Proceedings of the ASME 2019 38th International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2019
June 9-14, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

OMAE2019-95330

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PERMANENTLY
PLUGGED AND ABANDONED WELLS

Mahmoud Khalifeh Babak Akbari

University of Stavanger Louisiana State University
Stavanger, Norway Louisiana, USA

Ahsan Khan Daniel C. Braga

University of Stavanger Louisiana State University
Stavanger, Norway Louisiana, USA

ABSTRACT and forced site abandonment due to accidents [1-4]. The

Permanent Plug and Abandonment (P&A) of wells has been intention behind P&A operations is to restore the cap rock or its
an inevitable part of hydrocarbon exploration and production; functionality by installing permanent barriers across competent
however, the methodology has not evolved with the same pace formations [5]. Due to associated risk with release of
as the rest of the industry. Nonetheless, after the environmental uncontrolled fluid flow, the two-barrier philosophy is
impact of some recent events including the Deepwater Horizon implemented, and it can be traced back to several decades ago
oil spill, permanent P&A of hydrocarbon wells has been [6]. A secondary barrier is established as backup to the primary
receiving more attention. Accordingly, regulatory authorities barrier. The concept is the same as in drilling, production, and
who oversee the P&A activities and operators have tried to intervention operations, although the type of well barrier
improve the pre-existing P&A methodology by defining a elements may depend upon the type of ongoing activities.
modern P&A philosophy, zero leakage criterion. Although the P&A of hydrocarbon wells is not a new topic in upstream
legislated criterion, adapted by most authorities, has challenged petroleum industry and since the old days the wells were being
the industry and it had a constructive impact on P&A operations, plugged and abandoned in ways that have not changed much yet.
due to technology deficiencies, the associated cost of operation However, the subject has attracted more attention in the last
has significantly increased. In this work, most of the publicly decade as offshore wells are reaching the end of their life and
available regulations and their recommended practices need to be permanently plugged and abandoned. The attention
addressing P&A have been reviewed and discussed. The focus attraction has been intensified by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
has been given to zero leakage acceptance policy, conventional incident and its impact on the environment [43].
versus risk-based approach, barrier verification, human factor in The main concept and goal of P&A of land and offshore
P&A, and technology deficiencies. Although Norway is not a wells are the same; however, the working unit to be used and
major hydrocarbon producer based on the daily production rate, consequently the time of operation is not the same. Operations
but because of its stricter requirement on P&A, its recommended are more complex; for instance in P&A of subsea wells in harsh
practice (NORSOK D-010) for P&A has been used in different environments such as North Sea. The objective of P&A
oil producing countries. As P&A and its impact on environment operations is essentially a subset of a broader concept called well
is a transnational subject, it is suggested to formulate an integrity. The well integrity is defined as “application of
international guideline or standard on P&A, given the fact that technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce risk
every well is unique when considering P&A operation. of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life
cycle of a well” [7] and it is applicable through lifecycle of the
INTRODUCTION well, from well construction to post-abandonment.
When a hydrocarbon well reaches the end of its lifecycle, it Perhaps, concerns associated with integrity of permanently
is permanently plugged and abandoned with the intention of no abandoned wells or wells to be abandoned permanently in the
re-entry nor re-use. There are situations which dictate permanent future, with an eternal perspective, should be or is in such
Plug and Abandonment (P&A) of a wellbore. These include, but process. The aim in this paper is to review, compare and discuss
are not limited to pressure-depleted wells, slot recovery the similarities and differences of some available guidelines
operations, well abandonment due to severe well integrity issues, considering permanent P&A of wells globally. It also became

1 Copyright © 2019 ASME

evident, by performing this research, that there are many Table 2 – Recommended guidelines for P&A activities in
countries which have no publicly available local rules and some countries.
regulations concerning the permanent P&A activities in their Country Recommended guideline
territories. USA - 30 CFR § 250, Subpart Q – Decommissioning
Federal Activities

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

RULES AND REGULATIONS Canada Oil and gas conservation rules
According with U.S. Energy Information Administration, Brazil Resolucao ANP (ANP Resolution) N 46
EIA [8], the number of countries which produce hydrocarbon is Mexico Norma (Standard) NMX-L-169-SCFI-2004
121 with a rate varying from 100 bpd to 15.5 MM bpd (at some United O&G UK Well Decommissioning Guidelines [9]
Kingdom
point in time). In other words, hydrocarbon wells have been
Oman Well Engineering Specification Well Suspension and
drilled globally. Table 1 presents some of the hydrocarbon Abandonment, Rev. 03
producing countries, ranked based on their daily production rate Russia Instructions on operations relating to the
[8], with their regulatory agencies. abandonment and suspension of wells and equipment
of the wellheads and downholes RD 08-347-00 [42]
Table 1 – Some of the countries ranked based on their Denmark A guide to hydrocarbon licenses in Denmark [10]
hydrocarbon production rate and their relevant regulatory Norway Well integrity in drilling and well operations [7]
authorities. Japan Well abandonment regulations by the Japanese
Country Ranking1 Regulatory authority Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry – (Mine
USA 1 Bureau of Safety and Environment Safety Act)
Enforcement – BSEE (for Federal Netherlands Mining Regulation [11]
waters)
Saudi 2 Saudi Aramco The main task to be accomplished during the P&A
Arabia operations is proper isolation of all the formations with leak
Russia 3 Federal Service for Ecological, potential, to avoid contamination of drinking water, soil, and
Technological, and Nuclear Supervision atmosphere. The leak can be in form of gas leak or liquid, and
[41]
the liquid phase can be either water or hydrocarbon. The first
Canada 4 Natural Resources Canada (NRCA)
question is that, is P&A a national or an international concern?
Brazil 9 Agencia Nacional do Petroleo (National
Petroleum Agency) - ANP Let us start with an example: consider Norway and UK, which
Mexico 11 Secreataria de Medio Ambiente y share maritime border, and both have hydrocarbon production
Recursos Naturales (Office of activities in their territories (Norwegian Continental Shelf). If a
Environment and Natural Resources) - well, in the Norwegian sector, starts to leak liquid hydrocarbon
SEMARNAT due to improper P&A operation, the leak can move toward the
Norway 15 Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) Norwegian shoreline or UK shoreline. If this is a gas leakage,
United 19 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) from an onshore well, then the polluted air can pass several
Kingdom countries and expose environments. The question is that is it
Oman 21 Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C. necessary to have an international standard or domestic practices
Denmark 41 Danish Energy Agency (DEA) are enough, considering that different recommended guidelines
Japan 43 Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade may have varying requirements.
and Industry (METI)
Netherlands 60 Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs
The lack of a united guideline in some countries, results in
1
Ranking of hydrocarbon production rate among 121 countries (U.S. varying regulations from one state to another state (Appendix
EIA 2018). 1). The lack of international standardization on P&A activities,
results in a situation where a jurisdiction deems 30.5 meters of
Although 121 countries are hydrocarbon producers, but few qualified cement as a proper permanent plug, while another
of them have publicly available rules and regulations considering regulatory body requires 50 meters. As the cost of operations is
P&A of hydrocarbon wells. Even few of the top ranked not the same, the country, in this example, which requires 30.5
hydrocarbon producing countries have recommended guidelines meters of qualified plug spends less funds to satisfy the same
(see Table 2). Surprisingly, some of these guidelines are even barrier requirement. Another way to look at this is that one of
reproduction of the other guidelines. the two border-sharing countries wells are plugged with higher
migration potential than the other; while the impact of fluid
migration will probably affect both countries. Appendix 2
tabulates requirements for plug length proposed by some
recommended practices and regulations. If the available
technologies used in P&A are internationally the same, it makes
sense to also have similar requirements.
The lack of standardization is not limited to requirements of
plug length but includes barrier verification methodologies,

2 Copyright © 2019 ASME

qualification of plugging materials, and qualification of new In P&A design and operation, usually primary and
technologies. These are the main challenges for the regulatory secondary barriers are selected from the same type of material,
authorities, in this context, to be actioned upon. likely Portland cement. However, if a plugging material fails
because of its properties and downhole conditions, the backup
ZERO LEAKAGE ACCEPTANCE POLICY barrier may be subjected to failure for the same reason. Some

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

Available rules imply “zero leakage policy”, which means industries (e.g. nuclear industry) do not accept the utilization of
that all the potential sources of flow shall be sealed properly, and same plugging material for backup barriers [18]. Perhaps,
no leak is tolerated. However, no monitoring system is required authorities and organizations that issue regulations or
to be established to track the post-abandonment conditions. If recommended guidelines need to consider the utilization of
the leakage is observed during abandonment or post- different barrier materials.
abandonment, then re-abandonment is required. The question is
that, what is the acceptable leak rate prior to initiating the re- CHRONOLOGY OF P&A SCHEDULE
abandonment process? If the leak is occurred due to lack of Within the context of minimum acceptable standards, there
competent technology, re-abandonment may end up in the same lies another critical issue to be addressed aside from the technical
situation, excluding the role of human factor in abandonment specifications of barriers. Hypothetically, even the most
operation [12, 13]. stringent requirements on barriers can be ineffective if they are
Portland cement is the most widely used material for zonal not enforced in the due timeframe. A leak potential exists (to
isolation and as plugging material. Portland cement has some varying degrees) for all wells; and the maximum time frame
kind of permeability and its sealability could be a matter of allowed (if existent at all) to P&A the well will affect the leak
question [14, 15]. In addition, including downhole condition, occurrence rate or probability, depending on what approach is
readiness of technologies, and human factor may conclude that considered. In the United States, under a federal program called
the zero-leakage criterion is more of an ideal rather than “Idle Iron,” the authorities require that any well that has been idle
practicality. This subject could be discussed by investigations (not useful for lease operations) for three years to be permanently
conducted on natural seepages, which are well-known plugged and abandoned [19]. In Norway, the wells can be left
phenomena [16]. Rate of natural seepages over an area could be behind in temporarily abandonment status for maximum three
a good starting point for defining acceptable leakage rate. By years if the well is not monitored continuously otherwise no
performing a risk analysis and studying hydrocarbon fate, the limiting time is identified. However, the term “continuously” is
impact of leakage on surrounding can be determined. Therefore, a matter of question as it could be interpreted as every second of
the zero leakage acceptance criterion needs a revision to take into monitoring, once a day, once a month, and so on. For land
account practical minimums and sets concrete and attainable operations within the US, different states have varying
limits. regulations; the state of Texas, for instance, requires a well to be
plugged within one year of inactivity and the operator can
CONVENTIONAL VS. RISK-BASED P&A request for an extension. In the neighboring state of Louisiana,
In conventional P&A methodology, every formation with inactive wells are required to be plugged after five years in that
flow potential which contains hydrocarbon or abnormally status; note shall be taken, however, that the definition of
pressurized water bearing zone needs to be plugged with two “inactive” well status may vary across regulatory bodies.
barriers: primary and secondary. Formations containing non- Well integrity and leak potential are moving targets; Oladipo
hydrocarbon fluids with limited flow potential require one and Houlbrook [20] described their strategy for prioritization of
barrier. Consider a North Sea platform well, which has nine leak risk for a set of mature Central North Sea wells for an
Distinct Permeable Zones (DPZs) containing hydrocarbon, operator. The “design life” of the subsea tree is one of the
eighteen barriers plus one environmental plug need to be important factors considered in their study; in fact, for producing
established. However, the open window between some of these wells, those passed 60% of their design life are placed in the
DPZs may not provide the opportunity to install both primary “high” risk category. Standardized maximum acceptable well
and secondary barriers. This operation is time consuming with inactivity, therefore, needs the due attention just like all other
high risk of injuries to personnel. Therefore, risk-based aspects of these operations.
approach may be a useful and cost-efficient methodology [17].
In the risk-based approach, risk analysis is carried out for TESTING/QUALIFICATION OF WELL BARRIERS
each source of flow and its impact on surrounding. Considering Consider a 100-meter plug requirement within a cemented
formation strength of a naturally sealing formation to install the cased hole section; what qualifies the plug, casing, and the
cross-sectional barrier across of it and acceptance of cross flow, cement as acceptable? Majority of regulations (such as the US
some of DPZs can be regarded as one. Subsequently, primary federal, or Texas) or recommended practices require testing of
and secondary barriers can be established for the upper DPZ. In the plug set for freshwater zones protection. Testing of other
this methodology, time of operation and risk of endangering plugs appears to be of subjective nature and dependent on the
personnel are decreased. At this time, the risk-based P&A zone in which the plug is set (abnormal pressure, lost circulation,
methodology has not been effectively considered by most of etc.). It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the state of a
authorities and recommended guidelines. permeable strata in the future. The strata may be depleted as a

3 Copyright © 2019 ASME

result of production of its fluid and; therefore, will have lower hydraulic testing could be an option [24]. In an effort, an interval
pore and fracture pressure gradient. On the other hand, across a competent formation with two casing cement annuli
permeable strata may be subject to the injection of disposed were identified. As annular barrier verification of the second
water or other fluids including, but not limited to, Carbon casing string by means of sonic/ultrasonic logging tool is not
Dioxide for sequestration activities. For instance, Thibodeaux et possible, hydraulic pressure testing concept was applied, Fig. 1.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

