SPE/IADC 67775
Successful Sealing of Vent Flows with Ultra-Low-Rate Cement Squeeze Technique
H. J. Slater, PanCanadian Petroleum Limited; D.A. Stiles and W. Chmilowski, Schlumberger
Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the western Canadian sedimentary basin, tens-of-thousands
of wells currently are leaking gas between the surface and
production casings. Often this leakage manifests itself as a
surface vent. While much work has gone into preventing gas
vents during primary cementing, little has been done to
improve the chances of successfully sealing existing leaking
wells. The work described in this paper focuses on new
materials and techniques that have been developed to seal vent
flows. The paper describes the theoretical physics behind the
process and gives case histories to demonstrate the successful
application of the technology.
Introduction
Microannular gaps as narrow as a few microns can allow gas
leakage depending upon the differential pressure. The flow
paths that allow for the leakage may be present at either the
pipe/cement or cement/formation interfaces. In order to
penetrate and seal such narrow gaps, special optimized
microcement systems have been developed. The properties of
a cement slurry required for placement into such narrow gaps
are small particle size, efficient fluid loss control both axially
and radially, a very thin filter cake, low rheology, zero free
water and no sedimentation under down hole conditions. The
set cement properties required for long-term sealing are
extremely low permeability and mechanical properties
sufficient to resist stress cracking.
The placement technique of the slurry is also a key parameter
in the success of sealing vent flows. Placing the slurry at
extremely low rates, often less than 10 L/min, decreases the
friction pressure generated in the gap. This in turn reduces the
differential pressure across the slurry and decreases the
probability of bridging. Once the slurry is in place it must
remain undisturbed until it sets to form a permanent seal. This
is accomplished by continuous pumping until the slurry
thickening time has been reached and the cement sets.
Changing Conventional Wisdom
Cement squeezing has been defined as the process of forcing a
cement slurry, under pressure, through holes or splits in the
casing/wellbore annular space. When the slurry is forced
against a permeable formation, the solid particles filter out on
the formation face as the aqueous phase enters the formation
matrix1. The difficulty in successfully carrying out this process
is ensuring that the entire void space behind the casing is filled
with cement prior to forcing sufficient water from the slurry to
leave it unpumpable. This becomes particularly important
when attempting to cure gas vent flows because if the entire
conduit for the gas is not filled with cement then the seal is not
effective and the problem is not solved.
Cement Systems
Cement systems for this application rely not only on small
particle sizes to eliminate bridging in narrow gaps, but also on
slurry properties of extremely low filtrate loss and very low
viscosity. Filtrate loss must be controlled both perpendicular
and parallel to the axis of the gap to prevent dehydration and
bridging (Fig. 1). The filtrate loss must also be controlled by a
mechanism that is not wall-building. The slurry viscosity must
be kept very low, minimizing the pressure drop through the
gap that leads to dehydration and bridging.
Conventional Well-Dispersed Microcement Systems
Microcements used in conventional Well-Dispersed
Microcement Systems (WDMS) have a maximum particle
diameter ranging from 13 to 30 microns, depending upon the
manufacturer. The particle size distribution (PSD) of these
cements is relatively narrow. In order to formulate a WDMS
slurry that is easily pumpable, first the pore space between the
cement particles must be filled with water. The water required
for filling the pore space accounts for approximately 30 to
35% of the volume of the cement. Additional water must then
be added to sufficiently separate the cement particles to
prevent physical interactions between adjacent particles from
impeding fluid flow (Fig. 2).
Previous work by Meek and Harris2 with WDMS has
indicated that slurry density typically ranges from 1380 to
1500 kg/m3 (11.5 to 12.5 lbm/gal). This translates to a water
volume fraction of 0.81 to 0.75. Dispersants are normally
2 H.J. SLATER, D.A. STILES, W. CHMILOWSKI SPE/IADC 67775

