SPE 53943
New Down-Hole External Casing Mud Removal Technology Improves Primary Cement
Results
Robert L. Dillenbeck, BJ Services Company, USA, SPE, Stewart Simpson, Turbeco, Inc.,
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
During the course of developing techniques and applications for
better primary cementing results, it has become universally
recognized that conventional drilling fluids and their residue must be
removed from the annular space of a well before an effective
hydraulic seal with cement can be achieved. To adequately protect
well bore integrity, this hydraulic seal must be effective at both the
cement to formation interface, and also at the cement to casing
interface. To combat the problem of mud residue on the formation
face, a vast array of external casing devices such as formation wipers
and scratchers have been developed to help remove this residue
through mechanical means. These devices, while effective at
mechanically assisting chemical spacers and flushes in mud residue
removal from the formation face, do nothing to help clean the
exterior of the casing.
Due to its impermeable nature, casing suspended in a well is not
subject to the same mud solids build up due to filtrate loss that
exposed formations are. However, due to extremely low shear rates
at the casing wall, some mud systems can build impressive gel
strengths along the casing boundary, and become totally immobile.
Experience has shown that this immobile layer can even resist the
abrasive flow of cement slurries on the inside of casings, and resulted
in the development of the bottom wiper plug commonly used to
remove mud residue from inside the casing on many cement jobs
pumped today. When this same immobile layer of mud adheres to the
exterior of the casing through the placement of cement, the cement
can have a very difficult time bonding to the casing and creating the
necessary hydraulic seal.
The authors have tested a new mechanical device both under
controlled test conditions and in the field, which allows drilling fluid
residue to be mechanically removed from the casing exterior both
before and during the actual placement of primary cement in the
casing annulus. The paper will detail the development of the
technology involved, initial testing, and actual field application of the
new tools. The results of select field trials where the new devices
were run side by side with other older technology will be presented to
illustrate the comparative effectiveness of the new technology at
achieving improved annular hydraulic seals.
Introduction
When oil and gas wells are drilled with some sort of liquid drilling
fluid, that fluid can take the form of either an oil base, a water base,
or an emulsion of both. It is necessary to use these fluids during the
drilling process to cool and lubricate the drill bit, to carry cuttings out
of the hole, to maintain borehole stability and also to provide
necessary hydrostatic pressure to hold back formation fluids from
entering the wellbore. Unfortunately, once the well is drilled, and
casing has been run, these same fluids that have been so beneficial up
to this point in the well, now are a hindrance to achieving a good
hydraulic seal with cement in the annular area between the casing and
the borehole. Most all common drilling fluids are to some extent
incompatible with conventional Portland Cement based. If not
removed from the annulus area (between the casing and the wellbore
walls) before cement is pumped into place, the residual mud will
often cause either poor quality cement, or poor hydraulic isolation of
the various strata in the well. The lack of hydraulic isolation may be
from channels of mud through the set cement, poor cement to
formation bond, or poor cement to pipe bond 1.. Even when hydraulic
isolation seems to be achieved after a primary cement job, cement
can separate from the casing later, and allow formation fluids to
migrate to undesirable locations in the well 1. Over the years,
extensive work has been done in the industry to develop improved
methods and techniques to remove the drilling fluid prior to
cementing casing in the ground. Much good work has been devoted
to the study of improving mud displacement efficiency in the annulus
between the casing and formations of wells 2. Some research has also
looked at improving the cement to pipe bond with methods such as
rough coating the casing3. This work has resulted in the development
of both hydraulic optimizations (such as pumping rate changes)
which may or may not utilize various pre-flushes and/or spacers
ahead of a cement job, and also in the development of several types
of mechanical devices which are designed to help remove the drilling
fluid and much of its filtercake from the borehole wall. Since the
wellbore wall is permeable, this is the location where the familiar
drilling fluid filter cake forms during drilling. This filtercake can
be much more difficult to remove than the less viscous and mobile
drilling fluid and cause failures in a primary cement job.
Recognizing the need to remove this mud residue from the formation
face before casing is cemented, mechanical scratchers and scrapers
have been developed that when combined with casing reciprocation,
2 ROBERT L. DILLENBECK, STEWART SIMPSON
can be quite effective at removing mud and mud residue from the
rock face in the borehole 4. However, the authors feel that there is
another area of mud deposition that warrants examination and
removal. In order to better illustrate the area involved, one should
first look inside the casing during a cement job.
Whenever a casing string is to be cemented in a well, it must first
be run into the well and suspended in whatever drilling fluid is in the
wellbore at that time. If the casing is not automatically filled with
mud while running in the hole with auto fill float equipment, it is
usually filled with drilling fluid manually every few joints while
running the string in the hole. On deeper wells this can result in the
casing being suspended in more or less static drilling fluid for a
considerable length of time. Like many lessons learned in our
industry, the problem of a wet shoe after a cement job is one that
seems to keep needing to be re-learned by many. The most common
cause of this problem in which at the end of a job the casing shoe
joint(s) below the float collar is filled with mud rather than cement, is
mud which has clung to the inside of the casing throughout the
pumping of spacers and cement slurry. Usually in these situations
only a top wiper plug has been run. After the top wiper/displacement
plug is dropped and pumped down the casing, this thin layer of mud
is mechanically removed from the inside of the casing by the plug.
Unfortunately, this small layer can represent a volume of several
barrels of drilling mud when it is collected from several thousand feet
of casing. Given a good tight seal of the top wiper plug, the drilling
fluid layer will build up under the top wiper plug during its (cement)
displacement trip down the casing. If the total volume of the mud
collected during the plugs pass through the casing is large enough, it
can partially or even completely fill the casing shoe joint(s), and even
extend out the shoe and into the annulus around the shoe joint. To
prevent this from happening, a bottom wiper plug is often utilized
ahead of the cement fluid to mechanically wipe the mud layer off of
the inside of the casing before the cement is pumped down the casing.
In so doing, the bottom wiper plug removes the film that might
otherwise end up collecting under the top wiper plug. Even though
the non-permeable casing cannot suffer a build-up of dehydrated mud
filter cake in the manner of a porous and permeable rock face, the
prevention of wet casing shoes with the use of bottom wiper plugs
where they had previously occurred with out bottom plugs, is
compelling enough to convince the authors that a tenacious layer of
drilling fluid can attach itself to casing and resist removal by spacers
and cement slurry.
In their current duties, the authors are often in a position to
examine intriguing and/or problem cement jobs. When the authors
reviewed specific primary cement applications where all surface
indications pointed to a totally successful job, and yet either a poor
bond log or lack of zonal isolation occurred, they were often left
wondering about the possible causal factors involved. In some, but
not all of these instances, bond logs would indicate a possible micro
annulus effect, and in others, only poor bonding or fluid migration
was apparent. While there are admittedly many different factors that
can contribute to these kind of problems, a careful process of
elimination, led at this point, to the authors starting to wonder about
the possibility of a mud layer on the exterior of the casing in some
cement jobs. Such a layer could survive in place through the cement
placement process and then interfere with the results of the primary
job through either cement contamination, or by providing an un-
cemented conduit for leakage of formation fluids after the cement set.
It was also noted that in some instances the problem of mud build up
on the exterior of the casing also seemed more severe in cold weather
conditions when cold casing was run in a well. The low steel
temperature when first immersed in the drilling mud seemed to
rapidly cause a viscous layer of mud to start forming on the casing
exterior.
SPE 53943
It was the suspicion that tenacious mud films could be formed on
casing exteriors, that created a desire to do something about the
problem. This desire ultimately lead to the development of a tool that
was specifically designed to use routine casing reciprocation to
mechanically assist in the removal of mud residue from the exterior
surface of casing during a primary cement job.
Tool Development
While the authors suspected that a layer of mud was somehow
building up on the exterior of the casing and remaining there through
out cement placement, there still remained the question of how to go
about mechanically removing a mud film from the exterior of the
casing, once the casing was in the well, but before cement was
placed.
As it turns out, Mr. Harlan King was thinking up a conceptual
solution to the same problem as early as 19855. His first prototype
tool was developed in 1991. The first model was made of simple
circular rubber O ring type wipers incased inside rigid metal rings
similar to finger type external casing scratchers. These were
mounted around the casing at such points that would need good
cement to casing bonds. The idea was for downhole lateral casing
loads on the casing string to hold the tool tightly against the borehole
wall. When the casing was reciprocated before the start of cement
operations, and also during the first stages when spacers and cement
slurry were still inside the casing, the pipe would pass back and forth
through the wiper elements. While the concept was quite simple,
there was still room for improvement in the wiping action of the
elastomer element, both in composition and shape. Additionally, a
more rigid tool body structure to hold the tool stationary in the hole
during casing reciprocation was desired. Towards this end, a switch
to a tool body of a rigid (Non-Bow Spring) type centralizer with
angled vanes was made. Having a slightly longer body than most
external casing scratchers, this allowed for two individual wiper
elements to be fitted in one tool body. The tool body also
incorporated drain holes between the two wiper elements to allow for
any mud that might otherwise collect between the two wiper elements
to escape out of the tool and away from the casing. Figure #1 shows
an example of one of the first tools as produced.
