Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Prediction analysis of downhole tubing leakage location for offshore gas T

production wells
⁎
Shengnan Wua, Laibin Zhanga, Jianchun Fana, , Ximing Zhangb, Yangfan Zhouc, Deguo Wanga
a
College of Mechanical and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing, China
b
China North Vehicle Research Institute, Beijing, China
c
Beijing Municipal Institute of Labour Protection, Beijing, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Industry experience has shown that downhole tubing leakage is the most challenging issue resulting in sustained
Offshore gas well casing pressure in natural gas production wells. This article presents a novel tool based on pressure difference
Sustained casing pressure and probability distribution for predicting the tubing leakage location for an offshore gas production well with
Tubing leakage prediction sustained casing pressure. Combined with the formation information, well structure, annular fluid level and
Bayesian inference
dynamic production parameters of a gas well, the model of pressure difference between tubing and production
Probabilistic distribution
casing annulus is established. However, these pressure-based predictions suffer from various sources of un-
certainties, such as the variations in reservoir conditions, and measurement errors. Bayesian inference is in-
troduced to handle these uncertainties in leakage location forecasting effectively. Dynamic confidence intervals
under two kinds calculation modes are applied to calculate the leakage depth within a certain range. The
probabilistic distribution of leakage location is statistically predicted under different wellhead pressure differ-
ence using Monte Carlo simulation. A case study on a specific offshore gas well with the field data is presented to
illustrate the feasibility of the proposed method and to demonstrate that the downhole tubing leakage location
prediction contributes to the safety and integrity management of offshore production wells in an economical and
convenient way.

1. Introduction prediction is necessary to promote integrity management of offshore

In a steady-state production gas well, the wellhead pressure of
casing annulus should be zero after a small volume of fluid caused by
thermal expansion effects has been bled. If it rebuilds to the same
pressure level when the needle valve is closed, the casing is considered
to be exhibiting sustained casing pressure (SCP) [1]. SCP may be prone
to pose a serious threat to well integrity and production safety without
being well handled. The well integrity failures and other problems have
been investigated in [2], mostly accounting for 18% in 406 Norway’s
offshore wells. High annulus pressure will cause a collapse failure of
casing [3] or liner [4]. If the casing with SCP fails, the next outer casing
string generally would not be able to withstand the pressure, which
may result in serious accidents even with huge economic losses. When
the measured wellhead pressure is greater than maximum allowable
wellhead operating pressure, the casing pressure needs to be managed
on a case-by-case basis [5]. Downhole tubing leakage is a major con-
tributing source which is responsible for SCP in the tubing-production
casing annulus, with the risk of extra production disturbance and
wellbore integrity failure. Therefore, downhole tubing leakage
gas production wells in a safe way.
Many theoretical models have been developed for SCP prediction
and annulus pressure calculation. These models mainly focus on the gas
migration behaviors in the cement and the mud of annulus, with some
influences on the annulus pressure behavior considered, such as well-
bore temperature, formation pressure and casing deformation [6,7].
The typical mathematical model has been developed by [1] to predict
wellhead pressure in casing-casing annulus with limitation of applica-
tion in tubing-production casing one. Yang et al. [8] have established
the model for the interactions among the casing-cement-formation
system, taking into account deformation of the casing. A semi-steady
state model has been presented to predict annulus pressure buildup
considering temperature effects and other factors in subsea wells[9].
Based on the pressure prediction model, the risk of wells with SCP can
be quantitatively estimated by utilizing the early-time pressure buildup
data [2]. A pressure-balance-based approach has also been proposed to
determine temperature and pressure distributions of tubing and an-
nulus fluid [10].
Conventional downhole leakage is detected by logging techniques,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fanjianchun@cup.edu.cn (J. Fan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.05.084
Received 1 July 2017; Received in revised form 9 May 2018; Accepted 23 May 2018
Available online 24 May 2018
0263-2241/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Wu et al. Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553

testing and analytical approaches. Ultrasonic logging method for casing transfer coefficient [22].
leak detection has been developed by an ultrasonic signature [11]. Combining Eqs. (1) and (2), based on the energy conservation
Temperature logging [12] and the temperature analytical thermal principle, the fluid temperature distribution in the tubing can be given
model [13] have been presented for wellbore leakage of carbon dioxide by [23]:
with large leaks. Pulse testing in frequency domain has been used to
Cpm Gt (k cem + Rto U0 TD ) ⎞−1
detect and characterize the location and geometry of the carbon dioxide Cpm Gt (kcem + Rto U0 TD ) ⎡ Δz·⎛ ⎜
2πRto U0 k ce m
⎟ ⎤⎛
g
Tfo = Tho + ⎢1−e ⎝ ⎥⎜
⎠ −
leak [14]. The acoustic detection technology based on Fourier trans- 2πRto U0 kcem ⎢ ⎥ ⎝ Cpm
form has been applied to gas flux detection [15]. Tracer technology has ⎣ ⎦
−1
been also used in detection of dam leaks [16] and gas lifted wells under Δz· ⎛ Cpm Gt (k cem + Rto U0 TD ) ⎟⎞
+ ϕ+g⎟⎞ + e ⎝
⎜
2πRto U0 k ce m ·(Tfi−Thi )
an appropriate tracer selected with the purpose of small leakage point ⎠
⎠ (4)
location [17]. Other approaches such as machine learning and data-
driven models have also been used for incident prediction and detec- Combining Eqs. (2) and (3), the casing temperature at a certain
tion, such as Gaussian Process Regression model [18], and Bayesian depth can be expressed as [8]:
approaches [19,20].
Rto U0ln(R cem / R co)(Tf −Th )
However, the main weakness of the mentioned methods is their Tco = Th +
inability to predict tubing leakage location, especially in the circum- kcem (5)
stance of the tubing leakage which is considered as the main source of
SCP. These conventional tools for SCP detection inevitably interfere 2.1.2. Calculation of wellbore pressure
with normal operations, and the leak detection, and the location tech- The calculation of wellbore pressure is divided into two parts:
nique without downhole operation is therefore needed for remediation Tubing pressure and annulus pressure. According to the conservation
of the gas wells with SCP at lower costs and risks. Incorporating the law of mechanical energy, the pressure gradient of gas-liquid two-phase
effects of uncertainties on downhole tubing leakage location seems to flow in the length of tubing is expressed [10]:
be missing in the existing analytical models due to complicated re-
2
servoir information and measurement errors. Therefore, this paper dP 2fρ vm dv
= ρm g− m −ρm vm m
presents a newly tool for prediction of the downhole tubing leakage dz d dz (6)
location. A calculation model of tubing and annulus pressure profiles is where P is the flow pressure, g is the gravitational acceleration, m/s2,
established on heat transfer theories, mass conservation equation, and ρm is the average density of mixture fluid in the tubing, kg/m3; f is the
multiphase flow theories. Then the position of the tubing leakage in the friction coefficient; vm is the velocity of mixture fluid in the tubing, m3/
production tubing is determined by the pressure difference. Tubing kg; d is the inner diameter of tubing, m; and z is the well vertical depth
leakage location within a certain range is obtained by the calculation of (for a directional well with angle of inclination θ, z = z cosθ.)
dynamic confidence intervals. In addition, a probability-based model The critical parameter of gravity pressure gradient is the average
integrating Bayesian inference, and Monte Carlo simulation is devel- density of the gas-liquid flow in the tubing, which can be expressed as:
oped and applied in an offshore field gas well to predict the likelihood
1000γo ⎞ 1 1000γw ⎞
of tubing leakage location.
ρm = ⎛ ⎜ ⎛ ⎟ ⎞+⎛ ⎛ WOR ⎞ (1
⎜ ⎟

⎝ Bo ⎠ ⎝ 1 + WOR ⎠ ⎝ B w ⎠ ⎝ 1 + WOR ⎠
2. Proposed methodology P 293.15 1
−α ) ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞α
⎝ 0.101325 ⎠ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ Z ⎠ (7)
2.1. Theoretical model for wellbore pressure distribution
where α is the gas void fraction which is continually changing as the
fluid flows from tubing to the ground [21]. γo is oil relative density, γw
2.1.1. Calculation of wellbore temperature
is water relative density, WOR is the water-oil ratio, Bo is oil volume
As the gas pressure in the tubing decreases during the middle and
factor, Bw is water volume factor, T is tubing temperature, and Z is
later stages of production, the condensate oil and water, as well as
compressibility coefficient of natural gas.
formation water which is precipitated will gradually gather into the
The mixture velocity can be obtained by:
well and be carried to the offshore platform by gas [21]. Therefore, the
flow in the tubing is considered to be the gas-liquid two-phase flow. (
Ql GLR−Rs 1 + WOR
1
)
0.101325 T
Assuming that the heat transfer from high temperature fluid in the vm = ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞Z
86400A ⎝ P ⎠ ⎝ 293.15 ⎠
tubing to outer edge of wellbore cement sheath is in a steady state,
Ql ⎛ 1 WOR ⎞
while that from outer edge of wellbore cement sheath to the formation + Bo + Bw
is in an unsteady state [8]. The heat gradient transferred from high 86400A ⎝ 1 + WOR 1 + WOR ⎠ (8)
temperature fluid to cement sheath surface, that from cement sheath where GLR is gas liquid ratio, m /m . Rs is solubility of gas in oil, m3/
3 3

surface to formation, and that from casing to cement sheath surface can m3. A is tubing area, m2.
be expressed respectively as: The tubing pressure at the different well segment with depth Δz will
dQ1 2πRto U0 be evaluated as
= (Tf −Tcem)
dz Gt (1) fQl Mt2 2
⎡
ΔP = 10−6 ⎢Δz ⎛⎜ρm g + ⎞ ⎛ vm ⎟⎞ ⎤
⎟ + ρm Δ ⎜
9 5
9.21 × 10 ρm d ⎠ ⎥
dQ2 2πkcem ⎣ ⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ (9)
= (Tcem−Th)
dz Gt TD (2)
where Ql is total liquid production rate, m /d, and Mt total mass of fluid
3

dQ3 2πkcem associated with 1 m3 of liquid, kg/m3.

= (Tco−Tcem)
dz ln(R ce / R co) (3)
where Tf , Tcem , and Th are the temperature of wellbore fluid, cement, and
formation respectively, K. Gt is total mass flow rate, kg/s. TD is the time
function of transient heat transfer. kcem is the thermal conductivities of
cement sheath. Rto , R co and R ce represent outside diameter of tubing,
casing and cement sheath respectively. U0 denotes the overall heat
Similar to the tubing, the annulus pressure profile in the axis di-
rection can be calculated on the basis of the energy equation. Since the
gas in the annulus is relatively static, the friction pressure gradient and
acceleration pressure gradient are assumed to zero. The annular pres-
sure distribution can be divided two parts: The pressure in tubing-
production casing annulus above liquid level and that below liquid level
considering the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid column.

547
S. Wu et al.
By integrating Eq. (6) from the bottom to the top of the well seg-
ment with depth Δz, the annulus pressure above liquid level is calcu-
lated as:
Mg gg Δz
Pc o = Pci e ZRT
where Pco and Pci represent the outlet and inlet pressure of well seg-
ment, respectively. Mg is gas relative molecular weight.
The annulus pressure below liquid level is given by:
Pc = Pct + ρg (z−z t )
where Pct is the pressure of gas column at liquid level, ρ is the liquid
density, kg/m3, z is the well vertical depth, m, zt is the depth of liquid
level, m (for a directional well with angle of inclination θ, z = z cosθ).
2.2. Bayesian inference-based prediction analysis with uncertainties
Bayesian inference [24], an artificial intelligence approach, has
been applied to develop condition monitoring solutions that can deal
with uncertainty of faults and fault symptoms. It can combine an ex-
pert’s belief with evidence obtained from field measurements for
probability prediction [25]. The joint distribution of the data given that
the distribution of each observation Yi depends on a covariate mea-
surement ri through some unknown function f and parameter θ is ex-
pressed
n duction state
P (Y |r1, ⋯, rn, θ) = P (Y |f (r1), ⋯, f (rn ), θ) = ∏ P (Yi |f (ri ), θ)
i=1
A Gaussian process [18] is a collection of random variables, any
finite number of which have a joint Gaussian distribution. Intuitively, it
can be considered as a generalization of the Gaussian probability dis-
tribution over functions, and can be described as:
f (r ) ∼ GP (u (r ), k (r , r ′))
where the mean function μ(r) represents the expected value of the
function f(r) at the input point r. The covariance function k(r, r′) can be
considered as a measure of the confidence level for μ(r). For a one-
dimensional Gaussian process, the probability density can be de-
termined by two parameters: Mean μ and variance σ.
1 (r −μ)2 ⎤
f (r |μ, σ ) = exp ⎡−
2πσ 2 ⎢
⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦
The likelihood function is numerically equal to:
n
L (θ |r1, ⋯, rn ) = ∏ f (ri |θ)
i=1
Two kinds of states are used to describe the situation of wellbore
pressure difference between tubing and annulus under leakage occur-
ring: Pressure difference is more than 0 (denoted as N, meaning that
there is no leakage) and that is almost 0 (denoted as A, meaning that
there is a leakage point). The probability agrees that P(N) = 1 − P(A).
Therefore, the probability in state A under the given parameters ri is
expressed as:
P (ri, A) P (ri |A) P (A)
P (A |ri ) = = window n [27]. It should be calculated to improve the confidence in the
P (ri ) ∫ P (ri |A) P (A) dA
Assume that the state N and A of the tubing leakage events given
parameter ri are following Gaussian rules. According to Bayesian in-
ference, if the event is in the state N and P (ri |N ) is assumed to satisfy
N (ri |μ, σ ), the likelihood estimate is expressed as:
1 (r −μ)2
f (ri |μ, σ ) = exp ⎡− i 2 ⎤
2πσ 2 ⎢
⎣ 2σ ⎦ ⎥
If the event is in state A and P (ri |A) is assumed to satisfy
N (ri |μ + 3σ , σ ), the likelihood estimate is expressed as:
Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553
1 (ri−μ−3σ )2 ⎤
f (ri |μ + 3σ , σ ) = exp ⎡−
2πσ 2 ⎢
⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥
⎦ (18)
The probability prediction of downhole tubing leakage under the
(10) symptom parameter ri is given by:
P (ri |A) P (A) P (A)
P (A |ri ) = =
∑ P (ri |A) P (A) (1−P (A))·exp(4.5−3(ri−μ)/ σ ) + P (A)
(19)
(11)
2.3. Prediction analysis process
Tubing corrosion penetration, thread connection failure, packer seal
malfunction and gas lift valve leakage may lead to the high-pressure gas
leaking into the tubing-production casing annulus and then accumulate
at wellhead, causing a serious SCP problem. Wellhead annulus pressure
increases with the accumulation of gas until the pressures difference of
the tubing and the production casing annulus is almost 0 at a certain
point, according to the pressure equalization principle. Such a point
will be located as a leakage point after leakage. If there is no SCP, such a
point will be defined as the initial pressure point. Three steps are used
to illustrate the prediction analysis process of tubing leakage location in
the following.
Step 1: Calculation of tubing leakage location in the steady pro-
(12) An iterative model [10] is introduced to calculate the pressure dif-
ference distribution using computational mesh due to the non-linear
distribution of wellbore temperature and pressure along the well depth.
It divides the well into several segments (Δz ) along the depth direction,
in which the pressure and temperature are considered as constant. The
pressure (Pc1, Pt1) and temperature (Tc1, Tt1) of the first segment are equal
(13) to those of the wellhead. The values of annulus pressure Pci∗ and tubing
pressure Pt∗i are then assumed to the cell i. Based on thermophysical
parameters of the fluid, the annulus pressure Pci and tubing pressure Pti
are obtained by calculating the annulus temperature Tci and tubing
temperature Tfi by using Eqs. (4), (5), (9) and (11). Check if |Pci∗−Pci | and
|Pti∗−Pti | is less than a certain value. If not, assume new values to annulus
pressure Pci∗ and tubing pressure Pt∗i . If so, calculate ΔP = |Pci−Pti |. When
it meets the requirement ΔP ≈ 0 , the depth of leakage location zl will be
(14) acquired, and it is equal to z i = Δz·i . Otherwise, go to next cells. In
addition, the probability distribution of pressure difference ΔP can be
obtained based on Eq. (19) to check the possibility of tubing leakage
location.
(15)
Step 2: Calculation of dynamic confidence intervals (DCI) for pre-
dicting tubing leakage location
The confidence interval [26] is intended to indicate a clear interval
of estimates as well as to better assess the leakage location of the gas
wells with given the confidence level that the true value will lie in this
