Abstract

Qatar Petroleums supergiant Dukhan field located onshore Qatar has a mature well inventory
of hundreds of wells. Mitigating well integrity risk without affecting crude oil production and
water injection targets is critical to sustaining revenue streams from the field. This involves a
large number of integrity repair wellwork with workover rigs. Performing such a wellwork
campaign is time-intensive and without adequate prioritization has the potential of jeopardizing
well integrity and causing safety/environmental issues besides adversely affecting the
production and injection levels.This paper discusses a qualitative model that has been
developed and used to prioritize repair wellwork in Dukhan field. The model is centered round
integrity risk level and revenue potential of wells. A set of integrity parameters including status
of surface and downhole barriers determines integrity risk level. Another set of reservoir
management and well capability parameters determines revenue potential. Each of the wells is
then assigned scores to reflect the risk level and the revenue potential. Cross-scaling of such
scores defines the priority of a repair wellwork. Using the above approach for wellwork
prioritization has been effective in mitigating integrity risk and maintaining revenue potential of
the large inventory of mature wells.

Introduction
Dukhan field is located onshore Qatar approximately 80 km to west of Doha, the capital of the
State of Qatar. The field has a mature inventory of a large number of wells. Qatar Petroleum
(QP) manages integrity of such wells via its established well integrity monitoring and remedial
wellwork program. Remedial wellwork program involves a considerable number of repair
wellwork with workover rigs. Performing such a wellwork campaign is time and cost intensive.
Timely execution of repair wellwork is critical to avoiding safety and environmental issues. It
also has a consequential impact on maintaining the fields production/injection levels and hence
the revenue potential. It is therefore necessary to prioritize repair wellwork suitably.
A qualitative model has been developed and used to prioritize the repair wellwork campaign.
This model considers a set of integrity parameters including status of surface and downhole
barriers to determine integrity risk level for each well and corresponsing urgency of repair

IPTC 16657
Well Integrity Risk Mitigation Vis-A-Vis Revenue Potential: A Qualitative
Model for Wellwork Prioritization in Dukhan Field, Qatar
Sanjay K Singh, J ose Negron, Nasser Al-Marri, Nasir Murtaza Arijo, Qatar Petroleum
Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 2628 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435


2 IPTC 16657
wellwork. It also considers a set of reservoir management and well capability parameters to
determine the wells importance from production or injection standpoint. A scoring method is
then used to define priority of repair wellwork.
Subsequent sections of this paper discuss intricacies of the model and how the model has been
used to mitigate integrity risk and maintain revenue potential of the large number of mature
wells.

Integrity Parameters
The qualitative model for wellwork prioritization considers a set of integrity parameters that can
be examined during a wells operation phase. Such parameters include:
1. Critical Conditions
2. Tubing, Casing & Cement Status
3. Sustained Annuli Pressures
4. Surveillance Logs Output
5. Wellhead Status
1. Critical Conditions
Critical conditions are defined as clear evidences of surface hydrocarbon release, wellbore
communicating to a shallow aquifer or parted completion string. These conditions usually arise
because of either a sudden failure of a well component or a prolonged and undetected
compromise on one or more of the other integry parameters discussed in 2 through 5 below.
Such critical conditions require immediate attention and repair wellwork in these cases assume
top priority.
2. Tubing, Casing & Cement Status
Mechanical integrity of tubing string (including packer) is necessary to prevent casing from
getting exposed to pressure and produced/injected fluid. Integrity of tubing string is ascertained
by pressure testing of tubing string against a tubing tail plug. Tubing corrosion is determined by
running caliper logs.
Cemented casing is a constructed barrier between wellbore and formations. Mechanical
integrity of casing and cement isolation is necessary for preventing wellbore and behind-
wellbore crossflow between reservoirs and aquifers. QP practices require a dual casing barrier
against corrosive aquifers. Specified lengths of continuous good cement are also required for
behind casing isolation between key permeable zones. Means to establish status of casing and
cement during a wells operation phase are limited and inconclusive in many cases. However,
detailed investigation of well construction history, annuli pressure history followed by casing and
annuli pressure tests provide indicative evidences.
3. Sustained Annuli Pressures
Procedures for drilling and completing wells are designed such that no pressure should be seen
on any one of the annuli during the wells operation phase. The exceptions are wells on gaslift,
where pressure in annulus between tubing and production casing is due to lift gas pressure or
the wells without packer. Thermal expansion of tubing, casing or packer fluid when the well is
first placed on production may also cause pressures to build up in one or more of the annuli;
however these pressures should not recur once they are bled off and the well is in normal
IPTC 16657 3
production mode.
Pressure in cemented annuli between two casings develops due to one or more of the following
factors:
Cement channeling
Micro-annuli
Incomplete cement circulation
Casing leak(s)
Leak through wellhead seal(s)
Pressure in annulus between tubing and production/ injection casing develops due to one or
more of the following factors:
Production/ injection casing leak
Tubing or packer leak(s)
Tubing bonnet and hanger pack-off leak
Monitoring of annuli pressures establishes whether or not the well has sustained annuli
pressures.
4. Surveillance Logs Output
Certain surveillance logs that can be run during the wells operation phase (such as
temperature, flowmeter, caliper logs etc.) provide evidences of tubing string corrosion, wellbore
and behind casing crossflows. Output of such logs is considered as one of the parameters in
determining integrity risk level.
5. Wellhead Status
Wellhead, besides enabling surface controls during a wells operation, provides sealing
mechanism across tubing head and different annuli. Possible leak points considered for
determining wellhead status are as following:
Tubing hanger seal
Flanged connection between tubing hanger & Christmas tree
Tubing head spool ports (packing, test & SCSSV control line ports) and tiedown screws
Body & bonnet of master valve and casing valve
Casing head spool ports (packing & test ports)
Production/ Injection casing primary and secondary seals
Intermediate casing primary and secondary seals
Body & bonnet of annuli valves
Visual observation, function test and hydraulic pressure test provide condition of the above
points and hence, the status of wellhead.


