SPE-196787-MS

Choosing Optimal Standoff for Horizontal Well Profile with High Cavernosity
to Achieve Better Mud Removal

Mikhail Tcibulskii and Mikhail Vavilov, Halliburton; Vladimir Afletunov, AO Messoyakhaneftegaz; Sergey Orlov,
Centek Limited

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 22 – 24 October 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Cement bond logs in the Messoyakha field indicated only 65% achieved mud displacement, which resulted
in poor zonal isolation, resulting in annular pressure and remediation. Casing standoff is the most important
factor to achieving better mud displacement from the annular space. The wellbore profile and the presence
of caverns have significant impact on casing standoff. At the same time, increased centralization, in some
cases, has a critical impact on running the casing to planned depth.
Analysis in the use of different types of centralizers, their spacing patterns, and placement on the casing
in the horizontal wells in this field are detailed in addition to the results of trial operations.

General Field Information

The Vostochno-Messoyakhskoye field is located in the northern part of the Tyumen region beyond the
Arctic Circle (Fig. 1). Reservoir development along with supply of materials and equipment is impacted by
the arctic climatic zone where this field is located due to the lack of continuous road communication and
developed infrastructure in this region. Work in this field is performed in a self-contained mode due to these
conditions. Geological features of this field include low reservoir temperatures, presence of a permafrost
zone (400 m), high gas/oil ratio (GOR), and rock tendency to caving. To solve the tasks set by the operator,
it is necessary to apply modern technologies and methods providing safe and quality performance of well
cementing operations.
2 SPE-196787-MS

Figure 1—Field location in Arctic Circle.

Introduction
The main objective of well cementing is to achieve zonal isolation and prevent the flow of fluids from
formations. The cementing process is dependent on other operations and factors, which also influence the
final result (well profile, mud properties, geological problems, etc.) and the success of a cement operation
is principally determined by the efficiency of the displacement of the drilling fluid.
To perform effective well cementing, it is necessary to adhere to the following principles (Smith 1989):

• Provide the best centralization.

• Perform displacement at the highest pump rate.

• Properly condition the hole before cementing.

• Rotate or reciprocate casing, if possible (Guzman et al. 2018).

• Select and use effective spacer fluids.

Centralization Defined
Casing string centralization is one of the most important factors to maximize mud displacement in the
annulus. How much a pipe in centralized in the wellbore is denoted by the term standoff (Fig. 2). An eccentric
position of the casing relative to the well axis leads to uneven filling of the annular space, increase of
intermixing zones, and, as a consequence, poor zonal isolation quality (Fig. 3).
SPE-196787-MS 3

Figure 2—Standoff.

Figure 3—Displacement in case of poor centralization.

It is important to take into account nominal hole diameter and cavernosity. Centralizers are selected based
on a specific diameter. Incorrect well cavernosity data can lead to negative consequences such as poor
displacement efficiency and failure to reach the target depth with casing. Therefore, a caliper log is necessary
to help ensure successful casing running and cementing operations. The risk of casing string not reaching the
target depth is possible in the presence of tight spots not allowing centralizers to pass through the problem
zone. Accordingly, it can lead to slackoff to critical values when running, damage to centralizers, casing
jamming, and inability to continue running. In case of high cavernosity against the plan, the opposite effect
will be observed because the outside diameter of centralizers will be insufficient. This scenario can lead
to poor casing centralization, which can have significant negative effects on mud displacement from the
annulus and lead to such problems as casing annular space pressure test failure, pressure between casings,
crossflow, etc.

Centralizer Types
Currently, there are several common types of centralizers on the market (Liu and Weber 2012):
4 SPE-196787-MS

• Rigid.

• Bow spring.

• Semirigid.

• Roller.

Rigid centralizers have several design versions (metal, plastic, or composite). This type of centralizer
is manufactured with the maximum outside diameter less than the nominal bit diameter. This is to help
reduce the risk of failure to reach the target depth with casing. An advantage of these centralizers is stable
centralization under any conditions as the outside diameter is unchanged. Also, because of a lower outside
diameter relative to the nominal bit diameter, starting forces will be zero because, initially, the casing is
not stressed. Drawbacks of this type of centralizer include insufficient centralization attributed to design
features and possibility of jamming or inability to pass through a tight spot or a high-dogleg interval.
Bow spring centralizers can be manufactured either equal to or larger than the nominal bit diameter
(SPEC 10D 1995). This type of centralizers is more common within the industry. In the case of using bow
spring centralizers with larger outside diameter relative to the nominal bit size, it is possible to provide
acceptable centralization, even in a hole with high cavernosity at a relatively low cost. A distinctive feature
of these centralizers is average restoring force parameters and the presence of starting forces because the
casing is stressed from the beginning and it is necessary to apply some force to push the casing into the hole.
The second version of this type of centralizers is bow spring centralizers with outside diameter equal to the
nominal bit size. These centralizers feature zero starting forces and high restoring force parameters. The
drawback of these centralizers is inability to provide acceptable centralization in holes with high cavernosity
because of their design features.
Semirigid centralizers resemble in appearance to bow spring centralizers, but they have one distinctive
feature, a stiffener on the centralizer bows. This design element allows achieving higher restoring forces
and providing less compression of centralizers in hole.
Roller centralizers have characteristics similar to rigid centralizers, but also have special rollers to help
ensure unobstructed casing running to the target depth.
The design of the centralizer has a direct effect on its reliability and characteristics.
Centralizers are typically classified into the following:

• Assembled: centralizers that consist of several parts at the same time; these parts are connected
with special lock nails, and centralizer bows have retainers. This type of centralizers is highly
susceptible to damage when exposed to critical loads during casing running and pulling operations.
Rotation of the casing with these centralizers is not recommended since during rotation, the
centralizers can be destroyed. This can lead to an increase in torque, jamming, and cessation
of rotation, causing poor-quality centralization. There is also an increased risk of complications
during drillout of the cement column below the casing shoe because, in the event of the centralizer
destruction, its metal parts can fall into the interval below the shoe and make it challenging to drill
out cement.
• Welded: more reliable centralizers because they can take more load. They are less susceptible to
damage and breakage. They are not recommended for well cementing operations with rotation.
• Solid: the most reliable centralizers because they consist of one piece of material. They can be both
bow-spring solid-metal centralizers and plastic or composite centralizers. Multiple use is allowed
even after unsuccessful casing running, if no destruction has been observed after inspection. When
using this type of centralizer, cementing with rotation is permissible.
SPE-196787-MS 5

Centralizer Attachment to Casing

An important role in ensuring high-quality centering is provided by centralizer attachment on the casing
string. Stop collars must provide the planned position of centralizers throughout the casing running operation
and prevent their displacement along the casing pipe body. Stop collars can be both solid-cast and assembled.
The most common are two types of centralizer attachments with stop rings:

• One stop collar: when the stop ring is installed on the casing into the inner part of the centralizer.
In this case, the minimum possible centralizer compression diameter will be changed because
the centralizer bow will rest against the stop collar and the centralizer free movement will be
limited to its length. This, to some extent, can adversely affect reaching the target depth with the
casing. However, at the same time, this method of attachment significantly reduces the risks of
centralizer hanging up in tight spots in the hole. While passing through a tight spot, the centralizer
will be stretched to its minimum possible diameter. Casing rotation with this method of centralizer
attachment is not recommended. Because the centralizer itself does not rotate when the casing
rotates, the presence of a stop collar inside the centralizer can lead to increased torque attributed
to fitting of the inner part of the centralizer bow body to the stop collar. When the stop collar has
any protruding parts in its design, it can lead to jamming and destruction of the centralizer bows
in the process of its compression and simultaneous rotation.
• Two stop collars: when stop collars are installed at a certain distance from the centralizer allowing
free movement. In this case, casing can be rotated. However, when going through tight spots,
expansion effect occurs—a force opposite to running direction acts in the tight spot and the
centralizer, resting on the upper stop collar, begins compressing along the axis of the casing and
expands against the wellbore wall.
Usually, one or two centralizers can be installed on one pipe. Correct installation of centralizers is
important and should be performed in accordance to technical specifications of centralizers and stop collars.
The centralizer installation method shown in Fig. 4 was used on the discussed field.

Figure 4—Installation of centralizers and stop collars onto casing pipe.

