subcommittee 10 general session *revised minutes (july 6...

Subcommittee 10 General Session

*Revised Minutes (July 6, 2010)* Chairman: David Stiles

Intercontinental Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana

David Stiles called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Approval of Minutes from Westminster The first order of business was to approve the minutes from the 2009 Summer Meeting at Westminster, CO. Robert Darbe read the minutes. Rick Lukay made a motion to approve the minutes with a small typo correction. The motion was seconded by Craig Gardner and passed unanimously. Review of Task Groups and Work Groups David gave an overview of the charges for the task groups and work groups. He noted that the TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements had a change in charge to include testing procedures as of the summer meeting held in Denver. Reports of Task Groups and Work Groups Task Group and Work Group chairpersons read the minutes from their respective teams. David Stiles read minutes on Tom Griffin’s behalf and Craig Gardner did the same for Hank Rogers. 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

Presentation WG on Compressive Strength Scott Saville Minutes TG on Performance Testing of Well Cementing Composites

Bill Carruthers Minutes Presentation Presentation – ISO Meeting

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

Hank Rogers Minutes

RG for ISO Liaison Deryck Williams Presentation WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers

Tom Griffin Minutes

TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements

Robert Darbe Minutes

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

Presentation Presentation - ISO Meeting

WG on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling

Robert Beirute Minutes Presentation

hbbg004

Highlight

After no discussion during the discussion period, David Stiles tendered a motion to accept the reports. The motion was moved by Jerry Calvert, seconded by Robert Beirute, and passed unanimously. Old Business There was no Old Business was to discuss. New Business Proposed NWI for HPHT Rheology Bill Carruthers spoke highly of Jerold Kennedy who recently passed away. Jerold was a contributing member to API’s cooperative testing program representing California Portland Cement. Review of Updated Membership Rosters David Stiles reviewed the roster of voting members and alternates for SC-10. Small changes were made to correct the document. David Stiles will contact Joe Garcia to ascertain if Capital Cement is going to stay involved with SC-10 while not manufacturing well cement. David will also contact Cal Port to see if they will have a replacement member for Jerold. Chrome (VI) Reducing Agents The date limit set in ISO 10426-1 to address Directive 2003/53/ED of the European Parliament has expired. A corrigendum, or addendum, to 10426-1 is needed to change the wording to correct the wording to allow for the directive to continue. This document won’t be adopted back as API Spec 10A until this issue is resolved. Auditor Checklist Recent changes to ISO 10426-1 that passed FDIS voting and will soon be adopted back as API Spec 10A will require updates to the auditor checklist. The TG on Cement Monogram Program, chaired by Bill Caruthers, will review and present updates to the checklist during the summer meeting. Heat of Hydration of Cement (Link to attachment: Presentation) Brian Koons voiced a concern that high-dollar decisions are being based on temperature simulators that use default values and methods for handling heat of hydration. He reviewed some testing equipment and procedures currently available to use as a foundation for the WG. Brian proposed forming a “WG to develop a RP for Determination of Cement Heat of Hydration using ASTM C 1792 – 09 as a Guide.” Discussion focused on the need to investigate at downhole conditions which would require additions to the existing ASTM method. This topic was tabled and will be brought up again in the summer meeting were Lee Dillenbeck was nominated to put together and present more information.

Patent Issue for WG on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling Robert Beirute paraphrased a patent that interfered with one method currently being investigated in the TG. Discussions centered on eliminating this method from the current investigation or approaching the patent holders about releasing the patent. Ron Crook mentioned that patented methods can be included in a TR. Upcoming meetings: Upcoming API meeting were presented:

• 2010 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Washington DC • 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth • 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco • 2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: ??

Adjournment After no additional business was proposed, Rick Lukay moved that the meeting be adjourned. After the motion was seconded by Tom Dealy, 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 InterContinental New Orleans

New Orleans, Louisiana

The meeting began at 8:00 a.m. Bill asked Gerry Calvert to give

prayer.

Bill went over the Cooperative Testing Program format (presentation

attached). There will be about 300 samples going out this year.

Samples will be Class H supplied by Holcim Apasco All test results

should be submitted by the middle of May so that report can be done

and presented at the summer meeting.

Bill went over the testing protocol.

Concerns from 2008 cooperative testing were discussed. Some of

these issues were not enough samples were sent out, confusion over

gel strength testing, the amount of pressure to apply to the UCA

tests, conditioning temperatures and crush apparatus.

The amount of sample that will be sent out this year will be

approximately 10,000 grams. In 2008 it was about 6000 grams. It will

be noted to the testing labs that fresh lab mixes will be done for each

test. There was indication that more than one test was done with the

same lab mix.

Particle size testing should be done if the lab has the capability. It

was noted that there were different units to test particle size and

results may not have good correlation. Particle size test should note

what equipment was used for testing. The test instructions will include

certain numbers to report for the practical size test but full report

should be submitted.

Bill stressed that if labs want to be included in this years cooperative

testing they need to sign up or get with Bill this week.

Meeting adjourned at 8:25 am.

Attachment #2 Presentation from TG on Cooperative

Testing.

1

API Cooperative Testing Program 2010-2011

Intercontinental HotelNew Orleans, LAJan 26, 2010

Program Format • December 2009--Solicitation Letter mailed to Committee

members, monogram holders, past participants • January 15, 2010 – Deadline for subscribing to the 2010-

2011 program2011 program– 57 cement plants, oil companies, consulting labs

• February 2010 – Samples distributed by Holcim Apasco• February 2010 – Electronic reporting forms and testing

protocol distributed by email when samples shipped• May 15, 2010 – Deadline for returning results by email to

Scott Saville and Bill CarruthersJ ne 2010 P li i t d t API• June 2010 – Preliminary report made at API summer meeting

2

Current Business

Sample Supplier for 2010 2011Sample Supplier for 2010-2011Holcim Apasco S.A. de C.V.

Review Test Protocol for 2009-2010

TESTING PROTOCOL• Schedule 5 neatSc edu e 5 eat• Free Fluid• Strength at 100 (8 & 24 Hr) and 140 (8 hr), UCA

(8 Hr & 24 Hr)• Chemistry• Fineness

G l• Gel• Additional Testing for strength work group• Additional other testing?

3

2008 CONCERNS

• Inadequate amount of sample• Inadequate amount of sample• Gel Strength Testing• Pressure for UCA Testing (1000 psi)• Conditioning Temperatures

C h t t l di t• Crush tester loading rate

Sample Weight Requirements• Schedule 5 860 grams• Free Fluid 860 grams

St th (4 t ) 3440• Strengths (4 sets) 3440 grams• Gel Strength 860 grams• Rheology 860 grams• Blaine, Chemistry, etc. 25 grams• Additional Testing ????g• TOTAL 6905 grams

Attachment #3 Minutes from WG on Compressive Strength.

Subcommittee 10 Work Group on Compressive Strength

Chairman: Scott Saville InterContinental New Orleans


Scott reviewed the past work that this Work Group on Compressive

Strengths has done (presentation attached). This included known

trends from past testing. From this work there has been test that have

been added and deleted based on analyzed data.

Scott then went over the 2010 compressive strength protocol. He

asked for other testing ideas. There were none.


Attachment #4 Minutes from TG on Performance Testing of

Well Cementing composites.

Subcommittee 10 Task Group on Composite Cement

Chairman: Bill Carruthers InterContinental New Orleans


Bill gave a brief explanation of why this Task Group was formed. The

CO2 footprint of Portland cement production needs to be reduced.

Soon cement manufactures will be taxed on the amount of CO2

produced from making cement. Substituting Portland cement with

other products will reduce the amount of Portland cement production.

Composite cements may be combinations of Portland cement and

slag, fly ash, silica…etc.

There will be different specs. for each cement substitute.

Fly ash is a good substitute but may not be readily available in the

future.

ASTM has specs. on cement blends but are not as specific as the

charge of this Task Group.

Bill went over the test data for the composite cement/slag blend. Data

indicates composite blends will work based on compressive strength

and other cement test. Density measurement was variable but

acceptable. Blaine was rather erratic.

Manufacturers are currently blending cements. Question was asked if

there blending process was acceptable. Current blended cement from

manufacturers are well accepted by the industry. Bill asked where does this Task Group go from here. Possibly test

with local slags. There will be enough cement in the cooperative test

samples to test about three composite cement tests. These test will

be 100, 140 F compressive strengths and rheology. A schedule 5

thickening time test will also be included in case there is enough

sample left to do this test. It was agreed at this point more data is

needed before doing performance testing. Other testing will probably

include composite cement with silica. Special instructions will be

needed for this testing. Current testing will concentrate on slag. Once

performance testing begins small lab groups will be chosen to do this

testing. The majority of these labs will probably be service company

labs. The performance testing will using selected additives to meet

specified specifications.


Attachment #5 Presentation from TG on Performance Testing of Well Cementing composites.

1/26/2010

1

API COMMITTEE ON COMPOSITES

Intercontinental HotelNew Orleans, LAJanuary 26, 2010

API Committee on Composites

• Review of past data• Path Forward

– Additional testing on current blend– Additional testing on other composites

• Fly Ash• Silica Flour or Fume• Others

1/26/2010

2

PARTICIPANT

Init. Bc Max. 15-30 minute, Bc 30Bc 70 Bc 100Bc

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 14 16 70 104 115Halliburton, Duncan, OK 0 25 56 90 110Cal Portland, Mojave, CA 9.5 17 17 40 111Halliburton, Aberdeen UK 3 7 129 137 140

Series 1Dyckerhoff G - 60% / Lafarge Slag - 40%

SCHEDULE 5

,PCR 16 28 50 88 103Norcem A.S Brevik, Norway 18 27 34 90 115CTG - Italcementi 20 30 30 104 113CSI Technologies 9 11 108 132 141SAUDI ARAMCO 8 15 77 106 119Halliburton, Broussard, LA 22 29 30 101 116Lehigh, Edmonton, AB 117Texas Lehigh Cement Co 10 18 64 98 112Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 9 24 57 93 107Lafarge, Joppa, IL 16 25 56 91 108Schlumberger, Clamart, France 19 20 85 96 111Chevron 16 17 76 105 116Drilling Specialties, Bartlesville, OK 18 27 55 96 107PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 13 13 75 99 113

AVERAGE 115

Dyckerhoff (neat, unblended cement) 108

PARTICIPANT

Cement UsedLafarge

Slag Init. Bc Max. 30 minute 30Bc 70 Bc 100Bc

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) XX 14 16 70 105 120Halliburton, Duncan, OK Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XX 0 29 32 90 100Cal Portland, Mojave, CA CalPort G (MSR) XX 0.2 11.7 12.0 42 105Halliburton, Aberdeen UK LAF Lehavre G (HSR) XX 5 5 107 115 121

Series 2SCHEDULE 5

Local Cement / Lafarge Slag

, ( )PCR PCR G XX 15 15 80 112 120Norcem A.S Brevik, Norway Norcem, Brevik G XX 24 27 37 88 99CTG - Italcementi Tourah G XX 25 23 22 127 136CSI Technologies CalPort G (MSR) XX 33 30 23 105 109SAUDI ARAMCO Saudi Cmt G XX 12 11 83 105 114Halliburton, Broussard, LA Laf Jpa H, HSR XX 86 104Lehigh, Edmonton, AB XX 116Texas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XX 16 22 22 108 102Dyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftLafarge, Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H, HSR XX 30 36 0 99 115Schlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) XX 95 107 113Schlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) XX 95 107 113Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H XX 86 100PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G XX 42 40 91 101

AVERAGE 111


1/26/2010

3

PARTICIPANT

Cement Used Slag Used Init. Bc Max. 30 Minute 30Bc 70 Bc 100Bc

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) CCB 12 12 92 115 120Halliburton, Duncan, OK

Local Cement / Local Slag

SCHEDULE 5Series 3

Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UKPCRNorcem A.S Brevik, Norway Norcem, Brevik G Merox (Slite) 19 20 72 102 115CTG - Italcementi Tourah G Atlàntica de Graneles 19 24 23 134 140CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) Lehigh 20 30 30 70 86Lafarge, Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H (HSR) Laf Joppa 23 27 43 86 98Dyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftDyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftSchlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) Holcim USA 71 79 88Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 0 67 86PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G IBEC 30 28 110 120

AVERAGE 107


PARTICIPANT

Dyck G Slag used Init. Bc Max. 30 Minute 30Bc 70 Bc 100Bc

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium XX CCB 12 12 84 114 119Halliburton, Duncan, OK Cal Portland Mojave CA

Series 4Dyckerhoff G / Local Slag

SCHEDULE 5

Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UKPCRNorcem A.S Brevik, NorwayCTG - Italcementi XX Atlàntica de Graneles 24 30 30 122 131CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co XX Lehigh 12 21 53 91 107Lafarge, Joppa, IL XX Lafarge Joppa 11 19 65 99 110Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX Thyssen Krupp AG (Furnace Schwelgern) 31 102 109y gSchlumberger, Clamart, FranceChevron XX Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 58 95 108PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil XX IBEC 11 11 114 129 140

AVERAGE 118


1/26/2010

4

PARTICIPANT Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 4Dyck G/ Laf Slag Local Cmt / Laf Slag Local Cmt / Local Slag Dyck G / Local Slag

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 0.95 3.35 3.10 0.55Halliburton, Duncan, OK 0.33 0.50Cal Portland, Mojave, CA 0.53 3.59

FREE FLUID

Halliburton, Aberdeen UK 0.78 1.21PCR 0.70 3.00Norcem A.S Brevik 0.45 1.18CTG - Italcementi 0.75 2.91 1.80 1.00CSI Technologies 0.85 2.40SAUDI ARAMCO 0.61 2.09Halliburton, Broussard, LA 0.99 1.35Lehigh, Edmonton, AB 0.41 1.77Texas Lehigh Cement Co 1.20 1.32 1.67 1.10Lafarge Joppa, IL 0.95 0.75 1.13 2.06Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 0.37 1.02Schlumberger, Clamart, France 0.92 1.75 2.24Chevron 0 87 2 31 1 11 0 45Chevron 0.87 2.31 1.11 0.45Drilling Specialties, Bartlesville, OK 0.85PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 0.60 1.95 4.10 2.24

AVERAGE 0.73% 1.96% 2.16% 1.20%

Dyckerhoff (neat, unblended cement) 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.30%

PARTICIPANT

3 6 30 60 100 200 300 10 seconds 10 minutesGel StrengthRheology, rpms

RHEOLOGY AND GEL STRENGTHSDYCKERHOFF G / LAFARGE SLAG (series 1)

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 20.0 29.5 69 89 105.5 132 151 21 30Halliburton, Duncan, OK 28.0 37 73.5 85.5 97 117 133Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UK 25 30 66 81 94 115 127 28 37PCR 32 42 116 145 185Norcem A.S Brevik 24.5 33.5 83.5 106.5 123.5 158.5 181 24 30CSI Technologies 14 20 43 58 69 92 99 12 18SAUDI ARAMCO 21.5 33.5 104 135 157 19 26Halliburton, Broussard, LA 22 31 72 90 103 128 148 28 40Lafarge, Joppa, IL 19.5 48.5 121`.5 156 187Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 19 28 72 91 108 133 151 18 22Schlumberger, Clamart, France 19 26 60.5 77 90.5 111.5 129 19 60Ch 31 39 5 76 91 5 105 5 133 155 35 58Chevron 31 39.5 76 91.5 105.5 133 155 35 58Drilling Specialties, Bartlesville, OK 23 32 113 133 152 21 46PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 17.5 24.5 75 94 112 142.5 165 19 54

AVERAGE 22.6 32.5 69 86.5 103.2 130.8 151.4 22 38

1/26/2010

5

PARTICIPANT Rheology, rpms Gel Strength

RHEOLOGY AND GEL STRENGTHSLOCAL CEMENT / LAFARGE SLAG (series 2)

3 6 30 60 100 200 300 10 seconds 10 minutesCCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 14.0 24.0 66.0 82.5 97.0 121.5 138.0 12.0 11.0Halliburton, Duncan, OK 30.5 38.0 81.5 96.0 106.0 131.0 152.0Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UK 19.0 28.0 58.0 70.0 79.0 96.0 112.0 22.0 23.0PCR 25.0 34.0 117.0 137.0 219.0Norcem A.S Brevik 24.5 33.0 86.5 109.0 129.0 161.5 186.5 24.0 26.0CSI Technologies 19.0 28.0 60.0 81.0 100.0 133.0 150.0 16.0 20.0SAUDI ARAMCO 15.0 26.0 95.0 119.0 138.5 15.0 19.0Halliburton, Broussard, LA 30.0 38.0 96.0 128.0 151.0 191.0 222.0 32.0 36.0Lafarge Joppa, IL 21.5 34.5 178.0 257.5 300+Schlumberger, Clamart, France 16.5 25.5 60.5 77.5 93.5 115.5 132.0 16.0 26.0Chevron 10 5 17 5 52 5 66 0 74 5 87 0 98 0 7 0 20 0Chevron 10.5 17.5 52.5 66.0 74.5 87.0 98.0 7.0 20.0PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 19.0 27.0 73.5 106.5 136.5 187.0 222.0 19.0 29.0

AVERAGE 20.4 29.5 70.5 90.7 113.0 144.8 172.5 18.1 23.3

PARTICIPANT

3 6 30 60 100 200 300 10 seconds 10 minutesCCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 15.0 25.5 54.5 65.0 74.0 91.5 105.0 14 12Lafarge, Joppa, IL 21.0 41.5 161.0 212.5 253.0 25 23

Rheology, rpms Gel Strength

RHEOLOGY AND GEL STRENGTHSLOCAL CEMENT / LOCAL SLAG (series 3)

Lafarge, Joppa, IL 21.0 41.5 161.0 212.5 253.0 25 23Schlumberger, Clamart, France 16.5 25.0 67.0 82.5 97.0 116.0 132.0 20 21Chevron 10.5 16.5 46.0 65.0 77.0 95.0 108.0 11 16PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 15.5 22.0 57.5 82.5 103.0 139.0 170.0 16 25

