Well Integrity Technical Section

 View Only
  • 1.  Inflow (negative) test, best practice discussion.

    Posted 02-19-2015 05:30 AM
    This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Well Integrity and Drilling .
    -------------------------------------------

    After reading John Turley's book 'The simple truth'.

    The inflow test 'physical failures' in addition to people and organisational management, operating and further system failures were very evident in his book as to why things went ultimately so wrong.

    In this topic area, I have first worked with companies that conduct inflow 'negative' tests all the time and others that do not.

    These tests are primarily conducted during drilling, testing, after running liners or during abandonment e.g. before re-displacing a well/riser to seawater before pulling the SSBOP and marine riser. Also commonly conducted in well testing, well interventions, work overs operations etc to assure well integrity and design criteria is met for any down hole, well life cycle condition that could potentially exist.

    Furthermore in some operating regions notably in offshore, deep and ultra deep water abandonment, inflow tests are mandated to be conducted on certain abandonment liners, plugs etc. So this is a requirement and very commonly done.  

    Rather that running a packer etc that is time/cost consuming, but can be implemented if a evident well integrity problem existed, e.g. a failed casing or component test. The simplest and most common method on a well not suspected to have failed, is to use a hydrostatic column 'volume' of sea water or often base oil (in oil based mud environments) displaced to a required depth to reduce the wells hydrostatic pressure, typically via; 

    - the tubular string in the hole

    - or in deep and ultra deep water simply via a kill or choke line

    to provide the required drawdown 'negative or inflow' test pressure.

    Note: The draw  down or inflow pressures required is often based on wellbore leak off tests for the section and components being tested with a further 0.xxppg or xxxpsi added negative pressure safety factor.   

    The inflow volume from the well is then generally recorded at the trip tank, and stripping tank and the time taken for a well to stabilise and not flow will vary. On many rigs we visually watch the flow, on others we also have remove hatches on trip tanks to physically be able to do this. So its quite a simple and straight forward test if people understand what is involved. Sometimes a diminished and zero flow is quickly established i.e. in 10-20mins. Typically both operator (as it's their well) and drilling contractor (note: the legal custodian of well control, the vessel and people on board)  on a Mobile offshore drilling unit, will both require a longer period, to be fully satisfied. They would generally discuss based on the feel of the well or with engineers involved what return flow and volumes are expected. So before doing anything we have an assurance plan, a risk assessment etc and a full set of numbers, derivatives etc to what is expected based on what is known.     

    Essentially, zero or very little pressure should be observed before the line in question is displaced and/or then drawdown and finally opened to atmosphere, where once opened, the little pressure present, and return flow should diminish or stops to satisfy the well integrity 'inflow or negative test' requirements to verify that the well components being tested withstand the negative differential pressure that each has been subjected too.  

    As per leak off tests we would assure that return flow volumes and times are charted etc to meet the systematic quality check process then be properly recorded, signed off and fully documented.  

    No positive pressure more than an initial shut in or displacement effect should ever exist on any tubular string, choke or kill line that has been displaced with the lighter fluid. Hence why this is often referred to as a negative pressure test as the components in questions are being tested in the direction from the well to assure the integrity is provided as designed. We expect no pressure to be present and no increasing flow to result as these are both evident signs of a component failure. 

    On deep water SSBOP pressure gauges often can further relay, support and verify the reduced pressure at this point in the well, and further indicate all is as expected.

    If a MWD/LWD or similar pressure tool is also present in the down hole tubular string,  deeper well pressure from these tools can also verify and validate what has been present, to act and be used as a further safety and quality check.

    If any difference in volumes, numbers or abnormal changes are observed. Those involved would take a time out for safety, get all involved both onshore and offshore in resolution, to then manage and control change as per companies policies and procedures. Often via an email confirmation as a minimum or through having to follow a more formal management of change process.

    Other comments, observations, experiences to what organisation implement on these tests is therefore appreciated so that we all can evolve even better safe operating process and practices in this respect. 

    regards,   
    ------------------------------
    Peter Aird
    Drilling/Engineering/Training Consultant.
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: Inflow (negative) test, best practice discussion.

    Posted 04-30-2016 06:14 AM
      |   view attached

    With the publishing of a Decision Quality and Human Factors relating to decision quality I have been looking at the BP cultural issues of decision making.   There are numerous examples of where the commercial criteria dominated in decisions and this led to an optimum situation for the blowout.  To name a few:

    The production casing string is over 12,000 ft in 2 sizes (9 5/8" x 7").  It is obviously impossible to manage the cement quality over such a distance with dual ID's that a wiper plug has to deal with.  The reasons not to do a liner and tie back were not technical.

    Centralizers were minimized to reduce handling delays etc., and in actual fact it can be simulated that the well cement bond would be in adequate for the situation where migration would occur because of a geological situation.  

    A cement bond log would of shown there was no bond but was eliminated to save costs.  If the wireline trip had been made the character of the situation would of been observed and there would not have been the loss control that evolved.  

    A drill pipe set mechanical packer could of been planned as part of the cement plug and done prior to the negative pressure test and assured a two barrier plug back but was eliminated because it didn't fit with the time line to minimize costs. 

    During the negative test a 400 bbl 16 ppg LCM reserve mud system could not be disposed of over board by regulation without it being discharged from the well.  This was integrated in with the negative pressure test activity to save time and added to the complexity of pressures and fulid volumes.  Some discussion of the in the attached document. 

    SPE WA Distinguished Lecturer - Assessing & Applying Petroleum Engineering Data From the 2010 Macondo Blowout

    So will plan to have a discussion with John Turley about the issues still to be addressed that go beyond what is addressed in his book and paper while he is in Perth Western AustraliaSPE WA Distinguished Lecturer - Assessing & Applying Petroleum Engineering Data From the 2010 Macondo Blowout

    Spe-wa remove preview
    SPE WA Distinguished Lecturer - Assessing & Applying Petroleum Engineering Data From the 2010 Macondo Blowout
    Abstract: On 20 April 2010, the Macondo blowout in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico killed 11 men, burned and sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and devastated the Gulf. Investigative authorities queried mechanical systems, operating decisions, corporate cultures, safety procedures, and testimony by survivors, academics, experts, and executives.
    View this on Spe-wa >

      

    ------------------------------
    Wayne Needoba
    D&C, Decommission Project Coordinator
    LIS Thailand Co. Ltd.
    KarawaraWA