SPE-203628-MS

Effects of Additive Concentrations on Cement Rheology at Different

Temperature Conditions

Princewill Ikpeka, Federal University of Technology Owerri; Ugochukwu Benedict, Oildata Wireline Services;
Davida Utojiuba, Federal Inland Revenue Services; Jude Odo, Federal University of Technology Owerri; Godson
Uzuegbu,  

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria,
11 - 13 August 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was not held. The official proceedings were published online on 11 August 2020.

This paper was selected and peer reviewed for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract and paper submitted
by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Previous studies suggest that the rheology of cement slurries used during oil well cementing operations is
an explicit function of temperature, additive type & concentration and cement grade. This study analyzes
the effect of these factors on a water based mud (WBM). 27 experiments were conducted by varying
three additive concentrations; retarders, fluid loss additives and dispersants. Shear rate and stress were then
experimentally determined at varying temperature and concentration, while the plastic viscosity (PV) and
yield point (YP) were determined analytically. The slurries were conditioned as set out in API RP 10B-2.
Linear regression was used to build models describing the effect of temperature and additive concentration
on PV and YP of the cement slurry. Results from the analysis reveal that for a temperature increase of
125% and Retarder concentration increase of 200%, there were significant decline in PV (-41%) and YP
(-44%). Whereas increasing the Fluid loss additive by 100% caused a significant increase in YP (+51%) and
relatively insignificant increase in PV (+4.4%). This study concludes that the coupled effect of increasing
temperature and retarder concentrations of cement slurries has a significant negative impact on both the
YP and PV.

Introduction
Cementing plays a key role in ensuring bore hole stability. Amongst its many other uses, cementing protects
the borehole from invasion of formation fluids. The ability of the cements to perform this key function
is dependent on the properties of the cement and the rheology of the cement slurry. Cement slurry is
usually designed with considerations of the prevailing pressure, temperature and formation rock properties.
Rheology describes the flow of matter, primarily in liquid state and the relation of flow/deformation behavior
of fluids with its internal structure under applied forces. Sound knowledge of rheology of cement slurry is
required for the following reasons (Princewill et al, 2019);
i. Appraisal of cement slurry mixability and pumping pressure required to displace mud in the annulus
of the Casing
2 SPE-203628-MS

ii. To estimate the effect of borehole temperature profile on placement of slurry.

iii. To estimate the pressure-depth relationship during and after cement slurry placement.
iv. Predicting the flow distribution and profile of cement slurry.
This study examines the flow properties of cement slurries at different temperature and additive
concentrations. Information obtained from this analysis would guide the Cementing Engineer to understand
the coupled effect of Temperture and additive concentration on Cement rheology.

Theory and Literature Review

Oil Well Cement (OWC) slurries are designed to be pumped under conditions anticipated within the pressure
and temperature conditions of the downhole strata (Michaux M. et al, 1990). The ratio of water weight to
cement weight of the slurry affects the viscosity and workability of the slurry. Higher water-cement ratio
leads to segregation of the components within the slurry whereas lower ratio makes the slurry difficult to
mix or pump. The appropriate amount of water required to prepare pumpable slurry is dependent on the
cement surface area (Shuker et al, 2014). Observations have shown that Portland cement undergoes a net
volume decrease when in contact with water. The absolute density of the hydrated cement is higher than
that of the original constituents (Arnoldus M.A and Ade L., 2016). Borehole temperature also plays a key
role in determining the slurry rheology and the extent of its role is also determined by the cement type and
additives present. Doherty D.R. et al., (2010), designed a high temperature cement slurry that was used
during the extraction of Coal energy in an underground Coal gasification process. After predicting the flow
regime in the drill pipe and annulus, Bingham equations were modified to describe the results obtained
from the experiment carried out. Olowolagba, K. and Brenneis C. (2010) assessed the ability of foamed
cement to provide zonal isolation in Oil and Gas Wells using the "bob and sleeve" conventional rotational
viscometer and the Fann Yield Stress Adapter (FYSA). Results from their analysis reveal that bob and
sleeve viscometer does not precisely capture the viscosities of the foamed cement at the different foam
qualities. Also, rheology measured with FYSA showed higher YPs and also higher and stable viscosities
at low shear rates compared to the bob and sleeve. Kelessidis V.C et al., (2014) presented a comprehensive
laboratory assessment of the properties of two different non-foamed cement slurries, by combining initial
tests, such as rheology, fluid loss, and thickening time, with strength, ultrasonic and advanced Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance (NMR) measurements, at both room and elevated pressure and temperature. Haichuan
L. et al., (2015), by adding a type of thermo-sensitive viscosity controller (TVC) designed a cement slurry
that had relatively temperature-resistant rheological properties. Their experiments reveal very little thermal
thinning between 20°C and 120°C and could meet the demands of Oil Well Cementing. Bakirov D.L et
al., (2016), made a study concerned with methods to increase the thermal resistance of plant-manufactured
cements and to augment the strength of the cement stone formed at hardening temperatures at 90°C. Okoro
O. and Nwakpu G. (2017), determined the flow parameters of class E and G cement samples, created a model
that relates the shear stress of cement slurry with its velocity gradient. In their work, modified Bingham
equations were generated to characterize the results obtained from the experiment carried out. Their work
concluded that additive concentration and temperature have effects on the rheology of cement i.e. the higher
the temperature, the higher the plastic viscosity and the higher the yield point. Also, at lower temperature, the
yield point was directly proportional to additive concentration and at lower temperature, the yield point was
inversely proportional to the concentration. This work builds on the work done by Okoro O. and Nwakpu
G (2017), determining the specific impact of Temperature, retarders and fluid loss additives on the Yield
point and plastic viscosity of the cement slurry.
SPE-203628-MS 3

Methodology
Seven (7) different cement slurries were prepared for this study. The first case was assumed to be the base
case, whereas the remaining six (6) composed of varying concentrations of the first sample and they were
labelled Recipe 1-6. The components of the Cement slurries used for this study consist of:
i. Dyckerhoff Class G
ii. Fluid Loss Additive
iii. Retarder
iv. Dispersant
v. Defoamer
vi. Drill Water
Apparatus used in the laboratory experiment includes: Sieve, weighing scale, mixing blender, Fann
viscometer, atmospheric consistometer and measuring cylinder.
The following procedures were followed during the experiment:
i. The cement and additive were sieved and weighed using a sieve and weighing scale respectively,
whereas the volume of water was measured using the measuring cylinder.
ii. The slurry was formed by mixing the cement, water and additive to form a homogenous substance,
using the mixing blender.
iii. The slurry was conditioned following the procedure set out in API RP 10B-2 to ensure that the
atmospheric consistometer is at 80°F prior to commencing conditioning.
iv. The slurry was conditioned for 30 min ± 30s at test temperature. In this case 80°F, 130°F and 180°F.
v. After slurry conditioning, the bob, sleeve and thermo-cup were pre-heated to test temperature.
vi. With the Fann viscometer turning at 3 rpm, the cup was raised until the liquid level covered the
scribed line on the rotating sleeve.
vii. Then the dial readings were recorded on the paperwork 10 seconds after continuous rotation.
viii. Immediately the speed was changed and the remaining dial readings were taken 10 seconds after
each speed change.
ix. Also dial readings were read and recorded in ascending then descending order as shown: 3 – 6 – 30
– 60 – 100 – 200 – 300 - 600 – 300-200 – 100 – 60 – 30 – 6 – 3

Presentation of Data and Results

Design of Experiment
The full factorial design was used to determine the number of experiment to be carried. The number of
experiment to be carried out is given by equation (1):
(1)
Where:
L = Level (3 levels: Retarder, Fluid Loss Additive and Dispersant)
K = No of factors (Temperature, Concentration)
No of Experiment Design = 32 = 9
Thus nine (9) experiments were performed each for each additive concentration. Since three (3) additive
concentrations were studied, a total of 27 experiments were conducted as shown in table 2.
4 SPE-203628-MS

Table 1—Design of Experiment

Retarder Fluid Loss Additive Dispersant

S/N Temperature Factor
Concentration Concentration Concentration

1 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0

3 2 0 0 0

4 0 1 0.5 2

5 1 1 0.5 2

6 2 1 0.5 2

7 0 2 1 5

8 1 2 1 5

9 2 2 1 5

Density: 15.8ppg
Bottom Hole Circulating Temp.: 80°F, 130°F and 180°F
The Recipes shows the increase in the concentration of the additives in relation with the base case.
Recipe 1 – 100% increase in Retarder additive concentration
Recipe 2 – 200% increase in Retarder additive concentration
Recipe 3 – 50% increase in Fluid loss additive concentration
Recipe 4 – 100% increase in Fluid loss additive concentration
Recipe 5 – 200% increase in Dispersant additive concentration
Recipe 6 – 500% increase in Dispersant additive concentration
Results from the 27 laboratory experiments are presented in appendix A.1.
No significant change in the shear stress-shear rate plot at different temperatures.

Analysis and Discussion

Effect of Retarder Concentration on Cement Slurry Rheology at Specified temperatures: 80°F,
130°F & 180°F.
Significant changes were experienced in the shear stress-shear rate plot @ 80°F, 130°F, and 180°F for the
base case (Fig. 1) compared to recipes 1&2 (Fig. A1 & A2 in the appendix section). It was observed that an
increase in the concentration of the additive (retarder) above 100% (base case) made no significant change
in the shear stress-shear rate plot at different temperatures.
SPE-203628-MS 5

Figure 1—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Base case @ 80°F, 130°F, & 180°F

However, when the concentration and temperature of the retarder is increased, there was a corresponding
decrease in shear stress at constant shear-rate. This is because though higher temperatures will increase
cement slurry’s rate of reaction and quicken the hardening or setting time but with a corresponding increase
in the concentration of the retarder at constant shear rate, the thickening time increased.
Considering the above plot in Figure 2, there were decreasing effects of retarder concentrations on cement
rheology. A consistent flow behavior, following an increase in temperature as shown in Figure A3 & A4 in
the appendix section was noticed. At each temperature, there was change in shear stress-shear rate plot in
base case, recipe 1& 2 (i.e. increasing the temperature reduced the shear-stress at constant shear-rate).

Figure 2—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2 @ 80°F
6 SPE-203628-MS

The above Figure 3 reveals that an increase in temperature will cause a corresponding decrease in plastic
viscosity. As concentration increased by 100%, there was no significant change between recipe 1&2 as
shown in Figure A1 & A2 compared to the base case (Figure 1).

Figure 3—Graph of Plastic viscosity against Temperature for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2

The plot above (Fig. 4) shows the relationship between yield point and temperatures at 80°F, 130°F and
180°F for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2. From the plots, an increase in temperature and concentration will
cause a decrease in the yield stress, thereby reducing the force required to cause the cement slurry to flow.

Figure 4—Graph of yield point against temperature for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2

Effect of Fluid Loss Additive Concentration on Cement Slurry Rheology at Specified temperatures:
80°F, 130°F &180°F
Figure 5, A5 and A6 (in the appendix section) shows the effects of fluid loss additive on shear stress-shear
rate for base case, recipes 3&4 respectively, at different temperatures. It can be deduced that an increase
in the concentration of fluid loss additive for each case will cause a significant increase in shear stress
SPE-203628-MS 7

at constant shear rate thereby making the fluid more viscous to flow at constant temperatures. Moreover,
it was observed that the increase in the shear stress curve for each case @ 80°F was significantly higher
compared to temperatures at 130°F and 180°F i.e. shear stress will be higher at lower temperature than at
higher temperature. For recipe 4, the fluid was too viscous to flow; as a result, shear stress at 600rpm could
not be recorded as well as plastic viscosity and yield point. This is supportive of the fact that fluid loss
additives increase the slurry viscosity.

Figure 5—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Base case @ 80°F, 130°F, & 180°F

Figure 6 reveals the shear stress-shear rate relationship for each case at temperatures of 80°F, 130°F and
180°F. There was a noticeable decline in the plot for Recipe 4 (Figure A6 in the appendix section), Fig.
A7 & A8 at shear rate of 300rpm because the cement slurry at that concentration was too viscous to flow.
Decreasing the temperature increases the shear stress for each case. Moreover, increasing the concentration
increases the viscosity of the cement slurry.

Figure 6—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 3 & recipe 4 @ 180°F

This graph above (Figure 7) shows the relationship between plastic viscosity and temperature for each
case. It was observed that plastic viscosity is inversely proportional to the temperature (i.e. an increase in
8 SPE-203628-MS

temperature will cause a decrease in the plastic viscosity). Plastic viscosity for Recipe 4 (Figure A6) was
not determined due to the viscometer’s inefficiency to read the value of shear stress at 600rpm because the
concentration was too high as well as the viscosity.

Figure 7—Graph of Plastic viscosity against Temperature for base case, recipe 3 & recipe 4

Considering the graph above (Fig. 8) which shows the relationship between yield point and temperature
for each case, yield point also decreases with an increase in temperature.

Figure 8—Graph of Yield Point against Temperature for base case, recipe 3 & recipe 4

Effect of Dispersant Concentration on Cement Slurry Rheology at Specified temperatures: 80°F,

130°F &180°F
The above graphs (Fig. 9,10 & 11) show the relationship for each case at different temperatures. Increasing
the concentrations of the additive at constant temperatures, the shear stress decreases as well thereby
reducing the viscosity of the cement slurry. From the above, there was a more significant change in the shear
stress-shear rate plot between temperature @ 80°F and that @ 130°F and 180°F for recipe 6 compared to
other cases. This shows that Dispersants also known as friction reducing additives will increase the flow
properties of cement slurry when mixed with it.
SPE-203628-MS 9

Figure 9—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for base case @ 80°F, 130°F, & 180°F

Figure 10—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 5 @ 80°F, 130°F, & 180°F
10 SPE-203628-MS

Figure 11—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 6 @ 80°F, 130°F, & 180°F

From the above Figure (Fig. 12, 13 & 14), the shear stress reduces with an increase in concentration
and temperature.

Figure 12—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 5 & recipe 6 @ 80°F
SPE-203628-MS 11

Figure 13—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 5 & recipe 6 @ 130°F

Figure 14—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 5 & recipe 6 @ 180°F

The above plot (Fig. 15) shows the relationship between plastic viscosity and temperature. Increase in
temperature causes a corresponding decrease in plastic viscosity.
12 SPE-203628-MS

Figure 15—Graph of Plastic viscosity against Temperature for base case, recipe 5 & recipe 6

Fig. 16 shows the relationship between yield point and temperature for different cases (base case, Recipe
5 and Recipe 6). For the base case, an increase in temperature caused a corresponding decrease in yield
point, therefore the resistance to flow will decrease with an increase in temperature. For recipe 5 (FIG 10),
there was an increase in yield point as the temperature was initially increased @ 130°F. This shows that
maximum stress required for fluid flow was attained at that temperature and concentration of additive and
above that temperature, yield point was decreased; reducing the resistance to flow. For recipe 6 (FIG 11),
there was a slight decrease in yield point as temperature was increased.

Figure 16—Graph of Yield point against Temperature for base case, recipe 5 & recipe 6

Conclusions
The rheological properties (i.e. flow and deformation of a material when subjected to stress) of Oil Well
Cement slurries are affected by numerous factors including the water/cement ratio, size and shape of cement
grains, chemical composition of the cement and relative distribution of its components at the surfaces of
grains, presence and type of cement additives, compatibility between cement and chemical admixtures,
mixing and testing procedures, etc. However, efforts were made to reduce experimental error by strictly
SPE-203628-MS 13

following a consistent mixing and testing procedure. The experimental results and analysis has clearly
demonstrated that the rheological properties of oil well cement slurries are highly dependent on temperature
and additive concentrations. The shear stress, yield stress and plastic viscosity increased nonlinearly with
corresponding temperature. The following conclusions were drawn out from the research:
i. An increase in the concentration and temperature of the retarder will cause a corresponding decrease
in shear stress at constant shear rate.
ii. An increase in temperature will cause a corresponding decrease in plastic viscosity and yield stress
when retarder is added to the cement slurry.
iii. Increasing the concentration of fluid loss additive will cause a significant increase in shear stress at
constant shear rate thereby making the fluid more viscous to flow at constant temperatures.
iv. An increase in temperature will cause a corresponding decrease in the plastic viscosity and yield
point when a fluid loss additive is added to the slurry.
v. Increasing the concentrations of the dispersant at constant temperatures, the shear stress decreased;
thereby reducing the viscosity of the cement slurry.
vi. Increase in temperature causes a corresponding decrease in plastic viscosity and yield point, thereby
decreasing the resistance to flow.
It should be noted that this study and its findings are valid for the Portland cement grade G and the
additives used. Other cement/additive combinations can exhibit different characteristics. Even additives
from the same category, but different source, could behave differently, and thus need to be investigated
separately.

References
API RP 10B-2, Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements. 2013. Washington, DC: API.
Arnolds, M.A and Ade, L. 2016. Compressive and Shear Bond Strength of Oil Well Cement with Calcium Carbonate
and Silica Fume. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta,
Yogyakarta.
Bakirov, D.L., Burdyga, V. A., Svyatukhova, S.S., Melekhov, A.V., Kafarova, I.V., Sledkov, V.V., Shadchnev, A.N.,
Shtyfel, A.P., Yakunin, S.A., Chudinov, V.A. 2016. Cement for Temperature range 160-300° C. Paper SPE - 181935-
MS Presented at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/181935-RU.
Doherty, D.R. et al. 2010. Pushing Cement beyond the Norm of Extreme High Temperature. Paper IADC/SPE 134422
Presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition International Journal of
Engineering Works Vol. 6, Issue 03, PP. 50-70, March 2019 www.ijew.io held in Hochi Minh City, Vietnam, 1-3
November 2010. https://doi.org/10.2118/134422-MS.
Haichuan, L., Chengbin, X., Yonghui, G., Lirong, L., Haijin, Z. 2016. Cement Slurries with Rheological Properties
Unaffected by Temperature. Paper SPE 178922. https://doi.org/10.2118/178922-PA.
Kelessidis, V.C, Fraim, M., Fardis, M., Karakosta, E., Diamantopoulos, G., Arkoudeas, P., ElHardalo, S., Lagkaditi, L.,
Papavassiliou, G. 2014. Comprehensive Assessment of Additive and Class G Cement Properties Affecting Rheology
Fluid Loss, Setting Time and Long Term Characteristics of Elastic Cements. Paper SPE 167731 presented at the
SPE European Unconventional Conference and Exhibition Held in Vienna, Austria, 25-27 February 2014. https://
doi.org/10.2118/167731-MS.
Michaux, M., Nelson, E.B., Vidik, B. 1990. Chemistry and Characterization of Portland Cement in Well Cementing.
Elsevier Science Publishers Amsterdam 8-25.
Nelson, E. B., and Guillot, D. 2006. Well Cementing, second edition. Schlumberger.
Okoro, O., Nwakpu, G. 2017. Undergraduate Thesis presented to Department of Petroleum Engineering, Federal
University of Technology Owerri.
Olowolagba, K., and Brenneis, C. (2010). Techniques for the Study of Foamed Cement Technology. Paper SPE 133050
presented at the SPE production and Operations Conference and Exhibition Held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8-10 June 2010.
Princewill, M.I., Odo, J.E., Benedict, U.W., and Utojiuba I.D. 2019. Effects of Additive Concentrations on Cement
Rheology at Different Temperature Conditions. International Journal of Engineering Works Vol. 6 Issue 03 PP. 50-70
March 2019. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2583066.
14 SPE-203628-MS

