IPTC 16767

Effective Well Integrity Management in a Mature Sour Oil Field

Abdulaziz A. Al-Mukhaitah, Surajit Haldar; SPE, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 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

Abstract
Maximizing the productive life of wells and minimizing the risk of uncontrolled release of reservoir fluid over the entire life
cycle of the wells are the major objectives of any E&P company. Therefore, managing well integrity has become as important
as managing reservoirs without compromising the safety of personnel or the harmony of the environment, and at the same time
protecting valuable assets for a prolonged life.

One of the large mature onshore oil fields of Saudi Arabia is producing sour crude oil that multiplies the well integrity
challenges. A stringent well integrity surveillance and maintenance program is followed for this field to ensure the integrity of
every individual well. The program, essentially developed for Saudi Aramco onshore oil fields, is a proactive problem
prevention-based approach. Under this program, any well integrity related problem can be predicted through a structured
preventive diagnosis and maintenance schedule for both wellhead and downhole integrity to assure well integrity that verifies
and confirms the status of wells with suspect integrity. The program is governed by the operating standards and guidelines for
maintaining the well integrity parameters, ensuring safe well operations and securing uninterrupted well productivity and
injectivity. The program also emphasizes the requirement of barriers during normal operations, unscheduled well interventions
or when shut-in for safety and environment protection.

This paper describes the process for efficiently managing well integrity throughout the development life cycle with a particular
focus on production operations and the well maintenance phase. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the
rationale for following this structured program and the realized benefits.

Introduction
Every well has a life span and requires maintenance throughout its life to keep the well healthy and productive. If a well is not
healthy, not only the production but the unsafe condition of the well, if any, can pose a greater threat to environment and
everything that surrounds the well. Systematic well integrity management is, thus, gaining as much importance in the upstream
hydrocarbon industry as production or reservoir management1. Saudi Aramco has an established well surveillance program in
place as part of well integrity management for the Ghawar oil field. This field has moderate to high hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) content that is dissolved in crude oil that calls for a much more stringent well integrity program. The
well integrity surveillance program is a mechanism that is applied to the wells in this onshore oil field to ensure the quality and
healthiness of all their completion components. The developed program not only ensures the identification of well problems at
its infancy but also maintains the healthiness and upkeep of all the assets in the field. Data obtained from the monitoring
program are used for integrity evaluation that in turn leads to deciding the requirement and type of well work for integrity
control and repair. The majority of the well work is cost intensive and a sound integrity evaluation is key to its success. The
well surveillance program that will be discussed in this paper aims at preventing, detecting and repairing well integrity issues
that can occur on the surface as well as the downhole components of a well. Although the well surveillance program covers all
types of wells such as oil, gas and water in onshore and offshore fields, this paper will discuss well integrity management only
in oil producers, water injectors and salt water disposal wells.

The Program Approach

Maintaining sound well integrity has always remained of prime importance and one of the main objectives for Saudi Aramco.
Unlike the small fields where manual tracking and monitoring of well integrity related issues is reasonable, manual tracking
and monitoring can invite human errors for large oil fields. Automation of this important activity can reduce human errors on
2 IPTC 16767

the one hand and, on the other hand, a systematic process is established over the years which can enhance the efficiency of
tracking the problematic wells with a definite action plan to fix the issues in a timely manner. Even an escalation mechanism is
useful for ensuring all actions related to well integrity concerns are completed within the specified time frame.

The what, why, when and how of well surveillance is all part of the well integrity monitoring program that starts with the
following six primary well integrity inspections or surveys2:

1. Integrity testing and maintenance (greasing) of wellhead valves.

2. System functionality and integrity testing for surface and subsurface safety valves (SSV and SSSV) and emergency
shutdown (ESD) systems.
3. Annuli pressure and sample survey.
4. Landing base inspection.
5. Downhole temperature profile survey.
6. Corrosion logging.

The above mentioned surveys are carried out periodically for each well to detect and monitor the integrity of the well. The
well surveillance program has a manifold approach that consists of the following steps:

 Survey frequency tracking system

 Analyzing, validating and approving the primary surveys to identify problem wells
 Maintain a problem well tracking system
 Repair the problems through minor maintenance. If this is not possible, refer the well for workover operations.

The flow chart in Fig. 1 can best describe this approach.

Survey Frequency Tracking System

As part of well integrity management, each of the above mentioned six types of survey is conducted over a fixed frequency.
This frequency is set based on certain criteria such as well completion type, location, age and so on. An automated system
keeps tracking the frequency, schedules the survey date in advance, records the survey completion date and automatically sets
the new schedule for a particular survey.

Analyzing, Validating and Approving the Surveys

Once completed, survey results are sent to production engineers for analyzing, validating and approving. Only the good survey
data are approved and others are recorded as invalid survey. A repeat survey is requested if any abnormalities are found in the
data. If the repeat survey shows similar abnormalities, further diagnostic works are carried out until the problem is confirmed
and the well is listed in a tracking system called problematic wells’ tracking list until the problem is resolved.

The Problematic Wells Tracking List

The tracking list for problematic wells is built to improve and sustain the focus on tracking well integrity issues systematically
and efficiently. It helps the production engineers as well as management to highlight and follow-up closely on well integrity
concerns and take proper remedial actions in a timely manner. This tracking list has the following features:

 Flag problematic wells for any integrity issue.

 Send an auto-email notification to senior engineers about this anomaly along with the remarks.
 End the task by completing the required actions.
 Filter the surveys for the problematic flagged wells that are pending completion.Escalate the well integrity issue to
higher level of engineering/management, if not addressed timely

Benefits from the automated system:

 Trigger problematic wells during validation of integrity surveys.

 Flag and track wells with anomalies.
 Expedite the remedial action to fix the integrity issue.
 Save time and efforts by minimizing human intervention and improve efficiency.
 Minimize or eliminate human error; especially for large fields with a large well count.

Repair or Refer the Problem Well to Workover

Small problems are usually resolved through minor maintenance; however, if the problem is major and minor maintenance
IPTC 16767 3

cannot resolve the problem, a workover proposal is created and the well is handed over to a workover rig.

Importance and Benefits from Routine Surveys

Each of the six primary surveys mentioned before has its own importance and Saudi Aramco benefits from these surveys on
regular basis. The following discussions and examples elaborate each survey.

Wellhead Valves Integrity Testing

Integrity testing for wellhead valves is an integral part of the well integrity surveillance program that is carried out on all wells.
Testing and greasing the valves are the two major survey cum maintenance procedures that assure the integrity of the wellhead
valves (i.e., the crown valve, master valve and wing valve) in addition to the choke valve and flow line isolation valve.
Wellhead valve integrity testing is performed to guarantee the ability to control the well when required. This survey ensures
that the valves are capable of isolating and holding the fluid flow and pressure at all time.

Wellhead valves are the first line of defense in case of unsafe situations and so the valves need to be functional all the time,
irrespective of whether the well has pressure or not. Special focus is always given to master valve. In case of an emergency
situation, it will not be possible to isolate the well if the master valve (MV) malfunctions.

It is a known fact that the frequent maintenance of valves reduces friction, corrosion induced damage, accumulation of debris,
sludge, etc., by minimizing the direct contact of valve components with the crossing fluid. Valve cycling is considered part of
the maintenance because it moves valve components and breaks accumulations in the valve cavities3; however, excessive
cycling requires frequent greasing as it will wear the valves out relatively quickly. In addition, gears are the main component
of the valve and should be maintained in good condition to ease the valve rotation especially as some valves can be found
passing due to the gear inability to be fully rotated.

Wellhead Valves Integrity Testing Frequency

Integrity testing for wellhead valves is performed on oil wells once per year; however, wells in populated areas are tested twice
per year and all water wells are tested twice per year. Moreover, the integrity of all wellhead valves for all wells is tested prior
to any well work on the well or before the workover rig moves to the well. Passing valves are greased or replaced, if not fixed.

The greasing of wellhead valves is performed once per year with the exception that wells in populated area are greased twice
per year. All water injection wells are greased twice per year.

Case Study: Well-A

During routine integrity testing for wellhead valves, a leak was found in this well from the flange below the master valve,
across the “O” ring area. Subsequently, the well was secured with two downhole retrievable bridge plugs. Inspection of the
leak area after removing the wellhead revealed severe corrosion of the master valve bottom flange and minor induced damage
on the landing base flange top face. Further inspection revealed that the 9" “X” bushing was detached and stuck around the
9⅝" casing stub hindering the installation of a new bushing. The well was then handed over to well services for fixing the leak
and replacing the master valve. Several cases of this type were detected through routine integrity testing for the wellhead
survey every year, eliminating major incidents.

Surface/Subsurface Safety Valve and ESD System Testing

Usually, SSVs and SSSVs are hydraulically actuated through an ESD system. The SSV is installed as part of the X-mass tree
while the SSSV is installed at a shallow depth below the wellhead. The functions of these valves are to ensure that wells are
closed automatically in any emergency situation. The integrity and functionality of the SSV, SSSV and ESD systems are tested
on a quarterly basis for all wells to ensure that they are operable and can perform their intended function.

Annuli Survey
As a standard for this field, all annuli other than the tubing-casing annulus (TCA) are cemented during drilling. Ideally, all
annuli between the casings should have zero pressure, when no problem exists. But pressure can occur in the cemented annuli
because of the following4:

 Cement channeling
 Incomplete cement circulation
 Casing leaks
 Wellhead pack-off leaks

The TCA is usually filled with inhibited diesel and a positive pressure is maintained in it that enables quick detection of casing
leaks. Subsequently, the TCA may develop higher pressure than normal due to expansion of the packer fluid. This pressure
4 IPTC 16767

should not build up when bled off. If the pressure does return in a TCA then a packer leak, tubing leak or tubing bonnet leak
may be the cause. Annuli surveys are conducted at regular intervals to monitor annuli pressures. Data and samples collected
during an annuli survey help identify a problem when it develops and can be used to help determine the cause of the problem.
A downhole or surface communication is confirmed if samples collected from the annuli confirm the presence of crude oil. As
the crude oil in this onshore field contains corrosive compounds like H2S or CO2, the chance of casing or tubing leaks become
very high.

A positive pressure is maintained in the TCA for all wells5. This will ensure that the TCA is filled with inhibited diesel or
water and will enable the quick detection of casing leaks. In addition, all wells, equipped with online pressure transmitters, are
monitored in real time all of the time. The accuracy and functionality of the annuli pressure transmitters are verified every year
using mechanical or electronic pressure gauges.

Annuli Survey Frequency

All annuli of oil wells are surveyed annually under flowing and shut-in conditions. This enables the proper analysis and
identification of wellhead or downhole communication. Wells located in populated areas are surveyed twice per year both
under flowing and shut-in conditions. Wells equipped with ESPs are surveyed four times per year.

All annuli of water wells that have TCA are surveyed twice per year. This is required to ensure tubing integrity, especially if
water that is produced or injected is very corrosive. The annuli of tubeless wells are surveyed annually. This is because the
annuli are cemented. Moreover, every well is surveyed following workover or drilling both before initial production and
within one week after initial production to capture the fluid expansion effect. Any sort of abnormalities are detected during the
validation phase of these surveys. Appropriate actions are taken following the problem detection. If further actions are needed,
the detected wells are included in the tracking system that tracks and monitors problematic wells until the problem is resolved.

Case Study: Well-B

Well-B continued showing high pressure in 7” x 9” casing-casing annulus (CCA). Several bleed-off attempts were made but
the pressure built up again in less than 10 minute to the original pressure. During the bleed off operation, it was noticed that
diesel and gas was coming out from the CCA. The 9” X-bushing was pressure tested and found to be not holding pressure. A
re-packing job was performed without success. Later, a pressurized sample was collected from the CCA and sent to the
laboratory for testing. The lab results showed a high percentage of methane (55%) in the sample. Therefore, the well was
handed over to the workover rig for repairing high casing-casing-annulus pressure with the following workover objectives:

1. Run noise (sonic) log to identify the behind-casing flow zones.

2. Evaluate 7" casing integrity using corrosion log.
3. Seal off the communication passes as necessary.

Landing Base Inspection

Inspection of the landing base is necessary to check whether there is any corrosion near the surface. The landing base is
defined as housing attached to the top of the surface casing to support the strings of casings. Near-surface external corrosion is
caused by the cyclic or consistent ingress of oxygenated surface water or moisture in the annular space between the conductor
pipe and surface casing. The retained oxygenated water in the annulus leaches out chemical salts from the cement and at
elevated well operating temperatures creates low resistance electrolyte resulting in an extremely corrosive environment.
Additionally, the cement micro-annulus that emanates behind the surface casing tends to retain a small amount of water that
also causes slow but steady development of near-surface corrosion on the surface casing. Therefore, a landing base inspection
survey is an integral part of the well integrity surveillance program carried out in oil and water wells. This inspection assures
the integrity of the landing base and the surface casing of a well.

Landing Base Inspection Frequency

New wellheads completed by drilling and workovers have their landing bases, surface casings and conductor pipes coated.
Inspection of the coating is considered to be the first landing base inspection on any well. It is also considered to be the
starting date for subsequent inspections. Oil wells are inspected after rig release and once every 10 years; however, wells aged
30 years or more are inspected once every 5 years. Similarly, water wells are inspected after rig release and once every 7 years.
Also, wells with 21 years or more are inspected once every 4 years.

Case Study: Well-C

Inspectors performing a routine landing base inspection in this well uncovered corrosion on the landing base. They observed
corrosion on the outside of the landing base with a pinhole on the 18⅝" casing with the presence of hydrocarbon gas. The lab
analysis report of the collecting pressurized samples from both the 9” x 13” annulus and the 7” x 9” annulus confirmed the
presence of hydrocarbon gas. The inspection unit stated that it would not be possible to repair the casing by sleeving. A peer
IPTC 16767 5

review team also stated that this well has a safety issue and needs to be referred for a workover as an urgent case. A further
inspection was conducted the next day and the following information was obtained:

 The dimension of the pinhole is 0.5” width and 1.1” deep; located in the body of the 18⅝” casing.
 The gas monitor (LTX type) was activated when passing this hole.

The impact of this leak would have been worse had the regular landing base inspection not been performed on time. This
proactive approach has detected several such cases and continues to prevent major incidents.

Temperature Survey
The purpose of a temperature survey is early detection of casing leaks and/or fluid movements behind pipe that can result in
the contamination of aquifers, loss of oil production or even surface blowouts. These incidents will affect the profile of the
temperature gradient recorded for the particular well being surveyed. Timely identification of casing leaks is critical to avoid
the loss of hydrocarbons and contamination of shallow aquifers. It is important to establish base temperature profiles that will
reflect these influences for each area. A base temperature profile will provide a geothermal gradient of the area that can be
compared with subsequent profiles. Base temperature profiles are recorded in all new wells before they are placed on
production or injection, if possible. These profiles help establish a model geothermal gradient for each area. If a base
temperature profile is not available for a particular well that is being surveyed, the base temperature profiles of nearby wells
are used.

Temperature Survey Frequency

In general, a base survey is conducted for all wells equipped with downhole packers. Additional surveys are carried out based
on the completion and age of the wells. For the oil wells completed with an uphole packer, the recommended temperature
frequency is as follows:
 Wells with an age that is less than 7 years are surveyed twice per year.
 Wells with an age that is more than 7 years but less than 13 years are surveyed three times per year.
 Wells with an age that is more than 13 years are surveyed four times per year.

Wells that are equipped with a downhole packer with known communication problems between reservoirs below the packer
are surveyed twice per year. Tubeless water wells are surveyed annually.

Case Study: Well-D

A downhole casing leak was detected during a temperature survey (Fig. 2) across the 7" liner hanger above packer of a water
injection well. The leak was also reconfirmed by flow meter log. The possibility of a cross flow was suspected and a fast
action was needed.
The well was handed over for workover on an urgent basis with the following objectives:

 Repair and cement-squeeze the premature 7” liner lap leak at 2,500 ft.
 Evaluate the cement quality behind the 7” liner and perform preventive maintenance work as required to avoid
reoccurrence of the leak.

Corrosion Logging
Corrosion logs are run to assess the integrity and thickness of the casing and to determine the location of casing leaks. High
resolution corrosion logs can survey triple casing strings (3½”, 7” and 9⅝”) and be used to evaluate the total metal loss and,
thereby, predict the casing integrity. The corrosion log can be used to establish a casing integrity baseline. This survey is
relatively new to the list of mandatory well integrity surveys to be performed for this field. But as the field is maturing, the old
completions are exposed to a corrosive environment; a stricter monitoring of corrosion-related downhole leaks is mandated.

Corrosion Logging Frequencies

Representative wells are selected to log through tubing during the workover to establish the rate of corrosion in different areas
within the field. A logging frequency can be set based on the rate of corrosion and nominal thickness of the pipe. For example,
for wells with no previous corrosion logs it is required to establish the remaining casing life (RCL). The RCL can be estimated
by dividing the total metal thickness over the rate of corrosion. For wells with a previous corrosion log as the base log, the
frequency of the subsequent corrosion logs should be determined by dividing the RCL by four. A well needs to be worked
over if the remaining casing life is less than four years.

