Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Achieving successful isolation of potential flow zones during well construction in deep fault-segmented HPHT
basins is often a formidable task. These wells, often drilled from floating rigs, tend to present rapid departures from
more normal conditions to very high degrees of overpressure, elevated temperatures and where formation
pressures often approach fracture gradient. Further, once overpressure is geologically established in isolated
pressure compartments, reservoir fluids tend to migrate vertically via hydro-fracturing to shallower depths.18
Challenges associated with cementing operations include actual leak-off test value (LOT) vs. predicted, margins of
error in mud weights estimated, and risk of inducing a fracture during pre-flush and slurry displacement. If the open
hole was under-reamed, the actual fracture pressure may be reduced by an unknown amount. Wellbore
strengthening operations and associated procedures add additional formation fracture gradient uncertainty.4
This presentation speaks to applying the principals of Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) and recent refinements of
its practice to cementing processes. Precise flow in/out measurements in real-time, ascertainment of actual
downhole pressure environment, ability to conduct frequent dynamic formation integrity tests (FITs) without drilling
interruption and use of PLC choke systems are applicable strengths19,20,22.
API Standard 65 - Part 2, Second Edition, December 2010 - Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well
Construction will be referenced to illustrate C-LC applications.
Preparatory - quantify the stability of the wellbore with frequent dynamic FITs (without exercising the BOP) and
assurance of hole cleaning during pre-flush.
Displacement - optimize fluid dynamics and ascertain in real-time an induced fracture.
Curing - maintain more consistent annulus pressure on rigs experiencing wave heave, backpressure applications
for minimizing the risk of channeling and/or help ensure the column of plug in the tubing string is balanced with the
annulus
Testing - Use of a rotating control device (RCD) and process logic controlled (PLC) Choke to pressure test plugs
after tagging in lieu of using dedicated cementing equipment.
Introduction
Not all wells that are drilled and casing strings cemented in place during well construction are problematic.
However, HPHT wells, depleted reservoirs, and narrow margin drilling conditions and particularly those in deep
water have a history of presenting difficult to impossible execution of primary cement placement by manipulation of
the traditional variables of cement density, flow rate, fluid viscosities and mechanical staging devices. Cementing
operations on floating rigs experiencing wave heave contribute to the challenge.
SPE/IADC 163452
API Recommended Practice 65 - Part 2, First Edition (May 2010) and API Standard 65 - Part 2 (December 2010),
both entitled - Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction are well-respected industry documents
whose purpose includes guidelines before, during and after cementing operations. The primary difference between
the two is that the latter was issued in a post-Macondo environment and a number of shoulds became shalls.
Therefore, the applicable document referred to frequently in this paper is API Standard 65 -Part 2;
This document was prepared with input from oil and gas operators, drilling contractors, service
companies, consultants and regulators. It is based mainly on experiences in the United States outer
continental shelf (OCS) and deepwater operating areas of the Gulf of Mexico, but may be of utility in other
offshore and land operating areas. The content of this document is not all inclusive and not intended to
alleviate the need for detailed information found in textbooks, manuals, technical papers, or other
documents. The formulation, adoption, and publication of API standards are not intended to inhibit anyone
from using any other practices.
The objectives of this guideline are two-fold. The first is to help prevent and/or control flows just prior to,
during, and after primary cementing operations to install or set casing and liner pipe strings in wells.
Some of these flows have caused loss of well control. They threaten the safety of personnel, the
environment, and the drilling rigs themselves. The second objective is to help prevent sustained casing
pressure (SCP), also a serious industry problem.1
Achieving successful zonal isolation in the presence of a potential annular flow requires not only the modification of
the cement properties to facilitate control of migrating formation fluids but also several other requirements.