4 IPTC 16657
Reservoir Management / Well Capability Parameters
The qualitative model for wellwork prioritization also considers a range of reservoir and well
capability parameters to determine the wells importance from production and injection
standpoint and hence, its revenue potential. Such parameters include:
1. Remaining Reserve (RR)
2. Oil Rate Hierarchy (ORH)
3. Water Oil Ratio Hierarchy (WORH)
4. Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) Hierarchy (GORH)
5. Oil Rate Deviation (ORD)
6. Reservoir Pressure Hierarchy (RPH)
7. Water Injection Rate Heterogeneity (WIRH)
8. Water Injection Rate Deviation (WIRD)
9. Well Status (WS)
1. Remaining Reserve (RR)
RR for a well is a reservoir management parameter that signifies how much of oil reserve the
well can drain (if oil producer) or support (if water injector). The wells importance is according
to the RR assigned to the well.
2. Oil Rate Hierarchy (ORH)
ORH is an oil producer wells capability parameter that shows how fast the well can drain the
reserve in its area of influence. This is obtained from reliable and recent production rate tests. A
well capable of producing higher oil rate is deemed to accelerate revenue stream compared to
other wells. The wells importance therefore is defined according to its position with respect to
other wells in the oil rate hierarchy - the higher is the wells oil rate production capability; the
higher is its importance.
3. Water Oil Ratio Hierarchy (WORH)
WORH is an oil producer wells capability parameter that shows how much water is produced
with every barrel of oil. Dukhan field produces under a peripheral waterflood scheme. Under
such scheme, driven fluid (oil) is produced at the expense of driving fluid (water) as the flood
front advances into oil producers. Water Oil Ratio is an indicator of the expense of driving fluid
(water) and hence the reservoir energy to produce a barrel of oil. The wells importance is
defined according its position with respect to other wells in the water oil ratio hierarchy - the
lower is the wells water oil ratio; the higher is its importance.
4. Gas Oil Ratio Hierarchy (GORH)
GORH is an oil producer wells capability parameter that shows how much gas is produced with
every barrel of oil. It is an indicator of the expense of reservoir energy (free & solution gas) to
produce a barrel of oil. The wells importance is defined according its position with respect to
other wells in the gas oil raio hierarchy - the lower is the wells gas oil ratio; the higher is its
importance.
5. Oil Rate Deviation (ORD)
ORD is an oil producer wells capability parameter that evaluates percentage deviation of the
wells actual oil production rate from targeted production rate. Workover of such well promises
IPTC 16657 5
more oil rate gain than others. A higher ORD therefore represents more importance of the well
for workover than others.
6. Reservoir Pressure Hierarchy (RPH)
RPH is a reservoir management parameter that signifies the effectiveness of pressure support
by the implemented peripheral waterflood scheme in Dukhan field. An oil producer well with
better reservoir pressure (adequate pressure support) is considered more suitbale for
production and hence, more important for workover than other wells in the reservoir pressure
hierarchy.
7. Water Injection Rate Heterogeneity (WIRH)
WIRH is a water injector wells capability parameter calculated as ratio of the wells injection
rate to average injection rate of all the water injectors in the reservoir. It enables comparing
water injector wells regardless of the reservoir completion and reflects variation of the wells
injection rate with respect to average injection rate of all wells in the reservoir. A well with higher
value of this parameter assumes more importance than others.
8. Water Injetion Rate Deviation (WIRD)
WIRD is a water injector wells capability parameter calculated as percentage deviation of the
wells actual injection rate from targeted injection rate. Workover of such well promises more
injection rate gain than similar other wells. A higher WIRD therefore represents more
importance of the well for workover.
9. Well Status (WS)
This parameter evaluates well status. Inactive wells behave as non-producing assets and entail
inventory carriage costs. Liquidating such wells for production / injection minimizes such costs.
Hence, inactive wells assume more importance for workover than active wells.

