SPE-182968-MS

Well Integrity Management: Analysis of Multi-Barrier Corrosion in Mature

Wells Using Advanced Magnetic Impulse Technology

S. Jain, M. A. Al Hamadi, and A. M. Alghasra, Sharjah National Oil Corporation; M. Saada and A. H. Amin, Setcore
Petroleum Services

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Cost effective management of Well Integrity is crucial for maintaining O&G production economics
particularly in mature fields. Optimization of Workover resources, cost, time and associated production
outage is the key for maximizing productivity. Monitoring wellbore completion through multi-tubular
corrosion scanning provides the ability to operators in making this critical decision. Objective of this field
trial conducted in the SNOC Sajaa field, onshore Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; was to determine thru-
tubing high resolution metal loss across multiple barriers for well integrity assurance in single completion
wells.
Wells operating in a low pressure envelope during later life cycle are susceptible to collapse against
the original pore pressure due to the loss in wall thickness from corrosion, particularly in the case of
legacy packerless completions. Quantitative measurement of thickness in the tubing and casing strings
independently was addressed by a real time Magnetic Impulse Defectoscope tool. Scanning metal thickness
by measuring magnetic impulse decay including the qualitative detection of the fourth barrier was achieved
in the downhole gas-condensate environment. The results were interpreted to classify the average wall loss
profile in this pilot project. The results analyzed and presented in this paper demonstrate the effectiveness
of continuous corrosion inhibitor using ¼″ capillary strings and direct annulus injection. In addition, a
deterioration comparison of tubular integrity over 10+ years of production in a high temperature low
pressure corrosive (H2S & CO2) system is presented. Effectiveness and limitations of the Electromagnetic
survey against Multi-Finger Caliper is compared and the importance of repeatability in well integrity testing
is also demonstrated.
An insight into the metal detection accuracy through multiple tubulars and the fundamentals of well
integrity assurance in mature assets is presented. Finally, evaluating the true need for intervention- method
and timing, resulting in the reduction of mature well life cycle costs in the current low oil price environment.

Introduction
The Sajaa Asset consists of three retrograde condensate onshore fields, Sajaa, Kahaif, and Moveyeid (listed
from highest to lowest deliverability and reserves). The fields are tied back to produce natural gas and
2 SPE-182968-MS

associated liquids at the Sajaa gas plant located in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) about 30 km east
of the center of Sharjah, Figure 1. Gas is brought up from the Fields through 53 wells. The facilities
began operation in 1982, transferring concession ownership from Amoco to BP and eventually Sharjah
National Oil Corporation SNOC. All Sajaa Asset wells are naturally flowing with support from well head
compression to reduce the impact of liquid loading on these mature gas wells. The reservoir was blown
down to produce gas associated with rich condensate, water and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).

Figure 1—Location of the Sajaa Field, Sharjah

The carbonate reservoirs of the Late Cretaceous period include the production interval of the Thammama
formation bedded across four productive layers, as witnessed in most reservoirs within the Gulf region. The
wells and facility design were installed to produce the reservoir with initial conditions of 285 DegF and
>5000 Psi. With over 3 decades of operations on the Asset, the fields have experienced various production
enhancements to maximize recovery. Starting from development drilling, facilities back pressure reduction
and horizontalization of wells across the carbonate fault zones. By far the most significant incremental
production project to come out from the asset was the Coil tubing drilling (CTD) campaign started in
2003. The program was successful in flattening the field decline curve; this was done by drilling 164 extra
openhole laterals (1000- 5000ft) from the existing wells totaling more than 340,000ft drilled. In 2013, 12
wellhead & manifold compressors with a total of 18,600 Horse Power (HP) were installed in the field to
reduce back pressure to the wells and enhance productivity from the asset. The gas wells operate at an
average Tubing head pressure (THP) of around 50 psig.

