SPE-173434-MS

Analytics Applied to Well Integrity

Joe Anders, Jack Disbrow, Anna Dube, and Andrea Hughes, BP

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Digital Energy Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 3–5 March 2015.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents examples of the principles of “analytics” applied to well integrity, and the experiences
gained in using the results over the past 10 years to manage certain risks associated with well operations.
Analytics are implemented using a system that generates a collection of reports and are distributed daily
to subscribers, including engineers, listing wells with potentially anomalous conditions. Example anom-
alies include wells with annuli pressure above specified operating limits, annuli missing pressure readings
or defined pressure limits, and annuli exhibiting pressure behavior indicating potential communication
between annuli. The analytical engine queries databases containing pressure entries, operating limits,
planned actions, and other well integrity data repositories to generate the reports.
The resulting reports are a component of an integrated work process that manages wells with potential
anomalies. The reports are distributed to engineers and managers for their review and initiation of
appropriate actions, including annulus bleeds, well intervention tests, and risk assessments.

Introduction
A definition of “analytics” is the discovery and communication of meaningful patterns in data. Especially
valuable in areas rich with recorded information, analytics relies on the simultaneous application of
statistics, computer programming and operations research to quantify performance. Analytics often favors
data visualization to communicate insight. (Reference 1)
Managing the integrity of a large collection of wells is a good application of analytical principles. A
variety of well performance information is collected, including tubing and annulus pressures, up-time,
well tests for production volumes, sand production rates, valve tests, and inspections of surface equip-
ment. Parameters are specified for wells such as annulus pressure limits, allowable sand rate, known
defects, required tests, preventative maintenance, and inspection frequency. For a large well stock,
monitoring the relationship of all the performance information with the parameters is a daunting task.
Application of analytical principles provides a methodology to effectively utilize all the information to
manage well integrity.
2 SPE-173434-MS

Figure 1—Multiple information sources maintained by different functional teams.

Data Sources
A key requirement in the application of analytics is data. Information is needed, in a format that can be
queried, before any meaningful application of analytics can be done. From a well integrity perspective,
necessary information includes:
● List of wells.
● Annulus pressure values and limits.
● Well test and injection rates.
● On/off status.
● Safety valve locations, test frequency and status.
● Annulus bleeds.
● Intervention activity.
● Well barrier status.
● Anomaly reports.
Responsibility for collecting and maintaining the needed information is shared by multiple teams
(Figure 1). The Production Engineering (PE) team maintains the list of wells, and the annulus pressure
threshold that will initiate additional review. The Operations team conducts well tests, starts and shuts-in
wells, checks and bleeds annulus pressure, and tests surface and sub-surface safety valves (SSV & SSSV).
Information relating to these activities is also maintained using dedicated applications. The Wells team
conducts intervention activities, investigates anomalous conditions, and maintains inventories of well
equipment including SSSVs. Dedicated solutions (or applications) that read/write to databases are used to
improve data collection processes. Access to this information is managed through a “Data Integration
Layer”, simplifying access to the information and streamlining troubleshooting.

Report Generation and Distribution

Key to effective use of analytics is easy access to reports by the users that can review the reports and
initiate appropriate actions. A system called “My Reports” generates reports containing sections with the
SPE-173434-MS 3

Figure 2—My Reports listing of reports available for a User to subscribe

specified information presented. The My Reports system consists of report generation and distributed
modules. At a system-specified time, code modules query databases containing pressure entries, operating
limits, planned actions, and other well integrity information contained in databases. Filters are applied and
variables are compared as specified in each report section. The resulting list of wells is assembled into
tables with pertinent information, the reason for well being included in the listing is highlighted, and the
table is then inserted into the body of an email. Once all the sections included in the particular report have
been generated, the email is distributed to the users subscribed to the report.
A user interacts with the My Reports system to select and manage desired reports. The “Catalog”
screen presents a list of reports available for a user to subscribe (Figure 2). The user selects a report,
completes any user-preference options and selects “Subscribe” (Figure 3). The user then starts receiving
the reports in their email at the specified delivery frequency. If a user no longer desires to receive a report,
they return to MyReports and access the “Subscriptions” page that lists their current reports. They then
select “Unsubscribe” to stop receiving the report (Figure 4).

