Well integrity management presents a wide variety of challenges for the industry today. With aging fields and more complex completion techniques coming into play, more efficient methods of well diagnostics and remediation are demanded. In the GOM, 45% of the wells have sustained casing pressure; therefore, the importance of having a resource that can provide an effective, accurate method of leak detection is abundantly clear. Typical methods of leak detection today include the use of spinners, temperature tools and noise logs. Mechanical means such as calipers and isolation packers are also employed. While effective for larger leaks, these methods can produce nebulous results with smaller leaks and can be time consuming. The frequency spectrum a leak produces is a function of differential pressure, leak magnitude, and leak geometry. These properties determine whether the frequency is audible, ultrasonic, or both. Typically, smaller volume leaks with a relatively high differential pressure will generate an ultrasonic signal. Based on this premise, an ultrasonic logging tool was developed and proven that detects frequency spectrums typically produced by leaks. The tool has a series of band pass filters which remove virtually all audible noise associated with tool movement, allowing continuous logging. Because ultrasonic energy will pass through compressed gas and steel, the tool can detect leaks in secondary barriers as well. Further, as ultrasonic energy attenuates quickly, the tool locates leaks with a high degree of accuracy. Using this tool, leaks as small as 0.005 gpm have been quickly located with an accuracy of a foot or less. This paper will describe a down-hole ultrasonic leak detection tool and provide case histories of where the ultrasonic leak detection tool was used to find leaks that other methods were unable to locate. A comparison of the results from conventional leak detection methods will be discussed as well.
A new ultrasonic leak detection logging tool conveyed on electric line, and recently on wireline in memory mode, has been introduced which can detect leaks as small as 1/2 cup per minute. This revolutionary tool has been used to accurately identify leaks in tubing and behind pipe. Wells that otherwise would immediately be slated for a rig workover (RWO) have been repaired with non-rig solutions. Ultrasound energy has very rapid attenuation and the ability to transmit through various media and behind pipe. These attributes allow pinpoint accuracy for leaks as small as 0.0024 gallons per minute (gpm). The tool incorporates data acquisition equipment and filtering algorithms which allow continuous logging. The technology is far superior to old-style noise logs which require time consuming stationary counts. To date, BP has run 21 ultrasonic leak detection logs in Alaska fields with an 81% success rate. The recent ability of this tool to be conveyed in memory mode has opened up additional logging opportunities. This has led to the development of a new technique using nitrogen to identify wells that leak only to gas. Application of this tool has great significance for any operator concerned with well integrity, and particularly, in areas where rig workovers are expensive including remote, offshore, and arctic locations. Introduction BP operates several enhanced oil recovery and waterflood oil field which have experienced well integrity issues as the field matures. Non-rig tubing repairs have become a viable alternative to RWO's, which can easily exceed 1 million dollars. Repair methods include tubing straddles and coiled tubing packer repairs. The advantage over a conventional RWO is that there is no need to pull tubing, resulting in the well being returned to service faster. However, the main limitation for non-rig candidate selection has been in identifying leaks which are below the resolution of conventional leak detection methods. Often a well with annular communication had to be worked over because the leak point could not be determined. The ultrasonic leak detection tool has provided a step change in leak identification. Prior to its introduction, it was virtually impossible to detect leaks smaller than 1 gpm. Often the velocity and temperature changes associated with these leaks are below the resolution of conventional logging tools, including spinners, temperature logs, down-hole cameras, and noise logs. These tools are even more limited when trying to detect leaks that occur behind tubing. The ultrasonic leak detection tool can identify leaks so small as to be almost unbelievable. Tool Principles and Operation. SPE paper 1028151 details the tool physics and development history of the ultrasonic leak detection log. Tool principles are briefly summarized here. The frequency spectrum a leak produces is a function of differential pressure, leak magnitude, and leak geometry. These properties determine whether the frequency is audible, ultrasonic, or both. The ultrasonic logging tool (Figure 1) utilizes a sensor that detects a frequency spectrum, including those typically produced by leaks. The signal is processed by a series of band-pass algorithms that focus on frequencies in the ultrasonic range. Virtually all audible noise associated with tool movement is filtered out, allowing continuous logging. Typical logging speed is 30 feet per minute (fpm) and leaks can be identified while logging in either an up or down direction. Greater accuracy is achievable due to the characteristics of ultrasound, which attenuates, or dies away, quickly in fluids. Ultrasound typically travels only 3–10 ft in a wellbore before attenuating. This attenuation results in a very sharp leak character, typically identifying the leak within 1 to 2 feet.
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. Introduction 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.
Summary When operators are faced with well-integrity problems, a variety of methods may be used to detect the source of annular communication. Methods for detecting downhole leak points include spinners, temperature logs, downhole cameras, thermal-decay logs, and noise logs. However, many of these methods are ineffective when dealing with very small leaks and can result in collected data that require a significant amount of logging finesse to interpret. Ultrasonic listening devices have been used for a number of years to detect leak sources effectively in surface production equipment. Ultrasonic energy has some properties that, when compared to audible-frequency energy, make it ideal for accurate leak detection (Beranek 1972; Povey 1997; Evans and Bass 1972). Like audible-frequency energy, ultrasonic energy can pass through steel. However, ultrasonic energy propagates relatively short distances through fluids when compared to equal-energy audible-frequency sound. Thus, when an ultrasonic signal of this nature is detected, the detection tool will be in close proximity to the energy source. On this premise, an ultrasonic leak-detection tool was developed for downhole applications to take advantage of the unique properties of ultrasonic-energy propagation through various media. Data-acquisition equipment and filtering algorithms were developed to allow continuous logging conveyed on standard electric line at common logging speeds. Continuous logging has proved to be significantly more efficient in locating anomalies than static logging techniques commonly used in noise-logging operations. During development, the tool was shown to be effective in locating leaks as small as 0.026 gal/min with an accuracy of 3 ft in production tubing, casing, and other pressure-containing completion equipment. Leaks also have been detected through multiple strings of tubing and casing. The tool has proved to be effective in locating leaks that other diagnostic methods were unable to locate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.