Subcommittee 10 General Session Chairman: David Stiles Hyatt Regency, Washington DC

Transcription

1 Subcommittee 10 General Session Chairman: David Stiles Hyatt Regency, Washington DC David Stiles called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, June 30, Approval of Minutes from Westminster The meeting was started with a presentation by Laura Levandoski on the API Monogram website. The next order of business was to approve the minutes from the 2010 Winter Meeting at New Orleans, LA. Robert Darbe read the minutes. Craig Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes with a few corrections. The motion was seconded by Jim Davison and passed unanimously. Reports of Task Groups and Work Groups Task Group and Work Group chairpersons read the minutes from their respective teams. The WG on Heat of Hydration was established and will report to David Stiles. The report from the WG on HTHP Rheology was read by Rick Lukay on Deryck Williams s behalf. These minutes are available as attachments at the end of this document. Charge Chairperson(s) Link to Attachment TG on Cooperative Testing Bill Carruthers Minutes WG on Compressive Strength Scott Saville Minutes Presentation WG on Heat of Hydration Lee Dillenbeck Minutes TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements Robert Darbe Minutes Presentation WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal Tom Griffin Minutes and Water Wetting by Spacers TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Hank Rogers Minutes Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe WG on HTHP Rheology Deryck Williams Minutes WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures Jim Davison Minutes After no discussion during an allotted period, David Stiles tendered a motion to accept the reports. The motion was moved by Jerry Calvert, seconded by Scott Saville, and passed unanimously. General Discussion Rick Lukay and Jack Haugom were presented 25 year service awards. Their service is greatly appreciated.

2 Old Business There was no Old Business to discuss. New Business Possible Ambiguity due to Recent Changes to ASTM C150 and C465 affect API Spec 10A Possible ambiguous statements within new ASTM standards have lead to a no vote on the adopt back of ISO as API Spec 10A. A short resolution is ideal in order to update the Chrome (VI) clause which has expired in the current API Spec 10A document (the adopt back document already contains the solution). The possible ambiguity comes from the interpretation of the following sections: Spec 10A, at the option of the manufacturer, processing additives may be used in the manufacture of class A cement, provided that such materials in the amounts used have been shown to meet the requirements of ASTM C ASTM C465, The cement produced for evaluation purposes with the processing addition shall comply with the appropriate Specifications C ASTM C150, Limestone. The amount shall not be more than 5.0 % by mass such that the chemical and physical requirements of this standard are met... ASTM C150, They shall have been shown to meet the requirements of Specification C David Stiles brought up the questions: Is interground limestone allowed in API classes A, B and C? Does Spec 10A specify that these cements meet C150? Does C465 allow for additions so long as they meet C150? David also suggested the following options for resolution: A. Leave as is. B. Add clause to 10A that prohibits interground limestone. C. Permit the use of limestone in classes A, B, and C. Heiko Plack brought up another solution: D. To eliminate the reference to ASTM C465 in Spec 10A. Bill Carruthers mentioned that limestone is currently being considered as a constituent of composite based systems currently under investigation in another TG. After some discussion, Heiko motioned to delete all references to ASTM C426 and C150 for API classes A, B, and C. This motion was seconded by Rick Lukay. It was discussed whether removing the reference would allow for use of any processing additive which the reference to ASTM C426 was originally intended to exclude. It was expressed that some cement manufactures are using limestone in Type 1 cement. And if it

