ENSURING SOUND WELL INTEGRITY

MANAGEMENT DURING WELL CONSTRUCTION

Thesis Supervisor:
Engr. Tariq Chandio
Lecturer in the Petroleum & Gas Engineering Department
Group Members:
Faraz Hassan (GL), D-11-PG-05
Imtiaz Ali, D-11-PG-13
Haris Wajih, D-11-PG-03
Habib Ullah, D-11-PG-36
DAWOOD UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
KARACHI
1

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

ENSURING SOUND WELL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

DURING WELL CONSTRUCTION
By:

Faraz Hassan, (D-11-PG-05)

Imtiaz Ali, (D-11-PG-13)
Haris Wajih, (D-11-PG-03)
Habib Ullah, (D-11-PG-36)
Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering
Dawood University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi.
Submitted in partial fulfillment requirement for the
Bachelor of Engineering
(Petroleum and Gas Engineering)
Approved By:

------------------------

------------------------------

Tariq Ali Chandio

Bharat Kumar Heerani

Project Supervisor

Chairman of Department

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would start by thanking Allah Almighty by whose blessings we are able to

cover up all the challenges of our lives. Our special regards remain with our
respectful supervisor Sir Tariq Chandio for serious efforts and proper guidance
throughout our project work.
Next we are thankful to all our friends and classmates who guided us and gave
us hints throughout our work. Last but not least we will name this work to our parents
with whose strong support prayers and motivation have made it possible to meet the
requirements.

ABSTRACT
Well integrity is defined as: the application of technical, operational and
organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids,
throughout the life cycle of a well [1].
An uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons to the surroundings may have
devastating consequences involving loss of lives, environmental damage and huge
economic impact. Therefore it is extremely important that the integrity is assured at
all times. A two barrier criterion is required for all the wells in contact with an over
pressured reservoir. The dual barrier envelopes shall reduce the risk of a hydrocarbon
leak to the surroundings [2].
The highest risk for a major accident is experienced and considered to be
during well construction phase, and not in the production / injection phase. Moreover,
poor well integrity practices during the construction can cause problems which may
threaten the security of the well for its whole lifetime. In this study, a theoretical
model has been created, which focuses on the sound management of well integrity
practices during well construction, giving thorough insight in each phase of well
construction. Also pointing out the flaws in the current industry practices and
providing their alternatives as well.
Furthermore, comparison study has also been performed of known well
integrity incidents and suggested practices, giving insights into the feasibility of the
model.
This thesis suggests that well integrity practices, if observed properly, can lead
to a successful well, not only in the construction phase, but throughout its life,
proving heavily beneficial in the long run.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

iv

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

vii

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION
1.1

Background Study

1.2

Problem Statement

1.3

Objectives of the Study

1.4

Scope of the Study

1.5

Relevance of the Project

1.6

Project Feasibility

CHAPTER 2:

.
.

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Well Construction

2.1.1

Well Planning .

2.1.2

Drilling

2.1.3

Casing

14

2.1.4

Cementing

22

28

Well Barriers .

29

2.2

Well Integrity

2.2.1
CHAPTER 3:

CHAPTER 4:

METHODOLOGY

30

3.1

During Well Planning .

30

3.2

During Drilling

34

3.3

During Casing

39

3.4

During Cementing

42

3.5

Comparison of Practices

44

CONCLUSION
5

48

CHAPTER 5:
REFERENCES

FUTURE RECOMMENDATION
.

50
.

52

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1

Classification of Well Construction

Figure 2

Well Planning Process Flow Diagram

Figure 3

Role of drilling in Field Development

Figure 4

Classification of Rotary Drilling Rigs

10

Figure 5

Rotary Drilling Rig with Important Components

11

Figure 6

BOP stack arrangement

13

Figure 7

Typical Casing Program with different types of Casings

15

Figure 8

Different Liner Schematics

18

Figure 9

Primary Cementing Operation

25

Figure 10

Squeeze Cementing Operation

26

Figure 11

Well Integrity Barriers

28

Figure 12

Well Barrier Envelope

Figure 13

Benefits of Human Factor Integrated Plan

32

Figure 14

Qualitative Analysis between OPEX and CAPEX

33

Figure 15

WBS for Drilling without BOP and Casing

36

Figure 16

WBS for Drilling with BOP and Casing

37

Figure 17

Collapsed casing due to external corrosion from H2S

40

Figure 18

CBL resulting from Dynamic Cementing

43

Figure 19

BP Gulf oil Spill Investigation

46

Graph 1

Well Cost vs. Well Planning

29

Table 1Casing Grades and their properties

Table 29 5/8 Casing Weights

19
20

Table 3API length ranges

20

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND STUDY:
The process of drilling wells in order to produce oil and gas from beneath the
surface of the earth is a quite renowned process. Expensive infrastructure and
equipments are needed for this process to take place. Naturally the safety of the
equipments and infrastructure, not to mention the employees involved also, is a very
important matter. For a well, whether oil or gas, to maintain its integrity in different
phases and stages is an imperative, so that it can produce effectively and
economically throughout the life

[3]

. In the past we have seen many incidents that

caused loss of lives, equipments and business. Behind these incidents there was an
influence of lack of planning of the well control system or the problems which caused
the incidents might not have been considered while planning the well. This is where
Well Integrity comes in. Well Integrity Management is the application of technical,
operational and organizational solutions to reduce the risk of uncontrolled release of
formation fluids throughout the life cycle of the well. Well Integrity Management
System very much emphasis on the problem prevention based approach (endeavor to
predict and solve the problem before it happens) that can accommodate several direct
advantages and benefits like reduction in operating downtime, enhancement in well
control and safety aspects, minimized unplanned repair intervention and cost impact
etc.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Well integrity failures such as casing collapse, casing leak, improper settling
of casing shoe, cementing failures, safety valve leak, human errors (improper BOP
pressure tests, Lack of early kick detection, improper design of drilling fluid in shale
or permeable formation, gas cut etc.) have such a big serious impact on work place,
environment and as well as on business.

Careful consideration of all well integrity failures while planning and

construction of the well can get better life of the well as well as make safe the work
place, environment and business throughout life cycle of the well
Industry research indicates that a large number of wells are affected by well
integrity problems [4]. The severity and frequency of well integrity problems strongly
depends on the region, the fluids handled and the age of the wells. Globally it is
estimated that 38% of oil and gas wells are affected by integrity issues, varying from
45% in the Gulf of Mexico to 18% in the Norwegian Continental shelf. In addition
the Macondo incident, the Elgin field leaks and other, less prominently reported
incidents demonstrate that even sophisticated energy companies are not able to get it
right all the time.
Hence Proper design of Well integrity management insures the proper
placement of well integrity barriers (primary & secondary barriers) which secure the
well from undesirable incident and accident throughout the life cycle of the well.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

To highlight the different well construction operations for proper

understanding.
To evaluate well integrity practices as efficient for well construction.
To understand well integrity barriers for well construction.
To construct theoretical model of Well Integrity Management for Well

Construction.
To ensure the importance of well integrity practices for well construction by
comparing them with known incidents.

1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY:

Evaluation of well integrity management plays a growing role and proper
execution of this technique secures the work place, environment as well as business
from incidents. The development and evaluation of well integrity practices have great
importance in each phase of well construction. Successful well integrity management
is a critical and evolving theme across the oil and gas industry. The scope of well
2

integrity management has been described thoroughly with respect to each phase of
well construction and a theoretical model has been created, which describes the
guidelines through which the well can be constructed without compromising its
integrity and thus, leading to the creation of a successful well throughout its life.
1.5 RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT:
This project is basically related to drilling operation but being a petroleum
engineering student, there is a need to have a detailed knowledge over on-going well
integrity projects having greater importance in present era of upstream oil industry.
Well integrity has greater importance in well construction and tends to improve the
drawbacks of basic well construction which is completed without ensuring the well
integrity management.
1.6 PROJECT FEASIBLITY:
The project will be having greater impact on understanding the best
theoretical model of well integrity in well construction. It will also explain in brief the
impacts of the model designed and the factors that help up to secure the well from
hazardous incidents through such techniques. Hence selection of proper well integrity
technique will surely influence any of the projects in petroleum industry.

CHAPTER 2
3

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 WELL CONSTRUCTION:

Well construction is a very critical phase in the life of a petroleum reservoir.
This phase decides how efficiently the reservoir can be produced and how long will
be its life.
Well construction is not a single operation itself, but it is group of complex
individual operations that are needed to be performed to complete a well, and start
producing hydrocarbons from it. The individual operations that can be classified
under well construction are given below.

Well
Constructi
on
Well
Planning

Drilling

Casing

Figure 1: Classification of Well Construction

Cementin
g

Each operation, as shown in the figure above, are in fact in hierarchal order,
and each of them is very important itself, as the efficiency of each operation depends
upon the efficiency of its predecessor. All of these operations are discussed in detail
next.

2.1.1 Well Planning:

4

Planning of the well is the first task required in constructing an oil or gas well
and without any doubt, it is one of the most important task involved in well
construction, as all the subsequent operations depend on the quality of planning of the
well

[5]

. It requires the incorporation of designing standards, corporate or individual

theories, and experience elements. Although well planning systems and practices may
change from company to company, the finished result ought to be a securely drilled,
least cost well that fulfills the reservoir engineer's prerequisites for oil/gas production.

Figure 2: Well Planning Process Flow Diagram

The strategy for planning is the same, paying little heed to the utilization of the
well. Planning begins with collaboration and data trade between explorers, drillers,
completions and operations engineers and foremen, partner companies, service
companies, gear suppliers, and government administrative authorities. The data
5

assembled in this step regularly anticipates costly misconceptions that would happen
amid the drilling or completion of the well or catastrophic ecological issues that could
come about because of terribly executed operations. Each of the functional operations
in well service includes experts. Often these experts don't have a decent information
of the operation of other parts of the business, and the impacts that their particular
activities will have on alternate operations of a well.
2.1.1.1 Purpose of Well Planning:
The target of well planning is to form, from numerous variables, a system for
drilling a well that has the following qualities:

Safe
Minimum Cost
Quality of the Hole
2.1.1.1.1 Safety:
Safety ought to be the most astounding need in well planning. Crew

considerations must be put most importantly before other parts of the arrangement.
Now and again, the arrangement must be changed amid the course of drilling the well
when unforeseen drilling issues jeopardize the crew. Inability to push crew safety has
brought about death toll and blazed or forever injured people.
The second need includes the safety of the well. The well plan must be
intended to minimize the danger of blowouts and different elements that could make
issues. This outline necessity must be stuck to thoroughly in all parts of the plan.
2.1.1.1.2 Minimum Cost:
A legitimate goal of the well-planning procedure is to minimize the expense
of the well without risking the safety of the well. Most of the time, expenses can be
diminished to a certain level as extra attention is given to the planning. It is not
respectable to make the well like a steel fortress for the sake of safety, if the extra cost
is not needed. Then again, finances ought to be spent as important to create a safe
framework.
6

Graph 1: Well Cost vs. Well Planning

2.1.1.1.3 Quality of the hole:

Drilling a well to the target depth is unsuitable if the last well setup is not
usable. For this situation, the expression "quality" infers the following:

The hole diameter is enough so that a sufficient completion can be done.

The hole or producing formation is not irreparably harmed.

This need of the well planning procedure can be hard to attain to in abnormal
pressure, deep zones that can result in hole-geometry or mud issues.

2.1.2 Drilling:

Now that the well plan has been made, it is time to execute the plan. After the
necessary data has been collected, it is now time to drill the well to the target depth.

Figure 3: Role of drilling in Field Development

Technical aspects of drilling play vital role during well construction. Effective
drilling operations give course to the well with the goal that well can move to the next
phase of well construction, and for that reason it is essential that drilling operation
ought to be performed in well composed, well arranged and greatly in a control mode.

2.1.2.1 Brief History:

The first planned oil well was drilled in 1859 by Colonel Drake at Titusville,
Pennsylvania USA. This well was less than 100 ft. deep and produced around 50
bbl/day. The cable-tool drilling technique was utilized to drill this first well.
Cable-tool drilling and rotary drilling techniques have been available since
people first began making holes in the ground. Rotary rigs dominate the industry
today, but cable-tool rigs drilled many wells in the past. Over 1,600 years ago, the
Chinese drilled wells with various primitive yet efficient cable-tool rigs, which they
continued to use into the 1940s. To quarry rocks for the pyramids, the ancient
Egyptians drilled holes using hand-powered rotating bits. They drilled several holes
in a line and stuck dry wooden pegs in the holes. Then they saturated the pegs with
water. The swelling wood split the stone along the line made by the holes.
Most wells today are drilled with rotary rigs based on the Hamil Brothers
design at Spindletop.
In the 1890s the first rotary drilling rigs were introduced.
2.1.2.2 Cable Tool Drilling:
A steam-powered cable-tool rig was used by Drake and Smith to drill the Oil
Creek site in Pennsylvania. The early drillers in California and elsewhere also used
cable-tool rigs. The principle of cable-tool drilling is the same as that of a childs
seesaw. When a child is on each end of a seesaw, it moves it up and down. The
rocking motion demonstrates the principle of cable-tool drilling.
A cable-tool rig operates much like a seesaw with a powered walking beam
mounted on a derrick. The walking beam is a wooden bar that rocks up and down on
a central pivot. At Drakes rig, a 6-horsepower (4.5-kilowatt) steamboat engine
powered the walking beam. As the beam rocks up, it raises the cable attached to a
chisel, or bit. Then, when the walking beam rocks down, heavy weights above the bit,
called sinker bars, provide weight to ram it into the ground. The bit punches its way
into the rock, and repeated lifting and dropping make the bit drill into the earth. The
9

driller lets out the cable gradually as the hole deepens. The derrick provides space to
raise the cable and pull the long drilling tools out of the hole using one of several
winches called the bullwheel.
2.1.2.3 Rotary Drilling:
Drilling a petroleum well is a complex process that obliges extensive, heavyduty equipment. A conventional drilling rig comprises of a structure that can support
several hundred tons. A "million-pound" rig is routinely expected to support 10,000
ft. and, at times, as much as 30,000 ft. of drillpipe and additional equipment.
Rotary drilling rigs can be classified in various ways. The most common flow
chart of rotary drilling rigs classification is given below.

Figure 4: Classification of Rotary Drilling Rigs

A drill bit is attached to the base of the drillpipe by one or more drill collars.
The whole assembly ends at the floor of a drilling rig and is joined with a rotary table.

10

This table, alongside a special joint called Kelly, gives rotational movement to the
drilling assembly.
While rotary drilling rules in the petroleum industry now, cable-tool drilling
went before it and was the mainstay of early drilling. In some rare cases, it is still
utilized today. For cable-tool drilling, the drilling assembly, is suspended from a wire
rope. The assembly is then reciprocated, striking hits to the formation, which gets
fragmented. The drilling assembly is recovered, and cuttings are brought to the
surface with a lowered bailer.

Figure 5: Rotary Drilling Rig with Important Components

Rotary drilling can proceed continuously unless a worn-out bit must be
replaced. Bit producers have led extensive research to enhance the durability of drill
11

bits so that the number of trips (hauling the drilling assembly out and afterward
running it in the hole) can be decreased, which brings about reduced drilling time.
2.1.2.3 Well Control System:
The well control system is used to hand the sub-surface formation fluid
pressure. Sometimes the formation fluid is at a pressure that is higher than the mud
column pressure in the well. In this case the formation fluid tries to come into the
well bore and sometimes it becomes so excessive that it comes to the surface with
such a high pressure that destroys all the things on the surface. This condition is
called the Blowout. In order to overcome this situation, a well control system is
present on the rig.
The Well Control System consists of:

Blow Out Preventers

Accumulator Unit
Four way valve operations
Manual and Pneumatic Pumps
Cylinders of N2, Gas and Oil
Remote Control Hydraulic Control Relay Valve
Choke Manifold
Choke Over Shaker Line
Flare Line Degasser Line
Super Choke
Safety Valve
Lower and Upper Kelly Cock

12

Figure 6: BOP stack arrangement

2.1.2.4 Well Monitoring System:

Safety and efficiency considerations require constant monitoring of the well to
detect drilling problems quickly. Devices record or display parameters such as depth,
penetration rate, hook load, rotary speed, rotary torque, pump rate, pump pressure,
mud density, mud temperature, mud salinity, gas content of mud, hazardous gas
content of air, pit level and mud flow rate.
The mud logger carefully inspects rock cuttings taken from the shale shaker at
regular intervals and maintains a log describing their appearance. Additional cuttings
are labeled according to their depth and are saved for further study by the
paleontologist. The identification of the microfossils present in the cuttings assists the
geologist in correlating the formations being drilled. Gas samples removed from the
mud are analyzed by the mud logger using a gas chromatograph.

2.1.3 Casing:
13

It is for the most part impractical to drill a well through the majority of the
formations from surface to the target depth in one hole section. The well is
subsequently drilled in sections, with each section of the well closed by lining the
inside of the well, known as casing.
Therefore, casing string is the fundamental part of the well construction. All
wells drilled with the end goal of oil or gas production (or injecting materials into
underground formations) must be cased with material with sufficient quality and
functionality.
2.1.3.1 Purpose of Casing:
The main reasons for running a casing string in well bore are:

To keep the hole open and to give backing to feeble, powerless or cracked
formations. In the last case, if the gap is left uncased, the formation may

collapse and re-drilling of the hole will then get to be fundamental.

To separate porous media with different fluid/pressure regimes from
degrading the pay zone. This is essentially attained to through the combined
presence of cement and casing. In this manner, production from a particular

zone can be attained.

To prevent contamination of near-surface fresh water zones.
To give a passage to hydrocarbon fluids; most production operations are done

through special tubings which are run inside the casing.

To give a suitable connection with the wellhead equipment and later the
Christmas tree. The casing additionally serves to connect the blowout
prevention equipment (BOPS) which is utilized to control the well while

drilling.
To give a hole of known diameter and depth to facilitate the running of testing
and completion equipment.

2.1.3.2 Types of Casing:

There are six basic types of casing strings:
14

Stove Pipe.
Conductor Casing
Surface Casing.
Intermediate Casing.
Production Casing.
Liner.

Figure 7: Typical Casing Program showing different types of Casings

2.1.3.2.1 Stove Pipe:

Stove pipe (or marine-conductor, or establishment heap for offshore drilling)
is run to counteract washouts of close surface unconsolidated formations, to give a
circulation framework to the drilling mud and to guarantee the steadiness of the
ground surface whereupon the rig is sited. This pipe does not typically carry any
weight from the wellhead equipment and can be driven into the ground or seabed
with a pile driver. An ordinary size for a stove pipe ranges from 26 in. to 42 in.
15

2.1.3.2.2 Conductor Casing:

Conductor casing is run from the surface to a shallow depth to protect near
surface unconsolidated formations, seal off shallow-water zones, give security against
shallow gas streams, and give a course for the drilling mud and to secure the
establishment of the platform in offshore operations. One or more BOPs may be
mounted on this casing or a diverter framework if the setting depth of the conductor
casing is shallow. The size of the conductor casing is typically 26 or 30 in. Conductor
casing has to be cemented to surface. It is utilized to support subsequent casing
strings and wellhead gear.
2.1.3.2.3 Surface Casing:
Surface casing is run to counteract caving of weak formations that are
experienced at shallow depths. This casing ought to be set in hard formations, for
example, hard limestone. This will guarantee that formations at the casing shoe won't
crack at the high hydrostatic pressures which may be experienced later. The surface
casing likewise serves to give security against shallow blowouts, consequently BOPs
are placed at the top of this string. The setting depth of this casing string is picked so
that troublesome formations, thief zones, water sands, shallow hydrocarbon zones and
build-up segments of deviated wells may be protected. A common size of this casing
is 20 in.

2.1.3.2.4 Intermediate Casing:

Intermediate casing is typically situated in the transition zone underneath or
over an over-pressure zone, to close a severe-loss zone or to protect against problem
formations, for example, moving salt zones or caving shales. Great cementation of
this casing must be guaranteed to forestall communication behind the casing between
the lower hydrocarbon zones and upper water formations. Multistage cementing may
be utilized to cement this string of casing with a specific end goal to keep frail
16

formations from being subjected to high hydrostatic weight from a constant, long
segment of cement. The most well-known size of this casing is 9 5/8 or 10 in.
2.1.3.2.5 Production Casing:
Production casing is the last casing string. It is run to separate producing
zones, to give reservoir fluid control and to allow specific production in multizone
production. This is the string through which the well will be completed. The standard
sizes of this string are 4 1/2, 5 and 7 in.
2.1.3.2.6 Liners:
A liner is a string of casing that does not extends up to the surface. Liners are
held tight the middle of the intermediate casing by utilization of a liner-hanger. In
liner completions both the liner and the production casing go about as the production
string. Since a liner is situated at the base and hung from the middle of the
intermediate casing, the significant configuration rule for a liner is normally the
capacity to withstand the greatest expected collapse pressure.

17

Figure 8: Different Liner Schematics

2.1.3.3 Properties of Casing:
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has created norms for oil and gas
casings. These principles are perceived by oil and services companies in most of the
countries. The properties through which are looked upon when rating the quality of a
casing are:
2.1.3.3.1 Casing Grade:
Just about without exemption, casing and tubing are made of mild (0.3
carbon) steel, normalized with small amounts of manganese. For extra quality,
makers may quench or temper steel.
API has formulated a casing grading system that comprises of an evaluation
letter emulated by a number that demonstrates the minimum yield strength of the steel
in ksi (1000 psi).
Grad

Minimum Yield

Maximum Yield

Minimum Tensile

Minimum

Strength (psi)

Strength (psi)

Strength (psi)

Elongation (%)

H40

40,000

80,000

60,000

29.5

J55

55,000

80,000

70-95,000

24.0

K55

55,000

80,000

70-95,000

19.5

N80

80,000

110,000

100,000

18.5

L80

80,000

95,000

100,000

19.5

C90

90,000

105,000

100,000

18.5

C95

95,000

110,000

105,000

18.5

18

P110

110,000

140,000

125,000

15.0

Q125

125,000

150,000

135,000

18.0

Table 1: Casing Grades and their properties [6]

2.1.3.3.2 Casing Weights:
For each one casing size there are a scope of casing weights accessible. The
weight of the casing is actually the weight per foot of the casing and is a
representation of the wall thickness of the pipe. For example, here are four different
weights of 9 5/8" casing.

Weight (lb/ft)

OD (in.)

ID (in.)

Wall Thickness (in.)

Drift Diameter (in.)

53.5

9.625

8.535

0.545

8.379

47

9.625

8.681

0.472

8.525

43.5

9.625

8.755

0.435

8.599

40

9.625

8.835

0.395

8.679

Table 2: 9 5/8 Casing Weights [6]

2.1.3.3.3 Length of Joints:
API has specified three ranges in which a pipe length must lie. These are as
follows:
Range

Length (ft)
19

Average Length (ft)

16-25

22

25-34

31

Over 34

42

Table 3: API length ranges [6]

2.1.3.3.4 Burst Strength:

The burst rating of the casing is the amount of internal pressure that the pipe
can withstand prior to failure. The internal yield pressure for pipe is calculated from
the following equation:
PB = 0.875 [(2Yp t) / OD]... (1)
Where,

PB = burst pressure rounded to the nearest 10 psi

Yp = specified minimum yield strength, psi

t = nominal wall thickness, inch

OD = nominal outside diameter, inch

2.1.3.3.5 Collapse Strength:

20

Unlike internal yield resistance of the pipe, collapse resistance equations vary
depending on the D/t ratio. The collapse resistance is separated into four categories.
a) Yield strength collapse pressure.
b) Plastic collapse.
c) Transition collapse.
d) Elastic collapse.
The D/t range must be evaluated and the proper equation must be selected.
Formula factors must be used in collapse calculations. The yield strength collapse
pressure is not a true collapse pressure, rather the external pressure (Pyp) that
generates minimum yield stress (Yp) on the inside wall of a tube.
Pyp = 2 Yp [((D/t) 1) / (D/t) 2].... (2)

The formula for yield strength collapse pressure is applicable for D/t values
up to the value of D/t corresponding to the intersection with plastic collapse formula.
The intersection is calculated as follows:
(D/t) Yp = SQRT [(A-2)2 + 8 (B-(C / Yp))] + (A - 2)) / [2 (B + C/Yp)].... (3)
The minimum collapse pressure for the plastic range of collapse (Pp) is calculated as:
Pp = Yp [(A / (D/t)) B] C (4)
The formula for minimum plastic collapse pressure is applicable for D/t
values ranging from (D/t) pt to the intersection for (D/t) t, transition collapse
pressure. Values for (D/t) pt are calculated by means of:
(D/t) pt = [Yp (A-F)] / [C + Yp (B-G)] (5)

21

2.1.4 Cementing:
Cementing is one of the most critical steps in well completion. Cement is used in
the drilling operation to:

Provide zonal isolation.

Support axial load of the casing strings.

Provide casing support and protection against corrosive fluids.

Support the borehole.

Close an abandoned portion of the well.

2.1.4.1 Cement Formation:
Cement is produced using calcareous and argillaceous rocks, for example,

limestone, clay and shale and some other material containing a high rate of calcium
carbonate. The dry material is finely ground and blended altogether in the right
proportions. The chemical composition is balanced if essential. This mix is called the
kiln feed.
The kiln feed is then warmed to temperatures around 2600-2800 F (14271538 C). The resultant is called clinker. The clinker is then cooled, ground and
blended with a controlled measure of gypsum and different items to structure another
item called Portland cement. Gypsum (CaSO4. 2H2O) is added to control the setting
and solidifying properties of the cement slurry. Cement slurry is the mixture created
when dry cement is blended with water.
Oil well cement is fabricated to API Specification 10A [7] and is separated into
8 classes (A-H) subject to its properties. Class G and H are fundamental well cements
which can be utilized with accelerators and retarders to cover an extensive variety of
depths and temperatures. The essential distinction between these two classes is that
Class H is fundamentally coarser than Class G.
22

2.1.4.2 Cement Additives:

Added substances alter the conduct of the cement slurry permitting cement
placement under an extensive variety of downhole conditions. In excess of 100
additives for cement are accessible and these can be characterized under one of the
accompanying classifications:
2.1.4.2.1 Accelerators:
Accelerators accelerate or reduce the response time needed for cement slurry
to turn into a solidified mass. On account of oilfield cement slurries, this
demonstrates a decrease in thickening time and/or an increment in the rate of
compressive-strength development of the slurry.
2.1.4.2.2 Retarders:
These are the chemicals which amplify the thickening time of a slurry to help
in cement placement.

2.1.4.2.3 Extenders:
In many parts of the world, extreme lost circulation and frail formations with
low fracture gradients are normal. These circumstances oblige the utilization of lowdensity cement frameworks that decrease the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid
segment amid cement placement. Therefore, lightweight additives (otherwise called
extenders) are utilized to decrease the weight of the slurry.
2.1.4.2.4 Weighting Agents:
Weighting agents or heavyweight additives are used to increase slurry density
for control of highly pressured wells.
23

2.1.4.2.5 Dispersants:
These are the chemicals which bring down the slurry viscosity and may
likewise expand free water.
2.1.4.2.6 Fluid-Loss Additives:
The materials which prevent slurry dehydration and diminish fluid loss to the
formation.
2.1.4.2.7 Lost Circulation Additives:
Cement slurries can be lost to the formation and not circulated once again to
the surface amid completion of a wellbore. This is characterized as lost circulation. It
ought not to be mistaken for the volume lessening because of fluid-loss filtration.
Lost circulation agents are those materials which prevent this phenomena from taking
place.
2.1.4.2.8 Miscellaneous Agents:
Other agents used for purposes such as anti-foaming, fibers, latex etc.

2.1.4.3 Types of Cementing Process:

There are mainly two types of cementing processes:

Primary Cementing.

Squeeze Cementing.
2.1.4.3.1 Primary Cementing:

In primary cementing, the task is to place a ceaseless sheath or band of cement

around the casing, not leaving any channels or voids outward to the formation face.
24

Primary cementing is not a simple operation to do effectively. Numerous things can

happen amid this process to make issues or frail spots in the essential cement outline.

Figure 9: Primary Cementing Operation

The fundamental objective of Primary Cementing is zonal isolation. In the
event that this task is accomplished, financial, liability, safety, governmental, and
different prerequisites forced during the life of well may be met. Since the zonal
isolation process is not specifically related to production, zonal isolation gets less
consideration than other well construction exercises. Then again, this fundamental
task must be performed effectively to direct numerous production or stimulation
operations. Accordingly, the success of a well relies on this essential operation.
2.1.4.3.2 Squeeze Cementing:
Squeeze cementing is the methodology by hydraulic pressure is utilized to
drive cement slurry through holes in the casing and into the annulus and/or the
25

formation. Squeeze cement employments are frequently used to do remedial

operations during a workover on the well. But that does not mean that it is always a
remedial operation, it can be used to seal off depleted zones or unwanted fluid
production.

Figure 10: Squeeze Cementing Operation

During squeeze cementing, water is driven from the slurry into a permeable
formation to structure a cement filter-cake which solidifies to create a seal. This
process is known as dehydration of cement [8]. It is a typical confusion that the cement
really infiltrates the pores of the rock. As cement slurries have a mean particle size of
20-50 microns, it would need a formation with a permeability of between 2-100
Darcies for the cement grains to infiltrate the formation.

26

27

2.2 WELL INTEGRITY:

Well integrity is defined as application of technical, operational and
organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids
throughout the life cycle of a well [1].

Figure 11: Well Integrity Barriers

The purpose of well integrity management is to guarantee that wells are
appropriately planned, executed, functioned and maintained up for a definite amount
of time after which they are securely plugged and abandoned.
Well integrity management aims to work on the issue aversion based
methodology (attempt to foresee & take care of the issue before it happens) that can
create a few direct favorable circumstances and benefits like minimizing operation
down time, improvement in well control and security angles, minimized unplanned
repair work, and so on [2].
Well integrity management is focused around the foundation and maintenance
of control barriers in the specific well. According to WIMS norms, a well is viewed
as integral if no less than two different and sound control barriers over each flow path
between the potential reservoir and surface are functional constantly.
28

2.2.1 Well Barriers:

The barrier is a security measure to avoid an uncontrolled arrival of hydrocarbons
to surface by means of production strings or from reservoir to well annulus. Primary
barriers always control immediately the well's up-stream side pressure, though
secondary barriers, which regularly have no well-bore pressure against them,
promptly supplement the primary barriers.
A barrier that loses its integrity is regarded as a non-integral barrier given that a
leak is proved to be in its surface

[9]

. Corrosive environment, non-similarity of

elastomers with well effluents, leak rate and higher temperatures are the main
considerations that influence the safety of the structural barrier (Annulus).

Figure 12: Well Barrier Envelope

29

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
We have seen in the past that lack of well integrity in the well construction
phase has led to quite a lot of incidents some of them proving to be fatal. So in this
project our group has attempted to formulate a theoretical model that covers all the
phases of Well Construction from the point of view of Well Integrity. The scope of
well integrity management has been described thoroughly with respect to each phase
and a model has been created, which describes the guidelines through which the well
can be constructed without compromising its integrity and thus, leading to the
creation of a successful well throughout its life.

3.1 DURING WELL PLANNING:

3.1.1 Current Industry Standards and Practices:
The primary challenge at the well planning stage that needs careful consideration
is reliability of information relating to subsurface pressures and heterogeneity. Most
wells, especially wildcats, possess a degree of uncertainty with regards to their pore
and fracture pressure prediction, borehole stability expected geothermal temperature,
lithology and fluid types. Among any number of offset wells drilled within a
reasonable distance in an area, the age variance can be considerable, and the quality
of data gathered will affect the accuracy of the subsurface predictions. For the
geosciences team, fulfilling their primary function, the many uncertainties are
accepted in a probabilistic approach to likely reserves. However, for the engineer, the
probabilistic approach to pore pressure, fracture pressure prediction and formation
properties inevitably means we must be prepared for the low possibility, high
impacting event in our design.
Conventionally, during the planning phase, well barriers often are designed
primarily for drilling static and dynamic loads due to the complex nature of the
30

subsurface and achieving the first priority of reaching total depth casing the section
under demanding conditions. This heavily weighted focus on the drilling static and
dynamic loads can have a negative integrity effect, since barriers selected are not
necessarily designed for the full range of load scenarios that can arise in the
production, and abandonment phases.
The system should ensure the provision of a clear and precise well objective that
is based on current reservoir development and earth model study. All possible well
utilization scenarios production, injection, gas lift, to recomplete the well into a
different zone or any operation deemed necessary for field development must be
clearly stated in the well life development plan. Area of concern; the earth model
should cover all potential risk structures above the target reservoir through accurate
mapping of geo-mechanical data.
3.1.2 Suggested Practice:
The incorporation of all the above data (also expressed in Figure 2) is common
practice in most of the fields nowadays. What we really need to work on now, is the
incorporation of the human factor in planning procedures.
3.1.2.1 Human Factor:
Have you ever used a tool and thought: what a dumb way to design this tool,
it is so difficult to use and they could do this or that to improve the tool? Then you are
thinking of human factors considerations to improve the tool that people are using.
Human factors (HF) focus on human beings and their interactions with products,
tools, machines, procedures, environments and facilities. Human factors seek to
improve the things people use and the environment in which they use these things to
better match the capabilities, limitations and needs of the people. Human factors have
to be included in the engineering and design of a workplace or a working
environment because they influence work performance.
In practically every well occurrence and real blowout that has happened, the
human component has constantly assumed an essential part. To diminish the impact
31

of the human factor in well operations, it is critical that the individuals included have
sufficient well integrity competence.
Competitive training of personnel could go about as a solid hindrance against
undesirable events. An alternate component that enhances safety is an expansive,
collective group-experience, i.e. the personnel as a whole has experience and
competence from diverse sorts of operations or have different professional
experience. Lately this variable has been secured by the utilization of coordinated
operations where information is imparted among a few experts to distinctive
foundations.
HF Integrated
Plan

Quantitative
Benefits

Quantitative
Benefits

Figure 13: Benefits of Human Factor Integrated Plan

Integrity in planning done by identifying the bottom line impact of overall
plan, applying generic plan considerations and developing a safe operational,
ergonomic and maintenance plan for integration that can be implemented at the
design stage will help in absolute savings by reducing cost in modification and
maintenance to a large extent. This has the dual benefit of extending operating
intervals and reducing operating expenditure. Integrity management done during
32

planning stage not only extents the benefit throughout operation but also into life
extension or decommissioning.
3.1.2.1.1 Qualitative Analysis
A qualitative analysis done between CAPEX and OPEX over the 30 year
lifetime of the facility as an example is shown. It is clear from the graph that
maintenance cost is the largest lever available to improve profitability in the oil and
gas industry.

Figure 14: Qualitative Analysis between OPEX and CAPEX

The curve A clearly indicates that CAPEX is higher during the design
engineering and construction phase for a system integrated with Human

Factor and

Safety Requirements But during OPEX, as the maintenance requirements of the

facility starts, the curve traces a line which shows that there is a little increase in cost
as the facility nears the lifetime. In addition the breakeven point is achieved at an
early stage of operation between curves A and B thereby increasing reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety.
The curve indicates that CAPEX is less during design, engineering and
construction phase while during OPEX, as the maintenance requirements of the
33

facility starts, the curve traces an exponential expenditure profile due to extended
shutdown periods, low maintainability, high human errors, LTIs, decreased
availability and reliability.
3.1.3 Final Considerations:
The following points should be assessed thoroughly while planning the well:

Current well status.

Purpose of well.

Temperature, pore pressure and formation strength prognosis, including

uncertainties.

Design life requirements, including abandonment scenarios.

Geological depth prognosis with expected stratigraphy and lithology,

including uncertainties.

Potential hazards that may cause loss of well integrity.

Description of formation fluids.

Well path listing, target requirements and proximity calculations to offset

wells.

Summary of reference well data and experience feedback.

Personnel safety, working environment and marine environment shall be

considered in relation to selection of fluid type-/cuttings handling and
disposal.

3.2 DURING DRILLING:

34

3.2.1 Current Industry Standards and Practices:

In the drilling phase well integrity is mainly associated with keeping the
formation under control and ensuring that the casing used is suited for the well, so
that the forces exerted on the casing string do not compromise its integrity. Examples
of such forces can be collapsing formation, thermal expansion of fluids trapped in the
annulus or dynamic loads experienced during run in hole of the casing. Casing wear
caused by long time drilling and rotating in the last set of casing is also something
that will affect the well integrity if not taken into consideration during the design
phase. Casing wear is something to be particularly aware of when drilling long
horizontal wells were the drill string will wear on the casing for an extended period of
time.
There is higher risk of compromising the casing integrity during drilling
operations. Prior to landing, all components of casing string including connections,
circulation devices and landing string shall be subject to load case verification. For
through-tubing drilling operations, the tubing and accessories shall be reclassified to
casing and redesigned to meet drilling loads.
During drilling, the primary pressure barrier is the fluid column. The drilling mud
also forms a filter cake to prevent wall collapse. Keeping the borehole wall intact
ensures that the cement column would be properly set during completion. Borehole
cave-ins result in an under-reamed hole which could affect the cementing operation.
3.2.2 Suggested Practice:
In order to improve well integrity while drilling operation, the formation of Well
Barrier Schematics (WBS), explaining the primary and secondary barriers to the flow
of reservoir fluid must be formulated for each section of the well and steps must be
taken to make sure that the employs fully understand it and can work according to the
needs of schematics in case of a problem.
Some sample schematics are presented ahead.
35

36

Figure 15: WBS for Top Hole Drilling without pressure containing BOP and Casing

37

Figure 16: WBS for Drilling and Tripping with BOP and Casing installed

3.2.3 Final Considerations:

The following points should be assessed thoroughly while drilling the well:

Drilling of top hole can be conducted with the fluid column as the only well
barrier. Potential shallow gas zones should not be penetrated.

Prior to drilling out of the surface casing, a drilling BOP shall be installed.

Prior to drilling the lateral bore in a multi-lateral well, well control action
procedures shall be established for controlling influxes from any of the
previously drilled bores.

Floating (partially filled up) of non-shearable tubular strings in open hole or

with open perforations exposed should be conducted with two qualified
WBEs located inside the tubular. The inside WBEs shall be designed such that
fluid can be circulated.

Prior to initiating an operation, an assessment of risks associated with the

intended operation shall be made.

The employees must also be made fully aware of:

Strategy for killing the wells,

38

Requirements relating to position measurements of wellhead and well bore

trajectory,

Necessary equipment, personnel, services,

Measures for limiting the consequences of a blow-out,

Guidelines for normalization of the operation.

3.3 DURING CASING:

3.3.1 Current Industry Standards and Practices:
While drilling, steel tubular (casing strings) are run in hole in order to protect the
formation as the weight of drilling mud increases to compensate for the high pore
pressure.
There are several factors regarding the casing string that can affect well integrity;
The tubing and casing premium connection are potential leak points in the well,
and the industry knows that one connection can disqualify the well string. The
primary and secondary well barrier envelope can include 1000-1200 casing, liner and
tubing threaded connections in a typical well. If 99.9% of the well string connections
are sealed then we may still have a 100% well string failure and a disqualified well
string. The reliability of a premium metal to metal seal connection can be
compromised unless proper running and installation are performed, and the thread
39

lubricants (dope), running equipment, and computer controlled makeup equipment

should be selected with regard to the reliability of the connections. There are several
factors that can contribute to well integrity challenges and leakage in tubing and
casing connections.
3.3.2 Suggested Practice:
3.3.2.1 Corrosive Gases and Environment:
One of the challenges the industry have today is that many wells are using
casing and tubing connections that are not qualified for gas, despite the fact that these
are being used or can be used for gas-lift or otherwise being exposed to gas. This
could be result of inadequate well design or lack of available gas tight connections
when the well was constructed. This may prove to be a problem on many of the twostring-design wells.
Exposure to corrosive fluids that might be present during well services is also
a matter of concern.

Figure 17: Example of collapsed casing due to external corrosion from H2S

40

The industry should itself exercise caution while selecting the material for the
casing in the case where contact with gases and corrosive environment is imminent
(taking future acidizing jobs into account), so that the integrity of the casing will not
be comprised throughout the life due to these reasons.
3.3.2.2 Placement of Casing Shoes:
The setting depth of the casing shoe is a critical factor for maintaining the
formations integrity during drilling, but they also play a role for well integrity during
its production phase.
A loss of circulation or a kick situation may lead to high burst or collapse
loads on the casing string. Smart design of casing shoe placement is needed in order
to prevent the casing from losing its integrity.
The resulting burst load of the casing is the inside pressure minus the outside
pressure. If a kick occurs, the casing might be filled with gas or very light fluid. The
pressure inside the casing will at worst case be the reservoir pressure minus the
hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid column. A gas or light fluid will not provide
a lot of pressure, especially at the top. The weak point will therefore be at the
wellhead.
It is important to design the well so that if a weak point is present, it should be
located below the casing shoe. Therefore, the casing must be places at a formation
with enough strength to support the casing in case of an increase in the pressure. This
is an acceptable state of reduced well integrity.
A weak point at the wellhead could lead to a blowout and have disastrous
consequences.
3.3.3 Final Considerations:
The following points should be assessed thoroughly while casing the well:

41

Planned well trajectory and bending stresses induced by doglegs and hole
curvature.

Maximum allowable setting depth with regards to kick margin.

Estimated pore pressure development.

Estimated formation strength.

Estimated temperature gradient.

Drilling fluids and cement program.

Loads induced by well services and operations.

Completion design requirements.

Estimated casing wear.

Setting depth restrictions due to formation evaluation requirements.

Potential for H2S and/or CO2.

Metallurgical considerations.

ECD and surge/swab effects due to narrow clearances

Isolation of weak formation, potential loss zones, sloughing and caving

formations and protection of reservoirs.

Geo-tectonic forces applicable.

3.4 DURING CEMENTING:

42

3.4.1 Current Industry Standards and Practices:

The quality of the cementing operation is also crucial in maintaining wellbore
integrity. The main challenges today which affect the cement integrity include hole
cleaning, circulation of cement, centralization of casings, setting time of the cement,
logging, testing and verification.
The cement can be pumped too far or too short and therefore result in no
isolation of the hydrocarbon zones. The cement can become contaminated and result
in slow cement set up or not at all. Cement channeling can occur, allowing the
hydrocarbons to bypass the cement. The cement crew can never be certain of how a
cement job is proceeding when it is pumped since the crew cannot confirm whether
the cement is contaminated, or whether it has sealed off the well. The cement crew
must rely on indirect indicators like pressure and volume. The cement criteria related
to full returns are often used to decide whether to perform a cement evaluation
logging operation. Receiving full returns was used as an indicator of cement (or other
fluids) not being lost to the formation, but it provides limited information about the
cement location, cement channeling or cement contamination.
3.4.2 Suggested Practice:
The process of Dynamic Cementing is a process in the early stages of
development, which is proving to be a quite good at preventing the most troublesome
problem, i.e. improper setting or channel formations.
3.4.2.1 Dynamic Cementing:
Dynamic Cementation consists of rotating and reciprocating the casing from
the time the cement operation commences until cement is set, as well conditions
allow and torque permits. Pipe movement during cement placement helps to remove
the mud which would otherwise be trapped on the narrow side of an eccentric
annulus. The basic method is the same as during bottoms up mud circulation. The
following description explains the effect of standoff on mud displacement efficiency
during cementing.
43

The casing is invariably off-center or eccentric, and in a worst case scenario

the casing can be lying on the low side of the hole. This affects the flow of the fluids
in the narrow and wide areas of the annulus. It is defined as standoff which is a
measure of pipe eccentricity.
It increases the quality of the cement job by increasing mud displacement
efficiency and decreasing pressure loss while cement cures. While the scientists
acknowledge no one tool or method would solve every problem, they submit that pipe
movement is the single most cost effective way to improve zonal isolation.

Figure 18: CBL resulting from Dynamic Cementing

3.4.3 Final Considerations:

The following points should be assessed thoroughly while cementing the well:
44

Before pumping the cement slurry, make sure that the well has been cleaned
properly.

Ensure that proper cement is selected for the job, keeping nature of the zone to
be isolated, such that the properties of the cement do not deteriorate with time.

The cement must be able to maintain its properties even at high temperatures.

Make sure that adequate volumes of the cement slurry is pumped.

Proper zonal isolation must be ensured, such that no flow behind the casing
should be observed.

Steps must be taken to make sure that the cement slurry is properly
centralized.

Negative pressure tests should be conducted to check for cement seal

integrity.

Cement bond logs should be run to check for any problems within the cement
slurry.

If logs indicate problems, remedial (squeeze) cementing should be done

before declaring the well operational.

3.5 COMPARISON OF SUGGESTED PRACTICES VERSUS KNOWN

INCDENTS:
Most of the problems that pose a threat to Well Integrity are small individual
mistakes on the individual level that may or may not pose a direct threat to the well in
its construction phase, however, they remain an imminent threat throughout the life of
a well and in some cases prove to be disastrous.

45

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the BP oil
disaster, and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill) is a perfect example of the disastrous nature
of such mistakes. The spill started on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the BPoperated Macondo Prospect. It claimed eleven lives and is viewed as the biggest
incidental marine oil spill in the historical backdrop of the petroleum industry. After
the blast and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, a sea-floor oil gusher flowed
for 87 days, until it was capped on 15 July 2010. The US Government assessed the
aggregate release at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m 3). After
several unsuccessful attempts to contain the flow, the well was announced sealed on
19 September 2010. A few reports show the well site keeps on leaking.
After thorough investigation of the incident

[10]

, eight key reasons that caused

the blowout of the well were discovered. These reasons are discussed below briefly.
(1) The annulus cement barrier did not isolate the hydrocarbons. The
investigation concluded that there were weaknesses in cement design and
testing, quality assurance and risk assessment.
(2) The shoe track barriers did not isolate the hydrocarbons. The
investigation team concluded that hydrocarbon ingress was through the shoe
track, rather than through a failure in the production casing itself or up the
wellbore annulus and through the casing hanger seal assembly.
(3) The negative-pressure test was accepted although well integrity had not
been established. The Transocean rig crew and BP well site leaders reached
the incorrect view that the test was successful and that well integrity had been
established.
(4) Influx was not recognized until hydrocarbons were in the riser. The rig
crew did not recognize the influx and did not act to control the well until
hydrocarbons had passed through the BOP and into the riser.
(5) Well control response actions failed to regain control of the well. If fluids
had been diverted overboard, rather than to the Mud Gas Separator (MGS)
46

there may have been more time to respond, and the consequences of the
accident may have been reduced.
(6) Diversion to the mud gas separator resulted in gas venting onto the rig.
The design of the MGS system allowed diversion of the riser contents to the
MGS vessel although the well was in a high flow condition. This overwhelmed
the MGS system.
(7) The fire and gas system did not prevent hydrocarbon ignition. The
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system probably transferred a gasrich mixture into the engine rooms, causing at least one engine to overspeed,
creating a potential source of ignition.
(8) The BOP emergency mode did not seal the well. The investigation team
found indications of potential weaknesses in the testing regime and
maintenance management system of the BOP.
Now, analyzing the above results of the investigation report, we can see that
the main reason for the blowout, though smaller on an individual level, made a huge
impact on the rig collectively.

47

Figure 19: BP Gulf oil Spill Investigation

It is safe to say that the main reasons for the blowout are:
(a) Improper cement job.
(b) Improper casing job.
(c) Inadequate training of the employees.
Now, our model outlines the key guidelines and proper practice principles,
which if followed and executed properly, keep any such mishaps from happening.

48

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
The main contributions of this thesis are:

Brief description of Well Construction principles and operations.

Describing the Well Integrity rules and specifications.

Development of a theoretical model which Well Integrity Management into

Well Construction.

Comparison of the model with known incident to prove its credibility.

Failure to deliver and maintain well integrity can have significant damaging

effects on production, costs, reputation and credibility. Well integrity is a critical

subset of production assurance and is therefore a core driver for business success. The
industry as a whole has not established clear and unambiguous definitions for well
integrity, and the range of interpretation as to what constitutes effective well integrity
management is huge. It is therefore difficult for regulators to mandate well integrity
conformance when the industry cannot offer a common definition and framework.
The consequences of poor well integrity management can, in some cases be
immeasurable. However, for the most part, good well integrity practices will
maximize the life of the well, its productivity, and most importantly its safety while
minimizing well maintenance costs.
The well incident discussed in Chapter 3 only represents a small fraction of
the number of blowouts and well incidents happening around the world. With the
upcoming increase in petroleum activity, well integrity will be a crucial factor for
avoiding well incidents and preventing major disasters and loss of human life.

49

Now these issues can only be properly addressed while the construction of the
well is being performed. With proper planning, drilling and cementing, these
problems have very little chance to hinder the integrity of a well.
The Human Factor Integration makes sure that the employees are properly
trained with respect to the equipments and environments to which they will be
exposed. Their awareness to any potential hazards and their remedies will certainly
help to minimize the effects of any problematic issue. Whereas the Dynamic
Cementing is being considered as the best solution for mitigating most of the
cementing problems.
Further guidelines regarding and Well Barrier Schematics and Casing Shoe
Placements give the employees tools to make sure that integrity of the well is
compromised while drilling and casing the well.

50

CHAPTER 5
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
As there are numerous factors controlling the impact of a potential blowout /
well release, it is difficult constructing a model capturing all of them. Our model is
built on a few factors considered most important, and they are weighted according to
which have the greatest influence on the consequences. This weighting is subjective
and needs to be adjusted. To construct a more representative model reflecting a
realistic consequence picture it is essential to have participation from experienced and
knowledgeable team members from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. As the
factors come from different areas, several engineers (reservoir, mechanical, process,
design, risk) must be included in the model development providing a better basis for
the assumptions the system is built on.
The model needs to be tested on a high number of field cases to find out
which factors are most significant to the consequences. By comparing the results
from many wells, it is easier to see trends and adjust the model assumptions.
However another issue that remains up for debate is the difference of safety
and well integrity standards throughout the world. At the moment, every country uses
their own set of regulations, even UK and Norway who both operate in the same
areas. In the US, in addition to the federal regulations, every single state also has their
own set of rules. This leads to inconsistencies with regards to safety within the
industry, something that should be equally important no matter where in the world the
operation takes place. This could be taken even further and include a common set of
standards to be used, as many countries and operators do not even have standards
51

with regards to well integrity. This leads to an interesting discussion whether a set of
standardized regulations within the petroleum industry would be to prefer.
There are several aspects of a business unit or a company that can promote
higher degree of well integrity and safety. In the past, the aspect of well safety and
integrity was normally included under the drilling & operation department. The
concept of having a separate well integrity department is fairly new, but could
contribute immensely as the focus and expertise is only directed towards well
integrity.
Previously, many wells have been drilled and completed with insufficiencies
regarding well barriers. Especially well isolation, or cement, has not been adequately
to secure the well. Companies have often used sub-par solutions and equipment or
insufficient cement height in order to save money. Something to consider is that the
amount of money saved by avoiding a well incident or a blowout greatly outweighs
the cost of an extra barrier, better equipment or an extra person.
Hopefully the importance of well integrity will continue to grow throughout
the industry in the coming years, as well as the knowledge and competence of
everyone involved, from a global and national level, down to company and personal
level. Perhaps one day, major well incidents like the Deepwater Horizon and those
similar will be a thing of the past.

52

REFERENCES
1) NORSIK D-010 Standard, Norway, Rev 3, August 2004.
2) Jamal Al-Ashab et al., 2004 Well Integrity Management System (WIMS), Abu Dhabi, UAE, SPE.
3) Jarle Haga et al., 2009 Well Integrity Management in Talisman Energy Norway: A Systematic Way
of Describing and Keeping Track of the Integrity Status for Wells in Operation, Antonio, Texas, USA,
SPE.
4) Srinivasaraghavan Suresh et al., 2013 Managing Well Integrity, Brussels, Belgium, Arthur D. Little.
5) Charles Dudley McManus et al., 2012 Well Planning: A Risk Management Process, Texas, USA
SPE.
6) API Spec. 5CT, Specification for Casing and Tubing, 9th Edition, June 2011, Washington, DC: API
7) API Spec. 10A, Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing, 23rd edition. 2002.
Washington, DC: API.
8) George C. Howard & C.R. Fast, 1950 Squeeze Cementing Operations, SPE.
9) Birgit Vines, 2011 Qualification of Well Barrier Elements - Long-Term Integrity Test, Test Medium
and Temperatures, Vienna, Austria, SPE.
10) Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report, September 8, 2010, British Petroleum.

53