Implications of Cementing on

Well Performance
Michael J. Economides*
Schlumberger Dowel1
II
l-l INTRODUkTION
Zonal isolation is surely the most important function of
the cement sheath. As will be shown in this introductory
chapter, zonal isolation is so critical that no shortchang-
ing in the quality of the cement and the cement/casing or
cement/formation bonds can ever be justified. Flow of
fluids irlo~ the cement sheath is invariably an undesir-
able occurrence. For a producing well, this is manifested
either by the loss of reservoir fluids through crossflow
along the cement sheath, or by the influx of underground
fluids from other formations into the active layer. For an
injector, the injected fluids may escape into unintended
layers through the cement sheath. During hydraulic frac-
turing, escape of fluids through an imperfect cement
sheath may result in either undesirable fracture-height
migration or screenout of the intended fracture in the tar-
geted formation because of the fracturing fluid loss. In all
cases, the direction of the flow of fluids into or out of the
active layer is opposite to the direction of the pressure
gradient and proportional to its value.
While flow of any fluid along and through the cement
sheath is undesirable, upward gas flow or gas migra-
tion through and along the cement sheath has received
particular attention. As early as 1963, Guyvoronsky and
Farukshin identified the possibility of gas percolation
through the matrix of a gelling cement slurry, and mea-
sured permeabilities up to 300 md. Several investigators
studied the gas migration phenomenon and methods for
its minimization (Carter and Slagle, 1970; Levine et al.,
1980; Parcevaux et al., 1985; Stewart and Schouten,
1988). A comprehensive review of the subject is pre-
sented in Chapter 8.
Portland cement systems of normal density (=16.0 lb/
gal or 1.93 g/cm?) usually exhibit extremely low matrix
permeability, if allowed to set undisturbed. The literature
*Now at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
quotes values in the microdarcy range. However, gas mi-
gration can open additional flow paths, in the form of
interconnected porosity through the setting cement. The
resulting set cement suffers from an unnaturally high
permeability, because of this earlier disruption. and may
not provide a competent seal. Flow paths may also take
the form of discrete conductive channels (microannuli)
at the pipe/cement or cement/formation interfaces. These
paths, and their effective width, then correspond to a cer-
tain permeability that far outweighs the intrinsic perme-
ability of the undisturbed set cement. As can be seen in
Section l-2, even a seemingly small microannulus width
results in a very large effective permeability through the
cement sheath.
The adhesion of the hardened cement to the pipe and
the shear stress required to detach it, thus creating a
microannulus, should be of primary concern during hy-
draulic fracturing. Surprisingly, only a cursory treatment
of the subject is found in the literature. An outline of the
issue is presented in Section l-4.
l-2 ZONAL ISOLATION
While, as mentioned earlier, zonal isolation is the most
important function of cementing, the necessary amount
of zonal isolation is not often quantified. A simple way to
attempt this is to compare the producing rate of the active
layer into the well with the contributions of an overlying .
or underlying formation through the cement sheath.
Figure l-l is a representation of a typical completion
configuration. In the middle is a perforated interval with
two other potentially producing intervals (one above and
one below) separated by some impermeable layers, of
thickness (ti)i and (AL) 1, respectively.
For simplicity, let us consider steady-state flow into
the well from the producing layer. The equation describ-
ing this rate for a radial oil reservoir is easily derived
from Darcys law, and is given below in oilfield units.
l-l
WELL CEMENTING
Cement
Sheath L.,
1 I---- r---I J-+ Reservoir 1 (p,)
4
k*
Figure l-l-Typical well completion configuration.
where:
rl
= flow rate (stb/D),
k = permeability (md),
h = thickness (ft),
PC
= reservoir pressure (psi),
p,,.~ = flowing bottom hole pressure (psi),
P
= viscosity (cp),
S = skin factor, and
B = formation volume factor.
For a gas well, the analogous equation is
where:
4
= flow rate (Mscf/D),
Z = gas deviation factor, and
T = reservoir temperature (R).
(l-la)
(I-lb)
Crossflow from the adjoining formations into the pro-
ducing layer is likely to occur, because a pressure
gradient is formed between them, The rate of flow is pro-
portional to the vertical permeability.
For flow into the producing layer from another forma-
tion, the largest vertical pressure gradient would be at the
cement sheath, which must have at least as low a perme-
ability as the barrier layers. From the geometry shown in
Fig. l-l, the area of flow through the cement sheath is
equal to
A = r (r,,.? - I,.,,., ). (l-2)
Darcys law can be applied along the cement annulus.
Thus, from the generalized expression
l, = &!!w&,
u
(l-3)
andreplacingA as given by Eq. 1-2, an expression giving
the flow rate (in oilfield units) through the cement sheath
can be obtained.
