Leakage Behind Casing

TPG 4920
DRILLING SPECIALIZATION
THESIS WORK, NTNU, 2007
LEAKAGE BEHIND
CASING
By
Rupak kumar khandka
June 11, 2007.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Associate Professor Pl Skalle firstly for his acceptance to be my
supervisor for this thesis work and secondly for valuable suggestions, corrections done in
draft report. I also thank Official In charge Tone Sanne for timely information of rule and
regulations concerning the thesis work.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) for offering me an opportunity
for higher study in Norway.
Finally, I want to really thank all my teachers and friends in the Petroleum
Department for making my graduate years pleasant and effective.
Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007
SUMMARY
Achieving zonal isolation by cementing annulus space between casing and well
bore is an important job in many oil wells. Gas leakage in the annulus has been
recognised as a major completion problem in the oil well. A successful cement job results
in complete zonal isolation on a permanent basis. To achieve these goals, various factors
such as well security, casing centralization, effective mud removal, and gas migration
must be considered in the design. The design of the cement must be such that it prevents
micro-annuli formation, stress cracking, corrosive fluid invasion, fluid migration, and
annular gas pressure. However, permanent solutions to gas leakage has not emerged and
gas leaks during and after the cement is set.
In this thesis work attempt has been made to deal the fluid leakage behind casing
in two levels, firstly, revealed gas migration mechanism and, secondly, analytical
modeling of cement sheath failure by internal and rising temperature.
Several theories have been proposed regarding gas migration. In chaper 2 some
probable physio-mechanical phenomena responsible for fluid migration in the cemented
casing have been described. During cement setting and hardening gas migration is
attributed to ineffective hydrostatic head, fluid loss during cementing, and the differential
pressure occurrence due to the gelation. Micro annulus is attributed to the cement
inability to form a good bond with the casing. Cyclic pressure and temperature variations
during production also lead to the debonding or tensile failure or stress crushing of the
cement causing gas migration. Gas leakage may occur years after production has ceased
and well has been plugged and abandoned (P&A). Explanatory mechanism includes
channeling, poor mud removal, shrinkage, and high cement permeability.
In chapter 3 efforts have been made to describe the case studies regarding zonal
isolation. Case 1 describes the specialized cement design and placement procedures to
mitigate casing vent flows (type: improve plan to avoid problem). Case 2 depicts a new
cementing approach to improve and provide long term zonal isolation. Case 3 is related
to the development of a methodology to evaluate the gas migration in cement slurries
(type: predicting problem before it arises).
The stress in the cement is strongly connected with temperature and pressure, as
well as lithology and in-situ stress. In chapter 4 an attempt has been made to quantify the
cement failure as a function of down hole conditions and geometry and to define
optimum mechanical properties to sustain the induced stresses. Analytical modeling has
been done on the basis of plane strain in thin wall condition. Expressions for total stresses
(hoop stress in casing, hoop stress in cement, and far field stress) are used to analyzed the
cement integrity based on the case study well parameters of the Kristin Oil Field of
Norway, Well R-3H (chapter 5). As this oil field is HTHP type, conventional cement is
found not withstanding the stresses. In most of the situation tensile failure is the mode of
failure, in some cases stress crushing and debonding. Improving the elasticity of cement
or its flexural and tensile strength appeared to be an elegant solution to prevent cement
failure (debonding, radial craking, and stress crushing). In addition, improvement can be
ii
made using high grade casing pipe (high Youngs modulus, low Poissons ratio). In
reality a thick wall high grade (Q-125, SM-125) casing program has been selected in the
Kristin Oil Field. The results of this study show the relevant dependency of stress
principles with differential well temperature, pressure and field stress, Youngs modulus,
thickness, and diameter of casing and cement sheath are also important.
iii
CONTENT
Description
Page
1. Introduction
2. Gas Leakage after Cementing:

2.1 Gas leakage model due to shrinkage.
2.2 Gas leakage due to cyclic pressure variation
2.3. Gas leakage due to temperature variation
2.4. Shear and hydraulic bond strengths
2.4.1 Bonding of cement to pipe
2.4.2 Bonding of cement to formation
2.5 Mud cake buildup and mud channeling
2
3
6
8
9
10
11
11
3. Good and Bad Experiences in Zonal Isolation Job (Review of Case Studies) 13
3.1 Case 1. Specialization cement design and placement procedures prove
successful for mitigating casing vent flows (CVF)-case histories.
13
3.2 Case 2. A new cementing approach to improve and provide
long term zonal isolation.
16
3.3 Case 3. A methodology to evaluate the gas migration
in cement slurries.
19
4. Analytical Modeling of Cement Sheath Failure by Internal Pressure and Rising
Temperature (developed in this Thesis)
23
4.1 Case study for typical values to be applied in simulation
23
4.2 Modeling of stress
25
4.2.1 Derivation of equations
25
5. Analysis of Stresses and Evaluation of Cement Failure
5.1 Short coming in the stress analysis
5.2 Analysis of stresses dependent of well pressure, temperature,
and field stress value.
5.3 Stress dependent on mechanical parameter of cement
35
46
6. Discussion
47
7. Conclusion
48
8. Nomenclature
50
9. References
51
31
35
iv
1. Introduction:
Achieving zonal isolation by cementing annulus space between casing and well
bore wall is an important job in many oil wells. Cementing of the annulus may take place
during drilling stage of the well bore or completion of the well or plugged and abandoned
(P&A) phase. While cementing the annular space behind several casings strings or whole
casings in the well may be cemented properly in place to get a hydraulic seal. Despite the
efforts to get good zonal isolation, migration of formation fluid in the annulus takes
place. Migration implies here the entry of formation fluid from the formations pores into
annulus behind casing due to a pressure imbalance at the fluid-bearing formation face,
followed by upwards migration of the fluid in the annulus. The fluid flows to a lower
pressure zone or possibly up to surface. Among the formation fluid, gas migration is in
the annulus behind the casing has been recognized as a major problem because it can
leads to the blowout (danger to human and drill rig safety) and contamination of ground
water (environment hazard). Gas migration has also been termed as gas communication,
gas leakage, annular gas flow, gas channeling, and flow after cementing etc.
Gas migration phenomena can be caused by various factors and can take place at
different time period. It is worthwhile when dealing with gas migration to classify
problems into two distinct groups, primary and secondary1. The former can be
defined as those which are related to aspects of the actual cementing operation i.e. slurry
characteristics, displacement mechanics, hydrostatic pressures. Typically primary gas
migration occurs within a few hours or, at most some days after the cementing operation.
The main cause for primary type of problem is loss of hydrostatic head on the formation.
It has been observed1 that pressure in a column of cement actually decline shortly after
cement placement. This pressure decline is attributed to a combination of gelation, fluid
loss and chemical contraction phenomena. Secondary gas migration is, by nature, a gas
leakage has little to do with the cementing operation since it occurs weeks, months or
even years later. It may be caused by mechanical and thermal stresses which compromise
the integrity of hydraulic bond or the integrity of the cement materials.
Gas migration/leakage is associated with the gas flow through the cemented
annulus portion of the well bore. Mechanism of gas flow through annulus has been
attributed to gas percolation, gas migration, gas flow along the interfaces between cement
and formation or cement and pipe depending upon the various physical aspects of
cementing practices, formation characteristics, hydrostatic situations, cement slurry
properties etc.
This thesis work is aimed to study physical mechanism of gas migration in the
cemented casing based on the work done by universities, research institute, Oil Company
and Service Company i.e. basically on literature review. An analytical study shall be
made on the effect on cement-casing bond by change in pressure and temperature. Effect
shall also be made to outline accepted procedures aiming to reduce gas migration. Casestudies regarding gas migration prevention/remediation shall be used as necessary back
ground for all thesis tasks.
2. Gas Leakage after Cementing:

Cementing of the annuli between casing and formation in the oil well is the
adopted procedure to obtain hydraulic seal. Casings are cemented using water-cement
slurries. These are pumped down the casing, displacing drilling fluids from the casingrock annulus, leaving a sheath of cement to set and harden. Casing and rock are prepared
by careful conditioning using centralizers, mudcake scrapers, and so on. During
placement, casing is rotated and reciprocated to increase the sealing effectiveness of the
cement grout.
Gas leakage in the annulus behind the casing has been recognized as a major
completion problem in the oilwell. Despite efforts of many companies and individual
researchers, the problem has remained unsolved. Gas migration in cement occurs during
and after the cement is set. It has been found that even when leakage rate is small,
excessive pressure can build up if the annulus is not vented. In some cases, the gas
leakage rate is great enough to warrant connecting the annulus to a gathering line. In deep
holes, leakage resulting from dehydration, gelling, or bridging of cement or mud in the
annulus can cause a pressure build up behind the production and intermediate casings or
behind the liners.
Several theories have been proposed regarding gas migration during cement
setting and hardening. These theories attribute the gas migration to ineffective hydrostatic
head, fluid loss during cementing, and the differential pressure occurrence due to the
gelation which precedes the cement setting. This differential pressure causes gas to
migrate into the pores of the cement gel structure. Micro-annulus is attributed to the
cement inability to form a good bond with the casing. Micro-fractures are formed
between cement and formation and within cement itself. Casing centralization, use of
scratcher to clean mud cakes, and use of fluid spacers were some of the early ideas
employed to solve the gas channeling problem, however, the application of these methods
helped to reduce gas channeling but not eliminate it. The two main reasons for gas
channeling through a cemented annulus are the mud cake that remains between cement
and the permeable formations provides a weak zone for the passage of water and gas,
resulting to failures in cement job, and, the inability of cement to hold the high fluid
pressure at the period of its initial set which may cause water accumulation, resulting to
micro fracture within the cement body.
During the production phase of the oil well, cemented casing together is usually
subjected to cyclic pressure and temperature variations. Change in casing pressure during
pressure testing and thermal shocking in cyclic steam operation are some examples of
this type. Set cement sheath may be subjected to stress failures thereby causing the gas
leakage. For commonly used tail cement, rock mechanics type of tests is obtained to get
detailed stress-strain behavior that helps to study the stress failure of cement sheath.
Oil and gas wells can develop gas leaks along the casing years after production
has ceased and well has been plugged and abandoned (P&A). Explanatory mechanism
includes channeling, poor cake removal, shrinkage, and high cement permeability. The
reason is probably cement shrinkage that leads to circumferential fractures that are
propagated upward by the slow accumulation of gas under pressure behind the casing.
Field survey has shown that even when the most up-to-date cement types and
techniques are used, leakage can and will occur in a significant number of cases6. It has
also been observed that majority of well leakage occurs within a few withdrawal/injection
cycles. The prime causes might be related to the primary type of problem and/or low
cycle fatigue of materials, which brings failure due to the result of operating at a stress
level that is too near the materials ultimate limit.
Oil well behavior that is observed in practice in relation to delayed gas leakage can
be rationally explained by the following conceptual model2. This model, assuming good
quality cement operation, tries to explain the followings:
Generally there are no open circumferential fractures detectable after typical

good quality cement job (good bond is observed on the log traces).
Such fractures develop over time and with well service.
Even in cases where bond appears reasonable over substantial sections of the
casing, gas leakage may be evidenced some years or decade later.
The process is invariably delayed; thus, there must be physically reasonable rate
limiting processes.
The gas often appears at surface rather than being pressure injected into another
porous stratum encountered in the stratigraphic column.
The presence of surface casing provides no assurance against gas leakage.
2.1. Gas Leakage Model due to Shrinkage: (Main source: Reference-2)

Figure 2.1.1 shows the effect of shrinkage on near well bore stresses. Initially,
cement pressure ( c. z ) is higher than pore pressure (po) but lower than lateral minimum
stress (hmin). Cement set occurs and a small amount of shear stress develops between the
rock and the cement, then, hydrostatic pressure in the cement is no longer transmitted
along the annulus. Thereafter, even minor shrinkage (0.1-0.2%) will reduce the radial
stress (r=r+po) between cement and rock because rock is stiff (4-20GPa for softer
rock), and small radial strains (0.001-0.003) cause relaxation of r, and increase in
tangential stress . A condition of po>r (3) is reached; i.e. the hydraulic fracture
criterion. A circumferential fracture perpendicular to hmin, typically no wider than 10-20
m, develops at the rock-cement interface.
A thin fracture aperture is sufficient to appear as loss of bond in a geophysical
bond log. Because in situ stresses are always deviatoric (e.g. hmin hmax), bond loss will
usually appear first on one side of the trace, or on two opposite sides (direction of hmin).
Wells that have experienced several pressure or thermal cycles will almost always show
loss of bond, sometimes for vertical distances in excess of 100 m.
A zone of po>r(3) can extend for cosiderable heights. Nevertheless, this is still
not a mechanism for vertical growth. To understand vertical growth, consider figure
2.1.2, where a hypothetical case is presented. The static circumferential fracture length L
is filled with formation water of density w, giving a gradient of about 10.5 kPa/m for
Figure 2.1.1: Radial Stresses and Circumferential Fractures. ( after reference-2)
Figure 2.1.2: Fracture Driving Pressure from Gradient Differences (after reference -2).
typical oilfield brine, but the gradient of lateral stress ((h/z) is generally on the order of
18-24 kPa/m. This means that if the fracture contains a fluid pressure sufficient to just
keep it open at the bottom, there is an excess pressure at the upper part approximately
equal to L(21-10.5) 10 kPa/m. Thus, because of the imbalance between the pressure
gradient in the fracture and the stress gradient in the rock, an inherent fracture
propagation force is generated that tends to drive the circumferential fracture upward.
Cementing a casing leads not only to the development of a cement sheath, but the
cement paste also slightly penetrates the interstitial space in the surrounding rock (a few
grain diameters deep for typical sandstone). This reduces the permeability substantially,
and because of capillary exclusion effects associated with two-phase flow and the
reduced pore throat diameter arising from cement particle invasion, gas flow into the
circumferential fractures is almost certainly through diffusion. This means that when the
fracture is small, the rate of gas influx is modest. However, as the fracture grows in
height, the contact area with surrounding sediments increases, and eventually, the gas
diffusion rate is large enough to lead to continuous but slow gas leakage.
In the fracture, once solution gas saturation is achieved, free gas at the top of the
fracture develops. The gradient in gas is less than 1 kPa/m (rather than 10.5 kPa/m for
water) so there is an even greater excess driving pressure at the upper tip. In addition, this
gradient effect tends to favor driving the liquid in the fracture back into the formation,
though slowly, and fracture becomes more and more gas filled. Thus, there is a selfreinforcing process: the greater the vertical height of the fracture, the greater the excess
driving force at the tip. The fracture grows vertically upward, and eventually leads to gas
leakage behind the casing at the surface. It will migrate up around the outside of any
casing strings at higher elevations because the excess pressure that can be developed at
this stage is large enough to fracture even excellent bond. However, it may take so long
for the gas to get to surface (sometimes decades). Probable reason may be the: gas
migrate to surface through a circumferential fracture perhaps only 10-20 m thick
extending over only a limited part of the circumferential of the rock-cement interface.
Fracture aperture develops between pf and 3 when the pressure acts to maintain it open,
but because the rock and cement have elastic stiffness; they act to severely restrict the
aperture. Thus, there are at least two rate-limiting aspects to gas evolution at the surface:
diffusion rate of gas into the fracture, and the low hydraulic conductivity of the
circumferential fracture arising because of its narrow aperture.
Why does the fracture grow so slowly? When the micro-annular circumferential
fractures are not connected and are short, the excess pressure at the tip is small. Also, if
the casing pressure is large because of production pressure, this leads to a small outward
flexure that may be enough to maintain the fissures closed. As the production pressure
declines with time, the fissure will tend to open more because the casing is less
pressurized. Also, fracture growth in the vertical direction is undoubtedly aided by
pressure and thermal cycles.
Nevertheless, it is common for gas bubbling at the surface to be noticeable only
years and sometimes decades after P&A. over time, the effective fracture length
increases, and this leads to the driving pressure increases discussed above. Because the
velocity of a fracture is a very strongly non-linear process that is positively coupled to the
driving pressure, it probably takes years for diffusion processes to lead to a condition
where growth starts to accelerate. However, once acceleration begins, the fracture length
increases, and complete upward propagation is fast, limited only by the rate at which
fluids can enter the fracture at depth and flow to the trip. Thus, before P&A, a cement
bond log may show that the well is in good condition, yet this is no guarantee that, years
later, leakage will not occur.
As the fracture rises, the condition that the pressure in the fracture exceeds the
pore pressure in the surrounding strata will arise. This will lead to flow from the fracture
out into the strata. If this flow is unimpeded, it will occur and the fracture vertical growth
will terminate. Now, a condition exists where gas and liquids are entering the wellbore
region behind the casing and leaving it at a higher elevation. This is a loss zonal seal, and
could have negative effects, such as pressurizing higher strata, or leakage of brines and
formation fluids into shallower strata causing contamination. It can also have positive
environmental effects. Properly executed.
Yet, despite the existence of permeable zones, gas is still observed at the surface,
and also as deep-sourced gas in shallow groundwater aquifers. The reason is probably
that the cement paste in the pores of permeable strata acts to exclude gas by capillary
effects along the entire length of the stratigraphic column (it take a large p to overcome
surface tension effects in small pores). This means that gas must leave the fracture mainly
by liquid-phase diffusion. So, it seems that in leakage cases the flow rate from depth
simply exceeds the diffusion bleed-off rate at higher elevations, leading to the excess
appearing at the surface. Even if no gas appears at the surface, it is no guarantee that the
well is not leaking. In fact, the common occurrence of household water sources being
charged with deep-sourced gas is clear evidence that there are many cases of leakage
where the gas simply enters the water aquifer, and may never bubble around the casing.
2.2 Gas Leakage due to Cyclic Pressure Variation:

The objective of cementing the annulus, which is present between the
casing and the formation, is to provide zonal isolation of the formations that have been
penetrated by the well bore. No fluid communication should develop during the life of
the well among these various formations, whether they are saturated with water, oil, or
gas, and the surface. However, long term annular influx problems usually experienced
even in situations where the cement was properly placed and initially provided a good
hydraulic seal. The disappearance of zonal isolation with time is observed. This
disappearance is revealed, for example, by a gas migration problem that was not initially
detected, or by the fracturation of a wrong zone during a stimulation treatment. The loss
of the cement bond log response with time also creates some concern about the quality of
the isolation. Long term annular influx has long been believed to be caused by either
sheath failure or hydrostatic pressure loss in a channeled (bypassed) mud column after
the weighting material ha settled out of the drilling mud5.
Studies4, 5 shows that stresses induced in the cement from the variation of down
hole conditions are the cause of this damage. Various processes can result in a variation
of down hole conditions in a cased section of a well bore. These processes include the
drilling of the well bore, the perforation of the casing, and the stimulation and production
of the reservoir. Drilling involves a variation of pressure, if the mud weight has been
changed to drill the next section and a temperature increase of the cased sections when
the mud, which has been heated by the formation being drilled, returns to the surface via
the annulus. Associated with the drilling process are the various pressure increases that
result from integrity and leakoff tests. Pressure increase during perforation follows the
firing of the guns, and, although it is applied dynamically to the casing (cement is more
resistant to dynamic loading than to static loading), can lead to cement damage. The
amount of pressure increase during perforation is significant. The increase of well bore
pressure during hydraulic fracture stimulation is more damaging to the cement sheath
because the fluid injection lasts from minutes to hours.
Increase of pressure and temperature during production mainly concerns the nearsurface casing sections, where surface pressure is increased from about atmospheric
pressure to production pressure, and temperature is increased to about, in some cases,
down hole temperature. The pressure variation usually concerns only the production
tubing and, therefore, does not affect the cemented sections, unless a gas migration
problem results in an annulus pressure increase. A temperature increase also can lead to
pressure increase in the annuli following gas expansion, if the annuli are saturated with
gas. Pressure decrease during production mainly affects the bottom of the hole where
down hole pressure, which is controlled by the production rate, decreases from formation
pore pressure to down hole production pressure.
Figure 2.2.1 Pressure situation in the borehole.
Figure 2.2.2 Tensile failure in cement sheath due to differential pressure.
Assuming that the cement column represents a physical force (not a hydraulic
pressure) against the outer casing surface, the total internal casing pressure (and the
differential pressure across the casing wall thickness) becomes the sum of the surface
pressure plus the hydrostatic pressure of the casing fluid. Depending on the casing fluid
density and depth, these differential pressures can range from surface pressure to as high
as 20,000 psi at the bottom of the hole5. This implies that cement sheath failure caused by
excessive casing test pressure generally should occur somewhere in the bottom one-half
to three quarters of the casing string, creating zonal isolation loss over those interval. If
excessive casing test pressure are conducted while the cement is gelled but not set, casing
expansion frequently will create a large micro annulus between the casing and cement
sheath, creating a flow path to the surface.
Loading other than changes of well bore pressure and temperature, can be
applied to the cement sheath during the life of the well. For example, an increase of the
pressure on the external surface of the cement represents a situation where the formation
loads the well bore because of creep. Far-field minimum stress changes can also occur
following a change of reservoir pore pressure or reservoir temperature.
Generally, the presence of stress cracks in the cement sheath is not a problem
while the casing is expanded as long as the cracks do not extend into the formation at a
well-bonded interface. When the casing relaxes during pressure release and/or cooling,
the cracks open sufficiently to permit annular flow.
2.3 Gas Leakage due to Temperature Variation:

Downhole deformations can occur as a result of thermal stresses (cement
hydration, wellbore cooldown treatments, steam injection, cold fluid injection). Exposure
of steel causing to excessive temperature increase causes diametrical and circumferential

casing expansion. This circumferential force creates a shearing force at the cement/
casing interface, causing failure at the cement/casing interface or radial fracturing of the
cement sheath from the inner casing surface to the outer casing (or borehole) surface.
Long-term annular influx due to temperature generally occurs following excessive
temperature changes resulting from excessively high producing temperature or steaminjection temperature.
In some wells5, annular surface pressure becomes evident only after the well has
begun producing. This phenomenon is observed where surface flowing temperature are
excessively high or in steam flood injection wells. Though annular flow (gas or liquid) is
measured and sampled at the surface, it is possible that flow originate in zones
considerable distance above the primary producing zone. This implies that cement sheath
occurs in the upper one-fourth to two-thirds of the casing string when failure is caused by
excessive temperature change. In the case of shallow steam flood injection wells cement
sheath failure appears to occur over the entire cemented interval. This type of cement
sheath failure is believed to result from sheath stress cracking caused by diametrical and
circumferential casing expansion from excessive temperature increases.
Temperature changes in a flowing well can create significant casing diameter
increases. This expansion is cubical (volumetric). The coefficient of cubic expansion of a
solid is approximately three times the linear coefficient. The axial stresses created by the
increasing casing outer diameter create stress cracks in the cement sheath much as the
excessive inner casing pressure does as described in the chapter 2.2. This stress cracks
result from the cement failure in tension, not in compression5. Contrary to the pressure,
the changes in casing temperature do not occur near a producing zone but toward the
surface, where significant differential temperature can occur (e.g., surface flowing
temperature less the normal geothermal temperature).
Generally, the presence of the stress cracks in the cement sheath is not a problem
while casing is expanded (e.g., while the well is flowing or during steam injection) as
long as the cracks do not extend into the formation at a well-bonded interface. When the
casing relaxes during cooling, the cracks open sufficiently to permit annular flow. Where
pumping low-density, low-compressive-strength cements is possible, the cracking
problem can be practically eliminated.
2.4 Shear and Hydraulic Bond Strengths:

In a well bore, shear bond and hydraulic bond are the two forces to be considered
for effective zonal isolation along the cement/casing and cement/formation interfaces.
Shear bond mechanically supports pipe in the hole, and is determined by measuring the
force required to initiate pipe movement in a cement sheath. Hydraulic bonding blocks
the migration of fluids or gas in a cemented annulus and is usually measured by applying
pressure at the pipe/cement interface until leakage occurs.
At no stress change condition in well bore, hydraulic bonding is of greater

significance than shear bonding because the cement composition for most jobs will
provide adequate mechanical support to hold pipe in place. But when stress condition is
affected by change in pressure, temperature, and field and mechanical stresses, shear
bonds hold much significance.
2.4.1 Bonding of Cement to Pipe:
Shear, hydraulic, and gas bond strengths are directly affected by the surface finish
of the pipe against which the cement is placed. Where pipe/cement bonding is critical, a
resin-sand coating applied to the outside of the pipe will improve the bond as well as the
resistance to gas migration. On equivalent pipe finishes, oil-wet surface provide the
poorest bond. Generally, the rougher and drier the surface of the pipe, the better the bond.
Other factors11 influencing casing/cement bonding is the direction is the direction
in which pressure is applied and the length of time pressure is held on the bonded
interface. During the setting of cement, the heat of hydration can produce an effect
similar to internal pressuring of the casing and cause expansion of the pipe. Normally,
heat begins to build up inside the casing as the cement hydrates and takes its initial set.
After the cement sets, its temperature decreases, causing the casing to contract. This
expansion and contraction places additional stress on the casing and cement sheath,
which can decrease the shear and hydraulic bond strength.
Hydraulic bond failure is a function of time, cement properties, applied pressure,
and viscosity of the pressuring medium. Investigation11 has shown that the rate of bond
failure with water ranges from 1.125 to 1.250 ft/min. Normally, pressure from gas which
has a lower viscosity causes bond failure to progress up the pipe faster than pressure from
water, oil, or mud. Vertical bond failure will normally occur 30o each side of the
pressure-application point when there is uniform cement can cause bond failure at the
weakest plane (which could account for communication in multiple-string tubing less
completions). The intrusion of casing attachments such as collars, centralizers, scratcher
has little influence on hydraulic or gas bond failure pressure.
In considering pipe/cement bonding, the following points are noticeworthy11:
1. A change in internal pressure on the casing will cause a corresponding change in
hydraulic and shear bond strength. If the casing is closed in while the cement is
setting, the heat of hydration causes a pressure buildup that lower the strength of
the bond and can readily create a micro annulus through which gas can migrate
easily.
2. Hydraulic and shear bond strengths increase with surface roughness.
3. As the viscosity of the pressuring fluid increases, the pressure increases, hastening
failure or communication of fluid where the pipe and cement come in contact.
4. Oil-wet pipe surfaces reduce the hydraulic shear strength of the cement/ pipe
bond.
5. Hydraulic bond failure is a function primarily of pipe expansion or contraction.
10
2.4.2 Bonding of Cement to Formation:

The bond between the cement and the formation is what normally determines
whether there will be gas or fluid communication in the annulus. Cement sets better
against one coated with mud cake. The following general statements11 apply in
cement/formation bonding.
1. A good hydraulic bond to the formation depends on intimate contact between the
cement and the formation.
2. A thick mud layer at the cement/formation interface greatly reduces hydraulic
bonding.
3. Higher bond strengths can be expected on more permeable formations if the mud
cake has a uniform thickness.
4. The bond strength ultimately attained on a dry formation or a formation free of
filter cake will approach or exceed the formation strength.
5. Failure to remove mud can be more detrimental to formation bond than to pipe
bond.
2.5 Mud Cake Buildup and Mud Channeling:

The existence of mud cake at the formation wall is the primary problem that leads
to the weaks bond between cement and formation. Despite use of spacers like acid mud,
pure water, the complete mud removal is problematic. Mud cake remaining between the
formation and the cement provides regions of weakness. These regions allow the passage
of water or gas resulting to cement job failure. Results from several wells indicated that
significant amounts of mud were bypassed below the cement top, and that the high gel
strength made the made column movement more difficult.
Mud channeling occurs during the injection of cement slurry or displacement of
cement by drilling fluids. This phenomenon occurs when there are differences in
densities of the cement and mud, and it is dependent on the flow regime existent in the
annulus and the mud viscosity. Cement job failures are also due to the channeling of the
cement slurry as a result of off-centered casing. A thin mud prior to cementing reduced
channeling. An increase in the annular pressure drop results to a decrease in channeling9.
Incomplete mud dispalcement can leave a continuous mud channel in the annulus,
thereby favoring interzonal communication. Proper mud removal techniques to minimize
gas leakage were outlined as early as 1973 by Carter et al. They are related to the
following10:
Mud conditioning,
Casing centralization,
Casing movement, namely rotation and reciprocation, during mud circulation and
possibly during cement placement,
11
Choice of proper preflushes and spacers, in terms of compatibility with mud and
cement, density, rheology, fluid-loss control, and solids control,
Choice of proper fluid volumes (contact times), and
Determination, by a computer simulation, of adequate flow rates according to
down hole conditions, with preference to high rates and turbulent flow.
12
3. Good and Bad Experiences in Zonal Isolation

Job:
Riview of three case studies of different type have been presented.
Case 1 is suggesting a practical method of how to solve annular pressure build up
problem solved in the field.
Case 2 is of improving plan to avoid gas migration.
Case 3 is predicting gas migration before arises type.
They are presented in the same structure case wise under sub heading The
Problem, Why and how, Problem Characters, Solution, and Gained Experiences.
3.1 Case 1. Specialization Cement Design and Placement

procedures Prove Successful for Mitigating Casing Vent Flows
(CVF) Case Histories16:
3.1.1 The problem:
Mitigation of Casing Vent Flow (CVF) on producing and abandoned wells.
Petroleum Industry commonly encounters annular gas pressure on cemented casing
annuli. This condition is often refered to in different terms based on the local
interpretation of the problem. Terms such as sustained annular-casing pressure, annular
gas pressure, and casing vent flows, or annular gas flows refer to the same general
problem.
3.1.2 Why and how:
CVF problems exists when gas pressure builds up in casing-by-casing annuli.
When annuli are shut-in, the gas pressure can build to a significant amount. CVF may
cause environmental concerns relating to potable water sands or cause shallow drilling
hazards on another well or adjacent new wells.
3.1.3 Problem characters:
The amount of gas pressure build-up can vary from slightly above atmospheric
pressure to that of near deep-gas reservoir pressure depending on the gas source and flow
path from the source to the surface. Also, the amount of bled from the annuli can vary
from a very slight flow to 1000s of standard cubic meters per day. CVFs can be caused
13
by several factors. However, the industry has recognized the following factors as the
main causes:
Poor mud displacement in the primary cement placement.
Cement sheath failure, resulting in sheath cracking.
Gas migration through the setting cement creating gas channels in the set cement.
Low cement top.
CVF can also reoccur after initial squeeze-cementing job, though, the job showed the
indications of success. Investigation of the wells having reoccurrence of CVF indicated
that some of the original cement slurry did not set as intended because of the following
reason:
Contamination of the neat cement before mixing.
Formation fluid influx after placement.
Cooler than expected well temperatures.
Contamination of neat cement during mixing.
Development of Thaumasite ( it is caused by the presence of sulfate and carbon
dioxide in the slurry or setting cement at low temperature <20o)
3.1.4 Solution:
Based on Laboratory results and post-job reviews of failed remedial attempts, the
following guidelines are recommended for preventing CVF:
Use of chemical wash ahead of the treatment to help remove the presence of
sulfate and carbon dioxide in and near the well bore. This help prevent
Thaumasite development. The most effective solution to sulfate attack has been
the use of pozzalan additives in the slurry. Pozzalan lower the permeability of the
set cement and transition tome. Low permeability and short transition time
prevent the invasion and influx of formation fluid.
Use a permeable-sealing fluid ahead of the squeeze cement with expansion
additive slurry. This fluid will enter the formation and form a gel that blocks the
formations permeability and near-well bore micro fractures. Polymer gels can
enter micro fractures in a failed cement sheath or dehydrated mud cake, further
improving the seal of a gas source zone. Cement expansion additives help prevent
gas migration and increase bonding to pipe and formations.
Use the formulated squeeze slurry, which has a short transition time and
Thaumasite-prevention.
Use mechanical set-cement retainers to help provide better isolation. Typically,
mechanical set retainer seal better because a higher setting force can be applied on
the sealing element. Also, mechanical tools set slower than wire line tools, which
allow the packer element to compress further than with wire line setting device.
This should result in a better isolation seal in old or corroded casing.
Attempt to obtain a squeeze pressure greater than the pressure in adjacent source
zones. Unless other factors present themselves, the general guideline is to apply at
least 5 to 7 MPa on shallow formations and 10 to 15 MPa on deeper source zones.
This application helps ensure that the final squeeze pressure is above the source
14
zones pore pressure. By obtaining a higher pressure in the cement slurry, the
chance of formation fluid influx into the setting cement can be reduced.
Case Histories:
In October of 2001, 20 wells were plugged and abandoned with the improved
solutions. Results from these squeeze operations are contrasted to a year-2000
abandonment program on eleven wells. The Year-2000 abandonment program did not use
the improved solutions outlined in this section. The requirement before starting a new
squeeze job is to obtain a 7-MPa squeeze pressure.
The 2000 Celtic Field Abandonment Project: Across eleven wells (three zones per
well) the following was achieved:
On five of the eleven wells (45%), two successful squeezes were executed in only
one day.
On the remaining 55% of the wells, only one or less squeezes per day could be
executed because of the long hesitation period to achieve to squeeze pressure.
On six of the eleven wells, the production zone was squeezed successfully on the
first attempt (55% success).
The average number of cementing days to achieve the abandonment objective was
3.3 days per well.
None of the eleven wells had CVFs pre- or post-treatment.
The 2001 Celtic Field Abandonment Project: Across twenty wells (three zones per
well) the following was achieved:
On sixteen of twenty wells (80%), two squeezes were executed in only one day.
On the remaining 20% of the wells, only one or less squeezes per day could be
executed.
On fourteen of the wells, the production zone was squeezed successfully on the
first attempt (70% success).
The average number of cementing days to achieve the abandonment objective was
2.5 days per well. Of these twenty wells, eleven had CVFs. After incorporating
the improved solutions presented, 7 of the wells had immediate shutoff of the
CVF. Buildup analysis on the remaining four wells indicated flow dissipation.
For the 2001 project, 1.08 attempts per zone were required to achieve a successful
squeeze. The typical industry rate for the field is 1.4 attempts per zone.
3.1.5 Gained experience:
Improved remedial cementing solutions were developed to help to help prevent
the development of thaumasite and to help obtain a gas-tight barrier of source zones.
Results from executing these improved solutions show that CVF can be
successfully mitigated and the improved solution can be executed in a shorter period of
time than previous operations.
15
3.2. Case 2. A New Cementing Approach to Improve and

