API Subcommittee on Well Cements (SC-10) Triaxial Mechanical Properties Testing of Oilwell Cements 2017 Summer Meeting Progress Report

Today Workgroup charge Members Year to date activities review Discussion

Workgroup Charge Investigate and develop a technical report on the characterization of the mechanical behavior of cement under confinement Workgroup deliverable “Submit a standardized process to be incorporated into the existing TR related to “Mechanical Behavior of Cement” by 2018 Winter Meeting.”

WorkGroup Members Name Email Address Phone number Emmanuel Therond - BP Emmanuel.therond@uk.bp.com +44 (0) 7920 251147 Antonio Bottiglieri – Baker Hughes Antonio.bottiglieri@bakerhughes.com 713-561-1638 Shailesh Dighe – Baker Hughes Shaliesh.dighe@bakerhughes.com 832-250-0848 Daniel Bour – Blades Energy dbour@blade-energy.com 425-501-8885 Cam Matthews – C-FER c.matthews@cfertech.com 780-996-1232 Paul Sonnier - CSI psonnier@csi-tech.net 713-254-9301 Jeff Moon - Chandler Jeff.moon@ametek.com 918-232-8761 Steven Riedinger - Chevron Steven.reidinger@chevron.com 832-316-4736 Maggie Benge - Halliburton maggie.benge@Halliburton.com 281-796-0121 Jamie Hayes - OFITE jhayes@ofite.com 832-239-0121 Kevin Madsen - OFITE Kmadsen@ofite.com 281-671-3654 Rick Lukay - OFITE rlukay@ofite.com 713-818-0927 Simon James – Schlumberger james6@slb.com +33 1 4537 2039 Cory Heinricks - Trican cheinricks@trican.ca 403-796-9849 Steve Priolo - Trican spriolo@trican.ca 403-921-6349 Axel Bois – CURISTEC apbois@curistec.com +33 4 74 26 93 55 Greg Galdiolo - CURISTEC ggaldiolo@curistec.com +33 5 32 09 15 33 Anthony Badalamenti - CURISTEC abadalamenti@curistec.com 713-294-7374

2017 WG Activities To Date Phase 1 testing program Test data collection and analysis

Mechanical Testing Program – Phase 1 Curing Temperature = 50 deg. C Curing Pressure = 3000 psi Curing Time = 14 days Temperature and pressure to be reduced over a 72 hour period to minimize induced stress on the samples. Confining Pressures All Labs are to test using the following confining pressures 250 psi, 500 psi, and 1000 psi. Test Specimens should adhere to a 2:1 ratio (length to diameter)

Mechanical Testing Program – Phase 1 Labs are to follow their established testing procedures All labs have the freedom to add additional confining pressures beyond the three required pressures stated above. Tests results can be submitted as well. All tests will be tested under a “drained condition”. Labs have freedom to test under an “un-drained condition” as well and test results can be submitted Phase 1 Testing Deadline: April 01, 2017

Phase 1 Testing Program Summary Targeted Phase 1 completion April 01, 2017 was not achieved Delay releasing final cement design All companies reported extensive use of triaxial load frames to support business units 8 labs participating 4 Service Companies 3 Technology Companies 1 Major Operator Phase 1 testing extended to June 30, 3017 to give all labs time to complete and submit tests.

Phase 1 Testing Program Summary To date 23 data sets have been received Expect 5 additional data sets by end of June Phase 1 Data Received (slides 9-14)

Summary of all submitted data Test 0 psi Young's Modulus 250 psi Young's Modulus 500 psi Young's Modulus 1000 psi Young's Modulus 0 psi Poisson's Ratio 250 psi Poisson's Ratio 500 psi Poisson's Ratio 1000 psi Poisson's Ratio 0 psi UCS 250 psi UCS 500 psi UCS 1000 psi UCS Friction Angle Cohesion # xE6   PSI Degree 1 2.655 2.651 2.581 0.202 0.209 0.216 11,579 12,941 13,225 2 2.451 2.571 2.614 0.167 0.250 0.244 12,299 12,736 12,482 3 2.442 3.131 3.349 0.136 0.153 11,101 11,876 14,369 4 2.395 3.614 3.445 0.180 0.184 13,008 11,642 13,269 5 2.908 2.951 0.144 0.141 11,827 12,085 6 2.042 0.097 13,010 7 3.37 2.640 2.850 3.040 0.309 0.268 0.148 7,899 13,058 13,926 10,200 8 2.790 2.890 3.050 0.238 0.273 0.152 9 2.870 2.930 3.120 0.237 0.277 0.155 10 3.50 3.350 3.260 3.160 12,235 12,215 10,421 12,214 11 3.21 3.230 10,869 12,095 11,920 12,737 12 3.530 2.770 11,914 12,792 12,617 13 3.340 3.270 3.143 0.177 0.175 11,900 12,666 12,711 20.98 14 3.220 3.211 0.183 0.185 0.208 11,323 12,223 12,788 15 3.250 3.210 3.170 0.174 0.182 0.200 11,848 12,339 12,346 16 3.580 2.160 0.280 0.240 6000 9,727 9,990 17 3.540 2.120 18 3.920 2.530 0.330 19 3.950 2.730 20 2.980 0.270 12,422 11,745 12,619 11.07 4,936 21 3.140 3.000 3.470 0.290 0.300 12,407 11,591 12,642 12.77 4,747 22 2.080 2.940 2.990 0.160 10,510 10,861 11,015 13.7 4,098 23 2.650 3.130 3.070 0.170 0.220 10,748 11,523 11,228 10.91 4,498

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Test Results Averages MECHANICAL PROPERTIES   Young's Modulus xE6 Poisson's Ration UCS PSI Friction Angle Degree Cohesion Average + 10% 3.370 0.242 13,032 15.275 5027 Average + 5% 3.217 0.231 12,439 14.580 4799 Average 3.064 0.220 11,847 13.886 4570 Average - 5% 2.911 0.209 11,255 13.192 4342 Average - 10% 2.758 0.198 10,662 12.497 4113 PRESSURE REGIMES 0 psi Young's Modulus 250 psi Young's Modulus 500 psi Young's Modulus 1000 psi Young's Modulus 0 psi Poisson's Ratio 250 psi Poisson's Ratio 500 psi Poisson's Ratio 1000psi Poisson's Ratio 0 psi UCS 250 psi UCS 500 psi UCS 1000 psi UCS Friction Angle Cohesion xE6   PSI Degree Average + 10% 3.696 3.356 3.191 3.375 0.340 0.251 0.242 0.225 10176 12936 13202 13650 15.275 5027 Average + 5% 3.528 3.203 3.046 3.221 0.324 0.239 0.231 0.215 9713 12348 12602 13030 14.580 4798 Average 3.360 3.051 2.901 3.068 0.309 0.228 0.220 0.205 9251 11760 12002 12409 13.886 4570 Average - 5% 3.192 2.898 2.756 2.915 0.294 0.217 0.209 0.194 8788 11172 11402 11789 13.192 4341 Average - 10% 3.024 2.746 2.611 2.761 0.278 0.198 0.184 8326 10584 10801 11168 12.497 4113

Young’s Modulus All Data Points Avg. + 10% Avg. = 3.064 Avg.-10%

Poisson’s Ratio All Data Points Avg. + 10% Avg. = 0.220 Avg.-10%

U.C.S All Data Points Avg. + 10% Avg. = 11,847 Avg. -10%

Data compared to averages Legend :   > - 10% of Average 5% to 10% of Average Average +/- 5% > + 10% of Average Test 0 psi Young's Modulus 250 psi Young's Modulus 500 psi Young's Modulus 1000 psi Young's Modulus 0 psi Poisson's Ratio 250 psi Poisson's Ratio 500 psi Poisson's Ratio 1000 psi Poisson's Ratio 0 psi UCS 250 psi UCS 500 psi UCS 1000 psi UCS Friction Angle Cohesion # xE6 PSI Degree 1 2.655 2.651 2.581 0.202 0.209 0.216 11,579 12,941 13,225 2 2.451 2.571 2.614 0.167 0.250 0.244 12,299 12,736 12,482 3 2.442 3.131 3.349 0.136 0.153 11,101 11,876 14,369 4 2.395 3.614 3.445 0.180 0.184 13,008 11,642 13,269 5 2.908 2.951 0.144 0.141 11,827 12,085 6 2.042 0.097 13,010 7 3.37 2.640 2.850 3.040 0.309 0.268 0.148 7,899 13,058 13,926 10,200 8 2.790 2.890 3.050 0.238 0.273 0.152 9 2.870 2.930 3.120 0.237 0.277 0.155 10 3.50 3.350 3.260 3.160 12,235 12,215 10,421 12,214 11 3.21 3.230 10,869 12,095 11,920 12,737 12 3.530 2.770 11,914 12,792 12,617 13 3.340 3.270 3.143 0.177 0.175 11,900 12,666 12,711 20.98 14 3.220 3.211 0.183 0.185 0.208 11,323 12,223 12,788 15 3.250 3.210 3.170 0.174 0.182 0.200 11,848 12,339 12,346 16 3.580 2.160 0.280 0.240 6000 9,727 9,990 17 3.540 2.120 18 3.920 2.530 0.330 19 3.950 2.730 20 2.980 0.270 12,422 11,745 12,619 11.07 4,936 21 3.140 3.000 3.470 0.290 0.300 12,407 11,591 12,642 12.77 4,747 22 2.080 2.940 2.990 0.160 10,510 10,861 11,015 13.7 4,098 23 2.650 3.130 3.070 0.170 0.220 10,748 11,523 11,228 10.91 4,498

Is a +/-10% Difference in Cement Mechanical Properties Significant? Cement Mechanical Integrity (CMI) Modeling was performed using a standard well architecture, standard well events, and changes in cement mechanical properties #1 Base Case cement mechanical properties #2 Reduction of 10% of mechanical properties #3 Increase of 10% of mechanical properties

Example Well: Well Architecture & Cement Properties - 10% Base Case Base Case + 10% Base Case Young’s Modulus (GPA) 9 10 11 Poission’s Ratio 0.126 0.14 0.154 UCS (Mpa) 27 30 33 Tensile Stregth (MPA) 2.7 3 3.3 Friction Angle 13.5° 15° 16.5° Events: 24: initial state 25: pressure test 40 MPa 26: initial state 27: mud swap + cooling 28: nothing 29: heating 200°C

Example Well: Fluids Positions and Well Temp, Well Temperatures M. Depth (meters) Initial Temp. (°C) Final Temp. (°C) 1700 70 200 2500 95 Top of Fluids in Annulus Fluid Type M. Depth (meters) Density (g/cc) Drilling Mud Surface 1.20 Cement Spacer 1600 1.30 Cement Slurry 1.89 Fluid In Casing Well Head PSI (Mpa) Displacement 0-2500 1.02 40

Example Well: Operational Events Well Events Description Cumulative Time (hrs) % Change in Mud Density % Change in WHP % Change in Temp. Top Plug Bump Initial State 24 Casing Pressure Test To 40 MPa 25 100 26 Swap Mud and Cool Well 27 -50 No Well Activity 28 Heat Well to 200°C 29

Base Case – Micro Annulus Inner Micro Annuli (Cement to Casing) Outer Micro Annuli (Cement to Formation) Well Events Well Events Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Base Case Shear Failure & Radial Cracking Well Events Well Events Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Base Case Disking Failure Well Events Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

CMI Sensitivity Modeling Young’s Modulus Changes Only

Young’s Modulus Sensitivity Cement to Casing Micro-Annulus Base Case E=9 E=10 E=11 Minimum Effect Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Young’s Modulus Sensitivity Cement to Formation Micro-Annulus Base Case E=9 E=10 E=11 Minimum Effect Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Young’s Modulus Sensitivity Shear Failure Base Case E=9 E=10 E=11 Strong Effect Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Young’s Modulus Sensitivity Radial Cracking Base Case E=9 E=10 E=11 Strong Effect Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Young’s Modulus Sensitivity Disking Failure Strong Effect Color Legend Cement is in the safe range Cement is safe but Approaching Failure Cement Has Failed

Is a +/-10% Difference in Cement Mechanical Properties Significant? Initial CMI modeling indicates that a 10% change in mechanical properties can affect simulation results Additional CMI modeling is needed to further quantify simulation effects Summary or CMI Sensitivity Modeling using Base Case and Plus/Minus 10% Of Base Case Mechanical Property Outer Micro Annuli Inner Micro Annuli Shear Failure Radical Cracking Disking Failure Young’s Modulus Minimum Strong Poisson’s Ratio Yes U.C.S. Tensile Strength None Significant Friction Angle

Going forward Task Description Who Status 1 Complete Phase 1 – labs use their individual testing process and procedures and distribute final results to WG members 8 labs/ Anthony Close of phase 1 – June 30 2 WG review phase 1 tests results – determine if additional testing is required Axel July 15 3 Decision regarding need for phase 2 testing is required WG 4 WG creates a set of standardized testing processes/procedures Depending on #2 & 3 5 Labs begin testing using standardized processes Participating labs 10/31/2017 6 WG reviews standardized process test results Earliest Jan 15, 2018 7 Begin writing – RP for standardized process to be incorporated into the existing TR related to “Mechanical Behavior of Cement Axel and Anthony Earliest Feb 15, 2018

Summary Phase 1 testing has required more time than anticipated 2018 Winter meeting deliverable will not be achieved WG requesting deliverable extension to 2019 Winter meeting Discussion and Questions

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSION