subcommittee 10 general session chairman: david stiles ......• spec 10a/iso 10426-1; 24th ed...
TRANSCRIPT
Subcommittee 10 General Session
Chairman: David Stiles The Worthington, Fort Worth, TX
David Stiles called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, January 26, 2011. Approval of Minutes from Westminster The first order of business was to approve the minutes from the 2010 Winter Meeting at Washington DC. Robert Darbe read the minutes. Rick Lukay made a motion to approve the minutes with a few corrections. The motion was seconded by Crag Gardner 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 Dynamic Settling was read by Deryck Williams on Robert Beirute’s behalf and the report from the TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe was given by Brent Lirette on Hank Rogers 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
Presentation WG on Compressive Strength Scott Saville Minutes
Presentation TG on Cement Monogram Program Bill Carruthers Minutes
Presentation TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe
Hank Rogers Minutes
WG on Dynamic Settling Robert Beirute Minutes
WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers
Deryck Williams 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
After no discussion during an allotted period, David Stiles tendered a motion to accept the reports. The motion was moved by Craig Gardner, seconded by John St. Clergy, and passed unanimously.
General Discussion There was no General Discussion. Old Business Status of Active Documents David Stiles reviewed the current status of SC10 active documents:
• Spec 10A/ISO 10426-1; 24th Ed published Dec 2010, Effective Jun 2011 • RP 10B-2/ISO 10426-2; Planned FDIS Jun 2011, IS Oct 2011 then letter ballot for
API adopt back • RP 10B-3/ISO 10426-3; Failed reaffirmation ballot - revision required • RP 10B-4/ISO 10426-4; Passed reaffirmation letter ballot but revision may be
required • RP 10B-5/ISO 10426-5; Passed reaffirmation letter ballot • RP 10B-6/ISO 10426-6; Published Aug 2010 (not identical) • Spec 10D/ISO 10427-1; Passed reaffirmation letter ballot • RP 10D-2/ISO 10427-2; Passed reaffirmation letter ballot • RP 10F/ISO 10427-3; Passed reaffirmation letter ballot
Status of Active Documents not owned by SC10:
• API RP 65 (Part 1) o 1st Edition published Sep 2002 o Rewrite failed letter ballot in 2006
• API Std 65 Part 2 o 1st Edition published May 2010 o 2nd Edition published Dec 2010
Possible Ambiguity due to Recent Changes to ASTM C150 and C465 affect API Spec 10A The new 24th Edition of Spec 10A passed letter ballot in spite of a negative vote regarding changes to ASTM C150 and C465 which make addition of limestone in API classes A, B, and C ambiguous. David Stiles asked if a TG was needed to investigate this issue. After discussion that agreed this work needed to be done, David proposed to start a small WG to investigate the scope of the problem further. Jim Jarl volunteered to lead this WG, Bill Carruthers, Rodney Macon agreed to help. Others were encouraged to participate by emailing Jim to get involved. New Business Rewrite of API RP 10B-3 / ISO 10426-3 A rewrite in necessary with the primarily need being additional information on temperature modeling. There is no foreseen need for additional test methods to be developed. A submission for an ISO NWI will be made and the formation of a small WG to prepare the 2nd Edition of ISO 10426-3 will be assembled. Dan Mueller agreed to chair this WG. It was discussed that the document may also need to include heat of hydration information. Everyone was encouraged to contact Dan Mueller if they would like to help with this rewrite.
Rewrite of API RP 10B-4 / ISO 10426-4 A recommendation from the BP Bly Report to develop a standard for foamed cement testing creates the need for a rewrite of API RP 10B-4 / ISO 10426-4. A submission for an API NWI to develop new test methods to serve as a basis for a 2nd Edition of ISO 10426-4 has been made. Erick Cunningham volunteered to chair the group. It was commented that a WG would be created to look at improving test methods using foamed cement systems cured under both atmospheric and pressure conditions. Eric mentioned that BP was willing to fund some of this work and encouraged the participation of other operating companies, service companies, and cement testing equipment manufactures. It was commented that the focus would be more on foam cement placement and stability and less on the long term properties. It was also commented that some work had been collected at different temperatures in the past and that data could be shared for review by the new WG. There was a suggestion to rewrite the current document dealing with only foamed cured at atmospheric pressure and write a new document dealing with foam prepared at higher pressures. Spec 65 Part2 It was questioned why the name was changed from a recommended practice to a specification. It was explained that some of the “should” statements were converted to “shall” statements. It also commented that the document was rewritten to be considered as a specification. WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures Jim Davison motioned to suspend the WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures and include the WG’s findings into API 10B-2. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Acknowledgements No acknowledgements made. Upcoming meetings: Upcoming API meeting were presented:
• 2011 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco • 2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth • 2012 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Denver • 2013 - Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: ??? • 2013 - Exploration & Production Standards Conference: ???
