Designing Cement Jobs for Success - Get it Right the First Time!
- Lik Jin Tang (Sabah Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd) | Caroline Combe (Sabah Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd) | Anson Wee (Sabah Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd) | Razif Mohd Radzi (Sarawak Shell Berhad) | Tieng Soon Heu (Sarawak Shell Berhad) | Chen Nyap Ho (Sabah Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd.) | Kenneth Tan (Sabah Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd.)
- Document ID
- International Petroleum Technology Conference
- International Petroleum Technology Conference, 26-28 March, Beijing, China
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2019. International Petroleum Technology Conference
- 1.1 Well Planning, 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment, 2.2 Installation and Completion Operations, 1.1 Well Planning, 2 Well completion, 1.6.6 Directional Drilling, 1.14 Casing and Cementing, 0.2 Wellbore Design, 3 Production and Well Operations, 7 Management and Information, 3 Production and Well Operations, 2.10 Well Integrity, 7.2 Risk Management and Decision-Making
- Cementing, scorecard, Dual stage cementing, Well Barrier
- 61 in the last 30 days
- 71 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 6.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 20.00|
Early during the M Field well design phase, it was realized that cementing would be challenging due to tight downhole pressure margins, S-shaped well trajectories with long horizontal section and the need to isolate more than one reservoir. Recognising that cement remediation would be both expensive and having low probability of success, a structured approach focusing on designing the cement jobs for success and getting it right the first time was adopted. Criteria on barrier requirements were agreed upfront by an integrated team consisting of Production Technologists, Well Fluid Engineers, Well Engineers, Petrophysicists, Technical Authorities and cementing contractors.
Early engagement allowed ample time for the team to agree on the mitigation measures for different cementing outcomes before the actual execution, thus avoiding potentially difficult decisions to be made on the fly. Cementing scorecards were populated with planned job parameters for each well. Mud removal and cement placement modelling was performed to get the optimal mud displacement to reduce the risk of channeling. If the modelling showed presence of channels and/or insufficient cement height, a re-design of the cement job was triggered. In the event that a satisfactory cement design cannot be achieved using the conventional methods, new technologies, such as dual stage cementing and managed pressure cementing, were implemented to increase the chances of getting good cement.
Once section target depth (TD) was reached, the scorecard and mud removal model were updated with the actual hole conditions. Adjustments in pumping rate, spacer and cement volumes and mud rheology were made to ensure an effective mud displacement and success cement job.
After pumping the cement, the scorecard and mud removal model were updated again and compared with the post job execution data such as theoretical top of cement (TTOC), lift pressure and pressure matching. Cement evaluation logs were obtained for the first three wells to calibrate the scorecard and mud removal model. For subsequent wells, cement evaluation logs were only carried as a contingency in the event that the theoretical top of cement did not meet the requirement. A cementing lookback was conducted post cement pumping and learnings were implemented for subsequent jobs. Over the drilling campaign, 18 casing strings were cemented and only two of those did not achieve the required top of cement height.
Designing the cement jobs for success and getting it right the first time provided significant cost saving on cement evaluation logging and on remediation while achieving the required lifecycle well integrity. This can only be achieved through a structured approach, early engagement and collaboration of an integrated and multidisciplinary team.
|File Size||531 KB||Number of Pages||6|