Mud Removal

231M018
KTC/UTC

1 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Agenda
• Cementing Objectives and Well Preparation
• Mud Removal
– Centralization
– Casing Movement
– Scratchers
– Wiper Plugs
– Washes and Spacers
– Flow Regime Selection
• Turbulent and Laminar Flows
• WELLCLEAN
• WELLCLEAN II

2 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Objectives of Primary Cementation

• Provide complete isolation of zones (Hydraulic Bond)

hydrodynamic
• To support the casing (Shear Bond) mechanical
• Protect casing string durability

3 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 The Ideal Wellbore Casing
BHST at top of Annular gap
cement Minimum: 3/4”
>BHCT at TD Ideal: 1 1/2”

Properly conditioned
hole and mud

No sloughing
Gauge
diameter Uniform as possible
( no washouts or restrictions)

NO LOSSES NO FLOW

Casing centered in borehole

Thin, impermeable mud filter cake Accurate BHST and BHCT

(not gelled or unconsolidated)
4 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Mud Removal
• Most important aspect of cement job
• A 3-step process before cementing

•Hole cleaning
•Conditioning the drilling fluid
•Displace the drilling fluid
from the annulus

5 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Well Preparation
• Drill with good mud properties
– Thin filter cakes
– Low flat gel strengths
• Drill an in-gauge hole
• Drill a smooth hole with minimal doglegs
• Maintain wellbore stability
• Clean cuttings from hole
– Wiper trips
– Controlled mud properties for transport

6 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 • Hole Cleaning
Well Preparation
• Controlled & optimized mud properties
• Wiper trips
• > 95% Total hole volume in circulation
• Caliper log
• Conditioning Mud
• Break gel strength – circulate – interface between bulk mud and filtercake
• Lower ty + pv
• Drill solids < 6%
• Determine MPG to find qmin for all-around flow
• Displace Mud from Annulus – START THE DESIGN
• Optimized slurry placement using CemCADE
• Casing centralization optimized (STO > 75%)
• Casing movement

7 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Circulating and Conditioning
• Circulate minimum 1 hole volume
• Break gel strength
• Lower rheologies as much as practical
– YP = 8 - 10 lbf/100 sqft
– No barite sag
• Lower drill solids
• Satisfy MPG requirement
– Try for 100% circulation efficiency
– Verify with a fluid caliper
8 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Fluid Calipers
• To determine circulation efficiency or amount of fluid which is
moving in the wellbore.
• Procedure :
• Run multi-arm open-hole caliper log and determine total hole volume.
• Circulate at cementing rate and determine mud pump efficiency
• Drop marker or tracer in staged intervals
• Monitor returns for marker
• Calculate volume circulated from rate and time (Should be ±
mechanical caliper volume)
• Increase rate and re-calculate efficiency

9 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Criteria for Effective Mud Removal
Cementing Operation:

• Centralize casing – very important parameter from start

• Casing movement
• Scratchers
• Wiper plugs
• Washes and spacers
• Flow regime selection : WELLCLEAN and
WELLCLEAN II
10 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Flow Regimes
V=0

Laminar Flow
Velocity Profile V=2 x Vav
(Sliding motion)

Turbulent Flow
Velocity Profile
(Swirling motion)

Laminar and Turbulent Flow regimes are found

anywhere (pipe, concentric or eccentric annuli)
11 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Reynold’s Number
Dimensionless number to predict flow regime
• Newtonian fluid
V
NRe = 
D
• Non-Newtonian fluid
V
NRe = 
D
Turbulent flow achieved when “critical” Reynolds
number is reached
12 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Flow Regime Comparison
Laminar

Turbulent Turbulent

Centered Annulus Eccentered Annulus

13 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN – History and beyond….
1990 2001

Research work at R&D resumed in Clamart

SCR

WELLCLE LPS WELLCLEA

AN service prototype N II service

1990: WELLCLEAN service introduced (SPE 21594), comprising

design methodology and MUDPUSH spacer products
1998: LPS prototype
2001: WELLCLEAN II Engineering Solution comprising enhanced
design methodology, lab testing, spacer and CW products
14 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN -History
1990: WELLCLEAN service introduced (SPE 21594), comprising
• Design methodology and acceptance rules/criteria:
– Turbulent design:
• turbulence all around the annulus and minimum contact time
– Effective Laminar Flow rules:
• density hierarchy
• friction pressure hierarchy,
• minimum pressure gradient (wall shear stress),
• differential velocity (front stability)
• Link with casing centralization calculations

15 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Turbulent Displacement in WELLCLEAN
• Turbulence all around casing
• Thin radial slice at narrowest
point Turb

• Re  annular velocity
• Minm flow rate = QCRIT
• A single point in well at
specific depth
• Flow rate line for QCRIT
• QCRIT (or QMIN) not necessarily
the whole well depth • Mistake to assume and to go to
• 10 min contact time - empirical Laminar flow

16 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Effective Laminar Rules in WELLCLEAN
Density hierarchy
• QCRIT flow line
• Assumes flat interface in concentric pipe
• Pumping halted – gravity takes over – 10% difference
• Chemical washes no considered
• Give slurry priority
• Density of the displacing fluid is greater than the density of the
fluid being displaced
spacer > 1.1 (mud)
cement > 1.1 (spacer)
17 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Effective Laminar Rules in WELLCLEAN
MPG (Minimum Pressure Gradient)
• All fluids flow in the well
• Minm pressure drop per unit length or stress
• Calculates for the narrow side
• QMIN for flow to occur (translates to minimum rate required)
• For flow to occur, Ty of mud must be < WSS to get flow
• Relates to Wall Shear Stress
• Applies only to fluids with a yield point

18 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Minimum Pressure Gradient in
WELLCLEAN
• Wall shear stress must exceed the yield stress of the fluid on the narrow
side
– Function of standoff
– Applies only to fluids with a yield point
– Translates into a lower limit for flow rate
– If
wt > ty, of displaced fluid in narrow gap, then flow occurs.

• Approximated from:
No Flow Laminar Flow

4y
P >
L STO (Do-Dc)
19 CRJ
Oct, 2001
w < y
 Effective Laminar Rules in WELLCLEAN
Friction Pressure Hierarchy • Consider the models of Bingham,
• Avoid the fingering phenomenon
Power Law or Herschel Bulkley
• Fluid particles respect each
other, but not depth (channel) • Given to be 20% friction pressure
• Nature takes easiest route difference between displacing and
• A quantitative measure of the displaced fluid:
disturbance of the fluid
– QMIN is 20% greater than lower
• Promotes a flat stable interface
intersection
• Displacing fluid needs to have a
‘stronger’ rheology – QMAX is 20% less than upper
• Rheology can be a measure of intersection
the ‘complaint’ of the fluid
P P
> 1.2
20 CRJ
L displacing L displaced
Oct, 2001
 Effective Laminar Rules in WELLCLEAN
Differential Velocity
• The fluid has a preference to flow on the wide side.
• The most difficult criterion to meet.
• Needs to be an upper limit, QMAX.
• Ensures that the fluid in the wide side does not ‘race’ away
• A function of standoff and density differential
• An engineering ‘approximation’

P
l Fluid 1
total

2 g cos() l
1 g cos()
V2 V1 Vc
21 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Effective Laminar Rules in WELLCLEAN

Summary
• On average 75% of the displacement meets the criteria
• This refers to flow regimes in the annulus only.
• Effective volume analogous to contact time
• Often very difficult to meet all the criterion
• Rules are now being superceded with the WELLCLEAN II
Simulator and Advisor.

22 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 New Surfactants
Main drivers
– Environmental footprint
– Efficiency with new synthetic-based drilling fluids
– Part of the new WELLCLEAN II Engineering Solution

23 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Chemical Washes
• Water based fluids, low viscosity, density of water
• Easy to pump in turbulent flow
Name Ingredient Concentration Function
(gal/bbl)
CW7 D191/D122A 0.5 WBM

CW100 D191/D122A 0.5 WBM

J237 0.25 FL Control
CW8 D191/D122A 0.5 OBM
F103/F40/U066 0.25
CW8ES D191/D122A 0.5 SOBM
D607/U066 0.25-0.5
• Note: CW101 and CW101ES now obsolete.

24 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Testing Surfactants Efficiency
• Rheological Compatibility Test:
– Detects any undesirable chemical or physical interactions
• Casing Water- Wetting Test:
– Evaluates how well casing surface will be water-wet
• Reverse Emulsion Test:
– Determines the capability of inverting mud emulsion
• Grid Test (Erosion Test):
– Detects the capability of eroding a gelled mud layer

25 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Grid Test
• Grid Test (Erosion Test):
– Detects the capability of eroding a gelled mud layer

26 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Mud Displacement Experiments with MI
• Experimental set-up
• Steel and ceramic tubes

27 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Mud Displacement Experiments with MI

OBM displaced with spacer + surfactant

WBM displaced with chemical wash

28 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Required Properties of Spacers
• Compatible with all other well fluids
• Stability (good suspending capacity)
• Controllable density and rheology
• Good fluid loss control
• Environmentally safe and easy to handle in the field

29 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Obsolete MUDPUSH* Spacers
Turbulent spacers for WBM removal (<150 degC; 300 degF)
• MUDPUSH XT (D147) : (Obsolete in September 2002)
– Application: <10%BWOW NaCl
• MUDPUSH XS (D148) : (Obsolete in May 2002)
– Application: S= salt, up to 30%BWOW NaCl
Laminar spacer for WBM removal (<150 degC; 300 degF)
• MUDPUSH XL (D149): (Obsolete in October 2002)
– Application: up to 30% BWOW NaCl
Laminar spacer for OBM removal (>150 degC; 300 degF)
• MUDPUSH XEO - High Temp Emulsion (Obsolete January 2003)
30 CRJ
Oct, 2001
* Mark of Schlumberger
 Retained MUDPUSH* Spacers

• MUDPUSH WHT - High Temp Water Based

– D190 + D020 viscosifiers + weighting agents
• “O” Series – Spacers with surfactants for OBM
– D191, D192, D607, F040, F75N, F078, U066, etc.

31 CRJ
Oct, 2001
* Mark of Schlumberger
 New Spacer Family

Main Drivers
– Environmental footprint
– More flexibility in the rheology
– More in-depth rheological characterization for simulation
with the design software; Hershel-Bulkley
MUDPUSH II* – Turbulent and Laminar Spacer
– D970 Freshwater
– D971 Salt water

32 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Fluids Incompatibility
• Results In: • Prevented By:
• Detrimental Interface Reactions • Wiper Plugs
• High Rheological Properties • Chemical Washes
• Very high viscosities
• Spacers
• Very high gel strengths
• Compatibility Testing
• Change in Cement Slurry Properties
• Thickening time altered
• Increase in fluid loss
• Reduction in compressive
strength
• Reduction in Hydraulic Bond

33 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Compatibility - API Sec 16
• Rheological Properties
– 95:5, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 5:95 volumetric ratios of mud:spacer and
cement:spacer
– 25:50:25 volumetric ratio of mud:spacer:cement
– Ambient and BHCT

• Other Properties
– Thickening Time - 95:5 & 75:25 (cement:spacer)
– Compressive Strength - 95:5 & 75:25 (cement:spacer)
– Fluid Loss - 95:5 & 75:25 (cement:spacer)
– Solids Suspension - ratios of fluids at user discretion
34 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Compatibility Tests – API Sec 16
• Compatibility:(Mud/Spacer & Cement/Spacer)
mud100/0 95/5 75/25 50/50 25/75 5/95 spacer 0/100
300 rpm 70 94 123 110 85 80 80 R = 43
200 rpm 52 67 91 90 67 64 67 R = 24
100 rpm 31 40 55 62 46 45 50 R =12
60 rpm 22 28 38 48 35 37 42 R =6
30 rpm 14 18 25 31 27 29 34 R = -3
6 rpm 7 9 10 18 14 18 24 R = -6
3 rpm 6 7 9 15 12 15 21 R = -6

• Different ratios (95/5, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75, 5/95)

• Calculate R Index at 100 rpm (look at other values too)
 R<0  Compatible
 0<R<40  Compatible (Check friction pressure)
 R>71  Incompatible
35 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Research at SCR

• Numerical simulators & laboratory

experiments (SPE 24569)

36 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Laminar Placement Simulator

• Analysis of field cases, comparison of placement

prediction with acoustic logs

Cement by-passing
the mud on the
narrow side on the
annulus due to poor
centralization

37 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Rheology: Herschel-Bulkley model
Typical case:

RPM's readings
3 26
6 31
30 45
60 57
100 71
200 106
300 135

In average, the Herschel-Bulkley

(or yield power law) model
better fits for
a wide range of shear rates.

   y  k 
n

38 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Rheology: Herschel-Bulkley model

Difference measurement-prediction The Herschel-Bulkley model

8
will better predict:
power law
7 Bingham plastic
6 Herschel-Bulkley
• at low shear rate with a more
accurate ty compared to
|t meas- t calc|

5
4 Bingham plastic
3
2 • when extrapolating at very
1 high shear rate.
0
31 62 30
3 60
4 100
5 200
6 300
7
RPM

Bad prediction at low

shear rate for power law
& Bingham plastic

39 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 CemCADE Software

Job design methodology for optimum mud removal

Define well
Modify Centralization
Fluids
Centralizatio Quick optimization of
n spacer with the
WELLCLEAN II
Advisor Check design with
the WELLCLEAN
II Simulator
40 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Advisor
• Laminar Spacer Design:

41 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Advisor
• Turbulent Spacer Design:

42 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Simulator
• Features
– Simulates the displacement of fluids in the annulus
– Identifies channel types
– Detects any contact between mud and cement
– Identifies the risk of leaving a mud film behind
– Uses a more accurate rheological model
• Applications
– Any critical well condition (HPHT, deviated, horizontal)
– Any flow regime

43 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Simulator
(Laplace Module)

Turbulent

Laminar

44 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Simulator -Key features
• 2D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that computes the transient position of miscible
fluids in an eccentered deviated annulus.
 Computational variables averaged across the annular gap, lubrication assumption
 Robust explicit finite difference algorithms for the velocity field and the species transport.
 All fluids are described by Herschel-Bulkley rheological model.
 The geometry is an eccentric annulus with stationary pipe, where both deviation and eccentricity vary
with depth.
 Free-fall – or U-tubing – effect is accounted for.
 Unstable flow situations (such as Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities) are simulated and well depicted on a
2D fluid concentration picture.
 A feature specific of cementing operations is implemented, aimed at predicting the eventual presence
of a film of displaced fluid left on the casing wall.
• Contact time (cumulated turbulent time) is predicted for turbulent displacement

45 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 WELLCLEAN II Simulator -Main Outputs

At each time step

– 2D map of fluid velocities
– 2D map of fluids concentration across the annulus
– 2D map of “Risk of mud layer left on the walls”
– 2D map of cumulative contact time in turbulent flow
– 2D map of flow regime
– Curves of well geometry & deviation
– Curves of fluids concentration on the narrow and wide sides

At the end of the simulation

– Curve of cement coverage vs. depth

46 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Influence of the Casing Stand-Off

Di

Do

Vnar Vwide

47 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid - Effect of STO
The Effect of the Casing Stand-Off on the Annular Flow is Qualitatively
Equivalent to the Following Flow Pattern

D1 D2

L P
L

V1 V2

Q
48 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :

49 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :
• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D12 D22

50 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :
• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D12 D22
V2 = (D2)2
V1 (D1)2

51 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :
• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D12 D22
V2 = (D2)2
V1 (D1)2
If D2 = 2D1

52 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :
• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D12 D22
V2 = (D2)2
V1 (D1)2
If D2 = 2D1

V2 = 4V1 (For 67%)

53 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density
In Laminar Flow :

• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D12 D22
V2 = (D2)2
V1 (D1)2
If D2 = 2D1

V2 = 4V1 (For 67%)

• 2. Reynolds Number
Re2 = V2 D2 = 4V12D1 = VD
µ µ µ

54 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Newtonian Fluid of Viscosity µ Density

In Laminar Flow :
• 1. Velocity P = 32µ V1 = 32µ V2
L D 12 D 22
V2 = (D2)2
V1 (D1)2
If D2 = 2D1
V2 = 4V1 (For 67%)

• 2. Reynolds Number
Re2 = V2 D2 = 4V12D1 = VD
µ µ µ
Re2 = 8Re1 (For 67%)

55 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Laminar Flow in Eccentric Annulus
Non-parallel plate model Ri/Ro = 0.8
1000
500

Vwide /
Vnarrow n = 1.0
100 n = 0.5
n = 0.2
50

10

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
56 CRJ
Stand-off %
Oct, 2001
 In Turbulent Flow
2 1.75
• 0.241 x  0.75 x µ 0.25 x ( V1 D )
Velocity p =
1
4
L D1 4.75
V  2 1.75
0.241 x  0.75 x µ 0.25 x( 2 D2 )
= 4
D24.75
V 2 =( D 2 ) 0.714
V1 D1
If D2 = 2D1
V2 = 1.64V1 (For 67%)

• Reynolds Number
Re2= V2 D2 = 1.64V12D1 = 3.28V1D1
µ µ µ
Re2 = 3.28Re1 (For 67%)

57 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Turbulent Flow in Eccentric Annulus
1000
500

Vwide /
Vnarrow
100
50

n = 1.0
10
n = 0.5
n = 0.2
5

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
API Stand - Off (%)
58 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Casing Centralization
• Relative Variation of flow rate ratio as a function of eccentricity

18
RH
16
14
RC
FLOW RATE RATIO

12
10
W
8
6 % Stand-off =
w X 100
RH - RC
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
API % STAND-OFF

59 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Types of Centralizers
• Bow Spring (Spiral or Straight):
• Flexible bow springs
• Centralizer OD slightly larger than OH size
• Rigid Bow (or Positive) type:
• Non-flexible O.D. (Slightly less than previous casing ID)
• Use inside cased-hole sections
• Effective in in-gauge OH intervals only
• Rigid Solid slip-on type:
• Solid body - no bows
• Use: as per rigid type

60 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Reciprocation
• Movement of casing up and down during the job

• Must be done from the start of circulation to end displacement

• 20 to 40 feet stroke

• 1 to 5 minutes per cycle

• Needs scratchers to be effective

• Casing may become stuck during movement

• Excessive swab and surge pressures may be created

• Excessive pull and buckling

• Cannot be the only method of mud removal

61 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Rotation
• Circular movement of pipe
• Must be done from the start of circulation to end
displacement
• 10 to 40 rpm
• Scratchers help efficiency
• Needs special rotary cement heads and power swivels
• Torque must be very closely monitored
• Cannot be the only method of mud removal

62 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Scratchers
• Two types of scratchers
– Reciprocation
– Rotation
• Most effective in well
centralized casing
• Adjacently-placed
spacers for overlap
• Establish circulation
prior to cementing
63 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Cement Wiper Plugs
• Keep Fluids Separate in Casing and Reduce Contamination
• Bottom Plugs
• Remove mud ahead of cement
• Prevent cement falling through lighter fluid ahead
• Wipe inner casing walls clean
• Use 2 or more if possible
• Top Plugs
• Separate cement from displacing fluid
• Positive indication of end of displacement

64 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Cement Wiper Plugs

• Examples of Industrial Rubber Cement Wiper Plugs

65 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Why Run a Bottom Plug ?
• Bottom plug wipes accumulated mud cake, scale, etc. from inner
casing walls out through float equipment into annulus.

• Volume of debris can be significant and fill-up shoetrack if not

removed ahead of the top plug.

• EXAMPLE: 9 5/8” 47 lb/ft 10000 feet, collar at 9820 feet

• Volume of 1/16” film?

• Height corresponding to this volume?

127.98 cuft or 22.79 bbls!

66 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Events to be Recorded
• Was the mud conditioned - rate and time?
• How many centralizers were run and where?
• Was the casing rotated and/or reciprocated?
• Where the plugs correctly dropped?
• What was the density and rheology of the spacers?
• Was the correct volume of preflushes used?
• The following data must be recorded on the CemCAT:
• All densities, if possible of displacement fluid as well
• All flow rates, if possible of displacement as well
• All pressures
• Note any changes in flow rate, density, stoppages, pressure peaks, etc.

67 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Effective Mud Removal - Conclusions
• Condition mud prior to cementing
• Centralize to give optimum casing stand-off
• Rotate and/or Reciprocate casing
• Use cable-type scratchers when reciprocating
• Always use the bottom plugs: 2 preferred
• Optimize slurry placement using CemCADE:
• Turbulent flow preferred, or
• Effective laminar flow technique
• Use chemical wash pre-flushes
• Control MUDPUSH spacer/cement slurry properties: batch mix
• Compatibility mud/cement/spacer : lab/field test

68 CRJ
Oct, 2001
 Summary
• Cementing Objectives and Well Preparation
• Mud Removal
– Centralization
– Casing Movement
– Scratchers
– Wiper Plugs
– Washes and Spacers
– Flow Regime Selection
• Turbulent and Laminar Flows
• WELLCLEAN
• WELLCLEAN II

69 CRJ
Oct, 2001