Adjournment After no additional business was proposed, Jerry Calvert moved that the meeting be adjourned. After the motion was seconded by Rick Lukay, David Stiles adjourned the meeting at 2:01 PM.
Attachment #1 Minutes from TG on Cooperative Testing.
Committee on Cooperative Testing
The meeting convened shortly after 8:00 AM following opening remarks by David Stiles and self introductions by attendees. Bill Carruthers conducted a review of the data summaries from the 2010 cooperative test sample which was a Class H sample supplied and distributed by Holcim Apasco. Approximately 300 samples were distributed with data submitted by 184 labs. Problems of getting samples to some locations and getting test results returned from China were discussed. New data was summarized with that which had been reported at the Summer Washington DC meeting. Results did not appreciably changes. C of V for the schedule 5 remained about 10 %. This is in line with the historical average. Cement plants consistently have a lower C of V at about 6.5%. Free fluid testing showed a C of V of 26.5% which was slightly lower than the last series but in line with the historical average. No new data was presented for Rheology, Gel Strength, or Chemistry. Strength Testing still presents problems with high C of V of over 30% for both 8 hour tests. Jerry Calvert asked what the ratio of H to G samples was in our program. Approximately 1 or 4 is a Class H sample. David Stiles asked if we had a volunteer for 2012. We have a Russian cement plant which has volunteered samples for next year. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 AM
Attachment #2 Presentation from TG on Cooperative Testing.
API COOPERATIVE TEST PROGRAM -2010
Renaissance Worthington Hotel Fort Worth, TexasJan 25, 2011
What did we do different and results?1. To participate an email request had to be made
Problems: China labs seemed to have no email addresses that actually worked
2. Results could only be reported by email in the excel format provided to Pam Scott and Billprovided to Pam, Scott and Bill
Problems: Some only reported to Bill or Scott. Schlumberger for the most part only reported to Park Ten
3. Deadlines were basically ignored both as for actual sign up and for data submission
4. We had problems with getting samples to some locations due to customs ( We will need to work on this)
4/10/2011 2
to customs ( We will need to work on this)
5. Holcim Apasco did an outstanding job of getting everything shipped out, a total of 300 samples.
6. Out of the 300 samples shipped, results were received from 184
PARTICIPANT PROFILE
SAMPLES SUPPLIED
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010PETROLEUM COMPANIES 7 4 6 4 5 4PETROLEUM COMPANIESSERVICE COMPANIES
HALLIBURTONSCHLUMBERGERBJ SERVICESOTHERS
CEMENT PRODUCERSINTERESTED PARTIES
7 4 6 451 79 88 130
5 416876 11076 11148
69
2 813
36 42 53 437 2 5 2
TOTAL 101 127 152 179 226 295
234
35 534 4
14 5
4/10/2011 3
TOTAL 101 127 152 179 226 295
PARTICIPANTS
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
RESULTS REPORTED
PETROLEUM COMPANIESSERVICE COMPANIES
4 6 4 5 479
751 140
CEMENT PRODUCERS 36
HALLIBURTONSCHLUMBERGERBJ SERVICESOTHERS
69 7288 118 142
5
8540 63 46
42 5
9
42 53 32 36 35
4/10/2011 4
INTERESTED PARTIESTOTAL 101
2 3 5184127 152 156 186
7 2 5
Schedule 5 Thickening Time
AVERAGE 106.52
AVERAGE
106.48
+/- 2 Std Dev Deleted
8.60
8 08STD DEV 9.89
9 29
4/10/2011 5
8.08COV 9.29COUNT 180 172
Schedule 5 Historical Data
YEAR 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010AVERAGE 104.00 96.44 107.83 100.28 93.26 89.7 105.3 105.58 111.04 97.9 107.89 110.04 103.5 104.25 106.52STD DEV 6.60 5.25 7.18 6.66 7.29 8.04 7.03 5.85 13.82 7.87 10.87 13.37 7.78 12.08 9.89
COV 6.34 5.44 6.69 6.64 7.81 8.96 6.68 5.57 12.44 8.04 10.08 12.15 7.51 11.59 9.29
4/10/2011 6
Schedule 5 Graphs
Sch 5 Thickening Time
80 00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00M
inut
es
Minutes
4/10/2011 7
80.00
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
Schedule 5 Statistics
Sch 5 Thickening Time
16.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Std DevCOV
4/10/2011 8
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
Schedule 5 In-depth
No. Labs TTT to 100Bc Std Dev COVALL DATA 180 106 52 9 89 9 29
SCHEDULE 5 (ALL DATA)
ALL DATA 180 106.52 9.89 9.29
CEMENT PLANTS 35 103.46 6.5 6.28
HALLIBURTON 83 106.35 10.73 10.09
SCHLUMBERGER 44 109.98 10.14 9.22
OTHERS 18 104.78 8.76 8.36
4/10/2011 9
OTHERS 18 104.78 8.76 8.36
Schedule 5 In-depth
No. Labs TTT to 100Bc Std Dev COVALL DATA 172 106.48 8.6 8.08
CEMENT PLANTS 34 104.00 5.73 5.51
SCHEDULE 5 (+/- 2 Std Dev Data Excluded)
CEMENT PLANTS 34 104.00 5.73 5.51
HALLIBURTON 78 106.15 9.25 8.71
SCHLUMBERGER 43 109.28 9.13 8.36
OTHERS 17 105.88 7.63 7.21
Labs Excluded: Dyckerhoff (#2 lab)HAL-Ijmuiden, The Netherlands
4/10/2011 10
HAL-Thailand (Songkhla)HAL-Bakersfield, CAHAL-Pointe NoireHAL-VeracruzSLB-VillahermosaDrilling Specialties Company
FREE FLUID EVALUATION
ALL DATA +/- 2 Std Dev DeletedFlask Method
4.11
1.09
26.50
4.31
0.72
COUNT 182 169
16.72
AVERAGE
STD DEV
COV
4/10/2011 11
FREE FLUID HISTORICAL DATA
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
HISTORICAL RESULTS (FLASK METHOD)
AVERAGE 4.53 4.53 5.65 4.64 3.85 2.89 4.11
STD DEV 0.76 0.88 0.96 0.85 0.98 0.87 1.09
COV 16.72 19.53 16.99 18.33 25.50 30.20 26.50
AVE COV 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96
4/10/2011 12
FREE FLUID STATISTICS
FREE FLUID COV HISTORY(Flask Method)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
98 00 02 04 06 08 10
% C
OV COV
Aver COV
4/10/2011 13
YEAR
FREE FLUID STATISTICS
FREE FLUID HISTORY(combined)
10
20
30
40
50
60
% C
OV COV
Aver COV
4/10/2011 14
088 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
YEAR
FREE FLUID HISTORY
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
HISTORICAL DATA
AVERAGE 4.53 4.52 5.65 4.64 3.85 2.97 4.11
STD DEV 0.76 0.88 0.96 0.85 0.98 0.87 1.09
COV 16.72 19.53 16.99 18.33 25.50 30.20 26.5COV
LESS +/- 2 SD 16.72 14.63 16.68 21.06 23.57 16.72
4/10/2011 15
Free Fluid In-depth
No. Labs % Free Fluid Std Dev COVALL DATA 182 4 11 1 09 26 5
FREE FLUID (ALL DATA)
ALL DATA 182 4.11 1.09 26.5
CEMENT PLANTS 35 4.26 0.76 17.8
HALLIBURTON 85 4.04 1.12 27.76
SCHLUMBERGER 44 4.25 1.16 27.32
4/10/2011 16
OTHERS 18 3.80 1.27 33.48
Free Fluid In-depth
No. Labs % Free Fluid Std Dev COVALL DATA 169 4.31 0.72 16.72
CEMENT PLANTS 34 4.35 0.55 12.59
FREE FLUID (+/- 2 Std Dev Data Excluded)
HALLIBURTON 78 4.21 0.79 18.69
SCHLUMBERGER 41 4.49 0.75 16.65
OTHERS 16 4.20 0.56 13.39
Labs Excluded:*Dyckerhoff (#2 lab) HAL-Meeker-White River City RanHAL-Prudhoe Bay, AK SLB-Mount Pearl
4/10/2011 17
HAL-Shenzhen China *SLB-CoevordenHAL-Mendoza - Argentina *SLB-Pescara, ItalyHAL-Brighton SWSI-Bossier City, LAHAL-Aberdeen UK SWSI-Indiana, PAHAL-Nigata Japan
RHEOLOGY TESTING SUMMARY (no update)
3 rpm 300 rpm 10 sec Gel 10 min GelAverage 15.15 114.94 17.51 29.86
Rheology
gStandard Deviation 3.37 18.91 12.42 27.32
Coeffecient of Variation 22.23 16.46 70.94 94.02Maximum 25 178 130 235Minimum 9 57 9 4Number 134 134 133 133
Rheology+/- 2 STD Dev Excluded
4/10/2011 18
3 rpm 300 rpm 10 sec Gel 10 min GelAVERAGE 14.8 114.9 16.11 24.68
STD DEV 2.9 15.2 4.38 9.04COV 19.6 13.4 27.16 36.63
NUMBER OF TESTS 128 127 130 129
Rheology
GEL STRENGTH SUMMARY (no update)
Initial Strength lbs/ 100 ft2
Time to 100 lbs/ 100 ft2
Time to 500 lbs/ 100 ft2 Trans Time
Average 50.5 42.2 92.5 50.3Standard Deviation 71.1 46.1 45.1 33.8
Coeffecient of Variation 140.8 109.3 48.8 67.2Maximum 360 190 215 143Minimum 0 3 17 6Number 33 33 33 33
Initial Time to Time to Plus 2 STD Dev Excluded
4/10/2011 19
Strength lbs/ 100 ft2
100 lbs/ 100 ft2
500 lbs/ 100 ft2
Trans Time
AVERAGE 34.6 32.7 85.1 47.4STD DEV 28.3 27.3 35.4 29.9
COV 81.9 83.4 41.5 63NUMBER OF TESTS 31 31 31 32
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 Hour – 1000 F
Less +/- 2 STD DEVALL DATA
781281
35.94182COUNT 174
STD DEV
28.54COV
754215
AVERAGESTD DEV
4/10/2011 20
182COUNT 174
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 Hour – 1000 F
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
HISTORICAL RESULTS
AVERAGE 624 582 614 934 407 890 749 601 373 714 809 785 913 586 781
STD DEV 123 167 124.3 210.5 90.26 208 157.3 157.2 81.49 257 241 229 242 302 281
COV 19.73 28.68 20.25 22.53 22.19 23.37 20.99 26.16 21.87 35.99 29.72 29.14 26.50 51.48 35.94
4/10/2011 21
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 Hour – 1000 F
8 HOUR STRENGTH STD DEV
300
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
YEAR
PSI
4/10/2011 22
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 Hour – 1000 F
8 HOUR COV COMPARISON
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
YEAR
% C
OV COV
Average
4/10/2011 23
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 & 24 Hour – 1000 F COMPARISON
24 HOUR - 1000F
ALL DATA
24 HOUR - 1000F+/- 2 Std Dev
DeletedAVERAGESTD DEVCOVCOUNT
3269745
Deleted
22.79
3252659
20.26
8 HOUR - 1000F+/- 2 Std Dev ALL DATA
8 HOUR - 1000F
171 169
4/10/2011 24
AVERAGESTD DEVCOVCOUNT
35.94
Deleted754215
28.54
ALL DATA
182 174
781281
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH EVALUATION8 Hour – 1000 & 1400 F COMPARISON
8 HOUR - 1000F+/- 2 Std Dev
Deleted ALL DATA
8 HOUR - 1000F
AVERAGESTD DEVCOVCOUNT
8 HOUR - 1400F 8 HOUR - 1400F+/ 2 Std Dev
35.94
Deleted754215
28.54182 174
781281
4/10/2011 25
AVERAGESTD DEVCOVCOUNT
32.60 22.2
2513 2507794 556
ALL DATA +/- 2 Std Dev Deleted
181 175
UCA TO 2” CUBE COMPARISON
UCA2 X 2 inch cubes24 HOUR - 1000F
UCA to Cube Comparison2010 - 2011
ALL DATA
24 HOUR - 1000F
ALL DATA
AVERAGE AVERAGESTD DEV STD DEVCOV COVCOUNT COUNT
UCA2 X 2 inch cubes
22.79
24 HOUR - 1000F+/ - 2 Std Dev
ALL DATA
3105483
15.57
ALL DATA
3269745
171 137
24 HOUR - 1000F+/ - 2 Std Dev
4/10/2011 26
AVERAGE AVERAGESTD DEV STD DEVCOV COVCOUNT COUNT
3252659
Deleted
169 13220.26
Deleted3101345
11.13
CHEMISTRY SUMMARY (no update)
C3S C3A SO3 MgO L.O.I.48 to 65 3 Max 3 0 Max 6 0 Max 3 00 Max
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (%) ALL DATA
BSAAPI Spec 48 to 65 3 Max. 3.0 Max 6.0 Max 3.00 MaxAVERAGE 61.78 2.46 2.62 1.48 1.39 2660STD DEV 3.51 0.43 0.17 0.21 0.12 93.67COV 5.68 17.50 6.52 14.03 8.64 3.52COUNT 33 33 34 34 32 34
C3S C3A SO3 MgO L.O.I.48 t 65 3 M 3 0 M 6 0 M 3 00 MAPI Spec BSA
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (%) LESS +/- 2 STD DEV
4/10/2011 27
48 to 65 3 Max. 3.0 Max 6.0 Max 3.00 MaxAVERAGE 62.30 2.44 2.62 1.50 1.37 2646STD DEV 1.86 0.45 0.14 0.11 0.08 73.71COV 2.99 18.33 5.24 7.24 5.77 2.79COUNT 32 30 32 31 30 32
p
XRF / RIETVELD COMPARISON (no update)
XRF / RIETVELD COMPARISON
XRF Rietveld XRF RietveldC3S C3S C3S C3S61.78 66.83 62.30 66.833.51 3.13 1.86 3.135.68 4.69 2.99 4.6933 6 32 6
ALL DATA LESS +/- 2 STD DEV
4/10/2011 28
XRF Rietveld XRF RietveldC3A C3A C3A C3A2.46 1.64 2.44 1.640.43 0.75 0.45 0.75
17.50 45.37 18.33 45.3733 5 30 5
ALL DATA LESS +/- 2 STD DEV
Attachment #3 Minutes from WG on Compressive Strength.
