SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas, Texas 75206
=~R SPE 570 I
THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

An Investigation of Annular G~s Flow

Fo I I owing Cementing Operations

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
By

J. A. Garcia and C. R. Clark, Members SPE-AIME, Exxon Co., U.S.A.

@Copyright 1976
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME Symposium on For-
ma.tion Damage Control, to be held in Houston, Tx., Jan 29-30, 1976. Permission to copy is re-
stricted to an a.bstract 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.
Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY
OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate
journal, provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting
and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT results of these investigations indi-

A severe problem that has occurred
following cementing operations on
multizone wells is the influx of gas
during early cement setting time. This
problem occurs more frequently where
open zone pressures differ greatly and
where the lower pressured formations
are permeable and exist above higher
pressured zones. Occurrences of flow
following cementing operations have
long been recorded and several theories
and studies have been proposed and
made through the years to explain the
phenomenon. ·Barring man-made causes,
the most popular theory on annular gas
flow ha~ been that of head loss in the
lower portion of the hole resulting from
cement first setting at or near the
cement top.
Starting in 1968, Exxon initiated
studies to obtain a more clear defini-
tion of the causes for the phenomenon
in hopes of obtaining potential solu-
tions to its occurrence. The initial
feasibility work and the later highly
sophisticated lab simulation of well
types exhibiting the phenomenon took
place over a three-year period. Field
work done to trace the problem as it
occurs in the hole has also been done
since and is presented here. The
References and 1llustrat1ons at end
of paper.
cate that annular gas influx can occur
if cement fluid loss or uneven slurry
setting occurs high in the hole such
that hydrostatic head communication no
longer exists between the bottom of the
hole and the mud column above the set
cement point. While high cement set-
ting itself does not cause loss of
head to occur below it, any additional
loss of fluid below the set spot "bleeds
off" trapped head allowing capable high
pressured gas bearing formations to
feed in and cause a well control prob-
lem under difficult conditions for con-
trol.
This paper presents the findings
of the study, outlines conditions under
which the problem occurs, and recom-
mends preventative actions and prac-
tices to minimize flow occurrences.
INTRODUCTION
Much work has been done in recent
years to define and arrest the causes
for annular gas flow in wells following
primary cementing operations. Some of
the earliest work done by the industry
specifically aimed at studying pressure
behavior of a cement column was done by
Exxon and Dowell in 1968. This basic
work was later expanded by Exxon and
Halliburton using highly sophisticated
112
AN INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR GAS FLOW FOLLOWING CEMENTING OPERATIONS
models to better simulate downhole condi-
tions. The results of much of this work
hav~ been pub~ished and ple~egt~d in
var1ous techn1cal papers. ' ' '
This paper presents results of the
earliest, simplest, but most definitive
tests used to define the causes for
annular gas flow following cementing.
The model tests are then substantiated
with field work where noise logging
following cementing operation is used to
trace the occurrence in suspected prob-
lem wells.
Aside from defining the problem and
tracing it with field data, this paper
attempts to outline a set of key indica-
tors to the potential field gas flow
problem.
Early Lab Work
The initial work done to investi-
gate the cause or causes for gas flow
into a wellbore following cementing
operations was directed at studying
pressure behavior of a cement column.
Specifically, the study attempted to
establish whether some phenomenon unique
to cement caused loss of head in a set-
