Level: Function / Product Line:

Well Test
Global
Document Type:

Standard
Title:

Well Test Standards

Section 1
Well Testing General

© January 2016 by Expro - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This document may not be reproduced, either wholly or in part, nor may it be used by, or its contents divulged to, any other person
whosoever without written permission of Expro. Furthermore the Master Copy of this document is held and formally controlled within
Insight. Hard copies may be printed but will not be update. Please refer to Insight for the latest revision.

Document Number: INS-002659 Revision: 2

Template No: INS-T-002 Rev 1

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Revision List

Revision Reason for Change Issued Owner Reviewer Approver

Rev1 New Insight Template 24/Aug/2015 H.Selim E.Riddell D.Cleland

Correct revision number on even
Rev2 24/Nov/2015 H.Selim E.Riddell D.Cleland
pages

Page 2 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Table of Contents
Section Page

PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. 6

SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 6

RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................................. 6
1.1 RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 7
1.1.1 What is a Risk Assessment? ........................................................................ 7
1.1.2 Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 7
1.1.3 Definitions ..................................................................................................... 8
1.1.4 Procedure ..................................................................................................... 8
1.1.5 Some Useful Tips When Risk Assessing: .................................................... 9
1.1.6 Documenting Your Risk Assessments: ........................................................ 9
1.1.7 Implementing and Communicating: .............................................................. 9
1.2 MANUAL HANDLING .............................................................................................. 10
1.2.1 Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (UK Only) .......................................... 10
1.2.2 Some Important Definitions ........................................................................ 10
1.2.3 Mandatory Requirements for Manual Handling Operations ....................... 10
1.2.4 Offshore – Operational Sites ...................................................................... 10
1.3 FOAMING OIL ......................................................................................................... 12
1.3.1 Characteristics ............................................................................................ 12
1.3.2 Separator Design ....................................................................................... 12
1.3.3 Agitation ...................................................................................................... 14
1.3.4 Application of Heat ..................................................................................... 14
1.3.5 Chemicals ................................................................................................... 14
1.3.6 Additional Methods ..................................................................................... 14
1.4 CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 15
1.4.1 Post Test Guidelines for H2S & LSA Scale Contamination ........................ 15
1.4.2 Offshore Equipment Inspection .................................................................. 15
1.4.3 Return of Equipment from H2S Contaminated Well Tests ......................... 15
1.4.4 LSA Scale – Low Specific Activity Scale .................................................... 16
1.5 HIGH PRESSURE / HIGH TEMPERATURE WELL TESTING .............................. 18
1.5.1 Definition..................................................................................................... 18
1.5.2 Planning ...................................................................................................... 18
1.5.3 Safety ......................................................................................................... 18
1.5.4 Differences from a Standard Well Test ...................................................... 19
1.5.5 Operational Issues ..................................................................................... 21
1.6 SOUR GAS WELL TESTING .................................................................................. 23
1.6.1 Characteristics and Effects......................................................................... 23
1.6.2 Occurrence ................................................................................................. 24

Global / Well Test Page 3 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.6.3 Equipment ................................................................................................... 25

1.6.4 Safety Equipment and Training .................................................................. 26
1.6.5 Operational Guidelines ............................................................................... 28
1.6.6 Emergency Procedures .............................................................................. 29
1.7 ACID CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 30
1.7.1 Planning ...................................................................................................... 30
1.7.2 Equipment Suitability .................................................................................. 30
1.7.3 Personnel Safety ......................................................................................... 31
1.7.4 Environmental Impact ................................................................................. 31
1.7.5 Neutralising Acid Returns ........................................................................... 31
1.7.6 Operation .................................................................................................... 32
1.8 GAS WELL TESTING .............................................................................................. 33
1.8.1 Liquid Loading ............................................................................................. 33
1.8.2 Hydrate Formation ...................................................................................... 33
1.8.3 Wet Gas Streams........................................................................................ 33
1.8.4 Irregular Flow .............................................................................................. 33
1.8.5 Sour (H2S) Gas ........................................................................................... 33
1.8.6 Liquid Slugging ........................................................................................... 33
1.8.7 Operating Procedures ................................................................................. 34
1.9 MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................... 36
1.9.1 Offshore/Onshore Operational Site Equipment Maintenance .................... 36
1.9.2 Equipment Intervention ............................................................................... 37
1.9.3 Vessel Entry and Vessel Intervention ......................................................... 37
1.9.4 Safety of Personnel in Confined Spaces .................................................... 37
1.9.5 Safety Recommendations for Vessel Entry ................................................ 37
1.9.6 Other Considerations .................................................................................. 38
1.9.7 Certification Requirements ......................................................................... 38
1.9.8 Permit to Work ............................................................................................ 39
1.9.9 Completion of the Work .............................................................................. 39
1.9.10 Vessel Intervention ..................................................................................... 39
1.10 SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 40
1.10.1 General/Solids Production .......................................................................... 40
1.10.2 Solids Detection .......................................................................................... 43
1.10.3 Monitoring Instrumentation and Equipment ................................................ 43
1.10.4 Sudden Leaks ............................................................................................. 44
1.10.5 Measurement of Solids ............................................................................... 44
1.10.6 Solids Removal Equipment ......................................................................... 44
1.10.7 Production Guidelines ................................................................................. 45
1.10.8 Conventional Well Clean-Ups ..................................................................... 47
1.10.9 Frac Well Clean-Ups ................................................................................... 49
1.10.10 Frac Clean-Ups with Resin Coated Proppant............................................. 49

Page 4 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.10.11 Screened Out Frac ..................................................................................... 49

1.10.12 Use of a Sand Filter Bypass Line ............................................................... 50
1.11 CO2 .......................................................................................................................... 51
1.11.1 Characteristics and effects ......................................................................... 51
1.11.2 Seals ........................................................................................................... 51
1.11.3 Corrosion Rate /Corrosion Tables .............................................................. 52

Global / Well Test Page 5 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

PURPOSE
The purpose of this Well Test Standard (WTS) manual is to set out the framework for achieving the
highest operational and engineering standard when designing, selecting equipment, training and
selection of personnel and conducting well test operations in a well test environment.

The following verbal forms shall be used when reading this document.
Shall Used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed and which no deviation is
permitted, unless accepted and dispensed / conceded by the Well Test Product Line

Should Used to indicate that several possibilities exist, without mentioning or excluding others,
or that a certain action is preferred but not necessarily required

May Used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of this document

SCOPE
This WTS manual applies to those tasked with the design, selection and operation of well test
systems. This practice is tailored specifically to Expro surface Welltest operations which are
generally for temporary deployments. Compliance with the WTS shall be mandatory.

RESPONSIBILITIES
The process of designing, selection of equipment, well test crew training and selection, operation of
well test equipment is the responsibility of the Regional Operations departments.

Well Test Product Line is responsible for the maintenance of the WTS and ensuring that it is
updated where necessary in line with current best practice.

Page 6 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

TOC

1.1 RISK ASSESSMENT

1.1.1 What is a Risk Assessment?

A risk assessment is simple and careful examination of what, in your work, could cause harm to
people, so that you can access whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more
to prevent harm. Workers and others have a right to be protected from harm caused by a failure
to take reasonable control measures.

More Simply: Think about what could go wrong and decide if enough has been done to prevent
it.

Risk assessment forms a vital part of our proactive health and safety management systems and
culture.

So, remember: Stop! Plan! Check! Do! Learn!

The risk assessment process consists essentially of an identification of all hazards present in
any operation and an estimate of the risks involved, taking into account whatever precautions
are already being undertaken. For more details please refer to process flowchart:

HSEQC/GRP/FRM/2.1: Risk Assessment Flowchart

The risk assessment process should have five primary goals:

• Identify the hazards

• Analyse the probable effects/consequences
• Assess the overall risk
• Accept/Reject the risk
• Identify further action for rejected risks and reassess

Please refer to Risk Assessment example WT001 which was completed for a Flare Boom
Installation – please note that this is an uncontrolled copy for reference purposes only. This
example clearly identifies the primary goals. As you can see in this example there are numerous
required control measures that have been identified for this task.

1.1.2 Responsibilities
Base Managers are responsible for risk assessments being carried out to cover the areas they
control.
Supervisors/Shift Supervisors or senior crew members are responsible for carrying out all risk
assessments undertaken on an offshore or land operational installation.
All crew members must comply fully with all findings of the risk assessment. All control
measures put in place must be strictly adhered to.
Expro’s policy is two or more persons must be involved in all risk Assessments

Global / Well Test Page 7 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.1.3 Definitions
Hazard
A hazard is anything that may cause harm, such as (chemicals, electricity, working from ladders,
an open drawer etc).
Risk
The risk is the likelihood, high or low, that somebody could be harmed by these and other
hazards, together with an indication of how serious the harm could be.
Harm
− Injury to personnel however slight
− Adverse affects on health short- or long-term
− Anything which has an environmental impact
− Equipment damage, delay, loss of productivity
Accident
Is an unplanned and undesired event that has led to injury, damage or other loss?
Near Miss
Is an unplanned and undesired event that could have led to injury, damage or other loss?
Safe
− A condition where risks have been reduced and controlled to the level required by
specific regulations and is deemed, as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP)
− Free from danger
− Secure from risk
− Unable to do harm

1.1.4 Procedure
The Expro Group have identified a need to ‘risk assess’ all tasks that have the potential to cause
harm to individuals, have a potential environmental impact or a financial impact to the company
or third-party organisation.
The Key steps in all risk assessments are laid out below and must be considered when carrying
out assessments in the workplace. They are:
• Identify the hazards
• Analyse the probable effects/consequences
• Assess the overall risk
• Accept/Reject the risk
• Identify further action for rejected risks and reassess
For more details please refer to guide:
HSEQC/GRP/GUI/2.1: Identification, Assessment and Control of Hazards

Hazards
There are a myriad of Workplace hazards to consider when considering all tasks in a risk
assessment. Some examples are laid out below.
− Slipping & Tripping − Falls/Falling objects − Noise − Hot/Cold surfaces or working
environment − Fumes/Dusts/Gases
− Chemicals − Sharp edges/tools/objects

Risk
There are two elements associated with risk:
− Chance or likelihood
− Consequence or severity
The likelihood of the harm from a hazard affecting us multiplied by the severity resulting from the
exposure to the hazard.

Page 8 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Definition of ALARP
If the cost in terms of time, effort, money or inconvenience, associated with the workplace
precaution outweighs the BENEFIT of the risk reduction, then it is not reasonably practicable to
use that workplace precaution. Basically the cost must be weighed up against the benefit.
A.L.A.R.P. – As Low as Reasonably Practicable.

People at RISK
− Consider all personnel that may be at risk from a hazardous activity – not just the
people performing the task!
− When considering/including others in a risk assessment you must consider how
different groups of people face different levels of risk
− When considering others be imaginative but realistic
− Pay particular attention to those persons more at risk

Risk Rating
Expro use a risk rating that is simply the quantified total sum of the likelihood ranking number,
multiplied severity rating number.
− Risk Ratings are used to prioritise risk
− Following the Risk Rating. The risk can be evaluated to determine whether or not the
task or operation is safe
For more details please refer to Risk Assessment/Incident Potential Matrix:
HSEQC/GRP/FRM/2.1: Risk Assessment/Incident Potential Matrix

1.1.5 Some Useful Tips When Risk Assessing:

− Identify hazards, not unsafe conditions
− Consider any secondary hazards and associated risks
− Do not get bogged down with numbers or colours – the risk rating system is simply a
tool to allow the assessor to compare risk levels
− Be consistent with your evaluations
− Severity will only change if the potential of the hazard to cause harm is physically
reduced, or if the number of people exposed is reduced
− The control measures you prescribe should be viewed as reducing your exposure to
the hazard

1.1.6 Documenting Your Risk Assessments:

− Document all Risk assessments on the correct form
HSEQC/GRP/FRM/2.1: Risk Assessment Form
− A copy of the completed form must be submitted to your supervisor back in your
Regional operations base as soon as possible after completion. All Risk assessments
should be kept on file for a minimum of two years

1.1.7 Implementing and Communicating:

− Could/should more be done to reduce the risk to ALARP?
− Implement the required risk control measures
− Communicate the risk assessment and the risk control measures to the crew and all
other personnel who may be affected by the task
− Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the controls set in place
− If the work scope changes, then STOP and do another assessment

Global / Well Test Page 9 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.2 MANUAL HANDLING

1.2.1 Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (UK Only)

For Region Specific Guidelines and Legislation – all operational personnel should consult their
immediate Line Manager/Supervisor.
If no local legislation applies – the Manual Handling Regulations UK 1992 can be used as a
good source of guidance.
Significant obligations are placed on employers and the self-employed with regard to all manual
handling tasks in the workplace.
In the UK only, the Regulations are the result of the European directive on minimum health and
safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back
injury to workers. The Regulations replace all former provisions on the subject, and apply to all
those at work regardless of their particular workplace.
A clear step by step approach to removing hazards and minimising risks is introduced. The most
fundamental requirement is to avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far, as is
reasonably practicable. Automation, redesigning the task to avoid manual movement of the load
and mechanisation has to be considered at this point if there is a risk of injury and a manual
handling operation is involved.
If any risk remains, a suitable and sufficient assessment of the operation has to be made, and
that risk has to be reduced as low as is reasonably practicable, preferably involving mechanical
assistance. The clear objective of this guidance is to apply an ergonomic approach to the
prevention of injury while carrying out manual handling tasks.

1.2.2 Some Important Definitions

Injury – Includes those resulting from the weight, shape, size, external state, rigidity or lack of
rigidity of the load or from the movement or orientation of its contents.

Load – Generally, this would be a discrete movable object and could include a patient receiving
medical attention. This definition also covers material supported on a shovel or fork. However an
implement, tool or machine such as a hammer or chainsaw would not be included.

1.2.3 Mandatory Requirements for Manual Handling Operations

• Avoid manual handling as much as is reasonably practicable
• Mechanise or automate the process if at all possible
• Carry out manual handling assessments
• Put in place risk reduction measures as a result of the assessment
• Share information with colleagues/supervisors/crew members

1.2.4 Offshore – Operational Sites

No manual handling task conducted offshore or on an operational land site should be seen as
so urgent that it cannot be given due care and thought. The five steps laid out above are there
to help you in an operational environment.
Assess all awkward manual handling tasks prior to starting. A full written assessment may not
be necessary; a five-minute chat with colleagues may be adequate to highlight the risks involved
in the operation. Simple control measures can then be put in place, where possible this should
be documented.
There have been numerous incidents & injuries to Expro personnel in the past. A lot of these
incidents could have been avoided by simply assessing the task ahead. So, remember.

Page 10 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

S – Stop!
A – Assess the task!
F – Formulate a plan!
E – Execute!

Simple control measures can be put in place for all sorts of manual handling tasks undertaken
by Expro personnel. Some examples are given:
− If time permits, use the crane!
− If practical, use a chain block
− If practical, use an air driven winch (tugger)
− Multi-man lifting – why attempt to lift something yourself? Get assistance from your
workmates - Teamwork!
− Use a barrel lifter or barrel grabs
− Use a pallet trolley
− Use a porter’s trolley
Most, if not all of these mechanical aids should be available on most installations. If you require
a specific mechanical aid or lifting device to assist you in a task, ensure that it is on site. If it is
not, re-evaluate the task. Can the lift be performed using another method?
Discuss manual handling at your pre-job safety meetings. Manual handling is a huge part of
rigging up any well test or clean up package.
Always use a mechanical device when moving or lifting something you cannot safely cope with.
A serious back injury will alter your quality of life forever.

A Simple Message
The next time you are about to manually handle something, ask yourself this:
“Can I safely handle this load with no risk of injury to myself or others?”
If the answer to this is No then Stop, Assess, Formulate, Execute
Do not proceed until you are satisfied that you have done everything in your powers to
ensure this task is performed safely.
If you follow these recommendations, you should lead an injury free life.
If you choose to ignore these recommendations you could possibly suffer years of pain and
immobility which will affect your quality of life and may stop you enjoying the things you like
most.
Think before you act!

Global / Well Test Page 11 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.3 FOAMING OIL

1.3.1 Characteristics
The major cause of ‘foaming’ in crude oil is the presence of impurities in the wellbore fluids
which cannot be removed prior to the separator. CO2 is a common impurity which will increase
the likelihood of producing foam.
Completion, drilling or work over fluids which are incompatible with the well bore fluids can
cause foam.
Foaming oil is a common problem with Heavy Crude oil production.
Oil-continuous foam that contains dispersed gas bubbles produced at the wellhead, form heavy
oil reservoirs under solution-gas drive. The nature of the gas dispersions in oil distinguishes
foaming oil behaviour from conventional heavy oil.
The gas that comes out of solution in the reservoir does not coalesce into large gas bubbles or
into a continuous flowing gas phase. Instead it remains as small bubbles entrained in the crude
oil, keeping the effective oil viscosity low while providing expansive energy that helps drive the
oil towards the producing well. Foaming oil accounts for unusually high production in heavy oil
reservoirs under solution-gas drive.
Presence of foam during a Well Test or Clean Up operation can cause the following:
− Pollution due to carry over in the gas line
− Prevent good separation and reduce separator capacity
− Prevent accurate level control and monitoring in the separator
− Disrupt liquid and gas metering
− Disrupt pumping operations
− Cause potential burning problems
The main factors that assist in ‘breaking’ foaming oil are:
− Good separator design
− Settling
− Agitation
− Heat
− Chemical additives

1.3.2 Separator Design

Inlet Device
The best way to handle incoming foam is to apply a shear force in order to ‘break it’ down. It is
important however, that the shear force applied should not be so high that the entrained droplets
are not reduced in size. It is also important that a proportion of the bulk liquid does not turn into
droplets by re-entrainment at the gas/liquid interface.
Foam generation in the vessel can be minimised by maximising the gas from liquid separation
within the inlet device and ensuring that the contours of the inlet device are smooth.

Use of Cyclonic Inlet Devices

Cyclonic devices are used to reduce incoming fluid stream momentum.
This is achieved in two ways, by separating the liquids and vapour into two discrete outlets and
by evenly distributing the emissions from those outlets downstream, by means of a secondary
device, or as many other devices as is practicable inside the vessel. Expro have fitted up to four
double banks of cyclones inside some separator vessels.
The result of the cyclone banks is to further reduce momentum and optimise gas/liquid and
liquid/liquid separation.
Expro have successfully carried out Well Testing operations on ‘known foaming crude’
applications.
They are also used to ensure pre separation of incoming bulk liquids and thus reduce foam.

Page 12 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

The cyclonic inlet devices should have smooth surfaces, which will create high centrifugal
forces. These high centrifugal forces will cause a significant proportion of the foam to be broken
down thus reducing the proportion of foam to total liquids.
The cyclones apply a controlled shear force to the incoming liquids.

Possible Problems with Inlet Cyclones

Although beneficial with respect to the reduction of the stream momentum, different pressure
drops across the cyclone outlets may occur. The result is that, if incorrectly designed and
controlled, gas may exit through the liquid outlet (blow-by) or liquids may exit through the gas
outlet (carry-over).
This may greatly reduce the effects of ‘foam breaking’.

Retention time
Increasing the retention time of the oil as it passes through a separator allows more time for the
foam to ‘break’ out of the oil. If this approach is combined with cyclonic inlet devices, foam can
be virtually eliminated from the vessel.
The retention time allows for the produced oil and gas to reach equilibrium at the separator
operating pressure. The retention time is the vessel liquid storage volume divided by the liquid
flow rate.
Typical retention times are:
° API gravity Retention time (minutes)
35+ 0.5 to 1
30 2
25 3
<20 4+
If foams exist the above retention times can be increased by two to four times.
If high CO2 is being produced then a minimum retention time of five minutes is advised.
To increase the retention times it may be required to use stage separation, whereby the two or
more separators are used in series, with the operating pressure of each separator being
dropped at each stage. This allows more gas to break out at each stage and thus reduce the
foaming problems.
Oil flow rate measurements are not made until the final stage at which point there should be no
problem with foam giving false flow rates.

NOTE: It may be necessary to have an additional separator or knock-out vessel tied into
the gas line(s) from the upstream separator(s) in order to collect and measure any oil that
has carried over with the foam before allowing the gas to flare (i.e., acting as a gas
scrubber). Gas rates should be measured at this point to obtain accurate flow data.

The operating level of the separator should be at the vessel mid-point to allow for a greater
surface area to be exposed for better separation.

Coalescing Plates
Coalescing plates can be another design feature which will allow the oil and gas to coalesce
together. The small gas bubbles will coalesce and make a larger gas bubble which will separate
from the oil more freely. The coalescing plates can also ensure the flow through the separator is
laminar which can improve separation.

Level Monitoring
Typical level monitoring and control systems on standard separators can be problematic with
the foam in the vessel. Sight glasses may not show a true fluid level, the separator can be fitted
with ultrasonic radar transmitters which will indicate both the fluid level and the foam level.
The level control is affected due to the float or displacer being designed to detect a typical fluid
gravity. If the separator has external float chambers these can become full of foam. The float or
displacer should be internal to the vessel. Radar level transmitters can be fitted to detect and
control the level of the fluid.

Global / Well Test Page 13 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.3.3 Agitation
NOTE: Agitation is not easily achievable in well testing situations.
Agitation is helpful in ‘breaking’ foaming oil where the foam bubbles are mechanically locked by
the surface tension and viscosity of the oil. It does this by causing the gas bubbles to coalesce
and separate from the oil in less time than would be required were agitation not employed.
Agitation is not easily achievable in well testing situations
Agitation can be obtained by stirring, vibrating the baffle plates within the separator vessel, it will
have a limited ‘agitation effect’ on the crude.

1.3.4 Application of Heat

Heat is one of the best methods of ‘breaking’ foaming oil, as it reduces the oil viscosity and the
surface tension of oil assisting in the release of gas that is mechanically retained in the oil. The
heat is normally applied to the oil through the use of a heat exchanger (direct/indirect).
The heated oil will flow into the separator(s) where the normal separation process will take
place. This process coupled with the use of the separator internal baffle plates to agitate and
coalesce the gas bubbles, provides a very effective method of removing foam bubbles from
foaming oil.

1.3.5 Chemicals
Any chemical that reduces the surface tension of crude oil will assist in ‘breaking’ foaming oil.
Silicon defoamers are currently considered the most effective chemicals to use for this purpose.
They appreciably reduce the foaming tendency of the oil by destabilising the surface of a
foaming oil to such an extent that the foam bubbles can no longer support themselves, i.e. the
thin film that exists between pockets of gas either ruptures or is not permitted to form. This
allows entrained gases to escape easily, leaving a clear interface.
These antifoam chemicals should be injected at the lowest point in the test string as possible,
e.g. sub-sea tree, etc.
As foam is also created by pressure drops throughout the system, anti-foam chemicals should
be injected upstream from these i.e. choke manifold, separator inlet, liquid control valves, tank
inlet etc.

Drawbacks with Antifoam Chemicals

Some antifoam chemicals will have much better results than others in the effective treatment of
foaming problems. If it is possible to analyse the crude before the test program in order to
choose an effective chemical, then this should be done. In practice however, this is rarely the
case and a system of trial and error is used on site to determine the best chemical additives to
use.
It is good practice to load out a selection of antifoam chemicals if problems with foaming crude
oil are anticipated. This may have considerable cost implications to the client.
There is no such thing as a ‘standard’ antifoam chemical. There are literally hundreds of
antifoams on the market and each one has different properties and will have different effects in
dealing with foaming problems.

1.3.6 Additional Methods

Additional methods that may assist in the reduction of foaming problems are needed to:
− Avoid large pressure drops, especially at low pressure areas of the system. This can be
done through the use of stepped pressure reductions across more than one choking
device, e.g. step down the well pressure at the choke manifold and again at the heat
exchanger
− If it is practical to do so, the separator back pressure should be kept as high as possible (if
not using stage separation) as this will prevent the liberation of gas bubbles

Page 14 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

TOC

1.4 CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT

1.4.1 Post Test Guidelines for H2S & LSA Scale Contamination
Expro’s commitment to quality continues after any particular job has finished. All equipment
returned from an offshore location is subjected to a rigorous inspection and maintenance
procedure.
All equipment returned to base undergoes an inspection on arrival and has routine maintenance
carried out on it, as laid out in the maintenance procedures manuals. The actual maintenance
required is identified on the ‘job cards’ which details the maintenance procedures, any special
maintenance requirements to follow and allows for the work completed to be signed off by the
person carrying out the maintenance.

1.4.2 Offshore Equipment Inspection

All Well Test equipment should be inspected by the well test supervisor at the end of the job. All
damage, equipment operability problems and contamination of equipment should be noted and
reported to the onshore responsible person prior to the equipment being shipped back to base.
This is especially important where hazardous contamination may exist within equipment.
Onshore staff must be informed if contaminated equipment is to be shipped back to base. LSA
Scale and H2S contamination will potentially pose hazards to all personnel who may come in
contact with the equipment on return to base.
If equipment has been returned to base damaged, photographs should be acquired of the
damage and if the costs are re-chargeable to the customer then they are invited to view the
equipment within three days, after which time the necessary repairs are carried out. If the repair
costs are not re-chargeable then an insurance claim may be made.

1.4.3 Return of Equipment from H2S Contaminated Well Tests

All equipment returned from an H2S environment must be treated with extreme caution when
performing any post job maintenance task.
Special maintenance procedures have been laid out for equipment that has returned from well
tests on H2S wells which include the following:
• All equipment will be quarantined until deemed H2S free. This quarantine takes the
form of a label attached to the actual equipment and also a note on the job card saying
“no maintenance should be carried out on the equipment” until it has been deemed H 2S
free
• The equipment report will be checked to see if equipment has been flushed offshore
prior to back loading
• Draeger Sniffer checks will then be carried out to ensure the equipment is H 2S free.
Once equipment has passed those checks, the quarantine labels are removed and
normal maintenance procedures can be carried out
• Where sniffer checks indicate the presence of H2S the equipment will be
flushed/purged as required until subsequent sniffer checks allow the equipment
to be deemed H2S free

IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTICE

Special consideration should be given to tanks; vessels etc sludge can remain in the
bottom of vessels even after flushing and can entrap H2S. If sludge is found to be in a
vessel returned from an H2S environment, specialist third-party cleaning companies should
be called in to remove the sludge and clean the vessel.
Expro personnel must not attempt vessel entry into sludge contaminated vessels
• A detailed Risk assessment should be carried out prior to cleaning out H2S
contaminated equipment
• A detailed environmental assessment should be carried out prior to cleaning out
contaminated equipment

Global / Well Test Page 15 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

• Personnel safety must be considered at all times when dealing with H2S contamination
• All Expro personnel who may be involved in handling H2S contaminated equipment
must have received specialist H2S training

1.4.4 LSA Scale – Low Specific Activity Scale

Background Information
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) have been known to be present in varying
concentrations in hydrocarbon reservoirs in a number of areas of the world. It is now recognised
that these materials can give rise to radioactive scales (and sludge), which are usually referred
to as Low Specific Activity (LSA) scale. The scales tend to be barium sulphate and strontium
sulphate, which co-precipitate with naturally occurring radium leached out of the reservoir rock.
Such scales emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation and this, together with the physical
properties of the LSA scale, can give rise to problems if such scales have to be removed,
handled or disposed of.
A survey into this problem has suggested that the LSA scale phenomenon is most commonly
observed in the development of Jurassic reservoirs where the well fluids are wet, particularly at
locations in a production or well test system where there are sudden changes in well fluid
stream conditions. Very recent test results suggest that the problem is more widespread than
was originally thought.
The form of LSA material can vary from sludge, through soft, easily removable scales, to very
hard tenacious scales. Levels of radioactivity can also vary from just above background
radiation to those requiring restricted areas and classified workers who are specially trained to
deal with these hazardous scales.
LSA Scale is classed as a radioactive substance and the handling and disposal of it could give
rise to occupational health and hygiene problems.
Expro operational bases must therefore develop and impose safe systems of work and proper
procedures which recognise the hazards, protect the workers from harmful exposure, minimise
interference with the environment and ensure that government and international regulations are
obeyed.

LSA Scale Contamination

Ideally no LSA contaminated equipment should be sent back to Expro operating bases from any
operational location. Checks should be conducted at the well site to ensure equipment is not
contaminated. The onus should be placed upon the client to provide the required measures
necessary to decontaminant the equipment prior to leaving the installation, however If
equipment is found to be contaminated it should be:
• Tagged and labelled LSA contaminated
• All inlet outlet connections should be bagged and taped to prevent spillage/exposure
• All contaminated equipment must be manifested as hazardous, and all the hazardous
documentation should be in place before backload.
• Equipment to be shipped to a specialist decontamination centre (e.g. Scott Oil
Aberdeen) directly from the Rig/Platform or Onshore Well site.

If any equipment returned to base is suspected to contain any LSA contaminants or this
equipment must be quarantined immediately. Thorough checks for the presence of LSA Scale
should then be carried out. Only properly trained and qualified personnel should carry out these
checks using the correct equipment, which should be calibrated and certified.
Specialist third-party cleaning companies should be called in to deal with any contaminated
equipment.

Offshore/Well Site location LSA Checks

Offshore or onshore well site location LSA checks should only be carried out by suitably trained
and qualified personnel who have specialist knowledge on the operation and use of radioactivity
measuring equipment. Most operating companies will have suitably qualified personnel onboard
the installation to deal with LSA checks.

Page 16 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

If you are not suitably trained and qualified in the use of radioactivity measuring equipment, you
must not get involved in this process. Leave it to the experts.
If no suitably qualified personnel are available to carry out these checks the Well
owners/operators should ensure someone is mobilised to the location to carry out these checks.
The operating company is responsible for the safe disposal/decontamination of LSA materials
as laid down in the Radioactive Substances act of 1960 (UK only).
Operating bases outside the UK should ensure that they comply with all national and local
legislative requirements as prescribed in their respective Country.

IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTICE

• A detailed risk assessment should be carried out prior to cleaning out LSA
contaminated equipment.
• A detailed environmental assessment should be carried out prior to cleaning out
contaminated equipment.
• Personnel safety must be considered at all times when dealing with LSA contamination.
• All Expro personnel who may be involved in handling LSA contaminated equipment
must have received specialist LSA training.

Global / Well Test Page 17 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.5 HIGH PRESSURE / HIGH TEMPERATURE WELL TESTING

1.5.1 Definition
The definition of a High Pressure/High Temperature (HPHT) well is:
“Any well where the undisturbed bottom hole temperature at total depth or the prospective
reservoir section is greater than 300°F (150°C) and either the maximum anticipated pore
pressure exceeds a hydrostatic gradient of 0.8 psi/ft (representing an Estimated Mud Weight
(EMW) of 1.85 S.G. or 15.4 pounds per gallon (ppg)) or pressure control equipment with a
working pressure greater than 10,000 psi (690Bar) is required”.
On the UK Continental Shelf all wells must be drilled in accordance with the Design &
Construction Regulations, designed and published by the UK Health & Safety Executive.
Similar legislation exists in the rest of the oil producing world.
If the Clients well meets both of the criteria in the definition above, it should be treated as an
HPHT well.
The detailed requirements of all proposed HPHT wells should be examined closely.

1.5.2 Planning
The Planning of a HPHT test is extremely important, the design will achieve the client’s
objectives whilst complying with the comprehensive risk assessments and HAZOP completed
for the well test.
The planning will include:
− Safe and Environmentally acceptable production of hydrocarbons to surface
− Responsive initiation of multiple barriers down hole and at surface
− Reliable isolation and maximum security of the well
− System tolerance of variable pressure and temperature
− Maximum reliability with minimum intervention
A detailed well test design report will be produced, this is MANDATORY, the well test design
report will detail all the well parameters and all the required changes to the well test package for
the HPHT test.
The well test design report will be approved by Expro, client and a third-party certifying authority
(if applicable), therefore the well test design report PID, equipment layout shall be adhered to.

1.5.3 Safety
HPHT well test completion and design is more prone to failure since it typically operates closer
to its load, stress, pressure, temperature and chemical limits. The probability of failure also
increases due to the equipment tooling being less accurate and un-calibrated at undefined
HPHT conditions – software solutions are often designed (calibrated) for ‘normal’ wells. In
addition there is often increased organisational and human failure to fully appreciate, due to the
increased complexity, reduced flexibility, and equipment interactions and dependencies of
HPHT operations.
The keep it simple principle is very applicable to HPHT well tests and completions, due to the
increased probability of failure as detailed above, the increased complexity leads to increased
risk.
Safety awareness should be of paramount importance for HPHT wells. HPHT well testing
identifies issues and raises specific safety impacts in HPHT wells that should be addressed
during design and operations. These are specific to the character and behaviour of HPHT wells.
Methodical hazard identification and subsequent mitigation must be employed by everyone if the
risk to health, safety and the environment is to be reduced to a level deemed ‘As Low As
Reasonably Practical’ (ALARP). This will include the use of techniques such as HAZOP, HAZID
and other rigorous methods on a more frequent basis, safety and risk assessment should be a
primary objective during any HPHT well testing operations.

Page 18 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Specialised Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) i.e. full face visors, gloves for use due to the
high equipment temperatures etc. Experienced competent crews should be utilised for HPHT
well tests.

1.5.4 Differences from a Standard Well Test

Rig Up
Due to the complexity of a HPHT well test the rig up will require additional time to complete.

Equipment Selection
All of the well test equipment upstream and including the choke manifold shall be suitably rated
for the pressure and temperature requirements. Hydraulic oils need to be chosen for the correct
operating temperature.

Lower Master Valve

A hydraulic actuated lower master valve will be installed below the surface test tree swivel.

Surface Test Tree

It is typical for all the valves to be hydraulically actuated to reduce human interaction due to the
high surface temperatures.

Coflon
A Coflon is a high temperature rated flexible flow line although the maximum certified
temperature is +266°F. The Coflon can also be utilised as a flexible section for any heat
expansion experienced during the flow periods.

Expansion loop
If a Coflon is not incorporated in the rig up an expansion loop could be required this will be
designed and detailed in the pre job planning and well test design report.

Flow lines
Pipe work with metal to metal connectors i.e. Techlok, Grayloc hubs will be supplied to allow for
the HPHT requirement. The specifications for these are superior to API flanges and hammer
unions, they also eliminate the use of specialised elastomers.

Emergency Shutdown valve

An emergency shutdown valve will be required to be installed upstream of the choke manifold
and will be suitably rated for the pressure and temperature requirements.

Data Header
The data header will have metal to metal connectors i.e. Techlok, Grayloc. All instrumentation
ports will be 9/16" Autoclave Engineer High Pressure (AEHP) and have double block and bleed
valves. Consideration should be given to direct mounting of the instrumentation due to the heat
transfer from the pipe work, it is typical to have an interconnecting HPHT instrumentation hose
or liner to reduce the heat transferred to the instrument.
Sampling upstream of the choke manifold should be kept to a minimum due to the high
pressures and temperatures.

Choke manifold
The choke manifold should be a double block design although two off-choke manifolds can be
utilised with an upstream and downstream diverter manifold, the choke manifolds will be rigged
up in parallel.
The adjustable choke should be designed to operate safely and accurately with high differential
pressures i.e. power chokes, master flo.

Global / Well Test Page 19 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

If possible all the choke manifold valves and adjustable choke should be hydraulic actuated to
reduce the human interaction with the high surface temperature.

Downstream equipment
A second choke manifold may be required to step down the pressure; this will reduce the high
differential across the upstream choke manifold therefore reducing the possibility of hydrate
formation and erosion due to the high velocities.
A heat exchanger will be required to increase the well effluent temperature due to the high
differential and cooling across the upstream choke manifold, the heat exchanger adjustable
choke can be used to reduce the high differential. The heat exchanger can also be used to cool
the well effluent by acting as a heat sink if the shell is filled with water.
The separator maximum working pressure may be pressure down rated due to the high
temperature effect on the ANSI flanges of the vessel. The well test design report will high light
the hi pilot set pressures, relief valve and rupture disk settings.
All other downstream equipment with ANSI flanges may be pressure down rated due to the high
temperature, this will be highlighted in the well test planning report.
The relief line pipe work maybe of a larger I.D. due to the proposed high rates

Page 20 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.5.5 Operational Issues

High Temperature
On some HPHT applications the only way to restrict the surface temperature may be by choking
back the well and restricting the flow rates.
One way of choking back the well is to fit a hydraulically controlled choke onto the flow-wing
outlet of the surface test tree, this would create a pressure drop and therefore have a cooling
effect on the fluids immediately downstream. Alternatively the well can be choked back at the
choke manifold or the heat exchanger used as a heat sink.

Explosive Decompression
One of the major problems encountered in testing high pressure wells, is the problem of
explosive decompression. This phenomenon causes problems in that when seals are
compressed under high pressure some gaseous elements diffuse into the seal. If a rapid
pressure drop occurs or after frequent pressure cycling, materials not resistant may suffer
extensive damage, usually in the form of splits and/or blisters. This is because the entrained gas
expands against the elasticity of the rubber causing severe internal damage that may split or
rupture the elastomer seal.
This problem is especially prevalent where there is a high CO 2 content in the well gas stream
and if this is the case then explosive decompression may occur at relatively low pressures. This
is due to the ability of the CO2 to permeate the elastomer.
It is recommended that elastomer seals with hardness rating above 85 RHD be used if explosive
decompression is expected to be a problem or if high concentrations of CO2 are expected.
The critical parameters most likely to affect Explosive Decompression performance are:
a) Gas type
b) Pressure and decompression rate
c) Temperature
d) Soak time at pressure
e) Seal volume and exposed seal surface area
f) Initial squeeze (strain exerted on seal while rigging up hammer union)
One type of rubber seal designed to overcome this problem is the Anson Super-seal which is
based on Viton B (a high fluorine content fluoroelastomer) which is given the compound name
FR 58/90 (the 90 refers to the hardness of the rubber).
The level of fluorine in the elastomer is thought to have a major effect on the solubility of gas in
the seal and thus resistance to explosive decompression as does the hardness of the
elastomer. Generally, the harder the elastomer seal the greater the resistance to gases
permeating into it.
The disadvantage of this is that the harder the seal, the worse the sealing properties.
If possible, bleeding down systems slowly will help prevent explosive decompression occurring.
Explosive decompression is one of the prime reasons why Expro recommend the use of metal
to metal type seals for all upstream pipework and components. If possible, metal to metal seals
should be used on all equipment installed upstream of the heat exchanger on the high-pressure
side of the system.

High Pressure Fluid

The majority of HPHT well tests are carried out on gas wells, after the initial perforation a heavy
weight fluid will be contained in the tubing which needs to be removed via the surface test
equipment. The fluid will be driven by the high gas pressure from the formation, when this is
being flowed via the adjustable choke various problems can arise.
The adjustable choke can vibrate close; this is typical with a needle and seat type.
The vibrations can affect the instrumentation and equipment i.e. vibrating handles loose etc.
The high differential across the choke and the composition of heavy fluid can be erosive to the
choke and to the downstream section of the choke manifold and other downstream equipment.
The high noise volumes can be created by the choke restricting the high pressure fluid.

Global / Well Test Page 21 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Separation
Separation issues can arise due to the high temperatures ‘flashing off’ the condensate, this will
create measurement problems with both the gas and the condensate rates.
The separator internals may also be affected by the high temperature, mist extractors may not
work so efficiently, causing wet gas to be metered and a smokey flare.
Liquid level displacers need to be checked for temperature rating, as level control may be
affected.
Daniel’s plate holders need to be checked for temperature rating as this can affect the sealing
around the orifice plate and the gas metering.
Fluid meters need to be rated for the proposed high temperatures.

Page 22 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

TOC

1.6 SOUR GAS WELL TESTING

1.6.1 Characteristics and Effects

Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) can be found at any worksite or at any process plant. It may also be
found in the yard when breaking down equipment, even if the equipment has come from a
‘sweet’ field, due to the effects of sulphate reducing bacteria.
Well Test Operations on these wells can be conducted safely if the H2S hazard is recognised,
understood and plans for contingencies made in advance.

Physical and chemical properties

• H2S is extremely toxic (6 times more lethal than Carbon Monoxide and half as lethal as
Hydrogen Cyanide); it is produced during biological and industrial processes; it is most
hazardous when it exists as a free gas.
The maximum tolerable level has been set at 10 parts per million (PPM).
• H2S is colourless.
• H2S has an offensive odour, often described as that of rotten eggs.
• H2S forms an explosive mixture in air with a concentration between 4.3 and 45 percent
by volume. This is an extremely wide range. Auto ignition occurs at 500°F (260°C). This
is a very low ignition temperature; a cigarette tip is about 450°F and rises to 500°F
when drawn upon. Vapors may travel a considerable distance to a source of ignition
and flash back will occur.
• H2S burns with a blue flame and produces Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), which is less toxic
than hydrogen sulphide but very irritating to eyes and lungs and can cause serious
harm.
• H2S is heavier than air – specific gravity 1.189 (Air = 1.000) at standard conditions.
Therefore H2S collects in low-lying areas such as well cellars.
• H2S is soluble in both water and liquid hydrocarbons.
• H2S produces irritation to eyes, throat and respiratory system (at lower concentration).
• The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for H2S – maximum of eight hours exposure without
protective respiratory equipment – is 10ppm.
• H2S is corrosive to all electrochemical series metals.
• Boiling point of H2S is minus 62°C (minus 79°F) and its melting point minus 116°C
(minus 177°F).

H2S Concentrations
In dealing with H2S several different units may be in use for measuring its concentration.
Expro standardize on PPM – Parts Per Million for concentration in gas.
Other unit and conversions:
1% = 10,000ppm.
0.65 Grains per SCF (Standard Cubic Foot) = 10ppm
0.001MOL% and VOL% = 10ppm
15 MG/M3. = 10ppm

10ppm is a very small concentration; it is comparable to 10 kgs in 1000 Tons

Global / Well Test Page 23 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Concentration Effects of H2S

H2S Concentration (PPM) Effect
10 Moderate to strong odour of rotten eggs. Effects are reversible.
10 to 20 Strongly offensive odour. Lung and eye irritation ate increased.
50 + A burning sensation in the eyes, throat and headaches.
Individuals may lose their sense of smell.
100 Coughing, eye irritation, loss of sense of smell after two to five
minutes.
200 – 300 Marked conjunctivitis (eye inflammation) and respiratory tract
irritation after one hour’s exposure.
500 – 700 Loss of consciousness and possible death in 30 minutes to one
hour.
700 – 1000 Rapid unconsciousness, cessation (stopping, pausing) of
respiration and death.
1000 – 2000 Unconsciousness at once with early cessation of respiration and
death in minutes. Death may occur even if individual is removed
to fresh air at once.

Known Volume of H2S

H2S Environment / Conditions

Uncontrolled Leak Controlled Flow

Detected concentration

Less than 10 PPM Refer to emergency

Work Normally
procedures
In Atmosphere
of gas

More than 10 Work with Self

PPM Refer to emergency
Contained Breathing
procedures
Apparatus (SCBA)
In Atmosphere

Exposure to hydrogen sulphide shall be controlled so that no employee is exposed to a

concentration greater than 10ppm in atmosphere in an eight-hour day in a 40-hour week.

1.6.2 Occurrence
H2S occurs worldwide in various concentrations associated with gas, oil and water. It is found in
porous formations and can be encountered during rigging up and down for production logging
and perforating operations on oil or gas wells. It is encountered particularly during sampling
operations during well test operations.
Where H2S is not expected from a newly completed or existing well there maybe cases
where certain chemicals used may result in the formation of H2S. Checks for H2S on new
or existing wells will be carried out until it is established whether the presence of H 2S is
present.

H2S is also found around sewers and cesspools.

Every Employee must be aware of the hazards, precautions and response to the H 2S problem
and ensure that exposed employees are fully prepared to handle its occurrence.

Page 24 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.6.3 Equipment

1.6.3.1 Effect of H2S on Equipment

 Material Embrittlement – the metallic material becomes hardened due to the hydrogen
atoms migrating inside the steel lattice structure, this exerts additional pressure which
induces very high stress which can add to the failure of the material.
 Sulphide Stress Cracking – is dependent on H2S partial pressure and also on mechanical
working stress, temperature, the presence of elemental sulphur, salinity, pH, and
metallurgical condition of the alloys.
 Pyrophoric Ignition – is caused by the H2S converting iron oxide (rust) into iron sulphide,
when air is introduced a reaction takes place which can cause pyrophoric oxidation which
releases heat therefore an ignition source.

1.6.3.2 Well Test Equipment

Equipment Fabrication and Selection
All Expro equipment supplied for the testing of sour wells shall be fabricated in accordance to
National Association Corrosion Engineers (NACE) MR-01-75/ISO 15156 (latest revision).
The NACE Standard MR-01-75 covers metallic material requirements for resistance to
Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC) for petroleum, drilling, gathering and flowline equipment, and
processing facilities to be used bearing hydrocarbon service.
To ensure that equipment does not suffer embrittlement over a long period of time it will be
required to periodically check through the means of hardness testing.
Copper Alloys have accelerated corrosion due to H2S impregnation; all fittings will need to be
checked for H2S service suitability.
All elastomers within the well test equipment i.e. valves, hammer unions, O-rings, pump
packings etc. Shall be H2S rated i.e. Viton, HNBR etc. Hammer unions will require sour gas
resistant seals which are fabricated to resist explosive decompression for safety and reliability,
therefore are a mandatory requirement.
A preferred option would be to interconnect the well test equipment with metal to metal seals
i.e. Techlok, Grayloc.
No 17-4 PH material parts to be used for pressure containing (i.e. stems, seals etc.).
Equipment design partial pressures need to be known and stated to avoid receiving parts
which contain 17-4 PH material.

1.6.3.3 GUIDE TO NACE MR-0175

NACE MR0175 was developed as a result of early failures in the oil industry. Investigation of
those failures revealed they were caused by cracks resulting from the presence of Hydrogen
Sulphide in the oil or gas. Not all fields are sour, as oil or gas containing Hydrogen Sulphide is
termed. The amount of hydrogen sulphide varies widely from a few parts per million (ppm) to
20% or more. However, it is not just the quantity of Hydrogen Sulphide that causes the
problem but also the pressure in the system, so the partial pressure is the important thing to
know when checking a materials suitability for the environment. The partial pressure is the
pressure that would be exerted by the Hydrogen Sulphide on its own, in the system.
Experience (mainly bad) and a lot of experiments, has allowed some fairly general guidelines
to be established which are summarised in the tables below.
These are values below which, the material will not crack, above those values, there is a risk
of cracking.
It should be remembered;
Materials can also crack due to the presence of chlorides, especially stainless steels.
NACE is a standard to prevent cracking, not corrosion. The higher strength crack resistant
materials are also more corrosion resistant.
For more information please refer to “A simple guide to NACE MR0175” Document no.
ENG/GRP/GUI/7010-05

Global / Well Test Page 25 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.6.4 Safety Equipment and Training

H2S Training
Personnel who are going to work in areas where there is a known risk of H2S must receive
detailed training in the precautions to be taken. Because of its specialist nature suitable external
training must be arranged to meet the needs of the worksite. Expro shall ensure H 2S training is
provided to staff and meets with Client requirements. Wherever possible, the Client will arrange
for this external training to be provided.

The training should include as a minimum:

• Characteristics of H2S
• Risk to health – toxicity levels, threshold limits, lethal concentration and physiological
properties
• The correct use and maintenance of breathing apparatus/escape sets
• The emergency procedures for gas alarm conditions
• The correct use and maintenance of gas monitoring equipment
• Clean shaven requirement
• Emergency first aid and resuscitation equipment

Physiological Effects of H2S

When a person breathes in H2S, it passes directly through the lungs and into the bloodstream.
To protect itself, the body breaks down the H2S as rapidly as possible into a harmless
compound. If the individual breathes in so much H2S that the body cannot cope, it builds up in
the bloodstream and the individual becomes poisoned, the nerve centre’s of the brain that
control breathing are paralysed, the lungs stop working and the person is asphyxiated.
It has been shown that alcohol and H2S do not mix. Individuals who have consumed alcohol
within 24 hours of exposure have been overcome by unusually small concentrations of H 2S.
Alcohol makes persons hyper-susceptible to the effects of H2S.
Note: H2S will deaden the sense of smell, at relatively low concentrations; therefore the
lack of the distinctive odour does not mean that this lethal gas is not present in high
quantities. The true level of H2S can only be verified by use of a calibrated gas detector.
Equipment
• If in a known H2S risk area, breathing apparatus must be provided; if client does not
provide breathing apparatus then Expro shall assume the responsibility; prior
consultation with client is imperative.
• Maintenance of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), escape masks, H2S
detectors and resuscitators must be carried out only by qualified personnel or a
qualified service centre.
• Components used in repairs and maintenance shall be original manufacturer’s parts
• Every SCBA must be checked before use.
• Filling of SCBA must be carried out only by qualified personnel with correct equipment
and procedure
• In operating areas where H2S is a known hazard, suitable H2S detectors and pressure
demand type breathing apparatus must be available for well site operations with a
separate set kept in the base for training purposes only.
• In every operating unit with known H2S presence, a selection of all the safety
equipment should be used for training and the equipment is to be labelled ‘for training
only’ and is not to be used for work.
• When working on an H2S well, there must be a 50% redundancy for SCBA units to
allow for the work packs to be recharged with air during operations.
• When SCBA is used, it must be only used in the pressure demand mode.
• Materials such as clothing, rags, gloves and boots that may have been soiled with oil or
water containing dissolved H2S must be stored outside or only in a well-ventilated
room.
• A 20-meter safety line must be available for use in the event of rescue.

Page 26 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

• At least one stand alone vehicle for escape shall be available at the work site. On
offshore locations, a standby vessel must be available.
• The use of escape masks (gas masks) devices as a work pack is strictly forbidden.
Escape masks may only be used once.
• On onshore and offshore locations, two means of escape or exit must be available.
• Muster points must be in an upwind location, all personnel are to be aware of the
muster point location, muster points are to be clearly defined.
• Additional Emergency Shut Down Stations to be placed at air breathing plant
equipment and at the muster stations.

Portable Gas Detection Monitoring

Each operation in a suspected or known H2S area shall be equipped with a minimum of two
portable electronic gas detectors to determine:
• The oxygen content in air
• The level of combustible gases in air
• The level of hydrogen sulphide in air
• The level of Sulphur Dioxide in air
The system shall have a clear display, audio and visual alarms settings for H2S concentration
(10ppm).
The detectors shall have means for calibration and accessories for remote detection (especially
for confined space entry).
The detectors shall be regularly inspected, maintained ready for use at all times and calibrated
with information recorded.
These detectors are warning detectors and not measuring devices. Sensors will overload at
100ppm and would require re-calibration before re-use. If used in high concentrations, the main
sensor may suffer irreparable damage.

Cascade System
In known or suspected H2S areas each cascade system will be made up from a set of bottle
banks. These banks will be charged from a main compressor with back-up compressor on
location.
Each system will be a high-pressure system regulated down to supply various plug in points
along the system loop.
Air pressure at the plug in points will be regulated down to 100 to 130psi to allow for easy
connection and not over pressuring of the face mask.
Each cascade system will be able to accommodate the total number of personnel on location as
well as supply a 50% additional coverage as a minimum requirement. The system is required to
sustain the total number of persons on location for a minimum of one hour while totally masked
up and using the system simultaneously.
Only a qualified person can service all cascade systems and air packs. If no qualified person is
available then a registered company must be used.
If the cascade system is used on a regular weekly basis for drills, air quality testing must be
performed weekly and recorded; air quality must conform for grade D breathing air.

Global / Well Test Page 27 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.6.5 Operational Guidelines

Rig Up
• Prior to rig up on any suspected H2S well, HAZOP/HAZID/Risk Assessments shall be
performed to identify access, egress, muster points, vent and flare locations as a
minimum.
• Rig up Welltest package as per Expro Well Test Design Report (WTDR) for specific
well/operation.
• Ensure all vent lines are hard pipework with the vent exit below the hull of the offshore
installation, for onshore operations the vent line should be diverted via an interlocked
diverter manifold to a downwind safe area. (H2S scrubber’s can be utilised on vent
lines.)
• Atmospheric tanks should not be used in known H2S applications. However, if
atmospheric tanks are required then a risk assessment along with following shall be
mandatory controls:
a) Ensure that fluids are only pumped to the tank.
b) That they are sealed tanks with no local venting i.e. no Whessoe type vents
etc.
c) The atmospheric tank vent line is hard piped and vented to a safe downwind
area. (H2S scrubber’s can be utilised on vent lines.)
d) Ensure a H2S gas detector is available around the perimeter of the
atmospheric stock tank
• Ensure all vent lines are pressure tested to MAWP to ensure integrity.
• Ensure shrinkage tester vent is piped to a suitable containment vessel or a downwind
safe area.

Flowing the Well

• Complete Permit to Work, ensure no other hot permits are allowed during test duration.
• Carry out Job Safety Assessment with all essential personnel.
• Designate a flare watch.
• Designate a trained person to maintain the cascade air supply during the test duration.
• Verify the wind speed (minimum of five knots required) and direction, ensure wind
socks are continually monitored.
• Ensure non-essential personnel stay in the accommodation; close all water tight doors
and hatches.
• Ensure no helicopter, crane operations take place during flowing period, ensure stand-
by/support vessels are outside the upwind 500 metre exclusion zone.
• If H2S is known or suspected first hydrocarbons shall be produced to surface in daylight
hours only.
• If H2S is suspected, Well Test personnel around sampling points and choke manifold
shall be masked up at initial flow. The rest of the crew in the well test area shall don
SCBA sets ready to mask up if and when required.
• All essential personnel to carry hand held H2S gas monitors.
• Ensure fluids are flowed via the test separator to burner heads, surge tanks or
production line ONLY.
• Surge tanks for H2S operations will require a back pressure valve and an inert blanket
gas.
• Once bottoms up/first gas to surface take a sample to determine H2S content also
check for ethyl and methyl mercaptans. (H2S can be misrepresented by the entrained
mercaptan content.)
• Well Test supervisor and buddy i.e. safety company representative, to walk all well test
lines and equipment with gas detector to ensure package integrity.

Page 28 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

• Once H2S levels are established and are less than 10ppm in air all test personnel can
de-mask. All well test personnel to carry SCBA units during test period.
• If H2S level is more than 10ppm in air then permanent donning of SCBA required for
test duration. (Limits may differ due to regional/client legislation.)
• During all operations when controlled release of hydrocarbons is required i.e. sampling,
choke change, orifice plate change etc. SCBA set shall be donned.
• No gas sampling with gas gravitometer to be taken in pressurised lab. Cabin.
• Ensure all sampling containers are suitable for H2S and have been marked up with H2S
contamination.
• When hydrocarbons containing H2S are flared/burnt a by product of Sulphur Dioxide
(SO2) will be present within the atmosphere and is an equally toxic by product. The
flare will appear to be a blue colour.
• If any onsite maintenance is required to be carried out then the sour gas maintenance
procedures and risk assessments shall be adhered to.

Rig Down
• Once well test is completed and well killed/abandoned, isolate well test package from
well.
• Depressurise all well test equipment through boom and pump out all tanks to burner.
• Flush all equipment to boom/burner, continually sample the flushed fluids for H2S
content.
• Repeat flushing process until H2S levels are not recorded.
• If possible flushing medium should have H2S scavenger, alternatively purge well test
equipment with nitrogen.
• Once all equipment is rigged down and ready for return to base ensure all used
equipment is marked up stating H2S contamination.
• Transportation of all contaminated equipment should be risk assessed, procedures put
in place and any dangerous goods notification identified.

1.6.6 Emergency Procedures

When an H2S alarm is activated, the following procedures should be followed by Expro
personnel.
1. Obtain a SCBA set/escape set and mask up immediately.
NOTE: SCBA sets may already be worn by the test crew, dependant on H2S levels for
the test in progress. If it is obvious that an equipment failure to atmosphere has
occurred, the well should be closed in immediately via the safety shut down system
and surface process equipment vented to zero pressure via the flare boom.
2. Warn other crew members/personnel in the area and leave immediately.
3. The rig floor/control room/radio room should be informed of the situation.
4. Two members of the well test crew with SCBA sets (properly fitted and checked with air
sufficient for 30 minutes) should return to the area and investigate the source of the
leak.
NOTE: One of these testers should be of senior status.
Life lines should be worn and held by a responsible person in a safe area.
5. The H2S levels should be checked by Draeger tester or Electronic type detector while
the investigation is ongoing.
6. Once the source of the leak has been found then the appropriate remedial action should
be taken (shutting in the well if required).
7. If the source of the leak cannot be identified, and the H2S concentration remains at a
level which is considered unsafe for testing operations to continue, the test should be
terminated and surface process equipment bled down to zero pressure via the flare. The
system should be flushed then filled with water and rechecked for the source of the leak.

NOTE: SCBA sets should still be worn and masked up while this operation is
continuing, especially if breaking out equipment etc.

Global / Well Test Page 29 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.7 ACID CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES

1.7.1 Planning
If in the planning phase an acid job is anticipated certain points should be addressed with
regards to:
• Equipment suitability
• Personnel safety
• Environmental impact
• Neutralising acid returns

All four points need to be satisfactorily addressed to safely execute the job.

1.7.2 Equipment Suitability

As acid is a very corrosive substance the entire proposed equipment package should be
checked to ensure its suitability for use in a corrosive environment.
Main Equipment Items
All main items: Flow head, choke manifold, heat exchanger, separator and surge tank are
capable of handling acid.
However due to the corrosive properties of the fluid it is recommended that the exposure time
be minimised e.g.:
• Drain separator immediately after use
• Try to avoid flowing through the separator liquid meters. If the meters are flowed
through a good flush with potable water afterwards should be performed
• Drain the Surge tank as soon as possible and neutralise returns in the gauge tank as
soon as possible

Pipework
All the pipework from the tree to the surge tank is capable of handling the acid.
Always try to flush through the pipework with potable water if at all possible do not leave any
residual acid in the lines for extended periods.

Coflexip Hose
In some instances Coflexip hoses are preferred over hard pipe. Not all Coflexip hoses are
suitable for acid. Two types of Coflexip hoses are in use within the Expro Group: Hoses with
Rilsan or Coflon inner lining. Only the Coflon type hoses are suitable for acid. This has to be
checked in the planning phase, because a Rilsan Coflexip hose could be severely damaged if
exposed to acid.

Weco Hammer Union Seals

By far the most common seals in the system are Weco seals. Suitability of the Weco seals to
handle acids should be checked at the job-planning phase. Some elastomeric compounds are
better suited to handling acids than others. Seal suppliers should be consulted if in any doubt
about the ability of a particular seal to handle acid. Most flanged connections are suitable for
acid, some spiral wound gaskets may not be suitable however and should be checked out.

Page 30 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.7.3 Personnel Safety

Although there are many different acids used for well treatment they all have one thing in
common they are very hazardous to people. Copies of the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets)
should be on site at all times when the acid is being used.
The MSDS will contain all relevant safety information about the chemical. This will include
physical data such as appearance, odour, boiling point, specific gravity etc. Stability information,
toxicology information and personal protection advice will also be included on the MSDS. All
personnel must read and fully understand the contents of the MSDS prior to operations
commencing.
Personnel should be aware of what action to take in the event of a leak onto the deck or a fire in
the vicinity of the chemical.
All personnel should be protected from direct contact with the acid and all personnel should
wear any supplementary PPE required to fully protect themselves from exposure to the
chemical.
The following should be considered when using acids of any description.
• Skin contact
• Eye contact
• Inhalation of vapour
To minimise the risk, all non-essential personnel should be denied access. For the people who
are working in the process area, optimum personal protection measures should be taken.
• All personnel working in the process area must wear their personal protective clothing
equipment, consisting of:
• An acid resistant overall/boiler suit
• Rubber acid resistant boots
• Safety goggles
• Rubber acid resistant gloves
• For certain jobs where acid is drained from the equipment e.g. draining sight glasses or
sampling, full face visors must be worn
• A safety meeting must be held prior to the acid clean up, personnel involved must be
briefed about the specific properties and safety measures required for handling the acid
• An emergency shower should be made available at an easily accessible spot on the
deck.
• Escape routes should be free of obstacles
• A copy of the MSDS must be held by the medic onboard the rig to ensure adequate
recommended medical action is taken for the specific chemical being used.

1.7.4 Environmental Impact

Expro will not discharge acids, spent or otherwise overboard into the sea. Expro will not
discharge acid to ground on land locations. All acids handled by Expro will be collected, stored,
and shipped to a suitable disposal centre at the end of the job and then dealt with in an
environmentally responsible manner.
On no account should acid be dumped down drains in Expro premises onshore.

1.7.5 Neutralising Acid Returns

Neutralising acid requires the use of equally harmful chemicals but with alkaline qualities. Expro
recommend that neutralising should be carried out by the contractor executing the acid job.
Expert knowledge of the chemicals, handling the chemicals and calculations for quantities of
alkaline chemicals to neutralise, are available in that company. If all safety measures are taken,
the acid can be flowed back.

Global / Well Test Page 31 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.7.6 Operation
The technical side of flowing back acid is no different than flowing back any other liquids.
• Controlling the well at the choke manifold is no different from unloading water from the
well.
• The separator is set up as normal with the exception that only two-phase separation is
required.
• The surge tank is run the same as under normal conditions.

IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTE

Acid is hazardous – protect yourself and your colleagues.

Page 32 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

TOC

1.8 GAS WELL TESTING

1.8.1 Liquid Loading

This problem usually occurs when testing low producing gas wells with high liquid-gas ratios.
Indications of liquid loading are wide, and are normally identified by variations of surface flowing
pressures.

1.8.2 Hydrate Formation

This problem occurs normally in a high-pressure gas well, this is normally caused by a large
drop in pressure either across an adjustable choke box or a flow line restriction, other inherent
problems caused from hydrate build up in gas wells may also include the plugging due to ice
build up in and around the separator back pressure control valve which may cause the internal
flow line pressure to rise.
Chemicals such as glycol and methanol can be injected (upstream of any potentially large
pressure drops) to prevent and inhibit hydrate formation.
However if a heat exchanger is used, this problem can largely be eliminated by maintaining the
well stream temperature above the hydrate formation temperature. Depending on the type of
steam heat exchanger it may be possible to locate the heater upstream of the choke manifold,
thus heating the hydrocarbons prior to flowing through the choke manifold, and in extreme
cases it may be a requirement to have a steam exchanger located upstream and downstream of
the choke manifold.

1.8.3 Wet Gas Streams

Wet gas streams can cause inaccuracies when measuring the specific gravity of a gas. They
also can cause instrument lines to ‘freeze’ in extreme cold climates if running off separator gas
instead of air, differential recorders can ‘freeze’ also. Knock-out pots, possibly filled with steel
wool or with wire mesh screens to assist liquid knockout from gas, can be used to overcome
this. These pots must be blown down regularly.

1.8.4 Irregular Flow

A frequent difficulty encountered in measuring accurately, gas flow rates is the rapidly changing
rate when a well ‘slugs’.
This type of flow can cause errors when reading differential recorder charts but can be partially
overcome by increasing the proportional band setting on the back pressure controller (this will
cause the BPV to stroke at less sensitive pressure changes and stop ‘hunting’). Also the
pulsation dampening screw on the DPU cell can be screwed in restricting the flow of oil between
either side of the bellows. (Do not screw in more than 1 1/2 turns from fully closed or else no pen
movement may be observed.)
The pulsation dampener can be found under the screw at the back of the DPU cell (model 199)
and requires a 1/8" sized Allen Key to adjust. Clockwise adjustment reduces pulsation, anti-
clockwise increases.

1.8.5 Sour (H2S) Gas

Sour gas is extremely toxic, causing illness and death in relatively small atmospheric quantities.
H2S procedures are fully covered under Section 1.6 SOUR GAS WELL TESTING

1.8.6 Liquid Slugging

During the clean up phase of Gas wells a possible severe problem to observe for is the washing
out of choke boxes, due to excessive slugging of cushion fluids, LCM (lost circulation material),
or emulsion returns of cushion and reservoir effluent. Typical signs to be aware of are the loss of
wellhead pressure to be followed by a sudden steady gain in pressure as the liquid slugs are
produced to surface. This will result in a sonic shock at the choke manifold as the liquid slug

Global / Well Test Page 33 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

passes through the reduced orifice of the adjustable choke resulting in the rapid increase of
velocity downstream of the choke.
The result of this chain of events may be the eventual loosening of the choke seat, the copper
gasket downstream of the choke seat begins to lose the effectiveness of its seal, and this may
lead to a very swift flow path being opened up between the copper gasket and the threads it is
protecting. A very rapid destruction of the threads and choke box will result as the slugs
continue to flow to surface. No matter how tightly the choke seat has been fitted to the choke
box the sonic shocks will soon start this sequence, these results are typically seen in the early
phases of the clean up where the choke sizes are still relatively small. With the orifice around
the adjustable choke needle and seat being small, the flow rapidly changes from laminar type
flow to a more turbulent flow regime, which may eventually result in the loosening of the choke
seat as mentioned earlier.
The above undesirable outcome can best be combated by all or a combination of these
following bullet points:
• If these possible conditions are highlighted at the planning stage, the copper gaskets
used with the choke seats, should be replaced with Harsh Environment Teflon choke
seals (Expro part no. CS 20 –050) this will help effect a better seal & reduce the
possibility of loosening
• It is also recommended that instead of using an Adjustable choke in this situation a
change to a fixed choke by fixed choke regime is followed to maintain a greater control
over the production. The orifice in the fixed choke is slightly larger which helps reduce
the turbulent flow, which can quickly lead to the above event. The fixed choke orifice
will also create less drag on the fluids flowing through and therefore reduce the
turbulence
• If, as mentioned earlier, these conditions are highlighted at the planning stage, a
Masterflo type choke can be substituted for a conventional choke manifold, which
enables more control over the slugging. Its Tungsten internals are also more suited to
these harsher environments. Finally and possibly most importantly at this part of the
clean up as the liquids are produced to surface it is highly recommended that rapid
beaning up is not attempted, wait for stabilization before proceeding to the next choke
size with caution. This should allow a steady production of liquids to surface rather than
the undesirable slug flows, which create the problem

1.8.7 Operating Procedures

The actual course of events may differ according to conditions on the rig at the actual time of
operations and the clients Test Programme.

Assumptions
• SAFE and Coiled Tubing Cutting valves (if either used) installed and function tested.
• Surface Test Tree installed with kill-wing and swab valves closed and master valve
open.
• All down hole safety valve(s) open.
• Texsteam pump function tested, and methanol available in sufficient quantity.

Stabilised Conditions attained when:

• For closed in periods: build-up < = 1 psi per 30 minutes
• For flowing periods: BS&W < 7% (or < 5% if mud present)
• Pressure does not vary more than 0.1% of C/I pressure during 15-minute period
• Gas and liquid rates are constant
• Pressure test well test equipment as per client’s programme
• Function test ESD system remote stations and high pressure pilot
• Check calibration of Barton/Foxboro recorders with poddy meter
• Function test burner water injection screen and ignition systems. Function test burners
with diesel if environmentally acceptable
Page 34 of 72 Global / Well Test
 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

• Open choke manifold downstream valve

• Line up gas diverter manifold to boom with favourable wind conditions and ensure
standby boom is isolated at the diverter manifold
• Ensure system is set up via separator bypass to flow to flare, this will prevent damage
or plugging of liquid meters and settling of solids or mud in separator during clean-up
• Ignite propane/diesel pilot burner in readiness for gas returns
• Apply radiation water screen to burner head
• Open well to overboard on suitable adjustable choke

NOTE: On dual train systems, secondary train should be opened early in the flow
period to clear the system of any trapped liquids while gas velocities are still
relatively low. This will reduce the reactive forces caused, should a slug of water be
introduced into a high velocity gas stream.
• Monitor surface pressures/temperatures and nature of produced fluids.
• Take Draeger tests for H2S, CO2 and N2 when first gas at surface (tests for Mercaptans
can also be carried out). Continue testing every three hours or as required.
• Gradually bean up in required choke increments and flow until well clean and desired
drawdown/flow rate is achieved under stable conditions.
• Estimate gas flow rates on each choke setting prior to beaning up
• During Clean-up, as a minimum, it is necessary to produce a volume of fluids at least
equal to the volume of the well bore
• Generally the well will be cleaned up to a rate equal to or greater than the highest rate
that the well will be tested to

NOTE: At end of clean-up period it may be required to flow via test separator to
obtain accurate flow rate data. Liquid levels may be established if separator used at
this stage.
• Close in at choke manifold or down hole tester valve for pressure build-up to record
initial reservoir pressure and temperature. This pressure is necessary to calculate the
A.O.F. or deliverability plots.
• Once stable closed in conditions are reached, open well at choke manifold and flow
well for one or more successive flow rates. These flow rates will generally be of
sequence smallest choke bean to largest.
• The minimum flow rate should produce a pressure drop approximately 5% of shut-in
pressure, or at least to the size required to lift liquids, if any, from the well.
• The maximum flow rate should produce a pressure drop of approximately 25% of shut-
in pressure.
• Any other flow rates should fall equally between these constraints.

NOTE: Drawdown of the well should not be > 50% of shut-in pressure to prevent
possible damage to the well-bore.
• Flow via separator for required flow period, collecting desired samples (PVT, bulk etc.)
as required for each flow rate.
• Each rate must be flowed to stabilisation in order to obtain correct data to calculate
A.O.F. or deliverability plots and prevent need for a retest.
• If flowing for several flow rates work out, during initial shut-in, if one orifice plate can
cover all flow rates (while maintaining > 20% and < 80% of differential range). If not,
use minimum orifice plate changes as possible.
• Close in well at choke manifold (or down-hole tester valve) and observe pressure build-
up until initial reservoir pressure achieved.

Global / Well Test Page 35 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.9 MAINTENANCE
During any offshore operation where certain equipment requires unplanned or planned
maintenance, this guideline will assist in ensuring that the correct level of maintenance is
conducted and who is responsible for that maintenance.

1.9.1 Offshore/Onshore Operational Site Equipment Maintenance

Numerous maintenance tasks may need to be conducted offshore on a wide range of
equipment and systems. It is imperative that all work is carried out safely by competent
personnel using all necessary procedures and safety tools available to them.
Before carrying out any equipment maintenance activity, site/shift supervisors should be
comfortable that the personnel about to carry out the maintenance are competent to do so and
that they understand fully all aspects of the task they are about to undertake. If the Supervisor is
not fully satisfied that this is the case, he should not permit personnel to undertake the
maintenance task.
Some simple maintenance tasks can be carried out with a minimum of pre-job planning.
However, a Toolbox talk should still be held and documented by the Shift Supervisor or
document all basic maintenance tasks in your pre-job safety meetings and ensure that they are
discussed fully at these meetings with all crew members. All relevant risks and control measures
required should be documented and Toolbox talk/pre-job safety meeting minutes must be kept
on file and included in the end of job report.

Simple Tasks
• Isolating and cleaning sight glasses
• Draining pneumatic regulators/oilers
• Filling compressors with lubricating oil
• Cleaning of equipment/pipework etc
• Grease valves after operation
In all cases, a valid permit to work should be in place to cover all maintenance tasks planned,
regardless of how simple you may think they are. Simple everyday tasks similar to those listed
above can be detailed on the permit to work used to cover all activities undertaken during any
shift period. Simply note them down on the permit to work that must be in place to cover the
daily work scope.

More Complex Tasks

Any maintenance where a degree of equipment intervention is required must be risk assessed
prior to starting the work. This would include tasks such as:
• Replacing leaking pipework seals
• Removal/strip down/re-dress of valves
• Replacing worn or damaged parts in moving machinery e.g. pumps
• Servicing Floco Oil flow meters
• Replacing atomisers on burner assemblies
• Working on ESD panels
This list is not exhaustive and all tasks should be Risk assessed prior to commencement of the
work. Any work that requires equipment intervention must be risk assessed.

Page 36 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.9.2 Equipment Intervention

Definition: Any work where a piece of equipment/plant/pipework is reduced to a non-

operational condition whilst carrying out a Maintenance task
Example: Removing a bonnet from a gate valve to replace the bonnet gasket

Clearly in this example the valve is no longer in an operational condition because you cannot
operate the valve under pressure whilst the bonnet has been removed.
The risk assessment carried out should identify all hazards associated with the task and the
probable harm that could occur whilst carrying out the maintenance task. As a result the
required controls should then be put in place in order to reduce any risk to a level deemed as
low as reasonable practicable (ALARP) before any work is carried out.
A risk assessment on all tasks requiring equipment intervention is mandatory.

1.9.3 Vessel Entry and Vessel Intervention

Vessel entry is a specialised task. Serious accidents have occurred and continue to occur whilst
vessel entry work is being carried out.
Inside confined spaces such as tanks, separators and other vessels. The main risks associated
with this type of task are the presence of toxic and/or flammable gases, fumes vapours. Neglect
or ignorance of the necessary safety precautions can lead to tragic results very easily. A
significant number of such accidents occur globally every year in a number of industries, a large
number of these accidents prove fatal and multiple fatalities in this type of accident are not
uncommon.
It is therefore imperative that all risks associated with this type of activity are minimised by all
Expro personnel who may need to be involved in a vessel entry. The ‘Permit to Work’ system
must be used as the primary tool to control and plan the work.
The ‘Permit to Work’ is a documented system which ensures that through careful planning,
proper supervision and strict adherence to procedures is required,
Verbal instruction is not reliable and forbidden, it is therefore imperative that the system used is
fully documented, fully visible and rigorously observed at all times.

1.9.4 Safety of Personnel in Confined Spaces

Whenever personnel are required to work in a confined space where hazardous fumes or
vapours are likely to be present or there could simply be a lack of breathable air, then a ‘permit
to work’ and a Confined space entry permit must be issued and adhered to.
It should be noted that entry into a vessel should only be considered when absolutely necessary
and when no alternative method is available. An assessment of the situation must be made by a
responsible person on site. This person must be experienced in the work to be undertaken,
must have detailed knowledge of the plant and must understand the legislative and safety
requirements. This person could be an Expro employee or a member of the Rig crew or
operating company representative.
If no responsible person can be identified to oversee the work, then a vessel entry must not be
attempted.

1.9.5 Safety Recommendations for Vessel Entry

Whenever personnel are required to enter a confined space on an operational offshore or
onshore location the following recommendations must be considered and adhered to at all time.
• The vessel must be fully isolated from associated systems and flushed as a minimum
with water, as much hydrocarbon liquids and vapours removed as is practically
possible. This can be done by flushing directly to the flare or by emptying the vessel
into a suitable receptacle and then flushing afterwards (if Nitrogen is available on site or
can be sourced easily, the vessel should be purged with N 2). If purging a vessel with N2
great thought should go into considering all systems that may be connected to the

Global / Well Test Page 37 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

vessel that may still contain vapours, e.g. flare systems, vent lines, knockout vessels on
Gas legs etc.
• The personnel who are to carry out the vessel entry must complete a full Risk
Assessment and trained in vessel entry
• The atmosphere in the confined space must be tested before it is certified as being safe
to enter, or before safety precautions to be taken upon entry are specified.
• Under no circumstance should a confined space be entered in which the Oxygen
content is lower than 20.9% without wearing breathing apparatus. (See note below.)
• It may be necessary to enter the confined space wearing breathing apparatus to
undertake initial gas check.
• Sludge can lie undisturbed in the bottom of vessels, even after flushing and purging.
Great care should be taken when entering a confined space where sludge may lie
undisturbed. If sludge is disturbed by personnel or equipment inside the vessel it can
release vapours and fumes.
• A safety Sentry must be positioned outside the vessel or space at all times whilst
personnel are working inside. The main purpose for the sentry is to give the alarm
should it become necessary and he should therefore remain at his post at all times
whilst personnel are inside the space. The sentry should never enter the space himself
or attempt a rescue himself. Lifelines should be attached to a harness run back to a
point outside the vessel or confined space.
NOTE:
Normal Composition of air - Nitrogen (N2) 78.09%
Oxygen 20.95%
Argon 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.03%

1.9.6 Other Considerations

Some of the other topics that should be discussed and perhaps included in the risk assessment
are:
• Training and Work Procedures
• Competence, physical and mental state of personnel
• Safety equipment use, availability, maintenance and suitability
• Adequacy of the ‘permit to work’ system and awareness of its contents to all personnel
• The potential for flammable risk
• Communications – both during work and in the event of an emergency
• Adequate Ventilation
• External Impact from other systems or concurrent work, e.g. crane lifts over the vessel
• Weather conditions
• Supervision of the men inside the vessel
• Concluding work

1.9.7 Certification Requirements

The responsible person must decide whether:
• The confined space is safe for entry without breathing apparatus for a specified period
• Breathing apparatus and a lifeline must be worn
In either case, personnel entering the confined space must be affixed to a line held by a man
positioned outside the vessel who will have the facility to effect recovery of the persons in the
confined space.

Page 38 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.9.8 Permit to Work

The responsible person must make out a ‘permit to work’ prior to any vessel entry commencing.
• The Permit should clearly state all safety measures that have already been taken, e.g.
flushing, purging of the vessel.
• The Permit must list all precautions for entry into the space, e.g. ventilation, breathing
apparatus, lifeline, and resuscitation equipment.
• The time of expiry of the permit.
A copy of the ‘permit to work’ must be displayed at the place of work, the original being retained
in the control room of the installations. This may differ from rig to rig, please ensure that
adherence to the local permit to work system is complied with.

1.9.9 Completion of the Work

Upon completion of work, the responsible person must ensure that the vessel or space is clear
of all equipment used and that the work party have safely withdrawn from the vessel or space
before cancelling the permit. Conclusion of the work should be signed off by the responsible
person once he is satisfied the job is complete.

1.9.10 Vessel Intervention

Any maintenance task that may require vessel intervention must be Risk Assessed. Vessel
intervention may include the removal of a PSV from a vessel or the removal of a flange or valve
on a vessel. In this type of situation gases or vapours may escape from the vessel to
atmosphere. It is therefore imperative that as an absolute minimum the vessel is flushed with
water and if possible the vessel be N2 purged. N2 purging may not be an option if N2 is not
readily available.
All interconnecting lines or systems that may be attached to the vessel should also be flushed
and isolated. If lines cannot be isolated normally by using a valve in the line, the line should be
‘spaded off’ if possible or broken and blanked.
Examples of this would be Lines to flares and vents, which will probably not have valves fitted in
them.
Lines to flare stacks and burner booms are especially hazardous, as they can be quite long and
could potentially hold a large inventory of vapours or flammable liquids. These lines must be
adequately flushed and gas free as well as is practicably possible.
Any line that leads from a vessel to a flare boom, flare stack, or any PSV line must be
completely mechanically isolated from the vessel during vessel or plant intervention operations.
No equipment intervention maintenance tasks should be attempted until all necessary flushing
and isolating of equipment has taken place.
NOTE: A risk assessment must be carried out prior to any equipment intervention
maintenance work commencing.
When conducting the Risk Assessment, consideration of the following hazards must be
considered:
• Gases, vapours, chemicals and flammable mixtures may be present in equipment
• Where do interconnecting systems go? What substances might they contain? Could
they affect the equipment I am about to work on?
• Is the equipment about to be maintained connected to a flare/relief or vent system?
Can these systems be adequately isolated?
• Could there be stored pressure? Ensure that correct venting, flushing and isolating of
the equipment has been undertaken
• Consider the use of gas-monitoring equipment
• Adhere to the “Permit to Work” system at all times

Global / Well Test Page 39 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

TOC

1.10 SOLIDS MANAGEMENT

QHSE
All safety measures and procedures must be taken as per region and local legislation HSE,
COSHH, and Risk Assessment as applicable to solids management and in reference to the
following possible actions:
• Loss of Containment
• Loss of safety systems
• Direct injury from ejection or release of solids:
– Damage to environment
– Damage to equipment
– Disposal of solids
– Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM)
– Low Specific Activity (LSA)
If any doubt exists regarding safety, operational or any other aspects of the job at any stage, the
job should be stopped and onshore management consulted.

1.10.1 General/Solids Production

To be able to produce hydrocarbons from earth formations, wells are drilled into reservoirs or
pay zones. These wells are completed and perforated at one or more zones to recover
hydrocarbons from the reservoir.
Many oil and gas wells produce fluids from formations containing loose solid particles. On very
tight formations the wells may be fractured using solids (usually ceramic balls) to increase
production. During flow back some of these solids may be produced.
These solids can cause serious damage to well test equipment leading to financial,
environmental and safety consequences.
Solids can be produced from any well but experience has shown that more solids are found
during the following:
• Objectively as a part of a clean-up operation
• Post Sand-Frac operations
• Working on old gas wells
The following types of solids can be produced:
• Formation sand and rock
• Perforation debris
• Scale from casing/tubing
• Spent acid slurry
• Milling debris
• Drilling debris
• Frac proppant
The potential solids content from wells with unconsolidated formations requires assessment by
the respective client. Where necessary the decision to use solids removal equipment including
down hole sand screens should be taken during the planning phase.
It is recognised that erosion of equipment is a result of a combination of volume of solids
produced and the flowing velocity. Areas of turbulent flow and/or pressure drops e.g. elbows,
crossovers, back pressure valves, liquid control valves, and the downstream side of chokes may
be subjected to greatly accelerated erosion rates. Where possible the equipment and pipework
should be installed with a minimum amount of restrictions and where bends are unavoidable
long radius elbows or target elbows should be used for high velocity flows.
In order to minimise turbulence and the resulting effects of erosion in the system the equipment
and pipework should be installed and rigged up with suitably rated sacrificial* lines with the
minimum amount of restrictions, as detailed in WTS Section 4.2 – Hook Up and Rig Down –
INS-002692.
* A sacrificial line is a line installed in the system that has a thicker wall section to accommodate

Page 40 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

erosion and also bypasses all critical equipment to prevent damage.

Wall thickness monitoring should always be implemented where solids and/or high flowing
velocities are expected. Please refer to WTS section 3.9.2 – Wall Thickness – INS-002669.
The frequency of thickness checking will be dependent upon the volume of solids being produce
and the velocities at which the solids flow through the system. (See 1.10.7 Production
Guidelines of this document)
A baseline thickness check should be completed for all well test rig ups (Please refer to WTS
4.2 – Hook Up & Rig Down – INS-002692). This allows us to establish the basic integrity of the
system prior to flowing the well. Should any unexpected solids production occur which may lead
to erosion, the baseline thickness check can be used to demonstrate the original wall thickness
of the components affected.
For oil wells in general and where there is no history or indication that solids production will
occur, regular checking either during or after flow periods would not normally be required.
However, where regular BS&W measurements indicate solids production, consideration should
be given to implementing periodic thickness testing of vulnerable components (e.g. crossovers,
elbows. tees).
For gas wells, and where there has been no positive indication that the well effluent is solids
free, it is considered best practice to carry out a repeat thickness check of the designated points
after each flow period. Where there is evidence of solids production, for example from BS&W
samples or from sand detector or solids control equipment measurements the procedure for
post frac clean ups below should be followed.
For post frac clean ups, periodic thickness checking of flow components is considered essential,
the only variable being the interval between checks during flow periods. Until a trend is
established, it is advisable to start with more frequent checks and then decrease the frequency
of testing if that is indicated by the thickness reading results.
For post frac clean up, and other clean ups where solids are expected or where sacrificial lines,
with or without solids exclusion equipment have been installed, is recommended that thickness
checks on the flow path in use be carried out at intervals of no longer than 12 hours or after
each flow period, whichever is shorter. It is usually more convenient and efficient to carry out
checks with the well shut in, but if flow periods exceed 12 hours, checks should be carried out
with the well flowing.

Thickness check readings should be recorded on the form 2-QMS-WT-FRM-001-028 – INS-

002049 which should be retained and submitted as part of the post job paperwork package.

Global / Well Test Page 41 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Look Up Table
Well Baseline Solids Evidence of Continuous Time Interval Remarks
type check planned solids checking between
for? production? checks

Oil well  No No Not For EWT/EPF type

normally projects suggest
required regular checks to
be agreed.
Suggest use of
sand probe/erosion
probe

Oil well  Yes no Yes After each Precautionary,

flow period increase frequency
of checks if solids
produced.

Gas well  No No Yes After each Precautionary,

flow period increase frequency
of checks if solids
produced.

Gas well  Yes Yes Yes After each Decrease interval

flow period or between checking
maximum 12 if trend shows wall
hours, thickness
whichever is decreasing.
less.
Checks should be
more frequent as
system velocities
increase.

Frac  Yes Yes Yes After each Decrease interval

Clean up flow period or between checking
maximum 12 if trend shows wall
hours, thickness
whichever is decreasing.
less.
Recommend
starting with 3
hourly checks of
critical points until
a trend is
established

Page 42 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.10.2 Solids Detection

Non-Intrusive Detectors
Work on the principle of detecting the acoustic noise of solid particle impacts. The two main
suppliers of this equipment to Expro are Clampon and Milltronic.
NOTE: Regions may use different preferred vendors from those mentioned above.

Intrusive Devices
There are two intrusive detection systems:
• One system works on the principle of measuring the increase in electrical resistance of
a metallic element exposed to erosion
• Erosion probe, is a sacrificial probe that when fully eroded allows pressure to act on a
pressure gauge thus indicating the presence of solids
The two main suppliers of this equipment to Expro are IICOR and SMS.
Note: Regions may use different preferred vendors from those mentioned above.

Note: Intrusive devices shall only be fitted where solids are not expected to be produced
or shall be fitted downstream of solids removal equipment.

1.10.3 Monitoring Instrumentation and Equipment

Due to the presence of solids within the well test system, instrumentation and equipment may
experience the following abnormal conditions:
– Plugged lines from DWT, BARTON, FOXBORO and EDGE sensors
– Plugged gauges reflecting a wrong pressure
– Faulty readings from level controllers
– Plugged sight glasses
– Bad separation due to reduced volume in separator
– Plugged hi/lo pilots
– Rapid choke bean, stem and seat erosion
– Gate valves not closing due to cavity being full of compacted solid particles
Where the above occurs the process may not be controlled efficiently due to potentially incorrect
information being given by the instrumentation.
Eventually this could lead to:
a) Carry over or gas blow-by to the tanks
b) ESD system malfunction
c) Relief valves/rupture discs activation
d) Loss of containment due to erosion
e) Loss of well control

Global / Well Test Page 43 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.10.4 Sudden Leaks

If a sudden leak occurs, close in the well immediately using the Emergency Shut Down system.
The ESD buttons are located at strategic places around the test facility and in safe areas.
After the entire system is bled off a complete inspection of all the equipment shall be carried out
to verify it is not blocked or eroded. Damaged sections should be removed and replaced. Prior
to restart, the system should be flushed to remove any accumulation of solids. The system
should also be pressure tested for integrity.

In addition wall thickness checks shall be carried out as per WTS, section 3.9.2 – Wall
Thickness – INS-002669.

1.10.5 Measurement of Solids

The methods used for the measurement of solids are:
• Sand Sieve Analysis. Sample method where a known volume (i.e. one gallon, five
gallon), sample of fluid is collected at the Choke manifold and poured through a sieve.
The sieve residue is washed with chemicals and spun in a centrifuge. The volume of
sand collected in the centrifuge tube is measured in lbs. The estimated solids
concentration is then calculated in lbs/1000 bbls.
• BSW measurements should be taken at regular intervals and may give the first
indication of the amount of solids being produced. (See WTS, section 4.4 – Surface
Sampling – INS-002692).
• Flowing the well into solid removal equipment and subsequent measurement of solids.

1.10.6 Solids Removal Equipment

To optimise production, reduce costs and maximise reserve recovery the oil industry has
developed various methods of solids removal. This can be carried out down hole and/or at
surface.
Down hole solids exclusion techniques include down hole screens and gravel packs.
Expro utilizes the following Surface removal equipment:
• Wellhead Desander
• Sand-filters
• Sand Separators
• Four-Phase Separators
• Debris Catcher
See WTS 3.10 Sand Separators – INS-002670
See WTS 3.11 Desanders – INS-002671

Page 44 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.10.7 Production Guidelines

The primary controls to prevent erosion are:
a) Eliminate the solids utilising solids removal equipment
b) Ensure the flow velocity is below the applicable erosional velocity by use of the choke
manifold
c) Flow well at solids free production limit
When solids are produced the quantity will normally rise to a peak after opening the well or
increasing the choke size before stabilising at a much lower level.
It is important to ensure that choke sizes are not increased until bottoms up has occurred, the
solids production rate has been established and produced solids rates are on the decline.
Due to the different gravities of the gas, liquid and solids, the WHP and BHP should be
monitored closely for indications of build-up of fluid or solids in the string. Whilst flowing the well
a falling WHP and increasing BHP is an indication of build-up in the string. An increase in choke
size in this situation could cause a slug of fluid or solids to be brought to the surface. A large
volume slug could overwhelm the solids management equipment.
A minimum velocity of 10 ft/sec is recommended to minimize slugging.
a) Gas Wells-
The following table, from technical paper “A Guideline for Surface Pipework for Cleaning up
Wells with Solids Production”, has been used successfully by Expro to determine the erosional
velocity threshold.

Sand/solid Production rate Maximum Gas velocity

(lbs/MMscf/d) (ft/sec)

>5 98

4-5 115

3-4 131

1.5 - 3 148

1 - 1.5 165

0-1 180

Table 1.10-A Sand/solid Production rate

Global / Well Test Page 45 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Table 1.10-B Generic Gas Velocity Chart

Page 46 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

b) Oil Wells-
Sand production at surface should be limited to a maximum sand/oil concentration of 50
lbs/1000 bbls for all flow periods with the inclusion of maximum flow rate tests.
Recommendations are that if the sand concentration exceeds this the well should be choked
back and a further sample taken after 1 1/2 volumes of the test string.
In the case where a maximum flow rate is desired this should only be performed after the
sustained sand content has been established.

Sand Production Content Action Required

(lbs/1000 bbls)

<25 lbs Continue with testing programme

25-50 lbs Choke back to previous rate if the sand content does
not show a tendency to decline

>50 lbs Choke back flow rate to previous rate

Table 1.10-C Sand Production Content

For more accurate sand production measurement the Sand Sieve Analysis procedure should be
used.

1.10.8 Conventional Well Clean-Ups

Objectives of the clean up well test are to ensure the well is cleaned up with little or no damage
to the formation in order to gain future well production. The way in which the well can be
cleaned up will be governed by the type of formation and information gathered from the client
prior to the operation.
Type of solids that can be expected during this type well clean-ups:
• Oil-based mud
• Formation solids/fines
• Frac proppant
It is recommended that these types of wells are opened up in a controlled manner in order not to
shock the formation.
Opening the well in an aggressive manner can shock load the formation and cause long term
damage and may reduce future production.
Also this may have an impact on the surface solids exclusion equipment which may not be able
to handle the large volume of returns.
The clean-up package system is designed to safely dispose of well effluents during the well
clean-up operations and to protect the well test equipment from being damaged. Clean ups
involving handling of solids may be achieved using a custom designed system with a solids
exclusion package.
During clean-up, well control is achieved by throttling at the choke manifold to control pressure,
flow and velocity through all major flow lines. A secondary method is a boom choke that can be
incorporated into the well test system to assist in reducing velocity and potential erosion.
On completion of the clean-up period when solids production have significantly reduced, filtered
fluids and gas can be directed to the well test package and test separator.
It is recommended that initial clean up starts on a small choke. Fluid production should be kept
to a manageable level, if a small choke size is used, back pressure against the formation will be
maximised. It should be noted that as the choke size is increased, pressure drop and velocity of
the fluid, would both increase near the wellbore.
As the well slowly starts to clean up, the wellhead pressure should increase.

Global / Well Test Page 47 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

It should be noted that solids do not always come to surface straight away. Tubing size,
deviation and flowing parameters, all need to be taken into account. Therefore, it is inadvisable
to attempt to speed things up during the early stages as damage in the well bore may also affect
the well’s long term deliverability.
Note: It is important to ensure that choke sizes are not increased until bottoms up has
occurred, the solids production rate has been established and produced solids rates are
on the decline.
Great care should be taken to recognise that increasing the choke size rapidly could result in an
unmanageable amount of solids at surface resulting in potential screening out of the equipment
and creating excessive DPs. Excess DPs across sandfilter element and desander liner have the
potential for failure with filter collapse or erosion of desander liner.
The solids holding capacities of Solids exclusion equipment are limited and are dependent on
the holding volumes of each vessel. If large volumes of solids are expected during the well clean
up phase and are identified in the preplanning phase then consideration must be made on the
number of units proposed or limitation of the system made clear to the client.
The liquid capacities of the desander and the sand filters are limited and are dependent on
insert size on the desander and the mesh size on the filter and the viscosity of the fluid being
handled.
Note: Mud, gels etc should not be flowed through the sand filters when screens are installed as
they will clog up and could rupture due to high differential pressure.
Maximum weights and volumes recorded may differ from what is stated below due to varying
solids density that could be experienced.
THE TEST SEPARATOR AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES SHOULD NOT BE FLOWED
THROUGH DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF CLEAN UP.
The following measures are to be undertaken during this type of clean ups:
a) When opening and closing gate valves, the number of turns to open/close gate valves
versus number of turns achieved should be noted, so as to ascertain if a valve is
‘sanding up’, and therefore, not fully opening/closing
b) Constantly observe both upstream and downstream choke pressures to ensure choke
erosion does not go undetected. Visual choke/adaptor inspection should take place at
least every three hours unless solids production is insignificant
c) Before attempting to flow via the test separator/production loop solids production
should be observed and a solids/proppant rate established
d) Wellhead pressure should be stable (well not slugging). If two sets of sand filters are
available use two in series in case of filter rupture. Flow via separator for one-to-two
hours to obtain flow rate information then continue clean up via clean-up system (check
separator drain for solids/fines)
e) At the end of the clean-up solids production needs to be 2 lbs/hour or less with a
downward trend before flowing for extended periods via the well test package. To
achieve this bean back the well until flowing conditions are satisfactory. (4/64ths is
usually enough). Use the smallest filter size possible without affecting the well
performance and check the separator drain regularly for unfiltered solids/fines
Velocity through the test system should be considered at all times.
f) If for any reason the well is closed in during clean-up it should be reopened with care.
Bean up slowly from a small choke to give a maximum of 100 psi/hour drop in flowing
tubing head pressure until close to previous flowing pressure/choke size. Check solids
production prior to final bean up to original choke size as well
performance/characteristics may have changed due to shut in.
g) The well cleanliness acceptance/solids production will be given by the client based on
their requirement for production.
During Frac Clean-Ups the below should be applied in addition to the above.

Page 48 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.10.9 Frac Well Clean-Ups

Solids production has to be managed in a controlled manner where returns have to measure as
well as being in the within acceptable velocity range not to cause erosion of the equipment. For
guidance on erosion and acceptable velocity please reference the above tables -
Table 1.10-A,Table 1.10-B, Table 1.10-C
In cases of Frac wells using non-resin coated proppant the well clean up phase it is critical part
of the operation. By not flowing the well too aggressively during the early phases this will avoid
the proppant being removed from the fractures and assist in the bridging effect.
Note: It is important to ensure that choke sizes are not increased until bottoms up has occured,
the solids production rate has been established and produced solids rates are on the decline.
The Frac engineer should give guidance on the drag forces that can be applied to the fractures
to reduce the amount of proppant being removed from the formation.
Due to the different gravities of the gas, liquid and solids, the WHP and BHP should be
monitored closely for indications of build-up of fluid or solids in the string. Whilst flowing the well
a falling WHP and increasing BHP is an indication of build-up in the string. An increase in choke
size in this situation could cause a slug of fluid or solids to be brought to the surface. A large
volume slug could overwhelm the solids management equipment.

1.10.10 Frac Clean-Ups with Resin Coated Proppant

Sand Fracturing with resin coated type Proppant is a well-established and proven method to
increase production. During post-frac clean-up operations proppant is retained within in the
fracture by means of the coating bonding together to form a bridging effect to enhance
production. Only excessive proppant held within the tubing or liner will be removed during the
clean-up phase. There will be minor amounts proppant that has not bonded together within the
fractures and will be removed during the clean-up phase.
The Frac engineer should give guidance on the drag forces that can be applied to the fractures
to reduce the amount of proppant being removed.
The clean-up package will be designed to safely dispose of well effluents after fracturing
operations and to protect the well test equipment from being damaged. Clean up involving
handling of frac solids and broken gels may be achieved using a custom designed overboard
clean up line, whilst removal of solids is achieved in a solids exclusion package.
Fluid and solids production should be kept to a maximum but within manageable volumes and
equipment constraint. Therefore, if a larger choke size is used back pressure against the
formation will be reduced assisting the well to flow naturally. As the well slowly starts to clean
up, the well head pressure will increase. The choke size should then be increased gradually
allowing one tubing volume being flowed to surface before further choke increases are
attempted or until maximum solids return or velocities have been achieved.
The solids holding capacities of desander and the sand filters are limited and are dependent on
the holding volumes of each vessel. If large volumes of solids are expected during the well clean
up phase and are identified in the preplanning phase then consideration must be made on the
number of unit proposed or limitation of the system made clear to the client.
The liquid capacities of desander and the sand filters are limited and are dependent on insert
size on the desander and the mesh size on the filter and the viscosity of the fluid being handled.

1.10.11 Screened Out Frac

If a Frac goes wrong the frac fluid/solids may not be injected into the formation, instead the
fluid/solids will fill the string (Screen Out). If this occurs it is important to note that the well should
not be flowed by opening the choke manifold. It is recommended that coiled tubing is rigged up
and the frac fluids/solids are cleaned out under controlled conditions (within the limits of the
sand filters/desanders) whilst running in hole.
Once all frac fluid/solids are removed from the string, clean-up can start on a small adjustable
choke.

Global / Well Test Page 49 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.10.12 Use of a Sand Filter Bypass Line

1. A bypass line can be included in the clean-up system and is only to be used in the event
of no solids being produced or within acceptable velocity referenced above.
2. In the event the bypass line is to be used then a risk assessment must be carried out
prior.

Page 50 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

TOC

1.11 CO2

1.11.1 Characteristics and effects

Carbon Dioxide systems are one of the most common environments in the oil industry where
corrosion occurs. This is because Carbon Dioxide forms a weak acid called Carbonic acid when
in water. Carbon Dioxide corrosion has become increasingly important because many deep, hot
gas wells have high concentrations of CO2.

Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which can give impressively high rates
of corrosion and metal loss. These corrosion rates are much higher than it would be getting from
just water. Water is needed for corrosion to occur so a lot of gas fields which are termed “dry
gas”, which though they may contain high levels of carbon dioxide don’t have corrosion
problems.

It is important to note that corrosion due to Carbon Dioxide only occurs in carbon/manganese
and low alloy steels. This means that stainless steel, copper and nickel alloys are not affected.

The corrosion rate will be lower in thick oil as this will tend to coat the steel surfaces and reduce
the corrosion rate. The corrosion rate is also reduced by the formation of scale; if this is still
present from previous use then the corrosion rate will be reduced.

Be aware that a corrosion rate of 0.0 does not mean no corrosion will be occurring just that it is
less than 0.0 of relevant units.

Corrosion rates caused by CO2 can reach very high levels, (thousands of mm per year) but
various measures can be taken to prevent it.

In some situations a protective scale is formed over the metal preventing the effects of
corrosion. Generally the scale forms when the system is at high temperatures, has little or no
turbulence and has an increased pH. However the scale can be easily removed due to
turbulence or because of other acids that can be present.

The high rates of corrosion that appear in the table below will rarely be seen in real situations
because of other factors that affect the rate of corrosion. These are calculated values and do not
accounts for things like slow removal of corrosion product, insufficient water so water is fully
saturated etc…

1.11.2 Seals
One of the major problems encountered in testing high pressure wells with high concentration of
CO2, is the Rapid Gas Decompression (also known as Explosive Decompression).

Seal damage and observed gas leaks to atmosphere caused by Rapid Gas Decompression in
elastomeric seals have been reported in many types of equipment in the oil and gas industry.
This phenomenon causes problems in that when seals are compressed under high pressure
some gaseous elements diffuse into the seal. If a rapid pressure drop occurs or after frequent
pressure cycling, materials not resistant may suffer extensive damage, usually in the form of
splits and/or blisters. This is because the entrained gas expands against the elasticity of the
rubber causing severe internal damage that may split or rapture the elastomer seal.

It is recommended that elastomer seals with hardness rating above 85 RHD be used if explosive
decompression is expected to be a problem or if CO2 concentration is higher than 5% and/or
dry gas above 35 bar (508 psi), otherwise metal seals should be considered.

The seal failure process due to rapid gas decompression is extremely complex. It depends on
many variables that interact, including the seal material, groove design, gas composition,
system pressure and temperature. Failure is also highly location dependent within the seal
section, with certain locations failing prematurely due to the magnitude of the pressure
differential and the local stress field;

Global / Well Test Page 51 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

For more information in regards to the Explosive Decompression, please refer to WTS 1.5,
Section 6.Operational Issues.

Note: For seal selection and computability please refer to WTS 3.09 Pipework supporting
info James Walker Seal compatibility

1.11.3 Corrosion Rate /Corrosion Tables

Using the DeWaard/Milliams calculations the following tables have been produced to show the
rate of corrosion caused by CO2.

Figure 1: DeWaard/Milliams Equation

Where:

V = The Corrosion Rate in mm per year for CO2 saturated salt water

T = Temperature in °C

p = Partial pressure of CO2 in bar

Tables have been created for the rate of Corrosion per year and in a 24 hour period, with and
without scaling factor. Each table is for a standard pressure which is indicated in the top left
hand corner of the table.

Scaling factor is applicable when the temperature is greater than 60°C. At these temperatures
protective scale is formed which reduces the effect of corrosion. Although the values in the table
are not always accurate because in sections where there is turbulence the protective scale can
be shaken off.

Mole % is ppm/10,000 i.e. 10% =1,000ppm/10,000

Partial pressure = (Total pressure * Mol Percent) / 100

Page 52 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.11.3.1 CORROSION RATES PER 24 HOURS IN MM

Total Pressure = 1,440psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole Partial Pressure Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
%
1 (psi)
14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
2 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
3 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
4 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
5 72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
10 144 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
15 216 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2
20 288 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4
25 360 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7
30 432 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9
35 504 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1
40 576 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
45 648 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4
50 720 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6
55 792 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.8
60 864 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0

Global / Well Test Page 53 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 2,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 (psi)
20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
2 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4
3 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
4 80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
5 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
10 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1
15 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
20 400 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8
25 500 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1
30 600 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3
35 700 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.6
40 800 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.8
45 900 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1
50 1000 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3
55 1100 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.5
60 1200 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.7

Page 54 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 5,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
2 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
3 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
4 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1
5 250 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3
10 500 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1
15 750 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7
20 1000 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3
25 1250 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.8
30 1500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.3
35 1750 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8
40 2000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.2
45 2250 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.7
50 2500 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 0.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.1
55 2750 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.9 5.6 6.5
60 3000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.4 5.1 6.0 6.9

Global / Well Test Page 55 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 10,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
2 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1
3 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
4 400 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8
5 500 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1
10 1000 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3
15 1500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.3
20 2000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.2
25 2500 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.1
30 3000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.4 5.1 6.0 6.9
35 3500 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.8 5.7 6.6 7.6
40 4000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.4 5.3 6.2 7.3 8.3
45 4500 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.8 7.9 9.0
50 5000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.1 6.1 7.2 8.4 9.7
55 5500 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.7 9.0 10.3
60 6000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.8 5.8 6.9 8.2 9.5 11.0

Page 56 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 15,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24hours)
1 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
2 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
3 450 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9
4 600 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3
5 750 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7
10 1500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.3
15 2250 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.7
20 3000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.4 5.1 6.0 6.9
25 3750 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.2 5.1 6.0 7.0 8.0
30 4500 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.8 7.9 9.0
35 5250 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.4 5.3 6.3 7.5 8.7 10.0
40 6000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.8 5.8 6.9 8.2 9.5 11.0
45 6750 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.3 4.2 5.2 6.3 7.5 8.9 10.3 11.9
50 7500 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.5 5.5 6.7 8.1 9.5 11.1 12.7
55 8250 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.8 5.9 7.2 8.6 10.1 11.8 13.6
60 9000 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.4 3.2 4.0 5.1 6.3 7.6 9.1 10.7 12.5 14.4

