Well Decommissioning Guidelines: June 2018

Well Decommissioning Guidelines
Issue 6
June 2018
Acknowledgments
In preparing and publishing this document, Oil & Gas UK gratefully acknowledges the contribution of
members of the Well Decommissioning Guideline Task Finish Group, namely:
• Chris Barrett, INEOS E&P Holdings Limited
• Dillan Perras, Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Ltd
• James Richards, CNR International (U.K.) Ltd
• Jim Keenan, Halliburton Energy Services Group
• Matt Jenkins, ConocoPhillips (UK) Limited/Well-Safe Solutions
• Mike Brandie, Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc
• Niki Mackenzie, Maersk Oil a company of Total
• Nick Lucas, Shell Upstream International
• Ted Hibbert, Apache North Sea Limited
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this
publication, neither Oil & Gas UK, nor any of its members will assume liability for any use made of this
publication.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publishers.
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
Copyright © 2018 The UK Oil and Gas Industry Association Limited trading as Oil & Gas UK
ISBN: 903 004 92 6

PUBLISHED BY OIL & GAS UK
London Office:
6th Floor East, Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BH
Tel: 020 7802 2400 Fax: 020 7802 2401
Aberdeen Office:
Exchange 2, 3rd Floor, 62 Market Street, Aberdeen, AB11 5PJ
Tel: 01224 577250 Fax: 01224 577251
info@oilandgasuk.co.uk
www.oilandgasuk.co.uk
Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 2

Foreword
The Guidelines for Decommissioning of Wells, issued by Oil & Gas UK, have been produced by the Well
Decommissioning workgroup of the Oil & Gas UK Wells Forum.
These guidelines have been previously published as the Guidelines for the Abandonment of Wells, and
“well abandonment” is now referred to as “well decommissioning” where appropriate.
Within these guidelines the word “shall” is only used when the instruction is explicit in legislation or
physical laws. Otherwise the word “should” indicates the workgroup’s understanding of current good
practice. “May” is used where there are alternatives available to the well-operator and either, or any
one, of those alternatives is acceptable; in these instances the well-operator will have to use its best
technical judgement to decide which is preferable in the particular situation.
This document provides industry recommendations and good practice for well decommissioning based
on recent North Sea experience. The contents of the document have been developed by an Oil & Gas
UK Workgroup who have reviewed the existing literature and have identified areas where current
practice and experience has moved beyond the published guidance to a sufficient degree, or is not
covered in existing guidance that it was deemed necessary to record the changes in this publication.
This document is aimed at the well engineer but contains information relevant to all disciplines and
management involved in well decommissioning.
These guidelines are relevant to all oil and gas well operators working in the following areas:
• External waters, that is, the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain (GB) and any designated
area within the United Kingdom continental shelf (UKCS);
• Internal waters of Great Britain, such as estuaries; and
• Onshore Great Britain, where appropriate.
While every effort has been made to produce a useful and comprehensive document, these guidelines
do not represent legal, regulatory or technical advice by Oil & Gas UK or any workgroup members. No
liability is accepted for errors or omissions, or for the consequences of any actions taken with reference
to or in reliance on these guidelines.
Oil & Gas UK Guidelines are subject to regular review. Feedback and comments are welcome, please
contact info@oilandgasuk.co.uk

Contents
1 Introduction 9
Objectives 9
Scope 9
2 Zones with Flow Potential 11
3 Permanent Barriers 12
Overview 12
Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers 12
Number of Permanent Barriers 13
Length Requirements of Permanent Barriers 13
3.4.1 Cement 13
3.4.2 Sealing Formations 14
3.4.3 Existing Annular Materials 15
3.4.4 Alternative Materials 15
Position Requirements of Permanent Barriers 16
3.5.1 Open Hole 17
3.5.2 Partial Decommissioning for Sidetracking and
Multilaterals 20
3.5.3 Cased Hole 21
Placement of Permanent Barriers 23
3.6.1 Through-tubing Decommissionings 24
3.6.2 Penetrations Through Permanent Barriers 25
3.6.3 Bull-heading 26
3.6.4 High Angle and Horizontal Wells (wells > 70°) 26
4 Verification of a Permanent Barrier 28
Overview 28
Wellbore Barrier 28
Annular Barrier 29
4.3.1 Verifying Sealing Formations 30
4.3.2 Verifying Through-tubing and Bull-heading 31
4.3.3 Liner Laps 31
5 Special Considerations 32
HPHT Wells 32
Overburden Competence due to Reservoir Compaction and
Subsidence 32
Cross Flow of Zones with Flow Potential 32
Wells Containing H2S 33
Wells Containing CO2 33
Wells Containing Magnesium Salts 33
Gas Wells and High GOR Wells 33
6 Phase 3 Well Decommissioning 34
Annular Fluids 34
Shallow Water-bearing Zones 34
Hydrocarbons of Biogenic Nature 34

Retrieval of Subsea Equipment During Phase 3 34
Appendices 35
A Statutory Notifications, Approvals and Record Keeping 35
B Basic Well Data Required for Well Decommissioning 39
C Cement Barrier Placement – Potential Issues and Mitigations 41
D Phases of Well Decommissioning and Coding 46
E References and Further Reading 50

Glossary
Combination Barrier: Where primary and secondary permanent barriers are combined into a single large
permanent barrier.
Fluid: As a clarification, this word refers to both liquids and gases.
Good cement: Cement that has been verified as to quantity and quality as stated in Section 4 of these
guidelines.
Impermeable: A formation or material is considered impermeable when it has sufficiently low
permeability so as to prevent flow, i.e. it is impermeable to flow.
Maximum Anticipated Pressure: Maximum pressure expected in the wellbore or formation in the future
following permanent well decommissioning. This may include the possible effects of future
developments or the recharge of the reservoir.
Permanent well decommissioning: The permanent isolation from surface and from lower pressured
zones, of penetrated zones with flow potential in any well that will not be re-entered.
Permanent barrier: A verified barrier that will maintain a permanent seal. A permanent barrier must
extend laterally across the full cross section of the well and include all annuli. When considering isolation
from surface, the first barrier above the point of potential influx is referred to as the primary barrier; the
next barrier above the point of potential influx is referred to as the secondary barrier.
Well: A well is a single wellbore or aggregation of wellbores from a single well origin. It includes the
original wellbore, any side-track from it and any hole section as defined by Regulation 2, DCR (SI
1996/913), and Regulation 2, SCR2015 (SI 2015/398).
Zone with flow potential: Sequence of rock that is capable of flow of fluids. See section 2.

List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations Definitions
ALARP As low as reasonably practicable
API American Petroleum Institute
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CDA Common Data Access Limited
DCR The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design & Construction, etc) Regulations
1996 (SI 1996/913)
E&A Exploration and appraisal
EA Environment Agency
ECD Equivalent circulating density
ESP Electrical submersible pump
ft Feet
GOR Gas oil ratio
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
HPHT High pressure high temperature
ID Inside diameter
klbs 1000 pounds weight
MD Measured depth
NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
NPT Non productive time
OD Outside diameter
OGA Oil & Gas Authority
OPEP Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
OPRED Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning
P&A Plug and abandon
PON Petroleum Operations Notice
POOH Pull out of hole
Psi Pounds per square inch of pressure

Abbreviations Definitions
RA Radioactive
SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SCR2015 The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive)(Safety Case etc) Regulations
2015
SS Subsea
TOC Top of cement
UKOOA UK Offshore Operators Association – now Oil & Gas UK
YP Yield point
VRP Viscous reactive pill
WONS Well Operations Notification System
WOW Waiting on weather

1 Introduction
These guidelines have been prepared to support well-operators on the considerations that need to be
taken during the phases of decommissioning a well. The intent of these guidelines is to provide the
framework for the risk based decision-making process that should accompany any well
decommissioning activity.
Furthermore, the guidelines help well-operators to comply with the Offshore Installations and Wells
(Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/913), hereafter referred to as DCR. The
regulations in DCR that are relevant to well decomissioning are 13, 15 and 16 and cover well integrity,
design for decommissioning and materials. The regulations are goal-setting in nature and set out what
the regulator requires of the duty holder
Regulation 13, DCR, imposes a general duty on well-operators:
…ensure that a well is so designed, modified, commissioned, constructed, equipped, operated,

maintained, suspended and abandoned that:
so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from the well; …
Regulation 15, DCR, provides that the well-operator shall:
…ensure that a well is so designed and constructed that, so far as is reasonably practicable:
it can be suspended or abandoned in a safe manner; and
after its suspensions or abandonment there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from it or from the
reservoir to which it led.
Regulation 16, DCR, provides that:
...The well operator shall ensure that every part of the well is composed of material which is suitable for
achieving the purposes described in Regulation 13 (1).
Objectives
To provide guidelines for the isolation of formations with flow potential when a well is decommissioned
or sidetracked.
Scope
• These guidelines apply to all exploration, appraisal and development wells that are being
decommissioned or sidetracked.
• It should be recognised that each well is unique and should be considered on an individual basis.
• Whilst primarily aimed at offshore wells, these guidelines are equally applicable onshore.

Wellbores decommissioned prior to Issue 6 of these guidelines are outside the scope of this guidance.
However, previous side-tracks should be checked to confirm that suitable decommissionings were
performed and do not compromise the decommissioning of the host wellbore, acceptance of previous
side-track decommissionings should be documented.

2 Zones with Flow Potential
Decommissioning of wells is concerned with the isolation of rock formations that have flow potential.
An assessment of the flow potential of individual formations penetrated by the well is a key input to the
design of the well barriers. The extent of measures to mitigate possible consequences of flow potential
should be considered in an ALARP approach.
Flow potential originates mostly from formations with permeability and a pressure differential with
other formations or surface. Formations with low or no permeability, like shales and chalk, may however
also exhibit flow potential (e.g. if fractured), in which case these may require isolation; fractures may be
natural or induced by well activities or production.
The assessment of flow potential should include scenarios such as zones that become charged during
the life of the well, re-charging of reservoirs, movement of fluids post-decommissioning, re-
development for hydrocarbon extraction (possibly with enhanced recovery techniques), use for
geothermal projects, or storage of energy or CO2.
Indications of flow potential are based on drilling records (gains/losses/gas levels), log evaluation
(including from adjacent wells), well annuli pressures, well annuli bleed down history, fluid/gas sampling
and subsurface modelling. Evidence of flow potential may only become apparent during
decommissioning operations. Precautions are required for adequate pressure control during such
operations.
Formations may be grouped into zones of similar fluids and/or pressures where inter-zonal isolation has
been assessed as not required, or where the consequences of cross flow are deemed acceptable. Such
a group of formations can be isolated by a common barrier or dual barrier if required.
The level of acceptable flow potential, post-decommissioning, will require an assessment of the risk of
harm to people or the environment. Considerations should include outflow at surface and underground
flow from one formation into another (including into usable water aquifers where applicable). The
assessment will typically consider formation fluids, pressures, formation strength, potential flow rates,
sustainability of potential flow, environmental impact, feasibility of remedial activities and response
time.

3 Permanent Barriers
Overview
The underlying principle on which these guidelines are based is restoration of the cap rock.
The material, number, position, length and placement method of barriers should be based on
assessment of well condition, formation fluids, pressures, formation strength, potential flow rates,
sustainability of potential flow, environmental impact.
Figure 1. Permanent Decommissioning Barrier Schematic “Restoring the Cap Rock”
Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers

The main characteristics of placed barrier materials (not limited to cement) should be as follows:
• Impermeable – to prevent flow of fluids through the bulk material.

• Provide an interface seal – to prevent flow of fluids around the barrier; the material provides a
seal along the interface with adjacent materials such as steel pipe or rock; risks of shrinkage and
de-bonding are to be considered.
• Remain at the intended position and depth in the well.
• Long-term integrity – long-lasting isolation characteristics of the material, not deteriorating
over time; risks of cracks and de-bonding over time are to be considered.
• Resistance to downhole fluids (e.g. CO2, H2S, hydrocarbons, brine, magnesium) at foreseeable
pressures and temperatures.
• Mechanical properties suitable to accommodate loads at foreseeable temperatures and
pressures. If applicable consider changes in service over the entire life cycle of the well (e.g. due

to conversion of producers to water injectors, steam injection, gas storage, unconsolidated
formations etc.).
• Compatibility of barrier material with adjacent geology.
Separate guidelines have been compiled for the qualification of barrier materials which are to be placed
(see Oil & Gas UK Guidelines on qualification of materials for the abandonment of wells, Issue 2, 2015).
The condition and suitability of existing materials in the well should be considered when forming part
of a permanent barrier, e.g. scale, corrosion, mud solids, plastic coated tubulars, GR lined tubulars,
encapsulation, control lines and cable.
Number of Permanent Barriers

All penetrated zones with flow potential that have been identified as requiring isolation should be
isolated from surface or seabed by a minimum of one permanent barrier, or two as appropriate. Where
cross flow is deemed unacceptable, zones should be isolated from each other.
The actual number of barriers required should be determined by risk assessment and they may differ
from the numbers below. When considering the number of barriers for water-bearing zones, a single
barrier has been specified as a minimum. This approach should be risk assessed and operators should
consider increasing this requirement based on, but not limited to, the following considerations:
• Differential pressure across the barrier

• Impact of single point failure
• Robustness of barrier placement and verification
Generally;
• One permanent barrier from surface or seabed may be considered if a zone requiring isolation is
water-bearing.
• Two permanent barriers from surface or seabed are recommended if a zone requiring isolation is
hydrocarbon-bearing OR water bearing and significantly over-pressured.
The two permanent barriers may be combined into a single large permanent barrier (combination
barrier), provided it is as effective and reliable as the two barriers and is an appropriate method to
achieve the objectives that two barriers would otherwise have provided.
Length Requirements of Permanent Barriers

All depths are Measured Depth (MD) unless otherwise stated.
3.4.1 Cement
A permanent cement barrier should have;
• A cement column of typically a minimum 100 ft measured depth (MD) of good cement to constitute
a permanent barrier whether inside or outside the casing.
• Typically 100 ft MD of good cement above the zone with flow potential.

• The internal cement plug adjacent to the annular good cement over a cumulative distance of
typically 100 ft MD of overlap.
Note: Where distinct zones with flow potential are less than 100 ft MD apart, then the maximum
practical column of good cement should be placed between the zones.
When a combination barrier is chosen to replace two barriers, it should have:
• A cement column of typically a minimum 200 ft MD of good cement, which is considered to

constitute such a permanent barrier.
• Typically, 200 ft MD of good cement above the zone with flow potential.
• The internal cement plug adjacent to the annular good cement over a cumulative distance of 200 ft
MD of overlap.
A reduction in the lengths stated above should only be used if a rigorous risk assessment process has
been followed and it robustly demonstrates that the additional time, trouble and cost required to set a
100 / 200 ft barrier are grossly disproportionate to the further risk reduction achieved in setting these
barriers. Thereby demonstrating that the risks associated with a barrier less than 100 / 200 ft are as low
as is reasonably practicable (ALARP).
Figure 2. Comparison of Length of Dual and Combination Cement Barriers
3.4.2 Sealing Formations
Certain formations (e.g. certain shales or certain salts) are known to move as a result of stress
differences. These formations are able to close an annulus space where cement is absent or incomplete.
Typically, such moving formation is a geological feature that is observed field-wide and is not an isolated
well related feature. To be considered for use as a barrier, the formation should be impermeable and
have adequate strength; these properties should be lasting at the prevailing conditions.

If it can be demonstrated that the cumulative length of the resulting seal of the formation against the
casing is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated pressures, then
such a seal is acceptable as a replacement for a good annulus cement bond.
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation providing sufficient cumulative
length above the zone with flow potential.
3.4.3 Existing Annular Materials
It is acknowledged that existing annular materials have been used to form an annulus barrier where the
verification has been carried out as per a sealing formation. This approach should not be considered a
primary design option. Guidance on verification can be found in section 4.
For existing annular materials, if it can be demonstrated that the cumulative length of the resulting seal
of the formation against the casing is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum
anticipated pressures, then such a seal is acceptable as a replacement for a good annulus cement bond.
However, unlike sealing formations, existing annular sealing materials will be well specific and the
following could be considered:
• Mud density
• Weighting agent
• Well inclination
• Annular clearance
• Fluid properties
• Age of the well
• Pressure and contents of zone to be isolated
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation providing sufficient cumulative
length above the zone with flow potential.
3.4.4 Alternative Materials
It is recognised that different barrier materials are in development and will emerge as alternatives to
cement. These materials will require assessment and it is anticipated that required lengths of these
materials will be different to those of cement.
If it can be demonstrated that the cumulative length of the resulting seal provided by the alternative
material is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated pressures, then
such a seal is acceptable as a replacement for a good annulus cement bond.
The internal barrier material should be adjacent to the annular isolation or can itself form the annular
isolation providing there is sufficient cumulative length above the zone with flow potential.
Separate guidelines have been compiled for the qualification of barrier materials which are to be placed
(See Oil & Gas UK Guidelines on qualification of materials for the abandonment of wells, Issue 2, 2015).

Position Requirements of Permanent Barriers
The first barrier above the zone with flow potential is referred to as the primary barrier; the next barrier
above the zone with flow potential, where required, is referred to as the secondary barrier.
A permanent barrier should;
• Be set above the zone with flow potential across a suitable cap rock.
• Extend across the full cross section of the well and include all annuli.
• Have formation fracture pressure at the base of the barrier in excess of the maximum
anticipated pressure from the zone being isolated.
A suitable cap rock is impermeable, laterally continuous and has adequate strength and thickness to
contain the maximum anticipated pressure from the zone being isolated.
Note 1: Consideration should be given to the location of the barrier and fracture pressure along the
length of the barrier.
Note 2: Consideration should be made of needing to repeat a barrier placement without needing to
remove the failed barrier material
Note 3: The secondary barrier of one zone with flow potential can be the primary barrier for another,
shallower positioned, zone with flow potential (Figure 3). The bottom of the secondary barrier should
be placed in an area of suitable fracture strength.
Figure 3. General Requirements for Decommissioning

Figure 4. Barrier position is determined by the geological setting, i.e. permeable formations as source
of inflow and cap rock
Note 4: Two barriers are shown per zone with flow potential in Figure 4. This will be the case if barriers
cannot be shared, i.e. cap rock L is not capable of containing the maximum anticipated pressure from
the main reservoir, or cap rock K is not capable to contain the pressure of sandstone B.
3.5.1 Open Hole
This section covers barrier position where the zone with flow potential is not behind the casing.
For open hole isolations, it is recommended to set a permanent barrier in cased hole (Figure 6) or to
extend sufficiently into cased hole (Figure 5). The barrier across cased hole is to fully isolate the open
hole and allow for a pressure test.
Zones with flow potential that belong to different pressure regimes should be separated by one
permanent barrier unless cross-flow is acceptable (see Figure 7).
Where the pressure from a zone with flow potential is anticipated to exceed the formation fracture
pressure anywhere in the open hole, it should be isolated by two permanent barriers or a combination
barrier (See Figure 8).

Figure 5. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If the open hole strength would not allow pressure
testing from above)
Figure 6. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If open hole strength is sufficient for maximum
pressure from Zone A)

Figure 7. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers if Zone A requires isolating from Zone B (If Maximum
Anticipated Pressure from Zone B does not exceed the casing shoe fracture pressure, one
Permanent Barrier between Zone A and Zone B is adequate)

Figure 8. Example Open Hole Permanent Barriers (If Maximum Anticipated Pressure exceeds the
casing shoe fracture pressure)
3.5.2 Partial Decommissioning for Sidetracking and Multilaterals
The original wellbore should be permanently decommissioned, unless there is confidence that
permanent barriers can be placed and verified during the final permanent decommissioning of the well.
Where an open hole has been sidetracked and subsequently cased across the kick-off point without
achieving a top of cement into the previous shoe (see Figure 9), a suitable barrier should be set above
the sidetrack point.
If the kick-off plug is being used as a permanent barrier, then the remaining barrier, after kick-off, should
conform to the minimum requirements of a permanent barrier (see also Figure 9).
Isolation needs to be considered to ensure adequate well control in subsequent drilling operations. For
deep sidetracks in the reservoir, isolation from the original wellbore, across the sidetrack point, may be
required for reservoir management during production life.

Figure 9. Example Permanent Barriers for Side-tracking
Considerations for multilateral wells may include;
• Future decommissioning in the well design, since in some cases it will be very difficult to regain
access to the original wellbore;
• Possibly different pressure regimes in the lateral branches of the well; and
• Cementing off annuli above the laterals.
3.5.3 Cased Hole
A full lateral barrier in cased hole consists of annulus isolation and overlapping internal casing isolation.
Cemented casing alone is not considered to constitute a permanent barrier to flow laterally into or out
of the wellbore. (refer to figure 10).

Figure 10. Casing alone is not a permanent barrier to lateral flow
Similarly to Figure 10, inside cased hole, a permanent barrier requires both a cement plug or equivalent
inside the casing, and overlapping good annular cement or equivalent as per Figure 11. The internal
barrier should be attempted whether the casing is perforated or not. In this example zones A & B have
flow potential, and belong to different pressure regimes, so should be separated by one permanent
barrier internally.

Figure 11. Different pressure regimes should be isolated internally by a minimum of one barrier. This
will prevent cross flow due to an incomplete localised cement sheath and leak in casing.
Note 1: The barrier in Figure 11 is placed on a firm support to prevent slumping of the cement slurry
down the well. Consideration should also be given to gas migrating upwards as the cement is thickening.
These considerations are equally appropriate in open hole.
Placement of Permanent Barriers

The downhole placement technique of the barrier material is extremely important, especially in cases
of through-tubing applications, high angle wells, HPHT etc.
To achieve the required barrier length, allowances will have to be made on volumes to cater for
uncertainties during placement. It may be necessary to place up to 500 ft MD of cement to achieve 100
ft of good cement. Similarly, it may be necessary to place up to 800 ft MD of cement to achieve 200 ft
good cement. Optimisation of barrier placement may allow reduction of length from the values noted
above whilst considering some of following during engineering:
• Hole conditions
• Inclination
• Fluid density hierarchy
• Stinger geometry
• Verification method
• Offset experience
Generally, the additional cost of placing more cement is far outweighed by the implications of a leaking
barrier. However, circumstances may arise where it is impractical to place such a typically sized barrier.
Considerations for good cement placement are covered in Appendix C.

3.6.1 Through-tubing Decommissionings
When well completion tubulars are left in hole and permanent barriers are installed through and around
the tubulars, reliable methods and procedures to install these barriers should be established.
See figure 12 as an example of Through-Tubing Cased Hole Decommissioning.
Allowances should be made for:
• Cement slumping
• Channelling
• Lack of centralisation
• Small radial clearances
• Tubing integrity
• Full annular coverage
• Contamination
• Tubing debris, such as wax and scale
• Cables and control lines
• Modelling.

Figure 12. Example Through-Tubing Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic
3.6.2 Penetrations Through Permanent Barriers
Provided the isolations outlined in these guidelines are achieved, cables and control lines can form part
of permanent barriers. Assessment of potential leak paths and the plugging thereof should be
conducted. A rigorous risk assessment process should be followed and documented and should
consider:
• Penetration type e.g. ESP cable, gauge cable, chemical injection line, control line.
• Potential leak paths e.g. encapsulation, cable material, hydraulic line, bonding of barrier material.
• Encapsulation material e.g. plastic type, damage during installation, interfaces between materials.
• Degradation e.g. plastic encapsulation shrinkage, metal corrosion, barrier material interface, with
consideration of temperature and fluid environment.
• Leak path failure modes, and well specific risk profile, which may include cross-flow modelling.
• Alternative isolation material requirements including seal-healing properties.

3.6.3 Bull-heading
Bull-heading of cement into perforations can form a permanent barrier, provided the principle of cap
rock restoration still applies.
Considerations for bull-headed decommissioning barriers include:
• Tubing and casing integrity

• Cement slumping
• Contamination
• Channelling
• Small volume/capacities
• Reservoir injection capability
• Losses
• Tubing debris, such as scale and wax deposits
• Ability to verify by tag (e.g. wireline access depth in high angle wells).
3.6.4 High Angle and Horizontal Wells (wells > 70°)
In principle, the decommissioning of a horizontal well is no different from a standard well. The only
difference is in the means of ensuring a satisfactory isolation, which is in general more difficult to
achieve, see figure 13 below.
Additional considerations in these wells include:
• Isolation of zones with flow potential from each other at high angle
• The final vertical thickness of installed barriers
• Wireline access depth for tagging cement.

Figure 13. Example Isolation of High Angle Well

4 Verification of a Permanent Barrier
Overview
Any permanent barrier should be verified to ensure the barrier is placed at the required depth and will
have the required sealing capability.
Examples of verification methods include:
• Tagging
• Pressure testing
• Inflow testing
• Pumping Records
• Well history
• Modelling
• Lab testing
• Field experience
• Logs
• Sampling
Verification requirements are dependent upon the individual well, job design, barrier material used and
placement method.
Wellbore Barrier
The cement barrier should be verified by an appropriate combination of the following:
• The barrier installation should be documented, including records from the cement operation
(volumes pumped, returns during cementing, water-wetting pills, etc).
• The strength development of the cement slurry should be confirmed. This is primarily done using
pre-job testing with representative component samples cured at anticipated downhole
temperature and pressure.
• The position of a barrier should be verified by tagging, calculation or measurement to confirm the
depth of the firm cement plug.
o Tagging with drillpipe this is typically 10 to 15 klbs.
o Tagging with wireline, coiled tubing or stinger; the weight will be limited by tools and
geometry.
• A pressure test should:
o be a minimum of 500 psi above the leak off pressure below the barrier (e.g. into
perforations or open formation below the casing shoe); but
o not exceed the casing strength minus wear allowance or damage the primary casing
cement, whichever is lower.
• Inflow test should consider the maximum pressure differential to be experienced by the barrier.
In cased hole, if a pressure tested and tagged mechanical plug or previous cement plug is used as a
foundation for the barrier, then

• pressure-testing of the cement barrier may not be meaningful
• tagging may not be necessary if the cement job goes as planned. However, if a decision is made not
to tag a cement plug then the rationale should be documented and risk assessed. This should
consider well conditions, plug length and volume, job trends and execution performance, other
verification methods and consequence of failure. If circumstances exist that increase the risk (e.g.
shortened cement plug, high pressure and temperature, well integrity concerns, method of
placement, execution anomalies) then tagging would be advised.
Note: It is acknowledged that alternative materials may be used. The verification method should prove
the barrier is adequate to prevent flow of the present fluids at the maximum anticipated pressures in
the direction of flow.
Annular Barrier
The annular barrier should be verified by an appropriate combination of:
• Testing (e.g. perforate and test)

• Records from cementing operations (e.g. volumes pumped, returns during cementing, differential
pressure, losses, centralisation etc).
• Sufficient annular isolation through the original cement job. If the quantity of annular cement (the
estimate of TOC) is to be based on differential pressure or monitored volumes during the original
cement job (rather than logs for instance), then a longer cement column may be required to allow
for uncertainty. In this case, a 1,000-foot MD column may be considered adequate for the
equivalent of two barriers or a combination barrier based on the assumption that sealing has
occurred somewhere in the annulus cement. This may be increased or decreased on a well-by-well
basis depending on the confidence level of the original cementation (refer to Figure 14).
• Casing pressure history during the life cycle of the well
• Well-integrity reporting
• The leak-off test when the casing shoe was drilled out
• Field experience
• Pressure test
• Modelling of well lifecycle loading
• Modelling of cement job
• Logs (e.g. cement bond, temperature, sonic)
• Sampling of annular fluids
Note: Validity of historical data (logs, cementing records etc.) should be considered based on potential
isolation degradation, or potential improved sealing properties, over time.

Figure 14. Example Cased Hole Decommissioning Schematic
4.3.1 Verifying Sealing Formations
In addition to 4.2, the verification of a formation seal requires:
• Evidence that the formation has the required fracture strength to withstand the maximum
anticipated pressures.
• The length of the resulting seal of the formation against the casing is adequate to prevent flow of
the present fluids at the maximum anticipated future pressures, for example differential pressure
testing across a suitable length.
And/or
• Validation that the bond log response can be interpreted as adequate for the maximum anticipated
future pressures. This can be achieved by means of a combination of logging and differential testing
experience. Log interpretation should be performed by a senior onshore qualified and trained
cement log specialist and documented.
Once sufficient field experience is gained, it may be possible to use only one of the above verification
techniques (logging or differential testing) when accepting a barrier; such a decision should be
documented. Sealing formation verification can potentially be extrapolated to other wells that are
geologically similar.

4.3.2 Verifying Through-tubing and Bull-heading
In addition to 4.2, there can be less available accurate methods of determining cement quality and
quantity in both tubing and annulus after through tubing or bull-headed barriers are placed. No single
verification method should be relied on exclusively. Additional considerations for verification of bull-
headed or through-tubing barriers could include:
• Pressure responses during pumping and displacement

• Reservoir injection characteristics before, during and after placement
• Cables and control lines.
4.3.3 Liner Laps
Cement across a liner lap should not be part of a permanent barrier unless it has been verified. If the
cement quality in the liner lap is uncertain, the cement barrier should be placed above and/or below
the liner lap.
Note: A liner top packer is not a permanent barrier
Figure 15. Liner Lap Cementation

5 Special Considerations
HPHT Wells
The placement and number of barriers (section 3) also apply to the decommissioning of HPHT wells.
However, with the increased complexity and criticality of these wells, there should also be consideration
of the following as a minimum:
• Recharging to high pressure

• Cap rock weakening due to reservoir depletion
• Thin pressure transition zone
• Liner deformation
• Temperature cycling
• Primary cement degradation due to high temperature
• Reservoir compaction
• Subsidence
• Micro-annuli due to high differential pressures during cementing
Overburden Competence due to Reservoir Compaction and Subsidence

Some geological environments are prone to formation compaction and/or subsidence of the seabed.
The related geological movements could affect flow potential, formation pressures, rock
strength/stresses, mechanical well access (wellbore distortion), and should be risk assessed when
selecting the position and properties of permanent barriers.
Overburden formations may be prone to increase of flow potential, e.g. chalks, as a result of induced
fractures during production. The pressure profile may have changed during well life and should be
considered for the number and depths of barriers required.
Cross Flow of Zones with Flow Potential

Zones with flow potential may be grouped such that they do not need to be isolated from each other if
the risk of cross-flow is deemed to be acceptable. The assessment of risks of potential cross flow should
include the subsurface disciplines and should consider the probability and consequences, taking account
of fluid types and pressure regimes.
This assessment may allow a shallower cap rock to be acceptable for isolation of the group, with a
consequent reduction in decommissioning complexity.
Note: In this case then throughout the guidelines the group should be interpreted as a single zone with
flow potential, and with no need to place a permanent isolation barrier between the zones within the
group.

Wells Containing H2S
The barriers placed in a well containing H2S should be chosen and designed to withstand the corrosive
environment they are intended to isolate.
Wells Containing CO2

This paragraph applies to naturally occurring CO2. Sequestration of CO2 is outside the scope of these
guidelines.
Note: Future CCS may be identified as an option for the reservoir in a decommissioning programme, if
this is the case, the well decommissioning should be designed accordingly.
The barriers placed in a well with significant concentrations of CO2 should be chosen and designed to
withstand the potential effects of the gas on cement, and steel components of the well and on
subsurface formations. CO2 may degrade cement in the presence of water, in particular Portland
cement, increasing its permeability. CO2 will also accelerate corrosion of steel and can increase the
permeability of subsurface formations, for example by (thermal) fracturing of shales.
Wells Containing Magnesium Salts

Magnesium salts may pose a risk to cement, both during placement and to the long-term cement
integrity. Magnesium salts may degrade Portland cement lowering its mechanical strength and
increasing permeability.
Any cement designs should take account of the presence of zones containing magnesium salts.
Gas Wells and High GOR Wells

Gas wells or high gas oil ratio (GOR) wells have the added complication of potential gas migration
through barriers. This can be the case for over-pressured, hydrostatic or sub-hydrostatic reservoirs. It is
advised to carefully select the type of barrier material and the placement technique to counteract this
condition.

6 Phase 3 Well Decommissioning
Considerations prior to Phase 3 well decommissioning (after Phase 1 and 2 barriers are installed,
isolating all zones of flow potential), are addressed in this chapter.
Annular Fluids
Fluids that are positioned above the uppermost barrier in a well and cannot be legally discharged should
be removed or contained before wellhead removal. This is the part of the well which will be exposed to
the environment after wellhead removal. The depth of annular fluid removal should be determined on
a well-by-well basis. An environmental plug may also be set in the well to contain annular fluids.
Shallow Water-bearing Zones

The decision to isolate shallow normally-pressured water-bearing zones in a well will depend on local
conditions, on a well-by-well basis (e.g. whether the shallow zone is vertically connected to seabed).
Hydrocarbons of Biogenic Nature

Hydrocarbons of biogenic nature originate from shallow formations and can occur anywhere. If
observed around wells, these hydrocarbons do not necessarily indicate a failure of a permanent barrier.
Biogenic hydrocarbons can be identified by means of composition analysis (fingerprinting) and do not
necessarily require isolation. However, this should be considered on a well-by-well basis.
Retrieval of Equipment During Phase 3

Decommissioned wells, and redundant subsea equipment, should not present a hazard to other users
of the sea. Further guidance is available in the BEIS Decommissioning Guidance and in the Oil & Gas
UK’s Guidelines on Liaison with the Fishing Industry on the UKCS. The BEIS Guidance states that the aim
should be for all subsea equipment and debris to be retrieved. Where this is not practicable, a
comparative assessment should be completed to determine the optimum decommissioning option.
It is seen as good practice to retrieve all casing strings to a depth of 10 ft below seabed. This requirement
mainly exists to accommodate fishing activities in the area after the well has been decommissioned.
As per the Oil & Gas UK Guidance on Liaison with the Fishing Industry it is seen as good practice that
depth of 10 ft below seabed has to be reviewed on a well-by-well basis, taking into account the
prevailing local conditions with respect to sand dunes and scouring.
Where subsea equipment and debris has been retrieved at decommissioning a seabed clearance
certificate is issued. The certificate should clearly identify any objects / debris left at the site. The
minimum recommended radius of search is 70 metres from the well.
There is no requirement to inspect the well location once a seabed clearance certificate has been issued.

In certain cases, the retrieving depth of casing strings should be reviewed in light of large (e.g. concrete)
structures permanently remaining at seabed in the area around the well(s). In this case no casing strings
should extend above the remaining structure.
For platform wells, requirements for conductor and drill string removal will be different compared to
open-water wells and should be specified on a well-by-well basis and in discussion with OPRED.
Appendices
A Statutory Notifications, Approvals and Record Keeping

Note: guidance below is provided as a prompt only, and may not be current at the time of reading. The
links to references below can be found at https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/well-decommissioning-guidelines-
issue-6/.
The following link also provides useful references on legislation, notification and guidance for well
decommissioning.
See [Ref. 1]
The BEIS guidance notes on Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines can be
found at:
See [Ref. 2]
Oil & Gas UK’s Guidelines on Liaison with the Fishing Industry on the UKCS can be found at:
See [Ref. 3]
A.1 Oil and Gas Authority (OGA)

Consents and Notifications
• For guidance: See [Ref. 4]

• Consent to Suspend is required for Well Decommissioning Phases 1 & 2.
• Consent to Abandon is required for Well Decommissioning Phase 3.
• Applications can be completed on the UK Energy Portal using the Well Operations Notification
System (WONS): See [Ref. 5]
• Notification of Well Re-entry, and of completion of the operations under the above consents can
also be completed on the Portal.
Consent to Flare

A.2 Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environmental and Decommissioning
(OPRED)
Long term obligations in respect of decommissioned wells are covered by Part IV of the Petroleum Act
and section 75 of the Energy Act 2008.
Chemical Permit (Workover/Intervention/Decommissioning)

• There is a 4-week application period under Regulation 7 of The Offshore Chemicals Regulations
2002: See [Ref. 8]
• Applications can be made on the UK Energy Portal using the Portal Environmental Tracking System:
See [Ref. 5]
• Within 28 days after the end of the Permit the Environmental and Emissions Monitoring System
database should be updated: See [Ref. 9]
Marine Licence

• 28 days application period for removal of well infrastructure from the seabed or use of explosives
Consent to Locate

• 28 day application period for locating a Mobile Installation, reduced to 2 weeks where varying a
Platform consent
Oil Pollution Prevention and Control (OPPC)

• 28 day application period for discharge of any reservoir hydrocarbon under The Offshore Petroleum
Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (as amended): See [Ref. 13]
European Protected Species Disturbance Licence

• Applications for Disturbance Licences can be made on the UK Energy Portal: See [Ref. 5]
Incident Reporting
• E.g. PON1 for spills of oil or chemicals, PON2 for loss of materials, OPPC non-compliance, OCR non-
compliance or non-compliance with Consent to Locate.
New to this issue is reference to Licencing regulations which require well decommissioning to be
performed in line with the Licence under which it was drilled. Attention is drawn especially to Clauses
19- Commencement and abandonment and plugging of Wells,
23- Avoidance of harmful methods of working,
29- Licensee to keep records,
25 & 45- Relating to the fishing industry,

of the Petroleum Licencing (production) (seaward areas) Regulations 2008.
The Petroleum Act 1998 as modified by the Energy Act 2016 requires operators to detail and minimise
costs of decommissioning. As part of a decommissioning programme (DP) assessment process, OGA on
behalf of BEIS / OPRED review the cost of well P&A and cost optimisation that may be achieved in
delivering a technically competent well decommissioning.
A.3 Offshore Safety Directive Regulator (OSDR)

Temporary Operations Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (TOOPEP)

o A 21 day approval period applies where the Non Producing Installation (NPI) holds an
approved NPI OPEP, otherwise 2 months approval period
o A Communications and Interface Plan (C&IP) may be submitted as an alternative, where an
Offshore OPEP is in place for the host installation
• For guidance on exercises: See [Ref. 17]
Notification of Well Operations in external waters
• For guidance see: See [Ref. 18]

o There is a 21 or 10 day notification period under Regulation 21(1), 21(2) of The Offshore
Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015: See [Ref. 19]
o For well notifications submitted to OSDR as per the requirements of Regulations 21(1) or
21(2) of The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive)(Safety Case etc) Regulations
2015 (SCR2015) a report from the examiner as per the requirements of Regulation 21(3)
of SCR2015 must be submitted at the same time. The requirements to have a well
examination scheme are as per the requirements of Regulation 11 and 12 of SCR2015.
• A Well Examination Report is required to be submitted with the notification under Regulation
21 of Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015.
Notification of Well Operations in internal waters (NOTE: Internal waters are handled by the Health and
Safety Executive, not OSDR)
o There is a 21 or 10 day notification period under Regulation 17(1), 17 (2) of the Offshore
Installations (Safety Case etc) Regulations 2005
o For wells in internal waters there is no requirement to submit a report from the well
examiner with the well notification. The requirement to have a well examination scheme is
as per the requirements of Regulation 18 of DCR.
• Weekly reports should be sent to the Health and Safety Executive for ongoing Well Operations
under Regulation 19, DCR: See [Ref. 20]
Combined Operations Notification

o There is a 21 day notification period where a Combined Operations Notification is deemed
to be required
Notification of Offshore Installation Movements (Operations Notice 6)
A.4 Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Notification of Well Operations for onshore GB operations:
There is a 21 day notification period under Regulation 6(1) of the Borehole Sites and Operations
Regulations 1995.
For wells onshore UK there is no requirement to submit a report from the well examiner with the well
notification. The requirement to have a well examination scheme is as per the requirements of
Regulation 18 of DCR.
A.5 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or Environment Agency (EA)

NORM or Radiation Permits
• Guidance in Scotland: See [Ref. 23]

• Guidance in England: See [Ref. 24]
A.6 Record Keeping

A well decommissioning report should be attached to the WONS Abandonment notification. The
report will include: a) a bullet point programme, b) current well status diagram showing drilled depth,
zones capable of flow, casing depths, Tops of annular cement, barrier positions, fracture strength at
base of each barrier, Fluid PVT data, recharge pressure, casing removed by section milling or cut and
pull, verification criteria and result for each barrier; c) a time breakdown of the job including
productive times, NPT and WOW for each phase; d) a cost breakdown by WBS in line with the Oil &
Gas UK well abandonment cost estimating guidelines; and e) details of dispensations from the
company well decommissioning standards if they were required.
Petroleum Operations Notice 9 sets out the Oil & Gas Authority specific reporting and retention
obligations with respect to well data: See [Ref.25]
CDA members should ensure that details of well decommissioning operations and final well status
diagram are uploaded to CDA (www.cdal.com) for future reference.

B Basic Well Data Required for Well Decommissioning
The following information should be gathered as a basis of the well barrier design and decommissioning
programme:
1. Well configuration (original, intermediate and present), including depths and specification of
permeable formations and zones with flow potential, casing strings, primary cement behind-casing
status, wellbores, installed completion, sidetracks, etc.
2. Stratigraphic sequence of each wellbore showing reservoir(s) and information about their current
and future production potential, where reservoir fluids and pressures (initial, current and with an
eternal perspective) are included.
3. Logs, data and information from primary cementing operations in the well.
4. Estimated formation fracture gradient.
5. Specific well conditions such as scale build-up, casing wear, collapsed casing, fill, or similar issues.

Example Design input data sheet
Well name or number:
Field name:
Date of information:
Information required
What and where are the zones with flow potential? (any rock that is capable to cause flow of fluid
into the well; consider effects of induced fractures)
What are the contents of each zone?
Are they hydrocarbon-bearing or water-bearing?
A zone is considered hydrocarbon-bearing if any moveable hydrocarbons are present or likely to be
in future.
Is crossflow acceptable between these zones?
If not, which zones need to be permanently isolated?
What was the original reservoir pressure?

Are later field activities likely to increase reservoir pressure above this level (e.g. water injection)?
What are the latest pressures in these zones?

normally pressured,
overpressure,
subhydrostatic
Overpressure considered where the pressure is in excess of the regional hydrostatic pressure
gradient.
What is the maximum anticipated pressure that may develop below plugs set in the wellbore
following well decommissioning? Any future use of reservoir?
What are the present fracture gradients in the wellbore? (measured or modelled)
For each zone with flow potential, what and where are suitable formations (permeability, fracture
strength) to form a natural seal against fluid movement (cap rocks)? Consider effects of natural and
induced factures on permeability.
Are there any subsurface hazards (e.g. shallow gas, H2S, CO2, major faults)?
Unknown well conditions (more than two years from last well entry, or well has scale / asphalting
problems or hydrate formation potential exists)
What is the quality of the annulus isolation at the depths of the cap rocks? Assess cementing
records (slurry recipe/volumes, losses), casing centralisation, casing cement logs, records of
annulus pressure or flow.
Well history summary:
• current well schematic, including all annuli fluids;
• previous well decommissioning activities, including sidetracks;
• tubular records, pressure tests.
• Wellhead and X-tree installation and maintenance records. Tool requirements to safely access
the well.
What is the lightest fluid gradient between each permeable zone and its permanent barrier?
What is the current operational and integrity status of the well? e.g. flowing, injecting, plugged or in
poor mechanical condition (e.g. leaking x-mas tree valve, leaking tubing, casing integrity or annular
pressure anomalies).
Is the well operating under dispensation from policy?
Information on the type of service the well has seen during its life cycle (e.g. production, gas lift,
water injection, gas injection, cuttings injection, ESP, production histories, etc.).

C Cement Barrier Placement – Potential Issues and Mitigations
Provided below are examples of some of the potential issues and good industry practice which well-
operators may consider when carrying out a risk assessment of cement placement. This list is not
exhaustive and cannot cover every scenario and should therefore be used in combination with good
engineering judgement.
The following key is used in the tables to show whether the potential issue is:
 applicable ST stinger-set plugs
X not applicable TT through-tubing set plugs

ST TT Potential issue Possible mitigation
  Low top of cement due to insufficient • Caliper the interval and choose plug setting depths that
cement volume are in gauge sections of the hole.
• Allow sufficient cement excess to account for worst case
• Underestimation of hole size due to ID.
washout or erroneous pipe • Check pipe dimensions (i.e. ID and OD).
dimensions.
• Tag top of cement to confirm.
• Double check operational calculations.
  Cement slippage downhole due to • Ensure cement plug is set on suitable base that supports
cement density or losses (Applicable the cement slurry.
to internal cement plugs and annulus • Mechanical base such as previously tested cement plug,
cementing packer, or completion packer is preferred.
cement plugs)
• Fluid base such as a VRP or viscous mud pill.
• Cement density is higher than fluid in • For VRP ensure suitable reaction with mud and cement
which it is placed. via lab testing.
• TOC no longer at required depth. • Verify that the pill can carry the cement and that the fluid
• Soft cement plug due to can carry the pill using a scale model testing to replicate
contamination with mud (higher risk wellbore geometry (e.g. glass cylinder test).
with synthetic or oil-based muds). • Consider setting cement plug at hole section with lower
• T-plug on casing stumps. inclination. 30-70 degrees is high risk area for slippage if
• Plugs across milled sections without using a fluid base.
support for cement. • Treat losses or use mechanical base.
• Tag or wash down to confirm.
 x Swabbing or disturbing the plug • Pipe OD should be optimised to ensure sufficient

when using a work string clearance to avoid swabbing when POOH, but large
enough to maintain suitable annular velocities during
• Contaminating or stringing out the plug placement. Take into account OD of couplings.
plug when pulling pipe out of cement. • Pull pipe out of cement slowly (typically 30-50 ft/min)
High risk in highly deviated or and break connections carefully.
horizontal wellbores or when density • Cement rheology is optimised and designed with non
difference between mud and cement progressive gels.
is small.
• In highly deviated holes (>70-80o) consider pump-pull
placement, synchronising tripping speed and pump rate.
• Consider the use of sacrificial cementing string where
tail pipe is mechanically disconnected removing the
need to pull the workstring through the cement plug.
• Use caution with longer plugs (e.g. longer than 800 ft) as
increased length brings greater risk of gel development
and swabbing or sticking the work string. If longer plugs
are necessary then additional focus should be given to
the slurry design and properties.
• Tag or wash down to confirm top of hard cement.
• Monitor for losses when circulating after pulling pipe
above the plug to ensure the plug is not lost into the
formation due to induced losses from ECD.
  Cement strength not developing due • Slurry designed and tested in lab, preferably with rig
to poor materials or erroneous samples of materials before job.
mixing procedures • Consider actual slurry tested in surface sample.
• Quality control of materials.
• Supervision by cementing specialist.
• Consider temperature log as input to design.

Possible mitigation
ST TT Potential issue
  • Pump sufficient volume of suitable spacer to separate

Contamination of cement during cement from mud.
placement • Ensure good mud/spacer/cement hierarchy (density and
• Contamination and dilution of cement rheology) to minimise channeling.
with spacer or mud during placement. • Allow sufficient cement excess to account for likely
contamination volumes at leading and trailing edges.
• A diverter tool on the end of the drillpipe will direct the flow
outward and upward thereby minimizing any intermixing
of cement and drilling mud during plug placement.
• Use of mechanical separation such as wiper dart or foam
wiper balls ahead and behind cement.
• Ensure cementing string is an appropriate distance above
plug before circulating clean.
• Use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and
risk of mud channels. Optimisation of key variables such
as pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind, and
fluid rheologies.
• Wash down with workstring, if available, to confirm hard
cement. Shallow tag may indicate contamination.
• Consider gas tight cement slurry that goes from liquid to
  Fluid or gas percolation through solid in short time period.
cement when hardening • Where possible, maintain pressure on well bore as the
• Gas or overpressured formation fluid cement sets.
may enter the wellbore during gelling • Consider isolating gas-bearing perforations with a
of the slurry and create a channel mechanical device.
through the plug.
• Size and phasing (high side) of perforations adequate to
x  Unable to circulate cement into place prevent blockage.
via perforations in casing or tubing • If low flow, keep pressure applied and extend circulation
• Unable to circulate, which may result time at increasing rate.
in re-perforations and a shallower • Use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and
barrier. risk of mud channels. Optimisation of key variables such
• Leaking tubing allows cement flow to as pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind, and
split, loss of volume control. fluid rheology.
• Fluid contamination and cement • If sump below perforations is significant, consider placing
slumping into the void below a viscous fluid base such as a VRP via additional
perforations. perforations below the planned cement plug depth.
• Damage of next bigger casing may be • For production tubing, perforate as close as possible to
undesirable. the production packer. This will reduce the length of sump
below the perforations and the tubing above the packer
may have some standoff from the casing wall to help
reduce the risk of channeling.
• Leaking tubing may require coiled tubing or retrieval of the
tubing string.
• Use punchers in preference to perforating guns if the next
bigger casing is to be protected.

 x Contamination of cement • Consider verification of the string volume.
due to overdisplacement • Consider using a cement unit for displacement rather than rig
when using a removable pumps since fluid volumes can be physically metered in
displacement tanks.
workstring
• Indicator ball catchers can be used in the string to help achieve
• Contamination of cement accurate displacement.
with spacer or mud due to • Under displace the cement by appropriate volume to allow it to u-
overdisplacement when tube into position. Especially critical for tapered cementing strings.
using a removable stinger • Computer modelling of cement placement to optimise key
or workstring (e.g. coiled variables such as pump rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind,
tubing). and under displacement volumes.
• Returns may show cement traces or tag expected to be shallow.
  Channelling of cement • Select pipe OD and pump rates to ensure suitable annular
velocities during plug placement.
• Cement flows up path of
• Wash the interval to be cemented at maximum annular velocity
least resistance, leaving
possible.
mud channel and lack of
competent isolation. Risk • A diverter tool on the end of the drillpipe may assist washing of
when pipe is eccentric. the section.
• Condition and optimise mud prior to cementing. Consider use of
low YP and non progressive gels.
• Consider rotating the cementing string during cement placement
to help break up gelled mud and constantly change the flow
pattern in the annulus.
• Ensure good mud/spacer/cement hierarchy (density and
rheology) to minimise channeling. Pressure test or inflow test to
confirm.
• Returns showing cement traces or shallow tags are indicative of
cement channeling.
• Avoid reciprocating the pipe when placing the cement plug.
• Cement systems should be designed to have zero free water for
any hole sections with >20o inclination.
  Lack of bond to casing or • Extend circulation time at high rate.
formation • Circulate fluid trains of cleaning agents until returns are clean.
Consider the use of acid and soap washes ahead of cementing
• Failure to remove fluid, which may aid removal of any contaminants such as rust, scale,
debris, deposits, or hydrocarbon and oil-based mud residue.
corrosion contaminants • If surfaces downhole could be contaminated with oil residue, then
resulting in poor cement use suitable surfactants in the cement spacer to ensure surfaces
bond or cement channeling are water-wet.
with potential to
• Ensure good mud/spacer/cement hierarchy (density and
compromise barrier seal.
rheology) to minimise channeling.
• Shrinkage of cement
creating microannulus. • Pump sufficient volume of suitable spacer to separate cement
from mud.
• A diverter tool on the end of the drillpipe will direct the flow outward
and provide jetting action to aid wellbore cleanup.
• Consider use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and
risk of mud channels. Optimisation of key variables such as pump
rates, spacer volumes ahead and behind, and fluid rheology.
• The use of suitable additives in the cement will improve bonding
and minimise shrinkage.
• A scraper or casing cleaning device deployed on drillpipe to
mechanically remove debris from the casing wall.

x  Unable to seal annulus by • Select depth where no or little cement is present in the casing
perforate and annulus or where there are low risks of pack off due to fill by solids.
circulate/squeeze • Size and phasing (high side) of perforations adequate to prevent
blockage.
• Unable to circulate, which • Hold squeeze pressure as cement sets or consider using a
may result in accepting cement retainer. If minimal circulation is achieved, extend
annulus fill as a permanent circulation time at increasing rate.
barrier. • Cleaning of debris, mud, grease from annulus requires circulation
• Suboptimal displacement of and cleaning fluids.
resident fluids may leave a • Consider use of a wash tool designed to allow circulation between
channel. perforations prior to cementing.
• Fluid contamination and • Use of computer modelling to predict fluid interfaces and risk of
cement slumping into the mud channels. Optimise key variables such as pump rates,
void below perforations. spacer volumes ahead and behind, and fluid rheology.
• Perforation damage of • If a sump below perforations is significant, consider placing a
adjacent casings. viscous fluid base such as a VRP via additional perforations below
• The well may have been the planned cement plug depth.
drilled with a different type • Consider punchers or pipe cutters as an alternative to perforating
of mud that the one used guns if the next bigger casing is to be protected. A quarry test may
for washing the perforations be considered.
and the remedial cement
• Abrasive jetting is an alternative for wireline perforating, creating
operation.
larger holes in casing and washing behind casing to enhance
• Pack off and losses. cleaning and circulation rates. Perforation washing over an
extended length is another technique to achieve this.
• Use surfactants in the spacer for the cement squeeze remedial
job.
• Use of a swivel to be able to rotate the pipe while washing behind
the perforations.
 x Unable to repair annulus • Consideration should be given to milling inside previous casing.
casing cement by section This allows an expandable packer to be set in the bottom of a
window as a support for the cement slurry.
milling
• Achieving window length is optimized by milling cemented casing
• Unable to achieve adequate without centralisers and minimise number of collars to be milled.
window length. Roundtrips may result in losing the hole.
• Lose access to the hole. • Avoid pack-off and stuck pipe by keeping the hole clean and be
• Fluid contamination as a prepared for swarf handling. Milling rate is controlled by hole
result of small slurry cleaning and ability to handle large volumes of swarf.
volumes and cement • Where a second section is milled, the loose pipe may start rotating
slumping into the void and prevent further progress.
outside below the casing • The milled section should be cleaned out to remove debris, e.g.
stub. by means of underreaming if against formation or by side jetting.
• Losses during placement. • Sealing capability, length of window and number of barriers will
depend on type and pressures of fluids, and height of cap rock.
The basis for selection is to be documented, i.e. the effectiveness
Note: As a precaution, avoid of the operation through long-term monitoring if possible.
milling RA pip tags.

D Phases of Well Decommissioning and Coding
D.1 Phases of Decommissioning

The three phases below are defined for the decommissioning of wells.
For details on further terms (Constructing, Operating, Plugged and Shut-in, Suspended) please refer to
the Well Integrity Guidelines based on the OGA's WONS user guidelines available from OGA website.
Well Decommissioning Phase 1 – the reservoir has been permanently isolated. This requires that
permanent barrier material is placed to fully isolate all reservoir producing or injecting zones from the
wellbore. The tubing may be left in place, partly or fully retrieved.
Well Decommissioning Phase 2 – all intermediate zones with flow potential have been permanently
isolated. This may require the tubing to be partly retrieved if still present, isolating liners, milling and /
or retrieving casing, and setting cement or permanent barrier material to isolate intermediate zones
with flow potential from each other, and communication within the wellbore. The phase is complete
when no further permanent barriers are required.
Not fully decommissioned E&A wells should be the exception rather than rule and be in accordance with
Well Decommissioning Phase 2 requirements.
Well Decommissioning Phase 3 – Well is considered fully decommissioned after removing the wellhead
and conductor. The well origin at surface is removed. The well will never be used or re-entered again.
The well will be removed from the well examination scheme.
Phase 3 may require setting of environmental plugs. An environmental plug is not a pressure barrier
but is placed to ensure that any contaminated fluids in the annuli (e.g. OBM or cuttings reinjection fluids)
are not released to sea.
D.2 Well Re-entry Considerations

Phase 1 and Phase 2 well decommissioning must be carried out so that the well can be re-entered safely,
and then secured using pressure control equipment without compromising the barriers in place.
Consideration should also be given to set the shallowest barrier sufficiently deep, in order to facilitate
re-entry of the well.
For all acceptable barriers other than permanent barriers, refer Well Integrity Guidelines (Oil & Gas UK).
D.3 Inspection Scheme for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Decommissioned Wells

Well-operators should consider physical inspection schemes for phase 1 and phase 2 decommissioned
wells. The frequency of inspection, which should be justifiable, should be set by the well-operator and
take account of well status, subsurface conditions and marine activity levels.

D.4 Decommissioning Phase Coding
A “P&A code” is introduced to indicate a work scope of plug and abandon operations. It applies to any
well and all work phases. It is used for high level cost estimation and benchmarking.
The previously defined “UKOOA/Oil & Gas UK category” is used for subsea Phase 3 well
decommissioning, hence only applicable for subsea Phase 2 decommissioned wells.
D.4.1 P&A Code Description
The scope of work to decommission a well can be represented by a code that commences with two
letters indicating the location of the well, followed by 3 digits representing the complexity of each of
the 3 phases of well decommissioning, e.g. PL 1-3-3 or SS 0-4-3.
The two letters simply define the physical location of the well.
• PL – platform well
• SS – subsea well
• LA – land well
The three digits represent three distinct decommissioning phases, whereas their value reflects the work
scope and equipment required.
• 1st position refers to Phase 1 – reservoir decommissioning

Primary and secondary permanent barriers set to isolate all reservoir producing or injecting zones.
The tubing may be left in place, partly or fully retrieved. Complete when the reservoir is fully isolated
from the wellbore.
• 2nd position refers to Phase 2 – intermediate decommissioning

Includes: isolating liners, milling and retrieving casing, and setting barriers to intermediate
hydrocarbon or water-bearing permeable zones and potentially installing near-surface cement. The
tubing may be partly retrieved, if not done in Phase 1. Complete when no further plugging is
required.
• 3rd position refers to Phase 3 – wellhead and conductor removal
The P&A code is a high level indication and does not need to finesse subdivisions of work, e.g. diagnostic
and preparatory operations. Allowance for such tasks should be included within the most appropriate
phase.
For each phase, a digit is chosen (0 to 4) that best reflects the complexity type of the decommissioning
work, according to the following:
TYPE 0: No work required – a phase or phases of well decommissioning work may already have
been completed
TYPE 1: Simple rigless decommissioning – using wireline, pumping, crane, jacks. Subsea will use
a well intervention vessel and be riserless

TYPE 2: Complex rigless decommissioning – using coiled tubing or hydraulic workover unit,
wireline, pumping, crane, jacks. Subsea wells will use a well intervention vessel with
riser.
TYPE 3: Simple rig-based decommissioning – requiring retrieval of tubing and casing using a rig.
TYPE 4: Complex rig-based decommissioning – may have poor access and poor cement
requiring retrieval of tubing and casing, milling and cement repairs
The complexity type of a phase can be determined through a set of questions as described in the
Guideline on well abandonment cost estimation, available through Oil & Gas UK.
The P&A code can be used to record the decommissioning complexity and methodology for the three
phases for a well at a location in a table. See examples 1 and 2.

D.4.2 Well Decommissioning Classification - Example 1
For a platform well, of which the reservoir will be decommissioned by a coiled tubing unit, then requiring
the tubing to be pulled and shallow barriers placed by a rig and the conductor removed by a rig as well,
the P&A Code would be PL 2-3-3.
Decommissioning complexity
TYPE 4
Platform well TYPE 0 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3
Complex
No work Simple Complex Simple
rig-
required rigless rigless rig-based
based
Reservoir
1 x
decommissioning
Phase
Intermediate
2 x
decommissioning
Wellhead conductor
3 x
removal
D.4.3 Well Decommissioning Classification - Example 2
For a platform well, already decommissioned across the reservoir, then a complex intermediate P&A
using a rig and standard conductor removal by a rig, the P&A Code would be PL 0-4-3
Decommissioning complexity
TYPE 4
Platform well TYPE 0 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3
Complex
No work Simple Complex Simple
rig-
required rigless rigless rig-based
based
Reservoir
1 x
decommissioning
Phase
Intermediate
2 x
decommissioning
Wellhead conductor
3 x
removal

E References and Further Reading
[Ref. 1 – 25] Please see the reference list at https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/well-decommissioning-
guidelines-issue-6/
Guidelines on qualification of materials for the abandonment of wells, Issue 2 Sept 2015, Oil & Gas UK,
ISBN 1 903 004 56 X
Guideline on well abandonment cost estimation, Issue 2, 2015, Oil & Gas UK, ISBN 1 903 003 69 3
Well integrity guidelines, Issue 3, March 2016, Oil & Gas UK, ISBN 1 903 004 71 6
The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/913, ISBN
0 22 054451 X
L154, The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015, ISBN 978
0 7176 6325 5
API 65-2, Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction, Second Edition/December 2010
Guidelines for High Pressure, High Temperature Wells October 2016, Oil & Gas UK
Model clauses 2008 S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2008 No. 225 PETROLEUM The Petroleum

Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008
Petroleum Act 1998
WONS guidelines
Guidelines on Liaison with the Fishing Industry on the UKCS, Issue 6 2015, Oil & Gas UK, ISBN 1 903 004
40 3
BEIS Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines Guidance
BEIS Offshore Environmental Legislation Guidance
BEIS Environmental Alerts and Incident Reporting Including Anonymous Reporting Guidance

London Office:
6th Floor East, Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BH
Tel: 020 7802 2400 Fax: 020 7802 2401
Aberdeen Office:
Exchange 2, 3rd Floor, 62 Market Street, Aberdeen, AB11 5PJ
Tel: 01224 577250 Fax: 01224 577251
info@oilandgasuk.co.uk
www.oilandgasuk.co.uk
ISBN: 1 903 004 92 6

Copyright © 2018 The UK Oil and Gas Industry Association Limited trading as Oil & Gas UK

Well Decommissioning Guidelines: June 2018

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Decommissioning Guidelines: June 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Decommissioning Guidelines: June 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Decommissioning Guidelines

ISBN: 903 004 92 6

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 2

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 3

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 4

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 5

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 6

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 7

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 8

Regulation 13, DCR, imposes a general duty on well-operators:

…ensure that a well is so designed, modified, commissioned, constructed, equipped, operated,

Regulation 15, DCR, provides that the well-operator shall:

it can be suspended or abandoned in a safe manner; and

Regulation 16, DCR, provides that:

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 9

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 10

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 11

Figure 1. Permanent Decommissioning Barrier Schematic “Restoring the Cap Rock”

Material Requirements for Permanent Barriers

• Impermeable – to prevent flow of fluids through the bulk material.

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 12

Number of Permanent Barriers

• Differential pressure across the barrier

Length Requirements of Permanent Barriers

A permanent cement barrier should have;

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 13

When a combination barrier is chosen to replace two barriers, it should have:

• A cement column of typically a minimum 200 ft MD of good cement, which is considered to

Figure 2. Comparison of Length of Dual and Combination Cement Barriers

3.4.2 Sealing Formations

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 14

3.4.3 Existing Annular Materials

3.4.4 Alternative Materials

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 15

A permanent barrier should;

Figure 3. General Requirements for Decommissioning

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 16

3.5.1 Open Hole

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 17

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 18

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 19

3.5.2 Partial Decommissioning for Sidetracking and Multilaterals

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 20

Considerations for multilateral wells may include;

3.5.3 Cased Hole

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 21

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 22

Placement of Permanent Barriers

Considerations for good cement placement are covered in Appendix C.

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 23

Allowances should be made for:

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 24

3.6.2 Penetrations Through Permanent Barriers

Well Decommissioning Guidelines Page 25

Considerations for bull-headed decommissioning barriers include:

• Tubing and casing integrity

3.6.4 High Angle and Horizontal Wells (wells > 70°)