SPE-187039-MS

Utilizing Managed Pressure Drilling to Overcome Narrow Margins During

Liner Running and Cementing Operations

R. Gradishar, C. Fancher, and A. Ruhl, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; H. Patil, Weatherford

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9-11 October 2017.

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
In the past several years, managed pressure drilling (MPD) has developed from an emerging technology to
become commonplace in many basins and fields. A joint operator / service company team has employed a
technique that applies MPD methodology to cementing applications, increasing the probability of achieving
successful primary cement jobs. This technique has been termed managed pressure cementing (MPC). This
paper illustrates one of the first instances of successful implementation of MPC to run and cement a liner
in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
In the GOM over the past 4 years, the operator has incurred an average of 6 days of non-productive
time (NPT) per primary cementing job failure to perform remedial cement repairs. In the field where MPC
was developed, the previous two wells had experienced 25 days of remedial cementing NPT due to failed
primary cementing jobs. In each of these cases, losses during cementing prevented achieving adequate top
of cement (TOC). The losses were attributed to the narrow margin between wellbore stability (WBS) and
fracture gradient (FG).
This paper focuses on cement placement, which is as important as cement formulation to the success of a
cement job. Successful cement placement is a function of controlling equivalent circulating densities (ECD)
within the design limits of WBS and FG while ensuring that uncontaminated cement fully sweeps the drilling
fluid from the borehole to the designed TOC. The MPC job requires significant planning and processes to
accurately model running of the liner, the required fluid displacement program, and the execution of the
cementing operations. MPC can reduce the overall well cycle time by eliminating NPT due to remedial
cementing.

Introduction
MPD is advantageous for fields with narrow pore pressure – fracture gradient (PP-FG), or more specifically,
a narrow margin between the wellbore stability gradient (WBS) and the FG. The WBS is the predicted
minimum allowable pressure required to keep the formation around the borehole from failing in shear. The
FG is the predicted maximum allowable pressure to keep the formation around the borehole from failing
in tension. An example of a narrow margin, from the case presented later in the paper is shown in Fig.
1. Notice that the difference between the maximum WBS and the minimum FG for this hole section was
2 SPE-187039-MS

only 0.3 ppg. This hole section could not be drilled conventionally because the equivalent static density
(ESD) required to satisfy WBS allowed for an ECD only 0.3 ppg greater than the ESD. The variations in
bottom hole pressure (BHP) needed to be kept between the limits of WBS and FG during drilling, casing,
and cementing for the hole section to be drillable. One of the primary benefits of MPD is that it enables the
drilling of these prospects. In this field, the operator uses the surface backpressure (SBP) variant of MPD,
defined by the IADC MPD subcommittee as manipulating annular pressure to manage downhole pressures.
MPC was subsequently developed to successfully run and cement production liners in this field, and it
increased the likelihood of cementing success as a part of a comprehensive managed pressure approach.

Figure 1—Narrow Margin

To investigate the impact of an MPC operation, the BHP profile during a conventional cement job must
be examined. During a conventional cement job, cement is pumped into the annulus with a volume of spacer
on either side to prevent contamination from drilling fluid in the well. Many operators employ density and
rheological hierarchies in the fluid train to improve the displacement of wellbore fluids and placement of
cement, both of which contribute to increased BHP during the cement placement operation.
Fig. 2 shows the impact to BHP during a cement job in a field with a narrow margin. The graph depicts
the BHP at the depth of a weak formation during a cement job and illustrates the pressure changes when
pumping ceases to mix the spacer, as the spacer and cement slurry is displaced and as the pumps are slowed
to shear a wiper dart. Because of the narrow window, the BHP is reduced below the WBS and hole collapse
is likely. Next, the FG is exceeded during cement displacement. This will likely induce losses which could
prevent adequate TOC to sufficiently isolate formations and satisfy well design requirements.
SPE-187039-MS 3

Figure 2—BHP During Conventional Cementing within a Narrow Margin

If the fracture occurs above planned TOC, cement placement may not be affected. But, if the fracture
occurs below planned TOC, cement placement will likely be affected. Fig. 3 provides a simple representation
of what happened on the two previous wells in the field during the primary cementing job.

