SPE 164230

Well Integrity Management System (WIMS): Coupled Engineering Analysis

Robello Samuel, Halliburton

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 10–13 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Managing well barriers and maintaining well integrity within limits is challenging for aging wells and has a major effect on
extending the life of wells and reducing operational costs. This is important for both the design phase and the operational
phase. As more real-time data become available, the efficient use of quality data for analysis has become important. Little has
been done to include some of the important engineering analyses in this process. Standard methods and guidelines are
traditionally used before or after they occur, but the key to savings and success is avoiding the risks associated with them. If
risks are identified early, better solutions can be provided to reduce the associated costs and take remedial action. This paper
will present the importance of engineering analyses, such as wellhead movement, trapper-annular pressure buildup,
maximum allowable surface pressure, temperature and pressure effects on the integrity, casing wear, corrosion, and erosion
significance, as well as zonal isolation and estimation of the tubing or casing safety factor as a quantifiable monitoring
system. The presented threshold limits help to compare the actual and average values, either on a single-well or multiple-well
basis in an asset. Continuous monitoring helps identify the risk involved with engineering analysis rather than setting simple
limits and following the workflow process.

Introduction
Well integrity is important in all phases of well construction and has attracted much attention after the well-control issues
experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. Besides monitoring the well integrity, management is essential to develop the assets in an
economical way so that long-term sustained production can be maintained. This paper mainly concentrates on the assets
where the wells are producing for many years. Most of the well-integrity issues stem from the following problems:
 Wellhead movement
 Annular pressure buildup
 Corrosion of tubing/casing
 Erosion of the tubing/casing
 Temperature

Wellhead movement can result from several reasons, such as temperature cycling or subsidence of formation; thus, it can
be of wellhead growth or wellhead subsidence. Annular pressure buildup may be a result of thermal effects or because of
communication between the annuli, and the challenges are associated with the sustained annuli pressures in various annuli.
The corrosion is another important problem in managing the well integrity and may be because of improper tubing and casing
strings used in the past and may result in quick degradation or failure of the strings. The corrosion is a complex problem and
has to be combined with engineering, as well as a physical monitoring system. When erosional velocity is exceeded, the
threshold velocity increases the degradation of the thickness of the tubulars and, thereby, the loss of safety factors associated
with the tubing and casing designs.
Even though there are guidelines and best practices based on the industry standards, such as NORSOK, API, and ISO, the
absence of clear guidelines on the rigorous engineering calculations result in costly well maintenance. The use of data from
the wells can be used to predict the trend. The historical data and failure frequencies can be used to estimate the risk expected
from the wells. This paper outlines the engineering analysis involved in quantifying the risk involved in the well integrity.
The tools and engineering options available during the planning stage can very well be used for the monitoring and managing
of the well integrity during the production stage as well. In this way, the life of the wells can be extended, especially in
mature fields.
2 SPE 164230

Real-Time Monitoring and Data Trend

Real-time data are important for the simultaneous estimation of the risk involved, but also maintain the integrity of the wells,
thereby reducing costly failures. The data can be used to compare against the historic data and actions taken. Data trending is
important in addition to data analysis and mining. The raw data can be cleaned and filtered depending on the area for
processing and analysis. The data can be further used either for analytical calculation or artificial-intelligence-based analysis,
such as neural network, support vector machines, fuzzy logic, etc. In the data-gathering stage, a variety of continuously
measured well data are transferred and stored in an online historian database. The collected data can be used for the following
analysis (Fig. 1).
 Engineering models as well as artificial-intelligence-based models
 Calibration of the engineering model
 Trend analysis of operational parameters
 Setting the limits
 Identifying the long-term and short-term trends

This will help to quantify the deviation from the normal and compare it against the engineering models. An example of
the engineering calculations involved in estimating the tubing safety factor is shown in Fig.2. The workflow involves the
retrieval of wellbore and other production data from a repository and performs the following calculations.
 Temperature and flow analysis
 Basic and advanced casing/tubing stress analysis
 Wellhead movement calculations
 Annular pressure build-up estimation
 Casing/tubing safety factors estimation

