IBP1494_12 CRITICAL STATIC GEL STRENGTH DETERMINATION HELPS MITIGATE RISKS OF SWF IN BRAZIL OFFSHORE Alexandre B.

de Melo1, Mario H. T. Gomes2, Juan C. C. Aybar3, Roberto M. Melo4

Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oi & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
This paper presents a case history of cementing design and application that meets the API recommended practices for isolating potential shallow water/gas flow zones. The cement system was specially designed to isolate the top hole section of deep water wells. Using the API RP 65 and API STD 65-2 as guidelines, the critical factors were assessed to achieve the desired isolation. Critical Static Gel Strength (CSGS) is defined as the static gel strength of the cement that results in the decay of hydrostatic pressure to the point that pressure is balanced (hydrostatic equals pore pressure) across the potential flowing formation(s). Once the cement slurry develops static gel strength, it starts losing its ability to provide hydrostatic pressure. This pressure reduction is critical when the equivalent density reaches the pore pressure. At this point, the well is susceptible to fluid invasion. Determination of CSGS plays a key role on any potential flow zone cementing. Since it is not dependent of any slurry property but density, it is very important to evaluate the factors that affect the CSGS. This case designed a cement plug for abandonment of a pilot hole on an unknown reservoir. Planning ahead the worst case scenario anticipates the risks of non-productive time on remedial solutions.

1. Introduction
In deepwater scenarios, the shallower depositional environment of the sediments produces conditions for overpressurized fluid flow. This condition is suitable for occurrence of phenomena known as shallow water flow. Water flow from shallow formation can cause loss of hydraulic integrity of the cased hole, condition that could conduct to complete loss of the structural support for deeper phases and, in worse circumstances, complete loss of drilling templates containing previously cased well. This paper will present the procedure followed to design the optimum cement system to fulfill the requirement to mitigate the potential shallow water flow foreseen for this well. This condition represents one of the worst scenarios that can be faced on ultra deep water environment. The plan was to drill a pilot hole of 8 in to 2500m in order to gather the necessary information related to geological deposition and assess the potential for shallow water flow, then plug the hole with cement. Once the geological environment is known, the decision to start the drilling of the well is approved. Based on this scenario, the cementing operation was designed and executed. In the next sections there will be explained the steps that were followed to achieve the successful cementing operation. 1.1. Shallow Water Flow

______________________________ 1 Civil Engineer - Baker Hughes 2 Electronic Engineer Baker Hughes 3 Industrial Engineer Baker Hughes 4 Mechanical Engineer Baker Hughes

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 The Shallow Water Flow (SWF) occurs once abnormally high pressure sands are drilled. Most of the top hole sections are drilled with seawater and riserless, this can lead to an underbalance state. This flow causes a non-controlled flow of water and sediments to the seabed. This is a much feared event that is very costly once the well starts flowing. SWF should be always avoided. Several papers describe the best practices to mitigate the risks of this event to happen. The focus of this paper is located on the cementing slurry design.

Figure 1: Shallow Water Flow Severity

2. API Recommended Practices and Standards

The API RP 65 (September 2002) lists a series of best practices that have been applied while drilling and cementing deepwater potential shallow water flow environment. Those practices are the following: Site selection to minimize the risks and severity of SWF; use of pressure while drilling and resistivity tools; use ROV to check for flow; rapid action to contain the flow; switch to mud to control flow as soon as it is encountered; selection of casing seats/casing program to facilitate control; low fluid loss and gel strengths of pad mud; use of foamed cement and/or special slurries to maintain control across the SWF zone; batch setting conductor and surface casing. Although there are several best practices listed above, we will be focusing this paper in the cement slurry design. Some of the problems that may cause flow during or after cementing are poor design and poor execution of cementing operations. Cement slurry not properly mixed can drastically affect its properties. If also pumped improperly, it can affect the wellbore fluid removal, resulting in uncemented channels. 2

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 If flow occurs during the cementing operations, the fluid influx will lighten the cement slurry and affect the cement slurry properties and possibly result in inadequate hydrostatic pressure to control the well. Flow after the cement is in place will likely to cause loss of integrity of the well and/or to its surface equipment. The requirements for the cement sheath are stabilization of the wellhead; provide additional axial support for well loads; provide hydraulic seal to avoid migration of fluids between formations and the seabed; provide long term isolation to withstand cyclic loadings from thermal, pressure, mechanical and geomechanical forces. In order to meet the objectives listed above, some properties are required. Those properties are rheology that allows good displacement efficiency, hydrostatic pressure control, fluid loss, free water and stability. Rapid setting and adequate compressive strength in short term and long term, ductility and ease of design and modification. The following set of properties is desired on the API RP 65: a. b. c. d. e. f. Thickening Time Appropriate for safety operation Fluid Loss less than 50 cc/30min Free Water Zero Rheology Must be easily mixed and pumped Compressive Strength 500 psi in less than 24 hours Low transition Time Less than 45 minutes.

3. Design Criteria
The low temperature environment was a very important factor while designing cement slurry. With a water depth of 1915m, the estimated circulated temperature from the software simulator was 13 C. This temperature plays a key role on the cement slurry, not only retarding the thickening time, but retarding the compressive strength development and increasing the transition time from liquid to solid. 3.1. Critical Static Gel Strength determination Once the cement slurry develops static gel strength, it starts losing its ability to provide fully hydrostatic pressure. This pressure reduction is determined until the equivalent density reaches the pore pressure. At this point, the well is susceptible to fluid invasion. Critical Static Gel Strength (CSGS) is defined as the static gel strength of the cement that results in the decay of hydrostatic pressure to the point that pressure is balanced (hydrostatic equals pore pressure) across the potential flowing formation(s). Determination of CSGS plays a key role on any potential flow zone cementing. Since it is not dependent of any slurry property but density, it is very important evaluate the factors that affect the CSGS. Some of parameters are fluids density (drilling fluid, spacer & cement slurry), length of cement column, hole size and casing size. The formula that determines the CSGS can be found below. With the CSGS determined, it is possible to evaluate the susceptibility of a shallow water flow.

CSGS OBP 300 L Deff

Where: OBP = Hydrostatic Overbalance Pressure (psi) 300 = Conversion Factor (lb/in) L = length of cement column (ft) Deff = Doh Dc (in) Doh = Diameter of Open Hole Dc = Outside diameter of casing

(1)

4. Results
3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 The static gel strength development curve was measured following the API RP10B-6 recommended practice. With the result (figure 2), we were able to determine the transition time from liquid to solid. The tested cement slurry presented a gel strength transition from 150 lbf/hft to 500 lbf/hft in less than 30min. By that moment there was no information on pore pressure. The gathered result had to be evaluated re-arranging the formula above in a different manner. The formula was used to iterate several depth values to determine the equivalent density on the minimum gel strength consideration.

MPR SGS 300 L Deff

MPR = Maximum pressure reduction SGS = Static Gel Strength, lbf /100 ft2 L = Length of Cement Column, ft D = Effective Diameter of Cement Column, in

(2)

Figure 2: Static Gel Strength With the assumption above, it was possible to plot the equivalent density at several depths. The curve can be used along with pore pressure curve to determine the susceptibility of water flow during the transition period of the tested cement slurry. For this particular case, 150 lbf/hft was established as the lower limit for the CSGS. Lower values could dictate the reformulation of slurry in order to meet this new requirement. Consequently, the transit period should be reevaluated since from this new value to 500 lbf/hft in less than 45 minutes.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 3: Equivalent Density of Cement column at CSGS (ppg)

5. Conclusions
Using this analysis it was possible to determine the likelihood of the shallow water flow. In this particular case, this cementing design could withstand a pore pressure of 9.33 ppg at the TD of 2500m. This result combined with good cementing practices of stability, fluid loss control, thickening time, rheology and compressive strength led to successful cement jobs. This case was designed to isolate a pilot hole on an unknown reservoir. Planning ahead the worst case scenario anticipates the risks of non-productive time on remedial solutions. Using special techniques, such as low transition time cement and CSGS determination, the risks of shallow water flow can be mitigated.

6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Baker Hughes for permission to publish this paper.

7. References
TINSLEY, J. M., MILLER, E. C., SABINS, F. L. and SUTTON, D. L., Study of factors causing annular gas flow following primary cementing. J. Pet. Tech., p. 1427-1437, March, 1980. MUELLER, D. T., LACY, L. L. and BONCAN, V. G. Characterization of the initial, transitional, and set properties of oilwell cement. paper SPE 36475, p. 613-623, Oct, 1996. 5

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 WHITFILL, D. L., HETHMAN, J., FAUL, R. R., VARGO, R. F., Fluid for drilling and cementing shallow water flows, paper SPE 62957, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, October 23-25. Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells API Recommended Practice 65, Part 1, First Edition, American Petroleum Institute, September 2002. Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction API Standard 65, Part 2, Second Edition, American Petroleum Institute, December 2010. Recommended Practice on Determine the Static Gel Strength of Cement Formulations API Recommended Practice 10B, Part 6, First Edition, August 2010. MUELLER, D. T., Redefining the Static Gel Strength Requirements for Cements Employed in SWF Mitigation. Paper OTC 14282, presented at 2002 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 6-9.