Well Control Manual PDF

Drilling and Production Operations Ref: INDEX
WELL CONTROL MANUAL Issue: Feb 2000
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
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Page 1 of 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2
1.1 PURPOSE........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE ....................................................................................... 2
1.3 OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 REVIEW AND COMMENT ............................................................................... 2
1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................... 4
1.6 OVERVIEW OF WELL CONTROL INCIDENTS .............................................. 4

1.6.1 Costs and Losses Incurred During a Blowout ............................................. 4
1.6.2 Blowout Risk – A Historical Perspective ..................................................... 4
1.6.3 Importance of Planning Prior to a Blowout.................................................. 8
INTRODUCTION Page 2 of 10
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.
1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE

This manual has been designed as an aid for all personnel throughout Repsol’s
worldwide operations. Due to the diversity of these operations, this manual aims to
convey the underlying principles and generic procedures applicable to all situations.
Although it cannot address all the well control problems which may arise but it is
intended to give all personnel conducting operations a sound basis from which to
begin. Once the individual has a firm grasp of these well control principles and
guidelines, they can be applied to any oilfield operation.
1.3 OWNERSHIP
The custodian of this Repsol manual is the Head of Drilling Engineering in Madrid.
1.4 REVIEW AND COMMENT

All suggestions for revision to this manual should be addressed to the Head of Drilling
Engineering in Madrid. The proposal should include the exact changes suggested, a
justification for the changes and the details of the person making the suggestion.
Incorporation of authorised revisions to the manual will be co-ordinated by Repsol in
Madrid who will also instigate regular formal reviews of the manual using internal and
external expertise.
Repsol Madrid will administer the relevant documentation including:
Processing of amendment suggestions
Revision of the relevant sections
Maintaining a record of amendments
Preparation of revised copies of the manual
Figure 1.1 - Consequences of Mismanaged Well Control Operations –

South Texas Blowout 1997
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.
1.6 OVERVIEW OF WELL CONTROL INCIDENTS
1.6.1 Costs and Losses Incurred During a Blowout

The cost of control or the losses associated with fires and explosions in production
operations are difficult to document as this information is not freely distributed, nor is it
generally in the public domain: however, the data shown herein has been compiled
from the insurance industry, in particular from the Willis Adviser™ which is a portfolio of
electronic services from Willis and Corroon.
In order to fully appreciate the costs involved with a blowout, we have compiled a list of
the most costly incidents per year for the past 20 years. Table 1.1 provides us with a
general idea of losses associated with each incident as well as location.
1.6.2 Blowout Risk – A Historical Perspective

In trying to quantify the risk we run in exploration and production operations, we may
consider the following main risk factors:
Geographical location
Type of operation: development or exploratory drilling or producing
Type drilling rig
Well depth
We will quantify the risk in number of occurrences per well drilled, thereby
incorporating rig activity into our results. This then provides us with a percentage,
which represents the risk we run each time we spud or produce a well. This then is far
more tangible than probabilities, which are expressed by orders of magnitude.
A previous study of blowout data over the period 1961 to 1990 for the Gulf of Mexico
shows that, in recent years, drilling blowout occurrence was probable while a blowout
for production was less likely. These results apply only to the Gulf of Mexico. However,
a similar study which made use of the ‘Veritec’ database yielded the same results for
the North Sea.
The present study of the data also shows that it is far more likely to experience a
blowout while drilling. To be more precise, our results indicate that 85% of all blowouts
for the period ranging from 1979 to 1999 occurred during drilling (as opposed to
production and completion or workover operations). Of these drilling blowouts almost
half occurred during transitional operations such as tripping.
Table 1.1 - Highest Cost Incurred by Year
LOCATION YEAR COST (USD)

North America, Gulf of Mexico 1979 $ 36,517,161
Africa, Angola 1981 $ 93,575,000
Far East, India 1982 $ 83,703,736
North America, Canada 1984 $ 206,300,000
North America, Bay of Campeche 1986 $ 62,654,774
North America, Alaska 1987 $ 201,711,000
South America, Brazil 1988 $ 325,000,000
Europe, Norway 1989 $ 255,000,000
Far East, India 1990 $ 40,850,000
Far East, Pakistan 1991 $ 31,707,000
North America, USA 1992 $ 34,906,000
Africa, Angola 1993 $ 83,500,000
Far East, Malaysia 1994 $ 18,070,259
Middle East, Syria 1995 $ 43,000,000
Far East, India 1999 $ 71,000,000
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.
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.
Table 1.2 - Blowout Specifics for 1979 to 1999
Region Status of Well

North America 75.75% Drilling 84.91%
South America 5.25% Producing 10.00%
Middle East 1.68% Completion 1.70%
Far East 9.05% Workover 3.39%
Africa 3.69%
Europe 4.13% Type of Blowout
Eastern Europe 0.45% Underground blowout
Yes 60.08%
Environment No 39.92%
Land 56.31%
Offshore 43.69% Depth in ft at Which Loss Occurred
0 to 4999 8.17%
Type of Well 5000 to 9999 22.91%
Water 0.84% 10,000 to 14,999 42.45%
Oil 12.63% 15,000 to 19,999 22.56%
Gas 72.21% 20,000 to 24,999 3.91%
Oil and Gas 14.32%
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.
Figure 1.2 - Ratio of Blowouts to Number of Rigs (in percent)

and Number of Blowouts
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.
1.6.3 Importance of Planning Prior to a Blowout

No matter how well conceived a drilling or production plan is for the prevention of loss
of control of oil and gas wells, there will always be the chance that a blowout will occur.
The question then becomes when and how severe. An emergency preparedness plan,
hereafter referred to as the blowout contingency plan (BCP), should be prepared prior
to drilling or producing of wells with the potential to blowout.
To be efficient and effective in controlling a major blowout, much planning is required.
The control project is very much like being in a major battle as it often requires massive
efforts and must be accomplished on a fast-track basis. In some cases, there is little
time to enact the plan before opportunities are lost, and even less time to create
the plan.
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.
The successful planning and execution of a complicated intervention operation requires

the careful co-ordination of several specialised technical disciplines. The development
of a strategy is an iterative process and may require the evaluation of several
alternatives, with risks analysed and appropriate trade-offs made, before an agreement
is reached and accepted by the Operator, partners, underwriters, and regulatory
authorities.
These decisions carry multimillion dollar consequences and the responsible persons
will feel much more confident of the chosen direction if a remedial contingency
plan has been prepared beforehand. Putting these risks into perspective, a viable
contingency plan makes sound business sense. Section 12 discusses these plans
in detail.
SECTION 2 GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 1 of 41

FLUID HYDROSTATICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. GAS BEHAVIOUR AND FLUID HYDROSTATICS ................................................ 3
2.1 PHASE BEHAVIOUR....................................................................................... 3
2.2 GAS LAW PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 6

2.2.1 Ideal Gases ................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Real Gases................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2.1 Spreadsheet Approach for z Factor Determination................................... 13
2.2.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 15
2.3 HYDROSTATICS PRINCIPLES ..................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Gases ....................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Equivalent Density.................................................................................... 19
2.4 GAS MIGRATION .......................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Cause and Effect ...................................................................................... 20
2.4.2 Factors Affecting Slip Velocity .................................................................. 23
2.5 GAS SOLUBILITY ......................................................................................... 24

2.5.1 Solubility Limits and Bubblepoint Pressure ............................................... 24
2.5.2 Solution Volume Factors........................................................................... 29
2.5.3 Oil Mud Recommendations ...................................................................... 32
2.6 THE U-TUBE CONCEPT ............................................................................... 33
2.7 THE DOUBLE BARRIER CONCEPT............................................................. 34

2.7.1 Double Barriers for Drilling Operations ..................................................... 35
2.7.2 Double Barriers for Production Operations ............................................... 35
2.7.3 Double Barriers for Workover Operations................................................. 35
2.7.4 Failure of Secondary Barrier ..................................................................... 35
2.7.4.1 Casing Wear............................................................................................ 35
2.7.4.2 External Casing Corrosion ....................................................................... 36
2.7.4.3 Unable to Close Kelly Cock Valve............................................................ 36
2.7.4.4 Brine and Workover BOPs....................................................................... 36
GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 2 of 41
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.7.4.5 Use of Kelly Hose as Secondary Barrier .................................................. 36

2.7.4.6 Leaks Through Gas Lift Check Valves ..................................................... 36
2.7.5 Summary .................................................................................................. 37
2.8 NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................... 37

FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2. GAS BEHAVIOUR AND FLUID HYDROSTATICS

The nature of gas and how a gas behaves in response to changing wellbore conditions
is the underlying basis for all pressure control techniques. One feature common to all
of the methods for handling an influx is that efforts are directed to maintaining a
relatively constant bottom hole pressure throughout the control procedure. An influx of
formation fluid into a wellbore may be in the form of gas, liquid, or any combination
thereof. Applied correctly, each of the control techniques will succeed regardless of the
influx attributes.
Some early clues indicating the type of influx are discussed in Section 5; however, the
only time the presence of a gas influx can be eliminated from consideration is after the
physical properties of the formation fluids have been ascertained at the surface.
Hence, all well control procedures are designed to move gas up a wellbore while
maintaining the desired bottom hole pressure. To accomplish this task, these
approaches must account for the compressible nature of gas and allow gas, if present,
to expand during the well control operation.
2.1 PHASE BEHAVIOUR

The ability to predict hydrocarbon phase behaviour is essential in reservoir engineering
and other petroleum-related disciplines. Phase behaviour principles are perhaps less
important for those who design and drill wells. Even so, Drilling Engineers and those
who supervise drilling operations should have some fundamental understanding of how
reservoir fluids may react to changing wellbore conditions during a well control event.
Accurate predictions require knowledge or at least a reasonable estimation of the
hydrocarbon composition along with the pressure and temperature. Generally, the
composition of an influx is unknown and the temperature at any point in a well is not
easily calculated. However, the capacity to accurately predict well fluid behaviour is
less important than understanding that influx phase changes can and do occur in the
process of killing a well.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Figure 2.1 - Phase Diagram for a Pure Substance
Pc
Tc
Figure 2.1 portrays a typical pressure-temperature phase diagram for a pure

substance. The line separating the gas phase from the liquid phase is defined as the
vapour pressure curve while the separation between liquid and solid is the melting
point curve. For the temperatures encountered in a wellbore, our primary interest is in
that portion of the diagram, which depicts the gas and liquid phases. For a pure
substance, the critical temperature (Tc) at point ‘C’ defines that temperature, above
which only gas can exist while the critical pressure (Pc), defines that pressure above
which liquid and gas cannot co-exist. Critical constants and molecular weights of
various natural gas constituents are given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 - Physical Properties of Natural Gas Constituents
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
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.
Figure 2.2 - 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.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.2 GAS LAW PRINCIPLES
2.2.1 Ideal Gases

An equation of state (EOS) of a fluid describes the pressure-volume-temperature (PVT)
relationships of that fluid. One of the most basic equations used to describe the
behaviour of gases is known as Boyle’s Law. Simply stated, given a gas at constant
temperature, the volume of a quantity of gas is inversely proportional to its pressure.
P1 V1 = P2 V2 = constant (2.1)
where, P and V are the pressure and volume of the gas conditions 1 and 2.
The direct proportionality between the temperature and volume of a given quantity of
gas was subsequently discovered and is known as Charles’ Law.
V1 V2
constant (2.2)
T1 T2
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.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Table 2.2 - Universal Gas Constant Values
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
The application of ideal gas concept is demonstrated in the following problem.

Example 2.1
A 20-barrel gas influx has entered a well at a bottom hole pressure of 3500psia.
1. Determine the corresponding volume of this same influx when it exits the well.
Assume that the atmospheric pressure at the well location is 14.4psia and no
change in the gas temperature.
2. Recalculate the volume at atmospheric conditions assuming an initial gas
temperature of 150°F and a surface temperature of 65°F.
Solution
1. Using Boyle’s Law:
V2 = (3500psia) (20bbl)/14.4psia = 4861bbl
2. For the second case:
V2 = (3500psia) (20bbl) (525°R)/(14.4psia) (610°R) = 4183bbl
The density of a gas ( or any other material is mass (m) per unit volume (V), or:
= m/V
and as stated earlier, when M is the molecular weight of the material:
n = m/M
therefore, substituting for m:
= nM/V (2.7)
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.2.2 Real Gases

Early investigators noted that gas behaved in an ideal fashion only under a limited
range of pressure and temperature conditions. Compressibility factors or z factors were
introduced to account for non-ideal behaviour. This adjustment leads to an adjustment
for non-ideal or real gases. Therefore, from Equation 2.5 we have:
PV=znRT (2.12)
Likewise, real gas adjustments for Equations 2.6, 2.8 and 2.10 follow as:
P1V1 P2 V2
(2.13)
Z1T1 Z2T2
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)
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Figure 2.3 - Pseudo-critical Properties of Natural Gases

as a Function of Gas Gravity
800 800
Pseudo-critical Temperature (Rankine), Tpc

Ppc
700 700
Pseudo-critical Pressure (psi), Ppc

600 600
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
Gas Specific Gravity (air = 1)
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
0.4 1.10 0.4

1.05
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 11 of 41
Pseudo-reduced Pressure (Pr)
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
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1.9 1.9
1.8 1.8
1.05
1.7 1.10 1.7

1.20
Compressibility factor (z)
Compressibility factor (z)
(continuation of Figure 2.4)
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.
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.
2.2.2.1 Spreadsheet Approach for z Factor Determination

If a computer is available the z factor may be calculated by combining Suttons
approach for pseudo-critical pressure and temperature determination along with
Dranchuk’s iterative z factor algorithm.
Ppc = 756.8 – 131 g – 3.6 g
2
(c 2.01)
Tpc = 169.2 + 349.5 g – 74 g
2
(c 2.02)
Invoking Dranchuk’s equations for compressibility factor we have Equations c 2.03 and
c 2.04 where:
r = 0.27 Ppr/(z Tpr) (c 2.03)
z = 1 + (A1 + A2/Tpr + A3/Tpr + A4/Tpr + A5/Tpr ) r + (A6 + A7/Tpr +A8/Tpr ) r – A9
3 4 5 2 2
(A7/Tpr + A8/Tpr ) r + A10 (1+ A11 r ) (r / Tpr ) exp (-A11 r )

2 5 2 2 3 2
(c 2.04)
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
The compressibility factor is calculated from Equation c 2.04

3 4 5
z = 1 + (0.3265 + -1.0700/1.732 + -0.5339/1.732 + 0.01569/1.732 + -0.05165/1.732 )
2 2
x 0.806 + (0.5475 + -0.7361/1.732 + 0.1844/1.732 ) x 0.806 – 0.1056 (-0.7361/1.732 +
2 5 2 2 3
0.1844/1.732 ) x 0.806 + 0.6134 [(1 + 0.7210 x 0.806 ) (0.806 /1.732 ) exp (-0.7210 x
2
0.806 )] = 0.8958
For the next iteration we use Equation c 2.03 whereby:
r2 = [0.27 (5.170)]/[(0.8958) (1.732)] = 0.904
and
3 4 5
z2 = 1 + (0.3265 + -1.0700/1.732 + -0.5339/1.732 + 0.01569/1.732 + -0.05165/1.732 )
2 2
x 0.904+ (0.5475 + -0.7361/1.732 +0.1844/1.732 ) x 0.904 – 0.1056 (-0.7361/1.732 +
2 5 2 2 3
0.1844/1.732 ) x 0.904 + 0.6134 [(1+ 0.7210 x 0.904 ) (0.904 / 1.732 ) exp (-0.7210 x
2
0.904 )] = 0.8998
Continuing the process we have:
r3 = 0.8997 z3 = 0.8999
As the values for the compressibility factor are converging towards 0.8999 we may
once again substitute 80.275 for R in Equation 2.15, hence the gas density in lb/gal is
obtained from Equation 2.20:
g = (0.6) (3500)/[2.77 (0.899) (610)] = 1.38 lb/gal
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.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.3 HYDROSTATICS PRINCIPLES

An understanding of hydrostatics is basic to all well control procedures and
calculations. A review of the fundamentals is therefore in order. The hydrostatic
pressure of a wellbore fluid column is a function of the fluid density and well depth.
Both liquids and gases will be considered, the difference between the two being the
degree of fluid compressibility. A basic assumption underlying most derivations is that
liquids, water or drilling fluid for example are essentially incompressible. This
simplification works pretty well for most liquids, though the compressibility of some
muds should be considered at times.
For an incompressible fluid at rest a constant may be derived by considering the
vertical forces acting upon the fluid element. This constant relates fluid density to
3 3
hydrostatic pressure at depth. Taking a hypothetical fluid of density 1 lb/ft in a 1ft
2
container, the fluid exerts a force on 1in of the container bottom equivalent to:
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
gradient gf in psi/ft in density units of lb/gal, gf determined by:

gf (psi/ft) = 0.00694f (lb/ft )
3
(2.21)
3 3
or multiplying (lb/ft ) by 7.48 (ft /gal)
gf (psi/ft) = 0.0519psi (lb/gal) (2.21a)
An alternative form of Equation 2.21 when expressed in SI metric values is
shown below:
gf (Pa/m) = 0.0098f (kg/m )
3
(2.22)
It follows that the hydrostatic pressure at any depth (D) may determined by:
P = gf D = f D/19.25 (2.23)
Likewise, Equation 2.23 expressed in SI metric values becomes:
P = gf D = f D/102.0 (2.23a)
The well depth associated with all hydrostatic pressure calculations is the well’s true
vertical depth (TVD), which is defined as the vertical distance from the kelly bushing
(KB) datum plane to the point of interest in the wellbore. Another term, the measured
depth (MD), is the length of the drilled hole from the KB datum.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
The hydrostatic pressure deriving from a stacked column of wellbore fluids is

determined in an additive fashion:
P = gf1 L1 +…+ gfn Ln (2.24)
where the subscripts denote the respective hydrostatic gradient and vertical length of
each fluid.
Finally, applying some pressure Po on top of a static fluid column will result in a
wellbore pressure at any depth given by:
P = Po + gf1 L1 +…+ gfn Ln (2.25)
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.
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
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Po after the second iteration is 6165psia. Repeating the process:

(7473 + 6165)/2
Ppr = = 10.16
671
and the average z factor is now 1.140
((0.6) (12,000)/(53.3) (1.140) (620))
7473 = Poe
or Po is 6173psia and no further iterations are necessary.
2.3.2 Equivalent Density

A useful concept in well control and any situations involving dissimilar wellbore fluid or
applied surface pressures is the notion of equivalent density. The equivalent density e
or, in perhaps a more common term, the equivalent mud weight (EMW) at any point in
a well is the wellbore fluid density that is transmitted to the hole. Given a wellbore
pressure resulting from any combination of applied and hydrostatic or dynamic
pressures, e may be expressed in the form of Equation 2.27:
e = 19.25 P/D (2.27)
Example 2.7
Taking the hypothetical well from the prior examples, determine the equivalent density
at both total depth and at 6000ft. Assume the average temperature from surface to
6000ft is 120°F for the case where the hole is filled with gas.
Solution
The bottom hole pressure in Example 2.5 was calculated to be 7473psia. The
equivalent density at total depth is:
e = 19.25 (7473)/12,000 = 12 lb/gal
The pressure at 6000ft results from the mud hydrostatic pressure plus the surface
pressure:
P6000 = 500 + 11.5/19.25 (6000) = 4084psia
The equivalent density at this depth is then:
e6,000 = 19.25 (4084)/6000 = 13.1 lb/gal
An important point made by this example is the dependence of e on the depth at which
the determination is made. Also note that e increases at shallower depths in the
presence of applied pressure if the wellbore fluid density remains fairly constant.
This is demonstrated in the second shut-in condition where we see that, since the
pressures are the same, the equivalent densities are the same for both cases at total
depth. Up the hole, however e will increase substantially.
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.
2.4 GAS MIGRATION

Gas, by virtue of its lower density with respect to the drilling fluid medium, will tend to
migrate upward in a well. Failure to expect and manage this fact may lead to excessive
wellbore pressures, possibly to the point that subsurface or surface control of the well
is lost.
2.4.1 Cause and Effect

Assuming a three-stage response whereby Stage 1 is the condition immediately after
the well has been shut in upon experiencing a gas influx, Stage 2 is the condition when
the influx reaches bubblepoint pressure and Stage 3 is the condition when the influx
reaches surface. As the idealised single-phase bubble has some initial volume V1 and
is at some pressure P1, and if the wellbore remains sealed and if any temperature
changes are ignored, the bubble volume is fixed as migration of the gas bubble occurs.
Therefore, the gas law tells us that the bubble pressure at Stages 2 and 3 will be the
same as at Stage 1.
P1 = P2 = P3
From Equation 2.25, the constant gas pressure combined with the drilling fluid
hydrostatic pressure will drive up the surface pressure Pcs, and the pressure at every
point in the well as migration occurs. The potential magnitude of the wellbore pressures
associated with uncontrolled gas migration is demonstrated in Example 2.8.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
To determine the bottom hole pressure, first calculate g at surface conditions.

g = (0.7) (2831)/[ 2.77 (0.705) (530)] = 1.91 lb/gal
The bottom hole pressure Pbh is:
Pbh = 2831 + (1.91/19.25) (350) + (9.6/19.25) (8,650) = 7179psia
e = (19.25) (7179)/9,000 = 15.4 lb/gal
Controlling gas migration simply means reducing the gas pressure as it rises in a well
by allowing the bubble to expand. Though our discussion thus far has been focused on
migration through a static borehole, the same concepts apply if gas is circulated or
displaced from a well. Any displaced gas must be allowed to expand if constant bottom
hole pressures are to be maintained.
Having some estimate as to how fast gas is migrating through a static mud column is
generally important, as it may impact subsequent control decisions. It follows from a
simplified hydrostatics model that the rise in casing pressure reflects the drilling fluid
hydrostatic pressure across the incremental hole section through which the gas has
travelled. Including the time element, the gas migration velocity can then be estimated
using Equation 2.28.
(Pcs2 – Pcs1) (psi)

sl = gm (psi/ft) (t2 –t1) (hr) (2.28)
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.
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.
2.4.2 Factors Affecting Slip Velocity

Gas bubble slip behaviour has been categorised according to bubble size, or the size
of the gas void fraction. Whereby the void fraction as the ratio or percentage of the gas
cross-sectional area to the total flow area. Larger bubbles, generally those that occupy
a void fraction of 25% or more, assume a bullet nose shape and migrate upwards
along the high side of the hole (assuming a non-vertical well) with concurrent liquid
backflow, down the opposing side. These so-called Taylor bubbles are influenced by
the pipe or hole boundaries and will rise faster in liquid than smaller gas bubbles.
It appears that the Taylor bubble slip velocity is limited only by the backflow
requirement. Smaller bubbles are not influenced by the boundaries and are more
dispersed in the drilling fluid medium. A bubble distribution transition from small,
dispersed bubbles to larger Taylor bubbles was noted to begin at a void fraction of
about 12%.
Recent investigations in the migration of large Taylor bubbles and the factors, which
affect bubble, slip velocity have concluded that the primary factors promoting faster slip
velocities were hole geometry, mud viscosity, circulation rate, and hole inclination.
Of all the factors, increasing the annular clearance (hole diameter relative to pipe
diameter) was determined to be the most important. Hole inclination was also
significant. Other conclusions drawn from this study were that gas will rise faster
relative to the liquid at higher liquid velocities and that thinner muds will increase slip
velocity. Variations in the density difference between the fluids had no significant effect
on the migration velocity as long as the gas density remained small in comparison to
the liquid.
One finding common to all of these investigations is that gas migrates up through a
static or moving column of water or mud much faster than once believed. These
experimental results have been verified by a wealth of field measurements. Rather than
assuming gas migration occurs at 1000ft/hr or less, one should expect migration rates
to exceed 2000ft/hr and possibly to attain levels of 6000ft/hr or higher.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.5 GAS SOLUBILITY

An assumption in most well control problems is that an influx does not react to any
degree with the drilling fluid and that the PVT properties of the formation fluid at
wellbore conditions correspond to its surface properties. In other words, EOS
predictions at any point in a well may be made based on the initial influx volume as
measured by volume gained in the surface pits. This statement, however, does not
hold true if the influx is gas and if the gas is dissolved to any degree in the drilling fluid.
Gas will dissolve to some extent in any drilling fluid, although solubility may be
disregarded with a water-based mud. Oil-based muds, however, are a different matter.
The problems associated with oil base muds in well control all derive from the fact that
gas readily dissolves in oil base drilling fluids. Assuming otherwise can lead to
confusion, misapplied techniques, and potential disaster. An Operator drilling with a
diesel or mineral oil mud system must therefore be equipped with a thorough
understanding of how gas behaves in these fluids.
2.5.1 Solubility Limits and Bubblepoint Pressure

The solubility of a gas/liquid mixture is generally expressed in customary oilfield units
as the amount of free gas in scf/bbl which can go into liquid solution at a given
temperature and pressure. The solubility of gas in liquids is a function of the gas and
liquid composition, the pressure, and the temperature. Generally, solubility will increase
as pressure increases, as temperature decreases, and as the molecular similarity
between the gas and liquid compositions increases. Closely related to solubility is the
concept of bubblepoint pressure, defined as the pressure at which the first bubble of
free gas breaks out of solution with a given solution gas/liquid ratio at a given
temperature. Recalling the mixture phase diagram given in Figure 2.2, the bubblepoint
pressures are indicated along the 100% liquid line to the left of the critical point ‘C’.
From the phase diagram, free gas cannot coexist with the liquid at pressures in excess
of the bubblepoint pressure.
A typical hydrocarbon solution gas/oil ratio (GOR) curve shows that starting at
atmospheric pressure, the available solution GOR increases with increasing pressure
until the bubblepoint pressure is achieved. Gas and liquid coexist in this region
however; at bubblepoint pressure as well as higher pressures the gas solubility is
essentially infinite as only the liquid phase is present.
It has been mentioned that solubility of two substances, such as gas and oil should
increase, as the properties of the two become similar. This has been demonstrated in
the numerous studies, which are cited throughout the literature. It is also important to
point out that CO2 is also highly soluble in Mentor 28 and other drilling fluid base oils.
Further, gas will not dissolve as readily in a typical oil mud as it will in the base oil
alone. A typical invert emulsion mud will be comprised of some solids volume fraction
plus brine water, emulsifiers, and other additives. Therefore the gas solubility in any
mud system can be estimated by summing the solubilities of each component’s volume
fraction. Hence, disregarding mud solids:
Rsm = fvo Rso + fvw Rsw + fve Rse + fva Rsa (2.29)
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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.
Table 2.3 - Constants for Estimation of Rso and Rsa
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
c = 0.3576 + 1.168g + (0.0027 – 0.00492g)T (4.51 x 10 – 8.198 x 10 – g)T (2.32)

-8 –6 2
for hydrocarbon gases dissolved in oil and:

c = 0.40 + 1.65g – 1.01g
2
(2.33)
for hydrocarbon gases dissolved in the emulsifier. These relationships do not apply
across the entire pressure spectrum and should only be used for pressures less than
half of the mixture critical pressure.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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
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.
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.
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.
2.5.2 Solution Volume Factors

Material balance principles apply when mixing two insoluble substances. That is, the
final mixture volume is simply the sum of the two independent volumes. This is not the
case when the first substance is wholly or partially dissolved in the second.
For solutions, the final mixture volume is less than the sum of the two separate
component volumes.
The definitive indication of an influx in a well is a pit gain, or increase in the surface
drilling fluid volume resulting from mud being displaced by the influx. The influx volume
at bottom hole conditions is therefore the observed gain if the formation fluid does not
go into solution. If a gas entry is soluble, however, the resulting gain will be smaller and
a major implication to well control is that the influx may be much harder to detect.
Investigators have experimentally determined solution volumes resulting from
dissolving methane in No 2 diesel oil at a constant temperature of 100°F. Referring to
their data in Table 2.4, the solution gas/oil ratio Rso gives the standard cubic feet of
dissolved methane per barrel of diesel. The pressure at which the individual
measurements were taken is listed in the second column. The measured volume factor
Bo shown in the last column is defined as the ratio of the diesel volume at wellbore
conditions, including any dissolved gas, to the stock tank volume. The PVT properties
of the diesel are indicated in the gas-free volume factors. Note that at atmospheric
pressure, diesel expands at 100°F to yield a 1.005 volume factor while diesel
compressibility controls the factor at higher pressures.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Table 2.4 - Volume Factors for Methane Rso and Rsa
VOLUME FACTORS FOR METHANE DISSOLVED IN No 2 DIESEL AT 100°F

Rso (scf/bbl) P (psia) Rso (bbl/STB)
0 14.7 1.005
0 3320 0.993
0 3775 0.991
0 4705 0.987
0 4940 0.986
234 1225 1.070
234 1585 1.060
234 2205 1.053
259 1475 1.069
259 2125 1.054
259 2690 1.049
259 3365 1.045
467 2545 1.137
467 2625 1.127
467 3710 1.117
695 3825 1.197
695 4120 1.191
695 4660 1.186
695 5305 1.182
895 4075 1.254
895 4265 1.243
895 4490 1.233
895 5070 1.225
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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
Rso (scf/bbl) P (psia) Bog – Bong (bbl/STB) Rso (bbl/bbl)

234 1225 0.0672 0.485
234 1585 0.0600 0.364
234 2205 0.0552 0.256
259 1475 0.0686 0.438
259 2125 0.0560 0.294
259 2690 0.0532 0.231
259 3365 0.0520 0.190
467 2545 0.1407 0.440
467 2625 0.1310 0.426
467 3710 0.1257 0.318
695 3825 0.2062 0.461
695 4120 0.2015 0.435
695 4660 0.1989 0.400
695 5305 0.1976 0.366
821 4075 0.2643 0.520
821 4265 0.2543 0.499
821 4490 0.2453 0.487
821 5070 0.2396 0.441
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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.
2.5.3 Oil Mud Recommendations

Gas wells can be drilled safely with oil-based drilling fluids, as the solubility
characteristics of these muds lead to some distinct advantages in well control.
However, certain precautions should be taken with respect to minimising operational
risks when using oil muds.
Placing some minimum on the allowed amount of drilled gas in an annulus has become
policy for some Operators in areas which exhibit extremely fast penetration rates.
In other words, a limit is placed on the number of sand drilling breaks in a well, before
drilling ceases and the well is circulated bottoms up.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.6 THE U-TUBE CONCEPT

Figure 2.6 illustrates the ‘U-tube Concept’, in Part A on the left side of the figure we are
given a wellbore profile which, in turn, is represented in Part B by a U-tube equivalent.
The first vertical section of the tube represents the drillpipe section and the other
represents the annular section. The drillpipe side of the U-tube and the annular side of
the U-tube are connected at the bottom. This then represents the bottom of the hole.
Therefore, we may assume that the sum of all pressures in the drillpipe is proportional
to the bottom hole pressure, which in turn is proportional to the pressures in the
annulus. Equating we have:
Pdp = Pbh (2.35)
Pbh = Pann (2.36)
therefore:
Pdp = Pann (2.37)
Since the two sides of the U-tube are connected at the bottom, any pressure, which we
add on one side, will be reflected on the other. For instance, if we take a kick
(as shown in the shaded region) and shut in the well in order to circulate the influx out,
the increase in annular pressure due to gas expansion as well as the increase in
frictional pressure (as we are circulating through the choke line which has a smaller
diameter), will increase the amount of back-pressure, which is reflected onto the
bottom of the hole. This excess pressure will then be apparent in the drillpipe as we will
see a proportional increase in drillpipe pressure.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Figure 2.6 - U-tube Representation of a Well

(Adapted from Applied Drilling Engineering, Bourgoyne et al)
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 THE DOUBLE BARRIER CONCEPT

It is a well-known fact that the use of redundant barriers is required for all drilling,
producing and work-over operations. This well control concept requires that a
secondary barrier be available to contain well pressure and flow if the primary barrier
fails. Normally, drilling mud is the primary barrier and the blowout preventers (BOPs)
are the secondary barrier. In workovers, the primary barrier may be the kill fluid but this
may not be the case if the fluid is a clear brine without any particles that can prevent
lost circulation. When working over a well with clear brine without any zonal isolation
materials it is easy to get gas at surface from rapid gas migration. This can make a
surface valve and BOP the primary barrier on workovers. One must look at the entire
well system and make sure you have two or more barriers in all locations (ex drillpipe,
production tubing/casing). Barriers should be reviewed in particular when critical
operations are underway. Operations like BOP removal, wellhead installation, tree
removal, introducing wireline, coiled tubing or snubbing pipe are good examples.
A detailed analysis of all barriers, in all locations at all times during drilling, stimulation,
completion, workover and production is known as a HAZOP (Hazard Operability) or
HAZID (Hazard Identification) analysis. This type of analysis may be necessary for
critical wells.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
A down hole safety valve (SCSSSV) in a completion cannot be considered to be a

barrier as it is only a backup if surface barriers are compromised.
Listed below are pertinent examples of double barriers.
2.7.1 Double Barriers for Drilling Operations

Blowout preventers:
Annular and pipe ram
Mud hydrostatic and BOP
Drillpipe:
Mud hydrostatic and kelly cock valve
Wellbore:
Mud hydrostatic and casing
2.7.2 Double Barriers for Production Operations

Lower and upper master valves
Tubing and casing
2.7.3 Double Barriers for Workover Operations

Mud hydrostatic and BOP
Annular and pipe ram
2.7.4 Failure of Secondary Barrier

Failure or lack of a secondary pressure barrier is a common cause of blowouts, eg an
exploration well recently blew out while circulating an influx out of the well. The
techniques used to circulate the formation gas to surface were adequate, however,
9-5/8in protective casing failed due to excessive casing wear. Common occurrences of
secondary barriers failures, which have lead to blowouts, are as follows:
2.7.4.1 Casing Wear

Casing is typically designed to safely contain pressures due to influx migration
however; excessive rotational wear by the drillstring may render the casing inadequate
and in turn lead to failure. Therefore, casing wear should be monitored in order to
assure the integrity of the casing. Several steps may be taken in order to identify
excessive casing wear these include; monitoring wear by mud loggers, placement of
magnets in shaker tanks to measure the amount of steel recovered daily and the use of
calliper logs.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
2.7.4.2 External Casing Corrosion

It is assumed that if production tubing fails the production casing will contain the
excess pressure. However, if the casing corrodes over time a failure of the secondary
barrier will occur thereby allowing the reservoir fluids to flow underground or to breech
the surface.
It is often both difficult and costly to diagnose this potential risk, as the production
tubing may have to be pulled from the well in order to ascertain its integrity.
Fortunately, it is safe to assume that the integrity of the production casing is not in
jeopardy unless uncemented intervals of the casing are adjacent to permeable
saltwater zones.
2.7.4.3 Unable to Close Kelly Cock Valve

Kelly cock valves are secondary barriers only if the primary barrier fails as a leak.
These ball valves cannot be closed in a hard flow. Gate valves should replace kelly
cock vales in applications where primary barrier fails with a hard flow. Kelly cock valve
stem can also fail when exposed to external pressures higher than internal pressure.
There is a single o-ring that seals this stem. This O-ring is generally seated to handle
higher internal pressures. Sudden exposure to higher external pressures when
stripping an open valve into a pressured well has lead to failures.
2.7.4.4 Brine and Workover BOPs

Typical workover BOPs on land rigs consist of a single pipe ram and blind ram. If well
is killed with brine and well does not stay full, a double barrier does not exist. Gas can
migrate rapidly through brine. Filtration losses with clear brine can mask well flow.
If fluid level is down, kick entry and subsequent rapid migration can go unrecognised.
There may not be time to close the secondary barrier when kick suddenly expands at
surface. Blowouts that start as leaks in workover BOPs have occurred. Lack of testing,
maintenance and incorrect bolting practices are common causes. Is there a bolt in
every hole and does it have proper torque?
2.7.4.5 Use of Kelly Hose as Secondary Barrier

Kelly hoses are not designed to handle gas. Many blowouts have occurred when gas is
kicked into the kelly hose. Likewise, leaks in the swivel, standpipe and mudline are
common with gas pressure and hose burst or pop-off valve release also start blowouts.
Therefore, gas should never be allowed in this part of the mud system and upper/lower
kelly cock valves should be used. If drillpipe kicks and the kelly cock valve is closed,
never open this valve with the kelly hose exposed to unknown pressure. Use hard pipe
to high-pressure pump.
2.7.4.6 Leaks Through Gas Lift Check Valves

Gas lift valves in production tubing strings can compromise the effectiveness of
subsurface safety valves. The check valves in the gas lift valves (GLVs) are prone to
leaks. As an example, most of the sustained well fires seen at the Piper Alpha platform
were fed by leaks through the gas lift valves.
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
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)
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)
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
Tr = reduced temperature (dimensionless)

Tpr = pseudo-reduced temperature (dimensionless)
t = time (hr)
3
V = volume (ft or bbl)
sl = gas slip or migration velocity (ft/hr)
z = gas compressibility factor (dimensionless)
zf = final compressibility factor (dimensionless)
zi = initial compressibility factor (dimensionless)
g = gas specific gravity (dimensionless)
= formation porosity (dimensionless)
= density (lb/gal)
e = equivalent density (lb/gal)
f = fluid density (lb/gal)
g = gas density (lb/gal)
m = mud density (lb/gal)
= Sum
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
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
FLUID HYDROSTATICS
SI Metric Conversion Factors

3
bbl × 1.589 873*E-01 = m
ft × 3.048*E-01 = m
3 3
ft × 2.831 685*E-02 = m
°F (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
3
gal × 3.785 412*E-03 = m
in × 2.54*E+00 = cm
lb × 4.535 924*E-01 = kg
3 3
lb/ft × 1.601 846*E+01 = kg/m
3
lb/gal × 1.198 204*E+02 = kg/m
psi × 6.894 757*E+00 = kPa
psi/ft × 2.262 059*E+01 = kPa/m
* Conversion factor is exact.
SECTION 3 PREPARATION Page 1 of 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. PREPARATION ..................................................................................................... 2
3.1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ........................................................ 2

3.1.1 Organisation and Responsibilities............................................................... 2
3.1.1.1 Initial Notification Procedures..................................................................... 2
3.1.1.2 Response Team Personnel........................................................................ 3
3.1.1.3 Emergency Response Procedures............................................................. 4
3.1.2 Incident Command System......................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Evaluation of Event..................................................................................... 4
3.1.4 Incident Classification Levels...................................................................... 7
3.1.5 Establishing and Securing the Safe Zone ................................................... 9
3.1.5.1 Manpower Organisation ........................................................................... 12
3.1.5.2 Individual Responsibilities ........................................................................ 12
3.1.5.3 Communication........................................................................................ 13
3.2 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS ............................................................. 15

3.2.1 Casing and Surface Equipment ................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Casing Seat Selection and Well Planning................................................. 15
3.2.2.1 Kick Tolerance ......................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Special Operations ................................................................................... 21
3.2.3.1 Leak-off Testing ....................................................................................... 21
3.2.3.2 Running a Drill Stem Test......................................................................... 22
3.2.4 Drills and Slow Circulating Rates (SCRs) ................................................. 22
3.2.4.1 Drills ........................................................................................................ 22
3.2.4.2 Slow Circulating Rates (SCRs) and Choke Line Losses........................... 29
3.2.5 Chemical Stocks and Pit Management ..................................................... 34
3.2.5.1 Chemical Stocks ...................................................................................... 34
3.2.5.2 Pit Management....................................................................................... 35
3.2.5.3 Building Mud Weight ................................................................................ 36
3.2.5.4 Dealing with Gas at Surface..................................................................... 37
3.2.5.5 Design of Atmospheric, Open-bottom Mud Gas Separators..................... 41
PREPARATION Page 2 of 43
3. PREPARATION
3.1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Emergency Management System should include methodologies to safely and
effectively manage, respond to, and recover from a well control emergency and
should also:
1. Minimise primary well control escalation.
2. Safeguard human life if primary well control is lost.
3. Professionally control the personal safety of those directly involved with the well
control operations and ensure that control efforts are efficiently and effectively
conducted.
4. Commence with actions, which will ensure that the extent of damage to the rig,
surface facilities and location are minimised.
5. Form source control unit(s) under the incident command system (ICS) to efficiently
and effectively respond to, and bring the well(s) under control.
6. Document planning steps to evaluate the most appropriate method for controlling
the well.
7. Document basic procedures and equipment requirements for surface and relief
well control techniques.
8. Ensure that all taking part in the emergency are fully aware and familiar with the
tasks they have been assigned and are adequately trained to accomplish their
respective assignments.
9. Minimise logistics and source control problems associated with the region.
10. Document critical equipment and services located in the region to minimise
mobilisation time in an emergency.
3.1.1 Organisation and Responsibilities
3.1.1.1 Initial Notification Procedures

When a well control event occurs, initial notification of the event must be made by the
incident commander (Operations Supervisor on location) to the Drilling Manager in the
Drilling Operations Group. In addition, the Incident Commander must notify Command
Staff who in turn notify the appropriate Regional Vice President.
The Drilling Operations Group is responsible for notifying the well control command
management team and implementing the Emergency Response Plan.
3.1.1.2 Response Team Personnel

As a major well control problem will require the involvement of a multidisciplinary group
of personnel, it may be practical, given certain circumstances, to include other
individuals to the following list. However, most incidents will only require that the
following personnel be a part of the Response Team.
1. Drilling Manager in place at incident scene as Deputy Incident Commander.
Operations Superintendent at incident scene as Source Control Unit Leader.
Operations Supervisor at incident scene as night relief Source Control Unit Leader.
2. Safety Co-ordinator appointed at incident scene (Toolpusher supported by
rig crew).
3. Four (4) Operation Supervisors assigned to Source Control Unit Leader, 2 day and
2 night.
4. Blowout Control Specialists at incident site.
5. Blowout engineering advisor at incident site.
6. Pollution Control Unit Leader appointed.
7. One (1) Drilling Engineer assigned to Planning Section.
8. Two (2) extra personnel assigned to Logistics Section.
9. Blowout Engineering Advisor.
10. Operations Manager assumes role of Incident Response Manager.
11. Alternate Operations Superintendent and Engineering Supervisor engage in
support of relief well planning.
12. Blowout Advisor is to advise on relief well.
13. Hydraulic Kill Specialist to perform relief well and surface kill hydraulics.
14. Two (2) Drilling Engineers to support Surface Source Control.
15. Two (2) Drilling Engineers to support Relief Well Source Control.
16. One (1) Drilling Engineer to assist with contingency (alternate) planning.
17. One (1) Drilling Engineer assigned to logistics and Crisis Centre contact.
18. Directional Drilling Contractor, 1 Engineer to liaise on relief well.
19. Pumping and Cement Contractor, 1 Engineer to liaise on relief well and surface kill.
20. Technical support: Reservoir Engineering, Geology, Geophysics, Log Analysis.
3.1.1.3 Emergency Response Procedures

It is important to clearly establish the priorities of emergency response well ahead of a
potential event. The focus should certainly be problem solving and should be well
established by region and location. It is therefore recommended that the following
Sections be reviewed prior to an emergency.
3.1.2 Incident Command System (ICS)

The ICS is the system by which the Emergency Management and Response
Organisation is structured. It combines facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures and
communications operating within a common Organisation to respond to a blowout
and/or oil spill.
3.1.3 Evaluation of Event

The following should be considered in event evaluation:
1. Can leak be plugged? Junk shots. Junk shot manifolds. Pump-in line installation.
2. Can flow be diverted? Additional diverter lines. Re-routed to allow rig removal.
Diverter line erosion. Diverted to production, flare, pit, etc. Separation – gas, brine,
oil, mud, sand. Disposal of fluids.
3. Can pipe be dropped or ejected and then shut in and divert flow on a drillpipe
blowout? Is drillpipe in the way of sealing with blind ram, shear attempted
unsuccessfully on tool joint or in collars. Is diverted flow by open hole closure on
annular possible? Will it drop or eject? Where will it drop (top of pipe in open hole is
difficult to fish)? Is ignition during pipe ejection likely?
4. Can BOPs be repaired in place while well flows? Open doors and replace rams
(easier on Cameron Type ‘U’). Diversion and leak fixing at reduced pressures.
5. Can flow be capped above rig floor (drillpipe flow)? Flow above rig floor out
drillpipe, tubing or riser. Requires no shear ram or shear ram failure.
6. Must rig be removed for control (BOP or Wellhead replacement)? Requires removal
of existing equipment. Requires re-routing diverter lines. Requires skidding rig.
7. Is voluntary ignition required? Is safety a problem? Is pollution control manageable?
Can rig be pulled off first? What are collateral damage concerns (offset wells,
production facilities)?
8. What is the accidental ignition hazard? Ignition caused by water deluge possible.
Ignition by static electricity. Ignition near workers. Blast hazard. Ignition from other
sources (power lines, batteries).
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.
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?
3.1.4 Incident Classification Levels

Well control incidents may be classified by the following system, which includes three
hierarchical levels of urgency whereby: Level 1 incidents are handled by drilling
resources, Level 2 incidents require additional assistance and Level 3 incidents require
the assistance of specialists. Table 3.1 categorises these incidents.
Table 3.1 - Incident Classification Levels
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
– Surface blowout (fire or no fire)

– Underground blowout (broached or not)
– Shearing pipe with gas/oil under shear rams
Figure 3.1 - Incident Classification Flowchart
Well Control Incident
Emergency Oper.
Evaluate Incident
and Initiate Company Rep.
Response Level
Drilling Superint.
Response
Level
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Incidents Incidents Incidents
Handled by Drilling Requires Support

Resources Requires Operations from Specialist
Support from
Off Site
Well Kick Catastrophic Spill
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
Small Gas/Oil Leak

@ BOPs or Flanges
3.1.5 Establishing and Securing the Safe Zone

Determination of the ‘Hot Zone’ is generally the first step in establishing the
‘Safe Zone’. The information contained in Figure 3.2 as well as Table 3.2 should be
adhered to.
Figure 3.2 - Hot Zone Identification
Hot Zone Identification
Evacuate Personnel
Develop Site Safety

Plan
> 1/4 LEL at near
surface location
Approach well from
upwind location,
Surface pooling of
Determine Hot Zone
Hydrocarbons, gas
Boundary
bubbling or water
Stop at Hot Zone vapor fogs
Levels
Approach Well from >10 ppm H2S
Two Man Teams
other possible access
w/SCBAs,other
routes
protection gear, > 3 Kw/M2 heat
meters, radios etc. loading
Set Hot Zone

boundary away from
hard indicators
(i.e. >1/4 LEL)
Restrict Access to Hot

Zone at at all Control
Points
Upwind
0 LEL
Designate a Safe Area < 5 ppm H2S
< 85 db sound level
< 1.6 Kw/M2
Designate a Warm
Two Access Points
Zone Corridoor
between Hot Zone and
Safe Area
Mark and Distribute

Hot and Safe Zone
Areas on Emergency
Response Maps
Continuously Monitor
Boundary Conditions
Table 3.2 - The Hot Zone Identification Checklist
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.
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’.
3.1.5.1 Manpower Organisation

A well control contingency plan should include the allocation of individual
responsibilities. This section is intended to provide a guideline for the allocation of
individual responsibilities during a well control incident.
The contingency plan should be drawn up in conjunction with the drilling contractor and
should be regularly reassessed. Well control drills provide an opportunity to assess the
effectiveness of the contingency plan and to identify and clarify any inadequacies.
3.1.5.2 Individual Responsibilities

The well control contingency plan must allocate the responsibilities of all concerned in
the operation. Rigsite circumstances may dictate that these responsibilities be modified
in the event of an incident. However, the following can be used as guidelines for the
allocation of responsibilities in the event of a well control incident.
3.1.5.2.1 Drilling Supervisor

Organises a pre-kill meeting for all those involved in the supervision of the well
control operation. This should be done once the well has been shut in and is being
correctly monitored
Provides specific well control procedures, using the contingency plan as a guideline
Monitors and supervises the implementation of these procedures
Is present on the rig floor at 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
Maintains communication with the Operations base
Assumes complete control of the work required in order to regain control of the well
Assigns the responsibility of keeping a diary of events
3.1.5.2.2 Drilling Engineer

Provides technical backup to the Drilling Supervisor
Maintains a diary of the event
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
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
3.1.5.2.5 Mud Engineer

Continuously monitors the mud system and the conditioning of the mud
Note: It may be prudent to send an extra Mud Engineer to the rig in the event of a well
control incident to ensure constant supervision of the mud system.
3.1.5.2.6 Cementing Engineer

Ensures that the cement unit is ready for operation at any time
Operates the cement unit at the discretion of the Drilling Supervisor
3.1.5.2.7 Subsea Engineer (where appropriate)

Remains available for consultation at all times during the well control operation
Checks all the BOP equipment during the operation
3.1.5.2.8 Mud Logging Engineers

Continuously monitor the circulating system during the well control operation
Ensure that mud-logging crew member maintains a diary of events
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.
Objectives of a suitable system of communication:

All information relevant to the well control operation is communicated to the Drilling
Supervisor
Everyone involved in the supervision of the operation is at all times in
communication with the Drilling Supervisor
Everyone involved in the operation is aware of the line and method of
communication that he or she must use
Communication equipment on the rig is adequate and is used during the well
control operation in the most effective manner possible
The following are essential:
After the kick is taken, the well is shut in and closely monitored
The Drilling Supervisor calls a pre-kill meeting of those involved in the supervision
of the operation
Supervisors attending the pre-kill meeting allocate responsibilities to those involved
in the operation
Each line and method of communication is defined
Using lines and methods of communication effectively
Ensure the rig telephone system is not overloaded
Use hand-held radios to maintain the most important lines of communication to and
from the Drilling Supervisor (denoted by those inside the broken line)
The use of intrinsically safe hand-held radios ensures that all those inside the
broken line can listen to each other’s communication
Depending on the type of operation, it may be necessary to include others within
the broken line in order to improve the operation
3.2 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
3.2.1 Casing and Surface Equipment

Although there are numerous differences, subtleties and considerations which should
be addressed, our primary concern is the avoidance of well control problems. It is
therefore recommended that Section 11 be thoroughly reviewed as it contains a
thorough discussion of requirements and specifications.
3.2.2 Casing Seat Selection and Well Planning

Failures in the design of the structural string and wellhead equipment have proven to
be very expensive and a conservative design approach is thus encouraged. Sound
engineering principles should be used when determining the worst case for design
purposes. Furthermore, appropriate safety factors should be included considering the
risks and uncertainties in the worst-case design assumptions.
3.2.2.1 Kick Tolerance

Kick tolerance is a measure of the kick volume that can be safely shut in and circulated
out of the well.
It is now an accepted part of the casing design process to determine the casing setting
depth by the Limited Kick Method. It is now therefore particularly important that the kick
tolerance in critical hole sections be accurately monitored.
This section explains how to calculate kick tolerance and when to calculate kick
tolerance.
In general, for critical hole sections:
Calculate kick tolerance on a regular basis, as the kick tolerance is particularly
sensitive to changes in formation and wellbore characteristics
Ensure access to a computer or calculator that can quickly calculate kick tolerance
Closely monitor not only the actual kick tolerance, but also the predicted kick
tolerance for the hole section. This information can often be used to more safely
drill the well
3.2.2.1.1. How to Calculate Kick Tolerance

The kick tolerance should be calculated:
At initial shut-in conditions
When the kick is displaced to the open hole weak point
In calculating the kick tolerance, the following must be analysed:
The additional pressures caused by displacing the kick from the hole
The maximum allowable pressure at the open hole weak point
Procedure for calculating the kick tolerance while drilling:
1. Estimate the safety margin to be applied to the leak-off pressure at the open hole
weak point. When the influx is displaced from the hole, there will be additional
pressures acting in the wellbore.
The following are possible causes of such additional pressures during circulation:
Annulus friction
Choke Operator error
Choke line losses (if not compensated for)
The total safety margin to be applied to the leak-off pressure will be the sum of
these additional pressures. The maximum allowable static weak point pressure can
therefore be determined. (This is the maximum allowable weak point pressure
before circulation is initiated.)
The Drilling Engineer must use his/her judgement to determine the most
appropriate safety factor to be applied to the leak-off pressure at the open hole
weak point.
2. Calculate the maximum allowable static weak point pressure (Pmax) in psi.
The maximum allowable pressure is given by:
Pmax = Plo – Psm (3.1)
where:
Plo = leak-off pressure at the open hole weak point (psi)
Pmax = maximum allowable weak point pressure (psi)
Psm = safety margin (psi)
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.
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).
3.2.2.1.2 When to Calculate the Kick Tolerance

The kick tolerance of the weakest known point of the hole section being drilled must be
updated continuously while drilling.
If the kick tolerance is less than 100 barrels, the Drilling Superintendent must be
informed. The Drilling Programme should state the influx volumes used during the well
design process. If the actual kick tolerance falls to below these values, then the validity
of the well design must be re-assessed.
If the kick tolerance is less than that required to safely circulate out a kick of 25bbl for
offshore wells (10bbl for land wells), drilling may only continue when written senior
management approval has been given.
Kick tolerance must therefore be constantly re-evaluated as the well is drilled. It is not
sufficient to calculate the kick tolerance solely at the current position in the well. It must
also be calculated for conditions that are predicted to occur further down in the
hole section.
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.
Figure 3.3 - Kick Tolerance Values Through a Zone of Increasing Pore Pressure
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.
3.2.3 Special Operations
3.2.3.1 Leak-off Testing

When a leak-off test is performed, we are attempting to determine the maximum
pressure, which the casing seat will withstand before fracturing. The basic procedure
entails filling all of the lines with mud, shutting in the well and slowly pressuring up on
the drillpipe. Since we assume that the compressibility of mud is constant the pressure
should increase linearly until the formation begins to take fluid or ‘leak off’. When the
pressure curve starts to curve this is the leak pressure. The total pressure being
exerted on the formation is the hydrostatic circulating pressure of the mud plus the
leak-off pressure. We may therefore determine the equivalent mud weight by
Equation 3.6.
eq = [Ps/(0.052 TVDcs)] + m (3.6)
where:
eq = Equivalent Mud Density (lb/gal)
Ps = Surface Pressure (at leak-off) (psi)
TVDcs = Casing Seat Depth (ft)
m = Mud Density (lb/gal)
3.2.3.2 Running a Drill Stem Test

When information about a reservoir in excess of electric logs and core analysis is
required, a drill stem test is sometimes run. The drill stem test (DST) provides a sample
of the reservoir fluids, relative volumes producible (percent oil, gas, or water),
estimates of permeability, formation pressure, and reducibility of the reservoir. The
DST is usually run prior to running and cementing production casing. Since we are
allowing formation fluids into the wellbore and the drillstring great care must be taken to
avoid losing control of the well.
The tool used in running a DST consists of a rubber packer set in the open hole above
the zone to be tested, and a tester valve to control flow of the reservoir fluids into a test
chamber. The tester valve allows pressures to equalise across the packer after the test
is completed.
The basic DST procedure consists of:
1. Running the DST tool into the hole, and setting the open hole packer above the
zone of interest.
2. Opening the tester valve to allow a sample of formation fluid to enter the
test chamber.
3. Closing the tester valve, trapping the fluid sample in the test chamber.
4. Opening the bypass and equalising the pressure across the packer.
5. Pulling out of the hole with the test assembly, and analysing the fluid sample.
3.2.4 Drills and Slow Circulating Rates (SCRs)

Both BOP drills and the recording of slow circulating rate pressures will be carried out
on a routine basis on all rigs.
This section covers the reasons why it is necessary to carry out BOP drills, to regularly
record SCRs, as well as recommended procedures.
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.
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.
3.2.4.1.1 Drill 1: Kick While Tripping

The purpose of this drill is to familiarise the crew with the shut-in procedure that will be
implemented in the event of a kick during a trip. This drill should only be conducted
when the BHA is inside the last casing string.
Before the trip is started, the Standing Orders to the Driller will have been posted.
This will detail the action that the crew should take in the event a kick is detected.
When directed by the Drilling Supervisor, the Toolpusher will instruct the Driller to
assume that a positive flow check has been conducted and to implement the
prescribed control procedure as detailed in the Standing Orders.
Shut-in procedures to be adopted in the event of a kick while tripping are detailed in
Section 6.
Guidelines for Drill 1: Kick While Tripping

Without prior notice, the Drilling Supervisor will start the drill by manually raising the trip
tank float to indicate a rapid pit gain.
The Driller is expected to take the following steps to shut in the well:
1. Stop other operations.
2. Install the drillpipe safety valve.
3. Open the choke line valve.
4. Close the annular preventer.
5. Record the casing and drillpipe pressure.
6. Notify the Drilling Supervisor that the well is shut in.
7. Record the time for the drill on the Drilling Report.
The Toolpusher must ensure that the crews are correctly deployed and that each
individual completely understands his responsibilities.
After the well is shut in, preparations should be made to strip pipe. These
preparations should include lining up the required equipment, assigning individual
responsibilities, and preparing the Stripping Worksheet (see Figure 8.13 Example of
Stripping Worksheet).
3.2.4.1.2 Drill 2: Kick While Drilling

The purpose of this drill is to familiarise the crew with the control procedure that will be
implemented in the event of a kick while drilling.
This drill may be conducted either in open or cased hole. However, if the drill is
conducted when the drillstring is in the open hole, the well will not be shut in.
Guidelines for Drill 2: Kick While Drilling
Without prior notice, the Drilling Supervisor will start the drill by manually raising the
float in the active system to indicate a rapid pit gain.
The Driller is expected to detect the pit gain and take the following steps:
1. Pick up the kelly (or topdrive) until the tool joint clears the BOPs and the kelly cock
is just above the rotary table.
2. Shut down the pumps.
3. Check the well for flow.
4. Report to the Drilling Supervisor.
5. Record the time required for the crew to react and conduct the drill on the IADC
drilling report.
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.
3.2.4.1.3 Drill 3: Diverter Drill

If shallow gas is encountered and the well kicks, blowout conditions may develop very
quickly. It is essential that crew initiate control procedures as soon as possible in the
event of a shallow gas kick. Remember to always run a non-ported drillpipe float when
drilling in shallow gas areas. Sustained shallow gas blowouts occur when gas gets
access route to surface via drillpipe.
Diverter drills should therefore be carried out to minimise the reaction time of the
crews. A further objective of the drill is to check that all diverter equipment is
functioning correctly. The time taken for each diverter function to operate should be
recorded. A drill should be carried out prior to drilling out of the conductor casing.
The procedures that should be implemented in the event of a shallow gas kick are
covered in Section 6. Drills should be designed in line with the specific procedure that
will be adopted in the event of a shallow gas kick.
The Toolpusher must ensure that the drill crew and marine staff (offshore) are correctly
deployed during the drill and that each individual understands his responsibilities.
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.
3.2.4.1.4 Drill 4: Accumulator Drill

The purpose of the Accumulator Drill is to check the operation of the BOP closing
system. The following specific tests are recommended:
A. Accumulator Pre-charge Pressure Test
This test must be conducted on each well prior to spudding and approximately every
30 days thereafter.
On closing units with two or more banks of accumulator bottles, the hydraulic fluid line
to each bank must have a full opening valve to isolate individual banks. The valves
must be in the open position except when accumulators are isolated for testing,
servicing or transporting. The pre-charge test should be conducted as follows:
1. Shut-off all accumulator pumps.
2. Drain the hydraulic fluid from the accumulator system into the closing unit fluid
reservoir.
3. Remove the guard from the valve stem assembly on top of each accumulator bottle.
Attach the charging and gauging assembly to each bottle and check the nitrogen
pre-charge.
4. If the nitrogen pre-charge pressure on any bottle is less than the minimum
acceptable pre-charge pressure listed below, recharge that bottle (with nitrogen gas
only) to achieve the specified desired pre-charge pressure.
Table 3.3 - Pre-charge Pressure
ACCUMULATOR DESIRED MINIMUM MAXIMUM

WORKING DISCHARGE ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
PRESSURE PRESSURE PRE-CHARGE PRE-CHARGE
RATING (psi) PRESSURE PRESSURE
(psi) (psi) (psi)
1500 750 750 850
2000 1000 950 1100
3000 1000 950 1100
B. Accumulator Closing Test

This test should be conducted before BOP stack tests. The test should be conducted
as follows:
1. Position a joint of drillpipe in the BOP stack.
2. Close off the power supply to the accumulator pumps.
3. Record the initial accumulator pressure. The pressure should be the designed
operating pressure of the accumulators. Adjust the regulator to provide 1500psi
operating pressure to the annular preventer.
4. Operate the sequence of functions as relevant to the following rig types.
For a fixed rig with a surface BOP:
Close and open one annular preventer, one pipe ram (sized for the pipe in the stack)
and one hydraulic choke/kill line valve.
For the floating rig with subsea BOP:
Close and open all the well control functions (apart from blind/shear rams). Duplicate
the operation of the blind/shear rams.
5. After each function, record the volume used, the time taken, and the residual
accumulator pressure. After completing all the tests, the residual accumulator
pressure must be at least 200psi greater than the pre-charge pressure.
6. Turn on the accumulator pumps.
7. Having completed the tests, recharge the accumulator system to its designed
operating pressure. Record the time taken to recharge the system.
C. Closing Unit Pump Test

Prior to conducting any tests, the closing unit reservoir should be inspected to be sure
it does not contain any foreign fluid or debris. The closing unit pump capability test
should be conducted before BOP stack tests. This test can be conveniently scheduled
either immediately before or after the accumulator closing time test. The test should be
conducted according to the following procedure:
1. Position a joint of drillpipe in the BOP stack.
2. Isolate the accumulators from the closing unit manifold by closing the required
valves.
3. If the accumulator pumps are powered by air, isolate the rig air system from the
pumps. A separate closing unit air storage tank should be used to power the pumps
during this test. When a dual power (air and electric) source system is used, both
power supplies should be tested separately.
4. Close the annular preventer and open one choke line failsafe valve (or high closing
ratio (HCR) valve). Record the time (in seconds) required for the closing unit pumps
to close the annular preventer plus open the choke line valve and obtain 200psi
above the accumulator pre-charge pressure on the closing unit manifold. It is
recommended that the time required for the closing unit pumps to accomplish these
operations does not exceed 2 minutes.
5. Close the choke line failsafe (or HCR valve) and open the annular preventer.
Open the accumulator system to the closing unit and charge the accumulator
system to its designed operating pressure using the pumps. This should take less
than 2 minutes.
3.2.4.1.5 Drill 5: Well Kill Drill

The objective of this drill is to give drill crews the most realistic type of well control
training along with a feel for the equipment and procedures that they would use to kill
a well.
This drill should be carried out prior to drilling out the intermediate and production
strings. It should never be carried out when open hole sections are exposed.
The following procedure is recommended:
1. Run in hole and tag the top of cement.
2. Pull back one stand and install the kelly (or install topdrive).
3. Break circulation and establish slow circulating rate pressures. (Consider circulating
bottoms up prior to this if the annulus may contain contaminated mud.)
4. Carry out standard BOP drill D2, resulting in the well being shut in.
5. Consider applying low pressure to the casing (typically 200psi) and bring the pump
up to kill speed controlling the drillpipe pressure according to a predetermined
schedule.
It is important that this opportunity to circulate across a choke is used to maximum

effect. A drillpipe pressure schedule should be drawn up and carefully adhered to.
It is important that the choke Operator develops a feel for the lag time between
manipulation of the choke and its subsequent effect on the drillpipe pressure. The lag
time should be recorded, so that it can be used for reference should a kick be taken in
the next hole section.
3.2.4.2 Slow Circulating Rates (SCRs) and Choke Line Losses
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.
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
3.2.4.2.2 Choke Line Losses

The frictional pressure caused by circulating through the choke line while displacing a
kick from the well, can cause additional pressures to act in the wellbore.
These pressures are not significant in the case of land, platform and jack-up rigs, but
can be critical in the case of a floating rig.
In most cases however, if the correct procedures are adhered to, the choke line
frictional pressure should be accounted for as the kick is displaced out of the hole. The
recommended method is to monitor the wellhead pressure through the kill line as the
pump is started. If the wellhead pressure remains constant as the pump is brought up
to speed, then the choke line friction will in most cases be automatically compensated.
It is also possible to account for the choke line losses by reducing the choke pressure
by an amount equal to the choke line loss as the pump is brought up to speed. This
method is not considered to be as reliable as using the kill line monitor.
It is important that the choke line frictional pressure is accurately known at a wide
range of circulating rates. From this information the additional load on the wellbore can
be assessed at a range of displacement.
The following procedure should be implemented in order to properly assess the choke
line frictional pressures at slow circulating rules. This procedure should be carried out
initially when the BOP and riser are installed and before drilling out of each subsequent
casing shoe.
1. Install suitable pressure gauges to record standpipe and choke pressures during
circulation.
2. Record SCR pressure at a range of rates from 0.5 to 4bpm down drillpipe and up
the riser.
3. Open choke line valves.
4. Line up choke manifold to route flow across a fully opened remote operated choke.
Route returned flow through the poor boy gas separator to the shakers.
5. Space out to ensure no tool joint is opposite the annular preventer.
6. Close annular preventer.
7. Circulate down the drillpipe and up through the choke line until returns are uniform.
8. Record SCR pressure at the same rates as before. Record the choke pressure at
each rate.
9. Calculate the choke line frictional pressure at each rate.
Figure 3.5 shows a form that can be used to record the data. The form also shows how
to determine the choke line friction pressure from the recorded data.
CHOKE LINE PRESSURE LOSS DATA SHEET
WELL No: RIG:

DATE:
WELL STATUS DURING TEST:

Figure 3.5 - Choke Line Pressure Loss Data Sheet
PROPERTIES OF THE MUD IN THE HOLE DURING THE TEST: !
RECORDED BY: "

SCR MEASURED CORRECTED CORRECTED CORRECTED
in ___ in SCR PRESSURE CHOKE CHOKE LINE CHOKE LINE CHOKE LINE CHOKE LINE
CIRCULATION LINER LINER PRESSURE UP CHOKE PRESSURE LOSS @ ____ LOSS @ ____ LOSS @ ____ LOSS @ ____
RATE PUMP RATE PUMP RATE UP RISER LINE AT SCR MUD WEIGHT MUD WEIGHT MUD WEIGHT MUD WEIGHT
PREPARATION

!

Page 32 of 43
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.
Figure 3.6 - Determination of Choke Line Losses

3.2.5 Chemical Stocks and Pit Management

Well control contingency plans should outline the manner in which the mud system will
be utilised during standard well control operations.
This section is intended to highlight the major factors that will determine the most
satisfactory arrangement of the mud system under such circumstances.
3.2.5.1 Chemical Stocks
3.2.5.1.1 Barytes and Mud Chemical Stocks

The well control plan should specify the minimum stocks of barytes and mud chemicals
that should be held at the rigsite. The policy states that:
“Sufficient weighting material stocks must be maintained on site such that the entire
mud circulating volume (hole, pits, pipe) can be raised by a minimum of 2.1 lb/gal
(0.25 SG). Reserve stocks of bentonite or a viscosifier must also be on site to enable
this increase in mud weight to be effected.
Where transport and logistics are not assured (offshore and remote locations) the
minimum onsite weighting material stock must be 100 tons.”
This is a minimum standard, and as such, the Drilling Supervisor may wish to stock a
greater quantity of baryte and chemicals.
3.2.5.1.2 Cement Stocks

Cement stocks should not drop below the quantity of cement and additives that will be
required to set 2 x 500ft of cement plugs in the hole section being drilled.
Additionally, in high-pressure wells, an abandonment plug recipe should be onsite prior
to drilling into the reservoir. Batch mix tanks should also be onsite during the drilling of
such reservoir sections.
3.2.5.2 Pit Management

The following guidelines should be considered when specifying pit arrangements:
1. While Drilling a Critical Hole Section
Keep the active mud system surface area as small as is practical to ease kick
detection. Any reserve mud stocks in the tanks should be positively isolated from
the active system. Ensure that the gates on the trough are sealing properly.
Adequate reserve stocks of mud should be held. The volume and weight of these
stocks will be determined by the nature of the next hole section.
Ensure all pit level systems and tank-isolating valves are working correctly before
drilling into possible gas-bearing zones.
Keep all mud treatments and pit transfers to the absolute minimum at critical
sections of the well. Ensure that the Driller and the Mud Logging Engineer are
aware in advance of any changes to the system.
Crew safety meetings should discuss the problem of gas kicks, especially if oil-
based mud is in use, and emphasise the importance of early detection. Mud
engineering and mud logging personnel should attend these meetings.
2. When Displacing a Kick
The major factors that will determine the most satisfactory pit arrangement for
displacing a kick include the following:
The technique that will be used to displace the kick
The usable surface pit volume in relation to the hole volume
The method of weighing up the mud
How to deal with the kick when it is displaced to the surface
How to deal with the pit gain caused by influx expansion during displacement
How to deal with contaminated returns
The nature and toxicity of the influx fluid
The monitoring of pit levels in the active system
The kick can be displaced from the hole using either, the Wait and Weight Method
or the Driller’s Method. The best arrangement of the pits will be different for each
technique and clearly will be rig-specific.
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.
3.2.5.3 Building Mud Weight

1. Baryte Delivery to the Mud Pits
The rate at which baryte can be added to the original mud influences the time
required to increase the weight of a volume of mud. For this reason it is important to
measure the rate at which both the conventional hopper system and the high rate
system (if fitted) can supply baryte.
If the Wait and Weight Method is used, the maximum rate at which baryte can be
supplied to the mud will:
Determine the time required to weight the hole volume of mud before the kick is
displaced or it may limit the rate at which the kick can be displaced, if the mud is
weighted as the kick is displaced
If the Driller’s Method is used, this will determine the time required to build the mud
weight after the kick has been displaced from the hole.
2. Baryte Storage
When possible at least one full barytes storage tank should be pressured up at all
times and the bulk delivery system tested regularly. The bulk system should be
included in the rig preventive maintenance system (PMS).
3. Building Viscosity into the Mud

There may be well control situations, which require that considerable volumes of
weighted mud be built from a water or oil base. This may be the case in the
following situations:
If considerable losses are experienced
If the required volume of kill weight mud is greater than the surface stocks of
active and reserve weighted mud
If the returns are severely contaminated and have to be dumped
The limiting factor for an oil-based mud may be the rate at which viscosity can be
built into the base oil. Building viscosity is usually a less important factor when
water-based muds are used.
Shear equipment is required for building viscosity using clay viscosifiers in new
base oil. Some offshore rigs have jet line mixers to help build viscosity.
In circumstances in which large volumes of new oil mud must be built, it would be
useful to know the rate at which new mud can be sheared to a level at which
barytes can be suspended. This rate is determined by shearing a known volume of
new mud until the minimum viscosity is reached. As a guideline, the minimum
viscosity would be represented by a yield point of 10, and a 10 second gel reading
of 3.
In emergency situations, viscosity can be built quickly using an oil/mud polymer
(Baroid’s LFR 2000 as an example) at 4.0 lb/bbl in conjunction with organophilic
clays. However, it is recognised that these polymers can cause high temperature
gelation of the mud: and as such, they are not recommended for use in high
temperature wells.
4. Volume Increase Due to Baryte Addition
The volume of a given amount of mud will increase as baryte is added to it. This
increase in mud volume may be significant when a large mud weight increase is
required. This can be a large problem with muds that cannot be dumped or stored.
Weighting up oil-based muds can present large problems if there is no storage
space available.
A detailed calculation procedure for Points 1 to 4 may be found in Section 8.1.4.4.
3.2.5.4 Dealing with Gas at Surface

It is important that suitable equipment is available on the rig to deal with the influx once
it is displaced to surface.
Returns should be piped through the mud gas separator and then on to the degasser
for further treatment.
1. The Mud Gas Separator

The mud gas separator should be lined up at all times when a kick is being
displaced. The separator is used to remove large gas bubbles from the mud and to
deal with a flow of gas once the influx is at surface.
There will be a limit to the volume of gas that each separator can safely handle.
When this limit is exceeded, there exists the possibility that gas will blow through
into the shaker header box.
The limiting factor will be the backpressure at the outlet to the vent line in relation to
the hydrostatic head of fluid at the mud outlet of the separator. When the
backpressure due to the gas flow is equal to, or greater than, the hydrostatic head
available at the mud outlet, the gas will blow through to the shaker header tank.
Estimation can be made of the maximum gas flowrate that the separator
can handle.
In order to minimise the possibility of a gas blow-through, the vent line should be as
straight as possible and have a large inner diameter (ID). The mud outlet should be
configured to develop a suitable hydrostatic head (minimum recommended head is
10ft). Figure 3.7 illustrates a minimum separator design.
The backpressure due to the flow of gas should be monitored with a pressure
gauge as shown in Figure 3.7. Some warning of the possibility of a gas blow-
through will be given when the registered pressure approaches the hydrostatic
head of the fluid in the discharge line. It should be noted that the maximum
hydrostatic head available might not be that of the mud in the event that large
volumes of oil or condensate are displaced to surface.
If the safe operating limit of the separator is approached, the choke can be closed
in (while ensuring that the well is not overpressured) or the flow switched to the
overboard line or the burn pit.
Use of oil-based muds (OBMs) requires particular attention to separator design.
Gas kick in OBM does not disperse in annular mud column from gas migration as is
seen in water-based muds (WBMs). Peak gas flowrate is always higher with gas
kicks in OBMs. A separator that has ‘always been good for our needs’ in WBMs is
likely undersised for OBMs. Additional problem is that use of overboard or panic
lines to vent kick are a possible environmental problem in OBMs.
Figure 3.7 - Minimum Capacity Design Mud Gas Separator

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.
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).
3.2.5.5 Design of Atmospheric, Open-bottom Mud Gas Separators

The key parameter in design is the maximum anticipated gas flowrate to which the unit
will be subjected. In order to establish this rate at surface, either Absolute Open Flow
potential or flowrates resulting from kick circulation may be considered. Considering
the latter we must make several simplifying assumptions:
1. The influx is a single bubble.
2. Bottom hole pressure is equivalent to formation pressure plus a 200psi
overbalance.
3. The mud density is constant.
4. The gas density is constant.
5. Temperature and pressure are constant at surface.
6. Circulation pressure loss is insignificant.
7. zs does not change over the short time increment (t) used for mass balance.
8. The influx does not migrate after shut-in.
Based on these assumptions calculation of flowrates may be done in two steps. First,
gas pressure and bubble volume at surface are calculated and secondly the gas
flowrate at standard conditions is calculated.
It has been shown that gas pressure and volume may be calculated using
Equation 3.7.
0.5
Ps = (A/2) + [(A2 /4) + [(Pbh gm zs Ts hbh)/(zbh/Tbh)]] (3.7)
The constant A is defined by Equation 3.8 where:
A = Pbh – (d – X) gm – G (3.8)
As X is the depth of the influx with respect to surface we may assume that X = 0 when
the gas reaches surface.
Once again returning to Boyles’ Law we may state the gas volume at surface as:
Vs = [ (Pbh Ts zs Vbh)/(Ps Tb zbh) ] (3.9)
The second step requires solving the mass balance over a short time increment t, this
leads to the use of Equation 3.10.
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)
Tbh = bottom hole temperature, Rankin
Ts = surface temperature, Rankin
3
Vs = volume of gas at surface conditions (ft )
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 )
SECTION 4 KICK PREVENTION Page 1 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. KICK PREVENTION .............................................................................................. 3
4.1 CORRECT TRIPPING PROCEDURE .............................................................. 3

4.1.1 Prior to Tripping .......................................................................................... 4
4.1.1.1 The Driller .................................................................................................. 7
4.1.1.2 Drill Floor Preparation ................................................................................ 7
4.1.2 Tripping Procedure ..................................................................................... 9
4.1.2.1 Commencing the Trip................................................................................. 9
4.1.3 Special Procedure for Oil-based Muds ..................................................... 10
4.2 MAINTAINING SUITABLE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE .............................. 11

4.2.1 Gas Cutting .............................................................................................. 11
4.2.2 Gas Cutting at Shallow Depths ................................................................. 15
4.2.3 Cuttings Contamination ............................................................................ 16
4.3 CONTROLLING LOST CIRCULATION ......................................................... 18

4.3.1 Causes of Lost Circulation........................................................................ 18
4.3.2 Classification of Lost Circulation............................................................... 19
4.3.2.1 Seepage Losses (0.25 to 10bbl/hr) .......................................................... 19
4.3.2.2 Partial Losses (>10bbl/hr) ........................................................................ 19
4.3.2.3 Total Losses (No Returns) ....................................................................... 19
4.3.3 Identification of Loss Zone........................................................................ 19
4.3.3.1 Unconsolidated Formations ..................................................................... 20
4.3.3.2 Natural Fractures ..................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.3 Induced Fractures .................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.4 Cavernous Formations............................................................................. 20
4.3.3.5 Underground Blowout .............................................................................. 20
4.3.4 Lost Circulation Decision Analysis ............................................................ 21
4.3.4.1 Technique 1 – Pull Up and Wait............................................................... 21
4.3.4.2 Technique 2A – LCM Pill.......................................................................... 21
4.3.4.3 Technique 2B – LCM Pill.......................................................................... 21
4.3.4.4 Technique 3A – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 1 (Diearth, Diaseal M).. 23
4.3.4.5 Technique 3B – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 2 .................................. 23
4.3.4.6 Technique 3C – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 3 .................................. 23
KICK PREVENTION Page 2 of 32
4.3.4.7 Technique 4A – Neat Cement Slurry........................................................ 23

4.3.4.8 Technique 4B – Bentonite Extended Cement Slurry ................................ 23
4.3.4.9 Technique 4C – Aggregated Cement Slurry (with Sand or Ground Coal) .... 24
4.3.4.10 Technique 4D – Thixotropic Cements....................................................... 24
4.3.4.11 Technique 5A – Down Hole Mixed Gunk Plug .......................................... 24
4.3.4.12 Technique 5B – Down Hole Mixed DOBC Plug......................................... 24
4.3.4.13 Technique 6 – Down Hole Mixed Invert Gunk Plug
(Oleophilic Clay and Water)...................................................................... 25
4.3.4.14 Technique 7A – Surface Mixed Soft Plug (Polymer Type) ........................ 25
4.3.4.15 Technique 7B – Down Hole Mixed Hard Plug ........................................... 25
4.3.5 General Procedure for Spotting Plugs ...................................................... 26
4.3.5.1 Conventional Circulation is Used for Techniques 2A and 2B.................... 26
4.3.5.2 Balanced Plug is Used for Techniques 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D ... 26
4.3.5.3 Non-balanced Plug is Used for Techniques 5A, 5B, 6, 7A and 7B or
Whenever Using Techniques 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C Through a Bit .............. 29
4.3.6 Drilling Blind or with Mud Cap................................................................... 29
4.3.6.1 Overpull ................................................................................................... 30
4.3.6.2 Annulus Fluid Reaches Surface............................................................... 30
4.3.6.3 Tripping.................................................................................................... 30
4.3.6.4 Wireline Logging ...................................................................................... 31
4.4 NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................... 31

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.
4.1 CORRECT TRIPPING PROCEDURE

Industry-wide experience has shown that the majority of well control problems have
occurred during trips. It is therefore particularly important that special attention is paid
to ensure that the correct tripping procedure is followed.
During tripping, the potential exists for a significant reduction in bottom hole pressure
due to the following:
Reductions in equivalent circulating density (ECD) as the pumps are stopped
Swab pressures due to pipe motion
Reduction in height of the mud column as pipe is removed from the well
The procedures required to deal with an influx when the pipe is off bottom are not as
straightforward as when the pipe is on bottom. Every effort must therefore be made to
ensure that both the well is stable prior to initiating a trip out of the hole and that the
correct tripping procedure is strictly adhered to.
4.1.1 Prior to Tripping

Considerable preparation is required before the trip is commenced. The following are
among the most important actions that should be carried out prior to tripping:
Circulate the hole
Condition the mud to ensure that tripping will not cause excessive swab/surge
pressures
Circulate out any entrained gas or cuttings
Maintain the mud weight at a density to ensure that an adequate overbalance will
exist at all times during the trip
Determine the maximum pipe speed
Calculate swab/surge pressures at various tripping speeds using the appropriate
formulae
Select the maximum average pipe speed based on the estimated overbalance or
trip margin
Line up the trip tank (see Figure 4.1)
Ensure that a trip tank is available on the rig, complete with a mechanically
operated indicator of the trip tank level, visible from the Driller’s position. The trip
tank level must also be monitored from the Mud Logger’s cabin
Maintain an inventory of spare parts for the hole fill pump/motor at the rigsite to
ensure the trip tank operates properly
Record mud volumes required to keep the hole full on a trip sheet, making use of
the trip tank for trips in and out of the hole
Fill in the trip sheet
The Driller should fill out a trip sheet on every trip
Figure 4.2 shows a completed example of a trip sheet. The basic requirement for a trip
sheet is that a clear method of comparing calculated with actual hole fill volumes is
provided. The cumulative discrepancy between the two values should also
be recorded.
Figure 4.1 - Typical Trip Tank Hook-up on a Floating Rig

The trip sheet for the last trip out of the hole should be available for comparison.
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
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
No OF STANDS TO THE TOP OF THE BHA AT THE STACK:

%
STAND STAND Trip Tank Measured Hole Calculated Discrepancy REMARKS
No Increment Volume Fill/Disp Fill/Disp
(bbl) Increment Accum Increment Accum Increment Accum
(bbl) (bbl) (bbl) (bbl) (bbl) (bbl)

#
#

&

& #
#

%
%
'
#

& &
#

& & & #
#

%

#

&
'
#

&

#

Page 6 of 32
& #

#

Single Single
Double Double (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) - (3) (2) - (4)
Stands Stands
4.1.1.1 The Driller

The Driller requires the following information about the trip:
He should be told the reason for the trip
He should be informed of any indicators of increasing pore pressure or
near-balance that were identified during drilling, before or since he came on shift
He should be fully aware of the procedures to be adopted in the event of a kick
while tripping
An example of the standing orders that should be provided to the Driller is shown in
Figure 4.3.
4.1.1.2 Drill Floor Preparation

Crossovers should be available on the rig floor to allow a full opening drillpipe
safety valve to be made up to each tubular connection that is in the hole
A drillpipe safety valve (kelly valve) should be available on the rig floor. It should be
kept in the open position
A backup safety valve, such as a Gray valve, should be available close to the rig
floor. This valve should only be used in the event that the drillpipe safety valve does
not hold pressure, or if stripping in the hole is required and no dart sub is fitted
The rig crew should be completely familiar with and trained in their responsibilities
in the event of a kick
Figure 4.3 - Standing Orders: Kick While Tripping, Fast Shut-in

STANDING ORDERS TO DRILLER WHILE TRIPPING
WELL No: RIG:

ORDERS EFFECTIVE:
DATE:
COMPANY REP: TOOLPUSHER:
IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING OCCUR:

OR IF THERE IS ANY OTHER POSSIBLE INDICATION OF A KICK:
1. STOP TRIPPING OPERATIONS.

2. FLOW CHECK THE WELL IF NECESSARY.
YES IS THE WELL FLOWING? NO
1. SET THE SLIPS. 1. NOTIFY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE

AND TOOLPUSHER.
2. INSTALL OPEN DP SAFETY VALVE.
2. PROCEED AS DIRECTED.
3. CLOSE DP SAFETY VALVE.
4. OPEN CHOKE LINE VALVE (S).
5. CLOSE ANNULAR PREVENTER.
6. CHECK THAT WELL IS SHUT IN.
7. NOTIFY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE.
8. INSTALL KELLY.
9. LINE UP STANDPIPE MANIFOLD.
10. OPEN DP SAFETY VALVE.
11. RECORD DP AND CSG PRESSURE.
12. IF IN OPEN HOLE: ENGAGE BUSHINGS,
ROTATE THE PIPE.
4.1.2 Tripping Procedure

Having completed the preparations as outlined in the previous section, the trip out of
the hole can be started. The following procedure is proposed as a guideline:
1. Flow check the well with the pumps off to ensure that the well is stable with the
ECD effect removed.
2. Pump a slug.
This enables the pipe to be pulled dry and the hole to be accurately monitored during
a trip.
The following equation may be used to calculate the volume of slug to ensure a length
(L) of dry pipe:
Vsl = (m × L × Cp)/(sl – m) (4.1)
Cp = Internal Capacity of Pipe (bbl/ft)
L = Length of Dry Pipe (ft)
Vsl = Volume of Slug (bbl)
m = Density of Mud in Hole (lb/gal)
sl = Density of Slug (lb/gal)
As a general rule, the slug should be mixed to maintain a minimum of two (2) stands of
dry pipe. It is important to accurately displace the slug to the pipe. In this manner, the
Driller will know the weight, depth and height of the slug at all times during the trip.
4.1.2.1 Commencing the Trip

1. For the first 5 to 10 stands off bottom, monitor the hole through the rotary. This is to
check that the annulus fluid level is falling as pipe is removed from the hole.
The pipe wiper should therefore be installed only after the first stands have
been pulled
The trip tank should not be overfilled at this stage to ensure that swabbing is
clearly indicated, should it occur
The circulating pump should be switched off at this stage and the hole filled
from the trip tank after each stand
2. Circulate the hole across the trip tank and continue to trip out. Monitor hole volumes
with the aid of the trip sheet.
3. Conduct a flow check when the bottom hole assembly (BHA) is into the
casing shoe.
4. Conduct a flow check prior to pulling the BHA through the stack.
Be aware that the required hole fill volume per stand of heavy weight and drillcollars
will be greater than for drillpipe as the BHA is being removed from the hole.
If unsure of the overbalance, consideration should be given to conducting a short round

trip. Once back on bottom, the overbalance can be assessed from the level of the trip
gas at bottoms up.
If the hole does not take the correct amount of fluid at any stage in the trip, a flow
check should be carried out.
If the flow check indicates no flow and the cause of the discrepancy cannot be
accounted for at surface, the string should be returned to bottom while paying
particular attention to displacement volumes. After circulating bottoms up, it may be
necessary to increase the mud weight before restarting the trip out of the hole.
If the flow check is positive, the well should be shut in according to the procedure
indicated in the standing orders. Subsequent action will be dependent upon the
conditions at the rigsite.
4.1.3 Special Procedure for Oil-based Muds

When oil-based mud is in use, gaseous fluids have a tendency to go into solution with
the mud at high temperature and pressure. Experience has shown that once an influx
has gone into solution, it will not break out of solution until the bubble point is reached,
typically at 1000 to 1500psi (based on gas content and surface pressure this can be as
shallow as 1000ft). The possible consequence of this is that a small influx that was
undetected at depth may suddenly break out of solution close to the surface. This may
cause a dangerous liberation of gas at the surface as well as a significant reduction in
hydrostatic pressure in the well.
Consideration should also be given to the possibility of thermal expansion of the mud
at high temperatures. This can cause a reduction in effective mud weight and hence in
the overall hydrostatic head.
It is therefore recommended that tripping procedures are modified to take account of
this potential problem when oil-based mud is in use in the following situations:
When drilling or coring in a potential pay zone
On prediction of an increase in pore pressure
On detection of significant levels of gas in the mud
In these circumstances the following procedure is recommended prior to pulling out of
the hole:
1. Flow check the well.
2. Circulate bottoms up.
3. Check trip to the shoe, monitoring hole volumes.
4. Flow check at the shoe and run back to bottom.
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.
4.2 MAINTAINING SUITABLE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE

Primary well control is achieved by controlling formation pressures with the hydrostatic
pressure of the drilling fluid. The drilling fluid may be contaminated with cuttings and
formation fluids during drilling. These contaminants can significantly alter the effective
hydrostatic pressure exerted by the drilling fluid, and in certain circumstances, can
cause loss of primary control.
Hydrostatic pressure will be reduced once drilling stops as a result of the loss of
annulus frictional pressure and the removal of cuttings from the annulus. The settling of
cuttings to the bottom of the hole may significantly reduce the hydrostatic pressure
further up the hole.
This section outlines the techniques that can be used to predict the effect of drilling
fluid contamination on the hydrostatic pressure.
4.2.1 Gas Cutting

When drilling through a formation that contains gas, it is inevitable that the mud will
become contaminated with gas from the drilled formation even if the formation is
penetrated while at overbalance.
Drilled gas will enter the mud system at a rate determined by factors such as
penetration rate, hole diameter, formation porosity and gas saturation.
In our derivation of Equation 2.34, it was found that gas entry rate in scf/min can be
calculated assuming the gas pore volume and using the gas law as follows:
2
Gas entry rate (scf/min) = [db R Sg Pb]/[309.9 zb Tb]
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
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.
Figure 4.4 - Effect of Various Levels of Gas Cutting for Two Mud Weights
4.2.2 Gas Cutting at Shallow Depths

The effect of gas cutting in a relatively shallow hole is demonstrated with the following
example:
Example 4.2
As in the previous example, let us assume that we encounter a gas-bearing zone.
However, the porosity is now 30%, the zone has an equivalent density of 8.6 lb/gal and
gas saturation is 0.7. Furthermore, the hole diameter is 24in. Our instantaneous
penetration rate is 262ft/hr at a depth of 985ft. The mud engineer reports that the pump
output is 750gal/min and the mud density is 9.4 lb/gal. Determine gas flowrate at
surface, percentage of gas cutting and surface mud density.
Solution
From Equation 4.2 we find that gas enters the mud system at the a rate of:
2
Qg = 24 x 262 x 0.3 x 0.7/1470.5 = 21.6gal/min
The result obtained above is for bottom hole conditions, therefore the gas flowrate at
surface conditions is given by:
Qg = 21.6 [8.6 x 985 x 0.052]/14.7 = 647gal/min
Hence, the actual mud weight at surface is:
s = [750/(750 + 647)] 9.4 = 5 lb/gal
This corresponds to a pressure reduction of:
Pg = [14.7 [(9.4 – 5)/5] [logn (3.53 x 9.4 x 985)/1000)] = 45psi
The average mud weight in the hole is given by:
av = [(9.4 x 985 x 0.052) – 45]/[985 x 0.052] = 8.5 lb/gal
Quite clearly the potential exists for the well to kick in this situation, given that the pore
pressure at this depth is assumed to be normal at 8.7 lb/gal.
Industry experience has shown that excessive gas cutting in shallow hole has in many
cases been the cause of shallow gas blowouts in offshore environments. The previous
example shows the possible effect of gas cutting in shallow hole. However, it should
also be noted that in shallow hole the annulus pressure loss during circulation will be
negligible, and the expansion of the gas may cause mud to be unloaded at surface,
thereby further reducing the hydrostatic head of the mud column.
It is therefore important that the penetration rate is restricted in shallow hole. High
pump output should also be maintained to disperse the gas within the mud to minimise
variations in gas saturation.
4.2.3 Cuttings Contamination

One of the most important functions of the drilling fluid is to transport cuttings from the
bit to the surface. The presence of cuttings in the annulus will increase the effective
hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column. If this increase is excessive, it can cause
losses and may possibly lead to the loss of primary control.
It is therefore useful to be able to estimate the additional pressure caused by the
cuttings in the annulus. In order to be able to estimate this additional pressure, a
measure of the ability of the drilling fluid to remove the cuttings from the well is
required.
The cuttings slip velocity is defined as the velocity of the cuttings relative to the velocity
of the mud. There are many factors that influence the cuttings slip velocity, however the
following relationship can be used to estimate its value:
0.667 0.333 0.333
s = [175 x dcut x (cut – m) ]/(m x ) (4.7)
If the particle Reynolds number is greater than 2000, Equation 4.8 should be used in
place of Equation 4.7 to calculate the slip velocity, as follows:
0.5
s = 113.4 [dcut x (cut – m)/(1.5 x m)] (4.8)
The particle Reynolds number may be calculated as follows:
Re = (15.47 x m x vs x dcut)/ (4.9)
As the transport ratio is defined as the ratio of the actual cuttings velocity to the mud
velocity, the proportionality may be expressed as:
Tr = (m – s)/m (4.10)
where:
2 2
m = (24.51 x Qm)/(dhc – do ) (4.11)
The concentration of cuttings in the annulus may therefore be calculated from

Equation 4.12:
2
Ca = [R x dbit x (1 – )]/(1471 x Q x Tr) (4.12)
The extra pressure caused by the cuttings in the annulus is given by:
P = [(cut – m)/0.052] [(Ln)(Ca)]
where:
Ln = the length of each section
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
The additional hydrostatic pressure due to the cuttings is determined as follows:

p = (20.8 – 12.5) x 0.052 × [(0.08 x 590) + (0.162 × 2953)] = 227psi
This additional pressure therefore increases the effective mud weight to a figure
given by:
= [(12.5 x 0.052 x 3543) + 227]/(3543 x 0.052) = 13.7 lb/gal
4.3 CONTROLLING LOST CIRCULATION

Lost circulation can occur as a result of the following:
Unconsolidated or highly permeable low pressure formations (including depleted
reservoirs and at the base of long permeable reservoirs)
Natural fractures
Induced fractures
Cavernous formations
Lost circulation is undesirable primarily for three reasons. First, a loss of hydrostatic
head may lead to the well kicking. Second, the cost of the replacement mud required
may be considerable. Finally, lost circulation precludes accurate monitoring of the hole.
This section is intended to outline how to identify the different types of loss zone and,
in each case, to determine the most appropriate remedy.
4.3.1 Causes of Lost Circulation

The causes of lost circulation are as follows:
Setting intermediate casing too high. Optimum casing design ensures that weak
formations are isolated prior to drilling into known areas of higher pressure
Drilling with excessive overbalance
Drilling too fast. Overloading the annulus can cause excessive ECDs or the
formation of mud rings as the concentration of cuttings increases
Swab/surge pressures when running pipe. The mud properties and tripping
procedures must be controlled to ensure that surge pressures are not excessive
when running pipe. Care should be taken when breaking circulation possibly by
breaking circulation at several depths on the trip in the hole
Mud cake buildup in severe cases can reach a level where the hole packs off
around the drillstring. To minimise this problem, good fluid loss control and
maximum use of the solids control equipment must be coupled with a low fluid loss
mud. The drilled solids content of the mud must be carefully controlled, by dilution
if necessary
4.3.2 Classification of Lost Circulation

The severity of the loss zone can be assessed as follows:
4.3.2.1 Seepage Losses (0.25 to 10bbl/hr)

This takes the form of very slow losses or sometimes undetectable loss to a permeable
formation. In some instances, this may be caused by filtration loss due to poor fluid
loss control. (The identification of seepage losses may be confused with the removal of
cuttings from the mud at the shakers.)
Curing this level of loss is sometimes not economical if a cheap mud is in use and the
rig rate is high. If pressure constraints are tight the losses may have to be cured. Other
factors such as the need for a good cement job, formation damage or the risk of
possible stuck pipe need to be considered in specific cases.
4.3.2.2 Partial Losses (>10bbl/hr)

Because these losses are more severe, the cost of the mud in use becomes more
important; therefore it is more likely to be economical to take some rig time to
cure them.
Drilling with losses can be considered if the fluid is cheap and the pressures are within
operating limits. Drilling with partial losses is a common practice in some regions in
low pressure shallow wells.
4.3.2.3 Total Losses (No Returns)

If complete loss of returns is experienced, immediately pump water down the annulus,
monitoring the volumes required to fill the hole. From the volume required, the
hydrostatic head that the hole can maintain should be determined.
When drilling in top-hole sections with high penetration rates, overloading the annulus
may cause complete losses. In this case, consideration should be given to pulling out
and circulating in stages to clean the hole.
If efforts to cure the losses are unsuccessful, consideration may be given to
drilling blind.
Consider using a circulating sub in drillstring if the risk of severe loss circulation is high.
This allows pumping coarser lost circulating materials (LCMs).
4.3.3 Identification of Loss Zone

The formation type determines the most appropriate remedial treatment required to
cure losses. It is therefore important that the loss zone is correctly identified.
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.
4.3.3.2 Natural Fractures

Fractures can occur in many rock types.
They may cause a gradual loss of mud to the hole; however, if drilling proceeds and
more fractures are exposed, complete losses may be experienced.
4.3.3.3 Induced Fractures

Horizontal fractures may be induced at relatively shallow depths after the formation of
mud rings and by overloading the annulus. The formation of a mud ring will be
indicated by an increase in pump pressure and the drillstring becoming tight.
Vertical fractures may occur at greater depths and may be caused by any pressure
surge on the formation, usually indicated by sudden and complete losses.
4.3.3.4 Cavernous Formations

These are normally experienced only in limestone formations.
Loss of returns may be sudden and complete. The loss may be accompanied by the bit
dropping up to several feet depending on the height of the cavern.
4.3.3.5 Underground Blowout

This condition occurs when the act of shutting in on a kick induces a fracture in the
open hole above the point of influx. Kick fluids flow, usually from the lower active zone
into the zone, which has been fractured. An underground blowout is generally indicated
by unstable pressure readings at surface.
The depth of the loss zone must be established in order to calculate the hydrostatics
involved and to determine the remedial action required.
The loss zone can be located using a temperature survey, which operates by
identifying a discontinuity in the temperature gradient within the wellbore. A noise log
may also be used. Correlation with the known lithology at the confirmed loss zone is
very important in identifying the type of formation that has been fractured.
4.3.4 Lost Circulation Decision Analysis

Figure 4.5 can be used to determine the most suitable method of dealing with a
lost circulation problem. The techniques are specified below in Sections 4.3.4.1
to 4.3.4.15.
The following techniques are ordered in generally increasing levels of difficulty in
implementation.
4.3.4.1 Technique 1 – Pull Up and Wait

The bit should be pulled up to safety inside the casing and the hole left static for
4 to 8 hours without circulation. While waiting, a lost circulation pill can be mixed
(as per 2A or 2B) at comparatively low cost, in case the zone does not self-heal.
This technique is only likely to succeed in zones of induced fractures. It is therefore not
applicable to naturally occurring horizontal loss zones (ie gravels, natural fractures,
rugs and caverns) where the overburden is self-supporting. In soft rock areas of
sand/shale lithology, minor or partial losses are healed many times by just shutting
down the pump and waiting for the hole to heal.
4.3.4.2 Technique 2A – LCM Pill

Mix a 100 to 500-barrel pill as follows:
Mud 100 to 500bbl
Fine walnut/sawdust 15 lb/bbl
Fine fibres (wood, mica, cane) 10 lb/bbl
Medium to fine fibres 5 lb/bbl
Large cellophane flakes (1in diameter) 5 lb/bbl
Pump the pill as recommended through open-ended pipe (if possible) opposite the loss
zone. Pump at 1bbl/min until the losses cease. Repeat if the hole still takes fluid. If the
hole is still not filling, use a high filter loss slurry squeeze.
4.3.4.3 Technique 2B – LCM Pill

Similar to Technique 2A, but using larger concentrations of coarse materials (ie coarse
mica, wood, walnut or cellophane).
LOST CIRCULATION REMEDIES
SEVERITY EFFECTIVE IN
TYPE
OF LOSS LOSS ZONE GEOMETRY LOST CIRCULATION REMEDIAL TECHNIQUE
OF LOSS WBM OBM*
bbl/hr
Seeping 0.25 to 10 To horizontal loss zones** Technique 2A: Plug of fine bridging agents in mud yes yes
To induced vertical fractures Technique 3A: High filter loss slurry squeeze with fine bridging yes yes
agents
Partial >10 To horizontal loss zones** Technique 1: Pull up and wait (primarily for induced vertical yes partial
To induced vertical fractures fracture) yes yes
Figure 4.5 - Lost Circulation Remedies
Technique 2B: Plug of medium bridging agents in mud yes yes

Technique 3A: High filter loss slurry squeeze with coarse bridging
agents
Complete No returns To horizontal loss zones** Technique 3B High filter loss slurry squeeze with coarse yes yes
or 3C: bridging agents yes no
KICK PREVENTION
Technique 4B: Thixotropic cement or other cements yes no

(4A, 4C, 4D)
yes yes
Technique 5B: Mud-diesel-oil-bentonite plus cement
yes yes
Technique 5A: Downhole mixed soft plug
(mud-diesel-oil-bentonite plus cement)
Technique 7B: Downhole mixed hard plug (sodium silicate,
calcium chloride, cement squeeze, Flo-Check)
Long No returns To horizontal loss zones** Technique 3A, High filter loss slurry squeeze with 25 to yes no
honeycomb or 3B or 3C: 35 lb/bbl of coarse bridging agents
caverns Technique 5B: Downhole mixed soft hard plug continuously mixed
(limestone only) in large amounts
Deep induced No returns Vertical in Technique 1: Pull up and wait
fractures WBM or OBM yes partial
WBM Technique 5B: Downhole mixed soft hard plug yes no
WBM Technique 5A: Downhole mixed soft plug yes no
WBM Technique 7B: Downhole mixed hard plug yes yes
OBM Technique 3B High filter loss slurry squeeze with coarse yes yes
or 3C: bridging agents
OBM Technique 4A: Neat Portland cement yes yes
Page 22 of 32
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
4.3.4.4 Technique 3A – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 1 (Diearth, Diaseal M)

Water 100bbl
Bentonite 15 lb/bbl
(or Drispac, XC Polymer) (1 lb/bbl)
Lime 0.5 lb/bbl
Diearth, Diaseal M 50 lb/bbl
Fine mica, walnut, cellophane 15 to 20 lb/bbl (mixed to remain pumpable)
4.3.4.5 Technique 3B – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 2

Similar to Technique 3A but including the following: 15 to 30 lb/bbl medium and
coarse LCM.
4.3.4.6 Technique 3C – High Filter Loss Slurry Squeeze 3

Similar to Technique 3A but including the following:
Diearth concentration reduced 10 to 25 lb/bbl
Baryte as inert filler 300 lb/bbl
Cement 70 lb/bbl
Place in 30bbl slugs into loss zone with 200psi squeeze pressure.
Note: Wherever possible, slurry formulations should be tested prior to spotting to
eliminate possible premature setting. When this is the case, always be aware of
the thickening time and avoid leaving cement in or opposite the pipe beyond
this time.
4.3.4.7 Technique 4A – Neat Cement Slurry

Neat cement slurries give high compressive strength plugs.
Mix Class G cement at 15.8 lb/gal in water.
4.3.4.8 Technique 4B – Bentonite Extended Cement Slurry

A pre-hydrated bentonite slurry gives a degree of fluid loss control and applies a plating
effect to help stop lost circulation. Coupled with this, a lightweight slurry can be
formulated (13.2 lb/gal) which helps in areas of serious lost circulation. A further benefit
is that reasonable compressive strength characteristics are found with slurries of
this type.
Pre-treat fresh water with 0.25 lb/bbl caustic and 0.25 lb/bbl soda ash.
Add 10 lb/bbl bentonite.
Mix cement up to 13.2 lb/gal.
4.3.4.9 Technique 4C – Aggregated Cement Slurry

(with Sand or Ground Coal)
Add aggregate to the 15.8 lb/gal neat cement slurry up to a maximum weight of 20 to
35 lbs of aggregate per sack of cement in the mix.
4.3.4.10 Technique 4D – Thixotropic Cements

Cement of this type exhibits good flow characteristics when being pumped and a
quickly developing gel strength when stationary. This thixotropic behaviour is beneficial
for the following reasons:
A plug of cement displaced past the loss zone is self-supporting and does not fall
back under its own weight
The cement will tend to remain next to the wellbore when squeezed into fractures
due to its rapidly developing gel strength
Due to the temperature and chemical formulation sensitivity of this type of slurry, it is
not recommended to use this cement without rigorous quality control and testing prior
to each job.
4.3.4.11 Technique 5A – Down Hole Mixed Gunk Plug

This type of diesel oil bentonite (DOB) gunk is designed to mix with a water-based mud
or formation water in the down hole environment and subsequently be squeezed into
the formation.
Mix 42 gallons of diesel or base oil to a minimum of 250 lb of bentonite.
Add granular or fibrous LCM if required (ie mica at 10ppb plus walnut at 10ppb).
To prevent contact with water until the mixture is placed out of the drillpipe, pump a
10-barrel oil spacer ahead of the plug, followed by 10 barrels after the plug.
The principle of this procedure is to form a rubbery plug whenever the mixture contacts
the water-based mud. Formation water will assist the hydration of the bentonite.
Alternatively, attapulgite can be used to replace bentonite for use with salt muds
or brines.
4.3.4.12 Technique 5B – Down Hole Mixed DOBC Plug

This type of diesel oil bentonite cement (DOBC) gunk is designed to mix with a
water-based mud or formation water in the down hole environment. It can be designed
to form an initially fluid mixture of a soft or semi-hard nature depending on its
composition, and can be squeezed into the formation where it will harden and develop
compressive strength.
The proportion of mud to the pill in the final mix down hole will determine the strength
of the plug, eg a 1:1 mix with fresh water will result in a soft plug, whereas a 1:3 ratio
mix will result in a hard plug. In every case however, pilot tests must be carried out at
surface for various mixes prior to spotting the pill.
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.
4.3.4.14 Technique 7A – Surface Mixed Soft Plug (Polymer Type)

These formulations are mixed on surface where polymers are blended with activators
and extenders to give a delayed thickening reaction. This allows enough time to place
the plug in the loss zone before the chemical reaction takes place.
Halliburton Temblok is an example of this type of material.
This treatment is only temporary and the yield strength breaks down fairly quickly. It
should be followed by cement slurry to effect a permanent seal.
Alternatively, polymers like guar gum or PHPA can be mixed into diesel for soft plugs
that react well with many types of water-based fluids (muds or brines).
4.3.4.15 Technique 7B – Down Hole Mixed Hard Plug

Halliburton Flo-Check can be used for this.
This is a sodium silicate material which forms insoluble calcium silicate on contact with
calcium ions. By pumping CaCl2 brine to the formation followed by the Flo-Check
material, plugging of the formation occurs when the two chemicals mix in the
formation matrix.
Placement is as follows:
Pump 50 barrels 10% (by weight) CaCl2 followed by 10 barrels of fresh water.
Then pump 35 barrels of Flo-Check followed by a further 10 barrels of fresh water.
Care must be taken to ensure that CaCl2 does not come into contact with Flo-Check on
surface, as it will go hard in the pits.
Cement slurry, whilst permanent, may reinforce this treatment.
Alternatively, Flo-Check can be mixed down hole with Portland cement to flash set
cement (< 5:1 ratio cement to Flo-Check).
4.3.5 General Procedure for Spotting Plugs

Accurate placement of plugs down hole is vital if the loss zone is to be sealed. To do
this, an accurate measurement of pump efficiencies and internal pipe sizes must
be made.
When drilling in areas of potential lost circulation, large nozzles should be fitted to the
bit. However, coarse LCM must not be pumped through a bit with nozzles.
When the bit in the hole contains small nozzles and an LCM pill is required,
consideration should be given to tripping the pipe and running a bit with large nozzles
or even open-ended drillpipe.
The use of bits with a centre jet will also increase the area available for spotting plugs.
When the plug is being spotted, the pipe must be kept moving to avoid getting stuck.
When placing plugs containing cement, whenever possible the slurry formulation
should be tested by the cementing contractor to determine thickening time.
The best displacement method for placing plugs is to use the balanced plug technique.
This is, however, not always possible to achieve or desirable, depending on the rate of
loss or the type of slurry to be pumped.
Always account for the internal volume of the tool joint upset when making
displacement calculations. The actual capacity of 5in 19.50 NC50 S-135 Range II
drillpipe is 0.017010bbls/ft. Without accounting for tool joint upset, this capacity is
0.01776bbls/ft. This is a difference of 7.5bbls in a 10,000ft deep well. Plastic coating
also takes up some of the internal capacity of drillpipe. In the same 5in drillpipe there is
over 1bbl of plastic coating. Include surface volume of pump and lines in displacement
volume. Many balanced cement plugs fail to set when mud is over-displaced into
the plug.
The type of plugging procedure used depends on the technique selected to address
the lost circulation problem. These techniques are discussed in detail below.
In general, slug placement techniques will be as follows:
4.3.5.1 Conventional Circulation is Used for Techniques 2A and 2B

Place the plug through open-ended pipe (if possible) opposite the loss zone. Pump at
1bbl/min until the losses cease.
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.
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)
Figure 4.6 - Calculating Height and Volume of Spacer Behind a Plug

4.3.5.3 Non-balanced Plug is Used for Techniques 5A, 5B, 6, 7A and 7B or

Whenever Using Techniques 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C Through a Bit
Where the loss zone depth is known with certainty then the pipe can be placed
approximately 150ft above it. The slurry is displaced to the end of the pipe and the
BOP is closed.
For a down hole mixed plug, pump simultaneously down the annulus and pipe
at 2bbl/min.
For a spotted plug, pump the slurry out of the pipe plus five barrels excess, then pump
down the annulus only.
4.3.6 Drilling Blind or with Mud Cap

In certain circumstances, it may become necessary to drill ahead without any returns at
surface (ie drilling ahead blind). This may be required if all attempts as identified in the
suggested techniques have failed. Once the decision to drill blind has been made, the
main objective will be to set casing in the first competent formation penetrated.
Although no cuttings will be obtained while drilling blind, the casing seat can be located
by logging and by keeping up a penetration log while drilling ahead. The hole has to be
logged frequently, for example every 300ft or whenever the penetration rate suggests a
formation change. Once a competent formation has been identified, the new formation
has to be penetrated by at least 70ft to successfully set and cement the next casing
string.
While drilling blind, the following precautions must be taken:
Use one pump for drilling as normal with the other continuously filling the annulus
with water.
Assign personnel to monitor the flowline for returns at all times.
Pick the drillstring up off bottom every 6ft drilled to ensure that the hole is not packing
off above the bit.
Keep one pit full of viscous mud at all times ready to pump to the hole.
If one pump requires repair, use the cement unit to fill the annulus continuously.
After drilling each single, wipe the hole over a full single and kelly length prior to drilling
ahead. Wipe the hole over the length of a stand if using a top drive.
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.
4.3.6.2 Annulus Fluid Reaches Surface

If, during drilling, the fluid in the annulus reaches surface, stop drilling immediately.
Pick up the drillstring so that the BOPs can be closed if required. Stop the pump on the
drillpipe and the annulus. Close in and observe for any pressure buildup.
If there is no pressure on the annulus, start up the pump on the drillpipe and circulate
bottoms up through a fully opened choke (if this is possible). The loss zone may be
plugged with drill cuttings. Continue drilling to a predetermined depth if everything is
normal and if the area is well known. Stop and log if the area is not well known to
determine if a suitable casing seat has been found and has been sufficiently
penetrated.
If there is pressure on the annulus, be prepared to adopt procedures for an
underground blowout.
At all times be prepared to cement the well.
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
4.3.6.4 Wireline Logging

If wireline logging is required when complete loss of returns exists, then the following
precautions must be taken.
When logging, the pump should be kept continuously on the hole. The only exception
is when static fluid level has to be established.
Logging is best conducted using through-drillpipe logging tools with open-ended
drillpipe run to the casing shoe.
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)
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)
= formation porosity (dimensionless)

= average viscosity (cP)
= density (lb/gal)
av = average density (lb/gal)
av, cut = average density of cuttings (lb/gal)
s = surface density (lb/gal)
sl = slug density (lb/gal)
= sum
3
bbl × 1.589 873*E-01 = m
ft × 3.048*E-01 = m
3 3
ft × 2.831 685*E-02 = m
°F (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
3
gal × 3.785 412*E-03 = m
in × 2.54*E+00 = cm
Ib × 4.535 924*E-01 = kg
3 3
lb/ft × 1.601 846*E+01 = kg/m
3
lb/gal × 1.198 204*E+02 = kg/m
psi × 6.894 757*E+00 = kPa
psi/ft × 2.262 059*E+01 = kPa/m
SECTION 5 WARNING SIGNS OF AN INFLUX Page 1 of 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. WARNING SIGNS OF AN INFLUX ........................................................................ 2
5.1 DRILLING BREAK........................................................................................... 2
5.2 INCREASED RETURNS FLOWRATE ............................................................. 2

5.2.1 Influx Flowrates .......................................................................................... 2
5.2.2 Length of Exposed Formation..................................................................... 3
5.3 PIT GAIN.......................................................................................................... 3

5.3.1 Pit Gain While Drilling................................................................................. 3
5.3.2 Pit Gain During a Connection ..................................................................... 3
5.4 HOLE NOT TAKING APPROPRIATE VOLUME DURING A TRIP .................. 4

5.4.1 Trip Sheet................................................................................................... 4
5.4.2 Avoiding Swab Pressures........................................................................... 4
5.5 GAS CUT MUD ................................................................................................ 5

5.5.1 How Gas Enters the Mud System............................................................... 5
5.5.2 Drilled Gas.................................................................................................. 5
5.5.3 Connection Gas.......................................................................................... 6
5.5.4 Trip Gas...................................................................................................... 6
5.5.5 Gas Due to Inadequate Mud Density .......................................................... 6
5.6 INCREASE IN HOOKLOAD............................................................................. 7
5.7 CHANGE IN PUMP SPEED OR PRESSURE .................................................. 7

WARNING SIGNS OF AN INFLUX Page 2 of 7
5. WARNING SIGNS OF AN INFLUX

When drilling with returns to surface, a kick cannot occur without any warning sign.
This section outlines and explains the signs that indicate either that a kick has occurred
or that a kick may soon develop.
5.1 DRILLING BREAK

One of the first indications that a kick may occur is an increase in penetration rate, or a
drilling break.
Many factors influence the rate of penetration, but increases in penetration rate can be
caused by an increase in formation porosity, permeability or pore pressure. A change
in any of these formation parameters may create the conditions in which a kick
could occur.
For this reason, any drilling break should be checked for flow.
Even if the flow check indicates no flow, the reason for each drilling break should be
determined.
As an example, drilling into an impermeable transition zone above a permeable
reservoir could cause a drilling break. Because the formation is impermeable, it is
unlikely that any significant flow would be noticed during a flow check. The well may be
considerably underbalanced at this point. If drilling continues and the reservoir is
penetrated, a kick will occur.
Consideration should be given to circulating bottoms up after a negative flow check
before drilling into critical sections of the well.
5.2 INCREASED RETURNS FLOWRATE

The first confirmation that a kick is occurring is an increase in the returns flowrate while
the pumps are running at a constant output.
However, this increase may not be detected if the influx flowrate is particularly slow
or while drilling with oil-based mud. In this case, a slight pit gain may be the first
detectable confirmation of the kick.
5.2.1 Influx Flowrates

If low gravity formation fluids enter the wellbore during drilling, the hydrostatic pressure
in the annulus will decrease rapidly as more influx enters and as the influx expands as
it is circulated up the hole. As a result, rapid influx flowrates can quickly develop, even
though the initial influx flowrate might be very low.
5.2.2 Length of Exposed Formation

The length of formation exposed also has a direct impact upon the rate of flow into the
well. The greater the length of exposed formation, the stronger the flowrate.
It is therefore important that surface equipment is able to reliably detect a small
increase in the returns flowrate (see Section 11).
5.3 PIT GAIN
5.3.1 Pit Gain While Drilling

A gain in pit volume, which was not caused by the movement of mud stocks at surface,
is confirmation that a kick is occurring or has occurred.
Pit gain is the most reliable indicator of a kick. Consequently, every effort must be
made to ensure that pit levels are accurately monitored at all times. Very small influx
volumes may not be detected at surface as they occur. This may be due to the fact that
either the initial influx was particularly small, or the influx flowrate was very slow. This
could be the case if the formation has low permeability or if a more permeable
formation was only very slightly underbalanced. In such cases, the influx may be
detected before it is circulated to the surface if it expands significantly as it rises up the
hole. In general, the greater the amount of gas that is contained in the influx, the
greater the expansion of the influx will be as it rises up the hole.
Hence, we may conclude that the greater the proportion of gas in the influx, the more
likely it is that the influx will be detected as it is circulated up the hole.
Therefore, a low volume influx heavy oil or brine that does not contain any appreciable
quantity of gas will be relatively difficult to detect at surface.
However, if the active system is accurately monitored, pit gains of less than 10 barrels
should be detected reliably, even on floating rigs.
5.3.2 Pit Gain During a Connection

An influx may only occur during a connection due to the reduction in bottom hole
pressure as the pumps are shut down and the pipe pulled off bottom.
If the well flows only during a connection, it is likely that the influx flowrate will be slow
initially, resulting in only a small pit gain. Therefore, early detection of flow during a
connection may be difficult.
However, it is important to check for flow during a connection. This is due to the fact
that a situation may be developing in which the pore pressure and hydrostatic pressure
are nearly equal. It is most likely to show initially during a connection. The first signs
are likely to be increasing connection gases. However, if the underbalance develops
very rapidly and the bottoms up time is considerable, then it is possible that an influx
may occur before the connection gases are detected at surface. In this instance, flow
during a connection may be the first indication of an underbalanced situation.
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.
5.4 HOLE NOT TAKING APPROPRIATE VOLUME DURING A TRIP

As pipe is pulled from the hole, it is essential that the appropriate volume of mud is
used to keep the hole full. This procedure ensures that both a full head of mud is
maintained in the hole and that if an influx is swabbed into the hole, it is detected
immediately.
5.4.1 Trip Sheet

Before every trip, a trip sheet should be filled out. This must clearly show the expected
hole fill volumes as the pipe is pulled out of the hole. As the trip proceeds, actual hole
fill volumes should be entered in the trip sheet alongside the expected volumes. If the
hole takes less mud than expected, this should be taken as positive indication that an
influx has been swabbed into the hole.
A flow check should be carried out immediately, or if in a reservoir section, the well
should be shut in immediately. A negative flow check at this point is not necessarily
confirmation that an influx has not occurred. It is quite possible, even if an influx has
been swabbed into the well, that the well will not flow if the pipe is stationary. This
assumption is also valid when drilling with oil-based mud.
Therefore, if at any stage in a trip the hole does not take the correct volume of mud, the
pipe should be run back to bottom, using the trip tank, and the well should be circulated
bottoms up.
5.4.2 Avoiding Swab Pressures

The problems associated with dealing with a kick when the pipe is off bottom can be
considerable; therefore every effort must be made to ensure that significant swab
pressures are avoided during a trip (see Section 7).
Ensuring that the mud is in good condition prior to pulling out of the hole, and that
predetermined speeds are not exceeded at any stage in the trip, minimises swabbing.
5.5 GAS CUT MUD

A kick is confirmed at surface when an increase in returns flowrate and a pit gain are
identified.
However, a minor influx that is not detected as a pit gain may first be identified at
surface in the returned mud. Formation fluids and gas in the returned mud may indicate
that a low volume influx is occurring or has occurred, even though no pit gain has
been detected.
Returned mud must be monitored for contamination with formation fluids. Constantly
recording the flowline mud density and accurately monitoring gas levels in the returned
mud is essential.
Gas cut mud does not in itself indicate that the well is kicking (gas may be entrained in
the cuttings). However, it must be treated as an early warning of a possible kick.
Therefore, the pit level should be closely monitored if significant levels of gas are
detected in the mud.
An essential part of interpreting the level of gas in the mud is the understanding of the
conditions in which the gas entered the mud in the first place.
5.5.1 How Gas Enters the Mud System

Gas can enter the mud for one or more of the following reasons:
As a result of drilling a formation that contains gas even with a suitable overbalance
As a result of a temporary reduction in hydrostatic pressure caused by swabbing as
pipe is moved in the hole
Due to the pore pressure in a formation being greater than the hydrostatic pressure
of the mud column
Gas due to one or a combination of the above is classified in Section 3.
5.5.2 Drilled Gas

As porous formations containing gas are drilled, it is probable that a certain quantity of
the gas contained in the cuttings will enter the mud.
Any gas that enters the mud, unless in solution with oil-based mud and above the
bubble point, will expand as it is circulated up the hole, causing gas cutting at the
flowline. Gas cutting due to this mechanism will occur even if the formation is
overbalanced. Raising the mud weight will not prevent it.
However, drilled gas will only be evident during the time taken to circulate out the
cuttings from the porous formation.
5.5.3 Connection Gas

Connection gases are detected at surface as a distinct increase above background
gas, as the hole is circulated bottoms up after a connection. It should be noted that
background gas is simply the term used to describe the baseline gas detector
readings. These readings change as drilled gas or trip gas enters the system.
Furthermore, the gas detector measures gas by means of arbitrary units; therefore the
system gas unit concentration is not pertinent although changes in concentration are
quite significant.
Connection gases are caused by the temporary reduction in effective total pressure of
the mud column during a connection. This is due to pump shutdown and the swabbing
action of the pipe.
We may therefore assume that connection gases indicate a condition of near balance
between the formation pore pressure and mud hydrostatic pressure. Consequently,
when connection gases are identified, consideration should be given to weighting up
the mud before drilling ahead and particularly prior to a trip.
5.5.4 Trip Gas

Trip gas is any gas volume that enters the mud while the pipe is tripped and the hole
appears static. Trip gas will be detected in the mud on circulating bottoms up after a
round trip.
If the static mud column is sufficient to balance the formation pressure, the trip gas is
caused by swabbing and gas diffusion.
Significant trip gas may also indicate that the system is nearly balanced.
5.5.5 Gas Due to Inadequate Mud Density

Surface indications of an underbalanced formation depend on the degree of
underbalance, as well as the formation permeability.
The penetration of a permeable formation that is significantly underbalanced will cause
an immediate pit gain.
A permeable formation that is only slightly underbalanced may only cause a small flow
into the well. The first evidence of this at surface is likely to be gas cut mud,
accompanied by a small pit gain. The initial pit gain may be so small that it is only
detected as it expands while it is circulated up the hole.
In case a tight formation is underbalanced, there may be little or no actual flow of gas
into the wellbore. Therefore, drilling such a formation may show only gas cut mud, even
if the underbalance is relatively high. This is a relatively difficult situation to detect and
is also potentially dangerous.
5.6 INCREASE IN HOOKLOAD

If an influx occurs while drilling, an increase in hookload may be noticed at surface.
Influx fluids will generally be lighter than the drilling fluid, especially if the influx is gas.
Displacement of the drilling fluid by the influx will reduce the buoyancy of the bottom
hole assembly. This will increase the effective weight of the drillstring, a change that is
likely to be registered as an increase in hookload.
An increase in hookload may only be noticed after a considerable volume of influx has
occurred. It is not therefore a reliable method of detecting a kick at an early stage.
5.7 CHANGE IN PUMP SPEED OR PRESSURE

Pump pressure may decrease with a corresponding increase in pump speed if an influx
occurs during drilling.
This indication of an influx is a direct result of the U-tube effect, caused by light fluids
flowing into the annulus. However, it is only likely to become noticeable as the influx is
circulated up the hole.
A washout in the drillstring will cause the same decrease in pump pressure and
increase in pump speed. However, when these signs are noticed, the Driller should first
assume that a kick may have occurred and flow check the well.
SECTION 6 ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX Page 1 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6. ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX .................................................................. 2
6.1 EQUIPMENT READINESS .............................................................................. 2
6.2 SHUT-IN PROCEDURES................................................................................. 2

6.2.1 Fast Shut-in ................................................................................................ 3
6.2.2 Shut-in Procedure....................................................................................... 3
6.3 SHUT-IN PERIOD ............................................................................................ 7

6.3.1 Monitoring Pressures.................................................................................. 7
6.3.1.1 DP Pressure Used to Determine Kick Zone Pressure ................................ 7
6.3.2 Recording Drillpipe Pressure With a Float Valve in the String .................. 10
6.4 TRAPPED PRESSURE.................................................................................. 10

6.4.1 Checking for Trapped Pressure ................................................................ 11
6.5 INFLUX FLUID IDENTIFICATION.................................................................. 12
6.6 INFLUX MIGRATION ..................................................................................... 14

6.6.1 Influx Fluid Identification ........................................................................... 15
6.7 CONTROLLING INFLUX MIGRATION .......................................................... 16

ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX Page 2 of 16
6. ACTION ON DETECTING AN INFLUX
6.1 EQUIPMENT READINESS

Equipment readiness includes knowledge of:
Casing shoe integrity
Slow pump data
Choke and kill line friction pressure and valve position
Mud gas separator capacity
Diverter element status
Knowledge of designated hang-off rams
as well as the readiness of personnel and verification that kill sheets have been
updated. Section 11 also provides information on preparing for an emergency.
6.2 SHUT-IN PROCEDURES

An influx should be shut in and controlled at the blowout preventer (BOP) stack on hole
sections below the surface casing.
The procedures to be adopted in the event of a kick while drilling ahead from the
surface casing shoe are drawn up at the discretion of the Drilling Supervisor and the
Drilling Superintendent.
There are various methods of shutting in a well that is flowing. In general, the best
method is that which ensures that the well is safely shut in and the influx volume is
minimised. The smaller the volume of influx, the lower the pressures will be in the
wellbore and at surface throughout the kick control process.
It is the responsibility of the Drilling Supervisor to ensure that the contractor is made
aware of the procedures that should be initiated in the event of a well kick. A bridging
document is needed between the Operator and drilling contractor on the well control
and shut-in procedures that will be used (see Section 12).
The speed with which the drill crew carries out these procedures is a
critical factor.
In this respect, if a primary indicator of a kick, such as either a pit gain or an
increase in returns flowrate, is detected then no time should be spent flow
checking the well. In such circumstances, the kelly or top drive should be picked
up, the pumps stopped and the BOP closed immediately.
Speed and proficiency are achieved by regular drills. It is a further responsibility of the
Drilling Supervisor to ensure that these drills are carried out at suitable intervals so that
the drill crew is proficient at implementing the shut-in procedures.
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.
6.2.1 Fast Shut-in

A fast shut-in is generally the preferred method of shutting in a well.
In order to implement the fast shut-in, the equipment should be set up as follows:
1. The remote operated choke closed and isolated by a high pressure valve
immediately upstream.
Note: Ensure that the choke pressure can be monitored in this position.
2. One remote operated choke line valve closed.
Note: Outer failsafe on a floating rig and high closing ratio (HCR) valve on a
fixed rig.
In the event that a kick is detected or suspected, the choke line valve is opened and
the BOP closed.
On a floating rig, the annular BOP will be used initially to shut in the well. On a
fixed rig, the pipe rams may be used initially to shut in the well, in order to speed up
the procedure, if the position of the tool joint in relation to the pipe ram is known.
The advantage of this method is quite clear, namely that the operation is relatively
simple in comparison with the soft shut-in. Consequently, mistakes are unlikely and the
time taken to close in the well will be minimised.
At all times, personnel must be aware that the pressure rating of the standpipe
equipment is generally less than that of the BOP stack and the choke manifold.
6.2.2 Shut-in Procedure

It is the responsibility of the Drilling Supervisor and the Drilling Superintendent to define
the shut-in procedures that will be implemented in the event of a kick.
See Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.3 for forms containing the type of information that should be
provided to the Driller.
Figure 6.1 - Standing Orders: Kick While Drilling, Floating Rig, Fast Shut-in
STANDING ORDERS TO DRILLER
WELL No: RIG:

ORDERS EFFECTIVE:
DATE: COMPANY REP: K TOOLPUSHER:

!
"
"" " "
""

1. PICK UP UNTIL ! IS # ABOVE ROTARY.

(Space out to ensure that a tool joint is clear of rams.)
2. SHUT DOWN THE PUMPS.

(Do not flow check if Nos 2 or 3 listed above have been detected.)
1. OPEN UPPER CHOKE LINE FAILSAFE. 1. NOTIFY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE

AND TOOLPUSHER.
2. CLOSE UPPER ANNULAR.
5. CHECK SPACEOUT.
6. CLOSE UPPER PIPE RAMS.
7. ADJUST ANNULAR CLOSING PRESSURE.
8. HANG-OFF ON UPPER PIPE RAMS.
9. CLOSE RAM LOCKS.
Figure 6.2 - Standing Orders: Kick While Drilling, Fixed Rig, Fast Shut-in
WELL No: $% RIG:

ORDERS EFFECTIVE: ! $%
DATE: COMPANY REP: C TOOLPUSHER:

!
"
"" " "
""

1. PICK UP UNTIL ! IS # ABOVE ROTARY.

(Space out to ensure that a tool joint is clear of & "" rams.)
2. SHUT DOWN THE PUMPS.
(Do not flow check if Nos 2 or 3 listed above have been detected.)
1. OPEN CHOKE LINE VALVE(S). 1. NOTIFY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE

AND TOOLPUSHER.
Figure 6.3 - Standing Orders: Kick While Tripping, Fast Shut-in

WELL No: ! RIG:

ORDERS EFFECTIVE: "
DATE: COMPANY REP: K. TOOLPUSHER:
"
! !
"
"" " "
""

1. STOP TRIPPING.
1. SET THE SLIPS. 1. NOTIFY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE

AND TOOLPUSHER.
2. INSTALL OPEN DP SAFETY VALVE.
3. CLOSE DP SAFETY VALVE. 2. PROCEED AS DIRECTED.
4. OPEN CHOKE LINE VALVE(S).

8. INSTALL KELLY.
9. LINE UP STANDPIPE MANIFOLD.
10. OPEN DP SAFETY VALVE.
12. IF IN OPEN HOLE: ENGAGE BUSHINGS,
ROTATE THE PIPE.
6.3 SHUT-IN PERIOD

When the action of closing the BOPs shuts in a flowing well, the flow will continue until
shut-in pressures have built up to balance the static reservoir pressure. In most cases,
this will mean that the flow will stop almost immediately that the BOPs are closed and
the shut-in pressure will stabilise within a few minutes.
In general, only if the well has been flowing for some time will the kick zone pressure
take time to build up to a maximum after the well has been shut in. In most cases,
when a kick is taken the inflow into the wellbore occurs for only a short time and the
drawdown is relatively small. As a result, pressure in the wellbore will stabilise quickly
after the well is shut in.
However, there have been many cases of surface pressures taking several hours to
stabilise. The reasons for this can be one or all of the following:
The influx originated from a low permeability zone
The influx created instability in the wellbore, leading to the hole sloughing and
packing off
The influx is migrating up the hole
The surface lines or subsea choke line is partially packed off
This section covers the procedures that may be required during the time that the well is
shut in prior to circulation.
6.3.1 Monitoring Pressures

As soon as the well is shut in, a person must be assigned to record the drillpipe and
casing pressures. Initially, the pressures should be recorded at one (1) minute intervals
until the pressures have stabilised. It is important to record the data frequently so that
any change in the rate of buildup can be clearly identified.
Usually, the rate of buildup is relatively fast until the well begins to stabilise. Once the
pressures have begun to stabilise, any further significant increase in surface pressures
can be indicative of an influx migration. If annulus pressure peaks and then drops, this
is an early indication of possible underground crossflow.
6.3.1.1 DP Pressure Used to Determine Kick Zone Pressure

The drillpipe pressure reflects the difference between the kick zone pressure and the
effective hydrostatic pressure of the mud column in the drillpipe, assuming that the
influx has not entered the drillpipe. It can therefore be used to determine the kick
zone pressure.
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
Figure 6.5 - Well Control Operations Log

WELL CONTROL OPERATIONS LOG
WELL No: % RIG: DATE AND TIME:

' SHEET No:
FIRST READING AT INTERVAL BETWEEN READINGS "

DRILLPIPE CHOKE PIT LEVEL
TIME
PRESSURE PRESSURE VOLUME REMARKS
HR MIN
psi psi bbl

! "
#$

% & $ '
(()

(() $ %$ & *
+" , !!" $

! " $

!! #

-(.

/ $
$

/

/

/

/

/ & $ #
6.3.2 Recording Drillpipe Pressure With a Float Valve in the String

If a non-ported float valve is in the string and a kick occurs, the valve will close against
the differential pressure and no pressure will be recorded at the standpipe.
In order to open this valve and allow the pressure to be transmitted to the surface, the
following procedures can be implemented:
1. Line up the pump to the drillpipe.
2. Carefully monitoring both the pump and casing pressure, pump to the hole at a
controlled rate (very slow).
3. Record the increase in pump pressure and the volume of mud pumped.
The relationship between the pump pressure and the volume of mud pumped will be
linear as the mud in the drillpipe is compressed. If pumping is continued after the
pressure equalises across the float valve, the valve will open. As the valve opens, the
pump pressure will increase more slowly than before; this change should be easily
recognisable at slow pump rates. Stop the pump when this change is noticed.
The casing pressure is also likely to show an indication of the valve opening.
1. Isolate the pump at the standpipe.
2. Record the shut-in drillpipe pressure as the pump pressure recorded immediately
before the float valve is opened.
3. If the casing pressure rises at any stage, immediately stop the pump. Isolate the
pump and bleed off the excess pressure from the casing. As an example, if the
casing pressure rose 50psi and this extra pressure was considered undesirable,
bleed 50psi from the casing and record the shut-in drillpipe pressure as 50psi less
than the final pump pressure.
The utmost care must be taken when carrying out this procedure. As outlined, this
procedure involves pumping into a closed well. The well is pressurised at the start of
the operation, and so any excessive additional pressurisation caused by pumping into
the well may overpressure the open hole section.
6.4 TRAPPED PRESSURE

In some circumstances it is possible that pressure in excess of that caused by the kick
zone can be trapped in the well. There are four possible causes of this phenomenon:
The pumps were left running after the well was shut in
The influx is migrating up the hole
Pipe has been stripped into the well without bleeding the correct volume of mud
Gas has kicked into the drillpipe and annulus
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.
6.4.1 Checking for Trapped Pressure

The following procedures can be used to check for trapped pressure:
1. Ensure that accurate pressure gauges are fitted to the drillpipe and annulus.
Carefully monitor the drillpipe and casing pressure.
2. Using a manual choke, bleed a small volume of mud from the annulus to a suitable
measuring tank (half a barrel is a suitable amount).
3. Shut in the well. Allow pressure to stabilise.
If pressure has been trapped in the well, the drillpipe pressure and casing pressure will
have fallen.
If the drillpipe pressure does not drop after bleeding mud from the annulus, no
pressure is trapped in the well. However, if there is no trapped pressure in the well,
each increment of mud bled from the well will cause a further influx into the well.
Therefore, if no reduction in drillpipe pressure is detected after bleeding 2 to 3bbl from
the well, no more mud should be bled off.
An increase in casing pressure is a sure sign that additional influx has entered the well.
Therefore, if this occurs, no more mud should be bled from the well.
If both the drillpipe pressure and casing pressure have decreased, continue to bleed
mud from the well in 1/2bbl increments.
When the drillpipe pressure no longer decreases as mud is bled from the well, record
the drillpipe pressure as the shut-in drillpipe pressure. Stop bleeding mud from the well.
It should be stressed that bleeding mud from a well that has kicked is an operation that
must be carefully implemented. While it is undesirable to overkill the well, it is
potentially hazardous to increase the size of the influx, which is clearly a possibility if
this procedure is not carried out properly.
A firm recommendation is that the volumes bled from the well at this stage are kept to a
minimum unless influx migration is obviously occurring. If there is some doubt as to the
true shut-in drillpipe pressure, even after bleeding mud from the annulus, it may be
prudent to use the Driller’s method to circulate out the kick, rather than continue
bleeding mud.
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.
6.5 INFLUX FLUID IDENTIFICATION

The shut-in pressures recorded on the drillpipe and the casing after a kick is taken are
generally not equal. This is because the effective hydrostatic pressure of the fluid in the
annulus will be reduced below that in the drillpipe. It is unlikely that any kick fluid will
enter the drillpipe as this is effectively a closed system if the kick was taken while
drilling.
The pit gain at surface provides a guide as to the volume of the kick. With this
information, together with the annular geometry and the surface pressures, it is
possible to estimate the influx density. The type of influx fluid can then be evaluated
using the following as a guide:
INFLUX FLUID CALCULATED INFLUX

GRADIENT (psi/ft)
Gas 0.05 to 0.20
Oil 0.30 to 0.40
Water >0.40
Figure 6.6 shows an example of how to determine the influx type.

Figure 6.6 - Example Calculation (Type of Influx Fluid)
This calculation is only an approximation for the following reasons:

1. It is assumed that the influx is a discrete bubble, whereas it is more likely to be
eccentric to the hole and contaminated with mud.
2. The effective mud weight in the annulus is not likely to be the same as in the
drillpipe. This is due to cuttings loading the annulus and, possibly, contamination of
the mud with formation fluid.
3. The hole may be out of gauge. It is important, however, that this calculation is
carried out for the additional reason that it provides a check of the validity of the
kick data.
It is useful to know the type of influx before circulation is initiated. Although most
formation fluids (including formation water) contain some gas, the calculated influx
gradient provides a guide to the proportion of gas in the fluid.
The proportion of gas in the influx determines two important factors:
The wellbore pressures during displacement
The pit gain during displacement
If the gas contains sufficient heavy hydrocarbon molecules at reservoir conditions,

condensate fluids may form as the gas is displaced from the hole. This will not occur
for a dry gas that does not contain a sufficient proportion of heavy molecules. Gas will
come out of solution from an oil influx when the influx pressure reduces below the
bubble point pressure during displacement. For light oils, a significant quantity of gas
will be produced.
It is recommended that all kicks should be assumed to contain a certain proportion of
gas. Prior to circulation, estimation should be made of the maximum pressures that will
be encountered during circulation, and provision should be made for a pit gain during
this period.
6.6 INFLUX MIGRATION

As previously discussed in Section 2, there is usually a tendency for the influx to
migrate up the hole after taking a kick. This tendency is caused by the difference in
density between the influx fluid and the mud.
Influx migration up a closed-in well can cause excessive pressures within the wellbore
if suitable control procedures are not implemented.
Figure 6.7 shows an example of the potential increase in bottom hole pressure caused
by gas migration.
Influx migration does not always occur, but when it does, the rate at which the influx
rises up the hole is dependent on several variables. Experience has shown that a gas
bubble will migrate up one side of the annulus as mud falls down the opposite side.
Therefore, the factors that predominantly affect the rate of rise of the influx will be
the following:
1. The viscosity of the drilling fluid.
Note: The more viscous the mud, the more difficult it is for the mud to fall down the
annulus to allow the influx to migrate.
2. The difference in density between the mud and the influx.
Note: The buoyancy force causes the influx to migrate.
3. Any interaction between the mud and the influx fluid.
Migration will be slowed if the viscosity of the mud is increased as a result of
contamination with the influx fluid, and in severe cases, migration may be completely
prevented.
Figure 6.7 - Example of Possible Wellbore Pressure Increase

due to Influx Migration
6.6.1 Influx Fluid Identification

We may identify the properties of the influx fluid as follows, by referring to Figure 6.7:
1. Determine the bottom hole pressure.
Bottom hole pressure = drillpipe pressure + mud hydrostatic pressure
Pbh = 500 + (14.2) (0.052) (13,123)
Pbh = 500 + 9690
Pbh = 10,190psi
2. Calculate the height of the influx in the annulus.
Influx volume = recorded pit gain = 20bbl
Annular capacity at collars = 0.0323bbl/ft
Height of influx = 20/0.0323 = 620ft
3. From pressure balance

Annulus surface pressure + hydrostatic pressure of the mud + hydrostatic pressure
of the influx = bottom hole pressure
855 + (14.2) (0.052) (13.123 – 620) + Pi = 10,190psi
influx, hydrostatic pressure of the influx = 10,190 – 855 – 9232 = 103psi
Influx gradient = influx/height of the influx = 103/620 = 0.17psi/ft
Therefore, the influx is mainly gas.
4. The influx density can also be routinely calculated with the following equation:
influx = – [(Pa – Pdp)/[(h)(0.052)]]
influx = 14.2 – [(855 – 500)/[(620)(0.052)]]
influx = 3.19 lb/gal
influx = 0.17psi/ft
6.7 CONTROLLING INFLUX MIGRATION

There are many possible reasons that a well that has kicked may be left shut in for
extended periods. Procedures for relieving bottom hole pressure, should migration
occur during this period, will depend both on the position of the drillstring in the hole
and whether or not the drillpipe pressure can be used to monitor bottom hole pressure.
In both cases however, it is necessary to control the well using the Volumetric Method.
This technique ensures that the bottom hole pressure is maintained slightly above the
kick zone pressure at all times. This is accomplished by bleeding suitable volumes of
mud from the annulus to allow for expansion of the influx as it migrates up the hole.
This control procedure is greatly simplified if the drillstring is on bottom and in
communication with the annulus. In this case, the bottom hole pressure can be
monitored with the drillpipe pressure gauge. It is simply necessary to ensure that the
drillpipe pressure stays at a suitable value above the final shut-in pressure
(value recorded before migration started) by bleeding mud from the annulus.
If the drillstring is off bottom, or if the bit is plugged, or if there is a washout in the
drillstring, it may not be possible to monitor bottom hole pressure with the drillpipe
pressure gauge. In this event, the annulus pressure is the only reliable guide to
subsurface pressures.
The principle behind the control of the annulus is that an increase in annulus pressure
caused by influx migration must be relieved by an equivalent reduction in the
hydrostatic pressure of the mud in the annulus. Thus, if the annulus pressure rises
100psi, then a volume of mud corresponding to a hydrostatic pressure in the annulus
(at the top of the influx) of 100psi must be bled from the well at constant choke
pressure.
The procedure for implementing the Volumetric Method is covered in detail in
Section 8.
SECTION 7 WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7. WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 2
7.1 PIPE ON BOTTOM .......................................................................................... 2
7.2 PIPE OFF BOTTOM (DRILLPIPE IN THE STACK) ......................................... 2
7.3 PIPE OFF BOTTOM (DRILLCOLLAR IN THE STACK) .................................. 3
7.4 NO PIPE IN THE HOLE ................................................................................... 7
7.5 WHILE RUNNING CASING OR LINER............................................................ 9
7.6 UNDERGROUND BLOWOUT ....................................................................... 10

7.6.1 Flow to a Fracture Above a High Pressure Zone ...................................... 10
7.6.2 Flow to a Fracture or Loss Zone Below a High Pressure Zone ................. 13
WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS Page 2 of 15
7. WELL KILL DECISION ANALYSIS

This section is intended to provide guidelines for the decision-making process in the
event that a kick is taken.
In reality, the specific conditions prevailing at the rigsite at the time the kick is taken will
determine the best course of action to kill the well. Therefore, this section should not be
used as a guide at the moment that a kick is taken. However, it is anticipated that
general familiarity with the analysis presented herein will enable rigsite personnel to be
better prepared to deal with a situation in which the well has kicked.
The techniques referred to in this section are covered in detail in Section 8.
7.1 PIPE ON BOTTOM

If a kick is taken with the pipe on bottom, the well will be shut in immediately unless the
decision has previously been made to divert.
Having established that the well is safely closed in, it will be necessary to decide on the
most appropriate method of killing the well. This decision is the responsibility of the
Company Representative.
Having decided on the most appropriate course of action, the Company Representative
is responsible for ensuring that contractor personnel are made aware of the procedures
that will be used to kill the well.
The general procedure outlined in Figure 7.1 represents the steps that should be taken
in preparation to kill the well. These steps are applicable to any situation in which a kick
is taken.
7.2 PIPE OFF BOTTOM (DRILLPIPE IN THE STACK)

If an influx is taken during a trip, it will generally be necessary to return the drillstring to
bottom before the well can be killed.
The surface pressure will be a major factor in determining the most suitable method of
returning the pipe to bottom. It must be considered in relation to the string weight and
the pressure rating of the blowout preventers (BOPs).
The first option that should be considered is stripping the pipe to bottom with the rig
equipment. Annular stripping is the most satisfactory method, however ram
combination stripping may have to be considered if surface pressures are approaching
the pressure rating of the annular. On a floating rig, ram combination stripping is a
particularly difficult operation.
The limitations imposed by the rig BOP system may dictate that stripping the pipe to
bottom is impractical. In this case, snubbing must be considered.
Figure 7.2 represents an analysis of the decision-making process in the event that the
well kicks with the pipe off bottom.
7.3 PIPE OFF BOTTOM (DRILLCOLLAR IN THE STACK)

Every effort should be made to ensure that well control problems are avoided when the
bottom hole assembly (BHA) is across the stack. Regaining control from a situation in
which the well has kicked when the BHA is across the stack can present serious
complications.
If the kick was swabbed in, it may be possible to bring the well under control by
bleeding gas and lubricating mud into the well. It is, however, undesirable to leave the
collars in the stack for an extended period during a well control operation.
In any event, it is likely that the pipe will have to be stripped to bottom before the well
can be killed.
There are considerable operational problems presented by attempting to strip the BHA
through the annular. These include:
Many BOP stacks, especially on land, have only one annular BOP. The BOP
element will be subject to considerable stress as the spiralled collars are stripped
through it. If the element fails, there is no backup
Stabilisers in the BHA may prevent stripping completely
Numerous further complications may arise in this situation, including the following:
There is not sufficient weight of collars to strip through the annular BOP
Well pressures force the collars out of the hole
There is an internal blowout through the drillstring
The appropriate course of action required in these situations will depend to a large
extent on the particular conditions and equipment at the rigsite. However, Figure 7.3 is
intended as a guide to dealing with such situations.
Figure 7.1 - Preparation to Kill Well
KICK TAKEN
WELL SHUT IN
MONITOR THE WELL

CONTINUOUSLY
PRE-KILL MEETING
*Decision is made as to the most

appropriate method of killing the well
*Drilling Superintendent is notified

of the situation
ALLOCATE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
* Establish communication structure
COMPLETE PREPARATIONS
*Check equipment
*Ensure personnel are briefed
*Verify communications system
BEGIN KILL PROCEDURE
*Company Representative controls

operation
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
YES HANG OFF
STAB AND CLOSE FULL

OPENING SAFETY
VALVE
SHEAR PIPE
OPEN CHOKE LINE

VALVE
CLOSE ANNULAR
INSTALL DP DART OR
INSIDE BOP
MONI TOR SURFACE THE SEVERITY OF THE

SITUATION DICTATES
PRESSURE AND CONSIDER SNUBBING
YES STRIPPI NG WITH RIG
ROTATE THE PI PE
EQUIPMENT
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE
SURFACE PRESSURE,
CONSIDER:
IS IT
POSSIBLE TO REDUCE *VOLUMETRIC YES DOES
SURFACE PRESSURE *LUBRICATION SURFACE PRESSURE
*BULLHEADING EXCEED PRESSURE
RATING OF
*CIRCULATE INFLUX ANNULAR
OUT
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
CONSIDER FEASI BILITY CONSIDER FEASI BILITY

IMPLEMENT ANNULAR
OF RAM TO RAM CONSIDER SNUBBING OF ANNULAR TO RAM
STRIPPI NG
STRIPPI NG STRIPPI NG
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
STAB AND CLOSE FULL

OPENING SAFETY
VALVE
OPEN CHOKE LINE

VALVE
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
DROP THE PIPE AND DROP THE PIPE AND

STRIP I N THE HOLE CONSIDER SNUBBING
SECURE THE WELL SECURE THE WELL
7.4 NO PIPE IN THE HOLE

Correct tripping procedures will ensure that an influx is detected before the pipe is
completely out of the hole.
Should an influx remain undetected during tripping and the well is shut in with no pipe
in the hole, it may not be possible to reintroduce drillpipe into the hole in order to strip
to bottom.
The limiting factor is the surface pressure in relation to the weight of the drillstring
above the stack. A simple calculation will determine whether it will be possible to
overcome the wellbore pressures with the weight of the string. There is quite clearly a
limited weight that can be applied at a surface stack.
If the influx is immediately below the stack, it may be possible to either kill the well by
lubricating mud into the well or to reduce the surface pressures such that it becomes
possible to reintroduce pipe into the hole.
However, if the influx is deep in the hole, it may not be possible to reduce the surface
pressure significantly.
If the influx is migrating up the hole, it may be possible to kill the well by implementing
the Volumetric Control Method.
On fixed offshore and land rigs, the only practical method of controlling the well may
be with the use of a snubbing unit. Snubbing units have been used in exceptional
circumstances on floating rigs.
Figure 7.4 represents a full analysis of the decision-making process in the event that a
kick is taken with no pipe in the hole.
Figure 7.4 - Decision Analysis – No Pipe in Hole
WELL SHUT IN WITH NO

PIPE IN THE HOLE
MONIT OR SURFACE
PRESSURE
IS THE INFLUX NO
IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE
RAMS
YES
LUBRICATE MUD INTO THE

HOLE AND BLEED GAS
NO HAS ALL
OF THE GAS BEEN BLED
FROM BELOW
THE RAMS ?
YES
IS THERE ANY NO
PRESSURE UNDER THE
RAMS ?
YES
AT TEMPT TO REDUCE THE

SURFACE PRESSURE BY
NO WILL SURFACE YES
LUBRICATING OR PRESSURES ALLOW
BULLHEADING
PIPE TO BE
INTRODUCED INTO
THE WELL ?
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
BULLHEAD KILL MUD INTO

THE WELL; PREPARE
CONTINGENCY TO DEAL
WITH THE FRACTURED SNUB PIPE IN, THEN KILL ST RIP INTO HOLE, T HEN FLOW CHECK THE WELL,
ZONE, THEN KILL WELL THE WELL KILL THE WELL OPEN THE RAMS
7.5 WHILE RUNNING CASING OR LINER

Before pulling out of the hole prior to running casing, every effort will be made to
ensure that the mud is conditioned and the well is under control, thereby minimising the
possibility of well control problems during the casing operation.
However, possible causes of well control problems while running casing include the
following:
A kick that was swabbed in on the last trip out of the hole
Swabbing in a kick on a connection while running the casing
Surge pressures while running casing leading to losses and hence inducing a kick
When casing is run to cure a well control problem, such as after drilling with
a floating mud cap or after controlling an underground blowout
Particular attention should therefore be paid to these aspects.
In critical well sections, consideration should be given to installing casing rams in the
BOP stack prior to running casing. This is only practical in surface stacks. Specialist
shear rams are available that can shear up to 13-3/8in casing. These may be
considered applicable in certain situations.
It is impractical to detail the procedure required in the event that a kick is taken while
running casing or a liner. The immediate priority however will be to close in the well, but
the most suitable control technique can only be determined based on the particular
conditions at the rigsite.
The subsequent options available can be summarised as follows:
Cross over to drillpipe (unless current string weight is too great) and strip to bottom
to kill the well
Cross over to drillpipe, strip in until drillpipe is in the stack and kill the well at current
shoe depth
Kill the well with the casing across the stack
Drop the casing
Shear the casing
The major factors that will determine the most appropriate course of action will include:
The length and type of casing run
The possibility and consequences of the casing becoming stuck
The possibility and consequences of collapsing the casing
The feasibility of circulating a kick out by conventional means (the relatively small
annular clearance may cause excessive pressures in the annulus or may possibly
completely restrict circulation)
The feasibility of killing the well by bullheading or by volumetric control

The BOP stack configuration and ram types
The likelihood of the casing being forced out of the hole by the well pressure
7.6 UNDERGROUND BLOWOUT

See Blowout Contingency Plan, Section 2.6.
7.6.1 Flow to a Fracture Above a High Pressure Zone

The majority of underground blowouts in the past have been as a result of a fracture to
a weak zone up the hole as high pressure zone is penetrated.
Figure 7.5 shows a decision analysis for identifying and dealing with an underground
blowout of this type.
If an underground blowout is suspected, on no account should attempts be made to
control the well using standard techniques. If the annulus is opened, reservoir fluids will
be allowed to flow up the wellbore to surface, thereby increasing surface pressures.
The first action after shutting in the well will be to perform a positive test. The purpose
of this test is to determine whether or not the hole is a closed system. A small
displacement pump is lined up to the drillpipe and a small amount of fluid is pumped.
If the drillpipe and casing pressures increase, there is no indication of fracture in the
open hole. If the drillpipe pressure does not increase or if any increase is not evident
on the casing, then a fracture in the open hole is indicated.
In order to halt an underground flow, it is necessary to pump fluid at a high rate down
the drillpipe and up the annulus, thus effecting a dynamic kill. The fluid will eventually
have to be at kill weight in order to balance the kick zone equivalent mud weight
(EMW). However, it will also have to be as thin as possible to ensure that it can be
pumped at a high rate without excessive surface circulating pressures.
Generally the kill mud must flow at least as fast as the underground flow if it is not to be
dispersed by the flow as it passes out of the bit. The kick zone EMW can at best be
estimated because reliable drillpipe pressure will not be available. The mud weight
required to kill the well will depend on the position of the fracture in the wellbore and
the average weight of the fluid occupying the annulus between the fracture
and surface.
The fracture may only support a column of water, in which case it will be necessary to
balance the kick zone pressure with the sum of the hydrostatic pressure of the kill
weight mud from the kick zone to the fracture, and the hydrostatic pressure of the water
above the fracture.
Figure 7.5 - Decision Analysis: Flow to a Fracture Above a High Pressure Zone
WELL SHUT IN
MONIT OR SURFACE NO EVIDENCE OF

REASSESS THE SITUATION
PRESSURE UNDERGROUND BLOWOUT
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
RUN POSITIVE TEST
RUN TEMPERATURE AND

NOISE LOG TO IDENTIFY
FLOW
NO UNDERGROUND
BLOWOUT
CONFIRMED
YES
1. DO NOT BLEED FLUID

FROM ANNULUS
2. LINE UP ONE PUMP TO

THE ANNULUS, LINE UP
MUD AND IF NECESSARY
WATER SUCTION
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
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
IMPLEMENT DYNAMIC KILL

USING BARYTE PLUG
*PUMP KILL WEIGHT MUD AT
MAXIMUM RAT E
*KEEP PUMPING UNTIL ALL
OF THE MUD HAS BEEN
USED
*STOP ONLY IF SURFACE
PRESSURES BECOME
EXCESSIVE
1. CONFIRM THAT MUD IS

TAKE STEPS TO SECURE
AT KILL WEIGHT
WELL
TRY
2. REDUCE MUD VISCOSITY DO DRILLPIPE YES
AG AIN OPTIONS:
AND ANNULUS PRESSURES
1. CEMENT BHA IN PLACE
3. REDUCE DRILLSTRING INDICATE THAT UNDERGROUND
2. POOH TO PLUG
INTERNAL FRICTION FLOW HAS CEASED ?
FRACTURE
3. POOH TO RUN CASING
4. PUMP LARGER PLUG
NO
1. MIX LCM PILL

(100 bbl minimum for large
annulus )
2. MIX 2 x ANNULUS
VO LUME OF KILL WEIGHT
MUD
3. PUMP LCM PILL DOWN
ANNULUS UNTIL JUST
ABOVE FRACTURED ZONE
IMPLEMENT DYNAMIC KILL
* PUMP MUD AT MAXIMUM

RATE DOWN DRILLPIPE
* PUMP LCM PILL DOWN

FRACTURE
* KEEP PUMPING UNLESS

SURFACE PRESSURE
LIMITS ARE REACHED
1. CONFIRM THAT MUD IS

AT KILL WEIGHT TAKE STEPS TO SECURE
WELL
2. REDUCE MUD VISCOSITY
OPTIONS:
3. REDUCE DRILL STRING 1. CEMENT BHA IN PLACE
DO DRILLPIPE
INTERNAL FRICTION 2. POOH TO PLUG
AND ANNULUS PRESSURE
FRACTURE
INDICATE THAT UNDERGROUND
4. PUMP LARGER PLUG TRY 3. POOH TO RUN CASING
FLOW HAS CEASED ?
YES
AG AIN
OPTIONS:
1. BACK OFF, STRIP UP
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
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.
7.6.2 Flow to a Fracture or Loss Zone Below a High Pressure Zone

The most likely cause of an underground blowout that flows down the wellbore from a
high pressure zone occurs when drilling a naturally fractured or cavernous formation.
The resultant losses reduce the hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid to such an extent
that permeable zones higher up the wellbore begin to flow.
When the well is shut in, it is unlikely that any pressure will be recorded on either the
drillpipe or the casing. However, the casing pressure may increase if gas migrates up
the casing/drillpipe annulus. Pumping mud down the annulus prevents this rise
in pressure.
Figure 7.6 shows the decision analysis for identifying and dealing with an underground
blowout of this type.
Figure 7.6 - Decision Analysis: Flow to a Fracture or

Loss Zone Below a High Pressure Zone
DRILLING AHEAD, LOSSES

EXPERIENCED
SHUT DOWN ROTARY OR CURE LOSSES, DRILL

TOP DRIVE AHEAD
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
RUN POSITIVE TEST
RUN NOISE AND

TEMPERATURE LOG IF
NECESSARY
UNDERGROUND NO
BLOWOUT REASSESS THE SITUATION
CONFIRMED ?
YES
*DO NOT BLEED FLUID

FROM ANNULUS
*LINE UP ONE PUMP TO THE

ANNULUS, SUPPLY MUD
AND IF NECESSARY WATER
SUCTION
CONTINUALLY MONITOR
ANNULUS
OPTIONS TO CONTROL THE

FLOW:
*PUMP LCM PILL

*SET CEMENT PLUG ON
BOTTOM
*CIRCULATE T HE HOLE WITH
LIGHT MUD, DRILL UNDER
PRESSURE WITH
ROTATING HEAD
SURFA CE
NO PRE SS URE LOGS INDICATE
THAT UNDE RGROUND

FLOW HA S CE AS ED ?
YES

WELL
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.
SECTION 8 WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 1 of 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8. WELL KILL TECHNIQUES .................................................................................... 3
8.1 STANDARD TECHNIQUES ............................................................................. 3

8.1.1 Shut-in Wellbore Pressures........................................................................ 3
8.1.2 The Wait and Weight Method ................................................................... 12
8.1.2.1 Advantages of the Wait and Weight Method ............................................ 12
8.1.3 The Driller’s Method ................................................................................. 13
8.1.3.1 Advantages of the Driller’s Method .......................................................... 13
8.1.4 Calculations Required Prior to Circulation ................................................ 13
8.1.4.1 Calculate Drillstring and Annulus Volumes............................................... 13
8.1.4.2 Determine the Kill Weight Mud................................................................. 14
8.1.4.3 Selecting the Mud Weight ........................................................................ 14
8.1.4.4 Amount of Baryte Required to Weight Up the Mud................................... 16
8.1.4.5 Annulus Pressure Profile ......................................................................... 17
8.1.5 Implementation of the Wait and Weight Method ....................................... 18
8.1.5.1 Circulation Rate ....................................................................................... 18
8.1.5.2 Initial Circulating Pressure ....................................................................... 18
8.1.5.3 Final Circulating Pressure ........................................................................ 18
8.1.5.4 Displacement Times and Corresponding Cumulative Pump Strokes ....... 19
8.1.5.5 Standpipe Pressure Schedule.................................................................. 19
8.1.5.6 Guidelines for Displacing a Kick (Wait and Weight Method) .................... 23
8.1.6 Implementation of the Driller’s Method ..................................................... 24
8.1.6.1 Circulation Rate ....................................................................................... 24
8.1.6.5 Guidelines for Displacing a Kick (Driller’s Method)................................... 25
8.1.7 Subsequent Calculations for Use with the Driller’s Method....................... 26
8.1.7.1 Circulation Rate for the Second Circulation.............................................. 26
8.1.7.3 Final Circulating Pressure ........................................................................ 26
WELL KILL TECHNIQUES Page 2 of 88
8.2 NON-STANDARD TECHNIQUES .................................................................. 28

8.2.1 Volumetric Method.................................................................................... 28
8.2.1.1 Using Drillpipe Pressure to Monitor Bottom Hole Pressure ...................... 29
8.2.1.2 Using Choke Pressure to Monitor Bottom Hole Pressure......................... 30
8.2.1.3 Lubrication ............................................................................................... 37
8.2.1.4 Dynamic Volumetric Control..................................................................... 39
8.2.2 Stripping ................................................................................................... 41
8.2.2.1 Monitoring Well Pressures and Fluid Volumes......................................... 42
8.2.2.2 Annular Stripping ..................................................................................... 43
8.2.2.3 Annular Stripping Procedure .................................................................... 47
8.2.2.4 Ram Combination Stripping ..................................................................... 48
8.2.2.5 Ram Combination Stripping Procedure .................................................... 51
8.2.2.6 Dynamic Stripping Procedure .................................................................. 58
8.2.3 Bullheading............................................................................................... 60
8.2.3.1 When to Bullhead .................................................................................... 60
8.2.3.2 Important Factors About Bullheading ....................................................... 61
8.2.3.3 Bullheading Procedure............................................................................. 61
8.2.4 Snubbing .................................................................................................. 67
8.2.4.1 Rig Assisted Snubbing Units.................................................................... 68
8.2.4.2 Hydraulic Self-contained Snubbing Units ................................................. 68
8.2.4.3 Selection of a Snubbing Unit.................................................................... 72
8.3 BARYTE PLUGS ........................................................................................... 76
8.3.1 Hydrostatic Kill.......................................................................................... 76
8.3.2 Bridging Effect .......................................................................................... 76
8.3.3 Settling ..................................................................................................... 77
8.3.4 Deflocculation........................................................................................... 79
8.3.5 Pilot Tests................................................................................................. 79
8.3.6 Slurry Volume ........................................................................................... 79
8.3.7 Pumping and Displacement Rate ............................................................. 80
8.3.8 Preparation of a Baryte Plug..................................................................... 80
8.3.9 After Pumping a Baryte Plug..................................................................... 81
8.3.9.1 Baryte Plug Procedure for Leaving Pipe in Place..................................... 81
8.3.9.2 Baryte Plug Procedure for Pulling Pipe Out of Plug
(High Pressure, Low Permeability Formation) .......................................... 82
8.4 NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................... 83
8. WELL KILL TECHNIQUES
8.1 STANDARD TECHNIQUES

When a well is shut in on a kick, the influx is contained and further entry is prohibited.
Shut-in surface pressures develop at the standpipe and casing. If the drillstring is
below the kick, we can use these surface pressures to calculate the mud weight
needed to balance the formation pressure and, perhaps, estimate the character of
the influx.
Subsequent secondary control then involves two separate tasks. First, the influx must
be circulated from the hole while maintaining adequate bottom hole pressure to prevent
further entry. However, caution should be taken not to exceed the pressure integrity
limits of the exposed formation, casing and surface equipment. Before routine
operations can be resumed, the mud weight in the wellbore and pits must then be
increased to the calculated requirement. These two assignments may be accomplished
separately or at the same time, depending on the selected kill procedure.
This section addresses the wellbore pressure relationships following a kick and the
classical techniques used in the industry to regain primary control of a well. We should
point out that the focus is in well control events, which occur as a result of an
underbalance condition with the drillstring near bottom. We also assume that the
control efforts can be safely achieved without undue complication and that no problems
arise during the selected control technique. Many, if not most, well control problems
do not fit within this relatively narrow set of limitations, but a significant number do.
Also, we must understand the basic principles outlined herein before proceeding with
the more difficult cases.
8.1.1 Shut-in Wellbore Pressures

A useful tool for analysing hydraulics problems in both a static and dynamic wellbore is
to compare the pipe annulus system to a U-tube as discussed in Section 2.6. In the
analogy, the pipe is considered to be one leg of the U-tube while the annulus is the
other. Recall that the pressure on bottom is equal to the sum of the surface and
hydrostatic pressures taken from either the pipe or the annulus. Friction losses, if
present, are added or subtracted depending on the flow direction. Also, it should be
apparent that changing the surface or hydrostatic pressure on one of the legs would be
manifested by a change in the surface pressure on the other side.
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.
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).
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%
Sand water saturation = 18%

Pore water density = 9.1 lb/gal
Sand gas saturation = 82%
Gas specific gravity = 0.60
Sand grain density = 22.1 lb/gal
Average wellbore temperature gradient = 90°F + 0.009°F/ft
Flowline storage = 2.25bbl
Assume 5% of the gas contacted by the mud goes into solution and the dissolved gas
does not appreciably affect the carrier mud’s volume or density. Also assume the
wellbore and mud are completely rigid and free gas does not expand or migrate relative
to the mud.
Solution
A 15-barrel pit gain was indicated at total depth. More gas mixes in the circulating mud
while picking up the string, while most of the gas entry during the flow check and
closure is in the free state. Following pump shutdown, the flowline drains another
2.25bbl into the pit. Hence the final pit gain is:
G = 15bbl + (2bbl/min)(0.5 min)(0.95) + (2.5bbl/min)(2 min) + 2.25bbl
G = 23.2bbl
Additional gain would be predicted had we considered the relaxation of the mud and
wellbore when the annular friction pressure was eliminated.
The pit gain, however, is not the influx volume since storage volumes obviously do not
comprise a kick, part of the influx is dissolved, and flow from the formation did not stop
with closure. The kick volume is approximately:
Vk = [(15 + 1.0)/0.95] + 5 + 0.5 = 22.3bbl
The computed pore pressure from Equation 8.1 is:
Pp = 500 + (0.052)(10.2)(9216) = 5379psig
The expected SICP is determined by subtracting the hydrostatic pressure of the
segregated and mixed fluids in the annulus. We have four segments to consider here;
(1) gas, (2) gas/mud mixture, (3) gas/mud/sand mixture and (4) mud/shale mixture.
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
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
m3 = 8.75 lb/gal

The column height and hydrostatic pressure are:
h3 = 82.98/0.04590 = 1808ft
and
P3 = (0.052)(8.75)(1808) = 821psi
Above the influx, we have shale cuttings and 10.2 lb/gal mud. Using a one minute
drill time as basis, the mud and cuttings volumes are:
350/42 = 8.33bbl
and
1.12/8 = 0.14bbl
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.
Figure 8.1 - Use of Drillpipe Pressure to Control Gas Migration

and Expansion Prior to Circulation
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.
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.
8.1.2 The Wait and Weight Method

It is recommended that the Wait and Weight Method is used in preference to the
Driller’s Method where practical.
To implement the Wait and Weight Method, the kick is displaced from the hole with
kill weight mud. Therefore it is possible to kill the well with one circulation.
8.1.2.1 Advantages of the Wait and Weight Method

Pressures exerted in the wellbore and on pressure control equipment will be generally
lower than if the Driller’s Method is used. This difference is most significant if the influx
contains gas and for high intensity (large underbalance) kicks.
The maximum pressure exerted on the shoe (or the weak point in the open hole) will
normally be lower if the Wait and Weight Method is used. The maximum pressure at
the shoe will be lower if kill mud starts up the annulus before the top of the influx is
displaced to the shoe (or open hole weak point).
The well will be under pressure for a shorter period of time.
8.1.3 The Driller’s Method

In certain circumstances, it may not be practical to implement the Wait and Weight
Method. These include:
If there are insufficient stocks of weighting material at the rigsite
If the rig mud weighting system is not capable of increasing the active mud weight
to kill weight as the kick is displaced
If there is considerable doubt as to the mud weight required to kill the well
If impending bad weather dictates that the kick must be displaced from the hole as
quickly as possible
If gas is migrating rapidly and the ‘Wait’ period is too long
The Driller’s Method requires that two complete hole circulations are carried out before
the well can be killed. After a kick is taken and the well is shut in, the kick is displaced
from the hole with the original mud. The mud is then weighted to kill weight and a
further circulation carried out to kill the well.
8.1.3.1 Advantages of the Driller’s Method

The kick can be displaced from the hole soon after the well is shut in.
Influx fluids can be displaced from the well, even if suitable mud weighting material is
not available.
8.1.4 Calculations Required Prior to Circulation

Shut-in procedures and the interpretation of pressure data have been previously
discussed. The basic calculations that must be worked out before circulation can be
initiated, using either the Wait and Weight Method or the Driller’s Method, are outlined
as follows:
8.1.4.1 Calculate Drillstring and Annulus Volumes

The capacities of each section of hole can generally be obtained directly from data
tables such as the Halliburton Cement Tables. However, the following equations can
be used to calculate annulus and pipe capacity:
Annular capacity in barrels per foot is calculated from Equation 8.5:
Caa = /4 [DO – DI ] [(12in/ft)(1 gal/231in )(1bbl/42gal)]
2 2 3
(8.5)
which reduces to:
2 2
Caa = [DO – DI ]/1029.4 (8.6)
Likewise the internal pipe capacity is given by Equation 8.7:
2
Cap = DI /1029.4 (8.7)
Pipe diameters are measured in inches.

Annular and pipe capacities should be recorded at all times on the Company Kick
Sheet (together with all other relevant information). An example kick sheet is shown in
Figure 8.2.
8.1.4.2 Determine the Kill Weight Mud

The weight of the mud that would exactly balance the kick zone pressure, kill weight
mud, is calculated from the shut-in drillpipe pressure as follows:
k = 1 + [Pdp/(TVD x 0.052)] (8.8)
8.1.4.3 Selecting the Mud Weight

Circulation may be initiated with the original weight mud or with the mud weighted to kill
weight, depending on the kill method to be used.
It is not recommended practice to weight the mud any higher than the kill weight.
The mud weight should be raised to provide suitable overbalance after the well has
been killed.
Figure 8.2 - Example Kick Sheet Data

PRE-RECORDED WELL CONTROL WORKSHEET
Well Name: Rig No:

Date:

Measured Depth: True Vertical Depth: Bit Size: 8½in
LAST CASING STRING SET
Size: Weight: Grade:
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: $
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
Total Annulus Volume:
Total Drillstring and Annular Volume:
Total Drillstring Inside Volume:
Active Surface Volume and Riser:
TOTAL ACTIVE SYSTEM VOLUME:
Pump Stroke Required Surface to Bit: strokes Bit to Choke: strokes

8.1.4.4 Amount of Baryte Required to Weight Up the Mud

Assuming that we wish to weight up from an initial density (1) using baryte that has a
density expressed by B (typically 35.5 lb/gal), the mass balance equation therefore
yields:
1 V1+ B VB = 2 V2 (8.9)
where the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the initial and final system density and volume,
while B indicates baryte. The final mud volume is:
V2 = V1 + VB (8.10)
and the baryte mass is given by:
MB = B VB (8.11)
Substituting Equations 8.9 and 8.10 into Equation 8.8 and rearranging will yield the
baryte mass needed to increase the density of a given mud volume:
MB = [V1 B × (2 – 1)]/(B – 2) (8.12)
However, we may simplify Equation 8.11 by substituting 35.5 lb/gal for B and
42 gallons for V1. This yields the mass of baryte required per barrel of mud in the
system. The amount of baryte required to weight up the mud can be calculated from
the following set of equations:
MB = [1490 × (2 – 1)]/(35.5 – 2) (8.13)
Total quantity of baryte required is simply the density multiplied by the total active
volume as shown below:
MBT = B VT (8.14)
The total active volume is the sum of the drillstring, annulus, surface active volumes
which is expressed by Equation 8.14:
VT = VDS + VA + VS (8.15)
The stocks of baryte at the rigsite must be at least 10% greater than the calculated
quantity of baryte required.
Baryte additions can substantially increase the mud system volume and some
economy may be realised by discarding or storing some of the original mud before
weight-up begins. Assume that the intent is to keep the final system volume the same
as it was before adding the baryte. It should be apparent that the volume of mud to
discard is the same as the baryte required for the reduced system volume.
Applying the mass balance to this situation yields:
VB = [VT B (2 – 1)]/(B – 1) (8.16)
where VT is the total mud system volume.
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.
8.1.4.5 Annulus Pressure Profile

It is useful to estimate the maximum pressures that will occur during circulation.
The areas of particular importance are the maximum pressure that will be exerted at
the shoe (or open hole weak point) and the maximum surface pressure. However, it is
not essential to carry out these calculations prior to circulation. These calculations
should only be carried out when adequate facilities and personnel are available.
Software is available for use on a PC, as well as programmable calculator, to develop
pressure profiles for points of interest in the wellbore. It is useful to run these programs
for both the Driller’s Method and the Wait and Weight Method.
At this stage, the decision can be made as to which method will be used to displace
the kick from the hole. When practical, the Wait and Weight Method is the
preferred method.
8.1.5 Implementation of the Wait and Weight Method

It is necessary to perform several calculations prior to initiating circulation.
The following subsections discuss these calculations.
8.1.5.1 Circulation Rate

The upper limit for the circulation rate is generally set by the maximum rate that baryte
can be mixed into the mud. The following equation may be used to estimate the
maximum possible circulation rate:
Qmax = QB/MB (8.17)
A limiting factor, particularly in the case of oil mud, may be the rate at which viscosity
can be built in the mud. This and associated problems of building mud weight are
discussed in, ‘Use of the Mud System’.
Having established the maximum possible circulation rate, the actual circulation rate
will be determined on the basis of several factors. These factors are detailed in, ‘Drills
and SCRs’.
8.1.5.2 Initial Circulating Pressure

The initial drillpipe circulating pressure (Pic) should be calculated in order to estimate
the circulating pressure that will be required to maintain constant bottom hole pressure
at the start of the circulation.
The initial circulating pressure recorded after the pump has been brought up to speed
should be the sum of the drillpipe pressure and the SCR pressure at the chosen rate.
The following calculation can therefore be made:
Pic = Pdp + Pscr (8.18)
8.1.5.3 Final Circulating Pressure

As the drillpipe is displaced with kill weight mud, the standpipe pressure must be
reduced to take into account the increased hydrostatic pressure of the mud in the pipe.
The standpipe pressure must also compensate for the additional friction pressure in the
drillpipe and across the bit as the kill weight mud displaces the original mud.
Once the drillpipe has been completely displaced to kill weight mud, the static drillpipe
pressure required to balance the kick zone will be zero. At this stage the circulating
pressure can be estimated by determining the SCR pressure for the kill weight mud.
The final circulating pressure can be estimated as follows:
Pfc = Pscr (at 1) × 2/1 (8.19)
8.1.5.4 Displacement Times and Corresponding Cumulative Pump Strokes

At all times during circulation, it is important to know the position of the influx in the
wellbore as well as the volume of the hole that has been circulated to kill weight mud.
The key points during the circulation are as follows:
When the kill weight mud reaches the bit
When the top of the influx is circulated to the open hole weak point
When the influx is circulated to the choke
Before circulation is started, the estimated circulating time to each point should be
calculated. The corresponding total pump strokes should also be calculated.
This can be done as follows:
Pumping time to reach point of interest (min)
= Volume to displace (bbl)/pump output (bbl/min) (8.20)
Total strokes to point of interest
= Volume to displace (bbl)/pump output per stk (bbl/stk) (8.21)
8.1.5.5 Standpipe Pressure Schedule

To ensure that the standpipe pressure is adjusted correctly as the kill weight mud is
circulated down the drillpipe, a plot should be made of the required standpipe pressure.
The initial circulating pressure should be plotted corresponding to zero strokes. The
final circulating pressure should be plotted corresponding to total strokes equivalent to
complete displacement of the drillpipe. The two points on the graph can be joined up
with a straight line to produce the standpipe pressure schedule.
In practice, standpipe pressure is most easily controlled by reducing the pressure in
small steps, rather than continuously.
Figures 8.3a, 8.3b, 8.4 and 8.5 show a typical well, the completed kick sheet, the kill
sheet and the standpipe pressure schedule.
Figure 8.3a - Well Schematic
650 psi 580 psi
0 ft
413
413 ft
10197
13.5 ppg
10610 ft
444
572
11054 ft
128
11182 ft
846
12028 ft
Figure 8.3b - Example of Completed Kick Sheet Data

Well Name: Rig No: Date:

Measured Depth:
True Vertical Depth:
Bit Size: 8½in
LAST CASING STRING SET
Size: Weight: Grade:
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
Liner: " bbl/stk:
Slow Pump Pressure:
# At: Output: $
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

Total Annulus Volume:

!

Total Drillstring and Annular Volume:

Total Drillstring Inside Volume: !
Active Surface Volume and Riser:
!
TOTAL ACTIVE SYSTEM VOLUME:

!
Pump Stroke Required Surface to Bit: ! strokes Bit to Choke: !
strokes
Figure 8.4 - Example of Well Control Kill Sheet

Well Name: Date:

Time: MD:

Mud Weight:
SIDPP: # SICP: !# Pit Gain:
TVD:

Balanced Mud Weight = SIDDP: # + Orig MW:
=
!
TVD:
%
Est Initial Circ DPP = SIDDP # + Slow Pump Pressure:
# = !#
Est Final Circ DPP = Slow Pump

#
Bal MW:
! =
#
Orig MW:

Note: If Estimated and actual initial Circ DPP differ, continue circulation with actual pressure at slow pump
rate and recalculate Final Circ Pump.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SURFACE PRESSURE
Shoe Breakdown = (Leak off

– Orig MW
) x Shoe Depth
& x 0.052 = #
Max Allowable Casing Pressure = Burst Rating

psi = #
Design Factor

1490 x (Bal MW
! – Orig MW )
Baryte Total System Vol:
! = ' #

Required = 35.5 – Bal MW
!
Figure 8.5 - Required Standpipe Pressure Plot
Drillpipe Pressure Schedule
Strokes
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
1,200 1,200
Final Circulating Pressure

Initial Circulating
1,000 1,000
Pressure (psi)
800 800
(psi)
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
760 605 450 295 140
Circulating Drillpipe Pressure (psi)
8.1.5.6 Guidelines for Displacing a Kick (Wait and Weight Method)

The following steps can be used as a guide for the displacement of the kick:
1. Line up the pump to the drillpipe and route returns through the choke manifold to
the mud gas separator.
2. Zero the stroke counter on the choke panel.
3. Open the remote operated choke at the same time as the pump is started on the
hole. Consider stroking the drillstring up at this point.
4. Maintain the choke pressure equal to the original shut-in casing pressure as the
pump is slowly brought up to speed. This may take ½ to 1 minute.
5. Once the pump is up to kill rate speed, record the initial circulating pressure.
6. Circulate the influx from the well maintaining constant bottom hole pressure.
If the actual initial circulating pressure is considerably different from the calculated
value, stop the pump, shut in the well and investigate the cause.
If the actual initial circulating pressure is equal to or reasonably close to the calculated
value, continue the displacement and adjust the standpipe pressure schedule
accordingly.
Any marginal difference between the actual and calculated initial circulating pressure is
most likely to be due to the fact that the SCR pressure used to calculate the initial
circulating pressure was inaccurate. The actual SCR pressure and hence the corrected
final circulating pressure (Pfc) can be determined from the initial circulating pressure
as follows:
Pscr = Pic – Pdp (8.22)
Pfc = Pscr (2/1) (8.23)
The standpipe pressure schedule can therefore be corrected to take into account the
adjusted circulating pressures.
As the drillpipe is displaced with kill weight mud, the standpipe circulating pressure
should be stepped down according to the standpipe pressure schedule. (The standpipe
pressure will have a natural tendency to drop as the kill weight mud is displaced down
the drillpipe.)
Once the drillpipe has been displaced to kill weight mud, the drillpipe pressure should
be maintained at the final circulating pressure for the rest of the circulation.
The pit gain during displacement should be recorded so that the position of the influx in
the wellbore can be approximated. Use the Well Control Operations Log to record this
and all other relevant information, including the surface pressures.
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.
8.1.6 Implementation of the Driller’s Method

Prior to implementation of the Driller’s Method, the calculations as covered in
Section 8.1.4 should be carried out.
The following further calculations are then carried out prior to the first circulation:
8.1.6.1 Circulation Rate

The circulation rate for the first circulation of the Driller’s Method is not limited by the
baryte mixing capacity of the rig. Limiting factors will include the additional wellbore
pressures due to circulation and further practicalities as outlined above.

The initial circulating pressure at the start of the first circulation is calculated in the
same manner as the Wait and Weight Method, although the drillstring displacement
volume/time is not significant in this case.
The initial circulating pressure will remain constant throughout the first circulation since
the mud weight has not changed.

These figures are calculated in exactly the same manner as the Wait and
Weight Method.

The standpipe pressure is held constant throughout the first circulation. It should be
held constant at the initial circulating pressure.
8.1.6.5 Guidelines for Displacing a Kick (Driller’s Method)

The following steps can be used as a guide for the displacement of the kick:
1. Line up the pump to the drillpipe and route returns through the choke manifold to
the mud gas separator.
2. Set the stroke counter on the remote choke panel to zero.
3. Open the remote operated choke at the same time as the pump is slowly brought
up to speed. Consider stroking the drillstring up at this point.
4. Maintain the choke pressure equal to the original shut-in casing pressure as the
pump is slowly brought up to speed. This may take ½ to 1 minute.
5. Once the pump is up to speed, record the initial circulating pressure. If the actual
initial circulating pressure is considerably different from the calculated value, stop
the pump, shut in the well and investigate the cause.
6. Circulate the influx from the well maintaining constant bottom hole pressure.
If the actual initial circulating pressure is equal to, or reasonably close to, the
calculated value, continue the displacement, holding the standpipe pressure at the
value recorded when the pump was first brought up to speed.
most likely due to the fact that the slow circulation rate (SCR) pressure used to
calculate the initial circulating pressure was inaccurate. The actual SCR pressure can
be determined from the initial circulating pressure from Equation 8.22.
Pscr = Pic – Pdp
This adjusted value for the SCR pressure should be used for estimating the circulating
pressures for the second circulation.
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.
8.1.7 Subsequent Calculations for Use With the Driller’s Method
8.1.7.1 Circulation Rate for the Second Circulation

The circulation rate is determined on the same basis as if the Wait and Weight Method
had been used.

The initial circulating pressure will be the same as for the first circulation.
The initial circulating pressure is therefore calculated by rearranging the terms in
Equation 8.22:
Pic = Pdp + Pscr (8.24)
where:
Pic = second circulation initial circulating pressure (psi)
Pdp = drillpipe pressure recorded prior to second circulation (psi)
Pscr = slow circulating rate pressure (psi)
8.1.7.3 Final Circulating Pressure

As with the Wait and Weight Method, the circulating pressure must be adjusted to
compensate for the kill weight mud. Therefore, from Equation 8.23 we have:
Pfc = Pscr (2/1)
where Pscr is measured at the original mud density.

These figures will be the same as for the first circulation.

The standpipe pressure schedule for the second circulation is drawn up in the same
manner as for the Wait and Weight Method.
The following can be used as a guide for circulating the hole to kill weight mud:
1. Line up the pump and route returns through the choke manifold to the mud gas
separator.
2. Zero the stroke counter on the choke panel.
3. Open the remote operated choke at the same time that the pump is brought up to
speed. Consider stroking the drillstring up at this point.
4. Maintain the choke pressure equal to the shut-in casing pressure as the pump is
brought up to speed. This may take 1/2 to 1 minute.
5. Once the pump is up to speed, record the initial circulating pressure.
6. Circulate the hole to kill weight mud while maintaining constant bottom
hole pressure.
If the actual initial circulating pressure is considerably different from the calculated
value, stop the pump, shut in the well, and investigate the cause.
If the actual initial circulating pressure is equal to or reasonably close to the
calculated value, continue the displacement and adjust the standpipe pressure
schedule accordingly.
most likely to be due to the fact that the SCR pressure used to calculate the initial
circulating pressure was inaccurate. The actual SCR pressure and hence the corrected
final circulating pressure can be determined from the initial circulating pressure by
using Equations 8.22 and 8.23.
Pscr = Pic – Pdp
Pfc = Pscr (2/1)
The standpipe pressure schedule can therefore be corrected to take into account the
adjusted circulating pressures.
As the drillpipe is displaced with kill weight mud, the standpipe circulating pressure
should be stepped down according to the standpipe pressure schedule.
Once the drillpipe has been displaced to kill weight mud, the final circulating pressure
is held on the drillpipe by manipulating the choke.
As kill weight mud is circulated up the annulus, the drillpipe pressure will tend to
increase. The choke should be adjusted to ensure that the drillpipe pressure
is maintained at the final circulating pressure, thereby ensuring constant bottom
hole pressure.
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.
8.2 NON-STANDARD TECHNIQUES
8.2.1 Volumetric Method

The Volumetric Method can be used to control the expansion of an influx that is
migrating during shut-in periods. Therefore, it can only be used if significant migration
is occurring, which may occur only in the case of gas kicks.
This method can be used during shut-in periods prior to displacement, or as a means
of safely venting an influx from a well in which circumstances prevent the
implementation of normal well control techniques.
Situations in which the Volumetric Method may be applicable include:
During any shut-in period after the well has kicked
If the pumps are inoperable
If there is a washout in the drillstring that prevents displacement of the kick
If the pipe is a considerable distance off bottom, out of the hole or stuck off bottom
If the bit is plugged
If the pipe has been dropped
There are four techniques that may be required to deal with an influx that is migrating
up the hole. These are as follows:
Static Volumetric Control: when the drillpipe is on or near bottom and can be used
to measure bottom hole pressure
Static Volumetric Control: when the drillpipe cannot be used to measure bottom
hole pressure
Lubrication: when the influx has migrated to the stack, the influx is replaced with
mud as the influx is bled at the choke
Dynamic Volumetric Control: this technique may be used as an alternative to the
above but is most applicable as an alternative to lubrication on a floating rig
The following sections may be used as guidelines for the implementation of the above
mentioned procedures.
8.2.1.1 Using Drillpipe Pressure to Monitor Bottom Hole Pressure

This procedure is the most simple to implement in that the drillpipe pressure is
available to monitor bottom hole pressure.
It may be necessary to implement this procedure during any time that the well is shut in
after a kick has been taken. This situation may arise while preparations are being
made to kill a well or when operations have to be suspended due to bad weather or
equipment failure.
The following guidelines can be used:
1. Record the shut-in drillpipe and choke pressures. After the well has been shut in,
the surface pressures can be used to identify the influx type. These calculations are
covered in Section 2. If the influx contains a significant proportion of gas, it will be
necessary to allow the influx to expand considerably as it migrates up the hole.
2. Develop annulus pressure profile. The annular pressures during migration of the
influx will be similar to those resulting from circulation with the Driller’s Method. In
this respect, a PC or programmable calculator can be used to develop the annulus
pressure profile for the Driller’s Method. The maximum wellbore pressures can be
estimated along with the anticipated pit gain.
3. Determine migration rate. After the surface pressures have built up to values which
reflect the kick zone pressure, further increases will be due to migration. The rate of
migration can be estimated from two pressure readings, recorded either both on the
drillpipe or both on the casing, taken at a known time interval apart.
The distance of migration up the annulus D (in ft), given a constant cross-section
and a time interval T (in minutes), is given by:
D = (P2 – P1)/(m 0.052) (8.25)
The migration rate can therefore be estimated as follows:
Qg,m = (D × 60)/t (8.26)
4. Allow drillpipe pressure to build by overbalance margin. The drillpipe pressure
should be allowed to build by a suitable overbalance margin. This margin will
be registered on the drillpipe as an increase in pressure over and above the
final shut-in pressure. The overbalance margin may typically be in the range of
50 to 200psi.
5. Allow drillpipe pressure to build up by the operating margin. The drillpipe pressure
should be allowed to build by a further margin to ensure that the overbalance is
maintained as mud is bled from the well. The operating margin may also typically
be in the range of 50 to 200psi, depending on the resultant wellbore pressures at
each stage in the operation.
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.
8.2.1.2 Using Choke Pressure to Monitor Bottom Hole Pressure

This technique may be required if the drillstring is stuck off bottom, out of the hole or
too far off bottom to be stripped back, or if the bit is plugged.
In these cases, it will not be possible to monitor the bottom hole pressure with
the drillpipe during the control process. The choke pressure is therefore used
in conjunction with the volume of mud bled from the well to infer the bottom
hole pressure.
The principle of this procedure is that the bottom hole pressure is maintained slightly
over kick zone pressure by bleeding mud from the annulus to allow the influx to expand
as it migrates up the hole. Mud is bled in increments from the well as the choke
pressure rises due to migration. The amount of mud bled off for each increment is
determined from the increase in choke pressure.
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
Figure 8.6 - Volumetric Control Worksheet
VOLUMETRIC CONTROL WORKSHEET
Well No: ! Rig No:

Date and Time:
(! Sheet No:
Mud Weight in Hole:

Lubricating Mud Weight:

Hydrostatic Pressure per bbl of :

Mud in: % " Annulus:
#
Hydrostatic Pressure per bbl of : Mud in: Annulus:
Overbalance Margin: # Operating Margin:

#
Choke Change in Hydrostatic Volume of Total

Monitor Monitor of Mud Bled/ Mud Bled/ Volume
Time Pressure Pressure Lubricated Overbalance Lubricated of Mud
(hr min) Operation (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (bbl) (bbl)
)* !

+, #+-

*% / /

$.+
*%
/
/

$.+
0--, $*,

/ / !

+ )12-

*%
/
/

$.+
0--, $*,

/ / !

+ )12-
*%
/
/

$.+
0--, $*,

/ / !

+ )12-
*%
/
/

$.+
0--, $*,

/ / !

+ )12-
+ VE + VE + VE + VE
Increase Bled Overbalance Bled
– VE – VE – VE – VE
Decrease Lubricated Underbalance Lubricated
Figure 8.7 - Static Volumetric Control

(Control Bottom Hole Pressure at the Choke)
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.
Figure 8.8 - Static Volumetric Control

(Consequences of Improper Procedure)
7. Bleed increment of mud from the well at constant choke pressure.

A suitable volume of mud should be bled from the well to reduce the bottom hole
pressure by an amount equivalent to the operating margin.
The choke pressure must be held constant as the mud is bled from the well.
For the following example, refer to Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8.
Example 8.7
Operating margin = 150psi
Annulus = 8-1/2in × 5in
Mud weight = 15.4ppg
Hydrostatic equivalent of mud = (53.5 × 15.4)/(72.25 – 25) = 17.4 (psi/bbl)
Bleed (150/17.4) = 8.6bbl of mud
As can be seen from the example in Figure 8.7, the bottom of the influx migrated
from 217ft off bottom to 5984ft off bottom, while bleeding off 8.6bbl of mud. This
could take considerable time. If the operating margin, in this case 150psi (8.6bbl),
had been quickly bled off and assuming no migration during this period, the bubble
would have expanded by only about 0.36bbl before bottom hole pressure dropped
to kick zone pressure. This would result in a further influx of 8.14bbl.
Subsequent volumes bled from the well will require less migration distance, ie for
an increase of bubble size to 27bbl (after next bleed-off), the distance from bottom
will be 7858ft.
8. Continue the process until the influx migrates to the stack.
Once the influx has migrated to the stack, surface pressures should no longer rise
and 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).
9. Lubricate mud into the hole or implement the Dynamic Volumetric Method.
If this process has been implemented because the pipe was off bottom, it may be
feasible to circulate the influx out of the hole when the influx has migrated to the bit.
See Figure 8.9 for a typical choke pressure schedule for the Static Volumetric
Method.
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.
The following guidelines can be used to lubricate mud into a well:

1. Calculate the hydrostatic pressure per barrel of the lubricating mud.
This is done in the same manner as for the Volumetric Method.
2. Slowly lubricate a measured quantity of mud into the hole.
Line up the pump to the kill line. Determine the maximum pressure that can be
added at surface without inducing lost returns. This is generally based on fracture
gradient at the casing shoe. In deep wells with liners and limited open hole, a
large kick may place the casing in a near-burst condition just above the top of
the uppermost liner. Casing wear may also impact this pressure limit. The
consequences of picking too high a pressure is that an underground blowout will
be induced.
Having determined the safe upper limit for the surface pressure, the pump should
be started slowly on the hole.
Mud should be pumped into the annulus until casing pressure reaches a
predetermined limit. At this point the pump should be stopped and the well shut in.
The well should be left static for a period while the gas migrates through the mud
that has been lubricated into the well.
The exact amount of mud lubricated into the well should be closely monitored.
3. Bleed gas from the well.
Gas should be bled from the well to reduce the surface pressure by an amount
equivalent to the hydrostatic pressure of the mud lubricated into the well.
If the surface pressure increased as the mud was lubricated into the well, the
amount that the pressure increased should be bled back in addition to this.
Ensure that no significant quantity of mud is bled from the well during this
operation. If mud appears at the choke before the surface pressure has been
reduced to its desired level, shut the well in and let the gas percolate through
the mud.
Returns should be lined up through the mud gas separator to the trip tank to ensure
that any volume of mud bled back with the gas is recorded and accounted for.
4. Repeat this procedure until all the influx has been vented from the well.
It is likely that it will be necessary to reduce the volume of mud lubricated into the
well at each stage during this procedure. This is due to the reduction in volume of
gas in the well.
If the influx was swabbed into the well and the mud weight is sufficient to balance
formation pressures, the choke pressure should eventually reduce to zero.
However, if the mud weight in the hole is insufficient, the final choke pressure will
reflect the degree of underbalance. It will then be necessary to kill the well.
8.2.1.4 Dynamic Volumetric Control

This technique can be used as an alternative to the Static Volumetric Method.
However, it should only be used as a method of safely venting an influx from below a
subsea stack, due to both the complexity of the operation and the level of stress
imposed on well control equipment during circulation.
Experience has shown that the Dynamic Volumetric Method is the most reliable
method of venting gas from a subsea stack if the drillpipe cannot be used to monitor
bottom hole pressure.
The principle of the procedure is identical to the Static Volumetric Control. However,
the implementation is very different. In this case, circulation is maintained across the
wellhead, while the surface pressure and pit gain are controlled with the choke. The kill
line pressure is used to monitor the well.
It is very important that the active tank be a suitable size to resolve very small changes
in level. It should be possible to reliably detect changes of the order of one barrel.
Having identified that the influx is at the stack, the following guidelines can be used to
implement the Dynamic Volumetric Method:
1. Ensure that the kill line is full of mud.
If there is any possibility that the kill line contains gas, the well should be isolated
and the kill line circulated to mud. This will ensure that the pressure at the stack is
accurately monitored during the operation. It is critical to have a known hydrostatic
in the kill line.
2. Line up to circulate down the kill line and up the choke line.
Ensure that it is possible to monitor the active pit level accurately. Route returns
through the mud gas separator.
3. Bring the pump up to speed.
As the pump is brought up to speed, the kill line (or pump pressure) must increase
by an amount equal to the kill line pressure loss. However, if it is not possible to
compensate for the choke line pressure loss, the kill line pressure will inevitably
increase by more than the kill line pressure loss.
The kill line circulating pressure will be monitored during the operation to remove
gas from the well.
4. Reduce kill line pressure in line with a drop in pit level.

As gas is bled from the well, the pit level will drop while the choke Operator adjusts
the choke to maintain a constant kill line circulating pressure. This will result in
mud being lubricated into the well.
If the kill line circulating pressure is held constant as mud is lubricated into the well
(as gas is removed), the bottom hole pressure will increase. Therefore, as the pit
level decreases, the kill line pressure should be reduced to account for the greater
hydrostatic pressure in the annulus from the mud lubricated in, as measured by
the pit mud loss. Thus as each 1bbl of mud is lost in the active pit, the circulation
pressure should be dropped as a function of the added hydrostatic in the wellbore.
This is done by opening the choke and reducing backpressure on the kill line.
Example 8.8
Drop in pit level = 10bbl
Annulus = 8-1/2in x 5in
Mud weight = 15.4ppg
Hydrostatic equivalent of mud:
= (53.5 x 15.4)/(72.25 – 25) = 17.4 (psi/bbl)
Reduce kill line circulating pressure by 17.4 x 10 = 174psi.
This procedure should be continued until all the influx has been vented from below the
stack. A constant pit level will indicate this.
If the well has been completely killed by removing gas from the stack, the final
circulating kill line pressure will be equal to the sum of the kill line pressure loss, the
choke line pressure loss and the wide open choke pressure. If the well is not yet
completely killed at this point, the final circulating kill line pressure will be greater than
this value.
See Figure 8.10 for an example of kill line pressure schedule for this technique.
Figure 8.10 - Dynamic Volumetric Control Kill Line Pressure Schedule
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
The level of redundancy in the BOP and the control system

Wellbore pressures in relation to the maximum allowable pressure for equipment
and the formation
The monitoring of pressure and fluid volumes
The organisation and supervision of the drill crew
Controlling increases in wellbore pressure due to surge pressure
The condition of the drillpipe (drillpipe rubbers should be removed and any burrs
smoothed out)
The possibility of sticking the pipe
The control of influx migration
Manufacturers’ information regarding minimum closing pressures for annular
preventers should be available at the rigsite. The procedure to be adopted in the event
that the surface pressure approaches the maximum allowable as the pipe is stripped
into the influx.
See Section 7 for a decision analysis related to stripping operations.
8.2.2.1 Monitoring Well Pressures and Fluid Volumes

During stripping operations, a constant bottom hole pressure is maintained by carefully
controlling the surface pressure and the volume of mud bled from or pumped into the
well. Accurate monitoring of the well is required for the following reasons:
1. To compensate for the volume of pipe introduced into the hole.
To avoid overpressuring the well, a volume of mud equal to the volume of pipe and
tool joints (the volume of metal plus the capacity) introduced into the well must be
bled off.
Where possible, mud should not be bled from the well while the pipe is stripped in.
It is recommended that mud is bled from the well during each connection. This
ensures that there is a clear indication at surface of the bottom hole assembly
(BHA) entering the influx.
However, it is recognised that there may be situations when it is impractical to bleed
mud from the well at connections. Such situations include:
If the surface pressures are close to the maximum allowable prior to the
stripping operation
If a high pressure water kick is taken. In these circumstances the effective
compressibility of the fluid in the hole will be low and as such there may be a
very large pressure rise as pipe is stripped into the well
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.
8.2.2.2 Annular Stripping

There are two stripping techniques: annular and ram combination stripping.
The decision analysis presented in Section 7 outlines the basis upon which the most
suitable stripping technique is selected. Annular stripping is considered to be the most
satisfactory technique. It involves less risk than ram combination stripping for the
following reasons:
Annular stripping is a relatively simple technique
During annular stripping the only item of well control equipment that is subject to
high levels of stress is the annular element
The control system is not highly stressed during the operation (as is the case during
ram combination stripping)
The annular element can be changed out on a surface stack when pipe is in the
hole by inserting a split element or stripping over a whole element
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.
Figure 8.11 - Effect of Pipe/BHA Entering the Influx

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.
Figure 8.12 - Surge Damper Fitted to Closing Line of Annular BOP

8.2.2.3 Annular Stripping Procedure

Having shut in the well, the following procedure can be used as a guideline for the
implementation of annular stripping:
1. Install drillpipe dart. Allow the dart to fall until it seats in the dart sub. In high angle
wells, getting the dart down might require some pumping. This is not a problem if
kick is below the end of the drillpipe and not migrating, as the well can be circulated
at a constant casing pressure. To check that the dart is functioning properly, bleed
off pressure at the drillpipe (restrict volumes bled off to an absolute minimum,
typically ½ to 1bbl). If the dart does not hold pressure, allow more time for the dart
to drop or consider circulating the dart into place (restrict volumes pumped to a
minimum). If the dart still does not hold pressure, install an inside BOP (Gray valve)
in the string.
2. Monitor surface pressures. Surface pressures should be monitored after the well
has been shut in to check for influx migration. If the influx is migrating, it will be
necessary to implement volumetric control during the stripping operation. If the pipe
is off bottom, it will not be possible to identify the type of influx in the usual manner.
However, a high surface pressure caused by a relatively small underbalance
usually indicates that the influx contains a significant quantity of gas.
3. Determine the capacity end displacement of the drillpipe. It will be necessary to
bleed mud from the well to compensate for the volume of pipe introduced into the
hole. This volume is equal to the sum of the capacity and the displacement of the
pipe. There are various tables which outline these quantities, but a reasonable
estimation can be made as shown in Example 8.2, whereby the square of the
outside pipe diameter is divided by 1029.4. Allowance should also be made for the
extra volume of metal in the tool joints. Calculate hydrostatic pressure per barrel of
mud. Should migration occur, it will be necessary to bleed from the well at constant
choke pressure to allow the influx to expand.
4. Estimate increase in surface pressure due to BHA entering the influx. It is possible
to estimate the maximum possible pressure increase due to the BHA entering the
influx as follows:
2 2 2
53.5 (gm – gk)(Vk) [1/(dhc – do ) – 1/dhc ] (8.28)
where
gm = mud hydrostatic gradient
gk = kick hydrostatic gradient
Vk = volume of kick
dhc = diameter of hole or casing ID
do = OD of drillstring
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.
8.2.2.4 Ram Combination Stripping

There are two types of ram combination stripping: annular to ram or ram to ram.
Both techniques must be considered if (1) the tool joint cannot be lowered through the
annular; or (2) the surface pressure is greater than the rated pressure of the annular
and this pressure cannot be reduced to within safe limits. Annular to ram stripping is
possible on 3-ram stack rigs as the lower ram is used as a safety ram. If a ram-to-ram
stripping capability is required, this must be sorted out in the rig tender process and
then the crew trained as appropriate.
Annular to pipe ram stripping is preferable to ram to ram, unless surface pressures
indicate that the annular cannot operate reliably. If ram-to-ram stripping is required,
obtain expert help on the way to location (see Figure 8.14 for ram-to-ram
configuration). Both ram combination techniques require the following:
Sufficient space for the tool joint between the two stripping BOPs
Showing effect of migration and BHA entering the influx
An inlet at the stack between the two BOPs used for stripping
A suitable level of redundancy in the stack to ensure that the lowest BOP is not
used during the stripping operation
Figure 8.13 - Example of Stripping Worksheet
STRIPPING WORKSHEET
WELL NO. RIG DATE AND TIME

SHEET NO
MUD WEIGHT IN HOLE LUBRICATING MUD WEIGHT
INITIAL BIT DEPTH HOLE DEPTH
STRIPPING DATA
VOLUME OF MUD DISPLACED BY 5 in DRILLPIPE
OVERBALANCE MARGIN ! OPERATING MARGIN ! "#$%
VOLUMETRIC CONTROL DATA
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE PER BARREL OF
MUD IN & ' ((& ANNULUS !
MUD IN ( & ' ((& ANNULUS !
MUD IN ( & HOLE !
MUD IN HOLE
Change in Hydrostatic Volume of
CHOKE Monitor Pipe of mud bled Mud Bled / Total
Time Monitor Pressure BIT DEPTH Stripped / Lubricated Overbalance Lubricated Volume of
Hr/Min Operation Pressure PSI ft ft bbl PSI PSI BBL Mud BBL

!! "

!# # $$ " $

% &

$ # $$ "
''

$ !# ! " $

% &

$ ! " $$
''

!# # $ !! " $ $$
$
% &

# $ !! "
''

# ! $$ " $

("
& %)"

*
+,
% &

! $$ " !!
''

! # " $ !!

