SPE-184102-MS

Unique Cement Design to Mitigate Trapped Annular Pressure TAP Between

Two Casing Strings in Steam Injection Wells

Jeanna Brown, Neil Kenny, and Yves Slagmulder, Shell Canada Ltd.

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 6-8 December 2016.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Shell has experienced production casing deformation on several infill wells in an existing thermal
development project in Canada. A full investigation identified trapped annular pressure (TAP) caused by
unreacted water fraction in set cement between casing strings as a potential casing failure mode. A novel and
innovative application of an existing technology (a cement blend incorporating hollow-glass microspheres)
was developed, tested and implemented as an effective means to provide pressure relief in the cemented
casing-casing annulus on steam injection wells.
Thermal cement blends from two suppliers were used in the testing program. The test slurries were cured
in a test cylinder until compressive strength development tapered off, and then heated in increments to
320°C while pressure was recorded. Typical thermal blends containing a range of concentrations of hollow-
glass microspheres were tested in this manner to establish a slurry design that would prevent the pressure
build up from surpassing the temperature de-rated collapse resistance of the casing.
The tests using typical thermal cement blends with no glass bead additive resulted in rapid increase in
pressure as the test cell was heated, and exceeded the temperature de-rated collapse value of the production
casing string at temperatures much lower than typical steam injection temperatures. Tests performed on
blends containing the glass spheres showed consistency and repeatability in results, and pressures were
well below the de-rated collapse pressure of the production casing string at the maximum steam injection
temperature.
Based on preliminary results, this investigation has concluded that the cement blend containing 10%
BWOC hollow-glass microspheres is a viable alternative to conventional thermal blends, capable of
providing hydraulic isolation to meet regulatory requirements and industry best practices, with the added
benefit of providing a mechanism to mitigate TAP on steam injection wells.

Introduction
In 2012 Shell Canada discovered compromised well integrity in several infill wells that had been drilled in
an existing thermal development in the Peace River area. The wells were part of a larger vertical steam drive
(VSD) project and were drilled on an existing wellpad to enhance recovery from the original development
wells.
2 SPE-184102-MS

Well Design Summary

The vertical steam drive recovery scheme involves drilling vertical (or near-vertical) wells which are either
dedicated producer or dedicated injector wells. All wells undergo an initial steam injection cycle to warm
up the reservoir, in which wellbore injection temperatures range from ambient to approximately 320°C.
Generally the wells penetrate the entire pay zone of the Bluesky reservoir formation, terminating in the
underlying Debolt formation. The casing scheme is a two string design. The surface casing is set below
the base of the Glacial Till formation at an approximate depth of 300m. This setting depth ensures that
groundwater zones are isolated and that the troublesome glacial till is cased off, which can otherwise cause
losses and borehole instability, ultimately compromising the production casing cement job. The production
casing is set approximately 10m MD below the base of the Bluesky reservoir formation, to provide a sump
for the downhole pump below the reservoir formation, and space for fill or debris that may accumulate
during operations. Although the reservoir is initially non-sour, steam injection is known to generate H2S in
the reservoir (Barroux 2013), and the production casing material must be selected accordingly. Production
casing connections must be a premium type, designed and qualified for thermal cycling. Both casing strings
are cemented to surface with thermal cement, designed to minimize strength retrogression at elevated
temperatures and during thermal cycling (DACC IRP 3 2012).
The two well types assessed in this failure analysis (producer wells and injector wells) are very similar
in terms of well design, with one significant difference being the larger size of the producer wells. The
injector well casing design specified 244.5mm 59.5kg/m K55 surface casing and 177.8mm 34.2kg/m L80
IRP production casing while the producer well casing design specified 298.5mm 62.5kg/m H40 STC surface
casing and 219.1mm 47.6kg/m L80 IRP production casing. These general well designs are depicted in Figs.
1 and 2.
These well designs were developed in accordance with Shell Canada's thermal well design guidelines
and are aligned with industry practices and Alberta Industry Recommended Practice (IRP) Volume 3: In-
situ Heavy Oil Operations (DACC IRP 3 2012).
SPE-184102-MS 3

Figure 1—Injector well schematic

4 SPE-184102-MS

Figure 2—Producer well schematic

Summary of Failure Investigation

Following the first steam injection cycle, interventions were conducted to install pumps in the producer
wells and to perform a logging operation on one of the injector wells. During these workover operations,
tubing obstructions were noted in some of the wells. A campaign of gauge ring and downhole camera runs
followed on all of the injector wells. Ultimately tubing collapses were confirmed in two producer wells
and four injector wells. After cutting and retrieving the tubing at the collapse point on the two producer
wells, subsequent diagnostic camera runs showed casing deformation at the intervals corresponding to the
tubing collapse points.
A more detailed investigation was undertaken on the two producer wells by first cutting and retrieving the
upper section of tubing, milling the collapsed section of casing and tubing, and then fishing the lower section
of tubing, with frequent camera runs and caliper logs performed throughout the operation to understand the
downhole conditions. These diagnostics confirmed that none of the deformation events occurred at casing
connections; the failures occurred in the pipe body. Additionally, the deformation appeared to be a single
collapse event confined to one joint of casing.
An example of a photo taken during one of the camera runs is shown in Fig. 3, along with a notated
version indicating a surface casing centralizer, the deformed 219.1 mm casing and the 89 mm tubing.
SPE-184102-MS 5

Figure 3—Milled out section of 219mm casing shows semi-rigid centralizer and collapsed production casing

Possible failure mechanisms were identified and evaluated through a systematic analysis. The
investigation concluded that the most likely cause of the incidents of production casing deformation
was trapped fluid in the cement between the surface casing string and the production casing string.
Recommended warm-up practices incorporating a gradual ramp up of steam injection rate, pressure and
temperature (DACC IRP 3 2012) were not properly implemented. Initial steam injection rates were excessive
and caused rapid heating of the wellbore and casing strings. As a result, the trapped fluid generated
considerable pressure confined by the two casing strings, and ultimately exceeded the collapse resistance
of the production casing string.
Potential causes of trapped fluid in the cement between casing strings include the following:
– Poor mud displacement efficiency, leaving a fluid film on the outside of the inner casing or inside
of the outer casing
– Separation of fluid as the cement sets, resulting in free water in the cement column
– Cement slumping or fallback
– Unreacted water in the cement leaving fluid in the cement pore space
All of these are valid potential contributors, but further evaluation of the cementing procedures and
operating conditions concluded that the most probably contributor / cause was trapped unreacted water in
the cement column during warm-up of the wells.

Statement of Theory and Definitions

Water held at a fixed pressure through a typical thermal cycle from 20°C to 330°C will expand in volume
approximately 40-50%. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, which shows the specific volume of water as a function
of temperature, demonstrating that the expansion of water with increased temperature is a non-linear
relationship (Kyle, 1999).
6 SPE-184102-MS

Figure 4—Specific volume of water vs. temperature

Congruently, water that is confined to a fixed volume, unable to expand when heated, has the potential
to generate considerable pressure. A small amount of fluid in a wellbore annulus, contained by cement and
casing, may generate significant pressure as it undergoes a thermal cycle with no relief path (DACC IRP 3
2012). This could lead to yielding of the outer casing string or collapse of the inner casing string, with the
greatest risk expected during the first steaming cycle. Only a small volume needs to be released in order
to reduce the pressure substantially.
In oil well applications, dry cement is mixed with water and additives to create a pumpable slurry. Once
the cement sets, like any solid material, it has porosity, or void spaces in its microstructure. This pore space
may be occupied by unreacted water that is retained in the structure of the cement as a natural result of
the hydration process. Crush tests completed on the thermal cement blend that was used to cement the
production casing of the wells considered in this analysis indicated a pore space volume of approximately
30%.
Shell performed testing to understand the effects of increasing temperature on confined cement. The
testing was conducted using cured cement samples that were confined in an Ultrasonic Cement Analyzer
(UCA) cell with a pressure transducer. After the initial curing period, the test cell was heated up from 20°C
to 200°C over a period of two hours. The pressure response was measured throughout the test, showing an
increase from ambient pressure to a maximum pressure of 94MPa at the maximum temperature of 200°C.
In a typical thermal well represented by either of the two designs shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the API specified
collapse resistance of the production casing is 26.4 MPa and 21.0 MPa, respectively (Gabolde 2006). The
pressure generated in this test far exceeds these casing collapse ratings, which have not been de-rated for
elevated temperature. The test results are summarized in Fig. 5.
SPE-184102-MS 7

Figure 5—Cement test cell pressure during heating

These results support the theory that unreacted water in the cement pore space has the potential to generate
significant pressure when confined between casing strings, without a relief path for volumetric expansion.
The mechanism of casing deformation and collapse due to trapped annular pressure in thermal wells with
concentric casing strings has been previously acknowledged in Alberta's in-situ heavy oil developments
(DACC IRP 3 2012). The TAP phenomenon is also well documented in other operating environments and
well types, including geothermal wells (Southon 2005) and subsea wells (Adams 1994 and Moe 2000).
A review of options to address TAP generated a number of potential approaches to prevent this problem
from occurring in future wells. Some of the approaches considered (such as designing wells with low
cement tops) are not suitable for steam injection wells, do not meet regulatory requirements, or are not
commercially or economically feasible. However, a number of recommended mitigations which are more
likely to meet technical, regulatory and commercial requirements were identified. These recommendations
can be classified into one of the following categories: 1) material selection, 2) cement design and placement,
or 3) operational procedures.
1. Material Selection
The surface casing material and performance properties should be assessed relative to the proposed
production casing properties, and the surface casing strength limited to the minimum required for
installation loads. Limiting the rupture capacity of the surface casing can help to prevent collapse of
the production string in the event of trapped fluid between the strings (DACC IRP 3 2012).
It may be practical to control casing material specifications during the procurement / manufacturing
process to a narrower range. For example, a review of mill certificates for casing sizes / weights /
grades used in typical thermal well designs confirmed that the actual yield strength (YS) is often
much higher than the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). Furthermore, lower grade steels
often have a much broader YS range than higher grade steels. Surface casing materials can be selected
or manufactured with controls placed on material specifications to narrow the range of the material
strength. Conversely, the production casing can be specified with a set minimum yield strength.
8 SPE-184102-MS

Material strength is also affected by temperature; yield strength is generally reduced at elevated
temperatures (Holliday 1969 and Placido 1997). As a consequence of the configuration and operation
of thermal wells, the surface casing will be somewhat cooler than the production casing, and will
therefore experience less strength degradation relative to the production casing.
Other ways to adjust the relative performance properties of the surface and production casing are
to use larger diameter surface casing or increase the production casing wall thickness. Modifications
of this nature may compromise other aspects of the well design and must be properly evaluated before
implementation. Furthermore, all of these options have cost and feasibility implications, and the value
in terms of risk reduction may be uncertain.
2. Cement Design & Placement
Another consideration for TAP mitigation is cement design and placement. Using thixotropic
cement with rapid strength development is recommended to minimize potential for fluid invasion,
migration and fallback. Following best practises for cement placement including effective
centralization, high pump rates, density control, and pipe movement will also help to minimize the
potential for trapped fluids in the annulus.
3. Operational Procedures
Following appropriate, staged, warm-up procedures is critical to prevent or limit the impact of
collapse of the inner casing string. Ensuring that the initial warm-up is conducted slowly and in a
gentle, controlled manner may allow any pressure build-up to dissipate. An appropriate warm-up
procedure will include guidance on initial injection rates and pressures (hence temperatures), as well
as ramp-up intervals and increments. These procedures depend on the specific operating environment
and field experience, but will generally take several days for full ramp-up. An appropriate warm-up
sequence should be utilized any time steam injection is started or resumed (DACC IRP 3 2012).

New Approach to TAP Mitigation

Incorporating sufficient risk mitigation using the aforementioned recommendations is not always
technically feasible or commercially practical. In response to the casing deformation experienced in the
Peace River infill wells, Shell was motivated to develop a new approach to address the risk of TAP in future
thermal wells.
A novel technique was proposed: to utilize a cement blend that would be able to mitigate annular pressure
while still meeting requirements for compressive strength build-up and long term integrity. In other words, a
cement blend which offers a conduit for pressure relief. Mechanisms to achieve this could include collapsible
additives such as foam cement or blends incorporating hollow beads.
The team decided to pursue the idea of incorporating hollow microspheres into the cement blend. The
concept is that if pressure builds up in the cement pore space in the wellbore annulus, the beads will crush
and relieve the pressure before surface or production casing integrity is compromised.
A review of available bead products was undertaken. Key considerations were pressure rating, durability,
availability, safety, and cost. A suitable additive needed to offer a sufficient pressure rating: higher than
operating pressure but lower than casing performance ratings so that the beads would maintain their integrity
while mixing and pumping the cement slurry. It would also need to crush at a lower pressure than either
the burst pressure of the surface casing, or the collapse pressure of the production casing. Furthermore, the
beads would need to be readily available, safe to transport and handle, and most importantly, they needed
to be relatively inexpensive. The selected option was a readily available hollow-glass microsphere product.
These types of beads or microspheres are not new to the oil and gas industry. They have been used in
cement blends for years, with the objective of reducing slurry density and creating ultra-lightweight cements
to prevent lost returns when cementing deep casing strings or zones with low fracture gradients (Butsch
2002 and Kulakofsky 2005). The idea of using them as a pressure-relief mechanism, however, is believed
to be a new and novel application of this type of product for managing trapped annular pressure.
SPE-184102-MS 9

Summary of Testing Program

The testing program was carried out at the Shell Technology Centre in Houston, using a UCA equipped with
a pressure transducer. The testing apparatus ensured that the pressure transducer was in direct contact with
the slurry. Several different slurries were tested, including two conventional thermal blends, with varying
proportions of engineered hollow-glass microspheres.
First, the appropriate curing time was established, by determining the time it took for the compressive
strength to plateau, indicating that almost all of the water had reacted. This time was approximately 76
hours at a temperature of 24°C. At this point, hydration is more than 95% complete. The temperature was
then ramped up to 316°C (typical steam injection temperature) and the pressure response was recorded by
the pressure transducer.
Several tests were run on a series of slurries using this testing sequence. Two base blends were used
from two different suppliers. The blends were typical thermal cements, with thixotropic rheology. The
tests were run first on these conventional thermal blends, and then repeated with these same blends
containing engineering hollow-glass microspheres, either 10% or 15% BWOC. The resulting densities
of the microsphere blends ranged from 1600 kg/m3 to 1650kg/m3, which is only slightly lower than the
conventional blends normally used in this application.

Presentation of Data and Results

The results of the testing program are summarized in a series of plots showing the temperature and pressure
data over time, starting from when the initial hydration period of 76 hours was complete.
Fig. 6 shows the pressure response of two typical thermal cement blends: Blend A and Blend B, when
heated from a temperature of ~20°C to just over 200°. Very high pressures, up to 94 MPa and 28 MPa,
respectively, were generated in these test samples, before the temperature could be brought up to the
maximum test temperature of 320°C.

Figure 6—Pressure response of typical thermal cement blends when heated at constant volume
10 SPE-184102-MS

The typical production casing string used in the wells that experienced casing deformation have de-
rated collapse ratings of 21.0 MPa and 16.3 MPa at 325°C. In both tests these values were exceeded at
temperatures much lower than typical steam injection temperatures.
Some thermal expansion of cement was anticipated during the testing. However, this expansion was
assessed to be minimal relative to the pressure response caused by heating unreacted water in the cement
pore space. Also, the coefficient of thermal expansion for the cement with and without the microspheres is
essentially the same, so any pressure increase caused by thermal expansion of cement would be comparable.
The test on Blend A was stopped because the pressure was rapidly approaching the limit of the apparatus.
The test on Blend B was stopped because the pressure was following a similar trend and had already
exceeded the casing collapse pressures.
The same testing procedure was carried out using Blend B, containing the hollow-glass microspheres at
concentrations of 10% and 15% BWOC. The results are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In both of these tests, the
temperature was increased to over 300°C. Much lower maximum pressures were measured: the 10% blend
measured a pressure of approximately 12 MPa at 320°C, and the 15% blend approximately 10 MPa at 305°C.

Figure 7—Pressure response of blend B with 10% microspheres

SPE-184102-MS 11

Figure 8—Pressure response of blend B with 15% microspheres

An assumption was made that the first cycle would be the worst in terms of pressure response. To test
this theory, new tests were run on the same 10% and 15% microsphere blends, where the samples were
subjected to a representative temperature cycle. That is, the test cylinders containing the cured samples were
heated, as before, from 24°C to 320°C and then the temperature was allowed to drop down to between 70°C
and 80°C before being heated back up to 320°C. The resulting data, presented in Figs. 9 and 10, verifies
the assumption that the highest pressures would be generated during the first thermal cycle. The results
observed on the initial heating were similar to the previous tests, with pressures reaching approximately 10.3
MPa at 320°C. On the reheat cycle the pressures were not as high, reaching only 8.6 MPa at a temperature
of ~320°C.
12 SPE-184102-MS

Figure 9—Pressure response through temperature cycle (blend B + 10% microspheres)

Figure 10—Pressure response through temperature cycle (blend B + 15% microspheres)

SPE-184102-MS 13

Several test runs were performed on the 10% and 15% blends to assess data repeatability. A composite
plot of all of the test data that was collected is provided in Fig. 11. All of the tests show consistency in
results, and that at the maximum anticipated operating temperature, the maximum pressures are well below
the de-rated collapse pressure of the production casing strings considered in this study.

