Asia Pacific

Gain insight into the growing Integrated Well Services Market in the Asia Pacific in this bespoke report by Offshore Network

Access a detailed well intervention case study that utilised cutting-edge rigless, riserless technology. See the full report from Sapura Energy which covers the Browse Basin project that took place offshore Australia.

By Mark Plummer MSc BEng

Stuart Wright Pte Ltd’s (SW) CEO, Colin Stuart, and Well Engineer, Mark Plummer recently completed a one-year project supporting the Department of Natural Resources Mines & Energy (DNRME) in Queensland, Brisbane to perform a Well Programme Assurance Design and Construction Review (WEPA DCR) for high risk and complex wells.

The objectives of the WEPA DCR were to understand, by observation, how operators are meeting the relevant statutory provisions in the legislation; including subsidiary mandatory safety requirements, the Queensland Code of Practice and recognised industry standards.  Consistent with the Queensland government policy, the Inspectorate is collaborating with the industry to promote the safety and technical standards for petroleum and gas operations.

Following consultation and dialogue with industry, seven (7) Operators were selected as suitable candidates for the well programme assurance review. The programme was conducted in three stages as outlined in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – WEPA Design & Construction Review Process

WEPA Stage 1 – Understand with the petroleum operator, their well design protocols and standards, and agree specific well selection;

WEPA Stage 2 – Engage in well design and planning process of the selected well programmes; and finally; and

WEPA Stage 3 – Oversee well construction against the plan in the well execution stage. In particular to carry out well barrier monitoring and validation using SW’s proprietary Right Time Barrier Condition (RTBC) well barrier monitoring system.

Well Design Phase Review Methodology

Through discussion between the Regulator and each individual Operator, eight (8) suitable candidate wells were identified for the Well Programme Assurance review. Subsequently, a copy of Operator standards and well specific documents (e.g. Well Basis of Design, Drilling Programme, Drilling Fluids Programme, Cementing Programme, Casing and Tubing Design, Well Barrier Programme) were provided by the Operator for review by Well Inspectors.

The design phase review methodology was as follows:

1. Tenure holders informed DNRME of the commencement of well design and provided relevant corporation documents/standards to DNRME.
2. Inspector(s) from DNRME reviewed operator documents/standards and identified that they comply with mandatory regulatory requirements or noted any gaps.
3. Inspector(s) from DNRME reviewed the well specific programme including ‘well basis of design’, ‘drilling fluid programme’, ‘casing & tubing design report’, ‘well barrier programme’ and ‘cementing programme’ to confirm if these documents were compliant with mandatory regulatory requirements and good industry practice.
4. DNRME raised any clarifications arising from the standards and well design review with the Operator via a clarification register.
5. DNRME provided a summary report containing any apparent non-conformance items for discussion with the Operator.

Well Construction Phase Review Methodology

Stuart Wright’s proprietary well barrier monitoring and validation system, RTBC, was used by DNRME to monitor drilling operations for selected wells. This exercise was the final stage for a given selected well, in DNRME’s WEPA DCR programme.

The system was used to assess each well for compliance, with their own standards and mandatory regulatory requirements. Specific barrier acceptance criteria were created in RTBC, which were extracted from Operator standards, the drilling programme and relevant legislation. Each barrier element during well construction was then assessed for reported validation, and assigned a traffic light colour (red, amber, green) rating depending on the result of the rating.

RTBC creates a Daily Integrity Report (DIR) capturing the barrier validation result.

The process of assessing compliance during well construction was as follows:

1. DNRME set up a specific Barrier policy library for each Operator in RTBC

1. DNRME set up a Well Barrier Plan based on the drilling programme, capturing all well construction activities and planned barrier validations
2. DNRME received DDRs and other daily reports from the Operator from well spud until suspension/abandonment
3. DNRME reviewed the operations stated in the Daily Drilling Reports (DDRs) and other daily reports and updated the barrier conditions and as-built diagrams in RTBC
4. A Daily Integrity Report (DIR) was created for each day of operations for internal DNRME review before distributing to the Operator (see Figures 2A and 2B below). Any apparent gaps or discrepancies were discussed directly with the appointed Operator personnel

Figure 2A – Example Daily Integrity Report (Pg.1) – sent to Operator on a Daily Basis

Figure 2B – Example Daily Integrity Report (Pg.2) – sent to Operator on a Daily Basis

Key Findings

A range of useful findings arose from the WEPA study and, in particular, the use of RTBC to track barrier validation during well construction provided close monitoring and feedback which was beneficial to both the Regulator and Operator:

KF #1 – In general, the Operator standards compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements was good, but with individual exceptions which were fed back to Operators and improvement processes agreed.

