Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 24578

Dynamic Two-Phase Flow Simulator: A Powerful Tool for Blowout

and Relief Well Kill Analysis
O.B. Rygg and Pal Smestad, Well Flow Dynamics A.S, and J.W. Wright, John Wright CO.
SPE Members
Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

A new adaptation of a proven flow simulator is aiding

blowout contingency planning. Most important wells
require a blowout contingency plan. Part of that plan
includes relief well intervention. Tbe flow simulator
distinguisbes between workable and difficult
intervention scbemes. It suggests any needed
modifications in original well design. And it makes
crisis management quicker, cbeaper, and more
effective. Tbis paper describes the power of using this
simulator for both surface and relief well bydraulic kill
planning.
INTRODUCTION

Planning kill strategy for a 1989 underground

blowout in the North Sea required development of an
improved flow simulator. The bydraulic kill simulator
was based on the industry-standard, two-pbase pipe
flow model, OLGA. After the project, the planning
team realized that they gained considerable advantage
from using a transient two-pbase flow simulator for
comparing various kill scenarios. Since then, OLGAWELL-KILL simulator bas been used successfully for
a number of intervention design plans.
In the event of a major blowout, the speed at wbich
rescue and intervention eqUipment and personnel are
mobilized is critical for the preservation of life,
property, and the environment. The first priorities of
these emergency operations are personnel evacuations,
oil spill containment, and salvage of the reservoir,
platform, and well.
To respond quickly and efficiently to these
emergencies, operators bave devised and supported
emergency response plans with the necessary
311

resources and infrastructure to react immediately if

required. Unfortunately, the only way to test the true
effectiveness of a response strategy is during an actual
emergency. Only after the events can one evaluate
results and make modifications.
It is this reasoning, in the aftermath of recent major
blowouts in the North Sea, that operators and
regulatory authorities are re-evaluating the status of
emergency response plans under tbeir jurisdiction.
Tbeir purpose is to assure that lessons learned from
these events are documented and that all operators
incorporate appropriate improvements into their
emergency procedures.
One component of this post evaluation process
indicated that additional preparation for regaining
control of a blowing well is justified. Even thougb the
probability of a blowout is small, the consequences in
safety, cost, and pollution could be catastropbic. For
these reasons, "solving the problem" contingency plans
are being added to the existing emergency response
plans. Tbis effort will eventually include surface,
subsea, and relief well intervention.
A primary objective of this contingency planning
process is to evaluate the current level of tecbnology
and operational expertise available for a blowout
intervention operation. Sbortfalls can then be identified
and appropriate action taken to reduce the deficiencies.
One problem identified early in this evaluation was the
difficulty in analyzing beavy mud bydraulic kills, in a
two-pbase blowout flow regime, with existing steadystate flow models.
Tbese models cannot easily evaluate the time
transients of the kill process or deal with complicated
multipbase flow regimes, flow paths and interaction
with the reservoir. Example deficiencies include the

DYNAMIC TWO-PHASE FLOW SIMULATOR, A POWERFUL TOOL FOR BLOWOUT

AND RELIEF WEll Kill ANALYSIS

inability to determine the rate at which mud will Utube from a relief well upon intersection with the
blowout, the rate at which bottom hole pressure will
build up, or the kill volume required. Steady-state
models cannot tell whether gas will migrate during the
pumping operation, how long peak HHP loads will be
required, or how changing temperatures will effect
overall design.
The ability to analyze hydraulic kill scenarios
quickly and find their effect on the rest of the
intervention operation is critical to project success. A
specialized need was therefore identified for a
multiphase, time-transient, flow simulator designed for
easy blowout kill analysis. This need was the driver
that motivated the continued modification of the
pipeline code for well flow and kill simulations.
THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING OBJECTIVE

The successful planning and execution of a

complicated blowout intervention operation requires
the careful coordination of several specialized technical
disciplines. The development of a strategy is an
iterative process. It requires evaluating several
alternatives, analyzing risks, and making tradeoffs,
before reaching agreement between the operator,
partners, and regulatory authorities. These decisions
carry substantial safety, environmental, and economic
implications. The person or company responsible for
the intervention will perform with confidence if proper
remedial contingency is performed beforehand 1.
All blowouts and subsequent intervention
techniques are inherently different. This makes it
impractical to cover all possibilities in specific
planning and execution procedures. However, a
structured guideline, with examples, is essential to
avoid overlooking critical steps in the development of
the final well control strategy, where many decisions
are made under stressful conditions.
The basic considerations include:

Organizing a blowout intervention task force and

project management structure.

Identifying critical equipment, personnel,

contractors, and suppliers.

Defining the blowout data acquisition

requirements to describe the situation accurately.

Evaluating blowout intervention options (surface

methods and relief wells) and managing risks.

312

SPE 24578

Developing a general relief well and surface

intervention strategy.

Developing specific relief well and surface

intervention strategies for hypothetical blowouts
on critical structures and exploration wells.

Evaluating circumstances that might make the

intervention project unusually difficult based on
current technology and experience.

Structuring for safety, documentation, and

technical audit procedures.

RELIEF WELL PLANNING REVIEW

This paper illustrates the development of a single

component of a relief well plan. The following review
shows how the flow simulator fits into that plan. The
frrst step in this process is to define the problem or
"blowout scenario" accurately before expensive
solutions are planned. It is important to remember that
the blowout scenario controls the majority of the
planning process. If the scenario is misinterpreted, the
blowout intervention plan may prove inadequate and
dangerous. Figure 1, illustrates a basic summary of the
parallel and iterative steps involved in developing a
relief well strategy. The first decision point is to
evaluate the hydraulic kill point, placing the depth,
proximity, orientation, and position tolerance of the
relief well intersection with the blowout wellbore. This
most critical step influences the entire relief well
planning process and requires an iterative analysis of
all data as a system.
Once a point is chosen, two parallel planning paths
must be evaluated. One side considers a drilling design
to place the relief well at the chosen point considering
all constraints. The other is to design the kill hydraulics
and associated pumping and special equipment to carry
out the kill operation at the point chosen. If both sides
cannot achieve their goal with a reasonable degree of
confidence, then the kill point must be re-evaluated.
The new flow simulator evaluates the kill hydraulic
portion of the overall relief well design.
FLOW SIMULATOR DESCRIPTION

The well kill simulator, OLGA-WELL-KILL, stems

from the dynamic two-phase pipe flow simulator
OLGA2. Development started in 1980 at Institutt for
Energiteknikk (IFE) as a project for Statoil, mainly
aimed at simulation of terrain-induced slugging in
pipelines. From 1983, the development was carried out
under the joint IFElSINTEF Two-Phase Flow Project
with support from a group of oil companies.

SPE24578

OLE

B.

RVGG,

PAL SMESTAD,

Emphasis was placed on verification of the model

against data from different experimental facilities
including the results from the 8-in. diameter, 1000 ~
and 90 bar experimental flow loop at SINTEF. Several
new applications were added, such as gathering
pipeline networks, compressors, heat exchangers,
separators, chokes, reservoir inflow, leaks and
plugging. The model has been used extensively and
applied, to a variety of situations such as pipeline
design simulations, pipeline shut-in, start up, and
rupture studies.
During the kill planning for the Saga Petroleum
underground blowout (well 2/4-14 in 1989)3-4, it
was discovered that no suitable tool exists for dynamic
estimation of kill fluid volumes and times when a
number of kill points and options are to be evaluated.
The more common approach of using conventional
(steady state)5 tubing hydraulics programs is time
consuming and can be inaccurate, due to the need for a
manual step-wise approach. Applying the dynamic
two-phase model OLGA to the problem improved
modeling capabilities, accuracy, and tum-around time.
The team could then compare different kill options, for
both direct kill and relief well intervention.
A Saga Petroleum research program has generated a
new simulator, OLGA-WELL-KILL, specially adapted
to well flow kill applications. This stimulator has been
used on actual blowouts and for contingency planning.
Comment from this work helped tailor features of the
code toward the answers needed by the end users
without compromising on the complexity or accurac;
of the flow modeling process itself. The model
program now runs on portable computers.
During a blowout kill, up to six fluids can be
present simultaneously in a well, reservoir oil, gas and
water, kill water, intermediate and final kill mud.
Simulations handle this by first simulating the
dynamics of a liquid/gas biphasic flow regime, then
comparing this to a simulation using averaged
properties in a light phase. The kill phase is then
introduced, and a dynamic two-phase simulation
performed until a steady state condition is reached.
Afterwards, the next phase can be introduced, and the
simulations can be restarted at any time step.
Modeling is accomplisht!d using a number of
controllers set to contain the simulation within the
physical constraint of the real blowout.
The controllers can, for example, be set on these
parameters:

Pump rate

Pump horsepower

Formation collapse pressure

Casing burst pressure

JOHN WRIGHT

Surface injection pressure

Bottom hole pressure (MinIMax)

The simulation modeling includes:

Pump performance
Non-Newtonian fluid flow (for mud)
Auid temperature and pressure response
Inflow modeling (multiple if needed)
Leaks (multiple if needed)
Back pressure(outflow conditions)
Several reservoir inflow models
Variable reservoir pressure
Path chokes (critical and sub-critical)

In practical use, the modeling is usually taken

through a number of steps, starting with a PVT fluid
characterization of the reservoir fluids. The blowout is
then modeled to match all available data (Fig. 2). This
can, for certain blowouts, provide a valuable exercise
in itself. It eliminates uncertainties. It is always much
easier to solve the actual problem at hand than to
approach a well kill by trial and error.
The next step is to set up a constant rate kill
simulation to work out the range for the simulation of
the actual dynamic kill. This is also useful in
evaluating allowance for losses between wells (for
relief well kills) as well as for the kill fluid density, and
for velocity and pressures at critical points in the
blowout path. The fully dynamic simulations can then
incorporate all the actual constraints in the kill, such as
casing pressure ratings, fracture pressures, inflow
performance and reservoir pressure (dynamically
versus time, if necessary), pumping plant, and mud
properties (Fig. 3).
The simulation yields an actual pump schedule vs.
time (with rates and pressures at any chosen point in
the flow path). If needed, a number of sensitivities can
be developed to evaluate kill effectiveness during the
actual pumping. This later step can often prove useful
when there are unknowns in the kill (such as
communication between relief well and blowout well,
actual blowout flow path, or reservoir performance).
CASE HISTORY EXAMPLES
These examples are based on real contingency plans for
hypothetical blowouts. Simulations use actual well
data.

313

DYNAMIC TWO-PHASE FLOW SIMULATOR, A POWERFUL TOOL I'OR BLOWOUT

AND RELIEF WELL KILL ANALYSIS

Scenario 1. A hypothetical relief well intervention

was designed assuming a blowout to the surface of a
shallow gas well. In this case, 13 3/8-in. casing has
been set at 1300 m TVD with 12 1I4-in. open hole
drilled through the reservoir to 1450 m TVD. The
drillpipe is sheared and dropped and the blowout flow
path is up the annulus to the rig-floor. .
The kill point illustrated here assumes achieving
communication by direct intersection with the wellbore
just below the 13 3/8in. casing shoe. This point is 140
m TVD above the top of the blowing zone. The
reservoir is normally pressured with a gradient of 1.08
sg EMW, the permeability is 400 md with a net
thickness of 30 m. The temperature is 54 C, the fluid
is dry gas and the fracture gradient is 2.46 psi/m
(Fig 4).
After performing a PVT analysis on the blowing
gas, a non-linear inflow performance (lPR) curve for
the reservoir was developed. This relation is important
in an open flow gas blowout due to the potentially low
flowing bottom hole pressure. A linear PI will produce
an unrealistically high blowout flow rate and
unnecessarily increase the kill hydraulic requirements
(Fig. 5).
On the basis of on this IPR curve and the blowout
flow path a steady state flow rate was calculated at 41
MMscf/d of gas with no condensate. The flowing
bottom hole pressure was 500 psi (static 2050 psi).
The possibility of massive sand production and
bridging or hole collapse are strong possibilities under
these conditions. For this exercise, flow remains
constant. Two kill fluids were evaluated, 1.14 sg waterbased mud, and seawater. The constant injection of kill
fluid into the well at the chosen kill point produced the
following results for mud then water:
Pump rate (bpm)
Kill time (m)

40

50

60

80

none

32

14

1600

840

560

Volume (bbl)
Pump rate (bpm)

100

110

120

130

Kill time (m)

none

14

1540

960

780

Volume (bbl)

These values give the minimum rates to control the

well dynamically, assuming no losses to the formation.
The kill time and volumes indicated are times at which
the influx stops. Additional time and volumes will be
required to flush gas from the well. The seawater kill
must be followed by mud with sufficient density to
control the static reservoir pressure.

SPE 24578

The next iteration of the hydraulic planning process

is to design a relief well to intersect at the chosen kill
point Fig. 4 shows basic design.
The constant injection results provide the starting
data required for the controlled rate injection, where the
full dynamic kill is simulated with the relief well
attached. For this paper, only the mud kill will be
discussed. The controller limits for this simulation were
set at 7500 psi injection pressure, 2500 psi bottom hole
pressure, and a starting pump rate of 50 bpm. The
simulator adjust the injection rate to stay within these
limits after intersection. Figure 6 gives a double "y"
plot of flow rate and cumulative kill mud volume
versus time.
Observe that immediately upon
intersection with the blowout wellbore, mud U-tubes
from the relief well at rates approaching 280 bpm.
This is due to the extreme pressure differential between
the relief well and the flowing blowout wellbore and
the large diameter flow path. If the injection rate at the
surface could keep up with this suction rate at the
intersection, the well would be killed in just over 10
minutes with a cumulative mud volume of just over
1000bbl.
Since injection rates this high are not practical, this
information is valuable in evaluating the risks
associated with this kill alternative. For example, if a
mechanical problem prevented immediate kill mud
injection, the relief well could reach a blowout
situation in about 7 minutes.
Figure 7 shows a double "y" plot of flow rate and
cumulative kill mud volume versus time with a
maximum injection rate of 50 bpm at the surface. In
this case, the difference between the surface injection
of 50 bpm and the bottom hole suction is replaced by
air. This scenario yields a kill time of ",50 minutes and
a cumulative volume of '" 1800 bbl. The hump in the
flow rate curve at 40 minutes is caused by the air
circulating around the blowing well.
Figure 8 shows a double "y" plot of gas outflow and
kill mud outflow versus time. The kill fluid outflow,
between 5 and 10 minutes, corresponds to the kill
pumping volume. However, the outflow indicated
between 25 and 60 minutes occurs after the pumps
have stopped. Further evaluation of the two-phase
fluid distribution in the blowout well bore indicated that
the kill mud was falling to the low side of the 600
inclination hole while pushing the gas to the high side
and trapping a gas bubble below the intersection point.
This bubble migrated to the surface after the pumps
were stopped and ejected a substantial volume of mud
from the blowout well.
If this reduced mud column had been insufficient to
hold the reservoir pressure, the well would have started
flowing again. This simulation demonstrates the need
314

SPE24578

OLE

B.

RVGG, PAL SMESTAD, JOHN WRIGHT

to continue circulating at a low rate for several blowout

hole volumes after the well is statically dead.

kill in 64 minutes using 2240 bbl of mud. A 40 bpm

rate reduced the kill time to 27 minutes and a
corresponding 1080 bbl of mud. A 35 bpm injection
rate at the bit would kill the well in 34 minutes using
1190 bbl of mud. Initial injection rates of 40 bpm for
the shoe intersection and 35 bpm for the bit intersection
were chosen for the full transient simulations with the
relief well attached.
Figures 10-12 illustrate double "y" plots of mud
injection rate and cumulative mud volume, pump
power and injection pressure, and bottom hole pressure
and pressure at the shoe respectively, for the casing
shoe kill scenario. Figure 12 shows that fracture
pressure at the shoe is exceeded slightly just as the gas
below the kill point is bullheaded back into the
formation. Figure 13 illustrates the bottomhole
pressure and casing shoe pressure for the bit kill
scenario. This plot shows pressure remains below
fracture gradient for this intersection point.
These simulations further substantiate the difficulty
in planning a kill for a deep, pressured blowout. Deep
intersection can handle kill hydraulics, but risks
intersection failure. Casing shoe intersection is easier,
but pumping will fracture the rock. Further
investigation would be required on the rate and
linearity of the loss to determine if the hydraulics at
this kill point are too risky to attempt.

Scenario 2. In this example a hypothetical relief well

intervention was designed for a deep high pressure,
high temperature exploration well. In this case, 9 5/8in. casing has been set vertical at 4600 m, with a leakoff test of 2.20 sg. The 8 112-in. hole intersected the top
of a hydrocarbon pressure compartment at 4900 m
TVD, 100 m higher than predicted, and is penetrated
by 2 m. The 5-in. drillpipe is sheared and dropped to
the bottom. The flow path is up the annulus, with no
restrictions, to the seabed.
Two kill points were evaluated, one at the 9 5/8 in.
shoe, 280 m above the reservoir, and another at the at
the reservoir top. Both kill points assume direct
communication through open hole. The position
tolerance required at intersection is +1- 1m. Data on
the sandstone reservoir is estimated as:
PI (estimate)
Depth
Permeability
Pressure (TD)
BHT
Fluid
GCR

30 Sm3/daylbar
4900mTVD
lOmd
1030 Bar (2.14 sg)
180C
Gas/cond.
500Sm3/Sm3

The 9 5/8-in. intersection can be drilled much

quicker and with a higher probability of achieving the
+1- 1m placement criteria. However, there is risk the
kill operation may exceed the fracture pressure at this
depth. The deeper kill point has hydraulic and fracture
strength advantages. However, the high bottom hole
temperatures and depth will cause serious directional
drilling control problems thus increasing the risk that
the well might miss +1- 1m intersection. The simulator
was used to determine if the off-bottom kill has
acceptable risk with respect to the kill hydraulics
(Fig 9).
Based on the assumed inflow performance of the
reservoir, the hydrocarbon composition, and the flow
path, the following blowout rates were computed:
Bottom Hole Pressure
Gas Rate
Condensate Rate

Scenario 3. In this example a hypothetical relief well

intervention was designed for a normally pressured gas
condensate blowout during completion. In this case,
7-in. production casing has been set through four
producing reservoirs, each with different hydrocarbon
compositions, temperatures, and IPR curves. A single
3 1I2-in. completion string is used. Each zone has been
perforated and isolated from others by three
production packers. Fluids from each zone commingle
in the production tubing. The blowout is assumed after
perforating the last zone. All zones are flowing to the
surface with only the wireline in the casing (Fig. 14).
This scenerio evaluates kill points at the top of the
lower set of perforations in zone 4 at 2200 m, and at
the top of the first set of perforation in zone 1 at
1600 m. The extreme temperature gradient of this
well, 1.8 C/30 m, will make an intersection at 2200 m
complicated due to directional drilling limitations at
160C. Therefore an intersection at 1600 m is
attractive if the well can be controlled at this depth
without exceeding the fracture gradient.
The
hydraulics at this depth are complicated by the multiple
flowing zones with different characteristics and
pressures. The simulator, however, can handle these
multiple zones easily (Fig. 15).
Based on reservoir and fluid properties,
characteristics the blowout rates for each zone are:

750 bar
2MMSm 3/d
4000 Sm3/d

Two different kill fluids were evaluated, 2.2 sg

water-based mud and seawater. The minimum flow
rate for a seawater kill was 100 bpm at the shoe and 90
bpm at TD. Both of these rates would require
unrealistically large pumping plants and were not
considered further.
The constant injection iteration at the shoe kill point
required a minimum flow rate of 35 bpm to a achieve a
315

DYNAMIC TWO-PHASE FLOW SIMULATOR, A POWERFUL TOOL F,OR BLOWOUT

AND RELIEF WELL KILL ANALYSIS

Zone

Reservoir
P [psi]

Flowing
P [psi]

Gas Rate
MMscf/d

1
2
3
4

2300
2700
3000
3300

2100
2300
2350
2400

20
60
40
80
200

Total

SPE 24578

The simulator evaluated some of these risks.

Various flow paths from the reservoir to the surface
were simulated and compared to the measured flow at
the surface. It was originally suspected the flow path
was behind the casing from the reservoir. Simulation
results, however, indicated that the gas was more likely
flowing up the 2 3/8-in. tubing from the reservoir,
around the wash pipe and up the 5 112 by 2 7/8-in.
annulus to the surface. This simulation most closely
matched flow measured at surface. A pump test was
also simulated by injecting fresh water down the work
string at 3.5 bpm, mixing with the gas and saltwater
flow in the wash pipe. This was compared with the
assumed flow path and the changing outflow
conditions. These results also supported the modelpredicted flow path (Fig. 16). Confident of the flow
path, a dynamic kill simulation was made using the 18
ppg mud pumped down the work string at 3 bpm.
These simulations indicated the wash pipe would
create sufficient friction pressure during pumping to
bullhead the gas and water back to the reservoir from
4400 ft to 10,900 ft. The inflow would be stopped in
25 minutes, with 175 minutes required to flush all the
gas and water from the well. The injection rate was
reduced from 3 bpm to 1 bpm after 60 minutes. These
simulations were performed assuming a hole in the
casing at 1600 ft with a back pressure of 695 psi.

Two kill fluids were evaluated, 9.5 ppg water-based

mud, and seawater, for both intersection points. The
steady injection rate iteration indicated that a minimum
of 35 and 45 bpm of mud and 40 and 50 bpm of
seawater would be required to kill the well at zone 4
and zone 1 respectively. Two relief wells were planned
based on the intersection points. Full dynamic
simulations were based on these initial injection rates
with the relief well attached. Table 1 summarizes
results.
The well can be controlled from an intersection in
zone 1 without exceeding the fracture gradient and
without excess pumping requirements.
Scenario 4. This example is based on a gas and water
blowout during a workover with a snubbing unit.
While fishing 2 3/8-in. tubing, a hole developed in the
production casing which caused failures in the 9 5/8in. and the 13 3/8-in. casing.
It burst just below the wellhead. The well was soon
brought under partial control with the flow manifolded
to allow pressure to bleed off the annuli and to separate
the gas and water.
The mechanical situation downhole was
complicated, with considerable uncertainty about the
flow path from the reservoir to the surface. At the time
the problem occurred, the tubing had been removed to
4500 ft, just above a nipple. It was assumed this nipple
was obstructing the tubing ID and a 270 ft, 4 112-in.
OD wash-pipe assembly with an outside cutter had
consequently been run in the hole, swallowing the
tubing. There was no pressure seal between the tubing
and wash pipe but the tolerances between the 5 1I2-in.
production casing and the 4.5-in. OD of the wash pipe
provided a tight restriction for flow. Noise logs run
through the work string indicated there were holes in
the casing at 4500 and 1600 ft MD. This allowed a leak:
into a 4 Darcy permeability water sand if shut in at the
surface. A proposal was made to pump 18 ppg mud
down the work string at a maximum rate in an attempt
to stop the flow. However, due to the unknown flow
path and known holes in the casing, there was some
risk that the mud flow might increase the hole size in
the casing and cause the blowout to broach to the
surface.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A new computer program can simulate multiphase
flow in a blowout and a relief well. The simulator
comes from proven pipeline flow models. We have
used the simulator to design kills for real blowouts.
More importantly, we believe the simulator provides a
valuable tool for contingency planning. Results are
both quicker and more accurate than previous methods.
The OLGA-WELL-KILL simulator can find a
workable relief-well strategy before drilling begins.
And it can point out design changes to make contingent
operations safer or cheaper.
The simulator adapts existing pipeline technology
(developed with substantial funding) to hydraulic kill
applications. The core code, which acts as the
simulator engine, was extensively tested over the last
10 years and remains unchanged. Modifications allow
quick analysis of transient multiphase, flow regimes
under a variety of complicated blowout and kill
scenarios. Analysis can be made by pumping either
from a relief well or directly into the blowout.
Experience and research have shown that the
hydraulic kill design is a major driver in the overall
intervention project, particularly in the case of relief
well control. This capability to simulate blowout flow,
temperature, kill fluid weights and volumes, hydraulic

316

SPE 24578

OLE

B.

RVGG, PAL SMESTAD, JOHN WRIGHT

horsepower, pressures and other related parameters all

with respect to time and at any point in the well, has
not been available to the industry before.
The four examples here illustrate some capabilities.
Other applications include:

rte

Kill with different mud densities in the well

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial losses during kill

Multiple blowout paths, cross flows and leaks

Multiple relief wells pumping at different rates

Simultaneous bull heading and dynamic kill

PVT
sg
tvd

=
=
=
=

pressure, volume, temperature

rotary table elevation
specific gravity, water = 1, air = 1
true vertical depth

The authors would like to thank the Institutt for

Energiteknikk (IFE) for their cooperation and support
in making this simulator available for industry use, and
also Saga Petroleum a.s. who funded the original
R&D for the code modifications.

Underground blowouts from a drilling rig

Off bottom or momentum kills

REFERENCES

Shallow gas blowouts

Rates required to circulate out a kick in bigh-

1. Wright, J.W.: "Blowout Intervention Preparedness

Through Relief Well Contingency Planning," Presented
at the IADC European Well Control Conference, June
11-13, 1991, Stavanger, Norway.

angle or horizontal wells

2.

Alternating gas and water injection

S.: "The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory

Sensitivity analysis by varying parameters

and Application," SPE Production Engineering, May

1991.

Horizontal well flow analysis

Slugging in long reach production wells

Bendiksen, K., Malnes, D., Moe, R. and Nuland,

Soft intangibles are a hard sell. But the safety,

environmental, and economic risk of a major blowout
in today's world are too high to continue the historical
react-if-it-occurs approach. The technology for
successful intervention has, in most cases, matured to
adequate levels. But every well requires adaptations.
These adaptations are best evaluated before an
emergency occurs. A solid contingency plan makes
any well safer.

3. Leraand, F., Wright, J., Zachary, M., and

Thompson, B.: "Relief Well Planning and Drilling for a
North Sea Underground Blowout," JPT, March, 1992,
p.266.