al. [21] describe their current strategy of drilling in the US Communication between formation behind the second
Permian basin due to complications caused by high pressure casing string and wellbore was achieved through perforation and
water zones as a result of offset well injection while encountering testing the communication hydraulically. 30 meters above the
highly depleted loss zones in deeper formations of the same perforated interval is consequently perforated and pressure
interval. testing is conducted. No pressure change means good sealability
Plug testing can be done in a multitude of ways; mostly through both casing cements.
mechanical (weight) based or hydraulic pressure. Testing
requirements vary and specific requirements such as weight
required, hydraulic pressure required, and pressure drop cut off
and test time are also variable. Bois et al. [22] discuss their work
on cement plug integrity and how mechanical and hydraulic
integrity are different especially when it relates to leak potential.
They also argue that the change in the state of pore pressure and
fracture gradients should affect plug testing/requirements.
Another critical issue, which is perhaps the most subjective
and variable amongst all, is how an existing annular cement is
qualified as an acceptable barrier? For some regulations, it
suffices if cement returns were observed while performing the
primary cement job and that is stated in the drilling report. On
the other hand, regulations exist requiring extensive verification
and testing before an annular cement is considered of sufficient
integrity.
It seems prudent, especially in the context of the ever-
changing pore/fracture pressure environment, to establish a set
of minimum requirements to be met that involves some sort of
testing of the plugs and annular cement.

PRACTICALITY AND OPERATIONS COST

It is easy to simply increase the bulk of regulations and raise
the bar on all aspects of the operations. However, the increased
cost on the operations versus the added benefit is not necessarily
a straightforward relationship (e.g. Willis et al. [23]). Perhaps,
the most critical aspect of establishing a set of standards would
be the caveat that how can we introduce a minimalistic but
effective set of standards without over-reaching but keeping the
real issues in mind. To find such balance, a collaborative effort
between operators, service companies and P&A contractors, and
the regulator seems imperative.

TECHNOLOGY DEFICIENCY
One of the main challenges ahead of the operators and
regulators, is technology deficiencies in verification of annular
barrier through two casing strings, competent alternative barrier
materials to Portland cement, correlation of laboratory testing
and field testing of barrier, and understanding the consequence
of a leak on environment.
Restricted regulations require verification of annular barrier
by use of sonic or ultrasonic logs where full return is not reported
during execution of primary cementing. However, restricting the
verification of casing cement, behind the second casing string, Fig. 1 Hydraulic pressure testing of dual-casing string.
by use of sonic or ultrasonic logs, is not viable currently but

4 Copyright © 2019 ASME

 Portland cement is the prime material used for zonal quantitative but qualitative and varies from one person to
isolation and P&A. However, it might not be the best candidate another, and from one country to another.
due to concerns associated with its properties and long-term Some operators follow their internal adapted guidelines for
durability at downhole conditions [25-28]. Alternative materials P&A design and not the recommended practices. The in-house
have been suggested to replace Portland cement [3, 29]. One can technical knowledge and competence of personnel varies based

