REALISTIC WELL PLANNING WITH

DYNAMIC WELL CONTROL MODELING

B.-T. Anfinsen, G. Weisz, SPT Group
This paper was presented at the 10th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25, 2011.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2011 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2011 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT
Well control planning is a necessary requirement in any well design. Recent years
increased emphasis on drilling wells in deepwater or HPHT conditions require a more
detailed planning with regards to kick tolerance, pressure loads and surface
flowrates. The consequences and risks associated with drilling operations have
recently been emphasized by severe well control incidents around the world.
The narrow margins associated with these well types require more accuracy in the
calculations than have previously been achieved with more basic models. Advanced
dynamic multiphase models will give a more realistic picture of the pressure
development during a well control event by accounting for the dissolution of the influx
in oil based drilling fluids or dispersion and migration of the influx in water based
drilling fluids.

INTRODUCTION
Twenty-five years ago a typical well was of moderate depth, it was vertical or slightly
deviated and it was drilled in shallow to moderate water depth. Large discoveries
were made that are now produced or in some cases subject to tail production.
The demand for new reserves has pushed the oil industry to drill more and more
extreme prospects. Deep water; high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) and
extended reach wells have become the new standard and the limits for what is
possible is gradually pushed in direction of more and more extreme wells. The
complexity of these wells is rapidly increasing and so is the risk and cost.
There are many challenges associated with drilling this kind of wells. Narrow
operational margins caused by highly over pressurized zones are typical. Heavy
drilling fluids, new drilling methods or optimized procedures are required to avoid
threatening the well integrity. New requirements for materials, tubulars and also
drilling rigs have been established.
The well planning process has not been changed or improved as much as the drilling
operation itself. Steady state models are still dominating the industry even if dynamic
1

models have been used with success in several high profile wells. [Ref. 1-8]. In
particular when modeling hydraulics or well control related issues wellbore
dynamics plays an important role.
The recent offshore blow-outs (Montara and Macondo) and severe well control
incidents around the world have resulted in new requirements (i.e. relief well and
dynamic kill options) from the authorities looking after the industry. [Ref. 9 -11]. The
fact that the Macondo incident had a severe impact on the financial strength of a
major like BP also highlighted the risks associated with drilling of advanced wells.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DYNAMIC MODELING

The flow process during drilling is highly dynamic. The wellbore interacts with the
formation and reservoir and as part of the drilling operation it is affected by a number
of changes in inlet parameters some can also change rapidly. The fluids that are
circulated are exposed to a battle between heating and cooling in different parts of
the well leading in many cases to thermal expansion issues. As fluid are circulated
from surface to bit it will also be compressed. A large number of physical processes
are taking place simultaneously. Sometimes a relatively small change in one of the
processes may have a very significant impact on other processes. The picture is
complex and it is therefore often difficult to use intuition to describe the expected
impact of a change in operational parameters. This is why accurate and realistic
software models are so valuable.
Temperature
Temperature is one of the main drivers for dynamic effects. In Figure 1 a typical
temperature profile during circulation is given. Stopping circulation will result in a
situation where the temperature is gradually moving towards the geothermal profile
due to convection and heat transfer. Even if the wellbore pressure is maintained
above the reservoir pressure, this may lead to a pit gain at surface due to thermal
expansion of the liquid in the well. The net effect is difficult to predict because the
mud will be heated in parts of the well and cooled off in others. If this well is closed in
the well fluid will be unable to expand and the heating of the mud will then lead to a
pressure increase. This is an effect that in most cases are neglected when evaluating
the well design with respect to kick tolerance.
Influx from the reservoir
Influx from the reservoir is another process that cannot be properly modeled without
using a dynamic model. When an influx of gas, oil or condensate enters the wellbore
it will either dissolve in an oilbased fluid or remain as a separate phase in case of
waterbased fluid. The pressures and processes in the wellbore will depend on the
fluid system. Figure 2 show choke pressures required to keep bottomhole pressure
constant for three different scenarios for a kick in high pressure high temperature
2

well. The hole size is 8 the well is quite simple with a fairly constant flow area.
The first case is showing a methane kick in waterbased mud. The gas will remain as
free gas and start to expand immediately, creating a loss of hydrostatic head. Choke
pressure must be increased to compensate for the expansion. The other cases show
methane and black oil influx in an oilbased system. The influx remains dissolved for a
long period and choke pressure should be held constant. As free gas appears in the
system it will start to expand and the choke pressure must be increased to keep
bottomhole pressure constant. In order to model a realistic kick tolerance, to calculate
the flow at surface and also the maximum pressure loads in the system, a dynamic
model is required.
Relief well planning
Well control contingency planning is becoming a standard requirement for almost all
wells. It is possible to determine the maximum blow-out rate [Ref. 9]. by use of steady
state models, but it will not be possible to plan the dynamic kill operation. In order to
find out how long the surface flow will last and the maximum potential oil spill a
dynamic model of the system is required.
In Figure 3 and Figure 4 influx from reservoir and accumulated gas volume out of the
well is presented for different dynamic kill options in a potential blowout in an offshore
well. The well depth is around 3900 m MD (2400 m TVD), the hole size is 8 . The
casing shoe is set at 2780 m MD and the well is killed through a relief well
penetrating the well close to the casing shoe. The well is drilled with a 1.1 sg
waterbased mud. A 1.17 sg kill mud weight is used in the example.
In Figure 3 it is shown that the well can be killed both with the original mud and the
kill mud. The influx is killed much faster with kill mud. A smaller volume of kill mud is
required to stop the influx compared to a kill with the ordinary mud.
The example above is short and is just intended to give an impression of what can
easily be obtained with a modern planning tool. There are a lot of other issues that
should be included in a proper discussion of a scenario like this. The most important
thing is that there are modern tools available for doing dynamic kill and blowout
contingency planning. With such tools the drilling organization can include this in the
ordinary well planning and gain much more knowledge about the well operation with
a limited extra effort. Other papers and presentations give a more in-depth analysis of
such tools. [Ref 7-8].

WORKFLOW
More advanced well planning will at some point normally require an additional effort.
The tools can be used in all parts of the operation from planning to training and
operational decision support. It is possible to create an efficient project workflow

where the additional resources required is minimal and neglectable when all the
benefits of a dynamic model are considered.
It is important to understand that the base level established during the planning
process forms a unique basis for personnel training, hazops and drilling well on
paper sessions.
In the operational phase the models can be updated with actual field data and can be
used both to forecast the operational parameters and also for operational decision
support if something is deviating from the expected trend during drilling.

Figure 1. Temperature variation in a deep water well. The dotted line indicates the
geothermal temperature gradient. The red and green lines indicate the temperature
profile in the annulus and drillstring during circulation.

Figure 2. The difference in choke pressure profile for circulation of different kick
cases with oil and waterbased mud and with different solubility. Bottomhole pressure
is maintained constant in all cases.

Figure 3. Influx from reservoir for different dynamic kill options

Figure 4. Accumulated gas volume out for different dynamic kill options

CONCLUSIONS
The recent severe well control incidents in the industry and the fact that drilling
operations become more and more challenging, require a stronger focus on improved
planning also including dynamic modeling.
Authorities will also require more documentation and planning work done before a
drilling operation can start.
Several examples of important processes in the well that require dynamic modeling
have been given.
Modern software tools are available that integrates the dynamic modeling in an
efficient workflow and reduces the additional effort required for dynamic modeling.

REFERENCES
1.

C.Baranthol, J.Alfenore et al. Determination of Hydrostatic Pressure and Dynamic ECD by

Computer Models and Field Measurements on the Directional HPHT Well 22/30c-13.
SPE/IADC 029430. 1994

2.

B.T.Anfinsen, K.S.Bjrkevoll. Predicting Mud ECD in HPHT Wells. Offshore Drilling

Technology. Aberdeen. 1995

3.

D. Bradford, F.Growcock et al. Amoco Deep Water Drilling Team and Baker Huges INTEQ
Improve Performance of Synthetic.Based Muds. Volume 4, Issue 11, Number 83, pp. 14-16,
The Brief, Murphy Publishing Company, November, 1998

4.

K.S.Bjrkevoll, B.T.Anfinsen et al. Analysis of Extended Reach Drilling Data Using an

Advanced Pressure and Temperature Model. IADC/SPE 62728, 2000

5.

R. Rommetveit, K. K. Fjelde and B. Aas; RF-Rogaland Research, Norman F. Day; BP

Exploration), Eric Low; Think-Well Ltd. and David. H. Schwartz Well Control & System Design
(now Petec Houston Inc.). HPHT Well Control; An Integrated Approach. OTC 15322. 2003

6.

B.-T. Anfinsen, I. Mosti, A. Scott and A. S. Flateb, SPT Group. The Importance of Advanced
Dynamic ECD and Well Control Models in Deepwater Drilling. DOT. Perth 2008.

7.

Agnes Scott, Lei Zhou, SPT Group, A. Viana, ElPaso. Environmentally sensitive area needs
well prepared contingency planning. IADC Deepwater Drilling Conference, Rio de Janeiro,
March 2010

8.

Fred Ng, Wild Well Control. Introduction to relief well planning, dynamic kill design. Drilling
Contractor, Nov/Dec 2010

9.

BOEMRE. NTL No. 2010-N06.

2010NTLs/10-n06.pdf. 2010

10.

SPE WCD Guidelines Committee. Guidance for Complying with BOEM NTL No. 2010-N06 on
Worst Case Discharge for Offshore Wells September 2010

11.

Fred Ng, Wild Well Control. Options for responding to NTL-6 requirements. July 2010

http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/