Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fugro, Netherlands
* Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT A well incident may affect the geotechnical reliability of the well itself and that of a nearby offshore structure. Offshore well
incidents can include (1) fluid and gas escape/seepage, (2) loss of drilling fluid, (3) drilling slow down or shut down and (4) well casing
buckling. This paper describes re-assessment of geotechnical conditions after an offshore well incident. The focus is on detection of geotechnical features or geohazards that can control post-incident conditions, particularly shallow gas and excess pore pressure. Presented
technologies include seismic reflection by use of ocean bottom nodes (OBN), acquisition of physical samples of gas in soil and measurement of pore pressure in gassy soil.
RSUM Un incident de puits de ptrole peut affecter la stabilit et lintgrit de ce mme puits et dune structure existante en mer
proximit de ce puits. Les incidents associs des puits ptroliers en mer comprennent (1) chappement et suintement de fluides ou de gaz,
(2) perte de boues de forage, (3) ralentissement ou arrt des oprations de forage et (4) rupture du cuvelage des puits de ptrole. Ce papier
dcrit la rvaluation des conditions gotechniques aprs un incident de puits de forage en mer. Ce papier met laccent sur la dtection de
caractristiques gotechniques ou dalas gologiques pouvant contrler ces mmes conditions aprs un incident en particulier les rservoirs de gaz faible profondeur et les surpressions deaux interstitielles. Les nouvelles technologies prsentes ici incluent la sismique rflexion utilisant des hydro- et gophones placs sur les fonds marins, encore appels Ocean Bottom Nodes (OBN), lacquisition
dchantillons physiques de gaz prsents dans le sol et la mesure des pressions deaux interstitielles dans les sols gazeux.
WELL INCIDENTS
from the ground into the well and (4) fluid or gas escape into the marine and atmospheric environments.
The well conductor is the upper casing. It provides
bearing resistance against axial and lateral actions,
apart from its function as barrier element. Other
terms used for a well conductor include conductor
pipe, conductor casing, structural casing and well
casing. A well conductor can be installed by drilling,
jetting, impact driving and vibratory driving. Depths
to approximately 60 m to 80 m below seafloor are
typical. Deeper installation by impact driving is occasionally implemented, with constraints by high
steel stresses, fatigue damage and directional stability.
The casings are lowered into oversized holes that
are obtained from direct circulation drilling. The an-
195
nulus between the ground and the casing, and overlapping casing elements is filled with grout.
Well incidents are usually subject to forensic engineering: the investigation of materials, products,
structures or components that fail or do not operate or
function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property (Wikipedia 2015). Such investigation is covered by, for example, Section 12 Assessment of Existing Structures of ISO (2013). This
section states: An assessment shall be conducted to
this International Standard when an existing structure
has deteriorated significantly or has been damaged and: Where operational experience shows
that the acceptability of certain aspects of design is
uncertain, fitness-for-purpose shall be determined by
specific assessment and appropriate measures taken
to maintain acceptable standards of performance. It
can be inferred that determination of fitness-forpurpose can include geotechnical conditions. More
specifically, re-assessment of geotechnical conditions
can be necessary to estimate change from geotechnical conditions present before the well incident.
In many situations, information on geotechnical
conditions after a well incident will not be complete
and exact. It is the authors experience that reassessment of geotechnical conditions will, therefore,
need to draw on so-called tacit expert knowledge.
This means senior expertise, with access to geotechnical knowledge and experience. Judgement and
opinion are inevitable and a senior expert or a team
of senior experts is more likely to arrive at a correct
understanding and an appropriate way forward.
Judgement is qualitative and subjective. It should
be expressed as clearly as possible. Common subjective terms used by engineers are low probability and
high probability, as illustrated by ISO (2013). Table 1 shows probability expressions proposed by the
authors. The expressions are intended for a context of
approximate and subjective probability of the occurrence of a hazardous event or phenomena during a
defined exposure period. The proposed probability
values are close to values given by more extensive
systems such as Vick (2002) and AGS (2000).
Note that event probability differs from risk,
where risk is defined as the product of probability
and consequence.
Table 1. Proposed expressions for approximate and subjective
probability.
Term
Verbal descriptor
Negligible
Low
High
Approximate
probability
for exposure
period
0 to 0.01
0.01 to 0.1
0.1 to 1
An offshore well incident can change the geotechnical conditions in the vicinity of the well. Such anthropogenic change can affect (1) the installation feasibility or integrity of an offshore well or well cluster
197
which led to weak ground zones, i.e. disturbed geotechnical conditions. These disturbed geotechnical
conditions led to post-installation settlement of the
well conductor and reduced the pile foundation capacity of a fixed jacket platform located at the well
site.
Figure 2. Changes in geotechnical conditions after an offshore well incident (not to scale).
198
Vulnerability
No or narrow window
for pressure-balanced
drilling or grouting of
open hole
Balling up of clay in
drill bit or drill pipe
Gas/ fluid/ soil blowout
during open hole drilling
Ground compression
causing stress/strain
build-up around well
conductor
Potential consequences
Gas/ fluid/ soil blowout
and associated hazard of
toxic gas, fire, explosion
Reduction of geotechnical
bearing resistance to extreme applied actions to
well conductor and foundation of nearby structure
Movement/ damage/
change of dynamic response of well conductor
and foundation of nearby
structure
Fluid and gas escape/seepage through barrier system (steel, grout
and ground)
Potential consequences
Drilling slow down or
shut down because of loss
of window for pressurebalanced drilling or grouting of open hole
Gas/ fluid/ soil blowout
during open hole drilling
and associated hazards of
toxic gas, fire, explosion
Reduction of geotechnical
bearing resistance to extreme applied actions to
well conductor and foundation of nearby structure
Movement/ damage/
change of dynamic response of well conductor
and foundation of nearby
structure
Fluid and gas escape/seepage through incomplete grout barrier
and through ground
Reduction of durability of
well conductor
4
4.1
RE-ASSESSMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL
CONDITIONS
Investigation approach
199
200
Figure 4. Potential for detecting features or geohazards that control geotechnical conditions. Refer to main text for explanation.
Table 6. Investigation tools for re-assessment of geotechnical conditions (adapted from Peuchen 2012).
Tool
Mode
Depth Applicability
limit
[m]
(A) (B) (C)
5.2
Seismic reflection
pressure connection between drill fluid and pore fluid. This is occasionally overlooked by some in practice. Checks and mitigation can consider (a) comparison of test results for multiple test points, (b)
maximising the distance between a test point and the
drill bit, (c) selecting a soil zone with a low permeability layer between the bottom of the borehole and
the test point.
Nageswaran (1983) demonstrated that measurement of pore fluid pressure in gassy soils could require special precautions not required for watersaturated soil. Gas migration into the measuring sys-
203
tem can cause a delay in response and, more important, may give readings higher than the actual
pore water pressure. Figure 6 illustrates the conclusions of Nageswaran for a piezocone penetrometer:
measured pressure u2 = u + 2T(1/rsb 1/rm), where u
is in-situ pore pressure, rsb is bubble radius at the
soil-filter interface, rm is bubble radius at the inlet or
throat to the pressure sensor, and T (or or ) is surface tension. In practice, effects should typically be
less than 5 kPa because of the use of a low-entry filter material and a relatively large throat size for the
pressure measuring system.
To the knowledge of the authors, none of the currently available PPDT systems incorporate active
protection (e.g. flushing system) against gas migration affecting pore water pressure measurement.
Figure 6. Free gas affecting measured pore pressure (modified after Nageswaran 1983).
5.5
In-situ pore water sampling can support: (1) measurement of the geochemical character of pore water
and of any gas dissolved in the pore water and (2)
measurement of the degree of gas saturation of pore
water.
The geochemistry of in-situ pore water can provide information about the trigger and consequences
of a well incident. For example, the type of dissolved
gas can provide an indication of gas escape from a
gas reservoir and its influence on geotechnical conditions. This example assumes geochemical differences
between reservoir gas and in-situ shallow gas present
in the seabed before well installation. The degree of
204
5.6
Non-pressure sampling
CONCLUSION
A well incident may affect the geotechnical performance of the well itself and that of a nearby offshore
structure. It may be required to perform a reassessment of geotechnical conditions after an offshore well incident. The approach for such investigation is the same at that for routine design, except that
anthropogenic factors will add complexity. Expert
judgement, attention to detail and suitable investigation tools are essential to arriving at informed estimates of geotechnical risk.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to many dedicated colleagues in industry and gratefully acknowledge
Fugros persistent commitment to excellence. The
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors. They are not necessarily shared by Fugro.
REFERENCES
Adams, N.J. & Kuhlman, L.G. 1990. Case History Analyses of
Shallow Gas Blowouts, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
Houston, Texas, February 27-March 2, 1990, IADC/SPE Paper
19917, 97-106.
Allen, J.D., Hampson, K., Clausen, C.J.F. & Vermeijden, C.A.
2005. Well Deformations at West Azeri, Caspian Sea, Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics ISFOG 2005: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics,
University of Western Australia, Perth, 19-21 September 2005
(Eds. Gourvenec, S. & Cassidy, M.), 999-1004. Taylor & Francis,
London.
Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) 2000. Landslide Risk
Management Concepts and Guidelines, Australian Geomechanics,
35, Reprinted in 37.
Christian, H.A. & Cranston, R.E. 1997. A Methodology for Detecting Free Gas in Marine Sediments, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 34, 293-304.
Danenberger, E.P. 1993. Outer Continental Shelf Drilling Blowouts, 1971-1991, 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference
Proceedings, 3-6 May 1993, OTC Paper 7248, Houston.
Deepwater Horizon Study Group (DHSG) 2011. Final Report on
the Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout, Deepwater Horizon Study Group (DHSG).
Evans, T.G., Feyereisen, S. & Rheaume, G. 2002. Axial Capacities
of Jetted Well Conductors in Angola, Offshore Site Investigation
and Geotechnics: 'Diversity and Sustainability': Proceedings of an
International Conference held in London, UK, 26-28 November
2002, 325-338. Society for Underwater Technology, London.
205
206