added to lower the slurry viscosity. These slurries have been Ultra-Low-Rate Placement Technique
reported to pass a very short distance through an impermeable Low rate squeezes are normally considered as those with rates
gap with a width of 254 microns (0.010 in). The addition of in the range of 40 to 80 L/min (0.25 to 0.5 BPM). By using an
fluid loss additives to WDMS slurries was actually found to ultra-low-rate technique with a rate of 10L/min (0.06 BPM) or
reduce their ability to penetrate narrow gaps, probably due to less, the volume of OMS slurry that can be placed into a
the associated viscosity increase. This means that the fluid loss narrow micro-annular gap has been significantly increased.
from WDMS slurries is uncontrolled.
The effectiveness of this technique may be explained through
Optimized Microcement Systems three separate but related phenomena. First, the pressure drop
Optimized Microcement Systems (OMS) are proprietary in a narrow slot with a width (w), length (L) and area (A) is
formulations that employ the physics of particle packing to directly proportional to the injection rate (Q) for a fluid with
obtain slurry and set cement properties that are suitable for viscosity (µ) as defined in eq. (1).
sealing extremely narrow voids. The microcement used in
OMS has a maximum particle diameter of 7 to 10 microns. 12 µL
Instead of filling the pore space between the cement particles ∆P = Q ………………………………………(1)
with water, as done in WDMS, the pore space is filled with Aw 2
solid non-cement particles of two distinctly smaller sizes (Fig. Second, the growth rate of the filter cake (S) is proportional to
3). The first constituent of solid particles has a maximum the square root of the differential pressure, as expressed in eq.
diameter in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 microns and the second (2).
constituent has a maximum diameter of approximately one
nanometer. By filling the pore space of the microcement with
other solid particles, significantly less water is required to
S = k ∆P …………………………………………...(2)
obtain a slurry that is easily pumpable. Let us assume that the injection rate is doubled. Based upon
3 eq. (1), the differential pressure will also double. Through the
OMS is normally mixed at 1680 kg/m (14.0 lbm/gal). The
use of eq. (2) it can be seen that the rate of filter cake
increased density in conjunction with the presence of sized
deposition would then increase by a factor of 1.4. As the filter
particles results in a water volume fraction of only 0.60. The
cake deposition rate increases, the width of the gap in turn
OMS slurry is designed to have an API fluid loss of less than
begins decreasing at a proportional rate. This reduction in
15mL/30 min. and a filter cake thickness of less than 2mm.
width further increases the pressure drop as calculated in eq.
Rheologically, the plastic viscosity is less than 50 cP and the
(1) and so the cycle continues until the slurry can no longer be
yield stress is less than 2.5 Pa (5 lbf/100ft2).
injected into the gap.
Narrow Gap Penetration Tests
A third phenomena can also be used to explain the improved
A laboratory apparatus has been developed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the ultra-low-rate technique. The preferred
ability of various microcements to penetrate narrow gaps (Fig.
placement method for squeezing vent flows is the bradenhead
4). It consists of a sintered polyethylene plate that is porous
method because it minimizes slurry contamination during
and permeable. The plate is covered with a piece of non-
placement and is simple to apply. The drawback of the
swelling filter paper. Spacers of appropriate thickness are
bradenhead method is that the squeeze pressure is imposed
placed on top of the filter paper to define the desired width of
along the entire length of the casing above the bridge plug.
the gap. A clear plexi-glass sheet is clamped on top of the
Should the gas migration path be a microannulus, as is often
spacers and the entire apparatus is clamped together with C-
the case, then the pressure applied to the inside of the casing
clamps. A syringe pump is connected to an inlet port in the
during squeezing will act to expand the casing (Fig. 6),
plexi-glass plate to allow injection of slurry into the gap. The
closing-off the channel and limiting penetration by the slurry.
model is initially filled with water and then the slurry is
The ultra-low-rate technique minimizes the pressure on the
injected into the gap at a rate of 5 mL/min.
inside of the casing and therefore minimizes the degree to
A WDMS slurry and an OMS slurry were both evaluated in which the microannular gap is narrowed.
this model with the gap width set at 120 microns. Photos were
When squeezing with conventional cements, an increased
taken of the models after injection (Fig. 5). The WDMS slurry
squeeze pressure due to dehydration of the cement marks the
lost all of its water very quickly and bridged after the slurry
end of the treatment. Since OMS injected at ultra-low-rates
had penetrated a distance of only about 30mm. The
does not normally dehydrate and bridge-off, the cement in the
dehydrated cement of the WDMS was deposited in a fingered
gap remains in a fluid slurry state. If pumping ceases while the
pattern that did not fully isolate the gap. The OMS slurry was
cement is still in a fluid slurry state, gas may have an
easily injected the full 225mm length of the model and slurry
opportunity to invade and migrate through the cement.
in a fluid state was displaced from the end of the gap. The
Continual pumping until the cement begins to undergo the
displacement front of the OMS as it passed through the gap
setting process prevents this from occurring.
was remarkably even, with no evidence of fingering or
bridging.
SPE/IADC 67775 SUCCESSFUL SEALING OF VENT FLOWS WITH ULTRA-LOW-RATE CEMENT SQUEEZE TECHNIQUE
Problem Diagnostics and Squeeze Preparation
