•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Acceptance

•

•

•

Why Alternative Materials?

• Risk Occupational - ALARP

• Rig Recommissioning - Expense

• Recovery of Contaminated Tubing

• Rig Time to Place Cement Barriers

• Risk of Barrier Leaks - ALARP

– Integrity Longevity

– Future Environmental Impact

• Retirement Obligation, P&A >40% Cost

Rig Based Well P&A

Time Breakdown

RU/RD 4%Cementing 8%Circulating 6%Milling 12%Tripping D’Pipe 20%Tubing Recovery 50%

P&A Guidelines

P&A Guidelines – Alternative Materials

11

C B A

Phase IIIEnvironmental Cap

Phase IIIntermediate

Zone

Phase IReservoirIsolation

Barrier Features

Impermeable

Non shrinking interface

Long term integrity

Resistant to downhole fluids

Withstand mechanical loads

(Remain in position)

(Wetting - bond to steel)

(Geological compatibility)

Bonded-AlloyBarriers

Theory & Material Qualification

Theory = Modelling (Reaction Kinetics, CFD and Multi-Physics)

Material Qualification = OGUK Guidelines + (Barrier Features)

Material Qualification vs Barrier Qualification

Material Qualification = OGUK Guidelines + (Barrier Features)

hardness

density

porosity

permeability

strength

modulus

5” Tubing

Alloy Barrier

Punch

Alloy PipeLoad at initial failure (tons)

Equivalent pressure

initial (PSI)

Shear bond strength Initial

(PSI)

isol8 Bonded Alloy 5" 23.2# 26.33 4363.34 1265.11

Eutectic Bismuth Tin 5" 23.2# 3.38 560.12 162.40

Barrier Qualification

- Pressure / Temperature

- Max Differential

- Deviation

- Eccentricity (Annular Barriers)

- Time

- Water / Gas

Field Trials - Objectives

• Prove Barrier Concept in Tubing, Annulus & against Geology

• Reduce P&A Occupational Risk - ALARP

• Avoid the Need for Rig Recommissioning Expense

• Leave Contaminated Tubing in the Well

• Minimise Rig Time >50% Saving

• Reduce Risk of Barrier Leaks - ALARP

– Qualification to Demonstrate Integrity Longevity

– Eliminate Future Environmental Impact

• Write-Down Asset Retirement Obligation by ~ 20%