IADC/SPE 112872

Trapped Annular Pressure Mitigation: A Spacer Fluid That Shrinks: Update

B. Bloys, SPE, M. Gonzalez, SPE, J. Lofton, SPE, R. Carpenter, SPE, S. Azar, SPE, D. Williams, SPE,
J. McKenzie, SPE, and J. Capo, SPE, Chevron; R. Hermes, Los Alamos National Laboratory; R. Bland, SPE,
R. Foley, SPE, and F. Harvey, SPE, Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids; J. Daniel, F. Billings, and I. Robinson,
Lucite International; and M. Allison, Flow Process Technologies Incorporated

Copyright 2008, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., 4–6 March 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
In deepwater or other sub-sea completed wells, fluids, usually spacers or drilling fluid, are commonly trapped in
casing annuli above the top-of-cement and below the wellhead. When these trapped fluids are heated by the
passage of warm produced fluids, thermal expansion can create very high pressures (10,000 -12,000 psi or more)
and cause the collapse of casing and tubing strings.1,2,4,12,15

Mitigation methods such as vacuum insulated tubing to limit heat transfer,6,7,14 nitrogen-based foam spacers to
give highly compressible trapped fluids,8,9,10,11 crushable urethane foam,3 etc. are somewhat successful but are
either very expensive, logistically troublesome or have unacceptable failure rates. This paper continues the
discussion of a new approach which has created a water-based spacer fluid that will be used just ahead of the
cement. The spacer contains perhaps 10-30% of emulsified liquid methyl methacrylate monomer (MMA). Upon
polymerization, the MMA phase shrinks by 20%, creating room for the remaining fluid to thermally expand without
creating catastrophic pressure. The polymerization is triggered by heat and a chemical initiator. The target
temperature can be controlled by choosing an appropriate type and concentration of chemical initiator. Premature
polymerization during spacer placement can be prevented by an appropriate type, and amount, of inhibitor. The
initial lab work and a mid-scale field trial of this technology were reported in detail in SPE/IADC 104698.1

This paper covers the development and field testing (land) of all the equipment and processes necessary to apply
the technology in deep water.

Introduction
Trapped annular pressure (TAP), also called Annular Pressure Build-up (APB), is due to the thermal expansion of
fluids trapped in casing annuli, most commonly between the top of cement and the wellhead or seal assembly.
The pressure build-up is usually due to the heat brought up by produced fluids, but can even be triggered by the
circulation of hot drilling fluids while drilling an HTHP well.13 The pressure produced can easily exceed the
collapse strength of casing and production tubing. In land wells annular pressure is easily relieved by bleeding off
some fluid through a casing-head valve (although even land wells are occasionally lost through inattention). In
subsea completed wells the wellheads are much less accessible and generally not fitted with the necessary
valves.

One of the best documented cases involved BP’s Marlin Field, where the production casing and tubing of the first
production well collapsed after only a few days of production.5,6,7 The industry has employed a wide range of
mitigation techniques, including vacuum insulated tubing (VIT - limit heat transfer), leaving the previous casing
shoe uncemented (leak path to “weak” rock), burst disks in casing, nitrogen based spacers (compressible gas),
crushable urethane foam, etc.

Perhaps the most successful mitigation approach has been the use of VIT. This technique has been generally
2 IADC/SPE 112872

successful in keeping the annular fluid temperatures within an acceptable range (which will mitigate the increases
in annular pressure). However, with the advent of deeper and hotter wells in deepwater, we are approaching the
limits of the protection provided by the VIT in two ways. First, the deeper wells have much higher hanging
weights which are now reaching the stress limits of the VIT tubing designs. Second, the deeper depths are also
producing higher temperatures. Even with VIT’s insulating effects, the temperatures are high enough that
pressures are predicted to increase to unacceptable levels.

Other issues include reliability (gas spacers, uncemented casing shoes), and logistics (crushable foam). This
technology represents an effort to find a reasonably priced, reliable, easy-to-apply mitigation technique for
trapped annular pressure.

This paper picks up where the “proof-of-concept” mid-scale field trial of SPE/IADC 104698 left off. In preparation
for the deep water deployment of the “shrinking spacer” it was necessary to extend the matrix of formulations to
cover the full range of temperatures and densities that might be encountered in our next few deep water wells.
Long term tests were also conducted to extend the understanding of inhibition and initiation of the key chemical
reaction. Extensive compatibility tests were done to ensure that no unexpected problems occurred when the
spacer was exposed to various elastomers, cement, cement spacers, drilling fluids and salts. It was also
necessary to design, manufacture and test several equipment skids needed to prepare and transfer the
spacer/emulsion, and to add the initiator as the spacer is pumped downhole. A detailed operations document
was developed for preparing and pumping the spacer, and then a rigorous risk analysis was done on every step
by the health/safety/environment (HSE) personnel of the major companies involved. Finally, a full scale test of all
the equipment and procedures was conducted in a land well in northeast Texas.

Recent Lab Work

Pressure vessels were used to test TAP spacer formulations as a function of composition, temperature history,
and time. Formulations were tested ranging from unweighted to 14.6 ppg (16+ ppg not a problem) with various
concentrations and types of inhibitors and thermal polymerization initiators. Additionally, monomer concentrations
ranged from 7-22% by volume (5-16% by weight of the total mud). Higher MMA concentrations are possible if
needed. The polymerization reaction was tracked by recording the pressure increase/decrease observed while
heating over time. In a typical experiment, the pressure vessel was charged with the mud at room temperature,
pre-pressurized to a predetermined level, and heated either quickly (boiling water), or placed in a convection
oven. The type and amount of initiators and inhibitors can be readily adjusted to meet a broad range of downhole
conditions.

A test was designed to show that the inhibited spacer, as shipped to the rig (no initiator), is very stable. A
formulation with the current inhibition package was held at 140° F for over 5 weeks with no appreciable sign of
polymerization. This shows that even if there is a delay after the spacer is mixed there is no danger of the
polymerization occurring early, even during the hottest part of the year.

Further long-term experiments were run to determine the behavior of the spacer once the initiator had been
added. In the field the initiator would be added just prior to pumping the spacer downhole. Several long-term
experiments (weeks to months) were performed to simulate the static conditions before a well is brought on
production. Figure 1 shows the pressure trace for a couple of TAP spacer formulations that were held at 105° F
for 70+ days. Under these rather mild ambient conditions the MMA will very slowly react/shrink (weeks/months),
again, depending on the nature of the initiator/inhibitor package. Under higher production temperatures the MMA
will react/shrink quickly (hours).

The next section of this paper covers the effect of the spacer on various well components and fluids, but it was
also important to determine the contamination effect on the polymerization chemistry. The spacer formulation
proved to be quite robust and no negative effects on the kinetics of the polymerization were noted from
contamination with cement, synthetic-based mud (SBM), salt or cement spacer. Extremely high contamination
with salt did somewhat destabilize the emulsion (solved with extra surfactant), but the reaction/shrinkage was not
affected.

A convenient method for determining the amount of monomer used up during the reaction process was also
developed, using refractometry (refractive index). Mud samples are diluted with a solvent which dissolves the
monomer but not the polymer. A sample of the resulting liquid phase is then removed and analyzed with a
refractometer. The refractive index is proportional to residual monomer level so the sample results are just
compared with a calibration curve. This simple method was designed to be used at the rigsite. An example of
this is shown in Figure 2, where samples of the Carthage field test were analyzed for remaining monomer, and
IADC/SPE 112872 3

converted to % polymerization as a function of depth in the well. The samples were taken the next day during
well cleanup/displacement. The results clearly indicate that polymerization occurred as expected for the
temperature profile of the well (full reaction in the hot section, little/no reaction in the coolest section). The
reaction also provided shrinkage, as expected (see Figure 3 for the pressure trace vs. time).

To aid in the design of customized formulations for specific wells a spreadsheet-based tool was designed which,
for a given set of temperature and pressure conditions, can generate a ternary diagram outlining the amounts of
major spacer components necessary to produce the desired amount of shrinkage. A range of MMA
concentrations are considered, which produce from substantial shrinkage relative to original annular volume, to
mildly reduced thermal expansion (say 3% instead of 4.5%). The current philosophy is to choose an MMA
concentration that will relieve all of the expected pressure increase, plus a small safety factor. Figure 4 shows an
example of the output from the tool for the conditions of 230° F, 4000 psi. The composition for the Carthage/JT
Ross #3 field trial formulation is noted on the diagram.

Compatibility Testing
Since the TAP spacer is new to rig operations an extensive set of compatibility tests were run to ensure an
acceptable effect on elastomers, and to ensure tolerable viscosities were maintained when the spacer was
possibly contaminated during displacement with synthetic-based mud (SBM), cement, salt, and cement spacers.

The elastomer exposure times (if any) are expected to be very short as the spacer is pumped into place. The test
results (immersion) for a wide range of elastomers are shown in Table 1 for room temperature and 3 hours of
exposure time. The 6-hour and 12-hour tests were similar. Some minor swelling and softening are noted, but
neither the Chevron nor Baker elastomer experts were concerned.

The viscosity testing matrix for TAP spacer intermixing with SBM, cement, cement spacers or salts is too large to
reproduce here, but a representative sample of the data (SBM & cement spacer) is shown in Table 2. The
viscosities for all mixtures are essentially linear mixes of the two materials with no unexpected viscosity increases
that might cause excessive pressures when pumping the spacer into place.

Salt contamination also produced minimal viscosity increases, although extra surfactant was required to maintain
a stable emulsion at the highest contamination level (10% by weight).

The spacer placement design process should always minimize the chance of TAP spacer becoming intermingled
with the active mud system (leave some SBM as a “cap” in upper annulus). However, on the off-chance that
some TAP spacer might get mixed in with the SBM, a bioassay was done to determine the effect on the mysid
shrimp LC50. This value is one factor in determining whether drilled cuttings can be dumped offshore, or whether
they have to be hauled to land for alternate disposal. A sample of SBM from an active deepwater well was
chosen as a baseline, and its LC50 was 398,000 ppm. When the same fluid was contaminated with 10% (vol.) of
the TAP spacer the LC50 was 281,000 ppm, still very safely in excess of the minimum 30,000 ppm required to
pass. Note however that pure TAP spacer should not be dumped offshore. The formulation contains very high
surfactant concentrations that produce a very low LC50 value.

Mixing and Pumping Equipment

Several pieces of specialized equipment had to be designed and fabricated in order to safely, accurately and
efficiently mix, transfer, and pump the new TAP spacer. Because of the volatility of MMA it is preferred that all
mixing and storage be done in closed systems, not typical open-topped mud tanks. Key challenges included: 1)
accurately metering together the desired amounts of MMA and base spacer fluid, 2) establishing a stable
emulsion, 3) transferring the spacer to and from transport tanks, 4) accurately metering in the initiator solution just
as the spacer is being pumped downhole, and 5) doing all of this at flow rates in the 5-10 bbl/min range.

The first piece of equipment in the process is the spacer mixing skid Figure 5. MMA is pulled into the system
using a positive displacement gear-type pump, which produces very well controlled flow rates. Just downstream
of this pump is a turbine flow meter to monitor the volume of MMA being added to the spacer. The concentrated
base mud is fed to the skid by the mud plant pumps, and this volume is metered through a magnetic flow meter.
The total flow is also monitored with a magnetic flow meter. The combined streams are then passed through a
very efficient high-shear mixer, which produces a stable emulsion in a single pass. A final check of the spacer
density is performed by a Coriolis meter, before the spacer is pumped to the closed, vented storage tanks. A
pneumatically operated throttling valve to controls on/off operation and flow rate. A central programmable logic
controller (PLC) monitors all measurement devices, pump speeds, valve positions, etc. to maintain the pre-
programmed composition for the spacer.
4 IADC/SPE 112872

The second piece of equipment is a simple manifold and pump skid (Figure 6) that allows the spacer to be drawn
from up to 6 tanks simultaneously when pumping it into the wellbore. The centrifugal pump also pushes the
emulsified spacer through the initiator addition skid, and acts as a charge pump for the high pressure pumping
unit (cement unit or stand-alone pumping skid).

The chemical initiator is only added as the spacer is being pumped downhole. The powdered material is
dissolved in water in a simple plastic tank (Figure 7) using a paddle stirrer and/or recirculating the tank with a
small pump skid.

The final piece of new equipment is the initiator addition skid (Figure 8). The initiator solution is pulled into the
system using a gear pump (typically 5-7% of total flow). The emulsified spacer is fed to the skid by the centrifugal
pump on the manifold skid. Again, both streams are monitored via magnetic flow meters, the streams are
thoroughly mixed through a high shear mixer, and everything is controlled/monitored via a PLC station. All
equipment meets applicable standards for explosion-proof service (Class 1, Div. 1).

