OTC 15133

Application of Decision Analysis to a Deepwater Well Integrity Assessment

P. D. Pattillo, BP America; M. L. Payne, BP America; T. R. Webb, BP Trinidad and Tobago; J. H. Sharadin, BP America

Copyright 2003, Offshore Technology Conference

created by AFE is complicated and requires consideration of a
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in number of different failure scenarios. A final complicating
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2003.
factor in the case of a temporarily abandoned site is the
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
expense, or possible inability, of clarifying the decision
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to process with diagnostic tools or logs.
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, The scenario outlined above can be aided by the tools and
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
processes of decision analysis. Uncertainties in the problem
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The can be quantified by probabilistic modeling and analysis.
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Further, the relative influence of key variables can be
discerned so that, if necessary, additional data gathering can
concentrate on the more important variables. Finally, the
Abstract
process can aid in estimating the risk associated with each
Decision analysis is used to compare the risk of completing an
alternative, leading to measures intended to minimize
existing, exploratory wellbore to the alternative of
corresponding consequences.
permanently abandoning the wellbore in favor of drilling a
Decision analysis is not a new topic to the drilling
new well. The existing wellbore is endangered by
community. Decision trees have been used for a variety of
uncertainties in the sealing capabilities of the intermediate and
drilling activities including fishing operations4,5, well control6
production casings, and by unknown cement tops. Failure of
and trajectory collision avoidance7-9. This study supplements
these tubulars during production could potentially damage the
that list with an application of decision analysis to overall
production tubing or, in the extreme, lead to breach of
well integrity.
hydrocarbons at the mudline.
Decision analysis is used to quantify the uncertainties in
Terminology. Throughout this discussion two wells will be
the problem and, by systematic means, evaluate the risk
distinguished. The term “current well” refers to the damaged
associated with each decision alternative. The model also
wellbore existing at the time the decision analysis was
identifies the key variables influencing the outcome of
initiated. The terms “new drill” and “new well” refer to a
the analysis.
replacement to the current well, and, as a minimum, include
Conclusions focus on preparing oneself for the eventuality
abandonment of the current (existing) wellbore.
of such a decision by properly appreciating the importance of
Annuli in are assigned alphabetic designations, beginning
diagnostic tools and logs during the initial drilling operation.
with the A annulus (production tubing x production casing)
and proceeding outward to the B (production casing x
Introduction
intermediate casing) and C (intermediate casing x surface
An increasingly important issue in deep water exploitation is
casing) annuli.
the evaluation of exploration wells as possible production
wellbores. It is not uncommon for the necessities of the
Statement of the Problem
exploration phase of a project to dictate patches, sidetracks
Fig. 1 schematically depicts the current well, located in the
and other repairs to a wellbore that may safely serve to prevent
King’s Peak field of the Gulf of Mexico. At the time this
interruption of the exploration process, but may render the
decision analysis was initiated, the well was drilled and
wellbore unusable for long term production. The disposition
temporarily abandoned. As indicated in the figure, wellbore
of a deep water exploration wellbore is further complicated by
integrity is suspect due to the following:
the expense of well construction. On one hand, it is difficult
Casing Patch. While drilling the 12-1/4 in. hole section,
to abandon a wellbore that has cost tens of million of dollars
the 13-3/8 in. casing partially collapsed 109 ft. below the
to drill. On the other hand, the potential consequences of a
mudline, for unknown reasons. The casing was cut and
failure of the well during its production life cannot be ignored.
pulled, with some cement found on the pipe. The 13-3/8 in.
Central to this evaluation is consideration of well integrity
casing was repaired with an external patch. The patch,
issues associated with annular fluid expansion (AFE). Also
however, was only tested to 1700 psi.
known as annular pressure buildup (APB), this mechanism has
Wellhead Seal. Following repair of the 13-3/8 in casing,
caused well failures and is considered a possible cause of the
extensive problems surrounded setting the corresponding
BP Marlin tubing deformation1-3. Proper assessment of risks
2 OTC 15133

wellhead seal assembly. Pressure integrity of the assembly
is questionable.
Uncertain Cement Tops. Regarding the various strings:
• 20 in. Casing – ROV problems prevented monitoring
cement returns, but dye was noted on the seafloor
following placement. It is unlikely that a large fluid
void would exist or that a void, if present, would seal
against potential annular fluid expansion
(AFE) pressures.
• 13-3/8 in. Casing – Full returns were indicated while
running in the hole and while circulating. Further, 90
percent returns were indicated while pumping and
displacing the slurry. With a gage hole, the
calculated cement top would be approximately 800 ft.
above the 20 in. shoe. The hole gage, however, is
unknown. Although some cement was found on the
recovered 13-3/8 in. damaged casing, the annulus
was pumped into freely. Channeling seems a
distinct possibility.
• 9-5/8 in. Casing – Approximately 50 percent of the
job volume was lost during displacement.
Nevertheless, it is still possible that cement reached
as high as 500 ft. into the 13-3/8 in. casing. A log
run following this operation could not be located.
In addition, the integrity of the 9-5/8 in. production casing
is somewhat suspect due to an estimated 30% wear at a depth
2500 ft. below the mudline. The casing also employs
clearance type proprietary connections which laboratory tests
suggest may leak under the simultaneous application of
external pressure and compression.
Mudline
30” Conductor
~163 ft. BML
13 3/8” Wellhead
20 in. Questionable Seal
~1680 ft. BML
Finally, annular fluid expansion modeling indicates that,
assuming some combination of cement settling, wellbore
instability and/or barite settling has rendered the B and C
annuli closed, the incremental pressures associated with
heating the B and C annulus fluids during production exceed
the API ratings of the bounding tubulars.
An alternative to completing the current well is to
immediately and permanently abandon the wellbore and drill a
new well. The decision problem is to compare the current and
new well scenarios by risk weighing the cost of doing either.
Current Well Failure Scenarios
Given the condition of the various components of the current
well, an attempt was made to list possible failure modes.
Assuming the current well is completed and placed on
production, installation pressures in the B and C annuli will
increase due to annular fluid expansion. If (a) these pressures
are allowed to reach their maximum predicted values in either
annulus and (b) the annulus in question receives no support
from annular expansion pressures of its neighbors (e.g. due to
the failure of the neighbor as a pressure containment vessel),
that annulus will fail.
If the failure of either annulus takes the form of collapse of
the casing forming its inner boundary, that collapse has the
potential of damaging successive inner strings to the extent
that eventually the production tubing collapses. This cascade
is due to the fact that once a casing cross section buckles, it
loads inner strings non-uniformly, with the composite having a
lower collapse resistance than the inner string would on its
own10.
If the failure of either annulus takes the form of rupture of
the casing forming its outer boundary, that rupture has the
potential of failing successive outer strings or casing shoes,
ultimately producing a damage path that leads outside the
well. In the worst case, reservoir hydrocarbons could leave
the well subsurface and broach the mudline.

13 3/8” Patch
109 to 136 ft. BML
C B A Annulus Internal Pressure

Compression Tension

13-3/8 in.
~2480 ft. BML

9-5/8 in.
Leak Resistance
~5450 ft. BML Suspect

External Pressure

Fig 2-Conceptual Depiction of Generic Clearance Connection

7 in. Liner Performance Ellipse Indicating the Region where Leak Resistance
~7960 ft. BML is Questionable

