Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

SPE 115638

Advanced Cement Systems Used to Improve Geothermal Well Reliability in


Java
K. Ravi, M. Fukuzawa, W.J. Hunter, SPE, Halliburton; A. Isvan Noerdin, Star Energy

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.

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
An operator developing a geothermal field to generate and provide electricity in Indonesia focused on minimizing the
potential for failure of planned wells throughout the expected field life. One of the main areas where this effort was directed
was in the design and execution of primary cementing jobs during well construction. Wells drilled and completed earlier, in
Phase I, were found to suffer from various wellbore integrity issues. Inspection log data and cement job records from existing
wells suggest the zonal isolation problems experienced on earlier wells may have been related to (1) structural failure of the
conventional cement sheaths used and/or (2) ineffective cement slurry placement caused by poor hole cleaning of the drilling
fluid and/or (3) ineffective removal of drill cuttings from the well during the hole cleaning.
Structural damage to the cement sheath can sometimes be in the form of debonding at the casing, formation interfaces,
cement sheath cracking, and/or compressive shear. The damage can be caused by stresses on the cement sheath brought on by
well events such as cement hydration, well completion, and steam production. These events change the temperature and
pressure under which the cement slurry is placed and cured. If these changes are severe, the cement sheath may be damaged,
leading to zonal isolation failure.
After detailed analysis, and by using an integrated design approach to effectively address the challenges identified, it was
decided to use innovative elastic cement systems incorporating various mechanical property enhancement additives expected
to withstand the predicted well operations with less possibility of failure than conventional cements.
These advanced cement systems were placed in the planned development using conventional cementing equipment.
Industry-recognized best practices were also used to maximize mud displacement and enhance hole cleaning. These wells
were steamed, and no wellbore integrity issues have been reported. Additional benefits observed while using the advanced
cement systems in these applications include a reduction in lost circulation and significantly reduced wellhead growth.

The Wayang Windu Power Project


Located 40 km south of Bandung, in West Java, the Wayang Windu power-generation project is operated by Magma
Nusantara Limited (MNL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Star Energy. It is managed under a joint operation contract (JOC)
with Pertamina to develop geothermal resources within the 12,960 hectare contract area (Fig. 1). An energy sales agreement
between MNL, Pertamina, and PLN (a state-owned utility company) gives Star Energy the exclusive right to develop up to
400 MW of electricity-generating capacity over a period of 42 yearswith each generating unit being scheduled to operate
for at least 30 years. The JOC has the potential to ultimately deliver more than 650 MW of base-load electricity.
Phase I of the Wayang Windu has been producing power since June of 2000. The Phase I power plant has the biggest
single geothermal turbine in the world, and is currently delivering 110 MW of electricity into the Indonesian national grid.
Geothermal fluids are gathered from three wellpads where 10 production wells are located. This geothermal fluid is
transported to a centralized separator station. From there, the separated steam is delivered to the power station by two main
steam pipelines (approximately 0.5 km) through two scrubbers located at the station boundary. Brine plus any excess
condensate is then reinserted into the ground.
At this time, development of Phase II (a second 110 MW unit) is well underway. Drilling of Phase II wells was completed
in 2007 (Fig. 2) and the Phase II power plant is expected to be operational by early 2009.
Potential for significant field expansion was observed during the development drilling for Phase II with some wells
testing at more than 40 MWe.
A significant factor in the decision to invest in Phase II at Wayang Windu was the potential revenue from CO2 emission
credits that will be generated by the project. Geothermal electricity generation has much lower greenhouse gas emissions than
2 SPE 115638

almost any other method of electricity generation (Fridleifsson et al. 2008). This means that the project, when certified by the
United Nations, can generate greenhouse gas "credits." These credits have a significant monetary value when they are traded
in world markets where they can be purchased by polluting industries to offset their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Fig. 1Map of Wayang Windu JOC.

Fig. 2Phase II wells planned.

The Well Construction Challenges of Phase I


When high-temperature wells such as geothermal wells are completed and operated, there is a risk the wells may fail because
of thermal and/or corrosive effects. When these failures occur, they can be potentially catastrophic, and the loss of production
SPE 115638 3

and repair costs can weigh heavily against the success of the entire project. These types of failures in geothermal wells have
been documented and categorized, and some measures to mitigate them have been proposed (Merz 2005).
The geothermal temperature in the Wayang Windu wells range from 250300C, depending on depth (Fig. 3), and the
wells are all expected to experience extreme thermal cycling during their life. Therefore, life-of-well reliability is a key issue.
Casing inspection logs undertaken on Phase I wells in 2001 (one year after the plant became operational) reported
significant anomalies (or zonal isolation problems) in 17 of 21 wells examined. These anomalies ranged from collapsed
casing to evidence of extensive corrosion, and even fluid movement. Table 1 provides a summary of the anomalies noted.
Although the Phase I power plant continues to operate with these anomalies in its feeder wells, the conditions are not
ideal. Therefore, in the planning stage for the Phase II wells, it was resolved to try and eliminate the reoccurrence of any such
anomalies in Phase II of the project. A collaborative effort was undertaken by the operating company and the service
company to study the possible causes for the anomalies in Phase I and put the necessary measures in place to help prevent
reoccurrence.

Fig. 3Static Geothermal profile of 9 Wayang Windu Wells.


4 SPE 115638

Table 12001 Wayang Windu Phase I Wells


Anomalies Observed during Casing Inspection/Logging Program
(21 wells logged)
Anomaly Type Number of Phase I Wells With Anomaly
Collapse 9
Buckling 10
Fluid Movement 4
Split/Parted Casing 4
Corrosion 3
Restrictions in Couplings 1
No Significant Anomaly Reported 4

Cause of Anomalies in Phase I Wells


After jointly reviewing the casing inspection log information, the service company and operator personnel also undertook a
study of the cement job records from the Phase I drilling campaign to search for causes of the later zonal isolation problems.
A typical Phase I well is shown in Fig. 4. The two key casing strings are 13 3/8 in. and 20 in. both of which are cemented in
place. The well design requires both of these casing strings to be cemented to surface. Conventional oil and gas well lead and
tail cement slurry systems were used to achieve this objective. The lead cement is formulated at 12.5 lbm/gal and the tail
cement is 15.8 lbm/gal.
Some key facts were observed from the study:
Lost returns were a feature of both the drilling and cementing phases of well construction.
In Phase I, the objective of getting the cement slurry to the surface was not achieved for any of the primary cement
jobs for which records were available.
Attempts were made to back fill the annulus on these casing strings with multiple top jobs.
Because of the lost circulation, relatively slow displacement rates were used.

Fig. 4Typical Well Completion Unit 1 Well 19971998


SPE 115638 5

Lost Circulation and Top Jobs Caused Trapped Fluid Effect


The leading Phase I anomaly noted in the 2001 casing inspection program was casing buckling, which was observed in 10 of
21 wells inspected. This was closely followed in frequency by casing collapse (which occurred in 9 of 21 wells). Buckling by
itself may not lead to or mean a well has failed, but it may increase the rate of casing wear and therefore, leaks and loss of
pressure containment. Contributing factors to casing buckling are identified below (Heidbrier and Urech 2004):
Temperature changes
Internal and/or external pressure changes
Internal and/or external fluid density changes
Washouts
Slack off weight
Long uncemented sections

Casing collapse can have a more serious effect on the operational life of a wellsevere cases can choke the well
efficiency by up to 50% or more. Casing collapse in thermal wells can be caused when liquid is trapped in some way in the
casing-to-casing annulus of a well. As this liquid is heated up, it expands enough to exceed the collapse resistance of the
casing.
It is widely known in well design and construction that trapped fluid in the casing-to-casing annulus of a well should be
avoided. However, the routine practice of performing multiple top jobs on Phase I wells probably led to fluid being trapped
with void space left between the top of the primary cement and the base of the initial top out cement job. The evidence of the
large percentage of wells from Phase I with collapsed casing supports this theory.

Low Displacement Rates and Non-Optimized Mud Displacement Caused Channels


Low Displacement Rates and Non-Optimized Mud Displacement Caused Channels
Industry best practices can be used to maximize drilling fluid displacement efficiency. These best practices are listed below:
Condition the drilling fluid.
Use spacers and flushes.
Move the pipe.
Centralize the casing.
Maximize the displacement rate.

Generally, it is not possible to optimize all five of these factors at the same time, and tradeoffs between each of them may
be required. Examination of the cement job records from Phase I indicate lost circulation that occurred during drilling caused
limited mud conditioning times and relatively low displacement rates to be used during cement jobs. With these two key
factors being less than optimal, there is no evidence that the other three factors were maximized to compensate. This would
likely lead to uncemented channels in the annulus filled with dehydrated drilling fluid. This would likely contribute to the
high percentage of casing anomalies observed during later casing inspection, either through the mechanism of trapped fluid
expansion or possible asymmetrical loading of the casing (Flekenstein et al. 2005).

Mechanical Failure of Conventional Cement under Thermally Induced Loading


The thermally induced loads on the cement sheath in the well can be extreme in geothermal wells such as these. From the
time the casing is cemented in place to the time at which it is first produced, the casing can be subjected to a temperature
increase of up to 300F. The well may be cycled through such temperature increases and decreases many times. Under these
conditions, the cement sheath may fail. In 2002 a method was developed where finite element analysis (FEA) based
methodology can be used to model these conditions in a well and evaluate the remaining capacity of a cement sheath after
being subjected to various operations (Ravi and Bosma 2002). The work that led to this method concluded that there is no
one-size-fits-all solution, and that every unique situation must be examined individually to determine the best cement sheath
solution for that application.
Since that time, this method has been used globally to model and to examine the effects of predicted stresses on many
different types of challenging wells. This use includes the examination of planned geothermal-well cement sheaths and the
expected failure mechanisms (McCulloch et al. 2003).
This was not widely recognized when the Phase I wells were drilled, so they were cemented with conventional oil and gas
well cement systems designed for short-term slurry placement properties and the sole mechanical property of compressive
strength. It is likely that even if complete displacement efficiency had been achieved for the Phase I wells, (with a full
column of cement slurry to surface), failure of the sheath may have occurred under the operational loadings these geothermal
wells. This phenomenon is likely responsible for some of the casing inspection anomalies observed.

Fluid Flow and Corrosion


Pressure temperature sonde (PTS) logs in four of the wells indicated possible fluid movement behind the casing. In three of
the wells, corrosion was also noted. These anomalies are believed to relate to the three causes identified above.
6 SPE 115638

Wellhead Growth
In thermal wells, it is not unusual for wellhead growth to occur. This phenomenon occurs when the production casing to
which the wellhead is attached expands vertically. For Phase I wells in operation, wellhead growth was measured from 1540
cm. With everything else being equal, larger wellhead growth is expected to occur in casing strings that are not bonded well
to the cement sheath when compared to casing strings that are bonded well.

Measures Implemented to Avert Anomalies in Phase II Wells


Twelve wells were planned for the Phase II drilling campaign, two to help feed the Phase I power plant, and ten to feed the
new Phase II power plant. The measures that were implemented in a comprehensive effort to eliminate anomalies on these
wells are described below. The design of a typical Phase II well is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5Typical design of Phase II wells.

Application of Mud Displacement Best Practices


The study of Phase I cementing reports and well inspection logs clearly highlighted the need for focus on the application of
mud displacement best practices in Phase II. No matter how well any engineered cementing system is designed, it must be
placed using best practices if complete mud removal is to occur. Detailed best practices are shown in Table 2 in scorecard
format. The key feature of this format is that it recognizes that it may not be practical to implement all best practices at all
times. It allows the user to compensate for best practices that cannot be implemented by focusing on those that can with the
objective in this case of maximizing the target score and achieving a target score of at least 40. Mud displacement best
practice optimization was used in the Phase II wells with good results.
SPE 115638 7

Table 2Cementing Best Practices Scorecard


8 SPE 115638

Advanced Cement System


FEA-based modeling and analysis was undertaken for an example Phase II well and the remaining capacity of various
sealants was compared (Fig. 6). Five different sealants were examined, and the ability of the sealants to withstand selected
operations in the example well was modeled. Sealant 1 failed after all operational loading conditions. Sealants 2 and 4 had
fairly low remaining capacity after well production was modeled, while Sealant 3 failed during this operation. As can be
seen, an optimized elastic thermal-cement system (also known as ACS) was found to offer superior remaining capacity.
Remaining capacity is an estimate of how far the cement sheath is from its elastic limit (the point of failure) which can be
considered a measure of safety factor. The larger this value is, the higher the safety factor will be, and hence, the higher the
probability that the cement sheath will withstand the predicted cyclic well operations. This Portland-based cement system
was therefore selected and recommended for use on Phase II of the project. It was a single cement system designed to suit the
specific conditions of the projectoptimized not only for short-term placement properties, but also geothermal temperatures
and long-term mechanical properties.
The stress-strain data for the ACS is shown in Fig. 7. The Youngs modulus value from the tests is 0.393x106 psi. This
compares with typical unmodified Youngs modulus values of ~ 1.5 x 106 psi.
Cylinders of the ACS were photographed after the tests were completed. Fig. 8 shows the cylinders at the end of the tri-
axial test. This demonstrates that the sample did not fail catastrophically, and to a naked eye, the sample seems intact. The
characteristics of this cement system can also be seen in Fig. 7. The stress-strain curve does not end abruptly after the elastic
regime, and goes into ductile regime.
The ACS was used to cement the 13-3/8 inch casing string in these wells as shown in Table 3.

Sealant 1 Sealant 2 Sealant 3 Sealant 4

Fig. 6Remaining capacity of different sealants for Wayng Windu Geothermal Well Case (risk of damage over load phases).
SPE 115638 9

Fig. 7Stress-strain plot for ACS in tri-axial cell.

Fig. 8Cylinders of advanced cement systems (ACS) after testing in tri-axial.

Fig. 9Wayang Windu first Phase II well producing steam sufficient to generate 40 MWe, wellhead to right showing a WHP of 15 bar
with steam rising from the rock muffler in the background. (IGA News No. 67 JanFeb. 2007.)
10 SPE 115638

Phase II Results
The first well drilled in Phase II achieved production of 72 kg/s dry steam at a wellhead pressure of 15 bar (see Fig. 9). This
well was directionally drilled to 1377 m MD, with a 12 1/4-in production hole. Production is from a widespread two-phase
reservoir that overlies a brine reservoir in the northern part of the field. The production from this first well is equivalent to
more than 40 MWe, and was demonstrated during an extended well test. According to information available to the public, this
actually makes it the worlds largest capacity dry-steam well. Each of the other four Phase I wells, drilled from the same pad,
produce on average only half as much as the first Phase II well. Based on the better-than-expected deliverability of the Phase
II wells, it proved possible to reduce the number of wells required to feed the Phase II power plant from ten to six.
Table 3 details the 13 3/8-in. production casing wellhead elongation or growth records from the Phase II wells drilled
on the project (Fig. 10). The wellhead growth ranges from 1 cm to 7.4 cm, significantly less than the 1540 cm range seen
with the Phase I wells. It is worth noting that Well 7 of the 8-well series was cemented with conventional cement, not the
ACS, and is also showing favorable wellhead growth. This indicates that perhaps the application of good cementing practices
and mud displacement is currently playing a greater role in the lower wellhead growth. Any changes in this will be worth
tracking as the wells undergo more cycles over time.
In Phase II wells where the 13 3/8-in. liner and tieback string was used, only two (Well 1 and Well 2) had the lower liner
string cemented with the ACS material. When used on these strings, a possible additional benefit of the material was
indicated, specifically the ability to reduce lost circulation. Typically, with this type of geothermal well configuration in Java,
it is not possible to achieve cement slurry returns on the initial primary liner job and a liner lap squeeze is necessary to
provide cement coverage in the liner lap. Table 4 provides details of this phenomenon from a similar project in Indonesia.
In the first well, where the ACS was used to cement the lower liner, some cement returns were noted during the primary
cementation. The liner lap still required squeezing on this first well, but the fact that there were returns provided some
indication that the selected and optimized materials in the ACS were possibly acting as a bridging or LCM package. For the
next well, again cement returns above the top of liner were achieved. This time a good liner lap test was also achieved on this
well (Fig. 11), negating the requirement for the time and expense of a squeeze job.

