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

2. Today Workgroup charge Members Year to date activities review
Discussion

3. 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.”

4. WorkGroup Members Name Email Address Phone number
Emmanuel Therond - BP
+44 (0)
Antonio Bottiglieri – Baker Hughes
Shailesh Dighe – Baker Hughes
Daniel Bour – Blades Energy
Cam Matthews – C-FER
Paul Sonnier - CSI
Jeff Moon - Chandler
Steven Riedinger - Chevron
Maggie Benge - Halliburton
Jamie Hayes - OFITE
Kevin Madsen - OFITE
Rick Lukay - OFITE
Simon James – Schlumberger
Cory Heinricks - Trican
Steve Priolo - Trican
Axel Bois – CURISTEC
Greg Galdiolo - CURISTEC
Anthony Badalamenti - CURISTEC

5. 2017 WG Activities To Date Phase 1 testing program
Test data collection and analysis

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

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

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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

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

23. CMI Sensitivity Modeling Young’s Modulus Changes Only

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSION