OFFSNET OFFSNET
  • Home
  • About
  • News
    • Asia Pacific
    • Australia
    • North America
    • Latin America
    • Middle East
    • Europe
    • West Africa
  • Reports
  • Careers
  • Team
  • Contact
  • Conferences
    • Upcoming Conferences
OFFSNET OFFSNET
  • Home
  • About
  • News
    • Asia Pacific
    • Australia
    • North America
    • Latin America
    • Middle East
    • Europe
    • West Africa
  • Reports
  • Careers
  • Team
  • Contact
  • Conferences
    • Upcoming Conferences

Sign up for our newsletter

Please enter your details

Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Asia Pacific
Australia
North America
Latin America
Middle East
Europe
West Africa
{loadmoduleid 1581}

Middle East

Left to Right – Jim Thomson, CEO of Wellpro Group and Brian Garden, Managing Director of Omega Well Intervention. (Image Credit: Omega Well Intervention)

Omega Well Intervention and Wellpro Group enhance influence in the MENA region through strategic alliance

  • Region: Middle East
  • Date: Mar, 2021

Omega Wellpro Press Release Photo Final

Downhole technology developer and manufacturer Omega Well Intervention and well intervention company Wellpro Group, have announced a strategic alliance to deliver downhole tools to the Middle East and North African (MENA) market.

As per the agreement, Wellpro Group will manage the deployment of Omega Well Intervention products through their extensive network across the region, a move which will go alongside significant investment in all MENA facilities. Omega Well Intervention will provide access to an engineering design team as well as manufacturing capabilities and test facilities for product development.

Jim Thomson, CEO of Wellpro Group commented, “This agreement, which covers the Middle East and North Africa, gives us the opportunity to deliver a more complete well intervention package to the region. In these challenging times, our clients are increasingly looking for ways to reduce costs and make operational efficiencies. Through this alliance we are now able to offer them a wider range of products from a single source.”

Brian Garden, Managing Director of Omega Well Intervention, added, “As part of Omega growth strategy, collaboration with Wellpro Group within the Middle East enhances the ability of both companies to offer a more comprehensive product range within the well intervention business space. This collaboration will ensure that we deliver quality products alongside first-class service.”

This agreement comes as part of Wellpro Group’s clear intentions to strengthen their presence in the Middle East region, quickly following the company announcement (in December 2020) that it was entering the Saudi Arabian oil and gas market with the energy services company i-Energy involving complete operational asset and field support.

For Omega Well Intervention it is another step in a successful spell which has recently seen the award of two accreditations by the American Petroleum Institute for its retrievable bridge plugs and quality management system adding to the twenty five patents across their range of downhole tools that the company already boasts.

An Effective Alternative to Conventional Plug and Abandonment

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics, Decommissioning
  • Date: Feb, 2018

This article is a direct result of inspiring presentations on a novel technology from the 2nd Annual Well Intervention Workshop for the Middle East in Abu Dhabi. What I picked up there, made me replace my scheduled article and write about the PWC® (Perforate, Wash, Cement) technology.

We have published two pieces of what was supposed to be a series of three posts on Plug & Abandonment. The first article focused on legislation and standards of design for P&As, and the second one discussed materials that meet the requirements to be used for P&As.

The third article was supposed to focus on deployment methods. In the meantime, I attended the forementioned Well Intervention Workshop; the presentations that I witnessed changed the original plan.

The event gathered specialists in well integrity from different oil and gas operators from the Middle East such as ADNOC, Aramco, Dragon Oil, Agiba, ADMA, and ONGC. These operators handle complicated wells from which they presented case studies. There were workshops on P&A, annulus pressure management and coiled tubing interventions. The latest technologies, like downhole video analytics, casing patches and well integrity in multi-lateral wells and extended reach wells, also had their fair share of attention.

From one of these sessions, I ran across a technology that is being extensively used by one of the operators in the UAE. The subject was so interesting that I decided to change the plans for the third P&A article and cover this technology instead.

Initially, the post was to evolve around cementing thru Coiled tubing (and maybe a little about dump bailors) as a deployment technique for P&As, since most of the conventional techniques are already covered in other articles on the blog. Besides, you can download the guideline for cement plugs, which address most, if not all, aspects of the conventional placement methods.

What we will do then is to go ahead with this article on the new technology and then leave for a fourth article to discuss coiled tubing cementing.

The article you are reading is co-written with Mr. Dave Ringrose, VP for the Middle East in Hydrawell intervention, the company behind the PWC® (Perforate, Wash, Cement) technology.

You may remember the discussion on the legislation and basis of design for P&As and how we discussed that the barriers should be set in front of a suitable caprock (impermeable, laterally continuous and with adequate strength and thickness) and overlap with annular cement. See figure 1 for more details.

For cased hole sections, casing alone is not considered a barrier to the lateral flow, due to the potential for casing leaks, but cemented casing could be sufficient “as long as there is sufficient confidence in the quantity and quality of the cement in the annulus.” What this means is: If a log is available, 100 ft of good cement will do. If no logs are available, then 1,000 ft of cement, using the theoretical top of cement as calculated by “differential pressures or monitored volumes during the original cement job,” would be required to allow for uncertainty.

When cement behind the casing is not good, the operators were forced to perforate-squeeze and, in some cases, mill out the casing completely to achieve proper zonal isolation across the wellbore. Here is where PWC® becomes a very interesting alternative.

PWC® is a single run assembly with these main parts:

    • TCP perforating gun
    • Internal cement foundation tool to support the cement in place
    • A jetting tool that is used to condition the space behind the casing to receive the cement, called the Hydra-hemera.
    • And the Hydra spray cementing valve and Hydra Archimedes cementing tool which work together to push the cement behind the casing and ensure proper coverage and bonding against tubulars and the wellbore.

According to Hydrawell records, PWC® has been used to set 215 annulus cement plugs in different areas round the world exceeding 97% success rate as measured by 15 different operators.

Click on picture for larger version

Permanent_barrier.png

Figure 1. Source: Guidelines for the Abandonment of Wells, p12 (OGUK, 2015)

From the presentations delivered at OWI and the conversations held with Mr. Ringrose, I could summarize two keys aspects of the PWC® technology:

    • Time-Saving
      While the conventional method of section milling, under-reaming and then placing a cement plug typically takes ten days in a trouble-free operation (however, this method is prone to significant trouble time and can take significantly longer), the HydraWell method takes 2 – 4 days.
    • Cement plug quality
      Due to the effective annulus cleaning and cement placement technology, cement plug quality increases as displacement of wellbore fluids is enhanced, and impact of contamination is reduced. This technology also allows for plugs to be effectively set through two strings of casing -into two annuli- at the same time.

PWC® is not only valuable for wells requiring P&A interventions aiming at fulfilling the annulus barrier requirements in the UKOG guidelines; PWC® can also be useful in wells that are shut-in due to unbleedable annulus pressure in annulus B or C. The technique can provide a reliable method of placing annular barrier(s) -closer to the leak source- and returning these wells to production or injection.

Along the same line of thought, this deployment method can be utilized to repair “wet casing shoes” and achieve the required isolation – before drilling into the next zone after a poorly executed primary cement job. Or to allow the setting of a side-track whipstock across an uncemented (or poorly cemented) area, setting a casing exit support plug in the annulus.

WHAT ABOUT RESINS?

Needless to say, the capabilities of the tool left me and other delegates at the OWI convention astonished. A topic of discussion that came up during one of the presentations was the use of conventional cement versus micro-cement together with the PWC® tool. But then it wasn’t long before the conversation revolved around the combination of PWC® and resins as a mechanism of achieving deeper penetration and enhanced isolation behind the annulus.

Hydrawell partnered up in joint R&D studies with Wellcem to evaluate the use of resins through their PWC® tool to further enhance penetration into the annulus behind the casing. The solid- free resin offered by Wellcem can penetrate narrow cracks and channels where not even micro-cement can penetrate. The combination of the PWC® tool with resins is expected to enable operators to properly place isolation barriers even under the more challenging placement conditions.

 Test Assembly.jpg

Figure 2. Test assembly for pumping the resin thru 1.7 mm nozzles.

In one of these studies, the objective was to verify the possibility of pumping high-density ThermaSet® (Wellcem polyester resin) through the ¼ inch nozzles in the HydraWash® tool under a certain allowable pressure at high pumping rates (several Bbl/min), see figure 2. To execute the test in a workshop environment, calculations were carried out to downscale the test parameters. A reduced size prototype nozzle with 1.7 mm opening and 5 litter/min flow rate (based on estimates) was considered the optimum settings for observing the pump pressure during the test.

Test results and observations confirmed that 2.3 SG (19.2 PPG) resin can be pumped through the 1.7mm nozzle at 5.0 litter/min with ~310 psi pressure differential -1,400 psi applied pressure- (Pressure losses in the nozzle with water were 280 psi in comparison).

Quality check of the samples taken before and after pumping showed similar results – leading to the conclusion that the nozzle size has no visible effect on the properties of the resin plug.

All in all, it seems like we should be up for some more exciting case histories from the combination of these two new technologies used in an environment that would have been too hard for conventional methods to succeed.

We’ll leave it here – stay tuned for our next piece on Coiled Tubing Cementing, which will complete this series on P&A operations.

Gracias!

Click on this link to see an animation of the PWC® single run assembly 

MIGUEL DIAZ/DAVE RINGROSE

Miguel Diaz is Wellcem’s Business Development Manager for the Middle East and North Africa region. He has 20 years’ experience from operations, technical advisor, quality assurance, business development and management positions in the oil & gas industry from all areas of the high-pressure pumping services. Dave Ringrose has 40 years varied experience in drilling management, drilling engineering, drilling operations and project and operational support work. He is highly experienced in all aspects of drilling and workover management and currently responsible for all HydraWell operations and business development in the Middle East

Middle East Well Integrity Whitepaper

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics, Integrity
  • Date: Feb, 2017

There are different definitions of Well Integrity. The most widely accepted definition is given by NORSOK D-010:

“Application of technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of a well”.

Another accepted definition is given by ISO TS 16530-2:

“Containment and the prevention of the escape of fluids (i.e. liquids or gases) to subterranean formations or surface’’.

Well Integrity is undoubtedly a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, well integrity engineers need to interact constantly with different disciplines (e.g. well intervention and drilling) to assess the status of well barriers and well barrier envelopes at all times.


 

Download Attachments: Download PDF

Aging Well Stock Management in the Middle East

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics, Integrity
  • Date: Feb, 2017

Introduction

The Middle East offshore market generally has shallow water depth operations in high salinity water environments. As fields in the Arabia Peninsula mature and production declines they need extensive recovery enhancement and workovers which place added stress on the asset. In conjunction with the age and salinity of the water these works can effect the structural integrity of aging wells. This forces further works to take place, including diagnostic runs and tubing remediation.

In the Middle East companies including Saudi Aramco, QP, Zadco and ADMA-OPCO have become experts in dealing with mature offshore wellstock, and below is a case study from the region highlighting the best practice that has been learnt.

Middle East Experience of Aging Well Stock Management

With a global slowing of drilling activities, we are often finding ourselves working over mature fields with old well stock to encourage greater recovery volumes and meet the demand for hydrocarbons. Mature assets have unpredictable behaviors, and this demands highly skilled teams and well thought out intervention activities to ensure the continued production of these assets. >Case One: The Well

In one example the Middle East operator observed live wells having fluid mobility into annulus space, resulting in the bleeding of hydrocarbons at the surface. The Annulus-B pressures were reaching 1000psi, and there was clear evidence of communication within casings. The hydro-testing of annulus space showed the wells were unable to withstand the test pressures, so ultrasonic testing, cement bond logging, and other logging techniques were used to quantify the integrity and accurately identify leak paths ahead of restoring the well integrity of failed Annulus-B wells. It was decided to repair the conductor pipe and perform casing patches externally and internally and cement consolidated rock formations, then cover with a tie back. As a remediation strategy, a cement barrier was placed in production casing above the reservoir using sleeves, patches, perforating two-zone techniques and milling to mention a few.

The utilization of section milling as a remediation measure is interesting. Its effectiveness was later verified with cement bond logging to ensure that integrity was assured. The operational challenge faced from leveraging milling technology was a failure to pass the bottom of section mill cut. This was then solved by using a taper mill to drill the required section.

The root cause of the integrity issues were understood to be generic aging (the wells were approximately thirty-years old), poor cement jobs and the possibility of ineffective drilling practices used at the initial stages of the well’s life. The core objective was to restore to well integrity of production and injection wells and rule out well abandonment as an option. This was achieved and the programme was a success – resulting in the extension of the mature asset’s life.

Case Two: The Conductor

In this case the operator discusses two fields in the Arabian Peninsula, one consisting of 99 wellhead towers, and the other having 116 wellheads towers – cumulatively the integrity department is having to manage 217 wellhead towers. The technical challenge faced by the operator is that over 60% of these wellheads towers are in life extension phase.