Beyond the Guidelines

Other than the six primary surveys mentioned above, several other indirect methods are also followed to detect and/or verify
6 IPTC 16767

well integrity related issues. These are scale inspection, scale inhibitor squeeze in the formation for prevention of scale buildup
in the wellbore, well rate test analysis and measures to enhance well integrity for wells located in populated areas. Well
integrity campaigns are also conducted to increase awareness among different level of employees.

Scale inspections are usually done at the surface flow lines near the well head. Wells are also drifted with appropriate size of
gauge cutter to inspect the clearance of the tubing. The gauge cutter run provides an indication if there is any reduction of
tubing clearance which maybe due to scale. Scale inhibitor is also pumped in the formation as a preventive measure to mitigate
and/or eliminate scale buildup in the wellbore.

Production rate of every oil well is tested at a certain frequency to monitor the individual well production rate. Any abrupt
change in the production trend is scrutinized separately. Sudden drop of production rate can be an indication of tubing or
casing leak or a cross reservoir flow. Several cases have confirmed this phenomenon.

As proactive and preventive measures with respect to well and asset integrity, additional well integrity enhancement measures
can also be beneficial; including, extension of well liners to the surface, installation of a distributed temperature system (DTS)
and a permanent downhole monitoring system (PDHMS) pressure real time, and fencing of all the wells in the no drilling
zone. The wells could be considered as located in populated areas based on the rupture exposure radius (RER) for risk. The
following are the examples of downhole and surface safety systems:

 Tubing retrievable SSSV in the tubing and SSV on the well head to minimize well intervention.
 DTS across the well to detect any tubing or casing leak instantly.
 PDHMS for continuous recording of downhole pressure and temperature data.

The well integrity enhancement items provide a more reliable safety management tool, minimize well interventions and
provide an online surveillance and monitoring capability for better asset management.

Conclusions
The well integrity surveillance program was developed to focus on primary surveys and to be based on survey frequencies
appropriate for this field. The program uses established methods to carry out each survey, validate the survey results, use a
diagnostic process, maintain a tracking list of problematic wells and fix well integrity issues with or without a rig. The
program, essentially a proactive approach, is governed by established operating standards and guidelines and ensures
detection, prevention and solutions for the well integrity issues resulting in safe well operations and securing uninterrupted
well production and injection.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco management for permission to publish the paper and Sayed Khalid Gilani for
reviewing the paper critically. The authors would also like to thank the Saudi Aramco engineers who have contributed over the
years to developing the well integrity guidelines and program.

Reference
1. Daghmouni Hamdi et al.: Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) Development, SPE paper 137966 presented at the
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1-4 November 2010.
2. SA Production Engineering Technical Manual.
3. Singh Sanjay K., Subekti Herry, Al-Asmakh Mona, Al-Samarraie Layth, Qatar Petroleum: An integrated approach to
well integrity evaluation via reliability assessment of well integrity tools and methods: result from Dukhan field, Qatar,
SPE paper 156052 presented at the SPE international production and operations conference and exhibition held in Doha,
Qatar, 14-16 May 2012.
4. Al-Ashhab Jamal et al.: Well integrity management system (WIMS) ZADCO, Abu Dhabi, UAE, SPE paper 88696
presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13
October 2004.
5. Wallace Gary et al.: A compliance based approach to well integrity, SPE 115585 presented at the 2008 SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.
IPTC 16767 7

Figure 1: Well surveillance program flow chart.

Routine survey/maintenance

WI problem prevention
Survey frequency tracking system

Survey Execution

Survey result

Data
Valid Validation Process Not Valid /Questionable
Set new frequency
Re-survey

Survey validation

WI problem detection
Data
Valid Validation Process

Still Questionable

Normal Diagnostic works

Well Integrity Problem Confirmed

Well integrity problem

wells tracking list

Set action plan WI problem solution

Execution action

Problem Fixed Rigless Problem Persists

Option

Secure the well

Refer to Workover

Problem Fixed
Workover operation
8 IPTC 16767

Fig. 2: The downhole temperature profile

Well-D: Temperature Log

Depth

Base temperature profile

Temperature profile showing cooling effect