SPE-176061-MS

Achieving Zonal Isolation by Using New-Generation Mud Removal

Chemistry and Design Methodology to Displace Non-Aqueous Drilling
Fluid
Salim Taoutaou, Soo Hui Goh, Jorge Andres Vargas Bermea, and Manavit Vinaipanit, Schlumberger;
Jason McClure, Mubadala Petroleum

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20 –22 October 2015.

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
The criteria for success of any primary cementing job is achieving permanent zonal isolation. Incomplete
mud removal will affect the zonal isolation in several different ways and may lead to the development of
a communication channel in the annulus and subsequently jeopardize the well integrity.
Nonaqueous fluids (NAF) are incompatible with cement slurries; the quality of the cement placement
and set properties will be strongly affected by the presence of the NAF residue down hole. Although this
problem can be mitigated through the addition of various chemicals providing compatibility, mud-
thinning, reduction of the interfacial tension, and water-wetting functions, the current surfactants and
solvents on the market have limited application in terms of temperature and type of drilling fluids. In
addition, the current API/ISO testing protocols are generic and results are not reproducible. Recently,
improved laboratory procedures have been proposed and these improved experimental methods were used
on more than 200 surfactants and solvents. A screening process helped in selecting the optimum chemistry
as a function of the conditions (type of base oil, salinity, temperature). This enabled developing design
guidelines to select an optimized tensioactive package comprising a limited number of chemicals, from
which field users would select the ones to combine for their applications.
The new tensioactive package was used successfully in two field trial wells in the 7-in. liner sections
in a mature development field offshore Thailand. After a thorough comparison between the currently used
package and the new one, the laboratory results using the field mud show superior cleaning results and
efficiency with the new chemical package.
The zonal isolation was confirmed using an ultrasonic imager logging tool. After the two successful
field trials, the tensioactive package was selected as the spacer of choice for a critical new development
field campaign offshore Thailand in which zonal isolation between production zones was critical for
selective production from each of the zones separately.
This paper will describe the newly improved laboratory methodology and selection criteria of the new
tensioactive products and provide a detailed case history of the application in the development campaign,
including the design, execution and evaluation of the job.
2 SPE-176061-MS

Introduction
Many good cementing practices and mud displacement techniques have been used by the industry to
ensure quality primary oil well cementing (Bittleston and Guillot 1991). Good mud removal is achieved
by removing all traces of drilling mud, especially the nonaqueous fluid (NAF) film on the casing and
formation, with minimal contamination of the cement slurry with the drilling fluids. Good mud removal
begins with drilling a concentric, in-gauge well with minimum washout and dogleg severity followed by
good casing centralization during the cement placement. Conditioning the mud by casing rotation/
reciprocation to break down the gelled mud and loading the cement top and bottom plugs prior to
cementing can further improve the cleaning of mud and thus provide a physical barrier to separate mud
and cement, which are not compatible. Pumping a highly efficient spacer ahead of the cement slurry is the
last and most crucial step to close the loop on the above process.
A highly efficient spacer requires a highly effective surfactant and mutual solvent package that work
against nonaqueous fluids (NAF). The first oil-base muds used diesel, but since then, the entire NAF
systems have evolved to fulfil stringent environmental and performance requirements as we move to more
difficult terrain and unconventional methods to produce oil and gas. Drilling troublesome shale, ultra-
high-temperature/high-pressure (HTHP) wells, and highly deviated wells often requires a NAF system
that provides excellent borehole stability and withstands high temperature at the same time. The
innovation of NAF is not seen only in base oil type, but is also evident in the emulsifier type and advanced
polymers that are capable of withstanding adverse temperature conditions.
The development of the spacer has not kept up with the development of new mud. Although many ideas
have been introduced for enhancing the capability of the spacer to remove mud, the overall industry
direction for spacers is at an impasse, still at the first generation of using generic surfactant and solvent
in viscosified spacer fluid.
Although API RP 10B-2 (2013) provides more informative testing guidelines than previous versions of
the recommended practice for the compatibility of wellbore fluid, there is still only a single spacer
surfactant selection test (SSST) applied to the design of an effective water-wetting spacer. The omission
of recognizing the need to know the detergency of the surfactant often leads to questionable selection. In
addition, the available SSST equipment suffers from several weaknesses leading to irreproducible and
inconclusive results in evaluating spacer efficiency.
In the next sections, we discuss the application of a new tensioactive surfactant package, provide
selection guidelines on the surfactant and solvent combination, set the acceptance criteria, and refine the
current mud-removal testing methodology with the aim of improving the NAF-removal efficiency of
spacer.

