owc cementing

8/12/2019 Owc Cementing

1/18

1

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

The SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program is funded principally through a

grant from the SPE Foundation.

The society gratefully acknowledges the companies that support thisprogram by allowing their professionals to participate as lecturers.

Special thanks to the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, andPetroleum Engineers (AIME) for its contribution to the program.

Society of Petroleum EngineersDistinguished Lecturer Programwww.spe.org/dl

Cement and Cementing:

An Old Technique With a Future?

Bernard PiotSchlumberger

Society of Petroleum EngineersDistinguished Lecturer Programwww.spe.org/dl


2/18

3

Outline

Cement

Cementing: a necessary evil?

Alternative isolation techniques

Todays well challenges

Cement versatility

Well architecture tool for the future

4

Cement

Material and Regulations


3/18

5

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00Time(HH:MM)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Viscosite(Bc)

Thickening time test (neat class G)

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:000

20

40

60

80

100

Consistency,

Bc

Time, h

Portland Cement

Hydraulic binder

Suspension (paste or

slurry) for placement

Controllable setting

Solid

Strong

Impermeable

Inexpensive

Available everywhere

0 15 30 45 60 75Time (HH)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Compressive

StrengthType

B

(psi)

Strength development test (neat class G)

Time, h0 15 30 45 60 75

Compressivestrength,

psi

1,000

500

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0

6

History of Oilfield Cement

Before our era

Clay, lime

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 CaCO3

Roman times

Pozzolanic cements

1824: Portland cement

Selected raw materials

1903: Portland cement in oil wells

1917: Oilfield cements

API created 20 Mar 1919

1940: ASTM Types 1 to 5

1948: API Code 32 released

Became API RP10B in 52

1952: 6 classes of cement

1953: API Std 10A

API Spec 10A in 72 ISO 10426 since 2000


4/18

7

Cement Types

Construction cements

Common cement

API classes A, B, C

Retarded cements

Deeper wells

Classes D, E, F

Pressurized consistometer

Cementing companies

Abandoned early 80s

Plain Portland cement

Classes G, H

Quality control, reproducibility

More universal

Class J cement

Replaced by G/H + Silica

Slag cement

~80s Brine resistance

~90s Mud compatibility Others

8

Use of Cement

USA

~ 80% class H and G

~ 10% class A, ~ 10% Class C

Rest of the world (international service companies)

>95% class G (often imported)

Class A or C; or local common cement: preferentially

Type V (ASTM), or CEM-I 42.5 or 52.5 (EN 197-1) Logistics allowing

If good and even quality

If adequate quality control


5/18

9

From API to ISO (since 1998)

API Committee 10

ISO TC 67 /SC 3/WG 2

ISO 10426 well cements ISO 10426-1 (ANSI/API 10A) - specification

ISO 10426-2 (ANSI/API RP 10B-2) - testing

ISO 10426-3 (ANSI/API RP 10B-3) deepwater wells

ISO 10426-4 (ANSI/API RP 10B-4) - foam cement

ISO 10426-5 (ANSI/API RP 10B-5) shrinkage/expansion

ISO 10426-6 (ANSI/API RP 10B-6) static gel strength

Other work groups: Evaluation (logs), High Temperature, Deepwater

10

Cementing: A Necessary Evil?

Evolution of Equipment and Technology,

and an Outline of Their Shortcomings


6/18

11

Technology Older Than a Century

First well cementing ~ 1903

Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co., Calif.

Shovel/cement mixer

First use of an eductor

Jet mixer invented 1921

High pressure mixing

In use till the 1970s

Still used by some Gravity cement feed

12

Primary Cementing Objectives

Casing anchor (axialsupport)

Protection against corrosionand erosion

Support of borehole walls

Zonal isolation

Hole

Casing

Cement

Gas zone

Oil zone


7/18

13

Unsuccessful Zonal Isolation

Risk toHSE

ACP/SCP Remedialwork

Early

water

prodn

Loss of

prodnInterzonalfluid flow

NPV

Loss ofLoss of

wellwell

14

Cementing Process at Surface

Additives

Water

Slurry

Homogenizing/

ControlPumpingWell

Dosing and

Mixing

Dry Additives

Cement Bulk

Blend


8/18

15

Handling Dry Cement

From cutting sacks to

pneumatic handling

Storage

Transport

Blending

Typical problems

Contamination

Humidity (air)

Deliverability Homogeneity

Fully automated blender

16

Control of Mixing

SG -1.0

+SLURRY SG ~ 1.9

CEMENT

SG -3.2=

Density Control


9/18

17

Cement Quality = Slurry Performance

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Density

Viscosity

Gelation

Free Fluid

Stability

Dehydration

Pump Time

Early Strength

W/C ratio; extender;weighting agent

Fluid loss agent

Anti-settling agent

Dispersant / viscosifier

Retarder/accelerator

Viscosity

GelationPump time

Free fluidDehydration

Stability

Early strength

Density

18

Cementing Additives Key Milestones

Lignosulphonates and cellulosics

Sugars and superplasticizing agents (~ 1960s)

