WIF Guideline:

Well Integrity Categorization

Greg Doliszny, Well Integrity Advisor, CoPNo

SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Background

• During the spring of 2006 the PSA (Petroleum Safety Authority)

performed a well integrity audit/survey on seven (7) operating
companies on the NCS.

• Every fifth well showed uncertainty and weaknesses in well

integrity.

• A report published in June 2006 following the survey outlined

several areas for improvements and challenged the operators to
expand on the survey.

2 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Industry Action

• OLF (Oljeindustriens Landsforening) or the Norwegian Oil

Industry Association is a professional body and employer’s
association for oil and supplier companies engaged in the field of
exploration and production of oil and gas on the NCS.

• OLF’s Resource Group Drilling, a.k.a. Drilling Managers Forum

(DMF) took initiative for a well integrity workshop which was
held March 5th – 6th 2007 with 45 participants.

• The objective was to get the industry to work together to

identify common goals, processes, focus areas and possible co-
operation projects.

• Workshop recommended that an industry group be formed to

discuss challenges and potential solutions during the well’s life
cycle with a the main focus on the operating phase.

3 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Establishing Well Integrity Forum (WIF)

• The Well Integrity Forum (WIF) was established in June 2007 as

a subgroup of OLF’s Drilling Managers Forum (DMF).

• WIF represents the following field operators with production

wells in Norway:

BP, ConocoPhillips, Eni Norge, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Norske

Shell, StatoilHydro, Talisman and Total

• WIF members meet monthly and task forces have been

established to work on defined tasks.

4 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 2007-2009 Work Issues

• Training of personnel in well integrity fundamentals

• Well integrity handover documentation

• Well Barrier Schematics

• Establishing KPI – well categorization

• Well integrity management system

• OLF Guideline no.117 on Well Integrity

5 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Why?

• Industry and regulatory focus on WI categorization

• A method for operators to sort (rank) WI projects

• Allows for PSA to summarize / trend WI across NCS

• Promotes consistent understanding of WI amongst operators

6 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Process

• Review past regulatory efforts

• Compare ranking systems of individual WIF member-companies

• Assign task force / sub-team

• Run pilot by select operators

• Use across NCS for 2008 RNNP

• Develop guideline

7 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 2006 PSA RNNS Categorization

8 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Ranking
Traffic Action
Light Code
Required Action

0 No fault found, well tested within operating parameters

Systems
1 Repair at next planned maintenance/intervention
2 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 24 months
3 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 12 months

in Use
4 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 6 months
5 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 3 months
6 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 2 months
7 Repair at the earliest opportunity but within 1 month
Carry out formal Technical Review within 7 days to determine mitigation
8
actions and when/how to repair and/or continue operations
9 Make well safe immediately and plan repair/test/suspension/abandonment
10 Implement installation/field Emergency Response procedures immediately
Producer & Injector

Active Shut in P&A C urrent C ategories R isk based

Dual barrier philosophy not fulfilled
categories
ZB/Dual barrier Not Acceptable!
philosophy broken - C ritical C omponent Degraded well. High risk
(Trouble Well) Failure
Z3/Non Conformance Well Probably Not Good,
(Weakened B arriers) but may be acceptable Degraded well. Low risk
M1/Additional P M Well Probably Good, but
(S uspect Well) Investigate
Healthy Well R isk Level Good No barrier issues

Colour code Definition Description

Red Well currently shut in due to
well integrity issue
Procedures being worked, waiting on repair
Orange Well has a barrier failure.
Well producing/injecting w/dispensation
RSC Well RSC description Well risk acceptance
High annulus pressure, unable to bleed off, exceeds MAASP
TTAC above acceptable leak rate A No downhole leak Acceptable
SCSSV failure above leak criteria
Tree valve failure above leak criteria (UMV, FWV, AV)
Hanger/Wellhead leaks above leak criteria B Degraded well. Acceptable.
Multiple barrier failures
Small increase in risk (none or Risk can be controlled
High risk only related to HC in well annuli)
- High annulus pressure, frequent bleed downs, below leak rate criteria
Hydrocarbons in A or B annulus
Multiple annuli derogations but under leak rate criteria C Degraded well. Acceptable only if risk
High risk increase factors can be controlled

Yellow Well must be observed.

Well currently under investigation
Producing but impaired D Dual barrier philosophy not Not acceptable
Anomoly reported. High risk
- No cement behind production casing fulfilled / well barriers severely
- Buttress + SCP (either in well or known to occur in field and well type)
- High annulus pressure - below leak rate criteria (very slow leak rate)
degraded / leak to surroundings
- Gas up the SCSSV Control Line

Green No integrity issue No increased risk

9 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 WIF KPI Design Approach

• WIF development of industry recommendation

• Cover wells in operation phase (non-drilling/intervention stage)

• Simple

• Traffic light matrix

• Task force / sub-team approach

10 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 System Philosophy

• 4 category system

• Based on D-010 double-barrier policy

• Associated with risk - but not absolute

• 4 traffic light colours (green, yellow, orange, red)

• Green/yellow are compliant

• Reflects current state of well

11 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Category Principles & Colours

Category Principle

12 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Category Principles & Colours

Category Principle

Green Healthy well - no or minor issue.

13 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Category Principles & Colours

Category Principle

Green Healthy well - no or minor issue.

Yellow One barrier degraded, the other is intact.

14 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Category Principles & Colours

Category Principle

Green Healthy well - no or minor issue.

Yellow One barrier degraded, the other is intact.

One barrier failure and the other is intact; or,

Orange
a single failure may lead to leak to surface.

15 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Category Principles & Colours

Category Principle

Green Healthy well - no or minor issue.

Yellow One barrier degraded, the other is intact.

One barrier failure and the other is intact; or,

Orange
a single failure may lead to leak to surface.

One barrier failure and the other is degraded/not verified, or leak

Red
to surface.

16 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Concerns

• Consistent application amongst operators

• Pilot project
• DMF & PSA feedback
• RNNS participation
• Workshop
• Delayed guideline
• Guideline structure

• Risk vs. Categorization

• Additional RA required

17 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 PSA 2008 RNNP

• A review of all active wells in relation to well integrity was

performed for the first time in 2008.

• Eight operators were involved in the appraisal of a total of 1667

wells.

• Based on the experience from this first reporting, WIF is

presently working on developing an additional chapter in the
guideline 17 to better describe the matrix and well categories.

18 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Path Forward

• Guideline development

• Continued RNNP participation

• Case studies & further discussions in WIF

• Further refinements? Training?

19 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009

 Questions?

20 SPE Well Integrity Workshop, October 6, 2009