Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2024 Feb 22;9(9):9961–9973. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c07580

Foamed Cement Applications in Oil Industry Based on Field Experience: A Comprehensive Review

Ahmed Abdulhamid Mahmoud †,*, Ahmed Abdelaal †, Stephen Adjei ‡, Salaheldin Elkatatny †,*
PMCID: PMC10918791  PMID: 38463338

Abstract

graphic file with name ao3c07580_0006.jpg

Foam cement is a versatile cementing material that has found numerous applications in the oil and gas industry. As research continues to advance and improve the properties of foam cement, it is likely that we will see an increased use of this material in the years to come. This review aims to summarize the current state of the art and the latest developments in the utilization of foam cement in oil fields. The study focuses on the key benefits of foam cement, including its light weight, excellent flow properties, ability to maintain its structural integrity over time, and high compressive strength. It also examines its various applications in oil field operations, such as cementing against fragile formations, well abandonment, zonal isolation, cementing offshore wells, and well remedial cementing. Furthermore, the paper evaluates the various factors that influence the performance of foam cement, such as the mixing design, foam structure, and stability. In addition, the methods for evaluating the foamed cementing job and the integrity of the formed cement sheath are also presented. The review also highlights the current challenges and limitations of foam cement technology that should be considered when using foamed cement in oil field applications and discusses the future directions for its development and optimization. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the applications of foam cement in oil fields and will be of great interest to engineers, researchers, and practitioners in the oil and gas industry.

1. Introduction

Oil and gas wellbores are drilled to initially confirm hydrocarbon accumulation, and when commercial quantity is established, field development planning (FDP) is carried out to ensure that maximum hydrocarbon recovery is achieved. FDP includes prior investigation of recovery techniques and optimum production conditions and the selection of surface facilities.1 However, the achievement of FDP objectives is heavily dependent on the integrity of the wellbore. When the integrity of the wellbore is well managed, there is a reduced tendency of fluid leakage, and, hence, the life of the well is extended.2

The integrity of the wellbore is affected by the integrity of the cement sheath filling the casing/formation or casing/casing annulus.3 When the casing is placed at an interval, a cement slurry is pumped downhole and then into the space behind the casing and formation. The cement slurry is left to harden, and the hardened cement forms a sheath that provides zonal isolation and supports the casing.4 In addition to that, the integrity of the casing is also dependent on the integrity of the cement sheath because the latter also prevents corrosive fluids from contacting and degrading the casing.5 A schematic of the casing–cement formation system is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Casing–cement formation system; depths shown are approximate.

1.1. Low-Density Cement Systems

The pore pressure and fracture gradient of the formation are two key parameters that are considered when placing the cement slurry downhole. The practice is to ensure that the hydrostatic pressure of the slurry is slightly above the pore pressure but lower the formation fracture gradient.7 If the formation fracture gradient were to be exceeded during cementing due to high equivalent circulating density (ECD), the formation would break down and the cement slurry would be lost to the formation, a phenomenon known us lost circulation.8 Lost circulation has severe ramifications and could ultimately lead to the abandonment of the well.9

To get cement systems with low ECDs, low-density cement systems were designed.10 These systems are generally designed at densities below those of standard cement formulations. Such densities are achieved by either increasing the water to cement ratio with the help of viscosifiers (e.g., bentonite), or through the incorporation or partial replacement of cement with low-specific-gravity materials like fly ash and microspheres, or mixing of a gas (mostly nitrogen) with the cement slurry.10,11

The use of foamed cement, a commonly known low-density cement slurry in oil field applications, has become increasingly popular in recent years because of its ability to provide efficient and effective solutions for many well integrity problems faced when conventional cement is used. For example, it can provide zonal isolation, be placed across the weak and fragile formations, or be used for remedial treatment (i.e., squeeze cementing), among other applications. Although the field application of foam cement showed a high potential of success, it also showed some limitations and suffers operational challenges.12−16

This paper explores innovative aspects of foamed cement applications in the oil industry; it summarizes the properties and structure of the foamed cement; and it also highlights the laboratory testing and engineering design considerations. In addition to that, insights derived from extensive field experience for various situations, including application for zonal isolation, remedial treatment, cementing of fragile formations, and offshore wells are discussed. Foamed cement job evaluation through well logs and its current challenges are also addressed in this paper. Finally, the operational challenges of preparing, pumping, and placement of foamed cement are highlighted, and considerations for future research are listed.

2. Foam Cement Definition

Foamed cement is a specialized type of lightweight cement that has been engineered to provide excellent flow properties. It is achieved by introducing a large volume of a gas (e.g., nitrogen) and foaming agent into the cement slurry during the mixing process. The resulting material has a low density, making it an ideal choice for a wide range of applications, especially in the oil and gas industry.17,18

One of the key benefits of foamed cement is its low density, which allows it to be used in challenging conditions and makes it an ideal choice for a wide range of applications. Experiment showed that a density as low as 4 ppg could be achieved with foam cement.19 Nitrogen could be considered inert where it has no effect on the cement hydration reaction.20 Foam cement has antishrinkage ability, which enables the system to inhibit fluid migration. It is also less damaging to water-sensitive formations and can be used against zones experiencing total losses.21 Additionally, foam cement is characterized by excellent mechanical properties exhibited by its high durability and flexibility.22

The cement slurry is initially prepared and injected down the wellbore since it serves as the base material that forms the structural support for the wellbore casing. Injecting the cement slurry first ensures that the annular space between the casing and the borehole is filled with cement, providing a stable foundation for the well. Subsequently, calculated quantities of the foaming agent and stabilizer are pumped into the slurry. Finally, nitrogen is injected into the cement system at a high pressure, creating a foam.12 A typical set up for foam generation is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Foam generator.

3. Foam Cement Design

The design of foamed cement treatments consists of two key parts: first, laboratory design to adjust the slurry properties to ensure the cement is correctly placed and has the desired performance over its lifetime, and second, prejob planning and engineering to guarantee proper placement. In the past, there were certain restrictions on the base slurries used to make foamed cement; however, this has changed with surging advancements in surfactants and foaming technology, enabling almost any base slurry to be used. Most cementing additives can also be incorporated into these slurries. The laboratory testing methods for foamed cements have been greatly advanced and refined.24

3.1. Laboratory Design

Laboratory testing of foamed oil well cement is essential to ensuring its proper performance in the field. Foamed cement is characterized by low density and high fluidity, which allow it to be easily placed behind the casing. However, this also makes it more challenging to ensure proper performance in the field. Therefore, laboratory testing is necessary to evaluate the properties and performance of foamed oil well cement.

Foamed cement lab design involves materials and testing procedures. The materials include cement, foaming agents, stabilizers, and other additives to adjust the different cement properties. The lab testing shows the differences in equipment and testing procedures between foamed and conventional cement systems. The following two subsections are employed to briefly discuss the materials and lab testing.

3.1.1. Foamed Cement Materials

To achieve adequate foam stability, several factors must be taken into consideration. One crucial aspect is ensuring that the slurry is mixed at the appropriate water ratio. A good initial design approach is to avoid using a water-to-cement ratio that would not be stable in a nonfoamed slurry. This is because the same process that causes free water in regular slurries can also lead to foam segregation in a foamed slurry. The density of the base slurry should be selected based on the desired properties of the final foamed cement.

For appropriate former and stabilizer selection, it is important to consider factors such as effectiveness, stability, compatibility, impact on the strength and permeability of the cement, cost, safety, and any potential handling issues. The chemicals used to create and maintain the foamed cement must function well in high temperature and pressure conditions and in the highly alkaline, calcium-rich environment of the water component of the cement slurry. It is crucial that the foam remains stable for longer than the time it takes for the cement to harden.25,26

Frequently used foaming agents include substances such as surfactants, ethoxylated alcohols, and fatty acid derivatives in the form of quaternary ammonium salts. Stabilizers include polymers, mixed surfactants, polyglycol ethers, and sulfate salts or even solids. Along with the primary mixture of water, cement, and other materials, it is necessary to use gases that are inert to cement properties, such as nitrogen, as well as a foam generator capable of producing and mixing the foam effectively.

One of the most critical challenges while cementing offshore wells is that the formation fracture pressure gradient is low and flow of shallow water could occur; therefore, it is important to ensure stability of the foamed slurry that will produce a sheath with very low permeability, and hence, injection of stabilizer with the foaming agent is recommended to ensure stability of the slurry while pumping downhole and into the annulus.26

3.1.2. Laboratory Testing

It is challenging to conduct laboratory testing on foamed cement under simulated downhole conditions. To properly cure foamed cement at high pressures and temperatures, different equipment is needed than that for normal slurries due to the impact of pressure and temperature on the foam volume. Research by Rozieres et al.28 revealed that changes in pressure and mixing methods during foam preparation can greatly impact compressive strength and permeability of the cement. This is likely due to variations in the size of the bubbles within the resulting foam. API RP 10B-4 (ISO 10426-4)29 is the recommended practice for the preparation and testing of foamed cement slurries at atmospheric pressure.

3.1.2.1. Mixing and Density Measurement

The method of mixing the slurry outlined by API RP 10B is not appropriate for systems with low densities that include microspheres or nitrogen as extenders. API RP 10B-4 recommended using a blending container with a lid that seals for the preparation of foamed cement slurries. The blending container is similar to that used for standard slurry preparation, except it has a threaded cap with an O-ring seal. A mixing blade assembly, either a single mixing blade as supplied by the manufacturer or a multiple stacked-blade assembly, can be used, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Blending container and multiblade assembly.

It is not appropriate to utilize a pressurized fluid density balance to measure foamed cement slurry density prepared at atmospheric pressure because it may compress gas bubbles and give an incorrect density reading. Using a nonpressurized slurry density balance is also not ideal because the small hole in the center of the lid can cause a restriction, leading to partial pressurization of slurry and inaccuracies in density determination. The most appropriate method is to pour the foamed cement slurry into a container with a large open top, which has a known volume and weight when it is completely filled. After the slurry was leveled, the container should be cleaned on the outside before being weighed once more. The density of slurry is calculated by dividing the slurry mass by the container volume and converting it to the appropriate density units.29

3.1.2.2. Thickening Time, Fluid Loss, and Rheology

It is not appropriate to test a foamed cement slurry that has been prepared at atmospheric pressure under pressure because the high pressure would alter the density and gas ratio of the foam. Furthermore, when testing the thickening time in a high pressure–high temperature consistometer, applying pressure to a foamed cement slurry prepared at atmospheric pressure may also lead to contamination.29 As a result, API RP 10B-4 recommended the use of the unfoamed base cement slurry containing surfactant(s) to evaluate fluid loss, thickening time, and rheology. Conducting fluid-loss tests on foamed cement slurries formed under normal pressure conditions may not be accurate. A foamed cement slurry often has lower fluid loss readings than a nonfoamed cement slurry.

Introducing a gas to a liquid medium substantially decreases the rate at which the liquid flows through porous media.30 De Rozières and Ferrière28 evaluated foamed cements, with and without fluid-loss control additives, and found that the fluid-loss rates were lower when gas was introduced. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the fluid loss of the nonfoamed cement as a reference.

The measurement of the thickening time for foamed cement is one of the most challenging tests to perform and does not provide clear results. For the test to be accurate, it should be performed under conditions that mimic what occurs downhole, such as using a pressurized mixer and transferring the slurry under pressure to a pressurized consistometer. The thickening time test involves observing the change in a property related to the flow of a slurry under shear. This can be challenging because of the unique behavior of foams, which often remain static, while only a small portion is sheared and destabilized. The thickening time of the base slurry, which contains additives, surfactants, and stabilizers, is measured according to API RP 10B-4 instead, and this gives a rough estimation of how long it will take to pump foamed slurries.29,14

Foams exhibit distinct rheological properties compared to other types of fluids due to various factors such as compressibility, heterogeneity, and variation in properties under shear. Foams are also unstable, and the past shear experiences and sequence affect its properties. Because of these characteristics, traditional rotational viscometers which take a fixed amount of sample are not suitable for testing foams.33 The rotational shear can disrupt the bubble structure and lead to the collapse of the foam. When a rotational viscometer is used to measure the viscosity of a foamed cement slurry, it can lead to the separation of gas from the slurry, which can cause inaccurate results. Instead, it is suggested to use a correlation to compare the rheological properties of the nonfoamed base slurries to that of foamed slurries with varying foam qualities to more accurately mimic field conditions.29 Continuous flow-tube viscometers are more appropriate for testing foams.34,35 Other techniques were introduced in the literature to evaluate the foamed cement rheology under pressure using a foam generator/viscometer.36

3.1.2.3. Strength and Permeability

According to API RP 10B-4, sealed curing molds (cube or cylinder) must be used, as the sealing lid prevents foamed slurries from expanding with heating. Then, normal strength determination techniques can be used. The curing process should be performed at normal atmospheric pressure to determine the strength and permeability. Additionally, it is essential to conduct permeability testing on the cured specimens according to API RP 10B and ISO 10426-2 standards. Cobb et al. introduced a technique to forecast strength of foamed cement by measuring sonic strength of the base slurries.37 By utilizating a correlation between strength and foam quality, it is possible to estimate strength.

3.1.2.4. Stability Plus Thermal and Electrical Conductivity

To ensure that the gas does not escape from the slurry, the stability of the system must be evaluated. If the gas begins to come together and form larger bubbles, then pockets of gas will form and rise through cement columns, potentially creating uncemented areas or channels within wellbores. One way to test for stability is by cutting a column of set foamed cement into equal-sized slices and ensuring that the weight of each slice is the same, indicating a stable system.24

Short et al.38 found that thermal conductivity decreases due to the decrease in solid content and the presence of gas voids in foamed cement. On the other hand, Nelson39 found that thermal conductivity is approximately proportional to slurry density, regardless of presence of gases. Additionally, research on foamed cement resistivity showed that its electrical conductivity is close to that of traditional cement.24

3.2. Engineering Design

Aside from the physical and chemical characteristics of cement, the design of its location and placement method must be tailored to the specific conditions of the wells being cemented. In general, foamed cement is used in areas where the fracture pressure is low. However, one challenge faced by field engineers is to make sure that the pressure in the wellbore, both during and after the placement of foam, does not exceed fracture pressure. Experience has shown that the compression of gas by the friction and hydrostatic pressures can lead to a higher density of the foamed cement and a lower top of cement than expected under static conditions. Due to the difficulty in predicting the rheological behavior of cement, the determination of the proper amount and density of foamed cement must be based on practical experience. The wellbore pressure is usually the first design consideration, and the engineer must make decisions about densities and displacement rates of all wellbore fluids such as drilling fluids, preflush, cap cement slurry, foamed cement, and tail slurry.40

The use of conventional drilling fluids is common in completing wells with low fracture gradients. However, in some situations, the mud is made less dense by creating foam. This can be beneficial, as it allows the use of heavier cement systems. It is often necessary to use chemically reactive preflushes to clean the wellbore and improve the cement bonding to casing strings and formation surfaces. These preflushes can be foamed, as well. In the case of ultralow fracture gradients, air is often used to drill wells that are treated with foamed cement. In these cases, a preflush is required to moisten formations before pumping foam cement to prevent dehydration.

A cap slurry is often placed on top of foamed cement to compress gases and prevent them from escaping to the surface. When estimating the risk of wellbore breakdown or losses, this cap’s hydrostatic pressure must be taken into consideration because it is made at a higher density. The cap must be pumped from the surface down the annulus if the foamed cement is circulated close to the surface to recompress the slurry. When pumping down the annulus, swirl-type centralizers should be used to ensure an equal distribution of the cap slurry. A nonfoamed cement slurry is usually pumped after the foamed column. This cement should have sufficient strength to offer adequate support to casing shoe and/or to isolate production zones located at the bottom of wellbores.40

The design of foamed cement columns is subject to the following constraints: density of lead slurry, formation permeability, fracture and pore pressure profiles, safety factors, foam top and pressure at this depth, and foam bottom. The slurry should be designed to have a compressive strength of at least 100 or 500 psi if required by regulations. It must be able to contain pore pressure. All of these factors impose the lower limit with slurry density. On the other hand, fracture gradient is the main criterion which defines the upper boundary of foamed cement design.

For the design of foamed cement jobs, the majority of cementing companies use computer programs. There are two methods for designing foamed cement columns based on the boundary conditions. The constant nitrogen ratio method involves finding a single nitrogen-to-base slurry ratio that satisfies the constraints. This is the simplest method, as the gas injection rate stays constant. However, the foam quality will vary with depth. The “constant density” procedure involves dividing the column into stages with different nitrogen ratios, resulting in a constant density from top to bottom. This is better for wells with multiple producing zones, but it is more difficult to perform with small cement volumes.24 When air is used instead of nitrogen in foamed cement slurries, it is crucial to consider some other elements. The compressibility of air is not the same as that of nitrogen, and oxygen has a higher solubility compared to nitrogen. Additionally, the presence of oxygen and carbon dioxide in air may lead to excessive corrosion of casing strings and changes in cement properties.40

4. Foam Cement Structure and Stability

The foam structure is created by the introduction of a gas and foaming agent into the cement slurry, which generates gas bubbles. These gas bubbles create a cellular structure within the cement, which gives the material a low density and high-porosity properties.

The stability of foamed cement is an important factor to be considered since it greatly affects the generation of a slurry with uniform density when it is placed into the formation/casing or casing/casing annulus.41 To have a stable structure, the bubbles generated should not coalesce, must be disconnected, and must be uniformly distributed throughout the pumping and curing periods. Stable foam cement slurries have uniform densities, then when hardened exhibit high strength and low porosity and permeability.42

In laboratory settings, foamed cement samples exhibit a remarkable consistency in bubble size and distribution, as indicated in Figure 4 (Side View). However, when it comes to practical field applications, this uniformity poses a challenge, as shown in Figure 4 (Top View). Companies tend to adopt conservative estimates in their field recipes for foamed cement to ensure the necessary strength for annular sealing and casing support. This cautious approach is a response to the inherent variations and unpredictability encountered in real-world conditions, which can affect the cement’s performance.43

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Laboratory samples of the foamed cement.

As shown in Figure 5, a direct juxtaposition of two samples is evident when comparing atmospheric-generated foamed cement with 40% nitrogen gas content (Figure 5a) and field-tested foamed cement with a 35% nitrogen gas content (Figure 5b). Notably, there is a substantial disparity in the sizes of bubbles between the two samples. This observation underscores the impact of the nitrogen content on bubble size, a critical factor in cement performance.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Comparison of (a) atmospheric-generated foamed cement with 40% nitrogen gas content and (b) a 35% nitrogen gas content foamed cement generated from field testing.

The stabilization of foam is influenced by the presence of cement particles.14 The attachment of solid particles to bubbles can decrease bubble coalescence and increase foam stability.44 Foam stability is governed by the size and wettability of cement particles. Decreasing the size of the particles can enhance stability in the case of finely divided solids. Smaller particle sizes contribute to improved stability in foams due to increased surface area and potential interactions with other particles, aiding in foam structure formation and strength. The way in which solid particles are retained at the liquid/gas interface is analogous to the adsorption of solute molecules. In both cases, work is required to transfer the material out of the surface into the bulk solution. This work of desorption is the phenomenon that confers thermodynamic stability to the foam. Additionally, the size of the particles plays a crucial role in determining the rate of sedimentation.

The stability of the foam is also linked to the wettability of particles. If the contact angle is too low, then the particles are easily wetted by the liquid and tend to sink. Conversely, if the angle is too high, then the particles may not adhere sufficiently to the lamella, leading to insufficient stability against the cohesion of the liquid. An optimal contact angle is found to be between 40 and 70 degrees.24

5. Properties of Foamed Cement Slurry and the Generated Sheath

The addition of water or other extenders to conventional cement slurries not only reduces their density but also dilutes the amount of cementitious material. However, due to the large difference in density between water and gas, less gas is required to achieve the same reduction in density, leading to less dilution and less deterioration of cement properties. As a result, the physical properties of foamed cement are close to those of conventional lightweight cement, which are 2.0 to 4.0 ppg heavier, as reported by Tanner and Harms.40

Foamed cement slurries could be prepared with a low density ranging from 4 to 15 ppg; therefore, lightweight additives are not required. The sheath made with a slurry of less than 8 ppg density is usually highly permeable,19 but for slurry with a density over 8 ppg, the generated sheath has a very low permeability. Previous laboratory and field applications proved the possibility of using foamed cement at temperatures ranging from 28 to 600 °F.13

Several studies reported the high efficiency of the foamed cement slurry on displacing the drilling fluid which is very important for the cement to make a better bond with the formation and casing string,46 which is necessary for well integrity and zonal isolation. This better mud displacement is a result of the higher viscosity and yield point for foam cement slurry compared to conventional cement systems. Additionally, the low density and increased flow rate allow for faster and more efficient placement, reducing the operation and costs.36

Compared to the unfoamed cement systems, foamed cement is also characterized by very low fluid loss, free water, and gas migration. The high compressibility and expandability of foamed cement are important properties, especially while cementing across formations with high filtrate loss.42−44 These properties enabled the foamed cement to compensate for any losses and keep the top of cement as designed. Many previous studies confirmed the possibility of achieving cement flow at the surface from the annulus even while cementing across fractured formations where conventional cementing failed to reach the targeted height to seal all formations.

Foamed cement may experience expansion before it sets. In certain cases, this can lead to enhanced bonding, as demonstrated by the enhanced bond logs observed in foamed cemented sections. This can be explained by pressure maintenance by the compressed gas in cement. The pressure of gas assists in keeping close contact between cement and casing or formations when the cement slurry loses its hydrostatic pressure due to gelation.

Research also confirmed the possibility of achieving faster increases in the compressive strength when low-density foamed cement is used: a compressive strength of 1050 psi was achieved after 24 h by using 11.8 ppg foamed cement compared to 254 psi compressive strength for 12 ppg conventional cement.13

Foamed cement has higher resistance to cyclic stresses of temperature and pressure expected downhole.48−51 This is because of the low Young’s modulus and high Poisson’s ratio of this system compared to cement systems made with conventional materials.

6. Field Applications of the Foam Cement in Oil Industry

The first field application of foam cement was introduced in 1979.53 Since then, many successful applications of this special type of cement in various areas worldwide were documented for both offshore and onshore fields. Some well-known oil fields where foamed cement has been used include:

  • The Gulf of Mexico: Foamed cement has been used in offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico for decades to enhance wellbore stability, control formation pressures, and prevent fluid migration.

  • The North Sea: Foamed cement has been used in several offshore fields in the North Sea, including the Ekofisk, Troll, and Oseberg fields, to address wellbore stability and cementing issues.

  • The Middle East: Foamed cement has been used in several onshore and offshore oil fields in the Middle East, such as the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, the Rumaila field in Iraq, and the Fahud and Natih fields of North Oman, to improve the wellbore stability and cementing performance.

  • The Caspian Sea: Foamed cement has been used in several offshore fields in the Caspian Sea, such as the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan, to address the wellbore stability and zonal isolation challenges.

These are just a few examples of oil fields where foamed cement has been used. The use of foamed cement technology continues to expand, and it is likely that it will be used in even more oil fields in the future. The next part of this article discusses different field applications of foamed cement for zonal isolation, cementing of fragile formations, remedial cementing for offshore applications, and cementing deep wells and across HPHT formations.

6.1. Applications of Foam Cement for Zonal Isolation

Zonal isolation is an important factor to ensure long-term integrity of the wellbore; it is also important to ensure effective hydrocarbon production and prevent contamination of the pot water by the hydrocarbons.6,54−56

Kopp et al.57 compared the performance of conventional cementing in two wells with foam cementing performed in four wells; all six wells are near-vertical gas wells in Wyoming, USA. The authors reported that foamed cement outperformed conventional cement in zonal isolation and prevented any kind of communication between the high- and low-pressure formations. No liner top remediation work was needed compared with the conventional cementing. The acid stimulation was also successful for the wells cemented with foamed cement, and they showed a high original production rate of up to five times compared to that achieved from the wells with conventional cement.

One year after that, Harlan et al.58 reported successful application of foam cement to provide zonal isolation for production liners in Wyoming, USA. The liners considered for cementing are horizontal liners set in sidetracks drilled from sandstone formations at total vertical depths of 11,500 ft and at a temperature of 190 °F. As a result, the authors concluded that application of foam cement in these sidetracks reduced the total well coat by 25% and decreased the fluid loss by 70%.

In the past 15 years (starting from 2006), over 270 cementing jobs were performed using foam cement in the Fahud and Natih fields of North Oman. The jobs were performed across the Natih formation, which is a fractured Mesozoic hydrocarbon-bearing carbonate associated with severe loss of circulation. Out of these operations, the operators reported improvement in cement hydration transition time and enhancement in the slurry properties.59

The Chichimene and Castilla fields in Colombia experienced several operational problems, including difficulty in achieving zonal isolation in the net pay, lost circulation, and hole instability caused by the highly fractured and depleted reservoirs. 30% of the wells completed with conventional cement required remediation to achieve effective zonal isolation. The production liners in 20 wells had been cemented successfully with foam cement, even under severe well conditions of partial and severe losses. Full returns have been observed in all jobs while cementing, and cement has been seen at the surface after circulating fluids out of the top of the liners. Good isolation has been confirmed with cement log evaluation without the need for remedial treatment.16

In another study, Harlan et al.60 reported the successful application of foam cement in lateral wells in British Columbia, Canada, to mitigate the gas channeling through cement sheath as a result of improved rheology of the foamed cement compared with the conventional cement; this improved rheology results in effective displacement of the oil-based drilling fluid, and hence, a good bond between the formation/cement and casing/cement.

6.2. Foam Cement Use against Weak and Fragile Formations

Central Alberta is a famous region dominated by weak formations, and drilling through these formations has led to many problems, such as washout, which require the use of large volumes of cement, fluid loss circulation, and incomplete annulus fill during cementing. These usually lead to failure of the primary cementing when the job is performed using conventional cement, which is a water extended low-density cement slurry.61,62

In 1987, 20 of the wells in Central Alberta, Canada area were cemented with foamed cement. Fifteen of the wells showed satisfactory results in terms of cement bonding as indicated by the bond log; no well showed a surface gas flow. And for all of these wells, the cement was successfully circulated to the surface. The job failed in five wells. In one well, complete loss occurred, and surface water flow was observed in another well; this is attributed to the ultralow foam density, which was not enough to prevent water flow from the formations near the surface. The last three wells experienced partial loss, although the simulation study performed before the job showed that the ECD across the weak formations will exceed the fracture pressure. However, the operators decided to proceed with the job, and this is the reason for the partial loss.63

Cementing weak salt formations is also challenging. Over 70 cementing jobs were performed in North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana using foam cement in the period from 1984 to 1988. Cementing in this area was challenging because: (1) poor mud displacement in washed out salt leads to casing collapse, (2) completion problems are associated with several salt and lost circulation zones, and (3) multiple-stage cementing is needed to perform the long casing string cementing because of the low fracture gradient. For all treatments with foam cement, there were no reported casing collapse incidents.19

Successful application of foam cementing in over 60 wells in California, USA was reported by Harms and Febus.53 In this area, the wells were drilled through very fragile formations, which imposes a limit on the used cement slurry density; cement column fallback problems have also been experienced for several years. Lost circulation of conventional cement was also encountered. The use of foam cement was effective for shallow wells, where it minimized or eliminated the cement column fallback problems and considerably reduced the channeling and corrosion problems encountered when conventional cementing materials were used.

Nowadays, several oil wells have been drilled through weak formations or targeting weak hydrocarbon bearing formations such as coal bed methane (CBM) reservoirs. CBM reservoirs are associated with weak and less stable formations with low fracture pressure.64−66 The use of conventional cement, which is brittle, usually fails in primary jobs under the annular deformation and cyclic stress loads associated with CBM formations.50−52 Foam cement, which is more elastic, improved the cement sheath stability under the annular deformation across the CBM formations and increased the possibility of success for the primary cementing job. Fidan et al.67 reported successful field application of foam cement in CBM reservoirs in several wells in Western Canada. The authors reported that using foam cement zonal isolation in CBM reservoirs was achieved in several wells.

6.3. Applications in Remedial Treatment

Squeeze cementing is a kind of remedial cementing operation in which cement slurry is forced, under pressure, into perforations and channels, or against porous formations.6,68 This kind of operation is used for many purposes, such as shutting off water-producing zones, squeezing through gravel pack, and repairing tops and casing leaks.56,69,70 Several papers also reported the successful field application of foam cement for squeezing jobs to fix failed primary cementing jobs executed by using conventional cement materials.

In the late 1990s, successful squeezing of foam cementing to isolate a low-pressure, permeable, and sour gas-containing formation at a sidetrack build-up section was reported by.71 Coiled tubing was used after the cementing operation to remove the excess volume of cement to enable continuation of the drilling process.

About 151 squeeze treatments were performed in different wells produced from the Keg River formation in the Rainbow Lake area of Alberta, Canada. The purpose of these treatments is to enable hydraulic isolation between the different perforated zones and to prevent water and gas production. Different types of cements were considered in these treatments; 47 of them were performed using foamed cement. For the single squeeze treatment, the success probability for the treatment performed with foam cement was 58% compared to Class G cement, which has a success probability of 0%. Two squeezes of Class G are required to achieve the same success probability of a single treatment performed with foam cement.72

In early 2002, pumping of foamed spacers and cement blends on several wells to abandon low-pressure heavy oil sands in Western Canada resulted in obtaining a positive squeeze pressure in many cases from the first attempt where many of the conventional cementing were unsuccessful. The required number of treatments needed to establish the mechanical seal was reduced.73

Five water-injection wells in different fields in Oman (two in North and three in South Oman) were experiencing bad zonal isolation problems across fractured formations that led to corrosion of the casing strings. Cementing of tieback casings that run across the corroded ones using foam cement results in improvement in the zonal isolation across the corroded casing and fractured formations.74

6.4. The Use of Foam Cement in Offshore Wells

Cementing of offshore and deepwater wells faces many challenges and requires the use of a cement slurry that has specially designed properties and is able to generate a cement sheath that poses specific characteristics. The most critical issue while designing the cementing slurry is the low formation fracture pressure for the offshore formations compared to the same formation at the same sedimentary depth onshore.13

In the last decades, and because of its unique properties, foamed cement was successfully used for primary or remedial cementing of offshore wells.66,75,76

Foamed cement was also applied in an HPHT offshore gas well with S-shaped wellbore in the Shearwater field, East Central Graben of the North Sea. In this field, for the wells completed with conventional cement, a high annulus surface pressure was observed. For the wells completed with foamed cement, there were no losses of cement slurry or spacer during the cementing operations, and the annulus pressure for the well under study was zero after three months of the operation. On drilling out the shoe track, a good formation integrity test was obtained, comparable to offset wells completed with the conventional cement.77

Doan et al.26 suggested the use of a liquid stabilizing agent to produce highly stable foam cement for offshore applications. The use of this liquid stabilizer in three offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico enabled the production of more stable foamed cement compared to that produced with the dry stabilizer and to the foam cement generated with no stabilizing agent.

Early 2015, the use of foamed cement for cementing the top sections (surface casing) in an offshore field in Angola was started; foam cement was then used in 27 wells. The job failed in a single well, and 90% of the remaining cases showed full return to the surface, while partial return was noticed in the others, and the success ratio was 96%.78

Foam cement was also effective in cementing shallow overpressured sands in three wells in the Norwegian waters. The job was successful in all the three wells with full cement return to the seabed. There was also no water flow observed after the treatment, which is attributed to the decrease in the transition time for the foam cement system and its high compressibility, which shorten the exposure time in underbalance.79

6.5. Foam Cementing Cyclic-Steam and HPHT Producing Wells

Cementing at depths of high-pressure and high-temperature (HPHT) is highly challenging compared to where normal pressure and temperature are dominating. This is because the HPHT will affect the cement properties and behavior throughout the whole cementing operation. This includes mud displacement with cement slurry, cement placement in the annulus, cement loss to the formation, cement bond with the casing and formation, transition time from slurry to solid cement sheath, and gas channeling through cement during or after cement setting.15,80,81

In 2002, the production casings of two wells in the North Sea, Norway, where the temperature exceeds 140 °C were successfully cemented using foam cement. Evaluation of the cementing jobs showed that the foam cement was able to provide long-term zonal isolation at HPHT conditions, and zonal isolation with the effective mud displacement reduced the possibility of annular pressure buildup.82

Pine et al.77 reported that, after three months of operation, foam cement was able to prevent any increase in the annulus casing pressure in S-shaped HPHT wells in the North Sea at a pressure of 15,200 psi and temperature of 360 °F, where the wells with conventional cementing usually showed high increase in the annulus pressure. The formation integrity was also good compared to that obtained by conventional cementing.

A summary of different field applications of foamed cement in different areas worldwide is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. A Summary of Some Field Applications of Foamed Cement.

Reference Objective Field and Location No. of Wells Type of Wells Type/Name of Formations Cemented Pipe
(53) Cementing across fragile formations California, USA More than 60 wells Different Different Different
(63) Zonal isolation, in weak formations Central Alberta, Canada 20 wells – Formation total depths are 2000 m in 10 wells, 2300 to 2500 m in 5 wells, and 1500 to 1550 m in 5 wells –
(19) Mitigate the casing collapse and prevent loss North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana More than 70 jobs Different Salt formations Different
(72) Squeeze cementing The Rainbow Lake area of Alberta, Canada 151 wells Different The Keg River formation Different
(71) Isolate a permeable formation – 1 well A horizontal re-entry D3 formation with permeability of about 8 Darcy Open hole
(57) Zonal isolation Wyoming, USA 2 wells cemented with conventional cement slurry and 4 with foamed cement Gas wells, near-vertical wellbores – Production liners
(58) Effective zonal isolation Wyoming, USA 4 wells Horizontal wells Sandstone formation at total vertical depth of 11,500 ft and at a temperature of 190 °F 4 1/2″ Horizontal Production liner
(67) Zonal isolation in weak formations Western Canada A group of CBM wells – Coal bed methane –
(73) Remedial treatment Western Canada – – Low-pressure heavy oil sands Production casing
(77) Zonal isolation Shearwater field, East Central Graben of the North Sea 1 well HPHT gas well, sidetrack wellbore (S-shape wells) Formation total depth is 17,900 ft MD (16,700 ft TVD). Initial reservoir pressure is 15,200 psi and temperature is 360 °F –
(82) Effective mud displacement and zonal isolation at HPHT conditions North Sea, Norway 2 wells HPHT inclined wells (inclinations of more than 40°) – Production casings
(74) Remedial treatment Oman 5 wells, 2 in North Oman and 3 in South Oman Water injection well The two wells in the north are at 1503 and 1162 m, and the wells in the south are at 500 m Tieback Casing across Highly Corroded 9 5/8 ″ Casing
(26) Develop liquid stabilizer for offshore applications Gulf of Mexico, North America 3 wells Different Different Different
(78) Stop shallow water flow Angola 27 wells Offshore wells Shallow formations (top-formations) 20″ Surface casings
(60) Prevent Gas channeling British Columbia, Canada – Lateral Wells The Montney Formation Surface and Production casings
(79) Stop shallow water flow The Norwegian waters, Norway 3 wells Offshore wells Shallow overpressured sands Surface casings
(16) Effective zonal isolation Chichimene and Castilla fields, Colombia 20 wells – Sandstone formations Production liners
(59) Effective zonal isolation and prevention of circulation loss Fahud and Natih fields of North Oman. Over 270 jobs Different The Natih formation 7″ production casings and liners
Open in a new tab

7. Cement Job Evaluation Advances and Challenges (Evaluation with Well Logs)

Using lightweight cement can make it difficult to effectively and accurately evaluate the integrity of the cement sheath. Bond-log tools, which rely on high compressional bonding to the casing to detect an attenuation of the sonic signal, may not work as well with lightweight cement due to its lower density and compressive strength. This can make it appear as though no cement is present, when in fact there is. It is important to find a reliable and consistent method for determining the presence of the cement sheath.84

The usual procedures for cement job evaluation need to be modified for foamed cements. When running a cement bond log (CBL) with foamed cement, special steps must be considered due to the presence of gas in the slurry, which affects the attenuation of the slurry. Bruckdorfer et al.85 and Jutten et al.86 created interpretation curves and guides for evaluating bond logs in foamed cemented wells.

In 1983, Bruckdorfer et al.85 expanded the existing correlations between cement compressive strength and the CBL attenuation rate to embrace foamed cement. Jutten et al.86 discovered that, for various cement-slurry formulations, the CBL attenuation rate is linked to the acoustic impedance of set cements, not the compressive strength. Based on these findings, which are also valid for foamed cements, the CBL interpretation chart can be modified to show a connection between cement acoustic impedance (Z) and the CBL signal.

