Applied Ultrasonic Technology in
Wellbore-Leak Detection and Case
Histories in Alaska North Slope Wells
J.E. Johns, TecWel; C.G. Blount, J.C. Dethlefs, M.J. Loveland, M.L. McConnell, and
G.L. Schwartz, ConocoPhillips; and J.Y. Julian, BP
Summary
When operators are faced with well-integrity problems, a variety
of methods may be used to detect the source of annular communi-
cation. Methods for detecting downhole leak points include spin-
ners, 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 equip-
ment. Ultrasonic energy has some properties that, when compared
to audible-frequency energy, make it ideal for accurate leak detec-
tion (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 devel-
oped for downhole applications to take advantage of the unique
properties of ultrasonic-energy propagation through various me-
dia. Data-acquisition equipment and filtering algorithms were de-
veloped 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 com-
pletion 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.
Introduction
Well integrity continues to be an issue of critical importance for all
forward-thinking operators. When faced with well-integrity pro-
blems, the prudent operator understands the value of gaining a
complete understanding of the communication source before
embarking on a remediation campaign. Comparing the process to
that of a doctor diagnosing a patient, it is difficult to prescribe a
remedy without understanding fully the root cause of the ailment.
Symptoms of wellbore-integrity issues are usually fairly evident.
The root cause of these problems, however, can be rather elusive. In
particular, when leaks are of a nature that precludes the use of
conventional logging tools, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to
detect their source.
Detection of very small tubing leaks (less than 1 gal/min) is
difficult with conventional logging techniques such as spinners
and temperature logs. Small leaks result in velocity and tempera-
ture changes that may be less than the resolution of any logging
tools, or may result in data that are virtually impossible to inter-
pret (Blount et al. 1991). Conventional noise logs can detect fluid
Copyright 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 102815) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 2427 September 2006, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 27 June 2006. Revised manuscript
received for review 22 October 2008. Paper peer approved 30 October 2008.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations
or gas movement but must be used in a stationary mode, and
more-distant noise sources may confuse interpretation. Downhole
cameras can be useful in finding a variety of leaks and diagnosing
other problems but require that the wellbore contain optically
clear fluid or gas. Most of these tools, along with various mechan-
ical methods of leak detection, are ineffective when trying to
locate leaks that occur behind multiple casing strings.
In general, most leaks start small in volume and can worsen
with time. Locating a problem early in the development stage is
beneficial because less-costly remediation techniques may be used
to avoid expensive rig workovers. Additionally, knowing the pre-
cise location of a leak before starting repairs will reduce the
chance of mistakes during remediation significantly. This reduces
costs by enabling the operator to diagnose the problem correctly
the first time. Consideration of these issues makes it easy to
recognize the need for an alternative method of logging that can
produce accurate results under a wide spectrum of conditions.
Possibly every general principle of physics has been used in
oilfield applications at one time or another for various purposes.
For the particular purpose of leak detection, the principles of ultra-
sound have been used for many years to detect leaks in surface
production equipment, such as valves and wellheads. On the basis
of this experience, it is known that leaks, regardless of phase (gas
or liquid), will produce an ultrasonic frequency when active. This
factor, along with other attributes of ultrasonic energy, suggested
that ultrasonic logging would be useful in downhole applications
in which small leaks and leaks behind casing are encountered.
Attributes of Ultrasound and Leaks
The following section discusses briefly how a leak produces an
ultrasonic signature and the attributes of ultrasonic energy that
make its use in leak detection both viable and accurate.
Ultrasound Production by Leaks. Sound is defined classically as
a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through mat-
ter as a wave. Sound propagates as waves of alternating pressure
causing local regions of compression and decompression. Parti-
cles in any medium are displaced by the wave and oscillate. A
leak is a fluctuation in pressure and can produce a spectrum of
sound that may contain elements of both audible and ultrasonic
frequencies. The properties of the leak determine whether it will
produce an ultrasonic signature, an audible signature, or both. The
factors involved in producing an ultrasonic signature are related to
leak rate, differential pressure across the leak, leak-path geometry,
and the corresponding media. The presence of turbulent flow at a
leak point has been determined to produce an ultrasonic signature.
Attenuation. All sound, regardless of frequency, will attenuate in
strength over distance travelled. As the frequency of the sound
increases, the attenuation of the sound over distance also increases.
To illustrate this, consider that the attenuation of a sound in air at
room temperature and atmospheric pressure is generally directly
proportional to the square of the frequency of the sound (Fig. 1).
Audible frequencies (<20 kHz) tend to be attenuated less. At first
glance, one may consider attenuation as a negative physical attri-
bute. However, this attenuation can be used to an advantage for
leak detection. Because ultrasound typically travels approximately
225
 Fig. 2Ultrasonic leak-detection tool. The sensor is located at
Fig. 1Chart showing attenuation of sound in air as a function the lower right-hand side of the picture.
of frequency.

310 ft in a wellbore, any signal detected will be in close proximity unitless measurements of signal strength. A casing-collar locator
to the leak source, resulting in accurate leak detection. (CCL) is also presented for correlation purposes. The leak signa-
ture shown is a tubing-to-Annulus-A leak in a water-injection well.
Tool Development, Description, and Operation The magnitude of the leak is approximately 0.08 gal/min, with a
With a recognized need for a better method of detecting leaks, differential pressure across the leak of 9001,200 psi. Field trials
development of an ultrasonic leak-detection tool for downhole use have shown that the tool is effective in detecting leaks in casing,
was undertaken at the request of a major operator in the North Sea. tubing, gas lift mandrels (GLMs), and other completion equip-
This section will describe the operation of the resulting equipment. ment, regardless of leak direction or media while logging at con-
ventional logging speeds.
Ultrasonic Sensor. Piezoelectric-crystal sensing devices have
been used for a number of years in many applications. Not only Case Histories in Alaska North Slope Wells. Managing well-
have they been used for sensing ultrasonic energy, but also for integrity issues on the North Slope plays an essential role in main-
applications requiring accurate pressure measurement. For devel- taining and sustaining field life, as is typical with maturing fields
opment of this tool, a sensor was used that detects a spectrum of everywhere. Considering the time effects of corrosion and erosion
frequencies, including those typically produced by leaks. The in a mature field combined with the use of miscible injectant (MI)
sensor used had to be capable of detecting the sound generated gas in some wellswhich can act as a solvent for pipe dope
by a leak through various media encountered in a downhole envi- creates a challenging environment for maintaining tubing/casing
ronment. Steel, for example, attenuates sound on the order of 20:1 bubble-tight integrity. The following four subsections will cite
as compared to air at atmospheric pressure. specific case histories involving a number of leak scenarios that
have been addressed on the North Slope.
Digital-Signal Processing. The piezoelectric sensor produces
very small voltage responses proportional to the signal strength
Casing Leak Behind Tubing (Well A). Detecting leaks behind
produced by the sound generated at the leak point. To isolate the
tubing is one of the most difficult scenarios to analyze by use of
frequencies of interest, the small piezoelectric analog signal is
amplified and passed through a digital-signal-processing unit with-
in the logging tool. The digital-signal-processing unit is equipped
with a large amount of flash random-access memory running a
series of modular signal-processing programs. The programs con-
sist of a series of band-pass algorithms that focus on the ultrasonic
frequencies that are produced typically by leaks. The filtering
algorithms filter out unwanted background energies caused by
mechanical noise or other interference. Virtually all audible fre-
quencies are filtered out. The result is a fully digitized signal of the
leak signature, which is then transmitted uphole through a conven-
tional electric-line telemetry system to a surface readout system,
producing a graphical representation of the leak signature. Recent-
ly, the tool has been adapted to work with downhole memory for
conveyance with slickline, coiled tubing, or by other methods.

Tool Specifications. The tool is rated for 15,000 psi and is designed
for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or carbon dioxide (CO2) environments.
As of this publication, the temperature rating is 302 F, with higher
temperature versions being developed. The 111/16-in.-diameter
tool (Fig. 2) operates on a telemetry that allows it to be used in
conjunction with other logging tools if desired.

Tool Response. The graphical representation of the tool response

shows three frequency windows of investigation (Fig. 3). The Fig. 3Graphic representing the typical response of the ultra-
three traces used are (1) the total energy level, (2) a medium-high sonic leak-detection tool across a leak. This illustration demon-
frequency range, and (3) a very-high frequency range [acoustic- strates the frequency response of the tool as it is passed by a
logging device (ALD) A, B, and C traces, respectively]. These are leak at typical logging speeds.

226 May 2009 SPE Production & Operations


Fig. 4Schematic of Well A.
conventional logging methods. Well A (Fig. 4) is an active water-
and-gas-injection well completed with 3.5-in. tubing inside 7-in.
casing. Annulus A failed a mechanical-integrity test (MIT) and was
switched from MI gas to water injection as a result. Further pres-
sure testing, including an MIT on the tubing, indicated that the well
had either a casing leak or a one-way packer leak, with a leak rate
too small to detect with the use of conventional logging methods.
During logging operations, an MIT was emulated by maintaining
Annulus A pressure between 3,300 and 2,800 psi. A calculated leak
rate was established between 0.21 and 0.39 gal/min. A typical ultra-
sonic-leak-detection-tool signature was located at 2,574 ft measured
depth (MD) during a dynamic pass of 30 ft/min (see Fig. 5).
To further confirm the leak location, stationary readings are
taken through an interval above and below the leak point (Fig. 6).
The center scale, as with all stationary logs presented, has units of
time in seconds. The depths are annotated. The tool was positioned
Fig. 6Signal response while taking stationary logs on Well A.
Maximum signal strength is shown at 2,574 ft. IA: inner annulus.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations
Fig. 5Well A dynamic log showing casing leak at 2,574 ft MD
as measured by the ultrasonic leak-detection tool.
at 2-ft intervals above and below the leak to verify the leak loca-
tion. The dramatic change in signal response over these short dis-
tances demonstrates the resolution of the tool.
When the tool is placed precisely at the leak point and the annular
pressures are manipulated (by bleeding or pressuring up the various
annuli and tubing), the change in signal strength can be observed
associated with the leak magnitude (Fig. 7). This measurement,
along with the tubing- and annuli-pressure-response monitoring, con-
firm in which barrier the leak is located. As the pressure is decreased
in the annulus, it can be seen that the signal strength diminishes. As
the pressure is increased, the signal strength increases.
Upon further analysis of other well data available, it was de-
termined that the leak signature was in close proximity to a casing
collar behind the tubing. Additionally, the cement bond log for the
7-in. casing indicated that the cement bond at this area was less
than optimal. The evaluation of other logs showed the presence of
a sand zone at this location that could have been accepting fluid
during the pressurization of the annulus.
The ultrasonic-log results, combined with historic data, created
a clear picture of the leak location and probable leak mechanism.
The well was shut in and will be repaired with a rig workover.
Fig. 7Well A stationary log showing response in signal
strength as the differential pressure is manipulated.
227
 Fig. 8Schematic of Well B.
Casing Leak (Well B). As shown in previous examples, the
dynamic leak signatures typically exhibit the same shape charac-
teristics. Signal strength depends on a number of factors unique to
each leak. Occasionally, a leak will produce a dynamic signature
that is not typical of those normally encountered. From experi-
ence, this has been the exception rather than the rule; however, the
leak in Well B (Fig. 8) exhibited an atypical signature.
This well is an active injection well that had failed a pressure
test on the tubing/liner assembly. Diagnostic pressure testing indi-
cated that the leak was a slow leak somewhere in the liner section
below the packer. The leak rate, initially estimated to average
approximately .5 gal/min, was too small to log with a spinner.
A modified borax logging procedure (Blount et al. 1991) was used
to determine the location of the leak. A baseline pulsed neutron
log (PNL) was run before pumping the borate solution into the
well and setting a plug in the liner just above the perforations.
Borate solution was then injected into the leak by holding positive
pressure for approximately 48 hours before logging the post-injec-
tion pass. Approximately 35 bbl of solution was squeezed into the
formation through the leak. A final pass was run after pulling the
Fig. 10Dynamic log of Well B showing atypical leak signature
at approximately 5,512-ft MD.
228
Fig. 9Borax PNL run before setting patch across assumed
leaking collar as indicated.
plug and displacing all the borate solution out of the inside of the
liner. The PNL found the borate solution outside the liner over a
100-ft region, 1,700 ft above the top-of-liner cement (Fig. 9). A
patch was set at 5,461 to 5,486-ft MD across the uppermost collar
in the leak area. Unfortunately, the patched collar was not the
leaking collar, or at least not the only leaking collar, as confirmed
4 years later when the ultrasonic logging tool was run.
The ultrasonic logging tool was run with a tubing plug set at
8,729-ft MD. Tubing pressure was maintained between 2,700 and
3,200 psi during the logging operation. The leak rate at these
pressures was between 0.25 and 0.37 gal/min. The subsequent
dynamic log (Fig. 10) shows a repeatable but atypical signature
at approximately 5,512-ft MD, at the collar just below the patch.
Additional stationary logs were taken to confirm the leak loca-
tion because of the unusual signature. These stops included zones
across the patch and across the suspect signature; however, no
other elevated signatures were located (Fig. 11). The maximum
signal strength confirmed the leak location and correlated directly
with the atypical signature. The stationary log during pressure
manipulation (Fig. 12) further confirmed the leak location, deter-
mined to be at a casing collar, as confirmed by CCL data.
On the basis of the information gained by this log, the patch
will be pulled and repositioned over the leak point to restore
casing integrity so the well can be returned to service.
The atypical response of this particular leak is worthy of further
discussion. To understand why a typical leak signature was not
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations
Fig. 11Stationary log of Well B showing location of maximum
signal-strength at 5,511.7-ft MD.
present during the dynamic pass, let us consider the signal strength
of the stationary and dynamic signatures of this log. The stationary
logs show the maximum signal strength to be approximately 9000.
The average of the maximum dynamic signature is approximately
of the same magnitude. These values are very close to the average
background noise being generated during the dynamic logging
pass. In other words, the signal/noise ratio is practically 1:1. As a
result, only a slight, atypical dynamic leak signature was present.
Further, let us consider the logging example for Well A in
which the leak was sustained in a similar fashion by a fluid loss
into cement/formation. Comparatively, the leaks were roughly the
same magnitude but the dynamic logging signature was 10 to 12
times higher in Well A. From the previously mentioned CCL, it
was suspected that the cement in Well A at the leak point was
poorer or not present, which served to attenuate the signal much
less than the signal in the Well B example.
Fig. 13Schematic of Well C. SSSV: Subsurface safety valve.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations
Fig. 12Stationary log of Well B during pressure manipulation
showing signal strength response.
Leaking GLMs (Well C). GLMs are used extensively in tubing
completions on the North Slope. These devices can be the source
of tubing-to-Annulus-A leaks that are very small in magnitude.
Well C (Fig. 13) is an active MI-injection well that had to be
placed on water injection because of a tubing-to-annulus A leak.
The well had been a preproduced injector and the tubing comple-
tion has nine GLMs with dummy gas lift valves installed. The
well passed a liquid pressure test on Annulus A but would build
pressure while on MI gas injection.
The leak rate was established by maintaining water-injection
pressure in the tubing and bleeding Annular A pressure as low as
possible to maintain an active leak. Initially, the water-injection
pressure was approximately 1,500 psi the Annulus A at approxi-
mately 200 psi. Over the course of the job, it was necessary to
decrease Annulus A pressure and raise the injection pressure to
maintain a constant leak. Final injection pressure was at 2,000 psi
with an Annulus A pressure as low as 20 psi. The pressures were
manipulated at various times to ensure a maximum leak rate. The
leak rate at the above-stated pressures ranged approximately from
0.16 to 0.024 gal/min. A very strong leak signature (Fig. 14)
appeared during the dynamic pass at 10,307-ft MD.
Fig. 14Dynamic log in Well C showing leak at 10,307-ft MD.
229
Fig. 15Stationary log of Well C confirming maximum signal
strength at 10,307-ft MD.
Stationary logs confirmed the exact leak location at a GLM.
The confirmation log (Fig. 15) shows the tools signal response as
the tool is positioned at various depths near the leak. At the area
of maximum signal strength, it can be seen that the leak is rela-
tively unstable. The pressure behavior of the leak in this case
provides an explanation of this occurrence. As mentioned earlier,
the leak rate decreased while logging. The varying signal strength
reflects the varying leak rate at this point. During pressure manip-
Fig. 17Schematic of Well D.
230
Fig. 16Stationary log of Well C during pressure manipulation.
ulation at the leak depth, the log (Fig. 16) shows the typical signal
response, further verifying the leaks location.
Following this procedure, the dummy gas lift valve was
replaced with one with extended packing, solving the communi-
cation problem. As a result, the well was approved for MI injec-
tion and returned to service.
Possible Packer Leak (Well D). The inability to locate the exact
source of leaks by use of ultrasonic technology has, for the most
part, been the exception rather than the rule. On occasion, certain
scenarios have produced unexpected results. These circumstances
serve to better understand this technology and expand its capability.
In the case of this well (Fig. 17), logging results were not quite
what was expected. The well is an active oil-and-gas-production
well that failed a pressure test on Annulus A. During production
operations, with a flowing tubing pressure of approximately 1,100
psi, Annulus A would build pressure to approximately 1,400 psi.
During logging operations, the leak rate was established by
emulating the pressure test on Annulus A. This was achieved by
maintaining Annulus A pressure of approximately 3,000 psi. Dur-
ing this operation, the shut-in tubing pressure was approximately
2,350 psi, resulting in a leak rate ranging approximately from 0.4
to 0.8 gal/min. During the first logging pass, there was no evidence
of a typical dynamic signature to indicate a tubing leak. The pass
Fig.18Elevated energy around area of packer and polished-
bore receptacle (PBR) in Well D.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations

Fig. 19Elevated energy in area from 1,620 to 3,150 ft in Well D.
did show elevated energy levels from 10,284 up to 10,246 ft (near
the packer area) and from 3,150 to 1,620 ft, respectively (Figs. 18
and 19).
Several stationary logs were taken at various areas of interest.
No typical increases in signal strength were detected that would
indicate the presence of a tubing leak. The only anomaly on the
stationary logs was found in the packer area, indicating low-fre-
quency energy. For clarity, this is plotted from the tabular data from
the log (Fig. 20).
To evaluate the well further, it was requested that the well be
brought on production to increase the differential pressure across
the leak. For operational reasons, this was not possible. An alter-
native attempt was made to establish the leak by bleeding Annulus
A as low as possible and using the shut-in tubing pressure of 2,350
psi to activate the leak. A leak rate of approximately 0.07 gal/min
was established by maintaining Annulus A at approximately 500
psi, with the shut-in tubing pressure remaining at 2,350 psi. Under
these conditions, it was noted that the tubing-to-Annulus-A pres-
sure was equalized at approximately 5,400 ft. Therefore, instruc-
tions were given to begin logging at 3,200 ft.
Fig. 20Tabular data of Well D stationary logs showing elevated signal levels around PBR and packer depths.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations
During the second logging pass, no conclusive dynamic signa-
tures were observed.
After a rigorous evaluation of logging parameters and data
collected, conclusions can be drawn as to what was occurring in
the well during logging operations. The elevated signatures pres-
ent, as shown in Figs. 18 and 19, were likely mechanical in nature.
If the leak was a tubing leak, past experience tells us that the
signal/noise ratio would have been much higher. In other words,
we would expect the leak signature to be much higher than the
mechanical noise at the differential pressures and flow rates pres-
ent during this operation. In short, it is believed that the tubing in
this well has integrity on the basis of these logging results.
Referring again to Fig. 20, which shows the tabular data from
all stationary logs taken during operations, it can be seen that the
elevated signature around the packer and PBR are elevated across
their entire length. It is also noteworthy that in this area only, the
ALD A trace is elevated. This trace is associated with the total
energy produced and can be related to lower-frequency regimes.
This indicates that even under stationary conditions, some energy
is present. The diameter of these assemblies inside the casing
causes a decreased flow area across this region. It is believed that
the flow through this area was likely laminar and produced only a
low-frequency signature.
The small elevated signal at approximately 737-ft MD could be
because of some decreased flow area in Annulus A, as well. Be-
cause there was no pressure response in Annulus B during logging
operations, an Annulus B leak was ruled out.
To evaluate this well further, it would be prudent to attempt to
increase the differential pressure across the leak by logging while
the well is producing. This would effectively increase the differen-
tial from Annulus A to the tubing and confirm tubing integrity. In
addition, increasing the differential across the packer may produce
turbulent flow in this area, thereby producing a more distinct leak
signature.
Conclusions
1. Field trials have proved that ultrasonic technology is a viable,
efficient, and economic option in detecting leaks as small as
0.026 gal/min.
2. The nature of ultrasound has proved to aid in the accuracy of
the detection method.
3. Ultrasound qualities have enabled pinpoint leak detection
through various media and behind pipe.
231
4. More tool development is in progress to further refine the pro-
cess of detecting wellbore leaks by use of ultrasonic principles.
5. The tool has been adapted for downhole memory data acquisition
allowing slickline, coiled tubing, or other mechanical convey-
ance applications (slickline).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of ConocoPhillips Company,
BP Exploration Alaska, and other unit working-interest owners for
permission to publish this paper. This paper reflects the views of the
authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the authors
respective employers or other working-interest owners. Special
thanks to Michael Warren (BP), Proactive Diagnostic Services, and
the coauthors in helping to facilitate the introduction of this
technology to the Alaska North Slope.
References
Beranek. L.L. 1972. Acoustic Properties of Gases. In American Institute
of Physics Handbook, third edition, ed. D.E. Gray, Section 3d. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Blount, C.G., Copoulos, A.E., and Myers, G.D. 1991. A Cement Channel-
Detection Technique Using the Pulsed Neutron Log. SPE Form Eval 6
(4): 485492. SPE-20042-PA. DOI: 10.2118/20042-PA.
Evans, L.B. and Bass, H.E. 1972. Tables of absorption and velocity of
sound in still air at 68 F. Report WR72-2, No. 0675837, Contract No.
DAHC0469C0088, Wyle Labs, Huntsville, Alabama (January 1972).
Povey, M.J.W. 1997. Ultrasonic Techniques for Fluids Characterization,
Sec. 2.1, 16, and Sec. 2.2, 2628. San Diego, California: Academic
Press.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl  1.589 873 E 01 = m3
ft  3.048* E 01 = m
gal  3.785 412 E 03 = m3
in.  2.54* E + 00 = cm
lbf  4.448 222 E + 00 = N
psi  6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
232
Joel Johns is the general manager for TecWel, Inc. He has
been involved in the design, manufacture, sales, and market-
ing of oil-field equipment and services for 20 years. Johns holds
a degree in electrical engineering technology from Louisiana
Tech University. He is an SPE member and Director Member of
the gulf coast chapter of ICoTA. Curtis G. Blount is an engi-
neering fellow with ConocoPhillips Company, Production
Technology, Houston, Texas. Blount specializes in remedial well
interventions, coiled tubing (CT) drilling, and other CT technol-
ogy. He has been active in CT research and applied technol-
ogy development for more than 20 years. Curt has
coauthored more than 30 technical papers and 20 patents.
Jerald C. Dethlefs is a well integrity and diagnostics engineer
with ConocoPhillips Company, Production Technology in
Houston, Texas. Dethlefs has 25 years of experience with well
operations, intervention, and production operations. For the
past 10 years, his focus has been on well-integrity issues, in-
cluding policy, diagnostics, best practices, and program man-
agement. Dethlefs holds a BS degree in general engineering,
an MS degree in civil engineering, and an MBA degree. M.J.
Loveland is a well integrity supervisor for ConocoPhillips in
Kuparuk Alaska. Loveland has 19 years of oil-industry experi-
ence in a wide range of engineering positions, mostly specia-
lizing in well integrity. Loveland holds a BS degree in petroleum
engineering from the University of Wyoming. Marie (Vaughn) L.
McConnell has worked in the oil industry for 14 years for various
companies in production operations positions. She holds a BS
degree in petroleum engineering from Montana Tech.
McConnell served on the SPE board of directors for the Alaska
Section from 1995 to 1998 initially as the student paper contest
chair and then as the treasurer. She was the publicity chair for
the SPE 69th Annual Western Regional Meeting in 1999. Guy L.
Schwartz is a wells engineer for ConocoPhillips in Alaska.
Schwartz holds a BS degree from University of North Dakota.
in Geological Engineering. He is an SPE member. Jennifer Y.
Julian is a well intervention advisor for BPs Alaska Consoli-
dated Team and has 24 years of oilfield experience. She is a
recognized leader in advances in coiled tubing, tractor and
well-integrity technology, and nonrig remediation. Julian has
been a major technical contributor to the success of Alaskas
wellwork program for 20 years, including 6 years in the field.
Julian has authored more than 15 papers on all facets of well-
work intervention and has received 9 technical achievement
awards from Arco and BP recognizing her contributions to the
well intervention discipline. She was recently awarded the
2007 SPE Western North America Region Drilling & Completions
Engineer Award and 2007 Alaska Chapter SPE Engineer of the
Year. Julian holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering.
May 2009 SPE Production & Operations