Well Integrity Technical Section

To the well integrity guru's out there

This is a query from a company outside the normal O&G community, but they operate reservoirs and wells.
If you are utilizing a commercial WIMS (well integrity management system) in your company

1. Are there any data management and QA/QC issues encountered during the implementation?
2. Did the software meeting your system integrity requirements and would recommend any changes
3. As a 1st installation, Is there any challenges you would advise the company to be aware of?

I realize the question are broad ranging questions, but before this company selects a commercial WIMS software to monitor the integrity of their wells, they would like to have some feedback from the O&G companies who have already experienced successes and pitfalls.

Thanks in advance

------------------------------
Basker Murugappan
Principal Production Technologist
Villalbilla, Spain
+34 644485970

Three basic rules:
1) Change is inevitable.
2) Everybody resists change.
3) You cant stop change
------------------------------

Hi Basker.

I've been heavily involved using WIMS for the last 10 years or so and have learned some lessons.

To answer your questions:

1. I doubt this is a bit problem. Any software provider worth their salt should have a QA/QC process to ensure the resulting data matches what was provided by the client. If this is a concern ask the WIMS provider how the data is QA/QC'd, and verify it.
2. If (and that's a big if) the implementation has been properly scoped out it should meet the requirements. When the inevitable scope creep happens, you will want to be satisfied that the chosen WIMS provider is customer focused and open to modifying to suit the new requirements. In my mind the ideal implementation should look like this:

• 1. Operator creates their standards, processes etc.  following a full review of industry standards but crucially with an understanding of their well stock, and the resources that will be made available for the WIMS deployment. There's no point in creating a standard which mandates ISO 16530 unless the resources are going to be made available to actually meet this.
  2. Operator goes to market and explains their ambitions, processes, required integrations, etc. This should hopefully stop the WIMS provider from forcing you to change your processes to fit their software (tail wagging the dog).
  3. Operator should have trial of the WIMS, asking themselves the following:
     • Does it have all the features I need, or would I need to continue to rely on Excel for some features (e.g. MAASP calculator). There's nothing wrong with this, the engineering purist in me often prefers Excel than rigid MAASP calculators.
     • Does it feel modern or was it built in the 1990s (this gives you an idea of how responsive the developers are to new feature requests).
     • Is it easy to use (i.e. is training cost going to be significant? If it's hard to use then expect resistance from some users).
     • What's the development roadmap (past and future) to determine if the WIMS will grow with the Operators or if they'll be locked into a system that never gets updated. Also, ask for a summary of the historical updates – this tells you how often new features are being rolled out.

3. Depending on the size and variety of the wellstock, the Operator should pay especially close attention when specifying their requirements and when trialling the software products. They will need to think about all the nuances that exist in their wellstock, and consider how these would be captured in the new WIMS. E.g. the full variety of wellhead and casing arrangements, dual string completions, custom activity types (e.g. wellhead elevation surveys), manual vs SCADA pressure readings etc. etc. The key is for the WIMS to be user-configurable on the "front end" to capture the nuances, otherwise you may end up finding yourself paying for the customisations after implementation, which is expensive.

I could go on for hours, but I'm happy to have a conversation with you / your contact and provide a demo of our WIMS that we've built on some hard learned lessons from the past.

Good luck!

-----------------------------

Callum Mowat

Director

Well-Scape

cmowat@well-scape.com

Hi Basker,

This is a good thread, thanks for raising those questions, which are legitimate and probably deserve a conversation and coverage within our community.

In fact, we kind of touched on some of the difference between platforms at the last SPE Europe Well Integrity Workshop last Spring. Only "kind of touched" because we didn't really have time to build a complete picture also looking at different needs and implementation issues... instead we discussed some commonalities and differences between a few platforms (not all... mostly the big names).

In addition to the good response by @Callum Mowat I would mention:

1. Data management is an issue, particularly when looking at a a varied portfolio covering different countries, sometimes different original operators, etc... units can be different, or data can simply be lost or unavailable (previous pressure tests, estimates of TOC, etc). Also, you might be faced with completely different completion types, XT configurations, etc. But to leverage on the full power of what modern WIMS platforms promise, you need a lot of data... Data entry is supposed to be easy (and offered as a "simple" migration from Peloton or OpenWells or other EDM, but no everyone will have that perfectly in order...). Next best thing would be an Excel spreadsheet which can then be used to upload data and create a group of wells... again not that easy / simple, and likely to require additional inputs / checks by humans
2. Would I like to see changes? Absolutely... the biggest 2 would be:
   1. A focus on the software to make it a better information tool, serving various users. Not just the WIMS team... but OIM's, Operations Managers... even the CEO. Of course this wider stakeholder group wants to see different things... different dashboards and visualizations, for instance. Once these ends clients like what they see, and grow to need it... the WIMS routines will be a lot easier to justify!
   2. A paradigm shift from managing the Well Integrity routines... to managing Well Integrity issues. It struck me that we seem to be using different tools with no connections between them... Why bother recording deviations from standards if we cannot also (and ultimately) demonstrate that the consequences of that deviation have been understood, assessed, and that a plan is in place (mitigations, corrective action plan, etc). The only reason we are keeping track of the integrity of our assets is because we want to be able to manage situations. It seems it is overdue for software providers to help fully connect the dots between "surveillance activities" platforms (WIMS) and MOC platforms (like DNV Synergi... or other @Claas Van Der Zwaag). When we can log into a WIMS software and be sure that this whole management is happening and we can produce infographics to prove it (I'm a big proponent of simple dashboards for top management)
3. Finally... I think this would make for a great Webinar! We (at both the P&ATS and the WITS) are trying to setup events that are closer to the worries of practitioners and this could potentially be one... @Callum Mowat would you like to be a part of it? @Basker Murugappan you could also be a speaker, and perhaps @Richard Conway could present the ad-hoc/in-house system developed by Repsol to manage their portfolio?

Hi Basker,

While designing, developing and delivering Well Integrity Data Management Systems since 2004 (Expro – SafeWells), I, and our team, have encountered many different scenarios related to implementation of WIMS and WIMS Data Management.

I feel I can answer questions 1 and 3 from my position as a software vendor, while Question 2 I will leave to our existing customers to provide their (hopefully positive) insight based upon their experiences over the last 20 years of use.

While many of our existing clients are generally following the same industry guidelines, the actual implementation of the software in place has allowed their actual systems to be moulded to suit their exact needs. There are, of course, several clients globally following different regional industry guidelines also, so the end product needs to be adaptable to suit those differencing requirements.

• 1. Are there any data management and QA/QC issues encountered during the implementation?

For a successful installation of a WIMS Data system, there are several data management requirements which need to be established….

a). Is there a clearly defined WIMS in place ? This should be established first to allow a suitable Data system to be defined around the WIMS

b). Is there clear, consistent and accurate legacy data available to represent the integrity of existing well stock ?

If so, then decisions will be required regarding how much , if any, of this requires migration to a new WIMS Data system,  followed by suitable data mapping and ETL operations.

If not, then suitable additional QA/QC measures will be required to sanitise the data to migrate (e.g. unit conversions/standardization)

c). Is there a clear understanding of the well failure model and/or "scoring"/categorization required for the well stock based upon the well risk profile and recorded events and integrity issues

d). The WIMS itself should provide a clear MOC process and the subsequent software system needs to be suitably configurable to allow these processes for a successful implementation.

3. As a 1st installation, Is there any challenges you would advise the company to be aware of?

• Some, but not all, challenges to consider may be ….

a). If yours is a global organisation, do differing geographical regions follow differing industry  guidelines and requirements? (e.g. Well Integrity guidelines, testing requirements, units, languages etc.)

b). Have a clear view of what data should be recorded against which components and/or barrier elements.

c). Data, data, data – The quality of the existing data (and ongoing data capture) is paramount to the quality of your WIDMS and reliability of the data presented from it.

d). Identify any other systems requiring integration, e.g. Annulus Pressure Monitoring,  Activity Scheduling, Well construction / component definitions and properties , documentation management etc. and ensure that the system you choose has the ability to integrate with these sources.

e). As per your e-mail footer …. "Change is inevitable"  … Choose a system which allows your requirements to change and adapt over time ( and work closely with the vendor to ensure that these adaptations can be readily made).

f). Remember that the software is a tool to help the engineers make valid decisions based upon information available, and is not a replacement for engineering expertise and experience. Maintaining good data upon which decisions are made requires good data management.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or need more information.
Regards

Ian Fraser | Technical Specialist / Product Owner | SafeWells

Expro

Good morning Folks,

I was hoping there would be more feedback from the major players.
Except of the larger IOC's and NOC's, It appears the well integrity management systems are still in their infancy for usage for the mid range and smaller O&G companies?. But I am still hoping for more feedback.

another issue.
Going thru a well integrity exercise from an oil gas perspective, we naturally seem to focus only on the well up to the wellhead or Xtree. There are several commercial software that address this aspect.

What becomes complicated is when we had to address the surface system as well.
Did one exercise recently where the subsea tree, jumper base, flowlines had to be incorporate as part of the well integrity system of the well.

There was no way to separate the well from the flowline since one system affected the other. 
Example corrosion/erosion affected the lower completion, tubing, Xtree AND surface choke, jumpers, flowline and risers. The corrosion/erosion model had to take all these components into account, the information from one component affected the other.

So, we have taken a holistic view of well integrity, not just the well but the entire subsea flow system. (We see the same issues with our land wells)
It was very difficult for most commercial software to address this aspect; we are still too focused on well integrity of the well only. 😁

------------------------------
Basker Murugappan
Principal Production Technologist
Villalbilla, Spain
+34 644485970

Three basic rules:
1) Change is inevitable.
2) Everybody resists change.
3) You cant stop change
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 08-20-2024 08:55 AM
From: Ian Fraser
Subject: Commercial WIMS software (well integrity management system) advice

Hi Basker,

While designing, developing and delivering Well Integrity Data Management Systems since 2004 (Expro – SafeWells), I, and our team, have encountered many different scenarios related to implementation of WIMS and WIMS Data Management.

I feel I can answer questions 1 and 3 from my position as a software vendor, while Question 2 I will leave to our existing customers to provide their (hopefully positive) insight based upon their experiences over the last 20 years of use.

While many of our existing clients are generally following the same industry guidelines, the actual implementation of the software in place has allowed their actual systems to be moulded to suit their exact needs. There are, of course, several clients globally following different regional industry guidelines also, so the end product needs to be adaptable to suit those differencing requirements.

• 1. Are there any data management and QA/QC issues encountered during the implementation?

For a successful installation of a WIMS Data system, there are several data management requirements which need to be established….

a). Is there a clearly defined WIMS in place ? This should be established first to allow a suitable Data system to be defined around the WIMS

b). Is there clear, consistent and accurate legacy data available to represent the integrity of existing well stock ?

If so, then decisions will be required regarding how much , if any, of this requires migration to a new WIMS Data system,  followed by suitable data mapping and ETL operations.

If not, then suitable additional QA/QC measures will be required to sanitise the data to migrate (e.g. unit conversions/standardization)

c). Is there a clear understanding of the well failure model and/or "scoring"/categorization required for the well stock based upon the well risk profile and recorded events and integrity issues

d). The WIMS itself should provide a clear MOC process and the subsequent software system needs to be suitably configurable to allow these processes for a successful implementation.

3. As a 1st installation, Is there any challenges you would advise the company to be aware of?

• Some, but not all, challenges to consider may be ….

a). If yours is a global organisation, do differing geographical regions follow differing industry  guidelines and requirements? (e.g. Well Integrity guidelines, testing requirements, units, languages etc.)

b). Have a clear view of what data should be recorded against which components and/or barrier elements.

c). Data, data, data – The quality of the existing data (and ongoing data capture) is paramount to the quality of your WIDMS and reliability of the data presented from it.

d). Identify any other systems requiring integration, e.g. Annulus Pressure Monitoring,  Activity Scheduling, Well construction / component definitions and properties , documentation management etc. and ensure that the system you choose has the ability to integrate with these sources.

e). As per your e-mail footer …. "Change is inevitable"  … Choose a system which allows your requirements to change and adapt over time ( and work closely with the vendor to ensure that these adaptations can be readily made).

f). Remember that the software is a tool to help the engineers make valid decisions based upon information available, and is not a replacement for engineering expertise and experience. Maintaining good data upon which decisions are made requires good data management.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or need more information.
Regards

Ian Fraser | Technical Specialist / Product Owner | SafeWells

Expro