integrity of ugs
Post on 16-Apr-2022
12 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Integrity of UGS
Committee: Storage Fabien FAVRET (EDF, France)
Mail: fabien.favret@edf.fr Mob: +33 (0) 607798125
Existing codes, norms and standards for safe UGS
Best practices for UGS safe operations EDF/Géostock case study in UK
FUELING THE FUTURE WITH GAS 2
Topics
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: BSOR in UK, …
• USA: API 1170 & API 1171 established in 2015
• Russian Federation: Safety rules in oil and gas industry, Gazprom standards 2-3.5-
770-2013 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 • 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 16530-2 (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 can be 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 (no retroactive application)
– Usually 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, and then will program a specific module to be in position to check the integrity of a cavern (and in future a 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
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
With leak
Sign of leak after 1 month
Obvious leak after 3 months
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:
– Technical, mathematical & IT developments to be done
– And then, in-situ tests to be achieved (on going in UK)
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?
top related