Chapter 4: Prejob Hole and Casing Preparations

and Mud Displacement Considerations

Introduction
One of the most important factors in obtaining a good primary cement job is properly
displacing the drilling fluid. If the mud is not properly displaced, channels and/or pockets
of mud may be left in the cemented annulus, which can lead to interzonal communication,
corroded casing, etc. The process of mud displacement has been studied at length by
many oil and service companies. The basic, generally agreed-upon factors that affect mud
displacement and some of the latest technology that has been developed to aid in this
process are listed below:

Basic Mud Displacement Factors

Most researchers agree that the following factors affect the process of mud displacement:
• mud conditioning
• pipe movement
• pipe centralization
• fluid velocity
• spacers and flushes
Properly applying best practices for mud displacement can ultimately determine the
success or failure of a cement job.

Mud Conditioning
The most important of these displacement factors is properly conditioning the drilling
fluid before cementing. The goal of the conditioning process seeks to circulate “Low
Mobility Mud” (Figure 4.1) to create a uniform viscosity profile across the entire annular
space. While circulating the drilling fluid, the objective is also to break up pockets of
gelled mud and get it moving before mixing and pumping the cement slurry.

1
 LOW
MOBILITY MOBILE
MUD
MUD

FILTRATE CEMENT

FILTRATE
FILTER
CAKE
FORMATION CASING

Fig. 4.1Cementing with Unconditioned Drilling Mud

Ideal drilling fluid properties that should be achieved before cementing a vertical well are
given in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 shows the recommended Yield Point (YP) for drilling fluids
used in highly deviated and horizontal wells. The recommended YP for deviated wells is
much higher than that for vertical wells. The high YP for deviated wells is necessary to
help ensure that solids do not settle out of the mud to the low side of the hole while
2
drilling the well. If solids settling from the mud is not prevented, a channel that can be
very difficult to remove can form on the low side of the annulus (Figure 4.2).

Table 4.1Recommended Drilling Fluid Properties for Vertical Wells

Property Recommended Preferred

2
Yield Point (lb/100 ft ) 10 or less 2

Plastic Viscosity (cp) 20 or less 15

Fluid Loss (cc/30 min) 15 5
Gel Strength (10 sec/10 min) Flat Profile*
*2/3 not 2/10

2
 Table 4.2Recommended Drilling-Fluid Surface
Yield Point for Deviated Wells
Deviation Angle Yield Point at 72°F
(°) (lb/100 ft2)
45 15
60 20
85 28
90 30

Fig. 4.2Solids Settling from Drilling Mud in Deviated Well

The ideal viscosity for cementing is often the opposite of what is needed for drilling and
logging. When possible, plastic viscosity (PV) should be lowered before cementing to help
ensure optimum mud displacement and successful construction of the well.
The fluid loss of a mud is directly related to the filter-cake thickness; the lower the fluid
loss, the thinner the filter cake. A thick mud filter cake is not wanted because it will not
bond well to cement and can lead to long-term gas migration. To minimize this filter-cake
thickness, a low fluid loss of the mud is recommended.
The 10 sec/10 min gel strengths are another important property of a drilling fluid that
should be checked and adjusted as needed. This property is determined by using a
standard viscometer that should be in any cementing or drilling fluids laboratory. The
values are obtained by letting the drilling fluid sit static for 10 seconds and then
measuring the maximum deflection at 3 rev/min. The drilling fluid is then left static again

3
for 10 minutes, and the procedure is repeated to measure the 3 rev/min deflection. Muds
with “flat” profiles, those in which not much increase is seen between the 10 second and
10 minute gel strengths, should not have rapid gel strength development downhole when
the mud is left static. Drilling fluids with sharp gel profiles (2/10) will likely be thixotropic
downhole. Thixotropic muds can be more difficult to condition and displace. For this
reason, a mud with a flat gel strength profile is recommended.

