Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Formation-fluid migration following primary cementing occurs when fluid
moves to the surface or into another zone from a formation through
pathways created in a cemented annulus. Fluid migration after primary
cementing, whether water or gas, has affected the well-completion industry
since the introduction of oilwell cementing. It is estimated that this migration
occurs at some point in the life of approximately 25% of wells drilled.
Problems caused by fluid migration include nuisance interzonal flow,
pressure behind the production casing at the wellhead, blowouts, and the
loss of rigs or platforms. Small or nuisance flow may require monitoring of
pressure buildup and occasional bleeding off of trapped volume at the
wellhead. Catastrophic flow can result in blowout and loss of the well.
The number of wells with pressure at the surface between casings is steadily
increasing as well ages are increasing and regulatory bodies are enforcing
tighter monitoring and control of the problem. Estimates of this problem
suggest that as many as 20% of existing wells have surface pressure
between casings.
Until recently, gas flow has received the most attention, but shallow water
flows have also been encountered frequently during the completion of
conductor pipes in deep-water wells.
Gas migration was first identified as a significant problem when completing
gas storage wells in the early 1960s (Sutton et al., 1984). This awareness of
gas migration was attributed to increases in well depth and the increased
monitoring of gas reservoirs. Gas migration has become a significant
problem with the development of deep, high-pressure reservoirs, leading to
Figure 7-1 Mechanism of fluid flow following cementing: (A) Initially following cementing
formation fluid is contained by hydrostatic pressure. (B) Gelationof static cement restricts
hydrostatic pressure transmission. Loss of filtrate to permeable formations as well as volume
reduction due to chemical hydration result in relief of controlling pressure. (C) Pressure declines
sufficiently to allow fluid percolation through gelled cement. (D) Permanent flow channels form.
During the next few hours or months, gas may overcome the controlling
pressure, enter the wellbore, and migrate through the annulus through the
following mechanisms. The mechanism of gas flow immediately after
cementing is presented first, followed by mechanisms responsible for longterm gas leakage.
More:
Mechanism for Gas Flow Following Cementing
Long-Term Gas Leakage
Summary of Mechanisms
These governing forces are described below and effects of their occurrence
are depicted graphically in Fig. 7-2.
Figure 7-2 Pressure decline during cement hydration resulting in fluid flow
Once inside the annulus, formation gas must have a migration path and
positive pressure differential to flow through the annulus and make a way for
more formation gas to enter. The possible migration paths are also described
below.
More:
Gel-Strength Development
Volume Reduction and Resulting Pressure Loss
Migration Paths
Percolation
Gel-Strength Development
If the annular fluid column above the gas-bearing zone is designed properly,
the hydrostatic force of the column is sufficient to initially overcome the pore
pressure of the formation. However, the complex chemical processes of
cement hydration (Primary Cementing), which begin as soon as Portland
cement is mixed with water, create two conditions which promote the
reduction of hydrostatic pressure. The first condition is gel-strength
development. Initially after placement, the cement slurry behaves as a true
fluid because pressure at any point in the cement column is equal to the
hydrostatic head. When the cement slurry becomes static, ionic forces can
create a weak tertiary structure that later grows stronger. This structure is
manifest as gelation in the bulk slurry. With gelation, adhesion to the hole
surfaces causes the cement column to lose the ability to transmit full
hydrostatic pressure. This gelation continues to increase until the cement
becomes a solid. The degree of gelation has been quantified by Sabins et al.
(1980) in terms of static gel strength (SGS, lbf/100 ft2). Gel strength as
used here is not a complex rheological function but is rather a direct
measurement of the adhesive strength of a fluid to a borehole wall or casing.
This study also introduced the concept of transition time as the interval
during the setting process between the time a cement slurry column first
loses the ability to transmit full hydrostatic pressure until the time a cement
bearing reservoir, allowing this gas to invade the annulus provided the
cement is still sufficiently fluid to be displaced by the gas. Thus, the ability of
a cement column to prevent formation gas invasion is governed by the rate
of pressure loss as well as the rate of early three-dimensional structure
development sufficient to prevent gas entry (SGS of at least 500 lbf/100 ft2).
