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

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)

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

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)

Updates

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

MACS-II @ 150 rpm and 0.216 deg/min Phase IV – Labs / Equipment / Conditioning Lab SGS Machines Comments 1- Chevron MACS II / SGSA SGSA ran @ 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 ran @ 500 psi 7- CTE (ramped up temp – others pre-heated) 8- CSI MACS II / CTE MACS ran @ 500 psi 9- Chandler SGSA / MGSA MACS-II @ 150 rpm and 0.216 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

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, 100-500 lb/100sqft

Phase IV – Results – Equip Conditioning (sgs) Observations; No SGSA Data included Machine to Machine comparison is good, regardless of lab Even though CSI ran MACS @ 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)

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)

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)

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 (CSI @ 500 psi + SGSM rpm..?) FANN/CHEV MACS & CTE/BHI CTE showed smallest deviation bet atm and in machine conditioning SGSM SGSA MACS CTE

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)

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…  

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