Well Decommissioning Guidelines Issue 7

Well Decommissioning
Guidelines s
Issue 7
Nov 2022
Acknowledgments
In preparing and publishing this document, OEUK gratefully acknowledges the contribution of members
of the workgroup, namely:
• Co-Chair: Chris Barrett (INEOS E&P Holdings Limited)
• Dillan Perras (Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Ltd / Stena Wells)
• Gerrard Ipenburg (Enquest)
• James Denholm (Shell)
• Co-Chair: James Richards (Well-Safe Solutions)
• Kareem Shafi (OEUK)
• Kevin Robertson (SLB)
• Mark Raistrick (CNR International)
• Tom Quick (bp)
• Willem Boon (Spirit Energy)
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this
publication, neither OEUK, nor any of its members will assume liability for any use made of this
publication or the model agreement to which it relates.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publishers.
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
Copyright © 2022 The UK Offshore Energies Association Limited (trading as Offshore Energies UK)
PUBLISHED BY Offshore Energies UK
ISBN: 978-1-913078-39-3
London Office:
1st Floor, Paternoster House, 65 St Paul’s Churchyard, London, EC4M 8AB
Tel: 0207 802 2400
Aberdeen Office:
4th Floor Annan House, 33-35 Palmerston Road, Aberdeen, AB11 5QP
Tel: 01224 577250
info@OEUK.org.uk
www.OEUK.org.uk
Well Decommissioning Page 2

Contents
1 Introduction 10
1.1 Objectives 11
1.2 Scope 11
2 Evaluation of Zones with Flow Potential 12
2.1 Identifying Formations that have the Potential to Flow 14
2.2 Flow Potential in Overburden Formations 15
2.3 Pressure Changes with Time and Depth of Well Barriers 15
2.4 Assessment of Flow Potential 16
2.5 Cross Flow of Zones of Flow Potential 16
3 Permanent Barriers 18
3.1 Overview 18
3.2 Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers 18
3.3 Number of Permanent Barriers 19
3.4 Length Requirements of Barriers 20
3.4.1 Cement 20
3.4.2 Non-cement permanent barriers 21
3.5 Position Requirements of Permanent Barriers 22
3.5.1 Open Hole 25
3.5.2 Partial Decommissioning for Sidetracking and
Multilaterals 27
3.5.3 Cased Hole 28
3.6 Placement of Permanent Barriers 28
3.6.1 Cement Plug Placement Using a Stinger 28
3.6.2 Through-tubing Cement Plug Placement 29
3.6.3 Bull-heading 30
3.6.4 Perforate, Wash and Cement (PWC) 31
3.6.5 Section Milling 31
3.6.6 Additional Considerations for High Angle and
Horizontal Wells (wells > 70°) 32
3.6.7 Additional Consideration for Penetrations Through
Permanent Barriers 33
4 Verification of a Permanent Barrier 34
4.1 Overview 34
4.2 Wellbore Barrier 34
4.2.1 Alternative Materials 35
4.3 Annular Barrier 35
4.3.1 Verifying Sealing Formations 36
4.3.2 Verifying Through-tubing and Bull-heading 37
4.3.4 Liner Laps 38
5 Special Considerations 39
5.1 HPHT Wells 39
5.2 Wells Containing H2S 39
Page 3
5.3 Wells Containing CO2 39
5.4 Wells Containing Magnesium Salts 40
5.5 Gas Wells and High GOR Wells 40
6 Phase 3 Well Decommissioning 41
6.1 Annular Fluids 41
6.2 Shallow Water-bearing Zones 41
6.3 Hydrocarbons of Biogenic Nature 41
6.4 Retrieval of Equipment During Phase 3 41
Appendices 43
A Statutory Notifications, Approvals and Record Keeping 43
B Basic Well Data Required for Well Decommissioning 47
C Cement Barrier Placement – Potential Issues and Mitigations 49
D Phases of Well Decommissioning and Coding 54
E Cost Estimation 59
F References and Further Reading 66
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Flow Potential and Cross Flow Assessment Flowchart 13
Figure 2: Field Based Cross Flow Diagram Highlighting the Importance of
Fully Lateral Barriers Above Laterally Connected Formations 17
Figure 3. Permanent Decommissioning Barrier Schematic “Restoring the Cap
Rock” 18
Figure 4. Comparison of Length of Dual and Combination Cement Barriers 21
Figure 5. General Requirements for Decommissioning 23
Figure 6. Barrier Position is Determined by the Geological Setting, i.e.
Permeable Formations as Source of Inflow and Cap Rock 24
Figure 7. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If open hole strength is
sufficient for maximum pressure from Zone A) 25
Figure 8. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers if Zone A Requires Isolating
from Zone B (If Maximum Anticipated Pressure from Zone B does not exceed
the casing shoe fracture pressure, one Permanent Barrier between Zone A
and Zone B is adequate) 26
Figure 9. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If Maximum Anticipated
Pressure exceeds the casing shoe fracture pressure) 26
Figure 10. Example Permanent Barriers for Sidetracking 27
Figure 11. Cemented Casing Alone is Not a Permanent Barrier 28
Figure 12. Example Through-Tubing Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic
30
Figure 13. Example Isolation of High Angle Well 32
Figure 14. Example Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic 36
Figure 15. Liner Lap Cementation 38

Table of Tables
Table 1 Criteria for Classifying PHASE 1 Well Decommissioning Complexity
......................................................................................................................56
Table 2 Criteria for Classifying PHASE 2 Well Decommissioning Complexity.57
Table 3 Criteria for Classifying PHASE 3 Well Decommissioning Complexity.57
Table 4 Level of accuracy and review relative to proximity to COP ...............61
Table 5 Illustrative Durations for Different Well Decommissioning
Complexities & Phases ..................................................................................62
Table 6 Example of Estimated Duration per Phase ......................................63
Table 7 Example of Estimated Spread cost per Phase .................................63

Foreword
The Guidelines for Decommissioning of Wells, issued by OEUK, have been produced by the Well
Decommissioning workgroup of the OEUK Wells Forum.
Within these guidelines the word “shall” is only used when the instruction is explicit in legislation or
physical laws. Otherwise the word “should” indicates the workgroup’s understanding of current good
practice. “May” is used where there are alternatives available to the well-operator and either, or any
one, of those alternatives is acceptable; in these instances the well-operator will have to use its best
technical judgement to decide which is preferable in the particular situation.
This document provides industry recommendations and good practice for well decommissioning based
on recent North Sea experience. The contents of the document have been developed by an OEUK
Workgroup who have reviewed the existing literature and have identified areas where current practice
and experience has moved beyond the published guidance to a sufficient degree, or is not covered in
existing guidance that it was deemed necessary to record the changes in this publication. This document
is aimed at the well engineer but contains information relevant to all disciplines and management
involved in well decommissioning.
These guidelines are relevant to all oil and gas well operators working in the following areas:
• External waters, that is, the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain (GB) and any designated
area within the United Kingdom continental shelf (UKCS);
• Internal waters of Great Britain, such as estuaries; and
• Onshore Great Britain, where appropriate.
While every effort has been made to produce a useful and comprehensive document, these guidelines
do not represent legal, regulatory or technical advice by OEUK or any workgroup members. No liability
is accepted for errors or omissions, or for the consequences of any actions taken with reference to or
in reliance on these guidelines.
Offshore Energies UK Guidelines are subject to regular review. Feedback and comments are welcome,
please contact info@oeuk.org.uk

Glossary
Combination Barrier: Where primary and secondary permanent barriers are combined into a single
large permanent barrier.
Fluid: As a clarification, this word refers to both liquids and gases.
Good cement: Cement that has been verified as to quantity and quality as stated in Section 4 of these
guidelines.
Impermeable: A formation or material is considered impermeable when it has sufficiently low
permeability so as to prevent flow, i.e. it is impermeable to flow.
Maximum Anticipated Pressure: Maximum pressure expected in the wellbore or formation in the future
following permanent well decommissioning. This may include the possible effects of future
developments or the recharge of the reservoir.
Permanent well decommissioning: The permanent isolation from surface and from lower pressured
zones, of penetrated zones with flow potential in any well that will not be re-entered.
Permanent barrier: A verified barrier that will maintain a permanent seal. A permanent barrier must
extend laterally across the full cross section of the well and include all annuli. When considering isolation
from surface, the first barrier above the point of potential influx is referred to as the primary barrier;
the next barrier above the point of potential influx is referred to as the secondary barrier.
Well: A well is a single wellbore or aggregation of wellbores from a single well origin. It includes the
original wellbore, any sidetrack from it and any hole section as defined by Regulation 2, DCR (SI
1996/913), and Regulation 2, SCR2015 (SI 2015/398).
Zone with flow potential: Sequence of rock that is capable of flow of fluids. See section 2.

List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations Definitions
ALARP As low as reasonably practicable
API American Petroleum Institute
BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

CCS Carbon capture and storage
COP Cessation of Production

CO2 Carbon dioxide
DCR The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design & Construction, etc) Regulations
1996 (SI 1996/913)
E&A Exploration and appraisal
EA Environment Agency
ECD Equivalent circulating density
ESP Electrical submersible pump
ft Feet
GOR Gas oil ratio
GRE Glass Reinforced Epoxy

H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
HPHT High pressure high temperature
ID Inside diameter
klbs 1000 pounds weight
MD Measured depth
NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
NPT Non-productive time
NSTA North Sea Transition Authority
OD Outside diameter
OEUK Offshore Energies UK
OMAR Offshore Major Accident Regulator
OPEP Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
OPRED Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning

Abbreviations Definitions
P&A Plug and abandon
PON Petroleum Operations Notice
POOH Pull out of hole
psi Pounds per square inch of pressure
PWC Perforate, wash & cement
RA Radioactive
SCR2015 The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc)
Regulations 2015
SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SS Subsea
TOC Top of cement
VRP Viscous reactive pill
WONS Well Operations Notification System
WOW Waiting on weather
YP Yield point

1 Introduction
These guidelines have been prepared to support well-operators on the considerations that need to be
taken during the phases of decommissioning a well. The intent of these guidelines is to provide the
framework for the risk based decision-making process that should accompany any well
decommissioning activity.
Furthermore, the guidelines help well-operators to comply with the Offshore Installations and Wells
(Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/913), hereafter referred to as DCR. The
regulations in DCR that are relevant to well decommissioning are 13, 15 and 16 and cover well integrity,
design for decommissioning and materials. The regulations are goal-setting in nature and set out what
the regulator requires of the duty holder.
Regulation 13, DCR, imposes a general duty on well-operators:
…ensure that a well is so designed, modified, commissioned, constructed, equipped, operated,

maintained, suspended and abandoned that:
(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from the well;
and
(b) risks to the health and safety of persons from it or anything in it, or strata to which it is
connected, are as low as is reasonably practicable.
Regulation 15, DCR, provides that the well-operator shall:
…ensure that a well is so designed and constructed that, so far as is reasonably practicable:
(a) it can be suspended or abandoned in a safe manner; and
(b) after its suspensions or abandonment there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from it or
from the reservoir to which it led.
Regulation 16, DCR, provides that:
...The well operator shall ensure that every part of the well is composed of material which is suitable for
achieving the purposes described in Regulation 13 (1).
Further consideration must be given to the following;
Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008,

19. - (5) Commencement and abandonment and plugging of Wells, provides that:
The plugging of any Well shall be done in accordance with a specification approved by the Minister
applicable to that Well or to Wells generally or to a class of Wells to which that Well belongs and shall
be carried out in an efficient and workmanlike manner.

Obligation 15, NSTA Strategy 2020, provides that:
Before commencing the planning of decommissioning of any infrastructure in a region, relevant persons
including the owners of such infrastructure, must ensure, and be able to demonstrate, that all viable
options for that infrastructure’s continued use including for reuse or re-purposing for carbon capture and
storage projects have been suitably explored.
Obligation 16, NSTA Strategy 2020, provides that:
Relevant persons must decommission infrastructure located in relevant UK waters in the most cost-
effective way that does not prejudice the maximising of the recovery of economically recoverable
petroleum including any reuse or re-purposing options considered under paragraph 15.
Note: Separate guidelines have been compiled that consider the decommissioning of oil and gas wells
with intention to repurpose a permeable zone for CO2 storage.
The OEUK Well Decommissioning Guideline Issue 7 provides an outline of best industry practice when
using permanent barrier materials.
It is the responsibility of the Well Operator to satisfy itself that the well decommissioning barriers and
the materials used are designed, so far as is reasonably practicable, such that there can be no unplanned
escape of fluids from the well or the reservoir to which it led. The method of placement should also
reduce the risk of harm to personnel to as low as is reasonably practicable.
1.1 Objectives
To provide guidelines for the identification and isolation of formations with flow potential when a well
is decommissioned or sidetracked.
1.2 Scope
• These guidelines apply to all exploration, appraisal and development wells that are being
decommissioned or sidetracked.
• It should be recognised that each well is unique and should be considered on an individual basis.
• Whilst primarily aimed at offshore wells, these guidelines are equally applicable onshore.
Wellbores decommissioned prior to Issue 7 of these guidelines are outside the scope of this guidance.
However, previous sidetracks should be checked to confirm that suitable decommissioning was
performed and did not compromise the decommissioning of the host wellbore, acceptance of previous
sidetrack decommissioning should be documented.

2 Evaluation of Zones with Flow Potential
Well decommissioning planning requires the assessment of potential flow from subsurface formations
in terms of environmental and safety risk, and resource impacts. Well barriers may need to be placed
to isolate geological formations that have flow potential. The magnitude and duration of flow from
individual formations penetrated by the well is a key input to the assessment of the requirement for the
well barriers.
The extent of measures to mitigate possible consequences of flow potential should be considered in an
approach which maintains that, so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape
of fluids from the well. This approach should ensure that the magnitude of potential flow that could
result is balanced against the safety and environmental risks, complexity and chance of success of
extended well operations to mitigate the risk of flow via placement of additional barriers and other well
decommissioning activity (see Figure 1).

START
Well Decommissioning
Assessment of flow
potential for a
particular formation
No/limited flow potential.
Assess the risk of potential
flow from this formation, and
design the isolation strategy
accordingly
Formation Capable of sustained flow

No hydrocarbon Yes (pressure > formation fluid No No flow potential
bearing? gradient)
Capable of sustained flow

(pressure > formation fluid Yes Over-pressured formation? No
Yes
gradient)
Flow potential
Yes No
Flow potential No flow potential

Co-mingling of Formations require isolation
permeable formations No from each other (minimum
acceptable? single barrier)
Yes
Formations require isolation from
Figure 1 Flow Potential and Cross Flow Assessment Flowchart

environment (minimum single barrier).
Formations require isolation from
Deviation from this can be considered if
surface
risk of release is deemed ALARP and
satisfy DCR Reg 15.
Page 13
2.1 Identifying Formations that have the Potential to Flow
Flow originates from formations with permeability and a pressure differential with respect to other
formations or the surface/subsea environment. The pressure differential needs to be sufficient to
maintain flow once the well is filled with formation fluids. Typically, assessment of flow potential
includes an evaluation of formations known to be productive from field or offset data. Formations with
low (e.g. <0.1mD) matrix permeability, like shales and chalk, may also have flow potential (e.g. if
fractured), in which case these may require isolation. Fractures may be natural or induced by operations
(fracturing or other stimulation), injection or production.
There is no recommended cut-off for permeability related to flow potential, however any assessment
should be undertaken within the broad principles of keeping leak risk ALARP. In general, low
permeability formations are unlikely to lead to sustained or significant flow. However, there are some
areas in the UKCS and elsewhere where low permeability formations have proven hydrocarbon
production potential, here detailed evaluation may be required to assess the magnitude of natural flow.
It is important to note that direct permeability and pressure data are typically only available for
formations that have produced hydrocarbons, hence the requirement for subsurface expertise to
identify relevant offset and analogue data in the assessment of flow potential. The value of such
analogue and offset data should not be underestimated and can also complement direct data which
may be unreliable or insufficiently representative.
The assessment of flow potential should consider the following processes:
• Drilling and hydrocarbon/other fluid production/ injection/disposal operations during the life of
the well.
• Recharging of reservoirs with pressure and/or fluids due to connection to higher pressure
connected hydraulic units, including ongoing expulsion from hydrocarbon source rocks.
• Potential for depletion induced compaction of the reservoir and/or overburden leading to flow
potential.
• Intra-formation crossflow post-decommissioning where connected formations have different
pressures at cessation of production and alternative recharge trajectories.
• Redevelopment for hydrocarbon extraction (including enhanced recovery techniques).
• Repurposing (such as use for geothermal projects, disposal and/or storage of energy, H2 or CO2).
Indications of flow potential may be based on actual well test results, drilling records (gains/losses/gas
levels, drilling exponent data), log evaluation (including from adjacent and offset wells), well annuli
pressures, including well annuli build-up and bleed down history, fluid/gas sampling, geological setting
and subsurface modelling. Evidence of flow potential may only become apparent during
decommissioning operations. Precautions are required for adequate pressure control during such
operations.
Formations may be grouped into zones of similar fluids and/or pressures where inter-zonal isolation has
been assessed as not required, or where the consequences of cross flow are deemed acceptable within
the broad principle of keeping leak risk ALARP. Such a group of formations can be isolated by a common
barrier or dual barrier if required.

The risk of flow from the well, post-decommissioning, will be a result of the likelihood of the barrier
failing, and the consequence of any such flow. Where no barrier exists, the risk of flow is a result of the
likelihood of flow and the consequence.
Considerations should include underground flow from one formation into another, including into
formations that may have a future use for either water extraction, energy storage, waste disposal or
sequestration of CO2. The assessment will typically consider the quality of the barrier, feasibility of
remedial activities and response time, as well as subsurface properties such as:
• Formation fluids and pressures,

• Formation strength,
• Potential flow rates,
• Sustainability of potential flow,
• Environmental impact,
• Likelihood of flow to surface.
The assessment should consider flow in terms of rate, duration and fluid type, such that significant
sustained flow is differentiated from lower risk flow that has low impact and short duration.
If significant uncertainty remains after subsurface interpretation, then it may be reasonable to conduct
a flow test on the key zones of concern, or a flow test on annuli to demonstrate isolation from key zones.
Any such flow test should be designed to evaluate the potential for sustained and significant flow from
the zone of interest, including fluid characterisation if necessary.
2.2 Flow Potential in Overburden Formations

Whilst reservoirs are classified as such for their hydrocarbon contents, the overlying formations or
overburden must also be considered as part of the final well decommissioning design. Typically, these
formations are less well understood than the reservoir and detailed information on their fluid type,
porosity and pressures may not be available. However, the same data sources used to evaluate flow
potential described above are valid here.
As part of any assessment of the risk presented by flow from overburden formations, both the
saturation and mobility of hydrocarbons should be considered, along with permeability and pressure.
In many sedimentary basins, hydrocarbons are ubiquitous, and the identification of hydrocarbon
presence while drilling (including cuttings shows, mud logs, and electric log data) is not necessarily an
indication of mobile hydrocarbons.
2.3 Pressure Changes with Time and Depth of Well Barriers

Well decommissioning design should be based on the most likely outcome given geological and
engineering uncertainties, incorporating conservative parameters and realistic timescales. Typically, the
most conservative approach for estimating formation pressure when designing well barriers (setting
depth and/or pressure testing requirements) is to assume virgin pressure. However, in many cases

geological and reservoir engineering assessments will indicate that recovery to virgin pressure, including
initial fluid gradients, is not likely over meaningful timescales.
Dynamic models of pressure recovery may provide insight into the rate and magnitude of fluid pressure
increase, however given the simplifications inherent in such subsurface modelling, including the input
data and the embedded routines, long-term reservoir pressure forecasts e.g. beyond 10^3 years, are
unlikely to be informative. Ultimately, well decommissioning design should be based on the most likely
outcome given geological and engineering uncertainties, incorporating conservative parameters and
realistic time scales, for example until pressure tends towards steady state.
2.4 Assessment of Flow Potential

As illustrated in the flow chart (Figure 1), the assessment of flow potential is a process that includes the
following activities:
1. Subsurface data gathering and assessment.
2. Evaluation of fluid type, flow magnitude and duration.
3. Well Decommissioning scope assessment including time and risks.
4. Risk assessment including safety and environmental impact/resource impact evaluation.
A multi-disciplinary approach is recommended, including all relevant disciplines. The principles of

keeping leak risk ALARP apply, and so that there can be no unplanned escape of fluids, with a risk-based
assessment of the impact of including/omitting barriers from the final well decommissioning design.
2.5 Cross Flow of Zones of Flow Potential

Zones with flow potential may be grouped such that they do not need to be isolated from each other if
the risk of cross-flow between zones is deemed to be acceptable. The assessment of risks of potential
cross flow should consider the probability and consequences of flow, taking account of fluid types and
pressure regimes.
This assessment may allow a shallower cap rock to be used for isolation of the group, with a consequent
reduction in decommissioning complexity.
Note: In this case and throughout the well decommissioning planning process, the group should be
treated as a single zone with flow potential, with no need to place a permanent isolation barrier
between the zones within the group.
When developing a strategy to decommission wells within a field, it is important to consider the
implications of cross-flow between wells. This could be viewed as an extension of the “fully lateral
barrier”, which should not only be fully lateral across the wellbore, but also across the field. If the
acceptance of crossflow is considered as a deviation from the field isolation strategy, it is important to
consider the potential consequences of cross-flow. For example, setting a barrier in a shallower cap
rock on one well may allow a shallower formation to become overpressured, and fluids to escape from
the shallow formation via an adjacent wellbore where the barrier is set across a deeper caprock (see
Figure 2). Evaluation of the level of risk presented by crossflow in this situation should consider the
pressure source for the higher pressure zone, rate of crossflow, the relative hydraulic responses of the

formations to induced pressure increase, and the resultant level of pressurisation of the shallower zone
and the risk of flow to surface.
Figure 2: Field Based Cross Flow Diagram Highlighting the Importance of Fully Lateral Barriers Above
Laterally Connected Formations

3 Permanent Barriers
3.1 Overview
The underlying principle on which these guidelines are based is restoration of the cap rock.
The material, number, position, length and placement method of barriers should be based on
assessment of, for instance, well condition, formation fluids, pressures, formation strength, potential
flow rates, sustainability of potential flow, environmental impact and future use.
Figure 3. Permanent Decommissioning Barrier Schematic “Restoring the Cap Rock”
3.2 Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers

The main characteristics of placed barrier materials (not limited to cement) should be as follows:
• Impermeable – to prevent flow of fluids through the material.
• Provide an interface seal – to prevent flow of fluids around the barrier; the material provides a
seal along the interface with adjacent materials such as steel pipe or rock; risks of shrinkage and
de-bonding are to be considered.
• Remain at the intended position and depth in the well.
• Long-term integrity – long-lasting isolation characteristics of the material, not significantly
deteriorating over the design life of the barrier, while still meeting design criteria; risks of cracks
and de-bonding over time are to be considered.
• Resistance to downhole fluids (e.g. CO2, H2S, hydrocarbons, brine, magnesium) at foreseeable
pressures and temperatures.

• Mechanical properties suitable to accommodate loads at foreseeable temperatures and
pressures. If applicable consider changes in service over the entire life cycle of the well (e.g. due
to conversion of producers to water injectors, steam injection, gas storage, carbon storage
unconsolidated formations etc.).
• Compatibility of barrier material with adjacent geology.
Separate guidelines have been compiled for the qualification of barrier materials which are to be placed
(see OEUK Guidelines on use of Barrier Materials in Well Decommissioning).
The barrier functional and performance acceptance criteria must be specified for the following barrier
characteristics:
• Sealing
• Position
• Placeability
• Durability
The condition and suitability of existing materials in the well should be considered when forming part
of a permanent barrier, e.g. scale, corrosion, mud solids, plastic coated tubulars, GRE lined tubulars,
encapsulation, control lines and cable.
3.3 Number of Permanent Barriers

All penetrated zones with flow potential, that have been identified as requiring isolation, should be
isolated from surface or seabed by a minimum of one permanent barrier, or two as appropriate. Where
cross flow is deemed unacceptable, zones should be isolated from each other.
The actual number of barriers required should be determined by risk assessment and it may differ from
the numbers below:
• One permanent barrier from surface or seabed should be considered if a zone requiring
isolation is water-bearing and has flow potential.
• Two permanent barriers from surface or seabed are recommended if a zone requiring isolation
is hydrocarbon-bearing OR water bearing and significantly over-pressured.
Operators should assess barrier requirements using the following considerations:

• Differential pressure across the barrier
• Impact of single point failure
• Robustness of barrier placement and verification
The two permanent barriers may be combined into a single large permanent barrier (combination
barrier), provided it is as effective and reliable as the two barriers and is an appropriate method to
achieve the objectives that two barriers would otherwise have provided.

3.4 Length Requirements of Barriers
All depths are Measured Depth (MD) unless otherwise stated.
3.4.1 Cement
A permanent cement barrier should consist of:

• A cement column of typically a minimum 100 ft measured depth (MD) of good cement above
zone of flow potential, whether inside or outside the casing. See also section 3.6.
• Internal cement adjacent to the annular good cement of typically 100 ft MD of overlap, above
zone of flow potential. Annular good cement may consist of discrete sections of good cement,
cumulatively added together to total 100ft MD. The internal cement must fully overlap this
cumulative interval.
Note 1: Where distinct zones with flow potential are less than 100 ft MD apart, then the maximum
practical column of good cement should be placed between the zones.
Note 2: The operator may set limits on minimum lengths of discrete sections of good annular cement
via ALARP assessment (e.g. based on leakage risk assessment and/or industry experience).
When a combination barrier is chosen to replace two permanent barriers, it should have:
• A cement column of typically a minimum 200 ft MD of good cement.
• Internal cement adjacent to the annular good cement over a cumulative distance of 200 ft MD.
A reduction in the lengths stated above should only be used if a rigorous risk assessment process has
been followed, which demonstrates that the additional time, trouble and cost required to set a 100 /
200 ft barrier are grossly disproportionate to the further risk reduction achieved in setting these barriers.
Thereby demonstrating that the risks of a leak associated with a barrier less than 100 / 200 ft are ALARP.

Figure 4. Comparison of Length of Dual and Combination Cement Barriers
3.4.2 Non-cement Permanent Barriers
3.4.2.1 Sealing Formations
Certain formations (e.g. certain shales or certain salts) are known to move as a result of stress
differences. These formations are able to close an annulus space where cement is absent or incomplete.
Typically, such a moving formation is a geological feature that is observed field-wide or regionally where
the conditions (e.g. azimuth, fluid type) are present, and is not an isolated well related feature. To be
considered for use as a barrier, the formation should be impermeable and have adequate strength;
these properties should be lasting at the prevailing conditions.
If it can be verified that the cumulative length of the resulting seal of the formation against the casing
is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated pressures, then such a
seal is acceptable as a replacement for a good annular cement bond. See Section 4.3.1 for guidance on
verification of sealing formations.
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation, providing sufficient cumulative
length above the zone with flow potential.
3.4.2.2 Existing Annular Materials
It is acknowledged that existing annular materials (other than cement) have sometimes been used to
form an annulus barrier where the verification has been carried out as per a sealing formation. This
approach should not be considered a primary design option. Guidance on verification can be found in
section 4.
For existing annular materials, if it can be verified that the cumulative length of the resulting seal of the
formation against the casing is adequate to prevent flow of the fluids below it, at the maximum
anticipated pressures, then such a seal is acceptable as a replacement for a good annular cement bond.

However, unlike sealing formations, existing annular sealing materials will be well specific and the
following could be considered:
• Mud density
• Weighting agent
• Well inclination
• Annular clearance
• Fluid properties
• Pressure and contents of the zone to be isolated
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation, providing sufficient cumulative
length above the zone with flow potential.
3.4.2.3 Alternative Materials
It is recognised that different barrier materials are in development and will emerge as alternatives to
cement. These materials will require assessment and it is anticipated that required lengths of these
materials will be different to those of cement.
If it can be verified that the cumulative length of the resulting seal provided by the alternative material
is adequate to prevent flow of the fluids below at the maximum anticipated pressures, then such a seal
is acceptable as a replacement for a good annular cement bond.
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation, or can itself form the annular
isolation as well, provided there is sufficient cumulative length above the zone with flow potential.
Separate guidelines have been compiled for the qualification of barrier materials which are to be placed
(See OEUK Guidelines for the use of Barrier Materials in Well Decommissioning).
3.5 Position Requirements of Permanent Barriers

The first barrier above the zone with flow potential is referred to as the primary barrier; the next barrier
above the zone with flow potential, where required, is referred to as the secondary barrier.
A permanent barrier should;

• Be set above the zone with flow potential across a suitable cap rock.
• Extend across the full cross section of the well and include all annuli (Rock to Rock).
• Have a formation fracture strength at the base of the barrier in excess of the maximum
anticipated pressure from the zone being isolated.
A suitable cap rock is impermeable, laterally continuous and has adequate strength and thickness to
contain the maximum anticipated pressure from the zone being isolated.
Note 1: Consideration should be given to the location of the barrier and formation strength along the
length of the barrier.

Note 2: Consideration should be given to the need to repeat a barrier placement without needing to
remove the failed barrier material.
Note 3: The secondary barrier of one zone with flow potential can be the primary barrier for another,
shallower positioned, zone with flow potential (Figure 5). The bottom of the secondary barrier should
be placed in an area of suitable fracture strength.
Figure 5. General Requirements for Decommissioning

Figure 6. Barrier Position is Determined by the Geological Setting, i.e. Permeable Formations as Source
of Inflow and Cap Rock
Note 4: A combination barrier is shown per zone with flow potential in Figure 6. This will be the case if
barriers cannot be shared, i.e. cap rock L is not capable of containing the maximum anticipated pressure
from the main reservoir, or cap rock K is not capable to contain the pressure of sandstone B.

3.5.1 Open Hole
This section covers barrier position where the zone with flow potential is not behind the casing.
For open hole isolations, it is recommended to set a permanent barrier in cased hole (Figure 7) or to
extend sufficiently into cased hole. The barrier across cased hole is to fully isolate the open hole and
allow for a pressure test.
Zones with flow potential that belong to different pressure regimes should be separated by one
permanent barrier unless cross-flow is acceptable (see Figure 8).
Where the pressure from a zone with flow potential is anticipated to exceed the formation fracture
pressure anywhere in the open hole, it should be isolated by two permanent barriers or a combination
barrier (See Figure 9).
Figure 7. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If open hole strength is sufficient for maximum
pressure from Zone A)

Figure 8. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers if Zone A Requires Isolating from Zone B (If Maximum
Anticipated Pressure from Zone B does not exceed the casing shoe fracture pressure, one
Permanent Barrier between Zone A and Zone B is adequate)
Figure 9. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If Maximum Anticipated Pressure exceeds the casing
shoe fracture pressure)

3.5.2 Partial Decommissioning for Sidetracking and Multilaterals
The original wellbore should be permanently decommissioned below the sidetrack depth, unless there
is confidence that permanent barriers can be placed and verified during full decommissioning of the
well.
If the kick-off plug is being used as a permanent barrier, then the remaining barrier, after kick-off, should
conform to the minimum requirements of a permanent barrier (see also Figure 10).
Isolation needs to be considered to ensure adequate well control in subsequent drilling operations. For
deep sidetracks in the reservoir, isolation from the original wellbore, across the sidetrack point, may be
required for reservoir management during production life.
Figure 10. Example Permanent Barriers for Sidetracking
Considerations for multilateral wells may include;

• Future decommissioning in the well design, since in some cases it will be very difficult to regain
access to the original wellbore;
• Possibly different pressure regimes in the lateral branches of the well; and
• Cementing off annuli above the laterals.

3.5.3 Cased Hole
A full lateral barrier in cased hole consists of annular isolation and overlapping internal casing isolation.
Cemented casing alone is not considered to constitute a permanent barrier to flow laterally into or out
of the wellbore.
Inside cased hole, a permanent barrier requires both a cement plug or equivalent inside the casing, and
overlapping good annular cement or equivalent as per Figure 11. The internal barrier should be
attempted whether the casing is perforated or not. In this example zone A has flow potential, and
belongs to a different pressure regime, so should be separated by one permanent barrier internally.
Figure 11. Cemented Casing Alone is Not a Permanent Barrier
Note 1: The barrier in Figure 11 is placed on a firm support to prevent slumping of the cement slurry
down the well. Consideration should also be given to gas migrating upwards as the cement is thickening.
These considerations are equally appropriate in open hole.
3.6 Placement of Permanent Barriers

The downhole placement technique of the barrier material is extremely important, especially in cases
of through-tubing applications, high angle wells, HPHT etc.
3.6.1 Cement Plug Placement Using a Stinger
To achieve the required barrier length, allowances will have to be made on volumes to cater for
uncertainties during placement. It may be necessary to place up to 500 ft MD of cement to achieve 100
ft of good cement. Similarly, it may be necessary to place up to 800 ft MD of cement to achieve 200 ft

good cement. Optimisation of barrier placement may allow reduction of length from the values noted
above whilst considering some of following during engineering:
• Hole conditions
• Inclination
• Fluid density hierarchy
• Stinger geometry / material
• Stinger movement
• Verification method
• Rheology
• Offset experience
Generally, the additional cost of placing more cement is far outweighed by the implications of a leaking
barrier. However, circumstances may arise where it is impractical to place a typically sized barrier of
500ft or 800ft.
Considerations for good cement placement are covered in Appendix C.
3.6.2 Through-tubing Cement Plug Placement
When well completion tubulars are left in hole and permanent barriers are installed through and around
the tubulars, reliable methods and procedures to install these barriers should be established.
Incorporation of control lines or gauge cables into a through-tubing cement plugs should be subject to
rigorous risk assessment as per section 3.6.7.
See figure 12 as an example of Through-Tubing Cased Hole Decommissioning.
Considerations for through-tubing cement placement:

• Cement slumping
• Channelling
• Lack of centralisation
• Small radial clearances
• Tubing integrity
• Full annular coverage
• Contamination
• Tubing deposits, such as wax and scale
• Cables and control lines
• Modelling.
• Circulation path, in particular in subsea wells
• Mechanical base set inside inner string

Figure 12. Example Through-Tubing Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic
3.6.3 Bull-heading
When bull-heading cement to existing perforations, it should be noted that the barrier is not achieved
by plugging the perforations, but by forming a fully lateral barrier above the reservoir in the caprock,
typically within the production liner.
Considerations for bull-headed well barriers include:

• Tubing and casing integrity
• Cement slumping
• Contamination
• Channelling
• Small volume/capacities
• Reservoir injection capability
• Losses
• Tubing deposits, such as wax and scale

• Ability to verify by tag (e.g. wireline access depth in high angle wells)
• Ability to verify by pressure test (e.g. not simply testing cement within lower completion).
3.6.4 Perforate, Wash and Cement (PWC)
The casing is perforated to provide communication behind the casing. Fluids are circulated via the
perforations using a dedicated wash tool complete with isolation cups or packers or jetting nozzles to
target the wash. The cement barrier is introduced using the same method to provide the required
barrier.
Considerations for PWC include:

• Condition of cement / formation / solids behind casing
• Condition of casing
• Potential pressure behind casing
• Use of computational fluid dynamics to determine optimal parameters for the washing and plug
setting, as well as effectiveness
• Qualification of the method for the field or rig where it is used, by drilling out one or more of
the first applications and logging the cement in the annulus
• Complications due to well geometry and/or measured depth of the PWC operation
• Use of single-trip versus multi-trip systems
• Handling of debris at surface
• Post-job checks and/or clearing of debris in well- or surface systems (e.g. BOPs)
3.6.5 Section Milling
The casing is removed by milling to allow remediation of insufficient annular cement to satisfy barrier
requirements. Once a section of casing has been removed, cement can be placed across the open hole
section created, to provide the required barrier.
Considerations for section milling include:

• Handling of milling cuttings at surface
• Type of fluid to be used
• Potential pressure behind casing
• Milling cutting blades suitable for casing specification
• Condition of casing
• Complications due to well geometry and/or measured depth of the milling operation
• Use of single-trip versus multi-trip systems
• Post-job checks and/or clearing of swarf in well- or surface systems (e.g. BOPs)

3.6.6 Additional Considerations for High Angle and Horizontal Wells (wells > 70°)
In principle, the decommissioning of a horizontal well is no different from a standard well. The only
difference is in the means of ensuring a satisfactory isolation, which is in general more difficult to
achieve, see figure 13 below.
Additional considerations in these wells include:

• Isolation of zones with flow potential from each other at high angle
• The final vertical thickness of installed barriers and their position relative to the caprock
• Wireline access depth for tagging cement.
Figure 13. Example Isolation of High Angle Well

3.6.7 Additional Consideration for Penetrations Through Permanent Barriers
Provided the isolations outlined in these guidelines are achieved, cables and control lines can form part
of permanent barriers. Assessment of potential leak paths and the plugging thereof should be
conducted. A rigorous risk assessment process should be followed and documented and should consider:
• Penetration type e.g. ESP cable, gauge cable, chemical injection line, control line.
• Potential leak paths e.g. encapsulation, cable material, hydraulic line, bonding of barrier
material.
• Encapsulation material e.g. plastic type, damage during installation, interfaces between
materials.
• Degradation e.g. plastic encapsulation shrinkage, metal corrosion, barrier material interface,
with consideration of temperature and fluid environment.
• Leak path failure modes, and well specific risk profile, which may include cross-flow modelling.
• Alternative isolation material requirements including seal-healing properties.

4 Verification of a Permanent Barrier
4.1 Overview
Any permanent barrier should be verified to ensure the barrier is placed at the required depth and will
have the required sealing capability.
Examples of verification methods include:

• Tagging
• Pressure testing
• Inflow testing
• Pumping Records
• Well history
• Modelling
• Lab testing
• Field experience
• Logs
• Sampling
Verification requirements are dependent upon the individual well, job design, barrier material used and
placement method. Some verification methods are adequate as a standalone, whereas some
verification methods should be used in combination with others.
4.2 Wellbore Barrier

The Wellbore barrier should be verified by an appropriate combination of the following:
• The wellbore barrier installation should be documented, including records from the barrier
material used (volumes pumped, returns during circulation , water-wetting pills, etc).
• The strength design of the cement slurry or alternative material should be confirmed when
being planned as the permanent barrier material. This is primarily done using pre-job testing
with representative component samples cured at anticipated downhole temperature and
pressure.
• The position of a barrier should be verified by tagging, calculation or measurement to confirm
the depth of the firm permanent barrier plug.
– Tagging with drillpipe this is typically 10 to 15 klbs.
– Tagging with wireline, coiled tubing or stinger; the weight will be limited by tools and
geometry.
• A pressure test should:
– be a minimum of 500 psi above the leak off pressure below the barrier (e.g. into
perforations or open formation below the casing shoe); but

– not exceed the casing strength minus wear allowance or damage the primary casing
cement, whichever is lower.
– The duration of the pressure test and acceptance criteria should be clearly defined.
• Inflow test should consider the maximum pressure differential to be experienced by the barrier.
In cased hole, if a pressure tested and tagged mechanical plug or previous cement (or alternative
material) plug is used as a foundation for the barrier, then
• pressure-testing of the barrier may not be meaningful
• tagging may not be necessary if the placement goes as planned. However, if a decision is made
not to tag the plug then the rationale should be documented and risk assessed. This should
consider well conditions, plug length and volume, job trends and execution performance, other
verification methods and consequence of failure. If circumstances exist that increase the risk
(e.g. shortened plug, high pressure and temperature, well integrity concerns, method of
placement, execution anomalies) then tagging would be advised.
4.2.1 Alternative Materials
It is acknowledged that alternative materials may be used. The verification method should prove the
barrier is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated pressures in the
direction of flow. Refer to Guidelines for the use of Barrier Materials in Well Decommissioning Guideline
for more Information.
4.3 Annular Barrier

The annular permanent barrier should be verified by an appropriate combination of:
• Testing (e.g. perforate and test)
• Records from barrier material used (e.g. volumes pumped, returns during circulation ,
differential pressure, losses, centralisation etc).
• Sufficient annular isolation through the original cement job. If the quantity of annular cement
(the estimate of TOC) is to be based on differential pressure or monitored volumes during the
original cement job (rather than logs for instance), then a longer cement column may be
required to allow for uncertainty. In this case, a 1,000-foot MD column may be considered
adequate for the equivalent of two barriers or a combination barrier based on the assumption
that sealing has occurred somewhere in the annular cement. This may be increased or
decreased on a well-by-well basis depending on the confidence level of the original cementation
(refer to Figure 14).
• Casing pressure history during the life cycle of the well
• Well-integrity reporting
• The leak-off test when the casing shoe was drilled out
• Field experience
• Pressure test
• Modelling of well lifecycle loading

• Modelling of cement job
• Logs (e.g. cement bond, temperature, sonic)
• Sampling of annular fluids
Note: Validity of historical data (logs, cementing records etc.) should be considered based on potential
isolation degradation, or potential improved sealing properties, over time.
Figure 14. Example Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic
4.3.1 Verifying Sealing Formations
In addition to 4.2, the verification of a formation seal requires:

• Evidence that the formation has the required fracture strength to withstand the maximum
anticipated pressures.
• The length of the resulting seal of the formation against the casing is adequate to prevent flow
of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated future pressures, for example differential
pressure testing across a suitable length.

And/or
• Validation that the bond log response can be interpreted as adequate for the maximum
anticipated future pressures. This can be achieved by means of a combination of logging and
differential testing experience. Log interpretation should be performed by a competent and
trained cement log specialist and documented.
Once sufficient field experience is gained, it may be possible to use only one of the above verification
techniques (logging or differential testing) when accepting a barrier; such a decision should be
documented. Sealing formation verification can potentially be extrapolated to other wells that are
geologically similar.
4.3.2 Verifying Through-tubing and Bull-heading
In addition to 4.2, there are further methods of verification that may be less accurate, but nonetheless
may be useful to build further confidence in the barrier. Cables and control lines may require separate
isolation operations and subsequent verification to confirm that no flow path exists.
No single verification method should be relied on exclusively. Additional considerations for verification
of bull-headed or through-tubing barriers could include:
• Pressure responses during pumping and displacement
• Reservoir injection characteristics before, during and after placement
• Cables and control lines.
4.3.3 Verifying PWC and Milling
For the verification of barriers set in milled windows, no additional considerations are required over
standard verification covered in Section 4.2.
For PWC, it is important to consider the track record of success in the particular set of asset/well
characteristics. Drilling/circulating out the internal cement plug should be considered until a track
record has been established and it has been demonstrated that it is acceptable to verify the PWC barrier
based on job parameters, tag depth and/or pressure test.
When verifying PWC without drilling out and logging, it is recommended to develop a qualification
matrix to verify the various asset/well characteristics that could impact the success of the job.
Considerations could include:
• Formation type (permeability, stability and pressure),
• Inclination,
• Casing type (size, weight and material),
• Fluid design (wash fluid, spacer, cement),
• Abandonment unit (e.g. MODU, platform, HWU),
• Perforation size/density,
• PWC tool type (cup type or jet type).

4.3.4 Liner Laps
Cement across a liner lap should be assessed as per annular cement as described in section 4.3.
If the cement quality in the liner lap is uncertain, the cement barrier should be placed above and/or
below the liner lap.
Note: A liner top packer is not a permanent barrier.
Figure 15. Liner Lap Cementation

5 Special Considerations
5.1 HPHT Wells

The placement and number of barriers (section 3) also apply to the decommissioning of HPHT wells.
However, with the increased complexity and criticality of these wells, there should also be consideration
of the following as a minimum:
• Recharging to high pressure
• Cap rock weakening due to reservoir depletion
• Thin pressure transition zone
• Liner deformation
• Temperature cycling
• Primary cement degradation due to high temperature
• Reservoir compaction
• Subsidence
• Micro-annuli due to high differential pressures during cementing
5.2 Wells Containing H2S

The barriers placed in a well containing H2S should be chosen and designed to withstand the corrosive
environment they are intended to isolate.
5.3 Wells Containing CO2

This paragraph applies to naturally occurring CO2. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of CO2 is
outside the scope of these guidelines and is dealt with in a newly published OEUK guideline on Well
Decommissioning for CO2 Storage.
For natural CO2 accumulations or hydrocarbon reservoirs with high levels of CO2 dissolved in reservoir
fluids both the following comments and the OEUK Well Decommissioning for CO2 Storage guideline are
worthy of consideration.
The barriers placed in a well with significant concentrations of CO2 whether due to natural origin or CO2
injection should be chosen and designed to withstand the potential effects of CO2. Further details
including a consideration of contaminants can be found in the OEUK Well Decommissioning for CO2
Storage Guideline.

5.4 Wells Containing Magnesium Salts
Magnesium salts may pose a risk to cement, both during placement and to the long-term cement
integrity. Magnesium salts may degrade Portland cement lowering its mechanical strength and
increasing permeability.
Any cement designs should take account of the presence of zones containing magnesium salts.
5.5 Gas Wells and High GOR Wells

Gas wells or high gas oil ratio (GOR) wells have the added complication of potential gas migration
through barriers. This can be the case for over-pressured, hydrostatic or sub-hydrostatic reservoirs. It is
advised to carefully select the type of barrier material and the placement technique to counteract this
condition.

6 Phase 3 Well Decommissioning
Considerations prior to Phase 3 well decommissioning (after Phase 1 and 2 barriers are installed,
isolating all zones of flow potential), are addressed in this chapter.
6.1 Annular Fluids

Fluids that are positioned above the uppermost barrier in a well and cannot be legally discharged should
be removed or contained before wellhead removal. This is the part of the well which will be exposed to
the environment after wellhead removal. The depth of annular fluid removal should be determined on
a well-by-well basis. An environmental plug may also be set in the well to contain annular fluids.
6.2 Shallow Water-bearing Zones

The decision to isolate shallow normally-pressured water-bearing zones in a well will depend on local
conditions, on a well-by-well basis (e.g. whether the shallow zone is vertically connected to seabed).
6.3 Hydrocarbons of Biogenic Nature

Hydrocarbons of biogenic nature originate from shallow formations and can occur anywhere. If
observed around wells, these hydrocarbons do not necessarily indicate a failure of a permanent barrier.
Biogenic hydrocarbons can be identified by means of composition analysis (e.g. compositional and
isotopic fingerprinting) and do not necessarily require isolation. However, this should be considered on
a well-by-well basis.
6.4 Retrieval of Equipment During Phase 3

Decommissioned wells, and redundant subsea equipment, should not present a hazard to other users
of the sea. Further guidance is available in the BEIS Decommissioning Guidance (see Appendix A) and in
the Offshore Energies UK’s Guidelines on Liaison with the Fishing Industry on the UKCS. The BEIS
Guidance states that the aim should be for all subsea equipment and debris to be retrieved. Where this
is not practicable, a comparative assessment should be completed to determine the optimum
decommissioning option and agreement with the relevant regulators reached before the
commencement of the work
It is seen as good practice to retrieve all casing strings to a depth of 10 ft below seabed. This requirement
mainly exists to accommodate fishing activities in the area after the well has been decommissioned.
As per the OEUK Guidance on Liaison with the Fishing Industry it is seen as good practice that a depth
of 10 ft below seabed has to be reviewed on a well-by-well basis, taking into account the prevailing local
conditions with respect to sand dunes and scouring. The minimum depth that all casing strings will be
retrieved should be agreed with Regulators (OPRED and NSTA) at the permit/consent application stage
to prevent the Operator having to return to the wellsite to carry out additional recovery activity. Please
refer to Section A Statutory Notifications, Approvals and Record Keeping – [Ref. 2].

Where subsea equipment and debris has been retrieved at decommissioning a seabed clearance
certificate or other documented assurance is issued. The documentation should clearly identify any
objects / debris left at the site. The minimum recommended radius of search is 70 metres from the well.
There is no requirement to inspect the well location once a seabed clearance certificate or assurance
has been issued. (See Appendix A.2 below).
In certain cases, the retrieving depth of casing strings should be reviewed in light of large (e.g. concrete)
structures permanently remaining at seabed in the area around the well(s). In this case no casing strings
should extend above the remaining structure.
For platform wells, requirements for conductor and casing removal will be different compared to open-
water wells and should be specified on a well-by-well basis and in discussion with OPRED.

Appendices
A Statutory Notifications, Approvals and Record Keeping

Note: guidance below is provided as a prompt only, and may not be current at the time of reading. The
links to references can be found in chapter F
The following link also provides useful references on legislation, notification and guidance for well
decommissioning.
See [Ref. 1]
The BEIS guidance notes on Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines can be
found at:
See [Ref. 2]
OEUK’s Guidelines on Liaison with the Fishing Industry on the UKCS can be found at:
See [Ref. 3]
A.1 North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA)

Consents and Notifications
• For guidance: See [Ref. 4]
• Consent to Suspend is required for Well Decommissioning Phases 1 & 2.
• Consent to Abandon is required for Well Decommissioning Phase 3.
• Applications can be completed on the UK Energy Portal using the Well Operations Notification
System (WONS): See [Ref. 5]
• Notification of Well Re-entry, and of completion of the operations under the above consents
can also be completed on the Portal.
Consent to Flare
A detailed review of the conditions listed in the associated asset licence should be performed to make
sure that they are met.
A.2 Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environmental and Decommissioning

(OPRED)
Long term obligations in respect of decommissioned wells are covered by Part IV of the Petroleum Act
and section 75 of the Energy Act 2008.

Chemical Permit (Workover/Intervention/Decommissioning)
• There is a 4-week application period under Regulation 7 of The Offshore Chemicals Regulations
2002: See [Ref. 8]
• Applications can be made on the UK Energy Portal using the Portal Environmental Tracking
System: See [Ref. 5]
• Within 28 days after the end of the Permit the Environmental and Emissions Monitoring System
database should be updated: See [Ref. 9]
Marine Licence
• 28 days application period for removal of well infrastructure from the seabed or use of
explosives
Consent to Locate
• 28 day application period for locating a Mobile Installation, reduced to 2 weeks where varying
a Platform consent
Oil Pollution Prevention and Control (OPPC)

• 28 day application period for discharge of any reservoir hydrocarbon under The Offshore
Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (as amended): See
[Ref. 13]
European Protected Species Disturbance Licence

• Applications for Disturbance Licences can be made on the UK Energy Portal: See [Ref. 5]
Incident Reporting
• E.g. PON1 for spills of oil or chemicals, PON2 for loss of materials, OPPC non-compliance, OCR
non-compliance or non-compliance with Consent to Locate.
New to this issue is reference to Licencing regulations which require well decommissioning to be
performed in line with the Licence under which it was drilled. Attention is drawn especially to Clauses
19- Commencement and abandonment and plugging of Wells,
23- Avoidance of harmful methods of working,
29- Licensee to keep records,
25 & 45- Relating to the fishing industry,
of the Petroleum Licencing (production) (seaward areas) Regulations 2008.

The Petroleum Act 1998 as modified by the Energy Act 2016 requires operators to detail and minimise
costs of decommissioning. As part of a decommissioning programme (DP) assessment process, NSTA on
behalf of BEIS / OPRED review the cost of well P&A and cost optimisation that may be achieved in
delivering a technically competent well decommissioning.
A.3 Offshore Major Accident Regulator (OMAR)

Temporary Operations Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (TOOPEP)
– A 21 day approval period applies where the Non Producing Installation (NPI) holds an
approved NPI OPEP, otherwise 2 months approval period
– A Communications and Interface Plan (C&IP) may be submitted as an alternative, where an
Offshore OPEP is in place for the host installation
• For guidance on exercises: See [Ref. 17]
Notification of Well Operations in external waters

• For guidance see: See [Ref. 18]
– There is a 21 or 10 day notification period under Regulation 21(1), 21(2) of The Offshore
Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015: See [Ref. 19]
– For well notifications submitted to OMAR as per the requirements of Regulations 21(1) or
21(2) of The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc) Regulations
2015 (SCR2015) a report from the examiner as per the requirements of Regulation 21(3) of
SCR2015 must be submitted at the same time. The requirements to have a well examination
scheme are as per the requirements of Regulation 11 and 12 of SCR2015.
• A Well Examination Report is also required to be submitted with a material change to the
notification under Regulations 21(5) & (6) of the Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety
Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015. This should be submitted with the Competent
Authority Portal.
• Weekly reports should be sent to the Health and Safety Executive for ongoing Well Operations
under Regulation 19, DCR: See [Ref. 20] and should be submitted with the Competent Authority
Portal.
Notification of Well Operations in internal waters (NOTE: Internal waters are inspected by the Health
and Safety Executive, not OMAR).
– There is a 21 or 10 day notification period under Regulation 17(1), 17 (2) of the Offshore
Installations (Safety Case etc) Regulations 2005
– For wells in internal waters there is no requirement to submit a report from the well
examiner with the well notification. The requirement to have a well examination scheme is
as per the requirements of Regulation 18 of DCR.
• Weekly reports should be sent to the Health and Safety Executive for ongoing Well Operations
under Regulation 19, DCR: See [Ref. 20] and should be submitted with the Competent Authority
Portal.

Combined Operations Notification
– There is a 21 day notification period where a Combined Operations Notification is deemed
to be required
Notification of Offshore Installation Movements (Operations Notice 6)

A.4 Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Notification of Well Operations for onshore GB operations:
There is a 21 day notification period under Regulation 6(1) of the Borehole Sites and Operations
Regulations 1995.
For wells onshore GB there is no requirement to submit a report from the well examiner with the well
notification. The requirement to have a well examination scheme is as per the requirements of
Regulation 18 of DCR.
Weekly reports should be sent to the Health and Safety Executive for ongoing Well Operations under
Regulation 19, DCR: See [Ref. 20].
Phase 3 Abandoned wells should be removed from the Well Examination Scheme six months after the
well is fully decommissioned (Reg 18(4) of DCR - internal waters and onshore and Reg 27(4) SCR2015 -
external waters).
A.5 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or Environment Agency (EA)

NORM or Radiation Permits
• Guidance in Scotland: See [Ref. 23]
• Guidance in England: See [Ref. 24]
A.6 Record Keeping

A well decommissioning report should be attached to the WONS Abandonment notification. The
report will include:
a) a bullet point programme,
b) current well status diagram showing drilled depth, zones capable of flow, casing depths, Tops of
annular cement, barrier positions, fracture strength at base of each barrier, Fluid PVT data, recharge
pressure, casing removed by section milling or cut and pull, verification criteria and result for each
barrier;
c) a time breakdown of the job including productive times, NPT and WOW for each phase;
d) a cost breakdown by WBS – Refer to chapter E; and

e) details of dispensations from the company well decommissioning standards if they were required.
Petroleum Operations Notice 9 sets out the North Sea Transition Authority specific reporting and
retention obligations with respect to well data: See [Ref.25]
B Basic Well Data Required for Well Decommissioning

The following information should be gathered as a basis of the well barrier design and decommissioning
programme:
1. Well configuration (original, intermediate and present), including depths and specification of
permeable formations and zones with flow potential, casing strings, primary cement behind-casing
status, wellbores, installed completion, sidetracks, etc.
2. Stratigraphic sequence of each wellbore showing reservoir(s) and information about their current
and future production potential, where reservoir fluids and pressures (initial, current and with an
eternal perspective) are included.
3. Logs, data and information from primary cementing operations in the well.
4. Estimated formation fracture gradient.
5. Specific well conditions such as scale build-up, casing wear, collapsed casing, fill, or similar issues.

Example Design input data sheet
Well name or number:
Field name:
Date of information:
Information required
1 What and where are the zones with flow potential? (any rock that is capable to cause flow of fluid
into the well; consider effects of induced fractures)
What are the contents of each zone?
2 Are they hydrocarbon-bearing or water-bearing?
A zone is considered hydrocarbon-bearing if any moveable hydrocarbons are present or likely to
be in future.
Is crossflow acceptable between these zones?
3
If not, which zones need to be permanently isolated?
What was the original reservoir pressure?

4
Are later field activities likely to increase reservoir pressure above this level (e.g. water injection)?
What are the latest pressures in these zones?

normally pressured,
5 overpressure,
subhydrostatic
Overpressure considered where the pressure is in excess of the regional hydrostatic pressure
gradient.
6 What is the maximum anticipated pressure that may develop below plugs set in the wellbore
following well decommissioning? Any future use of reservoir?
7 What are the present fracture gradients in the wellbore? (measured or modelled)
For each zone with flow potential, what and where are suitable formations (permeability, fracture
8 strength) to form a natural seal against fluid movement (cap rocks)? Consider effects of natural
and induced factures on permeability.
9 Are there any subsurface hazards (e.g. shallow gas, H2S, CO2, major faults)?
10
11 Unknown well conditions (more than two years from last well entry, or well has scale / asphalting
problems or hydrate formation potential exists)
What is the quality of the annular isolation at the depths of the cap rocks? Assess cementing
12 records (slurry recipe/volumes, losses), casing centralisation, casing cement logs, records of
annular pressure or flow.
Well history summary:
• current well schematic, including all annuli fluids;
13 • previous well decommissioning activities, including sidetracks;
• tubular records, pressure tests.
• Wellhead and X-tree installation and maintenance records. Tool requirements to safely
access the well.
14 What is the lightest fluid gradient between each permeable zone and its permanent barrier?
What is the current operational and integrity status of the well? e.g. flowing, injecting, plugged or
in poor mechanical condition (e.g. leaking x-mas tree valve, leaking tubing, casing integrity or
15
annular pressure anomalies).
Is the well operating under dispensation from policy?
16 Information on the type of service the well has seen during its life cycle (e.g. production, gas lift,
water injection, gas injection, cuttings injection, ESP, production histories, etc.).

C Cement Barrier Placement – Potential Issues and Mitigations
Provided below are examples of some of the potential issues and good industry practice which well-
operators may consider when carrying out a risk assessment of cement placement. This list is not
exhaustive and cannot cover every scenario and should therefore be used in combination with good
engineering judgement.
The following key is used in the tables to show whether the potential issue is:
✓ applicable ST stinger-set plugs
X not applicable TT through-tubing set plugs

ST TT Potential issue Possible mitigation
✓ ✓ Low top of cement due to insufficient • Calliper the interval and choose plug setting depths
cement volume that are in gauge sections of the hole.
• Allow sufficient cement excess to account for worst
• Underestimation of hole size due to case ID.
washout or erroneous pipe • Check pipe dimensions (i.e. ID and OD).
dimensions.
• Tag top of cement to confirm.
• Double check operational calculations.
✓ ✓ Cement slippage downhole due to • Ensure cement plug is set on suitable base that
cement density or losses (Applicable supports the cement slurry.
to internal cement plugs and annular • Mechanical base such as previously tested cement
plug, cementing packer, or completion packer is
cement plugs)
preferred.
• Cement density is higher than fluid in • Fluid base such as a VRP or viscous mud pill.
which it is placed. • For VRP ensure suitable reaction with mud and
• TOC no longer at required depth. cement via lab testing.
• Soft cement plug due to contamination • Verify that the pill can carry the cement and that the
with mud (higher risk with synthetic or fluid can carry the pill using a scale model testing to
oil-based muds). replicate wellbore geometry (e.g. glass cylinder test).
• T-plug on casing stumps. • Consider setting cement plug at hole section with
• Plugs across milled sections without lower inclination. 30-70 degrees is high risk area for
support for cement. slippage if using a fluid base.
• Treat losses or use mechanical base.
• Tag or wash down to confirm.
✓ x Swabbing or disturbing the plug • Pipe OD should be optimised to ensure sufficient
when using a work string clearance to avoid swabbing when POOH, but large
enough to maintain suitable annular velocities during
• Contaminating or stringing out the plug plug placement. Take into account OD of couplings.
when pulling pipe out of cement. High • Pull pipe out of cement slowly (typically 30-50 ft/min)
risk in highly deviated or horizontal and break connections carefully.
wellbores or when density difference • Cement rheology is optimised and designed with non
between mud and cement is small. progressive gels.
• In highly deviated holes (>70-80o) consider pump-pull
placement, synchronising tripping speed and pump
rate.
• Consider the use of sacrificial cementing string where
tail pipe is mechanically disconnected removing the
need to pull the workstring through the cement plug.
• Use caution with longer plugs (e.g. longer than 800 ft)
as increased length brings greater risk of gel
development and swabbing or sticking the work
string. If longer plugs are necessary then additional
focus should be given to the slurry design and
properties.
• Tag or wash down to confirm top of hard cement.
• Monitor for losses when circulating after pulling pipe
above the plug to ensure the plug is not lost into the
formation due to induced losses from ECD.

Possible mitigation
ST TT Potential issue
✓ ✓ Cement strength not developing due • Slurry designed and tested in lab, preferably with rig
to poor materials or erroneous samples of materials before job.
mixing procedures • Consider actual slurry tested in surface sample.
• Quality control of materials.
• Supervision by cementing specialist.
Consider temperature log as input to design.
Consider gas tight cement slurry that goes from liquid to
✓ ✓ Fluid or gas percolation through solid in short time period.
cement when hardening Where possible, maintain pressure on well bore as the
Gas or overpressured formation fluid cement sets.
may enter the wellbore during gelling Consider isolating gas-bearing perforations with a
of the slurry and create a channel mechanical device.
through the plug.
Size and phasing (high side) of perforations adequate to
x ✓ Unable to circulate cement into place prevent blockage.
via perforations in casing or tubing If low flow, keep pressure applied and extend circulation
Unable to circulate, which may result in time at increasing rate.
re-perforations and a shallower Use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and
barrier. risk of mud channels. Optimisation of key variables
Leaking tubing allows cement flow to such as pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and
split, loss of volume control. behind, and fluid rheology.
Fluid contamination and cement If sump below perforations is significant, consider placing
slumping into the void below a viscous fluid base such as a VRP via additional
perforations. perforations below the planned cement plug depth.
Damage of next bigger casing may be For production tubing, perforate as close as possible to
undesirable. the production packer. This will reduce the length of
sump below the perforations and the tubing above the
packer may have some standoff from the casing wall
to help reduce the risk of channeling.
Leaking tubing may require coiled tubing or retrieval of
the tubing string.
Use punchers in preference to perforating guns if the
next bigger casing is to be protected.

✓ x Contamination of cement Consider verification of the string volume.
due to overdisplacement Consider using a cement unit for displacement rather than rig
when using a removable pumps since fluid volumes can be physically metered in
displacement tanks.
workstring
Indicator ball catchers can be used in the string to help achieve
Contamination of cement with accurate displacement.
spacer or mud due to Under displace the cement by appropriate volume to allow it to u-
overdisplacement when tube into position. Especially critical for tapered cementing
using a removable stinger strings.
or workstring (e.g. coiled Computer modelling of cement placement to optimise key variables
tubing). such as pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind, and
under displacement volumes.
Returns may show cement traces or tag expected to be shallow.
✓ ✓ Channelling of cement Select pipe OD and pump rates to ensure suitable annular
velocities during plug placement.
Cement flows up path of least Wash the interval to be cemented at maximum annular velocity
resistance, leaving mud possible.
channel and lack of
A diverter tool on the end of the drillpipe may assist washing of the
competent isolation. Risk
section.
when pipe is eccentric.
Condition and optimise mud prior to cementing. Consider use of
low YP and non progressive gels.
Consider rotating the cementing string during cement placement to
help break up gelled mud and constantly change the flow pattern
in the annulus.
Ensure good mud/spacer/cement hierarchy (density and rheology)
to minimise channeling. Pressure test or inflow test to confirm.
Returns showing cement traces or shallow tags are indicative of
cement channeling.
Avoid reciprocating the pipe when placing the cement plug.
Cement systems should be designed to have zero free water for
any hole sections with >20o inclination.
✓ ✓ Lack of bond to casing or Extend circulation time at high rate.
formation Circulate fluid trains of cleaning agents until returns are clean.
Consider the use of acid and soap washes ahead of cementing
Failure to remove fluid, debris, which may aid removal of any contaminants such as rust, scale,
deposits, or corrosion hydrocarbon and oil-based mud residue.
contaminants resulting in If surfaces downhole could be contaminated with oil residue, then
poor cement bond or use suitable surfactants in the cement spacer to ensure surfaces
cement channeling with are water-wet.
potential to compromise Ensure good mud/spacer/cement hierarchy (density and rheology)
barrier seal. to minimise channeling.
Shrinkage of cement creating Pump sufficient volume of suitable spacer to separate cement from
microannulus. mud.
A diverter tool on the end of the drillpipe will direct the flow outward
and provide jetting action to aid wellbore cleanup.
Consider use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and
risk of mud channels. Optimisation of key variables such as
pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind, and fluid
rheology.
The use of suitable additives in the cement will improve bonding
and minimise shrinkage.
A scraper or casing cleaning device deployed on drillpipe to
mechanically remove debris from the casing wall.

x ✓ Unable to seal annulus by Select depth where no or little cement is present in the casing
perforate and annulus or where there are low risks of pack off due to fill by
solids.
circulate/squeeze
Size and phasing (high side) of perforations adequate to prevent
Unable to circulate, which may blockage.
result in accepting annulus Hold squeeze pressure as cement sets or consider using a cement
fill as a permanent barrier. retainer. If minimal circulation is achieved, extend circulation
Suboptimal displacement of time at increasing rate.
resident fluids may leave a Cleaning of debris, mud, grease from annulus requires circulation
channel. and cleaning fluids.
Fluid contamination and Consider use of a wash tool designed to allow circulation between
cement slumping into the perforations prior to cementing.
void below perforations. Use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and risk of
Perforation damage of mud channels. Optimise key variables such as pump rates,
adjacent casings. spacer volumes ahead and behind, and fluid rheology.
The well may have been If a sump below perforations is significant, consider placing a
drilled with a different type viscous fluid base such as a VRP via additional perforations
of mud that the one used below the planned cement plug depth.
for washing the perforations Consider punchers or pipe cutters as an alternative to perforating
and the remedial cement guns if the next bigger casing is to be protected. A quarry test
operation. may be considered.
Pack off and losses. Abrasive jetting is an alternative for wireline perforating, creating
larger holes in casing and washing behind casing to enhance
cleaning and circulation rates. Perforation washing over an
extended length is another technique to achieve this.
Use surfactants in the spacer for the cement squeeze remedial job.
Use of a swivel to be able to rotate the pipe while washing behind
the perforations.
✓ x Unable to repair annulus Consideration should be given to milling inside previous casing.
casing cement by section This allows an expandable packer to be set in the bottom of a
window as a support for the cement slurry.
milling
Achieving window length is optimized by milling cemented casing
Unable to achieve adequate without centralisers and minimise number of collars to be milled.
window length. Roundtrips may result in losing the hole.
Lose access to the hole. Avoid pack-off and stuck pipe by keeping the hole clean and be
Fluid contamination as a result prepared for swarf handling. Milling rate is controlled by hole
of small slurry volumes and cleaning and ability to handle large volumes of swarf.
cement slumping into the Where a second section is milled, the loose pipe may start rotating
void outside below the and prevent further progress.
casing stub. The milled section should be cleaned out to remove debris, e.g. by
Losses during placement. means of underreaming if against formation or by side jetting.
Sealing capability, length of window and number of barriers will
depend on type and pressures of fluids, and height of cap rock.
Note: As a precaution, avoid The basis for selection is to be documented, i.e. the
milling RA pip tags. effectiveness of the operation through long-term monitoring if
possible.

D Phases of Well Decommissioning and Coding
D.1 Phases of Decommissioning

The three phases below are defined for the decommissioning of wells.
For details on further terms (Constructing, Operating, Plugged and Shut-in, Suspended) please refer to
the Well Integrity Guidelines based on the NSTA's WONS user guidelines available from NSTA website.
Well Decommissioning Phase 1 – the reservoir has been permanently isolated. This requires that
permanent barrier material is placed to fully isolate all reservoir producing or injecting zones from the
wellbore. The tubing may be left in place, partly or fully retrieved.
Well Decommissioning Phase 2 – all intermediate zones with flow potential have been permanently
isolated. This may require the tubing to be partly retrieved if still present, isolating liners, milling and /
or retrieving casing, and setting cement or permanent barrier material to isolate intermediate zones
with flow potential from each other, and communication within the wellbore. The phase is complete
when no further permanent barriers are required.
Not fully decommissioned E&A wells should be the exception rather than rule and be in accordance with
Well Decommissioning Phase 2 requirements.
Well Decommissioning Phase 3 – Well is considered fully decommissioned after removing the wellhead,
conductor and inner strings. The well origin at surface is removed. The well will never be used or re-
entered again. The well will be removed from the well examination scheme.
Phase 3 may require setting of environmental plugs. An environmental plug is not a pressure barrier
but is placed to ensure that any contaminated fluids in the annuli (e.g. OBM or cuttings reinjection fluids)
are not released to sea.
D.2 Well Re-entry Considerations

Phase 1 and Phase 2 well decommissioning must be carried out so that the well can be re-entered safely,
and then secured using pressure control equipment without compromising the barriers in place.
Consideration should also be given to set the shallowest barrier sufficiently deep, in order to facilitate
re-entry of the well.
For all acceptable barriers other than permanent barriers, refer Well Integrity Guidelines (OEUK).

D.3 Inspection Scheme for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Decommissioned Wells
Well-operators should consider physical inspection schemes for phase 1 and phase 2 decommissioned
wells. The frequency of inspection, which should be justifiable, should be set by the well-operator and
take account of well status, well position (sub-sea, platform), subsurface conditions and marine
activity levels, refer to OEUK Well Integrity Life Cycle Guidelines.
D.4 Decommissioning Phase Coding

A “well status code” is introduced to indicate a work scope of well decommissioning operations. It
applies to any well and all work phases. It is used for high level cost estimation and benchmarking.
D.4.1 Well Status Code Description
The scope of work to decommission a well can be represented by a code that commences with two
letters indicating the location of the well, followed by 3 digits representing the complexity of each of
the 3 phases of well decommissioning, e.g. PL 1-3-3 or SS 0-4-3.
The two letters simply define the physical location of the well.
• PL – platform well
• SS – subsea well
• LA – land well
The three digits represent three distinct decommissioning phases, whereas their value reflects the work
scope and equipment required.
• 1st position refers to Phase 1 – reservoir decommissioning
Primary and secondary permanent barriers set to isolate all reservoir producing or injecting zones.
The tubing may be left in place, partly or fully retrieved. Complete when the reservoir is fully isolated
from the wellbore.
• 2nd position refers to Phase 2 – intermediate decommissioning

Includes: isolating liners, milling and retrieving casing, and setting barriers to intermediate
hydrocarbon or water-bearing permeable zones and potentially installing near-surface cement. The
tubing may be partly retrieved, if not done in Phase 1. Complete when no further plugging is
required.
• 3rd position refers to Phase 3 – wellhead and conductor removal

The well status code is a high level indication and does not need to finesse subdivisions of work, e.g.
diagnostic and preparatory operations. Allowance for such tasks should be included within the most
appropriate phase.

For each phase, a digit is chosen (0 to 4) that best reflects the complexity type of the decommissioning
work, according to the following:
TYPE 0: No work required – a phase or phases of well decommissioning work may already have
been completed
TYPE 1: Simple rigless decommissioning – using wireline, pumping, crane, jacks. Subsea will use
a well intervention vessel and be riserless
TYPE 2: Complex rigless decommissioning – using coiled tubing or hydraulic workover unit,
wireline, pumping, crane, jacks. Subsea wells will use a well intervention vessel with
riser.
TYPE 3: Simple rig-based decommissioning – requiring retrieval of tubing and casing using a rig.
TYPE 4: Complex rig-based decommissioning – may have poor access and poor cement
requiring retrieval of tubing and casing, milling and cement repairs
The complexity type of a phase can be determined through a set of questions as outlined in table form
below:

x:Not Feasible ✓:Required O:Optional
Well Decommissioning Complexity
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Well Characteristics /
Note # Simple Complex Simple Complex
Condition at Decommissioning
Rig-less Rig-less Rig Rig
Sustained Casing Pressure due to

1
hydrocarbons or overpressures
X X X ✓
Not cemented casing or liner at

2
barrier depths (cap rock)
X X X ✓
3 Restricted access to tubing X X ✓ O

Deep electrical or hydraulic lines
4
present at barrier depth
X X ✓ O
Annular Safety Valve (ASV)

5
present
X X ✓ O
6 Packer set above cap rock X X ✓ O

Site does not allow for CT/HWU
7
pumping operations
X X ✓ O
8 Multiple reservoirs to be isolated X ✓ O O

Tubing has leak (e.g. corrosion,
9
accessories) X ✓ O O
Inclination >60 deg above packer

10
(wireline access) X ✓ O O
Well with good integrity, no

11
limitations
✓ O O O


Sustained Casing Pressure due to

1
hydrocarbons or overpressures
X X X ✓
2 Restricted access to casing X X X ✓

Not isolated fresh water aquifers /
3
zones
X X X ✓
Not cemented casing or liner at

4
barrier depths (cap rock)
X X X ✓
5 Not isolated Shallow gas X X X ✓

Site does not allow for CT/HWU
6
pumping operations
X X ✓ O
7 Poor primary casing cementation X X ✓ O

8 No tubing in well X ✓ O O
Inclination >60 deg above barrier
9
depth (wireline access)
X ✓ O O
Well with good integrity, no

10
limitations, tubing in place
✓ O O O


1 Poor integrity of conductor X X X ✓

Platform unable to suspend
2
conductor load during raising
X X ✓ O
Water depth beyond limitation for

3
cutting by LWIV (Subsea well)
X X ✓ O
4 Conductor cutting/retrieval rig-less ✓ O O O

D.4.2 Well Decommissioning Classification
The well status code can be used to record the decommissioning complexity and methodology for the
three phases for a well at a location in a table. See examples 1 and 2 below:
Example 1:
For a platform well, of which the reservoir will be decommissioned by a coiled tubing unit, then requiring
the tubing to be pulled and shallow barriers placed by a rig and the conductor removed by a rig as well,
the well status code would be PL 2-3-3.
Decommissioning complexity
Platform well TYPE 0 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4

No work Simple Complex Simple Complex
required rigless rigless rig-based rig-based
Reservoir
1 x
decommissioning
Phase
Intermediate
2 x
decommissioning
Wellhead conductor
3 x
removal
Example 2:
For a platform well, already decommissioned across the reservoir, then a complex intermediate well
decommissioning using a rig and standard conductor removal by a rig, the well status code would be
PL 0-4-3
Decommissioning complexity
Platform well TYPE 0 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4

required rigless rigless rig-based rig-based
Reservoir
1 x
decommissioning
Phase
Intermediate
2 x
decommissioning
Wellhead conductor
3 x
removal

E Cost Estimation
E.1 Objectives
The principles and practices described in this Guideline provides a common approach to estimating
field-wide well decommissioning costs. This Guideline outlines best practice based on industry
experience. Whilst not prescriptive, their application will aid UK Operators of offshore and onshore oil
and gas wells to generate estimates by providing:
• a template or common framework against which Operators can prepare their well
decommissioning cost estimates.
• a methodology which requires that market rates and activity durations are clearly understood
and stated in the cost estimate.
• assistance in establishing a greater level of confidence in determining decommissioning costs
for asset acquisition or divestment (Security Agreements, etc.).
• a means of both comparing estimates from different sources (third parties e.g. partners,
contractors, etc.) and capturing Operator’s experience.
This Guideline does not describe the process for preparation of detailed, fully-engineered estimates to
support Authorisation for Expenditure (AFE) preparation for individual well decommissioning, e.g. slot
recovery sidetracks or decommissioning that are part of a drilling operation.
This Guideline does not consider costs that may be incurred post COP, e.g. platform removal or platform
running cost.
E.2 Regulatory Requirements

Under the Petroleum Act 1998, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) requires
financial securities in certain situations to ensure decommissioning is carried out.
Petroleum Act 1998, section 29 (4); an abandonment programme —

• shall contain an estimate of the cost of the measures proposed in it;
• shall either specify the times at or within which the measures proposed in it are to be taken or
make provision as to how those times are to be determined;
The Petroleum Act 1998 was amended by the Energy Act 2008. This has not substantially changed the
requirements of the original Act with respect to well decommissioning programmes, however, it has
given the Secretary of State further powers to review financial arrangements and enforce removal
activities.

E.3 Cost Estimation Process
All assumptions made in building the estimate should be clearly stated, e.g.:
• Regulatory assumptions, compliance with appropriate Guidelines, etc. State the issue of the
relevant Regulation.
• Number of platform & subsea wells included (and excluded) from the estimate, e.g. wells
expected to have been decommissioned during earlier campaigns, etc.
• Execution Methodology – equipment and practice assumptions behind the estimate (e.g. rig or
workover vessel selection, lifting and removal techniques)
• Key market rate and escalation assumptions (rig rates, well decommissioning equipment rates,
exchange rates, etc.)
• Key activity duration assumptions (rig days, spread durations, etc.) including allowances for
waiting on weather (WOW), non- productive time (NPT), extreme events, etc.
• Campaign strategy, e.g. preparation cost, re-instatement of rig, mobilisation and demobilisation,
etc.
The process for cost estimation is summarised below..
Phase 1, Type 2
Phase 1, Type 2
Phase 3, Type 1
Phase 2, Type 1
Phase 1, Type 1
Spread Cost Number

Duration rate Estimate of wells
(in P&A
(in P&A (in P&A (in P&A
Code
Table) Code Code Code
Table) Table) Table) Cost ARO
Campaign
Estimate Estimate
one-off
Wells for Wells for
cost
Field Field
E.4 Cost Estimation Accuracy

This guideline recognises that the detail and accuracy of estimates will need to be enhanced as COP
approaches. Table 1 provides an overview of the proportion of wells and the expected detail of
analysis that should increase in relation to the decreasing duration before expected COP. Table 3 also
provides an indication of the expectation that the range of an estimate will reduce with proximity to
execution of decommissioning:

Table 4 Level of Accuracy and Review Relative to Proximity to COP
Increasing level of accuracy required Time To Approach recommended to Proportion of Wells Expected
COP review wells Required for Review Accuracy Range
Field-wide review of
> 10 years representative wells 10-25%
Well-by-well review of sample to
define Concept design
5 to 10 yrs 25-50% -30% to +50%
Detailed, full, well-by-well

review. Timing of Well
Decommissioning Phases may -15% to +30%
< 5yrs All
need to be considered.
Detailed well by well review of

status, integrity, work units
Imminent All
required + services cost
-5% to +15%
AFE estimates are out-with the
For AFE scope of these guidelines All
E.5 Classification of Wells

See Appendix D
E.6 Well Decommissioning Duration Estimation

Having assigned well status codes to wells based on location and complexity, it is then necessary to
determine the likely duration of each Phase of the well decommissioning activity.
Generally this is done by benchmarking against similar operations, or by deterministic modelling of the
phase. Either method is acceptable, but assumptions made in the process must be stated.
To establish well decommissioning durations, the process is anticipated to include the following
steps:
• Define scope and assumptions for each phase and Type, as captured in the well status code.
• Determining phase durations either by benchmarking using internal and external data sources
or using deterministic modelling.
• Determining NPT and WOW, either by benchmarking or using deterministic modelling.
• Establish degree of skew and determine P10, P50, P90 and Mean. (if applicable)

Table 5 Illustrative Durations for Different Well Decommissioning Complexities & Phases
Decommissioning Complexity
Type 0 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Platform Well (Days) No work Simple Complex Simple Complex
1 Reservoir Decommissioning required

0 Rig-less
3 Rig-less
5 Rig-based
3 Rig-based
7
Phase
2 Intermediate Decommissioning 0 3 6 5 10
3 Wellhead Conductor Removal 0 2 4 2 8
With deterministic estimates it is not possible to determine a range of possible outcomes.
Inclusion of contingency in estimates may require risk assessment to establish the potential impact of
the uncertainties of information, the absence of detailed engineering and planning, etc.
An allowance for contingency reflecting real life performance should also be considered. For example,
an assumption on extreme event frequency could be made, e.g. one in ten phases will take twice the
expected duration. Such assumptions must be stated.
The term extreme event is being used in this context for wells or well phases that take considerably
longer than would normally be expected; possibly due to well condition, unusual weather etc. These
would be beyond a P90 estimate.
If a sufficient dataset is available and it is possible to use a probabilistic analysis, then consideration of
an extreme event is less important provided there is a sufficient range of possible outcomes in the
dataset. However, the possibility of an extreme event should not be ignored.
E.7 Well Decommissioning Phase Spread Rate

Well decommissioning cost of a phase is modelled as time related cost: the cost estimate should be
determined by multiplying expected duration of a phase and the applicable spread-rate.
The total spread rate is a total of the rig rate, service and equipment rates and personnel rates (both
on- and offshore). Costs can be obtained from a review of historic costs, current contract rates or by
engagement with the supply chain, depending on proximity to campaign execution. It may also be
appropriate to consider anticipated market conditions at the time of planned well decommissioning,
rather than simply using current market rates.

E.8 Field Well Decommissioning Costs
Having classified a well by its Location, Phases, Complexity and Phase Spread Costs it is then a simple
matter to integrate these factors to determine a likely duration and cost for the decommissioning of
the well. For example a well decommissioning consisting of Phase 1 Type 2 and Phase 2 Type 3 would
cost 5 x 35,000 + 5 x 55,000 = 450,000 (nominal currency units).
Table 6 Example of Estimated Duration per Phase

Platform Well (Days) Simple Complex Simple Complex
1 Reservoir Decommissioning 3 5 3 7
Phase
2 Intermediate Decommissioning 3 6 5 10
3 Wellhead Conductor Removal 2 4 2 8
Table 7 Example of Estimated Spread Cost per Phase

Site/Installation type (nominal currency Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
per day) Simple Rigless Complex Rigless Simple Rig Complex Rig
Platform – fixed rig 25,000 35,000 55,000 55,000
It should be noted that the above rates are examples only, and should be estimated as per the guidance
in E.7
Additional project costs should also be considered and included in the cost estimate. Project / campaign
factors for consideration include:
• Management overhead and engineering
• Well Inspection / Surveys
• Location surveys
• Site preparation
• Platform Rig Upgrade
• Riser and subsea well tools
• Mobilisation & Demobilisation of rig and rig equipment.
• Mobilisation & Demobilisation
• Transport to shore / Logistics
• NORM Scale treatment and decontamination.
• Post removal survey and trawl

E.9 Worked Example for Platform with 30 wells:
Number of Wells of Each Type of Decommissioning for Each Phase:
Number of Wells of each Type and Decommissioning Complexity
Phase
TYPE 0 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4
required Rig-less Rig- Rig-based
Rig-less
based
Reservoir
1 5 10 10 5
Decommissioning
Intermediate
Phase
2 2 10 10 8
Decommissioning
Wellhead / Conductor
3 30
Removal
Duration - Number of Days required for each Well for each Type and Phase:
Number of Days for each Well, Decommissioning Complexity
Type and Phase
required Rig-less Rig- Rig-
Rig-less
based based
Reservoir
1 0 3 5 3
Decommissioning
Intermediate
Phase
2 0 6 5 10
Decommissioning
Wellhead / Conductor
3 0
Removal
Spread Rate for each Type:

Spread Rate for each Type TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4
(nominal currency per day)
Simple Rig- Complex Simple Rig Complex
less Rig-less Rig
Platform – fixed rig 25,000 35,000 55,000 55,000

Cost Estimate for All Wells by Type & Phase:
Cost Estimate for All Wells by Decommissioning Complexity
Type & Phase
required Rig-less Rig- Rig-
Rig-less
based based
10x3x 10x5x 5x3x
Reservoir 25000=
1 0 35000= 55000=
Decommissioning
750000 1750000 825000
10x6x 10x5x 8x10x

Phase
Intermediate
2 0 35000= 55000= 55000=
Decommissioning
2100000 2750000 4400000
Wellhead Conductor
3 0
Removal
Estimate for Campaign cost (as per Table 9) = 2,000,000
Cost Estimate Wells for Platform = 14,575,000

F References and Further Reading
Ref Item Link
No.
1 Useful references on https://oilandgasukenvironmentallegislation.co.uk/contents/to
legislation, notification pic_files/offshore/well_abandonment.htm
and guidance for well
decommissioning
2 BEIS guidance notes on https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/
Decommissioning of system/uploads/attachment_data/file/760560/Decom_Guidan
Offshore Oil and Gas ce_Notes_November_2018.pdf
Installations and Pipelines
3 OEUK’s Guidelines on https://oeuk.org.uk/product/oeuk-guidelines-for-liaison-with-
Liaison with the Fishing the-fishing-industry-on-the-ucks-issue/
Industry on the UKCS
4 Guidance on Consents and North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA): Wells - Consents -
Notification Licensing & <br/>consents (nstauthority.co.uk)
5 UK Energy Portal https://itportal.nstauthority.co.uk/eng/fox/nsta/NSTA_LOGIN/l

ogin
6 Consent to Flare Guidance North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA): Flaring and venting -
Consents - Licensing & <br/>consents (nstauthority.co.uk)
7 Guidance on Chemical
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-offshore-
Permits
environmental-legislation#the-offshore-chemicals-regulations-
(Workover/Intervention/D
2002-as-amended
ecommissioning)
8 Regulation 7 of The
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1355/regulation/7/m
Offshore Chemicals
ade
Regulations 2002
9 Environmental and
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-eems-database
Emissions Monitoring
System database should
be updated
10 Guidance on Marine
Licence
environmental-legislation#the-marine-and-coastal-access-act-
2009
11 Guidance on Consent to
Locate
environmental-legislation#the-energy-act-2008-part-4a-
consent-to-locate

12 Guidance on Oil Pollution
Prevention and Control
environmental-legislation#the-offshore-petroleum-activities-
(OPPC)
oil-pollution-prevention-and-control-regulations-2005-as-
amended
13 Offshore Petroleum
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2055/made
Activities (Oil Pollution
Prevention and Control)
Regulations 2005 (as
amended)
14 Guidance on European
Protected Species
environmental-legislation#the-offshore-marine-conservation-
Disturbance Licence
natural-habitats-c-regulations-2007-as-amended
15 Guidance on Incident
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-environmental-
Reporting
alerts-and-incident-reporting
16 Guidance on Temporary
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/
Operations Oil Pollution
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1082788/OPEP_Guidan
Emergency Plan (TOOPEP)
ce_-_Rev_7_-_June_2022.pdf
17 Guidance on TOOPEP
exercises
emergency-response-legislation#the-offshore-installations-
emergency-pollution-control-regulations-2002
18 Guidance on Notification
https://www.hse.gov.uk/omar/assets/docs/understanding-
of Well Operators in
offshore-oil-and-gas-wells-notifications.pdf
external waters
19 Regulation 21(1), 21(2) of

The Offshore Installations
ade
(Offshore Safety Directive)
(Safety Case etc.)
Regulations 2015
20 Regulation 19, The
Offshore Installations and
ade
Wells (Design &
Construction, etc)
Regulations 1996 (SI
1996/913)
21 Regulation 22 of The
Offshore Installations
ade
(Offshore Safety Directive)
(Safety Case etc.)
Regulations 2015

22 Guidance on Notification
https://www.hse.gov.uk/omar/assets/docs/ops-notice6-
of Offshore Installation
reporting-offshore-installation-movements.pdf
Movements (Operations
Notice 6)
23 Guidance in Scotland on
https://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/radioactive-
NORM or Radiation
substances/guidance-and-reports/
Permits
24 Guidance in England on
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/radioactive-
NORM or Radiation
substances-regulation-for-non-nuclear-sites
Permits
25 Petroleum Operations
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-
Notice 9
production/petroleum-operations-notices/pon-9/
26 OEUK Use of Barrier
https://oeuk.org.uk/product/oeuks-use-of-barrier-materials-
Materials in Well
in-well-decommissioning-guidelines-issue-3/
Decommissioning
Guidelines Issue 3
27 OEUK Well
https://oeuk.org.uk/product/oeuks-well-decommissioning-for-
Decommissioning for CO2
co2-storage-guidelines/
Storage Guidelines
28 Well integrity guidelines,
Further Reading
Issue 4, March 2019,
OEUK, ISBN 1 903 004 71 6
29
L84, The Offshore Further Reading
Installations and Wells
(Design and Construction,
etc) Regulations 1996, SI
1996/913, ISBN 978 0
7176 6296 8
30 L154, The Offshore
Further Reading
Installations (Offshore
Safety directive) (Safety
Case etc.) Regulations
2015, ISBN 978 0 7176
6325 5
31 API 65-2, Isolating
Further Reading
Potential Flow Zones
During Well Construction,
Second Edition/December
2010
32 Guidelines for High
Further Reading
Pressure, High
Temperature Wells
October 2016, OEUK

33 Model clauses 2008 S T A
Further Reading
TUTORYINSTRUME
N T S 2008 No. 225
PETROLEUM The
Petroleum Licensing
(Production) (Seaward
Areas) Regulations 2008
34 Petroleum Act 1998
Further Reading
35 WONS guidelines
Further Reading
36 Guidelines on Liaison with
Further Reading
the Fishing Industry on the
UKCS, Issue 7 2019
37 BEIS Decommissioning of
Further Reading
Offshore Oil and Gas
Installations and Pipelines
Guidance
BEIS Offshore
Further Reading
Environmental Legislation
Guidance
BEIS Environmental Alerts
Further Reading
and Incident Reporting
Including Anonymous
Reporting Guidance

www.oeuk.org.uk
OEUK Guidelines
Member companies dedicate specialist resources and technical expertise in developing these
guidelines with Offshore Energies UK with a commitment to work together, continually
reviewing and improving the performance of all offshore operations.
Guidelines are free for our members and can be purchased by non-members.
www.OEUK.org.uk @offshore energies uk
info@OEUK.org.uk Offshore Energies UK

© 2022 The UK Offshore Energies Association Limited trading as OEUK

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Issue 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Issue 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Decommissioning

Tel: 01224 577250

Well Decommissioning Page 2

Well Decommissioning Page 4

Well Decommissioning Page 5

Well Decommissioning Page 6

Well Decommissioning Page 7

BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

COP Cessation of Production

GRE Glass Reinforced Epoxy

Well Decommissioning Page 8

Well Decommissioning Page 9

Regulation 13, DCR, imposes a general duty on well-operators:

…ensure that a well is so designed, modified, commissioned, constructed, equipped, operated,

Regulation 15, DCR, provides that the well-operator shall:

(a) it can be suspended or abandoned in a safe manner; and

Regulation 16, DCR, provides that:

Further consideration must be given to the following;

Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008,

Well Decommissioning Page 10

Obligation 16, NSTA Strategy 2020, provides that:

Well Decommissioning Page 11

Well Decommissioning Page 12

Formation Capable of sustained flow

Capable of sustained flow

Flow potential No flow potential

Figure 1 Flow Potential and Cross Flow Assessment Flowchart

The assessment of flow potential should consider the following processes:

Well Decommissioning Page 14

• Formation fluids and pressures,

2.2 Flow Potential in Overburden Formations

2.3 Pressure Changes with Time and Depth of Well Barriers

Well Decommissioning Page 15

2.4 Assessment of Flow Potential

A multi-disciplinary approach is recommended, including all relevant disciplines. The principles of

2.5 Cross Flow of Zones of Flow Potential

Well Decommissioning Page 16

Well Decommissioning Page 17

Figure 3. Permanent Decommissioning Barrier Schematic “Restoring the Cap Rock”

3.2 Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers

Well Decommissioning Page 18

3.3 Number of Permanent Barriers

Operators should assess barrier requirements using the following considerations:

Well Decommissioning Page 19

A permanent cement barrier should consist of:

Well Decommissioning Page 20

3.4.2 Non-cement Permanent Barriers

3.4.2.1 Sealing Formations

3.4.2.2 Existing Annular Materials

Well Decommissioning Page 21

3.4.2.3 Alternative Materials

3.5 Position Requirements of Permanent Barriers

A permanent barrier should;

Well Decommissioning Page 22

Figure 5. General Requirements for Decommissioning

Well Decommissioning Page 23

Well Decommissioning Page 24

Well Decommissioning Page 25

Well Decommissioning Page 26

Figure 10. Example Permanent Barriers for Sidetracking

Considerations for multilateral wells may include;

Well Decommissioning Page 27

Figure 11. Cemented Casing Alone is Not a Permanent Barrier

3.6 Placement of Permanent Barriers