SPE 148640

Novel Approach to More Effective Plug and Abandonment Cementing

Techniques
Thomas E. Ferg, ConocoPhillips Norway, Hans-Jacob Lund, ConocoPhillips Norway, Dan Mueller, ConocoPhillips
Houston, Morten Myhre, HydraWell Intervention, Arne Larsen, HydraWell Intervention, Patrick Andersen,
HydraWell Intervention, Gunnar Lende, Halliburton Norway, Charlie Hudson, MISwaco Norge AS,
Cato Prestegaard Halliburton Norway, David Field, Halliburton Norway

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference & Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 1820 October 2011.

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 leading to losses while circulating, swabbing, well control,

The effectiveness of a permanent abandonment plug is
measured by its ability to bridge the wellbore cross section
both vertically and horizontally, including all annuli, with
a plugging medium which can withstand the rigors of the
environment to which it is exposed (Figure 1 Barrier
Requirements). The most common method for placing a
plug in cased hole with an uncemented annulus has
required section milling of the casing, making a clean out
run and underreaming of the open hole prior to placing a
balanced cement plug. A new method is presented which
creates a permanent abandonment plug through the use of
a system which perforates uncemented casing, washes the
annular space and then mechanically places the cement
across the wellbore cross section in a single run. This
paper outlines the design methods, laboratory testing and
operational elements that were assessed during the
development phase, as well as the results of field trials
used to qualify this technique.
Introduction
Traditional methods of creating an annulus barrier in
uncemented casing require the removal of a section of
casing by milling operations, cleaning the created open
hole to remove swarf (swarf is defined as metal filings or
shavings removed by a cutting tool) and other debris,
underreaming the section to expose new formation and
then setting a balanced cement plug. These operations can
be time consuming and difficult to execute safely and
effectively.
Fluids designed for section milling must have sufficient
weight to keep the open hole stable and viscosity to
suspend and transport swarf and debris to surface. The
required fluid viscosity profile for milling operations can
generate Equivalent Circulating Densities(ECD) which
exceed the fracture gradient of the exposed open hole
poor hole cleaning, and packing off of the Bottom Hole
Assembly(BHA). These problems can lead to sticking of
the milling, clean out or underreaming BHAs because not
all swarf and skimmed casing remnants can be cleared
from the wellbore. Swarf and casing debris can become
strung out along the wellbore lodging in the annular and
ram BOP equipment seriously effecting function. At
surface, handling equipment must be positioned and
installed within the return flow line after the bell nipple
and in front of the shakers in order to separate and capture
generated metal returns from the active mud system. An
example of metal brought to surface during milling
operations is included (Figure 2 Skimmed Casing).
Health, Safety and Environmental challenges are created
by the handling and disposal of the generated swarf and
debris. The metal returns have sharp angular surfaces and
personal protective equipment must be worn to protect
hands and eyes. Environmental issues are created from
the collection point on the rig to the final disposal site.
These issues include classification of the material and
documentation, handling, containment, tracking and
transport.
Proper verification of P&A plugs is essential to ensure that
barriers are effective. Assessing the competency of plugs
placed using section milling techniques can be a challenge.
According to NORSOK 1, an abandonment plug shall be
verified in each annulus at the depth of the plug. There are
two predominant designs used in the placing of section
milled plugs: 1) leaving the top of cement inside the
casing above the milled window, or 2) leaving the top of
cement in the open hole. In the case of plugs with the top
of the cement located inside of the casing, the plug is
tagged and weight tested and then pressure tested. These
tests only assess the quality of cement inside the casing
2 SPE 148640
with no determination of quality of the cement in the
casing annulus or in the open hole. Plugs set with the top
of cement in the open hole can be tagged to verify position
however it becomes impossible, in most cases, to do a true
pressure test. In both scenarios, verification of the sealing
capability of the plug is difficult to assess.
A New Approach
A new Perforate, Wash and Cement (PWC) System has
been engineered which eliminates many of the problems
associated with traditional section milling operations. Just
as in section milling, the mud weight must be sufficient to
maintain the stability of exposed formation. However,
high viscosity fluids are not required to lift metal debris
from the wellbore. The wellbore is cleaned and
conditioned both inside and outside the casing, up to and
including the exposed formation face. This involves
removing old mud, formation cuttings and settled mud
weighting material from the annulus space through
perforations. The process greatly reduces the potential of
pack offs, which can be a major cause of sticking the
BHA within the wellbore. Additionally a safer work
environment is created by limiting exposure to the swarf
and metal with its associated potential for causing
