Abstract
Abstract I would like to comment on three oil-mud papers: "Behavior of Oil Muds During Drilling Operations," "Low-Toxicity Oil Muds: A Knowledge of Downhole Rheological Behavior Assists Successful Field Application," and "Magnesium Oil Mud Provides Gauge Hole in Bischofite/Carnallite Formations" (April 1986 SPEDE, Pages 97–106, 107–14, and 115–21, respectively). I fully agree that an oil mud is superior in drilling unstable, deviated, or water-sensitive formations. I have serious doubts, however, about the practical and economical application because of the disadvantages mentioned by most authors but not discussed enough to convince me to give up my opposition to oil-based muds (OBM's). I question the higher rate of penetration claimed for relaxed API-WL OBM's compared with water-based fluids, because the improved performance of OBM's might be largely or entirely a result of the beneficial effects of polycrystalline-diamond-compact bits, higher API-FL, lower effective bottomhole density, better lubricity (which results in higher weight on bit), higher revolutions per minute, more favorable rheological properties, and probably many more effects that cannot be recognized easily in practice. Maybe we still have our equipment for laboratory drill tests rigged up to investigate the isolated effect of OBM's while the other factors are changed one at a time.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
