Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Solids-Control Equipment
Bodil Aase, SPE, Tor Henry Omland, SPE, Ellen Katrine Jensen, Anne Turid Lian Vestbakke,
Bjarte Sivert Knudsen, Frode Haldorsen, Arvid Nysted, Eystein Ove Storslett, Iren Steinnes,
Einar Knut Eliassen, Jrund Enger, yvind Lie, and Vegard Peikli, SPE, Statoil ASA
Summary
Correct selection and use of solids-control equipment are essential
in not only maintaining drilling uid at its desired properties but
also in avoiding the generation of unnecessary waste streams dur-
ing drilling.
Since the early 1930s, the shale shaker has been the dominant
device for primary-solids removal. Additional equipment (e.g.,
desilters, desanders, and centrifuges) was often used in the past to
maintain proper solids control, but experience in recent years has
demonstrated that, although dependent on correct operational pro-
cedures, several types of shale shakers have sufcient perform-
ance to act as the sole solids-control devices without the use of
desanders and desilters.
Despite often being the only measure for solids removal, the
selection of shale shakers, the screening, and the establishment of
operational procedures are often based on biased information
(Dahl et al. 2006). In addition, it has been recognized that methods
and criteria for the verication of shale shakers have not been suf-
ciently qualied and standardized. To address this, a multidisci-
plinary verication test of various solids-control concepts has been
conducted. The objective of the test has been to verify equipment
performance in a standardized, onshore test facility related to
Oil-mist and vapor emission
Ventilation (to obtain a satisfactory working environment)
Flow-handling capacity with various drilling uids
Leakage rate (i.e., the volume of uid bypassing the ltration
screen)
Lost-circulation-material feature
Noise and vibration level
Maintenance and equipment robustness
Feature for running lost-circulation-material reclamation
The tests were all planned and run in close cooperation with
the equipment suppliers to ensure test-objective alignment. Sev-
eral ndings were made throughout the test period that provided
vital information for design improvements and increased the
industrys competence with respect to solids control.
Introduction
Drilling operations highly depend on reliable equipment to per-
form efcient drilling operations. Suitable drilling-uid quality,
efcient solids removal, and low waste production (Bouse and
Carrasquero 1992), as well as health, safety, and environment
(HSE) [especially of the working environment (WE) in the shaker
room], are all aspects relevant for the selection and skilled opera-
tion of solids-control equipment in the oil industry. Shale shaker
is referred to as shaker in the rest of this publication.
When acquiring new equipment, a crucial part of the prepara-
tion is to perform a market screening. The information collected
during this phase has historically been based on data obtained from
nonstandardized test conditions because it is challenging to provide
a test facility representing a true circulation system or impossible
to obtain equal test conditions, which is the case when performing
tests at a rigsite. When various pieces of solids-control equipment
are tested in different test facilities and with various drilling uids,
screen congurations, and other test conditions [temperatures, for-
mations, and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
systems], it is difcult to compare test results. Examples of irrele-
vant test conditions are the smoke tests of a shaker without drilling
uid and capacity tests with water instead of drilling uid.
Because of the criticality of equipment selection, this verica-
tion test of solids-control equipment has been performed to pro-
vide an offshore drilling and production rig with an objective
basis for equipment selection. The test has been performed as part
of an ongoing rig-upgrade project. The objective of this test has
thus been to verify equipment suppliers specication on parame-
ters essential for solids-control-equipment performance. In the
test, ve different solids-control solutions (or shakers) were
tested. Four conventional shakers and one alternative solids-con-
trol-equipment unit with vacuum technology were tested. The tra-
ditional shakers include one double-deck shaker and three triple-
deck shakers. The shakers are tested at equal conditions (as is
practically possible), with the only changing factor being the
equipment itself. Three main areas of shaker performance were
testedcapacity and ltration efciency, operation and mainte-
nance friendliness, as well as HVAC and WE.
The shaker test was a multidisciplinary test and is a result of
cooperation between 13 companies. The companies are consul-
tants, equipment suppliers and their distributors, the test center,
and the operator. This cooperation between several discipline
groups has given comparable test results for several aspects of a
shakers performances, and consequently creates a unique data-
base for the testing of equipment at the same conditions. The test
also demonstrates the importance of focus on solids-control-
equipment performance to obtain high drilling efciency and sat-
isfactory HSE conditions.
This paper describes in detail the consequences that proper
testing has on solids-control-equipment selection, how each ele-
ment important for shaker selection was tested, and the results
obtained from the test
Statement of Theory and Definitions. There is an economic in-
centive to base solids-control-equipment selection on reliable tests
because efcient shakers will reduce drilling-uid loss and waste
generated resulting from drilling-uid adherence on cuttings. Ef-
cient drilling-uid solids control may also reduce the risk for the
breakdown of drilling equipment. Signicant savings may be
gained by running the equipment efciently, and it is therefore
crucial to continuously monitor and optimize the solids-control-
equipment operations with respect to such details as screen wear,
screen selection, and ow distribution. Optimization studies (Dahl
et al. 2006) have demonstrated the importance of the operators
skills and routines for the inspection, changing, patching, and
washing of screens and the appropriate use of the regulation possi-
bilities of the equipment. When the efciency of the shaker is
considered as part of the procurement and good operational rou-
tines are implemented and maintained, the drilling cost for the
well will be lower.
Description and Application of Equipment and Process. The
test methodology has been established through cooperative work
Copyright VC 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 159894) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 810 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 9 July 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 21 November 2012. Paper peer approved 14 January 2013.
148 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
between, and written by, discipline specialists to ensure the qual-
ity and relevance of the applied methodology. Step-by-step proce-
dures were made and followed for each of the tests for all tested
equipment.
The shaker test was performed at an onshore test center that
can simulate the circulation system at a drilling rig. The test cen-
ter is set up to provide equal test conditions for all aspects. The
test center was also equipped with real-time monitoring instru-
ments that continuously collected data for both drilling-uid prop-
erties (ow rate, specic gravity, temperature, and circulating
volume) and HVAC ow rates. The evaporation level of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) was monitored by portable VOC-
monitoring instruments, and the VOC instruments were not an
integrated part of the test center and were used on WE tests only.
The total pump capacity of the test centers drilling-uid-circula-
tion system is 4050 L/min (LPM).
The four conventional shakers were installed in the test cell
simulating a shaker room on a rig. The approximate size of the
test cell is 5 5 3 m. The test cell is equipped with a fully ad-
justable HVAC system that can give ventilation ow rate in the
range of 0 to 12 000 m
3
/h, and the test cell has 12 air changes per
hour. However, a droplet separator was installed in the HVAC
system during the test period because of heavy drilling-uid pol-
lution during the test period. The droplet separator prevented fur-
ther pollution but caused pressure loss, and the highest achieved
ventilation ow rate in the HVAC system after the installation of
the droplet separator was 7500 m
3
/h.
The alternative solids-control equipment with vacuum was
tested in an adjacent test cell that was tailor-made for this unit;
the only difference between the two test cells was that this test
cell was equipped with only ordinary room ventilation.
The test conditions were kept as equal as practically possible
throughout the test. The eld-used oil-based drilling uid used in
the test was from the same batch and was stored in a reserved
tank, circulated, and maintained during the test period. The water-
based drilling uid used in the test was newly mixed for each
shaker because the durability of the water-based drilling uid
degrades rapidly and the drilling-uid properties would change
during the test period. Analysis conrmed that the drilling uids
used to test the ve shakers were comparable and as similar as
practically possible. Test temperatures were 50
C for water-based
drilling uid and 60
m
Fig. 3PSD results from the Malvern analysis for the various
shakers.
Filtration Efficiency -
FBRM Lab Analysis, 80100 m
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shakers - random Order, same in FBRM Figure
Inlet Outlet
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
Fig. 4Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size
range of 80 to 100 lm with the FBRM.
0
Inlet Outlet
Shakers - random Order, same in FBRM Figure
Filtration Efficiency-
FBRM Lab Analysis, 980 m
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Fig. 6Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size
range of 9 to 80 lm with the FBRM.
0
Shakers - random Order, same in FBRM Figure
Filtration Efficiency -
FBRM Lab Analysis, 100200 m
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
Inlet Outlet
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
Fig. 5Particle counts for each of the shakers for the size
range of 100 to 200 lm with the FBRM.
152 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Retrieving representative drilling uid and cuttings samples is
often a challenge, and the results of the ltration-efciency tests
should be used as indication only, and a further investigation of
ltration efciency will require a higher number of samples to be
collected and analyzed.
Screen Wear. In these shaker tests, screens were inspected
before and after test runs. The holes and number of plugs used to
seal off holes were registered after each test (Fig. 8).
These screen-wear results are inuenced by how many screens
the supplier brought to the test, but these observations were per-
formed during the test and the number of holes, no holes, and
number of screens with plugs were as displayed in Fig. 8. There is
large variety in the percentage of screens with holesfrom 100%
intact screens down to 33% only.
More data on screens and screen wear were collected during
the test, such as a tendency to corrosion, clogging of screens by
solids, method for patching screens, and the characterization of
holes (rips, abrasions, size, position, and more). These data are,
however, too detailed to be included here.
Leakage. Leakage tests were performed to detect the average
leakage rate that can be expected during drilling operations by
each shaker. Both static- (equipment turned off) and dynamic-
leakage (equipment running) tests were performed; see leakage
rates in Fig. 9.
The leakage rates for the four conventional shakers are rela-
tively similar, between 2.5 and 3.5 LPM, on both the static and
the dynamic test. No leakage was observed during the alternative
leakage test of the vacuum-technology shaker. See Fig. 9 for
results of the leakage tests. The static test was performed only on
the alternative solids-control unit.
One of the shakers on the test turned out to be a demo unit that
had the nal quality check that was performed before offshore in-
stallation. This shaker needed adjustments to avoid excessive
leakage, and after the adjustments, this shaker had good leakage
results. This incident brings out the importance of a quality check
before the installation on a drilling facility.
LCM-Recovery Function. An LCM-recovery demonstration
was performed for shakers as an optional part of the test because
not all the participating shakers have this function. Three of the
shakers performed a successful demonstration of the LCM func-
tion, in which the LCM particles added to the drilling uid were
screened out and recovered.
Operation and Maintenance Friendliness and Screen Wear.
The operation and maintenance check was performed while the
shakers were installed and running in the test center. The perform-
ances of the shakers are ranked by a scale from poor to excellent;
see summary of results in Tables 2 and 3.
Some shakers have a limited possibility to observe screens
during operation because of the narrow opening between the
decks, which may also be a benet because the shaker operator
has to pull out the screens to allow a better visual inspection of
screen wear and to observe them. Some shakers have very tight
0
Shakers - random Order, different in FBRM Figure
Oil on Cuttings
O
i
l
o
n
C
u
t
t
i
n
g
s
,
%
Oil on Cuttings
2
4
6
8
10
Fig. 7OOC results from retort analysis.
0
Shakers - random Order, different in every Plot
No holes, % With plugs, % With holes, %
Screen Wear
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
c
r
e
e
n
s
,
%
o
f
u
s
e
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
s
Fig. 8Screen wear of screens used in shaker tests.
0
L
e
a
k
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
,
l
i
t
e
r
s
/
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
Shakers - random Order, different in every Figure
Static Dynamic
Leakage Test
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Fig. 9Leakage test.
TABLE 2OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TEST, PART ONE
Shakers,
Random
Order
Operation and Maintenance Screen
Access Daily
Maintenance
Inspection of
Screens During
Operation
Need for Lifting
Equipment During
Maintenance
Ease of
Replacing
Screen
Operation
Time To
Change Screens
Excellent Excellent Yes
a
Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes
a
Excellent Excellent
Excellent Poor Yes
a
Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes
a
Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Yes
a
Good Excellent
a
Use of lifting equipment only necessary when engine is lifted.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 153
anchorage solutions for the screens that require that force and spe-
cial tools sometimes have to be used. The cleaning of the bottom
tray and the screens is less convenient in some shakers, and clean-
ing requires extra attention.
The overall result for the participating shakers is that the main-
tenance and operation friendliness are prioritized in the design of
the shakers. All ve vendors have good products, and each of
them can be recommended on the basis of operational, access,
and maintenance solutions.
HVAC and WE. All solids-control solutions were tested at the
manufacturers recommended HVAC extract air-ow rates. With
the smoke test and VOC readings, the HVAC extract air ows
were thereafter adjusted to obtain the best possible WE atmos-
phere in the room.
As a result of differences in the design of shakers and front
hoods/enclosures, it was difcult to test all shakers within the exact
same parameters. It was determined that each shaker had to be
tested as dictated by the differences in design of each unit (Fig. 10).
Because of the installation of a lter in the test centers HVAC
system, the highest achieved ventilation ow rate after the instal-
lation of the lter was 7400 m
3
/h, and not 120 00 m
3
/h, which
was the initial HVAC capacity. As a consequence, it was not pos-
sible to determine the test-optimized value for one of the shakers
tested later in the test period. Test-optimized value is the ventila-
tion ow rate that gave the best achieved WE results for the
shakers.
The vendors specication for HVAC requirement (blue col-
umns) for the tested units, the test-optimized value (red columns),
and the corresponding ventilation ow rates for shakers tested
with and without front hoods or other enclosures are displayed in
Fig. 10.
One shaker had an open design, and a provisional front hood
was built by the supplier during the test. However, it was not pos-
sible to determine the test-optimized value resulting from high
evaporation level and limitations in the HVAC system, and the
test-optimized value is set to be equal to the vendors recommen-
dation because this was the highest achieved ventilation ow rate
for this unit; thus, it was not possible to obtain a satisfactory WE
at this ventilation ow rate. The ventilation requirement for this
unit is higher than the vendors-recommended ventilation ow
rate.
One shaker had a front hood as extra equipment and was tested
with and without a front hood; even with a front hood mounted on
the shaker, measurements displayed that the unit required a higher
ventilation ow rate than recommended by the vendor.
One shaker was tested in a prototype enclosure with the front
hatches open and closed. It was not possible to test this unit with-
out the enclosure because the shakers connection to the HVAC
system was part of the enclosure. It turned out that this vendor
recommended a higher ventilation ow rate than test results
revealed that this unit actually needed.
One solids-control unit that is enclosed and derived from vac-
uum technology obtained an excellent WE atmosphere at a low
ventilation ow rate, and the vendor-recommended ventilation
ow rate is sufcient.
Only one shaker was tested without a front hood/enclosure and
with a supplier-recommended ventilation ow rate that proved to
be insufcient. Test-optimized ventilation ow rate for this shaker
was almost double the supplier-recommended value.
A surprising discovery during the HVAC tests is that several
of the shaker vendors did not know the ventilation requirement
for their shaker; one vendor believed that the shaker needed a
high ventilation ow rate when measurements showed that it
needed a low rate. Other suppliers realized that they had underes-
timated the required ventilation ow rate for their shakers.
The comparisons of ventilation ow rates for the shakers
revealed that there was insufcient accordance in vendor-recom-
mended values and test-optimized values (Fig. 10).
Comparisons of HVAC measurements indicate that the installa-
tion of a front hood/enclosure on the shakers had a better effect on
the level of OV/OM/VOC than increased ventilation ow rate, and
that the effect of the front hood/enclosure seemed to be improved
when sufcient ventilation owrate was applied simultaneously.
WE. The objective of the WE test was to verify if the sup-
plier-recommended HVAC ow rate was sufcient to achieve an
acceptable chemical exposure in close proximity to the shaker.
The levels of VOC, OV, and OM were measured to quantify the
chemical exposure.
OV and OM were sampled with a pump. Two parallel samples
were taken at the sampling points, which were in front of and on
the right side of the shaker. VOC was sampled with the direct-
reading instrument MiniRAE 3000, and sampling points were in
front of and on the right and left sides of the shaker. Representa-
tive, selected test results from the WE test are displayed in Figs.
11 and 12 (measurements in front of shaker and measurements on
the right side of shaker, respectively).
In Fig. 11, the OM levels from the shaker with the highest
level are truncated. The actual values for low- and high-ventila-
tion ow rates, given as exposure indices [exposure level (E)/
AC)], would have been 337 and 297, respectively.
TABLE 3OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TEST, PART TWO
Shakers,
Random
Order
Cleaning of Screens and Bottom Tray Possibilities for Adjustment
Robustness
Cleaning of
Screen
Cleaning of
Bottom Tray
Adjustment of
Flow and Cuttings
Excellent Excellent Good Excellent
Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Excellent Good Excellent Excellent
Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Poor Good Excellent Excellent
0
Yes No
Front Hood
Yes No
Front Hood
Yes No
Front Hood
Yes No
Front Hood
Yes No
Front Hood
Shakers - random Order, different in every Figure
Vendor Recommendation Test Optimized Rate
Ventilation Flow Rate - HVAC System
V
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
,
m
3
/
h
r
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Fig. 10Ventilation ow rate; vendors-recommended value
(blue) and test-optimized value (red) with and without front
hood/other enclosure of shaker.
154 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
In Figs. 11 and 12, the average OV, OM, and VOC levels from
each of the shakers have been compared. The results are presented
as exposure indices (e.g., measured E/AC) for measurements
obtained at the front and the right side of the shakers, respectively.
The results given in Figs. 11 and 12 have to be interpreted
with caution. However, they show considerable and consistent
differences in OV, OM, and VOC levels between the ve shakers.
None of the shakers fullled the design criteria (1/6 AC).
However, there was one shaker that came very close to having
emissions in the low category (1/6 to 1/2 AC) for both OV and
OM. Another shaker had OV measurements in the high category
(1/5 AC). These two shakers were designed with a technical
barrier of Priority 1 (efcient enclosure of emission sources). The
rst of these shakers represents new technology that is derived
from vacuum methods, and the second shaker uses conventional
technology equipped with an enclosure.
On the basis of the results from the ve shakers tested, one
enclosed solids-control unit was highly recommended because of
its ability to control the emissions of OV and OM at the pollutant
source, resulting in low measured concentration in the vicinity of
the shaker. The second-best shaker was also equipped with an en-
closure providing an enclosed handling of the emissions, although
the test results show higher OV and OM concentrations in the
atmosphere than expected.
The other three shakers need to develop further toward a closed
system in which the emissions can be better controlled. It was not
possible to fulll the design criteria, nor the AC, with an open
shaker. Even with a hood, the tested shakers did not have accepta-
ble emission levels, especially for OV. A recommendation is to de-
velop the open and semiclosed shakers toward better/full enclosure
to handle and control the OVand the OM emissions at their source.
Comparisons of the WE measurements revealed that more-
open shaker designs caused higher levels of OV/OM/VOC in the
atmosphere. All conventional shakers in the test were encouraged
to develop toward a more closed design.
A positive effect of the test was that the suppliers now see WE
performance as an area of competition. These WE tests have
stimulated innovation to improve the WE. All participants with
the potential to improve their performance on HVAC and WE
have designed and produced front hood or other means of enclo-
sure and have performed smoke tests of their shakers with front
hoods/enclosures on their own sites.
Noise and Vibration. SWL has been measured to obtain the
noise emission from one shaker. The area noise level in a shaker
room has then been calculated from the measured SWL. See the
results of the shakers SWL at 90 and 100% of maximal drilling-
uid-ow rate, and shakers running dry without drilling uid
(Fig. 13).
The small size of the test cell caused challenges related to mea-
surement accuracy, but after noise absorbents were mounted on
the test-cell walls, noise-measurement conditions were improved.
The SWL results given in Fig. 13 were the basis for the calcu-
lation of predicted SPL for comparison with the area noise levels
of a shaker room. Only one of the tested shakers has the potential
to meet the required area noise limit of 85 dBA in a shaker area.
Three of the tested shakers have the potential to meet an area
noise level of 90 dBA, and one of the shakers operates at more
than this highest allowable limit. Noise at these high levels has a
large impact on operational restrictions for individuals to fulll
their personal-exposure requirements.
Vibration-measurement results are reported according to
standards NORSOK S-005 and S-002. Vibration measurements
were also performed on the mud container below the shaker and
were compared with Category 3, and the measurement made on
the shaker skid (the highest-level measurement) was compared
with Category 4. See Fig. 14 for a comparison of the vibration
measurements.
All measurements are within acceptable limits. The shaker
representing new technology has the lowest vibration levels on
the skid. However, on the reference point, the difference between
the units was small, suggesting a good effect of the vibration iso-
lators used on all units.
Comment on Results. To facilitate access to the shakers per-
formances in the various aspects of the shaker test, a ranking was
0
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
Shakers - same Order in OV/OM/VOC Figures
Comparison of OV, OM, and VOC Levels Sampled in
Front of the Shaker With Low and High Ventilation Flow Rate
Oil Vapor,
mg/m
3
Oil Mist,
mg/m
3
Average VOC,
ppm
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
I
n
d
e
x
E
/
A
c
c
e
p
t
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
A
C
35
Fig. 11Average of selected OV, OM, and VOC levels from each
of the shakers measured in the front of the shakers.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
Low High
Comparison of OV, OM, and VOL Levels Sampled on
Right Side of Shaker With Low and High Ventilation Flow Rate
Shakers - same Order in OV/OM/VOC Figures
Oil Vapor,
mg/m
3
Oil Mist,
mg/m
3
Average VOC,
ppm
Rate
Low High
Rate
Low High
Rate
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
I
n
d
e
x
E
/
A
c
c
e
p
t
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
A
C
Fig. 12Average of selected OV, OM, and VOC levels from each
of the shakers measured at the right side of the shakers.
70
Shakers - random Order, different in every Figure
0,9 1 Dry
Comparison of Measures Sound Power Level (SWL)
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
S
o
u
n
d
P
o
w
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
Fig. 13Comparison of measured SWL for the different units.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 155
performed by the discipline specialists on their respective areas.
Because of an anonymity agreement with the shaker vendors, this
ranking is not included in this publication.
Conclusions
Drilling-Fluid-Processing Rate. There is a signicant difference
in the drilling-uid-processing capacities; that for oil-based dril-
ling uid spans from 3950 to 1150 LPM, and corresponding
results for water-based drilling uid are 3320 and 900 LPM.
The ltration efciency of the shakers was examined by PSD
analysis, rst with the Malvern that was inconclusive and then by
FBRM that produced useful data. The advantage demonstrated by
the FBRM analysis indicates that this instrument should be used
more in future PSD analysis, and this experience may be useful
for both drilling operations and further-research projects.
The adherence of drilling uid on cuttings was measured as
OOC. This is of economic and environmental importance,
because less drilling uid lost as adherence on cuttings implies a
reduced loss of drilling uid and less drilling waste. All shakers
showed good results relative to adherence-of-drilling-uid-on-cut-
tings/OOC corresponding measurements from 1990s operations,
which demonstrates the improvement of solids-control equipment
and better procedures for shaker operation since that time.
The challenge of representative drilling-uid and cuttings
samples should be taken into account when reading the results,
and a larger number of drilling-uid and cuttings samples should
be collected and analyzed to achieve more-reliable ltration
results.
The screen-wear registration displayed variation in the durabil-
ity of the screens because some screens were more prone to
develop holes. The screen data collected are too detailed to in-
corporate in this publication, but further testing would benet
from allocating resources on consecutive registration of screen
wear because screen data are complex.
The leakage rates from the shakers were satisfactory for all
participants, but experience performed during the test brings out
the importance of checking this aspect before a solids-control unit
is set in operation.
The maintenance and operation checks revealed that the over-
all result for the participating shakers is that the user friendliness
is prioritized in the design. Some shakers have minor issues
related to the change of screens and cleaning.
The introduction of the front hood on the shakers seems to sig-
nicantly improve the WE atmosphere in the test room. This test
of shakers in an enclosed environment indicates that the WE chal-
lenges in shaker rooms are very difcult to resolve with an HVAC
solution only. The real exposures of personnel working in shaker
modules will depend on such details as working operations, time
spent in the module, and personnel protections.
The new method used for the rst time on the shaker test, in
which an active sampling of OV and OM is performed in parallel
with direct-reading instruments for VOC to monitor the variations
in concentrations of organic vapor and the chemical WE as a con-
sequence of changes in ventilation ow rate and front hood or en-
closure, represents technology development. This method was
used for the rst time in the shaker test, and the possibility to
obtain real-time data of the VOC level was used as a navigational
tool during the test, because results from OV and OM samples
were available only after some time. The VOC levels were used
to determine the required HVAC ow rate during the tests.
The recommendation from the HVAC-test results is that the
conventional shakers should be equipped with a front hood, and
the extract ventilation from the shaker should maintain an under-
pressure inside the shaker and preferably a 1.5-m/s air velocity
through any openings. The front-hood design should be further
developed to improve the effect of capturing the OV and OM.
The control of hazardous emissions in the WE shall be
achieved by technical measures/barriers (in order of priority):
Efcient enclosure of emission sources.
Efcient extraction/exhaust-ventilation systems to remove pol-
lutants near the source.
General ventilation/dilution of contaminants.
Noise tests revealed that only one of the tested shakers had the
potential to meet the required area noise-level limit of 85 dBA,
three shakers had the potential to meet the highest allowable area
noise-level limit of 90 dBA, and one shaker exceeded this highest
allowable limit. All measurements of vibration were within ac-
ceptable limits.
The shaker test triggered competition among the equipment
suppliers and stimulated technology development and product
improvement. This was especially the case for the solutions
related to HVAC and WE. The publication of the anonymous test
results will make benchmarking possible for the participants.
Tests of the various aspects of shaker performance called for
the development of new test methodology. Covering different dis-
ciplines, the test initiated by the rig modication project was a
result of a multidisciplinary cooperation. The internal specialists
were representing the discipline areas of drilling and well facili-
ties, WE technology, operation and maintenance including HVAC
and drilling uids. Other internal contributors were representing
the contracts department, the legal department and the department
for intellectual-properties rights. The external participants are
from the test center, drilling-uid supplier, ve shaker vendors
and their distributors in Norway, external laboratory, and consul-
tant companies for measurement of HVAC, occupational hygiene,
and noise/vibration.
During the phases of this project, lessons have been learned
that have given increased competence on test methodology. With
many specialists working together on the same test, new ideas
have been conceived, and some of them have resulted in product
improvements of the solids-control equipment. Some shaker ven-
dors have discovered that there was potential for improvement on
their shakers, and the test experience and results have become a
basis for product improvement.
Because all shakers were tested with test conditions as equal
as practically possible and the only variable factor was the shak-
ers, the test has produced a unique database of comparable results.
The test results are valid for the test conditions, and performance
may be better on other tests, but the unique aspect was that these
results were truly comparable results and revealed the differences
in shaker performance.
The variation in performance among the shakers supports the
legitimacy of the test, and it demonstrates the need for a standar-
dized-test methodology for shakers. The test methodology is con-
sidered the main outcome of the shaker test, and this publication
may be a step toward a standardized methodology applied on this
and similar equipment. In the future, a standardized test method-
ology for shakers would facilitate the selection of the most suita-
ble equipment for the shaker customers.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the shaker vendors and their distributorsCubility Test
Center, OHS/Proactima, Sinus, Mollier, STAMI, and Hallibur-
tonfor great service and cooperation before, during, and after
the shaker test. The shaker test could not have been carried out
0
Ref point Skid frame
Shakers - random Order, different in every Figure
Comparison of vibration Measurements
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
(
N
o
r
s
o
k
S
-
0
0
2
l
i
m
i
t
s
)
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 14Human-vibration measurements compared with the
vibration category. The red line is the limit for the red dots, and
the blue line is the limit for the blue dots.
156 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
without their great support and team spirit. Thanks to Jamie Stuart
Andrews of Statoil, who supplied data for Fig. 1.
References
American Petroleum Institute. 2010 (December). Recommended Practice
(RP) on Drilling Fluids Processing Systems Evaluation, Drilling Fluids
Processing Equipment Evaluation, RP 13C, fourth edition, ISO 13501
(Modied).
Aston, M.S., Alberty, M.W., McLean, M.R. et al. 2004. Drilling Fluids for
Wellbore Strengthening. Paper SPE 87130 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 24 March. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/87130-MS.
Bouse, E.E. and Carrasquero, J.E. 1992. Drilling Mud Solids Control and
Waste Management. Paper SPE 23660 presented at the SPE Latin
American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela,
811 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/23660-MS.
Dahl, B., Saasen, A., and Omland, T.H. 2006 Successful Drilling of Oil and
Gas Wells by Optimal Drilling-Fluid Solids ControlA Practical and
Theoretical Evaluation. Paper SPE 103934 presented at the IADC/SPE
Asia Pacic Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok,
Thailand, 1315 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103934-MS.
NORSOK Standard S-005: Machinery - Working Environment Analyses
and Documentation, Rev. 1. March 1999. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian
Technology Standards Institution.
NORSOK Standard S-002: Working Environment, Rev. 4. August 2004.
Lysaker, Norway: Standards Norway.
Omland, T.H., Dahl, B., Saasen, A. et al. 2007. Optimization of Solids
Control Opens Up Opportunities for Drilling of Depleted Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 110544 presented at the Asia Pacic Oil and Gas Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October1 November.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110544-MS.
Steinsvag, K., Bratveit, M., and Moen, B.E. 2005. Exposure to Oil Mist
and Oil Vapor During Offshore Drilling in Norway, 19792004.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 50 (2): 109122. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/annhyg/mei049.
Steinsvag, K., Galea, K.S., Kruger, K. et al.2011. Effect of Drilling Fluid
Systems and Temperature on Oil Mist and Vapor Levels Generated
From Shale Shaker. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 55 (4): 347356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq097.
Anne Turid Lian Vestbakke is a principal engineer within tech-
nical working environment, and she has been working with
drilling-upgrade projects at Statoil ASA; currently, she is work-
ing as an HSE Engineer within Drilling and Well in Statoil. Vest-
bakke is a certified occupational hygienist and holds an MS
degree in offshore engineeringenvironmental control from
the University of Stavanger.
Vegard Peikli is a specialist within working environment tech-
nology; he works as the HSE Manager in the Platform Removal
Portfolio at Statoil. Peikli is a certified occupational hygienist
and holds an MS degree from the Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology.
Arvid Nysted works as principal engineer at Statoil ASA in
HVAC. Nysted holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering
HVAC from the University of Stavanger.
Eystein Ove Storslett works as Advisor in Statoil ASA. Area of
work is HVAC. He holds an engineering degree in HVAC from
Trondheim College of Engineering, and a Cand. Mag. Degree
from the University of Stavanger.
Iren Steinnes works as a senior drilling engineer at Statoil ASA in
planning exploration wells. She holds an MSc degree in petro-
leum technology from the University of Stavanger.
yvind Lie works as HVAC Leading Adviser at Statoil ASA and
holds a BSc degree in mechanical engineering from Sta-
vanger Ingenirhgskole and a BSc degree in business man-
agement from Regional University Stavanger.
Einar Eliassen is employed by Odfjell Drilling in the position of
senior tool pusher, and has gained 35 years experience in the
field of offshore drilling. He is currently employed as a consul-
tant drilling equipment engineer at Statoil ASA, on the Snorre
A Drilling facility project, in the role of drilling equipment engi-
neer and user representative.
Bjarte Sivert Knudsen works as senior engineer at Statoil ASA in
the area of drilling facilities. He holds a BS degree in mechani-
cal engineering production technology from the Bergen Uni-
versity College.
Frode Haldorsen has amassed more than 23 years of work ex-
perience in the oil and gas industry, covering both offshore
and onshore projects, representing client and contractor
companies. He is currently employed in the role of project
manager for Statoil ASA. Haldorsen holds an MS degree in civil
engineering from the Norwegian Institute of Technology and
a Master of Management degree from the Norwegian School
of Management.
Ellen Jensen works as a leading adviser in industrial hygiene at
Statoil ASA. She holds a PhD degree from the Norwegian Uni-
versity of Science and Technology in indoor air quality, and an
MSc degree from the same university in chemical engineering.
Jensen has been an international certified occupational hy-
gienist since 2002.
Jrund Enger works as specialist noise control engineer at Life-
tec A/S in the area of noise management in offshore develop-
ment projects for Statoil ASA. He holds an MS degree in
building acoustics from the University of Trondheim.
Tor H. Omland works as a leading adviser at Statoil ASA in the
area of responsibility for drilling fluids and total fluid manage-
ment. He holds a PhD degree in drilling engineering and an
MSc degree in petroleum engineering from the University of
Stavanger and is an SPE member.
Bodil Aase works as a principal engineer at Statoil ASA in the
areas of fluids, solids-control equipment, and drilling waste. She
holds an MS degree in offshore engineeringenvironmental
control and a BS degree in chemicalenvironmental biotech-
nology from the University of Stavanger and is an SPE member.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 157