Cement Job

Evaluation
Cement Evaluation - Client’s
requirements
Clients require information to decide whether they have a “good
cement job”
Definition of good?
9 Cement placement - zone isolation
9 Cement coverage - channels
9 Cement compressive strength
9 Cement composition (gaseous, contaminated)
9 Cement to casing bond
9 Cement to formation bond
9 Micro-annulus:
9 Liquid filled
9 Gas filled
9 Top of cement (TOC)
2 M.P.
Evaluation of Cement jobs
A cement quality can be measured by:

• CBL/VDL or USIT Logging after cement has set

around casing.
• Pressure testing the shoe during an LOT.
• Inflow testing of Liner Laps.
• Pressure testing against drilled out squeezes.
• Pressure testing on top of cement plugs.
• Setting down weight on cement plugs.
• TOC by temperature or nuclear logs
3 M.P.
Cement Evaluation Methods

Hydraulic testing (Pressure test)

Temperature, nuclear (cement top)
Acoustic
„ Sonic (CBL/VDL, CBT): omnidirectional
„ Ultrasonic (USI): high resolution image
Analysis of cement job data – Job Signature

4 M.P.
 Sonic fundamentals (CBL/VDL)
The transmitter sends an omnidirectional pulse
The “compression” waves travel through casing
T
and are first to reach the 3-ft receiver.
Part of the wave front, refracted straight down
the casing, is used to determine Amplitude 3’
R
and Transit time.
5’
R

5 M.P.
 Sonic fundamentals - CBL

When the casing is bonded to hard cement, the vibrations in the

casing are attenuated proportionally to the bonded surface
area. Water or mud
Casing

Tx
No
No
Cement
Cement Rx

Cement
Casing

Good
Good
Tx

Bond
Bond Rx

6 M.P.
 Sonic fundamentals: 3 ft measurements
Casing
CBL Time
Window E3
Amplitude T0 Minimum
Detection E1
Level

E2 Time
TT

NMSG CBLG

Part of the wave front, refracted straight down the

7 M.P. casing, is used to determine Amplitude and Transit time.
Sonic fundamentals - VDL
Variable Density Log is the full wave display of Transmitter
firing
the 5-ft receiver. Casing Formation Mud

Displayed as light and dark stripes.

Amplitude (mv)
Contrast depends on positive or negative
amplitude. time usec

To allow easy differentiation between casing

and formation signal.

Variable Density Log

8 M.P.
Sonic fundamentals - VDL
Unless casing is fully eccentric the presence of formation
arrivals is:
„ A qualitative indicator of the presence of a solid material
behind the casing
„ By no means a quantitative indicator of its presence

9 M.P.
Example of a good CBL/VDL

Check quality
„ Look at TT curve
Check CBL curve
„ Relatively low amplitude
Verify VDL
„ No casing arrivals
„ Formation arrivals

Example of a SALTBOND slurry 7-in. liner

10 M.P.
Example of a “bad” CBL/VDL
Check quality
„ Look at TT curve
Check CBL curve
Relatively high amplitude
„
Verify VDL
„ Casing arrivals
Weak formation arrivals
„
Isolation???

Example from a 9 5/8-in. casing

11 M.P.
CBL Amplitude for a perfect cement job (1)

Basic interpretation:
„ Low measured amplitude: good cement
„ High measured amplitude: no cement
Drawback: too simplistic (examples of 100% bond amplitudes)

Casing/Cement 3 MRayl 6 MRayl

5 ½ in. 17 lb/ft 6.1 mV 1.0 mV
9 5/8 in. 47 lb/ft 12.2 mV 3.3 mV
Logging fluid: 9.0 lb/gal water base mud

12 M.P.
Acoustic Impedance
Materials
8
Acoustic tools respond to
Heavy
acoustic impedance
(acoustic hardness) Z Z
6
Setting Neat
Z = density x acoustic MRayl
slurry Cement

velocity 4
Z is expressed in MRayl (106 Heavy
Light
mud
kg.m-2.s-1) 2 Liquid
Water
Oil

0 Gas

13 M.P.
CBL Amplitude for a perfect cement job (2)

5.5 MRayl
2 mV
100% bond

CBL / VDL
3.5 MRayl
12 mV
100% bond

14 M.P.
CBL Amplitude for a perfect cement job (3)

CBL amplitude depends on:

„ Casing size and weight
„ Logging fluid acoustic properties
„ Cement acoustic impedance (not compressive
strength!!!)
– Cement acoustic impedance can either be measured or
predicted

15 M.P.
CBL AMPLITUDE VS. CASING SIZE

16 M.P.
CBL-VDL Fluid Effects

17 M.P.
 FREE PIPE CHECK CBL

100
Interpretation

100

Perfect
Chevron Patterns
Depth Match

Chevron Patterns

TT and CBL Amplitude

as espected according to Casing Size
18 M.P.
Example of CBL Adviser output
ft Mrayl mV
3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
0.0

Impedanc e CBL (80% )

CBL (100% )
400.0

Concentric casing
OD 9 5/8 in
@ 500f t
800.0

LC
@ 920 f t
OD 7. in
@ 1000f t
1200.0

W ell Fill Impedance C B L A mplitude

19 M.P.
Stretching
E1 Free Pipe Signal
Good Bond Signal
T0 Threshold

TT TT’

∆T
In cases of Good Cement
E1 decreases and TT is detected on a non linear portion of E1

∆T STRETCHING is the TT increase from its value in free pipe

20 M.P.
TT Cycle Skipping
E1 E3

T0 Threshold

TT TT’

In cases of very Good Cement E2

E1 could not reach Detection Threshold Level

T T skips to 3rd Peak [E3 ]........this is known as CYCLE SKIPPING

21 M.P.
 FAST FORMATION
CBL
Interpretation

Transit Time
High
Shorter than
<----------------------------------------CBL Amplitude
Casing arrivals
on areas of

fast formation

<---------------------------------------- arrivals

22 M.P.
Fast Formations
High(er) amplitude not representative of cement

„ TT, TTSL
„ CBL, CBSL
Correlation with GR
Confirm with sonic VDL fingerprint
Must have some good cement in annulus (how much?)

23 M.P.
Tool Eccentering
Causes for Eccentralization
5 • Improper Equipment selection

[ Centralizers ] for Casing Size

• Missing or Broken Centralizer(s)

3 • Weak Centralizers in deviated wells

• Tool Damaged and/or bent

2 • Damaged Casing
Consequences
• Unbalanced sound paths
T
• Resulting waveform is meaningless

24 M.P.
Eccentering Analysis
Short Path Waveform
Resulting Waveform Normal Waveform

T0 Threshold

TT

Delayed Waveform
If the tool is eccentered
There will be destructive interference from different sound paths

Waveform from close tool side to casing

Result is a Bad Log
Waveform from far tool side to casing not recoverable
Resulting waveform has Dramatic lower amplitude in Playback
Same like a zone of Good Cement but with shorter Transit Time [≈ 4 µs less]
25 M.P.
 CBL Qualitative Interpretation
CONDITION TRANSIT TIME CBL AMPLITUDE VDL

Free Pipe NORMAL HIGH Casing Arrivals

Usually No Formation Arrivals
Good Bond to Casing & Formation HIGH / NOISY LOW No Casing Arrivals
Formation Arrivals
Good Bond to Casing HIGH LOW No Casing Arrivals
Not to Formation CAN BE NOISY No Formation Arrivals
Poor Bond to Casing NORMAL MEDIUM Strong Casing Arrivals
No Formation Arrivals
Microannulus NORMAL MEDIUM Formation Arrivals
Casing Arrivals
Channeling NORMAL MEDIUM Formation Arrivals
Casing Arrivals
Fast Formations LOW HIGH Formation Arrivals
No Casing Arrivals

Eccentered Tool LOW LOW DEPENDS

26 M.P.
CBL global limitations
A lot of effects tend to increase the amplitude:
„ Material with acoustic impedance lower than expected
„ Fluid channel
„ Microannulus
So in fact quantitative evaluation from CBL amplitude is nearly
impossible without
„ Using VDL information AND analysing cement job data
„ On top of this of course USIT data when available lead to
27 M.P. an even better evaluation
CBL global limitations
CBL limitations amplified when dealing with low acoustic
impedance cement
„ Attenuation lower that with conventional weight cement
(15.8 lb/gal)
„ Even more of a problem with large casing sizes which
gives also a lower attenuation

28 M.P.
CBL pros and cons
Pros
¾ Provides information on the cement/formation bond
¾ Works in a wide range of logging fluid density
¾ Can be less affected by the presence of a dry microannulus at the
cement/casing formation (gas) than the USIT.
¾ Detects top of cement in some cases where USIT cannot.
Cons
¾ No azimuthal resolution; poor resolution in large casing sizes
¾ Affected by fast formations and concentric casings
¾ Affected by the presence of a wet microannulus at the cement/casing
interface (liquid or unset material)

29 M.P.
CBL Common Interpretation Mistakes
Expecting a low amplitude systematically
¾ Low acoustic impedance cements can give a relatively high
amplitude even when 100% bonded to the pipe
Assuming hydraulic isolation is not achieved because amplitude is
higher than expected:
¾ Tool calibration?
¾ Fast formation or concentric casings?
¾ Cement weaker than expected?
¾ Microannulus?
30 M.P.
CBL Common Interpretation Mistakes
Assuming hydraulic isolation is achieved because VDL shows
formation arrivals
¾ A channel may still be present
Assuming hydraulic isolation is achieved because BI is larger than
80%
¾ In rare cases a channel may still be present

Too many problems with the CBL why not using it

in combination with the USIT?

31 M.P.
 UltraSonic Imager Principle
The USI evaluates cement with
• An ultrasonic transducer
(0.2-0.7 MHz)
• The resonance
technique

Free
pipe

Good
cement

32 M.P.
Ultrasonics (USI) advantages over sonics (CBL)

Tolerates liquid (wet) microannulus

Full coverage, 30 mm resolution image
¾ Detailed picture of material distribution: solid, liquid, gas,
debonded cement
¾ Detects narrow channels
Easier interpretation and less uncertainty than sonics
(CBL/CBT)
Casing inspection in same pass
33 M.P.
 The USI view
Gas microannulus
Casing weld

Mud
channel

Perfs
Well
centered
casing
Eccentered
casing
Washout

34 M.P.
 UltraSonic Imager

Ultrasonic tool operating between 200 and 700 kHz.

Full casing coverage at 1.2 in. (30 mm) resolution using

rotating transducer

Measurements

• Cement evaluation

• Casing corrosion and wear

35 M.P.
 USI Measurements

Echo Transit
amplitude Thickness Cement
time
Impedance
(Internal Internal
casing radius
condition)

36 M.P.
 USI cement image settings
The USI discriminates between solid, liquid and
gas/dry microannulus using acoustic impedance
thresholds.
8
Raw Interpreted Image
image

6 Standar
Cement

Light
Z MRayl
d

Maximum
4 impedance
Solid/liquid
threshold ZTCM
2 +/- 0.5
Liquid
Gas/liquid
threshold
0 Gas or dry micro-annulus

37 M.P.
 USI combined casing + cement presentation
QC Casing Cement

Channel

Bond index
Cement raw
Thickness
Thickness
Internal radius
Casing cross-section Cement
Amplitude interpreted
Processing flags
Process flags, Eccentering, CCL, gamma
38 M.P.
 USI + CBL/VDL
cement presentation
QC CBL USI VDL

CBL

VDL
Bond index
Acoustic impedance
Cement image interpreted
CBL, gamma
Process flags, eccentering
39 M.P.
 USI and CBL/VDL
In simple cases (good well-bonded cement, free pipe, mud
channel) the tools agree.
In more complicated real-life situations the tools have
different responses which can aid interpretation:
„ Contaminated cement
„ Wet microannulus
„ Dry microannulus

40 M.P.
 Good cement
Strong formation
CBL flat, low arrival
Mean Z 8
MRayl Weak casing arrival

QC CBL USI VDL

41 M.P.
 Mud channel and contaminated cement
Weak formation arrival
CBL
variable, Strong casing arrival
high

Channel

Low-Z
cement

QC CBL USI VDL

42 M.P.
CemCADE Job Signature

Validated simulator
Verify validity of design parameters
„ eliminate guesswork
„ well’s unknown factors
The Concept of Job Signature
„ Begin-End of U-Tube, slopes of curve
„ verify well control during cement job
„ confirms unnoticed losses

43 M.P.
Evaluation

Re-run CemCADE with the execution data:

„ Placement – U-Tube effect
„ WellClean II
„ Synthetic CBL

44 M.P.
 Losses during displacement
Losses during displacement
confirmed by CemCADE
playback
Low TOC
Displacement rate to be reduced
when pressure drop observed

45 M.P.
Density Control during Slurry Mixing
ume 109.86
ach Class 0.6937 3.0392 30.493 54.271 16.831 2.5789 1.9158
1.404 1.416 1.428 1.44 1.452 1.464 1.476
0.63% 2.77% 27.76% 49.40% 15.32% 2.35% 1.74%
Evaluation of density control during
ass

92.48%
mixing/pumping cement slurry: Lead Slurry Volume Distribution

„ To ensure slurry stability 50.00%

„ To ensure slurry
45.00%

properties as per design

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

Volume %
25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
1.404 1.416 1.428 1.44 1.452 1.464 1.476
De ns ity

46 M.P.
Synthetic CBL

Based on playback WELLCLEAN

data Synthetic CBL is predicting % of
bonded cement to the casing

47 M.P.
Evaluation of Cement jobs
Other Methods
Pressure testing the shoe during an LOT.
- This can show a poor cement job at the shoe as well as the leak off
pressure to the formation.
Inflow testing of Liner Laps.
- When a liner is cemented across a production zone, Inflow testing or a
Negative test can be done when the hydrostatic of the displacement
fluid is less than that of the original mud and liner cement. The open
casing is observed at surface for flow back and/or bubbles.
Pressure testing against drilled out squeezes or plugs
- A simple pressure test against the top of a plug or squeezed
perforations will indicate if all leak paths have been effectively sealed.

48 M.P.