Shuker, M.T, Memon, K.R., Tunio, S.Q., Memon, M.K. 2014. Laboratory Investigation on Performance of Cement Using
Different Additives Schemes to Improve Early Age Compressive Strength Research. Journal of Applied Sciences
Engineering and Technology 7: 2298-2305.
SPE-203628-MS 15

Appendix
Table A1—Base Case

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 781.17g

0.5% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 3.91g

0.1% BWOC Retarder 1.16 0.78g

0.05% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 0.39g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.28g

44.69 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 348.44g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 400 241 181 111 14 9

130 318 192 144 90 12 8

180 280 170 129 81 12 8

BWOC – By Weight of Cement

Table A2—Recipe 1

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 781.01g

0.5% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 3.91g

0.2% BWOC Retarder 1.16 1.56g

0.05% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 0.39g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.28g

44.69 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 347.81g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 322 188 136 79 8 6

130 275 158 118 71 8 5

180 240 145 109 67 8 5

Table A3—Recipe 2

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 780.85g

0.5% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 3.90g

0.3% BWOC Retarder 1.16 2.34g

0.05% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 0.39g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.28g

44.55 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 347.19g

16 SPE-203628-MS

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 318 180 131 76 8 5

130 268 156 116 69 8 5

180 234 140 106 67 8 5

Table A4—Recipe 3

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 780.4g

0.75% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 5.85g

0.1% BWOC Retarder 1.16 0.78g

0.05% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 0.39g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.27g

44.59 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 347.26g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 562 366 279 174 26 17

130 480 320 244 156 25 16

180 456 290 224 143 25 16

Table A5—Recipe 4

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 779.63g

1.0% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 7.80g

0.1% BWOC Retarder 1.16 0.78g

0.05% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 0.39g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.27 1.27g

44.48 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 346.09g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 U2R 514 397 259 41 27

130 U2R 450 350 229 40 27

180 U2R 430 331 211 37 24

N/B: U2R means Unable to Read because the slurry was too viscous.

Table A6—Recipe 5

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 780.92g

0.5% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 3.90g

0.1% BWOC Retarder 1.16 0.78g

0.15% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 1.17g

SPE-203628-MS 17

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.28g

44.64 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 347.91g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 340 198 144 87 14 10

130 276 172 129 80 14 10

180 240 150 112 72 13 10

Table A7—Recipe 6

Concentration Material S.G Test Amount

100%BWOC Dyckerhoff Class G 3.18 780.54g

0.5% BWOC Fluid Loss Additive 1.37 3.90g

0.1% BWOC Retarder 1.16 0.78g

0.3% BWOC Dispersant 0.92 2.34g

0.02 GPS Defoamer 1.28 1.28g

44.56 L/100Kg Drill Water 1.00 347.11g

Rheology Result;

Temp(°F) 600rpm 300rpm 200rpm 100rpm 6rpm 3rpm

80 280 156 110 61 6 4

130 206 118 86 50 6 4

180 186 106 78 46 5 4

Figure A1—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 1 @ 80°F, 130° F, & 180°F.
18 SPE-203628-MS

Figure A2—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 2 @ 80°F, 130° F, & 180°F

Figure A3—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2 @ 130°F

Figure A4—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 1 & recipe 2 @ 180°F
SPE-203628-MS 19

Figure A5—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 3 @ 80°F, 130° F, & 180°F

Figure A6—Graph of Shear stress against Shear rate for Recipe 4 @ 80°F, 130° F, & 180°F

Figure A7—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 3 & recipe 4 @ 80°F
20 SPE-203628-MS

Figure A8—Shear Stress against Shear Rate for base case, recipe 3 & recipe 4 @ 130°F