Well Control Manual PDF
Well Control Manual PDF
INDEX Page 1 of 1
Introduction WCON 01
Gas Behaviour and Fluid Hydrostatics WCON 02
Preparation WCON 03
Kick Prevention WCON 04
Warning Signs of an Influx WCON 05
Action on Detecting an Influx WCON 06
Well Kill Decision Analysis WCON 07
Well Kill Techniques WCON 08
Complications WCON 09
Shallow Gas WCON 10
Well Control Equipment WCON 11
Planning Documentation WCON 12
Special Cases WCON 13
Blowout Causes WCON 14
References and Further Reading WCON 15
Drilling and Production Operations Ref: WCON 01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2
1.1 PURPOSE........................................................................................................ 2
1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
A well control operation is always an unwelcome, but often necessary, procedure as it
is usually both hazardous and expensive, especially when mismanaged (see
Figure 1.1). While not normally included in the well budget it must be performed in both
a safe and cost-efficient manner. Personnel who are directly responsible for these
operations require a solid understanding of the underlying principles upon which well
control is based. This manual serves as a reference for supervisors, engineers and
superintendents of all experience levels who may be required to make decisions, write
procedures and supervise operations.
Figure 1.1 shows the consequences of mismanaged well control operations, as seen in
a South Texas blowout in 1997.
1.3 OWNERSHIP
The custodian of this Repsol manual is the Head of Drilling Engineering in Madrid.
1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This manual was prepared by Boots and Coots – International Well Control of
Houston, Texas and published both in paper and CD format by Offshore Design
Limited (ODL), both of Aberdeen, Scotland.
Although the figures in the list above are staggering, the effect that these incidents
have had upon human lives and the environment cannot possibly be represented.
INTRODUCTION Page 6 of 10
We may therefore state that in exploration and production operations our exposure to
risk is greatest not during the drilling of a hydrocarbon bearing formation, but once it is
drilled when we trip out of the hole.
It was also determined that a third of all blowouts occurred in zones shallower than
10,000ft. As these phases are typically not critical (from a well control stand point) they
are considered ‘less risky’ by everyone concerned. We therefore assume that
complacency is certainly involved, and complacency is a type of behaviour which must
be watched for and corrected by all involved in drilling and production operations.
Likewise, we have determined that exploration drilling is more risky than development
drilling. Also, blowout risk associated with well intervention operations (drilling,
completion or workover) is of the order of eight times that associated with production
related operations.
A previous study, which used the American Petroleum Institute (API) database for
‘drilled wells’ and ‘producing wells’ covering the years 1961 to 1990, found that only
13% of blowouts were related to producing wells. The number is quite similar to our
results, which indicate that 10% of blowouts were related to producing wells. However,
the insurance database which these results are based upon does not clearly reflect
actual production blowouts as many of these claims fall into various other categories.
The internal records of well control companies indicate that in the period ranging from
1989 to 1999 the percent of producing well blowouts has steadily increased and
continues to increase.
Table 1.2 summarises the results of the current study by region, operating
environment, well type, well status, type of blowout and depth of loss zone.
INTRODUCTION Page 7 of 10
Additional analysis of the data from the database can be found in the form of a graph in
Figure 1.2. When trying to draw conclusions from this data, one should keep in mind
that it is incomplete, as we do not know precisely the percentage of land rig-drilled
wells, of shallow water wells and of deepwater or ultra-deepwater wells as compared to
total wells. We may however conclude that the blowout ratio has increased. From this
we may assume that our previous comments regarding ‘producing well’ blowouts
are accurate.
INTRODUCTION Page 8 of 10
5.0% 110
Blowout Ratio
4.5% 100
Ratio of Blowouts to Number of
Number of Blowouts 90
4.0%
80
Number of Blowouts
3.5%
70
3.0%
60
Rigs
2.5%
50
2.0%
40
1.5%
30
1.0%
20
0.5% 10
0.0% 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
As precise vales concerning the causes of blowouts are unavailable, it is once again
stressed that transitional operations such as tripping are high-risk, but for that matter
‘damage to well integrity’ (casing failure), ‘equipment failure’ and ‘gas zones’ (as in
shallow gas zones) are also big contributors to blowout causes. We therefore
recommend that the material in this manual be reviewed frequently and in particular,
Section 14 as it is certainly a historical perspective.
Fortunately, major blowouts are fairly infrequent. Unfortunately, this infrequency leaves
the operational staff of the Operator inexperienced in controlling blowouts and therefore
relying on outside experts who deal with these matters on a regular basis.
As the industry moves toward higher technology wells, these wells present greater
technological challenges (deep water, high pressure, high temperature etc) and these
invalidate most traditional well-control company experience and level of technology.
Therefore, the responsibility of pre-engineering and planning for regaining control falls
clearly on the operating company.
Given the monetary cost of controlling a well, it is reasonable to expend engineering
and preplanning effort to create a plan for control that will have the effect of reducing
the cost of killing a blowout well.
In the event of a major offshore blowout, the speed at which rescue and intervention
equipment and personnel are mobilised is critical for the preservation of life, property,
and the environment. The first priorities of these emergency operations are:
Personnel evacuation and medical aid
Notification of appropriate parties
Firefighting and protection of the platform or rig
Oil spill containment
In order to respond quickly and efficiently to these emergencies, detailed response
plans have been devised and supported with the necessary resources and
infrastructure to react immediately if required. Unfortunately, regardless of the level of
preparedness, the only way to test the true effectiveness of a response strategy is
during an actual emergency.
It is therefore highly recommended that blowout simulation exercises be conducted at
least once per year in order to evaluate the quality of the contingency plan, the
personnel ability to respond properly, and to make appropriate modifications as
necessary.
In the aftermath of the recent major blowouts (Piper Alpha, Ocean Odyssey,
Treasure Saga), a post evaluation process indicated that while considerable effort has
been incorporated to deal with the immediate emergency (eg evacuation, firefighting,
oil spill containment, etc) more could be done in preparation for regaining control of a
blowing well. Notwithstanding the probability of such a blowout might be small, the
consequences in terms of cost or pollution could be catastrophic.
It is for these reasons that ‘solving the problem’ contingency plans should be added to
the existing emergency response plans. This effort should include surface, subsea, and
relief well intervention.
INTRODUCTION Page 10 of 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pc
Tc
MOLECULAR Pc Tc
COMPOUND FORMULA
WEIGHT psia °F
Methane CH4 16.043 667.8 -116.7
Ethane C2H6 30.070 707.8 90.1
Propane C3H8 44.097 616.3 206.0
Butane, n C4H10 58.124 550.7 305.6
Butane, iso C4H10 58.124 529.1 275.0
Pentane, n C5H12 72.151 488.6 385.6
Pentane, iso C5H12 72.151 490.4 369.0
Carbon Dioxide CO2 44.010 1071.0 87.8
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S 34.076 1306.0 212.6
Nitrogen N2 28.013 493.0 -232.7
Water H2O 18.015 3207.9 705.5
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 5 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Rarely do pure liquids or gases reside in a rock formation, therefore produced fluids
will normally comprise a mixture. Any combination of methane and the heavier
hydrocarbon components such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen sulphide may
be present in an influx. Figure 2.2 depicts a typical pressure-temperature phase
diagram for fluid mixtures.
The area within the envelope describes the combination of pressures and temperatures
at which gas and liquid co-exist. Note that increasing liquid concentration within this
region is seen at increasing pressure and at decreasing temperature. The 100%
(by volume) liquid line defines the bubble point pressure at any given temperature while
100% gas line gives the dewpoint pressure as a function of temperature. The critical
point at ‘C’ characterises the unique pressure and temperature (Pc and Tc) at which
the properties of the bubble point liquid are indistinguishable from the properties of the
dewpoint gas. Thus, the definition of Pc and Tc for mixtures is markedly different than
the previously defined terms for pure substances.
As an example of what may occur in removing an influx from a well, refer to the line
‘A-A’ on Figure 2.2. Under this scenario, point ‘A’ depicts the reservoir pressure and
temperature and is in the region of the phase diagram where the influx mixture is all
gas. Traversing the line to the surface conditions at ‘A’, liquid or condensate begins to
fall out of the gas at point ‘B’ in the wellbore and the composition is almost 40% liquid
by the time the influx surfaces. It can also be seen from this diagram that conditions
may also exist such that gas concentrations increase as the fluid mixture approaches
the surface.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 6 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
These equations and all PVT relationships require the use of absolute pressure and
temperature. Absolute pressure is simply gauge pressure plus the atmospheric
pressure. Given the imprecise nature of well control predictions, the use of unadjusted
gauge pressures is probably acceptable in many cases. Exceptions to this
generalisation would include those situations where pressures are low or approach
atmospheric conditions.
Absolute temperatures are referenced to absolute zero and are determined in
customary oilfield units by:
°R = °F + 460 (2.3)
and in the SI metric system by:
°K = °C + 273 (2.4)
where °F and °R are temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and Rankin. In the SI metric
system, °C and °K are Celsius and Kelvin.
The volume of an ideal gas depends on the number of gas molecules, or moles,
present as well as pressure and temperature. From Avogadro’s Law, the type of gas
molecule or the presence of a mixture of different molecules is not a factor. Combining
this principle with the observations of Boyle and Charles leads to the ideal gas law:
PV=nRT (2.5)
where n is the number of moles (mass divided by molecular weight) and R is the
universal gas constant, whose numerical value depends on the chosen unit system.
Listed in Table 2.2 are common units and associated gas constant values.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 7 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
P V T n R
3
psia ft °R lb-mole 10.732
psia gal °R lb-mole 80.275
psia bbl °R lb-mole 1.911
3
kPa m K g-mole 0.0083145
3
kPa m K kg-mole 8.3145
In the case of a gas influx contained within a closed wellbore, n is constant and it
follows that:
P1V1 P2 V2
(2.6)
T1 T2
Since:
n = V/RT
for gases, it follows that the density of an ideal gas (g) may be determined by:
g = P M/R T (2.8)
The specific gravity of a gas (g) is the ratio of its molecular weight (M) to the molecular
weight of air (Ma):
g = M/Ma = M/29 (2.9)
Rearranging Equation 2.9 and substitution into Equation 2.8 leads to a convenient
relationship for gas density:
g = 29 g P/R T (2.10)
The apparent molecular weight of a gas mixture can be obtained by:
M = fg1 M1 + fg2 M2 + …. + fgn Mn (2.11)
where fgn and Mn denote the respective mole fraction and molecular weight of the
mixture components.
Example 2.2
A gas mixture consists of 95% methane, 3% ethane, and 2% of the heavier
hydrocarbons. Determine the specific gravity of this mixture assuming an average
heavy-end molecular weight of 47.
Solution
First, determine the apparent molecular weight of the mixture:
M = (0.95)(16.043) + (0.03)(30.070) + (0.02)(47.0) = 17.083
Now the gas specific gravity can be determined:
g = 17.083/29 = 0.59
The gas specific gravity is an important variable in many of the well control predictions,
which follow through the remainder of the text. This parameter can be readily obtained
if the nature of the formation fluid is known and if a gas analysis is available for that
fluid. However, precise formation fluid constituent fractions in well control problems
are generally unknown, which means that some estimated value is often required.
A common assumption for well control operations is that g is between 0.6 and 0.7.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 9 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
g = P M/[z R T ] (2.14)
and
g = 29 g P/[z R T] (2.15)
The magnitude of the z factor for a specific gas is dependent on both pressure and
temperature. Compressibility factor curves have been obtained experimentally for a
wide range of pure gases.
The z factor isotherm curves for all pure gases have a similar characteristic
appearance. This similarity follows from the Theorem of Corresponding States, which
says that two or more substances should have similar properties at corresponding
conditions with reference to some basic property. Thus the Theorem states that all pure
gases should have the same z factor when the pressure and temperature of the gas
are referenced to the critical pressure and temperature of the gas. The reduced
pressure and reduced temperature, Pr and Tr of a pure gas are the ratio of the gas
pressure and temperature to the critical constants of the gas. Hence, all pure gases
should have the same compressibility factor at equivalent Pr and Tr.
The technique for obtaining z factors must be modified if the gas is a mixture, as
essentially all formation gases are. The pseudo-critical pressure and temperature
parameters, Ppc and Tpc, were devised by Kay for gas mixtures and can be obtained
by molal averaging of the critical constants of the respective gas components.
Ppc = fg1 Pc1 +…+ fgn Pcn (2.16)
and
Tpc = fg1 Tc1 +…+ fgn Tcn (2.17)
Pseudo-critical properties correlate well with specific gravity if the molecular structures
of the gas components are similar. Charts such as the one shown in Figure 2.3 may
then be used to predict Ppc and Tpc for an assumed g. After calculating or obtaining
Ppc or Tpc by correlation, the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature, Ppr and Tpr,
are then found by using Equations 2.18 and 2.19.
Ppr = P/Ppc (2.18)
Tpr = T/Tpc (2.19)
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 10 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
800 800
500 500
400 400
Tpc
300 300
200 200
Tpc for Miscellaneous Gases
Ppc for Miscellaneous Gases
100 Tpc for Condensate Well Fuilds 100
Ppc for Condensate Well Fluids
0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Finally, the z factor of any hydrocarbon gas can be obtained from the Standing and
Katz chart, which is represented by Figures 2.4 and 2.5.
Pseudo-reduced Pressure (Pr) Figure 2.4 - Compressibility Factor as a Function of Pseudo-reduced Pressure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.2 1.2
3.00
1.0 2.80 2.60 1.0
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.90
1.70 1.80
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
1.60
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND
1.50
0.8 0.8
1.40
1.30
0.6 0.6
1.20
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 11 of 41
Curves represent values for pseudo-reduced temperature and range from 3.0 to 1.05.
Figure 2.5 - Compressibility Factor as a Function of Pseudo-reduced Pressure
Pseudo-reduced Pressure (Pr)
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1.9 1.9
1.8 1.8
1.05
1.6 1.6
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND
1.30
1.40
1.5 1.50
1.5
1.60
1.80
1.4 1.90 1.4
2.20
2.00
2.40 2.60
1.3 3.00 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 12 of 41
Curves represent values for pseudo-reduced temperature and range from 3.0 to 1.05.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 13 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Example 2.3
Determine the initial z factor and gas density for the influx described in Example 2.1.
Solution
First we must assume a gas-specific gravity. Taking g to be 0.6, then Ppc and Tpc are
671psia and 358°R from Figure 2.3 for the pseudo-critical properties of normal gases;
the pseudo-reduced properties are determined using Equations 2.18 and 2.19.
Ppr = 3500/671 = 5.22
and from Equation 2.3 the temperature in degree Rankin is:
°R = °F + 460 = 150 + 460 = 610
such that:
Tpr = 610/ 358 = 1.70
Likewise from Figure 2.4 the compressibility factors of natural gases, z is found to
be 0.887.
From Table 2.2 we find that R is 80.275, therefore, Equation 2.15 may be written as
Substituting 80.275 (constant for gas density in lb/gal) for R in Equation 2.15, the gas
density in lb/gal is:
g = g P/2.77zT (2.20)
therefore:
g = (0.6) (3500)/[2.77 (0.887) (610)] = 1.40 lb/gal
Caution is advised if the gas is known or suspected to have non-hydrocarbon fractions.
Use of the pseudo-critical correlation’s and z factor charts in these cases, particularly if
H2S or CO2 are present, can lead to a loss in accuracy.
where:
A1 = 0.3265
A2 = -1.0700
A3 = -0.5339
A4 = 0.01569
A5 = -0.05165
A6 = 0.5475
A7 = -0.7361
A8 = 0.1844
A9 = 0.1056
A10 = 0.6134
A11 = 0.7210
Upon determining the Ppc and Tpc we may calculate r and z iteratively. However, we
must first assume that z is 1 in Equation c 2.03. Hence we have:
r = 0.27 Ppr/Tpr (c 2.05)
Example 2.4
Determine the initial z factor and gas density for the influx described in Example 2.1.
Solution
First we must assume a gas specific gravity. Taking g to be 0.6, then Ppc and Tpc are
calculated from Equations c2.01 and c2.02.
2
Ppc = 756.8 – [131 (0.6)] – [3.6 (0.6) ] = 676.9
2
Tpc = 169.2 + [349.5 (0.6)] – [74 (0.6) ] = 352.3
Returning to Equations 2.18 and 2.19 we may calculate the pseudo-reduced pressure
and temperature.
Ppr = 3500/676.9 = 5.170
Tpr = 610/352.3 = 1.732
For the first iteration we use Equation c 2.05 rather than Equation c 2.03 such that:
r = 0.27 (5.170)/(1.732) = 0.806
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 15 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.2.3 Summary
The techniques for predicting annular pressures during displacement of a gas kick,
which are covered in Section 8, are generally coupled with various simplifying
assumptions. A typical assumption is that either the wellbore gas behaves according to
Boyle’s Law (temperature and z factors are ignored) or as an ideal gas (wellbore
temperature is included). Real gas computations are more time consuming and
iterative calculations are required since z factor is a function of pressure. Hence,
accurate modelling of what happens in a well during a control procedure demands that
the deviation from ideal gas behaviour be considered.
Real gas behaviour reveals that a real gas acts like an ideal gas at any given
temperature. One pressure range where ideal gas assumption may apply with
acceptable accuracy is at or near atmospheric conditions. Following an isotherm dip as
pressures increase from atmospheric, the two behaviour assumptions converge at only
one more pressure on the chart. So any pressures predicted by the ideal gas law would
likely under-estimate the actual pressure in the low to mid-range Ppr values and would
be conservative at higher pressures.
In fact, poor decisions related to managing a deep, a high-pressure influx could follow
from the use of ideal gas predictions. The recommended approach to well design is to
be as accurate as the situation demands in determining wellbore and equipment
loading, then applying the appropriate design factors to these predictions.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 16 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
1 lb / ft
gc lbg-ftft//sec
2
lb - sec
3
2
F
144in / ft
2 2
-
Multiplying this result by the fluid density (f) in lb/ft will give the fluid’s hydrostatic
3
2.3.1 Gases
Given the compressible nature of gases, they do not exhibit a constant density at
different points in a well. Recall the dependence of gas density on pressure and
temperature, shown in Equations 2.10 and 2.14, which in turn depend on the specified
depth. An acceptable practice for relatively short gas column is to first determine the
pressure at the top of the gas and to assume that this pressure is constant throughout
the gas column length. At the determined pressure and temperature, the gas density
g is calculated using and the equations developed for incompressible fluids are then
applied. This simplified procedure is the usual approach when predicting gas influx
behaviour.
These assumptions can lead to significant error in the case of long gas columns,
eg if we take a deep well with a large open hole section and assume that it has been
shut in while filled with dry gas then the density variation within the gas column should
be considered. Equation 2.26 accounts for the variable density as a function of depth
and is sufficiently accurate for any well control or well design application.
g (D-Do)
P = Poe
53.3 z T (2.26)
Where the constant 53.3 becomes 0.287 when the equation is expressed in SI metric
units. The compressibility factor and temperature in Equation 2.26 are averaged across
the gas column length and at least one iteration will be required because of the
dependency of z on the average well pressure.
Example 2.5
A 12,000ft vertical well is shut in with a single phase 0.6 specific gravity gas influx on
bottom. The initial shut-in annulus pressure Pcs is 500psia. The initial influx height is
determined to be 400ft and the annular mud density is 11.5 lb/gal. Determine the
bottom hole pressure assuming the bottom hole temperature is 205°F.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 18 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Solution
Using Equation 2.25, the pressure at the top of the influx is:
p = 500 + [(11.5/19.25) x (12,000 – 400)] = 7430psia
From Equations 2.18 and 2.19 and from charts for pseudo-critical properties of
natural gases:
Ppr = 7430/671 = 11.07
and
Tpr = 665/358 = 1.86
The Standing and Katz z-factor at the influx top is 1.195. The gas density is then
calculated using Equation 2.20:
g = 0.6 (7430)/2.77 (1.195) (665) = 2.02 lb/gal
Finally, the bottom hole pressure Pbh is obtained as:
Pbh = 7430 + ( 2.02 /19.25 ) (400) = 7473psia
Example 2.6
Considering the same well, what would the shut-in surface pressure be if all of the
drilling fluid had been unloaded from the hole prior to shut-in? Assume that the bottom
hole pressure is the same as calculated in the previous example. Also assume that the
average wellbore temperature is 160°F [71°C].
Solution
Solving Equation 2.26 by trial-and-error, whilst assuming that z is equal to 1.0 for the
first iteration:
((0.6) (12,000)/(53.3) (1.0) (620))
7473 = Poe
or Po is 6010psia. Average the pressures and determine the average z:
(7473 + 5975)/2
Ppr = = 10.02
671
and
Tpr = 620/358 = 1.73
The z factor is found to be 1.132. Substituting into Equation 2.26 again:
((0.6) (12,000)/(53.3) (1.132) (620))
7473 = Poe
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 19 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
The surface pressure Po has the calculated value of 6173psia. Assuming that the
z factor is equal to 1.00:
((0.6) (6000)/(53.3) (1.0) (580))
P6000 = 6173 e = 6935psia
(6935 + 6173)/2
Ppr = = 9.77
671
and
Tpr = 580/358 = 1.62
The z-factor at these conditions is 1.105. By further iteration:
((0.6) (6000)/(53.3) (1.105) (580))
P6000 = 6173 e = 6859psia
No further iterations are necessary. The equivalent density at 6000ft is therefore:
e = 19.25 (6859)/6000 = 22 lb/gal
The pressure gradient corresponding to a 22 lb/gal density is 1.14psi/ft. The formation
fracture integrity would likely have been lost not long after shut-in had this shallower
depth been in open hole.
Example 2.8
A 0.7 specific gravity gas bubble enters the bottom of a 9000ft vertical well when the
drillcollars are being pulled through the rotary table. Flow is noted with pipe out of the
hole and the well is shut in with an initial recorded casing pressure of 50psig. From the
size of the pit gain, the influx height is estimated to be 350ft. The mud density in use
was 9.6 lb/gal.
The casing pressure immediately begins to rise. Assuming no change in hole geometry
(bubble height is constant), determine the final casing pressure if the gas bubble is
allowed to reach the surface without expanding. Also determine the pressure and
equivalent density at total depth under this final condition. Assume the temperature the
well is 70°F ambient plus 1.1°F/100ft and that atmospheric pressure is 14psia.
Solution
The initial influx temperature is:
T9000 = 70 + (1.1/9000) + 460 = 629°R
and the pressure at the top of the influx is:
P = 14 + 50 + (9.6/19.25) (9000 – 350) = 4378psia
Ppc and Tpc are 666psia and 389°R. The pseudo-reduced properties at bottom hole
conditions are then:
Ppr = 4378/666 = 6.57
and
Tpr =629/389 = 1.62
The initial compressibility factor zi is determined to be 0.925.
The final surface pressure must be obtained by iteration. As the first step, assume that
zf is 1.0 and solve for f using Equation 2.13.
4378 V/(0.925) (629) = Pf V/(1.0) (70 + 460)
or P is 3988psia. Now determine zf at surface temperature with this pressure:
Ppr = 3988/666 = 6.00
and
Tpr = 530/389 = 1.36
Continuing the iteration, zf is:
4378 V/(0.925) (629) = Pf V/(0.817)(530)
or Pf is 3258psia
A few more iterative steps finally results in a predicted Pf and zf of 2812psia and 0.705.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 22 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
where sl describes the slip or migration velocity of the gas. Further, t1 and t2 are the
times at which the respective shut-in casing pressures Pcs1 and Pcs2 are recorded.
It should be noted that this simple model assumes that the annular cross-sectional
area remains constant.
Example 2.9
A well experiences an influx and is shut in with an initial casing pressure of 500psig.
Thirty minutes later, the gauge pressure has increased to 800psig. Estimate the slip
velocity of the gas if the bubble length does not change during this time period
(hole geometry is constant). The mud density is 10 lb/gal.
Solution
The hydrostatic gradient corresponding to the 10 lb/gal mud is 0.52psi/ft and the
pressure has changed by 300psi over the 1/2 hour time period. Using Equation 2.28:
sl = 300/(0.52) (0.5) = 1154ft/hr
Although the calculated slip velocity from the preceding problem is within the range of
commonly accepted migration rates, recent studies have shown that predictions using
Equation 2.28 may severely underestimate the actual migration rate. An assumption in
the field technique, which is violated to some degree in every well, is that the system
volume remains constant in response to a change in pressure. Increasing the pressure
in a well, results in three processes, which tend to change the borehole or drilling
fluid volume.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 23 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Change in hole volume follows from the elasticity of the casing and open hole, which
circumferentially strain, or balloon, with an increase in the internal pressure. Another
factor, which may be important in those wellbores with exposed permeable rock, is
filtrate volume loss. Finally, the compressibility of the wellbore fluids will have some
impact. Quantifying the individual effects and the relative importance of each depends
on such things as well depth, hole size, mud properties, formation characteristics, and
other factors.
where Rsm through Rsa respectively describe the solution gas/component ratios of
the mud, base oil, water, emulsifier, and any other additives, which may dissolve gas.
The volume fraction of each component, determined by material balance calculation or
retort analysis, is represented by:
fv
Considering the difference in solubilities among the possible natural gas constituents
and assuming that a reasonable estimate of the gas composition is available, the
solution gas/component ratio for each mud component Rsc may be estimated using
Equation 2.30:
Rsc = fg(h ) Rs(h ) + f(CO2)R(CO2) + f(H2S)R(H2S) (2.30)
where fg is the gas mixture mole fraction of the subscripted hydrocarbon, CO2 and H2S
gases. The solubility curves, which have been widely published, or those presented
elsewhere, may be used to estimate the required numerical values.
As another option, O’Byan and Bourgoyne (1988) published an empirical equation,
reprinted here as Equation 2.31, for estimating Rso and Rsa for hydrocarbon gas
and CO2:
b c
Rs = [P/aT ] (2.31)
where values for the constants a and b are given in Table 2.3 (T in this particular
equation is in °F). The numerical value for ‘c’ is unity if the determination is made for
CO2. Otherwise, ‘c’ must be calculated using Equations 2.32 and 2.33.
GAS COMPONENT a b
Hydrocarbon Oil 1.922 0.2552
CO2 Oil 0.059 0.7134
Hydrocarbon Emulsifier 4.162 0.1770
CO2 Emulsifier 0.135 0.8217
All natural gases are soluble in all drilling fluid to some degree, even water-based
muds. However, the solubility of hydrocarbon gases in water is negligible and usually
ignored in well control predictions. Gas solubility in water decreases at higher salinity
and several correlations or charts are available for adjusting the values.
Little mention has been made of acid gas solubility thus far. CO2 and H2S are soluble in
both water and oil, but with much higher solubility in the common base oils. Because of
its noxious characteristics, little experimental work has been done with H2S solubility in
water. The following two examples demonstrate solubility predictions for both oil and a
water-based mud.
Example 2.10
A 13 lb/gal 70:30 invert emulsion oil mud consists of (by volume) 54% diesel,
23% CaCl2 water, 4% emulsifiers and 19% solids. Using Equations 2.29 through 2.33,
estimate the natural gas solubility in the mud at 150°F and 2000psia. Assume that the
gas is a mixture of 95% hydrocarbons plus 5% CO2. Use a water salinity of
200,000ppm total dissolved solids (TDS) and assume the hydrocarbon gas specific
gravity is 0.65.
Solution
First we determine the hydrocarbon and CO2 solubilities in the oil and emulsifiers.
For the CO2 solubility in oil, the constants ‘a’ and ‘b’ are obtained from Table 2.3 and ‘c’
has a value of 1.00. The solubility is then estimated by using Equation 2.31:
0.7134 1.0
Rso = {2000/[(0.059) (150) ]} = 950scf/bbl
Inserting the constants for CO2 solution in the emulsifiers:
0.8217 1.0
Rse = {2000/[(0.135) (150) ]} = 241scf/bbl
Now determine ‘c’ for hydrocarbon gases in the base oil:
-6
c = 0.3576 + (0.7592)(0.65) + [0.0027 – (0.0747)(0.65)] (150) – [4.51 x 10 –
-6 2
(8.1981 x 10 )(0.65)] (150) = 1.0605
Using this result and the other constants from Table 2.2, the predicted hydrocarbon
gas solubility is:
0.2552 1.0605
Rso = {2000/[(1.922) (150) ]} = 408scf/bbl
Next, calculate the hydrocarbon emulsifier ‘c’ constant:
2
c = 0.40 (1.65)(0.65) – (1.01)(0.65) = 1.0458
which leads to the predicted hydrocarbon gas solubility in the emulsifiers:
0.1770 1.0458
Rse = {2000/[(4.162) (150) ]} = 252scf/bbl
Next, use Equation 2.30 to determine the mixture solubility in the oil and emulsifiers:
Rso = (0.95) (408) + (0.05) (950) = 435scf/bbl
and
Rse = (0.95) (252) + (0.05) (241) = 251scf/bbl
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 27 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
From charts, we estimate the hydrocarbon gas solubility in fresh water to be 12scf/bbl.
However, we must apply the salinity correction factor which is also available
from charts:
Rsw = (12) (0.40) = 5scf/bbl
The CO2 solubility in fresh water is found to be 145scf/bbl and the salinity correction
factor from correlation charts is approximately 0.45. We now predict the CO2 solubility
in the brine as:
Rsw = (145)(0.45) = 65scf/bbl
It follows from Equation 2.30 that the mixture solubility in the water is:
Rsw = (0.95)(5) + (0.05)(65) = 8scf/bbl
Finally, the mixture solubility in the whole mud is calculated using Equation 2.29:
Rsm = (0.54)(435) + (0.23)(8) + (0.04)(251) = 247scf/bbl
Example 2.11
A retort analysis indicates a mud to be made up of 94% fresh water and 6% solids and
a gas analysis shows mole fractions of 0.92 for methane, 0.06 for CO2 and 0.02 for
H2S. Estimate the natural gas solubility in the mud at 180°F and 5200psia.
Solution
The only mud component, which is capable of dissolving any gas, is the water. From
charts we find that the methane solubility at the designated conditions is approximately
21scf/bbl and, likewise the CO2 solubility is 182scf/bbl. The H2S partial pressure is
calculated as:
Ppp = (0.02) (5200) = 104psia
The solubility for H2S is about 36scf/bbl. Substituting terms into Equation 2.30:
Rsw = (0.92) (21) + (0.06) (180) + 36 = 66scf/bbl
Now the mud solubility can be estimated using Equation 2.29:
R = (0.94)(66) = 62scf/bbl
Circulating the hole with an oil mud will provide a continuous supply of fresh oil
available for taking gas into solution if an influx is taken while drilling. All of the gas may
very well go into solution if the formation deliverability is relatively low. Conversely, gas
will eventually reach the solubility limit of the oil if a well kicks during a connection or a
trip. Once the oil is saturated, any additional entry will be in the free gas phase and
thus occupy tree gas volume. However, it would not take long for this gas to be
dissolved once migration into the unsaturated mud takes place.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 28 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Drilled gas has caused some difficulties with oil muds. This is not a problem of being
hydrostatically underbalanced, but involves what can transpire when gas removed by
the bit is displaced up the annulus, invoking our three-stage process as defined in
Section 2.4.1. In Stage 1, two gas bearing sands have been drilled with an oil mud and
are being circulated up the annuls with all of the gas in solution. At Stage 2, the
bubblepoint pressure for the first gas package is attained at some critical point in the
annulus and gas breaks out of solution. This can happen rather violently with rapidly
expanding gas-expelling mud from the annulus. A domino effect, which occurs Stage 3,
as the resulting drop in pressure, releases more gas from the oil, perhaps from drilling
into deeper sands, and further mud losses ensue. As can be imagined, such a situation
can develop and lead to severe problems. Operators can minimise the dangers by
doing such things as controlling drilling rates and training crews to recognise and
react quickly.
The gas/liquid ratio rm of drilled gas to whole mud can be calculated knowing the
penetration rate R, bit diameter db, and the circulation rate q if some assumptions are
made regarding the rock characteristics and gas properties.
Rock removal rate (ft /hr) =
/4 (dbin) [ 12 in/ft] [ft /1,728in ] R (ft/hr) = db R/183.3
3 2 3 3 2
The drilled gas entry rate in scf/min can be calculated assuming the gas pore volume
and using the gas law.
Gas entry rate (scf/min) = [db Sg Pb (1.0) (520)]/[183.3 (60 min/hr) (14.65) zb Tb] =
2
[db R Sg Pb ]/[309.9 zb Tb ]
2
where Pb, Tb, and zb are the conditions of the gas at entry point. Dividing by the
circulation rate q (in bbl/min) then gives the gas/liquid ratio or concentration (in scf/bbl).
rm = [db R Sg Pb]/[309.9 q zb Tb]
2
(2.34)
The constant is replaced by 267,000 when expressed in the SI metric system with bit
diameter in centimetres. Example 2.12 demonstrates the application of Equation 2.34.
Example 2.12
A well drills a 50ft thick gas sand with a 12-1/4in bit at 250ft/hr. Circulating conditions
at the present total depth of 6000ft are 3000psia and 140°F. The oil mud density is
10.5 lb/gal. Assuming the sand’s porosity is 25% with a gas saturation of 80%,
determine the drilled gas concentration in scf/bbl if the circulation rate is 8bbl/min.
Also determine the expansion of the drilled gas if the bubblepoint is reached at annular
conditions of 70psia and 90°F.
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 29 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Solution
A 0.6 gas-specific gravity is assumed and the gas compressibility factor at the entry
point is determined to be 0.86. Substituting numerical values for the variables
Equation 2.34 gives:
2
rm = (12.25) (250) (0.25) (0.80) (3.0)/[309.9 (8.0) (0.86) (600)] = 17.6scf/bbl
This is a fairly low gas concentration and all of the gas would have been initially
dissolved in the mud. The down hole gas volume in barrels is:
Vb =
/4 (12.25in) (12in/ft) (1bbl/9,702in ) (50ft) (0.25) (0.80) = 1.5bbl
2 3
Using the gas law, the gas volume upon releasing from the mud is:
(1.5) (3000) (0.99) (550)
V= = 95bbls
(50) (0.86) (600)
The bubblepoint depth for this hypothetical situation would have been at approximately
100ft and all of the mud above this point would likely have been rapidly ejected from
the hole.
Table 2.5 was prepared to illustrate the effect of solubility on kick detection. The third
column reflects the portion of the volume factor resulting from gas swelling, which is
simply the difference between the published factor and the diesel volume factor.
The last column uses the gas law to convert Rso (standard pressure and temperature)
to the solution GOR at test conditions. Example 2.13 demonstrates the calculation
procedure and the effect of solubility on kick detection by which the data in Table 2.5
was derived.
Table 2.5 - Pit Gain Parameters for Methane Dissolved in No 2 Diesel 100°F
Example 2.13
A 10 barrel methane influx enters a well while circulating No 2 diesel. Determine the
surface pit gain if the influx rate is such that 259scf/bbl is dissolved in the diesel.
Assume that the circulating pressure and temperature at the perforations are 1475psia
and 100°F.
Solution
The diesel volume increase associated with the dissolved gas is the difference
between the volume factor from Table 2.4 and the gas-free diesel volume factor from
correlation charts:
Bog – Bong = 1.069 – 1.0004 = 0.0686bbl/STB
At the designated wellbore conditions, 259scf/bbl is equivalent to the down hole
solution GOR:
3
R = [259scf/bbl] [14.65psia (0.885)(560°R)/(520R)(1475psia)] (bbl/5.6146ft ) = 0.438bbl/bbl
Thus the pit gain volume is 0.0686bbl for each 0.438bbl of free gas, which has been
dissolved, in the circulated diesel. The pit gain for the 10bbl free gas influx follows:
G = 0.0686 [10bbl/0.438bbl] = 1.6bbl
As shown by Table 2.5, the amount of gas which/enters solution has a significant effect
on the swelling volume. For example, an 821scf/bbl methane-diesel solution GOR at
100°F and 4075psia would yield a 5.1bbl pit gain for a 10bbl gas influx. The same influx
at the same temperature and approximately the same pressure, 4120psia, but at a
solution GOR of 695scf/bbl would lead to a pit gain of only 4.6bbl.
Although the U-tube concept is rather simple, most well control operations are based
upon it; therefore the U-tube concept should be well understood.
2.7.5 Summary
Well operation plans should always be reviewed by asking the question: Are there at
lest two barriers in place at all times? Is the secondary barrier sound? This question
needs greater emphasis if a gas reservoir is exposed, as most blowouts are driven by
natural gas.
2.8 NOMENCLATURE
a = solubility equation constant
b = solubility equation constant
Bo = oil volume factor, dimensionless
Bog = oil volume factor including dissolved gas, dimensionless
Bong = oil volume factor not including dissolved gas, dimensionless
c = solubility equation constant
C = capacity of wellbore
db = bit diameter (inches)
D = depth (ft)
fg = gas mole fraction, dimensionless
fgh = hydrocarbon mole fraction, dimensionless
fva = mud additive volume fraction, dimensionless
fvc = emulsifier volume fraction, dimensionless
fvo = oil volume fraction, dimensionless
fvw = water volume fraction, dimensionless
F = force (lb)
2
g = acceleration of gravity (32.17ft/sec )
g = gradient (psi/ft)
2
gc = gravitational system conversion constant (32.17 lb/ft/lb/sec )
gf = fluid hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
gg = gas hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
gl = liquid hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
G = pit gain (bbl)
L = length (ft)
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 38 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
M = molecular weight
Ma = molecular weight of air
n = number of moles
P = pressure (psi)
Pbh = bottom hole pressure (psi)
Pc = critical pressure (psi)
Pc = casing pressure (psi)
Pcs = shut-in casing pressure (psi)
Pf = final pressure (psi)
Pi = initial pressure (psi)
Ppc = pseudo-critical pressure (psi)
Ppp = partial pressure (psi)
Pr = reduced pressure, dimensionless
Ppr = pseudo-reduced pressure, dimensionless
q = flow rate (bbl/min)
R = penetration rate (ft/hr)
rm = total gas/liquid ratio (scf/bbl)
Rs = solution gas/liquid ratio (scf/bbl)
Rsa = solution gas/mud-additive ratio (scf/bbl)
Rsb = solution gas/liquid ratio at bubblepoint (scf/bbl)
Rsc = solution gas/component ratio (scf/bbl)
Rsh = hydrocarbon gas/component ratio (scf/bbl)
Rse = solution gas/emulsifier ratio (scf/bbl)
Rsm = solution gas/mud ratio (scf/bbl)
Rso = solution gas/oil ratio (scf/bbl)
Rsw = solution gas/water ratio (scf/bbl)
Sg = formation gas saturation (dimensionless)
T = temperature (°F, also °R)
Tc = critical temperature (°R)
Tpc = pseudo-critical temperature (°R)
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 39 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Subscripts
0,1 = locations
a = air, also mud additive
b = bubblepoint
bh = bottom hole
c = critical, also gravitational conversion constant
cs = shut-in casing
e = equivalent, also emulsifier
f = fluid, also final
g = gas
gh = hydrocarbon gas
i = initial
l = liquid
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 40 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
m = mud
n = number of components
o = oil
og = oil with dissolved gas
ong = oil without dissolved gas
pp = partial pressure
r = reduced
pc = pseudo-critical
pr = pseudo-reduced
s = solution
sa = mud additive solution
sb = bubblepoint solution
sc = component solution
sh = hydrocarbon solution
se = emulsifier solution
sm = mud solution
so = oil solution
sw = water solution
sl = slip
V = volume
Va = additive volume
Ve = emulsifier volume
Vo = oil volume
Vw = water volume
w = water
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 41 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. PREPARATION ..................................................................................................... 2
3. PREPARATION
9. Can well be circulated dead down tubing or drillpipe (annular flow)? Can pipe be
accessed? What is pipe working pressure rating? Can sufficient rate be pumped
down pipe? Are perforations or severing tools possible to increase flowrate. Can
dynamic kill be transitioned to static kill? Can reactive fluids be utilised?
10. Can well be reversed dead (drillpipe flow)? Depth of bit or hole in tubing/tubing.
What are annular pressure limits? See also Step 9 considerations.
11. Can down hole flowpath be blocked with reactant materials (eg gunk)?
Two injection paths to flowpath. Run coiled tubing to provide second path.
Direct reaction with blowout fluids (water, brine or oil).
12. Can near surface flowpath be blocked with reactant materials? Injection below leak
must be possible.
13. Can flow be frozen off (gas hydrates encouraged)? Blowout fluids must be able to
freeze. Inject fresh water to encourage gas hydrates.
14. Can down hole bridging be induced (eg dropping flowing pressure)? Will formation
become unstable at low FBHP? Can this be accelerated by pumping fresh water
(shale hydration)?
15. Can well cone water or water from other zones be brought in if pressure is
dropped? Easier to kill. Harder to burn. More corrosive. What is offset well impact?
16. Can well cone gas? Harder to kill. Easier to burn. More corrosive. More erosive.
What is offset well impact.
17. Can well be capped on valves? Upstream valve spun, stabbed or snubbed on to
control. Is mating flange, outlet or threads intact? Can mating flange, outlet or
thread be exposed and accessible?
18. Can well be capped on wellheads or BOPs? Requires rig removal. Requires
removal of BOPs or wellheads. Can be done while burning?
19. Can well be capped on casing? Requires rig removal. Requires excavation
(8 to 10ft). Can be done while burning?
20. Can flowpath be mechanically plugged? Snubbed in packer. Coiled tubing
run packer.
21. Can well be stung? Is flow opening small and round (<4-1/16in)? Is pressure low
(<3000psi)? Is flow opening accessible?
22. Should well be capped while burning? Better to have rig off of well. With rig off, no
real difference in control steps or procedures. Safer. Far less pollution.
23. Is surface control with well diversion and relief well required? No hole integrity
(shallow casing failure). Hole obstructed (dropped pipe). Unable to recover dropped
pipe by snubbing into flow. No pipe in hole to range on.
PREPARATION Page 6 of 43
Upon determining a plan of action the following list of questions should be addressed in
order to ensure that critical issues have not been overlooked:
1. Evaluate the uncertainty of the blowout scenario. Will this uncertainty affect the
type of control operation? Can intermediate operations be performed to reduce the
uncertainty?
2. Is the procedure for control established and does it include all probable scenarios?
Has the operation been done before under the current conditions?
3. Can alternate procedures be planned and prepared for ‘practicality’ before
intermediate data is obtained?
4. Is the operation equipment critical? Is the required equipment and backup,
available locally? Time/cost to mobilise from outside? Can equipment fail and/or
be damaged and/or not function properly? What will be the consequences?
5. Is the operation manpower/support or Operator critical? Are the personnel
qualified to perform the operation? Have they done it before? Are qualified
personnel available from outside? Time/cost to mobilise?
6. Is the operation logistic critical? Can equipment and people be moved into work
and staging area under current conditions? Can they be supported?
7. Is the operation location critical? For example: Only practical access to location is
downwind. Will a relief well be compromised with respect to its probability of
success due to a poor surface location?
8. Can pressure-containing equipment fail during the proposed operation?
9. Can the operation cause escalated damage (environmental, structure, equipment)
or injury? Will it jeopardise future operations?
10. Is the operation timing and/or duration critical?
11. Is the operation weather dependent?
12. Is the operation communication critical?
13. In the event of failure, can the operation be made safe?
14. In the event of failure, do alternate operations exist?
15. Duration and cost estimates of operation and recovery from failure?
16. Is there an evacuation plan in place?
PREPARATION Page 7 of 43
LEVEL 1 INCIDENT
Response is typically handled by drilling resources these incidents include:
Well kicks
Major loss of returns (> 500bbl/hr)
Loss of pressure barrier with hydrocarbon zone open
Unable to kill well during workover operations
Minor oil spills (<100bbls)
LEVEL 2 INCIDENT
Response requires additional assistance through operations incidents include the
following:
Fire (rig facility only)
Significant oil spill (>100bbls, <500bbls not in watershed – spill not sustained)
Major accident
Fatality
LEVEL 3 INCIDENT
Response requires resources from specialists and include situations such as:
Catastrophic spill (oil in watershed >500bbls – spill sustained)
Explosion
Fire (with well involved)
Loss of primary well control
Emergency Oper.
Evaluate Incident
and Initiate Company Rep.
Response Level
Drilling Superint.
Response
Level
Fire
Rig Facilities Only
Complete Losses Explosion
Major Spill
Unable to Kill Well Loss of Primary
(Workover) Well Control
Major Accident
Surface Blowout
Yes with or without Fire
Incident
Escalating
Fatality
Underground
Blowout
Undergound Cross
Flow Diagnosed
Shearing Pipe with
Gas/Oil Under BOPs
Shearing Pipe with
Gas/Oil Under BOPs
Evacuate Personnel
Continuously Monitor
Boundary Conditions
PREPARATION Page 10 of 43
1. A ‘SITE SAFETY PLAN’ is required before wellsite work can start. This plan
is developed and implemented by the Operations Superintendent or
Operations Supervisor (if on site) after initial evacuation of personnel. Safety
Co-ordinator is appointed (typically rig Toolpusher).
2. The ‘Hot Zone’ boundary must be realistically based on presence of an
explosive mixture (lower explosive limit (LEL) levels), raining of
hydrocarbons or H2S and is principally controlled by wind direction.
3. On burning blowouts the ‘Hot Zone’ will likely be set on radiant heat limits
and smoke avoidance. Wind direction also has considerable impact in Hot
Zone boundaries.
4. Blowout specialists set ‘Hot Zone’ boundary. They should approach blowout
using LEL meter and H2S detectors and check levels down access road to
edge of pad or well area. Initial approach should be from an upwind
direction.
5. Stop when first indication is seen of either:
5.1 >1/4 LEL level (1% concentration of hydrocarbons in air) at any near surface
elevation (ground level or standing on top of a truck).
5.2 Surface pooling or streaming of liquid hydrocarbons, surface gas bubbling or
hydrocarbon and water vapour fogs (restricted visibility and explosive
vapour).
5.3 >10ppm H2S.
5.4 >90dB noise level (unable to converse facing each other with hearing
protection in place).
2
5.5 Over 3kW/m heat loading or practically the point where exposed skin
cannot sustain exposure without protection for more than a few minutes.
6. Approach problem well from any possible access route (including those
located downwind) and repeat this process.
7. Set Hot Zone boundaries away from these hard indicators (ex: 1/4 LEL) at
good control points (nearby wells, platforms, channel crossings).
8. Manpower with radios from drilling rig crew, safety and production can be
used at these defined ‘Hot Zone’ control points to restrict access into the
‘Hot Zone’. Down wind ‘Hot Zone’ boundary must be tightly controlled and
continuously monitored as variable winds can quickly change the boundary.
Some access routes should be blocked to prevent accidental entry.
9. The ‘Safe Area’ location is based on the measurable ‘Hot Zone’ boundaries,
available work areas and access and wind direction.
PREPARATION Page 11 of 43
10. The safe distance seen in the downwind approach of the ‘Hot Zone’
boundary is then used as one guideline for setting the ‘Safe Area’.
Additionally, dispersion modelling can be used with the measurements taken
to help predict downwind conditions if wind is blowing across blowout.
11. The ‘Safe Area’ is not a contour like the ‘Hot Zone’ but is a dedicated staging
area for control efforts for the blowout. Access into areas inside the ‘Hot
Zone’ must only be from the ‘Safe Area’. Other alternate paths into the ‘Hot
Zone’ are blocked.
12. ‘Safe Area’ should be accessible from two directions.
13. ‘Safe Area’ should be in area with 0 LEL, <5ppm H2S, <85dB sound level
2
and <1.6kW/m heat loading.
14. ‘Safe Area’ should be serviceable in any type of weather or conditions.
15. Mark the designated ‘Hot Zone’ and ‘Safe Area’ on maps for distribution.
16. As well and wind conditions change, the ‘Hot Zone’ boundaries will shift. The
‘Safe Area’ could also be moved. An example would be shifting boundaries
after well ignition.
17. The ‘Warm Zone’ is the route between the ‘Safe Area’ and the ‘Hot Zone’.
Control indicators (LEL levels, H2S, radiant heat etc) are continuously
monitored within the ‘Warm Zone’ at the entrance to the ‘Hot Zone’.
PREPARATION Page 12 of 43
3.1.5.2.3 Toolpusher
Ensures that the Driller and the drill crew are correctly deployed during the well
control operation
Is present at the rig floor during the start of the kill operation. Either the Toolpusher
or the Drilling Supervisor should be present at all times on the rig floor during the
operation
PREPARATION Page 13 of 43
Provides briefing to the off-duty drill crew prior to starting a new shift
For floating drilling operations, keeps the ship’s Captain or Barge Master continually
informed of well control operations so that emergency marine procedures can be
initiated appropriately
3.1.5.2.4 Driller
Initially detects the kick and closes in the well
Supervises the drill crew during the well control operation
3.1.5.3 Communication
One of the Drilling Supervisor’s responsibilities is to organise a pre-kill meeting once
the well has been shut in. The purpose of this meeting is to ensure that all those
involved in the supervision and implementation of the well control operation are familiar
with the procedures that will be used to kill the well. This meeting is also the first stage
in the process of communication during the well control operation.
Experience has shown that even the most thoroughly conceived well control
procedures could have problems if communication before and during the operation is
not properly organised and effective.
It is therefore most important that the well control contingency plan details the method
and line of communication for each individual involved in the operation.
PREPARATION Page 14 of 43
3. Calculate the maximum allowable height of influx in the open hole section.
The maximum height of influx that can be taken in the open hole is given by:
[Dwp (Pmax – m) + TD (m – Pf)]
h=
(m – gi) (3.2)
where:
Dwp = Depth of Open Hole Weak Point
gi = Influx Gradient (lb/gal)
h = Height to Influx (ft)
Pf = Formation Pressure (lb/gal)
Pmax = Maximum Allowable equivalent mud weight (EMW) at the Depth of the
Open Hole Weak Point
TD = Vertical Bit Depth (ft)
m = Mud Weight (lb/gal)
4. Calculate the volume that this height corresponds to at initial shut-in conditions.
At initial shut-in conditions this can be converted to an influx volume as follows:
Vkt = h x Ca1 (3.3)
where:
Vkt = Kick Tolerance (bbl)
Ca1 = Annular Capacity at Initial Shut-in Conditions (bbl/ft)
The factor Ca1 must be determined bearing in mind the hole dimensions in relation
to the height of the influx, h, eg if h is greater than the height of the bottom hole
assembly (BHA), both the capacity of the drillpipe-open hole annulus and the
drillcollar-open hole annulus must be used to calculate the kick tolerance, Vkt.
5. Calculate the volume that this height corresponds to when the top of the influx is at
the open hole weak point. This height corresponds to a volume at the open hole
weak point given by:
Vkt = h x Ca2 (3.4)
where:
Ca2 = annular capacity below the open hole weak point (bbl/ft)
The factor Ca2 must be determined bearing in mind the hole dimensions
immediately below the open hole weak point in relation to the height of the influx, h.
PREPARATION Page 18 of 43
6. Calculate what this volume (as calculated in Point 5 above) would be at initial
shut-in conditions.
Recall from our discussion in Section 2 that we may use Boyle’s Law to convert this
volume to its original volume at initial shut-in conditions, whereby:
P1 V1 = P2 V2
or in this case,
Pf Vkt = [Pmax Dwp 0.052 Vwp]
therefore,
V = [Pmax Dwp 0.052 Vwp]/Pf (3.5)
where:
Pf = Formation Pressure (psi)
Pmax = Maximum Allowable Pressure at the Open hole Weak Point (lb/gal)
Vkt = Kick Tolerance at Initial Shut-in Conditions (bbl)
Vwp = Volume of Influx Below the Open hole Weak Point (bbl)
0.052 = Conversion Factor used to Convert from lb/gal to psi/ft
7. The actual kick tolerance is represented by the lower of (4) or (6).
The frequency with which the kick tolerance should be re-evaluated is dependent on
the nature of the well. However, in hole sections in which kick tolerance is likely to be a
critical factor, the following guidelines should be considered:
After a leak-off test, evaluate the kick tolerance at suitable intervals throughout the
next hole section. This evaluation should be carried out through the section with the
mud weight that is used at the start of the section
The kick tolerance should also be evaluated throughout the section with a number
of mud weights that are likely to be used during the section
If the hole section contains areas of rapid pore pressure increase, the kick
tolerance should be evaluated at suitable intervals across the area of increasing
pressure
If any factors that affect the kick tolerance (such as mud weight) change as the
section is drilled, the kick tolerance below that point in the section should be
re-evaluated to reflect that change
At each stage in the hole section, the Drilling Supervisor and the Drilling Engineer
must assess the possibility of the pore pressure developing in a manner different to
that predicted, and hence its effect on the kick tolerance. If this occurs, the kick
tolerance should again be re-evaluated throughout the rest of the hole section
Figure 3.3 shows an example of the type of calculations that should be worked.
The kick tolerance figures shown are those that would typically be calculated before a
transition zone. As shown, the current bit depth is 11,480ft and the kick tolerance has
been calculated at various intervals across the zone of increasing pore pressure.
The kick tolerance has been calculated for the mud weight currently in use, for the
maximum mud weight anticipated for the section, and an intermediate weight.
PREPARATION Page 20 of 43
Figure 3.3 - Kick Tolerance Values Through a Zone of Increasing Pore Pressure
PREPARATION Page 21 of 43
From these figures, it is clear that a serious situation would develop if a kick were taken
from the high-pressure zone with the mud weight currently in the hole. This might occur
if either the pore pressure developed more rapidly than predicted, or if the steady
increase in pore pressure was undetected at the surface.
The kick tolerance figures for the intermediate mud weight show that even at this
weight, the kick tolerance would be small if the high-pressure zone was unexpectedly
encountered.
The kick tolerance is finally calculated at the maximum mud weight. These figures
show a final minimum kick tolerance of 50bbl at that mud weight. The table also shows
the kick tolerance if the pore pressure developed higher than predicted to 13.3 lb/gal.
In general, these figures indicate that drilling should proceed cautiously through the
zone of increasing pore pressure. On the basis of these figures, it may be decided to
weight up the mud a certain amount before the predicted increase in pressure occurs.
The decisions that are made on the basis of kick tolerance figures such as these will be
largely dependent upon the particulars of each situation, including the level of
confidence placed in the pore pressure prediction.
The example provided in Figure 3.3 serves to illustrate the fact that a computer is
preferred to deal with such a quantity of calculations.
3.2.4.1 Drills
The purpose of BOP drills is to familiarise the drill crews with techniques that will be
implemented in the event of a kick.
One of the major factors that influence the wellbore pressures after a kick is taken is
the volume of the influx. The smaller the influx, the less severe will be the pressures
during the well kill operation. In this respect, it is important that the drill crew react
quickly to any sign that an influx may have occurred and promptly execute the
prescribed control procedure. Drills should be designed to reduce the time that the
crews take to implement these procedures.
PREPARATION Page 23 of 43
The relevant drills should be carried out as often as is necessary or as mandated, and
as hole conditions permit, until the Drilling Supervisor and the Toolpusher are satisfied
that every member of the drill crew is familiar with the entire operation. It is important
that returning drill crews have frequent drills.
Every effort must be made to ensure that the drill is carried out in the most realistic
manner possible. Where practical, there should be no difference between the drill and
actual control procedures.
Once satisfactory standards have been achieved, the drills (D1, D2 and D3, as
appropriate) should be held at least once per week. If standards fall unacceptably, the
Drilling Supervisor should stipulate that the drills are conducted more frequently.
The following drills should be practised where applicable:
Drill 1 – Tripping
Drill 2 – Drilling
Drill 3 – Diverter
Drill 4 – Accumulator
Drill 5 – Well Kill
These codes should be used to record the results of the drill on the BOP Drill Record.
This form should be sent to the Drilling Superintendent monthly. When completing a
drill, the time it takes for each crew member to do his particular job shall be measured
as well as the time of the entire drill. The total time of the entire drill and the results of
each drill shall be recorded on the Driller’s log.
When the bit has been tripped to the previous casing shoe, a further drill may be
conducted that will result in the well being shut in.
The following procedure may be used as a guideline for this drill after tripping the bit to
the shoe.
Stop tripping operations, install the kelly (or topdrive) and start circulating.
Having been instructed to do so by the Drilling Supervisor, the Driller is expected to
take the following steps to shut in the well:
1. Pull up until the tool joint clears the BOPs.
2. Shut down the pumps.
3. Open the choke line valve.
4. Close the annular preventer or pipe ram (faster if tool joint location is known).
5. Record the casing and drillpipe pressure.
6. If on a floating rig, double check space-out, close and lock hang-off rams and
hang-off pipe, and check that the kelly cock is just above the rotary table.
7. Notify the Drilling Supervisor that the well has been shut in.
8. Record the time taken for the crew to shut in the well on the IADC drilling report.
The procedures adopted during these drills should be in line with the shut-in
procedures as outlined in the Standing Orders. These procedures are outlined in
Section 6.
The time recorded in the log should be the time elapsed from initiation of the drill until
the rig crew (and marine staff) is ready to initiate emergency procedures:
1. Shallow gas kick is detected on trip or while drilling.
2. Driller closes diverter while sounding emergency rig evacuation alarm.
3. Driller should speed pumps to maximum and switch suction to seawater
(if available).
4. Toolpusher to shut down all systems except power to mud pumps. Close all
air intakes.
5. Monitor well conditions from upwind direction. Diverter systems will fail if flow is
sustained. Wet gas limits ignition risk.
6. When flow stops (well bridges) shut down pumps to limit fracturing and top fill hole
with mud or water to limit differential across bridge.
3.2.4.2.1 SCRs
There are many reasons why a kick should be displaced from the hole at a rate that is
considerably slower than that used during normal drilling. These include:
1. Minimising the pressure exerted on the open hole.
2. Allowing mud weight increase as the kick is displaced.
3. Permitting adequate degassing of the returned mud.
4. Limiting the speed of required choke adjustments.
5. Reducing the pressure exerted on well control equipment.
All these factors must be taken into account when deciding at what rate to displace the
kick. However, the pressure rating of the surface equipment, in particular the setting of
the pump relief valve may restrict the absolute upper limit for the displacement rate.
It should be noted that it is potentially hazardous to displace a kick from the hole when
the surface pressure is close to the relief valve setting.
In order to estimate the circulating pressures during the displacement of a kick, it is
necessary to know the friction pressure in the circulating system at low rates. For this
reason, it is useful to have determined the SCR pressure before a kick is taken.
At a given rate of circulation, the initial circulating pressure can be estimated from the
sum of the shut-in drillpipe pressure and the SCR pressure.
SCRs should be conducted regularly and at least:
Once per tour (or at 1,000ft intervals during the tour)
When the bit is changed
When the BHA is changed
When the mud weight or properties are changed
The range of circulation rates used will be dependent upon many factors, but should
fall within the limits of 0.5 and 4 barrels per minute (bpm). If oil-based mud is in the
hole, when back on bottom after a trip, circulate bottoms up before measuring SCRs.
PREPARATION Page 30 of 43
At these relatively low pump speeds the volumetric efficiency of the rig pumps may be
significantly less than at normal speeds used during drilling. It is therefore
recommended that the volumetric efficiency of the rig pumps be checked at low pump
speed, such as when pumping a slug prior to a trip.
It is useful to plot the SCRs on a graph as shown in the figure below. The drillstring
internal friction should be calculated at the SCRs and used to determine the annulus
frictional pressure as shown. The annulus frictional pressure is a major factor that will
influence the rate at which the kick will be displaced from the hole (using standard well
control procedure the annulus frictional pressure will be added to wellbore pressure as
the pump is brought up to speed to kill the well).
Preparing a graph similar to Figure 3.4 aids in the selection of circulation rates other
than these actually measured and also provides a guide to the size of the annulus
circulating losses over a range of circulation rates.
Figure 3.4 - SCR Pressure Plot
PREPARATION Page 31 of 43
PROPERTIES OF THE MUD IN THE HOLE DURING THE TEST: !
The choke line losses should be adjusted for changes in mud weight as shown on the
form. However, the accuracy of this adjustment is questionable over a wide range of
mud weights. In order to verify choke line losses after drilling out of the casing shoe, it
is acceptable to isolate the well and pump down the choke line at the range of slow
circulating rates.
There are three different stages at which the mud can be weighted up for these two
techniques:
a. The Wait and Weight Method
Typically, it is impractical to weight up a complete hole volume prior to
displacement of the kick. This will therefore entail that some mud is weighted while
the kick is displaced from the hole. The volume that is weighted prior to
displacement of the kick will depend, for a given hole capacity, on the rate at which
baryte can be added into the system in relation to the desired rate of displacement.
In the unusual situation when there is adequate surface volume, a complete hole
volume of kill mud can be prepared before displacement of the kick.
b. The Driller’s Method
In this case the mud is weighted either while the kick is displaced with original
weight mud or after the first circulation depending on the availability of baryte and
tank space.
2. The Degasser
The degasser should be lined up at all times during the well control operation.
The degasser is designed to remove the small bubbles of gas that are left in the
mud after the mud has been through the mud gas separator.
It is important that the degasser is working properly and as such, it should be tested
every tour. While drilling with gas cut returns, the degasser can be checked as
follows:
a. Measure actual (gas cut) mud weight at the shaker header box using a
non-pressurised mud balance.
b. Measure actual mud weight at the degasser outlet using a non-pressurised
mud balance.
c. Measure actual mud weight at the degasser outlet using a pressurised
mud balance.
If the non-pressurised mud density at the degasser outlet is greater than the
non-pressurised density at the inlet the degasser is working. The difference
between the pressurised density at the outlet and the non-pressurised density at
the outlet is a measurement of efficiency.
If the non-pressurised mud weight at the outlet of the degasser is nearly equal to
the pressurised mud weight measured, then the degasser is working properly.
3. Overboard Lines/Flare Lines
It is recommended that a second method of dealing with severely gas cut returns
be available at the rigsite, whether on land or offshore. This will generally be either
an overboard line (in offshore environments), or a flare line to the burn pit on land.
It should be easy to switch the returns from the mud system to the flare line. It may
be necessary to use the flare line during a well control operation in the following
situations:
The gas flowrate is too high for the mud gas separator
Hydrates are forming in the gas vent line from the mud gas separator
The gas is found to contain H2S
The mud system is overloaded
Lines that are required to handle high velocity gas must be as straight as possible
to minimise erosion. Significant erosion is likely to occur in the path of high velocity
gas and solids: therefore the redundancy in flowlines and manifolds downstream of
the choke must be analysed on all rigs.
PREPARATION Page 41 of 43
Flare lines are generally run directly downstream from choke and valve isolated from
flowline to mud gas separator. To open flare line this isolation valve is opened.
Typically line to separator must then be closed to keep from overloading the separator
with too much pressure backpressure from flare line is reflected into separator. The
flare line is often a different line from the panic line that bypasses the chokes with a full
bore 3in or 4in ID run straight through the choke manifold. Some rigs connect the flare
system to the panic line via a buffer tank. Though this reduces piping (only two vent
lines run off choke manifold instead of three or four lines).
ng = [(Ps Vs)/(zs Ts) – (Ps t Vs t)/(zs Ts)] [144/(t R)] (3.10)
where:
Ps,t = Ps – (Qm/B) gm t (3.11)
and
Vs, Dt = Vs – Qm Dt (3.12)
Flow through the degasser is then calculated from Equation 3.13:
Qg = ng (m/g) 86,400 (3.13)
As the atmospheric open bottom mud gas separator is a gravity settling devise gas
flows up the vessel while liquid droplets fall. The liquid droplet terminal velocity, Ut, is a
function of liquid droplet diameter, gas viscosity, and gas liquid densities. Separation
occurs when Ut for the droplet is greater than the gas velocity in the vessel. This then
leads to Equation 3.14:
0.5
Ua = K [(l – g)/g] (3.14)
Combining the results from Equations 3.13 and 3.14 we may determine the vessel
cross-sectional area as follows:
As = Qg/(Ua 86,400) (3.15)
This then results in a vessel diameter Dv given by Equation 3.16:
0.5 0.5
Dv = [(4 Qg)/(Ua )] (1/86,400) (3.16)
The remaining variables are defined as:
3
B = annular volume factor (ft /ft)
Dv = vessel diameter (ft)
G = pit gain (bbl)
gm = mud gradient (psi)
k = vapour load factor (ft/sec)(assume 0.35ft/sec)
hbh = height of gas bubble at bottom hole conditions (ft)
Ps = surface pressure (psi)
Ps t = pressure of gas at time interval t (psi)
Pbh = bottom hole pressure (psi)
Tbh = bottom hole temperature, Rankin
Ts = surface temperature, Rankin
3
Vs = volume of gas at surface conditions (ft )
PREPARATION Page 43 of 43
3
Vs t = volume of gas at time interval t (ft )
3
Vbh = volume of gas at bottom hole conditions (ft )
X = vertical height between top of gas bubble and surface (ft)
zbh = gas compressibility factor for gas at bottom hole conditions (dimensionless)
zs = gas compressibility factor for gas at surface conditions (dimensionless)
Qg = gas flowrate (scf/d)
3
Qm = mud circulation rate (ft /sec)
R = universal gas constant, (1545ft-lb/lb-mole °R)
(the difference from the first value in Table 2.2 is due to conversion
3
from ft to ft)
zs = gas compressibility factor for gas at surface conditions (dimensionless)
ng = molar flowrate (lb-moles/sec)
t = time over which the mass balance is done (sec)
3
g = gas density (lb/ft )
3
l = liquid density (lb/ft )
Drilling and Production Operations Ref: WCON 04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. KICK PREVENTION
The hydrostatic pressure of a column of drilling fluid contains formation pressures. This
is primary well control. Primary control is maintained by ensuring that a full column of
drilling fluid at an appropriate weight is allowed to exert its full hydrostatic pressure in
the hole.
If primary control is lost, the blowout preventers are closed and secondary well control
techniques are used to kill the well.
Industry-wide experience has shown that the most common causes of loss of primary
control, and hence well kicks, are:
Swabbing during trips
Not adequately filling the hole during a trip
Insufficient mud weight
Lost circulation
The evidence also shows that the majority of kicks have occurred during trips.
This section outlines the measures that are required to eliminate or minimise the risk of
a kick due to the above causes and to minimise influx volumes if a kick occurs.
TRIP SHEET
WELL No: RIG:
DATE AND TIME:
SHEET No:
REASON FOR TRIP:
DRILLER:
HOLE DEPTH:
INITIAL BIT DEPTH:
Figure 4.2 - Example of a Completed Trip Sheet
bbl/STAND
DISPLACEMENT OF #
in $
%
bbl/ft
bbl/STAND
DISPLACEMENT OF in bbl/ft bbl/STAND
DISPLACEMENT OF in bbl/ft bbl/STAND
TRIP ___ SINGLES ___ DOUBLES STANDS No OF STANDS TO CASING SHOE:
KICK PREVENTION
5. Circulate bottoms up. Close in the blowout preventer (BOP) and circulate through
the choke when the potential influx is at ~2000ft below the stack, watching for any
pit gain.
6. If necessary, increase the mud weight and perform a further check trip.
This procedure can be relaxed if, after several trips under the same conditions, the well
remains stable.
The following procedure is recommended in these circumstances after a round trip:
1. When back on bottom prior to any further drilling or coring, circulate bottoms up to
check for trip gas.
2. Circulate until potential influx is at 1600ft below the stack, watching for any pit gain.
3. Close in the well and circulate the potential influx through the choke.
However, we may now simplify this equation by making several assumptions with
regard to compressibility and by calculating the gas entry rate at bottom hole conditions
rather than surface conditions. This then leads to Equation 4.2, by which we may
calculate the gas entry rate in gal/min:
2
Qg = [db R Sg]/1470.5 (4.2)
where:
db = Bit (hole) Diameter (inches)
Qg = Gas Entry Rate (gal/min)
Sg = Formation Gas Saturation (fractional)
R = Penetration Rate (ft/hr)
= Formation Porosity (dimensionless)
Example 4.1
A zone with gas saturation of 0.75 and a porosity of 20% is encountered at 9910ft,
while drilling a 12-1/4in hole section. The average penetration rate is 82ft/hr and the
bottom hole pressure is 6000psi (or 11.7 lb/gal). Determine gas flowrate at surface,
percentage of gas cutting and surface mud density.
Solution
In order to calculate the surface gas rate we must first calculate the rate at which gas
enters the well. From Equation 4.2 we have:
2
Qg = [(12.25) x 82 x 0.2 x 0.75]/1470.5 = 1.26gal/min (at 6000psi)
Returning to Equation 2.1 we may approximate the gas flowrate at surface conditions
by neglecting the effects of temperature and invoking the ideal gas law, therefore:
Qg = 1.26 x (6000/14.7) = 514gal/min (at atmospheric pressure)
In this hole section the flowrate of mud is 700gal/min; the actual mud weight at surface
can be calculated using Equation 4.3:
s = (Qm/(Qm + Qg)) (4.3)
From Equation 4.3 we see that the actual (or gas cut) mud density at surface is:
s = 11.7 [700/(700 + 514)] = 6.8 lb/gal
KICK PREVENTION Page 13 of 32
It should be stressed that this result is an estimation of the actual mud weight at the
flowline and as such will not reflect the actual density of the mud in the hole.
The percentage of gas cutting is given by:
Percentage cut = [(m – s)/m] (100) (4.4)
which in this case gives a result of:
Percentage cut = [(11.7 – 6.8)/11.7] 100 = 42% cut
We then find that Equation 4.5 may be used to estimate the bottom hole pressure
reduction due gas cut mud:
Pg = [14.7 (m – s)/(s)] [logn (3.53m Dg,in/1000)] (4.5)
Figure 4.4 shows the effect of various levels of gas cutting for two different mud
weights using the above equations. It should be noted that these curves represent an
ideal gas; temperature and solubility effects are not considered.
The bottom hole pressure reduction is:
Pg = [14.7 (11.7 – 6.8)/6.8] [logn (3.53 x 11.7 x 9910/1000)] = 64psi
Rearranging the terms in Equation 2.23 we find that we may calculate the average
wellbore density while accounting for the bottom hole pressure reduction as follows:
= (P – Pg)/(D x 0.052) (4.6)
Therefore the average mud weight in the hole is equal to:
= (6000 – 64)/[(9910) (0.052)] = 11.5 lb/gal
It can be seen that what appeared to be significant gas cutting at 42% caused a very
small reduction in the bottom hole pressure and actually reduced the effective mud
weight by only 0.2 lb/gal, or by a factor of 1.7%.
Gas causes the actual reduction in bottom hole pressure when it has considerably
expanded. This expansion does not occur until the gas has been circulated to near the
surface. As can be seen from the previous example, this near-surface expansion has a
small effect on the bottom hole pressure in a deep well for moderate levels of gas
cutting. However, the effect of near surface expansion may be critical in relatively
shallow hole sections.
KICK PREVENTION Page 14 of 32
Figure 4.4 - Effect of Various Levels of Gas Cutting for Two Mud Weights
KICK PREVENTION Page 15 of 32
The cuttings concentration must therefore be determined for each section of hole.
Consider the following example for a 17-1/2in hole section drilled from a floating rig.
Example 4.3
Given the following conditions, determine the slip velocity, mud velocity, cutting
contamination and the additional pressure due to cuttings contamination. Disregard the
void fraction in the formation (porosity).
Casing shoe 2953ft
Average viscosity 50cP
Casing ID 22in
Pump output 700gal/min
Riser ID 22in
R 174ft/hr
Bit size 17.5in
Open hole length 590ft
Drillpipe OD 5in
Cuttings density 20.8 lb/gal
Collar OD/length 8in/590ft
Cuttings diameter 0.3in
Mud weight 12.5 lb/gal
Solution
The slip velocity is calculated as:
0.667 0.333 0.333
s = [175 x 0.3 x (20.8 – 12.5) ]/(12.5 x 50 ) = 25.2ft/min
The velocity of the mud in the 17-1/2in hole is given by:
2 2
m = (24.51 x 700)/(17.5 – 8 ) = 70.8ft/min
In the 22in section:
2 2
m = (24.51 x 700)/(22 – 5 ) = 37.4ft/min
This gives a transport ratio of 64% in the 17-1/2in hole and of 32% in the 22in hole. The
cuttings concentration, Ca, in the 17-1/2in hole is given by:
2
Ca = (174 × 17.5 )/(1471 x 700 x 0.64) = 0.08
In the 22in hole section it is:
2
Ca = (174 × 17.5 )/(1471 x 700 x 0.32) = 0.162
KICK PREVENTION Page 18 of 32
Each type of lost circulation zone will exhibit certain characteristics, which can be
outlined as follows:
4.3.3.1 Unconsolidated Formations
These occur mainly at shallow depth. For whole mud to be lost to a formation (in the
absence of fractures) a permeability of the order of 10 darcies is required.
These conditions will cause a gradual loss of mud to the hole; however, losses may
worsen if no remedial action is taken.
OBM Technique 7B: Downhole mixed plug (sodium silicate, calcium yes yes
chloride, cement squeeze, Flo-Check)
* Usually not in use where loss zones are horizontal WBM = water-based mud
** Consist of porous sands and gravels, natural fractures, and OBM = oil-based mud
honeycomb and caverns
KICK PREVENTION Page 23 of 32
Mix on surface 200 to 300 lb of ‘G’ neat cement and 150 to 200 lb of bentonite to
one barrel of diesel or base oil. All water must be excluded from the mix on surface.
4.3.4.13 Technique 6 – Down Hole Mixed Invert Gunk Plug (Oleophilic Clay
and Water)
The invert gunk plug formulation is designed for use in an oil-based mud. It works on
the same principle as 5A, except that the clay disperses in water and hydrates in oil
(the opposite of a bentonite squeeze).
Mix on surface 230 to 280 lb of oleophilic clay to one barrel of water. Add
lignosulphonate at 4 lb/bbl water.
An example of oleophilic clay is Baroid Geltone.
The spacers ahead and behind this plug must be water based.
4.3.5.2 Balanced Plug is Used for Techniques 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D
The balanced plug method should be used for the above techniques. However, if
cementing is required in any of the above techniques and it becomes necessary to spot
the plug through a bit, the balanced plug technique should not be used. In this case,
the bit should be tripped into the casing and the non-balanced plug technique used.
KICK PREVENTION Page 27 of 32
The basic requirement for a balanced plug is that the correct volume of spacer is
pumped behind the slurry. This ensures that the hydrostatic pressure in the annulus is
balanced with that in the pipe before the pipe is pulled out of the plug. The pipe is then
pulled out of the plug.
If it is decided to squeeze the plug, two barrels should be pumped down the pipe, the
BOPs are closed and then squeeze pressure is applied on the annulus below the rams.
Balanced plugs can be allowed to lose to the formation under the hydrostatic head of
the column alone or by squeezing. It may be desirable to reverse circulate the pipe
contents, if possible, after pulling out of the plug.
Spotting cement plugs to cure losses should not be a first option. Consider what could
happen if cement plugs, drillpipe and losses are not controlled.
Plug balancing calculations:
Calculate the volume of the cement plug for the required height of plug.
Volume (bbl) = height (ft) x hole capacity (bbl/ft) x factor for excess
No of sacks required = volume (bbl)/slurry yield (bbl/sk)
With the volume of spacer ahead known, calculate the height and volume of spacer
behind (see Figure 4.6).
If the same fluid is used before and after the plug:
h = spacer volume ahead (bbl)/annulus capacity (bbl/ft)
Spacer volume behind (bbl) = h x pipe capacity (bbl/ft)
where:
h = height of spacer (ft)
Calculate the height of the cement plug before the pipe is pulled out.
H(ft) = volume of slurry (bbl)/(annulus cap (bbl/ft) + pipe cap (bbl/ft))
where:
H = height of the plug (ft)
Calculate the plug displacement volume.
Displacement volume (bbl) = (L – H – h) x pipe cap (bbl/ft)
where:
L = drillpipe/tubing length (ft)
KICK PREVENTION Page 28 of 32
4.3.6.1 Overpull
If overpull is experienced, wipe the hole 3 or 4 times.
Spot a viscous pill around the bit prior to making each connection. This pill should be
balanced in and outside the pipe.
4.3.6.3 Tripping
If tripping is required when complete loss of returns exists, then the following
precautions must be taken:
Spot a viscous pill across the open hole section
Before tripping, stop the pumps on the drillpipe and annulus and observe the well
for 30 minutes. Keep the string moving and be prepared to close in the well
if necessary
Drop the dart into the drop-in dart sub
Fill up the annulus continuously during the trip
Monitor the flowline at all times
Stop the pumps and monitor the well whenever the bit is pulled into the previous
casing shoe
Be prepared to shut in at all times during the trip
KICK PREVENTION Page 31 of 32
4.4 NOMENCLATURE
Ca = concentration of cuttings in the annulus (dimensionless)
Cp = internal capacity of the pipe (bbl/ft)
dbit = diameter of the bit (inches)
dcut = cuttings average diameter (inches)
dh = hole diameter (inches)
dhc = hole/casing inside diameter (ID) (inches)
do = pipe outside diameter (OD) (inches)
D = depth (ft)
Dg,in = depth of gas entry (ft)
L = length (ft)
Ln = section length (ft)
R = penetration rate (ft/hr)
Re = particle reynolds number (dimensionless)
Q = circulating mud rate (gal/min)
Qm = circulating mud rate (gal/min)
Qg = formation gas rate entering well (gal/min)
Sg = gas saturation ratio (dimensionless)
Tr = transport ratio (dimensionless)
s = slip velocity (ft/min)
m = mud velocity (ft/min)
Vsl = volume of slug (bbl)
Pg = bottom hole pressure reduction due to gas cutting (psi)
= specific gravity (dimensionless)
KICK PREVENTION Page 32 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The detection of a small pit gain during a connection is complicated by the volume of
mud in the flowline returning to the pit after the pumps have been shut down. This will
cause an increase in pit level during each connection.
Therefore, it is important to establish the volume of mud that is contained in the flowline
during circulation. For instance, this volume might be 10 barrels and as such, a
10-barrel pit gain during a connection would not be significant. However, a 15-barrel
gain may indicate that a 5-barrel influx has occurred.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The forms illustrated in the next three figures should be used to make absolutely clear
of the shut-in procedures that will be used on each rig. These forms are intended
primarily for the Driller. However, copies should be distributed to other relevant
personnel including the Toolpusher and, where appropriate, the Subsea Engineer.
When a standard shut-in procedure is finalised, this procedure should be written on a
large notice-board that will be positioned prominently on the rig floor.
Figure 6.1 - Standing Orders: Kick While Drilling, Floating Rig, Fast Shut-in
STANDING ORDERS TO DRILLER
Figure 6.2 - Standing Orders: Kick While Drilling, Fixed Rig, Fast Shut-in
STANDING ORDERS TO DRILLER
1. STOP TRIPPING.
2. FLOW CHECK THE WELL IF NECESSARY.
When the surface pressures take a considerable time to stabilise, it is often difficult to
determine the drillpipe pressure that truly reflects the actual bottom hole pressure.
There are no set rules that apply to determine the correct value for the relevant drillpipe
pressure reading. However, frequent and accurate pressure readings will aid the
interpretation of buildup of data.
Figure 6.4 illustrates a pressure buildup curve, which shows signs of influx migration.
The kick zone equivalent mud weight (EMW) is determined from the drillpipe pressure
during the stabilised period.
Figure 6.5 shows a form that can be used to record the buildup of drillpipe and casing
pressure. This form should also be used to keep a complete record of events during
the well control operation.
Figure 6.4 - Pressure Buildup Curve
ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX Page 9 of 16
/
/
/ &
$ #
ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX Page 10 of 16
Trapped pressure of this kind will result in surface pressures that do not reflect the
actual kick zone pressure. Pressure may be trapped in the well if the surface pressure
appears constant and no pressure buildup has been observed. The most common
source of trapped pressure is gas migration after shut-in. Gas kick in both drillpipe and
annulus can also result in ‘trapped pressure’.
The drillpipe pressure is used to determine the kick zone pressure and hence the mud
weight used to kill the well. An artificially high drillpipe pressure reading, used to
determine the kill mud weight, will result in overkilling the well.
This procedure is not recommended if the kick zone is suspected to have low
permeability. Bleeding even very small quantities of mud from the annulus may reduce
the pressure of a tight kick zone below its final shut-in pressure. The drillpipe pressure
will continue to decrease, giving the false impression at surface that the bottom hole
pressure is still greater than the actual kick zone pressure. A possible consequence is
that the Operator may inadvertently reduce the bottom hole pressure significantly
below the kick zone pressure and cause a further influx into the wellbore.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KICK TAKEN
WELL SHUT IN
PRE-KILL MEETING
ALLOCATE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMPLETE PREPARATIONS
*Check equipment
Figure 7.2 - Decision Analysis Flowchart: Pipe Off Bottom (Drillpipe in the Stack)
A KICK HAS BEEN
TAKEN WHILE PIPE IS
OFF BOTTOM
NO
IS IT
PO SSIBLE TO SET A
IS WELL FLOWING UP DROP THE PIPE AND
SAFETY VALVE
THE DRILL STRI NG SECURE THE WELL
CLOSE ANNULAR
INSTALL DP DART OR
INSIDE BOP
NO
NO
REDUCE ANNULAR
CLOSING PRESSURE
ATTEMPT TO LOWER
PIPE THROUGH STACK
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE
SURFACE PRESSURE,
CONSIDER:
*VOLUMETRIC NO IS IT
POSSIBLE TO LOWER
*LUBRICATION PIPE THROUGH
*BULLHEADING ANNULAR
*CIRCULATE INFLUX
OUT
YES YES
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE
SURFACE PRESSURE,
CONSI DER:
YES IS IT IS IT
NO HAS SURFACE
POSSIBLE TO REDUCE POSSIBLE TO LOWER
*VOLUMETRIC PRESSURE BEEN
SURFACE PRESSURE TOOL JOINT THROUGH
ANNULAR *LUBRICATION REDUCED ?
*BULLHEADING
*CIRCULATE INFLUX
OUT
YES NO
NO
Figure 7.3 - Decision Analysis: Pipe Off Bottom (Drillcollar in the Stack)
WELL KICKS
IS IT NO
PO SSIBLE TO SET A
SAFETY VALVE IS WELL FLOWING UP DROP THE PIPE AND
THE DRI LL STRI NG SECURE THE WELL
YES
CLOSE ANNULAR
YES
INCREASE ANNULAR IS
CLOSI NG PRESSURE ANNULAR LEAKING ?
NO
LEAK
THREATENS RIG MINOR LEAK LEAK STOPS HAS THE YES
PIPE BEEN FORCED INCREASE ANNULAR
FLOOR AREA
OUT OF THE HOLE ? CLOSI NG PRESSURE
NO
NO HAS THE
INSTALL INSIDE BOP PIPE BEEN FORCED
OUT OF THE HOLE ?
MAKE UP DRILLPIPE TO
COLLARS
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE
IS IT SURFACE PRESSURE,
POSSIBLE TO LOWER
NO
CONSIDER:
PIPE INTO THE
HOLE *LUBRICATION
*BULLHEADING
YES
STRIP I N UNTIL
DRI LLPIPE IS IN THE
STACK YES IS IT
POSSIBLE TO LOWER
PIPE INTO THE OPEN CHOKE LINE
OPEN CHOKE LINE HOLE
CHECK INTEGRITY OF
ANNULAR PREVENTER
NO
MONIT OR SURFACE
PRESSURE
IS THE INFLUX NO
IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE
RAMS
YES
NO HAS ALL
OF THE GAS BEEN BLED
FROM BELOW
THE RAMS ?
YES
IS THERE ANY NO
PRESSURE UNDER THE
RAMS ?
YES
IS IT YES
POSSIBLE TO REDUCE
SURFACE
PRESSURE ?
IMPLEMENT VOLUMETRIC
CONTROL METHOD NO
IS THERE
EVIDENCE OF INFLUX
YES MIG RATION
NO
NO IS SNUBBING YES
A PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATION
Figure 7.5 - Decision Analysis: Flow to a Fracture Above a High Pressure Zone
WELL SHUT IN
IMPLEMENT STANDARD
TECHNIQUES TO KILL THE
SUSPECT UNDERGROUND
WELL
BLOWOUT IF:
1. DRILLPIPE IS ON A
VACUUM
2. PRESSURE BUILD UP
CLEARLY INDICATES
FORMATION HAS
FRACTURED
3. ANNULUS PRESSURE IS
FLUCT UATING
NO UNDERGROUND
BLOWOUT
CONFIRMED
YES
IF ANNULUS PRESSURE IS
NOT EXCESSIVE LEAVE
ANNULUS SHUT IN
IF ANNULUS PRESSURE IS
BUILDING, PUMP MUD AT
SLOW RATE DOWN
ANNULUS IF ANNULUS
CANNOT SUPPORT MUD
PUMP WATER
CONTINUALLY MONITOR
ANNULUS
CONTINUED
WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS Page 12 of 15
Figure 7.5 - Decision Analysis: Flow to a Fracture Above a High Pressure Zone
(Continued)
PREPARE 2 x ANNULUS
VO LUME OF KILL WEIGHT
MUD
* MUD (at minimum PV and
YP, use friction reducer if
available); REMOVE KELLY,
INSTALL HP CIRCULATING
LINE
NO
OPTIONS:
1. BACK OFF, STRIP UP
TAKE STEPS TO SECURE
INTO CASING , SQUEEZE
WELL
HIGH FILTER LOSS
CEMENT SLURRY TO PLUG
YES NO OPTIONS:
WELL
IS THE PIPE STUCK ? 1. CEMENT BHA IN PLACE
2. IF CIRCULATION IS
2. POOH TO PLUG
PO SSIBLE ON BO TTOM,
FRACTURE
PUMP FRESH WATER AT
3. POOH TO RUN CASING
MAXIMUM RAT E TO
SLOUGH HOLE
WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS Page 13 of 15
If the first attempt to control the flow is unsuccessful, the most likely causes will be
either that the volume or the velocity of kill mud was insufficient. Subsequent options
therefore include increasing the volume of the kill mud pumped and pumping at a
greater rate.
If the rig pumps have been operating at maximum output there remain the options to
bring more pumps to the rigsite or to reduce the frictional resistance of the drillstring by
such measures as:
Removing the nozzles of the bit with a charge run on wireline
Perforating the BHA close to the bit (typically use 2-1/8in Enerjets 6spf)
Pumping a lighter, less viscous mud ahead of the kill weight mud in order to reduce
the velocity of the inflow
As indicated in Figure 7.5, if these measures do not bring the well under control, there
remains the option to mix a lost circulation material (LCM) pill or soft plug (Section 4.3)
and displace it down the annulus and into the fracture as the kill weight mud is pumped
down the drillpipe. The pump rates on the drillpipe and the annulus should be such as
to ensure that the LCM pill is completely displaced into the fracture over the period of
time that will be required to pump the prepared volume of kill weight mud.
Past experience has shown that in many cases, having halted the underground flow, a
further flow has been initiated by attempts to pull off bottom. If the decision is made to
pull off bottom after having halted an underground flow, extreme care should be taken.
The industry has given the term ‘baryte plug’ to the heavyweight pills required to deal
with underground blowouts. The recommended procedure for mixing and spotting a
baryte plug and to deal with an underground blowout is covered in Section 7.6.
CANNOT CONTROL
LOSSES
* WELL STARTS TO FLOW
* SHUT WELL IN
POSSIBLE UNDERGROUND
BLOWOUT INDICATORS
* NC SURFACE PRESSURE
*ANNULUS AND DRILLPIPE ON
VACUUM, ANNULUS PRESSURE
MAY BUILD
UNDERGROUND NO
BLOWOUT REASSESS THE SITUATION
CONFIRMED ?
YES
CONTINUALLY MONITOR
ANNULUS
SURFA CE
NO PRE SS URE LOGS INDICATE
YES
Having established that the flow is downwards to a loss zone, there are two options
that should be considered for halting the flow:
Set a plug on bottom (see Section 4.3 for LCM and cement plug recipes)
Reduce the mud weight and drill ahead under pressure
However, drilling under pressure should only be used in circumstances in which lost
circulation of this type has been anticipated. The high pressure zone has low
permeability and the correct equipment, including a rotating head, is available on site.
Drilling and Production Operations Ref: WCON 08
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 2.6 illustrates the U-tube analogy as applied to a well shut-in on a kick. A well in
the drill-ahead mode has uncontaminated drilling fluid of known density transferred
from the surface pits into the drillstring. When shut in on a kick, the shut-in drillpipe
pressure (SIDPP) directly measures the underbalance between the formation pressure
and the hydrostatic pressure of the mud in the drillstring. Thus the formation pressure
can be calculated using Equation 8.1:
Pp = Pdps + gom D (8.1)
where Pdps is the SIDPP, gom is the hydrostatic gradient of the original mud within the
drillstring, and ‘D’ is the true vertical depth of the formation (and approximate depth of
the drillstring). The mud gradient that is required to exactly balance the pore pressure
is therefore given by:
gkwm = [Pdps + gom D]/D (8.2)
where gkwm is the kill weight mud gradient.
Example 8.1
A directional well takes a kick while drilling at 10,350ft. After spacing the tool joint, the
well is shut-in and the drillpipe pressure increases to 400psig. Estimate the mud weight
required to kill the well if the current mud density is 13.2 lb/gal. The calculated true
vertical depth of the kick zone is 10,075ft.
Solution
Vertical depth must be used rather than drilled depth when applying hydrostatics.
Ignoring the space-out distance (string depth total depth), Equation 8.2 yields the
required kill weight mud gradient:
gkwm = [400 + (0.052)(13.2)(10,075)]/10,075 = 0.725psi/ft
We now convert the gradient to a mud density:
kwm = (0.725)/(0.052) = 14 lb/gal
One common way to characterise kick severity is in terms of the underbalance
equivalent density or increase in mud weight required to perform a kill. The kick from
the proceeding example would then be classified as a 0.8 lb/gal kick. Defined in this
manner, it should be apparent that the same kick severity leads to higher underbalance
and surface pressures with increasing depth.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 5 of 88
According to the U-tube concept, the shut-in casing pressure (SICP) must be the
bottom hole pressure less the hydrostatic provided by the fluids in the annulus.
Assume for the moment an influx enters a well as a discrete package and the mud
density above the influx corresponds to drillstring fluid density. It follows that:
Pdps + gom D = Pcs + gom (D – hk) + gk hk (8.3)
where Pcs is the SICP while hk and gk denote the vertical height and gradient of the
formation fluid. The SICP will be recorded and we can determine the kick height if the
influx volume and down hole dimensions are known. Thus Equation 8.3 can be
rearranged to solve for the unknown parameter:
gk = [Pdps – Pcs + gom hk]/hk (8.4)
This relation has been used to ascertain the type of formation fluid contained at the
bottom of a shut-in well. An example problem demonstrates the application.
Example 8.2
The initial SICP on the well described in Example 8.1 is 700psig and the recorded pit
gain is 25 barrels. 690ft of 7in drillcollars and 5in drillpipe comprise the drillstring and
the bit diameter is 9-1/2in. The hole inclination across the bottom hole assembly is 20°.
What is the expected formation fluid?
Solution
The influx volume and hole diameter must be known in order to determine the influx
height. Assuming the hole is in gauge with the bit, we can look up or compute the
capacity factor in the drillcollar annulus:
2 2
Ca = (9.5 – 7 )/1029.4 = 0.04007bbl/ft
Also assume that the increase in pit volume (G) is approximately equal to the influx
volume (Vk) so that:
Vk = G = 25bbl
The influx length can now be determined as:
25/0.04007 = 624ft
and its vertical height in the inclined hole is:
°
hk = 624cos(20 ) = 586ft
Obtain the mean formation fluid gradient using Equation 8.4:
gk = [400 – 700 + (0.686)(586)]/586 = 0.174psi/ft
The gradient indicates this to be a gas kick (0.1 to 0.2psi/ft depending on pressure and
gas gravity).
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 6 of 88
It may be worthwhile to estimate the kick fluid gradient using this procedure, but most
of the underlying assumptions are unrealistic and the computed results are by no
means conclusive. The disparity between the SICP and SIDPP is certainly a clue, plus
later signs may indicate a migrating gas bubble. But the definitive proof will not be
realised until the formation fluids surface. All kicks should be considered as gas kicks
in the control planning and selection of the circulation procedure. Near total lack of
migration with a large kick in the wellbore usually means that the kick is salt water in
water-based mud.
Taking a more realistic approach, cuttings generated at the bit along with constituent
formation fluids alter the mud’s density to some degree. Hence the mud densities in the
annulus and drillstring are not the same. In a kick event, the formation fluids will be
mixed with circulating mud rather than enter the well as an isolated bubble or slug.
Influx flow will continue up through the time the kick is detected, after the pump has
been shut down, and until equilibrium is achieved sometime after the well is shut in.
Also, a portion of any gas flow will be dissolved in the mud and so the pit gain and
influx volume will not be equal if we account for solubility and post shut-in flow along
with other effects such as flowline storage and system elasticity. Finally, the open hole
diameter is, at best, only a guess. It should be close to the bit diameter near
total depth, but significant hole enlargement can occur very quickly in mechanical
instability failures.
Example 8.3
Shale is being drilled when a thick sand is penetrated at 9200ft. Gas flow commences
from the formation into the wellbore at an average down hole rate of 2bbl/min. After
flowing for 8 minutes, a 15bbl pit gain is noted at 9216ft. It takes 30 seconds to space
out the tool joint and shut down the pump. The influx rate then increases to 2.5bbl/min
and two more minutes pass before the well is closed in. Another 0.5bbl of gas entry
occurs as the shut-in bottom hole pressure builds up to the transient formation
pressure at the wellbore. Estimate the pit gain, influx volume and SICP if the following
operational parameters and formation characteristics apply:
SIDPP = 500psig
Hole diameter = 8-1/2in
Drillcollar OD = 6-3/4in
Bottom hole assembly length = 380ft
Drillpipe and
heavyweight drillpipe (HWDP) OD = 5in
Penetration rate = 120ft/hr above and below the sand
Mud density = 10.2 lb/gal
Circulation rate = 350gal/min
Shale cutting density = 20.8 lb/gal
Sandstone porosity = 26%
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 7 of 88
Assuming the 5.5bbl final gas flow perfectly displaces the mud, the gas density on
bottom is determined using the procedures discussed in Section 2. At bottom
hole conditions, the pseudo-reduced properties for a 0.6 specific gravity gas are
determined as:
o
T = 90 + (0.009)(9216) = 173 F
Tpr = (T/Tpc) = (173 + 460)/358 = 1.77
and
Ppr = (Pp/Ppc) = (5379 + 14.7)/671 = 8.04
From Figure 2.4 we find that the compressibility factor is 1.03. The universal gas
constant is selected from Table 2.2 and the gas density is obtained using
Equation 2.10:
g = [(29)(0.60)(5394)]/[(1.03)(80.275)(633)] = 1.79 lb/gal
The capacity factor in the drillcollar annulus is 0.02593bbl/ft and so the 5.5bbl gas
column occupies:
h1 = 5.5/0.02593 = 212ft
Assuming constant gas density across the column height yields the segment
hydrostatic pressure:
P1 = (0.052)(1.79)(212) = 20psi
Segment 2 is the gas and mud mixture resulting from flow during the 30-second space
out period. The mixture density of each annular fluid segment can be estimated using
the mass balance equation for mixtures:
m = [1 V1 + 2 V2 + ... + n Vn]/[V1 + V2 + ... + Vn] (8.5)
where m is the mixture density and the other volumes and densities are of the
individual components. Assuming 5% of the influx is dissolved, the free gas volume
during the 30-second circulation is:
(2bbl/min)(0.5 min)(0.95) = 0.95bbl
whereas the mud volume is:
(350gal/min)(0.5 min)/(42 gal/bbl) = 4.17bbl
Keeping with the same bottom hole gas density, the mixture density from
Equation 8.5 is:
m2 = [(10.2)(4.17) + (1.79)(0.95)]/[4.17 + 0.95] = 8.64 lb/gal
The 5.12 barrel mixture volume (4.17 + 0.95) is shared by the drillcollar and drillpipe
annuli. The volume in the drillcollar annulus is:
(380 – 212)(0.02593) = (168)(0.02593) = 4.36bbl
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 9 of 88
The capacity factor opposite the drillpipe is 0.04590bbl/ft, hence the total segment
height and hydrostatic pressure are:
h2 = 168 + (5.12 – 4.36)/0.04590 = 185ft
and
P2 = (0.052)(8.64)(185) = 83psi
Segment 3 has rock with its constituent pore fluids and influx gas mixed in with the
mud. The rock volume removed during the 8-minute drill time is:
[ (8.5in) (120ft/hr)(8 min)]/[4(144in /ft )(60 min/hr)(5.6146ft /bbl)] = 1.12 barrels
2 2 2 3
Of this bulk volume, the respective sand grain, pore water, and undissolved pore gas
components are:
(1.12)(1 – 0.26) = 0.83 barrels of sand
(1.12)(0.26)(0.18) = 0.05 barrels of water
and
(1.12)(0.26)(1 – 0.18)(0.95) = 0.23 barrels of gas
The effective influx and mud volumes are (rate)(time)(%):
(2.0)(8.0)(0.95) = 15.2bbl of gas
and (rate)(time)
(350)(8.0)/(42gals/bbl) = 66.67bbl of mud
Hence the mixture density at the segment bottom is:
m3 = [(22.1)(0.83) + (9.1)(0.05) + (10.2)(66.67) + (1.79)(0.23 + 15.20)]/
sand water mud gas
[0.83 + 0.05 + 66.67 + 0.23 + 15.20]
volumes
The density above the influx and segment hydrostatic pressure is then:
m4 = [(10.2)(8.33) + (20.8)(0.14)]/[8.33 + 0.14] = 10.38 lb/gal
and
P4 = (0.052)(10.38)(7011) = 3777psi
Finally, the expected SICP is:
Pcs = 5379 – (20 + 83 + 821 + 3777) = 678psig
The expansion of the gas as it moved up the wellbore was not considered in the pit
gain and SICP calculation. Incorporating expansion would increase the pit gain by less
than half of a barrel and reduce the annulus hydrostatic pressure by a small amount,
but the computation errors in this particular case were not serious.
The example problem brings out the principal reasons why casing pressures are not
suited for making accurate wellbore pressure predictions, eg Equation 8.4, predicts a
0.263psi/ft kick gradient using the calculated SICP, a 23.2bbl measured pit gain, and a
10.2 lb/gal mud weight in the annulus. One might conclude from this result that the
influx was gas-cut oil or salt water rather than the actual gas kick.
Buoyancy of the free gas portion of an influx and the consequent migration through
circulating and static mud have not been considered as yet in this discussion. Recall
from Section 2 that a migrating gas bubble in a shut-in well is shown by an increase in
surface pressure. The occurrence can lead to extreme wellbore stresses if the gas
retains its original volume during the migration process; thus we must keep gas
migration in mind any time the wellbore is closed and take care of the well by letting
any contained gas expand as it moves up the hole.
The means for maintaining a relatively stable bottom hole pressure while allowing
expansion to occur is illustrated in Figure 8.1. Assume the bit is on bottom and the
initial SIDPP at point ‘A’ reflects the underbalance pressure used to compute the kill
weight mud. The subsequent pressure increase indicates that gas has moved up the
hole some distance. In the procedure, the Driller is instructed to allow the SIDPP to rise
by an amount defined as a safety margin, achieved on the diagram at point ‘B’.
An additional increase over and above the safety margin is permitted up to the
maximum pressure at ‘C’. Fracture gradient considerations normally control how much
total buildup can be tolerated.
Once the ‘working margin’ pressure is reached at ‘C’, the Driller is instructed to crack
the choke and bleed mud back into the pits until the SIDPP falls back to the safety
level. The process is repeated and pressures are maintained in the pre-determined
window until kick displacement can commence. During each bleed cycle, the gas
expands by a volume equivalent to the released mud and bottom hole pressure is
reduced back to the safety overbalance. The safety margin allows for some error in the
procedure so that underbalancing the hole is avoided if excess mud is bled from the
well (point ‘D’). The procedure can be followed until gas reaches the stack. Migration
has proceeded as far as it can at this point, no more fluids are bled from the well, and
the wellbore pressures will remain stable until the Operator takes other action.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 11 of 88
C C C
WORKING
SIDPP
MARGIN
B B B
SAFETY
MARGIN
A
Time
Example 8.4
Going back to the well from Example 8.1 and Example 8.2, assume casing is set above
the kickoff point (hole is near-vertical) and the fracture gradient measured at the 8700ft
setting depth was 0.81psi/ft. What instructions should be left with the Driller for taking
care of the well until kick displacement can begin?
Solution
The fracture pressure at 8700ft is:
Pfi = (0.81)(8700) = 7047psi
The maximum SICP we can tolerate is the fracture pressure minus the hydrostatic
pressure above the critical depth:
Pcs-max = 7047 – (0.686)(8700) = 1079psig
The initial SICP was 700psi, so well safety dictates that no more than a 379psi
increase should be permitted. An acceptable procedure in this case would be to tell the
Driller to monitor both pressure gauges and allow the SIDPP to increase from 400psi to
600psi. Thereafter he should bleed mud through the choke and maintain the SIDPP
between 600 and 500psi. Casing is set relatively deep on this well and the gas influx is
initially opposite the collars. It follows that the maximum pressure at the shoe will
probably not exceed the 200psi combined margin, but the Driller should still be told to
notify the Supervisor if the SICP approaches 950psi.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 12 of 88
A step seen in many published well control procedures is to record a ‘stabilised’ SIDPP
and SICP after closing in a well. However, we have seen that surface pressures will
never stabilise if free gas is migrating through the mud and the effect may complicate
the SIDPP assessment for use in determining pore pressure. Values corresponding
to the accuracy of the gauges and other measurements can be quickly obtained in high
permeability formations but some time will be necessary before wellbore pressure
approximates pore pressure in tighter rock.
This section covers the basic steps required to implement both the Driller’s Method and
the Wait and Weight Method on both a fixed installation and a floating rig.
A contingency plan must be developed regarding the implementation of the Driller’s
Method and the Wait and Weight Method. This section along with Section 12 will assist
in drawing up these contingency plans.
Both of these methods are designed to ensure that bottom hole pressure is
maintained constant and equal to, or slightly greater than, the formation
pressure. This is the key to well control practice.
These methods are based on the principle that the drillpipe pressure is used to
monitor bottom hole pressure.
In the event of any well control incident it is important that a diary of events is kept.
The Well Control Operations Log can be used initially for this purpose.
A full report should eventually be issued and submitted to line management. The report
should eventually be filed in Drilling Records.
Depth
Mud Weight Inside Casing:
Mud Weight Outside Casing: FIT (Leak off):
DRILLSTRING
Drillpipe 1 Size: Weight:
Grade: Length:
Drillpipe 2 Size: Weight: Grade: Length:
Heavyweight: Weight: Grade: Length:
Drillcollars 1 OD: !" Drillcollars ID: Length: !
Drillcollars 2 OD: Drillcollars ID: Length:
PUMPS
Pump No 1 Stroke Length:
Liner: " bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure:
# At: Output: $
Pump No 2 Stroke Length:
Liner: " bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure:
# At: #$ Output: $
Pump No 3 Stroke Length: Liner: bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure: At: Output:
VOLUMES AND STROKES BBLS STROKES MINUTES
DP 1 Capacity: 1) ft x
bbl/ft
DP 2 Capacity 2) ft x bbl/ft
HWDP Capacity 3) ft x bbl/ft
DC 1 Capacity 1) ! ft x bbl/ft !
DC 2 Capacity 2) ft x
bbl/ft
Total Drillstring Inside Volume:
DP x Casing: 1)
! ft x bbl/ft
DP x Open Hole 2) ft x bbl/ft
HWDP x Open Hole 3) ft x bbl/ft
DC 1 x Open Hole 1) ! ft x bbl/ft
DC 2 x Open Hole 2) ft x bbl/ft
Choke Line 1)
ft x bbl/ft
Example 8.5
An offshore well takes a kick while drilling at 6785ft vertical depth. The SIDPP and
SICP are 300 and 550psig respectively, and the mud density at the time is 13.5 lb/gal.
How much baryte is needed to kill the well if the current system volume is 1593
barrels? Determine the 13.5 lb/gal mud volume to place in storage and the subsequent
baryte addition if the desired final volume is 1593 barrels.
Solution
The kill weight mud is:
kwm = [300 + (0.052)(13.5)(6785)]/[(0.052)(6785)] = 14.4 lb/gal
Equation 8.14 gives the baryte requirement (note bulk baryte = 35.5ppg)
MB = [(1593)(42)(35.5)(14.4 – 13.5)]/[35.5 – 14.4] = 101,310 lb
At 100 lb/sack:
[101,310 lb]/[100 lb/sack] = 1013 sacks
To keep the system volume constant, the volume of 13.5 lb/gal mud placed in storage
is given by Equation 8.16.
VB = [1593 (14.4 – 13.5)]/(35.5 – 13.5) = 65bbl
After transferring the mud, the baryte addition will be:
MB = (65)(42)(35.5) = 96,915 lb = 969 sacks.
This calculation is necessary in order to determine if adequate stocks of baryte are
available on site.
0 ft
413
413 ft
10197
13.5 ppg
10610 ft
444
572
11054 ft
128
11182 ft
846
12028 ft
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 21 of 88
Depth
Mud Weight Inside Casing:
Mud Weight Outside Casing: FIT (Leak off):
DRILLSTRING
Drillpipe 1 Size: Weight:
Grade: Length:
!
Drillpipe 2 Size: Weight: Grade: Length:
Heavyweight: Weight: Grade: Length:
Drillcollars 1 OD: !" Drillcollars ID: Length: !
Drillcollars 2 OD: Drillcollars ID: Length:
PUMPS
Pump No 1 Stroke Length:
Liner: " bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure:
# At: Output: $
Pump No 2 Stroke Length:
Liner: " bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure:
# At: #$ Output: $
Pump No 3 Stroke Length: Liner: bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure: At: Output:
VOLUMES AND STROKES BBLS STROKES MINUTES
DP 1 Capacity: 1)
!
ft x
bbl/ft
DP 2 Capacity 2) ft x bbl/ft
HWDP Capacity 3) ft x bbl/ft
DC 1 Capacity 1) ! ft x bbl/ft !
DC 2 Capacity 2) ft x bbl/ft
Total Drillstring Inside Volume: !
DC 1 x Open Hole: 1) ! ft x bbl/ft
DC 2 x Open Hole 2) ft x bbl/ft
HWDP x Open Hole 3)
ft x bbl/ft !
HWDP x Casing 1) ft x bbl/ft
DP x Casing 2) ft x bbl/ft !
Choke Line 1)
ft x bbl/ft
!
Pump Stroke Required Surface to Bit: ! strokes Bit to Choke: !
strokes
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 22 of 88
Strokes
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
1,200 1,200
Pressure (psi)
800 800
(psi)
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
760 605 450 295 140
Circulating Drillpipe Pressure (psi)
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 23 of 88
As the influx is displaced up the hole, the drillpipe pressure will tend to drop as the
influx expands (this expansion will not occur if the influx is water). This effect will be
especially marked if the influx contains a significant quantity of gas. The choke should
therefore be adjusted to compensate for this, eg if the drillpipe pressure drops by 70psi
below that required, the choke pressure should be increased by approximately 70psi.
The pressure on the drillpipe will increase after a lag time, which is usually 2 seconds
per 1000ft of drillstring depth. If the well contains a significant proportion of gas, this
technique will be most effective at the early stages of displacement and less so at the
later stages of displacement.
When the influx reaches the choke, the choke pressure will start to decrease due to the
difference in density and viscosity between the influx and the mud. If the influx contains
significant quantities of gas, the drop in choke pressure may be quite substantial, and
the choke will have to be closed down quickly.
As the influx is circulated from the well and mud is circulated to the choke, the choke
pressure will begin to rise rapidly. The choke should therefore be opened to allow the
choke pressure to drop sufficiently to re-establish the final circulating pressure on the
drillpipe, and hence maintain constant bottom hole pressure.
Once the hole has been circulated to kill weight mud, the pump should be stopped, the
well shut in, and the casing and drillpipe pressure checked. There should be no
pressure on either the casing or the drillpipe. However, if there is still some pressure on
the casing, circulation should be restarted to clear the contaminated mud from
the annulus.
Once the well has been completely killed, a flow check should be carried out before the
rams are opened. If this flow check indicates no flow, the rams should be opened and a
further flow check carried out.
Furthermore, a complete hole circulation should be carried out prior to continuing
operations. A suitable overbalance can be added to the mud at this stage.
Influx behaviour during circulation will be similar to the Wait and Weight Method,
requiring similar choke manipulation.
Choke pressures will inevitably be higher than if the Wait and Weight Method had been
used. These higher pressures will be reflected down hole, causing greater stress in the
open hole.
Once the influx has been displaced from the hole, the shut-in drillpipe and shut-in
casing pressure should be equal. If the casing pressure is higher than the drillpipe
pressure, this is evidence that there is still some kick fluid in the annulus, or that the
mud weights are out of balance.
Prior to circulating kill weight mud into the hole, the calculations as outlined in
Section 8.1.4 should be carried out.
When the returned mud is at kill weight, the pump should be stopped and the well
shut in. The well should be checked for pressure.
Once the well has been killed, a flow check should be carried out before the rams are
opened. If this flow check indicates no flow, the rams should be opened and a further
flow check carried out.
Furthermore, a complete hole circulation should be carried out prior to continuing
operations. A suitable overbalance can be added to the mud at this stage.
The following sections may be used as guidelines for the implementation of the above
mentioned procedures.
6. After the drillpipe pressure has built by the sum of the overbalance margin and the
operating margin, the kick zone will be overbalanced by the sum of these two
values. Mud should then be bled from the annulus to reduce the drillpipe pressure
to a value representing the final shut-in pressure plus the overbalance margin.
A manual choke should be used for this operation to ensure adequate control. It is
strongly recommended that small volumes of mud are bled off at a time to allow
time for the drillpipe pressure to respond. There will be a considerable lag time
between choke and drillpipe pressure changes in a deep well and especially if the
influx contains gas.
7. This process should be repeated until the influx migrates to the stack. Bleeding gas
cut mud from the well may precede arrival of the influx at the stack. However, if gas
is observed at the choke, the well should be shut in and mud lubrication started.
8. Lubrication is a method used to displace the gas out at surface with mud without
allowing bottom hole pressure to drop to the point where the well will kick again.
The technique is to pump a small volume of mud into the annulus via the kill line
and allow this mud to fall through the gas. The additional hydrostatic that this mud
provides can then be bled off as gas pressure at surface. The key to lubrication is
to pump small volumes (equivalent to 100 to 200psi increments) and wait
sufficiently long to allow mud to fall through the gas. To work, lubrication requires
that only gas be bled off at surface, not mud.
9. If gas is just bled from the well, the bottom hole pressure will drop and eventually
cause a further influx. When the influx has migrated to the stack, surface pressures
should no longer rise as migration will cease to occur. This may not be the case on
a floating rig when some migration may occur up the choke line. Use the Volumetric
Control Worksheet to record all the relevant data (see Figure 8.6).
10. Lubricate mud into the hole or implement the Dynamic Volumetric Method.
For example, if the choke pressure increases by 100psi, a volume of mud equivalent to
a hydrostatic pressure in the annulus of 100psi is bled at the choke at a constant choke
pressure. In this manner, control over the bottom hole pressure is achieved. It should
be noted that this method is only applicable if the influx is migrating as the mud is bled
from the well. The rate of influx migration determines the time required to bleed each
increment of mud from the well. This technique is illustrated in Figure 8.7.
Example 8.6
In this example, the following conditions apply:
Operating margin = 150psi
Annulus = 8-1/2in × 5in, which gives an annular capacity of 0.0459bbls/ft. Alternatively,
1bbl fills 21.8ft of annulus.
Mud weight = 15.4 lb/gal
Hydrostatic equivalent of mud = (21.8)(15.4)(0.052) = 17.46psi/ft
To bleed off the equivalent of 150psi then:
Bleed (150/17.4) = 8.6bbl of mud
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 32 of 88
)* !
+, #+-
*% / /
$.+
*%
/
/
$.+
0--, $*,
/ / !
+
)12-
*%
/
/
$.+
0--, $*,
/ / !
+
)12-
*%
/
/
$.+
0--, $*,
/ / !
+
)12-
*%
/
/
$.+
0--, $*,
/ / !
+
)12-
+ VE + VE + VE + VE
Increase Bled Overbalance Bled
– VE – VE – VE – VE
Decrease Lubricated Underbalance Lubricated
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 33 of 88
As can be seen from Figure 8.7 the distance the influx must migrate (5984 to 436) is
5548ft while the 8.6bbl of mud is bled from the well. It is clear that this operation will
take several hours. Generally it is very difficult to bleed off this mud at constant casing
pressure (mud viscosity hold-up) unless the bleed off is done very slowly. This can be
very difficult to do using a hydraulic choke. It is better to use a manual choke with line
run to trip tank to accurately monitor the bleed-off volume.
If the operating margin was quickly bled from the well, the original influx would expand
by approximately 0.4bbl before the bottom hole pressure dropped to the original kick
zone pressure. If the remaining 8.1bbl were bled from the well, this would cause a
further influx of 8.1bbl, as shown in Figure 8.8.
In this example, as the influx migrates further up the hole, the time required to bleed
the 8.6bbl increment from the well will decrease significantly. In this example, the influx
must migrate 1870ft (approximately 2 hours) as the next increment is bled from the
well. If the rate of influx migration is maintained, this time interval will continually reduce
until the influx is at surface. This is typical of larger kicks in water-based muds where
migration to surface is expected.
Volumetric control is similar to the Driller’s Method although the influx moves up the
hole under the influence of migration. The resultant wellbore pressures as well as the
required pit gain will be similar for the two techniques.
Volumetric Control Guidelines
1. Record shut-in choke pressure.
2. Develop annulus pressure profile.
3. Determine migration rate.
The first three steps are carried out in the same manner as in Section 8.2.1.1.
4. Calculate hydrostatic pressure of mud per barrel.
The hydrostatic pressure of the mud per barrel should be calculated at the point in
the annulus directly above the influx. If there is a liner in the well then calculation
must account for the change in annulus area. This can be calculated as follows:
Hydrostatic pressure per barrel:
Phyd = (53.5 × m)/(dhc – do )
2 2
(8.27)
5. Allow choke pressure to build by overbalance margin. The choke pressure should
be allowed to build by an overbalance margin that may typically be in the range of
100 to 200psi.
6. Allow choke pressure to build by operating margin. The choke pressure should be
allowed to continue building to an amount that provides an operating margin. The
total margin will depend on the resultant wellbore pressures at each stage in the
operation and fracture gradient profile.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 35 of 88
Figure 8.9 - Typical Choke Pressure Schedule for the Static Volumetric Method
8.2.1.3 Lubrication
This technique may be used to vent the influx from below the stack while maintaining
constant bottom hole pressure.
Lubrication is most suited to fixed offshore and land rigs. It can be used to vent gas
from the stack after implementing the Static Volumetric Method, as well as to reduce
surface pressures prior to an operation such as stripping or bullheading.
Lubrication is likely to involve a considerable margin of error when implemented on a
floating rig because of the complication of monitoring the bottom hole pressure through
the choke line. When the influx has migrated to the stack, it is quite possible that the
choke line will become full of gas cut mud. In this situation it is impractical to attempt to
maintain control of the bottom hole pressure with the choke.
However, lubrication is simpler to implement than the Dynamic Volumetric Method.
For this reason alone, it may be considered for use on a floating rig.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 38 of 88
8.2.2 Stripping
Stripping is a technique that can be used to move the drillstring through the blowout
preventer (BOP) stack when the well is under pressure. Stripping places high levels
of stress on the BOPs and the closing unit, and requires a particularly high level of
co-ordination within the rig crew. A contingency plan must be developed regarding
stripping procedure on all rigs. Stripping is typically required when drillpipe is off bottom
and the kick will not migrate upwards to a depth at which it can be circulated. This is
typically seen when using oil-based mud or when kick is salt water. Rigs are rarely
prepared to strip into high pressures (>1000psi casing pressure). In this circumstance,
a bullhead procedure should at least be considered as an alternative way to reduce
surface pressure. Generally rigs are only prepared to strip through the annular BOP.
Never consider ram to ram stripping unless you have at least three pipe rams, two to
strip and one backup). To strip down with casing pressure requires an effective
backpressure valve in the drillpipe. The best type of device is a dart sub with the dart in
place. At low pressures, some strip in on a non-ported float sub. As a last resort, the
inside BOP or Gray Valve can be used. The problem with this device is that it is
installed at the top of the drillstring and restricts deep wireline access if the pipe
becomes stuck during the trip back in. This section is intended to aid in design of this
contingency plan. The following are proposed as the most important considerations:
How to move the tool joint through the annular BOP
Wear on BOP elements and the control unit
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 42 of 88
If the pipe has to be stripped out of the hole. In this case, there will be a
tendency for the volume of metal removed from the well to be replaced by
influx fluid
In these circumstances, it may be necessary to implement the dynamic stripping
technique.
2. To compensate for influx migration.
To compensate for influx migration, it is necessary to bleed mud from the well. This
is in addition to the volume of mud bled from the well when introducing the pipe into
the hole. Normally, the required volume of mud will be very small in comparison to
the volume bled off to compensate for the introduction of pipe into the hole.
Influx migration is indicated by a gradual increase in surface pressure even though
the correct volume of mud is being bled from the well (however this may be due to
the BHA entering the influx). It is confirmed by increasing surface pressure when
the pipe is stationary. Implementing the Volumetric Method controls influx migration.
3. To allow an increase in surface pressure as the BHA enters the influx.
When the BHA has been run into the influx, the height of the influx will be
considerably increased. This can cause a significant decrease in hydrostatic
pressure in the annulus, requiring a greater surface pressure to maintain a constant
bottom hole pressure (see Figure 8.11). A potential problem arises if this condition
is undetected. The choke Operator may continue to bleed mud from the well to
maintain a constant surface pressure and inadvertently cause further influx into the
wellbore. It is therefore important to accurately monitor the total volume of mud bled
from the well.
It is recommended that the potential increase in surface pressure resulting from
entering the influx should be estimated before stripping into the hole.
The upper annular preventer on a floating rig is the only stack component that is
subject to wear and this can be changed without pulling the complete BOP stack
Pipe rams can wear severely during stripping. The ram packers on drilling rigs are
generally not new. At higher pressures the pipe pulls off rubber as it moves through
the ram. There are special stripping rams with Teflon inserts used when stripping
pipe in high pressures
Consider installing additional pipe rams as a stripping stack before attempting
ram-to-ram stripping on a drilling rig. If kick is not migrating, there is time to rig
up more BOPs. Contact a well control company for advice
Ram combination stripping is possible on all types of rigs but involves significantly
more risk. Ram-to-ram stripping requires a four-ram stack to have at least one safety
ram. Variable bore rams should never be used for stripping.
The surface pressure is the overriding factor, which determines whether or not it will be
possible to implement annular stripping. However, it is necessary to consider that the
operating life of an annular element is severely reduced by increased wellbore
pressure. Field tests carried out on Hydril and Shaffer 5K annulars show good
performance at 800psi wellbore pressure, but at 1500psi and above the performance is
severely reduced and unpredictable.
If surface pressures indicate that annular stripping is not possible, attempts should be
made to reduce the pressures in order to enable annular stripping to be used.
The most appropriate technique will depend on the position of the influx in the hole.
The options are to circulate out the influx, to volumetrically control the influx to the bit
and then circulate the kick from the well, or to bullhead.
To ensure that the annular is not subjected to excessive pressures as the tool joint is
stripped through the element, a surge damper must be placed in the closing line (see
Figure 8.12). This may not be necessary on a surface stack if the pressure regulator
can respond fast enough to maintain a constant closing pressure as a tool joint is
stripped through the annular.
CAUTION: Some drilling contractors have installed check valves in the control lines
to the BOPs to ensure that the BOP stays closed if the hydraulic supply
is lost. However, if a check valve is installed in the closing line to an
annular BOP, it will not be possible to reduce the closing pressure once
the annular has been closed. In order to reduce the annular closing
pressure, in this case, it will be necessary to loosen the annular, having
closed another ram to secure the well. this is summarised below:
Close pipe ram
Open annular
Reduce closing pressure
Close annular
Open pipe ram
If a surge damper is used it must be placed between the check valve and the
annular, and the pre-charge pressure set at the required closing pressure based
on well pressure.
A better method is to loop the check valve with plumbing and second needle valve to
adjust annular pressure at the closing unit (see Figure 8.12).
The check valve also restricts gas from entering the closing unit if internal seals fail in
the annular ram.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 46 of 88
5. Allow surface pressure to increase by overbalance margin (by bleeding less than
what is stripped in or by migration). An overbalance of 50 to 200psi should be
maintained throughout the stripping operation. If the influx is not migrating, the
overbalance margin can be applied by bleeding a volume of mud that is less than
the volume of pipe introduced into the hole at the start of the operation.
6. Reduce annular closing pressure. The BOP manufacturers recommend that the
closing pressure is reduced, prior to stripping, until a slight leakage occurs through
the BOP. This reduces the wear on the annular by lubricating the element
during stripping.
7. Strip in the hole. The pipe should be slowly lowered through the annular while the
surface pressure is accurately monitored. The running speed should be reduced
when a tool joint passes through the annular. Mud should be bled from the well at
each connection, unless surface pressure limitations dictate that this should be
carried out more frequently. The pipe should be filled with mud at suitable intervals,
typically every five stands. Use original mud weight. A person should be posted at
the Driller’s BOP control panel at all times to be ready to shut in the well in the
event of failure of the annular preventer.
8. Monitor surface pressure. Surface pressures and all relevant data should be
recorded on the Stripping Worksheet (see Figure 8.13). Use Figure 8.10 as an aid
to the interpretation of changes in surface pressure.
9. Strip to bottom. Kill the well. The only sure method of killing the well will be to return
the string to bottom and implement standard well kill techniques. If kick is migrating
faster than the pipe can be stripped, then a combination of volumetric well control
using choke method and circulation will be required.
STRIPPING WORKSHEET
Figure 8.15 - Surface BOP Stack Suitable for Ram Combination Stripping
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 53 of 88
7. Allow the surface pressure to increase by the overbalance margin (by stripping
if kick is not migrated).
8. Reduce annular closing pressure and strip in.
9. Stop when tool joint is above annular (see Figure 8.16).
10. Close pipe ram at normal regulated manifold pressure.
11. Bleed ram cavity pressure above closed ram.
12. Before the annular is opened, it will be necessary to bleed down the pressure below
it (see Figure 8.17).