Scoring Criteria
A scoring method has been used to assess integrity risk level and revenue potential of each
well. Scoring criteria considers the set of integrity parameters on one hand as well as the set of
reservoir management / well capability parameters on the other. A point system is followed for
each criterion. Point scales are different for different parameters. Point scale for a particular
criterion is on the basis of pereceived strength or importance the criterion holds with respect to
other criteria. Wells are evaluated and assigned points on each criterion. Such points are added
separately for the two sets of criteria. Each well thus earns a set of scores namely Well Integrity
(WI) Score and Reservoir Management (RM) Score. WI Score indicates integrity risk level
while RM Score reflects revenue potential. Illustrations 1 and 2 present schematics of the
scoring criteria for well integrity parameters and reservoir management / well capability
parameters respectively.

6 IPTC 16657
Wellwork Prioritization
WI Score & RM score indicate relative risk level and revenue potential respectively for a well
with respect to other wells that require repair wellwork to restore well integrity. These scores
when plotted on cross-scales places the wells into the following 9 priority blocks:
Risk Level
(WI Score)
Revenue Potential
(RM Score)
Priority
Block
High High 1
High Medium 2
High Low 3
Medium High 4
Medium Medium 5
Medium Low 6
Low High 7
Low Medium 8
Low Low 9
Illustration 3 presents schematic of the priority blocks.
Prioritization of wellwork & rig sequencing follow the priority blocks the 1
st
block wellwork are
performed first and the 9
th
block wellwork are performed last. The rig sequence and resource
preparedness aim for completing the entire remedial wellwork campaign over a practicable
timeline.
Qatar Petroleum practices of securing the wells coupled with stricter monitoring are used to
control the risk level from the time of identifying well integrity issue till performing the remedial
wellwork.

Conclusions
Performing a large number of wellwork is time-intensive and without adequate prioritization has
the potential of jeopardizing well integrity and causing safety/environmental issues besides
adversely affecting the production and injection levels. The qualitative model discussed in this
paper seeks to make a comprehensive assessment of a wells integrity risk and revenue
potential. Such assessment enables determining relative priority of wellwork when a large
number of wells require repair wellwork with rig. Determining wellwork priority and performing
wellwork according to such priority has been effective in mitigating integrity risk level and
maintaining revenue potential of Dukhan field.

Acknowledgements
The authors like to thank Qatar Petroleum management for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Singh, S. K. et al.: An Integrated Approach to Well Integrity Evaluation via Reliability Assessment of Well
Integrity Tools and Methods: paper SPE 156052, 2012.
2. Corneliussen, K. et al.: Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) A Systematic Way of Describing the
Actual and Historical Integrity Status of Operational Wells, paper SPE 110347, 2007.
IPTC 16657 7
Illustrations

Illustration 1: Integrity Parameters Scoring Criteria




Points
Low High
8 IPTC 16657


Illustration 2: Reservoir Management / Well Capability Parameters Scoring Criteria








Points
Low High
IPTC 16657 9


Illustration-3: Wellwork Prioritization Scheme


WI Score (Risk Level)
R
M

S
c
o
r
e

(
R
e
v
e
n
u
e

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
)