SPE-189167-MS

A Realistic Kick Simulator for Casing Design-Part 1

Ohaegbulam Chukwudi Michael, Ibeh Stanley Ugochukwu, and Obah Boniface, Department of Petroleum
Engineering, Federal University of Technology; Amaefule Chibunma, Department of Petroleum Engineering,
Madonna University; Nnakaihe Stephen, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Federal University of Technology

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 31 July – 2 August 2017.

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

Abstract
Casing design an integral part of the well planning is divided into two phases: determination of the optimum
casing depth and selection of appropriate casing grade. Conventionally, casing depth is determined using
pore-fracture pressure data and an arbitrary kick margin (0.5ppg). This method maybe uneconomical or
pose a well control risk since the kick margin may not reflect the actual well condition during fluid influx
and subsequent circulation. A gas kick simulator is proposed in this work to aid the drilling engineer to
make a good engineering decision during the well planning stage and rig-site well control operation. The
kick simulator is derived using the using continuity equation, equation of state, and kick tolerance concept.
The effects of temperature, fluid compressibility, annular friction pressure loss, choke line friction pressure
loss, gas migration, variable fluid density and two-phase flow are incorporated in the the model. Beggs
and Brill correlation is used to describe flow in the two-pase region; while frictional effects in the single-
phase region and gas compressibility are modeled using Power Law Model and Peng-Robinson equation of
state respectively. The effect of gas migration is modeled using Harmathy, Taylors and Zuber et al bubble
rise velocity models. To account for liquid hold up, three types of flow regimes are adopted in the model:
single gas bubble, mist and intermittent/transition flow. The results from the simulation study show that
determining casing depth using pore-fracture data and an arbitrary kick margin may result to well control
incident. Neglecting the effects of temperature, fluid compressibility and use of single gas bubble model is
unrealistic and will require deeper casing depth. In offshore wells, choke line friction loss is an important
factor that should be considered during the well planning stage.

Introduction
The determination of casing depths and selection of appropriate casing grade are one of the most important
tasks in preparing a well plan. Many factors such as geological formation, over pressure zone, differential
sticking, loss circulation, regulatory and well control consideration influence the casing setting depth and
subsequently the well plan. Among these factors, the most important is the well control consideration since
both the casing depth and casing grade depend on this factor (Neal Adams, 1985; Steve, 1998). Setting
casing depth lower than the optimum depth or selection of inappropriate casing grade might lead to well
2 SPE-189167-MS

control problems and sometimes loss of properties and human lives if an influx is taken during drilling.
Conversely, setting casing depth deeper than the optimum depth or selection of higher than necessary casing
grade will lead to costly casing design. To meet the objective of any casing design, there is an optimal
condition for a designed kick tolerance volume that will guaranty safety and cost. Consequently, the drilling
engineers are saddled with the responsibility of satisfying this condition.
Traditionally, casing depths are determined using pore-fracture pressure data and an arbitrary kick margin
(Adams Bourgoyne et al, 1991; Mitchel and Stefan, 2011; Rahmann and Chilingarin, 1995). However,
research (Redmann, 1991) has shown that in most cases the kick margin does not reflect the actual well
condition during fluid/gas influx. Consequently, a kick simulator should be incorporated in the casing design
programme (Leach and Wand, 1992). Analytical models (Leblanc and Lewis, 1968; Nunes et al, 2002; Otto
Santos et al, 1995) for gas kick simulator have been reported but the effects of choke line friction loss,
gas migration, variable gas density, temperature and gas compressibility factor were generally neglected.
Numerical models (Micheal et al, 1991; Nickens, 1997) that incorporate these factors have demonstrated
that these factors influence the casing setting depth, hence the casing design programme. Kick simulators
(Helio et al, 2011; Jin Yequin et al, 2016) that are based on kick tolerance have been developed; they studies
demonstrated that neglecting the effects of temperature, gas migration, gas compressibility factor and choke
line friction loss is unrealistic and conservative, therefore will require deeper casing setting depth.
The most common assumption for a gas kick is based on constant gas properties, single gas bubble and
that the gas remains as a contagious gas slug throughout the kick control procedure. This is a conservative
assumption in that the pressure calculated from single bubble are always larger than those experienced
which may result in costly overdesign of the well (Nicken, 1997). Gas kick simulators that are based on two-
phase flow are commonly applicable in oil-based mud due to gas solubility in oil-based mud (White and
Walton, 1990). The gas bubble rise velocity in the two-phase or single gas bubble flow affects the pressure
distribution along the wellbore when circulating out the gas influx. The rise velocity of the gas bubble in
a flowing stream has been examined by (Davies and Taylor, 1950; Johnson and White, 1991; Harmathy,
1960). It has been reported (Skale and Podio, 1991) that the velocity of the rising gas bubble decreases
the pressure distribution along the wellbore since the gas bubble is not restricted but expands during well
control operation.
Many assumptions have been made by several authors while developing a kick simulator to simplify the
model; this in the other hand reduces the efficiency of the tool. This study presents a kick simulator that
incorporates all the parameters that could affect the efficiency of the tool. The kick simulator is implemented
using a Matlab programmable tool.

Model formulation
To develop the gas kick simulator, the analytical model was based upon the following assumptions: (1) the
gas inside the wellbore is pure natural gas; (2) for oil based-mud, the gas is soluble in the mud throughout
the well control operation; (3) the mud rhelogical properties are constant; (4) the drillers' method is the well
control procedure adopted on the premise that a gas kick simulator that is based on drillers method must be
used in well planning/casing point selection. The following governing equations are combined to develop
the model: (1) continuity/material balance equation; (2) equation of state; (3) kick tolerance concept. Fig1
represents the gas kick at intial shut-in and gas kick during circulation.
SPE-189167-MS 3

Figure 1—Gas kicks at intial shut-in and gas kick during circulation

Kick simulator during shut-in

To maintain a constant bottom hole pressure, formation pressure must be equal to the bottom hole pressure.
Applying the continuity/material balance equation:
(1)
Total pressure in the wellbore = surface pressure + hydrostatic pressure of the mud column at the casing
shoe + hydrostatic pressure of the mud column below the casing shoe + hydrostatic pressure at the gas
region.
(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Substituting equation (9)) into equation (7)):

(10)

Where:

(11)
4 SPE-189167-MS

Equation (10)) is used to determine the kick pressure gradient at any depth in the wellbore during shut-
in period. It is pertinent to note that equation (10)) is only applicable when the kick height is less than the
the drill collar's height; otherwise both the drill collar and drill pipe capacities should be used to determine
the actual height of the gas kick and subsistute in equation (7)). It is worthy to note that equation (10))
will degenerate to equation (12)) if the gas influx volume is neglected (zero). Neglecting the volume of gas
influx or zero gain, equation (10)) becomes:

(12)

Equation (12)) is the scenario where abonormal pressured impermeable shale zone is detected and the
well is shut-in.

Kick simulator during circulation

From fig 1, applying material balance equation:
(13)
Total system pressure = surface pressure + total pressure of the mud column at the casing shoe + total
pressure of the gas column below the casing shoe + total pressure of the mud column below the gas column.

(14)

Expanding equation (14)) gives:

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

Equation (19)) is the height of the gas kick during circulation which will be converted to kick tolerance
volume (initial volume at the bottom of the wellbore) by using the real gas equation.

(20)

(21)

(22)
SPE-189167-MS 5

Applying the real gas equation to obtain an expression for the kick tolerance volume,Vk (initial volume):

(23)

(24)

Recall that:
(25)
Substituting equation (25)) in equation (24)) and re-arranging:

(26)

(27)

Equation (27)) can be transformed to kick imposed pressure gradient:

(28)

Equation (27)) and (28) are used to determine the kick imposed pressure at any depth in the wellbore
when circulating out the gas influx. Equation (27)) and (28) are flexible in that some terms in the expressions
can be neglected depending on the choice of the operator and the drilling condition. The frictional pressure
gradient in the mud column at the casing/drill pipe annulus, Fricg(Dp/c); hole /drill pipe annulus, Fricg(Dp/h);
and hole/drill collar annulus, Fricg(Dc/h) are calculated using the Power Law Model.
The total pressure gradient at the gas column region ΔPTg is expressed in terms of single gas bubble and
two-phase flow respectively.

Single gas bubble flow

Applying the law of conservation of energy, the total pressure gradient in the gas column region= pressure
gradient due to elevation + pressure gradient due to friction + pressure gradient due to acceleration.

(29)

Equation (29)) can be expressed in terms of kinetic energy:

(30)

Where:

(31)
6 SPE-189167-MS

(32)

The gas compressibility factor, Z is calculated using (Dranchuk and Abou-Kaseem, 1975; Peng and
Robinson, 1976) correlations. (Peng and Robinson, 1976) correlation is recommended for HPHT well and
for all natural gas. To account for gas migration, (Davies and Taylor, 1950; Harmathy, 1960) bubble rise
velocity models are used to calculate the gas stream velocity. The general equation (Zuber and Findlay,
1965) for the average gas velocity is expressed as:

(33)

Co, is a parameter (Zuber and Findlay, 1965) that accounts for the effect of non uniform flow distribution
and is approximately 1.2. The terminal velocity is calculated using (Davies and Taylor, 1950; Harmathy,
1960) models.
For small bubble size:

Where:

(34)

(Harmathy, 1960), bubble rise velocity model is used to calculate the gas terminal velocity:

(35)

For large bubble size:

(Davies and Taylor, 1950), equation is used to calculate the terminal velocity:

(36)

The frictional factor in equation (30)) is dependent on the the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number
is defined in field unit as:

(37)

Gas viscosity is calculated using (Lee et al, 1966) correlation.

For laminar flowNRE ≤ 2100:

(38)

For turbulent flowNRE > 2100:

(Colebrook, 1939), equation is used to calculate the frictional factor which is given as:

(39)
SPE-189167-MS 7

Two-phase flow
The equation for the total gas pressure gradient for single gas bubble flow is applicable to two-phase flow
except for changes in some parameters. The two-phase total gas pressure gradient is given as:

(40)

Where:

(41)

The two-phase density and velocity are expressed as:

(42)
(43)
Where:

(44)

(45)

To account for liquid hold up, three types of flow regimes are adopted:
Single bubble:
(46)
Mist flow:
(47)
Intermittent/transition flow:
(48)
Two-phase Reynolds number is defined using (Beggs and Brill, 1960) model and is expressed as:

(49)

Where:
(50)

(51)

The two-phase frictional factor in equation (40)) is first calculated for singe-phase flow using (Colebrook,
1939) model; which is then converted to two-phase frictional factor using (Beggs and Brill, 1973) model.
Equation (27)) is implicit in nature since some parameters in the equation are pressure dependent.
Therefore, an iterative procedure is used to determine the kick imposed pressure at any depth in the wellbore.
The pressure dependent terms are listed below:
(52)
(53)
8 SPE-189167-MS

(54)

(55)
(56)
Intial estimate of pressure Pmax at the depth of interest is guessed; the estimated pressure is used to
calculate the pressure dependent parameters which are then substituted in equation (27)) to calculate Pmax
at that depth using Newton-Raphson method or quadratic formular. The calculated pressure is compared
with the estimated pressure and if they are not sufficiently close, another estimate is made and the process
is repeated until an acceptable tolerance is reached. Then the calculated pressure becomes the actual kick
imposed pressure at that depth.

Annular back pressure

The annular back pressure is the pressure at the surface that maintains a constant bottom-hole pressure when
circulating out the gas influx. Annular back is expressed as:
(57)
Pmax, is the kick imposed pressure at any depth and is obtained by solution of equation (27)). The annular
back pressure will reach maximum value when the gas influx reaches the surface (i.e.Csd = 0). Conversely,
the minimum annular back pressure will occur when the gas influx has been circulated out of the wellbore
(i.e.Csd, VkT = 0) and equation (57)) reduces to:
(58)
Where Pmax from equation (27)) becomes:
(59)
If the effects of friction are neglected, the annular back pressure will be equal to the shut-in drill pipe
pressure (SIDP) when the gas influx has been circulated out and equation (59)) becomes:
(60)
The corresponding circulation time when circulating out the gas influx is expressed as:

(61)

Hk, is defined in equation (19)). The annular capacity depends on the position or height of the gas kick
during circulation and it can either be the casing/drill pipe, hole/drill pipe or hole/drill collar capacity or
both capacities. Equation (57)) is proportional to equation (61)):
Annular back pressur ∝ circulation time
A plot of the annular back pressure against the circulation time is the annular back pressure profile when
circulating out the gas influx using the driller's method of well control.

Results and Discussion

A Matlab computer programme was developed to simplify mathematical calculation and prepare several
inputs data for graphical analysis. Table 1 and fig. 2, are data used for the simulation study. All simulation
study in this work was performed using equation 27 and 28; while equation 10 and 12 are used for
comparative analysis.
SPE-189167-MS 9

Table 1—input data of well #A1

Plastic viscosity 12cp

Yield point 12.2lb/100ft3

Bit/hole size 121/4″

Drill pipe size, OD 5″

Casing size, OD 133/8″

Drill collar size, OD 8″

Drill collar length 500ft

Mud weight 12ppg

Reduced flow rate, Qr 250gpm (0.557ft3/sec)

Temperature gradient 60+0.026 F/ft

Gas gravity 0.65

Effective diameter, de 7.25″

Surface tension 30dyn/cm (0.066138lb/sec)

Wellbore area 0.6821ft2

True vertical depth, TVD 10000ft

Choke Line Friction Loss, CLFL 150Psi

Figure 2—Fracture pressure gradient data of well #A1

The fracture pressure data must be converted to fracture gradient (Psi/ft) before using it in the simulation
analysis. Fig. 2 is regressed to a numerical equation for easy programming and the best line fit that defines
the fracture gradient data is expressed as:
(62)
Fig.3 is the comparative effects of equation 10, 12, and 28 on casing setting depth. Equation 10, 12, and
28 are plotted along with the fracture gradient (equation 62) for the same kick volume and kick intensity. The
points of intersections of the graphs with the fracture gradient graph are the optimum casing setting depths.
Equation 10 and 12 are the well condition during shut-in (influx volume and gas expansion are neglected),
while equation 27 or 28 is the well condition when circulating out the gas influx. It can be observed from
fig. 3 that the optimum casing setting depth for equation 10 and 12 are 4200 and 3000ft respectively and for
equation 28 the optimum depth is deeper (5000ft). Consequently, if the casing is set at 4200ft, underground
blowout will not occur during shut-in if gas influx is taken. However, if the casing is set below 5000ft,
underground blowout will occur when circulating out the gas influx since the kick imposed pressure gradient
will be greater than the fracture gradient of the formation below 5000ft.
10 SPE-189167-MS

Figure 3—comparative effects of equation 10,12 and 27 on casing setting depth

Fig. 4 shows the effects of simplified and realistic model of equation 27 on casing setting depth. The
simplified model does not account for the effects of temperature, gas migration, gas density, gas viscosity,
and gas compressibility factor on casing setting depth; while the realistic model incorporates these factors.
From fig. 4, the optimum casing setting depths for the simplified and realistic model are 5000ft and 4800ft
respectively. This implies that the realistic model is cost effective than the simplified model since lesser
casing string is required.

Figure 4—effects of simplified and realistic model on casing setting depth

Fig. 5 depicts the effects of gas influx volume on casing setting depth. It shows that as the gas influx
volume increases, the kick imposed pressure gradient increases; hence deeper casing depth is required. For
instance, in fig. 5, a well that is designed with a 10bbl gas kick volume, the minimum casing setting depth
is 3900ft. However, if the actual gas kick volume in the wellbore when gas influx is encountered during
drilling is greater than the designed gas kick volume (>10bbl), the formation at the casing shoe (3900ft)
will fracture when circulating out the gas kick and underground blowout will occur. This implies that quick/
SPE-189167-MS 11

earlier response to gas kick detection and proper well control crew training is paramount inorder to minimize
the gas influx volume for a safe and economical drilling execution.

Figure 5—effects of gas influx volume on casing setting depth

Fig. 6 shows the effects of kick intensity on casing setting depth. The graphs of kick intensity of 0, 0.5,
1.0ppg are drawn using equation 27 and the points of intersection of the graphs with the fracture gradient
graph are the optimum casing setting depths. From fig. 6, the casing setting depth increases with the kick
intensity. This implies that higher values for designed kick intensity will garaunty more safety than lower
values. The kick intensity for exploration well is between 0.5-1.0ppg; while for development well the kick
intensity is normally 0ppg since the likely kick pressure that can be encountered during drilling is swab
kick. Hence, more casing string is required in exploration well than development well.

Figure 6—effects of kick intensity on casing setting depth

12 SPE-189167-MS

Fig. 7 demonstrates the effects of choke line friction loss on kick imposed pressure. From fig. 7, kick
imposed pressure increases as CLFL increases. Consequently, choke line friction loss (CLFL) should be
considered in the well planning stage expecially for deep water wells. It can be argued that CLFL can
be neglected since it can be eliminated from the the shut-in casing pressure (SICP) through the choke
manifold pressure or by taking returns up choke and kill lines simultenously during the secondary well
control operation. This is only possible when the SICP/choke pressure or the sum of the SCIP at choke and
kill line manifolds are greater than CLFL; otherwise it will be unavoidable to apply excess pressure at the
casing shoe which may lead to underground blowout. For instance, from fig. 7, if the casing setting depth
is designed with a CLFL of 0Psi, the optimum casing setting depth is (3000ft). However, if in the event of
gas kick, the SICP at the choke (if returns is taken from the choke line only) or the sum of SCIP at both
the choke and kill lines manifolds (if returns is taken both through the choke and kill lines) are less than
the CLFL, an underground blowout will occour when circulating out the gas influx since the kick imposed
pressure at the casing shoe (3000ft) will be unavoidably greater than the fracture pressure at the same depth.
Athough CLFL can be reduced by reducing the pump rate; neverthless it is important to consider the danger
of excessive CLFL during well planning especially for deep water wells.

Figure 7—effects of ckoke line friction loss on kick imposed pressure

Fig.8 shows the effects of hole-geometry on casing setting depth. Wellbore diameter of 12.25″ and
5.5″ are drawn along with the fracture gradient graph. It can be seen from fig.8 that as the hole-diameter
decreases, the casing setting depth and kick imposed pressure gradient increases. This indicates that slim-
hole design is a potential risk of well control problems since the kick imposed pressure increases as the
hole-size decreases.
SPE-189167-MS 13

Figure 8—effects hole- diameter on casing setting depth

Fig.9 depicts the effects of flow regime on casing setting depth. It can be observed that the casing setting
depths are almost the same for all flow regimes. Hence, flow regime in the two-phase gas region has
negligible effect on casing setting depth.

Figure 9—effects of flow regime in two-phase gas region on casing setting depth

The annular back pressure profile for a gas influx of 30bbl and 50bbl respectively are presented in fig.10.
The annular back pressure increases as a result of gas influx/gas expansion when circulating out the gas
kick during the secondary well control operation until it reaches a peak value when the gas influx reaches
the surface. At this point, the annular back pressure begins to decline until it reaches a minimum value
when the gas has been circulated out of the wellbore. Also the graph depicts that the annular back pressure
14 SPE-189167-MS

increases as the gas kick volume increases. This excessive pressure maybe detrimental to the well head
equipments during circulation; hence quick detection/reponse to gas kick in order to minimize the gas kick
volume is essential.

Figure 10—annular back pressure profile

Conclusions
This article presents a gas kick simulator for casing design. The parameters that affect the casing setting
depth were fully analyzed. Based on the analysis, we conclude that:

• A realistic gas kick simulator has been proposed in this work

• The use of the proposed gas kick simulator along with the fracture pressure data in the well
planning stage and rig-site well control operation will make the drilling execution safer and more
economical.
• The gas kick simulator can be used to know whether it is safe to circulate a gas kick out of the well
or if bullheading is necessary during well control operation.
• Simplified model is unrealistic and conservative, hence will require deeper casing setting depth.

• The formation at the casing shoe will fracture when circulating out the gas kick if the actual gas
kick volume and kick intensity are greater than the designed gas kick volume and kick intensity.
• The kick imposed pressure in the wellbore during gas influx circulation depends on the gas kick
volume, kick intensity and hole-geometry.
• In deepwater wells, choke line friction loss is an important factor that should be considered in the
well planning stage.
• The incorporation of several factors in the model makes it realistic than existing models.

• The kick simulator can be used to determine the burst load during the well planning stage

Nomenclature
A wellbore area, ft2
SPE-189167-MS 15

Csd casing setting depth, ft

CLFL choke line friction loss, Psi
D well depth, ft
de effective wellbore diameter, inches
Dh hole diameter, inches
DCOD drill collar outside diameter, inches
DPOD drill pipe outside diameter, inches
Ek kinetic energy, dimensionless
Fracg fracture pressure gradient, Psi/ft
Fricg(Dp/c) friction pressure gradient at casing/drill pipe annulus, Psi/ft
Fricg(Dp/h) friction pressure gradient at drill pipe/hole annulus, Psi/ft
Fricg(Dc/h) friction pressure gradient at drill collar/hole annulus, Psi/ft
fm Fanning frictional factor, dimensionless
g, gc acceleration constants, 32.2ft/sec2
Gg gas weight pressure gradient, Ps/ft
Hk gas kick height, ft
hL liquid hold up, dimensionless
K kick intensity, Psi/ft
LDC drill collar length, ft
Mwg mud weight pressure gradient, Psi/ft
, NRE Octoves number and Reynolds number, dimensionless
Pmax kick imposed pressure at any depth, Psi
Pmaxg kick imposed pressure gradient at any depth, Psi/ft
Pfg formation pressure gradient, Psi/ft
PV mud plastic viscosity, cp
ρg, ρL gas and mud density, lbm/ft3
Qr reduced flow rate during circulation, ft3/sec
SICP shut-in casing pressure, Psi
SIDP shut-in drill pipe pressure, Psi
t circulation time, mins
T temperature, Rankine
μg, μTP gas viscosity and two-phase viscosity, cp
VkT kick tolerance volume, bbl
vg, vm gas velocity and mud velocity, ft/sec
vTP two-phase velocity, ft/sec
σ surface tension, lb/sec
Z gas compressibility factor, dimensionless

References
Adams T. Bourgoyne, Millheim, K.K., Chenvert, M.T., Young, F.S., 1991. Applied drilling engineering SPE Textbook
series, vol. 2, Richardson, Texas, pp. 330–332
Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P., 1973. A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4007-PA
Colebrook, C.F., 1939. Turbulent flow in pipes with particular refrence to region between smooth and rough pipe laws.
J. Inst. Civil. Eng.
Davies, R.M., Taylor, G. F., 1950. The mechanics of large bubble rising through extended liquids and through liquids in
tube. Royal Society Publishing London, vol. 200, No. 1062. http://www.Jstor.org/stable/98449.
16 SPE-189167-MS

Dranchuk, P.M., Abou-Kaseem, J.H., 1975. Calculation of Z factor for natural gas using equation of state. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 03. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/75-03-03.
Harmathy, T.Z., 1960. Velocity of large drops and bubbles in media of infinite or restricted extent. A.I.ch.E. Journal, vol.
6, No.2.
Helio, S. Erdem, C. Sandeep, V. 2001. Kick tolerance misconception and consequences to well design. Presented
at the SPE/IADC Drilling conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. SPE-140113-MS.http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/140113-MS.
Johnson, A.B., White, D.B., 1991. Gas rise velocities during kicks. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.6. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/20431-PA
Jin Yequen, Li Cheng, Wu Qian, 2016. Methodology for kick tolerance calculation and well killing in deepwater drilling.
Journal of Natural Gas Industry, Elsevier.
Leach, C.P., Wand, P.A., 1992. Use of a kick simulator as a well planning tool. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington.D.C. United States. SPE-24577-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24577-MS.
Leblanc, J.L., Lewis, R.L., 1968. A mathematical modeling of gas kick. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/1860-PA.
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E., 1966. The viscosity of natural gas. Trans. AIME. Vol. 237, 997–1000
Michael, P., Danhill, A., 1990. A shallow gas kick simulator including diverter performance. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, vol.5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18019-PA.
Neal, J.A., 1985. Drilling engineering- a complete well planning approach. Pennwells books Company Tulsa, Oklahoma,
pp. 1–7, pp. 129-133
Nickens, H.V., 1997. A dynamic computer model of a kicking well. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.2. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118-JPT.
Nuns, J.O., Barnwart, A.C., Ribeiro, P.R., 2002. Mathematical modeling of gas kick in deep water scenario. Presented at
the SPE/IADC Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta Indonesia. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77253-MS
Peng, D.V., Robinson, D.B., 1976. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamentals, 15, 1. 59–64.
Rahmann, S.S., Chilingarin, G.V., 1995. Casing design theory and practice. Development of Petroleum Science, 42,
Elsevier, pp. 121–126.
Redmann, K.P., 1991. Understanding kick tolerance and its significant in drilling planning and execution. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, vol. 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19991-PA.
Robert, F.M., Stefan, Z.M., 2011. Fundamental of drilling engineering, SPE Textbook series vol. 12, pp. 417–420.
Santos, O., Ibrahim, A., Azar, J.J., 1995. Determination of casing setting depth using kick tolerance concept. Presented at
the SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston Texas. SPE-30220-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30220-MS.
Skalle, P., Podio, A.L., 1991. Experimental study of gas rise velocity and its effect on bottom hole pressure in vertical wells.
Presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Conference United Kingdom. SPE-23160-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/23160-
MS
Steve, D., 1998. Practical well planning and drilling manual. Pennwell Corporation, Tulsa Oklahoma, USA, pp. 51–56,
pp. 460-463.
Tarvin, J.A., Walton, I., Wand, P., 1991. Analysis of a gas kick taken in a deep well drilled with oil- based
mud. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas. SPE-22560-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/22560-MS.
White, D.B., Walton, I.C., 1990. A computer model for kicks in water and oil-based mud. Presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Houston Texas. SPE-19975-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19975-MS
Zuber, N., Findlay, J.A., 1965. Average volumetric concentration in two-phase system. Jounal of heat transfer. http://
heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org