irp3 final 2005
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
1/245
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations
Industry Recommended
Practice (IRP)
Volume 3 - 2002
Sanctioned
2002 - 01
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
2/245
This document as well as future revisions and additions are available from:
Enform
1538 25 Avenue NECalgary, Alberta
T2E 8Y3
Phone: (403) 250-9606Fax: (403) 291-9408
Website: www.enform.ca
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
3/245
Table of Contents
3 Heavy Oil And Oi l Sands Operat ions ...................................................... 1
3.0 Acknowledgement And Scope.................................................................. 1
3.0.1 Acknowledgement And Disclaimer.......................................... 13.0.2 Forward ......................................................................................... 43.0.3 Scope ............................................................................................ 7
3.0.4 Introduction................................................................................... 93.0.5 Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Criteria And Definitions................103.0.6 References ................................................................................. 17
3.1 Drilling ..................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Scope .......................................................................................... 183.1.2 Well Control Systems For Low Risk Heavy Oil / Oil SandsWells ...................................................................................................... 193.1.3 Well Control Systems For Moderate To High Risk Heavy OilWells ...................................................................................................... 303.1.4 Ghost Hole And Sidetrack Wells ......................................... 473.1.5 Cementing Of Casing ............................................................... 50
3.1.6 Thermal Casing And Casing Connections ............................ 583.1.7 Horizontal Well Guidelines....................................................... 743.1.8 Environment And Drilling Waste Management ....................823.1.9 References ................................................................................. 92
Appendix A Blow-Out Preventer Diagrams .................................. 96Appendix B Line System Pressure Loss Diagrams ..................103Appendix C Diagrams of Typical Bop System Pressure Loss Vs.Minimum Surface Casing Or Conductor Pipe Depth Requirements .. .................................................................................................... 110
Appendix D- Example Wash-over Remedial Cement Program .122Appendix E Thermal / Mechanical Relationship Diagrams for
Common Grades of Oilfield Casing................................................... 124Appendix F Environmental Cracking Mechanisms ...................139Appendix G Horizontal Well Stick Diagram ............................. 141
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations Table of Contents i
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
4/245
3.2 Well Servicing........................................................................................ 1423.2.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 1423.2.2 Definitions ................................................................................. 1423.2.3 Service Rigs ............................................................................. 1443.2.4 Continuous Rod Rigs .............................................................. 1603.2.5 Snubbing Units ........................................................................ 1623.2.6 Pressure Trucks ...................................................................... 1643.2.7 Flush-By Units.......................................................................... 1653.2.8 Environment, Health, And Safety ......................................... 171
Appendix 1 Servicing Blowout Prevention Systems-Class 2A ...176Appendix 2 Primary Recovery Well H2S Release Rate
Determination........................................................................................ 177Appendix 3 Alberta Department of Environment.......................... 178
3.3 Production Equipment And Procedures............................................. 181
3.3.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 1813.3.2 Definitions ................................................................................. 1823.3.3 Surface Equipment (Single Well Battery) ............................ 1843.3.4 Lease Dikes.............................................................................. 1873.3.5 Lease Size And Equipment Spacing .................................... 1883.3.6 Gathering And Treating Equipment ...................................... 1893.3.7 Sour Criteria And Requirements ........................................... 1923.3.8 Fired Equipment ...................................................................... 1933.3.9 Wellhead Design ..................................................................... 196
3.4 Measurement And Accounting ............................................................ 205
3.4.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 2053.4.2 Measurements Needs ............................................................ 2063.4.3 Production Reporting .............................................................. 2093.4.4 Well Testing.............................................................................. 2203.4.5 Sampling ................................................................................... 2353.4.6 Pro-Ration Factors .................................................................. 238
Appendix 1 Suggested Method of Test Duration Determination .240
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations Table of Contents ii
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
5/245
3 Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations
Recommended By
Associations
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
3.0 Acknowledgement And Scope
3.0.1AcknowledgementAnd Disclaimer
This Industry Recommended Practice (IRP) is a set of best
practices and guidelines, compiled by knowledgeable andexperienced industry and government personnel and is intended
to provide the operator with advice regarding HEAVY OIL AND
OIL SANDS OPERATIONS.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 1
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
6/245
DACC The IRP was developed under the auspices of the Drilling andCompletions Committee (DACC).
DACC is a joint industry/government committee established to
develop safe, efficient and environmentally suitable operating
practices for the Canadian oil and gas industry in the areas ofdrilling, completions and servicing of wells. The primary effort
is the development of IRP's with priority given to:
development of new IRPs where non-existent proceduresresult in issues because of inconsistent operating practices;
review and revision of outdated IRPs particularly where newtechnology requires new operating procedures; and
provide general support to foster development of non-IRP
industry operating practices that have current application to a
limited number of stakeholders.
IRP Flexibility The recommendations set out in this IRP are meant to allowflexibility and must be used in conjunction with competent
technical judgment. It remains the responsibility of the user ofthe IRP to judge its suitability for a particular application.
Legislation If there is any inconsistency or conflict between any of therecommended practices contained in the IRP and the applicable
legislative requirement, the legislative requirement shall prevail.
If there is any inconsistency or conflict between any of therecommended practices contained in the IRP and the applicable
legislative requirement, the legislative requirement shall prevail.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 2
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
7/245
Accuracy &Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability
of the data and recommendations contained in the IRP.
However DACC, its subcommittees, and individual contributors
make no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection
with the publication or the contents of any IRP recommendationand hereby disclaim liability of responsibility for loss or damage
resulting from the use of this IRP, or for any violation of any
legislative requirements.
SanctioningOrganizations
This IRP has been sanctioned (sanction = review and support ofthe IRP as a compilation of best practices) by the following
organizations:
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
Alberta Human Resources and Employment
British Columbia Workers Compensation Board
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
International Coil Tubing Association
Manitoba Industry, Trade and Mines
National Energy Board
Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers Compensation
Board
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Saskatchewan Industry & Resources
Saskatchewan Labour
Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 3
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
8/245
3.0.2 Forward This document is a revision of Alberta Recommended Practice(ARP) Volume 3 Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Operations
(1)
published in 1991. The work is a result of a joint industry andregulatory body sub-committee of the Drilling and Completions
Committee (DACC). The sub-committee included
representation from Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers (CAPP), Canadian Association of Oilwell DrillingContractors (CAODC), Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
(AEUB, EUB), Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S),
Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) and SmallExplorers & Producers Association of Canada (SEPAC).
This revision is necessary to:
update ARP Volume 3 to reflect current practices,procedures, and equipment used in developing and
producing Heavy Oil/Oil Sands reserves,
(1)Definitions of terms specific to this document may be found
in Section 3.0.4.
streamline regulatory/industry procedures and application
processing, and
convert ARP Volume 3 to an Industry RecommendedPractice (IRP) Volume 3 that recognizes a Canadian
composite of minimum standards for exploration,development and production of Heavy Oil/ Oil Sands
reserves1,
.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 4
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
9/245
The purpose of this document is to recommend specific
standards and operating procedures that should be considered
the minimum acceptable for a given application.
This document addresses issues specific to the exploration,
development, and production of Heavy Oil and Oil Sandsreserves by primary, secondary, and tertiary - Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) methods. This IRP is not intended to apply to
conventional production or critical sour wells.
The IRPs for Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Operations stress the
importance of standards and safe operating procedures to protect
workers and the public and to minimize environmental riskduring the entire life of the producing asset. They are intended
to complement existing documentation and regulation.
The practices recommended are based on engineering judgment,
accepted good practices, and experience. The establishment of
these minimum standards does not preclude the need for
industry to exercise sound technical judgment in the applicationof these practices.
The subcommittee does not endorse the use of any particular
manufacturers product. Any descriptions of product types or
any schematics of components, which bear resemblance to aspecific manufacturers product, are provided strictly in the
generic sense.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 5
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
10/245
Within IRP Volume 3, additional sources of information and abibliography of references are found at the end of each section.
The current editions of reference specifications, standards, and
recommended practices were used when this 1999 revision was
undertaken. As these documents are updated and revised, thesections of the IRPs referencing them may require revisions. In
addition, as new knowledge, equipment, and procedures are
developed this document will require updating.
Suggestions for revisions to this document should be forwardedto the Drilling and Completions Committee (DACC). This jointindustry/regulatory committee is responsible for the periodic
updating of this and other IRPs.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 6
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
11/245
3.0.3 Scope The purpose of this IRP Volume 3 - Heavy Oil and Oil SandsOperations is to provide guidance in the development andproduction of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands reserves within Canada.
This is accomplished by outlining current practices and setting
minimum standards that encourage operating in a safe and
environmentally sound manner. The focus is on practices,equipment, and procedures that are unique to Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands operations. Although they are not a primary focus, the
issues of hydrocarbon conservation, equity, and environment arementioned in the Measurement Section IRPs as they provide
necessary understanding of measurement needs.
Drilling recommendations are made with regard to:
blowout prevention (BOP) systems
ghost-holes and side-tracks
cement design and operations
casing string design
horizontal well guidelines, and
drilling waste management.
Servicing recommendations are made with regard to:
blowout prevention systems
servicing equipment including coiled tubing rigs, snubbing
rigs, flush-by units, pressure trucks, and tanks
health, safety, and environment, and
well abandonment.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 7
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
12/245
Producing recommendations are made with regard to:
wellhead design
oil and gas gathering and treating
production equipment including fired vessels, and
environmental protection.
Measuring and accounting recommendations are made with
regard to:
purpose and need for measurement
well test design and equipment
sampling requirements, and
reporting requirements.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 8
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
13/245
3.0.4 Introduction Heavy oil production occurs along the Alberta andSaskatchewan border near Lloydminster and in many other areas
of both provinces. For the purpose of this IRP, Heavy Oil is
defined as oil or bitumen having a density of 920 kg/m3or
greater oras designated by the governing body (i.e. as perSpacing Area E in Saskatchewan).
The intent of the Industry Recommended Practices for HeavyOil and Oil Sands Operations is to enhance operating
consistency within industry through the establishment ofminimum standards and procedures. The IRPs outlined clarifyand document good practices and procedures employed by
various Operators and Service Companies within Heavy Oil and
Oil Sands areas. Many of these practices and standards are theresult of numerous refinements over the years. It is hoped they
will reduce the variety of exemptions and differences in
equipment and procedures used by the Operators.
These IRPs have been thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by
industry. Since IRPs are meant to allow flexibility, competent
technical judgment is still necessary when establishingappropriate equipment and procedures for Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands Operations. One must always consider the nature of the
product to be produced and the need for environmentalprotection and safety. While strict legal enforcement of the IRPs
is not desired, the subcommittee believes that these practicesplace considerable onus on the legally responsible party to
comply or otherwise provide a technically equivalent or better
method.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 9
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
14/245
3.0.5 Heavy OilAnd Oil SandsCriteria AndDefinitions
In developing the Industry Recommended Practices for HeavyOil and Oil Sands Operations, the DACC Subcommittee
provides the following list of definitions deemed necessary for
clarification of the discussion of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
development and production.
3.0.5.1 CrudeBitumen
Crude bitumen is a naturally occurring, viscous, hydrocarbon
mixture consisting mainly of compounds heavier than pentane.
It may also contain sulfur compounds and in its naturally
occurring state will not flow into a wellbore. For the purposes ofthis IRP, Crude Bitumen includes hydrocarbons within declared
Oil Sands Areas.
3.0.5.2 Buffer Well A buffer well is a well with a bottom-hole location in proximityto an active secondary recovery or tertiary (EOR) project and islocated between the proposed well(s) to be drilled and the
project area. In proximity is defined as 1.0 kilometer in Alberta
and 1.6 kilometers in Saskatchewan. A greater distance may berequired based upon performance history or other factors.
Note The term buffer well is used in the drilling and servicing IRPswhere Operators should account for potential pressure and
temperature effects of secondary or EOR projects from adjacent
areas in their drilling or servicing operations. Other factors toconsider are outlined in definitions 3.0.4.7 through 3.0.4.11.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 10
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
15/245
3.0.5.3 Heavy Oil Heavy Oil is defined as a crude oil product that has a density
greater than 920 kg/m3at 15Coras designated by the
governing body (i.e. as per Spacing Area E in Saskatchewan).
Note The density of 920 kg/m3was selected as an appropriate cut-off
for operating practices appropriate for Heavy Oil wells. Oil of
this density or greater tends to be more viscous due to smallerpercentages of volatile hydrocarbons and higher percentages of
asphaltenes. Industry has used this density in defining the
equipment and operating requirements for the majority of HeavyOil and Oil Sands wells in Canada.
3.0.5.4 In-SituOperation
In-situ operation means:
A scheme or operation ordinarily involving the use of wellproduction operations for the recovery of crude bitumen from
oil sands, or
A scheme or operation designated by a regulatory body as an in-
situ operation, but does not include a mining operation.
3.0.5.5 Oil Sands Oil Sands are defined as:
sands and other rock materials containing crude bitumen
the crude bitumen contained in these rock materials, and
any other material substances, other than natural gas, inassociation with that crude bitumen or those sands and other
rock materials referred to in subclauses (i) and (ii)3.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 11
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
16/245
3.0.5.6 Oil SandsArea
In Alberta, an area defined by an EUB order declaring it an Oil
Sands area.
Note The EUB Informational Letter IL 84-74
and Amendment IL 89-3
5designate the following three Oil Sands Areas (OSA):
Order No. OSA 1 and 1A - Athabasca
Order No. OSA 2 - Peace River
Order No. OSA 3 - Cold Lake
ERCB ST 38 - Atlas of Albertas Crude Bitumen Reserves
1990 Edition.
3.0.5.7 Oil ShaleArea
In Saskatchewan, an area where oil shale or tar sand existsfrom which oil shale products may be produced or any such
other substance that the minister may define as oil shale.
3.0.5.8 Heavy OilArea
In Alberta, an area defined by an EUB order declaring it a
Heavy Oil area.
In Saskatchewan, an area defined by SEM that is geologic
horizon and area specific.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 12
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
17/245
3.0.5.9 PrimaryRecovery Well
A primary recovery Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is defined as a
well that:
operates at a reservoir pressure and temperature equal to or
less than the original reservoir pressure and temperature atpool discovery, and
does not operate within a secondary recovery scheme
(3.0.4.9), enhanced oil recovery scheme (3.0.4.10), or
within a production- affected area (3.0.4.11).
Note This definition varies from that found in AEUB ID 91-36
dealing with Heavy Oil / Oil Sands operations. The current ID
91-3 will need to be revised.
In Alberta, Informational Letter IL 85-127regulates well
spacing in primary recovery schemes.
3.0.5.10SecondaryRecovery Well
A secondary recovery Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is defined as
a well that:
operates under an artificial pressure maintenance schemewith injection temperatures less than 100
oC, and
does not operate within an enhanced oil recovery scheme
(3.0.4.10).
Note This definition varies from that found in AEUB ID 91-36
dealing with Heavy Oil/Oil Sands operations. The current ID91-3 will need to be revised.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 13
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
18/245
3.0.5.11Enhanced OilRecovery (EOR)or Tertiary Well
An enhanced oil recovery or tertiary Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well
is defined as a well operating within a scheme that:
enhances oil recovery by the injection of fluids other than
water or water at temperatures greater than 100oC, and
that alters the viscosity of the oil or increases the formationpressure as a result of fluid injection.
Note Currently, this definition is not found in AEUB ID 91-36
dealing with Heavy Oil / Oil Sands operations. The current ID91-3 will need to be revised.
In Alberta, Informational Letter IL 86-098regulates steam
stimulation procedures for single wells.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 14
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
19/245
3.0.5.12Production
Affected Area
A production-affected area is defined as the area around a well
where it is proven or reasonable to assume that formation
pressure, temperature, or rock properties have been sufficientlyaffected as to cause abnormal pressure, temperature, or flow
conditions.
Note Operators are responsible for establishing the anticipated size,shape, and orientation of the production-affected area in thevicinity of a new project and use this in well planning. Some
factors that influence the size of the production-affected areaare:
volume of fluid production
volume of sand production
volume of fluid injection
injection pressure
local reservoir geology, and
zone(s) of enhanced permeability
Each of the above factors can be quantified except zone(s) ofenhanced permeability. The key to addressing this factor is to
understand that enhanced permeability within a formation
can occur as a result of:
natural or artificial fractures
zones of greater fluid mobility such as gas or water legs
sand production, and
inter-well communication such as injector to producer.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 15
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
20/245
Where possible, an excellent measure can be achieved by
evaluating existing (offset) wells between the expected
production-affected area and the well to be drilled or serviced.Pressure and temperature surveys of offset wells can be used to
determine the effectiveness of efforts to restore formation
conditions to normal or to establish the perimeter of the
production-affected area. It is prudent to remain cautious, asthe absence of abnormal conditions at offset wells only infers
normal conditions surrounding them.
In Saskatchewan, SEM typically uses a minimum distance of
1.6 kilometers as a starting point for evaluating existing
(offset) wells between the expected production-affected areaand the well to be drilled or serviced.
3.0.5.13Development Type Setting
In Alberta, a development-type setting is one that has a
minimum of three offset wells each in a different direction
from the proposed location and within 1.5 km. of eachother. The offset wells must be drilled to the same target
depth, or deeper, than the proposed well.
In Saskatchewan, SEM requires an oil well to be within 0.8
kilometers of a producing or producible well in order toreceive a development classification.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 16
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
21/245
3.0.6 References 1 AEUB Oil Sands Conservation Act, Chapter O-5.5 of theStatutes of Alberta, 1985
2Saskatchewan Energy and Mines guidelines, policies and
regulations are derived from the following:
SEM Mineral Resources Act, 1985
SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Act
SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 1985
3Alberta Recommended Practices Volume 3: Heavy Oil and
Oil Sands Operations - 1991
4AEUB Informational Letter IL 84-7: Declaration of Oil Sands
Areas to Facilitate Orderly Leasing and Stable Regulation
July 1984
5
AEUB Informational Letter IL 89-3: Amendment of theAthabasca Oil Sands Areas April 1989
6AEUB Interim Directive ID 91-3: Heavy Oil/Oil Sands
Operations March 1991
7AEUB Informational Letter IL 85-12: Oil Sand Primary
Production: Well Spacing Primary Recovery Scheme
Approvals July 1985
8
AEUB Informational Letter IL 86-9: Approval Procedures forSingle Well Steam Stimulation Tests in Oil Sands Areas
September 1986
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 17
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
22/245
3.1 Drilling
3.1.1 Scope The scope of the Drilling Section considers:
site selection, preparation, and reclamation
drilling, casing, and cementing of the well
safety and environment management, and
horizontal wells.
The issue of well control is addressed extensively within this
section due to the varied drilling conditions found within HeavyOil and Oil Sands Areas.
Section 3.1.2 addresses Low Risk Wells where waivers
from governing regulations may be appropriate. ALow
Risk well is briefly defined as a well with low gas flowpotential being drilled in an area with minimal drilling
problems.
Section 3.1.3 addresses Moderate to High Risk Wells
where unaltered governing regulations are deemed moreappropriate. A Moderate to High Risk Well is briefly
defined as a well with potential for a high gas flow rate,
significant drilling problems, and/or thermal operationsnearby.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 18
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
23/245
3.1.2 WellControl SystemsFor Low RiskHeavy Oil / OilSands Wells
This subsection addresses the requirements for surface casing
or conductor pipe1, appropriate blowout preventer, flare line,
and flare tank or pit for Low Risk Heavy Oil / Oil Sandsdrilling.
3.1.2.1 SurfaceCasing orConductor Pipe
Design LowRisk Well
In Alberta, AEUB Guide 8: Surface Casing Depth Minimum
Requirements 1sets out guidelines for determining if a reduced
depth of surface casing is appropriate for Oil Sands core holes
and Oil Sands evaluation wells. Further, Interim Directive 91-3:Heavy Oil / Oil Sands Operations 2address surface casing
waivers for Heavy Oil areas. The requirements of both
regulations are consolidated into these IRPs with the desire to
reduce the numberof surface casing waiver applications provided
the following general criteria are satisfied:
The proposed well terminates at less than 950 meters true
vertical depth, less than 15 meters below the base of the
Lower Cretaceous formation, and is within a designated
Heavy Oil/Oil Sands area.
The proposed well is located in or adjacent to a development-
type setting 2.
The maximum absolute open flow (AOF) gas rate from offsetwells does not exceed 113 103m3/day.
There is an absence of problems such as over-pressuredformations (i.e. >10.2 kPa/m gradient), severe lost
circulation, kicks, blows or blowouts, or artesian water
flows within three (3) kilometers of the proposed well.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 19
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
24/245
In Saskatchewan, the bulk of Heavy Oil production occurs from
the Mannville Group in what is defined as Spacing Area E. A
schedule of area specific conditions is part of the Ministers order
governing each designated spacing area. These conditions allow
(within reason) the department to approve certain operations to
be conducted in a specific area that may not be allowed in
another spacing area. For the Heavy Oil Area, Schedule 4 of
Spacing Area E reads as follows:
Unless otherwise ordered by the Minister, the use of surface
casing and blowout prevention equipment shall be at the
discretion of the Operator, with respect to all wells drilled to
or serviced in the Mannville Group, and located north ofTownship 43 and south of Township 55.
SEM highly recommends surface casing or conductor pipeequipped with proper blowout prevention equipment be utilized
while drilling or servicing all wells located within the portion
of Spacing Area E as defined above. However, an Operatormay chose not to do so provided the following conditions are
met:
The surface elevation of the proposed wellbore is greater
than 579 meters. The proposed wellbore is outside the area that has been
defined as the Tangleflags Hazard Area.
The proposed wellbore is a minimum of 1.6 kilometers from
any enhanced recovery scheme.
The proposed wellbore is not being drilled for gas
production.
With the exception of that portion of Spacing Area E
designated the Tangleflags Hazard Area (i.e. Townships 50,
51, 52 Ranges 22,23,24,25,26W2M), standard provincial
surface casing regulations are applicable for all wells having asurface elevation less than 579 meters.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 20
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
25/245
Within the Tangleflags Hazard Area all wells must have aminimum of 107 meters of surface casing and unless otherwise
approved (for geologic reasons), those wells having a surface
elevation less than 564 meters require a minimum of 137meters of surface casing.
1Surface casing lengths of 20 30m are commonly referred to
as Conductor Pipe.
2See definition in section 3.0.4.13.
3.1.2.2 SurfaceCasing OrConductor PipeRequirement Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.2.1 To determine if surface casing may be replaced by 20 mTVD of conductor pipe, the following data must be
gathered, evaluated for potential risk by a technically
competent person, and recorded for confirmation.
Geology
All zones from surface to total depth indicating
porous or permeable zone(s).
Record of gas potential in the hydrocarbon-bearing
zone(s). If no gas potential exists, an isopach map
showing the expected extent of any adjacent
productive zone(s) should be available upon request.
If gas potential exists, evidence of whether the
maximum AOF gas rate from the offset wells
exceeds 113 103m3/day should be available uponrequest.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 21
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
26/245
Thermal Schemes
Method of hydrocarbon recovery.
Perimeter of any enhanced oil recovery scheme or
production-affected area (see definitions 3.0.4.11 and
3.0.4.12 respectively) within three (3) kilometers of
the proposed well.
Temperatures and pressures from offset wells.
Bottom-hole distances to active steaming or
production-affected areas. Volume of steam injected to date.
Frequency and duration of cyclic operations.
Time required for a steamed area to cool once it has
been produced.
Temperature and pressure in the production cycle at
which it is safe to drill.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 22
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
27/245
Operations
Record of drilling operations from surface to total
depth for a representative sample of offset wells
within a three (3) kilometer radius.
Types of hole problems by well location and geologic
zone (i.e. depth) that includes:
severe lost circulation
artesian water flows
hole sloughing
kicks
blows and blowouts
abnormal pressures (>10.2 kPa/m)
low cement tops
Intermediate casing setting depth above or into the
production zone if a horizontal well.
Record from offset wells that the conductor casing
will be set into a competent formation.