Prior to applying an ultra-low-rate OMS treatment, it is first
imperative to perform the proper diagnostics to identify the
probable source and path of the gas. Numerous
methods/techniques exist for performing such diagnostics
including: noise logs, temperature logs, cement bond logs
(sonic and ultrasonic), neutron/density open hole logs,
reservoir saturation tool cased hole logs and Carbon isotope
mapping of gas samples. Each of the above
methods/techniques offers certain advantages as well as
limitations but these will not be discussed in this paper due to
space constraints.
Once the source of the gas has been determined and the zone
has been perforated accordingly, a proper injection test is
required to select the most appropriate treatment. The injection
test must be done with solids-free fluid. A practical injection
rate limit of 150 L/min has been set for determination of the
proper cement system. For injection rates less than 150 L/min,
OMS is the system of choice, while for injection rates above
150 L/min, a quick setting Class G/Gypsum blend containing
a gas migration control additive is preferable.
Prior to the development of OMS and the ultra-low-rate
squeeze technique, if injection test rates were very low and
injection test pressures were very high, it was often deemed
necessary to treat the zone with hydrochloric acid or some
other suitable fluid in an attempt to improve the injection
profile so that cement could be squeezed into the zone.
Unfortunately, these treatments may not improve the
communication with the regions of the wellbore responsible
for gas flow and consequently any subsequent improvement in
injection rate may be misleading as it may not assist in the
successful placement of cement to these gas flow regions. The
end result could be that the gas flow still exists following the
cement squeeze treatment.
Placement Pressures
The calculated bottom hole pressure required to place the
OMS slurry, even at ultra-low injection rates, often exceeds
the fracture pressure of the formation at the perforated
interval. If the assumption is made that the OMS slurry is
being forced into induced fractures in the formation instead of
into the gaps in the wellbore responsible for gas flow then
these treatments would not be successful at sealing the gas
vent flows. What must be considered is the actual pressure
being exerted at the leading edge of the OMS slurry as it flows
through a narrow gap. This pressure cannot be readily
measured, but it is certainly lower than the calculated bottom
hole pressure due to the significant amount of friction pressure
that is being generated over a very short distance in the gap
itself. The actual pressure at the formation face may therefore
remain below the formation fracture pressure. Based upon this
assumption and the fact that the gas vent flows are being
sealed, it can be deduced that most, if not all, of the OMS
slurry is being placed into existing gaps in the near wellbore
region and not into induced fractures.
3
Case Histories
Numerous successful squeeze jobs have been pumped in
Western Canada and other areas of the world utilizing OMS
technology3. The combination of OMS with the ultra-low-rate
placement technique for sealing gas vent flows is however a
relatively new technique and only a few wells have been
treated to date in Western Canada. Two typical case history
examples are included here.
Killam North Field
A well in the Killam North field, approximately 140 km
northeast of Red Deer, Alberta had been squeezed twice in
early 1998 however a gas vent flow test conducted in late
1999 indicated that gas migration to surface was occurring
outside of the surface casing.
A neutron/density open-hole log that was run during the
drilling of the well identified a gas interval. The gas zone was
perforated from 224 to 225m (735 to 738ft) with no fluid in
the well above the interval. Gas to surface inside of the
production casing was experienced immediately upon
perforating. The production casing was filled with fresh water
and an injection rate of 20 L/min (0.13 BPM) at 3000 kPa
(435 psi) was established. Rapid gas bubbling from the surface
vent flow was still evident.
An ultra-low-rate bradenhead squeeze with OMS was
performed on the well via coiled tubing. A total volume of 2.8
m3 (17.6 bbl) of OMS slurry was spotted inside of the
production casing from 240m (787ft) back to surface. The
cement was squeezed at an initial rate of 10 L/min (0.06 BPM)
for the first 1.4 m3 (8.8 bbl) and then the rate was slowed to 5
L/min (0.03 BPM) for an additional 0.55 m3 (3.6 bbl) of
volume. A final stabilized squeeze pressure of 7000 kPa (1015
psi) was achieved. Subsequent bubble tests conducted on the
surface casing vent were negative.
Bantry Field
Gas migration from behind the surface casing had been an
ongoing problem with this well located approximately 10 km
north of Brooks, Alberta. Cement squeezes had been done on
two separate occasions in 1996, one on an interval from 340 to
341m (1156 to 1119 ft) and the other on an interval from 217
to 218m (712 to 715 ft). Neither of these squeeze attempts was
successful in eliminating the gas migration problem.
A third attempt at remediation was commenced in January
2000. A service rig was moved onto location, the two previous
cement squeezes were drilled out and the well was circulated
clean to the plug back depth at 1002m (3288 ft). A noise log
and a segmented cement bond log conducted from 995m
(3265 ft) to surface confirmed that the most likely source of
the gas migration was the Milk River formation.
In mid March, a bridge plug was set at 357m (1171 ft) and the
interval from 338 to 342m (1109 to 1122 ft) was perforated.
This interval corresponds to the top of the Milk River Zone.
An initial attempt to inject fluid into the perforations was
unsuccessful. An acid volume of 0.5m3 (3.2 bbl) was spotted
4 H.J. SLATER, D.A. STILES, W. CHMILOWSKI SPE/IADC 67775

