SPE 120559

Metrics for Evaluating Cementing Success

Deborah Duckworth, BJ Services Company, U.S.A.

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 4–8 April 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Many papers and books have been written relating the importance of cementing operations to the success of drilling and
completions operations. While cementing costs typically represent less than 10% of total planned wells costs for domestic
US onshore operations1, the failure to get good zonal isolation and adequate cement bonding to the casing and formation can
be catastrophic...from loss of potential pay zones to the loss of the entire well. Even operator personnel involved with
cementing on a regular basis may take the operation for granted. “Cementing should be seamless.” “It is not a commodity
that I am as tied into as mud or casing.”2 Often the success of the cementing operations is measured on location with a single
drilling report entry…Bumped the plug and floats held. Good cement job. But was it really a good cement job? Does
bumping the plug and pumping all the cement really reflect the efficiency and quality of the job? A recent two year
cementing project in Wyoming provided both the operator and the service company an opportunity to develop metrics for
evaluating cementing success that go beyond “bumping the plug”. The purpose of this paper is to present the key
performance indicators developed and demonstrate how to apply them to other cementing projects to quantify cementing
success. For the seasoned engineer this paper provides a review of the importance of cementing operations while newer
engineers may use it to become more familiar with the scope of planning and implementing successful cementing operations.

Introduction

The project objective was clear…provide “fit for purpose” zonal isolation for new development wells without negative HSE
impact. The project challenges included:

- Coordinating all phases of cementing activity for 8-9 drilling rigs (25-35 jobs/month)
- Adhering to strict BLM environmental constraints including seasonal wildlife stipulations limiting access to locations
- Well economics heavily impacted by Rocky Mountain market conditions, including gas prices and deliverability
- Underbalanced drilling operations
- SIMOPS, 24 hour simultaneous operations on multiple drilling pads (drilling, completions, facilities work, construction,
production work and well servicing)

The service company had to drill down to specifics or metrics which measured cementing performance and quantified the
real value to the operator. These specifics or key performance indicators (KPIs) were tracked and evaluated by the service
company in-house engineer and informally reviewed with the rig team upon completion of each job. Higher level Business
Performance Reviews (BPRs) of these indicators were conducted on a quarterly basis. The purpose of these quarterly
reviews was to formally review KPIs of the most recent operations and compare them to past performance. Through this
collaborative effort the service company and operator personnel shared project learnings, identified successes and
shortcomings and explored ways to improve.

The key areas of measurement were related to operations, engineering and economics. However these areas were not
standalone. They were closely integrated and success or failure in one of these areas impacted the others. For example,
being several hours late to location for a job on a well on a restricted access pad resulted in increased NPT (non-productive
time). The delay not only impacted the well economics through increased rig standby costs but it also extended the total
2 SPE 120559

drilling days for the well. The increased rig time on location delayed completions which were conducted as batch operations
in order to optimize the economics and allow the operator to finish on the pad before wildlife stipulations went into effect.
The KPIs were designed not only to capture the cost of the extra rig time but also the total “ripple effect” of this single event.

Measuring Operational Success

The main determiner of operational success was HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) compliance. A job could be
completed as designed and within budget but unplanned discharges, accidents and injuries nullified success. In other words
pumping the job as designed, bumping the plug and determining whether the floats held were not true KPIs measuring
cementing success. The first step to achieving HSE compliance and therefore operational success was to integrate the safety
cultures of the operator and service company. Through this integration, HSE policies and goals were defined and shared.
Training deficiencies were identified and resolved prior to the onset of operations. The first KPIs developed in this project
tracked accidents, injuries and unplanned discharges as well as the frequency and quality of the JSAs (Job Safety Analyses)
developed for each operation. The service company became an active participant on the operator’s spill team as well as a
regular participant in the region safety meetings and core contractor meetings. These safety meetings were developed as an
open forum to allow the operator and their contractors to share HSE learnings. These learnings were incorporated into the
project to achieve greater HSE efficiencies and performance. The service company’s participation in these activities was
another KPI.

Early on it was evident that operational success was also dependent on effective planning and communication especially
given the added challenges of tight locations and scheduling of SIMOPS. In managing cementing operations for multiple
rigs the service company had to be proactive in developing operational efficiencies through resource management. The first
action steps taken by the service company were the daily attendance by the in-house engineer at drilling meetings and the
establishment of an operations field coordinator. These two individuals communicated daily with the operator both in the
office and at the wellsites to provide the service company operations management team the most current and accurate
information. More importantly they communicated with each other at least once a day. This information sharing helped
minimize the “unexpected” and provided an opportunity to maximize resource efficiency and keep NPT to a minimum. For
example, cement could be loaded and tested in advance. If the rig reached casing point more quickly than anticipated in the
well plan there would not be total chaos in trying to respond to changes.

Another KPI was developed to track the time on location. The service company developed a job timeline. This tool tracked
all location time and broke it down into specific categories. Each of these categories were reviewed to identify operations
inefficiencies. The timeline tracked total waiting time (NPT), rig up times, pump times, testing, and JSA efforts. This data
was put into chart form for presentation and comparison purposes. As a result of sharing the tracking information with the
service company and operator personnel the average rig up times were reduced 6%, service company NPT was reduced from
a high of 17% to a current average of < 3% and JSA time increased indicating greater attention to HSE detail on location.
The time spent on location waiting on rig operations also decreased. This allowed the service company to better manage
their resources. As an example tracking the NPT for lab testing justified the increase in lab staffing and capital expenditure.
A sample of the actual data is shown below (Figure 1).

Figure 1
SPE 120559 3

Measuring Engineering Success

During the course of the project well design was constantly evolving to incorporate drilling efficiencies. The service
company was challenged to review and revise cementing designs to accommodate these changes and to provide solutions that
would create even greater drilling efficiencies. Each cement job was to be fit for purpose. The cementing program for each
well required thorough review and engineering. It was not just a case of applying the same slurries across the field and
merely adjusting the volumes. For example, several water disposal wells were drilled in the field. The total depth of these
wells was similar to the shallow intermediate casing point in several of the production wells. While both casing strings were
cemented back to surface, the slurries used in the disposal wells were not the same as those used for the intermediates. The
disposal wells required different cement properties due to the differences in the planned wellbore operations. The other
factor influencing the design of the slurries was the practice of underbalanced drilling. The wellbores could encounter gas
kicks and losses which had to be controlled during drilling and addressed when cementing. If the service company could not
maintain well control during their operations then the job was poorly designed and implemented.

The initial KPI for measuring engineering success on the longstrings was the cement bond log (CBL). The CBL provided a
visual representation of the effectiveness of the zonal isolation and the need for remedial cementing. One service company
KPI tracked the operator’s CBL evaluation and estimation of the job’s success. If the CBL was deemed fair or poor a post
job analysis was done to identify engineering weaknesses and areas for improvement. If necessary, slurry design changes
were proposed, modeled and tested for use on offset wells in the area. The second KPI tracked was the top of cement from
the CBL compared to the designed TOC. The third KPI measuring longstring engineering success was the number of coiled
tubing clean-outs that were performed to remove cement fill inside the casing in order to commence completion operations.

For surface casing jobs, there were no CBLs so engineering success was tracked by a KPI measuring the number of jobs
failing to produce cement returns to surface. During the course of the project less than 5% of the wells (out of a total of
150+ wells) encountered losses or operational issues that prevented returns to surface and required remedial cementing to
meet regulatory compliance. Most were the result of greater than normal washouts due to drilling issues or unanticipated loss
zones. These were addressed in offsets through the use of additional excess cement and optimizing the use of varied loss
circulation control materials and low density or ultra lightweight slurries. Operational errors were critiqued and a root cause
analysis and corrective action plan were developed. If the operational failure was on the part of the service company another
KPI tracked how quickly the service company reacted and implemented changes to prevent future occurrences.

The engineering KPIs allowed the operator and service company to develop best practices which mitigated or eliminated
engineering issues. For example, cement fill in the casing was investigated and discovered to be related to float equipment
and cement plug compatibility. As a result a “Best Practice” was developed requiring the use of compatible plugs and float
equipment of like manufacture as well as the use of high efficiency plugs on longstrings. The service company also reviewed
their operations and developed a standard practice for washing up after the cement job. This practice was included on every
cementing recommendation.

Measuring Economic Success

Economic success would appear to be the easiest of the areas to track and quantify. Yet because this was a continuation of an
established operation the obvious economic efficiencies had already been implemented. So the service company had to bring
new economic opportunities to the forefront. The economics KPIs tracked the variance between actual costs vs. proposed
costs, total NPT attributed to service company operations, remedial cementing costs due to service company errors,
cementing costs per footage drilled, dollar value of the application of new technology and surface casing topouts. If
cementing operations were truly “seamless” there would be no negative economic impact on other phases of the well
completion such as remedial cementing to correct primary cementing. The table below (Table 1) shows the economic impact
of these KPIs.
Table 1

NPT Reduced NPT from 17% - less than 3%

Cement Cost per Foot
Application of New Technology
Elimination of Topouts
Reducing WOC time
Cost Variance
Reduced Behind Pipe Losses
Reduced from an average of $8.48 per foot – $7.32 per ft (MD)
Average net savings per well = $15,000
$2,500 per well
Minimum savings = 4 hrs rig time
Actual costs averaged 6.3% less than original proposed costs
1:1 recovery, net savings of $75/bbl
4 SPE 120559

The greatest economic impact came from the initial redesign of the cement slurries. Because these wells were drilled
underbalanced the operator was cementing the production casing with foamed cement to control losses and minimize gas
cutting of the cement slurry. The drawbacks of the design were the HSE risks as well as the need for extra equipment on
tight locations. The in-house engineer reviewed the CBLs and job designs and proposed the use of conventional slurries at
the same densities. This eliminated the HSE concerns, the need for additional equipment and reduced the average job cost by
40%. As an additional bonus the CBLs actually improved through the use gas migration additives and bonding agents
instead of relying on the foam properties.

Another economic success involved the application of cementing technology to reduce behind pipe losses of drilling mud.
Not only were these wells drilled underbalanced but they were drilled with oil based mud fluids (OBM). There was a push to
recover the OBM, condition it for use on another well and reduce the total mud costs. A proposal was made to use scavenger
slurries ahead of the cement. These slurries were versatile, low cost spacers. The additional cost of the materials was
$50/bbl but the OBM was recovered at a 1:1 ratio. The net savings to the operator was $75.00/bbl. This savings grew as the
price of oil rose during the course of the project. Even at current lower product prices the operator sees a net gain through the
use of scavenger slurries.

A third example of making an economic impact was to reduce the waiting on cement (WOC) time on the intermediate
strings. The intermediate slurries were redesigned to set up faster (pump time + a 1 hour safety factor) and provide adequate
compressive strength to resume drilling operations in 8-12 hours instead of 16 hours. The net savings to the operator was a
minimum of 4 hours of rig time.

A final example was the cost variance. By actively tracking well progress and redesigning the cement proposals to reflect
actual well conditions the actual costs were an average of 6.3% lower than planned costs. Effective resource management
also improved operations efficiencies thus reducing time on location and lowering costs.

In terms of the economic impact of remediation due to service company errors there was no average or minimum costs
savings. In the course of the project there was no incident which caused loss of a wellbore or catastrophic financial losses to
the operator. Out of 550+ total cement jobs pumped less than a dozen required remediation. The service company
reimbursed the operator for all rig time costs and absorbed any costs incurred due to service company error. This
incentivized the service company “to get it right the first time”.

Putting It All Together

Cementing operations are typically one of the least costly and possibly most overlooked components of drilling and
completion operations. Yet the failure to meet primary cementing objectives can be financially and operationally
catastrophic. An opportunity exists with every cement job to look beyond “bumping the plug” and define metrics or key
performance indicators to quantify cementing success in terms of engineering, operations, and economics. Over the course
of this project the operator and service company developed specific KPIs for defining and measuring success. These same
KPIs can be modified and applied to any cementing project to quantify success and look for opportunities to improve
efficiencies and reduce costs. This process not only produces better cementing results but also strengthens the working
relationship between the parties since both benefit from success. In the case of this project, successful cementing operations
contributed to an overall reduction in drilling and completion costs for the operator and increased cementing market share for
the service company.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank BJ Services for their support during this project and in the completion of this paper. Also, thanks
to the drilling engineering staff of the property operator who helped her become a “better cementer”.

References
1
United States Department of Energy, January 24, 2007
2
Anonymous