Provide Long-Term Zonal Isolation17.
3.2.1 The Problem:
Designing of a cement system, which can be used to cement solid expandable
tubular (SET) in a carbonate field in southern Saudi Arabia.
3.2.2 Why and how:
Milling the cemented SET could introduce problems to conventional cement.
Conventional cement can fail due to pressure and temperature cycles. On the other hand,
casing corrosion is another challenge. Poor cementing placement practices, set cement
matrix properties and cement losses are significant factors that are contributing to the
corrosion problem. Consequently additional costs are enforced when workover rigs are
mobilized.
Smart completion technology is widely used in Saudi Arabia to aid in increasing
oil production by monitoring the progress of lateral producers. The use of expandable
tubing reduces the cost of the well by eliminating operations associated with conventional
tubing.
Well A of the Shuaiba Reservoir located in the Eastern RubAl-Khali of Saudi
Arabia was completed as a horizontal well and subsequently re-completed as multilateral.
SET technology have been used which is 900-ft long, 51/2 inch diameter, placed
horizontally in a 71/2-inch drilled hole with a 9000-ft depth. SET have been expanded to a
larger diameter equal to 6.147 inches.
Expansion of SET lead to stresses induced in the tubing, the formation, and the
cement sheath. As conventional cement is less elastic, shrinks by 3 to 4% during
hydration, has high compressive strength and permeability, and fails mostly in tension,
the effectiveness of the cement in maintaining long-term zonal isolation is critical. To
overcome problems associated with regular cement, a new flexible and expandable
cement system to prevent micro annulus formation was necessary.
3.2.4 Solution:
The new advanced cement system (NACS) represents a dry blend of Portland
cement, flexible particles, an expanding agent and other materials added to enhance the
properties based on well conditions. The objectives of the study was (i) perform lab
studies to evaluate the new cement system for potential use (ii) Design and apply the new
system in the field, and (iii) evaluate the treatment based on field data.
16
The New Advanced Cement System (NACS):

The NACS is based on particle volume fraction (OPSD = optimized particle size
distribution) technology. The OSPD technology is a new approach to cementing using
simple products in water-reduced slurry by applying the concrete technology in oilfield
application. The properties of the set cement cured under temperature and pressure
simulating the downhole conditions is represented in terms of flexural strength,
compressive strength, elastic properties (Youngs modulus and poison ratio),
permeability and volumetric changes during hydration.
Applying OPSD technology reduces the set cement permeability ( conventional
cement 0.1 mD, NACS 0.01 mD). The conventional cement shrinkage is about 3-4%,
whereas NACS does not shrinkage. An expansion test performed at the down hole
condition proved that the NACS expands. The linear expansion at 185oF and 3000 psi is
about 0.65%.
Table 3.1 Elemental analysis of regular and NACS cements (Taken from the Reference):
Element
Ca
Si
Fe
Al
Mg
S
Ti
Mn
Sr
Regular Cement
36.62
8.69
2.86
1.2
1.04
0.55
0.12
0.02
trace
NACS
25.95
10.53
1.84
1.4
1.10
0.62
0.11
0.03
trace
Another important advantage of the NACS is its ability to provide better

flexibility characteristics along with expansion without causing internal failure.
Flexibility is achieved by the relative decrease of the Youngs modulus values compared
to conventional system. The magnitude of the modulus is inversely proportional to the
concentration of the flexible additives. A system with 1X%bvob flexible material has half
(600,000 psi) the Youngs modulus value than system without flexible material
(1,200,000 psi). Flexible material reduces the compressive strength but increases the
elasticity.
Acid solubility was conducted by placing cement sample in 5wt% HCl solution.
The NACS has less calcium and iron than the conventional cement, so it is more
resistance to inorganic acids.
Case Study:
The Shuaiba reservoir consists of reef, lagoonal, and deep-water carbonate
accumulation. The oil column is overlain by a large gas cap, and underlain by an active
aquifer. Most oil producers in the field were completed as horizontal wells. To increase
17
oil production maximum reservoir contact (MRC) wells were drilled and some horizontal
wells were re-completed as multilateral. Well A is one of them.
A new 6-1/8 inches mother bore was initiated at 6350 ft and drilled at the lower
side of the original 6-1/8 inches hole. This new hole was under-reamed from 6-1/8 to 71/2 inches from the previous casing shoe (6249 ft) to 8 inches. Expandable liners were
ran upto 6950 ft. When at the setting depth, water cleaning was done, and then a 10 bbl
spacer and 28 bbl of NACS cement were pumped and displaced with 55 bbl water.
Finally expansion process took place. Inflow and pressure test at 2000 psi were
performed on the set cemented liner and showed no sign of leaks.
Evaluation of Field Application:
When the ultrasonic and the sonic tools are run in combination, we can determine
the presence and type of a microannulus. In well A, sonic tool reading indicative of
average bond at various intervals was observed where the ultrasonic confirmed good
cement bond.
In terms of the impact of the workover, the reservoir contact has been 1 to 5.8 km,
and production rate has improved from an average 1.5 to an optimum rate of 5 MBOD.
Water cut decreased from 7 to 2 vol% as a result of this operation.
3.2.5 Gained Experience:
Appropriate mechanical properties of cement can reduced potential cement failure
and debonding. High compressive cement is not always the best solution whereas; the
flexible cement is the appropriate approach. In this connection, the new advanced cement
system (NACS) has been found usable in the cementation of solid expandable tubular
(SET) because it is able to sustain stresses encountered during milling, drilling, and
completion due to the following properties:
It is ductile than regular cement; as a result, so it enhances cement resistance to
stress cycling,
Higher concentration of flexible material reduces the Youngs modulus,
It has low permeability and porosity than conventional cement,
It expands after placement in order to enhance the bond between the casing and
the formation
It is more resistant to acid (HCl) than conventional cement.
18
3.3 Case 3. A Methodology to Evaluate the Gas Migration in

Cement Slurries:
3.3.1 The Problem:
Searching for a methodology which can predict the fluid migration occurrence at
particular well conditions, hence allowing the selection of the optimum cement slurry
design, in order to assure the well life.
3.3.2 Why and how:
Gas migration represents 25% of the primary cement job failures. For this reason,
studies have been done in order to evaluate several properties of cement slurry like fluid
loss, permeability, static gel strength, and others. However, the study of this variable has
not shown separately a method to prevent the gas migration and which of these properties
of cement slurry have to be controlled to avoid such problem. Development of a
methodology to prevent fluid (gas/liquid) migration in well cementing is in demand.
One of the main problems in achieving zonal isolation for the life of well is fluid
migration in the annular space after well cementing. The main factor preventing the fluid
from entering the cement is the lowered hydrostatic pressure of cement column and the
mud above it. This pressure must be greater than pore pressure of the formation and
lower than fracturing pressure of the formation. The ability of the cement slurry to
transmit hydrostatic pressure, that affects the total hydrostatic pressure of the annular
column, is a function of the cement slurry gel strength. The higher the gel strength, the
lower is the transmissibility of the annular hydrostatic pressure. When hydrostatic
pressure is the same as the pore pressure and the Static Gel Strength (SGS) is not high
enough, fluid migration can occur.
In recent years much attention has been given to fluid migration in well
cementing. In spite of that, there are not any industry recognized standard methods (API
or ISO) for evaluate fluid migration problem. For this reason, several methods and
definitions have been misunderstood.
3.3.4 Solution:
A methodology has been developed to prevent fluid migration in well cementing,
which consists of three steps: the first one is the evaluation of Flow Potential Factor
(FPF) which predicts the severity of the problem. Then, the static gel strength (SGS) is
measured as a function of time, obtaining the transition time of the cement slurry.
Transition time is defined as the period from 100 SGS (fluid intrusion into gelled cement
can occur) until 500 SGS (the slurry develops sufficient gel strength to prevent fluid
migration). Finally, pressure reduction due to SGS verses time is simulated with Fluid
19
Migration Analyser (FMA), validating gas migration through cement slurry. Three wells
were studied in Venezuela determining the FPF. The result of the study agrees with field
experiences, based on quantitative measurements like transition time and FPF. This
methodology allows selecting the optimum cement slurry design in a way that prevents
industrial accidents and assuring the well life.
Experimental Procedure:
There are many parameters that are included in the evaluation of fluid migration. This
methodology takes into account three of them, which are given below:
i) Flow Potential Factor (FPF):
The equation for pressure restriction due to static gel strength is:
p =
SGS .L
300.D
(3.1)
p: pressure restriction due to SGS, psi.

SGS: Static gel strength, lb/100 ft2.
L: Length of interval.
D: Hole diameter Casing diameter, inch.
MPR: Maximum pressure reduction due to static gel strength (SGS= 500 lbf/100
ft2 was found to be the gel strength required to prevent fluid percolation), and it is given
as
MPR =
SGS .L 500.L 1.67.L

=
=
300.D 300.D
D
(3.2)
The ratio of maximum possible pressure reduction (MPR) to the initial

overbalance pressure for the gas zone (difference between initial hydrostatic pressure and
fluid zone pressure, OBP), provides a means to evaluate the annular fluid flow potential.
A FPF is defined as:
FPF =
MPR
OBP
(3.3)
The FPF can vary between zero and infinity, and the severity of the potential fluid
migration problem is rated, based on unpublished rules, as given in the table below:
Table 3.2 Classification of FPF.
FPF
<4
4 to 8
>8
Severity Rating
Minor
Moderate
Severe
20
ii) Static Gel Strength (SGS):

All SGS determination was performed with MINIMACS, a device designed to
analyze a cement composition gel strength behavior under static conditions, and simulate
dynamics operations.
iii) Simulated pressure reduction due to static gel strength:
For testing slurry resistance to internal gas flow during setting, equipment, Fluid
Migration Analizer (FMA), Chandler, was used to evaluate a particular cement
composition to contain fluid.
Field Data Analysis and comparison with FMA test results:
Three wells were studied in Santa Barbara and San Joaquin fields located in
eastern Venezuela. Well parameters and properties of cement slurry used in each well are
as given in the table below:
Table 3.3 Wells parameters and cement slurry properties:
Well Liner
1
51/2
in
51/2
in
133/8
in
Gas
Zone
7983
to
8756
ft
7670
to
16870
ft
877
to
2204
ft
Pore
Slurry BHST Compressive Thickening Fluid
loss
Time
Pressure Density
Strength at
(ml)
(Hr:min)
24 hours
1517 to 9.2 to 254oF
1300 psi
5:00
0
9.3
2081
ppg
psi
Filtrate
(ml/30
min)
36
7010 to
8474
psi
11 to
13.5
ppg
288oF
2100 psi
6:51
24
413 to
956 psi
12.7 to
15.6
ppg
142oF
1980 psi
8:16
41
When applying the methodology to determine the FPF, Transition time, SGS at
zero overbalance, OBM, FMA test result, and Field result are given below in the table
Table 3.4 Methodology parameters for each well.
Parameters
FPF
Transition time
SGS (at zero
OBM) lbf/100 ft2.
Overbalance, psi
Well 1
1-2
32 min.
1222
Well 2
1-2
43 min.
1301
Well 3
9-11
138 min.
120
3799
2207
1004
21
FMA
Field result
No gas migration
No gas migration
No gas migration
No gas migration
Gas migration
No gas migration
This table shows that FPF rating indications is came true with field result as well
as FMA result.
3.3.5 Gained Experience:
The proposed methodology can predict the fluid migration occurrence at

particular well conditions, hence allowing the selection of the optimum cement slurry
design, in order to assure the zonal isolation. The fluid migration control is a complicated
issue that can be study with the appropriate instruments and following the appropriate
steps, like measurement of FPF, SGS, and drop pressure simulation.
22
4. Analytical Modeling of Cement Sheath Failure

by Internal Pressure and Rising Temperature;
developed in this Thesis:
Cement sheath failure by internal well pressure and temperature change is
believed to result from sheath stress cracking / shear bond failure caused by diametrical
and circumferential casing alteration.
An attempt shall be made to quantify the failure (damage) as a function of down
hole conditions and down hole geometry and to define optimum cement mechanical
properties to sustain the induced stresses. After a description of the models used to
predict the state of stress in a cased cemented well bore, an analysis of the mechanical
response of a set cement to variation in down hole pressure and temperature shall be
presented. We then show a field example to document the variation of down hole
conditions in the field and to demonstrate some types of zonal isolation problems and
how to address them.
Just to be clear, this is not a response to the problem of gas migration, but it helps
to design cements sheath properties depending on the site specific and process specific
differential internal well pressure and temperature, and field stresses.
4.1 Case study for typical values to be applied in simulation:

Different parameters regarding well bore parameters, cement, casing and
formation properties are taken from different sources representing the base case values.
Base case casing program is shown in Figure 4.1. They are typical in the sence that
parameters taken represents a HPHT well with high field stress.
a) Drilling parameters are taken from Kristin oil field of Norway6, Well R-3H
(all data are referred to bottom):
Casing depth, z:
Fracture pressure, pf:
Well pressure, pw:
Pore pressure, po:
Horizontal field stress, h:
Reservoir temperature, Tr:
Well circulation temperature, Ti:
Hole size, 2rb:
4500 m
975 bar (97.5 MPa)
934 bar (93.4 MPa)
895 bar (89.5 MPa)
938 bar (93.8 MPa)
175o C (347 oF)
150o C (302 oF)
0.3111 m (12 inch)
b) Casing and Cement parameters taken from technical reports:

Casings Young modulus7, Es:
200 GPa (2.9x107 psi)
5,
Casings linear expansion coefficient s:
12.4 x 10-5 in/in. oF
23
Cements Young Modulus7, Ec:

c) Other parameters taken arbitrarily:
Geo-thermal gradient:
Surface temperature:
Geo-thermal temperature at bottom hole:
Portland cements compressive strength, Cc:
Cements tensile strength , Ct:
Shear bond of casing/cement interface, Cs:
Casing type:
Casing outer diameter, 2rm:
Casing wall thickness, ts:
Casing inner diameter, 2ra:
Cement wall thickness, tc:
12.4 GPa (1.8x106 psi)

2o C / 100 m
10o C (50 oF)
100o C (212 oF)
20.68 MPa (3000 psi)
8.273 MPa (1200 psi)
6.894 MPa (1000 psi)
P-110
0.2444m (9 5/8 inch)
0.0138m (0.545 inch)
0.2167m (8.535 inch)
0.03333m (1.3125 inch.)
Figure 4.1: Casing program representing the Base case.
24
4.2 Modeling of Stresses:

The stresses in the cement are calculated assuming that steel, cement, and rock are
thermo-elastic materials. It is also assumed that the steel/cement interface and the
cement/rock interface are both fully bounded. In the analysis presented here, it is also
assumed that the cement is under no internal stress after setting. Only the variations of
pressure, stress, or temperature that occur once the cement has set are considered. The
geometry of the problem is axisymmetric, with the axis of symmetry being the well bore
axis allowing the use of cylindrical coordinates r, , and z. The simplest situation is when
the boundary and initial conditions (well bore pressure, far-field state of stress, well bore,
and far-field temperature) are independent of . The variables of interest are then the
radial displacement, radial stress, r; hoop stress, , hoop strain, and the temperature, T.
Thermo-elasticity provides a linear relationship between the strains, r, , z, and
temperature, T, as follows in polar co-ordinate4:
r T =
T =
z T =
r
E
z
E
( + z )
(4.1)
( z + r )
(4.2)
( r + )
(4.3)
To make the analytical process simpler, the following situations have been assumed.
Assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Plane strain is assumed, no axial movement.

Radial displacements and radial stresses are continuous across the interface.
Horizontal field stresses are isotropic.
Steel, cement, and rock are thermo-elastic materials.
Stress in each ring is fully determined as a function of the elastic properties,
boundary conditions, and cased well bore geometry.
Thin wall pipe situation is selected for all annuli.
Cement is free of initial stresses.
Borehole wall is fixed and exerting field stress h.
Casing temperature is equal to reservoir fluid temperature while cement
sheath is in normal geothermal temperature.
4.2.1 Derivation of Equations:

a) Stresses due to internal pressure:
25
The stresses in the casing/cement ring are determined by the linear elastic solution
in polar co-ordinate derivation in the ring section as shown in figure 4.2 below which
shows a cut of a cylinder of wall thickness t, along the longitudinal axis as shown in
Figure 4.2 (a), and stress in the plane section, Figure 4.2 (b).
Figure 4.2: Stress in thin wall pipe segment (after reference 2 and 8).
A simple cylindrical vessel of radius r and wall thickness t is subjected to an

internal pressure pi, which induces equal bi-circumferential or hoop stresses . This
stress can be denoted using cylindrical r z, co-ordinates as .
The free body is in static equilibrium. According to Newtons first law of motion,
the hoop stress yields,
2 tdx = pi 2rdx
(4.4)
pi r
(tensile)
(4.5)
t
The hoop stress is a principal stress8 as shown in Figure-4.2(a). The sign convention
is that tensile stresses are positive and compressive stresses are negative.
The above formula is good for thin walled cylinder. Generally, thin wall means
radius, r, is larger than 5 times its wall thickness, t ( r > 5t).
26
When a cylinder is subjected to external pressure, the above formula is still valid.
However, the stresses are negative since the wall is now in compression instead of
tension.
pu r
(compression)
(4.6)
t
As the casing in the borehole has open ends there will be no axial stress since
pr
there are no ends caps for the drilling fluid to push against. Only hoop stress = i
t
exists, and the corresponding hoop strain is given by Hookes Law as:
pi r
tE
(4.7)
Since this strain is the relative change in circumference ( c divided by the original
circumference 2r) we can write:
c = C = 2r
pi r
tE
(4.8)
The change in circumference and the corresponding change in radius r =

c / 2 . The radial expansion becomes;
r =
pi r 2
tE
(4.9)
This equation can be used in case of compound cylinders. In case of a cemented

casing, the casing, the cement and the formation constitute inner, middle and outer
cylinder. The compound cylinders case has been shown in figure 4.2(b). A contact
pressure, pc, develops at the interface between casing and cement. While pi (well
pressure) and pu (formation stress, h) act on inner surface of casing and outer surface of
cement respectively. The inner cylinder (casing) expands according to the difference pwpc, while outer cylinder (cement) expands according to pc-pu. From displacement
boundary values it can be postulated that until the consecutive cylinders remains in
contact, the radial expansions of inner and outer cylinder must be the same. We can write
the radial expansions in this case as follow:
s = c
2
( p i p c )ra
( p pu )rm
= c
ts Es
t c Ec
(4.10)
In terms of well pressure (pw) and field stress (h), the equation becomes:
27
( p w p c )ra
( p h )rm
= c
t s Es
t c Ec
2
(4.11)
and contact pressure, pc, as:
t E r 2
pw + h s s m2
t c E c ra
pc =
2
t s E s rm
1+
2
t c E c ra
(4.12)
From the boundary condition, the contact pressure, pc, is the radial stress, r, in
the inner surface of the cement which causes the compression in the cement sheath. So
the radial stress and hoop stresses can be expressed as:
t s E s rm 2
pw + h
t c E c ra 2
r =
2
t s E s rm
1+
2
t c E c ra
(4.13)
( p w p c )ra
ts
(4.14)
From equation 4.12, we will have,
t s E s rm 2
+
w
h
t c E c ra 2
2
pw
ra
t
E
r
s
s
m
1+
2
t
E
r
c c a
=
ts
(4.15)
b) Stresses due to temperature:

Stresses caused by thermal expansion can be derived as internal pressure. Usually
the bottom hole injection temperature of the treating fluid differs from the initial reservoir
temperature. With this differential temperature, the thermal stresses are induced in the
cemented casing and rock formation. For a temperature change, T (final temperature
initial temperature), the linear strain, , in the element is given by12:
= T
(4.16)
28
Where is the linear coefficient thermal expansion. The stress is given by:
= E
(4.17)
Where, , is thermal stress and, E, is young modulus of the element concerned.

In cemented casing as shown in figure 4.2(b), the difference in radial expansion
due to T , as per assumption-9, will be:
rs = T s rm
(4.18)
But this is the length of radial expansion opposed to expand, so, this radial
expansion will cause thermal radial stress in the casing/cement interface as given by:
r = T s rm E s
(4.19)
In the same way the differential circumferential length opposed to expand also
causes thermal hoop stress in casing and casing/cement interface as given by:
= c s E s = 2T s rm E s
(4.20)
c) Total stresses:
To count for both internal pressure and thermal effect on stresses at a time,
stresses from both causes are added to get the total stresses. Summation of radial stresses
from pressure and thermal effect gives total radial stress as given below;
t E r 2
pw + h s s m2
t c E c ra
r =
+ T s rm E s
2
t s E s rm
1+
2
t c E c ra
(4.21)
Likewise, summation of hoop stresses gives total hoop stress of the casing at the
casing/cement contact as shown below;
t s E s rm 2
+
w
h
2
t c E c ra
+ T s rm E s ra
2
pw
t Er
1 + s s m2
t
E
r
c c a
=
ts
(4.22)
Likewise, the total hoop stress of cement sheath at the cement/formation contact will be:
29
t E r 2
pw + h s s m2
t c E c ra
+ T s rm E s h rm
2
t Er
1 + s s m2
t
E
r
c c a
=
tc
(4.23)
Equations 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23 are the formulae used to calculate radial and hoop
stresses as a function of well pressure and temperature. Total stress is then compared with
tensile strength and shear bond strength to predict failure of cement sheath.
30
5. Analysis of Stresses and Evaluation of Cement

Failure:
The stresses generated due to pressure and/or temperature change will normally
concentrate at the boundaries between materials with contrasting deformational
parameters. Outside the cemented casing the boundaries are at the casing/cement
interface or at the cement/formation interface. For linear elastic, isotropic materials the
predominant induced stresses will be radial and tangential. Radial stress acts
perpendicular to the axis of the well bore outward towards the formation while tangential
stress acts perpendicular from the direction of radial stress. Tangential stress in this
analysis can be referred to as the hoop stress. Radial stress is usually compressive in
nature while hoop stress is generally tensile. In certain circumtances, however, radial
stress can be tensile in character and hoop stress can be compressive. Generally, in a
casing/cement/formation configuration with an increase in well pressure, the highest
radial and tangential stress will be found at the casing/cement interface.
The mechanical parameters characterisation of the cement sheath obviously
impacts the ability of cement sheath to withstand the expected changes in temperature,
pressure and far field stress. Of the most important is the Young Modulus of elasticity.
Elastic cement with lower value of Young Modulus provide greater flexibility to the
shaeth failure.
In a casing/cement/formation environment, radial cracking of the cement sheath
can happen. Radial cracking is normally due to tangential and flexural forces rather than
compressional forces. These forces start at the annulus boundaries, when the casing
expand or contract. They can also occur due to compressional forces in extreme cases,
such as in an annular gap between a soft and a hard casing or a soft casing and a hard
formation13. At the boundary, under high loads (variations in hydrostatic pressure or well
temperature), compressional forces could destroy the cement sheath by stress crushing.
An analysis of stress development due to well pressure, temperature, and field stress has
been carried out in the following paragraphes. Depending on the value and nature of the
stresses, an evaluation of cement sheath failure has been performed. As the field stresses,
well pressure, and differential temperature are the function of depth and we have
considered the 4500m well depth, the cement failure analysis is for the given depth
specific.
Data given in chapter 4.1 were used to find the value for radial stress (r), hoop
stress in casing at casing/cement contact (), and hoop stress in cement at
cement/formation contact (f) using equations 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23. According to these
equations we have three input values; namely well pressure (pw), far field stress (h), and
temperature difference between casing and cement (T). Seven combinations of input
values, i.e. seven cases, have been outlined to see the effect of different physical
parameters such as internal pressure, well temperature, in-situ field stress, in the
development of different stresses.
31
Table 5.1 Input and Output values for case 1 to 7.