Referencing API Standard 65, Part 2, Section A.12, those requirements involve:
The requirements highlighted in bold italics above comprise the objective scope of Closed-Loop Cementing
applications. Additionally, the process logic controller (PLC) software associated with a MPD choke manifold
system provides additional documentation for supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) for onsite and
offsite decision-making. These data also provide operational inputs for improved cementing, hydraulics, and
wellbore behavior quantifications.22,24
Figure 1 below is a simplified MPD and closed-loop cementing schematic applicable for use on a deepwater rig. In
this example the RCD is configured below the marine riser tension ring (BTR RCD). When the body of the RCD is
absent its bearing & annular seal assembly, conventional returns are taken, as usual, via the marine diverter under
the rig floor from which they gravity flow to mud reconditioning equipment. When the RCDs bearing & annular seal
assembly is present, MPD returns are taken via flexible flowlines to the dedicated MPD choke manifold. The
catenaries of the flow lines serves to compensate for the relative movement between the riser and the rig. The
annular BOP immediately below the BTR RCD serves two purposes; facilitate safer riser de-gasing in event of an
influx while drilling conventionally and during MPD operations, facilitates removal and replacement of the bearing &
annular seal assembly of the RCD.6
SPE/IADC 163452
Gas to vent
Trip Tank
Buffer Manifold
Gas to vent
High Flow MGS
BTR RCD
Annular BOP
Rig MGS
Rig Choke Manifold
Riser Boost Line
Kill Line
Choke Line
Subsea BOP
DesignObjectives
Circulateconventionallyviarigs
diverterandnormalflowline
Saferriserdegassing,ifneeded
Circulateviaclosedsystem
MPD&ClosedLoopCementing
Constant Bottom Hole Pressure (CBHP) variation of MPD An adaptive drilling process used to precisely
control the annular pressure profile throughout the wellbore. The objectives are to ascertain the downhole
pressure environment limits and to manage the annular hydraulic pressure profile accordingly. (Ref IADC
UBO/MPD Committee Glossary of Terms)
For given downhole conditions (bottom hole temperature, MW, flow rate, ROP, wellbore geometry, cuttings
density, etc.,) the practice of conducting frequent dynamic formation integrity tests while drilling the new hole
demonstrates positively what pressures the formation will withstand during the planned cementing operation.
(Ref. BSEE presentation by Hannegan, January 23, 2012).4
These methods applied to cementing for well construction and plug & abandonments enhances the evaluation of
cementing sequences by providing additional parameters to evaluate and take into consideration.
Closed-loop cementing enables modification of the fluid properties to more efficiently displace the drilling fluid for
SPE/IADC 163452
better cement to casing and formation bond. Rather than design a fluid that is difficult to control and maintain the
desired the rheological characteristics used in modeling, the rheological properties of spacers and cement that will
effectively displace 100 percent of the drilling fluid may be achievable by implementing closed-loop cementing
techniques.
A purpose of this body of work is to elaborate on some of the key requirements that operators may find helpful
towards compliance with the intent of API Standard 65 by teaching how MPDs specialized equipment and
technology improves chances of getting a good cement job right on the first attempt:
CBHP MPD makes it possible to:
Reduce pressure cycling,
Improve accuracy of downhole calculations,
Provide improved data for planning cement jobs, and
Optimize casing running
Closed-Loop Cementing makes it possible to:
Respond to events in real time,
Impose annulus pressure as desired,
Create additional documentation via MPD equipment data acquisition system, and
Improve onsite and offsite monitoring capability.4
Typical cementing challenges
API Standard 65 teaches this conventional wisdom:
With the intent of achieving successful zonal isolation for well construction and reservoir isolation for plug &
abandonments, a plan must be developed to monitor and control static and dynamic fluid pressures of the
drilling fluid column such that ECD is maintained within appropriate limits. Static fluid pressure should be
sufficient to contain maximum open hole formation pressure and minimize wellbore stability problems,
while dynamic fluid pressure should be controlled to minimize fracturing of an exposed formation unless
required by wellbore strengthening. Offset well files should be reviewed for indications of loss circulation,
stuck pipe, significant borehole enlargement, etc., and the ECD management plan should be modified to
mitigate these problems. ECD increase in high-angle and horizontal wellbore sections should be
addressed in the plan, as the formation fracture gradient will remain constant in the horizontal section of
the well while fluid friction pressure will increase.1
Given a calculated or best guess pore pressure/fracture gradient determination, the wellbore geometry (casing
design), and fluid characteristics, cementing companies can run simulators that provide a model of the equivalent
circulating densities (ECDs), flow characteristics (flow in & flow out, u-tubing, etc) and some prediction of being
able to effectively isolate the wellbore annulus behind casing if the pipe eccentricity and centralization data input to
the simulator are all accurate and valid for preplanning stages into the actual execution of the primary or remedial
cement placement.11
What can be recorded today to effectively measure the success or failure of a primary cement job - the cement
bond log, rates of pumping & displacement of cement, cement fill in the annulus can be estimated using lift
pressure recorded by assuming fluids profiles in the annulus are uniform and have distinct separation boundaries
(i.e., no channeling or losses), recording of cement, spacer, mud volumes and densities.
In most cases, the combination of even the best cement design and execution according to plans do not deliver the
desired results. Having the means by which more relevant and real-time pre-cementing drilling parameters can be
obtained (open-hole pressure gradients from previous casing shoe to TD identification of ballooning formations,
etc), flow characterization(prediction and minimization of u-tube and control rate in/rate out), understanding cement
hydration and the effect it has on hydrostatic pressure and being able to control and maintain an effective
overbalance pressure to further improve the primary cement design can only prove to be a benefit.
Another challenge is the displacement process. Monitoring the backside parameters accurately will help with
calculating the displacement required to bump the plug. In many cases displacement calculations to bump the
plug are inaccurate due to air entrainment or miss-measurement of the displacement tanks on the pumping unit.
Understanding the objectives of a primary cement job, being able to execute the primary cement job and
SPE/IADC 163452
adequately interpreting the results have ultimately been the criteria of a success or a failure. Whether success is a
leak-off test, open-hole kick-off plug, isolation of a hydrocarbon bearing zone of interest, or a fresh water zone that
must be hydraulically or mechanically isolated and protected, the tools and methods that operators and service
companies employ today that can be controlled and monitored are not always enough to provide the expected nor
the desired results.
Lost Circulation Increases Risk for Loss of Well Control Incidents
API Standard 65 teaches that lost circulation before, during, or just after primary cementing.
a. Can cause a failure to maintain an overbalance across potential flow zones exposed in the wellbore
whereby:
an inadequately designed cement slurry (density too heavy, etc.) fails to reach the
designed depth for the TOC column;
or the drilling fluid column is reduced or falls back or goes on vacuum;
and either one of these shortened columns results in an insufficient hydrostatic head
pressure to overbalance formation(s) pore pressures.
b. Has often been found by investigators as the root cause for many of the loss of well control (LWC)
incidents experienced in offshore drilling operations.
c. Can induce loss of well control (LWC)16 incidents at any depth in the well construction process from
soon after spudding (starting to drill) the well to drilling the well at total depth when conditions occur such
as:
structurally weak zones are exposed in the wellbore;
naturally occurring leak off flow paths are encountered such as fractures, faults, vugs,
caverns, etc.
As mentioned above, lost circulation during primary cementing operations may cause reduced hydrostatic
pressure and underbalanced conditions when losses cause the drilling fluid column to fall to create an
underbalanced condition. For example when heavier density (than the drilling fluid) cement slurries are
removed from the annulus by total or partial lost circulation (cement flows into weak zones), the top of
cement (TOC) can be much lower than the designed TOC depth. This substantially decreases the annular
column hydrostatic pressure across potential flow zones within the cemented annulus. This decreased
hydrostatic pressure allows formation fluids to influx into the wellbore which starts annular flows that can
lead to LWC incidents.
In some cases, operators perform FIT16 or LOT16 measurements after the initial casing shoe test while
drilling critical hole intervals or after drilling the entire hole section. This practice helps confirm that lost
circulation can be prevented by the integrity of the open hole to contain pressures generated from deeper
drilling and/or from operations to set casing/ liner pipes (higher ECD in running pipe and primary
cementing). Successful cases over the last 50 years have proven that this practice can successfully predict
cementing placement without losses and/or allow for pre-job changes in the cementing design lan that
result in successful primiary cement operations.1
Frequent FITs are integral to the practice of Closed-Loop Cementing
The ease at which one may conduct frequent FITs with a MPD kit, called dynamic FITs, is a key aspect of the
practice of Closed-Loop Cementing. However, FITs are often confused with LOTs. API Standard 65 takes care to
distinguish one from the other.
Formation integrity tests (FIT) and Leak-Off Tests (LOT), also known as pressure-integrity tests or pumpin tests (PIT) are carried out during the drilling phase after a string of casing has been cemented and
before a new section of hole is drilled. In these types of casing shoe tests, the cement at the casing shoe is
drilled out and a section of new hole (typically 10 ft to 20 ft) is drilled, the BOP is closed around the drill
pipe, and the well is slowly pressured up using mud.2
Most governmental regulatory organizations maintain criteria regarding verification of casing shoe integrity.
SPE/IADC 163452
FITs are carried out until a pre-determined test pressure is reached, confirming that the formation at the
casing shoe can sustain this pressure. The test is characterized by a linear response of downhole pressure
vs. volume pumped (or time if the flow rate during the test is constant). These tests are frequently used on
production wells in mature fields, where fracture gradients are already well-understood. The limit test is
used to confirm the margin necessary to drill the next hole section, without leaving a fracture (i.e. a
potential point-of-weakness) at the previous casing shoe.
LOT tests are carried out at higher pressures to characterize the phenomenon of leak-off into the
formation at the casing shoe. Leak-off is characterized by a deviation from linearity on the pressure vs.
volume curve. It is associated with the initiation of a fracture at the casing shoe. Pumping beyond the leakoff point will extend the fracture. A shut-in period is normally maintained after pumping to monitor the
behavior of downhole pressure. During an extended leak-off test, backflow of drilling mud after shut-in is
monitored in order to characterize in-situ stress values.
Both LOTs and LOTs may be repeated to verify the results of, or assess the changes induced by, earlier
tests, drilling operations, and/or remedial squeeze jobs.1
This discussion in the API document teaches the differences between FITs and LOTs under the assumption, or at
least implies that the weakest point is the last casing shoe. In HPHT wells, that may not to be the case. The
weakest point from a structural integrity point of view may be encountered while drilling the open hole at a depth
4
well below the last casing shoe. Additionally, one must also consider that Fp estimates typically assume shale, but
you may be drilling and/or cementing in sand.
It is important to recognize that a FIT is analogous to proof testing a pressure vessel for assurance it is fit for
purpose. Assuming the vessel passes the proof test; no permanent deformation occurs and consequently its
pressure containment value (with safety factor) is not diminished. A properly conducted FIT similarly poses little or
no risk of reducing the fracture pressure gradient.
This analogy ends, however, when one considers a pressure vessel is a fixed object where only periodic proof
testing is quite sufficient for desired assurances. In drilling operations, the structural integrity of a wellbore
invariably changes with each formation encountered, or each stand of pipe drilled, or in some cases, each
additional foot of depth.13 This can imply a best practice would be to conduct FITs frequently when drilling critical
or trouble zones to be assured the wellbore is capable of withstanding the surge pressures associated with
subsequent casing running operations and the dynamic pressures expected in the planned cementing operations.
On the other hand, a LOT is analogous to a burst test of a pressure vessel, which causes permanent deformation.
A LOT invariably reduces the fracture pressure gradient afterwards. The greater the permeability of the rock, the
more this is the case. However, LOTs are invaluable in context of well control to determine the maximum surface
pressures which may be applied when circulating out a kick. However, one must realize that beyond that primary
purpose, LOTs and XLOTs (extended leak-off tests) may do more harm than good if the intent is to not diminish
the fracture gradient from what it would otherwise be.11,27
Figure 2 is an illustration of the manner in which LOT and XLOTs risk hydraulically fracturing the wellbore to a
point of permanent fracture propagation, particularly XLOTs.
SPE/IADC 163452
SPE/IADC 163452
Determine if the wellbore can withstand planned casing and cementing operations without inducing
fractures and if not, what conditions must be met.
Best cementing practices require a stable wellbore no gains or losses. Conducing frequent dynamic FITs
contribute greatly towards being able to achieve that objective while drilling the open hole to be cased (or lined)
and cemented later.
Please keep in mind that dynamic FITs with a state-of-the-art MPD kit are conducted without drilling interruption
and without using the rigs BOP to apply backpressure. Instead, MPDs dedicated choke system provides the
means of backpressure and the time and temperature corrected algorithms of its software provides precise realtime measurement of flow in-out.22
Figure 2 below is an example of a dynamic FIT. In this case the operator wished to confirm wellbore integrity to
15.8ppge. The test confirmed wellbore integrity to that value as evidenced by the fact no losses began to occur up
to the FIT test-to value. No losses indicate no fracture or promulgation of fracture has occurred to the wellbore and
consequently no risk of fracture promulgation which may influence future fracture pressure values.
350
400
FlowIN/OUT(gpm)
450
500
550
600
SurfaceBackPressure(psi)
100
200
300
400
30
500
SBP
MPDChokePosition(Open%)
40
50
60
70
ECDatCsgshoe(equiv.ppg)
15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8
Chkposition
ECDCsgshoe
Time
Time
Time
Time
FlowIN
FlowOUT
Figure 2 Dynamic FIT performed in order to check for the planned FIT (15.80 ppg). Note that Flow IN and Flow
OUT lines are not diverging independently of the surface backpressure applied up to the desired FIT value.28
Figure 3 below is an example were the operator hoped the FIT value was at least 14.83ppge. Formation
breakdown began to occur before that value was achieved, informing the operator that, in fact, the actual LOT
value was less than expected. This real-time information provides advanced notice that adjustments may need to
be made to the planned ECDs, casing running speed, and/or the cementing program itself. This information may
also indicate the need for a casing set point shallower than plan; run a liner or perhaps other mitigation action.
SPE/IADC 163452
FlowIN/OUT(gpm)
750
800
850
SurfaceBackPressure(psi)
900
950
MPDChokeposition(open%)
42
FlowIN
43
44
45
46
47
PWDreading(equiv.ppg)
48
14.6
14.65
14.7
14.75
ChkPos
SBP
14.8
14.85
14.9
PWD
Time
Time
Time
Time
FlowOUT
120gallosses
Figure 3: Dynamic FIT performed in order to check for the planned FIT (14.83 ppg). Note that Flow IN and Flow
OUT lines are diverging, indicating losses before the expected value was achieved. The FIT therefore established
a LOT value less than expected.28
And there is a bonus in respect to well control for conducting frequent FITs when drilling in troublesome zones.
Underground blowouts involve a significant downhole flow of formation fluids from a zone of higher pressure (the
flowing zone) to one of lower pressure (the charged zone or loss zone.) They are the most common of all well
control problems. Most underground blowouts that occur while drilling result from lack of sufficient kick tolerance.
Kick tolerance is the kick intensity (amount of underbalance) that can be shut-in without exceeding the fracture
pressure of the weakest exposed formation after taking a given volume kick12. If leak-off occurs before the FIT testto value is achieved, this very well may serve to enable drilling decision-makers to avoid an underground blowout
further downhole by reevaluating their kick tolerance values and have sufficient time to take corrective actions.
Figure 3 below is an example where the operator desired to know if the wellbore integrity could withstand 500 psi
surface backpressure. As evidenced by the absence of any indication of losses, the dynamic FIT provided
assurance the casing shoe has ECD integrity up to 15.8 ppge.
350
400
FlowIN/OUT(gpm)
450
500
550
600
SurfaceBackPressure(psi)
100
200
300
400
30
500
SBP
MPDChokePosition(Open%)
40
50
60
70
ECDatCsgshoe(equiv.ppg)
15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8
Chkposition
ECDCsgshoe
Time
Time
Time
Time
FlowIN
FlowOUT
Figure 3: A dynamic FIT was conducted to determine if the wellbore was able to withstand 15.8 ppg EMW without
incurring losses. The test confirmed within a matter of minutes and without drilling interruption that the planned
EMW is within the pressure containment cabability of the wellbore.
10
SPE/IADC 163452
Although a dynamic FIT may yield information the drilling program would find disappointing and require
adjustments to the the fluids program, circulating rate, setting a casing set point shallower than planned, or
necessate running a liner, it is unquestionably better to learn sooner than later in respect to the planned cementing
program. Figure 4 below is such an example, where the operator learned that the pressure containment capability
of the wellbore was less than expected and planned for.
750
FlowIN/OUT(gpm)
800
850
900
SurfaceBackPressure(psi)
950
42
FlowIN
MPDChokeposition(open%)
43
44
45
46
47
PWDrea
48
14.6
ChkPos
SBP
Figure 4: A dynamic FIT was conducted to ensure the wellbore is capable of withstanding 14.83 ppg EMW. Flowin and flow-out lines are diverging at 500 psi surface backpressure applied. LOT reference value was reduced to
14.77 ppge.
Computer Simulations
As is true with many areas of study, computers have greatly improved the design process for well cementing.