Inaccurate conclusions about the necessity of squeeze cementing can result from using standard methods to interpret data from CBL and ultrasonic tools, because foamed cements alter the amplitude and waveform of the CBL, making the usual analysis method inapplicable. Additionally, ultrasonic tools typically rely on differences in impedance between cement and fluids, but the impedance of foamed cement can be similar to that of other materials, such as water or gas, making it difficult to distinguish. However, other techniques have been developed to evaluate foamed cement using ultrasonic scanning tools. To improve the evaluation of foamed cements, new methods have been developed, such as a statistical variation process (SVP), new bond-index curves, and special log presentations. These procedures will help reduce the costs of unnecessary remedial cementing that may occur when foamed or complex cements are evaluated incorrectly.87

Harness et al.88 developed a method to differentiate foamed cement from fluid when both have the same impedance. The method uses SVP to distinguish between solid crystalline structures such as cement and fluid. Fluids without solids show consistent activity in logs, whereas solids combined with fluids or gas result in inconsistent activity level. Cement, which consists of solids, liquids, and gas in the case of foamed cement, displays a significant variation in the impedance measurements. On the other hand, homogeneous substances such as water, gas, or drilling fluids show less variation in impedance. By examining the rate of change in impedance, taking the tool position into account, it is possible to determine the presence of either foamed cement or liquid. The derivative of the impedance provides valuable information, and the instantaneous change in curvature characterization that it provides is a direct reflection of the quality of the material that isolates the backside of the casing. By using this derivative, it is easy to identify the presence of lightweight cement and to assess its quality.84

It is recommended to conduct temperature surveys 8 to 24 h after a cement job. The dilution of cement and the insulation effect of gas can result in a less pronounced thermal change compared to that of conventional extended cements. The thermal gradient will be more pronounced in cap and tail cements, whereas the foamed cement may show a thermal gradient similar to or lower than the normal background.45,90 Therefore, having a cap helps in detecting foamed cement tops; without it, it may be difficult to identify foamed cement.

8. Operational Challenges of Using the Foam Cement and Future Perspectives

Despite the several advantages of foam cement, which make the possibility of successfully using this special type of cement in different applications even where the use of conventional cement material failed, there are still many limitations challenges associated with application and uses of foamed cement. Following are some of the challenges of using foamed cement:

  • The most important operational challenges of foam cementing are to achieve a stable foamed slurry at the desired foam quality and to generate a cement sheath that has low permeability.26

  • Nitrogen solubility plays a minor role in downhole foamed cement quality and is difficult to accurately estimate.

  • The poor acoustic properties of foamed cement limit the use of cement bond log; therefore, the use of ultrasonic logging tools is needed to evaluate the zonal isolation characteristics of foamed cement.

  • Since surface return is expected when foamed cement is used, it is mandatory to use effective wellhead pressure equipment.

  • The final density of the foam cement in the annulus is significantly affected by washouts and loss of circulation.53

  • Foam cement could achieve a density of 4 ppg, but the permeability of the sheath generated with a foam cement of density less than 8 ppg is high.

  • Excessive N2 injection negatively affects the downhole quality of the cement more than the use of low amounts of N2.82

  • One of the critical issues associated with squeeze cementing using conventional material is the accurate estimation of fluid loss, which complicates the operations and may lead to the failure of the squeeze job.

9. Lessons Learned

The applications of foamed cement in oil fields have been thoroughly investigated and documented, yielding a wealth of lessons learned and best practices. The following lessons have been learned based on this review:

  • As with standard cementing, success of the foam cement job depends on proper mud conditioning, mud displacement, pipe centralization, movement (rotation or reciprocation), and use of spacer.91

  • Foamed-cement-squeeze treatments can be pumped routinely in the field, as confirmed by its successful use in different squeeze applications.

  • In the past, it was difficult to quantify the bonding patterns of the CBL for foam cement because of the unique properties of the foam cement. Recently, the field experience showed that CBL was effectively used to evaluate many foamed cement jobs.82

  • Consideration of the cementing operations simulation results is important to predict any anticipated cement loss, especially across weak formations.

  • For squeeze treatment, although the foam cement operation is costly compared to class G cement usage, the necessity to perform the operation in more than a single squeeze for class G cement system increases the overall job cost. Therefore, foamed cement offers the best chance of success and a reduced total job cost.72

  • The primary cement job cost significantly increases when foam cement is considered compared to class G cement. This high cost is compensated by the long-term stability of the foam cement sheath, especially when it is expected to be subjected to hundreds of stress–relaxation cycles where class G cement could crack in two to ten cycles.92

10. Conclusions

Foam cement has been found to be a promising material in the oil and gas industry, with numerous applications in new and currently producing wells. This review paper has analyzed and discussed the different uses of foam cement in the oil field. The following points are concluded from this review:

  • Foam cement has several advantages over traditional cementing materials. It is lightweight, allowing for easier cementing across weak formations; it also reduces the risk of formation damage and increases the probability of a successful cementing job.

  • Foam cement is primarily used as a sealing material, providing a barrier to fluid migration. This is especially crucial in well completion as it helps ensure the stability of the wellbore and enhances the integrity of the cementing job.

  • In well abandonment operations, foam cement can be used to plug off old wells, providing a permanent barrier.

  • Despite its many benefits, foam can also have some limitations. The production of foam cement requires specialized equipment, which can be expensive and requires skilled operators.

  • Further research and development into foam cement technology is needed to fully unlock its potential and ensure that it remains a reliable and effective material for use in the oil field.

  • The use of foam cement in the oil field industry is expected to continue growing as operators look for ways to improve well integrity.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the College of Petroleum Engineering & Geosciences at the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for providing the support to conduct this research.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Osunrinde T. O.; Chiamaka I.; Ahmad Y. Field Developmental Plan Analysis: a case study of ‘x’ reservoir. J. Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2019, 9 (3), 2185–2203. 10.1007/s13202-019-0622-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. D’Alesio P.; Caramanico L.. Proactive Well Integrity Management Through the Estimation of Residual Well Life. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, December 6–9, 2015, p 18300. 10.2523/IPTC-18300-MS. [DOI]
  3. Wang W.; Dahi Taleghani A.. Cement Sheath Integrity during Hydraulic Fracturing: An Integrated Modeling Approach SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, February 4–6, 2014, p 168642. 10.2118/168642-MS. [DOI]
  4. Vuk T.; Ljubič-Mlakar T.; Gabrovšek R.; Kaučič V. Tertiary Gelation of Oilwell Cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30 (11), 1709–1713. 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00414-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Davies R. J.; Almond S.; Ward R. S.; Jackson R. B.; Adams C.; Worrall F.; Herringshaw L. G.; Gluyas J. G.; Whitehead M. A. Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation. Mar Pet Geol 2014, 56, 239–254. 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.03.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hossain M. E.; Al-Majed A. A.. Fundamentals of Sustainable Drilling Engineering. Scrivener Publishing, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ravi K.; Savery M.; Reddy B. R.; Whitfill D.. Cementing technology for low fracture gradient and controlling loss circulation. SPE/IADC Indian Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, October 16–18, 2006, p 102074. 10.2118/102074-MS. [DOI]
  8. Elmarsafawi Y.; Warman R.; Assad A.; Powell B.; Razouqi M.; Caillat F.. Cementing a Producing Formation With Low-Fracture-Pressure Gradient in Wafra Field, Kuwait. Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, October 30 – November 1, 2007, 107047. 10.2118/107047-MS. [DOI]
  9. Metcalf A. S.; Nix K.; Martinez-Guedry J.. Case histories: Overcoming lost circulation during drilling and primary cementing operations using an environmentally preferred system. SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, March 27–29, 2011, p 140723. 10.2118/140723-MS. [DOI]
  10. Nelson E. B.; Guillot D.. Well Cementing, 2nd ed.; Schlumberger, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Adjei S.; Elkatatny S.; Sarmah P.; Chinea G. Investigation of Dehydroxylated Sodium Bentonite as a Pozzolanic Extender in Oil-Well Cement. SPE Drilling & Completion 2021, 36, 730. 10.2118/205487-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Crook R.; Moore S.; Miller M. Fully Engineered Foam-Cementing Process Improves Zonal Isolation. Drilling Contractor 1999, 1999 (July/August), 26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Taiwo O.; Ogbonna J.. Foam Cementing Design and Application: A Cure for Low Gradient-Associated Problems in Deepwater Operations in the Gulf of Guinea. Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, July 2011 10.2118/150767-MS. [DOI]
  14. Davies D. R.; Hartog J. J.; Cobbett J. S.. Foamed Cement - A Cement with Many Applications. Middle East Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, March 1981 10.2118/9598-MS. [DOI]
  15. Frittella F.; Babbo M.. Best Practices and Lessons Learned From 15 Years of Experience of Cementing HPHT Wells in Italy. Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 25–27, 2009 10.2118/125175-MS. [DOI]
  16. Vela J.; Arias H.; Sanchez E.; Juan E.; Garzon R.. Foam Cement Proven as Effective Solution for Zonal Isolation in Difficult Wellbores: A Success Field Case in Colombian Mature Fields. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Virtual, July 27–31, 2020 10.2118/199097-MS [DOI]
  17. Yuanliang X.; Baoliang L.; Chun C.; Yamei Z. Properties of foamed concrete with Ca(OH)2 as foam stabilizer. Cem Concr Compos 2021, 118, 103985. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103985. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mcelfresh P. M.; Go Boncan V. C.. Applications of Foam Cement 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New Orleans, LA, USA, September 26–29, 1982 10.2118/11203-MS. [DOI]
  19. Bour D. L.; Vennes M. R.. SPE Application of Foam Cement in the Williston Basin, Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 1989 10.2118/18984-MS. [DOI]
  20. Foamed Cement. Petrowiki. Accessed February 04, 2023. https://petrowiki.spe.org/Foamed_cement.
  21. Bour D. L.; Vennes M. R.. Application of Foam Cement in the Williston Basin. Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 1989 10.2118/18984-MS. [DOI]
  22. Niggemann K.; Samuel A.; Alexander M. V.; Hernández R.. Foamed cementing geothermal 13 3/8-in. Intermediate casing: NGP #61–22. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 15–29, 2010.
  23. Nelson E. B.; Guillot D. Well cementing; Schlumberger, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hengst R. R.; Tressler R. E. Fracture of foamed portland cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 1983, 13 (1), 127–134. 10.1016/0008-8846(83)90136-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Doan A. A.; Ejike M. O.; Li L.. Better Foam Cement with a Liquid Stabilizer: Offshore Case Histories. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 2–5, 2016 10.4043/27047-MS. [DOI]
  26. de Rozieres J.; Ferriere R. F. Foamed-Cement Characterization Under Downhole Conditions and Its Impact on Job Design. SPE Production Engineering 1991, 6 (03), 297–304. 10.2118/19935-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice on Preparation and Testing of Foamed Cement Slurries at Atmospheric Pressure. ANSI/API Recommended Practice 1 OB-4, 1st ed., July 2004.
  28. Anderson G.Coring and core analysis handbook. Jan. 1975 10.2172/1882428. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heller J. P.; Kuntamukkula M. S. Critical Review of the Foam Rheology Literature. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1987, 26 (2), 318–325. 10.1021/ie00062a023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mueller D. T.; Franklin V. L.; Daulton D. J.. The Determination of the Static and Dynamic Properties of Nitrified Cements Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, USA, March 1990 10.2118/20116-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Harris P. C.; Reidenbach V. G. High-Temperature Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing Fluids. Journal of Petroleum Technology 1987, 39 (05), 613–619. 10.2118/13177-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ahmed R. M.; Takach N. E.; Khan U. M.; Taoutaou S.; James S.; Saasen A.; Godo̷y R. Rheology of foamed cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2009, 39 (4), 353–361. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Cobb S.; Maki V.; Sabins F. Method predicts foamed-cement compressive strength under temperature, pressure. Oil & Gas Journal 2023, 100 (15), 48. [Google Scholar]
  34. Short A.; Struct M. I.; Kinniburgh W. The Structural Use of Aerated Concrete. Institution of Structural Engineers 1961, 39 (1), 1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nelson E. B. Improved cement slurry designed for thermal EOR wells. Oil & Gas Journal 1986, 84 (48), 1. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rozières J.; Griffin T. J. 14 Foamed Cement. Developments in Petroleum Science 1990, 28 (C), 14-1. 10.1016/S0376-7361(09)70312-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang C.; Chen X.; Wang L.; Ma H.; Wang R. A novel self-generating nitrogen foamed cement: The preparation, evaluation and field application. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 44, 131–139. 10.1016/j.jngse.2017.04.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Picket S. L.; Cole S. W.. Foamed cementing technique for liners yields cost-effective results Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, USA, March 16–18, 1994, p 27679. 10.2118/27679-MS. [DOI]
  39. Kutchko B.; Crandall D.; M G.; Mcintyre D.; Spaulding R.; Strazisar B. R.; Rosenbaum E.; Haljasmaa I.V.; Benge G.; Cunningham E.; DeBruijn G.; Gardner C.. Computed Tomography and Statistical Analysis of Bubble Size Distributions in Atmospheric-Generated Foamed Cement. Report number: NETL-TRS-2–2013, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2013.
  40. Sharma M. K.; Shah D. O.; Brigham W. E. Effect of Mixed-Chain-Length Surfactants on Fluid Displacement in Porous Media by In-Situ Foaming Process. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1986, 1 (03), 253–260. 10.2118/10612-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tanner C. H.; Harms W. M.. Unique Ultra Light-Weight Cement Slurry Compositions for Use in Unique Well Conditions, Laboratory Evaluation, and Field Performance. Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 1983 10.2118/11486-MS. [DOI]
  42. Olowolagba K.; Brenneis C.. Techniques for the Study of Foamed Cement Rheology. SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition, Tunis, Tunisia, June 8–10, 2010 10.2118/133050-MS. [DOI]
  43. Aldrich C. H.; Mitchell B. J.. Strength, permeabilities, and porosities of oil well foam cement. 1975 ASME conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, September 21–25, 1975.
