SPE-214929-MS

Quantifying Well Integrity Risk at Scale: A Repeatable & Data Driven

Analysis of Well Integrity in Unconventional Gas Fields

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

T. J. Thomas, Centre for Natural Gas, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; B. J.
Norman, Second Sight Assurance Ptd. Lty., Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Copyright 2023, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/214929-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2023 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 16 - 18 October 2023.

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 the results of a well integrity research project conducted on 1,605 unconventional gas
wells in Queensland Australia, and discusses the methodology employed which can be applied to other
fields. This paper focuses on the methodology used by the research team, which had been termed ‘barrier
logic’, a set of standardized questions, exemplar answers and numerical values assigned to each of the
answers which is than scored against an industry standard Risk Assessment Matrix. This methodology was
used to assess all the wells in the selected fields, and provided the operating company that manages them
an up-to-date and consistent risk scoring for their entire well stock. The methodology developed during this
research provides several benefits to well operators, such as: reducing the level of individual bias and error
based on multiple employes scoring risks, streamlines decision making on remediation work, as risk scoring
has been reviewed and agreed in advance and providing a more accurate assessment of individual wells’
integrity based on the construction and operation activities being individually assessed. Many operators
would share the same benefits of applying this, or a similar methodology to their well stock and several key
insights and recommendations for others are provided at the end of this paper.
The use of large data analytics, machine learning and broader AI for predictive analysis, especially for
production optimization and completion failure forecasting, is a rapidly growing field of expertise in Oil
and Gas. For example, there are over 50 conference papers and journal articles registered on SPE's OnePetro
that contain the term ‘Machine Learning’ in their title for 2023 alone. This paper adds to this growing body
of research, showing the benefits to operating companies when data centric analysis and the digitization of
data and processes is applied.

Introduction
The management of well integrity has been gaining increased importance in operating companies over the
past two decades, driven by various factors, including higher expectations of safety by stakeholders, greater
awareness of environmental risks, and most recently, a strong desire to quantify and eliminate sources of
fugitive methane emissions (Adeyinka et al., 2020) and (Ugarte & Salehi, 2023). This increased focused
on well integrity is also fueled by other internal drivers in operating companies, especially the greater
2 SPE-214929-MS

availability of well data and the possibilities to use these data to understand well behavior and predict future
failures (Fjågesund, 2018). These desires to properly understand the risk associated with well integrity and
to understand how data can be used to predict future integrity issues resulted in the execution of a well
integrity evaluation project for 1,605 Coal Bed Methane (CBM), locally known as Coal Seam Gas (CSG)
wells, across several different fields in Queensland, Australia. This project provided an operating company
with detailed, logic based and practical analysis of its well stock, allowing it to better plan its intervention
and abandonment activities. Importantly, the methodology applied can be used in other upstream oil and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

gas assets and could be used by other operators to improve their knowledge and understanding of well
integrity health.
This paper outlines the formulation of the project, the data discovery undertaken, the development of the
assessment methodology and the application of the assessments to the well stock. The paper also details its
broader relevance to other operating companies and how the tools and approach used in this project could
be repeated elsewhere. Additionally, this paper aims to answer several key questions, including:

• What is the key data required for evaluating the well integrity status of an established field?

• How can this data be reviewed, assessed and sorted to provide standardized and repeatable results?

• What insights does this capture and assessment of data provide to an operator?

• What future work can be completed to better improve data quality and management of well
integrity?

Context
A detailed scope of work was established prior to the research commencing, key framework conditions
included:

• ‘Legacy’ and current designed wells were to be included in the analysis, this required an
understanding of both current and retired designs used in the assessed fields;
• Producing and non-producing (i.e. shut in wells, water monitoring, suspended pilots, etc) wells
were to be included; and
• Data from commencement of drilling, until the present, including completion and intervention
activities and surface related inspections, were to be included.
The result of the work was a risk assessment score, an integrity ‘category’1 and recommendations for
future integrity management for each of the wells reviewed.
Specifically, the details of the wells reviewed and the datasets available is summarized in Table 1 below:
SPE-214929-MS 3

