OTC 24369

Well Integrity Analysis Applied to Workover Prediction

T. C. da Fonseca, K. Miura, Petrobras; J. R. P. Mendes, Unicamp

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29–31 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract

Well integrity may be defined as the well’s capability to prevent leaks to the environment and is therefore a very important
feature for oil and gas wells. Its importance has grown in past years, especially after recent events have shown the impact of
oil spills on the operators’ financial wellness. One way to avoid leaks during well operation is performing maintenance
interventions, or workovers, seeking to keep redundancy in the well’s safety barriers throughout the well production life. Cost
assessment regarding the wells maintenance interventions shall be done during the well design phase of the Production
Development project, when the wells construction campaign is both technically and economically evaluated. This work
presents a methodology for well integrity analysis based on the concept of Barrier Integrated Sets (BIS) and on Reliability
Engineering techniques. Through the computation of the mean time to failure of each BIS identified in the completion
configuration it is possible to estimate when the well hits a degraded status, in which it relies on a single BIS and when the
well is expected to leak, i.e. there are no BIS in place. These estimations may be used for a well workover interventions
resource assessment, in a well construction and operation campaign.

Key Words

Well Integrity, Safety Barriers, Workover Prediction, Reliability.

Introduction

Mankind has used Petroleum as fuel for more than two thousand years, and the current importance of oil products in the
societies explains the growth of extraction activities throughout the world. The increasing demand for oil and gas has lead the
industry to explore and produce hydrocarbons in scenarios more and more challenging. Deserts, polar regions, lakes, river
mouths and maritime environments, continental shelves and slopes, have been common scenarios for Exploration and
Production (E&P).
The evolution of E&P scenarios has led to a consequent increase in the complexity of both well design and maritime units
(drilling rigs) used in well construction and workover interventions. As expected, overall costs and risks have also followed
this increase tendency.
Cost associated to the Well Engineering discipline in the development of the Brazilian Campos Basin (begun in the late
1970s) represented about 1/3 of the total investments (Miura, 2004). In the pre-salt projects, the new Brazilian oil play, costs
associated to well drilling, completion and workover represent about 50% of total budgets (Formigli Filho, 2008). Resource
forecasting, such as drilling rigs and equipment, has been elevated to a new level of importance in the economical assessment
of Production Development projects.
Risks associated to E&P have also increased as the complexity of scenarios evolved, making more critical the issues
related to well integrity – i.e. the containment and the prevention of the escape of fluids to subterranean formations or surface.
Total budget spent by BP after the Macondo oil spill and subsequent market value loss characterize the negative extension that
an accident during well engineering activities may impose to an organization.
Prevention of oil leakage to the environment is, therefore, an important characteristic of petroleum wells and should be
considered a crucial aspect of its design. Subsea wells in deep and ultra-deep water and high-pressure high-temperature
(HPHT) wells impose additional difficulties to oil spill response and thus the concern with well integrity assurance should be
even more relevant. One way to prevent oil spills during the production phase, or well operation, is performing well
2 OTC 24369

maintainance interventions to make sure that the well follows safety criteria such as the existence of two independent barrier
envelopes. This paper proposes a methodology that can be applied during the early design phases of a field development
project, aiming on the prediction of workovers troughout the field operating life. The methodology is based on the concept of
Barrier Integrated Sets (BIS), proposed by Miura (2004). The concept of BIS defines an envelope of barriers considering all
the possible pathways that could be trailed from the reservoir to the environment. Through a reliability analysis of each barrier
that composes the BIS and the assessment of how the barriers work togheter to perform the envelope, the methodology
indicates the mean time to failure of each BIS from the well completion schematic, which may be used to predict repairment
interventions prediction.

Well Risk Assessments

One of the first references for well barriers assessment in completion designs considering the use of Reliability Theory to
undertake preventive actions in quality assurance and safety measurement was proposed by Takashina (1987). His paper
proposed the use of failure rates and fault tree analysis to quantify the risks of leakage from an operating oil well, but also was
among the first to extrapolate the concept of well barriers considering the need of an envelope, indicating the necessity to find
“an integrated set of elements capable of maintaining the flow from an oil well under control”.

Throughout the decades of 1990 and 2000, some publications addressed the application of the Reliability Theory concept
to well design assessments, to itens such as subsurface safety valve (Moines & Iversen, 1991), downhole sensors (van
Gisbergen & Vandeweijer, 2001; Frota & Destro, 2006), Wet Christmas Trees (Moreira, 1993). Frota (2003) also applied
Reliability Theory to oil well designs, aiming in treating real data to generate reliability parameters of the equipment installed
in subsea wells.

The doctoral thesis by Miura (2004) proposes a pragmatic view of Takashina ideas, indicating the definition of Barriers
Integrated Sets (Miura et al., 2006). The Norwegian standard NORSOK D-010 rev. 3 (2004) and rev. 4 (2013) also presented
the concept of well barrier as envelopes depicting an industry bias towards evaluating well integrity as the presence of
containers that involves the reservoir to prevent leakages. A detailed risk assessment approach was developed by Corneliussen
(2006), considering the operational phase of oil wells and using Reliability Theory and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). This
methodology is based on the NORSOK (2004) concept of well barriers and assesses the failure modes of the completed well,
providing a leakage risk measurement.

In the approach proposed herein, it is assumed that the well needs at least one BIS – or one barrier envelope – to ensure
well integrity. The reliability of the BIS in the well and the calculation of its Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) provides a
prediction of when a safety-motivated workover is required for a given well design in an operational campaign. This objective
may be achieved during the well design phase, in an early stage of the field development project, when technical and
economical feasibility studies are carried out, providing decision makers with an estimation of well integrity concerned
workovers along the field lifespan.

Well Barrier and Barrier Integrated Sets (BIS)

Well Integrity may be understood as its capacity to keep oil flow under control, from the reservoir into the production
facilities, preventing oil and gas leakage to the environment. This functionality is obtained through the blockage of all the
pathways connecting the reservoir to the environment with equipment that provide an envelope to the oil and gas flow: the
well barriers. Well Integrity it thus an estate where the well barriers prevent any hydrocarbon leakage to the environment.
During well operation, well integrity is guaranteed by the barriers installed during the last well intervention, typically the well
completion.

Several well barrier definitions may be found in literature. Currently, the concept adopted by NORSOK D-010 rev. 4
(2013) has gained importance and acceptance in the oil industry. In this standard, well barrier is an “envelope of one or several
well barrier elements (WBE, i.e. a physical element which in itself does not prevent flow but in combination with other
WBE’s forms a well barrier) preventing fluids from flowing unintentionally from the formation into the wellbore, into another
formation or to the external environment”.

On the other hand, the Brazilian regulatory agency defines well barriers as “physical separation capable of containing or
isolating fluid from different permeable intervals, being either: liquid (e.g. dirlling fluid and mud cake, etc.), solid consolidated
(e.g. cement plugs, cement annulus, etc.), or solid mechanic (e.g. packers, mechanical plugs, etc.)”. This definition reflects the
common industry concept of the well barrier as being a mechanical, liquid or cement component. Therefore, equipment
decribed as Well Barrier Elements in NORSOK (2004, 2013) are usually refered to as Well Barrier in the industry. Following
this industry commonly accepted concept, the envelope of well barriers to prevent hydrocarbon leakage was defined as Barrier
Integrated Sets (BIS) by Miura et al. (2006).
OTC 24369 3

In order to define the BIS, Miura et al. (2006) adopted of pathways to be considered connecting the reservoir to the
environment and Da Fonseca (2012) proposed the use of four main pathways: rock, wellbore annulus, wellbore and string
(Figure 1).

Wellbore Annulus
Wellbore
Rock String

Figure 1:leakage pathways from the reservoir to the environment

Miura et al. (2006) define BIS as a “set of one or more barriers with the aim of preventing the undesirable top event,
considering all the possible paths between the system under study and the environment”. Both concepts proposed by
NORSOK D-010 rev. 4 (2013) and Miura et al. (2006) evaluate well barrier envelopes installed to guarantee well integrity.
However, the definition introduced by Miura et al. (2006) considers the industry spread conception of well barriers.

Barrier Representation

In order to represent the well barriers, it is necessary to define its subsets. A well barrier may be understood by a set of
components, which might either be the physical parts that compose the physical barrier or validation criteria. For instance, the
well barrier “BOP” has the components: BOP body, pipe rams, shear rams, control pods, connectors, etc., and the barrier
“drilling fluid” has the components: adequate hydrostatic pressure and the capability of manufacturing extra fluid volume.

A set graph is a tool used to map the relation between elements of a set, making their relationship explicit. The set
elements are represented by nodes and their relationship by archs. Set graphs may be used to denote the relationship between
the well barrier components reliability and the well barrier reliability. In that sense, the Subsurface Safety Valve (SSSV) may
be represented as shown in Figure 2, where each component reliability is described as “F” (false or zero) or “T” (true or
greater than zero).

Figure 2:representation of the SSSV as a barrier and its components

4 OTC 24369

The SSSV represented in Figure 2 would be unavailable, since it requires the reliability of the SSSV in terms of the three
identified failure modes: “fail to close”, “leakage in closed position” and “tubing-annulus communication”. From Figure 2,
“SSSV-TAC” is unavailable (“False”) and therefore one of the entries in the “AND” gate is not satisfied. More details on
barrier representation may be found in Da Fonseca (2012).

Completion String Reliability Analysis: Methodology and Results

The methodology proposed herein is divided in five steps, described as follows.

- Completion scope definition, based on the completion schematics;

- Identification of the Barriers Integrated Sets;
- Identification of the failure modes and failure rates for each BIS barrier;
- Construction of the barrier graphs;
- Quantification of the BIS and well reliability and MTTF.

To illustrate the methodology, the completion schematic shown in Figure 3a will be analyzed, where a pre-salt production
well is represented and:

- WXT: wet Christmas tree - TH: tubing hanger

- M1: master 1 or production master valve - PAB: production adaptor base
- W1: wing 1 or production wing valve - VX: VX seal ring
- S1: swab 1 or production swab valve - WH: wellhead
- XO: crossover valve - GLM: gas lift mandrel
- M2: master 2 or annulus master valve - ICV: inflow control valve
- W2: wing 2 or annulus wing valve - CIM: chemical injection mandrel
- S2: swab 2 or annulus swab valve - PDGM: Permanent Downhole Gauge mandrel
- AIV: annulus intervention valve

The next step is identifying the Barriers Integrated Sets in the completion schematic. Figure 3b and Figure 3c demonstrate
the two BIS identified for the completion schematic assumed.

Tree Cap
XO
S1 S2
W1 WXT

M1 W2

M2
TH
AIV
PAB
VX WH

SSSV

(b) (c)
(a)
GLM
Flat pack

Nipple

Splice Sub
Pacler
ICV

PDGM
CIM
ICV
Packer

PDGM
CIM

Figure 3: (a) completion schematic for the reliability analysis, (b) primary BIS and (c) secondary BIS
OTC 24369 5

From Figure 3b, the primary BIS is composed of: cap rock (anhydrite), cemented liner, production packer, production
string below SSSV and accessories (nipple and GLM) and SSSV. From Figure 3c, the secondary BIS is composed of:
competent rock (halite), cemented production casing, production casing packoff, wellhead, VX seal ring, PAB body, AIV line,
AIV, TH, production stab, WXT body and M1.

After the BIS are identified, the next step considers the failure modes and failure rates for the barriers that composed the
primary and secondary BIS. Ebeling (1997) contains detailed information regarding Reliability Theory and Da Fonseca (2012)
shows how it was used for the methodology proposed herein. Table 1 shows an example of failure modes and failure rates for
the well schematic and BIS shown in Figure 3. In order to calculate the reliability, a campaign deadline was defined as 27
years.

Table 1: BIS composition, failure modes, failure rates and reliability for 27 years
Failure rate Mean Time to
Barrier Failure mode Reliability
BIS (per 106 hours) Failure (well-years)
Cap rock (anhydrite) - 0.000 - 1.0000
Cemented Liner EL (External leak) 0.0580 1967 0.9864
VS
SS

Production Packer TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 0.1210 942.8 0.9718

+

Completion String above packer and below SSSV TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 0.2500 456.3 0.9425
tr
S

Gas-lift Mandrel (and valve) TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 11.900 9.586 0.0598
d.
ro

FTC (Fail to close) 0.5600 203.7 0.8759

-P

Subsurface Safety Valve (SSSV) TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 0.3161 360.9 0.9279
IS
B

LCP (Leak in closed position) 0.7200 158.4 0.8433

Competent rock (halite) - 0.000 - 1.0000
Cemented Production Casing EL (External leak) 0.0152 7495 0.9964
Wellhead EL (External leak) 0.0029 39330 0.9993
IL (Internal leak) 0.0028 40740 0.9993
Seal ring and H4 connector (back-up)
EL (External leak) 0.1300 877.5 0.9697
IL (Internal leak) 0.1535 743.2 0.9643
Production Adaptor Base body
EL (External leak) 0.1535 743.2 0.9643
Annulus Intervention Valve line EL (External leak) 0.0500 2281 0.9882
FTC (Fail to close) 0.2500 456.3 0.9425
XT

Annulus Intervention Valve EL (External leak) 0.0150 7605 0.9965

-W

LCP (Leak in closed position) 0.1500 760.5 0.9651

IS

Tubing Hanger connection TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 0.1000 1141 0.9766

B

Tubing Hanger penetrations IL (Internal leak) 0.1000 1141 0.9766

Tubing hanger body IL (Internal leak) 0.1000 1141 0.9766
Production stab seal TAC (Tubing-annulus leak) 0.1500 760.5 0.9651
Production stab body IL (Internal leak) 0.0030 38030 0.9993
FTC (Fail to close) 0.2500 456.3 0.9425
Production master valve (M1) EL (External leak) 0.0150 7605 0.9965
LCP (Leak in closed position) 0.1500 760.5 0.9651
Wet Chirstmas Tree body EL (External leak) 0.1535 743.2 0.9643

The failure rates for the salt formations were considered to be 0 and therefore it is assumed that the formations will not fail.
The gas-lift mandrel (and valve) is the most critical equipment in the completion design, with failure rates two or more orders
of magnitude greater than the other equipment, which has a clear impact on this component’s MTTF.

In order to quantify the reliability and mean time to failure of the BIS and of the well, the relationship between the barriers
to form the BIS must be mapped. This is done through the barriers graphs, demonstrated in Figure 4 for the primary BIS.

Figure 4: primary BIS graph with barriers relationships

6 OTC 24369

Each barrier in Figure 4 has a specific set of components, such as the SSSV as demonstrated in Figure 2. It can be derived
from Figure 4 that, in order to the primary BIS to be available, all the barriers from the “String”, “Wellbore”, “Wellbore
Annulus” and “Rock” must be available. In order to quantify the reliability of the BIS, the reliability for each component of the
barriers, detailed in Table 1, is entered in the barrier graph demonstrated in Figure 4. Considering the primary and secondary
BIS for the completion schematic analyzed in Figure 3 and the reliabilities demonstrated in Table 1, the results for the primary
and secondary BIS and for the well are demonstrated in Table 2. The final reliability for each BIS and for the well were
converted into an equivalent failure rate, which was then converted into the MTTF for each of these itens.

Table 2: results for the primary and secondary BIS and for the completed well
Completed Well
Parameter BIS - Prod. String+SSSV BIS - WXT
Integrity

Reliability, R 3,70% 65,13% 66,42%

Equivalent Failure Rate,
13.93 1.81 1.73
λ equivalent (10-6 hours)
Mean Time to Failure, MTTF
9.17 70.49 73.88
(well-years)

From Table 2, the reliability for the primary BIS is significantly lower than the reliability for the secondary BIS and for the
well. This is explained by the presence of the gas-lift mandrel (and valve) in the primary BIS: the MTTF of the primary BIS is
very close to the MTTF of the gas-lift mandrel MTTF shown in Table 1. The MTTF shown in Table 2 are in well-years, which
means that the cumulative time for each well is computed in order to assess the expected time to failure. In order to compute
the reliability of the well, the well integrity was analyzed. In that sense, either the primary or the secondary BIS would need to
be in place to consider the well integrity reliability. This is thus an assessment of how reliable the well is in terms of
preventing leakage to the environment.

Maintainance Interventions Resource Assessment

The application of the methodology to assess the expected maintainance interventions in a well campaign considers that if
a failure occurs in any well barrier, a workover intervention to redress the barrier situation is performed. Therefore, in order to
maintain production, the methodology considers that both the primary and the secondary BIS should be in place.

To validate the methodology, it was run for a typical well completion design from a Brazilian oil field campaign. Data
from 17 years of well construction and operation were analyzed and compared to the output from the methodology. These data
are composed of the completion and abandonment dates (per year) of 135 wells, demonstrated in Table 3, which complete
1,284 well-years of operation.

Table 3: results for the primary and secondary BIS and for the completed well
YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PRODUCTOR 2 6 -­‐1 7 5 1 7 14 9
INJECTOR 0 0 0 3 9 -­‐1 0 7 9
TOTAL PRODCUTOR 2 8 7 14 19 20 27 41 50
TOTAL INJECTOR 0 0 0 3 12 11 11 18 27
WELLS/YEAR 2 6 -1 10 14 0 7 21 18
TOTAL WELLS 2 8 7 17 31 31 38 59 77
TOTAL WELLS-YEARS 2 10 17 34 65 96 134 193 270

YEAR 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
PRODUCTOR 19 12 5 1 1 0 1 1
INJECTOR 7 7 1 1 0 0 2 0
TOTAL PRODCUTOR 69 81 86 87 88 88 89 90
TOTAL INJECTOR 34 41 42 43 43 43 45 45
WELLS/YEAR 26 19 6 2 1 0 3 1
TOTAL WELLS 103 122 128 130 131 131 134 135
TOTAL WELLS-YEARS 373 495 623 753 884 1015 1149 1284

During the 17 years of data collection, there were 36 workover interventions motivated by barrier failures. These
interventions were motivated by failures of barriers from either the primary BIS (e.g. SSSV repair) or the secondary BIS (e.g.
PAB repair). Furthermore, the analysis of the available data showed that there was not any workover intervention motivated by
OTC 24369 7

failure of the gas-lift valve. This might be explained by the fact that, in any well workover (weather the motivation was failure
another barrier or reservoir-motivated), the gas-lift valve is substituted, regardless of having failed.

The number of failure-motivated interventions was divided by the total of well-years in operation, which resulted in the
failure rate of approximately 3.1984 x 10-6 failures/hour for the well operation. This was used to calculate the MTTF of
interventions in the well campaign: 35.7 well-years.

The methodology was then applied to the well completion schematic for the type-well used in the construction campaign.
The reliability computed for the primary BIS was 71.90% and the reliability computed for the secondary BIS was 74.70%.
Considering that both BIS must be in place in order to keep the production without an intervention, the well reliability
considered the reliability of the primary and the secondary BIS, and the well reliability was 53.71%. The equivalent failure
rate for this reliability is approximately 4.1707 x 10-6 failures/hour and the calculated MTTF is 30.6 well-years. Distributing
the MTTF along the 1,284 well-years of the campaign, the methodology indicated 41 failure-motivated workover interventions
would be performed. Figure 5 shows the workover intervention distribution along the 17 years of well construction and
operation, from the methodology and the real field data.

Figure 5: failure-motivated workover interventions

The results shown in Figure 5 demonstrate that the methodology was capable of predicting the overall tendency of failure-
motivated workovers during the 17 years of well construction and operation. It is important to notice that the distribution
extracted from the methodology and shown in Figure 5 was obtained from the well completion schematic and the respective
failure rates, and therefore might be performed in the early stages of the production development project. The overall error of
the method was around 15% (for the MTTF and the number of workover interventios), which is an acceptable figure in the
early project phases. Furthermore, the result from the methodology is more conservative than the field data, since the method
previewed more interventions than were actually performed.

Conclusions

The methodology proposed herein focus on the reliability analysis of completed oil wells, during the operation
(production/injection) phase. It considers the existence of Barriers Integrated Sets (BIS) and through the assessment of the
reliabilities of each BIS, the methodology is capable of predicting the Mean Time to Failure of the BIS. This measure may be
utilized as a tool in resource assessment for workover interventions in a well construction and operation campaign, since the
methodology is capable of predicting, in the early stages of the project, the overall tendency and the number of workover
interventions throughout the campaign.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras) and Universidade Estadual de Campinas
(UNICAMP) for the support.
8 OTC 24369

References

CORNELIUSSEN, K. Well Safety: Risk Control in the Operational Phase of Offshore Wells. Thesis (Doctorate) – The
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim (Norway), 2006.
DA FONSECA, T.C. A Methodology for Production Development Wells Integrity Analysis. Dissertation (Masters) –
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas (Brazil), 2012 (in Portuguese).
EBELING, C. An introduction to reliability and maintainability engineering. McGraw Hill. New York (USA), 1997. 486 p.
FORMIGLI FILHO, J.M. Santos Basin Pre-salt Cluster: How to Make Production Development Technical and
Economically Feasible. In: Rio Oil & Gas Expo Conference, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 2008. Available:
http://www.investidorpetrobras.com.br/pt/apresentacoes/apresentacoes/ano/2008.htm [Accessed 10 October 2011].
FROTA, H.M. Development of a Method to Plan the Maintainance of Deep Water Oil Wells. Dissertation (Masters) –
Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Macaé (Brazil), 2003 (in Portuguese).
FROTA, H.M.; DESTRO, W. Reliability Evolution of Permanent Downhole Gauges for Campos Basin Subsea Wells: A
10-Year Case Study. SPE 102700. In: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers – SPE, San Antonio (USA), 2006.
LEITCH, R.D. Reliability analysis for engineers: an introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford (United Kingdom).
230p. 1995.
MIURA, K. A Study on Safety of Construction and Repair in Offshore Oil and Gas Wells. Thesis (Doctorate) –
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas (Brazil), 2004 (in Portuguese).
MIURA, K.; MOROOKA, C. K.; MENDES, J.R.P.; GUILHERME, I.R. Characterization of operational safety in offshore
oil wells. In: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (Holland), v. 51, nº 1-2, pp. 111-126, abr.
2006.
MOINES, E.; IVERSEN, M. Reliability Management of Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves for the TOGI
Project. SPE 20875. SPE Production Engineering, v. 6, n. 2, pp. 181-186. Society of Petroleum Engineers – SPE, May, 1991.
MOREIRA, J.R.F. Reliability of Subsea Completion Systems. Dissertation (Masters) – Cranfield Institute of Technology,
Bedford (United Kingdom), 1993.
NORSOK. NORWEGIAN TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS INSTITUTION. NORSOK D-010: Well integrity in drilling
and well operations. Rev. 3. Lysaker (Norway), 2004. 162 p.
NORSOK. NORWEGIAN TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS INSTITUTION. NORSOK D-010: Well integrity in drilling
and well operations. Rev. 4. Lysaker (Norway), 2013. 221 p.
PETTERSEN, G., MOLDSKRED, I.O., YTREDAL, E.B. The Snorre A Incident 28 November 2004: Lessons Learned.
SPE 98739. Em: Anais da SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production. Abu Dhabi (UAE), 2006.
TAKASHINA, N.T. The Concept of Safey Barrier and its Reliability in na Oil Well. Proceedings of 3rd Quality Assurance
Seminar, Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo – IBP, São Paulo (Brazil), pp. 256-268, 1987 (in Portuguese).
VAN GISBERGEN, S.J.C.H.M.; VANDEWEIJER, A.A.H. Reliability Analysis of Permanent Downhole Monitoring
Systems. SPE 57057. SPE Drilling & Completion. v. 16, n.1, pp. 60-63. Society of Petroleum Engineers – SPE, Maio, 2001