WIF Well Integrity Workshop Clarion Hotel Air Sola, 9 th June 2016 Debris Cap Horizontal x-mas tree TCI ITC with plug AWV MIV THI Tbghng plug CIV1 WOV PT AMV PMV PT XOV Jan Saeby, Norske Shell, HXT extension WIF Chairman B 10 ¾"-9 ⅝ " XOV DHSV @ 400m MD C @ 431m MD 20" csg shoe @ A 824 m MD/ 822m TVD 13 ⅜ " csg shoe @ 2292 m MD/2079 m TVD σ Hmin @ Prod packer 1.96 sg Prod. packer @ 4871m MD/4068m TVD 7" liner hanger @ 4895 m MD/ 4086 m TVD 9 ⅝ " csg shoe @ 4992 m MD/4162 m TVD σ Hmin @ Cap rock 1.96 sg 7" liner shoe @ 5893 m MD/ 4569 m TVD
Agenda • Well Integrity History and Background • WIF Organisational Setup and Members • General activities/priorities and Task Forces • Guideline Review and Reporting • Achievements and Comments
Well Integrity History and Background • Prior to 1990, Well Integrity Management during the operational phase was often neglected, ad hoc and lots of wells on NCS and elsewhere were experiencing serious WI issues • In some cases serious leaks and also Blow Outs were experienced due to poor WI, leading to serious accidents with people injuries and fatalities, material damages, environmental discharges and loss of production. • There was little structured approach towards WI. WI was not included as prime focus of the industry like drilling, production and other HSE aspects, i.e. It was not very “sexy” to work on WI • After 1990, and encouraged/enforced by authorities, Operating companies started to put more structured Well Integrity Management systems in place • Norsok D- 010 adopted the “2 barrier philosophy” with colour coded Well Barrier Diagrams (blue/red colours for primary and secondary barriers) • Since +/- 2000, the industry started to put web-based WIMS systems in place • PSA Survey in 2006 showed that the industry was still having problems with knowing the WI status of their wells • Followed up with creation of WIF forum and other measures (regular reporting, regulations updates, audits etc....)
Well Integrity Statistical Failures Well Integrity according to Norsok: Drilling/side-track activities Well testing activities Completion activities Production/Operations incl. closed in wells Well interventions (workover, suspensions, stimulations, pumping operations abandonment, wireline, CT, snubbing) Age and category of barrier element failure Number of wells with well integrity problem 16 14 35 29 < 30 12 Number of wells Number of wells 25 10 20 8 15 6 9 8 8 10 1 2 2 4 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 5 2 0 Cement Chemical inj. line Formation DHSV Tubing Casing Packer TRSV Fluid barrier Design Wellhead Conductor GLV Pack off ASV 0 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 Age in years Wellhead DHSV Conductor ASV Tubing GLV Casing Cement Packer Pack off Chemical inj.line TRSV Ca t e r or y ba r r i e r e l e me nt f a i l ur e Fluid barrier Design Formation Well integrity failure statistics by age and barrier element failures. From PSA pilot study of well on the NCS in 2006 indicated 18% of the wells had leaks or well integrity issues.
WIF – Organisational Setup Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Oil and Social Affairs Energy (OED) Petroleum Safety Norwegian Petroleum Authority (PSA - Ptil) Directorate (NPD - OD) Operating Companies in Norway Norwegian Oil and Gas Drilling Managers Forum (DMF) Facilitator: Tove Rørhuus Well Integrity Forum Plug and Abandon (WIF) Forum (PAF)
WIF - Mandate Purpose: Network to secure and contribute to Industry objectives related to WI matters Scope: - place to discuss industry and regulatory requirements and guidelines - share experiences - identify common goals - cooperate to solve common WI challenges during lifecycle of wells Focus Areas: - Contribute to high industry HSE standards - Monitor, influence and promote cost effective framework conditions, including regulatory requirements and industry norms such as best practices, guidelines & standards - Promote close cooperation with authorities (PSA – Ptil) => with main focus on WI in the operational (and final abandonment) phase
WIF members 2016, Who are we? Workgroup member Company Month Day/Date Host 2016 Anders Hjellen BP Ryan Graham January Tuesday 26 th ConocoPhillips Kristian Lundemo Centrica February Wednesday 24 th Wintershall-Bergen Thomas Vold ConocoPhillips Thomas Berge March Tuesday 15 th Lundin -Oslo Egil Aune Det norske April Tuesday 26 th BP Olaf.Sissener Morten Perander Eni Tuesday 24 th May Centrica Gulnara M Shafikova ExxonMobil June Thursday 9th WIF workshop in June Mehryar Nasseri ENGIE (GDF Suez E&P Norge Karstein Hagenes 2016 AS) Tuesday 21 th Jan Sæby (leader) Norske Shell June Eni Jan-Erik Sandvik Tuesday 23 th August Norske Shell Jan Egil Asbjørnsen Statoil Preben Randhol Tuesday 27 th September Engie (Vara: Steffen Kristiansen) October Total Knut Stanghelle Repsol Tuesday 25 th Ståle Johnsen Total Pål Skjelstad Wintershall November Tuesday 22 th Det Norske Paal Ludvik Jørgensen Lundin Tuesday 13 th December Statoil Rørhuus, Tove WIF/Facilitator • Monthly meetings w/facilitator, MOM’s, host on rotation between the companies • Mandated by and reporting to DMF • 13 operating companies as members (mainly WI specialists) • Set up of task forces to work on various issues • Approved Yearly Action Plan and Budget • Liaising with PSA, Universities, Research institutes, Norsk Standard, ISO.... • Tove Rørhuus replaced Jan Krokeide as facilitator end 2014
WIF General Activities • Main WIF activities: • Working out WI guidelines for the industry (e.g. Guideline 117 and 135) • Reviewing Case studies for cross lateral learnings • Discussing, follow up and reporting of WI incidents • Ensure consistency in reporting (well categorisation for RNNP) • Maintain contact with relevant authorities (e.g. PSA) • Review regulatory changes and standard updates (Norsok, ISO....) • Propose changes and improvements to Norsok D-010 and other standards • Focus on WI training and learnings • Yearly Well Integrity seminars/workshops organised for the industry (Operating Companies) • Contact w/other Industry Forums: DMF and PAF • Sister forum in UK: WLCPF (Well Life Cycle Practices Forum – set up in 2010)
WIF – Major Achievements • Norwegian Oil and Gas, Industry Guideline 117 for Well Integrity written by WIF 1. Well Integrity Training 2. Well Handover Documentation 3. Well Barrier Schematics for the Operational Phase 4. Well Integrity Well Categorisation (WI Colour Coding reporting system) 5. Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) 6. Sustained Casing Pressure Norwegian Oil and Gas, Industry Guideline 135, Classification of Well Control • Incidents, Chapter 4 written by WIF (Guideline for Well Integrity Incidents, classification and reporting) Development of WI Compendium for use in Universities (UiS and NTNU) • • Input to Norsok D-010 Updates, other Industry Standards (ISO) and regulatory changes • Review and follow up on PSA reporting and industry trends (RNNP) Annual WI Industry Workshops/Seminars to share learnings and improve general • WI understanding
WIF – Well Categorisation Categorisation Basis (based on Norwegian PSA guidelines) A well with another significant issue is YELLOW Category Principle Example One barrier has failed, the other is degraded or has not been Completion leak rate above acceptance Red verified. Or leak to surface criteria. Production casing integrity not proven One barrier has failed, the other is intact. Or a single failure Completion leak rate above acceptance Orange may lead to a leak to surface criteria. Production casing integrity proven One of two barriers is degraded or has not been verified; the Completion leak rate within acceptance Yellow other is intact. criteria. Production casing integrity proven Green No or minor integrity issue SSSV leak rate within acceptance criteria Developed in 2007, Annual reporting to PSA from 2008 onwards (RNNP reporting) Focus on Well Barrier Envelopes consisting of Individually tested and verified Well Barrier Elements Firmly establishes the “2 Barrier Philosophy” as the Industry standard Gradually accepted as a “Best Practice” in the Industry Significant improvements in Well Integrity Management and overall safety But: Problems w/consistency in reporting WIF working on clarifications and improvements, including risk level
RNNP Reporting, Industry WI trends • Annual snapshot since 2008, 1911 wells reported in 2015 • Consistency in reporting according to guideline 117 has improved considerably • Reporting has been based on both D-010 Rev 3 and Rev 4, - different requirements may change colors • The number of “red” and “orange” wells has decreased over the last few years • «Red» and «orange» wells are often low risk wells that have been secured and are awaiting repair or abandonment
Recommend
More recommend
