Cement Evaluation with the Acoustic impedance

UltraSonic Imager- • Acoustic tools respond to acoustic impedance (acoustic

hardness) Z
Basics • Z = density x acoustic velocity
• Z is expressed in MRayl (106 kg.m-2.s-1)
Materials
8
Neat

6
Z MRayl Setting Cement Contaminated
slurry Cement
4
Heavy Light
mud
2 Liquid
Water
Oil
0 Gas

1
1
 UltraSonic Imager Principle Ultrasonics (USI) advantages over sonics
The USI evaluates cement with
(CBL)
• An ultrasonic transducer • Tolerates liquid microannulus (vibrations normal to
(0.2-0.7 MHz) surface)
Free
pipe • Full coverage, 30 mm resolution image
• The resonance
technique – Detailed picture of material distribution: solid, liquid, gas,
debonded cement
– Detects narrow channels

Good • Easier interpretation and less uncertainty than sonics

cement (CBL/CBT)
• Casing inspection in same pass

2
2
 Acoustic Evaluation Summary UltraSonic Imager Basics

• Acoustic logs are sensitive to the acoustic properties (especially • Acoustics basics
impedance) of the material in contact with the casing. • USI tool basics
• The USI is the primary evaluation tool: the image is easier to – Measurements and processing
interpret and much less ambiguous than the CBL log.
– Tool and specifications
• USI and CBL are sensitive to the cement/casing bond but in
– Logging procedure
different ways- complementary evaluation.
– Images
• Acoustic methods are limited in very light cements (low acoustic
contrast from mud).
• For optimum evaluation, cement job data must be included in the
evaluation because cement does not disappear.

3
3
Ultrasonic Measurements USI Measurements

Radial
5 degree
10 degree Echo
Transit Cement
Vertical amplitude Thickness
time Impedance
0.6 in to 6 in Internal
(Internal casing
radius
condition)
Logging Speed
400 to 6400 ft/hr

4
4
 Rotating subs USI Measurement Specifications
Casing OD 4.5 - 13.375 in.

Casing thickness 0.17 - 0.59 in. (4.5-15 mm)

Acoustic Impedance 0-10 MRayl

Max. deviation No limit

Assembly Sub O.D. Logging speed 400 to 3200 ft/hr

Sampling
- Azimuthal 5-10 deg.
USRS-A 3.58” 4 1/2” - 5 1/2”
- Vertical 0.6-6 in.
USRS-B 4.64” 5 5/8” - 7 5/8” Maximum mud weight
-Water-base mud ~16 lbm/gal
USRS-C 6.69” 8 5/8” - 9 5/8” -Oil-base mud ~11.6 lbm/gal*
* Depends on composition, temperature and pressure. Good logs are usually
USRS-D 8.70” 10 3/4” - 13 3/8”
obtained up to 13 lb/gal and sometimes up to 16 lb/gal

5
5
 USI Cement Evaluation Specifications Acoustic Properties of Materials

Acoustic impedance Material Density Velocity Acoustic

Range 0-10 MRayl (Kg/m3) (m/sec) Impedance

Resolution 0.2 MRayl (MRay1 106•m-2•sec-1)

Air (1-100 bar) 1.3-130 330 0.004-0.04

Accuracy
Water 1000 1500 1.5
0-3.3 MRayl +/-0.5 MRayl Drilling Fluids 1000-2000 1300-1800 1.5-3.0
> 3.3 MRayl +/- 15% Cement Slurries 1000-2000 1800-1500 1.8-3.0

Min. quantifiable channel width Cement (litefil) 1400 2200-2600 3.1-3.6

Cement (class G) 1900 2700-3700 5.0-7.0
1.2 in. (30 mm) Limestone 2500 5000 12

6
6
 Acoustic properties Cement Compression Strength
Conventional lightweight cement
at low temperature
Pumping time: 40/100 BC at 7/10 hours
4.5
4.3
Acoustic impedance (MRayl)

4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (hours)

7
7
 USI combined casing + cement USI + CBL/VDL
presentation cement presentation
QC Casing Cement QC CBL USI VDL

Channel

CBL

Bond index
Cement raw
Thickness VDL
Thickness Bond index
Internal radius Acoustic impedance
Casing cross-section Cement Cement image interpreted
Amplitude interpreted
CBL, gamma
Processing flags Process flags, eccentering
Process flags, Eccentering, CCL, gamma

8
8
UltraSonic Imager (USI) Composite Log Channel and Squeeze
Channel After squeeze

Perfs

USI

CBL

USI BI VDL USI BI VDL

9
9
 Why is it making
water?
Squeeze?
4.5-in, 10.5#/ft casing, 8.4#/gal
brine
USIT Perforations
indicated a
Channel below
385-387-ft • Broke down perfs
and acidized
Did the reservoir
2 month
x
•The well made water
waterout?
Squeezed existing perfs
when tested
Production:
Re-perforated same
zoneOr46 BOPD •The openhole logs
Resumed production, indicate that the zone
22 BWPD
55 BOPD, 0 BWPD should be productive
Is water
•This CBL showed
Then
channeling? “good” cement
100% water

10
10
 CBL before perfs USIT after perfs USIT after
& acid squeeze
•USIT was run to
determine if water
might be coming from
below the perfs

• The USIT logging

x pass indicates NO
cement behind casing
for 50-ft below the
perforations

•Plan was made to

squeeze through
tubing

11
11
 CBL before USIT run after
completion, 5.5-in, completion
17#/ft casing
8.4#/gal brine USIT shows the
x questionable
VDL is gas in the
•Questionable VDL, but cement
the amplitude is very
low USIT indicates
that isolation
has been
achieved, but
•Good cement, VDL gives a better
and amplitude agree picture of the
effectiveness
x
of the cement
job

12
12
 –Well was perforated in –USIT was run
x
3 zones, broken down x after completion
and then produced 1000
BWPD, with slight –Lack of cement
traces of oil

–Gently squeezed
–Openhole indicated existing perfs and
that the zone should be then re-perforated
oil on top of water

x –Well produced oil

–CBL shows water free
questionable cement x

across the lower zones,

but not something
traditionally squeezed

13
13
 –With information
from the USIT log,
–Well was plans were
X
perforated and changed
broken down
–The USIT showed
possible isolation
–Made water within the zone

–Original plan –A plug was set

across the lower
was to squeeze
part of the perfs
off and re-
perforate, but….
–Well produced
X
water free

14
14