IADC/SPE-178881-MS

Swab and Surge Pressures with Reservoir Fluid Influx Condition during
MPD
Robello Samuel, and Randy Lovorn, Halliburton

Copyright 2016, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1–3 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineersis prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
With managed-pressure drilling (MPD), there is a need to have precise control on the profile of annular
pressure while drilling and cementing. However, current methods using conventional calculations for
controlling bottomhole pressures in MPD wells do not properly take into consideration the elasticity of
drillpipes under reservoir fluid influx and, therefore, do not control the proper pressures. For these reasons,
a method for more precisely controlling the annular pressure profile throughout the wellbore is required.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the dynamic motion of the drillstring when there is an influx
of formation fluid, with particular interest focused on the effect of bottomhole pressure. Increased
underbalanced and managed-pressure drilling operations have necessitated predicting wellbore pressures
more accurately, as they allow for reduced fluid loss and reservoir influx. While drilling through or
reciprocating in a potential reservoir zone where the borehole and formation fluid pressures are in a
narrow margin under a managed-pressure condition, the swab pressures may cause the wellbore to be
underbalanced for a small period of time.
At certain times, an incremental influx for a short duration may be potentially detrimental. Neither the
steady-state model nor the transient model is comprehensive enough to predict the wellbore pressures
correctly, as both models neglect the reservoir fluid influx or fluid loss under this condition. This paper
presents a coupled swab/surge model, whereby the wellbore bottomhole pressure can be predicted more
accurately with a reservoir fluid influx. A full balance of mass and momentum for pipe and annulus flow
is solved. The model also includes the effects of fluid inertia and compressibility, wellbore elasticity, axial
elasticity of the pipe, and temperature-dependent fluid properties. The transient-gas reservoir model
allows for investigating the effect of produced gas when the formation pressure exceeds the bottomhole
pressures. This model allows for measuring the influx as a function of pipe movement and predicting the
amount of influx as a function of time.
The practical usefulness of the theory, backed by the fundamental analysis, is demonstrated with
numerical cases. The effects during underbalanced conditions have been analyzed, and several non-
intuitive transient effects, such as the observation of reduction in surge effects while swabbing and vice
versa, are highlighted.
2 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

Introduction
Conventional drilling practices have typically maintained the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid in
the wellbore between the formation’s pore pressure and its fracture pressure. With MPD, there is a need
to have precise control on the profile of annular pressure while drilling and cementing. However, current
methods using conventional calculations for controlling bottomhole pressures without taking into con-
sideration the formation fluid influx during tripping or reciprocation operations will result in the
overestimation of tripping speeds. For these reasons, a method for more precisely controlling the annular
pressure profile throughout the wellbore is needed. Increasingly more difficult wells are being drilled with
a narrow margin between pore and fracture pressures, requiring that swab/surge pressures be maintained
within the narrow limits while tripping drillpipe, running casing, and cementing. Operating outside this
safe operating window for even short durations has historically led to costly well complications.
Calculating and monitoring the actual downhole pressure in real time with a downhole-drilling data-
measuring tool is a reliable method; however, real-time data are generally confined to periods of
continuous circulation. In addition, it is not possible to run a conventional downhole-drilling data-
measuring sub with casing strings. If a reliable, predictive, validated model with real-time data is
available, it will help to accurately evaluate transient wellbore pressures at an early stage of the
well-planning phase. It also offers a viable tool for providing accurate data, not only in the planning phase
but also to better define the operating limits for both drilling and casing operations.

