Zonal Isolation in Lost Circulation Zones

Innovative Cement Spacer System for Effective
Zonal Isolation in Lost Circulation Zones

Hector Castellanos, M & D Industries of Louisiana, Inc.

Abstract
Cementing is a critical operation for the construction of onshore and offshore wells. In recent years, cementing spacer developments have been heavily focused on mud removal and water-wetting properties, but minimal consideration has been placed
on the abilities of a spacer system to have effective zonal isolation results in lost circulation zones, highly permeable zones,
and shallow water flow potential zones. This study includes a specific description of the origins of an innovative spacer system for effective zonal isolation in the previously mentioned scenarios, laboratory testing, case histories and final conclusions.
Introduction
Product Development
The main objectives of oilfield cementing include sealing
Ultra Spacer is a patent pending blend of functionalized
fluid flow paths in the open hole by casing annulus and
polymers and bridging agents. Ultra Spacer can be used
obtaining excellent zonal isolation. A successful cementing
as cement spacer to effectively remove drilling mud and
intervention is designed to withstand different operations
form a non-damaging membrane, reducing fluid/filtrate in-
such as perforating, stimulation, and production. Howev-
vasion. Since the unique seal formed by Ultra Spacer
er, lost circulation problems while cementing have caused
raises the formations fracture pressure, cement can be
excessive non-productive time, costly remedial jobs, sus-
placed at casing depth with higher equivalent circulating
tained casing pressure, casing failures, communication be-
densities (ECDs) without increasing the risk of formation
tween zones, and catastrophic blowouts.
break down. This capability is highly beneficial in wells in

which a narrow margin exists between the fracture gradient
Critical success factors of cement spacers in the past have
and pore pressure gradient. In addition, the Ultra Spacer
focused on drilling fluid displacement features and water-
system can effectively remove drilling mud and water-wet
wetting capabilities. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of
the formation and casing. It is important to address the
emphasis on cementing spacers properties to protect the
fact that poor mud removal creates a path of uneven flow
cement slurries from lost circulation zones and extremely
leading to channeling of cement slurry through the mud. A
permeable formations. M&D Industries of Louisiana, Inc.
robust spacer system must always address this issue be-
has focused on developing a robust spacer formulation that
cause the partially dehydrated gelled mud and low-mobility
can effectively remove drilling mud, water-wet the forma-
mud provide regions of weakness, allowing the passage of
tion and casing and form a non-damaging barrier along the
water or gas that can result in poor annular isolation. For
surface of the formation to prevent invasion of cement fil-
this reason, the spacer systems density can be designed
trates and preserve the formations normal permeability for
from 8.34 -19.0 ppg (1.00-2.28 g/cm3) to make sure that a
optimum production.
proper mud, spacer, cement density train is followed. The

spacer system must also have excellent thermal stability up
to 400 F (204 C).

Laboratory Testing
In order to evaluate the spacer performance, M&D Indus-
For the compatibilities between the mud and spacer, the
tries of Louisiana, Inc. conducted a series of laboratory
procedures consisted of measuring the rheologies of the
tests, including: spacer compatibilities with different
base systems at 80F (ambient temperature) and the cor-
mud systems and cement systems, and unique sealing
responding circulating temperature. Then, the spacer and
abilities testing.
mud systems were combined using low shear until a homogenous mixture was achieved. This method determined
Spacer Compatibilities Testing
co-mixture rheologies at same temperatures.
The testing protocol included requirements made by op-
The samples were then placed in sample bottles for 4 hours
erators to assure acceptable performance characteristics
to assure no phase separation as seen in Table 1.
of the Ultra Spacer product. Some key issues to address

were stability of the spacer at circulating temperatures,
compatibility with synthetic mud, and compatibility with
cement. The results of one of several test samples are discussed below.
FLU ID M IXT U RE
T EM PER ATU R E ( F )
4-H O U R S TA B I L I TY TES T
90% Mud 10% Spacer
80
Stable
75% Mud 15% Spacer
80
Stable
50% Mud 50% Spacer
80
Stable
25% Mud 75% Spacer
80
Stable
10% Mud 90% Spacer
80
Stable
90% Mud 10% Spacer
96
Stable
75% Mud 25% Spacer
96
Stable
50% Mud 50% Spacer
96
Stable
25% Mud 75% Spacer
96
Stable
10% Mud 90% Spacer
96
Stable
Table 1. Mud Spacer Stability Test
FLU ID
M IXT U RE
100%
Spacer
TE ST
TE MP
(F )
300
RP M
200
RP M
100
R PM
60
R PM
30
R PM
6
R PM
3
R PM
10
S EC
10
MIN
80
142
110
80
64
48
24
20
96
110
90
66
54
40
20
18
18
24
26
30
MIN
75% Mud 15% Spacer
80
Stable
50% Mud 50% Spacer
80
Stable
25% Mud 75% Spacer
80
Stable
10% Mud 90% Spacer
80
Stable
90% Mud 10% Spacer
96
Stable
50% Mud 50% Spacer
96
Stable
25% Mud 75% Spacer
96
Stable
75% Mud

25% Spacer Zonal Isolation
96 in Lost Circulation Zones
Stable
The rheologies of the co-mixtures were then reviewed as seen in Table 2 to ensure there were no unacceptable rheology or
10% Mud 90% Spacer
96
gelation results from mixing.
Stable
TE ST
TE MP
(F )
300
RP M
200
RP M
100
R PM
60
R PM
30
R PM
6
R PM
3
R PM
10
SEC
10
MIN
80
142
110
80
64
48
24
20
96
110
90
66
54
40
20
18
18
24
26
80
90
70
50
36
26
18
12
96
64
46
38
20
16
20
30
90% Mud
10% Spacer
80
86
62
40
30
20
12
10
compatible
75% Mud
25% Spacer
80
118
90
56
42
30
18
14
compatible
50% Mud
50% Spacer
80
198
158
106
84
62
30
30
compatible
25% Mud
75% Spacer
80
214
188
130
110
84
46
40
compatible
10% Mud
90% Spacer
80
148
120
86
70
54
30
22
compatible
90% Mud
10% Spacer
96
80
56
34
24
16
10
compatible
75% Mud
25% Spacer
96
100
74
46
36
26
16
14
compatible
50% Mud
50% Spacer
96
170
140
98
78
68
32
30
compatible
25% Mud
75% Spacer
96
210
180
138
116
92
60
50
compatible
10% Mud
90% Spacer
96
120
94
68
56
44
22
20
compatible
FLU ID
M IXT U RE
100%
Spacer
100%
Mud
Table 2. Mud Spacer Compatibilities
30
MIN

The rheologies of the co-mixtures were then reviewed as seen in Table 2 to ensure there were no unacceptable rheology or
gelation results from mixing.
FLU ID
M IXT U RE
TE ST
TE MP
(F )
30 0
RP M
200
RP M
100
R PM
60
R PM
30
R PM
6
R PM
3
R PM
10
SEC
10
MIN
80
276
204
122
84
50
14
96
226
168
100
70
42
14
10
80
142
110
80
64
48
24
20
40
18
24
26
100%
Cement
100%
Spacer
96
30
MIN
110
90
66
54
20
18
TE ST
TE80
MP
(F )
300
310
RP
M
20 0
234
RP
M
100
R146
PM
60
R110
PM
30
66
R PM
6
24
R PM
3
18
R PM
80
80
280
276
220
204
148
122
116
84
86
50
60
14
58
8
compatible
-
80
96
220
226
174
168
118
100
94
70
60
42
48
14
44
10
compatible
-
80
80
212
142
170
110
124
80
100
64
80
48
52
24
48
20
compatible
-
80
96
162
110
130
90
94
66
76
54
60
40
38
20
34
18
18 compatible
24
26
90% Cement
Cement
90%
10% Spacer
Spacer
10%
75% Cement
Cement
75%
25% Spacer
Spacer
25%
96
80
292
310
220
234
138
146
98
110
62
66
20
24
14
18
compatible
compatible
96
80
268
280
208
220
138
148
110
116
78
86
44
60
40
58
compatible
compatible
50% Cement
Cement
50%
50% Spacer
Spacer
50%
96
80
270
220
212
174
150
118
120
94
90
60
60
48
58
44
compatible
compatible
25% Cement
Cement
25%
75% Spacer
Spacer
75%
96
80
200
212
166
170
120
124
100
100
80
80
54
52
50
48
compatible
compatible
10% Cement
Cement
10%
90% Spacer
Spacer
90%
96
80
140
162
110
130
82
94
64
76
50
60
30
38
30
34
compatible
compatible
90% Cement
96
292
220
138
98
62
20
14
compatible
75% Cement
25% Spacer
96
268
208
5 0 P SI
FLU
ID
90%
Cement
10%
M
IXTSpacer
U RE
75% Cement
25% Spacer
100%
50%
Cement
Cement
50% Spacer
25% Cement
75% Spacer
100%
10%
Cement
Spacer
90% Spacer
10% Spacer
Table
3. Cement Spacer Compatibilities
SYST E M
50% Cement
50% Spacer
96
270
212
95% Cement
13:16 hrs:min
25%5%
Cement
Spacer 96
200
166
75% Spacer
138
110
500 PS I
78
150
90
120
14:54 hrs:min
120
100
80
44
40
24 H O U R
60
10
10
30
S EC compatible
MIN
MIN
compatible
48 H O U R
58
compatible
2244 psi
54
50
3065 psi
compatible
Also, a compressive strength test was performed with 5% contamination of the spacer as seen in Tables 4 and 5 to determine
10% Cement
96
90% Spacer
the acoustic impedance.
140
110
82
64
50
30
30
compatible
SYST E M
3.27 Mrayls
4.0 M r ay l s
5.0 M r a y l s
6.0 M r a y l s
95%
Cement
SYST
EM
5% Spacer
5 0 hrs:min
P SI
12:29
500 hrs:min
PS I
14:29
24 Hhrs:min
OUR
17:02
48 Hhrs:min
OUR
44:34
95% Cement
5% Spacer
13:16 hrs:min
14:54 hrs:min
2244 psi
3065 psi
4.0 M r ay l s
5.0 M r a y l s
6.0 M r a y l s
14:29 hrs:min
17:02 hrs:min
44:34 hrs:min
Table 4. Compressive Strength Test

SYST E M
100
90
3.27 Mrayls
Spacer
95% Cement 80 12:29 hrs:min

5% Spacer 70
60
90% Spacer
80
162
130
90% Cement
10% Spacer
96
292
75% Cement
25% Spacer
96
50% Cement
50% Spacer
94
compatible
220
76
60TES T38
34
300
200
FLUID
TEMP
138M I X TU
98 R E 62 (F) 20 R PM14 R PM
100
60
R
PM R PM
compatible
30
R PM
6
RPM
3
RPM
10
SEC
10
M IN
268
208
138
78 80 44 276 40 204
compatible
122
84
50
14
96
270
212
150
120
90 96 60 226 58 168
100
70
compatible
42
14
10
25% Cement
75% Spacer
96
200
166
120
100
80 80 54 142 50 110
80
64
compatible
48
24
20
10% Cement
90% Spacer
96
40
20
18
18
24
110
100%
Cement
100%
Innovative Cement
Spacer System for Effective
Spacer
96 30 110 30 90
66
54
140Zonal
110Isolation
82
64
50 Circulation
in Lost
Zones
compatible
90% Cement
10% Spacer
80
310
234
146
110
66
24
18
compat
75% Cement
25% Spacer
80
280
220
148
116
86
60
58
compat
SYST Etest
M was performed
5 0 P SI with 5%500
PS I
24the
HO
U R as seen
48inHTables
O U R 4 and 5 to determine
Also, a compressive strength
contamination
of
spacer
50%
Cement
80
220
174
118
94
60
48
44
50% Spacer
the acoustic impedance.
95% Cement
5% Spacer
13:16 hrs:min
compat
25% Cement
psi
802244212
170
3065 psi
124
100
80
52
48
compat
10% Cement
90% Spacer
80
162
130
94
76
60
38
34
compat
90% Cement
10% Spacer
96
292
220
138
98
14:54
75%hrs:min
Spacer
62
20
14
compat
SYST E M
3.27 Mrayls
4.0 M r a y l s
75% Cement
25% Spacer
5.0 M r ay l s
96
268
208
6.0 M r ay l s
138
110
78
44
40
compat
95% Cement
5% Spacer
12:29 hrs:min
50%hrs:min
Cement
14:29
50% Spacer
17:02
hrs:min
96
270
212
44:34
150 hrs:min
120
90
60
58
compat
25% Cement
75% Spacer
96
200
166
120
100
80
54
50
compat
10% Cement
90% Spacer
96
140
110
82
64
50
30
30
compat
Table 5. Acoustic Impedance Test
100
The Ultra Spacer was compatible

90with both the mud and
The Ultra Spacer system for the 1/16 slot had a
% of Ultra Spacer
TEM
500of
PSthe
I
24 being
HOUR recement designs provided for this particular
test. No phase S Y S volume
loss 50
of PS
7%I with 93%
system
80
separations between the spacer and

70 mud were observed.
tained. For the 1/8 slot the Ultra Spacer system had
95% Cement
13:16 hrs:min
14:54 hrs:min
2244 psi
All mixtures were homogenous with

a volume loss of 8% with 92% of the system being re60 no gelling or settling 5% Spacer
50 test and acoustic imobserved. The compressive strength
tained. The Ultra Spacer system was able to plug off all
40 had no considerable
pedance test demonstrated that spacer
of the slot sizes tested.
effect in the ultimate strength of the30slurry

20
10
Unique Sealing Abilities Testing

0
1/32" slot
4 8 HO
3065 p
S Y S TEM
3.27 M r ay l s
4.0 M r a y l s
5. 0 Mrayls
6 .0 Mr
95% Cement
5% Spacer
12:29 hrs:min
14:29 hrs:min
17:02 hrs:min
44:34 hrs
1/16" slot
1/8" slot
% Retained
Slot Sizes
The goal of this lab testing was to demonstrate
the unique
% Lost
Figure 1. Slot Test Chart
properties of the Ultra Spacer system. The slot tests were

100
taining a slot was placed within the cell. Both ends were ca-
90
pable of being completely sealed. The Ultra Spacer system
80
was mixed with 40lb/bbl of Ultra Seal Plus, as it is commonly

designed for wells with major lost circulation problems. The
system was placed within the cell and 500 psi pressure was
then applied to the cell and opened to allow the system to
pass through the slot. A measurement of how much slurry
escaped was used to determine the percentages of retained
and lost fluid. Three different plugs with different slot sizes
(1/32nd inch, 1/16th inch, 1/8th inch) were used for testing.
The Slot test results are displayed in Figure 1. For the
1/32 slot the Ultra Spacer system had a volume
loss of 2% with 98% of the system being retained.
% of Ultra Spacer
performed using a modified long fluid loss cell. A plug con-
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1/32" slot
1/16" slot
% Retained
Slot Sizes
1/8" slot
% Lost

Low-pressure fluid loss testing was performed using a long

fluid loss cell. A layer of 100-mesh silica sand was placed
in the cell. The sand layer was saturated with de-ionized
water. A Class H neat cement system was mixed and
placed in the cell on top of the sand layer. The cell was
then pressured to 500 psi at the top and opened at the bot-
Figure 2. Neat Cement
Figure 3. Ultra Spacer
tom to allow the cement system to flow through the sand

layer. Filtrate was collected over time. This test provided a
comparison of the penetration rates of filtrate into cleats
or high-permeability formations. Simulation of placing the
spacer system Ultra Spacer ahead of the cement system
was then tested. A layer of 100-mesh silica sand was placed
in the cell. The sand layer was saturated with de-ionized water. Ultra Spacer was placed in the cell on top of the sand
layer. The cell was then pressured to 500 psi at the top and
Figure 4. Ultra Spacer/

Cement
opened at the bottom to allow the Ultra Spacer to flow

through the sand layer for 30 minutes. Pressure was then re-
The Ultra Spacer system successfully plugged off all
leased and any excess Ultra Spacer removed from the cell.
three-slot sizes and plugged off the sand bed layer. In
The cement system was then mixed and placed on top of
addition it allowed for the cement slurry to not have fluid
the sand layer. The cell was then pressured to 500 psi at the
loss and dehydrate thus maintaining an uncompromised
top and opened at the bottom to allow the cement system to
cement sheath.
flow through the sand layer for 30 minutes.

The low-pressure fluid loss tests across the sand bed demonstrated the ability of the Ultra Spacer system to seal itself off against a formation. Figure 2 shows the neat cement
system penetrating throughout the sand layer. The cement
system had no fluid loss control and penetrated the sand
layer within seconds resulting in a completely de-hydrated
layer of cement on top of the sand layer. Figure 2 shows the
Ultra Spacer under the same conditions, only penetrating
a very small amount into the sand layer. A low permeability
membrane is created across the formation, resulting in retention of the Ultra Spacer system on top of the sand layer.
This excess of Ultra Spacer is then removed from the test
fixture and the neat cement system is placed on top of the
sand layer containing the Ultra Spacer membrane. Figure
4 shows the neat cement system not being allowed to penetrate past the Ultra Spacer membrane. There is no fluid
lost to the sand layer by the cement system.

Case Histories
The Ultra Spacer case histories include successful cementing operations in depleted or naturally fractured zones, zones with
narrow pore and fracture margins, zones with washouts and severely enlarged wellbores, production liners with tight clearances, deeper pay prospects in old depleted existing fields, and zones with shallow water flow potential in deepwater wells.
Three of the most promising case histories were selected for this report.
Powder River Basin - (Wyoming-USA)

Completion of coal bed methane wells in the Powder
In addition, production rates from the wells cemented using
River Basin presented unique, technical and economical
standard density cement + Ultra Spacer were significantly
challenges. In order to be commercially viable, these wells
greater than corresponding production rates from offsetting
must be drilled and completed quickly with excellent ce-
wells cemented with low-density cement.
ment bond to isolate coal seams for fracture stimulation.

Low-strength formations prevent the use of standard density cements or high rate cement placement. Lost circula-
Haynesville Shale - (Shelby County,

Texas-USA)
tion during cementing is a frequent occurrence, even with

low-density cements.
Fallback and loss circulation are a common experience

while cementing the surface hole in this County, resulting in
This case study describes the use of the Ultra Spacer
costly top out cementing jobs. Ultra Spacer (@ 60 bbls)
system to cement wells with standard density cement
was pumped as the primary spacer ahead of the 11.8 ppg
without lost circulation. There was also an unexpected
lead cement. The density of Ultra Spacer was 10.6 ppg
result of improved productivity from the completed forma-
and included 40 ppb of Ultra Seal Plus.
tions. The initial field study included 37 wells completed

with Ultra Spacer and standard density cement com-
The well was cemented with cement to surface without lost
pared to 26 wells completed with no Ultra Spacer and
circulation or fall back. Great hole cleaning along with good
low-density cement.
bonding resulted across the entire interval. Substantial savings were realized by eliminating the remedial cementing
When the cementing data and production data from the
jobs that had been required in previous wells.
study wells were analyzed, results of the field study indicated the modified cementing method with the Ultra Spacer
yielded significantly better primary performance and productivity. The cement volume needed to circulate cement to
surface for the 37 wells cemented with the standard density
cement/Ultra Spacer was 7% excess while the 26 wells
cemented with the low density cement averaged 36%.
Port Barre, La. (Parish: St. Landry-USA)

The operator requested a specialty spacer to cement a 22
casing at 4,130 MD. The losses encountered while drilling
the interval were 8-12 bbl/hr. It was critical for cement to return back to surface to prevent future remedial interventions.

Our engineering team recommended 150 bbl of Ultra Spac-
Grand Isle Block 37 (GOM-USA)
er @ 12.0 ppg to solve the operators challenge. All the dry

additives were shipped to the cement companys bulk plant
A 7 open hole had been drilled to TD and a 5 liner run. The
facility in ICY prior to the job. During the job, the recom-
drilling fluid was 11.2 ppg OBM. A 30 bbl Ultra Spacer was
mended volume of Ultra Spacer was mixed on the fly at 6
formulated and weighted up to 13.0 lb/gal. Ultra Spacer
bpm. After pumping 740 bbls of cement the Ultra Spacer
was pumped as the lead spacer in front of a 16.0 lb/gal ce-
reached the surface, after 785 bbls were pumped the ce-
ment slurry.
ment reached the surface. The Ultra Spacer repaired the

lost zone and a successful cement job was accomplished.
Cement was displaced without loss circulation. Furthermore,
The operator was able to resume downhole operations
there was no sustained casing pressure after the cement
avoiding remedial interventions.
job, thus no gas migration issues and no remedial cement

squeezes were required.
Conclusions
With over a thousand case histories, the Ultra Spacer technology has proven to the oil and gas industry that a unique cement spacer system is needed for the most complicated cementing jobs. If operators embark on the challenge of cementing
depleted production zones, lost circulation zones, washout zones or zones with a narrow ECD margins, the Ultra Spacer
technology, with a proprietary blend of functionalized polymers and bridging agents, can be used as cement spacer to effectively remove drilling mud and form a non-damaging membrane, reducing fluid/filtrate invasion and increasing effective zonal
isolation.

Zonal Isolation in Lost Circulation Zones

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zonal Isolation in Lost Circulation Zones

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Innovative Cement Spacer System for Effective