SPE 93184
Integrated Analysis of Down-hole Corrosion Logs to Investigate Casing Leaks
Y.Y. Al-Ghasham, D.R. Catte, and A.A. Al-Haji, Saudi Aramco
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 12–15 March 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Despite the application of impressed current cathodic
protection (ICCP), the Hawiyah and Haradh areas in the
Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia have experienced external
corrosion-related casing leaks through relatively shallow
aquifers in a number of water injection wells. Many of the
wells with failures were less than 10 years old and required
costly workover repairs.
Down-hole corrosion logs were ran in these wells and others
to investigate the cause(s) and mechanism(s) of the casing
leaks. The logs were run under dynamic cathodic protection
conditions to develop a better understanding of the problem
and to enable the authors to determine cost-effective
preventive measures to reduce future failures.
This paper presents a detailed analysis of the investigative
corrosion logs, which include ultrasound, electromagnetic and
potential measurement type logs. Findings will focus on
cement quality, electrochemical interference between offset
wells, and the effects of changing the magnitude of the applied
cathodic protection current.
Objective
Study and investigate the cause(s) and mechanism(s) of the
casing leaks across the aquifers in the Hawiyah and Haradh
water injection wells and provide recommendations to
minimize future failures.
Background
The Hawiyah and Haradh areas were mothballed in 1983 and
placed back on production in 1989 and 1990, respectively.
Both areas were further developed after de-mothballing by
constructing new oil handling facilities. Water injection in
both areas was restarted in 1992.
Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) was
commissioned in the Hawiyah and Haradh areas in 1983 and
1984, respectively. Prior to the implementation of cathodic
protection there was a high frequency of casing leaks across
the aquifers in the injectors, as shown in Fig. 1. The casing
leak frequency dropped significantly following ICCP
commissioning.
In 2002 and 2003, seven water injection wells developed
casing leaks across shallow aquifers of the UER, Biyadh and
Shu’aiba formations. These wells were repaired with costly
workover operations of around $500,000 each. A
multidisciplinary team was formed to investigate and provide
recommendations to minimize future leaks.
Corrosion Logs
The corrosion logs used in this investigation were:
1. Ultrasonic logs for casing and cement evaluation:
This tool generates high frequency ultrasonic pulses
through the casing wall. The recorded information,
amplitude of echoes and transit timings, are used to
generate casing and cement condition profiles.
2. Electromagnetic logs for inner and outer casing
condition: This tool consists of a series of
electromagnetic flux transmitters and receivers to
generate casing condition profiles.
3. Cathodic protection evaluation logs: This log
measures potential difference and casing resistance
with four sets of knife-type contacts containing three
contacts per set. The three contacts within each set
are spaced 120 degrees apart radially, and the four
sets of contacts are spaced 2 feet apart vertically.
Investigation Work
The Haradh and Hawiyah injection wells with casing leaks are
scattered along the east and west flanks of both areas. The
casing leaks occurred due to corrosion through the 9-5/8 inch
casing and the 7 inch liner. A typical well cross-section is
shown in Fig. 2.
A comprehensive review of pertinent data for the seven wells
that developed casing leaks was completed. Patterns were
evaluated with respect to geographical location, well cross-
section, injection history, cement and lost circulation zones,
and cathodic protection history.
Additional investigative work was undertaken for three
Haradh wells (HD05, HD07 and HD11). These wells are
2 SPE 93184
relatively new wells (drilled in 1995). Details and findings of
the investigative efforts are as follow:
1. Location – A review of the geographical location
relative to other cathodically protected facilities and
to formation exposures of the wells with casing leaks
did not reveal any enlightening patterns when
compared to wells without casing leaks.
2. Cross-section – The review of the casing cross-
sections of the affected wells, compared to other
wells without leaks, did not reveal any enlightening
patterns. In all wells, the corrosion worked its way
through both the 9-5/8” and the 7” casings.
3. Injection history – The three Haradh wells were on
continuous injection since completion in 1995. No
major shutdowns took place. Again, no enlightening
information was noted when compared to wells
without corrosion failures.
4. Cementing quality – The wells that suffered from
external corrosion failures did not have good quality
cement behind pipe, and the leaks took place in lost
circulation zones.
5. Cathodic protection history – The ICCP installation
timing was reviewed, and it was found that the ICCP
systems were commissioned approximately 10
months after well completion (acceptable
commissioning time per Saudi Aramco standards is
within 6 months). However, other wells that have not
failed were also noted to have been without ICCP for
10 months or more following completion.
6. The ICCP operating history was reviewed, and it was
found that the output currents of the Haradh wells
were 50% to 100% or higher than the recommended
output current of 12 amperes, refer to Fig. 3.
7. Review of the cathodic protection evaluation and the
corrosion logs that were run on HD05, HD07 and
HD11 provided the following information:
Well HD05
¾ The ultrasonic log verified that failure of the
7-inch casing was caused by external
corrosion and indicated additional external
corrosion in the nearby vicinity of the leak.
¾ A second ultrasonic log indicated that the 7”
x 9-5/8” casing-casing annulus was poorly
cemented over the corroded interval.
¾ The cathodic protection evaluation log
indicated that cathodic protection under
normal operation was effective through and
below the area where the corrosion was
noted.
Well HD07
¾ The ultrasonic log indicated that the 7” liner
predominantly suffered external corrosion
across the leak area (see Fig. 4). The
observed corrosion occurred over the
interval where total losses were experienced
while drilling.
Well HD11
¾ Similar to well HD07, the ultrasonic log
showed that the liner had external corrosion
across the leak area. The observed corrosion
occurred over the interval where total losses
were experienced while drilling.
Well HD01 Integrated Corrosion Logs
Though the information from HD05, HD07 and HD11
provided significant insight into the problem (poor cement),
the principle question of why the external corrosion had
occurred despite the application of adequate cathodic
protection was still not answered. To try to answer this
question, an integrated corrosion logging program was run in
well HD01. Ultrasonic, electromagnetic, and cathodic
protection evaluation logs were run in the well.
The HD01 well was in the same area and drilled during the
same year (in 1995) as the other three Haradh wells that
experienced casing leaks. Well HD01 is also the only offset
vertical well with no major downhole operations since drilling.
However, this well did not suffer from lost circulation and
poor cementing to the extent that the other three wells did.
Corrosion logs with dynamic ICCP operating conditions were
completed to attempt to understand the effect of interference
between wells under CP protection and to confirm the
company’s standards related to the magnitude of CP
requirement in the Haradh area.
Results of the logs for HD01 provided the following
information:
1. The ultrasonic log indicated that the 7-inch liner was
in excellent condition both internally and externally
through the areas the investigation was focusing on.
2. The concentric pipes analysis using the ultrasonic and
electromagnetic measurements indicated that the
general condition of the 9-5/8” casing was very good.
3. The ultrasonic log illustrated that the cement in the
annulus behind the 7” liner through the Shu’aiba
formation was of relatively low density, but well
bonded to the casing. However, if the 9-5/8” casing
were to corrode, the low density casing/casing
annulus cement would rapidly saturate with
formation fluid. Consequent chemical reactions on
the steel/cement interface would likely result in rapid
disruption of the bond quality.
SPE 93184
4. The ultrasonic log also showed that the cement on the
formation side of the 9-5/8” casing through the
Shu’aiba formation was not ideal. It displayed a
gas/dry micro-annulus behind the casing, suggesting
that the Shu’aiba formation at this well site was dry.
If the Shu’aiba formation had been wet at this
location, saturation of the cement and permeation of
formation fluids into the micro-annulus would likely
have occurred. This would support galvanic coupling
to other formations with resulting corrosion of the
casing. In a formation fluid containing acid gasses, a
reduction in pH of the cement caused by CO2 or H2S
would also facilitate eventual corrosion of the casing.
However, timely application of cathodic protection
will in most cases offset these types of corrosion
mechanisms.
5. The ultrasonic and the electromagnetic measurements
logs indicated that there was no corrosion of the
casings through the Shu’aiba formation. This
suggests that the conditions that were present on the
wells that had suffered full corrosion wall loss
through the 9-5/8” and the 7” casings were not
present at well HD01.
6. The cathodic protection evaluation log was run to
determine if electrical interference could be the cause
of the corrosion on the failed casings. To emphasize
possible deficiencies, worst case conditions were set
up at well HD01 and allowed to work on the casing
for two weeks. Worst case conditions as set up were
as follows:
a. The HD01 ICCP system was turned off.
b. The flowline from HD01 was disconnected
and the well was completely electrically
isolated from the cathodically protected
flowline system.
c. The nearest two well-casing cathodic
protection systems, one located 500 meters
away, and the other located 2,000 meters
away, were adjusted to near maximum
output (44 amps each). This magnitude is
more than triple the recommended output of
12 amps each.
CP Evaluation Log – First Pass (Fig. 5)
The cathodic protection evaluation log was
initially run from 7,600 feet to 3,005 feet.
During this pass, the nearest neighboring rectifier
was briefly shut off between 4,680 feet to 4,605
feet. The log revealed severe interference;
