• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Primary Cementing
  • Remedial Cementing
  • Plug Cementing
  • Job Execution
  • Post-job results interpretation
  • Equipment
  • Laboratory
  • Mission
  • About
  • Contact and Questions?
  • My Cementing Challenges

Better Well Cementing for ALL

The Leading Online Support Hub for Better Oil Well Cementing.

A talk about API Fluid Loss

November 6, 2016 By Lenin Diaz 14 Comments

A talk about API Fluid Loss

  • What FL is required and how it can be optimized?

Conceptually, API fluid loss (FL) control is required every time there is a permeable formation. This creates a risk (A: can we quantify this risk?) of liquid phase filtration of the of the cement slurry. That, in consequence, creates a risk (B: can we quantify this risk?) of losing zonal isolation.

A: The answer to the first question is probably yes. It will require Darcy’s equation (where K would be an effective permeability affected by Km and thickness of the mud cake and Ks and thickness of cement cake in addition to damaged formation permeability), delta pressure and viscosity of the filtrate.

Intuitively, every time formation original permeability is in the order of 100’s of mD there is considerable risk of cement slurry filtration; this risk increases for intermediate sections where mud quality and monitoring could be far from desired (not building a mud cake) and when thick permeable zones are present. But, do we care about all this for intermediate sections? You can only honestly care about this if you are going to run cement logs and you are required to record an assessment of zonal isolation if potential flow zones are present.

B: Now, the answer to the second question implies that you are running cement logs and that you are probably interested in a good cement bond/coverage. Lack of FL control would allow excessive filtration and slurry dehydration leading to insufficient cement volume to fill the annular gap and later on radial cracks in the set cement. We see this in cement logs like the micro-annulus (CBL/VDL) and lower than expected acoustic impedance in ultrasonic logs.

Most of the time this is limited to the cement in front of the permeable zone (it correlates to the Gamma-ray and stratigraphic/mud log. Sometimes in previous calipers those zones would appear to be under-gage indicating a thicker mud cake). In some cases, if the permeable zone is long enough a very low fluid loss value could be required ( < 30 – 50ml/30min) due to the considerable amount of liquid phase lost (FL x Length) … Those slurries would be really expensive.

A final word, for any well section, a bad image in a cement log does not necessarily mean lack of zonal isolation, it only means that isolation cannot be attested. The truth is that cement logs more than likely improve with time because nature sometimes helps with this (plugging by flow or creeping formations). But, that would require time, if you plan to do stimulation you could be probably more concerned with the short to middle term.

So, in summary, the FL control required can be estimated by the image on cement logs, taking into account the objective (required zonal isolation, stimulation plans, etc.) Look for your permeable zones and see what the cement log is telling you.

Some recommendations:

–           Start with a high yet low FL control (+/- 250 ml/30min). This can probably be achieved just with cement and dispersant. Sometimes increasing the density 1 or 2 points above neat cement (above 15,8 ppg for class G or 16,2 ppg for class H) helps, e.g., 15,9 or 16 ppg for class G (cement itself is the best FL control additive).

–           Target a thickening time as short as safely possible. Longer-than-necessarily T.T would increase the total liquid filtration. Static fluid loss per se; Static fluid loss happens while the slurry is liquid once it starts setting (> 30BC) filtration is quickly reduced until it stops.

–           For deep wells, more than 5000 meters, a lower FL control could be required to ensure cement slurry stability at bottom hole conditions (FL additive provides viscosity and prevent sedimentation/settling). The BP settling test becomes a reference for required FL additive concentration.

–           Narrow annular gaps and tools like tie back (mule shoe + PBRs restriction/overlapping) would call for a lower-than-apparently-required FL control to prevent cement slurry filtrating on itself.

–           The production zone would require a lower FL to reduce formation invasion by cement filtrate.

  • What is the risk of a higher-than-desired FL?. 

As mentioned above, the lack of FL control increases the risk of slurry dehydration leading to damaged cement bonding/coverage. We can see this in cement logs, so if there are no cement logs there is no need to target a tight FL control.

If there is no cement log, then FL control additives wouldn’t be needed unless the slurry, Bottom Hole conditions, rheology, etc. demand a viscosifier/FL product to ensure slurry stability. (I am assuming logs are always run for the production zone, if for some reason, cement logs are not run in the production zone, I would still call for a low FL control cement slurry. (As per the book, to reduce formation damage by cement filtrate). But, if you are going to perforate, cement filtrate damage is much less than mud filtrate invaded zone and it can be bypassed by perforation depth. Anyway, that is something to be discussed with the completions guy)

In practice the, dynamic fluid loss causes significant damage to the cement job by making more difficult to displace the mud in the hole.