If offshore conductors corrode to the point their structural integrity fails, they are bound to buckle leading X-mas tree and other related critical equipment to fail.

The wellhead towers are typically 3-legged and 4-legged (with 9 slots) having above water guide support and near seabed conductor support. One of the main issues the operator is facing is having 9 slots conductor’s exposure to the huge amount of wave load which may transfer through conductor guides followed by jackets to piles. It is important to highlight conductor guides support for the wellhead towers is necessary, otherwise, the conductor will be free standing and may subject to vortex induced vibrations which could fail under free vibration or due to fatigue.

When designing conductor supports it is essential that the weight from X-mass tree, BOP, lateral support, vortex induced vibration, corrosion protection and marine growth should be considered among other requirements with respecting code and standards established by NORSOK, API, and ISO.

In the region operators have typical well conductor loading depth varying from 100ft to 300ft, having two types of loadings axial compression and global bending. The operational integrity is assured by conducting scheduled screen inspection (visual inspection) followed by detailed inspection using Saturated Low-Frequency Eddy Current (SLOFEC) and Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) quantifying the minimum wall thickness, external and internal detections, separate mapping and other techniques.

By executing these inspections and then coupling them quickly with remedial works, abnormalities in the aging conductor were identified and rectified within the scheduled inspection window. In one example it was discovered there was at least a minimum wall thickness and therefore efficient strength to assure the stability of the asset against atmospheric, splash and full submerged segments of the conductor – and therefore its ability to cope with the stress of a work over for production enhancement applications was established.

The results of applying this conductor programme across the two fields showed that a robust remedial strategy, as emphasized by this operator, reduced rig intervention for replacement and fewer rig repair strategies such as reinforced cement, bolted clamps and welded sleeves just to mention a few.

Conclusion

Well integrity is becoming increasingly important in maturing fields in the Middle East. The asset integrity lifecycle is ever evolving, and lessons learned must be added to our codes of practice and become ‘the norm’ for future projects. This will ensure that collectively we are able to continue the efficient production from our existing assets for the benefit of future generations.

The insights captured in this document are indicative of a culture where we need a continuous improvement across training our personnel to increase competency, safety and cost-effectiveness of operations and use innovative approaches in low price environment.

From these examples, a scheduled approach to preventative maintenance workovers are shown to be more cost-effective overtime rather than dealing with sever and critical integrity works which are bound to follow.

Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP): Defining if a Scenario Needs Intervention

Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP): Defining if a Scenario Needs Intervention

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics, Integrity
  • Date: Jun, 2019

Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP): Defining if a Scenario Needs Intervention

In this second part of my article series on SCP, I will discuss how to define whether you have an SCP scenario that needs intervention or not. In the first article in this series, I talked about a framework from which we can deal with the problems related to SCP. I also gave an overview of which guidelines from different industry bodies that address this topic.

Following the advice given by these guidelines and listening to what operators in the Middle East are telling us, I suggest you look into four aspects of your well annulus behaviour to define whether you have an SCP scenario that needs intervention or not:

Leak nature
Leak rate
Annulus pressure
In a less conventional manner; hydrocarbon gas mass.


LEAK NATURE

There may be a risk of introduction of toxic material such as H2S or radioactive agents into the annuli through the SCP. Such materials imply a considerable risk to personnel safety, and their presence, no matter the other parameters, indicate that the leak needs to be remediated.

LEAK RATE

Excessive leak rates increase the consequences if containment is lost. The magnitude of the leak will dictate the operator’s ability to normalize the situation since it defines the amount of energy released, its impact on the affected area, and in general, the leak escalation potential. So while a significant leak needs immediate attention, there is a value at which it doesn’t.

API RP 14B states acceptance criteria for leakage rate through a closed subsurface safety valve system, and although the norm is not directly applicable for SCP, its reasoning may still be regarded as an appropriate analogy for determining acceptance criteria for SCP. OGN117 use it as its acceptance criteria for annulus leaks.

The acceptance criteria for leak rate, when hydrocarbons are present in the source of influx, are:

15 scf/min (0.42m3/min) for gas
0.4 liter/min for liquid


ANNULUS PRESSURE

What sounds like a reasonable and empiric statement anywhere you hear it is that the pressure in the annulus should never reach the maximum allowable annulus surface pressure at the wellhead (MAASP). However, in this regard, OGN 117 only advise operators to take into consideration all aspects that detrimentally affect the normal rating of the wellbore hardware when setting the MAASP.

