SPE

moff=Afwf n Engkh?e%

SPE 15104

Coiled Tubing Cement Squeeze Technique at Prudhoe

Bay, Alaska
by T.W. Harrison and C.G. Blount, ARCO A/aska /nc.
SPE Members

Copyright 19S6. Soclet y o! Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for pfesenlallon al the 561hCahlorma Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held m Oskland, CA. April 2-4.
19S6.

Thw paper was selec:ed tor pfesenlattion by an SPE Program Co!nmmee following review of tnformat{on contained m an abstract submmed by the
author(a). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been rewewed by Ihe Soc!ety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Correctmn by the
author(a). The material. aa presented. does not necessarily retlecl any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, IIS officers. or members Papers
preaenled at SPE meetmga are subject to publication review by Edltortal Commdtees of the Society of Petroleum Engmeera Perm!as!on to copy IS
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 word?. Illustrations may not be copted. The abslract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper IS presented. Wrne Pubhcaliona Manager. SPE, P.0 Box 833S36, Richardson. TX 75083-3836 Telex 730989. SPEDAL

A CT1.f squeeze technique has been developed at

Prudhoe Bay which allows effective squeeze opera-
A non-rig Coiled Tubing Unit (CTU) cement squeeze tions and minimizes formation damage while real-
technique has been developed and proven in the izing significant cost savings. The initial
Prudhoe Bay field. This new technique does not approach in developing this technique was to use
require that the well be killed. The channel and standard field cementing practices when designing
perforations remain clean and unobstructed allowing the first two CTU squeezes. Although the results
easy placement of cement. This process utilizes of these operations were successful, it became sp-
in-situ contamination of cement left in the well parent that further research was needed to optimize
bore after the squeeze. The contaminated cement is the procedure. Laboratory and model studies were
then circulated or reversed out of the wellbore implemented to better understand coiled tubing
after tbe squeezed cement has set, eliminating tbe squeeze mechanics.
need for drilling. The technique bas been used to
shut off channels in the primary cement to both tbe This paper outlines the resuIts of this work and
aquifer and the gas cap, to squeeze off unwanted providea a systematic approach for design and
production perforations, and to alter injection implementation of a CTU squeeze. The technique has
profiles. Workover costs for these types of jobs its greatest application where rig mobilization
have been reduced an average of 85% by utilizing costs are high such as offshore or Arctic loca-
tbe CTU technique. Scale modeling, fullscale tions. This method, which utilizes relatively
testing, and field operating experience were drawn small volumes of cement combined with low pressure
upon in developing this technique. techniques, assures minimal formation damage.

UTROD u CTIOU ~TIAl SWFFZE WORK

Thus far, 750 development wells have been drilled Two wells were CTU squeezed during the summer and
and completed in the Prudhoe Bay field. Nearly all fall of 1983. The first well had a channel to the
of these veils have penetrated the gas cap and/or aquifer. Production perforation had already been
the aquifer as well as the oil producing sandstones opened, but the well would not flow because of a
of tbe Saddlerochit formation. Typical Prudhoe Bay 95% water cut. Squeeze perforationa were shot into
completions have 9.625 in. production casing or a 7 the channel below the producing perforations. A 6
in. production liner aet at total depth, with 5.5 bbl balanced plug of cement was placed on a gel
in. production tubing and a 4.5 in. tailpipe set to retainer system with a CTU and squeezed using the
a depth just above the producing interval. The Bradenhead method. A decrease in water cut waa
large casing sizes combined with high deviations realized after this squeeze. After several repeti-
have led to primary cement problems. Remedial tive attempta, tbe water was shut off completely by
cement squeezes, utilizing an arctic workover rig, placing cement across tbe lower production perfora-
have consistently resulted in severe formation tiona and squeezing. Post squeeze production was
damage when conventional high praasure methods are 5,000 BOPD, 0% water cut, but tbe lower zones were
applied. With conventional rig squeezes costing an left covered with cement.
average of $1.4 million, it was recognized that
significant cost savings could be achieved if an The second well selected for a CTU squeeze produced
alternate method was dweloped. 3500 BOPD but had a GOR of 13000 scf/STB due to a
channel from the gas cap. Tbe well waa typically
 *

—---- — ----—---——
(![Link] TuBING –-- CEMENT
—--— .—. SOUEEZE
— TECHNIOUE .— AT PRUDliOEBAY SPE15104
shut in 80% of the time because of facility gas Laboratory tests and model studies were initiated
handling limitations. The procedure involved to address these and other associated problems.
placing a 12 ibm/gal sized salt kill pill across
the production perforations. A thixotropic cement PLACENENTMODELSTUDY
plug was spotted between the top two sets of per-
forations and allowed to set. The plug was later A study was conducted to simulate cement placement
tagged substantially lower than expected. on top of several less dense fluids that could be
used as a “retainer” during a squeeze. A model
Sixteen bbls of cement was Bradenhead squeezed into was constructed using 4 in. acrylic tubing to
the top perforations and channel. A dovnhole drill simulate 9.625 in. casing, The model waa con-
motor on coiled tubing drilled a hole through the strutted to enable inclination of the acrylic
cement left in the 9.625 in. casing. After the tubes to simulate various wellbore deviation
sized salt kill pill was washed out of the lower angles. Clear 0.25 PVC tubing was used to simu-
perforations the well produced 7500 BOPD with a late 1.25 in. coiled tubing. Plastic end caps
1000 scf/STB GOR. wi~h eight 0.125 holes drilled normal to the
tuoing were used to simulate coiled tub ing
DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS nozzles. Class G cement, mixed to 15.8 ibm/gal
was pumped through the simulated coiled tubing at
During operations on the first two wells, it became 2,5 gallmin.
apparent that several problems needed to be ad-
dressed. These problems included: Initial testing was performed using 10 ft lengths
of tubing in a vertical position. The nozzle was
1. Coiled tubirm de Dth control is important held stationary just above the tested retainer
for accurate placement of relatively fluid, with fresh water filling the remainder of
small volumes of cement. Depth correla- te tube (Fig. 1). Overflow was taken from the top
tion is inherently difficult with coiled of the tube. Cement was placed on each of the
tubing units; CTU plugged back depths following fluids:
rarely match logged depths. Development
of a mechanical tubing end locator for 1) Fresh water,
coiled tubing was found to be an accep- 2) 10 ibm/gal NaCl brine,
table solution to depth correlation 3) 850 lbm/1000 gal bentonite gel
problems. 4) 100 lbm HEC/1000 gal of 10 ibm/gal NaCl
brine
2. Cement aualitv control was a problem when 5) 12 ibm/gal sized NaCl salt pill, and
mix ing small batches of cement. Air 6) A semi-solid polymer plug (CMC and
blending systems used to blend cement Na2Cr207 in NaCl brine).
were designed for large volumes. A batch
mixing system was devised to allow cement In all casea, the fluids did not eupport the
mixing similar to laboratory practices. cement. Cement did not appreciably move up hole
Also, the small volumes of additives used from the nozzle until the entire rathole was
in CTU cement blends cannot be weighed displaced with cement. In the case of the ben-
accurately on norms 1 cement blending tonite, the cement channeled down through the
scales. Scales were obtained that could bentonite gel with some bentonite contaminated
accurately weigh the quantities of cement moving uphole before the cement reached
additives to be used. bottom. In the case of the semi-solid polymer,
the cement momentarily sat on top of the plug,
3. Cement fluid loss control is vitally then worked down the sides,floating the polymer
important in a low pressure squeeze to out of the tubing in small pieces.
allow proper placement of cement through
sma11 channels prior to dehydration. Cement was then tested on top of a 1100 lbm/1000
This also limits excessive no dflmildup gal bentonite gel with the tubing inclined at a
on the well~ore perforations. Fluid 45° angle. The cement channeled down the low side
loss values from 25 to 110 cm3/30 min. of the tuLing while bentonite contaminated cement
have proven successful for mogt non-rig moved uphole. Test runs placing viscous gelled
remedial cementing operations. On site fluids on top of a water column at a 45° angle
fluid loss testing procedures were exhibited similar results even with less than 0.5
established. lbmfgal density differences. The inclined testa
eliminated the use of light weight bentonite
4. Cement vlacement was found to be cri- mixtures as a cement retainer.
tical. During initial CTU squeeze opera-
tions the cement top waa found below In all tests, density was the controlling factor.
expected depths indicating that gravity More dense fluids exchanged with the less denee
segregation had occurred. This ~ppeared fluids below, regardless of the gel strength or
to substantiate earlier research. viscosity fif the two fluids. Only when 15.8
ibm/gal cement was placed on top of a heavier 16.0
5* A cement retardation svstem was required ibm/gal bentonite mud system was there no transfer
to prevent setup of cement left in the at the interface.
wellbore. Contaminated cement could then
be reversed or jetted out after waiting CEMENTCONTAMINANT STUDY
on cement outside the casing to act. The
wellbore is left unobstructed. A cement contaminant was needed to assure adequate
time for removal of excess cement within the
..-
115
 .

