Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol
Geopolymer as the future oil-well cement: A review
Stephen Adjei a, Salaheldin Elkatatny a, *, Wilberforce Nkrumah Aggrey b, Yasmin Abdelraouf c
a
Department of Petroleum Engineering, College of Petroleum & Geosciences, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Geo-Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
c
Chemical Engineering Department, Cairo University, 12613, Giza, Egypt
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Geopolymer
Oil-well cement
Ordinary portland cement (OPC)
Compressive strength
Cement degradation
The petroleum and cement manufacturing industries have been accused of contributing substantial quantities of
carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Additionally, Portland cement systems suffer carbonation and
degradation in high saline and acidic environments. Geopolymer, a much cleaner cementitious binder, synthe­
sized through the reaction of aluminosilicate materials and alkaline solution has been a leading alternative to
ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
The feasibility of using geopolymer in oil-well cementing is still being explored. The objective of this review
study is to provide a single document that summarizes the findings from these studies.
In general, researchers have explored geopolymer application in aggressive environments and well plug and
abandonment operations, the effect of temperature, and its compatibility with drilling fluid.
Compared to OPC systems, geopolymer is more resistant to acidic environments, performs better in high saline
conditions, and is highly compatible with drilling mud. The geopolymer being a green technology coupled with
its optimized properties implies that it is the future of oil-well cement. For further studies, we suggest in-depth
characterization of lightweight geopolymers.
1. Introduction
Geopolymer is an inorganic polymeric cementitious binder devel­
oped through the reaction between aluminosilicate materials (source
materials) and alkali hydroxides and/or soluble silicates (Davidovits,
1991; Xu and Van Deventer, 2000). The silicon and aluminum present in
the source materials dissolve upon contact with the alkali solution,
forming oligomers that undergo polycondensation to form a
three-dimensional framework, namely, polysialate (－Si－O－Al－O),
polysialte-siloxo (－Si－O－Al－O－Si－O), and polysialate-disiloxo (－
Si－O－Al－O－Si－O－Si－O) (Davidovits, 1991; Sitaram et al., 2019;
Vrålstad et al., 2019). A typical geopolymerization process is shown in
Fig. 1. This material exhibits exceptional mechanical strength and
durability (Duxson et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2018). The term geopolymer
was conceived by Joseph Davidovits (Davidovits, 1982, 1991).
In comparison to Portland cement whose production contributes
significant carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, the geopolymer
manufacturing process is much cleaner (Davidovits, 2010; Singh et al.,
2018; Worrell et al., 2001). Additionally, the source materials do not
demand high energy such as that required in cement kilns (Patel and
Shah, 2018). Commonly used source materials for geopolymerization
include industrial and agro wastes like fly ash, slag, silica fume, coconut
ash, and rice husk ash (Hassan et al., 2018; Mellado et al., 2014; Singh
et al., 2018). Clays are also source materials, but they require calcination
(heating) to be transformed into highly reactive forms. Calcined kaolin,
known as metakaolin, is the most used clay material (Luukkonen et al.,
2018; Palomo et al., 1999; Zibouche et al., 2009).
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has specially developed
Portland cement for oil and gas well cementing. They come in different
classes (A to H) based on their composition and the choice of a particular
class depends on the prevailing wellbore conditions, depth of applica­
tion, availability in the region, and other technical factors (Nelson and
Guillot, 2006). The objectives of well cementing include casing support,
zonal isolation, water shut-off, lost circulation control, and well plug
and abandonment (Ladva et al., 2005; Vrålstad et al., 2019; Xu et al.,
2019).
Besides the environmental concern that initiated the search for
alternative cement binders, Portland cement-based systems present
several issues. For instance, cement sheath failure often occurs during
perforation and hydraulic fracturing due to the low elasticity of OPC
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: g201806960@kfupm.edu.sa (S. Adjei), elkatatny@kfupm.edu.sa (S. Elkatatny), wnaggrey.coe@knust.edu.gh (W.N. Aggrey), jasmine.
abdelraouf@gmail.com (Y. Abdelraouf).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109485
Received 7 July 2021; Received in revised form 24 August 2021; Accepted 11 September 2021
Available online 13 September 2021
0920-4105/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
Fig. 1. Polycondensation of metakaolin, (Rovnaník, 2010).
systems (Yan et al., 2020). Also, OPC-based composites experience
strength retrogression at temperatures exceeding 230 ◦ F and do not
provide satisfactory performance in deep-reaching wells and geothermal
wells and also in wells subjected to thermal loads such as in steam in­
jection wells (Al-bagoury et al., 2016; Bour, 2005; Bu et al., 2016).
Geopolymer technology has seen wide applications in other fields,
especially in the construction industry (Sambucci et al., 2021). How­
ever, it is yet to see a full-scale implementation in oil and gas well
cementing. Currently, researchers in well cementing are investigating
the properties of different geopolymer systems under downhole condi­
tions. This paper serves to bring these studies into a single document that
would serve as the go-to literature for researchers. Unlike any other
related work, this survey does not just present the properties of geo­
polymer systems but rather illustrates how these properties fare in
comparison to OPC systems in different scenarios.
In the next few sections, laboratory and simulation studies involving
geopolymer applications in oil-well cementing would be discussed,
highlighting the assumptions made, test conditions, advantages, and
limitations.
