SPE

International

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 88934

Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria

Miebaka Wakama, SPE, Edirhin Eta, SPE, and Ade Adeniyi, SPE, Shell Petroleum Development
Company of Nigeria Limited

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 28th Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 2-4, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Well Integrity is a vital aspect of well design,
construction, operation, maintenance and abandonment.
As put by SPDC, “all wells shall be designed,
constructed, operated, maintained and abandoned in a
manner that safeguards their integrity, minimize Health,
Safety and Environmental risks and ensure their planned
availability throughout their life-cycle”. As a
consequence of this policy, all wells are monitored to
ensure their integrity is guaranteed at all times. By
implication all wells that fall short of standards are
secured or closed-in unless a short-term deviation or
waiver is granted.
Well integrity problems may occur in producing and
non-producing wells, especially older wells that were
completed as per the prevailing completion standard of
their completion dates. The completion standards have
changed over time with respect to safety requirements
(e.g. wells without top packers, wells without SCSSVs).
There may also be some wells that meet current safety
standards but still have some integrity-related problems
(e.g. leaking packer or silted well slots -swamp
locations).
Although, the necessity to enhance the integrity of wells is
recognized, enhancement activities have been limited by
past budget constraints. The identified activities often rank
low in oil generating economics when compared with other
projects within the portfolio competing for funds. It
therefore became necessary to effectively manage the wide
range of well integrity problems, by adopting a concept of
‘Well Integrity Management System’. In 2003 a dedicated
team was set up to assemble a coherent process from the
practices of the past and the present and inventorise work
that needed to be carried out to ensure that well integrity
issues are being adequately addressed.
This paper discusses the initiative by SPDC, Nigeria to put
in place a Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) and
successes so far.
Introduction
Well integrity problems may occur in producing and non-
producing wells, especially in older wells, which were
completed as per the completion standard of earlier dates,
but no longer fully, meet today's safety requirements (e.g.
wells without top packers, wells without SCSSVs). There
may also be some wells, which meet current safety
standards but still have some integrity-related problems
(e.g. leaking packer or silted slots).
To address the problem of well integrity, there is need for a
corporate focus to ensure that all the wells meet a minimum
integrity requirement. This together with other related
requirements can be developed into a Well Integrity
Management System (WIMS)- to ensure that each
responsible operator aims to safeguard people and the
environment as required by law.
2 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

