Conceptual Completions and Well Intervention Design Report
Conceptual Completions and Well Intervention Design Report
Conceptual Completions and Well Intervention Design Report
KEYWORDS
Goldeneye, CO2, Cement, Materials, Completion, Injection, Casing, Corrosion, Gravel
Pack, Workover.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The information set out herein (the “Information”) has been prepared by Shell U.K. Limited and its sub-
contractors (the “Consortium”) solely for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in connection with the
Competition. The Information does not amount to advice on CCS technology or any CCS engineering,
commercial, financial, regulatory, legal or other solutions on which any reliance should be placed. Accordingly,
no member of the Consortium makes (and the UK Government does not make) any representation, warranty
or undertaking, express or implied, as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any of the Information
and no reliance may be placed on the Information. Insofar as permitted by law, no member of the Consortium
or any company in the same group as any member of the Consortium or their respective officers, employees or
agents accepts (and the UK Government does not accept) any responsibility or liability of any kind, whether
for negligence or any other reason, for any damage or loss arising from any use of or any reliance placed on the
Information or any subsequent communication of the Information. Each person to whom the Information is
made available must make their own independent assessment of the Information after making such
investigation and taking professional technical, engineering, commercial, regulatory, financial, legal or other
advice, as they deem necessary.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 2
1.1. Goldeneye Key Data 2
1.2. Existing Well Specification 2
1.3. Reservoir Characteristics 5
1.4. Fluid Characteristics 6
1.5. Injection Rates and Condition 7
1.6. Pressure and Temperature Condition 8
2. Wells Requirements 11
2.1. Hydraulic Requirements 11
2.2. Well Integrity and HSE 12
2.2.1. Fluids presence in the well 13
2.2.2. Completion material considerations 13
2.3. Well modifications 13
2.3.1. Rig availability 13
2.3.2. Complexity of the initial well modification 14
2.3.3. Special consideration during the initial intervention 14
2.3.4. HSE aspects 14
2.3.5. Facilitate future well abandonment 14
2.4. Operational Aspects 14
2.4.1. Redundant Injection Well 14
2.4.2. Minimum platform intervention 15
2.4.3. Well Intervention 15
2.5. In-well Monitoring Consideration 15
2.5.1. Construction 15
2.5.2. Permanent Downhole Gauges 15
2.5.3. DTS 16
2.5.4. Other in-well equipment 16
2.6. Life Cycle Cost 16
2.7. Regulations & Standards 16
2.7.1. International and Industry Standards 17
2.7.2. Local Laws and Regulations 18
4. Cement Review 31
4.1. Summary 31
4.2. Effect of CO2 on Cement and Casing 32
4.2.1. Fluid migration Paths 33
4.2.2. Cement Degradation 34
4.2.3. Cementing / Casing Studies 35
4.2.4. SACROC 37
4.2.5. CO2 Resistant Cements 37
4.3. DIANA Software 38
4.4. Conclusions 40
4.4.1. Other Evidence 41
4.4.2. Shrinkage/Expansion tests 41
5. Lower completion 43
5.1. Summary 43
5.2. Lower Completion Description 43
5.2.1. Formations 44
5.2.2. Lower Completion description with respect of formation tops 44
5.3. Lower Completion under CCS 46
5.3.1. Corrosion in casing 46
5.3.2. Cement degradation 46
5.3.3. Formation and Well Barriers 47
5.4. Lower Completion Strings 49
5.4.1. 7'' Pre-perforated string 49
5.4.2. 4'' Screens string 49
5.5. Gravel Pack / Screens Analysis 50
5.5.1. Material / Corrosion 51
5.5.2. Gravel Pack Design / Operations / Performance 51
5.5.3. Plugging / Erosion 52
5.5.4. Hydrates 55
5.5.5. Injection Experience with Sand Control 55
5.5.6. Flow Reversing (production – injection) 55
5.6. Well Selection Basis 56
6. Goldeneye Well Upper Completions 57
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
iii
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER
9. References 87
10. Appendices 88
APPENDIX 1. Goldeneye Wells 88
APPENDIX 2. WellCat Output Graphs 104
A2.1. Goldeneye Conductor and Surface Casing Assumptions 104
A2.2. Results 104
APPENDIX 3. Casing Design for CO2 Injection 103
A3.1. Casing Design Assumptions 103
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
iv
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER
Figures
Tables
Executive Summary
As part of the Peterhead CCS project the Goldeneye platform will undergo a change of use from
a hydrocarbons producing field to a CO2 injection field. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate
that the Goldeneye wells can perform as desired under the new conditions and retain integrity
under prolonged exposure to CO2 during the injection phase and storage lifetime. The purpose
of this document is to provide an overview of the injection conditions, an understanding of well
requirements and to evaluate the suitability of the components of well construction. It provides
assurance that the basis for the selection of the concept for the completions and well
intervention design is sound.
This document provides an overview of all the components (existing and proposed) that form
part of the wells and their capability to perform under the required conditions as laid out in the
Well Functional Specification, document no. PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00005, Key Knowledge
Deliverable no. 11.098. Areas that have been considered in this report include the conductor and
casing, cementation, upper and lower completion, material selection, monitoring requirements
and well integrity over the lifecycle. The constructability of the selected concept is reviewed
along with plans for future intervention.
The well hydraulic requirements and injection conditions impose an operating envelope on the
well, this is addressed in the completion concept select and the selected concept allows for
adequate flexibility in the injection regime.
Analysis of the conductor and surface casing indicates the casing is of sound design for the
expected load cases for the duration of the extended field life. An additional survey has been
recommended during the define phase to provide up to date inspection data on the casing
condition. Exposure of the carbon steel production casing to CO2 is to be limited by selection of
suitable annulus fluid and placement of production packer.
From field results (SACROC wells), research, software modelling (Diana) and experimental data
(shrinkage/expansion tests) it can be concluded that the existing Portland cement is suitable for
CO2 injection and storage. It is recommended that the cement quality and placement be
evaluated by means such as CBL (cement bong logging) and USIT (UltraSonic Imager Tool).
There is no requirement to retrieve or replace the existing 13% Cr lower completion, it is
recommended to maintain oxygen levels compatible with the well material. This is to be
confirmed in the detailed design phase. In order to mitigate against effects such as plugging and
erosion of the lower completion components it is recommended to limit the maximum particle
size in the CO2 injection fluid to be as low as 5 microns.
The existing upper completion is not suitable for the change of service and requires to be
replaced. Various concepts have been evaluated and the Single tapered tubing (small tubing)
concept has been selected. The operation involved in replacing the upper completion is standard
within the industry. Elements of the proposed completion that require additional engineering
have been highlighted to be progressed during the Define phase.
It is possible to perform intervention operations with wireline and slickline, the requirement for
intervention is reduced by the incorporation of permanent downhole monitoring in the
completion design.
1. Introduction
1.1. Goldeneye Key Data
Table 1-1: Goldeneye Key Data
Attribute Specification
Onshore / Offshore Offshore
Well type Hydrocarbon Producer
(Suspended)
DFE 152.5ft [46.5m]
Water depth 395ft [120.4m]
Number of wells 5
Top reservoir (TVDSS) 8,300ft [2529.8m]
There are five existing wells in the Goldeneye platform initially drilled and completed to produce
hydrocarbons from the Captain sands. The abbreviated well names are used in this document
DTI 14/29a-A4Z (GYA02S1) is the sidetrack of DTI 14/29a-A4 (GYA02).
The field was granted CoP (Cessation of Production) from DECC (Department of Energy and
Climate Change) in Q1 2011. There are therefore no plans to produce the wells in the future.
These wells can be used as CO2 injectors or monitoring wells. Suspension plugs were installed in
the existing production wells after the CoP declaration. Well schematics along with encountered
formations are included in Appendix 1
The upper and lower completion specifications of the current completion are:
Upper Completion
TRSSSV 5.875'', 7'' tubing 6.184'', 5'' tubing 4.67'', PDG 4.576'', PBR 4.577'', Packer 4.65''
Lower Completion
FIV 2.94'', Screens 3.548'', X-over 3.515’’
[1''~25.4mm]
The maximum well deviation in Goldeneye wells
GYA03 is currently planned to be a monitoring well during the initial phase of injection. The
well will be converted for CO2 injection. Well GYA-02S1 is a sidetrack of the parent hole
GYA-02.
The wellhead temperature will range from 0.5°C to 10°C. The CO2 stream arrival temperature
to the platform will be between 2.3°C to 10.1°C depending mainly on seabed temperature. The
wellhead temperature will also depend on the expansion degree of the CO2 in the surface
facilities.
The expected arrival temperature to the platform depends mainly on the sea temperature.
Metocean data for the Goldeneye field indicates variation in sea temperature between summer
and winter. The variation in the P50 seabed temperature is between 6°C and 10 °C. The P50 sea
surface temperature has a variation between 7°C and 15 °C
The minimum arrival CO2 temperature to the platform in winter is 2.3°C. The temperature drop
between the seabed and the CO2 arrival temperature is estimated at 1.7°C for winter conditions
and approximately 1°C in summer.
The expected manifold conditions in winter is 5.3°C considering an average seabed temperature
of 7°C and a temperature drop of 1.7°C at the riser.
The current philosophy is to inject CO2 in single phase liquid in the top of the well keeping
wellhead pressures above the saturation line to avoid extremely low temperatures in the well
caused by the Joule Thomson effect. It is anticipated that the difference between the minimum
WH pressure and the CO2 saturation pressure will prevent any potential damage to surface
equipment. A minimum margin of 50psia [3.5bar] between the minimum WH injection pressure
and the saturation pressure is suggested.
50
40
30
Pressure, bar
10
0
0 5 10 15
-10
Temperature, degC
The maximum expected manifold temperature is 10.1 °C. The saturation pressure for this
temperature is 45.13bar. The minimum WH pressure for operating the wells is 48.63bar
(45.13+3.5). A 50bar minimum pressure has been selected as the minimum WH pressure to
operate the wells.
The maximum WH pressure is limited by the maximum allowable pipeline pressure. A CO2
arrival pressure to the platform of 120bar [Units] has been highlighted.. Considering pressure
drops in the surface equipment (filters, meters, valves, etc.) a maximum available pressure of
115bar at the wellhead has been used.
The Figure below shows the pressure and temperature traverse profile (GYA01) for WH
pressure of ~50 bara and ~115 bara for reservoir pressure of 2,750 psia [190bar], 3,200 psia
[221bar] and 3,800 psia [262bar] for CO2 injection temperature of 4°C. The traverse profile will
vary with change in completion type. It is observed from the graph that IBHT (injection bottom
hole temperature) ranges from 20°C to 35°C during the injection field life.
Pressure and temperature prediction for transient condition is critical. The operation procedure
should aim to reduce the temperature drop in the wellbore (especially at the top of the well).
Below is a graph, which shows the CO2 pressure and temperature conditions during injection in
GYA01. The blue lines represent the wellhead and bottom hole pressure and temperature
operating envelope. The pink curve represents the injection at 50 bara WH pressure and the
green curve is for injection at 115 bara WH pressure.
CO2 Density
350
300
100 Kg/m3
200 Kg/m3
250 300 Kg/m3
Bottomhole 400 Kg/m3
500 Kg/m3
Operating
600 Kg/m3
Envelope
Pressure, bar
50
0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
Temperature, degC
2. Wells Requirements
This section provides an overview of the basic well requirements for the project. Various
aspects of well completion are listed which are required to ensure flawless CO2 injection for the
well life cycle. These requirements are categorised into six groups namely Hydraulics
Requirements, Well Integrity and HSE, Well Modifications, Operational Aspects, In-well
monitoring consideration and Life Cycle cost.
Hydraulic requirements in the injection wells include management of the CO2 properties (JT
expansion) and the resultant temperatures in the existing platform wells, varying injection
pressures and injection rate flexibility.
Well Integrity and HSE outlines completion material and downhole completion equipment
consideration.
Well modification includes aspects such as rig availability, complexity of initial well modification,
interventions and future well abandonment aspects.
Operational aspects cover redundant injection well, minimum platform intervention and in-well
interventions requirements.
In-well monitoring involves the equipment required to adequately monitor and manage the
injector wells and vertical conformance of the CO2.
All the above also considers the Life cycle cost of the project.
The above-mentioned categorisation provides guidelines which can be used for the selection of
Goldeneye well completion philosophy. An integrated approach with all above factors taken
into consideration will ensure sustainability of CO2 injection. The above requirements will help
to narrow down the completion options. The in-depth design of the selected well completion
will align with these well completion requirements.
By using multiple wells, several different completion sizes should be designed such that they can
handle fluctuating injection rates arriving at the platform.
To accommodate the wide range in injection rates, tubing size optimization (in the case of CO2
management by friction) is important. Different tubing sizes (from 3 ½” to 4 ½” [88.9mm to
114.3m]) and different length mixes are anticipated for use due to the reasons mentioned above.
Consideration will be given to the maximum allowable velocity in the tubing.
During transient operations (close-in and start-up operations), a temperature drop is observed at
the top of the well for a short period of time. The faster the shut-in or faster the well opening
operation, the less the resultant temperature drop. The cooling effect diminishes deeper into the
well due to limited CO2 flashing and heat transfer from surrounding wellbore.
The reservoir pressure affects the temperature calculation during the transient calculations. The
lower the reservoir pressure, the lower is the surface temperature expected during transient
operations and hence the higher the stresses/impact in terms of well design.
In summary, the expected transient conditions are as follows:
Table 2-1: Results of transient calculations – design case (base oil in annulus)
Strict operational procedures need to be implemented and adopted by the Goldeneye Well
Operations Group to avoid extreme cooling of the well components due to temperature
limitation of the well components.
Frequent opening-up and closing-in events should be avoided to limit the stresses in the well
(temperature reduction during short periods of time) and to reduce the operational intensity in
the wells.
Another activity that could lead to a temperature drop at the top of the well is the SSSV testing.
This is explored in further detail in section 8. Selected Upper Completion Concept.
wells is minimised as much as possible. To prevent any CO2 leak path, current well investigation
with respect to drilling/cementation and completion is necessary. Based on corrosion analysis,
well completion design should consider long-term durability of well completion equipment. Seal
sections and stagnant zones in the well completion are critical.
HSE aspects should be considered during the life cycle of the well (to cover well conversion
from hydrocarbon production; to CO2 injection; to final abandonment).
All completion types in terms of installation need to be analysed against Rig and possible
alternative Rig-less options. Some completion types, for example dual completions can only be
installed by use of a rig. During the FEED phase an effective procurement plan shall be
formulated to address such needs.
2.5.1. Construction
The ability to install in-well monitoring should be considered in the well completion design. The
available space to install in-well monitoring will vary with each completion type.
The installation complexity of these devices will be dependent on the completion type and size.
Factors such as SSSV depth and limited number of wellhead penetrations will play a role in
deciding the downhole monitoring equipment.
2.5.3. DTS
It is a medium priority in the wells to monitor the distributed temperature along the well in the
injector.
Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) obtains temperature information through a fibre optic
system based on backscattering of laser pulses. Installed in a well, the system measures the
temperature continuously along the full length of the fibre optic cable. Changes in temperature
that result from changing fluid mixtures or reservoir conditions can be monitored in detail. DTS
will require fibre optic capabilities in the wells and on the platform.
The main reasons to install the system in the wells are:
(i) Help in the optimisation of the wells start-up,
(ii) Tubing leak identification and
(iii) Potential identification of out of zone injection.
Source Name
Wells Oil & Gas UK Guidelines for the suspension and abandonment of
wells. Issue 4, July 2012
Wells Oil & Gas UK Guidelines on qualification of materials for the
suspension and abandonment of wells
Wells ISO 14310 Packers and Bridge Plugs
API 11D1
Wells ISO 10432 – Downhole Safety Valve
10417
API 14A, API 14B
Wells ISO 10423 Wellhead and Christmas tree equipment
API 6A
Sections one and two provide an introduction to the Peterhead CCS project and a brief overview
of the well requirements. It is now essential to review the components of the well in order to
establish their suitability for the project and well integrity. This section looks at the information
available on the Goldeneye well conductors and casing strings and analyses this information to
confirm the suitability in the injection phase and lifecycle of the well.
The Goldeneye platform jacket and topside was installed in 2003 by the Heerema Thialf heavy
lift barge. Grade X52 30'' x 1 ½'' [762mm x 38.1mm] wall thickness conductors, complete with
Oil States internally upset Merlin connectors, and 2'' [50.8mm] wall thickness drive shoes, were
installed and driven to refusal at ~190ft [57.91m] beneath the seabed. Following these
operations, Maersk jack-up drilling unit Innovator batch drilled all the wells on Goldeneye
Platform. That is all the 17 ½'' [444.5mm] sections were drilled; followed by the 12 ¼''
[311.2mm] sections and finally the 8 ½'' [215.9mm] sections.
All the wells consist of a 30” conductor, followed by a tapered surface casing string 20” x 13 ⅜”
[508mm x 339.7mm] and a production casing string 10 ¾” x 9⅝” [273.1mm x 244.5]. The wells
also incorporate a 7” [177.8mm] pre-perforated 13Cr production liner.
3.1. Summary
Goldeneye Platform wells have been analysed with Halliburton WELLCAT software. The
analysis models the conditions of CO2 injection.
Due to corrosion reports indicating a potential concern, a special case has been worked up to
simulate high 20'' [508mm] corrosion rates. Assuming a high corrosion rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a
25 year life span - both worst cases, it can be concluded that the pipe is still fit for purpose -
Safety Factor of 2.4 for axial loading. Furthermore, at high corrosion rate the 20'' casing still has
several years' life left beyond the 25 year life span.
Hence Goldeneye 20'' casing will be good for the expected load cases for the duration of the
extended field life. It follows that no load transfer to the conductor is expected.
Present Goldeneye platform casing design has been checked for suitability in CO2 injection
mode, assuming the expected values for CO2 pressures, temperatures and volumes no issues
have been identified with the casing design. Carbon steel compatibility issues with CO2 can be
mitigated against provided exposure is kept to a maximum of 165 days of wet events over 15
years.
Figure 3-1: Top of Conductor GYA-02 at the South side of the well, showing the 20'' Casing
leaning towards the South-East
As can be seen from the figure, the vertical gap between the two casings is approx. 9'' to 10''
[228.6mm to 254mm]. Also worthy of note is that the surface casing is not centred inside the
30'' conductor.
Since the drilling and completion of the Goldeneye wells, the conductors and the surface casing
strings have been measured for corrosion by means of a Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) Tool.
Corrosion measurement campaigns have been carried out:
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
20
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 3.Conductor & Casing Review
3.2.1. Results
Wall thickness results from the latest survey are included in the following table.
Table 3-1: Maximum corrosion rate of Surface Casings and Conductors
As can be seen from the table, four out of the five 20'' surface conductors have corrosion rate of
0.32 mm/yr or less. There is only one value greater, of 0.55 mm/yr. All figures have an error of
±0.39 mm/yr.
5. The maximum corrosion rates between spud date and August 2007 and between August
2007 and May 2010 are not statistically significant for any of the 20'' Surface Casings and the
30'' Conductors, except the 20'' Casing of GYA-01 and the 30'' Conductors of GYA-01,
GYA-03 and GYA-05 between August 2007 and May 2010. The latter corrosion rates are
only just statistically significant. Apart from these exceptions, PEC has therefore not
detected statistically significant corrosion.
6. The corrosion rates of both 20'' Casings and 30'' Conductors in the period between August
2007 and May 2010 are not different from the corrosion rate in the period between spud
date and August 2007 at the 95% confidence level.
7. The elevation of the maximum corrosion rates on the 20'' Surface Casings is below the fluid
level in the 'D' annulus, where no corrosion is expected, except for GYA-03. This is
consistent with no significant corrosion on the 20'' Casings.
3.3.3. Conductor
The chosen conductor design for Goldeneye was based on the following criteria.
- Conductor to provide marine protection only, no load-bearing requirement.
- Conductor to be driven - drilling or drill drive not acceptable due to shallow soil stability
criteria.
- Fatigue resistance during installation and field life.
- Drive ability and resistance to directional deviation.
- Merlin mechanical connectors to reduce installation time
The final conductor design was generated as a result of collaboration between Heerema
(Installation Contractor), UWG (Structural Analysis consultants), Aker (Conductor Fabrication)
and Shell Expro. The final design is as follows.
The string design did not allow for total evacuation to gas. The maximum surface pressure in
the event of total evacuation to gas is 3,100 psia [214bar]. The maximum working pressure of
the 20'' SR20 connector is 2,700 psia [186bar]. As such, the casing was pressure tested with a
surface pressure of 2,400 psia [165bar].
However, the expected FIT of 630 pptf allows the circulation of a gas kick in excess of 200 bbls
with maximum surface pressure of 2,000 psia [138bar].
COLLAPSE LOADS
External Load:
Mud and cement-mix water: - The 20'' - 13 ⅜'' casing was set across the Tertiary, Beauly and
Dornoch that contain a mix of shales and sands. However, as no issues were recorded during
cementing operation on the riserless subsea wells, it was assumed that losses were unlikely. As
such, the modelling was carried out assuming no discreet permeable zones exist. This coupled
with remedial top up cementing programme ensure that the top of cement will be at the seabed.
The external load was modelled as a mud and cement-mix water. This assumes a column of 520
pptf from the wellhead to seabed and cement from seabed to TD. The application of this load
case ensured a conservative design.
Internal Loads:
Cementing: - Maximum differential pressure while displacing the green cement with 520 pptf
drilling fluid was calculated as 463 psia [32bar].
Lost returns with mud drop: - The 12 ¼'' [311mm] section was drilled with 560 - 580 pptf mud.
However, in the event hole instability issues develop, the mud weight could be increased to a
max of 620 pptf. As such, the worst case of a 620 pptf mud was assumed in conjunction with a
pore pressure of 3,232 psia [223bar] in the Captain Reservoir the mud drop in the annulus would
be 3,319ft [1012m].
Full - Partial Evacuation: - Full evacuation analysis is the worst load case with respect to collapse
loads as is indicated by the wear analysis outlined below.
AXIAL LOADS
The following loads were applied.
Casing running speed: 1.8ft/sec [0.55m/s]
Max overpull on casing if stuck: 300,000 lbs [1,335kN]
Pre cement static load: 0 klbs
Post cement static loads applied 0 klbs
Green cement pressure test: 2,400 psia
Service loads applied Yes
WEAR TOLERANCE
The maximum wear allowance for the 13 ⅜'' casing was modelled to be 7.6% at 4,245ft. This
was due to the collapse load case of Full / Partial Evacuation that applies a conservative case of
total evacuation without fill up. In reality, it was expected that the casing would be topped up
with seawater until equilibrium. The low acceptable wear was as a result of a very conservative
load case and as such, it was not considered to be a major risk.
the hydrocarbon hydrate formation depth for the initial hydrocarbon conditions. The 9 ⅝''
[245mm] shoe was set at the Base Rodby. As such, there is no limitation on the kick tolerance
with respect to formation strength.
The following table details the production casing design for the Goldeneye wells
Table 3-4: Production Casing Evaluation
9 ⅝'', 53.5 lb/ft [72.5Nm], L80, VAM Top Alternative drift was used in all wells in order to
ensure that the worst case collapse loading is met and to reduce logistical issues during the
execution phase.
BURST - DRILLING
External Load:
Pore Pressure / Seawater Gradient: - This load case was selected to ensure that the design is robust to
a conservative load case.
Internal Loads:
Displacement to gas: - A full displacement to dry gas was modelled assuming an influx at TD of the
wells. Differential pressures below the wellhead and at the shoe are ~3,000 psia [207bar] and
95 psia [6.55bar] respectively.
Pressure Test: - The maximum expected tubing head pressure was calculated to be 3,100 psia
[214bar]. Assuming a further 1.1 safety factor, the maximum expected THP could be 3,410 psia
[235bar]. The casing design was carried out assuming a surface pressure test of 4,500 psia
[310bar] with 0.45 psia/ft [101.8mbar] fluid in hole.
Cementing: - Burst during cementation and pressure testing was modelled using 1,000ft lead slurry
at a weight of 650 pptf and a 500ft tail cement at 832 pptf displaced with seawater. A pressure
test to 4,500 psia was applied at surface. Differential pressure at the shoe is 3,465 psia [239bar].
Drilling fluid (560 pptf) and green cement provide back up for this load.
BURST - PRODUCTION:
External Load:
Pore Pressure / Seawater Gradient: - This load case was selected to ensure that the design is robust to
a conservative load case.
Tubing leak: - A tubing leak below the wellhead was modelled. Initial reservoir pressures were
assumed with a dry gas gradient to wellhead. A maximum pressure at the top of the A annulus
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
27
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 3.Conductor & Casing Review
was calculated at 3,100 psia; this was used for modelling purposes and assumes a dry gas gradient
to the wellhead. The packer fluid was modelled at 500 pptf, with the packer positioned 200ft
AH above the 9 ⅝'' shoe in each well. Actual packer fluid is inhibited seawater at 450 pptf.
COLLAPSE - DRILLING
External Load:
Mud and Cement Mix-Water: - The external load during drilling was modelled as mud and cement
mix water the mud column is assumed as 620 pptf, for all wells which is the worst-case load.
This ensures that the most conservative design is applied.
Internal Loads:
Cementing: - Maximum differential pressure while displacing green cement with seawater is
1,500 psia.
Lost returns with mud drop: - The reservoir section was drilled with 540 pptf mud, however the lost
returns with mud drop case was run assuming 620 pptf mud in hole with a reservoir pressure of
3,852 psia [266bar]. The drop in the annulus assuming losses would be 2,359ft [719m].
COLLAPSE - PRODUCTION
External Load:
Mud and Cement Mix-Water: - The external load during drilling was modelled as mud and cement
mix water the mud column is assumed as 620 pptf, for all wells which is the worst-case load.
This ensured that the most conservative design was applied.
Internal Loads:
Full Evacuation: - Assumes that the string is vented to atmosphere, i.e. no internal back up.
Above and Below Packer: - Assumes that the packer is set 200ft [61m] AH above the 9 ⅝'' casing
shoe and the in place packer fluid is 500 pptf.
AXIAL LOADS
The following loads were applied.
Casing running speed: 1.8ft/sec [0.55m/s]
Max overpull on casing if stuck: 300,000 lbs [1,335kN]
Pre cement static load: 0 klbs
Post cement static loads applied 0 klbs
Green cement pressure test: 4,500 psia
Service loads applied Yes
Wear Analysis
The original analysis showed the maximum predicted wear on the production casing to be up to
10.7% at various depths on all the wells. However, this is not considered an issue as the planned
reservoir sections range from 70ft - 200ft in length and as such drilling time is minimal.
Note: 10% is the standard default value to allow for casing affected by mechanical abrasion -
drilling through casing.
Goldeneye lower completion tubing steel is 13% Cr. This is also the case for the 4'' Screens and
7'' [178mm] Pre-perforated liner. The 9 ⅝'' [245mm] Production Casing is made of Carbon
Steel. Free water in combination with CO2 will lead to dissolution of CO2, forming carbonic acid
(H2CO3). This might lead to corrosion of carbon steel. For 13% Cr material this is not
considered a corrosion threat.
The production casing above the existing packer has only been in contact with the completion
fluid used in the A-Annulus. That fluid was inhibited seawater installed during the completion
operations. Hence the corrosion of this production casing above the packer is expected to be
negligible. Condition of the casing below the production packer is less certain due to presence of
Goldeneye hydrocarbon gas in contact with the casing.
The hydrocarbon gas in Goldeneye has a small content of CO2 (0.4% mol). During the
hydrocarbon production phase the 13% Cr components are estimated to have practically no
corrosion. Goldeneye gas was in contact with elements below the 9 ⅝'' packer during the
production phase. There is a perforated pup joint between the 9 ⅝'' production packer and the
screens hanger creating a trapped volume of A-annulus fluid - most likely seawater. Due to the
presence of CO2 in the gas there is some corrosion potential in the production casing below the
9 ⅝'' production packer to the casing shoe, especially in the dead volume below the perforated
pup joint and the screens hanger.
The Goldeneye reservoir is connected to a large aquifer and all five wells are suspended. As
such, the lower completion can be in contact with formation water, in addition to the dead
volume of water between the 9 ⅝'' production packer and the screen hanger. This is also the
case during the transition period between gas production and cessation of gas production to CO2
injection.
During the initial phase of CO2 injection the lower completion will be in contact with formation
water. Over time, with CO2 injection, the presence of water will decrease as the water is
displaced by the CO2, and eventually water presence will disappear.
The estimated wet events to avoid corrosion of the 9 ⅝'' production casing below the packer
was previously estimated at 3% wet events in 15 years or 165 days of wet events. This represents
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
29
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 3.Conductor & Casing Review
the maximum time allowed to have wet events (CO2 + water). CO2 will be injected dry thereby
limiting the wet events.
Because of the presence of water in the bottom of the well, the displacing time of the formation
water by the CO2 should be considered. Based on CO2 EOR projects it is estimated that the
water in the bottom of the well will be displaced in a matter of weeks.
Initial investigation shows these low temperatures to be outside the operating range of some well
components. However this is only for the duration of the low temperatures and until the well
warms up again - maybe as short as 30 minutes. Hence further investigation is ongoing.
The central concern is around the well parts that we do not intend to change out:-
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
30
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 4.Cement Review
- Wellheads
- Surface / intermediate casing
- Production casing
The results of transient CO2 injection have been incorporated in the Conceptual Well
Completion Design Proposal, document no. PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003. This document also
details actions and precautions required to overcome these extreme cooling effects.
4. Cement Review
This section provides an understanding of cement degradation modes and mitigation measures.
It looks at experience from wells where cement has been exposed to CO2 over a prolonged
period of time and results from more recent laboratory-based experiments in order to provide an
understanding of the suitability of the cement in the Goldeneye wells to form part of the
Peterhead CCS project.
An offsite Cement Concept Select workshop was held to discuss the possibilities around cement
suitability with regard to CO2 injection. Invitees included various relevant discipline engineers
such as well engineers, fluids engineers and technologists.
The Concept Select workshop consisted of a presentation and discussion covering:
- existing wells and cements
- cement degradation mechanisms and leak paths
- other CO2 injection examples
- software simulation, mechanical model
- proprietary CO2 resistant cements
Schematics showing the current well construction along with the encountered formations are
included in Appendix 1. Goldeneye Wells.
Table 4-1: Cement Column above 9 ⅝" [245mm] shoe
GYA-01 GYA-02s1 GYA-03 GYA-04 GYA-05
Theoretical Top of Cement 7506 9768 7865 11510 6895
Production Packer Setting Depth 8528 10675 8894 12517 7941
9-⅝" Casing Shoe 9006 10990 9365 13010 8395
Cement column above shoe 1500 1222 1500 1500 1500
4.1. Summary
The effect of CO2 injection on the cement in Goldeneye wells is discussed in this document. The
Goldeneye wells have been cemented with Portland class G cement which has been reviewed for
suitability for injection of CO2, with the conclusion that all wells will be fit for CO2 injection.
Diana software, a specialist mechanical cement model has been run to ascertain the effects of
CO2 injection on Goldeneye Platform. The results indicate that there will be no mechanical
problems due to CO2 injection.
Chemically, due to the absence of water in the delivered CO2 - injection phase - once water, and
hydrocarbons have been displaced - there is no mechanism to create corrosive carbonic acid.
Later in the life of the wells, after the injection phase, reservoir dynamics such as gravity,
miscibility and reactions with downhole formations, will mean carbonic acid will reappear at the
base of the cement in the Goldeneye wells. As above, this is not expected to be a problem for
Goldeneye wells.
Cement test results show negligible expansion and contraction of samples made from a mix
similar to that used in the Goldeneye wells.
After cessation of CO2 injection, Goldeneye wells and the Goldeneye platform will be
abandoned. The choice of cements for abandonment and the style of abandonment will be
decided by cementing technology, industry best practices and legislation in place at the time.
Specialist cements could be qualified to see if they are significantly better than Portland cement.
If so, a new drill well or a side-track from existing well may be cemented with a CO2 resistant
cement in any portion of the well where the cement would be in contact with CO2.
As workovers on the Goldeneye Platform will not occur until later it is recommended that
qualification of CO2 resistant cement be followed up after the FEED Contract has been awarded
and nearer to the start-up date. This would give greatest benefit to emerging research in this new
area.
Gasda, S., J.M. Nordbotten, and M.A. Celia, "Upslope Plume Migration and Implications for
Geological CO2 Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers", IES Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1,
page 1, 2008.
These leak paths would occur and develop due to potential cementing defects such as:
- Inadequate placement of cement resulting in channels or mud films,
- Channels caused by gas migration during cement hydration,
- Cracks caused by cement failure in compression/traction, and
- Micro annuli caused by lack of bonding at the interfaces with casing and/or rock, or due to
poor P/T techniques
This process relies on the presence of water. That is, water is required to form carbonic acid
completing the first phase allowing the following two processes to occur. Goldeneye CO2
delivery is expected to be more or less free of water. However, water may be present around the
wellbore.
The other main factors in cement degradation are temperature, pressure, and time. Elevated
temperatures and elevated pressures both speed up the degradation process. The delivery
temperature of CO2 into Goldeneye is expected to be around that of the sea at approx. 40°F
[5°C], due to delivery via subsea pipeline. Initial injection pressure will be ~2,500 psia [172bara]
and rise higher as injection proceeds - towards 3,700 psia [255bara]. Downhole temperature at
the reservoir level will be in the order of 20°C during CO2 injection. When injection has ceased,
in the long term, the downhole temperature will return to the initial reservoir temperature of
83°C.
Due to the degradation mechanism, cement degradation from studies has been found to be time
dependant. The equation can be simplified as a constant multiplied by the square root of time.
Goldeneye is expected to inject dry CO2 - that is without water.
During the injection phase, if water and subsequently carbonic acid does get to the casing
cement sheath, a product of carbonic acid reacting with cement is an insoluble precipitate -
calcium carbonate (CaCO3). It leads to lower porosity in the cement because calcium carbonate
has a higher molar volume than Ca(OH)2 and for cement sheath integrity, this reaction actually
improves the cement’s properties and the carbonation is therefore a self-healing mechanism in
the carbonate.
Rate of cement degradation depends on three factors - heat, pressure, and the square root of
time.
Goldeneye wells will be supplied with CO2 at low temperature 0 to 5°C at the wellhead in a
supercritical state through a subsea pipeline. Injection wells in the United States are generally fed
with CO2 at ambient temperature. Hence, lower Goldeneye temperatures are working towards
smaller rates of degradation than comparable American wells.
- pump dry CO2; no water in the injected CO2 means no carbonic acid.
- cement placement; good spacer, lead and tail and good centralisation to avoid voids in the
cement. In addition, for abandonment plugs, balanced cement plugs to avoid stringers and
channelling.
- keep excess water to a minimum; have as little unreacted water as possible in cement slurry.
Without water, CO2 cannot form carbonic acid. Use a suitable filler, inert to CO2, to close
up the interstitial spaces.
- best cementing practices; all the standard requirements such as slurry testing, fresh cement,
good additive control, mixing at constant density, no hold ups whilst pumping the job etc.
- avoid water based fluids in workovers; once CO2 injection has commenced, if possible, avoid
water based fluids in workovers. This is to minimise the combination with CO2 in the well
to produce carbonic acid
The reaction of Portland cement with carbonic acid forms a CaCO3 film or layer on the cement
surface. This slows and can stop the reaction process. Any free water in the cement can allow
the formation of more carbonic acid and continue the reaction process.
Expansion and contraction can also cause micro-fractures in the cement or chip tiny bits off. If
there is any free water, it will be exposed or the water released. The process of carbonic acid
formation and cement attack then starts again.
Attribute Value
Surface CO2 delivery temperature: 5°C
Downhole reservoir temperature: 83°C
CO2 state: Supercritical
Downhole pressure (2010): 2,100 psia [145bara]
Eventual Pressure (post injection): 3,700 psia [255bara]
Cement: Class G
Temperature at reservoir during injection ~+20 to +30°C
expected
Since about 2005, there have been a number of high profile studies into the effects of CO2 on
Portland cements. Below is a summary of a few of the major studies that are frequently
reported.
The effect of CO2 alterations on Portland cement containing calcium silicate hydrates and
calcium hydroxide was studied in both laboratory experiments and field tests.
Regular Portland-based cements contain Ca(OH)2, which reacts with CO2 when water is present
to form solid calcium carbonate through the following chemical reaction:
Ca(OH)2 + CO32- + 2H+ = CaCO3 + 2H2O
This process is named cement carbonation. Even if this process alters the composition of the
cement, it leads to lower porosity in the cement because calcium carbonate has a higher molar
volume (36.9 cm3) than Ca(OH)2 (33.6 cm3) (Shen and Pye, 1989). For cement sheath integrity,
this reaction actually improves the cement’s properties and the carbonation is therefore a self-
healing mechanism in the carbonate.
In a CO2 sequestration project, the supply of CO2 around the wellbore will continue the
carbonation process as long as Ca(OH)2 is present in the cement. The calcium carbonate is also
soluble with the CO2, even though it is more stable than Ca(OH)2. Experiments by Kutchko et
al (2007) showed that when all Ca(OH)2 has reacted in the carbonation process, the pH will drop
significantly (Zone 1 in Figure 4.2). When the pH drops, more of the CO2 will react with water
and form HCO3- (Zone 2 in Figure 4-2). The abundance of HCO3- will react with the calcium
carbonate to form calcium (II) carbonate, which is soluble in water and can move out of the
cement matrix through diffusion (Kutchko et al, 2007). The final reaction that occurs in Zone 3
(close to the cement surface) is calcium silicate hydrate reacting with H2CO3 to form calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) according to the following chemical reaction:
3 H2CO3 + Ca3Si2O7 * 4H2O = 3 CaCO3 + 2 SiO2 * H2O + 3 H2O
The volume of calcium silicate hydrate is larger than the calcium carbonate and this reaction will
increase the porosity of the cement in Zone 3, which is the closest to the reservoir formation
containing the CO2.
4.2.4. SACROC
SACROC is an interesting and relevant insight into the effects of CO2 on oilfield cements and
tubulars. A 52 year old SACROC well with conventional, Portland-based well cement, was
exposed to CO2 flooding operation for 30 years at the SACROC Unit, located in West Texas. At
the end of its life, the well 49-6 was cored bringing to the surface samples of cement and casing.
The well was being investigated as part of a programme to evaluate the integrity of Portland-
cement based wellbore systems in CO2 - sequestration environments.
The recovered cement had air permeability in the tenth of a milliDarcy range and thus retained
its capacity to prevent significant flow of CO2. There was evidence, however, for CO2 migration
along both the casing - cement and cement - shale interfaces. A 0.1 - 0.3 cm thick carbonate
precipitate occurred adjacent to the casing. The CO2 producing this deposit may have travelled
up the casing wall or may have infiltrated through the casing threads or points of corrosion. The
cement in contact with the shale (0.1 - 1 cm thick) was heavily carbonated to an assemblage of
calcite, aragonite, vaterite, and amorphous alumino-silica residue and was transformed to a
distinctive orange colour. The CO2 causing this reaction originated by migration along the
cement - shale interface where the presence of shale fragments (filter cake) may have provided a
fluid pathway. The integrity of the casing - cement and cement - shale interfaces appears to be
the most important issue in the performance of wellbore systems in a CO2 sequestration
reservoir.
The most basic observation of the SACROC core is that at well 49-6, Portland cement survived
and retained its structural integrity after 30 years in a CO2 - reservoir environment. While the
cement permeability is greater than typical pristine Portland cement, it would still provide
protection against significant movement of CO2 through the cement matrix. The location of the
sample at only 3 - 4 m above the reservoir contact suggests that the majority of the cement
forming the wellbore seal has survived and would provide a barrier to fluid migration. The
cement bond log supports this interpretation of the persistence of cement throughout the near
CO2 -reservoir environment.
The conclusions of the investigation are provided in Appendix 4. SACROC Conclusions.
The SACROC well was first put on line over 50 years ago. Recovery of sections of SACROC
well showed that ordinary Portland cement could be successfully used to produce hydrocarbons
and then inject CO2 for 30 years. With the improvements in cement formulations; placement
techniques and volume of cement in North Sea wells, the resulting degradation resistance to CO2
should be better than SACROC.
Inputs for the injection modelling include temperatures and pressures predicted from OLGA
SPT software and WELLCAT software. Inputs into the model include;
- cement formulation - placement - centralisation
- cement tops - cement bond logs - temperatures
- pressures - casing testing - thermal cycling
- vertical stress gradient - max and min horizontal stress ratio
- azimuth of max horizontal stress - Young's modulus - Poisson's ratio
- cohesion - friction angle - in-situ stresses
- lithology types - volumetric specific heat
- thermal conductivity, and thermal expansion
- hardening type (linear hardening or softening, or parabolic softening) and corresponding
hardening gradient and fracture energy
The programme results indicate that the existing cement is not compromised and is good for
CO2 injection. The risk of damage over load phases have been calculated for various scenarios
- curing - pressure testing
- completion - shut-in
- injection
Figure 4-3: Diana Example - GYA04 Risk Analysis of Injection mode for 1000 days
In all cases and all instances, the results show the ''remaining capacity'' of the cement is good.
The remaining capacity is a measure of the cycling or fatigue that is left in the cement system.
The lowest remaining capacity case is down to 40 percent.
This lowest case is, 'Risk analysis of injection mode for 1,000 days, maximum cool down but no
reservoir or casing pressure increase' and 'de-bonding at formation'.
The programme has been rerun 4Q2010 with updated input values and for CO2 injection. The
programme still gives acceptable values for remaining capacity. These are within five percent of
the 2009 values and within the repeatability of results.
4.4. Conclusions
All the summary indications are that existing Portland cement is acceptable for CO2 injection
into Goldeneye wells.
Cement placement has been reviewed for all the wells. Cement composition and volumes placed
are all consistent with good practices.
In the Goldeneye case, the injected super-critical CO2 will be dry. Hence during dry CO2
injection, carbonic acid is not formed and hence removes the potential for chemical reaction
with Portland cement. This takes away the main cause of degradation of the cement. However
later in the wells' life there are cases where water shall be present around the wellbores so
carbonic acid degradation cannot be discounted.
Field results such as the SACROC CO2 injection well indicate that Portland cement can retain its
integrity in a hostile CO2 environment.
Software modelling indicates the remaining capacity of the existing cement is good.
The conclusion is that existing wells are suitable.
Portland cements can be modified to slow or prevent reaction with CO2.
Specialist non Portland CO2 resistant cements may have erratic setting times and are difficult to
mix and to place downhole. If it is decided to use these cements, independent stress modelling
and testing will be required.
There are other technologies that should be investigated such as swelling technologies,
alternative plugging materials, and self-healing cements.
Prior to commencing CO2 injection CBL (Cement Bond Logging) and USIT logs will be
performed to evaluate the cement quality, presence and placement. The CBL provides and
overall idea of the cement to formation and casing to cement bond. Analysis of the echo from a
USIT provides an indication of rugosity, casing thickness and cement acoustic impedance.
Test 1 Test 2
% Shrinkage -0.087 0.029
% Expansion 0.043 0.043
5. Lower completion
The objective of this section is to analyse the suitability of the current installed Lower
Completion for the CCS life cycle in the Goldeneye wells. Questions related to the CCS
operation are answered regarding the reliability of the CO2 injection through the existing lower
completion, mitigation mechanisms to ensure the long term injectivity through the lower
completion and finally the requirement or not of side-tracking the wells because of the
configuration of the current lower completion.
Concerns have been highlighted and the consequences of losing integrity of the lower
completion have been discussed
5.1. Summary
The Goldeneye wells lower completion consists of open hole gravel pack including a premium
screen. From the analysis to date, there is no reason to side-track the wells and to install a new
lower completion. No cause has been identified from this analysis which can jeopardize the CO2
injection across the existing lower completion. There are some operational restrictions related to
the characteristics of the CO2 and some limitations related to the particles in the CO2 but these
are considered to be manageable. The maximum particles size in the CO2 stream should not to
exceed 17 microns to avoid erosion and plugging of the screens and gravel pack and 5 microns
to avoid formation plugging.
5.2.1. Formations
The following figure shows the main stratigraphy for the Goldeneye area with the main
characteristics of the individual formations.
The main reservoir related to the lower completion is the Captain D. Captain E is sand with
relatively low permeability above the Captain D. The Rodby shale is the main seal above the
Captain formation. There are some Marls above the Rodby called Hidra and Plenus Marl. The
Plenus Marl is not present in all the Goldeneye producing wells.
Figure 5-1: Main Stratigraphy for Goldeneye area, average depths of formation tops
is proportional square root of time (time½). Several recently published papers examine various
experiments or case studies that examine the potential degradation of Portland based cements
when exposed to high CO2 environments.
The highest estimated corrosion rates of Portland cement when exposed to CO2 gas and wet
supercritical CO2 are in the range of 12,5 meters/10,000 years (0.125 cm/y). Many of the
measured corrosion rates are in the range of 0.5 – 2.5 meters/10,000 years (0.005cm/y to 0.025
cm/y) for the temperatures experienced in the Goldeneye field.
While degradation appears feasible, and is of the order of decades for a cement degradation
thickness of ~1 cm, even in the worst case scenario (Barlet-Gouedard, 2006), there is no reason
for concern for cement degradation through cement of lengths in the order of metres, such as
what is present for sealing in the axial (vertical) direction. Even though some cement
degradation may be expected at the bottom of the production casing shoe, the probability of
axial cement sheath failure is very low as the CO2 will be injected free of water and due to the
long column of cement above the packer.
In the case of having a casing failure then the CO2 can be in contact with the cement in a radial
form. In this particular case the radial degradation of the cement sheath (between the 9 ⅝''
[245mm] casing and the 12 ¼'' [311mm] hole (estimated at 2.5cm) can be within the injection
period.
9 ⅝'' casing and degraded cementation across the radial axis. The likelihood of this event is
considered very low considering the injection of dry CO2.
Ideally the production packer should be placed in front of the Rodby formation, which is an
impermeable seal. This is because the CO2 cannot be displaced into the Rodby in the event of a
casing/cement failure into the Rodby formation due to the sealing characteristics of the
formation. However, this is not possible in all the five existing wells because the 4'' screen
hanger is placed in the Hidra formation above the top of the Rodby. The only way to
accommodate the production packer to be placed at the Rodby formation is by side-tracking the
wells and designing the lower completion such that the packer will be in front of the Rodby
formation.
The production packer might be placed at the Hidra formation. There is a very small risk of
injecting CO2 into the formation in the case of casing failure and cement degradation. This risk
is considered very low based on the estimated matrix properties and the absence of fractures.
Additionally, during the injection period, the pressure of the CO2 downhole will be lower than
the hydrostatic pressure. As such, there is no reason to plan a side-track for the potential of out
of zone injection of the CO2 as the marls above the Rodby also present adequate sealing
characteristics.
The current understanding is that the Chalk cannot be considered as a barrier to the CO2 flow
because of the potential presence of fractures. As such, the production packer should not be
installed in front of the Chalk.
Well by well evaluation of the well barriers during injection with respect to the formation:
GYA-01
The current 9 ⅝'' production packer is placed at the Chalk (above the top of the Marl). It is
recommended in this well to remove the current 9 ⅝'' production packer and install a new one in
front of the Hidra Marl. There is a gap of ~149ft [45.4m] above the 4'' [1.2m] screen hanger to
the top of the Hidra Marl to install the new packer.
GYA-02S1
The current 9 ⅝'' production packer is installed in front of the Hidra Marl. There is currently
212ft of gap between the top of the Marl and the currently production packer. A way of
simplifying the workover might be by cutting the tubing above the production packer and to
install a new packer in front of the Marls within the 212ft [65m] above the existing production
packer. This will be investigated during the FEED phase.
GYA-03
The current 9 ⅝'' production packer is installed in front of the Hidra Marl. There is currently
107ft of gap between the top of the Marl and the currently production packer. A way of
simplifying the workover might be by cutting the tubing above the production packer and to
install a new packer in front of the Marls within the 107ft [32.6m] above the existing production
packer. This will be investigated during the FEED phase.
GYA-04
The current 9 ⅝'' production packer is installed in front of the Hidra Marl. There is currently
303ft [92.4m] of gap between the top of the Marl and the currently production packer. A way of
simplifying the workover might be by cutting the tubing above the production packer and to
install a new packer in front of the Marls within the 303ft above the existing production packer.
This will be investigated during the FEED phase.
GYA-05
The current 9 ⅝'' production packer is placed at the Chalk (above the top of the Marl). It is
recommended in this well to remove the current 9 ⅝'' production packer from the well and
install a new one in front of the Hidra Marl. There is a gap of ~134ft [41m] above the 4'' screen
hanger to the top of the Hidra Marl to install the new packer.
From the analysis, the wells can be placed in two groups:
• Existing packer at the Hidra Marl: GYA02S1, GYA03 and GYA04.
A new packer might be placed above the existing production packer. This might
simplify the workover operations. This will be investigated later considering the
operations and the risk of leaving the perforated pup joint with CO2 injection.
• Existing packer at the Chalk: GYA01 and GYA05.
Removal of the existing packer is required to be able to install a new one deeper into the
Hidra Marl.
The final placement of the new packers within the Hidra will depend on the status of the
production casing at the moment of the installation. If the new packer can be run above the
depth of the existing packer (e.g. GYA02S1, GYA03 and GYA04) then the corrosion risks in the
9 ⅝'' production casing are limited due to the current presence of inhibited fluid in the A-
annulus. However, in the case of having to run the new production packer below the existing
production packer then the placement will be more critical depending on the 9 ⅝'' production
casing condition. As such a casing thickness evaluation tool will need to be run in the well.
Recommendation: Run production casing evaluation tool during the workover.
exists that some localised corrosion of the 9 ⅝'' L80 casing between the 9 ⅝'' production packer
and the G22 seal assembly/SC-2R screen hanger packer could have occurred.
5.4.2.3. FIV
A 5.00'' [127mm] 15 lb/ft [20.3Nm] 13Cr Formation Isolation Valve (FIV) is installed as part of
the lower completion in all of the Goldeneye wells. In the case of Goldeneye the main purpose
of the FIV was to isolate the reservoir from the well bore post gravel pack operations, and to
provide a positive mechanical barrier to flow when running the completion tubing. The FIV
would then have been opened by application of pressure cycles down the production tubing. It
is worth noting however, that remotely opening the FIV by application of pressure is a feature
that can be utilised one time only, repeated application of tubing pressure will not operate the
FIV once it has been opened. Subsequent manipulation of the FIV requires that a shifting tool
be run on coiled tubing or wireline tractor to engage in a shifting profile inside the FIV. When
the shifting tool is locked into the shifting profile a force of circa 2,500 lbs [11.12kN] is required
to move the FIV in to the closed position. It is not possible to close the FIV by application of
pressure or if the FIV is exposed to large pressure differentials.
The FIV is made from 13cr material and is considered to be compatible with CO2 providing that
there is no oxygen in the feed gas. The FIV in its current configuration simply becomes another
section of 13Cr tubing and poses no threat to the future integrity of the well. The minimum ID
through the FIV of 2.94'' [75mm] although reduced when compared with the proposed CO2
injection wells is sufficient to allow coiled tubing and 2.125'' [54mm] O.D wireline logging tools
to be run into the screen section.
• There is no rat hole in the Goldeneye wells - Total depth of the well is in the Captain D.
Screens set close to the wells total depth. 60-70ft [18.3m-21.3m] of true vertical depth has
been completed in the Captain D
• Internal Volume of screens is small - The internal diameter of the screens is 3.548'' 90.1mm]
ID. The volume inside the screens is only 0.0064 m3/m (0.052 bbl/ft).
• Gravel Volume - The top of the screens extends above the top Captain D (63-207ft [19-
63m]). There is gravel above the top of the screens (6-21ft [1.8-6.4m]).
The volume of gravel is ~ 0.023 m3/m – 0.187 bbl/ft3 (This considers a 8.5'' [216mm] hole
diameter – 7'' [178mm] pre-perforated liner – and the screens OD). This value is 3.6 times
the volume associated to the screens
• Gravel will cover the wellbore over the Captain D interval in case of any failure - Practically
any screen failure will lead to the full coverage of the Captain D with gravel.
above the screens (6-21ft [1.8-6.4m] depending on well). Screen out was observed during the
operation in all the wells with the exception of GYA02S1.
5.5.3.1. Plugging
Plugging may reduce the injectivity through the screens and gravel with time.
In a production system the gravel will act as the main filter of the formation sand whilst the
screen will act as the filter for the gravel. In general the gravel reduces the particles in contact
with the screen and reduces the velocity at which particles contact the screen.
In an injection system particles larger than a critical size will start to accumulate internally at the
screens. Smaller solids may pass through the screen and accumulate in the gravel. Some smaller
solids might be able to travel through the gravel.
The internal volume of the screens across the Captain D reservoir is very small, from 0.31 to
0.55m3 (1.9 – 3.4 bbl) (depending on the well). Practically there is no allowance for the
accumulation of solids inside the screen.
Given that the same offshore pipeline used for the hydrocarbon production will be used for the
CO2 injection there is a possibility that particles of varying size might be displaced into the lower
completion. During the production phase it is possible that corrosion products and/or
formation fines might be settling in the pipeline. The offshore pipeline will be cleaned during
the commissioning phase. Removal of the solids and liquids during this phase is very important
to ensure the long term integrity of the pipeline and the lower completion. However, given the
geometry of the pipeline (20'' [508mm] diameter and ~100km long) it is operationally difficult to
remove all the particles currently present in the pipeline. It is wise to assume that not all the
particles will be removed during this cleaning operation.
It is not acceptable to displace the current content of the pipeline (debris as fines or corrosion
products and liquids water and MEG) into the wells prior to CO2 injection.
The amount of solids present during the injection condition operation is currently unknown.
The dry CO2 condition will reduce the risk of having corrosion products injected into the wells,
but there is no warranty of having CO2 free of particles.
Considering the likely presence of solids in the injection stream then filtration of the CO2 is
required. The particle size requirement depends on the currently installed equipment in the
Goldeneye wells.
The following are the rules of thumb accepted in the industry related to the particles size with
respect to flow in a porous media:
• Particles larger than 1/3 of pore throat size will bridge
• Particles smaller than 1/7 of pore throat size will flow through the matrix without
plugging.
• Particles between 1/3 and 1/7 of pore throat size will invade and impair the porous
media
• Pore throat size is 1/6 of particle size in a packed sand matrix with reasonable sorting
Considering the dimensions of the currently installed equipment in GYA and the rules of thumb,
the following calculations have been made:
Screen aperture dimension: 208 microns (Baker information)
Proppant Size: 20/40, D50 of proppant: 730 microns, gravel pore throat size (1/6): 120
microns
Formation Captain D D50 : 230 microns, average pore throat size (1/6) : 40 microns
• Particles larger than 70 microns plugs at the screen face (1/3 screen aperture)
• Particles larger than 40 microns plugs at the screen/proppant face (1/3 gravel)
• Particles between 17-40 microns bridges on formation sand face at interface with
proppant, resulting in plugging of the gravel pack (1/7 & 1/3 gravel)
• Particles larger than 13 microns plugs the sand face (1/3 formation)
• Particles between 6-13 microns invades and impairs the formation (1/7 – 1/3
formation)
• Particles smaller than 6 microns sails on through deep into the formation (1/7
formation)
Hence in order to avoid plugging of the lower completion a maximum particle size of 17
microns is permitted. This is in line with other Shell projects around the globe where water is
filtrated to avoid lower completion plugging in water injection projects.
Recommendation: Maximum particle size to be accepted with the CO2 string is 17 microns considering only the
lower completion limitations. This can be as low as 6 microns considering the formation plugging.
According to the previous calculation and in order not to plug the formation, particles as small
as 6 microns will need to be excluded from the injection stream.
In the case of screen and gravel pack plugging, then the speed of the injected fluid through the
open space of the screen/gravel pack will increase potentially leading to 'hotspot' erosion.
5.5.3.2. Erosion
Erosion is one of the most common mechanisms of screen failure. Screen erosion is a
progressive failure that depends on fluid velocity, particle size and concentration and fluid
properties. Erosion of the screen can be caused by the high downhole flow of fluid through the
screens. The presence of solids will increase the erosion rate.
For erosion in the screens, it is normally accepted that particles above 30 microns will
dramatically increase the erosion rate. As such, particle size above 30 microns should be
avoided.
The aperture velocity (velocity at the slots or open space of the screens) for each well has been
calculated assuming uniform distribution of the fluid in the screen, 10% of open space in the
steel of the screens and only the length of the screen across the Captain D at varying downhole
flow rates. This is shown in the following figure.
Goldeneye
Aperture Velocity (10% mesh area) - Across the Captain D
1
0.9
0.8
Aperture Velocity, ft/s
0.7
GYA01
0.6 GYA02S1
0.5 GYA03
0.4 GYA04
0.3 GYA05
0.2
0.1
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Downhole Rate, m3/d
During the injection process the CO2 will contact first the screens (Excluder 2000). As such, the
restrictions for stand-alone screens (SAS) related to erosion should be applied (instead of the
gravel pack restrictions). Liquid limitations (instead of gas limitations) should be used as the
density of the CO2 at bottom hole injection conditions will be very high ~920-940 Kg/m3. For
liquid flow the normally accepted industry velocity is 1ft/s [~0.3m/s] for production conditions.
It is clear that the aperture velocity (assuming uniform flow) during the hydrocarbon production
phase is much higher than the expected velocity during the CO2 injection case. In both cases the
aperture velocity is below the threshold velocity. In CO2 it is more variable depending on the
downhole conditions of pressure and temperature because of the CO2 variation with these
properties.
However, the aperture velocity assumes uniform flow through the screens. Under production
conditions this can be considered a good approach due to the presence of gravel distributing the
flow – the flow is dispersed and distributed across the screen, which reduces the creation of hot
spots. Under injection conditions the CO2 will be first in contact with the screen increasing the
susceptibility to plugging. If a large area of the screen is plugged or flow is going through a short
interval such as fractures, the erosion rate can be considerably higher creating a hot spot
injection.
Even considering a reduction of the maximum aperture velocity from 1ft/s to 0.25ft/s [~0.3 to
0.076m/s] (quarter of the maximum recommended velocity) due to the reasons described above
there will not be any limitations in the wells with respect to the downhole injection velocity of
the CO2 under steady state conditions.
The main consequences of the calculations are:
• Well Start-up procedure - Start up procedures in the wells should be developed to be able to
cope with the Joule Thomson effect in the top of the well (rapid injection) and to avoid very
high downhole rates created by high rates at warm CO2 conditions at the screen level after
some shut-in period.
• Avoid fracture propagation conditions - In the case of injection under fracturing conditions
the lower completion might suffer from integrity issues due to the following reasons:
5.5.4. Hydrates
The formation of hydrates is only possible when water is present in sufficiently significant
quantities and the temperature and pressure of the fluid is within the hydrate formation window.
During hydrocarbon production, water has encroached into the Goldeneye gas cap and at least
part of the well gravel pack will be surrounded by water at the time that injection commences.
The trapped gas saturation is estimated to be 25%, so some methane will remain near the well.
The methane is miscible with CO2 and consequently will eventually be displaced by the injected
CO2. The initial injection of CO2 will drive water away from a well and cool the reservoir. The
cooling of the injection well and the surrounding reservoir matrix induced by the injection of
CO2 does have the potential to create conditions favourable for the formation of hydrates
In order to reduce the initial risk of hydrate formation during the first years of injection (once
water is displaced from the wellbore) it is considered prudent to introduce batch hydrate
inhibition prior to operational opening of a well for injection purposes. If water is subsequently
introduced into a well and/or it is suspected that water is present in a wellbore, then batch
injection should continue. Methanol is currently preferred as an inhibitor and this will be
supplied to the platform via the 4'' [102mm] piggybacked supply pipeline from St Fergus. Batch
hydrate inhibition will feature as an instruction in the well operational procedures that will be
developed for the injection system
These formation fines embedded in the gravel pack can get mobilized against the formation (like
an external filter cake) and create an additional pressure drop reducing the injectivity in the well.
The effect of this pressure drop is considered low due to the following reasons:
• Well productivity stable with time - indication of a limited volume of fines being trapped
with time as the pressure drop in the wellbore has been stable.
• Captain D is well sorted sandstone - completed in the top of the D sand where the sand
sorting is better. Fines percentage in the Captain D is very small
• Gravel pack designed considering the general criteria in the oil industry - gravel can have
formation particles (principle of the gravel pack / screens)
• Industry experience in underground storage with sand control
A remedial activity in the case of finding this issue is by side-tracking the well to avoid the
trapping of solids in the lower completion during the production phase.
Recording date
Actual reading
Actual reading
MAASP [bara]
MAASP [bara]
Trigger [bara]
Trigger [bara]
Name
Tubing OK
Min [bara]
Min [bara]
[bara]
[bara]
Status
Other items of concern with regard to low temperature are detailed in the table below together
with suggested mitigations.
• ED resistance - The tree has provided good ED resistance so far in gas production service.
The elastomers, which could be susceptible, are in the annulus regions, which would require
breakdown of the primary seals to be exposed. If the elastomers were exposed to an ED
environment, they would show signs of ED damage on the side exposed to the gas, however
as they are constrained in the groove severe damage does not occur until the seal is removed
allowing it to expand and tear as gas escapes from inside the elastomers.
• Corrosion resistance - This tree/wellhead system is material class FF rated, which will be
resistant to dry CO2. However if the CO2 becomes wet, it will form carbonic acid, which will
corrode carbon steel and depending upon the ph level may corrode stainless steel.
• Low temperature performance - The tree is designed for temperature class U (-18 to 121°C),
limited by the bonnet and the tree block, both being 410 stainless steel and temperature class
U.
It is anticipated that the tree/wellhead is suited to CO2 injection for the specified steady state
operating parameters, only for temperatures down to -18°C. Thermal analysis would be required
to verify that that the tree is suitable during the transient condition during valve closure. The
integrity of the completion is also paramount to prevent CO2 in the annulus areas.
The main issue is that 410 stainless steel has a low Charpy impact value that could generate
cracking. The F6NM alternative in ES-002019-01 conforms to API-6A impact requirements.
The Christmas tree and tubing hanger will require to be replaced with a lower temperature rated
system.
Criteria Evaluation
Well Design (+) Simple and Standard completion
(+) Simple Wellhead
Different tubing sizes required (4 ½'' & 3 ½'' [114mm & 89mm])
(-) Small tubing. 3 ½'' is not a common size in the North Sea, but plenty
of onshore experience
Injection Flexibility One string per well
(+) Combination of wells provides the required injection conditions for
the life cycle of the project.
(-) Limited range of injection conditions – depends on tubing size
(-) Minimum rate required
Well Integrity (+) SSSV setting depth can be optimised
(+) corrosion logs possible
(+) Pressure Integrity Test is possible. Special tool might me required due
to the small tubing size.
In-well monitoring (+) Normal installation. Enough annular space for in-well tools
(+) Multiple PDG and DTS can be installed, internal and external readings
can be measured
Well Intervention (+) Standard. Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94''
[74.7mm])
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required + 1 back up
(+) simple integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(+) reduced future abandonment costs and complexity
Criteria Evaluation
Well Design (-) Medium complexity, experience in the gas industry with velocity strings
(+) Simple wellhead
Different tubing sizes required (4 ½'' & 3 ½'' [114mm & 89mm]) in the
insert string
Hanger inside the tubing is critical. Pressure sealing required in the top of
the insert string. Extra stresses created by this configuration.
(-) Unable to fix integrity concerns in the completion tubing
Injection Flexibility One string per well. A workover to remove the insert string might be
executed to expand the operating envelope of the well once the reservoir
pressure increases. More applicable to expansion storage projects.
(+) Combination of wells provides the required injection conditions for
the life cycle of the project.
(-) Limited range of injection conditions – depends on tubing size
(-) Minimum rate required
(+) Optimisation: Install SSD in the insert string or perforate the insert
string to increase the operating envelope
Well Integrity (-) Severe vibration expected. Inner tubing not in tension, free-hanging.
Tubing integrity can be lost by the excessive moving and banging into the
outer tubing.
(+) SSSV depth
(-) corrosion logs not possible in the outer string (the tubing providing
CO2 containment in the tubing). Corrosion log possible in the inner string.
(-) Pressure Integrity Test not possible in all the tubing length (where the
insert string is positioned)
In-well monitoring (-) PDG and DTS in the outside tubing. External reading of temperature
might not be representative due to the distance to the injected CO2.
Well Intervention (+) Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94'' [74.7mm])
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required + 1 back up
(-) Expensive integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(-) Slightly more expensive abandonment
Criteria Evaluation
Well Design (-) High complexity. Low experience in the North Sea with dual strings
(-) Dual XM tree required. Long lead item. Goldeneye wellhead is not
designed for a dual XM tree and tubing hanger. A new build XM tree is
likely to be required.
Y-tool preferred over dual packer (stronger completion)
(-) impact of tubing stresses when injecting down in the a single string
(-) Mechanical barriers to be recovered through small tubing.
(-) Congested well bay (dual wellhead + dual flow lines)
Injection Flexibility Two string per well.
(+) Increase flexibility per well (3 different injection sizes: tubing1, tubing
2, tubing 1 +2)
(-) Minimum rate required
(-) More difficult inflow calculation. Total capacity of the well should be
approximately ~ 0.85 of the tubing 1 + tubing 2 due to inflow restrictions.
(-) Congested well bay
Well Integrity (+) SSSV depth. 2 SSSV per well operating independently.
(+) Corrosion log possible
(-) Multiple/complex leak paths
In case of a tubing failure, injection might continue in the well by isolating
the leaking string.
In-well monitoring (-) Limited space in the A-annulus. Ability to install devices depends on
the completion size
(-) PDG below Y-tool. DTS possible in one or both strings depending on
size. Number of penetration increase in the wellhead
Well Intervention (+)Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94'' [74.7mm])
(+) 2 strings to get access to the wellbore. However, Y-tool will cancel this
option (only one string normally has access to the wellbore)
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required + 1 back up. Not possible to meet
injection expectations with only one well
(-) Very expensive initial workover
(-) Expensive integrity workover (if required)
Criteria Evaluation
Well Design (-) High complexity completion. No major experience in the hydrocarbon
industry with concentric completions
(-) Special dual wellhead required (Horizontal tree). Special design and
long lead item. The current wellhead is not suitable for running a
concentric completion from surface to require depth.
Different tubing sizes required (4 ½'' & 3 ½'' [114mm & 89mm]) in the
inner string
(-) Unable to fix leaking in the completion tubing
(-) Deep set SSSV
(-) Lots of modifications required to standard practice in the oil industry.
Injection Flexibility Two string per well.
(+) Increase flexibility per well (3 different injection sizes: inner, annulus
between inner and outer tubing, both))
(-) Minimum rate required
(-) More difficult inflow calculation. Total capacity of the well should be
approximately ~ 0.85 of the tubing 1 + tubing 2 due to inflow restrictions.
(-) Congested well bay
Well Integrity (-) Severe vibration expected. Inner tubing not in tension, free-hanging.
Tubing integrity can be lost by the excessive moving and banging into the
outer tubing. This can be considered as a showstopper for this kind of
completion.
(-) SSSV depth. The SSSV can be installed below the inner string. No
remedial activities in the SSSV due to the ID restriction of the concentric
string. The valve is set very deep with larger CO2 inventory.
(-) corrosion logs not possible in the outer string (the tubing providing
CO2 containment in the tubing). Corrosion log possible in the inner string.
(-) Pressure Integrity Test not possible in all the tubing length (where the
insert string is positioned)
In-well monitoring (+) Existing completion (7'' [178mm]) with PDG and cable.
(-) PDG and DTS in the outside tubing. External reading of temperature
might not be representative due to the distance to the injected CO2.
Well Intervention (+) Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94'' [74.7mm])
Criteria Evaluation
Well Design Smart application.
(-) Control line requirement. Proven technology for inflow control
modifications where small delta P is required. In our case high delta P is
required across the device.
(-) Wellhead with more penetrations (special hangers or modifications
required).
(+) Normal tubing size of the North Sea
Small chokes required (6/64th '' – 11/64th '' [2.38 – 4.37mm])
(-) Prone to choke erosion and plugging
Placement not very critical of the choke. In the dense phase (deep in the
well).
Optimisation: Installation of multiple downhole chokes
Injection Flexibility One string per well. Large pressure drop in the downhole chokes.
(-) Big change of operating range with small changes in size diameter.
(-) Pressure and Temperature drop across the choke might increase the
potential for hydrate deposition.
Late injection will not require downhole chokes as the reservoir pressure
will increase.
Well Integrity (+) Standard SSSV
(-) Corrosion log and Pressure integrity test possible above the choke. Not
possible below the choke.
In-well monitoring Same as single tapered tubing
(+) Normal installation. Enough annular space for in-well tools
Well Intervention (-) Partial. No access to the reservoir. Access below the choke will depend
on choke type.
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required + 1 back up
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
68
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 7.Upper Completion Concepts
spool piece that is compatible with the existing Goldeneye Christmas trees will have to be
designed and manufactured.
As the capillary tubing will be run through the original Christmas tree valves and TRSSSV,
effectively making them redundant, it is almost certain that a SCSSSV & ASV system will be
required to mitigate against uncontrolled release of CO2 at surface. Incorporating control line
exits into the system is an additional challenge has potential to add significant cost and time to
the project.
The additional spool piece will also raise the height of the flow line necessitating changes to the
configuration of the existing flow lines. Additionally it will reduce the available height for
installation of wireline logging tool strings.
Another option under consideration when installing a capillary string to surface is the
Weatherford renaissance system; a system where by a capillary string incorporating a SCSSSV
can be run in to the existing 7.00'' x 5 ½'' completion tubing. The inclusion of a SCSSSV which
is set inside the original Goldeneye TRSSSV precludes any possibility of injecting down the
capillary string x 7.00'' tubing annulus.
friction dominated systems present more flexibility in terms of number of injection conduits per
well. However, the combination of different wells with different injection characteristics will be
able to accommodate the varying rates from the capture plant during the life cycle. The
downhole choke option may have issues regarding well envelopes in case of erosion/abrasion of
the choke (small changes in choke size can have significant changes in pressure drop and hence
unpredictable envelopes).
The well integrity management in single completion is ideal; position of all the safety devices is
robust and the production packer can be optimally placed based on cement bond and casing
calliper logs. The insert string and concentric string options presents a serious integrity problem
related to the vibration of the inner string when injecting high velocity CO2. The position of the
SSSV in the concentric string is critical as the depth would be very close to the reservoir. The
number of potential leak paths is high for dual completions. A pressure integrity test in the
downhole choke option would be challenging below the valve if it is not possible to retrieve the
valve.
The single completion tubing and the downhole choke completion present the best option for
in-well monitoring. The in-well monitoring is not ideal in the insert and concentric strings as the
temperature information is from the outer tubing string. Depending on tubing size there might
not be enough space for accommodating all the required devices in a dual completion.
The well intervention for the friction dominated completion concepts is similar. Dual
completion options present slightly less than ideal conditions due to the intervention being
possible in only one string if Y-tool options is selected. In the single tapered tubing the only
restriction for well intervention is related to the tubing size (potential landing nipples) and deep
in the well by the FIV. The downhole choke option will have limitations in easy intervention as
the restriction would require to be removed prior to any intervention.
The life cycle cost is influenced primarily by the cost of the initial installation and future
workovers. The number of wells does not have a major influence as the storage license will cover
all five existing wells.
A traffic light system can be used to visualise the advantages and disadvantages of the different
completion systems. Green represents ideal conditions and red represent a serious concern.
Table 7-6: Completion Concept Selection – visualisation
Concern
Small Tubing Big tubing +
Doable (Tapered) Insert String Dual completion Concentric Downhole choke
(Smart)
Ideal
Well Design
Injection Flexibility
Well Integrity
In-well monitoring
Well Intervention
Considering the discussion above the single tapered completion concept has been selected.
sub above the production packer to allow the selected packer fluid to be circulated however
every measure to avoid this will be taken.
The proposed upper completion design will seal inside the lower completion PBR and will not
include a perforated pup, thereby containing all the wellbore fluids within the tubing and
protecting the entire casing above the screen packer from CO2 and the resultant carbonic acid.
This will help ensure longevity and well integrity; this does however create a trapped volume
between the two packers. Measures to mitigate against this will have to be explored during the
FEED phase and may lead to the inclusion of a pressure relief valve.
Another option that will be explored during the FEED phase is to remove the trapped volume
all together. Under this option the upper completion will not seal inside the lower completion. A
stinger shall be included in the upper completion and this shall enter the lower completion
thereby providing a conduit but not a seal. The length of this conduit/stinger is critical and shall
have to be sufficient to avoid any active wetting of the CS casing that shall be exposed below the
new production packer. Feasibility of this will be reviewed during the FEED.
The selected option allows for the deployment of permanent downhole pressure and
temperature gauges. These are attached to mandrels which form part of the tubing string and are
powered and communicate via a dedicated electric control line to surface. Multiple gauges can be
deployed on a single line. Deployment of such systems is standard practice within the North Sea
and knowledge of this exists within Shell. Also to be evaluated during the FEED phase is
wireless monitoring systems which offer advantages such as ease of deployment and reduce the
number of hanger penetrations required, but these systems have a finite battery life,
Pressure and temperature modelling suggests that the BHT (Bottom Hole Temperature) is likely
to be in the region of 17°C-35°C [63- 95°F]. The selected gauge shall have to be calibrated for
this temperature range. It is proposed to include at least two pressure and temperature gauges in
each well which shall allow for an inferred density measurement. In one of the injection wells are
third gauge shall be installed close to the 4 ½ x 3 ½ [114mm & 89mm] crossover to help
understand the CO2 phase behaviour and help calibrate the injection rates.
The concept also allows for the inclusion of fibre optic monitoring systems that can provide
distributed temperature measurements (DTS) across the entire length of the completion,
allowing for well integrity monitoring, and injection optimising and early detection of potential
issues. Acoustic/vibration sensing may also be incorporated within this monitoring package. The
monitoring well may incorporate additional instrumentation in comparison to the injection wells.
Installing a new completion means critical items such as the downhole safety valve which forms
part of the ESD system can be placed at the most optimal depth. The formation of hydrates has
been identified as a potential concern; this along with other requirements will determine the new
setting depths for the safety valves. The SSSV shall be positioned deep enough in the well so as
to be unaffected by the same failure mechanisms that can compromise surface ESD systems, and
shallow enough that closure times are not compromised by having to overcome high hydrostatic
pressures in the control line and to facilitate the testing of the valve by reducing the volume to
bleed off.
Control line fluid (Castrol Brayco Micronic SV/3) is currently qualified for operations covering
the temperature range of -40°C to 200°C [-40°F to 392°F], Castrol Brayco SV/3 has a low pour
(<-50°C [<-58°F]) point making it suitable for operations in low ambient temperatures.
Changing the original upper completion will allow for a new safety valve control line to be run as
part of the new completion, this will allow for the control line material and fluid to be optimised
for the new well conditions.
Testing of the SSSV is predicted to be a lengthy operation (24-40hours) especially when the
tubing between the valve and the wellhead is filled with dense CO2. In order to minimize this
time the top of the tubing is proposed to be 4 ½'' [114mm] tubing rather than 5 ½'' [140mm].
Modelling has revealed that the most severe effects due to the JT cooling occur in the tubing
above the safety valve; therefore the option of using Super 13Cr tubing above the safety shall be
evaluated during the FEED phase.
The generally accepted low temperature limit for 13Cr steel is from -10 to -30°C (depending on
manufacturer) and for Super 13Cr it is estimated at -50°C. In any case, impact testing of 13Cr or
Super 13Cr tubing will be required for equipment to be run in the wells (especially in the top part
of the wells, where extreme low temperatures are expected during the transient).
The Christmas tree and tubing hanger shall be changed to low temperature compatible materials
and service class.
Any elastomers used in components such as packers and tree valves etc which come in contact
with CO2 or the JT associated low temperatures can be selected with these specific concerns in
mind thereby mitigating against effects such as explosive decompression. Elastomers lose
flexibility at low temperatures with reduced or failing sealing as a result. The elastomers selected
must be adequate for the corresponding piping class and their suitability for CO2 service has to
be analysed.
The proposed upper completion addresses all the concerns highlighted in section 6
• The upper completion design will bring the JT cooling effect within manageable levels
• The upper completion and selected packer fluid will protect the carbon steel casing.
• The production packers will be set deep in the Hidra Marl.
• Cement bond logs and casing calliper runs will be carried out. Safety valve setting depths
will be optimised
• Well monitoring for early failure detection will be installed
• The monitoring capability will further allow calibration of the injection rates
• The tubing above the safety valve, the tubing wellhead and Christmas tree will be replaced
with suitable low temperature class of service equipment.
• Elastomers will be replaced with suitable compounds to mitigate against explosive
decompression
The single string completion is considered to be the best solution for CO2 injection operations
for the following reasons:
Solution for the lifecycle of the well, no late life workover are foreseen
Minimum modifications required to christmas tree and well head
All monitoring requirements PDGM / DTS can be accommodated.
Best solution for well intervention operations, Coiled Tubing, Wireline Etc.
Least complex of all the options considered
Packer setting depth can be optimised for final abandonment.
PBR removed, no elastomeric sealing elements above the production packer.
The evaluation of available options and further investigation will take place during the FEED
phase.
transient conditions that have been modelled. The results obtained from the modelling are used
to contribute to the well design specification.
SPT Group OLGA software (Version: 6.2.4 - Single Component Module - CO2) is used for all
transient analysis. CO2 PVT is inbuilt in the module, which is calibrated with National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) data.
For steady state calculations and analysis, WePS (Shell Well Performance Simulator) and Prosper
(Petroleum Experts IPM 7.1) was also used.
For 3 ½'' [89mm] tubing the maximum injection rate per well would be 68 MMscfd which is
higher than the capacity of the capture plant. The operating envelope of the well can be varied
by installing difference tubing sizes. Similarly the injection temperature is an important factor in
determining the operating envelope. If the wellhead temperature increases the capacity of
injecting CO2 into the wells decreases (at the same pressure conditions) due to the CO2 density
variations. There is some variation in injection rate per well due to the CO2 temperature (when
considering the extremes for winter and summer) which needs to be considered for meeting the
minimum and maximum rates of the CCP.
4500
Outflow 150bar WHP
4000 Inflow Pr 34500psi
3500
3000
Inflow Pr 2650psi
2500
CCP Rate
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Inflow - P reservoir 2650psi Inflow - P reservoir 3450psi
Vertical Performance - 50bar WH Pressure Vertical Performance - 115bar WH Pressure
5000
4500
4 1/2" tubing
5 1/2" tubing
4000
3500
3000
2500 2 7/8" tubing 3 1/2" tubing
CCP Rate
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Inflow - P reservoir 2650psi Inflow - P reservoir 3450psi
5.5" tubing 50bar 5.5" tubing 115bar
4.5" tubing 50bar 4.5" tubing 115bar
3.5" tubing 50bar 3.5" tubing 115bar
2 7/8" tubing 50bar 2 7/8" tubing 115bar
The 2 ⅞'' [73mm] tubing is considered very small and the 5 ½'' [140mm] tubing seems very big
for the Peterhead CCP rates. The tubing size required for the CCP rates is a combination of 3
½'' [89mm] and 4 ½'' [114mm] completion.
The operating envelope will be engineered / tailored well by well considering the project
parameters (expected reservoir pressure, CCP rates, etc.).
Figure 8-4: Design Case, Wellhead conditions - 4°C IWHT (2500psi reservoir pressure)
Table 8-2: Results of transient calculations – design case (base oil in annulus)
Strict operational procedures need to be implemented and adopted to avoid extreme cooling of
the well components.
There is a range of temperatures which may be considered as the lowest to be observed in the
metal surface depending on how the leak is evaluated –
Jet release of dense phase CO2
CO2 expansion to 1 bara
CO2 expansion to triple point
The influence of a leak rate will be calculated during FEED in order to determine the
temperature rating of the components and the tubing in the top of the well (down to the SSSV
depth). Currently it is proposed that the new christmas tree and the tubing between the tree and
the SSSV are rated to -60 °C. The other impact of the study would be that the validation that the
wellhead system and casing hanger (rated to -18 °C) are suited to the conditions of a CO2 leak.
The potential of a total well control incident is extremely low. The objective is clearly to prevent
such an incident and much of the monitoring and corrective measures plans are aimed at
identifying and remediating irregularities long before they can escalate to this point.
In the unlikely event of a total CO2 well control incident, rapid cooling will occur due to the
rapid expansion of CO2. Cooling can reach the point where solid dry ice particles form in the jet
stream.
The initial adiabatic expansion is almost explosive, reaction time is minimal. Although the risk of
fire in a CO2 well control incident is negligible, it is replaced with the likelihood of extremely
cold conditions caused by rapid CO2 expansion. This can threaten the integrity of materials
(brittle fracture) as well as threaten people directly by cold burns and frost bite. The extreme
cold conditions also create danger from flying solids (ice and hydrates).
Emergency Response Plans will be developed during FEED for a total well control incident.
The influence of a leak rate and time will be calculated during early FEED in order to determine
the extent of the lower temperature in the wellhead and Christmas tree system.
The workover will require retrieval of the upper completion. The current production packer is a
Halliburton HHC packer which is a retrievable packer. In order to retrieve the packer is it
necessary to make a wireline trip with a chemical cutter and cut the packer mandrel at a
dedicated cut zone, space out of the chemical cutter is critical. This is a routine operation within
the North Sea and there are numerous cases where similar packers have been successfully
retrieved. There is experience around this within Shell UK. Once the packer is unset the entire
upper completion may be retrieved. Other options may include retrieving the upper completion
above the PBR or cutting the tubing above the packer and retrieving this prior to internally
milling the packer cut zone.
During all these operations attention will have to be paid to the lower completion which is not
planned to be replaced. The lower completion and impact of losing integrity in the lower
completion is detailed in section 5. In addition the reservoir is depleted and all measures must be
taken to avoid formation damage and skins. Measures to ensure this will be explored and may
involve a mechanical or fluid barrier. One option may involve closing the existing FIV which will
then act as a downhole barrier ensuring the lower completion is not exposed to any of the
workover fluids or debris. This will require evaluation during the FEED phase.
Prior to running the new completion logging operations will be carried out. These shall involve
CBL and casing calliper runs. This will help evaluate the top of cement, quality of cement bond
and condition of the casing. It is essential to carry this out for correct packer placement and
future abandonment.
The current proposal is to use 4½'' [114mm] safety valves and S13Cr tubing to the safety valve
depth.
Below the safety valve 13Cr tubing will be utilised and will include a cross over to 3½'' [89mm].
The depth of the x-over shall vary from well to well thereby introducing flexibility to the
injection rates and providing a larger overall operating envelope.
The new completion will include seals to sting into the existing lower completion PBR thereby
providing a conduit to the lower completion. The smallest ID in the lower completion is 2.9494''
[74.7mm] at the formation isolation valve.
The sealing of the upper completion into the lower completion will create a trapped volume
between the two packers, there are some options that shall be evaluated and it may be necessary
to include a pressure relief valve. This shall be covered in the FEED phase.
The current concept shall allow for standardisation across the wells with the only variable being
the placement of the cross over.
There is some complexity introduced by the utilisation of permanent downhole monitoring. This
as a minimum shall include pressure and temperature sensors with an option to include
distributed temperature sensing and acoustic sensing across the entire length of the completion.
The exact number of control lines required for this is still to be confirmed. This added
complexity is understood and there is plenty of industry knowledge within the North Sea around
these systems and their installation.
The operation shall follow Shell guidelines, industry standards and local regulations and
procedures and shall include best practices and lessons learned from the relevant service
providers.
intervention work along with additional power requirements, additional lighting, bleed down, and
fluid handling facilities etc.
Once CO2 injection commences the well will be considered to comprise of both CO2 and
hydrocarbon and hence the intervention equipment shall have to be qualified for operation in
this environment. The presence of CO2 exposes the surface rig up to the effects of JT cooling
and explosive decompression of elastomers. It is therefore essential to ensure all components
such as the lubricator, injector, stuffing box etc. are adequately designed and where necessary
procedural changes are incorporated. This shall be explored further in the FEED phase.
8.7.2. Wireline
The Goldeneye wells have relatively straightforward well paths, no severe doglegs, and with the
possible exception of GYA-04 are not deviated to any great degree. This along with the
intervention work carried out in 2012 gives a level of confidence that wireline operations can be
successfully carried out in Goldeneye wells.
Wireline operation considerations -
• Fishing operations through a reverse taper tubing string (Small ID to large ID) adds
complexity. Consideration should be given to running wirefinder trip subs in place of the
tubing crossovers.
• There is limited area for setting plugs in the lower completion. Each well has only two
5.00'' [127mm] 15# 13Cr pup joints (ID 4.408'' [112mm] Drift 4.283'' [109mm])
immediately above the FIV. Once the wells are recompleted with small ID tubing it will be
difficult to set & recover items from this area.
• Wellcat load cases were carried out with a 4 ½'' 12.6 lb/ft [114mm 17Nm] tailpipe.
However because of the collapse issue identified there may be a requirement to change the
size, weight or grade of the tailpipe section.
• A 9 ⅝'' x 3 ½'' [244mm x 89mm] packer with 3 ½'' tailpipe may be more suitable for the
proposed CO2 injection wells. This will give greater flexibility with regard to setting plugs
below the production packer during completion operations, or running tubing cutting
equipment for final abandonment operations
• Standard 3 ½'' packers do not meet all load conditions, may require a design modification
for the load conditions
• ID of the FIV in the lower completion is 2.94'' [74.7mm].
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
85
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT 8.Selected Upper Completion Concept
9. References
7. Oil & Gas UK, “Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells”, January
2009
8. Well Integrity for CO2 storage in the fields Barendrecht and Barendrecht-Ziedewij –
TNO – June 2007
10. Appendices
The Goldeneye field consists of a normally unmanned platform with five gas production wells.
Well DTI 14/29a-A4Z (GYA02S1) is the sidetrack of DTI 14/29a-A4 (GYA02). The wells are
all very similar in design and were drilled with a jack-up rig during 2003/2004:
- 30'' [762mm] Conductor driven to ~750’ [229m] (by barge). Trepanned at seabed level.
- 20'' x 13 ⅜'' [508 x 340mm] to ~4000’ [1219m] (x/o @ ~700’ [213m])
- 10 ¾'' x 9 ⅝'' [273 x 245mm] production casing (x/o ~3100’ [945m]) of L80 steel
- 7'' [178mm] slotted liner with screens and gravel pack
- 7'', 13Cr upper completion
- 9 ⅝'' production packer with perforated joint below
- PBR above the production packer
- Permanent Downhole gauge
- TRSSSV at around 2500’ [762m]
- Christmas tree 6 ⅜'' [162mm] mono-bore, 5000 psia [345bar], Cameron
- Wellhead, Cameron SSMC compact design
All Goldeneye production wells are deviated wells with the following details:
520 bbl)
A2.2. Results
1 Due to the heavy wall one inch thickness - ~25mm section of the 20'' [508mm] surface
casing, a 12.5mm wall loss due to corrosion leaves the pipe within limits during the high
compression condition of the CO2 injection.
2 A minimum axial compressive SF of 2.42 (abs) is seen at the base of the corroded section
modelled.
Design Limits - 13 3/8" Surf ace Casing Section 2 - OD 19.016 in - Weight 100.509 ppf - Grade X-80 25mm ext wall loss
6000
SC.7 WC inj (p15) orig/orig
SC.8 WC inj (p15) orig/det
5500
5000
4500
4000
2500
2000
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
Compression 1.150
1500
1000
500
-500
Collapse 1.000
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
DLP - Section 2 of surface casing with 0.5mm/yr wall loss assumed (25yrs)
Figure 10-8: 20'' Section von Mises Plot with 12.5 mm Corrosion Loss
Corroded section -
12.5mm external wall
loss
0
SC.7 WC inj (p15) orig/orig
SC.8 WC inj (p15) orig/det
200
Axial Design Factor = 1.150, 1.300
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
MD (ft)
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
0.000 0.263 0.526 0.789 1.053 1.316 1.579 1.842 2.105 2.368 2.632 2.895 3.158 3.421 3.684 3.947 4.211 4.474 4.737 5.000
Absolute Axial Saf ety Factor
Axial SF's - Section 2 of surface casing with 0.5mm/yr wall loss assumed (25yrs)
A3.2. Results
The load cases are listed in A3.5 and in A3.6 with the corresponding safety factors. The loads
are also shown graphically and listed in the graph 'legend box'.
Surface casing loads give low safety factors in the early days of CO2 injection into the well.
Safety factor values are 2.4 SF for axial loads and 3.2 SF for triaxial loads.
For the production casing, the tubing leak near surface and the casing evacuation cases result in
the smallest safety factors.
1 Both the surface casing and the production casing are within limits for the loads modelled
with the minimum safety factors listed in the following tables
2 The driving load cases exist in Q1 & Q4 of the design limits plots indicating the tensile
loading due to thermal contraction.
12000
Initial C onditions
SC.1 Early C O2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )orig/det
11000
SC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )orig/det
SC.3 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )orig/det
10000 SC.4 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )orig/det
SC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )orig/det
9000 SC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )orig/det
SC.7 WC inj (p15) orig/orig
8000 SC.8 WC inj (p15) orig/det
7000
Triaxial 1.100
6000 Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300
5000
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
4000
3000
Connection Burst 1.100
2000
Compression 1.150
1000
0
Connection Compression 1.150 Connection Tension 1.300
-1000
-2000
-3000
-5000
-6000
-7000
9000
Initial C onditions
SC.1 Early C O2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )orig/det
8250
SC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )orig/det
SC.3 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )orig/det
7500 SC.4 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )orig/det
SC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )orig/det
6750 SC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )orig/det
SC.7 WC inj (p15) orig/orig
6000 SC.8 WC inj (p15) orig/det
5250
Triaxial 1.100
4500
Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300
3750
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
3000
1500
Connection Compression 1.150
750
-750
-1500
Collapse 1.000
-2250
-3000
-3750
-4500
-5250
7500
Initial C onditions
PC.1 Early C O2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )
6750
PC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )
Triaxial 1.100 PC.3 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )
6000 PC.4 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )
Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300 PC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )
5250 PC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )
PC.1 tubing leak det
4500 PC.2 tubing leak det
PC.3 tubing leak det
3750 PC.4 tubing leak det
PC.5 tubing leak det
3000 PC.6 tubing leak det
Compression 1.150 PC.7 casing ev ac
2250 PC.8 WC inj (0.1c 115Bar 50Mscf )
PC.8 tubing leak det
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
750
-750
-1500
-2250
-3000
Collapse 1.000
-3750
-4500
-5250
-6000
-6750
10000
Initial C onditions
PC.1 Early C O2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )
9000
PC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )
PC.3 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )
8000 PC.4 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )
Triaxial 1.100 PC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )
7000 Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300 PC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )
PC.1 tubing leak det
6000 PC.2 tubing leak det
PC.3 tubing leak det
5000 PC.4 tubing leak det
PC.5 tubing leak det
4000 PC.6 tubing leak det
PC.7 casing ev ac
3000 PC.8 WC inj (0.1c 115Bar 50Mscf )
Compression 1.150
PC.8 tubing leak det
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Collapse 1.000
-6000
-7000
-8000
-9000
10000
Initial C onditions
PC.1 Early C O2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )
9000
PC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )
PC.3 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )
8000 PC.4 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )
Triaxial 1.100 PC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )
7000 Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300 PC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )
PC.1 tubing leak det
6000 PC.2 tubing leak det
PC.3 tubing leak det
5000 PC.4 tubing leak det
PC.5 tubing leak det
4000 PC.6 tubing leak det
PC.7 casing ev ac
3000 PC.8 WC inj (0.1c 115Bar 50Mscf )
Compression 1.150
PC.8 tubing leak det
Effective Internal Pressure (psi)
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Collapse 1.000
-6000
-7000
-8000
-9000
SC.1 Early CO2 inj 3.19 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 2.42 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(-25F
50Mscf)orig/det
SC.2 Late CO2 inj 4.29 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.42 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(37F
60Mscf)orig/det
SC.3 Early CO2 inj 4.31 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.44 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(37F
40Mscf)orig/det
SC.4 Early CO2 inj 4.29 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.42 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(37F
54Mscf)orig/det
SC.5 Mid CO2 inj 4.32 @ 754.6 ft 6.34 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.45 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(37F
32Mscf)orig/det
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
106
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT
SC.6 Mid CO2 inj 4.3 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.42 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(37F
48Mscf)orig/det
SC.7 WC inj 4.09 @ 754.6 ft 6.35 @ 4153.9 ft --- 3.19 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(p15) orig/orig
SC.8 WC inj 3.97 @ 754.6 ft --- 4.93 @ 4153.9 ft 3.29 @ 702.9 ft (T)
(p15) orig/det
Initial Conditions 4.08 @ 754.6 ft --- 2.95 @ 10989.9 ft 3.29 @ 10891 ft (C)
PC.1 Early CO2 inj (- 1.83 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.32 @ 9767.9 ft 1.96 @ 754.6 ft (T)
25F 50Mscf)
PC.2 Late CO2 inj (37F 2.3 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.43 @ 9767.9 ft 2.51 @ 754.6 ft (T)
60Mscf)
PC.3 Early CO2 inj (37F 2.34 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.43 @ 9767.9 ft 2.56 @ 754.6 ft (T)
40Mscf)
PC.4 Early CO2 inj (37F 2.3 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.43 @ 9767.9 ft 2.51 @ 754.6 ft (T)
54Mscf)
PC.5 Mid CO2 inj (37F 2.36 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.43 @ 9767.9 ft 2.58 @ 754.6 ft (T)
32Mscf)
PC.6 Mid CO2 inj (37F 2.32 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.43 @ 9767.9 ft 2.53 @ 754.6 ft (T)
48Mscf)
PC.1 tubing leak det 1.86 @ 754.6 ft 8.35 @ 80.1 ft 17.33 @ 10989.9 ft 1.73 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.2 tubing leak det 2.06 @ 754.6 ft 2.77 @ 80.1 ft --- 1.93 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.3 tubing leak det 2.36 @ 754.6 ft 10.9 @ 80.1 ft 11.98 @ 10989.9 ft 2.21 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.4 tubing leak det 2.3 @ 754.6 ft 5.06 @ 80.1 ft --- 2.07 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.5 tubing leak det 2.39 @ 754.6 ft 7.65 @ 80.1 ft 24.13 @ 10989.9 ft 2.19 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.6 tubing leak det 2.27 @ 754.6 ft 4.26 @ 80.1 ft --- 2.05 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.7 casing evac 1.42 @ 9767.9 ft --- 1.12 @ 9767.9 ft 2.91 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.8 WC inj (0.1c 2.26 @ 4256.9 ft --- 2.42 @ 9767.9 ft 2.46 @ 754.6 ft (T)
115Bar 50Mscf)
PC.8 tubing leak det 2.17 @ 754.6 ft 3.63 @ 80.1 ft --- 1.97 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.9 Start of well kill 2.27 @ 754.6 ft 13.89 @ 10989.9 ft 3.69 @ 10934 ft 2.32 @ 754.6 ft (T)
PC.10 End of well kill 2.28 @ 754.6 ft 13.92 @ 10989.9 ft 2.84 @ 10934 ft 2.34 @ 754.6 ft (T)
SAFETY FACTORS
0
p2 C irculate to brine
p3 Shut in
750
p4 Grav el pack
p5 R IH comp to ref erence point
1500 p6 R IH to TD
p7 D isplace tubing to base oil
2250 p8 Set packer
p9 Early CO2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )
3000 p10 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )
p11 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )
3750 p12 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )
p13 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )
4500 p14 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )
p15 worst case inj (0.1C 115Bar 50Mscf )
5250 p16 Shut in af ter p15
p17 Start well kill
6000 p18 end well kill
Undisturbed
6750
MD (ft)
7500
8250
9000
9750
10500
11250
12000
12750
13500
14250
15000
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255
Temperature (°F)
0
p2 C irculate to brine
p3 Shut in
750
p4 Grav el pack
p5 R IH comp to ref erence point
1500 p6 R IH to TD
p7 D isplace tubing to base oil
2250 p8 Set packer
p9 Early CO2 inj (-25F 50Mscf )
3000 p10 Late CO2 inj (37F 60Mscf )
p11 Early C O2 inj (37F 40Mscf )
3750 p12 Early C O2 inj (37F 54Mscf )
p13 Mid CO2 inj (37F 32Mscf )
4500 p14 Mid CO2 inj (37F 48Mscf )
p15 worst case inj (0.1C 115Bar 50Mscf )
5250 p16 Shut in af ter p15
p17 Start well kill
6000 p18 end well kill
6750
MD (ft)
7500
8250
9000
9750
10500
11250
12000
12750
13500
14250
15000
0 355 711 1066 1421 1776 2132 2487 2842 3197 3553 3908 4263 4618 4974 5329 5684 6039 6395 6750
Pressure (psi)
'' The Portland cement recovered from a 55-year old well with 30 years of CO2 exposure showed
evidence of exposure to CO2 in the form of carbonate precipitate adjacent to the casing and
heavily carbonated, orange-coloured cement adjacent to the shale cap rock. However, the
structural integrity of the recovered cement core, petrographic observations, air permeameter
data, and cement bond log indicate that the cement retained its capacity to prevent significant
transport of fluid through the cement matrix. Observations and numerical calculations suggest
that the CO2 producing the orange CO2 alteration originated by movement from the reservoir
along the shale-cement interface. The CO2 producing a carbonate precipitate at the casing-
cement interface may have originated by migration along the casing interface from the reservoir
or from the interior of the well at casing joints or regions of casing corrosion.
Numerical modelling shows that carbonation induced by diffusion of CO2 - saturated brine
reproduces key features of the SACROC cement core. We used observations of the core to
constrain the porosity, tortuosity, and reaction rates used in the modelling to values appropriate
to well 49-6 at SACROC.
Additional samples would be necessary to construct a more generally applicable model of CO2 -
induced cement degradation. The observations demonstrate that Portland cement can retain its
integrity at least over decades in a CO2 reservoir with conditions similar to SACROC. Numerical
calculations are consistent with a slow rate of degradation by diffusive attack of CO2 that would
allow a thick column of cement to survive for long periods of time. However, the observations
also show that CO2 migrated along the casing-cement and shale-cement interfaces for some
period of time. We were unable to quantify the amount of CO2 migration that may have
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
110
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT
occurred along these interfaces. The integrity of these interfaces appears to be the most critical
issue in wellbore performance for CO2 sequestration.
The cement core recovered at SACROC provides some help in understanding the experimental
variability in studies of cement carbonation at reservoir conditions. The laboratory experiments
of Duguid et al. (2005) investigated cement deterioration under conditions of flowing CO2 -
saturated brine and they observed rapid degradation and loss of structural integrity within weeks
of exposure. The SACROC sample clearly did not experience a similar flux of acidic brine. This
indicates that for properly completed wells, the cement– cap rock interface does not experience
flowing CO2 - saturated brine and the rapid cement decomposition observed by Duguid et al.
(2005) is unlikely to occur. In contrast, the experiments of Barlet-Goue´dard et al. (2006) and
Kutchko et al. (2006b) were conducted with a static volume of brine subject to high CO2
pressure. Barlet-Goue´dard et al.’s experiments were conducted at 90°C and 28 MPa, and they
observed rapid penetration of CO2 and complete carbonation within 6 weeks. Their porosity
and mechanical strength studies showed that the cement appears to retain significant hydrologic
integrity but had clearly been substantially altered. Kutchko et al.’s experiments were conducted
at 50°C and 30 MPa and showed very limited (slow) penetration of CO2 after 9 days (and after
3months as presented in Kutchko et al., 2006a). The SACROC cement samples (exposed to
CO2 at 54°C and 18 MPa) showed rates of carbonation more compatible with the experiments of
Kutchko et al., which may reflect the more similar temperatures of CO2 exposure. However, it
also possible that the amount of CO2 exposure for the SACROC samples at 3 m above the
reservoir contact was more limited. The time and conditions for cement curing times prior to
CO2 exposure is another important variable: SACROC at 35 years (54°C) compared to Kutchko
et al. at 28 days (22 and 50°C) and Barlet-Goue´dard et al. at 2 days (90°C). In any case, both the
Barlet-Goue´dard et al. and Kutchko et al. Studies are consistent with cement retaining
hydrologic integrity in a CO2 -rich environment, although the results of Barlet-Goue´dard et al.
indicate that CO2 - induced cement degradation in higher temperature reservoirs may be of
greater concern. The SACROC core in combination with the available experimental data allows
some preliminary conclusions regarding wellbore integrity and CO2 storage. These studies
indicate that Portland cement based wellbore systems, if properly completed, can prevent
significant migration of CO2 from reservoirs for long periods of time (at least decades). A
properly completed well need not be completely free of defects, but should not have continuous
openings along either the cement-casing or cement–caprock interfaces that might permit a CO2 –
brine mixture to flow that could dissolve cement and further widen the interface. The key
variables appear to be the initial width and connectivity of the interfaces in addition to the
pressure gradient driving flow from the reservoir. Future work to develop and strengthen these
conclusions should include collecting additional core to understand whether the observations at
well 49-6 are unique or typical at SACROC and to explore the significance of differing caprock
and reservoir chemistries as well as differing operational histories. These studies could improve
on our work by obtaining fluid samples to better constrain the geochemistry and collecting
samples at multiple intervals to determine the maximum extent of carbonation. In addition,
more experimental studies are needed to help interpret the field observations. These should
focus on the evolution of cement-casing and cement–caprock interfaces as a function of initial
interface width/quality and the CO2 - brine flux. Observations at SACROC suggest that under
limited flux the interfaces may be self-sealing. Determining the conditions under which these
interfaces become more transmissive with time remains a key unknown in evaluating the
longevity of the Portland cement seal in wellbore systems ''.
A5.2. Background
Several laboratory studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of a CO2 plume on
cement. Many of these have been carried out in the USA. The drivers for these studies are:
- (American) Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
- American legislation requires that wells within a certain distance of a CO2 injection site be
checked for existing wells and their condition - distance varies with State.
In general, existing wells in the US are subdivided into three categories:
- wells that are not plugged
- wells plugged before 1952 and
- those plugged after 1952 (when the American Petroleum Institute (API) standardized
plugging procedure and cement composition).
The first two categories do not apply to Goldeneye and would be clearly unsatisfactory situation
in any event. Fortunately, when the North Sea started up, initially it adopted API standards later
improving and augmenting or replacing the standards.
The result of American legislation and their greater availability of fields on land, for CO2
injection flood and for CO2 sequestration, has driven research. Eight classes of cement are listed
in API Specification for Oilwell Cement i.e. Class A to H - the depth of well determines the
difference. At one time B class cement was used in the North Sea together with class G cement.
For most North Sea wells class G has been used. Research now includes all cement types.
Since about 2005, there has been more research into CO2 and effects on cement, driven by
sequestration. At the same time, oilfield cementing suppliers started to research and to devise
CO2 resistant cements. These they have released and used them on CO2 projects around the
World.
- set up a ring bowl at reservoir temperature ~83°C and cure many cemented test pipes at
temperature
- keep samples pressurised to reservoir pressure ~2,900 psia [200bar] with CO2.
- then into cooler or temperature control to simulate downhole CO2 injection conditions
- triaxial test and cut up samples at intervals - say every three months to see changes over time
For CO2 resistant cements such as the high alumina and phosphate types, we know they do not
react with CO2. Hence testing will confirm this lack of reaction but concentrate on the physical
model.
Term Definition
'' Inches
°C Degrees Celcius
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
13Cr 13 percent chrome content metallurgy
'A' annulus Annulus between the production tubing and production casing string
AHD Along Hole Depth
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable, and is a term often used in the
environment of safety-critical and high-integrity systems. The ALARP
principle is that the residual risk shall be as low as reasonably
practicable
Annuli The space between adjacent strings of tubing or casing
'B' annulus Annulus between the production casing and intermediate casing string
bara Unit of pressure equal to 100,000 Pascals
Barrier Barriers prevent of mitigate the probability of each threat or prevent,
limit the extent of, or provide immediate recovery from the
Consequences
Base oil Oil with carcinogenic elements removed
BH Bottom Hole
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
BHP&T Bottom Hole Pressure and Temperature
Cap rock The shale layers above a reservoir that provide geological isolation to
upward migration and provide the primary seal
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CBL Cement Bond Logging
CCS Carbon Capture & Storage
Cement Injection of cement to isolate a leak in the cement behind casing
squeeze
CITHP Closed In Tubing Head Pressure
CL Control Line.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Completion The conduit for production or injection between the surface facilities
and the reservoir. The upper completion comprises the tubing and
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Revision: K02
121
Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Endorsement Report
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT
packer, etc. The reservoir completion is the screens, etc., across the
reservoir interval.
CoP Cessation of Production
CTU Coil Tubing Unit
DAS Distributed Acoustic Sensing
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DEP Shell Standards
DIANA Software package from TNO that solves, with the aid of FEM,
problems relating to design and assessment activities in concrete, steel,
soil, rock and soil-structure.
DTS Distributed Temperature Sensing
ED Explosive Decompression
EMW Equivalent mud weight
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ESD Emergency Shut Down
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FEM Finite Element Modelling
FIT Formation integrity test
FIV Formation Isolation Valve
ft Feet
FWV Flow Wing Valve
H2CO3 Carbonic acid
Hazard The potential to cause harm, including ill health and injury, damage to
property, products or the environment; production losses or increased
liabilities. In this report: buoyant CO2
HAZID Hazard Identification Study
HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study
HNBR Hydrogenated Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
IBHT Injection Bottom hole Temperature
ICV Inflow Control Valve
ID Inside Diameter
Injection The injection phase includes the period of site preparation for
phase injection, the injection period itself and the period of well
abandonment
JT Joules Thomson