.ml <in/l
W*.*”-
TLI
. . . . .
UARQTCi3N
...m...
--”.. ,
P
-.
C.
“.
Rli_lIINT
--.-.? . . .
‘1
l—

wellbore. A series of tests were run to evaluate In most ctzsea, the damage was confined to the
sodium citrste, ethylene glycol, methanol, borax, squeezed core face as indicated in Table 1.
and other commercially available retarders for Ouring testing some of the cement blends had t~o
long-term cement contamination application. The to three times the desired fluid loss of 60 cm .
contamination systems were designed to prevent The higher fluid loss cement (Blend B) tended to
cement from setting and to augpend solids for a result in slightly higher permeability damage.
minimum of seven days at 190 F and atmospheric However, in all caaea the damage waa confined to
pressure. The contaminants were mixed 50/50 by very near the wellbore and could be eaaily per-
volume with 15.8 Ibm/gal CIa~s G cement. The forated beyond.
samplea were maintained at 190 F in a water bath
and monitored. The contaminants were evaluated
for:
The placement test demonstrated that density is
10 Ability to adequately retard cement, the controlling factor when placing materials with
2. Ability to suspend cement solids, coiled tubing and that accurate placement can be
3* Pumpability through coiled tubing, obtained if the wellbore fluids are stacked up by
4. Ability to clean out the resultant density with the most dense fluids on bottom. A
cementlcontaminant mixture by jetting or heavy suspended mud system (Table 2) was designed
reversing, and that supports cement in the wellbore. The cement
5* Commercial availability and cost. contaminant study resulted in a borax and ben-
tonite mixture that retards as well as suspends
A mixture of 10 lbm/bbl bentonite and 20 lbm/bbl excess cement left in the wellbore. The con-
borax in water was chosen aa optimum, based on the taminated cement could then be reversed or jetted
above criteria. This system was also tested in a out using coiled tubing. Cement quality was
50/50 methanol water mixture, for freeze pro- improved by closely monitoring vendor tests prior
tection, with favorable results. to and during the job. The CTU procedure was
designed utilizing these developments.
Model teata were run to evaluate the contaminant
system using equipment from the cement placement In 3984 11 CTU cement aqueezea were performed
etudy. The simulated coiled tubing waa lowered using the technique. Oil production increased
into the inclined 4 in. tube of cement while from 8,200 BOPO to 18,500 BOPO aa a result of
pumping contaminant. The descent rate was adjusted shutting off water and gas channels. In 1985, 23
to assure a 50/50 mixture of cement to contaminant. wells were squeezed increasing total production
The tubes containing the contaminated mixtures were from 36,300 BOPO to 82,500 in the wells involved
then stored at atmospheric pressure and heated to (Table 3). The squeezes were for water or gas
150°F for seven days. All samples visually exhi- channel repair, shutting off watered or gassed out
bited some settling of solids (5-10%). These tubes perforations and profile modification, Two of the
were then waahed out by pumping water through the 23 jobs completed in 1985 required drilling of
simulated coiled tubing. All of the tubes cleaned cement left in the wellbore with a downhole drill
up with only occasional spots of thin, set cement motor and bit on the CTU. These wells were reper-
formed along the bottom side. forated and brought back into production with no
major problems. Thirty-seven CTU equeezes have
A physical wellbore model was constructed to test been completed to date, with only one well re-
the effect of contaminated cement filtrate on the quiring a rig workover to remove cement after the
cement squeezed outside of the casing. Simulated squeeze.
CT squeeze testa confirmed that the strength of
cement squeezed outside the casing ia unaffected by
the contamination of cement left inside the well-
bore. Hater Shut Off: Well A had a production rate of
4800 BOPO at 800 psi with a 2900 GOR. The wells
GORE STUOI~ production was from 65 ft of perforations with an
average hole angle of 33° through the zone. The
Core studies were conducted to determine the well previously had a through-tubing bridge plug
fomation damage characteristics of the squeeze set just below existing perforations to isolate
system. A series of tests were run using various watered out perforations deeper in the well .
1.5 in. by 1 in. diameter Saddlerochit core plugs.
The cores had 22 to 30% porosity with 60 to 2200 md The water-cut drastically increaaed over a three
permeability. Typical coiled tubing cement blends week period in September 1984 to 80% water-cut and
and cement contaminant mixtures were tested. The the well waa unable to flow, Production log data
cement mixtures were squeezed to 1000 psi a~ainat indicated that the through-tubing bridge plug was
the core confined in a Hassler sleeve at 150 F for intact and that a channel had developed to the
approximately 30 U&WJte8. aquifer.

After removing the filter cake, the cores were A CTU squeeze waa performed in January 1985 using
reverse flowed with bland oil at 300 psi dif- 134 sacks of cement, maintaining a differential of
ferential p~ssure, and the permeability measured. 1500 psi for 30 minutes. 3Tbe fluid loss of the
Then, 20 cm of 15% HC1 acid with surfactant and cement tested to be 35 cm /30 min. at 1000 psi.
nonemuleifying agents were squeezed through the The well waa reperforated in the original 65 ft
core, then again reverse flowed with bland oil to zone with an additional 40 ft added above the
calculate permeability. A 0.125 in. slice was then existing perforations. Peat squeeze production
cut from the squeeze face of the core plug and the waa 4000 BOPO at 300 pai with a 1500 GOR and no
permeability meaaured. watercut.
—
117
 COILED TUBING CEMENTSQUEEZETECHNIQUEAT PRUDHOEBAY SPE15104
Wate Bht off : Well B had a pre-squeeze flow of ~’
3500rBOP; at 500 psi with 700 acf/STB GOR, and 3500
BWPO. The well’_a production was from 53 ft o~ The following outline of the CTU squeeze technique
perforation with an average hole angle of 37 ia presented aa a basic guideline and ia not
through the zone. A preaqueeze cement evaluation intended to be a step by step procedure (See Fig.
log indicated a massive channel to the aquifer. 3).

A equeeze waa performed in January 1985 using 203 1) Oeaign

sacke of cement holding a differential of 1200 pai
for 20 minutes.3 The fluid loaa of the cement a) Identify the extent of the problem
teated at 35 cm /30 min. A peat-squeeze cement by reviewing production history,
evaluation log indicated that the channel waa reeervoir characteriatica, and
repaired and that cement wae squeezed 180 ft up the available logging data.
outside of the pipe (Fig. 2). The well was re- b) Pick squeeze perforation intervals
perforated and produced 4500 BOPO at 500 pai with a if appropriate. Squeeze perfora-
700 ecf~STB GOR and 90 BWPD. tion may provide a leak source
after the squeeze so they are beet
Ga Shut Off: Well C had a pre-squeeze flow of picked away from the aquifer or gaa
40~0 BOPO at 2000 pai with a 18,500 acf/STB GOR. cap.
The high GOR waa cauaed by gaa underruning a shale c Design the squeeze cement syetem.
complicated by a cement channel to the gas cap aa Bucceaaful CTU squeeze programs
indicated by a cement evaluation log. Production have had fl~d leas ranging from 25
waa through 120 ~t of perforationa with an average to 110 cm /30 min. at static
hole angle of 22 in the zone, A CTU squeeze was bottomhole temperature. Oes ired
performed in October 1985 using 155 sacks of thickening time is usually from
cement, holding a 1400 pai differential for3 40 four to eight houra. The cement
minutes. Fluid loea on the cement was 41 cm /30 should develop the desired com-
min. The well waa perforated over a 66 ft interval preaeive strength in 12 to 24 hours
below the squeezed perforations. Post-squeeze at bottom hole temperature and
production was 6000 BOPD at 800 pai with a 900 pressure. If a supporting mud
acf/STB GOR and no watercut. column is to be placed under the
cement, the cement density must be
less than the mud density.
i%- Sht off Well O had a pre-squeeze flow of d) Test the contaminant system. A 10
3800 B&l psiwith
at 2000 a 7100 acf/BTB GOR. The lbm/bbl bentonite and 20 lbm/bbl
production was from 85 ft of perforations with a borax solution in fresh water, has
confirmed cement channel to the ~as w. Average proven to be an effective con-
hole angle through the zone waa 38 . taminant. The contaminant should
be tested with the cement blend
A CTU squeeze waa performed in July 1985 using 232 eelected for each job. In freezing
sacka of cement, holding a differential of 1400 pei condition a ❑ ix of water and
for ~ min. The water lees on the cement teated at methanol can be substituted for the
56 cm /30 min. To control possible gas coning, the fresh water.
upper 41 ft of perforations were not re-perforated. e) Establish a depth correlation baae
Logging surveye confirmed the in rity of this by examining completion reporte for
non-perforated squeezed zone. An aY ditional 18 ft tubing tail and plug back deptha.
were perforated lower in the zone for a total of 62 f) Select the tubing nozzle. A nozzle
ft of open perforations. The peat squeeze pro- with eight 0.3125 in. holes alter-
duction rate was 2800 BOPO at 300 pai with a nating between perpendicular and
eolution GOR of 620 acf/STB and a watercut of O. 30° downward angle relative to the
CT haa been successfully used at
Prof ile Modification - Channel ReDair: Well E was Prudhoe Bay (Fig. 4).
a water injection well with 176 ft of perforations
that had an unacceptable injection profile, 2) Squeeze Preparation
Average hole angle waa 18° through the zone (Table
4). A CTU squeeze was perf~rmed using 155 sacka of a) Accurately measure volume of the
cement, teated at 33 cm /30 min. fluid loss. coiled tubing at surface. 00 not
Oesired squeeze pressure was not attained, A rely on calculated volumes.
maximum differential preaaure of 500 pai was b) When a supporting mud column ia
achieved. This pressure rapidly bled back to needed, lay in the mud from the
static conditions. After clean-up and re- bottom of the well to below the
perforating all but the lower 75 ft of per- lowest perforations to be squeeaed.
forations, the well was put on injection. Logging Care should be taken to prevent any
confirmed that the channel was repaired. However, mud from entering the zone to be
some of the bottom intervala that were not re- equeezed.
perforated were found to be taking injection fluid. c) Some mixing with wellbore fluids