Cementing method to be used when setting
Map of the area showing:
e locations of the
e
ed areas
conductor casing.
surface and bottom hol
proposed well(s) and the offset wells in th
researched area
production-affect
surface water bodies
surface developments
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 23
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
28/245
IRP 3.1.2.2.2 Once a l lysis has been completed
d
ter than one (1) kilometer
in a LOW RISK production-affected
di igent technical risk ana
as per IRP 3.1.2.2.1, the replacement of surface casing by a
20 m TVD depth of conductor pipe may be suitable if:
All regulatory criteria (see IRP 3.1.2.2.1) are met an
appropriate regulatory body approval is obtained (i.e.
Surface Casing Waiver).
The proposed well is grea
from an enhanced oil recovery scheme. A lesser distance
may be acceptable with appropriate technical
justification.Drilling is with
area (see definition 3.0.4.11).
The conductor casing is set in a competent, non-porous
formation.
Note Generally, Surface Casing Waivers are granted in development-type settings and also in certain production-affected areas.
d to
contain the pressure at the casing shoe that results from the
for
The appropriate depth of conductor pipe is the depth require
flow of 113 103m
3/day of gas through the conductor casing,
BOP stack, and flare line. A maximum formation leak-offpressure gradient of 5 kPa/m was used to calculate the
conductor casing shoe depth. The 20 mdepth is adequate
all surface-casing sizes greater than or equal to 219 mmprovided the flare line diameter is 152 mm (see IRP 3.1.2.4.1).
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 24
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
29/245
Avoid setting the conductor in sand or gravel that may result in
washouts or failures at the conductor shoe. Offset data should
indicate the conductor casing is set in a formation that iscapable of supporting a full column of water (i.e. 9.8 kPa/m
gradient). If drilling fluid is lost upon drilling out the
conductor, then surface casing must be set.
The design criteria used to determine the conductor casing
setting depth may lead to a serious well control situation if
proper well control procedures are not followed. The flow mustbe opened fully to the flare line without restriction. Normal
well killing procedures utilizing the application of backpressure
while circulating out the kick may result in a failure at theconductor casing shoe. Prior to drilling, clear communication of
the potential hazards and action plan is required for all drilling
personnel to supplement general well control training.
IRP 3.1.2.2.3 When planning a group or pad of wells, if the offsetinformation within the researched area is limited or of poor
quality, then the first well should be drilled applying
conventional surface casing requirements. The informationgained from drilling this well, may then be used to
determine the surface casing or conductor pipe
requirements for subsequent wells.
Note All available evidence, such as drill cuttings, drillingconditions, and electric logs, should be considered when
determining the risk of setting a shallow conductor casing seat.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 25
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
30/245
3.1.2.3 BlowoutPreventerRequirement Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.3.1 If surface casing is replaced by a 20 mTVD depth ofconductor pipe, then a Class 1A (Diverter) BOP System (see
Appendix A - Figure 2) shall be installed. The Class 1A
BOP system shall have a successful daily function test of its
annular preventer and a once per well test of the fullopening valve
2.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 26
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
31/245
3.1.2.4 Flare LineAnd Flare TankRequirement Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.4.1 When the Class 1A (Diverter) BOP stack specified in IRP3.1.2.3.1 is used, the flare line inside diameter shall be a
minimum of 152 mm and the line shall be free from bends
when possible.
The flare line length is dependent upon the Sandface
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) potential of the offset gas wells
as follows:
AOF Gas Rate
(103m3/ day)
Flare Line Length
(m)
Flare Tank or Pit
< 28 25 Flare Tank
28 113 35 Flare Tank
> 113 Class 1A not allowed Flare Pit
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 27
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
32/245
Note The large 152 mm flare line diameter is necessary to reduce theback pressure exerted on the shallow conductor casing shoe
when diverting flows of drilling fluids and formation solidsthrough the flare line. Experience has shown that 89 mm and
114 mm flare lines are prone to plugging and freezing. It is
noted that nominal six inch (152 mm) diameter line pipe of
Schedule 40 or less satisfies the minimum inside diameterrequirement.
The ideal flare line is straight. When bends are absolutelynecessary, the following configurations are acceptable:
90obends using blocked tees (i.e. tees equipped with bull
plugs to cushion flows around the turns), and
long radius flexible hoses3.
In each configuration, a minimum number of turns are
recommended with zero to four commonly found within theindustry. Notable disadvantages are the susceptibility of long
radius turns to wash-outs while right-angle turns are more
prone to plugging.
The pressure loss incurred by additional bends is very small in
the systems being recommended4. For example, at flows of 113
103m
3/day, the pressure loss in a 152 mm diameter by 50 m
long flare line with four 90obends is 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi) greater
than a similar line with no bends (see Appendix B Figures 1to 7).
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 28
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
33/245
The recommended flare line lengths are derived from an
industry study5that accounts for both the effects of gas
dispersion and radiant heat generated at the flare line exit.Dispersion of gas is enhanced upon exiting a 2 m high flare
tank as opposed to a ground level earthen pit and results in a
shorter flare line length. The radiant heat evolving from a
burning flare, increases with AOF gas rate and results inincreased flare line lengths. Use of a flare tank is not
recommended when Gas AOF Rates exceed 113 103m
3/day.
In Saskatchewan, it is noted that SEM regulations stipulate
flare lines terminate in a tank or pit a minimum of 45 m from
the wellbore.
IRP 3.1.2.4.2 When using a flare tank, it must have a minimum height oftwo (2) meters. The flare tank should be adequately
designed to resist heat damage should ignition of the flow be
required. Baffles located at the tank inlet are
recommended to limit tank erosion and liquid losses from
the tank. The flare tank should be adequately attached to
the flare line.
Note The use of a flare tank may be desirable to:
reduce lease sizes in conjunction with reduced flare line
lengths (see IRP 3.1.2.4.1)
improve the mobility of the flaring system on multi-well pads
enhance environmental clean-up.
Refer to AEUB Informational Letter IL 98-3: Minimum
Standards for Flare Tanksxand General Bulletin GB 98-13:
Minimum Standards for Flare Tanks3for additional informationon flare tanks.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 29
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
34/245
3.1.3 WellControl SystemsFor Moderate ToHigh Risk HeavyOil Wells
This subsection addresses well control design considerations,surface casing requirements, and BOP equipment needs for
Moderate to High Risk wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands
areas. (If a Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is designated asModerate to High Risk, conventional regulations with respect
to surface casing setting depths apply.)
3.1.3.1 WellControl SystemsFor Moderate To
High Risk HeavyOil Wells
In Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, high-risk conditions and
different hydrocarbon recovery mechanisms complicate wellcontrol design. This has resulted in different BOP system
selections especially when the risks involved in drilling aproposed well are uncertain. To provide a basis for makingrecommendations on suitable BOP configurations for Heavy
Oil / Oil Sands areas, the following discussion begins with the
primary reasons for well control and progresses to the currently
regulated BOPs and their distinguishing features.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 30
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
35/245
Blowout prevention systems are necessary to protect drilling
personnel, drilling equipment, and the environment from
avoidable damage caused by exploiting hydrocarbon resources.When selecting an appropriate BOP configuration, it is
important to consider the complete BOP system and match this
to the risks inherent in the drilling process. Since all BOP
systems have limitations, it is necessary to balance theselimitations with the needs of the Contractor, Operator, and
Regulator. It is the Operators responsibility to define a safe
BOP system for a proposed drilling operation. After agreeingupon the risks involved and the BOP system selected, it is the
responsibility of the Contractor to provide a working BOP
system and adequately trained personnel capable of dealingwith expected well control problems that might arise. It is the
Regulators responsibility to audit operations to ensure current
regulatory requirements are being met and to facilitate anyfuture regulatory changes that may arise from advances in
drilling practices, procedures, or equipment. It is suggested that
current regulations follow upon these premises in arriving at a
minimum set of guidelines for drilling new wells.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 31
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
36/245
Four (4) conditions often exist in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas
that present concerns when designing an appropriate well
control system. These are:
Potential high gas flow rates (up to 283 103m3/day(10MMSCFD)) from shallow sandstone formations
Potential lost circulation in depleted reservoirs and in the
Devonian formations
Inability to hard shut-in typical formation pressures (4-5
MPa) at the typical surface casing depths (approx. 100 m), and
Drilling within thermal (EOR) project areas.
Given the above challenging conditions, it is evident that
proper well control requires the ability to safely divert
potentially prolific gas flows while maintaining the integrity ofthe BOP system including the surface casing shoe. Faced with
this objective, this committee proposes the following IRPs,
taking into account the risks inherent in well control situationswhere high gas flow rates are possible.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 32
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
37/245
3.1.3.2 SurfaceCasingRequirement Moderate To HighRisk Wells
IRP 3.1.3.2.1 Surface casing should be run if any of the following conditionsare expected while drilling:
The proposed well terminates at a true vertical depth of 950
m or greater or more than 15 m into the Devonian formation. The proposed well is located outside a development-type
setting.
The maximum AOF Gas Rate from offset wells is 113 103
m3/day or greater.
There is potential for a formation pressure gradient >10.2
kPa/m, severe lost circulation, kicks, blows or blowouts, or
artesian water flows within three (3) kilometers of the
proposed well.
Drilling is not within a low risk production-affected area
(including certain secondary recovery and enhanced oil
recovery schemes).
The design of the surface casing must allow control of themaximum anticipated formation pressures by conventional
well control methods.
Note The primary objective of surface casing is to aid in well control. Asecondary function is to provide groundwater protection.Regulations now permit surface casing depths that frequently donot cover all potable water zones being utilized by surrounding
landowners or industry. In these cases, the objective ofgroundwater protection is transferred to the next casing string.
This highlights the importance of prudent decision-making
regarding surface casing setting depths given the expected drillingconditions in the subsequent intermediate or main holes.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 33
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
38/245
3.1.3.3 BOPSystemRequirement Moderate To HighRisk Wells
Prior to presenting the various BOP systems used in Heavy Oil/ Oil Sands areas, the following general IRPs serve as
guidelines for proper BOP selection.
IRP 3.1.3.3.1 Due to the shallow surface casing and conductor pipesetting depths in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, all BOP
systems should be considered well control devices which
will divert any well flows away from the rig.
IRP 3.1.3.3.2 Special well control practices should be considered whendrilling wells with potentially prolific gas rates from
shallow formations. Rig personnel should be made aware of
the need to safeguard the integrity of the surface casing
shoe.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 34
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
39/245
IRP 3.1.3.3.3 When drilling in production-affected areas, considerationshould be given to upgrading the BOP system to match the
risks inherent in the proposed drilling operation. If the
offset information within the researched area is limited or
of poor quality, then extra precautions may be warranted
on the first well(s) drilled. The information gained from
drilling initial project well(s) may then be used to determine
requirements for subsequent wells.
Note Operators may need to satisfy Regulators that the conditionswithin a production-affected area have been adequatelyresearched to identify the risks. The presence of observation
or buffer well data between potential sources of pressure or
temperature and the proposed well are useful in determining the
production-affected area.
Operators should consider lessening the risk of drilling within a
production-affected area by reducing pressures and / ortemperatures. Where abnormally low pressures are
encountered, loading the surrounding wells with lease crude
may help limit loss of circulation.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 35
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
40/245
3.1.3.4 BOPSystem Types
And Applicat ions
The various BOP systems currently used to drill in Heavy Oil /
Oil Sands areas and their main advantages and disadvantages
are outlined in Table 1below.
Table 1 Blow Out Preventer Comparison
Blow Out Preventer Comparison Table Heavy Oil/Oil Sands Areas
BOP Class Class 1
(Diverter)
Class 1A
(Diverter)
Class 2 SEM
Tangleflag,
EUB Class 3
& EUB HighHazard
Class 3
Modified EUB Class 3
Effort to Rig-Up/Pressure
Test
Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Shut-In
Capability
No No Limited
byMACP*
Limited by
MACP
Limited by MACP
Risk of
Exceeding
MACP*
Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Ability to Re-
Circulate
Kill Fluid
No No Yes Yes Yes
BOP System
Pressure Loss
Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
BOP SystemPlugging
Tendency
Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Redundancy
in Shut-In
Capability
No No No No Yes
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 36
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
41/245
BOP Class Class 1
(Diverter)
Class 1A
(Diverter)
Class 2 SEM
Tangleflag,
EUB Class 3
& EUB
High
Hazard
Class 3
Modified EUB Class 3
Drilling Rig
Height
Limitations
No No No No Yes
Potential for
BOP CoolingLoop
No No No No Yes
Recommended
For
Low/Med/High
Risk Well
Low Low/Medium Medium Medium Medium/High
*MACP = Maximum Allowable Casing Pressure
After assessing the risk of drilling a proposed well, the information in this table can aid
in selecting the most suitable BOP system. Additional insights into proper BOP
selection may be gained from the following summary of each BOP system.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 37
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
42/245
EUB Class 1 andClass 1A(Diverter) BOPSystems
EUB Class 1 and Class 1A (Diverter) BOP Systems
The EUB Class 1 and 1A BOP Systems (see Appendix A Figures 1 & 2) are commonly referred to as Diverters as this
describes their capability as a well control device. These BOP
designs allow diversion of any well flows and prevent a hardshut-in of the well. This design safeguards the integrity of the
conductor pipe or surface casing shoe and minimizes the
chance of loss of well control with flows outside the surface
casing.
The EUB Class 1 BOP system was regulated mainly to
accommodate drilling in low risk Surface Mineable Areas. Thedrilling of shallow (i.e.
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
43/245
The Class 1A BOP differs from the Class 1 in that the flare line
diameter is larger (152 mm versus 89 mm or 100 mm) to
accommodate higher rate gas kicks with lower back pressure atthe surface casing or conductor shoe. The larger flare line
diameter reduces the pressure losses through the system and
lessens line plugging. In Section 3.1.2 of these IRPs, it is
proposed that the Class 1A BOP system is appropriate to
drill wells with Maximum AOF Gas Rates up to 113 103
m3/day.
In Saskatchewan, the EUB Class 1 and 1A BOP Systems
would be considered an acceptable option only in Spacing
Area E while drilling a well classified by SEM as a
structure test hole or an oil shale core hole. Further, the
SEM requires two valves be installed on all casing bowls
while drilling operations are being conducted.
EUB Class 2 BOPSystem
EUB Class 2 BOP System
The EUB Class 2 BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 3) isdesigned to accommodate shallow depth drilling (
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
44/245
In Saskatchewan, the EUB Class 2 BOP System is an
acceptable option for non-Tangleflags and non-EOR wells
within Spacing Area E if two minor changes are made asfollows:
two valves are installed on the surface casing bowl
two additional valves are installed in the manifold (see
manifold set-up in Appendix A Figure 5).
Drilling conditions in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas (and otherparts of Western Canada) present two significant disadvantages
for Class 2 BOPs. Firstly, the reservoir pressures are high
enough that complete shut-in is not possible at the typicalsurface casing depths. Secondly, a combination of a potentially
high gas flow rate, a shallow surface casing setting depth, and
an 89 mm flare line place severe limitations on the ability tosafely divert a well flow. The 89 mm flare line diameter
creates significant pressure losses and potential line plugging
concerns.
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells often have the surface casing set atapproximately 100 meters. Based upon typical formation leak-off tests, this limits hold-back pressure to approximately 1.8
MPa (i.e. 100m x 18 kPa/m FLOT) which is much lower than
the typical formation pressure of 35 MPa. Therefore, the well
cannot be safely shut in unless sufficient wellbore fluid is inplace to overbalance the formation pressure. Experience gained
in handling actual kicks from high rate shallow gas formations
reveals that wellbore fluid is often totally displaced as theMACP would be exceeded if the well was choked.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 40
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
45/245
System pressure losses for typical well configurations using an
89 mm flare line (see Appendix C Figures 1, 4, 7, and 10) are
in the range from 900 to 1150 kPa. This equates to a pressuregradient of 9.0 to 11.5 kPa/m at the surface casing shoe. These
gradients fall below the range of typical formation leak-off tests
in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas (i.e. 15 to 18 kPa/m) but do not
leave much capability to choke a well. These typical
conditions make the Class 2 BOP system of limited use for
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas where high rate gas flows are
possible.
