Project #3

To:
From:
Subject:
Date:

Dr. Eustes
Ryan Griffith
Project 3
5/1/15

The given well, CSM well #1 has very little usage out of it. Compared
to the other wells around in the same field, this well is much less
competitive. There has been a sidetrack proposal that has been put in place
and approved that will take place in a couple of months. Meanwhile CSM well
#1 has passed an inner annulus test over eight months ago without any loss
of pressure or anything going wrong. The test that occurred eight month ago
actually occurred 7/11/2006. This test consisted of pressuring the annulus to
a pressure of 3,000psi with 8.7 bbls of crude oil. The pressure test performed
in the tubing lasted for a 30 minute time interval and sustained the pressure
throughout the test. This verifies that the pressure test for the tubing passed.
The annulus was then pressure tested as well and it passed the test as well.
The reasoning behind these tests is to confirm that there is not any
communication between the pipe strings.
The well was then tested again on 3/15/07. The pump truck
pressurized the annulus to a pressure of 3500psi with 4.7 bbls of crude oil.
The pressure in the annulus was all lost within the first 15 minutes of
pumping. The tubing also lost 250psi while flowing. This is a very large
problem since all of the pressure in the annulus was lost. This will not allow
the sidetrack proposal to be on schedule.
To begin the investigation of the well and to determine what went
wrong, the total fluid (oil and gas) must be determined. The average oil that
was being produced was 4435.85ft3/day. The average amount of gas that
was being produced from this well was 41793166.67 ft3/day. Considering
both of these numbers and that the average GOR of this well was around
53,000scf/bbl this well is considered an oil well. IF the GOR were higher than
100,000 scf/bbl then it would be considered a gas well. From getting a basic
understanding of what kind of well we have, the pumping supervisor was
then called. After talking to the pumping supervisor, it was found out that the
well was left flowing while the pressure test was performed. This is a terrible
mistake made by the pumping supervisor because the well was flowing while
performing the pressure test. Since the well is flowing, the tubing has a much
smaller backup pressure on the inside and is much more vulnerable to
collapse. If the well was shut-in to a steady state while doing the pressure

test, the back up on the inside would have been much larger and most likely
passed the test.
Since all the pressure was lost in the test, the well need to be drifted to
be determined if there has been any collapsed tubing or any other damage.
Three days later the well was shut-in and an LIB was run into the tubing, this
was ran to a depth of 8661ft until it could not go any deeper. A smaller
diameter lead impression block was then run and did not pass the depth of
8661ft. This confirmed that the tubing was collapsed at the depth of 8661ft.
The impressions on the block also had a half arch that looked similar to the
pictures of the collapsed tubing.
After going through these details it can already be confirmed that the
cause of the collapsed tubing was from the pumper not shutting-in the well
before pressure testing the annulus. However there was some evidence in
the pressure test that performed eight months ago that there was some loss
in pressure in the annulus but it was calculated that if the well was shut-in it
would not have failed and collapsed. The pressure of the outside annulus was
calculated to be 4020.46 psi while flowing the well. This is calculated by
doing the hydrostatic of the fluid column density with the pressure from the
top of the well added. This doesnt exceed the collapse rating of the tubing
which is 6,290psi. Therefore even though the tubing was not shut-in while
pressure testing, the tubing should have still not failed.
Since the tubing did fail but it should not have anyways, there are
many other reasons that could have affected this. The first being that the
tubing could have been corroded. The logs that have been supplied with this
well prove that at certain depths the tubing had a 26% loss in wall, this
eventually could have resulted in to lowering the collapse rating of the
tubing and causing it to collapse. The next reason that the tubing collapsed
would be due to the sand erosion of the tubing. In one of the caliper logs it
showed that there was a channel in the tubing where it could have possibly
failed. There were also many sections of the tubing where it was pitted. This
isolated pitting caused a loss in 33% of tubing wall in some places that could
have led to the collapse of the tubing. Ultimately the collapse of the tubing
was caused to the pumper not shutting off the well while running the
pressure test. If this was done properly the tubing would not have collapsed
and the well would most likely be in operation. After the new tubing has been
run the next option would be to mill out. This is the only option because the
tubing at the crossover joint is unable to get by this depth. Another option for
this well would be to plug and abandon the well but this option would be a
last resort. The milling out would be an option that may not have a high
success rate but is the best option to recover from this mistake.