SINTEF Database 2016 Final Signed PDF

SINTEF F28043- Restricted
Report
Blowout and Well Release

Characteristics and Frequencies, 2016
Author(s)
Per Holand
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
SINTEF Technology and Society

Safety Research
2017-01-04
Blowout and Well Release Characteristics and Frequencies, 2016 version
Document history
VERSION DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION
Version No. 2017-01-04 Final report
PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 2 of 93

102013002 SINTEF F28043 Final report
Table of contents
PREFACE .......................................................................................................................... 5
1. ABOUT THE DATABASE ................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Participants ............................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Database Structure ................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Important Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Category and Sub-category ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 Phase of operation .................................................................................................................................. 11
1.6 North Sea Standards ............................................................................................................................... 11
2. OVERVIEW OF BLOWOUTS/WELL RELEASES INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE .................. 13

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Overview of Countries Represented in the Database .............................................................................. 14
2.4 During what Operational Phases do Blowouts/Well Releases Occur? ..................................................... 16
2.5 No. of Blowouts/Well releases per Year .................................................................................................. 17
2.6 Water depth vs. Blowouts/Well releases ................................................................................................ 18
2.7 Installation type vs. Water depth for drilling incidents ............................................................................ 19
3. BLOWOUTS VS. WELL RELEASES ................................................................................. 21
4. OVERALL BLOWOUT/WELL RELEASE EXPERIENCE........................................................ 23

4.1 Blowout/Well Release vs. Flow Medium ................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Blowout/Well Release vs. Flow-rates ...................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Severity ................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Ignition of Blowouts/Well Releases ......................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Blowout/Well Release Duration .............................................................................................................. 35
4.6 Blowout/Well Release Flow-paths and Release Points ............................................................................ 26
4.7 Blowout/Well Release Causes ................................................................................................................. 31
4.8 Operations and Activities when Blowout/Well Release Occurs ............................................................... 35
4.9 Exploration Wildcats vs. Exploration Appraisal Blowouts/well releases .................................................. 41
4.10 Blowouts from Australia, Canada East Coast, The Netherlands, and US/California OCS ........................ 41
5. “NORMAL” DRILLING AND PRODUCTION EXPOSURE DATA ......................................... 45

5.1 Drilling Exposure Data ............................................................................................................................. 45
5.1.1 US GoM OCS ............................................................................................................................................45
5.1.2 United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................47
5.1.3 Norway ....................................................................................................................................................48
5.1.4 The Netherlands ......................................................................................................................................51
5.1.5 Canadian East Coast.................................................................................................................................52
5.1.6 US Pacific OCS ..........................................................................................................................................54
5.1.7 Australia ...................................................................................................................................................55
5.1.8 Denmark ..................................................................................................................................................56
5.1.9 Compiled Drilling Exposure Data .............................................................................................................57
PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

3 of 93
5.2 Production Exposure Data....................................................................................................................... 59

5.2.1 US GoM OCS............................................................................................................................................ 59
5.2.2 United Kingdom ...................................................................................................................................... 60
5.2.3 Norway .................................................................................................................................................... 62
5.2.4 US Pacific OCS ......................................................................................................................................... 63
5.2.5 Compiled Production Exposure Data ...................................................................................................... 64
6. VARIOUS EXPOSURE DATA .......................................................................................... 67

6.1 Well Depth Related Exposure Data ......................................................................................................... 67
6.1.1 US GoM OCS Wells .................................................................................................................................. 67
6.1.2 Norwegian Wells ..................................................................................................................................... 68
6.2 Water Depth Related Drilling Exposure Data .......................................................................................... 69
6.3 Drilling Installation Type vs. Well Type and Water Depth ....................................................................... 74
6.4 Plugged and Abandoned Wells, US GoM OCS and Norwegian Waters .................................................... 76
6.5 No. of Gas Lifted Oil Wells US GoM OCS and Norwegian Waters ............................................................ 78
6.6 Shut-in Wellhead Pressure Related Exposure Data ................................................................................. 79
6.6.1 US GoM OCS Drilling Wells ..................................................................................................................... 79
6.6.2 Norwegian Drilling Wells......................................................................................................................... 81
6.6.3 US GoM OCS Wells in Production ........................................................................................................... 82
6.7 Production Rates and Gas Oil Ratio Data, US GoM OCS .......................................................................... 83
6.7.1 Production Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 83
6.7.2 Gas Oil Ratio ............................................................................................................................................ 85
6.8 Workover Frequency Exposure Data ....................................................................................................... 86
6.9 Wireline Frequency Exposure Data ......................................................................................................... 87
6.10 Coiled Tubing and Snubbing Exposure Data .......................................................................................... 88
7. OVERALL BLOWOUT/WELL RELEASE FREQUENCIES ...................................................... 91
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX 1 BLOWOUT DATABASE STRUCTURE AND CODING....................................... A-1

PREFACE
This report is based on the SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database, version 2016. The intention
of the report is to give an overview of blowout/well release characteristics and frequencies, and
not to analyse and evaluate the different blowout types. The format of the report is similar to
the report that was issued last year.
Appendix 1 to this report lists criteria used for the database fields in general.
Some 2016 key updates
Exposure data
The exposure data has been updated also to include the 2014 exposure data. Drilling exposure
data from Brazil has also been included in this version.
New Blowouts
Twenty new blowouts/well releases have been added to the database (ID651– ID671).
Seventeen of these incidents stems from the HydroCarbon Release (HCR) database that now
has been made public (http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/statistics.htm).
The new blowouts/well releases were observed for the following countries and years:
Table 0.1 New blowouts/well releases 2016 version
Blowout ID Country Main Category Phase Well depth Date

651 UK Well release WIRELINE Deep 19.08.2014
652 UK Well release PRODUCTION Deep 13.03.2013
654 UK Blowout (surface flow) DEV.DRLG Shallow 10.09.2008
657 UK Well release WORKOVER Deep 26.11.1998
661 UK Well release WIRELINE Shallow 22.07.1996
664 UK Well release DEV.DRLG Deep 16.05.1995
668 UK Blowout (surface flow) Abandoned well Deep 30.04.1993
669 AZERBAIJAN Blowout (surface flow) PRODUCTION Deep 04.12.2015
670 AZERBAIJAN Blowout (surface flow) WORKOVER Deep 26.09.2016
671 Norway Well release WORKOVER Deep 15.10.2016
Edited Blowouts
Twenty-four blowouts/well releases have been significantly edited. Most of the edits have been
done when working on a study for BSEE in the US. Table 0.2 shows where and when the
blowouts/well releases occurred.
5 of 93
Table 0.2 Edited blowouts and well releases
Blowout ID Country Main Category Phase Well depth Date

460 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) DEV.DRLG Deep 05.01.2000
466 MEXICO Blowout (surface flow) COMPLETION Deep 22.01.2000
475 US/CALIFORNIA OCS Well release WORKOVER Deep 19.11.2000
476 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) DEV.DRLG Shallow 01.03.2001
477 US/GOM OCS Well release WORKOVER Deep 02.04.2001
502 US/GOM OCS Well release DEV.DRLG Deep 21.11.2001
506 US/GOM OCS Well release WORKOVER Deep 12.01.2002
524 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) DEV.DRLG Deep 09.02.2004
559 INDONESIA Well release DEV.DRLG Deep 12.06.2007
588 US/GOM NOT OCS Blowout (surface flow) PRODUCTION Deep 17.09.2008
589 US/GOM NOT OCS Unknown WORKOVER Deep 23.09.2008
591 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) WORKOVER Deep 19.07.2008
604 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) EXPL.DRLG APPRAISAL Shallow 23.04.2008
Blowout (underground
605 US/GOM OCS EXPL.DRLG APPRAISAL Deep 26.04.2008
flow)
608 US/GOM OCS Diverted well release EXPL.DRLG WILDCAT Deep 22.12.2009
610 US/GOM OCS Well release Abandoned well Deep 20.11.2007
614 UK Well release COMPLETION Deep 23.12.2009
632 US/GOM OCS Blowout (surface flow) COMPLETION Deep 23.07.2013
634 AZERBAIJAN Blowout (surface flow) EXPL.DRLG APPRAISAL Deep 17.08.2013
645 US/GOM OCS Well release EXPL.DRLG Deep 27.10.2014
Deleted Blowouts, 2016
No blowouts/well releases have been deleted in 2016

1. About the Database
1.1 Participants
The SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database was initiated in 1984.
Akvaplan-niva became a new participants in 2016. Husky Energy, Chevron, and Dong E&P
Norge AS left the project.
By December 2016 the following companies were sponsoring the database:
1. Statoil
2. Aker BP ASA
3. Safetec Nordic A/S
4. Total E&P Norge AS
5. Lloyd's Register Consulting
6. Shell Global Solutions International
7. DNV GL AS
8. Lilleaker Consulting a.s.
9. Eni Norge AS
10. ConocoPhillips Norge
11. Acona Flow Technology AS
12. Proactima
13. Maersk Drilling
14. Akvaplan-niva as
1.2 Database Structure
The SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database includes blowout/well release descriptions, drilling
and production exposure data for certain areas in the world.
Blowout/ well release descriptions

The database contains 51 different fields describing each blowout/well release. The various
fields are grouped in six different groups. They are:
1. Category and location

2. Well description
3. Present operation
4. Blowout causes
5. Blowout Characteristics
6. Other
Category and location

Includes information related to the incident category (blowout vs. well leak), offshore
installation such as location, operator, installation name and type, and water depth.

7 of 93
Well description
Includes well and casing depths, last casing size, mud weight, bottom hole- and shut in
pressure, GOR, formation age and rock type.
Present operation
Includes the phase (exploration drilling, development drilling, workover etc.), the operation
presently carried out (for example casing running) and the present activity (for example
cementing)
Blowout causes
Include external cause (stating if an external cause contributed to the incident), loss of the
primary barrier, loss of the secondary barrier (describing how primary and secondary barrier
were lost) and human error. It should be noted that the field regarding human error in general
holds low quality information. Human errors are frequently masked. A field named North Sea
standards highlights if the development of the blowout could have been avoided if North Sea
type equipment had been used (for instance in other parts of the world a blind shear ram is not
required in surface BOP stacks)
Blowout characteristics
Twelve fields are included comprising flow-path, flow medium, flow-rate (low quality), release
point, ignition type, time to ignition, lost production (low quality), duration, fatalities,
consequence class, material loss and pollution
Other
In the Other screen five fields is included, they are: control method, remarks (includes a
description of the incident, data quality (includes an evaluation of the source data quality), last
revision date and references.
Exposure data
The various areas represented with exposure data are shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Overview of exposure data included in the database
Country Drilling exposure data Production exposure data

US GoM OCS Yes Yes
Norway Yes Yes
United Kingdom Yes Yes
The Netherlands Yes No
Canada East Coast Yes No
Australia Yes No
US Pacific Yes Yes
Denmark Yes No
Brazil Yes No
Search possibilities and reporting facilities

Almost any type of search may be performed to select specific blowout /well release event
types. Search criteria may be established by selecting predefined codes, specific numeric
values, specific free text, or any combinations of these. The predefined codes are spelled out
to ease understanding.

The database program counts and presents the events satisfying the search criteria. The selected
data may be viewed, printed or copied to separate Excel files for further analyses.
The exposure data and the blowout data are not linked. Blowout frequencies can therefore not
directly be established.
1.3 Important Definitions
The following main definitions have been utilised when categorising the blowouts/well
releases in categories and sub-categories.
Blowout definition
NPD came up with a blowout definition in their proposal for the new regulations.
(“Aktivitetsforskriften, eksternt høringsutkast av 3.7.2000, høringsfrist 3.11.2000”).
Med utblåsing som nevnt i denne paragrafen første ledd, menes formasjonsfluid som strømmer
ut av brønnen eller mellom formasjonslagene etter at alle definerte tekniske brønnbarrierer
eller operasjon av disse har sviktet.
Translated to English the definition will be:

A blowout is an incident where formation fluid flows out of the well or between
formation layers after all the predefined technical well barriers or the activation of
the same have failed.
The definition has however not become a part of the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway
regulation, but remains the database blowout definition.
Well release definition: The reported incident is a well release if oil or gas flowed from the
well from some point were flow was not intended and the flow was stopped by use of the barrier
system that was available on the well at the time the incident started.
Shallow gas definition: Any gas zone penetrated before the BOP has been installed. Any zone
penetrated after the BOP is installed is not shallow gas (typical Norwegian definition of shallow
gas).
All shallow gas incidents in the database have at the extent possible been categorised according
to the typical Norwegian definition of shallow gas. This definition is not relevant for all US
GoM incidents because:
 US GoM OCS reservoirs vary highly in depth. Some reservoirs were as shallow as 200
meters.
 For some incidents they had sat a full BOP stack, but had no intention to use it because
it would likely cause a blowout outside the casing and a possible crater.
 For some incidents they had drilled very deep without running an extra casing string
and the BOP.
 And for some incident they had used a combination of a BOP and a diverter.

9 of 93
Further, for many of the incidents the description of the incident in the sources is insufficient,
and some assumptions have to be made. A general comment is that it is not easy to categorise
all the incidents in shallow and deep incidents because of the above.
It should further be noted that it is in many cases difficult to determine if a shallow gas incident
shall be regarded as a blowout or not. In February 2007 a report was published, named “Shallow
Gas Project, Shallow gas events 1984 – 2006 in the Norwegian Sector”, by AGR – Triangle.
The report was prepared for the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway. This report describes 44
shallow gas events. These 44 events have been reviewed, and some blowouts were added to
the database, and many incidents were disregarded. Typically incidents that were reported with
a strong seafloor flow, or the diverter was used, were regarded as blowouts. Incidents only
referring to gas bubbles were disregarded. This report is enclosed the West Vanguard Blowout
(Blowout ID 278) in the database.
1.4 Category and Sub-category
The categories and subcategories utilised when classifying the incidents in the SINTEF
Offshore Blowout Database are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Main categories and subcategories for the incidents in the SINTEF Offshore Blowout
database
Main Category Sub category Comments/Example

Blowout 1. Totally uncontrolled flow, from a Totally uncontrolled incidents with surface/subsea
(surface flow) deep zone flow.
2. Totally uncontrolled flow, from a Typical the diverter system fails
shallow zone
3. Shallow gas “controlled” subsea Typical incident is that riserless drilling is performed
release only when the well starts to flow. The rig is pulled away
Blowout 4. Underground flow only
(underground 5. Underground flow mainly, limited The limited surface flow will be incidents were a
Blowout
flow) surface flow minor flow has appeared, but typical the BOP has
and well
release been activated to shut the surface flow
Well release 6. Limited surface flow before the Typical incident will be that flow is through the
secondary barrier was activated drillpipe and the shear ram is activated
7. Tubing blown out of well, then the Typical incident occurring during completion or
secondary barrier is activated workover. Shear ram is used to close the well after
the tubing has been blown out of the well.
Diverted well 8. Shallow gas controlled flow All incidents were the diverter system functioned as
release (diverted) intended.
Unknown Unknown Unknown may be selected for both the category and
the subcategory
The list of sub-categories, shown in Table 1.2, may be extended if found appropriate. One
option will be to split the sub category for Well release further down to highlight incidents with
an ignition potential.

1.5 Phase of operation
Each of the blowout/well releases in the database is categorised in the phase of operation they
occurred. Table 1.3 shows the pre-set codes used for phase of operation.
Table 1.3 Phase of operation
Description Remarks
Completion Activities associated to well completion activities
Dev.drlg Development drilling
Expl.drlg Exploration drilling, includes wildcats and appraisal wells
Production Production, injection, closed in wells
Unknown drlg When it is not known whether it is dev.drlg or expl.drlg
Unknown Unknown
Wireline Wireline operations in connection with a production/injection well, not wireline
operations carried out as a part of well drilling, well completion or well workover
Workover Workover activities, not including wireline operations. Snubbing and coiled tubing
operations
Abandoned well Temporary abandoned, permanently abandoned and long-time plugged wells are
incidents are included.
1.6 North Sea Standards
The intention with the field North Sea Standards is to identify blowout/well release incidents
that likely would have been prevented in North Sea operations because the procedures or
equipment utilised when the incident occurred are different from North Sea equipment or
procedures.
Table 1.4 presents the coding used for this field.
Table 1.4 North Sea standards
Description
Yes
No, no shear ram
No, BOP not North Sea standard
No, two barrier principle not followed
Sometimes not relevant, BOP removed to install casing seal
Unknown
Not evaluated

11 of 93

2. Overview of Blowouts/Well releases Included in the Database
2.1 Introduction
The SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database does per December 2016 include information about
642 offshore blowouts/well releases that have occurred world-wide since 1955.
The number of blowouts/well releases related to the different periods is presented in Table
2.1
Table 2.1 Number of blowouts/well releases related to the different periods
Period No. of blowouts/well releases

50-ties 9
60-ties 54
70-ties 115
80-ties 177
90-ties 130
2000-2009 117
2010-2014 35
2015 and 2016 5
Total 642
Blowouts/well releases that have occurred in the period 1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31 in US GoM
OCS, UK, and Norway are focused on. Blowouts/well releases that have occurred after 2014-
12-31 are only briefly mentioned in this report. Blowouts/well releases from before 1980 and
the rest of the world are only briefly included.
2.2 Data Quality
SINTEF's intention is to collect data from all occurring blowouts. However, it is a fact that
many blowouts/well releases occurring in this period have never been recorded in the database.
This because, public sources, which are the main source of information for blowouts/well
releases occurring outside US GoM OCS, and UK, and Norway, do frequently not describe
blowouts/well releases with small consequences. Therefore, several blowouts/well releases are
believed to be missing from the database.
It is SINTEF's belief that from 1980-01-01 most blowouts occurring in the US Gulf of Mexico
(GoM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the UK, and Norway have been included in the
database.
The quality of data related to blowouts occurring after 1970-01-01 is significantly better than
the data from before 1970. However, for many blowouts the quality still is low because proper
descriptions of the incidents are lacking. Blowout information is frequently hidden from the
public.
For each of the blowout/well release records in the database the quality of the source material
is given. Table 2.2 shows an overview of the data quality for the blowouts/well releases that
have occurred in the period 1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31.

13 of 93
Table 2.2 Quality of blowout/well release data source material
Quality of blowout/well All blowouts except US GoM OCS, UK, Only US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian
release data source and Norwegian blowouts in the period blowouts in the period 1980-01-01 –
material 1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31 2014-12-31
Very good 11 71
Good 12 62
Fair 23 67
Low 43 62
Very low 78 30
Total 167 292
2.3 Overview of Countries Represented in the Database
Table 2.3 shows an overview of the number of blowouts and well releases for the countries
represented in the database.

Table 2.3 Overview of countries represented in the database
50- 60- 70- 80- 90- 1Jan 00 – 1Jan 10 – later than

COUNTRY Total
ties ties ties ties ties 31 Dec 09 31 Dec 13 31 Dec 13
ANGOLA 1 1
AUSTRALIA 3 1 1 1 1 1 8
AZERBAIJAN 3 2 1 2 8
BRAZIL 3 2 1 6
BRUNEI 2 1 1 4
BURMA 1 1
CABINDA 1 1 2
CANADA EAST 2 2
CANADA NORTH 1 2 3
CHINA 1 2 1 2 6
CONGO 1 2 3
DENMARK 1 1
DUBAI 2 1 3
EGYPT 3 1 3 7
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1 1
ETHIOPIA 1 1
GABON 1 1
GERMANY 1 1
INDIA 3 5 2 10
INDONESIA 4 11 2 5 1 23
IRAN 1 4 7 1 1 14
ITALY 1 1 1 3
LIBYA 1 1
MALAYSIA 1 2 3
MEXICO 2 6 2 2 12
NETHERLANDS 1 1 2
NIGERIA 3 3 2 1 1 1 11
NORWAY 3 13 15 4 1 36
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1 1 2
PERU 2 2
PHILLIPPINES 1 1
QATAR 2 2
SAUDI ARABIA 1 3 1 5
SOUTH KOREA 1 1
SPAIN 1 1
TAIWAN 2 2
THAILAND 2 2
TRINIDAD 3 1 1 2 7
UK 4 1 8 22 19 3 57
UNKNOWN 1 1
US 1 1 2
US/ALASKA State 1 3 1 5
US/CALIFORNIA OCS 1 1 3 5
US/CALIFORNIA state 2 2
US/GOM NOT OCS 2 5 17 7 10 9 2 1 53
US/GOM OCS 6 30 58 77 52 59 20 1 303
USSR 2 6 8
VENEZUELA 1 3 1 5
VIETNAM 1 1
YUGOSLAV 1 1
Total 9 54 115 177 130 117 35 5 642

15 of 93
2.4 During what Operational Phases do Blowouts/Well Releases Occur?
In Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 no. of blowouts/well releases have been related to the operational
phases.
Table 2.4 No. of blowouts/well releases experienced during different operational phases
(including all blowouts/well releases until 2014-12-31)
PERIOD Un-
Dev. Expl. Unk. Compl- Work- Produ- Wire- Abando-
known/ Total
drlg drlg drlg etion over ction line ned well
other
Before 1980 43 76 1 12 18 20 3 5 178
24,2 % 42,7 % 0,6 % 6,7 % 10,1 % 11,2 % 1,7 % 0,0 % 2,8 % 100,0 %
1980 to 2014-12-31 103 150 10 28 78 53 16 7 14 459
22,4 % 32,7 % 2,2 % 6,1 % 17,0 % 11,5 % 3,5 % 1,5 % 3,1 % 100,0 %
Total 146 226 11 40 96 73 19 7 19 637
22,9 % 35,5 % 1,7 % 6,3 % 15,1 % 11,5 % 3,0 % 1,1 % 3,0 % 100,0 %
Table 2.5 Area specific overview of no. of blowouts/well releases experienced during different
operational phases (including all blowouts/well releases 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31)
AREA Production Total

Aban Un-
Dev. Expl. Unk. Comp- Work- Wire- excl.
done known/ Total
drlg drlg ** drlg letion over External No ext. line ext.
cause* cause* d well other
cause*
US GoM 58 59 1 14 46 14 11 6 2 208 194
OCS 27,9 % 28,4 % 0,5 % 6,7 % 22,1 % 6,7 % 5,3 % 2,9 % 1,0 % 0,0 % 100,0 %
UK&Norw- 11 33 1 7 14 1 5 10 2 84 83
egian waters 13,1 % 39,3 % 1,2 % 8,3 % 16,7 % 1,2 % 6,0 % 11,9 % 2,4 % 0,0 % 100,0 %
Rest of the 34 58 8 7 18 9 13 3 14 167 158
world 20,4 % 34,7 % 4,8 % 4,2 % 10,8 % 5,4 % 7,8 % 0,0 % 1,8 % 8,4 % 100,0 %
Total 103 150 10 28 78 24 29 16 7 14 459 435
22,4 % 32,7 % 2,2 % 6,1 % 17,0 % 5,2 % 6,3 % 3,5 % 1,5 % 3,1 % 100,0 %
* External causes are typical; storm, military activity, ship collision, fire and earthquake.
** One of the Expl. drilling blowouts in the "rest of the world” was caused by volcanic activities
When reading and Table 2.5, it is important to note that the most thorough data is from the US
GoM OCS, UK, and Norway.
In the US GoM OCS they have experienced a relatively high no. of blowouts/well releases
during development drilling compared to exploration drilling. This is explained by the fact that
in US GoM OCS they are drilling relatively more development wells than exploration wells,
compared to UK and Norway. Further, the relatively high no. of well workover blowouts/well
releases in US GoM OCS area does indicate that the number of workovers in that area is high.
It should, further, be noted that external causes were involved in nearly 50% of the production
blowouts. External causes are discussed in Section 4.6, on page 31.

2.5 No. of Blowouts/Well releases per Year
Table 2.6 shows a year-to-year overview of no. of blowouts/well releases for US GoM OCS,
UK, and Norway in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31.
Table 2.6 Year to year overview of no. of blowouts/well releases for US GoM OCS, UK, and
Norway in the period 1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31
Year Dev. Expl. Drlg Un- Comp- Work- Production Wire- Aban- Un- Total
Drlg App- Wild- Un- known letion over No ext. External line doned known/
raisal cat known drilling cause* cause* well other
1980 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 9
1981 2 2 2 5 2 11
1982 5 1 1 4 1 11
1983 7 2 3 5 1 1 14
1984 1 6 6 1 8
1985 3 1 6 7 2 12
1986 1 1 2
1987 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 8
1988 1 3 3 1 1 1 6
1989 4 5 2 7 3 2 1 3 17
1990 3 3 2 5 3 12
1991 4 1 3 5 1 1 10
1992 2 2 1 3 1 3 4 9
1993 2 2 2 4 1 1 8
1994 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 6
1995 1 1 1 1 2 1 6
1996 1 2 2 2 1 3 9
1997 3 1 5 6 2 3 14
1998 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 10
1999 3 2 5
2000 3 3 3 6 1 2 12
2001 3 1 2 1 2 4 2 13
2002 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7
2003 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
2004 2 1 1 3 1 1 7
2005 2 1 1 2 4
2006 3 3 1 4
2007 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 10
2008 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 11
2009 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 7
2010 1 1 1 1 2
2011 2 1 1 3
2012 1 1 3 1 5
2013 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6
2014 2 2 2 1 2 7
Total 69 34 54 92 4 21 60 18 10 28 16 4 292
* External causes are typical; storm, military activity, ship collision, fire and earthquake.

17 of 93
2.6 Water depth vs. Blowouts/Well releases
Table 2.7 shows the water depth vs. blowouts/well releases for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway
in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31.
Table 2.7 Water depth vs. blowouts/well releases for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway in the period
1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31
Water depth grouped (m)

Deep or Un-
Phase MainCategory 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 600 - 1000 - 1500-
Shallow <50 known/ Total
100 200 400 600 1000 1500 2500
other
Deep 3 4 1 1 9
Blowout (surface flow)
Shallow 6 14 5 1 26
Develop- Blowout (underground Deep 2 1 1 4
ment flow) Shallow 1 1
drilling Diverted well release Shallow 3 10 7 20
Deep 4 2 1 7
Well release
Shallow 1 1 2
Total 14 34 17 3 1 69
Deep 13 6 2 1 1 1 24
Shallow 9 11 6 2 2 1 1 32
Blowout (underground
Deep
Explor- flow) 3 4 2 9
ation Deep 1 1
Diverted well release
drilling Shallow 2 7 3 1 13
Deep 1 1
Well release
Shallow 2 1 2 1 1 1 8
Unknown Deep 1 1 1 1 4
Total 27 31 13 8 3 4 1 3 2 92
Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Unknown
Well release 1 1
drilling
Total 1 1 2
Blowout (surface flow) 7 3 1 11
Com- Diverted well release 1 1
pletion Well release 2 3 1 1 1 1 9
Total 9 6 2 1 1 1 1 21
Blowout (surface flow) 16 6 3 1 26
Work-
Well release 12 10 11 1 34
over
Total 28 16 14 1 1 60
Prod- Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
uction * Well release 3 2 2 1 8
Total 10 4 3 1 18
Blowout (surface flow) 2 2 4
Wire-line Well release 3 6 3 12
Total 5 6 5 16
Abando-
Well release 1 1 2
ned well
Total 2 1 1 4
Total 96 97 55 14 5 6 1 4 4 282
* External causes not included.

2.7 Installation type vs. Water depth for drilling incidents
Table 2.8 shows the installation type vs. water depth for drilling incidents for US GoM OCS,
UK, and Norway in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31.
Table 2.8 Installation type vs. Water depth for drilling incidents for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway
in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31

Installation
Phase Main Category 50 – 100 - 200 - 400 - 600 - 1000 - 1500- Un-
Type <50 Total
100 200 400 600 1000 1500 2000 known
Deep
Diverted well release 1 1
Drillship Expl.drlg
Well release 1 1
Jacket Dev.drlg Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Well release 2 1 1 4
Dev.drlg Blowout (underground flow) 2 2
Well release 1 1
Jackup
Expl.drlg Blowout (underground flow) 2 2 4
Unknown 1 1
Unknown
Well release
drlg 1 1
Blowout (surface flow) 1 1
Dev.drlg Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Semisub- Well release 1 1 2
mersible Blowout (surface flow) 1 2 1 1 1 6
Expl.drlg Blowout (underground flow) 2 2 4
Well release 2 1 2 1 1 7
Sub- Blowout (surface flow) 1 1
Expl.drlg
mersible Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Unknown
Unknown drlg Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Total 22 22 6 6 1 3 1 2 2 65
Shallow
Blowout (surface flow) 1 1
Drillship Expl.drlg
Well release 1 1 2
Blowout (underground flow) 1 1
Dev.drlg
Jacket Diverted well release 1 8 7 16
Well release 1 1 2
Expl.drlg Blowout (surface flow) 1 1
Dev.drlg
Diverted well release 2 2 4
Jackup
Expl.drlg
Diverted well release 2 7 2 11
Dev.drlg Blowout (surface flow) 1 1 3 5
Semisub- Blowout (surface flow) 9 5 2 2 1 1 20
mersible Expl.drlg Diverted well release 1 1 2
Well release 1 1 2
Total 20 43 24 5 2 2 1 1 98
Total all 42 65 30 11 3 5 1 3 3 163

19 of 93

3. Blowouts vs. Well Releases
As explained in Section 1.4 on page 10, the incidents in the database has been categorised in
blowouts and well releases.
When excluding the blowouts with external causes the database includes 282 blowouts/well
releases for the US GoM OCS, Norway and UK in the period 1980 - 2014.
Table 3.1 shows an overview of the no. of blowouts/well releases within the main phases of
operation, categories and sub categories.
Table 3.1 Overview of the no. of incidents within the main phases of operation, categories and
sub categories for US GoM OCS, Norway and UK blowouts/well releases in the period
1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31
Incident According to North Sea Aband

Dev. Expl. Unk. Comp- Work- Prod- Wire-
cate- Sub category standard? (See Table 1.4 -oned Total
drlg drlg drlg letion over uction line
gory page11) well
No, no acoustic backup
2 2
BOP control system
No, no shear ram 1 3 5 7 16
No, two barrier principle
1 1 2
Totally uncontrolled not followed
flow, from a deep zone Sometimes not relevant,
BOP removed to install 3 3 6
casing seal
Blow- Unknown 4 4
out
Yes 5 16 5 14 8 4 2 54
(sur-
face No, BOP not North Sea
1 1
flow) standard
Totally uncontrolled
Sometimes not relevant,
flow, from a shallow
BOP removed to install 2 1 3
zone
casing seal
Yes 24 18 1 43
Shallow gas
"controlled" subsea Yes 12 12
release only
Total 35 56 11 26 9 4 2 143
Blow- Underground flow only Yes 1 2 3
out Underground flow
(under- mainly, limited surface Yes 4 7 1 1 13
ground flow
flow) Total 5 9 1 1 16
Shallow gas controlled
Yes 1 1 2
Divert- flow (diverted)
ed well Other (Kick in riser
Yes 20 13 33
release above BOP)
Total 20 14 1 35
String blown out of
well, then the Yes 1 1
secondary barrier
Limited surface flow No, no shear ram 7 9 1 8 24 8 12 69
Well before the secondary
Yes 1 2 2 5
release barrier was activated
Shallow gas
"controlled" subsea Yes 1 1
release only
Other Yes 1 1 9 11
Total 9 12 1 9 34 8 12 2 87
Unkno Unknown Yes 1 1
wn Total 1 1
Total all incidents 69 92 2 21 60 18 16 4 282

21 of 93

4. Overall Blowout/Well Release Experience
4.1 Blowout/Well Release vs. Flow Medium
Table 4.1 shows an overview of the blowout/well release flow medium for the incidents. Only
US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian incidents in the period 1980 – 2014 are included.
Table 4.1 Blowout/well release flow medium for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway in the period
1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31
Incident Dev. Expl. Unkn- Comp- Work- Prod- Wire- Aband-
Flow medium Total
category drlg drlg own drlg letion over uction* line oned well
Condensate, Gas (deep) 1 5 1 1 8
Condensate, Gas (deep), water 1 1
Gas (deep) 3 16 10 13 4 46
Gas (deep), Mud, Water 1 1
Gas (deep), Water 1 1
Mud 1 1
Oil 1 1 2
Oil, Gas (deep) 2 2 1 6 3 2 16
Oil, Gas (deep), Condensate 1 1
Blowout Oil, Gas (deep), H2S 1 1
(surface Oil, Gas (deep), Mud 1 1
flow) Oil, Gas (deep), Water 1 1 2
Shallow gas 20 26 46
Shallow gas H2S 1 3 4
Shallow gas, Mud 2 2
Shallow gas, Water 1 3 1** 5
Shallow water 1 1
Shallow, unknown fluid 1 1
Unknown 1 1
Water 1 1 2
Total 35 56 11 26 9 4 2 143
Condensate, Gas (deep) 1 1
Gas (deep) 3 5 8
Blowout Oil, Gas (deep) 1 1 2
(undergroun Shallow gas 1 1
d flow) Unknown 2 1 3
Water 1 1
Total 5 9 1 1 16
Gas (deep), Mud 1 1 2
Mud 1 1
Diverted well Shallow gas 15 10 25
release Shallow gas, Mud 2 1 3
Shallow gas, Water 3 1 4
Total 20 14 1 35
Condensate, Gas (deep) 1 1
Condensate, Gas (deep), water 1 1
Gas (deep) 2 3 9 3 6 1 24
Gas (deep), Methanol 1 1
Gas (deep), Mud 2 2 4
Gas (deep), Water 1 1
Gas (gas lift gas) 1 1
Gas (trapped gas) 1 1
Mud 1 1 2 4 8
Oil 2 2 2 1 7
Well release Oil, Gas (deep) 1 1 11 1 2 16
Oil, Gas (deep), Mud 2 1 1 4
Oil, Gas (deep), Water 1 1
Oil, Water 1 1 2
Shallow gas 1 2 3
Shallow gas, Mud 1 1
Shallow gas, Water 1 1
Shallow water 1 1
Shallow, unknown fluid 1 1
Unknown 1 1 1 4 1 8
Total 9 12 1 9 34 8 12 2 87
Gas (deep) 1 1
Unknown
Total 1 1
Total 69 92 2 21 60 18 16 4 282
* Blowouts caused by external loads are excluded (storm, military activity, ship collision, fire and earthquake).
** Stems from a blowout outside the casing from a shallow zone during production

23 of 93
4.2 Blowout/Well Release vs. Flow-rates
The blowout/well release flow-rates from the actual incidents described in the database are
poorly documented for most incidents. For some blowouts flow-rate figures exist, but for most
blowouts they do not exist.
Flow-rates are important figures in risk and environment analyses. To establish a realistic
distribution of flow-rates to expect for specific fields, field specific productivity data should be
compared to blowout/well release experience with respect to remaining restrictions in the wells
during the blowout/well release situations. For several blowouts/well releases there are
significant flow restrictions that will reduce the flow.
The database also has a field named “Pollution”. This is a coarse categorizing related to
pollution from the individual incidents. Only oil release is regarded as pollution in this context.
The categories are Large, Medium, Small, No and Unknown.
When looking at the US GoM OCS, UK and Norwegian waters for the period 1980 until 2014,
only one blowout has been given the pollution category large, the Deepwater Horizon accident
in 2010, indicating that the probability of such incidents are rather low. On the other hand in
August 2009, the Montara blowout occurred north of Australia causing a large spill and in 2011
the Frade blowout occurred outside Brazil, causing a large spill. In addition, lately, two severe
blowouts occurred, one in Nigeria in 2012 and one in the UK in 2012. These blowouts were
mainly gas blowouts and caused limited pollution.
4.3 Severity
The blowout/well release database contains a specific field describing blowout/well release
severity. The quality of the information in this field is relatively low. These data are therefore
not presented in this report. However, it should be noted that most of the blowouts/well releases
do cause relatively small damages.
4.4 Ignition of Blowouts/Well Releases
In Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 experienced data related to ignition of blowouts/well releases are
presented. Only incidents from the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31 have been included. It has
been chosen to separate US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian blowouts/well releases from the
rest of the world. Blowouts caused by external loads (storm, fire etc. are not included)
Please note that it should not be differed between ignition probability for an oil blowout/well
release and a gas blowout, because for oil blowouts the volume of gas blowing is very high
compared to the volume of oil blowing.

Table 4.2 Experienced ignition for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the
period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31. Blowouts caused by external loads (storm, fire etc.) are
not included
Immediate
Main Deep or No 5 mins – 1 hour – 6 hrs –
Phase ignition (<5 >24 hrs Total
Category Shallow ignition 1 hour 6 hrs 24 hrs
mins)
Deep 6 2 1 9
Dev.drlg
Shallow 20 2 2 1 1 26
Deep 17 3 4 24
Expl. drlg
Shallow 31 1 32
Blowout Completion 7 2 2 11
(surface Workover 21 1 1 1 2 26
flow) Production 9 9
Wireline 4 4
Abandoned well 2 2
117 10 3 2 8 3 143
Total
81,8 % 7,0 % 2,1 % 1,4 % 5,6 % 2,1 % 100,0 %
Dev.drlg Deep 4 4
Shallow 1 1
Blowout Expl. drlg Deep 9 9
(under- Unknown drlg Deep 1 1
ground flow) Production 1 1
16 16
Total
100,0 % 100,0 %
Dev.drlg Shallow 20 20
Expl. drlg Deep 1 1
Diverted well Shallow 12 1 13
release Completion 1 1
34 1 35
Total
97,1 % 2,9 % 100,0 %
Dev.drlg Deep 7 7
Shallow 1 1 2
Expl. drlg Deep 8 8
Shallow 4 4
Unknown drlg Deep 1 1
Completion 9 9
Well release
Workover 32 2 34
Production 8 8
Wireline 12 12
Abandoned well 2 2
84 3 87
Total
96,6 % 3,4 % 100,0 %
Expl. drlg Deep 1 1
Unknown 1 1
Total
100,0 % 100,0 %
252 13 4 2 8 3 282
Total
89,4 % 4,6 % 1,4 % 0,7 % 2,8 % 1,1 % 100,0 %

25 of 93
Table 4.3 Experienced ignition for rest of the world (US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway are not
included) blowouts/well releases in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31. Blowouts
caused by external loads are not included.
PHASE No ign- Ignited blowouts Total

ition Immediate ign- Delayed Unknown
ition (<5mins) ignition
Development drilling 20 7 4 3 34
Exploration drilling 40 9 4 4 57
Unknown drlg 5 1 2 8
Completion 1 4 1 1 7
Workover 10 4 3 1 18
Production 7 1 1 2 11
Abandoned well 3 3
Unknown 9 4 1 14
95 30 15 12 152
Total
62,5 % 19,7 % 9,9 % 7,9 % 100,0 %
If comparing Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, a larger proportion of the blowouts/well releases in the
data for the "rest of the world" ignited. The main reason is probably that from "rest of the
world" blowouts with small consequences are more seldom reported.
4.5 Blowout/Well Release Flow-paths and Release Points
In Table 4.4 – Table 4.6 the experienced release point vs. the final blowout/well release flow
paths for the various phases of operation are presented. Only US GoM OCS, UK, and
Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the period 1980-01-01 – 2014-12-31 have been
included. Blowouts caused by external loads (storm, fire etc.) are not included.

Table 4.4 Release point vs. final flow-path for drilling shallow gas blowouts and well releases
Incident main Final flow- Through Through Under-

type Through Outside Un-
drill outer ground Total
annulus casing known
string annulus blowout
Diverted and BOP valve outlet 1 1
Diverter syst.leak - line eroded 2 2
Diverter syst.leak - line parted 2 2
Diverter syst.leak - main diverter 2 1 3
Drillfloor - through rotary 3 1 4
From wellhead 6 1 7
Subsea - outside casing 4 4
Subsea wellhead 2 1 3
Development
drilling Total 10 10 4 1 1 26
shallow gas Blowout (underground flow)
incidents From wellhead 1 1
Total 1 1
Diverted 18 2 20
Total 18 2 20
Well release
Drillfloor - through rotary 1 1
From wellhead 1 1
Total 1 1 2
Development drilling total 29 13 4 2 1 49
Diverter syst.leak- line eroded 3 3
Diverter syst.leak- line parted 1 1
Diverter syst.leak-main diverter 2 2
Drillfloor - top of drill string 1 1
From wellhead 3 3
Subsea crater 1 1
Exploration Subsea wellhead 15 15
drilling shallow Unknown 1 1
gas incidents
Total 1 21 4 5 1 32
Diverted 13 13
Total 13 13
Well release
Subsea-outside casing 1 1
Subsea wellhead 2 1 3
Total 2 2 4
Exploration drilling total 1 36 6 5 1 49
TOTAL ALL SHALLOW GAS INCIDENTS 1 65 19 9 2 2 98
Most shallow gas blowouts/well releases have their final flow-path through the well bore
annulus. The flow is either diverted without any problems, the diverter system fails, or the flow
is released through the subsea wellhead.

27 of 93
Table 4.5 Release point vs. final flow-path for “deep” drilling blowouts and well releases
Incident Final flow-path  Through Through Through Through Outside Under- Un-
main type Release point  drill test
annulus
outer
casing
ground
known
Total
string string annulus blowout
Drillfloor choke manifold 1 1
From wellhead 1 3 1 5
Unknown 1 1
Develop- Total 4 3 1 1 9
ment Blowout (underground flow)
drilling, No surface flow 4 4
deep Total 4 4
Well release
Unknown 1 1
Total 1 4 1 1 7
Dev.drlg total 1 8 3 2 5 1 20
BOP valve outlet 1 1
Diverter syst.leak- line parted 1 1
Drillfloor - through rotary then
subsea BOP 1 1
From wellhead 3 3 6
Shaker room 1 1
Subsea BOP 2 2
Subsea crater 1 1
Subsea wellhead 1 1
Total 2 11 5 6 24
Blowout (underground flow)
Explora-
tion No surface flow 7 7
drilling, Subsea - outside casing 1 1
deep Unknown 1 1
Total 1 7 1 9
Total 1 1
Well release
Diverted 1 1
Drillfloor - tubing valve 1 1
Total 2 1 5 8
Unknown
Unknown 1 1
Total 1 1
Expl.drlg total 4 1 17 5 7 7 2 43
No surface flow 1 1
Unknown Total 1 1
drilling, Well release
deep Drillfloor - through rotary 1 1
Total 1 1
Unknown drlg total 1 1 2
Total all deep 4 2 26 8 9 13 3 65
Through annulus is the most common final flow-path for both exploration and development
drilling “deep” blowouts/well releases. Forty percent of the deep drilling blowouts/well

releases was flowing through the annulus. Ten incidents came outside the casing, causing
subsea releases. One of them also ignited when the gas reached the surface (64 meter of water).
Also for one of the two subsea BOP releases (94 meter of water) the gas ignited. In general
subsea releases are more frequent for exploration well blowouts than for development well
blowouts. This was also observed for the shallow gas blowouts. Twelve incidents only caused
underground flow. More of these incidents occur than reported in the database.

29 of 93
Table 4.6 Release point vs. final flow-path for completion, workover, production and wireline
blowouts and well releases
Through Through Through Under- Un-
Main Final flow-path  Through Through Outside
Phase coiled drill outer ground known Total
category Release point  tubing annulus casing
tubing string annulus blowout
Drillfloor 1 1
Drillfloor - drillpipe valve 1 1
Blowout
Drillfloor - top of drill string 3 1 4
(surface flow)
Drillfloor - top of tubing 1 1
From x-mas tree 1 1
Mud room 1 1
Compl-
Total 5 4 2 11
etion
Diverted well Diverted 1 1
release Total 1 1
Well release Drillfloor - top of tubing 1 2 3
Shaker room 1 1
Total 3 2 4 9
Total 8 6 7 21
Drillfloor - top of tubing 1 3 4
Drillfloor - tubing valve 1 1
Blowout
From wellhead 1 1 2
(surface flow)
From x-mas tree 1 1 2
Mud room 1 1
Subsea wellhead 1 1
Unknown 1 1
Work-
Total 1 5 6 9 1 4 26
over
Drillfloor 1 1
Well release Drillfloor - top of tubing 3 3
From above x-mas tree 3 1 4
From wellhead 1 1 2
From x-mas tree 1 1 2
Subsea wellhead 1 1
Total 11 23 34
Total 1 5 17 32 1 4 60
From wellhead 1 1 2
From x-mas tree 2 2
Blowout
(surface flow)
Subsea crater 1 1
Subsea x-mas tree 1 1
Total 4 1 2 1 8
Produc- Blowout No surface flow 1 1
tion (underground
Total
flow) 1 1
From wellhead 1 1
From x-mas tree 4 4
Well release
Unknown 1 1
Total 7 1 8
Total 11 1 2 2 1 17
Blowout From above x-mas tree 2 2
(surface flow) From x-mas tree 1 1
Total 3 1 4
Drillfloor 1 1
Drillfloor -Wireline stuffing
Wireline box/BOP 1 1
Well release From above x-mas tree 4 1 5
From wellhead 1 1
From x-mas tree 2 2
Unknown 2 2
Total 1 9 1 1 12
Total 1 12 1 2 16
From wellhead 1 1
Aband- Blowout
oned (surface flow)
Total 2 2
well
Subsea wellhead 2 2
Well release
Total 2 2
Total 2 2 4
Total all events 1 14 46 43 5 6 2 1 118

Most blowouts during completion result in flow through the tubing or the drill string/work
string. It is important to note that for several of these blowouts the BOP stack did not include
a blind-shear ram (Table 3.1 on page 21). With a blind-shear ram these blowouts could have
been stopped at an earlier stage, and they would in many cases not have been categorised as a
blowout. It is not mandatory to use blind-shear rams in US OCS surface BOPs.
The normal flow-paths for workover blowouts/well releases are either through the drill
string/tubing or through the annulus. It is important to note that also for several of these
blowouts the BOP stack did not include a blind-shear ram (Table 3.1 on page 21). Further, the
drill string/tubing blowouts are mostly released from the top of the drill string/tubing hanging
in the rotary table slips. Annulus blowouts do mostly come through the rotary.
Wireline blowouts typically flow through the tubing and the release point is above the X-mas
tree.
Ten of the 15 production blowouts/well releases came to the surroundings in the wellhead/X-
mas tree area.
4.6 Blowout/Well Release Causes
Normally to experience a blowout, at least one primary and one secondary barrier have to fail.
For drilling, workover and completion blowouts the primary barriers are usually the hydrostatic
pressure from the mud column and the secondary barrier is the mechanical barriers, either
subsea or on the installation. For production wells the primary and secondary barriers are
mechanical barriers.
It should be noted that when drilling in shallow zones there is normally only one blowout
barrier. The installations do, however, have means for forcing the gas away from the
installation. In this report those means are treated as a secondary barrier.
The blowout database does contain fields for describing the blowout/well release causes, i.e.
why were the primary and secondary barrier lost?
Further, the database contains one field that describes whether the blowout/well release was
"caused" by an external load. Out of the 269 blowouts/well releases from US GoM OCS, UK,
and Norway in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31, ten were "caused" by an external load
(Table 2.6, page 17). It is, however, important to note that an external load normally only ruins
the topside barrier. To experience a blowout, the downhole barrier also has to fail. So an
external load will not be the single blowout cause. Typically, the external load ruins the
wellhead/X-mas tree barriers of an active well, and the downhole barrier fails to activate or is
leaking.
Table 4.7 shows an overview of blowouts caused by external loads.

31 of 93
Table 4.7 Overview of blowouts caused by external loads for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway in the
period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31
Water Oper- External Flow-

Phase Activity Primary barrier Secondary barrier
depth (m) ation cause medium
6 A8.X-mas tree failed
Closed C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure
Prod- Ship (leakage between tubing Oil, Gas
in gas (Not enough surge to close
uction collision head flanges and master (deep)
well valve)
valve)
143 C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure &
A8.X-mas tree failed (all
Prod- Produc- Fire/- C4.Tubing to annulus Oil, Gas
Gas lifting trees failed due to topside
uction ing oil explosion communication, equipment or (deep)
fire)
nipple failure (5 to 6 wells failed)
12 Prod- Produc- Regular Ship C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure A8.X-mas tree failed (due Oil, Gas
uction ing gas production collision (not installed?) to collision) (deep)
10 C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure
Prod- Produc- Regular A8.X-mas tree failed
Storm (Assumed, may also have been Oil
uction ing oil production (damaged by storm)
a tubing annulus communication)
15 Prod- Produc- Regular B4.Wellhead failed
Storm C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure Oil
uction ing oil production (hurricane damage)
40 Closed Surface A8.X-mas tree failed
Prod- Gas
in gas mainten- Storm C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure (damaged by Hurricane
uction (Deep)
well ance Ike)
52 Closed C5.SCSSV/storm choke failure A8.X-mas tree failed
Prod- Wait on Gas
in gas Storm (Trapped hydraulic in control (damaged by Hurricane
uction repair (Deep)
well line) Ike)
146 Prod- Produc- Regular
Storm A7.SCCSV/storm choke failed C16.X-mas tree failed Oil
uction ing oil production
Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 show the different causes for losing the primary and secondary barriers,
as reported in the database.