interval. It is assumed that the true value of p could be estimated by
pavge. A DCI can be obtained through the normal approximation of p
with the mean pavge and sample variance S2(pavge) with dynamic data
(16)
assessment results. The approximation of the confidence intervals under
a given confidence level 100(1 − α)% is generated by [28]:
100(1 − α)% confidence lower bound
S 2 (pavge )
pL ≥ pavge −tα /2 (n−1)
n (20)
100(1 − α)% confidence lower bound
(17)
S 2 (pavge )
pU ≤ pavge + tα /2 (n−1)
n (21)
548
S. Wu et al.
where tα/2 (n−1) indicates the 100(1 − α)th percentile of the t-dis-
tribution.
Step 3: Calculation of probability distribution of different tubing
leakage location
The Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is adopted in this paper to il-
lustrate the probability distribution of different tubing leakage location.
MCS is a suitable and valuable approach which is widely applied to
reliability analysis for real-world system in solving complex en-
gineering problems to estimate the uncertainty for the measurand [29].
Such simulation methods can also provide a probabilistic approxima-
tion to the solution of a mathematical equation in consideration of any
type of probability density function for the assessed random variables
[30]. MCS treats the problem as a series of real experiments, and the
necessary indicators such as failure probability can be estimated by
counting the number of times on an event that occurs in whole simu-
lated process.
Generally, an algebraic relationship between the measurand Z and
the parameters or individual factors ri that affect the measuring process
through a model function, F, can be expressed as Z = F (r1, r2, ⋯, rn ) ;
Considering the available knowledge for the input random variables,
their probability density functions will be assigned f(r), being assumed
to follow Guassian (normal) distribution, rectangular (uniform),
Triangular, etc. The probability distribution of a certain target area D
for Z can be given by [31]:
P (Z ) ∝ ∫ F (r ) f (r ) dD (22)
In fact, P(Z) is the propagation of n distributions by means of MCS.
In order to predict the probability distribution of different tubing
leakage location, the relationship between wellhead pressure difference
and leakage location in production gas wells is analyzed, and the
probability is obtained under MSC as follows:
N the test system and from wellbore structures, are presented in Table 1.
P = SL
N (23)
where N is a total number of samples, and NSL is a simulated number of
leakage events.
3. Case study
To predict leakage location, it is necessary to develop a ground test
system to monitor well parameters. The schematic of the test system is
shown in Fig. 1. This system includes two main modules: Acoustic de-
tector module of liquid level and annulus fluid characteristics mea-
surement module. Three gas circuits for testing are designed in the
system to test whether the annuluses are interconnected. All three gas
Fig. 1. Schematic of testing system.
549
Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553
circuits can test the depth of annulus liquid level, pressure and tem-
perature of annulus, and gas phase composition in annulus. The test
ideally contains three stages (bleed down, stabilized flow, and buildup)
which are essential for the unambiguous analysis of test results. In the
bleed down stage, the pressure bleeds to zero. In some cases, the
pressure does not bleed to zero, and the valve should stay open until the
stabilized flow is reached. At the end of this stabilized flow stage, there
is a balance between inflow and outflow of gas in the annulus. In
buildup stage, shut in the annulus and measure the pressure evolution
with time [32]. As the engineering analysis of SCP is a data driven
process, obtaining more data related to the casing pressure is the ob-
jective of diagnostic test.
A real offshore gas production well with SCP in tubing-production
casing annulus is selected for analysis. The testing is performed ac-
cording to the main test procedures, and the results are shown in the
following.
• The stable casing pressure at wellhead is measured before pressure
relief;
• The depths of liquid surface before and after pressure relief are
measured by acoustic detector. It is found that the two liquid level
values appear to very close and are considerably lower than the
initial value after completion;
• Bleed-down/build-up test is conducted, and production casing
pressures, versus time, is recorded. The casing pressure does not
bleed to zero, but to a stable pressure through the 0.5-in. needle
valve over a 4-h period. By closing the valve, the pressure builds
back up to initial pressure;
• Pressure of intermediate casing over time is recorded to keep close
to zero during the test;
• Natural gas with components similar to the production formation
gas is detected in the production casing annulus.
The detailed parameters of the well, some of which are collected by
Based on the proposed method, the pressure difference profile be-
tween the annulus and tubing and the probability distribution of tubing
leakage location under the simplified well structure are built as shown
in Fig. 2. It is observed from Fig. 2(b) that the absolute value of the
pressure difference is close to zero at the well depth of 393 m if the
production gas well is in a stable state after leakage. In reality, this
location corresponds to the tubing, representing SCP caused by the
tubing components failure, otherwise the leakage point would be at
another place. For instance, when the pressure of production casing
annulus is almost zero at the wellhead after well completion, the
pressure difference profile under no leakage is built as shown by red
line in Fig. 2(b). The value of the pressure difference is zero with the
S. Wu et al. Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553

