1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Author: P.F. (Paul) Offermann

Abstract
This section covers the design concepts and criteria for external cathodic protection
of onshore well casings. Leak frequency, casing inspection, and system design are
discussed. An outline describes the steps involved from evaluating a candidate field
to making final adjustments to the cathodic protection installation.
Contents

Page

1510 Introduction

1500-3

1511 Background
1512 CP of Well Casings versus Pipelines
1513 Chevron Case Histories
1520 Limitations

1500-4

1521 Exposed External Surfaces

1522 Well Density
1523 Number of Wells per Anode Bed
1524 Attenuation
1525 Varying Earth Resistances
1526 Temperature
1530 Justification

1500-6

1531 When to Install CP

1532 Projecting Leak Frequency
1533 Estimating Costs
1540 Well Logs

1500-9

1541 Electromagnetic Logs

1542 Mechanical Caliper Log
1543 Ultrasonic Log

Chevron Corporation

1500-1

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1544 Optical Inspection Log

1545 SP (Spontaneous Potential) - Resistivity (Dual Induction) Log
1546 Casing Potential Profile Log
1550 Current Requirements

1500-13

1551 Rules-of-Thumb
1552 Mathematical Modeling
1553 Suggested Well Casing Current Requirements
1554 Other Industry Practices
1555 Interference
1560 Anode Bed Design

1500-17

1561 Type of System

1562 Rectifiers
1563 Power Sources
1570 Well Completion Enhancements

1500-19

1571 Improved Primary Cement Jobs

1572 Factory Applied Organic Coatings

August 1999

1580 Installation Guidelines

1500-21

1590 References

1500-22

1500-2

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

1510 Introduction
This section discusses the use of CP (cathodic protection) for the cost effective
control of external well casing corrosion. CP is an important tool because maintaining casing integrity is essential to oil and gas production,water and gas injection, and gas storage fields.
When a leak develops, production (or injection) usually ceases until the leak is
repaired or a liner is installed. When corrosion is severe, the casing can collapse and
the well may have to be abandoned, which can result in lost reserves. CP can be
utilized in maintaining casing integrity caused by external corrosion, thereby
reducing operating costs and maximizing total production and profits.

1511 Background
Cathodic protection has been employed in the oil and gas industry for use on well
casings since the late forties. The use of CP on well casings is preceded by its application to pipelines. Because of its success and because it is the only technique that
can be used to mitigate corrosion after the well is in place, CP is now an accepted
procedure in the oil field.

1512 CP of Well Casings versus Pipelines

CP of well casings differs from pipelines in the following ways:
1.

The pipe is vertical to the surface rather than parallel.

2.

All current is drained from one end.

3.

Pipe-to-soil potential measurements can only be made at the end from which
the current is drained. Potentials cannot be directly measured along the outside
surface of the casing.

4.

Well casings are connected by threaded collars rather than welded connections,
which may increase the resistance of the metallic path.

5.

Soil/formation changes with length/depth.

6.

Well casings are typically installed without an organic coating on the OD

(outside diameter), although most have a partial cement coating.

7.

Long lengths of the production casing are shielded from CP by surface and
intermediate casing strings.

1513 Chevron Case Histories

Chevron has experience with some of the earliest well casing CP installations
(which date from the 1950s) and some of the largest field wide CP systems in the
United States. A list of these installations is presented in Figure 1500-1. Installation
dates and numbers were estimated if the actual value was not known. The list does
not include more than 800 onshore wells with CP located in Canada.

Chevron Corporation

1500-3

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

Fig. 1500-1 Chevron Operated Oil Fields with Well Casing Cathodic Protection
Field Name

Location

Date Installed

# Anode Beds

# Wells

SACROC

TX

1979

750

1560

Elk Hills

CA

1963

650

2000

East Texas

TX

1970

132

225

Baxterville

MS

1960

125

270

Kettleman Hills

CA

1958

75

200

Pittsburg

TX

1988

36

45

Taft

CA

1965

30

30

Raleigh

MS

1961

26

26

Coalinga

CA

1965

25

60

Heidelberg

MS

1984

18

24

The number of wells that have been placed under CP is impressive, but includes
only a small fraction of the total number of wells operated by the company. The
majority of these systems were installed after well casing leaks became a significant problem.

1520 Limitations
While CP is a great tool for corrosion control of well casings, there are limitations
to its effectiveness. In some cases it simply may not be practical to get protection to
the bottom of deep well casings. This section will discuss those limitations.

