botminds.aiRequest a demo
WorkflowDrilling, Wells & Decommissioning

Well File Review

Well file review that rebuilds an old well from every owner's pages, grades each part by its evidence, and asks for a log where the paper runs out.

See the demoBook a demo
Rewind one old well to its signed statement ↓
The problem

Historic well records that copy one number for decades

Before a well is plugged, an abandonment engineer rebuilds it from boxes handed down by each owner. The summaries are the quick read, and they copy each other: a cement top worked out from slurry volume gets typed onto every data sheet that follows, long after a bond log said otherwise.

Other facts never reach a summary at all. A line of handwriting at the foot of a workover report says tubing and a packer were left in the hole, and the final report says the tubing was replaced. The pulling unit finds out on location.

Built forAbandonment engineersSenior well engineersWell records analystsRecords coordinatorsAssurance reviewers

The Problem Today

Before plugging, an engineer rebuilds a well from old files, where summaries copy errors and leave things out.

Every
well's cement must be evaluated first, under one onshore rule published
1,192
hours to read the sample's old pages, half a minute each our estimate

Pieced together by hand

  • Tallies
  • Cement jobs
  • Bond logs
  • Workovers
  • One number, copied for yearsA calculated cement top repeated on each summary
  • One handwritten lineTubing left in the hole, in no summary

The Solution

  1. Each owner's pagesBoxes from three former owners, matched across each well's old names
  2. The well, rewoundA drawing builds year by year, each part tied to its old page
  3. Disagreements shownBoth pages side by side; a person settles it; agents never fill a gap
  4. Log it, then signWhere paper ends, the agent proposes a logging run; an engineer signs

Built-in controls

  • A second engineer countersigns each statement
  • A part with no page stays unknown
  • Questions about work at a well go to a person

What You Get

Abandonment planning starts from what the file truly shows, with each gap stated before a unit arrives.

$432K
of unit time if met on location, assuming three unit days each our estimate
  • Each part gradedKnown, inferred or unknown, with the page behind it
  • Left-in-hole found earlyFrom a report's margin, before the unit is on site
  • A signed condition statementSigned by one engineer, then countersigned by another
One old well, rewound

A well file review of LM-033-01, three owners and 1,146 pages

A land well drilled by its first owner, sold twice, shut in on water and now on the plugging list. Its summaries agree with each other. Its pages do not.

demoOwners, wells, depths and engineers here are sample data, made up for this walk.

  1. 01Review

    Slide to the bond log, and a second cement top appears 2,750 ft deeper

    Abandonment engineer

    The rewind draws the well as the file knew it, owner by owner. At the first owner's report the production casing cement reaches 4,100 ft, a calculation. Slide to the second owner's workover and a bond log finds good bond only from 6,850 ft, with free pipe above. Both tops are drawn, each linked to its page.

  2. 02Review

    One page calculated 4,100 ft; the other measured 6,850 ft

    Abandonment engineer

    The two pages sit next to each other with the figures marked. The cement job report also carries a pencil note that returns were lost on the last 60 bbl of displacement. Below, every later page that repeated 4,100 ft is listed: a completion report, a purchase data sheet, a summary and a data room card, none with a new measurement.

  3. 03Review

    She rules for the log, in her own words, and it waits for a check

    Abandonment engineer

    Both pages must be opened before the rule button works. The engineer picks 6,850 ft and writes why: the log was run with the tubing out, and 4,100 ft rested on a slurry volume after lost returns. Until the senior engineer agrees, the part is marked as ruled and still unchecked.

  4. 04Review

    One handwritten line: 312 ft of tubing and a packer left at 7,940 ft

    Abandonment engineer

    Sliding on to the third owner, the drawing changes. At the foot of a workover daily report, in pen: tubing parted at 7,940, ten joints and a packer left, no fishing per office. The final report says only that tubing was pulled and replaced, and the later summary says packer: none.

  5. 05Review

    Where paper runs out, the agent proposes a run and she asks for it

    Abandonment engineer

    Three parts are unknown from any page: rods and pump, the casing wall, and the hole below 7,940 ft. The advisor proposes the smallest run that answers the ones that decide where plugs can go, and says it needs the tubing out. The engineer asks for it; approval rests with the senior engineer.

  6. 06Statement

    Signing waits until she has opened each page behind a doubtful part

    Abandonment engineer

    The condition statement is drafted from 17 cited pages and says plainly that it describes what the file shows. Whether the well is fit for work is outside it. Five pages carry the doubtful parts. She has opened three, and the sign button says two are still to go.

  7. 07Statement

    Signed, after opening 5 of 17 cited pages, and waiting for a countersign

    Abandonment engineer

    With the last two pages opened, she ticks that she has read the statement and signs version 1. The cement top reads ruled, not checked; the S1 Sand behind the casing stays inferred; the logging run is asked for and not yet approved. None of that is smoothed over by her signature.

  8. 08Statement

    The countersign stays off until he opens his own six pages

    Senior well engineer

    Switching to the senior well engineer, the panel lists six pages to open himself, none opened yet. He also sees her ruling with her exact words, marked as not compared by any machine, and the run waiting for his approval. Her opening does not count for him.

  9. 09Afterwards

    Each page opened, the ruling and its reason, the run and the signature

    Assurance reviewer

    The trail lists every opening by name and time, the ruling with the words she typed, the logging run request and the signature on version 1, beside the agents' own steps. Entries are fixed once written, and the reviewer can export the trail without acting on the well.

What the summaries said about LM-033-01, and what its pages said

Four facts the file held that the data sheets did not.

Good cement starts at 6,850 ft

The bond log found good bond only from 6,850 ft. Every summary after it repeated the calculated 4,100 ft.

The S1 Sand is not behind cement

With the measured top, the sand sits 485 ft above the cement, with free pipe across it.

Tubing and a packer left at 7,940 ft

312 ft of tubing and a packer, on one handwritten line. The later summary says packer: none.

What was left sits above the perforations

The top of what was left is 274 ft above the open perforations, and was never tagged.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Around the statement

Three owners' boxes, hard readings and a pre-abandonment well review queue

What the records team and the senior engineer work from across the plugging list.

Past-owner files143,000 pages for 168 wells from three former owners and the current system, one well under four names, boxes never received, and pages held unread.
Wells168 wells on the plugging list with their old names, statement state, parts graded known, inferred and unknown, open questions and logging run.
Hard readingsHandwriting, faint copies and faxes the agents read with less than 90% sureness wait here for the records analyst, with the page and both possible readings.
Logging runsWhere no page can answer, a run is proposed instead of a guess. The engineer asks, the senior engineer approves, and runs then wait for the contractor.
Hand-off to planningCountersigned statements go to abandonment planning in waves. The senior engineer opens a sample first, and a run still outstanding is flagged on each well.
Evidence rulesKnown means on record as of its year, not true today. A measurement beats a calculation, and agents fill no gaps. Changes need the senior engineer.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Who reads the boxes

Six agents read old pages, and none of them settles a disagreement

Their work ends on the abandonment engineer's desk.

File gatherer

Collects a well's pages across owners, splits scans by page and matches old names.

  • Never discards or renames a page
Event reader

Puts the well's life in date order, reads handwriting and margins, and ties each depth to its passage.

  • Never fills a missing date or depth
Part builder

Draws the well part by part and grades each by the evidence rules.

  • Never upgrades a grade without a page
Disagreement finder

Compares pages on the same part, ranks them by the order of evidence and shows both.

  • Never settles a disagreement
Logging run advisor

Proposes the smallest run that answers the unknowns that decide plug placement.

  • Never books a contractor
  • Never says a well may be entered
Statement drafter

Drafts the statement with citations and the unknowns stated.

  • Never says a well is fit for work
  • Never signs

What only an engineer may write into a well's history

The agents read and draw. These calls stay with named engineers.

A gap stays a gapA part with no page behind it is unknown. No agent fills it from a neighbour or a guess.
Two pages that disagree need a personThe finder shows both and ranks them. The engineer rules, and the senior engineer checks.
Paper is not a logWhere the file cannot answer, the answer is a logging run, approved by the senior engineer.
No statement says a well is fit for workIt describes what the file shows, signed by one engineer and countersigned by another.

What abandonment engineers ask about well file review

What is a well file review?

A well file review rebuilds an old well's condition from its records before work such as plugging. This well file review gathers each owner's pages, draws the well part by part, grades each part known, inferred or unknown, and shows the reports that disagree.

How is it used in a pre-abandonment well review?

It gives the abandonment engineer a drawing and a condition statement built from cited pages, with the unknowns that decide plug placement stated and a logging run proposed for them.

Can it read handwriting and faded scans in historic well records?

Yes. Values the agents are unsure of go to a records analyst with the page and both possible readings. A part that rests on an unchecked reading cannot be signed.

What happens when a bond log and a cement job report disagree?

Both pages appear together, with every later page that copied one of them. A measurement outranks a calculation in the evidence rules, yet the ruling is the engineer's, checked by a senior colleague.

Does the condition statement say the well is safe to enter?

No. It says what the file shows and what it does not. Entering the well, and the logging run, go under the operator's own permit and procedure.

What about wells whose boxes are missing?

They are listed as not received or no file at all, with where the search looked. Their parts stay unknown and a logging need is proposed.

Drilling, Wells & Decommissioning

More solutions for abandonment and well files

All 9 solutions →
Well Integrity Management

Barriers proven by their last test or flagged, and a person signs each status change.

1-min demoWell Program Review

Offset hazards traced to the program step that handles them, and the untraced ones shown plainly.

1-min demoOffset Well Analysis

The kick nobody would have picked, found in the daily reports and cited to its page.

1-min demo

Send us one old well's boxes
from each owner.

We will rebuild it part by part and show you which parts no page can tell you.

Book a demoBrowse solutions