across the perforations to soak overnight. The acid was 7) Acidizing of perforations with low pre-squeeze injection
squeezed into the perforations the following day. Post-acid rates will not necessarily improve the chances of sealing
injectivity was established with 0.5m3 (3.2 bbl) of fresh water gas vent flows because communication may not be
at 10 L/min (0.06 BPM) with a surface pressure of 4700 kPa improved in the regions of the wellbore responsible for
(682 psi). It was decided to proceed with a cement squeeze the gas flow.
treatment in spite of the low injection rates.
8) Calculated bottom-hole pressures in excess of formation
Once again, an ultra-low rate bradenhead squeeze with OMS fracture pressure do not necessarily mean that the
was performed on the well via coiled tubing. A total of 3.0 m3 formation is being fractured because the pressure at the
(18.9 bbl) of OMS slurry was spotted inside the production leading edge of the slurry will actually be lower.
casing from 357m (1171 ft) back to surface. The initial 1.0m3
9) Future work should be carried out to further investigate
(6.3 bbl) of OMS was squeezed into the perforations at a rate
the phenomena of placement pressure above the fracture
of 10 L/min (0.06 BPM) at 5200 kPa (754 psi). The balance of
gradient.
the treatment was pumped in a number of stages ranging from
an initial volume of 0.27m3 (1.7 bbl) placed at a rate of 9 Acknowledgements
L/min (0.054 BPM) stepping down to 0.03m3 (0.2 bbl) placed The authors would like to thank PanCanadian Petroleum
at 5 L/min (0.03 BPM) for the final stage. Final squeeze Limited and Schlumberger for their support in presenting this
pressure was recorded at 9000 kPa (1305 psi). A total of work. Special appreciation goes to Richard Morgan of
1.75m3 (11.0 bbl) of OMS slurry was pumped into the Schlumberger for his assistance in gathering case history data.
perforations leaving the cement top at 259m (850 ft) in the
casing. References
1. Nelson, E.B. et al.: Well Cementing, first edition, Schlumberger
On August 30, 2000 a gas migration test showed that the gas Educational Services, Sugarland, TX (1990) 13-1.
source was successfully sealed off. The production casing and 2. Meek, J.W. et al.: “Repairing Casing Leaks Using Small-Particle-
cement top were pressure tested to 7000 kPa (1015 psi) and Size Cement,” paper SPE/IADC 21972 presented at the 1991
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 11-14.
the well was cut and capped.
3. Farkas, R.F. et al.: “New Cementing Technology Cures 40-Year-
Conclusions Old Squeeze Problems,” paper SPE 56537 presented at the 1999
The use of OMS placed with an ultra-low-rate technique SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
appears to be a viable solution for sealing gas vent flows, October 3-6.
especially when pre-squeeze injection rates are very low.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Several conclusions have been drawn from the work
m3 x 6.28911 E+00 = bbl
performed so far.
m x 3.280840 E+00 = ft
1) Cement slurries must have small particle size, efficient kPa x 1.450377 E-01 = psi
fluid loss control both axially and radially, a very thin kg x 2.2046 E+00 = lb
filter cake, low rheology, zero free water and no
sedimentation under down hole conditions for successful
placement in very narrow gaps.
2) Ordinary WDMS do not possess the required properties
for placement in very narrow gaps as evidenced by the
narrow gap penetration tests.
3) The narrow gap penetration tests showed that OMS could
be injected through porous gaps as narrow as 120
microns.
4) Ultra-low-rate placement of cement slurries greatly
increases the ability to inject them into very narrow gaps
due to reduced differential pressure and decelerated filter
cake development.
5) Continuous pumping until the cement begins to undergo
the setting process aids in the prevention of gas migration
through the unset cement slurry.
6) Proper well diagnostics and preparation are key to the
overall squeeze treatment.
SPE/IADC 67775 SUCCESSFUL SEALING OF VENT FLOWS WITH ULTRA-LOW-RATE CEMENT SQUEEZE TECHNIQUE 5

