dynamic settling stability workgroup summer 2013 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dynamic Settling/Stability Workgroup – Summer 2013 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dynamic Settling/Stability Workgroup – Summer 2013

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Dynamic Settling/Stability Workgroup – Summer 2013 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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 25 th , Houston, TX. Agenda.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Dynamic Settling/Stability Workgroup – Summer 2013' - ianthe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
dynamic settling stability workgroup summer 2013

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


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


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.

Indicates Action Items that have been completed

completion progress and projected timeline
Completion/Progress and Projected Timeline

Timeline (2012-2015)








Explored DST alternatives


Phase 1 – showed systems that passed/failed Static and DST


Phase 2 – cement failed DST but passed static

% Workgroup Completion

Phase 2 – Updated procedures and begin technical report


Phase 3 - Submit report/procedures for comments and review from DST Workgroup


Phase 4 - Submit report/procedures for comments and review from SC10


Phase 5 - Final report/procedures ratified by SC10


objectives for phase 2 testing
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.
link to dst go no go free fluid and sedimentation updated procedures
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


Workgroup Cooperative Testing Summary



* 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

Free fluid observations after conditioning in GO/NO GO test and 2 hrs at ambient temp as per API RP10B-2






DST cone observations after revised DST procedure and removing modified paddle






  • 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
our roadmap
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