The wiper ring design and elastomer compound posed many
challenges in order for the tool to be effective. The first challenge to
overcome was to come up with an elastomer, which would handle the
environment in which the rings would be exposed, and expected to
operate. Factors included in the decision making process were
temperature, chemical, and physical constraints. An elastomer was
needed which would operate up to the 300 degree F. range, but which
would remain pliable at both cooler and hotter temperatures, while at
the same time maintaining its physical properties, and not adversely
reacting to any chemical additives in the mud or cement systems.
The material also needed to be compatible with most water, oil based,
and emulsion muds as well. In addition to a composition meeting the
many requirements listed, a shape better suited to efficient mud film
removal was also desired. After discussions were held with several
elastomer labs, one was finally chosen to produce an elastomer seal
which met the affor mentioned criteria. They were able to formulate
a compound that would perform under the strict requirements deemed
necessary for this application. The compound is proprietary, and its
application for the purpose of removing the mud film from the OD of
a casing string is unique to this tool at this time.
Another design challenge of the wiper ring was that the wiper had to
have the ability to maintain strength integrity while maintaining the
ability to conform to casing ODs that might or might not fall within
API tolerance standards. Some of the casing on which tests were run,
in fact, did not fall within the API tolerances. Further complicating
these considerations was mill varnish coating on the casing, as well
SPE 53943 NEW DOWN-HOLE EXTERNAL CASING MUD REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES PRIMARY CEMENT RESULTS
as sand blasted casing. The wiper elements would have to
accommodate these inconsistencies. Still other design challenges
included heavy lateral loading on the low side of the wiper
ring in horizontal well applications. This would tend to compress
the wiper element on the low side of the casing, while at the same
time, leaving a gap on the high side of the casing. This meant that the
wiper had to be energized even while in the environment of having
casing with an out of spec. API OD, in addition to having the casing
in a horizontal position with heavy lateral loading. The wiper
element would have to maintain the ability to conform to these
parameters, and still be able to effectively wipe the mud from the
casing while the casing was being reciprocated. These design
parameters proved to be the most challenging aspect of the design.
Other design considerations included the ability of the wiper ring to
slide over the threads on the casing without being deformed or
destroyed during installation.
Ultimately, a design was chosen which would have both a leading
and trailing ramp in order to wipe the casing during reciprocation, on
both the upstroke and the downstroke. In order to facilitate heavy
lateral loading without binding and jamming under these loads, a
mold was chosen with a groove on the underside of the wiper
element. The wiper element groove in the centralizer was sized so
that the groove under the wiper would compress and flare out on the
ends, thereby facilitating heavy lateral loading in horizontal
applications. The wiper element diameter was sized smaller than
even out of spec. casing in order to be sure that there would not be a
gap on the high side of the casing. This would keep the wiper
energized in all situations. Figure #2 illustrates one of the two wiper
elements housed in each tool and demonstrates how they fit in the
tool and against the casing.
Tool Testing
In order to test the physical properties of the wiper element during
installation, the wipers were installed in the centralizers and the
following tests were performed:
On dry casing, the tools were hammered, with a sledgehammer and
a 4 X 4 block, over NuVamm threads on a joint of casing. Once
over the threads, the tool was slid up the entire length of casing and
back, all the while noting the wiping ability of the rings. The tool
was then hammered back over the threads and removed from the
casing. After removal over the threads, the condition of the wiper
elements was inspected. The tool was then installed on the dry casing
again. This process was continued for over 8 hours with the same set
of elastomer wiper elements. At the completion of the testing period,
the wiper elements showed no adverse effects. There was no
discernible damage to the wiper rings, and the authors were satisfied
that the next step was to test the wiping efficiency with various
drilling fluids under observable conditions.
Once the authors were comfortable with the mechanical durability
of the wiper elements, surface tests were performed with both vertical
and horizontal sections of casing to check the efficiency of the wipers
at removing actual field samples of mud. In these tests, it proved
easier to hold the casing stationary and to move the tool and wipers
along the mud coated pipe, while in the hole, lateral casing loads
would hold the tool stationary against the wall of the hole as the
casing was reciprocated through it. The end result is the same. It
should be noted at this point that the first test runs showed an
unexpectedly high force was required to break friction and move the
tools across the mud coated casing. The authors were concerned that
excessive friction downhole could cause the tools to be drug along
with the reciprocated pipe instead of remaining stationary and wiping
the casing. Therefore, before additional tests were run, it was
decided to increase the depth of the wiper groove in the tool body
3
very slightly. This modification was made in all subsequent tools
used for the remaining tests and proved effective at eliminating
excess friction.
In these tests several muds were used but some were oil based muds
with viscositys well over 150 cp, and in all cases the authors were
very satisfied with the elastomer wipers elements ability to easily
remove even very nasty oil muds that had been left on the pipe for
an extended period of time. At this point, the authors felt that the
new External Casing Wiper Tool (ECWT) was ready for field trials.
Discussion
Once satisfied with both the materials and initial prototype design of
the tool, the authors were ready to start field tests of the technology to
see if it really could aid primary cementing in the manner that they
hoped it would. However, before testing could begin, criteria needed
to be set for good test candidate wells. The authors both felt strongly
that the most critical applications requiring excellent cement bonding
and that had the most to loose from a lack of hydraulic seal would be
production casing and liner cement jobs. Accordingly, the first batch
of tools manufactured for field trial were made up in 7 inch size.
Obviously, this narrowed down the list of test wells to those using 7
inch casing. From this point, other factors that were deemed
important were compiled. Specifically, one of the criteria listed was
if wells were being drilled in areas with unexplained general lack of
bond that couldnt be explained by other known variables. Another
plus in a candidate wells favor was if other offsets had suffered from
poor or incomplete hydraulic isolation, with no sure cause. Finally, a
well drilled in an area where cement bonds appeared to suffer from a
form of microannuli on logs, but without normal causal factors,
would appear high on a candidate list for field trials.
After setting the criteria for selecting field trial candidate wells, the
authors planned out the best manner and method for placing the tool
on the casing string. An arrangement of two free-floating tools on
each joint of casing, with one friction type stop ring placed in the
middle of the casing joint and the tools on either side was decided
upon. This set up would allow for complete external casing mud
removal in each test section with just a +/- 20 foot reciprocation
stroke on the rig floor. The authors also planned on using a sequence
of conventional rigid centralizers without the external wiper
technology spaced out in intervals between the test tools to serve as
comparison tools to the new wiper tools on subsequent bond logs and
other cement evaluations.
With selection criteria set and a plan for running the tools that
would generate good comparison data in place, contacts with
operators in the field were made asking about possible candidate
wells that they might have planned in the near future. With a certain
naivet that only those who feel as though they have just developed a
better mouse trap can apply, the authors plan was to review the
collection of wells that flooded in and to then select only the wells
that met most if not all the selection criteria. Unfortunately, the
reality of current oilfield conditions eventually dictated that some
compromises had to be made in the test well selection process. Both
the number and types of primary casing cement jobs that were
initially made available for early field trials we not quite what the
authors had hoped for. Many of the wells available tended to be
using either 4 in or 5 in production casing instead of the 7 in.
casing that had been anticipated. This necessitated the manufacturer
of additional ECWTs in sizes beyond the original 7 in size. In the
end, it would seem that the concept being examined was so simple
that many operators tended to dismiss the idea out of hand.
Regardless, the decision was made to press ahead with the subject
wells that were available, and in the end, the authors believe the
process to be vindicated.
4 ROBERT L. DILLENBECK, STEWART SIMPSON
Example Wells
One operator who did express an interest was operating in the North
Texas Panhandle in a Shallow gas field. The reservoir characteristics
made a good hydraulic seal essential in order to isolate two
formations that were located very close together in the wellbore. The
formations in question were the naturally fractured Permian age
Brown and White Dolomites at a depth of about 3,000 ft. The White
Dolomite was being produced, while the Brown Dolomite, located
below the White, was used as a water disposal zone. With only a 50
to 100 ft tight stringer between the two zones, it was imperative that
the operator achieve a good hydraulic seal at both the formation face
as well as the casing. Without such a cement seal, it would be very
easy for the injected disposal fluid to move up through any flaw in
the cement sheath and to then flood out the low-pressure gas
production from the higher White Dolomite. The wells were drilled
with a simple low-density water and bentonite mud system, with mud
density generally at or below 9.00 lbm/gal. While the subject wells
did not meet all the criteria for testing the new ECWT technology that
the authors might have wanted, the decision was made to go ahead
and test the tools on the next three wells drilled. Other compromises
had to be made in the desired test procedure. Among the most
important was the inability to stagger non-ECWT tools between the
new casing wiper tools to give direct comparisons on resulting bond
logs run after the casing was cemented. As previously noted, a total
of three wells in this field were cemented using the new ECWT
technology. Each casing string had the tools placed two per joint
with a casing stop ring in the middle of the joint. The tools were
placed across both the Brown and the White Dolomite zones and for
some distance in between the two zones. An average total of thirteen
to fifteen tools were run on each well with a total average cement
column height of about 500 feet. All three wells were cemented with
the same 20 bbls of water based cement mud wash and the same 14.8
lbm/gal API class H based completion cement. In all cases, slow
casing reciprocation was attempted once casing was on bottom, and
was generally continued until the cement system was exiting the
casing shoe into the annulus. Due to a very low fracture gradient in
the subject zones, rapid reciprocation would cause excessive surge
and swab pressures in the annulus, which was not desirable. A
reciprocation stroke of about 20 feet was used in order to try to
achieve complete cleaning of the casing string across the critical
zones. No abnormal events were noted during the course of
cement operations on the wells.
Results
Due to factors beyond the control of the authors, operations did not
allow for downhole, side by side comparisons of casing sections
which had the ECWT tools, and those that had the same tool without
the wiper elements. Never the less, the authors were able to observe
encouraging results on all the wells cemented with the tools. These
included:
1. The installation and running of the tools was accomplished with
no major problems on site. Further, there were no difficulties
what so ever running the casing string to bottom.
2. Cement operations were accomplished without any difficulties
caused by the casing reciprocating process.
SPE 53943
3. The casing reciprocation and cementing was accomplished and
the desired cement lift was achieved in an area known for its
extremely low fracture gradient and lost circulation problems.
4. As illustrated in Figure #3, cement bond logs indicated good
cement bond to both the casing and formation across the critical
zones. This was true on all three wells. The bond can be
compared to Figure #4 which shows a representative sample of
bond log from a section of the wells with no ECWT.
5. Finally, there was no communication observed between the
disposal zone and the production zones once the wells were
completed.
Conclusions:
The authors have concluded in their initial field tests that the external
casing wiper tools could be successfully applied in actual field
applications. While not all the comparative test parameters that were
originally hoped for were available in the first test wells, all
indications are that the technology performed downhole in the same
manner as during surface testing. The test wells all achieved the goal
of good zonal isolation under difficult primary cementing conditions,
and the field operations gave the authors no reason to suspect any
problems would be encountered using the ECWT technology on other
wells. The authors are continuing to actively search out other more
challenging test cases to further test the technology, and plan to try to
include more difficult mud systems such as oil based drilling mud.
Nomenclature
API = American Petroleum Institute
OD = Outside Diameter
cp = centipoise
lbm/gal = Pounds per Gallon
ECWT = External Casing Wiper Tool
ft = Feet
in = Inch
Acknowledgements
The Authors would like to thank the management of BJ Services, and
Turbeco for their assistance and permission to publish this paper. We
would also like to thank the BJ Tomball Technology Center staff and
Turbeco staff for their assistance in carrying out the necessary tests of
the initial tools. Special thanks also should go to Mr. Gary Mcdonald
for his assistance in setting up the test wells used in this paper.
Finally, the authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of Issa Mendez for her assistance in compiling this paper.
References
1. Crook, Ron and Heathman, James: Predicting Potential Gas-Flow Rates
to Help Determine the Best Cementing Practices, DRILLING
CONTRACTOR (November/December 1998) 42.
2. Clark, C.R. and Carter, L.G.: Mud Displacement With Cement
Slurries, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1973) 775-783.
3. Carter, L.G. and Evans, G.W.: A Study of Cement-Pipe Bonding,
J.Pet. Tech. (Feb 1964) 157-160.
4. Christian, W.W. , et al,: Gas Leakage in Primary Cementing A Field
Study and Laboratory Investigation, SPE paper 5517 presented at the
SPE-AIME 50th ATC, Dallas, Texas Sept28-Oct. 1, 1975
5. Williamson, K.: Kings Pipe-Cleaning Invention Could Change the Oil
Drilling Industry, Jasper County, Mississippi News (July 15th 1998).
SPE 53943 NEW DOWN-HOLE EXTERNAL CASING MUD REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES PRIMARY CEMENT RESULTS 5

Figure #1

Figure #2

Figure #3
6 ROBERT L. DILLENBECK, STEWART SIMPSON SPE 53943

Figure 4
SPE 53943 NEW DOWN-HOLE EXTERNAL CASING MUD REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES PRIMARY CEMENT RESULTS 7