Fig. 1 – Example of axial and radial fluid loss. Fig. 3 – In OMS, the void space between the cement
particles is partially filled with smaller sized solid
particles, reducing the amount of water required to form a
pumpable slurry.

Fig. 2 – In conventional microcements, water must first fill Fig. 4 – Apparatus for evaluating narrow gap penetration
all of the pore space between the cement particles and then of cement slurries.
additional water must be added to separate the particles
and form a pumpable slurry.
6 H.J. SLATER, D.A. STILES, W. CHMILOWSKI SPE/IADC 67775

Well-dispersed microcement

Optimized Microcement

Injection points

Fig. 5 – Photos of the narrow gap penetration apparatus

show a WDMS (top) bridging in a fingered pattern after
minimal penetration while the OMS (bottom) has
penetrated the entire length of the model in a fully fluid
state.

10-3/4 inch, 45.5 lb

0.1
8-5/8 inch, 32 lb
7 inch, 23 lb
5-1/2 inch, 17 lb
Dimension Change (in)

4-1/2 inch, 11.6 lb

5-1/2 inch, 23 lb
0.01
2-7/8 inch, 6.4 lb

0.001

0.0001
100 1,000 10,000
Pressure (psi)

Fig. 6 – Dimensional changes of various tubular sizes

versus applied internal differential pressure.