COMPLETION AND WORKOVER WELL CONTROL NEEDS

ARE DIFFERENT!

J.L. RIKE D.L. WHITMAN E.R. RIKE L.R. HARDIN

this article begins on the next page F

PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CWSOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS PAPER NO. CIM/SPE 90-22 TMS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECNON COMPLETION AND WORKOVER WELL CONTROL NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT! BY Jim L Rike Rike Swvies, Inc. David L Whitman Un y of @ng Erik R. Rike Lynn R. Hardin Rike Swvko, Inc. PUSUCATION RLOWM RESERVED THIS PAPER 19 TO BE PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATH)NAL TECHNICAL MEETING JOINTLY HOSTED BY THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CM AND THE SOCIM OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS IN CALGARY, JUNE 10 TO 13,1990. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER 0 WVITED. SLICH DM3CUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING AND WILL
BE CONSIDERED FOR Pui3Lr.ATWN IN CM AND SPE JOURNALS IF FILED IN wRrriNG wiTH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING. Abstract Applying blowout prevention concepts that have been developed for drilling operations to a completion/workover situation is improper in many cases. In fact, application of all rules required by drilling well control courses and manuals will result in dangerous situations on many workovers. Furthermore, the majority of class time in a typical well control school is devoted to minimizing surface
casing pressure during a kick, a principle that has almost no application in a completion/workover situation. There are at 1.;east sixteen key differences between workover wells and drilling wells that demand a different set of requirements for safe well control. These important differences continue to be revealed in the form of surprises as workover crews struggle to comply with a multitude of very strict rules, all of which have evolved from situations encountered while drilling. This paper
will emphasize these key differences and will introduce an idea for replacing current Completion and Workover Blowout Prevention 22-1 Specifications with just a few easily understood specifications based on the Barrier concept. Introduction Blowout prevention concepts have been developed for drilling operations over the course of many years. They have resulted in a proliferation of well control schools where these techniques are taught, and are being introduced to petroleum engineering students during their junior and/or senior years. However,
many of these concepts are being i n c o r r e c t 1 y a p p 1 i e d t o completion/workover operations and may result in a dangerous situation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is two-fold: 1. To emphasize key differences between completion/workover operations and drilling operations that demand different procedures for preventing blowouts. 2. To introduce an idea for r e p 1 a c i n g c u r r e n t completion/workover blowout
prevention specifications with
 PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM/SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS PAPER NO, CIMISPE 90-22

THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

...,:

.~
COMPLETION AND WORKOVER WELL
CONTROL NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT!

BY
Jim L. RIke
Riko SorvlC8, Inc.
David L. Whitman
Unlvorslty of Wyoming
Erik R. Rlke
Lynn R. Hardin
~ .. Rlko Sorvlco, Inc.

PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL MEETING JOINTLY HOSTED BY THE
PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM AND THE SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS IN CALGARY, JUNE 10 TO 13, 1990.
DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED, SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING AND WILL BE
CONSIDERED FOR PUBUCATION IN CIM AND SPE JOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM
"
CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.

Abstract Specifications with just a few easily

understood specifications based on the
Applying blowout prevention concepts Barrier Concept_
that have been developed for drilling
operations to a completion/workover Introduction
situation is improper in many cases. In
fact, application of all rules required Blowout prevention concepts have
by drilling well control courses and been developed for drilling operations
manuals will result in dangerous over the course of many years. They have
situations on many workovers_ resulted in a proliferation of well
Furthermore, the majority of class time control schools where these techniques
in a typical well control school is are taught, and are being introduced to
devoted to minimizing surface casing petroleum engineering students during
pressure during a kick, a principle that their junior and/or senior years.
has almost no application in a However, many of these concepts are being
completion/workover situation. incorrectly applied to
'. There are at least sixteen key completion/workover operations and may
differences between workover wells and result in a dangerous situation.
drilling wells that demand a different Therefore, the purpose of this paper is
" set of requirements for safe well two-fold:
control. These important differences 1. To emphasize key differences
continue ta be revealed in the form of between completion/workover
surprises as warkover crews struggle to operations and drilling
comply with a multitude of very strict operations that demand
rules, all of which have evolved from different procedures for
situations encountered while drilling. preventing blowouts.
This paper will emphasize these key 2, To introduce an idea for
differences and will introduce an idea rep l a c i n g cur r e n t
for replacing current Completion and completion/warkover blowout
Workover Blowout prevention prevention specifications with
,<
',.,

22-1
 a few easily understood Sixteen Key Differences
specifications based on the
Ea.rrier ConcEDt. Before exploring Condltion B
F~gure 1 shows a comparison of the further, some key differences b~tween
same well undergoing two different stages completion/workover well control and
of completion. In condition A, the well drilling well control shoulrl be
is between rigs_ The drilling rig has considered _ Some s ~xteen such
been moved out after setting and differences are designated in Figure 2.
cementing the primary casing string_ The Each will be discussed in some detail.
casing is currently filled with 11.0 ppg 1. The surface or intennediate casing
(1318 kgjmJj mud. While waiting for a shoe location is almost always the
smaller rig to become available for critical well control component
completing the well as a gas producer, throughout a drilling operation due
cased hole logs are be~ng run with no rig to the requirement that formation
and no blowout preventer stack on the fracture pressure should not be
wellhead. Th~s type of situation is exceeded at that point in the
generally perceived as one that is wellbore. However, in a
hazardous and has the potential for an completionjworkover situation, since
uncontrolled blowout. Condition 8 shows the well is cased to the prOducing
the same well during completion. Note zone, this is not an important
that the well has been perforated and has 3
cons ideration. The only exception
been killed with 10.0 ppg [119B kgjm j is if there are shallow casing leaks
clean completion fluid. The lower-most or shallow perforations that have
BOP has been disassembled to change pipe never been tested to sUbstantial
rams to fit the final production tubing. pressure:; _
This operation would be perce~ved as a 2_ When wellbore pressure exceeds the
normal procedure during final completion pressure of an exposed formation
of the well. The real question, however, during a drilling operation, mud
is ~hich well configuration is most fil ter cake makes a very effective
conducive to a kick and potential seal at the formation face. No such
uncontrolled blowout? seal exists when solids-free
ThlS questlon can be answered by workover fluid is in use.
looking at the pressure overbalance at L If the pumps are stopped, any
the reservoir and the degree of fonnation gas that enters the
communication between the productive wellbore will rise toward the
formation and the wellbore_ In Condition surface much faster in most workover
A, the well is in little danger of taking fluids when compared to drilling
a klck. The overbalanc~ at the top of mud_
~he formation is 5B6 psi [4040 kpa] and 4 _ Allowing a gas "bubble" to rise or
the communication wlth the formation is be circulated to the surface without
m~nimal due to the unperforated casing. choke controlled expans ion wi 11
Even though the logging operation is usually result in disaster during a
belng completed without any means of drililng operation. Workover wells
controlling surface pressure, the are routinely shut-in overnight with
likelihood of a gas kick is remote. downhole trapped gas causing little
However, Condition B presents a situation ~hreat of a blowout .
. . .' here a kick is about to occur. The 5 _ In most drilling operations, two or
overbalance at the top of the tormation more chokes are essential for proper
is only ·-;0 psi [276 kPa] and the kick control. Rarely are chokes
communication with the formation is needed for controlling kiCks taken
excellent, assuming open perforations. during completion/workover
As will be shown later, without constant ooerations_
refilling, the overbalance will quickly B~llhead killing is the most common
disappear due to loss of completion fluid method used for kicks in
to the reservoir, a gas k~ck ....'ill be completionjworkover operations. Any
taken, and the potential for an effort to bUllhead a kick back into
uncontrolled blowout will be high. While the formation during a drilling
many completionjwor}:over well control operation will most likely be futile
specifications contain rules that and potentially dangerous.
strictly prohibit the relatively safe 7 _ Maximum allowable s~rface casing
operation described ~n Condition A. they pressure is usually much higher
include nothing to preclude the extremely during a completion/workover
dangerous situation given in condition,B. operation than a drilling operation.
Thls is the result of uSlng ThlS is related to difference number
completionjworkover well control 1 above_
specifications that were originally B. All casing is usually at or nea r
~ritten for drilling operations. "new" condltion and is nyrmally
overdesigned for burst p"res5ure
during drilling. During

22-2
 completionjworkover . opera~ion7' occurs in the workstring rather than
however I the production cas1ng is in the annulus_ When "reverse"
often old and may have already been circulation is utilized in
through a variety of other completion/workover operations, the
workovers. Therefore, unless bottom hole pressure can be
tested, the actual casing burst estimated with equation (1).
strength may be unknown. Equation (2) should be used to
g. "Direct ll circulation is almost estimate the bottom hole pressure
always used throughout a drilling during "direct .. circulation_
operation, including during blowout
control techniques. "Reverse II BHP "reverse" = Hydrostatic pressure
circulation is used extensively in of fluid + 0_9 times
completion/workover operations. the circulating
10. When controlling a kick taken during pressure (1)
drilling, it is usually necessary to
increase the mud density to overcome BHP "direc:t" = Hydrostatic pressure
the formation pressure and prevent of fluid + 0.1 times
a secondary influx of formation the circulating
fluid into the wellbore. The "Wait pressure (2)
and Weight" or "Engineer'sll method
of control is commonly used for For example, if the surface pumping
killing the well_ This method pressure were 1000 psi [6895 kPaj,
consists of pumping the higher and no choke was in use on the
weight mud while simultaneously return side of the cirCUlating
circulating the kick to the surface_ system, 100 to 200 psi [690-1380
Most completion/workover kicks are kPaj of pressure would be added to
trip related and thus require no the hydrostatic pressure of the kill
change in kill fluid density_ As fluid in a drilling operation,
discussed in number 6 above. the whereas 800 to 900 psi [5516-6205
kick can very often be bullheaded kPa j would be added in a
back into the formation_ When this completionjworkover operation. This
technique is unsuccessful, the additional pressure, if not
II Driller I 5 " method of kick control accounted for, could increase the
is more practical for circulating potential for fracturing the
'-
;.
the kick to the surface. While this formation and increasing the rate of
method will involve the use of a fluid loss from the wellbore.
choke, the choke is simply used to 14 _ Properly used trip tanks are very
maintain a constant, predetermined reliable early indicators of a kick
pump pressure at a predetermined in progress when mud or other
pumping rate. solids-laden fluids are used. Trip
11. Any significant overbqlance of tanks are much less reliable with
pressure is conducive to the loss of clean fluids because, with clean
large volumes of clean workaver fluids, downhole conditions are
fluid. Loss of kill fluid and the never IIstatic". The concept of
occurrence of frequent kicks are " s tatic" downhole conditions will be
very much related_ This concept discussed in the following section.
will be presented in more detail in 15. During a completion/workover
the next section of this paper_ operation, the producing zone is
12_ During completion/workover normally exposed and available for
operations, the fracture of an flow for nearly 100% of the time to
exposed formation seldom results in complete the work. However, during
loss of control. However, it shOUld drilling operations, the potential
be noted that, for the same well in flowing zone may only be exposed
the same formation, the fracture about 10% of the total drilling
pressure may be considerably less time.
during the completion/workover 16. More frequent pipe ram changes are
operation than that reported from necessary during completion/workover
drilling operations. This may be operations. These changes are
due to the fact that: a) the normally made when the producing
reservoir has been depleted of its formation is open to the wellbore.
fluid over time; and/or b) the
penetrating ability of clean fluids "Static" Downhole Conditions
appears to create an II ice pick"
effect on the formation_ As will be shown in the following
13. The circulation direction used discussion, true lI s tatic lI downhole
during the operation will affect the conditions are not possible with a clean
bottom hole pressure of the wellbore fluid in the wellbore, open perforations
since 80-95% of all friction to the formation, and casing open at the
pressure in the cirCUlation system surface. Figure) is a graphical

22-3