Using computer simulators, the engineer can tailor the cementing process to account for an individual wells unique
conditions. It is no longer necessary to rely on general rules of thumb. Each cementing service company has its
own simulator. Simulators are also available from third party vendors. These simulators vary in their capabilities
and strengths. Typical capabilities include:
Flow rate and U-tube calculations to predict whether the cement job can be performed within the pore
pressure/frac gradient window, considering ECD;
Displacement efficiency;
Foam cementing calculations;
Time
Time
Time
Time
FlowOUT
14.65
14.7
SPE/IADC 163452
11
12
SPE/IADC 163452
values were calculated to produce a series of manual inputs for each step in the program.
Being an ERD well it was recognized that the ECD at the previous casing shoe will be higher than the ECD at the
TD (bottom hole) of the well. As it was for drilling the open hole, this abnormality was factored into the closed-loop
cementing operations. The operator requested to focus on maintaining the casing shoe pressure in the 12.10
12.30 ppge range during cementing sequences. The operation was completed successfully by adjusting the
dynamic SBP in sync with the density and circulating rates of the spacer, lead and tail slurry cement mixtures,
enabling the casing shoe ECD (CS ECD) to consistently be within the desired range as illustrated in Figure 5. The
relationship between pump strokes and applications of surface backpressure (SBP) and resulting bottom hole and
casing shoe ECDs are illustrated in Figure 6.
215
12.30
210
12.20
205
SBPPsi
195
12.00
190
ECDppg
12.10
200
11.90
185
11.80
180
175
11.70
DynamicSBP(psi)
BHECD(ppg)
CSECD(ppg)
Figure5:IllustratestheMPDpressureregimewhiledisplacingcementlead&tailslurryat200gpmwithlinerat
14,515measureddepthbelowrotarytable(MDBRT).
BHECD
DynamicSBP
Strokes (ppg)
(psi)
CSECD(ppg)
0
11.90
210
12.14
200
11.90
210
12.13
400
11.85
200
12.10
600
11.85
200
12.10
800
11.85
200
12.12
1000
11.81
190
12.10
1200
11.80
190
12.11
1400
11.80
190
12.13
1600
11.80
190
12.16
Spacer
LeadSlurry
SPE/IADC 163452
13
1800
11.80
190
12.19
2000
11.76
180
12.21
2200
11.76
180
12.22
2400
11.76
180
12.27
TailSlurry
Figure 6: Illustrates the relationship between pump rates (strokes), bottomhole ECD, Casing shoe ECD, and
dynamic surface backpressure applications for all three cementing phases.
Proven benefits of Closed-Loop Cementing
Applying MPD principals to cementing operations is a technology still in infancy. All applications to date have been
facilitated by the fact the MPD kit was already on the rig for other drilling-related purposes. In most cases, the MPD
kit was used for a singular purpose during the otherwise conventional cementing programas per the kit is
aboard, it should help us accomplish this specific objective with our cementing program, so lets try it. Examples
of using the technology for such singular purposes include; apply back pressure to keep plugs in place while
pulling out of cement, maintain pressure on the well while setting a cement retainer with cement to be placed
behind, and for maintaining the ECD within a desired very narrow range at a critical high ECD point in an extended
reach well.
Collectively, the following features have been proven and documented in some form or fashion:
CBHP MPD techniques when drilling the open hole to be cased & cemented;
o Provides less wellbore destabilization by avoiding kick-loss scenarios when drilling in narrow or
previously unknown mud weight windows.
o Enables keeping the ECD more constant at a critical point, e.g., casing shoe, bottom hole, etc.,
and within a targeted range indicated by hydraulic flow modeling and other considerations.
o Conducting frequent dynamic FITs, for assurance there are no unsuspected weak zones or
natural fractures, allowing time for making adjustments to the cementing program.
o Via use of a mass flow meter downstream the MPD choke manifold, effectiveness of cuttings
removal is quantified in real-time for comparisons to conventional methods of determining if and
when the wellbore has been cleared of cuttings.
o Via use of a gas chromatograph in the MPD choke manifold system during per-cementing
circulation to provide assurance the hole has been circulated free of gas in excess of background
levels.
o Quantify the effectiveness of loss circulation material (LCM) which may have been used to control
losses.
o Ability to drill deeper open holes in troublesome formations may allow a more favorable/stable
formation to the reached for a setting casing.
o HPHT wells often require additional casing strings to compensate for the uncertainty in the pore
pressure and fracture pressure predictions. The ability to quantify both with dynamic FITs and
dynamic LOTs may allow for eliminating a casing string, removing a potential leak point from the
well construction program.
o Quantifying ballooning and breathing with real-time information aids in determining when its time to
set casing.
Casing running;
o Optimize casing running speeds for comparison with results of hydraulics software for predicting
casing running speeds.
Cementing;
o Via monitoring the precise flow rates in-out, immediate detection of an induced fracture during preflush, spacer and slurry displacement sequences.
o Maintain a more consistent BHP during cementing operations.
o Apply surface backpressure on the annulus to keep plugs & cement retainers in place, improving
chances of achieving the desired top of cement (TOC).
o Monitor when spacers, lead & tail slurries turns the corner and enters the open hole annulus.
o Apply surface backpressure on the annulus during displacement and/or post cement-placement.
o Allows surface backpressure to be applied when pulling out of cement to avoid dislodging cement
wiper plugs from swab pressures when pulling out of cement.
14
SPE/IADC 163452
Using the MPD kit to test the integrity of the casing shoe in lieu of a cement pump and exercising
the BOP.4
The aforementioned SPE paper by Cooke, et al also mentions that in spite of the uncertainty in transmitting
hydrostatic pressure through unset cement to compensate for hydrostatic head pressure losses, applying
small amounts of surface pressure in the form of controlled pressure pulses of low frequency has worked
in some wells to help prevent annular flows.14,15
Applicable to floating rigs experiencing wave heave, it is suspected that by closing the MPD choke after
displacement and before the initial set would allow the pressure fluctuations created by the drill string
heaving with the rig to provide the controlled pressure pulses of suitable magnitude and frequency to be
effective in maintaining hydrostatic pressure at or above the formation pressure until the cement has
acquired its initial set. The range in controlled pressure excursions will be less than without choke control,
resulting in less volume change magnitudes during the initial stages of slurry set. This may result in better
bonding at casing and rock interfaces, and less likelihood of gas bubbles entering the slurry at the low
pressure point of a pressure cycle.24, 25
Applications of surface backpressure with the MPD kit after cementing has potential to be beneficial in
case of a leaking or faulty float or other downhole mechanical barriers in the cementing string.
At this juncture, the authors are not proposing either of the above yet to be proven extensions of Closed-Loop
Cementing concepts. However, the size of the prize would indicate further study or field trial may be warranted.
Summary - Closed-Loop Cementing in relation to API Standard 65 - Part 2
Below is an item by item summary of how Closed-Loop Cementing technology facilitates industry best practices for
cementing operations. The phrases in italics are key requirements for a successful cementing job as defined by
API Standard 65 - Part 2.
A stable wellbore - no gains or losses - Optimize MW, flow rates using CBHP MPD tools & technology,
conduct frequent dynamic FITs drilling the open hole.
Proper mud conditioning and hole cleaning prior to cementing - Better understanding of margins between
PP/FG & EMWs - more efficient hole prep.
SPE/IADC 163452
15
Spacer Design - Use info to adjust density/rheology as necessary to manage ECD, improve displacement
of mud, etc
Proper fluid dynamics during circulation and placement of cement to achieve mud removal - Real-time
flow in/out measurements, apply desired amounts of surface backpressure, maintain the most appropriate
flow rate to optimize mud removal within Pp/Fp margins.
Tripping requirements - Manage surge/swab.
Drilling techniques - Data acquisition that can be applied to subsequent casing running and cementing.
Well monitoring - DAQ in real-time, onsite & offsite monitoring.
Sustained hydrostatic pressure during cement curing - Without exercising rigs BOP & compensating for
heave induced pressure fluctuations.
MPD has demonstrated for decades on land wells that its root concepts and enabling equipment has a most
commendable well control track record.9,10 Today, the technology has earned the prognosis that as offshore wells
become more challenging to drill and the water depths deeper,it will be required on a growing number of offshore
prospects in the future, including those deemed un-drillable otherwise. This prognosis is based on MPDs proven
ability to overcome a litany of conventional drilling challenges with enhanced control of the well and more precise
ECD management. Closed-Loop Cementing is at the present considered only a fringe benefit of drilling with MPDs
closed-loop systems. However, for its ability to improve the chances of getting a cement job done right the first time
and serviceable for the life of the well, Closed-Loop Cementing technology has potential to be considered a
primary reason for having the kit aboard in the first place on wells that typically present formidable challenges to
conventional cementing methods.
