AADE-07-NTCE-15

Enhanced Transfer Efficiency of Bulk Cement and Spacers

Reduces Non-Productive Time and Bulk Material Waste
Ron Sweatman, James Heathman, and Richard Vargo, Halliburton

Copyright 2007, AADE

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition held at the Wyndam Greenspoint Hotel, Houston, Texas, April 10-12, 2007. This conference
was sponsored by the American Association of Drilling Engineers. The information presented in this paper does not reflect any position, claim or endorsement made or implied by the American
Association of Drilling Engineers, their officers or members. Questions concerning the content of this paper should be directed to the individuals listed as author(s) of this work.

Abstract
Rig cementing non-productive time (NPT) and bulk
material waste costs can be substantially reduced by a new
process that is carried out in the bulk plant to effect a change
to the electrostatic characteristics of individual cement grains
or other powders. The new process makes bulk cement and
other powders easier to refluidize and move pneumatically.
Pneumatic transfer of bulk powders such as cement and
cement blends with microsilica and pozzolanic materials etc.,
and spacer component powders containing clays and minerals
is a mainstay process vital to material transport, blending, and
slurry mixing. While some powdered materials are
pneumatically transferred with ease, other materials, such as
those with small average particle sizes, are not easily moved.
The environment (moisture and temperature) and conditions of
transfer (system pressure, tank design, and mode of transport)
may also impact transfer efficiency. Poor pneumatic transfer
efficiency can result not only in bulk material waste because
of incomplete transfer, but also increased rig NPT caused by
slower cement and spacer slurry mixing and pumping rates.
This paper presents an analysis of the current bulk transfer
process of cements and other powders and introduces a new
process for altering particle electrostatic charges by
chemically treating typical cements, cement blends, and spacer
solids. Optimizing the existing bulk transfer process and
adding the new chemical treatment process can dramatically
improve pneumatic bulk transfer efficiency by effective
fluidization of the materials. A secondary benefit of the
improved bulk transfer efficiency is that it can increase slurry
pumping rates, thus reducing the rig time required to perform
a cementing operation. Case histories are presented from
applications in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico offshore, and
Western United States land-based operations.
Introduction
The packing tendency of powder materials is a complex
issue and can result from many factors. Mechanisms that have
been previously assumed or proposed as being primary causal
factors include surface charges, static electricity buildup,
moisture content, particle shape, and particle-size distribution,
all of which can contribute to agglomerate formation and mass
packing.
The chemical composition of a cement powder is, for the

most part, complete once the clinker is made in the kiln. While
the chemical composition of the cement powder does vary
slightly during the grinding process because of temperatures
and sometimes the addition of gypsum, its physical
characteristics are severely altered during the grinding
process.
During grinding, a cement clinker is literally pulled apart,
leaving unsatisfied positive and negative charge sites on the
surfaces of the particles. The greater the surface area of the
resulting cement powder, the greater the degree of potential
attraction between particles. These positive and negative
surface charges are believed to be responsible for a large
degree of the particle-to-particle attraction that subsequently
inhibits efficient pneumatic bulk handling. Further, the degree
of particle-to-particle electrostatic forces of attraction and
repulsion are largely responsible for how well (or poorly) a
dry material such as cement handles in a pneumatic transfer
system, especially for materials with extremely high surface
areas such a ultra-fine cements, fumed silica, barite, etc.
Because of the surface negative charges and the basic
(high pH) character of cement material, our investigation
centered on using acidic materials to help improve the flow
characteristics of particulate materials with similar surface
negative charge.
Pneumatic transfer of bulk cement is a mainstay process
vital to material transport and slurry mixing. Numerous
investigations have been carried out over the years, resulting
in improvements to equipment design and occasional blend
modifications. While some bulk cements are pneumatically
transferred with ease, some cements, such as those with broad
particle-size distributions and low average particle sizes, are
not so easily moved. Additionally, the environment
(temperature, humidity) and conditions of transfer (system
pressure, tank conditions, transfer path, tank design) can
impact transfer efficiency. While cone-bottomed tanks that
have a high angle of repose do not present a severe
refluidization problem, horizontal tanks and those with low
angles of repose (such as those found on marine transport
tanks) may present severe refluidization difficulties. These
difficulties are compounded when handling small-particle
cement blends and other specialty blended cements.
The purposes of this investigation were to (1) develop a
technique to allow correlation between bulk transfer

R. Sweatman, J. Heathman, R. Vargo

effectiveness and laboratory modeling, and (2) explore ways

to improve bulk transfer under typical conditions such as those
found offshore.
Laboratory Test Method
A proprietary procedure was developed and used to
determine the flow characteristics of various cements and
other powdered materials. This technique, called the powder
flowability test (PFT), provides a quantitative method of
comparing laboratory and actual pneumatic transfer of
particulate materials.
The PFT involves consolidating a sample of cement or
other material inside the PFT laboratory device that simulates
the mechanical conditions of field storage systems. Then the
cement sample in the PFT device is exposed to mechanical
conditions that simulate refluidization of powder to determine
the materials capability to flow. The PFT results are
expressed as the flowability factor (FF) of the powdered
material.
To run the PFT, a baseline FF on an untreated sample is
first determined. This FF is then used as the basis of
comparison for the FF of all subsequently modified and/or
treated blend samples. The objective is to not only lower the
FF value, but to find one that flattens out as a function of
additional treatment. This provides an indication of optimum
treatment using flow enhancer treatments, and also allows for
comparative predictions of how different combinations of
components will behave. Generally, the PFT is repeated five
times and the average values are taken as the powdered
materials FF. Once the FF of the lab-prepared blended
cement or spacer is satisfactory, the PFT does not have to be
repeated on job-specific samples or even on samples of similar
cement designs.
Full-Scale Verification
Based on the observations made with the PFT technique
and the theoretical behavior of charged particles, a new
process was developed. This process enhanced the capability
of typical pneumatic bulk equipment to refluidize bulk
materials compacted in a bulk storage tank. Bulk transfer and
PFT testing carried out in south Louisiana confirmed that a
concentration of 0.1% flow enhancer (FE) was adequate to
reduce waste and bulk cement losses of a Portland Class A:
Ultra-fine cement blend to less than 10%, whereas 40% losses
had been normal with this particular blend.
A concentration of 0.05% FE significantly improved
refluidization, but still resulted in approximately 25% of the
blend being left in the tank. The addition of FE also greatly
reduced the degree of surging in the bulk equipment, resulting
in a much smoother flow of bulk cement for all blends tested.
This can be attributed to the ease of de-agglomeration of the
cement.
Figure 1 shows the results of the full-scale bulk pneumatic
study utilizing the Class A:Ultra-fine blend. This data shows
that only 40% of the untreated blend was removed from the
bulk tank, while 90% of the blend treated with 0.1% FE was
removed.

AADE-07-NTCE-15

While the original goal of developing a flow enhancer was

to correct bulk flow problems related to bulk losses and severe
delivery impairment issues during the job, other attributes
become apparent:
Smoother bulk flow (less surging).
Smoother density charts.
Faster mixing rates.
Fewer plugging problems with mixing heads and
lines.
A comparative example of the improved performance of
FE-treated cement vs. untreated cement on identical jobs is
shown in Figure 2. Further, these attributes have been
reported several times by offshore operators, including mixing
speeds up to double that of untreated blends.
Laboratory investigations were conducted with various
other cement blends to determine the optimum concentration
of FE for the various blends utilizing the PFT. The systems
tested were as follows:
Blend 1: API Class C cement + fumed silica +
pozzolan.
Blend 2: Ultra-fine cement + ultra-fine pozzolan +
35% crystalline silica + additives.
Blend 3: API Class C cement + ultra-fine cement +
additives.
Blend 4: API Class C cement + 35% crystalline silica
+ 20% fumed silica.
Figure 3 illustrates PFT results that correlated to vastly
improved bulk transfer and reduced cement waste when the FF
value dropped below about 15, indicating that adequate
treatment with the FF had been achieved.
Effects on Bulk Cement and Slurries
Because the chemical and grind characteristics of all
cements are different, the PFT data from one brand or type to
another may indicate slight changes in FE concentrations for
optimal bulk flow characteristics. Table 1 provides some
examples of various types of cements and other bulk additives.
Testing was also conducted to determine whether the
addition of FE had any effects on slurry performance. Results
of this testing for two different systems are shown in Table 2.
This laboratory testing shows that the FE had negligible
effects on slurry thickening times, static gel strength
development (transition times), fluid loss, free water and
compressive strength development. The slurry performance
data presented is considered to be within experimental error.
Case History US Gulf of Mexico
The use of specialty cement blends for the elimination of
shallow water flow (SWF) hazards is extensively documented
in the oil and gas industry.1-2 However, some of these specialty
blends are prone to severe packing and difficulty in
refluidization in both marine transport vessels and rig bulk
tanks. This issue results in wasted bulk cement, at times as
much as 40%, and necessitates increased cement volumes on
the rig to perform a cement job. The introduction of the FE to
these blends reduced bulk cement losses from the reported

AADE-07-NTCE-15

Enhanced Transfer Efficiency of Bulk Cement and Spacers Reduces NPT and Waste

average 40% to about 9%.

An operator working in the deepwater region of the US
Gulf of Mexico regularly used specialty blended cements to
combat SWF hazards. While excessive volumes of waste
cement were expected when using specialty blends, the
operator wanted to reduce this cost if possible. A typical well
was chosen for introducing the FE treatment to determine its
effectiveness.
The annular volume of cement slurry for this job required
3,000 sacks of bulk-blended SWF cement. Past experience
with this particular blend without the FE treatment indicated
that the volume to be loaded on the rig for this job should be
approximately 4,200 sacks, so that is what the operator loaded
on the rig for the first job. To document the performance of
the FE, bulk cement losses were carefully monitored from the
bulk plant to the actual mixing of the cement job. A total of
seven marine transport tanks and four rig tanks were used for
this job. Of the approximately 320 sacks of cement blend lost
during this single-job test, approximately 180 sacks were
found to be left in the bulk tanks on the marine vessels and on
the rig. The remaining 140 sacks (approximately) of cement
were apparently lost in the loading and transfer and venting of
the materials. A portion of that blend remaining in the rig
tanks was actually recovered because the same blend was used
on the next job. Not only did the FE reduce bulk cement
waste, but additional savings were realized due to one less
boat run required for each job, as well as much less time
required for transferring blend from the boats to the rig and for
cleaning tanks afterwards.
Once this operator saw the benefits of the FE treatment
process for this more difficult blend, a second study was
requested but this time using only neat API Class H cement.
The same material tracking methods used for the SWF blend
was applied over an entire well. Records indicated that nonSWF blends averaged 12% losses. For the remaining
cementing jobs on this particular well (consisting of four
casing strings, two kickoff plugs, and five abandonment
plugs), the cement blend was treated with the FE and included
a defoamer. All other additives were liquid and added on-thefly as needed for the requirements of each job. Of the 6,200
sacks of FE-treated cement placed on the rig for these eleven
cementing jobs, 5,200 sacks were pumped and 675 sacks were
remaining on the rig at the conclusion of the project. This
equates to 6.25% bulk cement losses experienced for these 11
cement jobs. The new process cut the operators bulk cement
losses in half on this particular well.
Case History Norway
To establish a baseline, a major operator offshore Norway
carefully recorded waste cement for 6 months. Total cement
waste of 16.1% was reported during this period. Out of the
16.1% total cement waste, 8.2 % was lost in transfers from
delivery boats to the rig storage tanks and 7.9% lost in
transfers from the rig tanks to the rigs cement mixing unit.
For a second 6-month evaluation period, the use of FE-treated
cements was started on one rig. By the end of this time period
the treatments were providing significant reductions in cement

waste, rig NPT, and cement job shutdowns caused by poor

bulk flow. The treatment success has since continued and is
summarized in Table 3, showing only the job-related loss
reductions.
This North Sea rig study of 41 cement jobs demonstrated
that FE-treated cements could successfully improve rig
cementing operations by maintaining consistent bulk flow
rates without any shutdowns to unplug the bulk lines, reduce
rig NPT by mixing up to 50% faster (50% for lead and 20%
for tail slurries), and decrease cement waste by 77% (7.9% in
20 jobs vs. 1.8% in 21 jobs). In addition, the FE cement
treatments benefited rig operations by consistently reducing
the time periods to load and unload delivery boats by a
minimum of 15 to 20%. In some cases, transfer times were
decreased up to 53%, depending on conditions such as the
performance of the rig and boat bulk handling equipment and
the type of cement composition.
Application of FE-treated cements has become a standard
practice in Norway for several operators, with approximately
2,000 jobs having been performed to date. The tracking of
cement waste from FE-treated vs. untreated cements continues
to show that FE treatments more than pay for themselves even
when performance may vary depending on conditions,
including changes in the design of cement compositions and
bulk cement handling equipment configurations. Table 4
provides one Norwegian operators cement cumulative 12month usage and waste for all cement designs with and
without FE treatments.
Based on the results in Table 4, the operator estimated that
an additional 437 MT of cement could have been saved with
100% implementation of FE treatments in all cements used
during the 12-month period. Data on actual cost savings by FE
treatments for operators in Norway have been analyzed to
estimate a potential yearly cost savings (Table 5) for a one rig
operation with the following typical parameters:
102 cement jobs/year.
1705 MT total cement used and FE treated.
79% less cement waste (latest 12 month data 6.22%
vs. 1.30%).
Rig cost 2,000,000 NOK per day.
Boat cost 95,000 NOK per day.
FE treatment in all cement jobs:
o Saves average 15 minutes of rig NPT per job
by higher mixing rates.
o 25% faster transfer rates saves boat time for
other uses.
FE treatment cost includes FE material, equipment
and service.
Case History Cementing Spacer
Operations for an operator in California were
experiencing a problem mixing a bulk-blended, bariteweighted cement spacer because of poor bulk flow from the
delivery tank to the mixing unit. The location logistics created
extremely long distances between the bulk tanks and mixing
equipment. The job size and location logistics also made the

R. Sweatman, J. Heathman, R. Vargo

possibility of mixing the spacer from sacked materials, or

bringing in premixed spacer slurry impossible.
The spacer system was bulk blended in a bulk truck and
driven to location to be mixed on the fly through the
recirculating mixer. When mixing the spacer the operators
could not get it to proper weight and the dry blend would not
transfer smoothly. Not only did mixing go poorly, but
considerable spacer blend was lost in the transfer system.
There were some issues that could have exacerbated the
problem on the first application: (a) the location was 100 miles
away and the road was quite bumpy, which may have packed
the material in the coned bottom of the bulk truck, and (b) the
blended material was transferred on location through extralong hoses needed to reach the cement mixing unit from the
distant point that the cement delivery truck had to be spotted.
The bulk-flow problems experienced on the first job were
avoided on the next job by adding 0.12% FE by total weight of
the spacer blend. The operators said the treated product
transferred and mixed like silk, even with the bulk transfer
equipment being identical to the previous job. The FE
treatment in the spacer blend solved the problem, i.e., saved
rig NPT and prevented wasted spacer blend.
Since the first spacer blend was FE-treated in California
and successful under very difficult conditions, many other
well cementing applications now apply the treatment and
successfully avoid spacer-blend transfer problems.
Global Benefits
Energy feeds cement manufacturing, which in turn is
necessary to feed energy production via fossil fuels ultimately
produced through cemented wellbores. Sustainability and
economic health of this closed cycle are therefore dependent
upon maximizing efficiencies, and part of that is to minimize
the cement waste.
Since commercial use of the FE started in 1998, over
720,000 tons of cement has been treated with this process for
well-construction. Applying a conservative average waste
reduction of 6% indicates a waste reduction of 42,000 tons as
compared to untreated cement powder. For some specialty
blends such as those containing microfine cements, waste
reductions in excess of 20% have been recorded.
However, there is more to the picture than simply a
savings in cement powder. While the cement industrys
collective energy use and emissions are dwarfed by those of
thermal power plants, and by those of motor vehicles for
nitrous oxides and CO2, the industry is still studying and
implementing ways to improve manufacturing economics and
reduce emissions. In addition to simple waste reduction of
cement powder during pneumatic transfer and at the point of
use, conservation of Portland cement has implications in terms
of overall energy savings and reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions. Hendriks et. al. report that the energy consumption
by the cement industry is estimated at almost 5% of the total
global industrial energy consumption, and likewise results in
approximately 5% to the total carbon dioxide emissions.3
Griffin reports that oil- and gas-well construction accounts for
only 2 to 3% of global cement consumption.4

AADE-07-NTCE-15

For every pound of Portland cement manufactured,

depending on which of the five processes is used and the
efficiency of the manufacturing plant, approximately 2,100
BTU of energy is required. This estimate does not include
conveying and shipping after-the-fact. Further, the global
average of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from a
combination of fuel consumption and the calcination process
during clinker production is 0.81 tons per ton of cement
produced.3 Applying these factors to the previously-stated
waste reduction of 42,000 tons of cement provides an
estimated energy savings of 17.6 x1010 BTU, and the
prevention of 34,000 tons of CO2 emissions. This treated
volume of 720,000 tons over approximately 6 years accounted
for only a very small fraction of the total global cement usage
and associated energy and emissions by the well-construction
industry. However, this shows that there are still significant
gains to be realized with expanded use of flow enhancement
technology. Please bear in mind that, while these factors can
vary considerably (as much as 20%), the authors have chosen
to apply conservative values in this paper. Actual savings may
be considerably more in some areas.
Conclusions
1. A flow enhancer process applied in cement bulk plants
changes electrostatic characteristics of individual cement
grains. This helps make cements and other powders easier
to fluidize and move by pneumatic systems.
2. A laboratory test has been developed to quantify a
flowability factor. This helps correlate actual pneumatic
bulk transfer effectiveness with laboratory modeling.
3. Cements treated with the flow enhancer are less likely to
hang up in bulk tanks and equipment. Cement losses and
waste can thus be greatly reduced.
4. Flow-enhanced cements are more easily moved on the
jobsite and help reduce rig non-productive time.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Halliburton management for permission
to present this paper. Halliburton colleagues who helped the
authors develop and field-prove the FE treatment process
include B.R. Reddy, Russel Fitzgerald, Gunnar Lende, Bob
Martin, and Mark Haire. Thanks also to numerous field
operations personnel that supported this project with their
invaluable suggestions.
Nomenclature
psi
= Pounds per square inch (cement strength)
lb/gal = Pounds per gallon (cement slurry density)
BPM = Barrels per minute (slurry mixing and pump rate)
MT = Metric tonnes (1 MT = 1.102311 short tons)
NOK = Norwegian Krone (1 NOK 0.16 US dollars)
UCA = Ultrasonic cement analyzer

AADE-07-NTCE-15

Enhanced Transfer Efficiency of Bulk Cement and Spacers Reduces NPT and Waste

3.

References
1.

2.

Griffith, James and Faul, R.R.: Cementing the Conductor

Casing Annulus in an Overpressured Water Formation, paper
OTC 8304, presented at the 1997 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, May 58.
Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells,
API Recommended Practice 65, Part 1, First Edition, American
Petroleum Institute, September 2002.

4.

Hendriks, C.A., Worrell, E., de Jager, D., Blok, K., and Riemer,
P.: Emission Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from the Cement
Industry, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham,
United Kingdom (Report PH3/7), May 1999.
Griffin, T.J.: US Market Responds to Oil Well Cement
Shortages, Oil and Gas Journal, October 24, 2005, pages 64
68.

Table 1: FE Additive Use in Various Materials

FF Before
% FE
FF After
Material
Treatment
Additive
Treatment
Class G source I
25
0.09
10
Class G source II
30
0.09
10
Class H
26
0.08
11.4
Class A - source I
16.7
0.07
7.3
Class A - source II
20.6
0.05
12.4
Fumed Silica
19
0.13
7
Barite
26
0.10
7

Table 2: Effect of FE on Slurry Performance

Slurry 1
FE Treatment
NONE
0.15%
Thickening Time (hr:min)
1:46 at
1:52 at
at Temp. (F)
120F
120F
Free Water (%)
0
0
API Fluid Loss (cc/30 min)
505
449
UCA Compressive Strength Time to
2:48 at
3:01 at
500 psi (hr:min) at Temp. (F)
140F
140F
12-hour Compressive Strength (psi)
2680
2820
24-hour Compressive Strength (psi)
3025
3160

Slurry 2
NONE
2:51 at
110F
0

7:47 at
130F
875
1230

0.3%
2:46 at
110F
0

8:33 at
130F
775
1260

Slurry 1: Class C Cement + 35% crystalline silica + 20% fumed silica, mixed at 13.8 lb/gal with 11.6 gal/sk water.
Slurry 2: Class C Cement + pozzolan + fumed silica + additives, mixed at 11.5 lb/gal with 13.3 gal/sk water.

FE-Treated
NO
YES

Table 3: Rig Study of Bulk Cement Flow Enhancement and Waste Minimization
Jobs Bulk Flow Mixing Interruptions Mixing Rates, bpm Average Cement Waste
20
Erratic
~ 5 per job
4.55.0
7.9%
21
Steady
None
6.97.5
1.8%

Table 4: 12-Month Rolling Usage Data

General Blend
Usage,
Treated
Waste,
Description
MT
MT (%)
API Class G + 35%
3458
NO
436 (12.61%)
crystalline silica
4081
YES
133 (3.25%)
All other blends
4757
NO
451 (9.48%)
combined
10779
YES
327 (3.03%)

Table 5: Potential Annual Cost Savings by FE Treatment Process for One Rig
Parameter
NOK/Year
Bulk cement waste reduction
107,961
Rig time saved
2,125,000
Boat time saved
23,750
Subtotal savings (improved HSE not included)
2,256,711
Additional cost for FE treatments
(596,750)
Total Cost Savings Potential per Rig
1,659,961

R. Sweatman, J. Heathman, R. Vargo

AADE-07-NTCE-15

Test from Marine Transport Tank to Scale Tank

20,000
18,000
16,000

Weight, lb

14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1

4 5

Untreated Blend

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Time, min
FE-treated SWF Prevention Blend

Figure 1: Bulk transfer rates with and without flow enhancer (FE).

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

Figure 2: SWF-prevention cement jobs comparison of FE-treated vs. untreated cement blend.

230

AADE-07-NTCE-15

Enhanced Transfer Efficiency of Bulk Cement and Spacers Reduces NPT and Waste

45

Flowability Factor

40
35
30

Blend 1

25

Blend 2

20

Blend 3

15

Blend 4

10
5
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

%FE, by weight of blend

Figure 3: Impact of % FE concentration on the flowability factor for various blends.