Well Integrity Analytical Reports

The individual report sections are where analytical concepts are applied. Using input from experienced
well integrity engineers and process/equipment failure investigations, reports are defined that identify
wells meeting specified parameters. An example is wells with annuli pressure outside the specified
operating envelope. But this report would also list wells missing annulus pressure entries, and wells that
do not have a specified operating limit. This improves the robustness of the reports and reduces the chance
a well with an anomaly would be overlooked due to a data error.
Information used to build the reports comes from a variety of sources. Necessary data includes annulus
pressure readings, pressure operating limits, annulus bleed and top-up activities, and well characteristics
such as producer/injector, known anomaly or well barrier element impairment/failure, and the artificial lift
mechanism. This information is frequently located in different data repositories, so the analytic engine
needs the capability of querying multiple data sources to enable the building of reports.
4 SPE-173434-MS

Figure 3—Example of a report configuration screen in My Reports.

Figure 4 —The My Reports page where a user maintains report preferences and can unsubscribe from a report.

To keep the report to a manageable size a number of acronyms are used. These include:
● T, A, B, C, D: tubing or annulus pressure.
● NO: Not Operable, a well not authorized to be operated due to a well integrity defect.
The Notes sections make heavy use of acronyms. These are defined and described in the specific field
operating procedures.
Example analytical reports include:
SPE-173434-MS 5

Wells Not Operable showing to be on-line

The purpose of this section is to identify wells classified as Not Operable yet indicated to be on-line. If
a well is classified as Not Operable, and is indicated to be on-line, it is listed in the report. The “Not
Operable” attribute is used to indicate a well is not authorized for operation due to a well integrity defect.
The on-line status is calculated from the position of an automated production valve, and the well is
reported as on-line if the valve is open for more than 3 hours in a calendar day.

Figure 5—Wells Not Operable Showing to be On-Line

Wells Under Evaluation

The purpose of this section is to identify wells classified as Under Evaluation, the length of time the well
has been under evaluation, and the next action to be taken on the well towards reclassification to Operable
or Not Operable. Wells that have been under evaluation for more than 20 days are further highlighted
through the use of text bolding and red font color. This helps prioritize this group of wells for further
action within the well integrity and well interventions teams.
Note the use of bolding and colors to highlight wells of particular concern. For this report, wells over
20 days are red, and over 25 days are red and bolded.

Figure 6 —Wells Under Evaluation

Wells under Dispensation

The purpose of this section is to identify wells operating under a dispensation and the time remaining until
that dispensation expires. A classification of dispensation indicates the well has barrier issues and is
operating under additional requirements. The dispensation expiration date is entered into the date start
field and the well is classified as Under Evaluation. This report section then shows the number of days
until expiration in negative days.

Figure 7—Wells Under Dispensation

6 SPE-173434-MS

Wells with annulus pressure above specified pressure values

This report section highlights all wells, regardless of well classification, with any annulus pressure at or
above a specified pressure limit. The section lists both the limit and the current annular pressure reading.
In addition, wells missing pressure limits and wells missing annulus pressure entries are listed. This helps
identify wells with data entry problems.
Since multiple annuli are listed for a well, bolding is used to draw the user’s eye to the particular annuli
above the specified pressure limit.

Figure 8 —Wells with Annulus Pressure above Specified Pressure Values

Anomaly report
The intent of this section is to identify wells that have been identified and reported through a separate
anomaly reporting tool with their corresponding notes. The anomaly tool is available to many users and
is intended to allow logging initial anomalous observations. In the reporting tool, the user enters the well
name, selects the assigned action group from a dropdown list (e.g., well integrity engineer, petroleum
engineer), and enters the initial anomalous observation. A summary of the record is then emailed to the
assigned action group for review and further updates. This report section then lists the well name, the
number of days the anomaly record has been open and who is responsible for further progress to address
the well anomaly.