AVERAGE 15.7 26.1 56.3 73.8 102.4 130.8 156.3 17 19

1/26/2010

6

PARTICIPANT

3 6 30 60 100 200 300 10 seconds 10 minutesDyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 15.0 24.0 72.0 94.0 109.0 130.0 146.0 19 26Lafarge, Joppa, IL 18.5 34.5 104.5 127.0 145.0Chevron 13 0 17 5 41 0 50 5 60 0 76 0 88 0 12 16

Rheology, rpms Gel Strength

RHEOLOGY AND GEL STRENGTHSDYCKERHOFF G / LOCAL SLAG (series 4)

Chevron 13.0 17.5 41.0 50.5 60.0 76.0 88.0 12 16PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 15.5 21.0 66.5 82.5 96.5 117.5 134.0 16 32

AVERAGE 15.5 24.3 59.8 75.7 92.5 112.6 128.3 16 25

PARTICIPANT

Dyck G Lafarge Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium XX XX 300 300 300Halliburton, Duncan, OK XX XX 740 690 715Cal Portland, Mojave, CA XX XX 350 330 360 347Halliburton, Aberdeen UK XX XX 510 560 460 510PCR XX XX 380 370 370 373Norcem A S Brevik XX XX 410 410 420 413

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 100 FDyckerhoff G / Lafarge Slag (Series 1)

Norcem A.S Brevik XX XX 410 410 420 413CTG - Italcementi XX XX 340 310 290 313CSI Technologies XX XX 1050 860 955SAUDI ARAMCO XX XX 490 530 530 517Halliburton, Broussard, LA XX XX 350 340 330 340Lehigh, Edmonton, AB XX XXTexas Lehigh Cement Co XX XX 200 210 210 207Lafarge, Joppa, IL XX XX 310 360 360 343Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX XX 430 440 430 433Schlumberger, Clamart, France XX XX 530 530 540 533Ch XX XX 370 400 380 383Chevron XX XX 370 400 380 383Drilling Specialties, Bartlesville, OK XX XX 310 310 330 317PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil XX XX 250 260 250 253

AVERAGE 427


1/26/2010

7

PARTICIPANT

Local Cement Lafarge Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) XX 370 380 375Halliburton, Duncan, OK Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XXCal Portland, Mojave, CA CalPort G (MSR) XX 580 570 570 573Halliburton, Aberdeen UK LAF Leh G (HSR) XX 360 450 460 423PCR PCR G XX 350 340 360 350

Local Cement / Lafarge Slag (Series 2)COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 100 F

Norcem A.S Brevik Norcem, Brevik G XX 460 470 461 464CTG - Italcementi Tourah G XX 240 230 230 233CSI Technologies CalPort G (MSR) XX 490 650 570SAUDI ARAMCO Saudi Cmt G XX 390 420 470 427Halliburton, Broussard, LA Laf Jpa H (HSR) XX 290 290 280 287Lehigh, Edmonton, AB XXTexas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XX 250 240 240 243Lafarge, Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H (HSR) XX 120 150 140 137Dyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftSchlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) XX 370 400 410 393Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H XX 360 400 380PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G XX 550 520 560 543

AVERAGE 386

PARTICIPANTLocal Cement Local Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) CCB 410 410 410Halliburton, Duncan, OK Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UKPCR

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 100 FLocal Cement / Local Slag (Series 3)

PCRNorcem A.S Brevik Norcem, Brevik G Merox (Slite) 270 280 270 273CTG - Italcementi Tourah G Atlàntica de Graneles 420 450 470 447CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) Lehigh 200 200 210 203Lafarge, Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H (HSR) Lafarge Joppa 340 340 330 337Dyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftSchlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) Holcim USA 540 580 570 563Sc u be ge , C a a t, a ce CC G ( S ) o c US 5 0 580 5 0 563Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 540 530 540 537PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G IBEC 340 240 330 303

AVERAGE 384

1/26/2010

8

PARTICIPANT

Dyck G Local Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium XX CCB 300 310 305Halliburton, Duncan, OK Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UK

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 100 FDyck G / Local Slag (Series 4)

,PCRNorcem A.S BrevikCTG - Italcementi XX Atlàntica de Graneles 180 190 180 183CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co XX Lehigh 220 210 210 213Lafarge Joppa, IL XX Lafarge Joppa 320 320 320 320Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX Thyssen Krupp AG (Furnace Schwelgern) 260 250 240 250Schlumberger, Clamart, France XX Holcim USA 490 490 470 483Chevron XX Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 240 250 240 243PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil XX IBEC 150 160 150 153

AVERAGE 269

PARTICIPANT

Dyck G Lafarge Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium XX XX 1590 1620 1605Halliburton, Duncan, OK XX XXHalliburton, Pune, INDIA XX XX 1780 1840 1800 1807Cal Portland, Mojave, CA XX XX 1860 1790 1850 1833

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 140 FDyckerhoff G / Lafarge Slag (Series 1)

Halliburton, Aberdeen UK XX XX 1900 2400 2210 2170PCR XX XX 1730 1770 1700 1733Norcem A.S Brevik XX XX 1570 1670 1660 1633CTG - Italcementi XX XX 1440 1300 1580 1440CSI Technologies XX XX 1570 1310 1440SAUDI ARAMCO XX XX 980 2190 2040 1737Halliburton, Broussard, LA XX XX 1200 1110 1170 1160Lehigh, Edmonton, AB XX XXTexas Lehigh Cement Co XX XX 1280 1310 1290 1293Lafarge Joppa, IL XX XX 1410 1500 1460 1457Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX XX 2030 1990 2080 2033Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX XX 2030 1990 2080 2033Schlumberger, Clamart, France XX XX 2090 2160 2120 2123Chevron XX XX 1430 1440 1520 1463Drilling Specialties, Bartlesville, OK XX XX 1740 1370 1520 1543PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil XX XX 1360 1450 1370 1393

AVERAGE 1639

1/26/2010

9

PARTICIPANT

Local Cement Lafarge Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) XX 1400 1390 1395Halliburton, Duncan, OK Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XXHalliburton, Pune, India Laf Jpa H (HSR) XX 1930 1950 1900 1927Cal Portland, Mojave, CA CalPort G (MSR) XX 2240 2270 2310 2273H llib t Ab d UK LAF L h G (HSR) XX 1700 1870 2140 1903

Local Cement / Lafarge Slag (Series 2)COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 140 F

Halliburton, Aberdeen UK LAF Leh G (HSR) XX 1700 1870 2140 1903PCR PCR G XX 1670 1700 1650 1673Norcem A.S Brevik Norcem, Brevik G XX 1210 1170 1200 1193CTG - Italcementi Tourah G XX 1100 1100 1070 1090CSI Technologies CalPort G (MSR) XX 1730 1850 1790SAUDI ARAMCO Saudi Cmt G XX 1340 1520 1630 1497Halliburton, Broussard, LA Laf Jpa H (HSR) XX 1470 1880 1870 1740Lehigh, Edmonton, AB XXTexas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) XX 1400 1440 1420 1420Lafarge Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H (HSR) XX 2440 2300 2300 2347D k h ff Akti ll h ftDyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftSchlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) XX 1470 1510 1520 1500Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H XX 1500 1480 1490PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G XX 2360 2360 2110 2277

AVERAGE 1701

PARTICIPANTLocal Cement Local Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium CCB G (HSR) CCB 1240 1220 1230Halliburton, Duncan, OK Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UKPCR

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 140 FLocal Cement / Local Slag (Series 3)

PCRNorcem A.S Brevik Norcem, Brevik G Merox (Slite) 610 609 602 607CTG - Italcementi Tourah G Atlàntica de Graneles 1570 1570 1560 1567CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co Tx Lehigh H (HSR) Lehigh 1710 1760 1630 1700Lafarge Joppa, IL Laf Jpa H (HSR) Lafarge Joppa 2210 2280 2260 2250Dyckerhoff AktiengesellschaftS hl b Cl t F CCB G (HSR) H l i USA 1390 1340 1350 1360Schlumberger, Clamart, France CCB G (HSR) Holcim USA 1390 1340 1350 1360Chevron Buzzi Unicem USA H Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 1560 1430 1640 1543PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Holcim G IBEC 1380 1380 1510 1423

AVERAGE 1460

1/26/2010

10

PARTICIPANT

Dyck G Local Slag cube 1 cube 2 cube 3 average

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium XX CCB 1170 1170 1170Halliburton, Duncan, OK Cal Portland, Mojave, CAHalliburton, Aberdeen UK

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS, 8 HOUR, 140 FDyck G / Local Slag (Series 4)

Halliburton, Aberdeen UKPCRNorcem A.S BrevikCTG - Italcementi XX Atlàntica de Graneles 1130 1070 1120 1107CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LALehigh, Edmonton, ABTexas Lehigh Cement Co XX Lehigh 1680 1650 1630 1653Lafarge Joppa, IL XX Lafarge Joppa 1640 1580 1600 1607Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX Thyssen Krupp AG (Furnace Schwelgern) 1150 1160 1150 1153Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft XX Thyssen Krupp AG (Furnace Schwelgern) 1150 1160 1150 1153Schlumberger, Clamart, France XX Holcim USA 1680 1840 1780 1767Chevron XX Buzzi Unicem USA Slag 1880 1850 1890 1873PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil XX IBEC 1130 1130 1140 1133

AVERAGE 1433

PARTICIPANTSeries 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 4

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 3.05 3.05 3.09 3.09Halliburton, Duncan, OK 3.1001 3.1311Cal Portland, Mojave, CA 3.09 3.07Halliburton, Aberdeen UK 3.0771 3.078PCR 3.13 3.13Norcem A.S BrevikCTG - Italcementi 3.078 3.089 3.12 3.065CSI Technologies 3.07 3.14SAUDI ARAMCO 3.07 3.1Halliburton, Broussard, LA 3.0983 3.1093Texas Lehigh Cement Co 3.16 3.16 2.87 2.87Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 3.048 3.048 3.03 3.03Lafarge, Joppa, IL USA 3.03 3.08 3.05 3.06Schlumberger, Clamart, FranceChevron 3.049 3.044 3.033 3.027PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

AVERAGE 3.080 3.095 3.0321 3.0236

1/26/2010

11

PARTICIPANTDyckerhoff Cement Local Cement Lafarge Slag Local Slag

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 3.16 3.21 2.91 2.91Halliburton, Duncan, OK 3.1988 3.2437 2.9464Cal Portland, Mojave, CA 3.18 3.15 2.95Halliburton, Aberdeen UK 3.1854 3.1886 2.9251PCR 3.21 3.23 2.95

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Norcem A.S Brevik 3.22 3.25 2.97 2.96CTG - Italcementi 3.171 3.212 2.914 2.885CSI Technologies 3.26 3.25 2.99SAUDI ARAMCO 3.197 3.2 2.93Halliburton, Broussard, LA 3.195 3.22 2.948Texas Lehigh Cement CoDyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 3.165 3.165 2.899 2.875Schlumberger, Clamart, France 3.2166 3.2749 2.9802 2.96Lafarge, Joppa, IL, USA 3.15 3.19 2.92 2.88Chevron 3.16 3.16 2.88 2.84PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3.1526 3.1568 2.9157 2.8548

AVERAGE 3.1881 3.2067 2.9352 2.8956

PARTICIPANTBlend Dyck G Laf Slag Blend Local Cement Laf Slag

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 4225 3150 6100 4335 3320 (CCB G)Halliburton, Duncan, OK 4360 3170 5790 4050 2730 (TxLeh H)Cal Portland, Mojave, CA 4360 3130 5650 4110 2740 (CalPort G)Halliburton, Aberdeen UKPCR 4330 3210 4250 3250 (PCR G)

Blaine for Test Series 1 Blaine for Test Series 2BLAINE STUDY

PCR 4330 3210 4250 3250 (PCR G)Norcem A.S Brevik 3150 5340 3390 (Norcem Brk G)CTG - Italcementi 4140 3100 5760 3810 3620 (Tourah G)CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCO 3922 3064 4352 4305 3144 Saudi Cmt G)Halliburton, Broussard, LATexas Lehigh Cement Co 3950 3050 4930 3550 2460 (Tx Leh H)Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 3980 3020 5660 3980 3020 5660Lafarge Joppa, IL, USA 4065 2968 6277 4177 2954 (Joppa H)Schlumberger, Clamart, FranceChChevronPETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3921 2776 5634 3910 2717 (Holcim G)

AVERAGE 4125 3071 5549 4048

1/26/2010

12

PARTICIPANTBlend Local Cement Local Slag Blend Dyck G Local Slag

CCB, Gaurain Ramecroix, Belgium 4075 3320 (CCB) 5240 (CCB) 3990 5240Halliburton, Duncan, OK Halliburton, Pune, IndiaCal Portland, Mojave, CA

BLAINE STUDYBlaine for Test Series 3 Blaine for Test Series 4

Halliburton, Aberdeen UKPCRNorcem A.S Brevik 3390 (Norcem Brk G) 5340 (Merox)CTG - Italcementi 4460 3620 (Tourah G) 4280 (AG) 3530 4280 (AG)CSI TechnologiesSAUDI ARAMCOHalliburton, Broussard, LATexas Lehigh Cement Co 3430 2460 (Tx Leh H) 4680 (Lehigh) 3460 4680 (Lehigh)Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft 3400 3020 4150 3400 3020 4150Lafarge Joppa, IL, USA 4357 2954 (Laf Jop H) 7041 (Laf-Chi) 4388 7041 (Laf-Chi)g pp , , ( p ) ( ) ( )Schlumberger, Clamart, FranceChevronPETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3370 2717 (Holcim G) 4190 (IBEC) 3324 4190 (IBEC)

Attachment #6 Presentation on Composite Cement

Reviewed During ISO Meeting. By: Simon James

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Attachment #7 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Plugs Used

in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe.

Minutes Task Group on Mechanical Cement Plugs

Using in Casing, Tubing and Drill Pipe API Subcommittee 10

New Orleans, USA January 26, 2010

Hank Rogers, Chairman

Hank Rogers called the meeting to order at 10:30AM on Tuesday 26th 2010.

The business consisted of review and revision of Section 6 of the draft document dealing with evaluation of cementing plugs.

It was then agreed that one or more virtual meeting will be held prior to the June meeting.

The chairman commended the group for progress made by the small manufacturer’s group which met previously in Houston as well as the progress and discussion at this meeting.

The meeting was adjourned as scheduled at noon.

Attachment #8 Presentation from RG for ISO Liaison.

1/26/2010

1

Valencia, Spain – Nov. 2009Deryck Williams

Introduction & agenda (Gerard)New rules for writing definitions (Gerard)10426-1◦ Final document & hopefully idea of votes (Gerard)

C i i (Bill)◦ Curing water issue (Bill)◦ Cr VI reduction agents (Thierry) 10426-2◦ Balance & calibration issue (Gerard)◦ Last chance for comments/edits (Gerard) 10426-3 - List of issues, procedures, tests, etc.. to include (Dan)10426-5 – Any issues left ? (Nevio, Bernard)10426-6 – French title (Bernard)Procedures for sample collection for co-operative testing (Jack)Status 2009 co-operative test programme (Bill & Jack)Large scale mixing (Bernard, Cristiane)Current API TG’s, WG’s and activities (David)Programme New Orleans, January 2010 (David)Cement setting (SPE 124932) (Gerard, tentative)Composites◦ Co-operative testing: status (Bill)◦ Slag tests (Bill)◦ Silica tests (Derijck)◦ Additional comments (Heiko)◦ Way forward (Gerard, David)

1/26/2010

2

10426-1 – Approved for Publication (3rd ed) date 15 December 2009. 10426-2 – out for DIS voting. 10426-3 – Aim to drop and incorporate in 10426-2.10426-4 – IS, reconfirmed 18/06/07.10426-5 – IS, reconfirmed 17/03/08.10426-6 – IS, re-balloted and passed will be adopted. French title still an issue.

Attachment #9 Minutes from WG on Evaluation of NAF

Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers.

Minutes – WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water-wetting by Spacers January 26, 2010

1 of 2

Minutes Work Group on Evaluation of NAF Removal

and Water-Wetting by Spacers API Subcommittee 10

New Orleans, Louisiana January 26, 2010

Tom Griffin, Chairman

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 PM. The chairman opened the meeting and read the list of members. Jack Maberry, Cristiane de Miranda, Nevio Moroni, and Emmanuel Therond were not present. Bob Carpenter was represented by Deryck Williams, The minutes from the June '09 meeting in Westminster were read, amended and approved by the members. The chairman reviewed the agenda and it was accepted. The chairman reviewed the team assignments.

Discussion

Coupon finish and specification – Rick Lukay, team leader for coupon finish led discussion of coupon finish and specification. Rick reported that he has found no method for improving the finish to improve contact angle measurement.

The issue of steel vs. glass coupons was discussed. Issues for steel coupons are cost, availability, natural oil-wet condition, and finish. For glass coupons, cost and availability are less an issue, natural water-wet condition and cutting microscope slide to fit in the goniometer are issues. Lirio Quintero has identified a source for the microscope slides and for cutting and drilling the hole in the slides. Glass slides must be handled more carefully when attaching to the holder to avoid breakage.

Members of the group have tested steel coupons in 32 and 8 finish. The 32 finish tends to cause the droplet to spread in the direction of the grain or surface features of the finish. The 8 finish tends to be so reflective that the goniometer is unable to distinguish the droplet shape and doesn’t give a reading. These are standard finishes and an intermediate finish would have to be specially made, making that finish more costly. The group decided to focus on the glass slides and steel coupons with a 32 finish. Users of the steel coupons will be asked to make observations of the shape of the droplet.

Coupon cleaning and preparation – Lirio Quintero has tested cleaning of coupons. After discussion, the group decided to standardize on an acetone wash, water rinse and drying with compressed gas (either nitrogen, CO2, or canned air). The procedure should contain a warning not to use shop air.

Atmospheric pressure exposure – The atmospheric pressure exposure procedure has had previous discussion and was not discussed further at this meeting.

HPHT exposure – Marshal Bishop discussed the issues of the HPHT procedure. The main issue is the inability to prevent exposure to spacer containing the surfactants at temperatures below the cloud point of the surfactant when heating to test temperatures above the cloud point and cooling to safe handling temperature. As a result of this issue, the group decided to abandon further efforts to develop the HPHT consistometer exposure.

Stirred fluid loss apparatus exposure – Jim Davison discussed the procedure for exposure using a stirred fluid loss apparatus. With this method, the spacer and the coupon that had previously been exposed to the NAF are heated to test temperature with the coupon not exposed to the spacer. This will eliminate the issue of exposure to the spacer at temperatures below the surfactants’ cloud points. After the temperature of the spacer has reached the test temperature, the cell containing the coupon and surfactant is inverted to expose the coupon to the spacer. After the desired exposure time, the cell is then inverted to the original position for cooling to safe handling temperature before the coupon is removed for contact angle measurement. The stirred fluid loss team was asked to ensure that the procedure is written is such generic form that any readily available stirred fluid loss apparatus can be used.

Minutes – WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water-wetting by Spacers January 26, 2010

2 of 2

Rheometer exposure – The exposure using the rheometer and evaluation of the wet condition of the rotor was discussed. Members of the group recalled that similar methods have been evaluated in the past and the method was too indiscriminate to pursue. The rheometer method is eliminated from further consideration.

Post exposure coupon treatment – Lirio Quintero has submitted a procedure for treatment of coupons after exposure and before contact angles are measured. If the contact angles are to be measured on coupons exposed to NAF without exposure to spacer in order to get an oil-wet baseline, the coupon should be rinsed with mineral oil to remove mud solids. There are still issues with the method of cleaning the coupons after exposure to the spacer. Several methods are proposed: rinsing with water, wiping with a towel without rinsing and dripping dry. There are many materials used to make towels and this will likely introduce variability. Chevron is investigating all these methods and will notify the group of their results.

Contact angle measurement – Several groups are continuing to work on contact angle measurements using goniometers.

Droplet diameter as contact angle – The determination of contact angles using droplet diameter was discussed. The group decided to eliminate this method from further consideration.

Other issues

The composition of the water used for the droplet when measuring the contact angle was raised as an issue. Possible compositions include deionized water and cement slurry filtrate. This may receive some further attention during the cooperative testing.

A protocol to determine contact time with the spacer during the exposure is needed. Plan to test several exposure times during the cooperative test program.

The group agreed that the teams should continue to refine the procedures they are working on and submit the teams’ draft to the chairman by May 1. The chairman will then review and clarify where necessary before distributing to the entire membership prior to the June meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.

Attachment #10 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Behavior of

Cements.

Minutes Task Group on Mechanical Behavior of Cement

API Subcommittee 10 New Orleans, USA January 27, 2010

Robert Darbe, Chairman The meeting was called to order at 8:00 AM. Task group members present at the meeting included: Robert Darbe, Gerard Bol, Deryck Williams, Simon James, Bernard Fraboulet, Jim Davidson, and John St. Clergy. The charge was read and the minutes from the summer meeting were reviewed and approved. An updated charge which was presenting at the summer meeting in Westminster was reviewed by David Stiles.

A proposed content list for the TR was presented and discussed. It was decided that a section on the interpretation and application of the mechanical results would not be drafted and the focus of the TR would be on testing procedures. Previous work performed by Dr. Gray needs to be collected and added as introductory material.

The idea of performing a preliminary round of cooperative testing was discussed extensively. Deryck Williams, Jim Davison, Bernard Fraboulet, Simon James, and Robert Darbe agreed to perform testing for comparative purposes. It was decided to perform unconfined compressive, splitting, and ultrasonic testing with the goal of presenting results at the summer meeting. Cement and a “known” non-cementitious test specimen are to be analyzed.

Simon James agreed to identify a source for a non-cementitious material which would be testing by the labs using their specific testing protocols. Robert Darbe will investigate using the same cement that is to be used by the TG on Cooperative Testing, as well as, draft up the details for this testing series and share with Scott Saville and the rest of this TG.

It was decided to upload the working document detailing the testing procedures to the API sharepoint website for the group to download, add comment, and upload to.

Two or three internet/phone meetings will be arranged between this meeting and the summer meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 AM.

Attachment #11 Minutes from WG on HTHP Rheology.

API Sub-Committee 10

WG on HTHP Rheology – Winter 2010 Minutes Version 3 – January 27, 2010

Work Group Members:

Deryck Williams [email protected] Jim Davidson [email protected] John St. Clergy [email protected] Robert Darbe [email protected] Rageb Dajani [email protected] Rick Lukay [email protected] Steve Cicchese [email protected] Mel Schmidt [email protected] Schlumberger Replacement for Eric

Charge:

Develop a technical report on recommended testing protocols for measuring HTHP rheology of cement slurry (temperatures greater than 190F and/or pressures greater than atmospheric pressure) with the intention of the report serving as the basis for an ISO NWI.

Discussions: Deryck Williams – Chairman, started the meeting @ 9:00am, introduced the WG members and read the charge as discussed at the June 2009 meeting in Denver. Discussions around the wording of the charge were held with changes made from suggestions put forth by Simon James (include – rheology of cement slurry) and Brian Koons (include – and/or pressures…). The charge was then accepted as revised. The chairman has already solicited and received the technical brochures from Brookfield, Chandler-Ametek and Grace Instruments for their respective equipments’ capabilities. Action Items:

Review current work done on RP-39 as it pertains to the charge of the WG. Solicit equipment manuals from the respective manufacturers. The Chairman will send out first draft of testing protocols for WG’s feedback prior to the

June 2010 meeting in Washington DC.

Rick Lukay made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Jim Davidson and the meeting was adjourned @ 9:25am.

Attachment #12 Minutes from WG on Slurry Mixing

Procedures.

Minutes – WG Large Scale Mixing January 27, 2010

Minutes Work Group on Large Scale Mixing

API Subcommittee 10 New Orleans, LA – USA

January 26-28, 2010 Jim Davison Chairman

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 AM by Chairman Jim Davison. No charge has yet been drafted for this WG. The WG is being formed to address currently written large scale mixing procedures due to large [One (1) gallon] mixer motors inability to reach the currently stated high shear mixing speed of 14,000 RPM. This information was brought to the committee’s attention during the summer meeting at Westminster, CO by Bernard Fraboulet. Bernard’s report is included with these minutes. Jim Davison presented data showing maximum speed achieved by the large mixer motors with different supply voltages of 208VAC and 220VAC. The data showed the mixer motors while able to achieve the 14,000 RPM high speed under load with water could not achieve the 14,000 RPM high speed under load of 16.4 ppg slurry. Jim Davison also presented data displaying the rheological properties of the 16.4 ppg slurry sample taken from top, middle and bottom portions of a one (1) gallon slurry mix. The rheology data was shown using two (2) different addition times, 20 seconds and 45 seconds. It was noted that the rheological properties improved with the extended addition time even though the 14,000 RPM was not achieved. 12,000 RPM was the maximum speed achieved for the data presented. Jim Davison’s report is included with these minutes. The floor was opened for suggestions on a cooperative testing program to collect data with the intent of making procedural change recommendations to the committee. WC Jones suggested that rheology was the best indicator. Bernard Fraboulet affirmed WC’s suggestion. Simon James stated the typical use for large scale mixes was UCA testing and perhaps this should be included in the testing program. Jerry Calvert stated that the mixing speeds for both the large scale and standard (1) quart mixers were derived using thickening times as the primary metric. Rick Lukay affirmed Jerry Calvert’s comments and suggested the WG must include thickening time as a metric. UCA testing was excluded due to time constraints for the testing program. A decision was made to draft a testing protocol using rheology and thickening time as the metrics for comparison testing of slurry mixes using the one (1) quart mixer as the base standard with which to compare data. A goal of changing the

high speed specification for the large scale mixer to 10,000 RPM was set. Jim Davison will draft a testing protocol for the large scale mixing cooperative testing. The cooperative testing will be completed before the summer 2010 API meeting. The time frame was established to take quick action on the testing and be able to make recommendations for a procedural change to the committee at the summer 2010 meeting. WG members were solicited. Deryck Williams Bernard Frabolet Deepak Khatri Cristiane Richard – not present Robert Darbe All volunteered to participate in the WG and perform the cooperative testing. A charge for the committee was drafted by Jim Davison and agreed by the WG members. Charge: Investigate the effects of reduced high speed mixing speed vs. add time when using the one (1) gallon (four [4] liter) mixer assembly The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 AM Attachments: Bernard Fraboulet presentation from Summer 2009 API Conference Westminster, CO. Jim Davison presentation from Winter 2010 API Meeting New Orleans, LA.

Attachment #13 Presentation from WG on Slurry Mixing

Procedures.

1/27/2010

1

Large Scale Mixing

Speed vs Voltage Motor 1

3070 motor 6,000 RPM 14,000 RPM Max RPM

Water No X-former 208VAC 6000 14000 14900

Water X former 220VAC 6000 14000 16400Water X-former 220VAC 6000 14000 16400

16,4ppg No X-former 208VAC 6,000 11,800 11,800

16,4ppg X-former 220VAC 6,000 13,300 13,300

1/27/2010

2

Speed vs Voltage Motor 2

3070 motor 6,000 RPM 14,000 RPM Max RPM

Water No X-former 208VAC 6000 14000 15200

Water X former 220VAC 6000 14000 16900Water X-former 220VAC 6000 14000 16900

16,4ppg No X-former 208VAC 6,000 12100 12100

16,4ppg X-former 220VAC 6,000 13900 13900

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesTop 1/320 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time

20 Sec Add 55 Sec Mix

60

80

100

120

1 Up Top

1 Down Top

2 Up Top

2 Down Top

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1/27/2010

3

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesMiddle 1/320 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time


60

80

100

120

1 Up Mid

1 Down Mid

2 Up Mid

2 Down Mid

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesBottom 1/320 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time


60

80

100

120

140

1 Up Bot

1 Down Bot

2 Up Bot

2 Down Bot

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1/27/2010

4

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesTop 1/345 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time


60

80

100

120

1 Up Top

1 Down Top

2 Up Top

2 Down Top

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesMiddle 1/345 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time


60

80

100

120

1 Up Mid

1 Down Mid

2 Up Mid

2 Down Mid

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1/27/2010

5

16.4 ppg slurry rheologiesBottom 1/345 Seconds 6000 RPM Add Time55 Seconds 12000 RPM Mix Time


60

80

100

120

140

1 Up Bot

1 Down Bot

2 Up Bot

2 Down Bot

0

20

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Conclusions

Large Motor No Longer meets the required 14,000 RPM specification

Increasing time to add dry cement improves performance

Not enough data to make specification changeNot enough data to make specification change recommendations

Cooperative Testing Needed

1/27/2010

6

Volunteers

Large MixerSlurry Design(s)Suggested High Speed 10,000 RPMExtended Mix Time relative to reduced shear

Attachment #14 Presentation on Slurry Mixing from

Westminster meeting.

1

ISO 10426-2 Annex A

Procedure for preparation of large slurry volume :

A revised procedure

API Exploration & Production Standards Conference – Westminster ISO TC67/SC3/WG2 June 25th, 09

A revised procedure

Bernard Fraboulet TOTAL Technology SpecialistsGregory GALDIOLO TOTAL EP/TDO/EC /Fluids & Cements

Actual procedure

mix water and any liquid additives at “slow” speed 6 000 r/minAdd the cement/dry additive blend to the mixing container at a uniform rate, in not more than 15 s if possibleWhen all of the dry materials have been added :

Put the cap oncontinue mixing at “high” speed 14 000 r/min

Slurry volume ml

High-speed mixing time s

2 000 303 000 454 000 55

2

In comparison to slurries mixed as per clause 5 (600 ml – standard mixer) different consistencies & properties are observed

4 000 55

Chandler model 3070 5A 220V 50/60 HzSN :1336 (15/04/07)

2

Main identified problems

Same addition time whatever the slurry volume to prepare

Difficulties to respect cement addition in 15 sSplashing : need to put the cap before to add cementNeed to Clamp the capNeed to Clamp the cap 2 inch hole to add cementWeight of the cement /blend

High speed mixing (14000 r/min) is not provided under load:Rate is dropping to 13000 r/min or lower (blend, high viscosity slurry)

Mixed slurry is not homogeneous Fast settling in the cup with free water development ( neat 1 90 kg/L slurry)Fast settling in the cup with free water development ( neat 1.90 kg/L slurry) Non homogeneous slurry: high consistency at bottom of the cup ( blend, heavy weight slurry)Slurry identifed as non mixable, but mixable with standard 600 ml mixer

Different rheologies between large volume’s and 600ml’s procedures

3

Neat cement - 1.9 kg/L - 3000 mLCCB Cemoil G –Water 44%BWOC

Poor mixing and homogeneityFree water in blender within less 2 minSettling in Fann cup

Rheologies

4

Mixing procedure YV ( lbf/100ft²)

PV (cP)

ISO 600 ml (15 + 35 s) 30.75 38.25

3000 ml (15 + 45 s) 35.75 29.25

3

Cement 2.04 kg/L – 3000 mLDyckerhoff G + 35 % silica + defoamer

Top Middle Bottom

Rheologies

5

g

Shear rate (rpm) 3 6 30 60 100 200 300 10'' gel 10'gel PV YV

ISO 600 mL mean 53 59 141 185 210 300+ 57 85 95 380

Top mix 3000 mL mean 24 33 117 164 209 262 278 27 48 104 174

Revised procedure : Cement/blend addition

Addition rate impact1.95 kg/L slurry with Silica flour and FL additives3000 mL Addition in 15 s NOT Mixable

Addition in 45 s Mixable

600 ml cement addition rate792 g in 15 s 52.8 g/s

Large volume addition rateIn 15 s = rate are multiplied by 3 to 7For 3000 mL at 52.8 g/s it would require 75 sTaking in account mixing area (21 cm²/12cm²) 42 sAnd higher low speed rate (6000/4000 r/min) 19 s

Recommended addition time To take in account feasibility, cement and blend, handling,…

6

Slurry volume Addition time2000 mL 25 s 3000 mL 35 s4000 mL 45 s

4

Revised Mixing time (1/3)

Constant speed during ″High Rate″ mixing 12000 r/min

Same order of mixing energy provided than ISO 10426-2 clause 5 Orban (SPE 15578) : 5.9 kJ/kg

Instrumented large volume mixerElectrical power ( U / I )Mixing Blade speed (r/min)Slurry temperature (°C)

Measurements and results (3 L tests)Frictions empty mixer at 6000 r/min :84 W at 12000 r/min :242 WMi i l l t d f t t t iMixing power calculated from water temperature increase

estimated frictions under load

7

Speed/time ΔT (°C) Total HP (W) Mixing HP (W) Frictions (W)

6000 r/min – 35 s 0.45 309 255 54

12000 r/min – 60 s 2.3 650 567 83

Revised Mixing time (2/3)

Working with a pseudo cement powder (barite + silica flour+ antisettling)Dry blend density similar to cement density (3.18 kg/L) 1.90 kg/L slurry mixed with 44 % water Evaluation of mixing procedure for 3 L

Addition in 45 or 35 s Mixing at 10 000 and 12 000 rpm for 60 s

6000

8000

10000

12000

300

400

500

600

700

Pseudo cement mixing 3L

température fluide

mixage = Fluid tempx10

8

0

2000

4000

0

100

200

300

12:0

0:00

AM

12:0

0:10

AM

12:0

0:20

AM

12:0

0:30

AM

12:0

0:40

AM

12:0

0:50

AM

12:0

1:00

AM

12:0

1:10

AM

12:0

1:20

AM

12:0

1:30

AM

12:0

1:40

AM

12:0

1:50

AM

12:0

2:00

AM

12:0

2:10

AM

12:0

2:20

AM

12:0

2:30

AM

12:0

2:40

AM

12:0

2:50

AM

12:0

3:00

AM

12:0

3:10

AM

12:0

3:20

AM

12:0

3:30

AM

12:0

3:40

AM

12:0

3:50

AM

12:0

4:00

AM

12:0

4:10

AM

12:0

4:20

AM

12:0

4:30

AM

12:0

4:40

AM

12:0

4:50

AM

12:0

5:00

AM

12:0

5:10

AM

courant

U MOTEUR

vitesse

Ajdding blend45 sec

x10

IntensitymA

U motor V

Speedr/min

5

Revised mixing procedure (3/3)

Results ISO 600mL mixing Small mixing container on large volume mixer motorTotal Power 178 WMixing power (54 W frictions) 125 WMixing energy during 35 s : 4375 J or 3 85 kJ/kgMixing energy during 35 s : 4375 J or 3,85 kJ/kg

Higher frictions than mixing with a standard mixerPower during addition not taken in account

Temperature increase 2°C

Results at “high speed ” 12000 r/min Total Power (average) 1095 W ±25 W Mixing power (less frictions) 1010 W ± 25 W

Conclusions 3000 mL mixing Temperature increase is a good indicator for 2°C minimum mixing time : 31 s

Mixing time to provide about 5.7 kJ/kg (32500 J) = 32 s

Application to a neat cement 9

New procedure : Evaluation with neat cementCCB Cemoil G

ISO 10426-2 clause 5 mixing (600ml)Temperature increase 5.3°CSlurry rheology YV: 39 lbf/100ft² PV 30 cP

Large volume mixing 3000 mLAddition 35 s at 6000 r/min Mixing time at 12000 r/min

45 s temperature increase 6.8°C

Shear rate r/min 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

After mixing

up 11 19 30.5 36 41 50 69down 9 16 33 39 45 58mean 10 17 32 37 43 54 69

Results 40 s mixing temperature increase 5.5°C

Rheology YV: 31 lbf/100ft² PV 32 cP

10

Shear rate r/min 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

Aftermixing

up 12 20 31 36 40 50 63down 13 18 36 40 45 55mean 13 19 33 38 43 52 63

6

New procedure : Evaluation with neat cementCCB Cemoil G Mixing 3000 mL Neat addition time 35 s

High Speed 45 s High Speed 40 s

250

35

40

U Motor (V)

Speed (r/min *100)

23.2 23.3 23.6 24.0 24.4 24.925.7

27.228.6

30.031.4 31.7

100

150

200

15

20

25

30

I Current (A)

Fluid Temp. (°C)

11

0

50

0

5

10

0:00 0:10 0:20 0:30 0:40 0:50 1:00 1:10 1:20 1:30 1:40 1:50 1:600:00 0:10 0:20 0:30 0:40 0:50 1:00

New procedure : Evaluation with neat cementCCB Cemoil G

Large volume mixing 2000 mLAddition 35s at 6000 r/min Mixing time at 12000 r/min 30 s

temperature increase 5.2°CRheology YV: 40 lbf/100ft² PV 27 cP

Large volume mixing 4000 mLAddition 45 s at 6000 r/min Mixing time at 12000 r/min 55 s

Shear rate 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

After mixing

up 11 18 31 36 39 48 67down 11 17 32 37 42 52mean 11 17 31 36 40 50 67

Mixing time at 12000 r/min 55 stemperature increase 5.8°C

Rheology YV: 37.5 lbf/100ft² PV 32.5 cP

Remark : high speed mixing for longer time is always providing a high YV

12

Shear rate 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

After mixing

up 13 20 37 43 48 58 70down 12 19 43 48 53 62mean 12 19 40 45 50 60 70

7

Large volume mixing

Rheology

80

Temperature

35

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rea

ding

s 0.6L API2L - 30 s3L - 40 s4L - 55 s

0.6 L ISO

5,3 5,2 5,5 5,85

10

15

20

25

30

Tem

p °C temp initial

temp finalDelta temp

13

00 50 100 150 200 250 300

RPM0

0.6L API 2L - 30 s 3L - 40 s 4L - 55 s

Slurry Volume & Mixing time

Application : Reduced water slurry 2.04 kg/LDyckerhoff G – Water 34.5% BWOC

Mixing conditions Need longer time to add cement and to wet the cement600 mL cement added in 40s (clause 5 : 15 s)3000 mL cement added into 50 s (plan 35 s)

easier to handle large cement blend volumeRheology :

Shear rate 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

600 mL

up 16 28 73 99 115 156 184down 17 28 72 100 117 152mean 16 28 72 99 116 154 184

Shear rate 3 6 30 60 100 200 300

3000 mL

up 16 29 75 99 111 150 182down 16 25 69 95 113 150mean 16 27 72 97 112 150 182

Temperature increase600mL : 4.3°C3000 mL : 5.2 °C

14

Rheology

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

RPM

Rea

ding

s 600 mL-35sec3L-40sec

8

Proposed procedure : Large volume mixing

Put the cap on Mix water and any liquid additives at “slow” speed 6 000 r/min ± 200 r/minAdd the cement/dry additive blend to the mixing container at a uniform rate, in not more than the specified time if possibleWhen all of the dry materials have been added, :close the cork and continue mixing at “high” speed ” 12 000 r/min ± 500 r/min for the specified time at ±1s

Slurry volume Cement/dry additive blend High speed

(ml) Addition time (s) mixing time (s)

2000 25 30

3000 35 40

15

4000 45 55

RemarksFor 4000 ml compared to standard 600 mL ISO slurry mixing, some higher viscosities are observed whatever the mixing time. This does not seems to be linked to the energy provided by the mixer but by a lower global mixing linked to blade assy and homogenized slurry. A double blade assy design should provide a better homogenization during the process.

Attachment #15 Minutes from WG on Test Methods for

Determination of Dynamic Settling.

Minutes of the TG on Dynamic Settling 2010 Winter Meeting – New Oleans

27 January 2010 TG Members in Attendance Robert Beirute - Chairman Craig Gardner Deryck Williams Dave Stiles Jim Davison Gunnar DeBrujin / Deepak ?? Robert Beirute - TG Chairman opened the meeting at 11:00 hrs by reviewing the charge as stated in the Calgary 2008 meeting. The minutes of the meeting held in Denver – June 2009 were also reviewed. These minutes were approved by Craig Gardner and seconded by Jim Davison and all accepted with a change to the minutes noting – “There were no engineering drawings for the Hellical Screw”. The charge

• Prepare a technical report defining test methods and procedures applicable for determining the dynamic settling characteristics of cement slurries, spacers and drilling fluids under simulated well conditions.

• Technical report will serve as the basis of an ISO NWI

Discussions The Chairman covered the e-mail communications since the Denver meeting and reviewed the three test methods currently being considered:

Amoco Test

SLB Test

Helical Screw Test Updates since the June meeting in Denver are as follows:

• Nevio sent procedures, drawings and testing data. Tom Griffin supplied comments (via e-mail) to this procedure.

• The Chairman reviewed some previous examples using the Amoco test method.

• Deryck Williams presented the current data generated by the Chevron Lab using only the Amoco test method. Currently there are a couple of slurries designed with good dynamic settling properties. The other design with poor dynamic settling properties is still being worked.

• Deryck also presented a fourth test method to be considered using the MACS II or its paddle configuration.

Action Items

The chairman will forward Tom’s comments to Nevio in order to proceed with the Hellical Screw method.

Jim Davison – Chandler will incorporate the drawings and make the helical screw.

Schlumberger will revise their procedures and make them more specific. Deryck will finish testing on the poor dynamic settling slurry design and

also run the other test methods being considered. Dave Stiles proposed the motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Deryck all accepted and the meeting was adjourned at 12 PM.

Attachment #16 Presentation from WG on Test Methods for

Determination of Dynamic Settling.

1/27/2010

1

Project S09139 Dynamic Settling Analysis

Interpretation and ReportDonald Davis, Chevron Cement Laboratory - Houston

DOC ID© Chevron 2005

Dynamic Settling Analysis Test# 90878-1

Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.1% SCR-100, 35% Coarse Silica, 0.25% DAir-3000, 47.59% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)

Density : 16.4 ppg Yield : 1.07 Cu. Ft. /Sk.

Free Water : Separation, Settling (Chevron Test Failed)

Rheology : 160-96-70-44-30-20-16-14-10-8

Slurry Viscosity : 10 Bc at start of test. 6 Bc after reading scheduled temperature and pressure. 6 Bc after 10 Slurry Viscosity : 10 Bc at start of test. 6 Bc after reading scheduled temperature and pressure. 6 Bc after 10 minutes conditioning. 6 Bc when rpms are changed from 150 to 25. 5 Bc after 30 minutes at 25 rpms.

Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured thin from cup. Top portion poured thin. 9/16” cone observed. No second cone in the center observed. Solids settling observed.


1/27/2010

2


Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.5% CFR-2, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.2% SCR-100, 24.1% Hidense 3, 38.69% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)


Free Water : Settling (Chevron Test Failed)

Rheology : 272-148-106-58-38-22-18-12-10-8


Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured slightly streaky from cup. Top portion poured thin. 1/2” cone observed. No second cone in the center observed. Solids settling observed.


Dynamic Settling Analysis Test # 90957-1

Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.5% CFR-2, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.2% SCR-100, 24.1% Hidense 3, 0.2% Biozan, 38.69% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)


Free Water : Zero (Chevron Test Passed)

Rheology : 584-370-286-182-134-94-76-58-54-48

Slurry Viscosity : 42 Bc at start of test. 27 Bc after reading scheduled temperature and pressure. 27 Bc after 10 minutes conditioning. 11 Bc when rpms are changed from 150 to 25. 11 Bc after 30 minutes at 25 rpms.minutes conditioning. 11 Bc when rpms are changed from 150 to 25. 11 Bc after 30 minutes at 25 rpms.

Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured thick from cup. Very uniform. Top portion poured thick and uniform. 6/16” cone observed. No second cone in the center observed. Mushy, no settling solids observed.


1/27/2010

3


Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.1% SCR-100, 35% Coarse Silica, 0.25% DAir-3000, 0.1% Biozan, 47.61% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)


Free Water : Trace (Chevron test passed)

Rheology : 278-178-138-92-66-44-24-20


Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured uniformly from cup. Top portion poured uniformly. 5/8” cone observed. Mushy, no solids settling observed.



Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.5% CFR-2, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.2% SCR-100, 24.1% Hidense 3, 0.05% Biozan, 38.69% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)


Free Water : Mottled, 0.64% (Chevron Test Failed)

Rheology : 376-220-158-94-64-34-26-18-16-12

Slurry Viscosity : 18 Bc at start of test. 17 Bc after reading scheduled temperature and pressure. 16 Bc after 10 minutes conditioning. 7 Bc when rpms are changed from 150 to 25. 7 Bc after 30 minutes at 25 rpms.minutes conditioning. 7 Bc when rpms are changed from 150 to 25. 7 Bc after 30 minutes at 25 rpms.

Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured uniform from cup. Top portion poured uniform. 1/4” cone observed. No second cone in the center observed. Mushy, minimal amount of settling solids observed.


