Upload
digger797
View
41
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
oil and gas UK abandonment
Citation preview
1 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Oil and Gas UK Decommissioning Workgroup WG5
Well Abandonments
DEA(E) Q2-2010 Meeting3rd 4th June 2010
Jules Schoenmakers, on behalf of WG5
2 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
(PILOT) Decommissioning Steering Group(DSG)Operator/Supply Chain/DECC
Develop cost effective and efficient approachLeverage Industry Capability
Vision*Strategy*Legislation*Economic*Technical
Norwegian/UKLiaison
TEDSDTF
EventsWorkshops
ConferencesLectures
SNSea Sub GroupOperators with
Common InterestsRegulatory Simplification
Guidance pipeline/lifting/mattresses
WG2Market Engagement
DecomNSContracting
Market AnalysesCommunications
WG4Facilities
Technical GuidanceOSPAR Support
TechnologyCost Improvements
WG5Wells
GuidanceTechnology
BenchmarkingImprovements
WG3Environment
EIAOSPAR Review
Legislation(NORM;Energy)
WG1Commercial/Legal
SecuritiesDSA
Residual Liabilities
Oil & Gas UK Decommissioning Initiative
Materials QualificationGuidance document
Cost estimatingGuidance document
3 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Well Abandonment Workgroup WG5Purpose and Objectives
Enhance capabilities for Well Abandonments and provide up-to-date guidelines for the industry.
Create opportunities to make well abandonments more efficient and effective, and improve the health, safety and environmental aspects, by facilitation of technology development, trials, and promotion of commercial initiatives.
Liaise with DECC and other regulators on technical issues specific to well abandonments.
4 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
16 Workgroup Members
Jules Schoenmakers (Shell) Workgroup chair
Peter Irvine (ConocoPhillips)
Max Baumert (ExxonMobil)
Andrew McHardy (Total E&P UK Plc)
Martin Mosley (Talisman Energy (UK) Limited)
Bill Inglis (BP)
Garry Skelly (CNRI)
Colin Wight (Halliburton)
Frank Calder (Schlumberger)
Donald Dobson (HSE)
Phil Chandler (Acteon)
Steve White (Hess)
Stan Bain (ADTI)
Simon Hough (Chevron)
Ryan McPherson (ITF)
Steve Kirby (Sasok)
5 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
2009 Progress Well Abandonments (1)
1. North Sea well abandonment study complete and issued as package with Guidelines. Issued March 2009.
Study results - recap:Well abandonment expenditure 5-15 billion for 4635 wells on UKCS3725 platform and 910 subsea wells to be abandoned80% of the platform wells could be done rigless
60 years of work for abandonment teams70 % of subsea wells could be done with intervention vessel
22 years of work for intervention vessels
6 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
2009 Progress Well Abandonments (2)
2. Guidelines for Suspension and Abandonment of Wells issued.
3. A Benchmarking service, established with Rushmore Reviews.
May 2010 data:2000-2007 136 wells2008 7 wells2009 38 wells2010 39 wells expected
Members to date:ShellBP ChevronTotalHessLundinTalismanTullowFairfieldExxonMobilStatoilWintershallDONG (t.b.c.)
7 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Work Group WG5 ToR
Milestones to be defined in topic framing.
Identify improvements. Prioritise, frame and seek partners to progress.
Seek and develop opportunities to improve well abandonments
D
On-goingGrow the number of wells submitted to the database.
Promote BenchmarkingC
Milestones to be defined in topic framing.
Identify topics for improvements in Guidelines. Prioritise, frame and seek partners to progress.
Initiate studies, tests, trials to address specific prioritised topics in support of the update of the Guidelines.
B
Next update 1.1.2012
Target 1.1.2011
Target 1.1.2011
- Every 3 yrs issue update of Guidelines Suspension/Abandonment
- Establish guidelines for material qualification
- Establish estimating guidelines
Establish Guidelines for well abandonment. Update on a regular basis.
A
8 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Oil & Gas UK Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells
Next update of Guidelines due 2012
Agenda topics : Cement plug length Qualification of Formations as part of a barrier Verification Materials others
Barrier Elements
Height of 500ft MD, containing at least 100ft MD of Good Cement.
Plug Depth determined by formation (impermeability and strength) and primary cementation
Permanent Abandonment Barrier schematicRestoring the Cap Rock
Best Practices
Figure 1
Pipe stand-off
Good bond, clean surfaces, water wet
Support to prevent cement movement, slumping and gas migration while setting
Sealing Abandonment plug
Casings, tubing embedded in cement
Sealing primary cementations
Formation:Impermeable &adequate strength to contain future pressures
Tubing sealed with cement, in cement
Barrier Elements
Height of 500ft MD, containing at least 100ft MD of Good Cement.
Plug Depth determined by formation (impermeability and strength) and primary cementation
Permanent Abandonment Barrier schematicRestoring the Cap Rock
Best Practices
Figure 1
Pipe stand-off
Good bond, clean surfaces, water wet
Support to prevent cement movement, slumping and gas migration while setting
Sealing Abandonment plug
Casings, tubing embedded in cement
Sealing primary cementations
Formation:Impermeable &adequate strength to contain future pressures
Tubing sealed with cement, in cement
9 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
2>100/500 ft)>100/500 ft UK
1~100 ftMalaysia
150 ft100 ftUSA (MMS)
1~100 ftMexico
150 ft100 ftAustralia
1~75 ftRussia
1~25 ftCanada (Alberta)
1~150 ft~300 ftGermany
1~150 ft~300 ftNetherlands
2~150 ft~300 ftNorway
Nr of BarriersMin Length if on Bridge Plug
Min length of cement plug
Cement plug length : different requirements around the world
Industry Workshop (Nov 2009) unable to identify criteria for a min. plug length.Recommendation was to establish a hazard/mitigation table for Guidelines.
10 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Qualification of formation as barrier element
Certain formations (e.g. certain shales) are known to move as a result of stress differences. These formations are able to close an annulus space where cement is lacking. The moving formation is a geological feature that is observed field-wide and is not limited to one well. The resulting seal may be qualified as an acceptable replacement for a good annulus cement bond.
Industry workshop held in March Considering a proposal for the Guidelines describing qualification requirements
11 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
New Guidance: Well Abandonment Materials (replacing cement)
Establish guidelines for the qualification of materials Cement is currently accepted as the primary material for well abandonment, but has its limitations.
Alternative are being developed, but have found littleapplication due to uncertainty of the long-term integrity
Guidelines will provide a framework for qualification testing.
Members of sub-committee
Jules Schoenmakers Shell, Europe (NL, UK), ChairCarl Johnson Schlumberger, Aberdeen (UK)Andr Garnier Total, Pau (F) Tron Kristiansen BP, Stavanger (N)Tom Dyer University of Dundee (UK)Frans Jansen Shell Global Solutions, Amsterdam (NL) Inge M. Carlsen SINTEF Petroleum Research, Trondheim (N)Preben Randhol SINTEF Petroleum Research, Trondheim (N) Simon Hough Chevron, Aberdeen (UK)
12 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
A. Cements, ceramics (setting). Porouse.g. Portland Class H and G cement, (Pozmix, Slag)
B. Grouts (non-setting), Porous.e.g. sand or clay mixtures
C. Polymers thermal-setting & composites, Not Porous.e.g. resins, incl fibre reinforcements
D. Polymers thermoplastics & composites, Not Porous.e.g incl fibre reinforcements
E. Polymers elastomers & composites, Not Porous.e.g silicon rubber, incl fibre reinforcements
F. Formation, Not Porous.e.g. shale, salt
G. Gels, Not Porous.e.g. bentonite gels, clay gels, polymer gels
H. Glass, Not PorousI. Metals, Not Porous.
e.g. steel, alloys, bismuthJ. Hybrides, combinations of materials, Porous or Not Porous.
e.g. expanding cement, fillers, geopolymers
Well Abandonment Materials - Classes
13 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
Establish industry guidelines for cost estimating the liability of well abandonments (Asset Retirement Obligations; ARO).
Structured approach to support cost estimates for: Financial statements Asset sales SecuritiesNot for AFE or detailed estimates.
Members of Sub-Committee:
Martin Mosley (Talisman Energy (UK)) Workgroup chair
Jules Schoenmakers (Shell)
Steve Kirby (Sasok)
Phil Chandler (Acteon)
Max Baumert (ExxonMobil)
Garry Skelly (CNRI)
New Guidance: ARO Cost Estimating of Well Abandonment
14 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
ITF Theme Day for subsea wells has addressed:
1. Removing deep downhole cables (see pictures).
2. Through-tubing logging to establish well status (incl cement)
JIP proposals received, being assessed by ITF members.
New Technology
15 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
1- Joint-industry contract model for campaigns.
2- Prepared Activity Survey Format, to be issued to OGUKmembers. Objective is to share upcoming activities andestablish campaign synergies.
3- Use of supply boats for well abandonments (moving bridge)Looking for a company to champion a seminar
Supply chain improvements
16 - DEA(E) Q210 Hamburg 3-4 June 2010 OGUK WG5 Well Abandonments
1. Is there consensus on the support of the workprogramme of WG5 ?
2. Comments on the presented topics ?
3. Other topics for WG5 ?
4. In which areas are you willing to give support ?
Thank you for your support
DEA(E) Conference