Well-Control Operations

in Horizontal Wells
O.L.A. Santos, SPE, Petrobras
Summary. This paper analyzes well control for horizontal wells. It presents a computer model for predicting the pressure behavior
in a horizontal well during gas-kick removal and analyzes the simulation results for several field conditions. The paper also analyzes
the drillpipe-pressure schedule, the kick-tolerance concept, and the swabbing effect during tripping out of the hole.
Introduction
Horizontal drilling has quickly become one of the most successful
technologies of the oil industry. During the past 5 years, this tech-
nology has proved to be an efficient means to improve production
rates and recoveries.
The importance of this technology is also confirmed by the large
number of papers recently published on this topic. Although these
papers discuss several aspects of horizontal drilling, one topic re-
mains unexplored: well-control operations. This paper investigates
the important aspects of well control for horizontal drilling.
The first part of this paper describes a computational procedure
to predict the pressure behavior in the annulus during a gas-kick
circulation out of the well. The second part presents another com-
putational procedure for establishing the drillpipe-pressure sched-
ule to be followed by the rig personnel during the displacement of
the old mud by the kill mud. The third part discusses kick toler-
ance and its applications in horizontal wells. Finally, the paper
presents a simplified theory for the swabbing effect during trip-
ping out of the hole and demonstrates the hazards of taking a kick
during this operation.
Horizontal Wells
Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the example horizontal well. The well
comprises three sections: the vertical, buildup, and horizontal sec-
tions. The radius of curvature, r, of the 90 arc of circle is defined
by the buildup rate, Rbu:
r=5729.58IR
bu
................................... (1)
The length of the buildup section, L
bu
, can be calculated by the
following equation:
Lbu = 1.5708r. . ................................... (2)
In Fig. 1, the true vertical depth (TVD) is the sum of the vertical
section length and the radius of curvature, and the total measured
depth (MD) is the sum of the vertical, buildup, and horizontal
lengths. MD's can easily be converted to vertical depths, or vice
versa, with simple trigonometric relationships.
Mathematical Model for the Annular Space
This section describes a numerical procedure for modeling the pres-
sure behavior inside the annular space of a horizontal well during
gas-kick removal. With this numerical procedure in a FORTRAN
computer program, it was possible to simulate many field condi-
tions where pertinent drilling variables were varied to analyze their
effects on pressure behavior. Later in this section, the results of
the simulations are analyzed and discussed.
Assumptions and Considerations. Previous studies have shown
that if the gas-kick region is considered to be a plug or a single
bubble, then predicted wellbore pressures will be unrealistically
high. More realistic results are obtained when the gas-kick region
is modeled by a two-phase zone. This study assumes that the gas-
kick zone is a two-phase mixture of gas and water-based mud flow-
ing under unsteady-state conditions. This region was modeled by
the Beggs-Brill correlation that accounts for important two-phase
flow characteristics, such as gas slip velocity, gas channeling, gas
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
concentration distribution inside the wellbore, liquid holdup, and
two-phase friction factor.
The gas solubility in the liquid phase and the liquid compressi-
bility are considered to be negligible. The concentric annulus ge-
ometry is assumed to be constant along the wellbore path. The
displacing fluid has the same density as the drilling fluid originally
in the well (driller's method). A constant temperature gradient is
used.
Fig. 2a shows the wellbore situation just after well closure. Two
regions are seen: a single-phase region that contains uncontami-
nated mud (Region 1), and a two-phase region filled with a mix-
ture of gas and mud (Region 2). Fig. 2b shows the wellbore situation
for a certain moment of gas-kick displacement. Three regions now
exist: (1) a single-phase region where the displacing drilling fluid
flows behind the gas zone under steady-state conditions (Region
3); (2) a two-phase region where the two-phase mixture flows un-
der unsteady-state conditions (Region 2); and (3) a single-phase
region where the drilling fluid flows ahead of the gas-kick zone,
which is accelerated by gas expansion as it moves toward the sur-
face (Region 1).
The bottomhole pressure (BHP) is a boundary condition with the
same value as the pressure of the reservoir that generated the gas
influx. It is assumed to be constant during gas displacement. The
initial gas concentration distribution (see Fig. 2a) is specified by
the user.
Calculation Procedure. The pressure drop across Region 3 is given
by
J.P3=ghydraLy+gfrieLm, ............................ (3)
where the subscripts hydro = hydrostatic and fric=frictional. The
power-law rheological model! was used to calculate g frie' For this
calculation, the drilling-fluid velocity is determined by dividing the
drilling-fluid flow rate by the annulus cross-sectional area. The pres-
sure drop across Region 1 is calculated by
J.p] =ghydroLy+ (gfrie +gaee)L
m
, ..................... (4)
where gaee' the acceleration gradient, is calculated by
gaee = (0.00 I 6)(PL) [(vic -vlp)/J.t], .................... (5)
where Vic and Vip are the velocities of the two-phase mixture at the
leading boundary at the current and previous timesteps, respetively.
vic is also used in Eq. 4 to calculate g fric' J.t is the timestep size.
The calculation of the pressure drop across Region 2, which is
more laborious, includes the solution of a system of three partial
differential equations, an equation of state (BOS) for the gaseous
phase, and a two-phase-flow empirical correlation.
The continuity equation for the liquid phase is
(oylot) + [o(yvL)/ox] =0 ............................. (6)
The continuity equation for the gaseous phase is
o[(1-y)p
g
] o[(I-y)v
g
P
g
]
----"-+ =0 ...................... (7)
at ox
III
KOP
BJILDUP
SECTION
VERTICAl
SECTION
90
SURFACE
RAOUS OF
CURVATURE
HORIZONTAL SECTION
Fig. 1-Geometry of a horizontal well.
The momentum-balance equation for a two-phase mixture is
gfrie is calculated with the Beggs-Brill2 correlation for two-phase
flow. For this calculation, the drilling-fluid viscosity is assumed
to be the mud plastic viscosity. The hydrostatic gradient is given by
ghydro =0.052[YPL +(I-y)P
g
] cos a . .................. (9)
The EOS for the gaseous phase is
Pg =0.361'Y gpiTZ . ................................ (10)
The liquid holdup, y, can be determined with the Beggs-Brill cor-
relation. In this empirical correlation, Y is a function of the well-
bore drift angle, the fluid velocity, the conduit geometry, and such
properties as density, viscosity, and surface tension.
This system of equations constitutes a nonlinear system with five
dependent unknowns: pressure, gas and liquid velocities, gas den-
sity, and liquid holdup. With solution of this system, all five de-
pendent variables are known as functions of time and position along
the wellbore; however, solution of this set of equations is not sim-
ple. Analytical solutions are not available, and numerical solutions
require iterative processes.
differential equations can be solved numerically by the
firute-<iIfferences method, which consists. of dividing the two-phase
region into cells and solving the finite-difference approximations
for the flow equations at their boundaries. This numerical proce-
dure has been used by several investigators
3
-
5
for vertical wells.
This method was modified here for use on horizontal wells.
Fig. 3 illustrates the finite-differences scheine for a single cell
of the annulus. Point 1 represents the flow properties (gas and liq-
uid liquid holdup, pressure, and gas density) at the previ-
ous tunestep at the upstream boundary. Point 2 refers to the flow
at the previous timestep at the downstream boundary.
Pomt 3 represents the flow properties at the current or new timestep
at the upstream boundary. The flow properties are known at Points
1,2, and 3. The finite-difference approximations are used to com-
pute the flow properties at Point 4. The following finite-difference
approximations were used for the flow equations in this paper.
For the continuity equation for the liquid phase,
(l-F
w
)[(vLY)z -(vLy)d+Fw[(vLY)4 -(vLYh]
+ (axl2.:it)(Y3 +Y4 -Yl -Y2 =0 ................... (11)
112
WELL CLOSED
REGION 1
(ONE.PHASE)
a
REGION 2
(TWOPHASE)
rriiir
NTlAL GAS
CONCENTRATION
m E SPECIFIED
REGION 1
(ONEPHASE)
MJD DISPLACING
GAS
<>-- LEADING EDGE
TRAiLING EDGE
I REGION 3 (ONEPHASE)
REGION 2
(TWOPHASE)
MUD DISPLACES THE
GAS IN THE ANNULUS
b
Fig. 2-Reglons used In annulus mathematical model.
For the continuity equation for the gaseous phase,
(l-Fw){[vg(l-y)pgh -[vg(l-y)pg]d +F
w
{[v
g
(l-Y)P
g
]4
- [vg<l-Y)P
g
h} +(axI2.:it){[(I-y)p
g
h +[(I-Y)P
g
]4
-[(l-y)pgh - [(I-Y)P
g
h} =0 .................. (12)
For the momentum-balance equation for the two-phase mixture,
(0.OOI6/2ax){[vl(1-y)p
g
h + [vl(l-Y)P
g
]4
-[vl(1-y)p
g
h -[vl(l-y)pgh +(vL 2YPLh
+(vL 2
YPL
)4 -(vL 2yPL) 1 -(VL 2
YPL
h}
+ (0.001 6/2.:it){[Vg (1-y)p
g
h +[v
g
(1-Y)Pg]4
-[vg(l-Y)Pgh -[v
g
(1-y)p
g
h + (vLYPLh + (vLYPL)4
-(VLYPLh -(VLYPLh} + [(P3 -P4)/ax]
+0.25(gl +g2+g3+g4)fric
+0.25(gl +g2 +g3 +g4)hydro=0, ................ (13)
where F w = time weighting factor for the continuity equations. For
fully implicit approximations, F w = 1.0. For centered-in-time ap-
proximations, F w =0.5. The fully implicit formulation (F w = 1.0)
was used in this paper because it yielded more stable solutions. For
the momentum-balance equation, centered-in-time and centered-in-
distance approximations were used. ax is the cell length (user spec-
ified). All cells have the same length, except for the deepest cell,
which is shorter (as will be shown later) . .:it is the timestep size.
Because of the nonlinear nature of the flow equations, solution
of the. system requires use of an iterative process. The following
stepWIse procedure can be used to solve the system.
1. Estimate the pressure at Point 4, P4'
2. Use P4 to calculate gas density, P
g
4 (Eq. 10).
3. Estimate liquid holdup at Point 4, Y4'
4. Calculate the liquid and gas velocities with Eqs. 11 and 12,
respectively.
. 5 .. With the gas and liquid properties, gas and liquid velocities,
liqUId holdup from Step 3, and wellbore drift angle, use the Beggs-
Brill correlation to calculate Y4' Compare this value and the esti-
mated value from Step 3. If they are sufficiently close, go to Step
6. If not, re-estimate Y4 and repeat the process from Step 3 until
convergence on liquid holdup is reached.
6. Calculate P4 with Eq. 13. Compare this value and the esti-
mated value from Step 1. If they are sufficiently close, stop the
process. If not, re-estimate pressure and repeat the process from
Step 1 until convergence on pressure is reached.
The procedure is repeated for the adjacent downstream cell (the
calculated flow properties at Point 4 of the previous cell are re-
placed with the flow properties at Point 3). The calculations pro-
ceed until the flow properties at all cell boundaries are determined.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
x
<l
- f--
0 8
r-- '------
...J
<J KNONN UNKl\OWN ...J 0
...J
W 0
.!.
...J
Z
W
U Z
u ii:
ii:
I-
W
(f)
I-
W
(f)
(f) :::!:
en =>
::> :2: ...J i=
...J
...J r=
::> -.J
::>
...J
KNOWN
z ...J
I-
z
a::
KNOWN z
cr