Pressure reduction in a cemented column was demonstrated in the
laboratory by several investigators including Christian et al. (1975) and in
laboratory and field tests by Levine et al. (1979). Sutton et al. (1984)
present basic calculations for pressure drop rates based on volume
reductions and pressure restrictions caused by gel-strength development.
The equation for pressure drop possible from volume losses is:
(7-1)
where
total unit volume reduction due to fluid loss during transition time,
is the
is the
unit volume reduction due to chemical hydration during transition time and c
is the compressibility factor for cement slurry.
The pressure restriction possible from static gel-strength development is
represented by:
(7-2)
where pR is pressure restriction due to SGS, psi, SGS is the static gel
strength, lbf/100 ft2 , D is the diameter, in., and L is the length of interval, ft.
Setting SGS equal to the minimum value to prevent gas percolation (500
lbf/100 ft2) reduces Eq. 7-2 in standard oilfield units to:
(7-3)
where pR,max is the maximum pressure reduction, psi.
(7-4)
where GFP is the gas flow potential factor, dimensionless.
The magnitude of GFP for a specific well condition indicates the level of
difficulty that the control of gas flow will present. Magnitudes vary from 0 to
infinity with increasing value indicating greater potential for flow. Table 7-1
lists commonly accepted levels of GFP for classification of the severity of a
potential problem.
Table 7-1 Evaluation of gas-flow severity: Example GFP calculation
TD
Drilling Fluid
16.5 lb/gal
pOB
= 7875 - 7438
= 392 psi
pR,max
GFP
= 2672/392
= 6.8
Comparing GFP with p calculated from cement slurry variables in Eq. 7-1
but written in terms of volume reduction rates results in
(7-5)
where
and
are the total fluid loss and hydration volume rates and ttr
Migration Paths
Once inside the annulus, the gas must travel along a path to the surface or
into another permeable formation to complete the action of gas flow. Gas
flows through the annulus through three potential paths (Beirute and
Cheung, 1989): cement-formation interface or cement pipe interface,
drilling-fluid channel, or through the unset cement (Figs. 7-1d, 7-3a, b, and
c).
Figure 7-3 Fluid migration paths (a) through undisplaced drilling-fluid channels, (b) through a
cement-casing micro annulus, and (c) through channels in the cement
Percolation
When formation gas invades the annulus and a potential flow path exists,
percolation can occur if a sufficient pressure gradient exists. Gas bubbles will
migrate along the pressure gradient to lower-pressured permeable zones or
to the surface. As they migrate toward lower pressure, gas bubbles expand,
pushing open a greater flow path. Eventually, this percolation through gelled
fluid can result in the establishment of a permanent path as the cement
sets.
Several investigators, including Rae et al. (1989), Cheung and Beirute
(1985), and Moroni et al. (1997), have investigated the possibility of gas
flow via a path through the unset cement permeability. As cement in the
annulus gels and the cement becomes "load bearing," they theorize that gas
can enter cement through the permeability of the three-dimensional
structure. This theory is based on the assumption that permeability of the
gelling cement is very high. However, Sutton and Ravi (1989) evaluated the
possibility that this mechanism was solely responsible for gas percolation
through setting cement. Using Darcy's flow equation and laboratorymeasured permeability values for setting cement, they calculated potential
flow rates of gas through cement permeability and found likely flow volumes
to be too small to account for catastrophic gas flow. Therefore, while gas
flow via a path through the unset cement permeability is one potential
source of gas flow, it cannot be the sole mechanism for gas flow through the
cement.
Gel strength governs the migration of formation fluid through unset cement
as a homogeneous medium, and gas entry into the wellbore. The
Figure 7-4 Gas in-flow and bubble detachment (after Prohaska et al.)
The model also analyzes the relationship between gas inflow volume and
bubble migration. The model accounts for the coalescence of smaller
bubbles, the detachment of a bubble from the formation wall, and the bubble
velocity upward as a function of the cement's static gel strength. Laboratory
results which confirm these theoretical relationships and increased velocity
of subsequent bubbles caused by disruption of cement gel strength are
presented in Figs. 7-5 and 7-6.