Input
Values
Case
h (Pa)
Ratio1 (A)
No.
pw (Pa)
T (oC)
Output Values
Stress by
T
r (Pa)
(Pa)
f (Pa)
1
2
3
4
5
6
9.34E+07
9.34E+07
9.34E+07
9.34E+07
0
0
9.38E+07
0
0
9.38E+07
9.38E+07
9.38E+07
5.00E+01
5.00E+01
0
0
0
5.00E+01
8.52E+00
8.52E+00
8.52E+00
8.52E+00
8.52E+00
8.52E+00
1.52E+07
1.52E+07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.52E+07
1.09E+08
2.50E+07
9.81E+06
9.38E+07
8.39E+07
9.91E+07
1.16E+08
7.73E+08
6.55E+08
-2.80E+06
-6.57E+08
-5.39E+08
5.54E+07
9.16E+07
3.60E+07
-1.54E+05
-3.61E+07
1.94E+07
5.00E+01
8.52E+00
1.52E+07
1.52E+07
1.19E+08
5.56E+07
The casewise values of radial stresses are compared with the compressive strength
of cement as shown in Figure 5.1.1 and the value of hoop stresses are compared with the
tensile strength of cement as shown in Figure 5.2.2.
120.0
100.0
Stress (10 Pa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
Compressive Strength
of cement, 20.7 Mpa.
20.0
0.0
0
Case Number
Casewise radial stresses
Compressive Strength of cement
Figure 5.1.1 : Casewise radial stresses compared with Cement Compressive Strength.
A = t s E s rm
t c E c ra
32
800.0
600.0
Hoop stresses (10 Pa)
400.0
200.0
0.0
-200.0
Cement Tensile
Strength, 8.3 MPa
-400.0
-600.0
-800.0
0
Case Number
Hoop in Cement
Hoop in Casing
Tensile Strength of Cement
Figure 5.1.2 : Casewise hoop stresses compared with Cement Tensile Strength.
The first case (Case No.-1) is the base case with well pressure, far field stress and
temperature stress all acting in the annulus. The radial stress become 109 MPa (15809
psi), which is far more than base case compressive strength (3000 psi). So the cement in
this case might be stress crushed. To withstand the stress the cement should have a higher
strength than 16,825 psi. The hoop stress of cement is 55.4 MPa (8035 psi) and it is
tensional. The cement hoop stress is greater than the shear bond strength of 6.89 MPa
(1000 psi) and tensile strength, 8.27 MPa (1200 psi). So this situation also indicates bond
failure and tensile failure. Base case cement shall not withstand the base case stresses.
Case No.-2 assumes no effect from the far field stress in the cement sheath. In this
case radial stress is 25 MPa (3625 psi), slightly higher than cement compressive strength.
Hoop stress in cement is 91.6 MPa (13285 psi) and is tensile, much higher than cement
tensile strength. For the base case cement, both stress crushing and tensile failure are
possible.
Case No.-3 assumes the situation where field stress and thermal stress have no
effect on cement sheath (no difference in temperature between casing and cement).
Radial stress is 9.81 MPa (1423 psi), less than compressive strength of the base case
cement. The cement hoop stress is 36 MPa (5221 psi) more than tensile strength. Cement
will not undergo stress crushing but will have tensile failure.
Case No.-4 assumes the situation where thermal stress has no effect on cement
sheath (no difference in temperature between casing and cement). Radial stress is 93.8
33
MPa (13605 psi), more than compressive strength of the base case cement. The cement
hoop stress is 154 KPa (22 psi) and casing hoop stress is 2.8 MPa (406 psi). Both hoop
stresses are compressive in nature and cement shear bond strength 6.89 MPa (1000 psi).
In this case cement will undergo stress crushing only.
Case No.-5 assumes the situation where internal pressure is zero and thermal
stress has no effect on cement sheath (no difference in temperature between casing and
cement). Radial stress is 84 MPa (13605 psi), more than compressive strength of the base
case cement. Hoop stress in cement and casing 36.1 MPa (5235 psi) and 657 MPa (95289
psi), both are compressive. Cement will undergo shear bond failure due to compressive
hoop stress in the casing before stress crushing and tensile failure.
Case No.-6 assumes the situation where well pressure is zero. Only the thermal
stress and the field stress has effect on cement sheath. Radial stress is 99.1 MPa (14373
psi), more than compressive strength of the base case cement. Hoop stress in cement is
19.4 MPa (2813 psi), tensile, which is more than tensile strength of the cement. So radial
crushing, bond failure and tensile failure, all are possible.
Case No.-7 assumes the situation where only thermal stress has effect on cement
sheath ( no well pressure and no far field stress). Radial stress is 15.2 MPa (2204 psi),
less than compressive strength of the base case cement. Cement hoop stress is 55.6 MPa
(8064 psi), tensile, more than tensile strength. Cement will undergo tensile failure though
stress crushing is prevented.
Out of the above seven cases, three cases namely Case-3, Case-5, and Case-7
show the separate effect of each individual parameter, well pressure, field stress, and
thermal stress respectively. It can be seen that well pressure and thermal effect creates
stresses of tensile nature while field stress creates stresses of compressive nature in the
cement. Base case well pressure value causes radial stress less than compressive strength
but hoop stress in cement more than tensile strength of cement. So well pressure causes
tensile failure of the cement not the crushing stress. Base case far field stress causes
radial stress more than compressive strength of cement, and hoop stress in the casing
more than base case bond strenth at casing/cement contact. So, far field stress alone
causes stress crushing, bond failure of the cement. The base case temperature difference
(thermal stress) causes radial stress less than compressive strength of cement, cement
hoop stress (tensile) more than tensile strength of the cement. So thermal stress is
responsible for tensile failure at cement/formation contact.
Analysis of seven cases show that even individual base case parameter (the
differential pressure across the casing, the thermal stress, and the far field stress) can
causes cement failure of one form or other. The HPHT well conditions in combination
with high far field stress is destructive for an ordinary type of cement sheath as assumed
in the base case. So the base case cement specifications is not capable of sealing the
annulus of the drill hole under the assumptions made.
34
The Kristin oil-field, well R-3H, is a HPHT field. Due to high reservoir
pressure and temperature they selected a thick wall high grade casing program. The
production casing is 9 7/8, 64.4 lb/ft, Q-125 in the bottom part of the string and 9 7/8,
64.4 lb/ft, SM-125 in the upper part of the string. High grade ( yield < 125x103 psi)
means high burst and high collapse pressure rating.
5.1 Short coming in the Stress Analysis:

During this stress analysis, the input values of well pressure and temperature are
assumed to increase from zero initial values. This is normally not the case. While
cementing the annulus, completion fluid is used for the placement of cement. This fluid
has been exerting hydrostatic pressure to the casing before the setting of the cement. This
means casing already has an initial internal pressure stress of some value. The well
pressure during production only causes the stress equivalent to the pressure value more
than the completion well pressure value. That means only the value of pressure difference
between production and completion is responsible for additional stress on the cement. So
we need to use pressure difference value instead of production pressure value in the
column of well pressure in the table 5.1. When this condition apply in the analysis, the
stress due to well pressure becomes much lower than the above cases.
Likewise in the case of thermal stress also, difference between the bottom hole
well circulation temperature (Ti) and geo-thermal temperature at the bottom hole has
been taken as base case temperature difference value between casing and cement. But in
the reality, the casing has already undergone thermal stress before well circulation during
cementing. Furthermore thermal conduction makes the temperature difference between
casing and cement much lower than given temperature value at base case. So thermal
stress also would be much less. This means that the combined effect of ciculation well
pressure and temperature, and far field stress on the cement sheath would be less severe
than as indicated in output value in the table 5.1. The stress on the cement at various
pressure, temperature and field stress conditions can be graphically shown (in next
chapter) using equations 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23.
5.2 Result of simulation and analysis of stresses dependent of

well presssure, temperature and field stress value:
The stress situation on cemented casing depends on well pressure, well circulation
temperature and field stress values, and has been shown graphically in the following
scenarios. Different cases have been exemplified by casewise scenarios regarding stress
development {radial stress on cement (r), hoop stresses on casing (), and hoop stress
on cement(f)} depending on the combination of well pressure, temperature, and field
stress. Failure of cement sheath, safe pressure and temperature values, have been outlined
from each graphical presentation comparing the developed stresses with the compressive
strength of cement, tensile strength of cement and shear bonding at contacts.
35
The most probable siuation is such that far field stress remain constant and only
temperature and pressure may be varied depending on the situations. On this basis case-1
(well pressure and temperature, and far field stress are acting, and all can be varied),
case-4 (well pressure and field stress are acting and only pressure can be varied), and
case-6 (well temperature and field stress are acting and only temperature can be varied)
appear most realistic. Only those three cases will be presented and analyzed here.
CASE-1: (Base case values of well pressure, temperature, field stress): In this case five
scenario are presented. In scenario 1-4, one parameter is varied (in decreasing order)
while keeping other two parameters constant as the base case value. Scenario 5 shows
stresses when all three parameters are decreasing upto zero value.
Figure 5.2.1 : Base case well pressure, temperature and field stress.
Scenario-1:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing well pressure is analyzed.
Well temperature and field stress are kept constant as initial base case value. Well
pressure was reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.1 and result are shown in Figure 5.2.2
below:
Table 5.2.1: Change in stresses with well pressure at base case value of T and h.
Input
Values
Output Values
36
pw
(106Pa)
h
(106Pa)
93.4
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
84.1
74.7
65.4
56.0
46.7
37.4
28.0
18.7
9.3
0.0
T ( C)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
108.9
107.9
107.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
101.1
100.1
99.1
115.9
50.4
-15.0
-80.5
-145.9
-211.4
-276.8
-342.3
-407.7
-473.2
-538.7
55.4
51.8
48.2
44.6
41.0
37.4
33.8
30.2
26.6
23.0
19.4
150.0
100.0
Compressive strength of cement

50.0
Tensile Strength
of cement
-50.0
Stresses (10 Pa)
0.0
-100.0
-150.0
-200.0
-250.0
-300.0
-350.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Differential well pressure (106 Pa)

Radial Stress
Hoop stress in casing
hoop stress in cement
Figure 5.2.2 : Stresses vs well pressure at base case value of T and h.
Result: The radial stress in the cement remains above 99x106 Pa and hoop stress in
cement is 19.4x106 Pa even at well pressure reduced to zero value (surface condition).
This indicates that these stress values are due to well temperature and field stress. The
radial stresses are higher than compressive strength of cement (20.7x106 Pa) and hoop
stresses are higher than tensile strength of cement (8.273 x106 Pa). So it can be said that
cement failure occures even at zero well pressure.
37
In the above graph well pressure really means the pressure difference between
inside and outside of the casing in the well. Whenever the pressure inside the casing is
higher than the pressure outside, the casing undergoes expansion. That means the hoop
stress in the casing is positive. But when pressure outside the casing is higher than inside
pressure, the casing undergoes contraction and hoop stress becomes negative. In the
figure 5.2.1, the maximum negative hoop stress in the casing at zero well pressure is due
to the fact that outside pressure caused by far field stress (h) is much higher. The notion
of the well pressure is also applicable in the subsequent scenarios.
Scenario-2:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing well temperature have been
analyzed. Well pressure was kept constant as initial pressure. Well temperature was
reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.2 and result has been shown in the Figure 5.2.3. below:
Table 5.2.2: Change in stresses with well temperature at base case value of Pw and h.
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
13.6
12.1
10.6
9.1
7.6
6.1
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
108.9
107.4
105.9
104.4
102.9
101.3
99.8
98.3
96.8
95.3
93.8
115.9
104.0
92.1
80.3
68.4
56.5
44.7
32.8
20.9
9.1
-2.8
55.4
49.9
44.3
38.8
33.2
27.6
22.1
16.5
11.0
5.4
-0.2
38
120.0
100.0
Stresses (10 6 Pa)
80.0
60.0
of Cement
40.0
20.0
0.0
Tensile Strength
of Cement
-20.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Differential Temperature ( oC)

Radial Stress in Cement
Hoop Stress in Casing
Hoop Stress in Cement
Figure 5.2.3 :Stresses vs well temperature at base case value of Pw and h.
Result: The radial stress remains above 93.8x106Pa even at zero temperature. The casing
hoop stress is tensile and changing into compressive when temperature decreases. Hoop
stress in cement is tensile initially and decreasing in value and changing towards
compressive at well temperature approaching to zero value. The radial stress in this
example is always more than the compressive strength of cement (20.7x106Pa). The
cement hoop stress is more than tensile strength of cement (8.273 x106 Pa) and becomes
less than tensile strength when temperature reduces less than 8oC. So it can be said that
cement stress crushing failure occurs even at zero well pressure.
Scenario-3:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing well pressure and
temperature have been analyzed. Field stress was kept constant as initial base case value.
Well pressure and temperature are reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.3 and result are
shown in the Figure 5.2.4. below:
Table 5.2.3: Change in stresses with well pressure and temperature at base case value of h.
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
93.4
84.1
74.7
93.8
93.8
93.8
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
45.0
40.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
13.6
12.1
108.9
106.4
103.9
115.9
38.6
-38.8
55.4
46.3
37.1
39
65.4
56.0
46.7
37.4
28.0
18.7
9.3
0.0
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
10.6
9.1
7.6
6.1
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
101.4
98.9
96.4
93.9
91.4
88.9
86.4
83.9
-116.1
-193.4
-270.7
-348.1
-425.4
-502.7
-580.0
-657.3
28.0
18.8
9.6
0.5
-8.7
-17.8
-27.0
-36.1
200.0
100.0
0.0
Stresses (10 Pa)
-100.0
of Cement
Tensile Strength
of Cement
-200.0
-300.0
-400.0
-500.0
-600.0
-700.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Differential Well Pressure (10 Pa)
Radial Stress
Figure 5.2.4 : Stresses vs well pressure and temperature at base case value of h.
Result: The radial stress remains above 84x106 Pa. The hoop stress in casing is tensile at
higher values of well pressure and temperature but changes to compression with
decreasing values of well pressure and temperature. The hoop stress in cement is also
tensile initially and decreasing in value altimately changing to compressive nature. Radial
stress is more than compressive strength of cement (20.7x106 Pa) and hoop stress is more
than tensile strength of cement (8.27x106 Pa). So it can be said that stress crushing failure
of cement occures even at zero well pressure and temperature. No safe value of well
pressure and temperature appears in the list.
Scenario-4:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing far field stress, h, have been
analyzed. Well pressure and temperature are kept constant at base case values. Field
40
stress is reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.4 and result has been shown in the Figure
5.2.5. below:
Table 5.2.4: Change in Stresses with decreasing field stress at constant well pressure and temperature:
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.8
84.4
75.0
65.7
56.3
46.9
37.5
28.1
18.8
9.4
0.0
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
108.9
100.5
92.1
83.7
75.3
66.9
58.5
50.2
41.8
33.4
25.0
115.9
181.6
247.4
313.1
378.8
444.6
510.3
576.0
641.8
707.5
773.2
55.4
59.0
62.7
66.3
69.9
73.5
77.1
80.7
84.3
88.0
91.6
500.0
Stresses (106 Pa)
400.0
300.0
200.0
of Cement
Tensile Strength
of Cement
100.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Field Stress (106 Pa)

Radial Stress
Figure 5.2.5: Change in Stresses with decreasing field stress at constant well pressure and temperature:
Result: The radial stress is always more than compressive strength of the cement
(20.7x106 Pa) even at zero field stress. The hoop stresses in casing and cement are
increasing as field stress decreases. This is due to the fact that well pressure and
temperature have same nature of additive stresses. This means stress crushing of cement
41
is obvious. Hoop stresses are also always above the value of tensile and shear bond
strengths of cement, so, tensile failure is also unavoidable in the given pressure and
temperature conditions. A point to be noted is that hoop stresses in casing and cement
without far field stress is much more than hoop stresses with field stress. This indicates
that field stress helps to curtain the hoop stresses but increases the radial stress.
Scenario-5:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing all parameters as far field
stress (h), well pressure and temperature have been analyzed. Values are reduced as
shown in the Table 5.2.5 and result has been shown in the Figure 5.2.6 below:
Table 5.2.5: Change in Stresses with decreasing field stress, well pressure and temperature:
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
93.4
84.06
74.72
65.38
56.04
46.7
37.36
28.02
18.68
9.34
0
14.01
93.8
84.4
75.0
65.7
56.3
46.9
37.5
28.1
18.8
9.4
0.0
14.07
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
7.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
13.6
12.1
10.6
9.1
7.6
6.1
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
2.3
108.9
98.0
87.1
76.2
65.3
54.5
43.6
32.7
21.8
10.9
0.0
16.3
115.9
104.3
92.7
81.1
69.5
57.9
46.4
34.8
23.2
11.6
0.0
17.4
55.4
49.9
44.3
38.8
33.3
27.7
22.2
16.6
11.1
5.5
0.0
8.3
42
120.0
100.0
Stresses (10 Pa)
80.0
60.0
of cement
40.0
20.0
0.0
Tensile Strength
of Cement
-20.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Differential Well Pressure (10 Pa)

Radial Stress
Hoop stress in Casing
Table 5.2.6: Change in Stresses with decreasing field stress , well pressure and temperature:
Result: The radial stress (r), hoop stress in casing at casing/cement contact (), and
hoop stress in cement at cement/formation contact (f) appears decreaing in value as
well pressure, temperature, and field stress decrease. Hoop stress in casing and in cement
are tensile. The values of well pressure, temperature and field stress which gives radial
stress less than compressive strength, and cement hoop stress less than tensile stength of
cement are found to be in the last row of the table. The corresponding values are well
pressure = 14.01x106 Pa, field stress = 14.01x106 Pa, and differential temperature = 7.5
o
C.
CASE-4: Well pressure and field stress have base case value, and well T is zero.
Scenario-6:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing well pressure have been
analyzed. The far field stress is considered constant as base case value but differential
temperature is considered zero. Well pressure is reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.6 and
result has been shown in the Figure 5.2.7. below:
Table 5.2.6: Change in Stresses with decreasing well pressure at constant field stress and zero temperature:
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
93.4
93.8
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
8.5
0.0
93.8
-2.8
-0.2
43
84.06
74.72
65.38
56.04
46.7
37.36
28.02
18.68
9.34
0
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
92.8
91.8
90.8
89.8
88.9
87.9
86.9
85.9
84.9
83.9
-68.3
-133.7
-199.2
-264.6
-330.1
-395.5
-461.0
-526.4
-591.9
-657.3
-3.8
-7.4
-11.0
-14.5
-18.1
-21.7
-25.3
-28.9
-32.5
-36.1
200.0
100.0
of cement
Stresses (10 Pa)
0.0
Tensile Strength
of Cement
-100.0
-200.0
-300.0
-400.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Differential well pressure (10 Pa)

Radial Stress
Figure 5.2.7: Change in Stresses with decreasing well pressure at constant field stress and zero temperature:
Result: The radial stress is always more than compressive strength of the cement (20.7
x106 Pa) even at zero field stress. This means stress crushing of cement is obvious. Hoop
stresses are compressive and gradually increasing as the well pressure decreases. Initial
hoop stress is less than shear bond strengths of cement but exeeds the value at first
reduction. So bond failure is also unavoidable.
CASE-6: Well temperature and field stress have base case value, and well pressure is
zero.
Scenario-7:
Changes in radial and hoop stresses with decreasing well temperature have been
analyzed. Far field stress is considered constant as base case value but well pressure is
44
considered zero. Differential temperature is reduced as shown in the Table 5.2.7 and
result are shown in the Figure 5.2.8. below:
Table 5.2.7: Change in Stresses with decreasing temperature at constant field stress and zero well pressure:
pw
(106Pa)
Input
Values
h
(106Pa)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
Output Values
T (oC)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by T
(106Pa)
r (106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.2
13.6
12.1
10.6
9.1
7.6
6.1
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
99.1
97.6
96.1
94.6
93.0
91.5
90.0
88.5
87.0
85.5
83.9
-538.7
-550.5
-562.4
-574.3
-586.1
-598.0
-609.9
-621.7
-633.6
-645.5
-657.3
19.4
13.9
8.3
2.8
-2.8
-8.4
-13.9
-19.5
-25.0
-30.6
-36.1
200.0
of Cement
100.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Stresses (10 Pa)
-100.0
-200.0
Tensile Strength
of Cement
-300.0
-400.0
-500.0
-600.0
-700.0
o
Differential Temp. ( C)
Radial Stress
Figure 5.2.8: Change in Stresses with decreasing temperature at constant field stress and zero well pressure:
Result: The radial stress is always more than compressive strength of the cement (20.7
x106 Pa) even at zero thermal stress (=83.9x106 Pa). This means stress crushing of
cement is obvious. The cement hoop stress is tensile at higher temperature but changes to
compressive as temperature reduces. As temperature approaches to zero, stresses are
45
caused by field stress only. It can be postulate that base case value of far field stress alone
is sufficient for stress crushing of the cement. In this scenario safe value of temperature
does not appear.
5.3 Stress States dependent on Mechanical Parameters of

cement:
The key mechanical parameters of the cement responsible for whether or not
sheath failure will occur are Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio and tensile strength. In
the derivation of the cements radial stress (r), hoop stress in casing at casing/cement
contact (), and hoop stress in cement at cement/formation contact (f) in this thesis
work, only the Young Modulus of cement (Ec) has been in scene. So the effect of young
modulus value on the different stresses has been checked. Changes in stresses with Ec
value has been shown in Table 5.3.1 and Figure 5.3.1 below for the base case values of
well pressure, temperature, and field stress:
Table 5.3.1: Change in radial and hoop Stresses with cements Young Modulus:
Input
Values
pw
(106Pa)
h
(106Pa)
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.4
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
Output Values
T (oC)
Ec (106
Pa)
Ratio1
(A)
Stress by
T
(106Pa)
r
(106Pa)
(106Pa)
f
(106Pa)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
1000
2000
4000
8000
12000
16000
24000
32000
48000
64000
96000
128000
105.6
52.8
26.4
13.2
8.8
6.6
4.4
3.3
2.2
1.7
1.1
0.8
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
109.0
108.9
108.9
108.9
108.9
108.9
108.9
108.9
108.8
108.8
108.8
108.7
115.6
115.6
115.7
115.8
115.9
116.0
116.1
116.3
116.5
116.7
117.0
117.3
55.6
55.6
55.5
55.5
55.4
55.4
55.3
55.2
55.1
55.0
54.9
54.8
46
140.0
120.0
Stresses (10 Pa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Young's Modulus (10 Pa)

Radial Stress
Figure 5.3.1: Change in Stresses with changing cements Young Modulus:
Result: Graph shows that stresses change slightly with cements Young Modulus. It
seems in the case of high pressure and high temperature (HTHP) conditions of the well
that stresses much depend on the value of well pressure, temperature difference and field
stress rather than mechanical properties of the cement.
6. Discussion:
Cement integrity over life of well conditions has a high priority within the well
cementing. Increasing awareness of problems associated with cement sheath failure and
subsequent loss of zonal isolation has demanded that set cement material behavior and
coupled behavior of casing, cement and formation be more fully understood. Solid
mechanical properties (stress and strain relationship, compress ional, tensional and
flexural strengths) of set cement, casing and formation are the prime behavior controlling
parameters under the various pressures and temperature regimes existed during the life of
a well. Additional parameters such as the density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, and
coefficient of thermal expansion are also equally important.
In this thesis work we have presented an analysis of the mechanical response of
the set cement and casing in terms of amount and type of stresses created due to changes
in pressure and temperature regime in a wellbore. Values of resulting stresses are
compared with strengths (compressional, tensional, shear bond) to predict the type of
failure, either cement debonding or cement radial cracking or stress crushing.
47
While making the analysis, thin wall pipe situation, plane strain, and abrupt
temperature variation between casing and cement sheath were assumed among others.
These assumptions have guided the formulation of expressions where only some
parameters ( Youngs modulus, thickness, radius, coefficient of thermal expansion) of
casing and set cement are in the scenario. Consideration of abrupt temperature variation
has caused over-estimation of possible stresses. Furthermore, thin wall situation has
restricted the analysis of stresses/strain along the radial distance of the set cement (from
casing/cement interface to cement/formation interface).
Modeling with consideration of thick wall pipe, thermal conductivity, and solid
strain leads to much more realistic analysis of mechanical response of set cement to
stresses due to changing temperature and pressure situations and location of response.
The statical and classical approach for the analysis involving all parameters seems much
complex and lengthy (beyond the scope of this thesis work). Though the approach
adopted in this thesis work is more statical and classical, and the stresses value
determined is in higher side, the prediction of cement failure comparing cement
mechanical properties to developed stresses is helpful in designing the cement slurry
depending on the individual well conditions.
Now a days various cement strength simulator and program for Finite Element
Method (FEM) are in use to predict cements mechanical strengths (compressive, tensile
and flexural) and mechanical response to induced stresses in the well. Such models are
based on certain assumptions like linear thermo elasticity, various isotropic conditions,
thick wall pipe, and strain based deformation 4,14,15. They have found that rock properties
of the cement and casing such as Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio play extreme roles
in the integrity of the cemented casing system.
In the analytical modeling developed in this thesis work, improvements for better
cement failure prediction can be made by inclusion of solid strain, thick wall pipe
condition, and thermal conductivity.
7. Conclusion:
On the basis of the study and analysis the following conclusions have been drawn:
1. Gas migration phenomena can be caused by various factors and can take place at
different time period. Short term leakage are associated with cementing operation i.e.
slurry characteristics, displacement mechanics, hydrostatic pressure, where as long term
leakage are related to mechanical and thermal stresses (compressional / tensional) which
compromise the integrity of hydraulic bond or the integrity of the cement materials.
2. Analysis of stresses due to internal casing pressure and temperature variation helps
provide a probabilistic determination of the competency of particular cement mechanical
properties.
48
3. Casing expansion creates radial cracks (tensional) in the set cement in the annulus,
which causes loss of annular zonal isolation. Casing contraction causes elastic expansion
of cement initially, then it becomes plastic and the hydraulic bond is broken (formation of
micro annulus). So high compressive strength is not crucial for cement sheath integrity,
rather improving the elasticity or its flexural and tensile strength is an elegant solution to
prevent debonding.
4. Far field stress helps to curtain the hoop stresses in the casing which can be beneficiary
from cement integrity point of view.
5. At high pressure and temperature well changes in cement elasticity ( Youngs
Modulus) has little effect on the stress changes.
6. Cement sheath failure are mainly associated with casing expansion / contraction due to
internal pressure and/or temperature variation. So casing with high Youngs modulus and
low thermal expansion shall be beneficial.
49
8. Nomenclature:
bbl
Cc
Cs
Ct
E
Gpa
HPHT
KPa
Lbf
mD
MPa
po
pf
pc
pw
pi
pu
ra
rb
rc
T
T
tc
ts
z
c
w
c
r
1
3
h
hmin
hmax
r
r
z
m
c
s
= barrel.
= Compressive strength of cement.
= Shear bond strength of casing/cement interface.
= Cement tensile strength.
= Youngs modulus of elasticity.
= 109 pascal.
= high pressure, high temperature.
= 103 pascal.
= pound force.
= milli darcy.
= 106 pascal.
= Pore pressure.
= Fracture pressure.
= Pressure on contact layer.
= Well pressure.
= Inner pressure.
= Outer pressure.
= Casing inner radius.
= Bore hole radius.
= Casing outer radius.
= Temperature.
= Change in temperature (final temperature initial temperature).
= Cement wall thickness.
= Casing wall thickness.
= Vertical depth.
= Density of cement.
= Water density.
= Increment in circumference.
= Increment in radius.
= Strain.
= Maximum principle stress.
= Minimum principle stress.
= Horizontal field stress.
= Minimum horizontal field stress.
= Maximum horizontal field stress.
= Radial stress.
= effective radial stress.
= Axial stress.
= Tangential stress / hoop stress at casing/cement contact.
= Tangential stress / hoop stress at cement/formation contact.
= Poisson ratio
= Micrometer.
= Linear expansion co-officient, cement.
= Linear expansion co-officient, casing.
50
9. References:
1. P. Rae, D. Wilkins, D. Free; A New Approach to the Prediction of Gas flow After
Cementing SPE 18622, paper was presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, February 28 March 3, 1989.
2. M.B. Dussealt, M.N. Gray, and P.A. Nawrocki; Why Oilwells Leak: cement Behavior
and Long-Term Consequences SPE 64733, paper was prepared for presentation at the
SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, 7-10 November 2000.
3. R.S. Marlow; Cement Bonding Characteristics in Gas Wells, SPE 17121,
4. Thiercelin M.J., Bernard D., Baret J.F., and, Rodriquez W.J; Cement Design Based
on Cement Mechanical Response, SPE 52890, Paper presented at Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 5-8 October 1997.
5. Goodwin K.J., Crook R.J.; Cement Sheath Stress Failure, SPE 20453, paper
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
September 23-26 1990.
6. M. Gjnnes, I.G. Myhre; High Angle HPHT Wells, SPE 95478, paper presented at
the SPE Latin American and Carribean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de
Janerio, 20-23 June, 2005.
7. D.T. Mueller, V. GoBoncan, R.L. Dillenbeck, T. Heinold ; Characterising CasingCement-Formation Interactions Under Stress Conditions: Impacts on Long-Term Zonal
Isolation, SPE 90450, paper presented at SPE annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September 2004.
8. Roylance D.: Pressure Vessel, report published by Department of Material Science
and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, August 2001.
9. S. Taibani, G.A. Chuku, D.G. Hatzignatiou: Gas Channeling and Micro-Fractures in
Cemented Annulus, SPE 26068, Paper prepared for presentation at the Western
Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, 26-28 May 1993.
10. E. B. Nelson: Well Cementing, a book produced by Schlumberger Educational
Services, Houston, 1990.
11. D. K. Smith: Cementing, Monograph Volume 4 SPE Henry L. Doherty Series,
Revised Edition 1987.
12. E.J. Hearn: Mechanics of Materials, Pergamon Press, 2nd Edition, Dec 1985.
13. G. Lullo, P. Rae: Cements for Long Term Isolation Design Optimisation by
Computer Modelling and Prediction SPE 62745, Paper prepared for presentation at the
51
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, September 11-13,
2000.
14. D.T. Mueller, V. GoBoncan, R.L. Dillenbeck, T. Heinold: Characterising CasingCement-Formation Interactions Under Stress Conditions: Impact on Long-Term Zonal
Isolation SPE 90450, Paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, 26-29 September 2004.
15. M.A. Shahri, J.J. Schubert, M. Amani: Detecting and Modeling Cement Failure in
High-Pressure / High-Temperature (HP/HT) Wells, Using Finite Element Method
(FEM) IPTC 10961, Paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum
Technology Conference held in Doha, 21-23 November 2005.
16. T. Watson, D.Getzlaf, J.E. Griffith; Specialized Cement Design and Placement
Procedures Prove Successful for Mitigating Casing Vent FlowCase Histories, SPE
76333, the paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
held in Calgary, Canada, 30 April-2 May 2002.
17. Y. El-Marsafawi, A. Al-Yami, H.A.Nasr-El-Din, A. Al-Jeffri, M. Misran and A.
Hasan, B. Jain; A New Cementing Approach to Improve and Provide Long-Term Zonal
Isolation, SPE 100558, presented at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Adelaide, 11-13 September, 2006.
18. V. Gonzalo, B. Aiskely, C. Alicia ; A Methodology to Evaluate the Gas Migration
in Cement Slurries, SPE 94901, prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, 20-23 June
2005.
52

Leakage Behind Casing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leakage Behind Casing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leakage Behind Casing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TPG 4920

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

2. Gas Leakage after Cementing:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

2. Gas Leakage after Cementing:

Generally there are no open circumferential fractures detectable after typical

2.1. Gas Leakage Model due to Shrinkage: (Main source: Reference-2)

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Figure 2.1.1: Radial Stresses and Circumferential Fractures. ( after reference-2)

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

2.2 Gas Leakage due to Cyclic Pressure Variation:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Figure 2.2.1 Pressure situation in the borehole.

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Figure 2.2.2 Tensile failure in cement sheath due to differential pressure.

2.3 Gas Leakage due to Temperature Variation:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

of steel causing to excessive temperature increase causes diametrical and circumferential

2.4 Shear and Hydraulic Bond Strengths:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

At no stress change condition in well bore, hydraulic bonding is of greater

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

2.4.2 Bonding of Cement to Formation:

2.5 Mud Cake Buildup and Mud Channeling:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

3. Good and Bad Experiences in Zonal Isolation

3.1 Case 1. Specialization Cement Design and Placement

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

3.2. Case 2. A New Cementing Approach to Improve and

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

The New Advanced Cement System (NACS):

Another important advantage of the NACS is its ability to provide better

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

3.3 Case 3. A Methodology to Evaluate the Gas Migration in

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

p: pressure restriction due to SGS, psi.

SGS .L 500.L 1.67.L

The ratio of maximum possible pressure reduction (MPR) to the initial

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

ii) Static Gel Strength (SGS):

The proposed methodology can predict the fluid migration occurrence at

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

4. Analytical Modeling of Cement Sheath Failure

4.1 Case study for typical values to be applied in simulation:

b) Casing and Cement parameters taken from technical reports:

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

Cements Young Modulus7, Ec:

12.4 GPa (1.8x106 psi)

Figure 4.1: Casing program representing the Base case.

Thesis Work, NTNU, 2007

4.2 Modeling of Stresses:

Plane strain is assumed, no axial movement.