Fig. 1-Schematic of Current (Existing) Wellbore at Time Analysis

was Initiated
OTC 15133 3

As addressed in this study, failure scenarios begin with the Returning to Fig. 4, the sections that follow detail the
initiation of a leak in the clearance connection on the consequences of completing the current well as reflected in the
production casing. Simultaneous axial compression due to potential failure of one or more components. The starting
temperature increase of the casing and external pressure due to point is a possible loss of internal (A annulus) pressure backup
annular fluid expansion in the B annulus place the casing on the production casing due to, for example, a production
connection in the third quadrant of its performance envelope packer leak. Depending on this pressure backup, a series of
(Fig. 2). The potential for this leak increases with loss of cascading events may occur, their probability influenced
backup fluid in the A annulus (e.g. increased external pressure heavily by the pressure integrity of the 9-5/8 in. casing
differential), which in turn depends on the probability that the connection. Although Fig. 4 indicates the two trees emanating
A annulus can evacuate. from a loss of A annulus pressure are identical, there is one
important difference. In the presence of A annulus pressure,
Structure of Decision Tree the probability of a 9-5/8 in. connection leak is significantly
Figs. 3 and following detail the structure of the decision tree less (0.4 vs. 0.8) than if internal pressure support is small
used to model the consequences of available completion or absent.
alternatives. Decision nodes are designated by the symbol …;
chance nodes are designated by the symbol |; terminal nodes Production Casing Leaks. Should the 9-5/8 in. connection
are designated by the symbol Y. Key variables in the tree are leak (Fig. 6), the danger to this string is significantly reduced
presented in Table 1. The criterion for decision is as the B annulus is no longer an intact pressure vessel and
minimization of monetary loss. communicates with the (vented) A annulus. This does mean,
The bulk of the tree addresses the integrity of a completion however, that there is less support for the 13-3/8 in. casing in
using the existing well (Fig. 4), to be discussed in sections to its role as the inner boundary of the C annulus. The focus of
follow. The alternative of drilling a new well immediately attention is now the C annulus. Recall that, aside from the
leads to a terminal node, with payoffs determined from condition at the shoe of the 20 in. casing, two potential leak
experience at this and similar locales. As indicated in Fig. 5, paths (treated together here) exist near the mudline.
all payoffs are negative, with the exception of production gain
associated with the new well completion. No Failure of Prod Tubulars
W/O to Mitigate 9-5/8 Leak
13-3/8 Wellhead
Seal/Patch Leaks + Current Well Completion Cost
Complete Current
φPatch + Workover Cost
Well
See Fig. 4 20 in. Shoe
9-5/8 in. Holds
See Fig. 8
Leak φ20 Shoe
Value of C Annulus Not
Completing Well Plugged
φC Open 20 in. Shoe
No 13-3/8 Wellhead Leak Off Mud
Fails
Seal/Patch Leak + Current Well
1 – φ20 Shoe Completion Cost
1 – φPatch
Drill New Well
See Fig. 5
C Annulus Plugged
See Fig. 8
1 – φC Open
Fig. 3 – Root Subtrees of Decision Tree

9-5/8 in. Connection

Fig. 6 – 9-5/8 in. Leak Subtree
Leaks
See Fig. 6
Maintain Fluid Column φ9-5/8 Leak 13-3/8 in. Seal Assembly or Casing Patch Leaks. We
in A Annulus
now have pressure communication between the A, B and C
1 - φEvac 9-5/8 in. Connection
Does Not Leak
annuli. Danger of catastrophic failure of the well is small, but
Current 1 – φ9-5/8 Leak
See Fig. 7 provision should be made for a workover to mitigate the
Well production casing leak.
13-3/8 in. Seal Assembly and Casing Patch Do Not Leak.
Lose Fluid Column
We must now consider the viability of the C annulus as a
in A Annulus Subtree is duplicate pressure vessel. There exist two other leak paths in the C
φEvac of subtree above annulus by which collapse pressure on the intermediate casing
can be alleviated – the shoe of the 20 in. surface casing and
burst of the 20 in. surface casing (prior to collapse of the 13-
Fig. 4 – Complete Current Well Subtree 3/8 in. casing).
C Annulus Is Not Plugged. If the C annulus is not
+ Current Well Abandonment Cost
Drill New Well + New Well Drilling Cost plugged, failure can occur by the minimum of (a) fracture of
+ New Well Completion Cost
+ New Well Production Gain
the formation at the 20 in. shoe, (b) rupture of the 20 in. casing
or (c) collapse of the 13-3/8 in. casing. The first two options
Fig. 5 – Drill New Well Subtree lead to leak off of drilling fluid to the formation, but neither
collapse of inner strings nor communication of reservoir fluids
with the well exterior, as the 13-3/8 still exists as a fluid
barrier. Collapse of the 13-3/8 in. casing, on the other hand,
4 OTC 15133

