1. SC-10 Oil Well Cements WG-08; Static Gel Strength Testing Phase IV
Ramy Eid
Work-Group Chair
June 27,2017 – Calgary

2. Work Group
Charge; Characterize the performance of readily available testing apparatus for static gel strength measurement by determining the repeatability and correlation of results – as such, potentially drafting language change to the current API RP/Standards related to Static Gel Strength Analysis
Chair; R. Eid (Repsol)
Advisors; J. Heathman (Shell) L. Padilla (Chevron)
M. Goodine (BP) D. Mueller (ConocoPhillips)
G. Benge (Consultant) D. Stiles (ExxonMobil)
Labs; Baker Hughes Chandler Chevron
CSI Technologies CTE Fann
OFITE OF Testing SLB
3rd Party; National Energy Technology Laboratory / D.O.E (Pending)

3. Agenda Background and History Phase IV Test Guidelines
Participating Labs / Equipment
Results and Conclusions
Path Forward / Updates
Discussion

4. Background and History
Proposed, approved and initiated (June, 2013)
Phase I Completed and presented to WG members (Jan 2014)
Phase II Completed and presented to WG members (June 2014)
ClearGlide by SLB (Presented June 2015)
Worked with Princeton, and submitted SR-3 form for approval (June 2015)
Princeton / API were unable to reach contractual agreement (Nov 2015)
Further independent studies were done (Laponite by BHI) (Feb 2016)
Phase III was conducted to validate Laponite results (Presented June 2016)
API announced no budget for independent consultant (Dec 2016)
Initiated Phase IV – with neat cement – focusing on “conditioning” (Feb 2017)
API management re-allocated budget for this WG for 2017 (March 2017)
3rd Party SoW closed and approved for NETL (May 2017)
Ongoing legal/contractual discussions (NETL/API and NETL/Suppliers)

5. Updates

6. Phase IV – Testing Conditions
Neat Cement (860 gr) + Distilled Water (327 gr) .. (no anti-foam)
10 tests (per machine)
5 tests to be conditioned via atmospheric consistometer and transferred into SGS machine
5 tests to be conditioned within actual machine itself (SGSA – straight from blender)
All conditioning to be done as per 10B-2 specs – at 80F and 0 psi.
Reporting to include; 100/200/300/400/500.. lb/100sqft
Include any specific notes that you may consider of importance;
Paddle speed (conditioning and SGS mode)
Initial, final and mixing viscosities
Any issues

7. MACS-II @ 150 rpm and 0.216 deg/min
Phase IV – Labs / Equipment / Conditioning
Lab
SGS Machines
Comments
1- Chevron
MACS II / SGSA
SGSA 250 psi
(issues with using different SGSA machines)
2- Fann
MACS II
No deviation
3- BHI
CTE
4- OFITE
SGSM
(additional data – straight from blender)
5- OTC
SGSM / SGSA
(no psi on SGSA – unlike others)
6- SLB
SGSA 500 psi
7- CTE
(ramped up temp – others pre-heated)
8- CSI
MACS II / CTE
MACS 500 psi
9- Chandler
SGSA / MGSA
MACS-II @ 150 rpm and deg/min
CTE @ 150rpm and 0.18 deg/min
SGSM @ 30 rpm and 3.6 deg/min
MGSA @ 150 rpm and 0.2 deg/min
Atm conditioning @ 150 rpm

8. Phase IV – Results – Atm Conditioning (sgs)
Observations;
Overall spread is good.
SGSA shows most deviation
CSI MACS slightly lower than average
(possibly due to only lab running at 500 psi?)
Even though CTE ramped temp, seems in line with pre-heated scenario
OTC higher with SGSA – possibly due to being only lab to not apply pressure
Average SGS; 1 hr 06 min
Lowest SGS; 0 hrs 07 min
(SLB / SGSA)
Highest SGS; 2 hrs 34 min
(OTC / SGSA)
Time, lb/100sqft

9. Phase IV – Results – Equip Conditioning (sgs)
Observations;
No SGSA Data included
Machine to Machine comparison is good, regardless of lab
Even though CSI ran 500psi – in line with other labs
OFI - SGSM slightly higher, possibly due to 30rpm in-machine conditioning? (SLB/OTC?)
Average SGS; 1 hr 10 min
Lowest SGS; 0 hrs 32 min
(CHEV / MACS)
Highest SGS; 2 hrs 02 min
(OFITE / SGSM)

10. Phase IV – Results – Atm Conditioning (to 100)
Observations;
Good spread between most machines
MGSA shows highest start deviation
OTC/SGSM show lowest start deviation (possible mixing issues?)
SGSA shows most spread
Average SGS; 0 hr 37 min
Lowest SGS; 0 hrs 00 min
(OTC / SGSM)
Highest SGS; 1 hrs 41 min
(CHAN / MGSA)

11. Phase IV – Results – Equip Conditioning (to 100)
Observations;
No SGSA Data included
Good spread between most machines
MGSA shows highest start deviation
MACS shows most deviation spread
Average SGS; 0 hr 38 min
Lowest SGS; 0 hrs 08 min
(CHEV / MACS)
Highest SGS; 1 hrs 46 min
(CHAN / MGSA)

12. Phase IV – Results – Machine Overview (SGS)
Observations;
MGSA Data Excluded
Equipment vs Atm consistent
From Blender results varied most
SGSA showing most overall deviation
(possibly due to diff psi applied per lab)
CSI MACS & OFITE SGSM showed largest deviation between atm and in-machine conditioning
500 psi + SGSM rpm..?)
FANN/CHEV MACS & CTE/BHI CTE showed smallest deviation bet atm and in machine conditioning
SGSM
SGSA
MACS
CTE

13. Phase IV – Results – Equip vs. ATM (SGS)
Observations;
No SGSA Data included
Removed Outliners (no big difference)
Black line = 1:1
Order of labs /machines: left to right:
CSI (MACS-II)
CHEV (MACS-II)
FANN (MACS-II)
SLB (SGSM)
OTC (SGSM)
CTE (CTE)
CHAN (MGSA)
OFITE (SGSM)
CSI (CTE)
BHI (CTE)

14. General Observations & Path Forward
In comparison to Phase I and II (with cement slurries), the overall spread is better than expected – possibly indicating that “conditioning” impact (at ambient), may not have a great impact, however, it is essential:
Machines show good consistency, regardless of lab.
Atmospheric vs. Equipment Conditioning prove to not have major impact on neat slurry.
Straight from Blender results show to give most variation – and not recommended.
SGSA data most widespread, although some external factors might have come into play (psi)
Time to 100 lb proved to be more consistent throughout machines/labs, however, the SGSA/MGSA data slightly higher than the others. 
No significant impact on times to 200/300/400: not reported.
Path forward suggestions – eliminate conditioning as a factor:
Continue pressure on API / NETL / Suppliers: to close out legal talks ASAP
Repeat “Phase IV” with a SWF/GT slurry, focusing on conditioning
Repeat “Phase IV” with temp and pressure
Others…

15. SC-10 Oil Well Cements Questions? Ramy Eid Work-Group Chair
June 27,2017 – Calgary