IADC/SPE 98970
Deep Gas-Well Cementation: A Review of Risks and Design Basis for Use of a Liquid
Cement Premix for Large Offshore Cementing Operations
G. Benge, J. Darby, M. Peroyea, and T. Aguilar, ExxonMobil Development Co., and D. Mueller and D. Doherty, BJ Services
Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Miami,
Florida, U.S.A., 2123 February 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC, SPE, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 1.972.952.9435.
Abstract:
Large volume offshore cement jobs can present a number of
challenges. Larger casing strings set to deeper depths have
driven up the volume of cement jobs beyond the capacity of
many rigs. A recent well design called for two cement jobs
that would exceed 2,400 bbl. There were a number of options
considered for dealing with these large cement jobs. These
included spotting lift boats beside the rig, the use of a
dedicated cementing vessel, the deployment of ocean going
barges, spotting an additional jack up rig, or the use of a liquid
cement premix.
This paper discusses the risk analysis and
development plan that led to the selection of a liquid cement
premix for the large volume jobs. The paper covers the design
requirements of the jobs and addresses the risks associated
with the available options. Information is provided on risks
associated with boat and barge stability, draft limits at
available bulk facilities, deck load limits and logistics of
alternative designs. Rig based pumping operations are
included with respect to logistics and timing issues related to
placing the entire operation on the rig.
These jobs were to be the largest liquid cement
premix jobs to date. Slurry stability and consistency were
major concerns on these jobs. These were addressed through
full scale testing on the vessel. (The results of which are
summarized in SPE 988941.) The paper further covers the
equipment requirements and mixing needs and compares the
selected option to that of a conventional cement job.
Introduction:
The challenges presented by large volume cement jobs in an
offshore environment are driven by space limitations and
weight restrictions. This project addressed the specific
challenges of a Gulf of Mexico well where 20inch, 133 ppf
casing string was to be set in a 26 inch open hole at a depth of
over 12,000 ft. This was to be followed by a 16inch 137.9
ppf casing string set at approximately 17,000 ft in a 22-inch
open hole.
To bring cement top to 6,000 ft, the volume for the
20inch casing job with 50% excess would be approximately
2,400 bbl or over 7,500 sacks of cement. The displacement
volume for this string would be approximately 4,100 bbl. The
16-inch design also called for top of cement at 6,000 ft, with
the cement volume being just over 3,000 bbl with a 25%
excess cement factor employed. At the anticipated density for
this job, the cement volume would exceed 15,000 sacks.
The well was being drilled from a Tarzan class jack-
up rig in 97 feet of water. The rig has approximately 6,000
cubic feet of cement storage, enough for approximately 4,000
sacks of cement.
This paper discusses the design requirements for the
slurries, the risks associated with mixing and placing these
large volumes of cement, and the alternatives considered for
mixing and pumping the slurries. The discussion includes the
risks of mixing the cement slurries on the fly versus the use of
a liquid cement premix, with its associated risks.
Cement Design Requirements:
There were three primary drivers for the slurry designs on the
each of the casing jobs. These were density control, mixing
rate and placement time.
Density control was critical for the 20inch casing
job because of the risks of casing collapse. The 20inch, 133
ppf casing had a collapse rating of 1,600 psi. If the cement
were mixed above the designed 13.1 lbm/gal density, the
differential pressure on the casing could be sufficient to cause
collapse.
Density control was also required for consistent
slurry behavior. Not mixing the cement to the proper density
could mean an unacceptable change in the thickening time.
The large cement and displacement volumes required a very
long thickening times for both job designs.
Mixing rate is directly related to the needed
thickening time of the slurry for the 20inch job. Mixing
2,250 bbl of lead at 10 bbl/min would require just under 4
hours. At 15 bbl/min, this dropped to just over 2 hours.
Coupled with the time to mix the tail slurry, in this case
another 30 minutes, and the 4,100 bbl of displacement at 15
bbl/min, the minimum thickening time for the lead slurry
would be approximately 10 hours. The 16inch casing job
2 IADC/SPE 98970
presented similar challenges. The preliminary design called
for 16.5 lbm/gal slurry. Volumes for this job would be in
excess of 3,000 bbl with a displacement volume of
approximately 3,400 bbl. At 10 bpm, the mixing time for the
lead slurry would be 6 hours, reducing to 3 1/2 hours at 15
bpm. A 6hour displacement at 10 bpm would yield a
minimum pump time requirement of over 12 hours for the lead
slurry.
Operational Alternatives:
Mixing on the Fly - All alternatives except the liquid cement
premix share the same "mix on the fly" limitations and risks
associated with proper density control. These risks include
proper cement delivery to assure consistent density control
and coordination of bulk material movement during the job.
While it is possible to mix the 13.1 lbm/gal lead at 8
10 bpm with a single unit, density control usually suffers.2
To reduce the risks of density variation, and give sufficient
redundancy on location, at least three cement units were
considered necessary to properly mix the lead slurry. Even if
one cement unit suffered mechanical failure, it should still be
possible to mix this slurry at a sufficient rate. The 16.5
lbm/gal slurry presented more challenges because if one unit
failed, it was felt two units would be able to maintain a mixing
rate of 10 bpm, but probably not 15.
Mixing on the fly also requires excellent bulk
delivery of the dry mix. This would require the bulk tanks be
in close proximity to the cement units. This could require
careful design of the placement of the cement units and the
bulk equipment.
Material movement during cement mixing and
pumping was also a consideration for the job. For the 13.1
ppg system, at 10 bpm, the amount of cement and water being
moved is 5,500 pounds a minute and at 15 bpm, it is 8,250
pounds a minute. The job would be designed for 15 bpm, thus
any mix on the fly option had to consider the safety and
stability of moving over 2.5 tons of material a minute. For the
16inch string, the material movement would increase to
6,900 pounds a minute at 10 bpm, and over 10,000 pounds per
minute at 15 bpm.
Use of Liquid Cement Premix:
An alternative to the conventional mixing of the slurry would
be through the use of a liquid cement premix. This option
takes the critical step of mixing the cement off the critical
path, and eliminates concerns over density control. This
option also eases concerns over bulk material transfer, as the
only material being moved is a liquid. The total weight being
moved does not change, but the material movement challenges
are greatly reduced.
Logistics Options - Conventional Mixing:
Pump the job from the rig The first option for any cement
job is to determine if that job can be performed with the
existing systems on the rig. Rig bulk systems are not sized for
the very large jobs required for this well. This requires
spotting additional bulk handling equipment on the deck.
As noted, at least three additional cement units above
the one on the rig were considered necessary for these jobs.
Spotting the cement units and associated bulk equipment on
the rig deck would have been possible, but due to the space
required, no equipment could be moved onto the deck until the
pipe had been run and the deck prepared. The hole would be
circulated while the cement units and bulk equipment were
moved to the deck, followed by transfer of the cement into the
tanks. It was estimated that at best this would take 12 hours to
accomplish.
An alternative to this would be placing the cement
units and associated equipment on the rig and running the
casing off a supply vessel. This would eliminate the delays
associated with the cement equipment, though would
complicate casing running.
Ocean Going Barge Barges have been used for large
cement jobs in many operations, though they do require
relatively protected waters and have a limited weather
window. The ballast control on a barge can be a challenge and
must be continuously monitored. Station keeping for a barge
also presented a maritime challenge, and even with multiple
tug support, a 200 ft safety encroachment distance between the
drilling rig and the barge was anticipated. The large number
of cement storage tanks placed on the barge would require a
separate and extensive material delivery and air handling
system. The limited weather window, the requirement for
additional attending vessels, and the need for an extensive top
side bulk handling system eliminated this option from further
consideration.
Lift Boats Use of lift boats to place the cement and
additional cementing units was carefully considered. Due to
the limited deck space on the boats, two lift boats would have
been required to hold all of the bulk storage and cementing
units. The weight of the cement and equipment meant the lift
boats could not be preloaded prior to jacking up on location.
This would have required additional boats to transport the
materials, and additional crane time to place the cement units
and bulk cans.
The lift boats offered very good stability and a good
operating weather window. There were some weather
concerns as there would be an extended period of time
required to place the units and bulk equipment and transfer the
cement and water to the boats. While this could be done off of
the critical path, it would mean the lift boats would be on
location for an extended period of time.
A major drawback of the lift boats was the need to tie
up one side of the rig for at least a week prior to the job.
While considered possible, this limitation was deemed
unacceptable in the final analysis. The risks associated with
tying up an access point to the rig were considered higher than
using a dedicated cement vessel for the job, thus in spite of the
improved weather capability, lift boats were not considered
further.
Additional jack up Spotting an additional jack up rig for
the cementing job would allow the best weather window of
any of the alternatives. However, there are inherent dangers
with bringing in an additional rig in such close proximity to
another rig. The volume of cement anticipated for the 20inch
and 16inch casing cementation would exceed the bulk
IADC/SPE 98970
storage capacity of the additional jack up rig requiring
additional cement storage tanks with, once again, separate
bulk material delivery and air handling systems. Like the lift
boats, this option would also tie up the side of the rig for an
extended period of time. Finally, the high cost of this option
coupled with the lack of any short-term contract options
quickly eliminated it as a viable alternative.
Dedicated cement boat - Most offshore large volume cement
jobs utilize a dedicated cement vessel. While there are
concerns regarding the operating weather window, vessels
equipped with dynamic positioning capabilities were
considered acceptable for the project.
Several risks were identified with the cement boat
option. First was the ability to contract a vessel of sufficient
size to accommodate the cement and three cement units (two
primaries, one back up) required for the job. The largest of the
offshore supply vessels have a total internal bulk storage
capacity of approximately 11,000 cubic feet in two segregated
bulk systems. Combining the bulk storage capacity of the
vessel with that of the rig raises the total bulk storage capacity
to 17,000 cubic feet. Any additional cement bulk storage
capacity would be placed topside. The use of vertical storage
tanks topside was eliminated as an option due to a deck
loading limitation of 1,000 lbs/ft2 and vessel center of gravity
considerations. It was determined that 1,200 cubic foot
horizontal bulk storage tanks would be placed topside should
additional cement storage capacity be required. While minor,
there were concerns for boat stability during the mixing
operation and the need to maintain constant ballast control.
The automatic ballast control systems available on
many boats were considered sufficient to address this risk.
Using the dedicated vessel to mix on the fly the cement for the
20inch and 16inch casings would have the risks associated
with conducting three cement mixing operations
simultaneously, two on the vessel, one on the rig.
An additional consideration was which offshore
service point(s) had sufficient channel depth to accommodate
a supply vessel of this size. Dulac, Berwick and Port of
Fourchon, Louisiana were all considered as possible service
points, but only Port of Fourchon was deep enough to allow
movement of the fully loaded vessel from the bulk facility.
Using a dedicated cement vessel with the mix on the
fly process was considered the lowest risk of any of the
alternatives and would be used as the primary back-up if the
testing on the liquid premix was not successful.
Logistics Options Liquid Cement Premix:
Unlike the other options, the liquid cement premix alternative
offered the only choice where the mixing of the cement was
taken off line. The liquid cement premix de-couples the
cement mixing from cement operation, allowing the slurry to
be mixed at the offshore bulk facility a week or more before
the actual cementing operation. As noted, by using the
premix, there were no concerns over density control or mixing
rate. This would assure consistent slurry properties for the full
job, and eliminate concerns over blend quality.
The only variable in its placement would be the
ability to deliver the liquid premix to the pumps, and to
properly proportion the liquid enhancer into the system. The
3
vessel had the capacity to transfer liquids from the storage
tanks up to the deck at a rate of 880 gpm (20.9 bpm).
The liquid premix does not eliminate the use of a
dedicated vessel, but does reduce the amount of equipment
required on the deck to a skid-mounted frac unit and liquid
additive kit. Because there would be no mixing of the slurry
on the vessel, the operational weather window for the boat
should be larger than that for a dedicated cement boat.
Further, the stability issues would be improved, as only liquids
would be transferred on the vessel.
Liquid Premix Risks:
While there appeared to be several operational advantages to
the liquid cement premix option, there remained several risks
associated with this option. These risks included:
This would be the largest application of the liquid
cement premix to date
Slurry stability, both of the base mix at 15.0 lbm/gal,
the diluted mix at 13.1 lbm/gal, and the 16.5 lbm/gal
slurries
Slurry stability in the boat tanks and if the tanks on
the boat were appropriate for the premix
Effects of agitation in the tanks over long periods of
time
The marine effects of heave on the stability of the
premix which could not be simulated in large scale
on land
Ability to mix very large volumes of the slurry at the
offshore supply base
Heat transfer from the vessel's mechanical equipment
to the liquid premix
Uses of the liquid premix at low temperatures
normally higher well temperatures are required for
consistent setting properties.
Ability to accurately add the enhancer while pumping
the job
Project Management:
The volume for these jobs would exceed the experience base
by several times. Prior to the project, the largest volume
applied in the field was approximately 750 bbl.3-6 This project
would require 3 4 times this volume.
To address the project concerns, a dedicated team of
operator and service company personnel was selected and
assembled and charged with the task of identifying and
mitigating the risks associated with the large-scale application
of the liquid premix.
The team established expectations for all aspects of the
job. These included:
vessel selection with attention to available tankage,
mixing system, liquid deliverability and draft
requirements
bulk plant capabilities and associated water access
selection of engineering and field personnel
quality control monitoring and testing protocols
pumping equipment and liquid enhancer addition
4 IADC/SPE 98970
The primary offshore liquid cement premix blending plant
in use was a dedicated facility located in Dulac, Louisiana,
however the draft requirements of the vessel did not allow for
the use of the Dulac site. Additional mixing and storage tanks
would be required at any other blending facility. The Port of
Fourchon was chosen as the site for the preparation of the
liquid cement premix. This temporary mixing plant would be
placed at the existing offshore bulk plant and supply base. All
laboratory testing of the liquid cement premix would take
place in Broussard, Louisiana.
Slurry Stability There were several issues identified with
respect to slurry stability. There was considerable data
available on the stability of the 15.0 lbm/gal system that forms
the basis for most of the liquid premix systems. From this
base slurry, the cement is either diluted or weighted up on
location to match well requirements.
For the 20inch casing operation, the initial planning
called for a variety of slurry densities to be tested. 12.5
lbm/gal, 13.0 lbm/gal, and 13.5 lbm/gal slurries were all tested
under the engineering guidelines put forth in the initial
requirements. (By the time interval depth was reached, a final
slurry density of 13.1 lbm/gal was to be used.) A large-scale
boat test was developed where 600 bbl of 15.0 lbm/gal slurry
was to be mixed and maintained in the boat tanks for one
week. At the end of the initial test, the 600 bbls of liquid
cement premix would be split. One batch would then be
diluted to 12.5 lbm/gal, the other weighted to 16.5 lbm/gal and
tested for stability for an additional three days. The objectives
of the test were:
Identify any issues with slurry settling
Prove that density changes to the liquid premix can
be made on board the offshore vessel
Confirm the ability of the mixers on the boat to
properly condition the slurry
Evaluate any effects of slurry mixing in the tank to
include effects of shear and temperature
Evaluate the efficiency of the boat's mud discharge
system in handling the liquid premix
Determine if the diluted slurry was stable over long
term or if the cement would require dilution
immediately before the job
Determine the stability of the 16.5 lbm/gal system to
be used on the 16inch casing job
The results of the test indicated excellent slurry
stability for both the base slurry and the diluted/weighted
systems for the duration of the test. This was an important
finding because it would allow pre-dilution of the slurry to the
desired density well in advance of the 20inch casing job.
Had the system not been stable, the advantage of the liquid
premix would have been greatly reduced as the job would
have still required mixing, or diluting large volumes of slurry
on the fly.
The large scale testing was significant because the
successful results of the test gave sufficient confidence in the
system, and the ability to maintain the slurry within the design
requirements, to plan for its use on the two large cement jobs
on the well.
Following the decision, two final risk factors were
identified and evaluated. These were the use of the system at
the low temperatures expected on the 20inch job, and the
ability to properly meter the enhancer into the system. These
related risks were particularly important for the 20inch job
because the lower temperatures would require higher
concentrations of the enhancer.
Use of liquid premix at low temperatures The 20
inch cement job would call for the top of the liquid cement
premix to set at a depth of 6,000 ft and a temperature of
approximately 130 deg F. The system can have difficulty
building strength at low temperatures, though for this casing
job, this was not considered a major risk. The operations
required a good shoe test, but due to other operations on the
well, the casing would not be reentered for at least three days.
To lower the risk on the 20inch job further, a
conventional tail system was designed and pumped with the
cementing unit on the rig. The resulting design called for 150
bbl of tail cement pumped at a density of 16.2 lbm/gal.
Addition of the enhancer The final area of concern was
the ability to accurately add the liquid enhancer to the slurry
prior to pumping in the well. The liquid cement premix
requires either enhancement or higher temperatures to set.
The cement for the 20-inch job would not be exposed to high
temperatures, thus accurate addition of an enhancer would be
essential.
The liquid enhancer is a synergistic two-part system.
Part one has been proven to have no effect on thickening time
by itself on the liquid cement premix. Part two could
accelerate the thickening time when added to the slurry
containing part one. For this reason there were concerns about
adding the total enhancer package directly to the tanks on the
vessel. If there were any delays to the job, this would have
left the enhanced cement system in the boat tanks, which was
deemed an unacceptable risk. This required adding the
enhancer on the fly, and would be accomplished by use of the
same liquid additive proportioning and control system used for
fracturing and foamed cementing operations.
The system consists of a computer-controlled pump
metering the enhancer into the suction side of the pumps. The
flow rate was monitored and controlled by use of a Coriolis-
type mass flow meter. These meters have been used in many
operations and have been shown to be highly reliable and very
accurate in this type of application.7
Discussion:
The goal of the evaluation was to determine acceptable
alternatives to performing very large cement jobs in an
offshore environment. The project identified two main areas
of concern: the ability to mix large volumes of cement at an
accurate density, and the ability to perform that operation at a
IADC/SPE 98970 5

high rate which dictates the use of multiple cementing units
and bulk equipment. Space limitations led to placing the
mixing operation off the rig, which decreases the operability
window due to weather concerns. The solution to these risks
were to move the cement mixing operation to shore and
completely away from the rig operations.
By using the liquid cement premix, and taking the
slurry mixing variable out of the critical path, the ancual job
would be able to concentrate only on pumping the slurry into
the well. This allowed use of fracturing pump equipment for
cementing operations, thus further reducing the number of
pumping units. The fracturing pumps also used an existing,
proven liquid proportioning system for the addition of the
enhancer.
Conclusions:
1. The risk analysis demonstrated liquid cement premix can
be readily adapted to large, complex cement jobs.
2. The boat testing demonstrated the stability of the base
premix as well as a diluted slurry and a weighted slurry for
extended periods of time.
3. The use of the fracturing pump and associated liquid
additive system proved very effective for the high rate
cementing operation.
4. The use of the liquid cement premix removes the risks
associated with mixing on the fly.
3. Merritt, J.W., "Premixed Cement Slurry Solves Problems
Associated With Conventional Oilwell Cementing," paper
SPE 93897, presented at the 2005 Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 17-19
April, 2005
4. Rae, Phil and Johnston, Neil, "Liquid Cement Premix
Introduces New Solutions to Conventional Cementing
Problems," paper IADC/SPE 35086 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, 12-15
March, 1996
5. Anderson, J.W., Buchanan, A.I., and Susanto, A., "New
Technology Eliminates Bulking in Cementing
Operations," paper SPE 36478 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
CO, 6-9 October, 1996.
6. Anderson, J.W., Buchanan, A.I. and Susanto, A., "New
Technology Improves Cement Slurry Design," paper SPE
36973 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 28-31 October, 1996.
7. Judge, Robert A and Benge, Glen, "Advances in Metering
and Control Technology Improves Design and Execution
of Foamed Cement Jobs," paper IADC/SPE 47831
presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Drilling Conference,
Jakarta, Indonesia, 7-9 September 1998

5. Slurry quality control was taken out of the critical path by

the use of liquid cement premix.

6. Preplanning, preparation, and personnel selection, etc were

key areas of evaluation for the process.

References:

1. Fanguy, C.J., Doherty, D.H. and Mueller, D. T., "Large

Scale Feasibility Determination of Storing and
Transporting a Liquid Pre-mixed Cement Slurry Below
Deck Under Maritime Conditions," paper IADC/SPE
98894 presented at the 2006 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Miami, FL 21-23 February, 2006.

2. Benge, Glen, "A New Technique for Evaluating Field

Cement Mixing," paper IADC/SPE 27522 presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX 15-18
February 1994