Cement CT BP

Squeeze Cementing with Coiled Tubing
Table of Contents
Section Topic
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Fundamental Objectives of Squeeze Cementing
3.0 Overview of CT Squeeze Cementing Process
4.0 Wellbore Temperature and Temperature Profile for CT Operations
4.1 Sump or Rat-Hole Temperature
5.0 Problem Diagnosis
6.0 Well Preparation
6.1 Wellbore Mechanical System Integrity
6.2 Cleaning the Squeeze Interval
6.2.1 Negative Differential Pressure
6.2.1 Positive Differential Pressure
6.2.3 Chemical Treatments
6.2.4 Mechanical Methods
7.0  Injectivity Test
7.1 Procedure for Conducting an Injectivity Test
7.2 Formation Damage Due to Injectivity Testing
7.3 Interpretation of Injectivity Test
8.0 Material Selection
8.1 Noncement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes
8.2 Aqueous Portland Cement Slurries
8.3 Nonaqueous Portland Cement Slurries
8.4 Non-Portland Cements
8.5 Resins and Monomers
9.0 Cement Testing Considerations for CT Squeeze
9.1 Thickening-Time Test
9.2 Interpretation of Thickening-Time Test Results
9.3 Fluid-Loss Test
9.4 Rheology
9.5 Strength of Cement
9.6 Conclusions for Testing
10.0 Cement Slurry Design for CT Squeeze
10.1 Density
10.2 Thickening Time
10.3 Fluid-Loss Values
10.4 Filter-Cake Height
10.5 Rheology
10.6 Free Water
10.7 Compressive Strength
10.8 Sensitivity to Shear
10.9 Durability
10.10 Compatibility with Formation/Environment
/conversion/tmp/scratch/476309465.rtf
11.0 Design of the Squeeze Operation
11.1 Squeezing Perforations
11.2 Channels
11.3 Corrosion Holes/Splits in Pipe
11.4 Wells in Secondary or Tertiary Recovery Projects
11.5 Cement Mixing and Mixing Equipment
11.6 Cement Placement Technique
11.7 Cement Volume
11.8 Initial Squeeze Pressure
11.9 Pressure Ramping
12.0 Job Execution
12.1 Surface Equipment
12.2 Equipment Layout and Safety
12.3 Calibration of Volumes
12.4 Depth Control and Correlation
12.5 Cement Mixing
12.6 Cleaning Out Excess Cement
12.6.1 Contamination Procedure
12.6.2 Cleaning Out Cement Without the Contamination Procedure
12.6.3 Forward or ‘Direct’ Circulation
12.6.4 Reverse Circulation
12.7 Removal of Cement Bridges Left in the Wellbore
12.7.1 Underreaming
12.7.2 Conical Water Jet
13.0 Testing the Squeeze
13.1 Failure of the Squeeze
14.0 Bibliography
Appendices
Appendix A Estimating the Fluid Level in a Well

Appendix B Example Problems
Page 1-ii
Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Coiled Tubing: Best Practices Manual 05/17/20 22:43 A5/P5
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.
1.0 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
/conversion/tmp/scratch/476309465.rtf 1
production equipment. Under certain 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
2.0 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.
3.0 Overview of the CT Squeeze Cementing Process

/conversion/tmp/scratch/476309465.rtf Page 2
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.
4.0 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.
4.1 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.
Options to rat-hole cooling

 Fill with sand or mud to prevent fluid swapping
 May not be necessary if cleanout will not be done
 Not needed if cement design temperature is based on
static sump temperature
Figure 1 Effect of sump or rat-hole cooling operation on wellbore

temperature profile
Without Cooling
Obviously, the decision to cool the rat-hole by circulating should take into
account the sensitivity
With Cooling
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.
5.0 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 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.
6.0 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.
6.1 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
4. wellhead valves
5. tubing and casing
6. 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.
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.
6.2 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

 Production
Tubing &
Statements in italics apply principally toPacker the nodal squeeze method.
Upper Zone
Protected by
Annular Injection
Inflatable
Packer
Treatment
Fluid
Lower Zone Protected
Sand by Sand
Fill
Figure 2 – Isolation techniques
6.3 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
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.
6.3.1 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.
6.3.2 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.
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.
6.3.3 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.
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
6.3.4 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.
7.0 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.
7.1 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.
 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.
7.2 Procedure for an Injectivity Test