Figure 7-5 Bubble detachment volumes incement slurries (after Prohaska et al.)
Figure 7-6 Velocities of initial and subsequent bubbles (after Prohaska et al.)
Finally, the model is used to calculate gas inflow rates caused by hydration
volume reduction and filtrate loss as well as to simulate the bubble motion
process through the gelling cement. This model accounts for four factors:
This model can be used to analyze individual well parameters, and to assess
the relative importance of various well and cement parameters to prevent
gas flow.
the noncementitious material even more thus increasing the shrinkage and
the cross-sectional flow area.
The resulting situation is one of seemingly well-sealed annulus initially
followed by detection of gas pressure weeks or months after completion. The
gas pressure build-up rate increases with time, requiring more maintenance.
Alternately, a flow path for gas leakage can occur in a well cemented annulus
through intrinsic cement properties or production operations. The intrinsic
cement property of dimensional shrinkage is outlined in Primary Cementing
and by Chenevert and Shrestha (1991). Dimensional shrinkage, which
usually occurs in cement compositions mixed with excess water and fillers or
extenders, results from volume reductions associated with the chemical
combination of water with reactive components in the cement. These
reductions, referred to as hydration volume reductions, range up to 5%,
depending on the water to cement ratio. All cements undergo this reduction
to some extent, and hydration volume reduction is the mechanism
responsible for porosity formation in set cement. In addition to porosity
formation, volumetric reduction of the cement usually occurs depending on
the strength of the crystalline lattice being formed. Cements with high
water-to-cement ratio form a weaker crystalline lattice structure and are
therefore more subject to volumetric shrinkage. It should be noted here that
the shrinkage occurring from hydration volume reduction is quite unlike
volume changes in a gas or liquid since the developing crystalline structure
in solid cement tends to retain its original volumetric dimensions. Parcevaux
and Sault (1984) performed laboratory tests indicating that a path for gas
leakage may be formed in a previously completely cemented annulus by the
effects of volumetric shrinkage and loss of hydraulic bond.
Operationally, sufficient stresses can be generated in the cemented annulus
to destroy the integrity of the cement seal. This destruction of integrity is
caused by thermal or hydrostatic forces exerted on the casing during
production cycling or well intervention. These cyclic gradients in temperature
or pressure can cause the casing to expand, generating tensile stresses in
the cemented annulus. Since cement is a brittle material with low tensile
strength, these forces create tensile cracks in the cement. This cracking can
become extensive enough to provide a flow path for any gas residing in a
pressurized formation.
Summary of Mechanisms
The ultimate result of each of the mechanisms described above is unwanted
gas migration. However, the methods for controlling these mechanisms are
quite different. First, the potential for each type of problem to occur must be
assessed. The most difficult part of the gas flow prevention process, problem
identification and quantification, is presented below.
Gas Flow
Gas flow diagnosis depends on knowledge of the formation pressures to be
encountered, the hydrostatic pressure exerted at the completion of the
cementing process, and the rate at which the cement will develop gel
strength after completion of the cementing treatment. The first two
parameters are measured or calculated based on known reservoir
characteristics or information obtained during drilling. These parameters also
define the severity of the potential problem and indicate solution methods.
Static gel-strength development and fluid loss characteristics of the specific
cement composition are dependent on batch runs and additive composition,
and therefore must be measured in the laboratory for specific application.
Identification of the zone bearing the highest pore pressure is the first step
toward diagnosing the potential for gas flow. This zone is usually known
min
is
the minimum density of drilling fluid to control gas, lb/ft 3, and H is the depth
of the gas zone.
Initial hydrostatic pressure exerted on the zones targeted for gas flow
control is calculated by:
(7-7)
where
and hi are the fluid density and thickness of each layer above the
target. These two parameters define the upper and lower pressure
boundaries for the gas-flow problem. Figure 7-2 illustrates the maximum
pressure initially controlling formation fluid which is hydrostatic pressure
exerted by the fluid column after placement. Minimum pressure below which
the trapped hydrostatic pressure cannot fall without influx potential is the
formation pore pressure.
From this point, several techniques can be used to determine the probability
of gas flow. Qualitative techniques include analyzing potential for flow based
on past experience, and assuming the likelihood of flow based on the level of
p. The quantitative GFP calculation presented in Section 7-2.1.2 can also be
used to evaluate the flow probability.
An example diagnosis of the potential of gas flow through GFP calculation is
illustrated in Table 7-1. This example is based on a gas-well completion at a
depth of 9468 ft. Pertinent well parameters required to analyze the GFP are
listed in Table 7-1 along with GFP evaluation. This cementing operation has a
GFP of 6.8, a moderate potential for gas flow which will require a special
cement design to prevent the gas-flow problem. The example will be
continued in Section 7-4.1.4 with quantitative analysis of the cement
composition designed for this application.
Gas Flow
In the short term, pressure must be maintained on the gas-bearing
formation to prevent movement into the wellbore until the cement sets.
Pressure can be maintained through the use of three basic mechanisms:
altering cement characteristics, mechanically blocking the flow path, or
increasing the magnitude of pressure applied to the gas-bearing zone. Ways
to increase the magnitude of initial pressure to gas-bearing formation
include applying additional pressure at the surface, or increasing density of
fluids in the column. The other two mechanisms are discussed below. Theory
and practice behind these techniques are summarized in Table 7-3 along
with pertinent references for further review.
Table 7-3 Techniques to control gas flow
Technique
Property
Alteration
Alter Cement
Properties
Thixotropic cement
Effect
Benefits, Drawbacks,
Reference
and Application Range
Reduce
Cook and
Cunningham
(1976)
Reduce ttr
Sutton et al.
(1994)
Difficult to control,
especially at high
temperature. Improved
fluid loss control
Sykes and
Logan (1987)
Reduce effects of
and
Increased treatment
complexity. Safety
considerations. Nonshrinking.
Watters and
Sabins (1980)
Levine et al.
(1979)
Rae et al.
(1989)
Non-settling Effective at
moderate GFP.
Stabilize invading
gas in fluid cement
in annulus using
foam-stabilizing
surfactants.
Increase Initial Increase cement
Pressure
density.
Formation breakdown.
Levine et al.
(1979)
Mechanically
Block Flow
Path
External casing
packer.
Seal annulus
preventing flow path
for invading gas.
Formation breakdown.
Effective at low GFP.
Levine et al.
(1979)
Voorman et al.
(1992)
Teichrob,
(1993)
More:
Altering Cement Characteristics
Mechanical Method
Laboratory Testing Techniques
Cement Composition Design
Mechanical Method
A more basic approach to alleviating gas-flow problems is to concede that
formation gas will invade the cemented wellbore and to interrupt the
potential flow path of the gas. This technique relies upon mechanical packers
(Voorman et al., 1992) set in the annulus to contain gas flow in the lower
portions of the well. These packers usually consist of an inner casing
element with an internal diameter equal to that of the casing string. The
external packer element is basically the same as the elements discussed in
Primary Cementing. These packers are installed in the casing string to
ultimately reside just above potential gas-flow zones, and the cement is
placed normally. When the cement is placed and is still in the unset state,
the packer element is expanded to form a mechanical seal to gas flow.
An inflatable packer employs a packer element that can be inflated through
ports in the inner casing element, with fluid to contact the wellbore wall. The
ports can then be sealed, trapping the inflation medium in place. Drilling
fluid or cement is usually used as an inflation medium. Cement is employed
to produce a solid seal point which does not rely on the integrity of the
packer element to maintain a seal throughout the life of the well. However,
in many cases, the inflation medium is believed to be the cause of external
casing packer seal failure. With fluid media such as drilling fluid, seepage of
fluid from the packer element that relieves pressure, reduces volume, and
opens gas-flow paths is one proposed mechanism for failure. With the use of
setting fluids such as Portland cement, hydration volume reduction and
shrinkage are blamed for the loss of seal. Mechanisms to combat this loss of
seal include increasing the compressibility of the inflation medium or
preventing shrinkage caused by the reduction of the hydration volume of
cement.
Another mechanical method outlined by Teichrob (1993) proposes pushing
formation gas back into the formation with high-fluid-loss squeeze fluid
before cementing the casing. When cementing is performed, if pressure
drops below formation pressure of the flushed zone, less mobile or nonmigrating fluid will be forced into the annulus rather than formation gas.
Figure 7-8 Schematic of laboratory device for testing gas-flow characteristics of cement under
application conditions (after Beirute and Cheung)
The device and test method are designed to evaluate a particular cement
composition's ability to contain gas in a formation under specific well
conditions. This device simulates a cement column placed against a gas
reservoir. Fine screens and regulated back pressures are employed to
simulate fluid loss to adjacent formations. Pressure application from the top
of the cell through the use of a piston simulates hydrostatic pressure from
the cement column above. This pressure application is adjusted as a test
progresses to simulate pressure reduction in the column above caused by
gelation and hydration volume reduction. Temperatures of the cement are
also simulated.
Tests with this pressure apparatus simulate cement fluid loss, gel-strength
development, volume reduction, set time, and the presence of formation
gas. Results of this test include the incidence or prevention of gas flow along
with potential path of the gas. Pressures, temperatures, and flow rates are
monitored during the test and visual inspection of set cement in the cell
indicates the path of gas flow if it occurs. This test apparatus and method
provide a fairly realistic means of comparing gas-flow control characteristics
of various cement compositions under realistic well conditions. An example
output from a test is presented in Fig. 7-9.
Figure 7-10 Device for measuring static gel-strength development of cements under simulated
conditions
SRN equals static gel-strength increase rate divided by fluid-loss rate where
both terms are real-time rates measured during the composition's transition
time under simulated downhole conditions. The most rigorous adherence to
this method involves incorporating the effects of drilling fluid and spacers.
Specifically
(7-8)
where (dSGS/dt)max is the maximum rate of change of SGS, SGSx is the SGS
at time of (dSGS/dt)max , (dl/dt)x is the rate of fluid loss velocity at time of
SGSx, V is the volume of annular space per unit length; and A is the area of
formation face per unit length.
Each component of this relationship has been documented to play an
important role in gas-flow mechanics. The terms are arranged so that
increasing SRN indicates improved ability to control gas flow. Specific
importance of each component is outlined below.
(dSGS/dt)max - The maximum rate of gelation increase is considered
important because faster rate corresponds to better gas-flow control. As
maximum rate of SGS development increases, SRN increases. Figure 7-11
illustrates the determination of this variable from laboratory gel-strength
measurement testing.
SGSx - The point in the transition time at which rate of SGS increase occurs
indicates the duration of ttr. Reaching maximum SGS rate early in transition
time results in shorter ttr. Therefore, SRN increases with increasing SGS.
dl/dt and V/A - Fluid-loss rate at the time of maximum SGS increase
influences the other important factor in gas-flow control. Lower fluid-loss
rates during this critical time result in lower volume reductions. Therefore, a
lower value of dl/dt results in a higher SRN. The volume -to-area ratio also
relates to volume reduction. A wider annulus holding a larger volume of
cement per unit length will withstand volume losses with less corresponding
pressure loss than will a smaller volume of the same cement in a narrower
annulus. Thus, SRN varies directly with V/A.
Thus, the limiting effects of drilling-fluid filter cake and pOB are taken into
account in a relatively simple test. The measurement of static gel-strength
development is performed using the test device described above with
analysis of results illustrated in Fig. 7-11.
These approximations are illustrated here and in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4 Evaluation of gas-flow control effectiveness: Calculation of SRN
example continued from Table 7-1.
Cement Composition:
API Class G cement + 35% coarse silica + 10.3% weighting material + 3% KCl + 0.5%
gel-strength modifier + 0.3% dispersant + 0.5% retarder
(density = 17.5 lb/gal, yield = 1.38 ft3/sk).
= 96 cm3/30 min
= 2 cm3/60 min
= 20 min
ttr
= 18 min
V/A = 1.93 cm
dl/dt
=
=0.00073 cm/min
= 14 lbf/100 ft /min
SGS @ 44 min
SRN
=
=185
SRN requirements
For GFP = 0 - 3:
For GFP = 3 - 8:
The example well conditions listed in Table 7-1 indicate a GFP of 6.8 which is
considered a moderate problem. The operator elected to combat the problem
using a cement with additives to alter the gel-strength development. The
cement composition, listed in Table 7-4 also contains fluid loss additive,
retarder, silica, and dispersant to create a cement well suited to best
placement practices and long term stability.
Fluid loss data from Table 7-4 were used in the following equation to
estimate downhole fluid loss:
(7-9)
where
is the fluid loss collected for the modified test outlined above,
cm /ttest , A is the API screen surface area (7.1 in.2 or 45.8 cm2 ), and ttest is
3
Gas Leakage
Just as long-term gas leakage is more difficult to diagnose than gas
migration, preventing this occurrence is more difficult than for gas migration.
Long-term gas leakage control relies even more extensively upon best
possible cement placement practices and removal of drilling fluid in all its
forms from the hole. Preventing this gas leakage requires two things:
maximum possible fill of cement in the annulus and prevention of shrinkage
of the cement caused by hydration or damage to the cement by wellintervention operations.
Most investigators of gas migration control phenomena emphasize the fact
that all control techniques rely on the complete fill of cement in the annulus.
No amount of cement modification can affect gas leakage if a channel of
non-cementitious material is left during cement placement.
Prevention of shrinkage in cement through expansion was reported as a
successful means to prevent gas leakage by Siedel and Greene (1985). This
study of in-fill drilling in a field exhibiting long-term gas leakage indicated
that expanding cement in conjunction with best cementing practices
prevented leakage at the wellhead.
It should be noted here that cement expansion does not occur as it does
with a gas pressurizing an elastic containment medium. Volumetric
expansion in cement occurs through crystal growth between existing crystals
in the cement matrix. This new crystal growth can push an existing
crystalline structure apart resulting in volumetric expansion if the existing
cement matrix is not too strong. If the existing matrix is bound sufficiently
to resist expansion, the result is that new crystals are crushed, reducing the
porosity but not affecting the bulk volume. Thus, the crystallization reaction
designed to create expansion must be timed to occur when cement is
sufficiently weak to allow intercrystalline growth. If the reaction occurs too
early, the cement is fluid and volume expansion is not maintained. If the
cement is too strong, new crystal growth cannot force movement in the
matrix. This reaction is sensitive to specific cement batch, other additives in
the formulation, and applications. Performance can only be tested with direct
laboratory measurement.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
Effectiveness of techniques to prevent gas flow to the surface or long-term
gas leakage is simple to evaluate. If no gas appears at the surface, the
treatment was successful. To evaluate the success of preventing interzonal
communication, various acoustic or temperature logs as discussed in
Cement-Sheath Evaluation may be used. Analytical techniques may enhance
the interpretation of ultrasonic logs to quantify degree of gas invasion
(Douglas and Uswak, 1991). These extended techniques can help determine
the best remedial approach as discussed in Remedial Cementing.
Water Migration
Gas is not the only fluid known to migrate through a cemented annulus.
Water flows following cementing are also encountered during construction of
some wells. However, the methods used to control water flows are governed
by the same mechanisms outlined for gas.
Water flows have been encountered in limited locations, but these are much
less prevalent than gas flows except in wells drilled in fields undergoing
waterflood operations. Mitchell and Salvo (1990) describe a field evaluation
of techniques to control water flows in one such field. The method chosen to
control the water involved pressure application at the surface immediately
after cement placement. In this application, water flow was successfully
prevented.
Drilling operations in deep water have encountered an unusual water-flow
occurrence when cementing conductor casing (Griffith and Faul, 1997).
These conductor installations encounter a high-pressured water zone 1000 ft
below the mud line in formation with an inherently low fracture gradient.
Solutions to this problem include the use of low-density cements designed
with modified gel-strength characteristics or with increased compressibility
from the addition of foam. Other operational improvements include the use
of reactive sweeps ahead of the cement to aid in the removal of drilling fluid
or in sealing formations.
Summary
Fluid migration after cementing is a complex problem that is manifest in
several ways. However, the underlying forces governing this migration are
fairly simple: formation fluid will migrate through a cemented annulus if
positive pressure differential and flow paths exist. Preventing the occurrence
requires maintenance of controlling pressure or closing flow paths.
References
Beirute, R.M. and Cheung, P.R.: "A Method for Selection of Cement Recipes
to Control Fluid Invasion after Cementing," SPEPE (Nov. 1990) 443-440.
Beirute, R.M. and Cheung, P.R.: "A Scale-Down Laboratory Test Procedure
for Tailoring to Specific Well Conditions: The Selection of Cement Recipes to
Control Formation Fluids Migration After Cementing," paper SPE 19522,
1989.
Beirute, R.M., Wilson, M.A., and Sabins, F.L.: "Attenuation of Casing
Cemented with Conventional and Expanding Cements Across Heavy Oil and
Sandstone Formations," paper SPE 18027, 1988.
Bol, G.M., Bosma, M.G.R., Reijrink, P.T.M., and van Vliet, J.P.M.: "Cementing:
How to Achieve Zonal Isolation," 1997 Offshore Mediterranean Conference,
1997.
Chenevert, M.E. and Shrestha, B.K.: "Chemical Shrinkage Properties of
Oilfield Cements," SPEDE (Mar. 1991) 37-43.
Cheung, P.R., and Beirute, R.M.: "Gas Flow in Cements," JPT (June 1985)
1041-1048.
Christian, W.W., Chatterji, J., and Ostroot, G.W. "Gas Leakage in Primary
Cementing - A Field Study and Laboratory Investigation," paper SPE 5517,
1975.
Rae, P., Wilkins, D., and Free, D.: "A New Approach to the Prediction of Gas
Flow after Cementing," paper SPE 18622, 1989.
Sabins, F.L., Tinsley, J.M., and Sutton, D.L.: "Transition time of Cement
Slurries Between the Fluid and Set State," paper SPE 9285, 1980.
Seidel, F.A. and Greene, T.G.: "Use of Expanding Cement Improves Bonding
and Aids in Eliminating Annular Gas Migration in Hobbs Grayburg-San Andres
Wells," paper SPE 14434, 1985.
Stewart, R.B. and Schouten, F.C.: "Gas Invasion and Migration in Cemented
Annuli: Causes and Cures," SPEDE (1988) 77-83.
Sutton, D.L. and Ravi, K.M.: "Low-rate Pipe Movement During Cement
Gelation to Control Gas Migration and Improve Cement Bond," paper SPE
22776, 1991.
Sutton, D.L. and Ravi, K.M.: "New Method for Determining Downhole
Properties that Affect Gas Migration and Annular Sealing," paper SPE 19520,
1989.
Sutton, D.L., Sabins, F.L., and Faul, R.: "Preventing Annular Gas Flow - Two
Parts," Oil and Gas Journal (Dec. 1984) 84-92 109-112.
Sykes, R.L. and Logan, J.L.: "New Technology in Gas Migration Control,"
paper SPE 16653, 1987.
Teichrob, R.R.: "Controlling Gas Migration During Primary Cementing
Operations Using the Flushed Zone Theory," paper CADE/CAODC 93-603,
1993.
Voorman, D., Garrett, J., Badalamenti, A., and Duell, A.: "Packer Collar Stops
Gas Migration Mechanically," Petroleum Engineer International (Apr. 1992)
16-22.
Watters, L.T., and Sabins, F.L.: "Field Evaluation of Method to Control Gas
Flow Following Cementing," paper SPE 9287, 1980.