unit was turned off
1. The barite discarded by the desilter (a week after the analysis) when a predeter-
was amounting to + 33 sacks per day, mined mud weight was reached. The hole was
not much, considering that the unit difficult to control, tight spots were normal,
was also discarding almost 11 tons and the mud bill escalated.
of low gravity solids. (Of course.
one would expect the percentage of The second example had a severe mud
barite to increase with increasing weight increase prior to the analysis, re-
mud weight.) quiring a 35% dilution of the system to con-
trol. Although the unit discarded over
2. A fluid discharge of 6 bbl/hr was 11,000 pounds of solids, over 55,000 pounds
substantial. Indeed, such a loss had been generated (based on hole size and
would require + 144 bbl of fluid to drill rate). Naturally, even assuming 30%
be replaced per day. Sometime later removal by the shale shaker, this reSUlted in
most of this fluid was being recover an unwanted increase in mud weight. The dilu
ed through a 120 mesh screen instal- tion provided a temporary solution. The manu
led below the cones. However, if an facturer of the unit, the day following the
expensive fluid phase was being used analysis, plugged off the cone illustrated in
or the availability of water had beer Figure 4(a), claiming it was throwing away
an issue, this rate of fluid loss whole mud. It may have appeared that way,
would be intolerable in cost to the however, this contention was not substantiatec
operator (through mud maintenance or by this investigation. In fact, that one
trucking cost). Even in this situa- cone, although discharging more fluid, was
tion, cost of dilution maintenance eliminating one half of the total solids re-
of the system, from allowing the 11 moved by the entire unit. Further, calcula-
tons of solids per day to remain in tions showed that the fluid discharged would
the mud should the operator shut only amount to + 30 BBL/Day. This would not
down the unit, must be a considera- appear significant in view of the massive
tion. (This build-up of solids dilutions and throwing away (or storing) of
would also contribute to intangible usable mud in preceeding days.
costs by increasing the chances of
sticking the pipe and other related CONCLUSION
problems.) Skimming water off the
top of the reserve pit, or using a Solids control in drilling fluids is too
hydrocyclone/screen "mud cleaner" important to leave decisions of equipment use
type apparatus would seem a better to arbitrary, or unsubstantiated, reasoning.
alternative than shuting down the Presented here is a viable field method of
equipment. evaluating solids control equipment. A fair-
ly accurate, and rapid, evaluation of the sol-
3. An X-ray analysis was run on a samplE ids control equipment can be made, using a
of solids from the discharge evalu- programmable calculator and common rigsite
ated that day. The analysis is equipment.
shown in Figure 3. The comparison
of calculated values, with the val- The information obtained using this meth-
ues derived from the X-ray analysis, od should be evaluated objectively, weighing

3
 FIELD EVAT.TTATTON OF SOLIDS 1'1.K HI I-'MHN'

both the positive and negative aspects of the APPENDIX A

use of the equipment in question. A simple
adjustment in feed pressure, or cleaning of User Instructions
the equipment may be all that is needed to
keep the mud system clean and/or reduce un- The program is designed to be user
necessary waste. Perhaps a different appli- oriented. 7 Once the program has been placed
cation or a different type cleaning unit is into the calculator, the order of input and
warranted. This evaluation method and pro- output values are the same, whether or not a
gram can give the operator needed information printer is being used.
to help make these decisions.
User Defined Keys
NOMENCLATURE
KEY A~ Initiates data entrY for_the program
BBL barrels KEY D: Executes program for display output,
C conversion factor (for D and R units) when a printer is not being used.
Cv conversion factor (for liquid vol- KEY E: Executes program for printer output.
ume to barrels) KEY R/S: Used to enter data, or, if a print-
D discharge mud weight in Ib/gal er is not being used, to retrieve
FD fluid discharged in bbl/hr calculated output.
HG % by weight high gravity solids
HGSR - high gravity solids removed (lb/hr) Input Data
LG % by weight low gravity solids
LGSR low gravity solids removed (lb/hr) Display Enter
R rate in seconds/unit measure of dis
charge flow 1.0 Discharge Mud Weight (lb/gal)
SG average specific gravity (also xSG) 2.0 % by Volume Liquid (from retort)
TSR total solids removed (lb/hr) 3.0 % by Volume Solids (from retort)
VL % by volume liquid 4 0 Rate (sec/unit volume) of Discharge
Flow
Vs % by volume solids
Output
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Order Display Value
The author wishes to express his appre
ciation to the management of IMCO Services 1 TSR: Total Solids Removed (lb/hr)
for permission to publish this paper. 2 5tSG: Average Specific Gravity
3 %HG: % by Weight High Gravity
REFERENCES Solids
4 %LG: % by Weight Low Gravity
1. API: "Drilling Fluids Processing Equip- Solids
ment", Bulletin 13C. First Edition, 5 HGSR: High Gravity Solids Removed
1974. (lb/hr)
2. Robinson, L. H., and Heilhecker, "Solids 6 LGSR~ Low Gravity Solids Removed
Control in Weighted Drilling Fluids," (lb/hr)
SPE paper 4644 presented at 48th Annual 7 BBL: Amount of Fluid Discharged
Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.30· Oct. (bbl/hr)
3, 1973.
3. Sharples, Virginia M., and Nance, Gary If the printer is used, the information
W., "New Computer Model Optimizes Solids will be printed out, with the underlined ab-
Control," SPE paper 8227 presented at breviations above, labeling the value. If a
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, printer is not used. the calculated values
Sept. 23-26, 1979. will appear in the same order as listed a-
4. Patel, Jay and Steinhauser, John, "A bove in the display. Each value will remain
Material Balance Method to Evaluate in the display unitl the R/S KEY is depressed.
Drill-Fluid Solids Removal Equipment," This gives the operator time to record the
Petroleum Engineer International (March, information.
1979) 86-94.
5. Ormsby, George S.: "Proper Rigging APPENDIX B
Boosts Efficiency of Solids-Removing
Equipment", The Oil and Gas Journal SI Metric Equations
(March 12, 1973) 120-132.
6. Ormsby, George S.: I!Mud System Mani- For convenience, the equations used in
folds: Improve Them or Eliminate Them," the text are transposed here to SI Metric
The Oil and Gas Journal (Apr. 4, 1977) equivalents.
135-141.
7. Bleier, Roger: "Programmable Calcula- Total Solids Removed
tors and the Oil Field," Petroleum
Engineer (Sept., 1978). 72-104 TSR = [D-(lOOOXVL)] xC . . . . . (Bl)
R

4
 J W PLANCK

where: High Gravity solids

TSR total solids removed in kg/hr HG ; 100-LG . . . . . . . . . (B4)
D density of mud (in kg/m 3 ) of dis
charge where:
VL % by volume liquid
C conversion factor HG high gravity solids (% by weight)
R rate in sec/unit measure of dis LG low gravity solids (% by weight)
charge flow
Solids Removed
The conversion factor, C, is dependent on the
rate of discharge flow. For instance if the LGS TSR x LG • CBS)
rate is in sec/liter, C;3.6. If the rate is and
in sec/m3, C=3,600. HGS TSR x HG • (B6)

Average Relative Density where:

KIT (DxlO- 3 ) - VL . (B2) LGS low gravity solids removed in
Vs kg/hr
HGS high gravity solids removed in
where: kg/hr
TSR total solids removed in kg/hr
RIT average relative density LG % by weight low gravity solids
D density of mud in kg/m3 HG % by weight high gravity solids
VL ; % by volume liquid
Vs '" % by volume solids Fluid Discharged
Solids Percent by Weight FD 3600 x VL . . . . . . . . . CB7)
Low Gravity Solids R x CV
LG ; 4. 3-RIT x 100 . . . . . . (B3) where:
1.7175
FD fluid discharged in m3/hr
where: VL % by volume liquid
R rate in sec/unit measure of dis-
LG low gravity solids (% by weight) charge flow
RU average relative density Cv conversion factor for volume units
CV, the conversion factor for volume units,
is dependent on the unit measure of the rate
of discharge flow. For example, if the unit
measure is a liter, then CV = 1000.
APPENDIX C
Program for Fresh Water System using R=Sec/Ot

LOC CD .KEY LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY
- - - - - - - -
000 76 LBL 050 00 0 100 15 E 150 00 0 200 02 2
001 11 A 051 00 0 101 98 ADV 151 00 0 201 03 3
002 58 FIX 052 00 0 102 98 ADV 152 00 0 202 02 2
003 00 00 053 69 OP 103 98 ADV 153 06 6 203 02 2
004 25 CLR 054 04 04 104 71 SBR 154 01 1 204 03 3
005 69 OP 055 69 OP 105 02 02 155 02 2 205 06 6
066 00 00 056 05 05 106 93 93 156 03 3 206 03 3
007 00 0 057 98 ADV 107 25 CLR 157 02 2 207 05 5
008 00 0 058 98 ADV 108 69 OP 158 02 2 208 69 OP
009 00 0 059 58 FIX 109 00 00 159 69 OP 209 04 04
010 00 0 060 01 01 110 00 0 160 04 04 010 43 RCL
011 00 0 061 01 1 111 00 0 161 43 RCL 211 16 16
012 00 0 062 99 PRT 112 00 0 162 14 14 212 69 OP
013 03 3 063 91 RIS 113 00 0 163 65 X 213 06 06
014 06 6 064 42 STO 114 03 3 164 01 1 214 25 CLR
015 03 3 065 01 01 115 07 7 165 00 0 215 69 OP
016 02 2 066 99 PRT 116 03 3 166 00 0 216 00 00
017 69 OP 067 98 ADV 117 06 6 167 95 217 02 2
018 01 01 068 02 2 118 03 3 168 69 OP 218 07 7
019 02 2 069 99 PRT 119 05 5 169 06 06 219 02 2
027 07 7 070 91 Rls 120 69 OP 170 25 CLR 220 07 7
021 02 2 071 99 PRT 121 04 04 171 69 OP 221 02 2
022 04 4 072 55 t 122 43 RCL 172 00 00 222 02 2
023 01 1 073 01 1 123 11 11 173 00 0 223 03 3
024 06 6 074 00 0 124 69 OP 174 00 0 224 06 6
025 03 3 075 00 0 125 06 06 175 00 0 225 03 3
026 06 6 076 95 126 25 CLR 176 00 0 226 05 5
 APPENDIX C (Cant.)

LOC CD KEY
- - LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY LOC CD KEY
- - - - - -
250 17 17 300 03 3 350 12 12 400 65 X 450 69 OP
251 69 OP 301 04 4 351 32 X~T 401 01 1 451 05 05
252 06 06 302 95 352 04 4 402 06 6 452 98 ADV
253 98 ADV 303 42 STO 353 93 403 08 8 453 98 ADV
254 98 ADV 304 09 09 354 03 3 404 95 454 98 ADV
255 98 ADV 305 43 RCL 355 22 INV 405 55 455 91 R/S
256 91 R/S 306 01 01 356 77 GF. 406 03 3
257 76 LBL 307 75 357 10 E' 407 06 6
258 14 D 308 43 RCL 358 04 4 408 00 0
259 71 SBR 309 09 09 359 93 409 00 0
260 02 02 310 95 360 03 3 410 95
261 93 93 311 42 STO 361 75 411 35 l/X
262 43 RCL 312 10 10 362 43 RCL 412 65 X
263 11 11 313 43 RCL 363 12 12 413 43 RCL
264 91 R/S 314 10 10 364 95 414 02 02
265 43 RCL 315 65 X 365 55 f 415 95
266 12 12 316 09 9 366 01 1 416 42 STO
267 91 R/S 317 00 0 367 93 417 17 17
268 43 RCL 318 00 0 368 07 7 418 58 FIX
269 14 14 319 95 369 01 1 419 02 02
270 65 X 320 55 f 370 07 7 420 92 RTN
271 01 1 321 43 RCL 371 05 5 421 76 LBL
272 00 0 322 04 04 372 95 422 10 E'
273 00 0 323 95 373 42 STO 423 25 CLR
274 95 324 42 STO 374 13 13 424 69 OP
275 91 R/S 325 11 11 375 01 1 425 00 00
276 43 RCL 326 43 RCL 376 75 426 01 1
277 13 13 327 03 03 377 43 RCL 427 06 6
278 65 X 328 65 X 378 13 13 428 01 1
279 01 1 329 08 8 379 95 429 03 3
280 00 0 330 93 380 42 STo 430 03 3
281 00 0 331 03 3 381 14 14 431 07 7
282 95 332 04 4 382 43 RCL 432 01 1
283 91 R/S 333 95 383 11 11 433 03 3
284 43 RCL 334 35 l/X 384 65 X 434 00 0
285 16 16 335 65 X 385 43 RCL 435 00 0
286 91 R/S 336 43 RCL 386 13 13 436 69 OP
287 43 RCL 337 10 10 387 95 437 02 02
288 15 15 338 95 388 42 STO 438 01 1
289 91 R/S 339 42 STO 389 15 15 439 07 7
290 43 RCL 340 12 12 390 43 RCL 440 03 3
291 17 17 341 43 RCL 391 11 11 441 05 5
292 91 R/S 342 12 12 392 65 X 442 03 3
293 58 FIX 343 32 X~T 393 43 RCL 443 05 5
294 02 02 344 02 i 394 14 14 444 03 3
295 43 RCL 345 93 395 95 445 02 2
296 02 02 346 05 5 396 42 STO 446 03 3
297 65 X 347 77 GE 397 16 16 447 05 5
298 08 8 348 10 E' 398 43 RCL 448 69 OP
299 93 349 43 RCL 399 04 04 449 03 03
027 00 0 077 42 STO 127 69 OP 177 06 6 227 69 OP
028 00 0 078 02 02 128 00 00 178 01 1 228 04 04
029 69 OP 079 98 ADV 129 00 0 179 02 2 229 43 RCL
030 02 02 080 03 3 130 00 0 180 07 7 230 15 15
031 01 1 081 99 PRT 131 00 0 181 02 2 231 69 OP
032 03 3 082 91 R/S 132 00 0 182 02 2 232 06 06
033 03 3 083 99 PRT 133 06 6 183 69 OP 233 98 ADV
034 01 1 084 55 134 07 7 184 04 04 234 25 CLR
035 01 1 085 01 1 135 03 3 185 43 RCL 235 69 OP
036 03 3 086 00 0 136 06 6 186 13 13 236 00 00
037 02 2 087 00 0 137 02 2 187 65 X 237 00 0
038 07 7 088 95 138 02 2 188 01 1 238 00 0
039 04 4 089 42 STO 139 69 OP 189 00 0 239 00 0
040 05 5 090 03 03 140 04 04 190 00 0 240 00 0
041 69 OP 091 98 ADV 141 43 RCL 191 95 241 01 1
042 03 03 092 04 4 142 12 12 192 69 OP 242 04 4
043 03 3 093 99 PRT 143' 69 OP 193 06 06 243 01 1
044 06 6 094 91 R/S 144 06 06 194 98 ADV 244 04 4
045 02 2 095 42 STO 145 98 ADV 195 25 CLR 245 02 2
046 04 4 096 04 04 146 25 CLR 196 69 OP 246 07 7
047 03 3 097 99 PRT 147 69 OP 197 00 00 247 69 OP
048 06 6 098 91 R/S 148 00 00 198 02 2 248 04 04
049 00 0 099 76 LBL 149 00 0 199 03 3 249 43 RCL
 V
60
/
7
/
~so
7
§;
~
/'
~
.... 40 ~~
.. A~ ~
,,~~
r
.~J)
20 ~(' ~
0.~

;-
/'
10 /
V
o I I . •.. I . I • I I I I I • I
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
MUD WEIGHT --LBS/GAL
Fig. 1 - Solids content graph.
 (I
(,

(I 2N 0
·~2. I)
o
(I 3.
o
4.0 4.0
3.0 :3.0

DATR ERRiJP

(a) (b) (c 1

Fig. 2 - Examples of program use,

HYDROCYCLONE UNDERFLOW
Sample, Lavaca Co., Texas

X-Ray Analysis of TI-59 Calculated

Sample Received 8/4/78 Values

BaS04 13-17% HGS 13%

o<.-Quartz 28-30%
Feldspar 1- 2%
Calcite 0.5-1.5%
Koalini te 8-10% LGS 87%
Illite 4 - 6%
Smectite and 23 - 27',

Mixed Layered Clays

Amorphous 8.5-10.5%
Fig. 3 - Comparison of calculated values vs
X-ray analysis.

.0
5

2. o o
'"C ... ,"
'..1 o 5

:3.0
.5 "3tf~5

4. 4. 4.0
14.5 13010; 0

257 25 28 70
62 2.58

o~ 06
99~ 94

4.95 HGSF' C.05

252. ;11) LGSK 94.65

88l 8BL {i. 88L

CONE 1 CONE CONE 3 Cone 4

Fig. 4 - Data from Southern California well.