Cement Quality Assurance in Factory-Style FactoryWells in the Haynesville Shale

Authors: Eric Perner, Petrohawk Energy Corporation; Anthony Febbraro, Eric Evans, Jeff Watters, CSI Technologies LLC Speaker: Eric Evans, CSI Technologies

Agenda
Project Team Haynesville Region/Wells Overview Problems/Issues QA/QC Program Solutions Conclusion

Project Team
Petrohawk Energy Corp.
Founded In 2003 Over 200 Wells Drilled In Haynesville To Date Recently Merged With BHP

CSI Technologies LLC

Founded In 1990 Independent Laboratory/Consulting Company Focus on Field Operations And R&D

Haynesville Region/Wells Overview

Haynesville Region/Wells Overview

Problems/Issues
Slurry Stability Gas Migration Placement And ECDs Measured TOC Variation

QA/QC Program
Analysis
Bulk Plant Loading Laboratory Testing Field Observation

Outcome
Operation Standardization Helped Identify Ongoing Issues
Solutions were proposed

Slurry Stability
Issues
HPHT Zones Horizontal Sections Hole Eccentricity Risk Of Major Operational Failure Completion (Fracturing Treatments)

Solutions
New Laboratory Tests
Modified Schedule

Cement Blend Standardization

Settling

Settling

Settling

Settling

Settling

Gas Migration
Issues
Overburden Pressure
Hydrostatic Dynamic

Cement Transition Period Hole/Pipe Geometry

Displacement Efficiency

Solutions
Accurate Temperature Estimations Slurry Design Modification

Temperature Simulation

Compressive Strength Development

50 psi 310F 275F 250F 225F 6:31 7:00 21:36 25:15 500 psi 7:58 8:20 24:30 35:04 12 hr 2208 1564 0 0 24 hr 3793 2604 0 0 36 hr 1825 560 48 hr 2050 1200

50 psi 310F 275F 250F 225F 9:36 10:50 39:25 48:10

500 psi 11:48 16:04 45:43 57:23

12 hr 570 110 0 0

24 hr 3370 1330 0 0

36 hr 3630 2570 0 0

48 hr 3700 3230 660 30

Placement And ECDs

Issues
High Pump Pressures Lost Circulation

Solutions
Crossover Location Rheology Improved Conditioning Techniques

Losses Due to ECDs

Losses During Displacement

Crossover Location
Surface Pressure vs. Casing Crossover Location
8000 7000

6000

Surface Pressure (psi)

5000 4000

XO as Run XO at 9,500 ft

3000 2000

1000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time (min)

Losses Due to ECDs

23

ECD's at Shoe vs Cement Rheology

Baseline: Pv=200, Yp=15; Pv2=150, Yp2=14 Half Rheology: Pv=100, Yp=8; Pv2=75, Yp2=7 Double Rheology: Pv=400, Yp=30; Pv2=300, Yp2=28

22

21

Losses During Displacement

ECD's (ppg EMW)

20

19

18

17 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time (min)

Rheology
Plastic Viscosity (cP) After QC Program 318 Yeild Point (lbf/100ft^2) After QC Program 58

Before 80F 358

Before 72

190F

324

227

55

33

190F CUP

351

138

62

19

Measured TOC Variation

Issues
Displacement Efficiency Cement Contamination Improper Mud Removal/Cleaning

Solutions
Drilling
Stricter Back-Reaming Pipe Rotation

Cementing
Cement/Spacer Design Standardization Pump Rate Control

Standardization of Cementing Operations

Intermediate System Density (lb/gal) Initial Bc 40 Bc 70 Bc Free Water (ml) Fluid Loss (ml/30 mins) Pv (Cp) Yp (lbf/100ft2) 10 sec gel 10 min gel Motor on/off Consistency (Bc) 12hr Compressive (psi) 24hr Compressive (psi) Lead 12.6 - 13 <40 Report 5:30 8:00 Trace @ 190F <300 @ 230F <300 @ 80F & 190F <50 @ 80F & 190F Report Report NA Report@230F 500 @ 230F Tail 14.6 - 15 <40 Report 4:15 5:30 Trace @ 190F <150 @ 230F <300 @ 80F & 190F <50 @ 80F & 190F Report Report NA 500 @ 275F 1250 @ 275F Production Cement 17 <40 Report 6:00 8:00 Zero @ 45 angle w/CUP <50 @ BHCT <300 @ 80F & 190F & CUP <50 @ 80F & 190F & CUP <2xCUP 3 rpm <3xCUP 3 rpm <10 2000 @ 330F 3000 @ 330F

Conclusion
Implemented QA/QC Program
Bulk Plant Observation Laboratory Testing/Confirmation On-Site Observation

Testing Procedures
New Settling Tests Compressive Strength Development

Standardized Cement Slurries

Base Compositions Performance Requirements

Reduction In Failure Costs

No Cementing Related Major Operational Failures To Date

Questions/Comments