Cement Job Evaluation

Cement Evaluation

Determine if the material behind the pipe

is a solid or liquid
There is no such a thing as bad
cement or good cement.

Evaluation Techniques
1. Radioactive Tracer Survey
2. Hydraulic Testing
3. Temperature Survey
4. Acoustic Logging

Radioactive Tracers
Radioactive tracer work is very rare in
cementing evaluation and requires specialty
equipment and personnel
Generally used only in very special
applications

Pressure Evaluation
The most common method of cement
evaluation is to perform some type of
pressure evaluation to determine if
isolation has been achieved

Temperature Logs

Temperature surveys (logs) are very

effective but must be run within a specific
time window to be valid
Very cost effective
Limited application

Temperature Survey

The Heat of hydraiton

causes a temperature
rise

Compare results with

caliper

Temperature Survey
Time (h)

Class A
With

100 oF

120 oF

140 oF

160 oF

0 % Gel

8-12

8-12

6-9

4-8

4 % Gel

8-12

8-12

6-9

4-8

8 % Gel

9-12

9-12

6-9

6-9

12 % Gel

9-12

9-12

9-12

9-12

Example table for determining the time after

cementing to run a temperature log

Acoustic Logging

Noise Logging
Detects noise from moving fluids
Not continuous

Sonic Tools
Conventional bond logs

Ultrasonic tools
USIT, CAST V

CBL
t

20 kHz
Transmitter
3 ft
Receiver

Bonded cement
CBL amplitude
t

5 ft
Receiver
VDL

0
100
CBL amp

CBL (Sonic) Signal Transmission

CBL

CBL

What is needed?
Expected cement impedance --> amplitude for
100% bond: E100%
Free pipe amplitude: EFree
Measured amplitude: EMeas

Bond index:
BI = log10(Emeas/Efree)
log10 (E100%/Efree)

Conventionally:
80% < BI < 100%: Good cement
80% > BI:

CBL
Strengths
Most well fluids, tolerates corrosion
Responds to solidity (shear coupling)
Qualitative cement-formation bond from VDL
Inexpensive

Weaknesses
High CBL amplitude is ambiguous
liquid microannulus (shear coupling lost)
channel
contaminated cement
light cement mixed with neat
Fast formation arrivals
reflections from double string or hard formation
Low amplitude doesnt ensure 100% bond

CBL

The USI
evaluates
cement with
an ultrasonic
transducer
(0.2 - 0.7
MHz)
Free Pipe

Solids
behind
pipe

Ultrasonic Tools

USI logging procedure

1. Measure fluid properties
using reference plate while
running into well:
- velocity FVEL
- acoustic impedance ZMUD

2. Enter ZMUD and FVEL

parameters. Flip transducer to
face casing and log up.

USI cement image settings

Z
MRayl

Cement

Maximum
impedance

Interpreted
Image

Light

Standard

Raw
image

Solid/liquid
threshold
ZTCM

+/- 0.5
Liquid
Gas/liquid
threshold
Gas or dry microannulus

Measurement Specifications
Casing OD

4.5 - 13.375 in.

Casing thickness

0.17 - 0.59 in. (4.5-15 mm)

Acoustic Impedance 0-10 MRayl

Max. deviation

No limit

Logging speed

400 to 3200 ft/hr

Sampling
- Azimuthal
- Vertical

5-10 deg.

0.6-6 in.

Max mud weight

-Water-base mud
~16 lbm/gal
-Oil-base mud
~11.6 lbm/gal*
* Depends on composition, temp. and pressure. Good
logs can be obtained up to 13 lb/gal and in rare cases to
16 lb/gal

Ultrasonic Tools

Tolerate liquid (wet) microannulus

(vibrations normal to surface)
Full coverage, 30 mm resolution image
Detailed picture of material distribution:
solid, liquid, gas, debonded cement
Detects narrow channels

Easier interpretation and less uncertainty

than sonics (CBL/CBT)
Casing inspection in same pass

Summary

Acoustic logs are sensitive to the acoustic

properties (especially impedance) of the material
in contact with the casing.
The USI is the primary evaluation tool: the image
is easier to interpret and much less ambiguous
than the CBL log.
USI and CBL are sensitive to the cement/casing
bond but in different ways- complementary
evaluation.

Gas Cut Cement

Summary

Type of evaluation depends on the

need
For top of cement
use temperature if less than 24
hours
use CBL if more than 24 hours

Summary

Conventional CBL vs. Focused Tools

CBL is an average but improved data
from focused tools
Can identify areas of no cement and
identify channel, but is must be large.
Both tools have same limitations

Summary

Sonic vs. Ultrasonic

Cost of ultrasonic is higher (+ 50 %)
Quality of data is significantly better
Do not depend on the computer to do the
interpretation with Ultrasonic Logs

Summary

Acoustic methods are limited in very

light cements (low acoustic contrast
from mud).
For optimum evaluation, cement job
data must be included in the
evaluation because cement does not
disappear.

Conclusion

In the absence of cement job data, the slurries

pumped, and formations involved, cement
evaluation is very difficult and subject to
extreme interpretation errors.

Common Questions

I have a well that is making water and I need

to run a cement evaluation log to determine
where the water is coming from. What is
the best log ?
I need to be sure I have isolation, but I can
not spend the money on a decent log. What
can I do ?