IADC/SPE-191029-MS BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey To Maintain Well Integrity

IADC/SPE-191029-MS
BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey to

Maintain Well Integrity
Yi Tian, Kiki Yustendi, Jihong Lian, Michael Etuhoko, and Alfon Soufanny, HCML; Kai Jiang, Limin Luo, Ming Xiang,
and Congbing Chang, CNOOC International Limited; Anthony Paul Diemert, Husky Energy
Copyright 2018, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.
Abstract
BD Gas Field is located in offshore in the Madura Strait, Indonesia, and has a total of four producing wells
- one vertical (Well Y1) and three horizontal (Well Y2, Well Y3, and Well Y4) from an unmanned platform.
Its reservoir was considered near HPHT and critical sour with 8,100 psi bottom hole pressure, 300°F bottom
hole temperature, 5.5% CO2 and 5,000 ppm H2S. This paper highlights on the Company journey to maintain
well integrity during well design phase, well construction phase, and production phase of BD Gas Field.
During well design phase, material selection and design for 9-5/8 in. intermediate casing, 7 in. production
casing, and 4-1/2 in. tubing were based on the expected life of the well and reservoir properties in accordance
to the requirements of NACE. Cementing design for 7 in. production casing cement was tested and analyzed
in the laboratory for 60 days in the HPHT chamber simulating reservoir properties. Top of cement was
designed to the mud line to minimize wellhead growth. Completion design was monobore type and divided
into lower, intermediate, and upper completion strings. All packers were V-0 (zero bubble) rating.
Maintaining well integrity during well construction phase was challenging. Batch drilling and completion
was applied, and at all times, the wells were required to be suspended with proper and adequate barriers.
During drilling and well clean-up phase, inter-casing pressure management (i.e., annulus pressure, wellhead
growth monitoring, bleed off program, etc.) was implemented to maintain the casing and tubing integrity.
During production phase, routine wellhead growth measurement, constant monitoring and bleed off
program were developed and communicated with related departments. Pressure control valves and alarm
system were installed and tested to the annulus.
In additional to the wellhead growth, transverse wellhead movement was observed in one of the wells
especially during rough sea conditions. In order to reduce the tranverse wellhead movement which may
induce more stress on the surface pipings and connections, it was planned to install under water shims in
between the conductor pipe and platform jacket guide funnel.
Some surface piping and platform modification were also considered because wellhead growth leads to
limitations on gas production to prevent safety issues.
2 IADC/SPE-191029-MS
Introduction
BD Gas Field is one of the several gas fields in Madura Strait Block operated by the Company. It is located
in offshore in a water depth of 182 ft in Indonesia. BD Gas Field reservoir is limestone formation with a near
HPHT (high pressure high temperature) characteristic of 300°F and 8,100 psi, with 5,000 ppm of H2S and
5% of CO2 content. The reservoir is limestone (Kujung Limestone Reef), which is at ±10,600 ftSSTVD, and
above the reservoir consists of silty clay, claystone, with thin sandstone. In general, top transition of over-
pressured zone was observed starting at ±5,150 ftSSTVD and hard over-pressured zone starting at ±6,400
ftSSTVD with narrow window between pore pressure and fracture pressure.
Drilling history in two offset wells in 1987 year and 1989 year were operationally challenging with 3
times of sidetracks, 4 times of well kicks, 22 times of loss circulation, 13 times of pipe stuck and 21 times of
connection gas. Based on the testing result, the gas has characteristics of ±36.5 psi of H2S partial pressure
and reservoir temperature of 300° F.
BD Gas Field development consists of 4 wells including 3 horizontal wells and 1 vertical well. The
Company approached both design and operations of the wells as HPHT, even though the wells are not
strictly conforming to the HPHT definition of 300 °F and 10,000 psi. Wells were designed with 5 strings
design (30 in. conductor, 20 in. surface casing, 13-3/8 in. casing, 9-5/8 in. casing, and 7 in. production liner)
and completed with 7 in. tie-back and 4-1/2 in. pre-drilled liner.
Based on exploration wells downhole problems, it indicates that maintaining well integrity would be
a significant challenge for BD Gas Field development. Therefore, it is important that well integrity is
maintained to ensure that BD wells are safely and properly operated during the life of the well. This is to
avoid likely consequences including, but not limited to casing or tubing failure (collapse or burst), wellhead
seal failures, loss of production, intervention inability or in a worst case, and loss of engineered well barriers.
Well Integrity during Well Design Phase

Material selection and design, cementing design, wellhead design, and completion design are the main
focuses of the well integrity aspects that will be discussed in this paper.
Material Selection and Design

According to NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-1 standard, it requires Ni-based anticorrosive material for BD
wells corrosive environment, especially for the 7 in. production casing and 4-1/2 in. tubing. During
procurement process of the material, the Company requested corrosion testing of candidates’ casing and
tubing samples by a third party, to confirm the selection.
Specimens were cut from the sample tube for corrosion testing and loads testing. This was to determine
the mechanical parameters limitations in case of severe well load conditions. Specimens were prepared as
C-rings in accordance with ISO 7539, Part 5, taking into account the requirements of Section 10.2 of NACE
TM0177-05, see Fig. 1. Testing was carried out generally in accordance with NACE TM0177-2005 and
EFC17 (2nd Edition).
IADC/SPE-191029-MS 3
Figure 1—Pre-test of C-ring
On removal from the autoclave, it can be seen that the C-ring specimens from one candidate was intact
and no cracks were found by dye penetrant testing of the specimens while under stress, see Fig. 2. Whereas,
the specimens from another candidate had clearly cracked through the stressed region and failed the test,
see Fig. 3.
Figure 2—Successful Post-test of C-ring
Figure 3—Failed Post-test if C-ring
The pitting specimens (Pre and Post Test) changed little in appearance, apart from a slight tarnishing and
some minor bright spots in places, and no pits were detected on examination. The maximum weight change
recorded on the pitting specimens was a weight gain of less than 0.03 mg/cm3, which is considered to be
insignificant. No crevice corrosion was found on any of the crevice specimens (Fig 4).
Figure 4—Pre and Post Test Appearance of the Specimens
The T95 grade, 9-5/8 in., 47 ppf intermediate casing could be exposed to the corrosive environment in
case of well kick during drilling of both 8-1/2" hole section and 5-7/8" hole section before tie-back 7 in.
liner. Another potential corrosion risk scenario is when gas intrudes into annulus B (between 7 in. casing
and 9-5/8 in. casing) during production phase. To mitigate the issues, Company had an additional laboratory
test to check the 9-5/8 in. casing, simulating corrosion environment in the event of a kick or gas leaking
into annulus B.
The test was designed and conducted based on extreme scenarios of drilling and production respectively,
and conclusion was made as follows:
1. The uniform corrosion rate was predicted at 0.0216 mm/year and pitting corrosion rate was predicted
at 1.04mm/year. If kick occurs during drilling, the corrosion depth is 0.085mm within 30 days of the
treatment time, so it will have no significant impact on T95 casing usage.
2. The general corrosion rate in case of channeling and reservoir gas intrusion into annulus B during the
production stage is 0.3047 mm/year. The T95 grade casing can endure for 5 years if the gas intrudes
into the annulus B (assuming the remaining of 87.5% wall thickness).
Cementing Design
As discussed by Moroni et al. (2008), long-term zonal isolation with produced fluid containing high content
of CO2 and H2S is very challenging. Carbonation of neat Portland cement systems can occur in CO2
environments which could affect well integrity.
According to NORSOK Standard D-010 Rev. 3, the purpose of cemented casing is to provide a
continuous, permanent, and impermeable hydraulic seal along hole in the casing annulus or between casing
strings, to prevent flow of formation fluids, resist pressures from above or below, and support casing or liner
strings structurally. In general, top of cement height shall be 100 m above a casing shoe where the cement
column in consecutive operations is pressure tested. Top of cement in BD wells was designed to sea bed
depth as a minimum with considerations as follows:
1. HPHT environment where temperature cyclic loading is expected to occur.
2. Wellhead growth of un-cemented pipe due to temperature effect.
In addition to the above, tie-back string was cemented providing extra barrier to the tie-back string.
Company worked together with the Cementing Contractor to develop a HPHT slurry system for CO2 and
H2S environment with high-density elastic cement properties for production casing cementing with several
highlights:
1. Cement strength development.
2. Young Modulus < 870 ksi (6,000 MPa) and Poisson Ratio > 0.13.
3. 30 days corrosion depth < 2 mm.
A laboratory test on the cement sample using HPHT corrosion test chamber (see Fig. 5) was simulated
using corrosive reservoir condition for thirty (30) days. Further checks on samples were evaluated as
follows:
1. Nitrogen intrusion porosimetry method to analyze surface area and average pore radius change after
corrosion.
2. Corrosion depth was measured using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
3. Cement mechanical properties (axial and triaxial) were evaluated after corrosion.
Figure 5—Schematic of HPHT Corrosion Test Chamber
Results show that cement sample after test were acceptable; using SEM electron, corrosion depth of 1.02
millimeter was observed. Other properties are shown in Table 1. From the table, the cement strength was
developing under high temperature and pressure compared to non-curing corrosion, and achieving desirable
cement elasticity properties.
Table 1—The Result of Laboratory Test on the Cement Sample
Confining Modulus of Compressive

No. Poisson's Ratio Corrosion Condition
Pressure (MPa) Elasticity (MPa) Strength (MPa)
X1 20.0 0.159 4501.1 65.4

Non curing corrosion
X2 0.0 0.162 1751.4 17.7
Confining Modulus of Compressive

No. Poisson's Ratio Corrosion Condition
Pressure (MPa) Elasticity (MPa) Strength (MPa)
X-1 20.0 0.156 5922.2 79.6 H2S: 40 Psi, CO2:

530 Psi (150°C ×
40 MPa, N2 Charge
X-2 0.0 0.131 4886.3 31.1 pressure, Liquid phase
corrosion 30 days)
Wellhead Design
The anticipated surface pressure is 6,500 psi based on the DST of the offset wells. The Company used
10,000 psi working pressure rating of wellhead and Christmas tree including 1.2 safety factor. Corrosion
Resistant Alloy, HH-NL material, PSL 3G, X temperature rating, and true metal-to-metal acid resistant seals
were selected for all production flow-wetted areas.
Completion Design
Monobore approach was used to complete BD wells based on 4-1/2 in. completion equipment with 4 in. ID.
The completion itself was divided into 3 assemblies: lower, intermediate, and upper assembly. See Fig. 6.
Figure 6—Schematic of Completion
Lower assembly was pre-drilled liner, covering along the reservoir section. Packer was used to hang the
lower completion, 200 ft above 7 in. casing shoe. The packer was equipped with PBR allowing the next
completion assembly (on top) to be stung into the lower completion.
Intermediate assembly consists of isolation valve assembly to isolate reservoir to well bore and provide
well barrier from the reservoir. The isolation valve consisted of two dome-shaped disks with 10,000 psi V-0
rated. The tie-back assembly was tapered with 7-5/8 in., 29.7ppf casing to accommodate subsurface safety
control valve size. The bottom of the tie-back string was equiped with a seal assembly to sting into the 7 in.
liner hanger PBR. The tie-back was cemented with two-plug system. Following the cementing operation,
the well was suspended for batch upper completion operation.
Seals were moved from the bottom of both the middle and upper sealing assembly after calculation of the
annulus thermal effect. See Fig. 6. Change in temperature leads to change in pressure according to formula
ΔP = (α/β) ΔT.
1. For Potassium Formate mud, α/β is approximately 160 (Note: α = coefficient of thermal expansivity
and β = coefficient of thermal compressibility). ΔP is not an absolute pressure, but a pressure change
that must be added to static system pressure (as the pressure is trapped and can't be bled off)
2. Depending on the well activities (production, shut-in, stimulation, re-start, clean-up), that can easily
add up to overcome the collapse rating of the 4-1/2 in., 11.6ppf tubing (7,580 psi).
Upper assembly consisted of production packer, pressure and temperature gauge and safety valve. The
gauge mandrel was spaced out above the production packer to monitor the flowing pressure and temperature
in real time. Cable clamp was installed on every tubing collar to protect the cable during running in hole.
Above the safety valve, the cable was clamped together with the control line to the tubing hanger. Based
on the fail safe setting depth of the safety valve, it could be set up until 1,000 ft, but because casing size
limitation, it was only set at the top of 7 in., 29ppf × 7-5/8 in., 29.7ppf cross over, which is 450 ft MD.
Well Integrity during Well Execution Phase

Batch drilling and completion strategy was used to drill 4 BD Wells where it proved to be time and cost
efficient. Once reservoir section has already been exposed, minimum of 2 mechanical barriers must have
been in place and functioning before rigging down the blow out preventer (BOP). Figure 7 shows the
sequence of the batch drilling and completion.
Figure 7—Batch Drilling and Completion Sequence

Well Integrity during Batch Drilling and Completion Operation

Before rigging down the BOP and skidding the cantilever to the next well on each hole section, the casing
was tested to ensure the integrity. A temporary abandonment flange with a pressure gauge (see Fig. 8) was
installed to monitor well pressure. Pressure gauge was monitored constantly to ensure no pressure build-up
from the well-bore prior to removing the temporary abandonment flange.
Figure 8—Temporary Abandonment Cap with Pressure Gauge
The isolation disk (10,000 psi and V-0 rated) was positively pressure tested with 1,000 psi for 15 minutes
to avoid creating potential micro fracture in annulus cement sheath. Before run in hole and cemented 7 in.
tie-back string, spaced out with high viscous clean fluid to ensure no cement debris on the top of the disk.
16.5 ppg cement plug was laid out with ±200 ft thickness at about 1,000 feet above the isolation disk inside
7 in. liner. Downhole schematic with cement plug has been set, illustrated in Fig. 9.
Figure 9—Well Schematic Illustration with Barriers In-Place (not to scale)
Cement plug was placed about 1,200 ft thick above the isolation valve before the tie-back operation.
The 7 in. liner was tied-back to the surface and cemented before running the upper completion assembly.
Following the installation of Christmas tree, slickline was rig up to run the slickline plug to the nipple. The
production packer was set up with hydraulic pressure by applying pressure into the string. After the packer
was confirmed to set, the plug was retrieved and the production packer was tested to confirm its integrity.
After all tests were performed, the isolation valve disks were ruptured with the use of coiled tubing
conveyed mill in an underbalanced condition. The wells were cleaned up through surface well testing
equipment until 0% sediment was achieved.
Batch upper completion was executed and related tests were well fulfilled as follows:
1. Pressure up tubing to 7,500 psi. Hold pressure for 30 min.
2. Tubing head adapter cavity test to 10,000 psi / 15 min.
3. SSCSV (Subsurface Surface Controlled Safety Valve) control line to 12,000 psi/ 30 min.
4. Pressure test annulus in steps to 5,000 psi to confirm production packer integrity. Hold pressure for
30 min.
5. Bleed down above SSCSV from 3,000psi to 1,000 psi for inflow test. Keep pressure for 15 min.
All four wells were batch drilled and completed safely without a single well control incident during
temporary abandonment.
Inter-Casing Pressure Management during Drilling Operation

Annulus pressure building up was observed for the first time in annulus C (annulus 9-5/8 in. × 13-3/8 in.
casing) of Well Y2 after 9-5/8 in. casing cementing job. Samples were taken from Well Y2 annulus C for
analysis and compared it with sea water, drilling fluids, cement slurry filtrate, formation water as Table
2. Samples of Well Y2 were more likely the cement slurry filtrate mixed with a small amount of drilling
fluids and sea water.
Table 2—Components Analysis of Different Fluids
Liquid Type Density (ppg) Cl- (mg/l) Ca2+ (mg/l) pH K+ (mg/l) Gas
Sea water 8.5 18000 – 7 – –
Drilling fluid 15.5 50000 240 10 25000 –
Cement slurry filtrate 8.59 2500 2800 12.39 1809 –
Formation water (adjacent) 8.5 11590 37 8.67 315 None
Samples of Y2 Annulus C 8.51 21504 1118 11.96 8343 None
Analysis of the sustained annulus pressure was conducted to determine the pressure source depth
and channel including lithology and pressure profile, formation properties, liquid samples, pressure
development curve, cementing job review, cement bonding evaluation and pressure development curve.
No hydrocarbon was indicated in the 12-1/4 in. hole section. Loss circulation and formation "ballooning"
during cementing job in Well Y2 were suspected to be the main causes.
After annulus pressure on Well Y2 was observed, routine measurement in annulus D (annulus 20 in. ×
13-3/8 in.), annulus C (annulus 13-3/8 in. × 9-5/8 in.) had been carried out during the drilling of 8-1/2 in.
hole section and 5-7/8" hole. Once reached the limit of annulus pressure allowed, the pressure from annulus
was bled off through a needle valve. All liquid samples were mixed fluids (8.5-8.7 ppg) of cement chemical,
mud, and seawater.
Inter-Casing Pressure Management during Well Clean Up Operation

During well clean up phase, it was observed that the annulus pressure for all wells tends to increase at the
same time while hot fluid was flowing in the well. Company set limit of annulus A (annulus 4-1/2 in. tubing
× 7-5/8 in.) to 2,400-1,400 psi, annulus B (annulus 7-5/8 in. × 9-5/8 in.) to 2,000-1,800 psi, annulus C to
2,000-1,800 psi and annulus D to 700 psi to bleed off. After well shut in, all annulus pressure dropped to
0 (zero) psi, except annulus C of Y2 which dropped and remained stable at 1,550 psi. Table 3 shows the
total bleed off volume during well clean up.
Table 3—Accumulative Volume during Well Clean Up
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
Annulus Bleed off Bleed off Bleed off Bleed off
Pressure (Psi) Pressure (Psi) Pressure (Psi) Pressure (Psi)
Volume (liter) Volume (liter) Volume (liter) Volume (liter)
A 2000 830 2000 660 1400 520 1700 830
B 0 0 2000 20 100 0 0 0
C 2000 341 2000 71 2400 470 0 0
D 750 20 700 90 750 660 700 700
Cement Bond Evaluation

Standard of cement bond evaluation was illustrated as Table 4. Based on 9-5/8 in. cementing program, tail
slurry (16.5ppg) returned to 7,200ft, lead slurry (15.6ppg) return to surface for all BD wells. The cement
evaluation indicates poor bonding and channel exists above 7,000ftMD for every well. According to the
quantitative interpretation, for 4 wells, the annulus cement barriers from 9-5/8 in. casing shoe to 7,000ftMD
have good plugging and sealing ability with the range of 380ft to 900ft accumulated intervals length (see
Table 5). Annulus cement of 4 wells at the 9-5/8 in. casing shoe were proved by the FIT holding16.8ppg,
indicated the reliability of 9-5/8 in. lower cement barriers.
Table 4—Standards of Cement Bond Evaluation
Bonding CBL Amplitude VDL Ultrasonic Cement Evaluation
Excellent <5mV Weak casing arrival, 100% cement coverage OR less

Good <10 mV strong formation arrival than 100% but no continues channel
Less than 100% coverage/

Strong casing arrival, weak
Fair/Medium Between 10 mV & 30 mV channel with intermintten
to strong form arrival
short good bonding in between
Strong casing arrival, Continues channel,

Poor 30 mV
no formation arrival patchy or no cement
Table 5—Accumulated Intervals Length of 9-5/8" Casing Good Cement Bond
Second Minimum
Cement Bonding Minimum
Top(ft) Bottom(ft) Interval(ft) CBL(mV) Interface Accumulated
Strength(psi) Interval Lmn(ft)
Bonding Interval L(ft)
Good, no
7100 7190 90 8 915 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7220 7290 70 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
Y1 7300 7440 140 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn 580
channeling
Good, no
7480 7640 160 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7950 8070 120 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7000 7350 350 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Y2 380
Good, no
7550 7580 30 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7000 7600 600 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Y3 900
Good, no
7600 7900 300 3 2924 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7000 7260 260 3 2924 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7300 7340 40 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7400 7450 50 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Y4 860
Good, no
7450 7570 120 8 915 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7570 7750 180 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
Good, no
7840 8050 210 5 1686 ≥700 psi 18 L≥Lmn
channeling
After the qualitative and quantitative interpretation, the annulus cement barriers of 7 in. liner for all BD
wells have good plugging and sealing ability with range between 228ft to 906ft intervals length (see Table
6, Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9). Annulus cement of BD wells at 7 in. liner shoe were further proved by
the FIT tests with 16.2ppg, also indicated the reliability of the 7 in. liner cement barriers. Cement corrosion
test and analysis was conducted and the calculated maximum corrosion rate would be 4.2mm/year, cement
life would be long enough for well life.
Table 6—Accumulated Effective Interval of Y1 7 in. liner cementing > 734ft
Bottom Interval Cement Bonding Minimum

Top (ft) CBL (mV) Second Interface Bonding
(ft) (ft) Strength (psi) Interval Lmn (ft)
7,756 7,783 27 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling
≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

7,922 7,940 18 12 634 12 L≥Lmn
< 700 psi possibility of channeling

8,200 8,260 60 15 434 16 L≥Lmn

8,606 8,630 24 16 385 12 L≥Lmn

8,664 8,712 48 12 634 12 L≥Lmn

9,082 9,110 28 15 434 16 L≥Lmn

9,468 9,490 22 13 557 14 L≥Lmn

9,532 9,572 40 17 343 22 L≥Lmn
Table 7—Accumulated Effective Interval of Y2 7 in.liner cementing > 906 ft

8,140 8,216 76 5 2,023 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

9,430 9,490 60 15 434 16 L≥Lmn


Table 8—Accumulated Effective Interval of Y3 7 in. liner cementing > 228 ft


8,250 8,300 50 15 434 22 L≥Lmn

8,330 8,390 60 15 434 22 L≥Lmn

9,000 9,030 30 15 434 22 L≥Lmn

9,690 9,800 110 15 434 22 L≥Lmn

10,960 11,090 130 15 434 22 L≥Lmn
Table 9—Accumulated Effective Interval of Y4 7 in. liner cementing > 520 ft
Cement Bonding
Top (ft) Bottom (ft) Interval (ft) Minimum Interval Lmn (ft) Second Interface Bonding
Strength (psi)
7,620 8,050 430 3,405 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling
≥320 psi,
9,000 9,050 50 434 16 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling
< 700 psi
9,150 9,180 30 839 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling
9,210 9,220 10 1,145 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

9,360 9,370 10 434 16 Lmn>L>0.5Lmn

9,430 9,440 10 434 16 Lmn>L>0.5Lmn

9,460 9,470 10 434 16 Lmn>L>0.5Lmn

9,500 9,510 10 434 16 Lmn>L>0.5Lmn
Well Integrity during Production Phase

Further Inter-Casing Pressure Management Program
For the safety of the wells, the Company decided as follows:
1. To install a pressure relief valves (set at ~ 2,000psi) in annulus A, B and C.
2. To monitor the annulus pressures daily.
3. To bleed off the pressure in the annulus as they approach the recommended operation pressure "High"
4. Masked-up with breathing apparatus prior to bleed-off operation if required bleed off manually.
5. During bleed off, should not be bled-off more than 20% of the pressure.
Operation of the annulus and control line pressures between the following "Low" and "High" values will
be set as Table 10.
Table 10—Operating Setting Value in Different Annulus
Recommended Operating Recommended Operating

Annulus
Pressure "Low" * (Psi) Pressure "High" * (Psi)
Annulus A(4-1/2 in. × 7-5/8 in./ 7 in.) 1,800 2,000
Annulus B (7-5/8 in./7 in. × 9-5/8 in.) 1,800 2,000
Annulus C (9-5/8 in. × 13-3/8 in.) 1,800 2,000
Annulus D (13-3/8 in. × 20 in.) 450 500
TR-SCSSV control line pressure 10,500 11,500
Annulus Pressure Management and Alarm System

Routine measurement and monitoring of the pressure in annulus A, B, C and D were carried out during
production phase on BD wells. To prevent excessive pressure from annulus, Pressure Release Valves (PRVs)
were installed on annulus A, B, and C for all wells because the platform is unmanned. The PRVs were set
at +/- 2,000 psi "high" and +/- 1,800 psi "low". If annulus pressure above 2,000 psi, the PRV will release
and bleed the fluid from annulus to Knock-Out Drum at BD Platform, and at 1,800 psi it will be closed.
Wellhead Growth and Movement

Wellhead growth was expected during production phase because of high wellhead temperature. Platform
structure and piping system had been designed to accommodate the wellhead growth. Based on the design,
the vertical displacement due to thermal growth from the Christmas tree was 10 cm for all wells. However,
the actual growth was higher than prediction.
In addition to the wellhead growth, transverse wellhead movement was observed in one of the wells
especially during rough sea conditions. In order to reduce the tranverse wellhead movement which may
induce more stress on the surface pipings and connections, it was planned to install under water shims in
between the conductor pipe and platform jacket guide funnel.
Platform Modification
As the actual well growth during early production was higher than the prediction, the Company did pipeline
stress analysis study to correct clashes on BD platform, and to mitigate the further potential wellhead growth
issues. The main objectives of the stress analysis study include:
• Identification of all clashes due to the thermal growth and address means to correct them.
• Re-run the piping stress analysis on the BD platform flowlines and re-engineer the flowlines to
accommodate the potential thermal growth values.
• Review structural members and re-design them against future potential clashes due to the revised
thermal growth values.
• Update necessary engineering deliverables to perform the required modifications.
Based on the study, Wells Y1, Y3 and Y4 required no piping modifications. However, new spring supports
and additional piping supports were installed to replace the existing supports. For Well Y2, the flowlines
was re-routed in the spare space of the future slot. After modifications, all the wells were tested at maximum
gas production rate for 2 weeks. During this test, frequent wellhead growth was measured, monitored and
compiled. The maximum wellhead growth recorded from all wells was < 12cm.
Lesson Learnt and Conclusions

The Company spent almost 2.5 years to procure the CRA material, performed laboratory test, and delivery.
By quality control such as doing the laboratory test (i.e., for CRA material and cement), it will increase
the level of confidence that the material will endure and perform as per expectation under the predicted
environment. Special handling tool was required when making up the CRA pipe connection to minimize
dies mark on the pipe body.
Batch operation was used to drill and complete the 4 BD Wells without a Lost Time Accident, oil spill,
and blow out. At minimum, 2 mechanical barriers were all the time in place and functioning before skidding
to the next well. All completion packers are V-0 rated and 10,000 psi rating isolation disk, and no incidents
happened with the gas leaking during completion installation phase.
In the HPHT and narrow pressure window well, it will be very difficult to place cement properly in
the annulus and avoid slurry contamination because of fracture pressure limitation. Proactive safegards
application and proper adjustment timely during construction phase can mitigate these risks.
Analysis, discussions, and further work instruction were put in place and communicated to the Production
Department to manage the annulus pressure during production phase. Platform modifications were required
to accommodate the annulus pressure build-up and wellhead growth by installing the PRVs on all annulus
and modify the piping and support system.
The Company is maintaining well integrity of BD Gas Field successfully until this paper published
involving all related Company's personnel. Good team work and communication are important to form a
synergy. It is a journey to maintain the well integrity.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank to Husky-CNOOC Madura Limited (HCML) and Partners (Husky Energy
and Samudra Energy) Management for the permission to publish this paper. We also like to thank to
SatuanKerjaKhususMinyakdan Gas (SKKMigas), vendors and contractors for the support, dedicated efforts
and cooperation during this challenging project.
Nomenclature
APB Annulus Pressure Build
CO2 Carbon dioxide
Co Cobalt
Cr Chrome
CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloys
°F Degree Fahrenheit
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HCML Husky-CNOOC Madura Limited

HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MAWOP Maximum Allowable Wellhead Operating Pressure
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
Ni Nickle
NORSOK NorskSokkelsKonkuranseposisjon
pH Potential of Hydrogen
PRV Pressure Release Valve
SKK Migas SatuanKerjaKhususMigas
SSCSV Subsurface Surface Controlled Safety Valve
SSMD Sub Sea Measure Depth
SSTVD Sub Sea True Vertical Depth
References
1. Eirik Karstad, "Analysis of Ballooning Effects During Drilling of High Pressure High
Temperature Wells", Presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference in the Hague,
The Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998.
2. Erhu Gao, Martin Booth, Niall MacBeath, "Continued Improvements on High-Pressure/High-
Temperature Drilling Performance on Wells With Extremely Narrow Drilling Windows -
Experiences From Mud Formulation to Operational Practices, Shearwater Project", presented at
the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000.
3. Moroni, N., Repetto, C., Ravi, K., "Zonal Isolation in Reservoir Containing CO2 and H2S",
IADC/SPE 112703 presented at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Orlando,
Florida, USA 4-6 March 2008.
4. NORSOK Standard D-010 Rev. 3, August 2004, "Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations".
5. Zeng Dezhi, Zhang Naiyan, "Corrosion Assessment of Different Production Casing and Material
Selection in Sour Gas Wells", SPE-176488-MS presented at SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20-22 October 2015.
6. Gustioro Purwagautama, Rizky Andika, David Mccalvin, "Material and Completion Equipment
Selection for HPHT Sour Gas Field Development in Indonesia: Case Study", IADC/SPE 136163
presented ta the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Ho Chi Minch City, Vietnam, 1-3 November 2010.
7. J. Lian, Y. Tian, Z. Yang, "BD Field Development: First Kunjung Horizontal near HPHT –
Critical Sour Wells Offshore Indonesia", SPE-186274-MS presented at the SPE/IATMI Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 October 2017.

IADC/SPE-191029-MS BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey To Maintain Well Integrity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

IADC/SPE-191029-MS BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey To Maintain Well Integrity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IADC/SPE-191029-MS BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey To Maintain Well Integrity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IADC/SPE-191029-MS

BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey to

Copyright 2018, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

Well Integrity during Well Design Phase

Material Selection and Design

Figure 1—Pre-test of C-ring

Figure 2—Successful Post-test of C-ring

Figure 3—Failed Post-test if C-ring

Figure 4—Pre and Post Test Appearance of the Specimens

Figure 5—Schematic of HPHT Corrosion Test Chamber

Table 1—The Result of Laboratory Test on the Cement Sample

Confining Modulus of Compressive

X1 20.0 0.159 4501.1 65.4

Confining Modulus of Compressive

X-1 20.0 0.156 5922.2 79.6 H2S: 40 Psi, CO2:

Figure 6—Schematic of Completion

Well Integrity during Well Execution Phase

Figure 7—Batch Drilling and Completion Sequence

Well Integrity during Batch Drilling and Completion Operation

Figure 8—Temporary Abandonment Cap with Pressure Gauge

Figure 9—Well Schematic Illustration with Barriers In-Place (not to scale)

Inter-Casing Pressure Management during Drilling Operation

Table 2—Components Analysis of Different Fluids

Sea water 8.5 18000 – 7 – –

Drilling fluid 15.5 50000 240 10 25000 –

Cement slurry filtrate 8.59 2500 2800 12.39 1809 –

Formation water (adjacent) 8.5 11590 37 8.67 315 None

Samples of Y2 Annulus C 8.51 21504 1118 11.96 8343 None

Inter-Casing Pressure Management during Well Clean Up Operation

Table 3—Accumulative Volume during Well Clean Up

A 2000 830 2000 660 1400 520 1700 830

C 2000 341 2000 71 2400 470 0 0

D 750 20 700 90 750 660 700 700

Cement Bond Evaluation

Table 4—Standards of Cement Bond Evaluation

Bonding CBL Amplitude VDL Ultrasonic Cement Evaluation

Excellent <5mV Weak casing arrival, 100% cement coverage OR less

Less than 100% coverage/

Strong casing arrival, Continues channel,

Table 5—Accumulated Intervals Length of 9-5/8" Casing Good Cement Bond

Table 6—Accumulated Effective Interval of Y1 7 in. liner cementing > 734ft

Bottom Interval Cement Bonding Minimum

7,756 7,783 27 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

7,840 7,862 22 5 2023 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

8,073 8,200 127 6 1641 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

8,386 8,414 28 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

8,448 8,498 50 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

8,520 8,570 50 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

8,732 8,776 44 8 1145 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

8,836 8,920 84 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

8,974 8,992 18 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

9,028 9,058 30 5 2023 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling

≥320 psi, Moderate-Good, Low

9,210 9,262 52 10 838 ≥700 psi 10 L≥Lmn Good, no channeling