Polyamine/imine ( ~1970s)

SB Latex ( ~ 1980s)

Co/ter-polymers AMPS (~ 1980s)

Temperature stability

Biopolymers (~ 1990s) Not based on Xanthan gum

Environmentally friendly additives (end 1990s)

OSPAR (OSlo-PARis) convention 1998


10/18

19

Cementing Process Downhole

Failures identified 30-40s

Field practices

Turbulent displacement

High Reynolds ~50s

10 min contact ~60s

SloFlo / Plug Flow ~70s

Fluid with yield stress

Displacement studies

Yield stress fluids ~end 60s

Mobility ratio/differentialvelocity ~70s

Pump as fast as you can

All semi-empirical

Very mixed results

Even in vertical wells

DIRECTION OF FLOWV = 0

V = 0

V max

20

Mud Removal Modeling

More complex wells

Deviated, horizontal

& extended reach

More critical wells

Deepwater, high-pressure

high-temperature

Importance for Zonal Isolation

Very difficult modeling Computational Fluid Dynamics

(CFD) tools not applicable

Eccentricity effects

Modeling ~ end 80s

Turbulent/Effective Laminar Flow

Rheology/Density contrast

Erodability / PDGM concept

Polymer muds

Numerical 2D Modeling (2002)

Lubrication analytical model (2003)


11/18

21

Cement Evaluation Logs

Sonic logs

CBL ~60s

Compensated CBL ~80s

Segmented Compensated

Ultrasonic logs

8 sensors ~80s

1 rotating sensor ~90s

Limitation of cement logs

Strength or Impedance ~80s

Microannulus/Isolation???

Microdebonding ~mid-90 s

Casing interface exclusively

Flexural Attenuation (2006)

1 + 3 sensors

Full cemented annulus width

3rd interface

Differentiate lightweight

cements from liquids Confirm hydraulic isolation

Visualize casing in borehole

22

Alternative Isolation Techniques

Other Fluids and Mechanical Means


12/18

23

Organic Resins

Very limited applications

Cost

Shelf-life

Sensitivity

Health, safety, and environment

Compatibility (water, mud)

Placement

24

Mechanical Systems Complementary to cement

Casing drilling, expandable casing (EC)

Swellable elastomer layer

Exclusive of cement

EC/Casing with (oil or water) swellable

packer

Another form of completion

May still require cement for most othercasings


13/18

25

Todays Well Challenges and

Versatility of Cement

26

New Reservoir Isolation Challenges

Aging and depleting fields

Completions at lower pressures

Steam injection, stimulation

Workovers and repairs

Plugging and abandonment

Exploration and new developments Isolation under higher pressure and temperature Very narrow pore/frac pressures margin

In deeper water and at colder temperatures


14/18

27

Need for Ultra-Low Density

Conventional CementSlurries

Directly linked to W/C ratio

Slurry

Very low rheology

Stability

Set cement

Very low strength, high

permeability, very longsetting times

High performance/high solidcements

Adapted from concrete industry

Same water/solid ratio at alldensities

From 900 to 2800 kg/m3

Similar rheology

High strength, low permeability

28

Slurry Quality Control?

Solid Fraction Monitoring

SG - 1.0

+ CEMENTSG - 3.2 Slurry Density - 1.0 ??

=

What if density 1.0?


15/18

29

Well Architecture and Logistics

Lighter isolation-quality cements

Depleted reservoirs

Single-stage cementing

Production liner instead of casing

Light cements that set faster at

low temperatures

Deepwater conductors,

surface casings

30

Cement A

Cement B

Is Isolation Durable?Cement is strong, but fragile

Understanding failures

P or T increases

Drilling, milling, repairs

P or T decreases

Modeling capability Parameter sensitivity

rock

cement

casing

P,T

rock

cement

casing

rock

cement

casing

P,T


16/18

31

Isolation Made Durable

Controlled flexibilityand expansion

Isolation maintainedduring P, T changes

From construction toabandonment

32

A Tool in Well ArchitectureSummary


17/18

33

Cement in the Past

A necessary evil?

Commodity?

34

Cementing Today

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Early strength

Final strength

Permeability

Shrinkage

Bonding

Flexibility

Durability

Toughness

Solutions portfolio

Not only slurryperformance

Set material properties

Short/long-term well

requirements

Modeling tools Fit-for-purpose,

cost-effective system


18/18

35

Cementing Tomorrow:

A Technology for the Future

Oilwell cementing has evolved considerably

Oilwell cementing will continue to quickly adapt

New cements from cement manufacturers

New tools from cementing service industry

Physically active, chemically re-active or inert materials

Process design/simulation means

A true well engineering technology

An interesting future

Evolving cement industry

Still considerable academicresearch

CO2 emissions

Important engineeringdevelopment

Oilfield cementing industry More tools in the toolbox

Materials, simulators

Adapt to tomorrows wellrequirements

A true well engineeringtechnology

36

Thank you for your attention

owc cementing

Documents