Amri 2017

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

SPE-183710-MS

Next Generation Well Integrity Evaluation through Cross-Segment


Integration for Saudi Aramco

Faisal Amri, Ayedh Hababi, Andres Ramirez, and Omar Faraj, Saudi Aramco; Rohit Shankar, Ali Alshafai, Roni
Martanto, Youssef Elmarsafawi, and Riefky Abdurrahman, Schlumberger Well Integrity Assurance – a new slogan
in the oil industry

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 6-9 March 2017.

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
With the advent of the API RP 65 – Part 2 (post-Macondo), the concept of well integrity evaluation has
been given an entirely new meaning and importance. Watching acoustic logs in isolation without sufficient
correlation with the formation evaluation logs and cement placement simulation yields a lot of unanswered
questions.
It was at this stage that Schlumberger (SLB) was approached by Saudi Aramco's drilling optimization
team to evaluate the zonal isolation between the Formations Shale A and Sandstone B in Well-A, which
was a well from the unconventional resources group. The objective was to assess the zonal isolation with a
high level of assurance and provide feedback for obtaining better results in subsequent wells.
The paper showcases the technique applied to assess the well integrity through an integrated holistic
approach for the first time in the Middle East that looks all data available rather than being confined to
looking up the acoustic logs in isolation that many times provides only part of the answer.

Well Integrity Evaluation: Interpretation Using Standalone Acoustic Logs


World over, acoustic cased hole logs are seen primary as a tool for cement job evaluation for understanding
the well integrity. The logs provide good answers to key questions of the quality of the cement behind the
casing when the placement is perfect or when it is very poor.
Under non-ideal conventional situations, we often face situations wherein the cement is present but the
placement is not perfect, and in such cases standalone interpretations of the acoustic presents several key
challenges that at best yield a qualitative analysis that leaves several questions either unanswered or with
a low assurance.
Sometimes, even multiple acoustic logs give conflicting inferences, which in the absence of an additional
point of reference will lead to no conclusion or at best a reserved interpretation.
Adding to the qualitative low assurance provided for the evaluation, the immediate and root cause for
the loss of well integrity is also difficult to answer. For clients the world over, learning and improving
performance with each job is paramount for the success of drilling in a field.
2 SPE-183710-MS

Figure 1—Schematic layout of the Advanced Cement Evaluation Technique (ACET) process.

Well Integrity Evaluation: What are the Missing Links?


The reasons from the low assurance provided can be broadly explained due to the following reasons:
1. Inadequate correlation done with the actual job execution during and after the cement job.
2. Even if the job charts, drilling reports and post-job summaries are looked into, proper correlation is
difficult as most of these reports show data vs. time while well integrity evaluation is done vs. depth.
3. Looking up individually at different sheets of data also makes it extremely challenging to draw specific
conclusions as there is never a common platform available to analyze the data.
4. Log interpretation in most cases is looked at in isolation, while the cement job execution is kept out
of the well integrity evaluation.
5. Absence of any well integrity assessment for wells where no logs are run.
Looking ahead it is not just sufficient to simply have the evaluation but also the reasons as to why the
integrity is good or bad and assess the lessons learned quantitatively.

ACET — A New Way to Assess Well Integrity


The advanced cement evaluation technique (ACET) is bringing an increased level of assurance on cement
evaluation methods when integrating the data in an integrated well evaluation platform (IWEP) workflow
when open hole or logging while drilling (LWD) formation evaluation logs, surface measurements with
indication of borehole shape and or its quality and cementing placement data generally with forecasted
top of cement from hydraulics are combined with the cement evaluation acoustic logs giving more robust
interpretations, ultimately resulting in a cement evaluation interpretation with a high degree of confidence.
The evaluation was carried out using a multi-segmented approach. The evaluation was carried out using
a multi-segmented approach. All services—cased hole and open hole logs, cementing, and analysis—were
performed by one service company.

The ACET Process


The following are the key steps involved for the processing the evaluation:
1. Collect the key open hole logs in LAS/DLIS format:
a. Calliper will be mandatory
b. LWD logs can also be used
2. The playback is formulated using the cement placement simulators using:
SPE-183710-MS 3

a. Cement placement acquisition data (mandatory)


b. Open hole calliper data (mandatory)
c. Final well/displacement fluid rheological data (optional)
d. Final centralizer/centralizer placement data
3. Perform the hydraulic pressure match and quantify the reason for any mismatches.
4. Run the fluid placement simulation using the pressure matched data.
5. Collect the cased hole cement evaluation logs available in LAS/DLIS format:
a. CCL-Gamma Ray (GR)
b. CBL/VDL
c. USIT
d. IBC
6. Run the playback through the ACET plug in on IWEP to upload the cement placement vs. depth log.
7. Upload the open hole and cased hole evaluation logs onto IWEP.
8. Create the ACET* layout to begin the evaluation.
9. Perform further evaluation based on outcome like CMC (SLB Cement Stress Calculator)* analysis,
etc.
In most cases, independent cased hole and open hole evaluations and quality verification of the logs are
available with the log. Therefore, once the ACET layout has been prepared, depth correlation evaluation
and the various domains can be carried out with the Well Integrity engineer as the lead.

Hydraulic Pressure Match: The Well Integrity Dark Horse


One of the key points of evaluation for a cement job is the hydraulic pressure match. This entails matching
the actual pressure recorded on the cement unit to the simulated pressures using the pumping rates and
injected rates as recorded during the cement job.
The SLB cementing simulator is specifically engineered to perform this step. Various scenarios can be
put in by the engineer to look at the simulation and how much the acquired pressures match the pressures
simulated in that scenario. For example, the annular excess may be changed for a particular section, the
surface lines may be changed, the mud rheologies may be changed, loss zones may be introduced, etc.
The pressure match is one of the best parameters to understand the movement of various densities of
fluids along the annulus during the course of the cement job.
For having the highest precision for the cement placement simulation, this hydraulic pressure match is
one of the key inputs.

Well-A: The Case Study


Saudi Aramco had a case wherein the well was cemented in September 2014 and several questions came up
when the well was logged 11 days after the cement job to assess the zonal isolation prior to hydro-fracturing.

• CBL-VDL indicating poor cement bond while USIT indicating better cement distribution.

• Assessment of zonal isolation of the well across Shale A and Bformation.

• The top of cement had to be ascertained.

• Scientific study and explanation behind the quality of well integrity.

• An objective way forward to improve zonal isolation for future wells.


4 SPE-183710-MS

Evaluating Well-A: The ACET Process


The evaluation was carried out using a multi-segmented approach. As all services such as cased hole and
open hole logs along with cementing was done by SLB, the process of integration was done jointly by PTS
and Well Services.
Integration of the following data has been carried out for the study.
1. Daily Drilling Reports from Saudi Aramco
2. Cement Execution log (pumping pressure-rate-density vs. time)
3. LWD Logs:
a. GR
b. Density calliper
c. Shear and compressional slowness
d. Resistivity
e. Thermal Neutron Porosity and Bulk Density
4. Wireline Cased Hole Logs:
a. GR
b. CCLU
c. USIT (Cement Quality Evaluation)
d. CBL-VDL (Cement Bond Evaluation)
5. SLB Cement Placement Simulator (CPS)
6. CMC* Simulations
The following domain expertise within SLB has been be consulted to make the recommendations:
1. Cementing (WIT) domain
2. Petro-Technical Services (PTS), Data Services
a. Well Integrity
b. Petrophysics
c. Geomechanics
While the wireline cased and open hole logs are in the DLIS/LAS format, making them easy to put into
the IWEP platform that is key to have a clear correlation, the hydraulic and fluid placement simulator are not
designed to be put on the same platform. The ACET* plug-in on IWEP is key to quickly process the data.

Well Integrity Evaluation: The ACET Way


The 4½-in. liner was cemented using 125 pcf cement slurry and the cased hole evaluation was done with
a USIT-CBL-VDL 11 days later.
Assessing the Top of Cement
One of the first concerns for the evaluation was assessing the top of the cement. While looking at the
CBL-VDL and USIT, the results gave the evaluation as:

• Free pipe was indicated for almost the entire section.

• Good cement is seen near the top of the liner while looking at the CBL alone.

• VDL shows correlation with GR indicating cement bond in the entire section.

On looking at the USIT alone, the following evaluation was drawn:


SPE-183710-MS 5

• Good cement across Shale C.

• Average cement across Sandstone B and Shale A

• No cement at the top of liner.

On looking at the pressure match and mud removal Simulator:

• No cement was expected at the top of the liner.

• Good cement placement seen through the section with patches of mud left due to washouts.

The mud density was high at 114 pcf and the slurry was 125 pcf. This constitutes very high solids
concentration that would in turn set in due course of time. This along with the fact that the CBL arrivals in the
double casing interval is not consistent gave the pseudo indication that there is cement at the top of the liner.
On assessing all the data available on the ACET* layout, the correlations can be clearly seen at the top
of cement in the USIT and WELLCLEAN* II clearly put the top of cement well below the previous casing
with some channelling moving upwards.
USIT/CPS vs. CBL
The USIT was indicating the presence of cement while the CBL was indicating nearly free pipe for the
entire section. The VDL was showing good correlation with the GR readings, which is an indication of
good to average casing to cement bond.
This kind of correlation is often witnessed when there is a presence of a micro annulus. Therefore, further
investigation was carried out by looking at the drilling reports immediately after the job until the time of
logging. It was recorded that the fluid in the well during the cementation was 114 pcf mud was changed
over to 75 pcf brine prior to running the cement evaluation logs. To quantify the effect of the same, the
change in hydrostatic and formation type was entered into the CMC* simulation software.

Figure 2—ACET evaluation layout for Well-A.


6 SPE-183710-MS

The geomechanic team within SLB were consulted to get the mechanical properties of the formation
using geo-mechanic models that were run in offset wells. This data was entered into the CMC* simulation
software to generate the output. CMC* simulated a 60 µm micro annulus due to the nearly 4,600 psi drop
in pressure inside the casing.
This output confirmed and clearly explained the free pipe output seen by the CBL while the USIT and
CPS give an indication of average to good cement. We could deliver such correlations clearly and quickly
by virtue of having the ACET* layout as the layout puts in all data in perspective in depth scale.
Shale-A formation Log Response
The entire section across the Shale A formation shows average cement bond with channels of fluid in the
annulus. The CPS simulator shows some channels but discontinuous. On comparing with the other sections,
which do not show such behavior, therefore it can be inferred that the formation interaction with the cement
is showing up in the USIT log.
Zonal Isolation of formations Shale A and Sandstone B
As discussed previously, by qualitatively confirming the micro annulus no evaluation or conclusion can
be drawn from the CBL log. But by virtue of having the ACET layout, clear correlations can be seen across
the USIT-VDL-Open Hole logs-WELLCLEAN* II simulator.
With a good level of assurance it can be said that there is good zonal isolation above and below Shale
A and Sandstone B, respectively.

ACET* Evaluation: Recommendations to the Client


• Due to the large washouts using semi-rigid centralizers is highly recommended for providing better
standoff — especially when washouts are seen.
• Displace the cement with the completion well fluid to prevent casing shrinkage.

• Availability of reliable calliper data for all jobs.

• Liner rotation to improve cement placement.

• Perform multi-well analysis using the ACET* platform to further study the effect of shale A on
the cement after placement.
Value to the Client
1. To provide a high level of assurance and lower uncertainty on well integrity and zonal isolation using
correlation of open hole logs, cement placement map and cased hole logs.
2. Maximize the use and value of client data.
3. To enhance design and execution of cementing jobs by identifying the root causes of a bad cementing
job for the selected well.
4. The client will have a comprehensive answer combining the three key elements of ACET, which
optimize the time of decision making.
5. Have a single page standard layout that is standardized and can be compared across wells.
Moving Forward
Further improvements in the ACET evaluation process includes improvements in the plug-in to ensure
inclusion of the following:
1. Real time ACET evaluation.
2. Rapidly assess the cement placement.
3. Provide immediate answer for TOC.
4. Include the 3D models for cement placement evaluation that includes simulation with pipe movement.
SPE-183710-MS 7

5. 2D/3D cement evaluation for multi-well study.


6. Providing input to well design from previous ACET evaluation.
7. Field/Well studies of well integrity involving non-blue services.

Glossary
ACET: Advanced Cement Evaluation Technique
CPS: Schlumberger Cement Placement Simulator
CBL-VDL: Cement Bond Log – Variable Density Log
CMC: Schlumberger Cement Stress Calculator
TOC: Top of Cement
USIT: Schlumberger Ultrasonic Imaging Tool
CCL: Casing Collar Locator
LAS/DLIS: The public file formats used by the logging industry to provide raw data as obtained
from the tools used for interpretation
QaQc: Quality Assurance Quality Control
PTS: Petro-technical services – the services group that perform data interpretation within
the Schlumberger services
WIT: Well Integrity Technology – the services group that is responsible for the Design,
Execution and Evaluation of Cement jobs.

References
1. Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction. (2020). In American Petroleum
Institute (2nd ed.). Washington, NW: API Publishing Services.
2. Frisch, G., Fox, P., Hunt, D. and Kaspereit, D. (2005). Advances in Cement Evaluation Tools and
Processing Methods Allow Improved Interpretation of Complex Cements. Proceedings of SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. doi:10.2523/97186-ms.
3. Godoy, R., Fontan, M., Capra, B., Kvalsund, R. and Poupard, O. (2015). Well Integrity Support
by Extended Cement Evaluation - Numerical Modeling of Primary Cement Jobs. Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. doi:10.2118/177612-ms.
4. Leong, C. Y., Bhatia, A. and Debruijin, G. (2015). Multidisciplinary Data Integration
Enhances Cement Job Design for Effective Hydraulic Zonal Isolation. Proceedings of the 3rd
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/urtec-2015-2143230.
5. Okoroafor, E.R., Enwemadu, C.A., Bontems, F., et al (2012). An Integrated Approach to Cement
Evaluation. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition. doi:10.2118/162460-
ms.
6. Pavel S. and Donna F. (2013). Advanced Techniques in Integrated Cement Evaluation. SPWLA
54th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana.

You might also like