SPE 106765
Field Study Results Improve Squeeze-Cementing Success
Michael Cowan, Shell Intl. E&P
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 31 March–3 April 2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Correlations and practices that improve squeeze-cementing
success in a wide range of applications were developed from a
series of field studies conducted between 1992 and 2000. The
first study began with analysis of a database of 137 squeeze
operations. Statistical analysis of data for successful first-
attempt squeeze operations from this database identified
practices and correlations that significantly improved the
success rate for squeeze-cementing operations. The
correlations developed from this initial data were applied in
other operating areas and refined over time.
Prejob injection test data can be used to select basic
cement type, recommended cement volume, and cement fluid
loss based upon correlations developed from these studies.
Guidelines for placement procedures and pumping techniques
were developed from successful field operations.
While these practices have significantly improved success
in a wide range of applications and geographical areas,
squeeze cementing continues to defy standardization. The
success of most squeeze-cementing operations is directly
related to the skill and experience of those designing and
executing the operation.
These practices are presented as a reference point for
engineering and operations staff for design and execution of
squeeze-cementing operations. For those skilled in squeeze
cementing, this information may be confirmed by others’
experience and knowledge to improve success and increase
understanding of squeeze cementing.
Introduction
Squeeze cementing is one of the most challenging areas of
cementing. It is a multidisciplinary technology requiring
knowledge and skills in grouting, geomechanics, fluid
mechanics, material science and, of course, cementing. After
decades of field and laboratory studies, squeeze cementing
defies standardization as a general practice. The success of
most squeeze-cementing operations is directly related to the
skill and experience of those designing and executing the
operation.
This paper reports the findings from a series of field
studies conducted to improve squeeze-cementing success.
The first study was initiated in an aging west Texas field
where many squeeze-cementing operations were performed
and the squeeze-cementing success rate was low. The wells in
this field averaged 5000 feet in depth and were between
30 and 50 years old. All of the wells in the field were
completed in carbonate producing formations. Most wells had
been acid stimulated many times over their lifetime. Some
wells had been water flooded, CO2 flooded or both, and there
was some type of casing damage in many wells. Despite this
challenging starting point, a very good set of squeeze-
cementing operations data was collected for analysis.
Data analysis from this first field study produced several
practical correlations that significantly improved the success
rate for squeeze cementing in the west Texas field. Results
from the west Texas study generated interest to do field
studies in other operating areas and to evaluate the broad
applicability of the correlations developed from the initial data
set.
The entire series of studies ran over a period of eight years
beginning in 1992 and ending in 2000. The correlations and
recommended practices developed from the initial west Texas
data set were applied in many areas of the continental United
States, in offshore operating areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and
in the Sultanate of Oman. These practices and correlations
improved the success rate for squeeze cementing in each of
the areas where they were applied. Additional findings and
refinements were made as more experience was gained. A
general strategy or framework for the design and execution of
squeeze-cementing operations was developed from these
studies for use by engineering and operations staff.
Initial Field Study
Records from workover operations were collected between
1992 and 1994 for wells in a west Texas field as part of a
study to determine the low success rate for squeeze-cementing
operations. Data from service company treating reports and
workover operations morning reports were collected and put
into an electronic database. Additional data fields were added
to service company treating reports and rig morning reports to
gather all information essential for detailed analysis. An
engineer or other knowledgeable person in workover and
remedial cementing operations extracted the information and
entered it into the database.
2 SPE 106765
Data for 137 squeeze operations were compiled and used
for analysis. The database contained fifty-one fields covering
various aspects of workover and squeeze-cementing
operations. Well type (producer or injector), age of the well,
mechanical configuration, formation type, type of leak being
squeezed, squeeze interval length, squeeze technique,
presqueeze injection pressure and injection rate, cement type
and volume, final squeeze pressure, waiting-on-cement time,
and post-squeeze test pressure were compiled for each record.
Table 1 lists the general characteristics of the data set along
with trends determined from a general analysis of the data.
A total of forty-seven squeeze operations were successful
on the first attempt. This is a 34 percent success rate for first-
attempt squeezing operations. For the ninety squeeze
operations unsuccessful on the first attempt, the overall
success rate for these wells did not exceed 60 percent even
though as many as five squeeze cementing operations were
attempted in some wells.
Analysis of the data focused on identifying the key
parameters that contributed to success on the first squeeze
operation. This approach was taken for two reasons. First,
costs are reduced by success with one attempt. Second, the
data showed the probability of achieving complete success did
not significantly improve with multiple operations. The
objective was to develop a squeeze design process that would
improve the probability of success on the first attempt.
Two types of statistical analysis were performed on the
data. First, a general descriptive analysis of the data providing
averages, minimums and maximums, and standard deviations
for each variable in the database was performed. The second
analysis was determination of correlation coefficients for each
variable to squeeze-cementing success. This second analysis
revealed key parameters for improving overall squeeze-
cementing success.
Correlations Developed from the Data
Presqueeze injection pressure and injection rate, cement type,
cement volume injected into the formation, and squeeze
pressure were identified as key variables affecting squeeze
success. Results from the initial analysis suggested there were
significant differences between squeeze operations using
microfine cements and those using normal-grind API cements
such as Class A, Class C, or Class H. Therefore, the following
two subsets of the first-attempt success database were created:
(1) squeeze-cementing operations using normal or regular
grinds of cement such as API Class A, Class C, or Class H,
and (2) squeeze operations using microfine cement. Each of
these subsets was re-analyzed using the statistical techniques
previously described. Results of analysis from these subsets
provided additional useful correlations.
Injectivity Factor.
Prior to the squeeze operation, common practice is to
inject fluid into the interval to be squeezed to make sure
cement can be injected into it. The relationship between
injection pressure and injection rate is a critical piece of
information for design of a successful squeeze operation. The
term injectivity factor was arbitrarily assigned to the quotient
of the injection pressure divided by the injection rate (at the
injection pressure):
Injection pressure
Injectivity Factor = (Eq 1)
Injection rate
where Injectivity Factor = psi-minute/barrel
Injection pressure = surface pressure gauge reading
at injection rate, psi
Injection rate = fluid injection rate and at
injection pressure, bbl/min
Determination of injectivity factor is preferentially
determined by step-rate injection tests with clean, solids-free
fluids. Multiple injectivity factors can be calculated from
multirate tests. The average from all rate and pressure may be
taken if a clear pressure break does not occur during any
single rate test. However, if a clear pressure break is observed
during one rate test, this single data point is used in the
squeeze design process. Reactive fluids, such as acid, may be
used to increase injectivity into an interval. An injection test
with a solids-free fluid after the reactive fluid stage is
recommended.
Injectivity factor was identified as a critical variable for
determining whether normal grinds of API cement could be
used or if microfine cements were required to penetrate the
interval. Normal grinds of API cements such as Class A,
Class C, Class G, or Class H could be used to penetrate the
interval if the injectivity factor was less than or equal to 2000.
Microfine cements were more successful when the injectivity
factor was greater than about 2000.
The injectivity factor value of 2000 as dividing point
between the two cement types was determined from the small
amount of data in this study. Some normal-grind API cements
had been used successfully for squeeze-cementing operations
with injectivity factor as high as 3300 in this data set. The
small amount of microfine particles in API cements may be
sufficient for success under some squeeze conditions.
Application of these correlations over the past ten years has
confirmed (1) that microfine cements are generally not
required for injectivity factors below 2000, and (2) that
normal-grind API cements are not as reliable for first-attempt
squeeze success for injectivity factors above about 2500.
The recommended volume of cement to inject into the
interval for a successful squeeze was determined from the
average injectivity factor, the average interval length, and the
average cement volume injected into intervals in successful
first-squeeze operations.
Successful first-squeeze cementing operations with
injectivity factors less than or equal to 2000 in this data set
where normal-grind cements were recommended had an
average interval length of 22 feet, an average injectivity factor
of 1120, and an average of 20 barrels of cement injected. For
normal-grind cements where the injectivity factor is less than
or equal to 2000, the minimum recommended cement volume
(MRCV) for a squeeze operation may be estimated by the
following relationship:
SPE 106765 3

