of 25 /25
Integrity of UGS Committee: Storage Fabien FAVRET (EDF, France) Mail: [email protected] Mob: +33 (0) 607798125

Integrity of UGS

  • Author

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Integrity of UGS

PowerPoint PresentationExisting codes, norms and standards for safe UGS
Best practices for UGS safe operations EDF/Géostock case study in UK
Introduction to UGS safe operations • World-wide existing codes, norms and standards for UGS
– From design, construction, operation & maintenance and even abandonment
– Which has been established by experts of the domain: operators, notified bodies
(DNV, …) , gas associations, government executives, … mostly since the 90’s
– Some examples:
• EU : EN 1918-1/5:1998, 1918-2: 2014, ISO/TS 16530-2:2014, NORSOK D-010
(2004) and various others from/for specific countries as an ex: BSOR in UK, …
• USA: API 1170 & API 1171 established in 2015
• Russian Federation: Safety rules in oil and gas industry, Gazprom standards 2-3.5-
770-2013 or 2-2.3-696-2013, Rules of UGS safety, Federal standard
123.13330.2012, …
– Guidelines and/or philosophy for insuring mainly:
• Risks assessments and management (QRA approaches to include
HAZID, HAZCON & HAZOP [process] as a base to mitigate risks)
• Subsurface integrity management
• To be implemented using a case by case approach
Norms, standards and codes • API 1170 (US) main content: salt caverns
– Geological Evaluations
– Well Design
– Abandonment
Norms, standards and codes • API 1171 (US) main content: porous reservoirs
– General Principles
– Functional Integrity in Well Design and Construction
– Risk Management for Storage Operations’
– Integrity Demonstration, Verification and Monitoring not detailed
– Safety, Security and Emergency Response
– Procedures and Training
Norms, standards and codes • Russian (CIS) main requirements for wells:
– General Principles: well architecture, cementing job in annulus, SSSV, …
– Functional Integrity of wells:
• Annulus pressure measurement and follow-up
• Wells testing by gas-hydrodynamic & geophysical investigations
• Well testing and productivity analysis & interpretation:
– Defects
– …
Norms, standards and codes • ISO EN 1918/1-5:2014 (EU) main content:
– General Principles for Design, Construction, Testing, Commissioning,
Operation and Maintenance of UGS
– Wells:
– Wells integrity management via peridodic inspections such as check of
annulus pressures, corrosion/erosion checks via casing inspections,
integrity of barriers (SSSV, wellhead, …) not exhaustively detailed
Norms, standards and codes • ISO EN 16530-2 (Well Integrity):2014 (EU) main content:
– Well integrity management system definition: Well operator shall have well integrity management system (WIMS) for all wells
– Each Well Operator shall ensure that sufficient resources in their organizations are available to manage well integrity effectively during the operational life cycle of the well Operator entire well inventory
– Well barrier envelope: Combination of one or several well barrier elements that together constitute a method of containment of fluids within a well that prevent uncontrolled flow of fluids within, or out of a well
– Well operator shall by able to demonstrate the status of the well barriers envelopes for each well &type
– The general sphere of well integrity monitoring are: well operating and components limits, well components status, annular pressure management, …
Norms, standards and codes • NORSOK standard D010:2004 main content:
– Well integrity definition: Application of technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of a well
– Management of well integrity has to be implemented during all the phases of well life; it starts from well design, continues during its construction, is constantly implemented during the production phase, and is part of the final abandonment
– Well barrier: Envelope of one or several dependent barrier elements preventing fluids or gases from flowing unintentionally from the formation into another formation or surface
UGS safe operations • These norms/standards provide:
– In most of the countries even if these norms/standards can be mandatory, it
is the responsibility of operators to define how to implement them
– In most of the countries, it is also the responsibility of the operator to
(annually) declare to the local/national administration what is going on for
each UGS site: O&M activities, incidents, accidents, heavy maintenance or
repair, …
– In addition, in most of the countries selective inspections are usually led on
site by notified bodies or administrations to control this declaration in-situ
UGS safe operations • These norms/standards:
– Are usually mandatory for new UGS projects and the 2 safety barriers
philosophy is more and more developed and/or imposed (ex: in EU)
– But not for existing ones (no retroactive application)
– Usually it is the solely operators decision to decide to apply or not new
codes/norms on its existing assets and if necessary to implement
action plans
UGS safe operations • These norms/standards are necessary to develop framework
guidelines for safe UGS operations
• Even if it is the operators responsibility to implement them
• But a (strong & efficient) control loop should be also in place (by
local/national administrations) for checking periodically:
– the implementation of the rules/norms/standards by UGS operators
– the technical expertise/skills & organization of UGS operators when they
are applying for a UGS license but also all along the UGS life-time
Case study EDF/Geostock cooperation in UK on salt caverns • In conjunction with:
– Wells Monitoring
– Subsidence monitoring
– Micro-seismic monitoring
• And based on the PVT model, EdF is developing methods, and then will program a specific module to be in position to check the integrity of a cavern (and in future a porous reservoir) with:
– Leak detection
– Structural abnormal behavior (high creep, shape disorder, ...)
• All these techniques are used in Hill-Top and Hole-House facilities to guarantee the integrity of wells and caverns Any abnormal situation to be tracked, checked and explained through the subsurface monitoring system, to lead to specific recommendations:
– To continue normal gas operations (green light)
– To implement careful gas operations (orange light) limited ranges of pressure and flow-rates
– To stop immediately gas operations (red light) further investigations to be done such as P/T logs, sonars, ...
Well Integrity Management System ?
WIMS – Monitoring Integrity
• Equivalent (density @ 0.7 kg/m3) gas leak test “acceptable” rates:
– SMRI = 50 kg/d 70 m3(n)/d = 3 m3(n)/h
– Germany = 30 kg/d 40 m3(n)/d = 1.8 m3(n)/h
– Experience 7 kg/d 10 m3(n)/d = 0.4 m3(n)/h
Simulation of a leak on April 1st @ 3 m3(n)/h
No leak
With leak
Obvious leak after 3 months
PVT tool for asset integrity management
• Subsurface monitoring using PVT simplified tool is proven @ wellhead
– In Germany with this model, range of pressures has been increased in 2014
from 60/203 bar to 50/208 bar by mining authority
• Subsurface integrity management seems also theoretically feasible:
– No risk of confusion with mismatch (no pattern)
– Different signatures for different events
– Ex: creep signature ≠ leak signature
• But:
– Technical, mathematical & IT developments to be done
– And then, in-situ tests to be achieved (on going in UK)
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Norms, standards and codes
Well Integrity Management System ?
WIMS – Monitoring Integrity
Simulation of a leakon April 1st @ 3 m3(n)/h
PVT tool for asset integritymanagement