however, it is quite evident by the log that the
deleterious aspect of the interference occurred
below the 9-5/8” shoe. The area through the
Shu’aiba formation was actually an area on the
casing that was protected by the interference
current. Surprisingly, the area of the casing
through the Shu’aiba formation was protected
from corrosion at the expense of the area of the
3
casing below the 9-5/8” shoe.
It is evident here that interference can occur in
the field if certain conditions are present.
Protection shown across the Shu’aiba formation
in HD01 is believed to be aided by the cement on
the formation side of the 9-5/8” and the absence
of fluids in the formation through this area.
CP Evaluation Log – Second Pass (Fig. 6)
The second pass of the cathodic evaluation log
was run from 6,460 feet to 3,960 feet. During
this pass, a number of operating conditions were
altered to judge the effects on the well casing.
The various changes to the operating conditions
involved: turning rectifiers off, connecting and
disconnecting the HD01 flowline, and finally
setting the conditions as close as possible to
normal operating conditions and optimizing the
rectifier outputs for HD01 and the two offset
wells.
The testing completed during the second pass
revealed the following:
¾ Severe interference was generated under
worst case conditions. However, the
damaging aspect of the interference did not
occur through the Shu’aiba formation as
might have been expected.
¾ The interference generated with worst case
conditions was not spontaneously eliminated
by connecting HD01 well to its flowline and
thereby generating electrical continuity with
the neighboring cathodic protection systems.
Long-term effects of connecting the flowline
were not measured due to practical
constraints.
¾ The testing also revealed that complete
cathodic protection of the HD01 well casing
was evident when its rectifier and the
neighboring rectifiers were adjusted to
slightly above their target outputs (12 amps)
and the HD01 flowline was connected.
The significance of these findings emphasizes the benefits of a
quality cement job, and suggests that the initial corrosion that
occurs over a 10-month period on poorly cemented casings
without ICCP significantly affects the long-term integrity of
the wells. Based on the logs and testing completed on HD01,
the findings also indicate that, under normal operating
conditions, damaging interference effects would be unlikely,
and complete cathodic protection would be expected through
the Shu’aiba formation.
Conclusion
Integrated corrosion logs were used to investigate the casing
corrosion problem in Haradh area. The logs showed that the
main cause of the casing leaks in the Haradh injectors was
4 SPE 93184
external corrosion. Based on the information provided by the
different logs, the corrosion is believed to be caused by bad
cement behind pipe combined with the tardy installation of
cathodic protection. The corrosion was likely accelerated by
electrical interference generated from excessive current from
nearby cathodic protection systems.
Recommendations
To mitigate and reduce future casing leaks at the water
injection wells in the Haradh area, the following actions need
to be taken:
1. Ensure good cementing behind pipe. Run cement
bond logs if necessary to ensure good bonding.
2. Coat the external side of casings exposed to
formations for new wells to ensure adequate CP
current across all outer casings.
3. During normal operations, maintain a net well casing
output current of 12-15 amps (exceeding 15 amperes
can be as harmful as falling below 12 amperes).
4. Well-casing CP systems within one km of a well
being drilled or a new well should be operated at a
reduced output of 5 – 10 amperes until the CP system
for the new well is commissioned.
5. Commission the cathodic protection system as soon
as possible following drilling completion.
6. Minimize CP downtime to minimize electrical
interference.
7. Run integrated corrosion logs to further investigate
the problem and enhance the CP system
requirements. These logs will also help to look at CP
behavior at deeper formations.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Saudi Aramco for permission to
publish this paper.
References
1. AlSahhaf A. A. et al.: “Assessment of Casing Leaks
across ARAB-C Reservoir,” Saudi Aramco internal
document, December 13, 2000.
2. R.O. Beyea, K.D. Pinckney: “Optimization of
Cathodic Protection of Well Casing in the Texas
Panhandle,” paper SPE 24299 presented at the SPE
Mid Continent Gas Symposium held In Amarillo,
Texas, April 13-14, 1992.
3. C.W. Morris, S.L. Zanutto, and W.G. Dacres Jr.,
“Lightweight Cement Evaluation Using Ultrasonic
Measurements,” paper SPE 62517 presented at the
SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting held in Long
Beach, California, June19–23, 2000.
4. A.E. Sharshar, R.L. Nutt, P.M. Smith, P.A.
Crossouard: “Dukhan Field Multiwell Corrosion
Study,” paper SPE 21366 presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, November
16-19, 1991.
5. A.J. Hayman, Philippe Parent, Philip Cheung,
PatrickVerges: ”Improved Borehole Imaging by
Ultrasonic,” paper SPE 28440, 1995.
6. Mohamed Watfa: “Downhole Casing Corrosion
Monitoring and Interpretation Techniques to Evaluate
Corrosion in Multiple Casing Strings,” SPE
Production Engineering, August 1991.
SPE 93184 5

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Typical Injection Well Completion

Historical Casing Leaks in The Injection Wells

9
8
Started Cathodic Protection
7
No. of Casing Leaks

4
Area M othballed
3

2
1

0
1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003
Year

Fig. 4
Well HD07 External Corrosion
3-D Visualization of the Corrosion Log
Fig. 3 at Interval 4,438’ – 4,434’

Net Casing Current Output Records UCI log indicated that

45 electrochemical corrosion
40
had broken through from
outer casing to inner
Current Output, Amperes

35
string
30
25
20
15
10
Recommended Output Current
5
0
1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006
Date
HD05 HD07 HD11 HD01
6 SPE 93184

Fig. 5

Well HD01 Cathodic Evaluation Log

First Pass
500

-500
Interference due to shutoff
Current (milliamps)

of nearby well rectifier

-1000
2' Interval Data
-1500

-2000

-2500
6' Interval Data
-3000

-3500
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
Depth (feet)

Well HD01 flowline was disconnected, rectifier is off. Offset wells rectifiers were set @ 44 amps,
At 4,605'-4,680’ one of the offset wells’ rectifier was set off.
SPE 93184 7

Fig. 6

Logging Setup
1 Offset wells’ rectifiers set @ 44 amps. Well HD01 flowline was disconnected.
2 Connected well HD01 flowline and drained 1.2 amps from Flowline.
3 Disconnected well HD01 flowline and reduced one of the offset well’s rectifier to 22 amps.
4 Offset wells’ rectifiers back to 44 amps. Well HD01 flowline was disconnected.
5 One of the offset well’s rectifier set to 0.0 amps.
6 Set the offset well’s rectifier back to 44 amps.
7 All rectifiers set to 15 amps, and well HD01 flowline was connected with 0.5 amps from well casing.
8 All rectifiers set to 10 amps, and the HD01 flowline was connected with 0.4 amps from well casing.