The Well Integrity Management System is basically a suite c) Risk Assessment and prioritisation to confirm
of inter-connecting processes, guidelines, procedures, severity of problem and for budgetary allocation.
documentation and performance tracking tool to manage d) Development of Standard procedures and
well integrity problems. The success of the implementing documentation - to define a Code of Practice,
the system will to some extent depend on the synergy minimum safety requirement and how to manage
between the inter-relating components. defaulting wells. This also includes other
documentation (e.g. certification, change control,
A Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) is aimed at etc) that may be necessary.
managing all well integrity problems and at defining a e) A Management System to provide the framework
‘Code of Practice’ and a minimum well integrity to drive the process.
specification. The Code of Practice is simply a framework
through which a well integrity policy can be implemented. A) Identification and Categorisation of Well
For SPDC, this policy states that “all wells shall be Integrity Problems
designed, constructed, operated, maintained and abandoned
in a manner that safeguards their integrity, minimize HSE Well integrity problems can vary to a considerable
risks and ensure their planned availability throughout their degree. The first step taken by SPDC is to define
life-cycle”. As a consequence, all wells that fall short of this categories based on the most common and key problems
policy require some form of safety enhancement, to ensure identified. This is summarized in table-1 and detailed
their integrity is guaranteed at all times. description of each of these categories is presented in
Appendix-1.
Well Integrity Management can also lead to identifiable
benefits; For example assuring well integrity will restore Category Description Remarks
(and in some cases improve) the significant oil (and gas) Category-1 Wells without Top Packer Old wells completed as per
potentials at risk. It can also lead to additional oil gains standard of that time
Category-2 Wells with unexpected Casing
from recompletion opportunities during re-entries. Head Pressure (CHP)
These potentials (oil and gas) from the wells may be Category-3 Wells without Sub-surface Safety Among old wells.
jeopardised or lost if nothing is done. Valve (SCSSV)
Category-4 Wells with Obsolete Packer Packers are sealing but give
Equipment retrieval problems during
Well Integrity Management Initiatives in Workovers
SPDC Category-5 Wells in Shallow Water
In the past years, the necessity to manage integrity of Category-6 Wells with Corroded Wellhead
wells has been recognized by SPDC. However, this has Category-7 Wells in Navigable Water-ways Vicinity became waterway
after wells were drilled
been limited to maintaining an inventory and using Category-8 Wells in Short/Silted Slot
adhoc methods/procedures within teams or divisions of Category-9 Others Several other types
ensuring that these wells are monitored, closed-in problems
(where necessary) or managed within an operating Table-1 Well Integrity Problem and Categorisation.
envelop and standard. Although this inventory also
forms the bulk of SPDC’s workover inventory,
enhancement activities were limited in the past due to B) Formation of a Database and Well Inventory
inadequate budget provision for all the planned
corporate programmes. However, there is now a To manage well integrity problems it is necessary to
renewed focus to ensure that all the wells are effectively develop a comprehensive and auditable activities
managed to meet a minimum integrity requirement. The database through which wells integrity problems can be
process of achieving this objective is outlined below. tracked. In SPDC a dedicated database, with sufficient
functionality to generate well integrity specific reports
Process Description: and analysis, has been set up. This is based on an
aggregation of inventories of wells requiring integrity
SPDC Well integrity Management process include the enhancement from various Asset Teams. This database
following: is used to prioritise/rank all well integrity activities
a) Identification and categorization of well integrity without undue reference to whose asset, and therefore
problems. play a key role in investment decision-making.
b) Formation of a database to inventorise, monitor Some of the elements in the database include:
and track changes to wells requiring integrity
enhancement. This includes a software to manage a) Field and Well Name
online changes.
3 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria
b) Type of integrity problem, category and
current status (including well pressures).
c) Mitigation, workscope, including timing for
the proposed solution (rig or rigless)
d) Cost of mitigation
e) Associated value (reserves/potential
restoration, oil gains, etc)
f) Other opportunities for recompletion.
Ease of accessibility to the data and effective analysis is
provided through a dedicated Corporate Well Integrity
Database system developed as a part of the entire Well
Integrity Management System.
Well Integrity database will be periodically (e.g. on
monthly basis) updated to generate a Well Integrity
report, which can be made available to the Area
Production Managers and all other relevant parties.
This will also utilise the “Traffic Light” monitoring
system. The traffic lights are defined in figure-1 below:
RED AMBER GREEN Significance
Unsecured, non-integral well (i.e.
has known integrity problems
RED
and neither a valid Certificate of
Fitness nor Deviation Form).
Well with integrity problem
flowing with a “Deviation Form”
but lagging behind the control
RED AMBER measures as defined in the
“Deviation Form”. Warns that
well will be shut-in if further
neglected.
Well with integrity problem
AMBER being flowed with a “Deviation
Form”
Well with CoF but lagging
behind in the maintenance and
AMBER GREEN
monitoring schedules. Warns that
if maintenance continues to be
neglected then the well will be
required to be shut-in
Well with no integrity problems
GREEN with valid Certificate of Fitness
Well closed in with integrity
problem and secured. Well
continues to be monitored.
Fig-1: Well Integrity Traffic Lights Monitoring System
C) Risk Assessment and Prioritisation
A new prioritisation and ranking procedure has been
developed by SPDC to help in the screening and risk
assessment of wells with integrity issues. As described in
Appendices 2-4, this tool is an adaptation of the HSE Risk
Assessment Matrix (HSE RAM) applied to well integrity. It
considers assessment with respect to people, asset,
environment, company reputation as well as production
potential.
SPE 88934
Depending on the category, flow status, production
potential, proximity to population, annular pressure, and