Figure 9 —Anomaly Report

SPE-173434-MS 7

Wells with recent failures

The intent of this section is to identify wells whose well service reports include the word “fail”. Review
of this report section helps identify if a well needs to be reported to regulatory agencies with a confirmed
failure. It also ensures that further well work is identified and planned accordingly given a recent failure.
Bolding is used to highlight “fail” to help users identify why the report is listed.

Figure 10 —Wells with Recent Failures

Not Operable wells with annulus pressures greater than 500 psi
This report section helps prioritize risk mitigation efforts on wells with well barrier defects. The section
displays wells with the highest annulus pressures at the top to focus attention and efforts.

Figure 11—Not Operable Wells with annulus pressure greater than 500 psi

Missing annulus pressure

This report section lists wells that have not had an annulus pressure reading within the last three days. This
helps identify potential instrumentation or data collection errors in the system.

Figure 12—Missing Annulus Pressure

8 SPE-173434-MS

AxB pressures within 100 psi and A pressures above 250 psi
The intent of this section is to identify potential AxB annulus communication. Wells with A and B annulus
pressures within 100 psi, and the A annulus pressure above 250 psi are listed. The additional criteria of
the A annulus pressure above 250 psi helps to exclude shut-in wells with no or low annulus pressures.

Figure 13—AxB pressures within 100 psi and A pressures above 250 psi

TxA pressure table and plots

This report section identifies naturally flowing producing wells that have TxA pressures within 250 psi
and the A annulus pressure is above 1000 psi. The intent of this section is to identify potential production
tubing anomalies.
In addition, plots of annulus pressure versus time are provided for each well in the listing. This allows
an engineer the ability to quickly scan the plots to determine if pressure trends indicate well barrier
anomalies and to easily filter false-positive listings.

Figure 14 —TxA pressure table

Figure 15—An annulus pressure plot. One is provided for each well listed in the TxA report.
SPE-173434-MS 9

Wells with Gas Lift > Total Gas

This report section identifies gas lifted producing wells where the volume of gas lift injected in the A
annulus is greater than the total volume of gas produced from the well. This section helps identify wells
with potential production casing leaks. It also highlights wells with potential gas meter calibration issues.

Figure 16 —Wells with Gas Lift > Total Gas

All wells with 2 or more bleeds in the last 30 days

This report section captures wells that have two or more bleeds reported in the last 30 days in an attempt
to identify slow repressurization of an annulus. This helps highlight potential SCP anomalies that are
difficult to identify by rotational operations staff as the bleeds are infrequent.

Figure 17—All Wells with 2 or more Bleeds in the last 30 days

Wells bled yesterday

This report section highlights wells with an annulus bleed performed within a calendar day prior to the
report issue. This section triggers the well integrity engineer to review the annulus pressure trends in an
attempt to identify an anomaly before it becomes a greater issue.
10 SPE-173434-MS

Figure 18 —Wells Bled Yesterday

Key Performance Indicators

Simple performance indicators provide a quick view of the status of a set of wells. Examples of KPIs
include wells available for operation (Operable vs. Not Operable), under anomaly evaluation, failed well
barriers with new barrier installed, and the level of activity related to secure operations.

Figure 19 —Key Performance Indicators

Compliance work
This report section lists wells with testing due within the next 90 days. This includes testing required by
both regulatory agencies and by company standards. The report is further delineated to display wells that
are due within the next 30 days to aide in work prioritization.

Figure 20 —Compliance Work

SPE-173434-MS 11

Online injection wells missing a test interval

This report section identifies online injection wells that do not have a test interval entered for the required
regulatory test. The intent of the section is to list injectors that may have an error in the required test
frequency entry. This reduces the chance a required regulatory test could potentially be missed.

Figure 21—Online injection wells missing a test interval

Wells with a well integrity status change in the last 24 hours

To improve communication when a well status is changed, wells are listed with their new and previous
well integrity status. This helps to communicate when a well is no longer allowed to be operated, or is
authorized for operation.

Figure 22—Wells that have had a WI Status change in the last 24 hours

Subsurface Safety Valve (SSSV) Status Report

This report section identifies online wells that have had a failed SSSV test, or the SSSV is not currently
in the well. In addition, it displays wells that are not scheduled for a retest and displays wells in red that
have exceeded a 14 day threshold. The intent is to highlight wells that are potentially out of regulatory
SSSV compliance.

Figure 23—SSSV Status Report

Using the Reports to Manage Risk

An integrated work process between the Well Integrity (WI), Operations (Ops) and Production Engineer-
ing (PE) teams managing wells is facilitated with the reports. These teams share responsibilities to monitor
the reports, identify potential anomalies, then initiate appropriate follow-up actions to investigate and
resolve the indicated issue.
While there are a number of reports available, the teams rely primarily on three reports to aide in
anomaly identification and maintain the well stock in a safe, compliant condition. The “Area Manager’s
Report” (AMR), “Well Integrity Diagnostic Report” (WIDR) and “Injector Diagnostic Report” (IDR)
12 SPE-173434-MS

combine pertinent report sections into a single email. These are distributed daily (or at the user specified
interval) from the MyReports system via email to the WI, Ops and PE Team members. The reports list
wells that are being evaluated for potential integrity problems, due dates for compliance and conformance
testing, well anomalies under investigation and what team has the action to progress evaluation. Plots of
annulus pressure versus time for wells exhibiting potential well barrier element issues are included. Also
listed are well integrity key performance indicators (KPIs) such as number of wells under evaluation and
that are not operable. The reports are reviewed daily in detail by the Well Integrity and Operations team
members, and actions are appropriately initiated.
The reports are utilized to identify and respond to various types of potential anomalies in producing,
injecting and disposal wells. Wells with indicated anomalies are reviewed, and a determination is made
regarding the appropriate course of action to take. For example, a well with high annulus pressure may
be bled and monitored. Wells with an annulus pressure close to other annuli pressure may have pressure
added to increase the pressure differential to evaluate if communication is present. Additional methods
such as inflow testing, positive pressure testing of annuli, wellhead seal pressure testing, and fluid level
monitoring are employed to help diagnose well problems. Field teams available to investigate the
anomalies include specialists trained in well evaluation in the “Downhole Diagnostic” (DHD) team, and
wellhead technician from the original equipment manufacturer. The reports are also used by Well Integrity
and Operations to identify compliance and conformance due dates for injector annulus testing, surface and
subsurface safety valve testing, and suspended well site inspections.
Observations and Conclusions
The term “analytics” is often used, but its application to well integrity and managing well risk is frequently
not fully applied. The collection of reports described in this paper provides practical examples of how
analytical principles can be effectively applied to a collection of wells to identify potential issues.
Experience with this system indicates it is effective in reducing the tendency of organization to “silo”,
or work in a non-integrated manner. There is more transparent communication of well status and the work
process used to manage wells with potential anomalies. Engineers have easy access, delivered to the email
inbox daily, of wells with potential anomalies, along with the planned evaluation activities and the role
in the organization responsible for implementation of the action. Managers receive reports indicating
progress in well evaluation and can more readily identify areas where additional resources may be
appropriate. This has resulted in driving behaviors to effectively manage these well risks and encourage
a “One Team” approach to managing wells.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank BP management of permission to publish and present this information.
In addition, a number of people have contributed to the development and implementation of these systems,
including but not limited to Arlen Ayojiak, Doug Cismoski, Laurie Climer, Ryan Daniel, Harry Engel,
Paul Green, Lee Helzer, Justin Oprish, Tom Pickard, Teresa Parks, Torin Roschinger, Chris Tzvetcoff,
and the many engineers that have worked in the Alaska well integrity team.

References
1. “Analytics”, Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytics
2. Anders, J. et alet al. Well Integrity Operations at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Paper SPE presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas USA, 24-27
September 2006.
3. Anders, J. et alet al. Enhancing Collaboration Between Engineering and Operations - A Case
Study of Alaska Work Processes. Paper SPE 95813 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas USA, 9-12 October 2005.