Table 4.8 Primary barrier failure causes listed in the database for the US GoM OCS, UK, and
Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the period Jan. 1980 - Dec. 2014
Dev. drlg Expl. drlg Aban-
Unknown Comp- Work- Prod- Wire-
Category Primary barrier failure doned Total
Deep Shallow Deep Shallow drlg. deep letion over uction line
well
Too low mud weight 3 3 3 3 5 17
Annular losses 1 1 4 2 1 9
While cement setting 3 11 5 3 22
Cmt preflush weight low 1 1
Too Trapped gas 1 1
low Unknown why 2 4 1 5 1 1 14
hyd. Swabbing 6 2 3 2 4 17
head Gas cut mud 2 2 4
Improper fill up 2 1 3
Disconnected riser 1 1 2
Unexp. high well pressure 1 2 10 1 14
Reservoir depth uncertainty 1 1 2
Poor cement 1 2 1 1 5
Formation breakdown 1 1 2
Blowout Packer leakage 1 1
(surface Stripper BOP failure 1 1
flow) Tubing plug failure 1 1 2
Casing plug failure 1 1
Snubbing equipment failure 4 4
X-mas tree failure 1 1
Packer plug failure 1 1
Tubing leakage/burst 1 2 3 6
SCSSV/storm choke failure 1 2 5 1 9
Well test string barrier failure 1 1
Wireline stuffing box failure 1 1
Wireline lubricator failure 2 2
Other 1 1
Unknown 2 1 3
Total no. of primary barrier failures 10 27 26 32 11 26 9 4 2 147
Incidents with two prim. barrier failures 1 1 2 4
Blowout (surface flow) Total 9 26 24 32 11 26 9 4 2 143
Too low mud weight 1 1 2
Too
Annular losses 1 1
low
Blowout hyd. While cement setting 1 1
(under- head Unknown why 2 2 4
ground Unexp. high well pressure 1 3 4
flow) Tubing leakage 1 1
Unknown 2 1 3
Blowout (underground flow) Total 4 1 9 1 1 16
Too low mud weight 1 2 3
Annular losses 4 1 5
Too
While cement setting 3 1 4
low
Trapped gas 1 1
Diverted hyd.
head Unknown why 1 1 2
well
Swabbing 10 10
release
Unexp. high well pressure 4 8 12
Total no. of primary barrier failures 22 1 13 1 37
Incidents with two prim. barrier failures 2 2
Diverted well release Total 20 1 13 1 35
Too low mud weight 2 1 1 2 6
Annular losses 1 1 2
Too Drilling into neighbour well 1 1
low Trapped gas 1 9 10
hyd. Unknown why 1 2 2 5
head Swabbing 1 1 1 3 3 9
Gas cut mud 1 1
Unexp. high well pressure 3 1 2 1 2 9
Poor cement 1 1 2
Coiled tubing failure. 1 1
Tubing plug failure 2 2
Casing plug failure 2 2
Well
Snubbing equipment failure 4 4
release
X-mas tree failure 3 2 5
Packer plug failure 1 1 2
Tubing leakage/burst 5 5
SCSSV/storm choke failure 3 4 2 9
Well test string barrier failure 1 1 2
Wireline stuffing box failure 2 2
Wireline lubricator failure 3 3
Other 2 1 3
Unknown 1 1 2 4
Total no. of primary barrier failures 7 2 8 4 1 9 36 8 12 2 89
Incidents with two prim. barrier failures 2 2
Well release Total 7 2 8 4 1 9 34 8 12 2 87
Unknown 1 1
Unknown
Unknown Total 1 1
Total all 20 49 43 49 2 21 60 18 16 4 282

33 of 93
Table 4.9 Secondary barrier failure causes listed in the database for the US GoM OCS, UK, and
Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the period Jan. 1980 - Dec. 2014.
Dev.drlg Expl.drlg Unk.drlg Aban-
Cate- Com- Work- Prod- Wire-
Secondary barrier failure doned Total
gory Deep Shallow Deep Shallow Deep pletion over uction line
well
String safety valve failed 1 1 2 4
String safety valve not available 1 1 3 5
Failed to stab kelly valve 1 3 3 7
SCSSV/storm choke failed 1 1
X-mas tree failed 1 5 2 1 9
Failed to close BOP 1 3 1 4 7 16
Diverted - no problem 1 1
Failed to operate diverter 4 4
Diverter failed after closure 8 1 8 17
Drilling without riser 2 11 13
Disconnected riser 1 1
Annulus valve failed 1 1
Not sufficient frictional backpressure 1 1
BOP failed after closure 2 1 5 1 9
Blowout BOP/diverter not in place 3 4 4 1 12
(surface Wellhead failed 2 1 1 4
flow) Casing head failed 1 1 2
Tubing to annulus communication 1 1 2
Poor cement 1 3 2 6
Casing valve failure 1 1 2
Wellhead seal failed 1 1
Outer casing failed 2 2
Inner casing failed 1 1 1 3
Fracture at csg shoe 2 6 1 9
Casing leakage 1 4 1 3 2 11
Formation breakdown 1 1 2
Not relevant 3 4 2 9
Unknown 1 1 1 3
Total no. of secondary barrier failures 10 28 27 35 12 29 10 4 2 157
Incidents with two sec. barrier failures 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 14
Blowout (surface flow) total 9 26 24 32 11 26 9 4 2 143
Failed to close BOP 1 1
Poor cement 1 1
Blowout Fracture at csg shoe 1 1 1 3
(under- Casing leakage 3 1 4
ground Formation breakdown 2 2 4
flow) Unknown 1 3 1 5
Total no. of secondary barrier failures 4 2 11 1 1 19
Incidents with two sec. barrier failures 1 2 3
Blowout (underground flow) total 4 1 9 1 1 16
Diverted Failed to close BOP 1 1 2
well Diverted - no problem 20 13 33
release Diverted well release total 20 1 13 1 35
String safety valve failed 1 1 2
String safety valve not available 1 1
Failed to stab kelly valve 2 1 1 4
Wireline BOP/lubricator not installed 1 1
Wireline BOP/lubricator failed 1 1
SCSSV/storm choke failed 1 1 1 3
X-mas tree failed 4 5 2 11
Coiled tubing stuffing box failed 1 1
Failed to close BOP 4 2 1 4 12 2 25
Well
Drilling without riser 1 1
release
Not sufficient frictional backpressure 1 1 1 6 9
BOP failed after closure 3 3
Wellhead failed 1 1 2
Wellhead seal failed 1 1 2
Outer casing failed 1 1
Fracture at csg shoe 1 1
Not relevant 1 1 1 1 2 6
Other 1 1 2 4
Unknown 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Well release total 7 2 8 4 1 9 34 8 12 2 87
Un- Unknown 1 1
known Unknown total 1 1
Total 20 49 43 49 2 21 60 18 16 4 282

4.7 Blowout/Well Release Duration
In Table 4.10 the experienced blowout/well release duration is presented. Only US GoM OCS,
UK, and Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31 have been
included. Blowouts caused by external loads (storm, fire etc.) are not included.
It should be noted that bridged or depleted are listed as primary cause for regaining well control
for 31 out of the 56 exploration drilling Blowout (surface flow), and 17 of the 35 development
drilling Blowout (surface flow).
For the diverted well releases (both exploration and development drilling) bridged or depleted
are listed as primary cause for regaining well control for 15 out of the 34 diverted well releases.
Table 4.10 Blowout/well release duration for US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian blowouts/well
releases in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31. Blowouts caused by external loads
(storm, fire etc.) are not included
2 days <
Main T ≤10 10min < T 40min < T 2 hrs < T 12 hrs < T T>5 Un-
Phase Deep or T≤5 Total
Category mins ≤ 40min ≤ 2 hrs ≤ 12 hrs ≤ 2 days days known
Shallow days
Deep 1 2 1 2 1 2 9
Dev.drlg
Shallow 1 4 2 5 4 4 6 26
Deep 1 2 6 3 5 7 24
Expl.drlg
Shallow 1 2 4 2 7 8 8 32
Blowout Completion 1 3 2 4 1 11
(surface Workover 1 1 4 9 3 5 3 26
flow) Production 4 2 2 1 9
Wireline 1 2 1 4
Abandoned well 1 1 2
2 3 8 18 31 23 30 28 143
Total
1,4 % 2,1 % 5,6 % 12,6 % 21,7 % 16,1 % 21,0 % 19,6 % 100,0 %
Deep 1 1 2 4
Dev.drlg
Shallow 1 1
Blowout
Expl.drlg Deep 1 1 5 2 9
(under-
ground
Production 1 1
flow)
1 1 1 8 5 16
Total
6,3 % 6,3 % 6,3 % 50,0 % 31,3 % 100,0 %
Dev.drlg Shallow 2 5 5 3 2 1 2 20
Deep 1 1
Diverted Expl.drlg
Shallow 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 13
well
Completion 1 1
release
4 7 6 9 4 2 3 35
Total
11,4 % 20,0 % 17,1 % 25,7 % 11,4 % 5,7 % 8,6 % 100,0 %
Deep 4 1 2 7
Dev.drlg
Shallow 2 2
Deep 6 1 1 8
Expl.drlg
Shallow 1 2 1 4
Well Completion 8 1 9
release Workover 29 1 1 1 2 34
Production 2 1 3 2 8
Wireline 10 1 1 12
Abandoned well 2 2
62 4 3 6 3 2 7 87
Total
71,3 % 4,6 % 3,4 % 6,9 % 3,4 % 2,3 % 8,0 % 100,0 %
Expl.drlg Deep 1 1
Un-
1 1
known Total
100,0 % 100,0 %
68 14 17 34 39 26 40 44 282
Total
24,1 % 5,0 % 6,0 % 12,1 % 13,8 % 9,2 % 14,2 % 15,6 % 100,0 %

35 of 93
4.8 Operations and Activities when Blowout/Well Release Occurs
In Table 4.11 to Table 4.17 an overview of the operations and activities in progress when the
blowouts/well releases occurred is presented for the various operational phases.
The data is from the US GoM OCS, UK, and Norwegian blowouts/well releases in the period
1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31.
Table 4.11 Operations and activities in progress when the shallow gas blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Drilling activity Casing running

Other/unknown
Total
operations
Activity  Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Total
Actual drilling 3 15 3 15 18
Well suspended 1 1 1
Tripping out 6 2 6 2 8
Out of hole 1 1 1
Coring 1 1 1
Milling 1 1 1
Cementing casing 1 1 1 1 2
Wait on cement 11 3 11 3 14
Install BOP 1 1 1
Nipple down BOP 1 1 1
Changing equipment 1 1 1
Wait on weather 1 1 1 1 2
Unknown 2 4 1 1 3 5 8
Total no. of activities 11 24 13 4 3 4 27 32 59
No. of blowouts listed with two activities 1 1 1
No. of blowouts (surface flow) 11 24 12 4 3 4 26 32 58
Wait on cement 1 1 1
No. of blowouts (underground flow) 1 1 1
Tripping out 9 1 9 1 10
Circulating 1 1 1
Casing running 2 2 2
Cementing casing 1 1 1
Wait on cement 3 3 3
Unknown 1 1 1
No. of diverted well releases 15 10 5 1 2 20 13 33
Well release
Tripping out 1 1 1
Leak off test 1 1 1
Unknown 1 1 1
No. of well releases 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 6
No. of incidents listed with two activities 1 1 1
Total no. of incidents 27 36 19 6 3 7 49 49 98

Table 4.12 Operations and activities in progress when the “deep” drilling blowouts/well releases
occurred
Other/unknown
Operation  Drilling activity Casing running operations
Total
Unk. Unk.
Activity  Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl.
drlg
Dev. Expl.
drlg
Total
Tripping out 3 3 3
Out of hole 1 1 1
Circulating 1 1 2 2
Cementing casing 1 1 1
Wait on cement 3 3 3 3 6
Cement squeeze 1 1 1
Install BOP 1 1 1
Nipple down BOP 1 2 3 3
Actual well test 1 1 1
Pull wireline 2 1 2 1 3
Unknown 1 1 1
No. of blowouts listed with two activities 1 1 2 2
No. of blowouts (surface flow) 3 14 4 7 2 3 9 24 33
Logging 1 1 1
Unknown 1 3 1 4 1 5
No. of blowouts (underground flow) 4 6 3 1 4 9 1 14
Circulating 1 1 1
No. of diverted well releases 1 1 1
Well release
Actual drilling 4 4 4
Tripping out 1 1 1
Circulating 1 1 1 1 2 2 4
Pulling casing 1 1 1
Pull/drill out well plugs 1 1 1 1 2
Actual well test 1 1 1 1 2
Gravel pack 1 1 1
Maintenance surface equipment 1 1 1
Unknown 1 1 1
No. of well release listed with two activities 1 1 1
No. of well releases 5 3 2 5 1 7 8 1 16
Unknown
Unknown 1 1 1
No. of unknown incidents 1 1 1
Total no. of incidents 12 24 4 7 4 12 2 20 43 2 65

37 of 93
Table 4.13 Operations and activities in progress when the completion blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Running/- Well testing
Circu- Perfo- Coiled Other/-
installing well incl. Total
lating rating tubing unknown
Activity  equipment preparations
Tripping out 1 2 3
Circulating 1 1
Killing 1 1
Perforating 1 1
Gravel pack 2 2
Cleaning well 1 1
Other , bleed off pressure above SCSSV 1 1
Unknown 1 1
No. of blowouts (surface flow) 4 2 2 3 11
Circulating 1 1
No. of diverted well releases 1 1
Well release
Tripping out 1 1 2
Tripping in 1 1
Flow check 1 1
Pull tubing 1 1
Perforating 1 1
Gravel pack 1 1
Cleaning well 1 1
Maintenance well equipment 1 1 2
Total no. of activities 3 2 1 1 1 2 10
No. of well releases listed with two activities 1 1
No. of well releases 3 1 1 1 1 2 9
Total no. of incidents 7 1 3 4 1 5 21

Table 4.14 Operations and activities in progress when the workover blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Pulling Running Well Wire-

Installing Circ- Per- Aban- Temp
well well testing Snubb- Coiled line Un-
equip- ulat- for- don plu- Total
equip- equip- incl. ing tubing opera- known
Activity  ment ment
ment
prepare
ing ating well gged
tions
Tripping out 2 2
Tripping in 1 1
Out of hole 1 1
Circulating 1 1 2
Pulling casing 1 1
Cement squeeze 1 1
Set well plug 1 1
Pull tubing 2 1 3
Perforating 1 1
Gravel pack 1 1
Cleaning well 1 1 2
Coiled tubing operation 2 1 3
Snubbing in 1 2 1 4
Other 2 2
Unknown 1 1 2
Total no. of activities 6 1 2 1 2 1 3 5 6 27
No. of blowouts with two activities 1 1
No. of blowouts (surface flow) 6 1 2 1 2 1 3 4 6 26
Well release
Actual drilling 1 1
Circulating 1 1 2
Pulling casing 1 1 2
Install BOP 1 1
Pull/drill out well plugs 2 1 1 1 5
Nipple down x-mas tree 1 1
Snubbing out 2 2
Pull tubing 8 2 10
Acidizing 1 1
Cleaning well 1 1
Pull coiled tubing 2 2
Run coiled tubing 1 1
Coiled tubing operations 1 1
Changing equipment 1 1
Pressure test well equipment 1 1
Unknown 1 1
Run wireline 1 1
No. of well releases 12 3 2 2 5 6 1 2 1 34
Total no. of incidents 18 1 5 1 2 3 5 9 12 1 2 1 60
Table 4.15 Operations and activities in progress when the production blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Producing Producing Producing Closed in gas/- Unknown Total

Activity  oil condensate gas condensate well
BLOWOUT
Maintenance well equipment 1 1
Regular production 1 4 1 6
Failure diagnosing 2 2
No. of blowouts 1 4 3 1 9
BLOWOUT (UNDERGROUND FLOW)
Failure diagnosing 1 1
No. of blowouts (underground flow) 1 1
WELL RELEASE
Regular Production 2 2 4
Well closed in 1 1
No. of well releases 1 2 2 5
TOTAL NO. OF INCIDENTS 2 2 6 4 1 15

39 of 93
Table 4.16 Operations and activities in progress when the wireline blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Rigging up wireline Running wireline Running well

Unknown Total
Activity  equipment operations equipment
BLOWOUT (SURFACE FLOW)
Run wireline 2 2
Pull wireline 1 1
Logging 1 1
No. of blowouts 4 4
WELL RELEASE
Changing Equipment 1 1
Run wireline 3 1 4
Pull Wireline 2 2
Logging 1 1
Other 1 1
Unknown 1 2 3
No. of well releases 2 7 1 2 12
Total no. of incidents 2 11 1 2 16
Table 4.17 Operations and activities in progress when the abandoned well blowouts/well releases
occurred
Operation  Closed in gas Other Total

Activity  well Closed in gas well
BLOWOUT (SURFACE FLOW)
Well closed in 1 1 2
No. of blowouts 1 1 2
WELL RELEASE
Other 2 2
No. of well releases 2 2
Total no. of incidents 1 1 2 4
The abandoned well phase of operation was introduced in the 2014 version of the database. In
this category temporary abandoned, permanently abandoned and long-time plugged wells are
included. Incidents that occur when re-entering the wells for permanently abandonment after a
well has been temporary abandoned or long time plugged are regarded as workover blowouts,
not abandoned well blowouts.
Two of the incidents are regarded as well releases. For both these incidents the wells were
permanently plugged and abandoned. The casing plugs had developed leaks and the wells
started to leak limited amount of hydrocarbons to the sea floor. Both incidents have been given
the category "Well release". This category was motivated by the fact that the flow from the
wells were limited.
For one of the blowout (surface flow) incidents, an oil slick on the sea surface was observed.
It was found that the slick came from a subsea well that had been closed in for long time. The
well was regarded as unable to produce. The last blowout (surface flow) incident is the Elgin
blowout that occurred in 2012. Here the well had been closed in and the reservoir plugged for
a year when the incident occurred.
UNKNOWN phase
The blowout listed with “Unknown” as Phase was a Blowout (underground flow) with no
information related to operation and activity.

4.9 Exploration Wildcats vs. Exploration Appraisal Blowouts/well releases
The incidents occurring during drilling in exploration wells for the US GoM OC, UK waters
and Norwegian waters are also categorized in exploration wildcats and exploration appraisal
incidents. Table 4.18 shows the number of exploration wildcats and exploration appraisal
blowouts/well releases.
Table 4.18 Exploration wildcats and Exploration appraisal blowouts/well releases for the US GoM
OCS, UK, and Norwegian in the period Jan. 1980 - Dec. 2014
Deep or
MainCategory Appraisal Wildcat Unknown Total
Shallow
Deep 10 14 24
Blowout (surface flow) Shallow 12 19 1 32
Total 22 33 1 56
Deep 1 8 9
Total 1 8 9
Deep 1 1
Diverted well release Shallow 5 8 13
Total 5 9 14
Deep 3 3 2 8
Well release Shallow 2 1 1 4
Total 5 4 3 12
Deep 1 1
Unknown
Total 1 1
Total 34 54 2 92
4.10 Blowouts from Australia, Canada East Coast, The Netherlands, and
US/California OCS
Exposure data from Australia, Canada East Coast, The Netherlands, US/California OCS and
Brazil has been included in this report (Section 5.1.4, page 51 to Section 5.1.8, page 56). The
associated blowouts and well releases are, however, not included in the previous chapters of
the report. Table 4.19, Table 4.20, and Table 4.21 list key data for the observed blowouts in
these areas in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31.

41 of 93
Table 4.19 Key data for observed blowouts/well releases for the Canadian East Coast, and
Australian waters
Id_no 259 266 268 548 590 622

Country Canada East Coast Canada East Coast Australia Australia Australia Australia
Phase Expl.drlg Expl.drlg Production Expl.drlg Dev.Drlg Expl.drlg
Category Blowout (surface Blowout Blowout Blowout Blowout (surface Blowout
flow) (underground flow) (surface flow) (underground flow) (underground
flow) flow)
Sub Totally uncontrolled Underground flow Totally Underground Totally Underground flow
category flow, from a deep only uncontrolled flow only uncontrolled flow, only
zone flow, from a from a deep zone
deep zone
Date 22-Feb-84 20-Sep-84 17-Dec-84 07-Feb-1991 21-Aug-2009 01-Feb-2010
Flow Condensate, Gas Gas (deep) Oil, Gas (deep) Gas (deep) Oil, Gas (deep) Gas (deep)
medium (deep)
Ignition No No No No Yes No
type
Duration 10 270 10 Unknown 73 38
days
Loss of C14.Casing plug A8.Too low hyd. C4.Tubing to A15.Too low hyd. C14.casing plug A8.Too low hyd.
primary failure (HP zone head - unexpected annulus com- head - unknown failure Head -
barrier isolating bridge plug high well pressure munication - why unexpected high
broke at 5200 equipm./nipple well pressure
meters) failure
(assumed)
Loss of B1.Failed to close D2.Casing leakage D2.Casing D3.Formation Not relevant D3.Formation
secondary BOP (First annular, leakage breakdown breakdown
barrier obstruction in (assumed)
BOP,then S/R,- to
little power to cut,
then acoustic close
failed)
Operation D4.Well testing D1.Drilling activity P1.Producing Unknown A10.well D1.Drilling activity
(preparing to test oil suspended
shallow zone)
Activity B1.Circulating A7.Fishing P1.Regular Unknown D7.temporary A1.Actual drilling
production plugged
Data Very good Fair Very low Low Very good Fair
quality

Table 4.20 Key data for blowouts observed blowouts/well releases for the Dutch waters and US
California OCS
Id_no 405 618 449 475 482 539

Country Netherlands Netherlands US/California US/California US/California US/California OCS
OCS OCS OCS
Phase Production Workover Workover Workover Dev.drlg Workover
Category Blowout (surface flow)Well release Well release Well release Well release Blowout (surface
flow)
Sub Totally uncontrolled Limited surface Limited surface Limited surface Shallow gas Totally uncontrolled
category flow, from a deep flow before the flow before the flow before the controlled flow, from a deep
zone secondary barrier secondary secondary flow (diverted) zone
was activated barrier was barrier was
activated activated
Date 15-May-83 01-April 2010 7-Mar-98 19-Nov-00 24-Mar-01 18/11/2004
Flow Gas (deep) Gas (deep) Gas (deep), Oil, Water Mud Gas (deep)
medium Water
Ignition NO NO NO NO NO NO
type
Duration 10 10 minutes Unknown Unknown 0.0104 0.1042 (2.5 hrs)
days (assumed) (15 mins)
Loss of C3.Tubing to annulus C15. Snubbing A15.Too low C13.Tubing A10.Too low A10.Too low hyd.
primary communication - equipment failure hyd. head - plug failure hyd. head - head - annular
barrier tubing leakage unknown why annular losses. (Stop
losses pumping for 30
minutes for removal
of lock down pin)
Loss of D2.Casing leakage B1.Failed to close Not relevant Not relevant B10.Diverted B4.Wellhead failed
secondary BOP. Closed after - no problem (removed lock down
barrier string ejected from pin)
the well
Operation P2.Producing gas W8.snubbing W1.Pulling well W1.Pulling well D1.Drilling W3.Installing
equipment equipment activity equipment
Activity P1.Regular productionF9.snubbing in A2.Tripping out D6.Pull/drill out Unknown G4.Maintenance
well plugs surface equipment
Data quality Fair Low Fair Low Good Very good

43 of 93
Table 4.21 Key data for blowouts observed blowouts/well releases for the Brazilian waters
Id_no 186 262 293 483 583 619
Country Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
Expl.drlg
Phase Expl.drlg Unknown Workover Unknown Expl.drlg
appraisal
Blowout (surface Blowout (surface Blowout (surface Blowout Blowout
Category Well release
flow) flow) flow) (surface flow) (surface flow)
Totally Limited surface Totally
Totally uncontrolled Totally Totally
Sub uncontrolled flow before the uncontrolled
flow, from a deep uncontrolled flow, uncontrolled flow,
category flow, from a secondary barrier flow, from a
zone from a deep zone from a deep zone
deep zone was activated deep zone
Date 06.06.1980 16.08.1984 24.04.1988 12.04.2001 28.11.2007 07.11.2011
Flow
Gas (deep) Oil, Gas (deep) Oil, Gas (deep) Oil Gas (deep) Oil
medium
Ignition
Fire Fire Fire No Explosion No
type
Duration
Unknown Unknown 30 Unknown 0,0035 (5 mins) 7
days
A8.Too low hyd.
Loss of A11.Too low hyd. A14.Too low hyd. head -
C14.Casing plug A2.Too low hyd.
primary head - while Unknown head - trapped unexpected
failure head - swabbing
barrier cement setting gas high well
pressure
A3.Failed to stab
Loss of kelly valve,
B1.Failed to close B3.BOP/diverter D3.Formation
secondary B16.Not sufficient Unknown Other
BOP not in place breakdown
barrier frictional
backpressure
D2.Casing D1.Srilling
Operation D6.Abandon well W6.Circulating D4.Well testing D9.Circulating
running activity
C3.Wait on A1.Actual
Activity B1.Circulating A2.Tripping out Unknown B1.Circulating
cement drilling
Data
Fair Low Good Very low Low Very good
quality

5. “Normal” Drilling and Production Exposure Data
The exposure date in this section of the report includes yearly well drilling and no. of wells in
production for some specific areas. The offshore drilling wells are from Norway, UK, US GoM
OCS, East Coast of Canada and the Netherlands. The production data stems from Norway, UK,
and US GoM OCS.
The format of the exposure data varies for the different areas.
5.1 Drilling Exposure Data
5.1.1 US GoM OCS

The drilling exposure data for the US GoM OCS stems from a computerised list of all wells
drilled (/1/). A version from June 2016 was used for this report. The file includes information
on borehole activities such as drilling activity, counts on the number of boreholes completed,
and number of shut-in's. Additional information includes the lease number, well name, and
spud date, the well class, surface area/block number, well depths, and statistics on well status
summary. Per June 2016 the data-file includes information from approximately 53 800 wells
drilled all time in the US GoM OCS.
The number of wells drilled in the US GoM OCS area is presented in Table 5.1.

45 of 93
Table 5.1 Number of drilled wells in US GoM OCS area

Exploration wells
Development wells
Wildcat* Appraisal* Total
Spud All wells Side- All wells Side- All wells Side- All wells Side-
year inc. tracked inc. tracked inc. tracked Completed
wells** inc. tracked Completed
sidetracks wells*** sidetracks wells*** sidetracks wells*** sidetracks wells*** wells**
1980 139 25 262 53 401 78 104 913 224 529
1981 165 26 221 42 386 68 99 984 249 571
1982 204 41 221 46 425 87 112 928 207 560
1983 188 29 233 65 421 94 112 833 211 511
1984 379 85 257 61 636 146 161 840 241 511
1985 320 55 245 79 565 134 147 766 253 439
1986 170 36 118 25 288 61 77 489 162 286
1987 213 49 223 53 436 102 116 510 156 301
1988 345 79 242 66 587 145 154 496 156 302
1989 228 41 258 66 486 107 132 564 160 348
1990 280 45 245 65 525 110 141 631 261 377
1991 169 27 182 37 351 64 98 486 193 285
1992 114 23 114 42 228 65 57 377 158 223
1993 180 34 183 60 363 94 98 640 284 385
1994 232 41 217 52 449 93 120 669 344 379
1995 199 47 195 63 394 110 110 777 441 431
1996 263 60 203 68 466 128 127 793 425 463
1997 292 75 258 81 550 156 153 916 522 565
1998 266 82 229 101 495 183 149 650 392 446
1999 199 55 171 71 370 126 121 669 374 462
2000 222 53 219 53 441 106 146 940 605 659
2001 229 56 182 56 411 112 123 851 542 531
2002 174 43 135 35 309 78 112 634 358 337
2003 199 62 155 57 354 119 114 541 308 309
2004 200 55 163 66 363 121 132 553 301 322
2005 189 66 166 64 355 130 109 457 273 251
2006 241 79 172 81 413 160 153 359 196 212
2007 179 61 122 51 301 112 102 316 174 186
2008 127 44 141 76 268 120 91 299 189 168
2009 90 30 57 30 147 60 46 174 104 99
2010 47 19 33 18 80 37 24 174 125 111
2011 37 17 43 16 80 33 28 186 127 111
2012 62 26 61 21 123 47 27 236 157 132
2013 75 22 42 12 117 34 23 237 185 120
2014 61 24 46 15 107 39 18 223 151 145
Total 6677 1612 6014 1847 12691 3459 3636 20111 9208 12067
* To differ between Wildcats and Appraisal wells the following has been assumed; All exploration wells drilled in certain areas
are numbered from 1 and further, where well number 1 is the first well drilled. For US GoM OCS all exploration wells
numbered as 1 have been regarded as Wildcats, while all the other wells are regarded as Appraisal wells. This may be
inaccurate, but this will likely lead to an underestimation of no. of Wildcats compared to no. of Appraisal wells.
** In the 2000 version and earlier versions of this report the number of completed wells as listed in the source file was used
directly for this column. Closer investigation showed that when a production well is abandoned it would be re-categorized to
abandoned. This will lead to an underestimation of number of completed wells. To adjust the figure to a more correct
number 30 % of all exploration wells and 70% of all development wells are assumed to be completed each year for the
whole period 1980 – 1999. These figures stems from the average in the period 1992 – 1997.
*** No. of sidetracks are from 2011 version based on the API numbering instead of a well Status code as used in earlier
version. In the 2015 version, API well numbers that ended with 70 was regarded as an original hole. A review of the API
well numbering criteria showed that these wells are sidetracks. This has caused an approximately increase in the number
of side tracked wells all well types compared to earlier versions.
As seen from Table 5.1 many of the US GoM wells are side-tracked. The wells in the Gulf of
Mexico are primarily side-tracked for deflecting the direction of the borehole to encounter an
alternate target horizon or potential productive interval at a selected aerial location. Deviation
of a well bore to bypass junk in the hole is not classified as a side-track.
Quite a number of wells in the Gulf of Mexico are completed in producing intervals at subsea
depths between 1000 feet and 10 000 feet. In areas where the geology and formation pressures

have previously been established, such development wells are routinely drilled in from 1 to 10
days, due to the unconsolidated nature of the formations at depths above 10 000 feet.
It should further, be noted that the drilling period for many of the US GoM wells is of very
short duration. If looking at all the wells (1980 – 2012);
 Approximately 28 % of the development wells were drilled in less than 10 days.

 Approximately 20 % of the exploration wells were drilled in less than 10 days.
5.1.2 United Kingdom

The drilling exposure data for UK is based on the Department of Trade and industry web
page (https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/data-centre/data-downloads-and-publications/well-data/). The
number of wells drilled in the UK area is presented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Number of drilled wells in UK offshore sector
Exploration wells
Development wells
Wild cat Appraisal
Year
All wells inc. Sidetrack- All wells inc. Sidetrack- Total All wells inc. Sidetrack-
sidetracks ed wells sidetracks ed wells sidetracks ed wells
1980 32 1 22 0 54 142 16
1981 47 0 26 1 73 146 10
1982 68 5 48 5 116 133 11
1983 79 7 56 8 135 102 12
1984 107 5 84 7 191 123 13
1985 91 4 63 1 154 149 16
1986 75 4 43 5 118 99 12
1987 74 5 69 12 143 140 18
1988 93 7 79 18 172 175 6
1989 94 7 83 13 177 154 12
1990 157 12 67 11 224 124 17
1991 103 3 78 21 181 150 25
1992 77 13 55 15 132 170 29
1993 51 2 60 12 111 169 37
1994 61 2 39 14 100 208 54
1995 60 10 34 8 94 266 62
1996 71 4 42 10 113 283 84
1997 59 2 36 12 95 255 80
1998 46 4 32 16 78 289 102
1999 18 2 17 3 35 237 91
2000 27 4 34 12 61 225 84
2001 24 3 35 19 59 286 118
2002 16 2 29 11 45 260 129
2003 26 2 19 9 45 207 83
2004 30 4 34 12 64 167 69
2005 41 8 37 15 78 228 98
2006 29 1 41 17 70 202 83
2007 34 2 77 35 111 165 82
2008 44 3 61 26 105 170 99
2009 23 2 41 22 64 131 53
2010 28 1 34 13 62 130 58
2011 14 0 28 12 42 122 55
2012 22 1 31 9 53 122 47
2013 15 0 29 11 44 120 51
2014 14 1 18 4 32 126 50
Total 1850 133 1581 419 3431 6175 1866

47 of 93
5.1.3 Norway
The drilling exposure data for Norway is based on the NPD Borehole list as published on the
Internet (http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/ ).
NPD has from 2001 changed the well naming. This is also reflected in their borehole lists
published on the Internet.
The tables presenting number of drilled wells in earlier versions of this report have been based
on the number of wellbores. A wellbore is now categorized as;
 Initial well bore

 Re-entry
 Sidetrack
Earlier another category named technical sidetrack also was included. This category is not used
anymore. The practical effect is that the number of wells drilled has been reduced. The NPD
wellbore categorizing can be downloaded from the NPD homepage.
The number and type of development wells are presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.4 presents the
exploration wells drilled in the Norwegian area alongside the total number of development
wells and the type of well bore. Table 5.5 shows the number of Norwegian wells drilled within
each main NCS area.

Table 5.3 Norwegian development wells drilled
Production Injection
Obser-
Spud Gas/- Other/- Other/- All
Oil/- Water/- vation
year Oil Gas conden un- Total Water Gas un- Total wells
gas gas
sate known known
1980 20 6 26 2 2 28
1981 8 5 13 1 2 3 16
1982 12 6 18 3 2 5 23
1983 14 1 15 6 3 9 24
1984 16 10 26 7 1 8 34
1985 25 11 36 10 2 12 48
1986 37 4 41 7 2 9 50
1987 25 13 38 9 1 10 48
1988 38 4 42 12 1 13 55
1989 45 3 48 16 3 19 67
1990 35 4 39 19 2 21 60
1991 50 1 51 12 1 13 2 66
1992 55 7 62 15 1 16 8 86
1993 69 7 76 15 3 18 11 105
1994 71 6 1 78 25 4 29 13 120
1995 59 11 2 72 19 3 1 23 14 109
1996 84 20 3 107 9 5 4 18 20 145
1997 73 19 1 93 5 10 1 1 17 26 136
1998 87 10 97 14 8 1 23 19 139
1999 90 8 1 99 17 2 6 25 25 149
2000 112 16 2 3 133 14 10 2 26 29 188
2001 123 13 3 139 15 4 2 2 23 39 201
2002 106 9 2 117 15 6 2 2 25 26 168
2003 112 7 2 2 123 13 2 6 3 24 18 165
2004 96 4 1 7 1 109 10 4 14 16 139
2005 100 9 2 10 121 8 2 1 11 18 150
2006 93 8 3 2 106 9 5 3 2 19 25 150
2007 101 5 5 5 1 117 15 1 1 2 19 17 153
2008 81 7 4 5 3 100 15 4 6 2 27 11 138
2009 87 10 10 10 1 118 17 1 5 23 25 166
2010 62 12 8 9 91 8 5 2 2 17 18 126
2011 84 9 4 4 101 6 1 1 1 9 15 125
2012 68 14 1 4 2 89 10 3 2 3 18 23 130
2013 85 5 12 4 106 28 3 2 33 27 166
3014 99 11 6 5 2 123 7 6 2 1 16 23 162
Total 2322 294 59 63 32 2770 411 109 46 31 597 468 3835

49 of 93
Table 5.4 Number of drilled wells and type of well bore in Norwegian offshore sector
Drilled Exploration wells Development

year Appraisal Wildcat Total Initial Multi- Side- Total
Initial Re- Side- Total Initial Re- Side- Total explor- lateral track develop-
entry track entry track ation ment
1980 10 1 11 26 5 31 42 27 1 28
1981 15 1 16 24 3 27 43 16 16
1982 14 1 1 16 35 1 36 52 21 2 23
1983 11 2 13 29 29 42 21 3 24
1984 15 3 18 32 2 1 35 53 31 3 34
1985 20 1 21 30 2 32 53 47 1 48
1986 12 2 1 15 24 3 1 28 43 35 15 50
1987 11 3 1 15 24 3 27 42 36 12 48
1988 10 3 13 18 18 31 46 9 55
1989 7 2 2 11 21 3 24 35 47 20 67
1990 10 3 2 15 26 5 31 46 43 17 60
1991 11 6 3 20 34 3 37 57 52 14 66
1992 10 5 15 27 2 1 30 45 65 21 86
1993 7 4 11 20 3 1 24 35 75 30 105
1994 2 3 1 6 18 2 1 21 27 78 1 41 120
1995 10 1 4 15 22 3 25 40 73 36 109
1996 8 1 2 11 21 21 32 93 1 51 145
1997 8 1 4 13 34 3 5 42 55 82 54 136
1998 6 2 2 10 15 3 18 28 90 3 46 139
1999 6 1 1 8 12 1 3 16 24 95 54 149
2000 4 2 6 18 3 21 27 108 6 74 188
2001 5 2 4 11 25 2 1 28 39 92 18 91 201
2002 2 2 3 7 11 1 3 15 22 74 18 76 168
2003 7 1 2 10 12 2 2 16 26 59 32 74 165
2004 4 4 8 9 9 17 62 28 50 140
2005 4 1 5 9 9 14 56 33 61 150
2006 8 1 9 14 1 4 19 28 57 38 55 150
2007 9 4 13 19 19 32 52 38 63 153
2008 6 9 15 37 4 41 56 43 37 58 138
2009 8 14 22 40 1 3 44 66 50 35 81 166
2010 7 5 12 32 1 1 34 46 44 37 45 126
2011 6 7 13 32 7 39 52 31 47 47 125
2012 9 6 15 27 1 28 43 42 39 49 130
2013 12 3 15 40 3 43 59 62 41 63 166
2014 10 7 17 36 4 40 57 50 49 63 162
Total 304 45 102 451 853 56 48 957 1409 1955 501 1380 3836

Table 5.5 Norwegian drilled wells separated on main NCS area
Development wells Exploration wells

Total all
Spud year Barents North Norwegian Barents North Norwegian
Total Total wells
Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea Sea
1980 2 26 19 23 70 2 26
1981 3 13 19 24 59 3 13
1982 5 18 21 31 75 5 18
1983 9 15 16 26 66 9 15
1984 8 26 25 28 87 8 26
1985 12 36 26 27 101 12 36
1986 9 41 19 24 93 9 41
1987 11 37 17 25 90 11 37
1988 14 41 17 14 86 14 41
1989 24 43 14 21 102 24 43
1990 22 38 19 27 106 22 38
1991 15 2 49 20 37 123 15 2 49
1992 18 8 60 17 28 131 18 8 60
1993 19 11 75 11 24 140 19 11 75
1994 32 13 75 7 20 147 32 13 75
1995 25 13 71 15 25 149 25 13 71
1996 20 20 105 10 22 177 20 20 105
1997 16 25 95 16 39 191 16 25 95
1998 23 19 97 12 16 167 23 19 97
1999 26 24 99 12 12 173 26 24 99
2000 28 27 133 5 22 215 28 27 133
2001 23 37 141 12 27 240 23 37 141
2002 26 24 118 7 15 190 26 24 118
2003 27 17 121 10 16 191 27 17 121
2004 17 16 107 8 9 157 17 16 107
2005 11 18 121 4 10 164 11 18 121
2006 20 24 106 11 17 178 20 24 106
2007 19 17 117 11 21 185 19 17 117
2008 28 11 99 14 42 194 28 11 99
2009 21 26 119 20 46 232 21 26 119
2010 17 17 92 10 36 172 17 17 92
2011 9 15 101 17 35 177 9 15 101
2012 17 21 92 16 27 173 17 21 92
2013 34 27 105 16 43 225 34 27 105
2014 16 25 121 15 42 219 16 25 121
Total 626 457 2753 508 901 5245 626 457 2753
5.1.4 The Netherlands

The drilling exposure data for The Netherlands is based on information from the NL Oil and
Gas Portal (http://www.nlog.nl/en/annual-reports). The number of wells drilled in the Dutch
Continental Shelf is presented in Table 5.6.

51 of 93
Table 5.6 Number of drilled wells on the Dutch Continental Shelf
YEAR Exploration wells Development Total all

Exploration Appraisal Total wells wells
1980 26 5 31 7 38
1981 15 17 32 5 37
1982 35 10 45 20 65
1983 31 12 43 15 58
1984 26 7 33 24 57
1985 36 7 43 35 78
1986 25 5 30 15 45
1987 22 5 27 13 40
1988 21 5 26 21 47
1989 23 5 28 17 45
1990 29 6 35 14 49
1991 43 2 45 18 63
1992 19 1 20 15 35
1993 13 1 14 17 31
1994 10 2 12 10 22
1995 5 3 8 16 24
1996 24 5 29 6 35
1997 21 10 31 13 44
1998 17 3 20 13 33
1999 12 2 14 6 20
2000 6 6 12 9 21
2001 15 4 19 12 31
2002 16 3 19 13 32
2003 7 4 11 13 24
2004 11 2 13 6 19
2005 4 1 5 8 13
2006 9 3 12 16 28
2007 5 2 7 12 19
2008 8 3 11 13 24
2009 7 3 10 11 21
2010 7 2 9 12 21
2011 6 3 9 15 24
2012 7 2 9 11 20
2013 4 2 6 10 16
2014 9 4 13 11 24
Total 574 157 731 472 1203
5.1.5 Canadian East Coast

Table 5.7 shows the number of wells drilled on the Canadian East Coast. Before 1980
approximately 225 wells were drilled. (http://basin.gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php). There has in
addition been drilled approximately 160 well in the Northern areas all time. No detailed data
has, however, been made available from this area. Some drilling activity is also carried out on
the West Coast of Canada.

Table 5.7 Number of drilled wells on the Canadian East Coast
Exploration Development
Wild cat Delination
Year Original Total
Original Original Total Re-entry Total
Re-entry Re-entry drilling
drilling drilling
1980 8 4 5 1 18 18
1981 11 2 3 2 18 18
1982 15 5 1 1 22 22
1983 14 6 4 1 25 25
1984 21 4 5 30 1 1 31
1985 13 9 8 7 37 1 1 38
1986 9 3 4 1 17 17
1987 4 1 4 2 11 11
1988 6 2 2 4 14 14
1989 1 1 2 2
1990 1 1 1
1991 4 4 4 1 5 9
1992 4 3 7 7
1993 10 1 11 11
1994 2 4 6 6
1995 1 2 3 3
1996 1 1 2 1 3 4
1997 1 1 6 6 7
1998 1 1 2 21 7 28 30
1999 5 4 9 15 22 37 46
2000 6 1 5 12 15 23 38 50
2001 6 6 12 8 20 26
2002 7 1 8 25 8 33 41
2003 7 2 9 19 12 31 40
2004 2 2 22 11 33 35
2005 4 3 7 16 17 33 40
2006 4 8 1 13 12 13 25 38
2007 3 1 4 8 6 14 18
2008 1 2 3 8 5 13 16
2009 2 2 9 6 15 17
2010 6 1 2 9 9 4 13 22
2011 7 1 8 6 2 8 16
2012 2 2 8 8 10
2013 4 1 5 8 4 12 17
2014 3 3 10 10 13
Total 176 39 67 23 305 254 160 414 719

53 of 93
5.1.6 US Pacific OCS

Table 5.8 shows the number of wells drilled on the in the US Pacific OCS area. The data
stems from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/outer-continental-shelf-oil-and-natural-gas-wells-
pacific-ocs-region-nad-83#sec-dates. This is a new information source compared to the 2015
edition of this report, and the number of wells is approximately 5% higher than in the 2015
version.
Table 5.8 Number of drilled wells in the US Pacific OCS area
Year Expl. wells spudded Dev. wells spudded Total

1980 10 45 55
1981 16 51 67
1982 27 62 89
1983 38 46 84
1984 19 50 69
1985 6 43 49
1986 5 34 39
1987 4 40 44
1988 3 33 36
1989 4 16 20
1990 22 22
1991 8 8
1992 5 5
1993 24 24
1994 32 32
1995 19 19
1996 32 32
1997 31 31
1998 19 19
1999 11 11
2000 13 13
2001 18 18
2002 21 21
2003 18 18
2004 16 16
2005 25 25
2006 17 17
2007 12 12
2008 5 5
2009 6 6
2010 8 8
2011 5 5
2012 6 6
2013 3 3
2014 1 1
Total 132 797 929

5.1.7 Australia
Table 5.9 shows the number of wells drilled on the in Australian waters. The data from 1980
to 1999 stems from Geoscience Australia. This source is different from last year’s editions of
this report (http://dbforms.ga.gov.au/www/npm.well.search). Geoscience Australia is the
national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information. This change of data
source has caused an increase in number of wells drilled of approximately 20% .
Table 5.9 Number of drilled wells in Australian waters
Exploration
Development
Wildcat Appraisal Total all
Year
Original Side Original Side Total Original Side wells
Total Total Total
hole track hole track hole track
1980 15 8 23 2 2 25 5 5 30
1981 12 12 6 6 18 16 16 34
1982 38 5 43 8 1 9 52 11 11 63
1983 38 3 41 7 1 8 49 34 34 83
1984 27 6 33 15 3 18 51 41 5 46 97
1985 23 1 24 19 1 20 44 16 16 60
1986 19 1 20 8 8 28 19 19 47
1987 9 3 12 6 6 18 21 1 22 40
1988 26 6 32 9 3 12 44 15 15 59
1989 30 4 34 15 9 24 58 31 12 43 101
1990 43 7 50 18 5 23 73 22 7 29 102
1991 34 5 39 9 1 10 49 18 4 22 71
1992 27 2 29 15 4 19 48 14 1 15 63
1993 34 1 35 10 3 13 48 24 3 27 75
1994 27 7 34 20 1 21 55 31 7 38 93
1995 30 1 31 24 5 29 60 31 6 37 97
1996 28 6 34 22 3 25 59 38 6 44 103
1997 32 32 23 6 29 61 71 14 85 146
1998 52 6 58 17 1 18 76 40 10 50 126
1999 43 6 49 14 14 63 36 5 41 104
2000 49 6 55 13 2 15 70 23 8 31 101
2001 46 3 49 11 11 60 25 7 32 92
2002 29 3 32 23 2 25 57 31 16 47 104
2003 41 4 45 32 2 34 79 31 8 39 118
2004 29 29 29 3 32 61 39 10 49 110
2005 42 1 43 32 5 37 80 46 6 52 132
2006 29 3 32 28 6 34 66 54 5 59 125
2007 36 1 37 29 6 35 72 49 14 63 135
2008 43 2 45 42 5 47 92 65 46 111 203
2009 47 5 52 27 4 31 83 61 14 75 158
2010 42 5 47 12 3 15 62 41 15 56 118
2011 27 1 28 17 1 18 46 17 9 26 72
2012 19 4 23 12 1 13 36 45 8 53 89
2013 12 3 15 6 2 8 23 33 10 43 66
2014 22 5 27 3 1 4 31 32 8 40 71
Total 1100 124 1224 583 90 673 1897 1126 265 1391 3288

55 of 93
5.1.8 Denmark
Table 5.10 shows the number of wells drilled offshore Denmark. The data stems from The Danish
Energy Authority (http://www.ens.dk/en-us/oilandgas/reportoilgas/sider/forside.aspx).
Table 5.10 Number of drilled wells offshore Denmark
Appraisal Exploration Development

Exploration Total,
Spud & & & & & & appraisal
Apprai- Explor- Inject- Observ Produ- all
year explor- inject- prod- inject- prod- Total
sal ation total ion -ation ction wells
ation ion uction ion uctio
1980 1 1 6 6 7
1981 2 2 4 9 9 13
1982 1 4 5 1 17 18 23
1983 3 11 14 15 15 29
1984 2 1 5 8 16 16 24
1985 4 10 14 2 15 17 31
1986 3 4 7 3 3 10
1987 3 5 8 1 2 3 11
1988 2 2 1 12 13 15
1989 1 3 4 7 7 11
1990 2 2 1 14 15 17
1991 1 1 1 4 1 8 2 10 12 20
1992 4 1 6 11 5 13 18 29
1993 1 1 6 21 27 28
1994 1 1 1 3 7 9 16 19
1995 1 1 4 15 19 20
1996 2 2 1 5 2 10 12 17
1997 2 1 1 6 10 3 13 16 26
1998 3 3 6 6 11 17 23
1999 3 3 3 1 10 1 12 13 23
2000 2 8 7 17 3 8 11 28
2001 3 8 6 17 8 18 26 43
2002 5 3 1 9 9 16 25 34
2003 2 1 3 5 11 5 18 23 34
2004 4 4 2 10 7 10 17 27
2005 3 1 4 3 8 11 15
2006 2 2 4 3 15 18 22
2007 1 1 2 4 2 13 15 19
2008 3 2 2 7 11 11 18
2009 1 1 2 5 9 14 16
2010 2 2 7 7 9
2011 3 3 1 4 5 8
2012 2 2 1 2 3 5
2013 1 1 1 3 0 3
2014 7 7 7 7 14
Total 57 3 2 44 118 1 1 226 86 3 376 465 691
5.1.9 Brazil
Table 5.11 shows the number of wells drilled on the offshore Brazil. The data stems from ANP in
Brazil. Data from 2014 is not yet public.

Table 5.11 Number of drilled wells offshore Brazil http://www.bdep.gov.br/?id=261
Spud year Development Exploration Total

1980 31 113 144
1981 42 107 149
1982 76 142 218
1983 82 129 211
1984 58 103 161
1985 112 99 211
1986 134 76 210
1987 81 62 143
1988 32 41 73
1989 11 34 45
1990 22 29 51
1991 24 31 55
1992 49 42 91
1993 37 46 83
1994 15 44 59
1995 17 37 54
1996 41 47 88
1997 49 29 78
1998 62 38 100
1999 58 30 88
2000 113 40 153
2001 114 94 208
2002 112 70 182
2003 102 75 177
2004 88 60 148
2005 88 44 132
2006 81 39 120
2007 89 52 141
2008 83 62 145
2009 120 77 197
2010 134 103 237
2011 125 128 253
2012 118 84 202
2013 105 30 135
Total 2505 2237 4742
5.1.10 Compiled Drilling Exposure Data

Table 5.12 below is based on Table 5.1 to Table 5.4, and shows compiled offshore drilled wells
in Norway, UK and US GoM OCS.

57 of 93
Table 5.13 is based on Table 5.6 to Table 5.10 and shows compiled offshore drilled wells in
the Netherlands, Canada East Coast, Australia, US Pacific OCS, and Denmark.
Table 5.12 An overview of offshore drilled wells in Norway, UK, and US GoM OCS
US GoM OCS UK Norway Total

Year
Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev.
1980 401 913 54 142 42 28 497 1083
1981 386 984 73 146 43 16 502 1146
1982 425 928 116 133 52 23 593 1084
1983 421 833 135 102 42 24 598 959
1984 636 840 191 123 53 34 880 997
1985 565 766 154 149 53 48 772 963
1986 288 489 118 99 43 50 449 638
1987 436 510 143 140 42 48 621 698
1988 587 496 172 175 31 55 790 726
1989 486 564 177 154 35 67 698 785
1990 525 631 224 124 46 60 795 815
1991 351 486 181 150 57 66 589 702
1992 228 377 132 170 45 86 405 633
1993 363 640 111 169 35 105 509 914
1994 449 669 100 208 27 120 576 997
1995 394 777 94 266 40 109 528 1152
1996 466 793 113 283 32 145 611 1221
1997 550 916 95 255 55 136 700 1307
1998 495 650 78 289 28 139 601 1078
1999 370 669 35 237 24 149 429 1055
2000 441 940 61 225 27 188 529 1353
2001 411 851 59 286 39 201 509 1338
2002 309 634 45 260 22 168 376 1062
2003 354 541 45 207 26 165 425 913
2004 363 553 64 167 17 140 444 860
2005 355 457 78 228 14 150 447 835
2006 413 359 70 202 28 150 511 711
2007 301 316 111 165 32 153 444 634
2008 268 299 105 170 56 138 429 607
2009 147 174 64 131 66 166 277 471
2010 80 174 62 130 46 126 188 430
2011 80 186 42 122 52 125 174 433
2012 123 236 53 122 43 130 219 488
2013 117 237 44 120 59 166 220 523
2014 107 223 32 126 57 162 196 511
Total 12 691 20 111 3 431 6 175 1 409 3 836 17 531 30 122

Table 5.13 An overview of offshore drilled wells in Canada East Coast, the Netherlands, Australia,
US Pacific OCS, and Denmark
Dutch Canada E. Coast Australia US Pacific OCS Denmark Total

Year
Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev. Expl. Dev.
1980 31 7 18 25 5 10 45 1 6 85 63
1981 32 5 18 18 16 16 51 4 9 88 81
1982 45 20 22 52 11 27 62 5 18 151 111
1983 43 15 25 49 34 38 46 14 15 169 110
1984 33 24 30 1 51 46 19 50 8 16 141 137
1985 43 35 37 1 44 16 6 43 14 17 144 112
1986 30 15 17 28 19 5 34 7 3 87 71
1987 27 13 11 18 22 4 40 8 3 68 78
1988 26 21 14 44 15 3 33 2 13 89 82
1989 28 17 2 58 43 4 16 4 7 96 83
1990 35 14 1 73 29 22 2 15 111 80
1991 45 18 4 5 49 22 8 8 12 106 65
1992 20 15 7 48 15 5 11 18 79 60
1993 14 17 11 48 27 24 1 27 63 106
1994 12 10 6 55 38 32 3 16 70 102
1995 8 16 3 60 37 19 1 19 69 94
1996 29 6 1 3 59 44 32 5 12 94 97
1997 31 13 1 6 61 85 31 10 16 103 151
1998 20 13 2 28 76 50 19 6 17 104 127
1999 14 6 9 37 63 41 11 10 13 96 108
2000 12 9 12 38 70 31 13 17 11 111 102
2001 19 12 6 20 60 32 18 17 26 102 108
2002 19 13 8 33 57 47 21 9 25 93 139
2003 11 13 9 31 79 39 18 11 23 110 124
2004 13 6 2 33 61 49 16 10 17 86 121
2005 5 8 7 33 80 52 25 4 11 96 129
2006 12 16 13 25 66 59 17 4 18 95 135
2007 7 12 4 14 72 63 12 4 15 87 116
2008 11 13 3 13 92 111 5 7 11 113 153
2009 10 11 2 15 83 75 6 2 14 97 121
2010 9 12 9 13 62 56 8 2 7 82 96
2011 9 15 8 8 46 26 5 3 5 66 59
2012 9 11 2 8 36 53 6 2 3 49 81
2013 6 10 5 12 23 43 3 3 0 37 68
2014 13 11 3 10 31 40 1 7 7 54 69
Total 731 472 305 414 1897 1391 132 797 226 465 3291 3539
5.2 Production Exposure Data
5.2.1 US GoM OCS

The production exposure data for US GoM OCS is shown in Table 5.14. The data is based on
BSEE Ogor A files from 1986 – 2015 (/1/). These files list the well individual activity for each
month. It was selected to use the data from December each year. All the production wells listed
with production in December are counted as active wells.

59 of 93
Table 5.14 Producers in the US GoM OCS area.
Year Oil production Gas Total Water Gas

Flowing Gas lift Total production production injection injection
(active or (active or
inactive) inactive)
1980 NA NA 3 165 3 023 6 188 107
1981 NA NA 3 260 3 106 6 366 121
1982 NA NA 3 412 3 223 6 635 143
1983 NA NA 3 539 3 243 6 782 187
1984 NA NA 3 688 3 355 7 043 219
1985 2 695 1 101 3 796 3 229 7 025 327 100
1986 2 523 1 206 3 729 3 239 6 968 327 88
1987 2 461 1 284 3 745 3 311 7 056 320 105
1988 2 382 1 361 3 743 3 364 7 107 327 100
1989 2 230 1 270 3 500 3 429 6 929 311 91
1990 2 283 1 246 3 529 3 682 7 211 320 89
1991 2 206 1 339 3 545 3 580 7 125 323 80
1992 2 195 1 311 3 506 3 346 6 852 325 80
1993 2 216 1 326 3 542 3 458 7 000 315 72
1994 2 228 1 286 3 514 3 483 6 997 307 72
1995 2 189 1 258 3 447 3 430 6 877 305 70
1996 2 016 1 424 3 440 3 444 6 884 294 61
1997 2 002 1 434 3 436 3 467 6 903 270 52
1998 1 936 1 364 3 300 3 315 6 615 261 51
1999 1 712 1 538 3 250 3 282 6 532 248 50
2000 1 723 1 590 3 313 3 308 6 621 246 45
2001 1 523 1 716 3 239 3 217 6 456 225 34
2002 1 327 1 782 3 109 2 993 6 102 207 27
2003 1 160 1 926 3 086 3 043 6 129 205 30
2004 1 060 1 539 2 599 2 804 5 403 199 35
2005 719 786 1 505 1 977 3 482 195 15
2006 990 1 333 2 323 2 457 4 780 195 21
2007 1 084 1 607 2 691 2 597 5 288 186 16
2008 744 1 116 1 860 1 560 3 420 185 13
2009 993 1 436 2 429 2 005 4 434 163 10
2010 958 1 504 2 462 1 875 4 337 148 6
2011 1 102 1 458 2 560 1 614 4 174 118 3
2012 1 106 1 365 2 471 1 398 3 869 108
2013 1 042 1 424 2 466 1 154 3 620 97
2014 1 038 1 441 2 479 1 042 3 521 22
Total 49 843 41 771 108 678 100 053 208 731 7856 1416
5.2.2 United Kingdom

The production/injection exposure data for UK is shown in Table 5.15. The figures are valid for
the number of wells that have been in service for the listed year. The data from before 1991 is
based on well data systematically collected in the SINTEF study "Reliability of Well
Completion Equipment" SINTEF report STF 75 F92019, "Development of the Oil and Gas
resources of the United Kingdom" 1980, 1992 and 1993 edition, North Sea Field Development
Guide, 4th edition, OPL and coarse assumptions where well data are missing. The data is
therefore not exactly correct. The data from 1991 to 1999 is based on statistics from Health &
Safety Executive (HSE). HSE has now stopped reporting this information on an individual well
basis. They now report the production data for each field.

UKOilandGasData (https://www.ukoilandgasdata.com) reports individual well information,

but the quality of information is variable. This was formerly done by Deal Data Registry for
UK Offshore Oil & Gas.
During the work with the 2016 release of the blowout database the September 2016 version of
the data was evaluated. The data was evaluated with the objective to update the production
exposure data for the UK. The quality was however still low and the data cannot be used for
our purpose. This was the same observation as a 2013 and 2011 review. The main problems in
the 2011 review were that for 20% of the wells the detailed data is not released, further that
many wells seems to be active producers, but the platform has been decommissioned, i.e. they
should have been categorised as plugged and abandoned. It is believed that many of the wells
the database indicates as active are plugged and abandoned.
The last year these data was collected by the Department was in 1999. All they could suggest
was that the oil companies that operate the field or well could be approached and requested for
data. This will be a too time-consuming task.
The exposure data for 2000 - 2014 has therefore been estimated based on the production rates
per year and the number of active wells in 1999. It is assumed that the coarse formula estimates
a too low number of wells in production, because it is likely that the average production from
each well declines every year.

61 of 93
Table 5.15 Producers and injectors in the UK waters
Year Production wells Injection wells Total wells

Oil Gas/con Total Gas Water Total
1980 291 249 540 10 92 102 642
1981 318 252 570 11 104 115 685
1982 349 256 605 13 116 129 734
1983 399 258 657 17 140 157 814
1984 448 266 714 22 170 192 906
1985 456 298 754 21 194 215 969
1986 525 322 847 27 206 233 1 080
1987 558 355 913 29 218 247 1 160
1988 550 390 940 35 217 252 1 192
1989 575 419 994 35 227 262 1 256
1990 599 474 1 073 37 249 286 1 359
1991 844 344 1 188 68 350 418 1 606
1992 918 502 1 420 68 363 431 1 851
1993 968 549 1 517 66 369 435 1 952
1994 1 041 598 1 639 62 399 461 2 100
1995 1 131 703 1 834 60 413 473 2 307
1996 1 215 695 1 910 69 428 497 2 407
1997 1 252 725 1 977 68 434 502 2 479
1998 1 160 713 1 873 58 369 427 2 300
1999 1 118 678 1 796 37 345 382 2 178
2000* 1 027 742 1 769 37 345 382 2 151
2001* 953 723 1 676 37 345 382 2 058
2002* 943 706 1 649 37 345 382 2 031
2003* 867 699 1 566 37 345 382 1 948
2004* 777 656 1 432 37 345 382 1 814
2005* 685 604 1 289 37 345 382 1 671
2006* 622 548 1 170 37 345 382 1 552
2007* 624 497 1 122 37 345 382 1 504
2008* 583 484 1 068 37 345 382 1 450
2009* 556 407 964 37 345 382 1 346
2010* 519 386 905 37 345 382 1 287
2011* 433 310 743 37 345 382 1 125
2012* 373 268 640 37 345 382 1 022
2013* 336 247 583 37 345 382 965
2014* 326 249 575 37 345 382 957
Total 24 340 16 573 40 913 1 368 10 578 11 946 52 859
* Data are no longer available from HSE. The number of wells in production has been assumed to be relative to
the UK annual oil and gas production. Injection wells remain unchanged.
5.2.3 Norway
Table 5.16 shows the production/injection exposure data for the Norwegian waters. The figures
are valid for the number of wells in service per December 31 the listed year. The data is from
the NPD Annual reports 1980 – 1999, and for the year 1999 and later the data stems from the
NPD Borehole list as published on the Internet (http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/).

Table 5.16 Production/injection exposure data for the Norwegian waters
Year Producers Injection/- Suspended/- Total

Oil Cond Gas Other/- Total observation closed
unknown in/plugged
1980 84 29 47 160 8 23 191
1981 89 34 48 171 11 26 208
1982 114 35 47 196 13 24 233
1983 113 32 53 198 17 37 252
1984 128 31 61 220 23 42 285
1985 145 29 61 235 32 60 327
1986 160 38 64 262 41 71 374
1987 176 41 60 277 41 102 420
1988 201 43 65 309 59 110 478
1989 235 38 48 321 74 151 546
1990 258 33 31 322 88 191 601
1991 285 31 33 349 109 207 665
1992 324 29 30 383 116 247 746
1993 371 31 32 434 136 280 850
1994 385 32 34 451 163 357 971
1995 434 35 24 493 180 409 1 082
1996 494 33 53 580 189 459 1 228
1997 519 31 62 612 194 544 1 350
1998 535 25 64 624 211 649 1 484
1999 746 25 83 854 259 549 1 662
2000 787 25 85 897 259 701 1 857
2001 813 21 95 929 266 833 2 028
2002 820 32 101 953 257 1 030 2 240
2003 849 30 97 976 261 1 111 2 348
2004 848 32 97 7 984 264 1 244 2 492
2005 831 3 120 7 961 269 1 411 2 641
2006 863 9 124 11 1 006 278 1 576 2 860
2007 886 12 129 10 1 038 282 1 644 2 964
2008 910 15 135 10 1 070 285 1 712 3 067
2009 1 078 22 143 8 1 251 317 1 639 3 207
2010 1 123 27 143 8 1 301 317 1 741 3 359
2011 1 099 34 144 13 1 290 346 1 678 3 314
2012 1 201 39 157 16 1 413 367 1 674 3 455
2013 1 302 44 171 19 1 536 389 1 671 3 595
2014 1 404 49 184 22 1 659 410 1667 3 736
Total 20610 1049 2925 131 24715 6531 25870 57116
Note! NPD stopped listing the number of wells in production in the annual reports in 1999. The number of active
development wells was thereafter estimated based on the reported well status in the PSA borehole list. In
2012 PSA stopped reporting well status as well. In 2014 PSA restarted reporting well status in a bit
different format than the previous years. The 2012 and 2013 development well activity is based on the
2011 reported status and 2014 reported status.
5.2.4 US Pacific OCS

The production exposure data for US Pacific OCS is shown in Table 5.17. The data is based
on BSEE Ogor A files (/1/). These files list the well individual activity for each month. It was
selected to use the data from December each year. All the production wells listed with
production in December are counted as active wells.

63 of 93
Table 5.17 Producers in the US Pacific OCS area.
Year Oil production Gas Total Water injection Gas injection

Flowing Gas lift Total production production (active or (active or
inactive) inactive)
1986 262 79 341 20 361 79 6
1987 280 81 361 20 381 84 6
1988 284 83 367 16 383 88 4
1989 293 79 372 13 385 83 4
1990 305 72 377 19 396 83 4
1991 321 65 386 20 406 84 5
1992 340 49 389 19 408 84 4
1993 337 54 391 20 411 88 4
1994 322 79 401 17 418 93 4
1995 300 104 404 17 421 94 6
1996 287 118 405 13 418 84 7
1997 289 107 396 17 413 87 9
1998 285 100 385 19 404 93 13
1999 264 100 364 18 382 93 14
2000 264 103 367 16 383 83 15
2001 255 105 360 17 377 74 11
2002 257 120 377 16 393 97 11
2003 256 122 378 15 393 98 12
2004 251 121 372 15 387 100 14
2005 239 127 366 16 382 104 13
2006 251 121 372 15 387 109 12
2007 241 141 382 8 390 109 14
2008 252 130 382 9 391 117 16
2009 256 125 381 10 391 127 15
2010 253 127 380 7 387 129 14
2011 266 120 386 6 392 130 13
2012 268 131 399 7 406 132 12
2013 254 134 388 1 389 133 12
2014 264 139 403 6 409 130 12
Total 7 996 3 036 11 032 412 11 444 2 889 286
5.2.5 Compiled Production Exposure Data

Table 5.18 is based on Table 5.14, Table 5.15 and Table 5.16, and shows overall production data
for the Norway, UK and US GoM OCS. The figures are valid for number of wells in service
per December the listed year. Note that it has been selected not to include data from the US
Pacific OCS.

Table 5.18 Overall production data for the US GoM OCS, UK, and Norway based on Table 5.14,
Table 5.15 and Table 5.16.
Year US GoM OCS United Kingdom Norway Total

Production wells Inje- Production wells Inject- Production wells Inje- Production wells Inject-
Oil Gas/- Total ction Oil Gas/- Total ion Oil Gas/- Total ction Oil Gas/- Total ion
cond wells cond wells cond wells cond wells
1980 3 165 3 023 6 188 107 291 249 540 102 84 76 160 8 3 540 3 348 6 888 217
1981 3 260 3 106 6 366 121 318 252 570 115 89 82 171 11 3 667 3 440 7 107 247
1982 3 412 3 223 6 635 143 349 256 605 129 114 82 196 13 3 875 3 561 7 436 285
1983 3 539 3 243 6 782 187 399 258 657 157 113 85 198 17 4 051 3 586 7 637 361
1984 3 688 3 355 7 043 219 448 266 714 192 128 92 220 23 4 264 3 713 7 977 434
1985 3 796 3 229 7 025 427 456 298 754 215 145 90 235 32 4 397 3 617 8 014 674
1986 3 729 3 239 6 968 415 525 322 847 233 160 102 262 41 4 414 3 663 8 077 689
1987 3 745 3 311 7 056 425 558 355 913 247 176 101 277 41 4 479 3 767 8 246 713
1988 3 743 3 364 7 107 427 550 390 940 252 201 108 309 59 4 494 3 862 8 356 738
1989 3 500 3 429 6 929 402 575 419 994 262 235 86 321 74 4 310 3 934 8 244 738
1990 3 529 3 682 7 211 409 599 474 1 073 286 258 64 322 88 4 386 4 220 8 606 783
1991 3 545 3 580 7 125 403 844 344 1 188 418 285 64 349 109 4 674 3 988 8 662 930
1992 3 506 3 346 6 852 405 918 502 1 420 431 324 59 383 116 4 748 3 907 8 655 952
1993 3 542 3 458 7 000 387 968 549 1 517 435 371 63 434 136 4 881 4 070 8 951 958
1994 3 514 3 483 6 997 379 1 041 598 1 639 461 385 66 451 163 4 940 4 147 9 087 1 003
1995 3 447 3 430 6 877 375 1 131 703 1 834 473 434 59 493 180 5 012 4 192 9 204 1 028
1996 3 440 3 444 6 884 355 1 215 695 1 910 497 494 86 580 189 5 149 4 225 9 374 1 041
1997 3 436 3 467 6 903 322 1 252 725 1 977 502 519 93 612 194 5 207 4 285 9 492 1 018
1998 3 300 3 315 6 615 312 1 160 713 1 873 427 535 89 624 211 4 995 4 117 9 112 950
1999 3 250 3 282 6 532 298 1 118 678 1 796 382 746 108 854 259 5 114 4 068 9 182 939
2000 3 313 3 308 6 621 291 1 027 742 1 769 382 787 110 897 259 5 127 4 160 9 287 932
2001 3 239 3 217 6 456 259 953 723 1 676 382 813 116 929 266 5 005 4 056 9 061 907
2002 3 109 2 993 6 102 234 943 706 1 649 382 820 133 953 257 4 872 3 832 8 704 873
2003 3 086 3 043 6 129 235 867 699 1 566 382 849 127 976 261 4 802 3 869 8 671 878
2004 2 599 2 804 5 403 234 777 656 1 432 382 848 129 977 264 4 224 3 589 7 812 880
2005 1 505 1 977 3 482 210 685 604 1 289 382 831 123 954 269 3 021 2 704 5 725 861
2006 2 323 2 457 4 780 216 622 548 1 170 382 863 133 996 278 3 808 3 138 6 946 876
2007 2 691 2 597 5 288 202 624 497 1 122 382 886 141 1027 282 4 201 3 235 7 437 866
2008 1 860 1 560 3 420 198 583 484 1 068 382 910 150 1060 285 3 353 2 194 5 548 865
2009 2 429 2 005 4 434 173 556 407 964 382 1 078 165 1243 317 4 063 2 577 6 641 872
2010 2 462 1 875 4 337 154 519 386 905 382 1 123 170 1293 317 4 104 2 431 6 535 853
2011 2 560 1 614 4 174 121 433 310 743 382 1 099 178 1277 346 4 092 2 102 6 194 849
2012 2 471 1 398 3 869 108 373 268 640 382 1 201 196 1397 367 4 045 1 862 5 906 857
2013 2 466 1 154 3 620 97 336 247 583 382 1 302 215 1517 389 4 104 1 616 5 720 868
2014 2 479 1 042 3 521 22 326 249 575 382 1 404 233 1 637 410 4 209 1 524 5 733 814
Total 108 678 100 053 208 731 9272 24 340 16 573 40 912 11 946 20610 3974 24584 6531 153 628 120 600 274 227 27 749

65 of 93

6. Various Exposure Data
This section includes various exposure data. Limitations related to the exposure data are
explained where the data is presented. The exposure data presented in this section covers the
following:
1. Well Depth Related Exposure Data

 US GoM OCS Wells
 Norwegian Wells
2. Water depth related drilling exposure data
 US GoM OCS Wells
 UK Wells
 Norwegian Wells
3. Shut-in Wellhead Pressure Related exposure data
 US GoM OCS Drilling Wells
 Norwegian Drilling Wells
 US Wells in Production
4. Gas Oil Ratio Related Exposure Data
5. Workover Frequency Exposure Data
6. Wireline Frequency Exposure Data
7. Coiled Tubing and Snubbing Exposure Data
Data from the BSEE/BOEM and NPD has formed the main input to this section.
6.1 Well Depth Related Exposure Data
6.1.1 US GoM OCS Wells

The information in this sub-section stems from the BOEM Borehole file (/1/). The drilling
vertical depths for the exploration and development wells in the US GoM OCS are presented
in Figure 6.1. Approximately 0.8 % of the exploration wells and 1.3% of the development wells
were not listed with a True Vertical Depth (TVD). These wells are not included in Figure 6.1.
The deepest exploration well has been drilled to a depth of 10980m TVD, while the deepest
development well has been drilled to 9881m TVD.

67 of 93
Total well depth, US GoM OCS (1980 - 2015)

11000
10000
9000
TVD (m) development wells
8000
TVD (m) exploration wells
7000
Meters (TVD)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage Distribution
Figure 6.1 All exploration and development wells drilled in 1980 – 2015 (including side tracks)
listed with true vertical depth, US GoM OCS wells
6.1.2 Norwegian Wells

The information in this sub-section stems from the NPD well files as published on the NPD
web pages. The drilling vertical depths for the exploration and development wells in the
Norwegian waters are presented in Figure 6.2. Approximately 9 % of the exploration wells and
16% of the development wells were not listed with a True Vertical Depth (TVD). These wells
are not included in Figure 6.2. The deepest exploration well has been drilled to a depth of
5735m TVD, while the deepest development well has been drilled to 5874m TVD.
Total well depth, Norwegian wells (1980 - 2015)
6000,0
5000,0
TVD (m) development wells
TVD (m) exploration wells

4000,0
Meters (TVD)
3000,0
2000,0
1000,0
0,0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage Distribution
Figure 6.2 All exploration and development wells drilled in 1980 – 2015 listed with true vertical
depth, Norwegian wells

6.2 Water Depth Related Drilling Exposure Data
The past years some deepwater blowouts have occurred. This section presents the water depth
related drilling exposure data. Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 present the water depth specific no. of
exploration and development wells drilled in the US GoM OCS.
Table 6.1 Exploration wells drilled in the US GoM OCS vs. water depth (/1/)
Spud Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m)

year <50 50-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000- 2500 2500- 3000 >3000 Total
1980 238 127 19 15 1 1 401
1981 226 113 29 9 9 386
1982 294 91 24 9 7 425
1983 281 85 29 17 8 1 421
1984 372 136 42 36 32 16 2 636
1985 284 120 64 48 27 22 565
1986 135 56 38 20 18 21 288
1987 230 96 52 19 12 17 6 2 2 436
1988 316 106 66 34 25 32 5 1 2 587
1989 258 106 48 20 22 26 5 1 486
1990 289 113 51 15 13 32 9 2 1 525
1991 185 91 25 19 5 19 6 1 351
1992 103 91 14 11 4 3 2 228
1993 195 99 38 12 11 6 2 363
1994 255 109 25 15 7 27 9 2 449
1995 194 99 33 22 14 22 8 2 394
1996 228 113 27 22 10 30 29 5 2 466
1997 244 127 43 27 20 27 53 5 4 550
1998 227 122 23 16 30 32 39 2 4 495
1999 147 97 19 7 14 27 26 26 7 370
2000 215 91 18 9 12 34 34 9 17 2 441
2001 167 56 26 18 7 39 55 24 16 3 411
2002 149 48 8 7 12 23 25 17 17 3 309
2003 176 62 17 9 8 19 29 21 6 6 1 354
2004 174 45 18 19 8 22 27 21 17 12 363
2005 179 47 15 9 7 27 38 17 10 6 355
2006 216 48 15 11 11 30 40 22 19 1 413
2007 123 56 6 3 8 41 28 21 14 1 301
2008 120 26 12 5 2 23 37 22 16 3 2 268
2009 52 7 3 2 1 18 25 20 19 147
2010 33 7 2 1 9 12 6 9 1 80
2011 18 5 4 13 16 8 15 1 80
2012 19 12 1 3 28 13 29 16 2 123
2013 28 9 1 2 9 17 29 17 5 117
2014 19 8 1 1 2 2 27 31 9 7 107
Total 6389 2624 856 489 370 697 623 347 240 53 3 12691

69 of 93
Table 6.2 Development wells drilled in the US GoM OCS vs. water depth (/1/)
Spud Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m) Total
year <50 50-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000- 2500 >2500
1980 423 375 74 41 913
1981 552 316 82 34 984
1982 511 331 66 20 928
1983 492 259 61 21 833
1984 485 270 62 23 840
1985 359 301 63 41 2 766
1986 198 192 64 34 1 489
1987 285 131 47 43 4 510
1988 235 155 58 32 14 2 496
1989 266 166 65 46 19 2 564
1990 285 186 108 24 27 1 631
1991 214 153 94 14 7 4 486
1992 192 103 31 41 1 9 377
1993 337 216 45 36 5 1 640
1994 342 234 50 34 5 4 669
1995 372 280 68 30 19 6 1 1 777
1996 389 255 82 36 7 22 2 793
1997 446 316 69 25 27 24 6 1 2 916
1998 327 184 62 36 10 12 17 1 1 650
1999 307 219 45 29 11 27 25 5 1 669
2000 446 302 48 42 8 24 60 9 1 940
2001 417 225 69 35 17 23 36 23 6 851
2002 303 146 22 34 9 24 76 11 9 634
2003 308 90 33 20 8 18 49 12 1 2 541
2004 329 105 33 15 8 15 13 16 19 553
2005 244 135 21 12 14 19 10 1 1 457
2006 202 73 17 9 8 6 36 6 2 359
2007 153 71 28 3 6 13 10 7 25 316
2008 154 73 41 3 10 15 3 299
2009 67 33 19 3 12 22 6 11 1 174
2010 88 52 8 5 1 7 6 3 2 2 174
2011 92 62 6 5 3 2 13 2 1 186
2012 113 67 4 3 14 21 9 4 1 236
2013 103 75 8 7 11 18 6 7 2 237
2014 92 70 5 5 8 14 19 7 2 1 223
Total 10128 6221 1658 825 264 325 455 128 94 13 20111
Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 present the water depth specific no. of exploration and development
wells drilled in UK waters.

Table 6.3 Exploration wells drilled in UK waters vs. water depth (downloaded from https://decc-
edu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=adbe5a796f5c41c68fc762ea1
37a682e%20 October 3, 2016)
Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m)*

Spud year Total
< 50 50-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600–1000 1000–1500 1500–2000 Unknown
1980 2 12 42 2 2 2 62
1981 7 21 44 1 1 74
1982 22 41 59 2 1 125
1983 35 41 70 2 148
1984 51 66 83 2 6 2 210
1985 48 36 71 4 7 1 167
1986 32 33 58 1 2 126
1987 52 32 66 2 152
1988 61 41 80 2 184
1989 69 40 84 1 194
1990 75 44 115 2 1 1 1 239
1991 58 52 91 1 1 203
1992 40 46 60 2 148
1993 36 29 49 114
1994 34 30 33 3 2 3 105
1995 24 28 31 3 3 2 9 100
1996 34 31 48 3 1 1 1 119
1997 32 19 46 5 1 103
1998 21 27 32 2 2 84
1999 8 12 14 1 1 36
2000 17 11 34 2 2 1 1 68
2001 12 19 31 1 1 1 65
2002 15 12 21 2 1 51
2003 13 16 15 2 46
2004 14 16 39 1 1 2 73
2005 28 17 43 1 89
2006 29 27 25 2 1 84
2007 25 63 34 3 125
2008 27 41 51 1 1 121
2009 22 22 24 4 5 77
2010 23 24 19 2 1 69
2011 12 17 15 3 1 48
2012 11 23 24 9 67
2013 21 20 10 1 1 53
2014 9 16 17 1 43
Total 1019 1025 1578 53 32 24 24 5 12 3772
* Note, the no. of wells is 10% higher than for the same period in Table 5.2, page 47 because different sources of information
have been used.

71 of 93
Table 6.4 Development wells drilled in UK waters vs. water depth (downloaded from https://decc-
edu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=adbe5a796f5c41c68fc762ea1
37a682e%20 October 3, 2016)
Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m)*

Spud year Total
< 50 50-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600–1000 1000–1500 1500–2000 Unknown
1980 21 9 112 2 144
1981 19 12 116 147
1982 18 18 100 136
1983 19 15 71 105
1984 30 20 75 125
1985 48 13 89 150
1986 36 3 60 99
1987 46 19 75 140
1988 58 34 85 177
1989 67 15 73 155
1990 49 15 59 1 124
1991 55 38 58 151
1992 61 36 71 3 171
1993 43 26 100 2 171
1994 53 35 104 1 16 209
1995 60 45 135 25 265
1996 51 69 165 285
1997 58 47 149 1 255
1998 66 56 164 3 1 290
1999 61 44 136 241
2000 53 27 145 225
2001 60 49 183 1 293
2002 52 44 166 4 1 267
2003 45 45 119 209
2004 33 34 102 169
2005 67 34 130 2 233
2006 46 60 108 214
2007 56 48 65 169
2008 71 24 75 170
2009 46 27 60 133
2010 50 20 63 133
2011 43 27 53 123
2012 40 36 49 125
2013 37 25 59 121
2014 44 24 62 130
Total 1662 1093 3436 15 2 46 6254
* Note, the no. of wells is 1% higher than than for the same period in Table 5.2, page 47 because different sources of
information have been used.
Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 present the water depth specific no. of exploration and development
wells drilled in Norwegian waters.

Table 6.5 Exploration wells drilled in Norwegian waters vs. water depth
Spud year Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m) Total
<50 50–100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000
1980 9 13 20 42
1981 8 22 13 43
1982 18 19 15 52
1983 6 14 22 42
1984 12 12 29 53
1985 3 16 34 53
1986 5 13 24 1 43
1987 4 16 19 3 42
1988 9 7 13 2 31
1989 11 14 9 1 35
1990 19 12 15 46
1991 21 13 22 1 57
1992 10 11 23 1 45
1993 10 11 14 35
1994 1 4 12 10 27
1995 7 24 9 40
1996 7 5 19 1 32
1997 13 19 19 1 1 2 55
1998 4 11 10 3 28
1999 3 5 15 1 24
2000 2 7 15 2 1 27
2001 1 16 19 2 1 39
2002 2 10 7 1 1 1 22
2003 6 11 7 2 26
2004 1 8 8 17
2005 1 2 9 1 1 14
2006 5 6 15 1 1 28
2007 8 10 11 2 1 32
2008 12 11 23 5 1 4 56
2009 5 30 26 2 1 2 66
2010 8 18 16 1 3 46
2011 7 21 21 2 1 52
2012 9 13 20 1 43
2013 8 23 25 2 1 59
2014 5 16 24 10 1 1 57
Total 1 263 471 600 40 11 21 2 1409

73 of 93
Table 6.6 Development wells drilled in Norwegian waters vs. water depth
Number of wells drilled within water depth range (m)

Spud year Total
<50 50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 400 400 - 600 600 - 1000 1000 - 1500
1980 21 7 28
1981 10 6 16
1982 5 18 23
1983 9 15 24
1984 13 21 34
1985 12 36 48
1986 25 25 50
1987 25 23 48
1988 35 20 55
1989 34 30 3 67
1990 27 25 8 60
1991 32 24 10 66
1992 25 50 11 86
1993 31 48 26 105
1994 38 40 42 120
1995 26 43 40 109
1996 27 61 57 145
1997 29 43 64 136
1998 28 47 64 139
1999 16 60 73 149
2000 19 81 88 188
2001 27 89 85 201
2002 27 73 68 168
2003 30 66 69 165
2004 1 30 51 58 140
2005 39 43 68 150
2006 39 55 49 6 1 150
2007 30 66 55 2 153
2008 33 51 50 4 138
2009 47 53 63 3 166
2010 15 45 63 3 126
2011 18 37 64 6 125
2012 19 49 61 1 130
2013 34 50 76 6 166
2014 21 62 78 1 162
Total 1 896 1513 1393 6 26 1 3836
6.3 Drilling Installation Type vs. Well Type and Water Depth
In 2004 US MMS/Boemre/Boem started to publish APDs (Application for Permit to Drill) as

a part of their public E-well reporting. In these applications the drilling installation types are
listed. This information has been combined with the BOEM Borehole file (/1/) to establish an
overview of the drilling vessel types used vs. the water depth and main well type.
Table 6.7 shows the drilling installation type vs. well type and water depth (US GoM OCS,
2005 – 2012).

Table 6.7 Drilling installation type vs. Well type and Water depth (US GoM OCS, 2005 – 2012)

Well type and drilling
installation type 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 600 - 1000 - 1500 - 2000 - 2500 -
<50 >3000 Total
100 200 400 600 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Development wells
Barge 2 2
DP semisubmersible 5 13 11 8 37
Drillship 5 36 13 1 3 58
Jackup 1107 438 20 1565
Platform 9 124 120 27 21 39 47 4 391
Semisubmersible 2 4 4 18 35 36 4 29 3 135
Submersible 34 34
Total development 1154 562 144 31 39 84 132 32 38 6 2222
Exploration wells
Barge 24 24
Dp semisubmersible 1 15 61 62 44 4 2 189
Drillship 3 10 42 28 30 9 122
Jackup 686 197 18 901
Platform 1 15 10 3 12 11 1 53
Semisubmersible 27 26 27 131 91 43 39 3 387
Submersible 73 73
Total exploration 784 212 55 27 33 168 205 134 113 16 2 1749
Total all 1938 774 199 58 72 252 337 166 151 22 2 3971
It should be noted that for the years 2007 - 2012, most wells drilled are included. For 2005
and 2006 some wells are missing.
The well files in the NPD fact pages include a column specifying the drilling installation
type.
Table 6.8 shows the drilling installation type vs. well type and water depth (Norway NCS,
1980 – 2013).
Table 6.8 Drilling installation type vs. Well type and Water depth (Norway NCS, 1980 – 2013)

Well type and drilling
installation type 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 600 - 1000 -
<50 > 1500 Total
100 200 400 600 1000 1500
Development wells
Condeep 31 486 121 638
Drillship 1 24 1 26
Jacket 1 506 567 1074
Jack-up 298 46 344
Semisubmersible 39 351 1050 8 1 1449
TLP 139 139
Total development 1 874 1450 1311 8 25 1 3670
Exploration wells
Condeep 1 7 2 10
Drillship 1 8 1 3 13
Jacket 5 14 19
Jack-up 1 78 9 88
Semisubmersible 174 424 566 29 10 17 2 1222
Total exploration 1 258 455 576 30 10 20 2 1352
Total all 2 1132 1905 1887 38 35 21 2 5022

75 of 93
6.4 Plugged and Abandoned Wells, US GoM OCS and Norwegian Waters
The BOMR borehole list (/1/) includes a status field and a status date field for the individual
wells. Permanently Abandoned and Temporarily Abandoned are among the status categories
that can be selected. Another category is Side Tracked. For the side tracked wells the original
zone is plugged, but the slot is used for the side tracked well. The side tracked wells are not
regarded as abandoned.
Table 6.9 Permanently Abandoned and Temporarily Abandoned wells in the US GoM OCS (based
on a file downloaded June 2016 including all wells drilled in all times)
Latest well Cumulative exploration and

Development wells Exploration well
status development wells
reported Permanently Temporarily Permanently Temporarily Permanently Temporarily
(year) Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned
1948 - 1979 1817 76 4249 7 6066 83
1980 103 8 240 6409 91
1981 122 15 243 2 6774 108
1982 95 10 239 4 7108 122
1983 266 14 270 3 7644 139
1984 211 11 319 1 8174 151
1985 215 14 315 2 8704 167
1986 216 11 213 3 9133 181
1987 154 11 181 2 9468 194
1988 290 12 338 4 10096 210
1989 260 13 291 8 10647 231
1990 278 28 331 6 11256 265
1991 342 22 291 6 11889 293
1992 258 21 184 4 12331 318
1993 325 16 204 2 12860 336
1994 276 20 201 6 13337 362
1995 222 30 165 7 13724 399
1996 311 44 241 7 14276 450
1997 387 53 289 13 14952 516
1998 200 41 205 9 15357 566
1999 298 36 184 10 15839 612
2000 361 46 237 8 16437 666
2001 303 67 215 18 16955 751
2002 317 53 139 6 17411 810
2003 388 75 193 13 17992 898
2004 367 61 185 13 18544 972
2005 277 58 160 16 18981 1046
2006 292 63 190 8 19463 1117
2007 573 127 198 25 20234 1269
2008 487 131 174 25 20895 1425
2009 642 215 230 30 21767 1670
2010 787 228 188 24 22742 1922
2011 800 242 198 20 23740 2184
2012 615 330 182 43 24537 2557
2013 377 493 205 49 25119 3099
2014 439 413 187 50 25745 3562
2015 322 263 137 76 26204 3901
2016 101 58 45 16 26350 3975
Total 14094 3429 12257 546

The accuracy of the status data in the borehole list is unknown, but Table 6.9 indicates that
many wells have been temporarily abandoned for many years.
Table 6.10 Well status for all US GoM OCS wells (1948 – 2016)
Status Development wells Exploration wells

APD - Application for Permit to Drill 1 1
AST - Approved Sidetrack 3
COM - Borehole Completed 5245 928
DRL - Drilling Active 30 33
DSI - Drilling Suspended 45 61
PA - Permanently Abandoned 14094 12257
ST - Borehole Side Tracked 11205 4799
TA - Temporarily Abandonded 3428 546
Total 34048 18628
Of the more than 50 000 wellbores only around 6 200 are listed as completed, this means
active wells. When comparing with the number of gas and oil producers in Table 5.14, page
60, it is seen that approximately 3500 wells were producing in December 2014, indicating
that a large proportion of the wells are closed in as well.
In Norway well status was reported for individual wells in the NPD borehole list until 2009.
In 2014 NPD started to report status on the individual wells again, The borehole list does not
contain a field stating the date when the well status was changed as the US GoM file does. To
establish some sort of overview of wellbore status for inactive wells a review of NPD bore
hole lists from 2001 to 2014 were carried out. Only development wellbores were included. In
Norwegian waters exploration wells are very rarely turned into producers.
Table 6.11 Status of inactive Norwegian wells as reported by the NPD borehole list.
Suspended Other status Total No

Year P&A Plugged Suspended
at total depth categories of wells
2001 0 478 28 189 1285 1980
2002 6 550 149 129 1321 2155
2003 1 832 78 1 1448 2360
2004 1 917 163 0 1411 2492
2005 120 915 265 1 1359 2660
2006 168 934 270 0 1404 2776
2007 167 1051 407 8 1451 3084
2008 166 1102 352 7 1569 3196
2009 166 1176 201 11 1806 3360
2010 168 1236 221 16 1814 3455
2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2014 181 1574 0 17 2314 4086
 The Status field in the NPD borehole list does not seem to be trustworthy related to
inactive wells in Norway (Example all Ekofisk W wells are per July 2014 listed as
online/operational, while the wells were permanently P&A in 2009)

77 of 93
 Many of the plugged wellbores listed as plugged are probably side-tracked wells,
some of them are likely also P&A wells
 The status of the inactive wells needs to be re-categorized to give a trustworthy
picture of the situation.
6.5 No. of Gas Lifted Oil Wells US GoM OCS and Norwegian Waters
The BOMR Ogor A files includes production rates for individual wells per month (/1/). One
of the well categories they use is Production Oil Completion - Gas Lift. Identifying the
number of gas lifted wells in the US GoM OCS is therefore easy.
For the Norwegian wells no public information related to number of gas lifted wells are
available. To establish an estimate for number of gas lifted wells in the Norwegian waters
equipment data from WellMaster RMS (Exprosoft.com) has been used. The estimate is based
on the total number of wells from two operators. It has been assumed that all wells that
include a gas lift valve are a gas lifted well.
US GoM OCS well Norwegian well
Year Percentage Percentage
Flowing Gas lift Total Flowing Gas lift Total
on gas lift on gas lift
1985 2 695 1 101 3 796 29,0 % NA NA NA
1986 2 523 1 206 3 729 32,3 % NA NA NA
1987 2 461 1 284 3 745 34,3 % NA NA NA
1988 2 382 1 361 3 743 36,4 % NA NA NA
1989 2 230 1 270 3 500 36,3 % NA NA NA
1990 2 283 1 246 3 529 35,3 % NA NA NA
1991 2 206 1 339 3 545 37,8 % NA NA NA
1992 2 195 1 311 3 506 37,4 % NA NA NA
1993 2 216 1 326 3 542 37,4 % NA NA NA
1994 2 228 1 286 3 514 36,6 % NA NA NA
1995 2 189 1 258 3 447 36,5 % NA NA NA
1996 2 016 1 424 3 440 41,4 % NA NA NA
1997 2 002 1 434 3 436 41,7 % NA NA NA
1998 1 936 1 364 3 300 41,3 % NA NA NA
1999 1 712 1 538 3 250 47,3 % NA NA NA
2000 1 723 1 590 3 313 48,0 % 318 79 398 19,9 %
2001 1 523 1 716 3 239 53,0 % 336 94 430 21,9 %
2002 1 327 1 782 3 109 57,3 % 332 118 450 26,3 %
2003 1 160 1 926 3 086 62,4 % 318 144 462 31,2 %
2004 1 060 1 539 2 599 59,2 % 296 176 472 37,3 %
2005 719 786 1 505 52,2 % 272 200 472 42,3 %
2006 990 1 333 2 323 57,4 % 248 221 469 47,1 %
2007 1 084 1 607 2 691 59,7 % 235 238 473 50,4 %
2008 744 1 116 1 860 60,0 % 226 258 484 53,2 %
2009 993 1 436 2 429 59,1 % 203 289 491 58,8 %
2010 958 1 504 2 462 61,1 % 197 310 507 61,2 %
2011 1 102 1 458 2 560 57,0 % 197 313 509 61,4 %
2012 1 106 1 365 2 471 55,2 % 184 313 498 63,0 %

6.6 Shut-in Wellhead Pressure Related Exposure Data
All data for the US GoM OCS wells stems from (/1/). Only data for wells that are completed
as producers are included.
For the Norwegian wells the main source of information has been a list of HPHT wells from
NPD combined with the NPD Borehole list.
For the UK wells no pressure related data is presented.
6.6.1 US GoM OCS Drilling Wells

The shut-in wellhead pressure exposure data for drilling wells (both development and
exploration wells) are all based on the first production well test carried out on the well.
In US GoM OCS many exploration wells are completed as producers (see Table 5.1). It should
also be noted that many development wells are not completed as producers, because they are
dry.
Since the shut-in wellhead pressures have been recorded more frequent the last 5 to 10 years
than the previous years it was selected to only include data from wells that have been spudded
after January 1988
Development drilling
There were in total 1417 development wells listed with a shut-in wellhead pressure on the first
well test after completion.
In Figure 6.3 the development wells shut-in wellhead pressures have been plotted against the
well depth.

79 of 93
Development wells
Shut-in pressure v.s. well depth, sorted
24000
22000
20000
Well depth (feet)/Shut-in
18000
pressure (psi)
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cumulative percent
Shut-in test pressure (psi) True vertical depth (ft) Expon. (True vertical depth (ft))
Figure 6.3 Development wells shut-in wellhead pressures plotted against well-depth
Exploration drilling
There were in total 508 exploration wells listed with a shut-in wellhead pressure on the first
well test after completion.
In Figure 6.4 the exploration wells shut-in wellhead pressures have been plotted against the
well depth.

Exploration wells
Shut-in pressure v.s. well depth, sorted
24000
22000
Well depth (feet)/Shut-in
20000
18000
pressure (psi)
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cumulative percent
Shut-in test pressure (psi) True vertical depth (ft) Expon. (True vertical depth (ft))
Figure 6.4 Exploration wells shut-in wellhead pressures plotted against well depth
When looking at Figure 6.4 it is important to note that the number of wells drilled is based on
only the exploration wells that have been completed as producers and listed with a well test
with a positive pressure. If looking at the Mobile area, 33 exploration wells have been drilled
to more than 20000 feet (6100 meters) in the period 1980 - 1996. These wells are likely all
HPHT (more than 10000 psi) wells. In the Destin Dome Blocks six wells have been drilled in
the same formation as the Mobile wells. In the Pensacola one well has been drilled.
In addition 401 exploratory wells have a well depth between 16000 – 20000 feet. By reviewing
the test pressures for development wells drilled in the same block and evaluating shut-in test
pressure and the well spud dates, at least 57 of these were likely to be HPHT wells (close to
10000 psi or above). Further, some of the wells drilled to less than 16000 feet have been HPHT
wells. It is then likely that it has been drilled in the range of 100 to 200 exploration HPHT wells
in the US GoM OCS in the period 1980 - 1998.
6.6.2 Norwegian Drilling Wells

The number of HPHT wells drilled in Norway is shown in Table 6.12. The data from before
1996 stems from the NPD daily drilling report system (DDRS). The data from 1996 and later
stem from the report ”Utvikling i risikonivå norsk sokkel”, hovedrapport, Fase 6 – 2005,
www.ptil.no.

81 of 93
Table 6.12 Number of HP/HT wells drilled in the Norwegian waters sorted on years
No. of HPHT wells (>690 bar and/or > 150oC)

Year
Exploration Production
1984 3
1985 2
1986 2
1987 0
1988 3
1989 3
1990 8
1991 7
1992 9
1993 5
1994 3
1995 2
1996 3 4
1997 5 1
1998 2 1
1999 4 2
2000 2
2001 3
2002 3 2
2003 2 1
2004 2 10
2005 3 20
Total 76 41
6.6.3 US GoM OCS Wells in Production

The pressure exposure data for production wells are based on all the well tests with a listed
shut-in wellhead pressure in the period 1980 – 1996 (/1/).
Totally 48264 tests were listed with a positive wellhead shut-in pressure. Many well tests were
not listed with well test pressures. The distribution of well tests in four different pressure ranges
is presented in Table 6.13.
Table 6.13 Pressure ranges in production wells in US GoM OCS wells
Pressure range No. of Relative

well tests distribution
below 6000 psi (414 bar) 46928 97,23 %
6000 – 8000 psi pressure 926 1,92 %
8000 – 10000 psi 336 0,70 %
more than 10000 psi (690 bar) 74 0,15 %
Total 48264 100,00 %
In Figure 6.5 the development wells shut-in wellhead pressures have been plotted against the
well depth.

Figure 6.5 All well tests performed 1980-1996 and listed with a shut-in wellhead pressure
6.7 Production Rates and Gas Oil Ratio Data, US GoM OCS
This section is based on BSEE Ogor A files from 1980 – 1999 (/1/). These files list the well
individual production amount (gas, oil and water) for each month. Only the December data
each year has been used to reduce the amount of information to handle
6.7.1 Production Rates

Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7 show the production rate for the US GoM OCS oil and gas wells
respectively. The production rate data has been grouped in two different groups, the 80-ties
and the 90-ties.

83 of 93
200
180 Daily Oil Volume in the 80's
Average 80's
160
Oil production (m3/day)
Daily Oil Volume in the 90's

140 Average 90's
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perecentage of oil wells
Figure 6.6 Oil well production rates, US GoM OCS wells, 1980 - 1999
The number of wells in production in the December month was slightly higher in the 90's than
in the 80's. The average produced amount of oil was 41 m3/day in the 90's and 36 m3/day in the
80's per oil well that produced in the December month. In the end of the 90's some wells have
experienced flow-rates of more than 3000 m3/day. The highest flow-rate seen was 5600 m3/day
(or approximately 35 000 bbls). The wells are only those wells categorized as oil wells in the
MMS files (some of them were only producing gas and no oil). Nearly 99% of these wells have
also produced gas, in average 13013 Sm3/day. Water production was also listed for 88% of
these wells. On average for all wells, the water production was 49.5 m3/day, i.e. more water
was produced than oil.

500000
Daily Gas Volume 80's
Gas production (Sm3/day) 450000 Daily Gas Volume 90's
400000 Average 80's
Average 90's
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perecentage of gas wells
Figure 6.7 Gas well production rates, US GoM OCS wells, 1980 - 1999
The number of wells in production in the December month was slightly higher in the 90's than
in the 80's. The average produced amount of gas was 108 000 Sm3/day in the 90's and 124 000
Sm3/day in the 80's per gas well that produced in the December month. The best producers
produced nearly one million Sm3/day. The wells are only those wells categorized as gas wells
in the MMS files (some few of them were only producing oil, and no gas). Approximately 66%
of these gas wells also produced oil, in average 7.3 m3/day for all the wells. Water production
was also listed for 67% of these wells. In average for all wells the water production was 18.2
m3/day.
6.7.2 Gas Oil Ratio
The gas oil ratio data has been grouped in two different groups, the 80-ties and the 90-ties.

85 of 93
4000
3500
GOR 80's (Sm3/Sm3)
3000 GOR 90's (Sm3/Sm3)
2500
Sm3/Sm3
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perecentage of oil wells
Figure 6.8 Well test GOR data sorted on period
100000
80000
GOR 90's (Sm3/Sm3)

(Sm3/Sm3)
60000
GOR 80's (Sm3/Sm3)
40000
20000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perecentage of gas wells

Figure 6.9 Well test GOR data sorted on period
6.8 Workover Frequency Exposure Data
Very little statistical material related to number of workovers carried out exists. From the
SINTEF study "Reliability of Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves, Phase III",
SINTEF report STF 75 F89030, it was observed 498 workovers on a total of 7790 well years.
The data was mainly collected in the period 1985 - 1989 for North Sea wells. This gives in
average:

15.6 well years per workover
The NPD Annual reports from 1980 to 83 lists the number of workovers carried out the actual
year alongside the number of production wells. A total of 88 workovers were listed and a
total of 731 production well years. This gives in average:
8.3 well years per workovers
In the autumn 2001 a search in the NPD Daily Drilling Report System (DDRS) was carried
out. The search criteria specified:
 Traditional type of equipment was used (i.e. the permanently installed drilling rig and not
a coiled tubing or snubbing unit).
 The main operation was Workover
 Sub operation was completion string (i.e. involved pulling of the completion string).
Each well that had at least on occurrence with the above combinations within one year was
counted as a workover. This means that if two workovers were carried out the same year it will
be counted as one workover only. On the other hand if the workover starts in December one
year and is completed in January the next year it will be counted as two workovers.
This count of workovers has been possible for the period after 1995 when NPD introduced
some new codes in the DDRS. Seventy-six workovers were carried out in the year 2000. The
result from this count for the years 1996 to 1999 is shown in Table 6.14.
Table 6.14 Workover frequencies in Norwegian waters
Year No. of No. of prod- No. of inject- Sum no. of No of well years per
workovers uction wells ion wells wells workover
1996 56 580 189 769 13.7
1997 72 612 194 806 11.2
1998 86 624 211 835 9.7
1999 59 854 259 1113 18.9
Total 273 2670 853 3523 12.9
It seems that the workover frequencies related to conventional workovers has decreased since
the beginning of the 1980-ties when comparing with the above results.
It is recommended that 10.6 well years per workover is used for the estimates related to
blowout/well release frequencies per workover operation. This value will represent the average
for the period 1980 - 2000.
6.9 Wireline Frequency Exposure Data
Very little statistical material related to number of wireline runs exists. To establish an estimate
for wireline exposure data, experience from the Ekofisk field in 1992 has been used. In 1992,
135 wells were in service (production and injection). A total of 220 wireline jobs were carried
out. If in average each wireline job includes 2.5 wireline runs a total of 550 wireline runs were
carried out for the 135 wells. This gives in average:
87 of 93
4.2 wireline runs per well year or

1.7 wireline jobs per well year
It is important to note that the Ekofisk field mainly has wireline retrievable SCSSVs, and not
tubing retrievable SCSSVs that most operators prefer when completing new wells today.
It should further, be noted that most likely several minor incidents (small gas releases) during
wireline jobs have never been recorded as blowouts.
6.10 Coiled Tubing and Snubbing Exposure Data
Table 6.15 lists the number of coiled tubing and snubbing workovers that have been carried out
in the Norwegian waters in the period 1984 - 1995.
The NPD Daily Drilling Report System (DDRS) was used to extract the data. The data may
not be exact because the DDRS did not include a specific code for these operations before
1995. The results are based on a search in the activity description for all production wells stored
in the database. Coiled tubing and snubbing activities during regular drilling and completion
are not included in Table 6.15. Coiled tubing and snubbing operations carried out, as a part of
a conventional workover, is included. These operations should not have been included because
they were only a sub-operation during a conventional workover. Therefore the activity level as
listed in Table 6.15 probably is 10 – 20% higher than the real figures.
Table 6.15 Coiled tubing and snubbing workover exposure data for the Norwegian sector of
the North Sea, 1984 - 1995
Year Snubbing workovers Coiled tubing workovers

1984 1 0
1985 5 1
1986 5 3
1987 7 5
1988 8 3
1989 12 13
1990 4 16
1991 15 13
1992 28 19
1993 21 32
1994 33 38
1995 49 48
Total 188 191
In the autumn 2007 a search in the NPD Daily Drilling Report System (DDRS) was carried
out. The search criteria specified that either a snubbing or a coiled tubing unit was used. The
main operation was Workover and Drilling and the sub operation was not specified. Each well
that had at least on occurrence with the above combinations within one year was counted as a
snubbing workover , a coiled tubing workover, or coiled tubing drilling. This means that if two
operations of one kind were carried out the same year it will be counted as one operation only.
On the other hand if the operation starts in December one year and is completed in January the
next year it will be counted as two operations. If dedicated snubbing or coiled tubing units are
used in association with a conventional workover they will be regarded as separate operations,
i.e. the total number of operations indicated in Table 6.16 may be some higher than the real
figures.
The result from this count for the years 1996 to 2006 is shown in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16 Coiled tubing and snubbing workover exposure data for the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea, 1996 - 2000
Year Snubbing Coiled tubing Coiled tubing

workovers workovers drilling
1996 42 83 5
1997 39 81 7
1998 32 83 31
1999 30 49 21
2000 24 50 23
2001 15 50 21
2002 8 57 17
2003 6 74 19
2004 8 37 11
2005 3 37 11
2006 1 44 10
Total 167 346 176

89 of 93

7. Overall Blowout/Well Release Frequencies
Only overall blowout/well release frequencies for the different operational phases have been
calculated. If required, analyses that are more detailed can be carried out by using the
information presented in the various tables in the previous sections and/or the SINTEF
Offshore Blowout Database. The listed frequencies in this section are based on the experience
from US GoM OCS, UK and Norway in the period 1980-01-01 - 2014-12-31 only.
The incident frequencies during the different operational phases are presented in Table 7.1 to
Table 7.6. The three blowouts/well releases listed with the phases “Unknown drilling” are not
included. Please also note that blowouts caused by external loads are disregarded when
calculating the blowout/well release frequencies.
Table 7.1 Blowout/well release frequencies during completion (based on Table 4.10, Table 5.1,
Table 5.2, and Table 5.4)
No. of
No. of No. of No. of incidents
Category completions per
completions* incidents per completion
incident
Blowout (surface flow) 25 714 11 2 338 0,00043
Blowout (underground flow) 25 714 0 - 0
Diverted well release 25 714 1 25 714 0,00004
Well release 25 714 9 2 857 0,00035
Total 25 714 21 1 224 0,00082
* Based on total number of wells completed in Table 5.1, number of developments wells drilled in Table 5.2, and Table
5.4.
Table 7.2 Blowout/well release frequencies during development drilling (based on Table 4.10 and
Table 5.12)
Type of No. of dev. No. of No. of drilled wells No. of incidents per
Category
incident wells drilled incidents per incident drilled well
Blowout (surface Deep 30 122 9 3 347 0,00030
flow) Shallow 30 122 26 1 159 0,00086
Blowout Deep 30 122 4 7 531 0,00013
(underground flow) Shallow 30 122 1 30 122 0,00003
Diverted well Deep 30 122 - 0
release Shallow 30 122 20 1 506 0,00066
Deep 30 122 7 4 303 0,00023
Well release
Shallow 30 122 2 15 061 0,00007
Total 30 122 69 437 0,00229

91 of 93
Table 7.3 Blowout/well release frequencies during exploration drilling (based on Table 4.18,
Table 5.1, Table 5.2, and Table 5.4)
Type of Exploration No. of. wells No. of No. of drilled wells No. of incidents
Category
incident well type drilled incidents per incident per drilled well
Deep Appraisal 8 046 10 805 0,00124
Wildcat 9 484 14 677 0,00148
Blowout (surface Shallow Appraisal 8 046 12 671 0,00149
flow)
Wildcat 9 484 19 499 0,00200
Unknown - 1 -
Total 17 530 56 313 0,00319
Deep Appraisal 8 046 1 8046 0,00012
Blowout (under-
Wildcat 9 484 8 1186 0,00084
ground flow)
Total 17 530 9 1948 0,00051
Deep Appraisal 8 046 0 - 0
Wildcat 9 484 1 9484 0,00011
Diverted well
Shallow Appraisal 8 046 5 1609 0,00062
release
Wildcat 9 484 8 1186 0,00084
Total 17 530 14 1252 0,00080
Deep Appraisal 8 046 3 2682 0,00037
Wildcat 9 484 3 3161 0,00032
Unknown - 2 -
Well release Shallow Appraisal 8 046 2 4023 0,00025
Wildcat 9 484 1 9484 0,00011
Unknown - 1 -
Total 17 530 12 1461 0,00068
Deep Appraisal 8 046 1 8046 0,00012
Unknown Wildcat 9 484 0 -
Total 17 530 1 17530 0,00006
Deep Appraisal 8 046 15 536 0,00186
Wildcat 9 484 26 365 0,00274
Unknown - 3 -
All
Shallow Appraisal 8 046 19 423 0,00236
Wildcat 9 484 28 339 0,00295
Unknown - 1 -
Total exploration drilling 17 530 92 191 0,00525
Table 7.4 Blowout/well release frequencies during production (based on Table 4.10 and Table
5.18). Blowouts caused by external loads (storm, fire etc.) are disregarded
No. of well years in No. of No. of well years per No. of incidents per
Category
service incidents incident well year
Blowout (underground flow) 274 227 1 274 227 0,000004
Diverted well release 274 227 0 -
Well release 274 227 8 34 278 0,000029
Total 274 227 18 15 235 0,000066

Table 7.5 Blowout/well release frequencies during well workover (based on Table 4.10, Table
5.18 and Section 6.8)
No. of No. of workover per No. of incidents per

Category No. of workovers*
incidents incident workover
Blowout (surface flow) 25 870 26 995 0,00101
Diverted well release 25 870 0 - 0
Well release 25 870 34 761 0,00131
Total 25 870 60 431 0,00232
* Based on in average one workover per 10.6 production well years (Section 6.8)
Table 7.6 Blowout/well release frequencies during wireline (based on Table 4.10, Table 5.18 and
Section 6.9)
No. of wireline No. of No. of wireline jobs No. of incidents per

Category
jobs* incidents per incident wireline job
Diverted well release 466 186 0 - 0
Well release 466 186 12 38 849 0,000026
Total 466 186 16 29 137 0,000034
* Based on in average 1.7 wireline jobs per production well years (Section 6.9)

93 of 93

REFERENCES
1 Files retrieved from/bought from BOEM/BSEE in the US (former MMS (Mineral

Management Service) and Boemre):
 Borehole (used for downloading files related to well drilling and well production
data)
 File: 5137 Historical Well Test by Area and Block ASCII (bought from MMS)
 Ogor A, Well production files bought from MMS (1980 –1996)
 Ogor A, Well production files downloaded from MMS/BSEE (1996 –2016) US
GoM region
Ogor A, Well production files downloaded from MMS/BSEE (1986 –2016) US
Pacific region

95 of 93
Appendix 1 Blowout Database Structure and Coding
LIST OF CONTENTS
A1. OVERALL DATABASE STRUCTURE............................................................................... 2

A2. DESCRIPTION OF DATABASE FIELDS AND ASSOCIATED CODES.................................... 4
FIELD 3 CATEGORY .................................................................................................. 4
FIELD 4 SUB CATEGORY ........................................................................................... 5
FIELD 5 COUNTRY ................................................................................................... 5
FIELD 10 INSTALLATION TYPE .................................................................................... 5
FIELD 12 WELL STATUS.............................................................................................. 6
FIELD 18 MTSIP (MAKS THEORETIC SHUTIN WH PRESSURE) ....................................... 6
FIELD 24 ROCK TYPE.................................................................................................. 7
FIELD 25 FORMATION AGE ........................................................................................ 8
FIELD 27 PHASE ........................................................................................................ 8
FIELD 28 OPERATION ................................................................................................ 9
FIELD 29 ACTIVITY................................................................................................... 10
FIELD 30 EXTERNAL CAUSE ...................................................................................... 11
FIELD 31 LOSS OF BARRIER 1 ................................................................................... 11
FIELD 32 LOSS OF BARRIER 2 ................................................................................... 13
FIELD 34 NORTH SEA STANDARDS ........................................................................... 13
FIELD 35 FLOWPATH ............................................................................................... 14
FIELD 36 RELEASE POINT ......................................................................................... 14
FIELD 37 FLOW MEDIUM......................................................................................... 15
FIELD 41 IGNITION TYPE.......................................................................................... 15
FIELD 42 CONSEQUENCE CLASS ............................................................................... 16
FIELD 44 POLLUTION ............................................................................................... 16
FIELD 48 CONTROL METHOD ................................................................................... 16
FIELD 50 DATA QUALITY.......................................................................................... 16

A-1
A1. Overall database structure
The database contains 51 different fields describing each blowout/well release. The various fields
are grouped in six different groups. They are:
1. Category and location

2. Well description
3. Present operation
4. Blowout causes
5. Blowout Characteristics
6. Other
Category and location

Includes information related to the incident category (blowout vs. well leak), offshore installation
such as location, operator, installation name and type, and water depth.
Well description
Includes well and casing depths, last casing size, mud weight, bottom hole- and shut in pressure,
GOR, formation age and rock type.
Present operation
Includes the phase (exploration drilling, development drilling, workover etc.), the operation
presently carried out (for example casing running) and the present activity (for example cementing)
Blowout causes
Include external cause (stating if an external cause contributed to the incident), loss of the primary
barrier, loss of the secondary barrier (describing how primary and secondary barrier were lost) and
human error. It should be noted that the field regarding human error in general holds low quality
information. Human errors are frequently masked. A field named North Sea standards highlights if
the development of the blowout could have been avoided if North Sea type equipment had been
used (for instance in other parts of the world a blind shear ram is not required in surface BOP
stacks)
Blowout characteristics
Twelve fields are included comprising flow-path, flow medium, flow-rate (low quality), release
point, ignition type, time to ignition, lost production (low quality), duration, fatalities, consequence
class, material loss and pollution
Other
In the Other screen five fields are included, they are: control method, remarks (includes a description
of the incident, data quality (includes an evaluation of the source data quality), last revision date and
references.
Each field and a brief description of the field content are shown in Table A 1.

A-2
Table A 1 Blowout database fields
Field Drop Field Name Brief description

no. down
list?
1 No Id_no Chronological input no. (ID no.)
2 No Date Date of incident (dd-mm-yy)
3 Yes Category Classification of incident in Blowout, underground blowout, or well leak
4 Yes Sub_category Related to the main category
5 Yes Country Country in which incident occurred
6 No Field Specification of offshore field
7 No Water depth Water depth (meter) (0=unknown)
8 No Operator Name of responsible for the operations
9 No Installation_name Rig name or installation name
10 Yes Installation_type Type of installation
11 No Well depth Well depth (meter)(0=unknown)
12 Yes Well status Killed or alive
13 No Casing size Size of deepest casing (inches)(0=unknown)
14 No Casing depth Position of deepest casing shoe (meter)(0=unknown)
15 No Mud weight Mud weight (kg/m3)(0=unknown)
16 No B.h. pressure Bottom hole pressure (bar)(0=unknown)
17 No MMSIP Max Measure ShutIn Pressure (bar)(0=unknown)
18 No MTSIP Maks Theoretic ShutIn WH Pressure, Based on coarse
estimates if not given in the source
19 No Gas volume Gas Volume pr 24 hours (measured by a well test)
20 No Oil volume Oil Volume pr 24 hours (measured by a well test)
21 No Water_volume Water Volume pr 24 hours (measured by a well test)
22 No Gas/oil_ratio Based on the above gas and oil volume fields Sm3/Sm3
23 No API_grade Related to the blowout medium
24 Yes Rock_type Sandstone or limestone
25 Yes Formation_age Age of formation (Jurassic etc.)
26 No Formation_name Local name of formation
27 Yes Phase Drilling, production, workover etc.
28 Yes Operation Main operation when incident occurred
29 Yes Activity Present activity
30 Yes External cause External cause if any, else NO
31 Yes Loss of barrier 1 Loss of primary barrier
32 Yes Loss of barrier 2 Loss of secondary barriers
33 No Human error Human errors
34 Yes North_Sea_standards States if blowout barriers were not according to North Sea standards
35 Yes Flowpath Main flow path
36 Yes Release point Release point
37 Yes Flow medium Type of blowout flow medium
38 No Flow rate Blowout flowrate (m3/day) (0=unknown)
39 No Ignit time Time to ignition from start of blowout (hours)
40 Yes Ignit type Type of ignition (No, fire, explosion, not relevant)
41 Yes Consequence class Consequence classification
42 No Material loss Material losses (Million US$)(0=unknown)
43 Yes Pollution Spill to sea
44 No Lost production Lost production (production facilities only)
45 No Fatalities Number of lives lost because of the blowout
46 No Duration Duration of blowout (days)(0=unknown)
47 Yes Control method The method used to stop the blowout
48 No Revision date Date for last update of database record
49 Yes Data quality Quality of reference data
50 No References Refers to the sources of information
51 No Remarks Verbally description of incident

A-3
A2. Description of database fields and associat ed codes
Field 3 Category
For the field Category the Table A 2 shows the pre-defined fields.
Table A 2 Category fields
ID Description
1 Blowout (surface flow)
2 Blowout (underground flow)
3 Well release
4 Diverted well release
5 Unknown
20 Not evaluated
The following main definitions have been utilised when categorising the blowouts/well releases in
main categories and sub-categories.
Blowout definition
NPD came up with a blowout definition in their proposal for the new regulations.
(“Aktivitetsforskriften, eksternt høringsutkast av 3.7.2000, høringsfrist 3.11.2000”).
Med utblåsing som nevnt i denne paragrafen første ledd, menes formasjonsfluid som strømmer ut av
brønnen eller mellom formasjonslagene etter at alle definerte tekniske brønnbarrierer eller
operasjon av disse har sviktet.
Translated to English the definition will be:

A blowout is an incident where formation fluid flows out of the well or between formation
layers after all the predefined technical well barriers or the activation of the same have
failed.
The definition does however not seem to have become a part of the final new NPD regulation, but
remains the database blowout definition.
Well release definition: The reported incident is a well release if oil or gas flowed from the well
from some point were flow was not intended and the flow was stopped by use of the barrier system
that was available on the well at the time the incident started.
Shallow gas definition: Any gas zone penetrated before the BOP has been installed. Any zone
penetrated after the BOP is installed is not shallow gas (typical Norwegian definition of shallow gas).
All shallow gas incidents in the database have at the extent possible been categorised according to the
typical Norwegian definition of shallow gas. This definition is not relevant for all US GoM incidents
because:
 US GoM OCS reservoirs vary highly in depth. Some reservoirs were as shallow as 200
meters.
 For some incidents they had sat a full BOP stack, but had now intention to use it because it
would likely cause a blowout outside the casing and a possible crater.
 For some incidents they had drilled very deep without running an extra casing string and the
BOP.
 And for some incident they had used a combination of a BOP and a diverter.

A-4
Further, for many of the incidents the description of the incident in the sources is insufficient, and
some assumptions have to be made. A general comment is that it is not easy to categorise all the
incidents in shallow and deep incidents because of the above.
Field 4 Sub Category

For the field Sub category the Table A 3 shows the pre-defined fields.
Table A 3 Sub category
Description
Totally uncontrolled flow, from a deep zone
Totally uncontrolled flow, from a shallow zone
Shallow gas “controlled” subsea release only
Underground flow only
Underground flow mainly, limited surface flow
Limited surface flow before the secondary barrier was activated
String blown out of well, then the secondary barrier is activated
Shallow gas controlled flow (diverted)
Unknown
Other
Not evaluated
Table A 4 shows the link between the category and sub category.
Table A 4 Categories and subcategories for the incidents in the SINTEF Offshore Blowout
database
Main Category Sub category Comments/Example
Blowout (surface 1. Totally uncontrolled flow, from a Totally uncontrolled incidents with surface/subsea
flow) deep zone flow.
2. Totally uncontrolled flow, from a Typical the diverter system fails
shallow zone
3. Shallow gas “controlled” subsea Typical incident is that riserless drilling is performed
release only when the well starts to flow. The rig is pulled away
Blowout 4. Underground flow only
(underground 5. Underground flow mainly, limited The limited surface flow will be incidents were a
Blowout
flow) surface flow minor flow has appeared, but typical the BOP has
and well
release been activated to shut the surface flow
Well release 6. Limited surface flow before the Typical incident will be that flow is through the
secondary barrier was activated drillpipe and the shear ram is activated
7. Tubing blown out of well, then the Typical incident occurring during completion or
secondary barrier is activated workover. Shear ram is used to close the well after
the tubing has been blown out of the well.
Diverted well 8. Shallow gas controlled flow All incidents were the diverter system functioned as
release (diverted) intended.
Unknown Unknown Unknown may be selected for both the category and
the subcategory
The list of sub-categories shown in Table A 3 may be extended if found appropriate. One option will
be to split the sub category for Well leakage further down to highlight incidents with an ignition
potential.
Field 5 Country
All countries that have experienced an offshore blowout are included in the dropdown list. It should
be noted that for US several options for Country exist, depending on the area.
Field 10 Installation Type

A-5
This is a pre-coded field. Table A 5 shows the existing installation types.
Table A 5 Installation types
Description Comments
BARGE
DRILLSHIP
JACKET Includes Condeep
JACKUP
SATELLITE One well structure
SEMISUBMERSIBLE
SUBMERSIBLE
SUBSEA PROD
TENSION LEG
Other
UNKNOWN
Field 12 Well Status

Table A 6 shows the Well status classification used.
Table A 6 Well status
Description Remarks
ALIVE Mainly production and wireline, may also in some cases apply for
workover
KILLED Drilling, workover, completion) applies when the wellhead normally
should only be exposed to hydrostatic pressure.
UNKNOWN
Field 18 MTSIP (Maks Theoretic Shutin WH Pressure)

This field was developed when working with a project focusing HP HT blowout risk. The
information included stems from various sources and estimates.
NOTE:
 High shut-in wellhead pressure wells have been focused:
 Blowouts/well leaks listed with 345 bar shut-in pressures are wells were the shut-in pressure is
unknown, but less than 345 bars
 Blowouts/well leaks listed with 1 bar shut-in pressures are wells were the shut-in pressure is Not
relevant
 Blowouts/well leaks listed with 0 bar shut-in pressures are wells were the shut-in pressure is
Unknown
The most used pressure definition for a HPHT well in Norway is that wells with a shut-in well head
pressure above 690 bar (10000 psi) are to be regarded as a HPHT wells. The maximum Shut-in
wellhead pressures are normally not listed in the sources of information used for the blowout input
data, so these pressures had to be deducted from other sources or parameters for the given
blowout/well leak. The following three main approaches were:
1. Review the blowout description in the database records and in the files to see if any specific
wellhead shut-in pressures were given.
2. Find the actual shut-in wellhead pressures in the US GoM OCS well test database (/1/), or for
close by wells at approximately the same depth. This was for US blowouts/well leaks only.

A-6
3. Estimate the shut-in wellhead pressure based on information about the mud weight and the true
vertical depth, or the down hole well pressure, and assuming the well was filled with methane
gas
The shut-in well head pressures have been divided in the following four main groups
For the blowouts/well leaks that obviously did have a shut-in wellhead pressure below 345 bar (5000
psi) it has not been made any attempts to find the approximate maximum shut-in wellhead pressure.
The blowout was just categorised in that group.
For the other blowouts/well leaks more efforts were used. When reviewing the well tests data file
including shut-in wellhead pressures for approximately 48 000 well tests, some pressures could
directly be found, while for other an approximate pressure was found.
For the blowouts/well leaks were the down hole pressure were given in the source this was used for
estimating the shut-in wellhead pressure. For the blowouts/well leaks where a mud weight was given
the shut-in pressures were estimated based on the mud weight and the true vertical well depth. Either
the mud weight when the blowout occurred or the mud weight after the well control was re-
established were used. It was then estimated that the complete well bore was filled with methane with
a density of 0,71 kg/m3 at atmospheric pressure
The formula used was as follows (only metric units were used):
PSI = Pbottom - methane * g * DTVD * (Pbottom + PSI)/ (2 * PATM)
the solution for PSI will then be:
PSI = Pbottom (1- methane * g * DTVD/ 2 * PATM)/(1 + methane * g * DTVD/ 2 * PATM)
Where;
DTVD = True vertical depth
Pbottom = Bottom hole pressure = listed or = mud * g * DTVD
methane = density of methane at atmospheric pressure = 0,71 kg/m3
mud = density of mud
g = gravity force
PSI = Shut-in wellhead pressure
PATM = Atmospheric pressure
Field 24 Rock Type

Rock type describes the type to rock the blowout flows from. The Rock type codes used are shown in
Table A 7.
Table A 7 Rock type
Description
A.SANDSTONE
B.LIMESTONE
NOT RELEVANT
UNKNOWN

A-7
Field 25 Formation Age

Formation age gives the geological name of the formation. Table A 8 shows the codes used for
formation age.
Table A 8 Formation age
Description
A.PLIOCENE
B.MIOCENE
C.OLIGOCENE
D.ECOCENE
E.UPPER CRETACEOUS
F.CRETACEOUS
G.LOWER CRETACEOUS
H.UPPER JURASSIC
I.MIDDLE JURASSIC
J.LOWER JURASSIC
K.TRIAS
L.PERMIAN
M.CARBONIFEROUS
N.DEVONIAN
NOT RELEVANT
O.SILURIAN
P.CAMBRIAN
Q.PRECAMBRIAN
R.ARCHEAN
UNKNOWN
AA.PLEISTOCENE
Field 27 Phase
PHASE refers to the main type of activity. The following preset codes used are shown in Table A 9.
Table A 9 Phase
Description
COMPLETION Activities associated to well completion
DEV.DRLG Development drilling
Exploration drilling, includes wildcats and appraisal wells (for
EXPL.DRLG incidents where appraisal or wiuldcat well has not or can not be
determined.
EXPL.DRLG WILDCAT* Exploration drilling, wildcat wells
EXPL.DRLG APPRAISAL* Exploration drilling, appraisal wells
PRODUCTION Production, injection, closed in wells
UNKNOWN DRLG When it is not known whether it is DEV.DRLG or EXPL.DRLG
Wireline operations in connection with a production/injection well,
WIRELINE not wireline operations carried out as a part of well drilling, well
completion or well workover
Workover activities, not including wireline operations. Snubbing
WORKOVER
and coiled tubing operations
Temporary abandoned, permanently abandoned and long-time
Abandoned well
plugged wells are incidents are included.
Other
UNKNOWN
To differ between Wildcats and Appraisal wells the following has been assumed;
- For Norwegian waters the NPD classification has been used as it is.

A-8
- For the UK waters all wells classified as Exploration wells are regarded as Wildcats, while the
wells classified as Appraisal wells are of regarded as Appraisals.
- For the US GoM OCS a different approach has been used. All exploration wells drilled in certain
areas are numbered from 1 and further, where well number 1 is the first well drilled. For US
GoM OCS all exploration wells numbered as 1 have been regarded as Wildcats, while all the
other wells are regarded as Appraisal wells. This may be inaccurate, but this will likely lead to an
underestimation of no. of Wildcats compared to no. of Appraisal wells for the US GoM OCS.
Field 28 Operation
This field includes preset codes that describe the main operation carried when starting to loose well
control. Table A 10 shows the available selections.
Table A 10 Operation
Description Remarks
C1.RUNNING WELL EQUIPMENT These main operation alternatives
C2.INSTALLING EQUIPMENT exist for the completion phase
C3.PRESSURE TESTING (PHASE = COMPLETION):
C4.WELL TESTING INCL.PREPARATIONS
C5.CIRCULATING
C6.HANDLING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
C7.PERFORATING
D1.DRILLING ACTIVITY These main operation alternatives
D2.CASING RUNNING exist for the drilling phase
D3.INSTALLING EQUIPMENT (PHASE = EXPL.DRLG,
D4.WELL TESTING DEV.DRLG or UNKNOWN
D5.PRESSURE TESTING DRLG):
D6.ABANDON WELL
D7.TEMPORARY PLUGGED
D8.HANDLING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
D9.CIRCULATING
OTHER General
UNKNOWN
W1.PULLING WELL EQUIPMENT These main operation alternatives
W10.TEMPORARY PLUGGED exist for the workover phase
W11.HANDLING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS (PHASE = WORKOVER):
W12.PERFORATING
W13.FISHING
W14.KILLING
W15.COILED TUBING
W2.RUNNING WELL EQUIPMENT
W3.INSTALLING EQUIPMENT
W4.PRESSURE TESTING
W5.WELL TESTING INCL.PREPARATIONS
W6.CIRCULATING
W7.DRILLING ACTIVITY
W8.SNUBBING
W9.ABANDON WELL
WL1.RIGGING UP WIRELINE EQUIPMENT These main operation alternatives
WL2.RUNNING WIRELINE OPERATIONS exist for the workover phase
WL3.HANDLING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS (PHASE = WIRELINE)
P1.PRODUCING OIL These main operation alternatives
P2.PRODUCING GAS exist for the production phase
P3.PRODUCING CONDENSATE (PHASE = PRODUCTION):
P4.INJECTING GAS
P5.INJECTING WATER

A-9
P6.CLOSED IN OIL WELL

P7.CLOSED IN GAS WELL
P8.CLOSED IN CONDENSATE WELL
Field 29 Activity
The field "Activity" is intended to give a more complete coded description of the present operation
carried out.
Table A 11 shows the codes used for the activity field.
Table A 11 Activities
Description Remark
A1.ACTUAL DRILLING When the bit is on bottom
A10.WELL SUSPENDED
A2.TRIPPING OUT
A3.TRIPPING IN
A4.OUT OF HOLE
A5.CORING
A6.MILLING.
A7.FISHING
A8.STUCK PIPE
A9.PLUGGED PIPE
B1.CIRCULATING
B2.WEIGHT UP MUD
C1.CASING RUNNING Actual running the casing in the hole
C2.CEMENTING CASING
C3.WAIT ON CEMENT
C4.PRESSURE TEST CASING
C5.DRILLING OUT CASING
C6.PULLING CASING
C7.CEMENT SQUEEZE
C8.LEAK OFF TEST
D1.INSTALL BOP
D2.NIPPLE DOWN BOP
D3.TEST BOP
D4.MAINTENANCE BOP
D5.SET WELL PLUGS
D6.PULL/DRILL OUT WELL PLUGS
D7.NIPPLE DOWN X-MAS TREE
E1.SURVEYING
E2.LOGGING
E3.ACTUAL WELL TEST
F1.RUN TUBING
F10.SNUBBING OUT
F11.KILLING
F2 PULL TUBING
F3.PERFORATING
F4.STIMULATING
F5.GRAVEL PACK
F6.ACIDIZING
F7.CLEANING WELL
F8.PULL COILED TUBING
F9.SNUBBING IN
G1.CHANGING EQUIPMENT

A-10
Description Remark
G2.PRESSURE TEST SURF. EQUIPMENT
G3.PRESSURE TEST WELL EQUIPMENT
G4.MAINTENANCE SURFACE EQUIPMENT
G5.MAINTENANCE WELL EQUIPMENT
G6.MAINTENANCE OTHER
O1.WAIT ON REPAIR
O2.WAIT ON WEATHER
O3.WAIT ON ORDER
O4.DISCONNECT RISER
OTHER
P1.REGULAR PRODUCTION
P2.REGULAR INJECTION
P3.PRODUCTION TESTING
P4.SURFACE MAINTENANCE
P5.TESTING SAFETY VALVES
P6.GAS LIFTING
P7.FAILURE DIAGNOSING
P8.GAS LIFTING
UNKNOWN
W1.RUN WIRELINE
W2.PULL WIRELINE
W3.FISH FOR WIRELINE
F8b.RUN COILED TUBING
F8c.COILED TUBING OPERATIONS
E4. FLOW CHECK
Field 30 External Cause

The field External cause indicates if the incident was caused by an External cause, and if so what
type of, external cause.
Table A 12 shows the used external causes.
Table A 12 External cause
Description Remarks
NO No external cause
A1.STORM
A2.SHIP COLLISION
A3.TRAWL/ANCHOR
A4.FIRE/EXPLOSION
A5.EARTHQUAKE
A6.SABOTAGE/MILITARY ATTACK
UNKNOWN
Field 31 Loss of Barrier 1

The field Loss of barrier 1 describes the primary barrier lost.
Table A 13 shows the codes used for loss of barrier 1.

A-11
Table A 13 Loss of barrier 1
Description Remarks/criteria
A1.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - TOO LOW MUD When too low mudweight is stated in the
WEIGHT source, many of these incidents may actually be
caused by an unexpected high well pressure
A10.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - ANNULAR LOSSES
A11.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - WHILE CEMENT When the kick occur in the first period after the
SETTING cementing operation is completed
A12.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - CEMENT PREFLUSH When stated in the source
WEIGHT TOO LOW
A13.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - DRILLING INTO
NEIGHBOUR WELL
A14.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - TRAPPED GAS When stated in the source
A15.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - UNKNOWN WHY
A16.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - SQUEEZED PERF.
BROKE DOWN
A2.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - SWABBING When swabbing is stated in the source, or the
blowout occur when pulling out of the hole
A3.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - GAS CUT MUD When gas cut mud is stated in the source
A4.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - WATER CUT MUD When water cut mud is stated in the source
A5.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - IMPROPER FILL UP When improper fill-up is stated in the source
A6.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - DISCONNECTED RISER When stated in the source
A7.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - RISER LEAK
A8.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - UNEXPECTED HIGH When stated in the source, or if the kick occur
WELL PRESSURE when actual drilling
A9.TOO LOW HYD. HEAD - RESERVOIR DEPTH When stated in the source, some unexpected
UNCERTAINTY high well pressure incident is likely caused by
reservoir depth uncertainty
B1.POOR CEMENT Typical when gas starts to flow/bubble outside
or in between casing, not in connection with
cementing operations
B2.FORMATION BREAKDOWN
C1.PACKER LEAKAGE
C10.SHEAR VALVE FAILURE
C11.COIL TUBING FAILURE
C12.ANNULUS SAFETY VALVE FAILURE
C13.TUBING PLUG FAILURE
C14.CASING PLUG FAILURE
C15.SNUBBING EQUIPMENT FAILURE
C16.X-MAS TREE FAILURE
C17.PACKER PLUG FAILURE
C18.WELLHEAD FAILURE
C2.TUBING TO ANNULUS COMMUNICATION -
TUBING BURST
TUBING LEAKAGE
EQUIPM./NIPPLE FAILURE
C5.SCSSV/STORM CHOKE FAILURE
C6.WELL TEST STRING BARRIER FAILURE
C7.WIRELINE STUFFING BOX FAILURE
C8.WIRELINE LUBRICATOR FAILURE
C9.WIRELINE BOP FAILURE
OTHER
UNKNOWN
C11a. STRIPPER BOP FAILURE

A-12
Field 32 Loss of Barrier 2

The field Loss of barrier 2 describes the secondary barrier lost.
Table A 14 shows the alternatives for loss of barrier 2.
Table A 14 Loss of barrier 2
Description Remarks
A1.STRING SAFETY VALVE FAILED When stated in the source
A2.STRING SAFETY VALVE NOT AVAIL When stated in the source
A3.FAILED TO STAB KELLY VALVE When stated in the source, or when the
flow comes through the drillstring an no
attempts to stab the valve is mentioned
A5.WIRELINE BOP/LUBRICATOR NOT INST
A6.WIRELINE BOP/LUBRICATOR FAILED
A7.SCCSV/STORM CHOKE FAILED
A8.X-MAS TREE FAILED
B1.FAILED TO CLOSE BOP
B10.DIVERTED - NO PROBLEM
B11.FAILED TO OPERATE DIVERTER
B12.DIVERTER FAILED AFTER CLOSURE
B13.DRILLING WITHOUT RISER
B14.DISCONNECTED RISER
B15.ANNULUS VALVE FAILED
B16.NOT SUFFICIENT FRICTIONAL BACKPRESSURE
B17.NO PUMPING
B2.BOP FAILED AFTER CLOSURE
B3.BOP NOT IN PLACE
B4.WELLHEAD FAILED
B5.CASING HEAD FAILED
B6.TUBING TO ANNULUS COMMUNICATION
C1.BAD CEMENT
C2.CASING VALVE FAILED
C3.WELLHEAD SEAL FAILED
C4.OUTER CASING FAILED
C5.INNER CASING FAILED
D1.FRACTURE AT CSG SHOE
D2.CASING LEAKAGE
D3.FORMATION BREAKDOWN
NOT RELEVANT - ONLY ONE BARRIER PRESENT
NOT RELEVANT
OTHER
UNKNOWN
A9.COILED TUBING STUFFING BOX FAILED
Field 34 North Sea Standards

The field North Sea Standards is intended for highlighting crucial differences between the well
control equipment involved in the incident and what is required equipment in North Sea operations.
This is a pre-coded field and the alternatives are listed in Table A 15.

A-13
Table A 15 North Sea standards
Description
Yes
No, no shear ram
No, BOP not North Sea standard
No, two barrier principle not followed
Sometimes not relevant, BOP removed to install casing seal
Unknown
Not evaluated
Field 35 Flowpath
Flowpath gives information related to the blowout flowpath. This is a pre-coded field and the
alternatives are listed in Table A 16.
Table A 16 Flowpath
Description
A.THROUGH DRILL STRING/TUBING
B.THROUGH ANNULUS
C.THROUGH OUTER ANNULUS
D.OUTSIDE CASING
E.UNDERGROUND BLOWOUT
UNKNOWN
Field 36 Release Point

Release point gives information related to the release point. This is a pre-coded field. The pre-coded
alternatives are shown in Table A 17.
Table A 17 Release point
Description
BOP VALVE OUTLET
DIVERTED
DIVERTER SYST.LEAK
DRILLFLOOR - CHOKE MANIFOLD
DRILLFLOOR - DRILL PIPE VALVE
DRILLFLOOR - THROUGH ROTARY
DRILLFLOOR - TOP OF DRILL STRING
DRILLFLOOR - TOP OF TUBING
DRILLFLOOR - TUBING VALVE
FROM ABOVE X-MAS TREE
FROM WELLHEAD
FROM X-MAS TREE
NO SURFACE FLOW
NOT EVALUATED
SHAKER ROOM
SUBSEA - OUTSIDE CASING
SUBSEA CRATER
SUBSEA WELLHEAD
SUBSEA X-MAS TREE
TEST SEPARATOR
UNKNOWN
MUD ROOM
SUBSEA BOP

A-14
Field 37 Flow Medium

Flow medium gives information related to the blowout flow medium. This is a pre-coded field and
the alternatives are listed in Table A 18.
Table A 18 Flow medium
Shallow gas Definition of shallow gas:
Shallow gas H2S
Shallow gas, Oil - Any gas zone penetrated before the BOP has been
Shallow gas H2S, Oil installed. Any zone penetrated after the BOP is
Shallow gas, Water installed is not shallow gas.
Shallow gas H2S, Water
Shallow gas, Mud *See page 4, shallow gas definition
Shallow water
Shallow water, other
Gas (deep)
Gas (deep), H2S
Gas (gas lift gas)
Gas (trapped gas)
Gas (deep), Water
Gas (deep), Water, H2S
Gas (deep), Mud
Gas (deep), Methanol
Gas (deep), Mud, Water
Condensate, Gas (deep)
Condensate, Gas (deep), water
Oil
Oil, Shallow gas, H2S
Oil, Gas (deep)
Oil, Gas (deep), H2S
Oil, Gas (deep), Mud
Oil, Gas (deep), Water
Oil, Gas (deep), Condensate
Oil, Water
Mud
Water
Unknown
Field 41 Ignition Type

Ignition type describes whether the blowout was ignited or not. Table A 19 shows the possible
ignition type selections.
Table A 19 Ignition type
Description
NO
EXPLOSION
FIRE
UNKNOWN

A-15
Field 42 Consequence Class

Consequence Class gives a consequence classification of the various incidents. The consequence
types are listed in Table A 20.
Table A 20 Consequence type
Description Remarks
NO
DAMAGE Material loss > $ 0.5 M
SEVERE Material loss > $ 3 M
SMALL
TOTAL LOSS
UNKNOWN
Field 44 Pollution
Table A 21 shows the classification for oil/condensate pollution to the sea.
Table A 21 Pollution
Description
NO
LARGE
MEDIUM
SMALL
UNKNOWN
In case the amount of oil/condensate pollution has been determined it is commented under remarks
Field 48 Control Method

Control method includes information related to the method used to stop the blowout. Table A 22
shows the possible key words.
Table A 22 Control method
Description Remarks
BOP
BRIDGED
CAPPED
CEMENTED
DEPLETED
INSTALLED Equipment, e.g. VALVE
MUD Killed with mud
RELIEF WELL
UNKNOWN
CEASED
Field 50 Data Quality

The Data quality field gives an indication of the reference data quality. Table A 23 shows the
alternatives.

A-16
Table A 23 Data Quality
VERY GOOD is used if the data record is based on the authorities or the companies investigation report
GOOD Is used if the incident is well documented through technical articles or other sources
FAIR If the source list an overall description of the incident
LOW If the quality of the source information is low, but some crucial facts are described
VERY LOW When the source material is very scarce

A-17
Technology for a better society
www.sintef.no

SINTEF Database 2016 Final Signed PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SINTEF Database 2016 Final Signed PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SINTEF F28043- Restricted

Blowout and Well Release

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

SINTEF Technology and Society

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 2 of 93

1. ABOUT THE DATABASE ................................................................................................. 7

2. OVERVIEW OF BLOWOUTS/WELL RELEASES INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE .................. 13

3. BLOWOUTS VS. WELL RELEASES ................................................................................. 21

4. OVERALL BLOWOUT/WELL RELEASE EXPERIENCE........................................................ 23

5. “NORMAL” DRILLING AND PRODUCTION EXPOSURE DATA ......................................... 45

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

5.2 Production Exposure Data....................................................................................................................... 59

6. VARIOUS EXPOSURE DATA .......................................................................................... 67

7. OVERALL BLOWOUT/WELL RELEASE FREQUENCIES ...................................................... 91

APPENDIX 1 BLOWOUT DATABASE STRUCTURE AND CODING....................................... A-1

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 4 of 93

Some 2016 key updates

Table 0.1 New blowouts/well releases 2016 version

Blowout ID Country Main Category Phase Well depth Date

Table 0.2 Edited blowouts and well releases

Blowout ID Country Main Category Phase Well depth Date

Deleted Blowouts, 2016

No blowouts/well releases have been deleted in 2016

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 6 of 93

1. About the Database

The SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database was initiated in 1984.

By December 2016 the following companies were sponsoring the database:

1.2 Database Structure

Blowout/ well release descriptions

1. Category and location

Category and location

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

Table 1.1 Overview of exposure data included in the database

Country Drilling exposure data Production exposure data

Search possibilities and reporting facilities

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 8 of 93

1.3 Important Definitions

Translated to English the definition will be:

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

1.4 Category and Sub-category

Main Category Sub category Comments/Example

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 10 of 93

1.5 Phase of operation

Table 1.3 Phase of operation

1.6 North Sea Standards

Table 1.4 presents the coding used for this field.

Table 1.4 North Sea standards

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 12 of 93

2. Overview of Blowouts/Well releases Included in the Database

Table 2.1 Number of blowouts/well releases related to the different periods

Period No. of blowouts/well releases

2.2 Data Quality

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

Table 2.2 Quality of blowout/well release data source material

2.3 Overview of Countries Represented in the Database

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 14 of 93

Table 2.3 Overview of countries represented in the database

50- 60- 70- 80- 90- 1Jan 00 – 1Jan 10 – later than

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

2.4 During what Operational Phases do Blowouts/Well Releases Occur?

AREA Production Total

PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION 16 of 93