1521 Exposed External Surfaces

CP can mitigate corrosion only on the exposed external surfaces of a well casing.
A conventional CP system has no effect, positive or negative, on the internal
surfaces of the well casing or any production equipment inside the well casing.
Because of space restrictions, it is not practical to install a long anode (or series of
anodes) that is capable of protecting the inside of the well casing.
CP is only effective on those external surfaces of the casing strings which are in
direct contact with the environment. Conductor pipe, surface casing, and intermediate casing will shield the areas of the production casing string contained within it.
Figure 1500-2 illustrates a typical well completion diagram and the areas on the
casing that receive protection.

1522 Well Density

Well density (or spacing) limits how far the anode bed can be placed from the
subject well without interfering with neighboring wells. Ideal anode bed placement
would be the half way point between equally spaced wells. The farther the anode
bed is placed from the subject well, the deeper the well can be protected and the

August 1999

1500-4

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

more even its current distribution. Figure 1500-3 is a plot of the equal potential lines
radiating out from a anode bed. It demonstrates that a well placed farther from an
anode bed will receive more uniform potentials and therefore more uniform
protection.
Fig. 1500-2 Typical Well Casing Completion Diagram

Fig. 1500-3 Equal Potential Lines

Figure 1500-4 illustrates how anode bed distance affects current density on a typical
well casing where X is the distance from the well to the anode bed.
Note Well logs are typically presented with the x-axis across the top showing
current density and the y-axis down the side showing depth from top to bottom. All
well casing plots are presented in this manner for consistency.

1523 Number of Wells per Anode Bed

To reduce installation costs, more than one well can be connected to each anode
bed. Interference effects, caused by the increased current discharged from the anode
bed, will have some negative impact on the system performance, just as anode
distance affects current density in Figure 1500-4.

1524 Attenuation
Attenuation refers to the decrease in protection level with depth. The well head has
the most negative (best protected) potential at any point on the casing. Because
current is flowing up the casing within a resistive metal path, the casing potential
becomes more positive with depth, yielding a lower current density and less protection.
For very deep wells, attenuation may make it impractical to protect the casing to
total depth. However, in many cases, most leaks occur in a particular corrosive
zone, so that protection to bottom may not be necessary.

Chevron Corporation

1500-5

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

Fig. 1500-4 Current Density Versus Anode Bed Distance

1525 Varying Earth Resistances

Current will always take every available path in proportion to the resistance of the
path. Variation in earth resistances can complicate the current flow and the distribution of current to the well casing. At deeper depths, high resistance formations can
limit the amount of ionic current flow to the casing.

1526 Temperature
The current requirement of steel increases with increasing temperature. To make
matters worse, attenuation in the well casing reduces the current density with depth
(i.e. the areas of the casing which receive the least protection need it the most).

1530 Justification
This section provides the reader with the background on how to identify candidate
wells for CP and how to justify installing a system. It also examines the logic for
applying CP.

1531 When to Install CP

The following are three philosophies for installing a well casing CP system:

August 1999

1.

At the time a well is drilled (as a matter of good operating practice or mandated
by governmental regulations).

2.

Log a group of wells at regular intervals to look for corrosion.

3.

Wait for leaks to occur (in your wells or your neighbors).

1500-6

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Ideally, CP would be installed as a part of the original well completion. This

approach can be justified by evaluating earlier field history which indicates that
external casing corrosion has been a problem. Similar information may be available
from offset operations in neighboring fields.
Without actual leak data, the only justification for the early installation of CP is to
capture the expense under good operating practice, environmental, or safety
considerations. By taking a proactive approach, enhancements can be made to the
original well completion that will improve the performance of the system.
Well casing CP may be required by present or future governmental regulations, as is
now the case for DOT regulated pipelines in the US.
Logging a well to proactively look for corrosion has not been a regular industry
practice in the US. As long as the well is producing, corrosion is out of sight and out
of mind. Because of this fact, it is difficult to establish a justification for pulling a
well for logging, to look for a problem that is only revealed with the log.
More typically, well casing CP systems have been installed after casing leaks are
occurring at a rate that is causing operational concern. The justification for the CP
installation is based on the projected savings resulting from the reduction in the
number of casing leaks and the associated repair costs. The effectiveness of CP can
be somewhat compromised by the presence of thick oxide films, but is still an
economically and justifiable alternative after leaks begin.

1532 Projecting Leak Frequency

Casing leak projections are typically performed by plotting the cumulative leak
history on the y axis of semi-log paper versus time in years on the x axis. An extrapolation is made from the data to estimate the future number of leaks. Installation of
a control measure, such as CP, would tend to cause a change in the slope of the line
at or immediately after implementation [1]. An example of the results that can be
expected from a successful CP installation is graphically presented in
Figure 1500-5.
A semi-log plot of cumulative casing leaks can be a valuable tool. It is most reliable
in the years immediately after leaks begin to develop. The plot should be made on a
group of at least 25 wells of about the same age. It may be necessary to make more
than one plot for groups of wells of similar age in older fields that have had a
continuing in-fill drilling program.
A straight line extrapolation predicts the number of holes (not leak occurrences) that
would develop if no preventive action were taken. A gradual reduction from the
number of leak occurrences projected may be seen later in the life of the field even
with no intervention. This can be explained by limitations in the ability to detect
multiple holes in close proximity with squeeze tools. Some potential leaks are actually prevented by the casing repair process itself. Cement is pumped in between the
pipe and the bore hole. The cement will fill in pits and slow the corrosion process by
providing an elevated pH coating over areas of casing that were previously exposed
to the environment.

Chevron Corporation

1500-7

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

Fig. 1500-5 Semi-log Plot of Cumulative Leaks versus Time

Extrapolations from the semi-log plot should not be made too far into the future
because an extremely high number of leaks would be predicted. It would be unreasonable to project more than two leaks for every well in the field. Success should
simply be judged by the amount of deviation from the original extrapolation that
occurred after installation of the CP system [2].
The data required for making a leak frequency plot usually requires many hours of
searching through all of the well files in the subject field. Data to be recorded
includes: when the leak developed, leak depth, and any indication as to the cause.
Notes should also be made of all casing strings including their size, weight, grade,
and total depth. Include only leaks caused by external corrosion when a distinction
can be made.

1533 Estimating Costs

Well casing CP systems must be economically justified. Typical system costs range
from $4,000 per well to as high as $20,000 per well (in 1992 dollars). The cost
depends on the:

August 1999

1.

Availability of power.

2.

Type of anode bed selected.

3.

Number of wells per anode bed.

4.

Availability of qualified contractor.

1500-8

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

5.

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Geology and geography.

Per well installation costs typically hover around the lower end of this scale because
of anode bed sharing. CP installation costs must be offset by a reduced number of
casing leak repairs which cost approximately $30,000 to $50,000.

1540 Well Logs

Well logs are essential to a complete CP study because:
1.

Casing leaks must be identified as to the cause and location.

2.

Effectiveness of the CP system must be evaluated.

3.

Downhole resistivities are needed for modeling.

Casing inspection logs are a vital part of a CP study because it would do little to
install a CP system on a field that had experienced only internal corrosion or corrosion behind a surface casing string. Significant space is devoted to well logs because
they are the only tools which reveals the present condition of the well.
All casing inspection logs require that the rods and tubing be removed from the
well. It is also good practice to make a bit and scraper run before any logs are run in
a well. The extra tubing trip will remove scale, paraffin, corrosion by-product, and
allow any accumulated fill to be washed out. It is important that the scraper tool
have sharp blades and strong springs.
Because of the cost of well preparation, the best opportunity to run a casing inspection log is during casing repair workovers. This approach not only provides data for
the CP project, but gives the production engineer an idea of where to look for the
leak with his squeeze packer. The inspection log may also indicate that the casing is
in such bad condition that repair by cement squeeze is futile and a liner is required.
Casing inspection tools utilize one of four technologies:
1.

Electromagnetic

2.

Mechanical

3.

Acoustic

4.

Optical

In addition, two other types of logs are important in well casing CP:
1.

Resistivity

2.

Casing Potential Profile [3]

A well logging company representative will be quick to point out that each has its
advantages and to perform a thorough job more than one tool will be needed. While
this is true, it can be argued that a single log will provide enough information for the
CP project. If only one log is run, a combination DC induction (flux leakage/eddy
current) log should be selected. The flux leakage/eddy current log is most adept at

Chevron Corporation

1500-9

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

identifying pitting corrosion and can discriminate between internal and external
defects.

