Following my CemPRO+ review post a little more than two years ago, I have broadened my knowledge of this cementing application, not only providing engineering and post-job analysis to my customers but also and during some time, actively designing cement jobs in an ongoing busy operation. Furthermore, I even found myself in the middle of a heated debate to validate CemPRO+ as a fully functional simulation model for temperature prediction (BHCT) and cement coverage.
In summary, I am now unquestionably more CemPRO+ savvy today than I was before when first used the software, puzzling years of CemCADE addiction, breaking paradigms in my mind, while getting accustomed to a different workflow, look and feel, but ultimately later finding out that similar functionalities can always come with a whole new sense of enjoyment and work satisfaction.
In 2016, I experimented with CEMPRO+ (version 18.104.22.168) for the first time.
Now, in this review, CEMPRO+ (Net C1 version 5.1.0) is put to test fulfilling my obligation to my customers, who deserve meaningful answers to their most relevant questions: why the cement job failed? And what to do to succeed next time?
Can CemPRO+ still help? Let’s see.
Normally, the most time-consuming part of the post-job analysis is uncovering the circumstances a job has been actually performed, what changes have taken place in terms of properties of fluids, wellbore condition, rates and surface results (fluid returns, pressure, hookload, etc.). Once that is complete, there’s the turn of CemPRO+ to assist, time to sit in front of my computer to build a representative model. There is no time to waste with lateral features or fighting with limited functionalities, all kicking the user out of the critical path.
But, how is the new CemPRO+ responding?
In this initial phase, the work of the engineer must be swift, there should not be hurdles or the need to abridge the description of the well to something the software can accept. Why the casing shoe must be deeper than the previous casing shoe? (1) Or Why so many inputs? If they refer to the same thing, why they are not all linked or updated to the last value entered either in the basic or the detailed input tab. Honestly, I was a little frustrated at this moment, after all my work was not exempted from the customary rush of our industry. Furthermore, finding myself going back and forth at the mercy of the new CemPRO+ workflow was a bit unexpected.
However, I see the benefits of data input by levels (Well > Section > Case). I first experienced this idea with LANDMARK OptiCem™, a concept that supports collaboration in a project with several users and specialties working together, making more efficient and simplifying data input. At the solo level, the geniality relies on the capacity to create versions at the case level and add further sections, without the need to reintroduce the high-level well data again while keeping all in a single file. This is definitely worth the effort put in by the PVI team, however, some more work is required to keep the workflow moving forward naturally.
I believe it is time for one of my theories, but only to provide some positive remarks. Fundamentally, the team that developed CemPRO+ has always been devoted to their customers. I already said this in my previous review: “something I like a lot (about CemPRO+) is the fact that feedback from customers is always taken into account when developing new versions”. This is positive; however, I am starting to think that some of the features or extra-functionalities have been introduced mainly to embellish the user interface or to prove a point like it was computationally possible or a programming challenge perhaps, without consciously looking at the cementing engineering standpoint as a whole.
Let me give some perspective here – What do I do? – Well, I only face software input after the whole idea of what I want to achieve is drafted on paper. Yes, I am old school and I do my little drawing with all the casing data, capacities, fluids and volumes to achieve the primary objectives, like the top of cement, what formation to cover, highlighting trouble areas in the open hole, restriction in pipes, etc. Once the sketch is clear, the software portion later becomes an extension of my mind, and It has to flow in that same natural way, progressively buildings blocks of the model.
Do I need the software to make the whole experience easier for me? with countless drop-down selections, alternatives or side-functionalities. Not really.
I dedicated a few lines to the same thing in my last review: “this (avoiding extra-input features) would make the data entering process more comfortable and more focused on the relevant parameters.”
The only reason for simulation software is to assist in modeling my target output, that’s the priority. Don’t get me wrong, this core functionality is no doubt in CemPRO+, but every programming improvement should be synergistically directed, within this frame, towards “the output”; making it a better representation of reality, providing alternatives to play different scenarios in a comparative approach, make a better assessment of the risk of gas migration, perhaps even a section to assess the risk to zonal isolation, and other similar features.
Let’s return to the review …
My previous review post in 2016, followed a comparative approach, basically an exercise to re-run some of my old designs in CemPRO+. This time, it is more real action with ongoing post-job analysis. No need on this occasion, to check the validity of the computational work of the software, that is already proven and legit; instead, I was doing my thing, validating a cement log either as the result of the cement placement conditions or due to the intervention of other variables and/or effects out of control. The proposition is simple, if pressure matching is checked and cement coverage follows the same pattern revealed by the cement evaluation log, then the job outcome is explained and proven predictable, then modifiable with the alternative to be better next time, if proper changes are made targeting the root-cause variables.
Once all the input is complete, and the simulation is clear to run, CemPRO+ certainly delivers, and it was nice to see the quality of the graphs, charts, and drawings improved. That was something I didn’t like in old versions. Now, even the job matching process is smoother with the job data input. However, the tabular output and access to simulated values need improvement, like adding more data points. At least in my case, I need this data to perform further engineering analysis.
In my previous review, I said this “Finally, I was not very happy with the Displacement efficiency feature”. Now, this has been quite improved, including the quality of the graphs being more presentable and even making more sense to the expert eye, in terms of color and fluid distribution. However, I think the size of the calculation grid should be pre-determined by the software (to what better represents reality?) not be changed by the user. I realized that manipulating the size of the grid changes significantly the display in the output channels of displacement efficiency if we keep in mind the scale of the image (versus the actual size).
Finally, I have to say that an excellent application by itself will not make an average engineer prospers, but an excellent engineer will sure make an average application excel and positively support delivering outstanding services. But, CemPRO+ is not an average application and has been nicely developed to help the average engineer to succeed. Furthermore, Pegasus Vertex is periodically delivering a training course focused on successful well cementing. This is the kind of application and supporting team you want by your side.
In this changing industry, CemPRO+ is no doubt helping customers to get high-quality and personalized cementing services, independently of the company size.
I hope this review is useful, but if you have any comments or personal experiences to share, please feel free to add them below in the comment area.
(1) Tiebacks, two-stage cementing.