Proceedings of SPE/IADC Drilling Conference 2003
DOI: 10.2523/79906-ms
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of Pressure Gauges in Liner Running Strings during Liner Cementing Operations

Abstract: fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractWith surface measurements alone, liner cementing operations are difficult to interpret because of the dampening effects of the mud and greater overlaying pressure events such as cement free fall. In April 2001, an operator in the North Sea started to use downhole memory pressure gauges in the liner running string to gather pressure data for evaluation of liner equipment performance and cement placement. The collected data has shown downhole pressure effects that have not been seen … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, unforeseen pressure signatures required an explanation. Different factors result in unforeseen pressure signatures, including well influx (migration of native fluid), pumping steps, and multiphase flow and rheology of fluids, which can be modeled using the CEMPRO5 TM approach (Brehme et al, 2003;Piot and Loizzo, 1998). The scope of this section is not to analyze small differences between the simulator and the field data, but to focus the analysis on the major events such as the shut-in period, fluid changeover, and variations in pressure trends.…”
Section: Simulated Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, unforeseen pressure signatures required an explanation. Different factors result in unforeseen pressure signatures, including well influx (migration of native fluid), pumping steps, and multiphase flow and rheology of fluids, which can be modeled using the CEMPRO5 TM approach (Brehme et al, 2003;Piot and Loizzo, 1998). The scope of this section is not to analyze small differences between the simulator and the field data, but to focus the analysis on the major events such as the shut-in period, fluid changeover, and variations in pressure trends.…”
Section: Simulated Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%