Table 1—List of basic characteristics of the well stock analyzed

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Research Methodology
Research was completed over a period of four months using a team of five well engineers. After presentation
of the main results, a number of topical ‘deep dives’ were completed focusing on specific data sets and
producing fields (conducted during phase 6). Results were used by the operator to help update their Well
Integrity Management Standard, revise their Electronic Well Integrity Management System (eWIMS) and
develop action plans for individual wells that required additional monitoring and/or remediation.
The research was sequenced through the following phases detailed in Figure 1:
4 SPE-214929-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Figure 1—Phases for the research project

1. Define basic barrier requirements:

a. Purpose: Was to understand the basic well integrity ‘rules’ that would need to be assessed against.
b. Summary: Broadly, three sources of these rules were identified and reviewed: Regulatory, Industry
Standard and Operator specific, a list of the sources reviewed is detailed in Table 2 below. Rules
were listed out and assigned against relevant physical barriers that were commonly installed, i.e.
production casing and cement, master valve/rod lock, etc. Duplicated and non-applicable rules
were removed, and a variety of assumptions were presented and discussed with the operator. A
simplified example of this process is illustrated in Figure 2 below which looks at rules that were
SPE-214929-MS 5

identified around the need for dual barriers. Once all the rules were listed, research turned to the
availability of data (to ensure that the rules identified were able to be assessed against).
c. Discussion: A large degree of similarity was seen between all three sources, with the operator
specific documents having been written to reference all the applicable government regulations.
Importantly, a list of all the barrier types expected to be identified in the well stock was made.
Additionally, a generic well barrier diagram was developed for a number of well types that would
be used for the follow-on assessment phases.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Figure 2—Illustration on development of rules – example on dual barriers

2. Identify data sets and locations:

a. Purpose: Was to understand what data was available, where and how it was stored, centralize it
and/or program links to access it. This phase was required due to the extremely large number of
records that needed to be reviewed, the variety of file formats and the varied locations in which
the data was kept. Without this ‘discovery’ phase, assessments would have been extremely time
consuming to complete.
b. Summary: First task was to finalize the list of all the wells that would need to be assessed and
set a cut off so that any new wells/activities that were conducted would then be out of scope (to
be completed later as ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU). Electronic working folders were generated for
each well to be assessed, with notes created detailing what data was available. Databases were then
trawled to identify locations of records, and notes were developed by the research team on data
storage locations e.g. newer drilled wells have records stored in an electronic system, cased hole
logging traces are stored on a dedicated database, etc. Data that was applicable to multiple wells,
e.g. an inspection record that had several hundred wells recorded on it, were saved in a common
area for the research team.
c. Discussion: This discovery period quickly showed that the data required to complete assessment
was not fully available for all wells, especially older ones, and that the data was spread across
many locations in a variety of formats. Whilst the operator had implemented an electronic
6 SPE-214929-MS

well information system that centralized the majority of information required for more recently
drilled wells, the subsequent analysis would require significant manual searching and reading of
documents per well. Figure 3 presents a stylized data map for an example well.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Figure 3—Data map of inflows for well barrier scoring

3. Data cleansing and sorting:

a. Purpose: This phase continued the discovery of data, sorting and recording of basic analysis and
cleansing of duplicated, not applicable and erroneous data. This resulted in the creation of a
template data collection form that captured key data on each well, i.e. casing depths, well diagram,
wellhead photo, etc. The intention was to have a summary for each well of the key data that would
be needed to make a later assessment of its integrity.
b. Summary: The first task completed was the creation of a summary form that allowed for the
collation of data, which was trialed with example wells from several different fields/well designs.
Once finalized, completion for these forms commenced. Capturing data in this manner allowed
research team members to record data once, so that subsequent reviews of primary data sources,
like daily rig reports, could be reduced. Importantly, the notes and coding around data locations
completed in the previous phase was expanded on and refined.
c. Discussion: Due to the large degree of missing and incomplete data discovered, the review and
cleansing of data during this phase became crucial for latter assessments. Considerable effort was
made by the research team to not just record the data, but its original source and potential quality
issues associated with it. The team notes on where and how to find data became much more
detailed as data naming and filing conventions were better understood. Where data was missing
or ambiguous, notes were recorded against individual wells, gaps in data were discovered across
multiple wells and a list of wider scale assumptions were created and presented to the operator on
SPE-214929-MS 7

a daily basis for review and approval. Overall, this phase saw considerable effort to centralize and
clean data to allow for quicker assessment in the subsequent phases.
4. Define barrier logic and compile sample test:
a. Purpose: Was designed to take the broad rules identified in phase 1 and expand them into a series
of scored questions and answers, referred to as ‘barrier logic’, which provided a numerical output.
The intention of this was to devise a methodology to quantitatively assess the risk associated with
each barrier installed on each of the operator's wells.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

b. Summary: Based on the rules identified in phase 1, questions were developed to find data to
support an assessment of compliancy and fitness for service. Example answers were developed,
with differing answers proposed which were assigned differing colors based on a standard Risk
Analysis Matrix (RAM) – specifically the matrix used in API Recommend Practice 580 Risk-
based Inspection (American Petroleum Institute, 2016) to illustrate how scoring would change for
barriers with differences in their integrity health. Example answers for each level of the RAM
(where applicable) were devised for each type of barrier that would be encountered in the well
stock. A sample of wells from different fields and of different designs was selected to test the
question logic and the suitability of the example answers. After this, the logic was further refined,
and prepared for delivery to the operator for endorsement. An example of the barrier logic applied
to production casing string is detailed in Table 3. N.B. Whilst this work has been described as phase
4, development of this logic was an extension of the rule identification completed in phase 1 and
was completed concurrently with the data discovery and cleansing conducted in phases 2 and 3.
The process used in this phase is depicted in Figure 4:

Figure 4—Barrier logic development process

c. Discussion: This phase required significant work between the operator and the research team to
fully define the barrier logic to be used, and required multiple drafts of the questions and answers
before it was finalized. Several challenges were encountered including: modifying questions and
answers that were reliant on data that had low instances of being recorded, agreeing on numerical
scores for answers and defining questions for barriers that had very binary failure mechanisms, i.e.
8 SPE-214929-MS

surface valves that have limited attributes to assess against (apart from pressure and function tests).
Whilst the ‘first pass’ of the logic that was tested was able to provide reasonable results, there
was a significant amount of revision required during the testing phase to finalize the questions and
answers, and some wells required repeated re-assessments to standardize the final scoring.
5. Finalize barrier logic and run assessments:
a. Purpose: Phase 5 represented the main part of the research, and its purpose was to deliver an
individual risk score for each of the operator's wells.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

b. Summary: With the barrier logic extensively tested in the previous phase and significant
collaboration with the operator already completed, the barrier logic was reviewed for a final time
by the operator and endorsed for use. The research team modified its data gathering sheet templates
to include the logic questions, created a tracking register to monitor progress and commenced
individual assessments. Actual assessments included an answer to each question in the logic,
a reference to the source evidence that the evidence was drawn from, i.e. ‘as per pressure test
results recorded in daily rig report of "X" date’, and additional commentary against each area,
highlighting any important assumptions/issues in the data. Basic coding was created to extract
data from individual assessments sheets to transfer it across to the master tracker. Throughout this
phase, quality checks were performed by members of the research team and the operator to assure
the consistency of the analysis and look for signs of bias in individual reviewers.
c. Discussion: This was the longest and most resource intensive part of the research, taking an
estimated 400 hours of analysis to complete, including a team of up to five engineers at some
points. Whilst all the major issues with logic had been addressed in the previous phase, the review
team instigated daily meetings to run through findings, issues encountered and assumptions made.
This was tracked centrally and reviewed as a team to ensure that all researchers were completing
the analysis in a standardized manner.
6. Complete assessments and compile insights:
a. Purpose: After all the assessments were completed, there was a significant amount of data and a
number of trends were identified. This phase was completed to allow for final confirmation of the
assessments and more detailed analysis of the results to provide insights to the operator.
b. Summary: Broadly, this phase comprised two parts, quality review of the completed data and
the generation of tabulated data, graphs and high-level insights to present back to the operator.
Quality review mainly involved review of data trends for unexpected results, i.e. newer drilled wells
should have better scores due to improved drilling practices, so any poor scores were investigated.
Quality review also consisted of sensitivity analysis of results, i.e. removing scoring for a particular
barrier(s) and seeing what changes looks like. Concurrently, the creation of data visualizations and
key insights were completed and briefed to the operator.
c. Discussion: Due to the significant amount of testing and engagement with the operator, much of
this summation had already been completed and there were few major ‘surprises’ in the data.
7. Transition to ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU):
a. Purpose: Whilst the research was focused on looking at extant wells, and had established a ‘cut
off’ date for what was included, after initial reviews of the barrier logic, the operator decided that
the logic would be used in the future for new drills, interventions, inspections, etc. The intent of
this phase was to establish forms and processes to allow for the research work to become BAU
for the operator.
b. Summary: This phase resulted in some slight modifications to the risk assessment form template
and tracking documents, as well as some minor automation of forms to allow for improved data
SPE-214929-MS 9

integration with the operator's eWIMS. The research project formally ended with assessments
commencing on well activities that commenced post the cutoff date.
c. Discussion: Transition to BAU was relatively simple, as much of the work was easily transferable,
and the operator's current data capture and storage practices were much improved compared to the
older data that was reviewed.

Table 2—List of references used to identify rules from

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Table 3—Sample of barrier logic developed – surface casing barrier, drilling phase only.

Findings
The research created a significant amount of data related to well integrity health. Broadly, the research team
looked at 1,605 wells, which on average had 6 barriers, thus resulting in approximately 9,600 separate barrier
assessments being completed. A significant amount of tabulated data and visualizations were presented to
the operator, but key ones that were permitted to be shared in this paper include:
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025
SPE-214929-MS

Figure 6—Wells by risk assessment score

Figure 5—Wells by risk assessment color
10
SPE-214929-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

Figure 7—Production casing in wells by risk assessment color

Figure 8—Surface casing in wells by risk assessment color

Figure 9—Wellhead body in wells by risk assessment color

Overall, the risk assessment scoring produced results that were in line with the estimates made prior to
commencing the project. Well specific integrity monitoring programs were put in place to mitigate higher
than anticipated scores for approximately 60 wells. Whilst the scores themselves were generally as expected,
12 SPE-214929-MS

the process of engaging different well engineers, surveillance engineers and field operators to review the
barrier logic, illustrated a variance in risk appetites between individuals that was unexpected. The process
of defining the logic has prompted updates of several of the operator's processes and procedures and has
‘matured’ the wider team's level of knowledge around well integrity.

Insights & Recommendations

Whilst the research proved to be extremely valuable to the operator and has significantly improved their

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

understanding of well integrity health across their fields, the research has provided several useful insights
and recommendations that could benefit other operating companies, especially those who have large
numbers of wells or seek to improve their management of well integrity. Four of the most important insights
from the research are:
1. Data quality – if it's not recorded you can't rely on it. One of the largest issues that impacted the
research team was the absence of data critical to understanding the integrity health of a well, especially
around the completion of cement jobs and casing pressure tests. Whilst the integrity of surface barriers
can be confirmed by surface inspections, the quality of casing and cement relies mainly on assurance
activities being conducted as part of a rig intervention. A large percentage of the well stock did not
have data pertaining to pre-job cement testing, density control readings (i.e. surface samples measured
with pressurized mud balances) and detailed pump charts. Details of Casing Integrity Tests (CIT),
specifically actual pressure readings and confirmation of acceptance was often lacking as well as
details around possible casing damage issues, i.e. a daily rig report, stating a number of problems hours
were recording during the casing run, but no additional information was provided regarding issues
with connection make up, casing damage during running, etc. Whilst it is known from offset well
records and from later cased hole logging on other wells that good industry practices were followed in
casing and cementing operations in the past, a large number of wells were scored based off assumed
information. The consequences of this include decreased certainty in the scoring overall, stronger
business drivers for cased hole logging and increased surface inspections for leaks and sustained B-
Annulus pressures. If a small amount of data during operations so crucial to long term well integrity
health was recorded, significant cost reductions in latter assurance activities could have been realized.
2. Standardized and quantitative approach works and reduces bias. During the research, previous risk
assessment work was identified, being assessments conducted in the Front End Engineering and
Design (FEED) phase, during drilling operations, i.e. as part of Management of Change (MOC)
documentation and during operations, i.e. during work over programs. The research team identified
varied approaches and appetites taken during these risk assessments. This was reinforced during
phase 4, when engaging several representatives from the operator, suggested scores were mixed
necessitating several workshops. When viewed in isolation, certain well operations elicited rather
subjective views and by framing the review of activities in the context of later assurance work, the
presence of secondary barriers and the structured approach of developing the logic, consensus became
much easier to achieve. The structured and quantitative nature of the methodology removed biases
and helped the operator's staff in their approach to risk assessment in several other areas.
3. ‘Factory drilling’ was more variable than expected. Factory drilling, i.e. the use of the same
engineering work, contractors and drilling practices to execute a large number of ‘identical’ wells
has been used in a number of fields globally, resulting in successful reductions in project costs
(Chang et al., 2022), (Codesal & Salgado, 2012) and (Hummes et al., 2012). A large number of wells
assessed were considered to be ‘factory’ drilled, therefore it was expected that assessment scores
would be very uniform. In fact, this assumption was a key factor that had historically influenced the
operator in their approach to well integrity management – namely that a certain risk profile could be
applied to a hundred or more wells. The variance in risk assessment scoring between wells drilled
SPE-214929-MS 13

by the same contractor, in the same field, in the same time period illustrated to the research team
that there was a variance between the expected homogeneity in scoring vs the realities experienced
during drilling and completions. The presence of well changes, and MOC documentation, showed
that downhole issues, changes in contractor availability, completion of limited ‘technology trials’, wet
weather impacts, contractor quality issues in cementing and logging operations and a variety of other
causes demonstrated that whilst there was general consistency in broad scoring (i.e. the allocation
of colors), in the detailed numeral score, some wells that were assessed being identical had notable

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

differences in risk scores. Whilst many wells may have very similar looking well schematics, the
state of their well integrity (and the confidence in their future failure) can demonstrably vary to a
significant degree.
4. Data digitization brings real efficiencies. The research team observed a linear like relationship
between the age of wells and the availability and digitization of data, with newer wells having the
most and older wells the least. The reliance on standalone spreadsheets and documents, incorrect
filing of emails and varied use of folder structure resulted in many hours of the research project
being dedicated to simply trawling for data. The use of proper digitization tools, especially electronic
databases and dedicated electronic forms to record results would have not only shortened the research
project but resulted in less assumptions needing to be made in risk scoring. The use of these tools by
other operators is strongly recommended, and projects to digitize historical information into current
systems should be instituted.

Conclusion
The risk assessment project completed by the research team has helped one particular operator better
understand their risks around well integrity. Whilst the risk scoring themselves were generally as expected,
the scoring did identify a number of wells that would be better managed by increased monitoring and
testing. More importantly, the results, and the development of the underlying barrier logic, drove the updates
for several key documents and processes. The research also validated that current practices around data
capture and storage work well, but a significant portion of well related data needs improved curation. If
this is completed, and the capture of data for new wells continues, there are several wider opportunities
to investigate data driven analysis and machine learning. The methodology developed by the researchers
could easily be applied to other neighboring fields and could bring similar benefits for other operators who
are looking to improve their understanding of well integrity health.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Centre for Coal Seam Gas and their respective
supporters: APLNG, Arrow Energy, and Santos Ltd. The authors would like to recognize the reviews and
past and ongoing contributions to this research by Prof Raymond Johnson Jr, Prof Andrew Garnett.

References
Adeyinka, A., Tsakporhore, A., Arije, O., Adegoke, O., Aliyev, S., Iwueze, C., & Hulett, R. (2020). Rethinking well
integrity for sustainability: adopting a risk based approach. Paper presented at the SPE Nigeria Annual International
Conference and Exhibition.
American Petroleum Institute, A. (2016). Recommended Practice 580 Risk-based Inspection. In Risk-based Inspection
(Vol. 3rd Edition): API.
Chang, L., Zou, L., Wang, H., Yu, Y., Liu, Q., Zhuo, L., … Shi, J. (2022). Factory Drilling and Fracturing Technology
for Tight Sandy Conglomerate Oil Reservoir in the Junggar Basin. Paper presented at the ADIPEC.
Codesal, P. A., & Salgado, L. (2012). Real-time factory drilling in Mexico: A new approach to well construction in mature
fields. Paper presented at the SPE Intelligent Energy International.
Fjågesund, T. (2018). Guest Editorial: Robust Well Barrier and Well Integrity Management. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. In.
14 SPE-214929-MS

Hummes, O., Bond, P., Jones, A., Symons, W., Bishop, M., Serdy, A., … Polito, N. (2012). Using advanced drilling
technology to enable well factory concept in the Marcellus shale. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
and Exhibition.
Johnson, J., Raymond Leslie, & Mazumder, S. (2014). Key factors differentiate the success rate of coalbed methane pilots
outside of North America-some Australian experiences. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference.
Johnson, R. L.Jr, Ramanandraibe, H. M., Ribeiro, A., Ramsay, M., Tipene, K., & Corbett, W. (2021). Applications of
indirect hydraulic fracturing to improve coal seam gas drainage for the Surat and Bowen Basins, Australia. Paper

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/23ATCE/23ATCE/D031S034R004/3966673/spe-214929-ms.pdf/1 by Petrobras, Tamires Soares on 24 April 2025

presented at the Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Virtual, 16–18 November 2021.
Lee, P., Porter, M., & Maggiori, D. (2016). Code of Practice for the Construction and Abandonment of Petroleum Wells
in Queensland - As Mandatory Safety Requirements. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Perth, Australia. https://doi.org/10.2118/182246-MS
Norsk Olje & Gass, N. (2017). 117 - Recommended Guidlines for Well Integrity. In (Vol. 117). Stavanger, Norway:
Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.
Queensland, G. o. (2019). Code of Practice For the construction and abandonment of petroleum wells and associated bores
in Queensland. Brisbane, Australia: State of Queensland Retrieved from https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0006/1461093/code-of-practice-petroleum-wells-bores.pdf
Ryan, D., Hall, A., Erriah, L., & Wilson, P. (2012). The Walloon coal seam gas play, Surat Basin, Queensland. The APPEA
Journal, 52(1), 273–290.
Saunders, T., Shaban, A., & Zaman, M. (2018). Foam Cementing in Australian Coal Seam Gas Operations. Paper
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition.
Scott, S., Anderson, B., Crosdale, P., Dingwall, J., & Leblang, G. (2007). Coal petrology and coal seam gas contents of the
Walloon Subgroup — Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology, 70 (1), 209–222.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2006.04.010
Smith, G., Waguih, A., Redrup, J. P., Nick Kholgh, A., & Aguirre, E. (2014). Case Study: Factory Drilling Australia's
Unconventional Coal Seam Gas. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Adelaide, Australia. https://doi.org/10.2118/171470-MS
Tan, B., Lang, M., & Harshad, D. (2012). High-strength, low-density cement pumped on-the-fly using volumetric mixing
achieves cement to surface in heavy loss coal seam gas field. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition.
Thomas, T. (2019). Mitigating the Risk: An Analysis of Well Integrity Regulation in Queensland Unconventional Oil and
Gas Developments and Associated Assurance Activities. Paper presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Towler, B., Firouzi, M., Underschultz, J., Rifkin, W., Garnett, A., Schultz, H., … Witt, K. (2016). An overview of the coal
seam gas developments in Queensland. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 31, 249–271. doi:10.1016/
j.jngse.2016.02.040
Ugarte, E. R., & Salehi, S. (2023). An Uncertainty Risk Evaluation Tool for Wellbore Leakage Prediction for Plug and
Abandonement (P&A). Paper presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting.