Private Forums
Predictive Software to optimise BOP testing times
10 December 2016
Hi folks,

** I'm repeating this question (to which we had quality responses) because it is over came up again at a VSOP (Velocity String on Paper; rig-assisted HWO) that we facilitated here in the Netherlands **

August 2018: Additional questions:

1.    Are there any updates on this, the cost:benefit aspects, Risk Assessments that may have been needed and alternatives?

2.    Is this approved by NOGEPA (Netherlands)?


January 2018: Furthermore, it would appear that some regulators (e.g. US) have approved it's use and others e.g. (in Europe) remain to be convinced.

December 2016:  At this week's 2-day iWOP (i=Improvement, an rp-squared unique take on DWOPs) it was discussed that there is software out there that can be used to optimise BOP testing.

The software analyses the trend (compared to fingerprints in it's database?) and is helpful in determining that the test will be good, ahead of what a human might determine.

We are aware that this is being used on offshore rigs, but we want especially want to know what people are using on onshore rigs (where an hour of rig time is significantly less, and so justifying expenditure can be more difficult).

Questions are:
  1. What system are you using?
  2. What options did you consider before selecting the system that you use?
  3. How does it work?
  4. Any lessons learnt and recommendations (e.g. Best Practice)?
  5. Without publically stating the cost (we do not allow commercial numbers to be published), can you advise the actual cost:benefit, please
  6. For those of you using it, what did you have to do to persuade the regulator / Well-Examiner of its veracity?
Many thanks

Dave

14 answer(s)
Paul Sipps
Director of Business Development
IPT Global
Total Posts: 1
Join Date: 31/08/18

Hi Dave,

I see that you’ve brought this question back up and are looking for more information.

To address your first question, IPT Global has several case studies and material on cost/benefit analysis that can be provided to you to assist with determining the value of such a tool. Typically, for many operations, IPT’s solution, SureTec generates positive ROI after one BOP test.

Additionally, IPT Global is creating value by using the same suite of software to capture all other pressure testing outside of the BOP testing operation. 

To address regulatory acceptance, we have full BSEE approval for testing in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. That said, we operate in numerous international locations and have always been accepted by regulatory bodies in each region. The caveat being that most international regulators do not provide a prescriptive “Yes/No” for the use of the product as is done in the U.S.

I would be happy to provide further information as needed. As always, please feel free to contact me directly. 


Paul Sipps
Director of Business Development
IPT Global 
admin
Managing Director (rp-squared.com)
Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection Ltd.
Total Posts: 411
Join Date: 10/01/05
Hi folks,

** I'm repeating this question (to which we had quality responses) because it is over came up again at a VSOP (Velocity String on Paper; rig-assisted HWO) that we facilitated here in the Netherlands **

August 2018: Additional questions:

1.    Are there any updates on this, the cost:benefit aspects, Risk Assessments that may have been needed and alternatives?

2.    Is this approved by NOGEPA (Netherlands)?


January 2018: Furthermore, it would appear that some regulators (e.g. US) have approved it's use and others e.g. (in Europe) remain to be convinced.

December 2016:  At this week's 2-day iWOP (i=Improvement, an rp-squared unique take on DWOPs) it was discussed that there is software out there that can be used to optimise BOP testing.

The software analyses the trend (compared to fingerprints in it's database?) and is helpful in determining that the test will be good, ahead of what a human might determine.

We are aware that this is being used on offshore rigs, but we want especially want to know what people are using on onshore rigs (where an hour of rig time is significantly less, and so justifying expenditure can be more difficult).

Questions are:
  1. What system are you using?
  2. What options did you consider before selecting the system that you use?
  3. How does it work?
  4. Any lessons learnt and recommendations (e.g. Best Practice)?
  5. Without publically stating the cost (we do not allow commercial numbers to be published), can you advise the actual cost:benefit, please
  6. For those of you using it, what did you have to do to persuade the regulator / Well-Examiner of its veracity?
Many thanks

Dave
paul@subceng.com
Training/Project Manager
Myspread Users
Total Posts: 15
Join Date: 07/03/16

 All/  I attach a brochure from this named organisation: DARTT for your review.  Within the last 12 months, it has been critically reviewed by BP who noted positive features of the system. 

Other than that I have attached a short dissertation on the obvious gains in creating 'signature' trends.

There is currently a lot of fresh enabling technology being utilized by the OEMs in a combined & mutual effort to remove any individualistic interpretation (by test technicians) & supplant the guesswork by black/white software-generated specifically to remove any notion of 'educated guesswork' from either industrially-accepted good tests or failed tests.


springbokdrilling
Senior Drilling Engineer
Springbok Drilling Ltd
Total Posts: 6
Join Date: 20/02/12

Hi Dave, we are looking at the ITC software for potential use and are talking to ITC in Feb.  However, the question I have is this - in deep water and/or HPHT wells (or even just hot wells), how does this software account for thermal effects on the mud system when doing casing tests?  Having worked with HPHT for a number of years, I have always seen it takes up to 24 hours to return to geothermal gradients.  Admittedly, the stabilisation is fastest initially and tails off over time. So, how long do people leave the pressure test on to ensure that thermal effects after displacing cement (ie contraction in the deep water riser and expansion in the deeper sections) to ensure that volume (hence pressure) changes are not masking any true leaks in the casing?  I asked this of ITC and they admitted that they had never been asked this question before.

Rvick76
Director of Business Development & Marketing
IPT Global
Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 26/09/13


Hello Dave,

Below is a list of countries where we have and/or are currently utilizing our SureTec software for a myriad of pressure tests throughout the life cycle of the well.

Asia-Pac: Australia, Myanmar, S. Korea

West Africa: Angola, Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal

East Africa: Mozambique, Tanzania

Europe: Bulgaria, Ireland

N. America: Canada, Greenland, US-GoM

S. America: Brazil, Curacao, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad, Uruguay

 

Regulators:  Outside of BSEE in the US GoM, regulators are not prescriptive in nature.  However, after reviewing the software and it’s benefits during planning, testing, reporting and archival with regulatory officials, we have never had a regulator not approve.  In fact, they tend to prefer the software due to the accuracy, transparency, consistency, and objective analysis it provides. We are always happy to visit with any regulatory body.  Below is a list of some of the different regulatory groups with whom we have gained approval for use. 

· BSEE, PSA, ANP, CER, NOPSEMA, CNLOPB, CNSOPB

 

Upcoming Regions:

· Norway, U.K. (North Sea), Mexico – GoM

 

** SureTec is also utilized for testing all Capping Stacks and Containment Equipment globally:

· Brazil, Norway, Singapore, S. Africa, and US – GoM

admin
Managing Director (rp-squared.com)
Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection Ltd.
Total Posts: 411
Join Date: 10/01/05
Hi Ross

Would you be able to send us a list of countries where it is approved by the regulator, please?

I'm especially interested in: European countries (UK, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Italy, Denmark, Spain, Austria) and Asia-Pacific (Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, China).

Rather than directing people to your website, we would much rather that you share responses with the forum , so that all members may benefit from the dialogue.

Thanks

Dave

Rvick76
Director of Business Development & Marketing
IPT Global
Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 26/09/13


Hello Dave,

Below is a list of countries where we have and/or are currently utilizing our SureTec software for a myriad of pressure tests throughout the life cycle of the well.

Asia-Pac: Australia, Myanmar, S. Korea

West Africa: Angola, Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal

East Africa: Mozambique, Tanzania

Europe: Bulgaria, Ireland

N. America: Canada, Greenland, US-GoM

S. America: Brazil, Curacao, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad, Uruguay

 

Regulators:  Outside of BSEE in the US GoM, regulators are not prescriptive in nature.  However, after reviewing the software and it’s benefits during planning, testing, reporting and archival with regulatory officials, we have never had a regulator not approve.  In fact, they tend to prefer the software due to the accuracy, transparency, consistency, and objective analysis it provides. We are always happy to visit with any regulatory body.  Below is a list of some of the different regulatory groups with whom we have gained approval for use. 

· BSEE, PSA, ANP, CER, NOPSEMA, CNLOPB, CNSOPB

 

Upcoming Regions:

· Norway, U.K. (North Sea), Mexico – GoM

 

** SureTec is also utilized for testing all Capping Stacks and Containment Equipment globally:

· Brazil, Norway, Singapore, S. Africa, and US – GoM

Rvick76
Director of Business Development & Marketing
IPT Global
Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 26/09/13

Good afternoon Dave,

 

Thanks for revisiting this post!  The comparative software you are referring to, SureTec®, is now being used for multiple applications throughout the O&G industry, to include testing in shops and on land.  The software’s capabilities have transformed from solely BOP testing, to all pressure tests performed during all phases of the well (drilling, completions, intervention, coiled tubing ops, P&A etc.).  Happy to be a contact resource for someone wanting more information, or they can also visit our website, http://3ipt.com

 

Ross

 

Ross Vickers

Director of Business Development & Marketing | IPT Global, LLC

 

PaulHowlett
CEO
Sudelac
Total Posts: 90
Join Date: 10/04/08
Dave, I expect implementation of software to help BOP testing wont save sufficient time to justify investment. A quicker real win would be to take drill string well control valve testing off the critical path using a dedicated sub test stand. We have implemented this onshore and offshore on several different rigs in the last year or so with positive results.
admin
Managing Director (rp-squared.com)
Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection Ltd.
Total Posts: 411
Join Date: 10/01/05

Hi folks,

** I'm repeating this question (to which we had 5 quality responses) because it is almost a year old and I would imagine that we have som more recent feedback lurking out there **

 (Dec 2016) At this week's 2-day iWOP (i=Improvement, an rp-squared unique take on DWOPs) it was discussed that there is software out there that can be used to optimise BOP testing.

The software analyses the trend (compared to fingerprints in it's database?) and is helpful in determining that the test will be good, ahead of what a human might determine.

We are aware that this is being used on offshore rigs, but we want especially want to know what people are using on onshore rigs (where an hour of rig time is significantly less, and so justifying expenditure can be more difficult).

Questions are:
  1. What system are you using?
  2. What options did you consider before selecting the system that you use?
  3. How does it work?
  4. Any lessons learnt and recommendations (e.g. Best Practice)?
  5. Without publically stating the cost (we do not allow commercial numbers to be published), can you advise the actual cost:benefit, please
Many thanks

Dave
Scott_McNeil
Consultant
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 110
Join Date: 05/03/08
Hi Dave,

Having mainly done International Land work for the last few years, none of the Operators I have worked for have even considered using predictive software for a BOP Test.

Obviously Onshore it's a lot easier as the response time to any pressure changes in the lines is much quicker, as the line volume is so small, plus you can actually see them!

If the software were available as a cheap 'add-on' from the Cement Company, then maybe it could be justified.

But if it needed a stand alone package and presumably some time from vendor personnel to provide training in it's use, then I have doubts that it could be justified.

Best Regards

Scott
paul@subceng.com
Training/Project Manager
Myspread Users
Total Posts: 15
Join Date: 07/03/16
Testing BOPs philosophy has evolved over the past few years and the differences in mindsets is worth mentioning.  In my own offshore working subsea engineers years (1978-2012), the test frequency interval was clearly prescribed by RP 53, API 16D and one or two other industrial mandates appearing in well-known and accepted publications.  Throughout recent times, both pre & post Macondo, we maintain this regime, however it is the very mechanics of such testing that should be brought into debate. 
Consider that when we pressure test a BOP, we are subjecting a 'pressure boundary' to a cyclic pressure much as the same cycle a submarine diving/surfacing or an aeroplane ascending/landing. The number of cycles has a finite life and this is borne out by all the world's navies' submarines whose maximum diving depth is shortened with each successive operational commission.  So, can we say in retrospect, that having heard the old oilfield adage: 'you'll test it to death' countless times, there may be some truth in the saying?!

BOP's fail wellbore pressure tests for many many reasons: all of which do not need a arbitrary frequent pressure test to 'trend' or predict.  Subsea engineers with considerable field experience all know how to spot a possible future failure. 

The above mentioned 'cyclic pressure test' is best exemplified by the 6 month or annual requirement for a BOP body test against closed shear/blind rams where the test pressure may be as high as the actual design working pressure of the BOP.  As we know from acoustic emission detection systems connected to steel forging pressure boundaries, there is movement at elevated test pressures at the molecular scale: all of which are not necessarily 100% elastic.

With BOP operation real time monitoring systems now available and other advances in BOP monitoring systems coming into use, is it not perhaps an appropriate time to review our testing programmes .... which appear to be set in concrete forever ?!!!
Augusto
Consultant [retired Shell staff]
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 245
Join Date: 02/09/05
I would contact Jan.vanWijk@shell.com as he have studied this in tiny detail including mainly the hardware.
He is worth contacting.
Jeremy
Drilling Manager
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 19/08/16
Dave,
Worked in GOM pre-Macondo and post-Macondo utilisng some predictive software. Off the top of my head was IPT and Suretech.

Normally ran 13-14 tests. 1st test which could be done offline was the benchmark test 60-90mins.
Another benchmark was required around test 6 or 7. From memory also averaged around 35mins per test.


rmathew
Vice President , Maintenance
National Drilling Co
Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 30/12/15

Dear Dave,

Came across this link on a random search

http://otcompliance.com/greenlight/

Can you please check with the admin on details of predictive nature of this digital tool?

Jump to top of the page