(company logo)

Reduction of Remedial Cementation of

Production Liners……through the use of

Equipment, Procedures & People

Nicole Baird: EPW-GOM TLP, Jackup & Platform Wells Team

LeadLoran Galey: SIEP-EPT Well

Performance Team – Cementing Expert

(company logo)

Objectives

• Case for Action – NPT Related Trouble Time / Cost

• GOM Production Cementing Staircase – Equipment, Process, People

• 2007 – 2008 Results• GOM Learnings• Go-Forward Plans& Next Steps for 2008 –

2009+• Conclusions

(company logo)

Case for Action

• 2004-2005 GOM operations experienced 26 NPT events– Total Days associated with Prod Csg Cmt NPT = 25.2 days– Total Cost (2008$$) associated with Prod Csg Cmt NPT = $4.4

MM

• Objective sands becoming depleted, 5000+ psi (34,475 kPa)– Reduced Margins for cementing ECDs

• Max PP – Min FG margins of 0.6 ppg or less common (72 kg/m3)

– Compaction-induced wellbore failures

• TLP weight / space constraints prohibit use of specialty equipment

• Slimhole sidetracks, tighter clearances between csg strings more common

(company logo)

Historical Production Csg Cement NPT

• Year 2006 numbers impacted by Ursa A4ST• 2008 YTD Numbers (as of June 20, 2008)

– NPT Cost associated with Prod Csg Cmt = $624,000: NPT Time = 1.9 days

Production Csg Cement NPT Historical Breakdown

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YTD 2008 EOY Proj

Year

NPT

Day

s

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

NPT

Cos

t (2008 $

$)

Prod. Csg NPT Time

Prod. Csg Cmt NPT Cost

Average reduction in NPT $ of 20% per year

(company logo)

GOM Approach: What, Where, How & When

• Joint development with BTC Experts (Cowan, Galey) and Service Providers (HES, SLB)

• Focus on all aspects – Equipment, Slurry Design, Procedures, People– Rotatable Liner Hangers– Remote Plug Dropping Heads– Lightweight Slurries for 14 – 15 ppg environment (1680 – 1800

kg/m3)– Move from “pump to bump” mentality to “theoretical

displacement”

• Manage the level of change – use small steps versus fundamental movements

It’s about the “small” things that you do while drilling, post-drilling, and cementing that add up to big results!

(company logo)

Staircase Approach: What, Where, How & When

2006Rotatable Hnrs (TIW) = Brutus A5ST3LiteCrete Slurry Design = Auger A18

2007Remote Plug Dropping Head = Auger A2Ream-down systems (hnr, shoe, etc) = Auger A8 & A13Use of Focused T&D Plots = Auger A10Swellable Placement = Auger A13

2008 H1Swellables (Zonal Isolation, TOL) = Brutus, Mars, AugerUse of D155 for Low Cost Lightweight Cmt = Auger A10

2008 H2Clear Fluid DisplacementTechnology for “Small Csg & Big Hole”Slimhole Use of D155 for Light Cmt

Integrated Team Effort

• Well Engr Staff• Offshore Rig Team• Technology• Service Providers

(company logo)

GOM Results to Date

• No remedial production cementation jobs since Ursa A4 (2006)– Have experienced problems with equipment (liner hangers) which

have caused NPT as a result of altering method of primary cementation (Brutus A7ST2 Versaflex activation, Mars A8 plugging of shoe track)

• LiteCrete dry bulk segregation at Auger is predominate cause of NPT in 2007– Drove trial use of D155 with conventional class H on Auger A10 & 2008

Summer Program

• Successfully rotated / reamed liners to TD as proactive measure– Allowed rotation at TD– Use of Remote Plug Dropping head enabled full rotation during

cementation

• Joint Taskforce established to link pre-cementation activities (Hole Cleaning, Liner / Casing Running) and shift operational paradigms

• NET RESULTS, Year to date NPT cost = 1.9 days / $624,000– Of this, 1.3 days and $250,000 was due to failure of a TIW Xpak

system post cementation on Brutus A1ST3

(company logo)

Auger A10 ST3: Swellable, D155, Depleted Sands

Cmt. Technology Implemented

• Swellables for zonal isolation / cmt channeling

• Rotatable 7” liner and equipment, for reaming & rotation at TD of 25,000’ MD

• Use of D155 as alternative to LiteCrete

Location of Swellable, CBL ran prior to swell

time expended

Objective Sand (Perforations):Depleted from 12.6 ppg to 6.7 ppg (6000 psi depletion)

(company logo)

Brutus A7ST2: SH cementation (5.5”) after reaming to TD

• Initial 7 5/8” production liner stuck

• Redrilled section below 7 5/8” and ran 5.5” liner– Rotated 5.5” liner from 21,384

to 22,150’ MD• Full rotation while prep for cmt

job– No rotation established after

stopping to drop Drill pipe dart• Unable to set Versaflex Hanger

due to high angles – circulated out primary cmt job during setting process

• CBL log of 2nd primary cementation attempt with EZSV – 6 days after liner on bottom.– Successful job attributed to

rotation (“smear effect”) of liner to TD & use of RSS system

J2 sand (Objective Interval)Cemented 6 days after Lnr to TD

(company logo)

Learnings & Continuous Improvement (1)

• Utilization of LiteCrete requires careful consideration– Issues of Dry Bulk segregation– Sensitive to mix water volumes & proper slurry recirculation for

target density

• D155 as alternate to LiteCrete– Advantages:

• One dry-blend cement (Class H) for entire job

• All liquid additives. Unused additives can be returned

• Flexibility to make last-minute slurry density changes

• Easier to sample and test • 50% cost reduction

compared to LiteCRETE

– Disadvantages:• Rig space could limit

job size. Deck space is needed for liquid tanks.

• Liquid additive hoses present additional tripping hazards

• More liquid additive volume onboard, therefore more risk of chemical spill (although D155 is non-hazardous)

(company logo)

Learnings & Continuous Improvement (2)

• Use of swellables in oversized hole applications– Low side channeling prevention– Added “flow barrier” for multiple intervals (spaceout

becomes critical)– Multiple companies distributing product – engineer the

design upfront

• Don’t overestimate the power of paradigms– “Pump until you bump”– “We’ll establish rotation once we get to TD”– “What’s 0.1 ppg difference in ECD?”

• Shift the design one element at a time– Know what you are changing and why ensure buy-in– Test more than just cement – mud interfaces

(company logo)

Next Steps: Where do we go from here?

• Synthetic Based Mud Contamination– New DP Dart & Casing Liner wiper plug designs– Use of Higher Density Slurries (increased contamination

resistance)

• Depleted Sands in GOM– Use of Managed Pressure Drilling equipment for cementation

operations– Use of graphitic carbons (G-seal, vin-seal, etc) to serve as

LCM plugging in cementation slurry designs

• Hole Cleaning Prior to Cementing / As Part of Cementing– Use of “foamed flushes” ahead of cement slurries– Use of “foamed spaces” as part of clean up cycle

• 3-Dimensional Modeling for Cement Displacement Efficiency

• Standard Use of KCl Additive for Prevention of Shale / Clay Swelling

(company logo)

Conclusions

• One of the most common practices, yet it can cause significant problems later in the life of the wells– Sustained Casing Pressure– Micro-annulus

• New practices, procedures & combinations can reap great benefits and not necessarily new technology– Remote Plug Dropping Heads– Class H slurries + different additive combinations– Rotation & centralization for displacement efficiencyPerformance Improvement is all about doing everything you can right the first time,

whereby small changes add up to big results

(company logo)

Acknowledgements

SIEP-EPT Well Performance Team, Fluids & Cementation– Mike Cowan– Loran Galey– Ron Rock

EPW Wells-GOM TLP, Jackup, Platform Drilling EngrsEPW Wells-GOM TLP, Jackup, Platform Completion EngrsService Providers: Halliburton (Cementing, EasyWell),

Schlumberger (Cementing), TIW (Liner Hangers), Baker (Liner Hangers), MI (Fluids)