SPE/IADC 57585
Custom-Blending Foamed Cement for Multiple Challenges
Kazufusa Kimura, SPE, Arabian Oil Co., Ltd., Koji Takase, SPE, Japan National Oil Corporation, James. E Griffith, SPE,
Ronald A. Gibson, SPE, Dean S. Porter, SPE, and Thomas E. Becker, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference held in Abu Dhabi, Nov. 8-10.
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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In some Middle Eastern wells, the serious problem of shallow
casing leaks results from an insufficient cement seal across a
corrosive water formation containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Factors contributing to this poor seal include multiple weak
adjacent zones and thin lenticular washouts, which complicate
conventional cementing practices by preventing slurries from
sealing off water-bearing formations and protecting the well
casings. Historically, multistage cementing has only marginally
improved zonal isolation in this region. High-quality foamed
slurries [slurries with high volumetric concentrations of nitrogen
(N2)] can enable coverage of the weak zone, but these slurries are
too permeable to provide long-term casing protection.
A joint study conducted to address casing-leak problems in
a Middle Eastern field has yielded custom cement blends that
mitigate the combined detrimental effects of (1) water contain-
ing H2S, (2) mud or whole-cement losses to lost-circulation
zones (zones with very low fracture gradients), and (3) mud-
displacement deficiencies primarily caused by multiple washed
out sections. Successful slurries that appear (based on laboratory
results) to combat these problems are foamed with nitrogen and
feature a combination of Portland and pozzolan cements plus
hollow pozzolan spheres. This paper discusses large-scale tests
and the blends designed for these tests. Researchers conducted
these tests in an attempt to prove the effectiveness of certain
cement blends and to help optimize those blends. The tests show
that foamed, lightweight (8 to 10 lbm/gal) slurries containing
hollow pozzolan spheres with pozzolan cement can enhance the
sealing of harsh-water zones. This enhancement is achieved by
the combined effects of two events: (1) improving displacement
References at the end of the paper.
of drilling mud and cuttings by optimizing foam quality, and (2)
cementing past lost-circulation zones. Details of blends, test
setups, and test results are discussed.
Introduction
This study was prompted by a high incidence of casing failures
in a particular geologic play in the Arabian Gulf Coast. A
dolomite-shale sequence at a depth of 2,500 to 4,000 ft con-
tained a combination of washout-prone shales, a very low frac-
ture gradient, and permeable dolomite in which the formation
water contained significant concentrations of H2S. Most wells in
this area were drilled through one or more such dolomite forma-
tions. Properly completing wells when washouts and low frac-
ture gradients exist concurrently is particularly difficult because
both conditions are detrimental to effective drilling and comple-
tion objectives. In this case, these two conditions acted synergis-
tically, allowing the third factor (H2S corrosion) to drastically
shorten the productive life of several wells.
Proper protection of these casing strings includes combining
mechanical and chemical aspects of a well-designed cementing
program that will (1) promote good zonal isolation and cement-
to-pipe bonding and (2) result in a cement sheath that will
indefinitely maintain low permeability. This paper discusses the
rationale behind the study, testing, and final recommendations
for addressing these multiple completion problems.
Multiple Problems
Weak formations required the use of low-density wellbore fluids
(usually less than 10 lbm/gal bottomhole hydrostatic equivalent)
that prevented formation breakdown during both drilling and
cementing operations. Historically, the customer tried multiple-
stage cementing with water-extended Portland cement slurries.
More recently, foamed cement was used to meet the low net-fluid
density requirement. However, neither solution proved entirely
satisfactory.
In addition to the hydrostatic limitations, cement placement
was complicated by multiple borehole enlargements or “wash-
outs” Washouts occur when formation fragments break off in an
uncased borehole. Washouts are commonly the result of inad-
equate wellbore stabilization during drilling or completion and
are particularly prevalent in zones with low fracture gradients,
2 CUSTOM-BLENDING FOAMED CEMENT FOR MULTIPLE CHALLENGES
because fluid densities cannot be maintained at levels high
enough for stabilizing the formation. Washouts can also occur
when the formation and drilling fluid are not chemically compat-
ible. Adverse chemical interactions causing washouts did not
appear to be a problem in the regions discussed here. A primary
requisite for good zonal isolation is effective mud removal,1-3
which provides a relatively clean pipe and formation surface to
which cement slurry can bond. Washouts reduce annular-fluid
velocity during circulation (during drilling or cementing), de-
creasing the circulating fluid’s overall cleaning ability, dimin-
ishing the transport capacity of drilled cuttings, and allowing the
formation of static-mud/cutting pockets in the borehole.
Formation sulfates reacting with lime and tricalcium alumi-
nate in Portland cement form large calcium aluminosulfate crys-
tals that can cause excessive expansion and cracking of hydrated
cement. If zonal isolation and cement-to-pipe bonding is good but
the cement itself degrades with time from H2S attack, the casings
are eventually exposed to the corrosive effects of the H2S.
Based on these problems, a cementing material or materials
package should increase sulfate resistance, lower permeability,
and decrease slurry density while simultaneously improving
flow characteristics so that more detritus can be moved from the
washout sections. Results from this study show that such a
combination is available.
Alternative Cement Slurries
While pozzolan cements are not commonly used in this particu-
lar Middle Eastern field, combining pozzolanic materials ap-
peared to be a good way to address the density, permeability and
H2S stability problems. Hydrated Portland cements contain four
major crystalline phases that contribute to strength and durabil-
ity. (Although, as previously mentioned, one of these compo-
nents, C3A, is H2S-sensitive.)4 In addition to these components,
hydrated Portland cements contain up to 15% free lime (CaO).
Pozzolans basically consist of any silaceous material that
reacts with free lime and water to develop cementitious qualities.
For decades, pozzolan (in the form of Type F flyash) has been
used in the oil industry as a Portland cement extender, primarily
because of its general compatibility and relatively low cost.
Portland/pozzolan blends also have the inherent advantages of
lowering slurry densities. (Pozzolan has a specific gravity of
approximately 2.5 vs. 3.16 for Portland cements.) Because
pozzolan reacts with the free lime generated by cement hydra-
tion, it is not subject to attack by H2S. Typically, Portland/
pozzolan cement mixes incorporate 2 to 6% bentonite gel, which
allows the addition of large amounts of water. This characteristic
often indicates that such mixes can only be used as low-cost (and
by implication, low-quality) “filler” cements. However, when
mixed at “low water ratio” (hence higher densities) these slurries
generally contribute to strength and decrease permeability, usu-
ally resulting in a more durable cement mass than Portland
cement alone.
SPE 57585
Lightweight, hollow pozzolan spheres made from Type-F
flyash are commonly used in oilfield operations. Type F flyash
is a byproduct of coal combustion and is literally the dust that
goes up a coal-furnace chimney. As the dust cools in an essen-
tially weightless condition, some of the material coalesces and
forms hollow spheres containing a trapped bubble of air. This
particular form of flyash typically has in-situ (depending on the
pressure and degree of crushing during placement) specific
gravities in the range of 0.7 to 1.0. When mixed in a cement
slurry, hollow spheres can be used to attain a pumpable, settable
slurry in the 9.0-lbm/gal (1.08 specific gravity) range. Unlike
foamed slurry, the trapped gas bubble is of finite size until the
encapsulating shell is mechanically or hydraulically crushed;
consequently, such slurries do not exhibit some of the unique
placement abilities of foamed cement.
A 16-lbm/gal (1.9-specific gravity) cement slurry can be
foamed with surfactants and nitrogen to 8.0 lbm/gal (1.04 spe-
cific gravity). However, this process can decrease foam stability,
creating placement problems and resulting in a low-strength,
high-permeability hydrated slurry. Normally, a foam containing
approximately 35% nitrogen (by volume) is considered the
practical maximum quality above which set permeability begins
to increase dramatically. When the nitrogen foaming technique
is combined with a slurry having a low water content, but high-
solids content and low density, we are able to reach in-place
slurry densities of 8.0 to 10.0 lbm/gal while maintaining a
reasonably strong, low-permeability slurry that is chemically
stable in an H2S environment.
Bench-scale tests of candidate slurries allowed researchers
to determine the physical slurry properties required for job
success (density, thickening time, rheology, compressive strength,
and permeability). Flow tests performed in large-scale flow
models, each of which contained a simulated washout section,
were used to measure drilling-mud displacement.
Alternative Slurry Development
After field data were evaluated, the following two alternative
cement slurries were selected for bench-scale and large-scale
modeling.
• The first candidate slurry was a 50/50 mix (by volume) of
Class G cement and pozzolan combined with 20-lbm/sk
hollow pozzolan spheres (the chemical composition of
these spheres is identical to pozzolan) and calcium chloride
(CaCl2), which accelerated the slurry hydration process.
This is commonly available according to ASTM standards
as “Pozzolan Type F.”
• The second candidate slurry was a 50/50 mix of Class G
cement and pozzolan combined with 40-lb/sk hollow poz-
zolan spheres and a CaCl2 accelerator.
These slurries were bench-scale tested against a foamed,
base-case, neat, Class G slurry mixed with a sufficient volume of
local seawater. Slurry compositions and attendant rheological
properties are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (Pages 4 and 5).
SPE 57585 K. KIMURA, K. TAKASE, J. GRIFFITH, R. GIBSON, D. PORTER, T. BECKER
Properties pertaining to cement curing and strength development
are shown in Table 3 (Page 5).
Large-Scale Flow Models with Washout Sections
Drilling-Fluid Displacement Tests. The pipe-in-pipe flow