Figure 11—Composite plot of pressure response with increasing temperature

The results of the testing program suggest that the conventional thermal cement blend containing either
10% or 15% hollow-glass microspheres would provide the desired pressure-relief mechanism. In 2015 Shell
utilized the 10% blend to cement the production casing strings on a campaign of wells with a well design
almost identical to the injector well design illustrated in Fig. 1. Casing installation and cementation on
those wells was completed successfully with no operational or technical concerns. The wells have not been
operated, however, thus field performance of the microsphere cement blend as a pressure-relief mechanism
has not been assessed at this time.

Conclusions
The 10% BWOC engineered hollow-glass microsphere blend is expected to provide a viable way to manage
trapped annular pressure on steam injection wells. Based on the preliminary results shared in this paper,
this blend is believed to be an acceptable alternative to conventional thermal blends, capable of providing
hydraulic isolation to meet regulatory requirements and industry best practices, with the added benefit of
providing a mechanism to mitigate TAP. It can be pumped using standard mixing and pumping equipment;
operationally there is no additional or specialized equipment required. When trialed in the field, no issues
with density control, pumping, or any other technical or operational problems were encountered.
There are other ways to mitigate TAP, which may be more practical or economical, but the microsphere
blend is a suitable alternative or additional mitigation for wells where conventional design may not provide
the desired safety factors, or for certain remediations such as slim-hole repairs.
14 SPE-184102-MS

The testing program indicated that microsphere concentrations of 10% or 15% BWOC demonstrate
acceptable performance, and the 10% blend was used successfully in a real world casing cementing
application. It may be beneficial to evaluate a lower percentage of microspheres, mainly as a potential cost
savings measure.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Shell Canada Ltd. for permission to share the content of this paper. We
wish to acknowledge Sanjel Canada for provision of materials and assistance. Lab testing was performed
at the Shell Technology Centre in Houston, TX, and we wish to thank James Heathman and Chris Mead
for developing the sample testing procedures and for carrying out the experimental portions of this work.
We would also like to express our profound gratitude to Janis Gayle who, prior to her retirement from
Shell Canada, was heavily involved in the casing failure analysis that led to this work, and contributed
significantly to the development of the solution presented in this paper.

Nomenclature
MSYS = Minimum Specified Yield Strength
RFC = Regulated Fill-up Cement
TAP = Trapped Annular Pressure
UCA = Ultrasonic Cement Analyzer
VSD = Vertical Steam Drive
YS = Yield Strength

References
Adams, A.J. 1994. Impact on Casing Design of Thermal Expansion of Fluids in Confined Annuli. SPE Drilling &
Completion. 9 (03): 210–216. SPE-21911-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21911-PA.
Barroux, C., Lamoureux-Var, V., and Flauraud, E. 2013. Forecasting of H2S Production due to Aquathermolysis Reactions.
Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 10-13 March. SPE-164317-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164317-MS.
Butsch, R.J., Morris, C.W., Wydrinski, R. et al. 2002. The Evaluation of Specialized Cements. Presented at the SPE
Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 20-22 May. SPE-76713-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/76713-MS.
DACC IRP 3, Industry Recommended Practice Volume #3: In-situ Heavy Oil Operations. 2012. Calgary, Canada: DACC.
Gabolde, G. and Nguyen, J. 2006. Drilling Data Handbook., eighth edition. Paris: Éditions Technip.
Holliday, G.H. 1969. Calculation of Allowable Maximum Casing Temperature to Prevent Tension Failures in Thermal
Wells. Presented at the ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Tulsa, OK, 21-25 September. 69-
PET-10.
Kulakofsky, D. and Vargo, R. 2005. New Technology for the Delivery of Beaded Lightweight Cements. Presented at
the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9-12 October. SPE-94541-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/94541-MS.
Kyle, B.G. 1999. Chemical and Process Thermodynamics, third edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Moe, B. and Erpelding, P. 2000. Annular Pressure Buildup: What is it and what to do about it. World Oil Deepwater
Technology Supplement. August: 21–23.
Placido, J.C.R., Ademar Jr., P., Paulo, L.A.B.F, et al. 1997. Stress-Analysis of Casing String Submitted to Cyclic Steam
Injection. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janerio, Brazil,
30 August – 3 September. SPE-38978-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/38978-MS
Southon, J.N.A. 2005. Geothermal Well Design, Construction and Failures. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress,
Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April.