sustainability

Article
Development of a Homogenous Cement Slurry Using
Synthetic Modified Phyllosilicate while Cementing
HPHT Wells
Salaheldin Elkatatny
Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; elkatatny@kfupm.edu.sa




Received: 10 March 2019; Accepted: 27 March 2019; Published: 31 March 2019


Abstract: Cement slurry segregation has a detrimental impact on the cement matrix efficiency in term
of zonal isolation. In this study, synthetic modified phyllosilicate (SMP) dispersant, which is known
as laponite RD is suggested to reduce the slurry segregation and enhance the vertical homogeneity
of the cement matrix in term of density distribution. Seven cement slurries were prepared with
different SMP concentrations using molds with different dimensions based on the targeted test, then
cured for 24 h at 140 ◦ C and 3000 psi using a high-pressure and high-temperature curing chamber.
After that, the samples’ density distribution was evaluated using a direct density measurement and
computer tomography (CT) scan imaging technique, and the effect of SMP on the cement rheological
parameters, permeability, and compressive strength and were also evaluated. The performance
of SMP was then compared with a commercial dispersant. As a result, 0.3% by weight of cement
(BWOC) of SMP is found to considerably reduce the vertical density variation along the cement
column to 0.46% compared with a density variation of 4.78% for the slurry with the commercial
dispersant. The CT scan images confirmed the vertical homogeneity of the slurry with 0.3% BWOC
of SMP. Addition of 0.3% BWOC of SMP increased the yield point of the cement slurry to 60.6 MPa
compared with 20.5 MPa for the slurry with 0.25% of the commercial dispersant. Adding 0.3%
BWOC of SMP into the cement formulation decreased the permeability by 37.1% compared with the
commercial dispersant. The sample with 0.3% BWOC of SMP has a compressive strength of 43.9 MPa.

Keywords: Cement homogeneity; solids segregation; synthetic modified phyllosilicate; compressive

strength; cement rheology

1. Introduction
Oil well cement (OWC) slurry, which contains different additives such as retarder, fluid loss
agent, dispersant and heavy weight material, is pumped into oil wells to fill up the gap space between
the casing and the drilled formations [1–3]. OWC is injected to achieve different objectives such as
supporting the drilled weak formations and casings, preventing cross flow between the formations
and wellbore and between the different layers, especially the flow from high-pressure zones to low
pressure zones, and to isolate the oil-bearing zones from water-bearing layers [4–8].
While pumping the cement slurry inside the oil well down through the casing and up through the
annulus between the casing and formations cement slurry have non-Newtonian yield-stress rheology
and is characterized by different properties like the plastic viscosity and yield point, optimizing these
properties is very important to ensure efficient displacement of the other fluids such as the drilling
mud from the casing/formations annulus to achieve efficient zonal isolation [9]. Other properties such
as cement static stability, strength build up rate, and its volumetric change characterize the cement
transformation from slurry to solid state. After solidification, cement is characterized mainly by it is

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923; doi:10.3390/su11071923 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 2 of 14

ability to withstand fracturing. Optimization of all these properties is essential for a robust and low
permeability cement matrix [10].
Xu et al. [11] introduced a novel a cement sheath mechanical model for fracture wellbores, thermal
loads and coupling pressure, that reflect the failure modes of de-bonding, shear failure, disking,
and radial cracking. They concluded that the drops in the temperature of the well would lead to a
major tri-axial tensile stress encourage the failure of the cement in the disking, de-bonding and radial
cracking. The increase of the casing pressure will reduce the de-bonding hazard significantly but it will
also make the shear failure and radial cracking worse and more serious. To make the cement sheath
safety in the fractures wellbores, a high fluid temperature should be injected, and the circulation pump
pressure should increase. Won et al. [12] concluded that low thermal conductivity of G-class cement
may be reasonable for geothermal wells to avert heat loss in the production well.
Xi et al. [13] studied the effects of the mechanical parameters of the cement sheath on the decrease
of the internal diameter of the casing. They concluded that as the cement sheath elasticity modulus
increases, the decrease of the internal diameter of the casing will reduce. Also, they stated that, the
reduction of cement sheath Poisson ratio decreases the reduction of casing’s diameter which mean
that the low Poisson ratio is a benefit to save the casing’s integrity by reducing the decrease of internal
diameter of the casing.
Tan et al. [14] examined the impacts of three types of starches on the cement properties in
the alkali-activated type. The three types were corn starch (CS), carboxymethyl starch (CMS) and
hydroxypropyl starch (HPS). They concluded that the three starches types have the ability to reduce
the fluid loss, extend the setting time, and increase the apparent viscosity. Adding more starch under
a temperature of 200 ◦ C will increase the pores number, encouraged the filtering procedure which
improve the self-degradation. By comparing the three types of starches, CMS is the most potential as a
self-degradable added substance.
During cement placement, the slurry may lose its homogeneity because of solid segregation which
considerably affect the flowability of cement [15] and in some cases make the cement unusable [16,17].
The static stability of the cement is one of the most important parameters to ensure vertical homogeneity
in term of density variation between the top and bottom of the cement matrix in the casing/formations
annulus. The static stability describes the ability of the cement slurry to maintain homogeneous
density while at rest. When cement slurry reached the required height in the annulus, pumping
will be stopped, then the solid particles of the cement will tend to settle down, and this will cause
heterogeneous pressure gradient in the annulus whereby at the top of the cement formation the density
and pressure gradient are lowest which may cause fluid flow from formation into the wellbore and
if the formation fluid is gas, gas channeling through the unsolidified cement is expected which will
persist after cement solidification. The density and pressure gradient at the bottom are highest, and
hence, this may lead to formation fracturing especially in the weak zones [10]. Free water accumulation
at the top of the cement column caused by slurry segregation is also expected [18], this means less of a
cement column higher than the designed one. In the horizontal well, cement’s solids segregation leads
to bad cement job in the upper part of the cemented annulus [19].
Laponite is layered silicate additive manufactured from natural inorganic sources which has
been used for long time as a rheology modifier to improve the rheological characteristics of a wide
range of waterborne products [20–22]. When laponite is added to a solution it reacts with the soluble
components in the formulation to develop its viscosity [23]. Laponite products are able to disperse in
water [24,25], beside addition of laponite into aqueous solutions considerably prevents aggregation of
solid particles and enhances their dispersibility into the solution [26–30].
It is clear from the literature that cement homogeneity is a critical issue especially while cementing
HPHT wells. The existing dispersion additives are not sufficient to solve the cement segregation.
The main goal of this paper is to develop a new cement slurry based on synthetic modified phyllosilicate
(SMP) to overcome the segregation issue.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 3 of 14

In this study, the effect of SMP on class G oil well cement static stability is studied through
different techniques and compared with the static stability of base cement (without any dispersant)
and cement slurry incorporating a commercially available dispersant.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Materials
Seven cement slurries considered in this work were prepared using class G oil well cement,
deionized water, dispersion agent, silica flour, defoamer, and fluid loss controller. The only difference
between the seven cement formulations is the type and concentration of the dispersion agent while all
other additives have same composition and concentration in all the seven slurries. Two dispersion
agents were considered in this work, a commercial dispersant provided by a service company and an
SMP, which is laponite RD with a specific gravity of 1.
As shown in Table 1 the first formulation considered in this study is the base slurry (i.e sample
Base) which has no dispersion agent, the second formulation contains 0.25% by weight of cement
(BWOC) of a commercially available dispersion agent which is provided by a service company.
The cement formulation with the commercial dispersion was used to cement a deep well at a depth
greater than 13000 ft where the circulating bottom hole temperature was about 230 ◦ F, the static bottom
hole temperature was about 290 ◦ F, and the bottom hole pressure was 8500 psi. The slurries SMP1,
SMP2, SMP3, SMP4, and SMP5 contain 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5% BWOC of SMP which is used as
a dispersion agent to prevent the solids segregation for the cement slurry. Table 1 summarizes the
composition of the seven cement slurries considered in this study.

Table 1. Cement slurries compositions.

Dispersion Silica Expandable Fluid Loss

Slurries Cement Water Defoamer
Agent Flour Agent Controller
Base 600 44 0 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
ComD 600 44 0.25 * 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
SMP1 600 44 0.1 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
SMP2 600 44 0.2 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
SMP3 600 44 0.3 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
SMP4 600 44 0.4 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
SMP5 600 44 0.5 35 4.7E-07 1 0.75
Cement in grams and all other additives are in by weight of cement (BWOC). * The dispersion agent used to
prepare sample ComD is different than the dispersion agent considered in the other samples, this dispersion agent
is provided by a service company and is the currently available dispersant used in oil industry.

2.2. Methods
Cement slurries with the compositions shown in Table 1 were prepared according to the American
Petroleum institute (API) procedure [31]. After preparation, the slurries were poured into different
molds depending the targeted test, and then cured at 140 ◦ C and 3000 psi for 24 h using a high-pressure
high-temperature (HPHT) curing chamber, after that the samples were tested for the effect of the
dispersion agent in the density variation along the samples length in vertical direction, the cement
slurry rheology, the unconfined compressive strength, and the permeability. The procedures followed
in every test are summarized in the following sections.

2.3. Density Variation

Different techniques were considered is this study to evaluate the density variation. The samples
used for this purpose are prepared using molds of 1.5 inch in diameter and 4 inches in length, while
curing all molds are kept in vertically to be able to compare the change in the density from top to
bottom of the samples. The vertical density variation along the length of these cylindrical samples
was evaluated through two different techniques of computer tomography (CT) scan and direct density
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 4 of 14

measurement. The direct density measurements were conducted in three different positions of the
cylindrical samples (bottom, middle, and top), three small cement cylinders of 1.5 inch in diameter
and 0.5 inch in length were cut out at the bottom, middle, and top of the cured cylinders.

2.4. Rheology
The effect of the SMP and the commercial dispersant (ComD) on the cement rheological parameter
were evaluated. The gel strength (GS), yield point (YP), and plastic viscosity (PV) were evaluated for
all the cement slurries under study.
The plastic viscosity and yield point are measured using the Fan 35 rheometer reading at 300 rpm
and 600 rpm using Equations (1) and (2). During the rheological experiment, the shear stress values are
recorded at different shear rates starting from 3 to 300 rpm, i.e., (3, 6, 100, 200, 300 rpm). The reading at
600 rpm was obtained by extrapolate the consistency curve which becomes as a straight line at higher
shear rate. The reading was taken in ascending order and then descending order and the average
between them was taken to calculate the shear stress values at two shear rates (300 and 600 rpm).

PV = R600 − R300 (1)

YP = R300 − PV (2)

where PV is the plastic viscosity (cP), YP is the yield point (lb/100 ft2 ), R600 is the viscometer reading
at 600 rpm, and R300 is the viscometer reading at 300 rpm.

2.5. Compressive Strength Test

Cubical molds of 2 × 2 × 2 inches3 were used for the purpose of compressive strength testing.
The compressive strength of every cement slurry is calculated as the average unconfined compressive
strength of three cement cubes of that slurry which are tested using the crushing machine.

2.6. Permeability
The cement samples permeability was measured on the cylindrical samples of 1.5 inches in
diameter and 0.5 inches in length. The permeability was measured using nitrogen as the measuring
fluid using a gas permeameter.

3. Results and Discussion

In the first parts of this section the effect of the SMP on the density variation, rheology, and
permeability of the cement samples will be studied and compared with the base cement slurry
formulation to select the optimum SMP concentration. In the final section, the performance of the
cement slurry prepared with the optimum SMP concentration will be compared with the cement slurry
prepared using a commercial dispersant currently in use in oil industry. A discussion of the expected
additional cost to prepare one barrel of cement using the SMP will be presented.

3.1. Density Variation

The density variation vertically along the length of the cement samples was examined using the
direct density measurement and CT scan technique. Figure 1 compares the density variation between
the top, middle, and bottom of the different cement samples under study determined using direct
density measurement, this figure also compares the density variation percentage (DV%) between top
and bottom of all samples calculated using Equation (1).
( Density at top − Density at bottom)
DV% = × 100 (3)
Density at bottom

As indicated in Figure 1 sample Base has a considerable density variation vertically along its
length with the density at bottom of 2.31 g/cm3 , at middle is 2.27 g/cm3 , and at top is 2.13 g/cm3 .
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 5 of 14

The density at the top of the sample Base is 7.79% less than the density at the bottom. Sample
SMP1 with 0.1% BWOC of the SMP has a density variation of 8.47% between the top and bottom.
Incorporating ≥0.2% BWOC of SMP with into the cement formulation reduced the vertical density
variation of the solidified cement matrix, sample SMP2 has density variation of 3.57% along its length
from top to2019,
Sustainability bottom.
11, x FORThe
PEERdensity
REVIEW variation between top and bottom of sample SMP3 is 6 only
of 16 0.46%
which is the lowest among all other samples with the densities of 2.16, 2.16, and 2.15 g/cm at bottom, 3
g/cm3 at and
middle, bottom,
top middle,
of sampleand SMP3.
top of sample
Samples SMP3.
SMP4Samples SMP4 and
and SMP5 SMP5
have havevariations
density density variations
of 5.70% and
of 5.70% and 2.22%,
2.22%, respectively. respectively.
The CT scanning technique was also used to compare the change in the density of the all samples
The CT scanning technique was also used to compare the change in the density of the all samples
under study. The CT scan images recorded at different positions through the cylindrical samples
under study. The CT scan images recorded at different positions through the cylindrical samples from
from the top to the bottom of the samples are shown in Error! Reference source not found. , which
the top to the bottom of the samples are shown in Figure 2, which shows that the density variation at
shows that the density variation at different sections vertically along the length of the cement samples
different
as indicatedsections vertically
by different along
colors. The the length
yellow colorofdenotes
the cement samples
the regions asthe
with indicated by different
highest density, then colors.
The
the green color regions have lower density, followed by the orange and red colored regions, andhave
yellow color denotes the regions with the highest density, then the green color regions the lower
density,
blue colorfollowed by the
represents theorange
regionsand redthe
with colored
lowestregions,
density.and
Thethe blue color
samples whererepresents the regions
the CT images at with
the lowestposition
different density.inThe samples
the sample wheremost
contain the of
CTthese
images at indicating
colors different position in the
large density sample contain
variations, while most
ofthe samples
these colorswith less color
indicating variation
large densityindicate less density
variations, difference
while the samplesatwithdifferent positions
less color in theindicate
variation
sample.
less density difference at different positions in the sample.

Density
Figure1.1.Density
Figure variation
variation vertically
vertically along
along the length
the length of theofcement
the cement samples.
samples.

For
Forthe
thesample Base,the
sample Base, theslices
slicesatat
top topareare almost
almost blueblue indicating
indicating very very low density,
low density, which which
changeschanges
totoalmost
almostred
redfor
for the
the slices at middle
middleand andtotoorange
orangeandandyellow
yellow mixture
mixture at at bottom
bottom as shown
as shown in Figure 2a,
in Error!
for this sample
Reference source (Base) the CT image
not found.a, for thishave a wide
sample range
(Base) of colors
the CT image confirming
have a widethe huge
range of difference
colors in
confirming the huge difference in the density along the vertical length of the samples.
the density along the vertical length of the samples. The same variation in the slices colors is noticed The same
variation
for samplesin the slicesand
SMP1 colors
SMP2 is noticed
which forhave
samples
0.1% SMP1
andand0.2%SMP2BWOCwhichofhave
SMP 0.1%
as and
shown0.2%inBWOC
Figure 2b,c,
of SMP as shown
respectively. in Error!
Sample SMP3 Reference
has thesource
lowest notcolors
found.b and 2c, respectively.
variation Sample
for the different SMP3
slices ashas the
indicated in
lowest colors variation for the different slices as indicated in Error! Reference source
Figure 2d, where all slices along the sample have almost sample color confirming that for this sample not found.d,
where all slices along the sample have almost sample color confirming that for this sample there is
there is no vertical density variation along the sample length. The density variation in samples SMP4
no vertical density variation along the sample length. The density variation in samples SMP4 and
and SMP5 is also high as confirmed by the wide ranges of different colors in different slices of these
SMP5 is also high as confirmed by the wide ranges of different colors in different slices of these
samples where the slices colors are changing from blue at the top to red in the middle and yellow at
samples where the slices colors are changing from blue at the top to red in the middle and yellow at
the bottom
the bottom asas shown
shownininError!
Figure 2e,f, respectively.
Reference source not found.e and Error! Reference source not found.f,
The previous results confirmed that 0.3% BWOC of SMP is the optimum concentration to prevent
respectively.
the solids
The segregation.
previous resultsSo, in the next sections
confirmed that 0.3%the effect of
BWOC of using
SMP is0.3%the BWOC
optimum of SMP on the rheological
concentration to
parameters, compressive strength, and permeability of the cement will be studied.
prevent the solids segregation. So, in the next sections the effect of using 0.3% BWOC of SMP on the
rheological parameters, compressive strength, and permeability of the cement will be studied.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 6 of 14
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Figure2.2. Density
Figure Density variation
variation vertically
vertically along the length of the cement
cement samples
samples through
through computer
computer
tomography
tomography(CT)(CT)scan
scantechnique
techniquefor
for samples
samples (a)
(a) Base, (b) synthetic
synthetic modified
modifiedphyllosilicate
phyllosilicate11(SMP1),
(SMP1),
(c)
(c)SMP2,
SMP2,(d)
(d)SMP3,
SMP3,(e)
(e)SMP4,
SMP4,and
and(f)(f)SMP5.
SMP5.

3.2. Effect on Rheological Parameters

3.2. Effect on Rheological Parameters
The effect of the SMP on the rheological characteristics of cement slurry was evaluated. As shown
The effect of the SMP on the rheological characteristics of cement slurry was evaluated. As shown
2 , respectively. Incorporating
ininFigure 3, the base cement has PV and YP of 381 cP and 44.6 lbf/100 ft
Error! Reference source not found., the base cement has PV and YP of 381 cP and 44.6 lbf/100 ft2,
0.3% BWOC ofIncorporating
respectively. SMP into sample
0.3% SMP3
BWOCdidof not
SMPaffect
into the PV compared
sample SMP3 did with the base
not affect slurry
the PV while it
compared
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Sustainability 2019,
Sustainability 2019, 11,
11, 1923
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 7of
of 16
14
with the base slurry while it considerably increased the YP to reach 60.644 lbf/100 ft2 with an increase
of 26.4%
with compared
the base slurrywith
while the base slurry. This
it considerably increase
increased theinYP
thetoYP of the
reach slurry
60.644 is important
lbf/100 to improve
ft2 with an increase
the carrying capacity ofthe
the cement slurry and, 2
in thisftin
case,
considerably
of 26.4% increased
compared with theYP to reach
base slurry.60.644
This lbf/100
increase theitYP
with confirms
an of the
increase ofability
the slurry26.4% of the SMP3
compared
is important slurry
with the
to improve
to prevent
base solids
slurry. This segregation
increase in as
the compared
YP of the with
slurry the
is base sample
important to addressed
improve the in the previous
carrying
the carrying capacity of the cement slurry and, in this case, it confirms the ability of the SMP3 slurry sections.
capacity of the
cement
to slurry
prevent and,
solids in this case,asitcompared
segregation confirms the ability
with of the
the base SMP3addressed
sample slurry to prevent solids segregation
in the previous sections.
as compared with the base sample addressed in the previous sections.

Figure 3. Comparison of the plastic viscosity and yield point for samples Base and SMP3.
Figure 3. Comparison
Comparison of the plastic viscosity and yield point for samples Base and SMP3.
Error! Reference source not found. compares the 10-sec and 10-min gel strength of samples Base
andError!
SMP3.
Figure The 10-sec
4 compares
Reference and
the 10-min
source 10-sec gel strengths
and
not found. 10-min gelofstrength
compares the10-sec
the baseofslurry (Base)
samples
and 10-minBaseare
geland 9.59 andof24.1
SMP3.
strength The lbf/100
10-sec
samples ft2,
and
Base
respectively. Addition of
the0.3%
baseBWOC of SMPareinto theand
cement slurry 2
increased
10-min
and SMP3.gel strengths
The 10-secofand 10-min slurry (Base)
gel strengths of9.59
the base 24.1 lbf/100
slurry (Base)ftare 9.59 slightly
, respectively. both
and 24.1Addition10-sec
lbf/100 ftof
2,

and
0.3% 10-min
BWOC gel
of strengths,
SMP into the
the 10-sec
cement and
slurry 10-min
increasedgel strengths
slightly of
both sample
10-sec andSMP310-min
respectively. Addition of 0.3% BWOC of SMP into the cement slurry increased slightly both 10-sec are 10.57
gel and
strengths,28.38
the
lbf/100
10-sec ft2, respectively.
and
and 10-min 10-min gel strengths
gel strengths, of sample
the 10-sec SMP3 are
and 10-min gel10.57 and 28.38
strengths lbf/100SMP3
of sample ft2 , respectively.
are 10.57 and 28.38
lbf/100 ft2, respectively.

Figure 4. Comparison
Comparison of
of the 10-sec and 10-min gel strengths for samples Base and SMP3.
Figure 4. Comparison of the 10-sec and 10-min gel strengths for samples Base and SMP3.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 8 of 14

3.3. Effect
3.3. Effect on
on the
the Permeability
Permeability
Figure
Error! 5 compares
Reference thenot
source permeability of cement
found. compares samples Base
the permeability of and SMP3.
cement The Base
samples permeability
and SMP3.of
sample Base which has no SMP is 0.053 mD. Sample SMP3 has a permeability of 0.039 mD which
The permeability of sample Base which has no SMP is 0.053 mD. Sample SMP3 has a permeability of is
26.4%mD
0.039 lesswhich
than the permeability
is 26.4% ofthe
less than thepermeability
base cement of
bythe
40%.
base cement by 40%.

Figure 5. Permeability change for samples Base and SMP3.

3.4. Comparison of the Synthetic Modified Phyllosilicate (SMP) with a Commercial Dispersant
3.4. Comparison of the Synthetic Modified Phyllosilicate (SMP) with a Commercial Dispersant
In this part of the study, the effect of adding 0.3% BWOC of SMP to class G cement slurry on the
In this part of the study, the effect of adding 0.3% BWOC of SMP to class G cement slurry on the
slurry properties will be compared to a commercially available dispersant. Figure 6 compares the
slurry properties will be compared to a commercially available dispersant. Error! Reference source
density variation between the top, middle, and bottom of the samples ComD and SMP3 determined
not found. compares the density variation between the top, middle, and bottom of the samples ComD
using direct density measurement, this figure also compares the density variation percentage (DV%)
and SMP3 determined using direct density measurement, this figure also compares the density
between top and bottom of all samples calculated using Equation (1). As indicated in Figure 6 the
variation percentage (DV%) between top and bottom of all samples calculated using Error! Reference
densities at bottom and top of sample ComD are 2.30 and 2.19 g/cm3 , with 4.78% density variation
source not found.. As indicated in Error! Reference source not found. the densities at bottom and
between the top and bottom. The densities bottom, middle, and top of sample SMP3 are 2.16, 2.16, and
top of sample ComD are 2.30 and 2.19 g/cm3, with 4.78% density variation between the top and
2.15 g/cm3 , respectively, with variation along the sample length of only 0.46% which is 90.4% less that
bottom. The densities bottom, middle, and top of sample SMP3 are 2.16, 2.16, and 2.15 g/cm3,
the density variation along sample ComD.
respectively, with variation along the sample length of only 0.46% which is 90.4% less that the density
Figure 7 compares the CT scan images for sample ComD which contains 0.25% BWOC of
variation along sample ComD.
commercially available dispersant and sample SMP3 that contains 0.3% of SMP which as confirmed
by the previous discussion is found to be the optimal SMP concentration to improve the cement
homogeneity, Figure 7b confirms that sample SMP3 is more homogeneous in term of density
distribution along the sample as confirmed by the presence of the same color in all the CT images (red)
along the sample compared with sample ComD Figure 7a.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 9 of 14
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure 6. Comparison of the density variation vertically along the length of the samples ComD
Figure2019,
Sustainability 6. Comparison of the
11, x FOR PEER density variation vertically along the length of the samples ComD and
REVIEW 11 of 16
and SMP3.
SMP3.

Error! Reference source not found. compares the CT scan images for sample ComD which
contains 0.25% BWOC of commercially available dispersant and sample SMP3 that contains 0.3% of
SMP which as confirmed by the previous discussion is found to be the optimal SMP concentration to
improve the cement homogeneity, Error! Reference source not found.b confirms that sample SMP3
is more homogeneous in term of density distribution along the sample as confirmed by the presence
of the same color in all the CT images (red) along the sample compared with sample ComD Error!
Reference source not found.a.
Error! Reference source not found. compares the plastic viscosity and yield point of samples
ComD and SMP3. The plastic viscosities of samples ComD and SMP3 are 400 and 367 cp, respectively,
which indicates that the plastic viscosity of sample SMP3 is 8.25% less than that of sample ComD.
Although the decrease in the plastic viscosity is small, it is important to ensure the improvement of
the injectability of the slurry. The yield point of sample SMP3 is 60.6 lbf/100 ft2 which is 196% greater
than the yield point of sample ComD of 20.5 lbf/100 ft2 as indicated in Error! Reference source not
found.. The increase in the slurry yield point of sample SMP3 is the essential property that improved
its ability to prevent solids settling.
The 10-sec and 10-min gel strengths of samples ComD and SMP3 are summarized in Error!
Reference
Figure source not found.. Addition of 0.3% of SMP along
increased the 10-sec and (a)
10-min gel strengths
Figure 7. Comparison
7. Comparison of ofthe
thedensity
densityvariation
variationvertically the
vertically along length
the of of
length samples
samples ComD
(a) and
ComD (b)
and
by 0.98 and
SMP3, 2.4 lbf/100
through usingftthe
2 compared to sample
CT scan technique.
(b) SMP3, through using the CT scan technique.
ComD.

Figure 8 compares the plastic viscosity and yield point of samples ComD and SMP3. The plastic
viscosities of samples ComD and SMP3 are 400 and 367 cp, respectively, which indicates that the plastic
viscosity of sample SMP3 is 8.25% less than that of sample ComD. Although the decrease in the plastic
viscosity is small, it is important to ensure the improvement of the injectability of the slurry. The yield
point of sample SMP3 is 60.6 lbf/100 ft2 which is 196% greater than the yield point of sample ComD of
20.5 lbf/100 ft2 as indicated in Figure 8. The increase in the slurry yield point of sample SMP3 is the
essential property that improved its ability to prevent solids settling.
 Figure 7. Comparison of the density variation vertically along the length of samples (a) ComD and
(b) SMP3,
Sustainability 2019,through
11, 1923 using the CT scan technique. 10 of 14

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the plastic
plastic viscosity
viscosity and
and yield
yield point
point for
for samples
samples ComD
ComD and
and SMP3.
SMP3.

The 10-sec and 10-min gel strengths of samples ComD and SMP3 are summarized in Figure 9.
Addition of 0.3% of SMP increased the 10-sec and 10-min gel strengths by 0.98 and 2.4 lbf/100 ft2
compared
Sustainability to sample
2019, ComD.
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Figure 9.
Figure Comparison of
9. Comparison of the
the 10-sec
10-sec and
and 10-min
10-min gel
gel strengths
strengths for
for samples
samples ComD
ComD and
and SMP3.
SMP3.

Figure 10 compares the permeability of samples ComD and SMP3. This figure indicates that the
Error! Reference source not found. compares the permeability of samples ComD and SMP3.
permeability of the cement sample prepared with 0.3% of SMP has a permeability of 0.039 mD which is
This figure indicates that the permeability of the cement sample prepared with 0.3% of SMP has a
37.1% less than the permeability of 0.062 mD for the sample prepared with the commercial dispersant.
permeability of 0.039 mD which is 37.1% less than the permeability of 0.062 mD for the sample
prepared with the commercial dispersant.
 Error! Reference source not found. compares the permeability of samples ComD and SMP3.
This figure indicates that the permeability of the cement sample prepared with 0.3% of SMP has a
permeability of 0.039 mD which is 37.1% less than the permeability of 0.062 mD for the sample
prepared with the commercial dispersant.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 11 of 14

Figure 10. Comparison of the permeability of samples

samples ComD
ComD and
and SMP3.
SMP3.

Figure
Error! 11 comparessource
Reference the compressive
not found.strengths
comparesof samples Base, ComD,
the compressive and SMP3.
strengths This figure
of samples Base,
indicates that
ComD, and2019,
Sustainability the
SMP3. compressive
11, x This figure
FOR PEER strength of the base sample (i.e., sample Base) is 67.3 MPa.
indicates that the compressive strength of the base sample (i.e. 13
REVIEW Additionof of
sample
16
both dispersants reduced the cement compressive strength, the compressive
Base) is 67.3 MPa. Addition of both dispersants reduced the cement compressive strength, the strength for the sample
with 0.25% ofstrength
compressive the commercial dispersant
for the sample with (i.e.,
0.25%sample
of the ComD)
commercial is 51.2 MPa compared
dispersant to strength
(i.e. sample ComD) ofis
43.9 MPa compared
51.2 MPa for sampletoSMP3, butofstill
strength 43.9these
MPastrengths
for sampleare high but
SMP3, enough to ensure
still these goodare
strengths zonal
highisolation
enough
and wellbore
to ensure goodstability.
zonal isolation and wellbore stability.

Figure 11. Comparison of the compressive strengths of samples Base, ComD, and SMP3.

4. Additional Cost to Prepare One Barrel of the New Cement

In this section, the additional cost to prepare one barrel of the new cement with a slurry density
of 16 pound per gallon (ppg) will be discussed. The cost of the SMP is $16.8/kg, and to prepare one
barrel of the slurry with a density of 16 ppg and SMP concentration of 0.3% BWOC, 0.896 kg of the
SMP is needed. So, the additional cost of the new cement is $15/barrel of slurry. Note in this case, the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 12 of 14

4. Additional Cost to Prepare One Barrel of the New Cement

In this section, the additional cost to prepare one barrel of the new cement with a slurry density of
16 pound per gallon (ppg) will be discussed. The cost of the SMP is $16.8/kg, and to prepare one barrel
of the slurry with a density of 16 ppg and SMP concentration of 0.3% BWOC, 0.896 kg of the SMP is
needed. So, the additional cost of the new cement is $15/barrel of slurry. Note in this case, the cost of
the commercial dispersant used before to prepare the slurry must be subtracted from the total cost.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of SMP dispersant on improving class G oil well cement static stability is
evaluated and compared with the performance of commercially available dispersant. The effect of
different concentrations of SMP on the cement density distribution vertically along the cement column,
the rheological characteristics, permeability, and compressive strength of cement were evaluated.
Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. 0.3% BWOC of SMP was found to prevent slurry segregation with density variation at the top
and bottom of the cement column of 0.46% compared with a density variation of 4.78% for the
cement incorporating the commercial dispersant.
2. The CT scan imaging confirmed the homogeneous density distribution along the cement column
for the samples incorporating 0.3% BWOC of SMP.
3. The plastic viscosity, 10-sec, and 10-min gel strengths of the sample with the commercial
dispersant and the sample with 0.3% BWOC of SMP are almost same.
4. Addition of 0.3% BWOC of SMP increased the yield point of the cement slurry to 60.6 lbf /100 ft2
compared with 20.5 lbf /100 ft2 for the slurry with 0.25% BWOC of the commercial dispersant.
5. Incorporating 0.3% BWOC of SMP decreased the permeability by 37.1% compared with the
sample containing the commercial dispersant.
6. Addition of both SMP and commercial dispersant decreased the cement compressive strength
compared with the cement without dispersant. The sample with 0.3% BWOC of SMP has
compressive strength of 43.9 MPa, which is still greater than the minimum acceptable compressive
strength for an oil well cement matrix.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
HPHT High-pressure high-temperature
SMP Synthetic modified phyllosilicate
BWOC By weight of cement
CT Computer tomography
OWC Oil well cement
CS Corn starch
CMS Carboxymethyl starch
HPS Hydroxypropyl starch
API American petroleum institute
ComD Commercial dispersant
DV Density variation, %
PV Plastic viscosity, cP
YP Yield point, lb/ 100 ft2
GS Gell strength, lb/ 100 ft2
ppg pound per gallon
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 13 of 14

References
1. Pace, R.S.; McElfresh, P.M.; Cobb, J.A.; Smith, C.L.; Olsberg, M.A. Improved Bulk Blending Techniques for
Accurate and Uniform Cement Blends. In Proceedings of the Paper SPE-13041-MS Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 16–19 September 1984.
2. Cobb, J.A.; Pace, R.S. Elements Affecting Thickening Time of a Cement Blend. Paper SPE-14195-MS Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 22–26 September 1985.
[CrossRef]
3. Gerk, R.R.; Simon, J.M.; Logan, J.L.; Sabins, F.L. A-Study of Bulk Cement Handling and Testing Procedures.
Soc. Pet. Eng. 1990. [CrossRef]
4. Adams, N. Drilling Engineering: A Complete well Planning Approach; PennWell Publishing Company: Tulsa,
OK, USA, 1985.
5. Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Chenevert, M.E.; Millheim Keith, K.; Young, F.S., Jr. Applied Drilling Engineering; Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.: Houston, Texas, USA, 1986.
6. Rabia, H. Well Engineering and Construction; Entrac Consulting. Entrac Petroleum: London, UK, 2001.
7. Minaev, K.; Gorbenko, V.; Ulyanova, O. Lightweight Cement Slurries based on vermiculite. In Proceedings
of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Tomsk, Russia, 7–11 April 2014; Volume 21.
8. Hossain, M.; Al-Majed, A.A. Fundamentals of Sustainable Drilling Engineering; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2015.
9. Bourlon, A.J.G.; Roy-Delage, S.L.; Taoutaou, S. An Innovative Methodology to Assess Cement Blend
Flowability and Proneness to Segregation—A Step Forward to Higher Quality. Soc. Pet. Eng. 2017.
[CrossRef]
10. Lavrov, A.; Torsæter, M. Physics and Mechanics of Primary Well Cementing, Chapter two. In Petroleum
Geoscience & Engineering; SpringerBriefs: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
11. Xu, H.; Ma, T.; Peng, N.; Yang, B. Influences of Fracturing Fluid Injection on Mechanical Integrity of Cement
Sheath under Four Failure Modes. Energies 2018, 11, 3534. [CrossRef]
12. Won, J.; Choi, H.; Lee, H.; Choi, H. Numerical Investigation on the Effect of Cementing Properties on the
Thermal and Mechanical Stability of Geothermal Wells. Energies 2016, 9, 1016. [CrossRef]
13. Xi, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, G.; Li, J.; Jiang, J. Mechanisms and Influence of Casing Shear Deformation near the Casing
Shoe, Based on MFC Surveys during Multistage Fracturing in Shale Gas Wells in Canada. Energies 2019, 12,
372. [CrossRef]
14. Tan, H.; Zheng, X.; Ma, L.; Huang, H.; Xia, B. A Study on the Effects of Starches on the Properties of
Alkali-Activated Cement and the Potential of Starch as a Self-Degradable Additive. Energies 2017, 10, 1048.
[CrossRef]
15. Bourlon, A.J.G.; Roy-Delage, S.L.; Taoutaou, S. A Step Forward to Assess Cement Blend Flowability and
Proneness to Segregation: Cases Histories. Soc. Pet. Eng. 2017. [CrossRef]
16. Williams, J.C. Mixing and Segregation in Powders. In Principles of Powder Technology; Rhodes, M.J., Ed.;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 71–90.
17. Williams, J.C. The Storage and Flow of Powders. In Principles of Powder Technology; Rhodes, M.J., Ed.; Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 91–118.
18. Nelson, E.B.; Guillot, D. Well Cementing; Schlumberger: Houston, TX, USA, 2006.
19. Bassett, J.; Watters, J.; Combs, N.K.; Nikolaou, M. Lowering Drilling Cost, Improving Operational Safety, and
Reducing Environmental Impact through Zonal Isolation Improvements for Horizontal Wells Drilled in the
Marcellus Shale. Paper URTEC-1582346-MS Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 12–14 August 2013. [CrossRef]
20. Negrete, H.N.; Letoffe, J.-M.; Putaux, J.-L.; David, L.; Bourgeat-Lami, E. Aqueous dispersions of
silane-functionalized Laponite clay platelets. A first step toward the elaboration of water-based polymer/clay
nanocomposites. Langmuir 2004, 20, 1564–1571. [CrossRef]
21. Sun, K.; Kumar, R.; Falvey, D.E.; Raghavan, S.R. Photogelling colloidal dispersions based on light-activated
assembly of nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 7135–7141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Ghadiri, M.; Hau, H.; Chrzanowski, W.; Agus, H.; Rohanizadeh, R. Laponite clay as a carrier for in situ
delivery of tetracycline. RSC Adv. 2013, 3, 20193–20201. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1923 14 of 14

23. Bienia, M.; Danglade, C.; Lecomte, A.; Brevier, J.; Pagnoux, C. Cylindrical Couette flow of Laponite
dispersions. Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 162, 83–89. [CrossRef]
24. Thompson, D.W.; Butterworth, J.T. The nature of laponite and its aqueous dispersions. J. Colloid Interface Sci.
1990, 151, 236–243. [CrossRef]
25. Mohanty, R.P.; Joshi, Y.M. Chemical stability phase diagram of aqueous Laponite dispersions. Appl. Clay Sci.
2016, 119, 243–248. [CrossRef]
26. Loginov, M.; Lebovka, N.; Vorobiev, E. Laponite assisted dispersion of carbon nanotubes in water. J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 2012, 365, 127–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Manilo, M.; Lebovka, N.; Barany, S. Characterization of the electric double layers of multi-walled carbon
nanotubes, laponite and nanotube+laponite hybrids in aqueous suspensions. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem.
Eng. Asp. 2014, 462, 211–216. [CrossRef]
28. Manilo, M.V.; Lebovka, N.; Barany, S. Combined effect of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and laponite
platelets on colloidal stability of carbon nanotubes in aqueous suspensions. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 235, 104–110.
[CrossRef]
29. Manilo, M.V.; Lebovka, N.I.; Barany, S. Stability of multi-walled carbon nanotube+laponite hybrid particles
in aqueous suspensions. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2015, 481, 199–206. [CrossRef]
30. Silva, J.M.; Barud, H.S.; Meneguin, A.B.; Constantino, V.R.L.; Ribeiro, S.J.L. Inorganic-organic
bio-nanocomposite films based on Laponite and Cellulose Nanofibers (CNF). Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 168,
428–435. [CrossRef]
31. American Petroleum Institute (API). Worldwide Cementing Practices; API: Dallas, TX, USA, 1991.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).