Fig. 2. Degradation of Portland cement-based system in two CO2 environments
(wet supercritical CO2 and CO2-saturated water). White arrows indicate cal­
cium carbonate precipitation at the surface of the cement cores (Rimmelé
et al., 2008).
lower CO2 permeability, with values ranging from 2 × 10− 21 to 6 ×
10− 20 m2 which is less than the permeability of conventional systems
(10− 20 to 10− 11 m2). The lower permeability of geopolymer would mean
that the material would be an excellent alternative cementitious mate­
rial for carbon dioxide sequestration. Further work by Nasvi et al.
(2013b) on the apparent CO2 permeability of fly ash geopolymer under
sub and supercritical CO2 pressures (confining pressures: 2030–3770
psi, injection pressures: 870–2900 psi) showed that the permeability of
the geopolymer decreased with increasing injection pressure, indicating
that the geopolymer would form an effective seal in the deep depths
used for supercritical CO2 storage. Nasvi et al. (2014a) performed
experimental studies to evaluate the effect of different geopolymer mix
formulations on the CO2 permeability. The geopolymers were charac­
terized by permeability that was two to three times lower than that of
the Class G cement system. The geopolymer system containing 15% slag
yielded a material with a permeability that was about 1000 times lower
than that of the Class G cement system. Such a low CO2 permeability is a
key requirement for effective CO2 storage.
Barlet-Gouedard et al. (2010) tested the durability of
metakaolin-based geopolymer in a CO2 environment. The sample was
cured for 3 days and placed in a CO2 vessel at 194 ◦ F and 4000 psi for 15
days. The geopolymer exhibited fantastic mechanical properties, with
the microstructural analysis showing no significant degradation. The
mechanical characteristics of geopolymer under CO2 sequestration
conditions were reported by Nasvi et al. (2016). The test was done at a
pressure of 435 psi and the samples were cured for up to 6 months. The
control geopolymer for the test was not placed in the CO2 cell. The
geopolymer did not show any considerable changes in strength when
placed in the aggressive environment. The microstructure of the sample
that was saturated in CO2 for 6 months, (Fig. 3), showed no significant
differences compared to the control. The study proved that the fly ash
geopolymer system can be a viable alternative to conventional cemen­
titious systems as it exhibits higher durability and strength.
Jani and Imqam (2021) observed (Fig. 4) that Class C fly ash geo­
polymer system possessed greater resistance to CO2 degradation
compared to API Class H cement. In Fig. 4, there was no significant
change in the surface of the geopolymer, however, the conventional
system had some considerable calcium carbonate precipitate from the
cement-CO2 reaction. Upon exposure to CO2, the strength of the Port­
land cement decreased greatly with increasing exposure time while the
geopolymer experienced only a slight decrease after 14 days.
Fly ash-based geopolymer systems show more receptiveness in ma­
rine conditions and develop higher compressive strength compared to
Class G cement systems (Kanesan et al., 2018). Lee and Van Deventer
(2002) investigated the effect of different inorganic salts on the strength
2. Properties of geopolymer for different well applications
There is no all-purpose cement formulation. Slurries are designed
based on the prevailing downhole conditions like temperature, pressure,
and specific job. Most researchers have worked on not just finding an
alternative to ordinary Portland cement because of the environmental
issues with its production but most importantly on determining if the
shortcomings of OPC-based systems could be overcome with geo­
polymer. Four key research areas were identified: application in
aggressive environments, application in well plug and abandonment
(P&A), compatibility/combination with drilling fluid, and effect of
temperature.
2.1. Application in aggressive environments
Aggressive environments such as acidic and high saline conditions
promote cement degradation which results in the ultimate loss of the
cement and well’s integrity. One key area of concern is in CO2 seques­
tration wells. The capture, injection, and storage of supercritical CO2
into subsurface formations, for example, matured, depleted, or aban­
doned petroleum reservoirs, is a proven technique that allows for about
20% reduction in the CO2 emissions (Barlet-Gouedard et al., 2010;
Jenkins et al., 2012; Voormeij and Simandl, 2004). The ability of the
cement sheath to provide an effective barrier in these wells is very
critical. However, Portland cement systems in CO2-rich conditions show
deterioration as a result of carbonation and formation of unfavorable
precipitates, resulting in corrosion and CO2 leakage (Brandvoll et al.,
2009; Faqir et al., 2017; Laudet et al., 2011; Mahmoud and Elkatatny,
2020; Nasvi et al., 2014d). Fig. 2 shows the degradation process caused
by calcium carbonate precipitates as a result of the interaction between
carbonic acid and hydrated cement products.
Nasvi et al. (2013a) investigated the permeability of fly ash-based
geopolymer for use in CO2 storage wells. The geopolymer exhibited
2
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
Fig. 3. Micrograph of (a) unsaturated geopolymer and (b) geopolymer saturated in CO2 for 6 months (scale; 10 μm) A: Unreacted fly ash, B: C–S–H gel, C: insig­
nificant amount of carbonate deposits (Nasvi et al., 2016).
Fig. 4. The appearance of cement (left) and geopolymer (right) before and after exposure to CO2 (Jani and Imqam, 2021).
of fly ash-kaolin-based geopolymer systems. The systems in which po­
tassium chloride (KCl), calcium chloride (CaCl2), and magnesium chlo­
ride (MgCl2) were used in the mix water or paste experienced a
reduction in strength in most cases as these salts attacked the binder
(hydrolytic attack) in the geopolymer and caused it to precipitate.
However, the samples placed in the other salt solutions (e.g. K2CO3,
CaCO3, Ca(OH)2) exhibited strength that was generally higher than
samples not saturated in the brine after 270 days. Nasvi et al. (2014c)
studied the mechanical properties of geopolymer systems cured in water
and brine solutions for up to 90 days. The general observation was a
decline in strength, however, this reduction was lower in the geo­
polymer with higher brine concentration. The authors explained that the
higher the brine concentration, the greater the reaction between the
brine and the geopolymer, and this prevents alkali leaching and dete­
rioration in strength. A related study was performed by Giasuddin et al.
(2013a, 2013b). The authors confirmed that geopolymer cured in saline
Fig. 5. Microstructure of polymer cured in water (a) and 15% saline water (b) (Giasuddin et al., 2013b).
3
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
water showed better strength compared to that in normal water.
Microstructural studies (Fig. 5) revealed a porous system and the pres­
ence of unreacted grains for the normal water-cured sample while that
cured in the saline water was more homogeneous, showing the presence
of reacted phases.
Ridha and Yerikania (2015) simulated the behavior of geopolymer
and OPC systems under an acidic environment (using hydrochloric acid
and hydrofluoric acid). The geopolymer system was developed with fly
ash and silica fume and cured at 248 ◦ F and 4000 psi for 24 h. Afterward,
the system was immersed in acidic solutions at 149 ◦ F for 24 h. The
authors observed that the geopolymer exhibited higher resistance to
acid attack, interpreted from the lower strength reduction (1.76%)
compared to the OPC system (28% reduction). They added that the
greater strength reduction in the OPC system was due to the detrimental
interaction between the acids and the calcium hydroxide generated from
OPC hydration. The durability of geopolymer to low (2%) and high
(10%) sulphuric acid concentrations was also evaluated by Sugumaran
(2015), Fig. 6. The authors asserted that the geopolymer is more effec­
tive in a low sulphuric acid environment. For effective resistance in a
highly acidic environment, a higher amount of precursor may be
required, however, this may promote gas invasion due to the physical
alterations in the properties of the binder.
Khalifeh et al. (2017) investigated the effect of harsh environmental
conditions on rock-based geopolymer placed up to 12 months at 212 ◦ F
and 7250 psi (brine system) or 145 psi (H2S-brine system). They indi­
cated better strength, no weight reduction, and lower permeability of
the geopolymer cured in the brine but the geopolymer placed in H2S
system experienced great strength retrogression and was deformed to
the extent that its permeability could not be measured.
Fig. 7. A schematic of a plugged hole, after (Vrålstad et al., 2019).
The aplite was ground into a fine powder and admixed with microsilica
and ground granulated blast furnace slag in the synthesis of geopolymer.
Sodium and potassium-based hydroxides and silicates were used in
different combinations in the synthesis of about 12 geopolymer samples.
The systems were cured at 188 ◦ F and ambient pressure/1000 psi and
investigated at different times (from 1 to up to 58 days). The materials
developed adequate mechanical properties and low permeability (7–30
× 10− 1 md) that are desirable for effective zonal isolation and well
plugging.
Cement shrinkage is a cause of gas migration in OPC systems.
Shrinkage is mostly caused by the reduction in cement volume as the
water gets taken up by the hydrated cement products (e.g., ettringite and
calcium silicates) during hardening, however, the geopolymer hard­
ening process is different (Salehi et al., 2017). Salehi et al. (2017)
studied the feasibility of geopolymer as a P&A material. The authors
showed that fly ash powder activated with sodium hydroxide/sodium
silicate alkaline solution exhibited less shrinkage in comparison to an
OPC system. In addition, the geopolymer system displayed higher shear
bond strength and compressive strength. Fig. 8 shows that over the
period investigated (at 150 ◦ F and 200 ◦ F), the Class H system showed
more shrinkage.
Rahman et al. (2020) performed a linear expansion test at 140 ◦ F and
ambient pressure from 1 to 18/20 days or at times up to 40 days and
demonstrated that geopolymer has a self-expansive property in water
and would not require any chemical agent to prevent shrinkage. The
expansion for the geopolymer system (GP 15) at 1 and 18 days was
0.05% and 0.15%, respectively, while that for the OPC (G 15) at the
same period was 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively, Fig. 9. Such a property
2.2. Well plug and abandonment
When a well reaches its economic limit, it is plugged and abandoned
(P&A). This could be either permanent or temporal. A good barrier
should prevent leakages, Fig. 7. Portland cement is the conventional
material for this job, however, it suffers many problems, for instance,
carbonation, which results in the formation of a highly permeable ma­
trix. Other materials used in P&A include geopolymer, bentonite, gels,
formation (shale), and metals (Vrålstad et al., 2019).
Laboratory investigations were performed by Khalifeh et al. (2014)
to evaluate the possibility of using geopolymer in well plug and aban­
donment jobs. The geopolymer was developed using Class C fly ash as
source material and a combination of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and
sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solutions. Curing was done at 188 ◦ F or 257 ◦ F
and 5000 psi. The strength of the materials increased with increasing
NaOH concentration (6 M, 8 M, and 10 M) at 188 ◦ F for the time studied
(1–7 days). For samples cured at 257 ◦ F, the strength of the 8 and 10 M
samples was only higher than the 6 M sample at day one. At the end of 7
days, the 6 M system exhibited strength greater than the 8 and 10 M
systems. Khalifeh et al. (2015) investigated the possibility of using aplite
rock as a source material for a geopolymer for well-plugging operations.
Fig. 6. Effect of 10% (left) and 2% (right) sulphuric acid solution (Sugumaran, 2015).
4
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
high compressive, and shear bond strength makes it suitable for many
oil-well applications including well abandonment. Ahdaya and Imqam
(2019) also performed a series of laboratory investigations, concluding
that geopolymer contaminated with mud shows better performance than
the OPC system. These beneficial properties include lower reduction in
strength (e.g., 23% (geopolymer) and 49% (OPC system) reduction after
7 days for 5% mud) and enhancement in viscosity and fluid loss. Olvera
et al. (2019) studied the chemical shrinkage (determined at 120 h) of fly
ash (FA) geopolymer systems containing 10% and 20% synthetic-based
mud (SBM). They reported that the geopolymer/mud system showed
increased shrinkage compared to geopolymer containing no mud (FA) at
73 ◦ F (23 ◦ C) and 122 ◦ F (50 ◦ C), with the effect more pronounced at
122 ◦ F (50 ◦ C), (Fig. 10-top). Nevertheless, this shrinkage in the geo­
polymer/mud systems was lower when compared to OPC/mud systems
at 73 ◦ F (23 ◦ C) (Fig. 10- bottom). However, a higher shrinkage was
observed in the geopolymer systems at 122 ◦ F (50 ◦ C) and 20% mud
concentration (Fig. 10).
Bu et al. (2020) noted that a metakaolin-based geopolymer/mud
system could still achieve a compressive strength of about 1160 psi.
They further observed that the shear and hydraulic bond strength of the
geopolymer was very high for all the systems tested, for instance, the
geopolymer/mud could exhibit a shear bond of up to 33 times the
control. Liu et al. (2020) reported that the rheology of geopolymer could
be enhanced when admixed with non-aqueous drilling fluids in pro­
portions as high as 40% by volume. Eid et al. (2021) studied the effect of
oil and water-based drilling fluid on neat cement and geopolymer sys­
tems. The results from the published work showed that geopolymer
contaminated with oil-based drilling fluid (OBDF) (5–20%) experienced
lower strength reduction but showed considerable strength develop­
ment and high flexibility over time. However, the geopolymer was more
susceptible in the WBDF. Nevertheless, the geopolymer systems both
outperformed the OPC system.
Fig. 8. Shrinkage test for geopolymer and Class H cement, after (Salehi
et al., 2017).
Fig. 9. Expansion test at 140 ◦ F, after (Rahman et al., 2020).
is important to ensure effective sealing of the for abandonment.
2.3. Compatibility/combination with drilling fluid
Drilling fluids are used in the excavation of the wellbore to control
downhole pressures, carry cuttings to the surface, cool and lubricate the
bit and stabilize the wellbore (Kelessidis et al., 2007; Mohamed et al.,
2021). A major issue with Portland cement that results in loss of cement
integrity is its incompatibility with the drilling fluid (Aughenbaugh
et al., 2014).
Researchers have shown that the resistance of geopolymer to mud
contamination is higher than that of OPC systems. Further, mud can be
intentionally incorporated into geopolymer design to obtain systems
with favorable fluid and mechanical properties for zonal isolation and
lost circulation control (Liu et al., 2017a, 2019). This also provides a
sustainable way of disposing of the mud, especially for the non-aqueous
drilling fluids.
Salehi et al. (2016) studied the geopolymer-mud compatibility by
introducing different proportions of oil-based mud into OPC and geo­
polymer systems. They observed a huge strength reduction in the OPC
system. For instance, for 10% OBM, the OPC system experienced about
88% strength reduction while the geopolymer experienced only 25%
damage. Liu et al. (2016) showed that the strength of geopolymer
decreased by 30% while that of Portland cement decreased by 70%
when combined with 10% synthetic-based mud. Even with 40% syn­
thetic mud, the geopolymer still had appreciable strength. In a related
study, Liu et al. (2017b) developed a fly ash geopolymer/mud-based
composite and investigated its characteristics as a plug material, espe­
cially the self-healing capability under uni-and triaxial stress loading
conditions. The geopolymer system displayed the ability to regain
strength. This self-healing property, together with the low brittleness,
Fig. 10. Chemical shrinkage of geopolymer (Top) and OPC (bottom) systems
(Olvera et al., 2019).
5
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
2.4. Effect of temperature
Wellbore conditions such as temperature affect the performance of
the cement system. For instance, during thermal operations such as
steam injection, the casing experiences thermal expansion, exerting
more force on the cement. This could result in radial cracking (Dean and
Torres, 2002). Geopolymer has the potential for high-temperature
application (Van Oort et al., 2019). The dissolution of the alumina and
silica and polycondensation is facilitated at elevated temperatures
(Salehi et al., 2019).
Nasvi et al. (2012a) reported that the optimum temperature for fly
ash-based geopolymer for optimal performance was 140 ◦ F. They argued
that beyond this temperature strength gain is insignificant, even though
they concurred that the factors such as the source of fly ash, method of
curing, and mix formulation could affect the strength. Nasvi et al.
(2012b) compared fly-ash-based geopolymer system and API Class G
cement systems. The geopolymer displayed lower strength when cured
at ambient conditions but developed higher strength with increasing
temperature. In this study, the optimum strength of the geopolymer was
within a temperature range of 122 ◦ F–140 ◦ F. The authors explained that
the poor strength development of the geopolymer at ambient conditions
was due to the slow rate of geopolymerization at lower temperatures.
They argued that geopolymer is not ideal in regions with temperatures
below 86 ◦ F. Nasvi et al. (2014b) evaluated the impact of oil-well tem­
peratures on the permeability of the geopolymer system developed with
fly ash. The samples were cured at 73 ◦ F–158 ◦ F. The results showed that
the permeability increased with increasing temperature. Nevertheless,
this permeability (0.04 μD) was still much lower than that recommended
by the American petroleum institute (API). According to a study pre­
sented by Igbojekwe et al. (2015), Fig. 11, two 14 ppg fly ash geo­
polymer systems of varying composition showed increasing strength
with increasing temperature while the 16.8 ppg Class G cement-based
system displayed a decline in strength with increasing temperature. At
300 ◦ F the geopolymer system could develop strength that was atleast
129% greater than the Portland cement system.
Paiva et al. (2018) studied the characteristics of metakaolin-based
geopolymer systems at 120 ◦ F. The geopolymer formulation contain­
ing no modifier had a compressive strength of 2524 psi which was only
approximately 4% lower than that of the OPC system. However, the
geopolymer showed high brittleness. Due to its good compatibility with
other admixtures, the geopolymer systems modified with microsilica
and fiber exhibited increased stiffness and enhanced compressive
strength. Simulation studies conducted up to 500 ◦ F suggested that
geopolymer and OPC systems could perform equally under similar in­
jection temperatures. According to Salehi et al. (2019), the setting of
geopolymer is greatly dependent on temperature. The authors studied
the thickening time of fly-ash geopolymer at 150 ◦ F, 175 ◦ F, 200 ◦ F, and
250 ◦ F. They observed rapid gelation in the test simulated at 250 ◦ F.
According to the authors, superplasticizers and retarders are required
for systems used in temperatures above 175 ◦ F. Suppiah et al. (2020)
studied the strength of geopolymer systems at 140 ◦ F and 194 ◦ F. The
authors observed that the samples cured at the higher temperature had
superior strength after 24 h because of increased geopolymerization at
high temperatures.
Fig. 11. 24-h strength of geopolymer and Class G cement systems with tem­
perature, after (Igbojekwe et al., 2015).
2. Geopolymer has lower permeability as compared with Portland
cement.
3. Geopolymer has high performance in a high saline environment due
to decreased rate of alkali leaching.
4. Geopolymer experiences less shrinkage and high shear bond strength
that makes it suited for zonal isolation and well-plugging operations.
5. Geopolymer is more compatible with drilling fluid compared to OPCbased systems, more especially with the oil-based drilling fluid.
6. The strength of geopolymer increase with increasing the temperature
due to the increased rate of polymerization and would be viable in
steam injection wells.
4. Limitations
1. Geopolymer is more susceptible to water-based drilling fluid.
2. The strength of geopolymer is low below 86 ◦ F due to the low rate of
geopolymerization.
3. Conventional geopolymer systems exhibit high brittleness.
4. Geopolymers exhibit rapid gelation at elevated temperatures.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Nomenclature
API
CO2
OBM
P&A
WBDF
American Petroleum Institute
Carbon dioxide
Oil-based mud
Plug, and abandonment
Water-based drilling fluid
References
Ahdaya, M., Imqam, A., 2019. Investigating geopolymer cement performance in presence
of water based drilling fluid. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 176, 934–942. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.010.
Al-bagoury, M., Revil, P., Kåstad, A., 2016. Silica dispersion for HT oil well cement. In:
Pap. Present. AADE Fluids Tech. Conf. Exhib. Houston, Texas. 12-13 April. AADE-16FTCE-57. Silica Am. Assoc. Drill. Eng.
Aughenbaugh, K., Nair, S., Cowan, M., Van Oort, E., 2014. Contamination of deepwater
well cementations by synthetic-based drilling fluids. In: Paper Presented at the SPE
Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, September
10–11 .SPE-170325-MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers, pp. 767–777. https://doi.
org/10.2118/170325-ms.
Barlet-Gouedard, V., Zusatz-Ayache, B., Porcherie, O., 2010. Geopolymer composition
and application for carbon dioxide storage. US 7846250B2.
Bour, D.L., 2005. Cyclic Steam Well Design: A New Approach to Solve an Old Problem of
Cement Sheath Failure in Cyclic Steam Wells. Pap. Present. SPE West. Reg. Meet.
March 30-1 April. SPE-93868-MS, Irvine, California, pp. 315–326. https://doi.org/
10.2118/93868-ms.
3. Key findings
Researchers in well cementing have explored the possibility of geo­
polymers as future oil-well cement. Findings from various studies have
been presented in this study. The following are the salient information
gathered:
3.1. Advantages
1. Geopolymer is more resistant in acidic environments and hence
would be ideal in CO2 sequestration wells.
6
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
S. Adjei et al.
Brandvoll, Ø., Regnault, O., Munz, I.A., Iden, I.K., Johansen, H., 2009. Fluid-solid
interactions related to subsurface storage of CO2 experimental tests of well cement.
In: Energy Procedia. Elsevier, pp. 3367–3374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2009.02.125.
Bu, Y., Du, J., Guo, S., Liu, H., Huang, C., 2016. Properties of oil well cement with high
dosage of metakaolin. Construct. Build. Mater. 112, 39–48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.173.
Bu, Y., Ma, R., Du, J., Guo, S., Liu, H., Zhao, L., 2020. Utilization of metakaolin-based
geopolymer as a mud-cake solidification agent to enhance the bonding strength of oil
well cement-formation interface. Res. Soc. Open Sci. 7 https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.191230.
Davidovits, J., 2010. Geopolymer cement for mitigation of global warming. Geopolymer
Institute.
Davidovits, J., 1991. Geopolymers - inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal.
37, 1633–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01912193.
Davidovits, J., 1982. Mineral polymers and methods of making them. United States
Patent, p. US4349386A.
Dean, G.D., Torres, R.S., 2002. Novel cement system for improved zonal isolation in
steam injection wells. Aper present. In: SPE Int. Therm. Oper. Heavy Oil Symp. Int.
Horiz. Well Technol. Conf. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Novemb. 4–7. SPE-78995-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/78995-ms.
Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A., Van
Deventer, J.S.J., 2007. Geopolymer Technology: the current state of the art. J. Mater.
Sci. 42, 2917–2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z.
Eid, E., Tranggono, H., Khalifeh, M., Salehi, S., Saasen, A., 2021. Impact of drilling fluid
contamination on performance of rock-based geopolymers. SPE J. 1–8 https://doi.
org/10.2118/205477-pa.
Faqir, N.M., Elkatatny, S., Mahmoud, M.A., Shawabkeh, R., 2017. Fabrication of kaolinbased cement plug for CO2 storage wells. Appl. Clay Sci. 141, 81–87. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.02.011.
Giasuddin, H.M., Sanjayan, J.G., Ranjith, P.G., 2013a. Strength of geopolymer cured in
saline water in ambient conditions. Fuel 107, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2013.01.035.
Giasuddin, H.M., Sanjayan, J.G., Ranjith, P.G., 2013b. Stress versus strain behavior of
geopolymer cement under triaxial stress conditions in saline and normal water. Int.
J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 7, 521–524.
Hassan, H.S., Abdel-Gawwad, H.A., García, S.R.V., Israde-Alcántara, I., 2018. Fabrication
and characterization of thermally-insulating coconut ash-based geopolymer foam.
Waste Manag. 80, 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.022.
Igbojekwe, S., Salehi, S., Khattak, M.J., 2015. Development of a new geopolymer based
Cement : laboratory investigation. Am. Assoc. Drill. Eng. AADE-15-NTCE-07.
Jani, P., Imqam, A., 2021. Class C fly ash-based alkali activated cement as a potential
alternative cement for CO2 storage applications. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 201, 108408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108408.
Jenkins, C.R., Cook, P.J., Ennis-King, J., Undershultz, J., Boreham, C., Dance, T., De
Caritat, P., Etheridge, D.M., Freifeld, B.M., Hortle, A., Kirste, D., Paterson, L.,
Pevzner, R., Schacht, U., Sharma, S., Stalker, L., Urosevic, M., 2012. Safe storage and
effective monitoring of CO2 in depleted gas fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 109.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107255108.
Kanesan, D., Irawan, S., Ridha, S., Chandran, D., Azhar, N.A.B., 2018. The suitability of
fly ash based geopolymer cement for oil well cementing applications: a review.
ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 13, 8297–8316.
Kelessidis, V.C., Tsamantaki, C., Michalakis, A., Christidis, G.E., Makri, P.,
Papanicolaou, K., Foscolos, A., 2007. Greek lignites as additives for controlling
filtration properties of water-bentonite suspensions at high temperatures. Fuel 86,
1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.10.009.
Khalifeh, M., Hodne, H., Korsnes, R.I., Saasen, A., 2015. Cap rock restoration in plug and
abandonment operations; possible utilization of rock-based geopolymers for
permanent zonal isolation and well plugging. In: Pap. Present. Int. Pet. Technol.
Conf. Doha, Qatar, December 6–9. IPTC-18454-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc18454-ms.
Khalifeh, M., Saasen, A., Vrålstad, T., Hodne, H., 2014. Potential utilization of
geopolymers in plug and abandonment operations. In: Pap. Present. SPE Bergen One
Day Semin. Bergen, Norway, pp. 389–402. https://doi.org/10.2118/169231-ms.
April.
Khalifeh, M., Todorovic, J., Vrålstad, T., Saasen, A., Hodne, H., 2017. Long-term
durability of rock-based geopolymers aged at downhole conditions for oil well
cementing operations. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 6, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21650373.2016.1196466.
Ladva, H.K.J., Craster, B., Jones, T.G.J., Goldsmith, G., Scott, D., 2005. The cement-toformation interface in zonal isolation. SPE Drill. Complet. 20, 186–197. https://doi.
org/10.2118/88016-PA.
Laudet, J.B., Garnier, A., Neuville, N., Le Guen, Y., Fourmaintraux, D., Rafai, N.,
Burlion, N., Shao, J.F., 2011. The behavior of oil well cement at downhole CO2
storage conditions: static and dynamic laboratory experiments. Energy Procedia 4,
5251–5258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.504.
Lee, W.K.W., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2002. The effects of inorganic salt contamination on
the strength and durability of geopolymers. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng.
Asp. 211, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00239-X.
Liu, X., Aughenbaugh, K., Lee, H., Nair, S., Van Oort, E., 2017a. Geopolymer-synthetic
based mud hybrid cements for primary cementing and lost circulation control. In:
Paper Presented at the SPE International Conference on Oilfield Chemistry,
Montgomery, Texas, USA, April. April 3–5.SPE-184558-MS. Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE), pp. 246–258. https://doi.org/10.2118/184558-ms.
Liu, X., Aughenbaugh, K., Nair, S., Shuck, M., Van Oort, E., 2016. Solidification of
Synthetic-Based Drilling Mud Using Geopolymers. Pap. Present. SPE Deep. Drill.
Complet. Conf. Galveston, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/180325-ms. Sept.
14–15. SPE-180325-MS.
Liu, X., Nair, S., Aughenbaugh, K., van Oort, E., 2019. Mud-to-cement conversion of nonaqueous drilling fluids using alkali-activated fly ash. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 182, 106242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106242.
Liu, X., Nair, S.D., Aughenbaugh, K.L., Juenger, M.C.G., van Oort, E., 2020. Improving
the rheological properties of alkali-activated geopolymers using non-aqueous fluids
for well cementing and lost circulation control purposes. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 195,
107555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107555.
Liu, X., Ramos, M.J., Nair, D., Lee, H., Nicolas Espinoza, D., Van Oort, E., 2017b. True
self-healing geopolymer cements for improved zonal isolation and well
Abandonment. In: Paper Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, the Hague, The Netherlands. March 14–16.SPE-184675-MS. Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE), pp. 130–141. https://doi.org/10.2118/184675-ms.
Luukkonen, T., Abdollahnejad, Z., Yliniemi, J., Kinnunen, P., Illikainen, M., 2018. Onepart alkali-activated materials: a review. Cement Concr. Res. 103, 21–34. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.001.
Mahmoud, A.A., Elkatatny, S., 2020. Improved durability of Saudi class G oil-well
cement sheath in CO2 rich environments using olive waste. Construct. Build. Mater.
262, 120623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120623.
Mellado, A., Catalán, C., Bouzón, N., Borrachero, M.V., Monzó, J.M., Payá, J., 2014.
Carbon Footprint of Geopolymeric Mortar: study of the contribution of the alkaline
activating solution and assessment of an alternative route. RSC Adv. 4,
23846–23852. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ra03375b.
Mohamed, A., Salehi, S., Ahmed, R., 2021. Significance and complications of drilling
fluid rheology in geothermal drilling: a review. Geothermics 93, 102066. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102066.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Gamage, R.P., Jay, S., 2012a. Geopolymer as well cement and the
variation of its mechanical behavior with curing temperature. Greenh. Gases Sci.
Technol. 2, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.39.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., 2014a. Effect of different mix compositions on
apparent carbon dioxide (CO2) permeability of geopolymer: suitability as well
cement for CO2 sequestration wells. Appl. Energy 114, 939–948. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.050.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., 2013a. The permeability of geopolymer at
down-hole stress conditions: application for carbon dioxide sequestration wells.
Appl. Energy 102, 1391–1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.004.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., 2012b. Comparison of mechanical behaviors
of geopolymer and class G cement as well cement at different curing temperatures
for geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. Pap. Present. 46th U.S. Rock Mech.
Symp. Chicago, Illinois 24–27. June. ARMA-2012-232.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., Bui, H., 2014b. Effect of Temperature on
Permeability of Geopolymer: a primary well sealant for carbon capture and storage
wells. Fuel 117, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.007.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., Haque, A., 2013b. Sub- and super-critical
carbon dioxide permeability of wellbore materials under geological sequestration
conditions: an experimental study. Energy 54, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.01.049.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., Haque, A., Li, X., 2014c. Mechanical
behaviour of wellbore materials saturated in brine water with different salinity
levels. Energy 66, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.003.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., 2014d. A numerical study of CO2 flow
through geopolymer under down-hole stress conditions: application for CO2
sequestration wells. J. Unconv. Oil Gas Resour. 7, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
juogr.2014.01.002.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Rathnaweera, T.D., Padmanabhan, E., 2016. Geopolymer as well cement
and its mechanical integrity under deep down-hole stress conditions: application for
carbon capture and storage wells. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resourc. 2,
245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-016-0034-2.
Nelson, E.B., Guillot, D., 2006. Well Cementing, second ed. (Schlumberger).
Olvera, R., Panchmatia, P., Juenger, M., Aldin, M., van Oort, E., 2019. Long-term oil well
zonal isolation control using geopolymers: an analysis of shrinkage behavior. Pap.
Present. In: SPE/IADC Int. Drill. Conf. Exhib. Hague, Netherlands. March 5–7. SPE194092-MS. 2019-March. https://doi.org/10.2118/194092-ms.
Paiva, M.D.M., Silva, E.C.C.M., Melo, D.M.A., Martinelli, A.E., Schneider, J.F., 2018.