Minutes from WG on Compressive Strength January 25, 2011
Scott Saville presented the Final Report on the 2010 Cooperative Test Series for the WG on Compressive Strengths. The history and previous conclusions were presented as we search to reduce the variability in CS testing. 2010 Final Strength data was presented along with a comparison to 2008 and a historical perspective dating back to 2000. 8 hour UCA and 8 cube at 140F showed the biggest increase in variability. Historical relationships between UCA and Cube Compression continued in 2010. Service companies / other had greater participation in Cube Compression at 73% and it appears the results were less variable. The Cube Density results were also analyzed. Cube Density data showed very low variability, but we were unable to derive a specific relationship to CS. Response to request to provide Load Frame picture was limited. Requires further study and a better wording on the request. 20 minutes pre-conditioning of slurries was eliminated in 2010. We may consider adding back the requirement in 2012.
Attachment #4
Presentation from WG on Compressive Strength.
2010 API Cooperative Testing Final Report on Compressive Strength
Fort Worth, TexasJanuary 2011January 2011
History of CS Results• 8 hr cube test consistently shows
highest variabilityhighest variability.
• UCA and cube compression generate comparable results.
• UCA tests results consistently show moderately higher CS in 8 hours, and slightly less in 24 hours.
History of CS Results• 2004 synthetic cube testing showed minimal
variability at compressive strengths > 6000 psi.
• In 2006 the 8 hour Cube at 140 F was added.
• Cube results from cement plant participants are less variable than total population. The 8 hour cube data from the service companies pshowed high variability.
• Independent testing by Chevron using 2 x 1 cylinders did not improve variability.
2010 Protocol• Test Protocol in 2010 matched previous years:
– Cubes:• 100F 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– Eliminated 20 minute pre-conditioning
– Request for picture of load frames utilized
• CS participation by Cement Plants vs Service Companies / Others.– 32 Cement Plants: Cubes 91% - UCA 13%– 169 Service Cos / Others: Cubes 72% - UCA 92%
100F-8hr Cube
100F-24hr Cube
140F-8hr Cube
100F-8hr UCA
100F-24hr UCA
2010 Final Strength Data
AVG 744 3221 2540 771 3129
Std Dev 242 663 592 222 422
CV 32.5 20.7 24.2 28.9 13.5
Max 1400 4570 3900 2329 6051
Min 193 1700 850 307 1623
Avg +2 Std Dev 1228 4256 3635 1215 3973
Avg -2 Std Dev 260 1884 1265 326 2284
UCA Time to 50 & 500 psi
50 psi 500 psi(min) (min)
AVG 236 409
Std Dev 43 67
Max 432 864
Mi 52 142Min 52 142
AVG + 2 Std Dev 348 543
AVG – 2 Std Dev 115 275
2010 UCA and Cube CSby value, full data set
3500
4000
4500UCA - 24 hr
Cube - 24 hr
UCA - 8 hr
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
PSI
Cube - 8 hr
0
500
1000
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91
# of Data Sets
AVERAGE STD DEV CV
Compressive Strength Comparison 2008 vs. 2010
AVERAGE STD DEV CV
2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010
100F - 8 hr Cube 558 744 165 242 29.6 32.5
100F - 24 hr Cube 2408 3221 427 663 17.7 20.7
140F -8 hr Cube 1583 2540 246 592 15.5 24.2
8 hr UCA 564 771 105 222 18.2 28.9
24 hr UCA 2243 3129 207 422 9.2 13.5
2000 to 2010 UCA vs Cubes Average Compressive Strength
8 hr Cube 8 hr UCA Change 24 hr Cube 24 hr UCA Change
2010 744 771 27 3221 3129 (92)
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)
CV Comparison 2000 to 2010
4550 2000
1015202530354045
CV
20022004200620082010
05
10
100°F 8hrCube
100°F 24hrCube
140°F 8hrCube
SyntheticCube
100°F 8hrUCA
100°F 24hrUCA
3000
3500
)
Average CS ComparisonService Company vs. Cement Plants
1000
1500
2000
2500
mpr
essi
ve S
tren
gth
(PSI
)
Total AvgPlant AvgServ Avg
0
500
Com
100F-8 140F-8 100F-24Curing Time and Temp
40
e 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
2500 43.50
Compressive Strength vs Density8 hrs – 100 F
1000
1500
2000
nds
Per S
quar
e In
ch
23.50
28.50
33.50
38.50
umds
Per
Gal
lon
24 hour Crush
Block Density - ppg
Linear (Block Density - ppg)
y = -0.015x + 17.430
500
0 20 40 60 80 100 95 Blocks (Weighted & Crushed)
Poun
13.50
18.50 Po
Density Comparisons8 hr 100F
Cube8 hr 140F
Cube24 hr 100F
Cube
AVG 16.87 16.83 16.89
Std Dev. 0.64 0.66 0.21
CV 3.81 3.89 1.22
Max 20.00 20.00 17.39
Min 16.29 16.36 16.60
AVG +2 Std Dev 18.15 18.14 17.30
AVG -2 Std Dev 15.58 15.52 16.48
Crush TestersAutomatic vs Manual
• Limited response on Crush Tester specifics
Subject still warrants further investigation
2010 Conclusions• High variability continues with 8 hr cube test.• With highest participation to date CV wasWith highest participation to date, CV was
higher in all CS tests.• Historical relationships between cubes and
UCA holds true.• Cube Density shows low variability. Drawing
definitive relationship between density and b i d diffi ltcube compression proved difficult.
• Further investigation on crush tester is warranted after limited response.
Thank you!
Comments and Questions?Comments and Questions?
Attachment #5 Minutes from TG on Cement Monogram Program.
Committee on the Monogram
The Monogram Committee, which rarely meets, met Tuesday morning at 9:00 AM. The expressed reason for meeting was to review changes to the new API Spec 10A which was issued in Dec 1010 and which becomes active in June 2011. Several changes were discussed relative to the new Specification. Temperatures specified have become more liberal due to the rounding off to whole numbers. A small change in the wording of how cubes are to be tested for strength was also discussed. The most significant change was the way thickening time schedules are run. During the ramp period there is greater tolerance for both temperature and pressure. At the end of the ramp, the final temperature and pressure must be as specified within 10 minutes of the end of the ramp period. Other matters discussed were the process additions allowed in Class A, B and C cement under ASTM 465. Dobber Bingamon and Jim Jarl were asked to explain ASTM 465. Limestone is the main process addition used. David Stiles related a report from PCA which stated that limestone in construction cement was largely inert. Whether this is true in well cements is another question. Bill Carruthers added that through the use of grinding aids some additives may have retarders added to them. Final comment relative to Class A, B and C cement: Buyer Beware!
Attachment #6 Presentation from TG on Cement Monogram Program.
DIVISION OR ACTIVITY
API S 10AAPI Spec 10A
January 25, 2011
Changes to API Spec 10A(Effective June 2011)
More generous temperature allowance in most applications (23 °C ± 1 °C (73 °F ± 2 °F)) mixing water and cement temperature, 27 °C ± 2 °C (80°F ± 3 °F) Atmospheric Consistometer during Free Fluid test23 °C ± 3 °C (73 °F ± 6 °F) Flask at rest
Depending on the type of compressive strength test machine employed, it can require some time for the load f t b ild th i d l d t ft i iti l
Date 2
frame to build up the required load rate after initial contact with the cement sample. (New Wording)
Ramp up schedules allow more flexibility (± 3 °C (± 6 °F) and ± 2 MPa (± 300 psi)). Final pressure and temperature required within 10 minutes of ramp completion (± 1 °C (± 2 °F) and ± 0,7 MPa (± 100 psi)).
At the option of the manufacturer, processing additives may be used in the manufacture of
Explanation of ASTM 465 (not new)
class A, B or C cement, provided that such materials in the amounts used have been shown to meet the requirements of ASTM C465.
Date 3
Attachment #7 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing,
and Drill Pipe.
Attachment #8 Minutes from WG on Dynamic Settling.
Minutes of the TG on Dynamic Settling 2011 Winter Meeting – Forth Worth, Tx
25 January 2011 TG Members in Attendance Deryck Williams – Chaired on behave Robert Beirute Craig Gardner Dave Stiles Jim Davison Gunnar DeBrujin Robert Darbe Nevio Moroni Meeting was called to order @ 11:35 am. Deryck Williams chaired the session on behave of the current Chairman – Robert Beirute. Deryck updated all on the current status of the TG, because there was not a meeting held in Washington DC – June 2010 and thus no minutes. 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
Status: There is currently only one method being evaluated which is the Amoco Test. The other two methods (SLB & Helical Screw tests) have been withdrawn from the group’s evaluation. As charged Chevron has developed a slurry design that passes both the Chevron’s free water test and the Amoco Test. However, thus far Chevron has not been able to achieve a slurry design that passes their free water test and fails the Amoco Test. Discussions: Open discussions on the future of the TG where held with the following captured:
Ron Crook opened the discussion with the question on whether the TG was really needed in today’s environment.
Heath Williams – SLB raised the necessity of the having the TG and is willing to provide a slurry design that would pass Chevron’s free water test and fail the Amoco’s test.
Other test methods to be considered were discussed, with nothing definite offered.
Action Items
• The slurry design proposed by Heath Williams – SLB will be evaluated by Chevron and depending on the results a path forward would be addressed by the TG.
• Deryck is still working on an alternative test method using the MACS II paddle configuration.
• Ketan Bhaidasna – Fann will provide feedback on whether the MACS II paddle is patented.
• Other test methods will be considered if and when available. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 pm.
Attachment #9 Minutes from WG on Evaluation of NAF
Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers.
1 of 2
Work Group on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water-Wetting by Spacers API Subcommittee 10 – Meeting Minutes
Forth Worth, Texas January 25, 2011
Deryck Williams, Chairman
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 PM. Deryck Williams opened the meeting and informed all that he was taking over the Chairman’s position for this WG from Tom Griffin. Tom finally fully retired after Washington, DC June 2010, after many years of invaluable service to our industry.
Deryck then read the minutes from the June 2010 meeting held in Washington, DC and they were approved by the members in attendance.
Members:
Discussion:
The current procedure document was reviewed with the following items covered.
1. No HTHP consistometers will be used for this work and was therefore omitted.
2. When using Atmospheric consistometers – we will keep 10 minutes in the heated NAF and also evaluate 1 minute.
3. Drawings are to be supplied by Jim Davison.
4. Bob Carpenter will review and edit the SFL section. The equipment manufacturers (Rick Lukay, WC Jones, Jim Davison and Ketan Bhaidasna) will provide generic drawings.
Name Company Phone e-mailMarshall Bishop Drilling Specialties 918-661-9380 [email protected] Carpenter Chevron 713-954-6152 [email protected] Davison Chandler 918-250-7200 [email protected] Dealy Halliburton 580-251-4810 [email protected] DeBruijn Schlumberger 281-285-6336 [email protected] Williams Chevron 713-954-6153 [email protected] Khatri Schlumberger 281-285-6336 [email protected] Lukay OFITE 713-880-9885 [email protected] Maberry Benchmark 713-986-2519
713-591-6754 (cel)[email protected]
Cristiane Miranda Petrobras 55-21-3865-4510 [email protected] Moroni Agip 39(02520) 46215 [email protected] Quintero Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids 713-625 6994
713-203-7806 (cell)[email protected]
John St. Clergy BJ Services 281-357-2755281-513-5398 (cel)
Dave Stiles ExxonMobil 281-654-7737281-253-3042 (cel)
Simon James Schlumberger [email protected] Luke TRICAN 403-723-4502 [email protected] Brennan Tucker 281-442-9095 [email protected]
2 of 2
Forward:
Will hold a teleconference tentatively during the last week of March to review and finalize edits made to the document and discuss round robin testing.
Requests were made by TRICAN and Tucker to join and participate in the WG.
Deryck will include both companies and update the members list.
Attachment #10 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Behavior of
Cements.
Minutes Task Group on Mechanical Behavior of Cement
API Subcommittee 10 Fort Worth, USA January 26, 2011
Robert Darbe, Chairman The meeting was called to order at 8:00 AM. Task group members present at the meeting included: Robert Darbe, Deryck Williams, Simon James, Bernard Fraboulet, Gregory Galdiolo, Jim Davison, Karen Luke on behalf of Camille Lerouge, Ramy Eid and John St. Clergy. The minutes from the summer meeting were reviewed and approved. The charge of the task group was reviewed.
A discussion was held that centered on another set of cooperative testing, with comments including:
• A lower density cement system is being designed by Fred Sabins and Lee Dillenbeck that should result in a lower modulus. This system should be used in the next round of cooperative testing to check the measurements are still appropriate for a lower modulus material.
• Chevron agreed to blend, package and ship the system to labs willing to participate in the 2nd round of testing.
• Slag and Pozzolan based systems were suggested for addition to the testing program. The intent was to quantify these systems to help the TG on composite cement. It was decided that the current procedure being developed needs to be agreed upon before using it to quantify different cement systems.
• It was decided that the 2nd round of testing needs to include different Length/Diameter ratios and different Lengths for the splitting test method.
• There is also a need to include direct tensile testing for comparison with the splitting test method.
The draft technical report currently being drafted was reviewed with the major comments as follows:
• The quality control method suggested by Bernard Fraboulet should be shared via the sharepoint site for the group to read. The method may need to be verified in the future before adding to the current technical report.
• Displacement versus Force control was discussed with no consensus on the correct method to perform testing. Currently, most labs use different rates and control methods. It was decided to let the results of the 2nd round of cooperative testing dictate how much this topic needs to be explored going forward.
• The information on direct measurement of tensile strength is currently incomplete. The ASTM standard for similar testing is no longer published. The results of the 2nd round of cooperative testing may determine if it is necessary to include this procedure in the current document.
The minor modifications to the working document will be made by Robert and shared with the rest of the group. Robert will also contact Lee Dillenbeck and Fred Sabins about the cement design for round-robin testing and communicate the progress with the rest of the group. Vicente Ciccola with PDVSA asked to participate in the TG as well as to be included in the next round of cooperative testing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 AM.
Attachment #11 Minutes from WG on HTHP Rheology.
API Sub-Committee 10
WG on HTHP Rheology – Winter 2011 Minutes Version 1 – January 26, 2010
Work Group Members in Attendance:
Deryck Williams [email protected] Jim Davison [email protected] John St. Clergy [email protected] Robert Darbe [email protected] Rageb Dajani [email protected] Rick Lukay [email protected] J. Guillory [email protected] Gunnar DeBruijn [email protected] Heath Williams [email protected] Simon James [email protected]
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.
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 AM, by Chairman Deryck Williams. As there was no copy of the 2010 Winter meeting's minutes available in Washington DC, it was decided to defer the reading of the 2010 Winter meeting minutes to the next WG meeting in Forth Worth. The chairman therefore read the minutes from both the 2010 Winter and Summer meetings. These minutes were accepted as read. Discussions: The chairman then went on to discuss the current status of the WG. Two teleconferences were held since the June meeting in Washington DC. First Teleconference:
• Addressed concerns on the bob length and diagram used in the procedure document. • Edits were made and submitted by Frank Bi – Grace Instrument. • A calibration fluid was sent to all participating labs by Rick Lukay - OFITE for
comparison testing with an atmospheric rheometer. • A solid laden fluid was proposed and would be developed by Heath Williams - SLB
Second Teleconference: • Discussed the status of the calibration fluid data and the format the data should be
reported. • The calibration fluid data will be reported to Rick Lukay for compilation prior to the
Winter meeting in Forth Worth. This was accomplished. • Heath Williams updated the status of the solid laden fluid and would distribute samples
and procedures to all prior to the Winter meeting in Forth Worth. This was accomplished.
Rick Lukay then discussed the data on the calibration fluid and presented the data from Ametek-Chandler, Grace and OFITE. Noting the good agreement with this data he then proposed moving forward with the testing on the solid laden fluid. Rick also proposed having a simple standard equipment criterion classification incorporated in the WG’s document. The Chairman requested if any others would like to participate in the WG and accepted Total’s participation. Action Items:
The WG will continue the testing and evaluation of the solid laden fluid. Cement designs will be evaluated after the solid laden fluid work.
Rick Lukay made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Jim Davison and the meeting was adjourned @ 10:25am.
Attachment #12 Minutes from WG on Slurry Mixing
Procedures.
Minutes: WG on Large Scale Mixing January 26, 2011 Ft Worth, TX Jim Davison called the meeting to order at 11:00 AM Members in Attendance Jim Davison Simon James Bernard Fraboulet Robert Darbe Deryck Williams Heath Williams (for Deepak Khatri) Members not present: Cristian Richards de Miranda Scott Jennings Labs participating: Petrobras, Rio, Brazil Schlumberger Clamart, France Schlumberger Houston, TX Halliburton Duncan, OK Total Pau, France Chandler Engineering Broken Arrow, OK Chevron Houston, TX Jim Davison read the meetings from the summer meeting June 29, 2010 Washington DC Jim Davison read the WG charge Data from the cooperative testing was presented. Data presented included density, free fluid, thickening time and rheology. Data contained in file “2011 Jan 26 Compiled Data Large Scale Mixing.xlsx” Discussions centered on the comparison of standard 600 mL slurry mixed in a one (1) quart blender vs a 3000 mL slurry mixed in a one (1) gallon blender. Data was deemed very comparable. It was determined that the recommended mix volume for a one (1) gallon mixer be set at 3000 mL. A revision to the 10426-2 Appendix A was drafted (file “Proposed Revision Annex A ISO 10426-2 R2.docx”). This revision will become the recommended practice within 10426-2. The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 AM