Table 313 3/8-in. Production Casing Elongation Record for Phase II


Well Elongation Cement for Lower 13 3/8-in. Csg/Liner Cement for Upper 13 3/8-in. Csg/Tieback
1 7.4 cm ACS 13.5 lb/gal Conventional 14.0 lb/gal
2 3.0 cm ACS 13.0 lb/gal Conventional 14.0 lb/gal
3 1.0 cm Conventional 14.0 lb/gal ACS 13.5 lb/gal
4* 3.3 cm ACS 14.0 lb/gal ACS 14.0 lb/gal
5 2.7 cm Conventional 14.0 lb/gal ACS 14.0 lb/gal
6 4.9 cm Conventional 14.0 lb/gal ACS 14.0 lb/gal
7 3.6 cm Conventional 14.0 lb/gal Conventional 16.2 lb//gal
8 3.5 cm Conventional 14.0 lb/gal ACS 14.0 lb/gal
*Single casing cemented in 2 stages. All others cemented with liner and tieback string.
SPE 115638 11

Fig. 10Measurement of wellhead growth in Phase II well.

Table 4 shows previous results from geothermal liner cementing operations in Java that illustrate the necessity for liner
lap squeeze with conventional cement systems.

Table 4Results from Geothermal Liner Cementing Operations in Java Illustrate Necessity for Liner Lap
Squeeze with Conventional Cement Systems
Well. No. Lap Squeeze, psi
Per Job, bbl Number Total, bbl
A 85 1 85 650
B 100 2 200 650
C 100 2 200 650
E 50 1 50 650
F 50 1 50 650
12 SPE 115638

Fig. 11Successful liner lap pressure test for Phase II Well 2, indicating no requirement for liner lap squeeze.

Conclusions
The careful applications of ACS and cementing best practices have improved the reliability of the wells drilled as
part of Phase II of the Wayang Windu geothermal project.
Significantly less wellhead growth has been reported in Phase II than experienced with the Phase I wells.
There is evidence that some of the selected materials used to optimize the Advanced Cement System may also help
achieve full circulation of cement slurry where not previously possible, which would also contribute to the reduction
of any remedial work.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Star Energy and Halliburton for permission to publish this paper. The help and
encouragement of all those involved in the successful outcome of this project is greatly appreciated.

References
Fleckenstein, W.W., Eustes, A. W., Rodriguez, W. J., Berger, and Sanchez, F.J. 2005. Cemented Casing: The True Stress Picture. Paper
AADE-05-NTCE-14 presented at the National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 57 April.
Fridleifsson, I.B., Bertani, R., Huenges, E., Lund, J.W., Ragnarsson, A., and Rybach, L. 2008. The possible role and contribution of
geothermal energy to the mitigation of climate change. Paper presented at IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources
Proceedings, Lbeck, Germany 2025 January.
Heidbrier, D., and Urech, Beau. 2004. Oilfield Tubular Buckling. Presentation at Lone Star Steel Company, 7 April.
McCulloch, Gastineau, Bour, and Ravi, 2003. Life Cycle Modeling of Wellbore Cement Systems Used for Enhanced Geothermal System
Development. Geothermal Resource Council Meeting, Morelia, Mexico, 1215 October.
Ravi, K. and Bosma, M. 2002. Safe and Economic Gas Wells through Cement Design for Life of the Well. Paper SPE 75700 presented at
the Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April2 May.
Southon, J. NA, Merz, S.K. 2005.Geothermal Well Design, Construction and Failures. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Antalya,
Turkey, 2429 April.

Potrebbero piacerti anche