3 met spec, they would also sell this product as an API Class A cement. Lee Dillenbeck questioned if anyone knew the effect of interground limestone on high temperature stability. Karen Luke mentioned that limestone at low concentrations could yield higher strengths while higher concentrations could lower the strength. Several felt 5% limestone would probably fine, but this was not unanimous. Others pointed at the lack of data to base any decision on. Tom Griffin said it could be interpreted that ASTM C150 differentiates limestone from processing additives and that API only allowed processing additives (not the limestone). The pursuing discussion provided a variety of interpretations on the standards furthering the case that the standard may be ambiguous. Tom called for the vote on the motion on the floor. The motion to remove the ASTM references failed unanimously. Tom moved to change the wording of the API Spec 10A requirement for Classes A, B, C and D cement to prevent intergrinding of limestone. It was noted that the possible ambiguity also extended to Class D cement. Pursuing discussion centered on that manufactures could just sell ASTM cements with interground limestone instead of the API classes A, B, C and D. Because it is believed that some manufactures currently use limestone in API Class A, B, C, or D cement with no problems being reported, the question was asked if any changes are needed. David Stiles mentioned that a clause could be added to take away any ambiguity and possibly allow limestone. The motion to change the wording to prevent intergrinding of limestone in API Classes A, B, C, and D was voted on and failed unanimously. Tom then motioned to leave as is, with Jerry Calvert seconding. It was discussed that if the motion passed that the no vote would be considered non-persuasive and the adopt back of ISO , which has been approved with the possible ambiguous references, would be allowed to continue. It was also discussed that data should be generated to aid in the decision on the effect of interground limestone, but this could be a lengthy research paper. David Stiles mentioned that if an auditor comes across this situation then the issue could come back to the committee as a non-conformance issue. Dan Mueller commented that the problem will not go away and a purchased Class A may later be ruled to not meet specification if a regulatory authority erases the clause do to an ambiguity. A request was made for additional data from the cement manufactures to be provided to the SC as it pertains to the current situation to help make a better decision. Jack Haugom brought up the point that a lot of work is probably already done by ASTM but this pertains primarily to low temperature applications. Jim Davison suggested contacting ASTM as a source to help fix ambiguity. After extensive discussion the motion to leave as is passed unanimously.

4 Acknowledgements David Stiles thanked Tom Griffin, who is set to retire, for his contributions on behalf of SC- 10. David further acknowledged Gerard Bol, who recently retired and was not present, for his contributions. Upcoming meetings: Upcoming API meeting were presented: Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth Exploration & Production Standards Conference: San Francisco Exploration & Production Standards Winter Meeting: Fort Worth Exploration & Production Standards Conference: Denver Adjournment After no additional business was proposed, Jerry Calvert moved that the meeting be adjourned. After the motion was seconded by Scott Saville, David Stiles adjourned the meeting at 2:55 PM.

5 Attachment #1 Minutes from TG on Cooperative Testing.

6 Subcommittee 10 Task Group on Cooperative Testing Chairman: Bill Carruthers Hyatt Washington DC Scott Saville opened the meeting in place of David Stiles. The meeting began at 8:00 a.m. Bill asked Gerry Calvert to give prayer. The group introduced themselves. Scott reviewed the agenda for this summers meeting. Bill Caruthers handed out the document of the 2010 cooperative testing (attached). There was problem with China which resulted in not getting any test results from the China labs. Bill began to review the cooperative testing results. Schedule 5 results were fairly consistent compared to last testing. Historical results indicated schedule 5 results to be very consistent up until about Service companies were then allowed to participate and results became rather erratic but results since then have been getting more consistent. Free Fluid- Changing from the graduated cylinder to the flask has shown more consistent free fluid results. There is still room for improvement. Eliminating out liers improved the free fluid results for this years testing drastically. Rheology- Eliminating out liers improved the free fluid results for this years testing drastically. Most of the rheological data was from the service companies.

7 Gel Strengths- These results were very erratic. Probably because of different instruments being used. Dan stated we are early in history of this type of testing. Craig asked if the data could be broken out by the equipment being used. Bill will tabulate the results by instruments. Compressive Strengths- COV was better than last year overall. Still high especially since 2000 testing when services companies were allowed to participate in cooperative testing. More detail will be included in Scotts Compressive Strength Work Group. Chemistry- Mainly done by manufacturers. Data was very consistent. XRO- Only 6 labs submitted data. Very consistent. Cooperative testing overall is getting better. The final report will be presented in January when all results have been submitted, broken down and tabulated. Meeting adjourned.

8 Attachment #2 Minutes from WG on Compressive Strength.

9 Subcommittee 10 Work Group on Compressive Strength Chairman: Scott Saville Hyatt Washington DC Protocol of this years testing was basically same as in recent years. Some changes were to eliminate preconditioning of 20 minutes and report what type of cube crusher being used. In this years testing there were more UCA data submitted than cube data. Comparing 2008 data to 2010 data is fairly consistent but strengths were higher. Although this years testing was fairly consistent inconsistencies can be because of load cells being very sophisticated to manually operated pumps. Data will be broken out by instrument used for crushing cubes. As usual the 8 hr. test had highest variance. Trend is showing the 8 hr. UCA test having higher c.s than cube 8 hr. test and just the opposite for the 24 hr. test.

10 Bill commented that manufacturer s data is more consistent than the rest because of the having to comply with API standards and being audited. Meeting Adjourned.

11 Attachment #3 Presentation from WG on Compressive Strength.

12 8/4/ API Cooperative Testing Compressive Strength Data Washington DC June 2010 Introduction Test Protocol in 2010 matched previous years: Cubes: 100F 8 hours 140F 8 hours 100F 24 hours Cube Density UCA: 100F 8 hours 100F 24 hours Time to 50 and 500 psi Changes to protocol in 2010 Eliminated 20 minute pre-conditioning Request for picture of load frames utilized Percent of CS test by Cement Plants vs Service Companies / Others. 29 Cement Plants: Cubes 93% - UCA 10% 119 Service Cos / Others: Cubes 71% - UCA 95% 27 Labs did not report 8 hour UCA 1

13 8/4/ Strength Data 100F-8hr Cube 100F-24hr Cube 140F-8hr Cube 100F-8hr UCA 100F-24hr UCA AVG Std Dev CV Max Min Avg +2 Std Dev Avg -2 Std Dev UCA Time to 50 & 500 psi 50 psi (minutes) 500 psi (minutes) AVG Std Dev Max Min AVG + 2 Std Dev AVG 2 Std Dev

14 8/4/2010 Compressive Strength Comparison 2008 vs 2010 CS TEST AVERAGE STD DEV CV F - 8 hr Cube F - 24 hr Cube F -8 HOUR CUBE HOUR UCA HOUR UCA to 2010 UCA vs Cubes Average Compressive Strength 8 hr Cube 8 hr UCA Change 24 hr Cube 24 hr UCA Change (171) (165) (208) (203) (164) (198) 3

15 8/4/2010 CV Comparison 2000 to 2010 CV F 8hr Cube 100 F 24hr Cube 140 F 8hr Cube 100 F 8hr UCA 100 F 24hr UCA Compressive Strength Comparison Service Company vs. Cement Plants Co ompressive Strength (PSI ) Total Avg Plant Avg Serv Avg 0 100F-8 140F-8 100F-24 Curing Time and Temp 4

16 8/4/2010 CV Comparison Service Company vs. Cement Plant 40 efficient of Variance Co Total COV Plant COV Serv COV 0 100F-8 140F-8 100F-24 Curing Time and Temp Automatic Crush Testers 5

17 8/4/2010 Manual Crush Testers Conclusions and Remaining Efforts Results show high variability with 8 hour cube and UCA test This years 8 and 24 hour UCA and Cube Compression results continued historical trends. Ultrasonic testing consistently shows slightly higher CS in 8 hours, and moderately less in 24 hours Additional analysis required on 8 hour UCA results where we saw highest variability (CV 36.4) in 10 yesrs, Density analysis and the effect on Cube Compression results requires further study. Load Frames utilized requires further study 6

18 8/4/2010 Thank you! Comments and Questions? 7

19 Attachment #4 Minutes from WG on Heat of Hydration.

20 Subcommittee 10 Work Group on Heat of Hydration Chairman: Lee Dillenbeck Hyatt Washington DC Lee reviewed issues presented by Brian Koons at last meeting held in New Orleans. Lee stated there is a problem with current predictive temperature program calculations in simulators because of using default cement heat of hydration numbers and the method used to determine the time and span over which the heat is released. There is currently no standard apparatus to measure heat of hydration for oilfield cementing. Current types are typically pseudo-adiabatic test devices and heat flow calorimeters. One of the charges of this work group was to identify types of equipment available to measure heat of hydration within our industry. There was a survey of companies about their current method of measuring heat of hydration. The companies were Halliburton, Schlumburger, BJ and CSI. Following are the types of Heat of hydration testing equipment used in those labs.

