Buenos Aires, Argentina 20-24 March 2017 Integrity of UGS

26 Slides2.46 MB

Buenos Aires, Argentina 20-24 March 2017 Integrity of UGS Committee: Storage Fabien FAVRET (EDF, France) Mail: [email protected] Mob: 33 (0) 607798125

Topics Existing codes, norms and standards for safe UGS Best practices for UGS safe operations EDF/Geostock case study in UK FUELING THE FUTURE WITH GAS 2

Introduction to UGS safe operations World-wide existing codes, norms and standards for UGS – From design, construction, operation & maintenance and even abandonment – Which has been established by experts of the domain: operators, notified bodies (DNV, ) , gas associations, government executives, mostly since the 90’s – Some examples: EU : EN 1918-1/5:1998, 1918-2: 2014, ISO/TS 16530-2:2014, NORSOK D-010 (2004) and various others from/for specific countries as an ex: Oil & Gas Well Integrity Guidelines in UK, USA: API 1170 & API 1171 established in 2015 Russian Federation: Safety rules in oil and gas industry, Gazprom standards 2-3.5-7702013 or 2-2.3-696-2013, Rules of UGS safety, Federal standard 123.13330.2012,

Norms, standards and codes These norms/standards provide: – Guidelines and/or philosophy for insuring mainly: Risks assessments and management (QRA approaches to include HAZID, HAZCON & HAZOP [process] as a base to mitigate risks) Subsurface integrity management To be implemented using a case by case approach

Norms, standards and codes

Norms, standards and codes API 1170 (US) main content: salt caverns – Geological Evaluations – Well Design – Drilling – Solution Mining – Operations – Integrity Monitoring not detailed – Abandonment

Norms, standards and codes API 1171 (US) main content: porous reservoirs – General Principles – Functional Integrity in Reservoir Design – Functional Integrity in Well Design and Construction – Risk Management for Storage Operations’ – Integrity Demonstration, Verification and Monitoring not detailed – Safety, Security and Emergency Response – Procedures and Training

Norms, standards and codes Russian (CIS) main requirements for wells: – General Principles: well architecture, cementing job in annulus, SSSV, – Functional Integrity of wells: MAOP for casing, tubing, annulus, reservoirs, Annulus pressure measurement and follow-up Wells testing by gas-hydrodynamic & geophysical investigations Well testing and productivity analysis & interpretation: – Defects – Casing leak – – Safety distance between wells and other infrastructures (buildings, forests, ) –

Norms, standards and codes ISO EN 1918/1-5:2014 (EU) main content: – General Principles for Design, Construction, Testing, Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance of UGS – Wells: Recommended design & completion: packer/tubing, landing nipples SSSV 2x barrier philosophy – Wells integrity management via peridodic inspections such as check of annulus pressures, corrosion/erosion checks via casing inspections, integrity of barriers (SSSV, wellhead, ) not exhaustively detailed

Norms, standards and codes ISO EN 16530-1&2 (Well Integrity):2014 (EU) main content: – Well integrity management system definition: Well operator shall have well integrity management system (WIMS) for all wells – Each Well Operator shall ensure that sufficient resources in their organizations are available to manage well integrity effectively during the operational life cycle of the well Operator entire well inventory – Well barrier envelope: Combination of one or several well barrier elements that together constitute a method of containment of fluids within a well that prevent uncontrolled flow of fluids within, or out of a well – Well operator shall by able to demonstrate the status of the well barriers envelopes for each well &type – The general sphere of well integrity monitoring are: well operating and components limits, well components status, annular pressure management,

Norms, standards and codes NORSOK standard D010:2004 main content: – Well integrity definition: Application of technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of a well – Management of well integrity has to be implemented during all the phases of well life; it starts from well design, continues during its construction, is constantly implemented during the production phase, and is part of the final abandonment – Well barrier: Envelope of one or several dependent barrier elements preventing fluids or gases from flowing unintentionally from the formation into another formation or surface

UGS safe operations These norms/standards provide: – In most of the countries even if these norms/standards are mandatory, it is the responsibility of operators to define how to implement them – In most of the countries, it is also the responsibility of the operator to (annually) declare to the local/national administration what is going on for each UGS site: O&M activities, incidents, accidents, heavy maintenance or repair, – In addition, in most of the countries selective inspections are usually led on site by notified bodies or administrations to control this declaration in-situ

UGS safe operations These norms/standards: – Are usually mandatory for new UGS projects and the 2 safety barriers philosophy is more and more developed and/or imposed (ex: in EU) – But not for existing ones (usually no retroactive application) – Then it is the solely operators decision to decide to apply or not new codes/norms on its existing assets and if necessary to implement action plans

UGS safe operations These norms/standards are necessary to develop framework guidelines for safe UGS operations Even if it is the operators responsibility to implement them But a (strong & efficient) control loop should be also in place (by local/national administrations) for checking periodically: – the implementation of the rules/norms/standards by UGS operators – the technical expertise/skills & organization of UGS operators when they are applying for a UGS license but also all along the UGS life-time

Case study EDF/Geostock cooperation in UK on salt caverns In conjunction with: – Wells Monitoring – Subsidence monitoring – Micro-seismic monitoring And based on the PVT model, EdF is developing methods, to check the integrity of a cavern (and for porous reservoir) with: – Leak detection – Structural abnormal behavior (high creep, shape disorder, .) All these techniques are used in Hill-Top and Hole-House facilities to guarantee the integrity of wells and caverns Any abnormal situation to be tracked, checked and explained through the subsurface monitoring system, to lead to specific recommendations: – To continue normal gas operations (green light) – To implement careful gas operations (orange light) limited ranges of pressure and flow-rates – To stop immediately gas operations (red light) further investigations to be done such as P/T logs, sonars, .

Well Integrity Management System ?

WIMS Typical Workflow

The 2 main pillars for WIMS

WIMS – Monitoring Integrity E M E X E L P

Microseismic monitoring

Advanced microseismic monitoring

Matching and using a PVT model in UK

Leak detection using a PVT model in UK Setting the scene from cavern tightness test criterias: Equivalent (density @ 0.7 kg/m3) gas leak test “acceptable” rates: – SMRI 50 kg/d 70 m3(n)/d 3 m3(n)/h – Germany 30 kg/d 40 m3(n)/d 1.8 m3(n)/h – Experience 7 kg/d 10 m3(n)/d 0.4 m3(n)/h

Simulation of a leak on April 1st @ 3 m3(n)/h No leak Sign of leak after 1 month Obvious leak after 3 months With leak

PVT tool for asset integrity management Subsurface monitoring using PVT simplified tool is proven @ wellhead – In Germany with this model, range of pressures has been increased in 2014 from 60/203 bar to 50/208 bar by mining authority Subsurface integrity management seems also theoretically feasible: – No risk of confusion with mismatch (no pattern) – Different signatures for different events – Ex: creep signature leak signature But: – To be implemented in conjunction of other methods (subsidence, m-seismic) – Prototype in operation in UK since December 1016


Back to top button