ting cement column such that gas flow
could occur in a cementing well. Fig-
ure l shows the basic model first used
to study column behavior. The study was
planned so that results from each test
dictated the design of the next model to
be used. The model consisted of a 2-
inch vertical pipe 20 feet long with
pressure sensing equipment at points
shown and a regulated gas supply at the
bottom. The gas supply was isolated
from the fluid head by a porous aloxite
plate. The pipe was filled with a test
slurry, and the gas pressure was regu-
lated to a value equal to the hydro-
static head of the cement column. The
slurry used consisted of an 18.4 ppg
densified mix containing 46% water and
no fluid loss control additive. (The
model was designed so that if a pres-
sure drop occurred at the bottom, gas
would flow across the aloxite plate and
be measured by a flow meter.) Since it
was desired to study pressure changes
occurring after cement takes initial set
at a point up the hole, cement set was
caused in the model by heating the col-
umn halfway from the bottom using an
external heating tape. Heating the
cement at this point would accelerate
setting time and isolate the column
below this spot from the fluid head of
slurry above. It was believed that if
total hydraulic communication was lost
SPE 5701
between the upper and lower fluids
across the initial set slurry, this in
itself would not cause a drop in pres-
sure at the base of the tube. The set
section would only be acting like a
valve trapping all pressure below it if
shut. The only way for any loss of
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
pressure to occur would be to increase
the size of the container holding the
fluid, change the fluid volume by
changing the temperature, or bleed the
pressure off. To determine when initial
set occurred in the column, a slurry
sample was monitored in a viscometer
at the same temperature schedule as the
cement at the hot spot in the model.
The initial test was run to see if
hydraulic communication was broken and
to observe if a pressure change oc-
curred when the upper section set up.
Once a pressure drop occurred, observa-
tions could be made for gas migration.
If gas migration occurred, one of the
things to look for was whether any
entering gas would pass the initial set
spot and rise to the surface. The test
was successful in indicating a net loss
of pressure at the bottom of the slurry
column at the end of a five-hour test.
Even though a loss of pressure occurred,
however, no gas flow was measured. The
cause for this was attributed to plug-
ging of the aloxite plate. Calculations
on the change in volume of fluid and the
change in container size due to tempera-
ture for this particular experiment
indicated that although container size
increased, the volume increase of the
fluid was greater; therefore, the net
drop in pressure could not be attri-
buted to an increase in container size.
Following the initial test, a
series of tests was designed in an
attempt to isolate the cause for the
pressure loss and then to examine
parameters which would change the amount
of loss. Each of the tests used the
same basic 2-inch pipe column, electric
heating tape, pressure and temperature
monitoring equipment, and heating
schedule. Variotts modifications were
made to the basic equipment and proce-
dures used for these tests to obtain
the desired data.
The first additional test was a
repeat of the initial test, but did not
use the aloxite plate and external gas
source at the bottom. (These were
omitted from further use.) The test
was a confirmation that a net reduction
in pressure at the bottom of the column
would occur as the cement set as
SPE 5701 C. R. CLARK AND J. A. GARCIA
experienced on the initial test. The
test was conclusive with a net loss in
pressure of 8 psi, from 20.2 to 12.2, or
40% loss. This test, as the one before,
used an 18.4 ppg densified slurry con-
taining Class A cement, silica, hema-
tite, salt, retarder, and 46% water
(4.1 gal/sk). Figure 2 is a plot of
the resultant data indicating pressure
and temperature readings at various
times throughout the test. Note that
a loss in pressure below the hot spot
began almost immediately as temperature