The Importance of Casing Centralization

Casing string centralization in the wellbore is one of the most important factors for enhancing displacement
efficiency and cementing in general. When casing is in the center of the borehole axis, fluids are displaced
evenly across the entire radial section throughout the entire cementing interval. This allows placement of
a homogeneous cement slurry in the annulus and can help minimize contamination from mud and spacer
systems). Insufficient centralization results in poor displacement of the drilling mud with cement slurry,
6 SPE-196787-MS

which ultimately leads to the formation of extensive intermixing zones and/or channeling (when drilling
mud stays in the annulus along one of the borehole walls). Contamination of cement slurry with other
fluids leads to a change in parameters, for example, reduction of compressive strength properties. All this
increases the risk of casing annular space pressure test failure, casing pressure, and crossflow, and has a
negative impact on the life of the well. In the case of poor cementing quality, the cost of remedial cementing
operations can be significant.
Cementing of directional and horizontal wells has its own nuances that require detailed analysis and
preparation (Sabins 1989). First of all, providing maximum centralization, it is also necessary to control
casing string reaching the target depth. Often, casing runs into horizontal sections of wells are difficult
because the casing is pressed against the low side of the wellbore. In this case, the casing weight becomes
insufficient to push through. Also, in horizontal wells, a wider clearance is formed in the high side of the
annular space (Fig. 5). It is also necessary to keep under control the equivalent circulation density (ECD)
because a reduction to the clearance leads to an increase of friction pressure (Sanchez et al. 2012).

Figure 5—Diagram of displacement in horizontal well.

Progress in Centralization in the Vostochno-Messoyakhskoye Field

When cementing production casing strings with target formation PK1-3 in Vostochno-Messoyakhskoye
field, it was necessary to take into account the following geological and technical features:

• Angle buildup from 245-mm surface casing shoe.

• Presence of active gas horizon Gaz-Salinskaya formation.

• Periodic formation from lost-circulation zones.

• Presence of permafrost interval at a depth of 0 to 400 m.

• High probability of 245- × 178-mm casing annular space pressure test failure.

• Possible gas migration, channeling.

• Reduced WOC time (16 hours).

• Low bottomhole temperature 17°C.

• ERD type horizontal wells.

SPE-196787-MS 7

In collaboration with the operator, it was decided to conduct a series of trials with various types of
centralizers and their placement options to identify trends and determine the methods for optimal use of
accessories. These pilot projects were aimed at improvement of centralization, enhancement of uniform
filling of the annulus, increased continuous bonding of cement with the casing, and helping ensure tightness
in 245- × 178-mm casing annulus.

2015 Work Performance Timeline

In 2015, two operations using bow spring centralizers with outside diameter equal to the nominal hole size
in combination with bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore were performed. The horizontal
production section was drilled with a 220.7-mm bit. Because of the absence of actual caliper log data,
cavernosity of 1.32/excess 91% was assumed for work (based on previous experience).
Tables 1 and 2 show technical characteristics of standard and pilot centralizers (Kinzel and Martens 1998).

Table 1—Main characteristics of centralizers.

Table 2—Table of process equipment placement.

8 SPE-196787-MS

As a comparison, two graphs of planned centralization with the use of solid bow spring centralizers for
nominal bit size and solid centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore in the interval of 530 to 880 m are
shown in Figs. 6 and 7.

Figure 6—Comparison between two types of centralizers.

Figure 7—Results of 3D simulation of Well No. 2, 2015.

A 3D developed view of the well at the end of the cementing process using solid centralizers for nominal
bit size indicates the presence of a channel, which can lead to poor cementing quality and potentially
hydraulic fracturing attributed to unscheduled excess top of cement of normal density.
A 3D developed view at the end of cementing process using solid centralizers for an under-reamed
wellbore indicates improvement of centralization when viewing the radial section.
However, because centralization is improved only for 1/4 of the well with thickness of 350 m (interval
from 880 to 530 m), this is not enough to provide good displacement for all of that cementing interval.
Additionally, casing running calculation was performed. The result showed no problems for running (Fig.
8).
SPE-196787-MS 9

Figure 8—Hookload.

As a result, both casing strings were run to target depth with no problems. According to the results of
well logging, casing string eccentricity data was obtained. This data was converted to centralization and
summarized in a general diagram for comparison of the results obtained (Fig. 9).

Figure 9—Centralization in the first well with solid centralizers for expanded wellbore.

