Foamed cementing geothermal 13 3/8-in. Intermediate casing: NGP #61-22

Transactions - Geothermal Resources Council

Volumn 33, Issue , 2009, Pages 195-200

  Niggemann, Kim ^a   Samuel, Abraham ^b   Alexander, Morriss V ^a   Hernández, Rafael ^a  

^a Nevada Geothermal Power ^*  (Australia)

^b Geothermal Resource Group   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost savings; Ductility; Foamed Cement; Lightweight; Microspheres; Thermal conductivity

Indexed keywords

BLUE MOUNTAIN; CEMENT DESIGN; CEMENTING OPERATIONS; COST COMPARISONS; COST SAVING; COST SAVINGS; FOAMED CEMENT; LIGHTWEIGHT; PAPER DOCUMENTS; RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTIC;

CEMENTING (SHAFTS); COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DESIGN; DUCTILITY; GEOTHERMAL FIELDS; GEOTHERMAL PROSPECTING; GEOTHERMAL WELLS; JOB ANALYSIS; MICROSPHERES; SETTING; THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY; THERMOANALYSIS;

CEMENTS;

EID: 77952627353     PISSN: 01935933     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (3)

1. Ruch. A. 2000. "New Generation Foam Cement -A Universal System for Cementing." Presented at the Spring Meeting of the Upstream Section of the German Society for Petroleum and Coal Science, Celle, Germany 27-28, April.
2. Kopp, Kevin, S. Reed, and J. Foreman et al. 2007. "Foamed Cement vs. Conventional Cement for Zonal Isolation - Case Histories." Paper SPE 62985 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October.
3. Wolfgang Deeg, J. Griffith, and R. Crook. 2008. "Foamed vs. Conventional Cement: Cause and Effect of Tensile Fractures in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations." Technical paper, Halliburton.