Use of historic data is also important to check the trend in failures aside from monitoring the pressure signature prior to
failure for forward prediction. The trend using the historical data can be used to estimate the probability of failure and
calibrate the engineering models. Fig. 3 shows the trend plot for a specific variable from a well. In this case, the upper trend
is the oil produced, the middle trend is the gas-oil ratio, and the lower trend is the water cut. Each trend is based on multiple
time series of data. The left portion, approximately 75%, shows the historical data of the actual values and the model
predictions for the time interval. This display enables the user to monitor the accuracy of the model over time. The right
portion of each trend projects the model predictions across the next 30 days if all inputs (for example, the injection rate of the
pattern injector) remain constant. The prediction model can be either with a neural network algorithm or support-vector
machines or fuzzy logic.
Because the artificial-intelligence models are a statistical model and the inputs contain some degree of uncertainty in their
values, the outputs (or predictions) also contain uncertainty. The trend plots show the uncertainty of the output prediction (oil
rate, gas-oil ratio, and water cut) with three lines. The central line is the best average prediction. The upper line represents the
value at the second standard deviation value of uncertainty, and the lower value is the prediction at the minus 2 standard
deviations of uncertainty. The final value on the oil-production rate and water-cut plots is a horizontal line that represents the
target production for oil rate and the upper limit for water cut.

Wellhead Growth
The casing program constitutes a significant portion of the well cost, and this calls for an alternate approach to the casing-
design criterion particularly relevant to high temperature and high pressures that are encountered in ultra-deep wells.
Challenges associated with extreme depth, pressures, and temperatures, where annular fluid expansion is a problem, translate
to additional problems, not only in casing design integrity, but also at the wellhead (Fig. 4). It is, therefore, required to align
design objectives closer to the changed requirements, which necessitates changes in traditional casing design methods. The
design implemented should be without sacrificing the safety and integrity of the well. The intricate nature of relational
expressions can also be a hindrance in comparing different designs under certain conditions. Wellhead growth index (WHI) is
a parameter that encapsulates the annuli fluid expansion and provides a simple, practical way to view not only the casing
movement, but also the fluid expansion in the annuli during the course of drilling (Samuel et al. 1999, 2000, 2002). It is
defined as the ratio of the annular fluid expansion of the casing to the actual volume of the exposed segment above the top of
the cement. The annular fluid expansion includes the unconstrained volume change and the annulus volume change owing to
annulus pressures. Wellhead growth gives an estimate of the circumferential and axial strain on the casings. With the
circumferential and lateral strain, the total volume of the expansion of all casing strings for all casing segments is given by
Eq. 1. The total area of annulus cross-section for each casing string is given by Eq. 2. Using Eqs. 1 and 2 with
approximations, the WHI for multiple casing strings is given by Eq. 3.
SPE 164230 3

WHI gives a quantitative predictive capability to interpret the results of these calculations. The higher the WHI, the
higher the severity of the casing design involved will be. Calculation of WHI at different stages of the casing design will aid
in comparing the relative rigorousness of the overall casing design.
Wellhead growth gives an estimate of the circumferential and axial strain on the casings. With the circumferential and
lateral strain, the total volume of the expansion of all casing strings for all casing segments is given by:


 

m n
V    2 dd  d 2   va  (1)
j 1 i  1  4 i, j

The total area of annulus cross-section for each casing string is given by:


a   D 
2
(2)
4 i, j

Using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 with approximations, the wellhead growth index for multiple casing strings is given by:

 
  4 2dd  d    v a 
m n
2

j 1 i 1  i, j
WHI  (3)

 4 D  2

i, j


WHI gives a quantitative predictive capability to interpret the integrity of the casing in real time. The higher the WHI, the
higher the severity of the casing design involved will be. Calculation of WHI at different stages of the casing design will aid
in comparing the relative rigorousness of the overall casing design.

Work Flows
Quantifying the complexity of well integrity can be based on physical reasoning and can be characterized with the safety
factors of the load conditions. This will provide additional insight about the severity of risk involved. This methodology puts
these engineering calculations under one quantifiable value to test the susceptibility of the string under various conditions.
The load profiles based on the top of the cement, production, and injection operations and the history of the well are
important to ensure the integrity of the well. For example, sustained annulus pressures in the annuli are an indication of
barrier failures, which, in turn, affects the integrity of the casing, tubing, and well as a whole.
Fig. 5 shows the workflow involved in case of annular pressure observed in the annulus of the well. The pressures can be
specified and can be different for gas-injection wells. If the limit is exceeded, the safety factors of the casings have to be
checked and, if they are not within the limits the well, should be shut in immediately and remedial measures taken. If not, the
pressure should be bled to bring back to the limit and observe the increase. An example of the trend with the maximum and
minimum limits is shown in Fig. 6. It also the shows the actual value of the trends that can be compared against the average
values from few wells in an area or an asset.
Use of proper tubing loads is important to estimate the design safety factors and, thereby, the well integrity. Some of the
loads that need to be considered are;
 Burst condition owing to tubing leak. This load case can be used for both production and injection scenarios
representing high-surface pressure. A worst-case scenario based on gas gradient extending upward from the reservoir
pressure at the perforation can be considered.
 Burst condition owing to stimulation surface leak. Injection pressure at the top of the production annulus as a result of
tubing leak at the surface can be considered as a worst-case scenario.
 Burst condition owing to injection down the casing. This may be encountered from operations, such as fracturing
operations.

Corrosion
Like tubular wear, corrosion can have major detrimental effect of the mechanical integrity of tubular systems and may be
included in the tubular design. Corrosion pits act as stress risers and decrease the pressure integrity of the tubing, which
further results in tubing failure. Pitting corrosion studies indicate that pitting corrosion is a localized form of corrosion by
which holes are produced in the structure wall (Gairn et al. 1988, Crabtree et al. 1998, Toyed et al. 2000, and Moat et al.
2001) Pitting causes localized attack on the tubing and is one of the most destructive forms of corrosion. The loss of weight
owing to pits is much less and, thus, makes it difficult to detect the intensity of pitting corrosion. The most damaging load for
tubing is the burst load. Burst loads to the well tubing are originated from the column of production fluid, which holds a very
4 SPE 164230

high pressure and acts on the inside wall of the tubular structure. Even though the tubing is designed initially with proper
safety factors, the change in the loading condition during the life of the well may lead to bursting of tubing owing to
degradation of the tubing strength caused by corrosion.
The stress concentration factors (SCF) formulae can be applied directly into the tubing pressure-rating equation to predict
the degraded pressure ratings. The predicted results can be used in both designing and evaluating tubing strength with sphere-
like cavities at surface. API burst pressure rating is given by Eq. 4 (API 1994):

 1 
Pb  0.875  2 y   . (4)
 0 
d / t

Applying the approximate SCF formulae to the API burst pressure-rating formula yields:

 1  1 
Pb  0.875  2 y   . (5)
 
 o  K tg
d / t 
Where K tg represents the stress concentration factor (SCF) (Sun, Samuel, and Goo 2004 and Samuel 2007). The above
expression can be used to estimate de-rated tubing strength with spherical cavities for different geometries. Fig. 7 shows
calculated burst pressure ratings for tubing category QT-1000 3.5x3.094, which can be easily used by the production
engineers.
The corrosion rate (CR) can be calculated using the following equations (NORSOK, Gunaltun et al. 2010, respectively).

0.146  0.0324 log f co 2

S 
CR  Kf co2   f  pH  mm/yr (6)
 19 

Where constants, K and f  pH  , are based on different temperatures.

1710
5 .8   0.67 log f co 2
CR  Fk 10 T
mm/yr (7)

The workflow involved in corrosion management and tubular load safety factor is shown in Fig. 8. In this workflow-
monitoring process, the type of corrosion is important, as the pipe can get weakened so quickly that it can no longer
withstand operating loads. The most severe forms of corrosions are sulfide stress-corrosion cracking, chloride-stress
cracking, and hydrogen embrittlement.

Sour Service Management

The workflow involved in corrosion management and tubular load safety factor is shown in Fig. 9. In this workflow-
monitoring process, the type of corrosion is important, as the pipe can get weakened so quickly that it can no longer
withstand operating conditions. NACE standard MR0175 provides the material selection for sour environments and the
material requirements. It also provides the proprietary grades and corrosion-resistant alloy (CRA) materials suitable for use in
sour environment. Different materials can be used at different depths in the wellbore based on a temperature profile and the
expected operating maximum temperature. Usually, the undisturbed temperature profile is often used for the design because
it represents a conservative estimate of the minimum steady-state temperature that the pipe could experience while exposed to
the sour environment. The axial, collapse, and burst-design factors should be adjusted to account for the sour zones
encountered at various sections of the well. The suggested design factors are detailed in ERCB (2009). The design factors
need to be modified depending on the condition and production loads.

Erosion
Unlike corrosion, erosion is a mechanical process by which the thickness of the tubulars is reduced. When erosional velocity
exceeds the threshold value, the metal reduction will be faster, which will result in the loss of wall thickness and, thereby,
reduction in the operational safety factor. The threshold velocity is given by the equation (API 4E)

Vc  c  ft/sec (8)
SPE 164230 5

Where, c, is a constant and is 100 for long projects, 150 for short-life projects, and greater than 200 for peak-flow
projects. The erosion-corrosion rate can be given in the form (Shadly et al. 1998):

ECR  cV n ft/sec (9)

Where, v, is the flow velocity, and the exponent, n, varies between 1 and 3, depending on whether it is corrosion or
erosion. For corrosion, n is closer to 1, and for erosion, n is closer to 3.
The erosivity can be estimated using the following equation (Shadly-Shirazi 1998).

ECR  Co FsatC  f t  f pH mm/yr (10)

The workflow involved in corrosion management and tubular load safety factor is shown in Fig.10.

Coupled Risk Factor and Risk Analysis

The estimation of the risk and risk factors are essential at the start of the project. Owing to various uncertainties involved
while drilling, it needs to get updated with all the available data. Coupled system risk analysis is carried out to prevent
erroneous results when considered in isolation. Individual risk factors are estimated to arrive at the comprehensive unified
approach. Individual risk factors also provide the background risk estimates. Estimation of the risk factor is complex, which
involves lot of variable, and, as such, there is no fool-proof method involved.
The primary color-coded barrier limits are given as guidelines:

Green:
- No changes
- Well barrier working properly
Yellow:
- One barrier has been damaged but still works acceptably. Other barriers work properly.
- Well still working properly
- No workover is required
Red:
- One or more barriers has been damaged and the well is not working properly
- High blowout probability
- Workover required

Conclusions
Managing well barriers and maintaining well integrity within limits in isolation may not provide the complete picture of well
integrity. The study also provides a coupled risk assessment with engineering calculations in a broader context, even though
it is a complex process. The complex engineering calculations have to be coupled to estimate the system integrity. The paper
provides various engineering calculations that have to be coupled. The importance of engineering analyses, such as wellhead
movement, trapper-annular pressure buildup, maximum allowable surface pressure, temperature and pressure effects on the
integrity, casing wear, corrosion, and erosion significance, as well as zonal isolation and estimation of the tubing or casing
safety factor are highlighted. The results of this analysis suggest that well integrity should be monitored in real time so that
the engineering calculations can be calibrated for better prediction. thereby reducing risk factors under different discrete
operation scenarios.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express his appreciation to Halliburton for the opportunity to present this paper.

Nomenclature
d = casing diameter, in.
do = outside diameter of the tubular structure, in.
d = change in the casing diameter, in.
D = annulus gap between the casings, in.
f co2 = fugacity of CO2
i =number of casing sections
j =number of annulus
Ktg = stress concentration factor (SCF)
6 SPE 164230

 = segment length of the exposed casing, ft

 = wellhead growth, in.
n = number of exposed casing sections
m = number of casings
Pb = burst pressure rating of the material, psi
T = tubular structure wall thickness, in.
SCF = Stress concentration factor
T = Temperature (K)
V = annulus volume, ft3
va = volumetric change due to annulus pressures
V = change in the annulus volume, ft3
WHI = wellhead growth index
y = yield strength, psi

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cycles/sec  1.0* E + 00 = Hz
cp  1.0* E − 03 = Pa·s
ft  3.048* E − 01 = m
2
ft  9.290 304* E − 02 = m 2
gal  3.785 412 E − 03 = m 3
in.  2.54* E + 00 = cm
kip  4.448 222 E + 03 = N
psi  6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.

References
API Bull. 5C3, Bulletin on Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe and Line Pipe Properties, sixth edition,
1994. API, Dallas, TX (July 1994)
Crabtree, A.R., Skrzypek, H., and Eng, P. 1998. Investigation of Coiled Tubing Failures over 2 Years and Corrosion Prevention. Paper SPE
46024 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas, USA, 15–16 April.
ERCB Directive 010, Energy Resources Conservation Board, December, 2009.
Gair, D.J. and Moulds, T.P. 1998. Tubular Corrosion in the West Sole Gas Field. SPEPE, 3 (2): 147–152. SPE 11879.
Gunaltun, Y., Kaewpradap, U., Singer, M. et al. 2010. Progress in the Prediction of Top of the Line Corrosion and Challenges to Predict
Corrosion Rates Measured in Gas Pipelines. Paper 10093 presented at the NACE Corrosion, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 14–18
March.
Mowat, D.E., Edgerton, M.C., Wade, E.H.R. 2001. Erskine Field HPHT Workover and Tubing Corrosion Failure Investigation. Paper
SPE/IADC 67779 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March.
NORSOK Standard, M-506 march 2005.
Samuel, G.R. and Gonzales, A. 1999. Minimum Cost Casing Design. Paper SPE 36448 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3–6 October.
Samuel, G.R. and Gonzales, A. 2000. Wellhead growth index aids multistring casing design. Oil & Gas J.
Samuel, R.. 2007. Downhole Drilling Tools – Theory and Practice for Students and Engineers. Gulf Publishing.
Shadley, J.R, Shirazi, S.A, and Dayalan, E.F. 1998. Prediction of Erosion-Corrosion Penetration Rate in a Carbon Dioxide Environment
with Sand. Nace International, Corrosion, December 1998.
Sun, K., Samuel, R., and Guo, B. 2005. Effect of Stress Concentration Factors due to Corrosion for Production Tubing Design. SPEPF, 20
(4): 334–339. SPE 90094.
Toye, T.N., Pantaleo, T., and Rheinlander, M.D. 2000. Coiled Tubing Inspection and Tubing Management: A Case Study. Paper SPE
60748 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas, USA, 5–6 April.
SPE 164230 7

Figures

Fig. 1—Coupled Engineering Analysis.

Fig. 2—Tubing Safety Factor Calculation Workflow.

8 SPE 164230

Fig. 3—Trend Prediction.

Fig. 4—Wellhead Growth.

SPE 164230 9

Fig. 5—Annular Pressure Management.

Fig. 6—Trend Monitoring.

10 SPE 164230

Fig. 7—Burst Pressure Ratings of QT-1000 3.5x3.094

Tubing with Spherical Cavities.

Fig. 8—Corrosion Management.

SPE 164230 11

Fig. 9—Sour Service Management.

Fig. 10—Erosion Management.