Waters J.,Boots and Coots
Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Middle East Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainable Development Conference and Exhibition, MEHSE 2014 | Year: 2014
Although industry regulatory risk management practices relating to well control are generally adhered to, unrealistically optimistic assumptions about the ability to control and contain a catastrophic event are still held by some. This is not necessarily a fault of the risk processes per se, but exposes an industry deficiency when expectations of any given risk assessment lead to a false sense of security, especially when history has shown that when stress-tested some contingency plans have failed to deliver. Historically, in the aftermath of a disaster, lobbying for tighter legislation and regulation has been the reaction; more enlightened operators, in reviewing their overall health safety and environment (HSE) culture realize and understand the need to incorporate a well-constructed Emergency Response Plan (ERP) including a Well Control Contingency Plan (WCCP) in to the pre-execution phase of their well planning and to keep these plans updated throughout the execution of the well. As insurance premiums to underwrite an endeavour become increasingly cost prohibitive the approach towards prevention rather than cure becomes paramount, and more emphasis and energy is placed on constructing a robust and comprehensive risk assessment as part of the overall risk management of a well, regulatory requirements notwithstanding. To this end operators would benefit from leveraging from both within and without the operator's organization the years of practical expertise at hand, to assist in assembling a comprehensive and vigorous risk prevention and mitigation approach. This might include auditing an existing plan or building one from scratch using a qualified body that specializes in the complexities that constitute an emergency response, mitigating insurance underwriting costs and ensuring that contingency planning is established at the earliest opportunity. Copyright © 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wehrenberg S.R.,Boots and Coots |
Baxter O.,Boots and Coots
Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition 2010 | Year: 2010
This paper will discuss the use and advantages of employing snubbing units during and after well control operations. The benefits of snubbing units compared to coiled tubing are widely known and generally accepted in the industry. During some well control operations the advantages a snubbing unit provides can positively impact the outcome of the well. From its inception solely as a mechanism for handing tubulars during well control operations, snubbing has evolved into a highly versatile technology, offering myriad operational, economic and HSE benefits. To illustrate the versatility of new generation snubbing technology in a variety of well control situations, the authors will present case studies of a number of diverse applications. The paper is intended to educate operators and service contractors alike by sharing experiences, lessons learned and demonstrating the effectiveness of snubbing units in a variety of hostile well control environments, including its use with gunk squeezes.
Wehrenberg S.,Boots and Coots
Society of Petroleum Engineers - IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference 2010 | Year: 2010
Typically, in a high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) well, operators incorporate heavy workover and drilling fluids to provide a barrier to control the pressure. Often, the end result is formation damage, loss of un-recoverable fluids and appreciable increases in workover and completion costs. To help alleviate this and other problems in challenging environments, the use of snubbing units has come into vogue as a viable solution to the obstacles and resulting problems associated with drilling, workover and completion operations in an HPHT environment. The technology has evolved to the point that it can efficiently perform any function required of a conventional drilling rig. Recent experiences in the Haynesville and other un-conventional shale gas plays onshore the US have demonstrated the advantages of snubbing units in a variety of applications, including those involving hostile HPHT environments. This paper discusses the evolution, design and application of snubbing units for HPHT applications with particular emphasis on the pre-well planning involved. To illustrate the operational, economic and environmental advantages of snubbing technology compared to coiled tubing and other more conventional approaches, the authors will present operational data from a recent HPHT well, along with a discussion on the ideal scenarios where snubbing technology should be considered. Designed to provide insight for both operators and service companies, the paper will share experiences and lessons learned to demonstrate the effectiveness of snubbing units in an HPHT wellbore. Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
George J.,Boots and Coots
Proceedings of the American Gas Association, Operating Section | Year: 2012
A presentation on blowout response covers risk management, engineering, response, and well control contingency planning; well control and response; training and engineering issues; equipment services; coiled tubing; pipeline and process services; emergency response plans; rig crew competency and drills; behavior based safety; and incident command. This is an abstract of a paper presented at the 2012 AGA Operations Conference (San Francisco, CA 5/1-4/2012).
Wattanasuwankorn R.,Boots and Coots |
Ashby S.,Boots and Coots |
Hammer F.,Boots and Coots |
Long N.,Royal Dutch Shell |
And 2 more authors.
Society of Petroleum Engineers - Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition 2013 | Year: 2013
An offshore operator in Brunei faced the challenge of increasing the injectivity in water-flooded fields to improve hydrocarbon production. The solution chosen was to use a stimulation vessel with coiled tubing (CT), nitrogen, and pumping capability to perform well interventions to achieve the injection targets. The operation faced challenging offshore weather conditions, limited platform access, lack of crane facilities, aging offshore facilities, and had to provide an emergency disconnect system, while improving the operational efficiency from existing methods. The stimulation vessel was used in conjunction with some new concepts to the CT offshore operation. These novel concepts included using a full catenary system for CT operations, a dynamic positioning vessel, a knuckle boom crane, and a heave compensated gangway. The full catenary system was selected for the CT operation to minimize lifting hazards, improve equipment installation lead times, and improve the stimulation vessel operating efficiency. The dynamic positioning vessel eliminated anchoring requirements and provided enhanced efficiency for evacuation and approach to offshore facilities. The knuckle boom crane provided the capability to lift in different angles for equipment placement in difficult positions, even underneath a platform helideck. The heave compensated gangway provided extremely safe transfer of personnel between the stimulation vessel and the offshore facilities. It also provided a safe emergency response and evacuation facility in the event of sudden severe weather, platform emergency, or worsening sea conditions. The advantages and benefits of using these concepts for offshore operation have resulted in a significant improvement in terms of operational efficiency and safety for the stimulation vessel. Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers.