Subcommittee 10 General Session

Chairman: David Stiles Hyatt Regency, Washington DC

David Stiles called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, June 30, 2010. Approval of Minutes from Westminster The meeting was started with a presentation by Laura Levandoski on the API Monogram website. The next order of business was to approve the minutes from the 2010 Winter Meeting at New Orleans, LA. Robert Darbe read the minutes. Craig Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes with a few corrections. The motion was seconded by Jim Davison and passed unanimously. Reports of Task Groups and Work Groups Task Group and Work Group chairpersons read the minutes from their respective teams. The WG on Heat of Hydration was established and will report to David Stiles. The report from the WG on HTHP Rheology was read by Rick Lukay on Deryck Williams’s behalf. These minutes are available as attachments at the end of this document.

Charge Chairperson(s) Link to Attachment TG on Cooperative Testing Bill Carruthers Minutes

WG on Compressive Strength Scott Saville Minutes

Presentation WG on Heat of Hydration Lee Dillenbeck Minutes

TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements

Robert Darbe Minutes Presentation

WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers

Tom Griffin Minutes

TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe

Hank Rogers Minutes

WG on HTHP Rheology Deryck Williams Minutes WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures Jim Davison Minutes

After no discussion during an allotted period, David Stiles tendered a motion to accept the reports. The motion was moved by Jerry Calvert, seconded by Scott Saville, and passed unanimously. General Discussion Rick Lukay and Jack Haugom were presented 25 year service awards. Their service is greatly appreciated.

Old Business There was no Old Business to discuss. New Business Possible Ambiguity due to Recent Changes to ASTM C150 and C465 affect API Spec 10A Possible ambiguous statements within new ASTM standards have lead to a no vote on the adopt back of ISO 10426-1 as API Spec 10A. A short resolution is ideal in order to update the Chrome (VI) clause which has expired in the current API Spec 10A document (the adopt back document already contains the solution). The possible ambiguity comes from the interpretation of the following sections:

• Spec 10A, 4.1.1.2 - “...at the option of the manufacturer, processing additives may be used in the manufacture of class A cement, provided that such materials in the amounts used have been shown to meet the requirements of ASTM C465...”

• ASTM C465, 4.5 - “...The cement produced for evaluation purposes with the processing addition shall comply with the appropriate Specifications C150...”

• ASTM C150, 5.1.3 - “Limestone. The amount shall not be more than 5.0 % by mass such that the chemical and physical requirements of this standard are met...”

• ASTM C150, 5.1.4 - “They shall have been shown to meet the requirements of Specification C 465...”

David Stiles brought up the questions:

• Is interground limestone allowed in API classes A, B and C? • Does Spec 10A specify that these cements meet C150? • Does C465 allow for additions so long as they meet C150?

David also suggested the following options for resolution:

A. Leave as is. B. Add clause to 10A that prohibits interground limestone. C. Permit the use of limestone in classes A, B, and C.

Heiko Plack brought up another solution:

D. To eliminate the reference to ASTM C465 in Spec 10A. Bill Carruthers mentioned that limestone is currently being considered as a constituent of composite based systems currently under investigation in another TG. After some discussion, Heiko motioned to delete all references to ASTM C426 and C150 for API classes A, B, and C. This motion was seconded by Rick Lukay. It was discussed whether removing the reference would allow for use of any processing additive which the reference to ASTM C426 was originally intended to exclude. It was expressed that some cement manufactures are using limestone in Type 1 cement. And if it

met spec, they would also sell this product as an API Class A cement. Lee Dillenbeck questioned if anyone knew the effect of interground limestone on high temperature stability. Karen Luke mentioned that limestone at low concentrations could yield higher strengths while higher concentrations could lower the strength. Several felt 5% limestone would probably fine, but this was not unanimous. Others pointed at the lack of data to base any decision on. Tom Griffin said it could be interpreted that ASTM C150 differentiates limestone from processing additives and that API only allowed processing additives (not the limestone). The pursuing discussion provided a variety of interpretations on the standards furthering the case that the standard may be ambiguous. Tom called for the vote on the motion on the floor. The motion to remove the ASTM references failed unanimously. Tom moved to change the wording of the API Spec 10A requirement for Classes A, B, C and D cement to prevent intergrinding of limestone. It was noted that the possible ambiguity also extended to Class D cement. Pursuing discussion centered on that manufactures could just sell ASTM cements with interground limestone instead of the API classes A, B, C and D. Because it is believed that some manufactures currently use limestone in API Class A, B, C, or D cement with no problems being reported, the question was asked if any changes are needed. David Stiles mentioned that a clause could be added to take away any ambiguity and possibly allow limestone. The motion to change the wording to prevent intergrinding of limestone in API Classes A, B, C, and D was voted on and failed unanimously. Tom then motioned to leave as is, with Jerry Calvert seconding. It was discussed that if the motion passed that the no vote would be considered non-persuasive and the adopt back of ISO 10426-1, which has been approved with the possible ambiguous references, would be allowed to continue. It was also discussed that data should be generated to aid in the decision on the effect of interground limestone, but this could be a lengthy research paper. David Stiles mentioned that if an auditor comes across this situation then the issue could come back to the committee as a non-conformance issue. Dan Mueller commented that the problem will not go away and a purchased Class A may later be ruled to not meet specification if a regulatory authority erases the clause do to an ambiguity. A request was made for additional data from the cement manufactures to be provided to the SC as it pertains to the current situation to help make a better decision. Jack Haugom brought up the point that a lot of work is probably already done by ASTM but this pertains primarily to low temperature applications. Jim Davison suggested contacting ASTM as a source to help fix ambiguity. After extensive discussion the motion to leave as is passed unanimously.

Acknowledgements David Stiles thanked Tom Griffin, who is set to retire, for his contributions on behalf of SC-10. David further acknowledged Gerard Bol, who recently retired and was not present, for his contributions. Upcoming meetings: Upcoming API meeting were presented:

• 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth • 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco • 2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth • 2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Denver

Adjournment After no additional business was proposed, Jerry Calvert moved that the meeting be adjourned. After the motion was seconded by Scott Saville, David Stiles adjourned the meeting at 2:55 PM.

Attachment #1 Minutes from TG on Cooperative Testing.

Subcommittee 10 Task Group on Cooperative Testing

Chairman: Bill Carruthers Hyatt

Washington DC

Scott Saville opened the meeting in place of David Stiles. The meeting began at 8:00 a.m. Bill asked Gerry Calvert to give prayer. The group introduced themselves. Scott reviewed the agenda for this summers meeting. Bill Caruthers handed out the document of the 2010 cooperative testing (attached). There was e-mail problem with China which resulted in not getting any test results from the China labs. Bill began to review the cooperative testing results. Schedule 5 – results were fairly consistent compared to last testing. Historical results indicated schedule 5 results to be very consistent up until about 2000. Service companies were then allowed to participate and results became rather erratic but results since then have been getting more consistent. Free Fluid- Changing from the graduated cylinder to the flask has shown more consistent free fluid results. There is still room for improvement. Eliminating out liers improved the free fluid results for this years testing drastically. Rheology- Eliminating out liers improved the free fluid results for this years testing drastically. Most of the rheological data was from the service companies.

Gel Strengths- These results were very erratic. Probably because of different instruments being used. Dan stated we are early in history of this type of testing. Craig asked if the data could be broken out by the equipment being used. Bill will tabulate the results by instruments. Compressive Strengths- COV was better than last year overall. Still high especially since 2000 testing when services companies were allowed to participate in cooperative testing. More detail will be included in Scotts Compressive Strength Work Group. Chemistry- Mainly done by manufacturers. Data was very consistent. XRO- Only 6 labs submitted data. Very consistent. Cooperative testing overall is getting better. The final report will be presented in January when all results have been submitted, broken down and tabulated. Meeting adjourned.

Attachment #2

Minutes from WG on Compressive Strength.

Subcommittee 10 Work Group on Compressive Strength

Chairman: Scott Saville Hyatt

Washington DC

Protocol of this years testing was basically same as in recent years. Some changes were to eliminate preconditioning of 20 minutes and report what type of cube crusher being used. In this years testing there were more UCA data submitted than cube data. Comparing 2008 data to 2010 data is fairly consistent but strengths were higher. Although this years testing was fairly consistent inconsistencies can be because of load cells being very sophisticated to manually operated pumps. Data will be broken out by instrument used for crushing cubes. As usual the 8 hr. test had highest variance. Trend is showing the 8 hr. UCA test having higher c.s than cube 8 hr. test and just the opposite for the 24 hr. test.

Bill commented that manufacturer’s data is more consistent than the rest because of the having to comply with API standards and being audited. Meeting Adjourned.

Attachment #3

Presentation from WG on Compressive Strength.

8/4/2010

1

2010 API Cooperative Testing Compressive Strength Data

Washington DC June 2010June 2010

Introduction• Test Protocol in 2010 matched previous years:

– Cubes:• 100F 8 hours• 140F 8 hours• 140F 8 hours• 100F 24 hours• Cube Density

– UCA:• 100F 8 hours• 100F 24 hours• Time to 50 and 500 psi

• Changes to protocol in 2010– Eliminated 20 minute pre-conditioning– Request for picture of load frames utilized

• Percent of CS test by Cement Plants vs Service Companies / Others.– 29 Cement Plants: Cubes 93% - UCA 10%– 119 Service Cos / Others: Cubes 71% - UCA 95%– 27 Labs did not report 8 hour UCA

8/4/2010

2

100F-8hr Cube

100F-24hr Cube

140F-8hr Cube

100F-8hr UCA

100F-24hr UCA

2010 Strength Data

AVG 782 3279 2499 794 3108

Std Dev 256 667 598 289 504

CV 32.7 20.4 23.9 36.4 16.2

Max 1710 4570 3900 2329 6051

Min 190 1700 850 307 1623

Avg +2 Std Dev 1293 4614 3694 1373 4116

Avg -2 Std Dev 270 1945 1303 216 2100

UCA Time to 50 & 500 psi50 psi

(minutes)500 psi

(minutes)

AVG 229 410

Std Dev 54 67

Max 417 864

Min 52 142

AVG + 2 StdAVG 2 Std Dev 338 543

AVG – 2 Std Dev 120 276

8/4/2010

3

CS TEST AVERAGE STD DEV CV

Compressive Strength Comparison 2008 vs 2010

CS TEST AVERAGE STD DEV CV

2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010

100F - 8 hr Cube 558 782 165 256 29.6 32.7

100F - 24 hr Cube 2408 3279 427 667 17.7 20.4

140F -8 HOUR CUBE 1583 2499 246 598 15.5 23.9

8 HOUR UCA 564 794 105 289 18.2 36.4

24 HOUR UCA 2243 3108 207 504 9.2 16.2

2000 to 2010 UCA vs Cubes Average Compressive Strength

8 hr Cube 8 hr UCA Change 24 hr Cube 24 hr UCA Change

2010 782 794 12 3279 3108 (171)

2008 558 564 6 2408 2243 (165)

2006 923 1014 91 2382 2174 (208)

2004 795 848 53 2594 2391 (203)2004 795 848 53 2594 2391 (203)

2002 808 851 43 3408 3244 (164)

2000 693 744 51 2179 1981 (198)

8/4/2010

4

CV Comparison 2000 to 2010

20002002

10

20

30

40

50

CV

2004200620082010

0100°F 8hr Cube 100°F 24hr Cube 140°F 8hr Cube 100°F 8hr UCA 100°F 24hr UCA

3500

4000

)

Compressive Strength ComparisonService Company vs. Cement Plants

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

ompr

essi

ve S

tren

gth

(PSI

Total AvgPlant AvgServ Avg

0

500

1000

Co

100F-8 140F-8 100F-24Curing Time and Temp

8/4/2010

5

40e Total COV

CV ComparisonService Company vs. Cement Plant

10

20

30

effic

ient

of V

aria

nce Total COV

Plant COVServ COV

0

Co

100F-8 140F-8 100F-24Curing Time and Temp

Automatic Crush Testers

8/4/2010

6

Manual Crush Testers

Conclusions and Remaining Efforts

• Results show high variability with 8 hour cube and UCA test

• This years 8 and 24 hour UCA and Cube Compression results• This years 8 and 24 hour UCA and Cube Compression results continued historical trends. Ultrasonic testing consistently shows slightly higher CS in 8 hours, and moderately less in 24 hours

• Additional analysis required on 8 hour UCA results where we saw highest variability (CV 36.4) in 10 yesrs,

• Density analysis and the effect on Cube Compression results requires further study. q y

• Load Frames utilized requires further study

8/4/2010

7

Thank you!

Comments and Questions?Comments and Questions?

Attachment #4 Minutes from WG on Heat of Hydration.

Subcommittee 10 Work Group on Heat of Hydration

Chairman: Lee Dillenbeck Hyatt

Washington DC

Lee reviewed issues presented by Brian Koons at last

meeting held in New Orleans.

Lee stated there is a problem with current predictive

temperature program calculations in simulators because of

using default cement heat of hydration numbers and the

method used to determine the time and span over which the

heat is released.

There is currently no standard apparatus to measure heat of

hydration for oilfield cementing. Current types are typically

pseudo-adiabatic test devices and heat flow calorimeters.

One of the charges of this work group was to identify types

of equipment available to measure heat of hydration within

our industry.

There was a survey of companies about their current method

of measuring heat of hydration. The companies were

Halliburton, Schlumburger, BJ and CSI.

Following are the types of Heat of hydration testing

equipment used in those labs.

Lab #1- Heat Flow Calorimeter

Lab #2- Adiabatic test and Calorimeter

Lab #3- Adiabatic test similar to Lab #2

Lab #4- Uses 3rd party lab. No operational test equipment of

their own.

Though not presented at the meeting due to time

constraints, Lee said that most of the surveyed companies

currently running heat of hydration tests also provided at

least basic procedures for the tests they run.

Adiabatic test

Strengths of the test are that it is very economical and well

understood. Labs can purchase basic equipment for testing

for about $1,000.00 U.S.

Weakness is not truly Adiabatic (dependent on effectiveness

of insulation), really only captures approximate total heat

released but not good for testing heat released vs. time

(rate). Also doesn’t allow for simulated downhole pressure

during test and difficult to maintain simulated downhole

temperatures during testing.

Calorimeter

Strengths: Much more accurate, direct measure of heat and

rate of heat release. Cement curing temperature can be

controlled and some units control pressure at which the HOH

occurs. If desired, some units allow for mixing of dry cement

and water inside unit to capture initial heat of hydration.

Weaknesses: Primarily cost. Though not all are as

expensive, some more advanced units that operate as low

as -20 degrees C can cost as much as 150,000.00 Euros.

Recommendations

Formation of Work Group for Heat of Hydration.

Use ASTM c1702-09 as guide

Use Calorimeter to provide accurate direct measure results.

Why is a RP needed? ASTM does not have standard of

mixing slurry prior to test, does not consider downhole

temperatures or pressure.

There was a question of why can a consistometer be used to

measure heat of hydration?

Answer: The typical HTHP test cell is not even pseudo-

adiabatic, so temperature changes are not valid to use for

computation of HOH in the first place. Second, is that most

of the heat of hydration released is after the initial cement

set occurs and in a consistometer test, the cement is not

completely set at the end of the test.

Meeting adjourned.

Attachment #5 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Behavior of

Cements.

Minutes Task Group on Mechanical Behavior of Cement

API Subcommittee 10 Washington DC, USA

June 30, 2010 Robert Darbe, Chairman

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 AM. Task group (TG) members present included: Robert Darbe, Simon James, Bernard Fraboulet, Jim Davison, Dan Mueller, Ramy Eid, Fred Sabins, and John St. Clergy. Lee Dillenbeck filled in for Deryck Williams and Karen Luke filled in for Camille Lerouge. The charge of the TG was read and the minutes from the winter meeting were reviewed and approved.

A presentation was reviewed containing results from a cooperative testing effort between six labs. The efforts of Chevron, TOTAL, BJ Services, Schlumberger, Chandler Engineering and Halliburton are greatly appreciated. The cement contributions from Holcem Apasco are also appreciated. The actual presentation is appended with these minutes.

Discussion about the cooperative testing results included: • Some of the acoustic results may have been influenced by an incomplete cement

volume resulting in a gap between the cement and the top of the pressure vessel. • A low stress range could explain some differences in the modulus and poison’s

ratio when compared to similar measurements made in a higher stress range. • The curing time between the different labs may have been different and needs to

be documented going forward. This should include time at temperature and pressure as well as time waited before the actual test is performed.

• Aspect ratio can affect the splitting test results and the working procedures should be changed to prevent this from occurring.

• Load rate can affect the measurements taken from a load frame test. • Air entrainment can influence the mechanical test results. Future testing may need

to be done with samples cured under pressure. • The samples tested had high strengths and it is believed that the same tests for

samples with lower strengths can result in a larger variation between the labs.

The working procedure was reviewed in detail and edits where made. Robert agreed to format the document taking into account the edits and redistribute to the TG by means of the API sharepoint site.

Fred Sabins and Lee Dillenbeck volunteered to investigate cement systems with lower compressive strengths which the TG could use in future cooperative testing efforts. This endeavor will be reviewed at the winter meeting with the hope of completing another round of tests for next year.

Karen Luke volunteered to perform acoustic testing going forward. Cristiane Richard De Miranda volunteered to join the TG.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 AM.

Attachment #6 Presentation from TG on Mechanical

Behavior of Cements

8/4/2010

1

30th of June2010Washington DC

Robert Darbe Robert.Darbe@Halliburton.comGerard Bol Gerard Bol@Shell comGerard Bol Gerard.Bol@Shell.comDeryck Williams drrw@Chevron.comSimon James James6@slb.comBernard Fraboulet Bernard.Fraboulet@laposte.netJim Davison Jim.Davison@ametek.comFred Sabins FSabins@csi-tech.comJohn St. Clergy jstclergy@bjservices.comgy j gy@ jCamille Lerouge CLerouge@trican.caTim Johnson Tim.Johnson@MessinaChemicals.comDan Mueller Dan.Mueller@conocophillips.comRamy Eid Reid@bjservices.ae

8/4/2010

2

Review ChargeRead Summer MinutesRead Summer MinutesReview of Test MethodsCooperative Testing Results

Plastic StandardCoop CementComposite Cement

Discuss Technical ReportDiscuss Technical ReportDefine and Possibly Assign Sections

Discuss Next GoalsSetup Future Meetings

Develop a technical report on the characterization of mechanical behavior of cement and test methods to mechanical behavior of cement and test methods to measure the mechanical parameters of cement in the laboratory.  This TR is intended to serve as the basis of an ISO NWI.

8/4/2010

3

Mechanical Test with a Load Frame“Static”

   

“Static”Can be Destructive

LoadCell

Spherical Seated Platen

Force

ΔLA0

Loaded

Load Frame

UnloadedTable

HydraulicActuator

Cement Sample

Bottom PlatenL0

D0 D0ΔD

Splitting TestSplitting force is correlated to tensile strength

   

Splitting force is correlated to tensile strengthDestructive

Force (F)

Typical il

D

Force (F)

tFailure 

8/4/2010

4

Acoustic Test“Dynamic”

   

“Dynamic”Non‐Destructive

ρλ GVP

2+=

)21)(1( υυυλ

−+=

E

ρGVS = )1(2 υ+

=EG

• Plastic StandardCoop Cement

Test TypePolyoxymethylene

PlasticNeat Class H 

Composite Cement

Unconfined w/ Instrumentation

1 cylinder 5 cylinders 5 cylinders

• Coop Cement• Slag Composite

Mat

rix

Instrumentation 

Indirect Tension None4 slices or equivalent

4 slices or equivalent

Acoustic 1 cylinder 1 cylinder 1 cylinder

Test

M

8/4/2010

5

Follow working procedural documentnote changes that need to be made.note changes that need to be made.

Use current load rates.Use current methods for acoustic measurements and document procedures.

Plastic StandardCollected 2.25” and 1.25” plastic rodsCollected 2.25  and 1.25  plastic rodsNatural Acetal Copolymer (Polyoxymethylene)

Dupont: “Delrin”Ensinger: “Techaform”

Initially believed the two rods were different material

Labs Reporting Load Frame Acoustic NotesHalliburton x Tested on 2 Frames and another DeviceChevron xTOTAL x x Cyclical on first loadSchlumberger x Cyclically loadedBJ Services xChandler Engineering x

8/4/2010

6

10000

12000

4000

6000

8000

tres

s (P

si)

Halliburton MTS BB 2inHalliburtonTO BB 2inChevron MTS BB 2in

Halliburton MTS BB 1in

0

2000

-2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00%

St

Strain

TOTAL BB 1.41in

SLB BB 1in

1600

1800

2000

Halliburton MTS BB 2inHalliburtonTOBB 2in

Halliburton MTS BB 1in

600

800

1000

1200

1400

tres

s (P

si)

HalliburtonTO BB 2inChevron MTS BB 2in

Hall Tester BB 1 in

0

200

400

600

-0.20% -0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50%

St

Strain

TOTAL BB 1.41in

SLB BB 1in

8/4/2010

7

1600

1800

2000

Halliburton MTS BB 2in E=0.540 MpsiHalliburtonTO BB 2in     E=0.554 MpsiChevron MTS BB 2in       E=0.546 Mpsi

600

800

1000

1200

1400

ss (P

si)

Halliburton MTS BB 1in  E=0.601 Mpsi

Hall Tester BB 1in            E=0.600 Mpsi

0

200

400

0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30% 0.35% 0.40%

Stre

s

Strain

TOTAL BB 1.41in              E=0.566 Mpsi

SLB BB 1in           E=0.545 ‐ 0.584 Mpsi

1600

1800

2000

Halliburton MTS BB 2in E=0.540 MpsiHalliburtonTO BB 2in     E=0.554 MpsiChevronMTS BB 2in E 0 546 Mpsi

600

800

1000

1200

1400

s (P

si)

Chevron MTS BB 2in       E=0.546 Mpsi

Halliburton MTS BB1in* E=0.601 Mpsi

Hall Tester BB 1in*          E=0.600 Mpsi

0

200

400

600

0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30% 0.35% 0.40%

Stre

ss

Strain

TOTAL BB 1.41in*            E=0.566 Mpsi

SLB BB 1in*         E=0.545 ‐ 0.584 Mpsi

8/4/2010

8

27.5

28.0mbe

r

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

27.0

Brinell H

ardn

ess Num

24.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

B

Distance from Center (in.)

Load Frame

IdentifierDiameter 

(in)Modulus (Mpsi)

Poisson's Ratio

Hall MTS BB 2in 2 0.540 0.376Hall TO BB 2in 2 0.554

Acoustic

IdentifierDiameter 

(in)Modulus (Mpsi)

Poisson's Ratio

Chandler 2 1.350 0.23BJS 2 0.662 0.38

Cevron MTS BB 2in 2 0.546 0.344Halliburton MTS BB 1in 1 0.601 0.207Hall Tester BB 1in 1 0.600Total BB 1.41in 1.41 0.566 0.330SLB BB 1in 1 0.545 0.355Average 0.565 0.322Std. Dev. 0.026 0.067COV 4.6% 20.7%

Total BB 1.41in 1.41 0.692 0.37

Average 0.901 0.327Std. Dev. 0.389 0.084COV 43.1% 25.7%

COV for PR is 5.5% when outlier is removedBJ and Total used ~ 1MHz for acoustic testing

8/4/2010

9

Variation at low stressesSt  hi t     k    diffStress history can make a differenceLoad frame results are similarNeed more acoustic data 

Coop CementHolcem Apasco Class H 

Neat CementHolcem Apasco Class H 

Labs ReportingLoad Frame

AcousticSplitting Test

Notes

Components Amount UnitWater 38.0 %bwocCement 100 %bwoc

Halliburton X X X Acoustic on MPROChevron X XTOTAL X X Acoustic on CylindersSchlumberger X X

8/4/2010

10

Modulus (Psi)

Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTALSchlumberger (First Cycle)

1 2.11E+06 2.13E+06 2.34E+06 8.24E+052 2.09E+06 1.85E+06 2.23E+06 1.06E+06

Poisson's Ratio (-)

Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTALSchlumberger (First Cycle)

1 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.072 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.11

SLB used cyclic procedure with a low 

3 2.26E+06 1.94E+06 2.10E+064 2.13E+06 1.83E+06 1.80E+065 2.07E+06 1.93E+06

Average 2.13E+06 1.94E+06 2.12E+06 9.41E+05St. Dev. 7.50E+04 1.17E+05 2.33E+05 1.66E+05COV 3.5% 6.1% 11.0% 17.6%

3 0.21 0.20 0.194 0.22 0.21 0.125 0.20 0.21

Average 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.09St. Dev. 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03COV 7.0% 8.0% 19.7% 37.7%

Ultimate Compressive Strength (Psi)

Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTALSchlumberger (First Cycle)procedure with a low 

stress range possibly affecting results

Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTAL (First Cycle)1 6588 3880 8079 54392 7022 3792 7789 61643 7037 4662 71794 7293 5642 80645 8135 5031

Average 7215 4601 7778 5802St. Dev. 573 782 421 513COV 7.9% 17.0% 5.4% 8.8%

7000

8000

9000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Stre

ss (p

si)

HalliburtonChevronTOTALSchlumberger

0

1000

2000

-0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70%

S

Strain

8/4/2010

11

Splitting Test

Sample Hal TS (psi)

Chevron (psi)

SLB TS (psi)

SLB TS (psi)

Hal Stab (SG)

Chevron (SG)

SLB Stab (SG)

SLB Stab (SG)

1 - Top 708 771 750 490 2.014 1.990 2.030 2.0402 679 585 2.032 1.9903 764 719 2.046 1.970

4 - Bottom 731 851 660 610 2.089 2.000 2.060 2.060

Average 721 731 705 550 2.045 1.988 2.045 2.050St. Dev. 36 112 64 85 0.032 0.013 0.021 0.014COV 5.0% 15.3% 9.0% 15.4% 1.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7%(Top-Bot)/Avg 3.64% 0.50% 1.47% 0.98%

100 psi ‐ 140°F YM=0.55 Mpsi PR=0.37 CS=300psi

8/4/2010

12

0.4

0.45

0.5

800

900

1000

800

900

1000

800

900

1000

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Pois

son'

s R

atio

300

400

500

600

700

Youn

g's

Mod

ulus

(kps

i)

300

400

500

600

700

Bulk

Mod

ulus

(kps

i)

300

400

500

600

700M

Pro

CS

(psi

)

100 psi ‐ 104°F YM=0.51 Mpsi PR=0.38 CS=296psi

0 30 60 90Time (HH)

0

0.05

0.1

0

100

200

0

100

200

0

100

200

TOTAL A tiTOTAL Acoustic

Sample Modulus (psi)Poisson's

Ratio1 3.17E+06 0.282 2.83E+06 0.313 3.32E+06 0.234 3.50E+06 0.20

Average 3.20E+06 0.26St. Dev. 2.86E+05 0.05COV 8 9% 19 3%COV 8.9% 19.3%

8/4/2010

13

Load Frame

Sample Modulus

(psi)Poisson's

RatioUltimate

Strength (psi)Tensile

Strength (psi)Halliburton 2.13E+06 0.20 7215 720Chevron 1.94E+06 0.20 4601 731TOTAL 2 12E+06 0 17 7778TOTAL 2.12E+06 0.17 7778

Schlumberger 9.41E+05 0.09 5802 628

Average 1.78E+06 0.17 6349 693St. Dev. 5.68E+05 0.05 1431 57COV 31.9% 31.5% 22.5% 8.2%

Acoustic

Sample Modulus

(psi)Poisson's

RatioUltimate

Strength (psi)Tensile

Strength (psi)( ) g ( ) g ( )Hall-MPRO 0.55E+06 0.37 300

TOTAL 3.20E+06 0.26

Average 1.88E+06 0.32 300St. Dev. 1.87E+06 0.08COV 99.9% 24.7%

Composite CementHolcem Apasco Class H Components Amount Unit

Composite Cement

Holcem Apasco Class HLocal Slag  Water 38.0 %bwob

Cement 60.0 %bwobLocal Slag 40.0 %bwob

Labs ReportingLoad Frame

AcousticSplitting Test

Notes

Halliburton X X Acoustic on MPROChevron X XTOTAL Acoustic on CylindersSchlumberger X X

8/4/2010

14

Modulus (Psi)

Sample Halliburton ChevronSchlumberger (First Cycle)

1 2.07E+06 2.04E+06 1.05E+062 2.06E+06 2.13E+063 1 88E+06 2 16E+06

Poisson's Ratio (-)

Sample Halliburton ChevronSchlumberger (First Cycle)

1 0.20 0.20 0.142 0.19 0.183 0 19 0 18

SLB used cyclic procedure with a low 

3 1.88E+06 2.16E+064 2.02E+06 2.34E+065 2.00E+06 2.33E+06

Average 2.01E+06 2.20E+06 1.05E+06St. Dev. 7.60E+04 1.33E+05COV 3.8% 6.1%

3 0.19 0.184 0.20 0.135 0.20 0.13

Average 0.19 0.17 0.14St. Dev. 0.00 0.03COV 2.0% 18.2%

Ultimate Comp Strength (Psi)

Sample Halliburton ChevronSchlumberger (First Cycle)procedure with a low 

stress range possibly affecting results

Sa p e a bu to C e o ( st Cyc e)1 8696 8398 63672 9272 78623 10137 74624 9120 18705 9102 1460

Average 9265 5410 6367St. Dev. 532 3438COV 5.7% 63.6%

7000

8000

9000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Stre

ss (p

si)

Halliburton

Chevron

Schlumberger

0

1000

2000

-0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70%

S

Strain

8/4/2010

15

Splitting Test

Hal TS Chevron SLB TS SLB TS Hal Stab Chevron SLB SLBSample

Hal TS (psi)

Chevron (psi)

SLB TS (psi)

SLB TS (psi)

Hal Stab (SG)

Chevron (SG)

SLB (SG)

SLB (SG)

1 - Top 520 171 270 470 1.99 1.97 1.99 1.982 528 429 400 310 2.01 1.97 1.99 1.993 575 415 2.02 1.98

4 - Bottom 235 352 410 430 2.03 2.01 2.02 2.01

Average 465 342 360 403 2.02 1.98 2.00 1.99St. Dev. 155 118 78 83 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.015COV 33.4% 34.6% 21.7% 20.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%(Top-Bot)/Avg 1.97% 2.02% 1.50% 1.51%

Load FrameLoad Frame

Sample Modulus

(psi)Poisson's

RatioUltimate

Strength (psi)Tensile

Strength (psi)Halliburton 2.01E+06 0.19 9265 465Chevron 2.20E+06 0.17 5410 342

Schlumberger 1.05E+06 0.14 6367 382

Average 1.75E+06 0.17 7014 396St. Dev. 6.15E+05 0.03 2007 63COV 35 1% 15 7% 28 6% 15 9%COV 35.1% 15.7% 28.6% 15.9%

8/4/2010

16

Neat H

Sample Modulus

(psi)Poisson's

RatioUltimate

Strength (psi)Tensile

Strength (psi)Halliburton 2.13E+06 0.20 7215 720Chevron 1.94E+06 0.20 4601 731TOTAL 2.12E+06 0.17 7778

Schlumberger 9 41E+05 0 09 5802 628

Composite

Sample Modulus

(psi)Poisson's

RatioUltimate

Strength (psi)Tensile

Strength (psi)Halliburton 2.01E+06 0.19 9265 465

Schlumberger 9.41E+05 0.09 5802 628

Average 1.78E+06 0.17 6349 693St. Dev. 5.68E+05 0.05 1431 57COV 31.9% 31.5% 22.5% 8.2%

Chevron 2.20E+06 0.17 5410 342Schlumberger 1.05E+06 0.14 6367 382

Average 1.75E+06 0.17 7014 396St. Dev. 6.15E+05 0.03 2007 63COV 35.1% 15.7% 28.6% 15.9%

Need more acoustic dataI ti t   i  if l   t     ff t  Investigate variance if low stress range affects resultsNeat slurry may have too much free water SLB also investigated curing pressure and gave full cyclic results 

8/4/2010

17

Go over changesReview in context to lessons learned from Coop Review in context to lessons learned from Coop TestingWhat next?

What do we need to accomplish in the short term?

8/4/2010

18

How many and when?

Attachment #7 Minutes from WG on Evaluation of NAF

Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers.

1 of 1

Minutes Work Group on Evaluation of NAF Removal

and Water-Wetting by Spacers API Subcommittee 10

Washington, DC June 29, 2010

Tom Griffin, Chairman

The meeting was called to order at 2:10 PM. The chairman opened the meeting and read the list of members. Members in attendance were Marshall Bishop, Craig Gardner (for Bob Carpenter), Jim Davison, Dennis Gray (for Tom Dealy), Gunnar DeBruijn, Rick Lukay, Gilson Campos (for Cristiane de Miranda) and Nevio Moroni. The minutes from the January 2010 meeting in New Orleans were read and approved by the members. The chairman reviewed the agenda and it was accepted.

Discussion

Prior to the meeting, a revised procedure and issues with the procedure were distributed to members. Lirio Quintero and Bob Carpenter responded with detailed feedback on the issues. The chairman compiled their comments into a document listing the issues. This document served as a basis for discussions of the procedure. The document with the resolution of each issue is attached (Procedure-issue-resolution-100629.doc). Following are some additional comments from this discussion.

The measurement of the contact angle of the coupon exposed to NAF-only was not seen as providing any value and was dropped.

Chevron has done work to improve the stirred fluid loss apparatus for use in fluid exposure for wettability testing. Bob will finish this development and will work with Jim and Rick to revise the procedure for use of the stirred fluid loss apparatus for exposure.

The wettability test procedure is seen as a final step in the optimization of spacer/surfactant systems for the removal of NAF. There has been some discussion of its use as part of compatibility rheology testing and the Spacer Surfactant Screening Test. The wettability test procedure can be used along with these two procedures if desired, but the procedure is intended to be a stand-alone procedure.

The procedure for the use of the goniometer, as written, is specific to a particular model of goniometer. For the purpose of standardization, the procedure must be generic and written so that it can be used for any goniometer. Lirio has previously done some analysis of a variety of goniometers. She will review this work and write a generic description of goniometers suitable for use in this testing. She also will rewrite the procedure for use of the goniometer in this wettability testing with the assistance of Gunnar.

The test data form needs to be revised to include time and temperature of exposure to NAF. Provide spaces for more precise information about the NAF (such as density, and other specific information).

Action Items

Finalize modification of the stirred fluid loss test apparatus – Bob – Aug 1

Revise the section using the stirred fluid loss apparatus for exposure – Bob, Jim, Rick – Aug 1

Generic description of goniometer – Lirio – Aug 1

Revised procedure for use of goniometer in wettability testing – Lirio, Gunnar – Aug 1

Compile procedural changes – Tom – Sep 1

Revise data form – Tom – Aug 1

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.

Attachment #8 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Plugs Used

in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe.

