Tubing and Packers Life-Cycle Analysis for Underground Gas Storage Applications

Overview

Fast Facts
Project No.	745
Contract No.	693JK31810015
Research Award Recipient	Battelle Memorial Institute Headquarter Address: 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201 Seattle address: Suite 400 1100 Dexter Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109-3598 Columbus, OH 43201-2696
AOR	Byron Coy
Researcher Contact Info	Andrew Duguid Ph.D., P.E. Battelle Memorial Institute Suite 11-1-011 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 Office: 614-424-3516 duguid@battelle.org

Financial and Status Data
Project Status	Closed
Start Fiscal Year	2018 (09/28/2018)
End Fiscal Year	2020 (09/30/2020)
PHMSA $$ Budgeted	$785,513.00

Main Objective

This project will develop a life-cycle analysis for Tubing & Packing well-entry impacts and recommendations for improvements to alternative coatings and designs of Tubing & Packing assemblies. As part of the results, a database and analysis will provide a lifecycle assessment of wells using Tubing & Packing assemblies allowing for better, safer, operation of wells in the future.

Public Abstract

Past events, such as the Aliso Canyon incident in California, have brought to light the need for more stringent safety standards in the gas storage industry. This project looks at one of the key technologies to create secondary downhole boundary, the use of tubing and packers (T&Ps). The use of T&Ps has been an oil and gas industry standard for decades. However, the gas storage industry has concerns regarding safety, maintenance costs, and wellbore integrity related to the use of T&Ps for gas storage. This project will identify and addresses these concerns using publicly and privately held data and statistics. The results of the study will be a database and analysis that cover the lifecycle of wells using T&P that will answer each concern of the UGS industry and allow for better, safer, regulation of wells in the future.

Summary and Conclusions

The application of a tubing and packer (T&P) can reduce risk in some, but not, all underground gas storage (UGS) wells. UGS wells with low risk (risk being defined as a product of likelihood of failure and consequence of failure) would generally not benefit from a T&P application. For wells with moderate risks – driven by moderate or moderately high likelihood of failure and combined with high to moderate consequence of failure – the application of a T&P can be seen as a cost-beneficial option at reducing risk when considering the entirety of the net risk change. For UGS wells with inherently high risks, particularly when driven by a high likelihood of failure, the application of T&Ps may reduce risk, but this reduction may not be sufficient enough to make these wells safe.