Difficulties in Production Operations of Mature assets

Well integrity is the ability of a well to function normally within its design safety factors and to maintain
a leak free envelope such that there is no unplanned flow of fluids from or to any of the strata which the
well penetrates or to the external environment.
The Operator is required to maintain the well integrity for the 3 operating fields. Accordingly, Minimum
requirements and performance standards are defined in the Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) as
designed by the internal Well Integrity Team. These along with the well operating guidelines form the basis
for safe operations of the wells in this asset. As an onshore mature field in the production phase, all well
SPE-182968-MS 3

operations aim to maintain the condition of the wells and deliver safe, cost-effective and environmentally
responsible well operations, in line with the policy of ensuring that:
∘ So far as is reasonably practicable there is no unplanned escape of hydrocarbons from the well
∘ Risks to the health and safety of personnel, the asset and the environment from the activities are "as
low as reasonably practicable (ALARP)."
Most gas reservoirs contain Water and/or Condensate, thus when natural gas in a "multiphase flow
regime" flows to the surface in a producing well, the gas carries liquids to the surface if the velocity of
the gas is high enough. A high gas velocity results in a flow regime contributing to losses due to friction
from various fluids and elements. Alternatively, a low gas velocity amounts to higher volumes of liquid
in the tubing with greater droplet size resulting in a pressure drop caused by gravity acting on the flowing
fluids. Therefore it is the interaction of frictional and gravitational losses that determine the lower production
efficiency of the well.
Based on the velocity of the phases, the relative amounts of gas and liquids in the tubing at a given point
in time and the pressure regime of the system, the well operating envelope is defined. The Sajaa asset wells
were completed historically with a 5″ tubing along with a nominal 7″, 9″, and 13″ completion scheme.
Although for production optimization purposes, 10% of the wells produce directly up the production
casing whereas all the wells are completed "Packerless", Figure 2. The main purpose of the open annulus
completion was to avoid the extensive problems and associated costs previously encountered with packer
completions in the hostile environment as well as allow for chemical corrosion inhibition along the conduit
of the "A" Annulus. For wells completed without production tubing, a ¼″ capillary string was historically
run to depth or alternative batch chemical injection techniques were utilized. The risk mitigation rationale
given at that time was the fact that nearly all Sajaa wells are conventionally cemented up to surface with
accurate measurements of all casing pressures. The cement is typically 14 ppg for the lead slurry in 90% of
the depth along the 9 5/8″ casing with the tail density approximately 15.8 ppg. The 7″ casing is cemented
to the top with 15.8 ppg assumed to set in place with a mud weight of 13 ppg.

Figure 2—Typical well construction in Sajaa fields and zones at risk

4 SPE-182968-MS

Pore pressure and casing design

The Sajaa Asset wells were typically drilled vertical openhole from 1981 −1997, beyond which multi-
lateral wells were drilled till 2000 following an extended reach drilling program up to 2006. The 9 5/8″
casing is typically placed at about 11000 ft to seal a 2000 ft thick over pressured silt-shale-marl succession.
The formation pressure in the underlying limestone reservoir today is significantly below the hydrostatic
pressure owing to the depletion strategy of the Thamama reservoirs. The problem of collapse of the casing
strings was identified in the asset as early as 2001. The primary question was the pore pressure in the shale
and the pressure transition zone. The most reliable pressure indicator typically is the sonic slowness which
suggests that the pore pressure in the shales do not start to build up before 10200 ft. and increases from
hydrostatic to 15 ppg over 800 ft. An even sharper pressure drop then follows into the carbonate reservoir.
An over pressured shale is generally a very good seal.
Diagenetic processes in the clays were identified as the possible explanation for this sharp increase in
pore pressure below 10000 ft. At this depth the formation temperature is about 250 DegF. In this temperature
window montmorillonite (smectite or swelling clay) transforms to the much more stable illite and releases
water. The mudloggers did report from several wells intervals (shallower than 10000 ft) where the cuttings
were disintegrated in the drilling mud. This is typical for sections abundant in montmorillonite.
The top of the 7″ liner is therefore typically chosen above the Nahr Umr Shale which extends 450 feet
TVD above the top of the Thamama. The Nahr Umr is a very high quality seal and has required mud weights
in excess of 15.0 ppg to prevent "stress relief" complications. The cement behind the casing is generally
accepted to accomplish vertical isolation, though not radial isolation with the natural pore pressure being
applied laterally through the cement as worst case, Figure 3.

Figure 3—Typical Pore pressure and Fracture gradient in Sajaa

Three factors contributing to the casing failures are generally: 1. Casing design, 2. Casing wear, and 3.
Casing buckling.
SPE-182968-MS 5

Casing Design
Bourgoyne, Millheim, Chenevert and Young in Applied Drilling Engineering recommend the following
collapse design for production casing:

"The collapse-design load is based on conditions late in the life of the reservoir, when reservoir pressure
has been depleted to a very low (negligible) abandonment pressure. A leak in the tubing or packer
could cause the loss of the completion fluid, so the low internal pressure is not restricted to just the
portion of the casing below the packer. Thus, for design purposes, the entire casing is considered
empty. As before, the fluid density outside the casing is assumed to be the mud in the well when the
casing was run, and the beneficial effect of the cement is ignored."

This design was used in the first phase of the Sajaa drilling program from 1981 to 1991. The casing was
set in a 14.0 lb/gal oil mud and at 11,000 ft tvd equating to an external force of 8,000 psi minus an internal
resistance of a column of gas, +/-1,000 psi. This dictated the use of two different grades of 9-5/8″ casing,
NT-95-SS and L-80 with respective collapse strengths of 7,330 psi and 6,620 psi. The L-80 was run to 9,000
ft tvd and the NT-95-SS from 9,000 ft to 9-5/8″ casing point. The casing connections were typically New
Vam for 9 5/8″ L-80, Hydril SLX for 7″ L-80.
During the first development phase, the completion design was changed. Originally, 5″ tubing with a
packer set in the 9-5/8″ casing. Later, 7″ casing was cemented to surface with the tubing hung without a
packer. These two cemented casing strings, the 9-5/8″ and 7″, provided even greater collapse strength than
the original design.
When the drilling resumed in the second phase in 1991, the NT-95-SS casing was not used in the lower
portion of the 9-5/8″ string because the 7″ casing cemented to surface provided sufficient collapse strength.
As the reservoir pressure declined, the 9-5/8″ casing provided adequate burst strength thus the collapse
conditions when exposed to underbalanced conditions would be similar to a producing well.

Casing Wear
During the horizontal drilling as well as extended reach coil tubing drilling campaigns, the casings more
specifically the 9 5/8″ and the 7″ liner would have experienced wear loss. An extensive casing thickness
and wear study was conducted prior to the Coil tubing program to evaluate the suitability of the Sajaa field
wells for additional wear in an underbalanced condition using multi-finger caliper logging.

Buckling
Buckling can be caused by the temperature increase when the well starts flowing and is exposed to the
hotter reservoir fluids causing thermal expansion. This expansion would be caused in the casing as well as
the trapped fluids in the cement channels behind the casing. Thermal expansion related issues have been
noted in the past causing collapse as well as regular annulus pressure buildup and sustained casing pressure
in some wells.
Packerless designs have been acceptable to date due to the fact that the production liner tieback is designed
to handle the maximum shut in pressure that the well can achieve. Although, annular flow is considered to
be a problem due to the potential of excessive corrosion in contact with reservoir fluids. Without annular
flow, the only means of mass transfer on the annulus is that due to convection currents.

Well integrity management concerns

Sajaa 36 well continued on production until January 2015 when it stopped producing abruptly from a
constant flowrate of 2.5 MMSCFD. Various attempts were made from surface to establish the nature of
the problem. In February 2015, Nitrogen was injected at 500 psi, but no pressure leak or buildup into the
formation was noticed. In August 2016, 500 bbls of water mixed with Sulphamic acid was pumped into
6 SPE-182968-MS

the well to test the blockage and apply pressure (About 3600 psi) on the restriction downhole with further
investigation ongoing. A Fish in the well did not allow for slickline surveillance. The conclusion from the
interventions is that the restriction is likely a casing collapse or/and scale accumulation. The certainty is that
the wellbore was isolated from the reservoir after is stopped flowing suddenly with 0 pressure on surface.
The well was flowing at a surface pressure of less than 20 Psi when the incident occurred. This provided a
trigger to re-investigate the well integrity related to mechanical issues in mature fields.
Corrosion coupons are placed downstream of all the Sajaa Asset wells and the corrosion inhibitors have
been injected in the well head since the wells were completed. With this arrangement, it can be concluded
that the corrosion coupon, if placed with the correct orientation would reflect indirect corrosion rates of the
well stream. Two12 o'clock mounted strip coupons are placed in the well flow line. As such, the coupon
cannot effectively reflect the corrosion rate if flow is either stratified or annular as the coupon will not
be fully wetted. Since Sajaa gas production contains relatively small liquid volumes with high velocities
from the wellhead compression systems, it is noted that the turbulent effect of the corrosive liquids would
be noted in the corrosion coupons. This method, although relatively cheap to test and gain additional data
points has the apparent limitation of wellbore conditions where in the corrosion taking place in the tubulars
downhole are at reservoir temperature and pressure with a steel grade that may not the same as the coupons.
With no direct corrosion measurements from the well this was considered to be a representative
assessment of what is occurring in the well albeit the actual corrosion rates may not be linear throughout
the completion. Corrosion of the wells was modeled according to the data of corrosion coupons for the
period from Apr-97 to Sep-2015 and the results show the total radius loss of well tubular averaged out on
per year basis throughout the production life of the well. The corrosion analysis was then applied to reduce
the casing yield based on % anticipated wall loss and the overburden pressure with gradient of 0.73psi/ft
(averaged) applied to the depths where the casing was exposed to the overburden on the outside, and the
extremely low bottom hole pressure on the inside. Results show, if the new collapse rating is more than
the overburden, the casing will be in acceptable condition, but if the overburden is more than the collapse
rating, then, the casing is at risk and requires more study and possible diagnosis to avoid its collapse when
the wells are being produced via a wellhead compressor on the top. The assessment showed there to be 28
wells currently at risk from potential casing collapse.
Well A had an average MPY (Mils per year) of 0.66 over a producing life of 20 years equating to a
cumulative MPY of 13.1 resulting in an average radius loss in the producing tubulars of 0.33 mm. Similarly,
Well B had one of the highest indications of corrosion in the Sajaa field wells with an average MPY of
2.38 over a producing life of 17 years equating to a cumulative MPY of 40.27 with a radius loss of 1.01
mm, Figure 4. This loss in radius was directly associated with the production casing as the well has been
producing without a production tubing since initial completion. The radius loss was then used to degrade
the casing to recalculate the new collapse and burst strength.

Figure 4—Corrosion coupon results in MPY

SPE-182968-MS 7

The comparison of the casing collapse rating and overburden pressure depends on the well configuration.
If the well has a liner with tieback to surface, then, the point of risk is the liner shoe, but, if the well has a
liner with no tieback, then the points of risk are the liner shoe and the casing section at the depth of liner
hanger. For the 9 5/8″ casings in these wells, API5C3 indicated overstress in some wells with the casings
unworn. Even with the inclusion of compression to improve the API5C3 collapse resistance, the calculations
concluded that the 9 5/8″ casings in a worn condition are unlikely to tolerate the full drawdown in production
in addition to the pressure by the cap rock shale. The 7″ casings were calculated to be marginally under-
designed using API5C3 with the ability of the 7″ casing strings to tolerate full draw down depending upon
their relationship with wear and corrosion.

Well integrity logging operations

Two wells were identified as the candidates for a pilot project to address the issues discussed above. Well
A has high casing pressures which when bleed off will reoccur again quickly. To check the Well Integrity,
the reason for such an increase had to be investigated. One of the probable reasons for this to occur was the
corrosion of the casings allowing a passage to the fluids to reach to the surface via channeling in cement.
Well B was chosen because of its similarity to Sajaa 36 well which is a candidate of suspected collapse.
This was identified as high risk and captured in the Asset Integrity Risk Register under "multiple well loss".
The aim of this pilot project was to understand and derive a work plan to mitigate the risk.
An electromagnetic tool capable of providing the required quantitative evaluation for multi tubular layers
up to 3rd tubing/ casing layer was required. This was the main feature needed in ensuring well integrity
conditions in Annuluses A, B & C without necessarily pulling out the tubing in a corroded condition at the
same time encountering all associated risks and workover cost, with this operation being the only viable
option. Therefore, the decision for using MID-K was seen as the optimum solution for our goal in terms
of Safety, Quality, Cost & Time.
Logging operations on 2 pilot wells; Well A & Well B started in December 6th and ended in December
13th 2015. Each well took 4 days of operations including mobilization/demobilization and rigging up/down.
Job was operated safely and without incidents. The logging unit surface system read out live data which
helped in providing repeatable quantitative corrosion measurement and target potential failure zones with
higher density, Figure 5.

