-

CASED-HOLE COMPLETIONS: A DISPLACEMENT PROCEDURE TO ALLEVIATE CEMENTING

FAILURES
Mohamed Galal, M. R. Luyster and W. E. Foxenberg, M-I SWACO

ABSTRACT
Classically, the completion process begins when the well reaches total depth and the evaluation phase begins.
The cased-hole completion process typically involves eight phases that starts with the case-and-cement
operation and ends when the well is unloaded. If a sand zone is deemed productive, casing is run and cemented
and the completion process continues. One of the principal objectives of the case-and-cement phase is to
remove the residual filter cake from the formation face while displacing the drilling mud from the wellbore. A
poorly designed cementing operation can lead to costly squeezes and delays. This phase is essential as a
successful cement job will provide a foundation for the remaining completion operation.

This paper investigates wells that were drilled with a water-based polymer mud that utilized
polyacrylamide/polyacrylate polymer for providing shale encapsulation1. The authors investigated
approximately 39 cased-hole completions from the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and South America. Nineteen (19)
of these wells are presented. Of these, 70% resulted in poor cement jobs as squeezes were necessary. In
addition, this paper describes a technique that was developed from laboratory analyses that investigated removal
efficiency of polyacrylamide/polyacrylate polymer muds. The authors will discuss the laboratory data and
compare displacement techniques and efficiency of formation surface preparation before the cementing
operation commences. In addition, the authors will present field results as analyzed by cement bond wireline
measurements.

The case histories include cased-hole, stand-alone, and high-rate gravel-pack (HRGP) completions that utilized
predominantly water-based mud (WBM) systems. The pitfalls associated with an improperly designed spacer
system that is pumped ahead of the cementing operation are discussed. Laboratory data are detailed that resulted
in two new spacer designs. Cement bond logs (CBL) are also shown and discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Post analysis of several completions in the shelf area of the Gulf of Mexico identified potential problems in
cased-hole completion process. Typical problems related to cement squeezes, tool failures, displacements, and
solids contamination. These problems resulted in additional rig time and subsequently unwarranted costs. As
the cementing problems were recurring, the authors explored the need and subsequently developed a planning
tool to assist the completion team with identifying root cause(s) and improving their completion process. The
first phase consisted of detailing the cased-hole completion process. Through the systematic identification of
each phase, the root cause of recurring problems can be identified. For the purposes of this paper, the cased-
hole completion process was deemed to begin with the evaluation of the logs and end with the unloading of the
well.

A “schema” or structured outline was developed to help completion personnel ultimately mitigate unwarranted
costs and unnecessary delays. This outline details the completion as a series of processes, whereby, the
potential for potential problems are presented. The outline can be utilized by the engineer for codifying, in an
organized fashion, the complex and myriad of fluid, material and tool interactions that occur in a completion.
The upfront identification and confirmation of potential problems serves to enhance the completion and
optimize use of well construction tools, avoid incompatibility with formation material and fluids, develop
executable contingencies, eliminate unnecessary products/chemicals, and assist with the development of concise
operational procedures. The benefit to the engineer is ultimately the reduction of costs and rig time.

This process assumes the well has been drilled to TD and a potential productive zone has been penetrated.
Eight key progressive phases are summarized in Table 1. The key issues are summarized and processes are
detailed with respect to the fluids and tools that are routinely utilized and their potential for incompatibility.
The eight key steps are: evaluating logs, running casing and cementing, displacing, running and setting the
sump packer, perforating, preparing and gravel packing, running production tubing, and unloading the well. Of
key importance is the cementing phase. It is this phase that provides a foundation for the case and perforate
completion.

WELLS STUDIED
Approximately thirty-nine completions were drilled by two operators over a period of approximately 12
months. The general well information is shown in Table 2. Of the thirty-nine wells, nineteen were analyzed
and discussed. The nineteen wells were drilled and completed in the shelf area of the GoM and South America.
Drilling mud density ranged from 9.4 lb/gal to 14.0 lb/gal. One completion was drilled with a synthetic-
polymer WBM system. This system was a WBM, however, a synthetic oil was added to enhance the
rheological properties. As much as 9% v/v was added, therefore, we list this as a SBM. The WBM systems
utilized polyacrylamide/polyacrylate for rheology and retarding dispersion.1,2 This polymer is believed to seal
microfractures and coat shale surfaces with a film that retards dispersion and disintegration. In addition, it
interacts with minimal concentrations of bentonite to link particles together and improve rheology without
increased colloidal solids loading.

After drilling to TD, all wells were displaced using a myriad of methods and spacer trains. Completion brine
type and density varied from monovalent (3% KCl) to two-salt divalent blends (13.5 lb/gal CaCl2-CaBr2).
Subsequently, the wells were perforated and gravel-packed. The initial expected production was predominantly
gas, however some completions yielded crude.

Completion problems varied and resulted in unwarranted rig time and costs. These problems included; excess
cement squeezes, tool failures, unanticipated fluid losses, excess interfaces, and an unknown commingled
sludge/solid/fluid recovered after gravel packing. In particular, Table 3 shows that of the nineteen completions,
twelve of seventeen or approximately 70% required squeeze operations. As a result, the authors investigated
the spacer design or lead spacer and its ability to disperse a residual filter cake formed from a
polyacrylamide/polyacrylate polymer mud system.

This paper concentrates on the case and cementing phase of the completion. In particular, the design of the
spacer train that is used to displace the drilling mud from the wellbore and prepare the formation face for the
cement. In addition, we detail laboratory analyses that provided data for selecting an optimum surfactant.

A brief discussion of the cased-hole completion process is provided. It is hoped that this discussion provides
the basis and serves as an example of the importance of a good cementing operation.

DISCUSSION CASED-HOLE COMPLETION PROCESS

The following are general discussions for each of the eight steps of the cased-hole completion process.

1. Evaluation of Open-hole Logs

The completion process starts with the open-hole log evaluation. The open-hole log evaluation identifies sands
and shales, hydrocarbon-bearing and water-filled sands, and characteristics of each. Other critical data not
obtained from logs are pressures and temperatures, petrophysical data, and formation fluid composition. Prior
to running casing, mud weights and open-hole logs may be the only available sources to derive pressures and
temperatures. Formation testers are useful to accurately measure these variables plus obtain formation fluid
samples, determine type of formation fluids and fluid contacts.

Formation fluid samples are valuable in the design of a completion as well as the surface facilities. Fluid
samples can be obtained to ensure fluid compatibility with completion fluids, elastomers,3 metallurgy and long
lead-time items. Because completion fluids can be expensive, this compatibility testing can help avoid costly
production problems such as precipitates, emulsions,4 and corrosion to name a few. Gas analyses can identify
the potential for CO2 and H2S. Crude and/or condensate analyses can identify the potential for problematic
paraffin and asphaltenes, as well as provide liquid gravity and pour point information. Water analyses (i.e.,
IC/ICP) can determine critical variables such as salinity, compatibility, gravity, and scaling tendencies.5

Petrophysical data can be obtained from whole and sidewall cores. Particle Size Data (PSD), Scanning Electron
Microscopy/Elemental Dispersive Spectrometry (SEM/EDS), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), thin section, and
routine core analyses can help characterize zones of interest and determine the most effective completion,
reservoir drill-in fluid (RDF), and clean-up strategies.

The directional survey of the wellbore is essential as this allows correlation of measured depths with true
vertical depths. Accurate depth information is useful in calculations to derive hydrostatic pressure and wellbore
deviation which in turn, is critical for optimizing hole cleaning, displacements,6 fluid selection, fluid-loss
control measures and subsequent completion operations.

2. Running Casing and Cementing

After the evaluation phase, preparation commences to run and cement the casing. A successful cement bond
between the formation and the pipe is critical for an effective completion.7 Failure to achieve an adequate
cement bond on the first attempt often results in significant additional costs of both rig time and materials.

There are four important parameters to consider for an effective cement design.7 The parameters are: mud
conditioning, pipe centralization, mud displacement, and compatibility of fluids (Table 3). Mud conditioning
consists of removing all contaminants from the mud so that the mud pumped into the well is consistent with the
mud coming out of the well. Bit-and-scraper runs may be necessary to ensure a clean wellbore as this process
mitigates solids contamination of subsequent completion operations.

Pipe centralization is absolutely necessary above, below and across all zones of interest including water sands.
Centralization improves the chances of efficient displacement of the conditioned mud with the cement program
in order to obtain sufficient cement coverage over the entire circumference of the hole. Deviated wellbores
present the greatest risk of poor or no cement bonding on the low side and extra centralizers are a small cost for
prevention.

Block displacement of the mud in the wellbore with the cement is desirable since no intermingling of fluids and
contamination of the cement occurs. An effective displacement program can be achieved in laminar or
turbulent flow. The turbulent flow method requires maximum pump rate with a chemical wash, preferably
brine and a surfactant. The laminar flow method requires less pump rate, but a hierarchy of fluids based on
viscosity and density, typically mud – spacer – lead cement – tail cement. The pump rate may be limited in
cases where a liner packer or small-diameter equipment is used.

Compatibility of fluids must be checked and verified to ensure adequate bonding. Incompatibility can cause a
change in viscosity. Critical compatibilities to check include the mud to cement and chemical wash with the
spacer. Compatibility between the formation fluids, if available, and the cement and completion fluids should
be confirmed as the project dictates.

A successful cement job can be confirmed by full and complete returns during the pumping of the job. This is
followed by bumping of the plug. However, the cased-hole cement bond log (CBL) is the industry preferred
choice.

Key factors that could contribute to a poor cement bond and should be given serious consideration during the
completion design phase include: out-of-gauge hole, high hole angle, insufficient use of centralizers, problems
experienced while running the casing, gas migration,8 and the presence of nearby water and depleted zones.
Common problems during cementing include: the presence of a channel, lack of isolation, high permeability
formation, residual mud solids, or a low cement top.

These problems can be remedied with one of three types of squeezes: running squeeze, hesitation squeeze and
circulating squeeze. The running squeeze is most effective for short intervals and involves no shutdown. Neat
cement is used with high-fluid-loss additives. The hesitation squeeze is most applicable for long intervals and
requires low-fluid-loss cement mix. The process is pump, hesitate then pump. The circulating squeeze is
necessary to clear a channel or cover a long interval. The circulating squeeze is sometimes referred to as a
“suicide squeeze” when designed to remedy very poor cement jobs.

The typical squeeze procedure begins with drilling mud in the wellbore. If the mud is displaced, the completion
fluid will have to be circulated and conditioned afterwards since the cement comes in contact with the high
density completion fluid. With either fluid in the hole, the squeeze process consists of perforate, run work
string with packer, pump cement to packer, set packer and squeeze cement into the formation. If necessary, a
balanced cement plug may be set across the squeezed perforations. After allowing the cement to set, a bit and
scraper is run to drill out the cement. Finally, the squeeze is tested with positive and/or negative pressure. The
location of the squeezed perforations will dictate the pressure test.

3. Displacing
The team identified and detailed the displacement techniques that were utilized in the ten completions. The
following discussion is a summarizes previously analyzed displacements, whereby, the advantages and
disadvantages are compared and contrasted.

The first step in the completion process is typically a displacement of the drilling mud to clear brine. The clear
brine provides a solids-free environment that helps to maintain the functionality of downhole tools and the
integrity of the productive interval. The primary goal for a displacement program is to remove all drilling mud
residues from the wellbore.9 Although operators, service providers, and consultants adhere to this common
goal, there are many different approaches that are implemented to accomplish this task. The myriad of
displacement techniques for wellbore displacement often lead to confusion as to which procedure is best suited
for a particular situation.

Ideally, the mud is not displaced out of the hole until after all cement work is completed. The objectives of a
displacement program include: 1) removal of all traces of drilling mud from the wellbore, 2) containment of the
drilling mud and the completion fluid, if discharge is not an option, 3) minimize the interfaces between the
spacers, 4) replacement of the drilling mud with a “contaminant-free” completion brine, 5) accomplish these
tasks with the lowest risk to personnel and the environment 6) cost-effective, and 7) efficiently as possible as
dictated by brine type, density, and logistics.

The best displacement design for any particular well configuration will not only account for and be evaluated by
the aforementioned objectives, but will be executed according to the rig-site logistical constraints that exist at
the time of the operation. The primary task for the completion engineer, then, is to consider all factors that
influence the objectives and to design the displacement accordingly. Designing a displacement that will meet
the objectives of the completion requires input of basic information. Fundamental data include the type of
drilling mud and completion brine, type of completion, casing and workstring design, measured depth, true
vertical depth, mud line temperature, bottomhole temperature and pressure, rig-site facilities, pump outputs,
water availability and environmental restrictions.

