The Integrity Gap: Intervention on the Asset's Terms

Kevin Watt, Managing Director of KCI, examines why well integrity failures so often become operational crises, and why the standard routes to intervention are increasingly out of step with how most assets are actually being run.

Spend enough time working with operators and you start to see the same pattern. The technical problem is usually manageable. The real pressure comes from fitting the solution into the reality of how the asset is actually running.

At KCI, we’re typically brought in at that point - when an integrity issue has moved from something to monitor into something that needs action, but the usual routes don’t quite fit. We’ve had those conversations across different regions and asset types, and the pressure points are remarkably consistent.

Most assets in our world are older. Many are significantly so. And the issue is that ageing assets are still expected to run hard, with less tolerance for deferment, fewer natural shutdown opportunities, and sharper scrutiny on efficiency than ever before. The scale of what operators are managing is considerable: across nearly 10,000 wells analysed in a 2025 review of integrity incidents, casing failures accounted for 62% of all reported failures, with casing and cement together representing over 90% of total integrity incidents.

These are not edge cases. When an annulus pressure deviation surfaces, or a control line loses isolation, or a gate valve begins to exhibit signs of degradation, the technical diagnosis usually comes quickly. What follows tends to be more complicated.

The standard toolkit has not changed much; workovers, seal or component replacement, planned shutdowns, sometimes a rig. These remain valid routes, but in practice lining them up takes time; planning cycles, equipment lead times, logistics, and rig scheduling. By the time everything is mobilised and aligned, the original integrity deviation has often evolved. Sometimes that means it has worsened. Sometimes it forces a reactive decision that was avoidable with a different approach.

The financial consequences of that reactivity are significant, with upstream companies facing an average of 27 days of unplanned downtime each year, at a cost of around $38 million. That figure does not capture the longer-term consequence of deferred decisions on asset condition. That is the space KCI operates in; an alternative approach when conventional intervention does not fit the operational reality in front of you.

When an operator comes to us, we start with the situation, not the solution. What’s actually failing? What needs to be protected? And what is realistically possible within the constraints of the asset?

From there, we work alongside the operator to build an approach that fits. In many cases, that means using engineered sealant technology; placing a liquid system into the failure path and allowing it to cure in position to form a barrier. The advantage is that we’re often able to work with the system as it is, rather than dismantling it, reducing disruption, exposure, and downtime.

The principle is straightforward, but the application isn’t. Every job needs to be designed around the specific conditions in front of us; pressure, geometry, fluids, and the wider operating context all matter. What looks similar on paper can require a vastly different approach in practice.

At the centre of that thinking is safety; protecting people, the asset, and the wider environment while keeping operations running as steadily as possible. That’s why timing matters just as much as the solution itself.

One of the most consistent things I hear from operators is that they wish they had started the conversation earlier. Many integrity deviations show early indicators. Research suggests that sustained casing pressure alone affects between 10% and 40% of wells, depending on region and well age, which gives a sense of how broadly these risks are already present across operating portfolios.

The challenge is matching the technical read on those indicators with an intervention plan that is realistic given the asset's operational calendar. That forward planning, identifying where risks are building and where intervention windows actually exist, is where the most value tends to be generated. Avoiding reactivity is not a luxury; at the margins operators are now working within, it is an operational discipline in its own right.

We work with operators to understand what can be resolved riglessly and what needs a different route entirely. From there, we look at how a campaign can be sequenced across maintenance windows and production cycles without creating more disruption than the underlying problem would have.

The integrity challenges facing operators today are not going away. The global oilfield integrity management market is projected to grow from $17.65 billion in 2025 to over $25 billion by 2030, a trajectory that reflects just how acute the underlying problem has become across the industry.

The question for any operator isn’t whether integrity issues will arise, but rather how practically they can respond when they do. That means finding an approach that fits the asset, the timeline, and the operational reality on the ground, not the one that would be convenient.

That’s where we focus at KCI: working with operators to find solutions that are technically sound, proportionate, and designed to keep people safe and operations moving. If you’re dealing with an integrity issue and not sure the usual approach will work, we’re always happy to have a conversation.

Interested in our approach? Connect with one of our experts.