CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project work was done by Nwaugo Anthony,
U2010/3065066 and has been approved having met the requirement of The
Faculty of Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, for the award of Bachelor
of Engineering (B.Eng) degree in Petroleum Engineering.
MR CHIMAROKE ANYANWU

..

..
(Project Supervisor)

Signature

DR. ORIJI A. BONIFACE

Date

.
(Head of Department)

Signature

PROF. (MRS) MAUREEN ETEBU O.

Date

...

(Dean, Faculty of Engineering)

ENGR. DR. O. A. OLAFUYI

Signature

Date

....

......
1

(External Supervisor)

Signature

Date

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God Almighty, who made it possible for me to be
alive in good health and whose grace made it possible for this project to be
achievable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my unreserved gratitude, first to God for it is by His
grace that I have come thus far.
To lovely parents, Mr and Mrs Ozoemena Nwaugo, I say a big thank you. I
would never be able to repay all the love and support you have showered on me.
You give me a reason to succeed.
To my wonderful and inspiring supervisor Mr Chimaroke Anyanwu, words
would fail me to thank you enough. At first I saw your supervision as being too
stressful but in the long run, I discovered you have harnessed some hidden
potentials in me. God bless you for bringing out the best in me while writing
this project.
I would also like to thank my Lecturers in the Department of Petroleum and Gas
Engineering and in the Faculty of Engineering for giving me a strong
foundation. You played a huge role in making me who I am today. I appreciate
all your efforts.

Finally to my friends, Tochukwu, Adaobi, Mustapha and Damilola, thank you

for keeping me on my toes; more importantly, for always being there for me.

ABSTRACT
Due to the increasing demand for energy across the globe, there have been rapid
advances in deepwater exploration and production activities. This trend has
sparked up various researches into development of better and safer methods of
exploration and production. Cementing operation in deepwater is an operation
that is majorly affected by conditions associated with that immediate
environment. In this study several techniques used in combating shallow flow
hazard as applied to deepwater drilling are outlined and explained. The focal
point of this study is centred on the use of a lightweight cement slurry to
mitigate shallow flow hazard as applied to deepwater environment. With respect
to that, an experiment was conducted to design a lightweight cement; bentonite
was used as an extender to reduce the density of the slurry from the
conventional 16lb/gal to 12.5lb/gal, which is acceptable when compared to what
is obtained from literature. Due to the limitation of the availability of a
consistometer, the performance of the lightweight slurry was evaluated using

the brief critical hydration period (CHP) of the slurry, gotten from the static gel
strength which (33lb/100ft2) a rheological property of the slurry. From this
study it is recommended that the slurry characteristics such as the density, the
percentage free water and the rheology of the cement, should be carefully
studied to evaluate the performance of the slurry before its actual downhole
usage.

TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATION ..i
DEDICATION ...ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...........iii
ABSTRACT ..iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER ONE
1.0

Introduction.1

1.1

Deepwater definition...2

1.2

Global deepwater operation sites....3

1.3

Deepwater operation sites in Niger delta5

5

1.4

Deepwater operation...9

1.4.1 Deepwater equipment..10

1.5

Challenges of deepwater operation14

1.6

Deepwater cementing.17
1.6.1 Reasons for cementing in deepwater....17
1.6.2 Deepwater cementing challenges.18

1.7

Statement of problem..22

1.8

Objectives of study..23

1.9

Scope of study.23

CHAPTER TWO
2.0

Literature review..25

2.1

The inner string method of cementing.33

2.2

Riserless drilling...36

2.3

Riserless mud recovery technique37

2.4

The plug cementing method.....38

2.5

Closing grout and activating seal..39

CHAPTER THREE
3.0

Cement slurry design parameters..41

3.1

Experimental formulation of the lightweight cement slurry.41

3.1.1 Materials.41
3.1.2 Apparatus44

3.2

Cement design procedures44

3.3

Density determination...46

3.4

Rheology...47

3.5

Free water test...48

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0

Results and discussion....50

4.1

Recorded data.50

4.2

Cement slurry calculations.53

4.3

Discussions.56

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0

Conclusion and recommendation..58

5.1

Conclusion.58

5.2

Recommendations.....59

REFERENCE.60

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Common types of drilling rig
Figure 1.2 Varieties of mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs)
Figure 1.3 Various challenges of a deepwater reservoir section
Figure 1.4 Migration path for shallow water flow
Figure 2.1 Casing packer for stopping gas/water migration through/along the
cement
Figure 2.2 The BHA with the inner string compartment
Figure 3.1 Bentonite powder to be used as an extender for the lightweight
cement slurry.
Figure 3.2 The class G cement used for the slurry design
Figure 3.3 Electronic weighing balance for measuring additives
Figure 3.4 The designed conventional and lightweight cement slurry
Figure 3.5 The mud balance used for the measurement of slurry density

Figure 3.6 The Fann V-G meter for measuring slurry rheologic properties
Figure 4.1 A graph of the various rotational speed against its respective dial
reading
Figure 4.2 A graph of shear rate vs shear stress

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Advantages and disadvantages of inner string cementing
Table 2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of the plug cementing method
Table 3.1 Physiochemical properties of bentonite
Table 3.2 Chemical composition of class G cement
Table 4.1 Densities of prepared cement slurries
Table 4.2 Dial reading at several rotational speed
Table 4.3 Calculated values for shear stress and shear rate

CHAPTER ONE
1.0

INTRODUCTION
Huge volumes of the worlds future oil reserves lie in deep waters at the

very limit of our current reach, and just beyond. By all indications, tomorrow
we will be drilling even deeper. The rapid advances in deepwater exploration
and production (E&P) methods over the past years ensure that as soon as one
deepwater record is broken, another surpasses it.
In the early stages of deepwater exploration, operators were surprised by
the productivity of deepwater reservoirs. For instance, when Shell developed the
Auger Field in the early 1990s, the platform for collecting oil from the wells in
the field was originally designed to handle about 40,000 barrels per day of
production. Shell was able to increase the platforms capacity to greater than
100,000 barrels per day, despite the fact that it had drilled less than half the

10

wells it originally planned to develop in the Auger Field. These kinds of

reservoirs, which deliver high rates of flow for long periods of time, became the
standard for deepwater developments. Drilling wells into these reservoirs
became a critical factor for deepwater project success because these production
rates justified the high cost of deepwater development.

1.1

DEEPWATER DEFINITION

There are multiple definitions of deep water, which vary depending on the
activity being considered and the depth at which it is carried out. Generally, for
well construction, 1500ft or 500m, is considered deep. Deeper than that, the
technology requirement changes but solutions are available. And deeper than
7000ft or about 2000m, is ultradeep water. Solutions, if available, are tailored to
each project. Government and regulatory agencies may adopt other definitions
for deep, such as beyond the break between continental shelf wand continental
slope, and confer royalty or taxation relief on fields that qualify.
Deepwater conditions are commonly defined as water depths greater than 350m
(1000ft). The pore pressure ECD (equivalent circulating density) window is
sometimes extremely narrow. The annular mud conduit is large for top hole
drilling, resulting in a reduced transport velocity and accordingly solids/cuttings

11

build up. Operators are drawn to the arena of deepwater exploration by the
promise of extensive reserves and high production rates that justify the extra
expense and risk. Due to the increasingly high global demand for hydrocarbons
and the rapid decline of onshore and shallow water reserves, deep water is the
current focus in the industry. Deepwater operations have large potential reserves
and high production rates that require advance technology (P. Skalle, 2002).
Today, the latest generation of offshore deepwater rigs is designed to increase
drilling efficiency and reduce operational time. Rig services costs can also be a
major concern, especially to new operators in deepwater operations. Every
minutes is important and reducing wait-on-cement (WOC) time is critical to
keeping cost down.
1.2

GLOBAL DEEPWATER OPERATION SITES

Kodak Oil Field, GOM (USA): The Kodiak oil field lies in water depth of
4,700ft in the Mississippi Canyon Blocks 727/771 in Gulf of Mexico, 153 miles
south of New Orleans, Louisiana, US. Appomattox Deepwater Development,
Gulf of Mexico, USA. The project involves the initial development of the
Appomattox and Vicksburg deepwater fields. The field is being developed by
Deep Gulf Energy, which is the operator holding a 46% stake while nonoperating partners LLOG and Murphy Oil hold 25% and 29% respectively.
Discovered in 2008 by BP, the field is expected to produce first oil in the first
quarter of 2016. Plans for future development of the field involve a second well
12

that will be drilled 12 months after the first production. Deep Gulf Energy
bought working interest in the field in 2012 from BP and new partners were
brought on-board in 2013 for the development of the field. The discovery well
encountered hydrocarbon bearing sands in Middle and Lower Miocene oil
reserves. BP altered its reserve estimates for the field when results from an
appraisal well drilled in 2009 came in low and wet. Two follow-up wells were
drilled later, and the field comprises a total of six pay sands.
Stamford Gas Field Decommissioning, North Sea, United Kingdom: The
Stamford gas field is located 140km offshore the UK in Block 49/10c in the
southern North Sea. The field is wholly owned and operated by Centrica Energy
that acquired ownership in 2009. The field was discovered by Total Oil Marine
in 1990 and was developed by Venture Production, who produced first gas from
the project in December 2008. The field produced 6.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) of
gas over its lifetime, before ceasing production in 2012 leading to the closure
and subsequently the decommissioning phase. Consultations were carried out
with the public, stakeholder and regulatory authorities before Centrica
submitted the decommissioning programme to Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC). Decommissioning is expected to span over a period
of two and a half years from 2015
Other global deepwater sites include:
Nam Con Son 2 Gas Pipeline
13

1.3

Bul Hanine Oil Field Redevelopment

Stamford Gas Field Decommissioning, North Sea
Moho Nord Subsea Project
Wassana Oilfield Development, Gulf of Thailand
Tyra Southeast Oil and Gas Field Expansion, North Sea
Gazelle Oil and Gas Field, Abidjan
Caribbean FLNG Projectetc.

DEEPWATER OPERATION SITES IN NIGER DELTA

Bonga Deepwater Project (Nigeria): Bonga is the first deepwater project for
Nigeria and for Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCO).
The discovery well is located in oil prospecting license (OPL) 212, which was
awarded during Nigeria's first round of deepwater frontier acreage awards in
1993. SNEPCO operates the field on behalf of the Nigerian National Petroleum
Corporation (NNPC) under a production sharing contract, in partnership with
Esso (20%), Nigeria Agip (12.5%) and Elf Petroleum Nigeria Limited (12.5%).
Crude oil production from the field started in November 2005 and the first
shipment from the field was made in February 2006. Production was stopped
temporarily due to a militant attack in June 2008 and was resumed later in the
same month. Bonga lies 120km southwest of the Niger Delta, in a water depth
of over 1,000m. The real extent of the Bonga field is some 60km. After
acquiring and processing 3D seismic data in 1993 / 94, the first Bonga
discovery well was drilled between September 1995 and January 1996.
Recoverable reserves are estimated at 600 million barrels of oil. In May 2001,
Shell drilled an exploration well on Bonga southwest located some 10km
14

southwest of the Bonga field. Bonga Southwest was drilled in a water depth of
1,245m. The well reached its final depth of 4,160m and was subsequently
logged and suspended. It encountered a substantial amount of net oil sand. An
initial evaluation of the well results indicated that the recoverable reserves
discovered with Bonga Southwest were large enough to form the basis for a new
deepwater development in OML118.
Agbami Oilfield (Nigeria): The $3.5bn Agbami oilfield project is Nigeria's
largest deepwater development. The field lies in OPL blocks 216 and 217,
approximately 220 miles south-east of Lagos and 70 miles offshore Nigeria, in
the central Niger Delta. In late 1996, Texaco and Nigerian independent oil
company Famfa were granted exploration rights to the 617,000 acre block 216.
Agbami was proven in this block by Texaco in 1998 and two years later Statoil's
Ekoli-1 well confirmed that the discovery extended into block 217.
Development of the field was unitised between the two blocks. Chevron
Corporation (Chevron) has a 68.15% interest and operates the field through its
Nigerian affiliate, Star Deep Water Petroleum. The remaining working interests
are held by Statoil (18.85%) and Petrobras (13%). The field is owned by the
terms of a deepwater production-sharing contract (PSC) between Chevron and
Famfa. The discovery well Agbami-1, completed in January 1999, encountered
420 net feet of pay in multiple oil zones from 8,200ft to a total depth of
12,400ft. The well penetrated stacked reservoir sands saturated with oil, ranging

15

in overall column thickness from 400ft to over 1,000ft. The quality of the oil
from these zones is 35-45 API gravity, with a very low sulphur content. The
well was spudded on 15 July 1999 in 4,700ft of water, making it the deepwater
well in Nigeria. It reached its total depth in late November 1999 and was
temporarily suspended to allow for flow testing and possible production at a
later date.
Erha Deepwater Development (Nigeria): Erha deepwater development,
including the Erha field and Erha North satellite field, was completed in 2006.
The fields are located approximately 97km offshore Nigeria, in water depths
ranging from 1,000m to 1,200m. They were developed with an investment of
$3.5bn. Production from the main field started in April 2006, while production
from the satellite field started in the third quarter of 2006. Current production
capacity from the development is 140,000 barrels a day. The Erha North Phase
II development project, an extension of the existing Erha North subsea system
and infrastructure, is underway and is expected to be completed by 2016. The
final investment decision for the project was made in early 2013. The project
will involve the further development of Erha North field by drilling wells from
a new drilling centre, installation of associated subsea facilities, and
modifications to the existing floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO)
unit. The development aims to target a peak production rate of 60,000 barrels of
oil per day from the satellite field. Erha fields are located in Oil Mining Lease

16

(OML) 133, which was formerly Oil Prospecting Lease (OPL) 209. Esso
Exploration and Production Nigeria (EEPNL) is the operator, holding a 56.25%
participating interest in OML 133 contract area, while Shell Nigeria Exploration
and Production Company (SNEPCO) holds the remaining 43.75% share.
Other deepwater sites in the Niger Delta includes:

Abana, Nigeria;
Aje Field, Nigeria;
Akepo Field, Nigeria;
Alen Gas and Condensate Field, Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea;
Amenam-Kpono Oil and Gas Field, Nigeria;
Aseng Field, Equatorial Guinea;
Avouma Field, Gabon;
Dalia Field, Angola
East Hub Development Project, Angola
Ebok Oilfield, OML 67, Nigeria
Ebouri Field, Gabon
Egina Oil Field, Nigeria
Ekpe Phase II, Nigeria
Etame Offshore Field, Gabon
Etinde Development Stage 1, Cameroon
Exxon-East Area NGL II, Nigeria
Fortuna FLNG, Block R, Equatorial Guinea
Gimboa Field, Angola
Girassol FPSO, Luanda, Angola
Greater Plutonio, Block 18, Angola
Jubilee Field, Ghana
Kaombo Ultra-Deep Offshore Project, Angola
Kizomba Offshore Field Deepwater Project, Angola
Kizomba Satellites Phase 2, Angola
Mafumeira Norte, Angola
Mafumeira Sul Project, Angola

17

 Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) Integrated Oil and Gas Project,
Ghana
Ofon Field, Oil and Gas Field, Nigeria
Okoro Oil Field, Nigeria
Okwok Field, Nigeria etc. (www.offshore-technology.com/projects)
1.4

DEEPWATER OPERATION

Two of the most frequently asked questions regarding offshore operations are
what makes deepwater drilling so challenging, and what is the major difference
from drilling on the Shelf? To answer this questions, one must understand that
deepwater drilling rigs float thousands of feet above the surface location. They
are kept on station either by anchors attached by miles of gigantic cables
(mooring) or by an automated dynamic positioning system that operates the
rigs thrusters based on very precise data from global positioning satellites. Both
of these systems have limits, but they have propelled oil and gas exploration
into water depths greater than 10,000ft. Deepwater semi-submersibles deploy
two-story-high stacks of blowout preventers that sit on the seafloor and are
exposed to extreme cold and external pressure. The floating rigs also carry small
un-manned, remotely operated vehicles that monitor operations at the seafloor
and use robotic arms to assist when necessary. These technological wonders and
dozens more, developed and built by the service industry especially for the
challenges of deepwater drilling, add to a huge capital investment by oil and gas

18

exploration and production companies. The cost of developing a deepwater field

can exceed $1 billion, and increases with increasing water depth.
1.4.1 DEEPWATER EQUIPMENT
As drilling extended further offshore into deeper water, offshore drilling rigs
have become larger and more complex with workers who are more highly
skilled. International oil companies do not normally own fleets of drilling rigs;
instead they contract or lease them from a drilling contractor. The drilling
contractor provides the drilling rig and people to supervise, operate and
maintain the equipment. There are two basic categories of offshore drilling rigs
(Fig. 1.0): those that can be moved from place to place, allowing for drilling in
multiple locations, and those rigs that are temporarily or permanently placed on
a fixed-location platform (platform rigs).

19

Figure 1.1 - Common types of drilling rig

(Source: Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study,
September 15, 2011)

Platform Rigs: Platform rigs are complete drilling rigs that are assembled on a
production platform and may be temporary or permanent installations. Some
production platforms are built with a drilling rig that is used for the initial
development and completion then may be cold stacked for a period of time
until it is again needed to drill or workover a well.
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU): MODUs (Fig. 1.1) are drilling rigs
that are used exclusively to drill offshore and that float either while drilling or
when being moved from location to another. They fall into two general types:
bottom-supported and floating drilling rigs. Bottom-supported drilling rigs are
barges or jack-ups.

Floating drill rigs include submersible and semi-

submersible units and drill ships.

20

Figure 1.2 - Varieties of mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs).

{source: Drill Barge (TODCO via NETL, 2011), Jack- Up Rig (Transocean, 2011),
Semi-submersible Rig (Eni, 2008), Drill Ship (BP p.l.c., 2011)}

Drilling Barges: A drilling barge consists of a barge with a complete drilling rig
and ancillary equipment constructed on it. Drilling barges are suitable for calm
shallow waters (mostly inland applications) and are not able to withstand the
water movement experienced in deeper, open water situations. When a drilling
barge is moved from one location to another, the barge floats on the water and is
pulled by tugs. When a drilling bage is stationed on the drill site, the barge can
be anchored in the floating mode or in some way supported on the bottom. The
bottom-support barges may be submerged to rest on the bottom or they may be
raised on posts or jacked-up on legs above the water. The most common drilling
barges are inland water barge drilling rigs that are used to drill wells in lakes,
21

rivers, canals, swamps, marshes, shallow inland bays, and areas where the water
covering the drill site in not too deep.
Submersible Rigs: Submersible drilling rigs are similar to barge rigs but
suitable for open ocean waters of relative shallow depth. The drilling structure is
supported by large submerged pontoons that are flooded and rest on the seafloor
when drilling. After the well is completed, the water is pumped out of the tanks
to restore buoyancy and the vessel is towed to the next location.
Jack-Up Rigs: Jack-up drilling rigs are similar to a drilling barge because the
complete drilling rig is built on a floating hull that must be moved between
locations with tug boats. Jack-ups are the most common offshore bottomsupported type of drilling rig. Once on location, a jack-up rig is raised above the
water on legs that extend to the seafloor for support. Jack-ups can operate in
open water or can be designed to move over and drill though conductor pipes in
a production platform. Jack-up rigs come with various leg lengths and depth
capabilities (based on load capacity and power ratings). They can be operated in
shallow waters and moderate water depths up to about 450 ft.
Semi-Submersible Rig: Semi-submersible drilling rigs are the most common
type of offshore floating drilling rigs and can operate in deep water and usually
move from location to location under their own power. They partially flood their
pontoons for achieving the desired height above the water and to establish
stability. Semis as they are called may be held in place over the location by
22

mooring lines attached to seafloor anchors or may be held in place by adjustable

thrusters (propellers) which are rotated to hold the vessel over the desired
location (called dynamically positioned).
Drillships: Drillships are large ships designed for offshore drilling operations
and can operate in deepwater. They are built on traditional ship hulls such as
used for supertankers and cargo ships and move from location to location under
their own power. Drillships can be quite large with many being 800ft in length
and over 100ft in width. Drillships are not as stable in rough seas as semisubmersibles but have the advantage of having significantly more storage
capacity. Modern deepwater drillships use the dynamic positioning system (as
mentioned above for semi- submersibles) for maintaining their position over the
drilling location. Because of their large sizes, drillships can work for extended
periods without the need for constant resupply. Drillships operate at higher
cruising speeds (between drill-site locations) than semi-submersibles.
1.5

CHALLENGES OF DEEPWATER OPERATIONS

Deepwater is one of the most technically and logistically challenging

environment for cementing operations because of the risks associated the
conductor and surface casing cementing. Understanding these technical
challenges is key to designing cement slurries that can meet deepwater
specifications and provide zonal isolation.

23

The greatest challenges in constructing wells in deepwater are related greatly to

the depth of operation and also to the conditions encountered in each deepwater
oil province. In the deepest waters, drilling can be accomplished only from
dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs or drillships. Conventionally
moored drilling rigs have drilled as deep as 6023ft (1836m) in the Gulf of
Mexico. Conditions offshore West Africa can be substantially different from
those encountered in the Gulf of Mexico, where the presence of subsea currents
makes drilling-riser management more critical. More powerful and larger rigs
are required to maintain station under high currents and to carry the extra mud
volume and marine riser needed to construct the well. In addition, the extreme
water depth may also significantly impact rig downtime. For example, if a rigs
subsea blowout preventer (BOP) malfunctions, it can take up to three days just
to retrieve it to the surface for repairs.
The primary challenge facing deepwater well construction is to drill a stable
hole. In young sedimentary basins with rapid rates of deposition, such as the
Gulf of Mexico and parts of offshore Brazil and West Africa, sediments can
become under-compacted during burial. Pore pressures can be high and fracture
gradients low compared to those in land wells at the same depth, and the
window between pore pressure and fracture gradients can be narrow. Safe well
design and control practice requires advance knowledge of pore pressure and
fracture gradient. Drilling a hydraulically stable hole can be achieved only by

24

keeping drilling mud weight within the margin between fracture and pore
pressure gradient.
One tricky challenge is to successfully set surface casing - a task that is
typically straightforward in environments other than deepwater.

Figure 1.3 - various challenges of a deepwater reservoir section

(Source:

cementing

deepwater

wells,

Junichi

Hagura,

well

services

Schlumberger, 2009)

The kind of advances required to break the barriers imposed by the great oceans
are not of the sort that can be achieved single-handedly, by an individual or even
by a single company. Oil companies, service companies, drilling contractors,
academic institutions, government groups and equipment manufacturers are all
25

working towards solutions. Some oil companies are setting up their own
specialized deepwater drilling groups to oversee drilling at the deepwater asset
level.
1.6

DEEPWATER CEMENTING

Generally, cementing involves the practice of mixing and displacing a cement

slurry down the casing into the annular space. Once in place, the cement is
allowed to set, bonding the pipe to the formation. Oilfield cements are made up
of various compounds of calcium, oxygen, silicon, iron and aluminium. The
relative amount of these compounds in the cement as well as the finest to which
the material is ground will determine its strength after setting, the rate at which
the strength increases over time, its resistance to sulphate and its setting time.
1.6.1 REASONS FOR CEMENTING IN DEEPWATER
Deepwater cementing jobs are carried out in oil wells for a number of reasons,
including:
Well tubular support: To provide support for casing/liner strings to
prevent movement.
Well bore/tubular collapse: To resist plastic/brittle deformation of the
surrounding formation which may impact upon well tubulars and cause
their collapse.

26

 Zonal isolation: To provide a pressure (to Gas) tight seal between

different zones (formation-formation or formation-surface). Includes
sealing perforations to control water production or prior to a workover.
Corrosion protection: To isolate metal tubulars from corrosive gases and
liquids contained in the formations.
Kick-off plugs: To fill the hole with a material that is harder than the
surrounding formation to encourage the drill string to deviate from the
original borehole trajectory.
Lost circulation cures: A material that will permanently seal leakage
paths into the formation.
Well abandonment: To isolate all open hole sections from the surface.

1.6.2 DEEPWATER CEMENTING CHALLENGES

In deepwater environments, there are three main challenges: low temperature,
low fracture gradient, and shallow flow hazards. These challenges impact every
aspect of the cementing design, from equipment and slurry selection to pumping
techniques.
Low temperature: the water depth affects the temperatures of the seabed and
the strata beneath it. With greater water depths, there are cooler formation
temperatures. This means the cement take longer to set and develop
compressive strength. Design considerations become very complex when taking
into account the shallow flow hazards common in deepwater, as shallow gas and

27

gas hydrates can existing in abnormally pressured zones. Slow compressive

strength development increases the risk of gas migration when encountering
these hazards.
Low fracture gradient: Many deepwater formations are sands that have
undergone little compaction as they are relatively young deposits, while pore
pressures can be high. This increases the risk of circulation losses, which is
mitigated by the use of low density cements. A careful balance has to be
achieved as lower density means more susceptibility to gas flow. The fracture
gradient also limits the techniques available for mud displacement, such as
generating turbulent flow.
Shallow flow hazards: shallow flow include shallow water flow, shallow gas
flow, and gas hydrates. These pose serious well control risks such as excessive
hole washouts and destabilization of near-wellbore formations as well as greatly
increase operational costs. Approximately 30 to 40% of all deepwater wells in
the Gulf of Mexico encounter problems with shallow flow. They are normally a
result of abnormally high pore pressure from under compacted and overpressured sands caused by rapid deposition. Under these circumstances, pore
pressures can exceed 10ppg, (British Petroleum, 2014). When operating
companies, first encountered shallow flows in deepwater, they were bewildered
by these conditions and suffered millions of dollars of losses before
countermeasures were developed that would work with any regularity. While we
28

are fortunate to benefit from many documented cases and successful techniques
uncovered to fight these problems, successfully designing and implementing
cementing jobs through these hazards requires many design considerations, the
careful analysis of data, and operating within narrow parameters.
Defining shallow; the term shallow used to describe these destructive
water flows is somewhat misleading but seems to be a fixed terminology. The
phenomenon originates in strata that are in water depths of 500m or more in the
Gulf of Mexico, but the water flow interval is relatively close to the seafloor.
Thus the adjective shallow in shallow water flow describes the depth where the
water flow occurs below the seafloor, not the depth of water at the drill site.
Shallow water flow is a serious drilling hazard encountered across several
areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Numerous incidents have occurred in which
intense shallow water flows have disrupted drilling, added millions of dollars to
the cost of a well, or caused a well to be abandoned. In one survey of 74
offshore wells, Alberty and colleagues found only 34% of the wells did not
encounter problems related to shallow water flow. In separate writings, Holm
and Alberty stated that steps taken to prevent or remediate shallow water flow
added at least $2 million to the cost of a well. One interesting aspect of shallow
water flow is that a high production rate of water tends to start long after the
drill bit has passed the interval where flow originates, implying that a timedelay factor is involved in the genesis of the water production. In one instance,

29

shallow water flow did not initiate beneath a multi-well seafloor template until
several strings of 36-in and 30-in casing had been set to depths of several
hundred feet below mud line in a batch-drilling approach. Resulting seafloor
erosion then caused major damage to the template and its wells. Furlow
reported that 10 of 21 well slots were lost in this incident because of severe
casing buckling. In short, shallow water flow is a major factor in drilling safety,
marine environmental impact, and drilling costs across the GOM. (Hardage et
al, 2006). While this phenomenon was first discovered in the Gulf of Mexico,
shallow flows have since been encountered in West Africa, Norway, the North
Sea, Southeast Asia, and in the Caspian Sea.

30

Figure 1.4 Migration path for shallow water flow

(Source: Gas hydrate a source of shallow water flow, Bob A. hardage et al, 2006)

Shallow gas flow is the migration of gas from an abnormally pressured

formation situated relatively close to the mudline. These hazards can result in
blow out and there are several documented cases where shallow gas has resulted
in the loss of offshore drilling rigs. Shallow gas hazards are difficult to navigate
because the window between the formations pore pressure and fracture gradient
can be slight and once gas flow occurs it is very difficult to kill. These hazards
can also be hard to detect as their pressure gradient is often less than the mud
equivalent pressure gradient.
1.7

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

Considering the diversity of problems associated with cementing operations in

deep offshore, this study will be will limited to the effects of shallow flow zones
on deepwater cementing operations and these would include:
Shallow flows during deepwater cementing pose serious well control
risks such as excessive hole washouts and destabilization of nearwellbore formations.
It can drastically increase well construction costs causing the need for
squeeze cementing jobs and in worst case scenarios abandonment.
This hazard can result in blow out and there are several documented
cases where shallow gas has resulted in the loss of offshore drilling
rigs.

31

 The use of conventional cement slurry in deepwater depth poses a risk

of slow hydration process of the cement and as a result, extends
transition time, which allow fluid influx to begin.
1.8

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The objectives of this study are basically:

1. To analyse deepwater cementing in shallow flow zones with existing
technologies and techniques.
2. To design a light weight cement that would mitigate the effects of
shallow flow hazard while meeting other objectives of deepwater
cementing.
3. To analyse the performance of the light weight cement with respect to its
rheology and characteristics as applied to shallow flow zones.
4. To make intuitive recommendations on cementing in shallow flow zones
with respect to experimental findings.
1.9

SCOPE OF STUDY
Solutions to SWF/SGF can be divided into two groups: procedural

solutions such as the use of the inner string cementing method, plug method,
closing grout valves and activating seals, the use of a pump and dump mud
(PAD), riserless drilling etc. and cement slurry design. This study is basically
centred on the solution that involves the utilization of a specially designed
cement slurry. This slurry will be used to control the effects of shallow flow
while maintaining other deepwater cementing conditions.
32

CHAPTER TWO

33

2.0

LITERATURE REVIEW

Shallow gas flows during cementing operations in deep offshore has been a
major problem in the drilling industry for the last two decades, while shallow
water flow is a more recent problem. When shallow gas starts flowing it may be
difficult to stop, and time consuming squeeze cementing jobs become necessary.
In many instances this type of flow has turned into blowouts. When shallow
water is flowing the flow may erode unconsolidated sand and disrupt the soil
strength, the casing loses support and may buckle or collapse. Both shallow
water and gas flow problems are related especially to offshore operations.
Improved insight into the physical process leading to flow of gas or water and
chemical changes in a hydrating cement slurry has reduced the problem over the
last years. Among the many physical/chemical factors which has been revealed
to have an extensive influence on gas migration through cement are
internal/external contraction of the slurry, fluid loss after initial set, and poor
cement job (poor displacement). Based on the knowledge gained through
laboratory investigation and experience gained in the field, the recent methods
to minimize the problem of shallow gas/water flow and to combat the problem
when cementing through porous formations are presented.
Operations in deep water does not allow the upper part of the well to be shut in,
therefore the first two well sections are drilled riserless.

34

According to Alberty (2000), the main solutions to drill through shallow sands:
Drill with seawater down to the sand, kill, and then drill to 20 casing setting
depth with weighted mud. This procedure is also recommended by IADC.
The method presented below is a summary of the IADC recommended
procedure for drilling in deep waters (IADC, 1998). The method focuses on
safety/gathering of information about potential problems. Try first to avoid
SWF sands, then:
1. Drive/drill first casing as deep as possible;
2. Then use pilot hole better hole cleaning at minimum flow rate and
minimum wash out/erosion;
3. Sweep pill every stand (for some operators, every 45 feet); reduce cuttings
load and quantify hole volume;
4. Apply LWD (logging while drilling); Find casing shoe point; minimize sand
penetration;
5. Store kill mud: (Ppore + 0.025 kg/l) Pkill (Pfrac - 0.035 kg/l);
6. After penetrating sand, circulate clean and flow check (ROV/sonar at well
outlet + at up to 100m (300ft) radius);
If there is a decreasing in flow: just ventilate, then kill pill
If there is an increasing in flow: dynamic kill, then kill pill

35

7. Keep the casing shoe as close as possible to sand zone i.e maximum
formation strength;
8. Run and cement casing with best practice;
9. To drill further without BOP, SWF must now be controlled with heavy mud
returning to sea floor. This will control SWF/hole erosion but it will be a logistic
problem. Since the cement is the centre of this discussion, here are some
comment on cementing procedures.
According to Whitfill et al (2000), to minimize the problems stated above
(migration of gas/water through cement) the displacement of the mud and
handling of the well during WOC (wait on cement) must be optimized. Gas
migration along micro annulus between the cement sheet and the formation is
partly a question of how well the operation was performed. Obtain good wall
cleaning and mud displacement to obtain good binding and cement quality.
After WOC, avoid changes in temperature and hydrostatic pressure to avoid
mechanical stresses transmitted from the casing to the cement sheet. Since the
external shrinkage of cement slurries are negligible, the slurry itself does not
create stresses that may lead to microcracks and microannulus. Due to pipe flow
profile, there will be a long mixing zone when cement is dis placing mud; the
longer the mixing zone the sharper the flow profile, therefore a flat flow profile
is aspired. Lowering the mud viscosity will increase its mobility and reduce
channelling/fingering effects. A maximum flow rate flattens the flow profile and
36

improves sweeping. Use centralizers/scrapers and reciprocate/rotate casing if

possible during displacement to avoid fingering and unobtainable shadow
volumes.
P. Skalle (2002), talked about the use of mechanical seal in the annulus and
according to him, gas or water migration behind the casing is such a serious
problem that extra procedural precautions have to be taken. One precaution is to
place a mechanical seal in the annulus. A concepts that have been tested and are
applied in the GOM is exemplified in Figure 2.0 below. The 20 casing is run
and cemented across the sand zone with standard housing with a casing packer
above the zone. Flow from the sand zone is now controlled as the packer
provides mechanical seal in addition to cement. The packer must, however, hold
a minimal pressure until the cement sets up. If the packer does not hold (rupture
or does not inflate), the cement sheet is the only barrier against flow.

37

Figure 2.1 casing packer for stopping gas/water migration through/along the cement
(Source: cementing problems when setting casing through porous gas & water bearing
formations, P. Skalle, 2002)

Another method of mitigating the shallow flow problems is the process of

drilling with liner. Drilling with liner or with casing has not yet been applied but
in conjunction with lost circulation in subsiding formations, but so far not
within SWF/SGF drilling. As soon as the losses starts, the casing is withdrawn
some feet and cement is pumped immediately. The problematic formation is
thus quickly sealed off. There are two different ways to achieve this:
a) Full rotary drilling of liner: This solution implies that the bit is rotated from
the surface. The liner system must be rotated together with the bit, and must
take a lot of torque. Parts of BHA are abandoned when cementing into the loss
zone. This part of the BHA must be drillable. (Sinor et al, 2001)

38

b) Sliding liner: Drill normally down towards the problem zone. Just before
entering the problem zone the equipment is changed to DRILL-IN-LINER
BHA. Drill a few meters into the problem zone, until losses occur, then the liner
is set and cemented. The mud can now be adjusted and it is possible to resume
drilling including an external core bit and an inner standard bit, both driven by a
motor in the liner. (Vogt et al, 2000)
According to API Recommended Practice 65 (2010), the problems of shallow
flow while cementing in deepwater can be controlled using a specially designed
foamed cement. There are two foamed cement placement methods that are
commonly used:
(1) Constant nitrogen injection rate and
(2) Constant foam density.
Regardless of which method is selected, variances in hole size across the
foamed cement column may change the density and the downhole nitrogen
volume (foam quality) from that which was designed. This density variance is
more pronounced when using the constant density method.
The constant nitrogen injection rate method calls for a single nitrogen injection
rate (in volume of nitrogen per volume of base cement) to be added to the base
cement at surface. This produces a variable foamed cement density downhole
owing to the effects of temperature and pressure. The target foamed cement

39

density used for the design will normally be found at the midpoint of the
foamed cement column in the annulus. When using the constant nitrogen
injection rate technique there are two points to be considered:
When the foamed cement is placed, the leading edge of the foamed
cement, will have a density lower than the target density used for the
design. This is due to the lower hydrostatic pressure and lower
temperature found at the top of the foamed cement column compared to
the pressure and temperature found at the mid-point of the foamed
cement column (which was used to calculate the average nitrogen
injection rate at surface). When using the constant nitrogen injection rate
method the foamed cement density at the top of the foamed cement
column should not cause a loss of overbalance pressure.
When the leading edge of the foamed cement exits the casing/liner shoe
and enters the annulus it will contain a volume of nitrogen designed for a
location higher in the annulus (which has a lower hydrostatic pressure
and a lower temperature). As such, the density of the leading edge volume
of foamed cement, will be greater than the density reduction of that same
volume of foamed cement once in place. This produces a higher effective
foamed cement density as it exits the casing/liner shoe.
The second placement technique, constant foam density, calls for the nitrogen
injection rate at surface to be varied as a function of the temperature and
pressure conditions found at expected placement point of the foamed cement in
40

the annulus. This produces a pseudo-constant foamed cement density once the
cement is in place. This technique is performed either by constantly ramping or
incrementally stepping up the nitrogen injection rate at surface. When using the
constant density technique there are also two points to be considered.
The density of the foamed cement column should be examined to ensure
that it does not cause a loss of overbalance pressure.
The density of the leading edge of the foamed cement when exiting the
casing/liner shoe should be examined to ensure that ECD does not exceed
the fracture gradient.
An accurate cementing temperature profile for the column of foamed cement is
necessary to calculate the volume of nitrogen gas injected at surface to produce
a foamed cement of desired in-situ density. Temperature simulators should be
used to characterize the circulating temperature profile of the well for use in the
nitrogen injection rate calculation.
A foamed cement will generally exhibit a higher viscosity than the base fluid
from which it was generated. The higher the nitrogen content of the foamed
cement (foam quality), the greater the viscosity increase of the foamed cement
compared to the base cement from which it was generated. ECD models should
account for this increase in foamed fluid viscosity. The process of foaming
cement also produces a higher effective fluid rate in the wellbore compared to
the base cement fluid rate that will affect ECD. Foam cement consists of a

41

conventional deepwater cement slurry that is extended by the incorporation of

microscopically dispersed nitrogen gas. The gas is injected into the slurry with
foamers and foam stabilizers. The job design for geothermal use commonly is
the constant density method, where the volume of gas used per volume of
cement slurry is varied. This method provides a cement column with a constant
density from top to bottom. The compressive strength of the cement column will
be relatively constant using this method. It is, however, reported to be is less
than 35 bar (500 psi) after 48 hours cured at 100C and 1.08 kg/I slurry density
(Rickard, 1985).
Foam cement is placed into the well using the inner string method. A back
pressure control is required where the slurry returns to the surface in order to
decrease cement expansion due to gas bubbles.
2.1

THE INNER STRING METHOD OF CEMENTING

From primary cementing, it is known that the inner string cementing technique
is an effective way to cement large casing strings (BP, 2014). In preparation for
an inner string cementing job, a centralized drill pipe with a tail pipe is run
inside the casing to just above the float equipment. This requires a seal between
casing and drill pipe. Fluids are pumped down the drill or tail pipe to the bottom
of the casing and up the outer annulus. Inner string operations often use plugs,
darts, or foam balls to separate the fluids and wipe the walls of the inner string.
Displacement can start when cement returns are noted by the ROV. If a lead and
42

tail slurry design is being used, the tail slurry can be started after the lead slurry
is noted at the seabed. This allows for more accurate displacement and reduces
the amount of working time necessary for the cement slurries, which generally
improves strength development and static gel strength development, which are
critical for controlling shallow flow. This can potentially save cost by reducing
the need to pump excessive volumes of cement slurry.
The inner-string method of casing cementing is the one most commonly used
for deepwater wells. Inner string cementing equipment allows cementing the
casing through a drillpipe that is inserted and sealed in the stab-in float collar.
Table 2.1 Advantages and disadvantages of inner string cementing

ADVANTAGES

Minimal contamination of the spacer

fluids and cement slurry.
Less cement volume is needed to
achieve sufficient quantity of good
quality cement in the annulus.
Displacement volumes are minimized.
If the actual hole size has not be
measured, it allows the flexibility to
start displacement at any time during
the job

DISADVANTAGES

Slow annular displacement rate may

make efficient mud removal more
challenging.
The hole is static while running the
inner string.
Mud static gel strength development
may be significant at the low BHST
and mud line temperatures if the mud
exhibits progressive gels.
Mud
removal
becomes
more
challenging

The procedure for this technique is given below:

I. A float shoe is installed on the bottom of the casing string;

43

2. Float collar with sealing sleeve is installed two joints from bottom during
running casing;
3. As the casing is run in, the hole needs to be filled up with water;
4. Sealing adapter (stab-in) is connected to a drill pipe and lowered down as far
as the float collar sleeve, where it is seated, the sealing must be complete;
5. Cementing head is installed on the drillpipe; the drillpipe needs to be tied
down with chains to avoid parting of the drillpipe from the float collar when
pressure builds up;
6. Mud or water is circulated through the drillpipe for cleaning and cooling the
well;
7. Chemical spacer is pumped, followed by water volume (about 6.5 m3);
8. Cement slurry is pumped through the drillpipe until its return at surface is
observed (when loss circulation does not occur);
9. Displace the cement slurry contained within drillpipe, pumping an equivalent
water volume;
10. Wait for cement to harden (WOC).

44

Figure 2.2 The BHA with the inner string compartment

(SOURCE: BP cementing guides course manual, 2014)

2.2

RISERLESS DRILLING

Riserless drilling has become an increasingly important aspect of deepwater

operations. This is particularly true when drilling in areas with shallow gas and
shallow water flow potential. In riserless drilling, casing is run in the open water
to the subsea wellhead. Drilling mud flows through the mudline, which is
45

connected to the subsea wellhead from the rig. Mud and cuttings returns may be
discharged to the seabed with the pump and dump method or a mud recovery
system may be used. Riserless drilling offers many benefits, including reducing
the hydrostatic pressure exerted on top sections which is particularly important
due to low fracture gradients (BP Cementing Guide Course, 2014). Riserless
drilling of the upper intervals of subsea wells has been standard practice for
quite some time. The previous practice of running the drilling riser with a pin
connector to the Low Pressure Wellhead Housing has for the most part, been
abandoned for the much safer practice of drilling without a riser, while taking
mud returns to the sea floor. Riserless drilling has dramatically increased the
safety of drilling shallow sections of subsea wells by reducing the hazard of
handling gas at the rig should shallow gas zones be encountered. It has also
been very beneficial in controlling shallow water flows in deepwater areas of
the Gulf of Mexico. While this practice has significantly increased the safety of
the drilling operations, it has also increased the logistical problems of
supporting the operation during its early phases.
2.3

RISERLESS MUD RECOVERY TECHNIQUE

The advantages of a riserless mud recovery system have been limited to

shallower waters until recently (BP.2014). Now, a joint industry project with a
focus on the Gulf of Mexico is addressing the use of such systems and their
advantages. The enhanced mitigation of shallow hazards while using RMR will
46

provide additional benefits on locations with moderate to high shallow water or

gas flow potential. This system provides enhanced monitoring of influxes into
hole sections. Identifying shallow flows more quickly means applying remedial
techniques, including an increase in mud weight, sooner to mitigate wellbore
damage. An additional aspect of this technology is the ability to use
conventional managed pressure drilling (MPD) equipment such as a subsea
rotating control device. This allows additional pressure control at the mudline
during operations. The addition of this equipment in conjunction with the
suction module would not be for handling well control operations as with
conventional BOP equipment, but rather to add the ability to suppress or limit
additional flow into the wellbore while circulating heavier mud to control
pressures and flow. This technology facilitates a closed managed pressure
system to apply pressure on the annulus during drilling or tripping and to
provide a physical separation of the drilling fluid with a natural hydrocarbon
contaminated influx from mixing with the open sea. Mitigation measures to
prevent entry of gas into the mud return line need to be similarly addressed as
will not exceeding a safe margin of pressure based on the fracture gradient of
the previously set shoe.
2.4

THE PLUG CEMENTING METHOD

This plug cementing technique is typically used on development projects in

shallower water depths where the cement volume has been established in offset
47

wells. If cementing the surface casing with the plug method, displacement
volumes can be large, resulting in volume error, long thickening times, and
cement contamination. For intermediate casing or drilling liners, this method is
typically used.
Table 2.2 - Advantages and disadvantages of the plug cementing method

ADVANTAGES
Ability to pressure test the
casing upon plug bump a higher
displacement rates using rig
pumps, which can improve mud
removal.
Used on development projects in
shallower water depths where
the cement volume has been
established in offset walls.

2.5

DISADVANTAGES
Longer time needed to displace,
larger displacement volumes.
Longer
thickening
time,
affecting other properties needed
to mitigate shallow flows

CLOSING GROUT VALVES AND ACTIVATING SEALS

According to BP Cementing Guide Course (2014), the low pressure housing

(LPH) may be equipped with ball valves to provide a flow path for the annulus
at the well head during the cement job. Activating seals are located above the
ball values between the LPH and high pressure housing (HPH). Immediately
after cement placement, the grout or return valves can be closed or left open.
48

 If the valves are closed, the hydrostatic pressure of the sea will no longer
be acting on the cement in the annulus. This can potentially increase the
risk of fluid migration through the cement during the critical gel strength
period.
If they are left open, the well can be monitored for flow until the cement
has set.
If foamed cement is used, the valves are closed directly after placement.
The compressible nature of nitrogen in the foamed slurry maintains some
pressure on the formation while gel strength development occurs
The ROV cleans out the valves so that the cement does not harden inside.
Subsequent well operations are executed with caution to prevent disturbance of
the setting cement.
Movement or loading (pressure or force) placed on the cement can
potentially compromise the planned final cement properties.
All pipe movement to complete casing hanging and seal activation is
completed prior to the cement developing significant gel strength.
Note: Closing the grout valves will isolate the annulus from the hydrostatic
pressure. This increases the risk of having formation fluid invasion into the
cement during its setting phase.

CHAPTER THREE
3.0

Cement Slurry Design Parameters

49

Before cement slurry is pumped into a well, various laboratory tests would be
conducted to ensure proper placement and to assist in predicting the
performance and behavior of the slurry as it is pumped and after its placement.
The following factors will affect cement slurry design
Well depth and temperature
Maximum allowable pumping or thickening time
Strength of cement required to support casing
Quality of available mixing water
Type of drilling fluid and its additive
Slurry density
Filtration control

3.1

EXPERIMENTAL FORMULATION OF THE LIGHTWEIGHT

CEMENT SLURRY

3.1.1 MATERIALS
1. Bentonite clay to serve as the cement extender additive (bentonite is a
colloidal clay material composed primarily of smectite. It may also
contain accessory minerals, such as quartz, calcite and feldspar. In fresh
water, Bentonite swells to approximately 10 times its original volume,
thereby making it useful in decreasing cement slurry weight and
increasing slurry volume.)
2. Class G cement is used as Portland cement and its chemical analysis is
given in Table 3.1 below.
3. Distilled water is used for the cement slurry.
4. A slurry defoamer
5. Calcium chloride as the cement accelerator
50

Figure 3.1 Bentonite powder to be used as an extender for the lightweight cement slurry

Table 3.1 Physicochemical properties of bentonite.

SiO2
58-61

Chemical composition, wt%

Na2O
CaO
Al2O 3
3.7-4.2
2.0-2.5
21-22

Average grain size

1.5 2.5 micron

0.65 m2/cc

Specific surface area

Specific gravity

MgO
3-4

2.6

Bulk density

42 lbs/ft3

Color in bulk

Light gray

51

Figure 3.2 The class G cement used for the slurry design

Table 3.2 Chemical composition of class G cement.

CaO
67.7

SiO2
22.91

Chemical composition, wt%

Al2O3 Fe2O3
SO3 MgO
3.89
4.75
1.8
0.74

Na2O
0.10

K2O
0.64

3.1.2 APPARATUS
In this experiment several apparatus were used to achieve the desired result,
some of which are;
Mud balance to measure the slurry density in ppg
Measuring cylinder for measuring the free water of the cement
slurry
52

 Fann model V-G meter to measure the rheology of the cement

3.2

slurry utilizing the rotational speed the viscometer.

Hamilton mixer for mixing the slurry
Stirrer
Electronic weighing balance for measuring the additives
Spatula

CEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES

This experiment is divided into several stages, starting from the formulation of a
conventional cement slurry, measuring its properties, formulation of the light
weight cement slurry and measurement of its properties. Detailed explanation of
the procedures is given below:
Convention Slurry Preparation
The wet blending method is used for preparing the additives as thus:
1. 350ml of distilled water was measured and poured into the Hamilton
mixer
2. 5g of calcium chloride was added to the mixer
3. Also 6 drops of the defoamer was added and mixed thoroughly for 5mins
so as to obtain a homogenous mixture.
4. Next, 800g of the cement slurry was measured and added to the additive
mixture gradually to form a slurry
5. The slurry was stirred for 15mins to attain homogeneity

53

Figure 3.3 Electronic weighing balance for measuring additives

Preparation of the Light Weight Cement Slurry

Here the light weight additive which is bentonite is also blended with other
additives using the wet blending method. The preparation procedures are as
follows:
1. 100g of bentonite powder was added to 300ml distilled water and mixed
thoroughly with the Hamilton mixer.
2. The density of the mixture was then measured by using the same process
as that of the conventional cement slurry above.
3. The wet blending process was repeated for the additives using 350ml of
water with the addition of the bentonite paste in step 1 above and mixed
for 15mins to achieve a homogeneity.
4. The final mixture from step 3 was then mixed with 800g of cement and
stirred for 15mins.

54

Figure 3.4 The designed conventional and lightweight cement slurry

3.3

DENSITY DETERMINATION

Conventional Slurry Density Determination

The density of the slurry was measured using a mud balance as follows:
1. The balance cup was filled with the slurry completely.
2. The lid was replaced and the cup was wiped clean.
3. The balance arm was then replaced on the base, such that the knife edge
rests on the pivot.
4. The calibration screw was then adjusted until the level vial is centered.
5. The density of the slurry was then read from the balance arm.
Density Determination for the Light Weight Cement
The same procedure used in determining the density of the conventional cement
slurry is used here.
55

Figure 3.5 The mud balance used for the measurement of slurry densities

3.4

RHEOLOGY

Rheology of the Light Weight Cement

The rheology of the designed light weight cement was determined using the
Fann V-G meter as shown in figure 3.5 below. The process involves measuring
the viscosities of the slurry at several rotational speeds of the viscometer. The
experimental procedure are as follows:
1. The Fann V-G meter cup was filled to the 350cc mark with the freshly
prepared light weight cement slurry and placed on the moveable work
table.
2. The table was adjusted until the cement surface is at the scribed line on
the rotor sleeve.
3. The motor was then started by placing the switch in the high speed
position with the gear shift all the way down (i.e the 600rpm setting)
4. The value of the dial at steady condition was then recorded.
5. The gear was then adjusted to other positions to obtain other readings at
different rpm.
6. The following values was then obtained:
a) Plastic viscosity (300rpm 100rpm)reading
56

b) Yield point (300rpm - PV)

c) Gel strength (max. deflection at 3rpm).

Figure 3.6 The Fann V-G meter for measuring slurry rheologic properties.

3.5

FREE WATER TEST

Free Water Test on the Light Weight Cement Slurry

A free water test was carried out on the light weight cement slurry to measure
the amount of free water available in the cement after 2hrs time frame. The
procedure is given below:
1. The cement was allowed to hydrate for 2hrs after design.
2. After 2hrs, the water found on top of the cement sheath was poured into
a measuring cylinder.
57

3. The water volume was then measured and recorded to be the free water
of the cement slurry.

CHAPTER FOUR
58

4.0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experimental results of the light weight cement slurry tests are analyzed and
calculated in this section. Some graphical representation are used where
necessary in this section for clear understanding.
4.1
I.

II.

III.

RECORDED DATA
Conventional cement slurry preparation
a) 800g of cement + 350ml of distilled water + 6 drops of defoamer +
5g of CaCl2
b) Density of the slurry = 16.0ppg
c) Time of slurry design = 4:40pm
Lightweight cement slurry preparation
a) Bentonite paste = 100g of bentonite + 300ml of distilled water
b) 350ml of water + 800g of cement + 6 drops of defoamer + 5g of
CaCl2 + bentonite paste
c) Time of slurry design = 5:20pm
Slurry densities
Table 4.1

Densities of the prepared cement slurries

Density, lb/gal
Conventional slurry
16.0

lightweight slurry
12.5

Cement extenders are a routine additive used for reducing slurry density
and increasing the yield of cement slurry. A reduction of slurry density
reduces the hydrostatic pressure during cementing; this helps to cement
oil and gas wells in low pressure or depleted reservoirs and prevent
induced lost circulation because of the breakdown of weak formations.
They are also used in deepwater cementing where there is a problem of
low fracture gradient. In addition, the number of stages required to
cement a well may be reduced. Extenders such as bentonite reduces the
amount of cement required to produce a given volume of set product
which results in a greater economy (shadizadeh, 2010). From literatures,
59

it has been noted that the density of a conventional cement slurry ranges
from 15.6 to 16.4 lbs./gal (kulakofsky, 2007) while the density of the
lead cement system used in deepwater drilling will be in the range of 11
to 13 lbs./gal due to low fracture gradients (kolstad, 2004). The use of
bentonite functions by greatly increasing or extending the water
requirement for the slurry by the excess water used in increasing the
WCR of the cement slurry. Bentonite particles are water wet and absorb
excess water in cement slurry when cement slurry is extended by water.
This principle reduces the density of the slurry as there is an increase in
the WCR of the slurry. The 12.5lb/gal density of the light weight cement
slurry mitigates the effects of the use of conventional cement densities on
the low fracture gradient formations of the deepwater regions.
IV. Rheology
a) Dial readings from experiment
Table 4.2 Dial reading at several rotational speed

ROTATIONAL SPEED(RPM)
DIAL READING (cp)
600
296
300
198
3
33
A limitation from this experiment is the unavailability of a viscometer
that could be adjusted to a rotational speed of 100rpm. Therefore, the
100rpm reading was gotten from EXCEL trend line plot as shown below:

60

SLURRY RHEOLOGY
350
300
f(x) = - 0x^2 + 0.67x + 30.99
250
200

DIAL READING (cp)

150
100
50
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ROTATIONAL SPEED (RPM)

Figure 4.1 - A graph of the various rotational speed against its respective dial reading

From the trend line plot, it is seen that the equation of the graph is given
as:
y = -0.0004x2 + 0.6717x + 30.988
From which the dial reading at 100rpm is calculated to as thus:
Y = -0.0004(100) 2 + 0.6717(100) + 30.988
Y = -4 + 67.17 + 30.988
Y = 94cp
Where Y is the dial reading at 100rpm.
b) Gel strength
61

The maximum deflection at a rotational speed of 3rpm for 10secs was

33cp.
4.2 CEMENT SLURRY CALCULATIONS
a) PERCENTAGE FREE WATER
The percentage of free water left in the cement slurry after 2hrs is
calculated as thus:
% free water = volume of water X 100 (Joel, 2010)
250
The volume of free water on the conventional cement slurry after 2hrs
was observed to be 35ml. Therefore;
% free water (conventional slurry) = 35 X 100
250
Therefore % free water for the conventional cement slurry = 14%
NOTE: The % of free water for the lightweight cement slurry is 0%,
since it was observed that there was no free water on the slurry after 2hrs.
b) PLASTIC VISCOSITY
The plastic viscosity of the light weight cement is calculated as thus
PV = 1.5(300rpm 100rpm) reading (Joel, 2010)
PV = 1.5(198 94)
PV = 1.5(104)
PV = 156cp
c) YIELD POINT
The yield point is also calculated as thus:
YP = 300rpm reading PV (joel, 2010)
YP = 198 156
YP = 42 lb/100ft2
d) APPARENT VISCOSITY
The fact that the viscosity depends on the shear rate means that the tested
lightweight cement does not have a constant viscosity. Thus, the viscosity
of this non-Newtonian fluid is measured at a specified shear rate and is
called apparent viscosity, .
= 600rpm reading/ 2 (Joel, 2010)
= 296/2
62

= 148cp
From the calculated value of the apparent viscosity, it is seen that one
effect of bentonite on the cement slurry apart from reducing the density of
the slurry, is increase in the viscosity of the slurry. This creates the need
for the use of a dispersant when using bentonite as an extender.

e) SHEAR RATE / SHEAR STRESS

Shear rate ()
= RPM*1.7034 [s-1]
(Abou-Morad et al, 2006)
Shear Stress ()
= DIAL READING * 1.067 [lb/100ft 2]

(Abou-Morad et al,

2006)
= (lb/100ft2) * 0.478803 [Pa]
Apparent Viscosity ()
= shear stress (mPa) [cP]
Shear rate (s-1)

(Abou-Morad et al, 2006)

Table 4.3 calculated values for shear stress and shear rate

RPM
600
300
100
3

SHEAR
RATE (S-1)
1022.04
511.02
170.34
5.1102

DIAL
READING
296
198
94
33

SHEAR
STRESS(Pa)
151.221
101.155
48.023
16.859

VISCOSITY
()
147.96
197.95
281.92
3299.09

63

From the calculated values of shear rate and shear stress gotten from the
cement rheology, a graphical representation of the relationship between
the shear rate and shear stress is shown below:

SHEAR STRESS VS SHEAR RATE

160
140
120
100

Shear stress (Pa)

80
60
40
20
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

shear rate (s=1)

Figure 4.2 -

A graph of shear rate vs shear stress

Due to the fact that the cement slurry is a non-Newtonian fluid, a line of best fit
cannot be used to represent the relation between the shear stress and shear rate.
4.3

DISCUSSIONS

The rheology test was used to examine various flow properties of the cement
slurry. The slurry viscosity and yield point is known to affect the pumping
64

pressure required for slurry placement and the displacement efficiency by which
drilling fluid is removed from the annular space. From the experiment, the
calculated yield point value of 42lb/100ft 2, though a bit high tells that the
cement slurry has the ability to prevent fluid phase separation. The static gel
strength of the cement slurry (33lb/100ft2), which is a measure of the degree to
which an unset cement slurry develops resistance to flow when at rest, tells us
that there is a reduction in the pumping ability of designed lightweight cement
slurry and as a result further studies is recommended to that respect. The static
gel strength also tells that the critical hydration period of the slurry is brief and
in comparison to what was obtained in Schlumbergers DEEPCEM cement
(Guy et al, 2003), was found to be good in that, it would hydrate before the
possibility of a flow of gas or water from the shallow zone. The percentage freefluid of the lightweight cement slurry, observed to be 0%, directly relates to the
slurry stability and this tells us that the designed slurry would not lose its
inherent fluid content, making it very stable.

65

CHAPTER 5
5.0

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1

CONCLUSION

Considering the topic of this project work and a careful analysis of the results
gotten from the experimental work, several conclusions are drawn and are stated
below:
Lightweight cement for deepwater environment can be designed using
bentonite, as it helps to increase the WCR of the cement slurry by
absorbing the water to yield lighter cement with higher bound water
volume.
The lightweight cement slurry has a zero percentage of free water,
making it less prone to loss of its inherent fluid content and as a result it
is suitable for mitigating hazards of fluid channels in the cement.
The critical hydration period of the lightweight cement slurry which is a
function of the static gel strength of the slurry (i.e 33lb/100ft 2 for 10secs)
is estimated to be brief. When compared to standard CHP trend for other
industry based lightweight cement (Guy, 2003), it is seen that the critical

66

hydration period (CHP) must be brief to prevent water or gas from

flowing into the cement.

5.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the fact that shallow flow occurs at relatively shallow depths relative to
the mudline or seabed surface 500 to 2500ft (152 to 762m) and in weak,
unconsolidated formations (Guy et al, 2003), my recommendations based on
this study are stated below:
The density of the cementing system must be especially light to be lower
than the fracture pressure of the formation at that region.
To reduce the possibility of fluid channels forming in the cement, the
slurry design must minimize the amount of free water and particle settling
in the slurry, a phenomenon known as sedimentation.
The critical hydration period of (CHP) must be brief to prevent water or
gas from flowing into the cement.

67

REFERENCES
Abou-Morad Mohammed, Jackie Chee, Barry Fredrickson and Robert
Williamson, April 2006, Pet E 295 Lab Report #4 & #5, Drilling Fluids, Pg
10-17.
Adam T. Bourgoyne Jr, Keith K. Millheim, Martin E. Chenevert and F.S. Young
Jr, 1986, Applied Drilling Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineering,
(ISBN 1-55563-001-4).
Alberty M. W., 2000, Shallow water flows: A solved or an emerging problem.
DTC paper 11971 proc; the 2000 OTC, Houston, Pg 3.
Arshad Waheed and Hesham Saleh, Feb. 2005, Deepwater shallow flow
controlled by foamed cement; East Mediterranean case studies, Halliburton.
Bob A. Hardage, Randy Remington and Harry H. Robertis, May 2006, Gas
hydrate a source of shallow water flow? The leading Edge.
BP America incorporation, 2014, Cementing Guides Course; Participant
Guide, Pg 3-12.
British petroleum, 2010, Chief Counsels Report, chapter 4.3: Cement, Pg 76
74.
Dale Doherty, April 2011, Factors key to deepwater cementing, The American
Oil and Gas Reporter.
F. Tahmounpour (Halliburton) and Dr. kris Ravi (Halliburton), Nov18 2009,
Deepwater cementing consideration to prevent hydrates destabilization,
AADE chapter meeting, Houston.
68

Gerard Guvillier, Stephen Edwards, Greg Johnson, Dick Plumb, Colen Sayers,
Glen Denyer, Jos Edwards Mendonca, Bertrand Theuveny and Charlie Vise,
2000, Solving Deepwater well construction problems, Schlumberger, Pg 34.
Guy Carre, Emmanuel Pradie, Alan Christie, Laurent Delabory and Billy
Greeson, 2003, High expectations from deepwater wells, Oilfield Review,
Schlumberger, Pg 42-45.
IADC deepwater well control guidelines, Oct. 1998, IADC, Houston.
Joel O.F, 2010, Design and Field application of Drilling, Cementing and
Stimulation Fluids, (ISBN: 987-8068-56-5), Chi Ikoku Petroleum Engineering
Series, IPS publication.
Junichi Hagura, 24 June 2003, Cementing Deepwater wells, Schlumberger.
Kolstad Eric (Anadarko Petroleum), Greg Mozill and Juan Carlos Flores
(Schlumberger), January 2004, Deepwater isolation, shallow water flow
hazards test cement in Marco Polo, Offshore Magazine, Pg 76.
Kulakofsky David, 2007, Lightweight cement meets challenges of weak
formations and depleted zones, FUEL Knowledge Central, Halliburton.
P. Skalle, January 2002, Cementing problems when setting casing through
porous gas/water bearing formations, Oil Gas European Magazine.
Schlumberger, 2007, Overcoming Deepwater Challenges Across the Globe.
Shadizadeh S. R., M. Kholghi and M. H. Salehi Kassaei, 2010, Experimental
Investigation of Silica Fume as a Cement Extender for Liner Cementing in
Iranian Oil/Gas Wells, Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering Vol. 7, No. 1,
IAChE.

69

Sinor L.A., Tybere P., Eide O. and Wenande B. C., 2001, Rotary liner drilling
for depleted reservoirs. SPE paper 39399, The 2001 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas (3-6 March 2001).
Vogt C., Makohi K., Suwamo P. and Quitzan B., 2000, Drilling liner
technology for depleted reservoirs. SPE paper 36827, The 2000 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Milan (22-24 October 2000).
Whitfill, D. L., Heathman J., Faul R. R., and Vargo Jr. R. K, 2000, Fluids for
drilling and cementing shallow water flows, SPE paper 62957, The 2000 SPE
Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Pg127137, (1-4 Oct. 2000).

70