1541 Electromagnetic Logs1

Flux Leakage - Eddy Current (DC Induction)
A FL (flux leakage) - EC (eddy current) log utilizes a strong DC electromagnetic
field of constant strength and a high frequency AC signal, respectively. The instrument can determine degree of penetration, identify defects as internal or external,
and even provide some idea of the circumferential extent of damage.
The tool consists of individual shoes positioned in two overlapping rings one above
the other. The shoes are pressed against the wall of the casing. Each shoe contains
two flux leakage and two eddy current coils. A FL response indicates the presence
of a casing defect and determines its magnitude. A corresponding EC response will
be present if the defect is internal.
There are several limitations of the tool. External corrosion will be masked if there
is any internal corrosion present. Scale, paraffin, or corrosion by-product on the
casing wall will cause shoe slap which will produce small EC kicks (noise) which
makes interpretation difficult. The log must also be run at a constant speed.
Two of the major logging companies currently supply this tool, the Western Atlas
International - Vertilog [4] and the Schlumberger - PAT (Pipe Analysis Tool) [5].
While either should be sufficient, preference should be given to the Vertilog because
of its increased sensitivity (3/8" versus 1/2" resolution) and the effort Western Atlas
International has taken to create interpretation charts for gauging degree of wall
penetration. This is no simple undertaking since each weight, grade, and diameter of
casing must be tested, including the many combinations that result from multiple
concentric casings. Schlumberger uses non-metallic pads over its shoes which can
get damaged on rough casing resulting in unexpected expensive extra charges.
Trade names:

Western Atlas International - Vertilog [4]

Schlumberger - PAT (Pipe Analysis Tool) [5]

AC Induction
The low frequency AC magnetic field tool measures the circumferential average
casing wall thickness. It also detects changes in the internal diameter. It is used to
detect internal pipe wear, casing splits, casing weight changes, bottoms of mixed

1.

Verilog, Magnalog, and Multi-finger Caliper are registered trademarks of Western Atlas International,
Atlas Wireline Services.
PAT, METT, and Mechanical Caliper are Registered Trademarks of Schlumberger.
Casing Caliper is a registered trademark of Kinley, Inc.

August 1999

1500-10

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

strings, and casing parts. Because corrosion more often occurs as pits, this tool
should not be used alone in a casing inspection program.
Trade names:

Western Atlas International - Magnalog[4]

Schlumberger - METT (Multifrequency Electromagnetic
Thickness Tool) [5]

1542 Mechanical Caliper Log

The multi-finger caliper log tool contains multiple gages mounted on spring loaded
arms. As the name implies, the caliper log measures the maximum and minimum
deflection of the inside casing wall recorded by each arm. Uses include checking for
mechanical wear or out of round casing. It may also be combined with one of the
other inspection logs to verify internal defects. The ability of the log to detect
internal pitting is determined by the number and spacing of the arms. Because pits
can be missed and external corrosion cannot be detected, this log should not be run
alone.
Trade names:

Western Atlas International - Multi-finger Caliper [4]

Schlumberger - Mechanical Caliper
Kinley - Casing Caliper [5]

1543 Ultrasonic Log

The ultrasonic log uses transit time and resonant frequency of ultrasonic impulses to
measure the internal diameter and casing thickness. Cement bonding is obtained
from the reflected energy. The sonic log is not as sensitive to logging speed as the
FL-EC (see Section 1541) log, but must be run in a liquid.
Ultrasonic tools can be configured with multiple fixed sensors or a single rotating
sensor.
Trade names:

Schlumberger - CET (Cement Evaluation Tool) [5]

Schlumberger - BHTV (Borehole Televiewer) [5]

1544 Optical Inspection Log

The optical or video log utilizes a downhole camera with an artificial light source
and either a wide angle lens looking straight down or a close up lens looking
directly at the casing wall. Real time video is available as the log is being run. The
images can be stored on a VHS video cassette tape for later viewing. High resolution still photographs can be taken with a different camera on a second logging run.
The log is great for workover operations when a parted casing is suspected, but is
limited for its ability to quantify internal casing corrosion. Other disadvantages
include the requirement that the tool be run in a very clear brine or a fog-free gas.
Chevron currently has experience with a downhole video camera from Computalog.

Chevron Corporation

1500-11

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1545 SP (Spontaneous Potential) - Resistivity (Dual Induction) Log

The dual induction log is often the first open hole log that is run after drilling a well.
The dual induction log is composed of two tools. One tool measures a spontaneous
potential (SP) between a downhole half cell and a fixed cell on the surface. The SP
log was the first log used to evaluate formations in oil and gas production. Nearby
cathodic protection anode beds should be turned off, because they will have an
effect on the log.
The SP log is typically coupled with a resistivity log. This portion of the tool
directly measures a near, average, and remote resistivity of the formation in ohmmeters. Data from this log is needed for input into the Dabkowski model described
in 1552.

