Squeeze Cement With Coiled Tubing

Squeeze Cementing with Coiled
Tubing
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................3
Fundamental Objectives of Squeeze Cementing .....................................................................................4
Overview of CT Squeeze Cementing Process.........................................................................................5
Wellbore Temperature and Temperature Profile for CT Operations .......................................................5
Sump or Rat-Hole Temperature......................................................................................................5
Problem Diagnosis................................................................................................................................6
Well Preparation...................................................................................................................................7
Wellbore Mechanical System Integrity............................................................................................7
Isolation Barriers ...........................................................................................................................8
Cleaning the Squeeze Interval.........................................................................................................9
Negative Differential Pressure ............................................................................................ 10
Positive Differential Pressure ............................................................................................. 10
Chemical Treatments.......................................................................................................... 11
Mechanical Methods .......................................................................................................... 12
Injectivity Test.................................................................................................................................... 12
Preparing for an Injectivity Test ................................................................................................... 12
Procedure for Conducting an Injectivity Test ................................................................................ 13
Formation Damage Due to Injectivity Testing ............................................................................... 13
Interpretation of Injectivity Test ................................................................................................... 14
Material Selection............................................................................................................................... 14
Noncement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes .............................................................................. 15
Aqueous Portland Cement Slurries ............................................................................................... 16
Nonaqueous Portland Cement Slurries.......................................................................................... 17
Non-Portland Cements ................................................................................................................. 17
Resins and Monomers .................................................................................................................. 18
Slurry Design and Testing Considerations for CT Squeezing ............................................................... 18
Density ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Thickening-Time Test .................................................................................................................. 19
Interpretation of Thickening-Time Test Results............................................................................. 20
Fluid-Loss Testing and Filter-Cake Evaluation ............................................................................. 21
Rheological Properties.................................................................................................................. 27
HTHP Gel Strength...................................................................................................................... 28
1 Best Practice Series
Halliburton
© 1998, Halliburton Company
Squeeze Cementing with Coiled Tubing
Free Water and Settling................................................................................................................ 28

Compatibility Issues..................................................................................................................... 28
Mixing Energy and Particle-Wetting Efficiency ............................................................................ 29
Laboratory versus Field Mixing Energy.............................................................................. 29
Particle-Wetting Efficiency................................................................................................. 30
Effects from Pumping Slurry Through the CT .................................................................... 31
Strength of Cement ...................................................................................................................... 31
Acid Resistance............................................................................................................................ 33
Summary Remarks....................................................................................................................... 33
Job Design.......................................................................................................................................... 34
Squeezing Perforations................................................................................................................. 34
Channels...................................................................................................................................... 34
Corrosion Holes/Splits in Pipe...................................................................................................... 35
Cement Volume ........................................................................................................................... 35
Job Simulation ............................................................................................................................. 36
Job Design.......................................................................................................................................... 40
Surface Equipment....................................................................................................................... 40
Cementing Nozzles....................................................................................................................... 40
Equipment Layout and Safety....................................................................................................... 41
Calibration of Volumes ................................................................................................................ 42
Viscous PrePad............................................................................................................................ 42
Job Execution..................................................................................................................................... 43
Depth Control and Correlation...................................................................................................... 43
Cement Mixing and Pumping ....................................................................................................... 44
Cement Placement (Spotting) Technique....................................................................................... 44
The Actual Squeeze...................................................................................................................... 45
Cleaning Out Excess Cement........................................................................................................ 46
Cleaning Out Cement Without the Contamination Procedure............................................... 46
Contamination Procedure ................................................................................................... 47
Node-Hardening................................................................................................................. 47
General Washout Procedure ............................................................................................... 48
Reverse Circulation............................................................................................................ 48
Removal of Cement Bridges Left in the Wellbore.......................................................................... 49
Underreaming .................................................................................................................... 49
Conical Water Jet............................................................................................................... 49
Testing the Squeeze ............................................................................................................................ 49
Failure of the Squeeze .................................................................................................................. 50
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A Estimating the Fluid Level in a Well ............................................................................... 53
Appendix B Example Problems.......................................................................................................... 54
Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Halliburton
Introductory Note
This document describes best practices and recommended cement slurry properties for
squeeze cementing with coiled tubing. However, most of the laboratory and slurry
behavior discussions apply to all squeeze cementing. Throughout this chapter, certain
information that is most pertinent to the nodal buildup/washout squeeze method is
presented. Rather than a separate section to cover this subject, which would result in much
redundant text, the information that applies principally to the nodal technique is
imbedded in italics. A footnote exists on each page as a reminder.
An extensive bibliography has been included at the end of this manual to provide reference
material all subjects discussed. As stated above, these references are not limited to coiled
tubing or squeeze cementing alone.
Introduction
Squeeze or remedial cementing is a common operation in the petroleum industry. Most
squeeze operations are performed with a drilling or workover rig, and through threaded
tubing or drill pipe. Cement is the most common material used for squeezing and
represents approximately 7 to 10 percent of the total cost of the squeeze operation. The
remaining costs are associated with such factors as well preparation, tools, waiting on
cement (WOC), and drilling out of excess cement left in the wellbore after the squeeze. As
reservoirs mature and production subsequently declines, these associated remedial costs
weigh heavily in deciding on remedial work or abandonment.
Squeeze cementing through coiled tubing (CT) is a relatively new but maturing operation.
Interest in coiled tubing squeeze operations increased significantly with the success and
cost savings reported from the Alaskan Prude Bay field in the 1980’s. CT can be used as
the conduit to place cement or other materials such as polymers. Its use can reduce or
eliminate rig costs and significantly reduce well preparation and post-squeeze cleanout
costs. Using CT in workover operations has been successful in remote areas where rigs
are not available or in areas where rig costs are very high. The technical limits of CT
cementing are restricted more by the mechanical limits of the CT than chemical
technology. Cement has been successfully placed by CT to depths in excess of 19,000 ft.
and to temperatures in excess of 350 oF.
Techniques and cement properties developed or identified by British Petroleum (BP) and
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) for Alaskan North Slope operations have served as
the foundation for CT squeeze operations throughout the world. In building that
foundation, special techniques and material properties have been developed which
improve the probability of success and increase the associated cost-saving potential.
Most recently, the advent of microfine cementing products and conformance technology
has allowed treatments to be performed through gravel-packed intervals without going
through the costly operation of removing downhole production equipment. Under certain

Halliburton
situations, methods learned from the nodal technique can apply to squeezing through a
gravel pack.
Coiled tubing offers significant benefits for slurry placement, control of the squeeze
process, and for reduced squeeze costs. However, to realize the full potential offered by
this technique, candidate selection and preparation, cement slurry formulation, and job
design must be given special consideration. Small-volume jobs and nodal buildup jobs
require special and, most preferably, on-location quality control testing.
Chapter I of this manual covers the following information:
• squeeze-cementing processes to help with proper understanding of the general
operation
• techniques for evaluation and application of each recommended squeeze method
• miscellaneous information to facilitate squeeze treatment
• a description of the materials and technology available
• testing and planning requirements
• job procedures
• post-job evaluation procedures
Fundamental Objectives of Squeeze Cementing

Squeeze cementing is most often performed for the following reasons:
• to repair leaks in well tubulars and restore pressure integrity to the wellbore
• to raise the level of or restore a cement sheath behind the casing to support or protect
well tubulars
• to modify the production or injection profile of the well by sealing off unwanted
production or thief zones
• to repair a poor primary cement job before completing a well
To achieve a successful squeeze operation, the following tasks must be performed:
1. Inject cement or other suitable material into the interval to be sealed or filled.
2. Apply pressure to hold the sealant in place until it hardens. When the sealant is
cement, apply pressure to remove (squeeze) fluid from the slurry and to form
an immovable, impermeable mass that will set and harden in place.
3. Remove remaining cement or other sealant from the interior of the wellbore to
restore the original inner diameter of the wellbore for future operations.
To perform a successful squeeze operation, identification and careful selection of the
appropriate sealant, equipment, and pumping technique is a necessity.

Halliburton
Overview of the CT Squeeze Cementing Process

Many of the general techniques for problem diagnosis, well preparation, and job design
used in conventional squeeze cementing operations apply to CT operations. However, the
differences between the two processes can significantly affect the success of the operation.
CT squeeze operations are essentially scaled-down squeeze operations: smaller tubulars
and, generally, smaller cement volumes. As with most reduced-scale operations, attention
to detail is critical.
Wellbore Temperature Profile for CT Operations

For most squeeze operations, and especially CT operations, it is necessary to accurately
measure or prepare a computer model of the wellbore temperature above and below the
interval to be squeezed. Circulating temperatures are affected by many variables, including
the type of fluid pumped or circulated, fluid density and rheological properties, volume of
fluid pumped or circulated, pumping rate, and the well configuration. When in doubt, use
the static temperature at the squeeze depth.
Circulating temperatures in CT operations are usually higher than those in conventional
squeeze operations with threaded pipe simply because a lower volume of fluid is pumped
at a lower flow rate. Large-scale testing has also shown that cement slurries pumped
through a CT spool at maximum rates can undergo a temperature increase of
approximately 1oF /1000 ft of CT before the slurry leaves the unit. If the slurry being
pumped is relatively sensitive to temperature change, and the unit has substantial footage
of spooled pipe, this factor may require consideration. With the larger CT workstrings,
temperatures may be closer to those in conventional operations. Section 9 will go into
detail regarding aspects that should be considered in the laboratory.
Sump or Rat-Hole Temperature

In CT squeeze operations, attention may need to be given to the temperature of the
wellbore below the squeeze interval as well as to that of the circulated interval itself,
depending on the cleanout method employed. This lower section of the wellbore (often
called the rat-hole or sump) may also need to be cooled to keep the cement from setting
before cleanout if the nodal squeeze technique is used. Cooling the sump helps smooth
the temperature profile between the injection point and the sump, as shown in Figure 1.

Halliburton
Options to rat-hole cooling

• Fill with sand or mud to prevent fluid swapping
• May not be necessary if cleanout will not be done
Without Cooling • Not needed if cement design temperature is based on
static sump temperature
With Cooling
Figure 1 Effect of sump or rat-hole cooling operation on wellbore temperature

profile
Obviously, the decision to cool the rat-hole by circulating should take into account the
sensitivity of the designed treatment fluids to temperature variations, as well as mechanical
considerations such as circulating up debris into the perforations and/or CT annulus. This
debris not only has the potential to plug perforations prior to the treatment, but large items
or large volumes of solids can lodge in the annulus and cause sticking.
Problem Diagnosis
Below is a list of some of the tools available to help define a problem requiring a squeeze
and the location of the area to be treated:
• production or injection logs
• pump-in surveys with temperature logs
• pulsed neutron logs
• video camera or casing caliper logs
Production or injection logs for perforation evaluation help characterize the nature of the
contribution or injection from all intervals and can be used for trouble-shooting repeat
squeezes. A typical log includes a flowmeter reading, temperature, pressure, fluid density
(from a gradiomanometer or radioactive densometer), neutron density, and capacitance
probe. Identifying the source of the fluid or gas entry is the main objective. It will, in turn,
help determine potential alternatives (plug-back, material and treatment volume selection,
etc.) and identify the section to be re-perforated.
A pump-in survey using a temperature log can help determine the existence and direction
of a channel. It can also define the rate of temperature change. After injection or
circulating and pumping has stopped, the temperature will slowly return to the geothermal
gradient. At least 5° to 10°F of initial cooling should be achieved to obtain sufficient
temperature shift for channel identification.
Dynamics of the temperature profile also provide information vital to thickening time for
cement slurry design. The rate of warming after a certain amount of fluid is pumped is also
helpful. Knowing the thermal recovery after the treatment is placed allows a better
Halliburton
estimation of how long the fluid will remain pumpable if allowed to go static, whether it is
a cement slurry or polymer treatment.
A pulsed neutron log with borax brine water injected into the perforations also helps
define the extent of a channel. However, this is an omni-directional log and will not
identify the orientation or azimuth of a channel behind pipe.
A video camera or casing caliper log should be considered for areas where severe
corrosion or erosion is suspected. Filter cakes form readily in perforations across
permeable zones, but the enlarged surface area of severely corroded casing may hamper
long-term results from a squeeze operation. Knowing the condition of the casing can be
very helpful in determining the operation's feasibility and cost effectiveness.
Well Preparation
Preparation of the well's mechanical systems and the interval to be squeezed are critical to
success. Controlling other variables in the squeeze process cannot compensate for failure
to properly prepare the well for the operation.
Wellbore Mechanical System Integrity

Mechanical and pressure integrity of the completion is very important. Test the following
equipment before any squeeze operation:
1. wellhead seals
2. wellhead valves
3. tubing and casing
4. completion packers and other downhole equipment
Pressure test wellhead seals to ensure that squeeze pressures will not be applied to the
casing annulus. Test wellhead valves, wing valves, and other valves to ensure that they are
in proper working condition. Leaking seals or valves add risk to the operation and can
result in either damage to the well, a squeeze failure, or both. Leaking valves can also give
a false indication of a failed attempt. This applies equally to surface pumping equipment.
Considering that the production tubing takes the place of the conventional casing when
CT is used, pressure testing the tubing is advisable. This can be done with an inflatable
packer on the coil or a plug set with wireline or slickline in a profile nipple near the
bottom. This step will ensure that no leaks exist that would inhibit building squeeze
pressure or circulating out excess treatment slurry. If a leak in the tubing will not be
exposed to cement via circulation or spotting, the squeeze may be performed without
repairing the leak. However, the annulus must be fluid packed, and the casing pressure
rating must be higher than the expected squeeze pressure. The specific case of spotting a
cement plug to abandon a zone is an exception to this process.

Halliburton
A packer leak can also allow cement into the annulus and make future workovers difficult.
Packers can come unseated from applied squeeze pressure and tubing contraction due to
cool-down. Such limitations must be considered as they would in any other squeeze job.
The presence of gas-lift valves must also be considered when appropriate.