This is explained in the following way:

Mud in the hole is composed of:

  1. Flowing mud
  2. Gelled mud
  3. Mud filter cake

The thicker the mud filter cake, the less impermeable it is, so the higher the % of gelled mud or the lower the % of flowing mud. To get the same displacement efficiency the pumping rate required will be higher.

formula

Graphically this can be seen here:

graphic

  • What is the contribution of mud filter cake?

For intermediate sections, mud cake is likely far from thin and impermeable. In those cases, mud cake should be considered inexistent. Here, most cementers would sell you a train of pre flushes to achieve ‘mechanical’ and ‘chemical’ action to remove the mud filter cake. However, most of the time hardly doing anything.

For production zones, mud cake would probably be closer to its definition. It still needs to be removed, but the task in a friendlier annular gap (smaller) is supposed to be easier and mostly achieved by the action of the slurry itself (talking about abrasive action).

 

  • What is the relationship between filtrate collected and API fluid Loss for cement slurries?

 

I will use my API 10B 2005 version (API Recommended Practice 10B-2 / ISO 10426-2) to explain this.

The API RP explains when to report FL as Calculated ISO Fluid Loss (tests that ‘blow out’ in less than the 30 min test interval) or ISO Fluid Loss (fluid loss is measured for a full 30 mins without ‘blowing out’).   The FL value is doubled only if there is still fluid filtering at 30 mins if not, the FL is calculated. This is exactly what the procedure says. If at 30 mins, it hasn’t blown out, meaning N2 is not leaking, and it is liquid still dropping, the rate of filtration after 30 mins is not necessarily close to zero, because cement cake is not necessarily impermeable at that time. Now regarding the formula, it is easier to understand looking at the original one:

calculated-api

As you see, if there is still filtrate dropping (without ‘blowing out’ N2) at 30 mins (the end of test). The term in the square root becomes 1 and the filtrate is the double of the collected volume

 

The formula is my 2005 version is:

calculated-iso

Where 10,944 is almost two times the square root of 30

Please if you have any questions or comments, just let me know in the space below.

 

Cheers

L. Diaz

me




Related posts:

  1. Squeeze Cementing Principles
  2. Gas Migration: 5 Truths (Primary Cementing)
  3. Excellent cement job, but with terrible results … how is this possible?
  4. Workover Cementing Techniques 2: Squeeze Cementing

Filed Under: Laboratory, Primary Cementing Tagged With: API fluid loss, displacement efficiency, fluid loss

Article Posted By:

Lenin Diaz is an oil industry specialist with 26 years of technical and operational expertise in fluids, cementing, water control and shut-off. A distinguished track record spanning BP, Schlumberger, and NAPESCO. Lenin lives in Tenerife, Spain and is the creator of this website. Read More…

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Jim Beddow says

    November 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Nice analysis Lenin. Well written and easily read. Thanks.

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      November 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm

      Thanks Jim, That is actually my objective to provide information that people can use.
      Once again thanks for visiting my site and for the comment

      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  2. Anonymous says

    January 27, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    Can describe to me how fluid loss actually helps keep water in cement? I have heard some explanations from some chemist saying is almost a mechanical process ? Can you give me your opinion ?

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      January 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      Thanks for the question. Thinking about the fluid loss test, there is always some cement slurry loss of filtrate (water from the cement) but as the test progresses the rate of filtration reduces with time. This reduction is caused by the building of a filter cake, whose thickness depends on its own permeability. So, to answer the question, fluid loss allows to keep the water in the cement because it builds a barrier or filter cake.
      The permeability of the filter cake, i.e., it thickness, we can reduce it by the use of a dispersant to allow more order of the particles, the addition of smaller particles, a change in the particle distribution or the addition of polymers who act as gelled-particles filling the gap between other particles.
      All this is static fluid loss.
      In dynamic fluid loss, mainly when the filter cake is not so thin and impermeable as desired, the process is affected by erosion (removal of the filter cake) due to cement flow and loss of filtrate can remain constant.
      In front of high permeable formation, depending on the thickness of the formation itself, even FL as low as less than 50 ml/30min can be still too high

      Hope this helps, however if there are any more questions or clarification please do not hesitate to ask here

      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  3. Suresh choudhary says

    July 30, 2017 at 11:32 am

    Hi Lenin,
    very nice explanation about fluid loss. I would like to know why the value is always multiplied by 2.?