can lead to point loading and collapse of the production annular fluid expansion pressure in the C annulus), the former
casing. The consequences of production casing collapse are will fail.
discussed below.
C Annulus Is Plugged. If the C annulus is plugged, then Consequences of Collapse of the Production Casing.
failure can still occur by either (a) rupture of the 20 in. casing Several of the failure paths discussed in the preceding sections
or (b) collapse of the 13-3/8 in. casing, with consequences lead to either outright collapse of the 9-5/8 in. production
identical to those discussed in the preceding section. casing or collapse of the 13-3/8 in. intermediate casing onto
the production casing (leading to its failure, also). Given the
Production Casing Does Not Leak. Should the production collapse of the production casing, additional alternatives
casing connection maintain its seal, there exist two other leak remain (Fig. 9):
paths in the B annulus by which collapse pressure on the • The casing, in turn, does or does not collapse the
production casing can be alleviated – the shoe of the 13-3/8 in. production tubing.
casing and the seal assembly and/or casing patch in the 13-3/8 • If the tubing collapses, the collapse does or does not
in. near the mudline. occur below the subsurface safety valve (SSSV).
B Annulus Is Not Plugged. If the B annulus is not • If the tubing collapses below the SSSV, leak path
plugged, annular fluid expansion pressure is relieved by Tubing-B annulus-C annulus either (a) does not occur
fracture of the formation at the 13-3/8 in. shoe, minimizing the (for example, the tubing collapses without loss of
direct risk to the 9-5/8 in. casing. pressure integrity), (b) occurs and is minor
There is, however, a danger that fluid expansion effects in (hydrocarbon release through the well is detected and
the C annulus can still collapse the 13-3/8 in. casing as it contained) or (c) occurs and is catastrophic (major
constitutes the C annulus inner boundary. Cascading this reservoir hydrocarbon release through the well and
collapse to the 9-5/8 in. casing will result in its collapse, with breaching the mudline). See Fig. 10.
consequences to be discussed shortly. The subtree defining
the consequences of this alternative are the same as those 13-3/8 in. Collapse
Leads to
depicted in Fig. 6, the only differences being (a) the title of the 9-5/8 in. Collapse
branch root, where now the 13-3/8 in. shoe, rather than the 9-
20 in. Casing
5/8 in. connection, is “leaking” and (b) should the 13-3/8 in. Holds
seal assembly or casing patch leak, there is no workover to φ20 in.
mitigate a production casing leak. See Fig. 9
B Annulus Is Plugged. If the B annulus is plugged due to 20 in.
Casing
a combination of cement settling, wellbore instability and/or
barite settling, collapse loading of the 9-5/8 in. casing will
Leak Off Mud/Spacer
depend on the integrity of the seal assembly and/or casing 20 in. Casing
Fails
patch in the 13-3/8 in. near the mudline. + Current Well Completion Cost
1 – φ20 in.

B Annulus Not
Plugged Fig. 8 – 20 in. Casing Subtree
See Fig. 6 C Annulus Not
No φB Open Plugged
9-5/8 in. + Current Well Completion Cost
13-3/8 Wellhead φC Open
Leak Tubing Collapses + Completed Well Abandonment Cost
Seal/Patch Leaks See “No 13-3/8 Wellhead Above SSSV + Deferred Production
9-5/8 in. Collapse + New Well Drilling Cost
B Annulus φPatch C Annulus Seal/Patch Leak”, Fig. 6 φAbove SSSV
Leads to + New Well Completion Cost
Plugged Plugged Tubing Collapse + New Well Production Gain
1 – φB Open No 13-3/8 Wellhead 1 – φC Open φTubing Coll Tubing Collapses
Seal/Patch Leak Below SSSV
See Fig. 9
1 – φPatch 9-5/8 in. 1 – φAbove SSSV
Collapse
See Fig. 10

Fig. 7 – 9-5/8 in. No Leak Subtree, Dashed Portion is Similar to 13- 9-5/8 in. Collapse + Current Well Completion Cost
3/8 Wellhead Seal/Patch Subtree of Fig. 6 Does Not + Completed Well Abandonment Cost
Collapse Tubing + Deferred Production
1 – φTubing Coll + New Well Drilling Cost
13-3/8 in. Seal Assembly or Casing Patch Leaks. In this + New Well Completion Cost
+ New Well Production Gain
case, pressure communication exists between the B and C
annuli. Subsequent load paths for this case are roughly the
Fig 9. – 9-5/8 in. Collapse Subtree
same (the B/C annulus pressure may vary slightly) as the case
“Production Casing Leaks, 13-3/8 in. Seal Assembly and As indicated in Table 1, this analysis assumes a high
Casing Patch Do Not Leak” discussed above, the only probability (80%) that tubing collapse below the SSSV will
difference being the chamber now consists of the B and C lead to a hydrocarbon breach and a high probability (90%) that
annuli, rather than the C annulus alone. the breach will grow with time, reaching a stage where flow
13-3/8 in. Seal Assembly and Casing Patch Do Not Leak. from the wellbore cannot be managed.
The B annulus is a competent pressure vessel, and, assuming
the collapse resistance of the 9-5/8 in. casing (recall the wear) Miscellaneous Assumptions. In addition to the above, the
to be less than the rupture pressure of the 13-3/8 in. analysis is worked under the following assumptions:
intermediate casing (which may, in fact be supported by
OTC 15133 5

• Investment in the current well prior to the initiation the SSSV. As indicated in Table 1, however, the cost of an
of this analysis is irrelevant; unmanageable breach is enormous.
• Failure of the well occurs early in the well life; Current Well Survives. Load scenarios that involve no
• The A annulus is assumed vented; damage, or perhaps minor drilling fluid loss at a casing shoe,
• All leaks are undistinguished in terms of rate – a exact only the cost to complete the current well.
connection leak in either direction, a patch or
wellhead seal leak and an open casing shoe are Table 1. Summary of Variables in Decision Tree
assumed to be equivalent with regard to their ability All Monetary Values in Millions of Dollars
Name Value Low High
to support fluid flow;
Above SSSV Collapse Probability 0.3 0.2 0.4
• The 9-5/8 casing will not collapse (alone) if its (φAbove SSSV)
threaded connection leaks;
Catastrophic Breach Cost -300 -500 -100
• A catastrophic breach is only associated with failure Completed Well Abandonment Cost -10 -12 -8
of the 20 in. casing or the 20 in. casing shoe; Current Well Abandonment Cost -3.5 -4 -3
• Any collapse of the 9-5/8 in. casing results in well Current Well Completion Cost -17.7 -19.7 -15.7
abandonment. Deferred Production -3.35 -3.7 -3
Evacuation Probability (φEvac) 0.2 0.1 0.3
It is significant that the catastrophic event can only occur
with what might be termed a reflexive failure. That is, the 20 Hydrocarbon Breach Probability 0.8 0.7 0.9
in. casing and 20 in. shoes hold such that the 13-3/8 in. or 9- (φBreach)
5/8 in. collapses. This leads to a possible tubing collapse, Manageable Breach Probability 0.1 0 0.2
which would then expose the B and C annuli to reservoir (φManage)
pressure, and possible compromise of the 20 in. casing or New Well Completion Cost -16.2 -18.2 -14.2
shoe. One might also postulate no collapse of the 13-3/8 in. or New Well Drilling Cost -14 -20 -8
9-5/8 in., just large leaks, and arrive at the same possible New Well Production Gain 1.6 1.2 2
compromise of the 20 in. casing or shoe. This latter scenario Plugged B Annulus Probability 0.2 0.1 0.3
(φB Open)
is not addressed in the decision tree used in this study.
Plugged C Annulus Probability 0.3 0.2 0.4
+ Current Well Completion Cost (φC Open)
+ Completed Well Abandonment Cost
No Tubing-B-C Breach + Deferred Production Production Casing Connection Leak 0.4 0.3 0.5
1 - φBreach + New Well Drilling Cost Probability with A Annulus Backup
+ New Well Completion Cost
+ New Well Production Gain
(φ9-5/8 Leak)
Production Casing Connection Leak 0.8 0.7 0.9
+ Current Well Completion Cost
Tubing Collapses + Completed Well Abandonment Cost Probability with A Annulus Evacuated
Below SSSV Minor Tubing-B-C Breach + Deferred Production (φ9-5/8 Leak)
φBreach x φManage + New Well Drilling Cost
+ New Well Completion Cost Surface Casing Hold Probability (φ20 in.) 0.7 0.6 0.8
+ New Well Production Gain
Surface Casing Shoe Hold Probability 0.1 0 0.2
Major Tubing-B-C Breach + Current Well Completion Cost (φ20 Shoe)
φBreach x (1 - φManage) + Catastrophic Breach Cost
Tubing Collapse Probability 0.8 0.7 0.9
(φTubing Coll)
Fig 10. – Tubing Collapse Below SSSV Subtree
Wellhead Seal Leak Probability (φPatch) 0.8 0.7 0.9
Outcomes Workover Cost -10 -12 -8
The outcomes of various success and failure paths are
expressed in present value dollars, with negative values Pertinent Variables
representing a cost. Outcomes include the following, where Table 1 lists the variables considered in the analysis, with their
more complete definitions of all terms are given in a corresponding expected and limit values. Monetary variables
later section: have their values assigned based on historical cost experience.
Drill New Well. Here the total cost includes abandoning Probability values are discussed with the individual
the current well and drilling and completing the new well. In definitions. Comments on the variables are as follows:
addition, an improved completion on the new drill will lead to Above SSSV Collapse Probability. The probability that
slightly higher production rates. tubing damage sufficient to expose the A annulus to reservoir
Workover Current Well. This is the cost incurred by a hydrocarbons, if it occurs, will occur above the SSSV. A hole
leak, but not failure of the production casing. in the tubing below the SSSV is assumed to result in
Tubing Collapse Above SSSV. The wellbore is lost. Total uncontrolled exposure of the A annulus. The expected value
cost includes completing (prior to the failure) and abandoning of probability assigned this variable roughly reflects the
the current well, deferred production and the cost (and position of the SSSV in the tubing string, and assumes
benefits, see above) of a new drill. collapse of the tubing to be equally likely at any axial location.
Tubing Collapse Below SSSV. Provided a breach, if any, is Catastrophic Breach Cost. The financial consequences of
controllable, the cost is tantamount to a tubing collapse above a significant, uncontrolled breach of hydrocarbons to the mud
line was estimated from an independent study of a companion
6 OTC 15133

oil field. The cost includes rig mobilization and the process Surface Casing Hold Probability. The probability that the
leading to control of the reservoir, but does not assign a surface casing with cement backup will be able to withstand
monetary value to such intangibles as the impact of a internal annular fluid expansion pressure associated
catastrophic breach on reputation. with production.
Completed Well Abandonment Cost. The cost to abandon Surface Casing Shoe Hold Probability. The probability
the current well should it be completed and then suffer that the surface casing shoe will not fracture due to annular
tubular failure. fluid expansion pressure associated with production.
Current Well Abandonment Cost. The cost to abandon the Tubing Collapse Probability. The probability that collapse
current well prior to further completion operations. of the production casing will lead to collateral collapse of the
Current Well Completion Cost. The cost to gravel pack, production tubing. Experience with a failure at another deep
run tubing and place the current well in a position to produce water location1-3 renders this probability high.
hydrocarbons. Wellhead Seal Leak Probability. The probability that the
Deferred Production. The present value of income lost by 13-3/8 in. seal assembly on the current well cannot maintain
the delay in hydrocarbon production associated with pressure integrity. The high probability of a leak reflects the
abandoning the current well (following a failure) and drilling operational difficulty associated with setting and testing
and completing a new well. this seal.
Evacuation Probability. The probability that the A Workover Cost. The cost to mitigate a leak in a 9-5/8 in.
annulus can undergo complete evacuation. This load case is production casing connection.
typically associated with a production packer leak leading to
significant loss of completion fluid. The completion fluid loss Results of Analyses
will balance low tubing pressure scenarios such as blocked Given the problem and assumptions as described above, a
perforations, initiating well production with Nitrogen or late decision tree was assembled to compare the alternatives of
life depletion of reservoir pressure. The assigned values are completing the current well versus a new drill. Although any
based loosely on historical rates. number of manual and software tools are available for
Hydrocarbon Breach Probability. The probability of a decision tree analysis, this study employed the Data 3.5
tubing failure resulting in the breach of reservoir hydrocarbons software11. Although no more accurate than spreadsheet or
to the mud line, regardless of the extent of the flow. hand calculation methods, special purpose software does offer
Manageable Breach Probability. The probability that the advantage of quickly building and editing a
breach of hydrocarbons to the mud line is either small or can decision model.
be contained. The alternative is an uncontrolled breach. This
value is low to accommodate the expectation that any breach Table 2. Summary of Results from Decision Tree Fold
of the mud line will, due to washout of the flow path, increase Back
with time. Delay in detection of the tubing failure leading to Outcome
Cost Combined
the breach and mobilization time are further considerations. $mm Probability
Workover
New Well Completion Cost. The cost to gravel pack, run Production Casing 27.7 0.3840
tubing and place a new drill in a position to Leak
produce hydrocarbons. Production Casing
New Well Drilling Cost. The cost to drill a new well. Collapses, But
0.0178
Does Not Collapse
New Well Production Gain. The tubing configuration in a Tubing
new drill will be slightly different from that of the current Production Casing
well, accommodating increased flow potential. Collapses Tubing 59.6 0.0214
Plugged B Annulus Probability. The probability that barite Above SSSV
settling has rendered the B annulus a closed container. Production Casing
No Hydrocarbon
Collapses Tubing 0.0101
Plugged C Annulus Probability. The probability that Below SSSV
Breach
barite settling has rendered the C annulus a closed container. Breach is Minor 0.0041
Production Casing Connection Leak Probability with A Breach is
317.7 0.0355
Annulus Backup. The probability that, under producing Catastrophic
20 in. Fails,
conditions, including increased external pressure due to Leakoff Mud
17.7 0.0278
annular fluid expansion, the connection on the production 20 in. Shoe Fails,
17.7 0.1653
casing will leak. The internal pressure is assumed to be a full Leakoff Mud
column of completion fluid. This value, and its counterpart No Failure 17.7 0.3328
for an evacuated A annulus, are based on physical tests of
casing connections under load paths that include the region Results of folding back the tree are summarized in Table 2.
highlighted in Fig. 2. The large cost of the catastrophic mudline breach is countered
Production Casing Connection Leak Probability with A by the low risk of its occurrence. However, this variable is
Annulus Evacuated. The probability that, under producing still an important aspect of the decision, as indicated by the
conditions, including increased external pressure due to tornado diagram in Fig. 11. Other variables having a
annular fluid expansion, the connection on the production significant influence on the outcome of the analysis include
casing will leak. The internal pressure is assumed to be nil. the cost of drilling and completing a new well, the leak
integrity of the 13-3/8 patch/wellhead, the cost of abandoning
OTC 15133 7

the current well and the enhanced productivity associated with and (b) anticipate the data needs of any possible
the new drill. Of these variables, the costs associated with the decision analysis.
new drill are probably the more well known quantities.
The risk weighted cost of completing and producing a new References
well is $32.1 million, as compared to $34.5 million to 1. Bradford, D. W. et al.: “Marlin Failure Analysis and
complete and produce the current well. Additionally, by Redesign; Part 1, Description of Failure,” paper SPE 74528
calculating the tree based on expected cost and ignoring presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
reputational and environmental issues, the current well option Dallas, February 26-28.
2. Ellis, R. C. et al.: “Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign;
looks more attractive than it should. Had the tree calculation Part 2, Redesign,” paper SPE 74529 presented at the 2002
been reversed, HSE issues would have had to be revisited. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, February 26-28.
The decision to drill a new well was significantly influenced 3. Gosch, S. W. et al.: “Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign;
by the results of this analysis. Part 3, VIT Completion With Real-Time Monitoring,”
paper SPE 74530 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, February 26-28.
4. Harrison, C. G.: “Fishing Decisions Under Uncertainty,
JPT (Feb. 1982) 299.
5. Cunha, J. C. S.: “Risk Analysis Theory Applied to Fishing
Operations: A New Approach on the Decision-Making
Problem,” paper SPE 28726 presented at the 1994 SPE
International Petroleum Conference & Exhibition of
Mexico, Oct. 10-13.
6. Koederitz, W. L. et. al.: “Method for Determining the
Feasibility of Dynamic Kill of Shallow Gas Flows,” paper
SPE 16691 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Sept. 27-30.
7. Thorogood, J. L. et. al.: “Quantitative Risk Assessment of
Subsurface Well Collisions,” paper SPE 20908 presented at
the 1990 Europec 90, Oct. 22-24.
8. Thorogood, J. L., Hogg, T. W., and Williamson, H. S.:
“Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Subsurface Well
Collisions,” SPE Drilling Engineering (Dec. 1991) 299.
9. Williamson, H. S.: “Towards Risk-Based Well Separation
Rules,” paper SPE 36484 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 6-9.
10. Pattillo, P. D., Moschovidis, Z. A., and Lal, M.: "An
-40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 Evaluation of Concentric Casing for Nonuniform Load
Applications," SPE Drilling and Completion
Expected Value, $mm (Sept. 1995) 186.
11. Data 3.5 User’s Manual, TreeAge Software, Inc.,
New Well Drilling Cost Williamstown, MA (1999).
Catastrophic Breach Cost
New Well Completion Cost
Wellhead Seal Leak Probability
Current Well Abandonment Cost
New Well Production Gain
Plugged B Annulus Probability

Fig. 11 - Tornado Diagram for Decision Tree Used in This Study

Conclusions
1. Decision analysis is an invaluable tool for
quantifying decisions in an environment such as deep
water development where costs are substantial, risks
are high and uncertainties are common.
2. Uncertainties surrounding the limiting pressures for
the B and C annuli are key elements in this analysis.
Cement top determination, pressure testing
components and attempts to counteract the changing
character of annular fluids (e.g. settling) both (a)
render the wellbore more useable in the long term