Conditioning of the existing drilling fluid should be considered first. The factors and components influencing
the drilling fluid must be identified. For example, contaminants such as excess cement from squeezes, mud
solids and gels are just a few that may contact and contaminate the completion fluid. The necessity and
importance of planning for this phase cannot be overstated. A poorly designed displacement that cannot be
implemented in the field due to poor planning or because erroneous and/or incomplete information was utilized
usually results unwarranted rig time and costs.

In addition to having a well planned displacement program, it is important for the rig-site fluid engineer to
properly plan the operation on location. Issues such as timing, concurrent operations, understanding surface
facilities (i.e., pit management), knowing when and how to mix and pump chemical wash spacers, necessary
modifications due to limitations at the rig-site, and coordination/communication with rig personnel impact the
displacement efficiency.

A primary concern usually involves pit cleaning. Two decisions of significance are the use of third-party
personnel for pit cleaning and the off-loading of all drilling mud prior to bringing-on the completion brine. The
decision to use third-party personnel is usually based on logistics and/or the utilization of the roughneck
personnel for pit-cleaning. If no time-saving benefit can be derived from both crews accomplishing tasks
specific to the completion program within the same time frame then it is more than likely cost-ineffective to use
a third-party pit-cleaning crew unless the third-party can add additional benefits.
Every displacement must include a careful evaluation of the estimated pressure differentials, frictional pressure
losses, and pump rates. These parameters are dictated by the density and viscosity of the drilling and
completion fluids, spacers, and wellbore geometry.9 In deepwater displacements, the temperature at the mud
line may necessitate a completion fluid with a lower crystallization temperature (true crystallization temperature
or TCT) than might otherwise be required. This is particularly true if the BOP is tested with completion fluid.10
In this case a pressure crystallization temperature (PCT) should be obtained.

The choice of completion fluid influences the displacement style and it must be taken into consideration.
Large-diameter risers often require relatively large volumes of completion brine be readily available. Failure to
secure the necessary volumes may result in premature termination of a displacement. This in turn can yield
swapping of spacers in the larger diameter casing/riser. The riser should be displaced separately and indirectly
from the rest of the wellbore to take advantage of using seawater.

The lower temperatures and high pressures associated with deepwater completions also induces the formation of
gas hydrates.10 This phenomenon is usually the result of the potential for gas to migrate during the
displacement due to a liner top failure or exposure of the producing formation.

The management of the rigs pit system is critical for an efficient displacement. Concerns include: availability
of pits to incorporate all spacers, communication and subsequent contamination between pits if drilling mud is
still on-board, dead volumes of pits, adequate blending capability, and sufficient cleaning. Sufficient volume
must be available to complete the displacement without resulting in a termination of the displacement. As such,
limited pit volumes can sometimes result in a less than ideal pump rate if the capacity is less than one hole
volume. If the ability to mix sufficient pill/spacer volume on the rig is limited, then these should be mixed at
the source plant and transported. The use of tanks may require a manifold system that allows a smooth
transition from one pill/spacer to another. In addition, if the rig pits do not have sufficient agitators/hoppers for
properly preparing viscosified spacers then blending units may be required. The footprint of the blending units
should be scrutinized as rig space may be at a premium during the completion process.

In some displacement programs, the workstring design may require modification to enhance velocity and/or
contact time of the spacer train. Modifications to the workstring can help reduce friction pressure and/or
annular volume, thus providing the opportunity to pump the chemical spacers in a desired flow regime at a
desired pump rate.
Displacements are categorized as direct, indirect, balanced or staged. All can be pumped in either the forward
or reverse pumping direction. A forward or conventional displacement pumps fluid down the workstring,
taking returns up the annulus. A reverse-circulating displacement pumps fluid down the annulus, taking returns
up the workstring. There are advantages and limitations to both. Reverse circulation provides superior hole
cleaning, however, the equivalent circulating density (ECD) that is generated by this method often exceeds the
fracture gradient.

A standard displacement replaces the drilling mud that is heavy enough to control the well with a completion
fluid that also controls well pressures. However, prior to placing a full hole volume of completion fluid in the
wellbore, a series of low-density spacers is circulated. This situation requires well control considerations if
open or squeezed perforations are exposed, liner tops have not been negatively tested, or other pressure
sensitive situations are evident. The exception to this is the balanced displacement. A good displacement
program includes a safety factor for the total wellbore hydrostatic that takes into account the lowest hydrostatic
exerted by the spacer train. In some instances, back pressure may be required to complete the displacement to
meet a specified safety factor.

Conventional circulation allows easy rotation and reciprocation of the workstring when the annular blowout
preventers and pipe rams remain open. Pipe movement is particularly important in a deviated wellbore.
Forward circulation usually permits higher pump rates and generally allows for less frictional pressure losses
over the course of the displacement. Conventional displacements also allow greater control over differential
pressure across pressure sensitive areas such as liner tops and squeezed perforations. This can be accomplished
with backpressure. If the wellbore requires back pressure on the annulus, as when well-control concerns are
indicated, rotation and reciprocation of the workstring is less likely. Another significant advantage in this pump
direction procedure is the pump pressure is contained in the workstring rather than transmitted to the annulus,
i.e., when the annulus is open at the surface, it sees only the hydrostatic pressure differential between the fluids.

Reverse circulation limits the interface contamination between high-density mud and lower density spacers or
completion fluid. In some cases, pumping in the reverse direction produces less hydrostatic differential
pressures because the lower density spacers generate less linear coverage in the annulus than in the workstring.
This feature can be advantageous when pump output is limited. Because reverse circulation is carried out with
the annular pressure-control equipment closed, the possibility for pipe movement is limited or eliminated. This
is a disadvantage that must be considered.

Once the wellbore has been displaced completely to completion brine, the brine is conditioned or filtered to a
predetermined objective. As a rule of thumb, filtering requirements are less than 20-25 NTU (nephlometric
turbidity unit) for low density brines and less than 30 NTU for heavier brines.

Standard casing/riser scrapers and brushes can be beneficial for many displacements. Scrapers and brushes are
placed near the bit, close to liner tops, and midway to the surface. In relatively deviated wellbores, a brush is
used to contact the 45o to 65o section as it is widely accepted that solids removal is most difficult at these
angles. Jet subs and other pressure washing tools can also be beneficial. As with pipe movement, mechanical
aids change the flow path of the fluids and provide access to low side residuals. They also induce turbulence as
the fluid travels around and through these devices.