Since an acceptable profile waa achieved, no my occur at the mud top during
further work vaa needed. placement. After placing the mud,
pull up hole and waah down to the
mud top with water and flow or
reverse out the contaminated mud.
Flagging the cYU when at the clean
?E15104 T. W. HARRISO C. G. BLOUNT 5
—--— —-—
mud top is recommended to provide a depth reference d) Leave the wellbore with low posi-
for successive runs in the hole. tive pressure on the formation.
d) Squeeze perforations should be shot
at this time, if required. 5) Wellbore Cleanup
e) Load the wellbore with water and oil
or diesel to fluid pack the well- a) Excess contaminated cement can be
bore. An appropriate fluid should reversed or jetted out immediately
be selected to allow a positive if desired. Otherwise time may be
surface pressure after the well is allowed for the cement behind pipe
liquid packed. to set. Since the cement in the
wellbore is contaminated, there is
3) Cement Squeeze minimal chance that it will harden.
It may b( necessary to jet water
a) Mix the contaminant system. into the contaminated cement to
b) Mix the cement. Run quality control break gel strength before revereing.
checks and tests to ensure required Continue jetting and reversing
density and fluid loss characteris- until wel’ bore returns are clean.
tics.
c) Ensure that the wellbore is still
liquid packed.
d) Pump cement down the CT with the Results drawn from 37 completed CTU squeeze jobs,
nozzle located just above the laboratory studies and modeling support the
mud/water interface. Fellow the following conclusions.
cement with a water spacer, the
contaminant, and then the dis- 1) Coiled tubing can be used with a high
placement fluid. degree of success in remedial squeeze
e) Leave tha CT nozzle at the top of operations.
the mud interface until the cement
is displaced well above the nozzle. 2) Previously accepted balanced plug
f) Continue pumping while pulling up methods of placing cement above less
hole with the CT at a rate to ensure dense fluids are not compatible with the
that the cement interface is main- low rates and volumes associated with
tained above the nozzle. This coiled tubing squeezes. Density is the
minimizes the possibility of cement controlling factor.
contamination or dilution.
g) When cement covers all perforations, 3) There are many advantages to contamir,a-
monitor the surface pressure on the ting excess cement in the well bore:
tubing/CT annulus. Take returns
from the tubing/CT annulus to a) Cement in the perforations and
maintain squeeze pressure below outside the casing can be Ieft
fracture gradient. As a squeeze is to set up undisturbed from the
attained, pull up out of the cement, time of the squeeze.
laying in any additional cement
below the nozzle. Regulate the b) Contaminated cement can easily
squeeze pressure by taking returns be cleaned out of the wellbore
from the tubing/CT annulus. due to the lower density and
h) Hold squeeze pressure for the solirlo suspending qualities of
desired ‘time. Reduce the pressure the mixture.
on the tubing/CT annulua being
careful to maintain a positive c Ample time is available to
pressure on the squeeze. clean out excess cement in the
wellbore.
4) Wellbore Contamination
d A full-gauged wellbore is
a) Pull the CT nozzle up hole to the maintained.
highest point cement could be,
assuming that no cement went behind 4) Stud ies on Saddlerochit cores confirm
pipe. that formation damage during a IOW
b) Run in hole while the contaminant pressure squeeze is limited to the very
exits the nozzle. Adjust the CT near wellbore region. Low fluid loss
descent rate to rzix one barrel of cement further helps minimize formation
contaminant with each barrel of damage on Saddlerochit cores.
cement in the weIlbore. Continue
running in the hole to below the This coiled tubing squeeze technique represents an
mudlcement interface. Barrel for economically attractive alternative to using a
barrel returns are normally taken workover rig for performing squeeze work, espe-
from the tubing/CT annulua during cially when workover rig costs are high.
this contamination process with some
adjustment for fluid leakoff.
c) Pull out of the hole as contaminant
exits the nozzle to further dilute
the cement.
 .
—. . . --- ..- —-.-— —-. -— ----. .—
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development and successful implementation of

this coiled tubing cement technique was only
possible through the combined efforts of the ARCO
Alaska, Inc. Prudhoe Bay Well Supervision group and
Prudhoe Bay Operations Engineering Workover group.
We also thank the ARCO Oil and Gae Company Pro-
duction Research Center, B. J. Pughes, Alaska
Division, Canadian Fracmaster, Ltd. and Dowell
Schlumberger, Inc., Alaska Division for their field
and laboratory assistance. The authors also wish
to thank the Prudhoe Bay Unit Owners, ARCO Alaska,
Inc., and ARCO Oil and Gas Company for permission
to publish this paper.

The results, conclusions and recommendations of

this paper do not necessarily represent those of
the Prudhoe Bay Unit Owners.

REFERENCES

1) Rike, J. L. and Rike, E. R.: “Squeeze

Cementing: State of the Art”, paper, SPE
97S5 presented at the SPE 1981 Production
Operationa Symposium held in Oklahoma
City, Narch 1-3, 1981.

2) Iiuber, T. A., Tausch, G. E., and Dublin,

J. R. 111: “A Simplified Cementing
Technique for Recompletion Operation”,
AINE (1954) 201, 1-7.

3) Smith, R. C., Beirute, and G. B. E?olman:

“Improved Method of Setting Successful
Whipstock Cement Plugs”, paper IADC/SPE
11415 presented at the IADC/SPE 1983
Drilling Conference held in New Orleans,
February 20-23.

S1 KETRIC CONVERSIONFACTORS

Conversion Factor
Multiply Customary
Customary Metric Unit by Factor to
Unit Unit ~

in m 2.54 E-02

ft m 3.048 E-01
3
gal(US) m 3.7s5 E-03

bbl (42 gal) m3 1.589 E-01

ibm/gal (US) kg/m3 1.198 E+02

psi Pa 6.894 E+03

‘F ‘c 1.8 (°C) + 32

D
 TABLE 1 TABLE 2

WSMATION DAMACE OF C3NENTS

SSAVT
SUSPSNOSO
HUDSTSTR3
Cs@fsNTlsus # Z DAMACE
‘I KPS ‘PA %L
POST SLICE
— — — —
CONTSNTS : 0.706 bbl Uater/bblHud
iC 16dbbl BentoniteGel
BLENDA RUNl 64 63 0.5 Ibm/bblXC Polymtr
RUN 2 137 107 114 136 6 414 !h-%bl Barite

BLFxD A
+caNT. ● * RUN 1 590 336 377 604 0 P3u3PERTIES
: Tuperatuta P2astic Yield Initicl
X1212 682 678 496 682 0 (O?) viscosity ~ cd

BLKNO B RUN 1 10s 58 94 104 1 115 28 44 2s

SUN2 325 25.5 258 282 13 150 23 42 24
KUF3 *~~~ 974 .- 1090 13
SON4 816 566 564 565 31
RUN5 486 306 318 450 7 6f2XIHGPKOCSDUSS: 1) Add Gal to water and ●now to bydrata for 1 hour.

BLSNO C RUN 1 2228 1680 1640 1744 22 2) Add XC Polymer and allow to hydrate for 1 to 2
SIUN2 222 154 162 207 7 hours.

