A look at the work behind SC DrillTech — independent solids-control and mud-system evaluations on live rigs across the region. In every one, the fix was in the equipment and the settings, proven by measurement, not in more chemicals.
Engagements are described anonymously at the operator level to respect client confidentiality; the field or country is named where it adds context. No figures are attributed that would identify a client.
Across a four-rig drilling programme on a field in Iraq, the operator was carrying a high and stubborn dilution rate, heavy barite consumption and a shaker-screen spend that looked far too high for the hole sections being drilled. Each rig was being treated as its own fluids problem and dosed with more chemicals and more dilution — yet the numbers never settled.
When we looked across all four rigs together, the symptoms lined up into one picture: the solids-control train wasn't removing solids efficiently, so the low-gravity-solids load was climbing, the mud was being diluted to hold properties, and the cost was repeating well after well. The fluids were paying for an equipment problem.
We ran a full, independent solids-control and mud-system evaluation across all four rigs — measuring rather than assuming. That meant the actual shaker G-force and motion on each deck, screen selection and conveyance, hydrocyclone (desander/desilter) inlet pressure and cone condition, and the centrifuge feed, pool and differential-speed set-up against its real duty.
On the fluids side we walked down the mixing and shearing system, the agitators and the pit arrangement, mapping dead volume and short-circuiting and tying the dilution and barite numbers back to the solids that weren't being removed. Every observation was linked to its mechanism and to what it was costing — so the operator could see exactly why the dilution was high, not just that it was.
Each rig received a technical report with a measured baseline, the analysis behind every finding, clear field observations and a ranked set of recommendations — what to correct on the shakers, screens, hydrocyclones, centrifuge and mud system, and in what order. Because the four rigs shared the same root causes, the programme also got a consistent standard to run to.
The message was the same on every rig: the path to lower dilution, lower barite use and longer screen life ran through the equipment and the settings — not through more chemicals. That is the kind of decision that compounds across a multi-rig, multi-well campaign.
A six-rig fleet in Saudi Arabia was performing inconsistently rig-to-rig: some rigs held mud cost and properties well, others ran high dilution, lost screens quickly and struggled to keep removal efficiency up. With no common, measured baseline across the fleet, it was impossible to tell whether the difference was the formation, the crews, the fluids or the equipment.
The operator wanted an independent read — a party with nothing to sell — to find what was really driving the spread and to set one standard the whole fleet could run to.
We carried out an independent, like-for-like evaluation of all six rigs so they could be compared on the same measured basis. On each rig we measured shaker G-force, motion and screen performance, checked hydrocyclone pressure and cone condition, and reviewed the centrifuge against its real duty — then assessed the mud, mixing and agitation system for uniformity, shear and dead volume.
Running the same protocol on every rig turned a vague 'some rigs are worse' into a precise, ranked picture of which rig was losing what, and why — and let the best-performing rigs set the benchmark for the rest. As an independent party, the focus stayed on what the data and the decks showed, not on any equipment to sell.
The client received per-rig technical reports plus a fleet-level comparison: the measured baseline for each rig, the analysis, the observations and prioritised recommendations to lift removal efficiency, standardise the centrifuge and hydrocyclone set-ups and bring dilution back under control.
Most importantly, the fleet came away with one engineering standard to run to — so the strong rigs stayed strong and the weak ones had a clear, measured path to catch up, vendor-neutral and written to be acted on.
On two rigs in the UAE, mud cost and dilution were higher than the programme expected and the fine-solids end of the system was suspected but never confirmed. The shakers looked fine on a walk-by, so attention had drifted to the fluids — but the fluids kept needing dilution to stay in spec.
The operator wanted a focused, measured review of the solids-control train, with particular attention on the centrifuge and the fine cut, before committing to any change in fluids or equipment spend.
We ran a solids-control and centrifuge-focused evaluation on both rigs: measuring shaker G-force and screen performance, checking hydrocyclone inlet pressure and cone wear, and reviewing the centrifuge's differential speed, pool and feed against what the fluid actually needed — barite recovery versus LGS removal — rather than how it happened to be set.
We tied the dilution and mud-cost numbers directly to the fine solids that weren't being removed, so the operator could see the centrifuge and hydrocyclone set-up — not the chemistry — was where the money was leaking.
Both rigs received a technical report with the measured baseline, the analysis, the field observations and ranked recommendations — how to retune the centrifuge and hydrocyclones, correct the shaker G-force and screen selection, and bring the fine-solids load down so the fluid stopped needing dilution to stay in spec.
The decision was concrete and equipment-led: fix the fine end, and the dilution and mud cost follow.
On a rig in Oman, the most visible pain was screen life: shaker screens were being changed far too often, and dilution was creeping up with it. Screens are usually blamed first, but replacing them faster was treating the symptom, not the cause.
The operator asked for an independent, end-to-end evaluation of the solids-control and mud system to find why the screens were dying young and why the dilution was rising — and what to actually do about it.
We carried out a full solids-control and mud-system evaluation on the rig: measuring the actual shaker G-force and motion, checking screen selection, tensioning and conveyance, reviewing the centrifuge, desander and desilter against their duty, and walking down the mud, mixing and agitation system for uniformity and dead volume.
Rather than stop at 'the screens are failing', we traced the short screen life back through the whole train — showing how a deck that's off its G-force, fed by an over-loaded, non-uniform system, will always eat screens and need dilution, no matter how often the screens are changed.
The rig received a technical report with the measured baseline, the analysis, the field observations and a ranked set of recommendations — correct the shaker G-force and screen set-up, rebalance the solids-removal duty across the centrifuge and hydrocyclones, and tidy the mud and agitation system so the load reaching the shakers drops.
The outcome was a clear, ordered plan to extend screen life and bring dilution back down — by fixing the system that was killing the screens, not by buying more screens.
High dilution, short screen life, a centrifuge that isn't earning its place, a mud system that won't stay uniform — tell us what it's doing, and we'll tell you what we'd measure and what it would change.
See engineering services →