Figure 5—Summary of Logging operations in 2015

The device includes two defect detectors and comprises of a long probe sensor (detects the total
response from all tubular), a short probe sensor (magnetizing mainly first and second casing), a temperature
sensor and a gamma ray probe. Each thickness probe sensor contains two coils (transmitter and receiver)
8 SPE-182968-MS

located concentrically around the core. Formation of the magnetic field in the tubular is created by the
alternating current pulses of 2-piece axial generator coils. Mathematical processing of the received data
allows independent determination of the thickness of the first, second and third tubular.

Objectives and results Well A

The Magnetic Impulse Defectoscope log was recorded in well A on 07 December 2015. The data was
acquired from 30.0 ft to 12,055 ft. The intervention objective was to check the current wellbore conditions
including corrosion impacts on 5″ TBG, 5″ liner, 7″ CSG and 9 5/8″ CSG along with the cause of high
annulus pressure and identify if the well was fit for service. A caliper (MIT) log was run in the well tubing
string in 2012; the objective was also to test the performance of one technique over the other.
The key findings from the log interpretation of results indicate that in the 5″ Tubing; Total 264 joints were
observed with the overall classification as ‘moderate’ (5-10% wall loss). 82 of 264 joints were classified as a
light (less than 5% wall loss); 66 of 264 joints were classified and observed as intensive corrosion (10-15%
wall loss). In the 5″ Liner; Liner hanger started at a depth of 11,183.4 ft with a total of 18 joints it was
classified as ‘moderate’ corrosion (5-10% metal loss) with 3, 10 and 4 joints classified as light, moderate
and intensive respectively. One joint has ‘significant’ corrosion (>15% wall loss) at a depth of 11,184 ft
which corresponds to the damage probably incurred during setting of the liner hanger in place, the same was
highlighted in the Multifinger thickness log run in the well in 2012, Figure 6. In the 7″ casing; Total 291 joints
were observed with 19, 68 and 189 joints classified as very light, light and moderate corrosion respectively.
12 joints contained intensive corrosion (10-15 % metal loss) and 3 joint has ‘significant’ corrosion (>15%
wall loss) some reaching up to 25% metal loss primarily along the tie back of the 7″ liner and the 5″ liner
hanger. In the 9 5/8″ casing; there were 172 joints, 157 of which were very lightly to lightly corroded.
15 joints were in the ‘moderate’ category with more than 5% of the thickness loss. The most significant
observation was the position of the side track window with the whipstock which was interpreted as 31%
metal loss at 7,206 ft reinforcing the trust in the results of the interpretation, Figure 7.

Figure 6—Log interpretation results showing intensive metal loss at the depth of
11184 ft in the 7″ CSG (22.9% ML) and 5″ Liner (16.2% ML) along with result of MIT
SPE-182968-MS 9

Figure 7—The model decay response (Green Curve) is higher than the Tool decay response (Black Curve)
at the specified depth indicating metal loss associated with the sidetrack window in the 9 5/8″ casing

The analysis of the 13 3/8″ casing; required advanced interpretation and qualitative solution of the
mathematical algorithm. Overall, the 13 3/8″ CSG corrosion was found ‘light to intensive' (0-12.5% wall
metal loss in the interval from surface to 620 ft). Where, below 620 ft to 5,000 ft is classified as intensive
to significant corrosion (12.5 – 24% wall metal loss), Figure 8.

Figure 8—13 3/8″ CSG response quantified with advanced interpretation

displaying corrosion around 4,000 ft classified as intensive (12.5 – 24%) metal loss
10 SPE-182968-MS

Objectives and results Well B

The Magnetic Impulse Defectoscope log was recorded in Well B on 10 December 2015. The intervention
objective was to check the current completion condition in terms of corrosion impacts on 5″ TBG, 7″ liner, 9
5/8″ CSG and 13 3/8″ CSG for possible workover actions needed to maintain the asset as well as evaluating
the effect of corrosion inhibitor injection depth by comparing the electromagnetic survey results for interval
below corrosion inhibitor injection depth @ 10340' versus zone above corrosion inhibitor injection depth.
Additionally, get an insight into the potential failure mechanisms of Saj 36 well. Therefore, the data was
acquired through the whole well interval from 30.0 ft to 10889 ft.
The key findings from the log interpretation of results indicate that in the 5″ Tubing; only one joint was
observed that has an interval of light corrosion with metal loss (3-5%). In the 7″ scab liner; of 69 joints
starting at a depth of 7,518.2 ft, the overall corrosion was classified as ‘light’ (3-5% metal loss). Whereas,
6 joints were observed and classified as moderate corrosion (5-10% metal loss) with 2 joints of intensive
corrosion (14% Metal loss) primarily located at the liner hanger joints, Figure 9. In the 7″ liner; of 19
joints, 4 had ‘moderate’ corrosion (5-10% metal loss) with the remaining 15 classified as light corrosion.
In the 9 5/8″ casing; of 277 joints observed by the tool, 11 joints had ‘moderate’ category with 5-10%
metal loss. Over the 13 3/8″ casing (2nd or 3rd barrier); in 93 joints surveyed, 25 were in the ‘moderate’
category with 5-10% metal loss. As with Well A, In addition to the previous survey results, over the 20″
casing (4th Barrier); a qualitative solution of the mathematical algorithm classified the casing as ‘light to
intensive' (0-12.5% wall metal loss in the interval from 0 – 620 ft).

Figure 9—Log interpretation results showing intensive metal loss at the depth of 7512 ft in the 7″ CSG (14 % ML)

Analysis of findings
The recommendation from the 2015 Well Integrity Management Audit was to perform corrosion logging on
wells where surface indications suggest a high risk of casing collapse. If the corrosion levels seen on surface
were indeed confirmed by downhole measurements, a plan to protect the wells from casing collapse via
recompletion was imminent. The 2 wells logged gave results which partially support the surface analysis,
albeit due to the location of the corrosion in Well B, the well is not at risk, and Well A was not suggested
to be at risk.
SPE-182968-MS 11

No tangible changes observed in the electromagnetic survey results between zones below and above
corrosion inhibitor injection depth were observed in Well B wherein a deviation from 3.5% to 4.2% was
noticed in the 15 joints not receiving corrosion inhibitor. The method of inhibitor injection via ¼″ capillary
strings is seen to provide adequate support to the well over the period of 10 years when it was commissioned
in case of Well B in the absence of a 5″ tubing till the lateral depth. The well production tubulars in contact
with reservoir fluid have an average wall loss of 3% supporting utility of continuous capillary injection
system albeit with their high mantainence and blockage issues, Figure 10.

Figure 10—Magnetic impulse survey of the entire well displaying tubular transition
zones, interpreted thickness, temperature, gamma ray and the multilateral window

In Well B, the only area of concern is what appear to be 2 pup joints in the 7″ scab line between 7512 and
7532ft. It is interesting that these wall loss readings are higher than in the 9 5/8″ casing which the scab liner
was installed to protect. The 7″ casing would potentially fail at these pup joints due to the overburden stress
however the 9 5/8″ behind the 7″ scab liner indicated 3% wall loss, which is in good condition and the yield
remains above the overburden pressure. Casing wear during the drilling of laterals in 2005 is evident from
the data where the 3 joints above the whipstock have recorded an average wall loss of 7.5% as compared
to the 3.5% wall loss in the other joints of the 7″liner.
Well B was surveyed using a 60-arm multi-finger caliper tool in May 2002 and the Electromagnetic tool
in Dec 2015. At a depth of 10858', there is 21% nominal wall thickness loss as captured by the caliper
survey in 2002. This result is undermined by the magnetic impulse tool which states the wall loss is between
5% – 10%, probably as the 21% wall loss is taken at a single point whereas the impulse result is averaged
over 6″ vertically. In the interval of 10281' to 10319', the caliper survey estimated a value in line with the
12 SPE-182968-MS

impulse tool result estimated as 0 to 3% wall loss. The region from 9770 to 9940' is a location with high
dogleg severity which probably resulted from wear during the drilling of the original horizontal legs. The
magnetic survey showed 3-5% wall loss in the same region, both results being very similar. With a primary
objective of well integrity, all the above results are likely the reason why a scab liner was installed in Well
B with the magnetic impulse survey re-affirming these results behind the scab liner which would have been
in-accessible by a typical caliper survey in 2015.
Running the integrity log provided invaluable baseline information in each corresponding well for
tracking corrosion progress especially in the case of well A where the B annulus pressure of +4000psi is
a concern in the MAASP of the well. Although when it is bled off it does not constitute a high volume
indicating channeling in the cement aggravated by thermal expansion of fluids. Future imaging logs would
indicate the deterioration wall loss of the 7″, 9″ & 13″ due to its contact with these overpressured zones and
trigger the workover program when necessary.
In Well A, there were 4 areas of concern highlighted from the logging, 11184ft, 7213ft, 6725ft and 30ft.
These joints were assessed as to the impact on collapse loads. The shallow joint displayed concern of a
tensile load but as the casing in cemented to the top it is not critical, the remaining 3 were assessed with
regards to the overburden load and showed adequate remaining wall thickness.
Similar to Well B, Well A has undergone 2 surveys- a 24 multi-finger caliper tool and Electromagnetic
tool. The 24 multi-finger caliper surveys were performed to a depth of 10925' in 2012. The summary of the
results show minor corrosion (0 to 5% wall thickness loss with majority being isolated pitting corrosion).
In the tubing, the caliper analyzed a total of 263 joints out of which 243 have corrosion of 1-10% and 20
joints have 10-20% wall loss whereas the impulse tool analyzed a total of 264 joints of which 66 joints have
a loss of 10-15% and 198 have loss of less than 5%.
In conclusion, the magnetic impulse survey was very resourceful in quantifying the corrosion extent to
the barriers inaccessible in the caliper survey. Corrosion in both the wells was deemed within acceptable
parameters without any immediate recommended actions. Regardless of any physical actions on the wells,
these results were used to recalculate burst and collapse ratings to update the MAASP and MAWOP of
the casings

Impact on future decision

Reassurance of the casing condition on Well B provided a confidence in the well integrity for production
with wellhead compression as well as better decision making with respect to the optimization of workover
timing to recomplete the well with a production tubing string coupled with packer and completion fluid to
maintain the hydrostatic pressure of the inner annuli preventing it from collapse. In addition, other wells
with a similar completion at "risk" of collapse can be surveyed with an electromagnetic tool to provide
integrity assurance, with the provision of a baseline well integrity profile that has repeatability to quantify
corrosion progression in the well in the absence of continuous corrosion inhibition. With the success of
the pilot project, additional wells have been selected for survey based on a set of rigorous risk ranking
criteria including age & surface corrosion indicators to assure field wide asset integrity in the planned well
intervention programs.
As a tool, the electromagnetic impulse technology enabled the quantification of well integrity status
not just for the production casing/tubing but the 2nd/3rd and 4th barrier as well. That being said, the
electromagnetic tool measures absolute average wall thickness circumference (non-azimuthal) which also
involves a normal manufacturing tolerance. The latter can be contributing to the metal loss figures calculated
from the measured thickness, it gives average metal loss at each depth with a vertical resolution of 0.6″.
Thus, it cannot confirm or detect holes. In other words, A Multifinger thickness tool can easily pick up
a hole and 100% penetration but with an Electromagnetic tool because of the averaging out of metal loss
circumferentially, this can be misleading although it gives the quantitative criteria of metal loss which can
SPE-182968-MS 13