began to increase.
The next test (Figure 3) used an
18.5 ppg mud as the fluid in the column
and contained a valve in the center to
provide a positive shut-off between the
upper and lower sections of the column.
This test was performed to confirm that
fluid expansion was greater than con-
tainer expansion for the heating sched-
ule used and that the loss of bottom
pressure was unique to cement.
To further confirm that the pres-
sure drop noted on the first two tests
was unique to cement as a result of
fluid loss (or movement), a test was
next conducted using mud in the lower
half of the column and the densified
cement slurry in the upper half. The
hot spot was created at the center as
before and was placed across the mud-
cement interface. As anticipated, a
net increase in pressure at the bottom
resulted from temperature expansion of
the mud with no fluid loss or movement
across the set cement at the center.
Figure 4 is a plot of the data. At
this point, it was obvious that what-
ever pressure losses occurred were, as
a result of behavior, unique to cement
below an initial set point.
Test 5 attempted to.investigate
fluid movement in the slurry below the
hot spot. The column consisted of two
equal pipe lengths with a flange con-
nection in the center. A rubber mem-
brane was installed between the flanges
to serve as a barrier to fluid movement
while still allowing hydraulic (fluid)
pressure communication from the column
above. The hot spot was then created
immediately above the flange. Using
the same temperature schedule as before,
no pressure drop was observed in the
column below the membrane (Figure 5).
Investigation at the membrane interface
showed that an accumulation of water
from the lower column had collected
immediately below the membrane. The
membrane was in a concave pattern indi-
113
eating a pressure differential was
created towards the top. This test
resulted in two definite conclusions:
1) water movement occurs in a cement
column during the setting process; and
2) if the water is allowed to migrate
out of the column, then a pressure loss
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
can occur. In this instance, the water
could not migrate into or through the
set cement just above the membrane and
no pressure loss occurred.
The sixth test attempted to simu-
late wellbore effects. A cylindrical
permeable core was installed in the
column midway between the hot spot and
the bottom. Back pressure was held on
the outside of the core using gas while
cement was placed in the tube. After
bringing the hot spot to temperature
and observing an initial small pressure
increase due to fluid expansion, the
back pressure on the core was released
to permit fluid loss through the core
as might occur if a low pressure forma-
tion exists in a well. The sudden re-
lease of the back pressure caused an
instantaneous drop in column pressure
which would not depict true well behav-
ior, but did serve to show the effect
of fluid loss to open formations.
Figure 6 presents the results. It is
from this type test that most latter
work has been patterned.
The last test of this series was
run to determine the effect of mix
water volume and fluid loss on pressure
loss. This test used a mix volume of
36% as compared to 46% on all previous
tests. The test was conducted the same
as the first test using a full column
of slurry with the hot spot at the
center. The test results presented in
Figure 7 indicate that a net decrease
in cement column pressure still oc-
curred at the bottom. The amount of
decrease, however, was much less than
for the first test. Decrease on this
test was from 20.2 to 18.2 psi or 10%,
while decrease on the first test was
from 20.2 to 12.2 psi or 40%. The test
then showed that a slurry mixed with
less water, therefore having less water
to lose, should exhibit a decrease in
the magnitude of pressure loss occur-
ring below the initial set cement in
the column. It was this work that
provided the key to much of the fluid
loss control theories currently recom-
mended to reduce the occurrence of
annular gas flow in the field.3,4
114 AN INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR GAS FLOW FOLLOWING CEMENTING OPERATIONS SPE 5701