References
API Standard 65, Part 2 Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction
IADC UBO/MPD Glossary of Terms
SPE textbook Advanced Drilling & Well Construction, MPD section
Hannegan/Moore, Applying MPD Principals to Cementing Operations, Drilling & Completing Trouble Zones Forum,
Galveston, October 25, 2012
Hannegan, D., Closed-loop Cementing & Dynamic FITs, presented to US DOI Bureau of Safety & Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), New Orleans, January 23, 2012
Moore, D., Managed Pressure Drilling from a DP Drillship, presented to the US DOI Bureau of Safety &
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), New Orleans, January 23, 2012
Cooke, C.E., Kluck, M.P. and Medrano, R., Field Measurements of Annular Pressure and Temperature
During Primary Cementing, paper SPE 11206 published in JPT, pp.1429-1439, August 1983.
Cooke, C.E., Kluck, M.P. and Medrano, R., Annular Pressure and Temperature Measurements Diagnose
Cementing Operations, paper SPE 11416 published in JPT, pp.2181-2186, December 1984.
Skalle, P. and Podio, A.L., Trends extracted from 800 Gulf Coast blowouts during 1960-1996, paper SPE/
IADC 39354 presented at the 1998 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in Dallas, Texas, 3 - 6 March.
Jablonowski, C. J., Podio, University of Texas Center for Petroleum Asset Risk Management (CPARM), The
Impact of Rotating Control Devices for MPD and the Incidence of Blowouts, SPE 133019, presented at 2010 SPE
Trinidad & Tobago Energy Resources Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 27-30 June 2010.
Gao, E., Estensen, O., MacDonald, C., and Castle, S., Critical Requirements for Successful Fluid
Engineering in HPHT Wells: Modeling Tools, Design Procedures & Bottom Hole Pressure Management in the
16
SPE/IADC 163452
Field, paper SPE 50581 presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 20 - 22 October.
Adams, N., Causes of Underground Blowouts, article in the January 2006 issue of World Oil, vol.227 no.1.
Pritchard, D., Roye, J., Espinoze-Gala, L., Real-time data offers critical tool to redefine well control, safety, IADC
Drilling Contractor, November/December, 2012, p.96.
Stein, D., Griffin, T.J., Dusterhoft, D., Cement Pulsation Reduces Remedial Cementing Costs, article
Published in GasTIPS, 2003 winter issue. Available for downloading from the GTI website link: http://
www.gastechnology.org/webroot/downloads/en/4ReportsPubs/4_7GasTips/Winter03/
WellCompletions_CementPulsationReducesRemedialCementing.pdf.
Lang, K., Production Optimization: Pulsation improves cementing results, article in Hart's E&P, March
2003.
http://boemre.gov/glossary/index.htm
Wessel, M., and B. A. Tarr, Underground well control: The key to drilling low-kick-tolerance wells safely and
economically," SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1991, p. 250.
Nadeau, P. H., Lessons Learned from the Golden Zone Concept for Understanding Overpressure Development,
and Drilling Safety in Energy Exploration, Deepwater Horizon Study Group 3 Working Paper January 2011
Arnone, M., Hannegan, D., Grayson, B., The Mass Balance Technique of MPD, Reaching the Drilling Objectives
Safely and Successfully Beyond the Conventional Limits of HPHT Deepwater Wells, OTC Brazil 22242, Rio de
Janerio, 4-6 October 2011.
Hannegan, D., Advanced Drilling & Well Construction, Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) chapter, SPE Textbook
Series, Richardson: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2009.
Smith, K., MPD helps Make Problems Disappear, IADC Drilling Contractor, 2006.
Thorogood, J., Automation in Drilling: future evolution and lessons learned from aviation, SPE 151257, presented
at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 6-8 March 2012.
Hannegan, D., HPHT Wells Challenge Conventional Wisdom, Presented at World Oil HPHT Conference, Houston,
29-30 September, 2010.
Gray, K. E., Podnos, E., and Becker, E., Finite-Element Studies of Near-Wellbore Region During Cementing
Operations: Part I, SPE Drilling and Production, March 2009, pg.127.
Gray, K.E. (2012), Wider Windows Research Program, The University of Texas at Austin.26. rilling & Completing
Trouble Zones Forum,27.
28. Hannegan, D., Arnone, M., Dynamic FITs verify changing integrity of complex wellbores, IADC Drilling
Contractor, November/December, 2012, p.72.