models used for these tests were approximately one-third the size
of a wellbore segment with an enlarged section. The scaling
parameter used was cylindrical diameter. One model was built
for each of the four flow tests performed, and the models’
physical dimensions allowed representation of the washout
section and the base case or “gauge” portion of the borehole.
This geometry allowed researchers to compare displacement
efficiency between slurry designs through a flow path with
varying flow-channel diameters. The models were constructed
of the following pipe segments:
• The inner pipe had a 5.5-in. nominal OD and a 5-in. ID.
• The outer pipe that simulated the “gauge” section of the
borehole had a 7-in. nominal OD and a 6.5-in. ID.
• The outer pipe that simulated the washout section had a
9-in. thinwall OD and an 8.5-in. ID.
The bottom end (the fluid-inlet end) of each model, which was
one of the gauge sections, was 5 ft long. The simulated washout
section was also 5 ft long, and the top section was 8 ft long. The
total length of the flow model was 18 ft (Fig. 1, Page 6).
The models’ designs allowed simulation of segments having
13 3/8-in. casing in a borehole with an 18-in. gauge diameter that
was washed out to 26 in. by fluids pumped at 10 bbl/min. The
simulation parameter was average annular fluid velocity. This
parameter was chosen based on previous successful large-scale
simulations of field cementing jobs. Table 4 (Page 6) lists the
fluid-flow velocities in the large-scale models.
Cement-Slurry Formulations
The following slurries were tested in large-scale models with
simulated washout sections:
• Slurry 1—Class H + bentonite (13 lbm/gal, unfoamed).
This slurry included 2% prehydrated gel by weight of water
(bwow) + 2% CaCl2.
• Slurry 2—Class H + bentonite blend (15 lbm/gal foamed to
8.5 lb/gal with a 44-quality foam). This slurry included 2%
gel (blended, not prehydrated) by weight of cement (bwoc)
and 2.25% surfactants by volume of water (bvow). The
surfactants helped stabilize the foam.
• Slurry 3—50/50 Class G/Pozzolan + hollow pozzolan
spheres (12.6 lbm/gal foamed to 8.0 lb/gal with a 35-quality
foam), 4% CaCl2, and 5.98-gal/sk seawater
• Slurry 4—This slurry contained the same components as
Slurry No. 3, but Slurry No. 4 was foamed to a density of
10 lbm/gal with a 20-quality foam.
Table 5 (Page 6) lists the properties of the drilling mud used
for these tests. After the cement was pumped, it was cured for
3 days. Then it was logged and sliced into 1-ft wafers. These
wafers were visually inspected for drilling-mud displacement by
cement. Each model contained 13 wafers. Hydraulic end effects
3
were disregarded during the analysis, so researchers removed
2 1/2 ft from each end of the four 18-ft models.
Test Results
A different slurry was pumped into each of the four flow models.
Of these four slurries, none exhibited perfect or near-perfect mud
displacement. These results were not completely unexpected.1
When designing the slurries, researchers wanted to help ensure
variations in test results. In addition, the drilling mud that was
displaced represented an actual field mud. Lowering the drilled-
solids content of the drilling mud, conditioning the hole, and
reducing the long-term gel strength of the cement would have
resulted in more efficient mud displacement.2 In addition, spac-
ers (which improve mud displacement) were not used during
these tests.
Observations
The cementing-job qualities exhibited in the four flow models
are described in the following paragraphs.
Model 1. Slurry 1 was used in Model 1. Overall displacement
efficiency was fair to poor, and the set cement had several flow
channels (Figs. 2 through 5, Page 7). As shown in Figs. 2 through
17 (Pages 7 through 10), Section 1 is the farthest upstream of the
washout section, and Section 13 is the farthest downstream of the
washout section. Large amounts of gelled mud remained in
place. In some locations, perhaps 20% of those visible, the
cement was obviously contaminated with drilling mud. Esti-
mated overall displacement efficiency was 70%. (90% displace-
ment efficiency generally provides adequate zonal isolation, and
95% generally provides excellent zonal isolation.)
Model 2. Slurry 2 was used in Model 2. This slurry exhibited the
worst overall displacement efficiency (Figs. 6 through 9, Page
8). Flow channels often occupied half the annular cross section.
Approximately half the cement remaining was contaminated,
and estimated displacement efficiency was 60%.
Model 3. Slurry 3 was used in Model 3. This slurry exhibited
greater displacement than the slurries used in Models 1 and 2;
overall displacement efficiency was estimated at 80% (Figs. 10
through 13, Page 9). In addition, less mud/cement contamination
occurred in Model 3, particularly downstream of the washout.
However, a large mud channel formed, revealing the need for
procedures and practices that emphasize good mud displace-
ment.1,2 This occurrence was also partially the result of poor pipe
centralization (caused by a malfunctioning centralizing tool)
during the flow test; if the pipe had been centralized properly (as
with the previous two models), displacement efficiency prob-
ably would have been significantly higher.1
Model 4. Slurry 4 was used in Model 4. Displacement efficiency
was similar to that exhibited by the slurry used in Model 3 (Figs.
14 through 17, Page 10). A few flow channels formed, again
4 CUSTOM-BLENDING FOAMED CEMENT FOR MULTIPLE CHALLENGES SPE 57585

reaffirming the importance of following best cementing prac-
tices (mud conditioning, pipe movement when possible, the use
of spacers and flushes, etc.). As with Model 3, Model 4 exhibited
less contamination of cement by drilling mud than did Models 1
and 2.
Project Summary
The following statements summarize the essential events of this
project:
1. Slurries containing an appropriate mix of cement, pozzolan,
and hollow pozzolan spheres foamed to a quality of 20 to
35% can reduce the problems associated with H2S attack,
lost circulation, and mud displacement in zones with low
fracture gradients.
2. The permeability of the alternative slurries tested was less
than 0.001 md (approximately 1/1000 the permeability of the
conventional cements currently used in Middle Eastern
wells).
3. Slurries currently pumped into many such wells consist
primarily of neat Class G or H cement with a base density of
15.8 lbm/gal and a foamed density of 9 lbm/gal. These
slurries produce cement sheaths with significant permeabil-
ity.
4. During flow tests in the large-scale models, the alternative
slurries exhibited greater annular displacement than con-
ventional slurries.
Conclusions
1. Foamed slurries containing pozzolan provide low slurry
density, resistance to H2S attack, low permeability, and
increased displacement efficiency, all of which help opera-
tors face the combined challenges of low fracture gradients,
the presence of H2S in formation fluids, and the occurrence
of washouts.
2. Testing in large-scale models with simulated washout sec-
tions indicates that, when combined with good cementing
practices, the slurries developed during this study can help
operators perform successful cementing jobs. In addition,
lightweight slurries formulated from blends of 50/50 poz-
zolan and hollow pozzolan spheres can possess the physical
properties required for high-performance cementing jobs.
3. This study supports earlier findings that foamed slurries
displace drilling mud better than nonfoamed slurries. How-
ever, using foamed cement does not eliminate the need for
proper mud conditioning, and it does not reduce the impor-
tance of following best cementing practices. In addition,
these tests indicate the existence of an optimal range of foam
quality (a maximum and a minimum) outside of which
foamed slurries are seriously limited in their ability to
improve displacement effectiveness and zonal isolation.
4. Further research would be beneficial for the field conditions
discussed in this paper. Specifically, establishing optimal
spacers and flushes that help displace highly gelled mud
from borehole-enlargement sections would significantly
improve field operations.
References
1. Haut, R. C., and Crook, R. J.: “Primary Cementing: The
Mud Displacement Process,” paper SPE 8253 presented at
the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
2. Beirute, R. M., Sabins, F. L., and Ravi, K.M.: “Large-Scale
Experiments Show Proper Hole Conditioning: A Critical
Requirement of Successful Cementing Operations,”
SPE 22774 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9.
3. Beirute, R. M., Ravi, K. M., and Covington, R. L.: “Improve
Primary Cementing By Continuous Monitoring of Circulat-
able Hole,” paper SPE 26574 presented at the 1993 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX, Oct. 3-6.
4. Smith, D. K.: Cementing, SPE Monograph series, Vol. 4,
revised edition, Richardson, TX, (1990) 7-9.

Table 1—Slurry Components

Slurry No. Class G Type F Hollow CaCl2 Foaming Mix Water
Cement Pozzolan Pozzolan (bwoc)a Surfactants (seawater,
(lb/sk) (lb/sk) Spheres (bwow)b gal/sk)
(lb/sk)
1 47 37 0 2% 2.25% 5.24
2 47 37 20 2% 2.25% 5.99
3 47 37 40 2% 2.25% 6.28
a
by weight of cement
b
by weight of water
SPE 57585 K. KIMURA, K. TAKASE, J. GRIFFITH, R. GIBSON, D. PORTER, T. BECKER 5

Table 2—Slurry Rheology

300 200 100 60 30 6 3 600
Slurry No.
rev/min rev/min rev/min rev/min rev/min rev/min rev/min rev/min
1 77 67 52 45 39 22 16 110
2 117 89 58 44 33 17 13 192
3 235 176 110 87 51 35 31 > 300

Table 3—Cement-Curing and Strength-Development Properties

Slurry Density Foam Thickening Compressive Permeability of Permeability of

No. (lb/gal) Quality (%) Time (hr:min) Strength (psi)b Core No. 1 (md) Core No. 2 (md)

1 15.71 0 3:40 4,360 — —

a c
1 12.00 23.2 — 2,260 < 0.001 < 0.001
1 10.00 36.0 —a 1,374 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
1 8.00 48.8 — 694 3.13 6.38
2 12.50 0 5:09 3,100 — —
a
2 10.00 20.0 — 1,644 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
2 9.00 28.1 — 1,343 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
2 8.00 36.1 — 875 < 0.001 < 0.001
3 11.47 0 3:08 2,260 — —
a
3 10.00 12.7 — 2,030 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
3 9.00 21.4 — 1,503 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
3 8.00 30.1 — 1,127 < 0.001 < 0.001
a
Laboratory experience shows that the presence of N2 foam in foamed cement does not significantly
affect cement thickening times relative to those of the base slurry. However, foaming agents tend to
mildly retard curing of the cement slurry.
b
Cured at 100°F for 14 days
c
Permeabilities less than 1 microdarcy do not allow measurement of sufficient flow rates through the
core sample with the apparatus used for these tests. Differential pressure across the cores for these
tests was 1,000 psi. For all other tests, pressure was less than 1,000 psi.
6 CUSTOM-BLENDING FOAMED CEMENT FOR MULTIPLE CHALLENGES SPE 57585

Table 4—Drilling-Mud Properties

Bentonite Polymer System: 10 lb/bbl bentonite + bentonite-
extender polymer with 5 lb/bbl Rev Dust (calcium montmorillonite)

Gel
Mud Total Solids Yield Plastic
Strengths
Weight Concentration Point Viscosity
10 sec 10 min 30 min
2 2 2
9.35 lb/gal 17% 18 lb/100 ft 14 cP 6 lb/100 ft 21 lb/100 ft 71 lb/100 ft2

Table 5—Flow Velocities

in Large-Scale Models
OD ID Flow Rate Annular
(in.) (in.) (bbl/min) Velocity (ft/s)
Field Dimensions
18 13.325 10 1.17
26 13.325 10 0.34
Laboratory Dimensions
6.5 5.5 0.8 1.14
8.5 5.5 0.8 0.33

Fig. 1—Large-scale model schematic.

SPE 57585 K. KIMURA, K. TAKASE, J. GRIFFITH, R. GIBSON, D. PORTER, T. BECKER 7

Fig. 2—Complete view of Model 1 with 13 sections (flow is toward the reader).

Fig. 3—Displacement efficiency Fig. 4—Displacement efficiency in the Fig. 5—Displacement efficiency down-
upstream of the washout section washout section (Model 1). stream of the washout section
(Model 1). (Model 1).
8 CUSTOM-BLENDING FOAMED CEMENT FOR MULTIPLE CHALLENGES SPE 57585

Fig. 6—Complete view of Model 2 with 13 sections (flow is toward the reader).

Fig. 7—Displacement efficiency Fig. 8—Displacement efficiency in the Fig. 9—Displacement efficiency down-
upstream of the washout section washout section (Model 2). stream of the washout section
(Model 2). (Model 2).
SPE 57585 K. KIMURA, K. TAKASE, J. GRIFFITH, R. GIBSON, D. PORTER, T. BECKER 9

Fig. 10—Complete view of Model 3 with 13 sections (flow is toward the reader).

Fig. 11—Displacement efficiency Fig. 12—Displacement efficiency in the Fig. 13—Displacement efficiency down-
upstream of the washout section. washout section (Model 3). stream of the washout section (Model
3).
10 CUSTOM-BLENDING FOAMED CEMENT FOR MULTIPLE CHALLENGES SPE 57585

Fig. 14—Complete view of Model 4 with 13 sections (flow is toward the reader).

Fig. 15—Displacement efficiency up- Fig. 16—Displacement efficiency in the Fig. 17—Displacement efficiency down-
stream of the washout section (Model washout section (Model 4). stream of the washout section
4). (Model 4).