13. Reduce ram operating pressure.
14. Open annular. Lower pipe.
15. Stop when tool joint is just below annular (see Figure 8.18).
16. Close annular at maximum operating pressure.
17. Pressurise ram cavity to equalise across ram (see Figure 8.19).
18. Do not use wellbore pressure to equalise across the ram.
19. Reduce annular closing pressure.
20. Open pipe ram.
21. Continue to strip in according to the above procedure. Kill the well.
22. Fill the pipe as required.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 54 of 88
13. Monitor surface pressures and pit levels. If the choke pressure increases
significantly as the pipe is stripped into the hole, either reduce the pipe running
speed or increase the circulation rate. Use the Stripping Worksheet (Figure 8.13) to
record all the relevant data. It is very important to accurately record pressures and
mud volumes while stripping.
14. Strip to bottom. Kill the well. Fill the pipe as required.
8.2.3 Bullheading
Bullheading is a technique that may be used in certain circumstances during drilling
operations to pump an influx back into the formation. This technique may or may not
result in fracturing the formation. Bullheading is, however, a relatively common method
of killing a well during workover operations. This technique is generally used only
during workover operations when there is adequate reservoir permeability.
Example 8.9
Well information:
Depth of formation/perforations = 10,170ft
Formation pressure = 8.8ppg
Formation fracture pressure = 13.8ppg
Tubing = 4-1/2in N80
Internal capacity = 0.01521bbl/ft
Internal yield = 8430psi
Shut-in tubing pressure = 3650psi
Gas density = 0.1psi/ft
Total internal volume of tubing:
Cap = 10,170 x 0.01521 = 155bbl
Maximum allowable pressure at pump startup:
Pmax-1 = (13.8 x 10,170 x 0.052) – (0.1 x 10,170) = 6300psi
Maximum allowable pressure when the tubing has been displaced to brine at 8.8ppg:
Pmax-2 = (13.8 – 8.8) x 10,170 x 0.052 = 2640psi
Static tubing head pressure at initial shut-in:
PSTH-1 = 3650psi
Static tubing head pressure when tubing has been displaced to brine:
PSTH-2 = 0psi (ie the tubing should be killed)
The above values can be represented graphically (as shown in Figure 8.21). This plot
can be used as a guide during the bullheading operation. Figures 8.22, 8.23 and 8.24
show a schematic of the well at three stages of the operation.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 63 of 88
8.2.4 Snubbing
Snubbing is a technique used to force pipe into a shut-in well when the upthrust due to
well pressure makes it impossible to strip the pipe through the BOP under its
own weight.
Snubbing is relatively common in some areas in workover operations, usually when the
well is allowed to continue flowing as remedial work is carried out.
Snubbing may be considered during drilling operations for well control purposes, either
when it is impossible to introduce pipe into a well that is under pressure, or if the rig
BOP system is not considered adequate to provide reliable pressure containment
during a prolonged stripping operation.
A snubbing unit can be used to introduce a range of sizes of pipe into the well. It can
be used to snub tubing, drillpipe and even casing in exceptional circumstances.
The lowermost components of the snubbing unit are the snubbing BOPs, which are
made up to the top flange of the annular preventer on the rig’s stack. Most annulars
have a studded top and are often poorly maintained because it is normally made up to
the bell nipple and does not generally need to form a pressure seal. Therefore, it must
be inspected and, if necessary, repaired before the snubbing BOPs are nippled up.
Checking the top of the annular should be done as part of the rig tendering process
and inspected before nippling up the BOPs. Typical repairs require chasing out the
stud holes with a tap and re-machining the rig groove.
The snubbing BOPs are likely to be too tall to fit underneath the rotary table and too
wide to go through. To overcome this problem, the snubbing company can provide
suitable spacer riser sections to bring the assembly above the rig floor.
The weight of the snubbing unit is supported by the wellhead. Guidelines from the work
platform prevent lateral movement.
Snubbing units can be rigged up on land rigs and fixed offshore installations in a
relatively straightforward manner. Snubbing units are not commonly used on floating
rigs, however they have been used successfully in the past for well control operations.
In order to use a snubbing unit on a floating rig, pressure containment must be
established between the rig BOP and the unit on the rig floor. Drillpipe or tubing may
provide this pressure containment, in which case small diameter tubing may be run into
the well through the drillpipe or tubing. An operation of this type can only be carried out
in relatively calm seas so that the rig heave does not cause excessive movement of the
snubbing unit.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 68 of 88
As an example:
2-7/8in tubing of 6.5 lb/ft is run empty to 3281ft in 10ppg mud. The wellhead pressure is
5000psi. The drag in the hole is 2000 lb, friction at the BOPs is 5000 lb.
2
Ai = Internal Cross-sectional Area of Pipe (in )
2
Ao = Outside Cross-sectional Area of Pipe (in )
wi = Weight of Fluid Inside the Pipe (ppg)
wo = Weight of Fluid in Annulus (ppg)
The strength of the settled baryte is another significant factor in well control. Laboratory
tests show that the strength of a settled baryte plug is quite variable. Settled baryte can
appear solid when pushed upon, however it may move slowly if a constant force is
applied. This behaviour is actually a well-understood property of deflocculated cakes.
A baryte plug can fail unexpectedly if a hydrostatic kill condition is not maintained.
8.3.3 Settling
Table 8.1 shows two recipes for baryte slurries. The recipes are identical except that
one contains XC polymer to eliminate baryte settling. It would seem reasonable to use
the settling recipe for small jobs or where the settling baryte might really be helpful
down hole. For large kill operations, the non-settling recipe would be preferred.
Bentonite or some polymer other than XC could be used to suspend the baryte in
slurry. The particular recipe in Table 8.1 was selected because it is prepared easily in
both fresh water and seawater, and because XC solutions are shear-thinning enough
to allow good pumpability while adequately suspending the baryte in the pits.
Baryte plug-type slurries can be prepared with hematite. In general, the recipes in
Table 8.1 do not require change except that, in some cases, the higher density
of hematite allows higher slurry weights than possible with baryte, eg hematite
slurries can be prepared to 25ppg using the non-settling recipe in Table 8.1. Replace
the baryte with 870 lb hematite per final bbl of slurry. The non-settling recipe is
strongly recommended for hematite slurries because of the relatively coarse grind of
oilfield hematite.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 78 of 88
Non-settling Recipe
Water (fresh or sea) ........................ 1bbl
Lignosulphonate .............................. 15 lb
XC polymer...................................... 1 lb (or 5 to 10 lb bentonite)
Caustic ........................................... 2 lb/bbl (pH = 10.5 to 11.5)
Defoamer (octanol or other)
Non-settling Recipe
Base oil............................................ 1bbl
Oil wetting agent .............................. 1.5 US gal
Organophilic clay ............................. 4 lb
* Use SAPP if bottom hole temperature is <180°F, high fluid loss slurry is desired and
fresh water is used.
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 79 of 88
8.3.4 Deflocculation
For years it has been standard practice to add a thinner to baryte slurries used for well
control. Both lignosulphonates and phosphates have been used, with the phosphate
SAPP having the widest acceptance. Chemicals of either type can deflocculate a
baryte slurry to improve pumpability and allow settling into a firm cake. Deflocculant
improves pumpability and allows settling. However, the choice of deflocculant will
influence the baryte slurry properties as follows:
Use of SAPP gives a slurry with fairly high fluid loss (50cc). SAPP will not
deflocculate in seawater or at higher temperatures (>180°F)
Use of lignosulphonate gives a slurry with low fluid loss (5cc). Lignosulphonate is
effective in seawater and tolerates both contamination and elevated temperatures
Use of a high fluid loss baryte slurry is advantageous, possibly because it might
dehydrate and plug the wellbore, or promote hole instability. On the other hand, a low
fluid loss slurry would reduce the chances of differential sticking.
7. Perforate the drillstring near the top of the baryte plug. Attempt to circulate. It may
be difficult to tell whether the well is circulating or flowing from charged formations.
Pressure communication between the drillpipe and annulus is one clue; a pressure
increase should have appeared on the drillpipe from annulus pressure or on the
casing from hydrostatic pressure in the drillpipe when the perforation was made.
Consideration should be given to circulating with lighter mud because of the known
lost returns zone.
a. Well will circulate:
i. Use drillpipe pressure method (ie to circulate annulus clear of formation
fluid).
ii. Run a free-point log.
iii. Begin fishing operations.
b. Well will not circulate:
i. Squeeze cement slurry through perforation. Cut displacement short on
final stage to provide an interior plug or set wireline bridge plug. Weight on
cement (WOC) and pressure test plug.
ii. Run free-point log.
iii. Perforate the pipe near the indicated free point.
iv. Circulate using the drillpipe pressure method until annulus is clear.
8.4 NOMENCLATURE
a = solubility equation constant
b = solubility equation constant
Bo = oil volume factor, dimensionless
Bog = oil volume factor including dissolved gas, dimensionless
Bong = oil volume factor not including dissolved gas, dimensionless
c = solubility equation constant
Cp = internal capacity of the pipe (bbl/ft)
dh = hole diameter (inches)
D = depth (ft)
Dg,in = depth of gas entry (ft)
fg = gas mole fraction, dimensionless
fgh = hydrocarbon mole fraction, dimensionless
fva = mud additive volume fraction, dimensionless
fvc = emulsifier volume fraction, dimensionless
fvo = oil volume fraction, dimensionless
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 84 of 88
Ff = frictional force
wa = weight of pipe
wb = buoyant weight of pipe
Ly = length of pipe above BOP to the travelling snubber
Lz = length of pipe in the hole
Subscripts
T = total
DS = drillstring
A = annulus
S = surface
0,1 = locations
a = air, also mud additive
b = bubble point
bh = bottom hole
c = critical, also gravitational conversion constant
cs = shut-in casing
e = equivalent, also emulsifier
f = fluid, also final
g = gas
gh = hydrocarbon gas
i = initial
l = liquid
m = mud
n = number of components
o = oil
og = oil with dissolved gas
ong = oil without dissolved gas
pp = partial pressure
r = reduced
pc = pseudo-critical
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 88 of 88
pr = pseudo-reduced
s = solution
sa = mud additive solution
sb = bubble point solution
sc = component solution
sh = hydrocarbon solution
se = emulsifier solution
sm = mud solution
so = oil solution
sw = water solution
sl = slip
V = volume
Va = additive volume
Ve = emulsifier volume
Vo = oil volume
Vw = water volume
w = water
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9. COMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 2
9.13 HYDRATES..................................................................................................... 9
9. COMPLICATIONS
Optimum shearing characteristics are obtained when the pipe is stationary and under
tension. It is therefore recommended practice that the pipe weight is partially hung-off
prior to shearing. Hanging the pipe off also ensures that there is no tool joint opposite
the shear rams. Maximum operating pressure should be used to shear the pipe.
The following procedure can be used as a guideline for shearing the pipe in the case of
an internal blowout:
1. Space out to ensure that there is no tool joint opposite the shear rams.
2. Close the hang-off ram. If possible, the hang-off ram should not be the lowest pipe
ram. In a four-ram stack with No 1 pipe, No 2 blind/shear, drilling spool, No 3 pipe
and No 4 variable bore ram (VBR), pipe should be hung off on No 3 ram, so No 4
ram can be closed as a backup. High hang-off forces can spread a pipe ram open
and start leaks as taper of tool joints loads into ram. This arrangement requires that
an alternative pump-in point be established. This would be ideally suited for the
outlets between the No 3 and No 4 rams.
3. Hang off on the rams.
4. Ensure that the pipe above the hang-off rams remains in tension.
5. Prepare to operate the shear rams.
6. Close the shear rams at maximum accumulator pressure.
7. Monitor the well. Implement appropriate control procedures.
9.10.2 Drillstring/Hole
Use a pump-in sub to circulate the influx to surface. If the well cannot be circulated
and the influx is migrating (above bridge) perforate drillpipe above bridge in order to
circulate. Caution should be taken, as perforating the drillpipe will cause the drillpipe
pressures to rise if the influx has migrated without any surface volumetric control.
9.13 HYDRATES
Natural gas hydrates have the appearance of hard snow and consist of chemical
compounds of light hydrocarbons and liquid water. They are formed at temperatures
above the normal freezing point of water at certain conditions of temperature and
pressure (see Figure 9.1). This formation process is accelerated when there are high
gas velocities, pressure pulsations or other agitations, such as downstream of a choke
and at elbows, which cause the mixing of hydrocarbon components.
During well control operations, gas hydrates may cause the following serious problems:
Plugging of subsea choke/kill lines, preventing opening and closing of subsea
BOPs, sealing off wellbore annuli and immobilising the drillstring. There have been
recorded incidences of such occurrences with subsea stacks in water depths of
1000ft and deeper
Plugging of surface lines at and downstream of the choke or restriction. This is
particularly hazardous when high gas flowrates are experienced through
low-pressure equipment (such as the poorboy separator and gas vent line). The
formation of hydrate plugs under these conditions can rapidly overpressure
low-pressure well control equipment
The major factors, which determine the potential for hydrate formation, are gas
composition, liquid content and pressure and temperature. The formation of hydrates
can be predicted using Figure 9.1. It should be noted that the conditions for hydrate
formation could be created at a subsea stack operating in a coldwater environment.
Figure 9.2 can be used to predict the temperature drop associated with a pressure
drop (ie across a choke). As an example, if gas at 3000psi and 90°F were choked to
1800psi, the temperature would be expected to drop to 55°F, in which case, hydrate
formation could be expected.
The purpose of this chart is to determine the temperature below which hydrates will
form, when sufficient liquid water is present.
Example 9.1
Assuming we encounter a 0.7 specific gravity gas at 1000psia, hydrates may be
expected at 64°F. At 200psia this would be 44°F.
COMPLICATIONS Page 10 of 21
The appropriate course of action should therefore be selected on the basis of these
factors. However, in general, a kick zone should only be underbalanced in exceptional
circumstances, such as when the zone is known to have low permeability. This can
often be assessed from the rate of pressure build after shutting in a well that
has kicked.
3. Shut the well in. Line up to circulate water down the kill line and up the choke line.
4. Slowly displace the kill line to water. As the kill time is displaced to water increase
the kill line circulating pressure by an amount equal to the difference in hydrostatic
pressure between the kill mud and water at the depth of the stack. (This will ensure
that the gas pressure is unchanged.)
5. Keep pumping water across the stack and maintain the final circulating pressure.
When the returns are clear water, stop the pump and shut-in at the choke (see
Figure 9.6).
6. Close the subsea kill line valve(s).
7. Bleed pressure from the choke line (see Figure 9.7). (The pressure that has been
trapped in the gas bubble is used to ensure that the gas bubble expands as the
choke is opened to displace all the water from the choke line. Having bled all the
pressure from the choke line the gas bubble should be almost at atmospheric
pressure.)
8. Close the diverter and line up the trip tank/pump to circulate the riser under
the diverter.
9. Slowly bleed back the upper annular closing pressure. Open the annular.
10. Allow the riser to U-tube. Take returns up the choke line. Fill the hole as required
(see Figure 9.8). Be prepared to deal with gas in the riser.
11. Displace the riser and kill and choke lines to kill weight mud.
12. Open the lower pipe rams.
13. Open the diverter and flow check the well.
COMPLICATIONS Page 15 of 21
Figure 9.3 - Subsea BOP Stack Prior to Removing Gas From Below Preventers
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 16 of 21
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 17 of 21
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 18 of 21
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 19 of 21
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 20 of 21
PIPE RAM
COMPLICATIONS Page 21 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 2
10.3 DIVERTERS..................................................................................................... 4
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Shallow gas blowouts have resulted in loss of life and total rig loss. Extreme care must
be taken when drilling in areas where shallow gas may be present.
The general definition of shallow gas is based on gas zones present while drilling
without an effective means of conventional kick control (ie shut-in and circulation).
This occurs typically when drilling conductor, surface hole or below shallow set surface
pipe. Typical depths are between 200 and 3000ft.
Shallow gas is found worldwide both offshore and onshore, although the incidence
offshore if far greater. Typical reservoirs are very permeable and only slightly
overpressured (higher pressure than seawater hydrostatic). Gas in these zones has
several possible origins:
1. The principal source is from biogenic gas from anaerobic breakdown of organic
matter. This is typically seen in pre-Miocene sedimentary basins in isolated sand
lenses in-bedded with young shale. Offshore Gulf of Mexico and offshore West
Africa are typical of this type of shallow gas deposit. Mud volcanoes and active
surface gas vents are seen in these regions. Figure 10.1 illustrates this situation.
2. Alternatively, deep reservoirs of gas can leak into shallow sands through fault
planes. This can lead to abnormal pressures limited only by shallow fracture
gradient and leak off. This problem is seen in faulted regions with isolated shallow
sands present close to the fault plane that cuts down to deeper gas zones.
3. Shallow gas is sometimes seen near bridged off blowouts, near sustained
underground blowouts through drillstring fish or after cementing casing where the
gas flow is diverted underground. These types of blowout may charge shallow
sands with overpressured gas. This type of shallow gas can be very dangerous as
pressures can be abnormal and it is completely unanticipated. Shallow gas is
sometimes seen in mature oilfields due to leaks of gas lift gas into shallow zones.
Several shallow gas blowouts have occurred when drilling new wells in older
oilfields which have been under sustained gas lift where no shallow gas was seen
in original drilling.
4. Likewise, shallow gas has been seen from unrecognised failure of down hole
tubulars in gas injection wells. Typically injection pressure has communicated to
production casing but injection continued. Lack of a surface injection pressure
anomaly does not always mean that shallow charging is not underway. If shallow
fracture pressure and injection zone pore pressure are nearly equal there may be
little difference in surface injection pressure.
Drilling a pilot hole is recommended on exploratory wells with shallow gas risk.
The higher annular velocity tends to better remove the cuttings gas and less cuttings
gas is evolved in smaller hole size. If gas is identified in mud log records then open
hole logs can be run to confirm gas interval depth for optimum hole opening strategy
and casing cementing design. The kick risk when opening hole is reduced by the fact
that less formation will be drilled and the gas generated will, therefore, be reduced.
However, many wells were safely drilled with pilot hole, logged, gas sands spotted and
then blew out when opening hole. The hole opening rate should be reduced at these
now known gas sands and the pump rate maximised. If possible, use a higher mud
density to open hole.
Lost circulation can lead to shallow gas kicks. High annulus densities from cuttings
load or poor hole cleaning are common causes. Good hole cleaning with high
circulation rates with high yield point mud is needed. The shallow gas zone should be
cased off before drilling into a known loss zone as minor drops of annulus fluid level
could result in kicks from the shallow gas zone. There is very little over-balance on
shallow gas zones as the hydrostatic column length is short.
10.3 DIVERTERS
Diverters are large low pressure annular blowout preventers (BOPs) used in
conjunction with large bore hydraulic valves to close in the annulus while opening to
a diverter line after detection of a shallow gas kick.
The idea is to allow the well to blowout via a control flow route to allow safe rig
evacuation. Only if flow stabilises can possible control actions be taken. Diverters are
typically only deigned to give the drill crew time to evacuate.
SHALLOW GAS Page 5 of 12
The diverter line should be designed to limit the pressure applied to the shallow set
surface casing. If flow is choked too much by a small line size or multiple bends,
then broached shallow gas flow can result which can lead to total rig loss. Diverter lines
are typically 6in to 12in (it is better to have one 12in line than two 6in lines). Diverter
lines must be straight as any turn or bend in the line will erode very quickly by the near
sonic velocity sand laden gas flow. If a bend is required to get the line overboard, then
use large targets and expect early failure at these targets.
The operating system of the diverter valve must be connected into the operating lines
of the diverter itself. As the diverter element is closed, this valve should be
automatically opened. If the diverter is closed without opening the main line valve,
the well will be shut-in and this will most certainly result in the conductor shoe failing
and gas broaching to surface. The control lines themselves should be armoured and
positioned so that erosive failure of the diverter line does not impact the lines and lead
to a loss in hydraulic pressure.
Diverter lines must be well anchored as unsupported lines can whip around and lead to
an escalation in the problem. Consider what would happen if a line was to fail at any
point along its length when planning placement of critical equipment.
10.4.1.1 Precautions
Many shallow gas blowouts occur on land rigs from artificial shallow super-charging.
This means that blowout may occur without any BOP on the well, as shallow gas is
not expected.
If no diverter is installed it is critical not to shut down the pumps but to increase pump
speed to the maximum to the keep gas wet and to limit flowrate. As the location is
evacuated, line up the pump suction to the water pit. This water does not particularly
help in control but it does reduce the ignition risk.
10.4.1.2 Procedures
Use the same procedures for bottom support rig, if there is a diverter system installed.
If there is no diverter or BOP in place then do the following:
Detect kick from flowline or pit level increase
Speed up pumps to maximum while pulling kelly up as far as possible to get blocks
out of high-velocity flow and provide more open hole for bridging
If there is no float valve in the drillstring, shut down the pumps and close the lower
kelly cock valve
If gas is blowing over the engines or generators used to power the pumps, shut
down the pumps and close the lower kelly cock valve
Line up pumps on water via the kill line to keep gas wet. Shut down all equipment if
gas is blowing back towards the engines or other ignition sources
Move all wellsite personnel to upwind area. Monitor well flow at a distance
When well bridges, shut down pumps as soon as possible and fill up the well using
fill-up line with mud
Monitor cellar, nearby water wells, pits, mousehole and rat hole for flow.
Typically this means that the well has bridged shallow and flow is starting to broach
10.4.2.1 Precautions
The major concern with bottom supported rigs (as with barge rigs, jack-ups or platform
rigs) is to prevent broached shallow gas flow. Total loss of a rig or platform can quickly
result – the total loss of multi-well platforms has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, West
Africa, Indonesia and Thailand. For example, an Operator recently lost a 16-well
platform offshore Thailand when a shallow gas kick broached.
Most diverter system failures are due to small diverter size; either erosion failure of the
diverter line or plugging of the diverter line. The use of large diverter lines that run
straight off the diverter valve can prevent this.
It may still be possible to keep the pumps running at maximum speed if the diverter
system remains effective and gas is directed away from air intakes for engines.
There is a major concern about maintaining wide open pumping down drillpipe after rig
is abandoned – it may be better to just pump down kill line to keep the gas wet. If the
well loads up and starts to bridge, continued pumping down drillpipe can keep lower
hole un-bridged and promote shallow bridging.
The cementing unit can also be used to pump additional water to wet the gas, via the
kill line. This also helps keep the diverter line open when the well slugs and, when the
well bridges, the hole is quickly filled with seawater.
As gas is produced, large amounts of formation solids and brine may be brought
up to the rig. The volume can be so large as to impact the variable load on a jack-up.
As the well slugs the solids laden flow stream settles out quickly forming
bridges. It is important that this occurs deep in the well as shallow bridging can
result in broached flow.
It is strongly recommended that a standby boat be used when drilling in shallow gas
zones. Further, drills that run through the following procedures should be conducted.
10.4.2.2 Procedures
If shallow gas flow is detected via flowline or pit level increase, proceed as follows:
1. Start evacuation of all non-essential personnel.
2. Pull top drive or kelly as high as possible.
3. Close diverter while opening diverter valve. If there is a choice, use downwind
diverter line.
4. Pull rotary bushings to allow unrestricted flowstream if diverter element fails.
5. Maintain maximum pump rate with highest possible mud weight until just before
final evacuation. Driller to shut down all drillpipe pumping before he leaves the rig
floor. Close lower kelly cock valve if there is no float in the drillstring.
SHALLOW GAS Page 8 of 12
6. Line up the cementing unit or rig pump on kill line and start pumping water into
annulus to wet gas. Shut down all rig functions except kill line water pump
(cementing unit or mud pump).
7. If there is a water deluge system, line up the fire monitors under the rig floor
directed at possible erosion failure points and at the underside of the rotary.
8. Complete general rig evacuation. Place all personnel on the standby boat, as there
should be enough time to use the boat for evacuation.
9. Monitor flow from boat. Watch for broached flow in water. Do not re-board rig until
well has bridged and no flow outside conductor is spotted (at least overnight).
10.4.3.1 Precautions
The Repsol policy is to drill shallow gas zones riserless unless there are strong
reasons why this can not be technically achieved. The hole is drilled using seawater
with viscous sweeps taking returns at the mud line.
If shallow gas is considered possible, carry out the following:
Reduce the rig personnel to minimum levels (personnel may be transferred to the
standby or supply vessels)
Drill in daylight hours only
Keep the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) on the seabed observing the hole – gas
bubbles will be picked up on the ROV’s sonar
Post personnel around the rig and in the moonpool area on ‘bubble watch’
SHALLOW GAS Page 9 of 12
Hold the anchor chains on the brakes. Do not engage the chain stoppers until the
danger zone has passed
Ensure you know how much chain is in each locker so that you know how far the rig
can be winched off location
Continually monitor the wind and current directions so that the winch off direction is
known at all times
Ensure sufficient vessels are nearby to handle all personnel, if evacuation becomes
necessary
In high risk areas, consider connecting a vessel to the towing bridle for rapid
winch off
Plan how the pipe will be dropped if this needs to be done
Suspend all hot work
Close and seal all hatches
Carry out drive-off drills until the crews work well
Build and maintain a pit of heavy mud (at least twice the maximum hole volume)
Drill a small diameter pilot hole at reduced rate of penetration (ROP) and high
flowrate
Run a float in the drillstring
Ensure all available pumps are on line and able to be run at maximum rate,
including the cement pump – ensure that the seawater supply system can supply
sufficient water
Practise using the diverter and check that all valves etc work properly
Pump through the diverter lines with water to check for a clear path
If the well kicks it will then blowout at the mud line. The hydrostatic pressure of the
seawater at the mud line, the pressure drop in the annulus and the hydrostatic of the
blowout fluids will choke and reduce flowing pressure.
If the water is shallow (<500ft), the plume of rising gas can have an impact on rig
stability. Research and experience has shown that buoyancy loss alone is insufficient
to sink a floating rig. Typically, there will be a small loss of buoyancy but, more
importantly, the rig will heel toward the centre of the plume. This is due to the
disturbance caused by the gas breaking surface and pushing water towards the rig and
the rig being constrained by the mooring system. This has a much greater impact on
drillships than on semi-submersibles. This keeling toward the centre of the plume often
leads to a rocking motion with large flows. This rocking motion increases in pitch until
rig stability is lost by water entry. This occurs when a low free-board condition is
reached or mechanical failure occurs. Rig rollover has occurred in shallower water.
SHALLOW GAS Page 10 of 12
Figure 10.2 shows a semi-submersible rig undergoing a shallow gas blowout. The rig is
clearly leaning towards the centre of the plume.
As the gas plume rises through the water, it disperses in a 10in cone. Gas is typically
flammable only near sea level and there is much greater risk to boats than to the rig
itself particularly if a semi-submersible is used.
Shallow gas is not a significant problem when drilling from a floating rig in deepwater
as gas does not reach surface in high concentrations. However, there is risk when
drilling in shallow water or when drilling shallow gas with a riser using a surface riser
gas handler or diverter. This is sometimes required to get through slightly
geo-pressured shallow gas sands that will always blowout if drilled riserless with
seawater. Also, a riser system and mud weight may be required to hold the hole open.
In this scenario, the risks are much higher and great care must be taken while drilling
this section.
SHALLOW GAS Page 11 of 12
If the drillpipe must be dropped into a well it is advisable to plug it first – it is critical to
plug the drillpipe as it can become the sustained flowpath after the annulus bridges off.
This can be done by pumping a densified neat cement slurry with a heavy pill of rope
knots and coarse lost circulation material (LCM) (stuffed into the line ahead of cement
and behind a check valve). Bullhead the cement in place with heavy mud. Cement is
trapped in the bottom hole assembly by the plugged bit nozzles. Close lower kelly cock
valve and trap cementing pressure, then drop the pipe.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
There are several major limitations to VBRs that are not well recognised:
Low temperature rating (<225F)
Very limited pipe stripping durability
Lower overall durability in service than conventional pipe rams
Reduced or very limited hang-off capability
11.2.8 Diverters
Diverters are large low pressure annular BOPs. Hydril is the largest maker of this type
of equipment. Equipment is available with up to a 30in bore. This diverter is used with a
full opening hydraulic valve in the diverter line. Pressure applied to the diverter causes
this valve to open. It is critical that this valve opens before the diverter seals. Failure of
this valve to open can cause loss of an entire platform.
Diverter lines must be sized to limit backpressure. A minimum of two 6in lines is
acceptable in most regions. It is better to have one 12in line than two 6in lines.
There are 12in valves and drilling spools available from major tool rental companies.
The best choke design on the market today is made by Power Chokes of Houston,
Texas. This design is a considerable improvement over the sliding plate design used
by Swaco. The limitation of the older choke designs is in HPHT wells or underbalanced
drilling with weighted muds.
11.6.1 Recommendations
The superior degassing performance of both the WELLCO 5200 (Well Control) and the
TRW-BRANDT DG-5 makes them the top units to consider. Both are big, however,
and will require space and time for hookup. Both utilise a jet-discharge with a
centrifugal pump that may be susceptible to gas locking. It may be advantageous,
therefore, to run the unit continuously even when gas is only suspected. Once the mud
is gas cut, it may be difficult to ‘start’ or ‘prime’ the unit if it is not already running.
SWACO is a good alternative if the BRANDT or WELLCO units are unavailable or if
price or service is considered not competitive by either of the first two companies.
If space is limited, the BURGESS vacuum degasser is a good choice. The TILLETT
Gas Hog and the DRILCO units can also be considered, but should be limited to low
weight muds less than 13.0 lb/gal. They do not degas mud as well as the BRANDT,
WELLCO or SWACO units, even in lighter muds.
As a final note, manufacturers’ claims can be misleading, even if they are written on
brochures or so-called ‘technical literature’. Most claims on flowrates and degassing
capabilities were found to be inaccurate or misleading. Unlike the claims on some of
the literature, no unit can remove more than 75% methane, 70% ethane, 60% propane
and 45% butane the first time through. This is quite contrary to the published claimed
amounts of an excess of 90% removal.
Most brochures show maximum flowrates of their units, but little mention that it is with
water only. Those flowrates decrease dramatically with mud and even more
dramatically with gas-cut mud.
11.7.2.1 Accumulator
1. Are there both floor-mounted and remote accumulator controls and are these
clearly labelled?
2. Is a remote unit used to actuate pipe rams at least once a week?
3. Are the off-floor controls effective if the floor unit is destroyed?
4. Does an alternative power source exist so the accumulator can be recharged if one
source fails? What type? Is it in working order?
5. Is there a light on the driller’s panel indicating when the accumulator pump is
working and if it is functional?
6. Are lines from any unused accumulator controls plugged?
7. What is the condition of the accumulator fluid and are the strainers in good
condition? When was it last inspected?
8. Is the accumulator bottle isolation valve open?
9. Was the accumulator pre-charge measured on initial rig-up and every 60 days
thereafter and restored if necessary? Is the pre-charge pressure correct?
When was it last checked?
10. Is the accumulator pressure 3000psi? If not, how much?
11. Do relief lines protect control lines and are they of a pressure rating equal to
accumulator pump pressure capability?
9. Are BOP control lines positioned low so they are not likely to be quickly destroyed
by fire?
10. Is there available a step by step set of illustrations showing how to test all BOP
items, including top casing joints in a minimum number of steps?
11. Are these steps followed after each nipple-up and at specified intervals thereafter?
12. Is there a test plug and test joint available for testing BOPs? Are they sized
correctly for the wellhead?
13. Are BOP and valve control handles clearly labelled and kept in either ‘open’ or
‘close’ position?
14. Are valve handles and wheels attached?
15. Can the well be closed in quickly while observing and controlling casing pressure?
16. Do ram preventers have hydraulic or manual locks? If manual, are handwheels and
shafts attached?
17. Does the stack have clearance for tool joints between pipe rams so pipe can be
stripped through the rams?
18. Is it possible to pump into the well with the blind rams closed?
19. Does control for blind rams have cover but no locks to prevent accidental or
unreasoned closure?
20. Have the preventers been field disassembled and inspected in the past year?
21. Are recommended closing pressures of annular preventers for testing the drillpipe
known and used when testing?
22. Are closing pressure-sealing pressure relationships available for annular preventer
and characteristics known by supervisors?
23. Can all preventers and hydraulic valves be closed in 19 seconds or less at a
pressure of 1200psi, with pumps off and with a remaining accumulator volume of
50% of original?
24. Is annular preventer pressure 900psi? If not, it is correct?
25. Does wireline lubricator have flange or swedge for secure fastening to, or is there
one in the annular preventer?
11.7.2.3 Choke
1. Are there master valves on the choke flowline and on each choke manifold wing
and are these used only for closure to allow downstream repairs?
2. Is there a fillup line separate from the kill line and is it normally used?
3. Is the choke line straight?
WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT Page 21 of 24
11.7.2.8 Casing
1. How is casing wear monitored? Is this sufficient for the application?
2. Are maximum allowed surface pressures upon closing in well specified and posted?
3. Was the surface casing held in tension until the cement set to avoid misalignment?
4. Is the casing wear bushing used while drilling?
11.7.2.10 Drills
1. Are ‘on bottom’ drills held at intervals, timed, and recorded on the daily
drilling report?
2. Are ‘while tripping’ drills held and treated as above?
3. Are ‘drillcollar’ drills held and treated as above?
4. Are ‘out-of-hole’ drills held and treated as above?
5. Are slow pump rates and pressures obtained each tour and after mud density
changes and recorded on daily drilling reports?
18. Is there a list of pertinent orders, BOP accessory information and safety regulations
on the rig?
19. Are copies of all pertinent safety regulations on the rig and accessible?
20. Are copies of all relevant company orders and BOP manual on the rig?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.3 RESOURCES................................................................................................. 16
12.3.1 Human Resources.................................................................................... 16
12.3.2 Service Companies .................................................................................. 18
12.3.3 Equipment Suppliers................................................................................. 18
12.2.1 Introduction
During normal drilling and workover operations, the primary means of well control is
maintained through the hydrostatic head of the column of fluid in the wellbore.
Should this overbalance not be maintained, then it must be regained by secondary
means, ie use of blowout prevention equipment and well-known well killing procedures.
Should this secondary means of control be unsuccessful and control be lost,
either developing into a surface or subsurface blowout, then control has to be gained
by other means. Dependent on the nature of the problem, interaction at the wellsite
and/or the drilling of relief well(s) must be undertaken to fully regain control.
The purpose of this document is to help local management set up their own
contingency plans beforehand and give an insight into what will be necessary should a
blowout occur.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 3 of 24
In addition to the general contingency plan, specific plans for platforms and/or fields
shall be prepared. This is possible, as more information about the wells, reservoir,
people, environment and equipment are known. Assumptions can be made with
regards to probable blowout scenarios, and preliminary plans made accordingly.
These documents would apply the guidelines defined in this manual.
Primary objectives of these local blowout contingency plans are to:
1. Create a guideline document that will act as an organiser and checklist for the
blowout intervention task force in the event of an intervention operation.
2. Define a probable and worst case blowout scenario based on the local condition
and constraints.
3. Define a technical strategy for intervention based on the scenarios.
4. Define circumstances that might make the intervention project unusually
difficult based on current technology, experience and logistics. For example:
Highly permeable reservoirs
Deep water
Deep kill points
High temperatures and pressures
High flowrates required to achieve a kill
Large volumes of kill mud
Exotic casing requirements
Lost circulation zones
Difficult electromagnetic ranging problems
5. Evaluate risks and consequences of intervention operation.
6. Draw conclusions and make recommendations for additional preparation if the risk
is warranted.
Although it will always be impossible to establish a plan that will be perfectly suited to a
given blowout situation before the situation occurs, it is agreed that it is of the utmost
importance for each operational office to plan ahead along certain guidelines.
Blowout control, regardless of the technical solution employed, requires mobilisation of
specific equipment and personnel, and most of all proper engineering of any envisaged
solution. To discover all this new data on the day the well blows is analogous to giving
up control of the situation.
Furthermore, as the first 24 hours of the blowout event must be treated with full
knowledge of what can and cannot be attempted to try and stop the well’s flow at the
surface, without endangering personnel and equipment.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 5 of 24
With respect to this, the blowout plan shall comprise checklists, actions and
responsibilities outlines for all phases of operations. Generally, blowout control
operations comprise two to four main phases which are listed below.
Phase 1
This phase starts as the first alarm is given at the wellsite and ends when it becomes
obvious that full-scale blowout control operations need to be implemented. In Phase 1
the main concerns are, in this order:
1. To safeguard human life.
2. To minimise effects to environment.
3. To limit escalation.
4. To limit collateral damage (pipelines, offset wells).
Phase 1 usually covers the first 24 hours after the blowout.
Phase 2
Phase 2 begins with the assembly of the ‘blowout control task force’. It will end when
the task force present their recommendation for an engineered kill. This may be by
relief well or by direct intervention on the blowing well.
The term ‘engineered kill’ means that the task force will say what operations are
necessary, detail how they are to be conducted (procedures), and why this will work
(engineering basis). Quite often, as when several different approaches are envisaged,
Phases 2 and 3 overlap.
Phase 3
This is the field implementation of the task force’s recommendation, the actual capping
of the well and/or the pumping of kill fluid down the relief well(s). This phase ends when
the well is once again under control.
Phase 4
Phase 4 will not be discussed much in this manual, but it should not be neglected.
In Phase 4 the blowout well is not only secured (by cement plugs, etc) but the final
pollution cleanup should occur and repairs to structures be implemented.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 6 of 24
Class II
A small to medium event where the flowrates are between 5 to 20+MMSCF/D and
2 to 5000bpd of liquid production. The flow may exit either subsurface or above the
surface of the seabed. The well is not on fire. The access to the wellhead is possible.
Pollution can occur but is not major and the fluid is not considered toxic.
Class I
A minor event where the well may only be leaking and is not on fire. Minor pollution
may occur and hazards are minimal (provided the condition remains stable and other
failures do not occur to worsen the situation).
One other kill technique we must mention is bridging. It has been observed that if a well
does not bridge within 24 hours, it is unlikely to do so on its own. In this respect,
bridging is mainly a passive method, and not controllable, except in rare cases where it
may be encouraged from the surface, and deemed desirable, such as for shallow zone
gas blowouts. The method is not usually recommended.
c. Dynamic Kill
In a dynamic kill, be it from the surface or through a relief well, the idea is that flow
in the blowing well creates friction losses. When the rate of injected fluid is high
enough into the blowout flowpath added frictional losses plus the hydrostatic
pressure of the two-phase fluid column create enough of a counter pressure on the
formation to impede any flow into the borehole.
For formation gradients above hydrostatic, the necessary design parameters may
be calculated using a spreadsheet on a portable computer, based on E Blount’s
equations. Unfortunately, when the blowing formation is abnormally pressured,
a more thorough algorithm of the multiphase flow in the blowing well is necessary to
obtain the parameter values.
Most dynamic kills are in gas wells, and through relief wells. However, a dynamic
kill can be injected directly down the blowing well, on the above principles.
Several companies have developed dynamic kill modelling software. Well Flow
Dynamics AS out of Oslo, Norway, headed by Dr Ole Rigg leads the industry in this
type of product. Dr Rigg has published several papers on his modelling methods
using the OLGA code.
d. Bullheading
Bullheading is the injection of usually weighted kill fluid into the blowing well,
after the well has been shut in, in order to force the formation fluids back into the
formation. This method is risky at best, and should never be attempted if there is
any doubt as to casing integrity or exposed formation strength. Some bullheading
attempts have ended in craters. This has occurred when casing near surface has
failed when capping BOPs where closed.
If one can determine that the well will withstand the extra loads, as in some
completed well blowouts, bullheading, performed early before the situation
worsens, can be a viable method.
Bullheading is typically done in a way to take advantage of well build up. If well
requires a few minutes to reach static reservoir pressure after shut-in, this build-up
period allows bullheading to be done at lower pressures. This is accomplished by
starting pumping of kill fluid via kill line below capping blowout preventers (BOPs)
before closure. Kill fluid is then immediately directed down hole when BOPs are
closed. This should never be attempted on blowouts of liquid (low gas/oil ratio
(GOR), oil or salt water) as fluid hammer effects from sudden ram closure can
fail casing.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 12 of 24
e. Lubrication
In lubrication, the well is shut-in but kill fluid is introduced into the well by small
volumes, alternating with the bleeding off of some formation fluid. The idea is that in
time, enough kill fluid will fill the wellbore to hydrostatically kill the blowout.
The method cannot be attempted if the shut-in of the well will result in an
underground blowout. Lubrication is time-consuming, and probably not a viable
solution where great pressures exist.
All of the above methods, used in direct kills, assume that prior to their application,
the blowing well’s surface equipment has been checked for integrity and any
deficient assembly removed and replaced. This phase is known as ‘capping’.
f. Cap, Snub and Circulated Kill
Finally it must be noted that surface kills are finding new applications with the use
of high-pressure snubbing units over wells capped to divert hydrocarbon flow.
In these cases the well was capped and blowout flow diverted horizontally into
recovery systems or flare. Due to concerns regarding casing integrity,
a large snubbing unit is used to snub larger diameter pipe to bottom in the flowing
well. A circulated kill can then be applied.
g. Reactive Plug Kills
Reactive plugs can be used to block blowout flowpath if hydraulic kills cannot be
applied. These materials are well covered in Section 4.3.5. Materials like DOBC
gunk reacted with mud or Portland cement reacted with sodium silicate have been
used.
a. Matrix Kills
The theory of the matrix kill is based on reservoir flooding in the close perimeter
around the blowing well by fluid injected down the relief well. Using reservoir
modelling techniques, one can determine at what rate to pump in order to arrive at
a complete surrounding of the blowout wellbore by injected water, achieving 100%
water production in the blowout. Experience shows that virtually no gas reservoirs
can be killed using this method, at least with a reasonable number of relief wells,
in a reasonable lapse of pumping time.
The method is, however, quite attractive for single layer oil formation blowouts.
The best example of matrix kill is Shell’s Bay Marchand multiwell kill offshore
Louisiana (1971).
b. Dynamic Kills
The principle of a dynamic kill is given in the previous section on direct kills.
E Blount first formalised dynamic kill theory in a 1981 article describing its
application to the Arun, Indonesia gas well kill. Since this date, various Operators,
with the same degree of success, have consistently used the method.
It must be noted that a relief well dynamic kill requires precise knowledge of the
blowing well’s position, in order to place the relief well at target depth within <1 to
5 metres of the blowing well. Directional drilling and the use of special detection
tools are of utmost importance.
c. Momentum Kills
The momentum kill principle can be applied at depth, after intersection of the
blowing well by a relief well. An illustration of this is Shell’s kill of the sour gas
blowout on Cox #1 in 1970. The blowout was detected by the relief well, which was
drilled alongside its vertical cased section. Perforation of the casing was performed
from the relief well, and a successful engineered momentum kill performed
using cement.
d. Use of Polymers
In some specific cases, where a water soluble or erodable formation lies exposed in
the blowing well, it may be useful to consider injecting time-setting polymers in
order to neutralise these loss circulation zones. Polymers may also be used as in a
matrix kill, to form a ‘solid barrier’ around the blowing well stopping the access of
formation fluids to the wellbore.
The first and only application of polymers as a cure for blowout control was during
the first Dubai Fateh kill (1973). Since then, mainly JW Ely and SA Holditch have
published several articles on the subject concerning their ‘solid barrier’ theory.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 14 of 24
Another aspect that can be looked at is positioning the relief well with respect to a
given well. This is sometimes a requirement, as in the North Sea, and should be
considered for all multiwell platforms. Using a ‘spider map’ of all platform wells (drilled
or to be drilled), a relief well trajectory aimed at each platform well should be
calculated. In some exploratory vertical well cases this should also be done when the
geographical environment does not leave complete freedom of choice.
Remember that many factors come into play in choosing a relief well location,
wind direction, radiated heat from an eventual well fire, sea bottom conditions,
even charging of shallow sands under the effect of the blowout, to name a few.
Some thought should be given to prior planning for relief welt location. Ideally, the
location of any well we drill should be chosen with a relief well possibility in mind.
This is in particular compulsory in a shallow gas environment.
In summary, each subsidiary should use the various chapters of that manual to build
up their own field-specific contingency plans as follows:
Select people, which might possibly be assigned to the Blowout Control Task
Force, according to their acknowledged competence. However, keep enough
people at hand to deal with routine activities (if any)
Define relief well specialists (corporate/contractor) and surface/subsea well control
(blowout/firefighting) specialists and advisor, and how they will interface with the
internal corporate Blowout Control Task Force. Consult superiors for advice and
pre-qualification
Identify all potential major equipment, rigs and consumables which might be
needed and track all possible supply sources
Define third-party contractors and major service companies that would be needed in
the event of a blowout intervention project. For example:
– Directional drilling
– Measurement while drilling (MWD)
– Borehole of surface surveying
– Casing detection
– Pumping
– Hydraulic kill simulations
– MSV
– Remotely operated vehicle (ROV)
– Diving
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 16 of 24
– Snubbing
– Firefighting
– Rental BOPs
Carry out a preliminary relief well planning and hydraulic kill strategy study.
Even though the actual blowout scenario may he different from what has been
assumed for the study, the purpose and interest of this exercise is to familiarise
local personnel with some of the special techniques and services associated with
planning a relief well. If an actual emergency were to occur, this planning process
would have already been established and would save valuable time in a real
intervention situation
12.3 RESOURCES
The persons or positions responsible for co-ordinating the site survey and data
acquisition should be named in the emergency response plan and should be
completed shortly after the blowout occurrence.
The following is a partial summary of data that will be required by the task force.
Relevant site survey data for blowout task force:
General platform/rig and/or structure damage
Which well(s) are out of control and are they on fire
What is the blowing fluid, eg salt water, oil, gas, gas/condensate, sand, etc
Are poisonous gases present in dangerous levels
Size of the oil column, gas/condensate cloud, or fire
Condition of wellhead/conductor pipe, are they vertical, structurally competent, etc
Predicted possible continued structural damage caused by fire
Is there easy access to the wellhead(s)?
Amount of debris to be removed?
Blowout fluid exit path (ie is it vertical, through a choke/valve, pressure on
hanger/annulus, etc)
Is erosion a problem and might it change the circumstances
Is the blowout situation stable, ie is it remaining constant, improving,
or degenerating
Is there a breached blowout cratered around the legs of the platform? If yes, give
details (plume size, offset, meandering, etc)
Water depth, seabed debris, water visibility, sea currents, waves
Predominate wind speed and direction
Pollution and oil spill summary
Availability of surface intervention vessels (MSVs, diving support vessels,
firefighting vessels, seismic, etc)
Seabed survey for a radius of 1 to 2 nautical miles (nominal)
Heat radiation estimates
Other safety or risk considerations (eg shallow seismic survey)
Availability of water (onshore) for firefighting purpose
A report summarising the results of the site survey in an appropriate format for
distribution to the task force
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 22 of 24
12.5 CONCLUSIONS
Emergency preparedness is the key to success in a well control project. Although it is
commonly thought that each blowout is unique, and all techniques required are
one-of-a-kind or applicable only to that event, many of the techniques, types of
equipment and range of services are common to blowouts in general. One can,
therefore, plan and develop a BCP before the event occurs. If this is done, the control
effort can be a fast-track project, minimising the loss and risk to the company.
Drilling and Production Operations Ref: WCON 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Down hole properties can be estimated from surface if the general rheologic behaviour
of the fluid is characterised or if HPHT rheological measurements are available,
however if these measurements are not available the following list of recommendations
should be adhered to:
While drilling
1. Maintain control of rheologic properties.
2. Maintain stability and tolerance to contaminants.
3. Maintain low HPHT filtrate and filter cake.
4. Maintain tight stable emulsions.
While static
1. Minimise long-term gelation.
2. Prevent barytes settling.
3. Maintain stability of system and products to temperature (water-based mud (WBM)
dehydration).
4. Prevent oil separation in inverts.
13.1.2 Tripping
Typical objectives of HPHT tripping procedures are:
Avoid swabbed kicks and any other kicks while tripping
Confirm the pressure at total depth (TD) of the hole section when drilling in the
12-1/4in transition zone
Confirm that the mud weight is sufficient to hold back the formation while tripping
Pumping out of the hole (with pumps at a rate significantly higher than the pulling rate)
provides for an assurance that the well will not be swabbed. Caution must be taken to
pump far enough out to ensure swabbing does not take place. This may be well above
the shoe.
A swab test using the bottom most stand will provide a test of formation pressures at
TD (typically use only in 12-1/4in hole section).
A short trip through a new hole section (with the pumps on) will provide confirmation of
the overbalance (or lack of) for a newly penetrated reservoir section.
In all cases, it is essential that tripping practices are consistent and records are kept
such that a comparison can be made with the previous trip. It is the responsibility of the
Drillers and Senior Drilling Foreman to ensure that this is done.
SPECIAL CASES Page 6 of 20
When pumping the heavy slug, make sure that the slug weight and the amount of dry
pipe is kept consistent throughout the section. A historical trend can be established
which can be referred to on each subsequent trip. Allow time for the slug to stabilise
with the drillpipe open and confirm that the volume of returns is correct. Rotate the pipe
while the slug is settling to break the gels.
Install a kelly cock on the string if the trip is interrupted for any reason, such as a
mechanical failure or flow check. The valve will be left open to monitor the well.
When out of the hole, circulate across the hole and to the trip tank with the trip tank
pump. Keep the shear rams open. The Driller will be on the floor at all times, unless
relieved by the Toolpusher. The Mud Loggers will continuously monitor the trip tank
and will notify the Driller of any discrepancy.
The Driller must have the full authority to flow check or to shut in the well as he sees fit
and is expected to fully investigate any occurrence, which deviates from a stable trend.
13.1.2.3 Tripping Out in the Transition Zone (Base of 12-1/4in Hole Section)
As well as wanting to avoid an induced kick, one of the objectives of tripping in the
Transition Zone (base of 12-1/4in hole section) will be to confirm the pressure
(or lack of pressure) at the TD of the hole penetrated. The tripping procedure could
therefore be:
Trip Out – Including Swab Test
1. When the decision is made to trip out, circulate the equivalent of the volume of the
top 6000ft of annulus.
2. Shut the pump off, with the top drive still on.
3. Stroke the pipe one-half stand (45ft) at a speed greater than normal trip speed.
4. Run back to bottom and flow check.
SPECIAL CASES Page 8 of 20
13.1.2.5 Tripping In
Great care must be taken when tripping in the well to minimise surge pressures.
Trip speeds may need to be reduced if margins are low.
1. When making up the BHA, ensure that the float valve has been checked.
When tripping back into the hole, monitor the well on the trip tank with the trip tank
pump running.
2. Tripping speed in the hole must be limited to the speed determined from the surge
pressure calculations.
3. Check that the correct volume of mud is being displaced from the well. Flow check
the well if any discrepancy occurs. Shut in immediately if any flow is observed.
4. Break circulation at an appropriate depth (or depths). Break circulation and circulate
string contents, at a reduced rate to avoid pressuring up the exposed formations.
Notes: (1) You will be circulating cooler mud which has a significantly higher
viscosity.
(2) If there is a turbine, motor or corebarrel in the hole, then the off
bottom circulation rate may have to be restricted.
5. Break circulation at the casing shoe and displace the hole to drilling mud
if applicable.
6. Perform a flow check and run in to bottom. Consider washing down from the shoe,
to assist in protecting the formation by reducing gel effect and hence prevent
creating losses. As a minimum, wash at least the last stand to bottom. If any
reaming is required, it should be recognised that this is probably the most crucial
time of the trip, and it is very easy to create losses as the filter cake is disturbed by
the drillstring rotation.
7. Bottoms up should always be circulated when returning to bottom until reservoir
pressures are known. In this case, when bottoms up reaches 4000ft from surface,
the well should be directed through the choke and to the mud gas separator.
The annular preventer should be closed with the pipe being slowly rotated.
As barytes sag could be a problem in HPHT wells, it is advisable to circulate bottoms
up and get the mud in balance before drilling ahead – on wells that suffer from adverse
baryte sag it will be necessary to circulate the mud into balance at stages while tripping
into the well.
SPECIAL CASES Page 10 of 20
13.1.3.2 Approach
It is essential to keep accurate logs of the amount of mud lost to the formation and
subsequently gained back. It is suggested that both the Driller and Mud Logger to keep
these accurate logs. Accurate records are the key to successfully managing ballooning.
The difficulty with ballooning is in telling that it is the extra mud coming back and not a
genuine kick. Unless you are sure that it is the ‘lost’ mud being returned, the gain when
the pump is turned off must be treated as an influx.
One of the keys to successfully handling ballooning is to set up a system such that it is
easy to identify ballooning fluid as opposed to a ‘real’ kick.
It is also important to avoid ballooning in the first place by keeping the wellbore
pressure less than the fracture propagation pressure.
SPECIAL CASES Page 11 of 20
13.1.3.3 Definitions
Drain Back: is the volume of mud (in barrels) that will flow from the settling and mud
processing pits into the active pits after the mud pump is turned off. Drain back will
occur whether the formation is ballooning or not. It is a function of the layout of the
mud processing system
Flow Back: is the volume of mud (in barrels) that flows out of the top of the well
when the pump is turned off
3. Compare pressures with ECD, trapped pressure test, thermal effect test.
Compare volumes lost/gained since the well was last static. Flush and fill the
mud/gas separator (MGS) loop with fresh mud.
4. A maximum of 30 barrels total flow from the well is allowed without circulating
bottoms up (ie 10 barrels from the initial flow plus 2 further 10-barrel flowbacks).
This volume may be limited further if kick tolerance is low.
5. Circulating bottoms up may have to be repeated if more than one bleed down is
performed.
On the initial circulation of bottoms up:
a. Circulate through choke and MGS at a rate where losses are not experienced.
b. Monitor the well very closely for any indications of hydrocarbons.
c. To reduce the risk of differential sticking, the string can be rotated through the
annular. Reduce the operating pressure of the annular to the minimum
without leakage.
d. If high levels of gas are seen at the surface it may be necessary to reduce the
circulation rate.
6. If the bleed down process has to be repeated, then the volume to bleed down will
be reviewed after the results of the first circulation are known.
Fluid should not be bled from the well without first consulting with base operations.
If consistent ‘flowback’ is occurring, more specific rules can be set up as to what
volumes of fluid can be bled off without specific authorisation from base operations.
However, experience has shown that in certain regions, a well control incident will
occur twice on every high-temperature critical well. It is therefore imperative that
accurate and reliable kick detection systems are employed such that a kick is detected
after a minimum influx is taken, thus minimising the difficulty of the kill procedure as
well as minimising the pressure at the casing shoe while circulating out the influx.
This is especially critical in slimhole drilling due to the smaller annular volume
clearances and consequently greater height per unit volume of influx.
Because most kicks occur while tripping the drilling systems must be optimised such
that bit life and penetration rate are maximised thereby reducing the number of trips.
Slimhole drilling operating limits are narrower than those of conventional drilling so the
planning and execution of a slimhole well is critical. Risk mitigation in this regard
refers to:
The use of reliable kick detection systems
Knowledge of slimhole operations characteristics
Optimisation of drilling performance
Full-scale well control and hydraulics issues have been studied experimentally.
The focus of these experiments was the behaviour of gas kicks, the response of
commercial kick detection systems and variations in equivalent circulating density.
Detailed analyses of the data lead to the following conclusions:
Gas Kick Experiments:
– Use of flow check should be reconsidered for slimhole drilling. High
backpressure during gas influx may limit the influx rate and reduce kick size
– A gas kick situation in a slimhole well develops very quickly due to higher
velocities and smaller volumes. Therefore, parameters such as standpipe
pressure, hook load and flowrates should be observed carefully during drilling
Effects of Rotation on Flow:
– The equivalent circulating density effects down hole due to rotating in a slimhole
well is considerable and may increase the down hole frictional pressure as
much as 30%, and as high as 100% under certain circumstances. Therefore,
proper care should be taken when planning slimhole wells and when designing
the hydraulic programs
Surge/Swab:
– Very high surge/swab effects are observed when tripping under slimhole
conditions. Down hole pressure increases in excess of 4.2 lb/gal were recorded
during the experiments
Given the experimental results outlined above, we may assume that annular flow is
also an important issue in slimhole drilling. As equivalent circulating density may be
severely impacted at moderate flowrates. Therefore, in order to control the well and to
ensure efficient hole cleaning while avoiding excessive pressure against the formation,
it is necessary to design the mud plan according to the basic parameters that govern
annular pressure losses.
Additionally, the annular pressure losses induced by mud circulation and rotation of the
drillstring also affect the bottom hole pressure and therefore the gas influx rate.
This creates a potential for kicks, which would be less critical in conventional wells.
From Equation 13.1 we see that for horizontal wells, LVkc the gas-kick vertical length is
practically zero if the gas kick remains in the horizontal section of the wellbore.
Consequently, the second term of the equation vanishes. Thus, the kick tolerance
equation yields greater values for horizontal wells than for vertical wells. This implies
that horizontal wells have a greater ability (tolerance) to take a kick safely without
fracturing the weakest segment of the formation, at the instant the well is shut in.
Dcs = Casing Shoe Depth (ft)
DTVD = True Vertical Depth (ft)
K = Kick Tolerance (lb/gal)
LVkc = Vertical Length of Kick (ft)
frac = Equivalent Facture Density (lb/gal)
kc = Kick Density (lb/gal)
L = Liquid Density (lb/gal)
SPECIAL CASES Page 17 of 20
Pdp = Pbh – Pbit – gm,o Lvo + gfric,o Lmo – gm,k Lvk + gfric,k Lmk (13.2)
where the subscripts O and K refer to the old mud and kill mud, respectively.
The vertical and measured lengths of mud inside the drillstring for a certain
displacement time are a function of pump rate and are denoted by the LV and LM,
finally the frictional pressure gradient (gfric) is calculated by using the Power Law
rheologic model.
gfric,k = Frictional Pressure Gradient of Kill Mud (psi/ft)
gfric,o = Frictional Pressure Gradient of Old Mud (psi/ft)
gm,k = Pressure Gradient of Kill Mud (psi/ft)
gm,o = Pressure Gradient of Old (psi/ft)
Lmk = Measured Length Containing Kill Mud (ft)
Lmo = Measured Length Containing Old Mud (ft)
Lvk = Vertical Length Containing Kill Mud (ft)
SPECIAL CASES Page 18 of 20
OD of Drillpipe = 5in
ID of Drillpipe = 4.214in
OD of HeviWate DP = 5.5in
ID of HeviWate DP = 3in
OD of Drillcollar = 7.5in
ID of Drillcollar = 2in
SPECIAL CASES Page 20 of 20
Figure 13.1 - Choke Pressure for both Horizontal and Vertical Wells
900
Vertical Well
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Displacement Time (min)
Figure 13.2 - Casing Seat Pressure for both Horizontal and Vertical Wells
3,250
Vertical Well
3,230 Horizontal Well
3,210
3,190
3,170
3,150
3,130
3,110
3,090
3,070
3,050
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement Time (min)
Drilling and Production Operations Ref: WCON 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
There are a few non-OEM elastomers companies making good products (ex: H and H
Rubber) but it is generally best to go with original equipment.
Typical causes:
Lack of a second pressure barrier
Failure of two pressure barriers
Rotary wear
Excessive vibration
Improper make-up
Improper testing
Excessive string movement in closed BOPs
If a lowest ram bonnet seal fails with kick at surface then there is no secondary barrier.
If annular and two-ram stack is in use and annular fails and then pipe ram fails, the
well will blowout. Rotary wear can damage internals to BOPs and wellhead.
Excessive vibration leads to loss of bolting force and seal failure. It is generally
considered a good practice in some regions to work pipe through annular when
circulation out a kick. If done correctly with proper closure pressure at low casing
pressures, this is not too risky an operation.
BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 8 of 23
14.1.3 Erosion
Erosion typically increases the leak size over time. Produced sand in high-pressure
gas can lead to rapid growth in the leak path as sand impinges on the leak path at near
sonic velocities. Once the leak path is bigger than 1 to 2cm, holed equipment must be
removed and replaced to shut down flow. Pumping mud that can leak out will increase
the size of the leak path. Bartyes at sonic velocities is as erosive as sand. When
pumping to kill a leaking well it is advisable to load the lead part of the mud with lost
circulation material (LCM) materials and other sealants as described in the next
section. A junk shot can be pumped to plug leak path. A junk shoot consists of
plugging materials stuffed into a pump in line and then pumped to the leak path.
Coarse materials are loaded ahead of fine materials.
Figure 14.4 - Two Golf Balls Spotted Across Rams Blocks at Gap Width if Packer
Rubbers Were Eroded Away on Closed Rams
BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 10 of 23
Figure 14.5 - Junk Shot Manifold Used to Pump Multiple Junk Shots Quickly
Without Shutting Down Pumping
14.2.1 Cause
When cement is placed as a liquid, full transmission of hydrostatic pressure occurs.
As cement sets, it reaches a ‘transition phase’ that is not quite liquid or solid. In this
phase, hydrostatic pressure is no longer transmitted. As cement sets, it hydrates and
thus absorbs free water. This results in shrinkage in the liquid phase and a loss of
internal pressure. Gas can start to flow if this pressure drops below pore pressure and
cement has not turned sufficiently solid to block this flow. Additionally, excess free
water can form high side channels in directional hole that provides a free conduit
for gas.
As cement transitions from a liquid to a solid, a transitional phase is reached
where there is sufficient viscosity development where hydrostatic pressure is no
longer transmitted
During this transition phase, pressure can drop as cement hydrates and fluid
phase shrinks
Adjacent gas zone begins to flow when internal pressure drops below
pore pressure
The semi-fluid cement does not block this gas flow and/or high side free water
channel provides a flowpath
Gas reaches top of cement and leaves permeable channel behind
14.2.4 Conclusions
Problem must be solved with good cementing.
Difficult to fix once gas flow has occurred
Some gas flow after cementing always occurs – key is to limit upward movement
within cement
Take extreme care when nippling down BOPs after cement job.
Most blowouts occur when BOPs are picked up after cement job
When known shallow gas sands are present, use multibowl wellheads and mandrel
hangers (hang off casing through BOPs)
Alternatively, wait at least as long as it takes a surface sample of lead cement to set
plus a few hours
Does not necessarily cause a blowout if gas is contained.
Annulus pressure is commonly seen in gas wells
Key is to prevent surface leak or allowing gas to leak off to shallow subsurface
formations
If gas pressure in annulus is less than 70% of rated pressures (burst of outer casing
and collapse of inner casing) and less the exposed formation fracture pressure, it is
generally not that much of a problem.
BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 13 of 23
14.3.7 Conclusions
In water-based muds:
Highly variable migration velocity
Migration velocity in thin muds or brines can be very high (>6000ft/hr)
Stream of smaller bubbles trail behind the kick
Volumetric well control possible
Computer models can estimate velocity
Can make estimation of initial shut in drillpipe pressure difficult
BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 17 of 23
14.4.1 Causes
There are four basic types of drillpipe kicks:
Underground blowout flow drops drillpipe fluid level so that flow is directed into
drillpipe when underground flowpath bridges off
Tripping into an un-detected gas kick (typically oil mud)
Failure to fill pipe when running drillpipe float. Kick enters drillpipe when float fails
from excessive differential
Near surface failure of drillpipe. This failure can occur from drillpipe collapse in
deep HPHT wells as drillpipe is in considerable tension and tension greatly reduces
collapse resistance. Risk would be greatest with kick at surface (maximum casing
pressure) and drillpipe full of heavy mud (low drillpipe pressure). Alternatively,
drillpipe may fail if gas leaks excessively across tool joints. Drillpipe tool joints are
not gas tight at higher pressures. Finally, drillpipe may fail at defect or from H2S in
the kick
Many kelly cock valves are not full opening to the ID of the drillpipe tool joint. If wireline
operations are required, it is important to know this ID. Only Hydril makes a kelly cock
valve that has a redundant seal on the stem. On most valves there is just a single
O-ring seal on the stem. This O-ring is generally pre-set for only internally higher
pressures from testing. If this type of single O-ring kelly cock valve is stripped into
higher annulus pressures, a failure of this single seal can lead to a drillpipe kick and a
shallow leak in the drillstring. Failure of this type of valve when stripped is likely, as this
O-ring must physically shift into a new position to seal against now higher external
pressures.
Running a drillpipe float can prevent this and/or by using high-pressure pumps and
steel pump lines for drillpipe circulation. One important lesson, isolate the drillpipe as
soon as drillpipe pressure drops to zero and rig up high pressure pump and steel lines
directly onto the drillpipe. Open up kelly cock valve only to high pressure pump and
steel line.
WARNING: NEVER OPEN A KELLY COCK VALVE TO THE RIG CIRCULATION
SYSTEM IF GAS KICK IS SUSPECTED TO BE IN THE DRILLPIPE!
Example:
Total depth was 14,500ft TVD and well kicked with 16.8ppg mud. SIDP was 200psi.
Casing was set at 12,200ft. Leak off test at shoe indicated a 18.3ppge fracture
breakdown gradient. Dry gas kick was circulated out with 17.2ppg mud. Well was
successfully killed and BOPs were opened. Driller was unable to free drillstring.
Drillpipe from free-point tool was stuck at 12,500ft. Decision was made to attempt to
fish the stuck pipe with a heavy jarring assembly. A back-off was made at 12,500ft and
the upper drillpipe was tripped. On tripout, well started to flow and then kicked violently
and was shut in. Casing pressure rose and then dropped and then started to climb
again. Now determine what happened.
Kick zone pore pressure = (16.8)(0.052)(14500) + 200psi = 12867psi (17.1ppge)
Pressure at top of fish if fish is full of gas after kick =
12867 – (14500 – 12500) (0.15psi/ft) = 12567psi or 19.3ppge
Fracture pressure at top of fish is = (18.3) (0.052) (12500) = 11895psi
Underground blowout underway with initial pressure differential =
12867 – 11895 = 972psi
Initial kick was likely swabbed in from low trip margin of only 100psi overbalance.
Use of a drillpipe float helps to control this risk. Always check off-bottom kill chances
before making a back-off with the intent to recover the fish. If off-bottom kill cannot be
done without losses at the required (top of fish) higher kill mud weight, then fish should
be cemented in place and the well sidetracked.
Casing buckling is a common cause of casing wear in HPHT wells. Good cementing
practices and over-pulling casing to account for thermal changes can help limit
this risk.
Figure 14.10 shows a 1995 broached blowout of a sub-normally pressured horizontal
well in Syria. Well kicked after lost returns and flow broached to surface out of badly
worn 13-3/8in casing at 350ft. This blowout was making over 60,000bopd and
500MMscfpd gas and is one of the largest blowouts in recent history. In Figure 14.10
can be seen the fissures bubbling with gas and oil and the large jet of black crude oil
erupting out at edge of well pad.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(16) Gust DA: ‘Drilling the Boundary Lake A6-20 Relief Well Project’, CADE/CAODC,
Spring Drilling Conference, April 21-23, Paper 87-16.
(17) Horsrud P and Rasmus R: ‘Experience Shows Relief Wells are Reliable For
Killing Blowouts’, Offshore Engineer (July 1981), pp 73-75.
(18) Horwell SA and Target Drilling Services AS: ‘Relief Wells Planning for
Horizontal Wells Blowout’. Draft proposal prepared for the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate, February 1991.
(19) Kuckes AF, Grace RD and Branton J: ‘Operations at a Deep Relief Well: The
TXO Marshall’, Paper SPE 18059 presented at the 63rd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5 1988.
(20) Leanord J: ‘Single Relief Well Kills Arun Blowout’, O and GJ ‘The Relief of
Ixtoc I: The Cone of Uncertainty’, Drilling (April 1982), pp 90-95.
(21) Lehner F and Williamson AS: ‘Gas-Blowout Control by Water Injection Through
Relief Wells – A Theoretical Analysis’, J Pet Tech (Aug 1974), pp 321-329.
(22) Leraand F, Wright J, Zachary M and Thompson B: ‘Relief Well Planning and
Drilling for a North Sea Underground Blowout’, JPT, March 1992.
(23) Morris FJ, Walters RL and Costa JP: ‘A New Method of Determining Range and
Direction from a Relief Well to a Blowout’ SPE 6781, Denver, Colo, 1977.
(24) Olberg T, Gilhuus T, Leraand F and Haga J: ‘Re-Entry and Relief Well Drilling to
Kill an Underground Blowout in a Subsea Well: A Case History of Well 2/4-14’,
Paper SPE/IADC 21991 prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Annual
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Mar 11-14, 1991.
(25) Pidcock GA and Fowler DR: ‘Relief Well Contingency Plans for Remote Areas’,
Paper SPE/IADC 21997 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, 11-14 March 1991.
(26) Rogalandsforskning: ‘Drilling of Relief Wells’, Report T 13/80.
(27) Rygg OB and Gilhuus T: ‘Use of a Dynamic Two-Phase Pipe Flow Simulator in
Blowout Kill Planning’, Paper SPE 20433 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct 23-26.
(28) Rygg OB, Smestad P and Wright J: ‘Dynamic Two-Phase Flow Simulator:
A Powerful Tool for Blowout and Relief Well Kill Analysis’, SPE 24578, 1992.
(29) Uzcategui H, Hewitt D and Golindano R: ‘Precise Guidance Puts Record-Depth
Relief Well on Target’, World Oil (June 1991), pp 39-42.
(30) Voisin J, Quiroz GA, Wright JW, Pounds R and Bierman K: ‘Relief Well
Planning and Drilling for SLB-5-4X Blowout, Paper SPE 16677 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-30.
See also Voisin, J, Quiroz, GA.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 4 of 37
(31) Warriner and Cassity: ‘Relief Well Requirements to Kill a High-Rate Gas
Blowout From a Deepwater Reservoir’, SPE 16131 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Mar 15-18, J Pet Tech 40, No 12,
pp 1602-1608, Dec 1988.
(32) West CL and Kuckes AF: ‘Successful ELREC Logging for Casing Proximity in
an Offshore Louisiana Blowout’, SPE 11996, San Francisco, Calif, 1983.
(33) Wright JW, Pounds R, Bierman K: ‘Deep Relief Well Parallels Capping Efforts’,
Pet Eng Int (March 1988), pp 28-33.
(34) Wright JW, Thompson BG, Zachary MB and Leraand Frode: ‘Relief-Well
Planning and Drilling for a North Sea Underground Blowout’, J Pet Tech (March
1992), pp 266-273.
(35) Wright JW: ‘Blowout Control: Response Intervention and Management, Part 11
– Relief Wells’, World Oil (December 1994).
(36) Wright JW: ‘Blowout Intervention Preparedness Through Relief Well
Contingency Planning’, presented at IADC European Well Control Conference
(June 1991).
(37) Wright JW: ‘Relief Well Technology Can Solve Ordinary Problems’, O and GJ
(January 18, 1993), pp 30-33.
(38) Wright JW and Flak LH: ‘Part I Relief Wells’, World Oil, December 1994.
(7) Craig JT Jr and Randall BV: ‘Comparison and Recommendations for Directional
Survey Calculation Methods’, paper presented at the 1976 Rotary Drilling
Conference of IADC, Mar 9-12 1976.
(8) de Lange JI, Twilhaam NGD and Pelgrom JJ: ‘Accurate Surveying: an
Operators Point of View’, IADC/SPE 17213 presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb 28-Mar 2 1988, Proc: 325-333.
(9) Delafon H: ‘Evaluating the Accuracy of Directional Surveys’, Offshore
(February 1989), pp 23-27.
(10) DeWardt JP and Wolff CM: ‘Borehole Position Uncertainty Analysis of
Measuring Methods and Deviation of Systematic Error Model’, J Pet Tech
(December 1981) pp 2339-50.
(11) Dubrule O, Nelson PH: ‘Evaluation of Directional Survey Errors at Prudhoe Bay’,
SPE 15462 presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Oct 5-8, 1986.
(12) Edwards J, Jakeman SVJ and Pernet F: ‘Magnetic Properties of Non-Magnetic
Drill Collars and Their Relation to Survey Compass Error’, Geoexploration V 17,
No 3 (Sept 1979), pp 229-241.
(13) Fotenot JE and Rao MV: ‘MWD Can Improve Well Strategy, Control’, O and GJ
(February 15, 1988), pp 40-47.
(14) Gabris PM, Hansen RR and Bartrina J: ‘A Field Comparison of the Directional
Accuracy of MWD in Comparison with Six other Survey Tools’, Paper IADC/SPE
17214 presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Feb 28-Mar 2, 1988.
(15) Gibbons FL and Hense U: ‘A Three-Axis Laser Gyro System for Borehole
Wireline Surveying’, SPE 16679 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-39 1987.
(16) Grindrod SJ and Wolff JM: ‘Calculation of NMDC Length Required for Various
Latitudes Developed from Field Measurements of Drill-String Magnetism’,
Paper IADC/SPE 11382 presented at the 1983 IADC/SPE Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, Feb 20-23, pp 217-224.
(17) Gust Douglas A: ‘An Evaluation of Survey Accuracy at Cold Lake’,
paper presented at the 37th Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, June 8-11
1986.
(18) Harvey RP, Walstrom JE and Eddy HD: ‘A Mathematical Analysis of Errors in
Directional Survey Calculations’, J Pet Tech (Nov 1971), pp 1368-1374.
(19) Holmes A: ‘A Method to Analyze Directional Surveying Accuracy’, Paper SPE
16680 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept 27-30, 1987.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 6 of 37
(20) Kelsey JB: ‘A Wellbore Inertial Navigation System’, Paper IADC/SPE 11359
presented at the IADC/SPE 1983 Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 20-23,
1983.
(21) King CM and McKenzie D: ‘Drilling Wells on Target’, Offshore (May 1980).
(22) Lattimore GM, Carden RS and Fischer T: ‘Grand Canyon Directional Drilling and
Waterline Project’, SPE/IADC 16169 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Mar 15-18, 1987.
(23) Mitrou TJ, Stone FA, McCarter ML and Buss B: ‘A Comparison of Magnetic
Single-Shot Instruments with a Directional MWD System’, Paper SPE 12163
presented at the 58th SPE Conference, San Francisco, Oct 5-8 1983.
(24) Morgan D and Holmes A: ‘Determination of Magnetic Interference in a
Borehole’, United Kingdom Patent 2,241,683A issued Sept 4 1991.
(25) Oheatham CA, Shih S, Churchwell DL, Woodry JM and Rodney PF: ‘Effects
of Magnetic Interference on Directional Surveys in Horizontal Wells’,
Paper IADC/SPE 23852 presented at the IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, Feb 18-21 1992.
(26) Parker A: ‘MWD Survey System and Down hole Motor Speed Kill of Internal
Blowout’, copy of unpublished paper.
(27) Postons SW: ‘Inaccurate Wellbore Surveys can Result in Lost Revenues (Part 1
and 2)’ World Oil (April, May 1985), pp 71-74, 71-75.
(28) Pruitt GL, Ross KC and Woodruff JF: ‘Drilling with Steerable Systems in Large
Diameter Holes’, SPE 17190, 1988.
(29) Rivero RT: ‘Use of the Curvature Method to Determine True Vertical Reservoir
Thickness’, J Pet Tech (April 1971), pp 491-496.
(30) Russell AW and Russell MK: ‘Surveying of Boreholes’, Europe patent 387,991
issued Sept 19, 1990 and Great Britain patent 8,906,233 issued March 17 1989.
(31) Russell AW and Russell MK: ‘Surveying of Boreholes’, Great Britain Patent
2,220,072A, issued December 28 1989.
(32) Russell AW and Russell MK: ‘Surveying of Boreholes’, United States Patent
4,163,324 issued August 7 1979.
(33) Scott A and MacDonald BE: ‘Determining Down hole Magnetic Interference on
Directional Surveys’, Paper SPE 7748 presented at the Middle East Oil
Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain, Mar 25-29, 1979.
(34) Scott A and Morgan DG: ‘High Accuracy Directional Surveying of Wells
Employing Inertial Techniques’, Paper OTC 3359 presented at the 1979
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, April 30-May 3 1979.
(35) Scott A and Wright JW: ‘A New Generation Survey System Using
Gyrocompassing Techniques’, SPE 11169 presented at the 1982 SPE
Conference, New Orleans, Sept 26-29 1982.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 7 of 37
(51) Walstrom JE, Brown AA and Harvey RP: ‘An Analysis of Uncertainty in Direction
Surveying’, J Pet Tech, (April 1969), pp 515-523.
(52) Walstrom JE, Harvey RP and Eddy HD: ‘Directional Survey Models: I.
The Balanced Tangential Method; II. A Comparison of Various Models’, Paper
SPE 3379 presented at the SPE 46th Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans,
Oct 3-6 1971.
(53) Walstrom JE, Harvey RP and Eddy HD: ‘A Comparison of Various Directional
Survey Models and an Approach to Model Error Analysis’, J Pet Tech
(August 1972), pp 935-943.
(54) Walstrom JE, Mueller TD and McFarlane RC: ‘Evaluating Uncertainty in
Engineering Calculations’, J Pet Tech (Dec 1967), pp 1595-1603.
(55) Warren TM: ‘Directional Survey and Proximity Log Analysis of a Down hole Well
Intersection’, J Pet Tech (Dec 1981), pp 2351-2362. See also SPE 10055
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct 5-7.
(56) Wilson H and Stephenson MA: ‘Improving Quality Control of Directional Survey
Data with Continuous Inertial Navigation’, Paper SPE 20931 presented at the
EUROPEC, Hague, Oct 22-24 1990.
(57) Wilson H: ‘An Improved Method for Computing Directional Surveys’, J Pet Tech
(Aug 1969) pp 871-876.
(58) Wolff JM: ‘Why Shell Standardized on Minimum Curvature Method for
Calculating Borehole Course’, World Oil (March 1987).
(59) Wright JW: ‘Directional Drilling Azimuth Reference Systems’, Paper SPE17212
presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb 28-March 2.
(60) Wright JW: ‘Rate Gyro Surveying of Wellbores in the Rocky Mountains’,
Paper SPE 11841 presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
May 1983.
(61) Zaremba WA: ‘Directional Survey by the Circular Arc Method’, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal (Feb 1973), pp 5-11.
(62) Zijsling DH and Wilson RA: ‘Improved Magnetic Surveying Techniques: Field
Experience’, Paper SPE 19239 presented at the 1989 SPE Offshore European
Conference, Aberdeen Scotland, Sept 6-8 1989.
(3) Cobb CC and Schultz PK: ‘A Real-Time Fiber Optic Down hole Video System’,
OTC 7046 presented at the 24th Annual OTC, Houston, May 4-7 1992.
(4) Codazzi D et al: ‘Rapid and Reliable Gas Influx Detection’, Paper SPE/IADC
23936 presented at the 1992 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Feb 18-21.
(5) Davies RM and Taylor GI: ‘The Mechanics of Large Bubbles Rising Through
Extended Liquids and Through Liquids in Tubes’, Proc, Royal Soc London
(1950) A.2.00, 387-388.
(6) de Lange JI and Darling TJ, Koninklijke/Shell E and P Laboratorium: ‘Improved
Detectability of Blowout Wells’ IADC/SPE 17255 presented at the 1988
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Feb 28-Mar 2, 1988.
(7) Fontenot JE and Cleric RK: ‘An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and
Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling Well’, SPEJ (Oct 1974)
451-62.
(8) Haanschoten GW and Gaatschappij BV: ‘ULSEL System Performs on Brunei
Blowout Under Tough Conditions’, Oil and Gas J (Jan 17, 1977), pp 77-79.
(9) Haanschoten GW: ‘Logging Tool Offers Greater Depth of Investigation for Relief
Wells’ (Brunei Blowout), O and GJ (January 10, 1977).
(10) Haanshoten GW: ‘ULSEL Logging in Blowout Relief Wells’, Log Analyst
(Jan-Feb 1977), pp 23-32.
(11) Haeusler D, Makohl F and Harris TWR: ‘Applications and Field Experience of
an Advanced Delta Flow Kick Detection System’, Paper SPE/IADC 2934a
presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
Feb 28-March 2.
(12) Harris TWR, Hendrix P and Surewaard JHG: ‘Advanced Kick Detection Systems
Improve HPHT Operations’, Pet Eng Int (Sept 1995) 31-39.
(13) Hasan AR and Kabir CS: ‘Heat Transfer During Two Phase Flow in Wellbores:
Part I – Formation Temperature’, Paper SPE 22866 presented at the 1991
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct 6-9.
(14) Hasan AR and Kabir CS: ‘Heat Transfer During Two Phase Flow in Wellbores:
Part II Wellbore Fluid Temperature’, Paper SPE 22948 presented at the 1991
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct 6-9.
(15) Hoberock LL, Thomas DC and Nickens HV: ‘Here’s How Compressibility and
Temperature Affect Bottom-Hole Mud Pressure’, Oil and Gas Journal
(Mar 22, 1982) 159.
(16) Hornung MR: ‘Kick Prevention, Detection, and Control: Planning and Training
Guidelines for Drilling Deep, Hi-Pressure Gas Wells’, Paper SPE/IADC
1990 presented at the 1990 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Houston,
Feb 27-March 2.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 10 of 37
(4) Adams N and Kuhlman LG: ‘How to Prevent or Minimize Shallow Gas Blowouts:
Part 1’, World Oil, (May 1991), pp 51-58. Part 2 (June, 1991), pp 66-71.
(5) Anon, API RP 64: ‘Recommended Practices for Diverter Systems Equipment
and Operations’, July 1 1991.
(6) Anon, AS Veritas Research NIF course 7137, ‘Shallow Gas Kicks,
Safety Aspects Related to Diverter Systems’, June 1986.
(7) Anonymous: ‘Shallow Gas Drilling in the Gullfaks Field’, Noroil V 15, No 3
(March 1987), pp 32, 34.
(8) Askeland R and Nergaard A: ‘New Inflatable BOP above Bit Contains Shallow
Gas Kicks’, Ocean Industry V 24 No 4 (April 1989), pp 31, 33-34.
(9) Beall JE and Horler CL: ‘Case History: A Shallow Gas Blowout Offshore Korea
Another Data Point in Industry’s Learning Curve’, Paper SPE/IADC 21994
prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Mar 11-14 1991.
(10) Beall J: ‘Riserless Shallow Blowout-Control Method is Safe and Effective’, Oil 8
Gas Journal (August 2, 1976), pp 125.
(11) Beatty TA: ‘Enhanced Performance in Shallow Gas Drilling’, CADE/CAODC
Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, Canada, April 26-28, Proc: No 89-43, 1989.
(12) Beck FE, Langlinais JP and Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘An Analysis of the Design Loads
Placed on a Well by a Diverter System’, SPE/IADC Paper 16129 presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 15-18 March 1987.
(13) Benlamin SM and Skagford GE: ‘Safe Evacuation of Canadian MODU Kulluk
During a Massive Shallow Gas Blowout’, Inst Marine Engineering Offshore
Operations Post Piper Alpha Conference, London, Feb 6-8, Preprints No 28,
1991.
(14) Berg KA, Skalle P and Podio AL: ‘Numerical Simulation of Transient Gas Flow
During Underbalanced Drilling into a Gas Sand’, In Situ V 15, No 1, pp 87-114,
March 1991.
(15) Booth JW: ‘Use of Shallow Gas Seismic Data in Relief Well Planning’,
International Well-Control Symposium, Baton Rouge, Nov 27-29, 1989.
(16) Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘The Development of Improved Blowout Preventing Systems
for Offshore Drilling Operations, Shallow Gas Hazards’, MMS report, Nov 27
1989.
(17) Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘Experimental Study of Erosion in Diverter.
(18) Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘The Development of Improved Blowout Prevention Systems
for Offshore Drilling Operations: Pt 1: Shallow Gas Hazards’, US Department of
Interior Minerals Management Service Et Al Intl Well Control Symposium, Baton
Rouge, LA, Nov 27-29, Proc: No WS-3-2, 35 pp.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 14 of 37
(32) Goins WC Jr and Ables GL: ‘The Causes of Shallow Gas Kicks’, SPE 16128
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18,
1987.
(33) Grepinet M: ‘The shallow gas threat, a multiple challenge’, IADC Well Control
Conference, Paris 1993.
(34) Grepinet M: ‘The Shallow Gas Threat: A Multiple Challenge’, presented at the
IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4, 1993.
(35) Grinrod M, Haaland O and Ellingsen B: ‘A Shallow Gas Research Program’,
IADC/SPE Paper 17256 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
28 February to 2 March, 1988.
(36) Guignon JG: ‘A unique approach for confirming the presence of shallow gas in
new offshore exploration areas’, International Well-Control Symposium,
Baton Rouge, Nov 27-29, 1989.
(37) Guignon JG: ‘A Unique Approach for Confirming the Presence of Shallow Gas
in New Offshore Exploration Areas’, OSEA 90156 presented at the 8th SPE
Offshore South East Asia Conference, Singapore, Dec 4-7, Proc: 613-619,
1990.
(38) Haland OA: ‘Well Control Challenges in Highly Deviated/Horizontal Wells’, 2nd
Annual IADC European Well Control Conference, Stavanger, Norway,
Proc Paper No 19, 1991 7 pp.
(39) Koederitz WL, Beck FE, Langlinais JP and Bourgoyne AT: ‘Method for
Determining the Feasibility of Dynamlc Kill of Shallow Gas Flows’, SPE 16691
presented at the SPE Fall Technical Conference, 27-30 September, 1987.
(40) Low E and Jansen C: ‘A Method for Handling Gas Kicks Safely in High-pressure
Wells’, SPE/IADC 21964 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Mar 11-14, Proc: 579-589, 1991.
(41) Mathes DH: ‘Shallow Gas As Hydrates’, Norwegian Petroleum Society Shallow
Gas and Leaky Reservoirs Conference, Stavanger Norway, April 10-11, 1989,
21 pp.
(42) Mills D and Dyhr E: ‘Larger Diverters Safer For Shallow Gas Control’, O and GJ
V 89, No 48, (December 2, 1991), pp 65-67.
(43) Murray SJ, Williamson MD, Gilham S and Thorogood JL: ‘Well Design for
Shallow Gas’, SPE/IADC 29343, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
Feb 28, 1995.
(44) Murray SJ: ‘Simulation of Kick Control and Shallow Gas Blow-out’, 4th Annual
IBC Technical Services Ltd Offshore Drilling Conference, Aberdeen, Nov 28-29,
1990 28 pp.
(45) Nergaard A, Freyer J, Larsen V, Garder JR and Askeland R: ‘Top-Hole BOP:
From Design Through Offshore Qualification’, SPE 24579 presented at the 67th
Annual Technical Conference, Washington, Oct 4-7, 1992.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 16 of 37
(46) Nergaard A: ‘Pressure Control With Down hole BOP: A New Method for Shallow
Gas Control’, 4th Norwegian Petroleum Society N Europe Drilling Conference,
Kristiansand, Norway, Oct 30-Nov 1, 1989, 11 pp.
(47) Nokleberg L, Schuller RB and Sontvedt T: ‘Shallow Gas Kicks, Safety Aspects
Related to Diverter System’, SPE 16545 presented at the SPE Offshore
European Conference 1987, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sept 8-11, 1987.
(48) Ostebo R, Musaeus SU, Bellamy L and Geyer T: ‘Successfulness of Shallow
Gas Seismic Predictions – A Case History’, Norwegian Petrol Society Shallow
Gas and Leaky Reservoirs Conference, Stavanger, Norway, April 10-11, 1989.
(49) Podio AL, Yang AP and Skalle PO: ‘Analysis of Events Leading to An Offshore
Shallow Gas Blowout By History Matching Field Data Using an Advanced Gas
Kick Simulator’, US Department of Interior Minerals Management Service Et Al
Intl Well Control Symposium, Baton Rouge, LA, Nov 27-29. Proc: No TS-1-3,
39 pp.
(50) Prince PK: ‘Current Drilling Practice and the Occurrence of Shallow Gas’,
Society Underwater Technology Safety in Offshore Drilling International
Conference, London, April 25-26, 1990. ISBN 0-7923-0889-1. Vol 25 pp 3-25
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990.
(51) Rad NS and Lunne T: ‘Bat-Probe: For Avoidance of Hazards of Shallow
Pockets’, SEA Technology V 33, No 2 (February 1992), pp 37-39.
(52) Roche JR and Fowler JH: ‘Reliability Analysis of Systems for Diverting Shallow
Gas’, presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris,
June 2-4, 1993.
(53) Roche JR: ‘Equipment for Diverting Shallow Gas’, Pennwell Conference and
Exhibit SAFE 89 Conference, Houston, Oct 3-5, 1989. Book 1 pp 309-328.
(54) Roche JR: ‘New Tools Afford More Security From Shallow Gas’, O and GJ V 88
(Feb 19, 1990), pp 46-48, 51.
(55) Roche J: ‘New tools afford more security from shallow gas’,Oil and Gas Journal
Feb 19 1990 leans.
(56) Rommetveit R: ‘RF Kick Simulator, a New Generation Tool’, Rogaland Research
presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(57) Santos OLA, de Paula Lima HR and Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘An Analysis of Gas Kick
Removal from the Marine Riser’, Paper SPE/IADC 21968 prepared for
presentation at the IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
Mar 11-14 1991.
(58) Santos OLA: ‘A Dynamic Model of Diverter Operations For Handling Shallow
Gas Hazards in Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling’, PhD Thesis, 1989, Diss Abstr
Int, Sect B V 50, No 8, P 3665-B, Feb 1990 (DA9002169, 299 pp).
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 17 of 37
(59) Santos OL and Bourgoyne AT: ‘Estimation of Pressure Peaks Occurring When
Diverting Shallow Gas’, SPE 19559 presented at the 64th Annual SPE
Technical Conference, San Antonio, Oct 8-11 1989.
(60) Skalle P, Tronvoll J and Podio AL: ‘Experimental Study of Gas Rise Velocity and
Its Effect on Bottomhole Pressure in a Vertical Well’, SPE 23160 presented at
the SPE Offshore European Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sept 3-6,
Proc V 2, pp 527-540, 1991.
(61) Snyder RE: ‘Inflatable Packers Stop Shallow gas Intrusion’, Ocean Industry
V 26, No 2 (March 1991), pp 37-39, 42.
(62) Starrett M, Hill AD and Sepehrnoori K: ‘A Shallow Gas Kick Simulator Including
Diverter Performance’, SPE 18019 presented at the 63rd Annual SPE Technical
Conference, Houston, Oct 2-5 1988.
(63) ‘Systems Due to Sand Production’, SPE/IADC 18716 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 28-Mar 3 1989.
(64) Thorogood JL and Crawkey FK: ‘Design and Operation of a Single Vent Diverter
System’, Trans I Chem E, Vol 68, Part B May 1990 94-100.
(65) Tucker J, Nunenmacher L and Williamson W: ‘Shallow Gas Events’, United
States Department of the Interior/Minerals Management Service, 1985.
(66) US Department of the Interior, ‘Investigation of November 10, 1986 Blowout and
Fire OCS Lease 0244 West Cameron Block 71: Gulf of Mexico Off the Louisiana
Coast’, Guidry JL et al, MMS OCS Report No MMS 88-0007, 1988, 28 pp.
(67) Vestavik OM, Aas B and Podio AL: ‘Down hole Gas Detection Method in Drilling
Fluids’, IADC/SPE 19971 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2 1990. Proc: pp 497-503.
(68) Walker PM: ‘UK Recommended Procedures for Mobile Drilling Rig Site Surveys
(Geographical and Hydrographic) – Shallow Gas Aspects’, Society of
Underwater Technology Safety in Offshore Drilling Intl Conference, London,
April 25-26. ISBN 0-7923-0889-1, Vol 25, pp 257-289, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990.
(69) Warren A: ‘Alberta’s Small Gas Pool Reserves’, 40th Annual CIM Petroleum
Society Technical Meeting, Banff, Canada, May 28-31 1989, Proc: V 1,
pp 19-1-15, 1989, Paper No 89-40-19.
(70) Wylie WW and Visram AS: ‘Drilling Kick Statistics’, IADC/SPE 19914 presented
at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2 1990.
(71) Yakushev VS: ‘One of the Possible Causes of Gas Blowouts in the Permafrost
Strata’, Geological Nefti Gaza No 4 (April 1989), pp 45-46.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 18 of 37
(15) Crow R and Craig BD: ‘Drilling and Completion Practices for Deep Sour Gas
Wells in the Madden Deep Unit of Wyoming’, Paper SPE 24604 prepared for
presentation at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Washington DC,
Oct 4-7 1992.
(16) Flak LH and Brown J: ‘Case History of Ultra Deep Disposal Well in Western
Colorado’, IADC/SPE 17222, presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Feb 28-Mar 2 1988.
(17) Flak LH: ‘Discussion of Planning and Operational Requirements for a
Shallow-Objective, High-angle Well in the Gulf of Mexico’, SPE 19015, SPE
Drilling Engineering (March, 1989).
(18) Flak LH: ‘High Performance Tubulars’, Oil Patch, Volume 9, Number 3
(May/June 1983).
(19) Flak LH: ‘Use Oil Muds To Improve PDC Bit Performance’, World Oil
(October 1983).
(20) Fox C: ‘BOP Temperature Monitors Aid Safety and Design’, Offshore Engineer
(January 1990) pp 68-69.
(21) Fuh Giin-Fa, Morita N, Boyd PA and McGoffin SJ: ‘A New Approach to
Preventing Lost Circulation While Drilling’, Paper SPE 24599 prepared for
presentation at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Washington DC,
Oct 4-7 1992.
(22) Goins WC Jr and Flak LH: ‘Bit Hydraulics: A New Solution to Old Problems’,
World Oil (March, 1984).
(23) Goins WC Jr, O’Brien TB and Coilings BJ: ‘A new approach to tubular string
design’, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4’, World Oil, November 1965 to February 1966.
(24) Hackney RM: ‘A New Approach to Casing Design for Salt Formations’
Paper 13431 presented at the SPE/IADC 1985 Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, March 6-8.
(25) Hage JI, Harris TWR and Rosman R: ‘Delta Flow Kick Detection From Both
Stationary and Floating Rigs’, presented at the IADC European Well Control
Conference, Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(26) Hamby TW and Smith JR: ‘Contingency Planning for Drilling and Producing
High-pressure Sour-gas Wells’, J pet Tech (March 1972) 347-356.
(27) Herkommer MA: ‘Pressure Estimation Results In Better Well Control’,
The American Oil and Gas Reporter (April 1992), pp 36-38.
(28) Holand P: ‘Reliability of Subsea BOP Systems’, SINTEF, presented at the 1991
IADC European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(29) Hornung MR: ‘Kick Prevention, Detection and Control: Planning and Training
Guidelines for Drilling Deep High Pressure Gas Wells’, IADC/SPE 19990
presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Feb 27-Mar 2 1990.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 20 of 37
(30) Hytten N and Parigot P: ‘Analysis While Drilling Applied to Kick Detection’,
presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(31) Idelovici JL: ‘An HPHT Case History ‘Understanding Wellbore Pressure
Unstability’, presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris,
June 2-4, 1993.
(32) Johnson AB and Tarvin JA: ‘Field Calculations Underestimate Gas Migration
Velocities’, presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris,
June 2-4 1993.
(33) Johnstone JA, Morrison and C Fernandez RL: ‘Application of Quality Standard
ISO 9001 to Directional Well Planning’, Paper SPE 24561 prepared for
presentation at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Washington DC,
Oct 4-7 1992.
(34) Kandel WJ and Streu DJ: ‘A Field Guide for Surface BOP Equipment
Inspections’, IADC/SPE 23900 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Feb 18-21, 1992.
(35) Krus H and Prieur JM: ‘High Pressure Well Design’, Paper SPE 20900
presented at the EUROPEC, Hague, Oct 22-24 1990.
(36) Kulakowsky DS, Creel PG and Kellum DL: ‘Techniques for Planning and
Execution to Improve Foam Cement Job Performance’, Paper SPE 15519
presented at the 61st Annual SPE Conference, New Orleans, October 5-8 1986.
(37) Leach C and Hejnal D: ‘Extensive Testing of BOP Before High Temperature
Drilling’, presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference,
June 11-13.
(38) Leach Wand: ‘Use of Kick Simulator as a Well Planning Tool’, SPE 24577.
(39) Lennox D, Lodge M and Simpson M: ‘Poor Relations Come of Age: Recent
Upgrades to Well Control Equipment’, presented at the IADC European Well
Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4, 1993.
(40) Lewis KJ and Ostebo R: ‘The Use of Driller’s HAZOP for Enhancing Offshore
Drilling Safety’, AADE Well Control Review 1993.
(41) McCann DP, White DB, Marais L and Rodt GM: ‘Improved Rig Safety by Rapid
and Automated Kick Detection’, Paper SPE/IADC 21995 prepared for
presentation at the IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
Mar 11-14 1991.
(42) McEwan F, Hamilton TAP and Wickens L: ‘Modelling Helps the Driller to Expect
the Unexpected’, presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference,
Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(43) McNeely BM Jr: ‘Drill Collar Structure for Use in Deviated Well Bore Drilling’,
United States Patent 4,560,012 issued December 24 1985.
(44) Messenger JU: ‘Lost Circulation’, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa
Oklahoma, 1980.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 21 of 37
(45) Nyvik RO: ‘Quality Assurance of Decisions Made in Periods of ‘High Pressure’’,
presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(46) O’Donnell DL: ‘New Test Protocols Sought For Preventers’, Offshore
(September 1989), pp 44-46.
(47) Paterson T: ‘Offshore fire safety’, Pennwell 1993, p 31.
(48) Patillo PD and Rankin TE: ‘How Amoco Solved Casing Design Problems in the
Gulf of Suez’, Petroleum Engineer Int, November 1981, pp 86-112.
(49) Pidock GA and Fowler DR: ‘Relief Well Contingency Drilling Plans for Remote
Areas’, Paper SPE/IADC 21997, presented at the Annual SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, March 11-14 1991.
(50) Possamai E and Bianchi R: ‘Casing Operations on Deep, Directional
and Horizontal Wells: A New Approach on Planning and Follow-up’,
IADC/SPE 23924 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, Feb 18-21 1992.
(51) Quitzan Muchtar: ‘Drilling Safely at Well Design Limits: A Critical Well Design
Case History’, IADC/SPE 23930.
(52) Rawicki AT, Gallander FB and Gillis BT: ‘Precontract Prescription for Success:
A Painless Subsea BOP Inspection’, IADC/SPE 23901 presented at the 1992
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 18-21 1992.
(53) Redmann: ‘Understanding Kick Tolerance and its Significance in Drilling
Planning and Execution’, Paper IADC/SPE 19991 presented at the 1990
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2, 1990. See also SPE
Drilling Engineering (December 1991), pp 245-249.
(54) Reynolds WW: ‘Economic Analysis of Drilling Plans and Contractors by Use of
a Drilling Systems Approach’, J Pet Tech (July 1986), pp 787-793.
(55) Sangesland S: ‘Experience and Future Applications of the Down Hole BOP
System’, Norwegian Institute of Technology, presented at the 1991 IADC
European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(56) Santos OLA: ‘Important Aspects of Well Control for Horizontal Drilling Including
Deepwater Situations’, Paper SPE/IADC 21993 prepared for presentation at the
IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Mar 11-14 1991.
(57) Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij BV: ‘Shell’s Drilling Operations in
the Nineties: A Guide for Contractor’, Janszen, G L J March 1991.
(58) Shivers RM III and Domangue RJ: ‘Operational Decision Making for Stuck Pipe
Incidents in the Gulf of Mexico: A Risk Economics Approach’, Paper SPE/IADC
21998 prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Annual Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Mar 11-14 1991.
(59) Sifferman TR and Becker TE: ‘Hole Cleaning in Full-scale Inclined Wellbores’,
Paper SPE 20422 prepared for presentation at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, Sept 23-26, 1990.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 22 of 37
(60) Sikich GW: ‘It can’t happen here: All hazard crisis management planning’,
PennWell Publishing Co, Tulsa, Okla, 1993.
(61) Smith RM: ‘Well Control Management’, paper presented at the Deep Offshore
Technology 6th Intl Conference and Exhibition, Monaco, Nov 4-6 1991.
(62) Stair MA and McInturff TL: ‘Casing and Tubing Design Considerations for Deep
Sour Gas Wells’ Paper IADC/SPE 11392 Presented at the IADC/SPE 1983
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 20-23.
(63) Stuart C, Mackay AS, Seymour KP and Sheppard B: ‘The Development of an
Integrated 15000/20000psi Pressure Control System for Use in the North Sea’,
presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4
1993.
(64) Tarr B: ‘Underground Flow Well Control Key to Drilling Low-kick Tolerance
Wells Safely and Economically’, J Pet Tech.
(65) Thorogood JL and Sawaryn SJ: ‘The Travelling Cylinder: A Practical Tool for
Collision Avoidance’, Paper IADC/SPE 19989 presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2 1990.
(66) Thorogood JL, Tourney FG, Crawley FK and Woo G: ‘Quantitative Risk
Assessment of Subsurface Well Collisions’, Paper SPE 20908 presented at the
EUROPEC, Hague, Oct 22-24 1990.
(67) Unger KW and Howard DC: ‘Unique Drilling Techniques Improve Success in
Drilling and Casing Deep Overthrust Belt Salt’ Paper SPE 13108 presented at
59th Annual SPE Conference, Houston, September 16-19, 1984.
(68) Van Slyke DC and Huang ETS: ‘Predicting Gas Kick Behavior in Oil-based
Drilling Fluids Using a PC-based Dynamic Wellbore Model’, IADC/SPE 19972
presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2,
1990.
(69) White DB and Walton IC: ‘A Computer Model for Kicks in Water and Oil-based
Muds’, IADC/SPE 19975 presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2, 1990.
(70) Wilhelm MS and Kane RD: ‘Status Report: Corrosion Resistant Alloys’,
Petroleum Engineer International, March 1987 pp 36-41.
(3) Clark AR and Perkins TK: ‘Wellbore and Near Surface Hydraulics of a
Blown-out Oil Well’, SPE 9257 presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of SPE of AIME, Dallas, Sept 21-24, 1980
(September, 1980).
(4) Ely JW and Holditch SA: ‘Successful Stimulation of Deep Wells Using High
Proppant Concentrations’, J Pet Tech (August, 1973) pp 959-964.
(5) Ely JW: ‘Terminating the Flow of Fluids from Uncontrolled Wells’,
US Patent 4,133,383 (January 9, 1979).
(6) Ely JW and Holditch SA: ‘Conventional and Unconventional Kill Techniques for
Wild Wells’, Paper SPE 16674 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-30 1987.
(7) Ely JW and Holditch SA: ‘Polymers used to Direct Fluids to Blowout’, Oil and
Gas Journal (August 1988).
(8) Giles AJ: ‘Control Instrumentation for Wellhead and Mud-kill System’,
J Pet Tech (August 1983).
(9) Gillespie JD, Morgan RF and Perkins TK: ‘Study of the Potential for an
Off-bottom Dynamic Kill of a Gas Well Having an Underground Blowout’,
Paper IADC/SPE 17254 presented at the IADC/SPE 1988 Drilling Conference,
Dallas, Feb 28-Mar 2 1988.
(10) Grace RD and Cudd B: ‘Unique Fluid Dynamics Control South Louisiana
Blowout’, Paper SPE 17013 presented at the CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling
Conference, April 21-23, 1987. See also World Oil (April 1989), pp 46-50.
(11) Jorgensen ED and Justnes H: ‘Well Cementing Materials Based on
Thermosetting Polymers’, presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control
Conference, June 11-13.
(12) Kuderitz WL, Beck FE, Langlianas JP and Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘Method for
Determining the Feasibility of Dynamic Kill of Shallow Gas Flows’,
Paper SPE 16691 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-30, 1987.
(13) McCain WD Jr: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, second edition, PennWelI
Publishing Co, Tulsa (1990) 108.
(14) Strand P and Tromborg D: ‘Rebuilding a Semisubmersible to a High Rate Well
Killing Unit’, Wilrig A/S, presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control
Conference, June 11-13.
(15) Westergaard RH: ‘Annulus Kill System’, Report No 820918-W.D, No #. Senter
for Industriforskning (SI), April 1983.
(16) Woodyard AH: ‘Risk Analysis of Well Completion Systems’, J Pet Tech
(April 1982).
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 24 of 37
(19) Anon West Vangaurd report, Norwegian public report NOU 1986:16.
(20) Yaaez M and Roche J: ‘Pemex pgrades the Holkan after Campeche Bay fire’,
Ocean Industry, July 1990.
(21) Anon: NPD report, ‘Experience from the West Vanguard blowout: required
measures’, 16-4, 1986.
(22) Flak L and Matthews C: ‘Blowout control: Response, intervention and
management, Part 9 – Firefighting’, World Oil, October 1994, pp 101-108.
(23) Wilson D: ‘How postcapping put Kuwait’s wells back onstream’, World Oil,
January 1994, pp 92-94.
(24) Arnwine LC and Ely JW: ‘Polymer use in blowout control’, SPE 6835 Denver,
Colo, 1977.
(25) Anon: ‘Incident command system’, Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State
University, October 1983.
(26) Cullen, Honorable Lord: The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster HMSO,
London, November 1991.
(27) ‘Veritas Claims Diverters Fail in 50% of Blowouts’, Offshore, November,
1986, p 54.
(28) Abel LW: ‘Regional Equipment Depots Would Speed Future Efforts’, World Oil
(May 1992), pp 83.
(29) Adams N: ‘Contingency Plans Save Lives and Ease Troubles’ O and GJ
(Nov 10, 1980), pp 221-240.
(30) Adams N, Hansen B, Stone AD, Voisin J, Quiroz G and Clements S: ‘A Case
History of Underwater Wild Well Capping – Successful Implementation of
New Technology on the SLB-5-4X Blowout in Lake Maracaibo,
Venezuela’, SPE 16673, 62nd Annual Technical Conference in Dallas, Tex
(Sept 27-30 1987).
(31) Adams N and Thompson JD: ‘How a Geothermal Blowout was Controlled’,
World Oil (June 1989) pp 36-40.
(32) Adams N: ‘Blowout Control 1, 2 and 3’, O and GJ, (Sept 22, 1980, Sept 29,
1980, Oct 13 1980).
(33) Adams N: ‘Well Control Problems and Solutions’, Petroleum Publishing Co,
Tulsa, Okla, 1980 683 pp.
(34) Adams N: ‘What to Remember about Bullheading’, World Oil (March 1988),
pp 46-48.
(35) Adams N: ‘Workover Well Control’, PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1981
308 pp.
(36) Alliquander O and Casba J: ‘Drilling and Well Completion Problems in
Geopressured Formations of the Carpathian Basin’, SPE 5754, (1976).
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 27 of 37
(53) Blount EM and Soelinah E: ‘Ixtoc I Oil Blowout’, Spill Technology Newsletter
(July-August 1979).
(54) Borgenes O: ‘Radiation Fluxes From Hydrocarbon Pool Fires’, Veritas Report
81-0230 (1981).
(55) Bott WF and Tieh TT: ‘Diagenesis and High Fluid Pressure in the Frio and
Vicksburg Shales, Brooks County, Texas’, Transactions – Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, Vol 37, pp 323-334 (1987).
(56) Bourgoyne AT, Holden WR, Desbrandes RR, Langlinais JP and Whitehead WR:
‘Final Report – A Study of Improved Blowout Prevention Systems for Offshore
Drilling Operations’, US Department of the Interior/Minerals Management Service,
February 1986.
(57) Bradley WB: ‘Failure of Inclined Boreholes’, paper presented at the ASME
Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Nov 5-9 1978.
(58) Brownlee KA: ‘Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering’,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 1960.
(59) Buchholz CW: ‘Continuous Wave Mud Telemetry’, Proceedings, Symposium on
Technologies for Measurement While Drilling, Marine Board, National Research
Council, Washington, Oct 22-27 1981.
(60) Chambre Syndicate de la Recherche et la Production du Petrole et du Gaz
Naturel, Comite des Technicien: ‘Blowout Prevention and Well Control’
(Translated from French), Editions Technip, Paris (1981), 164 pp.
(61) Chen KW: ‘The Feasibility of Underwater Containment of Subsea Oil Spills in
Arctic Waters’, Report submitted in connection with Environment Canada AMOP
project 114 pp.
(62) Clark RK and Fontenot JE: ‘Field Measurements of the Effects of Drillstring
Velocity, Pump Speed and Lost Circulation Material on Down hole Pressures’,
SPE 4970, 1974 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct 6-9.
(63) Cooke EW: ‘Blowout Insurance Can Protect Contractors’, O and GJ
(February 12, 1984).
(64) Cross Richard: ‘Apache Blowout Successfully Killed’, Drilling (March 1984).
(65) Cudd B and Grace BD: ‘Deep Apache Well Controlled Successfully’, Petroleum
Engineer (March, 1985).
(66) Danenberger EP: ‘Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Blowouts’, Drilling-DCW
(Aug 1980), pp 48-53.
(67) Davenport HH, Bulpard BJ and Cashman JA: ‘How Shell Controlled its Gulf of
Mexico Blowouts’, World Oil (November 1971), pp 71-73.
(68) Dehl E and Bern TS: ‘Risk of Oil and Gas Blowout on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf’, NSFI/SINTEF Project No 880354.14, Trondheim, Norway (Feb 15, 1983).
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 29 of 37
(69) Desbrandes R and Borugoyne AT Jr: ‘MWD Monitoring of Gas Kicks Ensures
Safer Drilling’, Pet Eng Int (July 1987), pp 43-52.
(70) Desbrandes R: ‘Status Report: MWD Technology: Pt 1: Data Acquisition and
Down hole Recording and Processing’, Pet Eng Int V 60, No 9 (Sept 1988),
pp 27-30, 33.
(71) Det norske Veritas and associated co-workers (1979): ‘Riskoen for utblasning
pa norsk kontinentalsokkel’ (The Risk of Blowout on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf), Norwegian only Government Paper NOU 1979:8.
(72) Editorial: ‘Norway’s Shall Gas. Recent Blowout Incident Likely to Spur on New
Regulations and Procedures from Authorities’, NorOil (October 1985).
(73) Editorial: ‘PEMEX Slapped for Handling of Ixtoc I – Senate Panel Charges
PEMEX Lied About Bay of Campeche Blowout, Criticism of Decision Making
Methods, Questions About Procedures. SEDCO Details Role of Company and
Rig, Spells Out Cause of Blowout’, O and GJ (December 24, 1979).
(74) Editorial: ‘Well Blows Out Off Nigeria, Rig Lost’, O and GJ (February 11 1980).
(75) Edmiston Ken: ‘Shell is Winning its Fight to Kill Blowout’, Ocean Industry
(February 1971) pp 14-16.
(76) Ely JW, Chaterji J, Holtmyer MD and Tinsley JM: ‘Methods for Fracturing High
Temperature Well Formations’, United States Patent No 3,768,566 issued
Oct 30 1973.
(77) Fagerjord O: ‘Worldwide Offshore Accident Databank’, Veritec Marine
Technology Journal, Noroil Publishing House Ltd A/S.
(78) Falconer IG and Normore D: ‘MWD Bit-efficiency Model Provides Real-time
Answers’, O and GJ (Oct 26, 1987), pp 41-48.
(79) Fannelop TK and Sjoen K: ‘Hydrodynamics of Underwater Blowouts’, New York:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 14-16 1980.
(80) Fertl WH and Timko DJ: ‘How Down hole Temperatures and Pressures Affect
Drilling’, Part 3, World Oil (August 1972).
(81) Fertl WH and Timko DJ: ‘How Down hole Temperatures and Pressures Affect
Drilling’, Part 2, World Oil (July 1972).
(82) Fertl WH: ‘Abnormal Formation Pressures’, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, New York, 1976.
(83) Flak LH and Goins WC: ‘What it Will Take to Kill the Kuwaiti Blowouts’, World
Oil (May 1991).
(84) Flak LH and Wright JW: ‘Blowout Control: Response, Intervention and
Management’ 12 Part Series, World Oil, November 1993-January 1995.
(85) Flak LH and Goins WC: ‘Kuwait: The Blowouts are History’, World Oil
(January 1992), pp 35-44.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 30 of 37
(86) Flak LH: ‘Reactant Plug Uses in Blowout Control’, Oil and Gas Journal
(April 1995).
(87) Flak LH: ‘Well Control Impacts of Deepwater Riser Margin’, Oil and Gas Online
(June 1999).
(88) Flak LH: ‘How Well Control Techniques Were Refined in Kuwait’, World Oil
(May 1992), pp 72-80.
(89) Fosdick Michael Rheu: ‘Compilation of Blowout Data from Southeast US Gulf of
Mexico Area Wells’, The University of Texas at Austin College of Engineering,
August 1980.
(90) Fotenot JE and Clark RK: ‘An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and Surge
Pressures and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling Well’, SPE Journal, October
1974, pp 451-62.
(91) Gilbert WE: ‘Flowing and Gas-lift Well Performance’, API Drilling and Production
Practices, 1954.
(92) Gill JA: ‘Applied Drilling Technology’, The Drilling Contractor,
(March/April 1968).
(93) Gill JA: ‘Well Logs Reveal True Pressures Where Drilling Responses Fail’,
O and GJ (March 16, 1987), pp 41-45.
(94) Gillan C and Wadsworth D: ‘Automated Drilling Data Provides Instant Insights
into Complex Problems’, American Oil and Gas Reporter (Nov 1983).
(95) Gillespie JD Wann KE: ‘Ocean Odyssey Well Control Project’, IADC/SPE 19916
presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2,
1990.
(96) Goins WC Jr and O’Brien TB: ‘How to Detect and Control Threatened Blowouts’,
Oil and Gas Journal (October 15 1962).
(97) Goins WC Jr: ‘Blowout Prevention’, Practical Drilling Technology, Vol 1,
Gulf Publishing Co, Houston, Texas, 1965, 214 pp.
(98) Grace RD, Stanislaus G and Cudd B: ‘Blowout at Pelican Platform – Chronology
of the Biggest Blowout in the History of Trinidad’, presented at the IADC
European Well Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(99) Grace R, Stanislaus G and Cudd B: ‘Underground Blowout Killed with Quick
Snubbing Operation’, O and GJ (Oct 18, 1993) pp 46-49.
(100) Gupta M, 1976: ‘Experimental Investigation of the Radiation from Turbulent
Hydrocarbon Diffusion Flames’, University of Waterloo, Quebec, Canada,
unpublished thesis.
(101) Hammett DS: ‘Diverting and Controlling Offshore Subsea Blowouts’, SPE/IADC
13443 presented at the SPE/IADC 1985 Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Mar 6-8 1985.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 31 of 37
(117) Lewis JB Jr: ‘The Use of the Computer and Other Special Tools for Monitoring a
Gas Well Blowout During the Kill’, SPE 6836, presented at the SPE 52nd
Annual Fall Technical Conference, Denver, Oct 9-12 1977.
(118) Lewis JB, Mabie GJ, Harris JZ and Barnett RD: ‘New Innovations for Fighting
Blowouts’, Paper OTC 2766 presented at the 9th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, May 2-5 1977.
(119) Loes M and Fannelop TK: ‘Concentration Measurements Above an Underwater
Release of Natural Gas’, SPE Drilling Engineering (June, 1989).
(120) Lynch RD, McBride EJ, Perkins TK and Wiley ME: ‘Dynamic Kill of an
Uncontrolled CO2 Well’, Paper IADC/SPE 11378 presented at the IADC/SPE
1983 Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 20-23 1983.
(121) Malguarnera SC: ‘The Use of a Drilling Model in Simulation, Optimization
and Formation Description’, SPE 14786, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
(February 1986).
(122) Mathews WR and Kelley I: ‘How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture
Gradient’, O and GJ (Feb 20, 1967), pp 92-106.
(123) Matthews WR and Kelly J: ‘How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture
Gradient’, O and GJ (1967), pp 144-146.
(124) Maus LD et al: ‘Instrumentation Requirements for Kick Detection in Deep
Water’, J Pet Tech (Aug 1979), pp 1029-34.
(125) McKinley RM and Bower FM: ‘Specialized Applications of Noise Logging’,
J Pet Tech (Nov 1979), pp 1387-1396.
(126) McKinley RM, Bower FM and Rumble RC: ‘The Structure and Interpretation of
Noise Flow From Behind Cemented Casing’, J Pet Tech (March 1973),
pp 329-338.
(127) McLamore RT and Suman GO Jr: ‘Explosive Termination of a Wild Well –
Evaluation of a Concept’, SPE 3591, presented at the 46th Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, October 3-6 1971.
(128) Mickey V: ‘A Little Luck with Blowout Minimizes Loss on Amoco’s Well in Loving
Co’, Drill Bit (February 1981), pp 28-29.
(129) Milaram JH and Van Houten RJ: ‘Plumes from Blowouts and Broken Gas
Pipelines’, MIT Report No 82-7, 1982.
(130) Milgram JH: ‘The Response of Floating Platforms’, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering Report No 82-8, July 1982.
(131) Milke JA: 1982, ‘Literature Survey for Work Related to the Suppression of
Blowout Fires and Extinction of Gaseous Diffusion Flames With Water’, Letter
Report to the Mineral Management Service.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 33 of 37
(132) Miller RT and Clements RL: ‘Reservoir Engineering Techniques Used to Predict
Blowout Control During the Bay Marchand Fire’, J Pet Tech (March, 1972)
234-240.
(133) Mills PG: ‘Blowout Prevention: Theory and Applications’, Published by
International Human Resources Development Corp, Boston, 214 pp.
(134) Milz EA and Fraser JP: ‘A Surface-active Chemical System for Controlling and
Recovering Spilled Oil from the Ocean’, J Pet Tech (March 1972), pp 255-262.
(135) Mitchell FR, Robinson JD, Vogiatzis TP, Ausburn BE, Berry LN, Pehoushek F
and Moran JH: ‘Determination of Distance Between Wells Utilizing Resistivity
Measurements’, SPE 3495 (1971).
(136) Mobil Oil Indonesia: ‘Report of Killing the Blowout Well Arun C11-2’ Sept 12,
1978.
(137) Mogen T, Skramstad E and Solberg DM: ‘Structural Response to Explosive
Loads. Summary of Experiments and Analysis’, Veritas Report No: 79-650
(1979)
(138) Moore WD: ‘Inflatable Packers Kill Algerian Gas Blowout’, O and GJ (Sept 15,
1980), pp 170-178.
(139) Mundheim O, Torhaug M, Helgaker P, Ose T, Westergaard RHSK,
Vesterhaug O, Olshausen K and Wold M: ‘Offshore Blowout Control’, OTTER
Group Report No STF 88 A81004, Trondheim Norway, 188 pp.
(140) Myers S: ‘A First Approach to Evaluating the Blowout Risk in the Context of the
Voluntary Safety Case for A 700 Series Semi Submersible’, presented at the
IADC European Well Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4, 1993.
(141) Nash Keir AE, Man Dean E and Olsen Phil G: ‘Oil Pollution and Public Interest:
A Study of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill (8 January 1969)’ Institute of
Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1972.
ISBN 0-87772-085-1. 157 pp.
(142) National Bureau of Standards: ‘Control of Blowout Fires With Water Sprays’,
Evans DB and McCaffrey BJ, Washington DC 20234, pp 89-95.
(143) National Bureau of Standards: ‘Feasibility Study of Extinguishing Gas Well
Blowout Fires with Water Sprays’, Evans DD and O’Neill JG, Interagency Report
1983.
(144) National Bureau of Standards: ‘Jet Diffusion Flame Suppression Using Water
Sprays’, McCaffrey BJ, Interagency Report 1983.
(145) Nelson RF: ‘The Bay Marchand Fire’, J Pet Tech (March 1972), pp 225-233.
(146) Nink TEW: ‘Principles of Oil Well Production’, p 202-203, McGraw-Hill Co, 1964.
(147) NOU: 1977:47 (Norwegian Government Publication): ‘Bravorapporten’.
(Norwegian official report). Unofficial translation available.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 34 of 37
(181) US Geological Survey: ‘Investigation of March 1980 Blowout and Fire, Lease
OCS-G 2433, High Island Block A-368, Gulf of Mexico Off the Texas Coast’,
Bourgeois DJ et al, Open File Report 80-1278.
(182) US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service,
‘Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Blowouts’, Feury MGR, Open File
Report 83-562, August 1983.
(183) US Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service and Geological
Survey, ‘Investigation of October 1982 Blowout and Fire, Eugene Island Block
361, Gulf of Mexico’, McDonald P et al, Open File Report 83-113 (1983).
(184) USA Geological Survey Department of the Interior: ‘An Investigation of
Pennzoil’s Blowout and Loss of the Platform, High Island Block a-563 Gulf of
Mexico’, May 20 1977, 26 p + enclosures.
(185) USGS Outer Continental Shelf Standard GSS-OCS-TI, First Edition, Dec 1977,
‘Training and Qualifications of Personnel in Well-control Equipment and
Techniques for Drilling on Offshore Locations’.
(186) USGS Outer Continental Shelf Standard, ‘Safety Requirements for Drilling
Operations in a Hydrogen Sulfide Environment’, No 1 GSS-OCS-1, First Edition,
February 1976.
(187) USGS: ‘Investigation of August 1980 Blowout and Fire, Lease OSC-G 2271
Vermillion Block 281 Blowout’, April 1981.
(188) USGS: ‘Investigation of August 1980 Blowout and Fire, Lease OSC-G 4065
Matagorda Island Block 669, Gulf of Mexico Off the Texas Coast’ (Open File
Report 81-706), September 1981.
(189) Valladares MA and Acuna RA (PEMEX Company Report): ‘Ixtoc Blowout,
Control of Well and of the Oil Spill.’
(190) Vogel C b: ‘Method and Apparatus for Detecting an Inflow of Fluid Into a Well’,
US Patent 3,776,032, Shell Oil Co, Dec 4 1973.
(191) Walters JV: ‘Internal Blowouts, Cratering, Casing Setting Depths and the
Location of Subsurface Safety Valves’, Paper SPE 20909 presented at the
EUROPEC, Hague, Oct 22-24 1990.
(192) Wesson HR Jr and Ghalem T: ‘Case Histories of Snubbing and Pumping
Operations for Algerian Well Control’, presented at the IADC European Well
Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(193) Wesson HR Jr and Grace RD: ‘Blowout Control Methods’.
(194) Westergaard RH: ‘All About Blowouts’, Norwegian Oil Review,1985.
(195) Westergaard RH: ‘Blowout Beredskap, Beredskap mot ukontrollert
undervannsutblasning’ (Underwater Blowout Preparedness), in Norwegian only.
Open report from the Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, May 8
1979, 109 pp.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 37 of 37