Note System pressure losses are also presented for typical wellconfigurations with a 152 mm flare line (see Appendix C -
Figures 2, 5, 8, and 11) and with a 203 mm flare line (see
Appendix C - Figures 3, 6, 9, and 12).
EUB Class 3 andSEM TangleflagsBOP System
EUB Class 3 and SEM Tangleflags BOP Systems
The EUB Class 3 BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 4) is
designed to accommodate medium depth drilling (750 m to1800 m), provide well flow diversion and hard shut-in
capabilities, and provide the ability to re-circulate to kill a
flowing well. This well control system is appropriate when lowrate gas or oil flows are encountered and sufficient surface
casing is run to provide significant holdback pressures at the
casing shoe.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 41
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
46/245
The Saskatchewan Energy and Mines (SEM) Tangleflags BOP
system (see Appendix A Figure 5) is similar to an EUB Class
3 BOP except for:
a second casing bowl valve (all flanged)
two additional valves in the manifold system, and
a slightly larger flare line diameter (76.2 mm versus 75 mm).
This BOP system provides the same benefits as the EUB Class
3 BOP as noted previously.
With respect to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, the disadvantages
listed in the Class 2 section apply for both the EUB Class 3 andSEM Tangleflags BOPs. These two BOP configurations are
of limited use for Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas where high
rate gas flows are possible.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 42
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
47/245
EUB High HazardArea BOP System
EUB High Hazard Area BOP System
The EUB High Hazard Area BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 6) is a modified Class 3 BOP regulated as per AEUB
Interim Directive 92-17. This regulation was necessitated due to
an increase in frequency of kicks and associated serious wellcontrol incidences in the Cessford area of Southern Alberta. It
requires a second 89 mm flare line from the casing bowl and
was mandated to provide redundancy in the event of a washout
of the primary line. Further, a minimum surface casing settingdepth of 180 m was mandated to provide sufficient holdback
pressures at the casing shoe to allow choking during efforts to
kill a flowing well.
In Saskatchewan, this BOP configuration is not acceptable to
SEM for drilling in the Tangleflags Hazard Area.
With respect to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, the disadvantages
listed in the Class 2 section once again apply for the EUB High
Hazard Area Class 3 BOP. The second 89 mm flare lineprovides insignificant reduction in pressure loss if both lines are
opened together. However, it provides additional time for wellkilling operations if the primary flare line washes out. This
BOP configuration is more suitable for Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands areas where high rate gas flows are possible but is of
limited use as previously noted.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 43
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
48/245
Modified EUBClass 3 BOPSystem
Modified EUB Class 3 BOP System
The Modified EUB Class 3 BOP system (see Appendix A -Figure 7) is designed to up-grade the Class 3 BOP to provide
redundancy in the shut-in capability and in the well killing
system without using the casing bowl valves. Drilling rigsubstructure height restrictions frequently prevent the use of the
second spool required below the bottom pipe rams in this
configuration. This well control system is appropriate when low
rate gas or oil flows are encountered and sufficient surface orintermediate casing is run to provide significant holdback
pressures at the casing shoe.
In Saskatchewan, use of the Modified EUB Class 3 BOP is
acceptable for use throughout Spacing Area E provided the
bleed-off line size has a minimum 76.2 mm I.D. or a secondbleed-off line of 75 mm I.D. is connected to the drilling spool.
For Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, this BOP has the same
disadvantages listed in the Class 2 system when dealing withhigh rate gas kicks. However, this limitation can be alleviated
by installing a second flare line on the second spool. This BOPalso has the advantage of using the bottom spool to cool the
BOPs in the event a high temperature well flow is
encountered. This BOP is best suited for drilling medium to
high-risk EOR wells in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 44
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
49/245
3.1.3.5 BOPSystem Examples
Given the above discussion, the following BOP system
suggestions are made for some typical drilling conditions found
in Heavy Oil/Oil Sands areas. These suggestions are a startingpoint for encouraging a thorough technical review of the
drilling risks when planning a well.
Example 1 Formation pressure exceeds 10.2 kPa/m and a full surfacecasing string is run. There remains a fundamental concern inmaintaining the integrity of the surface casing shoe.
If there is no expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone,then an EUB Class 1A BOP is recommended. (This requires
regulatory approval.)
If a high rate gas zone is potential, a Modified EUB Class 3
BOP complete with a second spool and second 89 mm flare line
is recommended. It is noted that the EUB Class 2, SEM
Tangleflags, and all EUB Class 3 BOPs meet regulations.Caution should be exercised given the known limitations of
these BOPs. The installation of a second 89 mm flare line onthe surface casing bowl may be considered
Example 2 There is potential for severe loss of circulation.
If there is no expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone,
then an EUB Class 1A BOP is recommended. (This requires
regulatory approval.)
If a high rate gas zone is expected, the same discussion as inExample 1 applies.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 45
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
50/245
Example 3 There is an expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone inexcess of 113 10
3m
3/day.
A Modified EUB Class 3 BOP complete with a second spooland second 89 mm flare line is recommended. Additional
thought should be given to discerning the appropriate surface
casing setting depth. It is noted that the EUB Class 2, SEMTangleflags, and all EUB Class 3 BOPs meet regulations.
Caution should be exercised given the known limitations of
these BOPs. Installation of a second 89 mm flare line on the
surface casing bowl may be considered appropriate.
After appropriate risk analysis, it may be argued that an EUB
Class 1A BOP is appropriate given the frequency ofencountering well control problems in a specific area. (This
requires regulatory approval.)
Example 4 Drilling is to occur within an EOR, thermal, or production-affected area.
A Modified EUB Class 3 BOP complete with a second spool toallow installation of a cooling loop should be considered.Consideration should also be given to running of intermediate
casing and a high temperature float within the drill string. If an
intermediate casing string is set due to the expectation ofencountering abnormal pressure and high temperature, then a
cooling loop is recommended.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 46
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
51/245
3.1.4 Ghost Hole AndSidetrack Wells
In Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, frequent use of directional
drilling techniques to exploit shallow depth reservoirs has led to
an increased frequency of planned sidetrack wells andunplanned ghost-hole wells. These are of particular concern in
production-affected areas. This subsection defines sidetrack and
ghost-hole wells and provides recommendations for dealingwith these when encountered.
3.1.4.1 Definit ions A sidetrack is defined as any wellbore that departs from the
main wellbore and creates a second wellbore.
A ghost-hole is defined as a sidetrack that cannot be re-entered.
3.1.4.2 Drill ingPractices
IRP 3.1.4.2.1 When drilling directional wells where the dogleg severityexceeds 12
o/30m or wells with unstable formations, a wiper
trip back into surface casing is recommended prior to
entering a hydrocarbon-bearing zone.
Note Sidetrack wells can be easily initiated while:
Rotating off bottom in hole sections with high dogleg severity(i.e. > 12 o/30m),
Drilling formations such as unconsolidated glacial till orconglomerates, sloughing shales, or poorly cemented
sandstones,
Reaming stringers of dense formation especially when drilling
with a top drive.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 47
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
52/245
IRP 3.1.4.2.2 Surface or intermediate casing should be run acrossformations with serious formation instability.
3.1.4.3AbandoningSidetrack Wells
IRP 3.1.4.3.1 Any sidetrack well that allows communication betweenadjacent porous formations (including surface aquifers)
must be abandoned according to the appropriate regulatory
guidelines.
Note The appropriate regulatory body must be notified and approvalreceived prior to commencing abandonment operations on any
sidetrack or ghost-hole well. (For example, in Alberta refer to
EUB Guide 20 - Well Abandonment Guide8).
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 48
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
53/245
3.1.4.4 RecordingGhost HoleWells
IRP 3.1.4.3.1 A ghost-hole well that penetrates more than one porousformation must be reported to the appropriate regulatory
body and a copy of the directional survey should be
included.
IRP 3.1.4.3.2 A ghost-hole well that penetrates an EOR zone and is alsoin communication with another porous zone should be
isolated from the radius of influence of the EOR scheme.
Note A discussion between the Regulatory Body and the Operatorshould take place and a monitoring program or altering of the
EOR scheme may be necessary.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 49
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
54/245
3.1.5 CementingOf Casing
This subsection addresses cementing design and practices
specific to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas. As well, it references
documents that outline good cementing practices in general.
3.1.5.1 GeneralCementingConsiderations
The importance of obtaining a good primary cement job in anywell cannot be over-emphasized. Operators should be familiar
with the bookletPrimary and Remedial Cementing
Guidelines9published by the Drilling and Completion
Committee (DACC) in April 1995 and distributed by Enform.
This comprehensive guide was issued to combat an increase inincidences of gas migration in Alberta. It recommendsprocedures for proper cement design, testing, and job execution
for both primary and remedial cementing.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 50
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
55/245
Further to this guide, the following good practices are added:
Where cement returns to surface are required, a positivemethod of hole volume determination is prudent. This can be
accomplished in different ways:
Use of markers (dyes or sawdust) while conditioning
the well or in pre-flushes during the cement job,
Use of more sophisticated caliper logs, or
Referencing near offset wells and using similar excessvolumes.
Adequate hole conditioning prior to cementing is prudent. The
drilling fluid yield point, viscosity, and density should be aslow as practical to allow easier displacement of the mud by
cement. Circulating until the shaker is clean is also a typicalindicator of a properly conditioned hole.
Within the guide, it is recommended that cement jobs beconducted at turbulent flow rates where possible to enhance
drilling fluid displacement. When this is not possible (e.g.thixotropic cement blends), then mechanical aids to centralize
and move the casing become more important.
In Alberta, the Operator should also reference EUB Guide G-
9: Casing Cementing Minimum Requirements10and EUBGuide G-20: Well Abandonment Guide.
In Saskatchewan, the Operator should reference Section 34 ofthe SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 1985.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 51
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
56/245
3.1.5.2 PrimaryCementing InHeavy Oil / OilSands Areas
For wells that are to be subjected to thermal operations,
thermal cement blends should be used to cement surface,
intermediate, and production casing full length.
Note Thermal cement is formed by reducing the Bulk Lime (CaO) toSilica (SiO2) ratio of non-thermal cement. The C:S Ratio (as
abbreviated by cement chemists) of a thermal cement is 1.0 orless and is normally obtained by the addition of 35% (by weight
of cement) or more fine Silica Sand or Silica Flour to thePortland cement.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 52
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
57/245
IRP 3.1.5.2.2 For wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that havepotential to become part of a thermal scheme in future,
thermal cement blends should be used to cement production
casing full length.
IRP 3.1.5.2.3 For wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that haveNO potential to become part of a thermal scheme in future,
production casing should be cemented using thermal
cement that extends a minimum of 30 vertical meters above
and below any potential thermal zone.
Note This recommendation covers the case where advances intechnology may expand the use of thermal recovery methodsbeyond the Operators current vision.
This recommendation follows current regulations in Alberta.This adequately protects the cement sheath from the negative
effects of elevated temperatures from the heated zone if the
well remains in a static state. Cementing in this manner may
disqualify the well as a producer or injector. A well that is notthermally cemented full length will require regulatory approval
prior to becoming active within a thermal scheme.The prudent
Operator would be expected to develop a method ofsafeguarding the integrity of the full length of cement sheath
prior to commencing thermal production or injection on this
well.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 53
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
58/245
IRP 3.1.5.2.4 For wells requiring intermediate casing:
To initiate a horizontal well completion, or
To provide well control in situations such as penetration of a
shallow gas or an enhanced oil recovery zone caution shouldbe exercised to protect the cement sheath. It is recommended
the cement develop a compressive strength of 3500 kPa priorto continuing drilling operations that would jeopardize theintegrity of the cement job.
Note In Saskatchewan, the SEM requires a minimum of 8 hourswait-on-cement time prior to testing the casing / BOPs orcommencing drilling below the casing shoe in Spacing Area
E.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 54
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
59/245
3.1.5.3 RemedialCementing
Prior to performing a remedial cement job in a Heavy Oil /Oil
Sands well, the following considerations should be weighed:
The main goal is isolation of water, gas, and oil zones.
It is desirable to maintain the integrity of the productioncasing when designing a remedial cement job especially in
thermal wells.
The presence of uncemented intervals, especially within the
annular space between casing strings, has led to casing failuresas trapped fluid expands under thermal conditions. This canoccur in a remedial top-up cement job.
It is desirable to have a thermal cement sheath completely to
surface on all wells to be thermally operated.
IRP 3.1.5.3.1 For all Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cement returns tosurface are not achieved, then the cement top must be
confirmed to determine if remedial cementing is required.
The cement top log and proposed remedial cementing
program must be submitted to the regulatory body prior to
placing the well on production.
IRP 3.1.5.3.2 For all non-thermal Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cementreturns are proven to be 15 m or more inside the surface
casing, then remedial cementing is not required. This
requires regulatory body approval.
IRP 3.1.5.3.3 For all thermal Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cementreturns to surface are not obtained, then remedial
cementing may be required. This is to be determined in
consultation with the regulatory body.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 55
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
60/245
Note In Saskatchewan, SEM approval is required prior tocommencing remedial cement programs and/or placing a well
on production after remedial cementing has taken place.
The need for remedial cementing will be determined based
upon the specific well conditions and the considerations noted
above.
Cementing all casing strings with thermal cement lessens the
impact of a low cement top that is above the previous casing
shoe (especially on a thermal well).
For thermal wells, remedial cementing using a tubing string run
into the annulus is discouraged. If the Operator is unable toconfirm the absence of fluid above the cement top, then trapped
fluid can cause casing collapse when steamed and should be
avoided.
For thermal wells, one suggested remedial cementing method
requires washing over the production casing to the top of
cement and re-cementing leaving the washover string in place.This requires sufficient annular space between casing strings
and care that the integrity of the production casing ismaintained. An example program outlining this method is
shown in Appendix D.
For non-thermal wells, remedial cementing using a tubing
string run into the annulus may be acceptable if it can reach thecement top. A second possible method requires perforating the
production casing at the cement top and circulating cement to
surface. Implementing these methods may place limitations on
the well as a future thermal producer or injector.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 56
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
61/245
3.1.5.4 Open HoleWell
Abandonment
IRP 3.1.5.4.1 Wells drilled within Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that are orhave potential to become part of a thermal scheme should
be abandoned using a thermal cement blend. Thermal
cement should be set a minimum of 15 vertical meters
above and below the thermal zone(s).
Note AEUB Guide G-20 specifies standard abandonment programsfor Alberta.
In Saskatchewan, SEM approval of all abandonment programs
is required prior to commencing abandonment operations.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 57
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
62/245
3.1.6 ThermalCasing AndCasingConnections
3.1.6.1Introduction
Steam stimulation operations in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas of
Western Canada present unique challenges for thermal well
casing design. The high temperatures required for effectivesteam stimulation and the cyclic nature of some thermal
operations can result in casing stresses that exceed yield in bothcompression and tension. Further, the wells may operate in acorrosive environment at both high and low temperatures.
Finally, some wells may operate at high temperatures for
extended periods during the injection phase. Given these varied
conditions, conventional design practices (that limit casingstresses to some fraction of the yield value and may specify
corrosion resistant alloys) are not as applicable to thermal
wells.
The following recommended practices are intended to aid in
selecting or designing a production casing string for use inthermal, steam stimulation operations in Western Canada. The
maximum well temperature and pressure considered was 350oC
and 16.5 MPa, respectively. The practices cited strike a balancebetween mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.
Although individual casing grades and connections are noted,
no single design is stated as the successful one for thermal
service since the type of service will determine the qualities ofa successful design.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 58
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
63/245
The recommended practices focus on the production casing (or
intermediate casing in the case of a horizontal well). A thermal
casing design is not required for the surface casing as this stringtypically is run only to maintain hole stability or assist in well
control.
Once the pertinent operating conditions such as temperature
range, pressure range, number of thermal cycles, and wellbore
environment are defined, an Operator should be able to design a
production casing that is appropriate for the intended service.This will require an understanding of the effects of thermal
cycling on the properties of the casing selected. Once a casing
design has been selected, each Operator will require a programto ensure that operating practices to protect the integrity of the
installed production casing are followed. This program is to
include:
monitoring of well operations,
methods of detecting casing failures, and
response plans for potential casing failures.
Work to outline the specifics of this program will be progressed
by another sub-committee.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 59
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
64/245
3.1.6.2 GeneralDesignConsiderations
For casing design purposes, it is assumed that the production
casing is supported full-length by a thermal cement sheath. This
support is essential for minimizing the potential for casingcollapse or buckling during thermal operation. Cementing of
the production casing is covered in IRP Section 3.1.5.
Thermal well casing typically yields in compression and may
yield in tension, thus, accurate determinations of the peak
compressive and tensile stresses, and the number of thermal
cycles expected are essential to properly designing the casingstring. Recent testing has provided data that shows the
Thermal-Mechanical relationship of stress with temperature
and thermal cycles for different casing grades (see Appendix E- Figures 1 through 6). This empirical data is preferred over
theoretical data derived from thermal well design papers11 & 12
that failed to recognize that stress relaxation could occur atsignificantly lower temperatures than existed in thermal wells.
The casing grade must have good resistance to environmentalcracking since the casing may operate in an acid gas (H2S and
CO2) or caustic steam environment for part of itsservice.1
133,,1144,,1155&&1166
The casing connection must provide good structural integrity
and sealability. The connection should be as strong as orstronger than the pipe body and provide an adequate seal at the
maximum compressive and tensile loads expected. Connection
strength is a function of connection design (e.g., threadformand wall thickness) and material grade. Sealing capability is a
function of the connection design (e.g., thread design or metal-
to-metal seal employed) and installation (e.g., thread compoundand make-up position and torque).
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 60
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
65/245
3.1.6.3 DesignRequirements
This sub-section will outline the design parametersrecommended to select a production casing and connection that
is appropriate for service in thermal wells. Some discussion of
limitations will accompany each parameter as deemednecessary. In Saskatchewan, unless otherwise approved by
SEM, all casing and casing connections must meet or exceed
API specifications.
IRP 3.1.6.3.1 A production casing design must consider the temperaturerange and number of thermal cycles to which a thermal
well will be subjected. Similar to pipeline designs thatconsider displacement- or strain-controlled loading, a
thermal well casing design must accept limited plastic
strain.
Note In most thermal wells, a production casing string will undergoplastic strain, stress relaxation, and cyclic hardening. Thecasing grade selection must balance the impacts of these
factors.
Figures 1 through 6 in Appendix E show the thermal-mechanical relationships for API K-55, L-80, N-80, and C-95
casing grades for some temperature ranges. As demonstrated by
these plots, empirical data must be utilized to define thestrength properties of materials undergoing thermal cycling.
As demonstrated by Figures 1 through 6 in Appendix E,conventional design factors that typically restrict casing stresses
to 85% of yield are not applicable to thermal wells.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 61
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
66/245
IRP 3.1.6.3.2 If the production casing is expected to exceed yield duringoperation, a casing grade with the following properties is
recommended:
The Y/T ratio of yield strength (MPa) to tensile strength(MPa) is less than or equal to 0.90,
The casing grade has a strain hardening rate comparable to
API L-80 Type 1 or K-55.
For the casing grade selected, the well should be operatedwithin the temperature or thermal cycling limits imposed
by cyclic hardening such that the final imposed stresses are
within the casing design parameters.
Note Figure 1 of Appendix E illustrates the thermal-mechanicalrelationship of cemented API K-55 and L-80 grade casings
through one thermal cycle. A detailed discussion of the
temperature/stress cycle is also included in Appendix E.
Figure 2 of Appendix E illustrates typical Stress/Strain Curves
for API K-55, L-80, N-80, and C-95 grade casing. Theminimum and maximum yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength of each grade is also indicated.
Figures 3 through 6 of Appendix E illustrate the thermal-
mechanical relationships of cemented API K-55, L-80, N-80,
and C-95 grade casings over some temperature ranges.
The operator should obtain a copy of the mill certificates toconfirm that the casing chemistry and (cold) mechanical
properties are within the desired limits.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 62
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
67/245
IRP 3.1.6.3.3 The minimum recommended burst pressure rating for theproduction casing is the maximum rated discharge pressure
of the steam generator.
Note Although pressure relief valves are typically installed on thegenerators, designing for the maximum discharge pressure
provides an operational safety factor.
Consider lowering the burst rating if high axial stresses are
expected when the internal to external casing pressure
differential is high.
Wellhead pressure requirements are covered in IRP 3.3.9.1.1
and IRP 3.3.9.2.1. It is noted here that the pressure rating forthe wellhead may be less than the boiler rating if pressure-
limiting equipment is installed to protect the wellhead from
maximum steam generator pressures. Consideration should alsobe given to temperature de-rating of the wellhead dependent
upon the anticipated operating temperatures.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 63
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
68/245
IRP 3.1.6.3.4 The minimum recommended collapse pressure rating forthe production casing is the maximum fracture pressure of
any formation penetrated by the well.
Note If free liquid is trapped between the production casing orcement and the formation, when heated to steaming
temperatures this liquid should expand and fracture into the
formation rather than collapse the casing.
Material properties play a critical role in determining the
collapse resistance of tubulars. At the relatively low diameter tothickness (D/t) ratios of casing products, collapse is usually in
the yield or plastic collapse zones as defined by API. However,
the theoretical basis for the API formulas does not account for
post-yield material behavior, making the collapse formularelatively conservative for strain hardening materials such as
API K-55 grade steel. At tensile loads close to or exceeding
yield, the API bi-axial collapse design guideline (Henky-vonMises maximum strain energy of distortion theory of yielding)
17is of limited use for thermal well casing design. The engineer
must rely upon a combination of the API uni-axial collapseguideline, and limited bi-axial test data at moderate to large
tensile loads.18, 19, 20, 21 & 22
Consider de-rating the collapse rating if high axial stresses are
expected when the external to internal casing pressure
differential is high.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 64
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
69/245
IRP 3.1.6.3.5 The casing design must consider the operating environmentto which the well will be subjected. Resistance to
environmental cracking is important to the success of a
thermal well casing design.
The highest API minimum specified yield strengthrecommended for thermal well production casing is 550 MPa
(80 ksi)
The casing hardness should be limited to a Rockwell C value
of 22 or less.These recommendations are based upon several years of
thermal operating experience.
Note Environmental cracking includes sulfide stress cracking (SSC),stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and hydrogen induced
cracking (HIC) for the purposes of this IRP. A detaileddiscussion of environmental cracking mechanisms and typical
casing testing recommendations is found in Appendix F.
High strength' steel (i.e. steel with a minimum specified yield
strength greater than 550 MPa or 80 ksi) is not recommendedfor thermal service. Although high strength steel is less likely
to yield in thermal service it is more susceptible to sulfide stresscracking and can have a very limited capacity to absorb
thermally induced strain.
For corrosive environments, API L-80 grade casing is preferred
to N-80. L-80 has a controlled yield strength (i.e. an upper
limit of 95 ksi is specified by API). N-80 does not have acontrolled yield and its allowable yield strength can be as high
as 110 ksi.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 65
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
70/245
IRP 3.1.6.3.6 If operating conditions exist that may lead to environmentalcracking or salt deposition; the wellbore environment
should be controlled to protect the integrity of the
production casing. Development of an operational
procedure is recommended in IRP 3.3.6.5.1.
Note Regardless of the casing grade selected, environmentalcracking can still occur. Thus, operating procedures arerecommended to safeguard the casing. Several options are
outlined below. It is noted that one item from each section isdeemed sufficient to control each corrosion mechanism.
1) When potential for Sulfide Stress Cracking or HydrogenInduced Cracking exists, consider:
purging acid gases from the annulus, through the
perforations, with nitrogen,
circulating produced fluids through the annulus to break
the annular gas column and allow more basic (i.e.higher pH) fluids to coat the casing,
injecting inhibitors to provide a protective film against
the casing, or
installing a production packer in the tubing string toisolate the production casing from the operating
environment.
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations 66
-
8/10/2019 Irp3 Final 2005
71/245
2) When potential for Salt Deposition and Internal Pittingexists, consider:
avoiding aggressive venting for extended periods in
wells with high water production, or
periodically circulating produced fluids through the
annulus to dissolve salt plugs that may be forming.
3) When potential for Stress Corrosion Cracking exists,