160 likes | 448 Views
Lafarge Oil & Gas Global Well Cement Standards Russian GOST 1581-96 by Larisa Markina, Bill Carruthers, Gregory Bernstein API Meeting June 2012. GOST 1581-96 history.
E N D
Lafarge Oil & Gas Global Well Cement StandardsRussian GOST 1581-96by Larisa Markina, Bill Carruthers, Gregory BernsteinAPI MeetingJune 2012 CEMENT
GOST 1581-96 history • Well cements in Russia were first produced in the 1920s (Novorossijsk Cement Plants). Until 1940s well cements met specific customer needs (set time, strength etc) without any common standard • The first common standard for well cement was drafted and approved in 1942. GOST 1581-42 lasted without significant changes until 1963 and: • Specified 2 neat well cements for low and high temperature wells • Based on the properties of Novorossijsk cement (standard at that time) • Well cement standards were developed jointly by the cement industry and the oil-gas industry in the relevant academic, technical and standard institutes • By the 1950-60s the industry realized that just 2 neat cements did not provide sufficient flexibility to deal with the varied well conditions. At this time GOST deviated from API methodology by introducing composite cements • GOST1581-63 introduced cements with additives – up to 15% of the “active” additives and 10% “inert” additive • In the 1970s industry advanced further and in addition to neat and blended cements introduced lightweight, heavy weight and other special cements. Most of these cements were added to the 1996 standard edition • The last modification is GOST 1581-96 introduced on October 1, 1998 as a state standard of the Russian Federation by Decision of Gosstroy of Russia dated April 10, 1998 № 18-31
GOST Class 1G and 1H cements are close to API10A Class G and H. However, GOST Class 2 and Class 3 cements allow additives. GOST specifies lightweight and heavyweight cement systems - such cements are not specified by API
GOST 1581-96 Classification of standard well cements Section 4. Classification 4.1 As to material composition the cements are subdivided into types as follows: I — well Portland cement without additives; I-G — well Portland cement without additives with normalized requirements with water/cement ratio equal to 0.44 [1]; I-H — well Portland cement without additives with normalized requirements with water/cement ratio equal to 0.38 [1]; II — well Portland cement with mineral additives; III — well Portland cement with special additives, regulating cement mortar density. 4.2 As to cement mortar density the cements type III are subdivided as follows: -lightened (Об); -weighted (Ут). 4.3 As to application temperature the cements types I, II and III are subdivided into cements, intended for: - low and normal temperatures (15—50) °С; - moderate temperatures (51—100) °С; - higher temperatures (101—150) °С. 4.4 As to sulfate resistance the cements are subdivided into: а) types I, II, III - normal (there are no requirements for sulfate resistance); - sulfate resistant (СС); b) types I-G and I-H - high sulfate resistance (СС-1); - moderate sulfate resistance (СС-2).
Table 4 GOST 1581-96 Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Class 1G and 1H (two GOST cement types directly equivalent to API Class G and Class H)
Table 4 GOST 1581-96 Requirements for materials - clinker
Table 4 Table 3 GOST 1581-96 Requirements for materials – gypsum and additives Table 3
GOST 26798.2-96 Consistometer schedule (compares with API schedule 5)
Summary • Two methodologies exist in standardization of the well cements: • Neat cement approach which does not allow any additives (API) • Combination of neat and blended cement standards (GOST) • The neat cement (API) methodology restricts innovation and flexibility to meet various customer needs at a cement plant since it allows no additives – while technologies of blending, inter-grinding and selection of advanced ingredients to control properties of the clinker-cement systems represent perhaps the core modern expertise of Lafarge • On the other hand, a standard with too much ambiguity in cement chemical composition and properties would cause challenges to the well service companies in slurry designs • We recommend for the future API approach to combine the advantages of both methodologies. For example a standard may – as GOST – allow considerable range of the blended cement products, as long as the quality targets are well defined. GOST may consider extending the neat cements range as API
Authors: Larisa Markina Senior Project Manager – Lafarge Oil & Gas –Russia larisa.markina@ru.lafarge.com Tel: +7(495) 926 71 31 Ext. 6584 Bill Carruthers Lafarge Technical Director – Lafarge Oil & Gas Bill.Carruthers@Lafarge-NA.com Tel: 936-447-4959 Gregory Bernstein Business Development Director – Lafarge Oil & Gas Gregory.Bernstein@Lafarge-NA.com Tel: 703-338-2671