Instead, API-90 (Offshore wells) goes into detail on how to establish an acceptable level of risk for annular casing pressure, using two parameters.

First, sustained annular casing pressure that is greater than 100 psig must bleed to zero psig. If it does, it indicates that the leak rate is small and the barriers to flow are still effective. Second, a procedure is offered to calculate a Maximum Allowable Wellhead Operating Pressure (MAWOP) which sums up to:

MAWOP is based on Minimum Internal Yield Pressure (MIYP) of both tubulars (the one being evaluated and the next outer one) as well as the Minimum Collapse Pressure (MCP) for the inner tubular which are calculated according to API Bulletin 5C3.

MAWOP for an annulus is expected to be less than the following:

50% of the Minimum Internal Yield Pressure (MIYP) of casing string being evaluated; or
80% of the MIYP of the next outer casing; or
75% of the Minimum Collapse Pressure of the inner tubular pipe body o In case of the outer most pressure containing casing, the MAWOP can’t exceed 30% of its MIYP
If there is pressure communication between two or more outer casing annuli (e.g., communication between the “B” and “C” annuli or between the “C” and “D” annuli, etc.), then the casing separating these annuli is not considered a competent barrier and should not be used in the MAWOP calculation.


Figure 3 shows an example of MAWOP calculations, note the MAWOP is controlled by MIYP of the next outer casing for the “B” annulus, while the MIYP pressure of the casing being evaluated dictates the MAWOP of the annulus “A” and “C”. Finally, annulus “D” MWAOP is set by the MYIP of the outer most casing rule.

SCP-Table-1024x417

Figure 3. Example of MAWOP calculations for a well with no communication between annuli as per API-90.


Finally, API-90-2 incorporated two alternative cases with a slight deviation in the MAWOP calculations. The first one, called the “Default Designation Method” (DDM), does not require data or analysis to be applied. It can be used in a vast majority of onshore wells where poor data is available. It’s the least precise of the methods, and it’s appropriate for wells that operate at low levels of annular pressure. In the DDM, the MAWOP for the annulus being evaluated is 100 psi (700 kPa) for the outermost annulus, and 200 psi (1400 kPa) for all other annuli, and it requires no further calculations.

If a casing string has significant drill string wear, suspected or known erosion or corrosion, or is operating under high temperature, API-90-2 suggest a second deviation to API-90 for the calculation of MAWOP. This is called “Explicit De-rating Method” (EDM); in this alternative method, the operator would apply a specific reduction in the wall thickness or material properties in calculating the MIYP and MCP.

Using the EDM approach for the inner and outer tubulars, the tubular de-rating component of MAWOP for the annulus being evaluated is the minimum of one of the following:

80 % of the adjusted MIYP of the outer tubular string
80 % of the adjusted MCP of the inner tubular string
100 % of the adjusted MIYP of the next outer tubular string (provides an additional factor of safety)
100 % of the adjusted MCP of the outer tubular string, (i.e., the inner tubular of the next outer adjacent annulus)


The MIYP and the MCP for the tubing and casing strings can be calculated per API 5C3, but their adjusted values are calculated by the following:

MIYPAdj = [(MIYP ⋅ UFb) – ΔPwcd] and MCPAdj = [(MCP ⋅ UFc) – ΔPwcd]

Where MIYP and MCP are the minimum internal yield and collapse pressures; UFb and UFc are the burst and collapse utilization factors (1.0 equals 100 %); ΔPwcd is the pressure differential from the inside to the outside of the casing at worst case depth (i.e., the depth that yields the maximum ΔP). There is no industry standard for the utilization factors, and operators would choose them as part of their safety factors assumptions.


HYDROCARBON GAS MASS

An aspect often overlooked in the Middle East, and not covered by API, but well defined in the Norwegian sector of the North-Sea, is the mass of gas which will result in limited consequences and as low as reasonably practicable probability of escalation if released (OGN 117). Although not directly applicable to SCP, NORSOK S-001 Technical Safety contains an analog requirement to determine acceptance criteria for hydrocarbon gas mass:

“…For pressure vessels and piping segments without a depressurizing system, containing gas or unstabilized oil with high gas/oil-ratio, the maximum containment should be considerably lower than 1000kg…”

This item is typically ignored in the Gulf region as all tubulars have cement to surface either as part of their primary cement jobs or as a result of top-up jobs done afterward. So typically, the SCP leak paths are through cracks/channels in the cement sheet and/or micro-annuli between the cement and the casings. Therefore, the mass of hydrocarbon in the annulus tends to be below any known pre-set criteria. However, for those of you out there trying to come up with a set of criteria for your wells, this is an item worth keeping in mind.

We’ll leave it here for now, next articles will be around how to characterize the SCP to establish when an intervention is required, choosing the ideal solution and how to evaluate the success of any potential treatment.

MIGUEL DIAZ

Miguel has 20 years’ experience from operations, technical advisor, quality assurance, business development and management positions in the oil & gas industry from all areas of the high-pressure pumping services. He has worked in South America, the Caribbean Sea, central and eastern Europe, Sub-Sahara Africa and the middle east. Miguel serves as one of our cementing experts and is our Regional Manager for the Middle East and North Africa region.

Free Guide The most common causes for leaks in oil wells and 8 questions to consider before you select solution

Implementing Well Intervention Technology

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics
  • Date: Aug, 2019

Implementing Well Intervention Technology

Access an exclusive podcast with Saudi Aramco, Baker Hughes and NOV exploring the most effective strategies to implement new well intervention technologies. Hear the essential information Middle East operators need to ensure technology is successfully implemented and contract/tendering times are kept to a minimum.

Questions explored include:

What are the key challenges service providers face when trying to implement new technology for well intervention and how can operators help?
What are the key requirements operators need from service providers to ensure tendering time is kept to a minimum?
How does the increasing use of TOTEX (CAPEX+OPEX) evaluation during procurement enable the uptake in new technology adoption?

MENA Well Intervention Technology

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics
  • Date: Jul, 2019

In this second part of my article series on SCP, I will discuss how to define whether you have an SCP scenario that needs intervention or not. In the first article in this series, I talked about a framework from which we can deal with the problems related to SCP. I also gave an overview of which guidelines from different industry bodies that address this topic.

Following the advice given by these guidelines and listening to what operators in the Middle East are telling us, I suggest you look into four aspects of your well annulus behaviour to define whether you have an SCP scenario that needs intervention or not:

Leak nature
Leak rate
Annulus pressure
In a less conventional manner; hydrocarbon gas mass.


LEAK NATURE


There may be a risk of introduction of toxic material such as H2S or radioactive agents into the annuli through the SCP. Such materials imply a considerable risk to personnel safety, and their presence, no matter the other parameters, indicate that the leak needs to be remediated.

LEAK RATE


Excessive leak rates increase the consequences if containment is lost. The magnitude of the leak will dictate the operator’s ability to normalize the situation since it defines the amount of energy released, its impact on the affected area, and in general, the leak escalation potential. So while a significant leak needs immediate attention, there is a value at which it doesn’t.

API RP 14B states acceptance criteria for leakage rate through a closed subsurface safety valve system, and although the norm is not directly applicable for SCP, its reasoning may still be regarded as an appropriate analogy for determining acceptance criteria for SCP. OGN117 use it as its acceptance criteria for annulus leaks.

The acceptance criteria for leak rate, when hydrocarbons are present in the source of influx, are:

15 scf/min (0.42m3/min) for gas
0.4 liter/min for liquid


ANNULUS PRESSURE

What sounds like a reasonable and empiric statement anywhere you hear it is that the pressure in the annulus should never reach the maximum allowable annulus surface pressure at the wellhead (MAASP). However, in this regard, OGN 117 only advise operators to take into consideration all aspects that detrimentally affect the normal rating of the wellbore hardware when setting the MAASP.

Instead, API-90 (Offshore wells) goes into detail on how to establish an acceptable level of risk for annular casing pressure, using two parameters.

First, sustained annular casing pressure that is greater than 100 psig must bleed to zero psig. If it does, it indicates that the leak rate is small and the barriers to flow are still effective. Second, a procedure is offered to calculate a Maximum Allowable Wellhead Operating Pressure (MAWOP) which sums up to:

MAWOP is based on Minimum Internal Yield Pressure (MIYP) of both tubulars (the one being evaluated and the next outer one) as well as the Minimum Collapse Pressure (MCP) for the inner tubular which are calculated according to API Bulletin 5C3.

MAWOP for an annulus is expected to be less than the following:

50% of the Minimum Internal Yield Pressure (MIYP) of casing string being evaluated; or
80% of the MIYP of the next outer casing; or
75% of the Minimum Collapse Pressure of the inner tubular pipe body o In case of the outer most pressure containing casing, the MAWOP can’t exceed
30% of its MIYP

If there is pressure communication between two or more outer casing annuli (e.g., communication between the “B” and “C” annuli or between the “C” and “D” annuli, etc.), then the casing separating these annuli is not considered a competent barrier and should not be used in the MAWOP calculation.

Figure 3 shows an example of MAWOP calculations, note the MAWOP is controlled by MIYP of the next outer casing for the “B” annulus, while the MIYP pressure of the casing being evaluated dictates the MAWOP of the annulus “A” and “C”. Finally, annulus “D” MWAOP is set by the MYIP of the outer most casing rule.

Figure 3. Example of MAWOP calculations for a well with no communication between annuli as per API-90.

Finally, API-90-2 incorporated two alternative cases with a slight deviation in the MAWOP calculations. The first one, called the “Default Designation Method” (DDM), does not require data or analysis to be applied. It can be used in a vast majority of onshore wells where poor data is available. It’s the least precise of the methods, and it’s appropriate for wells that operate at low levels of annular pressure. In the DDM, the MAWOP for the annulus being evaluated is 100 psi (700 kPa) for the outermost annulus, and 200 psi (1400 kPa) for all other annuli, and it requires no further calculations.

If a casing string has significant drill string wear, suspected or known erosion or corrosion, or is operating under high temperature, API-90-2 suggest a second deviation to API-90 for the calculation of MAWOP. This is called “Explicit De-rating Method” (EDM); in this alternative method, the operator would apply a specific reduction in the wall thickness or material properties in calculating the MIYP and MCP.

Using the EDM approach for the inner and outer tubulars, the tubular de-rating component of MAWOP for the annulus being evaluated is the minimum of one of the following:

80 % of the adjusted MIYP of the outer tubular string
80 % of the adjusted MCP of the inner tubular string
100 % of the adjusted MIYP of the next outer tubular string (provides an additional factor of safety)
100 % of the adjusted MCP of the outer tubular string, (i.e., the inner tubular of the next outer adjacent annulus)

The MIYP and the MCP for the tubing and casing strings can be calculated per API 5C3, but their adjusted values are calculated by the following:

MIYPAdj = [(MIYP ⋅ UFb) – ΔPwcd] and MCPAdj = [(MCP ⋅ UFc) – ΔPwcd]

Where MIYP and MCP are the minimum internal yield and collapse pressures; UFb and UFc are the burst and collapse utilization factors (1.0 equals 100 %); ΔPwcd is the pressure differential from the inside to the outside of the casing at worst case depth (i.e., the depth that yields the maximum ΔP). There is no industry standard for the utilization factors, and operators would choose them as part of their safety factors assumptions.

HYDROCARBON GAS MASS

An aspect often overlooked in the Middle East, and not covered by API, but well defined in the Norwegian sector of the North-Sea, is the mass of gas which will result in limited consequences and as low as reasonably practicable probability of escalation if released (OGN 117). Although not directly applicable to SCP, NORSOK S-001 Technical Safety contains an analog requirement to determine acceptance criteria for hydrocarbon gas mass:

“…For pressure vessels and piping segments without a depressurizing system, containing gas or unstabilized oil with high gas/oil-ratio, the maximum containment should be considerably lower than 1000kg…”

This item is typically ignored in the Gulf region as all tubulars have cement to surface either as part of their primary cement jobs or as a result of top-up jobs done afterward. So typically, the SCP leak paths are through cracks/channels in the cement sheet and/or micro-annuli between the cement and the casings. Therefore, the mass of hydrocarbon in the annulus tends to be below any known pre-set criteria. However, for those of you out there trying to come up with a set of criteria for your wells, this is an item worth keeping in mind.

We’ll leave it here for now, next articles will be around how to characterize the SCP to establish when an intervention is required, choosing the ideal solution and how to evaluate the success of any potential treatment.

MIGUEL DIAZ

Miguel has 20 years’ experience from operations, technical advisor, quality assurance, business development and management positions in the oil & gas industry from all areas of the high-pressure pumping services. He has worked in South America, the Caribbean Sea, central and eastern Europe, Sub-Sahara Africa and the middle east. Miguel serves as one of our cementing experts and is our Regional Manager for the Middle East and North Africa region.

Free Guide The most common causes for leaks in oil wells and 8 questions to consider before you select solution

 

Flapper Valve Milling Inspection

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics
  • Date: Jan, 2017

Flapper Valve Milling Inspection

This Video of the Month is from a well in the Middle East. The operator utilized EV’s Optis™ HD Memory camera to inspect the flow tube and flapper valve condition of a surface-controlled safety valve. Earlier intervention work had resulted in the need to fish tools at the valve but now the functionality of the valve was in question. There was communication across the valve but not access through it.

EV’s HD memory camera was deployed on slickline and here we find the actuated flow tube shifting up and down properly while the camera is stationary. The operator prepped the well by pumping clear water and shutting the well in to allow a gas phase to build at this shallow depth from the surface. On the same camera run but one meter deeper is the flapper valve which should open as the flow tube is cycled. However, the flapper is jammed in a partly open position allowing fluid to pass by but not equipment.

The operator decided to mill through the flapper with a hydraulic workover unit and requested EV’s HD memory camera to check milling progress if there were issues. The flapper valve was successful milled through but a subsequent gauge run stacked out 32m below the valve. The camera was deployed to inspect the milled area of the safety valve and the cause of the deeper obstruction. The video shows a very clean milling job in the flapper area with no potential hazards to hang up tools. 32m deeper we find part of the milled flapper has fallen and is now stuck across the well bore. The operator elected to install a temporary safety valve and return the well to production and will attempt to recover the fish at a later date.

INSPECTION OF JET PUMP HOUSING

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics
  • Date: Sep, 2019

INSPECTION OF JET PUMP HOUSING

This video of the month showcases how the application of CorrosionVA, supported by Integrated Video Caliper technology, helped an operator in Tunisia overcome a well integrity issue and maintain the safe operation of one of their high-rate production wells.

Wells operate under extreme conditions, involving exposure to challenging temperatures and pressures for extended periods of time.

Slickline Camera for Safety Profile Inspection & Parted tubing

  • Region: Middle East
  • Topics: All Topics
  • Date: Feb, 2017

Slickline Camera for Safety Profile Inspection & Parted tubing

This Video of the Month is from a well in the Middle East. The operator utilized EV’s Optis™ HD Memory camera to inspect the flow tube and flapper valve condition of a surface-controlled safety valve. Earlier intervention work had resulted in the need to fish tools at the valve but now the functionality of the valve was in question. There was communication across the valve but there was no access through it.

First, the operator decided to run a Lead Impression Block, which returned to surface with a half-moon shape impression. After seeing the impression, the Operator was not satisfied the results were conclusive and wanted a visual answer to identify what the obstruction was down hole.

EV were called in as an urgent service to give a clear answer. EV’s Optis™ HD colour memory camera capable of capturing 30 frames per second for up to 4 hours was deployed on Slickline to investigate. Once the camera program had completed, tools were pulled out of hole, footage was quickly downloaded and all soon became apparent.

The video shows the tubing had parted just below the DHSV. The camera exits the upper section of parted tubing and continues to run in. 4m below, the lower section of the parting can be seen, answering the half-moon shape on the LIB. With the assistance of the collapsible bowspring centralizers, the 1 11/16” OD toolstring was able to re-enter the lower section of tubing and continued to run in a further few meters.

While Pulling out of hole the camera exits the lower section of parting and re-enters the upper section of tubing capturing the DHSV components found to be in good condition.

The quick reaction from call-out to wellsite for EV to run EV their Optis™ Memory Camera allowed a definitive answer to the problem downhole in a matter of hours, saving the operator vital time & cost from making further unnecessary runs in hole, instead allowing them to plan ahead for the problem at hand.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Page 3 of 3

Linkedin
Twiter
Contact Us

Quick Links

  • Reports
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions

Latest Update

  • SLB's newest digital platform aims to boost well performance
  • 3M Ceramic Sand Screen
  • Woodside sets off major contracts for Trion deepwater development in Mexico
Address: University House, 11-13 Lower Grosvenor Place,
Westminster, London, SW1W 0EX
Phone: UK: + 44 (0) 20 3411 9937
Email: info@offsnet.com
Newsletter

Get the latest newsletter

Make your offshore journey smooth sailing by subscribing with us, and never miss an update again!

Invalid Input
Invalid Input