lacerations. Milling debris is eliminated, precluding the
need for special surface handling equipment, significantly
reducing material disposal costs.
From bottom up, the PWC system consists of 50m of drill
pipe conveyed perforating guns with 12 Shots Per Foot
(SPF) in 135/45 degree phasing (Figure 3 Perforation
Pattern and Phasing) which drop on firing,. Above the
guns is an opposed cup wash tool with ball release which
is left in the hole as a base for the cement job. On top of
the wash tool is a cement stinger.
The PWC system provides optimum well control through
all phases of plug placement. While running into the
wellbore, surge and swab effects are significantly reduced
as there are no open perforations to take or give fluid.
However, to increase the running speed of the wash tool,
fluid locking effects are mitigated by incorporation of
internal bypass courses which allow fluid to move easily
from below the bottom cup to above the top cup and vice
versa. Upon perforation the guns automatically drop and
the well can be circulated to condition the mud and make
fluid property adjustments as necessary to account for
actual pore pressure and well conditions.
After dropping an activation ball which seats in the wash
tool, the bottom of the string is sealed off and a sleeve
shifts directing fluid flow between the wash cups.
Washing operations are conducted across the perforated
interval in a top-down direction. The majority of annular
cleaning occurs only through the perforations located
between the opposing wash cups and in the annular space
directly across from and above the upper wash cup. When
the bottom perforation is reached the wash sequence is
repeated in a bottom to top direction while pumping at the
maximum loss free rate. The wash tool is then run in until
reaching the bottom perforations and cement spacer is
pumped between the cups of the wash tool and into the
annular space using the pump and pull method.
A deactivation ball is then dropped and landed which
disconnects the wash tool from the cement stinger and the
wash tool is then pushed to a position below the bottom
perforations. The cups of the wash tool have sufficient
contact force against the casing to allow the wash tool to
function as a base for the cementing operations which
follow. The string is then pulled to position the cement
stinger above the top perforation and the string is rotated
at 100 to 120 RPM while pumping at maximum loss free
rate in order to clear the wellbore of any remaining
material washed from behind the casing. Cement is then
placed as a balanced plug with the stinger at bottom. Once
above the plug the work string and wellbore are circulated
clean. Depending on cement job design, the cement can
then be squeezed into the perforations and the squeeze
pressure held until the cement has set sufficiently to allow
pressure bleed off. In any event, the work string remains
in the hole while waiting on cement until sufficient plug
strength is obtained and the top of cement can be washed
down to, tagged and pressure tested.
The PWC system and procedure creates an abandonment
plug that can be verified in the annulus, unlike plugs set
with the traditional section milling method. After placing
cement it is possible to drill out the plug and log the
cement bond in the annulus to provide competency
verification. In this latter scenario one would then place a
new cement plug inside the casing and verify that plug
according to relevant policies and regulations. The
operator has performed this exercise on multiple occasions
while qualifying the process.
Determining Minimum Plug Setting Depths
Permanent abandonment plug setting depths are dictated
by the pressures and fluids present in permeable
formations and the fracture gradients within the overlaying
stratagraphic column. Plugs must be set with their base at
or below the depth where the pressure traverse upward
does not exceed the fracture gradient of the matrix
(Figure 4 - Gradient and Pressure Curves for Determining
Minimum Plug Setting Depths). The conditions
encountered in an existing wellbore may dictate that an
abandonment barrier be placed at a depth where the casing
was uncemented during the primary cement job.
Annular Space Logging Evaluation
In order to evaluate the condition of the annular space,
cement evaluation logs should be run prior to conducting
PWC operations. These logs are useful in determining if
cement stringers or channeled cement is present or
whether the formation has collapsed around the casing
(Figure 5 - Pre-Job K-20 Annulus Evaluation Logs). Plug
setting intervals should be chosen based on setting depth
requirements and across intervals where free pipe is
indicated.
SPE 148640
Estimating the Maximum Washing Fluid Rate
In the pre-job planning phase data must be gathered on the
work string which will be used, the casing specifications
from the work interval to surface, the water based wash
mud properties along with formation pore and fracture
pressures. Using the wash fluid properties, simulations
must be run to determine the equivalent circulating
pressure above the wash tool from static conditions to 10
barrels per minute in 1 barrel per minute increase
increments. These preliminary calculations are used to
estimate the maximum loss free circulating rate which
may be used during PWC operations (i.e. the circulating
pressure which equals the fracture pressure in the
perforated interval).
Perforation Requirements and Design
The overall drillpipe conveyed perforating gun length is
approximately 200, when placing a 165 long
abandonment plug. It is comprised of a 35 pressure
activated firing head with an auto drop mechanism
followed by 165 of hollow carrier loaded with charges at
12 SPF and 135/45 degree phasing. The diameter of the
perforations and their position along the length of the gun
is determined by their function. The top and bottom 7 of
the perforating guns are loaded with charges which create
larger diameter perforations. The top perforations are
larger to facilitate easier initiation of washing behind the
casing without creating pressures which exceed the
adjacent formation fracture pressure. The larger bottom
perforations are incorporated to facilitate easier
displacement of mud by cement spacer and displacement
of cement spacer by cement during plug setting operations.
The remaining middle perforation diameters are sized
based on limited entry perforating backpressure design
principals.
The cups of the wash tool are designed to isolate and wash
12 inches of casing in a continuous movement of the tool.
This means that a maximum of 12 perforations are
between the cups during any time period (gun makeup
connections create non-perforated intervals) while
washing. Mid gun assembly perforation diameters are
designed to create 55 to 75 psi backpressure across 12
open perforations. Treating pressure between the cups
will be higher if some perforations are not open. An
illustration of the variation in perforation friction pressure
based on the number of open perforations is attached along
with a table of calculated results (Figure 6 Perforation
Friction Back Pressure with 14.5 PPG Mud Pumped at 210
GPM). An example of the variations in perforation back
pressure based on perforation diameter and pumping rate
has also been included for reference (Figure 7 - Variations
in Perforation Friction by Diameter).
Perforation Friction calculations can be estimated using
the following orifice equation -
PFBP = MW * Q2 / 12035 * A2 * Cd2
PFBP= Perforation Delta Pressure (psi)
MW= mud weight (ppg)
Q=Flow (gpm)
3
A=Area (inches2)
Cd=Perforation Coefficient (0.95)
Designing to Wash in Non-Vertical Holes
For non-vertical wellbores with high overburden angles,
the casing is assumed to be lying on the low side of the
hole with cuttings and settled mud components around the
pipe (Figure 8 - High Angle Hole Cross Section / Casing
and Debris on Bottom). Initiating circulation creates a
preferential flow path at the top side of the hole. It is
therefore critical that the number of exposed perforations
between the opposing wash cups and the perforation
diameters are engineered to create the backpressure
required to divert wash fluid flow through all perforations.
Fluid Design for Mud Wash Fluid
The annulus wash fluid used is a water based KCl polymer
mud system containing 30-50 ppb of KCl. This system
has been formulated to stabilize reactive clays found in the
shales located within plugging intervals. These levels of
KCl have been established though several years of
experience with P&A / slot recovery efforts. Along with
the inhibition requirements, the system delivers a high
degree of stability if contaminated with annular Oil Based
Mud(OBM) and crude that may be present behind the
casing. The water based system will also allow crude and
base oil flushed from the annulus to be easily separated
from the fluid system at surface.
After more experience is gained with the perforate and
wash process and given the relatively short period of
matrix exposure during washing operations, the inhibition
requirements may be reduced. However, any fluid
modifications must retain system flexibility to allow for
adjustment of fluid properties for section milling which is
the backup contingency should interpretation of diagnostic
logging data dictate. This system provides the maximum
flexibility for either operational process by allowing for
relatively short mud conversion time requirements.
The rheology profile of the mud system used for the
process is a compromise between hole cleaning, barite
suspension and spacer and cement displacement. The
minimum rheology is always preferred for the cementing
operation, which is the key function during the PWC
process The lowest yield point is established by the
requirements to limit barite sag. The target, depending
upon the well inclination has been held at a Low Shear
Rate Yield Point (LSRYP) of between 7 and 10 lbf/100 sq
ft (3.5 -5 pa). These values have been taken from general
values established in a Joint Industry Project (JIP) study in
1997 (SPE 47784). In this particular system, this criteria
usually allows the yield point (YP) to fall into a range of
30-35 lbf/100 sq ft. The cementing company has
established a YP of between 20-25 lbf/100 sq ft. as
optimum for cement displacement. Fluid loss (API) at
ambient temperature was maintained at less than 8 cc per
30 min. This is a minimum criterion for fluids of this
nature to ensure that a thick filter cake is not deposited
across any exposed sands behind the casing.
4 SPE 148640
The chemical properties were maintained within standard
specifications for the region. A pH of between 8.5 and 9.5
were maintained by the use of soda ash, and sodium
bicarbonate (caustic soda is not used by the operator in
Norwegian operations). Post job, spacer and cement
contaminated mud was separated from the mud system at
surface and the cement contaminated fluid treated with
citric acid and sodium bicarbonate. Lignosulfonate based
additives were not used in the system to ensure that the
setting time for the cement would not be hindered by the
mud system.
Fluid Design for Spacer and Cement
The PWC annulus cleanout and cementing method is
highly dependent on compatibility between all fluids
circulated into and out of the annular space as a degree of
intermixing of fluids is to be expected during the process.
Excessive viscosity or lumping of the mixture of fluids
created by incompatibility could inhibit displacement of
mud by spacer and spacer by cement leading to a poor
quality barrier.
A standard water based spacer for water based drilling
fluid applications has been used on PWC jobs. Under
normal conditions the fluids are compatible and pose no
impediment to effective plug placement. However, during
PWC operations fluids are pumped through perforations in
order to access the annular space and returns must be
made through adjacent perforations. This makes
movement of fluid in a plug flow regime more difficult.
Laboratory testing results show that checking the interface
viscosity between all fluids is necessary, as drilling fluids
can cause excessive viscosity when mixed with the spacer
or cement. Interface viscosity data between drilling fluid
and cement; and drilling fluid and spacer have been
plotted, and can be seen in Figure 9 - Fluid Viscosity
Changes with Mixing.
The water based spacer used during both laboratory testing
and field operations contained a surfactant package, as
most of the wells were originally drilled with OBM which
remained in the annular space. To ensure adequate cement
to formation and cement to casing bonding it was deemed
important that a water wetting flush be incorporated.
The plug cement design has been tailored to the operations
on the specific fields where it has been employed. Gas
migration and fluid loss must be controlled with
appropriate cement additives. A trade off in cement
properties between low fluid loss to avoid bridging across
the perforations and the higher fluid loss to obtain a
squeeze pressure after placement is necessary. From
experience, cement fluid losses should be designed to be
within the 125 to 150 cc/30 min range. To compensate for
cement hydration shrinkage a post set expansion material
has been included into the cement formulation. The
systems fluid densities have ranged from 14.2 to 14.5 ppg
for the waterbased wash mud, cement spacer at 15.0 ppg
and cement at 15.9 ppg.
Laboratory Cement Testing
In laboratory testing both fluid interactive viscosity and
cement strength development were measured at wellbore
conditions, staging the dilution/contamination percentages
at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 45% for both mud
contamination of cement and spacer contamination of
cement. The tests were conducted under the protocols
established for Standard ISO 10426-2 lab viscometers and
Ultrasonic Cement Analyzers. Acoustic impedance
analysis was also measured and tabulated for use as input
for post drill out wireline logging (Figure 10 - Effects of
Spacer Contamination on Set Cement Acoustic
Impedance).
Test results for spacer and drilling fluid impact on strength
development can be seen in Figure 11 - Effects of Spacer
Contamination on Cement Strength. Figure 12 shows -
Effects of Mud Contamination on Cement Strength. This
testing suggested that significant contamination can be
tolerated provided the mixture has been made uniform.
Even at a 45:55 spacer or mud to cement ratio, which is
near the theoretical maximum (Figure 13 - Theoretical
Maximum Ratio of Inside and Outside Casing Volumes ),
the unconfined compressive strength after 48 hours is
greater than 1240 psi and 925 psi, respectively.
Testing and fluid design does not eliminate the possibility
of mud pockets in the cement after placement, which
would invalidate the data. However, by following
stringent job procedures, properly sizing the holes to
limited entry perforation design criteria and creating holes
with good uniformity of size, the entire annulus contents
can be mobilized and displaced. Testing results show that
it is necessary to thoroughly consider the performance and
compatibility of all fluids during the planning phase.
A new mechanical cement placement tool is in the testing
phase and prior to incorporation into the field system the
design of the cement system will be modified to take into
account the elimination of squeezing the balanced cement
plug. A new low fluid loss cement slurry has been
formulated which retains the prior formulations gas
migration control and post set expansion material. No
other specific formulation changes are necessary to
accommodate this new placement method. With the
inclusion of the new mechanical placement tool, fluids
internal and external to the casing should be mixed to a
uniform composition. To minimize the impact of mud or
spacer contamination on the cured cement properties,
sufficient gel strength must develop to maintain mixture
stability until 500 psi compressive strength is obtained
should a significant dilution occur.
Field Testing and Results
Through August 2011, twenty Perforate, Wash and
Cement jobs have been conducted. These operations have
been performed in 8-5/8 44#, 9-5/8 40#, 9-5/8 53.5#
and 10-3/4 55.5# casings. To adjust for the different
casing internal diameters the body mandrill, thimbles and
wash cup outer diameters were engineered specifically for
each plugging interval.
SPE 148640
Table 1 is a listing of Perforate, Wash and Cement Jobs
conducted to date. The listing includes the chronological
number of the job along with the well name and whether
the job was a three, two or single trip operation. A three
trip job is one in which the perforating, washing and
cementing are each conducted on separate drill pipe runs.
A two trip job is one in which the perforating guns are run
in hole on a separate run from the washing and cementing
tools. A single run job is one in which the perforating,
washing and cementing operations are all conducted on a
single trip into the wellbore.
The tools and associated procedures have changed over
time through four major phases:
1) Initial trials were done in three separate runs to
perforate, wash, and then cement. This was the
initial concept, during which all of the plugs were
drilled out and logged to qualify the abandonment
plug procedure.
2) A wash tool was then designed to leave the cups
in the hole as a base for the plug, thus combining
the wash trip and the cementing trip. Two of
these plugs were also drilled out to qualify the
method.
3) The next evolution saw the wash and cement tool
combined with guns that could be dropped after
firing, thus merging all three trips into a single
trip system. This approach requires additional
wellbore length to account for the space out of
the guns which are left in the hole.
In all of the first three phases of system development,
squeeze pressure was applied after cement placement. It is
worth noting that to date the operator has not attempted to
place a plug without squeezing and then drilled it out to
determine if squeezing is really necessary. In some wells,
casing integrity is such that squeezing of the cement plug
is not an option. Squeezing and holding squeeze pressures
until cement has achieved a specified strength in most
cases delays additional P&A progress and increases costs.
Moving forward, a mechanical cementing tool based on an
Archimedes Screw Design has been developed to be part
of the above tool string to effectively displace and mix any
residual mud or spacer fluids with the cement creating a
uniform plug, such that applying squeeze pressure would
not be required. This tool will at the very least improve
the quality of the cement job, as well as provide a quality
abandonment plug without squeezing. Full field trials and
post job assessment by plug drill out and cement bond
logging are scheduled to begin shortly.
Assessment of Plug Integrity
For qualification and verification purposes the set cement
plugs can be drilled out and cement evaluation tools re-
run. A comparison or pre- and post- logs can then be
made to assess annular plug quality (Figure 5 - Post Job k-
20 Annulus Evaluation Logs Run After Drilling Out
Internal Casing Cement). The internal casing plug can
5
then be replaced to regain cross sectional plug integrity.
In general, drilling out of internal cement and running
cement evaluation tools is conducted only during system
qualification tests or if an operational problem has been
encountered which could affect the integrity of the plug.
A plug set by section milling, cleaning out, underreaming
the open hole and cementing may provide the pressure
integrity by positive and negative testing to qualify the
plug as a barrier. However, it is difficult to take a step
back and assess the competency of the plug if any of the
operational components are compromised. Attempts to
drill out the plug for evaluation purposes would simply
result in sidetracking off of the plug and at best skimming
along the plugs surface and rock matrix interface. In any
event, logging tools run into the new hole would be of
marginal use in assessing the competency of the plug.
P&A Plugging Time Comparison
During the 2008 to 2009 time period 6 wells were plugged
and abandoned using 8 conventional section milling, clean
out trips, underreaming and balanced cement plug setting
techniques to achieve primary and secondary barriers on a
platform which was being taken out of service. The
average time to accomplish each conventionally set plug
was 10.5 days (one barrier plug requiring 20.4 days to set
was not included in the average time as it represents a
statistically outlying point). See Table 2 - Conventional
Section Milled Plug Setting Operational Times.
As of August 31 2011, twenty PWC barrier plug
installations have been conducted and the operational time
results have been compiled in Table 1 - Perforate, Wash &
Cement Job Log. For comparison purposes a job time log
for conventional section milled plugs has been included in
Table 2 Conventional Section Milled Plug Setting
Operational Times. Data pulled from these two tables
have been averaged and are presented in Figure 14 Field
Operational Time Comparison. The step change in
operational time reduction in moving from conventional to
PWC operations is clear. With continuous operational
improvements the average plug setting time has gone from
a conventional 10.5 day average down to 2.6 days average
for a single run PWC plug. An average time saving of 7.9
days per set plug has been realized. Over the twenty job
history it is estimated that over 124 rig days of saved time
have been realized. The implications of the introduction
of this P&A plug setting system could have a significant
impact on the reduction of well retirement and insurance
obligations worldwide.
Conclusions
The successful placement of an abandonment plug is
measured according to the effective bridge which is
formed across the wellbore section both vertically and
horizontally. Placing of an effective barrier is more
difficult when the casing does not have a competent
external barrier already in place. Traditional methods
which encompass section milling of casing, underreaming
the created open hole section and then setting a balanced
6 SPE 148640