    Thanks and Regards,
    Suresh Choudhary

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      July 31, 2017 at 9:37 pm

      Suresh, thanks for your question
      It is derived from the equation. with “t” as the time to blow out. If there is filtrate still dropping at end of test = 30min, the factor in the square root becomes (1) one. In this case the API filtrate is 2 times the filtrate collected.
      Hopes this clarifies
      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  4. R.K says

    June 19, 2018 at 10:53 am

    Could you please explain what it means when we say we calculated 1500 ml/30 min as FL for a particular slurry. It is confusing when we see that initially the slurry used for lab testing was only 600 ml.

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      July 17, 2018 at 3:48 pm

      R.K, First of all I am truly sorry for this late reply, but I have been very busy with some projects. Please understand, this is not my normal response time.
      Now coming back to your question, I can say that it is indeed confusing.
      When measuring FL, there are two possible scenarios, one where nitrogen (used to applied pressure) doesn’t reach the bottom of the cell and flows out (blowout) and the other case when nitrogen does blowout. When nitrogen doesn’t blowout the ISO Fluid loss is the double of the collected amount of filtrate, but when the nitrogen does blowout there is a formula to calculate the FL and it is reported as Calculated Fluid Loss. And the sooner it blows out the higher the FL value. In other words, it means that a larger volume of slurry would have been required to collect at least 750 ml (for FL of 1500 ml/30min). So, the 1500 ml/30min is not linked to the 600 ml of slurry used for the test.

      I hope is clear, and once again apologies for the delay

      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  5. mark says

    August 7, 2018 at 10:25 pm

    How was the formula for calculated fluid loss derived and why do we multiply by the square root of 30/t

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      August 13, 2018 at 11:55 am

      The original formula is derived from Darcy’s Law and developed specifically for the concept of filter cake creation by Bourgoyne, 1991. The formula describes a liner relationship between the volume of filtrate and the square root of time.
      In the API formula, we see two points in this line. One, that implies a filter cake is created (test running for 30min without “blowing out”) and another, where more slurry volume (above 600 ml) is required to form a filter cake (tests that “blow out” in less than 30min) so, that the following relationship exists: Volume fraction of solids in the slurry x Volume of slurry = Volume fraction of solids in the filter cake x Volume of filter cake. With the volume of filter cake = Thickness (varies with time) x Area; and also with the understanding that the volume of slurry in the formula refers to the volume of slurry carrying the solids to form the filter cake hence producing the volume of filtrate.

      Hope this helps
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  6. T.H.KIM says

    August 14, 2020 at 5:44 am

    Why the YP is the important for oil cementing ?
    Actually, I can’t understand about the YP’s meaning.
    If YP is high, what is the positive thing in oil cementing? or why not?

    I know that the additives like HEC is important for fluid loss restriction.
    Which properties of HEC can affect ?

    Thanks.

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      August 14, 2020 at 11:15 pm

      Hi T.H. Kim,
      Yield Point in Bingham Plastic (flow model) is referred as the internal resistance of the fluid to start motion. When you pump (casing is in place), and fluid is moving up in the annulus, the fluid velocity is high (max) half way between casing and formation and low closer to the casing or formation. This fluid (mud, spacer or cement) closer to the casing or formation moving slower (actually zero velocity on the surface) is creating less friction pressure, so as you approach the casing or formation surface and velocity is slower and slower, at one point the velocity will be so slow and in consequence friction pressure that it won’t be able to move the fluid (friction pressure higher than the yield point). So, the lower the yield point the more fluid will be flowing. Since the spacer is pushing the mud, and the cement is pushing the spacer (and mud), their higher yield point, at certain pumping rate, is ensures mud is being displaced.

      Let me know if you need further explanation

      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply
  7. T.H. KIM says

    August 14, 2020 at 5:49 am

    Why the YP is important for oil cementing?
    Actually, I can’t understand about the YP.
    If the YP is high, what is the positive in oil cementing?
    I exactly want to know about the YP ..

    and I know that HEC is important additives in oil cementing.
    which properties of HEC is important in oil cementing?

    thanks.

    Reply
    • Lenin Diaz says

      August 14, 2020 at 11:16 pm

      Hi T.H. Kim,
      Yield Point in Bingham Plastic (flow model) is referred as the internal resistance of the fluid to start motion. When you pump (casing is in place), and fluid is moving up in the annulus, the fluid velocity is high (max) half way between casing and formation and low closer to the casing or formation. This fluid (mud, spacer or cement) closer to the casing or formation moving slower (actually zero velocity on the surface) is creating less friction pressure, so as you approach the casing or formation surface and velocity is slower and slower, at one point the velocity will be so slow and in consequence friction pressure that it won’t be able to move the fluid (friction pressure higher than the yield point). So, the lower the yield point the more fluid will be flowing. Since the spacer is pushing the mud, and the cement is pushing the spacer (and mud), their higher yield point, at certain pumping rate, is ensures mud is being displaced.