A geopolymer cementing system for oil wells subject to steam injection. J. Petrol.
Sci. Eng. 169, 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.06.022.
Palomo, A., Blanco-Varela, M.T., Granizo, M.L., Puertas, F., Vazquez, T., Grutzeck, M.W.,
1999. Chemical stability of cementitious materials based on metakaolin. Cement
Concr. Res. 29, 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00074-5.
Patel, Y.J., Shah, N., 2018. Enhancement of the properties of ground granulated blast
furnace slag based self compacting geopolymer concrete by incorporating rice husk
ash. Construct. Build. Mater. 171, 654–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.03.166.
Rahman, S.H.B.A., Irawan, S., Shafiq, N., Rajeswary, R., 2020. Investigating the
expansion characteristics of geopolymer cement samples in a water bath and
compared with the expansion of ASTM class-G cement. Heliyon 6, e03478. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03478.
Ridha, S., Yerikania, U., 2015. New nano-geopolymer cement system improves wellbore
integrity upon acidizing job: experimental findings. Pap. Present. In: SPE/IATMI Asia
Pacific Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. Nusa Dua, Bali, Indones. 20–22 October. SPE-176419MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/176419-ms.
Rimmelé, G., Barlet-Gouédard, V., Porcherie, O., Goffé, B., Brunet, F., 2008.
Heterogeneous porosity distribution in Portland cement exposed to CO2-rich fluids.
Cement Concrete Res. 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.03.022.
7
S. Adjei et al.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109485
Suppiah, R.R., Rahman, S.H.A., Shafiq, N., Irawan, S., 2020. Uniaxial compressive
strength of geopolymer cement for oil well cement. J. Petrol. Explor. Prod. Technol.
10, 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-0704-z.
Van Oort, E., Juenger, M., Liu, X., McDonald, M., 2019. Silicate-activated geopolymer
alternatives to Portland cement for thermal well integrity. In: Paper Presented at the
SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium, Banff, Alberta, Canada,
November 19–21. SPE-199787-MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/
10.2118/199787-ms.
Voormeij, D.A., Simandl, G.J., 2004. Geological, ocean, and mineral CO2 sequestration
options: A technical review | Geoscience Canada. Geosci, Canada, p. 31.
Vrålstad, T., Saasen, A., Fjær, E., Øia, T., Ytrehus, J.D., Khalifeh, M., 2019. Plug &
abandonment of offshore wells: ensuring long-term well integrity and costefficiency. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.10.049.
Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., Meida, L.O., 2001. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26,
303–329. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303.
Xu, B., Yuan, B., Guo, J., Xie, Y., Lei, B., 2019. Novel technology to reduce risk lost
circulation and improve cementing quality using managed pressure cementing for
narrow safety pressure window wells in sichuan basin. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 180,
707–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.06.010.
Xu, H., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2000. The geopolymerisation of alumino-silicate Minerals.
Int. J. Miner. Process. 59, 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(99)
00074-5.
Yan, Y., Guan, Z., Yan, W., Wang, H., 2020. Mechanical response and damage mechanism
of cement sheath during perforation in oil and gas well. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 188,
106924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.106924.
Zibouche, F., Kerdjoudj, H., de Lacaillerie, J.B.d.E., Van Damme, H., 2009. Geopolymers
from Algerian metakaolin. Influence of secondary Minerals. Appl. Clay Sci. 43,
453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2008.11.001.
Rovnaník, P., 2010. Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of
metakaolin-based geopolymer, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.12.023.
Salehi, S., Ali, N., Khattak, M.J., Rizvi, H., 2016. Geopolymer composites as efficient and
economical plugging materials in peanuts price oil market. Pap. Present. In: SPE
Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. Dubai, UAE. Sept. 26–28. SPE-181426-MS 2016-Janua.
https://doi.org/10.2118/181426-ms.
Salehi, S., Ezeakacha, C.P., Khattak, M.J., 2017. Geopolymer Cements: how can you plug
and abandon a well with new class of cheap efficient sealing materials. In: Pap.
Present. SPE Oklahoma City Oil Gas Symp. March 27–31.SPE-185106-MS, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, USA, pp. 184–194. https://doi.org/10.2118/185106-ms.
Salehi, S., Khattak, J., Saleh, F.K., Igbojekwe, S., 2019. Investigation of mix design and
properties of geopolymers for application as wellbore cement. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
178, 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.03.031.
Sambucci, M., Sibai, A., Valente, M., 2021. Recent Advances in Geopolymer Technology.
A potential eco-friendly solution in the construction materials industry: a review.
J. Compos. Sci. 5 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5040109.
Singh, N.B., Saxena, S.K., Kumar, M., 2018. Effect of nanomaterials on the properties of
geopolymer mortars and concrete. In: Materials Today: Proceedings. Elsevier Ltd,
pp. 9035–9040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.10.018.
Sitaram, A.S., Bhardwaj, P., Gupta, R., 2019. Advanced geopolymerization technology.
In: Geopolymers and Other Geosynthetics. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/
intechopen.87250.
Sugumaran, M., 2015. Study on effect of low calcium fly ash on geopolymer cement for
oil well cementing. In: Pap. Present. SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf. Exhib.
Nusa Dua, Bali, Indones. 20–22 Oct. 2015. SPE-176454-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/176454-ms.
8