Lead~up to Field Work
As indicated previously, the above
work was used as a guide to the more
sophisticated study done later by Exxon
and Howco. Based on test results, ix
was evident that annular gas flow fol-
TD, and the mud was circulated and con-
ditioned prior to cementing. A single
stage cementing job was used on this
well. The slurry consisted of 50-50
Poz-H with 2% gel (total) and 1.25%
Halad-9, mixed to a density of 14.5 ppg.
This slurry has desirable rheological

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
lowing cementing operations was a characteristics and a low fluid loss
unique phenomenon that could likely be value (58 cc's per 30 minutes). Batch
predicted when well conditions were mixing was used. Moderate displacement
conducive to its occurrence. Conditions rates were obtained. The calculated top
believed to be required for annular gas of cement was 6250 feet. Casing was
flow were defined as follows: 1) uneven rotated and reciprocated until the plug
cement set or solidification high in the was on bottom. Centralizers were used
hole; 2) permeable gas bearing sands in throughout the field zones, and scratch-
the hole; and 3) high fluid loss rate ers were placed between the sands.
from cement to formations or high water
migration rate. The uneven set or so- A noise log was run immediately
lidification of cement high in the hole following the primary cementing job to
could be caused by low pressured forma- evaluate the manner in which annular
tions taking water resulting in bridging gas flow develops. This noise log, along
or from uneven wellbore temperature with a log run some 36 days following the
(hottest spot in a circulating wellbore cementing job, is shown on Figure 9. A
is generally at about 1/3 distance from trace of the well's self-potential log
bottom).5 Once seal-off occurs, fluid is shown on this exhibit to reflect
loss to open formations or to cement location of the field sands. The sands
bridges can reduce wellbore pressures containing gas are shown as shaded while
and allow feed-in of gas if a gas those interpreted to have water are
bearing high pressure formation exists. clear. The estimated reservoir pressure
is shown beside the reservoir designa-
With this belief, Exxon then set tion. The first noise log, indicated by
out to attempt a field definition of the solid line, was run some 6 hours
the problem in areas where the phenome- after the slurry was initially mixed on
non occurred most often. the surface. Note at this time there was
no flow taking place. This is attributed
Field Work to the fact that the slurry was still
fluid and effectively controlling reser-
One field where the problem was voir pressures.
evidenced frequently was found in the
Gulf Coast area. The plan was to cement The second noise log, which was run
the wells as had been done in the past after the production hole had been
and .then use successively run noise drilled and a deeper liner cemented,
logs to pick up fluid movement behind indicated a small amount of flow of
pipe with time. (Noise logging is an approximately 50 Mcf/D between the 2A
Exxon-patented technique which is de- Upper and 2A Lower zones. Flow volume
signed to "listen" for flow behind pipe is an interpreted value based on noise
using a downhole microphone.) The noise intensity. (Interpreted gas volume in
log could then be correlated with induc- Mcf/D are shown as numerical values at
tion logs and flow definition estab- ·various points on the noise log trace.
lished. ·Numerous wells were studied, The arrows opposite each sand indicate
but only two will be used for presenta- direction of flow either into or out of
tion here. The first example well con- each sand.) The time when flow started
sisted of a protective string cemented was not established, but interzone flow
to a depth of +8,000 feet. The protec- was definitely recorded at some time
tive string was set opposite shallow after cement was placed. No gas reached
field sands prior to drilling to deeper the surface.
objectives. Flow of gas to the surface
in this field has occurred often. The The next well was set up to allow
field sands consisted of twelve separate successive logging throughout the cement
gas reservoirs, some with drawn down setting time so as to determine timing
pressures while some under injection on initiation of flow. The well also
exhibited higher than original pressure. set a protective string which was
Figure 8 is a typical induction log cemented with a 2-stage lead and tail
showing the interval cemented behind slurry. The lead consisted of 50-50
pipe. The 7 5/8-inch casing was run to Poz-H, with 6% gel (total) and 1% CER-2
SPE 5701 C. R. CLARK AND J. A. GARCIA
mixed to 14.3 ppg. The tail slurry was
identical to the slurry used on the
previous well except that 1% Halad-9 was
used rather than 1.25%. The lead slurry
was placed from approximately 5900' to
6600' and the tail slurry from 6600' to
7450'. A third slurry was placed around
the casing shoe. The 14.3 ppg composi-
tion is a controlled fluid loss slurry
with a high pressure test value of
104 cc's per 30 minutes. The purpose of
two different slurries being placed
across the field sands was to evaluate
th~m in the same wellbore.
Batch slurry mixing was used on
this job. Moderate displacement rates
were achieved, 6-2 barrels per minute.
Thirty-five barrels of mud were lost
while placing the slurry in the annulus,
and it was estimated that the top of
cement was brought to only 5900'. The
casing was rotated and reciprocated
until the plug was on bottom. Central-
izers and scratchers were used. In
particular, one scratcher was placed
opposite the lB high pressure gas sand
in hopes of obtaining a good cement-
formation bond.
The best known cementing proce-
dures were used on this well. Four
separate noise logs were run in an
attempt to learn more about the inter-
zone gas flow problem. Figure 10
illustrates the results of the noise
logs. The first log was run 8 hours
after mixing the cement or 5 hours
after the plug was on bottom. Note that
gas flow was not occurring. The second
noise log was run after nippling up the
BOP stack on the protective string.
This log was some 39 hours after mixing
the cement or 36 hours after the plug
was on bottom. As shown on Figure 10,
approximately 300 Mcf/D of downhole gas
flow was occurring at this time. More
than half of this flow was occurring at
a depth of approximately 7370'. In this
particular well, the 5C zone, which is
100% water in this area, has a gas
stringer located in the bottom of the
sand. This stringer is not present in
any of the offset wells. There was an
estimated flow of 164 Mcf/D out of this
gas stringer back into the 5C zone.
A third noise log was run some 4~
days after the cementing job. This was
after the production part of the hole
had been drilled and a liner cemented
in place. The gas flow at 7370' had
disappeared. The gas stringer had de-
pleted itself and/or pressures had
equalized. In the remainder of the
115
wellbore, flow rates had increased from
an estimated 140 Mcf/D to an estimated
300 Mcf/D.
Finally, a fourth noise log was
run after performing eight squeeze jobs
to eliminate the gas flow. The location
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
of the perforation intervals are shown
on Figure 10. A vertical slash through
the perforation designation indicates
the inability to break down the perfo-
rations with 3000 psi surface pressure
applied on 10 ppg brine. The noise log
following squeeze repair indicated only
intrazone flow in the lB sand.
It is interesting to note that on
the two sets of perforations designed to
perforate in shale formations, pump-in
could not be obtained with 3000 psi
surface pressure. By moving these perfo-
rations to a sand, adequate injection
rates were obtained to perform a squeeze
job. Six other sets of perforations
were made into sand, and there was no
difficulty in breaking down the forma-
tion.
Noise Log Analysis of the Gas Flow
Mechan1sm
A review of the noise logs run on
the above wells indicates the following:
1) While cement slurry remains fluid,
gas flow between zones is controlled.
2) Sometime after the cement sets, gas
flow begins. As shown on Figure 10,
8 hours after cement was initially
mixed, there was no flow. On the
noise log run 39 hours after mixing,
the slurries had set and gas flow was
occurring. Compressive strength
tests run on the lead and tail slur-
ries at formation temperatures
indicate that the slurries had mea-
surable strength in 9 hours.
Guidelines to Predicting a Field Problem
Based on the lab and field experi-
ence, it is believed that wells and
areas which possess the potential of
resulting in an annular gas flow problem
can be predicted. Things to look for
are as follows:
1) Multiple permeable sands exist in the.
wellbore.
2) Sands contain highly different
pressures.
3) High pressured sands contain gas.
116 AN INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR GAS FLOW FOLLOWING CEMENTING OPERATIONS
All annular gas flow does not show up at
the surface. Interzone flow should be
checked particularly as it may effect
offset drilling.
Guidelines to Reducing or Arresting
Annular Gas Flow
Based on lab and field work plus work
since these studies were made, there
are several recommendations that can be
made to improve the chances of con-
trolling the flow problems.
1) Use as low a fluid loss cement as
possible.
2) Use as low mix water ratio as
possible.
3) Where possible, tailor cement setting
time so as to allow cement to set
from the bottom up.
4) Maximize displacement efficiency by
conditioning mud prior to cementing
and by moving pipe during cementing
operations.
5) Monitor annular flow using noise
logs where possible. Results may be
used to determine trouble zones and
to assess benefits iu flow reduction
from slurry design changes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their
appreciation to Exxon and Dowell for
permission to prepare and publish this
paper.
I
SPE 5701
REFERENCES
lo Carter, L. G. and Slagle, K. A.:
"A Study of Completion Practices to
Minimize Gas Communication," Paper
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
SPE-3164, presented at Central Plains
Regional Meeting, Amarillo, Texas,
(Nov. 16-17, 1970).
2. Stone, William H. and Christian,
W. W.: "The Inability of Unset
Cement to Control Formation Pressure,"
Presented at Formation Damage
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana,
(Feb. 6-7, 1974).
3. Carter, L. Greg, Cook, Clyde, and
Snelson, Lawrence: "Cementing
Research in Directional Gas Well
Completions,'' Paper SPE-4313,
presented at SPE-AIME European
Meeting, London, England, (April 2-3,
1973).
4. Christian, W. W., Chatterji, Jiten,
and Ostroot, G. Warren: "Gas
Leakage in Primary Cementing - A
Field Study and Laboratory Investi-
gation," Paper SPE-5517, presented
at SPE Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
(September 28-0ctober 1, 1975).
5. Raymond, L. R.: "Temperature
Distribution in a Circulating
Drilling Fluid,";!_. Pet. Tech.
(March, 1969) .
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
.....,.~- 2" I.D. LINE PIPE

HEATING TAPE AROUND 18" OF PIPE TO CREATE

HOT SPOT IN CEMENT COLUMN.
0
N

....,.'---THERMO COUPLE (i) TO RECORD TEMPERATURE

OF HOT SPOT. (11' FROM BOTTOM)

.....,._ _ THERMO COUPLE 0TO RECORD COLUMN

TEMPERATURE. (7' FROM BOTTOM)

1--- CD PRESSURE GAUGE

1/4" THICK, GRADE 40, POROUS ALOXITE PLATE

--- 0 PRESSURE GAUGE

NITROGEN
SUPPLY

Fig. 1 - Gas flow· model.

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
u.

v; UJ
0.. a:
:::>
UJ
......
a: <t
:::> a:
V) UJ •••••••••• PRESSUUE
V) 0..
UJ :> -HMPEUATUUE
a: UJ
0.. ......

74

n
70

..........
....
-~---....
14 140
········•·•··••····· HOT
SPOT

10 1;10
0 U T A T THIS PU IN T
@-- -®

6 100 fP:\
•• \.:..V

2 80

0 70~----------~----------_J ____________~----------_J____________~----------~
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
TIME MINUTES

Fig. 2 - Pressure loss vs time data, full cement column.

 u.

ie w
a:
:I
w 1-
<(
a:

~ ~
~
~ 1-
28 220 c-·- - -------

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
26 210 - -

24 200 r-------- -- -----

....-···~·····--\
22 190 1- ••••• \ •• -
~······ \···-··
20 180 1 - - - - - t---------

18 170 - -

TC::J-
16 160 f - - -

14 150 f-
,.....
I \ TC::1---
I \
I -,
12 140 'r-----1-- -- '
I \
10 130f- 1 \ -
I \
8 120 I -- -t- -------

I1 '\
s 110 1- 1 \ -
_ TD=4---
I ~
r~ '
wr-
4 100 -------- - -- ---- - ---- ----t--

2
u..
0 ~oL- ________ooL_________1~~---------1~~~------~2~4~o------~~~------~~
U5 w
a.. a:
I ::> Fig. 3 - Pressure vs time data sealing valve test.
w 1-
<(
a: a:
::> •••••••••• PRESSURE
(/) w
(/) a..
w :E -TEMPERATURE
a: w
a.. 1-
24 200
.........
22
.,······.... ····•······· ···················· ···················· ········®
.··
··········· ······ ······ ··········· ···················· .~ ..... @
20

18

16

14

12 ®
CEMENT
MUD
t
10 ®- -® ~
8

6 -®
4
-@
2

0 80
0 60 120 300 360
TIME- MINUTES

Fig. 4 -Pressure vs time data cement and mud test.

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
LL
0

in w
0.. a:
I ::J
w 1-
a: <(
::J a:
(/) w
(/) 0..
w ::i!
a: w
0.. 1-
~-~~~~~.::_.!...~-
28 220 .---------.--------;r
. .. ··.. -- -- ----------,------

, ..... ..
....·
26 210 - \ -
·•...
I \
--':--~--·---- ~~ '
24 200
1-------..,-+-
••-•• - \

....
22 190f- •••• -

,r----
20 180 1-----:••~-,_.._+-----i
..··· ,,
····' \
I '
18 170r-
I ~ -

16 1601-----.---t--'--=:--------
1I '
/ \
\ TC:t3 - - -
14 1sof- II \ - FLANGE &
MEMBRANE

12 140 :I
1
,-
\
\
---------
TC:t4-

1o 13o1- I \ -

8 I
I ' ...
120'r-~---+------+-~----+--------4----~f------~
',
i ~
6 110f-/ ~ ~-:::::~-~ -
4100~ TD #4 ••••••••••

o 80~----L_ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _L __ _ _ _~-----~------~
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
TIME - MINUTES

Fig. 5 -Pressure vs time data membrane test.

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
u.
0

Vi w
~ a:
I :::>
w 1-
a: <{
:::> a:
(/) w
(/) ~
w ::2'
a: w
~ 1-

28 220 .---------,..------~-~----- .--------·

26 210f- -

24 200 1 - - - - - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - --- ---·- --- - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

22 190f- -

20 180 - ----- t-----------

18 1701-
,,
16 1601-----f--1 ·'~------+-
;\
14 1501- I ~ BLEED OFF -
l.••,--,
12 140 J.
!I !
'
-.
~
TC::4 - - -

fl \
10 13o •••• 1 \ -
TO:: 2 ••••••••••
---TC=3
I \
a 120 I l --1----- --- -----------+-----1--------l
I ! \

I \
6 110,... I \ -
I •••, \
4 100~, ' • .••/

2 90 \.
.... -

0 SOL-------~----~----~~---~---~~---~
··········
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
TIME- MINUTES

Fig. 6 - Pressure vs time data leakoff test.

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
u.
0

~ w
a:
:::>
w 1-
<{
a: a:
:::> w
(/)
(/) 0..
w ::2
a: w
0.. 1-

28 220 .-- ---·------ --- --- ------

26 210 I - -

24 200 ---

22 190 I - -

...··············· ···•···•
20 180 ......
.... .-~~: ·~::~~-- -·-

...
----

18 170 f- ················· -

16 160 -- --------- -··- ··-· ·- -- ----- -·

,,
TC:t1---

14 150 f- -

12 140 ,,
I
~

\
\---
I \
--

TC:t2---
I \
10 130 f- I \ I \ -
I \ I \
8 120
! \ I
I \
\
I
I \ I '\ -
6 110
rrI I
'
II ''' . I
' "---
-v
4 100
I \ TO #4 ••••••••••

0
2 90

80
r -

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME - MINUTES

Fig. 7 -Pressure vs time data low fluid loss cement.

 _,.
0>
0
1-A 0

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
2000 psi

1-B
3300 psi cr:>
"'
0
0

1-C
2500 psi

0>
0>
0
0

II-AU
2900 psi
11-AL

11-B
2600 psi 0>
.....
0
0

11-C
1800 psi

0>
CD
0
0
~
III-A
1500 psi

0
.....
0
III-B 0

.....
0
0

I V-B
1600 psi

.....
-=2
-.:
N
0
IV-C 0

1300 psi

1400 psi
v
2000 psi

Fig. 8 - Induction log of section

exhibiting gas flow.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
McCullough Noise Log
1000 Hz Cutoff

Fig. 9 - Log section with plot of noise

36 days after cementing job
6 hrs. after mix cement
10.0

log - first well.

 1.0 10.0
I
i McCullough Noise Log
\i 1 000 Hz Cutoff

i
\
I
I
I
I
J
I
I

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEFD/proceedings-pdf/76FD/All-76FD/SPE-5701-MS/2053820/spe-5701-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 12 October 2022
I
I
I
I
I
1-A I
2000 psi I
I

!
'"····}...
I .............. _
1-B
3300 psi .t........
,·'
I
I
i
//
1-C
f-110
2500 psi
i
j
i
I
I

<i
i
II-A (Ll
2900 psi

11-B i
/
2600 psi i
;
;
;
i
j
i
11-C j
1800 psi i
13--z- /...-.--42
i
i

J
(
\
\
()
111-A
1500 psi \..-t..--2-6
i
i
i

111-B

i
i
I
,I
IVA : 5
1600 psi

I V-B

Il
IV-C ,,i
li
!i
I,

1"
,,ll
1400 psi
v c

·. !I
I!
I'

J
2000 psi
'/1
\(I
i \I

I~
BC ! :;
' v'l/'-3
.;

8 hrs. after mix cement (5 hrs. after PCB)

39 hrs. after mix cement (36 hrs. after POB)
41 Days after cementing job
After squeeze repair

Fig. 10 - Log section with plot of noise

log second well.