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

mention thermosetting polymers, geopolymers, alloy-based on the previous knowledge and experience of the operator in
materials, thermite-based material, unconsolidated sand slurries, P&A. P&A job execution requires involvement of human which
etc. Although different alternative materials are available in the can introduce challenges. For instance, the effect of cold
market, but low reliability level (creates challenge for weather, in the North Sea, on human capacity where reaction
technology readiness level) and being in a conservative industry time is reduced in exposures to cold combined with night shift
(petroleum) to test and utilize new technologies, challenges the works [38].
utilization of alternative materials. The subjective nature of human also plays a part in the
It is normal practice to study placeability, positioning, success and effectiveness of the P&A operations insofar as
sealing capability, reparability, durability and the verification of achieving the ultimate objective. Barrier verification, logging of
barrier or barrier material [29]. However, the test procedures annular barrier, is a risky business whereas human factor
used in laboratory are not the same as used in field. Indeed, in contributes strongly in the evaluation and interpretation
laboratory; mechanical properties, permeability, and long-term processes which is indistinct part of the verification method [39].
integrity tests are evaluated in small scale without considering
operational limitations such as actual contamination, wellbore
deviation, slurry volume, placement technique, etc. But in field, CONCLUSIONS
weight testing, hydraulic pressure testing and tagging are usually Plugging and Abandonment of wells has been an integral
used to verify an established barrier. Even the weight testing is part of the industry since the first well was drilled. However, it
not operationally feasible in rigless operations and only pressure was not until recent publicities of leaky abandoned oil wells in
testing and tagging with coiled tubing or wireline unit is carried the Gulf of Mexico, followed after the Macondo incident, that
out. Therefore, it is necessary to correlate the laboratory the impact of leaky wells received the due attention.
procedures or to find more realistic ways of seal integrity Some aspects of P&A operations were discussed and some
evaluation in the field [30]. issues with the currently existing regulations were pointed out.
Although digitalization has been implemented in different Among the discussed issues were: dissimilar barrier
industries and recently has received attention in the upstream requirements for neighboring jurisdictions where a leak may
petroleum industry, but the digitalization process in P&A impact both, lack of practicality in the definition of “zero
operations has not been focused yet. Digitalization of P&A leakage” given that natural seepage exists everywhere, not
operations from planning and design, to execution of operation, acknowledging risk-based P&A design approaches although it
verification and finally documentation of whole P&A operation may be very beneficial in certain circumstances, the variations in
is an idea. The digitalization tool can help to reduce cost of P&A the timeframe in which wells are required to be plugged and its
operation, reducing the associated risk of incidents and providing impact, and variations and ambiguity in barrier testing and
ease of access to data. difference between hydraulic and mechanical integrity.
There are other challenges to be overcome when considering
HUMAN FACTOR a reliable and cost-efficient P&A operation. Of these challenges
Human factor is an integral part during legislation, design, one could list tools and methods used for barrier verification,
execution, and verification of P&A operations; however, it has lack of cross-trained engineers, and not including the P&A
not been focused in standards nor recommended practices. In during well design and well construction.
P&A operations, the human factor can contribute to failure of
well safety during operation through injuries or even fatalities ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
and/or failure of permanent barrier [31]. The impact of human The authors would like to thank all operators and regulatory
factor in operations has been studied during the past decades by authorities which helped and supported the authors through
different researchers [32-34]; however, the impact of human discussions.
factor on legislating P&A rules and P&A design has not been
concentrated. The Deeptwater horizon accident is one of the NOMENCLATURE
examples where a complex mix of human errors, engineering ANP: Agencia Nacional do Petroleo
misjudgment, missed opportunities and outright mistakes created bpd: Barrel per Day
a disaster [35]. Indeed, human beings develop and legislate the BSEE: Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement
P&A rules and regulations and recommended practices, based on DPZ: Distinct Permeable Zone
their expertise and the adapted operator culture. They are not EIA: Energy Information Administration
trained or cross-trained for P&A but having the drilling P&A: Plug and Abandonment
background, although P&A operation is not mostly drilling PSA: Petroleum Safety Authority
operation [36, 37]. Most of these experiences are not even TOL: Top of Liner

5 Copyright © 2019 ASME

REFERENCES from Slurry to Set. Paper SPE-181512-MS presented at the SPE
[1] El-Laithy, W., and Ghzaly, S.M. 1998. Sidki Well Abandonment and Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-28 September,
Platform Removal Case History in the Gulf of Suez. Paper SPE- Dubai, UAE. https://doi.org/10.2118/181512-MS
46589-MS presented at the SPE International Conference on [15] Cheung, P.R., and Beirute, R.M. 1985. Gas Flow in Cements. Paper
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and SPE-11207-PA, Journal of Petroleum Technology: 37(06).