The injectivity test is performed as follows:
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. If formation breakdown is evident at injection rates much lower than anticipated,
consider a perforation cleanup treatment.
10. Use any indicated formation breakdown pressure plus some safety factor for determining
squeeze pressure to be applied during the early stages of the treatment.
7.3 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 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.
7.4 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.
8.0 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.
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 PermSeal, Matrol, etc.
(the 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.
8.1 Non-cement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes

Briefly, two types of silicate complexes are available: externally and
internally-catalyzed systems. Externally catalyzed sodium silicate (FloChekÒ)
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 (InjectrolÒ, Angard, and AngelÒ) 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 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.
8.2 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.
 Fluid-loss additives (HALADÒ’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 (EpSealÒ, FlexCem, StrataLock).
 Expansive additives (Super CBL, MicroBondÒ) are used to enhance sealing properties
8.3 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.
8.4 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.
8.5 Resins, Monomers

Epoxy resins [neat EpSealÒ 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.
9.0 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 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.
9.1 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.
9.2 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 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.
9.3 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.
Consistency (Bc)
4000 100 280
260
3500
80 240
Te m p e ra tu re (°F )
3000
P re s s u re (p s i)
220
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
9.4 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?
11. How long should squeeze pressure be applied?
12. 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. 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, Filter Cake Thickness,
cc’s Inches
400 md Berea 56 9/16
Sandstone
600 mesh screen 49 ½
325 screen with filter 27 ¼
paper
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.
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

Considering the goals of node-building, the API fluid-loss test method
presents four areas of significant limitations:
1. differential pressure
13. filter medium permeability
14. filtration time
15. 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 Suggested Modification
Parameter Recommended
20 min. @ BHCT or HTHP consistometer on
Pre-conditioning 180oF maximum in simulated job schedule; hold
atmospheric 1 hour, then cool if
consistometer necessary; and transfer to
fluid-loss cell
Pressure ramp Gradual, starting with initial
Instant perf DP
Maximum Anticipatedd differential at
differential 1000 perforations
pressure, psi
Filtering medium 325-mesh screen, natural or
325-mesh screen man-made core disks
Duration, minutes 30 30-min. minimum, longer if
needed to get required cake
thickness
Record spurt loss, then
Filtrate data Total filtrate in 30 filtrate in 5-min. increments,
recorded minutes 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 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.
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
(HALADÒ-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 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.
9.5 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.
9.6 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.
9.7 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.
9.8 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 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.
9.9 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.
9.9.1 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 HALADÒ-9, HALAD-22A, and
HALAD-322 seem to be the most susceptible, and will exhibit primarily
decreased viscosity. Synthetic materials such as HALAD-344, HALAD-361A,
HALAD-413, and Latex 2000 are least affected.
9.9.2 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.
9.9.3 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.
9.10 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.
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.
9.11 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
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
9.12 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.
10.0 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.
10.1 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.
10.2 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.
10.3 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.
10.4 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
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.
10.6 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.
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
1400 20
4
Friction Pressure, psi/1000 ft
1200 Spool
Reynolds Number x 10
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.
1800 16000
1600 14000
1400 12000
Reynolds Number
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
10000 Spool
1200
Reynolds Number
8000 Straight Pipe

1000
CEMFLO
800 6000 OptiCem
600 Reynolds Number
4000
400
200 2000
0 0
0.2 0.4in0.5italics
Statements 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1
apply 1.2 1.3 1.4
principally to the nodal squeeze method.
Flowrate, BPM
Figure 8c - 15.8 lb/gal Class H Cement, PV = 27.5 cp, YP = 9.8 lb/100

ft2, 120 oF Calculated Critical Flowrate = 0.44 BPM.
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 Calculated Critical Flowrate = 1.05 BPM.
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 some future date. Finally, there exists no known model to
simulate the effects of the welded bead on the ID of smaller CT strings.
11.0 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.
11.1 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
11.2 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.
Section A-A: 6 each, 1/8-inch ports drilled

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

Crow, World Oil, June 1992)
11.3 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
11.4 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.
16. Prime all pumps.
17. Calibrate the flow meters by pumping known volumes of fluid from measuring tanks.
18. Open the bypass valve ahead of the coil and fill the treating (high pressure) lines.
19. Record the volume of this system.
20. Close the bypass valve.
21. Measure the volume required to fill the coil.
22. 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.
11.4 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.
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.
12.0 Job Execution
12.1 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.
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.
12.2 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.
12.3 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 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.
12.4 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 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.
12.5 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.
12.5.1 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.
3. Maintain adequate overbalance pressure across the squeezed interval while performing these
operations when appropriate (i.e., under-balanced fluid column).
12.5.2 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.
12.5.3 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 used include completion brines, various salts such as CaCl 2,
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.
12.5.4 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.
12.5.5 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 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.
12.6 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.
12.6.1 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.
12.6.2 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.
13.0 Testing the Squeeze

The success of the squeeze operation can only be determined by testing, for
which there are 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.
13.1 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.
14. 0 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.
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.
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
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
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 Perforations3.7 bbl
12.3 bbl................Use 15 bbl (170 ft above top perf)
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 positive
GEL (1,000) 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.
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

9,900 ft MD/TVD Reservoir Temp: 160°F
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)
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
= 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. M Fluid Rate Vol CTP WHP At Nozzle Comments

D Fluid / Vol
1 1 FSW 1.5 ++ 3,500 200 FSW / ++ Cleanout with well flowing on GL and
0 perform TD check. Injectivity test down BS.
,
0
0
0
2 1 CMT 1.5 CMT/0 4,000 500 FSW / ++ Shut in well. Begin cement down CT.
0
,
0
0
0
3 1 CMT / 1.5 CMT/11 4,000 500 FSW / ++ Switch to FSW spacer.
0 FSW FSW/0
,
0
0
0
4 1 1.5 / 8 4,000 500 CMT / 0 Cement at nozzle. Continue pumping FSW at
0 1.0 decreased rate of 1.0 bbl/min.
,
0
0
0
5 1 1.0 9 3,500 500 CMT / 1 1 bbl cement out nozzle. Continue pumping
0 FSW and begin POOH at 27 ft/min.
,
0
0
0
6 9 1.0 16.4 3,500 500 CMT / 7.4 Cement covering perfs. Continue to POOH to
, the top perfs.
8
5
0
7 9 1.0 18 3,500 500 / CMT / 9 Stop CT near the top perforation (9,770). At 18
, 700 bbl FSW, begin to build pressure to indicate
7 perforations sealed.
7 Begin squeeze.
0 (Estimated 1.6 bbl cement behind pipe)
8 9 1.0 18 3,500 500 / CMT / 9 Resume POOH when initial pressure is

, 700 developed. Choke well returns to maintain 700
7 psi.
7
0
P
O
O
H
9 9 1.0 / 20 3,500/ 700 CMT / 11 Continue pumping while POOH to new
, 0.25 500 FSW / 0 WCTOC (9,715 ft). Decrease rate when all
7 cement has exited the nozzle. CT should be at
1 9,715 ft when FSW is at the nozzle. CTP will
5 decrease from the decreased rate. Continue
POOH to 100 ft above the new WCTOC
/ (9,615) at + speed.
P
O
O
H
10 9 FSW 1.0 / . 22 1,000/ 700 FSW / 2 Continue to ramp squeeze pressure at
, 25 300 approximately 250 psi each for 10 minutes
6 while holding the CT at 9,615 ft.
1
5
11 9 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
6 squeeze pressure with choke. RIH to 9,715 ft.
1
5
12 9 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.
7
1
5
13 Contamination
14 9 FSW 1.5 0 4,000 2,500 / Gel / 0 Gel at nozzle. Switch to FSW. Release squeeze
, 1,500 pressure slowly to 1,500 psi. RIH jetting at 40
7 FPM/1.5 bbl/min and contaminating cement.
1 Decrease rate to 1.0 bbl/min across the
5 perforations.
15 1 1.5 / 10 4,000 1,500 Gel / 10 Tag TD and immediately begin POOH jetting
0 1.0 contaminant at 85 FPM/1.0 bbl/min.
,
0
0
0
16 9 1.0 / 18.6 3,500/ 1,500 Gel / 18.6 At the tubing tail (9,200 ft), decrease the pump
, 0.75 1,500 rate to 0.75 bbl/min while continuing
2
0
0
17 9 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
0 trap 1,500 psi in the well. Continue to POOH
0 to 9,000 ft.
0
18 Begin Initial Reverse Out
19 9 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
0 FSW.
0
0
20 9 0.5 20 0 1,500 After getting a CT volume returned, begin RIH
, at 5 to 10 ft/min to maintain returns at
0 approximately 9.2 to 9.6 lbm/gal
0
0
21 1 0.5 120 0 1,500 Continue to PBTD (10,000 ft) and reverse
0 until returns are clean. Perform a pressure test
, of the perforations to 1,500 psi for 10 minutes.
0 Monitor for leakoff.
0
0
22 Repeat jet / reverse out to clean hole.
23 1 Gel 1.5 0 4,000 1,500 FSW / 0 Switch to circulate gel down the CT.
0
,
0
0
0
24 1 20 4,000 1,500 Gel / 0 When gel reaches the nozzle, POOH jetting
0 with gel to 9,000 ft at 50 ft/min/1.5 bbl/min.
,
0
0
0
25 9 Gel / 30 / 0 4,000 1,500 Gel / 20 Switch to FSW and continue to POOH jetting.
, FSW
6
7
0
26 9 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.
0
0
0
27 9 FSW 0.5 0 0 1,500 REV OUT Begin reverse out while RIH at 14 ft/min.
,
0
0
0
28 1 FSW 0.5 55 0 1,500 Complete reverse out and an extra CT volume
0 bottoms up.
,
0
0
0
29 S POOH while circulating as necessary to
u maintain 1,500 psi WHP.

r
f
a
c
e
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.

Cement CT BP

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

Cement CT BP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Squeeze Cementing with Coiled Tubing

Appendix A Estimating the Fluid Level in a Well

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

production equipment. Under certain situations, methods learned from the

2.0 Fundamental Objectives of Squeeze Cementing

3.0 Overview of the CT Squeeze Cementing Process

4.0 Wellbore Temperature Profile for CT Operations

4.1 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

5.0 Problem Diagnosis

Dynamics of the temperature profile also provide information vital to

6.0 Well Preparation

6.1 Wellbore Mechanical System Integrity

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

6.2 Isolation Barriers

6.3 Cleaning of the Squeeze Interval

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

6.3.1 Negative Differential Pressure

the completion, the wellhead pressure is decreased until the differential

6.3.2 Positive Differential Pressure

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

6.3.3 Chemical Treatments

Table 1—Cleaning Formulas for Some Common Chemical Deposits

6.3.4 Mechanical Methods

7.0 Injectivity Testing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Injectivity testing assesses the interval’s capacity to accept fluid -

7.1 Preparing for an Injectivity Test

7.2 Procedure for an Injectivity Test

7.3 Formation Damage Caused by Injectivity Testing

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

An injectivity test involves pumping a volume of clean, non-damaging,

7.4 Interpretation of Injectivity Test

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

8.0 Material Selection

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

Selection of the material for a particular squeeze operation should be based

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

8.1 Non-cement, Organic, or Inorganic Complexes

8.2 Aqueous Portland Cement Slurries and Additives

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

rather than conventional cement to enhance the system's capabilities of

8.4 Non-Portland Cements

8.5 Resins, Monomers

9.0 Slurry Design and Testing Considerations for CT

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Job-specific test procedures and schedules must be developed to model the

9.2 Thickening-Time Test

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

Thickening time is a measure of how long a cement slurry or other sealant

resolved, especially for CT applications. Likewise, should an unexplained

Figure 3—Profile of Thickening-Time Test Variables

9.4 Fluid-Loss Testing and Filter-Cake Evaluation

Table 3 - Fluid Loss versus Filter Cake Thickness

Statements in italics apply principally to the nodal squeeze method.

achieved across an entire interval. However, if hydraulic communication, and

1000 cc - Neat Cement Slurry

300 cc Fluid Loss Slurry

75 cc Fluid loss Slurry

25 cc Fluid Loss Slurry