Equation lL4 provides the oil flow rate that can be
either through the cement sheath matrix permeability,
through a microannulus formed within the sheath, ot
through a microannulus formed between the cement and
casing or the cement and the formation. The permeability
k is an equivalent permeability value and it can be re-
lated to the width of the microannulus, as will be shown
later in the chapter.
In Eq. l-4, if the pressure in the adjoining layer is
equal to the initial pressure of the producing formation,
thenpi becomesp,,. For new wells, this is a reasonable as-
sumption and it will be used here for simplicity. Analo-
gous expressions to Eq. l-4 can be readily derived for the
flow of gas or water. In the case of gas, the expression is
qw,,, =
]izk n (r,,.?
- 1;.<,,V2) (pi2 - I,,7 )
-A---,
(l-5)
1424pZT(AL)l
where
(/
= flow rate (Mscf/D),
Z = gas deviation factor, and
T = reservoir temperature (R).
As can be seen, the relationship is between rate and pres-
sure squared, which one should expect in the case of gas.
An even more appropriate expression is between rate and
the real-gas pseudopressure function. This calculation
l-2
IMPLlCATlONS OF CEMENTING ON WELL PERFORMANCE
can be readily available in most instances. Equation l-4
is applicable for the flow of water if the B and p used are
those for water instead of oil.
Using Eq. 1-4, the oil flow rate through the cement
sheath can be estimated for various values of equivalent
permeability. Table l-1 contains some typical values
rw
= 0.406 f t (8%in. OD)
r
cas
= 0.328 ft (7%-in. OD)
Pi
= 3000 psi
B = 1 .I resbbl/stb
P
= 1 cp
(AL), = 20 f t
Pti
= 1000 psi
Table I-l-Well and reservoir data for oil flow along
cement sheath.
from reservoir and well data. The distance between the
target reservoir and an adjoining formation, AL,, is taken
as equal to 20 ft. Figure l-2 is a graph of the steady-state
oil flow rate for a range of I?, using the data in Table l- 1.
Figure 1-3 is an analogous example for a gas well, using
the data in Table l-2 and Eq. 1-5. The relationship be-
tween these equivalent permeability values and the size
of the channel that may cause them will be discussed in
the next subsection. As can be seen from Figs. l-2 and
1-3, the flow rates can be substantial.
1-2.1 Index of Zonal Isolation (121)
Dividing Eq. l-l a by Eq. 1-4, the ratio of the flow rate
into the well from the inten&~!formation to the flow rate
IO
1
1 o-3
10-J
1 1 o-2 lo- 1 10 102
k*(md)
Figure i-2-Well and reservoir data for gas flow along
cement sheath.
10
1
g 10-i
%
E
(J 10-2
1 o-3
/
1 o-4
I 1 , ,
1 o-3 10-Z 10-l 1 10 102
k* (md)
Figure I-3-Gas flow rate along cement sheath for a
range of cement equivalent permeabilities.
rw
= 0.406 f t (8Sin. OD)
r
PY
= 0.328 f t (7%in. OD)
= 3000 psi
P WI
= 1000 psi
I-I
= 0.025 cp
Z = 0.95
T = 640"R
(AL), = 20 f t
Table l-2-Well and reservoir data for gas flow along
cement sheath.
through the cement is defined here as the 1ncle.v cfZona1
Isolatim (LZI) and is given by 1-6.
IZI = cl=
kll AL
q 1 WI,
pj< (lM.2- I. ) In; + y
( 4
(l-6)
, ct.,
Ill.
Interestingly, all variables that distinguish Eq. l-la
[for oil and water) and Eq. l-lb (for gas) are the same as
those evident in Eq. l-4 (for oil and water) and Eq. l-5
(for gas). Thus, the IZI expression as given by Eq. l-6 is
valid for any fluid. The expression given by Eq. l-6 as-
sumes that the initial reservoir pressures are essentially
equal in the two formations. If the pressures are not
equal, then the pressure gradients should remain in the
respective top and bottom of the right-hand side of
Eq. l-6.
Equation l-6 can provide the quantification of zonal
isolation. It can be used either to calculate the required
cement equivalent permeability to provide a desired
flow-rate ratio or, for a given cement permeability, what
would be the flow rate through the cement sheath from
1-3
WELL CEMENTING
adjoining layers. As discussed earlier, the cement perme-
ability k* is an equivalent permeability value, resulting
either from the presence of a microannulus or from an
unnaturahy high cement-matrix permeability. The latter
may be precipitated by the disruptive effects of fluid in-
vasion as the cement changes from liquid to solid. The
permeability for the flow through a slot is given by the
well known
&2,
(l-7)
where I2 is a geometric factor. In oilfield units the rela-
tionship is
k= 5.4 x 1OW
(l-8)
where k is in md and M, in inches. The constant is equal to
8.4 x 10 if NJ is in meters. The relationship implied by
Eq. 1-X is significant. While a large matrix permeability
within the cement sheath is unlikely (of the magnitudes
shown in Figs. 1-2 and l-3), a large equivalent perme-
ability can result from a relatively small microan-
nulus width.
Equation l-6 can be used also as an evaluation tool to
detect flow through the sheath. If a vertical interference
or a multilayer test is done and the reservoir is well de-
fined, then crossflow through the adjoining low-perme-
ability layers may be calculated (Ehlig-Economides and
Ayoub, 1986). As a result, the ideal flow rate from the
targeted interval can be calculated.
Deviations from this value can be attributed to flow
through an imperfect cement sheath and, using Eq. l-6,
the permeability of the cement can be extracted. The net
flow rate through the perforated interval is
where:
(l-9)
qws =
lateral reservoir flow rate,
CCJ~~ = crossflow contributions through the barrier,
and
qc PO1 =
contributions through the cement sheath.
Figure l-4 is a graph for an example well using an
SO-acre spacing, a skin effect equal to 5, and r,,, equal to
0.406 ft. The group khAL is graphed on the abscissa while
the cement permeability k* is graphed on the left ordi-
nate. On the right ordinate is the equivalent path width
squared that would result in similar flow rate. Two
curves are offered: one for 50 and another for 100 of the
~/cJ~~,,, ratio (IZI). As can be seen, the cement permeability
requirements and the need for more zonal isolation be-
come more critical for lower permeability producing for-
mations that are separated by thin barriers. In both cases,
the product IchhL becomes small, requiring a small ce-
ment permeability. This would not be a problem if only
the innate matrix permeability of the cement sheath is
considered. For most cements, this permeability is less
than 0.0 1 md.
However, the presence of a continuous microannulus
can totally reverse and severely aggravate the situation.
The width squared of the microannulus is graphed on the
right ordinate of Fig. l-4. As can be seen, for a typical
reservoir (k = 4 md, h = 50 ft, AL = 50 ft, resulting in kh
AL = 10) for a ~/q,~,,,, = 50, the microannulus width must
be less than 4.5 x 1 O9 in. ( 1.1 pm), which corresponds to
an equivalent permeability of 120 md. It is important to
point out that such a microannulus width is two orders of
magnitude smaller than the average diameter of a cement
grain, is well within most casing roughness tolerances,
and would probably not be detectable by bond logging. In
addition, downhole pressure changes of a few psi would
be sufficient to cause casing diameter fluctuations within
this realm. Such microannuli would probably not be con-
tinuous; nevertheless, these calculations clearly demon-
strate the extreme importance of obtaining an intimate
bond between the cement sheath and casing and forma-
tion surfaces.
The quantified IZI then becomes an important variable
to control. For tight reservoirs, if only absolute contribu-
tions or losses from or into adjoining formations are of
concern, then a low IZI can be tolerated. However, it
should be remembered, especially in the case where
influx of foreign fluids such as gases, water or oil of dif-
ferent physical properties is evident, the minimum toler-
able IZI may be very high and contingent on the produc-
tion facilities at the wellhead. In such cases, even more
stringent requirements in the LZI may be necessary in
tight, thinly separated formations as implied in Eq. l-6.
1.5x10-8
1.5x10.9
1.5 x 10.10
1.5.x lo-
1.5 x lo-2
1.5x10-3
1.5 x IO.14
lo-3 - 1.5x 10-15
1 10 102 103 104 105 10 107
khAL (md.ft)
I
Figure 1-4-Example of the IZI concept.
l-4
IMPLlCATlONS OF CEMENTING ON WELL PERFORMANCE
l-3 CEMENT-TO-PIPE BOND AND
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Unfortunately, and surprisingly, this is an area of re-
search that has not received its due attention. Handin
(1965) attempted to characterize the strength of oil
well cements at downhole pressure/temperature condi-
tions. He characterized the compressive strength of ce-
ments and determined the ultimate strength at failure. He
concluded that oil-well cements become very ductile
even under low effective confining pressures. Because
of the magnitude of the ultimate compressive strengths at
normal system densities, these cements have mechanical
constitutive properties similar to sedimentary rocks un-
der similar confining conditions.
However, hydraulic fracturing is a tensile failure
mechanism and a cement sheath is potentially subjected
to two phenomena: fracture propagation within the ce-
ment sheath and/or the dislodging of the cement sheath
from the pipe by overcoming the cement-to-pipe bond. In
either case, the net result is the creation of an annulus
(fracture within the cement or between the cement and
the pipe).
For the fracture-height migration within the cement,
there is currently ongoing research to characterize this
phenomenon. In general, it would be desirable if the frac-
ture height within the cement is at the most equal or, pref-
erably, less than the fracture height within the fractured
interval. If the fracture height within the cement is larger
than the reservoir fracture height, undesirable communi-
cation will ensue. The quantity AL. in Eq. l-6 will be ef-
fectively reduced substantially.
Of particular interest is the shear bond strength which
is the adhesion strength between cement and pipe. Par-
cevaux and Sault (1984) showed that there is no apparent
correlation between the cement compressive strength
and the shear bond strength. Furthermore, they deter-
mined that the shear bond strength ranges from 1,000 psi
(= 7 MPa) for standard cement to 1,800 psi = 12. MPa) for
cements containing bond-enhancing agents (BA), as
shown in Fig. 1-5. These values would imply that for
many reservoirs where the tensile strength of the rock is
larger than 1,000 psi, the adhesion between cement and
pipe will fail first, resulting in the occurrence of a
microannulus along the pipe. This has major implica-
tions both for the loss of fracturing fluids during the
stimulation treatment as well as the migration of reser-
voir fluids following the treatment. In such a situation,
remedial cementing would be indicated. The cement
shear bond is outlined in more detail in Chapter 8.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
by volume of sollds Curing Time (days)
2175
Figure l-S--Cement shear bond strength development
at 20C.
l-5 CONCLUSION
The above discussion demonstrates that the ability of a
well to achieve its production potential is influenced
most by the degree of zonal isolation achieved during the
completion. The quality of the cement sheath is in turn
the most important factor influencing zonal isolation.
Therefore, the cementation of a well should be of critical
importance to every operator. The chapters to follow dis-
cuss the many interdependent facets which the engineer
must consider to design, execute, and evaluate a success-
ful cement job.
l-6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank Phil Rae for valuable sugges-
tions and insights on this subject.
l-7 REFERENCES
Bannister, C. E., Shuster, G. E., Wooldridge, L. A., and Jones,
M. J.: Critical Design Parameters to Prevent Gas lnvasion
During Cementing Operations, paper SPE 1 1982, 1983.
Carter, L. G. and Slagle, K. A.: A Study of Completion Prac-
tices to Minimize Gas Communications, paper SPE 3164,
1970.
Cheung, P.R. and Beirute, R. M.: Gas Flow in Cements,
JPT(June 1985) 1041-1048.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Ayoub, J. A.: Vertical Interfer-
ence Testing Across a Low Permeability Zone, SPEFE (Oct.
1986) 497-5 IO.
Garcia, J.A. and Clark, C.R.: An Investigation of Annular
Gas Flow Following Cementing Operations, paper SPE 5701,
1976.
Guyvoronsky, A. A. and Farukshin, L. K.: Hydrostatic Pres-
sure of Cement Slurry, Nqftymik (I 963) No. 10,3-32 (trans-
lated from Russian).
Handin, J.: Strength of Oil Well Cements at Downhole Pres-
sure-Temperature Conditions, SPEJ (Dec. 1965) 341-347.
l-5
WELL CEMENTING
Lee, S. T., Chien, M. C. H., and Culham, W. G.: Vertical Sin-
gle-Well Pulse Testing of a Three-Layer Stratified Reservoir,
paper SPE 13429, 1984.
Levine, D. C., Thomas, E. W., Bezner, H. P., and Tolle, G. C.:
How to Prevent Annular Gas Flow Following Cementing Op-
erations, World Oil (Oct. 1980) 8.5-94.
Parcevaux, P., Piot, B., and Vercaemer, C.: Annular Gas
Flow: A Hazard-Free Solution, Pet. Irlfomz. (July 1985)
34-38.
Parcevaux, P. A. and Sault, P. H.: Cement Shrinkage and Elas-
ticity: A New Approach for a Good Zonal Isolation, paper SPE
13176,1984.
Parcevaux, P.: Mechanisms of Gas Channeling During Pri-
mary Cementation: Methods for Prevention and Repair,
Chemische Produkte itI der Erdiilgewinnung, Clausthal Tech-
nical U., Clausthal-Zellerfeld, (Sept. 6, 1984).
Stewart, R. B. and Schouten, F. C.: Gas Invasion and Migra-
tion in Cemented Annuli: Causes and Cures, SPEDE (March
1988) 77-82.
l-8 NOMENCLATURE
B = formation volume factor
h = formation thickness
k = effective formation permeability
p = reservoir pressure
pi = initial reservoir pressure
q = surface flow rate
Y = radial distance
rcor= casing diameter
rw = wellbore radius
s = wellbore skin factor
r = time
Greek Symbols
p = viscosity
t$ = porosity, fraction of bulk volume
Subscripts
i = initial condition
wf = flowing wellbore condition
I-6