SPE-184789-MS

Coiled Tubing Cementing Best Practices for Successful Permanent Well

Abandonment in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

David Giam, Jorge Santiapichi, Martijn Bogaerts, and Darby Herrington, Schlumberger

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in Houston, TX, USA, 21-22 March 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material 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
In deepwater Gulf of Mexico, cement placement through coiled tubing (CT) has been proven over several
decades to be a valuable, versatile, and cost-effective tool for the through-tubing plug and abandonment of
depleted oil and gas producers. In this paper, several present-day recommendations and best practices in
relation to CT cementing for well abandonment are described.
CT cementing is typically used for well abandonment when leaving part of the production tubing in
place is deemed beneficial from an economic or operational risk standpoint. As demand for the reliable
placement of permanent cement barriers during well abandonment continues to grow, the importance of
optimal design methodology, laboratory practices, and placement techniques associated with CT cementing
has also increased. For instance, one of the most important aspects is to design a thin yet stable cement
slurry. In addition, thickening time tests must account for the time a slurry is in the CT reel at surface before
travelling downhole. Fluid placement techniques should account for the use of any downhole tools and be
adjusted accordingly.
In recent well abandonments, a high success rate in the placement of cement plugs through CT has been
observed. The main contributor to this success is the consistent manner in which the best practices described
in this paper were followed. These methodologies also include some that have slowly evolved over time. For
example, during well abandonment, one procedure that appears to be gaining popularity in some situations
is the running of inflatable cement retainers with the ball on seat. In regards to CT cementing, this has often
resulted in modified strategies, with fluid placement techniques counteracting the inability to pump any
fluids through the CT prior to setting the retainer.
This paper is based on several recent abandonment campaigns using an intervention vessel in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2016. Throughout the course of these particular campaigns, a total of 32 cement plugs were placed
through CT, all of which were successfully verified, thus avoiding costly remedial placement. Although
different conditions and well-specific challenges can slightly alter the approach taken, there are several
steadfast techniques that appear to be effective in the consistent delivery of desired results.
2 SPE-184789-MS

Introduction
Some of the benefits of using coiled tubing (CT) cementing for plug and abandonment include the option to
leave completion equipment in place, smaller displacement volumes, and less risk of contamination from
spacers or other wellbore fluids. This can often result in significant cost and time savings, especially for
the plug and abandonment of development wells. However, due to the relatively small inner diameter of
the CT workstring, high sensitivity of treatment pressures to fluid properties, and CT operating limitations,
CT cementing operations require a high degree of quality control. There are many important CT cementing
practices to be implemented during the execution phase. This paper discusses several of these best practices
related to CT cementing that have repeatedly resulted in success. Specific details of the abandonment of
two wells in particular that have been recently abandoned are shared as case studies.

Design Methodology
For a well to be permanently abandoned, the requirements depend on the local regulations and operator
internal standards. For the Gulf of Mexico, the requirements are stated in 30 CFR Part 250 Subpart Q
Decommissioning Activities – Permanently Plugging Wells. Table 1 shows the permanent well plugging
requirements as of November 2016.
Job acceptance criteria and evaluation methods need to be selected to verify that the job design and final
placement meet or exceed the requirements. For cement plugs, evaluation can be divided into two categories.
One method to verify the location of a plug is by tagging the cement plug with CT and putting weight on
it. This will only verify whether the plug is physically in place; it however will not confirm whether the
plug is providing a hydraulic seal. A positive and negative pressure test can verify a hydraulic seal in either
the direction of flow or its opposite.
SPE-184789-MS 3

Table 1—Permanent well plugging requirements as per 30 CFR Part 250 Subpart Q Decommissioning Activities (November 2016).

CT cementing offers several advantages over conventional plug placement when used in well
abandonment. It eliminates the need to pull the completion equipment from the wellbore. It lowers the fluid
volume requirements for well operations including kill fluid, wellbore fluids, spacers, and cement. Placing
4 SPE-184789-MS

the cement slurry through CT minimizes the risk of contamination and improves placement accuracy. Most
importantly, CT cementing often results in time savings and thus significant cost savings for offshore
operations.
A permanent abandonment procedure typically consists of multiple balanced plugs and squeezes. The
design methodology is similar for setting both types of barriers. The following guidelines outline the various
design steps for successful placement of cement plugs using CT:

• Gather wellbore and completion data.

