Locating and Repairing Casing Leaks with Tubing in Place - Ultrasonic Logging and Pressure-Activated Sealant Methods
- Joel E. Johns (TecWel Inc) | D. Neil Cary (Seal-Tite International) | Jerald C. Dethlefs (ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc.) | Barry C. Ellis (Seal-Tite LLC) | Marie Lynn McConnell (ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc.) | Guy Lamont Schwartz (ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 September, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K.
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2007. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.14 Casing and Cementing, 3.1.6 Gas Lift, 4.3.4 Scale, 6.5.2 Water use, produced water discharge and disposal, 4.2.3 Materials and Corrosion, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 3 Production and Well Operations, 5.6.5 Tracers, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 4.5.7 Controls and Umbilicals
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 758 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
When operators are faced with issues involving casing leaks, a typical course of action is to pull the tubing and make efforts to identify and locate the source of the leak by logging or other mechanical means. If the leak source can be successfully located, a mechanical method is generally employed to patch the leaking casing. This methodology is time consuming and expensive.
Locating casing leaks with the tubing in place using conventional logging techniques has historically been difficult. Where some tools, such as temperature tools, may provide an indication of an anomaly in annuli, the data may be subjective or the leak may be too small to measure. When active, a leak will produce a spectrum of sonic frequencies that may be either audible, ultrasonic or both. Ultrasonic energy will pass through steel but travels relatively short distances. A tool developed around these principles has been successful in accurately locating casing leaks behind tubing.
Pressure-activated sealants have been used for a number of years to cure a wide variety of leaks in casing, tubing, control lines, and well heads as well as micro-annulus leaks in cement. For the purpose of repairing a casing leak behind tubing, the liquid sealant may be pumped into the annulus and displaced to the leak site. The liquid sealant will not polymerize until it is exposed to the differential pressure through the leak site. Knowing the leak rate, pressure and precise location of the leak aids in the selection of the sealant formulation and deployment method. This helps to reduce overall repair cost as well as increase the probability of a successful repair.
This paper will describe the ultrasonic method of leak detection and the method of curing leaks with pressure activated sealant with tubing in place. Case histories will be presented where these methods were employed to repair casing leaks without removing the tubing.
Perhaps the most challenging well integrity issue with which operators deal with today are casing leaks. Not only are the methods to repair these types of leaks without pulling the tubing limited, but the detection of these leaks using conventional logging methods with the production tubing in place is practically impossible. A common diagnostic methodology is to rely on some fairly subjective logging data and pressure responses to determine where a pressure barrier is leaking. Following this, cement is pumped down the annulus or through punched tubing in an attempt to seal off the leak. This process, along with other hardening sealant methods, can be problematic. Additionally, using this method will also make other operations or future workovers difficult or impractical.
Pressure activated sealants have been used on numerous occasions to repair casing leaks with the tubing in place. A major advantage in utilizing this technology is that the sealant will only solidify where the leak is active. In addition, the material is easily removed by mechanical means and will not add difficulty to future workover operations if required.
As is true with other remediation methods, a complete understanding of the leak source is critical when planning a pressure activated sealant operation. This is especially true when dealing with leaks behind the tubing. Optimal sealant formulations may be selected along with deployment methods for maximum affect. While rate and differential can be determined by pressure and well bore data, a leak behind casing is more complex. Detection of casing leaks is difficult using conventional logging techniques. These leaks will produce no reading on spinners (for obvious reasons) and may not produce temperature changes that are of a magnitude to confirm a leak point. This is true even with fairly large leaks (>1gpm). Conventional noise logs can detect fluid or gas movement, but must be used in a stationary mode and distant noise sources may confuse interpretation. Tracer logs may be used but can also produce imprecise results.
The ultrasonic leak detection method has been proven to be useful in detecting leaks behind casing with a high degree of accuracy. This suggests that it would be a useful tool in evaluating wells for repair using a pressure activated sealant method where accurate spotting of the treatment is critical.
|File Size||326 KB||Number of Pages||6|