SPE logo

Well Integrity: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives

28 – 29 May 2013

Doha, Qatar | Oryx Rotana

Technical Agenda

Session 1: Well Integrity Challenges in Qatar—Case Histories

Session Chairs: Ahmad Jassim Mohd Al-Obaidan Fakhroo, Qatar Petroleum; Pierre Leschi, TOTAL

In Qatar, several operators deal with oil and gas productions from both onshore and offshore field developments. This session will provide a well integrity overview from these O&G companies (Qatar Petroleum, RasGas, Mearsk Oil Qatar, Shell, Total, Occidental, etc.). A large assessment of well integrity problems will be touched upon.

Discuss actual well integrity case histories and learn how to improve practices and enhance work. Awareness of well integrity cases will improve the management of the integrity of our wells.

Session 2: Well Integrity Challenges International—Breakout Session

Session Chairs: Ahmad Jassim Mohd Al-Obaidan Fakhroo, Qatar Petroleum; Liane Smith, Intetech Wells; Pierre Leschi, TOTAL

Following the first session, hearing what well integrity challenges the local Qatari operators are facing, a breakout session will highlight the issues that arise in operations in the region. The focus of this session is specific technical challenges that operators face. Do you share the same problems of this region or have some unique challenges? Do you operate ageing wells that are past their design life, but still with valuable production levels that demand continued operation, or high technology new wells that present major difficulties for intervention? Discuss and share your experience as the pooled list of challenges sets the scene not only for this workshop, but for the entire global series.

Session 3: Barrier Verification

Session Chairs: Stuart Girling, Girling and Company; Rana Shehzad Amin, Qatar Petroleum

Having competent barriers is a fundamental imperative of well integrity. In developing a barrier philosophy, consideration must be given to barrier envelopes and the individual barrier elements that make them up; which of these are safety critical and how their performance is managed; when some leakage is acceptable and whether different components can have different leak criteria. In reality few wells go though their operating life without material degradation, component failures or human error featuring. Because of this, the use of contingent (secondary, tertiary etc.) barriers is necessary incase failures happen. We also test, monitor, verify and maintain barrier elements to minimise the likelihood of such failures and the resultant impact. However standards are not the same across the industry with different regulatory regimes, variable understanding, and differing attitudes to risk. This session will encourage delegates to explain how barriers are managed in their own company and to think about philosophy, standards, and practices related to barrier management.

Session 4: How to Manage Wells with Imperfect Barriers

Session Chair: Karim Shaikh, Qatar Shell

Components fail in most wells resulting in imperfect barriers. Good designs, incorporating contingent barriers, can mitigate this, though even with such in-built safeguards, failures, and imperfect barriers introduce risks that need assessment and management. Traditionally well integrity risk assessments have been done reactively, in response to an actual failure. The industry is using the concept of Well Failure Models increasingly to consider failures that have not yet happened and determine actions to be taken should they occur. The recently published OGP (ISO) standard petroleum and natural gas industries—well integrity for the operational phase describes the concept of Well Failure Models and encourages their use to streamline the risk assessment process. A Well Failure Model is typically a matrix that identifies the most common modes of failure with consideration for escalation to multiple failures, since the combined result of simultaneous failures can be more severe than failures occurring separately. Each mode of failure has an associated action plan and response time to repair; whether it is permissible to operate, close in or suspend a well during this period is also captured. The approach enables management of equipment, spares, resources, and contracts to meet the response times specified and is useful to categorise failures for the purpose of prioritisation and reporting. Some examples of Well Failure Models will be presented and delegates will be encouraged to discuss the merits and pitfalls of this approach against other forms of risk assessment.

Session 5: Risk Assessment—How to Decide When to Secure/Abandon the Well

Session Chair: Inge Carlson, Weatherford

The increasing number of ageing wells reaching the end of its design life and the need of final abandonment is a growing concern to the industry. The often uncertain status of existing well barriers is a challenge to both intervention safety and as a continued component of a permanent secured well. The original chemical and mechanical design envelopes of the well infrastructure need to be assessed and understood along with the degradation mechanisms. The often dynamic production history of the well may lead to tubular corrosion, well component wear, and fatiguing thermal loads. External casing corrosion from shallow aquifers is to a far extent a known challenge but yet with few inspection and repair options. Also, potential deeper formation disturbance resulting from reservoir production activities need to be carefully assessed. Many fields are in a rejuvenation phase and a continued production from neighbour wells may also interfere with the remaining infrastructure of the abandoned well. Even operations in other fields may recharge hydrocarbon flows if the formations are connected. Examples from the North Sea include challenges with tubular collapse and even parted casing strings restricting further reservoir access for the plugging and abandonment (P&A) phase. Assuring well integrity and securing reservoir access are key issues for many of these offshore P&A projects. Both new diagnostic tools and cost efficient rig solutions and downhole repair tools are high on the wish list. Understanding the dynamics of the subsurface is a key for plugging material selection and qualification processes. The regulators on the Norwegian continental shelf have much focus on old and status of temporary abandoned wells and put high demands on risk assessment and compliance with the safety regulations. This workshop session will present current global experience and discuss further perspectives of well integrity in the context of safe well abandonment.

Session 6: Technology Gaps

Session Chairs: Bipin Jain, Schlumberger; Karim Shaikh, Qatar Shell

As we all strive to reach a point where we can manage the integrity of our whole well stock, while satisfying both our internal and external standards, guidelines, recommended practices for the whole well life cycle, will have gaps. These gaps maybe technology gaps, failings in well or equipment design or application, gaps in our processes or gaps in our own understanding and knowledge of the complex issues facing us.

This session will explore some of these gaps by example, and discuss possible ways in which these gaps could be filled. These gaps will form the basis of an active discussion with new ideas and concepts being brought to the table.

Session 7: Automating the Management of Well Integrity Data

Session Chair: Nigel Snow, Maersk Oil Qatar AS

At the heart of analysing any well integrity problem is access to data. We all have experience of unreliable and incomplete data stored in separate silos. Great effort can be required to pull it all together. There is a revolution in data management technology and systems already exist which support well integrity data management. But what do we expect these systems to provide? What is the minimum specification for a useful data system? What are the essential aspects, what are the nice-to-have extras? Where do we want to push this technology in the future? Take your chance to influence how well integrity data management systems may evolve. Share your thoughts and ideas, and discuss potential implementation challenges with others in this breakout session.

Session 8: What are the Priorities for Well Integrity Data Management?—Breakout Session

Session Chairs: Nigel Snow, Maersk Oil Qatar AS; Stuart Girling, Girling and Company; Liane Smith, Intetech Wells