SPE 37472
A Practical Technique to Estimate the Formation Thickness in a Kicking Well.
G.Robello Samuel *, Thomas Engler *, Stefan Miska *, University
*SPE Members
Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Production Operations
Symposium, held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9–11 March 1997.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
ABSTRACT
Characterization of formation while drilling continues to be a
challenge to the engineers. This paper describes a technique
contributing to this objective. When a well kicks while
drilling, evaluation of pore pressure and the corresponding kill
mud density is of critical importance for the safety of the
drilling crew and mechanical integrity of the wellbore. Besides
the estimation of these parameters, it will be beneficial to
estimate the thickness of the kicking formation prior to
drilling. This helps to drill safely and carefully through the
potentially active kicking formation. In this paper, it is shown
how to calculate the kicking formation thickness with the
limited information available at the time of an oil/gas kick. A
method of data analysis (obtained on a kicking well) to
estimate the formation thickness of the kicking zone is
presented. Illustrative examples including actual field cases are
described and analyzed.
Introduction
It is a well-known fact that the during drilling, the influx of
formation fluid into wellbore is extremely dangerous. If timely
actions are not taken to shut-in and kill the well using proper
procedure, blowout or other complications may result.
Nowadays drilling crews are well trained and handling kick is
seldom a problem. Drilling rigs are furnished with proper
blow-out equipment and a variety of techniques are developed
of Tulsa.
for circulating the kick fluid out of the wellbore. Most of the
rigs have some form of pit-level indicating device to show gain
or loss of mud. Once the kick is detected at the surface, the
well is shut-in and proper well control technique is undertaken
to establish the desired pressure conditions in the wellbore.
Early evaluation of formation thickness and permeability is
very important for making accurate decisions including the
following: well completion design, reserve estimation,
reservoir inflow performance prediction, and monitoring of
secondary and tertiary recovery projects accurately. Besides
controlling the kick, a proper interpretation technique is
required to use the valuable data collected during the kick.
Some of the data available during kick are mud pit volume
gain, inflow time, shut-in time, shut-in drill pipe pressures,
casing pipe pressures, mud density at the time of kick, and
depth of well. It is demonstrated how these data can be used
for the estimation of the formation thickness.
Mathematical Model
Upon shutting-in the well, casing and drillpipe pressures
increase as a function of time. Surface pressure on drillpipe
(SIDPP) and casing (SICPP) are recorded to establish
stabilized pressures. The elapsed time between the closing of
blowout preventers and the reading of the stabilized SIDPP
and SICPP pressure is called the shutting-in time. The SIDPP,
hydrostatic pressure ph and shut-in bottom hole pressure p ws ,
are related as follows(1,2):
q ref B  t 
SIDPP   p i  0.052m L  162.6 ln . (1)
k h h  t p  t 
In the case of a kicking well, the flow rate taking place at the
sandface is unknown and there is no method to measure the
sandface flowrate during kick. Using total mud pit gain
N  and the inflow time t  , measured between the time of
p p
kick and shut in of the well, it is possible to arrive at an
estimate of the flow rate that has taken place. To accomplish
this, the concept of equivalent flow rate and equivalent flow
 A Practical Technique to Estimate the Formation Thickness in a Kicking Well.

time(4,9) is used. With the equivalent flow rate and flow time, continued with actual field data obtained during kicks
shut-in drill pipe pressure is given by provided by Mobil Drilling Data Center.
Rq tp B  t  The following simple procedure is given as a guideline to
SIDPP   p i  0.052 m L  162.6 ln  . (2) estimate the formation thickness of the kicking zone.
khh  St p  t 
where the coefficients are(2,3) Procedure:
R=1.35 and S=0.83,
 t  in Eq. 2 is called a plotting time. Step 1
the ratio  
  The recorded shut-in time is converted to plotting
 St p  t 
time using plotting time equation.
When a well is closed, the early pressure response is localized
Step 2
at the wellbore with fluid flow confined to the nearby
Plot shut-in drillpipe pressure versus logarithm of
wellbore. As time progresses the pressure transient starts
plotting time using S = 0.83.
moving into the deep bulk formation. The SIDPP, plotted
Establish the two straight lines and estimate their
against logarithm of plotting time, yields a straight line
slopes m1 & m2 using R = 1.35.
segment of slope m1 showing an early response localized near
Step 3
the wellbore and a second straight line segment of slope m2, Calculate the ratio of the penetration from Eq. 3
indicating the response from the bulk formation. and Eq. 4 for liquid kick and Eq. 6 and Eq. 7 for
From Eq. 2 the slopes are given as gas kick.
Rq tp B Step 4
m1  162.6 (3)
k h Calculate the equivalent flowrate and the flow time
Rq tp B  24  N p 
m 2  162.6 (4) using  q tp   for oil kick and
khh  t p 
where q tp is calculated in bbls/day using the following  24  5.61  N p 
 q tp   for gas kick.
equation  1000  t p 
24  N p
q tp  . (5) Step 5
tp Calculate horizontal permeability and the formation
The early slope (m1) yields the flow capacity of k h  of the thickness h, using the initial penetration into the
open interval while m2 gives the flow capacity of the entire kicking formation.
formation k h h .
Illustration:
From Eqs. 2 & 3, the ratio of the slopes, m2 is equal to  ,
m1 h
Example - 1
which is further used to estimate the formation thickness, h. This example pertains to a synthetic kick data with the
The procedures for the estimation of the formation thickness following information:
are common for both liquid and gas kicks, except for gas kick Vertical depth of the well = 7000 ft.
the pressure is replaced with real gas pseudopressure. The Mud density at the time of kick = 10 ppg.
slopes of the semilog lines for gas kicks are given by the Pit gain observed = 15 bbl.
following equations Inflow time = 15 min.
Rq tp Tp sc
m1  57910 (6)
k h Tsc Calculation Procedure:
and
Rq tp Tp sc Step 1
m 2  57910 (7)
The shut-in drill pipe pressures (simulated) and
k h hTsc
shut-in time converted to the plotting time are
where q tp is calculated in mcf/day using the following shown in Table 1.
equation
24  5.61  N p
q tp  . (8)
1000  t p

Case Studies
A few examples are presented along with the step by step
calculation procedure. Initially the model is verified by using
numerically simulated kick data and further validation is
 Robello, Engler, Miska
Table 1  5
   17 ft.
h 0.3
Shut-in time SIDPP in Plotting time Using qtp from Step 4 and Eq. 4,
in hours psi k h h 219.5  1440

 283
0.05 50 0.26 = 1,117 md-ft/cp
0.08 175 0.35 Assuming a reasonable value for the formation
fluid viscosity, e.g.  =2 cp, the corresponding in-
0.10 235 0.41
situ horizontal permeability can be estimated as
0.12 290 0.47
1117  2
0.15 335 0.52 kh  = 131 md.
17
0.17 365 0.55 Example - 2
0.20 380 0.59 The following are the actual field cases provided to TUDRP
0.22 390 0.61 (Tulsa University Drilling Research Projects), by Mobil
0.25 400 0.64 Drilling Data Center.
0.27 410 0.66 This example is from a well drilled in an offshore lease area.
After the intermediate casing string of 9 5 8 ” at a depth of
Step 2 11,358 ft. (measured depth)/10,498 ft. (vertical depth), the
A graph of SIDPP versus plotting time is shown in production hole with a diameter of 8 1 2 ” was in progress with a
Fig. 2. The plot clearly exhibits two regions that mud weight of 16.5 ppg. As the drilling progressed, a kick was
can be approximated by straight lines with the encountered at a depth of 12,267 ft. Drilling was stopped and
slopes m2=956 psi/cycle and m2 = 283 psi/cycle. BOP was closed. From the Geolograph, a total of 27 bbls of
mud pit gain was recorded in about 50 minutes. Also it was
observed that the mud pit gain started slowly when a drill
600 break was encountered at a depth of 12,262 ft.

500 Calculation Procedure:

m2

400 Step 1
SIDPP(PSI)

The recorded shut-in drill pipe pressures given in

300
psi and shut-in time in hours are given in Table 2.
m1
The shut-in time converted to plotting time is given
200
in the third column.
100
Table 2
0
1
Plotting Time
0.1 Shut-in time SIDPP in Plotting time
in hours psi

Figure 1: SIDPP vs Plotting Time - Example-1 0.35 159 0.33

0.36 199 0.35
Step 3 0.38 258 0.36
The ratio of the slopes (penetration ratio) 0.40 285 0.37
m2 283
 h    0.30 0.41 299 0.38
m1 956
0.43 306 0.39
Step 4
Equivalent formation fluid flow rate q tp , 0.45 309 0.40
0.47 313 0.41
24 N p
q tp  = 24  15 = 1,440 bbls/day. 0.48 314 0.42
tp  15  0.50 316 0.43
 
 60  0.52 318 0.44
Step 5 0.53 320 0.47
Assuming the well kicked after drilling through the
0.61 328 0.48
formation of 5 ft. i.e. l = 5 ft, the estimated
thickness of the kicking zone 0.63 329 0.51
 A Practical Technique to Estimate the Formation Thickness in a Kicking Well.

0.75 339 0.55 Step 5

0.81 344 0.57 Actually the well entered the active formation when
0.92 350 0.59 the drill break was encountered at a depth of
12,262 ft. Assuming the well kicked after drilling
1.00 353 0.61 through the formation of 5 ft. i.e. l = 5 ft, the
1.05 358 0.66 estimated thickness of the kicking zone;
1.35 369 0.67 =   5  208ft.
1.42 374 0.68 h 0.024
Using qtp calculated in step 3 and Eq.4,
1.48 377 0.69
k h h 162.6  135
.  777  1
1.95 391 0.73 
 116
2.55 403 0.78 = 1470 md-ft/cp
2.61 403 0.79 Assuming a reasonable value for the formation
fluid viscosity, e.g.  =2 cp, the corresponding in-
Step 2 situ horizontal permeability can be estimated as
A plot of SIDPP versus plotting time is shown in 1470  2
Fig. 4. The two semilog lines are drawn kh  = 14 md.
208
corresponding to the two regions.
Analysis
The slopes are found to be:
In Fig. 2, the shift in a few data points observed away from the
m1  4678 psi/cycle and second straight line (in the later part of the pressure build up)
m 2  116 psi/cycle are attributed to the migration of lighter fluid, due to buoyancy
effects resulting in a "false" pressure at the surface.
Step 3 The estimated thickness of the kicking formation coincides
The ratio of the slopes (penetration ratio) with the electrical log data taken after the drilling of the
m2 116 production hole. Figure 3 shows the deflection of the
 h  
m1 4678 Spontaneous Potential (SP) and Gamma Ray (GR) logs
=0.024 recorded in track 1. From the log it is clearly seen that the total
thickness of the shaly-sand above the clean sand section is
450
approximately 220 ft.

400

350 m2

300
SIDPP

250
m1

200

150

100

50

0
1 Plotting Time 0.1

Figure 2: SIDPP vs Plotting Time - Example - 2

Step 4
Equivalent formation fluid flow rate q tp ,
24 N p
q tp  = 24  27
tp  50 
 
 60 
Figure 3: SP/GR plot - Example - 2
= 777 bbls/day.
 Robello, Engler, Miska
Example - 3 It seems that only the late radial region is observed
This example is from the data file of Well-B. After setting in this illustration. The line is drawn and the slope
11 7 8 ” inches casing at 11,620 ft, a pilot hole was drilled first is measured to be m2  12 psi/cycle.
and later a 12 ¼"” phase of under reaming was continued with Step 4
1,014 ft bottom hole assembly. It appears that this is a case of The equivalent formation fluid flow rate,
an attempt of only slight overbalance drilling to avoid 24 N p 24  150
(minimize) payzone damage. The well was under normal q tp  = =3,927 bbls/day.
tp  55 
operation with a mud weight of 17 ppg. Operation was stopped  
 60 
for pipe connection at 12,918 ft. The well of mud started
flowing during pipe connection and a gain of 80 bbls was Step 5
recorded. The BOP was closed, and shut in drillpipe and Hence, the horizontal transmissibility of the
casing pressures were noted. The SIDPP of zero psi and wellbore from Eq. 11 is
SICPP of 800 psi was observed. After bleeding off the k h h = 219.539271/12
pressure through annulus, the well was opened and found to be 
dead. When reaming resumed, the well flowed back = 71,831md-ft/cp.
vigorously. The total pit gain was found to be 150 bbls in 55 This is a case of a completely penetrated condition. Figure 5
minutes. shows the SP/GR and induction log deflections. As seen in the
log there is no change in formation from 12080 ft.
Calculation Procedure:

Step 1
The recorded shut-in drill pipe pressures given in
psi and shut-in time in hours are given in Table 3.
The shut-in time converted to plotting time is
given in the third column.

Table 3

Shut-in time SIDPP Plotting time

(hours) ( psi)
0.03 58 0.04
0.16 64 0.15
0.35 70 0.46

Step 2
The semilog plot of SIDPP is shown in Fig. 4.

90

80

70
m2

60
SIDPP (psi)

50

40

30

20 Figure 5: SP/GR plot - Example - 3

10

Example - 4
1
0
0.1 0.01 This example is from an offshore well. The well was under
Plotting Time
normal drilling with a mud weight of 13.8 ppg when a drilling
break at a depth of 11,332 ft was reported. Mild flow of mud
Figure 4: SIDPP vs Plotting Time - Example - 3 was observed with a strong background of gas recorded by the
chromotograph. Due to the trickling nature of the mud flow the
mud weight was arbitrarily increased to 14.5 ppg and the
 A Practical Technique to Estimate the Formation Thickness in a Kicking Well.

drilling was continued. At 11,338 ft, the well started flowing. The ratio of the slopes (penetration ratio)
A total of 18 bbls of mud gain was observed in 14 minutes. m2 .  108
105
 h    014
.
m1 7.2  108
Calculation Procedure: Step 4
The equivalent formation fluid flow rate,
Step 1 24  5.61  N p
The recorded shut-in pressures and shut-in time are q tp 
1000  t p
shown in Table 4. The SIDPP converted to
psuedopressure(6) and shut-in time converted to 24  561
.  18
= =10.39 Mcf/day.
plotting time are shown in third and fourth column  14 
1000   
respectively.  60 
Step 5
Table 4 The horizontal flow capacity of the formation is
Rq tpTpsc
Shut-in SIDPP Pseudopressure Plotting time k h h  57910 .
m2Tsc
Time hour (psi) (psia 2 /cp) Substituting the respective values, the horizontal
flow capacity is calculated to be
0.017 0231 493.5E04 0.079
k h h =579101.3510.3956014.7/5201.05108
0.033 0833 618.7E05 0.146
0.050 1131 1130E05 0.204 =0.122md-ft.
0.067 1294 1468E05 0.255 The formation penetrated,  =6ft.
0.083 1381 1677E05 0.300 Total thickness of the payzone h=   6
h 014
.
0.100 1407 1741E05 0.339 = 42 ft.
Analysis
The following properties are assumed for the calculation: Figure 7 shows the portion of the electrical logs recorded after
 = 0.2, c = 2.35  104 psi1 , completion of the phase. From the deflection of the
T = 560deg.R  g = 0.7. Spontaneous Potential (SP) and Gamma Ray (GR) logs, it can
be clearly seen that the total thickness of the sand section
 = 0.03cp. above the shale streak at 11400 ft. is approximately 50 ft.

Step 2
A plot of SIDPP(psuedopressure) versus plotting
time is shown in Fig. 6.The slopes are calculated to
be:
m1 = 7.2  108 (psi2/cp)/cycle and
.  108 (psi2/cp)/cycle.
m2 = 105

2.50E+08

2.00E+08
m2

1.50E+08
Pseudopressure(psi2/cp)

1.00E+08
m1

5.00E+07

0.00E+00
1 0.1 0.01
Plotting TIme

Figure 6: SIDPP vs Plotting Time - Example - 4 Figure 7: SP/GR plot - Example - 4

Step 3
 Robello, Engler, Miska
Conclusions 3. Robello Samuel, G., Semi-Annual Advisory Board
 A method is provided to estimate the kicking formation Meeting Reports, Tulsa University Drilling Research
thickness. (provided initial penetration into the kicking Projects (TUDRP). Nov. 1993, May. 1994.
formation is known). 4. Schafer-Perini A, L.; “Estimation of Reservoir Parameters
 This estimation is of great practical importance as it can Under Impending Blowout Conditions-Radial Liquid
be used to make proper well completion decisions and Flow” M.S. Thesis NMIMT, Department of Petroleum
drill safely through the kicking zone. Engineering, 1986.
 The technique, validated with synthetic and extensive 5. Luo F. & Miska S. "Pressure Transient Analysis Under
field data gave, remarkably close results. The procedure is Impending Blowout Conditions" Research Report
simple and useful for practical applications. Results were NMIMT, Department of Petroleum Engineering, 1988.
verified by subsequent open hole well logs. The proposed 6. Miska S, Schafer Perini A; “Curve Fitting of Real Gas
technique is general and can be applied for oil, gas or salt Pseudopressure and its Practical Application” SPE 15034,
water kicks. Lafayette,LA, Feb.26-27.
7. Hantush, M.S. “Aquifer Tests on Partially Penetrating
Acknowledgment Wells”. Journal Of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of
The authors express their appreciation to Mobile Drilling Data the American Society of Civil Engineers. HY5:171-195
Center for providing and allowing publication of the kick and Sept. 1961.
log data. Financial assistance from the Department of 8. Miska,S., F.Lou and Lee., R “Pressure-Transient Testing
Petroleum Engineering of The University of Tulsa is at Drilling Stage of Well Development” Society of
appreciated. Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 23007.
9. Miska, S., Luo, F. and Perini S, “Analysis of Inflow and
Nomenclature Pressure Buildup Under Impending Blow Out
B = formation fluid volume factor, rb/stb Conditions”. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,
h = formation thickness, ft Transaction of the ASME, Vol. 114:46-53 March 1992.
kh = permeability in horizontal direction, md 10. Luo, and Miska Stefan, “Vertical Permeability
Determination from Single Well Test: Phase I - Constant
 = well penetration length, ft Flow Rate Test” SPE 25427 1993
m1 = slope for early radial period, psi/log cycle
m2 = slope for pseudoradial period, psi/log cycle
Np = pit gain, barrels
p = pressure, psi
c = compressibility, psi-1
pi = initial formation pressure, psi
q = flow rate, bbl
L = depth of the well, ft
t = time, hr
tp = inflow time, hr
T = temperature, 0R
 = viscosity, cp
 = formation porosity, fraction
m = density of drilling fluid, ppg
h = delh -penetration ratio
Subscript
s = shut-in condition
sc = standard conditions
w = at the wellbore

References

1. Miska, S., Robello Samuel, G., Azar, J.J. “Modeling of

Pressure Buildup on a Kicking Well and its Practical
Application” SPE 35245, Midland Texas 1996.
2. Robello Samuel, G., “Formation Permeability and Pore
Pressure Determination from Pressure Buildup Analysis in
a Kicking Well” MS Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, 1995.