1546 Casing Potential Profile Log

The CPP (casing potential profile) log is the only log in which the sole purpose is to
evaluate the performance of a well casing CP system. It should be run only after a
CP system has been installed, energized, and allowed to stabilize for at least 90 to
180 days. Care should be taken to maintain the same current flow to the well, even
during the workover and CPP logging operations. Suggested changes in applied
current resulting from analysis of these logs cannot be evaluated by immediately
rerunning the log. The new current must be allowed to stabilize for an extended
period before valid results will be obtained.
The CPP tool consists of two sets of pipe cutter wheel contacts spaced 25 or more
feet apart and a pair of centralizers. The contacts are mounted on spring loaded
mechanical arms. An insulator is placed between the two sets of contacts such that a
tiny voltage measurement can be taken between them. Using a value for the casing
resistance, a current flow can be calculated at the location of the tool. Readings are
taken by stopping the tool at 50 foot intervals, establishing a good contact, and
recording the voltage measurement.
Older models of the CPP required that the well be filled with a non-conductive
fluid, typically crude oil. The tools did not directly measure the casing resistance,
requiring instead that a value be calculated from the steel cross sectional area and
casing temperature. The older CPP tools had no downhole electronics requiring that
two conductors be run from the tool contact arms all the way back to the logging
truck and a sensitive voltmeter.
A new tool has been developed by Schlumberger called the CPET (Corrosion
Protection Evaluation Tool). It works on the same principle as a conventional CPP
with the following enhancements:

August 1999

1.

An extra set of contacts are used to directly measure casing resistance.

2.

The knife blade edges are coated allowing the tool to be run in any fluid,
including brine.

3.

Electronics were placed in the tool to reduce EMF interference.

1500-12

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

4.

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

The contact arms are hydraulically controlled [6].

Because the knife contact spacing is two feet and readings are taken at stops every
two feet, Schlumberger sells the CPET tool as a continuous log that can identify
local corrosion cells. In reality there is simply too much noise or contact resistance
to use the log for that purpose. It is still the best tool available for taking long line
current flow measurements at 25 to 50 foot intervals. Rig time will be saved by
insisting on eliminating the extra measurements [7].
The conventional CPP tool and the CPET tool are presented in Figure 1500-6.
Note the extra set of contacts on the CPET that allow the casing resistance to be
measured directly.
The CPP log is interpreted by examining the sign and slope of the readings. A positive value indicates that current is traveling up the casing. A negative slope indicates that current is moving down the casing. Current density is obtained by
dividing the voltage measurement by the casing resistance. A positive slope
(increasing value with decreasing depth) indicates that current is being picked up. A
negative slope indicates that current is being discharged, and corrosion is occurring.
Figure 1500-7 presents the results of multiple CPP log runs from one well. The first
run was made immediately after CP was applied and the others were run after the
well had current applied and had been allowed to polarize [4].
It is useless to run a CPP log within multiple casing strings because there are
numerous incidental contacts where varying amounts of current jump from one
string to the other which makes interpretation of the data impossible. The shallow
areas of the casing are of least concern, because they receive a higher current
density than the bottom.

1550 Current Requirements

During CP system design and after its installation, one of the most important questions is how much current to apply. Until a field is energized and wells are logged,
there are no easy answers to this question. This section describes how to establish a
current requirement value[1].

Chevron Corporation

1500-13

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

Fig. 1500-6 Casing Profile Potential Logging (Courtesy of Schlumberger and Courtesy of
Western Atlas Logging Services, Div. of Western Atlas International)

1551 Rules-of-Thumb
There are two rules-of-thumb that circulate in the well casing CP community. The
first is a current density based on the surface area of the well casing. A value of
2 mA/ft2 is used to calculate the current required to protect all steel not covered by a
cement coating. A value of 0.1 mA/ft2 is used to estimate the amount of current to
protect steel covered by cement.
A second rule-of-thumb for estimating a current requirement assumes that the sizes
of well casings are roughly the same and that 1 amp of current should be adequate
for each 1000 feet of well depth.