KF #2 – Maintaining an overbalance margin to the bottom hole pressure (BHP) is a critical barrier during well construction. Operator standards for petroleum wells reviewed by DNRME could be further enhanced by stipulating a minimum overbalance to BHP requirement. 

KF #3 – Several Operators did not achieve regulatory compliance with the minimum 70% standoff for casing centralisation in their well design. The primary reason cited for this non-compliance was that the centralisation modeling simulation called for large sections of the casing having 2 centralisers per joint to achieve the required 70% standoff and Operators opined that the risks associated with running this many centralisers outweighs the benefit.

KF #4 – During the WEPA study, DNRME noted that the Operator’s design and planning process was often completed very late and, in many cases, only a few days prior to well spud which has an impact on risk during the well construction phase.

KF #5 – 75% of the gas-producing petroleum wells reviewed during the WEPA study were designed with standard Buttress Thread Connections (BTC) or Long Thread Connections (LTC) in the production casing string, which is common practice, deemed to be adequate as reservoir pressures were less than 3,000 psi.  For gas-producing petroleum wells, the selection of premium (gas-tight) connections would help to mitigate, over time, the risk of a leak path for hydrocarbon gas into the B-Annulus with associated consequences, though DNRME accepted that current industry standards support the common practice and the risk assessment approach currently used is valid.

KF #6 – The use of a barrier monitoring system demonstrated that Operators could not, in a limited number of cases, show compliance in all respects with their own standards and regulatory requirements during well construction given the conventions and format of the standard DDR reporting process. The Inspectorate had to review documents and data other than the DDR to complete the barrier validation picture.

KF #7 – The integrity reporting system used (RTBC) did give regulator and operator insight into escalating compliance risks. Furthermore, it allowed the Inspectorate to demonstrate in the captured database, a record that the operator is in compliance with regulation OR where they are not, it is transparent, and a flag raised.

KF #8 – The Daily Drilling Reports (DDR) focus is typically around performance and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS). However, no clear picture emerges in a typical DDR of an equal focus on well integrity and specifically loss of control risk.

Preliminary Conclusions of the WEPA Study

The findings and preliminary conclusions of the WEPA study were presented, on behalf of DNRME, by Colin Stuart at the Oil & Gas UK “Safety 30 – Piper Alpha Legacy: Securing a Safer Future” conference which was held in Aberdeen in June, 2018. A summary of the preliminary conclusions of the WEPA study is detailed below:

1. There was some evidence of failure to follow approved plans during execution, particularly when problems developed. Management of Change (MOC) documents did not tell the complete picture.
2. The use of a Daily Integrity system approach created transparency when deviations occurred, and forced better management response.
3. The WEPA programme showed potential to reduce risk through better well integrity transparency. This could be achieved, as demonstrated, through the use of RTBC to properly identify Controls, assess that these have been Validated and record the Evidence of validation using a modern cloud-based data storage solution, which ensures data availability and instant retrieval and analysis.
4. The WEPA process has important implications for Oil and Gas wells but also emerging Geothermal well projects where, due to the current absence of global standards, compliance challenges exist.
5. The WEPA approach could be deployed across several international regulators to create a limited but global barrier validation best practice and potential failure databasefor well construction, including all critical component failures affecting well integrity.

This project summary has been approved by DNRME.

Understand how the Completions Standardization Technical Committee (COMSTEC), comprised of members from Petronas MPM and regional operators and service companies are tackling three main operational inefficiencies: Packers, safety and flow valves and operational procedure.

In this article, we review the situation and prospects for the offshore well intervention market, with comment on best practice, based on a presentation at OWI APAC 2018 (Kuala Lumpur) by Dan Cole, McKinsey & Company.

This month’s video demonstrates how certainty allows for better and faster decision making and evaluate the tubing conditions of multiple sub-sea completed wells pre-abandonment.

EV was requested by a global operator to perform a multi well campaign. EV’s Optis HD Electric line camera was used to inspect the tubing conditions of multiple sub-sea completed wells pre-abandonment.

SIA Cyclit Konsultants:

Pilipishin B., PhD,

Havenson I., PhD, Gonca V., PhD, Brushtunov V., PhD, Huk I.

Our original method of prediction hydrocarbon traps is based on the theory of sedimentary cyclicity (lithmology) and on the assumption of discompaction and compaction zones: oil or gas field is formed by hydrocarbon migration from the source of their generation and the subsequent accumulation and conservation in the traps, which are located along the ways of migration.

The method can significantly improve the efficiency of geological exploration work in all their phases and stages. One of the main feature of our method is that we definitely prove where wells SHOULD NOT BE PROJECTED. It will RADICALLY REDUCE fields’ research and exploration costs.

For last 20 years we analyzed more than 50 deposits (mainly Ukraine and Khazahstan) with really positive results: overall average probability of successful wells is more than 70%.

The “Seismocyclit” group carries out processing of customer’s geophysical data and search for oil and gas pools, using its own exclusive methodology. The proposed methodology includes original methods of processing and interpretation of geophysical data, realized in form of programme-methodical complexes (PMC) “Seismocyclit” and “AFCM” (amplitude-frequency characteristic of medium).

It allows:

– To carry out construction of stacks with improved signal-to-noise ratio, eliminating regular and irregular unwanted signals, which do not respond to the principle of reciprocity in seismic survey.

– To accomplish stratigraphic identification of the reflecting horizons, using logs in form of cyclites.

– To discover structural features of the geological section, and ways of migration – hydrocarbon delivery channels, which often coincide with tectonic failures.

– To single out zones, where reservoirs and impermeable beds are developed. For these goals, the sections of “AFCM” (amplitude-frequency characteristic of medium) are used, which are characterized by important and distinctive feature: the calculation of colour instead of it’s assignment. Changing of the colour on the “AFCM” sections shows that the reservoir characteristics of the section change. In the given variant of calculation, horizons of the reservoirs are displayed on the “AFCM” sections in dark blue and black colour. The efficiency of this methodology is proven on a number of structures and fields connected to various types of sections. On the presented “AFCM” sections, four boreholes (red colour) are shown, which were drilled with the help of our recommendations and have given the production in terrigenous section.

These programme-methodical complexes (PMC) “Seismocyclit” and “AFCM” – amplitude-frequency characteristic of medium have been effectively used for prognosing traps in Upper Jurassic carbonate section of Precarpathian deep.

On the “AFCM” section in the upraised block of Upper Jurassic deposits, the extensive zone of reservoirs development can be pointed out, whose presence is proven by the results of boreholes testing. In the upraised part of the sinked block we can point out similar zone which is prospective.

– Additionally for prognosing the presence of hydrocarbons in trap the data of electrical prospecting can be used – it may help to calculate longitudinal electrical resistance on several deep levels. The existence of structural form and higher resistance on certain stratigraphic levels can indicate hydrocarbons’ presence in the structure.

The proposed methodology of hydrocarbon pools forecasting can be used at any stage of geological prospecting works, significantly raising their efficiency.

The following input data are necessary for our job:

• • data of the 2D or 3D seismic survey;
  • log diagrams of acoustic and (or) gamma-ray logging of the wells;
  • a priori geological information on the geological structure of the investigated area.

As the result of the works the Customer will obtain the following main materials:

1. 1. At the prospecting of the new hydrocarbon fields:
      • • conclusions as to the expediency of drilling the wildcats and the indication of their location and the expected bedding depths of the producing layers;
        • scheme of disposition of the detailing seismic profiles with the recommendations as to the methods of the field works carrying out.
   2. At the exploration of producing hydrocarbon fields:
      • • prognosing maps of the hydrocarbon pools in the definite interval of the depths;
        • conclusions as to the presence of new objects of the prospecting in the field;
        • recommendations as to the exploration works carrying out in the field with the indication of the location of new exploratory wells.

By Mark Plummer MSc BEng

In March, 2017 ISO released their Latest Well Integrity Standard, ISO 16530-1: Life Cycle Governance. In this article I will provide the background to the standard and discuss some of the key sections contained within.

BACKGROUND TO ISO 16530-1

1. 1. It was developed by producing operating companies for oil and gas, and is intended for use in the petroleum and natural gas industry worldwide

2. 2. It is intended to provide guidance to the Well Operator on managing well integrity throughout the well life cycle. Furthermore, it addresses the minimum compliance requirements for the well operator to claim conformity with ISO 16530-1

3. 3. It provides recommendations and techniques that well operators can apply in a scalable manner, based on a well’s specific risk characteristics

4. 4. ISO 16530-1 is intended to compliment the 2014 issued ISO 16530-2 Technical Standard (TS) – Well Integrity for the Operational Phase, which is intended to provide the requirements to manage Well Integrity during the operation (production) phase only.

5. 5. The standard is not applicable to:

• • Well control activities implemented to prevent or mitigate unintentional release of formation fluids from the well to its surroundings.
  • Wellbore integrity, sometimes referred to as “borehole stability”

KEY SECTIONS OF ISO 16530-1

All well life cycle phases have common elements, methods and processes, which are integral to well integrity management. ISO 16530-1 identifies and discusses key considerations for 12 common elements, as detailed in the figure above.

Assuring well integrity comprises two main building blocks: the first is to ensure well integrity during well design and construction, and the second is to manage well integrity throughout the remaining well life thereafter ISO 16530-1 addresses the six phases of the well life cycle, and their interrelationships, as illustrated above.