MRCV =
(20 ∗1120) × Interval Length
(Eq 2)
squeezing. Contamination of the cement may occur. Higher
22 Injectivity Factor volumes of cement may be required to ensure the required
volume of uncontaminated cement is injected. These limits
should be considered when determining the total cement
This can be simplified to the following: volume used for the squeeze operation.

Interval Length Total Cement Volume.

MRCV = 1018 × (Eq 3)
Injectivity Factor
where MRCV = minimum recommended cement
volume for the squeeze, bbl
Interval Length = interval length of squeeze
interval in candidate well, feet
Injectivity Factor = injectivity factor for candidate
well as calculated from Eq 1,
psi-min/bbl
Practical limits may be required for the minimum cement
volume injected into the formation under some conditions. In
cases where injectivity factor is less than 300 and interval
lengths are long, very large cement volumes may be
recommended. For this condition, an equally high success rate
was obtained by preceeding the cement with a reactive sodium
silicate flush and limiting the cement volume injected into the
interval to 100 bbl.
Successful first-squeeze cementing operations with
injectivity factors greater than 2000 in this data set where
microfine cements were recommended had an average interval
length of 24 feet, an average injectivity factor of 4900, and an
average of 6 barrels of cement injected. For microfine
cements where the injectivity factor is greater than 2000, the
minimum recommended cement volume for a squeeze
operation may be estimated by the following relationship:
MRCV =
(6 ∗ 4900) × Interval Length
(Eq 4)
24 Injectivity Factor
This can be simplified to the following:
Interval Length
MRCV = 1225 × (Eq 5)
Injectivity Factor
where MRCV = minimum recommended cement
volume for the squeeze, bbl
Interval Length = interval length of squeeze
interval in candidate well, feet
Injectivity Factor = injectivity factor for candidate
well as calculated from Eq 1,
psi-min/bbl
Practical limits may be required for the minimum cement
volume injected into the formation. Under some conditions,
very small volumes of microfine cement may be
recommended. These volumes may be so small that they
cannot be accurately spotted across the interval prior to
Total cement volume for the squeeze operation is the sum
of the cement volume injected into the interval, the volume of
cement that will be left in the tubulars above, below and
across the squeeze interval, and any cement that will be placed
on top of tools such as retainers (if used). An excess factor
may be used to ensure the total amount of uncontaminated
cement slurry is available for injection into the squeeze
interval.
Operational limitations must also be considered in
selection of total cement volume. Tubular sizes and depth
influence the minimum volume of cement that can be spotted
accurately. This should be considered when spotting cement
prior to the start of the squeeze process. Contamination of the
cement should also be considered. Excess cement volume
should be used to compensate for the expected volume of
contaminated cement. Contamination volume should be
considered when the cement is not spotted across the interval
prior to the start of the squeeze process. Field experience has
shown that the contaminated cement volume can be as much
as three to five times the volume in the tubulars between the
end of the workstring (tubing or drill pipe) and the injection
point.
Squeeze Pressure.
Squeeze pressure is the increase achieved during injection
of the cement into the interval. In typical field practice, the
squeeze pressure is the maximum pressure increase observed
on the pressure gauge on the pumping unit on the surface.
This surface pressure reading may not be an accurate
indication of the pressure increase at the point where cement is
being injected. Often, high squeeze pressures, pressures
greater than about 1000 psi, have been taken as an indication
of a successful squeeze.
Squeeze pressures in this data set were a measurement of
pressure increase at the injection point (or mid-point of the
interval). This corrects for hydrostatic pressure changes from
changing cement column length as the cement is injected.
Squeeze pressure at the injection point can be measured with
reasonable accuracy by reducing the pump rate for a short
period. Friction pressures are low and may be negligible at
very low pump rates (less than about 0.25 bbl/minute in
normal-size tubings). Reducing or eliminating the friction
pressure and correcting for the hydrostatic pressure changes
during cement displacement can provide a reasonable estimate
of the pressure increase at the injection point during the job.
The injection pressure at the injection point can provide a
better indication of the progress of the squeeze.
Data from this study showed that a pressure increase of at
least 350 psi over the initial injection pressure at the injection
point was sufficient to provide a successful squeeze.
Application of this finding in other areas over the past ten
years has confirmed the minimum pressure increase at the
injection point is between 300 and 400 psi for a high
4 SPE 106765
probability of success on the first squeeze. Current practice is
to achieve a minimum pressure increase of 500 to 700 psi at
the injection point (or mid-point of the interval), if possible.
Placement Technique.
Placement technique had a significant impact on first-
attempt success rate for long intervals. The first-attempt
success rate was 71 percent for intervals over 30 feet in length
when cement was spotted before the start of a squeeze
operation. This success rate was based upon squeeze
operations in 5.5- and 7-inch diameter casings. However, the
success rate has proven to be about the same for casing sizes
up to 14¾-inch for the same interval lengths from application
in other areas. Wherever possible, spotting cement prior to
squeezing is preferred, regardless of interval length.
Fluid Loss.
The proper fluid-loss control for squeeze cementing has
been a topic of discussion for many years. A laboratory study
was conducted as a part of this study to help correlate API
fluid-loss values to squeeze operations.
The first part of the study was to calibrate the API 325-
mesh screen filter media to an equivalent formation
permeability. This was done by measuring filtration rate data
from the 325-mesh screen and comparing it to filtration rate
data from core disks of different permeabilities. Figure 1
shows that filtration rates for the API 325-mesh screen
compare closely to the permeability of a 2000 mD formation.
The second part of the study was to illustrate the time
required for the cement slurry to lose water for different
combinations of formation permeability, differential pressure
and API fluid loss. Figure 2 is an example of one combination
of differential pressure and API fluid loss for several
formation permeabilities. These data show that very low
fluid-loss cements may require hours of squeeze operations to
lose sufficient water to build sufficient volume of filtercake.
These results supported using higher fluid loss in low-
permeability formations in order to build squeeze pressure
more quickly.
The data in Figure 2 were used to develop fluid-loss
control guidelines based upon formation permeability. These
recommendations are provided in Table 2. This is particularly
useful for squeezing perforated intervals where the
permeability of formations may be known. Sufficient
experience was gained from field studies to develop fluid-loss
recommendations based upon injectivity factors shown in
Table 3. These data are useful for squeezing channels or
fractures where an effective permeability for the leak path is
better for determining cement fluid-loss values. All of these
values are presented as practical guides but have been good
starting points when no other reference information is
available.
Pumping Technique.
Hesitation and continuous pumping (‘running’ or
‘walking’ squeeze) are the two basic pumping techniques used
for most squeeze operations. Squeeze operations are often
designed to use either one technique or the other. Cement
properties, particularly fluid loss, are tailored for the pumping
technique.
Results from all the field studies showed that combining
these techniques generally improved the first-squeeze success
rate. When combining these two pumping techniques,
approximately 25 to 50 percent of the total injected cement
volume is pumped using a continuous pumping method. One
third of the total injected cement volume is an average value.
If the pressure at the injection point has not increased by at
least 100 psi after approximately one third of the cement has
been injected, pumping is stopped and the remainder of the
squeeze operation is completed using a hesitation technique.
Combining these two techniques has been particularly
successful for squeezing long intervals where cement cannot
be spotted across the entire interval before starting injection of
the cement.
Hesitation (static, non-pumping) time varies. The purpose
of hesitations is to allow the cement to develop gel strength
and build filtercake through loss of water from the slurry.
Typically, the first hesitation is a minimum of 10 minutes.
Fifteen minutes is recommended for the first hesitation. Gel
strength development data and data from tests illustrated in
Figure 2 are used to estimate and justify hesitation times.
Prejob cement slurry testing should include 10-second, 10-
minute, 15-minute, 20-minute, and 30-minute gel strengths.
Except for thixotropic slurries, a significant increase in gel
strength often requires at least 15 to 20 minutes of static (non-
pumping) time.
After each hesitation, pumping of the next stage of cement
is performed at the lowest possible pump rate. This is done to
prevent breaking down the gel strength of the slurry or
filtercake formed during the hesitation period.
Waiting-on-Cement Times.
Waiting-on-cement times are often highly influenced by
rig costs and operational schedules. Many variables affect
cement setting and compressive strength development.
Waiting-on-cement times prior to testing the squeeze are
difficult to generalize. If a sufficient number of squeeze
operations are routinely conducted in a field or area, waiting-
on-cement time recommendations may be developed from
field success data.
Where sufficient field data do not exist, laboratory tests
may be used to develop the recommended waiting-on-cement
time. Setting time, compressive strength development rate,
and ultimate compressive strength and material properties are
often significantly different for the cement slurry and the
filtercake formed during squeezing. It is difficult to accurately
test filtercake set time and compressive strength. Simple tests
illustrated in Figure 3 can provide sufficient information that
has been used to develop recommended waiting-on-cement
time.
Figure 3 compares the compressive strength development
for a 12.5 lb/gal slurry and the filtercake created. In this
example, the filtercake was created from a fluid-loss test
where all of the unbound water was filtered from the slurry.
This filtercake was removed from the fluid-loss cell and
placed in a device that measures set time and compressive
strength development using an ultrasonic velocity technique
(ultrasonic cement analyzer).
Preparing sufficient volume of filtercake to perform
compressive strength tests can be very difficult when the
SPE 106765
cement fluid loss is very low (less than 50 mL/30 minutes).
For low-fluid-loss cements, the filtercake may be simulated by
mixing the cement with less mix water than is required to
produce the slurry. Reducing the mix water by 30 to
60 percent can produce a paste to simulate the filtercake.
Temperature is the single most important variable affecting
cement hydration. Setting time and compressive strength
development tests should be performed with accurate
temperature information. It is particularly important to
understand the temperature versus time profile in the interval
after the squeeze. Computer programs have been successfully
used to estimate temperatures before, during, and after
squeeze-cementing operations. However, accurate data and
careful modeling of the operations are necessary for accurate
results from temperature simulators. Wherever possible,
actual measurement of downhole temperature is
recommended.
Key Issues for Success
Every squeeze-cementing operation has one or more critical
variables that have significant or controlling impact on
success. Some of these variables include the following:
• Contamination of the cement slurry during placement and
injection;
• All perforations or leak paths open to accept cement
slurry during injection;
• Open sizes large enough to accept the cement slurry or
other sealant.
These critical variables must be identified and addressed in
well preparation and squeeze design and execution to ensure a
high probability of success. Failure to address the critical
variables significantly reduced the probability of success even
though great attention was given to other aspects of the job.
Summary
Correlations and practices have been developed from field
studies to improve the probability of success on the first
squeeze operation. These correlations and practices improved
squeeze-cementing success in every field in which they were
applied. These include the following:
1. Identify critical variables affecting success for the
squeeze operation and address these variables in the
design of the job. Failure to identify and address the
critical variables significantly reduces the probability of
success.
2. Perform a prejob injection test, preferably with solids-free
fluids to determine an injectivity factor for the squeeze
interval.
3. Select the basic type of cement to use for the squeeze
based upon the injectivity factor. Either normal API
cement or microfine cements will be recommended based
upon the injectivity factor.
4. Determine the minimum recommended volume of cement
for injection into the squeeze interval. This may be
calculated from equations developed from successful
first-attempt squeeze operations and used as a guide.
5. Determine the total cement volume for the job. Total
cement volume includes the volume of cement injected
5
into the formation plus the volume remaining in tubulars
and the wellbore at the end of the pumping operation.
6. Monitor pressure increase at the injection point (or mid-
point of the injection interval) as the squeeze pressure for
the operation.
7. High squeeze pressures are not required for success. A
pressure increase of 350 to 700 psi measured at the
injection point can be sufficient for success. These
pressures indicate development of plugging and filtercake
development before the cement has set and developed
compressive strength.
8. Spot cement across the squeeze interval prior to the start
of cement injection whenever possible. Spotting cement
significantly improved success for interval lengths greater
than about 30 feet.
9. Tailor fluid loss of the cement to formation permeability
or injectivity factor data.
10. Combine the hesitation technique with continuous
pumping technique when squeeze pressure is not
increasing. Consider injecting part of the cement (25 to
50 percent of the volume to be injected) with a low-rate
(<2 bbl/minute) continuous pumping technique before
starting hesitations.
11. Determine the waiting-on-cement time before clean-out
and testing from successful field data, if available. Use
laboratory tests to determine waiting-on-cement times if
field data or experience is not available.
While these practices have significantly improved success
in a wide range of applications and geographical areas,
squeeze cementing continues to defy standardization. The
success of most squeeze-cementing operations is directly
related to the skill and experience of those designing and
executing the operation.
These practices are presented as a reference point for
engineering and operations staff for design and execution of
squeeze-cementing operations. For those skilled in squeeze
cementing, this information may be confirmed by others’
experience and knowledge to improve success and increase
understanding of squeeze cementing.
6 Field Study Results Improve Squeeze-Cementing Success SPE 106765

Table 1: Overview of Data for Squeeze Operations from West Texas Database − All Data
Data Item Average Value
Well Depth, feet 5135
Squeeze Interval Depth (mid-point), feet 1618
Squeeze Interval Length, feet 82
Injectivity Factor, psi-minute/barrel 1587
Squeeze Pressure (at mid-point of squeeze interval), psi 590
Cement Density, lb/gal 14.2
Volume of Cement Injected into Squeeze Interval, barrels 15
Squeeze Test Pressure (after waiting-on-cement time), psi 680

Total Number of Squeeze Operations in Database 137

Number of Squeeze Operations Successful on First Squeeze 47
Number of Squeeze Operations Successful on First Squeeze Using Normal-Grind (API) Cements 35
Number of Squeeze Operations Successful on First Squeeze Using Microfine Cements 12
Number of Intervals with Length Less Than or Equal to 30 feet 34
Number of Intervals Greater Than 30 feet Length 37

Type of Fluid in Well During Squeeze Water/Brine

Average Water/Brine Density, lb/gallon 9
Formation Type Carbonate/Shale

Table 2: Recommended Cement Fluid Loss Values

Based Upon Formation Permeability and Pumping Technique
Formation Permeability (1) Recommended API Cement Fluid Loss
Pumping Technique
(millidarcy, mD) (mL/30 minutes)
Hesitation 100 to 150
Continuous 175 to 250
> 500
Combined 150 to 200
Hesitation 125 to 175
Continuous 200 to 250
250 to 500
Combined 175 to 225
Hesitation 150 to 200
Continuous 225 to 275
100 to 250
Combined 200 to 250
Hesitation 175 to 225
Continuous 250 to 400
< 100
Combined 250 to 350
(1) Pumping technique definitions:
Hesitation: Periods of pumping divided by periods of non-pumping.
Continuous: Continuous, non-stop injection of cement into the interval.
Combined: Approximately 1/3 of the total cement injected is pumped into the formation by the continuous
injection technique. After approximately 1/3 of the cement has been injected, pumping is
stopped and the remainder of the cement is injected using the hesitation technique.

Table 3: Recommended Cement Fluid Loss Values

Based Upon Injectivity Factor and Pumping Technique
Injectivity Factor (1) Recommended API Cement Fluid Loss
Pumping Technique
(psi-minute/barrel) (mL/30 minutes)
Hesitation 25 to 75
Continuous 50 to 100
> 2000
Combined 75 to 100
Hesitation 125 to 150
Continuous 150 to 200
1500 to 2000
Combined 150 to 175
Hesitation 150 to 200
Continuous 175 to 250
1000 to 1500
Combined 175 to 225
Hesitation 175 to 225
Continuous 200 to 300
500 to 1000
Combined 225 to 250
Hesitation 225 to 300
Continuous 300 to 400
< 500
Combined 275 to 350
(1) Pumping technique definitions:
Hesitation: Periods of pumping divided by periods of non-pumping.
Continuous: Continuous, non-stop injection of cement into the interval.
Combined: Approximately 1/3 of the total cement injected is pumped into the formation by the continuous
injection technique. After approximately 1/3 of the cement has been injected, pumping is
stopped and the remainder of the cement is injected using the hesitation technique.
SPE 106765 7

Figure 1: Comparison of filtration rates for API 325-mesh fluid-loss screen and 2000 mD core disk. Cement density:
16.2 lb/gal. API fluid loss of cement slurry: 65 mL/30 minutes. Test Temperature: 150°F, 1000 psi differential pressure during
test.

Figure 2: Effect of formation permeability on time required to build filtercake. Cement Density: 16.2 lb/gal. API fluid loss of
cement slurry: 134 mL/30 minutes. Test temperature: 150°F, 1000 psi differential pressure during test.
8 SPE 106765

Figure 3: Effect of fluid lost from slurry during squeeze-cementing operations on compressive strength. Cement density:
16.2 lb/gal. Test temperature: 150°F, 3000 psi confining pressure during test.