NOMENCLATURE

5. Blount, E. M. and Soeiinah E.: "Dynamic Kill:

Controlling Wild Wells a New Way, "World Oil,
October, 1981, p. 109-126.

bha
bht
bpm
EMW
GCR
GOR
bhp

ID
IPR
m

MD
OD
PI

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

4. Rygg, O.B. and Gilhus, T.: "Use of Two-Phase

Pipe Flow Simulator in Blow-out Kill Planning," SPE
20433 presented at the 65th Annual Conference in
New Orleans, Oct 23-26,1990.

bottom hole assembly

bottom hole temperature
barrels per minute
Equivilent mud weight
gas condensate ratio
gas oil ratio
hydraulic horsepower
inner diameter
inflow performance relation
meters
measured depth
outer diameter
linear productivity index

317

SPE 2457a

Blowout

1.
2.
3.
4.
4.
5.
6.

Perform PYr on Blowing Fluids

Model Reservoir IPR
Define Blowout Trajectory
Define Tubing and Pipe Sizes
Define Critical & Sub-crHlcaJ Chokes
Define Leak POints
Divide Blowout into Rnlte Elements
7. Compute Blowout Flowrates and Ratios
8. Compute Flowing Presure Profile
9. Compute Flowing Temperature Profile
10.Compute Flow Regime Profile

Constant Injection Iteration

11. Select Kill Point & Kill Ruld
12. Select Constant Injection Rates
13. Compute Minimum Flowrate to Kill
14. Compute Time to Kill
15. Compute Mud Volume to Kill

Figure 2: Blowout Modeling Procedures

Figure 1: Parallel and Iterative Relief Well Planning Process

Blowout

Relief Well

REuEFWEll.

Full Dynamic Kill Procedure

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Design Relief Wen Trajectory

Design Relief Well Tubulars
Define Formation Injectlvity
Define Communication Choke
Set Controllers On:
a. Surface Injection Pressure
b. Maximum HHP
c. Maximum Injection Rate
d. Bottom Hole Pressure (Range)
e. Casing Burst/Collapse Pressure
f. Formation Fracture Pressure

I. FLOWENTERSWEWlORE lHRWG412114'OI'eNHCU
2. sow OFS'BHA.21 40 w-2090wMO
3.S'ORUPlPE.20900wMO
4. I 3318' CASlNG1795-0 wMO. 10.12.375'

13318' 0 -1470wMO.1277w1VO

Time Transient Computations

KJll. POINT eeLOW SHOE IN OI'EN HOLE

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

o 1496wMO,I290w1VO

HHP & Injection Pressure

Mud Volume & Injection Rate
BHP and Influx
Oil/Gas & Mud Outflow
Temperature

13318' 0 1290w1VO,179SwMO

.'.~~~.~ ~~.~ )'~'~'~':::"~!.':::::':'::::':~:::':':::~:':::~:'::'::::'.::. . ::. . ::. .,::~:.~:'" .::/ii-::. .: : : . .: ;. .~>::~:

Figure 4: Scenario 1. Relief Well Kill Profile

Figure 3: Time TransJent Kill Process

318

ESTIMATED CURVE

1.5 sg WIIM, Mal 50 IJJ'M

DST
nO_ilk

0::J:
!!!.
CII

- - - INJECllONFI.OWnATE - - - Cumulative

volume

V~"1ft

IbHI
lOGO

100

-r-;-1
r-- t---

o-

20G0

!!?

:>

I"Wlllinl

2500

1-

1500

210

-.......

n.

0> . lOGO

'-....

.!:
~

{l

soo

00

------lt

100

~
H

10.0

15.0

20.0

250

30.0

350

IOOO

40.0

So
45.0

Gas Rate MMscfld

10

,.

120

TIME (MIN)

Figure 5: Scenario 1, Reservoir Inflow Performance

Figure 6: Scenario 1, Injection Rate & Mud Volume

....
<0

Co)

J.S 5g WIIM, Max 50 DPM

"'_'ale IbhVn,,,,1

1.5 5C WIIM, Max SO JII'M

- - - INJECTION FlOWRATE - - - Cumulative

volume

VohUJ~

Ibbel
1000

Velvnlt

n~w

IrnJ/J,

- - - GASOU1'FlOW

- - - Kill

Fluid

Out-OOW]

A_lIle

IbbVtninl

l.ooe.06

)0

10

I.ooe.os

'0

6.00E.OS

10

40 .

10 .

1000
10

10

10

-r

J.(IOl!tOS

)0

'0

TIME (MIN)

Figure 7: Mud Injection Rale with Air Inflow al Surface

OflOE_OO

120

'0

I'+---

c:;::=
)0

'>,

TIME (MIN)

'0

Figure 8: Gas and Mud Outflow at Surface

010

:r

i."

::!!

1--ln

fCUlOG ....... -

-1""1

UO

--

ea
-.c

111

-p-

"

....

W
111

)sao

::I,

//\
)000

lDO

ISO

100

lEV

\\

+,

1>00

+ 1000

\\

+I

ISOO

\ \

,000

so +I

\\.

lOO

60

)0

to
",,'o-rlbbpl

K:
i

..

co

.,

8.

oil

:l

~~

e>

...S-

!'l
2S

'Il!

i"

11

.
i

=
"D

lJo.

3~

!i2

::I>
ii)

n
"1.

.... "

!f

Q
(II

ea

,.

110

ISO

'80

TIME (MIN)

111

...5"
iil
g.
111

Figure 11: Scenario 2. Injection Pressure & HHP

111

:l

li;~l

'0

!leD
:!l~

.!'

-co

ig

. ..

"~:s
.11.

'0

8a.
.!f

fo

"I<!

':

"

Co)

Pressure (bat J

Bottom hole Pressure - - - Pressure al shoe

F10wrale (bbVminl

1100

1100

toOO

1000

!---- InjCC:lion FIownle

- - - Cumulative Volume

Volume [bblJ

SO
40l./

3000

...
2000

30

900

900
Pfrac at shoe

20

800

800

~I

l~

30

60

90

120

ISO

Time (mini

Figure 12: Scenario 2, BHP & Frac Pressure, Shoe Kill

IW

1000
10

o o~

30

, =::---..
60

90

120

10

ISO

Time [mini

Figure 10: Scenario 2. Flowrate & Cumulative Volume

180

SPE 24578

Bottom Hole Pressure - - Pressure at Shoe

[Pressure [bar)

1100

1.. .

1000 ...... .

900

900
Pfrac at the shoe

30

90

60

_____

____________________+-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

800

800

120

Time [min)

Figure 13: Scenario 2, BHP & Frac Pressure, Bit Kill

Vertical Depth RTE

Table 1: Scenario 3, Summary of Kill Hydraulics

26' 0 160mTVD

13318' 0 4SO m TVD

Blowout
Production
MMscf/d

Kill Rate
BPM

200

35

Cumulative
Volume, bbl

Max.
HHP

Injection
Pressure
osl

1000
1700

1200
1700
1550
1750

Deep 1011

Scenario '3 occurs during the

perforatIon 01 the last zone.
The llowpath Is the 7' casing
and the source Is lour zones
01 various production rates.

Mud
Seawater

40

1500
>2250

45
50

2700

1700

>4500

2200

Shallow 1011
Mud
Seawater
9518' 0 1000 mTVD

Figure 14: Scenario 3, Blowout Profile

321

200

3112' Tubln

RESERVOIR
INFO:

PERFORAnONS:

127C

3m:1615-1618

l00md
2344 psla

SPE 245'18
Packer C 1550 - 1555 m

6 m: 1600-1606

Proposed KlII Point I 2

2 m: 1630- 1632
4m:1690-1694
15 m TOTAL
Packer C 1600 - 1805 m

140" C
200md
2699 psla

7' Casing

10 m: 1899 - 1909
10mTOTAL

Packer C 2000 - 2005 m

27/8' Tubing

149C
80md
2983 psla
2OmTOTAL

Packer 0 2200 -2205 m

. . . - Proposed KlII Point I 1

15goC
150 md
3267 psla

jQm' ~4Q-~Q
10 m: 2300-2310 I
5 m: 2330- 233S I

~!!l',~Q-,~ J
7!!l'~S4-~1

35 m TOTAL
ALL DEPTHS IN TVD

Primary Intersection attempt to be made

through casing above the zone 4 perfs.

Back-up Intersection at zone 4 perfs.

I
End of tailpipe C 2220 m
Well TO C 2378 m TVD

Figure 15: Scenario 3, Completion Details

Ll

Fresh Water in Work String

Top 4112' 0 4450'

Top of 2 3/8' 0 4489'
Bottom Wash Pipe 0 4520'

322

Figure 16: Scenario 4. Pump Test Simulation