Development of the Engineered Spacer

The application of surfactants and solvent are not new to the oilfield industry. With more than 3,500
commercial surfactants produced by more than 500 chemical suppliers [as discussed by Kefi et al. (2014)]
available in the market, finding the right surfactant effective against all nonaqueous fluids (NAF) poses
a challenge.
Understanding the mud and the surfactant chemistry enables us to tailor the surfactants that suit the
mud-removal application; sources used to gain this understanding include industry references and theories
such as hydrophilic lipophilic balance and hydrophilic lipophilic deviation, cloud point, and net average
curvature, as described by Kefi et al. (2014). The interaction between the parameters that could potentially
affect the spacer performance has also been studied. By employing a statistical experimental design
method known as response surface methodology (RSM), it was concluded that three main factors govern
the efficiency of the tensioactive material: bottomhole circulating temperature (BHCT), NAF base oil, and
spacer salinity (Fig. 1).
SPE-176061-MS 3

Figure 1—The selection chart of the new engineered spacer based on three main parameters: base oil type, bottomhole circulating
temperature of the well, and salinity of the spacer

New Mud-Removal Testing Methodologies and Acceptance Criteria

Testing methodology defines how efficient the surfactant packages are in terms of detergency, de-
emulsification, and water-wetting capabilities of the spacer during the displacement of nonaqueous fluids
(NAF) under downhole conditions (Fig.2). Therefore, each testing methodology must be able to emulate
as closely as possible the mechanism occurred downhole.

Figure 2—Fluid displacement sequence and the required function of the spacer at each zone during primary cementing job
4 SPE-176061-MS

Table 1—Summary of the fluid displacement sequence coordinated with laboratory testing
Zones Fluid involved Required task Properties Testing

Zone 1 Spacer/NAF Erode mud on wall Detergency, ability to clean mud Rotor cleaning test*
interface
Intermixing of NAF Emulsion inversion Demulsifying SSST*
with spacer
Spacer/NAF - Controllable rheology profile NAF/Spacer compatibility
(R-index)*
Zone 2 Spacer Water wetting the Water wetting Casing water wetting test*
casing/formation
Spacer stability to Stable, no sedimentation Free fluid and sedimentation test
suspend
weighting agent
from mud or
mixture
Zone 3 Spacer/cement - Controllable rheology profile Spacer/cement compatibility
(R-index)*
- No detrimental effect on thickening 10%/90% contamination effect on
time thickening time
- No detrimental effect on 10%/90% contamination effect on
compressive strength compressive strength [ultrasonic
development cement analyzer UCA)
compressive strength testing]

*Modification on testing methodology applied

Rotor Cleaning Test

The rotor cleaning test is the improved version of the grid test that has long been applied by the drilling
mud industry to quantitatively measure the mud-cleaning efficiency of the surfactant, although it has not
been recommended by API.
A Chan 35 closed-cup rotor is used together with a grid mesh slotted onto the rotor body to provide
a rough surface to pick up the mud, and this is subsequently washed by the spacer. The weight loss is
measured every 5 min up to 30 min after cleaning corresponds to the detergency of the surfactant. The
deficiency lies in the setup; the gap between the rotor and grid exerts a capillary effect, causing false
weight increase and no weight drop across time as the weighting agent in the mud gets stuck on the mesh,
even though the cleaning efficiency is good.
A sand-blasted rotor (Fig. 3) introduced to provide a rough surface with no capillary effect has yielded
highly repetitive results. The rotor is immersed in the conditioned field mud for 2 min and is left to drip
for 2 min. The weight of the rotor is determined prior to dipping (W0) and after dipping in mud (W1) with
the closed end wiped clean. The control of the experiment begins by washing the rotor with fresh water.
Subsequently, a wash consisting of the surfactant and solvent is heated to the operating temperature, and
the mud-coated sleeves are submerged in the wash with a rotational speed of 100 rpm for 10 min, followed
by dripping for 2 min. The final weight of the rotor sleeve (W2) with the closed end being wiped clean
is recorded. The same steps are repeated with another rotor sleeve to obtain the average percent cleaning
efficiency using Equation 1:
(1)
SPE-176061-MS 5

Figure 3—Comparison of the sand-blasted rotor (left) versus the grid test rotor (right)

A tensioactive package that achieves an average of more than 85% cleaning efficiency is considered
a correct choice; if that is not achieved, the rotor cleaning test of other combinations in the selection
diagram must be performed to determine the optimal selection for the corresponding field mud.
Spacer Surfactant Screening Test (SSST)
The SSST, more commonly known as reverse emulsion testing (RET), is one of the most promising
testing technique by far to identify the volume of spacer required to invert the mud emulsion from oil wet
to water wet.
NAF is a water-in-oil emulsion with oil as the continuous phase, which is nonconductive. In this test,
the spacer containing tensioactive additives is titrated into the mud. At the inversion point, the stability
of the mud emulsion is disturbed, leading to the inversion of the emulsion from water-in-oil to oil-in-water
(Fig. 4). With water as the external continuous phase, the water-wetting property is promoted.

Figure 4 —The impedance response of the NAF when spacer with surfactant/solvent was added to invert the NAF. 1) NAF, which is a
water-in-oil emulsion, has a very high impedance value because the base oil is the continuous phase. 2) As the spacer containing
surfactant/solvent is added to the NAF, the emulsion destabilizes, signified by a drop in impedance value. 3) Inversion is completed,
forming an oil-in-water emulsion. The hydrophilic continuous phase is very conductive, resulting in very low impedance value

The lesser the volume required implies a more efficient surfactant or surfactant and solvent combi-
nation in inverting the emulsion of the NAF. API RP 10B-2 (April 2013) contains a more detailed testing
protocols compared to the previous version, and shows that the importance of the testing method lies in
the interpretation of the results rather than the test method itself.
Several types of wettability equipment are available, but the setups mainly measure a single parameter,
either the current in milliampere (mA) or the resistance in ohm (⍀). To begin an RET, the equipment must
first be calibrated with a neat spacer value that is high in conductivity. Then, the mud, which is fully
6 SPE-176061-MS

nonconductive, is titrated with spacer at a fixed volume, up to the point when the measurement returns
back to the initial neat spacer value, indicating the inversion point.
The problem often encountered by this type of measurement is when the plot shows no acute change
in conductivity or resistance even when the volume of the spacer added exceeds the volume of mud itself.
Worse, though, is when the reading plateaus at a value lower than the neat spacer, which leads to
ambiguous results. Sometimes the weighting agent in the spacer has an adverse impact on the inversion
reading; therefore, the RET is often performed without the weighting agent.
To overcome all these deficiencies, a more durable measuring parameter to determine the inversion
point has been proposed (Kefi et al. 2014). Measuring the impedance value Z and phase angle ␪of the
mud/spacer mixture gives more promising results, as the complexity of other interacting components in
alternating current are taken into account. Impedance, which is the function of capacitance and inductance,
and the fraction of a period of time when voltage and current culminate denote the phase angle␪, giving
a complete picture of the electricity transformation of the NAF during the RET. Any threefold drop of the
impedance value under the condition that the impedance must be less than 1 M⍀ is considered as the
inversion point.
Surfactant packages that are capable of inverting the mud with less than 40% spacer volume are
considered to have a good performance.

Other Testing
The stability of the spacer and the compatibility of the wellbore fluid is emphasized in API RP 10B-2 to
show how important these two parameters are in designing an efficient spacer. A spacer is considered
stable when the density variation of top and bottom is less than 5% with free fluid less than 1% after the
fluid is conditioned at BHCT and left static for 2 hr.
Incompatibilities of the downhole fluid often cause gelation or sludge and sometimes phase separation
of fluid and solid. The compatibility test consists of testing the rheological properties of the NAF with the
aqueous spacer mixture and cement slurry. The rheology reading is taken in a ramp-down manner for the
mixtures of NAF/spacer and NAF/cement slurry at the API recommended ratio of 95/5, 75/25, 50/50,
25/75, and 5/95 and any other ratios of interest. Based on careful observation, most often the incompat-
ibilities appear to be at the inversion point and, therefore, the percentage inversion ratio obtained from the
SSST is also included. The R-index is determined by subtracting the highest dial reading of the pure fluid
at 100 rpm out the highest reading among the different ratios tested.
The results are classified into three categories rather than the two categories in the previous version of
API RP-10B. A positive R-index with a value below 40 is considered compatible whereas above 40 is
slightly incompatible. Any reading above 70 is considered incompatible, and the redesign of spacer is
required. The new category in API RP-10B-2 is for mixtures with an R-index of zero. In this category are
mixture fluids with rheological readings not lower than the lowest of the pure fluid; these mixtures were
previously grouped in the negative category. The third category is the negative R-index category in which
the mixture fluid has a lower R-index than the original fluid. An R-index lower than –10 signifies potential
instability of the spacer (Fig. 5).
SPE-176061-MS 7

Figure 5—Three different conditions of R-index value. 1) Positive R-index is when the mixture of both fluids has a higher reading
compared to that of the pure fluid. 2) Zero R-index in when the mixture of both fluid falls in between the readings of the pure fluid. 3)
Negative R-index is when the mixture of the both fluids have a lower reading compared to the original pure fluid

Contamination Test
The purpose of performing a contamination test is to determine whether the spacer formulation causes an
adverse effect on the thickening time and the compressive strength of the cement slurry. The ratio tested
is the API-recommended ratio of 10/90 spacer/cement slurry. The charts obtained are then compared with
the chart for the slurry contaminated with 10% pure spacer to determine the degree of impact of spacer
on the cement setting properties. The acceptable range for the thickening time test is 10% setting time
deviation and also 10% compressive strength difference after 24 hr or 10% difference in time developing
initial compressive strength for UCA test.
Field Trial
The first field test (McClure et al. 2014) of the engineered spacer was conducted in a well in a mature
development field located offshore in the Gulf of Thailand. The candidate well was drilled with Escaid
(110 nonaqueous fluid having a density of 1.11 SG. In the past, this field experienced poor bond logs after
cementing jobs at 152.4 m in the 8½-in. section. The field trial was performed in the 7-in. production
casing where the well inclination was 60(. The biggest challenge encountered was the low standoff in the
production interval, which was at 50% (Fig. 6).

Figure 6 —Centralization simulations of the candidate well for field trial in mature development field

Prior to field testing, 1.11-SG field mud was tested with engineered spacer in the laboratory and
compared to the existing surfactant used for the previous string for comparison. The engineered spacer
demonstrated overall better performance results.
The cleaning efficiency was significantly improved from 16% of the benchmark to 56% for the
engineered spacer. No free water was collected, 0.8% sedimentation indicated that the viscosifier was
8 SPE-176061-MS

adequate, and the addition of new tensioactive packages had no adverse effect on the stability of the
spacer.
Having an R-index of 0 for engineered spacer compared to existing surfactant, with an R-index of 2
revealed that the mud and engineered spacer are highly compatible.
The new spacer required only 15% spacer volume to achieve complete inversion of the mud from oil
wet to water wet compared to the benchmark slurry, which requires up to 30% volume of spacer.
For the contamination test, 10% of spacer with the existing surfactant had shortened the thickening time
of the cement slurry by nearly 2 hr; for the engineered spacer, the thickening time was 30 min shorter
compared to the benchmark slurry contaminated with neat spacer.
The contamination test with the ultrasonic cement analyzer (UCA) shows 10% engineered spacer does
not impede the compressive strength buildup of the cement slurry.
Overall, the results (Fig. 7) show improvement of mud removal prior to the cementing job.

Figure 7—Summary of the comparative studies results for engineered spacer and conventional spacer for field test well

During the field test, 50 bbl of engineered spacer were batch mixed; sea water was used as the base
fluid. The 1.56-SG spacer was pumped ahead of 1.7-SG lead slurry. During the preparation of the spacer,
no mixing or excessive foaming were seen. The job was pumped successfully.
The return of the mud and spacer was carefully monitored at the mud pit at the end of the displacement.
The mixture was thin and flowable, and no sludge was observed. Several samples of the mixture were
collected during the displacement.
Rheology measurements of the returned mixture using the Fann rheometer were performed, and the
results were lower than the neat spacer, as shown in Table 2. These results are comparable to the ones
performed prior to job, indicating that there were no incompatibility issues encountered at downhole
conditions.
SPE-176061-MS 9

Table 2—Fann 35 rheology measurement of the NAF mud, the engineered spacer, and the return samples
Fann 35 NAF, 1.08SG Engineered Spacer, 1.22SG Return Sample

Rotor speed, rpm Dial Reading Dial Reading Dial Reading

600 41 75 56
300 28 57 40
200 22 48 33
100 17 38 26
6 10 17 13
3 9 14 11
PV (cP) 13 18 16
Ty (lbf/100ft2) 15 39 24
Density obtained (SG) 1.08 1.21 1.20
R-Index 0

The ultrasonic imaging cement bond log tool was used to evaluate the isolation of the new engineered
spacer. The results showed significant improvement across the production section intervals compared to
the first and second bond log obtained. It is worth highlighting that in these intervals the cement recipe
was kept the same as the previous wells (Fig. 8).

Figure 8 —Field trial ultrasonic imaging tool bond log for 7-in. liner section of sidetrack well in mature development field at perforation
interval of approximately 2377 m(7800 ft) to 2393m (7850 ft). Which one is conventional and which one is new package??
10 SPE-176061-MS

Case Histories
After another successful field trial in the mature development field, the engineered spacer was qualified
to be used for a critical development campaign in a new field where zonal isolation between the different
reservoir sections was paramount to achieving the production objectives. The optimized spacer was used
in the 9 5⁄8-in. and the 7-in. casings. The 9 5⁄8-in. casing section in well A and the 7-in. liner section in well
B are discussed in this section. The 7-in. liner section in well B was the most critical one since intelligent
completions were to be used to selectively produce the well from the desired reservoir zones; for this
reason, zonal isolation needed to be achieved not only for the entire 7-in. liner section but also between
each of the reservoirs to be able to selectively produce from each zone. Some of these reservoirs were
separated by just 2.44 m, and therefore achieving competent cement coverage between them was a great
challenge. Mud removal was the key factor in ensuring uniform cement coverage was fully achieved.

Well A: 9 5⁄8-in. Casing

Two cement jobs were performed using the optimized spacer package; only one cement job will be
discussed since they had similar well configurations (Fig. 9). The first spacer ahead, 100 bbl of the
optimized spacer, was mixed and pumped at 1.3 SG. This was followed by 140 bbl of conventional spacer
at 1.44 SG as second spacer ahead. The fluid sequence (Table 3) was designed so that some of the
optimized spacer would return to surface to allow collection of returned samples for post-job evaluation.
Conventional 1.62-SG Class G extended cement lead slurry was placed from 945 m measured depth (MD)
to 1859 m MD (305 m MD above the shallowest hydrocarbon). The tail consisting of 1.89-SG Class G
cement and 35% silica blend cement slurry was placed from total depth (TD) up to 1859 m MD, 91 m
true vertical depth (TVD) above the cutoff depth. The bottomhole static temperature (BHST) was 110°C
(Fig. 10). The volume was based on a 12.3-in. openhole size with no excess, as per the operator’s
requirements.

Figure 9 —Well schematic for the 9 5⁄8-in. casing section of well A in the new development field
SPE-176061-MS 11

Table 3—Fluid sequence and pumping schedule for the 9 5/8-in. casing, well A
Flow Rate Volume Density Stage Time
Name (bbl/min) (bbl) (SG) (min)

Optimized Spacer 5.0 100.0 1.31 20.0

Conventional Spacer 5.0 140.0 1.44 28.0
Drop Bottom Plug 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Lead Slurry 5.0 170.9 1.62 34.2
Tail Slurry 5.0 136.9 1.89 27.4
Drop Top Plug 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Synthetic-Base Mud 8.0 603.2 1.10 75.4
Synthetic-Base Mud 2.0 20.0 1.10 10.0

Figure 10 —Fluid placements for the 9 5⁄8-in. casing section of well A in the new development field

The centralization program for this string was expected to give a minimum standoff of 57% across the
cemented section at depth of 1707 m MD (in a 12.3-in. gauged hole) using 2/1 for the first six joints and
then 1/1 to 410 m MD as per the final casing tally. Top of cement was planned at 945 m MD (Fig. 11).

Figure 11—Centralization simulations for the 9 5⁄8-in. casing section of well A in the new development field
12 SPE-176061-MS

Well B: 7-in. Liner

A total of five cement jobs were performed using the optimized spacer package; one job will be taken as
the example for the case history (Fig. 12). The first spacer ahead was 100 bbl of the optimized spacer
weighted at 1.35 SG (Table 4). This was followed by a 1.89-SG Class G and 35% silica blend cement
slurry covering the entire liner section. The slurry selected for this section was gas tight to ensure no fluids
migration occurred while the cement slurry was setting. In addition, the slurry exhibited uniform
compressive strength development both at bottom and top of the section; setting temperature at the top of
the liner was lower than the BHST (Fig. 13). The volume was based on an 8½-in. openhole size with no
excess, as per the operator’s requirement. Fluid densities and rheologies were tailored to ensure a proper
mud removal could be achieved (Fig. 14).

Figure 12—Well schematic for the 7-in. liner section for well B in the new development field

Table 4 —Fluid sequences and pumping schedule for the 7-in. liner, well B
Flow Rate Volume Density Stage Time
Name (bpm) (bbl) (SG) (min)

Optimized Spacer 5.0 100.0 1.35 20.0

Single Slurry 4.5 41.9 1.89 8.4
Drop Dart 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
NaCl Brine 4.0 – 6.0 74.0 1.15 11.0
Sea Water 5.0 15.0 1.03 3.0
NaCl Brine 4.0 – 6.0 122.0 1.15 30.9
NaCl Brine 2.0 10.0 1.15 5.0

Figure 13—Compressive strength laboratory testing results for 1.89-SG slurry at different downhole conditions for the 7-in. liner
section of well B in the new development field
SPE-176061-MS 13

Figure 14 —Fluid placements for the 7-in. liner section of well B in the new development field

The centralization program for this string was expected to give a minimum standoff of 68% across the
cemented section at depth 2524 m MD and 60(well deviation. The centralization program was based on
2/1 for the entire section (Fig. 15).

Figure 15—Centralization simulations for the 7-in. liner section of well B in the new development field

Evaluation
Well A: 9 5⁄8-in. Casing The cement evaluation logs performed show lower cement bond log amplitudes
as well as stronger formation arrivals in the Variable Density logs (Fig. 16).
14 SPE-176061-MS

Figure 16 —Comparison of the cement bond log/Variable Density log (CBL/VDL) for both optimized spacer and conventional spacer at
the 9 5⁄8-in. casing tail section of well A in the new development field

Ultrasonic imaging tools also confirmed good isolation results (Fig. 17). These are all indications of a
better and more uniform cement coverage across the section. Furthermore, no sustained casing pressure
has been detected in any of the wells at a later stage. In addition, the compatibility tests performed on the
actual returned spacer from the cement job gave a satisfactory R-index (Fig. 18).
SPE-176061-MS 15

Figure 17—Ultrasonic imaging tool cement bond log of optimized spacer (left) compared with conventional spacer (right) at the 9 5⁄8-in.
casing lead section of well B in the new development field

Figure 18 —Optimized spacer compatibility test results for laboratory-prepared sample (left) and actual job return sample (right) for
post-job evaluation in the new development field

Well B: 7-in. Liner All cement evaluation logs performed for all five jobs indicated that zonal isolation
was achieved as per plan. Each production interval was properly isolated, and the objective of the well was
16 SPE-176061-MS

achieved (Figs. 19–21). Uniform cement coverage can be detected throughout the entire openhole section.
The wells were perforated as per plan and are now in production.

Figure 19 —Ultrasonic imaging tool cement bond log for the 7-in. liner section of well B at the first perforation interval, 2793 m (9164
ft) to 2502 m (8208 ft) in the new development field
SPE-176061-MS 17

Figure 20 —Ultrasonic imaging tool cement bond log for 7-in. liner section of well B at the second perforation interval, 2835 m (9300 ft)
to 2839 m (9314 ft), in the new development field
18 SPE-176061-MS

Figure 21—Ultrasonic imagine tool cement bond log for the 7-in. liner section of well B at the third and fourth perforation intervals, 2849
m (9346 ft) to 2852 m (9358 ft) and 2855 m (9366 ft) to 2863 m (9392 ft), in the new development fiel
SPE-176061-MS 19

Conclusion
The new blend of surfactant and solvent offers the industry an optimal chemistry to achieve good mud
removal in a spacer proven with laboratory testing and field case histories. The engineered selection and
the advancement of the testing methodology provides a more resilient way of selecting and evaluating the
performance of the optimized spacer packages in achieving good mud removal during primary cementing.
The implementation of the new engineered spacer in offshore Gulf of Thailand field ensured proper
isolation of reservoir sections and met all the design objectives.
When compared to conventional spacer systems, the optimized spacer package shows a higher degree
of compatibility and mud-removal efficiency, as proven by the cement evaluation logs.

Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Schlumberger and Mubadala Petroleum for permission to publish this work.

References
API RP 10B-2, Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements, second edition. 2013. Washington
DC: API.
Bittleston, S. and Guillot, D. Mud Removal: Research Improves Traditional Cementing Guidelines.
Oilfield Review 3 (2): 44 –54.
Kefi, S., Pershikova, E., Docherty, K. et alet al. 2014. Successful Cementing Based on New
Methodology. Paper SPE 167948 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition
held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 4-6 March 2014. SPE-167948-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
167948-MS.
McClure, J., Khalfallah, I., Taoutaou, S. et alet al. 2014. New Cement Spacer Chemistry Enhances
Removal of Nonaqueous Drilling Fluid. Jour. Pet Technol 66 (10): 33–35.