Pipe Movement
A fairly straightforward and relatively simple technique to aid in the mud displacement
process is to simply move the pipe while conditioning the mud (Figure 4.3). Full-scale
displacement tests2,3 have shown that simple pipe movement, either rotation or
reciprocation, can greatly improve the displacement of mud in an annulus (Table 4.3).

4
Fig. 4.3Pipe Movement

5
 Table 4.3Pipe Movement vs. Displacement Efficiency*
Pipe Movement Displacement Efficiency (%)
None 65
20 rev/min 97
* 16 lb/gal Drilling Mud, 16.7 lb/gal Cement Slurry, 4 bbl/min Pump
Rate, and 60% standoff

Although rotation or reciprocation have both been shown to help improve mud
displacement,2 rotation is recommended for highly deviated and/or horizontal liners. If
reciprocation is attempted, several problems may arise. First, the pipe may get stuck on
the upward stroke, leaving uncased open hole at the end of the liner. Reciprocation also
limits pipe movement to only prejob use, while rotation can be used before and during a
cement job. Drag forces of moving the pipe in and out of a highly deviated or horizontal
hole may make reciprocation either difficult or impossible. Finally, because centralizers
are typically used, rotation within a centralizer that is free floating across a casing joint or
casing attachment will allow the pipe to freely move without forcing the centralizer to
move. Reciprocation, however, will drag centralizers up and down the hole, causing extra
drag and possibly damaging the centralizer.
For cementing highly deviated or horizontal liners, pipe movement can be used one of
two ways. The first option is to use a rotating liner hanger and set it before conditioning
the drilling fluid. The pipe can then be rotated before and, if needed, during the pumping
and displacement of the cement slurry. The other option is to move the pipe, either
through rotation or reciprocation, before setting the liner hanger.

6
Centralization
Adequate centralization of the casing is a factor that will enhance good displacement in a
highly deviated or horizontal well. While pipe centralization is sometimes seen as optional
for vertical wells, it is a requirement for cementing under deviated conditions. If the pipe
is not mechanically centralized, the pipe will lay on the low side of the hole, making it
impossible to obtain a cement sheath that completely encircles the casing. Centralization
of the casing helps provide a uniform flow path around the entire circumference of the
casing so that the mud can be more readily displaced. Full-scale test results have shown
that the better a casing string is centralized, the better the displacement efficiency of the
well is going to be (Table 4.3). A minimum of 70% standoff for the liner is recommended
for cementing. The number of centralizers needed to achieve 70% standoff can be
calculated with any one of several commercially available centralizer programs. The
information needed to do this calculation is listed below:
• casing size and weight
• hole size
• type and strength of centralizer
Currently, two styles of centralizers are on the market. One is the rigid model with solid
blades, and the other is the bow-spring model. Each style has advantages and
disadvantages. These advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 4.4.

7
 Table 4.4Advantages and Disadvantages of Rigid and Bow-Spring Centralizers
Rigid Centralizers
Advantages Disadvantages
Fixed height. The centralizer can give a specified The rigid centralizer usually costs more than a bow-
amount of standoff at its location. spring centralizer.
No starting or running force is in the vertical section The running force of a rigid centralizer may be high in
of the hole. a deviated open hole.
Installation option: Certain models can be run over The rigid centralizer does not significantly reduce the
collars or limit clamps and pulled into the hole; or total number of centralizers needed for proper casing
with a collar or limit clamp located above the centralization.
centralizer, it can be pushed into the hole with little or
no variance in running force in a vertical hole.
Rotating and/or reciprocating the casing should be no
problem with a rigid centralizer.
Bow-Spring Centralizers
Advantages Disadvantages
Generally it is a less costly design when compared to Centralizer restoring force depends on proper
other systems. centralizer spacing, even at the centralizer location on
the pipe. Excessive forces caused by improper
spacing can flatten the springs, rendering the
centralizer useless.
It can be designed with minimum starting and running Casing can be rotated if the centralizer is not latched
forces with reduced restoring force. around a collar or limit clamp. Centralizers that are
latched around clamps or collars could be damaged
because the springs could hang up on the wellbore
face or have excessive metal-to-metal contact.
Reciprocation usually presents no problems.
Installation option: Centralizers can be installed over
a collar or limit clamp and pulled into the hole. They
can also be pushed into the hole with a collar or limit
clamp but will have increased running force.
It creates constant running force in open hole if
centralizers are pulled in. Proper centralization with
bow-spring centralizers also may give minimum drag
when running casing.

8
For cementing liners in highly deviated and horizontal holes, rigid centralizers are
recommended for centralization between casing and casing (in the liner lap), and bow-
spring centralizers are recommended for use in the open hole. When rotation of the pipe
is planned before and/or during the cement job, bow-spring centralizers should have a
“ring bearing” or “bearing surface” under the end rings of the centralizers to facilitate
rotation. Rigid centralizers typically already have this feature built in.

Fluid Velocity
The velocity at which the various fluids are pumped during the conditioning of the drilling
fluid and the actual job is a major factor in achieving good mud displacement. Fluids can
be pumped in one of three flow regimes listed below in order of flow speed:
1. turbulent flow
2. laminar flow
3. plug flow
Turbulent flow is the fastest of the three. In the oil industry it is generally agreed that
turbulent flow is the best flow regime for optimum mud displacement. Because of the
viscous nature of most cement slurries, it is usually impossible to conduct a cement job by
pumping the cement in turbulent flow without breaking down a formation. Therefore,
cement slurries usually are pumped in laminar flow.
The effects of fluid velocity have been studied considerably, both in full-scale
displacement simulations3 and in actual wells. The majority of the results from the full-
scale displacement studies have shown that the faster flow rate will provide better
displacement efficiency (Table 4.5). These results were confirmed in actual field testing
where the percent openhole volume was determined as a function of flow rate.4 Results
from these tests are given in Figure 4.4.

9
 Table 4.5: Fluid Velocity vs. Displacement Efficiency*
Pump Rate Displacement Efficiency
(bbl/min) (%)
1 48
4 75
7 98
* 12 lb/gal Drilling Mud, 16.8 lb/gal Cement

100
Displacement Efficiency (%)

90

80

70

60

50
30 50 70 90 110 130
Annular Velocity (m/min)

Fig. 4.4Annular Velocity vs. Displacement Efficiency In Actual Wells

Higher flow rate are believed to provide better displacement efficiency because higher
flow rates will equal higher shear force that a fluid applies to drilling fluid. The higher the
shear force, the more gelled drilling fluid that will be broken free and circulated in the
annulus. This concept has been substantiated5 in a recent SPE paper. Test results showed
that a given drilling fluid had a corresponding “erodibility factor,” which could be used to
calculate the amount of shear force required to “erode” partially dehydrated drilling mud.
SPE paper 350827 suggests that, when turbulent flow rates are not possible, a “tide flow”
cementing technique should be used to provide optimum mud displacement. This
technique relies on density difference and recommends pumping fluids at a slow pump
rate. In theory it is correct, but the effects of removing partially dehydrated gelled drilling
fluid and cuttings are not taken into consideration. Therefore, the tide flow theory should
not be used to improve displacement.

10
Maximizing fluid velocity is often beneficial, even in situations in which high flow rates
are not required for achieving good mud displacement. As can be seen from the results in
Table 4.6, higher flow rates used to displace oil-based drilling fluids improve the hydraulic
bond of the cement. Pumping at a faster rate of 7 bbl/min provided positive hydraulic
bonding. A similar job pumped at 2 bbl/min did not provide any hydraulic bond, even
when 10 times the amount of water-wetting surfactant was used in the flushes, which
were pumped ahead of the job. Therefore, it is recommended to always pump the cement
as fast as is safely possible.

Table 4.6Effect of Flow Rate With Oil-Based Mud

Rate Spacer Displacement Hydraulic Bond
(bbl/min) Efficiency (%) (psi)
2 20 bbl Oil with 10% C + 10% D 97 0
40 bbl Water with 10% C
7 20 bbl Oil with 1% C40 bbl 97 517
Water with 1% C

Spacers and Flushes

Spacers and flushes typically provide a dual purpose in a cement job. First, as the name
“spacer” implies, they can separate fluids that may be incompatible (the drilling fluid and
cement slurry). They also can aid in the displacement process. A single flush or spacer or
a combination of spacer(s) and flush(s), sometimes called “Spacer Trains,” can be
effectively used to help improve the displacement efficiency of a cement job.
The standard volume recommendation for vertical wells when the fluid is in turbulent
flow has been 800 to 1,000 ft of openhole annular fill or 10 minutes of contact time. For
highly deviated or horizontal liner jobs, the critical nature of the job and the extra long
openhole sections that can occur in extended reach horizontal wells can easily justify the
use of more than the minimum volume recommended for vertical wells.
The type of spacer or flush that is chosen for a given cement job depends on the following
factors:
1. Type of drilling fluid to be displaced
• water-based
• oil-based (synthetics such as Nova Plus)
2. Density of the drilling fluid and cement slurry and the hydrostatic pressure
requirements to control the well

11
3. Type of formations in open hole
• freshwater-sensitive zones containing shales, clays, or salt
• easily fractured or lost-circulation zones
• high-permeability formations
• saltwater flow formations
4. Required fluid properties
• low displacement rate for turbulent flow
• solids suspension stability at dynamic and static conditions
All of these factors should be considered when selecting a spacer, flush, or combination
of the two for a given cement job.
Flushes are typically unweighted and can be chemically reactive or nonreactive with mud
and cement. They are water-based or oil-based and usually are pumped in during
turbulent flow.
Since flushes are typically unweighted, they will readily go into turbulent flow. This
turbulent action greatly aids in mud displacement (Table 4.7). It has been found,
especially in deviated holes, that when solids settle out of a drilling fluid, a turbulent flow
flush is better able to clean out the settled solids than a viscous one. Apparently a viscous
fluid can suspend solids already in the fluid, but it is not very effective in picking up solids
that have settled on the low side of the annulus.

12
 Table 4.7Displacement Efficiency With and Without Flushes
Spacer Spacer/Cement Displacement Efficiency
Volume (%)
(bbl/bbl)

None 0/20 64

Water 10/10 82

Water 50 / 10 94

Super Flush 10/10 98

* 16.0 lb/gal Drilling Mud, 16.7 lb/gal Cement Slurry, 4 bbl/min Pump Rate

Common water-based flushes are listed below:

• Mud Flush, which contains a dispersant and surfactant
• water with surfactants, used to thin water-based muds
• solution of sodium silicate (Super Flush 100, 101, and 102)
• brine water (KCl , NaCl, formation brine, etc.)
The advantage of adding surfactants to flushes that thin drilling fluid is that they
chemically thin gelled mud as it is pumped in the well to help remove mud and improve
displacement efficiency.
Super Flush may do the following:
• enhance displacement efficiency
• help control gas migration by lowering the downhole fluid loss of cement
• counteract retarding effects of some drilling-fluid additives
• assist in controlling lost circulation
Sodium silicate flushes (such as Super Flush) can enhance displacement efficiency by
chemically reacting with the drilling fluid. Test results given in Table 4.8 demonstrate this
property. Super Flush can also help control gas migration by lowering downhole fluid loss
of the cement. The mechanism by which Super Flush lowers the fluid loss downhole is

13
that it first penetrates the drilling fluid filter cake when it is pumped through the openhole
section of the well. When the cement is then pumped in place after it, filtrate is lost from
the cement into the mud filter cake. Since sodium silicate reacts with calcium and the
filtrate from a cement slurry has substantial amounts of calcium in solution, a calcium
silicate precipitate forms in the filter cake that lowers the effective permeability of the
mud filter cake. Lowering fluid loss from a cement slurry is the primary means to help
control gas migration (Gas Migration Section in Chapter 2).
The reactive nature of sodium silicate also can counter the retarding effects of some
drilling fluid additives.
Super Flush can aid in the control of lost circulation and cement fallback. As the Super
Flush is pumped through the openhole section of the well, it can leak off into fractured
and/or unconsolidated formations where hole cement slurry may be lost during or after
placement of the cement. Because of the reactive nature of Super Flush with cement,
cement slurry that is lost to the same formation can gel when intermixed. This gelled
cement slurry can help prevent further losses to the formation. In more severe cases,
calcium chloride brine can be pumped ahead of Super Flush. When this is done, the
calcium chloride will first be lost to a fractured and/or unconsolidated formation followed
by Super Flush. When the two intermix in the formation, a calcium silicate precipitate will
form that can help seal off the lost circulation to the formation.
Caution: A minimum of 5 bbl of nonreactive spacer should always be pumped
between Super Flush and any reactive fluid, such as cement or calcium
chloride brine, to help prevent intermixing and premature gelation of fluids
during placement. Testing should also be conducted to see if the Super
Flush is reactive with the drilling fluid. If so, a nonreactive spacer should
be pumped between the Super Flush and the drilling fluid. Super Flush
should not be pumped in a potentially productive well from a formation
where lost circulation is anticipated. If the Super Flush reacts in a
producing formation, some production may be lost and it is nearly
impossible to clean out the damage caused by Super Flush.
Common flushes for oil-based muds (OBM) include the following:
• OBM base oil with surfactants for mud dispersion—N-Ver-Sperse O
• OBM base oil—such as diesel, mineral oil, synthetics, and ester
• solvents—such as xylene, Dope Buster ME+, and PARAGON 100 E+
Using the base oil of an OBM is convenient from an operations standpoint and helps
ensure compatibility of the flush with the OBM. The addition of surfactant(s) to the base
oil can aid in the cleaning and dispersion of the mud to help improve mud displacement.
Other more environmentally friendly oils can also be used. For less environmentally
sensitive areas, diesel or even xylene can be used effectively.

14
Spacers
Spacers can be weighted and are chemically nonreactive with mud and cement. They are
water-based or oil-based and can have turbulent flow with adjustable or viscous
rheological properties.
Since the primary function of a spacer is to separate incompatible fluids, spacers should
be designed to be compatible with a wide range of cement slurries and drilling fluids.
Compatibility testing should be conducted to help ensure that this is the case with a
specific drilling fluid for a given cement job.8 If the spacer is incompatible with the
drilling fluid, high interfacial viscosities may occur, causing excessive pumping pressures,
lost circulation, and/or even the premature termination of the cement job.

Weighted Spacers
Although most spacer systems can be mixed at around 9 lb/gal without weighting
material, they are often capable of being weighted up to 22 lb/gal. The need for weighted
spacers arises when cementing wells with high reservoir pressures. To maintain sufficient
hydrostatic pressure on the well during and after cementing, a weighted spacer may be
needed. Readily available weighting materials, such as barite, are typically the material
used to adjust the density of a spacer system. Several other materials, such as SSA-1,
SSA-2, MICROMAX LIQUID, and HI-DENSE No. 4, can also be used to obtain the
required density.
The density of the spacer should be somewhere between the density of the drilling fluid
and the density of the cement slurry directly behind it. So, for example, if a 14 lb/gal
drilling fluid is in a well that is to be cemented with 16 lb/gal cement, a 15 lb/gal spacer
would be recommended.

Spacer Rheology
Spacer systems are available with rheological properties which range from thin, turbulent
flow to very viscous. Various recommendations have been made in the industry as to
which is the best spacer rheology for mud removal. Latest technical information shows
that the ability of a spacer to displace drilling fluid is not so much related to whether the
spacer is turbulent, laminar, or plug flow but rather how much shear force it will provide
at a given flow rate5 (See Erodibility Technology in this chapter). Spacers should be
designed so that they will impart sufficient shear stress to displace the partially de-
hydrated drilling fluid at the planned pump rate of the job.

Spacer Testing
To properly design a spacer, several tests should be conducted to help ensure optimum
performance and help prevent problems during the job. Basic testing includes rheological
testing to determine the rheological properties of the spacer fluid.
In conjunction with the rheological testing, the spacer should be tested to help ensure that
it has proper solids-suspension properties.8 If the spacer does not have sufficient
suspension of the solids, settling could occur on the low side of the annulus while

15
pumping the job. This settling could have a detrimental effect on the displacement
efficiency of the job. Inadequate suspension of the solids also could cause settling in the
spacer on top of the liner after the job is complete. This settling could cause operational
problems, including stuck drillpipe on the liner top after the job. Testing procedures for
evaluating solids suspension properties are available in Appendix P of API SPEC 10,
“Specifications for Materials and Testing for Well Cements.” Also, a correlation has been
developed to determine the minimum pump rate needed to help prevent solids settling
from the spacers in highly deviated wellbores.9
Compatibility tests to help ensure that the spacer will not cause interfacial mixing
problems with the fluids before and after it are also important. The spacer should be
tested for interfacial compatibility both at room temperature and at elevated
temperatures.8

Oil-Based Drilling Fluid Spacers

When an oil-based drilling fluid is used, a transition from oil-based to water-based
(cement slurry) fluid occurs. When displacing the oil-based drilling fluid, the pipe should
be changed from an oil-wet to a water-wet condition to help the cement bond properly.
When water-based drilling fluids are used, the spacer system used with it should also be
water-based. When oil-based drilling fluids are used, however, either a water-based
spacer with surfactants or oil-based spacer can be used.
Oil-based spacers are naturally compatible with oil-based drilling fluids. However, when
an oil-based spacer is used, it should be followed by some type of water-based spacer that
is compatible with the cement slurry and will leave the pipe water-wet. This need for
another spacer can add to the complexity of the cement job.
Water-based spacers with surfactants, such as DUAL SPACER, are the most common
spacer system used with oil-based drilling fluids. Common water-based spacers are used
with the addition of special surfactants to make the fluid compatible with the oil-based
drilling fluid and to leave the pipe and formation water-wet. When water-based spacers
are used with OBM, it is essential to properly test and design the spacer to help ensure
that it will be compatible with the OBM and leave the pipe and formation water-wet.
Recommended testing includes compatibility testing of the spacer with OBM and cement
slurry at surface and elevated temperatures. Conduct compatibility testing to help ensure
that, when the spacer intermixes with the OBM and cement slurry, high interfacial
viscosities are not created. Once it has been established that the spacer is compatible with
both the drilling fluid ahead and the cement (or other fluid) behind, additional tests should
be conducted to help ensure that the formation is left water-wet.
Some additional testing may be required for special situations. When the BHCT is above
250°F, it is recommended that a contaminated thickening-time test be run. Test the
planned cement slurry with 10% spacer contamination to see if the thickening time is
shortened. If it is shortened, then the retarder should be added to the spacer and the
thickening-time test repeated until it equals or exceeds the non-contaminated slurry
thickening time. Normally, when cement slurry is diluted/contaminated with another fluid,

16
it will lengthen the thickening time. At elevated temperatures, however, when the cement
slurries contain large amounts of retarder, the contamination of a fluid with no retarder in
the water phase can dilute the retarder concentration sufficiently to compensate for the
dilution effect on the slurry and actually shorten the time it takes the cement to hydrate.
Also, if retarder is added, check the spacer again to help ensure that it has sufficient
suspension properties because cement retarders typically have a thinning effect on spacer
fluids.

Mixing Spacer Fluid

A properly mixed spacer is critical for optimum job performance. Bulk blending of dry
materials, mixing a spacer, and pumping it immediately (“on the fly”) is an acceptable
method for mixing spacers. The spacer gelling materials should be sufficiently yielded to
provide viscosity and suspension by the time it is pumped in the liner downhole.
In situations in which the spacer will be batch mixed, the order in which the spacer fluid
is mixed is important to provide proper rheological properties and to help minimize
foaming. The materials used in the spacer system should be mixed in the following order:
1. water
2. any additional viscosifying materials if used
3. defoamer (if needed)
4. spacer blend mixed in the tank for 15 to 20 minutes
5. weighting material
6. defoamer (if needed)
7. salt (KCl, NaCl, etc. if used)
8. retarder, fluid loss additive, etc. (if used)
9. surfactants (if used) with minimal agitation (1/2 defoamer added before surfactants)
10. additional defoamer as needed
Defoamer is added before adding the spacer blend to help release air that is entrapped in
the spacer blend.10 The spacer blend and viscosifying materials should be recirculated
and/or agitated for 15 to 20 minutes to allow for gelling materials to yield. This is
necessary to help ensure that the spacer has the designed viscosity and that the weighting
material will be properly suspended before, during, and after the job. If a salt (NaCl, KCl)
is used, foaming can be prevented or minimized by adding more defoamer to the spacer
before adding the salt. Blend in other additives, such as retarder or fluid-loss additives,
next to last. Finally, add any surfactants that may be used to provide compatibility with
oil-based mud last, with minimal agitation to minimize any foaming. This could include
shutting off the recirculation pump and slowing any paddle agitators. Mix the spacer
completely 30 minutes before the actual job to help ensure the fluid has had time to reach
equilibrium in regards to its rheological properties.

17
Circulatable Hole Technology
Mud conditioning is an important factor in obtaining good mud displacement and a
successful cement job. In the past, the method used to determine how long to condition
the drilling fluid and when the well was ready to be cemented was one of several “rules of
thumb,” such as circulating bottoms up twice or circulating the well for a given period of
time. Displacement studies have shown that the “rules of thumb” method may be
unreliable in determining when a well is ready to cement.11,12 More quantitative methods
have been used to determine when the drilling fluid is properly conditioned and the well is
ready to be cemented. These include the “tag” or “dye tracer” methods. These methods
involve putting a dye or other marker in the drilling fluid and then circulating the fluid
into the well. When the dye or marker is detected in the return line, the volume of mud
that is actually circulating in the well is determined based on the well geometry, openhole
caliper log, and the volume of mud circulated. The use of tags and dye tracers, however,
is time consuming and often not very accurate.
Recently, a more reliable method has been developed to continuously estimate the
circulatable hole (the percentage of openhole mud volume that is actually moving during
the conditioning of the drilling fluid) while the drilling fluid is being conditioned before
cementing.11, 12 This technology helps to provide an operator knowledge of when
circulation of the drilling fluid at a given rate is no longer providing additional benefit
(when the percentage of mud circulating in the hole is no longer increasing) and/or when
the well is ready to be cemented. With this information, the circulation rate can be
increased and/or other techniques can be applied by an operator to help improve the
percent of circulatable hole on a real-time basis, thereby helping to eliminate wasted,
costly rig time. This technique also helps ensure that a given well is, in fact, ready to be
cemented with all or most of the drilling fluid actually moving before cementing.
This method of measuring the percentage of drilling fluid that is moving in a given well
has been called “Circulatable Hole Technology.” The means by which the percentage of
circulatable hole is estimated is based on wellhead pressure measurements, the flow rate
of the drilling fluid while conditioning, and the wellbore geometry. The calculation is
simply based on the pressure drop that should occur in the openhole section of the
annulus. If the hole has 100% of the drilling fluid circulating, a certain pressure drop for
the openhole section can be calculated at a given flow rate. If less than 100% of the
drilling fluid is moving, the annulus will be smaller and the pressure drop across that
annulus will be higher.
The software used to calculate the percentage of circulatable hole calculates the flowing
annular size of the openhole section based on surface pressure readings and calculates the
percent of circulatable hole based on the actual hole size. The effect of conditioning the
mud with and without pipe movement on the displacement efficiency in actual wells is
shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6.

18
 Pseudo-Displacement Efficiency (%)
Wellhead Pressure (100 psi) Efficiency
Flow Rate (bbl/min) 10 100

8 Rate 80

6 60

Pressure
4 40

2 20

0 0
0 30 60 90 120
Time (min)

Fig. 4.5Wellhead Pressure vs. Pseudo-Displacement Efficiency

Pseudo-Displacement Efficiency (%)

Wellhead Pressure (100 psi)

10 100
Efficiency
Flow Rate (bbl/min)

8 Rate 80

6 60
Pressure
4 40

2 20
Designates Pipe Movement
0 0
0 30 60 90 120
Time (min)

Fig. 4.6Wellhead Pressure vs. Pseudo-Displacement Efficiency with Pipe Movement

19
Erodibility Technology
Another recently developed cement displacement technology that can greatly aid in
achieving a good cement job is the Erodibility Technology.5 The Erodibility Technology
provides a means to determine how fast a given fluid (spacer) must be pumped to “erode”
drilling fluid, in its various forms, from the annulus. While drilling fluid is typically
characterized by density and rheological properties, it can exist downhole as whole,
gelled, partially dehydrated gelled, and filtercake. Eroding whole drilling fluid from an
annulus by circulation is usually much easier than eroding the same drilling fluid that has
gelled (because of sitting static for some time) or has partially dehydrated (because of
fluid loss to the formation). Erodibility Technology provides a means of quantifying the
force needed to erode a given mud in its various forms in a given geometry and percent of
standoff (centralization) of a casing string. Knowing the force needed to erode drilling
fluid from an annulus provides a means of calculating how fast a given fluid, with specific
plastic viscosity and yield point, should be pumped to erode the drilling fluid (Table 4.8).
The following examples should aid in understanding how this technology is applied.
With a drilling fluid that requires 30 lb/100 ft2 shear stress to be removed, a casing
standoff of 70%, and a spacer with a PV of 15 and a YP of 7, it takes a flow rate of 8.7
bbl/min to remove 100% of the drilling fluid. This increases to 9.5 bbl/min when the
standoff is reduced to 60%. When the spacer viscosity is increased to provide a PV of 30
and a YP of 12, the flow rate required for 100% drilling fluid removal drops to 7.4
bbl/min. When the shear stress required to remove the mud can be reduced from 30 to 20
lb/100 ft2, the flow rate required to remove the gelled mud can also be greatly reduced.
With 70% standoff and a spacer with a YP of 30, the required rate to remove 100% of
the mud is 3.3 bbl/min.
The benefits of the erodibility technology are that it provides a means to help determine
fluid properties and flow rates required to get 100% mud removal for a specific mud and
set of well conditions.

20
 Table 4.8Erodibility, Fluid Rheology, and Flow Rate Comparison;
7-in. Casing in 8.5-in. Hole*
Flow Rate To Erode Drilling Fluid
Shear Casing Spacer YP Density 60% 80% 100%
Stress Standoff PV Eroded Eroded Eroded
(lb/100 ft2) (lb/gal)
2
(lb/100 ft ) (%) (cp) (bbl/min) (bbl/min) (bbl/min)
30 70 15 7 17.0 4.7 6.7 8.7
30 60 15 7 17.0 5.2 7.3 9.5
30 70 30 12 17.0 3.0 5.1 7.4
30 60 30 12 17.0 3.8 6.1 8.1
20 70 15 7 17.0 3.7 5.2 6.8
20 60 15 7 17.0 4.0 5.7 7.4
20 70 30 12 17.0 1.3 2.2 3.3
20 60 30 12 17.0 1.9 3.2 4.8
* 16.9 lb/gal Drilling Fluid, PV = 30, YP = 13

21