% &

# # "
''

! $ " $

% &

! $ "
''

$ ! " $
!
% &

$ ! " $
''

$ # # # #! " $ $
#
% &

$ $ # # #! "
''
-
-
- -
- ' -'

' -
- ' -
'&
'

'
*
Figure 8.14 - Ram-to-ram Stripping Configuration

In a critical situation, it may be possible to modify a surface stack to suit these

conditions after a kick has been taken. An example surface stack that is suitable for
ram combination stripping is shown in Figure 8.15. Consider the following points to
assess the risks involved in ram combination stripping:
The high level of drill crew co-ordination required
The level of stress placed on the BOP elements
The level of stress placed on the BOP control system (during ram combination
stripping, the accumulators are charged to maximum operating pressure and
isolated from the BOP. The pumps are used for operational functions)
The possibility of replacing the worn BOP elements during operation
On a floating rig, the reduction in level of redundancy within the subsea BOP stack
as the ram preventer is used
8.2.2.5 Ram Combination Stripping Procedure

The following procedure can be used as a guideline for the implementation of
annular-to-ram stripping. The procedure for ram-to-ram stripping will be similar:
The procedure should only be used if tool joint cannot be pushed through annular
The procedure cannot be used when annular pressure rating is too low
The procedure should only be used if there are three pipe rams (two to strip and
one backup)
If kick is migrating, it will come up faster than a typical rig can strip down. Consider
volumetric control to get kick up past the bit and then kick circulation. This will
typically reduce surface pressure enough to allow annular stripping.
For details of Steps 1 to 6 see Section 8.2.2.3.
1. Install drillpipe dart.
2. Monitor surface pressures.
3. Determine the capacity and displacement of the drillpipe.
4. Calculate hydrostatic pressure per barrel of the mud.
5. Estimate the increase in surface pressure due to the BHA entering the influx.
6. Check ram space out in order to confirm the distance of the two preventers that will
be used for stripping.
7. Isolate the accumulator bottles at full operating pressure. The accumulators should
be kept as backup in the event of pump failure.
Figure 8.15 - Surface BOP Stack Suitable for Ram Combination Stripping
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.
Figure 8.16 - Annular-to-ram Stripping

(Stop Stripping When Tool Joint is Above Annular)

(Close Pipe Ram, Bleed Ram Cavity Pressure)

(Strip in Until Tool Joint is Just Below Annular)

(Use Rig or Cement Pump to Equalise Across Pipe Ram)
8.2.2.6 Dynamic Stripping Procedure

The situations in which it may be necessary to implement dynamic stripping are
outlined in previous sections. The purpose of this technique is to maintain constant
choke pressure as the pipe is stripped into the hole. This is achieved by circulating at a
constant rate across the end of the choke line. A manual choke should be used and the
equipment rigged up as shown in Figure 8.20.
For this technique to be effective, the pump output must be considerably greater than
the rate at which the volume of pipe is introduced into the well. If the pump rate is too
low, pressure surges will be caused at the choke as the pipe is stripped in, and the
choke pressure will fluctuate. The same is true for stripping out of the hole, in which
case the choke pressure may drop as pipe is stripped from the well if the pump rate is
too low. This may cause further influx to occur.
The main problem associated with this technique is that migration and entrance into
the gas bubble may not easily be detected at surface. If no allowance is made for these
complications, further influx may be allowed to occur. To avoid this, the mud tank levels
should be closely monitored to ensure that the levels rise, or drop, in direct relation to
the volume of pipe that has been stripped into, or out of, the well. If any discrepancy is
noticed, the well should be shut in and the surface pressures verified. Influx migration
should be dealt with using the Volumetric Method.
The dynamic stripping technique can be used during either annular or ram combination
stripping. For annular stripping it is implemented along the following lines (for details of
Steps 1 to 6, see Section 8.2.2.3):
1. Install drillpipe dart.
2. Monitor surface pressures.
3. Determine the capacity and displacement of the drillpipe.
4. Calculate hydrostatic pressure per barrel of the mud.
5. Estimate the increase in surface pressure due to the BHA entering the influx.
6. Allow the surface pressure to increase by the overbalance margin by stripping if
kick is not migrating.
7. Line up the pump to the kill line (see Figure 8.20).
8. Ensure that the manual choke is fully closed. Open choke line valve(s).
9. Open the manual choke at the same time as the pump is brought up to speed.
10. Maintain final shut-in pressure on the choke.
11. Reduce annular closing pressure.
12. Strip in the hole.
Figure 8.20 - Equipment Rig-up for Dynamic Stripping

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.
8.2.3.1 When to Bullhead

During operations, bullheading may be considered in the following situations:
When a very large influx has been taken
When displacement of the influx by conventional methods may cause excessive
surface pressures
When displacement of the influx by conventional methods would result in an
excessive volume of gas at surface
If the influx is suspected to contain an unacceptable level of H2S
When a kick is taken with the pipe off bottom and it is not considered feasible to
strip back to bottom
When an influx is taken with no pipe in the hole
To reduce surface pressures prior to implementing further well control operations
Do not bullhead if there is a very low kick margin and a long open hole section.
Bullheading in this case results in an induced underground blowout.
8.2.3.2 Important Factors About Bullheading

Bullheading during drilling operations is implemented when standard well control
techniques are considered inappropriate. During such situations, it is unlikely that
accurate information is available regarding the feasibility of bullheading. Therefore, in
most cases the likelihood of successfully bullheading an influx will not be known until it
is attempted.
However, the major factors that will determine the feasibility of bullheading include
the following:
The characteristics of the open hole
The rated pressure of the well control equipment and the casing (making allowance
for wear and deterioration)
The type of influx and the relative permeability of the formation
The quality of the filter cake at the permeable formation
The consequences of fracturing a section of the open hole
The position of the influx in the hole
8.2.3.3 Bullheading Procedure

In general, bullheading procedures can only be drawn up based on the particular
circumstances at the rigsite, eg there may be situations in which it is considered
necessary to cause a fracture down hole to bullhead away an influx containing H2S.
In another situation, with shallow casing set, it may be considered totally unacceptable
to cause a fracture in the open hole.
During a workover operation a procedure for bullheading will be drawn up along the
following lines:
1. Calculate surface pressures that will cause formation fracture during bullheading.
Also calculate the tubing burst pressures as well as casing burst (to cover the
possibility of tubing failure during the operation).
2. Calculate static tubing head pressure during bullheading.
3. Slowly pump kill fluid down the tubing. Monitor pump and casing pressure during
the operation.
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.
Figure 8.21 - Example Guide to Surface Pressures

During a Bullheading Operation
Figure 8.22 - Well Shut-in After Production

(Tubing Full of Gas Prior to Bullheading)
Figure 8.23 - Well During Bullheading Operations

Figure 8.24 - Well After Bullheading Operations

(Tubing Displaced to Kill Weight Brine)
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.
8.2.4.1 Rig Assisted Snubbing Units

The rig assisted unit uses the travelling blocks to generate the snubbing force
through a series of pulleys and cables (see Figure 8.25). The assisted units can
handle larger diameter pipes, such as 13-3/8in casing, and have capacities of
80,000 lb to 400,000 lb.
The unit consists of a set of travelling snubbers, which are connected to the travelling
block. The travelling snubbers grip the pipe and force it into the well as the blocks
are raised.
A set of stationary snubbers grip the pipe while the travelling snubbers are being raised
(by the counter-balance weights) for a new bite on the pipe.
Once sufficient pipe has been run to reach the balance point, the travelling snubbers
will be removed and conventional stripping will run in the pipe.
8.2.4.2 Hydraulic Self-contained Snubbing Units

Hydraulic snubbing units are the most common type available. They are completely
self-contained and can be used either inside the derrick or when there is no rig
on location.
There are two different types of hydraulic unit available:
The concentric cylinder unit for snubbing capacities up to 30,000 lb and for pipe up
to 5-1/2in OD (see Figure 8.26)
The multicylinder type for snubbing capacity up to 300,000 lb, lifting force up to
600,000 lb and for pipe up to 9-5/8in OD (see Figure 8.27)
The units are operated from the work platform located on top of the hydraulic jack
assembly. From this position the speed of the pipe and the slips are controlled, as can
be the rotary table, if required.
Stationary and travelling slips are operated in sequence to grip the pipe as it is
snubbed into the well.
One Operator controls the BOPs and equalising valves. Another Operator co-ordinates
the pipe handling, using the counter-balance system.
Figure 8.25 - Rig Assisted Snubbing Unit

Figure 8.26 - Concentric Cylinder Snubbing Unit

Figure 8.27 - Multicylinder Snubbing Unit

8.2.4.3 Selection of a Snubbing Unit

Amongst the criteria which should be considered in order to determine the most
suitable snubbing unit for a given application are:
Snubbing force
Lifting force
Size of the unit
Size of the pipe to be snubbed
The snubbing force is the force that the unit must exert to push the pipe into the hole.
The snubbing force will be a maximum for the first joint of pipe and decrease gradually
as the weight of the pipe in the hole increases in normal conditions. The snubbing force
is calculated as follows:
Fs = Fp + Ff – (wa x Ly) – (wb x Lz) (8.29)
where Fp is the force which, due to the pressure in the well, acts upon the
cross-sectional area of the pipe that is being snubbed. We may therefore describe
this term as the product of the pressure and the area, as follows:
Fp = Pw x Ao (see Figure 8.28) (8.30)
The greatest unknown will be the friction force (Ff) from the pipe dragging in the ram.
This force can be very high, particularly if there is dry gas at surface, well pressures are
high and pipe diameter is large. Ram drag can be a larger force than the pressure
area force in these circumstances. Experienced snubbers can be used to estimate
this force.
To calculate the snubbing force for the first joint of pipe, the length of pipe in the
hole (Lz) is zero, and the length of pipe above the BOP is considered insignificant.
Consider the following example:
Example 8.10
The well is shut in with a wellhead pressure of 5000psi. The 2-7/8in tubing produces an
estimated frictional force of 3000 lb at the stripping rams. The area of pipe exposed to
2
the wellbore pressure therefore equals 6.492in .
Snubbing Force
Fs = Fp + Ff = (6.492 x 5000) + 3000 (lb) = 35,460 lb
Fs = snubbing force, if there is already some pipe in the hole.
In this case the length of the pipe above the BOP is again considered insignificant.
Figure 8.28 - Force Diagram for Snubbing Pipe

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)
wa = Weight of Pipe in Air (lb/ft)

wb = Buoyant Weight of Pipe (lb/ft)
D = Depth of Tubing (ft)
Wh = wa + (wi x Ai) – (wo x Ao)
wb = 6.5 + (0 x Ai) – (10 x 0.052 x 6.492)
wb = 3.12 lb/ft
Therefore the snubbing force is given by:
Fs = Fo + Ff – (wa x Ly) – (W b × Lz) (8.31)
Fs = (6.492 x 5000) + 2000 + 5000 – (3.12 x 3281) = 29,200 lb
Size of the Unit
The dimensions of the unit must be checked against the internal dimensions of the
derrick if the unit is to be used with a rig on location.
Lifting Force
The unit must be able to provide a reasonable overpull, over and above the weight of
the maximum string weight.
Tubular Selection
If there is already pipe in the hole, this will determine the most suitable type of pipe to
be used.
Drillpipe can be used. However the following points should be considered:

Handling drillpipe in work basket due to weight
Ability to torque drillpipe in snubbing work basket
Drillpipe does not have gas-tight connections
The drillpipe must be in good condition and inspected thoroughly before running in
Special ram packer with Teflon inserts will be required
Longer tool joints require more attention to space out before ram closure
Drillpipe tool joints are typically grooved. This can strip rubber off the annular BOP
Tubing is more commonly used for snubbing for the following reasons:
Tubing is easier to handle
Ability to torque up and break out tubing in basket
Premium connections are desirable because they are gas tight
Tubing connections are smaller and so it is easier to push connections like CS
or PH-6 through annular BOP
The following points must also be considered:
The collapse strength of the tubing
The susceptibility of the tubing to failure due to buckling
Buckling
If excessive snub force is used above the stationary slips on unguided pipe, the pipe
can buckle and break. Take extreme care on high pressure wells to guide in pipe.
Typical problems occur when long grabs are needed to snub in oversized equipment
like packers. If snub force is high and unsupported length is too long, the well can blow
out if the pipe fails.
8.3 BARYTE PLUGS

Baryte plugs are typically used when there is no more kick tolerance. Mud density is at
a maximum and the well must be controlled. Typically, the hole was drilled too deep
and casing should have been set before reaching the problem depth. Baryte plugs are
used to provide hydrostatic control by weighting up below the loss zone that is
supporting a full column of lower density mud. Baryte plugs can be designed to provide
just hydrostatic control but can also be designed to settle if a deep bridge is needed to
allow backing off of a high pressure zone.
8.3.1 Hydrostatic Kill

Since baryte settling is inherently slow and the results of settling are quite
unpredictable, the use of a settling recipe should not be a dominant factor in designing
a well control operation. In general, the goal in using baryte kill slurry should be the
same as with any other kill weight mud – achieving a hydrostatic kill. Three factors
contribute to achieving a hydrostatic kill:
Density of the fluid
Volume of the fluid
Rate at which the fluid is pumped
Therefore, the density and volume of the kill weight mud must be high enough to
control the formation pressure, and the pump rate during the kill must exceed the influx
rate by sufficient margin so that the kill weight mud is not blown out of the wellbore.
The properties of the fluid pumped should be chosen based on these three factors. The
ideal kill weight mud would be inexpensive and simple to mix and handle a wide range
of densities. Deflocculated baryte slurries fit this description except that the settling of
the baryte can be a problem in surface handling and pumping.
8.3.2 Bridging Effect

It has been suggested that a baryte plug can stop unwanted flow by a bridging effect
and that achieving a hydrostatic kill is not necessary. Some field experiences support
this view. There are cases where a well has stopped flowing after being treated with a
small baryte plug. It is not prudent to rely strictly on baryte bridging when attempting to
kill a well.
Laboratory tests show clearly that even very low gas volumes (0.01mcf/d at bottom
hole conditions) can flow through a slowly settling baryte plug. These results, as well as
field experience, show that the bridging action of a baryte plug is not dependable.
For this reason, the design of a baryte plug should be based on achieving a hydrostatic
kill. Bridging in a high angle hole can be very difficult to achieve as gas tends to always
leave a stable high side channel.
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.
Table 8.1 - Field Mixing of Baryte Plugs
Baryte Plug for Use with Water-based Muds

1. Prepare mix water equal to 54% of final volume of slurry required. The recipes below
are for one barrel of mix water.
Settling Recipe
Water (fresh or sea)......................... 1bbl
Lignosulphonate .............................. 15 lb or 6 to 8 lb SAPP*
Caustic ........................................... 2 lb/bbl (pH = 10.5 to 11.5)
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)
2. Add baryte to mix water to prepare final slurry.

For 1 barrel of 21 lb/gal slurry, mix:
Water (fresh or sea) ........................ 1bbl
Mix water ......................................... 0.54bbl
Baryte .............................................. 700 lb
Baryte Plug for Use with Oil-based Muds

1. Prepare mix oil to 47% of final volume of slurry required. The recipes below are for one
barrel of mix oil.
Settling Recipe
Base oil............................................ 1bbl
Oil wetting agent .............................. 1.5 US gal
Non-settling Recipe
Base oil............................................ 1bbl
Oil wetting agent .............................. 1.5 US gal
Organophilic clay ............................. 4 lb
2. Add baryte to mix oil to prepare final slurry.

For 1 barrel of 21 lb/gal slurry, mix:
Oil mix ............................................. 0.5 bbl
Baryte .............................................. 750 lb
* Use SAPP if bottom hole temperature is <180°F, high fluid loss slurry is desired and
fresh water is used.
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.
8.3.5 Pilot Tests

Because of variation and possible contamination of ingredients throughout the world, it
is always advisable to pilot test a baryte slurry. Prepare a sample of the slurry using the
recipe chosen and the ingredients at the wellsite. After being stirred well, the sample
should have the expected density and be easily pumpable. If the baryte needs to settle
in the wellbore, this should also be checked ahead of time. Reasonable settling is 2in
in a mud cup after a 15-minute wait. The settled cake should be hard and somewhat
sticky rather than soft and slippery. The settling test is not a guarantee that the baryte
pill will form an effective plug under down hole conditions, but will certainly give an
indication of the settling characteristics. Consider making up a full size pill and
pumping it overboard to check the plug, the equipment and to train the people.
8.3.6 Slurry Volume

Slurry volumes depend upon the amount of open hole and the severity of the kick.
Typically we may expect volumes which range from 40 to 400 barrels, as the slurry
volume should be 125 to 150% of the annular capacity necessary to give the height of
plug desired, but should not be less than 40bbl. If a second baryte plug is required, the
slurry volume should be greater than the first.
8.3.7 Pumping and Displacement Rate

Baryte plugs should always be pumped with the drillpipe close to the bottom of the
hole. If there is any significant volume of mud under the baryte slurry then the baryte
slurry will mix with the mud because of the large differences in density. If the influx
zone is somewhat above the bottom of the hole, then the baryte slurry should be
pumped to bottom and then above the influx zone far enough to provide the desired
hydrostatic kill height.
A baryte plug should be pumped and displaced at a rate somewhat higher than the kick
rate. If the kick rate is unknown, a reasonable rate (5 to 10bbl/min) should be used for
the first attempt although very large blowouts can ultimately require kill weight mud
placement at greater than 50bbl/min.
8.3.8 Preparation of a Baryte Plug

For field preparation of either a settling or non-settling baryte slurry, it is best to prepare
the mix water first and then add baryte to the desired density. The equipment needed
on location to prepare and pump a baryte plug is a cementing unit equipped with a high
pressure jet in the mixing hopper, a means of delivering the dry baryte to the cementing
unit, and sufficient clean tankage for the mix water so that the lignosulphonate and
caustic soda can be mixed in advance.
The capability to blow baryte to the cementing unit is required. This should be
confirmed as part of the rig tendering process or a rig audit. Baryte should be blown
into the recirculating cement mixer (RCM) at a sufficient rate to allow the baryte pill to
be mixed ‘on the fly’ at the desired rate. The non-settling slurry may be recirculated
through the mixing hopper several times if necessary to obtain a particular weight.
Service companies are reluctant to recirculate settling baryte slurries through
their equipment.
It is possible to weight up to 21ppg in one pass provided the mix water is fed to the
hopper at 600 to 1060psi. Hopper nozzles and feed rate should be selected to give this
pressure drop.
Settling-type baryte slurries may only be stored in ribbon blenders or similar equipment,
which provide continuous, thorough agitation. Non-settling slurries may be stored in
standard mud tanks although even these slurries may drop out a few inches of baryte
per day if not stirred.
The baryte slurry may be pumped into the drillpipe either through a cementing head or
through the standpipe and kelly. In either case, the pump tie-in to the drillpipe should
contain provisions for hooking up both the cementing unit pump and the rig pump so
that either can be used to displace the slurry. If this is not done, and the cementing unit
breaks down, the baryte may settle in the drillpipe before the mud pump tie-in can be
made or the cementing unit repaired. Blockage of the drillstring by baryte settling will
complicate the well control problem.
8.3.9 After Pumping a Baryte Plug

Baryte plugs may be used in a variety of situations. It is not possible to give one fixed
procedure which will always work. There will always be a need for local decisions and
good judgement. This is especially true in deciding what to do after a baryte plug has
been pumped.
The decision after placing a baryte plug is whether to pull pipe or not. The goal of
pumping a high-density slurry is to achieve a hydrostatic kill. The decisions whether to
pull pipe depends on an assessment of the success of this kill. If a hydrostatic kill was
probably achieved then it is usually best to pull up above the slurry and try circulating
mud. If there is doubt about the hydrostatic kill it may be better to stay on bottom to be
ready to pump a larger baryte plug if needed. The risk in pulling out is that the pipe may
become stuck off bottom or may have to be stripped back to bottom if the baryte plug
fails. The risk of staying on bottom is that the pipe may become stuck or plugged. It is
possible to keep the pipe free by moving it (especially in a non-settling plug), but there
is no way to circulate (to avoid plugging) unless the pipe is pulled above the top of the
baryte. Procedures for both methods are as follows and assume that the influx zone
and the bottom of the hole are nearly equal.
8.3.9.1 Baryte Plug Procedure for Leaving Pipe in Place

1. Mix and pump the slurry at the appropriate rate. Monitor the slurry density with a
densimeter in the discharge line or a pressurised mud balance. Displace the slurry
immediately at the same rate.
2. Over-displace the slurry by 5bbl to clear the drillstring. Continue to pump 1/4bbl at
15-minute intervals to keep the drillstring clear.
3. Verify that underground flow has stopped. A noise log may be used. It is more
definitive than a temperature log. Temperature surveys can be used in addition or if
the noise log is not available. If temperature surveys are used, wait 6 to 10 hours
for the temperatures to stabilise. The survey will show a hotter than normal
temperature in the zone of lost returns. Wait another 4 hours, then run a second
survey. If the underground flow has stopped, the temperature in the lost returns
zone will have decreased.
4. After it has been determined that the flow is stopped, bullhead a cement slurry
through the bit to provide a permanent seal. Observe the annulus during the
pumping. If the casing pressure begins varying appreciably, or if a sudden change
in the pumping pressure occurs, the baryte plug may have been disturbed.
Over-displace the cement to clear the drillstring. Additional cementing to obtain a
squeeze pressure might be desirable.
5. Plug the inside of the drillstring. The cement in Step 4 above can be under-
displaced, but a wireline bridge plug set near the top of the collars is preferred.
Cement should be dump bailed on the wireline bridge plug for additional safety.
6. Pressure test the inside plug.
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.
8.3.9.2 Baryte Plug Procedure for Pulling Pipe Out of Plug

(High Pressure, Low Permeability Formation)
1. Mix and pump the slurry. Monitor the slurry weight with a densimeter in the
discharge line or a pressurised mud balance. If mixing is interrupted for any reason,
immediately begin displacement of the slurry using either the cement unit pumps or
the rig pumps. Work the pipe while pumping and displacing.
2. Displace the slurry with mud at the same rate. Cut the displacement short by 2 or
3bbl to prevent backflow from the annulus. If a non-ported drillpipe float is in the
drillstring, over-displace the slurry.
3. Immediately begin pulling the pipe. It may be necessary to strip the pipe through
the annular preventer. Pull at least one stand above the calculated top of the baryte
slurry.
4. Monitor the annulus.

a. If no pressure is on the annulus, continue working the pipe and observe annulus
mud level.
i. If the annulus is full, begin circulating at a low rate while keeping a
constant watch on pit levels.
ii. If the annulus is not full, fill annulus with water and observe. If annulus will
stand full, begin circulating at a slow rate.
iii. Consider cutting mud weight, if feasible.
b. If pressure is on the annulus, circulate the annulus using normal well control
techniques. Continue working the pipe.
i. If returns become gas free, the baryte plug was successful and the well
is dead.
ii. If returns do not become essentially gas free after circulating two or three
annular volumes, the baryte plug was not effective. A second plug will be
necessary.
iii. Trip out of the hole after verifying that the well is dead.
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
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 (32.17ft/sec )
gf = fluid hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
gg = gas hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
gl = liquid hydrostatic gradient (psi/ft)
gk = kick hydrostatic (psi/ft)
gm = mud hydrostatic (psi/ft)
G = pit gain (bbl)
L = length (ft)
M = molecular weight
Ma = molecular weight of air
n = number of moles
P = 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)
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 bubble point (scf/bbl)
Rsc = solution gas/component ratio (scf/bbl)
ROP = penetration rate (ft/hr)
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)
Qm = circulating mud rate (gal/min)
Qg = formation gas rate entering well (gal/min)
T = temperature (°F, also °R)
Tc = critical temperature (°R)
Tpc = pseudo-critical temperature (°R)
Tr = reduced temperature, dimensionless
Tpr = pseudo-reduced temperature, dimensionless
t = time (hr)
3
V = volume (ft or bbl)
vsl = volume of slug (bbl)
z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
zf = final compressibility factor, dimensionless
zi = initial compressibility factor, dimensionless
Pg = bottom hole pressure reduction due to gas cutting (psi)
= specific gravity, dimensionless
= formation porosity, dimensionless
= density (lb/gal)
av = average density (lb/gal)
s = surface density (lb/gal)
sl = slug density (lb/gal)

Ca,A = annular capacity (bbl/ft)
Ca,P = pipe capacity (bbl/ft)
IDI = internal diameter of the inside pipe (inches)
IDO = internal diameter of the outside pipe (inches)
ODI = external diameter of the inside pipe (inches)
ODO = external diameter of the outside pipe (inches)
V = volume (bbl)
TVD = true vertical depth (ft)
Pdp = drillpipe pressure (psi)
1 = original mud density (lb/gal)
k = kill mud density (lb/gal)
Qmax = maximum circulation rate (bbl/min)
QB = baryte delivery rate (lb/min)
MB = baryte mass required to weight mud (lb/bbl)
Pic = initial circulating pressure (psi)
Pdp = drillpipe pressure corresponding to the kick zone pressure (psi)
Pscr = circulating pressure at SCR (psi)
Pfc = final circulating pressure (psi)
P1 = surface pressure at start of interval (psi)
P2 = surface pressure after interval T (psi)
T = time interval (min)
Qg,m = migration rate (ft/hr)
dhc = hole/casing ID (inches)
do = drillstring OD (inches)
m = mud weight (lb/gal)
gk = influx gradient, converted to lb/gal (water = 8.33 lb/gal)
Vk = volume of influx
dhc = hole/casing inside diameter
do = outside diameter of bottom hole assembly
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
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

3
bbl × 1.589 873*E-01 = m
ft × 3.048*E-01 = m
3 3
ft × 2.831 685*E-02 = m
°F (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
3
gal × 3.785 412*E-03 = m
in × 2.54*E+00 = cm
Ib × 4.535 924*E-01 = kg
3 3
lb/ft × 1.601 846*E+01 = kg/m
3
lb/gal × 1.198 204*E+02 = kg/m
psi × 6.894 757*E+00 = kPa
psi/ft × 2.262 059*E+01 = kPa/m
* Conversion factor is exact
SECTION 9 COMPLICATIONS Page 1 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9. COMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 2
9.1 DROPPING PIPE ............................................................................................. 2
9.2 SHEARING PIPE ............................................................................................. 3
9.3 PLUGGED NOZZLE ........................................................................................ 4
9.4 PLUGGED CHOKE.......................................................................................... 5
9.5 CUT-OUT CHOKE ........................................................................................... 5
9.6 PUMP FAILURE............................................................................................... 5
9.7 PRESSURE GAUGE FAILURE........................................................................ 6

9.7.1 Backup Gauges .......................................................................................... 6
9.8 STRING WASHOUT ........................................................................................ 6
9.9 SURFACE EQUIPMENT FAILURE.................................................................. 7

9.9.1 Downstream Failure ................................................................................... 7
9.9.2 Upstream Failure ........................................................................................ 7
9.10 KICKS DURING WIRELINE OPERATIONS ................................................... 7

9.10.1 Open Hole/Cased Hole............................................................................... 7
9.10.2 Drillstring/Hole ............................................................................................ 7
9.10.3 Slickline Tools in Drillpipe........................................................................... 7
9.11 STUCK PIPE................................................................................................... 8

9.11.1 Differential Sticking..................................................................................... 8
9.11.2 Mechanical Sticking.................................................................................... 8
9.12 KICKS WHILE RUNNING CASING OR LINER............................................... 8
9.13 HYDRATES..................................................................................................... 9
9.14 EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ANNULAR

SURFACE PRESSURE (MAASP)................................................................. 12
9.15 IMPENDING BAD WEATHER....................................................................... 13
9.16 REMOVING GAS FROM A SUBSEA BOP ................................................... 13
9.17 LOSS OF CONTROL .................................................................................... 21

COMPLICATIONS Page 2 of 21
9. COMPLICATIONS
9.1 DROPPING PIPE

Situations in which it will be necessary to drop the pipe will be extremely rare. However,
dropping the pipe is an emergency procedure and as such will only be required as a
last resort when the safety of the rig and personnel is threatened. Situations that may
require the pipe to be dropped include:
If an internal blowout (drillpipe) occurs on a rig that has no shear rams
If an internal blowout occurs when the drillcollars are in the stack such that we are
unable to shear
As an alternative to the use of shear rams in the event of an internal blowout when
drillpipe is in the stack
If the pipe is pushed out of the hole under the influence of wellbore pressure
Once the pipe has been dropped or pushed out of he way, the well is shut-in with the
blind rams. However, re-establishing control of the well in this situation will be time
consuming and costly, particularly if the pipe was dropped.
It is clearly important to be sure that the pipe will clear the stack once it has been
dropped (especially on a floating rig in deep water). The possibility of damaging the
ram packings must also be considered.
There are two techniques that can be used to drop the string:
Method A – Unlatch the Elevators
1. Lower the string until the elevators are at a manageable distance from the floor.
2. Ensure that the blowout preventer (BOP) is closed at maximum operating pressure
if annulus is flowing.
3. Attach a tugger line to the elevators.
4. Clear the floor.
5. If dropping is preferred, open the choke line to bleed down surface pressure. (If the
drillstring is short, high pressures can shoot string out of the hole.)
6. Open the elevators.
7. Open the BOP. Allow the string to drop.
8. Close the blind ram.
9. Close the choke.
Method B – Back Off a Tool Joint

1. Set the slips.
2. Break a tool joint. Ensure that the joint can support the weight of the string.
3. Pull the slips.
4. Run the loose joint below the rotary.
5. Set the slips.
6. Ensure the BOP is closed at maximum closing pressure.
7. Open the choke line to reduce the surface pressure.
8. Turn the rotary to the left to back-off the joint.
9. Open the BOP and allow the pipe to drop.
10. Close the blind ram.
11. Close the choke.
Both of these techniques involve a certain amount of risk. The most suitable method in
each case will depend on the particular conditions at the rigsite.
9.2 SHEARING PIPE

Shear rams can be used to cut drillpipe and then act as a blind ram in order to isolate
the drilling rig from the well. This technique should be required used only in exceptional
circumstances. Circumstances that warrant shearing the pipe include:
Rather than dropping the pipe in the event of an uncontrollable blowout up the
drillstring (an internal blowout)
When it becomes necessary to move a floating rig off location at short notice
When there is no pipe in the hole, the shear rams can be used as blind rams
Most shear rams are designed to shear effectively only on the body of the drillpipe.
Procedures for the use of shear rams must therefore ensure that there is no tool joint
opposite the ram prior to shearing. Be aware that many subsea stacks have insufficient
clearance between the top pipe rams and the shear rams to hang off on the top rams
and shear the pipe.
Specialised shear rams, such as the Cameron Super Shear Rams, are designed to
shear (but not seal) 7in drillcollars and casing up to 13-3/8in OD. It is clearly important,
however, that rigsite personnel are aware of the capabilities and operating parameters
of the shear rams installed in the rig’s BOP stack.
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.
9.3 PLUGGED NOZZLE

A plugged nozzle in the bit is indicated by an unexpected increase in drillpipe pressure
with little or no change in the choke pressure.
The choke Operator may be tempted to open the choke to reduce the drillpipe pressure
to the original circulating pressure. This will result in a drop in choke pressure and a
corresponding drop in bottom hole pressure. Therefore, should a plugged bit nozzle be
suspected, the pump should be stopped, the well shut in and the pump restarted to
establish the increased standpipe pressure that will maintain a suitable bottom hole
pressure.
An increase in drillpipe pressure could also be caused by the hole packing off around
the bottom hole assembly (BHA). This would be likely to cause increased, though
fluctuating, and circulating pressures. The drillstring should be reciprocated in order to
clear this problem.
If the bit becomes totally plugged, this will cause an abrupt and continually increasing
drillpipe pressure, with little or no change in choke pressure. Hence, if increased
drillpipe pressure does not clear the problem, the string must be perforated as close as
possible to the bit in order to re-establish circulation.
It is good practice, especially in high pressure, high temperature (HPHT), extended
reach or horizontal wells, to run a circulating sub above the bit or above a corebarrel.
9.4 PLUGGED CHOKE

A plugged choke is indicated by an unexpected increase in choke pressure
accompanied by an equal increase in drillpipe pressure. Some plugging of the choke is
to be expected if the annulus is loaded with cuttings.
Clearly the first course of action is to open the choke in an attempt to both clear the
restriction in the choke and to avoid overpressuring the well. If this action is not
successful the pump should be stopped immediately. After switching to an alternative
choke the excess pressure in the well should be bled at the choke and the
displacement restarted in the usual manner.
Avoid overpressuring the well if the choke is plugged.
One of the reasons for displacing a kick at slow circulation rates is to avoid
overpressuring the well if cuttings plug the choke. In this respect, circulation rates
should be minimised in critical conditions if the annulus is likely to contain a substantial
volume of cuttings. Furthermore, it is best not to operate a choke in the full open
position so that any plugging may be cleared by opening the choke further and then
returning it to the previous position.
9.5 CUT-OUT CHOKE

A choke is unlikely to suddenly cut out. In this respect, there will not be any dramatic
indication that this problem is occurring.
Choke cut-out is rare.
As a choke wears it will become necessary to gradually close it in to maintain
circulating pressure. If the Operator finds that he has to gradually close in the choke to
maintain circulating pressure, the first reaction should be to check the pit volume to
ensure that lost circulation is not occurring.
Having established that there is no loss of circulation, a worn out choke should
be suspected.
There may come a stage when it is no longer possible to maintain a suitable circulating
pressure even with the choke apparently fully closed. At, or preferably before, this
stage the flow should be switched to another choke and repairs made to the
worn choke.
9.6 PUMP FAILURE

The most obvious indicator of failure at the fluid end is likely to be erratic standpipe
pressure together with irregular rotary hose movement. An unexplained drop in
circulating pressure may precede this.
If pump failure is suspected, the pump should be stopped and the well shut in.
The displacement should be continued with the second rig pump, or if necessary, the
cement pump. The faulty pump should be repaired immediately.
9.7 PRESSURE GAUGE FAILURE

Every effort should be made to ensure that all pressure gauges are working correctly,
and that backup gauges are available in the event of failure of a pressure gauge during
a well control operation.
9.7.1 Backup Gauges

Should gauge failure occur during a well control operation, it is important that the
defective gauge be replaced as quickly as possible. If no backup gauge is immediately
available, stop the operation and shut in the well.
On critical wells, modern digital gauges should be used in the choke panel, for example
a Houston Digital Instruments product. Alternatively, a set of calibrated gauges should
be available as backups to the gauges in the choke panel.
9.8 STRING WASHOUT

An unexpected drop in standpipe pressure may indicate a washout in the drillstring,
while the choke pressure remains unchanged.
The recommended procedure in the event of a drillstring washout is to stop the pump
and shut-in the well.
Every effort must be made to ensure that extended circulation and drillstring
manipulation do not enlarge the washout.
The most critical situation would be in the event of a washout close to the surface.
Should this occur, it is unlikely that it will be possible to displace the influx from the hole
effectively, unless the influx is above the washout.
If the washout is identified as being near the bottom of the well, it may be possible to
displace the kick from the well effectively. In this case, there will be the risk of parting
the drillstring with continued circulation.
Regardless of the depth of the washout, it will be necessary to re-establish the correct
circulating pressure if the pump is restarted. Excessive down hole pressures may be
caused if the original circulating pressure is maintained at the standpipe. If the
circulation is contained for prolonged periods through a washout, it is advisable to
periodically re-establish the circulating pressure. However, a sudden drop in standpipe
pressure may also occur if the well begins to flow underground. Drillpipe pressure may
drop to zero at high circulation rates. Therefore, soft line may be pumped to plug
washout in order to allow circulation to continue, that is if the washout is shallow.
9.9 SURFACE EQUIPMENT FAILURE

Failure of surface equipment may be characterised by position relative to choke,
namely upstream and downstream of choke as described below.
9.9.1 Downstream Failure

If the situation allows, isolate discharge to the pits or overboard lines in order to bypass
failure (ie separator). Otherwise, attempt volumetric control procedures while repairs
are made to the equipment. Should the drilling fluid be oil-based mud, the risk of
migration is minimal, therefore there should be ample time for repairs. Alternatively, if
the drilling fluid is water-based mud then the influx may be controlled volumetrically.
9.9.2 Upstream Failure

Given an upstream failure the well must be shut-in and volumetrically controlled until
repairs are made. If possible, alternative circulation points at the kill line (remove the
check valve) or wellhead outlets.
9.10 KICKS DURING WIRELINE OPERATIONS
9.10.1 Open Hole/Cased Hole

If the lubricator is in place, pull out of the hole with tools while volumetrically controlling
the influx if migration is evident. Otherwise consider cutting wireline in order to allow
the well to be shut in.
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.
9.10.3 Slickline Tools in Drillpipe

Pull out of hole while maintaining volumetric control. If a pump-in sub is available
conventional circulation may be initiated with wire and tool in the hole.
9.11 STUCK PIPE

The complication of stuck pipe during a well control operation can cause serious
problems, most especially if the pipe is stuck off bottom.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of the pipe becoming stuck during a well control operation
is increased if the pipe is off bottom. The pipe should be rotated to minimise the risk of
sticking the pipe, if the well is shut-in with the pipe off bottom and the BHA in
open hole.
Due to the relatively high wellbore pressures during a well control operation, the most
likely cause of stuck pipe is differential sticking. However, mechanical sticking may
result if the hole sloughs and packs-off as a result of contact with the influx fluids.
9.11.1 Differential Sticking

If the pipe is differentially stuck with the bit on bottom, continue the operation because
it is most likely that circulation can still be carried out in order to kill the well. Efforts to
free the pipe can be made once the well has been killed.
Should the pipe be differentially stuck with the bit off bottom, the situation is
complicated in that it will generally not be possible to reduce the wellbore pressure at
that depth by circulation. It may be possible to free the pipe by spotting a freeing agent.
However, if the influx was swabbed in, it may be possible to regain control of the well
by volumetric control if the influx is migrating.
9.11.2 Mechanical Sticking

If the pipe is mechanically stuck (key seated), circulation may be possible. If the pipe is
stuck due to bridging, the drillpipe will no longer be in communication with the annulus.
If the pipe is stuck and the drillpipe pressure is high, then the bridge is deep and
mud must fracture out when pumped. If the drillpipe pressure is zero or very low and
remains stuck then flow continues beneath the bridge.
9.12 KICKS WHILE RUNNING CASING OR LINER

Many mechanisms may account for an influx while running casing or liner. One
common method is from failure of a float. This results in a sudden U-tube (equalisation)
and resultant annulus fluid level drop. Keeping the casing full and checking the
differential capability of the float equipment, control risk.
Should the well bridge around the casing, the influx may be forced up through failed
floats. Control is accomplished by stabbing a safety valve in casing to isolate the
problem.
Alternatively, an influx may be caused if excessive quantities of low-density spacer are
pumped ahead of the cement. Therefore, should the pressure rise, the situation should
be controlled in the same manner as a drillpipe kick by initiating a circulation rate which
is high enough to displace the influx and cement before the cement sets.
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.
Figure 9.1 - Temperature at which Gas Hydrates Will Freeze (Katz)

Figure 9.2 - Natural Gas Expansion: Temperature Reduction Curve
One or a combination of the following techniques may be used to combat hydrates:

Injecting antifreeze agents such as methanol into the gas flow; this has the effect of
dissolving liquid water deposits, thus lowering the temperature at which hydrates
would be expected to form. Methanol is often injected at the subsea test tree during
well testing operations from a floating rig. The most appropriate place to inject
methanol at surface is at the choke manifold. The point of injection should be
upstream of the choke. High pressure chemical injection pumps (as manufactured
by Texsteam) are suitable for this application
Heating the gas above the temperature at which hydrate will form. During gas well
testing operations, a steam exchanger will usually be provided for this purpose.
Experience has shown that this is the most effective and reliable method of
preventing the formation of hydrates. The combination of heating and antifreeze
injection is ideal
Reducing line pressure in order to allow the hydrates to melt. This is a temporary
measure and not always practical. Once hydrates have formed, it often takes a
considerable length of time to clear the line
It is important that adequate contingency is provided to deal with hydrates, if it is
suspected that the potential exists for hydrate formation. Subsea water temperatures
and pressures should be checked as well as the potential for hydrate formation at
surface in the event of a gas kick.
9.14 EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

ANNULAR SURFACE PRESSURE (MAASP)
The MAASP is defined as the maximum allowable annular surface pressure. Bearing in
mind the method that is used to calculate its value (ie assuming that MAASP is
calculated from leak off test result), it is clear that the MAASP is a consideration only
when there is a full column of mud from the open hole weak point to the surface.
Surface pressures in excess of the MAASP, therefore, may not cause down hole failure
if lighter fluids (such as a hydrocarbon influx) occupy the annulus above the open hole
weak point.
Consequently, during a well control operation, from the moment that the top of an influx
is displaced past and above the open hole weak point, the MAASP is no longer a
consideration and may be exceeded.
In the event that surface pressures exceed the MAASP when the kick is still below the
open hole weak point, consequently causing excessive down hole pressures, there are
two distinct options:
Hold the choke pressure so as to maintain bottom hole pressure equal to, or slightly
greater than, the kick zone pore pressure
Reduce the choke pressure and limit it to the MAASP
The consequences of overpressuring the open hole weak point, as in the first option,
can be assessed, bearing in mind the following factors:
The depth of the casing shoe
The quality of the cement job
By how much the open hole weak point will be overpressured
The length of time that the open hole weak point will be overpressured
The characteristics of the open hole weak point
Any safety factor included in the calculation of the MAASP
The possibility of broaching around the casing
The consequences of underbalancing the formation as in the second option can be
assessed based on the following factors:
The type of kick zone fluid
The permeability of the kick zone
The degree of underbalance
The length of time that the kick zone will be underbalanced
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.
9.15 IMPENDING BAD WEATHER

Bad weather is most likely to cause serious problems in regards to well control on
offshore rigs.
For example, it may not be possible to offload baryte supplies or remove excess
personnel in bad weather.
On a floating rig, a critical situation has been reached if it becomes necessary to
unlatch the riser during a well control operation. In this situation, it will not be possible
to monitor the well and hence control the migration of the influx.
Should weather conditions deteriorate with very little warning, the following procedures
can be implemented:
1. Attempt to bullhead the influx back to the formation.
2. Displace the drillstring to kill weight mud.
3. Close lowermost pipe rams (in addition to the hang-off rams). Shear the pipe.
4. Prepare to unlatch, monitoring wellbore pressures until it becomes necessary
to unlatch.
If additional time is available, consideration should be given to spotting a heavy pill or
plug on bottom to either kill the well hydrostatically or provide a barrier to migration.
Bad weather may cause problems regarding the supply of chemicals and barytes to all
types of rigs. In this respect, it may be necessary to implement the Driller’s Method,
should there not be adequate chemical stocks at the rigsite.
In certain areas of the world, severe cold may cause operational problems. Points of
particular concern are BOP operating fluid, manifolds and flowlines. Likewise, in areas
where currents are a problem, the ability to re-latch should be considered prior
to unlatching.
9.16 REMOVING GAS FROM A SUBSEA BOP

For example, with regard to the stack shown in Figure 9.3, where trapped gas has the
potential to be a serious problem, the following technique is implemented:
1. Isolate the well from the BOP stack by closing the lower pipe rams (see Figure 9.4).
2. Circulate kill mud down the kill line, across the stack and up the choke line. Route
returns through the degasser. Record the kill line circulating pressure (see
Figure 9.5).
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.
Figure 9.3 - Subsea BOP Stack Prior to Removing Gas From Below Preventers
PIPE RAM
Figure 9.4 - Removing Gas From Subsea BOP Stack

(Lower Pipe Rams Closed, Hang-off Rams Opened)
PIPE RAM

(Kill and Choke Line Displaced to Kill Weight Mud)
PIPE RAM
Figure 9.6 - Removing Gas From a Subsea BOP Stack

(Kill and Choke Lines Displaced to Water)
PIPE RAM
Figure 9.7 - Removing Gas From a Subsea BOP Stack

(Gas Pressure Bled Down, Gas Occupies Choke Line)
PIPE RAM

(Diverter Closed, Annular Opened, Gas Displaced From Stack)
PIPE RAM
9.17 LOSS OF CONTROL

Loss of control during a well control operation may be as a result of excessive loading
of pressure control equipment from exposed formations or erosion of choke manifold
components due to circulation of excessive volumes of gas, which may be mixed
dense drilling fluid. However, there are recorded incidents of equipment failure at
pressures significantly below rated values. These failures have been attributed to faulty
manufacturing, lack of proper maintenance or corrosion. High pressure equipment is
considered particularly susceptible to failure when exposed to corrosive fluids such
as H2S.
One problem with increasing risk is the advancing age of land and surface marine
BOPs. Over 90% of these BOPs were manufactured prior to 1981. It is prudent to
check when the BOP stack was most recently disassembled, inspected, repaired and
shop tested.
It is not possible to detail specific procedures in the event of loss of control during a
well control operation. However, in critical situations, action should be taken bearing in
mind that the absolute priority is the safety of rigsite personnel.
SECTION 10 SHALLOW GAS Page 1 of 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10. SHALLOW GAS..................................................................................................... 2
10.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 2
10.2 GENERAL PRECAUTIONS ............................................................................. 3

10.2.1 Bright Spots – Seismic Anomalies .............................................................. 4
10.3 DIVERTERS..................................................................................................... 4
10.4 SPECIFIC PROCEDURES............................................................................... 5

10.4.1 Land Rig Procedures .................................................................................. 6
10.4.1.1 Precautions ................................................................................................ 6
10.4.1.2 Procedures................................................................................................. 6
10.4.1.3 Possible Control Actions ............................................................................ 6
10.4.2 Bottom Supported Offshore Rig Procedures............................................... 7
10.4.2.1 Precautions ................................................................................................ 7
10.4.2.2 Procedures................................................................................................. 7
10.4.2.3 Possible Control Actions ............................................................................ 8
10.4.3 Floating Rig Procedures ............................................................................. 8
10.4.3.1 Precautions ................................................................................................ 8
10.4.3.2 Procedures (Riserless) ............................................................................. 11
10.4.3.3 Procedures (With Riser and Surface Diverter).......................................... 11
10.5 BLOWOUT RECOVERY (IN ALL CASES) .................................................... 12

SHALLOW GAS Page 2 of 12
10. SHALLOW GAS
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.
Figure 10.1 - Shallow Gas
Depth = 1800 ft Depth = 2000 ft

Normal Pressure at base of sand = 930 psi Normal Pressure
Gas Column = 0.1 psi/ft for 200 ft = 20 psi P = 930 psi
Pressure at top of sand = 930 - 20 = 910 psi EMW = 8.9 ppg
EMW at top of sand = 9.9 ppg
If drilling with SW at 8.9 ppg, P = 837 psi