WxND c 3) Slowly add Barite tc. incressa w@ight to 16.0

+SONT.**Rus 1 1680 960 10.47 -— — 1bd8a1 .
WN 2 627 170 250 629 o

hboratory test ●t up to 220°P indicated that ●lids in thin MIA ry-tm

- tmitialPermrabtlity - POSt Acid Permeability ●tayed in CUSpeUSiOlt without bei~ desradedby tima.
‘I %
- Post squeeze Permeability t$,sL-Poet Slice Permeability
%
● 621 Cemrntm
Ueighed 15.8 [Link]
●*
+ SOnt - Plus contaminant

TABLE 3 TASLE 4

SoPm4KT OP 19s5 STv SQIYBE2EB uSLL E PROFILENOTIFICATION

Z of Injectiom % of Injection
Total Water water
ToTAL ?BXSSST PRE-SQDSXZS POST-SQUEEZE Perforation Feet Before Squeeze After SqU*ez*
$0s T SAV2fK&t
p6mDvsT I 0s PKODDCT 1 Dfl
1) 946S-9486ft 2s 8.7 5.0

Wm BZOP-DPFS 8* 83X 14.400 BDPD 42,700BoPo 2) 9490-9506ft 16 3.0 9.0

13.9 wcf/D 47.3 39fuf/D
18.700 SWFD 4,892 ~ 3) 9510-95.$6
ft 36 5.7 12.0

4) 9555-9576ft 21 0 14.0
OAB 8WT-B 11* u% 21,900 SoFD 39,s00 Em
211.5 tSfref/D 86.6 3ofacf/D 5) 9615-9640i. 25 2.6 22.0*
120 SuPo 530 SHPD
6) 9655-9680ft 25 2b 22.0*

n13xsTIom Im.J. 3 83 Z VIA uIA 7) 9695-9720ft 25 48 16.0*

——
TOTAL U5LB 23 s5z- 36,300 XOPD B2JO0 soFo ●
%. reperforated ●fter squeeze

●
FODX BELLS XSQO_ 2 BQIIXB2BS
TO 0STA121 TBS D=2X~ 1SS03.2S
.

~ SSS FAST E20 SQOSBZSSSAD COSP AS AVESA6S 0S $2.4 J622,LIOS

SASH,
2mc2#D2W ?ss COST or ~2fU XWSISC.
 .

SW 15104

Fig. 1 PLACEMWT MODE&

‘AT*R~

11 L\
NOZZLE . / X7 II ADJUSTABLE PUNP

.
H
—
/4s42:’””I -’”N-II
—- ---- .

)-l
D N _-—
—-
.-
--
--
Ifl --
ADJUSTABLE ANGLE
NIx

m1
1.
RETURN

TANK
u
TANK
 SE 15104

Fig. 2 - WZLL B CZT -S

Plw-swSMB CET RXT-SQVEBZE CET

 L-:●
Srul Ssw a

arMs3xJDw?rDs A Lsr Ill Csmw mr””z~

Wna Wasu a? WD SOP
9 UT w M M/9d m Sssmn
Wxkw nJssw
* Wzs u? Ww Sswrnc
css-DsrwnwP mm? Csssw mm Wszu
m CLsM WSSUKS
.: ..,. cmwwuwarw pop
PWa8xsw D PLUID PKS WSLLSOW ,, :.,,.: emPmbrzws lmPrL
. . .. .
PssmMTms
..’ .. ,> . swsms w Asrumw
,...
Csisw? ;;’” ., D rms Sssvws A? ~,~
,..
... .’, Sf?ss Dssxssn msss
16 Iblgal ,. . . . . ..
.. ’.,, ?[Link] Is Alrunm
SUSPSNTtD .. ,. . .. ..”
SSSXND PISS
.-.:-: . . m Swlml . . . . .
CSANNSS
---- : . . . -----
.;-: -.. . . .
.. .. . ‘,. .:. ”--- . .
--- - ----- -..-:- :.
>.-. -----
. . ..- ~~m ,. :-: .. -.:

. . ,., ,

~ mSPsssimfl Samsm

snP4

Sswss m SW
amr. ammwT
Ammos,

am w Aw am,
cwPsuSShm? Am m

SsPsuma?s swDucrIm
ssswMPIOns

?1s. 4 - CTU [Link]/Di8plac -nc Nozzle

H*

. dia.