Scmietyof Petrolalml

Eflglrleerrl

SPE 25323

Cost-Effective
J,C, Hibbeler and Gino DiLullo,* BJ Services Co. (S) Pte, Ltd,, and Michael Thay,
Sarawak Shell Bhd , Sabah Shell Peiroleum Co. Ltd.
SPE Members

Copyright 1SS3, Society of Petroleum Enginwrs, Inc.

Thi8 paper was prepared for prewntation at the SPE Aeia Pacific 011 & Gas Conference & Exhibition held in Singapore, 8-10 Februery 1993.

Thle paper was wlacted for prewnlatlon by an SPE Prcgram Commlttw following rewlew of information contained in an abstract submitted by the aulhof(s) Conte!W of the paper,
ae prawnI&, h$vc ..-, Mn fev~w~ by the &jcIe~ Of petrOlem En@neere end are $bj~l to correction by the author(a), The meterief, ee preeented, does not necessarily reflect
any peaitlon of liw SMaty of Petroleum Engineere, its ottlcers, or membme. Papers praaented at SPE meetings ara subject to nublicetion review by Edltoriel Committees of the SccIety
of Petroloum Era@nwra, Parmlesion to copy is reslrictad to en abalracf of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be crzlad, The abstract should conlaln conap!cuous acknowledge
men! of where and by whom the paper Ie prewrdad, Wrile Llbrarlan, SPE, P.O. SON 833S3S, Richerdeorr, TX 7S0S3.3S36, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, via case

Gas migration during primary %=enting has been
the subject of numerous studies and is well
dommentedin referencedIitmture. Methodologies
to prediet gas flow potential have been devisedand
various systems have been offered to prevent the
phenomenon. However,high mat associatedwith
these systemshas made them unattractivefor many
well candidates having marginal potential for gas
flow, This prompts the possibly unsafe choice
betweenmerit and economics. With this in mind, a
cost effkcti!. slurry was developed, incorporating
surfactsntto preventannulargas flow,
Surfactantcementis a conventionalslurry to which
a foam generating surfactant is added. Originally
developed in 1973 by the Institute Francais du
Petrol, surfactsnt cement has been utilized in
several applications worldwide. Surfactant
immobilizes formation gas by converting it to a
highly viseoualow mobilityfoam, The addition of
surfactant also Iowcrs a slurrys surface tension,
thereby preventing bubbles from coalescing and
becoming mobile. The combinationof these two
mechanisms combined with thoughtful slurry
design will greatly reduce [hc risk of annular gas
flowaftercementing,
study, the cost effectivenessof surfactant ecment
when used for gas control purposes. A brief
overviewof annular gas flow causes, conventional
aspectsof gas control slurrydesign, and description
of surfactant gas control mechanisms are also
presented.
INTRODUCTION
Annular gas or fluid flow occurs when hydrostatic
pressurein the annulus falls below fomxttion pore
pressure, This can take place within the cement
matrix due to gcl strength development, volume
reductionand fiuid loss or at the cement interfaces
due IOfree water, poor mud removal, and micro
annulus generation, Migration of gas may bc to
zones of high permeabilityand low pressureor all
the wayto surface.
As dcseribedpreviouslysurfactantslurries have two
mechanismsfor gas centrol, However,lab testing
has shown that for any gas control system to be
successful,certain other criteria must be met. It is
beyondthe scope of this paper to reviewthe many
studies and papers on the subject of slurry design
for gas migration so a brief summary of specific
factors related to the following case studies is
presented. Six factors which increase the
probi)bilityof gas flowwere identified.

Rcfcrcnccsand illustrationsat cnd of piiper,

109
2 COSTEFFECTIVEGAS CONTROL- A CASESTUDYOF SURFACTANTCEMENT
GEL STRENGTHDEVELOPMENT:
Lab testing shows that static gel strengths
indicating slurty transition can happen within
minutesafter slurryplacement, Transitiontime has
been definedas the period during which the slurry
changes from a true hydraulic fluid to a highly
viscous mass exhibiting some solid characteristics.
Duringthis transitionperiodthe sluny will begin to
supportitself,there@reducingthe slurrysabilityto
transmit hydrostaticpressure.
SLURRYHYDRATION:
Volume reduction of cement occurs during slurry
hydration. The initial set of cement is an
exothermic reaction involving the hydration of
individual cement particles. A crystalline pore
Wucture is quickly formed as mix water is
consumed. During this time a slurrysbulk volume
can be reducedby up to 3xY?/o. This bulk volume
reductioncausesa shiny pore pressuredecreaseand
correspondingreductionin pressureon formation.
FLUIDLoss:
Volumereductionis also causedby loss of filtrate.
Loss of filtrate occurs when the pressure of the
cement sluny is greater than the adjacent
formation. Accordingto some authors, the most
importantaspectof gas flow preventionis fluid loss
control. Slurries with high fluid loss may
completely dehydrate across permeable zones,
bridge the anmdus, and cause an underbalance
situation below. Also, dehydrated nodes within a
cement column will set with higher et%ctive
permeability to gas thus leaving the annulus
susceptible to Mum gas migration andlor fluid
communication,
HIGHFREE WATER:
Excessivefree water in a slurry can cause cracks
due to differential settling or voids resulting from
water accumulation at the Cement/casing or
cementiformationinterface, These cracks or voids
form a channel which is underpressuredrelativeto
the surmmding fonmation fluids and allows
migrationto take place, Fme waterwhen associated
with deviated or horizda.1 wells has a high
propensityfor channel formation, Any free water
whichseparatesfromthe cementslurrywill migrate
upwarddue to buoyanq. Whenfree water reaches
the cementlfonnation interfaceit begins to collect
and flowupwardalong the high side of the annulus
creatinga channel.
110
SPE 025323
POORMUDREMOVAL:
Mutichannelsare definedas mud columnsresulting
from incompletedisplacement of drilling fluid by
the cement slurry, As studies have shown mud
channelswill tend to form on the narrowside of an
eccentricannulus where shear stress is least. Like
free water channels, after cement has set, mud
channels are relatively underp,essured and gas
invasionis likely.
MICRO ANNULUS:
Studieshave shownthat formationgas can become
mobile in a micro annulus. A micro annulus is
formedby the expansionand contractionof casing
and can be classified in three ways produced,
inducedor thermal. A producedmicro annulus is
formedwhen pressureis applied to the casing prior
to the cement being set. This can occur when
testing BOPSor casing after a job. An induced
micro anmdus is formed when casing fluid is
changedto a lowerdensityfluid prior to the cement
being set. Lower weight fluid reduces hydrostatic
pressure and allows the casing to contract. A
thermalmicro annulus results from the exother-
mic reaction of setting cement. Casing is heated
during this reactionand later contractswhen heat is
lost to the formation.
Figure 1 graphically summarizes the above
mentionedcausesof annular gas flow,
CONVENTIONALDESIGNCONSIDERATIONS
The previously discussed causes for annular gas
flow can be addressed by conva.tional slurry
design. The followingis a summaryof such design
criteria which was implemented along with the
introductionof surfactantcement:
LowGel Strength <10 lbs,f/100w@,Yp
* Fluid LossControl<50 cc/30min. AN
LowFreeWater a 10A,Oif horizontal
Min Transition <20 min. 40-100 Bc
* StaggeredIT > 1hourdifference
LOWGELSTRENGTH:
Slurnes with low gel strength will transmit more
hydrostaticpressure. It is crucial to insure that a
sluny does not reach a viscous plateau prior to
setting, Ideally,a slurry shouldstay within the 5 to
15Bc rangeuntil initial set.
 .
SPE 025323 J. Hibbeler,G. Di Ltdlo,M. Thay
FLUIDLOSSCONTROL:
To migrate into a cementedanmdus, formationgas
must displace the fluids occupyingthe pore space
between cement particles. Fluid loss additives
viscos~ interstitialfluids, decreasingtheir mobility
and thus decreasing the potential for gas flow,
Cementwith verygoodfluid loss controlwill not in
itselfpreventannulargas flow,however,it is highly
recommendedthat any slurry to be placed across
charged gas formations have 50 cc/30 min. API
fluid lossor less.
LOWFREE WATER:
Field studies have shown that zero free water
slurries eliminate flow a!ter cementing in many
cases. Low free water is desirableon any cement
job, but is especiallyimportantwhencementing gas
zones For vertical wells less than 10/0free water is
recommended.For horizontal wells zero free wtter
is recommended.
MINIMALTRANSITIONTIME:
A short transitiontime aids in gas controlby simply
reducingthe time a slurry is subjectedto hydrostatic
losses resulting from gel strength and slurry
hydration. Though it is more closely related to
cement propertiesrather than thickening time, gel
strength effkets can be greatly reduced by short
transition time. The term right angle set is used
loosely,thereforea criterionwas set at 40 to 100Bc
units in 20 minutesor less.
STAGGEREDTHICKENINGTIME:
Thickening time of lead and tail slurries can be
tailored to increasehydrostaticpressure. If cement
sets first acrossa gas producingzone below,while
cement at higher elevations remains in a !iquid
state, higher confhing pressure will be exerted on
the matrix pore space. The cement will set with a
higher pore pressure and more cement - to -
formation pressure will be applied, This can be
achievedby using a lead slurry with 1 to 1.5 hours
longerthickeningtime,
SURF ACTANTGAS CONTROLMECHANISM
In placing a surfactant slurry, a certain volume of
surfactant laden filtrate fills the pores of the
immediatewellbore,If annular pressurefalls below
formationpore pressuregas will migratetowardthe
wellbore. However,beforeformationgas entersthe
s%
111
3
slurry it must pass through the surfactant invaded
zone. In doing so, the formationgas will create a
foambarrier. The cementseffectivepermeabilityto
gas will be reducedby foamviscosityand the effects
of two phaseflow.
By definition, a surfactantor surface active agent,
reducessurfacetension. When gas migratesto the
iii barrier, low surfacetension prohibits bubbles
from coalescing,becominglarger and therebymore
buoyant,
Formation tlow capacity (FFC in md. ft.) is a
critical parameter in the analysis of gas flow
potential. It has been shown that for increasing
formationpermeabilityand thickness,gas migration
potential increases directly. This illustrates a
featurewhich is unique to surfactantcement, That
is, the gas control mechanism (surfactant laden
leakofl)is placedwheregas migrationis most likely
to occur- at highly permeablethick formations,
Figure 2 graphically summarizes surfactant gas
controlmechanisms,
DEVELOPMENTOF SURFACTANT
Foamgeneratingsurfactantsare availablein various
chemical compositions. For this particular
application,cementchemistrydictatesthe choiceof
surfactant. An anionic Ethoxylated Lautyl Ether
Sulfate(ELES),was found to have the best overall
performancewhen mixed with the cement used for
the casestudiespresented.
Asidefrombeing compatiblewith specificcements,
a surfactantused for this application must also be
tolerant of the high calcium / Ph environment of
cementingand demonstrategas blwking abilityat a
rangeof temperaturesand pressures.
Another considerationwhen developinga suitable
surfactant was effect on slurry transition lime,
Somesurfactantscausedlong transition times. The
ELES demonstrated right angle setting at
temperaturesfrom 120 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit,
Other surfactantssuch as EthoxylatedNonylPhenol
(ENP) were tested but found to be less effectivein
controllingpa, ENP also caused longer transition
time and slightly higher free water, A
concentrationrange6? 1,0to 2,5% by volumeof
4 COSTEFFECTIVEGASCONTROL- A CASE STUDYOF SURFACTANTCEMENT
mixwater (IWOW) of ELES surfactantwas found to
be optimum. Concentrationsover2.5%bvow
resulted in increased free water and in extreme
cases caused slurry segregation, Concentrations
below 1.0%bvowdid not pass the gas flowtest.
A slight modification to API slurry preparation
procedureswas adopted for surfactant slurries to
avoid excessivefoaming. Specifically, surfactant
is addedaftercementat 1000RPM and mixedfor
15seconds,
FIELDAPPLICATION
As with the specializedlab testing, sluny mixing in
the field must also be modified for surfactant
slurries. Speeifkally, surfactant must be injected
into the sluny downstream of the mixing jet. If
surfactant wem premixed in mix water, excessive
fomningwould result and the slurry wouldbecome
unpurnpatde.
For the purpose of surfactant injection a hole was
drilled in the cementunitssuctionmanifoldlocated
betweenthe mixing jet and high pressure pumps.
Injectionrate is critical, as lab tests establishedthat
over-injectedslurry caum segregationwhile under-
injected slurry does not stop gas flow. A 314
twbine flow meter was used to measure injection
rate. Adjustments in injection rate are made by
simplyreducingair pressureto the air drivenpump.
CASESTUDIES
Thus far, surfactant cement ims been,used for gas
control in three gas fields locatedoffshoreof East
Malaysia. Each field required slightly different
slurrydesigns to addressspec~lc potentialgas flow
problems.
CASESTUDY-1
The Eti West development gas field, located
offshore of Sabah, East Malaysia, has several
overpwured sandstone formations which have
crowd annular S+S migration after cementing,
Some of the problems associated with this have
beenpoorcementbonds,and ZOnalcommunication.
The typical Erb Weal well averages 11,000 to
13,000feet MD and latest completionshave been
horizontal, For the EW-129kickoffwasjust below
112
SPE025323
the 13- 3/8 shoe and built up to 82 degreesby the
9- 5/8 shoe. A horizontal section of 3,050 feet
was drilled and a 7 liner set. Gas producingsands
are located from 6,000 to 8,350 feet MD and are
associatedwith a large sandhde sequence. Gas ,
oil and water gradients are 0.066, 0.317 .nd 0.435
psi/fl respectivelywithin target zones. These zones
have pore pressures from 0.43 to 0.58 psil!l and
porosityrangingfrom 10to 15%.
For the Erb West well, EW-129, 9-5/8 inch casing
slurry design focusedor, the followingfive points:
1) fluid loss control2) low gel strength 3) minimal
transition time 4) zero free water and 5) gas
ccntrolvia surfactantinjection. Fluid loss control is
achieved via PVAP which exhibited better foam
stabilizing propertiesthan stan&rd HEC fluid loss
additives, Note that at higherconcentrationsPVAP
alone will controi gas. The abovecriteria was met
by the followingslurry:
Gcement + 0,58 gahx PVAP
+ 0.12 galhx dispersant
+ 0.05 gal/sx retarder
+ 2.0+0
bvow ELES
Density : 820 lbs/1000ft
Mix water : 4.50 gps (sea)
Total fluid : 5,35gps
Yield : 1.19CuWsx
TVD,MD : 6970, 8404 feet
Deviation : 82 deg.
BHST : 190deg.F
BHCT : 146deg. F
P. G, : l,31dcg F/100fi
CASESTUDY-2
Surfactant cement has also been used in the
exploratory B11 gas field located offshore of
Sarawak,East Malaysia, The B11producesgas and
small amounts of condensate from a massive
carbonate. The structure has stringers of dolomite
but is predominatelylimestone. Pore pressures in
producing zones range from 0.45 to 0.68 psi/ft.
Porosities in these zones are highly variable and
range from 5 to 2 lXOO In this field, annular gas
control as well as excellentbonding is required to
safelyisolatehigh H2S/Co2zones, Pore pressurein
the H2S/Co2zonelocatedjust 40 feetbelowpay


oPE025323 J, Hibbeler,G. Di Ltdlo,M. Thay 5

zoneswas 0,70 psi/ft. Preventionof zonai cmnrnu- Gcement+ 0.58 galkx PVAF
nieation between these and producing zones was + 0.18 gallsxdispersant
consideredessential, + 1,00V0bvowELES

For the B11.2 well, 7 inch easing slurry design Density : 820 lbs/1000ft.
focusedon gas controland enhancedbonding. Gas Mix water : 4.53 gps (sea)
controlwas needed, not only for producinggas but Totidfluid : 5,35 gps
also for H2S and C02, Four points were Yield : 1.19cufVsx
ad~, 1) fluid loss control 2) turbulent flow
rheologyto enhanee mud removal3) low transition TVD, MD : 5250, 5335feet
time, and 4) gas controlvia surfaetantcement. The BHST : 160deg.F
followingslurry met thesecriteria: BHCT : 120deg. F

Gcement + 0.70 gaUsxPVAP Table 1 summarizestest resultsfor easestudies,

+ 0.20 gaUsxdispersant
+ 0.05 gaUsx retarder
+ 2.070 bvowELES ECONOMICANALYSIS

Density : 820 lbs/1000R, l%us fw svrfactan;cement has been used on eight

Mix water : 4.37 gps (sea) jobs. The averagecost savings has been $US 8.76
To@ fluid : 5.36 gps per cubic foot of slurry, or 50Yo,
when comparedto
Yield : 1.19euft/sx p~evious jobs using styrene/butadienecopolymer
iatex (SBR). This varied from a maximum of $US
Depth : 10,500f@t 12.14for easestudy-2, to a minimumof $US 4.94
BHST : 250 deg.F for ease study -3. The cost variance is directly
BHCT : 200 deg.F related to bottom hole temperature. That is, the
higher the temperature, the more the cost
differential. See Figure 3 for a summag of cost
CASESTUDY-3 savings.
Recently, surfaetant cement has been used in a
second exploratory gas field, the M,1. The main
target is a single 650 foot chalky limestone. CONCLUSIONS
Geology of target zone is much like that of the
B11,2,that is, variablepermeabilityand boundedby Surfactant cement has enjoyed success in three
tight shales, Within the target are distinct gadoil differentgas controlapplications. In the jobs done
and oilhvaterrmntaetswhich must be isolated. Gas with surfactantno abnormalannular pressureor gas
and oil gradient are 0.079 and 0,252 psi/ft was reporledat surface.
_vely. Pore pressuresin gas zone range from
0,67 !S 0,75 pstifl. Porosity in the gas zone Surfactant : buries provide gas control in a cost
averages 10 pereent. A 250 fbot overpressured effectivemanner. To date, surfactant cement has
Gas Chimney mists approximately 1,200 f=t saved the operator over $US 200,000, assuming
above the top of target carbonate and requires substitution for previous SBR latex gas control
cementingwith gas controlto preventmigration, systems,

For well M-1.3 surfktant was used on the 7 liner
to preventgas migrationof the GasChimneyand
within the target gas bearing limestone. Good
cementbonding is neededto isolatethe variousgas
and fluid eontaets, Slurry design f- on 1)
fluid losscontrol, 2) turbulentflowrheology,and 3)
gas controlvia surfaetantcement.
Surfactant cements gas control meehanism is
unique in that it blocks gas flow at the
ee.ment/forrnationinterfaee, This provides better
bonding within individualgm bearing formations.
Systems,suchas SBRlatex, requiregas migration

113


6 COST EFFECTIVE GAS CONTROL - A CASE STUDY OF WRFACIANT CEMENT SPE025323

into the cemented anmdus to activate gas control 3, RP,A,R van Kleef, F,C. Schoutten and G.
mechanisms. TM can leave gas, oil and Wter Aberson : SurfactantCement - A Cost Effective
cmtacts within a formation poorly bonded and !?dutionto Gas Migration Problems, May - June
vulnerableto communication. 1989.

The addition of ELES surfactantreducesa slurrys
plastic viscosity and yield point while increasing
thickeningtime. A defoamercan be used to con-
trol normal surfacef~ng without Sactilcing the
downholefoamingabilityof surfactanto
Injection of surfactant is a relatively easy field
practice and incrementalequipment costs are low.
Injection rate can be adjusted and monitored
accuratelyvia flow meter and field data acquisition
units.
4. L, Sabines, J.M. Tinsley and D.L. Sutton :
Transitiontime of Cement Slurries Between the
Fluid Stateand Set State, SPE 9285, 1990.
5, C.E. Cook, M.P. Kluck and R Medrano :
Field Measurements of Annular Pressure and
Temperature During Primary Cementing, SPE
11206.1982.
6. G. Carter, C. Cook, and L. Snelson :
Cementing Research in Directional Gas Well
Completions,SPE4313, 1973

NOME NCLA- 7, R.M. Beirute and A, Tragesser : Expansive

and Shrinkage Characteristics of Cements Under
HEc = Hydroxyethylcelhdose ActualWellConditions,SPE 40911973.
ELES = EthoxylatedLaurylEther Sulfate
ENP = EthoxylatedNonylPhenol 3. R. Cheung and R.M. Beirute : Gas Flow iii
SBR = StyrendButadienecopolymer Cements,SPE 11207,1982.
PVAP = Copolymerof VinylA3cohcd
MD = Measured depth 9. W.W. Websterand J.V. Eikerts : FlowAfter
EC = Beardonunits of consistent Cementing- A Field Laborato~ Study,SPE 8259,
PG = PsuedoGradient 1979.
= (BHST-80 F) / MD in 100sof feet
FFc = Permeability Formationheight 10. R.P. Matson, M.J. Rogers, V,C. Go Boncon
P@ = Poundsper thousandfeet and R.G. Gandy : The Effects of Temperature,
w = Gallonsper sackof cement Pressure,and Angleof Deviationon Free Waterand
bvow = Byvolumeof mix water CementSlurryStability,SP1322551, 1991.
l-r = ThickeningTime
11, L. Sabines and D,L. Sutton : The
Relationshipof ThickeningTime, Gel Strength,and
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CompressiveStrengths of Oilwell Cements, SPE
11205,1982
The authors would like to thank Sarawak Shell
Berhad and BJ Servicesfor permission to publish 12, D,L, Levine, E,W, Thomas, H,P, Pemcr, and
this paper. G.C. Tolk : Annular Gas Flow After Cementing:
A LookAt PracticalSolutions,SPE 8255, 1979.
REFERENCES
13, J.M, Tinsley, E,C, Miller, F,L, Sabines, and
1! P. Rae, and D. Wilkins: A New Approach10 D,L, Sutton : Study of Factors Causing Annular
the Prediction of Gas Flow After CementintT, Gas Flow Following Primary Cementing, SPE
SPWIADC 18622. 8257, 1980.

2. C. Harder, R Carpenter, W, Wilson, E, 14, G, Di Lullo and J, Tan : An Evaluation of

Freeman, and H, Payne : Surfactant/Cement Gas ControlAdditives,OSEA92167, 1992.
Blends Improve Plugging Operations in Oil-Base
Muds,IADC/SPE23928, 1992.

114


SPE 025323 J, Hibbclcr,G. Di Lullo,M. Thay 7

_ . .
I(
.. . -
...
~Fltjld 10s S
I 1) ~atrength ! ;Hydration volume lost

-1
I
I

I 1,
,
I
, [
I I
I
,. I
.<__y.;
.

1 ~-.-. .._=
,_.._.--..
..-.. ...
I --
Poor mud removal Micro annulua
2) High free water
. J~ ,

,i ,
,0.004 in, ,
1 \\! +

1&_:--?.
i- -
:1
aq
--
\&..
i: I
1,
,;4
:,? L ;
..; . :
-. .
..
._.
.- .. -. _ ... .. ---- .. .. . .. . .--
-. . - .
_.. . . - ... ..

Figure-1

Summaryof gas flowcausesvia ccmcntmatrix (row I). and ccmen( interfaces (row 2).

....-_. -........ .... . -. -. .

I
$urfectant laden filtrate leaks off
paaaea through the filter cake and
createe a vlacoua foam barrier when
contacted by Iormation gaa.

Surfactant reduces surface tension

thus preventing small formation qaa
bubblaa from coals aoing, becomminri
larger and therefore more likely to
migrete upward.

light zone

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . .. . .. . .. .

,.:;+ * :
! Cia* zono ~ %o?matlon gas
.:+**
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .

1 1

Figure -2

SummaT of SurfacMnls gas control mwtwisms,

115
 w

8 COSTEFFECTIVEGASCONTROL- A CASESTUDYOF SURFACTANTCEMENT SPE 025323

1 2 3
CASE STUDY

Figure -3

Cost comparisonof SurfactantCementsystemvs SBRlatexsystem.

Table-1

C&SESTUDYN(3. 1 2 3
SLURRY13ENS~ (pptf) 820 820 820
BHCT(degF) 146 200 120
ADDITIVES
DISPERSANT (gps) 0,12 020 0,18
RETARDER(gps) 0.05 0,05
PVAP(gps) 0.58 0!70 0.58
ELES (% bvow) 2,00 2.00 I ,00
GAS CONTROL(1,000 psi hydrostatic,500 psi fmtn.) YES YES YEs
API FLUID LOSS (c.e/30rein) 54 58 42
FREE WATER (V, @ bhct) 0,30 0.50 TRACE
RHEOLOGY (farm rdgs @ bhct)
300 RPM (W/ELES , W/O ELES) 43,52 38,46 48,60
200 RPM 30,35 27,32 33,38
100 RPM
6 RPM
3 RPM
IHICK.ENING TIME (rein)
40 Bc (w/ ELES , w/o ELES)
70 Be
226, 172
238.188 I 313,240
320,256 I 280, 149
290, 162

116