Fig. 9 shows that, after 530 m MD, centralization percentage increases (blue line) because of expanded
bow springs, which indicates a better displacement in this interval.
For the second job, identical placement of accessories was used (Fig. 10).
10 SPE-196787-MS

Figure 10—Centralization in second well with solid centralizers for under-reamed wellbore.

Similar results of increased centralization in the interval of solid centralizers for the under-reamed
wellbore were obtained.

Annulus Fillup Analysis

In both wells, increased homogeneity of annular space filling was obtained. Instead of an average 70%
across the field in 2015, the obtained homogeneity in the expanded centralizer's interval was greater than
90% (Fig. 11).

Figure 11—Comparison of homogeneity of annular space filling.

2017 Work Performance Timeline

In 2017, three operations were employed using bow spring centralizers with outside diameter equal to the
nominal hole size in combination with bow spring centralizers for under-reamed wellbore. However, this
time, it was decided to increase the number of centralizers from 30 to 70 to 90 pcs. Openhole caliper logging
was not performed. Because of this, cavernosity ratio was assumed based on previous experience - 1.44/
excess 124% (Table 3).
SPE-196787-MS 11

Table 3—Table of equipment placement.

Additionally, casing running calculation was performed. The result showed no problems for running
(Figs. 12 and 13).

Figure 12—Hookload.
12 SPE-196787-MS

Figure 13—Comparison of centralization parameters.

Fig. 14 is a graph of planned centralization with solid bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed
wellbore in Interval 450 to 1334 m indicates a 1.5 × increase of the string centralization (from 40 to 60%).

Figure 14—Benchmarking of 3D modeling results in Well No. 1 in 2018.

A 3D simulation of the well without using solid bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore
showed significant presence of mud and spacer contamination in the cement slurry along the entire wellbore
attributed to low casing centralization. Channeling is visible.
A 3D simulation of the operation using solid bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore
showed reduction to the fluid intermixing zone and therefore increased the amount of uncontaminated
cement in the annular space. Channel with remnants of mud and spacers in the annular space was reduced.
From this, one can conclude that, for high cavernosity (1.44 in this case), it is necessary to consider additional
measures to improve the displacement—the movement of the casing (reciprocation, rotation).
SPE-196787-MS 13

Analysis of Planned and Actual Centralization

A selective, gamma, flaw detector (SGDT) tool in well No. 1 2017 did not reach the float collar setting
depth by 601 m, which is the main part of the cemented interval. Because of this, it is not possible to analyze
this interval (Fig. 15).

Figure 15—Centralization in fsti w7ell with solid centralizers for under-reamed wellbore.

Figs. 16 and 17 show that actual centralization is lower than planned; however, identical increasing
centralization trend according to the plan is noted.
14 SPE-196787-MS

Figure 16—Centralization in second well with solid centralizers for expanded wellbore.

Figure 17—Centralization in third well with solid centralizers for expanded wellbore.

Actual centralization in Wells 2 and 3 was less than the planned value. This is due to the absence of
caliper logging data. Actual cavernosity in these wells could have been higher than planned, which led to
these results.

Annulus Fillup Analysis

In Well No.1, the achieved annulus fillup percentage was relatively low. In addition, in this well a 601-
m interval was not recorded by logging tools. Therefore, there is no data for analysis and it is difficult to
SPE-196787-MS 15

provide a full opinion on this well. In the other two wells, homogenity was 80 to 90%, which indicates
improvement of displacement quality in the annular space.

Figure 18—Comparison of homogeneity of annular space filling; *Well No 1 2017 - SGDT tool
reached the depth of 721 m. Float collar = 1322 m. Tool under-reaching 601 m; *Well No 2 2017 -
SGDT tool reached the depth of 1268 m. Float collar = 1424 m. Tool under-reaching 156 m;*Well No
3 2017 - SGDT tool reached the depth of 1232 m. Float collar = 1289 m Tool under-reaching 57 m.

2018 Work Performance Timeline

In 2018, four operations using bow spring centralizers with outside diameter equal to the nominal hole size in
combination with bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore. However, to perform this operation,
bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore with increased restoring force were additionally used
(Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4—Main characteristics of centralizers.

16 SPE-196787-MS

Table 5—Process equipment placement.

This placement (three centralizers per twp pipes) significantly increases the percentage of casing
centralization in the well because the casing pipe has no possibility of hanging at a point between
centralizers.
For all experimental wells in 2018, cavernosity ratio 1.25/excess 71% was assumed. Openhole caliper
logging was not performed (Figs. 19 and 20).

Figure 19—Comparison of centralization parameters.

SPE-196787-MS 17

Figure 20—Benchmarking of 3D modeling results in 2018.

A 3D modeling of the cementing process demonstrated results similar to those in the first experimental
well in 2015.
However, because centralization has been improved only for 1/4 of the well with thickness of 350 m
(interval from 920 to 530 m), this is not enough to provide good displacement of the entire cementing
interval (Fig. 21).

Figure 21—Hookload comparison.

The string was run to TD with no problems.

Analysis of Planned and Actual Centralization

As the result, the actual centralization in the interval with expanded wellbore centralizers turned out to
be less than planned due to the absence of caliper logging data. It is likely that the actual cavernosity in
these wells could have been higher than planned. However, it was noted that the centralization was better
18 SPE-196787-MS

in the interval with spring bow centralizers for expanded wellbore with increased restoring force (Figs. 22
through 25).

Figure 22—Centralization in the first well with solid centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore.

Figure 23—Centralization in the second well with solid centralizers

for an under-reamed wellbore and with increased restoring force.
SPE-196787-MS 19

Figure 24—Centralization in the third well with solid centralizers

for an under-reamed wellbore and with increased restoring force.

Figure 25—Centralization in the fourth well with solid centralizers

for an under-reamed wellbore and with increased restoring force.

Annulus Fillup Analysis

In all wells, increased homogeneity of annular space filling was obtained. Instead of an average 65% across
the field in 2018, the obtained homogeneity was more than 90% in the interval with expanded centralizers
and centralizers with increased restoring force (Fig. 26).
20 SPE-196787-MS

Figure 26—Comparison of homogeneity of annular space filling.

Moreover, in all these wells, the annuli were leak tight.

Conclusion
In process of this work, some trends were identified and conclusions made based on this data. Namely,
it was observed that bow spring centralizers for an under-reamed wellbore provide better centralization
than other types of centralizers under these conditions. Combining different types of centralizers improves
centralization of the casing string. When placing centralizers, it is necessary to consider the hanging point
between centralizers. Casing strings were run to target depths, because the types of centralizers selected
typically do not inhibit casing running.
The most critical factor for correct selection of centralizers is openhole caliper logging. Caliper logging
data provides information on actual diameter of the open hole, allowing the most efficient placement of
centralizers, significantly reducing the risks of casing under-reaching the target depth.
Casing centralization is one of the key factors for well cementing quality. However, to achieve a positive
result, it is necessary to apply an integrated approach. This approach should include all factors that affect
the quality of cementing. If one of the factors is neglected, the final result cannot be positive.

References
Liu, G. and Weber, L. 2012. Centralizer Selection and Placement Optimization. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling
and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 20–21 June. SPE 150345. https://doi.org/10.2118/150345-MS.
Guzman, J., Mavares, F., Monasterios, E. et al. 2018. Casing Centralization and Pipe Movement in Cementing Operations
for Improved Displacement Efficiency. PresentedPresented at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources
Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 25–26 June. SPE-191255-MS. doi: https://10.2118/191255-MS.
Kinzel, H. and Martens, J.G. 1998. The Application of New Centralizer Types to Improve Zone Isolation in Horizontal
Wells. PresentedPresented at the 6th International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Bejing, China. SPE-50438-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/50438-MS.
Sabins, F.L. 1990. Problems in Cementing Horizontal Wells. J Pet Technol 42: 4. SPE-20005-PA. https://
doi:10.2118/20005-PA.
Sanchez, R. A., Brown, C. F., Adams, W. 2012. Casing Centralization in Horizontal and Extended Reach Wells.
PresentedPresented at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Vienna,
Austria, 20–22 March. SPE-105317-MS. https://doi:10.2118/150317-MS.
Smith, T. R. 1989. Cementing Displacement Practices: Application in the Field. PresentedPresented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 Feb–3 March. SPE/IADC 18617. https://doi.org/10.2118/18617-MS.
SPEC 10D, Specification of Bow-Spring Casing Centralizers. 1995. Washington DC: API.