After a successful mud displacement and conditioning of the completion brine, typically a casing integrity test
is performed. The amount of pressure to use depends on the existence of a liner top, squeeze perforations and
the fluid in the hole now versus the fluid used to complete the well. Some engineers treat the brine now for
emulsion and scaling tendencies. However, it will be a wasted effort and costly if the brine is filtered afterward.
The best time to treat the brine is in the last circulation just prior to perforating.

4. Running and Setting Sump Packer

The primary objective for this step is installation of the sump, or bottom, gravel-pack packer. In a non-gravel
packed completion, the sump packer is not necessary. The sump packer provides a bottom for the gravel-
packed completion.

Before running the sump packer, the following should be confirmed – the casing and completion brine are clean
and additional circulation and filtration are not required. The objective is proper setting of the sump packer. If
the casing is deemed ready, then the next typical step is to run a gauge ring-and-junk basket. This insures a full
gauge hole absent of restrictions and obstructions, especially around liner tops and areas of previous or
suspected tight spots. Any problems getting the gauge to bottom or junk found in the basket will determine the
need to make an additional bit-and-scraper run. The sump can be thought of as a packer in this step of the
completion process. The sump can be a cast-iron bridge plug which provides isolation below, however, it does
not provide any rat hole for debris. A sump packer may be designed for a single completion, a dual completion
or selective completion. Optimizing the lower-most completion packer depends on wellbore deviation,
presence and depth of squeeze perforations, and depth of a liner top.

The setting depth of the sump packer is critical to the wellbore design. Whether run on wireline or work string,
a correlating log must be provided. The type and date of log should be specified and the personnel responsible
for the final correlation decision clearly identified. Failure to do so can result in costly delays and /or improper
packer setting depth.

Perforating shock is a major concern for failures of cast-iron bridge plugs and upper completion packers (i.e.,
duals and selectives). Adequate fluid volume helps to dissipate the shock wave. If sufficient volume is not
available, sand can be dumped on the bridge plug and/or packer plug. The sand in turn, absorbs the shock and
helps with perforating debris cleanup. After perforating, the sand is washed out of the wellbore and the packer
plug pulled if present.

5. Running Perforating Guns

In cased-hole completions a conduit between the formation and the wellbore must be provided. The most
commonly used method is to perforate the casing across the productive interval with highly explosive charges.
These charges are deployed by two methods: wireline and tubing conveyed perforating (TCP). The charges
come in two configurations: big hole and deep penetrating. The choice of which charge to use is dependent on
the characteristics of the producing interval (high/low permeability, clean/shaley, sandstone/limestone) and the
type of completion (natural, high rate gravel pack/high density, and gravel pack/frac-pack). The shots per foot
(spf) or shot density is a function of the type of completion and the anticipated producing rate.

In a completion the perforation tunnel is often a source of considerable pressure drop, frequently referred to as
“skin”. This can be attributed to several factors. If the gun is not centered properly in the wellbore, the hole
created in the casing may not be of uniform geometry. When the perforation tunnel is created, there is a
damaged zone (reduced permeability) created around the tunnel of crushed formation, gun debris and debris
from improperly conditioned completion fluid. This reduced permeability can impede the packing of the
perforation tunnels during gravel packing operations and reduce the productivity of the completion. Several
methods have been employed to minimize the effects of the damaged zone. Underbalanced perforating creates a
pressure imbalance in the wellbore (Phyd < Pres) which forces the debris out of the perforation tunnels and into
the wellbore. The debris then falls into the rathole or is circulated out. It should be noted that one of the
functions of the sump packer is to allow the debris to fall through the packer bore so that it does not interfere
with subsequent operations. Perforation surging using an atmospheric chamber above a squeeze packer is an
alternative to underbalanced perforating.

A measure of the effectiveness of perforation cleaning is the amount of fluid loss after perforating. It is
common to choose a completion brine with sufficient density to provide a hydrostatic pressure which is
sufficient to control the well (~ 200 psi) but not too great as to promote unacceptable losses to the formation. To
achieve this, a good estimate of the bottomhole pressure (BHP) of the zone is necessary. Unfortunately this is
not always possible and if the BHP was overestimated, or is too low to support a column of low density brine,
there may be considerable losses of brine until a method can be employed to control the losses - usually lost-
circulation material (LCM) pills. The two most common are solids-free and/or solids-laden. Solids-free pills
can be further subdivide into linear solids-free and crosslinked. In both instances the mechanism for mitigating
fluid loss is viscosity. If the completion brine has not properly maintained then this serves as an additional
source for unwarranted debris. This debris may be deposited in the tunnels whose adverse effects have already
been mentioned.

It should be noted that the negative effects of poor perforating practices can be alleviated by a good frac-pack
completion. This is true if the goals of the fracturing treatment (tip screen out, width development, tight annular
pack) are achieved. However, if any of these are not achieved, then the consequence may yield a “good gravel
pack” whereby, production may come from only a portion of the perforated interval. This cause-effect is a
primary reason for gravel pack failure.

6. Prepare for Gravel Packing

After perforating and subsequent tripping out of hole (TOOH), a completion assembly must be run in the
wellbore. In the case of a natural completion, the assembly may consist of a production packer, tubing, nipples,
gas lift mandrels (GLM), subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) and a hanger.

If sand control is necessary, the assembly can become quite complicated. For a single completion the casing
size, deviation of the wellbore, length of the perforated interval, BHP/BHT and method of gravel placement are
just several issues that must be addressed. The proppant and screen must be properly sized to prevent the
formation sand from being produced along with the hydrocarbons. If the BHP is low, a means of controlling
fluid losses must be employed as previously discussed. There are several options available ranging from
ceramic flapper valves and isolation strings to mechanical tools. If the BHP and/or BHT are high, the use of
high density brines may be necessary for well control. This may make it necessary to use special metals and
elastomers in the gravel pack assembly.

