SPE/IADC-200503-MS

Successful Managed Pressure Cementing on an Exploratory Well Operation

in Ultra-Deep Waters of Mexico

Raul Bermudez, Juan Jose Ferro, Cyril Szakolczai, Christophe Birades, and Luc Conil, TOTAL; Julian Hernandez,
Ryan Brinkley, Maurizio Arnone, and Leonel Carreño, Weatherford; Landon Hollman, Blade; Ivan Torres,
Halliburton

Copyright 2020, SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition originally scheduled
to be held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-22 April 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 29-30 October 2020 and was changed to a virtual
event. The official proceedings were published online on 29 October 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
The operation described in this paper is related an ultra-deep-water exploration well drilled in the Mexican
waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the first drilled by the operator in the area. From the onset of
planning, the base case was to integrate a Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) system into the drilling program
to assist with pore pressure uncertainty, pressure ramp increase, and narrow Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient
(PP/FG) window operations including drilling, tripping, running casing and cementing, with the latter being
a procedure that was not included in the initial stages of the project but discussed and implemented during
the execution phase (Moghazy et al. 2018, Gradishar et al. 2017).
The well is located in a water depth of 3,276 m (10,748 ft). Given the exploratory nature of the well, there
was an assumed pressure ramp that would demand an excessive number of casing strings with a conventional
approach using an overbalanced Mud Weight (MW). During the drilling phase and taking advantage of the
ability to adjust the bottom hole pressure instantaneously, dynamic pore pressure tests were performed to
conclude that the pressure ramp was not as aggressive but lead to a narrow window that would not allow
conventional cementing of the 13-3/8-in. casing.
Strong planning was required between the operator's engineering and operations teams, cementing
services provider, MPD consultant, and MPD service provider team. The uncertainty about the actual size
of the hole yielded an even more challenging Managed Pressure Cementing (MPC) engineering analysis
(Valecillos and Craigh 2016). This cementing job was a success with no fluid losses, a hazard that had been
assigned a high probability.
The specific objective for the MPC application was to set 13-3/8-in. casing to isolate the critical formation
and to safely continue drilling further stages of the well with an improved Leak-off Test (LOT) at the shoe.
This job represents the deepest water, and first from a drillship, for a managed pressure cementing job
performed by both operator and MPD service provider. Additionally, a critical cementing operation was
successfully performed using the Managed Pressure (MP) approach. The well construction objectives using
2 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

MPD were also achieved while avoiding the use of a contingency liner which saved an additional USD3.5
MM from the planned AFE (Hernandez and Valecillos 2018).

Introduction
From the onset of planning, the base case was to integrate an MPD system into the drilling program to assist
with pore pressure uncertainty, pressure ramp increase, and narrow PP/FG window operations including
drilling and tripping. Running casing and cementing it came as a result of the pressure management accuracy
and reliability observed during the drilling phase. The main objective for using the MP system during
cementing was to ensure the Equivalent Mud Weight (EMW) at both TD and the previous casing shoe did
not fall below the set limits throughout the job. The secondary objective was to reduce and/or eliminate
losses during this process.
The managed pressure cementing job is presented in a sequence to demonstrate the accurate bottom hole
pressure management. This paper will present the cementing job from an MPD process perspective.
Key Figures:

• No HSE incidents reported for the operation.

• No losses or wellbore influx during the job.

• 12-1/4-in. × 16.5-in. drilled to 4,155m (13,631 ft) Rotary Table (RT).

• 13-3/8-in. casing set at 4,144 m (13,595 ft) RT.

• TOC for tail slurry confirmed with CBL-VDL Log.

• Minimum constant bottom hole pressure set at 1.08+ SG (9.0 ppg) for most of the job using
Synthetic-Based Mud (SBM) until Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) was higher due to the
weight of the fluid column increasing in the annulus.