Table 1
Detailed information of the illustration well.
Parameters Value Parameters Value

Diameter of tubing (mm) Φ73 × 5.51 Setting depth of packer (m) 2878.4
Diameter of casing (mm) Φ244.5 × 13.58 Depth of liquid level (m) 303.7
Formation temperature (°C) 127.23 Gas production rate (m3/d) 73,000
Geothermal gradient (°C/100 m) 3.67 Oil production rate (m3/d) 10
Tubing temperature(°C) 45.8 Water production rate (m3/d) 0.9
Tubing pressure (MPa) 15.3 Density of annular fluid (g/cm3) 1.05
Stable casing pressure (MPa) 14.6 Casing depth (m) 3244.2
Wellhead temperature(°C) 33.6

well depth of 1775 m, denoted as the initial pressure point. Fig. 2(c)
suggests that, in a stable production state, the probability at the well
depth of 393 m is almost close to 1 while that of other positions is far
less than one. The result obtained from Bayesian probability estimation
indicates that there is a great chance of leakage occurring in this lo-
cation. It's important to note that the leakage location can be predicated
by the pressure difference distribution after detecting the increase of
wellhead annulus pressure. By pulling out the production string, it is
confirmed that the tubing in this position is failed, indicating the pre-
dicted leakage position is very close to the real one.
Actually, a well with SCP needs to be released regularly, so the
annular liquid level falls as a result of a series of pressure bleeding-
down operations. Fig. 3 describes the effects of the annular liquid level
falling ΔH on the changes of wellhead annulus pressure. This reduced
column of liquid makes the pressure of gas and liquid column in the
annulus increase ΔPC and decrease ΔPL respectively. This is because
that the gas leaking from tubing to the annulus fills the space freed by
the dropping liquid. The tubing pressure at the leakage point has
remained constant, which equals the annulus pressure at this point. The
wellhead annulus pressure accordingly changes, and the corresponding
value is calculated by ΔPL-ΔPC. It can be explained in detailed by Eqs.
(24)–(26). Abnormal increase of wellhead annulus pressure indicates
that there is another leakage location in the wellbore which needs to be
paid more attention.
The pressure of leakage point before liquid level decreasing is given
by
PCW + PC + PL = PCL (24)
The pressure of leakage point after liquid level decreasing is given
by
(PCW + ΔPCW ) + (PC + ΔPC ) + (PL−ΔPL) = PCL (25)
The increasing value of wellhead annulus pressure is expressed by
ΔPCW = cosθρl g ΔH −ΔPC (26)
where PCL, PCW, PC, PL are the annulus pressure of the leakage point, the

Fig. 2. Prediction of leakage location given a specified well with (a) simplified annulus structure, (b) pressure difference, and (c) probability distribution.

550
S. Wu et al.
Fig. 3. Change in wellhead annulus pressure.
annulus pressure at wellhead, the pressure of gas column, and the
pressure of liquid column before liquid level decreasing, respectively.
ΔPCW, ΔPC, ΔPL are the increasing annulus pressure at wellhead, the
increasing gas pressure, and the decreasing liquid pressure in the an-
nulus after liquid level decreasing, respectively. ρl is the density of li-
quid in the annulus, ΔH is the height of liquid column decrease, and θ is
the angle between horizontal line and blue dot line.
4. Uncertainty analysis
Even though tubing and annulus pressure, temperature and liquid
level are taken into account by the proposed prediction models and
make it adequate for leakage location and probability estimation, there
are still considerable unexplained variables, such as the ignorance of
changes in formation and downhole fluid, as well as measurement er-
rors. Such ignorance will further result in uncertainties to affect deci-
sion-making. 95% DCI and MCS are therefore applied to illustrate the
uncertainties in leakage location.
Fig. 4 indicates DCI under two kinds calculation modes: Calculated
with pressure difference between tubing and annulus directly, as shown
in Fig. 4(a), and obtained with tubing pressure and annulus pressure
respectively, as shown in Fig. 4(b). It is noted that 95% confidence
interval of tubing leakage location is [368 m, 418 m] using the previous
algorithm, while there are four confidence intervals [358 m, 418 m],
[368 m, 428 m], [358 m, 428 m], and [368 m, 418 m] using the latter
one. As can be observed, in this case, results from both algorithms have
one same interval and three expanded uncertainties with 50 m, 60 m
and 70 m, mainly because of the latter algorithm generating two upper
limits and two lower limits. Compared to the analytic formula results,
DCI can generate leakage location within a certain range.
An MCS model as a stochastic model is analyzed statistically and
performed by program codes written by using Matlab software to de-
termine a likely outcome. As a starting point, wellhead pressure dif-
ference and leakage location are specified as input entered to the
model, and the probability density function is assumed following
normal distribution. The corresponding range and possibility of values
551
Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553
are predictable. Fig. 5 shows leakage location prediction analysis con-
sidering uncertainty. The wellhead pressure difference between tubing
and casing with different annulus pressure is presented in Fig. 5(a). It is
seen from Fig. 5(b) that the depth of leakage location decreases with the
increase of wellhead pressure difference. Fig. 5(c) indicates that the
probability of tubing leakage occurring under wellhead pressure dif-
ference given the number of simulation at N = 1 × 104. It is found that
the uncertainty interval under different predicted probability can be
determined. Taking the approximate probability of 0.03 for instance,
the result of wellhead pressure difference is among the area of
[−0.58 MPa, −1.36 MPa], and the corresponding leakage position is
located in [381 m, 454 m]. The prediction probability using MCS is able
to generate reasonable results with uncertainty. Note that results from
both models agree well in the expanded uncertainty, mainly because of
the more linear model and the assumption of a normal distribution.
5. Conclusions
(1) A newly method is illustrated to predict downhole tubing leakage
location for a gas well with sustained casing pressure. Based on the
pressure difference between tubing and annulus with approxi-
mately zero, tubing leakage location is determined when the well is
in a steady state. The leakage point is identified next to tubing,
which is confirmed by probability analysis and filed operation of
pulling out the tubing. Thus, the validity of the proposed model is
examined.
(2) Abnormal increase of wellhead annulus pressure indicates that
there is another leakage location in the wellbore which needs to be
paid more attention. In addition, dynamic confidence intervals
under two kinds calculation modes are used to predicate the
leakage location within a certain range with different expanded
uncertainties. 95% confidence intervals of downhole tubing leakage
location are less by estimating direct pressure difference algorithm
than by indirect one.
(3) Downhole tubing leakage location prediction is analyzed under
different wellhead pressure difference. The results indicate the
S. Wu et al. Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553

Fig. 4. 95% confidence intervals of tubing leakage location given (a) pressure difference, and (b) tubing and annulus pressure.

Fig. 5. Leakage location prediction with uncertainty (a) leakage location with different wellhead annulus pressure, (b) relationship of leakage location and wellhead
pressure difference, (c) probability given wellhead pressure difference.

552
S. Wu et al.
depth of leakage location decreases with the increase of wellhead
pressure difference. The Monte Carlo simulation is performed to
check that the prediction probability distribution of tubing leakage
location is able to generate reasonable results with uncertainty in-
tervals.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by the National Key Research and
Development Plan of China (SQ2017YFSF060124,
CCL2017RCPS0182RCN). The authors are grateful for the Editor and
reviewers’ helpful comments.
References
[1] Xu R. Analysis of diagnostic testing of sustained casing pressure in wells [Ph.D.
Thesis]: Louisiana State University; 2002.
[2] T. Rocha-Valadez, R.A. Mentzer, A.R. Hasan, M.S. Mannan, Inherently safer sus-
tained casing pressure testing for well integrity evaluation, J. Loss Prev. Proc. 29
(2014) 209–215.
[3] Y. Jin, T. Haixiong, L. Zhengli, Y. Liping, H. Xiaolong, Y. De, et al., Prediction model
of casing annulus pressure for deepwater, Petro. Explor. Develop. 40 (2013)
661–664.
[4] L.F. Eaton, W.R. Reinhardt, J.S. Bennett, Liner Hanger Trapped Annulus Pressure
Issues at the Magnolia Deepwater Development, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Miami, 2006.
[5] API. Annular casing pressure management for offshore wells. Recommended Practic
90: API; 2006.
[6] Z. Zhang, H. Wang, Sealed annulus thermal expansion pressure mechanical calcu-
lation method and application among multiple packers in HPHT gas wells, J. Nat.
Gas Sci. Eng. 31 (2016) 692–702.
[7] P. Oudeman, L.J. Bacarreza, Field trial results of annular pressure behavior in a
high-pressure/high-temperature well, SPE Drill. Completion (1995).
[8] J. Yang, H. Tang, Z. Liu, L. Yang, X. Huang, D. Yan, et al., Prediction model of
casing annulus pressure for deepwater well drilling and completion operation, Pet.
Explor. Dev. 40 (2013) 661–664.
[9] J. Liu, H. Fan, Q. Peng, S. Deng, B. Kang, W. Ren, Research on the prediction model
of annular pressure buildup in subsea wells, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27 (2015)
1677–1683.
[10] S. Wu, L. Zhang, J. Fan, X. Zhang, D. Liu, D. Wang, A leakage diagnosis testing
model for gas wells with sustained casing pressure from offshore platform, J. Nat.
Gas Sci. Eng. 55 (2018) 276–287.
[11] J.E. Johns, D.N. Cary, J.C. Dethlefs, B.C. Ellis, M.L. McConnell, G.L. Schwartz,
Locating and Repairing Casing Leaks with Tubing in Place-Ultrasonic Logging and
Pressure-Activated Sealant Methods, Offshore Europe Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2007.
[12] F. Zeng, G. Zhao, L. Zhu, Detecting CO 2 leakage in vertical wellbore through
temperature logging, Fuel. 94 (2012) 374–385.
[13] Y. Mao, M. Zeidouni, I. Duncan, Temperature analysis for early detection and rate
553
Measurement 127 (2018) 546–553
estimation of CO2 wellbore leakage, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 67 (2017)
20–30.
[14] M. Shakiba, S.A. Hosseini, Detection and characterization of CO2 leakage by multi-
well pulse testing and diffusivity tomography maps, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control.
54 (2016) 15–28.
[15] X. Wang, Z. Guan, Y. Xu, Y. Tian, Signal analysis of acoustic gas influx detection
method at the bottom of marine riser in deepwater drilling, J. Process Control. 66
(2018).
[16] D. Battaglia, F. Birindelli, M. Rinaldi, E. Vettraino, Fluorescent tracer tests for de-
tection of dam leakages: The case of the Bumbuna dam-Sierra Leone, Eng. Geol. 205
(2016) 30–39.
[17] F.Y. Shnaib, M.S. Nadar, M.P. Sreekumar, K. Ponnuvel, L.M. Peacock, Successful
Application of CO2 Tracer Technology for Surveillance of Gas Lifted Wells, SPE
Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2010.
[18] Y. Liu, Y. Song, J. Keller, P. Bond, G. Jiang, Prediction of concrete corrosion in
sewers with hybrid Gaussian processes regression model, RSC Adv. 7 (2017)
30894–30903.
[19] Z. Wang, M.J. Small, A Bayesian approach to CO 2 leakage detection at saline se-
questration sites using pressure measurements, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 20
(2014) 188–196.
[20] B. Cai, M. Xie, Y. Liu, Y. Liu, Q. Feng, Availability-based engineering resilience
metric and its corresponding evaluation methodology, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 172
(2018) 216–224.
[21] A.R. Hasan, C.S. Kabir, Wellbore heat-transfer modeling and applications, J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 86 (2012) 127–136.
[22] H.J. Ramy, Wellbore Heat Transmission, J. Pet. Technol. 14 (1962) 427–435.
[23] X. Zhang, J. Fan, S. Wu, D. Liu, A novel acoustic liquid level determination method
for coal seam gas wells based on autocorrelation analysis, Energies 10 (2017) 1961.
[24] B. Cai, L. Huang, M. Xie, Bayesian networks in fault diagnosis, IEEE Trans. Indust.
Inform. (2017).
[25] B. Cai, H. Liu, M. Xie, A real-time fault diagnosis methodology of complex systems
using object-oriented Bayesian networks, Mech. Syst. Sign. Proc. 80 (2016) 31–44.
[26] D. Grabaskas, M.K. Nakayama, R. Denning, T. Aldemir, Advantages of variance
reduction techniques in establishing confidence intervals for quantiles, Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Safety 149 (2016) 187–203.
[27] P. Liptai, B. Dolník, M. Pavlík, J. Zbojovský, M. Špes, Check measurements of
magnetic flux density: Equipment design and the determination of the confidence
interval for EFA 300 measuring devices, Measurement 111 (2017) 51–59.
[28] S. Lee, M. Bolic, V.Z. Groza, H.R. Dajani, S. Rajan, Confidence interval estimation
for oscillometric blood pressure measurements using bootstrap approaches, IEEE
Trans. Instrument. Measure. 60 (2011) 3405–3415.
[29] E. Ferrario, N. Pedroni, E. Zio, Evaluation of the robustness of critical infra-
structures by Hierarchical Graph representation, clustering and Monte Carlo si-
mulation, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety (2016).
[30] K. Shahanaghi, P. Nakhjiri, A new optimized uncertainty evaluation applied to the
Monte-Carlo simulation in platinum resistance thermometer calibration,
Measurement 43 (2010) 901–911.
[31] M.Á. Herrador, A.G. González, Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in analytical
assays by means of Monte-Carlo simulation, Talanta 64 (2004) 415–422.
[32] M. Kazemi, A.K. Wojtanowicz, Development of Improved Testing Procedure for
Wells with Sustained Casing Pressure, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.