IADC/SPE 59170
Foam Cementing Applications on a Deepwater Subsalt Well—Case History
S. Moore, SPE, M. Miller, SPE, R. Faul, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and J. D’Agostino, SOI
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the 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 or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented
at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and
SPE. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-
3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Boris prospect is a deepwater well drilled at Mississippi
Canyon. This exploratory well was drilled in a subsalt environ-
ment, which provided many zonal-isolation challenges.
Deepwater wells in this area can have shallow water flows
(SWF),1 long sections of salt, and disturbed zones or rubble zones
above and below the salt section. While all these hazards were
not encountered during the drilling of this well, foamed cement
was an integral part of the plan to deal with them. The paper is
a case study of how a new foamed-cementing process was used
to solve the challenges associated with the zonal isolation and
to help Shell meet the target for the number of drilling days. The
paper will cover the cementing process used on three primary
casing strings during well construction.
Foamed Cement
Foamed cement was developed in the late 1970’s to obtain low-
density cement with good compressive-strength development,
especially in the 8- to 18-lbm/gal slurry density range. The
literature thoroughly documents the use of foamed cement for
its conventional, lightweight density uses. Cements are de-
signed to provide zonal isolation, and a competent cement
sheath can minimize buckling, parting, and elongation of the
casing caused by stresses. The quality of the cement sheath is
affected by several factors, including low formation fracture
gradients, lost-circulation zones, tight annular clearances be-
tween previous casings, and variable holes sizes caused by
washouts.
In recent years, foamed cementing has become a solution to
many different wellbore problems. In the Gulf of Mexico, one of
References at the end of the paper.
the first special applications was reported in 1996 when foamed
cement was used successfully to isolate problem formations
behind a liner in a high-temperature high-pressure (HTHP) well
in Mobile Bay.2 Foam was first used as a solution to shallow water
flow (SWF) in the Gulf of Mexico in 1994. The first well later
became the model for 19 additional wells in a batch operation
in which foamed cement was used on 39 total primary jobs.3
Foamed cement quickly became popular as the cement of choice
for the SWF. A 1997 paper presented the use of proper mud
management techniques in conjunction with the foamed cement
to solve SWF.1 More recently, the use of foamed cement for
controlling SWF was reported on another large batch-set opera-
tion.4 Since foamed cement was first used to control SWF, several
hundred jobs have been performed in the Gulf of Mexico.
Foamed cement exhibits other desirable properties for ob-
taining short- and long-term zonal isolation in oil and gas wells.
These properties are (1) superior mud displacement, (2) gas-
migration control, and (3) long-term sealing of the well’s annu-
lus by resistance to cement-sheath stress cracking.
Cementing Equipment
The process of foamed cementing has been enhanced by the
introduction of a fully integrated cement quality control sys-
tem.5 Foamed cementing with this type of delivery process has
been successfully used for steam producing wells in California.6
The new system consolidates the controls of all units into one
computerized system, allowing the operator to monitor and
control all units on location simultaneously when making
adjustments to the job. The importance of precision in control-
ling a job increases with the complexity of the job and the
number of units involved. With the advent of foamed cementing,
for example, a single job requires that the mixing system, liquid
additive system, and nitrogen equipment be on location. More
equipment usually requires more operators, and coordination
and logistics become more difficult.
Advanced computer technology provides a functional and
economical solution, allowing a cost-effective step-change in
the performance of cementing equipment. Because the new
system fully integrates the controls of the cementing skid, the
liquid-additive injection unit, and the nitrogen unit, an operator
can monitor data displayed on a computer screen, and send
2 FOAM CEMENTING APPLICATIONS ON A DEEPWATER SUBSALT WELL—CASE HISTORY
remote-control capabilities for offsite monitoring and control,
which can enhance safety and efficiency of offshore jobs. The
components of the control system are housed within a PC-
platform industrial computer (Fig. 1) that is powered by a high-
speed microprocessor and operated through the Windows NT
operating system. Because the system uses a controlled area
network (CAN) bus for data input/output, it can easily be ex-
panded or incorporated into the rig area network.
The custom designed equipment that has delivered reliable
service for decades is still used, and the basic functions required
have not changed. The triplex pump (1957), the recirculating mixer
(RCM,1975), the liquid additive system (1997), and nitrogen
equipment (1974) remain the foundation of the system. Since the
RCM system was introduced, it has remained a reliable system,
and an automatic density control (ADC) was added to the system
in 1989 to give additional control. In 1990 a continuous metering
system (CMS) was added to allow liquid additives to be injected
into the mixing and pumping system. Integrating the CMS (Fig.2)
allows operators to add liquid additives such as retarders and
dispersants directly into the mixing water stream, while also
injecting other additives such as the foamer into the suction of
the triplex pump. The liquid-additive concentrations are critical to
the operation, and are accurately metered with the positive-
displacement pumps. Reliability has been improved by the use of
mass-rate flow indicators and a feedback control loop. Today
with automated nitrogen injectors, operators can simply program
the stages into the operating system. Automated nitrogen units
are capable of constant rate injection, step-rate change, and
constant ramp injection.
Data are managed with a mobile control center (MCC). The
MCC provides a central focal point for monitoring and controlling
the cement job. With the data acquisition system and real time
wellbore-simulation software, data from all cementing compo-
nents are fed into the MCC, where it is monitored in a controlled
environment (Fig. 3). Advanced well-simulation models have
greatly improved the design of both conventional and foamed
cementing jobs. The wellbore simulator now incorporates the
real-time data to allow engineers to compare the planned job with
the actual job parameters and make design changes during the
execution. Parameters include not only the traditional pressure,
rate and density values, but also wellhead pressure, fluid posi-
tions, and pressures at any point in the wellbore (Fig.4). The
equivalent circulating density (ECD), which can be displayed and
monitored in real time, can help an operator run the job and stay
within the pore-pressure and fracture-gradient limits.
Mud Displacement
When foamed cement is pumped, it develops higher dynamic-
flow shear stress than conventional cements, increasing its
displacement capabilities. In addition, foamed cement can be
optimized for specific well conditions. Foamed cement consists
of base cement slurry injected with nitrogen gas. Slurry density
is determined by gas content, and this gas content (or quality)
depends on the base-slurry pump rate, foamer injection rate, and
IADC/SPE 59170
nitrogen rate. Proper selection of the gas content allows the
foamed slurry gradient to be positioned between the fracture- and
pore-pressure gradients to prevent both fluid loss and formation
influx. Computer simulation is needed to optimize slurry design
and predict job placement pressures and formation-fluid influx.
Gas-Migration Control
The dominant factors that control gas migration and/or gas influx
are volume losses and hydrostatic pressure decreases during
slurry transition time. The gas used to foam the cement continues
to expand while the cement volume decreases, allowing the slurry
to expand. Slurry pressure remains almost constant during the
cement’s transition period.7 Consequently, gas-entrained ce-
ment or foamed cement controls gas migration better than any
other type of cement.
Ductility
Foamed cement resists both temperature- and pressure-induced
sheath stresses.2 Foamed cement is at least one order of magni-
tude more ductile than other cements. Testing has shown that a
foamed, 20 to 35 quality, Class H cement remains more ductile than
other cements, allowing the cement sheath to withstand higher
internal casing pressures.8 This feature permits the cement sheath
to yield while the well casing expands. Consequently, the cement
sheath has less long-term potential for cracking. Above 35
quality, the cement is too porous to provide isolation, and below
20 quality it is too brittle to provide the required ductility.
Cement Bond Logs (CBL)
In conventional CBL tools, a transmitter is pulsed to produce an
omnidirectional acoustic signal that travels to a set of receivers
along various paths through the borehole fluid, pipe, cement, and
formation. The logging system records the received waveforms
and displays them on the log along with the pipe-amplitude curve.
To interpret the CBL, engineers use these two measurements to
indicate two bonds. The first bond measures the cement-to-pipe
bond, while the second bond measures the cement-to-formation
bond. An additional measurement is the travel time, which
indicates the tool centralization and indirectly measures the
cement-to-pipe bond.
The waveform display indicates both the cement-to-pipe
bond and the cement-to-formation bond. The classic interpreta-
tion of this display is that a straight trace indicates no cement, and
any variation in the waveforms indicates that some cement is
present. These techniques have been documented and explained
in many references.9 The waveform display will also be affected
by the foam, with the wave amplitudes being less than expected.
Ultrasonic Cement Evaluation Tools
The ultrasonic tools provide the most beneficial data for evalu-
ating the placement and bonding of foamed cements.9 These
tools indicate the casing-to-cement bonding. Instead of a sepa-
rate source and receiver, the ultrasonic source and the receiver
IADC/SPE 59170 J. D’AGOSTINO, S. MOORE, M. MILLER, R. FAUL
are packaged together as a transducer. When the signal emitted
by a transducer encounters an acoustic interface, some of the
signal is reflected at the interface, and some is transmitted across
the interface. The fractional amounts of reflected and transmitted
energy depend on the acoustic impedance of the materials at the
interface.10
The ultrasonic scanning or acoustic imaging tool uses a
single rotating transducer to produce high-resolution, circumfer-
ential data. Data for both cement evaluation and casing evalua-
tion are obtained in the same run or pass. The rotating transducer
will provide 36 to 200 measurements per depth sample, and depth
sample rates range from 2 to 12 samples per foot. Because of the
high sample rate, the data are normally presented in a color-coded
image (Fig. 5) instead of a single curve. The color coding is based
on the acoustic impedance of gas, water, and cement. Unlike the
CBL logs, in which the data are omnidirectional, the data from
ultrasonic tools are azimuthal. Not only can channels in cement
be detected, but the orientation of the channels can also be
determined.
When foamed cements are being evaluated, conventional
interpretation of data from the CBL and/or ultrasonic tools can be
incorrect. As mentioned earlier, because foamed cements affect
both the amplitude and waveform of the CBL, this type of
evaluation would be invalid for foamed cements. Ultrasonic tools
normally require an impedance contrast in the materials behind
the pipe to differentiate between cement and fluids. The imped-
ance of foamed cement can be lower than that of water, drilling
mud, or spacer depending on the quality of the foam. Foamed
cement evaluation techniques have been expanded and im-
proved to allow evaluation with the new generation ultrasonic
scanning tools.
Harness et al.11 provided a technique whereby multitransducer
tools can distinguish foamed cement from fluid ,even when both
have the same impedance. This technique relies on a statistical
variation process (SVP) to discern solid crystalline structures
such as cement in fluids. Analysis of the vertical rate of imped-
ance change, once the tool position is taken into account, permits
easy determination of whether foamed cement or liquid is present.
The ultrasonic scanning device with a single rotating transducer
improves the evaluation of foamed cement. Because the scanning
tool consists of only one transducer, the normalization required
for a multitransducer tool is not necessary. Through the SVP, the
level of impedance activity is calculated directly as an impedance
derivative (DZ), which allows detection of minor changes in
cement or fluid composition and aids in the interpretation of
foamed cement.
Spacer System
To create the proper downhole environment for the cement and
to protect it from the corrupting influences of the drilling fluid, the
industry has developed agents called spacers and preflushes.
These two fluids are similar in several ways: (1) they aid in
effective displacement of drilling fluid with the cement, (2) they
3
act as cleansing agents downhole, (3) they help ensure that both
the mud and slurry remain inviolate throughout the displacement
process, and (4) they are pumped into the wellbore in the interval
between the other two mixes.12
Spacers differ from preflushes primarily in their yield-point
design. The yield point, which should equal or exceed that of the
drilling fluid, allows the weighting materials and lost-circulation
remedies to be incorporated in the spacer system. In addition to
its separation and displacement functions, the yield point can
also permit the spacer to carry the solids cleaned from the
wellbore, and the weighting of the spacer can combat the gas-
cutting of the cement slurry by controlling formation pressure.
A variable-viscosity, optimized-rheology (VVOR)13 spacer
system has proven to be effective in aiding the displacement
process. The VVOR spacer is a water-based fluid capable of
displacing water, oil, or synthetic-based drilling muds during
cementing procedures. Displacing oil and synthetic-based muds
requires adding suitable surfactants that affect water-wet sur-
faces to facilitate the cement’s bonding with annular pipe and
formation faces. Formulations can be customized to satisfy the
requirements of wellbore geometry and drilling-fluid properties of
any job.
Cement cannot adhere to oil-wet surfaces left behind by
nonaqueous drilling fluids. A spacer formulated with surfactants
to convert oil-wet surfaces into water-wet surfaces provides a
necessary component for drilling-fluid removal. The proper sur-
factant package is also critical for creating a smooth transition at
the interface between the nonaqueous drilling fluid and the
spacer, so high-viscosity contamination that can be bypassed in
the annulus is not created. Water-wet surfaces become even more
critical when foamed cements are used because the oil film can act
as a defoaming agent to the foamed slurry. The use of new
techniques and the wettability apparatus (Fig. 6) is very effective
for optimizing the surfactant package to a specific oil or synthetic-
based fluid.14 By using apparent-wettability technology, labora-
tory personnel can design spacer formulas for optimal perfor-
mance and efficiency.
Case Studies
Well No. 1. This deepwater well in 2,978 ft of water was drilled to
total depth in 22.5 days. The 22.5-day drilling time was days ahead
of what would be expected for offset wells. Three casing strings
were used to reach the objective, and the well was then secured
with cement plugs. All three casing strings used foamed-cement
technology for the primary cement. The first string (20-in. con-
ductor casing) did not encounter a SWF zone, which is a common
drilling hazard in the Gulf of Mexico.1 The second string (13 3/8-
in. intermediate casing) was run to 7,777 ft, which put the casing
shoe 100 ft into the salt section. The third casing string (9 5/8 in.)
was run as a liner with a total depth of 10,475 ft, positioning the
top of liner at 7,259 ft. This put the shoe approximately 1,100 ft
below the salt and covered the entire remaining section of salt
back to inside the previous casing. In many subsalt wells drilled
through salt, problems have beenn encountered below the salt
4 FOAM CEMENTING APPLICATIONS ON A DEEPWATER SUBSALT WELL—CASE HISTORY
that have required special treatment.15 However, no major losses
were encountered while drilling this well, so no lost-circulation
treatments where required and no days were lost because of lost
returns. Tables 1 through 3 show specifications for the three
casing strings.
Conclusions
1. A new foamed cement delivery process has been proven
applicable and reliable for use on an entire well program.
2. Foamed cement has a wide range of properties, which make
it an ideal choice for many critical well-cementing applica-
tions, including cementing across shallow water flow zones,
and through long salt sections.
3. The VVOR spacer provides adequate separation, compat-
ibility, and displacement for effectively placing foamed
cement in a synthetic oil-based mud (SOBM) system.
References
1. Griffith, J. and Faul, R.: “Cementing the Conductor Casing Annu-
lus in an Overpressured Water Formation,” paper OTC 8304
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
May 1997.
2. Benge, O.G., McDermott, J.R., Langlinais, J.C., and Griffith, J.E.:
“Foamed Cement Job Successful in Deep HTHP Offshore Well,”
Oil & Gas J, March 1996.
3. Young, W.S., May, B.C., and Varnado, B.R.: “Genesis Develop-
ment Project Overview,” paper OTC 10796, OTC, May 1999.
4. Eaton, L.F.: “Drilling Through Deepwater Shallow Water Flow
Zone at URSA,” paper SPE 52780 presented at the 1999 SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, March 9-11.
IADC/SPE 59170
5. Padgett, P. and Brown, P.: “Integrated Controls Ease Precision
Cementing,” Drilling Contractor, Sept./Oct. 1999, 50-51.
6. Miller, L.S. and Frank, W.E.: “Foam Cementing Cyclic-Steam,
Producing Wells: Cymric Field Case Study,” paper SPE 46215
presented at the 1998 Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA,
May 10-13.
7. Sutton, D.L., Sabins, F.L., and Faul, R.R.: “Preventing Annular
Gas Flow – Two Parts,” Oil & Gas J, Dec. 10 and 17, 1984.
8. Goodwin, K.J., and Crook, R.J.:“Cement Sheath Stress Failure,”
paper SPE 20453 presented at the 1990 SPE 65th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26.
9. Frisch, G.J., Graham, W.L., and Griffith, J.E.: “Assessment of
Foamed Cement Slurries Using Conventional Cement Evaluation
Logs and Improved Interpretation Methods,” paper SPE 55649
presented at the 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting ,
Gillette, WY, May 15-18.
10. Frisch, G.J., and Wyatt, W.L.: “Economic Evaluation of the Use
of Well Logs for Diagnosing Conformance Problems,” paper SPE
40036 presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Calargy, Alberta, Canada, March 15-18.
11. Harness, P.E., Sabins, F.L., and Griffith, J.E.: “New Technique
Provides Better Low-Density Cement Evaluation,” paper SPE
24050, presented at the 1992 SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Bakerfield, CA, March 30-April 1.
12. Crook, R.J., Wilson, J.M., Heathman, J., and Carpenter, B.:
“Effective Cement Placement,” Well Servicing, March/April 1999.
13. Crook, R.J., Wilson, J.M., Heathman, J., and Carpenter, B.:
“Spacer Tech Saves,” Hart’s Oil and Gas World, April 1998.
14. Heathman, J., Wilson, J.M., and Cantrell, J.H.: “New Test Proce-
dures Optimize Surfactant Blends,” Oil & Gas J, Oct. 4, 1999, 71.
15. Sweatman, R,. Faul, R., and Ballew, C.: “New Solutions for
Subsalt-Well Lost Circulation and Optimized Primary Cement-
ing,” paper SPE 56499 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6.
IADC/SPE 59170 S. MOORE, M. MILLER, R. FAUL, J. D’AGOSTINO 5