Global / Well Test Page 57 of 72

 INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.11.3.2 CORROSION RATES PER 24 HOURS WITH SCALE FACTOR, IN MM

Total Pressure = 1,440psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 144 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 216 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 288 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 360 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 432 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 504 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 576 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45 648 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 792 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 864 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 58 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 2,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 700 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45 900 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 1100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 1200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Global / Well Test Page 59 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 5,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 250 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 750 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 1250 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 1500 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 1750 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 2000 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45 2250 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 2500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 2750 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 3000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 60 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 10,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24 hours)
1 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 1500 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 2000 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 2500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 3000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 3500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 4000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45 4500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 5000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 5500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 6000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Global / Well Test Page 61 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 15,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/24hours)
1 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 450 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 750 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 1500 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 2250 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 3000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 3750 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 4500 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35 5250 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 6000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45 6750 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 7500 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 8250 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 9000 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 62 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

1.11.3.3 CORROSION RATES PER YEAR, IN MM

Total Pressure = 1,440psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 14.4 1 1 2 3 5 6 9 12 15 20 25 31 37 44 52 61 70
2 28.8 1 2 3 5 7 10 14 19 25 31 39 49 59 71 84 97 112
3 43.2 2 3 4 7 10 13 18 25 32 41 52 64 78 93 110 128 147
4 57.6 2 3 5 8 12 16 22 30 39 50 63 78 94 113 133 155 178
5 72 3 4 6 9 13 19 26 35 45 58 73 90 109 131 154 180 206
10 144 4 6 10 15 21 30 41 55 72 92 117 143 174 208 245 286 329
15 216 5 8 13 19 28 39 54 72 95 121 152 188 228 273 322 375 431
20 288 6 10 16 24 34 48 66 88 115 147 185 228 277 331 391 455 523
25 360 7 12 18 27 40 56 76 102 133 171 214 265 321 385 454 528 607
30 432 8 13 21 31 45 63 86 115 151 193 242 299 363 435 512 597 686
35 504 9 15 23 34 50 70 96 128 167 214 269 332 403 482 568 661 761
40 576 10 16 25 37 54 76 105 140 183 234 294 363 440 527 621 723 832
45 648 11 18 27 41 59 83 113 151 198 253 318 392 477 570 672 783 890
50 720 12 19 29 44 63 89 121 162 212 272 341 421 511 612 722 840 966
55 792 12 20 31 46 67 94 129 173 226 289 364 449 545 652 769 895 1029
60 864 13 21 33 49 71 100 137 183 240 307 386 476 578 691 815 949 1091

Global / Well Test Page 63 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 2,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 20 1 2 3 4 6 8 11 15 19 25 31 38 46 55 65 76 88
2 40 2 3 4 6 9 13 18 23 31 39 49 61 74 88 104 121 139
3 60 2 4 6 8 12 17 23 31 40 51 65 80 97 116 137 159 183
4 80 3 4 7 10 14 20 28 37 49 62 78 97 117 140 166 193 222
5 100 3 5 8 12 17 24 32 43 56 72 91 112 136 163 192 224 257
10 200 5 8 12 18 27 38 51 69 90 115 145 179 217 259 306 356 409
15 300 7 10 16 24 35 49 68 90 118 151 190 234 285 340 401 467 537
20 400 8 13 20 29 42 60 82 109 143 183 230 284 345 413 487 567 651
25 500 9 15 23 34 49 69 95 127 166 213 267 330 401 479 565 658 756
30 600 10 17 26 39 56 78 107 144 188 240 302 373 453 542 639 743 855
35 700 11 18 29 43 62 87 119 159 208 266 335 413 502 600 708 824 948
40 800 13 20 31 47 68 95 130 174 228 291 366 452 549 657 774 901 1036
45 900 14 22 34 51 73 103 141 188 246 315 396 489 594 711 838 975 1122
50 1000 15 23 36 54 79 110 151 202 264 338 425 525 637 763 899 1047 1204
55 1100 16 25 39 58 84 118 161 215 282 361 453 559 679 813 959 1116 1283
60 1200 16 26 41 61 89 125 171 228 299 382 480 593 720 862 1016 1183 1360

Page 64 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 5,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 50 2 3 5 7 11 15 20 27 36 45 57 71 86 102 121 141 162
2 100 3 5 8 12 17 24 32 43 56 72 91 112 136 163 192 224 257
3 150 4 7 10 15 22 31 42 57 74 95 119 147 179 214 252 294 338
4 200 5 8 12 18 27 38 51 69 90 115 145 179 217 259 306 356 409
5 250 6 9 14 21 31 44 60 80 104 134 168 207 252 301 355 414 475
10 500 9 15 23 34 49 69 95 127 166 213 267 330 401 479 565 658 756
15 750 12 19 30 45 65 91 125 167 218 279 351 433 526 629 742 863 993
20 1000 15 23 36 54 79 110 151 202 264 338 425 525 637 763 899 1047 1204
25 1250 17 27 42 63 91 128 176 235 307 393 494 610 740 885 1044 1216 1398
30 1500 19 31 48 71 103 145 198 265 347 444 558 689 836 1001 1180 1374 1579
35 1750 21 34 53 79 114 161 220 294 384 492 619 764 927 1109 1308 1523 1751
40 2000 23 37 58 86 125 176 241 322 420 538 676 835 1014 1213 1431 1666 1915
45 2250 25 40 62 93 135 190 260 348 455 583 732 904 1098 1313 1548 1802 2072
50 2500 27 43 67 100 145 204 279 374 488 265 786 970 1178 1409 1662 1934 2224
55 2750 29 46 71 107 155 217 298 398 520 666 837 1034 1255 1502 1771 2062 2370
60 3000 30 49 76 113 164 231 316 422 552 707 888 1096 1331 1592 1878 2185 2513

Global / Well Test Page 65 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 10,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 100 3 5 8 12 17 24 32 43 56 72 91 112 136 163 192 224 257
2 200 5 8 12 18 27 38 51 69 90 115 145 179 216 259 306 356 409
3 300 7 10 16 24 35 49 68 90 118 151 190 234 285 340 401 467 537
4 400 8 13 20 29 42 60 82 109 143 183 230 284 345 413 487 567 651
5 500 9 15 23 34 49 69 95 127 166 213 267 330 401 479 565 658 756
10 1000 15 23 36 54 79 110 151 202 264 338 425 525 637 763 899 1047 1204
15 1500 19 31 48 71 103 145 198 265 347 444 558 689 836 1001 1180 1374 1579
20 2000 23 37 58 86 125 176 241 322 420 538 676 835 1014 1213 1431 1666 1915
25 2500 27 43 67 100 145 204 279 374 488 625 786 970 1178 1409 1662 1934 2224
30 3000 30 49 76 113 164 231 316 422 552 707 888 1096 1331 1592 1878 2185 2513
35 3500 34 54 84 126 182 256 350 468 612 783 984 1215 1476 1765 2082 2423 2786
40 4000 37 59 92 137 199 280 383 512 669 857 1076 1329 1614 1930 2277 2650 3047
45 4500 40 64 99 149 215 302 414 554 724 927 1165 1438 1746 2089 2464 2868 3297
50 5000 43 69 107 159 231 325 445 594 777 995 1250 1543 1874 2242 2644 3077 3538
55 5500 46 73 114 170 246 346 474 633 828 1060 1332 1645 1998 2389 2818 3280 3771
60 6000 48 78 121 180 261 367 502 672 878 1124 1412 1743 2117 2533 2987 3477 3998

Page 66 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 15,000psi

Temperature (°C) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 150 4 7 10 15 22 31 42 57 74 95 119 147 179 214 252 294 338
2 300 7 10 16 24 35 49 68 90 118 151 190 234 285 340 401 467 537
3 450 9 14 21 32 46 65 89 118 155 198 249 307 373 447 527 613 705
4 600 10 17 26 39 56 78 107 144 188 240 302 373 453 542 639 743 855
5 750 12 19 30 45 65 91 125 167 218 279 351 433 526 629 742 863 993
10 1500 19 31 48 71 103 145 198 265 347 444 558 689 836 1001 1180 1374 1579
15 2250 25 40 62 93 135 190 260 348 455 583 732 904 1098 1313 1548 1802 2072
20 3000 30 49 76 113 164 231 316 422 552 707 888 1096 1331 1592 1878 2185 2513
25 3750 35 57 88 131 190 268 367 490 641 820 1031 1273 1545 1849 2180 2538 2918
30 4500 40 64 99 149 215 302 414 534 724 927 1165 1438 1746 2089 2464 2868 3297
35 5250 44 71 110 165 238 335 459 614 803 1028 1291 1594 1936 2316 2732 3180 3656
40 6000 48 78 121 180 261 367 502 672 878 1124 1412 1743 2117 2533 2987 3477 3998
45 6750 52 84 130 195 282 397 544 727 950 1216 1528 1887 2291 2741 3233 3763 4326
50 7500 56 90 140 209 303 426 583 780 1019 1305 1640 2025 2459 2941 3469 4038 4643
55 8250 60 96 149 223 323 454 622 831 1087 1391 1748 2158 2621 3135 3698 4304 4949
60 9000 64 102 158 236 342 481 659 881 1152 1475 1853 2288 2778 3323 3920 4563 5246

Global / Well Test Page 67 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

1.11.3.4 CORROSION RATES PER YEAR WITH SCALE FACTOR

Total Pressure = 1,440psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 14.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
2 28.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2
3 43.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
4 57.6 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 72 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5
10 144 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7
15 216 5.2 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0
20 288 6.3 5.4 4.6 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.2
25 360 7.4 6.3 5.3 4.6 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4
30 432 8.3 7.1 6.0 5.1 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5
35 504 9.2 7.8 6.7 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.7
40 576 10.1 8.6 7.3 6.2 5.3 4.6 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8
45 648 10.9 9.3 7.9 6.8 5.8 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.0
50 720 11.7 10.0 8.5 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.5 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.1
55 792 12.5 10.6 9.0 7.7 6.6 5.7 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.3
60 864 13.2 11.3 9.6 8.2 7.0 6.0 5.1 4.4 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.4

Page 68 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 2,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 20 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
2 40 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
3 60 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
4 80 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
5 100 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
10 200 5.0 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9
15 300 6.5 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2
20 400 7.9 6.7 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4
25 500 9.2 7.8 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.7
30 600 10.4 8.8 7.5 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.9
35 700 11.5 9.8 8.3 7.1 6.1 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.1
40 800 12.6 10.7 9.1 7.8 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.3
45 900 13.6 11.6 9.9 8.4 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.5 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.5
50 1000 14.6 12.4 10.6 9.0 7.7 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7
55 1100 15.6 13.2 11.3 9.6 8.2 7.0 6.0 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.3 2.9
60 1200 16.5 14.0 11.9 10.2 8.7 7.5 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.0

Global / Well Test Page 69 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 5,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 50 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
2 100 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
3 150 4.1 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8
4 200 5.0 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9
5 250 5.8 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1
10 500 9.2 7.8 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.7
15 750 12.0 10.2 8.7 7.4 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.2
20 1000 14.6 12.4 10.6 9.0 7.7 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7
25 1250 16.9 14.4 12.3 10.5 9.0 7.7 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.9 3.6 3.1
30 1500 19.1 16.3 13.9 11.8 10.1 8.7 7.4 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.1 3.5
35 1750 21.2 18.1 15.4 13.1 11.2 9.6 8.2 7.1 6.1 5.2 4.5 3.9
40 2000 23.2 19.7 16.8 14.4 12.3 10.5 9.0 7.7 6.7 5.7 4.9 4.3
45 2250 25.1 21.4 18.2 15.5 13.3 11.4 9.8 8.4 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.6
50 2500 30.0 22.9 19.5 16.7 14.3 12.2 10.5 9.0 7.7 6.7 5.7 4.9
55 2750 28.7 24.4 20.8 17.8 15.2 13.0 11.2 9.6 8.2 7.1 6.1 5.3
60 3000 30.5 25.9 22.1 18.8 16.1 13.8 11.8 10.2 8.7 7.5 6.5 5.6

Page 70 of 72 Global / Well Test

 Well Test Standards INS-002659

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 10,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 100 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
2 200 5.0 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9
3 300 6.5 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2
4 400 7.9 6.7 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4
5 500 9.2 7.8 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.7
10 1000 14.6 12.4 10.6 9.0 7.7 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.7
15 1500 19.1 16.3 13.9 11.8 10.1 8.7 7.4 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.1 3.5
20 2000 23.2 19.7 16.8 14.4 9.0 10.5 9.0 7.7 6.7 5.7 4.9 4.3
25 2500 27.0 22.9 19.5 16.7 14.3 12.2 10.5 9.0 7.7 6.7 5.7 4.9
30 3000 30.5 25.9 22.1 18.8 16.1 13.8 11.8 10.2 8.7 7.5 6.5 5.6
35 3500 33.8 28.7 24.5 20.9 17.9 15.3 13.1 11.3 9.7 8.3 7.2 6.2
40 4000 36.9 31.4 26.8 22.9 19.5 16.7 14.3 12.3 10.6 9.1 7.9 6.8
45 4500 40.0 34.0 29.0 24.7 21.1 18.1 15.5 13.3 11.5 9.9 8.5 7.3
50 5000 42.9 36.5 31.1 26.5 22.7 19.4 16.7 14.3 12.3 10.6 9.1 7.9
55 5500 45.7 35.9 33.1 28.3 24.2 20.7 17.8 15.3 13.1 11.3 9.7 8.4
60 6000 48.5 41.2 35.1 30.0 25.6 22.0 18.8 16.2 13.9 12.0 10.3 8.9

Global / Well Test Page 71 of 72

INS-002659 Well Test Standards

Rev. 2

Total Pressure = 15,000psi

Temperature (°C) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Mole % Partial Pressure (psi) Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
1 150 4.1 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8
2 300 6.5 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2
3 450 8.5 7.3 6.2 5.3 4.5 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6
4 600 10.4 8.8 7.5 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.9
5 750 12.0 10.2 8.7 7.4 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.2
10 1500 19.1 16.3 13.9 11.8 10.1 8.7 7.4 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.1 3.5
15 2250 25.1 21.4 18.2 15.5 13.3 11.4 9.8 8.4 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.6
20 3000 30.5 25.9 22.1 18.8 16.1 13.8 11.8 10.2 8.7 7.5 6.5 5.6
25 3750 35.4 30.1 25.6 21.9 18.7 16.0 13.7 11.8 10.1 8.7 7.5 6.5
30 4500 40.0 34.0 29.0 24.7 21.1 18.1 15.5 13.3 11.5 9.9 8.5 7.3
35 5250 44.3 37.7 32.1 27.4 23.4 20.1 17.2 14.8 12.7 10.9 9.4 8.1
40 6000 48.5 41.2 35.1 30.0 25.6 22.0 18.8 16.2 13.9 12.0 10.3 8.9
45 6750 52.5 44.6 38.0 32.4 27.7 23.8 20.4 17.5 15.0 12.9 11.2 9.6
50 7500 56.3 47.9 40.8 34.8 29.8 25.5 21.9 18.8 16.1 13.9 12.0 10.3
55 8250 60.0 51.0 43.5 37.1 31.7 27.2 23.3 20.0 17.2 14.8 12.8 11.0
60 9000 63.6 54.1 46.1 39.3 33.6 28.8 24.7 21.2 18.2 15.7 13.5 11.7

Page 72 of 72 Global / Well Test