Underbalance by 910 - 837 = 73 psi Sealing Formation
Gas Charged Sand

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.
10.2 GENERAL PRECAUTIONS

Shallow gas is a very localised feature – the accumulation of shallow gas typically
requires a small isolated zone. Large zones covering entire field areas are very rare
and easily detected with modern seismic methods. Just because drillers in a new field
area did not see any shallow gas does not mean that the entire field area is free of
shallow gas. If there is a regional shallow gas problem then plan for shallow gas, do not
just depend on a single offset well.
Most shallow gas kicks occur on trips. Careful monitoring of hole fill, particularly when
tripping out drillcollars, is critical. Use a trip tank to fill the hole with continuous
circulation of trip tank across bell nipple. Tripping through shallow gas reservoirs with
seepage losses can be particularly dangerous as seepage losses can mask swabbing.
If gumbo problems were seen while drilling, then swabbing may be more likely as
gumbo builds up around the drillstring and casing shoe.
Drill shallow gas sands slowly, particularly when drilling large hole diameter as hallow
gas porosity can be as high as 30%. This is equal to approximately 1bbl of gas at
reservoir conditions in 17-1/2in hole in 10ft thick gas sand. If the drilling rate is high
and circulation rate is relatively slow, this large cuttings gas volume can lead to a
well kick. In some circumstances, this cutting gas kick may not drop hydrostatic
sufficiently for the deeper (just drilled) gas sand to kick but a shallower gas sand also
exposed to the well bore may kick. This unloads the wellbore and allows the deeper
gas sand to also flow.
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.
10.2.1 Bright Spots – Seismic Anomalies

Shallow seismic is used to spot possible shallow gas hazards. Gas filled shallow
porosity greatly reduces seismic velocity and these low velocity areas are known as
‘bright spots’. It is required in most regions to have a shallow hazards survey done
before a well can be drilled – it is almost always required when drilling offshore.
Shallow hazards not only consist of bright spots, but also mud volcanoes, gas vents,
subsurface chimneys, bottom debris or craters. Bright spots may be graded by the
magnitude of the velocity anomaly. Thin gas zones of lower porosity are not as ‘bright’.
Most velocity hazards surveys are only accurate at a particular shot point.
The best solution is to move the surface location to avoid the ‘bright spots’ and other
hazards. Always try to move to a new seismic survey shot point instead of interpolating
between shot points.
Thin shallow gas sands may not, however, be picked up by seismic. Lack of a seismic
anomaly particularly in a region of known shallow gas risk does not preclude use of
sound drilling practices.
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.
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 SPECIFIC PROCEDURES

Evacuation of a rig and accounting for all evacuees is the most critical action step.
Always use a drillpipe float when drilling shallow gas (this also prevents backflow on
connections). The drillpipe can easily become the sustained flowpath after a shallow
gas kick is diverted. Firstly, the annular flow creates a low pressure zone at the bit
and the fluid level in the pipe drops significantly. Next, annulus bridges and the
rapid increase in bottom hole pressure causes the drillpipe to unload. The new
flowpath through the drillpipe may not bridge and could require full scale well
control intervention.
Shallow gas kicks typically occur when tripping out the bottom hole assembly.
Take extreme care when tripping drillcollars to keep hole full.
Shallow gas risk does not end after the hole is drilled. Blowouts have occurred when
cementing casing through shallow gas sands due to:
Too large a water spacer
Surge induced mud loss flowed by kick
Failure of float in casing string causing well to kick
Placement of lightweight/high water content lead cement across shallow gas sands
Insufficient waiting on cement time before nippling down the diverter
10.4.1 Land Rig Procedures
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
10.4.1.3 Possible Control Actions

It may be possible to shut down sustained shallow gas flow with continued drillpipe
injection. A dynamic kill or reactive plugging (reacted with gas lifted salt water to block
flowpath) may be possible.
10.4.2 Bottom Supported Offshore Rig Procedures
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.
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).
10.4.2.3 Possible Control Actions

The well will probably bridge in less than 24 hours and there is a 95% statistical chance
that the well will bridge in less than 96 hours.
If the flow sustains, then the shallow gas zone is probably located directly below the
last casing string or is flowing out of competent rock (eg limestone).
Control will require intervention by well control specialists. Possible control methods
include dynamic kill, reactive plug kill, kill by relief well or by inducing bridging by
reducing flowing backpressure (additional diverter lines or opening the diverter).
If the flow starts to broach around the structure and the flow is still blowing out of
the diverter, consider opening the diverter to allow vertical flow through the rig floor.
This will decrease the backpressure as a final control action before the rig is totally
lost. This is not a task to consider lightly and should only be attempted by well
control specialists.
10.4.3 Floating Rig Procedures
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’
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.
Figure 10.2 shows a semi-submersible rig undergoing a shallow gas blowout. The rig is
clearly leaning towards the centre of the plume.
Figure 10.2 - A Shallow Gas Blowout at Sea
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.
10.4.3.2 Procedures (Riserless)

Initial kick detection will be via the ROV, surface bubble detection and drillpipe
pressure loss. Typically, the drillpipe pressure drops and then bubbles are detected.
Drillstring weight may also increase as buoyancy is reduced. The following actions
should be taken upon confirming flow:
Winch the rig away from plume, if plume impacts are severe – further control
actions are based on safe station keeping capability. If the plume is not impacting
on the rig then proceed. If the plume is impacting on the rig, get the rig off the well
Pull drillstring off bottom as high as possible – this helps to promote bridging below
the bit
Maximise the pump rate and pump the heavy mud at the maximum rate – once flow
has stopped, a combination of seawater and dense mud will maintain the kill
Evacuate all non-essential personnel
Mobilise additional mud stores
Maintain standby boat at rig at all times
10.4.3.3 Procedures (With Riser and Surface Diverter)

Evacuate all non-essential personnel
Pick up drillpipe as high as possible
Pump at maximum rate down the drillpipe with heavy mud
Pump down the booster line with cementing pump with mud then water as mud
stock depletes
As mud supply is depleted switch to water and maintain high pump rate
Pull rotary bushings if flow sustains and set up external water spray from fire
systems on possible erosion points and top of diverter
Slow down drillpipe pumping if well starts to slug
Shut down water pumping on drillpipe if well bridges – use the booster line to fill
riser with mud and lubricate out seawater from below the mud line
Proceed with general evacuation if surface diverter system fails. If possible, disconnect
at the pin connector or lower marine riser package (LMRP) and winch off location (the
drillpipe must be dropped or sheared).
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.
10.5 BLOWOUT RECOVERY (IN ALL CASES)

If the well bridges, then it is best to fill the well with mud. Loading the annulus via the
kill line or booster line with mud does this. After this is done, wait at least 12 hours for
formations to heal, produced solids to settle and gas to migrate before opening the
diverter. Do not be in any hurry to bullhead the drillpipe as this can dislodge the bridge.
After the well bridges it is best to run a temperature and noise log to confirm that all
flow has stopped. This is best done at least 24 hours after flow has stopped to allow
the well to thermally stabilise and any remaining gas to lubricate out.
Run a temperature log down at a minimum rate of 2500ft per hour and then run a noise
log up concentrating on anomalies seen on down run.
Typically, the drillpipe will be stuck – the bit should be cemented in place. This requires
that an injection rate be determined – this will fracture the formation under the bridge.
Wells have un-bridged when doing this so a minimum injection rate should be used.
Pump the cement plug and, if available, use a drillpipe wiper plug to wipe cement
off walls of drillpipe. Leave the top of cement based on the free-point position as
measured by stretch tests.
Displace the cement with mud at the density required to keep cement in drillpipe. If the
displacing mud weight is too high, cement will be U-tubed completely out of drillpipe.
After the cement has set, re-run the free-point log and do the back-off but be prepared
for badly gas cut mud in annulus. If the gas cutting will not stabilise then a leaky bridge
may be the problem. This can be stabilised with higher mud weight or a baryte pill.
Finally, re-evaluate re-drill plans based on this flow. Determine if the casing points
need to be adjusted or higher mud weight used. Do not just sidetrack and risk a repeat
blowout – change the drilling programme and use mud weight, hole size, drilling rate,
pump rate and casing points as possible controls.
SECTION 11 WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT Page 1 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11. WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3
11.1 GENERAL BOP STACK CONFIGURATION .................................................. 3
11.2 MINIMUM BOP REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 4

11.2.1 Two Rams 3000psi WP .............................................................................. 4
11.2.2 Annular and Two Rams .............................................................................. 4
11.2.3 Annular and Three Rams............................................................................ 6
11.2.4 Annular and Four Rams.............................................................................. 6
11.2.5 Rotating Heads and Rotating Blowout Preventers (RBOPs) ....................... 9
11.2.6 Shear/Blind Rams....................................................................................... 9
11.2.7 Variable Bore Rams (VBRs) ..................................................................... 10
11.2.8 Diverters ................................................................................................... 11
11.2.9 Subsea BOPs ........................................................................................... 11
11.3 CONTROL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ....................................................... 12

11.3.1 Accumulator Sizing Calculations............................................................... 12
11.3.1.1 Surface Stacks ......................................................................................... 12
11.3.1.2 Subsea Stacks ......................................................................................... 13
11.4 CHOKE MANIFOLDS ................................................................................... 15
11.5 DRILLSTRING TOOLS ................................................................................. 16

11.5.1 Kelly Cocks............................................................................................... 16
11.5.2 Dart Subs ................................................................................................. 16
11.5.3 Drillpipe Floats.......................................................................................... 16
11.5.4 Circulating Subs ....................................................................................... 17
11.6 MUD/GAS SEPARATOR/DEGASSER REQUIREMENTS ............................ 17

11.6.1 Recommendations.................................................................................... 18
WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT Page 2 of 24
11.7 RIG AUDITS AND EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS ..................................... 18

11.7.1 Conducting Rig Audits .............................................................................. 18
11.7.2 Rig Audit Checklist ................................................................................... 18
11.7.2.1 Accumulator ............................................................................................. 19
11.7.2.2 Blowout Preventer .................................................................................... 19
11.7.2.3 Choke....................................................................................................... 20
11.7.2.4 Gas Separation ........................................................................................ 21
11.7.2.5 Inside BOP, Kelly Cock, Valves and Floats .............................................. 21
11.7.2.6 Drillcollar Safety ....................................................................................... 22
11.7.2.7 Flow Indicators ......................................................................................... 22
11.7.2.8 Casing...................................................................................................... 22
11.7.2.9 Tripping Procedures ................................................................................. 22
11.7.2.10 Drills ......................................................................................................... 23
11.7.2.11 Rig Specifications..................................................................................... 23
11.7.2.12 Rig Crew Training..................................................................................... 24
11. WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT
11.1 GENERAL BOP STACK CONFIGURATION

When taking a rig on contract the following blowout preventer (BOP) characteristics
should be considered:
Current assembly (stack-up)
Pressure ratings and trim (H2S)
Size and type of rams
Given time it is usually possible to arrange the rams, outlets, inlets and ram packer
sizes to reach an optimum configuration. In designing a BOP stack there are
several objectives but the designer may have to make some compromises.
These compromises should be judged based on the specifics of the well to be
drilled and discussion with senior drilling staff.
The following are general objectives:
To be able to isolate the well using the blind rams so that higher pipe rams can be
changed out (on surface BOPs)
To be able to hang off the drillstring on the lower pipe rams and then be able to
recover the upper section of the drillstring by shearing or back-off. The blind rams
should be able to be closed above the landed drillpipe. An inlet between the blind
ram and the lower pipe ram is required for circulation or pressure monitoring
Any inlets/outlets below the lowest ram should be used only for pressure
monitoring. A leak induced below the lowest ram in this line results in loss of control
and escape of well fluids. In special circumstances volumetric well control is applied
via this lowest pump-in line only if only the bottom ram is sealing and kick is
migrating. Doing nothing will result in loss of well control
There should be an inlet/outlet below the blind ram to enable pressure monitoring
and circulation
Variable bore rams (VBRs) have reduced load carrying capacity and should not be
used to hang off drillpipe in some cases. VBRs also have a low thermal rating
(225°F) and fail quickly if used for drillpipe stripping
The space out between annular and rams should be checked so that there is
adequate space to allow rams to be closed while clearing all drillpipe tool joints and
to also allow various stripping operations. The size of heavyweight drillpipe (HWDP)
tool joints should be considered
Environmental factors need to be considered in BOP design: ram packers,

top seals, side seals and annular elements can be trimmed for extreme heat, cold,
H2S and oil mud. Other BOP elastomers can also be selected for anticipated
environments. These include bonnet seals and hydraulic seals (O-rings) in
operating system. Using the wrong type of trim can lead to failure
11.2 MINIMUM BOP REQUIREMENTS
11.2.1 Two Rams 3000psi Working Pressure

Typical units are NL Shaffer Sentinel Product with chain-driven or hydraulic actuators
or hydraulic hydril dual rams.
Place blind rams under pipe rams. This allows placing pipe down on top of a leaking
blind ram and closing upper pipe ram above tool joint. Pipe should have a kelly cock
valve in place to complete well closure. If this procedure is needed, check that the
bottom of the ram will clear the top of the tool joint. This ram placement allows upper
doors to be opened with blind rams closed to change rams.
Typical acceptable service limits:
<3000psi WP
Typical service is for well servicing and workover rigs using 7-1/16in – 3000psi
dual rams
Wells require artificial lift to flow
No H2S
Low pressure oil wells
Not acceptable for drilling service unless there is a proven traditional
regional practice
11.2.2 Annular and Two Rams

Units are available from Cameron, Hydril and Shaffer and others in all sizes. Typical
arrangement is shown in Figure 11.1.
Place the blind rams under the pipe rams; so placing the pipe in the upper ram can
back up the blind rams. Also, the upper doors can be opened, with the blind rams
closed, to change the rams.
Figure 11.1 - Annular with Double Ram


<5000psi WP
Typical minimum service for drilling rigs
Used for top hole sections in high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) wells over big
hole
Typical BOP configuration on lake barge rigs in Venezuela (ENSCO uses
blind/shear ram for safety)
Not acceptable for >5000psi service
11.2.3 Annular and Three Rams

Units are available from Cameron, Hydril and Shaffer and others in all sizes. Note that
Shaffer annular and Cameron type ‘U’ rams are preferred. It is critical that BOPs have
been recently torn down and re-fitted within the past few years. This type of equipment
was manufactured in the late 1970s and early 1980s. No new BOPs have been built for
this application since that time. You are using 20-year old equipment and must take
that into consideration. Note that shearing/blind rams should be considered in H2S
wells near residential areas. This will generally require special shear ram bonnets. A
typical BOP arrangement is shown in Figure 11.2.
Use a configuration where the double ram is placed directly below the annular with the
drilling spool between the upper double and the lower single ram. Place the blind ram
between the pipe rams. This allows a pump-in and bleed-off capability with the blind
ram closed. It also allows the opening of the doors on the blind ram to change the rams
with the lower pipe ram closed.
<10,000psi WP
13-5/8in – 10m service applications are most common
Special bonnets are required if shear rams are used
Some Operators place a variable bore ram in lower BOP when using tapered
drillstring
11.2.4 Annular and Four Rams

Recommended drill in BOPs for HPHT reservoirs. Most units consist of two double
rams with centre placed drilling spool. In some applications the drilling spool is
removed and lower outlets of upper double ram are used as a replacement. This is
typically only done when there is a space out problem. Typical application is in 11in –
15,000psi BOPs. Applications with 7-1/16in – 10m to 20m and 13-5/8in – 10m to 15m
BOPs have also been seen. A typical arrangement is shown in Figure 11.3.
Figure 11.2 - Annular with Three Rams

Figure 11.3 - Annular with Four Rams

Typically the extra ram allows several options:

Two pipe rams can be used for ram to ram stripping with the third pipe ram used as
a safety ram
Allows use of two sizes of pipe rams with a variable bore ram in bottom position as
a backup for both rams
Allows use of a lower inverted pipe ram to allow testing against ram, if test plug
cannot be used. Pipe rams only hold pressure from below. Ram must be inverted to
hold pressure from above. This also allows shearing drillpipe and trapping drillpipe
pressure in BOP cavity
Typical configuration (top down): #1 pipe, #2 shear/blind, drilling spool, #3 pipe,
#4 pipe, VBR or inverted pipe
Note the full opening gate valves below outlets of #3 ram. Cross over these large
gate valves to 2in 1502 plug valves. This allows pump-in or bleed-off below #3 ram
if it is closed
11.2.5 Rotating Heads and Rotating Blowout Preventers (RBOPs)

Rotating heads are generally used in air drilling and low-pressure service.
These rotating annular pack-offs are not generally used in service at pressures >200psi
sustained. RBOPs are the new generation rotating BOPs. Equipment is available that
can operate at 2500psi continuous rotating service, 5000psi static service and shell
ratings of 10,000psi. Never use a RBOP without backup rams. There are some
applications where a single rotating head is used instead of a diverter so flow is
instantaneously diverted.
11.2.6 Shear/Blind Rams

Shear/blind rams are available for most BOP sizes. In most applications,
special booster bonnets are required to shear drillpipe. The shear/blind ram blocks may
fit standard bonnets but without the booster bonnets drillpipe will not be sheared.
The booster bonnets have larger hydraulic cylinders to provide additional shear force at
reasonable closure pressures. Some shear/blind rams require high ram operating
pressure to function. The accumulator must be adapted to provide this higher-pressure
top, just the shear ram, not to the pipe rams.
11.2.7 Variable Bore Rams (VBRs)

VBRs are available for almost all of the larger BOPs. These rams provide a range of
closure, typically from 2-7/8in to 5in and 3-1/2in to 7in depending on BOP size and
type. Variable bore rams should be used to backup conventional pipe rams but not
replace them. Figure 11.4 shows the packer rubbers and top seals removed from a set
of VBRs. Note the erosion failure of the packer in upper corners. These packers failed
with a gas kick of 1200psi at surface even though the rams were tested to 5000psi with
water a few days before. The well actually blewout through this failed ram. The BOP
consisted of an annular with two rams but the VBRs were the only pipe rams that could
close around the pipe in the stack. Lack of visual inspection likely lead to the failure of
these badly worn VBRs.
Figure 11.4 - VBR Erosion Failure

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.
11.2.9 Subsea BOPs

A new generation of subsea BOPs is reaching the field. These 5-ram and 6-ram
designs are unique to each rig. One of the best new designs has:
18-3/4in – 15m annular
Two pressure/temperature sensors
Six rams
Six inlet/outlets
Subsea methanol injection
4-1/2in ID 15m choke and kill
The lower inverted VBR allows testing BOPs with pipe in the hole. The annular is
equipped with the unified annular flex joint design to limit overall BOP height. Only
this annular is used for stripping. To make this possible with reduced wear, drillpipe
has been designed without any grooves on the tool joints. Additionally, a surge bottle
has been installed on the closing side of the annular with a surface adjustable pre-
charge pressure. The link can be broken below the annular and the well secured in all
scenarios by the 6-ram stack. The casing shear ram is just a shearing ram and does
not seal. This ram is capable of shearing 13-3/8in 72ppf Q125 casing or an 8in
drillcollar.
11.3 CONTROL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Accumulators must be sized as required by regulatory agencies. Repsol has the
following minimum accumulator standards:
Surface BOPs: 1.5 x the fluid required to open and close one ram, one annular and
one hydraulic valve and still have at least 200psi above pre-charge pressure
Subsea BOPs: 1.5 x the fluid required to open and close all functions and still have
at least 200psi above pre-charge pressure
A quick estimation method for usable volume for a 3000psi system is to use half the
volume of the bottle. Typical bottles come in many sizes the most common size is an
11-gallon bottle that has 10 gallons of fluid capacity when the 1 gallon displacement of
the collapsed bladder is removed. Thus a 10-gallon accumulator bottle has about
5 gallons of usable volume if pressure is dropped from 3000psi to 1200psi.
11.3.1 Accumulator Sizing Calculations
11.3.1.1 Surface Stacks

Assume that 92.25 gallons is required to meet the design requirements above and the
pre-charge is 1000psi. The maximum pressure is 3000psi and the minimum allowed
pressure is 1200psi. Z-factor (80F) for N2 at 1000psi is 1.01, at 1200psi is 1.02 at
3000psi is 1.06. How many 10-gallon bottles are required to store 92.25 gallons of
operating hydraulic operating fluid?
P1 = 1000 + 15
= 1015psi
P2 = 11200 + 15
= 1215psi
P3 = 13000 + 15
= 3015psi
V1 = 110 gallons
where:
P1 = Pre-charge Pressure
P2 = Minimum Operating Pressure
P3 = Maximum Operating Pressure
V1 = Bladder Internal Volume at Pre-charge Pressure
V2 = Bladder Internal Volume at P2
Z = Compressibility Factor for Nitrogen
Using the gas law:

Where (P x V)/(T x Z) = constant (T in R)
We get: (1015 x 10)/(1.01) = (1215 x V2)/(1.02) = (3015 x V3)/(1.06)
Solving for V2 and V3
We get: V2 = 8.44 gallons and V3 = 3.53 gallons
The usable volume per bottle is given by:
V2 – V3 = 8.44 – 3.53 = 4.91 gallons per bottle
The required number of bottles is = 92.25/4.91 = 19 bottles
11.3.1.2 Subsea Stacks

Assume that 426.5 gallons are required to meet the design requirements above.
The 1000, 1200 and 3000psi datum pressures must be adjusted to account for the
hydrostatic pressure of the fluid (normally water with inhibitors) in the supply lines.
Assume that the BOP is in 500m of water.
P1 = 1000 + 15 + (500 x 1.03 x 1.421)
= 1747psi
P2 = 1200 + 15 + 732
= 1947psi
P3 = 3000 + 15 + 732
= 3747psi
V1 = 10 gallons
where:
P1 = Pre-charge Pressure
P2 = Minimum Operating Pressure
P3 = Maximum Operating Pressure
V1 = Bladder Internal Volume at Pre-charge Pressure
Z = Compressibility Factor for Nitrogen
Z1 = 1.01 (80F), Z2 = 1.02 (40F), Z3 = 1.06 (40F)
Using the gas law:

Where (P x V)/(T x Z) = constant (T in R)
We get: (1747 x 10)/(1.01 x 540) = (1947 x V2)/(1.02 x 500) = (3747 x V3)/(1.06 x 500)
Solving for V2 and V3
We get: V2 = 8.23 gallons and V3 = 4.66 gallons
The usable volume per bottle is given by:
V2 – V3 = 8.23 – 4.66 = 3.57 gallons per bottle
The required number of bottles is = 426.5/3.57 = 119 bottles
The following guidelines should be followed (check for each new well):
1. Clean and wash the air strainer.
2. Fill the air lubricator with specified oil.
3. Check air pump rod packing. Rod should be lubricated without any dripping oil.
4. Check the electric pump packing for leaks.
5. Remove and clean the two suction strainers located on the air and electric pumps.
6. If the electric pump is chain-driven, check the chain oil bath and chain. Check
bottom of oil reservoir for water. Replace oil with fresh chain oil.
7. Check oil in hydraulic reservoir for contamination, top up oil as required to get level
at recommended point (~ ¾ full).
8. Remove and clean the high-pressure hydraulic strainers.
9. Lubricate the four-way valves and control handles.
10. Clean the air filter on the regulator line.
11. Check the pre-charge of the individual accumulator bottles (should read
1000psi 10%).
12. Apply 1500psi to all control lines and BOPs and check for leaks.
13. Run accumulator drill.
There are generally more failures in accumulator systems from lack of maintenance
than from poor design.
11.4 CHOKE MANIFOLDS

Choke manifolds should be designed for service applications as seen in Section 11.1.
The choke manifold should always have at least one remote adjustable choke.
The remote choke and operating console provides a single point to monitor pump rate,
volume pumped, drillpipe pressure and casing pressure while operating the choke.
Manual chokes did not allow the choke Operator to see the drillpipe pressure or
monitor pump rate and volume. Larger choke manifolds are typically equipped with
two remote adjustable chokes. Manual chokes are sometimes used to make small
bleed-offs to a trip tank when stripping or applying volumetric control method.
Choke lines should be as straight as possible and have at least a 3in ID. On HPHT
wells use a 4in ID choke line and place a full 4in centre line run through the manifold to
large diameter vent line (>6in pipe). This line must be straight. It is used, if surface
connections start to leak or casing fails near surface, to relieve well pressure.
Buffer tanks should be avoided if large kicks with weighted mud are expected.
Once this tank cuts out no further circulation through the choke manifold is possible.
It is better to have three or four vent lines. See Figure 11.5 for an example of this type
of arrangement.
Figure 11.5 - HPHT Land Rig Choke Manifold

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.
11.5 DRILLSTRING TOOLS
11.5.1 Kelly Cocks

An upper kelly cock valve should always be used when drilling with over 5000psi WP
BOPs. This valve is used to isolate kelly hose, swivel and surface equipment from high
well pressure.
A lower kelly cock valve or safety valve is used as a backup to the upper kelly
cock valve. If used as a ‘mud saver’ valve a saver sub is recommended to protect
the threads. As a safety valve, this ball valve is sometimes referred to as a ‘TIW’
valve. The major problem is that several manufacturers make this valve and there are
no standards as to minimum ID. Not all valves are full opening to the drillpipe.
For example, one manufacturer makes a 4-1/2in IF valve with as small as a 2-1/4in ID
(6-3/8in OD) to as large as 3-1/16in (7-3/8in OD). The typical ID of a 5in 19.50 S-135
4-1/2in IF tool joint is 3in. You should always check the manufacturer and ID of the
valves provided to your rig. Not all valves are created equal. The best valve on the
market today is the Hydril Kellyguard valve. This is one of only two valves with a double
seal on the valve stem. It also has a positive stop insuring full opening and closing.
11.5.2 Dart Subs

A dart sub should be available on all rigs using 10k BOPs. It must be used on any
HPHT well or underbalance well. The best dart sub on the market today is the Hydril
Checkguard wireline retrievable drop-in check valve sub. The sub is positioned in the
drillstring above the bottom hole assembly in the largest pipe section. The sub and
backpressure valve dart is selected to drift the smallest uphole ID restrictions.
This allows the dart to be dropped and pumped into place. Once this backpressure
valve is in position, the drillstring can be safely stripped with positive drillpipe
pressure control.
11.5.3 Drillpipe Floats

Drillpipe float valves should be run when drilling fast hole (keeps cuttings from u-tubing
into drillpipe during connections) and when positive drillpipe pressure control is needed
when drilling deep and stuck pipe or underground flow is likely. The best designs are a
flapper design with the ability to pin the flapper open with a spring-loaded latch to allow
automatic fill on trips. The best design is the Hydril Floatguard design.
11.5.4 Circulating Subs

A circulating sub is used on extended reach wells or deep HPHT wells with
high-pressure drops in lower bottom hole assemblies (motors, bit nozzles,
measurement while drilling (MWD) and LWD tools). These subs allow the opening of
the valve above the bottom hole assembly (BHA) to allow faster pumping or placement
of coarser lost circulation materials (LCMs) to control losses. The PBL Circulating Sub
is the best of the current designs.
11.6 MUD/GAS SEPARATOR/DEGASSER REQUIREMENTS

There are basically two classifications of degassers on the market today. The first is
the vacuum type, which, as the name applies, removes gas by means of a vacuum
applied to the mud. The designs of these units are greatly varied, some relying more on
vacuum alone, others relying on a combination of agitation/vacuum or centrifugal
force/vacuum to remove gas entrained in the mud.
The second type of degasser is an atmospheric type. This type relies solely on
centrifugal force or agitation to remove gas from the drilling fluid. Usually smaller and
less expensive, it is this type that is most popular with contractors. One particular
manufacturer, DRILCO, supplies 60% of all degassers built, with their single model
called the ‘See-Flo’ atmospheric degasser.
Also considered an atmospheric type is the ‘poor boy’ degasser or mud/gas separator.
Section 3.2.5.5 will aid in the proper sizing of a ‘poor boy’ degasser.
Much has been written about solids control and solids removal equipment, especially in
the last decade. Countless articles on shale shakers, centrifuges and optimum solids
removal design have cropped up in literally every petroleum publication. Not nearly as
much, however, has been said about the degasser. The degasser was typically a piece
of equipment that was given little thought. It was turned on when mud was gas cut at
the flowline or if the ‘pits needed stirring’.
In spite of past neglect, the degasser deserves recognition as a very important piece of
equipment. Much of the solids removal devices usually found on rigs (hydrocyclones,
centrifuges, etc) work on centrifugal force and pressure. If gas cut mud were to enter
these units, not only would performance decrease, but also very likely whole mud
would be lost. The gas in the mud would lower the pressure in the vessels and mud
would ultimately be discarded with the solids.
Most centrifugal pumps are also adversely affected by the presence of gas in the mud.
They tend to ‘gas lock’ and rotate without pumping fluid. If the primary mud pumps were to
draw gas-cut mud, the efficiency would drop drastically, possibly so much so that proper
hole cleaning would be impossible. This, of course, would result in numerous problems,
not least of which would be stuck pipe. Aside from equipment failure, when gas-cut mud is
encountered, there is an increasing danger of producing a kick. If the gas is re-circulated,
it continues to build up in the mud, eventually decreasing the hydrostatic head, possibly
enough to cause an underbalanced condition.
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 RIG AUDITS AND EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
11.7.1 Conducting Rig Audits

Rig audits should be conduced upon rigging up on a new location, prior to contracting a
rig or anytime between setting surface or intermediate casing. As each person tasked
with this operation will surely view things differently the checklist, which follows in
Section 11.7.2, should be utilised when possible.
11.7.2 Rig Audit Checklist

The wellsite company representative and the rig Toolpusher should complete this
checklist prior to spud and on the first trip after drilling out a casing string. All the
following questions require a ‘Yes’ response along with some additional information
that the rig auditor will discuss with the client on site.
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?
11.7.2.2 Blowout Preventer

1. Does the BOP assembly meet contractual obligations and conform to pertinent
company guidelines and regulations?
2. Is there a set of drawings available to the rig showing BOP stack, lines, valves, and
manifolds used?
3. Is the assembly rating greater than or equal to casing burst pressure, or formation
breakdown pressure, whichever is lesser?
4. Do all items of the BOP assembly meet or exceed the overall pressure rating for the
assembly?
5. Are anchored relief lines available in the event they are needed to hold pressure
down on surface casing?
6. Can all necessary manipulations of the BOP stack be made without going under the
floor?
7. Is the stack well anchored and can it be aligned conveniently if necessary?
8. Are extra ring gaskets, bonnet seal rings and BOP flange bolts on hand?
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?
4. Are sufficient hydraulic variable chokes available with a rating to handle

expected pressures?
5. Are extra parts for chokes on hand?
6. Are choke lines and valves well supported and anchored?
7. Are choke lines manifolded and arranged so that fluids can be discarded,
gas separated safely, or mud recovered and degassed?
8. Are casing head connections or lower pipe rams tied into choke manifold?
9. Does choke flowline have a minimum ID of 4in?
10. Is the low-pressure side of the manifold rated at a minimum of 1500psi? If not,
how much?
11. Is the choke operated prior to drilling out each casing string?
11.7.2.4 Gas Separation

1. Can gas separated from the mud be safely discharged or flared? What is the height
of the gas line?
2. Is there a mud/gas separator of adequate volume with vent lines of at least 7in and
a U-tube mud line to shaker to prevent gas surging to shaker?
11.7.2.5 Inside BOP, Kelly Cock, Valves and Floats

1. Are inside BOP and full opening safety valve for drillpipe available on the rig floor
and can they be manually stabbed?
2. Are they counterbalanced for easy stabbing?
3. Is the kelly test cock sub on hand?
4. Is the kelly cock handle readily available at a known designated place?
5. Is there a kelly safety valve and is the handle readily available at a known
designated place?
6. Is there a drillpipe flapper type float valve?
7. Is there a drillstring nipple and pump down backpressure valve available or in use?
11.7.2.6 Drillcollar Safety

1. Are crossover subs available so that the inside BOP and full opening safety valve
can be made up on drillcollars?
2. Is a crossover sub routinely made up and used when reaching collars, or is a safety
valve made up on crossover when collars are handled?
3. Can the collars be fastened down quickly? What kind of device is present for
doing this?
11.7.2.7 Flow Indicators

1. Is there a pit volume totaliser and recorder mounted in easy view of the driller?
2. Is there a flow indicator for out-of-the-hole conditions, or can the flowline discharge
be seen from the rig floor?
3. Does the rig have a pump stroke counter and/or trip tank for use in critical hole
filling checks?
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?
11.7.2.9 Tripping Procedures

1. At least once each trip are the ram-type BOPs operated and are all choke and kill
valves flushed on each trip?
2. Is hole filled continuously from trip tank (preferred) or is there a specified procedure
for hole filling (number of strands)? Is this completed 4 to 5 times as often when
pulling drillcollars?
3. Does the crew keep a trip record using a trip tank measure to check for swabbing?
4. Are charts posted on the rig showing the volume to be pumped from the pits for
various amounts of pipe pulled from the hole?
5. Are crews instructed as to procedures during trip if swabbing or lost circulation
is detected?
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?
11.7.2.11 Rig Specifications

1. Are approved well killing worksheets available on rig floor, and are crews and
supervisors familiar with the kill methods?
2. Is the leak off pressure recalculated and posted after every mud density change?
3. Is the maximum allowable mud density posted?
4. Are drillpipe, drillcollar, hole and mud pump capacity figures available on the rig?
5. Is water injection used on engine’s exhausts within 100ft of the well or over
production facilities?
6. Is a quick-acting method of shutting down rig engines available off the rig floor; and
if diesel engines, is a device installed for closing off the air intake?
7. Are two stairs available from the rig floor and are walkways uncluttered and open?
8. Are there doors in all near-well tool and storage houses on side away from well so
personnel would not be trapped in case of a fire?
9. Is shaker motor explosion-proof?
10. Is there an effective slugging tank?
11. Are matches, lighters and cigarettes prohibited on rig floor and safe smoking areas
designated?
12. Are safe welding areas designated?
13. When welding is done at wellhead or other dangerous locations, does the
Supervisor inspect the area with the welder before welding and issue permit?
14. Are all lights and wiring systems vapour-proof?
15. Are radio transmitters more than 100ft from well?
16. Are fire extinguishers located at suitable points and easily accessible? When was
the charge last checked?
17. Are floodlights provided for illumination under floor?
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?
11.7.2.12 Rig Crew Training

1. Do toolpushers, drillers and drilling crew have certificates of well control training
for their positions?
2. Does the toolpusher have evidence of training (records, cards and certificates)
in well control for all members of the crew?
3. Are all new employees trained in their duties on the rig in the event of a well kick?
4. Is the rig in compliance with all of the above?
SECTION 12 PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 1 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12. PLANNING DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................ 2
12.1 BRIDGING DOCUMENTS................................................................................ 2
12.2 BLOWOUT CONTINGENCY PLANNING ........................................................ 2

12.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 2
12.2.2 Purpose of the Blowout Contingency Plan (BCP) ....................................... 3
12.2.3 Scope of Work............................................................................................ 6
12.2.3.1 Definition of Scope ..................................................................................... 6
12.2.3.2 Criteria for Determining the Levels of Severity............................................ 7
12.2.3.3 Scenario Classifications ............................................................................. 7
12.2.3.4 Development of the Contingency Plan........................................................ 8
12.2.3.5 Surface Intervention ................................................................................... 8
12.2.3.6 Relief Well Intervention .............................................................................. 9
12.2.3.7 Kill Techniques Review .............................................................................. 9
12.2.3.8 Warning About Kill Technique Selection................................................... 14
12.2.4 Adapting the Manual to Specific Field Cases............................................ 14
12.2.5 The Importance of Updating Your Blowout Contingency Plan................... 16
12.3 RESOURCES................................................................................................. 16
12.3.1 Human Resources.................................................................................... 16
12.3.2 Service Companies .................................................................................. 18
12.3.3 Equipment Suppliers................................................................................. 18
12.4 BLOWOUT DATA ACQUISITION .................................................................. 20

12.4.1 Site Survey and Safety ............................................................................. 20
12.4.2 Compiled Data.......................................................................................... 22
12.5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 24

PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Page 2 of 24
12. PLANNING DOCUMENTATION
12.1 BRIDGING DOCUMENTS

There are two basic parties involved in the drilling of a well, the Drilling Contractor and
the Operator. These two parties have separate procedures for documentation and
reporting. Bridging documents are required which define a single set of procedures for
a particular well that are agreed to and signed off by both parties.
Typical procedures to include in these bridging documents cover:
Drills
Shut-in
Well kill
Staffing
Personnel responsibilities
Reporting relationships
Audits
Training
Accident and incident reporting
Minimum material stocks
Operational condition limits
Evacuation and emergency plans
12.2 BLOWOUT CONTINGENCY PLANNING
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.
Each subsidiary can consequently use this document as follows:

Define in advance their needs in human resources
Investigate, in detail, all possible logistics needs and potential problems, and take
the appropriate precautions
Get a general insight into the various techniques and emergency procedures which
might be necessary for regaining control of an emergency and returning the well to
a safe condition
Personnel should not wait until there is an emergency situation to read the plan.
All personnel must be aware of procedures before there is an emergency.
Only advanced preparation and effective contingency planning can minimise the risk to
the lives of personnel and the catastrophic damages and costs involved once a
blowout occurs.
This document is a plan for operational aspects of blowouts. It is, however, understood
that each subsidiary should already have prepared contingency plans for co-ordination
of general emergencies, which should include, but not be limited to, plans for
evacuation, press relations, pollution control, logistics etc.
Certain areas of the world will be better prepared and serviced than others. This is
understandable, in that in remote areas there are just not the facilities available that
there would be in more active drilling areas of the world. This is, however, no excuse
for not being as well prepared as possible.
It is local management’s responsibility to ensure that they are fully prepared to respond
to an emergency and that all information required by the blowout specialists is
readily available.
12.2.2 Purpose of the Blowout Contingency Plan (BCP)

The global objective of a contingency plan is to establish a strategic mechanism for
an efficient blowout intervention response by laying groundwork for organisation,
methodology, procedures and technological requirements before the event occurs.
The plan should be supported by a general document that will define:
A mechanism for response initiation
Task force and project organisation
Authority, responsibility and communication protocol
Procedures and data requirement checklists
Guidelines for evaluating intervention options
Technical design and planning guidelines
Implementation guidelines
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.
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.
12.2.3 Scope of Work

It must be stressed that the most important factor in blowout contingency planning
is keeping options open. No step-by-step guide is possible, as mentioned before.
However, our goal in this manual is to assemble in one document enough information
to help operational subsidiaries become knowledgeable in blowout control matters, and
to stand as a skeleton for their contingency plans and eventual kills.
The manual comprises an organisation-oriented approach, which basically covers
Phases 1 and 2.
All following sections are technical in nature, mainly describing up-to-date kill methods.
The information, from actual experience and from other Operator’s kills, stands as a
state-of-the-art encyclopaedia of blowout kill techniques.
12.2.3.1 Definition of Scope

Defining the scope of the operational plan is one of the most difficult tasks, because it
requires forecasting the future. The range of situations can vary from a minor event in
an easily accessible unpopulated area, to a catastrophic worst-case scenario in a
populated or poorly accessible area. Keep in mind that the blowout contingency plan
generally cannot encompass all areas, situations and conditions effectively.
If a significant difference in these factors exists, it would be better to develop individual
plans tailored for each unique requirement. The following discussion outlines the
various factors to be considered when defining the project’s scope.
The initial consideration is the specification of a geographic region to be covered by
the plan.
The potential down hole hazards of the specified region can include:
Shallow gas
Abnormal pressure and temperature gradients
Abnormal fracture gradients
Extensive reservoirs with high permeability and deliverability
Hazardous fluids (H2S, CO2, etc)
Drilling hazards that are conductive to loss of control (lost circulation, etc)
Note that the above are not necessarily high risk factors associated with the risk of
a blowout, but merely factors that can make blowout control more difficult.
Further consideration must be given to the proximity of the location to either populated
and/or environmentally sensitive areas. The environment is becoming more important
in today’s attitude by the general public and most governmental agencies.
12.2.3.2 Criteria for Determining the Levels of Severity

The various types of losses occurring in a well control situation directly influence how
decisions are made and must be addressed in the BCP. Following are the major types
of losses:
1. Human life or injury.
2. Equipment.
3. Hydrocarbon reserves.
4. Pollution control and clean up.
5. Operational funds.
6. Public image.
7. Rights to drill and produce (licence).
12.2.3.3 Scenario Classifications

Classification of blowouts into types and degree of severity will yield plans matched to
the event and lead to more efficient operations. The goal of the blowout contingency
plan must be to apply all necessary resources, but without overkill or waste. Below is a
generalised list of the types of classifications that may be necessary to describe
possible well control scenarios:
Class V
A major event of the first order. Flowrates are very large, 100+MMSCF/D and
50,000bpd, of liquid production. The flow may exit either subsurface or above the
surface of the seabed. The well may or may not be on fire, and usually access to the
wellhead is difficult or impossible, as in deep water or with a severely damaged or
destroyed platform. This type of event can be extremely costly and time consuming.
Pollution occurs and fluid can be hazardous, such as the presence of H2S.
Class IV
A medium event where the flowrates are between 50 to 100+MMSCF/D and 20 to
50,000bpd, of liquid production. The flow may exit either subsurface or above the
surface of the seabed. The well may or may not be on fire. The access to the wellhead
is difficult but possible. Serious amounts of pollution can occur and fluid can be
hazardous, such as the presence of H2S.
Class III
A medium to small event where the flowrates are between 20 to 50+MMSCF/D and
5000 to 20,000bpd of liquid production. The flow may exit either subsurface or above
the surface of the seabed. The well may or may not be on fire. The access to the
wellhead is not difficult. Pollution can occur and fluid can be hazardous, such as the
presence of H2S.
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).
12.2.3.4 Development of the Contingency Plan

After defining the scope of the BCP, a plan of action may be developed to counter the
problems presented by each scenario classification. Given the well conditions under
each scenario, a specific approach may be established and the various methods of
solving possible problems may be developed. There are four following basic
approaches to a well control problem:
Surface intervention and pump to kill
Relief well and pump to kill
Combination of relief well and wellhead intervention
Unique (infrequent) solutions
Once the severity of the well control problem has been determined (by reservoir
models, or by judgement and experience), a kill plan can be formulated. The material,
services and logistics required can then be determined. This section does not focus on
the logistic and engineering requirements, but offers an overview of the planning
necessary to have a proper BCP.
Given the severity of an event, engineering of the control effort can proceed. One can
assume that a certain class of blowout occurs, and go about planning the options that
are available and feasible in that condition. The first step is to determine what type of
kill is then possible. For example, a problem on a well in deep water or where the
platform was destroyed would generally preclude the possibility of surface intervention,
leaving the relief well scenario the only suitable method.
12.2.3.5 Surface Intervention

If intervention is to be accomplished or attempted, many specific details are needed.
Generally, these problems are subcontracted to specialised companies who offer a
range of capabilities and services in surface intervention techniques. However, the
Operator should become acquainted with these techniques and the logistics required to
implement them. An incomplete list of surface intervention techniques are listed below:
Fire suppression and extinguishing methods (water, chemical, explosives, etc)
Severing techniques for casings, wellheads and structural members (abrasive,
water jets, sawing, die cutters and explosives)
Wellhead and tree removal and replacement in pressurised situations (commonly

referred to as capping operations, tree snubbing, etc)
Diversion of large flows containing abrasive and corrosive fluids, freezing
techniques, hot tapping and snubbing operations
12.2.3.6 Relief Well Intervention

Implementation of a relief well as a well control technique basically involves
establishing direct communication with the problem well by directional drilling of a
hole to a specific down hole location in very close proximity to the problem well.
When communication is established, it should then be possible to pump the well dead.
12.2.3.6.1 Combination Surface/Relief Well Intervention

Under certain well conditions, it is conceivable that both intervention methods would be
required to kill a well. This situation would most likely occur in the most severe
situations, in particular when severe pollution is at stake.
12.2.3.6.2 Unique Solution

Occasionally, more unconventional techniques may be suitable. The extent of these
methods may challenge the imagination or be as simple as allowing the well to deplete
or to wait for natural wellbore collapse (bridging).
12.2.3.7 Kill Techniques Review

In attempting to classify kill techniques, it is convenient to consider those which can be
implemented directly over the blowing well (direct kills), and those that require the
drilling of one or several relief wells.
In the past 10 years there has been a great effort to rationalise all of these techniques,
and several authors, in the wake of Mobil’s E Blount’s landmark article on the
‘dynamic kill’, have contributed to this.
All blowout control methods include some ‘pumping’, whether directly through the top of
the blowing well after a capping job or at depth via a relief well. The six basic pumping
techniques that blowout ‘specialists’ usually refer to are:
Static kill
Dynamic kill
Momentum kill
Bullheading
Lubrication, these last two suppose a direct kill
Matrix kill, only applicable through a relief well
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.
12.2.3.7.1 Direct Kills

As far as direct or surface kills are concerned, all methods except the matrix kill may be
attempted if deemed capable of succeeding but only if the surface equipment,
casing and wellbore are strong enough to withstand the loads incurred during
the control operations. This of course supposes that these loads be calculated before
making the decision to go ahead with the kill attempt. The days of ‘pumping first,
observing the well die or crater’ are over!
Without going into any detail at this point, we may define the different methods
as follows:
a. Static Kill
A static kill simply involves the circulated placement into the wellbore of a fluid of
density sufficient to hydrostatically kill the well. This is usually a solution when the
blowout is caught early, before the situation escalates in gravity.
b. Momentum Kill
The momentum kill is based on the theory that if one can inject down the blowing
well a dense fluid at a rate such that the momentum of this fluid is greater than the
momentum of the escaping hydrocarbons, the kill fluid will stay in the well and
eventually stop the blowout.
This method has drawn much criticism, in particular concerning its mechanism, the
risk of fracturing the formation at depth, etc. It is likely best used when there is
considerable pressure drawdown in the reservoir and pressure buildup rate is slow.
If pressure drawdown is all from friction in the blowout flowpath and flowing bottom
hole pressure is high a momentum kill has little chance for success. Shell at the
Cox No 1 blowout in 1973, L Flak at the Tomlinson Blowout in 1985 and B Grace in
Louisiana in 1997 have demonstrated some success. There have been several
failed attempts.
In all documented cases, the kill fluid’s density is unusually high, weighted Zinc
Bromide or hematite mud has been used at densities >25ppg.
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.
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.
12.2.3.7.2 Kills by Relief Wells

The best practice, once it is obvious that a ‘simple kill’ of the hydrostatic nature for
instance will be ineffectual, is to prepare and spud a relief well concurrently with
eventual surface kill preparations. If the surface kill fails, much time will have
been gained.
Hydrostatic kills, bullheading and lubrication do not apply per se to relief well kill
techniques. Actually, of the three relief well methods, one (matrix kill) acts on the
reservoir to halt formation flow. The two others (dynamic and momentum) create a
situation in the blowing well, which impedes formation fluid from entering the well.
Relief well drilling technology has greatly improved over the 1990s. Use of new
steerable directional systems with the new generation of electro-magnetic ranging tools
available from Vector Magnetics out of Ithaca, New York, has made direct intercepts
possible. Experts with the John Wright Company in Houston, Texas, should be
contacted if a relief well is ever required. The John Wright Company has successfully
planned and co-ordinated more successful relief wells that any in our industry.
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.
12.2.3.8 Warning About Kill Technique Selection

The type of kill must be carefully chosen to prevent further damage and risks.
There have been cases where intervention and/or kill operations caused the problem
to worsen.
For example, in 1985 the BEKAPAI BC7 disaster began as a single blowout of a drilling
well on a 12-well platform. An intervention was undertaken where it was decided in the
field to shut-in the well using the existing drilling BOPs. Upon shut-in, the well burst the
casing shallow and blew out some short distance below the mudline. In less than
14 hours, a crater opened up under the platform 90 metres in diameter and over
150 metres deep. The result was that the platform collapsed in the crater and several
of the other wells blew out. Clearly, the surface intervention technique caused the
platform to collapse and exposed the Operator to additional losses. Had snubbing or a
different pumping job been used instead, the well might have been controlled without
loss of the platform. The operation to drill relief wells costs over US$50 million and took
14 months to accomplish. The snubbing technique would have taken less time and
been less costly.
In another case, offshore Mexico, a bullhead technique was attempted. This resulted in
a casing burst just below the subsea BOPs. Prior to the casing failure, the well was
contained, but afterwards, a catastrophic oil spill resulted. Even the famous ‘Sombrero’
proved to be ineffective in controlling the oil pollution. This again shows that careful
planning and evaluation of the technique must be undertaken.
In yet another case, a surface intervention from a relief well went astray. The problem
was a shallow gas blowout, offshore West Africa. The relief well had killed the well
using a dynamic technique, with seawater as a kill fluid. The pumps were shut down
due to darkness and the well blew out again. The next step undertaken was a massive
pump job using heavy brine. This job resulted in disaster. The open hole section in the
relief well fractured back to the surface, and both the platform and the jack-up rig used
to drill the relief well were swallowed in a crater. This occurred in 1978 and today the
well is still blowing a substantial amount of gas.
12.2.4 Adapting the Manual to Specific Field Cases

Basically, only Phase I and Phase 2 for the organisational aspects can and should be
finalised before a blowout occurs. In regard to Phase 1, the guidelines need to be
documented with precise names, telephone numbers etc. For Phase 2, the activation
of the Blowout Control Task Force is to be planned and once again complemented with
precise information.
For the technical aspect of Phase 2 and the exact procedures for Phase 3 that follow,
prior precise planning is impossible. What can be prepared is a kill calculation for a
relief well kill, yielding the order of magnitude of required horsepower based on the well
and reservoir’s characteristics.
This is critical information, as it determines the magnitude of the equipment to be
mobilised if a relief well kill is to be attempted.
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
– 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
12.2.5 The Importance of Updating Your Blowout Contingency Plan

Unfortunately in many subsidiaries, it is not uncommon to find Blowout Contingency
Plans that have never been updated. As its name indicates, the plan exists not as
some ‘insurance against the wrath of governing authorities’ but as an exact plan of
what should be done when a blowout occurs.
An exact plan must be precise and contain correct information. For one, it is rare to find
that in a given location wells being drilled today are identical in all aspects to
wells drilled over 10 years ago, when the first plans were produced. Furthermore,
all information which pertains to names, telephone numbers, equipment present locally
etc obviously requires, at the very least, an annual update.
A suggestion often made in previous plans was to have the local service companies
acquire the habit of automatically sending the subsidiary reviewed equipment lists.
But most importantly, updating of the plan must be assigned to a given person on the
operational staff.
All blowout contingency plans must be updated regularly. This is an operational
responsibility. Therefore, a person should be assigned to this updating task.
12.3 RESOURCES
12.3.1 Human Resources

Numerous resources are available for the control of wild wells. They are classified
as personnel and equipment. Personnel can come from the operational staff,
specialised contract companies and services companies. No one will understand the
local parameters better than the operational staff currently in place, so it is prudent to
assign part of the control team from the current operational staff.
There are many schools of thought concerning who is to be in ultimate control of a

blowout. Some will support the idea that local management is best suited. While this
group does possess the knowledge inherent to the locality, they may not be
experienced in the control of a blowout. It is therefore advisable to bring in personnel
who have had past experience with blowout and well control, and the most competent
one should be sourced before the event occurs.
A Blowout Control Task Force will organise in order to respond any blowout. The
very size of this Task Force will obviously depend on the severity of the problem.
For instance, a complete Relief Well Team will be mobilised for a major blowout, but a
reduced Capping Team will be mobilised for a minor blowout.
For exploration subsidiaries, with a reduced local staff, the home office will provide as
much manpower as required, according to the needs.
For large production subsidiaries, local management should endeavour to assign to the
Blowout Control Task Force the people whose competence and/or expertise in local
operations is necessary for a swift and safe response. All the remaining staff should
keep working on the routine matters at hand, with the same degree of efficiency and
safety. People brought from outside will not be able to achieve properly the latter duty.
Some of the lessons learned from past major blowout control operations are as follows:
Change out the field staff that was at the site when control was lost as soon as
possible. This staff is likely to be overstressed and overly concerned as to their role
in the cause of the problem. Use this staff back in the office to maintain current
work activities and/or logistical help
Incident Commander should be a Senior Operations Manager. The following
positions report:
– Source Control Leader should be the Drilling Manager. Support staff with drilling
experience supports this individual
– Pollution Control Leader should be the Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE)
Manager or Production Manager. A support staff with HSE or production
experience supports this individual
– Logistics Control Leader should be a Senior Drilling Supervisor partnered with
current logistics staff
– Administration Control Leader should be a Senior Administration Manager who
can build a staff to handle financial, legal, contracting, media and government
regulatory issues
Assemble these individuals in any phase and set up organisation to fit the scale of
incident. It will be critical to establish reliable communication at the incident site as
soon as possible. Many blowouts produce little or no pollution (dry gas) so the
organisation should be adjusted to the scope of the problem
In is best to pre-designate at least these four positions. Drills should be done at
least annually to train these individuals in response. Drills should be based on
realistic scenario and then the response is simulated and documented
12.3.2 Service Companies

Another source of personnel will be from the service company sector. Some service
companies will be able to provide staff familiar with the types of problems to be
encountered. They may also be able to assist by providing engineering and technical
expertise in conjunction with their services.
It is also recommended to consult ones superiors for selecting the necessary
engineering support. However, subsidiaries are earnestly encouraged to keep track of
all local services companies they are familiar with, and to define a QA/QC policy, which
would rule their assistance in the context of a blowout.
Figure 12.1 should help each subsidiary to identify and evaluate the main corporate
and contracted technical/operational specialists to be included in the task force or
consulted at various stages of the project.
12.3.3 Equipment Suppliers

Equipment will be necessary to control the well. It can be sourced from
Company-owned stores, borrowed or leased from other Operators, purchased directly,
or contracted from service companies. In most cases the equipment necessary for the
control effort is essentially common oilfield equipment, such as pumps, valves, etc.
In some cases, unique and rare equipment will be necessary, as in the case of pump
manifolds, high-pressure risers, re-entry BOP equipment, hydraulic set wellheads, etc.
To further complicate matters, odd, specialised and typically non-oilfield items may be
necessary, such as explosives, hydra-cutting tools, etc.
It is best if sources for each piece of equipment can be identified and pricing structures
negotiated as a component of the contingency plan. Experience has shown that pricing
is more reasonable if determined beforehand, than when sourced in an emergency
purchase basis.
Figure 12.1 - Sample Technical Specialists Identification Form
TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS IDENTIFICATION
Technical Speciality Names

Company Contact and number
Surface Well
Control/Capping/Firefighting
Relief Well Expert
Oil Spill Control
Directional Drilling/Surveying
Electro-magnetic Ranging
(Casing Detection)
Drilling Fluids, LCM, Mud Storage
Pumping, Cementing
Reservoir/Hydraulic Simulations
Geophysics/Shallow Seismic
Rental Equipment (BOPs, Pipe)
Special Wlreline Logging
(Noise, Temp)
Mooring and Marine Engineering
Subsea Equipment and Operations
Diving and ROV Equipment and
Operations
Snubbing Equipment and
Operations
Special Capping Spools and BOPs
Drilling Operations and Supervision
Safety Management/Risk
Assessment
Administration
Contracts and Legal
Insurance and Partner Co-ordinator
Document Control and
QA/QC Audit Trail
Press and Public Relation
Co-ordinator
12.4 BLOWOUT DATA ACQUISITION

The next most important step, after organising and managing the Blowout Intervention
Task Force, is accurately describing the events leading up to the blowout and an
accurate description of the current blowout situation. This will require careful analysis of
the data by different specialists, particularly in the case of an underground or subsea
blowout.
This information is critical if an appropriate strategy is to be devised and implemented
in a timely manner. It is usually better to spend a few days analysing data,
before starting an intervention operation, than to react immediately with assumptions
before all the data has been analysed.
To facilitate this analysis certain data needs to be quickly gathered and properly
documented while the task force is being organised:
The first set of data concerns the blowout itself
The second set of data concerns the well at stake and its environment,
and consists of all related documents, which should be available in the
subsidiary’s premises
Immediately after a blowout a site survey will be initiated to determine the extent of
damage, fire, pollution, etc. This can be expanded to incorporate the requirements of
the intervention task force, if the type and detail of information is known in advance.
In the office, engineers and technicians can start compiling data and producing
well schematics, comprehensive report(s) on events leading up to the blowout,
create drawings of platform or rig, obtain current bathymetry charts and
information, etc.
It should be noted that, several ‘wild well’ schematics and checklists should
be permanently updated for quick delivery to blowout specialists, in the case of
an emergency.
12.4.1 Site Survey and Safety

Regaining control of a wild well poses many dangers to human life. One of the first
tasks of the District Manager is to appoint a Safety Co-ordinator who is familiar with the
platform/rig in question.
His responsibility will be the safety of the crews making the site surveys. He will
monitor all plans, activities, safety equipment, etc before proceeding. Initial concerns
will be fire, poisonous gas, explosion hazards (from accumulated combustible gas,
processing equipment, fuel, other wellheads, etc), structure stability (degenerated by
heat and/or explosions), diving and other hazards.
Crews, therefore, may or may not be able to re-enter the platform/rig immediately to
ascertain all conditions or gather all data. One of the experienced firefighting and
blowout teams should be utilised in these crews.
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
A video recording should be made as soon as feasible so as to assist in evaluating

the blowout intensity, identifying the burning wells, assessing the structure
damage, etc
12.4.2 Compiled Data

The following relevant data catalogued from office sources should be compiled
and assembled:
Relevant platform, rig and/or structure drawings
Platform and/or slot/well location and directional drilling co-ordinate system
(ie platform reference, slot co-ordinates, latitude and longitude, and uncertainty)
Azimuth reference system used (ie UTM, true north, local grid, grid convergence)
Depth reference system and units
Platform/rig directional drilling structure maps (horizontal and vertical section views)
Definitive wellbore surveys on relevant wells (ie wells blowing out and adjacent
wells). If available, include:
– Well name/number
– Date of survey
– Surface tie-on co-ordinates
– Survey interval
– Survey type
– Survey company
– Surveyor’s name
– Grid conversion
– Magnetic declination conversion
– Running gear configuration
– Magnetic spacing
– Bottom hole assembly (BHA) used
– Borehole temperature
– Tool face data
– Any other information that might help QA/QC the survey data (eg service
company uncertainty model, calibration data, running procedures, surveyors
notes, overlapped surveys, etc)
Surface maps showing platform/rig (blowout site) and debris, pipelines,

water depths, seabed characteristics, other seabed hazards, shipping lanes,
adjacent platforms or structures, and other surface hazards for a nominal 1 nautical
mile radius
Surface map (plan view) of the platform/rig (showing average prevailing winds,
waves, and sea currents (surface and seabed) for the next 6 months
Surface map showing latest seismic coverage to include any subsurface hazards
(shallow gas, palaeochannels, faults, etc)
Well schematic(s) showing best known situation from events leading up to
the blowout:
– To include (if drilling): BOP, wellhead, casing programme, BHA, open hole
section, influx point and source, blowout flowpath, fluids in the well at time of
blowout, relevant pressures, etc
– To include (if production): xmas tree, wellhead configuration, casing, tubing,
location of packers, valves, perforations, obstructions, type of completion,
blowout flowpath, damage to any of the above, relevant pressures, etc
– A composite drawing showing relative dimensions (ID/OD) of casings, liners,
drillpipe and BHA along with trajectory information, assumed flowpath, assumed
restrictions, etc would be useful for kill planning
Geological stratigraphic cross-section including pore pressure, fracture gradients,
overburden and temperature profile. Mark possible drilling hazards
Drilling records from the blowout and offset wells, including detailed records of
drilling and production operations immediately prior to the emergency
Reservoir and reservoir fluid properties (ie permeability, productivity index,
static reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, GOR, reservoir extension,
minimum flowing bottom hole pressure (BHP), molecular composition of blowout
fluids, and the specific gravity at a specified temperature
Drawdown production tests or drill stem test (DST) if available
Drilling data and formation evaluation logging reports (mud, MWD and wireline)
Insurance and/or regulatory requirements
Location and availability of possible relief well rigs
Others
More detailed data acquisition requirements could be investigated for specific
platforms, rigs, structures and/or drilling/production circumstances. Most of this
additional data, however, appears to pertain more specifically to surface
intervention scenarios. For example, subsea intervention, would require much more
diving/ROV data.
Additionally, for land wells only:

A map of the general area with all relevant information ie location of site, nearest
towns, company office, Government offices, etc
A detail of residences in the area (1 to 2 mile radius) should be available in the
event of toxic gases
A map of existing pipelines in the area if any
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.
SECTION 13 SPECIAL CASES Page 1 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
13. SPECIAL CASES................................................................................................... 2

13.1 HIGH PRESSURE, HIGH TEMPERATURE WELLS........................................ 2
13.1.1 HPHT Drilling Fluid Issues.......................................................................... 2
13.1.1.1 Thermal Stability of Drilling Fluids .............................................................. 2
13.1.1.2 Baryte Sag ................................................................................................. 3
13.1.1.3 Differential Sticking Seepage Losses and Lost Circulation ......................... 3
13.1.1.4 Quantifying the Impact of Temperature and Pressure ................................ 4
13.1.1.5 Testing of Drilling Fluids ............................................................................. 4
13.1.2 Tripping ...................................................................................................... 5
13.1.2.1 General Notes on Tripping.......................................................................... 6
13.1.2.2 Prior to Tripping.......................................................................................... 7
13.1.2.3 Tripping Out in the Transition Zone (Base of 12-1/4in Hole Section) .......... 7
13.1.2.4 Tripping Out in the 8-1/2in Hole Section ..................................................... 8
13.1.2.5 Tripping In .................................................................................................. 9
13.1.3 Ballooning or Flowback............................................................................. 10
13.1.3.1 Sequence of Events ................................................................................. 10
13.1.3.2 Approach.................................................................................................. 10
13.1.3.3 Definitions ................................................................................................ 11
13.1.3.4 Procedures and Guidelines ...................................................................... 11
13.1.4 Loss or Gain While Drilling ....................................................................... 11
13.2 SLIMHOLE WELLS ....................................................................................... 12
13.2.1 Slimhole Kick Detection............................................................................ 13
13.2.2 Slimhole Operation Characteristics........................................................... 14
13.2.3 Optimisation of Drilling Performance ........................................................ 15
13.3 HORIZONTAL WELLS................................................................................... 16
13.3.1 Mud Density Design ................................................................................. 16
13.3.2 Kick Tolerance Analysis ........................................................................... 16
13.3.3 Differences Between Horizontal and Vertical Wells .................................. 17
13.3.4 Drillpipe and Choke Pressure During Mud Displacement ......................... 17
13.3.5 Effect of Kick Size on Shut-in Casing Pressure (SICP) and
Shut-in Drillpipe Pressure (SIDPP) ........................................................... 18
13.3.6 Gas Left on Bottom After Circulating the Well .......................................... 18
SPECIAL CASES Page 2 of 20
13. SPECIAL CASES
13.1 HIGH PRESSURE, HIGH TEMPERATURE WELLS

The generally accepted definition of a high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) well is a
well that requires surface pressure control equipment to be rated higher than 10,000psi
and has an undisturbed formation temperature greater than 300°F.
The Repsol Special Wells Manual contains a section on HPHT wells and this should be
reviewed for general HPHT issues. Also, the Institute of Petroleum (IP) Model Code of
Safe Practice, Part 17: Well Control during the Drilling and Testing of High Pressure
Offshore Wells, May 1992, should be considered to be the standard for HPHT well
control matters.
13.1.1 HPHT Drilling Fluid Issues

Drilling fluid density and rheology are key concerns in HPHT wells as water-based
muds are sensitive to temperature but relatively insensitive to pressure and
oil/synthetic-based muds are very sensitive to both temperature and pressure.
Drilling fluids should satisfactorily meet all of the basic design requirements regardless
of the complexity of the project. However, some drilling fluid characteristics must be
emphasised in HPHT wells as the overall success of the project may depend on the
following parameters:
Thermal stability of drilling fluids
Barytes sag
Differential sticking
Seepage losses
Lost circulation
These issues are addressed in the following subsections.
13.1.1.1 Thermal Stability of Drilling Fluids

True down hole rheological properties affect, amongst other parameters, equivalent
circulating density, equivalent static density hole cleaning, barytes sag, surge/swab
pressures during tripping, pump pressures and bit hydraulics. Gelation and excessive
viscosity are major concerns at temperatures above 300°F.
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.
13.1.1.2 Baryte Sag

Barytes sag is a significant variation in mud density caused by the settling of barytes or
other weighting material. The greatest density variation occurs during the first bottoms
up after a trip or other operation where the mud has been static for a period of time.
This characteristic density variation may therefore lead to problems including lost
circulation, stuck pipe and loss of well control.
Additionally, it should be noted that for HPHT wells the use of innovative products to
minimise/eliminate sag and provide suspension/hole cleaning while maintaining lowest
equivalent circulating density (ECD) should be considered; particularly as the effects of
hole angle, well profile and static and semi-static periods will certainly affect sag.
13.1.1.3 Differential Sticking Seepage Losses and Lost Circulation

Traditionally, differential sticking has been categorised as a result of the drillstring
being held tightly against a formation. This is also true for HPHT wells; however, given
our discussions in Sections 13.1.1.1 and 13.1.1.2 it should be evident that these
problems are likely to be more prominent as we encounter higher temperatures and
pressures. Hence we should attempt to minimise PV and ECD while maximising
hole cleaning.
Caution should also be taken when breaking circulation as the high initial pump
pressures and ECD are caused by cooler mud in parts of the system. This in turn may
lead to seepage losses or lost circulation.
13.1.1.4 Quantifying the Impact of Temperature and Pressure

Although water-based muds have been used in HPHT wells at temperatures above
500°F, temperatures above 350°F clearly favour the use of oil-based muds.
Minimising the concentration of active solids and using polymeric additives for viscosity
and suspension control achieve thermal stability of water-based muds. These practices
reduce the possibility of high temperature flocculation of active clays and viscosity
increases caused by salt water, salt and acid/gas contamination.
As a consequence of our discussion, the following items should be noted
where applicable:
1. Difference of 0.5 to 1.0 lb/gal likely between ECD and static mud weight.
2. May be a narrow band between ECD and fracture gradient at casing shoe.
3. Important in casing seat selection.
4. Avoid rapid pipe movement to minimise surge and swab pressures.
5. Stage in hole, circulating at least once before bottom to break gels.
6. Mud in riser will be cooler, heavier and thicker after trip resulting in increased ECD.
7. Rotate pipe before circulation.
8. Use down hole rheological properties for ECD surge/swab.
9. If losses occur, reduce pump rate, monitor loss rate and implement plan to
cure losses.
13.1.1.5 Testing of Drilling Fluids

For HPHT wells, drilling fluid tests are run in field service, research and speciality
laboratories in order support field operations and to provide a higher level of expertise.
These tests often include the following:
Toxicity: In some areas, mud systems and mud additives must be tested for toxicity
and health effects before they are used
Shale Stability: Several tests are used for measuring unfavourable physio-chemical
reactions that may occur between water-based drilling fluids and representative
samples of shale formations. Shale dispersion and swelling tests are conducted
near surface conditions, while tri-axial tests evaluate mud shale interactions at
confining pressures above 1500psi and temperatures above 150°F to simulate
down hole conditions
HPHT Rheology: Rheological properties and gel strengths are measured at the
wellsite using API recommended rotational viscometers that operate at low
temperature (<180°F) and atmospheric pressure. For HPHT wells, especially those
using oil/synthetic-based drilling fluids, rheological measurements should be
obtained from laboratory viscometers
High Temperature Ageing: Concerns in high temperature wells include severe

gelation when them mud is static and extreme viscosity during circulation.
Testing mud samples in pressurised ageing cells, typically for 16 hours simulates
these two conditions
Dynamic Filtration: Filter cakes formed on permeable formations under static and
dynamic conditions do not exhibit the same characteristics. Static filtration
measurements, which are routinely taken in the field, do not approximate down hole
conditions as well as their counterpart
Lubricity: Quantitative correlations between lubricity measurements and field results
have not been very successful in the past, however, reasonable results are now
being obtained by a new class of device capable of lubricity measurements under
pressure and temperature, using metal, sandstone or shale for the simulated
wellbore
Particle-size Distribution: True particle size distribution is important for filtration,
formation damage, and rheological characteristics. Distribution measurements can
be obtained quickly and accurately in the laboratory with electronic sensing devices
and laser beam analysers
Return Permeability: Permeability impairment of reservoir rock core is generally
evaluated in the laboratory before a damage sensitive formation is drilled. These
tests can be run with a static or dynamic drilling fluid
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.
This section gives a suggested approach to tripping in an HPHT portion of a well.

As always, suggested approaches should be reviewed and improved as required by
the planning and operations teams.
The two most important items for tripping out of the hole are:
Pump out to ensure that no hydrocarbons are swabbed in
Keep accurate trip tank records to accurately monitor any gains
Given the capabilities of today’s rigs, it is suggested that pumping out is the safest
approach. At the same time, a deliberate ‘swab test’ can determine how close to
balance the wellbore hydrostatic pressure actually is. This is very much in line with the
overall approach, which is:
Establish pressures whenever possible and before proceeding ahead with operations,
such as tripping, coring etc.
13.1.2.1 General Notes on Tripping

When pumping out of the hole to the casing shoe or top of the liner, circulate at
rate of 75% to 100% of that while drilling, if possible. In any case, it must be at a
rate greater than the displacement of the pipe removed from the borehole. Continue
to pump through any liner as there may still be a swabbing tendency due to small
annular clearance.
When breaking off a stand the pumps should be switched off and flow stopped before
stopping the rotation, again this is to reduce the chances of sticking. The string should
be stationary for as short a time as possible. Record the displacement volumes on the
trip sheet; it is crucial that the point at which displacement is recorded is the same each
stand to enable a meaningful trend to be observed.
Once at the shoe (and at the point where it has been agreed that the pipe can be
pulled dry), check that the pit volume is the same as the volume when the bit was on
bottom less the hole fill for the pipe displacement, and perform a 15 minute flow check
on the trip tank with the trip tank pump running. Continue to rotate the pipe while
performing the flow check.
If there is a motor on the bottom hole assembley (BHA), pumping out of the hole must
stop when the bit reaches the shoe.
While tripping, a careful and accurate record of displacement must be maintained
independently by the Driller and the Mud Loggers. Regular communication between the
Driller and the Mud Loggers should occur; any variation should be discussed and
resolved before continuing. Any discrepancies should be flow checked immediately
and, if necessary, the well shut in. Due to temperature, high gels and weights, the
volumes may, in the initial stages, not be as calculated. These should be fully
investigated and as the well progresses, a trend of displacement should become
apparent. It is important that previous trip sheets be kept as a reference to aid the
next trip.
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.
13.1.2.2 Prior to Tripping

The pipe must not be tripped out of the hole unless it is safe to do so. In particular, the
pipe must not be tripped out if the weather forecast precludes getting back to bottom.
Driller and Mud Logger should fill in separate trip sheets. A trip sheet from the previous
trip out of the hole must be available. Intervals where over-pulls occur should be
recorded on the trip sheet.
The Drilling Foreman (or Senior Drilling Foreman) is to provide the Driller with the
necessary information about the trip, ie reason for trip, prevailing pore pressure regime
and tripping overbalance.
The Driller is to ensure that the rig floor is fully prepared to shut in the well and that fully
opening safety valves (kelly cocks), Gray type non-return valves and dart suitable for
the dart sub are ready for use. Ensure that the dart passes through the fully opening
safety valves.
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.
5. Pump for 30 seconds.

6. Stroke the pipe one-half stand (45ft) at a speed greater than normal trip speed.
8. Pump bottoms up – when bottoms up reaches 4000ft, direct returns through the
choke and mud gas separator (use both blowout preventer (BOP) side outlets).
9. Assess gas levels of mud exiting the mud gas separator and flowing into the mud
trough (though this is difficult, unless the rig equipment is enhanced as suggested –
gas measurement equipment downstream of choke!). If gas levels acceptable,
pump out of hole to shoe at a minimum and then slug pipe and pull dry. If the gas
levels are high, raise the mud weight, adjust mud properties and repeat the swab
test before pumping out of the hole.
The procedures noted in Steps 3 to 9 above constitute a ‘swab test’.
13.1.2.4 Tripping Out in the 8-1/2in Hole Section

The objective of this procedure is to avoid an induced kick. The tripping procedure
could therefore be:
1. When the decision is made to trip out, circulate the equivalent of the volume of the
top 6000ft of annulus.
2. Make a short trip at normal tripping speeds and with the pump on through all the
new formation penetrated.
4. Pump bottoms up – when bottoms up reaches 4000ft direct returns through the
choke and mud gas separator.
5. Assess gas levels of mud exiting the mud gas separator and flowing into the mud
trough (though this is difficult – see previously). If gas levels acceptable, pump out
of hole to shoe at a minimum and then slug pipe and pull dry. If gas levels high,
then raise mud weight, adjust mud properties, and make short trip with pump on to
confirm overbalance.
Note: In this hole section it is likely that pumping out of the hole will prove to be the
safest and most effective way of tripping. The check trip is included in any
case to assess down hole pressures. Note also that pumping out should be
continued until it is safe to pump a slug and pull dry. With the mud
properties and proximity of the casing shoe to the producing formation, this
implies that pumping out might be continued until some distance inside the
casing shoe. If a mud motor is in use, pumping out should be stopped once the
bit is at the shoe.
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.
13.1.3 Ballooning or Flowback

Ballooning or flowback occurs when mud which was either lost to fractures in the
formation or into the ‘ballooning’ of the wellbore is given back when some of the excess
pressure in the wellbore is relieved. When this excess pressure is relieved, either the
fractures squeeze back some of the mud that entered or the ‘balloon’ returns to its
original size.
Note: The author suggests that ‘ballooning’ is very much associated with fractures or
mini-fractures and not ‘ballooning’ of the actual wellbore.
In the 8-1/2in hole section, it is strongly suggested that the Driller’s method is the
method of choice for well control. Using this method allows for the influx to be
circulated to surface and the influx examined before the mud is weighted up. If the
influx were ‘ballooning’ (and therefore had no associated hydrocarbon), operations
could be resumed with the same mud weight. Raising the mud weight as would happen
automatically with the Wait and Weight method might just make the situation
(severity of ballooning) worse.
13.1.3.1 Sequence of Events

The sequence of events is:
Start pumps impose annular friction pressure on wellbore in addition to mud
hydrostatic
Note: The annular friction pressure is significant in the 8-1/2in hole and may
amount to 300psi or more at drilling circulating rates.
Lose mud to formation
Turn pump off and take away annular friction pressure
Get back some or all of the mud previously lost to the formation
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.
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
13.1.3.4 Procedures and Guidelines

Procedures that can be used while drilling in the 8-1/2in and smaller hole sections
where ‘ballooning’ or ‘flowback’ could be a serious problem should address the
following points:
The first time that ‘flowback’ occurs should be treated as a ‘real’ kick
The Driller’s method is suggested such that the influx can be looked at before the
mud weight is raised
Once ballooning is suspected, the amount of influx allowed back into the wellbore
should be agreed by all parties and limited
The rate of influx into the wellbore should be closely monitored. Ballooning should
result in a steady or declining rate of influx. If the rate of influx is increasing at all,
the well should be shut-in immediately and the influx circulated out as a kick
It is essential that all operations are carried out in a consistent manner. In this respect,
the Senior Toolpusher or Toolpusher (depending on who is on tour) is responsible for
ensuring that sufficient information is relayed from one Driller to the Driller on the
opposite tour. This means that the Senior Foreman or Foreman must be on the rigfloor
at the time that the last connection or shutdown is made during a tour and again when
the first connection or shutdown is made during the next tour. The Mud Loggers are
responsible for making similar arrangements such that continuity of action and
observation takes place.
Comprehensive records must be kept such that loss/gain events can be
accurately tracked.
13.1.4 Loss or Gain While Drilling

If in doubt, the well may be shut in at any time the volumes that can be allowed back in
to the well depend on kick tolerance.
1. Consider reducing flowrate, rotary speed or mud weight, adjusting mud theology,
adding lost circulation material (LCM) to mud setting drilling liner or expandable
slotted tubing (EST).
2. Monitor the well very closely while flow check gas is being circulated out. Circulate
over the choke if any indications of a hydrocarbon influx. Remember, hydrocarbon
may come back into the well with some mud returns.
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.
13.2 SLIMHOLE WELLS

Wells are normally classified as slimholes if the production interval is intentionally
drilled with a bit diameter less than 4.75in. Yet others have suggested a narrow gap
criterion whereby the drillstring to hole diameter ratio is greater than 0.8, in order to
distinguish between slimhole and reduced bore or conventional wells. Regardless of
the criteria used, risk mitigation in slimhole wells is crucial.
The concept of risk mitigation refers to the use of safety systems in co-ordination of
data analysis and improvements to drilling efficiency, such that the risks in drilling
critical wells are reduced to an absolute minimum. The use of enhanced data
acquisition and monitoring systems, coupled with traditional pore pressure prediction
techniques, can provide sufficient information to ensure that a safe overbalance
is maintained.
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
13.2.1 Slimhole Kick Detection

The two most prominent kick detection systems, which have been developed,
are either based on acoustic principles or flow measurement. Acoustic systems may
operate independent of the pump as they are based on sending active pulses down
annulus and analysing the reflection pattern from the pulses as well as travel time.
Furthermore, research has shown that flow-based systems have an advanced analysis
ability which allows them to reject false alarms.
Although both systems have the capability of detecting influxes as small as one barrel;
flow-based detection is more sensitive on slimhole rigs due to the limited volume of
mud in circulation, which allows a reduction in the active pit area. Consequently, the pit
level sensor is also more accurate in measuring volume variations.
However, other parameters of kick detection cannot be optimised by design. They are
the transient time of mud through the flowline, shale shakers and treatment pits down
to the active tank and the reaction time of the personnel in charge of operations.
Therefore, quick reaction procedures should be applied in slimhole drilling operations.
These quick reaction procedures should be specific to the rig and environment but
should be designed with the kick characteristics outlined in Table 13.1 in mind.
Table 13.1 - Slimhole Kick Characteristics
Kick While Drilling

Stopping circulation will decrease bottom hole pressure. The pressure
difference between bottom hole and the reservoir will consequently increase and
will result in a larger influx
While drilling a slimhole phase, the implementation of a flow check is
detrimental to the limitation of the kick volume
It is recommended to shut the well in as quickly as possible and, therefore, not
to perform a flow check
The well will be shut in at first alert and then pressures are to be observed
The standpipe pressure may be an immediate sign of a kick, as an increase in
standpipe pressure is observed as soon as the gas enters the wellbore if the
gas influx rate is high enough to create significant pressure losses in
the annulus
Kick During a Connection
When circulation and rotation are resumed after a connection, the annular
pressure losses increase the bottom hole pressure above reservoir pressure
The gas influx is stopped and no sign of the kick will be detected until the gas
expands when it approaches surface
The use of accurate flowmeter associated with software dedicated to early kick
detection will identify a kick during a connection in a quicker fashion
The readings of the flow ‘out’ or of the differential flow and tank level are only
useable after a time delay that corresponds to stabilisation of the mud return
13.2.2 Slimhole Operation Characteristics

Well control is very critical during slimhole drilling, due to the importance of the annulus
pressure loss as well as the small mud volume in the well. Operations like pipe
rotation, reciprocation and tripping may generate high transient pressures thereby
initiating influxes and fractures.
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.
13.2.3 Optimisation of Drilling Performance

Several different types of fluids have been used successfully in slimhole wells; however
in order to optimise drilling performance, slimhole drilling fluids should be designed to
reduce system pressure losses, maximise bit hydraulics and remain stable over a large
temperature range. Fluids which meet these criteria include biopolymer/brines and
xanthan/brines.
Biopolymer/brines have distinct advantages in that brines provide solids-free density,
inhibition, and improved temperature stability. Biopolymers, such as xanthan and welan
gum, are compatible with brines and provide excellent viscosity, suspension and drag
reduction in turbulent flow (at low solids content). Starch or starch derivatives can be
added to control fluid loss and acid soluble, sized calcium carbonate can provide
bridging, if required.
13.3 HORIZONTAL WELLS

Well control is one of the important issues related to horizontal wells due to the subtle
differences between horizontal and vertical wells.
13.3.1 Mud Density Design

When designing a well, the mud density is selected within two limits; the upper,
given by the equivalent fracture density and the lower, represented by the equivalent
density of the formation pressure. For horizontal wells, this selection may be critical.
The reason being that the pore and formation pressures do not change over the length
of the horizontal section, but the equivalent mud density at the bottom of the hole does.
This is due to the fact that during normal drilling, the bottom hole pressure is increased
by the frictional pressure losses in the annulus caused by mud circulation. The
magnitude of this increase is proportional to the drillstring length. Conversely, the
swabbing effect will reduce the bottom hole pressure when tripping out of the hole.
13.3.2 Kick Tolerance Analysis

As previously discussed, kick tolerance for a gas kick may be defined as the difference
between the maximum allowable formation pressure (in equivalent density, lb/gal)
against which the well may be closed without fracturing the weakest exposed
formation, and the mud density being used. We may therefore express this relation as:
K = [(Dcs/DTVD) (frac –L)] – [(LVkc/DTVD) (L – kc)] (13.1)
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)
13.3.3 Differences Between Horizontal and Vertical Wells

Various kick simulations have been conducted in order to illustrate the differences
between influx displacement in vertical and horizontal wells. For example, Figure 13.1
compares the choke pressure of a typical horizontal well (see Table 13.2) with that of a
vertical well. The vertical well has the same true vertical depth (TVD) as the horizontal
and both simulations assume a 12.5bbl influx occurs prior to shutting the well in.
Furthermore, we have opted to use the Driller’s method for influx displacement in order
to observe the higher casing pressures associated with its use (see Section 2). It
should be noted that once the well stabilises the shut-in drillpipe pressure and casing
pressure is the same for the horizontal well, if the influx remains in the lateral section.
Figure 13.2 depicts the simulated pressure curves at the casing shoe for both wells.
From these results we may infer that the risk of underground fracturing at the casing
shoe, is less likely for the horizontal well as the horizontal well yielded lower pressures
at the casing shoe.
13.3.4 Drillpipe and Choke Pressure During Mud Displacement

After the gas kick has been removed from the system, the old mud has to be replaced
by a heavier mud (kill or new mud) that will be able to generate a hydrostatic head
greater that the pressure of the formation that generated the influx. During this mud
replacement process, the choke and drillpipe (stand pipe) pressures should be
monitored to assure that the bottom hole pressure is kept constant.
For a certain displacement time, and assuming that the bottom hole pressure (Pbh) is
kept constant throughout the mud replacement operation, the drillpipe pressure (Pdp)
may be calculated y using Equation 13.2:
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)
Lvo = Vertical Length Containing Old Mud (ft)

Pbh = Bottom Hole Pressure (which is constant and equal to formation
pressure (psi)
P dp = Drillpipe Pressure (psi)
Pbit = Pressure Drop Across the Bit (psi)
13.3.5 Effect of Kick Size on Shut-in Casing Pressure (SICP) and

Shut-in Drillpipe Pressure (SIDPP)
Assuming that the gas influx occurs at the bottom of the well, that is, the gas fills only
the horizontal section of the shut-in drillpipe pressure and shut-in casing pressure
are equal.
13.3.6 Gas Left on Bottom After Circulating the Well

If the kick is circulated with the drillstring off bottom, in a horizontal well, it is possible to
have residual gas in the bottom portion of the well after the well has been circulated.
Under these conditions, no pressure is observed at surface; however, when drilling
operations resume, the gas will become entrained in the mud and circulated to surface.
This gas will then expand as it approaches the surface and may induce a secondary
formation influx. It is therefore advisable to circulate at least one annulus volume,
with the bit on bottom, prior to opening the BOPs and resuming normal operations.
Table 13.2 - Horizontal Well Data
Rig Location (1:Onshore) = 2 Liner Size of Pump = 6in
Selected Method (1:Driller) = 1 Rod Size of Pump = 0in
Pump Type (2:Duplex) = 2 Stroke Length of Pump = 18in
Friction Loss (1:Condsider) = 1 Pump Efficiency = 0.85 fraction
Fluid Model (1:Power law) = 1 Strokes # @ Drilling Rate = 60stk/min
Gas Deviation (1:Consider) = 1 Strokes # @ Kill Rate = 30stk/min
Direc Well Type (0:Vertical) = 2 Flowrate @ Drilling = 337.09gal/min
Shear Stress @ 600rpm = 15 Flowrate @ Kill = 168.54gal/min
Shear Stress @ 300rpm = 25 Pit Warning Level = 10bbls
Old Mud Density = 10 lb/gal Kick Intensity = 1 lb/gal
Critical Reynolds number = 2100 Specific Gravity of Gas = 0.65 (air = 1)
Bit Nozzle Size 1 = 3/8in Mole Fraction of CO2 = 0.0 fraction
Bit Nozzle Size 2 = 3/8in Mole Fraction of H2S = 0.0 fraction
Bit Nozzle Size 3 = 3/8in Surface Temperature = 70°F
Bit Nozzle Size 4 = 0in Mud Temperature Gradient = 1.6°F/100ft
Roughness of Pipe = 0in Offshore Temperature Gradient = -0.9°F/100ft
True Vertical Depth of Well = 10,000ft Formation Permeability = 5md
Measured Depth of Casing Seat = 5000ft Formation Skin Factor = 2
Measured Length of HWDP = 1000ft Formation Porosity = 1/4
Measured Length of DC = 600ft Rate of Penetration = 60ft/hr
Depth of Conductor Seat = 1800ft Depth of Water = 1000ft
OD of Conductor = 20in Choke Valve Status (1:open) = 1
Depth of Surface Casing Seat = 3000ft Kill Valve Status (1:open) = 1
OD of Surface Casing Seat = 13.375in ID of Choke Line = 4in
Inner Diameter of Casing = 11in ID of Kill Line = 3in
Diameter of Open Hole = 9.875in ID of Marine Riser = 19in
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
Figure 13.1 - Choke Pressure for both Horizontal and Vertical Wells
900
Vertical Well
800 Horizontal 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)
SECTION 14 BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 1 of 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14. BLOWOUT CAUSES ............................................................................................. 3
14.1 SURFACE LEAKS ........................................................................................... 3

14.1.1 Production Leak Blowout Causes ............................................................... 3
14.1.2 Drilling Leak Blowout Causes ..................................................................... 6
14.1.3 Erosion ....................................................................................................... 8
14.1.4 Typical Leak Control Methods .................................................................... 8
14.2 KICKS AFTER A CEMENT JOB.................................................................... 11

14.2.1 Cause ....................................................................................................... 11
14.2.2 Cementing Solutions................................................................................. 11
14.2.3 Blowout Risks........................................................................................... 12
14.2.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 12
14.3 RAPID GAS MIGRATION .............................................................................. 14

14.3.1 Possible Migration Rates .......................................................................... 14
14.3.2 Well Control Impact .................................................................................. 15
14.3.3 Impact on Off-bottom Kicks ...................................................................... 15
14.3.4 Common Cause of Underground Blowouts............................................... 16
14.3.5 Oil Mud and Gas Migration ....................................................................... 16
14.3.6 Blowout Causes........................................................................................ 16
14.3.7 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 16
14.4 DRILLPIPE KICKS......................................................................................... 17

14.4.1 Causes ..................................................................................................... 17
14.4.2 Need for a Drillstring Check Valve ............................................................ 17
14.4.3 Problem of Kelly Cock Valves................................................................... 17
14.4.4 Can you Stab a Top Drive Against Flow? ................................................. 18
14.4.5 Underground Blowouts Drive Drillpipe Kicks............................................. 18
14.4.6 Case Overview ......................................................................................... 19
BLOWOUT CAUSES Page 2 of 23
14.5 OTHER BLOWOUT CAUSES........................................................................ 20

14.5.1 Gas Handling System Line Failure ........................................................... 20
14.5.2 Unplugged Fish ........................................................................................ 20
14.5.3 Lack or Failure of Secondary Pressure Barrier ......................................... 21
14.5.4 Casing Wear or Casing Defect ................................................................. 21
14.6 EXCESSIVE PIPE MOVEMENT IN CLOSED BOPS ..................................... 23

14. BLOWOUT CAUSES
14.1 SURFACE LEAKS
14.1.1 Production Leak Blowout Causes

Surface leaks lead to the most common type of blowout. From 1992 to 1999 surface
leaks accounted for 62 out of 218 blowouts controlled by the Boots and Coots
International Well Control Company. Over 70% of these leaks were on existing
producing wells.
Most have occurred during:
Long shut-in periods
Workover operations on flowing wells
Wireline operations on flowing wells
Most have occurred when well was just producing from lack of maintenance
Long shut-in periods are particularly risky for gas wells with over 3000psi of surface
pressure. Gas over time will find leak points. These leak points can enlarge as sealant
is pushed out or leak path erodes. Workover of good wells (capable of high flowrates)
have greater well control risk than drilling a new well. If a good well has holed tubing,
too high a gas oil ratio (GOR) or too high a water cut and surface shut-in pressure is
high then well control risk is high. Use of clear brines for hydrostatic controls increases
this risk as gas can migrate rapidly through brine and well can flip if brine is lost to
formation. Wireline operations typically induce risk in the lubricator. Typical scenario is
that wireline is stuck across the tree and the lubricator starts to leak. Frequent well
cycling from shut-in to producing condition and back again has typically induced
production failures. This leads to seal failure or connection leaks. The other leading
cause is lack of proper maintenance. In one instance, the well blew out after several
months of production of gas with some produced sand. Erosion failure of a flowline
started the blowout. Two wing valves and two master valves failed to isolate the well.
It was later discovered that Production Operators had known about the valve’s
in-effectiveness for several weeks and had been shutting the well in on a heater
isolation valve.
Typical leak paths are:

Through failed seals
Typical leak paths
Around stem packing
Through valve gates
Around pack-offs
Through test ports (see Figure 14.1)
At flanges
Threaded outlets
Typical cause is from internal tubing corrosion leading to production casing pressure.
Sudden pressure increase on production casing leads to failures in surface wellheads,
internal pack-offs, defective casing or casing subjected to external corrosion.
Wellheads and trees need regular maintenance. Regular valve lubrication and
manipulation is needed. External corrosion control is required. Blowouts have occurred
simply because the valve stem externally corroded. Never use a valve as a choke, as
this will lead to early valve failure. Some failures have occurred when wellhead
equipment was not correct for the service application. Production of corrosive fluids or
H2S requires special trim valves. High production temperatures require metal-to-metal
or special elastomer seals.
Alternate causes are:
Unexpected sand erosion (see Figure 14.2)
Unexpected gas influx
Struck/dropped object/hit by ship or vehicle/earthquake/lighting
External fire source
Flowline failure
Failure of a gravel pack can lead to sudden sand production. In gas wells this can lead
to erosion failure in the wellheads. Sudden gas influx in an oil well increases production
velocity (erosion) and increases surface pressure (lower density) this leads to greater
risk of erosion failure. Dropped crane booms and heavy equipment backing into an
active well have lead to blowouts. One of the worse disasters in North Sea history was
the ‘Piper Alpha Disaster’. In this case the fire and explosions did not start from a well
blowout but in the gas compression facility on this large platform. Ignition and
subsequent explosions in the production and pipeline modules destroyed the platform
and lead to multiple well blowouts. Flowline failure has lead to blowouts when high
velocity flow could not be isolated or ignition of flow destroyed the wellhead.
Un-supported flowlines have failed and then snaked violently around breaking off the
tree at the tubing bonnet.
Figure 14.1 - Cut-out at Test Port
Figure 14.2 - Venezuela - Heavy Oil Well Hit by Unexpected

Gas Sand Breakthrough
14.1.2 Drilling Leak Blowout Causes

Surface leaks in BOPs also cause blowouts while drilling. Pressure at surface from kick
is required to start off leak.
These leaks typically occur:
During kicks
During drill stem tests (DSTs)
While drilling underbalanced (see Figure 14.3: Operator was flowing oil, gas,
mud at surface with 780psi backpressure while drilling. Rotating head failed from
excessive kelly whip and well found instant ignition source killing four men)
Drilling leak blowouts are less common than production leak blowouts simply because
there are more producing wells with surface pressure on wellheads than rigs drilling
with a kick in the wellbore. New developments in underbalanced drilling have increased
this risk. In this circumstance, pressure is applied to rotating blowout preventers
(BOPs) nearly continuously. A much higher degree of training and equipment
preparation and quality control is required when drilling underbalanced.
Typical leak paths:
Ring gaskets
Through BOP packers or elastomer seals
Through kelly cock valves
Through gate valves
Through near surface tubulars
Through pack-offs
Failures at ring gaskets can typically be detected with regular BOP testing. It is
important to use clear water and test at both low and high pressures. Typical leaks are
seen from damage to the seal ring, ring groove or lack of proper bolting force.
A growing problem is the ageing of the BOPs now in service on fixed rigs. These BOPs
were principally built over 20 years ago. Always check that BOPs have been recently
re-built with proper elastomers for your anticipated service. Typical guidelines are every
3 years for <5000psi service equipment and every 2 years for <10,000psi service
equipment. BOPs should be re-qualified for service nearly application for >10,000psi
service. One recent problem has been the use of non-original equipment manufacture
(OEM) elastomers. Some contractors are saving money using non-OEM parts. Several
blowouts in the past few years have been seen when these substandard service parts
were used.
Figure 14.3 - Underbalanced Drilling Failure of Rotating Head
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.
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.
14.1.4 Typical Leak Control Methods

Junk shot application:
Limited application window
No time to wait on specialists
No requirement for special equipment or materials
You must pump something slightly bigger than the hole size
Use combination of solids and fibre
Golf balls can seal large leaks (see Figure 14.4: This picture shows how gold balls
can bridge the gap across a set of blind rams to start a junk seal if ram packers
had failed):
– At 4cm, golf balls are the largest diameter that can be pumped through 2in 1502
cementing lines
– Gaps between golf balls are then sealed with smaller materials
– Up to a 1.25cm hole has been sealed using golf balls to a pressure differential
of 6300psi
Junk shot materials:
Golf balls of 4cm are OD used only on larger leaks
Perforation ball sealers are 0.5 to 1in OD
Steel ball bearings (1/8in to 2in) are used for higher differential pressures
Rope knots and rubber strips knotted (1.5cm wide and 6cm long)
Chunks of rubber (~1cm OD) from car tires or fan belts
Chucks of lead shot, lead tire weights, lead bullets
Rope fibre: hemp, polypropylene, fishing line

Coarse and medium LCM
Typical procedure:
Determine leak size and path
Use kill line
Remove check valve
Hook up remote pump unit and junk shot manifold (see Figure 14.5).
Alternatively, pump-in line can be opened and junk plugging materials stuffed into
line. This will work for smaller leaks with less plugging material requirements
Select plug materials based on expected leak size
Pump junk slowly using water with hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) polymer (mud cuts
out the leak path)
Figure 14.4 - Two Golf Balls Spotted Across Rams Blocks at Gap Width if Packer
Rubbers Were Eroded Away on Closed Rams
Figure 14.5 - Junk Shot Manifold Used to Pump Multiple Junk Shots Quickly
Without Shutting Down Pumping
Surface leak conclusions:

Most common cause of blowouts (1992 to 1997)
Almost all preventable events
Most controllable by wellsite personnel with some training, materials and
quick application
Must be applied quickly before erosion makes any easy fix impossible
Train in field by plugging a bit at surface, or a through a loose flange or slots in pipe
14.2 KICKS AFTER A CEMENT JOB
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
14.2.2 Cementing Solutions

Typical control method is to use cements with minimum transition time (right angle set).
This is done by:
Using zero free water cements
Using fluid loss control for retardation (limited use of lignosulphonate)
Using foam cement
Past: aluminium powder (hydrogen generation)
Present: chemical additives (for thixotropic properties) and foam cements
14.2.3 Blowout Risks

Typical risk is when lead cement is placed opposite gas sand or highly retarded
cement is placed across gas sand. High free water cements can also leave a high side
channel for gas in directional wells. Blowout occurs when flow breaks down formation
near last casing shoe and broaches or goes underground. Sustained underground gas
flows after cementing pipe across gas sands is relatively common. If last casing string
is shallow, this flow can broach to surface.
Surface blowout risk also occurs when landing casing hanger or installing new
wellhead. This type of blowout has resulted in fires and total loss of rig or platform
(see Figures 14.6 and 14.7). In 1990 a blowout occurred offshore Alaska to an
Operator drilling a development well. Well kicked after a cement job on surface casing.
Diverter was closed and diverter line soon failed at a right-angle target. Gas found an
ignition source and started fire.
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.
Figure 14.6 - Platform on Fire in Cook Inlet Alaska
Figure 14.7 - Near Total Loss of Platform is Seen

14.3 RAPID GAS MIGRATION
14.3.1 Possible Migration Rates

What is new – we always knew gas migrated. We now have better models to predict
gas migration (contact: engineering@bncg.com). These models can account for the
impacts of the following factors:
Mud type (gas solubility in oil limits migration in oil muds)
Mud viscosity (gas migration in clear brines can be >6000ft/hr)
Hole angle (high side provides path for gas and gas does not migrate at all in
horizontal wellbore)
Hole washout (washouts tend to slow gas migration in directional holes as gas is
trapped in high side washouts)
Annular geometry
Gas properties (H2S and CO2 are more soluble in water than C1)
Pressure and temperature profile
Circulation speed (gas migration may be faster than slow annulus circulation
velocity and mud is thinner when it is circulated, speeding migration further)
Kick size (small kicks tend to bleed off as a trail of bubbles and then
migration stops)
Kick intensity (high flowrate kicks are less diluted with mud and have more
after-flow on shut-in as mud compresses and wellbore balloons)
These models are confirming our suspicions that gas can migrate much faster than
2000ft/hr. In brines with higher hole angle, gas migration can exceed 8000ft/hr.
Alternatively, gas may not migrate very much at all in the following circumstances:
Oil muds
Dispersed kick (kick taken when circulating at high rate)
Viscous mud
Large washouts in directional well
No migration seen in horizontal wells
14.3.2 Well Control Impact

Rapid gas migration masks stabilised pressure. Many choke Operators are fooled into
holding too much backpressure during kick circulation.
When open hole interval is short and particularly when crew is unfamiliar with
volumetric control, use the Driller’s Method to combat rapid migration impacts.
Train crew to shut in and start kick circulation almost immediately.
Wait and Wait Method is best used to handle kicks in long open hole sections. Proper
early volumetric control is critical. Field personnel must be trained in recognising
conditions that promote gas migration and in volumetric well control. Volumetric well
control will be required until circulation is re-started with kill weight mud.
Typically, the drill crew is able to detect and shut in the kick. The failure occurs when
migration goes unrecognised. Drill crew typically monitors shut-in pressures while
waiting up mud or getting orders. Crew fails to recognise that kick is migrating as it
assumes, that ‘formation pressure is still building up’. The crew mistakenly assumed
that the shut-in pressure was not yet stabilised.
When kick is detected and the BOPs are closed, carefully record shut-in drillpipe
pressure (SIDP) and shut-in casing pressure (SICP) versus time. Take pressures every
minute for the first hour. Unless migration is very high or buildup is very slow, a slope
change is typically seen in the plot seen above. If migration is seen (well continues to
build), start volumetric control and/or use the Driller’s circulation method as soon
as possible.
Note: Oil kicks can migrate in water-based muds. Saltwater kicks rarely show much
migration. Oil kicks in oil muds do not migrate at all.
If excess pressure induced from migration is suspected, carefully bleed surface
pressure in small increments. Bleed 50psi off of annulus and watch for 50psi loss on
drillpipe and note bleed-off volume. Continue until bleed-off is not seen or bleed-off
volume increases for the same amount of pressure drop. Remember that gas is
continuing to migrate so true measurement of bottom hole pressure is difficult. If too
much mud is bled off, well will kick again.
14.3.3 Impact on Off-bottom Kicks

Gas must migrate to use volumetric well control to handle off-bottom kicks.
One common method used to handle off-bottom kicks is to use volumetric well control
to get kick up to a depth where it can be circulated. Pipe is then stripped into gas cut
mud at much lower surface pressures. If gas does not migrate then pipe must be
stripped with higher surface pressures into the kick to circulate it out or the kick must
be bullheaded. If gas is migrating rapidly, it is better to volumetrically control the kick
and then circulate it out once it is above the bit, then strip into the well. Stripping into a
gas kick that is migrating rapidly can make it very challenging to control bleed-offs
properly. Typically, the well will kick again or formation will break down.
14.3.4 Common Cause of Underground Blowouts

If kick circulation is attempted using gas migration impacted, shut in drillpipe pressure
as a starting point. Lost returns are more likely as gas kick nears last casing shoe.
Fracturing at the casing shoe can lead to underground flow to this induced loss zone
with flow starting from the kick zone.
14.3.5 Oil Mud and Gas Migration

Gas does not migrate very much in oil muds. In one known instance, a 230bbls
off-bottom kick on a 19,000ft high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) well in
Mississippi in 1985 migrated for a few hours. Surface pressure was initially 3890psi
and stabilised at 4350psi. A large snubbing unit was mobilised and rigged up over a
time of 1 week without any further increase in surface pressure. There was no gas at
surface. Snubbers found top of kick at 9000ft in this 8-1/2in hole.
Alternatively, a large gas kick has migrated to surface on a directional well with a low
density, low viscosity oil mud. It is believed that gas streamed up the high side and
thus limited mixing with the mud.
Generally, the lack of gas migration in oil muds means that kicks are more
concentrated and act much like a single bubble model. Peak surface gas flowrates are
much higher as non-dispersed gas kick reaches surface. This impacts surface gas
handling system design. Mud gas separators need to be larger to handle oil mud
gas kicks.
14.3.6 Blowout Causes

Besides underground blowouts gas migration typically causes blowouts when gas
appears at surface un-expectantly. Typically, two problems went un-detected. Gas was
swabbed in or kicked without detection. Kick then migrated near surface without notice.
Sudden gas escape leads to blowout if ignition surface is found or BOPs fail to seal in
high velocity flow.
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
Driller’s Method preferred if migration velocity is high

In oil muds:
Migration stops when all gas is in solution
Volumetric well control not possible
Kick does not string out as much (higher surface flowrates)
14.4 DRILLPIPE KICKS
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
14.4.2 Need for a Drillstring Check Valve

A drillpipe float can prevent the first two types of drillpipe kicks. Blowouts through
drillpipe are a common cause of drilling blowouts in geo-pressured wells drilled in
young sands and shales. Most of these blowouts would have been prevented if
Operators were running an effective drillpipe check valve. A drillpipe float also helps
prevent a kick through a twist-off fish when tripping out for fishing tools. The major
difficulty is the inability to monitor drillpipe pressure directly when well is shut-in and not
circulating. Float must be opened with pump to see drillpipe pressure. This is not much
of a problem particularly if Driller’s Method is used very quickly after kick is taken.
14.4.3 Problem of Kelly Cock Valves

Kelly cock valves are only barriers if failure of primary barrier leads to a soft flow.
Kelly cock valves cannot be closed against a hard flow. In many drilling systems there
are two barriers; (a) mud hydrostatic and (b) the pop-off valve at the pump. If the mud
hydrostatic is lost and the pop-off valve blows, the kelly cock valve cannot be relied on
to close. The only remaining barrier is a shear/blind ram.
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.
14.4.4 Can you Stab a Top Drive Against Flow?

Stabbing a top drive into flowing drillpipe is only possible if flow is very limited.
Hard flow will hydraulically prevent thread engagement. Pressure drop across stabbed
connection overcomes the considerable weight of the top drive. It is better to stab a
kelly cock valve and then the top drive. Trying to stab the top drive against flow is much
like attempting to put the champagne cock back into the bottle after it is shaken up.
14.4.5 Underground Blowouts Drive Drillpipe Kicks

In Figure 14.8, Operator in Central Argentina had just drilled through a shallow bridge
in the wellbore. Well kicked vololenty and flow kicked out the kelly and violently blew
the drillpipe.
Typical scenario:
1. Well kicks with partially depleted permeable sand exposed below casing shoe or
with bad wear spot shallow in casing.
2. Gas migration leads to excessive backpressure during initial kick circulation.
3. Depleted zone or bad casing fails, as top of gas kick is adjacent zone.
4. All drillpipe pressure is lost. Annulus pressure drops and then starts to climb.
5. Gas flow goes from high pressure to low pressure. Flowing bottom hole pressure
approaches pore pressure of top zone plus flowing pressure drop and hydrostatic.
6. Mud level in drillpipe drops to match this low flowing pressure. Pumps are still
running at zero pressure into the drillpipe.
7. Annulus bridges as shale just above high-pressure zone collapses around bottom
hole assembly.
8. Drillpipe kicks as high-pressure kick is directed against low drillpipe hydrostatic.
9. Pop-off valve blows and well blows out.
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!
Figure 14.8 - Drillpipe Blowing on Fire
14.4.6 Case Overview

Drilling HPHT well. Lost circulation and well-kicked flow went underground. Pressure
history can be seen in Figure 14.9. Drillpipe pressure suddenly shot up after pumping
230bbls of mud and pop-off valve blew. Unable to isolate pop-off valve with kelly cock
valves and standpipe. Last recorded surface drillpipe flowing pressure with pop-off
valve blown was 5600psi. Kelly hose failed and rig melted down.
Figure 14.9 – Build up to a Drillpipe Blowout
14.5 OTHER BLOWOUT CAUSES
14.5.1 Gas Handling System Line Failure

This type of blowout occurs when steel lines are not straight or do not have erosion
targets. It is a common problem when using cement lines for handling high velocity gas
cut mud. High-pressure flexible piping can also fail if turns are short radius. Failure of
buffer tank on back of choke manifold is common if targets adjacent flow entry points
are poorly placed or designed.
14.5.2 Unplugged Fish

If gas kicks through an unplugged fish, kill mud weight requirements increase.
Required mud weight is increased as a function of vertical length of fish. If fish is long
and required mud weight exceeds fracture gradient above the top of the fish, a difficult
underground blowout exists. This type of blowout has required a relief well to control.
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.
14.5.3 Lack or Failure of Secondary Pressure Barrier

Failure of kelly cock valves and casing wear fit this category. Alternate failures occur
when flanges, BOP bonnets or wellheads leak after kick is taken.
DSTs must be carefully considered as to possible failure of primary barriers and if there
are sufficient backups.
14.5.4 Casing Wear or Casing Defect

If annulus flowpath can sustain without bridging, then casing wear blowouts are of
greater risk. This is typically a concern in harder rock formations. Casing wear is easily
detected if Operator works with the Mud Logger to also sample for steel shavings.
Ditch magnets can be used to collect and quantify the amount of steel worn from the
casing.
Worn casing may result in a blowout if well kicks. In severe circumstances sudden loss
of returns through shallow casing failure, leads to sudden kick and underground flow
with high risk of surface broaching.
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.
Figure 14.10 - Massive Broached Blowout Through Worn Casing

14.6 EXCESSIVE PIPE MOVEMENT IN CLOSED BOPS

There is only one BOP designed for drillpipe movement with well pressure and that is
the annular. The closing pressure relationship versus well pressure must be known to
increase the durability of the annular BOP. Surge bottle with adjustable pre-charge is
recommended if drillpipe is to be stripped.
Drillpipe can slide through pipe rams but without special inserts these rams will not last
long particularly at higher pressures. Some blowouts have occurred when Operator
was stripping through the annular until it failed and then proceeded to strip some more
ram to ram with out a safety ram as a back up. Never ram to ram strip without a third
‘safety ram’ or at least a blind/shear. It generally takes a minimum of a four-ram stack
to ram to ram strip. Two stripper rams, one blind ram and one safety ram.
SECTION 15 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 1 of 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
15. REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING ........................................................... 2
15.1 RELIEF WELL DRILLING................................................................................ 2
15.2 BOREHOLE SURVEYING ............................................................................... 4
15.3 DETECTION METHODS.................................................................................. 8
15.4 SHALLOW GAS............................................................................................. 12
15.5 WELL PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND CONTROL.................................... 18
15.6 PUMPING OPERATIONS AND FLUIDS ........................................................ 22
15.7 FLUID MECHANICS ...................................................................................... 24
15.8 BLOWOUT CONTROL .................................................................................. 25

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Page 2 of 37
15. REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
15.1 RELIEF WELL DRILLING

(1) Aadnoy BS and Bakoy P: ‘Relief Well Breakthrough at Problem Well 2/4-14in
the North Sea’, SPE 20915 presented at the 1990 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, Oct 22-24.
(2) Adams N: ‘How to Drill a Relief Well’, O and GJ (Sept 29, 1980) pp 93-97.
(3) Booth JE: ‘Use of Shallow Seismic Data in Relief Well Planning’, World Oil (May
1990) pp 39-42.
(4) Bruist EH: ‘A New Approach in Relief Well Drilling’, SPE 3511, New Orleans,
La, 1971.
(5) Bruist EH: ‘A New Approach in Relief Well Drilling’, Paper SPE 3511 presented
at the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Oct 3-6. See also J Pet Tech
(June 1972), pp 713-722.
(6) Candia EA: ‘Relief Wells Help PEMEX Bring Ixtoc Blowout Under Control’,
unpublished version.
(7) Edmiston K: ‘The Gulf of Mexico’s Biggest Blowout – Shell Moving Cautiously to
Kill Fire and Minimize Danger of Pollution’, (6 relief wells) Ocean Industry
(January 1971).
(8) Environmental Protection Branch, Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration,
‘Relief Well Capability on Canada Lands’, Technical Report No 4, Prepared by
Manadrill Drilling Management, Inc, 1985.
(9) Flak LH, Ghassan and Al-Qassab: ‘Case History: Relief Well Control of
Underground Blowout in Bahrain’, SPE 29859, presented at MEOS 1995.
(10) Flak LH and Goins WC Jr: ‘New Techniques, Equipment Improve Relief Well
Success’, World Oil (Jan 1984).
(11) Flak LH and Goins WC Jr: ‘New Relief Well Technology is Improving Blowout
Control’, World Oil (Dec 1983, Jan 1984), pp 57-61.
(12) Flak LH and Goins WC Jr: ‘New Techniques, Equipment Improve Relief Well
Success’, World Oil (Jan 1984).
(13) Flak LH and Goins WC Jr: ‘New Relief Well Technology is Improving Blowout
Control’, World Oil (Dec 1983).
(14) Frolich N: ‘Problems Related to Killing of Horizontal Wells by Drilling a Relief
Well’, presented at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference,
June 11-13.
(15) Grace RD: ‘Case History of Texas Largest Blowout Shows Successful
Techniques on Deepest Relief Well’, O and GJ (May 20, 1985), pp 68-75.
(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.
(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.
15.2 BOREHOLE SURVEYING

(1) Alixant JL: ‘Improved Directional Interpretation Method’, LSU MWD Symposium,
Baton Rouge, Feb 26-27, 1990, Proc: 197-230.
(2) American Petroleum Institute: ‘Directional Drilling Survey Calculation Methods
and Terminology’, API Bulletin D20, First Edition, Dec 31 1985.
(3) Blythe EJ: ‘Computing Accurate Directional Surveys’, World Oil (August 1975),
pp 25-28.
(4) Brzezowski S and Fagan J: ‘Analysis of Alternate Borehole Survey Systems’,
Navigation: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, V 30, No 4, 1983-84,
pp 309-324.
(5) Camden JD et al: ‘A New Continuous Guidance Tool Used for High Accuracy
Directional Surveys’, Paper SPE 10057 presented at the 56th SPE Conference,
San Antonio, Oct 5-17, 1981.
(6) Cheatham CA, Symong S, Churchwell DL, Woody JM and Rodney PF: ‘Effects
of Magnetic Interference on Directional Surveys in Horizontal Wells’, IADC/SPE
23852 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Feb 18-21, 1992.
(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.
(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.
(36) Slungaard C and Smestad P: ‘Noise And Used to Determine Underground

Flowpath’, Society of Professional Well Log Analyst European Symposium,
Budapest, October 1990.
(37) Stephenson M: ‘Program Challenges Directional Survey Accuracy Claims’,
O and GJ (Aug 20, 1984).
(38) Stephenson M: ‘Program Challenges Directional Survey Accuracy Claims’,
Oil and Gas J (Aug 20, 1984), pp 39-42.
(39) Taylor HL and Mason CM: ‘A Systematic Approach to Well Surveying
Calculations’, paper presented at the SPE 46th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, Oct 3-6, 1971.
(40) Thorogood JL and Knott DR: ‘Surveying Techniques With a Solid-State
Magnetic Multi-Shot Device’, Paper SPE/IADC 19030 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, February, 28-March 3, 1989,
Proc: 841-856.
(41) Thorogood JL: ‘Development of a Reliable Deviation Surveying Programme
Using Standard Instruments’, Paper EUR 247 presented at the 1980 Annual
European Offshore Petroleum Conference, London, Oct 21-24, pp 355-363.
(42) Thorogood JL: ‘How to Get the Best Results from Well Surveying Data’,
World Oil (April 1986), pp 98-106.
(43) Thorogood JL: ‘How to Specify and Implement Well Surveys’, World Oil
(July 1986), pp 44-50.
(44) Thorogood JL: ‘Instrument Performance Models and their Applications to
Directional Surveying Operations’, SPE 18051 presented at the 63rd Annual
Conference, Houston, Oct 2-5 1988. See also, SPEDE (Dec 1990) 294-98.
(45) Thorogood JL: ‘Well Surveying: Past Progress, Current Status and Future
Needs’, World Oil (January 1986), pp 87-94.
(46) Thorp M: ‘An Analysis of Discrepancies Between Gyro Surveys’,
Paper SPE/IADC 16061 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, Mar 15-18 1987.
(47) Truex JN: ‘Directional Survey Problems, East Wilmington Oil Field, California’,
AAPG Bulletin (April 1971), 55, No 4, pp 621-628.
(48) Uttecht GW and DeWardt JP: ‘Application of Small-Diameter Inertial Grade
Gyroscopes Significantly Reduces Borehole Position Uncertainty’,
IADC/SPE 11358, 1983.
(49) van Nispen J and Howe NA: ‘Directional Surveying Using Inertial Techniques –
Field Experience in the Northern North Sea’, Paper SPE 10384 presented at the
SPE Offshore Europe Technology Conference, Aberdeen UK, Sept 15 1981.
(50) Walstrom JE, Brown AA and Harvey RP: ‘An Analysis of Uncertainty in
Directional Survey’, J Pet Tech (April 1969), pp 515-523.
(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.
15.3 DETECTION METHODS

(1) Baldwin WF: ‘Use Well Logs to Find Proximity of Relief Wells to Blowouts’,
World Oil (February 1983).
(2) Bryant TM, Grosso DS and Wallace SN: ‘Gas-Influx Detection with MWD
Technology’, SPEDE (Dec 1991) 273-78.
(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.
(17) Hovland F and Rommeweit R: ‘Analysis of Gas-Rise Velocities From Full-Scale

Kick Experiments’, Paper SPE 24580 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, Oct 4-7.
(18) Jardine SI et al: ‘Hard or Soft Shut-in: Which is the Best’, Paper SPE/IADC
25712 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
Feb 23-2.5.
(19) Johnson AB and Cooper S: ‘Gas Migration Velocities During Gas Kicks in
Deviated Wells’, Paper SPE 26331 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct 3-6.
(20) Johnson AB and Tarvin J: ‘New Model Improves Gas Migration Velocity
Estimates in Shut-in Wells’, Oil and Gas J (May 15 1993) 55-60.
(21) Johnson AB and White DB: ‘Gas-Rise Velocities During Kicks’, SPDE
(December 1991) 257-263.
(22) Jones DL, Hoehn GL, Kuckes AF: ‘Improved Magnetic Model for Determination
of Range and Direction to a Blowout Well’, SPE Drilling (December 1987),
pp 316-22.
(23) Kuckes AF and Ritch HJ, ‘Successful ELREC Logging for Casing Proximity in
an Offshore Louisiana Blowout’, Paper SPE 11996 presented at the 58th Annual
Technology Conference, October 1983.
(24) Kuckes AF, Lautzenhiser T, Nekut AG and Sigal R: ‘An Electromagnetic Survey
Method For Directionally Drilling a Relief Well into a Blown Out Well’, J Pet Tech
(June 1984), pp 269-274.
(25) Kuckes AF: ‘Apparatus Including a Magnetometer Having a Pair of U-Shaped
Cores for Extended Lateral Range Electrical Conductivity Logging’,
United States Patent 4502010, issued February 26 1985.
(26) Kuckes AF: ‘Method and Apparatus for Detecting the Direction and Distance to
a Target Well Casing’, United States Patent 444762, issued April 17 1984.
(27) Kuckes AF: ‘Method of Determining the Location of Deep-Well Casing by
Magnetic Field Sensing’, United States Patent 4372398, issued February 8
1983.
(28) Kuckes AF: ‘Plural Sensor Magnetometer Arrangement for Extended Lateral
Range Electrical Conductivity Logging’, United States Patent 4323848, issued
April 6 1982.
(29) Kuckes AF: ‘System Located in Drill String for Well Logging While Drilling’,
United States Patent 4529939, issued July 16 1985.
(30) Kuckes, West and Ritch: ‘Successful ELREC Logging for Casing Proximity in an
Offshore Louisiana Blowout’, SPE 11996 presented at the 58th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, 1983.
(31) Lane JB and Wesson JP: ‘Magnetic Ranging Tool Accurately Guides
Replacement Well’, Oil and Gas J, Dec 21 1992 pp 96-99.
(32) Lima HR and Juvkam-Wold HC ‘Computational Analysis of a Deepwater Well

Drilled with Synthetic-Based Mud in a Riserless Drilling Configuration’ Paper
SPE 49057 presented at the 1998 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept 27-30.
(33) Marshall DW and Bentsen RG: ‘A Computer Model to Determine the
Temperature Distributions in a Wellbore’, J Cdn Pet Tech (Jan-Feb 1982)
63-75.
(34) Matthews WR: ‘How to Handle Acid Gas H2S and CO2 Kicks’, Pet Eng Ind
(November 15 1984) 22-29.
(35) Maus LD, Peters BA and Meador DJ: ‘Sensitive Delta-Flow Method Detects
Kicks or Lost Returns’, Oil and Gas J (Aug 20 1979), 125-32.
(36) Maus LD, Tannich JD and Ilfrey WT: ‘Instrumentation Requirements for Kick
Detection in Deep Water’, Paper OTC 3240 presented at the 1978 Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, May 8-11.
(37) Mitchell FR, Robinson JD, Vogiatzis JP, Pehoushek F, Moran JH and Ausburn
BE: ‘Using Resistivity Measurements to Determine Distance Between Wells’
J Pet Tech (June 1972) 723-740; Trans, AIME, 253.
(38) Morris FJ, Waters RL and Roberts GF: ‘New Magnetic Ranging System
Pinpoints Blowout Well Location’, O and GJ (March 13 1978), p 57.
(39) Morris FJ, Waters RL, Roberts GF and Costa JP: ‘A New Method of
Determining Range and Directions from a Relief Well to a Blowout Well’,
Paper SPE 6781 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Meeting, Denver, Oct 9-12.
See also Oil and Gas J (March 13 1978) 57-62.
(40) O’Brien TB: ‘Handling Gas in an Oil Mud Takes Special Precautions.’ World Oil
(January 1981) 83-46.
(41) O’Bryan PL and Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘Swelling of Oil-Based Drilling Fluids
Resulting From Dissolved Gas’, SPEDE (June 1990) 149-155.
(42) O’Bryan PL and Bourgoyne AT Jr: ‘Methods of Handling Drilled Gas in
Oil-Based Drilling Fluids’, SPEDE (September 1989) 237-246.
(43) O’Bryan PL, Bourgoyne AT Jr, Monger TG and Kopcso DP: ‘An Experimental
Study of Gas Solubility in Oil-Based Drilling Fluids’, SPEDE (March 1988) 33-42.
(44) Rader DW, Bourgoyne AT Jr and Ward RH: ‘Factors Affecting Bubble-Rise
Velocity of Gas Kicks,’ JPT (May 1975) 571-584.
(45) Ramey HJ: ‘Wellbore Heat Transmition’, JPT (April 1962) 427-435; Trans,
AIME, 225.
(46) Robinson JD and Vogiatzis JP: ‘Magnetostatic Methods for Estimating Distance
and Direction from Relief Well to a Cased Wellbore’, J Pet Tech (June 1972),
pp 741-749.
(47) Slungaard C and Smestad P: ‘Noise and Temperature Logging Used to

Determine Underground Blowout Flowpath’, SPWLA 13th European
Symposium, Budapest, Oct 22-26 1990.
(48) Spears JM and Gehrig GF: ‘Delta Flow: An Accurate, Reliable System for
Detecting Kicks and Loss of Circulation During Drilling’, JPT (Dec 1987)
359453.
(49) Stokka S et al: ‘Gas Kick Warner – An Early Gas Influx Detection Method’,
Paper SPE/IADC 25713 presented at the 1993 SPE/lADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Feb 23-25.
(50) Swanson BW et al: ‘Slimhole Early Kick Detection By Real-Time Drilling
Analysis’, Paper SPE 25708 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, Feb 23-25.
(51) Takacs G: ‘Comparing Methods for Calculating Z-factor’, Oil and Gas J (May 15
1989) 43-46.
(52) Tarr B and Kuckes A: ‘Use of New Ranging Tool to Position a Vertical Well
Adjacent to a Horizontal Well’, APE 20446.
(53) Teel ME: ‘Well Control: Plan for Uncommon Occurrences’, World Oil
(Dec 1993), 25.
(54) Thomas DC, Lea JF Jr and Turek EA: ‘Gas Solubility in Oil-Based Drilling
Fluids: Effects on Kick Detection’, JPT (June 1984) 959-986.
(55) Waters RL, Roberts GF, Walters PH, Clark HC, Fitzerald DD and Selly OV, II:
‘Down hole Combination Tool’, Canadian Patent 2,001,745 issued April 28
1990.
(56) West CL, Kuckes Af and Ritch HJ: ‘Successful ELREC Logging for Casing
Proximity in an Offshore Louisiana Blowout’, SPE 11996, 1983.
(57) Wichert E and Aziz K: ‘Calculate Z’s for Sour Gases’, Hvd Proc (May 1972)
51 119-I22.
(58) Willhite GP: ‘Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients in Steam and Hot Water
Injection Wells’, JPT (May 1967) 607-615.
15.4 SHALLOW GAS

(1) Abel LW and Gebhardt F: ‘Technology Quickly Controls Shallow Gas Blowout’,
World Oil V. 211, No 1 (July 1990), pp 78-82.
(2) Adams NJ and Kuhlman LG: ‘Case History Analyses of Shallow Gas Blowouts’,
Paper IADC/SPE 19917 presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Houston, Feb 27-Mar 2 1990.
(3) Adams NJ and Kuhlman LG: ‘Shallow Gas Blowout Kill Operations’, SPE 21455
presented at the 7th SPE Middle East Oil Show Conference, Manama, Bahrain,
Nov 16-19, 1991.
(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.
(19) Bourgoyne AT: ‘Blowout Prevention in Deepwater Drilling’, 11th Annual US

MMS Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, New Orleans, Nov 13-15,
1991. Proc: pp 192-202.
(20) Bourgoyne AT: ‘Risk Analysis in Operations and Maintenance of Offshore Oil
and Gas Facilities’, paper presented at the 1984 Intl Workshop on the
Application of Risk Analysis of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations, Gaithersburg,
MD, March 26-27.
(21) Chan KS, Woolsey A, Ackert D and Pipchuk P: ‘Surface Set Cements and Their
Successful Applications for Shallow Gas Migration Control in Southeastern
Albert’, CIM/SPE 90-114, Presented at the CIM Petroleum Society/SPE Intl
Technical Meeting,Calgary, Canada, June 10-13 1990, Proc: V 3.
(22) Chenevert ME and Bourgoyne AT: ‘Failure of Wellbores During Well Control
Operations’, US Department of Interior Mineral Management Service Et Al Intl
Well Control Symposium, Baton Rouge, LA, Nov 27-29, Proc: No TS-1-1, 24 pp.
(23) Coker OD, Harris KL and Williams TA: ‘Preventing Shallow Gas Migration in
Offshore Wells: The Performance of Lead Cements’, SPE 24978 presented at
the SPE EURPEC, Cannes, France, Nov 16-18 1992.
(24) Cox R and Chan KS: ‘Shallow Gas Migration Control Treatments in Wainwright
Area’, 4th CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, Canada,
April 10-12 1991, No 91-05 11 pp.
(25) Crawley FK and Thorogood JL: ‘Single vent Line Design Selected for Diverter
System’, Oil and Gas Journal, Sept 14, 1987, Vol 85 No.37, 43-51.
(26) Da Costa DFO, De Oliviera Neto FA and Assuncao RB: ‘Abnormally Pressure
Gas Accumulation Under Deep Water: A Field Case History’, Petrobras et al
Offshore Safety Intl Mtg, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, Oct 14-17, 1990, Proc 1990
5 pp.
(27) Da Costa DFO and Rodrigues RS: ‘Petrobras: 7 years of Experience in
Managing Dynamically Positioned Drilling Vessels’, 1991 6th Deep Offshore
Technology Intl Conference, Monaco, Monte Carlo, Nov 4-6, Proc V 2, Sess
No B4, pp 35-47.
(28) Editorial: ‘Tophole BOP for Down hole Control of Shallow Gas Kick’, Noroil V 17,
No 3 (March 1989), pp 27-28.
(29) Erlandsen A and Rafoss E: ‘Well Control; Philosophy Behind and Experience
with Fluid Loss Control in Brines’, presented at the 1991 IADC European Well
Control Conference, June 11-13.
(30) Forbes DR and Uswak G: ‘Detection of Gas Migration Behind Casing Using
Ultrasonic Imaging Methods’, CIM Petrol Society and Aostra Technical
Conference, Banff, Canada April 21-24, V 1, No 91-39, 1991.
(31) Goins WC and Ables GL: ‘Causes of Shallow Gas Kicks’, IADC/SPE 16128
presented at 1982 IADC Drilling Conference, New Or Moore, B, and T Hamilton,
‘Shallow Gas Hazard, the HSE Perspective’, Institute of Petroleum 1993.
(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.
(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).
(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.
15.5 WELL PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND CONTROL

(1) ‘ADCOR nears target on unique ‘100-year well’’, Drilling Contractor,
August/September 1987, pp 45-47 (this reference was a general news release
on the subject well).
(2) Abel LW and Campbell PJ: ‘Blowout Contingency Planning: ‘Preparing for the
Worst Case Event’’, presented at the IADC European Well Control Conference,
Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(3) Addis MA, Barton NR, Bandis SC and Henry JP: ‘Laboratory Studies on the
Stability of Vertical and Deviated Boreholes’, Paper SPE 20406 prepared for
presentation at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans,
Sept 23-26 1990.
(4) Baily TJ: ‘Rig Modification for High Pressure Drilling’, BP Norway Ltd, presented
at the 1991 IADC European Well Control Conference, June 11-13.
(5) Baker QA: ‘Use of gas dispersion model results in vapor cloud explosion
predictions’, presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ 1994
Process Plant Safety Symposium, Feb 28-Mar 1994.
(6) Bode DJ, Noffke RB and Nickens HV: ‘Well Control Methods and Practices in
Small-diameter Wellbores’, Paper SPE 19526 prepared for presentation at the
64th SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Oct 8-11 1989.
(7) Bourgoyne AT Jr et al: Applied Drilling Engineering, Textbook Series, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1991) 115.
(8) Burkhardt JA: ‘Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement’,
JPT (June 1961) 595-605.
(9) Caskey K and Melving B: ‘Techniques for Offshore Drilling Shutdown During
Storms’, AADE Well Control Review 1993.
(10) Cheatham CA, Comeaux BC and Martin CJ: ‘General Guidelines for Predicting
Fatigue Life of MWD Tools’, IADC/SPE 23906 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb 18-21 1992.
(11) Cheatham JB Jr and McEver JW: ‘Behavior of Casing Subjected to Salt
Loading’, Journal of Petroleum Tech, September 1964, pp 1,069-1,075.
(12) Choe J and Juvkam-Wold HC: ‘Riserless Drilling and Well Control for Deep
Water Applications’ presented at the 1997 IADC International Deep Water Well
Control Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept 15-16.
(13) Courteille JM, Fabre M and Hollander CR: ‘An Advanced Solution: The Drilling
Advisor’, J Pet Tech, (August 1986) pp 899-986.
(14) Craft, Holden and Graves: ‘Well Design: Drilling and Production’.
(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
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.
(30) Hytten N and Parigot P: ‘Analysis While Drilling Applied to Kick Detection’,
(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
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.
(45) Nyvik RO: ‘Quality Assurance of Decisions Made in Periods of ‘High Pressure’’,
(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.
(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
(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.
15.6 PUMPING OPERATIONS AND FLUIDS

(1) Arnwine LC and Ely JW: ‘Polymer Use in Blowout Control’, J Pet Tech
(May 1978), pp 705-711.
(2) Blount EM and Soeiinah E: ‘Dynamic Kill: Controlling Wild Wells a New Way’,
World Oil (October 1981), 109-126.
(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).
15.7 FLUID MECHANICS

(1) Ansari AM et al: ‘A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-phase
Flow in Wellbores’, SPEPF (May 1994).
(2) Bendiksen KH, Malnes D, Moe R and Nuland S: ‘The Dynamic Two-fluid Model
OLGA: Theory and Application’, SPE Production Engineering (May 1991).
(3) Brill JP and Airrachakaran SJ: ‘State of the Art in Multiphase Flow’, J Pet Tech
(May 1992) 538-541.
(4) Brill JP and Beggs HD: ‘Two Phase Flow in Pipes’, short course textbook,
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Sixth Edition (1991).
(5) Flak LH and Romo LA: ‘Deepwater Dynamic Kill Considerations’, Presented at
the IADC Deepwater Well Control Conference in Houston (August 1998).
(6) Jones LG, Blount EM and Glaze OH: ‘Use of Short-term Multiple Flow Tests to
Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence’, SPE 6133.
(7) Romo LA and Flak LH: ‘Analysis of Ultra-deepwater Kick Detection’, Presented
at the IADC Well Control Conference for Europe (June 1999).
(8) Rygg OB, Smestad P and Wright JW: ‘Dynamic two phase flow simulator,
a powerful tool for blowout and relief well kill analysis’, SPE, Washington, DC,
1992.
(9) Rygg OB and Gilhuus T: ‘Use of a dynamic two-phase pipe flow simulator in
blowout kill planning’, SPE, New Orleans, 1990.
(10) Rygg OB and Ellul IR: ‘The Dynamic Two-phase Modelling of Offshore Live
Crude lines Under Rupture conditions’, OTC 6747, 1991.
(11) Rygg OB and Ellul IR: ‘The Engineering of Offshore Pipelines: A Dynamic
Simulation Approach’, 16th ETCE, ASME, 1993.
(12) Rygg OB and Flaten G: ‘Dispersive Shallow Water Waves Over a Porous Sea
Bed’, Coastal Eng, 15, 1991.
(13) Rygg OB et al: ‘Long Period Swell Wave Events on the Norwegian Shelf’,
J of Phys Ocean, 18, 1988.
(14) Rygg OB: ‘Refraction/Diffraction of Surface Gravity Waves’, Dr Scient thesis
Univ of Oslo, 1988.
(15) Rygg OB: ‘Nonlinear Refraction-diffraction of Surface Waves in Intermediate
and Shallow Water’, Coastal Eng, 12, 1988.
15.8 BLOWOUT CONTROL

(1) ‘Blowout Database Offshore Blowouts’, Part (1), Trondheim, Norway: Marintek
Sintef-Gruppen, 1955-1974.
(2) ‘Blowout Database Offshore Blowouts’, Part (2), Trondheim, Norway: Marintek
Sintef-Gnuppen, 1975-1985.
(3) Flak LH: ‘Review of Deepwater Blowout Control Methods’, IADC Deepwater
Well Control Conference Houston, September 1997.
(4) Flak LH: ‘Ultra Deepwater Blowouts – How Could One Happen!’, Offshore (Jan
1997).
(5) ‘Blowout off Spain: A First-hand Account’, Offshore Services and Technology
(April 1980), pp 44-45.
(6) ‘Blowouts Greatest Danger to Fixed Platforms’, Offshore, November 1986, p 75,
April 1987, pp 10-12.
(7) ‘Horizontal Well Chalk Blowout Killed’, O and GJ (May 21, 1990), pp 22-24.
(8) ‘Red Adair Has the Last Word on Ixtoc I’, Drilling (April 1982) pp 76-89.
(9) ‘Study Shows Incidence of Blowouts in Southeastern US/Gulf of Mexico’,
O and GJ ’83.
(10) ‘The Capping IXTOC’, R and D Mexico (October 16, 1980).
(11) Flak L and Matthews C: ‘Blowout control: Response, intervention and
management, Part 9-Firefighting’, World Oil, October 1994, pp 101-108.
(12) Blount EM and Soeiinah E: ‘Dynamic Kill: Controlling Wild Wells A New Way’,
World Oil, Oct 1981, pp 109-126.
(13) Miller Robert T and Clements Ronald L: ‘Reservoir Engineering Techniques
Used To Predict Blowout Control During The Bay Marchand Fire’, JPT,
March 1972, pp 234-240.
(14) Wessel Michael and Tarr Bryan A: ‘Underground well control: The key to drilling
low-kick-tolerance wells safely and economically’, SPE Drilling Engineering,
p 250, December 1991.
(15) Anon B and P forum comments about West Vanguard accident inquiry
commission recommendations.
(16) Lord Cullen, The Hon, ‘The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster’, 2 Vols,
controller of Her Britannic Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1990.
(17) Wessel M and Tarr BA: ‘Underground well control: The key to drilling
low-kick-tolerance wells safely and economically’, SPE Drilling Engineering,
December 1991, p 250.
(18) Smestad P, Rygg OB and Wright JW: ‘Blowout control; Response intervention
and management, Part 5’, World Oil, April 1994, pp 75-80.
(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).
(37) Alliquander O: ‘High Pressures, Temperatures Plague Deep Drilling in Hungary’,

O and GJ (May 21 1973), pp 97-100.
(38) Anonymous: ‘Amoco Writes Off Damaged Irish Wellhead’ (Hit in 500m deep by
Dropped BOP), Offshore Engineering (August 1979).
(39) Anonymous: ‘Control of Cratered Blowout at Hand’, O and GJ December 28
1970.
(40) Anonymous: ‘Control of Cratered Blowout at Hand – Shell Plans to Intersect
Casing Below 10,000ft on Deep Mississippi Well that Blew Out and Cratered 8
Months Ago: Exacting Job of Directional Whipstock Hole Possible With New
Logging Technology’, O and GJ (December 28, 1970).
(41) Anonymous: ‘Fire-resistant Design for Wellheads and Valves’, The Oil Man
(February 1984).
(42) Anonymous: ‘Here’s How Holland’s NAM Killed the Sleen 2 Blowout’, O and GJ
Int, Vol 6, No 5 (December 1965).
(43) Anonymous: ‘Killer Wells’, (Offshore/Regional Section tells of Bay Marchand
Blowout) (December 11970).
(44) Anonymous: ‘Survey of Possible Uses of Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful
Purposes Within the National Economy of the Soviet Union’, Paper presented
at the General Conference of International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
Sept 1970.
(45) Anonymous: ‘Testimony Explains Contractors Role’, O and GJ (February 11
1980).
(46) Barnett RD: ‘An Offshore Blowout and How it was Killed, West Cameron 165
No 3 – Offshore Louisiana’, Paper SPE 6903 presented at the SPE 52nd Annual
Technical Conference, Denver, Oct 9-12 1977.
(47) Barnett RD: ‘A Logical Approach to Killing an Offshore Blowout – West
Cameron 165 Well 3 – Offshore Louisiana’, SPE 6903 presented at the 1977
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct 9-12.
(48) Bercha FG: ‘Probability of Blowouts in Canadian Arctic Waters’, Environmental
Impact Control Directorate, October 1978, 139 pp.
(49) Berry WL: ‘Pollution Control Aspects of the Bay Marchand Fire’, J Pet Tech,
(March 1972) pp 241-249.
(50) Birchak J et al: ‘Influx Detection and Characterization While Drilling’,
unpublished NL Industries report, April 5 1983.
(51) Bird Stewart and Lightfoot: ‘Transport Phenomena’, Wiley Publishing Co, 1976,
pp 63, 176.
(52) Bishnoi PR and Main BB: ‘Laboratory Study of Oil and Gas Particles in Salt
Water Relating to Deep Oil Well Blowouts’, Spill Technology Newsletter,
Environment Canada AMOP project (January/February 1979).
(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).
(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.
(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.
(102) Hartley R, Hamer P van Dort R: ‘Development of Fire-resistant Wellhead and

Xmas Tree Equipment’, J Pet Tech (January 1984).
(103) Hingl J and Szabo G: ‘Well Killing Methods on Existing Blowouts’, Paper EUR
340 presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London, October 25-28
1982.
(104) Holbrook P and Hauck M: ‘A Petrophysical-mechanical Math Model for
Real-time Well-site Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient Prediction’, SPE 16666,
SPE Fall Technical Conference, Dallas, Sept 27-30 1987.
(105) Horwell SA and Target Drilling Services AS: ‘Bibliography Review on Blow-out
Control by Relief Well’, report prepared by the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate, February 1991.
(106) Hottmann CE and Johnson RK: ‘Estimation of Formation Pressures From
Log-derived Shale Properties’, J Pet Tech (June 1965), pp 717-722.
(107) Hughes VM: ‘Reducing Blowout Incidents Through a Computer Assisted
Analysis of Trends Among Gulf Coast Blowouts’, Report No UT 86-3,
Texas Petroleum Research Committee, University Division, August 1986.
(108) Ibrek H and Westergaard RH: ‘Damage Assessment Environmental Impact of
Oil From Blowouts, Follow-up: Underwater Blowout Control’, Report to PFO from
Senter for Industriforskining (SI), Oslo, Norway (October 1983).
(109) Igrevskii VI and Mangushev KI: ‘Prevention and Elimination of Oil and Gas
Blowouts’, (translated from Russian, Sept 1975, by Addis Translations
International, Cal, USA) (LLL Ref 01864) Blowout in 1974 ‘Nedra’ Press,
Moscow (1974), 94 pp.
(110) International Conference and Exhibition on Emergency Management Offshore
(EMO) 1981, Stavanger Norway.
(111) Kash DE et al: ‘Energy Under the Oceans’, The Technology Assessment Group
Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma Press: Norman,
378 pages, 1973.
(112) Kennedy JL: ‘Losing Control While Drilling: a 32-well Look at Causes and
Results’, O and GJ (Sept 20, 1971), pp 121-126.
(113) Kirk WL: ‘Deep Drilling Practices in Mississippi’, J Pet Tech (June, 1972)
633-642.
(114) Le Blanc L (1981): ‘Tracing the Causes of Rig Mishaps’, Offshore (March 1981).
(115) Lesso WG Jr and Burgess TM: ‘Pore Pressure and Porosity From MWD
Measurements’, IADC/SPE 14801, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Feb 10-12 1986.
(116) Lewis JB Jr: ‘New Uses of Existing Technology for Controlling Blowouts:
Chronology of a Blowout Offshore Louisiana’, J Pet Tech (October 1978),
1473-1480.
(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.
(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.
(148) NOU: 1977:57 (Norwegian Government Publication): ‘Bravourtblasningen.

aksjonsledelsens rapport’ (The Action Leader’s Report), Norwegian, 61 pp.
(149) O’Brien TB and Goins WC Jr: ‘The Mechanics of Blowouts and How to Control
Them’, API Drilling and Production Practice, 1960, 41.
(150) Odegaard E and Solberg MD: ‘Heat Loads from Accidental Hydrocarbon Fires’,
Veritas Paper No 81-P075, September 1981.
(151) ‘Offshore Blowout Cause Pinpointed’, O and GJ (Oct 5, 1981), pp 58-60.
(152) Olberg TS: ‘Well 2/4-14, Underground Blowout Planning and Control of HP/HT
Subsea Well’, AADE Well Control Review 1993.
(153) Owen D and Kerr R: ‘Blowouts: Well Control Insurance and Risk Management’,
British American Corporation, 1982.
(154) Papas JA and Solberg DM: ‘Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions’, Veritas
Report No: 79-0613 (1979).
(155) Phillips Petroleum Company Norway: ‘Comment to the Ministry of Industry and
Handicrafts Report from the Commission of Inquiry (Bravo Blowout) Appointed
by Royal Decree of April 26, 1977, submitted November 19, 1977’, 35 pp.
(156) Podio AL, Fosdick MR and Mills J: ‘Gulf Coast Blowouts 1 and 2: Analysis Gives
Blowout Causes, Trends, Cost’, Oil and Gas Journal (October 31 and November
7,1983) (429 blowouts).
(157) Powers MC: ‘Fluid Release Mechanisms in Compacting marine Mudrocks and
their Importance in Oil Exploration’, AAPG Bull, Vol 51, No 7 (July, 1967),
pp 1240-1254.
(158) Rao MV and Fontenot JE: US Patent No 4,566,318, ‘Method for Estimating
Optimal Tripping Velocities’, Jan 28 1986.
(159) Rice WE, Burris GD and Johnson BC: ‘Well Control Insurance: An Overview
and Outlook’, SPE/IADC 16095 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18 1987.
(160) Risnes R: ‘SSB 4.4 – Drilling of Relief Wells – A Pre-project’,
Rogalandsforskning, Norway, April 1979 94 pp.
(161) Saga Petroleum a.s.: ‘Fracturing and Pore Pressure in Well 2/4-14’, Internal
Report (April 1989).
(162) Salvato SJ: ‘Control of Well and Associated Insurance’, presented at the IADC
European Well Control Conference, Paris, June 2-4 1993.
(163) Sandlin CW: ‘Drilling Safely Offshore in Shallow Gas Areas’, SPE Paper 15897,
1986.
(164) Seidel WR and Stahl EJ Jr: ‘Gas Well Stimulation With A Viscous Water Base
Fracturing Fluid’, J Pet Tech (Nov 1972), pp 1385-1390.
(165) Sofyanos T: ‘Causes and Consequences of Fires and Explosions on Offshore

Platforms: Statistical Survey of Gulf of Mexico Data’, Veritas Report No 91-0057.
(166) Solberg d M Borgnes O: ‘Thermal Response of Process Equipment to
Hydrocarbon Fire’, Veritas Paper No 82-P002 presented at the Loss Prevention
Symposium 1982, AIChE, Anaheim, California, June 1982.
(167) Solberg DM, Skramstad E and Papas JA: ‘Experimental Investigation on Partly
Confined Gas Explosions’, Analysis of Pressure Loads, Part I Veritas Report
No: 79-0483 (1979).
(168) Stephenson MA: ‘Down hole Influx Detection While Drilling’, unpublished NL
Industries Report, Aug 7 1979.
(169) Stewart WP: ‘Offshore Blowout Rate Surprisingly High’, Pet Eng Int (April 1988),
pp 10-12.
(170) Summerskill M: ‘Oil Rigs: Law and Insurance’, Steven and Sons, 1979.
(171) Surman GA and Bell DL: ‘An Improved Procedure for Handling a Threatened
Blowout’, Paper SPE 1221 presented at the 1965 Annual Fall Meeting, Denver,
Colo, Oct 3-6 1965.
(172) Tanguy DR and Zoeller WA: ‘Applications of Measurements While Drilling’, SPE
10324, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Oct 4-7 1981.
(173) Tannich JD, Sandlin CW and Gist AN: ‘Well Killing: Possibilities and
Limitations’, Shallow Gas Seminar, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate,
27-28 August 1987.
(174) Thornton ED: ‘The Flow Structure of an Underwater Oil Blowout’, Spill
Technology Newsletter, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Canada
(1978), 27 pp.
(175) Timko DJ and Fertl WH: ‘How Down hole Temperatures and Pressures Affect
Drilling’, Part 8, World Oil (January 1973).
(176) Tims D: ‘Third Side Track Controls Well in Complex Kill’, World Oil (Nov 1980),
pp 147-152.
(177) Tims D: ‘Third Sidetrack Controls Well in Complex Kill’, World Oil (Nov 1980)’
(178) Tokle K: ‘Blowout Production – Well, Oil Case’, IKU Report (May 19 1982).
(179) US Department of the Interior/Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region: ‘Accidents Connected with Federal Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’, Volume (2) January, 1980
– December 1984, June 1985.
(180) US Geological Survey Conservation Division: ‘Accidents Connected with
Federal Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf Gulf of Mexico’,
Volume (I) 1956-1979, December 1979.
(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
(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.
(196) Westergaard RH: ‘Feasibility Study of Three Blowout Countermeasures –

Plugging Materials Feeder’, Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, Norway.
Report No 810802-4 (April 17, 1982).
(197) Westergaard RH: ‘How Can We Cope With the Blowout Risk’, paper presented
at the PETRO FISH Conference, Bergen, Oct 23-25 1989.
(198) Westergaard RH: ‘Secondary Blowout and Wild Well Identification – TOTAL’s
Water Injection Concept’, Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, Norway, Report
No 800303 – WD11 (March 11 1981).
(199) Westergaard RH: ‘Secondary Blowout and Wild Well Identification – Annulus
Kill System’, Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, Norway. Report No
820918-WD3 (21 April 1983).
(200) Westergaard RH: ‘Secondary Blowout and Wild Well Identification – Side-entry
Capping on Condeeps’, Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, Norway. Report
No 820918-1 (November 12, 1982).
(201) Westergaard RH: ‘The Blowout on Haltenbanken’, Norwegian Oil Review
(1985).
(202) Westergaard RH: ‘Underwater Blowout’, Environment International Vol 3,
1979, Pergamont Press Ltd.
(203) Westergaard RH: ‘Well Injection of Dispersing Agents Against Underwater
Blowout’, Report 840108-1. Senter for Industriforskning (SI), Oslo, Norway
(February 1985).
(204) Wiryodiarjo S and Sumanta K: ‘Killing of PT-29 Burning Gas Well
Paluhtabuhan’, presented at the 11th Annual Indonesian Petroleum Association
Convention, June 1982.
(205) Xu Y: ‘Loss of Control on Well Chuanfu #82 Demonstrates Current Problems on
Well Control’, Petroleum Drilling Techniques V 7, No 1 (March 1991), pp 52-56,
61, 67.
(206) Xu Y: ‘Measures for Combating Blowout in Northern Songliao Basin’, Pet Drilling
Technology V 19, No 4 (December 1991), Language: Chinese, pp 19-21, 62.

Well Control Manual PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Well Control Manual PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Drilling and Production Operations Ref: INDEX

WELL CONTROL MANUAL Issue: Feb 2000

WELL CONTROL MANUAL Issue: Feb 2000

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Page 1 of 10

1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE ....................................................................................... 2

1.3 OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 2

1.4 REVIEW AND COMMENT ............................................................................... 2

1.6 OVERVIEW OF WELL CONTROL INCIDENTS .............................................. 4

1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE

1.4 REVIEW AND COMMENT

Figure 1.1 - Consequences of Mismanaged Well Control Operations –

1.6 OVERVIEW OF WELL CONTROL INCIDENTS

1.6.1 Costs and Losses Incurred During a Blowout

1.6.2 Blowout Risk – A Historical Perspective

Table 1.1 - Highest Cost Incurred by Year

LOCATION YEAR COST (USD)

Table 1.2 - Blowout Specifics for 1979 to 1999

Region Status of Well

Figure 1.2 - Ratio of Blowouts to Number of Rigs (in percent)

1.6.3 Importance of Planning Prior to a Blowout

The successful planning and execution of a complicated intervention operation requires

WELL CONTROL MANUAL Issue: Feb 2000

SECTION 2 GAS BEHAVIOUR AND Page 1 of 41

2. GAS BEHAVIOUR AND FLUID HYDROSTATICS ................................................ 3

2.1 PHASE BEHAVIOUR....................................................................................... 3

2.2 GAS LAW PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 6

2.3 HYDROSTATICS PRINCIPLES ..................................................................... 16

2.4 GAS MIGRATION .......................................................................................... 20

2.5 GAS SOLUBILITY ......................................................................................... 24

2.6 THE U-TUBE CONCEPT ............................................................................... 33

2.7 THE DOUBLE BARRIER CONCEPT............................................................. 34

2.7.4.5 Use of Kelly Hose as Secondary Barrier .................................................. 36

2.8 NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................... 37

2. GAS BEHAVIOUR AND FLUID HYDROSTATICS

2.1 PHASE BEHAVIOUR

Figure 2.1 - Phase Diagram for a Pure Substance

Figure 2.1 portrays a typical pressure-temperature phase diagram for a pure

Table 2.1 - Physical Properties of Natural Gas Constituents

Figure 2.2 - Phase Diagram for Fluid Mixtures

2.2 GAS LAW PRINCIPLES

2.2.1 Ideal Gases

Table 2.2 - Universal Gas Constant Values

The application of ideal gas concept is demonstrated in the following problem.

2.2.2 Real Gases

Figure 2.3 - Pseudo-critical Properties of Natural Gases

Pseudo-critical Temperature (Rankine), Tpc

Pseudo-critical Pressure (psi), Ppc

Gas Specific Gravity (air = 1)

0.4 1.10 0.4

Pseudo-reduced Pressure (Pr)

1.7 1.10 1.7

Compressibility factor (z)

(continuation of Figure 2.4)

Pseudo-reduced Pressure (Pr)

2.2.2.1 Spreadsheet Approach for z Factor Determination

(A7/Tpr + A8/Tpr ) r + A10 (1+ A11 r ) (r / Tpr ) exp (-A11 r )

The compressibility factor is calculated from Equation c 2.04

2.3 HYDROSTATICS PRINCIPLES

gradient gf in psi/ft in density units of lb/gal, gf determined by:

The hydrostatic pressure deriving from a stacked column of wellbore fluids is

Po after the second iteration is 6165psia. Repeating the process:

2.3.2 Equivalent Density

2.4 GAS MIGRATION