  44. Montman R. C.; Sutton D. L.; Harms W. M.; Mody B. G. Low density foamed cements solve many oilfield problems. World Oil 1982, 171, 171–186. [Google Scholar]
  45. Talong D.200 and Counting: Unlocking CBM Potential with High-Strength, Low-Density Cement Slurry. SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, October 2017. Paper Number: SPE-186976-MS 10.2118/186976-MS. [DOI]
  46. Dasgupta D.; Banerjee S.; Garg S. P.; Jain V. K.. Lightweight Slurries-A Success Story of Application in Low-Fracture-Gradient and Depleted Fields for Improved Cementation. SPE/IADC Indian Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, October 2006 10.2118/101810-MS. [DOI]
  47. Mohammad H. S.; Shaikh S.. Coalbed Methane Cementing Best Practices-Indian Case History. International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition Beijing, China, China, June 2010 10.2118/132214-MS. [DOI]
  48. Harms W. M.; Febus J. S. Cementing of Fragile-Formation Wells With Foamed Cement Slurries. Journal of Petroleum Technology 1985, 37, 1049–1057. 10.2118/12755-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Bybee K. New Cement Systems for Durable Zonal Isolation. Journal of Petroleum Technology 2000, 52 (8), 32–33. 10.2118/0800-0032-JPT. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Bybee K. Foamed Cement for Zonal Isolation: Case Histories. Journal of Petroleum Technology 2001, 53 (08), 72–74. 10.2118/0801-0072-JPT. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Adams N.; Charrier T.. Drilling engineering: a complete well planning approach. PennWell Publishing Company, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kopp K.; Reed S.; Foreman J.; Carty B.; Griffith J.. Foamed Cement vs. Conventional Cement for Zonal Isolation-Case Histories. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 1–4, 2000 10.2118/62895-MS. [DOI]
  53. Harlan T. D.; Foreman J. M.; Reed S. D.; Griffith J. E.. SPE 71055 Foamed Cement Selection for Horizontal Liners Proves Effective for Zonal Isolation-Case History. SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, May 2001 10.2118/71055-MS. [DOI]
  54. Al Sulaimi Z.; Al Adhali S.; Austin J.. 15 Years of Foamed Cementing in Oman: Future Applications and Lessons Learned from 270+ Foamed Cementing Operations. ADIPEC; Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 31 – November 3, 2022 10.2118/211510-ms. [DOI]
  55. Ahmady A.; Turton S.; Lewis S.; Grant M.; Murphy B.. IADC/SPE-199614-MS Improved Channeling and Gas Migration Issues Using Foam Cement: Case History, Montney Formation. IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Galveston, Texas, USA, March 2020 10.2118/199614-MS. [DOI]
  56. Yang B. Geological characteristics and reservoir properties in the unconventional Montney Formation, southwestern Alberta, Canada. Geosciences Journal 2018, 22 (2), 313–325. 10.1007/s12303-017-0038-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Toboła T.; Kukiałka P. The lotsberg salt formation in central alberta (Canada)—petrology, geochemistry, and fluid inclusions. Minerals 2020, 10 (10), 1–24. 10.3390/min10100868. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Peskunowicz J.; Bour D. L.. Foam Cement Solves Cementing Problems in Alberta, Canada Annual Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM Calgary, Alberta, June 7–10, 1987, pp 1459–1470 10.2118/87-38-89. [DOI]
  59. Pashin J. C.; Pradhan S. P.; Vishal V.. Formation Damage in Coalbed Methane Recovery. In Formation Damage During Improved Oil Recovery, Yuan B.; Wood D. A., Eds., Gulf Professional Publishing, 2018; pp 499–514 10.1016/B978-0-12-813782-6.00013-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Ahmed T.; Meehan D. N.. Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. In Advanced Reservoir Management and Engineering, 2nd ed., Ahmed T.; Meehan D. N., Eds., Gulf Professional Publishing, 2012; pp 281–432 10.1016/B978-0-12-385548-0.00003-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Marriott T.; Griffith J.; Fyten G.; Mallett C.; Szutiak G.. Foamed Conventional Lightweight Cement Slurry for Ultralow Density and Low ECDs Solves Lost-Circulation Problem Across Coal Formations: A Case History. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 2005 10.2118/96108-MS. [DOI]
  62. Fidan E.; Kuru E.; Babadagli T.. Foam Cement Applications for Zonal Isolation in Coalbed Methane Wells Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2003, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 10–12, 2003 10.2118/2003-129. [DOI]
  63. Rabia H.Well Engineering & Construction. Entrac Consulting Limited, London, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mitchell R. F.Petroleum Engineering Handbook - Drilling Engineering; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Vol. 2, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. Aadno̷y B. S.Modern Well Design, 2nd ed.; CRC Press/Balkema, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  66. O’Rourke T. J.; Crombie D. L.. A Unique Solution to Zonal Isolation Utilizing Foam-Cement and Coiled-Tubing Technologies. SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable Houston, Texas, USA, May 25–26, 1999 10.2118/54473-MS. [DOI]
  67. Chmilowski W.; Kondratoff L. B. Foamed Cement for Squeeze Cementing Low-Pressure, Highly Permeable Reservoirs: Design and Evaluation. SPE Drilling Engineering 1992, 7, 284–290. 10.2118/20425-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Millard M.; Getzlaf D.; Griffith J. E.. Selection of Foam Flushes and Foamed Cement Proves Effective for Remedial Operations of Low-Pressured Formations-Case Histories SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, March 22–25, 2003, pp 22–25 10.2118/80939-MS. [DOI]
  69. de Weerd A.; Al Hanshi S.; Al Aghbari S.; AlFadhli A.. Innovative Application of Foamed Cement for Zonal Isolation of a Tieback Casing across Highly Corroded Casing. SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, February 14–17, 2010 10.2118/128261-MS. [DOI]
  70. Kulakofsky D.; Avalos A.; Hernandez R.. Superior Zonal Isolation Provided by Ultralightweight Cementing Technology Increases Profitability of Wells in Difficult-to-Cement Areas. International Oil Conference and Exhibition, Cancun, Mexico, August 2006 10.2118/104066-MS. [DOI]
  71. Fuller G. A.; Bolado D.; Hardy F.; Spath J.. A Gulf of Mexico Case History: Benefits of Foamed Cementing to Combat a SWF. 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2–4, 2010 10.2118/128160-MS. [DOI]
  72. Pine M.; Hunter L.; Mutch J.; Adam J.; Griffith J. E.. Selection of Foamed Cement for HPHT Gas Well Proves Effective for Zonal Isolation-Case History. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, February 2003 10.2118/79909-MS. [DOI]
  73. Joao A. T.; Andrade G.; Alegria A.. Foam Cement Implementation-Deepwater Angola Case Histories. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 13–16, 2017 10.2118/188308-MS. [DOI]
  74. Odden D. A.; Lende G.; Rehman K.; Lilledal L.; Smyth C.; Diesen M.; Bjo̷rnstad L.; Morten L.. Use of Foam Cement to Prevent Shallow Water Flow on Three Wells in Norwegian Waters. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, January 13–15, 2020 10.2523/IPTC-19747-MS. [DOI]
  75. Frittella F.; Babbo M.; Muffo A. I.. Best Practices and Lessons Learned From 15 Years of Experience of Cementing HPHT Wells in Italy. SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, October 26–28, 2009 10.2118/125175-MS. [DOI]
  76. Brandl A.; Anh Doan A.; Estela Alegria A.. Overcoming the Challenges During Cementing Spacer Design for Deep Deviated HPHT Wells Containing Heavy Oil Based Muds. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, August 27–29, 2018 10.2118/191084-MS. [DOI]
  77. Griffith J. E.; Lende G.; Ravi K.; Saasen A.; No̷dland N. E.; Jordal O. H.. Foam Cement Engineering and Implementation for Cement Sheath Integrity at HPHT. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, March 2–4, 2004 10.2118/87194-MS. [DOI]
  78. Thomas S.; Smith C. H.; Williams B. W.; Hamilton L.. Ultrasonic Log Response in Lightweight Cement Conditions. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference 2014, Vol. 1, pp 587–597, September 2014 10.2118/171612-MS. [DOI]
  79. Bruckdorfer R.; Jacobs B.; Masson J. P. Cement bond log evaluation of foam- and synthetic-cemented casings. J. Pet. Technol. 1984, 36 (12), 1917–1921. 10.2118/11980-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Jutten J. J.; Guillot D.; Parcevaux P. A. Relationship Between Cement Slurry Composition, Mechanical Properties, and Cement-Bond-Log Output. SPE Production Engineering 1989, 4 (01), 75–82. 10.2118/16652-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Frisch G. J.; Graham W. L.; Griffith J.. Assessment of Foamed – Cement Slurries Using Conventional Cement Evaluation Logs and Improved Interpretation Methods. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, May 1999 10.2118/55649-MS. [DOI]
  82. Harness P. E.; Sabins F. L.; Griffith J. E.; Services H.. New Technique Provides Better Low-Density-Cement Evaluation. SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, March 1992 10.2118/24050-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Montman R.; Sutton D. L.; Harms W. M.; Mody B. G. Low-density foamed Portland cements fill variety of needs. Oil Gas J. 1982, 80 (30), 40659. 10.2172/1340659. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Haut R. C.; Crook R. J.. Primary Cementing: The Mud Displacement Process. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 1979 10.2118/8253-MS. [DOI]
  85. Benge O. G.; Mcdermott J. R. Foamed Cement Job Successful in Deep HTHP Offshore Well. Oil and Gas Journal 1996, 94 (11), 58–63. [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES