Well Integrity Technical Section

Hello Justin,

I have a lot of experience using them.

I have used a pressure-activated sealant for a casing hanger leak with success, and after many years was still holding.
I have used the same previous one for a leak in the seal bore in the nipple for a SSSV and it didnt stop the leak because the leak was too large and it ended up blocking the Control Line, even though it is pressure activated and it should have not solidify in the Control Line. They used more and more aggressive sealants and it still didn't work.

I have used another type of sealant (temperature/time activated) for a flowing annulus and it worked perfectly after few batches.
For SAP, I prefer the temperature/time activated. The main company doing this (let's call it X company to not do publicity) has a lot of experience on this. While for completions leaks, I used to like the more the pressure activated ones, based on my experience and on the fact that the main company I know doing completion leaks have a lot of experience using pressure-activated ones. However, considering the CL block, I might rethink which company to use for completions leaks now. 

Normally, they will tell you if they have experience on this type of leaks. Talk to the different companies, ask them to send you reports on similar jobs and talk to their technical people. You will know immediately if they know what they are talking about or not.

Thank you and regards,
Faisal

Thanks Faisal,

For these applications, in particular for the time-activated sealants, how are you verifying them? For the time-activated sealants, it appears you are limited to inflow testing - but can this limit the operating limits depending on the differential you are able to apply at the time of testing?

Or are you relying on an increased frequency of monitoring/inspection to verify that the sealant is holding against whatever differential it is experiencing over time, i.e. it's a long-term temporary fix?

Thanks

Justin

Hello Justin,

I have a lot of experience using them.

I have used a pressure-activated sealant for a casing hanger leak with success, and after many years was still holding.
I have used the same previous one for a leak in the seal bore in the nipple for a SSSV and it didnt stop the leak because the leak was too large and it ended up blocking the Control Line, even though it is pressure activated and it should have not solidify in the Control Line. They used more and more aggressive sealants and it still didn't work.

I have used another type of sealant (temperature/time activated) for a flowing annulus and it worked perfectly after few batches.
For SAP, I prefer the temperature/time activated. The main company doing this (let's call it X company to not do publicity) has a lot of experience on this. While for completions leaks, I used to like the more the pressure activated ones, based on my experience and on the fact that the main company I know doing completion leaks have a lot of experience using pressure-activated ones. However, considering the CL block, I might rethink which company to use for completions leaks now. 

Normally, they will tell you if they have experience on this type of leaks. Talk to the different companies, ask them to send you reports on similar jobs and talk to their technical people. You will know immediately if they know what they are talking about or not.

Thank you and regards,
Faisal

Hello Justin,

I have verified the pressure-activated sealants with both positive pressure testing and inflow testing. Not all sealant companies do the positive pressure testing but the one I have experience using does and they do it by default. I have even used N2 to test the hanger leak.

Normally, the pressure they will apply is the pressure at which the leak is happening, i.e. if it is leaking at 1500 psi they will pressure test at 1500 psi, then bleed off and inflow test. 

Depending on the leak position and criticality, I increase the monitoring of the leak. You never know if they seal job will fail after 1 week or 20 years so you have to increase the monitoring but it might end up being a well's full life solution but nobody knows beforehand.

Thanks and regards,

Faisal

Thanks Faisal,

For these applications, in particular for the time-activated sealants, how are you verifying them? For the time-activated sealants, it appears you are limited to inflow testing - but can this limit the operating limits depending on the differential you are able to apply at the time of testing?

Or are you relying on an increased frequency of monitoring/inspection to verify that the sealant is holding against whatever differential it is experiencing over time, i.e. it's a long-term temporary fix?

Thanks

Justin

Hello Justin,

I have verified the pressure-activated sealants with both positive pressure testing and inflow testing. Not all sealant companies do the positive pressure testing but the one I have experience using does and they do it by default. I have even used N2 to test the hanger leak.

Normally, the pressure they will apply is the pressure at which the leak is happening, i.e. if it is leaking at 1500 psi they will pressure test at 1500 psi, then bleed off and inflow test. 

Depending on the leak position and criticality, I increase the monitoring of the leak. You never know if they seal job will fail after 1 week or 20 years so you have to increase the monitoring but it might end up being a well's full life solution but nobody knows beforehand.

Thanks and regards,

Faisal

Thanks Faisal,

For these applications, in particular for the time-activated sealants, how are you verifying them? For the time-activated sealants, it appears you are limited to inflow testing - but can this limit the operating limits depending on the differential you are able to apply at the time of testing?

Or are you relying on an increased frequency of monitoring/inspection to verify that the sealant is holding against whatever differential it is experiencing over time, i.e. it's a long-term temporary fix?

Thanks

Justin

Hello Justin,

I have a lot of experience using them.

I have used a pressure-activated sealant for a casing hanger leak with success, and after many years was still holding.
I have used the same previous one for a leak in the seal bore in the nipple for a SSSV and it didnt stop the leak because the leak was too large and it ended up blocking the Control Line, even though it is pressure activated and it should have not solidify in the Control Line. They used more and more aggressive sealants and it still didn't work.

I have used another type of sealant (temperature/time activated) for a flowing annulus and it worked perfectly after few batches.
For SAP, I prefer the temperature/time activated. The main company doing this (let's call it X company to not do publicity) has a lot of experience on this. While for completions leaks, I used to like the more the pressure activated ones, based on my experience and on the fact that the main company I know doing completion leaks have a lot of experience using pressure-activated ones. However, considering the CL block, I might rethink which company to use for completions leaks now. 

Normally, they will tell you if they have experience on this type of leaks. Talk to the different companies, ask them to send you reports on similar jobs and talk to their technical people. You will know immediately if they know what they are talking about or not.

Thank you and regards,
Faisal

Hello Justin,

I have verified the pressure-activated sealants with both positive pressure testing and inflow testing. Not all sealant companies do the positive pressure testing but the one I have experience using does and they do it by default. I have even used N2 to test the hanger leak.

Normally, the pressure they will apply is the pressure at which the leak is happening, i.e. if it is leaking at 1500 psi they will pressure test at 1500 psi, then bleed off and inflow test. 

Depending on the leak position and criticality, I increase the monitoring of the leak. You never know if they seal job will fail after 1 week or 20 years so you have to increase the monitoring but it might end up being a well's full life solution but nobody knows beforehand.

Thanks and regards,

Faisal

Thanks Faisal,

For these applications, in particular for the time-activated sealants, how are you verifying them? For the time-activated sealants, it appears you are limited to inflow testing - but can this limit the operating limits depending on the differential you are able to apply at the time of testing?

Or are you relying on an increased frequency of monitoring/inspection to verify that the sealant is holding against whatever differential it is experiencing over time, i.e. it's a long-term temporary fix?

Thanks

Justin

Hello Justin,

I have a lot of experience using them.

I have used a pressure-activated sealant for a casing hanger leak with success, and after many years was still holding.
I have used the same previous one for a leak in the seal bore in the nipple for a SSSV and it didnt stop the leak because the leak was too large and it ended up blocking the Control Line, even though it is pressure activated and it should have not solidify in the Control Line. They used more and more aggressive sealants and it still didn't work.

I have used another type of sealant (temperature/time activated) for a flowing annulus and it worked perfectly after few batches.
For SAP, I prefer the temperature/time activated. The main company doing this (let's call it X company to not do publicity) has a lot of experience on this. While for completions leaks, I used to like the more the pressure activated ones, based on my experience and on the fact that the main company I know doing completion leaks have a lot of experience using pressure-activated ones. However, considering the CL block, I might rethink which company to use for completions leaks now. 

Normally, they will tell you if they have experience on this type of leaks. Talk to the different companies, ask them to send you reports on similar jobs and talk to their technical people. You will know immediately if they know what they are talking about or not.

Thank you and regards,
Faisal

Faisal, thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

Hello Justin,

I have verified the pressure-activated sealants with both positive pressure testing and inflow testing. Not all sealant companies do the positive pressure testing but the one I have experience using does and they do it by default. I have even used N2 to test the hanger leak.

Normally, the pressure they will apply is the pressure at which the leak is happening, i.e. if it is leaking at 1500 psi they will pressure test at 1500 psi, then bleed off and inflow test. 

Depending on the leak position and criticality, I increase the monitoring of the leak. You never know if they seal job will fail after 1 week or 20 years so you have to increase the monitoring but it might end up being a well's full life solution but nobody knows beforehand.

Thanks and regards,

Faisal

Thanks Faisal,

For these applications, in particular for the time-activated sealants, how are you verifying them? For the time-activated sealants, it appears you are limited to inflow testing - but can this limit the operating limits depending on the differential you are able to apply at the time of testing?

Or are you relying on an increased frequency of monitoring/inspection to verify that the sealant is holding against whatever differential it is experiencing over time, i.e. it's a long-term temporary fix?

Thanks

Justin

Hello Justin,

I have a lot of experience using them.

I have used a pressure-activated sealant for a casing hanger leak with success, and after many years was still holding.
I have used the same previous one for a leak in the seal bore in the nipple for a SSSV and it didnt stop the leak because the leak was too large and it ended up blocking the Control Line, even though it is pressure activated and it should have not solidify in the Control Line. They used more and more aggressive sealants and it still didn't work.

I have used another type of sealant (temperature/time activated) for a flowing annulus and it worked perfectly after few batches.
For SAP, I prefer the temperature/time activated. The main company doing this (let's call it X company to not do publicity) has a lot of experience on this. While for completions leaks, I used to like the more the pressure activated ones, based on my experience and on the fact that the main company I know doing completion leaks have a lot of experience using pressure-activated ones. However, considering the CL block, I might rethink which company to use for completions leaks now. 

Normally, they will tell you if they have experience on this type of leaks. Talk to the different companies, ask them to send you reports on similar jobs and talk to their technical people. You will know immediately if they know what they are talking about or not.

Thank you and regards,
Faisal