SPE-180040-MS

Plug and Abandonment Solution for Oilfield Decommissioning in the North

Sea
P. Aguilar, C. R. Johnson, J. Salazar, and M. Bogaerts, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar held in Bergen, Norway, 20 April 2016.

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
When wells have come to the end of their lives, it becomes necessary to plug and abandon them and return
the seabed to its original condition. In the UK sector of the Central North Sea (CNS), an operator managed
6 fields comprising a total of 30 subsea wells in 7 clusters, required to be plugged and abandoned. These
fields are among many that are coming to the decommission stage, with the over-riding requirement from
the UK government being that of no leakage of hydrocarbons to the environment or between separate
permeable geological zones.
The operator standards required the placement of two cement barriers of a minimum of 100-ft each for
zonal isolation. The preferred route was to find the annular portion of the barrier by interpretation of
ultrasonic imaging tool in combination with the cement bond (CBL) wireline logs used for cement
evaluation service, then to set a 500-ft plug inside the casing opposite that zone. In the case that no barrier
quality cement was identified in the annulus, section milling of the casing was undertaken to expose 100-ft
of formation over which cement was placed.
A number of challenges were faced to design the cement slurry prior to the logging results. The setting
depth may only have been confirmed a few hours before the cement job. To cover the possible setting
depths and temperature ranges, laboratory testing consisted of performing temperature sensitivity tests on
base slurries designed with a wide temperature range retarder, but still optimizing the system to minimize
wait on cement (WOC) time.
A specialized high magnesium resistance (HMR) cement system that provides long-term zonal
isolation and protects against cement degradation was identified as being best solution. The HMR cement
is a blend of blast furnace cement and fly-ash, which reduces the cement permeability and limits the effect
of alkaline brine corrosion.
Optimal plug placement was also required for long-term isolation. Specialized plug placement software
that accounts for in-pipe and annular contamination, and fluid interface matching during pulling out of the
plug was utilised. The slurry design and emplacement best practices will be summarized in this paper.
These subsea wells have been successfully plugged and abandoned by laying temporary, primary,
secondary and environmental cement barriers by several different methods: inside casing, across section-
milled windows, multi-annular, through scaled production tubing and through coiled tubing according to
2 SPE-180040-MS

each particular well’s condition. Success ratio was exceptionally high with all the long term barrier
themselves being flawlessly placed and verified without any repeat job being required.

Introduction
For two separate developments located in the UK Continental Shelf, the first phase of decommissioning
started in 2008 by the suspension of production and removal of the production facilities. The four fields
comprising the first development were produced using a floating production facility (FPF); while the
second development used floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO). On satisfactory
hydrocarbon testing of the flushing water returns, each well was shut-in and isolated at the Christmas tree
prior to being disconnected. Phase 2 of the decommissioning started in 2012 and consisted of three parts:
● Subsea facilities removal
● Well abandonment
● Debris clearance
This paper will focus on the well abandonment operations in these fields.
The first development comprises of the four fields, located approximately 205 miles east-south-east of
Aberdeen. The water depth is approximately 246 ft. The first well was initially drilled in 1991 with first
production in 1993. The other three fields came online between 1995 and 1998. The four fields
collectively have produced over 100 million barrels of oil but having passed maturity, they were no longer
economically viable. In 2008, production was ceased and the fields were released for full decommission-
ing in 2010.
The second development consist out of two fields located in the UK Continental Shelf, approximately
120 miles north-east of Aberdeen. The average water depth is approximately 460 ft. This development has
collectively produced over 100 million barrels of oil during its life. In March 2009, production was ceased
and in 2012 the decision was made not to pursue redevelopment of the two fields.

Background
There is a significant number of subsea fields that are coming to the end of their useful lives across the
North Sea region, with the repercussions of decades of activity. This activity now warrants the industry
to address the plugging and abandonment of these wells in the next few years, and acknowledge
environmental concerns and while following compulsory regulatory and governmental guidelines. Over
the course of the development of the North Sea oil and gas industry, more than 300 producing fields have
been developed, and there are more than 400 undeveloped discoveries amounting to more than 11,000
wells drilled, 6,000 wells already abandoned, 5,000 wells still active, approximately 150 new wells per
year and more than 370 suspended exploration and appraisal wells in existence (Carr 2013). On the UK
continental shelf, it is estimated that over 800 wells will be abandoned in the next decade (Decom North
Sea and Scottish Enterprise 2014). When these data are extrapolated, and including the forecasted spend
in The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, it suggests that there could be up to a 70% increase in activity
from the other sectors, mostly coming from the deeper waters of the northern areas of the North Sea.
Estimates of the total decommissioning expenditure of these offshore fields and structures over the next
decade is forecast to be USD 22.6 billion (Oil & Gas UK 2014), or just under USD 2.3 billion per annum.
(And this is likely to change as a large number of decommissioning projects are still in the survey stages
and additional projects will become mature.) By comparison, in 2013 the industry spent approximately
USD 470 million on decommissioning activities. The decommissioning expenditure is certainly not a
small sum, but with the overall capital expenditure of the industry in the region estimated to have been
approximately USD 22.6 billion in 2014, the industry has a significant challenge and cultural change to
address the way it plans to incorporate this emerging decommissioning market in future capital investment
plans. With the industry currently at a nadir, there is a strong focus from all players to drive up cost
SPE-180040-MS 3