Table 1—Specifications for 20-in. Conductor Casing

Previous casing 36-in. jet pipe; 3,178 ft RKB, 200 ft BML
Casing depth 20-in. conductor; 4,930 ft RKB, 1,952 ft BML
Hole size 24 in.
Drilling sweep 8.6 lbm/gal gel sweep
Kill mud 11.6 lbm/gal water-based
Excess volume 120%
BHT 72°F
BHCT 62°F
Lead cement fill 1,452 ft
Tail cement fill 500 ft
Lead cement details 460 bbl; Class A cement + flow enhancer + foamer mixed with seawater
Base density 15.6 lbm/gal
Foamed density 12.0 lbm/gal using 214 scf/bbl N2
Tail cement details 165 bbl; Class A cement + flow enhancer + foamer mixed with seawater
Base density 15.6 lbm/gal
Foamed density 14.0 lbm/gal using 113 scf/bbl N2
Shoe cement details 17 bbl; Class A cement + flow enhancer mixed with seawater
Results Foamed cement returned to the seafloor with no flow observed after cementing. The shoe
drilled hard and tested to the expected EMW.

Table 2—Specifications for 13 3/8-in. Intermediate Casing

Previous casing 20-in. conductor; 4,930 ft RKB, 1,952 ft BML
Casing depth 13 3/8 in.; 7,715 ft RKB, 4,737 ft BML
Hole size 17 1/2 in.
Drilling mud 10.3 lbm/gal salt PHPA
Excess volume 50%
BHT 114°F
BHCT 99°F
Lead cement fill 3,100 ft
Tail cement fill 500 ft
Lead cement details
143 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + dispersant + foamer mixed with seawater
Base density 17.35 lbm/gal
Foamed density 13.5 lbm/gal using 439 scf/bbl N2
Tail cement details
51 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + dispersant + foamer mixed with seawater
Base density 17.35 lbm/gal
Foamed density 14.5 lbm/gal using 344 scf/bbl N2
Shoe cement details 13 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + dispersant mixed with seawater
Density 17.35 lbm/gal
Results Full returns occurred during cement placement. The shoe drilled hard and tested to the
expected EMW.
6 FOAM CEMENTING APPLICATIONS ON A DEEPWATER SUBSALT WELL—CASE HISTORY IADC/SPE 59170

Table 3—Specifications for 9 5/8-in. Liner

Previous casing 13 3/8 in.; 7,715 ft RKB, 4,737 ft BML
Liner depth 9 5/8 in.
Liner top 7,259 ft RKB, 4,281 ft BML
Hole size 12 1/2 in.
Drilling mud 12.1 lbm/gal synthetic based
Excess volume 15%
BHT 130°F
BHCT 113°F
Lead cement fill 2,000 ft
Tail cement fill 600 ft
Spacer details 80 bbl VVOR spacer + surfactant package (for SOBM)
Density 12.5 lbm/gal
First lead cement details 48 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + extender mixed with seawater
Density 13.0 lbm/gal
Second lead cement
95 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer +dispersant + foamer mixed with sea water
details
Base density 17.35 lbm/gal
Foamed density 13.0 lbm/gal using 688 scf/bbl N2
Tail cement details
24 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + dispersant + foamer mixed with seawater
Base density 17.35 lbm/gal
Foamed density 14.5 lbm/gal using 449 scf/bbl N2
Shoe cement details 7 bbl; Class H cement + KCl + flow enhancer + dispersant mixed with seawater
Density 17.35 lbm/gal
Results Full returns occurred during cement placement. The shoe drilled hard and tested to the
expected EMW. The top of liner used the liner-top packer; top of liner tested OK.
IADC/SPE 59170 J. D’AGOSTINO, S. MOORE, M. MILLER, R. FAUL 7

Fig. 1—Cementing unit PC controller.

Fig. 2—Continuous Metering System (CMS) liquid-additive injection unit.

8 FOAM CEMENTING APPLICATIONS ON A DEEPWATER SUBSALT WELL—CASE HISTORY IADC/SPE 59170

Fig. 3—A mobile control center allows customers to observe cementing parameters in real-time.

Actual: ECD at Weak Zone Design: ECD at Weak Zone

Design: Fracture Gradient Design: Pore Pressure
14

13

12
lb/gal

11

10

9
2
1 3 4 5 6 7
8
05:20 05:40 06:00 06:20 06:40
Time
Event Log
1 Start job 5:15:01 2 Pump spacer 5:15:37 3 Pump lead cement 5:28:23
4 Pump tail cement 6:14:11 5 Pump cement 6:17:32 6 Pump displacement 6:20:43
7 Bump plug 6:52:53

Fig. 4—Equivalent circulating density (ECD) graph comparing designed parameters with real-time parameters.
IADC/SPE 59170 J. D’AGOSTINO, S. MOORE, M. MILLER, R. FAUL 9

Fig. 5—Bond-log evaluation.

10 FOAM CEMENTING APPLICATIONS ON A DEEPWATER SUBSALT WELL—CASE HISTORY IADC/SPE 59170

Fig. 6—Apparent wettability apparatus.