August 1999

1500-14

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Both of these estimating tools break down in actual use because current is not
evenly applied to the well casing. In some cases current may never reach the deeper
sections of the casing. Use these rules-of-thumb for quick ballpark estimates, but do
not consider the answer to be final [8].
Fig. 1500-7 CPP Log Before and After Polarization (Courtesy of Western Atlas Logging Services, Div. of Western
Atlas International)

1552 Mathematical Modeling

There are three mathematical models currently in use for calculating well casing
current requirements. The first is a model by Schremp-Newton. The technique is a
modification of the Pope attenuation model used for pipelines. The SchrempNewton model requires only some wellhead potential measurements collected from
a specific well already under CP. This is a useful technique for single wells that
have minimal interference effects. It is the preferred procedure for calculating
downhole potentials for various currents on an actual well casing.
A second mathematical modeling technique is an electrical transmission model
developed by Dabkowski. Resistivities at various depths and well patterns are

Chevron Corporation

1500-15

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

required for input. Dabkowskis model allows the effects of many different resistivity layers to be evaluated. It also can evaluate interference effects of multiple
anode beds and wells.
The third technique is the BEM (boundary element model). This model is currently
in use to evaluate current requirements and potentials on complex structures, such as
offshore platforms. Because of difficulty in setting up input files with layered resistivities, convergence problems, and their CPU intensive nature, BEMs are not
commonly used to evaluate well casing CP [9].
Some computer models capable of running on an IBM or compatible are available
for specific applications. Contact the Corrosion Specialist at CRTC or CPTC to
obtain copies or to obtain assistance in running them.

1553 Suggested Well Casing Current Requirements

Figure 1500-8 has been prepared in part from Chevron experience and in part from
calculations made from Dabkowskis model. It is suggested that this table be utilized
as the initial starting point for estimating well casing current requirements. To find a
suggested current requirement simply look up the value given at the intersection of
the well depth and well spacing.
Figure 1500-8 assumes seven inch casing and partial primary cement coverage.
Numbers were calculated from Dabkowskis model using hypothetical field data.
For casings deeper than 10,000 ft. or those that fall into the NR category do not
expect to get protection all the way to the bottom.
Fig. 1500-8 Suggested Well Casing Current Requirements
Well
Spacing

Single Well

160 Acre

80 Acre

40 Acre

20 Acre

Current
(amps)

Current
(amps)

Current
(amps)

Current
(amps)

Current
(amps)

2,000 ft

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

4,000 ft

3.0

3.5

4.0

5.0

5.5

6,000 ft

5.5

6.0

7.0

10.0

13.0

8,000 ft

7.0

8.0

9.0

11.0

NR

10,000 ft

10.0

12.0

13.0

NR

NR

12,000 ft

12.0

13.0

NR

NR

NR

Well Depth

To facilitate complete CP coverage, an organic coating should be strongly considered for use on new well casings that are to be drilled to a depth over 10,000 ft. or
on wells that are tightly spaced. The greatest cost benefit can be achieved by coating
the OD of the surface casing, because the highest current density is near the surface.

August 1999

1500-16

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

1554 Other Industry Practices

E-Log-I
The E-Log-I technique has long been used in the well casing CP business because
only surface measurements are utilized. The method recognizes that each well has a
different surface area and cement coverage, and consequently a unique current
requirement that can only be obtained by field testing. It involves measuring the
remote wellhead potential of a previously unprotected well while applying current
in increasing steps or increments. The instant-off potential is plotted versus the
current on semi-log paper. Two straight line slopes are drawn on the upper and
lower portions of the curve. The intersection of the two slopes is the well casing
current requirement.
Although this technique may provide useful information for some casing depths, the
test procedure is time consuming and requires significant expertise in reference cell
placement, selection of timing variables, and interpretation of results. Therefore,
this method should be avoided in favor of the previously listed methods.

Wellhead Potential Balancing

The wellhead potential balancing technique requires that a well casing CP system
has already been installed. It assumes that at least one well (the mother well) in the
subject field has been polarized and is receiving a satisfactory current distribution to
depth which has been verified by a CPP log. Current on the remaining wells is
adjusted until the well head potential of all wells is approximately the same as the
protected mother well.
Field experience has shown that this technique to be expensive, furthermore, theory
has shown it is also invalid. It can leave neighboring wells with too much and-or too
little current [10].

1555 Interference
Interference is in a non-uniform current density distribution on a structure. In some
cases this can lead to corrosion resulting from current flow through paths other than
the intended circuit. Interference can result from anode beds that are placed too
close to the wells being protected, or from tightly spaced wells, or congested surface
facilities which are near the anode beds. All anode beds contribute to interference,
including those for pipelines and facilities and those owned by other companies.
The solution is to limit the total current being discharged from the offending anode
bed, which limits the ability to protect wells at depth.

1560 Anode Bed Design

Anode bed design is covered in Section 1230 under CP of Pipelines. Only the
unique considerations for well casing systems will be covered here.

Chevron Corporation

1500-17

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1561 Type of System

Well casings will require an impressed current system to provide enough current
unless they are very shallow (1,000 feet or less) or externally coated.
Areas with low surface soil resistivity and ample well spacing are suitable for
shallow surface anode beds. Fields with high surface soil resistivity, close well
spacing, and-or dry climates make the use of deep anode beds more attractive.
Despite a high installation cost, a deep anode bed is the most desirable design
because it:
1.

Reduces interference on the well casings by placing anodes in lower resistivity

soil.

2.

Reduces interference on pipelines and other surface facilities by placing the

anodes farther away.

3.

Has minimal space requirements.

4.

Is not subject to wet/dry conditions.

1562 Rectifiers
Of the two conventional types of rectifier stacks (silicon diode and selenium) the
silicon diode or bridge provides the best power conversion efficiency and least
expensive replacement. This units typically cost less than $1,000 for a pole mounted
air cooled model.
New high efficiency solid state switching type rectifiers are now available. Maintenance history should be examined to confirm unit reliability.
The technology that offers the most promise is the pulsed rectifier. Pulsed rectifiers
generate spikes of high current output many times per second. Chevron data shows
that polarization is actually slower, but the final polarized potential is much more
negative. Manufacturers claim that pulse technology uses four times less total
current output and allows the anode bed to be downsized by a comparable amount.
Pulsed rectifiers have been around for a number of years, but were not very cost
effective. Advanced electronic components have reduced the price from over $5,000
to under $2,500. A pulsed rectifier should be considered for deep or closely spaced
well casings or where reducing the anode bed size will provide a significant cost
savings.

1563 Power Sources

Well casings are often in remote areas without convenient access to external electrical power. Following are some alternatives:

August 1999

1.

Thermoelectric generators

2.

In-line turbines driven from gas flow

3.

Alternators driven by gas driven rotating equipment

1500-18

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

4.

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Solar systems

A detailed description of this subject is beyond the scope of this chapter.

1570 Well Completion Enhancements

There are two major completion related items that can enhance the performance of a
well casing CP system. The first is to make the negative lead connection at the
bottom of the well and run a lead wire to the surface (usually not practical). The
second is to externally coat as much of the casing as possible.
Cathodic protection has a very strong symbiotic relationship with coatings, both
organic and inorganic. This is because coatings reduce the effective surface area of
steel exposed to the environment. There are three compelling reasons to coat a well
casing:
1.

To ensure adequate protection to the total casing depth

2.

To reduce the current requirement

3.

To minimize interference

Coating well casings that are to be drilled in closely spaced clusters, onshore or
offshore, may be the only method that will allow protection to depth.

1571 Improved Primary Cement Jobs

The simplest thing that can be done to improve current distribution is to insist on a
complete coverage cement job. Cement will decrease the current requirement by a
factor of 20 over bare steel. Figure 1500-9 is a CPP log of a well that contains a DV
tool installed to improve cement coverage. Notice how flat the slope of the curve is
in the areas covered by cement and how steep the slope is in the areas not cemented.

1572 Factory Applied Organic Coatings

A factory applied organic coating is the most untraditional, yet effective method
available to improve the effectiveness of well casing CP. Current density and interference are greatly reduced thereby allowing protection to be extended to the bottom
of the casing. A FBE (fusion bonded epoxy coating) can reduce current densities on
the order of ten times lower than a cement coating and 200 times lower than
required for bare steel. There are four documented installations of well casings that
were externally coated before installation.
In 1960, United Fuel Gas of West Virginia drilled 10 wells to 2500 feet. The lower
900 feet of casing were externally coated. The wells were pulled after 18 months
and the coating examined. All of the coatings were field applied by hand, yet two of
the epoxy systems retained an amazing 95% coating integrity [7].
In 1970, Pacific Gas and Electric drilled 60 closely spaced gas storage wells to
5,400 feet. The casing was coated to depth with coal tar epoxy. Cathodic protection
current requirements have averaged 0.5 amps/well indicating a 95% to 98%

Chevron Corporation

1500-19

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

Fig. 1500-9 CPP Log of a Well with Improved Cement Coverage

effective coating system. No leaks have been experienced in an area where leak
history with bare casings is significant [7].
During the early 1980s, Sun completed nine of its 11,500 foot wells with FBE
coated casing. Two of the casings were pulled due to non related operational problems and the coating was examined. Other than a few scuffs, the FBE coating was
found to be in excellent condition [2].
In 1981, two Aramco wells were installed with FBE coated surface and intermediate casing to a depth of 4300 feet. The current requirement was reduced over six
times that of similar wells with bare casing strings. Two additional wells in a
closely spaced drilling island were installed with coated surface casings to a depth
of 4,800 feet. Results from the study showed that the closely spaced wells were
protected with less than 10% of the current required for a similar bare steel casing
despite:
1.

The production casing (4,800 ft to 6,150 ft) being run bare.

2.

The collars were bare.

3.

No effort was made to repair coating damage sustained during transport or

handling [7].

External coating has not caught on as a standard operating practice in the oilfield,
but is no longer an experimental technique. These case histories have shown that an
externally coated well casing with a good epoxy system such as FBE makes good
operating sense, especially in congested areas, deep wells, or corrosive areas. In the

August 1999

1500-20

Chevron Corporation

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

last 20 years the standard industry practice has been to apply an external organic
coating to all new pipelines. At a cost of about $1.75/ft2 for FBE, well casings
should be externally coated, too.

1580 Installation Guidelines

A well casing CP installation can be summarized as follows:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Chevron Corporation

Identify the candidate wells.

a.

Search well files.

b.

Record date and depth of leak (and other related well data).

c.

Use open hole logs to correlate leaks with specific geologic formations.

d.

Create a cumulative leak plot and estimate current/future repair cost.

e.

Verify cause of leaks with inspection logs.

Determine casing current requirement.

a.

Use Figure 1500-8 or Dabkowskis model.

b.

Install a pilot anode bed and energize.

c.

Use Schremp-Newtons model to adjust current on test wells.

d.

Log test wells 90 to 180 days after final adjustment.

Design and install the field-wide system.

a.

Determine the anode bed type and depth.

b.

Decide on the number of wells per anode bed.

c.

Calculate the number of anodes and amount of backfill.

d.

Estimate the total installed cost and run economic justification.

e.

Establish a time table and begin system installation.

Monitor and adjust the system.

a.

Energize anode beds and adjust to design current density.

b.

Check for interference on foreign wells and pipelines.

c.

Optionally run a CPP log to determine effects from the field wide system.

d.

Establish a monitoring, adjustment, and maintenance program.

1500-21

August 1999

1500 CP of Onshore Well Casings

Corrosion Prevention and Metallurgy Manual

1590 References
1.

Application of Cathodic Protection for Well Casings, RP-01-86, National

Association of Corrosion Engineers, March 1986.

2.

Gast, W. Has CP Been Effective in Controlling External Casing Corrosion for

Sun Exploration & Production Co.? A 20-Year Review Tells the Story!,
Corrosion 85, Paper 151, Boston, MA.

3.

Instruments for In-Place Evaluation of Internal and External Corrosion in

Casing and Tubing, 1C190, National Association of Corrosion Engineers,
1990.

4.

Casing Evaluation Services, Western Atlas International, Atlas Wireline

Services Catalog, 1985.

5.

Corrosion Evaluation, Schlumberger Product Catalog, January 1989.

6.

Davies, D.H., Niina, N., Sasaki, K., and Takeda, J. Diagnostic Surveys for
Well Casing Corrosion, Proceedings of the Second NACE International
Symposium, Milan, Italy, November 1989.

7.

Orton, M.D., Hamberg, A., and Smith, S.N. Cathodic Protection of Coated
Well Casing, Corrosion 87, Paper 66, San Francisco, CA.

8.

Hamberg, A. Well Casing Cathodic Protection Current Requirement Tests,

COFRC, Report TM88000494, April 1988.

9.

Townley, D. Well Casing Cathodic Protection: Modeling, Interference, and

Protection Criteria, COFRC, Report TM86001548, November 1986.

10. Townley, D. Cathodic Protection Mythology, COFRC, Report TM86000642,

May 1986.

August 1999

1500-22

Chevron Corporation