Transient Wellbore Problems

Managed-pressure drilling (MPD) is aimed at overcoming drilling problems by using surface pressure to
maintain downhole pressure within the drilling margin, which prevents the flow of formation fluids into
the wellbore (by keeping the wellbore pressure, Pw, above the pore pressure, Ppore) and, at the same time,
prevents drilling fluid from entering the formation (by keeping the wellbore pressure, Pw, below the
fracture pressure, Pfrac). MPD operations use the RCD that seals the annular pressure and the choke
manifold to create a closed-loop fluid system, wherein sealing or releasing annular pressure at the surface
controls downhole pressure in the wellbore. By creating only a minimal overbalanced annular pressure,
MPD allows for reduced fluid loss and reservoir influx.
The obvious answer to this disagreement was that the steady-state model was not compensating for the
reservoir fluid influx and the transient response at the sandface. For example, as shown in Fig. 1, the
wellbore pressures can drop below the pore pressure and/or go above the fracture pressure for a short
period of time, which may result in fluid influx or fluid loss. It can also be noted that the wellbore pressure
can increase when pumping and tripping out. Even though the majority of floating vessels incorporate
various means of heave compensation, motion compensation is seldom used in non-drilling tasks. In rough
seas, the surge pressure from the heave could theoretically exceed the fracture pressures in narrow-
pressure environments. For MPD to maintain a constant bottomhole pressure under these circumstances,
a hydraulic model with advanced modeling that includes the elasticity of the pipe, wellbore, fluid inertia,
and thermal effects is required. :
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 3

Figure 1—Surge and Swab Pressures.

Model Formulation
The model performs wellbore pressure calculations caused by pipe movement inside the wellbore based
on an analysis of fluid flow and pipe motion. The elasticity model solves the full balance of mass and
momentum for pipe and annulus flow, considering the compressibility of the fluids, the elasticity of the
system, and the dynamic motions of pipes and fluids. Also considered are surge pressures related to
fluid-column length below the moving pipe, compressibility of the formation, and axial elasticity of the
moving string. Fluid properties are adjusted to reflect the effects of pressure and temperature on the fluids.
The calculations are divided into two regions: the interval from the surface to the end of the pipe and
the interval from the end of the pipe to bottomhole. In the upper region, pipe pressures are coupled to
annulus pressures through the radial elasticity of the pipe. The details of the models are given in detail in
the referenced material (Lubinski et al. 1977, Manohar et al. 1983, and Mitchell 1988).
The traditional steady-state model tends to neglect the compressibility of the drilling mud, fluid influx,
and the elasticity of the pipe and wellbore. This will result in constant fluid velocity inside and outside
the pipe in the sections of the same cross-sectional area. The model considers the compressibility of the
mud and fluid influx. The bulk modulus of fluid, the reciprocal of compressibility, which varies as a
function of pressure and temperature, is given as:
(1)

Where,
v ⫽ velocity
␳ ⫽ density
A ⫽ cross sectional area
E ⫽ Young’s modulus
x ⫽ length
t ⫽ time
Methods, such as the Bergeron method, finite-element method (Galerkin procedure), or interpolated
method of characteristics, may be used to solve for the fluid flow and pipe dynamics of the pipe-annulus
and pipe-to-bottomhole regions described above. For a fixed time step, this method requires that the
algebraic equations be solved only once. For each additional time step, the equations only need to be
evaluated. The maximum time step allowed is the minimum grid spacing divided by the sonic velocity.
4 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

For a drillstring near bottomhole, the minimum grid spacing is the distance off bottom. To avoid very
small time-step sizes for surges near bottomhole, a ⬙near-bottomhole⬙ element is defined for this special
case that neglects inertia. The fluid-flow and pipe-velocity equations are solved subject to the boundary
conditions given above. For non-linear boundary conditions, the equations are solved using the Newtonian
and non-Newtonian models. The calculation uses the hole section, fluid, well path, workstring, and other
parameters, such as acceleration/deceleration of the pipe and pipe speed.
The characteristic equation is given as:
(2)

The sonic velocity is given as:

(3)

Where, C is the wellbore fluid compressibility. Because the mud is mixed with gas, the sonic velocity
in the mixture changes; thus, the calculation is modified using the sonic velocity in the mixture as follows:
(4)

Where,
(5)

Eq. 4 can then be modified to include the expansion of the pipe, as shown by Eq. 6.
(6)

Where, the mixture compressibility can be expressed using the gas volume fraction:
(7)

Influx Model
The influx from the reservoir into the wellbore during tripping conditions is much easier than during well
testing or the production period, as the wellbore storage and type of flow are not affected. The current
model is based on a modified Darcy’s equation and can be performed simultaneously from multiple zones,
which provides a reasonable approximation of the fluid influx rate. The influx model is described below.
The assumptions are:
● Slightly compressible fluid
● Well is parallel to top and bottom of the formation
● Top and bottom of the formation are sealed
● Pressure in the drainage volume before the well is produced is uniform
● Permeabilities in the x, y, and z directions are different
● Porosity is constant
The dimensionless time is given as:
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 5

(8)

When td is greater than 10, then the influx volume and flow rate are given as:
(9)

(10)

For other dimensionless times, the volume is:

(11)

Where,
(12)

(13)

The flow rate can be calculated by:

(14)

Where,
(15)

(16)

Where,
V ⫽ influx volume (m3)
Q ⫽ flow rate (m3/s)
td ⫽ dimensionless time factor (none)
k ⫽ permeability (m2)
t ⫽ time (sec), one time step is 5 (sec)
␾ ⫽ porosity (none)
␮ ⫽ gas viscosity (N·s·m2)
⌬P ⫽ pressure difference between annulus fluid and formation (N/m2)
h ⫽ height of penetration into formation (m)
c ⫽ gas compressibility (m2/N)
Rw ⫽ annulus radius (m)

Equivalent Influx Rate

During the time when the well becomes underbalanced for a short period of time and the flow rate taking
place at the sandface is unknown, there is no method for measuring the sandface flow rate during the
influx. In regular reservoir engineering applications, the principle of superposition, or Horner’s approx-
imation, is used. This approach is not applicable for the case under consideration because the flow rate
6 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

of the formation fluid taking place at the sandface during fluid influx is unknown. Using the total inflow
time (tp) and using Darcy’s equation as explained earlier, it is possible to arrive at an estimate of the flow
rate that has taken place. To accomplish this, the concept of equivalent flow rate and equivalent flow time
(Miska et al. 1992) is used as a first approximation and are as follows:
● Equivalent Flow Rate: The equivalent flow rate is defined as the flow rate equal to the average
flow rate times a coefficient.
● Equivalent Flow Time: The equivalent flow time is defined as the flow time equal to the inflow
period times a coefficient.
Mathematically, these are expressed by:
(17)

(18)

Where, coefficients, R and S, are functions of time.

The dimensional pressure drop is given as (true solution):

(19)

Using the equivalent flow rate and equivalent flow time, Eq. 19 can also be written as (approximate
solution):
(20)

The coefficients, R and S, must be calculated so that the true solution and the approximate solution with
the coefficients are satisfied with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The coefficient, S, is first found by
minimizing the relative error between the true and the approximate equations and can be expressed
mathematically as:
(21)

Where, rid is the radius of investigation.

With the value of the coefficient, S, known, the coefficient, R, is calculated by minimizing the absolute
error between the two solutions, which is given by:
(22)

For various tDt, coefficients and relative errors between exact and approximate solutions are calculated.
The coefficients are further reduced to one set of coefficient equations, as shown below.
(23)

(24)

At tDt ⫽ 0, the values of R and S reduce to 1.35 and 0.83, respectively, and can be used for all
calculations without loss of accuracy.
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 7

Extensive simulations were carried out in arriving at the above coefficients by minimizing the relative
and absolute error between the true and approximate solutions of the pressure response. For practical
applications, the following values are recommended: Rh⫽1.35 and Sh⫽0.83.

MPD System
The model has the option to use the velocity profile or trapezoid velocity profile, as shown in Fig. 2, so
that the calculation can be done either during the planning stage or a real-time operation. For simulation
purposes, the trapezoidal pipe velocity, as shown in Fig. 2, has been used.