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

Production held in Caracas, Venezuela, 7-10 June. https://doi.org/10.2118/11207-PA
https://doi.org/10.2118/46589-MS [16] Tveit, M.R. 2018. Understanding Leakage Rates in Permanently
[2] Hussain, S., Dhaher, K.S., Bjoerneli, H.M., et al. 2016. Economical Abandoned Wells by Studying Natural Hydrocarbon Seepages of
Slot Recovery Using Open Hole Cement Plug Kick Offs, a Proven Thermogenic Origin. Master thesis at the Dept. of Energy and
Success in North Sea. Paper SPE-180044-MS presented at the SPE Petroleum Engineering, University of Stavanger, Norway.
Bergen One Day Seminar, 20 April, Grieghallen, Bergen, Norway. [17] DNV·GL. 2016. Risk-based abandonment of offshore wells.
https://doi.org/10.2118/180044-MS Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-E103, edition 2016.
[3] Khalifeh, M., Saasen, A., Hodne, H., et al. 2013. Techniques and [18] IAEA. 2001. Risk management: A tool for improving nuclear
Materials for North Sea Plug and Abandonment Operations. Paper power plant performance. TECDOC-1209 Austria. ISSN 1011–
OTC-23915-MS presented at the Offshore Technology 4289
Conference, 6-9 May, Houston, Texas, USA. [19] U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
https://doi.org/10.4043/23915-MS Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico
[4] Liversidge, D., Taoutaou, S., and Agarwal, S. 2006. Permanent Plug Region. Decommissioning Guidance for Wells and Platforms.
and Abandonment Solution for the North Sea. Paper SPE-100771- NTL No. 2010-G05. Issue Date: September 15, 2010.
MS presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and [20] Oladipo, A., & Houlbrook, A. 2016. Risk-Based Prioritization
Exhibition, 11-13 September, Adelaide, Australia. Abandonment Strategy for Inactive Subsea Wells. Paper SPE-
https://doi.org/10.2118/100771-MS 181020-MS presented at the SPE Intelligent Energy International
[5] Davison, J.M., Salehabadi, M., De Gennaro, S., et al. 2017. Plugging Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 September, Aberdeen, Scotland,
and Abandonment of Oil and Gas Wells: A Geomechanics UK. https://doi.org/10.2118/181020-MS
Perspective. Paper ARMA-2017-0451 presented at 51st U.S. Rock [21] Thibodeaux H, Williams J, Duhe N, et al. 2018. Eliminating Losses
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 25-28 June, San in Permian Basin's Midland Basin Wells through Managed
Francisco, California, USA. Pressure Drilling and Cementing. Paper SPE-189997-MS
[6] Haun, O., Hansen, H.R., Nylund, J., et al. 1979. Safety Aspects presented at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and
Related to Hydrocarbon Production and Processing Offshore Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition, April 17-
Plants. Paper OTC-3650-MS presented at the Offshore Technology 18, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Conference, 30 April-3 May, Houston, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/189997-MS
https://doi.org/10.4043/3650-MS [22] Bois, A.P., Vu, M.H., Noël, K., et al. 2018. Cement Plug Hydraulic
[7] NORSOK standards D-010. 2013. Well integrity in drilling and well Integrity - The Ultimate Objective of Cement Plug Integrity.
operations. Rev. 4, Published in June by Standards Norway, Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/191335-
Strandveien 18, P.O. Box 242 N-1326 Lysaker Norway. MS
[8] Energy Information Agency. 2018. [23] Willis, W. I., Johnson, N., & Ranganathan, R. (1999, January).
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=53- Costs and Benefits of the E&P MACT Rule: Application of a
1&cy=2017 (accessed 26th March 2018). Regulatory Simulation Model. In SPE/EPA Exploration and
[9] Oil & Gas UK. 2015. O&G UK Well Decommissioning Guidelines, Production Environmental Conference. Society of Petroleum
Issue 6, July 2018, The UK offshore oil and gas advocacy Engineers.
organization. https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/product/op071/ [24] Delabroy, L., Rodrigues, D., Norum, E., et al. 2017. Perforate,
[10] DEA. 2009. A Guide to Hydrocarbon Licences in Denmark – Wash and Cement PWC Verification Process and an Industry
Exploration and Drilling Activities. The Danish Energy Agency Standard for Barrier Acceptance Criteria. Paper SPE-185938-MS
Amaliegade 44 DK-1256 Copenhagen presented at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar, 5 April, Bergen,
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/OlieGas/guidelines_drilling_2009. Norway. https://doi.org/10.2118/185938-MS
pdf [25] Vralstad, T, Todorovic, E., Saasen, A., et al. 2016. Long-Term
[11] Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. 2018. Mining Regulation of Integrity of Well Cements at Downhole Conditions. Paper SPE-
the Netherlands. of 1st January 2003 (updated up to 1st September 180058 presented at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar, 20 April,
2018). https://www.nlog.nl/en/legislation Grieghallen, Bergen, Norway. https://doi.org/10.2118/180058-MS
[12] Dadmohammadi, Y., Salehi, S., Kiran, R., et al. 2017. Integrating [26] Bagheri, M., Shariatipour, S.M., and Ganjian, E. 2018. A review of
Human Factors into Petroleum Engineering's Curriculum: oil well cement alteration in CO2-rich environments. Construction
Essential Training for Students. Paper SPE-187241-MS presented and Building Materials 186 (2018) 946-968.
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.250
October, San Antonio, Texas, USA. [27] Zhang, C., Song, Y., Wang, W., et al. 2017. The influence of
https://doi.org/10.2118/187241-MS sulfonated asphalt on the mechanical properties and microstructure
[13] Kiran, R., Salehi, S., Jiwon, J., et al. 2018. Real-Time Eye-Tracking of oil well cement paste. Construction and Building Materials 132
System to Evaluate and Enhance Situation Awareness and Process (2017) 438–445.
Safety in Drilling Operations. Paper SPE-189678-MS presented at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.014
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 March, [28] Jafariesfad, N., Khalifeh, M., Skalle, P., et al. 2017. Nanorubber-
Fort Worth, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/189678-MS modified cement system for oil and gas well cementing
[14] Maharidge, R., Bottiglieri, A., Holley, A., et al. 2016. Development application. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 47
of Permeability and Mechanical Properties of Class G Cement (2017) 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.10.002

6 Copyright © 2019 ASME

[29] Oil & Gas UK. 2015a. Guidelines on Qualification of Materials for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.10.049
the Abandonment of Wells. Issue 2. London: The United Kingdom
Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Association Limited. ISBN: 1 903
004 56 X
[30] CSI Technologies. 2011. Cement Plug Testing: Weight vs. Pressure

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

Testing to Assess Viability of a Wellbore Seal Between Zones.
Report RLS0116.
[31] Aas, A.L. 2008. The Human Factors Assessment and Classification
System (HFACS) for the Oil & Gas Industry. Paper IPTC-12694-
MS presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, 3-5 December, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-12694-MS
[32] Strand, G.O., and Lundteigen, M.A. 2016. Human factors
modelling in offshore drilling operations. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries 43 (2016) 654-667.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.06.013
[33] Zhou, A., Wang, K., and Zhang, H. 2017. Human factor risk control
for oil and gas drilling industry. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 159 (2017) 581–587.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.09.034
[34] Quanmin, Z., Hong, Z., and Jianchun, F. 2011. Human Factor Risk
Quantification for Oil and Gas Drilling Operation. Procedia
Engineering 18 (2011) 312 – 317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.049
[35] Bartlit, F.H., Sankar, S.N., and Grimsley, S.C. 2011. Macondo –
The Gulf Oil Disaster. Chief Counsel’s Report prepared by
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling.
[36] Rhett, D.W., and Risnes, R. 2002. Predicting Critical Borehole
Pressure and Critical Reservoir Pore Pressure In Pressure Depleted
And Repressurized Reservoirs. Paper SPE-78150-MS presented at
the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, 20-23 October,
Irving, Texas. https://doi.org/10.2118/78150-MS
[37] Bonnet, N., Williamson, B., and Oakes, P. 1998. High Angle
Drilling in Severely Depleted Reservoirs. Paper SPE-49984-MS
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 12-14 October, Perth, Australia.
https://doi.org/10.2118/49984-MS .
[38] Lodden, T. 2000. The Effect on the Health and Safety of Older
Offshore Personnel - Long Shifts and Working Night Shift. Paper
SPE-60997-MS presented at the SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, 26-28 June, Stavanger, Norway.
https://doi.org/10.2118/60997-MS
[39] Benge, G. 2016. Cement Evaluation--A Risky Business. SPE
Drilling & Completion 30 (04) 322-325.
https://doi.org/10.2118/170712-PA
[40] Al-Rashidi, A., Fuderer, R., Koepchen, C., et al. 2010. Well
Engineering Specification Well Suspension and Abandonment.
Document ID: SP-1221, Rev. 03 dEC. 2010, Petroleum
Development Oman L.L.C.
[41] Federal Service for Environmental, Technological, and Nuclear
Supervision. http://government.ru/en/department/212/events/
[42] Josefson, J., and Rotar, A. 2018. Oil and gas regulation in the
Russian Federation: overview.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/05273028?transitionT
ype=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
#co_anchor_a346677 (accessed 21 November 2018)
[43] Vrålstad, T., Saasen, A., Fjær, E., Øia, T., Ytrehus, J.D., Khalifeh,
M. 2018. Plug & abandonment of offshore wells: Ensuring long-
term well integrity and cost-efficiency. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 173 (2019) 478-491.

7 Copyright © 2019 ASME

Appendix 1 – Requirements on length of plug from some states in USA and Canada.
Country Open hole plug Cased hole plug Open hole to surface plug
USA, Texas (Texas At least 50 ft MD below and Minimum of 100 ft plugs 10 ft plug placed on top of the well and casing cut
Railroad above and all across a Pumped slurry volume shall be at off 3 feet below ground level. 100 ft plug [tested]
Commission) productive horizon plus 10% least the volume to fill 100 ft plus inside surface casing and casing at usable water

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

extra slurry volume for every 10% extra volume for each 1000 ft depth
1000 ft MD to the base of the MD to the base of the plug
plug
USA, Louisiana No explicit requirement for [perforated pool] 100 ft cement If fresh-water exposed: 100 ft plug below the base
(Department of open hole plug. Same as cased plug immediately above or across of deepest FW to 150 ft above the top of sand and
Natural Resources) hole. OR bridge plug plus 10 ft cement 50 ft cement below and above surface casing shoe.
(with approval) A 30 ft plug is needed at the very top and tubular
cut 2 ft for land locations and 10 ft for water.
USA, 50 ft below each oil, gas, or 50 ft below each oil, gas, or water Plug extending from 100 ft below surface casing
Pennsylvania*, water bearing stratum extended bearing stratum extended to 100 ft shoe to 50 ft above it and another 100 ft plug filling
Non-coal area wells to 50 ft above it. above it OR an approved the hole to surface.
(Office of Oil and mechanical plug set 20 ft above the
Gas Management) stratum.
Canada, Regular† Thermal (as defined there) plug Either set a permanent bridge plug Two options: 1) cut and pull intermediate casing
Oil Sand Areas from TD to a minimum of 15 (or retainer or packer plus cement below the “BGWP” and set a permanent bridge
(Alberta Energy vertical meters above oil squeeze into perforations) within plug at least 15 meters below the stub and a cement
Regulator) bearing formations, and 15 meters above the zone and cap plug must be set from above this bridge plug to a
[regular] plug from there [can with minimum of 8 vertical meters minimum of 15 meters above surface casing shoe.
be in stages, with breaks only of thermal cement, or thermal 2) perforate/mill/slot the casing below “BGWP”
occurring within a zone] set to a cement plug 15 vertical meters and circulate cement to surface plus cement
minimum of 15 vertical meters below the bottom and 15 vertical retainer or cement plug to at least 15 vertical meters
above deepest set casing.‡ meters above the top of interval. above perforations. If no returns to surface,
squeeze cement below fracture pressure.

* No plug testing is specified in PA regs.

† Non-sour, no acid injection, low Hydrogen Sulphide, non-disposal intervals and no explosives used to stimulate the interval.
‡ Unless in special circumstances, all plugs tops must be tagged.

8 Copyright © 2019 ASME

Appendix 2 – Requirements on length of plug from some national guidelines.
Country Open hole plug Cased hole plug Open hole to surface plug
(installed in surface casing)

Norway 100 m MD with minimum 50 m MD above any 50 m MD if set on a mechanical/ cement plug 50 m MD if set on a mechanical

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2019/58875/V008T11A053/6444518/v008t11a053-omae2019-95330.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 06 July 2023

source of inflow/leakage point. A plug-in as foundation, otherwise 100 m MD plug, otherwise 100 m MD
transition from open hole to casing should (NORSOK D-010, 2013). (NORSOK D-010, 2013).
extend at least 50 m MD above and below
casing shoe (NORSOK D-010, 2013).

United Two plugs with each at least 100 ft MD of good Two Plugs with each contain >100 ft of good A permanent barrier is required in
Kingdom cement, typically 500 ft MD. cement. Each typically 500 ft long. Annulus cased hole or extending at least 100
should contain >100 ft good cement opposite ft of good cement into cased hole.
Combination barrier solution: Plug should each plug.
contain >200 ft of good cement. Typically, 800
ft long. Combination barrier solution: Plug should
contain >200 ft of good cement. Typically,
800 ft long.

Denmark 50 m below and above the individual zone. Where possible perforated intervals shall be Where there is an open hole below
A cement plug, at least 100 m long, shall be isolated with cement plugs through the the deepest casing, a cement plug
placed near the surface. individual perforated zones and with 50 m shall be placed in such a manner
long cement plugs below the lowermost that it extends at least 50 m above
perforation and above the uppermost and below the casing shoe.
perforation.
Liner: the plug extends 50 m above and below
the point of suspension.
In the innermost casing a cement plug must
be placed from the shoe depth of the previous
casing and 100 m up.
Surface plug: 100 m long near the surface.
Oman At least 50m between reservoirs to be isolated. Cement in annulus above top of potential The plug length shall be minimum
Plugs to isolate reservoir shall be at least 100 flow shall be at least 100 m. 100m, from at least 50m below the
m in length (minimum 50 m above the top of Cement plug shall be minimum 100 m and shoe to a minimum of 50m inside
the reservoir. extend minimum 50 m across the natural the casing [40].
Long horizontal sections (either open hole or barrier above reservoirs.
cased hole) are preferably plugged back by Perforations: minimum 100m lengths and
setting cement plugs of around 150m lengths extend from the bottom of the perforations to
in stages to cover the whole horizontal well minimum 50m above the top of the perforated
bore. reservoir
Surface plug: 150m [40]. Liner: 100m with at least 50m below and
50m above the TOL [40].

9 Copyright © 2019 ASME