Task 3 Cement Barriers: Assessment of Foamed Cement Systems used in Deep Offshore Wells (GOM)

Transcription

1 Task 3 Cement Barriers: Assessment of Foamed Cement Systems used in Deep Offshore Wells (GOM) Presenter: Dr. Barbara Kutchko API Spring Standards Meeting the ENERGY lab June, 2014

2 Foamed Cement Research Approach Develop predictive relationship between gas distribution and physical properties using CT imaging & geophysical methods Use lab/field samples for direct observation and computational fluid dynamics to predict in situ mesostructure Unique no one has ever observed the structure of in situ foamed cement Goal Improve the science and application of foamed cement used in GOM operations. Better understanding of the barrier. Three Sample Preparation Methods API RP10-B at room P, T Update Atmospheric-generated samples Completed. Technical reports available online. Field-generated samples Halliburton collection completed April 22 We now have field samples from all 3 major service companies Lab-based pressure samples Ongoing. Looking at foam destabilization. Field-generated Samples Lab-based Pressure Vessel (on loan from Schlumberger)

3 Atmospheric Foamed Cement: Findings Slide 3 10% 20% 30% 40%

4 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings S-D1 41.2%, ~310 psi S-D2 47.8%, ~290 psi S-E1 33.6%, ~290 psi

5 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings B-A1 44.2%, ~490 psi B-A3 31.6%, ~363 psi B-A4 27.9%, ~401 psi

6 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings B-A1 44.2%, ~490 psi

7 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings B-A3 31.6%, ~363 psi

8 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings B-A4 27.9%, ~401 psi

9 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings H1, 8.28% Foam Quality Recorded Pressure 1015 psi

10 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings H2, 19.99% Foam Quality Recorded Pressure 957 psi

11 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings H % Foam Quality Recorded Pressure 495 psi

12 Field-generated Foamed Cement: Findings H % Foam Quality Recorded Pressure 505 psi

13

14 60 Porosity of Field-Generated Foamed Cement 50 Porosity (%) A1 A2 D1 D2 E B 8-9 M 8-9 T 7-8 B 7-8 M 7-8 T 5-6 B 5-6 M 5-6 T 3-4 B 3-4 M 3-4 T 2 Sample Cylinder Position INLET Plunger & Headspace

15 Permeability of Field-Generated Foamed Cement Permeability (md) A1 A2 D1 D2 E B 8-9 M 8-9 T 7-8 B 7-8 M 7-8 T 5-6 B 5-6 M 5-6 T 3-4 B 3-4 M 3-4 T 2 Sample Cylinder Position INLET Plunger & Headspace

16 Porosity 60.0 Porosity (%) A2 D1 E1 Sample Cylinders T 3-4 M 3-4 B 5-6 T 5-6 M 5-6 B 7-8 T 7-8 M 7-8 B 8-9 T 8-9 M 8-9 B INLET Plunger & Headspace

17 Permeability 1.60 Permeability (md) A2 D1 E1 Sample Cylinders T 3-4 M 3-4 B 5-6 T 5-6 M 5-6 B 7-8 T 7-8 M 7-8 B 8-9 T 8-9 M 8-9 B INLET Plunger & Headspace

18 Findings Slide 18 Foamed Cements generated using atmospheric methods do not look like those generated in the field Significantly smaller bubbles and lower permeability are observed in the fieldgenerated samples API RP conservative? Work is continuing to isolate flow, distribution, and other relevant properties that can be engineered into safer and more efficient placement of foamed cement 3 ft long core, 3 inches diameter Atmospheric-generated Foamed Cement, 40% Field-generated Foamed Cement, ~35%

19 Foamed Cement Generator

20 Foamed Cement Generator CT scan of foamed cement time 0 hours CT scan of foamed cement time 24 hours Buoyancy forces directly related to the volume of gas bubbles. Coalescence of bubbles due to foam destabilization. 20

21 Foamed Cement Generator Evolution of the BSD with time for a 25% quality FCG sample. Three slices, side by side from the center of the core (slices 500, 600 & 700 from 2000 slice stack). As the movie plays through it shows scans that ended the following amount of time (approx) after the foam was generated. Still evolution after 3 hours. 29 min 51 min 73 min 96 min 120 min 148 min 170 min 191 min 65 hours 35 min

22 Foamed Cement Team NETL-ORD Project Team Members Industry Partners Barbara Kutchko Dustin Crandall Johnathan Moore Magdalena Gill Dustin McIntyre Mary Tkack Debb Glosser Richard Spaulding Igor Haljasmaa William Harbert Connor Gieger Eilis Rosenbaum Craig Maloney Surya Deb Bill Rogers Glen Benge, Benge Consulting Erick Cunningham, BP Woody Lawrence, BP Gunnar DeBruijn, Schlumberger Joe Shine, Baker Hughes Charles Buford, Baker Hughes Craig Gardner, Chevron James Heathman, Shell Robert Darby, Halliburton Joe Maxson, Halliburton *API Foamed Cement Work Group

23 Improving Science-Base to Understand Wellbore Integrity & Performance of Foamed Cements Behavior & performance of foam cements is unknown under in situ conditions This study has sparked significant interest from both industry & BSEE (DOI) Bridging significant knowledge gaps, providing information about behavior of foam cements at in situ conditions 3D CT Scan of a 10.4 mm 3 digital subsection of 10% foam quality cement Lab-based Pressure Vessel (on loan from Schlumberger) Field Generated foamed cement 3D CT Scan of fieldgenerated foamed cement. Foam quality 47.8%; collected at a pressure of ~290 psi Development of new imaging and analysis protocols Evaluation over range of mix-design parameters Evaluation of mix designs under field conditions CFD to simulate mesostructure For more information and products from the UDW Portfolio see