Replace all gas-lift valves with blanks or take other appropriate measures
to ensure the valves are not damaged with cement. Alternately, replace all
but one valve with blanks, leaving the one live valve in the uppermost
station to facilitate immediate unloading. This latter method should be
limited to a planned reverse-out squeeze to prevent exposure of that valve
to cement.
Isolation Barriers
Isolation of the interval in the wellbore to be treated is highly recommended for controlled
placement. Depending on the design of the wellbore, complete isolation is sometimes not
possible, but every attempt should be made given the scenarios of mechanical restrictions,
cost, logistics, and risk.
Should significant rat-hole exist beneath the interval to be treated, large-scale lab testing,
as well as field results, have shown that significant volumes of cement will fall into the rat-
hole instead of going into the perforations. It is always recommended to fill the rat-hole
with sand or use some other means to prevent fluid swapping. Often, simply pumping an
extra volume of cement slurry to spot and fill the rat-hole is the most cost-effective
method if there is no intention to re-enter the lower section of the well.
Figure 2 shows a typical isolation method with multiple zones protected from the
treatment. In this more complex scenario, the intent was to treat a middle zone while
protecting the upper and lower zones. Variations of this could include the following:
• abandonment of any zone by spotting the slurry without an inflatable packer
• stopping gas production from the upper zone while protecting lower zones with
packers or sand plugs
• performing the same techniques in gravel-packed intervals with microfine cements

Halliburton
Production Tubing &

Packer
Upper Zone Protected by

Annular Injection
Inflatable Packer
Treatment Fluid
Lower Zone Protected by Sand

Sand Fill
Figure 2 – Isolation techniques
Cleaning of the Squeeze Interval

Cleaning of the interval before injectivity testing and squeezing is essential to the success
of any squeeze operation. Injectivity testing (Section 7) is often done in conjunction with
cleaning. This testing provides information useful for selecting the squeeze material, for
determining the appropriate volume of squeeze material, and for calculating the pressures
required to place the materials into the interval. The extra time, procedures, and cost
associated with interval preparation are usually offset by an improved potential for success
on the first squeeze.
Penetration of the cement or other sealant into the leak path or unfilled area is
fundamental to the success of the squeeze job. Any injected fluid, especially a solids-laden
fluid such as cement, will always seek the path of least resistance. Therefore, removing all
non-sealing debris is essential. Non-sealing debris can include the following materials or
any combination thereof:
• inorganic scale
• pipe dope
• organic deposits, such as paraffin or asphaltenes.
• metallic debris caused by milling, perforating, and corrosion

Halliburton
The interval can be cleaned through one or more of the following techniques:
• negative pressure differential
• positive pressure differential
• acid or other chemical treatments
• a combination of pressure techniques and chemical treatments
Use of pressure or chemical treatments or a combination of these techniques is a common
and effective way of opening a leak path and preparing surfaces for adhesion of the
sealant. Pressure surging alone may remove some debris, while chemical treatments may
selectively remove other forms of debris. Usually, a combination of a chemical treatment
with one or more pressure differential techniques is most effective.
Negative Differential Pressure

Negative differential (flow from the formation into the wellbore) is the preferred method
for cleaning the interval but is sometimes operationally difficult or prohibitive, especially
with wells with low bottomhole pressure. It may require an extra step in the process by
slickline or coil intervention, which logistics may not support. Negative differential is
usually less effective for completely clearing channels, but may be beneficial to initiate
communication with the channel so that acid or another reactive fluid can be placed into
the channel for effective cleanup.
The combination of pressure from the hydrostatic column and surface pressure must
initially be equal to the formation pressure (that is, the well has to be stabilized). In
addition, if any fluid is present, the fluid level must be low enough to provide an under-
balance to the formation pressure when the surface pressure is removed. If the fluid level
in the well is unknown, it can be estimated by using the procedure in Appendix A.
Surging can be performed by setting a lock assembly in a profile nipple. The lock assembly
should include a nipple on the bottom which has been adapted to hold a shear disc. Once
the assembly is set near the bottom of the completion, the wellhead pressure is decreased
until the differential pressure across the disc exceeds its shear value and fails. An
instantaneous pressure surge will occur across the perforations, forcing out removable
debris. For a well which has insufficient bottomhole pressure (BHP) to overcome the
pressure in the fluid column, an alternate approach would be a coil-conveyed lock
assembly (or packer) used in conjunction with a circulating sub.
Positive Differential Pressure

Positive differential, commonly referred to as “breaking down the zone,” is sometimes
applied to open plugged perforations. However, this frequently can result in only one or
two perforations actually taking fluid. Also, as the name implies, a pressure above the
fracturing pressure of the formation is often applied. Positive differential also presents the
added risk of possibly connecting the created opening with nearby naturally occurring
fractures or with channels or fractures created during previous stimulation treatments.
Halliburton
Should a positive injection be performed, doing so with mud or another fluid laden with
solids will usually guarantee formation fracturing. Use clear fluids whenever possible.
Positive differential is also accomplished while applying squeeze pressure during the
cement job to develop filter cake. However, excessive pressure too early in the treatment
can fracture the formation or cause communication with naturally occurring fractures and
can prove difficult to heal.
While formation fracturing can be detrimental, a pressure break occurring at a pressure
below fracture gradient is indicative of a perforation cleaning up during the squeeze. This
diversion technique is often the only way to clean out perforations. The principle of a
high-pressure squeeze is to establish a filter cake in all clean perforations during the initial
pressure ramping stages of the squeeze operation. As these first clean perforations are
sealed with cement filter cake, any weaker blockages caused by debris are removed,
establishing communication with formation permeability or channels behind pipe. Before
continuing with the pressure ramp, pressure should be reduced, allowing filter cake
development to resume. Filter cake properties and associated slurry requirements are
discussed in detail in Sections 9.3 and 9.4.
As stated previously, the potential advantage of this technique is to provide a differential
across perforations which can otherwise not be cleaned of debris while others are open.
However, pressure breaks are sometimes erroneously interpreted as formation breakdown,
and the slurry is immediately pumped away in preparation for a second job. Knowledge of
formation fracture gradients is vital in preventing this misdiagnosis.
Chemical Treatments
Acidizing is commonly used as an integral part of the cleanout operation. When the
treatment procedure does not provide for a prolonged flow-back period to allow
dissipation of residual acid, over-displace the treatment to protect the filter cake
established during the squeeze from acid attack. If the targeted problem is a channel
behind pipe, a mud-acid or oxidizer treatment may be required to remove clay-based solids
or polymers, respectively.
Organic deposits such as pipe dope, paraffin, or asphaltenes may also be

present in the interval to be squeezed. Since cement will not bond well to
these deposits, they should be removed. Chemical treatments with xylene,
diesel, paraffin solvents, etc., may be required. A mixture of xylene or
toluene in diesel with acetic acid and a mutual solvent effectively removes
organic deposits. Table 1 lists some common generic formulas. However,
for detailed information, please consult the Scale Removal and Control
section under Frac/Acid Services on the HALWORLD intranet site.

Halliburton
Table 1—Cleaning Formulas for Some Common Chemical Deposits

Debris Type Formula Treatment Volume, Gal/Ft
Calcium carbonate scale 10 -15% Hydrochloric Acid 20 - 30
Calcium Sulfate (gyp) Scale GYPSOL Process Consult Acidizing Manual
Cement or silica/silicate 12:3 mud acid 20 - 50
scale
paraffin solvent or
Paraffin/asphaltenes xylene/toluene 20 - 40
12% hydrochloric acid + 10%
Mixture of xylene
paraffin/asphaltenes and -- or -- 30 - 40
scale 50:50 Xylene/Toluene and 10 -
15% hydrochloric acid
Pipe dope or mixture of 70:20:10 volume ratio of
paraffin/asphaltene with xylene or toluene:acetic acid: 30 - 50
rust/metal mutual solvent
Mechanical Methods
In some cases, the materials blocking an interval may not be soluble in acid or organic
solvents. Then, mechanical methods of removal, including jetting or scraping, are required
before squeezing. Barium and/or strontium sulfate scales, and high concentrations of
silicate scales are examples of such materials.
Injectivity Testing
Injectivity testing assesses the interval’s capacity to accept fluid - one of the most
important pieces of information in the design and execution of the operation.
Accurate information from the injectivity test will aid with material selection, squeeze
operation design, formulation of the cement slurry or other sealant, and volume selection.
Injectivity testing before the squeeze operation helps identify the feasibility of a treatment,
and aids in trouble-shooting, whether the well is a producer or an injector. When
numerous squeeze operations are conducted in an area on a particular interval, a threshold
injectivity is often used as a guide to determine treatment options.
Preparing for an Injectivity Test

Before an accurate injectivity test can be conducted, the following precautions should be
taken:
• The well must be under control and completely full of fluid.
• Gas should be bled off, circulated out, or bullheaded into the formation.

Halliburton
• The density of the injection fluid should be known.

• An accurate pressure readout should be used to calculate the bottomhole injection
pressure (BHIP).
Clean, solids-free fluids are required for injectivity testing. If a solids-laden fluid is used,
fracturing the formation will probably be required for fluid injections into the interval,
unless the formation has vugs, natural fractures, acid-etched flow paths, or hydraulic
fractures from stimulation treatments.
Procedure for an Injectivity Test

The injectivity test is performed as follows:
1. Pump the fluid into the target interval at a constant rate while monitoring surface
pressure. Record the rate and pressure pairs at each step for use in the squeeze design.
(An initial rate of about 1 bbl/min is often used.)
2. Continue pumping at this rate until the pressure has stabilized (is not increasing
rapidly). Field experience in the area as well as fluid friction simulation must be
exercised to determine whether or not perforation cleanup is required.
3. Repeat at various rates until a profile is established. Use this data in conjunction with
squeeze slurry hydrostatics to design final surface pumping pressure schedules.
4. If formation breakdown is evident at injection rates much lower than anticipated,
consider a perforation cleanup treatment.
5. Use any indicated formation breakdown pressure plus some safety factor for
determining squeeze pressure to be applied during the early stages of the treatment.
Formation Damage Caused by Injectivity Testing

An injectivity test involves pumping a volume of clean, non-damaging, compatible, fluid
into the formation. It should not form scale with the formation water, should not
cause swelling or migration of sensitive clay minerals, and it should not form
emulsions or fluid blocks. This fluid must be recoverable if the interval is to resume
productivity, but also may inhibit matrix injection of permanent clear fluids such as
PermSeal or Injectrol. Some highly water-sensitive formations may require the use of
nonaqueous treatments such as MOC/One.
Clean filtered fluids, such as filtered formation brine or weighted, artificial brines are
typically recommended for injection tests. Surfactants, nonemulsifers, mutual solvents, and
clay stabilizers can be added to protect sensitive formations. Gas wells are prone to fluid
blocks, which may inhibit returned productivity. Surfactants can sometimes help reduce
this effect.
There is also some debate in the literature (SPE 25218) as to the level of damage to
formation permeability caused by the precipitation of insoluble calcium salts by cement
filtrate, and migration of fine particulates caused by clays being released because of the

Halliburton
high pH (generally over 12) of cement filtrate. While these chemical and physical
observations reported are significant, very large pore volumes of filtrate were flowed
through the cores; much more than would probably result had a cement filter cake been
formed at the face of the core, thus greatly reducing penetration distance. In most critical
squeeze applications, slurry fluid loss is low, thus the depth of penetration of such filtrate
would be limited to a few millimeters easily penetrated by perforating guns.
Interpretation of Injectivity Test

Field experience suggests that the minimum injectivity for CT squeeze operations with
cement slurries should be about 1 bbl/min at an acceptable pressure. Injectivities at lower
rates and higher pressures indicate that normal cements may not penetrate into the interval
with sufficient depth and volume to produce an effective, reliable seal. Microfine cements
or other sealants, such as monomers and resins, may be required if the injectivity cannot be
increased.
Wells with an injectivity between 1 and 3 bbl/min have been successfully squeezed with
CT using the cement properties and techniques described later in this section. Injectivities
greater than 3 bbl/min and at lower pressures may indicate the presence of high-
permeability flow paths such as fractures, vugs, solution channels, etc. Larger treatment
volumes and a relatively higher slurry fluid loss (at least for a lead slurry) may be required
in such cases. Consideration should also be given to reactive treatments such as FloChek
prior to performing the cement squeeze.
Injectivity can also provide information about the extent of wellbore cooling that is
possible. This information can be used in designing and testing the cement slurry. Low
injectivity may preclude cooling the interval, thereby affecting the cement slurry design in
a hot well. A well with a low injectivity and a high BHP may require a circulation kill
before the squeeze operation. Remember that the kill fluid density should be sufficient to
reduce the surface pressure on the CT to acceptable levels.
Material Selection
The variety of materials available for squeeze operations (Table 2) can be mixed and
pumped with the same equipment commonly used with conventional cement slurries.
Operations with CT are not significantly restricted to the use of any of these materials.

Halliburton
Table 2----Materials to Use in Squeeze Operations

Category Examples Remarks
Non-cement, organic, or Polymer plugs & sodium Matrol, FloChek, Injectrol,
inorganic complexes silicate complexes FlexPlug OBM, etc.
Aqueous cement slurries Most commonly-used
Non-aqueous Portland Cements, clays, polymers DOC-3, DOB2C,
cement slurries mixed in oils MOC/One, FlexPlug W
Resins and monomers Epoxy resins and acrylate or EpSeal, StrataLock,
methacrylate monomers (the PermSeal, Matrol, etc.
most common types of these
materials available)
Selection of the material for a particular squeeze operation should be based on present and
anticipated future well conditions. In general, the selected material should perform the
following functions:
• penetrate the area to be filled under the pressure limitations of the workstring (CT),
formation, well tubulars (casing and tubing), and wellbore equipment (packers, valves,
etc.)
• adhere to surfaces to form an effective seal
• Withstand wellbore conditions, such as temperature and pressure; changes in wellbore
stresses such as pressure or thermal cycling; and future treatment operations, such as
acidizing, fracturing, and enhanced recovery operations
Portland cements mixed with water and additives are the primary sealants used for most
squeeze operations, but cement slurries are not suitable for all conditions and operations.
The following subsections briefly describe the materials listed in Table 2. For a detailed
coverage of sodium silicates as well as numerous other non-cement fluids, refer to the
Halliburton Conformance Technology Manual.
Non-cement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes

Briefly, two types of silicate complexes are available: externally and internally-catalyzed
systems. Externally catalyzed sodium silicate (FloChek) systems can be pumped ahead of
a cement squeeze. When the sodium silicate contacts and intermixes with a fluid
containing multivalent cations, such as calcium or magnesium, sodium silicate instantly
forms a very stiff, semisolid precipitate or gel that blocks or diverts the cement slurry.
Internally-catalyzed sodium silicate (Injectrol, Angard, and Angel) systems are generally
low-or no-solids, low-viscosity fluids that can penetrate the natural permeability of a
formation a significant distance from the wellbore. These systems are used to form barriers
between zones. Crosslinking or gel times are adjusted by the mix ratio of internal
activators to sodium silicate. The cement slurry pumped behind the silicate provides a

Halliburton
high-strength barrier at the wellbore. These systems are typically used to control water-
injection wells, to plug fractures, and to prevent water-coning.
Most polymer treatments do not develop compressive or tensile strength and may not
provide long-term durability if exposed to high differential pressures during production.
Note also that positive squeeze pressures associated with most cement squeezes are not
possible or even necessary when applying a solids-free polymer system. For these reasons,
they are often followed by a cement slurry to seal the path close to the wellbore and
provide a positive squeeze pressure.
Aqueous Portland Cement Slurries and Additives

While aqueous Portland cement slurries are generally the most economical and versatile
material used for squeeze operations, they have some limitations. They are high-solids
systems and can have difficulty penetrating small openings. Cement slurries are also
subject to chemical attack by some formation and well-treatment fluids, such as acidic
brines, carbon dioxide, sulfates and acids used for stimulation and well cleanup treatments.
Special formulations and types of Portland cements have been developed over many years
to meet challenges presented by special squeeze cementing requirements. The reader is
referred to the Halliburton Cementing Technology Manual and to the Halliburton internal
web page for detailed information about these slurries. As a brief outline, some of these
formulations and additives are described below.
• Control-setting gypsum cement (Cal-Seal) is usually a combination of cement and the
semi-hydrate form of calcium sulfate. It is an extremely rapid-setting cement,
developed to combat lost circulation, casing corrosion holes, and casing splits.
Because gypsum cement sets rapidly, its use is limited to shallow depths.
• Thixotropic cements exhibit rapid gel-strength development when static. Fluidity can
be restored by applying force. Thixotropic cements are used to repair fractured zones,
channels, and voids, and to combat lost circulation. Additives such as ECONOLITE,
VersaSet, Cal-Seal, and Thix-Set are common to such designs.
• Foam cement is prepared by adding nitrogen to a cement slurry. Foam slurries are used
where low hydrostatic pressures are required or to provide a ductile cement.
• Microfine cements (Micro Matrix, Matrix, Micro Fly Ash) have a 4-micron average
particle size versus 20-100 microns for conventional Portland cement. Small-grind
cements are preferable for repairing mechanical leaks, such as packer leaks, casing
collar leaks, small channels, or other leaks with low injectivity.
• Fiber-reinforced cement is made of polypropylene or nylon fibers and is useful in
packer repairs and squeezes on collar connections. It has also been used in kickoff
plugs in coiled tubing drilling applications, but the technical merits of this practice are
highly debatable.
• Retarders delay the thickening time of the slurry. A delay is often necessary to allow
time to pump the cement in place.

Halliburton
• Fluid-loss additives (HALAD’s) help retain filtrate in the slurry, thus slowing
controlled slurry dehydration for improved slurry penetration into narrow channels as
well as for controlled filter cake buildup.
• Dispersants allow densification of slurries through using low water ratios.
• Accelerators are used in low temperature conditions to shorten slurry thickening time.
• Salt acts as a retarder or as an accelerator, depending on the concentration used. Salt
also helps prevent swelling of water-sensitive clays and shales and promotes cement
bonding to salt formations.
• Bridging agents (FLOCELE, Walnut hulls) of solid, granular, or flaked composition
are used during a squeeze to help limit cement penetration in a fracture.
• Crystalline Silica (SSA-1 SSA-2, & MicroSand) in different forms has different uses.
Silica flour combats the retrogression of cement compressive strength at temperatures
above 230oF. Coarse sand is used as a bridging agent also.
• Latex (Latex 2000) is used in a cement formulation where that cement may be exposed
to acid or other corrosive elements to effectively slow the rate of acid attack. Cases
have shown that 50 to 75 percent of wells squeezed with class G failed during
subsequent acid stimulations, whereas less than 30 percent failed with Latex cements.
True acid-resistant systems are also available (EpSeal, FlexCem, StrataLock).
• Expansive additives (Super CBL, MicroBond) are used to enhance sealing properties
Nonaqueous Portland Cement Slurries

Diesel-oil cement is the most common type of non-aqueous cement used in squeeze
operations. It is prepared by mixing cement in diesel oil, but mineral oils may also be used.
When this slurry contacts water, the hydrocarbon carrying fluid is displaced, and the
cement hydrates and begins to set. If no water is present, no reaction occurs, and the
cement may flow out of the oil zone. Because diesel-oil cement contacted by water or
water-based mud thickens very fast, it is often used to shut off unwanted water zones. It
can also be used to combat lost circulation and plug channels. When appropriate, the
diesel-oil cement can be mixed using micro-fine cement (MOC/One) rather than
conventional cement to enhance the system's capabilities of penetrating small cracks, leaks,
or channels.
Non-Portland Cements
High-aluminate cements and refractory cements, such as Cement Fondu, are useful for
very high temperatures. Magnesium salt cements and high calcium carbonate blends such
as FDP-C558 have become popular for workovers because they are completely soluble in
hydrochloric acid.

Halliburton
Resins, Monomers
Epoxy resins [neat EpSeal R, StrataLock, acrylate monomers (PermSeal), complexed
polyacrylamides and phenol/formaldehydes (Matrol)], are true solutions. They can
penetrate very small leaks or channels that cement solids cannot. Special mixing and
handling are required when using these materials.
Slurry Design and Testing Considerations for CT Squeezing

Most cement slurries for conventional applications are tested using well simulation tests
developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API). Normal testing covers the
following aspects:
• density
• thickening time
• fluid loss
• rheology
• free water
• sedimentation
• compressive strength
• compatibility with muds & brines
These tests represent a composite set of conditions and procedures, generally based on
well depth, type of cementing operation, and geothermal gradient. The most recent API
RP 10B (22nd edition, December, 1997) has been greatly expanded to cover many of the
special considerations developed over the years for critical cementing.
Even though greatly improved, the API Recommended Practices do not specifically
address CT cementing. Additional testing often considered for critical cementing, as well
as CT cementing, include filter-cake evaluation, acid resistance, and shear sensitivity.
Job-specific test procedures and schedules must be developed to model the planned CT-
squeeze cementing operation as closely as possible. Job-specific information needed to
formulate customized test schedules include the following:
• Well temperatures – Temperature is the most important variable affecting hydration.
• Well pressure – Pressure has a lesser effect than temperature on cement hydration but
has a significant effect on fluid loss. Well pressure can be reasonably estimated from
the hydrostatic pressure of wellbore fluids and the cementing fluids plus the expected
surface pump pressure.
• Mixing equipment and procedure – If the slurry is batch-mixed, the length of time it
will be held on the surface before being pumped into the well can have a substantial
effect on the thickening time of the cement. Thickening time is affected by the mixing
temperature, well temperatures, and cement slurry formulation. Temperatures in batch

Halliburton
mixers have been recorded in excess of 130oF; a slurry conditioned in the lab at 80 oF
will not be representative in such situations.
• Expected pump-rate range – The time taken to pump the slurry down the CT to the
interval to be squeezed determines the rate of slurry heating. The heat-up rate will
affect the thickening time of a cement slurry. These volumetric calculations should also
consider the footage of spool left on the reel.
• Planned pumping schedule and technique – Most thickening-time tests are performed
under conditions of constant shear at a constant temperature. Hesitation periods
should be simulated when appropriate.
• Estimated job time – This includes cleanout time for excess cement.
Density
Density is usually based on compressive strength needs, well control, formation fracture
pressure, and slurry stability requirements. For CT squeeze operations, the effect of the
cement slurry density on CT stresses must be considered as well. Cement strength should
not be a significant factor in density selection for squeezing because a well-formed filter
cake will likely have the compressive strength of several thousand pounds per square inch,
even for lightweight slurries. Some variation will always exist between calculated and
measured density due to variances in material specific gravities and instrument error.
Emphasis should be placed on matching slurry density between that measured in the lab
and on the field slurry. Filter-cake development is affected to a moderate degree by slurry
density. For critical situations, slurry density should be verified in the laboratory with a
calibrated pressurized mud balance. The same procedure should also be carried out on
the batch-mixed slurry on location prior to pumping.
Thickening-Time Test
Thickening time is a measure of how long a cement slurry or other sealant will remain
pumpable during the squeeze operation and under expected well conditions. API defines
thickening time in Section 8 of the API SPEC 10 as the time it takes for the slurry to reach
100 Beardon Units (Bc) under simulated well-cementing conditions. The Beardon Unit is
a dimensionless value used to describe slurry consistency.
Although 100 Bc is the API definition, some operators use different consistency values –
ranging from 40 Bc to 70 Bc – for determining the thickening time. While these numbers
are not the API-defined thickening time, they represent consistencies that are practical
limits for most situations. Halliburton normally reports the time to reach 70 Bc as the
measure of thickening time. In reality, a consistency over about 40 Bc should be
considered unpumpable for CT applications.
The thickening-time test should model the well operation as closely as possible. Duplicate
the temperature, pressure, and pumping profile of the squeeze operations. For smaller CT

Halliburton
sizes, surface pressure during pumping will result in an initial pumping pressure much
higher (as high as 5000 psi) than that normally used for cement testing.
In many CT operations, some static or hesitation periods will occur during the job. These
periods can dramatically alter the slurry thickening time. If a hesitation technique is
planned, simulate the static periods for hesitation when the slurry or other sealant is not
being sheared by pumping action. Modified test schedules have been designed to simulate
hesitation squeeze operations (API RP 10B, Table 7) but should be adjusted to reflect CT
operations. Other effects on the slurry to consider during these static periods are fluid loss
and gel strength development, the latter of which will be compounded by temperature
increases due to lack of fluid movement. Also, an improperly designed slurry may settle.
Interpretation of Thickening-Time Test Results

Each thickening-time test has a chart or computer record of the consistency of the slurry
over time. Temperature and pressure are also recorded. Typically, consistency decreases
during the first part of the test due to thermal thinning, but should remain fairly constant
after that until the cement starts to hydrate. Near the end of the thickening-time test, the
consistency should increase rapidly due to cement hydration as shown in Figure 2.
While the thickening-time profile shown in Figure 3 is the most preferred, many slurries
differ, with the slurry consistency increasing steadily over a longer period. Such a
consistency profile is less desirable for frictional pressure drop; in addition, gelling cement
slurries are more difficult to control and exhibit a less predictable filter-cake buildup. The
causes of slow consistency increases range from polymer effects to problems with the
quality of the base cement. Should the consistency ramp up but then remain flat at an
elevated level, that slurry should not be used until the problem is resolved, especially for
CT applications. Likewise, should an unexplained viscosity “spike” occur during the test,
the slurry should not be used. Refer to cementing technology documents or contact the
Duncan Technology Center for more information on the subject of slurry gelation and
cement quality control.

Halliburton
Consistency (Bc)
4000 100 280
260
3500
80 240
3000
220
Temperature (°F)
Pressure (psi)
2500 Pressure 60 200

Temperature
2000 Consistency 180
40 160
1500
140
1000
20 120
500
100
0 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (hrs)
Figure 3—Profile of Thickening-Time Test Variables
Fluid-Loss Testing and Filter-Cake Evaluation

Put simply, the squeeze process involves placement of cement particles across a permeable
medium through the process of filtration. When designing a job, three issues should be
addressed:
1. What is the optimum filtration rate?
2. How long should squeeze pressure be applied?
3. What are the effects of temperature, pressure, and slurry additives?
Two slightly different techniques exist in the literature (Binkley, et al., 1958, and Collins,
1961) that explore the derivation and application of equations that describe filter cake
deposition in a perforation and the spherical-shaped node that can result inside the casing.
These are excellent references, and, because a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of
this manual, please refer to them for detailed study.
The API Operating Fluid Loss Test is a static filtration test for determining the amount of
filtrate that can be removed from a slurry under specific conditions. This test is performed
with a known filter medium, under 1,000-psi differential pressure, at the expected well
temperature for the squeeze operation. For API tests, the filter medium is a 325-mesh,
stainless-steel screen with an effective permeability greater than 1 darcy and an overall
filtration area of 3.5 in.2
In the special case of fluid loss testing for microfine cement slurries, these slurries will
flow through this 325-mesh screen. The proper procedure calls for the filter medium to be
either a 600-mesh screen or a Watman #50 filter paper placed on top of the standard 325-
mesh screen. Table 3 shows average results of comparative testing reported in SPE 26571.
Please note that the slurry used in this 1993 testing is no longer recommended because the
introduction of Micro Fly Ash has negated the need for 40% MicroSand below 230oF.

Halliburton
Please refer to Halliburton Best Practices publication H00727, Microfine Cementing

Products, for up-to-date microfine slurry data.
Table 3 - Fluid Loss versus Filter Cake Thickness
Filter Medium API Reported Fluid Loss, cc’s Filter Cake Thickness, Inches
400 md Berea Sandstone 56 9/16
600 mesh screen 49 ½
325 screen with filter paper 27 ¼
Slurry Description: Micro Matrix Cement + 40% MicroSand + 1% KCl (bwow) + 3.2%
CFR-3 + 1.8 gal/sk Latex 2000 + 1.2 gal/sk FDP-C485 + 0.15 gal/sk D-Air 3 + 0.1 gal/sk
Micro Matrix Cement Retarder + 6.55 gal/sk fresh water, mixed at 12 lb/gal.
For most cement slurry designs, the value of interest is the amount of fluid removed from
the slurry in 30 minutes under the conditions listed above. However, for nodal squeeze
operations, the thickness or volume of filter cake produced during the test is also of
interest. Filter-cake formation and filter-cake properties are a function of the following:
• particle concentration in the slurry
• particle-size distribution and packing efficiency
• particle electrostatic interaction (dispersion of the cement particles)
• particle specific gravity
• filter-cake compressibility
• differential pressure
• filtration time
Figure 4 illustrates the effects of different fluid-loss ranges on filter-cake thickness for a
typical Class G or H cement mixed at normal density. Uncontrolled fluid loss can result in
rapid buildup of a thick, relatively permeable filter cake capable of prematurely bridging
the ID of the casing. This effect frequently leads to the conclusion that a squeeze has been
achieved across an entire interval. However, if hydraulic communication, and thus
pressure differential required for filter-cake building, is lost to the lower perforations,
those perforations will not be squeezed. Upon drill-out and pressure testing, the
perforations will not sustain a positive or negative test and will be deemed a failure when,
in fact, those perforations were never squeezed to begin with.

Halliburton
1000 cc - Neat Cement Slurry
300 cc Fluid Loss Slurry
75 cc Fluid loss Slurry
25 cc Fluid Loss Slurry
Figure 4—Effects of fluid loss on filter-cake characteristics across perforations

CT applications pose an additional concern for the nodal buildup/washout technique in
that if too much filter cake is built on the perforations, the washout of remaining liquid
slurry may be hindered. Additionally, even if the washout phase is accomplished without
damaging the nodes, there is concern that any wireline-conveyed tools such as
perforating guns will not pass freely through the squeezed interval.
Figure 5 is a photograph from downhole video showing properly built nodes on
perforations inside a casing. Note the concave shape of the node around the perforation.
Figure 5 - Downhole video photograph of cement nodes on perforations

Halliburton
Considering the goals of node-building, the API fluid-loss test method presents four areas of
significant limitations:
1. differential pressure
2. filter medium permeability
3. filtration time
4. slurry volume for the test
Some of these limitations can be overcome by either modifying the API test procedure or the test
equipment itself. Table 4 provides a comparison of API recommended procedures to those that
may be considered for nodal applications. However, it must be emphasized that, under no
circumstances, should the designed pressure and temperature limitations of the lab equipment
be exceeded. Even with the modifications listed in Table 4, it is advisable to initially run the
standard API tests for comparison, especially for inexperienced lab personnel or when working
with a new and unique slurry.
Table 4 - Suggested Modifications to Fluid Loss Testing

Fluid-Loss Test API Recommended Suggested Modification
Parameter
20 min. @ BHCT or HTHP consistometer on simulated
180oF maximum in job schedule; hold 1 hour, then cool
Pre-conditioning
atmospheric if necessary; and transfer to fluid-
consistometer loss cell
Pressure ramp Instant Gradual, starting with initial perf
∆P
Maximum differential 1000 Anticipatedd differential at
pressure, psi perforations
Filtering medium 325-mesh screen 325-mesh screen, natural or man-
made core disks
Duration, minutes 30 30-min. minimum, longer if needed
to get required cake thickness
Filtrate data recorded Total filtrate in 30 Record spurt loss, then filtrate in 5-
minutes min. increments, shorter if
necessary
Filter cake N/A Thickness & characteristic
Preconditioning a slurry for only 20 minutes allows the slurry to reach design temperature.
This does not allow time for potential polymer breakdown, or other chemical and/or
physical interactions such as sedimentation that may affect fluid-loss properties. Some
slurries may show excellent fluid-loss control when conditioned in this manner, only to fall

Halliburton
apart due to polymer destruction when conditioned at a higher temperature than an

atmospheric consistometer is capable of reaching.
The concept of building a node of cement solids is a transient one, meaning time plays a
critical role in the outcome. Given the previously-mentioned seven points that affect
filter-cake formation and the importance of creating the required filter cake, laboratory
modeling should reflect the history of the cement slurry. That history should include
mixing, pumping, placement, and any subsequent washout operations. Ramping the
pressure schedule in the laboratory with a regulator instead of instantly applying the
maximum differential pressure will result in a lower spurt (initial) loss, improved packing
of the cement grains and polymer, and thus a lower permeability per linear thickness of
cake. This will ultimately provide lower total volume of filtrate recorded and a thinner
filter cake.
Pressure applied during a CT squeeze can be higher than 1,000 psi, particularly when
excess cement is washed out. In these cases the filter cake must withstand not only the
pressure differentials and erosion present in the wellbore during cleanout of excess
cement but may also need to withstand future differential pressure in the event the
squeeze job is to be followed with a hydraulic fracturing treatment. However, laboratory
testing has shown that, for a properly-designed slurry, additional differential pressure
(above the 1000 psi standard) applied to the fluid-loss cell results in very little to no
incremental change in filter-cake characteristics. Although there is some debate as to the
validity of increasing the maximum differential, the test may be performed if in doubt or
if requested by the customer. However, do not exceed the pressure limitations of the test
cell under any circumstances.
The permeability of the filter medium used in the API test is significantly higher than that
of many formations, especially carbonates. Core disks or synthetic (aluminum oxide)
disks of varying permeability can be inserted in some test cell by using an adapter.
Contact Duncan Technology Center to obtain information on how to build or procure
such an adapter.
Filtration time, or the time of applied squeeze pressure often exceeds the 30 minutes of
an API test. Thus, the filter-cake volume produced under downhole CT conditions can
significantly exceed the filter-cake volume generated during an API test procedure at a
single pressure. For slurries with higher fluid loss values, the API fluid loss cell may not
have enough volume to accommodate all the filtrate generated from a CT in situ test
because of the extended squeezing time and sometimes the higher differential pressures.
Cement slurries with filtrate volumes in excess of 60 ml may cause all the slurry to
become dehydrated, forming filter cake in the API cell. Continued filtration only purges
water from the pore spaces – an inaccurate measure of the fluid-loss of the slurry under
downhole conditions. An obvious indicator of such effects is lack of any liquid slurry
remaining above the filter cake at the conclusion of the test. The simplest alternative to
overcome this situation is to use a longer fluid-loss cell such as one built by Baroid. It’s
also very likely that the fluid loss of the slurry is too high for nodal applications.

Halliburton
Standard procedures call for only the final filtrate volume to be recorded. While
acceptable for most situations, in the event problems are encountered in achieving the
required filter cake (thickness and/or friability), knowledge of the fluid loss rate at
different points in the test can be meaningful to the chemist in determining which fluid
loss additives can be adjusted or substituted.
The thickness of the filter cake and its friability is the ultimate goal of the test. Example
fluid-loss volumes and resulting filter-cake characteristics are shown in Table 5.
Table 5—General Relationship Between Fluid Loss and Filter-Cake Properties

API Fluid-Loss Value, Filter-Cake Height Range, Filter-Cake Penetration Range*
ml/30 min in. into Filter cake, in.
40 - 60 0.5 - 0.75 0.2 maximum
60 - 80 0.5 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.375
80 - 100 0.5 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.375
100 - 150 0.75 - 1.0 0.25 - 0.375
Greater than 150 0.75 - 1.25 0.5 - 0.625
* Rod penetration, or the difference between the “mushy” and the hard cake.
As a general rule, starting fluid-loss values should be between 70 cc and 130 cc API (35
cc to 65 cc actual filtrate collected) to obtain a filter cake between 0.4 inch and 1.0 inch.
This range applies only to synthetic fluid-loss additives (HALAD-344, HALAD-413,
Latex 2000, GasStop, GasStop HT). As with any cement slurry, combinations of these
additives will result in synergistic effects at a lower total cost. Blends of natural polymers
such as those used in HALAD 9, HALAD-22A, and HALAD-322 can and do provide
fluid-loss values in the above range, but the resulting filter cakes will be thick, soft,
more permeable, and easily washed away.
There are several ways to measure and examine the filter cake after a test. Two aspects to
be examined are the thickness of the hard, unwashable filter cake, and the thickness of
the partially dehydrated section of the filter cake that can be easily washed away or
penetrated by a blunt instrument. The first and simplest is to push the filter cake out of
the cell and measure its thickness with a ruler. However, in pushing the filter cake out,
some damage may result, or the soft part of the filter cake may be compressed, resulting
in an apparent thicker section of firm filter cake.
Figures 6A and 6B show typical steps needed to measure filter cake characteristics in the
cell. The instrument shown can be easily made from a variety of hardware components.
While there is no standard in existence, these illustrations show the basic concepts. In
Figure 6A, a tool is made to fit in the top of a fluid loss cell and is calibrated (distance h)
against the screen prior to the test. After the fluid loss test has been performed, the tool is
again placed on top of the cell as shown in Figure 6B and the added height is noted (h +
dh). Several heights can be recorded, starting with the level of remaining liquid slurry,
followed by the height of soft filter cake, then the height of firm filter cake. A
comparative check can be done on different slurries as to the friability of cakes between

Halliburton
tests by placing a known weight on the top of the device and comparing the resulting
penetration into the filter cake. Finally, knowing the cross-sectional area of the device in
contact with the filter cake allows another comparative determination by calculating the
force per area needed to penetrate a given distance into the firm filter cake.
Weight Platform
h
h + dh
Alignment Plate
Soft Cake
Hard Cake
325-mesh screen
Figure 6A Pretest calibration. Figure 6B Final measurement of

firm filter cake
The last observation to make is to examine the cake after it has been forced from the cell
and allowed to stand unconfined for a few minutes. If the cake starts to “slump” under its
own weight, then such a filter cake will not remain in place for long on a perforation,
and most likely will not withstand the jetting action from the washout process.
Rheological Properties
Rheological properties are very important in that free water, sedimentation, and frictional
pressure drop are all a function of this parameter. Multi-temperature rheology data is
required to perform job simulations (OptiCem) and calculate the proper surface pressures.
The relatively higher frictional pressure drop associated with small-diameter CT strings
causes many individuals to immediately strive for the lowest rheology possible, sacrificing
slurry stability. The ideal balance is to have the rheology as low as possible, but do not
sacrifice slurry stability. Also, remember that synthetic polymers provide a more
consistent and predictable rheology.
Rheological properties are measured on a rotational viscometer at atmospheric conditions
according to API RP 10B. Because of the lack of commonly-available pressurization,
testing of rheological properties is normally limited to temperatures below 190°F. Even
with these temperature and pressure limitations in testing, useful data can be gathered to
characterize slurry properties for most CT squeeze operations. Mathematical correlations
have been developed to adjust data measured at lower temperatures for temperatures
above the testing limits of laboratory equipment. In addition, there are a few pieces of
equipment throughout the industry capable of measuring rheology of cement slurries at
downhole temperatures and at elevated pressures.

Halliburton
HTHP Gel Strength

Uncontrolled gel-strength development in a slurry can result in job-terminating events
should such a slurry be allowed to go static inside the CT or in the annulus. Gel strength
(measured in units of lb/100 ft2) should remain relatively flat for an acceptable period of
time should the slurry go static. Any hesitation schedules, post-squeeze washouts, or other
operationally-defined time periods should be used as a guide in determining what is an
acceptable time period for delayed gel-strength development. Additionally, gel-strength
development can be customized to meet specific job conditions of high injectivity at one
extreme, or long periods of squeezing where excessive gel strength could interfere with
transmission of differential pressure. Slurry gel strength can be measured with the
rotational viscometer to obtain initial and 10 minute gel strength data at atmospheric
pressure and (reliably) up to about 180oF. For more accurate gel strength determination
under high-pressure conditions, the Halliburton Mini-Macs cement tester is capable of
testing gel strengths up to 450oF and 20,000 psi.
Free Water and Settling

The 22nd edition of the API RP 10B outlines specific procedures for performing free water
and settling tests on cement slurries at both atmospheric and HTHP conditions.
Additionally, an experienced lab technician will have tell-tale indicators of settling such as
typical rheological values for specific slurries and obvious sedimentation soon after mixing
and in conditioning vessels.
A short-cut HTHP method not discussed in the API documentation involves running a
thickening time test for the anticipated placement time, turning the stirring motor off for a
period of time at HTHP conditions, then either observing the consistency deflection on
startup or (more simply) cooling the machine down and opening the slurry can for visual
observation. Free oil or water in the top of the can will be the first indication of slurry
instability, and hard sedimentation in the bottom of the can is an immediate pass/fail for
sedimentation. Final pass/fail criteria are determined by the specific application. The
Halliburton Mini-Macs is the HTHP machine most suited to carrying out gelation and
sedimentation testing under static conditions.
Compatibility Issues
Compatibility is defined as being able to mix two or more fluids together and the resulting
mixture does not undergo undesirable chemical and/or physical reactions. Compatibility
between all fluids to be pumped in the well, including cements, spacers, muds, brines, etc.,
is required. Incompatibility when two or more fluids are mixed can result in severe
gelation, fluid separation and sedimentation to varying degrees. The final outcome can be
anything from a nuisance problem during the job to a job-terminating event.
The API RP 10B provides detailed procedures (Section 16) with regards to compatibility
testing. Aspects such as contaminated rheology, thickening times, compressive strength,
settling, and static gel strength are discussed for general cementing applications. These
Halliburton
same guidelines apply especially to CT cementing because a CT unit may not be able to
pull through a severely gelled fluid mixture should it get into the annulus. In addition, the
pressure limitation of a CT string may not allow severely gelled fluids to be displaced.
Mixing Energy and Particle-Wetting Efficiency

To specifically address CT pumping effects on a cement slurry, the old saying of “Garbage
in equals garbage out,” still holds true. Likewise, “Good slurry in equals good slurry out.”
In the past 10 years, several publications have attempted to make an issue of comparing
lab-mixed to field-mixed slurries and the subsequent effects of pumping cements through
CT. This section will address these concerns.
Laboratory Versus Field Mixing Energy

It is our opinion that trying the match total laboratory mixing energy (TLME) to the total
mixing energy imparted by field equipment (FETME) is not practical. There are
differences between laboratory and field mixing processes other than total mixing energy,
specifically transient (time) effects, and particle-wetting efficiency. These differences make
this simplistic approach invalid. Making some proportional change to TLME will account
for only part of the difference between field and lab mixing equipment, and changing the
total energy applied does not address the manner in which the energy is applied to the
slurry.
For instance, attempts have been made to correlate TLME to FETME by trying to ratio or
scale down the TLME to equivalent FETME at similar operating conditions. A single-pass
jet mixer (ground mixer) operates at less than 5% of API mixing energy where API mixing
energy is defined as the energy (5.9 joules/gram) imparted to the cement powder while it
is being mixed with water when following the procedure outlined in API Specification 10
"Preparation of Slurry." A scale-down of TLME of this magnitude will not provide
sufficient energy to wet the cement particles, much less allow the slurry to reach a state of
equilibrium prior to physical testing (rheology, thickening time, etc.)
To expand this discussion to modern mixers such as the RCM, consider an RCM I mixing
at a rate of 6 bbl/min. Since at this volumetric rate, the RCM I produces about 13% to
20% of the mixing energy imparted by the API laboratory procedure (equivalent to 0.77
to 1.2 joules/gram), some have suggested that laboratory tests be run at this equivalent
energy level. Since lab mixing energy is proportional to time in the laboratory blender,
then the 35 second mixing time at 12,000 rpm would be cut to 5 to 7 seconds. An
extension of this logic would be to apply 17 seconds of mixing in the laboratory to
simulate the 50% to 75% of energy imparted by an RCM II. Years of lab testing has
shown this level of TLME to be insufficient.
There are many polymers used in cements primarily as viscosifiers and fluid loss additives.
Testing has shown that some of these polymers are more susceptible to changing with
extended residence time in a mixer. Specifically, the additives based on natural HECs such
as HALAD-9, HALAD-22A, and HALAD-322 seem to be the most susceptible, and will
Halliburton
exhibit primarily decreased viscosity. Synthetic materials such as HALAD-344, HALAD-

361A, HALAD-413, and Latex 2000 are least affected.
Particle-Wetting Efficiency
Meeting of the designed criteria and repeatability of test data requires efficient wetting of
all materials. A critical stage of the wetting process of cement particles requires that
sufficient mechanical energy be applied to fully deflocculate amorphous, hydroscopic
cement and additive aggregates. Further, by reducing TLME, thus wetting efficiency, the
transient state of slurry properties is also directly affected. By transient effects, we mean
that energy reduction greatly reduces the available time for additives to go into solution,
and for polymer hydration this effect can introduce significant error between tests. When
cement and its associated additives are placed in water, chemical reactions begin
immediately (starting with many components going into solution), and do not stop.
However, these reactions can be rate-affected by shear. When particles cannot be
contacted by water because they are tied up inside agglomerates of dry, unwetted cement
as a result of poor dispersion, all required chemical interactions are further inhibited. Only
marginal improvements can be made by the addition of dispersants such as CFR-3. But
there is also a limit as to how much dispersant can be added without affecting critical
slurry properties such as free water and settling.
A poorly wetted slurry will require significantly more energy downstream to reach the
same result (as measured by physical slurry properties) as a slurry that was mixed
efficiently to begin with. Attempts have been made to repair a poorly-wetted slurry with
chokes and screening devices as reported in SPE 26573 but with little success. Keep in
mind that mixing energy is also a function of throughput rate. Thus less time in a mixer
due to smaller volume tubs or higher pumping (down-hole) rates will yield lower specific
mixing energy values, thus a less-wetted and somewhat unstable slurry.
Test data suggests that modern field mixing equipment does not require as much FETME
to obtain the same results as standard API laboratory procedures. See OTC Paper #7068
entitled "Automatic Density Control and Specific Mixing Energy Delivery Consistent
High-Quality Cement Slurries," 1992. The paper shows that for the RCM II, FETME
values from 50% to 75% normally produces slurries with properties similar to those mixed
in the lab with standard API procedures. A significant part of the improved performance
with the RCM II as compared to previous mixers is from greater wetting efficiency when
the cement is initially wetted due to the axial flow mixer design. The same is true for the
RCM IIe.
Thus, it is not recommended that laboratory slurry mixing procedures be altered. We have
30 years of experience with the present procedures which were not arbitrarily chosen.
They approximate the energy that is required for most slurries to reach stabilized
properties, beyond which the properties change very little. Exceptions would be when
energy levels are reached that cause shear thinning due to polymer destruction, induce
significant temperature increases, severe air-entrainment, or inversion of latex systems.

Halliburton
Effects from Pumping Slurry Through the CT

A third-party service company initiated concern over shear imparted to cement slurries by
CT in 1989 and first published its work in 1990 (SPE 20959). This work stated simply
that slurries to be pumped through CT must first be “desensitized” to shear by adjusting
the slurry formulation and mixing procedures to provide sufficient mixing energy to the
slurry to deflocculate amorphous cement aggregates, but that use of a centrifugal pump
applies too much energy and such equipment should be avoided. They then elaborated
further on the batch-mixing effects and published again in 1992 under SPE 25147,
essentially expanding the same conclusions and recommendations.
In SPE 20959, the authors briefly indicate that the properties (thickening time, fluid loss,
and rheology) of the slurries they mixed in their yard tests had already departed
dramatically from lab-prepared slurries even before said slurries were pumped through the
CT spool. This aspects hits on what we referred to earlier as transient effects; that is, the
slurry was already undergoing physical change, because of poor mixing, improper slurry
design, or whatever reason. To conclude that further changes were caused by being
pumped through the CT spool is misguided to say the least. Other hypotheses were
presented for drastic changes to slurry properties such as adsorption of retarders on steel
surfaces or chemical deterioration, but at no point were slurry design or thermal effects
during mixing presented as possible causes.
While it is obvious that sufficient energy must be applied when the cement particles are
initial wetted, it has been Halliburton’s experience that well-maintained and properly
functioning recirculating mixing equipment provides ample energy to provide a stable,
well-mixed slurry. Further, our studies have shown that pumping a cement slurry through
CT has no effect on physical properties, except dilution effects on the leading and trailing
edges and rheology decreases when natural polymers are used instead of synthetics. After
the above-mentioned publications, Halliburton did similar work for a major operator in
1992, published under SPE 26573, and with another operator under SPE 26571 for a
specific application (Micro Matrix Cement). In both cases, nothing resembling the
previous report was observed. Since that time, other major operators have done internal
research and reported essentially the same results as ours: that a properly designed slurry
that takes into account all possible variables, including surface mixing temperatures, will
perform as expected regardless of batch size, mixer size, or length of CT.
Strength of the Cement

“Strength of cement” usually refers to the amount of compressive load cement will
withstand before failure. The compressive strength of a cement slurry can be determined
by the API procedure in which an unconfined 2-inch cube (nominal dimensions) is loaded
in compression (uniaxially) until the cement fails. This convenient method of compressive
strength testing is similar to failure-testing procedures used in the construction industry,
from which the API methods were developed.

Halliburton
The API has recently (API RP 10B, 22nd edition) approved the use of the Ultrasonic
Cement Analyzer (UCA) for well-simulation tests. This device offers the advantage of a
continuous measure of compressive strength versus time. This compressive strength is
determined from correlations of sonic transit time versus compressive strength, and
therefore, the results need to be calibrated with destructive API tests.
Normal compressive strength testing is carried out at a maximum temperature of BHST
and a minimum of BHCT for most applications. Additional testing is often carried out at
various temperatures that correlate to depths such as the top of liners or the top of a
cement column. Because CT cementing is normally associated with minimal wellbore
cooling, performing compressive strength tests at BHST or at some value within 90% of
BHST is considered acceptable unless knowledge of wellbore cooling and subsequent
thermal recovery is available. Should the use of the BHST prove to be too conservative,
WOC times will probably be longer.
The mode of cement failure can be compressive, tensile, or shear. Examples include the
following:
• failure from exposure to forces such as pressure differentials during production or
injection
• failure while cement is being drilled
• failure due to changes in tubular dimensions caused by pressure changes in the well
• failure from pressure effects caused by drastic thermal changes
The compressive strength of the set cement itself is really of little relevance for squeeze
cementing operations except for estimating a drillout time. However, the API compressive
strength test provides an indication of whether uncontaminated cement will set under well
conditions. For most slurries, a compressive strength of at least 500 psi should be
sufficient.
The API compressive strength test does not measure the strength of the filter cake for
squeeze cementing. Cement filter-cake density for a well-dehydrated slurry will be in
excess of 20 lb/gal for a normal-density slurry. In the elapsed time of applied squeeze
pressure, some cement blends can build filter-cake apparent compressive strengths of
5,000 psi before the liquid slurry itself develops any measurable strength. Under most
conditions, the compressive strength of the final, fully set filter cake from a squeeze
cementing operation is two to five times greater than the compressive strength of the set
cement resulting from the original slurry.
Acid Resistance
The chemical resistance or the rate of solubility of the set cement is a concern in many
squeeze operations. Portland cements are subject to attack by a variety of well fluids such
as acid, certain components in formation waters, carbon dioxide, and others. For the sake
of repeatability and presumably for worst-case evaluation, acid solubility testing is ormally

Halliburton
carried out on cubes of set cement and not cement filter cake. The testing covered in this
section and in all literature refers to testing cubes of set slurry.
Latex 2000 (styrene-butadiene) has been successfully used to decrease the rate of
solubility of Portland cement in acids. In general, 2 gal/sk of Latex 2000 in a slurry at
normal density will lower acid solubility to approximately 10% by weight when a 2-inch
cube is exposed for 1 hour in 12/3% HCl/HF acid in a stirring bath at 190oF. This
compares to a solubility of in excess of 50% for a non-latex slurry under the same test
conditions. There are also reports in the literature of acid solubilities approaching 95% for
non-latex slurries. Bear in mind that acid-solubility testing is a strong function of the test
procedures, and some of these tests are performed using cement chips or ground samples.
While not providing total acid resistance, the level of solubility rate provided by a styrene-
butadiene latex slurry does provide sufficient safe contact time to perform a small matrix
acid cleanup treatment. However, due to the very low fluid loss associated with slurries
that have sufficient latex to provide low-acid solubility rates, a trade-off can exist for
some cements when using latex slurries for node applications.
For detailed study of cement acid solubility and specific laboratory test procedures, see
Halliburton Research Laboratory Report C32-E001-92, and technical papers SPE 27683,
26571, 19541, and 18986
Summary Remarks
API tests were not designed for the specialized needs of some CT cement operations. API
tests and testing equipment often must be modified for a more accurate simulation of CT
operations. Some equipment may not be readily modified or available. Should such a
situation occur, contact the Halliburton Duncan Technology Center for immediate
assistance.
For larger CT workover operations where numerous squeeze operations may be
performed, procuring modified equipment for the local lab is highly recommended. The
following guidelines briefly summarize the information covered thus far:
• Model the planned CT procedure in the laboratory as closely as possible. Include
squeeze pressure, temperature profiles, and hesitation. Modify API procedures and
equipment, where possible, to simulate the operation.
• Test fluid loss to obtain information on filter-cake volume and quality.
• Where possible, perform fluid-loss tests simulating the actual downhole pressure
schedule. Fluid loss and filter-cake height will vary according to pressure, temperature,
and duration of CT cement squeeze.
• Where possible, determine the compressive strength development of the cement's filter
cake.

Halliburton
Job Design
Discussion thus far have centered on specific items regarding problem diagnostics, slurry
design, and lab testing. The next step is to apply these tools in a logical sequence to obtain
the best and most economical job under a given set of conditions. The worst scenario that
can be played out is to indiscriminately apply a cement squeeze without fully
understanding the problem; especially with CT operations. Diagnosis of the problem, using
one of the techniques discussed previously, is highly recommended unless knowledge of
local trends is sufficient to take precedence. The next items to consider after wellbore
cleaning and preparations have been made are material and volume selections. Remember,
when dealing with problems such as water or gas coning, or early breakthrough on EOR
projects, near-wellbore solutions may be insufficient. Techniques that involve radial
treatment for some distance around the wellbore may be required. Refer to the Halliburton
Conformance Technology manuals for guidance in these situations.
For simple, near-wellbore cement squeezing, there are no good guidelines for choosing job
volumes. Such volumes are usually picked based on local experience and the injection
rates/volumes, and whether or not the application is to simply squeeze off perforations or
to place a larger volume of cement into the annulus.
Squeezing Perforations
Perforations are often enlarged due to erosion during high-rate production. Such intervals
are also often characterized by large voids behind pipe due to sand production. Case
histories show a high failure rate of nodal squeeze technology when attempted on
washed-out perforations. Such perforations are as difficult to squeeze off as casing
damage due to corrosion or splits in the casing. Cement dehydration is more difficult over
these enlarged surface areas and may require repetitive squeezes to achieve a seal
regardless of the squeeze technique. Pretreatments with conformance chemicals can be
advantageous in these situations.
Channels
If a channel exists, determining its direction and length will aid slurry and job design and
enhance the potential for success in sealing the channel. Squeezing of perforations may
also be desirable after filling an extensive channel with a sealant. Slurry penetration along
the length of the channel will depend on cement fluid loss and rheology. A low API fluid-
loss value (40 cc to 60 cc) is commonly used to obtain passage of a cement slurry through
a channel, especially if the presence of permeable formations is confirmed. Low-fluid-loss
microfine slurries have been used successfully to traverse channels that exhibit low
injectivity (less than 1 bbl/min at maximum allowable pressure). Further, microfine slurries
have been successfully applied as lead slurries followed by moderate-fluid-loss
conventional slurries to achieve the squeeze. For extremely low-injection profiles,
consideration should be given to using solids-free, internally activated conformance
chemicals.

Halliburton
Corrosion Holes and Splits in Pipe

Eroded or corroded casings can be difficult to squeeze because of the enlarged area over
which a filter cake has to develop. The strength of a given dehydrated cement node, which
may be sufficient to seal a perforation, may not be adequate for the large surface of a
damaged pipe. Multiple treatments are not uncommon, and in these scenarios the
economics of and mechanical limitations of coiled tubing often become a factor. Scab
liners and casing-alignment tools (Section 16 of the Drillable Tools Manual) are often
employed more economically.
Cement Volume
Selection of cement volume depends on several factors, and experience is often the best
guide for selecting the initial volume to use in any squeeze operation. The parameter that
is most difficult to quantify is the volume of cement to be placed behind the pipe. Items
that affect this estimate and sources of information are as follows:
• the extent and volume of the channel (logging required)
• the void space behind pipe left by produced sand (production history and logs)
• history of lost circulation and open-hole calipers (drilling and logging records)
• displacement efficiency of primary cement job (cementing and mud reports)
• the size, extent, and number of naturally occurring or induced fractures (drilling and/or
reservoir knowledge)
Historically, cement volumes for CT squeezes using a hesitation technique and the node
technique are less than for a running squeeze where continuous pumping is applied. Also,
treatment volume reductions can be achieved due to less dilution of slurry in surface
equipment when certain procedures are followed (see Section 12.2), during pumping, and
spotting (see Section 10.5). Testing has shown that a slurry pumped through 10,000 ft of
1¼-inch CT will experience ½ bbl to ¾ bbl of dilution as compared to a range between 1
bbl and 2 bbls when pumped through 2 7/8-inch tubing.
Injectivity tests can serve as a guide but should be refined as other information becomes
available. Table 5 provides guidelines for cement volume based on injectivity-test data.
Table 5—Estimated Cement Volumes for Various Injectivity Ranges

Injection Rate Range, Injection Pressure Range, Estimated Cement Volume,
bbl/min psi bbl
1 to 3 1,000 to 2,000 8 to 14
1 to 3 Less than 1,000 10 to 18
3 to 5 1,000 to 2,000 12 to 20
3 to 5 Less than 1,000 15 to 25
Greater than 5 1,000 to 2,000 20 to 25

Halliburton
Greater than 5 Less than 1,000 25 to 35
The data in this table is based on historical field data from non-CT-squeeze work, and
should not be misconstrued as anything more. It also does not take into account the added
friction pressures encountered with CT less than two inches in diameter.
When large cement volumes are required to fill big channels or fractures, they may be
reduced by using thixotropic cements. These high gel-strength cements build resistance
and allow squeeze pressure to build. Sand can be pumped into the formation before the
cement, partially filling the area to be squeezed and forming a high-permeability bridge
against which a filter cake can be formed. In high-injectivity situations, reactive fluids such
as sodium silicate can be pumped ahead of the cement slurry using fresh water spacers
between the two materials.
Job Simulation
Halliburton cement job simulators (CJOBSIM, CEMFLO and OptiCem) were not
designed with extremely small pipes in mind. The associated high velocities and resulting
high Reynolds Numbers (in excess of 105) are beyond the current capabilities of these
programs.
Two aspects must be kept in mind when running these simulators for a CT job: (1)
depending on the fluids being pumped, frictional pressure predictions may depart from the
simulated data once the slurry enters turbulent flow, and (2) this departure will have a
different slope for that portion of the CT spooled on the reel due to the unusual flow
profile as shown in Figure 7. Flow in a curved pipe causes secondary circulations in a
plane perpendicular to the pipe axis. These secondary circulations are caused by the
centrifugal acceleration of the axial flow due to the pipe curvature, thus influencing the
mean axial profile such that it is no longer symmetrical about the axis.

Halliburton
Figure 7 - Laminar flow in straight pipe versus curved pipe

As a result, the friction pressures predicted by currently-used dynamic pumping simulators
will be somewhat different than what is seen on the job. Figures 8a through 8d provide
some sample pressure data that was recorded during large-scale testing of both straight
and spooled sections of 1¼-inch CT that had a nominal wall thickness of 0.087 inches and
an ID of 1.076 inches. The diameter of the spooled section of CT used was 82.75 inches.
1800 25
1600
Friction Pressure, psi/1000 ft
1400 20 4
Reynolds Number x 10
1200 Spool
15 Straight Pipe
1000
CEMFLO
800
10 OptiCem
600 Reynolds Number
400 5
200
0 0
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8
Flowrate, BPM
Figure 8a – Fresh Water, 85°F. Calculated Critical Flowrate = 0.02 BPM.

Halliburton
1800 16000
1600 14000
1400
Reynolds Number
12000 Spool
1200
10000 Straight Pipe
1000
8000 CEMFLO
800
6000 OptiCem
600
4000 Reynolds Number
400
200 2000
0 0
0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Flowrate, BPM
Figure 8b - 16.4 lb/gal Class H Cement, PV = 23 cp, YP = 9 lb/100 ft2, 100 oF.
Calculated Critical Flowrate = 0.38 BPM.
1800 14000
1600 12000
1400
Reynolds Number
10000 Spool
1200
8000 Straight Pipe
1000
CEMFLO
800 6000 OptiCem
600 Reynolds Number
4000
400
200 2000
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Flowrate, BPM
Figure 8c - 15.8 lb/gal Class H Cement, PV = 27.5 cp, YP = 9.8 lb/100 ft2, 120 oF

Halliburton
1800 6000
1600
5000
1400
Reynolds Number
Spool
1200 4000
Straight Pipe
1000
3000 CEMFLO
800
OptiCem
600 2000 Reynolds Number
400
1000
200
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0
Flowrate, BPM
Figure 8d - 15.8 lb/gal Class H Cement, PV = 41 cp, YP = 14.7 lb/100 ft2, 120 oF
Table 6 summarizes the differences between spooled and straight pipe and between
straight pipe and CEMFLO at 0.5 and 1.0 bbl/min, as this is the most common operating
range for pumping cement through 1¼-inch CT.
Table 6 - Summary of Friction Data Differences, psi/1000 ft

Spool – Straight Pipe Straight Pipe – OptiCem
0.5 BPM 1.0 BPM 0.5 BPM 1.0 BPM

Water INS INS 60 psi 170 psi
16.4 lb/gal Slurry 30 psi -30 psi -20 psi 100 psi
15.8 Low-Viscosity 30 psi -65 psi -40 psi 50 psi
15.8 Higher-Viscosity 40 psi -175 psi -15 psi -100 psi
* INS denotes a pressure difference of less than 10 psi/1000 ft
The purpose of presenting this data is to point out that some degree of error will exist
between simulator and actual pressure data. The significance of such error margins will
depend on the individual job. Unless the job is being performed on a well at under-
balanced hydrostatic conditions where there is a danger of approaching the working
pressure limitations of the CT, or if a running squeeze will be attempted via a choke
while circulating above the treatment, such error is usually not a major concern. Several
references exist in the literature that address flow in curved pipes and that develop high
Reynolds Numbers. Some of these mathematical models may be included in OptiCem at

Halliburton
some future date. Finally, there exists no known model to simulate the effects of the
welded bead on the ID of smaller CT strings.
Job Design
Thus far, this manual has concentrated on concepts and pre-job planning. Sections 11 and
12 will cover the logistics of job design and execution in more detail.
Equipment
Equipment used for CT squeezes is the same in most respects to that used for other
cementing operations However, there are a few other items that will aid in making a job
go more smoothly. A complete listing is provided below.
• coiled tubing unit and any necessary auxiliary cranes or hydraulic power-packs
• squeeze manifold and two adjustable chokes equipped with pressure gauges
• bleedoff/diverter valving at the entry side of the CT
• cement mixing equipment – batch mixing is preferred where slurry quality is critical
• high-pressure pumping equipment and any necessary transfer or additive pumps
• fluid storage and mixing tanks for contaminating fluid, if used
• fluid filters – filtering fluids before injectivity testing or squeezing is recommended. A
filtering unit should have differential pressure gauges on the filter and be capable of
delivering high rates for killing the well.
• nitrogen pump – recommended for inflow and negative testing if the reservoir pressure
is insufficient to provide an inflow test at flowing differentials with a full column of
fluid to the surface. Also used for foam cementing.
• flowback tank with gauge marks and a gas-handling device
• clod screen positioned on a low-pressure circulation system to prevent cement chunks
or large particulate from clogging lines, valves, CT string, and CT nozzles
• CT cementing nozzle (if required)
• cement slurry test equipment (on-site testing is recommended if possible) –, an
atmospheric consistometer, a high pressure fluid-loss cell with a heating jacket, a
rotational viscometer, and pressurized mud balance
• two-way radios for communication between the equipment operators and the job
supervisor
Cementing Nozzles
Some situations, such as the nodal-washout technique will require the use of a specialized
nozzle on the end of the CT. Figure 9 shows one of the more complex nozzles, but there
are many variations, depending on the job to be pumped. Simpler nozzles consist of
nothing more than a ported sub. When building such nozzles, make sure all shoulders are
beveled so as to prevent hanging the nozzle when passing through narrow restrictions.
Halliburton
Section A-A: 6 each, 1/8-inch ports drilled

tangential to the internal circumference.
3” OD
A Cross Section A-A
Section B-B: 9 each, 5/16-inch ports drilled A
3/4” 0.7”
o
to alternate 30 up and down from the
B
Ball Hole
horizontal. B
Cross Section B-B
Figure 9 – Combination cementing/wash nozzle (ref: Walker, Gnatt, & Crow,

World Oil, June 1992)
Equipment Layout and Safety

If possible, lay out equipment on location to enable visual communication between the
operators and the job supervisor. Figure 10 shows a sample layout for equipment. All
equipment operators should have sight of the wellhead and the squeeze manifold. Spot
equipment a safe distance from the well and upwind if possible. Follow company safety
policy and guidelines for all operations.
Gauge
Contam
Water
CTU
Pump
Batch
Mxr
Clod Filter
Centr
Pump
Figure 10—Sample equipment layout for CT squeeze operation

Halliburton
Volumetric Calibration of Equipment

Use the following list to determine the volume of the surface equipment and the CT unit
before each operation:
1. Place a bleedoff or bypass valve in the high-pressure line ahead of the coil.
2. Prime all pumps.
3. Calibrate the flow meters by pumping known volumes of fluid from measuring tanks.
4. Open the bypass valve ahead of the coil and fill the treating (high pressure) lines.
5. Record the volume of this system.
6. Close the bypass valve.
7. Measure the volume required to fill the coil.
8. Record the required volume.
This procedure also allows a check to ensure the CT is clear of debris before starting it in
the wellbore. Once complete, the volume counters on the cementing unit are calibrated to
the CT and all surface equipment. If significant errors are found and are not acceptable to
the upcoming job, the flowmeters should be serviced or replaced.
Viscous PrePad
Steps will be covered in Section 12.2 that are proven to help minimize dilution of the
cement slurry due to surface equipment. However, these steps do not aid in prevention of
dilution in the CT string or in the annulus. While large-scale testing has shown that slurry
dilution at both the leading and trailing edges of the slurry will typically be no more than 1
bbl when pumped through 10,000 ft. of 1 ¼” CT spooled at the surface, no testing has been
done to verify the intermixing length in the string while in the wellbore.
Field data reported by Carpenter indicates that, baed on pressure responses observed during
jobs, significant contamination does occur.12 However, large-scale plug cementing research
has shown that the degree of intermixing depends on factors such as density difference, flow
regimes, velocities, hydraulic flow areas, etc. Rather than attempting to model these
complex scenarios, it is common to run a volume of viscous prepad ahead of a squeeze
slurry, especially when extremely small volumes of slurry are being used and significant
volumetric contamination cannot be tolerated. Weighted spacers should be avoided, as the
solids typically associated with conventional cement spacers can bridge and interfere with
the placement of the slurry in some situations such as when applying the nodal squeeze
method or when squeezing into low injectivity openings.
Viscous prepads can be prepared using the same polymers that will be discussed in Section
12.5.2. Concentrations of 2 to 3 lb/bbl of HEC-based polymers are usually satisfactory in
that such a fluid will provide adequate viscosity and yield point for solids transport, and
minimize retardation of the cement. Filtering of such solutions is also done to prevent
plugging of perforations with any “fisheyes” that may be present.

Halliburton
Another technique to minimize contamination while pumping is to isolate select fluids

mechanically. Foam balls have been used successfully for this purpose. Use of this
technique will require specialized ball or plug-releasing devices at the entry of the CT unit.
It should also be verified that use of such isolation techniques will not interfere with the
final outcome of the job, as these items cannot be circulated out of the well and must be
easily drillable should removal be required.
Job Execution
Depth Control and Correlation

Accurate information about depth is necessary for a successful squeeze operation. Most
CT units have counters that indicate the depth of the end of the coil. These counters have
limited accuracy and do not account for stretch in the tubing or residual bend effects.
Stretch in the tubing can be calculated by Hook’s Law:
S = (F x L) / (E x A)
where
S = stretch in feet
F = force in pounds
L = length of tubing in feet
E = Young’s Modulus (typically 30 x 106 psi)
A = a cross-sectional area of the coiled tubing in inches
Where possible, calibrate or correlate depth with casing-collar locators, tubing-end
locators (TEL), or tubing-nipple locators (TNL). Tagging bottom may be useful if the
squeeze interval is near TD. TEL or TNL are useful if the squeeze interval is close to the
end of the tubing.
Tagging bottom is a good technique for most squeeze operations, but provides accurate
depth correlations only if used properly. Also, be aware that if significant solids are in the
rat-hole and are circulated up into the annulus between the CT and production tubing, the
CT can become stuck. Never stop circulating and avoid letting the CT become static
during a bottom-tagging procedure.
A procedure for correlating counters with the actual depth through tagging bottom is as
follows:
1. Check and record the weight just before tagging bottom.
2. Tag bottom and notice the weight slack - an indication that the CT string is going into
compression.

Halliburton
3. Pull up the CT string until the weight is the same as the weight just before tagging
bottom. The CT is put in tension, with stretch accounted for, just as the end moves off
bottom.
4. Note the depth difference and make a correlation to correct counter for depth.
Cement Mixing and Pumping

High-shear mixing systems such as the RCM II that have Automated Density Control
(ADC) are recommended for all cementing operations. The mixing methods available for
preparing slurries for CT squeeze operations are listed below in order of preference:
• Using a batch-mixer in conjunction with an RCM II allows for a more homogeneous
slurry. For smaller jobs, the 25-bbl mixing tub on the Advantage Skid is very useful.
Some HES batch mixers have an RCM mixing system as well.
• Continuous mixing with the RCM II equipped with ADC is satisfactory for most jobs
that do not involve node building or otherwise require critical control of slurry
properties.
Once the slurry has been mixed and met any necessary on-location quality control
measures, it is ready to go in the CT. At the start of pumping the slurry into the CT, it is
sometimes advisable to divert flow at the entry side of the unit until good-quality slurry is
observed. This extra step minimizes the amount of diluted slurry in the CT string. The
same procedure can also be used at the end of the slurry volume. Normally, 1 to 2 bbls of
slurry will be diluted on the leading edge of the slurry because of pumping through surface
equipment, particularly the suction manifolds.
Cement Placement (Spotting) Technique

One of the best features of CT is that it allows spotting of the treatment fluid across the
interval to be sealed. This allows precise placement of small volumes with much less
contamination than direct injection from above the perforations. This method also is ideal
for spotting contamination-free balanced cement plugs under any scenario including
kickoff plugs and plugs for abandonment. However, if injectivity is high and large volumes
of cement are being injected or if mechanical restrictions exist, spotting may not be
possible. Also, given the lower tensile strength of CT as compared to conventional
threaded pipe, one should be especially wary of differential sticking across high
permeability zones that have low bottomhole pressures.
The recommended procedure for spotting cement with CT designed to minimize
contamination of the cement with the fluid in the wellbore is described below.
1. Prepare a schedule of CT depth versus volumes pumped before the operation.
2. With wellbore prepared for the treatment, lower the CT into position below the
deepest perforations as cement is being circulated down so as to avoid allowing the
CT to remain static across the open perforations. Again, if there is a high

Halliburton
probability of differential sticking, do not risk having the CT string across

perforations when solids-laden fluid enters the annulus.
3. Begin pumping spacer and cement through the CT following agreed upon procedures.
4. After the leading edge of cement has entered the annulus, allow it to rise a short
distance above the end of the CT before pulling the CT up. The volume of slurry
between the end of the CT and the top of cement is the “contamination interface.”
5. Pull the CT up at a rate equal to or slower than that fluid rise in the annulus to permit
the end of the CT nozzle to remain 5 to 10 ft. below the top of the cement.
6. As the last of the treatment volume exits the CT, accelerate the CT pulling rate to
allow the end of the CT nozzle to be above the planned top of cement.
7. Finally, the squeeze can begin either after clearing the CT by reversing or circulating
bottoms-up, or simultaneously by using surface chokes. Simultaneous pumping and
squeezing requires the utmost attention to communication, pre-job planning and
computer pressure simulation.
The Actual Squeeze

After more than 40 pages of detailed discussions, we are finally ready to perform the
squeeze. After spotting the cement and positioning the end of the CT nozzle a safe
distance above the top of the cement (at least 50 to 75 ft.), increase pressure to initiate
filter-cake building. Some filter cake usually already exists at this stage due to differentials
induced by ECD and hydrostatic effects during placement. Generally, the differential
pressure at the perforation is gradually built to 1,000 and 1,500 psi above the initial
bottomhole pump-in pressure for the squeeze process.
Once an initial filter cake has been formed, the pressure is ramped up to increase the
filter-cake node height and compress or densify the filter cake. Densification of the filter
cake is important for the protection of the squeeze during washout of excess cement.
The maximum allowable squeeze pressure can be above or below the fracture pressure of
the formation, depending on the application. For most applications, the job is over at this
point. Subsequent steps may involve recompleting another zone after waiting some
specified time period for the cement to set (WOC), or coming back in with the CT and
drilling out the squeeze prior to pressure testing.
For nodal applications, the most critical phase is only beginning. If you do not
understand the nodal technique or have not studied Section 9.4, then do so NOW. A
detailed pressure/volume/time schedule is required to ensure adequate node buildup. If
low differential pressures are used and the cement nodes did not properly form, the filter
cake may be fragile, and a successful squeeze may not result. High differential squeeze
pressures, often above the formation fracture pressure, normally ensure that the nodes
are competent and all perforations have opened and accepted cement slurry. However, a
risk of breaking down the squeeze is possible, requiring another squeeze attempt if the
higher squeeze pressure is attempted too early in the schedule or if the perforations are

Halliburton
severely eroded. The nodal squeeze example problems in Appendix B both have simple
job worksheets that exhibit the type of schedules that can be prepared.
As filter cake integrity is increased (lower permeability, higher bulk density), its
capability to resist differential pressure and thus protect the formation from fracturing
increases. More often, some breakdown will occur as medium-range pressures are
reached; this is usually an indication of a perforation opening and accepting cement
slurry if fracture pressure has not been reached. Careful ramping of the pressure in the
later stages of pressurization can increase filter-cake integrity and node height, further
protecting the formation from fracturing and improving the potential for a successful
squeeze operation. Final pressure in many CT nodal squeeze operations can be between
500 and 1500 psi above fracture pressure, depending on the formation, and condition of
the well and perforations.
Cleaning Out Excess Cement Slurry

The procedure to circulate out excess cement should be customized for each well
according to well type and conditions. Removal of excess cement slurry after the squeeze
operation can generally be viewed as two different types of operations. Conventional
approaches call for simple removal of excess slurry above the treatment followed by an
appropriate WOC time. Then, the set cement can be drilled out to the desired depth. The
approach normally associated with nodal-buildup requires the washing of all remaining
cement slurry from the wellbore prior to cement hydration occurring. This step is one of
the primary attractions to the nodal technique in that it eliminates several days of time
usually expended on WOC and drilling. This method also significantly reduces the
potential for failure of squeezed perforations due to drilling out the squeezed interval.
Cleaning Out Cement Slurry Without the Contamination Procedure

Reversing or circulating out excess cement can be accomplished without the
contamination procedure when sufficient thickening time remains, and if the cement has
not developed excessive gel strength. When removing excess cement without
contamination, special attention must be given to preventing the following:
• breaking down the squeeze because of excessive hydrostatic pressure
• plugging the annulus with viscous cement slurry
• cement hydration prior to completion of the procedure
• compatibility (thickening time reduction) of the cement slurry due to contamination
with the wellbore fluid
The process consists of the following simple steps:
1. Maintain a running-in-hole (RIH) speed with the CT to enable lifting and/or dilution of
the cement slurry and to prevent excessive wellhead pressure (WHP).
2. After clean returns are observed at the surface, make at least one more jetting pass.

Halliburton
3. Maintain adequate overbalance pressure across the squeezed interval while performing
these operations when appropriate (i.e., under-balanced fluid column).
Contamination Procedure
A contamination washout procedure is commonly used to remove slurry after a nodal
squeeze. Such a procedure involves contaminating the unset cement during washing that
also should increase the hydration time of the cement due to chemical retarding. Dilution
also minimizes the effects of cement hydration.
If contamination is to be used, it is strongly recommended that the process first be
simulated in the lab by exposing the slurry to various contamination levels at BHT
to ensure compatibility; gelation spikes must be avoided.
The primary design criteria of the washout/contaminate fluids are to provide solids
suspension of the cement slurry under low velocity conditions in the annulus, and if
necessary, retard the hydration reactions of the cement. Contamination can be
accomplished with single or dual-gel polymer systems that achieve these criteria. Mildly
retarding xanthan biopolymers such as Biozan are commonly used. Dual systems
utilizing Biozan, cellulose-based fluid-loss additives for drilling muds, and high-
temperature cement-settling control additives have also been used, as well as guars.
Total polymer loadings on the “first pass” volume of fluid usually are around 2.5 lb/bbl
of water. A minimum volume for this first pass is typically 1.5 times the expected slurry
volume. After the first pass has been made and the bulk of the slurry has been mobilized,
polymer loadings in subsequent wash fluids can be dropped to around 0.75 to 1.5 lb/bbl,
depending on the formulation being used. These dual systems are sometimes designed
around specific temperature ranges, compatibility issues, and improving the economics
of the wash fluid.
An additional design step sometimes considered is to examine effects of the contaminate
on ultimate filter cake integrity. This is done by exposing the filter cake made during a
fluid loss test to the contaminate. Some of the early work used powerful cement retarders
such as borax in the washout fluid. This practice is no longer recommended. Not only
does this extend the WOC time prior to the perforations being pressure tested, but
practice and lab testing has shown that such chemicals can permeate the filter cake
causing it to soften and slump to the point where it eventually falls off of the perforation.
Mild cement retarders such as that used in the slurry itself or even some viscosifiers used
that impart longer hydration times are usually sufficient.
Node-Hardening
Even when mildly retarding to non-retarding wash fluids are used, node degradation is
possible due to cement particle diffusion into the wellbore brine or water remaining after
the washout. To offset this weakening of the cement node, accelerator solutions are
commonly spotted across the perforations after all cement slurry is safely out of the
wellbore. These solutions work by penetrating the remaining permeability of the cement
node and accelerating the hydration of the cement. Economical solutions that have been

Halliburton
used include completion brines, various salts such as CaCl2, triethanolamine (TEA), and
blends of both TEA and salts. A 5% to 20% solution of TEA is typically the most effective
at temperatures above 130oF. Testing reported by Carpenter shows that a 5% TEA
solution mixed in fresh water can completely penetrate a 2-inch cement cube in less than
24-hours,11 producing in excess of 50% of ultimate compressive strength. Comparative
testing on the same slurry with fresh water resulted in unset cement in 24 hours.
However, even when deep penetration is not achieved, the hard shell of hydrated cement
on the node surface provides support to prevent slumping while the interior of the node is
undergoing hydration at normal rates. Lab testing on filter cake is recommended prior to
use.
General Washout Procedure

A general procedure for washout after a node squeeze is as follows:
1. Circulate the first heavy polymer-loading fluid to the nozzle and start the jetting
operation from the anticipated top of cement.
2. RIH while jetting at maximum rate, decreasing the rate to 1.5 bbl/min across the
perforations. Use a sufficient volume to achieve at least a 1:1 volume dilution of the
cement slurry with the contamination fluid until reaching previous CT TD.
3. Ensure that all the diluted cement is above the nozzle by pulling the CT while
circulating at 80 percent of the pump rate used while going in the well. Continue until
returns are acceptably clean.
4. Repeat the jetting sequence twice more using a solution with a lower polymer
loading. During this stage, some jetting nozzle profiles such as the one shown
previously can be altered by dropping a ball to activate high-velocity tangential side-
jets. On the last pass, circulate a TEA solution in place (if required) across the
perforations while pulling out of the hole.
5. Switch to slickwater (clean water with a friction reducer) if well control conditions
permit, and POOH, washing all downhole equipment.
Reverse Circulation
Reversing out treatment fluids, whether cement slurries or polymers, is sometimes
required or more advantageous than normal circulation. It may be desirable to avoid
exposing some production equipment such as gas-lift tools to these fluids. If large solids
such as gun debris or high sand concentrations are suspected, annular bridging may be a
concern. Annular bridging can result in both loss of circulation as well as sticking of the
CT string.
Low annular velocities resulting from pressure restrictions of small-diameter CT,
combined with large-diameter tubing or casing during normal circulation, can prohibit
effective cement contamination and cleanout. Reverse circulation, however, can effectively
remove the cement slurry in the presence of poor annular hydraulics. Circulation is
performed down the backside as returns (cement slurry, debris, etc.) are taken from the
CT. Reverse circulation also minimizes hydraulic agitation across the perforated interval
Halliburton
during cleanout. However, this method has the potential of exposing the cement nodes to
elevated pressure.
The RIH speed must be controlled to prevent the formation of high density slugs in the CT
during reverse circulation, which may increase circulating pressure on the back side to
unacceptable limits. If this situation occurs, the CT must be purged while pulling up by
applying direct circulation before repeating the process.
Removal of Cement Bridges Left in the Wellbore

Many wells require removal of cement bridges and sheaths left after the cleanout. These
bridges are most easily removed immediately after they are encountered. Knowledge of
the capabilities and limitations of the equipment is essential.
Under-reaming
Small completion IDs will require use of small-diameter motors, which have limited rate
and torque output compared to the full-size equipment used in conventional drilling
applications. The under-reamer should include a full-gauge hole at or near the bottom of
the tool to prevent side loading as a pilot hole is established.
Conical Water Jet or Hydrojetting

Hydrojetting is an option for removal of cement bridges, but it has several requirements:
• The conical water jets used for this operation may require a long lead time.
• The application itself requires job-specific design of the nozzle.
• The high pump pressures needed to apply this technology may require a special string
of CT that is not always readily available.
Testing the Squeeze

The success of the squeeze operation can only be determined by testing, for which there a
re two methods:
• the positive pressure differential test
• the negative pressure differential test
The type of test chosen will be dictated by the type of operation that was performed, well
type, future use of the well, and regulatory requirements. The positive-pressure test is a
test of the seal in the direction of fluid injection used for the squeeze operation and for
injection wells. The negative or under-balanced pressure test creates a differential pressure
from the formation into the wellbore–opposite to the direction of flow that was used to
place the cement and representative of producing well conditions. Producing wells often
require a negative-pressure or under-balance test, and injection wells often require a
positive-pressure test.

Halliburton
Failure of the Squeeze

If testing proves the squeeze a failure, a re-squeeze operation may be required. A
production or injection well can be re-completed and monitored for effectiveness before
re-squeezing. However, if the squeeze fails to meet regulatory requirements, a re-squeeze
is mandatory. Before re-squeezing, perform an injectivity test to determine the magnitude
of the failure. Running logs is also helpful in determining the location of the failure.

Halliburton
Bibliography
1. “Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements,” API Recommended Practice 10B, 22nd Edition, API,
Dallas (December, 1997).
2. Walker, E.J., Gantt, L., and Crow, W.: “Coiled Tubing . . . Operations and Services,” CTH (1993) 51-57.
3. Pavlich, J.P., Greaves, C., and Edwards, T.M.: “Designing Slurries for Coiled Tubing Cement Squeezes,”
CTH (1993) 116-20.
4. Gantt, L.L. and Smith, B.E.: “Advancements in the Coiled Tubing Cement Squeeze Process at Prudhoe Bay,”
paper presented at the 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations,
Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
5. Brookey, J.B. and Garrett, C.: “Use of Drilling Fluid Additives to Improve Drilling and Remedial Operations
with Coiled Tubing,” paper presented at the 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled Tubing
Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
6. Teel, M.E.: “Coiled Tubing 1994 Update: Expanding Applications,” World Oil (June 1994) 39-45.
7. Vidick, B., Nash, F.D., and Hartley, I.: “Cementing Through Coiled Tubing and Its Influence on Slurry
Properties,” paper SPE 20959 presented at Europe 90, The Hague, October 22-24, 1990.
8. Heathman, J.F., Carpenter, R.B., Sanders, G.S., and Wedman, M.L.: “Acid-Resistant Microfine Squeeze
Cement: From Conception to Viable Technology,” paper SPE 26571 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 3-6.
9. Barry, T.S., Beck, D.L., and Putnam, J.S.: “Offshore Coiled-Tubing Cement Squeezes, Forties Field,” paper
SPE 23144 presented at the 1991 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, September 3-6.
10. Heathman, J.F., Sands, F.L., Sas-Jaworsky, A., and Badalamenti, A.M.: “A Study of the Effects of Mixing
Energy Imparted on Cement Slurries by Field Equipment and Coiled Tubing,” paper SPE 26573 presented at
the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 3-6.
11. Brookey, T., Bird, J., and Garrett, C.: “Copolymer Beads Aid Drilling and Remedial Operations by Reducing
Wellbore Friction.” Proc., Second Annual Coiled Tubing Technology International Management Conference,
Dallas (1994) Paper No. 22.
12. Carpenter, R.B.: “New Technologies Address the Problem Areas of Coiled-Tubing Cementing,” paper SPE
20426 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 23-
26.
13. Oliver, A., Calvert, G., and Gavin, B.: “Coiled Tubing Cement Squeeze with Wash Through Operation.” SPE
Production Engineering (May 1992) 137-43.
14. Haney, J. and Folmnsbee, G.: “Coiled Tubing Improves North Sea Squeeze Cementing,” Petroleum Engineer
International (August 1991) 28-34.
15. Krause, R.E. and Reem, D.C.: “New Coiled-Tubing Cementing Techniques at Prudhoe Developed to
Withstand Higher Differential Pressure,” SPE Production and Facilities (November 1993) 260-62.
16. Fleckenstein, W.W. and Garner, T.A.: “An Operator’s Perspective on Through-Tubing Recompletion
Technology,” paper SPE 27895 presented at the 1994 Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, March 23-25.
17. Vrokinn, P.B. and Sanders, G.S.: “Cement Slurry Qualification, Field Mixing, and Quality Assurance
Procedures for Coiled-Tubing Squeeze Operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE 26089 presented at the
1993 Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, May 26-28.
18. Bond, A. and BP Alaska Authors: “Latex Acid Resistant Cement and Various New or Existing Placement
Techniques,” paper presented at the 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled Tubing
Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 13-16, 1995.
19. Mody, R.K., Coronado, M.P., and Craig, G.C.: “Coiled Tubing Conveyed Inflatable Workover Systems,”
Proc., 1993 Coiled Tubing Operations and Slimhole Drilling Practices Conference.
20. Brady, J.L., Gantt, L.L., Fife, D.M., and Rich, D.A.: “Cement Solubility in Acids,” paper SPE 18986
presented at the 1989 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and
Exhibition, Denver, March 6-8.

Halliburton
21. Blount, C.G., Brady, J.L., Fife, D.M., Gantt, L.L., Huesser, J.M., and Hightower, C.M.: “HCl-HF Acid-
Resistant Cement Blend: Model Study and Field Application,” paper SPE 19541 presented at the 1989 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
22. Carpenter, R.B., and Edwards, T.M.: “A Proven Methodology for Comparison of Cement Acid Solubility,”
paper SPE 27683 presented at the 1994 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
March 16-18.
23. Yang, S.Y. “Equation Determines Pressure Drop in Coiled Tubing,” Oil & Gas Journal (December 4, 1995),
67-68.
24. Binkley, G.W., Dumbauld, G.K., and Collins, R.E., “Factors Affecting the Rate of Deposition of Cement in
Unfractured Perforations During Squeeze-Cementing Operations,” Trans. AIME (1958) Vol. 213, 51-58.
25. Boersma, B.J., and Nieuwstadt, F.T.M., “Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flow in a Curved Pipe,” Trans.
AIME (1996) Vol. 118, 248-254.
26. Robertson, A.M., “On Viscous Flow in Curved Pipes of Non-Uniform Cross-Section,” International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Fluids, (1996) Vol. 22, 771-798.
27. “Microfine Cementing Products,” Halliburton Best Practices Series, Halliburton Bibliography number
H00727 (Oct. 1997).
28. “Worldwide Cementing Practices,” First Edition, API (January, 1991).
29. Noles, J., Bays, B., Browning, G, and Knecht, B., “Small-Capacity Cement Procedure Reduces Failure
Potential,” World Oil (May 1996), 53-55.
30. Fram, J.H., and Eberhard, M.J., “Use of Coiled Tubing for Abandoning Shallow Thermal Wells, South
Belridge Field, Kern County, California,” paper SPE 26087 presented at the 1993 SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, May 16-18.
31. Krilov, Z., Romic, L., Celap, S., and Cabrajac, S., “Permeability Damage Due to Precipitation of Insoluble
Salts From Cement Slurry Filtrates,” paper SPE 25218 presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, March 2-5.

Halliburton
Appendix A–Estimating the Fluid Level in a Well

If the fluid level in a well is not known, it can be estimated as follows:
1. Establish the following two equations with two unknown items:
X + Y = Vertical depth of mid perforations
AGG(X) + AFG(Y) = Pr
where
X = vertical height of gas in the wellbore (ft)

Y = vertical height of fluid in the wellbore (ft)
AGG = average gas gradient (psi/ft).......estimate 0.1 psi/ft
AFG = average fluid gradient (psi/ft).......estimate 0.3 psi/ft
Pr = Reservoir pressure(psi)..................known from BHP surveys
2. Solve for the unknowns (X,Y) by rearranging as follows:
X = Vertical depth of mid perforations - Y
or
X = TVD - Y
3. Substitute the new equation 1 into equation 2, which now becomes
0.1(TVD - Y) + 0.3(Y) = Pr
Y = [Pr - (0.1*TVD)]/0.2
Now that Y is known, you can substitute it into equation 1 to solve for the fluid
height

Halliburton
Appendix B–Example Problems
Example Problem 1
Diagnostics
Reservoir pressure = 2,000 psi. Reservoir Temperature = 160°F
CBL showed no cement bond between the top perforations and the aquifer.
The initial TCP indicated sand in the perforation surge chamber.
The slickline TD tag and sample bailer showed sand covering perforations.
The well sanded up immediately after perforating with TCP guns.
• BHP = 2,000 psi

• BHT = 160°F
Water Zone
• TVD = 6,600 ft
• Hole angle = 50°
• Gas lift completion
• Upward channel to
water zone
Directional Survey
Table C1—Directional Survey
MD TVD Inclination
1,000 1,000 3
2,000 1,958 23
2,400 2,325 23
3,000 2,883 21
4,000 3,847 15
5,026 4,824 22
5,500 5,243 30
6,049 5,697 41
6,515 6,025 47
7,039 6,374 49
7,507 6,681 49
7,784 6,857 51

Halliburton
Volumes
Tubing
3 1/2 in. 0.0087 bbl/ft * (2,400 ft to 7,230 ft) = 42 bbl
4 1/2 in. 0.0152 bbl/ft * 2,400 ft = 36.5 bbl
78.5 bbl
Casing
Sump 0.0371 bbl/ft * (7,900 to 7,820) = 3.0 bbl
Perforations 0.0371 bbl/ft * (7,820 to 7,670) = 5.6 bbl
Tailpipe - Top Perfs 0.0371 bbl/ft * (7,670 to 7,230) = 16.3 bbl
Overall (Inside casing) 0.0371 bbl/ft * (7,900 to 7,230) = 24.9 bbl
Behind casing (top perf to aquifer) 0.0226 bbl/ft * (7,670 to 7,600) = 1.3 bbl
Coiled Tubing Volume: 19 bbl
Fluid Column
Fluid level 6,790 - [ 2,000 / ( .052* 8.6 ) ]
6,790 - 4,470 = 2,320 ft TVD (2,400 ft MD)
Volume Above Fluid Level (1.5-in. Coiled Tubing x Production Tubing Annulus)
0.0130 bbl/ft * 2,400 ft = 31 bbl
Cement Volume
Fill casing from PBTD to at least 100 ft above perforations
Sump 3 bbl
Perforations 5.6 bbl
100' Above Perforations 3.7 bbl
12.3 bbl................Use 15 bbl (170 ft above top perf)

Halliburton
Worst Case Top of Cement = PBTD - Cement Height
WCTOC = 7,900 ft - (15 bbl/0.0371 bbl/ft) = 7,495 ft MD
Gel Contaminant Volume = 3X Casing Volume
= 3 * 24.9 bbl = 75 bbl............Mix 150 bbl for contingency of

lost circulation
Example Nozzle Worksheet (Problem No. 1)

No. MD Fluid Rate Vol CTP WHP At Nozzle Comments
Fluid / Vol
1 7,900 FSW 1.5 ++ 3,500 0 FSW / ++ Clean out sand with well flowing on GL and
perform TD check. Injectivity test down BS.
2 7,900 CMT 1.5 0 4,000 Vac FSW / ++ Shut in well. Begin cement down CT.
3 7,900 CMT 1.5 10 4,000 Vac FSW / ++
4 7,900 CMT/ 1.5 15/0 4,000 Vac FSW / ++ Finish pumping cement. Switch to FSW.
FSW
5 7,900 FSW 1.5 / 4 1,500 Vac CMT / 0 Cement at nozzle. Decrease rate and begin
1.0 POOH at 27 ft/min
6 7,765 FSW 1.0 9 1,500 Vac CMT / 5
7 7,660 FSW 1.0 13 1,500 0 CMT / 9 Cement covering perfs. Begin filling
production tubing. Any increase in fluid
height is applying squeeze pressure.
8 7,495 FSW 1.0 19 1,500 0 CMT / 15 All cement out nozzle. Continue POOH to
FSW / 0 7,400 ft at 60 ft/min and decrease to
minimum rate.
9 7,400 FSW 0.25 20 200 0 FSW / 1 Stop CT at 7,400 and resume maximum
pump rate down CT.
10 7,400 FSW/ 1.5 51 / 0 4,000 0 FSW / 25 Production tubing filled. Begin to see
GEL (1,000) positive pressure indication at surface.
Control squeeze pressure with choke.
Approximately 20 minutes have elapsed since
perforations were covered with cement; 1,000
psi effective squeeze pressure with WHP =
0. Switch to gel and decrease rate to 0.5
bbl/min
11 7,400 GEL 0.5 10 1,000 1,000 FSW / 35 Build surface squeeze pressure to 1,000 psi;
2,000 psi effective squeeze pressure.
Maintain pressure for 60 minutes total time.
12 7,400 GEL 0.5 19 1,000 1,000 FSW / 44 Gel contaminant at nozzle. Slowly release
GEL / 0 squeeze pressure. Then increase rate to
maximum and RIH contaminating cement.
13 7,500 GEL 1.5 20 4,000 0 GEL / 1 Reciprocate down to PBTD and up to EOT
three times. Decrease rate to 1 bbl/min across
perfs.
14 7,900 GEL/ 1.5 75 4,000 0 GEL / 75 Final downward pass to TD. Displace well to
FSW FSW / 0 FSW while POOH.

Halliburton
Example Problem 2
Diagnostics
Reservoir pressure = 4,800 psi Reservoir Temperature = 160°F
4 ½-in. Tubing
(0.0149 bbl/ft)
1 ½ -in. OD CT
Capacity: 20 bbl
Packer 9,200 ft
Perfs: 9,800 ft to Reservoir Pressure: 4,800 psi

Reservoir Temp: 160°F
9,900 ft MD/TVD
Fracture Gradient: 0.8 psi/ft
PBTD 10,000 ft MD/TVD
Volumes
Tubing 4 ½ in. 0.0149 bbl/ft * (9,200 ft) = 137 bbl
Casing
Sump 0.0371 bbl/ft * (10,000 to 9,900) = 3.7 bbl
Perforations 0.0371 bbl/ft * (9,900 to 9,800) = 3.7 bbl
Tailpipe to Top Perfs 0.0371 bbl/ft * (9,800 to 9,200) = 22.2 bbl
Overall (inside casing) 0.0371 bbl/ft * (9,200 to 10,000) = 29.6 bbl
Coiled Tubing Volume: 20 bbl (12,000 ft of 1.5-in. x 0.109-in. wall thickness)

Halliburton
Cement Volume
Fill casing from PBTD to at least 100 ft above perforations
Sump 3.7 bbl
Perforations 3.7 bbl
100 ft Above Perforations 3.7 bbl
11.1 bbl
Worst-Case Top of Cement = PBTD to Cement Height
WCTOC = 10,000 ft - (11 bbl/0.0371) = 9,700 ft MD
Gel Contaminant Volume = 1.5 X Cement Volume
= 1.5 * 11 bbl = 16.5 bbl............Use 20 bbl
Worst-Case Top of Contaminated Cement = PBTD - (Cmt Vol Height + Gel Vol Height)
Note: Liner Volume = 29.6 bbl
Combined Gel/Cmt Volume = 31 bbl
Gel Height in Tbg = EOT - [(31 bbl (cmt + gel) - 29.6 bbl csg vol) / 0.0149]
= 9,200 ft - 95 ft
WCTOCC = 9,105 ft
Pressure Calculations
Expected WHP with 8.5 lbm/gal brine (or the underbalance with 8.5 lbm/gal brine):
= Formation Pressure - Hydrostatic Pressure
= 4,800 psi - (8.5 lbm/gal * 0.052 * 9,800 ft)
= 470 psi
Maximum Surface Squeeze Pressure to Prevent Fracturing:
= Frac Gradient - Hydrostatic - 500 psi safety margin
= (9,800 ft * 0.8 psi/ft) - 4,330 psi - 500 psi
= 3,010 psi
To obtain 2,000 psi formation overbalance:
= Formation Pressure - Hydrostatic + 2,000 psi overbalance
= 4,800 psi - 4,330 psi + 2,000 psi

Halliburton
= 2,470 psi (Use 2,500 psi)
To Obtain 500 psi Negative Differential Pressure Test on Squeeze:
= Formation Pressure - Hydrostatic - 500 psi
= 4,800 psi - 4,330 psi - 500 psi
= -30 psi (Use WHP = 0 psi)
Example Nozzle Worksheet (Problem No. 2)
No. MD Fluid Rate Vol CTP WHP At Nozzle Comments

Fluid / Vol
1 10,000 FSW 1.5 ++ 3,500 200 FSW / ++ Cleanout with well flowing on GL and
perform TD check. Injectivity test down BS.
2 10,000 CMT 1.5 CMT/0 4,000 500 FSW / ++ Shut in well. Begin cement down CT.
3 10,000 CMT / 1.5 CMT/11 4,000 500 FSW / ++ Switch to FSW spacer.
FSW FSW/0
4 10,000 1.5 / 8 4,000 500 CMT / 0 Cement at nozzle. Continue pumping FSW at
1.0 decreased rate of 1.0 bbl/min.
5 10,000 1.0 9 3,500 500 CMT / 1 1 bbl cement out nozzle. Continue pumping
FSW and begin POOH at 27 ft/min.
6 9,850 1.0 16.4 3,500 500 CMT / 7.4 Cement covering perfs. Continue to POOH
to the top perfs.
7 9,770 1.0 18 3,500 500 / CMT / 9 Stop CT near the top perforation (9,770). At
700 18 bbl FSW, begin to build pressure to
indicate perforations sealed.
Begin squeeze.
(Estimated 1.6 bbl cement behind pipe)
8 9,770 / 1.0 18 3,500 500 / CMT / 9 Resume POOH when initial pressure is
POOH 700 developed. Choke well returns to maintain
700 psi.
9 9,715 / 1.0 / 20 3,500/ 700 CMT / 11 Continue pumping while POOH to new
POOH 0.25 500 FSW / 0 WCTOC (9,715 ft). Decrease rate when all
cement has exited the nozzle. CT should be at
9,715 ft when FSW is at the nozzle. CTP will
decrease from the decreased rate. Continue
POOH to 100 ft above the new WCTOC
(9,615) at + speed.
10 9,615 FSW 1.0 / 22 1,000/ 700 FSW / 2 Continue to ramp squeeze pressure at
.25 300 approximately 250 psi each for 10 minutes
while holding the CT at 9,615 ft.
11 9,615 Gel .25 / 24 / 0 300 / 700 FSW / 4 Squeeze pressure building OK. Decide to
1.6 4,000 switch to gel. Increase rate, but control
squeeze pressure with choke. RIH to 9,715 ft.
12 9,715 Gel / 1.5 20 300 / 700 / FSW / 20 Build squeeze pressure to 2,500 psi over 40-
FSW 4,000 2,500 Gel / 0 min period using choke to control returns.

Halliburton
13 Contamination
14 9,715 FSW 1.5 0 4,000 2,500 / Gel / 0 Gel at nozzle. Switch to FSW. Release
1,500 squeeze pressure slowly to 1,500 psi. RIH
jetting at 40 FPM/1.5 bbl/min and
contaminating cement. Decrease rate to 1.0
bbl/min across the perforations.
15 10,000 1.5 / 10 4,000 1,500 Gel / 10 Tag TD and immediately begin POOH jetting
1.0 contaminant at 85 FPM/1.0 bbl/min.
16 9,200 1.0 / 18.6 3,500/ 1,500 Gel / 18.6 At the tubing tail (9,200 ft), decrease the
0.75 1,500 pump rate to 0.75 bbl/min while continuing
17 9,000 0.75 / 20 1,500 1,500 Gel / 20 POOH to WCTOCC (9,100 ft) as FSW begins
0 FSW / 0 to exit the nozzle. Shut down pumping and
trap 1,500 psi in the well. Continue to POOH
to 9,000 ft.
18 Begin Initial Reverse Out
19 9,000 0 / 0.5 0 0 1,500 REV OUT At 9,000 ft, switch manifold to reverse out.
Circulate a CT volume to ensure all returns
are FSW.
20 9,000 0.5 20 0 1,500 After getting a CT volume returned, begin
RIH at 5 to 10 ft/min to maintain returns at
approximately 9.2 to 9.6 lbm/gal
21 10,000 0.5 120 0 1,500 Continue to PBTD (10,000 ft) and reverse
until returns are clean. Perform a pressure test
of the perforations to 1,500 psi for 10
minutes. Monitor for leakoff.
22 Repeat jet / reverse out to clean hole.
23 10,000 Gel 1.5 0 4,000 1,500 FSW / 0 Switch to circulate gel down the CT.
24 10,000 20 4,000 1,500 Gel / 0 When gel reaches the nozzle, POOH jetting
with gel to 9,000 ft at 50 ft/min/1.5 bbl/min.
25 9,670 Gel / 30 / 0 4,000 1,500 Gel / 20 Switch to FSW and continue to POOH jetting.
FSW
26 9,000 FSW 1.5 20 4,000 1,500 Gel / 30 At 9,000 ft, shut down pump and trap 1,500
FSW / 0 psi on well. Switch to reverse out.
27 9,000 FSW 0.5 0 0 1,500 REV OUT Begin reverse out while RIH at 14 ft/min.
28 10,000 FSW 0.5 55 0 1,500 Complete reverse out and an extra CT volume
bottoms up.
29 Surface POOH while circulating as necessary to
maintain 1,500 psi WHP.
30 Rig down CT and shut in well with 1,500 psi.
Wait at least three times the thickening time
to release the formation overbalance.
31 Test squeeze by bleeding WHP to 0 psi.

Halliburton

Squeeze Cement With Coiled Tubing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Squeeze Cement With Coiled Tubing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Squeeze Cementing with Coiled

Free Water and Settling................................................................................................................ 28

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Fundamental Objectives of Squeeze Cementing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Overview of the CT Squeeze Cementing Process

Wellbore Temperature Profile for CT Operations

Sump or Rat-Hole Temperature

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Options to rat-hole cooling

Figure 1 Effect of sump or rat-hole cooling operation on wellbore temperature

Wellbore Mechanical System Integrity

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

The presence of gas-lift valves must also be considered when appropriate.

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Production Tubing &

Upper Zone Protected by

Lower Zone Protected by Sand

Figure 2 – Isolation techniques

Cleaning of the Squeeze Interval

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Negative Differential Pressure

Positive Differential Pressure

Organic deposits such as pipe dope, paraffin, or asphaltenes may also be

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Table 1—Cleaning Formulas for Some Common Chemical Deposits

Preparing for an Injectivity Test

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

• The density of the injection fluid should be known.

Procedure for an Injectivity Test

Formation Damage Caused by Injectivity Testing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Interpretation of Injectivity Test

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Table 2----Materials to Use in Squeeze Operations

Non-cement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Aqueous Portland Cement Slurries and Additives

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Nonaqueous Portland Cement Slurries

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Slurry Design and Testing Considerations for CT Squeezing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Interpretation of Thickening-Time Test Results

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

2500 Pressure 60 200

Figure 3—Profile of Thickening-Time Test Variables

Fluid-Loss Testing and Filter-Cake Evaluation

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Please refer to Halliburton Best Practices publication H00727, Microfine Cementing

Table 3 - Fluid Loss versus Filter Cake Thickness

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

1000 cc - Neat Cement Slurry

300 cc Fluid Loss Slurry

75 cc Fluid loss Slurry

25 cc Fluid Loss Slurry

Figure 4—Effects of fluid loss on filter-cake characteristics across perforations

Figure 5 - Downhole video photograph of cement nodes on perforations

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Table 4 - Suggested Modifications to Fluid Loss Testing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.