how_to_run_and_cement_liners_part_5.pdf

5.1 If a leak does exist in a liner and the decision is made to squeeze the shoe, there is a risk of setting the packer below the leak, which could cause one of three things to happen. Either squeeze cement will be applied to the shoe where it is not needed; or ce- ment could channel around the liner and through the leak back into the pipe putting cement on top of the packer; or the packer (if set below the leak) would effect a good leakoff test, thus hid- ing the leak. The latter possibility could be avoided by pressur- ing up on the annulus above the packer to the fracture gradient of the shoe. This will also help avoid collapsing the casing above the packer with high squeeze pressures. Since the test pressure inside a liner should at least exceed the fracture gradient at the shoe, it would be prudent to apply this same pressure to the liner overlap before it is drilled out and the shoe tested without a packer. Otherwise, a leakoff test on the shoe (if it is a drilling liner) may breakdown the overlap and the operator will again not know for sure where the leak occurred. Another negative aspect of testing liners without packers is that test pressure must not exceed the unknown burst rating of the intermediate casing, especially if mud density is great- er inside the intermediate than outside (this is the case when most liner are set). If substantial casing wear is suspected, test- ing without packer should be considered risky. Wear would be suggested in directional holes when long periods of time are spent drilling inside casing; when intermediate casing is through high dog-legs; and when internal mud weights and circulating temperatures are high while drilling below intermediate cas- ing,1,21,23, etc. In addition, the increase in tension due to ballooning during pressure testing should be checked to ensure that tensile rating of the intermediate casing is not exceeded. The following example illustrates the calculations that s