efficiency and continuously improve ways of working. To break it down further, including the surface
perspective, the decommissioning expenditure in the North Sea is perceived to include 8 installations with
large concrete substructures, 31 with large steel jackets (⬎ 10,000 tonnes), 214 with other steel jackets,
21 floating production systems, 278 subsea production systems and more than 3,300 pipelines – totaling
an approximate length of 15,500 miles. Finally, to add to the activities that would form a part of the
decommissioning process and costs, those fields that are serviced by floating, production, storage and
offloading vessels (FPSO), primarily in the Central and Northern North Sea, have a cost of approximately
USD 2.5 billion attached to them. For these fields, the bulk of the decommissioning work would be subsea
aside from the disconnection of the FPSO, with the FPSO itself either being relocated or sold on for reuse.
The well abandonment activity can be broadly sectioned into three main categories of rig type:
● Fixed platform (concrete or steel)
● Light weight intervention vessel (LWIV) or a support vessel with a dynamic positioning system
(DP3 or DP2)
● Mobile drilling units (semisubmersible or jack-up rig)

It has been estimated that to break out the costs of offshore well abandonment broadly according to rig
type (in the UK), those projects from fixed platforms can be generally regarded as the cheapest to run
costing in the order of USD 1 to 2 million per well, whereas those conducted from a jack-up/
semi-submersible steadily ramp up to become the most expensive costing in the order of USD 5 to 6
million per well in the UK. Well abandonment performed using a LWIV or similar vessel will generally
have costs falling between the two extremes, but are typically restricted to selected cases.

Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Wells

Overview
Decommissioning work is complex, regulated by different protocols and requires that various parties shall
be involved or consulted. The main bodies in the UK are defined as follows:
● The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is a ministerial department of the UK
government, and is supported by 9 agencies and public bodies. Within its organization, DECC has
a dedicated Offshore Decommissioning Unit. The unit must be consulted at every stage of the
decommissioning project, from the programme commencement (which can be up to 5 years before
physical work begins in the case of complex projects) until the post-decommissioning surveys
have been conducted. In addition, one of the agencies working for DECC on behalf of the oil and
gas industry is a newly created executive agency called the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA); on 1
April 2015 certain functions passed from the DECC to this new agency. The DECC-sponsored
OGA works with government and industry to make sure that the UK gets the maximum economic
benefit from its oil and gas reserves. OGA is responsible for regulating offshore and onshore oil
and gas operations in the UK.
● The OSPAR Commission was formed by the administrators of the Oslo and Paris Conventions to
protect and conserve the North-East Atlantic and its resources. The Commission comprises 15
governments; each is referred to as a Contracting Party. A ⬙relevant Contracting Party⬙ refers to
a party that has jurisdiction over specific offshore installations.
DECC regulates decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations and pipelines using legislation
under the Petroleum Act 1998. According to Section 29 of the Petroleum Act 1998, the UK Government’s
Secretary of State may require the operator and other specific duty holders to submit a programme
describing the planned measures for the decommissioning work (Bureau Veritas 2011). Typically the
operator and the owner are the Section 29 notice holders, and following consultation with DECC, they will
4 SPE-180040-MS

be required to submit a decommissioning programme on a fixed date. There could be one or more Section
29 notice holders. If there is more than one Section 29 Notice Holder, parties may work together to submit
the Decommissioning Programme, although only one company will serve as the main point of contact.
This is usually the operator, who will submit the programme(s) on behalf of the Section 29 notice holders.
Section 30 of the Petroleum Act 1998 specifies who can receive a notice under Section 29. A decom-
missioning programme sets out the measures to decommission disused installations/wells and/or pipelines,
and will describe in detail the methods to undertake the work. In some cases this process can cover a wide
range of activities such as radioactive material handling, removal of debris from the seabed and
environmental monitoring of the area after removal of the installation. In addition, the reference to Section
29 and 30 of the Petroleum Act 1998 mentioned above, the plugging and abandonment of wells is further
addressed through the ‘2model clauses’ incorporated in the license for the area held be the licensee in the
Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008.
In brief, a decommissioning programme should contain a listing of wells relating to the installation,
including active, suspended and previously abandoned wells and summary of the methods used or those
proposed for the well abandonment. Abandonment projects in the North Sea are being designed largely
in accordance with the guidelines for abandonment issued by operator associations or the government; for
the UK, these guidelines are specified in the Oil & Gas UK Guidelines for the Suspension and
Abandonment of Wells (Oil & Gas UK 2012). Thus, confirmation that the work has been carried out in
accordance with the Oil and Gas UK Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells will be
required and a Petroleum Operations Notice 5 (PON5) must also be submitted for any works that are to
be carried out. If the wells are suspended or abandoned before the drilling permit expires or before the
relevant well intervention/work-over permit expires, then the additional Drilling Operations Application
(PON15b) and Well Intervention Operations Application (PON15f) are required respectively.
Individual licenses specify the regulations to be applied for well abandonment. Part IV of the
Petroleum Act also details long-term obligations in respect of abandoned wells. Another mandatory
regulation is the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996, the
compliance to which falls under the responsibility of the operator. Section 15 in the aforementioned
regulation states that the well operator shall ensure that a well is so designed and constructed that, so far
as is reasonably practicable, it can be suspended or abandoned in a safe manner, and after its suspension
or abandonment there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from it or from the reservoir to which it led.
Thus in the UK North Sea region, which has some of the world’s most stringent regulations, it is written
into UK law that the owner and/or last operating company is responsible for all costs in abandoning the
well/field permanently; well integrity is enduring and any future failure (leakage, cleanup, etc.) must be
remedied by the operator(s).
The well infrastructure in the North Sea is diverse as there is an array of well-related technical factors
to consider, such as well type, location, status, and geology. Through their working life cycle, oil and gas
wells can proceed through numerous events that can encompass exploration, appraisal, and development.
It is entirely likely that many wells ready for permanent well abandonment (PWA) have been suspended
for some time, or have simply come to the end of their useful economic life due to a depleted reservoir.
Within the operator’s decommissioning programme, it is necessary to define the method by which a
well can be abandoned; hence, data are collected from the well to determine its current condition. It can
be challenging to accurately determine the well state, depending on the age, history, and quality of records
of the well. With this challenge comes risk, as the condition of the well may be favourable or unfavorable,
which impacts the associated well abandonment budget and could send costs spiraling.

Introduction to Permanent Well Abandonment

Once no longer in use, all oil and gas wells must be plugged and abandoned according to regulations and
their connecting platform decommissioned. PWA, often called plugging and abandonment (P&A), is the
SPE-180040-MS 5

process by which a well is sealed permanently, usually after either logs determine there is insufficient
hydrocarbon potential to develop the well or after economic production has ceased. Abandonment must
be done in a way that protects the downhole and surface environments with an ⬙eternal perspective⬙ as
described in the Oil and Gas UK Guidelines on qualification of materials for the suspension and
abandonment of wells. It is therefore the intention of PWA operations to achieve, in general, the following
(Campbell and Smith 2013):
● Prevent, in an eternal perspective, leaks from or into the well.
● Isolate all potential future commercial zones.
● Isolate and protect all freshwater zones.
● Remove piping to a defined level below the seabed.
● Retrieve all subsea equipment and debris where practical
According to the Review of Decommissioning Capacity report from Decom North Sea in October
2014, Oil and Gas UK estimates that it will require over 140 working years of activity to abandon all the
wells currently in the UK continental shelf, without any working downtime. Of that entire period, 80 years
of the work are expected to require rigs (based on current technological capability). Breaking down 80
years of work, approximately 55 years is linked to platform wells that may be able to utilize existing or
refurbished rig capability, but a large percentage will remain that are probably going to require a
temporary rig. The 25 years that remain are linked with the abandonment of subsea wells that would need
a mobile drilling rig or LWIV. As mentioned earlier, depending upon the risk-based approach taken for
well abandonment, the selected rig-type will be dictated by the type, status and condition of the well.
Principles of Permanent Well Abandonment. The basics of a PWA operation will vary little whether
the well is on land or offshore (Abshire et al. 2102). Operators remove the completion or production
string/hardware, then install the necessary barrier envelope (the plugging material, typically cement, can
be regarded as a well barrier element) at specified depths across the producing and water-bearing zones
to act as permanent barriers. It sounds simple; however, without a clear well-defined plan, the success of
the operation could be jeopardized along with the ability to remain in budget. As discussed earlier, without
sufficient or recent well data, the abandonment operation could be compromised. Finally, the wellhead
and subsea hardware (if applicable) are removed last.
In general, it can be summarised that well barriers should be designed, selected, and/or constructed
such that:
● They can withstand the maximum anticipated load and differential pressure they may become
exposed to, including multiaxial loads, environmental conditions during planned and potentially
extreme situations, as agreed with all stakeholders.
● They can be leak- and function-tested or verified by other methods.
● No single failure of a well barrier envelope (a combination of well barrier elements) leads to
uncontrolled flow of fluids or gases from the formation to the surface.
● Re-establishment of a lost well barrier or another alternative well barrier can be done.
● They can operate competently and withstand the environment for which they may be exposed to
over time as required by contract and as agreed with all stakeholders.
● Their physical location and integrity status is known at all times when such monitoring is possible
and contractually provided for.
● In compliance with the requirements the respective well barrier element acceptance criteria
(WBEAC).
The key concept here is ⬙well integrity,⬙ by which is meant the application of technical, operational and
organizational solutions, such as the use of competent pressure seals, to reduce the risk of uncontrolled
release of formation fluids into another formation, to the surface, or to the environment, throughout the
6 SPE-180040-MS

well life cycle to a level ⬙as low as reasonable practicable⬙ (ALARP). Well integrity is established by
implementing and maintaining well barriers to prevent uncontrolled release of fluids from the formation
while performing well operations or while the well is inactive or abandoned.
To satisfy the stringent North Sea guidelines, it is very often necessary for operators to remove sections
of casing so that a contiguous cement plug may be set across the entire borehole in a configuration often
referred to as ⬙restoring the caprock.⬙ In cases where the annular cement integrity behind the casing can
be verified with cased-hole logs, the removal of the casing through the execution of a milling operation
may not be necessary. The Oil and Gas UK Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells
states the following, ⬙All distinct permeable zones penetrated by the well should be isolated, both from
each other and from the surface or seabed by a minimum of one permanent barrier. Two permanent
barriers from surface or seabed are required if a permeable zone is hydrocarbon bearing or over-pressured
and water bearing.⬙ In Fig. 1, a simple cement plug is positioned inside the cased wellbore where the
cement plug is sealing vertically inside the casing, with annular cement sealing both horizontally and
vertically in the casing-formation annulus above the casing shoe. A requirement for a permanent well
barrier is that it must include all annuli, extending to the full cross section of the well and seal both
vertically and horizontally, and be verified in accordance with section 6 of the aforementioned guidelines.

Figure 1—Cement plug and annular seal

In addition to position of the cement plug, there are general length requirements whereby a cement
column of at least 100-ft measured depth (MD) of ⬙good⬙ cement is considered to constitute a permanent
barrier. To cater for the inevitable mixing and contamination during the placement of the cement slurry,
the placement of 500 ft MD of cement slurry is usually set.
Barrier materials play an important role in contributing to the eternal perspective of the seal. For the
purposes of PWA, the properties of barrier materials should include the following (with reference to the
functional requirements of barriers in the related Oil and Gas UK Guidelines on Qualification of Materials
for the Suspension and Abandonment of wells, Issue 1, July 2012):
● Long-term integrity. The property of ⬙durability⬙ indicates that the service life should be approx-
imately 3,000 years (or 1 million days).
● Very low permeability. A good-quality cement has a typical permeability of 10 microdarcy is
deemed acceptable on the basis of historical experience.
SPE-180040-MS 7

● Non-shrinking. The nonshrinking property is to overcome the debonding tendency between

adjacent wellbore surfaces.
● Ductile and non-brittle. Ductile and nonbrittle properties will enable the cement to conform to the
changes in mechanical, pressure and temperature loading.
● Fluid resistance. The barrier must be resistant to subsurface liquids and gases such as CO2, H2S,
hydrocarbons, etc.
● Bonding. The barrier must be able to bond to adjacent wellbore surfaces.

Verification of the barrier’s existence and integrity is probably the most important aspect of the PWA
operation as the well is subsea, and therefore it is highly unlikely that verification at a later date would
be feasible. The verification requirements are highly dependent upon individual well and job design, but
there are generally three principal methods (i.e., position of the barrier should be verified by tagging, the
sealing capability should be verified through the application of a pressure test (at least 500 psi or 0.1 psi/ft
above the leak-off point at that depth), and/or an in-flow test should be conducted once the cement plug
is set to at least the maximum pressure differential to be experienced by the plug after abandonment
(Liversidge et al. 2006).

Developing Project-Specific Operator Standards

In line with other major operating companies, this particular operator has a set of global standards that
broadly define how their well abandonments are to be undertaken. However, it was understood at an early
stage in the two key abandonment projects that these standards were not sufficient in definition and detail
for this de-commissioning campaign.
The Aberdeen-based operator team therefore compiled its own recommended practice (RP), which was
signed off by the Houston-based vice-president VP of drilling and completions in excellence as well as
the director of drilling and completions Europe, thereby having the same chain of authority as the
operator’s standard itself. Within the RP, primary and secondary permanent barriers to flow and pressure
were defined. The operator considers these aspects comprising cement and suitable additives, being a
continuous 100 ft in length and offering 100% radial coverage, with steel casing within this being
acceptable. They were to be designed to protect aquifers, to ensure isolation between distinct permeable
zones and to prevent flow from permeable zones to the seabed. Additionally, two verified barriers were
required between seabed and a permeable zone if the latter was hydrocarbon bearing, or over-pressured
and water bearing.
It was defined that the cement slurries for the primary and secondary barriers be mixed, placed and
verified independently of each other. A near-seabed environmental barrier to isolate any oil-based drilling
fluids and keep them from escaping to the seabed was also added to the RP. The definition of this
near-seabed barrier was different in that the barrier did not have to be verified as extending all the way
through the various casing strings to formation.

Cement Plugs for Decommissioning in two North Sea Fields

Setting cement plugs in an offshore environment is very challenging. Vølstad et al. (2014) state three main
operational steps that must be optimized to improve successful plug placement. The first step calls for
adequate plug design, which includes determining the optimum length of the plug and required spacer to
reduce contamination. The second step involves the slurry and spacer design. The slurry must be designed
for downhole conditions such as bottomhole temperature and pressure. The third and last step to be
considered is the placement technique, which includes the base for the plug, optimal underdisplacement,
the use of stinger and pipe rotation, balancing the plug, and the pull out of hole (POOH) after placement.
All three steps must be optimized by using specialized plug cementing simulation.
8 SPE-180040-MS

The wells were plugged and abandoned in accordance with the Operator standards plus its recom-
mended practice for the abandonment of North Sea subsea wells, the latter being specifically compiled and
signed off on for this decommissioning campaign.
The initial concept was to abandon the wells by means of a LWIV inserting a cement plug within the
casing bore. The casing strings were to be cut at least 10 ft below the seabed with the completion tubing
strings in-situ at that point and taking the cut casings, wellheads and trees ashore for reuse or recycling.
However, adherence to the Operator standards meant that the completion tubing strings should be
recovered to enable verification of barrier-quality cement in the annulus outside the production casing.
Where a 100-ft barrier of cement was proven to exist by electric-line logging, the cement barrier was to
be set within the casing bore, contiguous with the verified annular interval. However, if barrier-quality
cement was not proven to exist around the production casing, a 100-ft length of the casing would be milled
and a cement barrier set across the exposed formation and wellbore.
The basis of design (BoD) required that two independently installed and tested cement barriers be set
above the producing sandstone formations, opposite formation of adequate strength, to ensure long term
isolation of the reservoir interval. An upper environmental plug was then to be set just below the mud line
following removal of the upper casings and wellhead to a minimum of 10 ft below the mud line. Fig. A-1
and Fig. A-2 show the pre- and post-abandonment status of one of the wells.
The Operator decommissioning campaign in the UK sector of North Sea, was planned in two phases
using different mobile offshore drilling units (MODU). The first phase consisting of four wells and 17
cement operations was challenging; some flaws were identified such as slurry mixing problems, failed
cement placement (one plug repeated), extended wait-on-cement (WOC), and long mud circulation hours
to cool down the well prior to cement placement. Lessons learned were captured and addressed during the
planning stage prior to the start of the second phase; these lessons were key to the successful placement
of 87 cement operations for 26 wells and finalizing the campaign 5 ½ months ahead of plan. The solutions
proposed are summarized below.

Cement System
The cement system carefully chosen for deep cement barriers was high-magnesium-resistant (HMR)
cement; this cement system was identified as best practice to provide long-term zonal isolation and protect
cement degradation. HMR cement is a blend of blast furnace cement and fly-ash, which reduces the
cement permeability and limits the effect of alkaline brine corrosion. For the shallow plug, class G cement
was selected.

Testing Methodology
During the drilling phase before the wells were placed into production, cement bond log (CBL) and
variable density logs (VDL) were run to identify the quality of cement in place (Schlumberger 2015).
These original electric logs were reviewed by a third party to assess potential sections with good cement
to provide isolation in the annulus. The cement system used when the wells were originally drilled was
class G cement.
After the production tubing was pulled out of the hole (POOH), wireline logs were rigged up to run
into hole (RIH). An ultrasonic imaging tool with azimuthal coverage was used to confirm/discard annular
cement zonal isolation across the required 100-ft interval. In some cases the potential zone of isolation was
in excess of 3,000 ft; therefore, the setting depth was uncertain. A laboratory testing methodology was
developed to have a cement slurry formulation applicable for the wide range of possible setting depths.
This methodology consisted of simulating the bottom-hole circulating temperature (BHCT) using a
modelling software that considers the well configuration, bottom-hole static temperature (BHST), pre-job
mud circulation (time and rate), fluids injection temperatures and heat exchange between the wellbore
casing, drill pipe and fluid in the well.
SPE-180040-MS 9

For cased hole, based on the original CBL/VDL for the production casing, possible setting depths and
the associated BHST were determined to prepare a portfolio of slurry(ies) within the established range,
which was specific to each well. The following temperature sensititivity methodology was utilized until
achieving a system available for each 10°F variation between the maximum and minimum BHCT. Table
1 shows an actual example of the laboratory tests run for a single barrier at multiple temperatures due to
the possible variation in setting depth. The test ID column shows the testing sensitivity conducted, where
test A is the highest anticipated BHCT, test B is a sensitivity test of minus 10°F from test A BHCT, test
D is the lowest anticipated BHCT and test C is a sensitivity test of plus 10 °F from test C BHCT.

Table 1—Example of cement slurries temperature sensitivity

Test ID Depth (ft) BHST (°F) BHCT (mud circulation) (°F) HMR laboratory report / comments

A 8605 232 200 UKI 13-460002

B 8078 221 190 Sensitivity UKI 13-451003
– 7553 210 180 UKI 13-451003
– 7028 199 170 Sensitivity UKI 13-451003
– 6503 188 160 UKI 13-452005
C 5978 177 150 Sensitivity UKI 13-453002
D 5453 168 140 UKI 13-453002

Optimizing Slurry Times

A key challenge on this campaign was to reduce WOC prior to verifying the barrier, without sacrificing
a safe placement time. The slurry pumping time should consider the placement of the slurry, POOH the
drill pipe to at least 100 ft above the theoretical top of cement (TTOC), direct circulation of excess cement
and a safety margin to account for any contingency during the execution which should be the greater of
two hours or 1.5 times the slurry pumping time. After gathering the information relative to the rig times,
the thickening time (TT) was determined to be in a range between 4:00 (hr:mn) and 05:00 (hr:mn). TT
was not the only important parameter since the slurry also needed to be optimized to develop rapid
compressive strength (CS) to allow for barrier validation and reduce waiting on cement time. Prior to the
start of the abandonment campaign different slurry formulations were tested in order to optimize both
thickening time and WOC. In addition, a dispersant without retarding effect was used and the retarder
selected for the campaign was a third generation cement retarder (low temperature sensitivity) covering
all the possible BHCT for the deep barriers. With a design density of 15.0 lbm/gal, a good balance was
optimized between the slurry properties described above and rheology thereby ensuring proper placement
and high degree of success success performance. The average WOC was between 8 and 9 hours which
included 2 hours of safety margin to account for fluids contamination. Examples of slurry designs for the
abandonment plug system with laboratory test data are provided in Table A-3 and Table A-4. For the
environmental barrier, the slurry density was increased to 16.5 lbm/gal and the addition of accelerator was
considered due to the cold temperatures at seabed. A non-retarding dispersant was added to the system to
guarantee slurry mixability.
Use of Spacer and Mechanical separators
The use of spacers was very important to maintain the slurry properties. If wireline logs identified that
the cement would be set insider the 9 5/8-in. casing, only seawater was within the well. As spacer, 40bbl
of fresh water ahead and 10bbl of fresh water behind were used to separate the fresh water-base cement
slurry. Furthermore, a foam ball ahead of slurry was used as additional mechanical separator to preserve
the cement slurry integrity when being pumped down the drill-pipe. Where the casing was section milled,
the milling fluid had a chloride content of 110,000 to 160,000 mg/L. The used of mechanical barriers was
very important to prevent the slurry from contacting the milling fluid in the well when the slurry was
10 SPE-180040-MS

travelling downhole inside the drill pipe and once the slurry exited the cement stinger into the annulus.
A foam ball ahead and behind was used for the first case and weighted spacer for the second. Fluids
compatibility testing showed a 2-hr effect on the slurry thickening time when contaminated with brine
coupled with signs of gellation. The weighted spacer was compatible with the cement slurry and the mud.

Cement Plug Stable Support

After identifying the 100-ft interval required to isolate, the setting depth of the plug was planned as
being from 100 ft below, leaving 300 ft above, the required theoretical top of cement (TOC).
For a successful placement it was vital to have a stable support for each cement plug. Different
alternatives were used during the campaign depending on the condition and/or application. Where
possible, the severed production tubing was used for the primary barrier. Higher up the wellbore, a support
tool (2-in.) was generally utilised and always with viscous fluid below. In advance of the cement being
pumped, the support tool is released into the drillpipe in a compressed form, pumped through the drill pipe
and then expands when it exits the stinger into the casing, Fig. A-5. The setting depth for the support tool
was normally set around 5 ft below of the required setting depth due to necessary spacing to avoid jetting
it down during the cement operation. In case the identified zone of good annular cement for the secondary
barrier was too close to the primary barrier, as shown in Option 1 from Fig. A-6, the TOC for the primary
barrier was reduced down by circulating 80 ft above the required TOC after placement. With this
consideration and after verifying that primary barrier, it was used as the base for the secondary barrier.
For the primary barrier, a hydromechanical-set bridge plug may have been set in the well on drill pipe
as a temporary barrier to flow and this was used as the base. For the surface plug, the support was always
a bridge plug. This particular model of bridge plug has the setting tool within the plug itself, thereby
negating the need for a large diameter mechanical setting tool. This allows the placing of the slurry just
after setting the bridge plug without disturbance and contamination since only a stinger is pulled through
the slurry.
In two cases, it was required to squeeze cement through casing cuts due to restrictions on the wellbore
configuration. A cement retainer was used to squeeze cement into the casing annulus and later acted as
a base for the internal section of the barrier.

Placement Optimization
A specialized software was used to optmize the fluids interfaces after the drill-pipe was POOH by
adjusting the under-displacement volume. This software output compares the target TOC and the
simulated TOC and quantifies the degree of contamination as slurry is pumped down the drillpipe and as
it goes back up the annulus. It shows how slurry contamination occurring during placement will lower the
top of good cement. The software can also quantify the intermixing of fluids before and after pipe pullout.
To facilitate the cement operation, an under-displacement sensititivity evaluation was done on the volume
rounding up/down to the closest whole number of barrels.
The dynamic fluid mixing simulation and the risk associated with dynamic fluid mixing versus the
planned TOC for the job can be seen in Fig. A-7 and Fig. A-8. This output can graphically illustrate the
level of mixing and contamination risk that can exist during displacement of fluids down a drill pipe and
during POOH. With the level of risks identified in the design phase, appropriate mitigation measures were
taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of contamination. The result ensures a lower level of slurry
contamination as it enters the annulus, and an improved level of long term hydraulic isolation. In addition,
at the start of the campaign it was decieded to use the cement unit during displacement in order to have
a better control of the volume being pumped downhole. Finally, a 3 ½-in. cement stinger equal to 1.5 times
the plug length was used as part of industry best practices to avoid disturbing the plug while POOH the
drill pipe.
SPE-180040-MS 11

Verification
Both primary and secondary barriers were tagged with 5,000 lbm to confirm the coverage across the
identified 100 ft interval of good annular cement when set inside casing. The average tagging depth was
found between 10 to 20 ft above TTOC.
When setting the cement barriers across a milled window, the estimation of 12 ¼-in. open hole with
30% excess proved to be good estimation across the 100-ft window TOC ⫹/-20 ft from TTOC. Since the
TOC was tagged lower than theoretical on the first Rob Roy well, without any indication of contaminated/
partially set cement, the open-hole excess was increased to 80% for the Secondary Barrier. This
adjustment was carried onwards as an additional safety margin.
In addition to tagging the plug with weight, a pressure test to 500 psi greater than formation fracture
gradient was conducted in these section milled wells to ensure there was no leakage through the cement.
The Environmental Barrier was tagged, but not pressure tested. This last barrier was set close to seabed,
with the BOP and riser in place. To save rig-time, the riser was removed during the WOC period and the
TOC tagged open water with 10,000 lbm.

Other Cementing Applications during the Campaign

The preferred method of setting cement plugs was the conventional method of using a balanced plug.
However, during the design phase, certain situations were identified where using drill-pipe would not be
an option, and alternative techniques were identified for setting cement plugs.

Using Coiled Tubing

In certain cases with small-diameter pipe, the operational challenges and risks to mill through packers and
re-enter the pipe to be able to run a cement evaluation log were deemed high. To avoid unnecessary
operational risks, a dispensation was obtained to use the cement bond-variable density logs (CBL-VDL)
from the original cement jobs to determine isolation behind the casing. Using coiled tubing, a cement plug
was set inside those small-diameter pipes based on evaluation log interpretation providing isolation across
all annuli. In other situations, where slickline could not get down tubing to set a bridge plug due to
restrictions caused by scale, coiled tubing was used to set cement plugs below the restriction. These
cement plugs were used as temporary barriers to seal off the potential communication paths below while
abandonment work was carried out to provide a permanent barrier.
Cementing through coiled tubing is common but deserves close attention. As the cement slurry travels
through a small-diameter tubing, rheological parameters must be designed accordingly to avoid excessive
friction. Low fluid loss and fluid stability are very important. Cement plugs set through coiled tubing were
designed with Class G cement at neat densities.

Through Production Tubing

To provide a permanent barrier, the production tubing was to be removed from the wellbore. However,
to safely remove the production tubing, the communication to the reservoir needed to be isolated. In
certain cases, neither slickline nor coiled tubing was able to enter the tubing to provide a temporary barrier
due to restrictions, such as scale build-up. In those situations, the decision was made to pump and squeeze
cement down the production tubing. As the production tubing provided the only access to the reservoir,
it was critical that these jobs were executed as per design, requiring detailed job procedures and laboratory
testing of the proposed cement slurries.
In two cases, after replacing the inhibited seawater with drilling fluid for the decommissioning, losses
were obtained. In those cases, a lost-circulation cement plug was set through the production tubing to cure
the losses. Due to the uncertainty of the actual inside diameter of the production tubing caused by scale
build-up, displacement volumes were hard to design as the objective was to isolate the loss zone but to
have the production tubing free of cement to provide an open flow path.
12 SPE-180040-MS

Multi-annular Placement
A permanent barrier was required to isolate all annuli at a certain depth. In particular cases, it was not
possible to cut and pull the casing and set a cement plug across the interval to provide a barrier as shown
in Fig. A-1. In those cases, another method was used to provide isolation across all annuli. This method
required multiple squeezes to individually isolate each annulus. The casing would be cut at an interval
where all the annuli were open, and a retainer would be set just above. The inner casing would be cut
above the retainer to provide a flow path, and cement would be squeezed in the inner annulus. After the
cement squeeze, both the inner and outer casing would be milled, thus providing a flow path to isolate the
outer annulus with cement. Lastly, a cement plug would be set on top of the retainer to provide isolation
across the entire depth interval.
Conclusions
1. The primary goal of this project was successfully achieved by decommissioning 30 subsea wells
for an operator in the UK sector of the Central North Sea (CNS). The initial campaign via MODU1
performed the abandonment of 4 wells (17 cementing plugs, 1 plug repeated) and represented the
learning curve for final campaign performed via MODU2 executed during 2-years period from
May 2013 to June 2015 with 87 cementing plug operations (including conventional, coiled tubing,
lost circulation, squeeze, through tubing, and multi annular).
2. A successful cement plug depends upon the interrelationships among the well geometry, slurry/
spacer rheological properties, a solid base, and proper placement simulation including the effect
of pulling out of hole. The specialized cement-plug placement software contributed to the success
of the cement placement in this campaign confirmed with the actual tagging very close to the
theoretical top of cement.
3. High-magnesium-resistance (HMR) cement was demonstrated to be very effective in the aban-
donment of wells exposed to an alkaline brine corrosive environment. A 15 lbm/gal HMR slurry
with thickening time TT between 4 and 5 hr. using a third-generation retarder allowed safer
placement and short WOC (typically 8 hrs.).
4. As shown through the campaign results, reaching stability in the learning curve, and improving
efficiency and performance in the first campaign; the final campaign was optimized from 31
months estimated to 25 months.
5. No lost time was incurred or repeated cement plug operation required during the final decom-
missioning campaign, which contributed to the nomination of the highest performance rig offshore
for the Operator in 2014.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude towards Schlumberger Well Services management, the
regional laboratory teams in Aberdeen, and all those associated with product development for their
support and permission to publish this paper.

References
Bureau Veritas. 2011. Decommissioning on the UK Continental Shelf-An Overview of Regulations, version02, January
2011.
Abshire, L.W., Desai, P., Mueller, D. et al. 2012. Offshore Permanent Well Abandonment. Oilfield Review 24 (1): 42–50.
Bogaerts, M., Kanahuati, A., Khalilova, P. et al. 2012. Challenges in Setting Cement Plugs in Deepwater Operations.
Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference and Exhibition, Galveston, Texas, USA, 20 –21
June. SPE-155736-MS.
Campbell, K. and Smith, R. 2013. Permanent Well Abandonment. The Way Ahead 9 (3): 25–27. SPE-0313-025-TWA.
Carr, A. 2013. UKCS Well Abandonment DECC perspective. Keynote presentation at the SPE Aberdeen 4th European
Well Abandonment Seminar.
SPE-180040-MS 13

Decom North Sea and Scottish Enterprise. 2014. Decommissioning in the North Sea, Review of Decommissioning
Capacity.
Liversidge, D., Taoutaou, S., and Agarwal, S. 2006. Permanent Plug and Abandonment Solution for the North Sea.
Presented at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September.
SPE-100771-MS.
Nelson, E.B, Guillot, D. (ed.), 2006, Well Cementing (2nd edition), Sugar Land, TX, Schlumberger
Oil & Gas UK. 2012. OP071–Guidelines for the Suspension of Abandonment of Wells, Issue 4, July 2012 and Guidelines
on Qualification of Materials for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells, Issue 1, July 2012.
Oil & Gas UK. 2014. Decommissioning Insight 2014.
Vølstad, J., Hilliard, S., Aguilar, P. et al. 2014. Riserless Plug and Abandonment of Pilot Holes in Ultra Deepwater.
Presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 5-8 May. OTC 25214.
14 SPE-180040-MS

Appendix A
Well and Operational Details

Figure A-1—Pre-abandonment status well

SPE-180040-MS 15

Figure A-2—Post-abandonment status well

16 SPE-180040-MS

Table A-3—Plug 1 (Barrier 1), Laboratory Test Data Example

Job Type Plug 1 Depth 9584.1 ft TVD 8150.0 ft
BHST 182°F BHCT 165°F BHP 3800 psi
Slurry Density 15.0 lbm/gal Yield 1.30 ft3/sk Mix fluid 5.398 gal/sk
Solid Vol. Fraction 44.3 % Porosity 55.7 % Slurry type Conventional
Thickening Time (consistency) Time
POD : 03:44 hr:mn
40 Bc 03:55 hr:mn
70 Bc 04:01 hr:mn
100 Bc 04:06 hr:mn
Compressive Strength Time
50 psi 05:47 hr:mn
500 psi 07:09 hr:mn
1732 psi 09:30 hr:mn

Table A-4 —Plug 2 (Barrier 2), Laboratory Test Data Example

Job Type Plug 2 Depth 6300.0 ft TVD 5519.8 ft
BHST 133°F BHCT 95 °F BHP 3500 psi
Slurry Density 15.0 lbm/gal Yield 1.29 ft3/sk Mix Fluid 5.346 gal/sk
Solid Vol. Fraction 44.5 % Porosity 55.5 % Slurry type Conventional
Thickening Time (consistency) Time
POD : 02:51 hr:mn
40 Bc 03:38 hr:mn
70 Bc 04:05 hr:mn
100 Bc 04:19 hr:mn
Compressive Strength
50 psi 04:03 hr:mn
500 psi 08:04 hr:mn

Figure A-5—Support tool example (Drawing courtesy of Nelson, 2006)

SPE-180040-MS 17

Figure A-6 —Production casing barrier options

18 SPE-180040-MS

Figure A-7—Cementing plug placement software simulation. Plug 1 (Barrier 1). Summary of simulation results: Static POOH (showing
level interphase of the fluids during POOH), fluid mixing before POOH (after placement) and final mixing risk after POOH (colour code
to define the level risk or contamination).
SPE-180040-MS 19

Figure A-8 —Cementing plug placement software simulation. Plug 2 Example (Barrier 2). Summary of simulation results: Static POOH
(showing level interphase of the fluids during POOH), fluid mixing before POOH (after placement) and final mixing risk after POOH
(colour code to define the level risk or contamination).