      Let me know if you need further explanation

      Cheers
      L. Diaz

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Trango DEPM is a team of Oil&Gas professionals with broad experience in the O&G industry. Working on onshore and offshore projects around the world, including most vivid and challenging areas as Saudi Arabia, US Marcellus shale and North Sea, but also small on small projects, requiring individual approach, we are well equipped to help you plan, budget, implement and execute your drilling project successfully. We also cooperate with number of other professionals with experience in such areas as drilling, geology, geophysics, procurement or logistics. This allows us to fully run your project or just support you in desired areas of expertise, depends on you needs.

How I survived the 2016 Downturn and the current difficult times?

Find the content you need

Archives

24 Page Free Primary Cementing Guide

Click this image to take a look. It is comprehensive and easy to follow too!

In 2016, I launched Better Cementing for All. Now, I want to keep it alive.

For more than 26 years, I have worked in oil well cementing, offering my services to some of the largest oil corporations in the world and committing myself to excellence. I have mastered my role, and in doing so, I have accrued a skill set that is extremely valuable to my fellow professionals. Eager to do whatever I can to help them, I have owned and operated Better Cementing for All since 2016.
Let me tell you what Better Cementing for All does and what it means. A resource for all oil industry professionals and for cementers both established and prospective, this is a non-profit resource that I established in order to do nothing but serve and make an impact on people who are looking to build careers for themselves in cementing.
From primary cementing to remedial cementing to plug cementing to post-job results, I do it all, and I am comfortable answering in-depth questions about each and every one of these topics. I also offer tools and tips for jobseekers, general self-development advice, and guidance for equipment choices. TO put it simply, this is the go-to spot for anyone who wants to know anything about oil well cementing.
The problem, however, is that covid-19 has made the structure of the website seem untenable. I am trying to juggle the work that I do and my non-profit initiatives and finding it all unhealthy and unsustainable. I want to keep Better Cementing for All up and running, but to do that, I need your help.


My NEW introductory VIDEO

Recent Posts

Max out cement coverage

If we consider, the main variables to ensure proper mud in hole replacement with cement: stand-off, … [Read More...] about Max out cement coverage

Cementing Flowchart

In recent weeks, I received some reader requests to include cement job processes or procedures as … [Read More...] about Cementing Flowchart

Cementing. Challenges across permeable zones

This article will provide you with some actionable suggestions for cementing across permeable zones. … [Read More...] about Cementing. Challenges across permeable zones

Forensic Cementing

Forensic is a term usually associated with crimes. Criminal forensics is the use of science to … [Read More...] about Forensic Cementing

Cement Slurry design Basics

First, here is a handy table to simplify the process of cement slurry design: Additive … [Read More...] about Cement Slurry design Basics

well cementing pre-job cement challenge question

Remedial Cementing with Coiled Tubing (animation)

Far from being an animation expert, in my training courses, I always wanted to show my students a … [Read More...] about Remedial Cementing with Coiled Tubing (animation)

Need urgent help?

WhatsApp me at this number: +34 657 07 01 78

Footer

Recent activity

Visit our latest posts and help others by adding a comment.

Make your contribution and help keep Better Cementing for All alive!

Now more than ever, we are facing a loss of expertise in our industry, and Better Cementing for All is a unifying force, featuring interactions among industry professionals, knowledge sharing through posts, and other valuable pieces of content that we need to preserve.

Recent Comments

  • Lenin Diaz on All you need to know about Bentonite in Cement Slurries
  • Lenin Diaz on All you need to know about Bentonite in Cement Slurries
  • Lenin Diaz on Balanced-plug method. Basic calculations
  • Lenin Diaz on Max out cement coverage
  • Lenin Diaz on Balanced-plug method. Basic calculations
  • Mohamed on All you need to know about Bentonite in Cement Slurries
  • tom on Balanced-plug method. Basic calculations

Recent Posts

  • Max out cement coverage
  • Cementing Flowchart
  • Cementing. Challenges across permeable zones
  • Forensic Cementing
  • Cement Slurry design Basics
  • Remedial Cementing with Coiled Tubing (animation)
  • Webinar series (III). P&A (Spanish)
  • Webinar series (II). Quality Assurance in Cementing Operations (Spanish)
  • Webinar series (I). Log interpretation (Spanish)

Submit your email

&middot Better Well Cementing For All is owned by L. Diaz © 2022 &middot TOS & Privacy Policy &middot Web Design &middot