SPE-116424-PP CO2 Storage Managing the Risk Associated With Well Leakage over Long Timescales

Y. Le Guen, J. Le Gouevec, R. Chammas, B. Gerard, and O. Poupard, Oxand S.A., and A. Van Der Beken and L. Jammes, Schlumberger Carbon Services
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 2022 October 2008. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract One of the major challenges associated with the geological storage of CO2 is the performance of the confining system over long timescales. In particular, the occurrence of CO2 leakage through existing wells could not only defeat the purpose of storage but also badly affect human health or the environment. Indeed, cement degradation and casing corrosion in injection, production or abandoned wells can create preferential channels over time, allowing migration of CO2 from the reservoir to shallower formations (e.g. aquifers), and/or to the surface. In this paper, a risk-based approach is proposed for well integrity and confinement performance management. The approach, based on Performance and Risk Management methodology (P&RTM), serves as a decision support tool. Major steps are (i) identifying the system and the sources of degradation through characterization and system analysis; (ii) quantifying their criticity through modelling, in terms of probability and severity, and (iii) establishing a risk mitigation plan. This methodology is based on experience in material ageing and risk assessment of complex systems, like nuclear structures, where probabilistic simulations are performed. It accounts for all stakes involved in well integrity management and enables the full integration of uncertainties as part of risk estimation. The methodology presented here greatly improves common approaches based on Features, Events, and Processes as it quantifies risk levels. It provides useful and reliable tools to support decisions for well integrity management strategies or emergency plans. To that purpose, mitigation actions such as characterization/inspection, remediation (workover), design improvement or monitoring are valued based on a cost/benefits ratio. Moreover, updating risk assessment with incoming data allows for an evolving vision of risk levels to optimize interventions in time. This approach is successfully applied, leading to recommendations for safer and more efficient design, maintenance, and monitoring strategies. Introduction Carbon Capture and Storage has been validated by the IPCC as part of a portfolio of measures to mitigate climate change, and nowadays pilot projects are multiplying on a global scale [1] [2] [3]. However, while the conditions necessary for the deployment of this technology seem always closer, key issues remain to be addressed before launching large-scale operations: further investigations into the implied risks are required to ensure safety. Possible workflow and tools to assess risks associated to CO2 storage have received some attention [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ; however, barriers remain to be overcome with relation to the specificities of CO2 geological storage: (i) storage must be ensured over a very long time frame, (ii) physical properties of CO2 may change rapidly along a leakage path due to phase changes, and (iii) uncertainties will always be present in the description of the geological environment. Possible local impacts resulting from injection operations or leakages could be: Acidification of potable aquifers in the overburden, which could make water improper for consumption; Acidification of soils with impacts on vegetation or cultures; Accumulations of gaseous CO2 at the surface affecting human health and/or the environment; Geomechanical disruption of the underground (e.g. seismic events or uplift).

SPE-116424-PP

Geological storage of CO2 will be designed for zero leakage over the project lifetime, which implies maintaining hydraulic isolation through wells. This presents one of the main technological problems as this man-made intrusive object can directly connect CO2 to water resources, biosphere, or atmosphere. Moreover, in a CO2 environment, casing corrosion and cement leaching processes will affect well integrity. Therefore, the performance of the well to confine CO2 gas within the reservoir may be impacted and risks associated with CO2 leakage over the storage time period may increase. This paper describes the application of an innovative quantitative Performance and Risk assessment methodology (P&RTM) to the problem of well integrity in the context of geological storage of CO2. The containment performance of a well can be defined as the capability to ensure a good zonal isolation in order to contain the injected CO2 in the geological reservoir over the intended lifespan of a storage site. The risk is defined as a loss in performance (containment), which has an impact with respect to specific stake(s). The methodology then consists in a regular risk assessment and prevention or remediation (risk mitigation) of potential CO2 leakages through well completions [11] [12] [13] [14]. As such, this provides the operators with a decision-making support for ensuring and demonstrating safety to regulators and stakeholders. It also offers a powerful communicating tool for public acceptance. The cornerstone of this approach is a well completion degradation and leakage simulator, which allows the prediction of leakage paths and rates that could lead to any of the abovementioned adverse effects. Based on these simulations the Performance and Risk assessment study will further estimate: A prognosis of well integrity performance over short, medium and very long time scales (from tens up to thousands of years); A risk mitigation plan for safety control; A contribution to the assessment of the site performance in terms of CO2 containment. The methodology focuses on the risks of both contamination of subsurface formations and hazardous releases at the surface. This paper will discuss each step of the methodology in some detail (Figure 1), with a few illustrations taken from the study documented in [11]. Objectives Within the frame of a CO2 geological storage project, a risk-based well integrity assessment aims at evaluating well(s) integrity performance with respect to CO2 leakage. It is followed by a risk mitigation phase, where the operator will decide which action(s) will best reduce the criticity of the risk: preventive (design) or corrective (remediation) actions, or monitoring. A risk is usually characterized by its criticity, which is the combination of the severity of a hazardous situation and the probability of the situation of occuring. In this framework, the objectives of a risk assessment study are, on the basis of the available data, (i) to identify risks and quantify their associated criticity and (ii) to treat the risks by selecting one or more options for decreasing risks and implementing those targeted actions. Preliminary steps At the beginning of a study, all relevant data are collected, quality checked, and interpreted so that it can further be used to model the well and the nearby environment. In parallel, the well is placed within the framework of the storage site and the overall system is described, with its main components and functions. Finally, the consequence grid is established to gather the different stakes involved in a CCS project in relation with a well integrity issue. Data collection The first step consists in gathering all available documents and data that will enable characterization of the well and of its surroundings. The well description (well trajectory, completion details) and the characteristics of its components (metallurgy of tubulars and packers, cement composition and properties) are usually obtained from: Well completion design documents; Drilling and cementing reports; Cement and corrosion logs; Production history; Workover reports. In addition, properties of all formations intersected by the well trajectory need to be characterized in order to later define boundary conditions for the well model, for instance layering and rock properties. These parameters are inferred from the analysis of logs and laboratory measurements on cores. System description and Functional Analysis The methodology is based on a systemic and functional approach. Before starting any risk analysis, the system must be

SPE-116424-PP

defined and its processes must be described. In our context, the physical environment of the well needs also to be included in the description of the overall system. Such environment is characterized by sub-systems which can interact with the well components. These sub-systems generally include (a simplified schematic of the system is described in Figure 2): intermediate geological formations (i.e. specific formations located above the CO2 reservoir and the cap rock); subsurface fluids; shallow subsurface or soils; sea floor and sea water in case of an offshore well; surface in case of an onshore well; atmosphere. To set the timescale, the performance and risk assessment period starts at the moment when CO2 enters into contact with the well and extends for tens, hundreds, or even thousands of years depending on the objectives of the study (injection, postinjection, abandonment). The construction of a detailed functional analysis of the wells is required to properly identify well components, their functions with respect to the main objective (i.e. zonal isolation) and their failure modes. The concept of function is central to the performance and risk analysis. An injection well essentially has two main functions: (i) to allow access to the storage formation for CO2 injections while (ii) providing hydraulic isolation between the storage layer and shallower formations (aquifers or other natural resources). This last function is the one considered in the framework of our paper. In this context, a well integrity failure corresponds to a CO2 leakage through the well. The systemic representation of a well highlights its main components (tubulars, cement sheaths, packers, cement plugs), their contribution to the function (i.e. hydraulic isolation) identified and the interactors which are defined as the elements of the near wellbore environment that can have a negative impact on the function. As an example, a simplified representation of the functional block diagram is shown in Figure 3. The main function of the well (i.e. zonal isolation) can be broken down into 6 sub-functions as follows: (F1) resist formation fluids pressure (F2) ensure sealing with respect to formation fluids (F3) resist CO2 pressure and temperature (F4) ensure sealing with respect to injected CO2 (F5) resist formation pressure. For each function of each component, specific failure modes will exist that could alter or defeat the function of the components. To these different failure modes can be associated causes and effects. An illustration is presented in Table 1, for cement sheath and casing components. Table 1: Functional Analysis - List of components, corresponding functions and possible failure modes with main causes and associated effects.
Components Function (F1): to resist formation fluids pressure (F2): to ensure sealing with respect to formation fluids (F3): to resist CO2 pressure and temperature (F4): to ensure sealing with respect to injected CO2 (F5): to resist formation pressure (creep) (F2): to ensure sealing with respect to formation fluids Cement (F4): to ensure sealing with respect to injected CO2 (F5): to resist formation pressure (creep) Failure mode Loss in mechanical resistance Loss in sealing with respect to the formation fluids Loss in mechanical resistance Overpressure Loss in sealing with respect to the CO2 Loss in mechanical resistance Loss of sealing with respect to the formation fluids Loss of sealing with respect to the CO2 Loss in mechanical resistance Causes Corrosion Effects Breaking and collapse Fluids can penetrate the well Corrosion, erosion Shrinkage due to temperature variation Operator Corrosion, erosion Corrosion Chemical degradation and/or leaching Cracking Chemical degradation and/or leaching Loss of cement sheath and transfer of the efforts to the casings Breaking and collapse Loss of bond between casing and cement Cracking of casing CO2 can penetrate the well Collapse and total effort transfer on cement sheaths Appreciable increase in permeability Severe increase in permeability Appreciable increase in permeability Creep of the cement sheath

Tubulars

SPE-116424-PP

Consequence grid The performance and risk analysis is a risk-based methodology, where the risk, or more precisely its criticity, is defined as the combination of two factors: (i) the probability for a component or a well to fail (loss of zonal isolation) and (ii) the severity of the consequences of this failure, which is related to the amount of CO2 leaked from the reservoir to a specific target of interest. Targets include any resource contained in the system environment, for example: fauna, flora, specific mineral resources, hydrocarbons, sources of drinking water, atmosphere, and humans. However, the consequence of a well integrity failure can also be intangible, as a geological CO2 storage project involves very different stakeholders: possible negative impacts on public opinion and confidence as well as corporate image should also be considered as other concerns. A proper way to obtain an overall view of the possible concerns provoked by a well integrity failure is to build a grid that contains all the stakes relating to those negative impacts and the corresponding consequence levels according to the magnitude of potential failures. The stakes correspond to the set of responsibilities within a project, related to specific stakeholders, which would be questioned in the case of a hazardous situation occuring (Table 2). For each stake, the different failure magnitudes are translated into specific severity (consequence) levels.
Table 2: List of possible targets and stakes involved in a CCS project TARGETS Partners STAKES Injection stops Financial Safety & Health Corporate (industrial policy) National Governement Corporate (regulation) Public opinion Society Public opinion Environment Affection of performance goals for CO2 geological storage Pollution of shallow aquifer Air pollution

Such a grid, called a consequence grid in the proposed methodology, is of paramount importance in a well integrity performance analysis, since it links the amount of CO2 leaked to its impact, and later the assessment of the risk and its criticity. The consequence grid is represented in the form of a matrix: (i) each column corresponds to a stake {Sti} involved in the project; (ii) rows list the various consequence levels, ranked according to a severity scale; (iii) and each cell of the matrix is filled with the quantitative or qualitative consequence of a CO2 leakage with respect to each of the stakes. In practical studies, the severity scale is usually divided into 6 severity values/levels: minor, low, serious, major, critical and extreme. They explain what is meant by CO2 leakage impact and effects on targets, for example: CO2 exposure threshold for humans; CO2 exposure threshold for a change in biodiversity; Project reputation in terms of corporate top management questioning the technical capability; Public opinion in terms of the spread of the news (from local to international); The financial OPEX; Each stakeholder is solicited in this process of building the consequence grid, and is asked to provide a range of consequence levels that refers to the range of magnitude of the leak and its impact. A key step in the deployment of the methodology is the validation of each column of the consequence grid by the corresponding stakeholder. An example of a consequence grid is given in Table 3, where few consequences are listed with respect to their corresponding stake and associated severity value.

SPE-116424-PP

Table 3: An example of a Consequence grid with a list of stakes involved in a CO2 storage project and severity levels for some stakes Stakes Personal injury 1: Minor 2: Low 3: Serious Severity levels / no impact First aid Public opinion Additional OPEX Financial < 0.1 M$ [0.1 0.5[ M$ [0.5 1[ M$ [1 5[ M$ CO2 storage performance goals Loss < 0.01 % of injected CO2 Loss = [0.01-0.05[ % of injected CO2 Loss = [0.05-0.1[ % of injected CO2 Loss = [0.1-0.5[ % of injected CO2 Loss = [0.5-1[ % of injected CO2 Corporate Perception of know how no impact Technical skill non affected (project is considered as a test) Top Management becomes suspicious about technical skill Lack of confidence from Top Management Request for a demonstration of technical feasibility Questioning from the Top Management about the technical capability to assume CO2 storage projects Termination of project Field is not considered as a CO2 storage field Environment

4: Major

Medical treatment

5: Critical

Serious personnal injury

[5 10[ M$

Serious pers. Injury, 6: Extreme possible permanent injury

>= 10 M$

Loss >= 1 % of injected CO2

Static model construction Data interpretation For a given well, a preliminary assessment of well integrity is made, using all available characterization measurements and accounting for their associated uncertainty range. Collected data are processed and interpreted to identify both the geometry and the properties of all well components. Typical components and their characteristics are: Casings: material (type of alloy), diameter, thickness, overlaps, shoe depths, centring in the drilling hole ; Cement sheaths: thickness, rat hole lengths, conditions (zones of free pipe, micro annuli ), vertical and horizontal permeability values, Advanced cement evaluation can be achieved using the most recent ultrasonic logging technologies. However, such data is not always available, in particular for old wells, where the interpretation has to be made from traditional cement bond logs (CBL) and variable density logs (VDL). In this case, the technique presented in Figure 4 and discussed in [15] is generally used to infer cement permeability values and their relative range of uncertainty (min/max). Similarly, when possible, the corrosion of tubulars (casings and tubings) is estimated from ultrasonic, electromagnetic or multi-finger caliper measurements. Open-hole logging data such as GR, Density and Pe, Neutron Porosity, Electrical / Electromagnetic measurements, and when available Nuclear Magnetic Resonance are interpreted to identify lithology and the main rock properties (porosity and permeability; fluid saturations). These log-derived properties are often compared and calibrated with core data for accuracy. Segmented well model Since the well has to be put in its geological context to further evaluate the risk of attack by formation fluids and CO2-rich fluids, the well model needs to extend from the well axis to the near wellbore. In order to keep such a model simple enough to be practical, we use a 2D axisymetric description of the well, each layer having constant characteristics or properties. The segmentation process accounts for well components, formation layers, but also possible heterogeneity of cement sheaths and quality of bonding [15] [16] [17]. Each layer has a single value for each formation property (e.g. average porosity), cement sheath properties accounting for bond quality through an effective cement permeability approach, casing and tubing thicknesses and characteristics At this stage, the process for assessing cement sheath permeabilities is critical and is split in several steps: A preliminary evaluation of the cements is made from the interpretation of cement logs (e.g. CBL/VDL) taking into account the possible presence of a microannulus (for instance due to reservoir de-pressurization during early

SPE-116424-PP

production phases); Permeability values may be modified to account for the probable cement leaching phenomena when exposed to saline water and other formation fluids; Permeability values may also be changed to account for the specific injection conditions which may result in a probable double micro annulus in the vicinity of the injection zone.

Additional studies are used to better characterize the quality of bonding between casing and cement, or cement and formation: thermo-mechanical models are used to predict the occurrence of micro-annuli, or cracks in the cement sheath, due to pressure and temperature cycles induced by operations. These computations account for geological formations (reservoir, cap rock or overburden), cement, and casing mechanical properties. Well families When wells have similar designs, completion and cement sheaths, and similar positioning in the geological sequence, they can be gathered within a family, and described by a single well (typical well), representative of all wells of the corresponding family. A specific homogenization technique is used to build this reference well. Properties to be carefully considered in this process are: Depth of geological formations; Casing depths and thicknesses; Cement sheath thicknesses; Rat hole lengths; Initial cement permeability values; Position of the CO2 injection tubing. Dynamic model Once the static model of the typical well is built, it is used as input to a dynamic simulator. The goal of this simulator is (i) to predict the degradation of well components exposed to CO2 and near wellbore environment over time (which may lead to leakage pathways in the completion), and (ii) to compute CO2 leakage rates at any point of interest (shallow aquifer, surface). Critical inputs for this simulator will be the various degradation mechanisms associated to well components, together with their corresponding kinetics, and the boundary conditions (formation fluid composition). Numerical simulations will be performed to assess the risk of CO2 leakage over the time period to be considered in the study. Degradation mechanisms For each well component (cement, tubular, packers), the following degradation mechanisms are considered [18]: Corrosion for tubulars (pitting or generalized corrosion) [19] [20]; Chemical attack for cement-based materials (leaching, carbonation or dry-out) [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]] [26] [27]; Mechanical degradations (microannuli creation due to pressure or temperature cycles); Other completion degradation mechanisms due to flow, such as erosion [28]; These processes are described in more detail below. Cement Leaching by formation fluids (in absence of CO2) Cement based materials are reactive porous media in which solid phases are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the surrounding pore solution chemistry. When in contact with acidic aqueous solutions, acid attack of cementitious materials takes place. The hydrates leaching process is essentially caused by the difference of composition and chemical activity between water in contact with cement and the pore solution inside cement. This difference of composition causes the movement of ions out of the cement, and subsequent dissolution of cement minerals (mainly hydrates: Portlandite, CSH). Experimental work has shown that the alteration of the cement-based materials depends on the chemical composition of cement as well as the pH of the acid solution. As the pH decreases, Portlandite (pH stability equals to 12.6), C-S-H (Calcium Silicate Hydrate, pH stability ~ 10-11), calcium aluminate and ferrite hydrates are successively dissolved. The ultimate material resulting from this alteration process is a silica gel when pH is below approximately 2 [29]. Cement leaching increases porosity and permeability and decreases compressive strength. The corresponding degradation front is diffusion dependent, progressing with the square root of time. The degradation kinetic depends mainly on the fluid properties and the chemical composition of cement. It was assessed that the alteration front would progress upward at a rate of up to a few tenths of millimeters per year [23]. Cement attack in CO2 environment In the presence of CO2, cement carbonation is a chemical phenomenon that comprises several steps [24]: CO2 dissolution in cement pore water and formation of carbonate ions CO32-

SPE-116424-PP

Reaction of carbonate ions with Portlandite Ca(OH)2 and C-S-H; CaCO3 precipitation (calcite or aragonite) and formation of a silica gel CaCO3 dissolution in case of acid water flow.

The combined actions of carbonation and acid water dissolution result in an increase in porosity and permeability of the cement bulk. The altered front thickness follows a diffusive law and varies with the square root of time. It was assessed that, once CO2 reached the Portland cement, the alteration front would progress at a rate of up to a few millimeters per year [24], [25]. The presence of a microannulus is likely to increase the speed of CO2-induced degradation due to combined effects of convection and diffusion. Casing corrosion by electrochemical processes Casing can not be corroded as long as the pH remains above 10.5, because it guarantees the presence of a passive protective iron oxide film (Fe(OH)3) at casings surface. In the wellbore, the presence of cement ensures this high alkalinity. Nevertheless, degradation of cement by formation fluids or in the presence of CO2 will cause a drop in pH and the subsequent disappearing of the protective film, thus allowing corrosion. Beginning of corrosion initiates the development of an annulus at the interface between casing and cement sheath, which is considered as a preferential flow path for CO2 (i.e. a zone of greater permeability values). The process of aqueous corrosion and the corrosion rate on steels are well known. The factors determining the rate of corrosion are, among others, the temperature, CO2 partial pressure, water composition Casing corrosion can occur through two different mechanisms: (i) generalized corrosion that occurs mostly at the casing surface (ii) pitting corrosion, which particularly takes place in presence of chlorides. Pitting corrosion is generally faster and has more serious consequences on well integrity as it leads to faster casing breakthrough. Corrosion in the presence of CO2 is insignificant in dry conditions, but becomes critical if CO2 is dissolved in water [18]. Model parameters such as corrosion rates and cement leaching/carbonation kinetics can be calibrated through experimental tests including accelerated testings and time-lapse well integrity monitoring measurements. Initial and boundary conditions In addition to the degradation mechanisms' governing laws, both initial and boundary conditions need to be specified (note that these conditions may vary with time), for instance: Initial water pressure profile along the wellbore Pressure at the top of the well and downhole injection pressure Flow condition between cement sheaths and geological formations along the wellbore (that will define possible CO2 migration from the well to some geological formations) Fluid saturations in formations intersected by the borehole. CO2 leakage model Each cement sheath is described as a porous media, whose properties such as porosity and permeabilities are modified to account for degradation effects, saturated with a water phase and a CO2 phase. CO2 transport through the wells components is mainly governed by pressure gradient and capillary pressure. Gas (CO2) and liquid (water) transported within cement are assumed to be governed by Darcys law. The model uses the Van Genuchten law to relate water saturation of the cement matrix to its flow properties [30].
1 Sw = 1 + ( )n
m

with: Sw: water saturation in the cement matrix (in %); , m, n: cement pore size distribution parameters; : capillary pressure (in bar). Risk Assessment Leakage scenarios definition At this stage, the purpose is to build leakage scenarios that result from well completion components. Since the description or the properties of the system are not always perfectly known, uncertainties often have to be considered on parameters such as (i) geometrical and mechanical properties of the static model, (ii) degradation mechanism kinetics, and (iii) initial and boundary conditions. Each scenario will thus be a combination of a specific set of parameters describing the static and dynamic models within the range of uncertainties. CO2 leakage simulations will then be performed for each of those scenarios, which, depending on the probabilistic distribution law that describes each parameter, will have specific probabilities of occurrence.

SPE-116424-PP

As a matter of efficiency and in order to do an initial sorting of the relevant scenarios to simulate, it is beneficial to target the key parameters that contribute to a CO2 leakage. To that purpose, design of experiment approach is an appropriate framework to assess the impact of all variables and of their interactions on a system response. Leakage scenario modelling Once defined, well integrity scenarios are simulated over the given time period. The output of each simulation is a CO2 leakage mass, as a function of time, in any target of interest (shallow aquifers, surface). Figure 6 and Figure 7 show examples of leakage scenario modeling outputs. Figure 6 presents the cumulative mass of CO2 leakage from the reservoir over 1000 years for a given leakage scenario. Figure 7 displays the water saturation of the well components for another scenario after a period of 100 years and 1000 years. The well components are initially considered as saturated with water. Under the specific assumptions made for these simulations, the following results and conclusions are obtained: Due to their characteristics, the cement sheaths are the component mainly responsible for CO2 leakages The casing string is never completely corroded and thus does not constitute a pathway for CO2 leakages during the first 100 years A low volume of CO2 may leak compared to the overall volume of injected CO2 It is likely that there will be no leak at surface (leakage will be limited to the shallower aquifer) even after 1000 years. The amount of CO2 leakage in any target of interest is used as input in the next steps. Risk quantification and risk mapping The quantification of risk, expressed in terms of criticity, allows ranking and identifying critical risk for treatment. For each scenario corresponding to a failure of hydraulic isolation (i.e. CO2 leakage along the well), the leakage rate or mass is converted into a severity level (i.e. a consequence level) according to the consequence grid. The combination of the severity level with the probability for the scenario to occur allows the quantification of a risk level or criticity value. Quantifying the risk level for all scenarios enables the construction of a map of all risks, a process called risk mapping. It gives an overall picture of the risks at any given time of interest (injection, post-injection, abandonment). Risk mapping constitutes a powerful support for the operators to predict and communicate on the well integrity performance. Practically, the risk mapping is performed by filling a color coding grid with each couple (probability, severity level) corresponding to all scenarios which lead to CO2 leakage. Figure 8 gives an example of such an output for a well integrity project for the long term (i.e. 1000 years). In the final step, the robustness of the risk mapping process is checked. At this stage, the objective is mainly (i) to identify the relative weight of each parameter in the estimation of criticity, and the assumptions used (ii) to evaluate whether a specific scenario could present a higher criticity (higher risk), and (iii) to provide a framework towards the identification of the risk sources. Risk distribution and risk ranking A reverse analysis of the risk mapping performed for the reference well of a family allows a risk map to be derived for each well of this family. This process is called risk distribution. For a given well, risk distribution is achieved in three steps: (i) identification of parameters used for defining the dynamic model which vary from those of the reference well characteristics (ii) evaluation of the impact of these variables on both the minimum and maximum criticity values (i.e. min and max risk levels) found in the risk mapping, and (iii) updating of minimum and maximum criticity values assessment derived from the impact analysis. This process makes it possible to attain a quantitative ranking of all wells of the same family and thus to obtain a comparative view of the well integrity performance with respect to possible CO2 leakages over the studied phase. An illustration of the risk distribution process is given in Figure 9. Risk Treatment Acceptable risk threshold The principle that should govern the decision for an acceptable risk level is that, in real conditions, setting an acceptable risk level to 100% certainty of no CO2 leakage is neither relevant, nor realistic. In these conditions, it is necessary to define the risk level that is deemed acceptable for the stakeholders. Such a threshold is a baseline for: Proposing which CO2 leakage scenarios must be addressed in priority (those above the risk threshold); Recommending the most relevant actions to perform in order to bring unacceptable risk levels below the threshold.

SPE-116424-PP

Defining an acceptable level of risk means to avoid undesirable impacts (i.e. consequences) with respect to the set of stakes involved in the project and/or the likelihood of specific (i.e. identified) well integrity conditions (Figure 8 gives an example of an acceptable risk level). No specific method exists to determine the acceptable risk level associated to a well integrity failure, but it is defined by the project manager that has to: Align the stakeholders perception of non tolerable risk levels to the general organizations risk appetite or risk aversion; Reflect the organization values and objectives that are generally developed in the Corporate Integrated Management System (CIMS); Comply with legal and regulatory requirements. Risk sources identification The risk assessment study continues with the identification of the component characteristics which contribute to the highest criticity scenarios, also called risk sources. This will be the basis for the risk mitigation plan. Risk sources are identified from both the functional analysis and the risk assessment study. Risk sources can be: Well component characteristics (i.e. tubulars, cement zones); Uncertainties associated with the geometrical, physical and mechanical properties; Degradation mechanisms. And practically, the identification of risk sources will consist of: Ranking the failure scenarios according to the maximum criticity values; Identifying groups of scenarios according to common failure modes; Identifying risk sources based on those common modes. Recommendations The general purpose of this last step is to recommend relevant actions that contribute to ensuring that all risk will remain below the acceptable level for each of the wells located in a CO2 storage field. Risk mitigation actions can either contribute to lowering the probability of occurrence, the severity of a CO2 leakage, or both. Risk mitigation actions are of four types: Targeted additional characterization/inspection actions that will allow reduction of uncertainties on some parameters (for instance cement zones permeability, casing or cement thickness ) Mitigation solutions like targeted workovers that will treat risk sources (e.g. degraded well components: microannuli or casing holes) after characterization/inspection actions have identified them Operational best practices, for instance sporadic casing pressure tests or CO2 water content controls during the injection phase Monitoring to control the evolution of the system and allow identification of a potential hazard before it occurs (aggressiveness of specific fluid formations, CO2 carbonation front penetration rate, extent of microannuli in the wellbore ). In order to be fully operational, such recommendations have to be made for each well. They are proposed in the form of decision trees taking into account operational constraints. An example of a decision tree is shown in Figure 10 where propositions were initially formulated for targeted actions such as characterization and/or inspection recommendations, in order to clarify the levels of uncertainty of specific parameters. Following this, propositions were made for risk mitigation actions (design, operational, monitoring recommendations) that would contribute to ensuring that the acceptable maximum criticity level is never reached. The final step consisted of an update of the risk ranking with data recorded during this additional characterization / inspection phase, which led to an adjustment of the recommendations. Conclusion This paper presents the application of an innovative quantitative performance and risk assessment methodology applied to well integrity within CCS projects. This model-based approach significantly improves current practices because of its capability to optimize engineering decisions and to appropriately communicate recommendations which focus on owner stakes. It also offers a great opportunity to risk managers to anticipate failures and hazards, and to engage prevention programs. This methodology provides a comprehensive risk-based assessment in the form of a quantitative risk mapping over the storage period (from tens or even hundreds of years). A risk ranking is then proposed on the basis of the risk mapping, which reveals which wells will maintain hydraulic isolation over the storage lifespan, or identify which actions need to be performed to enhance the sealing competence of others which are likely to be deficient. Once the sources of risk are

10

SPE-116424-PP

identified, solutions for risk mitigation can be proposed and also ranked according to a specific performance criterion. Recommendations of targeted actions on risk sources are provided in the form of operational decision trees that allow the management of well integrity performance throughout the injection phase and beyond. References
[1] IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp., 2005 [2] Chadwick, R.A. et al., CO2STORE: The Valleys case study on CO2 capture, transport and storage. Report No. COAL R302 DTI/Pub URN 06/755, Natural Environmental research Council, February 59 pp., 2006 [3] Stenhouse, M. et al., Framework methodology for long-term assessment of the fate of CO2 in the Weyburn field. In: Thomas, D.C. and Benson, S.M. (eds.), Carbon dioxide capture for storage in deep geologic formations results from the CO2 Capture Project, 2, 1251-1261, Elsevier Ltd., 2005 [4] Bowden, A.R. & Rigg A., Assessing risk in CO2 storage projects. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Journal, 44, pp. 677-702, 2004 [5] Godwin, B., et al., A review of risk assessment methods relevant to geological sequestration of CO2. Special report to Petroleum Technology Research Center for Phase 1 of the IEA Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project, ECOMatters Inc., 49 pp., 2003 [6] IEA GHG Role of Risk Assessment in Regulatory Framework for Geological Storage of CO2 Feedback from Regulators and Implementers, IEA GHG Technical Study, Report No.: 2007/2, 2007 [7] Maul, P.R. et al., Development of a FEP database for the geological storage of carbon dioxide. In: Wilson, M., Morris, T., Gale, J. and Thambimithu, K. (eds.), Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 1, 701-710, 2005 [8] Pawar, R. et al., Development of a framework for long-term performance assessment of geologic CO2 sequestration sites. In: Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8) 2006 [9] Vendrig, M. et al., Risk analysis of the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. DNV Consulting Report No. R246 DTI/Pub URN 03/1320, 2003 [10] Wildenborg, T. et al., Long term safety assessment of CO2 storage: The scenario approach. In: Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-7), 2004 [11] Van Der Beken, A. Le Gouvec, J. Grard, B. and Youssef, S. 2007. Well Integrity Assessment and Modelling for CO2 injection. In Proceedings of WEC07, Alger, Algeria. [12] Frenette, R. et al., Risk-based safety demonstration of well integrity and leak evaluation for CO2 long term storage, in In: Eigth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), Trondheim, Norway, 2006 [13] Frenette, R. et al., Performance and Risk Assessment of Well Integrity in Long-Term CO2 Geological Storage. In Society for Risk Assessment Conference, 2006 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006 [14] Gerard, B. et al., Well integrity in CO2 environments: Performance & Risk, technologies, in CO2SC Symposium, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, 2006 [15] Grosmarin M., et al. "The Cement Bond Log- A Sonic Method For Analysing The Quality of Cementation of Borehole Casings", SPE 1512; Denver October 2-5, 1960 [16] Boukhelifa L., et al., Evaluation of Cement Systems for Oil and Gas Well Zonal Isolation in a Full Scale Annular Geometry, SPE 87195 [17] Vichit-Vadakan W. and Sherer G.W., Measuring Permeability of Rigid Materials by a beam-bending Method: III, Cement Paste, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 85 (6) pp. 1537-1544, 2002 [18] Cailly, B. et al, Geological storage of CO2: A-state-of-the-art of the injection processes and technologies, OSGT, vol. 60(3), 2005 [19] ASM International ed. 3, Corrosion in the Petrochemical Industry, 1994 [20] Hesjevik, et al., Corrosion at high CO2 pressure, Institute for Energy Technology in Norway - Statoil. NACE International no. 03345, 2003 [21] Tanaka, D., The Changes in Physical Property of Casing Cement by Supercritical CO2 for Geological Sequestration, bachelor thesis, 2004 [22] Gerard, B., Contribution des couplages mcanique-chimie-transfert dans la tenue long terme des ouvrages de dchets radioactifs , PhD thesis, 1996 (in french) [23] Kamali, S., Comportement et simulations de matriaux cimentaires en environnement agressifs", PhD thesis, 2003 (in french) [24] Duguid, A., The effect of CO2 sequestration on oil well cements, In: Eigth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), 2006 [25] Barlet-Goudard, V., et al. Mitigation strategies for the risk of CO2 migration through wellbores. IADC/SPE 98924, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 2006 [26] Barlet-Goudard, V. et al.e, O., Well technologies for CO2 geological storage: CO2-resistant cement. Oil Gas Sci. Technol., 62, 325334, 2007 [27] Jacquemet, N., et al., A new experimental procedure for simulation of H2S and CO2 geological storage: application to well cement ageing, Oil Gas Sci. Technol., 60, 193-203, 2005 [28] Malka, R. et al., Erosion corrosion and synergistic effects in disturbed liquid particle flow, NACE 06594, 2006 [29] Lecolier E., et al., Durability of Hardened Portland Cement Paste used for Oilwell Cementing, Oil & Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP, Vol. 62 (2007), No. 3, pp. 335-345 [30] Mainguy M. Modles de diffusion non-linaires en milieux poreux. Applications la dissolution et au schage des matriaux cimentaires, thesis dissertation, 1999 (in french)

SPE-116424-PP

11

12

SPE-116424-PP

Figure 1: Well integrity performance and risk workflow [11]

Requires COLOR

Figure 2: Schematic view of the wellbore environment system

Requires COLOR

Formation (F 1) fluids fluids (F 2) Cement sheaths (F 5) Geological formations Casings

(F 4) CO2

(F 3)

Figure 3: Functional block diagram description

Requires COLOR

SPE-116424-PP

13

Figure 4: CBL-VDL Qualitative Interpretation Criteria [11]

Claystone Sandstone Aquifer

Legend
tubular Mud cavities Cement plug

Limestone

Cement sheath

Marl Caprock

Fluid flow

CO2 Reservoir
Figure 5: Systemic decomposition and fluid flow along wellbore Requires COLOR

14

SPE-116424-PP

Figure 6: Cumulated mass of CO2 leakage from reservoir (expressed in kg) over 1000 years for a specific scenario
(a) T=100 years
surface Geological formation Saline aquifer Well limit
Geological formation Saline aquifer

(b)

T=1000 years
surface Well limit Cement plug

Caprock

Caprock

CO2 reservoir

CO2 reservoir

Figure 7: Evolution of water saturation within wells components for the same specific scenario after (a) 100 years and (b) 1000 TM Requires COLOR years (Simulations performed with SIMEO STOR)

Severities
Minor 1 6 12 Low 2 0 Serious 3 0 Major 4 0 Critical 5 6 Extreme 6 0

22

31

45

23

Frequencies

13

277

151

24

10

306

45

12

15

36

87

46

21

14

Acceptable risk level

Figure 8: Risk mapping for a typical well after 1000 years

Requires COLOR

SPE-116424-PP
Scenarios number 200 100 Scenarios number 200 100

15

Well 1

Well 2

Minor

Minor

Serious

Serious

Extreme

Critical

Critical

Major

Major

Severities
Minor 1 6 12 Low 2 0 Serious 3 0 Major 4 0 Critical 5 6 Extreme 6 0

22

31

45

23

Frequencies

Typical well

13

277

151

24

10

306

45

12

15

36

87

46

21

14

Scenarios number 200 100

Well 3

Scenarios number 200 100 Criticity level

Well 4

Minor

Serious

Low

Critical

Major

Extreme

Extreme

Criticity level

Criticity level

Low

Low

Minor

Serious

Critical

Major

Figure 9: Risk mapping distribution for individual wells of the same family obtained from distribution from reference well results Requires COLOR

Updated Risk Ranking

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

Clarify uncertainties

Global impact mitigation Residual Risk Ranking

Characterization/ Inspection actions

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

Field data for some contributors to the risk => criticity update

Workover & Design actions

Update of Criticity values for all wells Choose best 2 wells Workover actions

or
Well abandonment

no

Criticity 7 ?
yes

Other Design actions

Start injection in selected wells

Operations & Monitoring actions

Operational actions Monitoring actions

Time lapse Update of Criticity values for injectors

no

Criticity 7 ?

yes

Figure 10: An example of decision tree for recommendations

Requires COLOR

Extreme

Criticity level

Low

16

SPE-116424-PP