frequency of occurrence, wells can be rated as a “High”,
“Medium” or “Low” risk well. This can also be used to
ensure proper rationalization of budget. The ideal sequence
will be to execute the High-risk wells first, followed by the
Medium and then the Low risked. However, there may be
need to also rationalize/optimise the budget based on the
peculiar terrain (e.g. logistics and envisaged community
issues) where campaign approach will come out as a
cheaper alternative.
D) Procedures and Documentation
The key processes and procedures for managing well
integrity over the full life cycle of a well are embedded in
the group of WIMS documents developed within SPDC.
The outline for each of the documents is summarized in
Appendix-5.
These documents will be audited after a pre-determined
time (e.g. 2-yearly) and revised accordingly to take
advantage of changing times, availability of new
technologies and other specific items to ensure that the
elements necessary for the implementation of the well
integrity management process are still in place.
E) Well Integrity Management System (WIMS)
Development
The SPDC Well Integrity Management System (WIMS)
was developed by a “Prover” Project team and in line with
group and industry standards. The ‘prover’ project concept
was a first in SPDC in this area of critical business activities
- to develop a Well Integrity Management System, kick off
a well potential restoration programme and to look for
opportunities to generate additional oil. The team consisted
of a cohesive but varied expertise/experience amongst team
members and cross-fertilization of ideas from other OUs
Appendix-6 is a process overview flowchart which
outlined the WIMS process. It describes the sequential
WIMS practices and steps required to ensure individual
wells are properly managed at all times.
The overview also provides a pictorial view of what has
been a normal practice in SPDC and the additional
requirements that are necessary to implement WIMS
(indicated in Red letters). It shows that only a minimal
addition to the current workload will be required to
implement WIMS in SPDC.
4 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi
Expected Benefits From Well Integrity
Management
Apart from ensuring that wells are safely operated, the
management of well integrity activities will always lead
to other associated benefits.. Some of these are:
-It obviously safeguards the company’s licence-to-
operate. It is in consonance with the company’s declared
policy of
‘designing, constructing, operating, maintaining and
abandoning wells in a manner that safeguards their
integrity, minimize Health, Safety and Environmental
risks and ensure their planned availability throughout
their life-cycle
-It assures a good corporate image and reputation as
responsible operator.
-It provides safeguard for operating staff, other people and
the environment as required by law.
A side benefit of effective well integrity management is
that it can lead to the identification of new oil gains, as
well as potential restoration opportunities. The
additional oil gain will typically be realized from
recompletion opportunities during the re-entries to make
the well ‘integral’ or through optimisation of the
completion. The terms ‘Potential at Risk’ and ‘Restored
Potential’ are used to quantify risk of “Doing Nothing”
(i.e. the potential oil that may be lost if the integrity of
the well is jeopardised) and the benefit after
enhancement activities that may not necessarily lead to
an oil gain.
Implementation of WIMS in SPDC and
Early Gains
In line with the corporate steer to ensure that all the
SPDC wells meet a minimum integrity requirement, the
Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) was kicked
off in February 2003 and finally put in place by end
January 2004. As at February 2004, The WIMS
documents have been rolled out, creating adequate
awareness within and outside SPDC. While this was
being done, an execution campaign to enhance wells
already identified was also concurrently kicked off in
March 2003. A total of 21 rig and 24 non-rig related
wells were enhanced in 2003 across different terrains in
SPDC leading to a restored total potential of some
40Mbopd and an additional oil gain of 25Mbopd from
recompletion opportunities during re-entries. This efforts
are currently being sustained in 2004.
Current Issues/Concerns and Challenges
A number of fields are currently inaccessible (including
some shut-in due to community related issues); it may
therefore be difficult to immediately ascertain the integrity
SPE 88934
status of the wells in these fields. There are some wells in
silted slots that are also inaccessible, but efforts are on to
address the situation. There are yet a number of exploration
wells (either temporarily suspended or partially abandoned)
whose current status will be checked.
There is a challenge to maintain the quality and
integrity of data/database during collection, storage and
analysis.
There is the need to continue to treat Well Integrity
activities as strategic (on the basis of safety considerations)
to compete favourably with other oil generating activities.
Conclusions
There is a commitment in SPDC to manage the integrity of
all wells to standard safety requirements. A Well Integrity
Management System (WIMS) has therefore been put in
place. This system is robust and is in line with group and
industry standards.
A ‘prover’ project technique to develop a critical document
has proved useful in creating the necessary cohesive team
with varied expertise/experience and cross-fertilization of
ideas from other Shell Operating Companies.
There is still a challenge to maintain the the current
focus on quality and integrity of data/database during
collection, storage and analysis. This will be a key
success factor for the well integrity management
process.
Significant potential can be restored by enhancing the wells
with integrity problems. Enhancing the integrity of all the
wells with integrity problems can also lead to an additional
oil gains.
A strategic justification and therefore sustained funding is
required for well integrity activities on the basis of safety
considerations.
A total of 21 rig and 24 non-rig related wells have been
enhanced in 2003. These jobs have led to a restored total
potential of some 40Mbopd with an additional oil gain of
25Mbopd from recompletion opportunities during re-
entries.
Acknowledgement
We thank the Management of Shell Petroleum
Development Company of Nigerian limited for granting
the permission to publish this paper. We acknowledge
the invaluable contributions of the Well Integrity Team,
the focal points in the Asset teams, Well Services, Well
Re-entry project team, and Well Engineering in the
materials presented herein. We also acknowledge the
5 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria SPE 88934

technical and managerial steers given by the discipline

head of Production Technology and Well Re-entry 6. SPDC Standard Completions and Work-over
manager and some other individuals towards ensuring procedures manual January 1997
paper quality. 7. SPDC Well Engineering Policies Manual
June 1994
8. SPDC Quality Well Delivery Process
References September 2000
9. SPDC Integrated Operation Standards (Vol. 4
1. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Company of Nig. – Well Services Operations) 2001
Ltd. ‘SPDC Wells Requiring Safety 10. SPDC Asset Maintenance Policies and
Enhancement’ 2001 and July, 2003 Reports. Guidelines Rev. 2001
2. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Company of Nig. 11. SIEP Well Services Guidance Manual (Vols.
Ltd. ‘SPDC Well Integrity Management 1 & 2) 1987
System - Terms of Reference’ February 2003. 12. SIEP Production Well Services Operations
3. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Company of Nig. Guide 1995
Ltd. ‘SPDC Well Integrity Policy Statement’ 13. Oil Mineral Safety Regulations (1997)
March 2003. 14. Other OUs (Brunei, PDO, WOODSIDE,
4. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Company of Nig. EXPRO etc. Well Integrity
Ltd. ‘SPDC Well Integrity Management Management Documents)
System - Document Nos. WIMS.001 - 008 15. EP Business Model, Version 3
January, 2004. 16. SPDC Well & Field Assets Abandonment
5. SPDC Well Engineering Drilling Procedures Standards 1995
Manual January 1997 17. Federal Republic of Nigeria Petroleum
Decree No. 51 of 1969
6 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

Appendix 1: Categorisation Of Well Integrity Problems

Category-1:Wells without Top Packer:

These represent a range of older wells, which were completed as per the completion standard of that time. These wells
do not meet today’s safety requirements of providing at least 2 barriers in a producing well.

Category-2:Wells with unexpected Casing Head Pressure (CHP):

Wells without top packer can often lead to unexpected casing head pressure. On the other hand wells with top packer
can develop packer leaks, which is communicated up the tubing/casing annulus (e.g. A Annulus). It is also possible to
have an unexpected CHP due to a tubing casing communication, which may be caused by various scenarios (e.g. tubing
leaks and partially open sliding doors). These pressures should on the short term be bled down and constantly
observed. Where pressure continues to build up, the well should be killed and secured if it is outside the pre-determined
“operating envelop”

Category-3: Wells without Sub-surface Safety Valve (SCSSV):

These wells are paramount in most operating units and also form the vintage of older wells, which were completed as
per the completion standard of that time. These wells present only one line of defence in the tubing between a producing
interval and the surface (i.e. Xmas tree). Where these wells are capable on natural flow, they present potential hazard to
personnel and the environment should sabotage, tampering and accidental damage to Xmas tree occurs.

Category-4: Wells with Obsolete Packer Equipment:

Page equipments are of obsolete and old technology and may present difficulties during re-entries. While they may not
constitute integrity issues, they can lead to costly workover.

Category-5: Wells in Shallow Water:

These are wells in Shallow Water that are inaccessible with our standard means of transport.

Category-6: Wells with Corroded Wellhead:

Due to corrosive environment wells can be located, wellhead can be corroded. These category of wells present a great
danger to the environment

Category-7: Wells in Navigable Waterways:

These are wells located in Waterways or routes operated by out sailing ship. Due to dredging, excavation and
canalisation activities, wells that were hitherto in secure environment can suddenly by exposed in Navigable water
ways. Wells under this category are all closed-in.

Category-8: Wells in Short/Silted Slot:

These are wells located in swampy or riverine area, which are inaccessible with standard boats due to silts deposition
around the slot. Due to a peculiar nature of operating in Swampy terrains, these wells can present a reoccurring problem
to an operator.

Category-9: Others:
These are other problem wells, which do not fall under the above main eight categories. Some of these may include
wells with: leaking Christmas trees valves, packer and safety valves, faulty control valves, leaking tubing/casing,
buckled tubing, fish in hole, subsidence problem and sanded well. These generally represent a wide range of other
problems that can occur on regular basis. Most operators handle this aspect under routine maintenance activities at pre-
determined windows.
7 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria SPE 88934

Appendix 2: Risk Assessment & Ranking Process Overview

IDENTIFY EVALUATE PRIORITISE CORPORATE CORPORATE

DATABASE PRIORITISATION

Operate /
Monitor
Well,
Production
Operations

identify
and report
potential
failures

Maintain / Monitor
Well. Check
Well Services

Identify and Evaluate programs

integrity issues & resource
for rigless
operations
Document all
wells
requiring
safety
enhancement Prioritise the Enter data into Develop
Technologist
Production

Identify well within each corporate rig and

potential for risk category by database / rigless
additional oil potential and WIMS. plans &
& gas gain Evaluate and cost programs
opportunities Establish
Category,
Risk, Work
Well Engineering

scope and
cost.
Check
programs
& resource
for rig
operations
Well Integrity .

Evaluate the data and ensure quality and confirm opportunities for HC gains and Rank the wells Finalise
Project Team

that all opportunities have been identified. Package the wells into work plans and according to plans
allocate resources economics,
potential

SPDC Well Integrity Code of Practice

SPDC Asset Maintenance Policies & Guidelines

SCWPM

HSE-MS Risk
Reference Documents

POWSG

WELL
ENGINEERING
POLICIES
MANUAL

INTEGRATED OPERATIONS STANDARDS

QUALITY WELL DELIVERY PROCESS

 8 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

Appendix 3 Modified Risk Assessment Matrix

Category Category description Flow Current Conduit Proximity to Annulus Pressure build- Risk Rating
Status Potential population in Pressure ups after
in bpd meters bleeding down?
Wells without top > 501 High
1 packer (any dual or 101 - 500 High
single string with an
exposed interval) 0-100 Medium
no Low
> 501
yes High
Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes High
50%-90% no Low
0-100
MAASP yes High
0-50% no Low
Natural MAASP yes Medium
101 - 500
Flow Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes High
50%-90% no Low
>100
MAASP yes Medium
0-50% no Low
MAASP yes Medium
no Low
0-100
yes Medium
no Low
yes High
Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes High
> 501
50%-90% no Low
Wells with unexpected >100
2 MAASP yes Medium
CHP
0-50% no Low
MAASP yes Medium
Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes High
50%-90% no Low
0-100
MAASP yes Medium
101 - 500
0-50% no Low
Artificial MAASP yes Medium
Lift
no Low
>100
yes Medium
Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes Medium
0-100 50%-90%
Low
MAASP
0-50%
Low
MAASP
0-100
Above 90% no Low
MAASP yes Medium
>100 50%-90%
Low
MAASP
0-50%
Low
MAASP
 9 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria SPE 88934

Category Category Flow Status Current Proximity to Annulus Pressure build- Risk Rating
description Production population Pressure ups after
Potential in meters bleeding down?
in bpd
> 501 High
Natural 101 - 500 High
Wells without 0-100 Medium
3
SCSSV > 501 High
Artificial Lift 101 - 500 Medium
0-100 Low
Wells with obsolete
4* - - - - - -
Packer equipment*
Natural High
Wells in shallow > 501 High
5
water Artificial Lift 101 - 500 High
0-100 Medium
> 501 High
101 - 500 High
Natural
0-100 High
0-100
Wells with corroded >100 Medium
6
Wellheads > 501 High
101 - 500 Medium
Artificial Lift
0-100 Medium
0-100
>100 Low
Wells in navigable
7 High
waterways
Natural High
Wells in short/silted > 501 High
8
slots Artificial Lift 101 - 500 Medium
0-100 Medium

* Category 4, Wells with obsolete Packer Equipment, in itself does not constitute an integrity issue. However, the
few remaining wells in this category will potentially cause operational problems during workovers.

Category 9 Other
For any other problems wells that cannot be categorised in the list, the standard SPDC Risk Assessment tool (see
Appendix 3) will be used. The potential consequence that may occur is assessed as well as the frequency of
occurrence. The consequence and categories are defined in Appendix 3. The result will then determine the risk
rating from the standard RAM.
 10 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

Appendix 4 : Qualitative RAM Consequence and Category definitions

Appendix 3: QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Likelihood
Consequences Never heard Heard of in Occurred in Several times Several times
of in Industry Industry SPDC per year in SPDC per year in Field

Rating People Assets Environment Reputation Very Unlikely Unlikely but Occurs every Occurs every 1-3 Occurs several
possible 8 years & above years in SPDC times per year
A B C D E
No Injury or
0 Damage to No Damage No Effect No Impact
(Cost to rectify = Nil) (Cost to rectify = Nil) (No public awareness)
Health
Slight Injury or
1 Damage to Slight damage Slight Effect Slight Impact
(Cost to rectify <$10Kl) (Negligible cost to rectify) (Public awareness
Health but no concern)
Minor Injury or
2 Damage to Minor Damage Minor Effect Limited Impact
(Cost to rectify <$100Kl) (Temporary damage on E.) (Local Public /
Health media concern)
Major injury or Localised
3 Health Effect Damage Localised Effect Considerable
(Cost to rectify <$500K) (Limited Toxic discharge.) Impact
(Regional public concern)
Permanent Total
4 Disability or Major Damage Major Effect Major National
(Cost to rectify <$10,000K) (Severe damage on E.) (National public concern)
Single Fatality
Extensive
5 Multiple Fatality Damage Massive Effect Major
(Cost to rectify >$10,000K) (Long Term damage on E.) International
(I'national public concern)

LEGEND

Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk

Example

The example below illustrates how to use the qualitative risk assessment matrix, and shows the simplicity in arriving at the
probability estimation.

A Marine Vessel crashed onto a wellhead and damaged the wellhead hook-up arm causing release of hydrocarbon. There
were no injuries. The risk assessment is as follows:
• The worst credible consequence could have been burning or drowning of the barge crew driver (two persons). The
incident has been heard of in the Oil & Gas Industry (probability B)
• The consequence category is P; the rating is 5.
• The risk assessment is therefore B5(P)
• In addition, the incident could have led to the loss production.
• Such loss has occurred in our company before (probability C)
• The consequence category is A (asset); rating is 3 (localised).
• The other applicable severity rating is C3(A)
The most severe rating is B5(P). This falls in the High-risk category.
11 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria SPE 88934

Appendix 4 (cont.): Qualitative RAM Consequence and Category definitions

Harm to People

No. Description
0 No injury or damage to health
1 Slight Injury or Health Effects (including first aid case and medical treatment case) - Not
affecting work performance or causing disability.
2 Minor Injury or Health Effects (including Lost Time Injury) - Affecting work performance, such
as restriction to activities (Restricted Work Case) or a need to take a few days to fully recover (Lost
Workday Case). Limited health effects, which are reversible, e.g. skin irritation, food poisoning.
3 Major Injury or Health Effects (including Permanent Partial Disability) - Affecting work
performance in the longer term, such as a prolonged absence from work. Irreversible health damage
without loss of life, e.g. noise induced hearing loss, chronic back injuries.
4 Single Fatality or Permanent Total Disability - From an accident or occupational illness
(poisoning, cancer).
5 Multiple Fatalities – From an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer)

Asset Damage

No. Description (100% costs, US$)

0 Zero damage
1 Slight damage - No disruption to operation (costs less than $10,000)
2 Minor damage – Brief disruption (costs less than $100,000)
3 Local damage – Partial shut down (can be restarted but costs up to $500,000)
4 Major damage – Partial operation loss (2 weeks shut down, costs up to $10,000,000)
5 Extensive damage – Substantial or total loss of operation (costs in excess of $10,000,000)

Impact On Reputation

No. Description
0 No Impact - No public awareness
1 Slight Impact - Public awareness may exist, but there is no public concern.
2 Limited Impact - Some local public concern. Some local media and/or local political attention with
potentially adverse aspects for company operations.
3 Considerable Impact - Regional public concern. Extensive adverse attention in national media.
Slight national media and/or local / regional political attention. Adverse stance of local government
and/or action groups.
4 National Impact - National public concern. Extensive adverse attention in the national media.
Regional / national policies with potentially restrictive measures and/or impact on grant of licences.
Mobilisation of action groups.
5 International Impact - International public concern. Extensive adverse attention in international
media. National / international policies with potentially severe impact on access to new areas, grants
of licences and/or tax legislation.
12 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

Environmental Effect

No. Description
0 Zero Effect: No environmental damage. No change in the environment. No financial
consequences.
1 Slight Effect: <5 bbls spilled on land / offshore or 0.5 - 2.5 bbls spilled in swampy terrain.
Localised environmental damage contained within the fence and within the systems. Negligible
financial consequences.
2 Minor Effect: 5 - 25 bbls spilled on land / offshore or 0.5 - 2.5 bbls spilled in swampy terrain.
Some contamination. Damage sufficiently large to attack the environment. Single exceedance of
statutory or prescribed criterion. Single complaint. No permanent effect on the environment.
3 Localised / Medium Effect: 25 - 250 bbls spilled on land / offshore or 2.5 - 25 bbls spilled in
swampy terrain. Affecting <1 hectare of neighbourhood. Limited loss of discharges of known
toxicity. Repeated exceedance of statutory or prescribed limit.
4 Major Effect: 250 - 2500 bbls spilled on land / offshore or 25 - 250 bbls spilled in swampy terrain.
Affecting 1 - 10 hectares of neighbourhood. Severe environmental damage. The company is
required to take extensive measures to restore the contaminated environment to its original state.
Extended exceedance of prescribed limits.
5 Massive Effect: >2500 bbls spilled on land / offshore or >250 bbls spilled in swampy terrain.
Affecting >10 hectares of neighbourhood. Persistent severe environmental damage or severe
nuisance extending over a large area. In terms of commercial or recreational use or nature
conservancy, a major economic loss to the company. Constant, high exceedance of statutory or
prescribed limits.
 13 Well Integrity Management in Shell Nigeria SPE 88934

Appendix 5: SPDC WIMS Document Overview

DOCUMENT REF. TITLE Description

WIMS- Policy Policy Statement This is a single page Well Integrity Policy that states:
“It is SPDC’s policy that all wells shall be designed,
constructed, operated, maintained and abandoned in a manner
that safeguards their integrity, minimises HSE risks and
ensures their planned availability throughout their life-cycle”.
WIMS –001 Well Integrity Management This document gives an overview of the Well Integrity
System Overview Management System, a brief description of the documents that
make it up, and serves as a guide as to where information can
be found in the system.
WIMS –002 Code of Practice The Code of Practice documents the key roles, responsibilities,
processes and procedures for managing well integrity over the
full life cycle of a well. The technical authorities are also
contained in this document.
WIMS – 003 Deviation Management This document specifies the process by which deviation from
Procedure the Well Failure Model (WFM) in SPDC shall be initiated,
approved, implemented, and closed out. It ensures that the
integrity of the wells is properly maintained/controlled
throughout their life cycle.
WIMS – 004 Risk Assessment & This document describes the process by which wells requiring
Ranking Procedure integrity enhancements are identified, evaluated, and
prioritised in terms of risk assessment (to people, asset,
environment, company reputation etc.), and production
potential (including additional oil and gas gain opportunities).
WIMS – 005 Well Failure Model This document provides the technical framework for the Well
Integrity Management System. It specifies the minimum
technical well integrity requirements in terms of processes,
procedures, policies, equipment, standards and controls
throughout the well lifecycle.
WIMS – 006 Well Integrity Corporate This document contains the conceptual design and has helped
Database to initiate the IT Project Work Order to develop a software
application for the Well Integrity Management System. The
software will migrate existing data to this Well Integrity
Corporate database. The Corporate Well Integrity Database
will contain all the data required to monitor the well integrity of
all SPDC wells, enabling ranking of wells requiring integrity
enhancement, plan and track work progress and generate
work progress reports.

WIMS – 007 Well Integrity Technology The Well Integrity Technology Plan was developed as a
Plan generic guide in the management process of determining the
appropriate and available technology to apply in addressing
identified well integrity problems including enhancements for
additional gain opportunities.

WIMS – 008 Well Integrity Process Roll-
out & Implementation Plan
The WIMS Process Roll out and Implementation Plan covers
the strategy to introduce and integrate the Well Integrity
Management System process into the SPDC system. The
strategy involves awareness campaigns for the Well Integrity
Management System, issuance of the well integrity control
documents, and the systematic implementation of the well
integrity control document stipulations.
 14 M. Wakama, E. Eta and A. Adeniyi SPE 88934

Appendix 6: SPDC’s Well Integrity Management System process Overview

Construct
FDP
Well Integrity No

Write Management Well to Plan Non- Update CoF Rescind

Shut-in Make well
Well
Process
continue Routine data of Non- CoF of non-
Proposal well safe
operating? Maintenance Integral well Integral well

Sign Overview Yes

Well
Proposal Input
Raise Sign Investigate
Deviation
Detailed Process Audits deviation deviation data
Well status
Well and
Completion Well Integrity Data
design
Management: Reports
& Performance Indicators
Approve Routine
design Well Integrity Reviews No
Well
Input CoF
Maintenance
Data,WFM Within
Test criteria, Operate
Schedule Produce WFM or
Approve Construct Accept Test schedule, Well with
on rig CoF Sign CoF Deviation or Well
funds well Well Deviation Deviation
sequence has future
Close-out Or CoF
use?
No Routine
Well
Produce Monitoring Yes
Has a Produce Maintenance
Deviation Deviation Deviation & Monitoring
Yes Close-out
Form? Close-out Data Input

Yes
Execute Execute Execute Has a Complete Notify Well Input Corporate
Rigless workover Abandon Abandoned Abandonment
program program Well
Deviation
No
EIA
&sign CoF data
Well Integrity
Form? scope
Database

Schedule Approve Detailed Sign Write rig

Approve Workover
on rig Workover workover Workover
funds Proposal
sequence design design Proposal

Approve Write rigless

Schedule Approve Detailed Approve
Funds/ Proposal &
on rigless Program Program &
Nominate Program
sequence design design Sign
Account
Additions to current
process in red