be considered a potential risk and lead to casing failure. Slow logging speeds of up to 6 ft/min provide
an additional cost impact especially when the objective is the survey of the overall well integrity profile.
Potential differentiation between external and internal corrosion is low unless the metal loss is intensive
to understand its geometry.
Development wells typically are motivated with ramping up production output from the field resulting
in drilling objectives being far from the production phase of a well. An understanding of the constraints
in dealing with later well integrity problems at the design stage could fundamentally change the basis of
completion objectives. To the extent where to the surface cemented casings may be seen as an integrity
management constraint should the basis of design need to account for extended service life of a well. If
recovery is to be increased through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques then basis of design also need
to account for this especially when the wells status might change. This integrated project planning should
equally be applied to any further workovers & well interventions.
As the wellhead compression facility at the surface increases the velocity of gas, larger wellbores provide
a better conduit for purely production maximization with the reduction in frictional loss in the well fluids.
Delay in the planned workover for the large bore wells enable a higher productivity till the time it is deemed
necessary to recomplete them & combine the two objectives of well integrity and production optimization.
As the secondary barrier for well workover in these wells was engineered to be clear brine due to the
packerless design, with the current low reservoir pressure in the mature reservoir it is in the best interest of
the well to reduce workovers and combine work scopes. Additionally, Comparing Well A and Well B survey
results; tangible value could be clearly identified for the usage of corrosion inhibitor over the producing
life of the well. Although, economic analysis for corrosion inhibitor injection versus well lifecycle integrity
mantainence cost with respect to field development plan should be looked at more closely in mature assets.
Timely decision making, cost effective management of resources and optimum technical solution is the
key to production economics of mature fields in a low oil price environment and the well integrity survey
provided vital support in taking that decision.

Nomenclature
BBLS : Barrels
BP : British Petroleum
CSG : Casing
CTD : Coil Tubing Drilling
EMF : Electromagnetic Frequency
EOR : Extended Oil Recovery
FFC : Full field compression
FT : Feet
GPD : Gallon per Day
LB : Pound
LGR : Liquid gas Ratio
LPG : Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MAASP : Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure
MD : Measured Depth
MID : Magnetic Impulse Defectoscope
MPY : Mils per year
MMSCFD : Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
MS : Milli-seconds
PBU : Pressure Build up
PPG : Pound per Gallon
14 SPE-182968-MS

SNOC : Sharjah National Oil Corporation

SSSV : Sub-surface safety valve
THP : Tubing Head Pressure
TVD : True Vertical Depth
UAE : United Arab Emirates

References
1. Lea, J. F. and Tighe, R. E. "Gas Well Operation with Liquid Production," SPE 11583, presented at
the 1983 Production Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, February 27–March 1, 1983.
2. Carl Fredrik Gyllenhammar, BP UTG Drilling, "Pore Pressure Evaluation, Sharjah", September
2001
3. Torbergsen, Hans-Emil Bensnes et al, Norwegian Oil and Gas Association's Well Integrity Forum
(WIF), "An Introduction to Well Integrity", Rev 0, 04 December 2012
4. Hustad, B. M., Svela, O. G., Olsen, J. H., Ramstad, K., & Tjomsland, T. (2012, January 1).
Downhole Chemical Injection Lines - Why Do They Fail? Experiences, Challenges and
Application of New Test Methods. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/154967-MS
5. Jain, S., Al Hamadi, M. A., Jaber, S., & Jany, A. B. (2015, October 20). Mature Field
Revitalization: Analysis of Wellhead Compression to Enhance Productivity from a Mature
Retrograde Reservoir. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/176395-MS
6. Poulose, B., & Al Hamadi, M. (2013, March 10). Foamer Application for Sajaa Asset gas Wells.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/164376-MS
7. Harms, L. K. (2010, January 1). Wellhead Compression on Tight Gas Wells in the Long Run: A
Follow-Up Case History on Seven Years of Success in Lobo. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/138488-MS
8. Harms, L. K. (2004, January 1). Installing Low-Cost, Low-Pressure Wellhead Compression
on Tight Lobo Wilcox Wells in South Texas: A Case History. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/90550-MS
9. Bui, Q., Harms, L. K., Munoz, E. A., & Becnel, J. L. (2009, January 1). Low-Pressure System
for Gas Wells: Do We Need It? How Low Should We Go? Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/124869-MS
10. NORSOK STANDARD, D-010, Well integrity in drilling and well operations, Rev. 3, August
2004