Summer 2010 Minutes.doc

TG on Mechanical Cementing Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing and Drill Pipe Task Group Charge

Develop a technical report on recommended testing, evaluation and performance requirements for mechanical cementing plugs with the intention of the report serving as the basis for an ISO NWI.

Minutes from the summer 2010 meeting in Washington DC, June 29, 2010. 10:30 to 12:00.

Hank Rogers opened the meeting by welcoming those present and reviewing the task group charge. The following members and guests were in attendance. Brent Lirette Weatherford 713-9835354 brent.lirette@weatherford.com Tom Griffin Consultant 281-341-1893 tjgriffin2@discover.earthlink.net Gunnar DeBruijn Schlumberger 403-509-4145 gunnar1@calgary.oilfield.slb.com Jerry Calvert Consultant 972-492-4865 dgcalvert@msn.com Craig Gardner Chevron 713-954-6154 craig.gardner@chevrontexaco.com

Numerous nonmembers were present that are not listed above, but are listed on the sign in sheet.

The members reviewed the task group charter and discussed the draft outline, revision 2010-5 that was supplied to the team for their review prior to the meeting. The draft was reviewed with attention to the testing or evaluation section. The revised draft will be distributed to task group members for further review and comment.

Alfredo Sanchez (alfredo.sanchez@top-co.ca & 780.918.3980) of TOP-CO LP in Edmonton Canada

was introduced as a new member of the task group. The meeting adjourned at 12:00. The meeting was very productive and my thanks to all those in

attendance.

Hank Rogers Hank.rogers@halliburton.com

Attachment #9 Minutes from WG on HTHP Rheology.

WG on HTHP Rheology 

2010 Summer meeting minutes. June 30, 2010 Washington D.C. 

 

Meet was called to order at 10:20 AM, by Rick Lukay who was standing in for Chairman Deryck Williams.  As there was no copy of the last meeting's minutes available, it was decided to defer the reading of the 2009 Winter meeting minutes to the next WG meeting.  The following members were in attendance; 

Craig Gardner (for Deryck Williams) Gunnar DeBruijn (for Deepak Khatri) Jim Davison John St Clergy Lee Bently (Grace Instruments) Ragheb Dajani Rick Lukay Robert Darbe Lee Dillenbeck 

There was no one from Brookfield Instruments in attendance. 

 

The WG reviewed and edited the proposed HTHP Rheology document.  Rick Lukay will produce a "clean" copy of the document from the two edited documents.  This cleaned copy will be sent to the WG members for one more review. 

 

Rick Lukay propose a set of round robin tests for a future evaluation of HTHP Rheometers, as follows: 

 

Set 1)  Run side by side tests between the HTHP units and an atmospheric standard viscometer (Fann 35A, Chan 3500, OFI 900, etc.) using a know fluid (calibration fluid) at atmospheric pressure and temperatures up to 88 oC. 

 

Set 2)  Run the same tests as in set one, but using cement slurries in place of calibration fluid. 

 

Set 3)  On the HTHP rheometers that passed the first 2 steps, run pressurized tests at temperatures above 88 oC with appropriate cement slurries.   

 

There was some discussion about  using additives in a round robin test, but it was of the opinion of those in the room that as long as only generic type additives were used (i.e. PNS for dispersion, HEC's for retarding etc.) there should be no problem with API.  This will have to be looked into before we start. 

 

Finally it was suggested that the members consider the testing proposal and be ready to discuss it and the "cleaned" HTHP document at a Teleconference meeting to be held by August 1st.  This would be dependent on the approval of the Chairman. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM. 

  

Attachment #10 Minutes from WG on Slurry Mixing

Procedures.

Minutes: WG on Large Scale Mixing June 29, 2010 Washington, DC. Meeting Jim Davison called to order at 1:30 PM Members in Attendance Jim Davison Simon James Bernard Fraboulet Robert Darbe Members not present: Cristian Richards de Miranda Scott Jennings Deryk Williams Deepak Khatri Labs participating: Petrobras, Rio, Brazil Aramco Dahran, KSA Schlumberger Clamart, Frnace Schlumberger Houston, TX Halliburton Duncan, OK Total Pau, France Chandler Engineering Broken Arrow, OK Due to technical difficulties the presentation slides and data could not be shown. Seven (7) labs reported. The data reported was discussed verbally. Discussions centered on the variations in reported data. Comments concerning the inconsistency of the data reported. Comments concerning the difficulties with mixing 2 liter and 4 liter volumes were discussed. The procedure called for using local samples of either class “H” or “G” it was suggested that a common sample should be used.. It was agreed that another round of testing is needed. Bernard Fraboulet suggest studying changing the low speed mix speed to 4000rpm vs current 6000rpm and increasing the high speed mix time at 10,000rpm. Tom Griffin commented sending all samples to one location. It was decided that distributing one common sample to all locations would be preferred. The procedure will be revised to reduce the testing to comparing a one (1) quart blender cup mix of 600 mL to a Gallon blender cup mix of 3000 mL. The procedure will also include common slurry. Procedure revisions will be drafted by Jim Davison. Thierry Rollier with CCB Italcementi Group volunteered to provide a neat class “G” cement for the testing. Jim Davison will help provide logistics for the distribution of the sample to the participating labs. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.