cement plug can be an effective means of setting an References

abandonment plug which meets all requirements.
However, improved methods of setting plugs which
achieve effective isolation without casing removal are
being developed.
1.) Un-cemented casing annuli can be effectively
isolated from water and hydrocarbon movement
without section milling through use of a PWC
system.
1. NORSOK Regulations D-010 Section 9
2. Bern P.A., et al.: Barite Sag: Measurement,
Modeling and Management, IADC/SPE
47784 presented at the 1998 IADC/SPE Asia
Pacific Drilling Conference, Jakarta, 7-9
September 1998

2.) Annulus evaluation prior to running a PWC system

provides critical data required for operational
planning and placement of cement.

3.) The maximum loss free washing rate is determined

by the ECD of the workstring annulus and the
fracture gradient of the rock formation nearby or
within the perforated interval.

4.) Effective washing behind casing is engineered as

function of perforation diameter, the number of
exposed perforations between opposing wash cups
and confined backpressure adjusted by pumping rate.

5.) Post placement plug qualification can be obtained by

drilling out the internal casing cement and re-running
cement verification logs (internal cement plug can
then be reset to regain cross sectional integrity).

6.) With the PWC system exposure of personnel to swarf

handling is eliminated reducing potential lacerations.

7.) Swarf handling, transport and disposal are

eliminated.

8.) Well control is enhanced throughout the operation

because the tools are at or near the bottom of the hole
from the time that the casing is perforated until the
cement plug has been set and qualified as a barrier.

9.) Significant time and cost savings are realized by

using the PWC technique over conventional milling
techniques.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the PL018 partnership
(ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS, Eni Norge AS, Petoro
AS, Statoil Petroleum AS and Total E&P Norge AS) for
permission to publish the data included within this paper.
The authors would also like to acknowledge David Forbes
Norway Wells Operations Manager and his organization
for their support during the design, testing and
implementation of this technology.
SPE 148640 7

Tables and Figures

Figure 1 Barrier Requirements

Figure 2 Example: Skimmed Casing

8 SPE 148640

Figure 3 Perforation Pattern and Phasing

Figure 4 Gradient and Pressure Curves for Determining Minimum Plug Setting Depths
SPE 148640 9

Figure 5 Pre and Post-Job K-20 Annulus Cement Evaluation Logs

Figure 6 Perforation Friction Back Pressure with 14.5 PPG Mud Pumped at 210 GPM
10 SPE 148640

Figure 7 - Variations in Perforation Friction by Diameter

Figure 8 High Angle Hole Cross Section / Casing and Debris on Bottom

Figure 9 Fluid Viscosity Changes with Mixing

SPE 148640 11

Figure 10 Effects of Spacer Contamination on Set Cement Acoustic Impedance

Figure 11 Effects of Spacer Contamination on Cement Strength

Figure 12 Effects of Mud Contamination on Cement Strength

12 SPE 148640

Figure 13 Theoretical Maximum Ratio of Inside and Outside Casing Volumes

Table 1 Perforate, Wash & Cement Job Log

SPE 148640 13

Table 2 Conventional Section Milled Plug Setting Operational Times

Figure 14 Field Operational Time Comparison