If the perforated interval is long and or highly deviated, it will be more difficult to get complete packing of the
perf tunnels and achieve a uniformly tight annular pack. The task is made even more difficult to the zone is not
uniform in quality from top to bottom. Many completions have failed because of a premature screenout in the
upper portion of the perforated interval leaving the lower perfs inadequately packed with little or no annular
packing. If the screen is exposed to the formation failure is almost certain. It is imperative the all of the
perforation tunnels be free of debris and that the damaged zone surrounding the tunnel be reduced as much as
possible to allow for adequate leak off during the gravel-packing operation. This can only be accomplished if
the completion brine is properly conditioned prior to perforating to reduce the amount of debris allowed to enter
the perforation tunnels.

The gravel-pack packer is run in the hole attached to a service tool which is attached to the workstring. The
service tool provides a means of setting the packer and transporting the proppant from the workstring to the
perforations. It is a tortuous path that lends itself to plugging with solids. There have been many instances
where the service tool has become so plugged with solids entrained in the completion fluid that it was
impossible to set the packer and/or pump the treatment and the entire assembly had to be pulled from the well.
The situation is made even more difficult when multiple completions are stacked on top of each other either as a
single selective or a dual completion. After the lower zone is completed, it must be isolated and the entire
process be repeated for the upper zone(s). A multiple completion many take several weeks to finish and during
that time several packers must be set and gravel pack treatments pumped. The lower zones must be isolated
while the upper zone(s) are perforated. After perforating the plug must be retrieved. The completion fluid must
be properly conditioned before retrieving the plug so that the lower zone is not contaminated with debris.

In some gravel-packing operations (HRGP), the completion fluid is used as the carrier for the proppant. It is
imperative that the perforations be tightly packed to achieve optimum production. If leak-off to the perfs is
reduced due to plugging by solids in the fluid, packing efficiency will be affected leading to potentially large
completion skins.
7. Running Tubing
Before the completion process reaches this stage, the following parameters must be considered: 1) size and
grade of pipe, 2) type of threads, 3) required brine additives to mitigate erosion, corrosion, and bacteria, 4)
expected production rates, fluid/gas, and pressure, and 5) reservoir drive mechanism.

Another design decision should include tubing-movement calculations. Weight on the packer, length of the
packer seals, and snap latch versus collet and if anchor-type connections are needed should be taken into
consideration. The expected temperature and pressures changes will affect the long term stability. If excess
fluctuations are expected, then this must be considered.

8. Unloading Well
Any fluids introduced into the formation during the completion process can cause formation damage and
wettability changes. In some cases, such as with acids, quick removal is essential to avoid damage from
precipitates. In most cases the acid is produced back and neutralized. However, this introduces costs in the
form of disposal and/or treating. The ideal unloading process would achieve a constant and safe unloading rate
to prevent formation surges, back flow into the formation, and collapse of the formation or downhole
equipment.

Circulation is also the preferred method to spot a lighter unloading fluid in the tubing. Swabbing with slickline
or unloading with coiled tubing are some of the other mechanical means of unloading a well when the formation
pressure is not sufficient.

The completion process ends when the well is put on production and the well turned over to the field personnel.
In most cases, the planned unloading procedure dictates the point of the hand-off.

In abnormally pressures reservoirs, a completion will flow on its own and unload liquids from the tubing and
formation. This is not the case for many normally pressured and sub-normally pressured reservoirs. In these
cases, well intervention services are needed to reduce the hydrostatic head on a completion. Slickline is an
inexpensive and commonly used service to swab liquids out of the wellbore. For more troublesome wells,
coiled tubing and nitrogen are used to “gas lift” the hydrostatic head off the completion. Gas-lift equipment is
installed in many wells for this purpose initially or for future use.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Due to the early problems associated with cementing in these completions the aforementioned process resulted
in unwarranted costs. Therefore, a laboratory investigation was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of the
surfactant in the spacer that is pumped before the lead slurry. Specifically, the utilization of a surfactant for
“thinning” and removing the residual filter cake of a WBM. A typical cement displacement is shown in Table
4. This procedure was utilized, in part, for the majority of the completions shown in Table 4.

As exhibited in Table 3, several wells required cement squeezes. Figures 1 and 2 show the representative
gamma ray and corresponding bond log signatures for the number 9 and 10 wells. In both wells a relatively
poor bond was apparent. As a result a relative laboratory procedure was designed to compare a previously
utilized surfactant (#1) with a new surfactant (#2).

A dynamic High-Temperature High-Pressure (HTHP) apparatus was utilized to evaluate two surfactants
(Figure 3). The objective of this test was to simulate the effectiveness of a surfactant (additive) to penetrate
and/or disperse a residual filter cake formed from a polyacrylamide/polyacrylate mud system. A temperature of
200oF and a differential to air of 500 psi were utilized to simulate downhole conditions. The following
experimental procedure was utilized:

Laboratory Procedure

1. Using 500 psi differential at 200oF, form a WBM filter cake on a selected ceramic disk
2. Prepare the test cell and heat jacket to 200oF
3. Place the residual filtercake into the cell
4. Secure the bottom cap and ensure the valve is closed before adding any fluids to the cell.
5. Ensure the jacket temp attains 200oF.
6. Add selected surfactant, 15% v/v, pill (500 mL).
7. Insert dynamic paddle and top cap. Close the top apparatus. Check the top valves and ensure closure.
8. Place the HTHP cell into the heating jacket, monitor cell temperature.
9. Once 200oF is attained, open the top valve and apply 500 psi differential and adjust paddle speed to 230
ft/min equivalent. Initially, rotate spindle at ~700 RPM (700 RPM equates to a parallel flow rate of 230
ft/min) while maintaining pressure differential to air.
10. Once the test is completed, remove the cell and release pressure.
11. Allow HTHP cell to cool.
12. Open the top and collect all fluid remaining inside the HTHP cell, ensure no large residuals or the filter cake
is still suspended.
13. Remove the disk and check for any residuals.

Figures 3 shows the dynamic HTHP apparatus. For all tests, a simulated parallel flow rate was calculated as:

Parallel Flow (ft/min) = 2π*r*Spindle RPM

This equation estimates the parallel flow rate across the disk. It is important to note that this equation does not
account for the increased pump pressure to move a more viscous fluid as compared to a non-viscous fluid. In
addition this test only represents horizontal (parallel) flow path across the residual filter cake. It does not
simulate a perpendicular flow path. This dynamic HTHP apparatus is only capable of horizontal (parallel) flow
path.

Laboratory testing focused on the “stiffness” of a residual filter cake as opposed to the “thickness”. It was
postulated that optimized pump rates would effectively remove the filtercake “fluff”. However, a rigid and stiff
filter cake would require optimized chemistry. Figure 4 shows a typical residual filter cake formed from a
polyacrylamide/polyacrylate mud system. Two surfactants were selected for testing and were designated as
number one (strong pH) and number 2 (strong water-wetting and dispersant). The first phase examined the
ability of the surfactants to disperse the residual filter cake. Figures 5 and 6 show the results for surfactant
number 2. Note that the spacer in Figure 5 is still transparent; however, after 15 minutes of exposure the spacer
is muddy and opaque.

The next phase examined the ability of these two optimized spacers to effectively remove a residual filter cake
using simulated pumping conditions. Figures 7 and 8 show the filter cakes after 6 minutes of contact time. In
this test, the number two surfactant exhibited a more effective removal of the residual solids. During this phase,
filtrate was collected. Figure 9 shows the filtrate.

FIELD RESULTS
As of the writing of this publication, only surfactant number one has been used in the field. Table 3,
completions number 18 and 19 utilized this surfactant as part of the spacer design. In both cementing
operations, no squeezes were necessary. Surfactant number two is scheduled for a field trial soon. The results
of this application will be compared to the aforementioned. It is hoped that the CBL can be compared and
contrasted. As the wells that utilized both surfactants spacer systems have similar mud systems, BHT, and
operational procedures it is felt that this will provide a good comparative basis.

CONCLUSIONS
• Simple laboratory testing of spacer chemistry can help to optimize removal of the residual filter cake from a
polyacrylamide/polyacrylate drilling mud system and help mitigate poor cementing results.

• No correlation between reciprocating the casing and/or placement of centralizers and squeezing can be
ascertained from these completions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the managements of M-I SWACO for their permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Young, S. and Maas, T.: “Novel Polymer Chemistry Increases Shale Stability,” AADE 01-NC-HO-41,
AADE National Drilling Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, March 27-29, 2001.
2. Clark, R.K., Scheuerman, R.F., Raoth, H. and van Laar, H.: "Polyacrylamide-Potassium Chloride Mud for
Drilling Water Sensitive Shales," Journal of Petroleum Technology vol. 28, no. 6 (June 1976) 719-726.
3. Fraser, L.J.: "New Method Accurately Analyzes Synthetic Polymers in Muds," Oil & Gas Journal vol 85,
no. 27 (July 6, 1987) 39-42.
4. Silverman, S.A., Bhavsar, R., Edwards, C., Virally, S., and Foxenberg, W.: “Use of High-Strength Alloys
and Elastomers in Heavy Completion Brines,” SPE 84515, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, October 5-8, 2003.
5. Luyster, M.R., Paul Hebert, P., Ali, S.A., Kippie, D.P., and Carboni; J.C.: “Asphaltic Crudes and High
Density Brines: A Potentially Lethal Combination,” SPE 73732, Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002.
6. Scheuerman, R.F., and Bergersen, B.M.: “Injection-Water Salinity, Formation Pretreatment, and Well-
Operations Fluid-Selection Guidelines, SPE 18461, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1990) 836-845.
7. Hemphill, A.T. and Pogue, T.: “Field Applications of ERD Hole Cleaning Modeling,” SPE 59731,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, March 4-6, 1997.
8. Rueda, F., Heathman, J., and Serrano, M.: “Hole Cleaning and Cement Design for Specific Formation
Types,” SPE 84560, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5-8,
2003.
9. Jennings, S. S., Al-Ansari, A. A., and Al-Yami, A. S.: “Gas Migration After Cementing Greatly Reduced,”
SPE 81414, 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, June 9-12, 2003.
10. Messler, D., Kippie, D., and Webb, T.: “Improved Techniques of Deepwater SBM Displacements: A Case
History,” SPE 73711, SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002.
11. Freeman, M.A., Slater, K.S., Carminati, J.R., and Lester, G.S.: “High Pressure Crystallization of Deep-
Water Completion Brines,” SPE 58729, SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 23-24, 2000.
12. Nehmer, W.L.: “Viscoelastic Gravel-Pack Carrier Fluid,” SPE 17168, Formation Damage Control
Symposium, Bakersfield, California, February 8-9, 1988.
13. Keith G.K., Gadiyar, B., Riordan, H.: “Simultaneous Gravel Packing and Filtercake Cleanup with Shunt
Tubes in Open-Hole Completions: A Case History from the Gulf of Mexico,” SPE 71672, Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 30 - October 3, 2001.
 Table 1
8 Steps in Well Completion Process
Step Name Primary Issues
1 Run Casing and Cement MUD CONDITIONING – mud “in” must be consistent with mud coming “out” of hole.

CENTRALIZATION - install centralizers above, below and across all zones of interest,
including water sands.

DISPLACEMENT - Turbulent flow + chemical wash (brine and surfactant) or Laminar

flow + hierarchy of fluids based on viscosity and density (mud – spacer/lead cement/tail
cement).

COMPATIBILITY OF FLUIDS AND SPACERS - check compatibility, or a change in

viscosity, with mud and cement, with chemical wash and spacer.

Need to run a CBL Log?

If a SQUEEZE is necessary:
What is the problem? (Channeling, isolation, cement top, spacer)
Can a squeeze be achieved? Do we need pressure (i.e., Cased-hole RFT)?
Need for a cased hole dipole sonic?

2 Displacement of Drilling
Fluid
TYPE OF SQUEEZE?
- Running (short interval): no shutdown, neat cement w/ high fluid loss
- Hesitation(long interval): loss fluid loss; pump, hesitate, and pump
- Circulating squeeze: clear channel, cover long interval due to poor cement job.
Define deliverable specifications of fluid: iron content, density, total dissolved solids,
NTUs, TCT (true crystallization temp)

Determine DIRECT VS. INDIRECT, based on pumping capability and kick tolerance.
Determine optimum displacement rate. What is pump capacity? (Rig pumps vs.
Cement pumps)

Determine how to clean pits?

How and where to BUILD SPACERS? Where to place brushes and scrapers?

CONDITIONING DRILLING FLUID

What components are influencing fluid?
How to condition fluid? How much time needed?
What constitutes clean fluid? Targets?

Establish FILTERING REQUIREMENTS:

- Rule of thumb: 20-25 NTUs for low density brines
- < 30 NTU for heavier brines

When to Pickle Workstring? Type of pickle (Sand scour and/or chemical treatment)

When to perform CASING INTEGRITY TEST?

How much pressure to use? Will depend on existence of liner top, squeeze perfs, etc.
What fluid is in the hole now and what fluid will be used
for completing well?

Treat brine for emulsion and scaling tendencies? In last circulation before perforating?
Do not filter treated brine as additives are stripped out.
 Table 1
8 Steps in Well Completion Process
Step Name Primary Issues
3 Run and Set Sump Packer When is Casing deemed ready?

Need to run GAUGE RING and JUNK BASKEt?

Potential problems -check liner top, mill or run packer on pipe. Insure proper setting of
sump packer.

Set SUMP PACKER on Wireline or Workstring?

- Type of sump: CIBP or sump packer for dual or selective.
- Hole deviation concerns
- Liner top concerns
- Can workstring be pickled now?

CORRELATION LOG
- Which log to correlate with (type and date)
- Who is responsible for final correlation decision.
- Determine necessary log documentation

PROTECTION from PERFORATING SHOCK

4 Run Perforating Guns
- Shock is a concern for CIBPs or upper completion (duals / selectives)
- Remedy: Dump sand on packer and packer plug if needed. Absorbs shock and
helps with perforating debris cleanup.
PERFORATE WITH TCP or WIRELINE GUN
- Determine perf interval length, spf, charge performance and type (BH, DP)
- Determine hydraulic vs. drop bar firing, redundancy systems?

GUN DEBRIS and SHOCK

- How much rat hole present?
- Note that big gun systems (7”) needs 100’ from top shot to packer.

UNDER OR OVER BALANCE?

- Completion type: Pack, High Rate Water Pack, Slurry Pack, or Gravel Pack
- Cushion: air, lighter fluid
- Need for flow back, surface fluid sample, pre-completion skin (PBU)

DOWNHOLE TOOLS
- What / When / Why?
> well control, fluid losses
> underbalance, cleanup & reverse out.
> Well testing
> BHP measurement
> fluid sampling
- Certainty of pore press estimate, adjust fluid weight to BHP

CORRELATE ON DEPTH
- Snap in/out of sump packer, with packer plug?
- Radioactive tracer: which correlation log to use?
- How to tag and pick up

FLUID LOSS PREVENTION

- Type pills: solids free, crosslinked and sized-salt pill, etc.
- Perf Pac, One-trip systems
- Use case by case and best practices
 Table 1
8 Steps in Well Completion Process
Step Name Primary Issues
5 Prepare For Gravel PRESSURE DETERMINATION
Packing - Adjust completion fluid density based on new information (BHP estimated from
perforating process)?
- TCP pressure
- Perforation response

CLEANOUT TRIP
- TCP results (underbalance achieved)
- Wash sand off packer plug
- Pull packer plug
- Run junk basket for perforation debris?

PUMPING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6 Run Gravel Pack
Assembly and Set Packer
- Run tubing movement program. Can sufficient weight be placed on service
tool to prevent movement during treatment?
- Identify weak point in assembly and determine maximum treating pressures to prevent
failure.
- Can set-down service tool be used to provide a live annulus during treatment?
Determine maximum pressure in annulus during treatment. (liner top, squeeze perfs)
REVIEW DATA FROM PREVIOUS STEPS
- Logs (near-by water / shales), TCP results, fluids and losses, trip problems.
- Drilling & cementing problems, high fluid loss mud & cement
- Why and where did we squeeze?

TYPE OF COMPLETION
- Single vs. Multiple zones
- Zonal Isolation: fluid loss, seal testing procedure, pumping limitations

WHO PROVIDES ACCESSORIES FOR?

- Thread compatibility
- ID restrictions
- Mechanical isolation?

PUMP WITH LEADING ACID?

- Were FLCP pumped
- Fluid losses to perfs?
- Mineralogy of Formation for compatibility

INPUT DATA FOR PUMPING THE JOB

- Sand size, fluid type, additives, cores, logs, cuttings, historical data of offsets

LOSS CIRCULATION PREVENTION

- Mechanical tools: ceramic flapper, isolation string, etc.
- FLCP – solids-free or solids-laden
 Table 1
8 Steps in Well Completion Process
Step Name Primary Issues
7 Running Tubing TUBING SIZE & METALLURGY
- erosion / corrosion
- grade of pipe
- threads

TUBING MOVEMENT CALCULATIONS

- weight on packer
- temperature, pressure changes
- length of packer seals
- snap latch / collet / anchor / no-go

SPACE OUT
- do we have adequate supply of pups on location?
- depth of accessories: landing nipples, GLMs, SCSSV
- where do we need flow couplings
- landing tubing hanger

TUBING MAKE-UP PROCEDURES

- torque monitoring
- handling of tubing rejects
- doping best practices (JSA)
- drifting pipe ID (full length drift of accessories with pups such as GLM’s)

TUBING TESTING
- test going in hole
- test after reaching packer
- testing packer & seals

8 Unloading Well & Start Up
Procedures
ANNULAR FLUID
- Biocide needed?
- Inhibitor needed?
- Oxygen scavenger (especially for lighter brines)
- Density displacement procedure and a thermally insulated fluid
INITIAL WELL FLUIDS
- Flow to rig testing equipment: how to dispose of well fluids?
- Flow to processing facilities: must neutralize acid or catch?
- When do we turn well operations over to field/production?

SERVICES REQUIRED
- Slickline
- Coiled tubing, nitrogen
- Electric line: production logs, PNL, electronic gauges for PBU
- Well Testing

KICK-OFF
- Slickline swabbing
- Gas lift
- Coiled tubing jetting with N2

PRODUCTION START-UP PROCEDURES

- Choke size vs. tubing pressure
- Nodal Analysis
- SITP: need an accurate reading for gas

POST-COMPLETION EVALUATION
- Determine how to evaluate, standard
- Skin, PI, rate, expectations, etc.
 Table 2
1
Summary of Completion Type
Drilling and Completion Fluids
Well Completion MD - Mud Type (ppg) Completion Total Depth BHT
o
Type Perforation WBM OBM SBM Brine (MD) ( F)
Interval (lb/gal)
1 HRGP-S 9,398'-412' 9.7 9.6 CaCl2 960 175
2 HRGP-S 10,178'-288' 11.5 10.5 CaCl2 10,876 190
3 HRGP-S 3,039'-96' 9.4 9.2 CaCl2 3,125 115
4 HRGP-D 6,846'-914' 14.0 13.5 CaBr2 9,428 150
5 HRGP-D 15,990'-16,020' 11.5 11.1 CaCl2 16,065 220
13,938'-974' 11.1 CaCl2
6 HRGP-S 5,100'-180' 12.6 11.6 CaCl2 5,520 115
7 HRGP-S 14,440'-498' 14.0 13.5 CaBr2 14,738 230
8 HRGP-D 13,442'-464' 11.8 10.1 CaCl2 13,517 230
12,979'-13,023' 10.1 CaCl2
9 Cased/Perf 7890' 9.4-9.7 8.6 KCL 10,750 195
10 Cased/Perf 8520' 9.7-10.2 8.6 KCL 9,227 195
11 Cased/Perf ~ 7400' 10.1 3% KCl 7987' 190
12 Cased/Perf ~7850' 10.3 5% KCl 8100' 190
13 Cased/Perf 9327-9811' 10.4 3% KCl 9811' 198
14 Cased/Perf ~8117' 10.4 3% KCl 9900' 210
15 Cased/Perf ~7815' 10.2 3% KCl 8935' 200
16 Cased/Perf ~9310' 10.2 5% KCl 9500' 195
17 Cased/Perf ~8719' 9.2 5% KCl 9150' 198
18 Cased/Perf ~7925' 10.2 5% KCl 8450' 195
19 Cased/Perf ~8400' 10.6 KCl 9405' 200
 Table 3
Selected Field Cementing and Running Casing Data
Well Condition Casing Centralizer Data Squeeze Number Notes
Name Mud Reciprocation Necessary of
Before Squeezes
Cementing
#1 No No reciprocation Yes 2
#2 No No reciprocation Yes 2
#3 No No reciprocation No 0
#4 No No reciprocation No 0
#5 No No reciprocation No 0
#6 No No reciprocation Yes 2
#7 No No reciprocation No 0
#8 No No reciprocation Yes 1
#9 Yes No reciprocation 45 BS 1/1, 2/1 in front of Yes 1 Adding 5 gal/sk EGMBE and 0.5 gal/sk
interest zone surfactant#1 in the push spacer, and adding
0.5 gal/sk surfactant#1 in the Wash Pill .
Reduce the FL=30 and adding Latex in the
tail slurry
#10 Yes No reciprocation 44 Spiraglider 1/1 in Yes 1 Due to poor expected cementt, it was
front of pay zones decided to increase water ahead and tail
volume to 50 bbl. Pulled 720 Klb trying to
reciprocate.
#11 Yes No reciprocation 58 1/1, 2/1 in front of Yes
zone, 33 TR, 25 BS
#12 Yes Reciprocation 15 51 centralizers, 44 Yes As per program. 2 bottom plugs used.
ft during mud turbolizers, 2/1 7 first
conditioning joints, 2/1 12-14 joints, 7
Bow spring
#13 Yes Yes, during mud 85 centralizers total, a Yes As per program. 2 bottom plugs used.
conditioning combination spirolizers
and tandem rise
#14 Yes Yes, during mud 52 centralizers total, a Yes As per program. STUCK PIPE after
conditioning combination spirolizers circulation and brine displacement.
bow springs. 2/1 in front Displaced at rate low.
of payzones, NO cent on
first joint
#15 Yes Yes, during mud 45 Spiragliders, 2/1 in Yes As per program. Displacement at rate low.
conditioning front of payzones. 2/1 in
front of payzones, NO
cent on first joint
#16 Yes Yes, during mud 60 Centralizers Total, Yes As per program. Displacement at rate low.
conditioning Rigid Centralizers (Zink). Setting tool stuck after having pulled it out
2/1 in front of payzones, and circulated in reverse for 2 hrs
NO cent on first joint
#17 Yes Yes entire job 20 Spir-o in csg-csg + Yes As per program. 8 hours hole cond. 15 bpm
69 bows rate until tail at shoe. Just 1 bottom plug
used
#18 Yes Yes, During the 57 Centralizers total, 2/1 No Due to mixing problems 100 bbl of Lead
complete job centralizers in front of Slurry could not be pumped. Just 1 bottom
poy zone (Turbolizers). plug used. OPTIMIZED Spacer used.
1/1 in front of non-
primary objectives
#19 Yes No 40 Turbolizers in front of No Casing was not reciprocated. Just 1 bottom
Pay zones, 40 TR and plug used. OPTIMIZED Spacer used.
50 spiraglider
 Table 4
Typical Spacer Train for
Pumping and Displacing Cement
Step Spacer Rate (bbl/min)
1 Circulate SYNTHETIC POLYMER mud 10 to 15
while reciprocating casing
2 Load cement plugs
3 Pump caustic spacer 5
4 Drop bottom plug
5 Pump surfactant spacer 5
6 Pump lead slurry
7 Pump tail slurry
8 Drop top plug
9 Displace cement

Typical Gamma Ray Typical CBL Amplitude (mv)

Signature in SANDS Exhibiting Poor Bonding

Figure 1. Digital image showing typical signature of a poor cement bond of the No. 9 well from a CBL.
Figure 2. Digital image showing typical signature of a poor cement bond of the No. 10 well using a USIT log.

Figure 3. Dynamic High-Temperature High-Pressure apparatus as used for testing spacers.

Figure 4. Digital image exhibiting texture of the WBM residual filter cake. Laboratory analyses and
subsequent removal efficiency focused on the “stiffness” of the filter cake as opposed to the “thickness”.

Figure 5. Digital image exhibiting spacer No. 2 before aging the residual filter cake. Note spacer is relatively
transparent.
Figure 6. Digital image exhibiting spacer No. 2 after aging the residual filter cake.

Figure 7. Digital image exhibiting laboratory of SYNTHETIC POLYMER filter cake clean-up comparing two
surfactants. Both images exhibit the filtercake after six minutes of contact time. A previously utilized
surfactant (right) was relatively ineffective with removal and thinning of the residual SYNTHETIC POLYMER
filter cake. The filter cake on the left utilized a surfactant number 1.
Figure 8. Digital image exhibiting residual filter cake before (left) and after (right) dynamic testing. This test
utilized the optimized spacer and surfactant number 2.

Figure 9. Digital image exhibiting the leak-off volume after exposure to optimized surfactant number 2.