Figure 3—Fracture Below Top of Cement

Managed Pressure Cementing (MPC)

One solution to this problem is to reduce the pressure acting on the wellbore during the cement job. Equation
1 describes the pressure components that contribute to BHP.
(1)
4 SPE-187039-MS

In this equation, Phyd is the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the density of the fluid in the annulus, Psurf is
the annular surface pressure and Pf is the pressure due to friction acting opposite to the direction of flow.
In conventional cementing, the annulus is open to atmosphere so pressure at surface is zero. When there
is no flow, friction pressure is also zero. The conventional way to further minimize the BHP is to reduce
the hydrostatic pressure, which may risk wellbore collapse if the reduction causes BHP to fall below the
WBS. MPC resolves this by reducing hydrostatic pressure and increasing surface pressure. A reduction
in Phyd of the same magnitude as an increase in Psurf will hold BHP constant, provided Pf is constant. The
drilling fluid used in this operation was designed such that density reduction did not noticeably change Pf
at the planned flow rate.
Fig. 4 illustrates conventional cementing versus MPC. In our case, the ESD was set equal to pore pressure.
The BHP was kept constant until the spacer and cement was displaced into the annulus. With pumps off,
SBP was held to maintain BHP constant. Since a lower fluid density was selected, the BHP was lower, and
the job was completed maintaining ECD below FG. Note that BHP was not constant during MPC, but rather
managed to keep it from exceeding the FG.

Figure 4—Conventional Cementing vs. Managed Pressure Cementing

MPC Equipment
The equipment used for MPC is essentially the same as is used for MPD, namely a rotating control device
(RCD), automated choke manifold, and auxiliary pump. Fig. 5 shows the equipment as it was installed on
the rig. In this MPC operation, the flow into the well was measured at the cement pump. This was achieved
by retrofitting the cement pump with stroke counters, which allowed the MPD control system to measure
flow into the well.
SPE-187039-MS 5

Figure 5—MPC Equipment

Fig. 6 shows the circulating path for this equipment. The flow-out from the well was diverted by the RCD
to the MPD choke manifold, before returning to the mud pits. The BHP was managed by manipulating the
SBP via the choke manifold. The flow-in measurement from the cement pump allowed swift manipulation
of SBP with changes in flowrate while displacing cement slurry. The cement pump was a low volume,
high pressure pump, and needed to be stopped at defined incremental volumes of spacer and cement. The
auxiliary pump was kept running during the entire cement job to ensure continuous flow across the chokes,
which made it easier to manipulate the backpressure when the flowrate changed. This was easier because
it required a smaller choke adjustment to apply the backpressure required with a higher flow as opposed
to lower flow rate.

Figure 6—MPC Circulation Path

6 SPE-187039-MS

Fig 7 illustrates the MPD choke manifold used for the MPC job. The manifold was a fully automated
system with two redundant chokes and a coriolis flowmeter. The chokes were operated by the inputs from
control software which utilized a hydraulic model to calculate the BHP. During the drilling phase, this
hydraulic model was calibrated to match the measured BHP recorded by the pressure while drilling (PWD)
tool at various flow rates and rheologies. This model was utilized successfully to estimate the BHP during
the MPC operation.

Figure 7—Fully Automated MPD Choke Manifold

Preparation
The planning for this MPC operation addressed several procedural steps: surge for running of the liner,
displacements between higher and lower density fluids, washing and reaming of the liner and cementing.
These steps needed to align with the goal to manage BHP throughout the drilling, casing and cementing of
the well, keeping it constant when possible. The constant BHP approach applied to MPC was designed to
minimize the fatigue loading of the wellbore from the time the hole section was drilled until the liner top
packer was set and included displacing from lower density drilling weight fluid to higher density trip weight
fluid, tripping the workstring out of the hole, running the liner and placing cement. Successfully managed
BHP in each step made the next step possible. The failure to minimize fatigue cycles in any step could have
resulted in expensive remedial work or failure of the project.
An accurate hydraulic model was critical to the success of this managed pressure operation. Hydraulics
for this well were rigorously modeled in the planning phase using commercially available and vendor-
specific software. Post-job modeling of offset wells in the field that utilized MPD with similar fluids and
tools were used to calibrate the model. In the execution phase, the hydraulics were continuously updated
and calibrated during displacements, drilling and tripping. Once section total depth was reached, the lower
density circulating fluid was displaced to higher density tripping fluid to replace BHP lost from drilling ECD
for the trip out. The ESD of the heavier fluid was equal to the drilling ECD of the lighter fluid. The PWD-
SPE-187039-MS 7

measured ECD was monitored closely during this displacement to confirm the accuracy of the latest model
iteration. Accuracy was increased by checking the calculated ECD at a range of flow rates and rotary speeds.
The model was used later to predict BHP during MPC. It was very important to ensure that calculated ECD
from the hydraulics models agreed with downhole measurements during this displacement because there
was no PWD deployed in the liner assembly.

Surge Design
The surge limit for running the production liner in this sidetrack was 0.5 ppg, which is typical for the
wells in this mature field. To properly design the liner run, it was important to ensure all liner components
were dimensionally accurate. Several iterations were necessary to optimize a tripping schedule for different
sections of the well and develop stages that could be followed in the field. The run was designed to reduce
surge to the lowest practical levels. This meant very slow running speeds, and this point was emphasized to
the entire drilling team to ensure alignment. Autofill float equipment was incorporated to further enhance
surge mitigation and provide a small increase in running speed. Open-ended and closed-ended schedules
were prepared. After reaching section TD, the surge model was calibrated with the latest parameters
observed during drilling, displacement and tripping activities. Table 1 depicts the tripping schedule that was
used for this job. This schedule included important information such as fluid density, previous casing shoe
depth, surge limit, and stand time (running speed) by stage.

Table 1—Surge Design

Displacement, Washing and Reaming Design

Since the surge design indicated that the tripping speed was slow enough to risk differential sticking, it was
advantageous to displace the higher density tripping fluid to lower density circulating fluid before entering
open hole with the liner. Some key considerations for the float conversion depth were: proximity to weak
formations which may have broken down due to the conversion pressure spike, the amount of acceptable
surge in open hole due to closed ended pipe, and the risk of differential sticking when tripping slowly at
high angle. These considerations led the team to choose to convert the floats 2,000 ft from open hole then
wash and ream the liner to total depth.
8 SPE-187039-MS

The displacement to the planned lower density circulating fluid was carefully designed to mitigate losses
without the benefit of downhole ECD measurements. As previously mentioned, model agreement with
drilling PWD data was critical for a successful displacement. This displacement was a good opportunity
to validate the integrity of the wellbore prior to washing/reaming and reduced the hydrostatic pressure,
permitting higher circulating rates. It took 2-3 times longer to displace with a liner in the hole versus a
drilling assembly due to the tighter annular clearance.
Table 2 shows the displacement design for the cement job. This model was part of a displacement from
13.5 ppg trip weight mud to 12.4 ppg circulating weight mud with a 7″ liner inside 9-5/8″ 53.5 lb casing. The
displacement was divided up into 10 stages; the first stage was the volume required to displace the drillpipe
and liner. The next nine were divided based on a desired ECD range of 13.6 ppg to 13.75 ppg. The ECD was
allowed to increase to 13.8 ppg during stage 1. This 0.3 ppg increase over ESD was achieved with a rate of
only 35 gpm due to the viscous properties of the fluid in an 8.5″ by 7″ annulus. Once 12.4 ppg fluid was
displaced into the annulus, the ECD began to decrease. Since much of the displacement took place at very
low rates, 20 rpm of pipe rotation was used to increase displacement efficiency. No surface parameters were
adjusted for the first three annular stages: the pump rate was kept at 35 gpm and the chokes were fully open
to minimize the friction loss. During stages 2 and 3, the ECD was allowed to drop into the desired range for
the cement job. In stage 5, the flow rate was increased to 56 gpm, and the model predicted an ECD increase
to 13.76 ppg followed by a decrease back to 13.6 ppg as the lighter fluid rose in the annulus. The chokes
were operated semi-automatically meaning that the MPD operator could override the control system to take
immediate action should a piece of equipment fail. The fifth column from the right was the SBP to hold
if circulation was stopped for any reason during the well displacement in order to maintain constant BHP.
This displacement took 14 hours, and no losses or wellbore stability events occurred during the process.

Table 2—Wellbore Displacement Design to Lower Density Fluid for MPC

SPE-187039-MS 9

Once the well was displaced to the lower density circulating fluid, the liner was washed and reamed to
bottom. Washing and reaming a liner with MPD presented several complications over conventional reaming:
as previously mentioned, there was no PWD sensor to measure BHP; also, the annular column was not a
single uniform density as the hole section below the displacement still contained the higher density tripping
fluid. The model predicted the following parameters would work well for washing the liner with MPD: 2
stands washed per bottoms up, annular velocity greater than 200 fpm, and 20 rpm rotary speed. In future
applications, these parameters should be tailored to the specifics of the well and rig.

MPC Design
Once the liner was on bottom and the well was displaced, the cement job commenced. The objective of the
cement job was to get the required annular cement column in place by applying backpressure as needed
during placement to manage BHP and keep the BHP below FG. Good communication was critical to the
success of the job; the communication protocol was understood by each team member prior to pumping
cement. Table 3 depicts the cement schedule. In this model, the cement job was broken into 14 steps. Each
step is described by the comments section on the right. The planned bottom hole ECD range was 13.6 –
13.8 ppg which matched the range used for the displacement. The first 9 stages covered displacement of
cement to the end of liner. The cement was displaced at 5 bpm, then circulation slowed to 2 bpm (step
10) to shear the wiper dart. SBP was increased to 330 psi to keep BHP constant. Once the wiper dart was
sheared, the rate was increased back to 5 bpm and SBP removed. The minimum choke line friction was
40 psi with the chokes fully open at 5 bpm. No SBP was applied for the rest of the displacement and BHP
increased accordingly as higher density spacer and cement replaced lower density mud in the annulus. Once
the modeled bottom hole ECD exceeded 13.8 ppg, the rate was decreased to 3 bpm (step 13). Depending
on the volume of the slurry, this rate could be decreased in successive stages. In this case, only one flowrate
reduction was required. The plug bumped at 378 bbls total displacement with a bottom hole ECD of 13.8
ppg. The final step was to apply SBP to keep BHP constant while the liner top packer was set.

Table 3—Cement Design

10 SPE-187039-MS

Results
On the well presented in this paper, the drilling assembly was successfully tripped out of hole after displacing
from lower density circulating fluid to higher density tripping fluid. The liner was run and the well displaced
back to lower density circulating fluid at the shoe. The liner was then washed and reamed to bottom, the
hanger set, and the MPC job completed successfully with a modeled ECD variation of less than 0.3 ppg.
No losses or wellbore stability events were observed during the entire operation. Fig. 8 shows the post-
job cement pump pressure plotted against the predicted pump pressure. Each change in flowrate required
a manipulation of the SBP to maintain BHP constant. No manipulation was performed to counteract the
pressure spike due to the shearing of the wiper dart.

Figure 8—Cement Unit Pressure Post Job

Fig. 9 shows the SBP and flow during the job. As the MPD auxiliary pump was kept running at 250 gpm
throughout the cement job, flow in was in the range of 250gpm to 460gpm. Figure 9 also demonstrates a
deviation between flow in and flow out at the beginning of the displacement. This is caused by the free-
fall effect of the heavier spacer and cement slurry. As the heavier fluid column falls, it moves faster than
the surface pump rate, and consequently the cement pump runs faster than what is calibrated for the same
pump speed. Once the wiper dart sheared, flow in was equal to flow out. The flow in / flow out trends along
with the mud volume returned in the pits confirmed full returns during the job. Fig. 10 shows the modeled
ECD during the cement job against the WBS-FG window. The ECD was maintained constant until the lead
spacer displaced into the annulus, when it was allowed to increase. Once cement placement was complete,
the pressure returned to 13.6 ppg where it was held until the liner top packer was set. The job was judged
a success because there were full returns during cement placement and lift pressure calculations evinced
an adequate TOC depth.
SPE-187039-MS 11

Figure 9—SBP and Flow Rate During Cement Job

Figure 10—Modeled Bottom Hole ECD During Cement Job

Special Considerations
There were some special considerations important to this MPC job, listed below:
12 SPE-187039-MS

• The liner system was planned with MPC in mind and rated for the expected life cycle of the job. It
was capable of withstanding external pressure without prematurely setting. Since the plan was to
displace while rotating the liner and displacements to lighter fluid can take 10-20 hours, connection
fatigue was scrutinized.
• The team utilized redundant floats to ensure that SBP could still be held if a float failed. Two floats
are the suggested minimum number for this type of operation.
• Fluid properties were designed to be predictable to mitigate the lack of downhole instrumentation.
Sag resistance was critical to prevent pockets of higher density fluid that could have caused the
desired ECD range to be exceeded.
• Lost circulation material was successfully incorporated in the spacer and slurry to mitigate losses
as the model predicted ECD would approach the FG.
• Cement units are loud and can hamper communication. Noise-cancelling headphones were used
to ensure good communication between the cementer and the operations team.

Conclusion
This paper presented the application of MPC: a cementing operation completed with MPD methodology.
This operation can increase the likelihood of cementing success as a part of a comprehensive managed
pressure approach. It is especially useful for fields with narrow WBS-FG margins. In the field where this
technique was employed, 2 previous wells had cost the operator 25 days to remediate due to failure to obtain
adequate TOC. MPC allowed for the successful execution of the liner cement job on the subsequent well
in the field. MPC is not just a cementing procedure, it is a methodology to manage BHP from the time
the drill bit leaves bottom at TD until the liner top packer is set. This includes minimizing surge during
the running of the liner, displacement between higher and lower density fluids, washing and reaming, and
cement job execution.
The paper is meant to provide an example of how this technique is performed and what key parameters
must be monitored to provide for a successful outcome. There are several special considerations which
should also be resolved in the planning phase before execution of the job. MPC requires commitment to
execution per the plan and requires buy-in from the entire drilling team. MPC is a time intensive approach,
but it is valuable in fields where it can prevent extended NPT events due to a poor primary cement job. The
primary performance indicator for fields with narrow margin is a successful cement job on the first attempt,
with the strategic goal of overall reduced well cycle time and drilling cost. Quality primary cementing jobs
improve zonal isolation while meeting well design and regulatory requirements.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Weatherford for permission to publish this paper.