MPC Hydraulics Analysis – Planning and Design

The objectives for this cement job and cementing criteria were (shown in Fig. 1):

• Set 13-3/8-in. casing to isolate the critical formation and safely continue drilling further stages of
the well with an improved LOT at the shoe. The program was based on the maximum pore pressure
encountered during drilling the 12-1/4-in. pilot, equivalent to 1.08 SG (8.96 ppg).
• Gas-tight lead slurry 1.50 SG (12.5 ppg) and tail slurry 1.90 SG (15.8 ppg) were to be placed to a
TOC of 3,775m (12,385 ft). The tail slurry was planned to cover 150 m (492 ft) of OH from shoe
depth. The gas tight requirements of these slurries were prepared during the preparation stage of
the well, given this exploration well's uncertainties, which were supported with some background
gas during the drilling stage.
• MPC was considered for this program to maintain the current drilling mud weight of 1.03 SG
surface (8.58 ppg) (1.05 SG (8.74 ppg Estimated Surface Density (ESD)) which was underbalanced
MW allowing a wider operational window between pore and fracture pressure, and as such, keeping
the placement of cement above maximum pore pressure with an ECD at TD of a minimum 1.10
SG (0.03 points margin) (9.16 ppg). This also provided a maximum ECD at TD at the end of
displacement equivalent to 1.13 (9.43 ppg) to 1.14 SG (9.46 ppg), an almost 3 point margin to the
estimated Most Likely Case (MLC) FP minimum of 1.16 SG (9.66 ppg).
SPE/IADC-200503-MS 3

• 50% OH excess for the slurry volume was considered for both the 26-in. rat hole (8.5 m (28 ft)) and
the 12-1/4-in. × 16.5-in. newly drilled hole with an ECD at TD of 1.13 SG (9.4 ppg). Volumes from
this excess were simulated on sensitivities considering gauge hole (0% OH excess) to estimate
max ECD at TD. This sensitivity resulted in TOC 84m (275 ft) higher, with an ECD at TD of
1.15 SG (9.55 ppg). These sensitivities and different scenarios were analyzed, as no information
was available of the OH size to ensure the parameters remained within the operational window at
previous shoe and TD.
• Simulations from three software providers were closely matched. The MPC schedule presented
herein was prepared in close collaboration with all of these providers, and the results on Surface
Back Pressure (SBP) and Step-Down charts agreed between all parties, including the MPD
consultant onboard working for the project. The end game was ‘simplify to comply’ with a single
SBP during most of the pumping schedule and a Step-Down chart during displacement only when
heavier fluids already in the annulus (spacer and slurries) started to increase the ECD to values
closer to the fracture gradient.
• WOC was as per Ultrasonic Cement Analyzer (UCA) of tail slurry with a minimum of 6 hours to
rise above 500 psi compressive strength and drilling-out the shoe track.
The hydraulics planning was a complex process; the objective was to create a pump schedule that would
guarantee that the bottom hole pressure would remain within the narrow window targeting a 1.1 SG (9.1
ppg) ECD/EMW. The fluids used during this job were:

• 1.03 SG (8.58 ppg) SBM in the hole.

• 13.4m3 (123 bbl.) of 1.5 SG (12.5 ppg) lead slurry at 5 bpm.

• 10.3 m3 (86.2 bbl.) of 1.90 SG (15.82 ppg) tail slurry at 5/3 bpm.

• 2.2 m3 (18.9 bbl.) of 1.30 SG (10.82 ppg) spacer at 3 bpm.

• 70 m3 (583.1 bbl.) of 1.03 SG (8.56 ppg) SBM to displace the cement.

The MPD service provider assisted with tripping the 13-3/8-in. casing to bottom by holding the required
back pressure to achieve the target ECD. With the casing on bottom, significant adjustment of the step-
down chart, planning, and organization were required on the rig to successfully implement and execute the
job. Managed pressure cementing was executed as planned, with no losses measured, followed with the
displacement sequence and surface backpressure step down until observing the plugs bump. Zonal isolation
was achieved, confirmed through an adequate pressure test of the casing along with the CBL/VDL run.
Moreover, a sufficient Formation Integrity Test (FIT) to drill the subsequent section was achieved.
The main sequence followed for the execution was:
1. Pumping schedule (volume vs. SBP) was used by the MPD service provider choke operator to
maintain target BHP at all times.
2. Before heavier fluids turn around the shoe, the SBP was kept constant as the annulus hydrostatic
did not change.
4 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

Figure 1—Cementing job diagram

Fig. 2 displays the base pump schedule plan that requires reset of the stroke counters from the moment
that the dart hits the top plug to track the displacement to be done with the rig pump.
SPE/IADC-200503-MS 5

Figure 2—Managed Pressure Cementing Pump Schedule – 13-3/8-in. Casing

Job Execution
The narrow pressure window (1.07 SG to 1.13 SG) (8.9 ppg to 9.4 ppg) encountered in the 12-1/4-in. ×
16-1/2-in. section resulted in the MPD system being required to trip BHAs, and run and cement the 13-3/8-
in. casing string while managing the annular pressure profile. One of the principal goals using MPC was
to ensure that the EMW in the open hole section did not fall below the set limits during the job. Another
important objective was to decrease and/or eliminate losses to get good zonal isolation. The casing depth
was 4,151m (13,619 ft), water depth of 3,276m (10,748 ft), surface mud weight 1.03 SG (8.58 ppg) with
down hole equivalent mud weight of 1.05 SG due to compressibility and temperature.
The 13-3/8-in. casing was run with MPD equipment on SBP mode with the cement job executed under
MPC principles. This paper explains the steps and criteria selected to define the cementing program, the
planning, and risk analysis among all involved parties, as well as the execution and the evaluation of the
job performed.
Figs. 3 through 6 depict the steps followed during the MPC job.
6 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

Figure 3—Managed Pressure Cementing job

SPE/IADC-200503-MS 7

Figure 4—Pumping spacer with rig pumps

8 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

Figure 5—Pumping lead and tail slurry with cement pump

SPE/IADC-200503-MS 9

Figure 6—Pumping lead and tail slurry with cement pump

List of Events
1. Pump spacer with rig pumps.
2. Chase spacer with 1.2 m3 (10 bbl.) SBM to clear surface lines.
3. Begin pumping lead slurry with cement pump.
4. Pump tail slurry with cement pump.
5. Pump 2.4 m3 (20 bbl.) of spacer with cement pump.
6. Begin displacement with rig pumps.
7. Flow out returns level to balance once SBM has caught up to the falling cement in the drill pipe.
8. Final displacement with rig pumps.
9. Slow down rate to bump plug.
10.Dart hits top plug and shears at 2,600psi.
11.Reduce surface back pressure as per step down chart provided by the MPD service provider.
List of Events
1. Begin pumping 1.30 SG (10.83 ppg) spacer with rig pumps.
2. SPP dropping off due to heavier mud weight being pumped down the drill string.
3. Chase spacer with 1.2 m3 (10 bbl.) SBM to clear surface lines.
10 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

List of Events
1. Begin pumping lead slurry.
2. Flow out is increasing due to heavy weight in the drill string; flow out continues even after pumps
stop.
3. Begin pumping tail slurry with cement pump.
4. Flow in from cement pump is showing a constant rate, looking at event "5" with the pressure falling
off indicates that flow-in rate may not be accurate when comparing to the flow out.
5. Cement pump pressure falling off.
6. Pump 2.4 m3 (20 bbl.) of spacer using cement pump.
List of Events
1. Begin displacing cement at 4 bpm, flow out has not stabilized due to cement falling in drill string.
2. Pressure is seen on standpipe along with steady flow out returns on the Coriolis meter.
3. Sheared plug at 2,600psi SPP.
4. Increase flow rate to 7.5 bpm on drill string to continue displacing.
5. Begin decreasing SBP based on managed pressure cementing chart.
6. Slow down pump rate to 4 bpm before bumping plug.
7. Circulate with boost pump maintaining 50psi SBP.