!;i
<t
0
8 0
0
I------ - - I---
r FLOW r I FLOW r
Fig. 3-Flnlte-dlfference scheme for annulus cell.
x
<l
The total pressure drop across Region 2, /lp2' is the difference be-
tween the pressures at the trailing and leading boundaries of the
two-phase region.
Global Calculation Procedure. A global calculation procedure was
developed to determine the pressure behavior at any point of the
annulus as a function of time. Fig. 4 shows that for a given time,
this procedure basically computes the pressure losses (as described
earlier) up to the point of interest and subtracts them from the BHP.
A timestep is taken, and the pressure calculations are repeated for
this new time. The calculations proceed until the gas kick is circu-
lated out from the wellbore. Thus, a pressure curve at the point
of interest is generated as a function of time. These points of in-
terest normally are the surface (choke) and the casing shoe.
The following stepwise procedure can be used to calculate the
choke pressure behavior.
1. Calculate the timestep size by dividing the cell length by the
gas velocity, v g 4, at the leading edge of the two-phase region. Find
the leading-edge position of the two-phase region. Determine the
current time by adding the timestep size to the previous time.
2. Determine the trailing-edge position ofthe two-phase region.
Multiply the drilling-fluid velocity in Region 3 by the timestep size
to fmd the trailing-edge advance in this timestep. Subtract this value
from the trailing-edge position for the old time to find its new po-
sition. With this position and mud velocity, calculate the pressure
drop across Region 3 with Eq. 3.
3. Find the pressure drop across Region 2 with the calculation
procedure just presented for that region.
4. Determine the mud velocity in Region I, which is equal to
the mixture velocity, vM4' at the leading edge of Region 2.
VM4 =vW4 +v
g
4(I-Y4)' .......................... (14)
Use Eq. 4 to find the pressure drop across Region 1.
800.-------------------.------------------.

.........., HORIZONTAL
__ VERTICAL (SAME VE ICAl DEPTH)
_ VERTICAL (SAME M SURED DEPIH)
Vi

w
rY
:J
V1
V1

rY
Q.
w
::<:
o
__
40 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 5-Choke pressure for typical horizontal well and two ver-
tical wells.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
------t>
MJD
CASING
SHOE
REGION 1
ATMOSPtRE

REGION 3
BOTTOM
HOLE
Fig. 4-Sltuatlon of flow regions at certain displacement time.
5. Find the choke pressure by subtracting the sum of the pres-
sure losses from the BHP.
At this point, two important aspects should be noted: (1) the length
of Region 2 increases as it moves toward the surface because the
leading edge moves faster than the trailing edge; consequently, the
number of cells also increases in that region; and (2) because the
trailing edge of the two-phase region does not coincide with a cell
boundary (see Fig. 4), the length of the deepest cell is shorter than
those of the others.
Simulation Results. This numerical procedure was used in a FOR-
TRAN computer program to simulate the pressure behavior inside
a horizontal well during gas-kick removal. The simulations have
been useful in determining the main differences between well-control
operations for horizontal and vertical wells and in studying the ef-
fects of drilling variables on pressure behavior.
Fig. 5 compares the choke pressures of a typical horizontal well
(its characteristics are listed in Table 1) with those of two vertical
wells. One vertical well has the same TVD as the horizontal well
(i.e., 3,246 ft) and a shut-in casing pressure (SICP) of 330 psi.
The other vertical well has the same total MD as the horizontal
one (i.e., 5,400 ft) and an SICP of 320 psi. The other well charac-
teristics are similar to those listed in Table 1.
Note that for horizontal wells, the shut-in drillpipe pressure
(SIDPP) is equal to the SICP, if the gas remains in the horizontal
section during the pressure readings. For the horizontal well situa-
tion, both shut-in pressures were 200 psi. For the two vertical wells,
the SICP's were 330 and 320 psi and the SIDPP's were both 200
psi. Note also in Fig. 5 that for the horizontal well, the choke pres-
sure remained almost constant at a value close to SICP for a period
longer than those for vertical wells.
Fig. 6 shows the pressure curves at the casing shoe (at 2,100
ft) for three wells. Note that the horizontal well yielded the lowest


0::
:J
V1
V1
w
0::

w
o
:r:
V1

Vi

<.J """"" HORIZONTAL
............ VERTICAL (SAME VERTICAL DEPTH)
VERTICAL (SAME MEASURED DEPIH)
40
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
80
Fig. 6-Caslng-shoe pressure for typical horizontal well and
two vertical wells.
113
TVD, ft
TABLE 1-TYPICAL HORIZONTAL WELL
FOR ANNULUS MODEL
Total MD, ft
Casing-shoe depth, ft
Horizontal-section length, ft
Buildup rate, degrees/100 ft
Wellbore diameter, in.
Drillstring 00, in.
Mud density, Ibm/gal
Flow behavior index
Consistency index, Ibf-sec
n
/ft2
Plastic viscosity, cp
Surface tension, dynes/cm
Gas density, Ibm/gal
Mud flow rate (for kick dispersion), gal/min
SIDPP,psi
SICP, psi
Pit gain, bbl
Initial gas fraction, %
Cell length, ft
3,246
5,400
2,100
1,500
5
8.5
5
9
0.9
0.0003
15
70
0.7
150
200
200
15.5
75
150
casing-shoe pressure. For the simulated conditions, it can be con-
cluded that for the underground fracturing at casing-shoe standpoint,
horizontal-well conditions are the least severe.
Figs. 7 through 12 show the effects of different drilling varia-
bles on the pressure behavior. Fig. 7 shows the effect of horizontal-
section length on the choke pressure. It compares a typical well,
which has a horizontal section of 1,500 ft, with a well with a 2, 700-ft
horizontal section. All other characteristics are identical on both
wells. The horizontal-section length has little effect on the choke-
pressure behavior.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of buildup rate on choke pressure. Two
wells, one with a buildup rate of Is
o
/100ft and casing shoe at 2,864
ft and another with a buildup rate of 30.5 /100 ft and casing shoe
at 3,054 ft, were compared with a typical well. According to the
simulations, buildup rate has little effect on the pressure behavior
inside the wellbore.
Fig. 9 shows the choke pressure behavior for a well with an an-
nulus cross-sectional area smaller than that of the typical well. The
wellbore diameter was 4.887 in. and the drillstring 00 was 2.875
in. As expected, the smaller geometry yielded a lower displace-
ment time and a higher choke pressure. Thus, washouts increase
displacement time and decrease choke pressure.
Fig. 10 shows the choke-pressure response to different displace-
ment flow rates. Higher flow rates increase the choke pressure and
decrease the displacement time. Both effects are moderate.
Fig. 11 shows the effect of the kick size on the choke pressure.
As expected, bigger kicks cause higher choke pressures. The kick
size showed a major effect on the choke-pressure magnitude.
600.---------,-------_.---------,--------,

Vi
CL

0::
::>
(f)

0::
CL
W
..
I
u
114
20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 8-Effect of buildup rate on choke pressure.


0::
::>
(f)
(f)
w
0::
CL
w
6200;. ..
I
u
'*""'" HOR. LENGTH = 1500 FT.
HOR LENGTH = 2700 FT

DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 7-Effect of horizontal-section length on choke pressure.
Another variable that affected choke-pressure behavior was the
mud density at the time of gas influx. Fig. 12 compares two wells
with different mud densities. For both wells, the formation pres-
sure was 1,900 psi. In one situation, the mud density was 10 Ibm/gal
and the pressure differential (formation -wellbore) was 380 psi.
In the other case, the mud density was 9 Ibm/gal and the pressure
differential was 210 psi. As can be seen, larger pressure differen-
tials at the time of the gas kick result in higher choke pressures.
Mathematical Model for the Drlll.tring
This section presents a simpler mathematical model for calculat-
ing the drillpipe-pressure schedule while kill mud is pumped to the
bit.
Fig. 13 is a schematic of the drillstring conditions for a certain
pumping time. It is useful in the derivation of a mathematical ex-
pression for the drillpipe pressure, Pdp' as a function of pumping
time.
Pdp =Pbh -Pbit - ghydro,aLvo +gfric,aLmo -ghydro,tLVk
+gfric,kLmk' .................................. (15)
where the subscripts 0 and k refer to the old and kill muds, respec-
tively. P bh is the BHP, which is constant and equal to the pressure
of the formation that generated the kick. Pbit is calculated with the
following expression 1 :
Pbit=(
PLq
2/IO,859A2) . ........................... (16)
C'
(f)
800,--------,,--------.--------,---------.
- WELL ORE OF 8.5 IN
......... WELL ORE OF 4.887 I

w
0::
::>
(f)
(f)

CL
w

o

20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 9-Effect of wellbore geometry on choke pressure.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
6oo.---------.--------.---------,--------,
,........, MUD FLOW RATE = 150 GPM
MUD FLOW RATE = 100 GPM

Vi


a:::
:::J
(!)


(L


o 40 80 120 160
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 10-Effect of mud flow rate on choke pressure.
The position of the interface between muds can easily be found
by mUltiplying the mud velocity inside the drillpipe by the pump-
ing time.
This method was also used in a computer program. Fig. 14 shows
the computer simulation results for the horizontal well described
in Table 2. The figure shows pumping pressure as a function of
pumping time (drillpipe-pressure schedule), and compares this
horizontal well with a vertical well with the same MD (6,300 ft).
It is easy to recognize that well-c;ontrol operations are harder to
implement on horizontal wells. For vertical wells, the calculations
are very simple because the drillpipe-pressure schedule is a straight
line. For horizontal wells, however, the drillpipe-pressure sched-
ule is a computer-generated curve because hand calculations are
lengthy and tedious. Note that the drillpipe curve for a horizontal
well has a minimum value before the kill mud reaches the drill bit.
Other Considerations
This section presents two important aspects of well control in
horizontal wells.
Kick Tolerance. Kick tolerance for a gas-kick containment after
the well closure is the difference between the maximum allowable
formation pressure (in terms of equivalent density) against which
the well could be closed without fracturing the weakest formation
and the mud density in use. The mathematical expression for the
kick tolerance for containment in a vertical well is

Vi
800.---------,--------.---------,--------,
""'*'" MUD DENSITY = 9 LB/GAL
..........., MUD DENSITY = 10 LB/GAL


w


(!)
w


w


u

20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 12-Effect of pressure differential on choke pressure.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
700
600

Vi
(L

w

400
(!)
w

(L 300
w

! 200
U
100
0
0 20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 11-Effect of kick size on choke pressure.
where Pfrac = fracture equivalent density. For a horizontal well, the
gas-kick vertical length is practically zero if the gas kick remains
in the horizontal section of the wellbore. Consequently, the sec-
ond term of the right side of Eq. 17 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
formation at the moment of the well closure.
Swabbing. Tripping out of the hole is more critical in horizontal
wells than in vertical wells because the pore or formation pressure
does not change over the length of the horizontal section. During
tripping out of the hole, however, the pressure drop caused by swab-
bing is a function of the measured length of the drillstring.
To demonstrate numerically the effect of swabbing on a horizontal
well, a steady-state approximation for the pressure drop caused by
the swabbing action was used.
where v
out
=drillpipe withdrawal velocity. This equation was used
for the conditions listed in Table 3. Table 4 and Fig. 15 show the
calculation results for the BHP as a function of horizontal section
length. Fig. 15 also shows the pore pressure at TVD. It can be seen
in Fig. 15 that for wells with horizontal-section lengths greater than
about 2,100 ft, the formation would produce when pulling of the
drillstring from the bottom of the hole begins.
KILL MUD
VERTICAL
LENGTH
INTERFACE
OLD MUD
...J
...J

VERTICAL LENGTH
KIL L MUD
MEASURED LENGTH
OLD MUD
MEASURED LENGTH
OLD MUD
Fig. 13-Schematlc of drlllstring model.
BIT
BHP
115
900

-
HORIZONTAL WELL
--... VERTICAL WELL
Vi 800

w
IX
700
C/)
w
IX
CL
<..? 600
z
0::
::;;
:::>
CL 500
400
o

/'-.. I


I
J
.".
i
i
I
!
I
:!
,
10 20
,
PUMPING TIME (MINUTES)
Fig. 14-Slmulatlon results for drlllstring model.
Conclusions
1. For horizontal wells, SIDPP and SICP are roughly equal. Fur-
thermore, it was found that the choke pressure in horizontal wells
remains constant and at a value close to SICP for a longer period
than it does in vertical wells during kick circulation. Also, the simu-
lations showed that pressures at casing shoe in horizontal wells are
lower than those in vertical wells.
2. The length of the horizontal section and the buildup rate have
minor effects on the pressure behavior inside horizontal wells. The
wellbore geometry and the mud flow rate have moderate effects,
and the kick size and the pressure differential have major effects.
3. Well-control operations are harder to implement for horizon-
tal wells because of the complicated shape of the drillpipe pressure
as a function of time. For vertical wells, this function is a straight
line.
4. Horizontal wells have a greater tolerance than vertical wells
to take a-kick without fracturing the weakest formation at the mo-
ment of well closure.
5. Tripping out of the hole is more critical in horizontal wells
than in vertical wells.
TVD,ft
TABLE 2-TYPICAL HORIZONTAL WELL
FOR DRILLSTRING MODEL
Total MD, ft
Horizontal-section length, ft
Buildup rate, degrees/100 ft
Drillstring ID, in.
Mud density, Ibm/gal
Flow behavior index
Consistency index, Ibf-sec
n
/ft2
Mud flow rate, gal/min
Area of bit nozzles, in.2
SIDPP, psi
TABLE 3-WELL CONDITIONS FOR
SWABBINGEFFECT STUDY
Drillstring OD, in.
Well bore diameter, in.
Withdrawal velocity, ftlsec
Plastic viscosity, cp
Yield point, Ibf/100 ft2
Vertical-section length, ft
Buildup-section length, ft
TVD,ft
Mud density, Ibm/gal
Formation equivalent density, Ibm/gal
116
3,146
6,300
2,500
5
3.826
10
0.9
0.0002
200
0.2784
300
5
8.5
2
40
3,200
1,800
4,346
9.0
8.35
1940-:r-----,-----y-----,------,

BonOMHO E

Vi 1900
-......-. PREc SURE
W ""'-
CS

g:
1840.}.-----+----+-----I-----I
1000 2000 3000 4000
HORIZONTAL SECTION LENGTH (FEET)
Fig. 15-Swabblng effect on BHP In a horizontal well.
Nomenclature
A = bit jet area, in.
2
[cm
2
]
d = diameter, in. [cm]
Ds = casing-shoe depth, ft [m]
D
Vt
= TVD, ft [m]
F w = weighting factor
g = pressure gradient, psi/ft [kPalm]
K = kick tolerance, lbm/gal [kg/m3]
Lbu = buildup length, ft [m]
Lds = drillstring length, ft [m]
Lm = measured length, ft [m]
Lv = vertical length, ft [m]
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
!:.p = pressure drop, psi [kPa]
q = mud flow rate, gal/min [m
3
/min]
r = radius of curvature, ft [m]
Rbu = buildup rate, degreesllOO ft [rad/m]
f = time, seconds
flf = timestep size, seconds
T = temperature, OF [0C]
v = velocity, ft/sec [m/s]
x = position, ft [m]
y = liquid holdup
Y = yield point, Ibf/l00 ft2
Z = compressibility factor, dimensionless
a = drift angle,
'Y g = gas specific gravity
po = plastic viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
p = density, lbm/gal [kg/m3]
Subscripts
bh = bottomhole
c = current
dp = drillpipe
TABLE 4-BHP REDUCTION OWING TO SWABBING
Horizontal
Section MD Ap BHP
(ft)

(psi) (psi)
0 5,000 104.1 1,929.8
1,000 6,000 124.9 1,909.0
2,000 7,000 145.7 1,888.2
3,000 8.000 166.6 1,867.3
4,000 9,000 187.4 1,846.5
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
g= gas
k= kill
kc = kiek
1= leading
L= liquid
M= mixture
0= old
p= pressure
w= wellbore
Acknowledgment
I thank Petr6leo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobnis for permission to pub-
lish this paper.
References
I. Craft, B.C., Holden, W.R., and Graves, E.D.: "Well Design: Drilling
and Production," Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1962).
2. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," JPT (May 1973) 607-17; Trans., AIME, 255.
3. Nickens, H.Y.: "A Dynamic Computer Model of a Kicking Well,"
SPEDE (June 1987) 159-73; Trans., AIME, 283.
4. Starrett, M.P., Hill, A.D., and Sepehmoori, K.: "A Shallow-Gas-Kick
Simulator Including Diverter Performance," SPEDE (March 1990)
79-85.
5. Santos, O.L.: "A Dynamic Model of Diverter Operations for Handling
Shallow Gas Hazard in Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling, " PhD disser-
tation, Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge (1989).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
cp x
dynes/em x
ft x
ft2 x
gal x
in. x
. 2
m. x
lbf x
Ibm/gal x
psi x
'Conversion factor is exact.
Author
Otto Lulz A. Sant08 Is head of
Petrobr8s Training Center's drilling see-
tlon In Brazil. He holds a BS degree In
civil engineering from Bahia Federal U.,
and an MS degree from the Colorado
School of Mines and a PhD degree from
Louisiana State U., both In petroleum en-
gineering.
1.0* E-03 Pa's
1.0* E+OO mN/m
3.048* E-Ol m
9.290 304* E-02 m
2
3.785412 E-03 m
3
2.54* E+OO em
6.4516* E+OO em
2
4.448222 E+OO N
1.198264 E+02 kg/m3
6.894757 E+OO kPa
SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. t4, 1990. Paper accepted for publica
tion AprilS, 1991. Revised manuscript received March 25,1991. Paper (SPE 21105) first
presented at the 1990 SPE Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference held In Rio
de Janeiro, Oct. 14-19.
117