Expected Offshore Application Processes

On the first planned application of this fluid in an upcoming Chevron well, the fluid will be mixed at the service
company mud plant/dock and put into closed-top, vented, DOT/USCG approved transport tanks and moved to the
rig using offshore supply vessels. The 100-barrel tanks are designed to be lifted and transported with fluid. The
100-barrel tanks, manifold skid, the initiator solution tank, the initiator addition skid, and a high pressure (HP)
pump skid will be placed on an upper deck in an accessible location to the rig floor. The weights and footprints
have been chosen to accommodate the 350 lbs/ft2 deck-load limit for this location. After landing casing in the
wellhead, while circulating the casing prior to cementing, a HP steel line will run to the rig floor from the HP pump
associated with the TAP fluid. This line will tie into the drill pipe through a three way manifold on the floor (rig
pump, rig cement unit, TAP HP pump skid).

The TAP fluid is simply pumped as a spacer at the appropriate time in front of the cement. The fluid is pulled from
the tanks, through a manifold, by the centrifugal pump on the manifold skid. A gear pump on the initiator addition
skid will carefully ratio in a side-stream of initiator-in-water solution (5-7%, mixed on-site at the last minute), and
then an in-line high-shear unit will ensure thorough mixing. The completed spacer is then passed to the HP
pumping unit. The fluid is to be pumped such that it will be placed in the desired part of the annulus when the
cement job is complete. This includes leaving perhaps 50-bbls of mud in the top of the annulus to ensure that no
TAP spacer fingers through the mud and gets into the active mud system. The spacer is formulated with enough
MMA to ensure adequate shrinkage to offset all of the thermal expansion of all fluids in the annulus. The mixing
operation is started and completed prior to beginning the cementing operation. The line from the TAP HP pump
skid is tied in to pump down the drill pipe landing string through the previously mentioned manifold on the rig floor.
When the desired quantity of water-based TAP fluid has been initiated and pumped, the line is cleared to the rig
floor with water and the valves on the manifold are closed isolating the HP TAP pump skid. The cement job is
then pumped down the drill pipe as it normally would be done - using the rig cement unit and the rig pumps.

The clean-up of the TAP spacer lines and equipment uses water pumped back through the lines using centrifugal
pumps and ending in the 100-barrel transport tanks which were emptied during the spacer placement operation.
All clean-up fluids are returned to the service company dock in these 100-barrel tanks for proper disposal. All
fluids will be treated with an aggressive, low temperature initiator to insure full reaction of the MMA to inert PMMA
by the time the tanks return to the mud plant. This will minimize any HSE issues during tank clean-up and waste
fluid disposal.

Safe Handling of MMA Monomer and Risk Assessment of Process

Mud Plant – Handling Pure MMA
MMA (methyl methacrylate) is a building block of many plastics, paints, and other modern products. As such it
has been used for many years safely and without major incidents. Several key factors to consider when handling
MMA are personal protective equipment (PPE), fire potential, static control, possible runaway reaction, and
cleanup should there be a spill.

A thorough Risk Analysis should be done before using MMA or other reactive materials in a spacer fluid. Any of
the various process hazard review formats may be used, and companies often customize their own format. Some
of the items to be considered and mitigated are: overheating, overfilling, excess initiator (“catalyst”), equipment
malfunctions, static electricity generation, and fume exposure. For example, possible fume exposure is mitigated
IADC/SPE 112872 5

by maintaining lids/hatches closed and processing the MMA in a closed system with vapor recovery to the tank
wagon while mixing. Static electricity generation is prevented by grounding all equipment/tanks and testing all
grounds using conductive cables to a common ground connection. Also the modes of transportation should be
included in the Risk Analysis to understand how these might affect safety. In this project, Risk Analysis meetings
were conducted by the drilling fluid and MMA suppliers. The oil production company and the equipment
manufacturer participated in the risk analysis by personal attendance and occasionally by teleconference. Every
potential hazard from the mud plant to the rig to the final waste disposal was examined and assigned a mitigation
plan.

The key to safely handling of MMA is in the training of the people who will be transporting and handling the
material. MMA is classified as a hazardous material due to flammability and reactivity and should be treated with
caution. All people who handle MMA must be familiar with its characteristics. MMA is a clear water-like liquid that
has a sweet, ester odor which can be easily detected. The flash point of MMA is similar to methanol at 55º F
(closed cup). The lower explosive limit in air is 1.8 percent and the upper is 12.5 percent. The detectable odor
threshold is a very low 0.049 ppm versus US OSHA allowable exposure limit of 100 ppm in air. MMA vapor is
heavier than air and so may concentrate in low places. MMA is only slightly soluble in water and will self-
polymerize in absence of oxygen or other inhibitor when exposed to elevated temperatures. With added inhibitor
the stability/shelf life is greatly extended. The MSDS should be read and understood completely before handling
MMA.

The manufacturer recommends PPE as safety glasses, face shield or chemical proof goggles, plastic apron and
rubber gloves. Some chemical plant users wear Nomex or other flame retardant clothing when handling pure
MMA, methanol, or other flammable solvents. Additionally, some facilities may require a cartridge type respirator
be worn when handling MMA. MMA is shipped as a flammable liquid Class 3 per US Department of
Transportation guidelines and should be placarded and labeled as such on all containers.

Due to the flammability of pure MMA, all sources of ignition should be kept safely away. All handling equipment
must be grounded and bonded because static electricity can be generated while performing these tasks. A
continuity check on grounding should be run before proceeding with any loading or unloading operation. Plastic
body pumps must not be used for pumping MMA since the body cannot be grounded.

A special grade of MMA is required with extra/sufficient inhibitor for the Trapped Annular Pressure application.
Spill containment materials should be on hand to immediately handle spills. The US reportable spill quantity of
MMA is 1000 lbs. After MMA is polymerized it is considered a non-hazardous waste. Safety showers and eye
wash stands are recommended near any flammable solvent handling area.

Uncontrolled polymerization can occur if MMA is overheated or stored without inhibitor (stabilizer). Details for
preventing uncontrolled polymerization are provided in the Lucite International Methacrylate Monomers Storage
and Handling Guides19, 20, and also in the Methacrylate Producers Association Inc. Safe Handling Guide for
Methacrylate Esters21. The extra inhibitor used in the TAP spacer formulation is very effective. A sample of the
spacer was heated to 140° F for greater than 5 weeks with no sign of polymerization.

Rig Site – Emulsified Spacer

Once MMA is emulsified into a water-based spacer the flammability is eliminated in the liquid phase and it will not
catch fire in an open flame. However, MMA vapors can accumulate in the head-space of any storage container
and still pose a flammability hazard. The same PPE and spill materials will be used in the immediate work area
on the rig. Spills or leftover MMA spacer can also be treated with aggressive initiator in order to convert MMA into
non-hazardous PMMA.

Field Trial to Test Equipment & Processes

The goals of field trial were to test all of the equipment and processes that will be used in offshore application,
including:
• Safety protocols
• Base-mud mixing
• MMA delivery
• Accurate metering and emulsification of MMA
• Loading/unloading of ISO tanks used for spacer transport
• Manifolding of multiple tanks
6 IADC/SPE 112872

• Accurate metering and mixing of initiator solution

• Pumping/placement in well
• Pressure relief behavior
• Equipment clean-up

Spacer Preparation – Mud Plant – Marshall, TX

An 11.3 ppg MMA spacer was prepared at the Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids (BHDF) mud plant in Marshall, TX.
First, a concentrated base mud (no MMA) was mixed using normal mud plant procedures. Next, in order to
emulsify the MMA into the spacer the following equipment was gathered:
• Tank truck with MMA from manufacturer’s plant in Beaumont, TX
• Vented, 150 bbl ISO tank to receive and transport the spacer to the test well site
• Mixing/pumping skid to meter in MMA and base mud, tightly emulsify them, and pump the final product to
the ISO tank
• 25 bbl tanks to deliver rinse water, and receive dirty fluids prior to disposal
• Hoses and appropriate plumbing fittings
The MMA was trucked to the mud plant from the Beaumont manufacturing plant using standard MMA transport
equipment and procedures. The only difference was that one of the emulsifiers employed is oil-soluble so it was
added to the MMA truck instead of the water-based mud concentrate in Marshall. The key to making the
emulsion is the mixing skid (Figure 5). MMA is brought into the mixing skid with a gear pump through a calibrated
turbine meter. Similarly the base-mud is fed to the skid by the mud plant pumps. The mud is metered through a
magnetic flow meter. A second magnetic flow meter checks the total flow. The mix is then pumped through a
very efficient high-shear mixer, which routinely makes a tight emulsion in one pass. A final check of the fluid is
done with a Coriolis densitometer. All of the electronics are monitored controlled by a central electronics panel.

The MMA meter did not read reliably (now fixed), but the spacer was still prepared with the correct amount of
MMA. The ISO tank was circulated to ensure even MMA distribution. The spacer was trucked to the rig site. The
next morning the emulsion was stable, as expected (no free MMA floating on top).