21 Lab #1- Heat Flow Calorimeter Lab #2- Adiabatic test and Calorimeter Lab #3- Adiabatic test similar to Lab #2 Lab #4- Uses 3 rd party lab. No operational test equipment of their own. Though not presented at the meeting due to time constraints, Lee said that most of the surveyed companies currently running heat of hydration tests also provided at least basic procedures for the tests they run. Adiabatic test Strengths of the test are that it is very economical and well understood. Labs can purchase basic equipment for testing for about $1, U.S. Weakness is not truly Adiabatic (dependent on effectiveness of insulation), really only captures approximate total heat released but not good for testing heat released vs. time

22 (rate). Also doesn t allow for simulated downhole pressure during test and difficult to maintain simulated downhole temperatures during testing. Calorimeter Strengths: Much more accurate, direct measure of heat and rate of heat release. Cement curing temperature can be controlled and some units control pressure at which the HOH occurs. If desired, some units allow for mixing of dry cement and water inside unit to capture initial heat of hydration. Weaknesses: Primarily cost. Though not all are as expensive, some more advanced units that operate as low as -20 degrees C can cost as much as 150, Euros. Recommendations Formation of Work Group for Heat of Hydration. Use ASTM c as guide Use Calorimeter to provide accurate direct measure results.

23 Why is a RP needed? ASTM does not have standard of mixing slurry prior to test, does not consider downhole temperatures or pressure. There was a question of why can a consistometer be used to measure heat of hydration? Answer: The typical HTHP test cell is not even pseudoadiabatic, so temperature changes are not valid to use for computation of HOH in the first place. Second, is that most of the heat of hydration released is after the initial cement set occurs and in a consistometer test, the cement is not completely set at the end of the test. Meeting adjourned.

24 Attachment #5 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements.

25 Minutes Task Group on Mechanical Behavior of Cement API Subcommittee 10 Washington DC, USA June 30, 2010 Robert Darbe, Chairman The meeting was called to order at 8:00 AM. Task group (TG) members present included: Robert Darbe, Simon James, Bernard Fraboulet, Jim Davison, Dan Mueller, Ramy Eid, Fred Sabins, and John St. Clergy. Lee Dillenbeck filled in for Deryck Williams and Karen Luke filled in for Camille Lerouge. The charge of the TG was read and the minutes from the winter meeting were reviewed and approved. A presentation was reviewed containing results from a cooperative testing effort between six labs. The efforts of Chevron, TOTAL, BJ Services, Schlumberger, Chandler Engineering and Halliburton are greatly appreciated. The cement contributions from Holcem Apasco are also appreciated. The actual presentation is appended with these minutes. Discussion about the cooperative testing results included: Some of the acoustic results may have been influenced by an incomplete cement volume resulting in a gap between the cement and the top of the pressure vessel. A low stress range could explain some differences in the modulus and poison s ratio when compared to similar measurements made in a higher stress range. The curing time between the different labs may have been different and needs to be documented going forward. This should include time at temperature and pressure as well as time waited before the actual test is performed. Aspect ratio can affect the splitting test results and the working procedures should be changed to prevent this from occurring. Load rate can affect the measurements taken from a load frame test. Air entrainment can influence the mechanical test results. Future testing may need to be done with samples cured under pressure. The samples tested had high strengths and it is believed that the same tests for samples with lower strengths can result in a larger variation between the labs. The working procedure was reviewed in detail and edits where made. Robert agreed to format the document taking into account the edits and redistribute to the TG by means of the API sharepoint site. Fred Sabins and Lee Dillenbeck volunteered to investigate cement systems with lower compressive strengths which the TG could use in future cooperative testing efforts. This endeavor will be reviewed at the winter meeting with the hope of completing another round of tests for next year. Karen Luke volunteered to perform acoustic testing going forward. Cristiane Richard De Miranda volunteered to join the TG. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 AM.

26 Attachment #6 Presentation from TG on Mechanical Behavior of Cements

27 8/4/ th of June2010 Washington DC Robert Darbe Gerard Bol Deryck Williams Simon James Bernard Fraboulet Jim Davison Fred Sabins John St. Clergy j Camille Lerouge Tim Johnson Dan Mueller Ramy Eid 1

28 8/4/2010 Review Charge Read Summer Minutes Review of Test Methods Cooperative Testing Results Plastic Standard Coop Cement Composite Cement Discuss Technical Report Define and Possibly Assign Sections Discuss Next Goals Setup Future Meetings Develop a technical report on the characterization of mechanical behavior of cement and test methods to measure the mechanical parameters of cement in the laboratory. This TR is intended to serve as the basis of an ISO NWI. 2

29 8/4/2010 Mechanical Test with a Load Frame Static Can be Destructive Load Cell Force Spherical Seated Platen Cement Sample A 0 ΔL Table Bottom Platen L 0 Unloaded Loaded Hydraulic Actuator D 0 D 0 ΔD Load Frame Splitting Test Splitting force is correlated to tensile strength Destructive Force (F) Typical Failure t D Force (F) 3

30 8/4/2010 Acoustic Test Dynamic Non Destructive λ + 2G V P = ρ υe λ = ( 1+ υ)(1 2υ ) V S = G ρ E G = 2(1 + υ) Plastic Standard Coop Cement Slag Composite Test Matrix Test Type Polyoxymethylene Plastic Neat Class H Composite Cement Unconfined w/ 1 cylinder 5 cylinders 5 cylinders Instrumentation 4 slices or 4 slices or Indirect Tension None equivalent equivalent Acoustic 1 cylinder 1 cylinder 1 cylinder 4

31 8/4/2010 Follow working procedural document note changes that need to be made. Use current load rates. Use current methods for acoustic measurements and document procedures. Plastic Standard Collected 2.25 and 1.25 plastic rods Natural Acetal Copolymer (Polyoxymethylene) Dupont: Delrin Ensinger: Techaform Initially believed the two rods were different material Labs Reporting Load Frame Acoustic Notes Halliburton x Tested on 2 Frames and another Device Chevron x TOTAL x x Cyclical on first load Schlumberger x Cyclically loaded BJ Services x Chandler Engineering x 5

32 8/4/ Sttress (Psi) 8000 Halliburton MTS BB 1in Halliburton MTS BB 2in Halliburton TO BB 2in Chevron MTS BB 2in % SLB BB 1in TOTAL BB 1.41in -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% Strain 2000 Halliburton MTS BB 1in Halliburton MTS BB 2in Halliburton TO BB 2in Chevron MTS BB 2in 1200 Hall Tester BB 1 in Sttress (Psi) SLB BB 1in 200 TOTAL BB 1.41in % -0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% Strain 6

33 8/4/ Halliburton MTS BB 2in E=0.540 Mpsi Halliburton TO BB 2in E=0.554 Mpsi Chevron MTS BB 2in E=0.546 Mpsi 1400 Halliburton MTS BB 1in E=0.601 Mpsi 1200 Hall Tester BB 1in E=0.600 Mpsi Stres ss (Psi) TOTAL BB 1.41in E=0.566 Mpsi 200 SLB BB 1in % 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% E= Mpsi 0.30% 0.35% 0.40% Strain Halliburton MTS BB 2in E=0.540 Mpsi Halliburton TO BB 2in E=0.554 Mpsi Chevron MTS BB 2in EE= Mpsi 1400 Halliburton MTS BB1in* E=0.601 Mpsi 1200 Hall Tester BB 1in* E=0.600 Mpsi Stress s (Psi) TOTAL BB 1.41in* E=0.566 Mpsi 200 SLB BB 1in* % 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% E= Mpsi 0.30% 0.35% 0.40% Strain 7

34 8/4/ Brinell Hardness Num mber Distance from Center (in.) Load Frame Diameter Modulus Poisson's Identifier (in) (Mpsi) Ratio Hall MTS BB 2in Hall TO BB 2in Cevron MTS BB 2in Halliburton MTS BB 1in Hall Tester BB 1in Total BB 1.41in SLB BB 1in Average Std. Dev COV 4.6% 20.7% Acoustic Diameter Modulus Poisson's Identifier (in) (Mpsi) Ratio Chandler BJS Total BB 1.41in Average Std. Dev COV 43.1% 25.7% COV for PR is 5.5% when outlier is removed BJ and Total used ~ 1MHz for acoustic testing 8

35 8/4/2010 Variation at low stresses Stress history can make a difference Load frame results are similar Need more acoustic data Coop Cement Holcem Apasco Class H Neat Cement Components Amount Unit Water 38.0 %bwoc Cement 100 %bwoc Labs Reporting Load Splitting Acoustic Frame Test Notes Halliburton X X X Acoustic on MPRO Chevron X X TOTAL X X Acoustic on Cylinders Schlumberger X X 9

36 8/4/2010 Modulus (Psi) Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTAL Schlumberger (First Cycle) E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+06 Average 2.13E E E E+05 St. Dev. 7.50E E E E+05 COV 3.5% 6.1% 11.0% 17.6% SLB used cyclic procedure with a low stress range possibly affecting results Poisson's Ratio (-) Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTAL Schlumberger (First Cycle) Average St. Dev COV 7.0% 8.0% 19.7% 37.7% Ultimate Compressive Strength (Psi) Sample Halliburton Chevron TOTAL Schlumberger (First Cycle) Average St. Dev COV 7.9% 17.0% 5.4% 8.8% Stress (psi) Halliburton Chevron TOTAL Schlumberger % 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% Strain 10

37 8/4/2010 Sample Hal TS (psi) Chevron (psi) SLB TS (psi) Splitting Test SLB TS (psi) Hal Stab (SG) Chevron (SG) SLB Stab (SG) SLB Stab (SG) 1 - Top Bottom Average St. Dev COV 5.0% 15.3% 9.0% 15.4% 1.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% (Top-Bot)/Avg 3.64% 0.50% 1.47% 0.98% 100 psi 140 F YM=0.55 Mpsi PR=0.37 CS=300psi 11

38 8/4/ Poisson's Ratio Young's Modulus (kpsi) Bulk Modulus (kpsi) MPro CS (psi) Time (HH) 100 psi 104 F YM=0.51 Mpsi PR=0.38 CS=296psi TOTAL Acoustic Poisson's Sample Modulus (psi) Ratio E E E E Average 3.20E St. Dev. 2.86E COV 8.9% 19.3% 12

39 8/4/2010 Load Frame Sample Modulus (psi) Poisson's Ratio Ultimate Strength (psi) Tensile Strength (psi) Halliburton 2.13E Chevron 1.94E TOTAL 2.12E Schlumberger 9.41E Average 1.78E St. Dev. 5.68E COV 31.9% 31.5% 22.5% 8.2% Acoustic Modulus Poisson's Ultimate Tensile Sample (psi) Ratio Strength (psi) Strength (psi) Hall-MPRO 0.55E TOTAL 3.20E Average 1.88E St. Dev. 1.87E COV 99.9% 24.7% Composite Cement Holcem Apasco Class H Local Slag Composite Cement Components Amount Unit Water 38.0 %bwob Cement 60.0 %bwob Local Slag 40.0 %bwob Labs Reporting Load Splitting Acoustic Frame Test Notes Halliburton X X Acoustic on MPRO Chevron X X TOTAL Acoustic on Cylinders Schlumberger X X 13

40 8/4/2010 Modulus (Psi) Schlumberger Sample Halliburton Chevron (First Cycle) E E E E E E E E E E E+06 Average 2.01E E E+06 St. Dev. 7.60E E+05 COV 3.8% 6.1% SLB used cyclic procedure with a low stress range possibly affecting results Poisson's Ratio (-) Schlumberger Sample Halliburton Chevron (First Cycle) Average St. Dev COV 2.0% 18.2% Ultimate Comp Strength (Psi) Schlumberger Sample Halliburton Chevron (First Cycle) Average St. Dev COV 5.7% 63.6% Stress (psi) Halliburton Chevron Schlumberger % 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% Strain 14

41 8/4/2010 Splitting Test Hal TS Chevron SLB TS SLB TS Hal Stab Chevron SLB SLB Sample (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (SG) (SG) (SG) (SG) 1 - Top Bottom Average St. Dev COV 33.4% 34.6% 21.7% 20.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% (Top-Bot)/Avg 1.97% 2.02% 1.50% 1.51% Load Frame Sample Modulus (psi) Poisson's Ratio Ultimate Strength (psi) Tensile Strength (psi) Halliburton 2.01E Chevron 2.20E Schlumberger 1.05E Average 1.75E St. Dev. 6.15E COV 35.1% 15.7% 28.6% 15.9% 15

42 8/4/2010 Neat H Modulus Poisson's Ultimate Tensile Sample (psi) Ratio Strength (psi) Strength (psi) Halliburton 2.13E Chevron 1.94E TOTAL 2.12E Schlumberger 9.41E Average 1.78E St. Dev. 5.68E COV 31.9% 31.5% 22.5% 8.2% Composite Sample Modulus (psi) Poisson's Ratio Ultimate Strength (psi) Tensile Strength (psi) Halliburton 2.01E Chevron 2.20E Schlumberger 1.05E Average 1.75E St. Dev. 6.15E COV 35.1% 15.7% 28.6% 15.9% Need more acoustic data Investigate t variance if low stress range affects results Neat slurry may have too much free water SLB also investigated curing pressure and gave full cyclic results 16

43 8/4/2010 Go over changes Review in context to lessons learned from Coop Testing What next? What do we need to accomplish in the short term? 17

44 8/4/2010 How many and when? 18

45 Attachment #7 Minutes from WG on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water Wetting by Spacers.

46 Minutes Work Group on Evaluation of NAF Removal and Water-Wetting by Spacers API Subcommittee 10 Washington, DC June 29, 2010 Tom Griffin, Chairman The meeting was called to order at 2:10 PM. The chairman opened the meeting and read the list of members. Members in attendance were Marshall Bishop, Craig Gardner (for Bob Carpenter), Jim Davison, Dennis Gray (for Tom Dealy), Gunnar DeBruijn, Rick Lukay, Gilson Campos (for Cristiane de Miranda) and Nevio Moroni. The minutes from the January 2010 meeting in New Orleans were read and approved by the members. The chairman reviewed the agenda and it was accepted. Discussion Prior to the meeting, a revised procedure and issues with the procedure were distributed to members. Lirio Quintero and Bob Carpenter responded with detailed feedback on the issues. The chairman compiled their comments into a document listing the issues. This document served as a basis for discussions of the procedure. The document with the resolution of each issue is attached (Procedure-issue-resolution doc). Following are some additional comments from this discussion. The measurement of the contact angle of the coupon exposed to NAF-only was not seen as providing any value and was dropped. Chevron has done work to improve the stirred fluid loss apparatus for use in fluid exposure for wettability testing. Bob will finish this development and will work with Jim and Rick to revise the procedure for use of the stirred fluid loss apparatus for exposure. The wettability test procedure is seen as a final step in the optimization of spacer/surfactant systems for the removal of NAF. There has been some discussion of its use as part of compatibility rheology testing and the Spacer Surfactant Screening Test. The wettability test procedure can be used along with these two procedures if desired, but the procedure is intended to be a stand-alone procedure. The procedure for the use of the goniometer, as written, is specific to a particular model of goniometer. For the purpose of standardization, the procedure must be generic and written so that it can be used for any goniometer. Lirio has previously done some analysis of a variety of goniometers. She will review this work and write a generic description of goniometers suitable for use in this testing. She also will rewrite the procedure for use of the goniometer in this wettability testing with the assistance of Gunnar. The test data form needs to be revised to include time and temperature of exposure to NAF. Provide spaces for more precise information about the NAF (such as density, and other specific information). Action Items Finalize modification of the stirred fluid loss test apparatus Bob Aug 1 Revise the section using the stirred fluid loss apparatus for exposure Bob, Jim, Rick Aug 1 Generic description of goniometer Lirio Aug 1 Revised procedure for use of goniometer in wettability testing Lirio, Gunnar Aug 1 Compile procedural changes Tom Sep 1 Revise data form Tom Aug 1 The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM. 1 of 1

47 Attachment #8 Minutes from TG on Mechanical Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe.

48 TG on Mechanical Cementing Plugs Used in Casing, Tubing and Drill Pipe Task Group Charge Develop a technical report on recommended testing, evaluation and performance requirements for mechanical cementing plugs with the intention of the report serving as the basis for an ISO NWI. Minutes from the summer 2010 meeting in Washington DC, June 29, :30 to 12:00. Hank Rogers opened the meeting by welcoming those present and reviewing the task group charge. The following members and guests were in attendance. Brent Lirette Weatherford brent.lirette@weatherford.com Tom Griffin Consultant tjgriffin2@discover.earthlink.net Gunnar DeBruijn Schlumberger gunnar1@calgary.oilfield.slb.com Jerry Calvert Consultant dgcalvert@msn.com Craig Gardner Chevron craig.gardner@chevrontexaco.com Numerous nonmembers were present that are not listed above, but are listed on the sign in sheet. The members reviewed the task group charter and discussed the draft outline, revision that was supplied to the team for their review prior to the meeting. The draft was reviewed with attention to the testing or evaluation section. The revised draft will be distributed to task group members for further review and comment. Alfredo Sanchez (alfredo.sanchez@top-co.ca & ) of TOP-CO LP in Edmonton Canada was introduced as a new member of the task group. The meeting adjourned at 12:00. The meeting was very productive and my thanks to all those in attendance. Hank Rogers Hank.rogers@halliburton.com Summer 2010 Minutes.doc

49 Attachment #9 Minutes from WG on HTHP Rheology.

50 WG on HTHP Rheology 2010 Summer meeting minutes. June 30, 2010 Washington D.C. Meet was called to order at 10:20 AM, by Rick Lukay who was standing in for Chairman Deryck Williams. As there was no copy of the last meeting's minutes available, it was decided to defer the reading of the 2009 Winter meeting minutes to the next WG meeting. The following members were in attendance; Craig Gardner (for Deryck Williams) Gunnar DeBruijn (for Deepak Khatri) Jim Davison John St Clergy Lee Bently (Grace Instruments) Ragheb Dajani Rick Lukay Robert Darbe Lee Dillenbeck There was no one from Brookfield Instruments in attendance. The WG reviewed and edited the proposed HTHP Rheology document. Rick Lukay will produce a "clean" copy of the document from the two edited documents. This cleaned copy will be sent to the WG members for one more review. Rick Lukay propose a set of round robin tests for a future evaluation of HTHP Rheometers, as follows: Set 1) Run side by side tests between the HTHP units and an atmospheric standard viscometer (Fann 35A, Chan 3500, OFI 900, etc.) using a know fluid (calibration fluid) at atmospheric pressure and temperatures up to 88 o C. Set 2) Run the same tests as in set one, but using cement slurries in place of calibration fluid.

51 Set 3) On the HTHP rheometers that passed the first 2 steps, run pressurized tests at temperatures above 88 o C with appropriate cement slurries. There was some discussion about using additives in a round robin test, but it was of the opinion of those in the room that as long as only generic type additives were used (i.e. PNS for dispersion, HEC's for retarding etc.) there should be no problem with API. This will have to be looked into before we start. Finally it was suggested that the members consider the testing proposal and be ready to discuss it and the "cleaned" HTHP document at a Teleconference meeting to be held by August 1st. This would be dependent on the approval of the Chairman. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.

52 Attachment #10 Minutes from WG on Slurry Mixing Procedures.

53 Minutes: WG on Large Scale Mixing June 29, 2010 Washington, DC. Meeting Jim Davison called to order at 1:30 PM Members in Attendance Jim Davison Simon James Bernard Fraboulet Robert Darbe Members not present: Cristian Richards de Miranda Scott Jennings Deryk Williams Deepak Khatri Labs participating: Petrobras, Rio, Brazil Aramco Dahran, KSA Schlumberger Clamart, Frnace Schlumberger Houston, TX Halliburton Duncan, OK Total Pau, France Chandler Engineering Broken Arrow, OK Due to technical difficulties the presentation slides and data could not be shown. Seven (7) labs reported. The data reported was discussed verbally. Discussions centered on the variations in reported data. Comments concerning the inconsistency of the data reported. Comments concerning the difficulties with mixing 2 liter and 4 liter volumes were discussed. The procedure called for using local samples of either class H or G it was suggested that a common sample should be used.. It was agreed that another round of testing is needed. Bernard Fraboulet suggest studying changing the low speed mix speed to 4000rpm vs current 6000rpm and increasing the high speed mix time at 10,000rpm. Tom Griffin commented sending all samples to one location. It was decided that distributing one common sample to all locations would be preferred. The procedure will be revised to reduce the testing to comparing a one (1) quart blender cup mix of 600 ml to a Gallon blender cup mix of 3000 ml. The procedure will also include common slurry. Procedure revisions will be drafted by Jim Davison. Thierry Rollier with CCB Italcementi Group volunteered to provide a neat class G cement for the testing. Jim Davison will help provide logistics for the distribution of the sample to the participating labs. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.