• Identify the objectives for each single barrier in compliance with local regulations and internal
standards.
• Determine the required slurry volume to meet set objectives.

• Design an appropriate cement slurry and spacer that will be able to achieve job objectives but also
is compatible with the wellbore fluids as well as reservoir fluids, if applicable.
• Check wellbore integrity and determine maximum allowable squeeze pressures.

• Determine the slurry placement technique and pumping schedule.

• Identify acceptance criteria that confirm the set job objectives for each individual cement plug
operation are met.

Data Gathering. As for any conventional cement job, wellbore data such as temperature, directional
surveys, and pore and fracture data are key to proper slurry design and placement. In addition, an indication
of reservoir injectivity is important for slurry design.
However, the most critical required piece of data that is specific to CT operations is the wellbore tubular
data and, in particular, the minimum restrictions the CT will have to pass through. This minimum restriction
will determine the maximum size of the CT outside diameter (OD) that can be safely used for the planned
operations. The tubular data will also provide an indication of maximum allowable pressures during cement
operations, although this should be confirmed ahead of operations by a casing/tubing integrity test or
corrosion logs.
Cement Slurry Selection and Volume. Cement slurry design for CT cementing operations is critical. The
slurry should be designed to meet its primary objective, but additional consideration should be given to
placement through the CT. For placement through CT, the slurry needs to be stable to avoid plugging off;
it must have low rheologies to reduce friction pressures; it should feature proper fluid loss control; and it
should exhibit low gel strength development to avoid complications during placement. Depending on the
job objectives, the slurry itself can be a conventional cement slurry or a high-performance slurry, such as
microfine cement for squeeze applications, low-density slurries for depleted zones, or heavyweight slurries
to isolate high-pressure zones.
Appropriate slurry volume is determined through several factors. It depends on the interval to be
abandoned and the expected contamination during placement. A large interval of perforations with voids
behind casing will require additional cement to achieve the objectives for permanent abandonment. Often
optimum volumes are based on experience in a given field or reservoir. The contamination of the slurry can
be minimized by following proper fluid design rules such as density and friction hierarchy. In addition, the
use of mechanical separators and proper placement technique will minimize the final slurry contamination.
On average, contamination of balanced cement plugs set through CT is less than when set using drillpipe.
SPE-184789-MS 5

Laboratory Practices
In comparison with conventional cementing operations, cementing through CT requires more rigorous
design considerations and thus, its complexity and the criticality of key steps should not be underestimated.
Inadequate cement slurry design can lead to catastrophic results, including the loss of the CT, the entire
well, or both. Because of this, exhaustive laboratory testing must be performed, taking into account all the
specific job and well conditions.
The most important properties of a cement slurry to be placed through CT are stability, rheology, and
thickening time. Because of the relatively small inside diameter of CT strings, stable cement slurries with
relatively lower viscosity and longer thickening time are required to minimize frictional pressures inside
the pipe and to allow completion of the cement placement, respectively.

Mixing and Conditioning. Heathman et al. (1993) concluded that the energy added by either a batch mixer
or pumping through a CT string does not appear to affect the measurable properties of a cement slurry. Based
on this approach, and on experience with CT cementing, service companies have retired the procedures to
simulate mixing energy in their laboratories, and cement slurries are mixed following API RP 10B-2, which
calls for adding the cement in the blender while mixing at 4000 rpm ± 250 rpm in no more than 15 seconds
(if possible) and then continue mixing at 12,000 rpm ± 250 rpm for 35 ± 1 seconds. Mixability is carefully
observed at this stage to ensure cement and mix fluids are mixed in less than 15 seconds and a good visible
vortex is observed in the blender. If time to mix is longer than 15 seconds and less than 1 minute, and a
vortex is still observed, batch mixing of cement slurry is highly recommended.
For conditioning, the type of consistometer used depends on the temperature and pressure seen during
the cement placement. For critical jobs, it is recommended to use the pressurized consistometer to better
mimic the actual temperature schedule (accurate temperature ramp, temperature not limited to 88°C) and
pressure schedule during the cement placement.
Preconditioning is used before running rheology, free fluid, fluid loss, or other tests, except the thickening
time test for which condition is part of the thickening time test itself.
Rheology and Stability. Slurry rheologies and stability are very important. They are associated, and must
be tested. The objective is to have a thin slurry that is also stable with no settling issues.
The viscosity of a cement slurry depends on both the plastic viscosity (µp) and the yield point (Тy). The
plastic viscosity is a function of the amount of solids, and the yield point is a measure of the distribution
of the particles in the cement slurry. For conventional cement recipes, the µp can be properly adjusted by
reducing or increasing density whereas the Тy of the cement slurry can be modified by adding dispersants to
the cement fluid. However, caution must be exercised in both cases: reduction of density without utilizing
proper extender or viscosifying additives or overdispersing the cement slurry may lead to loss of stability
and settling of the cement solids, resulting in plugging of the CT or poor zonal isolation.
Both the Тy and µp are calculated from measurements taken by an atmospheric viscometer at ambient
temperature and at the bottomhole static temperature (BHST) or 88°C, whichever is lower.
It is important to perform hydraulic simulations with both set of rheologies to ensure the cement slurry
can be pumped through the CT at the proper rate (usually 0.5 bbl/min to 1 bbl/min) at both surface and
downhole conditions.
For CT cementing, the optimum Тy and µp have been adopted as follows: Тy between 5 and 12 lbf/100
ft (Тy lower than 5 lbf/100 ft2 might indicate potential instability) and µp lower than 120 cP.
2

Most cement slurries behave as Herschel–Bulkley fluids. For practicality, and to ensure the desired
rheological values are obtained at the proper rheological model, a deflection indicated by the viscometer
lower than 12° at 3 rpm and lower than 120° at 300 rpm should be the target.
6 SPE-184789-MS

Free fluid and solids sedimentation are the main factors for stability. Although these factors are related,
either of them can take place without the other being noticed.
Free fluid is generally measured by observing the amount of segregated fluid on top of a cement column
in a graduated cylinder. Sedimentation is determined by measuring the density of different segments of
the set cement column. The graduated cylinder is usually placed in an oven or water bath at bottomhole
circulating temperature or 88°C, whichever is lower, and oriented at the angle of well deviation.
Thickening Time. For CT cementing applications it is recommend that the minimum thickening time
of the slurry should be the greater of either 6 hours or the slurry pumping time plus 3 hours. For long or
high-volume jobs in which the slurry pumping time itself is over 6 hours, the thickening time of the slurry
should have an even greater safety margin of at least 1.5 times the slurry pumping time. Note that the slurry
pumping time is defined as the time it takes from the start of mixing the cement until when the cement has
been placed in its final position in the wellbore, plus any needed time to pull the CT out of cement, circulate
to clean the CT, or for any squeeze procedure.
For each thickening time test, usually three stages are included:
1. The batch mixing stage is performed at surface pressure and at ambient temperature during the
expected batch mixing time.
2. The cement slurry is pumped through the portion of the CT around the reel at surface, performed at
pressure indicated by software simulation (usually between 4,000 psi and 6,000 psi) and at ambient
temperature during the time that it takes to the cement slurry to leave the reel. (Time [min] is equal to
the volume of CT around the reel [bbl] divided by pumping rate [bbl/min]).
3. The cement slurry travels to downhole conditions. Temperature affecting the cement slurry from
the time it leaves the reel to the time it is placed in its final position must be carefully determined.
In an offshore environment, where API calculations are not applicable if sea depth is greater than
250 ft or greater than 5% of the well depth (API TR 10TR3), advanced cementing software is
used to generate plots of temperature over time for each fluid being injected in the wellbore. These
simulations are performed using the BHST (from geothermal gradient or actual logged temperature),
sea temperature profile, sea current velocity, surface temperature, fluids injection temperature, riser
isolation characteristics, riser thickness and geometry, tubular configuration (casing, liner, inner
string), formation lithology, wellbore geometry, fluids rheology and solid volume fraction, type of
wellbore fluid (brines, water-based mud, oil-based mud, synthetic-based mud), solid/water/oil fraction
(for mud), and prejob circulation and pumping schedule (pauses, rates, volumes).
For CT cementing in the offshore environment, lower temperatures near the seabed must be included in
the thickening schedule because the cement slurry could have a gelling effect due to lower temperatures
before ramping up to the bottomhole circulating temperature (BHCT) or to the BHST, whichever is higher.
Note that usually when environmental cement plugs are placed near the seabed, the BHCT is the higher one.
Final pressure is the bottomhole dynamic pressure or the surface pressure adopted in stage 2, whichever is
higher. Note that usually when environmental cement plugs are placed near the seabed, the surface pressure
is the higher one. Any additional pressures for squeezing operations shall be added as appropriate.
Time to final temperature and pressure should be adopted as the time that takes to the first barrel of
cement slurry to reach the desired bottomhole depth while pumping at the maximum estimated flow rate
(usually 0.7 bbl/min to 1 bbl/min).
If pauses are included in pumping schedule, or if cement slurry will be placed in front of perforations
before squeezing, non-gelling of cement slurry while in static condition and fluidity once the static condition
is over must be ensured by stopping the stirring of the cement slurry in the high-pressure/high-temperature
(HP/HT) consistometer during the needed time while the temperature and pressure are maintained. The
SPE-184789-MS 7

consistency of the slurry after the stirring is resumed shall not be greater than the consistency before the
shutdown.
Compressive Strength. In a conservative approach, simulated circulating temperature shall be used for
conditioning of the cement slurry before running the compressive strength test, even if it is lower than BHST.
Then, continuously measuring the sonic transit time of an ultrasonic energy through the cement slurry
enables indirectly estimating the compressive strength developed by the cement under downhole conditions.
For this test, it is suggested to use a temperature simulator to estimate the hole temperature recovery at the
desired depth after placement.
Fluid Loss. Although historically cement slurries to be pumped through CT have been designed with less
than 100 mL API fluid loss, experience of CT cementing shows that low fluid loss is fundamental only
essential when risk of getting the CT stuck with the cement filter cake exists. This is mainly important when
the CT is placed in front of sand screens or permeable formations or in front of perforations during a cement
squeeze operation.
In contrast to this, when the CT is located at a safe depth, high fluid loss may be desired to ensure the
creation of good quality filter cake on permeable surfaces and around the perforation tunnel.
If integrity of the CT is in doubt, fluid loss control must be implemented because any deformation in
the CT (length with small inside diameter) or pinholes might create a differential pressure that would most
likely cause cement slurry dehydration inside the CT.
Spacer Design. Spacers are used to keep the cement slurry isolated from contaminant (accelerating,
retarding, viscosifying, or gelling) elements present in the wellbore and displacement fluids. Depending
of the placement method, if balancing of a cement plug is not necessary, volumes of spacers are chosen
only to provide a conservatively long buffer ahead and behind cement slurry inside the small-diameter CT.
Approximately 20 and 10 bbl of spacer are usually pumped ahead and behind the cement slurry, respectively.
The spacer should be designed to have low rheologies, but have enough viscosity to support any weighting
material in the design and provide stability when contaminated with wellbore fluids or cement.
Weighted spacers are generally recommended when solid-laden fluids or mid- to high-density brines are
present in the wellbore, whereas unweighted spacers are preferred when low-density brines are involved
and when the spacer will be displaced through sand screens and injected into formation (absence of solids
in the spacer will prevent plugging off the sand screen before the cement slurry reaches the desired zone).
Compatibility of the spacer with the wellbore fluids and cement is crucial. Incompatible fluids can result
in higher or lower rheology mixtures that may lead to very high friction pressures or unstable new mixtures,
respectively.

Placement Challenges
The placement of cement slurry downhole is just as important as the design of the slurry itself. Improper
placement could result in failure to meet the job objectives and ultimately needing to repeat the job.

Prevention of Fluid Swapping. A potential cause of failure in plug cementing is fluid swapping in which
the heavier slurry tends to fall through or swap with lighter weight fluid below. This can result in difficulty
locating or verifying the cement barrier placed during abandonment, especially if tagging or weight testing
of the cement is required. To prevent fluid swapping, slurry should be placed on top of a competent base.
Because CT abandonment plugs are often spotted inside cased hole or tubing, a mechanical base such as a
bridge plug or retainer is often utilized for this purpose.
Viscous pills are usually not an option because the high friction pressure in the CT limits the viscosity
of these pills. A pill that would be viscous enough to support a cement plug would likely be too viscous
to be placed through CT.
8 SPE-184789-MS

Downhole Tools. Downhole tools can be set inside production tubing or casing. When it comes to CT
abandonments in the Gulf of Mexico, they are usually run in hole with either slickline or the CT itself. The
types of tools most commonly used are bridge plugs and retainers.
A common concern in regards to retainers is the potential contact between slurry and brine when stinging
out of retainers with some slurry still in the CT. This is because laboratory testing often indicates that contact
with completions brine will cause the slurry to flash set or end up with a highly reduced setting time. In
some cases, spacer is simply spotted on top of retainer prior to the treatment to prevent direct slurry-to-brine
contact when later stinging out of the retainer. However, a practice related to downhole tools that has been
gaining some popularity recently in the Gulf of Mexico is the running of inflatable cement retainers with
the ball on seat. Running with the ball on seat is often considered as a means to reduce the uncertainty with
the ball's location and increase the chances of successfully setting the retainer. On the other hand, running
retainers with the ball on seat prevents spacer from being spotted on top of the retainer prior to stinging
in because it is not possible to pump though the CT prior to setting the retainer. In addition, it is often not
possible to sting in and out of these inflatable retainer multiple times.
Therefore, to overcome the challenge of preventing direct brine-to-slurry contact when using inflatable
retainers, a recent CT cementing practice that has been utilized is the pumping of a "middle" spacer that
separates the slurry squeezed below retainer and any slurry that will be laid in on top. Effectively, by
pumping this "middle" spacer during the job, spacer is the first fluid to contact the brine when stinging out
of the retainer after the treatment.
CT Pump-and-Pull Technique. The CT pump-and-pull technique is often used in the Gulf of Mexico
to spot slurry inside production tubing or casing using CT. It typically consists of first circulating a small
portion of the slurry, usually 50 to 100 ft, around the tip of the CT and then pulling the CT out of the hole
at a constant rate while continuously pumping at the same time. The pull out of hole rate and pump rate are
carefully controlled to keep the tip of the CT a small distance inside the top of the slurry while the slurry
is being laid in.
The purpose of the pump-and-pull technique is to allow the inside of the production tubing or casing to
be filled with slurry but, at the same time, minimize the length of slurry on the outside of the CT to reduce
the risk of the CT becoming stuck in hole.

Recent Case Studies

Well A
The permanent abandonment of well A required the placement of five cement plugs. The depth of the
production interval on this well was 12,630 ft measured depth (MD) [12,480 ft true vertical depth (TVD)]
with a BHST of 180°. The water depth on well A was 4860 ft. An intervention vessel was utilized to perform
the work.
The first plug consisted of squeezing 3 bbl of slurry below a cement retainer set at 12,330 ft MD inside
3.5-in. production tubing, followed by stinging out and balancing 24 bbl (350 ft) of slurry between the
production tubing and the tubing-casing annulus. The slurry was placed in the annulus through perforations
in the tubing directly above the retainer. The slurry selected for this job was a 16.2 lb/gal slurry with good
fluid loss control (34 mL API). Stability of the slurry was verified under downhole conditions by performing
an API sedimentation test. The cement retainer was run on slickline as were the perforating guns. Before the
job, contamination tests run with slurry and brine had indicated a risk of accelerated setting or flash set of the
slurry should the two fluids mix. Therefore, prior to stinging into the retainer with CT to perform the squeeze
job, 15 bbl of spacer was spotted on top of the retainer to act as a buffer and prevent direct slurry to CaCl2
brine contact when later stinging out of the retainer. Spacer was also pumped ahead and behind the slurry
during cement placement. A total of 27 bbl of slurry was pumped for the job. As soon as the 3 bbl of slurry
SPE-184789-MS 9

had been squeezed below the retainer, the CT was pulled up 500 ft above the tubing perforations on top of
the retainer followed by displacing to balance the remaining 24 bbl of slurry through the perforations. In
line with spacer-contaminated ultrasonic cement analyzer (UCA) test results, the rig waited approximately
18 hours prior to successfully pressure testing the plug down both the tubing and tubing annulus.
The second plug required balancing 37.2 bbl (550 ft) of slurry through additional perforations made in
the tubing at 10,500 ft. Throughout the placement of this plug, the CT was parked 200 ft above the planned
top of cement (TOC) followed by simply circulating the fluids into place.
The third plug was placed after the production tubing had been cut and pulled. After making perforations
in 9 5/8-in. casing, an inflatable cement retainer was run on CT and set in the 9 5/8-in. casing above the
perforations. A total of 24 bbl of slurry was pumped, squeezing 17 bbl of slurry through perforations into 9
5/8-in. × 13 3/8-in. casing annulus followed by stinging out of the inflatable cement retainer and immediately
laying in 7 bbl of slurry (100 ft) on top of the retainer. The inflatable cement retainer was run with ball on
seat, which meant there was no way to spot some spacer on top of the retainer prior to squeezing. Therefore,
to mitigate the risk of cement slurry coming in direct contact with brine immediately after stinging out of
the retainer a "middle" spacer was pumped in between the 17 bbl of slurry that was to be squeezed below
the inflatable cement retainer and the 7 bbl of slurry that was to be laid in on top. This allowed the first fluid
pumped out of the CT after stinging out of the retainer to be spacer instead of slurry.
The fourth plug was very similar to the third plug except it was farther up the hole and the slurry was
squeezed behind 13 3/8-in. × 20-in. casing. An inflatable cement retainer was again run on CT with the ball
on seat, so once again, a "middle" spacer was pumped between the slurry that was to be squeezed below
and slurry that was to be laid in on top of the retainer.
The fifth and final plug was the surface plug that was to be installed inside casing just below the seabed.
This plug was laid inside the casing just below the seabed using the CT pump-and-pull technique.
All of the plugs in well A were successfully positively and negatively tested when required.

Well B
The permanent abandonment of well B was completed in three stages: the lower abandonment, cutting and
pulling the 3 ½ in. × 4 ½ in. production tubing, and the upper abandonment. The well has two producing
zones and an open annulus to the mudline that needed to be isolated; the producing zones are the "B" Sand
located from 12,830 to 12,940 ft MD and the "C" Sand located from 12,990 to 13,120 ft MD. Well B has
a bottomhole temperature of 148°F and bottomhole pressure of 6,160 psi in 2,950 ft of water. Prior to the
start of the campaign, the well was displaced to 13.5-ppg calcium chloride brine.
The lower abandonment consisted of three cement plugs. The first cement plug was to isolate the "B" and
"C" Sands. This consisted of squeezing 35 bbl of 16.4-ppg cement slurry into both sands while leaving a
cement plug inside the completion tubing. CT was set at 12,500 ft and, after establishing injection rates into
the formation, the rig started taking returns up the CT by the completion tubing annulus. A neat spacer was
pumped ahead and behind the cement slurry to minimize cement contamination with the calcium chloride
brine. Cement slurry was circulated down to the end of coil; after some of the spacer ahead was placed on
the backside of the CT, the CT by the completion tubing annulus was closed. All 35 bbl of cement slurry
were bullheaded out of the coil and overdisplaced by 2 bbl. After the recommended wait on cement time,
the cement squeeze was successfully pressure tested to 1,000 psi for 15 min prior to the second cement plug.
The second cement plug in the lower completion was to place a 200-ft balanced plug in the completion
tubing and tubing × casing annulus from 9,500 to 9,300 ft. For this job, CT was run in hole to the planned
TOC at 9,300 ft with perforations already fired in the completions tubing at 9,500 ft. Injection rates were
established through the perforations prior to the start of the cement job by taking returns up the completion
tubing × casing annulus. This balanced plug was performed by simply circulating the 13.5 bbl of 16.4-ppg
cement slurry through the perforations into place. After the cement slurry, was in place CT was pulled out
10 SPE-184789-MS

of the hole while pumping the spacer behind, leaving it on top of the cement plug. This plug was also tested
to 1,000 psi for 15 min before moving to the third and final plug in the lower completion.
The third cement plug was a 250-ft balanced plug in the completion tubing and tubing × casing annulus
from 8,400 to 8,150 ft. Much like the second plug, the third cement plug was pumped with CT parked at
TOC and the entire job was circulated through perforations in the completion tubing at 8,400 ft. This job
consisted of pumping 16.5 bbl of 16.4-ppg cement slurry. This job was completed and successfully pressure
tested to 1,000 psi for 15 min.
After the successful completion of the lower abandonment, the 3 ½-in. × 4 ½ in. production tubing was
cut at 8,000 ft and pulled to surface.
The upper completion of well B consisted of two separate cement jobs, a 9 5/8-in. × 13 3/8-in. perforation
squeeze and a surface plug. Prior to the start of the cement squeeze, the 9 7/8-in. casing was perforated from
7,790 to 7,800 ft and an inflatable cement retainer set at 7,700 ft. After CT was stung into the inflatable
retainer, injection rates were established, and 27 bbl of 16.4-ppg cement slurry was mixed and pumped. Of
the total 27 bbl of cement pumped, 19 bbl was squeezed below the cement retainer and into the 9 5/8-in. ×
13 3/8-in. annulus, creating a 200-ft plug in the annulus. The remaining 8 bbl of cement slurry was placed
on top of the cement retainer to leave a 100-ft balanced plug in the 9 7/8-in. casing. This cement plug was
also tested to 1,000 psi for 15 min before moving to the final surface plug in this upper completion of well B.
The surface plug was set on top of an inflatable bridge plug at 3,300 ft. With CT parked just above the
inflatable bridge plug, 11 bbl of 16.4-ppg cement slurry was mixed and pumped. Once 5 bbl of cement
slurry was around the tip of the CT, the pump-and-pull method was utilized to spot the 150-ft balanced plug
just below the mudline from 3,300 to 3,150 ft. This surface plug was successfully positively and negatively
tested to finish this plug and abandonment of well B.

Conclusions
A multitude of important considerations in regards to successful plug and abandonment using coiled tubing
cementing in deepwater Gulf of Mexico have been discussed in this paper. Adhering to the best practices
associated with the job design, laboratory testing, and cement slurry placement, resulted in a high success
rate of placing abandonment cement plugs without the need for remedial work and significant time savings
compared to using conventional plug placement techniques.

References
30 CFR Part 250 Subpart Q Decommissioning Activities—Permanently Plugging Wells. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=d4d06c454efe82034410d236634baa7f&mc=true&node=sp30.2.250.q&rgn=div6#sg30.2.250_11707_
6250_11709.sg54. Accessed 19 December 2016.
API RP 10B-2. 2013. Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements. Second edition. Washington, DC: API.
API TR 10TR3. 1999. Technical Report on Temperatures for API Cement Operating Thickening Time Tests. First Edition,
May 1999, reaffirmed, May 2005. Washington, DC: API.
Heathman, J. F., Sands, F. L., Sas-Jaworsky, A. et al 1993. A Study of the Effects of Mixing Energy Imparted on Cement
Slurries by Field Equipment and Coiled Tubing. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA, 3–6 October. SPE-26573-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26573-MS.