1. Dynamic Settling/Stability Workgroup – Summer 2013
Robert Beirute, Beirute Consulting; Heath Williams, Schlumberger; Paul Sonnier and Jeff Watters, CSI, Deryck Williams, ChevronTexaco; Greg Garrison and Katrina Price, OTC; Graeme Anthony, OFIte
June 25th, Houston, TX

2. Agenda 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Action Items
2. Overview of Workgroup objectives/progress
3. Procedures to run dynamic vs. static testing for Workgroup
4. Summary of API Cooperative test results
5. Our roadmap moving forward

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting
4/15/2017
Minutes of Previous Meeting
TG on Test Methods for Determination of Dynamic Settling
Several task group members were present.
Meeting Minutes for January 22nd, 1:15pm held at the Intercontinental New Orleans, LA
Review of testing conducted so far which included a hematite system that failed both the dynamic settling and free fluid testing, and the spacer system which passed both the dynamic and free fluid test.
A system that passed both free fluid and DST
A system that will pass the free fluid but fail the DST is still being designed
The chairman made the comment that static settling has the potential to develop gel strengths which can aid in stability whereas dynamic settling does not allow for development of the gel strength.
Action Items
After much discussion it was decided to pursue the development of Designs 1 and 2
Continue the round robin testing for the next meeting in the summer.
Designing system for round robin testing that passes static criteria and fails dynamic criteria
Updating the procedure to include the syringe method for taking the density readings of top, middle and bottom.
Update the procedure to include the weighing of the paddle before and after the test.
Cement Design
Cement treatment
Natural causes
Post-placement stresses
Indicates Action Items that have been completed

4. Completion/Progress and Projected Timeline
Explored DST alternatives
100%
Phase 1 – showed systems that passed/failed Static and DST
80%
Phase 2 – cement failed DST but passed static
% Workgroup Completion
Phase 2 – Updated procedures and begin technical report
60%
Phase 3 - Submit report/procedures for comments and review from DST Workgroup
40%
Phase 4 - Submit report/procedures for comments and review from SC10
20%
Phase 5 - Final report/procedures ratified by SC10 0%

5. Objectives for Phase 2 Testing
Test a cement system that would show unique value of DST for performance-based cement stability evaluation
1. Pass GO/NO testing with minimal increase in BC (less than 50BC)
2. Pass free fluid criteria with less than 1% free fluid.
3. Pass sedimentation test criteria with less than 5% settling
4. Fail DST criteria with more than 5% change in density trend measured down the length of the slurry HPHT cup after DST testing
5.Fail DST cone height measurements (greater than 0.5 inch in height)
Add test procedures and interpretation guidelines
Define motor speed at 25 rpm
Ramp to BHCT following well schedule, Stabilize for at least 30 min, Turn motor speed to 25 rpm for 30 min, Shutoff motor ensure lab to lab uniformity in low shear exposure period, cool to 190deg as soon as possible and perform measurements
Use DST cone height results for under-dispersion/over-dispersion at HPHT conditions.

6. Phase 2 – Updated DST Procedure and comparison with older versions of procedure
Previous version(s)
Updated version
Motor speed was varied between rpm, depending on procedure
25 rpm is locked as the one motor speed
Motor speed was left at rpm for at least 20 min period and cool-down period also
Motor speed is left at low shear for at least 30 minutes and then the motor is shut down before cool-down period
No attempt was made to quantify under and over-dispersion with DST
Attempt is made to quantify under and over-dispersion with DST with simple mathematical relationship
No density trend with syringes
10-mL tared syringes used to collect from upper, middle, and lower thirds of slurry cup
Only center cone height used as consideration
Center, ½ radius or middle, and radius or outside positions are used in mathematical relationship = %deg dispersion = (center cone height-outside cone height)/center cone height x 100%

7. Link to DST, GO/NO GO – Free Fluid, and Sedimentation Updated Procedures
Unpacking List
.\Unpacking List and Dynamic Weigh Out Sheet _CD_RHW_15 May 2013.pdf
DST Procedure
Dynamic Settling Test Procedure _ Ramp up to 350 degF.docx
GO/NO and Free Fluid Procedure
Free Fluid Test after Conditioning in HPHT Consistometer_15 May 2013.docx
Sedimentation Test
API Sedimentation Test.docx

8. Workgroup Cooperative Testing Summary
Workgroup Members
WG1
WG2
WG3
WG4
WG5
Ave
STDev
BHCT (degF)
350
GO/NO GO Init/Max BC NA
12/7
24/28
4/8
15/33
12/23
7/13
Free Fluid (%) 5
1.3
1.6
2.4
FF Angle (deg) 45
Sedimentation. Test (max dev.) (%)
3.0
1.7
0.5
Static Slurry Stability Achieved?
Yes -
DST – dens top 1/3rd (lbm/gal)
15.4
15.9
15.2
14.5
13.7
14.9
0.9
DST - dens mid 1/3rd (lbm/gal)
16.7
17.2
16.2
17.6
16.8
16.9
DST – dens bott 1/3rd (lbm/gal)
18.2
0.7
% difference density top-bottom
8.4
9.9
25.5
23.4
14.7
9.0
Cone height – center (in.) 1
1.5
1.1
0.3
Cone height – 1/2R or middle (in.)
0.63
0.8
0.4
Cone height – R or outside(in.)
0.31
1.4
1.0
Degree of dispersion (%)* 69
6.7
9.1
33.3
26.7
29.0
25.1
DST Slurry Stability Criteria Achieved?** No
1STD
2STD
* Greater than 50% difference between center and outside cone height indicates underdispersed slurry
** Less than 50% difference and cone height less than 0.5 in. for any measurement location is stable slurry as per DST criteria

9. GO/NO GO Test Results

10. GO/NO test observations after pulling paddle
SLB
CSI
OTC

11. Free fluid observations after conditioning in GO/NO GO test and 2 hrs at ambient temp as per API RP10B-2
SLB
CVX
CSI
OFIte

12. DST consistency behavior during motor speed at 25 rpm

13. DST cone observations after revised DST procedure and removing modified paddle
SLB
CSI
OFIte
OTC
CVX

14. Conclusions
Go/No Go test results – Average Min/Max BC 12/23 with StDev 7/13
Free fluid test results at 45deg angle – Average 1.6% with StDev 2.4%
2 workgroup members had 0% free fluid with 1 workgroup member showing 5.0%
Static Sedimentation – Average 1.7% with STDev 1.3%
Depending on individual organization best practices, typically less than 5% is stable
DST syringe density trend– Average 14.7% with STDev 9.0%
2 workgroup members had less 10% and 2 had more than 23%
DST cone height – Average 1.3,1.1,1.0 with STDev 0.3, 0.4, 0.4
Degree of Dispersion – Average 29.0% with STDev 25.1%
1 workgroup member had outlier of 69%
Either procedure needs to be clarified further to emphasize unpacked cone over packed cone for height measurements
Perhaps angle of cone slope needs to be explored instead of % difference of height
Other methods needs to be explored

15. Collect more cooperative data from workgroup members
Our Roadmap…
Collect more cooperative data from workgroup members
Look at alternative ways of describing dispersion (slope of cone using Pythagorean theory?)
Write technical report/RP for workgroup input and comments
Submit workgroup-validated report/RP to SC10 for input and comments
Submit technical report/RP to SC10 for vote/ratification
In this roadmap slide, I will discuss potential exploration of Futur US as an additional cost-effective cement solution in our portfolio with the emphasis on D204’s self healing properties…but will not put Futur US on the roadmap slide.

16. Questions from the Audience