SPE-173483-STU

Casing Failures Correlated with Cementing Quality in Steam

Injection Wells

Ghaida Al Farsi, Texas A&M University at Qatar

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE international Student Paper Contest at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by merit of placement in a regional student paper contest held in the program year preceding the
International Student Paper Contest. Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and
are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Steam injection wells have been used as an oil recovery method for an extended amount of time in the industry.
It is used to recover oil of extremely high viscosities by lowering its viscosity using the steam zone created by
the injection. To lower the viscosity the steam must be pumped at very high temperatures and pressure, which
can create thermal stresses that are too high on the casing. This thermal stresses affect the casing even more if
the cementing job on the casing is not very high quality. The focus for this paper will be on casing failures in
steam injection wells, and whether these causes are connected in the integrity of the cement or not. Other factors
such as corrosion or sand invasion will be excluded from this study. The data that would be collected will be
from drilling logs of well that have failed in the Mukhaizna field in the south of Oman. The data would focus on
the amount of static and dynamic losses as well as the use of CemNET, which is used as a spotting cement fiber
for loss zones. This study will eventually prove that there is a correlation between those casing failures and the
loss zones, cementing effectiveness and use of spotting additives to block fractures.

Introduction

Recovering heavy and high-viscosity oils is more challenging than common oil reservoirs. Most heavy oils are
found in shallow reservoirs, and so they do not follow easily or even flow at all. This means these reservoirs are
not recovered in the conventional methods, but are recovered using steam injection (Pershikova et al. 2010).
Steam injection has very specific conditions so the well undergoes high thermal stresses that if exceeded will
increase the likelihood of failure of the casing material during the cooling process. During this recovery method,
the probability of casing damage is extremely high if the ideal conditions for the completion are not reached.
This includes suitable materials, correct casing temperature and the right combination of cementing additives.
Preventing casing damage is extremely crucial, not only because it would lead to decreased production and
expensive repair jobs, but also because their failure can damage adjacent wells or lead blowouts (Maharaj et al.
1996).
2 SPE-173483-STU

Steam injection has multiple methods, and other than the conventional there is one that is advanced known
as the ‘huff and puff’ method. While in conventional steam injection projects steam is injected constantly from
an injector well, and production occurs from one or more production wells in a pattern, huff and puff wells
follow a different approach. The method is basically a single well procedure, where the oil is exposed to steam
as long as possible to increase injectivity. It is considered a way to accelerate recovery of oil in steam injection
projects. As mentioned earlier, the injection and production process occurs on the same well, and it’s repeated
consequently. Each cycle consists of three stages: huff (injection), shut in, and huff (production). The first is
injecting high pressure steam into the full thickness of the pay part of the reservoir at a constant rate. This stage
continues for an average time of two weeks. Next, the well is shut in, in the stage known as soak, to allow for
the heat from the steam to propagate into the oil in the reservoir. The oil viscosity is then decreased considerably
due to the heat (Matus et al. 2005). This cycle is then repeated for as long as the reservoir and well can handle
till the reservoir is depleted or well fails. Although this method accelerates recovery, the drawbacks is a
reduction in overall recovery as well a high rate of casing failures.

HUFF  
• takes  days  to  
weeks  

PUFF   SOAK  
• produces  for  
weeks  to   • reduce  viscosity  
of  oil  
months  

Many things factor into the failure of the casing, be it significantly high pressure, thermal stresses exceeding
the yield strength, poor cementing quality, or thermal elongation. Generally, for parameters higher than 700 psi
and 500 deg F, the production casing fails. This is a result of the high thermal stress conditions and thermal
elongation. This means that when the well is under the injection stage, the casing is undergoing very high
temperatures and pressures. Stress builds up on the casing, causing the casing to become plastically deformed
due to its yield strength being exceeded (Turner et al. 2010). Next, during the cooling process in production, the
steel extends based on the concept of elongation due to cooling, and since the casing is fixed on it ends, it could
bend. The extension could go up to 4 ft, and this change is also irreversible due to the ultimate yield strength
being exceeded. Also, if the tensile load exceeds the joint strength, failure at the coupling will occur during the
cooling process. This deformation could affect the casing to be damaged completely if the cementing job was
not up to par. Also, as shown in Fig. 1, leaving any gaps between the cement or having poor cement bonding
will allow for the casing to deform even more in that specific spot. Therefore, for the purposes of this project
and the shortage of data provided, a closer look would be taken on the cementing job of the casing only. The
objective of this project is to collect data on wells that have failed due to the casing buckling, collapsing, or
deforming, and forming correlations with the quality of the cementing job. It will analyze the interaction
between the cement, casing and the formation and how understanding casing and cement failures could help
lower the rate of casing failures in steam injection wells.
SPE-173483-STU 3

A type of casing failure that is very common to wells with poor cementing or which have casings that have
not been cemented to the surface properly is buckling. Buckling is a serious problem and would be caused by
the aforementioned conditions, where during the cooling process the casing joints will give out. Another
possibility is if one part of the casing is not cemented properly, that one part of the casing would elongate or
change shape while the rest will not. This is due to the rest of the casing still being under the yield strength.
Therefore, the effectiveness of cementing has a direct effect on the possibility of failure in the casing, especially
in steam injection wells. The model reservoir that will be used for this study is based on Mukhaizna field in
Sultanate of Oman. Mukhaizna field was discovered in 1975, and is now the third largest oilfield in the south of
the country. The most important property of the oil that was found was its extremely high viscosity (14-16°
API). The targeted reservoirs are sandstone and are found in the Gharif formations, specifically the upper Gharif
which starts at 2600 ft (Al-Azkawi et al. 2002). Production is through drilling horizontal and wells with vertical
steam injection wells and it uses Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage as an oil recovery method. This where steam
is injected into the reservoir but only at the top part of the wellbore, not across the complete thickness of the pay
area. The viscosity of the oil decreases and so the oil moves downwards where it is pumped out by the
horizontal producers.

Fig 1 – Casing Failure Fig 2 - Map of Mukhaizna Field in Oman

The study will be based on the cement models associated with this field only.

Methodology

For this research, the drilling logs for wells that have failed due to casing buckling, tearing and snapping were
collected. Also, to make sure the results and analysis was accurate, any failures due to corrosion or sand control
problems were not taken into consideration. The data that was collected from those logs were: dynamic and
static losses, cement quality for cement bond logs, CemNET use and finally cement returns.
First, dynamic and static losses are essential values to keep track of because they indicate lost circulation
values. At lost circulation zones, the cement slurry or drilling fluids would be lost to the formation and so would
put the casing in a vulnerable position where it could fail easily. The depth at which the losses started would be
recorded, as well as the amount of losses. A usually high amount of losses is above 20 bbl/hr.
Next, to understand the integrity of the cement quality and integrity could be a challenge. There are three
different tests that can be done to test this quality, but the one this paper will focus on is cement bond log (CBL)
interpretation (Boyd et al. 2006). Of all these tests, CBL interpretation is the most efficient in time and cost
compared to the communication tests. They also cover the entire depth of casing. The criticism over the
reliability of the CBL is due to its inability to predict casing communication properly. However, its ability to
interpret quality of cement is accurate, and since we are only concerned with the quality of cementing in this
paper, CBL interpretation, alongside other tests, is used to make correlations. A CBL evaluates the integrity of
the cement by detecting the bong of the cement to the casing and formation using the concept of resonance. If
there are empty spots that are not filled with cement then the wave will not travel and the amplitude will be
high. If it cemented well to the casing with no empty spots then the wave reflects back and the amplitude is low.
4 SPE-173483-STU

BL interpretation was used to determine the

Fig 4 – CemNET Circulation
Fig 2 - How CBL works
Poor
top of cement for injectors that have failed.
Also, a system was designed to categorize the
wells that have been studied into poorly, fairly
and reasonably cemented wells. Poor is for
wells with more than 30% of poor cementing
in the entirety of the well, fair is for 10-30%,
and good is for less than 10%.
After categorizing the wells using this
system, other possible factors were looked at
and considered. Finding out whether the well
had dynamic or static losses and at which
depth is important. Losses that go over 20
bbl/hr are generally considered not acceptable,
as mentioned earlier, and must be spotted by
lost circulation material (LCM). Other factors
that could prevent failures include the use of
CemNET. CemNET is an advanced fiber
cement that is used to prevent cement from
being lost in vugs or natural fractures into the
formation. Fig. 5 shows how CemNET works
and how it reduces excess cement returns and
covers loss zones during cementing operations.
Basically, its main function is sealing the loss
in the zone and therefore eliminates any
uncemented segments.
Goo

Fair

Fig 3 – Categorization System for Well Cement Quality Fig 5 – CemNET Circulation

Another important well evaluation that was looked at was whether the well was cyclic or just an injector.
However, due to lack of records in that area, I was not able to make a correlation or come to a conclusion based
on that.
SPE-173483-STU 5

Results

Cement Bond Logs

The results from the CBL records can be summarized in the following chart (Fig. 6):

Failure  Wells     Non-­‐Failure  Wells  

Poor    
10%  

Good  
17%   Poor  
33%  
Fair  
29%  
Good  
Fair   61%  
50%  

Fig 5 – CBL log results

The second pie chart above illustrates results from wells that have not failed. Comparatively, it can be concluded
that the quality of cementing and how well it is bonded to the casing and formation has a direct effect on
whether a wells fails or not, especially when only 17% of the wells that have failed were cemented well.

CemNET Usage
Based on the results compiled, 70% of the wells that have failed were not cemented with CemNET added to the
cementing mixture.

Failure  Wells   Non-­‐Failure  Wells  

With  
24%  
Without  
47%   With  
53%  
Without  
76%  

Fig 7 – CemNET usage results

Although CemNET usage seems to have an effect on the wells that have failed, the wells that are considered to
be good do not show a solid correlation.

Dynamic and Static Losses

Based on the results and analysis, the losses data seemed to indicate the most interesting results from all the past
tests. For this next graph, the process to which the data was compiled is as follows:

Only data from the wells that have failed were considered.

The point of failure of each well was noted.

The point of losses during drilling was also documented.

For each well, these two points were compared to see whether they were the same.
6 SPE-173483-STU

The data from this data was plotted and the following graph was plotted (Fig. 8)

Vert. Injectors at Point of Failure

Good  

Fair  

Poor  Cemen�ng  
Poor  
Losses  

0.00%   10.00%  20.00%  30.00%  40.00%  50.00%  60.00%  70.00%  80.00%  90.00%  

From the figure above, although there have been wells that were cemented ‘Good’ they still failed. So the losses
were looked at to see whether that could have been due to losses and not overall cementing quality. So, 80% of
the wells that were cemented well yet failed had the same point of failure and point of losses starting. This
means that at that depth the losses caused the cement slurry to be lost to the formation, therefore causing poor
cementing at that point. This of course led to the failure of the casing at the point.

Conclusions
The integrity of the cement will always be a very effective gauge of cement failures, since cementing gives
support to the casing as well as prevents many other processes, such as corrosion etc. However, it has proven
that it is even more important in the case of steam injection wells due to the high thermal stresses and
elongation, which could be avoided with high support from the cement as well as higher steel grades for the
casing. Furthermore, it can be concluded that there is a direct correlation between losses to lost circulation
zones and the rate of casing failures. This is connected to the use of CemNET which is supposed to prevent
these losses by blocking the fractures, given that it is used of course.
Unfortunately, no conclusions were able to be made based on the cyclic wells due to lack of data. This research
can be extended to include more if data was provided, so that the effect of the thermal stresses as well as the toll
that the cycles take on the casing and cement could be studied further.

References

Al-Azkawi, A., Taylor, G., Chadwick, R. et al. 2002. Multilateral Wells Improve Development of Heavy Crude Production
in the Mukhaizna Field, Sultanate of Oman. Paper SPE 79021-MS presented at SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 4-7 November

Boyd, D.A., Al-Kubti, S.A.-R., Khedr, O.H. et al. 2006. Reliability of Cement Bond Log Interpretations Compared to
Physical Communication Tests between Formations. Paper SPE-101420-MS presented at the Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5-8 November.

Maharaj, G. 1996. Thermal Well Casing Failure Analysis. Paper SPE-00036143 presented at the SPE Latin
America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, 23-26 April.

Matus, E., Mamora, D.D. 2005. Top-Injection and Bottom-Production (TINBOP) Cyclic Steam Injection Method Enhances
Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 97850 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-3 November

Pershikova, E.M., Chougnet-Sirapian, A., Loiseau, A., et al. 2010. Evaluation of Specialized Cement System for Long-Term
Steam Injection Well Integrity. Paper SPE-137710 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
SPE-173483-STU 7

Schlumberger. 2002. CemNET controls lost circulation to improve cement returns,

http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/cementing/product_sheets/cemnet.pdf (downloaded 21 October
2013).

Turner, J., Ezell, R., MacMillan, B., et al. 2010. Customized Insulating Packer Fluid Improves Steam Injection Well
Integrity. Paper SPE 133679 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy,
19-22 September

Wu, J., Knauss, M.E. 2006. Casing Temperature and Stress Analysis in Steam-Injection Wells. Paper SPE 103882 presented
at International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in Beijing, China, 5-7 December