Figure 2—Tripping-Out Velocity Profile.

The velocities are given as:

(25)

(26)

(27)

It is adjusted for the length of the stand as follows:

(28)

MPD System
The MPD system calculates a desired surface set-point pressure using a controllably adjustable flow-
control apparatus that results in a predetermined downhole pressure at a predetermined location in the well
during the operation (Fig. 1). In this example system, the MPD system controls the annular pressure
according to the following equation:
(29)
8 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

Where, Ps is the surface/wellhead pressure (WHP), Pb is the desired downhole pressure (DDP), Ph is
the hydrostatic pressure at the control point, Pf is the fluid circulating friction pressure at the control point,
and Ps/s is the surge/swab pressures at the control point.
The described MPD system includes a hydraulics model that calculates the hydrostatic pressures of the
fluid based, at least in part, on fluid compressibility, real-time rheology, and thermal effects of the
wellbore. Further hydraulics model inputs include geometry inputs, such as survey data, casing/hole-
section lengths, pipe outer diameter (OD)/inner diameter (ID) measurements and sections, and tempera-
ture profiles. These parameters may be manually entered into the model. Such a hydraulics model takes
into account changes in the drilling fluid (e.g., cuttings loading and fluid compressibility) as it transits the
flow system in the wellbore. Multiple volumes of drilling fluid, each with different properties, are capable
of transiting through the system at any time. The hydraulics model tracks each volume and uses the
density and rheological properties associated with each fluid volume to calculate the pressure drops
associated with each volume of fluid as it progress through the closed-flow system. Pressure drops of the
system may comprise pressure losses associated with the surface equipment, drillstring, bottomhole
assembly (BHA), logging-while-drilling/measuring-while-drilling (LWD/MWD) tools, hole reamers, drill
bit, and annulus. The sum of the pressure losses provides a calculated standpipe pressure. The hydraulics
model generates a pressure profile in the well annulus that may be compared to the pore pressure and
fracture pressure at desired locations along the well.
In this paper, the hydraulics model calculates surge/swab pressures based, at least in part, on a form
of Hershel-Bulkley’s surge/swab calculations to control the bottomhole pressures. Drillstring tripping
causes additional pressure variations in the borehole. Movement of the drillstring when pulling out of the
borehole will cause pressures from the drilling fluid on the bottom of the hole to decrease as a result of
friction between the movement of the pipe and the drilling fluid. This is referred to as swab pressure
(Pswab). Conversely, movement of the drillstring from running in the borehole will cause the pressure to
increase. This is referred to as surge pressure (Psurge). Pswab and Psurge friction pressures impact the
displacement of fluid caused by drillstring movement (piston effect) in a fluid-filled borehole. High surge
and swab pressures may lead to lost circulation or the influx of formation fluid, resulting in undesirable
well-control challenges.
The MPD system further includes an elasticity model that compensates for pressure variations owing
to drillpipe movement by incorporating a torque-and-drag model to calculate the elasticity of the
drillstring. Pipe movement is not homogeneous or in a steady state owing to factors, such as wellbore
tortuosity. This is due to the elasticity of the pipe, fluid, and mechanical force coupling. Thus, the velocity
at the pipe end is not necessarily equal to the velocity imposed at the surface, with portions of the pipe
that accelerate and decelerate at different speeds. Further, pipe in the drillstring may be in tension and
compression at the same time.
The calculated wellhead pressure (WHP) set-point pressure in the MPD system is then transmitted from
the hydraulics model and the elasticity model to the controller module. The controller module directs the
actuator to adjust the adjustable choke to achieve a wellhead pressure approximately equal to the
calculated set-point pressure. As indicated above, the calculated set-point pressure imparts a surface
pressure on the annulus such that it results in the desired downhole pressure DDP at a predetermined
location along the annulus. As indicated above, the DDP comprises a predetermined pressure in a range
that is less than the fracture pressure and greater than, or equal to, the pore pressure of the surrounding
formation, F. Determining set-point pressures for MPD choke systems allows for drilling through and
completing complex pore and fracture pressure regimes, improved drilling efficiency owing to reduced
drilling risk, and avoids the installation of multiple, expensive casing strings in the wellbore.
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 9

Figure 3—MPD Set Point for ECD Adjustment.

Case Study
Fig. 4 shows the effect of the pipe’s pulling speed. The equivalent mud weight (EMW) at the previous
shoe as the pipe is pulled out (TO) and tripped in (TI) at various speed is shown. As expected, the the
reduction and increase in bottomhole pressure can be observed, but with the same magnitude at various
speeds. This is based on the analysis without any influx or loss during the operations. The static mud
density is also shown to be 15 ppg. A roadmap can be constructed for various rheological properties so
that a margin can be estiablished for adjusting the choke when tripping out as well as tripping in.
10 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

Figure 4 —Pipe Pulling Velocity vs. EMW at Shoe.

Fig. 5 illustrates the effect of the pipe’s pulling speed with and without gas influx. It also compares the
tripping of one stand against the tripping out under transient influx, with constant influx throughout. It can
be seen that the equivalent mud weight (EMW) at the bttom of the wellbore changes with and without
influx when the pipe is tripped out (TO) at various speeds. It can also be seen that when no influx is
considerred, the higher and lower bottomhole pressures expected are higher than than the EMW when
there is influx (contant and transient). This will result in a lower fracture-pressure margin and higher
pore-pressure margin. The adjustment of the choke at the surface may result in underestimating the
bottomhole pressure when there is gas influx, which will result in it being out of sync with the actual
bottomhole pressure and surface choke adjustment, thus leading to additional influx of formation fluid
than anticipated. In addition, it can be seen that when the influx is assumed to be constant at various
speeds, the estimation of the bottomhole pressurre is lower with reference to fracture pressure and higher
against the pore pressure. This may result in more influx estimation as opposed to the transient influx
calculation, which may be a concern while tripping out in a narrow pore and frac window. It must be
observed that the low side and high side are not mirror images, as compared to the chart, when calculated
at the shoe depth. This is atrributed to the sloshing and inertial effect of the fluid. The same behavior is
observed when gas is present in the fluid.
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 11

Figure 5—Pipe Pulling Velocity vs. EMW at the Bottom of the Wellbore.

Fig. 6 shows the transient effect with transient influx as the pipe is pulled out at a constant speed of
60 fpm in the horizontal section. It can be seen that the bottomhole pressure begins to decrease as a result
of the gas influx. Even though it is very small, the next stand, when pulled out, will result in an additional
drop in the bottomhole pressure, which will result in a cumulative effective. Therefore, the adjustment of
the surface choke has to vary as the stands are pulled out so that the drop in bottomhole pressure does not
result in a cumulative efffect. A similar signature is observed during the acceleration and deceleration
phase, but with an increased damping effect owing to the increased influx of gas. Fig. 6 also shows the
static mud density with and without influx. It can be noted that as the pulling speed increases, the the
equivalent mud density at the bottom increases as compared to the static mud density. However, the
margin of increase during the formation fluid influx is lower than the condition without influx.

Figure 6 —EMW at Different Depths.

12 IADC/SPE-178881-MS

Fig. 7 shows the transient effect when the pipe is moved at various speeds and illustrates the period
where the wellbore may go underbalanced. Even though it may be a short period of time, there may be
a small fluid influx from the formation, which may result in a change in the compressibility, downhole
pressure, and transmission of wave velocity in the mud-formation fluid composition. Various influencing
factors, such as acceleration, deceleration, friction force, inertia, elastic force of the fluid, and composite
system, as well as sloshing change as the pipe is pulled out at different speeds.

Figure 7—EMW for Various Pipe Speeds.

Summary and Conclusions

● The model described in this paper provides accurate predictions of both transient pressures at
various depths when there is fluid influx during MPD operations. The model will be of value
during both the planning and operational phases.
● The new model provides the capability to adjust the choke pressures more accurately by taking into
consideration the fluid influx and, thereby, a proper account of the pipe elasticity and fluid inertia
under mixed conditions. The optimization of operating parameters, such as the influx amount and
running speed, should be carried out to further improve modeling in extended-reach wells.
● The effect of the downhole pressures owing to mixed fluids under fluid influx results not only in
lower wellbore pressures at the bottom of the well but also at the shoe. Using the model without
influx will result in overestimating the bottomhole pressure, which will result in a lower choke
pressure. This will lead to a higher downhole pressure than needed, which may result in fracturing
the formation while drilling in a narrow window of pore and frac margins.
● Even though the wellbore pressure may be underbalanced for a short period of time while moving
the pipe, the result will be cumulative and will ultimately result in the loss of the well.
IADC/SPE-178881-MS 13

● Choke adjustment is important and must be estimated correctly as the pipe is being pulled out
when formation fluid influx is observed.
● Conversely, the loss of fluid can also be detrimental to the wellbore under MPD conditions.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Halliburton for the opportunity to present this paper.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cPx 1.0* E– 03 ⫽ Pa.s
ft x 3.048* E– 03 ⫽ m
in. x 2.54* E⫹00 ⫽ cm
lbf x 9.869 233 E– 00 ⫽ N
md x 6.894 757 E– 04 ⫽ ␮m2
psi x 6.894 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPa
Conversion factors exact

References
Lal, M. 1983. Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe Trip Velocities. Paper SPE 11412 presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 20 –23 February.
Lubinski, A., Hsu, F.H., and Nolte, K.G. 1977. Transient Pressure Surges Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well. Oil &
Gas Science and Technology, 32(3): 307–348.
Luo, F. and Miska, S. 1989. Study of Inflow and Pressure Buildup Behavior During Intentionally Under Balanced
Wellbore Conditions.
Mason, C.J., Allen, F.M., Ramirez, A.A., Wolfson, L., and Tapper, R. 1999. Casing Running Milestones for Extended-
Reach Wells. Paper SPE/IADC 52842 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
9 –11 March.
Miska, S., Luo, F., and Perini, S. 1992. Analysis of inflow and pressure build up under impending blow out conditions.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transaction of the ASME, 114:46 –53.
Miska, S.G. Samuel, R., and, J.J., A. 1998. Modeling of Pressure Buildup in A Kicking Well and Its Practical Application.
SPEDC, 13(04).
Mitchell, R.F. 1988. Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions. SPEDE, 3(03).
Samuel, G.R., Bajwa, F., Franklin, M., and LeBlanc, J. 2002. Model Accurately Predicts Intermediate Casing-Run Surge
Pressure in Marlin SS-1 Well. Oil & Gas Journal.
Samuel, G.R., McColpin, G., and Bern, P. 2001. Dynamic Swab-Surge Model: Validation/Field Examples. World Oil.
Samuel, R. 2007. Downhole Drilling Tools – Theory and Practice for Engineers and Students. Gulf Publishing Company.
Samuel, R. 2014. Horizontal Drilling Engineering – Theory, Methods and Applications. SigmaQuadrant Publishers.
Samuel, R. and Lovorn, R. 2015. Elastic Pipe Control and Compensation for Managed Pressure Drilling Under Sea Wave
Heave Conditions. Paper SPE/IADC 173005 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, London, England, UK,
17–19 March.
Samuel, R., Sunthankar, A., McColpin, G., Bern, P., and Flynn, T. 2003. Field Validation of Transient Swab/Surge
Response with Real-Time Downhole Pressure Data. SPEDC, 18(04).
Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W. 1949. The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs. Trans. AIDE, 186: 305–324.
Wagner, R.R., Halal, A.S., and Goodman, M.A. 1993. Surge Field Tests Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response. Paper SPE
25771 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 22–25 February.