During the transfer of pure MMA all equipment was grounded to prevent static sparks. After the mixing and
transferring were complete, all of the hoses, mixing equipment, etc. were flushed with water to a closed 25-bbl
“trash” tank. The collected fluids were treated with an aggressive activator to ensure polymerization before the
fluid went to a disposal well. After polymerization poly-MMA is non-hazardous. When the hoses were removed
from the equipment very little trace of MMA was detected. This flushing technique should minimize personnel
exposure to MMA both at the mud plant and at the rig site.

Test Well
The test well was the JT Ross #3, a 9800’ gas well located in the Carthage field in northeast Texas. The well was
a workover candidate which was “borrowed” for the duration of this test. A cast iron bridge plug (CIBP) and 20’ of
cement were set in the 5-1/2” casing at 8495’ to create a “pressure vessel” for the test. The casing (uncertain
condition) was tested to only 2000 psi and this was set as the upper limit for the test. The tubing was 2-7/8”, and
the well was initially filled with 2% KCl brine. Bottom-hole static temperature (BHST) at the bridge plug was about
230° F. The surface equipment for the test included:
• Two ISO tanks with spacer
• Manifold for draining multiple tanks
• Tank of initiator solution
• Skid for accurately mixing the initiator and spacer
• Triplex pumping unit to displace the spacer into/out of the well
• Choke manifold for pressure control, and pressure monitoring (gauge and recording chart)
• Generators for power
• Tank of KCl brine for cleaning out well
• Lots of hoses and plumbing adapters

Table 3 shows the final composition of the spacer. Table 4 shows the density and rheological properties of the
spacer.

The spacer volume was equalized between the two ISO tanks through the manifold in order to test the expected
plumbing arrangements on most deepwater applications (2+ tanks). A delay was experienced when the gear
pump on the metering/mixing jammed with large gravel that had unexpectedly been delivered with the mix water
for the initiator solution. Once the problem was diagnosed and the debris screened out, the addition of the
IADC/SPE 112872 7

initiator to the spacer and the displacement into the wellbore with the Baker Oil Tools (BOT) triplex pumping unit
went smoothly.

The hydrostatic pressure from the 11.3 ppg fluid was 1000 psi at the CIBP, so only another 1000 psi could be
added before the choke manifold was closed (casing test limit = 2000 psi total). Previous experience with wells in
this field suggested that about 2000 psi wellhead pressure would be expressed as the fluids in the well warmed
up to the geothermal gradient. However, since the 230° F BHST was double the design temperature of the fluid
(formulation for upcoming deepwater test) it was expected that the MMA in the bottom portion of the well would
react quickly and no additional pressure would be seen. This is exactly what occurred. The applied 1000 psi
steadily bled down to 0 psi in a few hours and remained there as the well was monitored overnight. As the spacer
was circulated out of the well the next day samples were taken at 5 bbl increments. MMA analysis (Figure 2)
confirmed that the MMA in the hotter portions of the well had reacted. The spacer in the top part of the well
(similar to temperature in many deepwater annuli) showed no polymerization in the short time period, as was
designed/expected.

The spacer was displaced out of the well back to the original ISO tanks and treated with aggressive initiator to
consume any unreacted MMA. All of the surface lines and equipment were flushed with water (also to ISO tank),
and contained only traces of MMA when disassembled. This is consistent with the intent to minimize the rig
crew’s exposure to MMA.

Upcoming Deep Water Trial

All of the equipment and processes are now in place for the first deep water application, which is scheduled to be
the 16” x 22’ annulus on Chevron’s upcoming St. Malo #4 well, in about 7000’ of water in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM). The test will take place in the first quarter of 2008.

Conclusions
• A method of mitigating trapped annular pressure has been developed that is based on the shrinkage that
occurs (20%) when MMA monomer polymerizes to PMMA. The MMA has been formulated into a standard
water-based spacer that will be pumped ahead of cement. The polymerization is triggered by heat and/or
extended time, plus a chemical initiator. Inhibitors prevent premature polymerization. A family of water-based
spacer formulations have been developed with 10-30% MMA (very stable emulsion), densities from 8 -14.6
ppg and reaction temperatures spanning the expected range for deepwater.

• The new spacer has been successfully tested for compatibility with common rig elastomers, cement, cement
spacers, drilling fluids and salts.

• Pure MMA has safety issues similar to methanol, but it can be used safely in normal rig operations when
emulsified into a water-based spacer. A thorough risk analysis has been performed. The application
processes are designed to minimize rig personnel contact with MMA.

• Equipment skids have been built to: 1) accurately mix and emulsify the base mud and MMA, 2) manifold
multiple tanks together, and 3) accurately add initiator solution to the spacer just before the spacer is sent
downhole, and 4) facilitate effective and efficient clean-up with zero spills.

• All of the mixing, pumping, clean-up and safety procedures were successfully tested in a full–scale test on a
land well in the Carthage/Beckville field in northeast Texas. The spacer shrinkage occurred as expected.
There were no HSE incidents.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Chevron, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids, Lucite
International, Flow Process Technology, and Baker Oil Tools for their support on this project, and for permission
to publish. We would especially like to thank Chevron North America Upstream and the support crew at the
Carthage test site for their hard work and innovation in making the well test a success.

Nomenclature

APB = annular pressure build-up

bbl(s) = barrel(s)
8 IADC/SPE 112872

BHDF = Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids

BHST = bottom hole static temperature
BOT = Baker Oil Tools
bpm = barrels per minute
CIBP = cast iron bridge plug
GOM = Gulf of Mexico
HP = high pressure
HSE = heath/safety/environment
ISO = International Organization for Standardization
LC50 = lethal concentration, 50%
MMA = methyl methacrylate
MSDS = material safety data sheet
OSHA = Occupational Safety & Health Administration
PLC = Programmable Logic Controller
PMMA = poly (methyl methacrylate)
PPE = personal protective equipment
PVT = pressure-volume-temperature
ppg = pounds per gallon
SBM = synthetic-based mud
TAP = trapped annular pressure
TD = total depth
VIT = vacuum insulated tubing

References

1. Bloys, B., Gonzalez, M., Hermes, R. Bland, R., Foley, R., Tijerina, R., Davis, J., Cassel, T., Daniel, J.,
Robinson, I., and Eley, R., “Trapped Annular Pressure Mitigation – A Spacer Fluid that Shrinks”, paper
SPE/IADC 104698 presented at the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-
22 February, 2007.

2. MacEachran, A., and Adams, A.J.: “Impact on Casing Design of Thermal Expansion of Fluids in Confined
Annuli,” paper SPE/IADC 21911 presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 11-14 March.

3. Leach, C.P., and Adams, A.J.: “A New Method for the Relief of Annular Heat-Up Pressures,” paper SPE
25497 presented at the 1993 Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 21-23 March.

4. Halal, A.S., and Mitchell, R.F.: “Casing Design for Trapped Annulus Pressure Buildup,” paper SPE/IADC
25694 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.

5. Bradford, D.W., Fritchie, D.G., Gibson, D.H., Gosch, S.W., Pattillo, P.D., Sharp, J.W. and Taylor, C.E.: “Marlin
Failure Analysis and Redesign; Part 1, Description of Failure,” paper SPE/IADC 74528 presented at the 2002
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 26-28 February.

6. Ellis, R.C., Fritchie, D.G., Gibson, D.H., Gosch, S.W. and Pattillo, P.D.: “Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign;
Part 2, Redesign,” paper SPE/IADC 74529 presented at the 2002 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX,
26-28 February.

7. Gosch, S.W., Horne, D.J., Pattillo, P.D., Sharp, J. W. and Shah, P.C.: “Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign;
Part 3, VIT Completion with Real-Time Monitoring,” paper SPE/IADC 74530 presented at the 2002 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 26-28 February.

8. Vargo Jr., R.F., Payne, M., Faul, R., LeBlanc, J. and Griffith, J.E.: “Practical and Successful Prevention Annular
Pressure Buildup on the Marlin Project,” paper 77473 presented at the 2002 SPE ATCE, San Antonio, TX, 29
September - 2 October.
IADC/SPE 112872 9

9. Rohleder, S.A., Sanders, W.W., Williamson, R.N., Faul, G.L. and Dooley, L.B.: “Challenges of Drilling an Ultra-
Deep Well in Deepwater – Spa Prospect,” paper 79810 presented at the 2003 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21 February.

10. Williamson, R., Sanders, W., Jakabosky, T., Serio, M., and Griffith, J.E.: “Control of Contained-Annulus Fluid
Pressure Buildup,” paper SPE/IADC 79875 presented at the 2003 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21 February.

11. Loder, T., Evans, J.H. and Griffith, J.E.: “Prediction of and Effective Preventative Solution for Annular
Pressure Buildup on Subsea Completed Wells – Case Study,” paper SPE 84270 presented at the 2003 SPE
ATCE, Denver, CO, 5-8 October.

12. Oudeman, P., Kerem, K.,“Transient Behavior of Annular Pressure Buildup in HT/HP Wells,” paper SPE 88735
presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi IPEC, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 10-13 October, 2004.

13. Pattillo, P.D., Cocales, B.W. and Morey, S.C.: “Analysis of an Annular Pressure Buildup Failure during Drill
Ahead,” paper SPE 89775 presented at the 2004 SPE ATCE, Houston, TX, 26-29 September.

14. Azzola, J.H., Tselepidakis, D.P., Pattillo, P.D., Richey, J.F., Tinker, S.J., Miller, R.A. and Segreto, S.J.:
”Application of Vacuum Insulated Tubing to Mitigate Annular Pressure Buildup,” paper SPE 90232 presented
at the 2004 SPE ATCE, Houston, TX, 26-29 September.

15. Sathuvalli, U.B., Payne, M.L., Pattillo, P.D., Rahman, S. and Suryanarayana, P.V.: “Development of a
Screening System to Identify Deepwater Wells at Risk for Annular Pressure Build-up,” paper SPE/IADC
92594 presented at the 2005 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.

16. Richard J. Lewis, Sr., Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 12th ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, 1993), p. 937.

17. “Emulsion Polymerization” in Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering, 3rd ed., Herman F. Mark
(ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, (2003) Vol. 1, pp. 109-112.

18. Kovarskii, A.L. and Sivergin, Y.M., “High Pressure Radical Polymerization,” in Encyclopedia of Polymeric
Materials, Joseph C. Salamone (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, (1996) Vol. 5, pp. 2997-3017.

19. MONO-001, “Methacrylate Monomers: Storage and Handling of Methacrylate Esters,” Lucite International,
Inc., Memphis, TN, (January 2003)

20. MONO-003, “Static Protection for Flammable Materials”, Lucite International, Inc., Memphis, TN, (June 2002)

21. MONO-006, “Methacrylate Esters Safe Handling Manual”, Methacrylate Producers Assoc. and Methacrylates
Sector Group of the European Chemical Industry Council, Leesburg, VA, (2002)
10 IADC/SPE 112872

Long Term Trial Runs in Parr Vessels

6000 45

40
5000

35

4000 High Temp Initiator

30
Mid & High Temp
Initiator
Oven Temperature

Temperature [C]
Pressure [psig]

3000
25

20
2000

15
1000

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 5

-1000 0
Time [Days]

Figure 1 – Long term reaction/shrinkage of MMA spacer at 105° F with two different initiators

120
monomer to polymer

100
% conversion of

80

60

40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Vertical Depth (feet)

Figure 2 – MMA conversion to polymer overnight in test well

IADC/SPE 112872 11

1200

1000
Pressure (psig) at manifold

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (minutes)

Figure 3 – Pressure relief due to spacer shrinkage at JT Ross #3 well – 1st hour

TAP Spacer - 230° F, 4000 psi

Figure 4 – Ternary diagram showing spacer composition for desired shrinkage

12 IADC/SPE 112872

Spacer to Tank

High Shear
Mixer

MMA in

Mud in

Figure 5 – Spacer mixing skid

Figure 6 – TAP spacer pumping manifold

IADC/SPE 112872 13

Figure 7 – Initiator tank and mixing skid

Mud in

Mixer

Initiator in
Out to pump
unit & well
Figure 8 – Initiator addition skid
14 IADC/SPE 112872

Table 1 – Elastomer compatibility results – 3-hours immersed in TAP spacer at room temperature

Table 2 – Compatibility data for mixtures of TAP spacer and SBM, and TAP spacer and cement spacer

JT Ross #3 Formulation
Product lb/bbl
Water 196
Biopolymer 1
Defoamer 0.3
Primary Surfactant 20
Secondary Surfactant 1
Sodium Bicarbonate 1.5
Caustic Soda 0.5
Biocide 0.3
Barite 178
MMA w/Inhibitor 67
High Temp Initiator 0.4

Table 3 – Composition of TAP spacer for test well

IADC/SPE 112872 15

JT Ross #3 - TAPS 72 ° F
Rheology
600 rpm 86
300 rpm 62
200 rpm 51
100 rpm 38
6 rpm 15
3 rpm 12
PV 24 cps
YP 38 lbs/100 ft2
10 Second Gel 12 lbs/100 ft2
10 Minute Gel 15 lbs/100 ft2
Density 11.3 ppg
Table 4 – Properties of TAP spacer for test well