1/27/2010

4


Slurry : Joppa “H”, 0.4% Halad-344, 0.1% SCR-100, 0.25% Dair-3000, 0.1% Biozan, 38.48% Total Fluid (Fresh Water)


Free Water : Zero (Chevron Test Passed)

Rheology : 476-290-218-136-98-64-50-36-28-22


Slurry condition after running Dynamic Settling : Slurry initially poured uniform from cup. Top portion poured uniform. 1/2” cone observed. No second cone in the center observed. Mushy, no settling solids observed.


Attachment #17 Presentation on Heat of Hydration of Cement.

1/27/2010

1

Proposed Work Group ‐ Recommended Practice for Determination of Cement Heat of Hydration

• $$$ Decisions Being Made with Simulator Results• $$$ Decisions Being Made with Simulator Results

• Existing Temperature Simulators:– May Use Default Values

– May Use Default Application of Heat Schedule

– Independent of Thickening Time

I d d t f Sl T– Independent of Slurry Type• Specialized Blends (Low Cement Content)

• Foam

• Source of Defaults not Known


• No Existing Standard/RP

M t A t t R dil A il bl• Measurement Apparatus not Readily Available

• Current Industry Applications– Low Heat of Hydration

• Arctic Cementing

• Gas Hydrates

– High Heat of HydrationHigh Heat of Hydration• Deepwater Dual Activity Rig – Fast drill out

• Drill‐in Drive Pipe/Conductors – Early release

1/27/2010

2


• Construction Cement Industry has Existing Standards– C 186 – 05 (Standard Test Method for Heat of Hydration of Hydraulic Cement)

• Uses Solution Calorimeter (Dry Cement)– C 1702 – 09 (Std test Method for HoH of Hydraulic Cementitious Materials)

• Uses Isothermal Conduction Calorimetry (Constant Temp Heat Sink

• Isothermal Calorimeters used for measurements in SPE 77756 and SPE 62894

– Adiabatic and Semi‐Adiabatic Test Devices Exist • SPE 56534 and 113631 reported use of adiabatic devices (Vacuum Insulation)


1/27/2010

3


• Propose formation of work group to establish RPPropose formation of work group to establish RP for determination of Cement Slurry Heat of Hydration using ASTM C 1702 – 09 as a guide

• Use Isothermal Calorimetry and provides direct measure of the heat released

• Controlled curing temperature for the cement slurry

• More accurate with fewer calculations

• Method for quantitative and repeatable results

• Provide representative data for simulator input.

Attachment #18 Presentation for General Session.

1

2010 Exploration & ProductionWinter Standards Meeting

January 25-29, 2010 InterContinental New Orleans


Subcommittee on Oil Well Cements (SC-10) Agenda

Tuesday, Jan 26

8 00 8 15 O i d I t d ti8:00 8:15 Opening and Introductions

8:15 8:45 TG on Cooperative Testing/WG on Compressive Strength

8:45 10:15 WG on Performance Testing of Well Cementing Composites

10:15 10:30 Break

10:30 12:00 TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing and Drill Pipe

12:00 1:30 Lunch

1:30 2:00 ISO Update

2:00 3:00 WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal & Water Wetting by Spacers

3:00 3:15 Break

3:15 4:30 WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal & Water Wetting by Spacers

2

Subcommittee on Oil Well Cements (SC-10) Agenda

Wednesday, Jan 27

8:00 9:00 TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cement

9:00 9:45 WG on HTHP Rheology

9:45 10:15 Break

10:15 11:00 WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures

11:00 12:00 WG on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling

12:00 1:30 Lunch12:00 1:30 Lunch

1:30 3:00 SC10 General Meeting

Thursday, Jan 28

8:30 - 12:00 ISO TC67/SC3/WG2 Special Work Session

Subcommittee on Oil Well Cements (SC-10) Wednesday January 27, 2010: General Meeting

SC-10 General Meeting Agenda:g g

Approval of Minutes from Westminster

Reports of the Task/Work Groups

Old Business

New Business

Adjourn

3

Subcommittee on Oil Well Cements (SC-10) Wednesday June 24, 2009: General Meeting

Minutes from Westminster


Motion to Accept the Minutes?

4


2010 SC10 Charges


Task Group on Cooperative Testing Coo dinate effo ts of the coope ati e testing p og amCoordinate efforts of the cooperative testing program.Coordinate efforts of the work group on compressive strength.

Work Group on Compressive StrengthContinue to evaluate the current specification test method by examining elements including mixing time, curing temperatures, curing time duration, curing baths (static vs. circulating) and cement block breaking procedures Develop circulating) and cement block breaking procedures. Develop and propose a modified test method to yield improved repeatability.

5


Work Group on Procedures for Sample Collection and Preparation for API Cooperative Testingp p g

Develop a technical report which defines the procedures used for collecting and preparing cement samples used for API Cooperative Testing.

Task Group on Cement Monogram ProgramMonitor the program for improving the API monogramming and auditing process for well cements.Monitor onsite surveyor training evaluation and selection Monitor onsite surveyor training, evaluation and selection process.Evaluate additional means of bringing value to the monogram program.


Task Group on PublicationsThe function of this task group is strictly editorial. The function is defined as one of active interaction with Subcommittee 10 and Subcommittee 10 as one of active interaction with Subcommittee 10 and Subcommittee 10 Task and Work Groups. The task group will critically review technical documents under Subcommittee 10 jurisdiction, suggesting editorial changes to the appropriate chairman. The task group will ascertain uniformity of wording, units, abbreviations, adequacy of references and other editorial matters such as rewriting.Provide editorial assistance to Task and Work Group Chairmen, if requested by these chairmen, during the preparation of technical documents.To work closely with the Task and Work Group Chairmen to make sure changes suggested by the Publications Task Group are kept strictly editorial in nature, being careful to refer technical changes back to the Task and Work Groups.Return "final" documents to the Task and Work Groups if the documents in Return final documents to the Task and Work Groups if the documents, in the opinion of the Publications Task Group, require changes that are outside the editorial realm (e.g. documents with technical inconsistencies, with technical incompatibilities with other Subcommittee 10 documents, etc.).After completing the editorial review and other consultation with the appropriate chairman, assist as needed in submitting final documentation to Subcommittee 10 for appropriate action.Assist API staff with editorial tasks as needed.

6


Resource Group - ISO LiaisonAssist in coordination of API Subcommittee 10 and ISO activities at the subcommittee level.Attend ISO meetings as required and report actions or minutes of the meeting to API Subcommittee 10.Act as the representative of API Subcommittee 10 and express consensus of Subcommittee 10 verbally or in writing at all ISO meetings.Presence at ISO meetings and authority to represent API Subcommittee 10 lies with the chairman or his designee.

Task Group on Mechanical Behavior of CementDevelop a technical report on the characterization of 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.


Work Group on Compositional Analysis of CementMonitor and report on analytical methods of compositional analysis of

tcement.

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

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.

Work Group on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling

Prepare a technical report defining test methods and procedures applicable for determining the dynamic settling characteristics of cement slurries, spacers and drilling fluids under simulated well conditions.Technical report will serve as the basis of an ISO NWI for possible inclusion into ISO 10426-2.

7


Work Group on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water-Wetting by SpacersWater Wetting by Spacers

To evaluate methods of determining the ability of spacer systems to remove a film of non-aqueous fluid from a surface and leave the surface water-wet. The product of the work should be a procedure to be incorporated into ISO 10426-2/API RP10B-2 for use by field labs in evaluating this ability.

Work Group on Performance Testing of Well C i C iCementing Composites

Feasibility and scope of work determination for characterizing well cementing composites for standardization purposes.


WG on HTHP Rheology

Develop a technical report on recommended testing protocols for measuring HTHP rheology (temperatures greater than 190 F and/or pressures greater than atmospheric) with the intention of the report serving as the basis for an ISO NWI.

WG on Large Volume Slurry Mixing Procedures

TBDTBD

8


Reports of the Task/Work Groups


Reports of the Task/Work Groups:– TG on Cooperative Testing - CarruthersTG on Cooperative Testing Carruthers– TG on Performance & Testing of Composite Well Cements -

Carruthers– WG on Dynamic Settling - Beirute– TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cement - Darbe– WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers

- Griffin– TG on Mechanical Cementing Plugs used in Casing, Tubing and

Drill Pipe – Rogers– Resource Group - ISO Liaison – Williams– WG on HTHP Rheology – Williams– WG on Large Volume Slurry Mixing Procedures - DavisonMotion to accept reports

9


Old Business


10



New Business

11

Passing of Jerold Kennedy with California Portland


Cement

Review of updated membership rosters

Chrome (VI) reducing agents

Auditor checklist

Heat of hydration of cement


New Business: Future Meetingsg

2010 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Washington DC

2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth

2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco

2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: ???2012 Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: ???

2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference ???

12


Any Other New Business?


Motion to Adjourn

13

2010 Exploration & ProductionWinter Standards Meeting

January 25-29, 2010 InterContinental New Orleans


subcommittee 10 general session *revised minutes (july 6...

Documents