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations:

• Considering that the friction in the open hole was not as high as typical, it was feasible to maintain
constant back-pressure throughout the job until the heavy fluids started to return. This did not
breach the safe operating window during pump off events because of the use of underbalanced
MW, which was a first time for the operator.
• The iterations for a cementing job are much faster to complete in the cementing service provider's
software; it is recommended to run the multiple base scenarios in such software prior to beginning
generating MPD pump schedules as this will make the process more efficient and practical.
• The successful application of MPD and MPC in this section led to saving ±5 day's equivalent to ±
$3.5MM as there was no need to run the intermediate contingency 16-in. liner.
• Thorough preparation for this multi-company, first Ultra-Deep Water (UDW) Managed Pressure
Cementing job for the group, has proven satisfactory with no incidents in terms of HSE and Service
Quality, meeting the requirements to continue the well's further stages without issues.
• Mandatory interface between cementing companies with the MPD service provider Supervisor and
rig team, with direct step-by-step communication during the whole operation was of paramount
importance to maintain control of the job.
• The short timeframe for the preparation of this MPC design, but full collaboration from all parties
involved produced successful results.
• Simplification as much as safely possible for the operation is required and, maintaining a constant
SBP is key to staying within a range that falls into the safe operating window. Once heavier fluids
begin entering the annulus, the simplest approach was used to reduce the SBP in steps for every
1.2 to 2.38 m3 (10 to 20 bbl.) pumped during displacement as a reference for this job. The choke
operator had enough time to slowly open the choke and control the defined steps/pressures until
the end of displacement.
• Full returns were observed during the entire cementing as a result of maintaining the ECD in
the ranges planned to avoid fracturing the formation. No influx was detected, confirming the
operational MW window planned during the design stage was correctly assumed.
SPE/IADC-200503-MS 11

• As per CBL-VDL log, a clear TOC is seen at 3,910 m (12,828 ft) MDRT vs. 3,993 m (13,100
ft) MDRT planned (for tail slurry). This is also the depth of the previous rat hole, and cement
material is also seen with an amplitude of 20mV up to 3847 m (12,621 ft) MDRT vs. planned TOC
of 3,700m (12,139 ft) MDRT for the lead slurry. Given that the nature of the lead slurry includes
microspheres by design, a CBL-VDL is not recommended for this type of slurry, but an ultrasonic
tool can be used for a more accurate evaluation. If TOC at 3910 m MDRT is considered TOC for
the tail, it means the hole is in gauge.
• The shoe track was drilled out, and the slow dynamic formation integrity test gave results of leak-
off at 1.18 SG (9.78 ppg), with additional +/- 0.02 SG (0.12 ppg) as expected/required to continue
the drilling the following section safely.

Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper express special gratitude to the operator and rig contractor for allowing the MPD
service provider to participate and contribute in achieving the goals of this challenging project as well as
permitting the publication of this paper.

Nomenclature
BHECD = bottomhole equivalent circulating density
BHA = bottomhole assembly
BHP = bottomhole pressure
BPM = barrels per minute
CBHP = constant bottomhole pressure
CBL = cement bond log
ECD = equivalent circulating density
EMW = equivalent mud weight
FIT = formation integrity test
FG = fracture gradient
GOM = Gulf of Mexico
GPM = gallons per minute
HSE = health/safety/environment
LOT = leak-off test
MD = measured depth
MGS = mud gas separator
MPC = managed pressure cementing
MPD = managed pressure drilling
MW = mud weight
OH = open hole
PP = pore pressure
RCD = rotating control device
ROP = rate of penetration
RT = rotary table
SBM = synthetic based mud
SBP = surface backpressure
SG = specific gravity
SPP = stand pipe pressure
TD = total depth
TOC = top of cement
12 SPE/IADC-200503-MS

TVD = true vertical depth

UCA = ultrasonic cement analyzer
UDW = ultra-deep water
WOC = wait on cement

References
Gradishar, R., Fancher, C., Ruhl, A., Patil, H., 2017. Utilizing Managed Pressure Drilling to overcome narrow margins
during liner running and cementing operations. SPE-187039-MS
Hernandez, M., Valecillos, J., 2018. MPD-Overlooked Factors that Impact Annular Pressure Control with High Solids
Concentration Drilling Fluids. SPE/IADC-190001-MS
Moghazy S., Smelker K., Hernandez J., Van Noort R., Arnone M., 2018. The Challenges of Deploying an MPD System
on a MODU to Drill Narrow Margin Shallow Horizontal Wells in DW GoM. SPE/IADC-191402-MS.
Valecillos, J., Craigh, H., 2016. MPD Technology Applied to a High Potential Oil/Gas Producing well. Case Study. SPE/
IADC-179745-MS.