SPE/IADC 105612

Hydraulic Blowout Control Requirements for Big-Bore and HP/HT Developments:

Validation With Field Experience
P. Oudeman, SPE, Shell Intl. E&P

Copyright 2007, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

Introduction
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Owing to the advances in drilling and production technology,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20–22 February 2007.
blowouts, i.e. the uncontrolled flow of reservoir fluids (and
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
solids) to surface, have become an increasingly rare
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or phenomenon. A report published by the UNEP Industry and
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their Environment agency1, in which statistics of the USA, Gulf of
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Mexico and the North Sea were collected, shows a probability
and International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in of (shallow) gas blowouts in exploration wells of ca. one 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 every 200 wells.
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A.,
fax 1.972.952.9435.
For development and infill wells the frequency is considerably
lower, since the geology and pressure regime are known prior
Abstract to drilling these wells. The average statistical blowout
Although advances in drilling and well intervention frequency for a development well in the North Sea and the
technology have made blowouts a rare phenomenon, their Gulf of Mexico is 7.4 x 10-5 per well, i.e. less than one for
consequences are often of such a magnitude that for each every 10,000 wells drilled.
development a contingency plan should be available aimed at For workover operations blowout frequencies of one blowout
limiting the damage and regaining control over the outflow of per 2500 wells are quoted for oil wells and one blowout per
the well rapidly. This plan should consider all possible 1000 wells for gas well operations.
blowout scenarios and the corresponding response. Offsetting this low probability of occurrence are the extensive
When capping, the most efficient method, is not an option, e.g. potential consequences of a blowout, ranging from asset
for subsea or underground blowouts, downhole injection of damage to widespread ecological damage2 and even the loss of
kill fluids through an existing conduit or relief well(s), the human life. Hence blowout prevention is a top priority in
hydraulic or “dynamic” kill, is the next best alternative. To drilling and well intervention. Yet eliminating the possibility
plan for such an operation prior to actually spudding the of a blowout completely does not seem feasible. In most
development wells, a number of parameters needs to be known known blowout cases, a (usually improbable) chain of events
such as the required number and dimensions of relief wells, develops, very often due to a combination of human and
kill fluids and kill rates, pump capacity etc. For HPHT and big technical factors, which eventually leads to the loss of control
bore developments, these requirements cannot be derived from over the outflow of the well. In any development this
experience. possibility must be taken into account by formulating a
It is shown here that the requirements depend on a limited contingency plan.
number of factors such as the pressure regime of the blowing The purpose of this plan is to limit the consequences of a
formation and flow resistance of the blowing well. This allows blowout by prescribing an adequate emergency response to a
formulation of guidelines for hydraulic blowout control for possible well control incident, prior to actually spudding the
(un-) conventional developments, even when the exact development wells. On the basis of the plan preparations can
circumstances of a blowout are not known, as is the case in be made to take action rapidly after an incident has been
contingency planning. reported. Such preparations would include ensuring the
A comparison with selected field cases of blowouts availability of a nearby rig for relief well drilling, sufficient
demonstrates that the formulated guidelines match the stock of tubular goods to complete a relief well, pump
experience with actually killing these blowouts in terms of the capacity to kill the blowing well etc. With these elements in
number of wells, pump rates, and kill fluids etc. that were place, relief efforts can be started quickly, thus reducing the
eventually required. This gives the confidence that the time to regain control over the well and the damage related to
guidelines are a good starting point for contingency planning. the period the well flows uncontrolled, e.g. due to the amount
The case of a giant North Sea gas field is discussed to of hydrocarbons released or the loss of reservoir pressure.
demonstrate this. The plan should consider the possible modes of failure and the
response to these failures to restore the well integrity. In the
majority of cases “capping” of the well, i.e. replacing the
2 SPE/IADC 105612

damaged wellhead, is the most efficient method to stifle the Highly prolific wells such as long horizontal
flow from the well. To illustrate: most of the more than 780 (smart) wells.
wells that were sabotaged and set on fire during the 1991 Gulf Yet answering the primary questions of hydraulic blowout
war in Kuwait were brought under control within 8 months by control for these types of wells, with their high blowout
capping3. With this success, companies such as Red Adair, potential (and associated potential damage) is of utmost
Boots and Coots, Safety Boss, Wild Well Control and others importance. Here the answers will be sought by applying the
demonstrated that even under harsh post-war conditions, validated knowledge, obtained killing “conventional” well
capping technology could deal with almost any form of blowouts to less conventional wells such as the types
wellhead damage. mentioned above. This approach will indicate particular areas
Unfortunately, capping is of little use when the wellhead is not of concern and provide general guidelines for the design of a
the point of outflow, is inaccessible or damaged to the extent relief well and the kill job. These can be considered a good
that repair is impossible. Examples of these situations are: starting point for the design of a relief well and kill job for a
Underground blowouts, where the flow of particular case.
hydrocarbons enters a shallow low-pressure zone, e.g.
through a casing leak. In the case of a shallow leak Required pump rate and kill fluid density
the fluids may broach to surface some distance from The principal idea of the hydraulic (dynamic) kill is to inject
the well. kill fluid (down hole) into the well at such a rate that owing to
Subsea wells. the increased hydraulic head and friction in the well, the
Wells and platforms that have suffered such damage pressure at sand face exceeds the pore pressure so that the
that a safe position for staff to work on the well inflow of hydrocarbons stops. The combined flow of oil, gas,
cannot be created. The Bay Marchand incident4 with water and kill fluid under highly transient conditions (ranging
eleven wells on fire on a single platform was an from the blowout rate at the start of the kill job to the flow
example of this situation. vanishing at the end of the job), is a complex process.
In these cases restoring the mechanical integrity of the well to Sophisticated simulators have been developed5-8 to model this
contain the pressurised fluids will be impossible. Hence the process and full-scale field tests have been carried out to
inflow in the well will have to be stifled either by: validate these simulators7. Since the simulators are capable of
1. Balancing the pressure of the producing taking into account the details of the outflow path, properties
formations with a fluid column in the well or of the well effluent and kill fluid, multiple fluids pump
2. Blocking the entry of oil and/or gas in the schedules etc., they are most useful to study kill options for a
well by saturating the near well bore region particular case. On the other hand, the amount of detail taken
with water or brine. into account makes them less suitable to study the general
The latter method, called “flooding”, which requires the principles of the hydraulic kill. For this purpose a simplified
injection of huge amounts of water in the near wellbore equation has been derived for the relation between the
formations through one or more relief wells, is usually a minimum required pump rate and the critical parameters of the
cumbersome and time-consuming process. To illustrate: in blowout well7:
Bay Marchand this required drilling wells to within 25 ft from
each of the blowing wells. Ten of the wells were killed this
1 ⎧⎪ p − ps ⎫⎪ 1
way. One remaining well had to be capped after 100,000 bbl qp = ⋅⎨ R − ρ w ⋅ g .h ⎬ ⋅ ..(1)
of seawater was pumped without any noticeable effect. Hence RBO ⎪⎩ 2 ⋅ g.h ⎪⎭ ρ kf − ρ w
the first process, hydraulic blowout control, will usually be the
preferred option.
Here qp is the minimum pump rate (in m3/s) required to kill the
For successful hydraulic blowout control, often referred to in
well (obviously a higher kill rate will also kill the well). The
the literature as “the dynamic kill”, it is essential that kill
terms determining this pump rate (apart from g, the
fluids can be pumped downhole into the blowout well at such
gravitational acceleration, which is a constant 9.81 m/s2) are:
a rate that the well can no longer lift oil and/or gas to surface
RBO (in m-4) is the flow resistance in the blowout
and ceases to flow once sufficient pressure has built up at sand
well7. This flow resistance depends mainly on the
face. This means that for contingency planning for a new well,
diameters and along hole lengths of the flow path in
two primary questions need to be answered:
the blowout well. The minimum pump rate depends
1. Which kill fluid needs to be pumped into the
on the inverse square root of the flow resistance, i.e.
well and at what rate to control the well flow
large diameter wells with a low resistance to flow,
when mechanical control is not an option and
will require a high pump rate. This illustrates the
2. Will it be technically feasible to pump this rate
problem of killing shallow gas blowouts in which the
into the well given the limitations of the kill
surface casings offer little resistance to flow and
string and pump equipment?
hence killing requires extreme pump rates. The fact
For “conventional” (i.e. normally pressured, medium size) oil
that the pump rate goes to infinity when the flow
and gas wells the feasibility of hydraulic blowout control has
resistance vanishes demonstrates that any hydraulic
been proven in a large number of (reported) cases.
kill is dynamic in the sense that some form of friction
Considerably less experience is available in areas such as:
is required for the kill to succeed.
HPHT wells,
Big bore gas wells,
SPE/IADC 105612 3

PR (in Pa) is the pore pressure of the producing combating shallow water flows is left out of the discussion.
formation. Theoretically it is more correct to use the This reduces the expression for minimum pump rate to:
closed-in well pressure at the depth of intersection
with the relief well, but using the pore pressure builds
1 ⎧⎪ p − p s ⎫⎪ 1
in an additional safety factor. High-pressure wells qp = ⋅⎨ R ⎬⋅ ……..(2)
with a large capacity to lift fluids to surface will be RBO ⎪⎩ 2 ⋅ g .h ⎪⎭ ρ kf
most difficult to kill.
Ps (in Pa) is the ambient pressure at the outflow point.
For surface blowouts this will be the atmospheric Furthermore an effective formation pressure, i.e. the formation
pressure. For deep-water subsea wells this will be the pressure reduced with the surface backpressure, is introduced:
hydrostatic pressure, i.e. for these wells the minimum
pump rate required is reduced by the presence of a p R ,eff = p R − p s …………………………….(3)
(bubbly) liquid column above the well. This also
applies to underground blowouts, where the After some manipulation we obtain:
overburden or pressure of the receiving formation
will reduce kill requirements.
h (in m) is the vertical distance between the point of h g p R ,eff
qp = ⋅ ⋅ .………………(4)
intersection and the outflow point, i.e. the distance RBO 4 g ⋅ h ⋅ ρ kf
over which a column of kill fluid to counteract the
pore pressure can be built up. This demonstrates
immediately that deep intersection reduces the Since it is unrealistic to assume a kill fluid density less than
required pump rate. water, a distinction must be made between sub- and super-
ρw (in kg/m3) denotes the average density of the well hydrostatic wells. To this end a hydrostatic ratio is defined:
effluent in the well. Since most blowouts are
dominated by gas, this density will in general be low p R ,eff
compared to the kill fluid density. Hence in most X= ………………………………...(5)
cases it can be neglected without loss of accuracy.
g ⋅ h ⋅ ρw
This is not the case when shallow water flows have to
be killed. In such cases, which are usually Making the minimum required pump rate:
accompanied by low flow resistance of the surface
casings, high density kill fluids are required. h g ρ
ρkf (in kg/m3) is the kill fluid density, which in the qp = ⋅ ⋅ X ⋅ w ……………………(6)
case of a vanishing well effluent density, has an RBO 4 ρ kf
inversely proportional relation with the pump rate,
e.g. doubling the kill fluid density halves the Wells for which the ratio is less than unity are called sub-
minimum pump rate. hydrostatic, wells with X equals unity are hydrostatic and
Summarizing, the minimum required pump rate depends on wells with X exceeding unity are super-hydrostatic or over-
blowout well design (RBO) and outflow location (ps), formation pressured.
depth (h) and effluent properties (pR, ρw) and the selected kill (Sub-)hydrostatic wells:
fluid (ρkf). It is to be noted that inflow performance does not The hydrostatic ratio, X, varies from considerably less than 1
play a role in the required kill rate. The reason for this is that for e.g. strongly depleted formations to 1 for formations that
the point (in terms of inflow rate and pressure) at which the are just hydrostatic. Assuming these wells are killed with
well has the highest capacity to produce liquids to surface and water, i.e.
needs the highest pump rate is usually at a low inflow rate and
a pressure close to the pore pressure. At this point the inflow ρw
performance is of limited importance. Effectively this =1
assumption makes the calculated minimum pump rate a worst- ρ kf
case estimate.
The discussion of the terms playing a role for the minimum the minimum pump rate becomes:
required pump rate has revealed the important factors for the
feasibility of killing a blowout hydraulically, such as high
h g
formation pressure, depth of the formation and flow resistance qp = ⋅ ⋅ X for X ≤ 1 ………….(7)
in the well. By grouping these factors a general quantitative RBO 4
idea of the required kill rates can be obtained.
Pressure regimes This means that for sub-hydrostatic wells the minimum pump
In order to evaluate the general equation for the minimum rate basically depends on two factors, (1) the flow resistance
pump rate, first the well effluent density will be considered to per unit vertical length R/h, reduced by (2) the hydrostatic
vanish. As discussed above, this is generally a justified ratio, the degree to which the well is under-pressured.
assumption since most blowouts are dominated by gas and
4 SPE/IADC 105612

Super-hydrostatic (over-pressured) wells Required Pump Rates

For these wells X exceeds unity. This means that although the 250
kill can start with water to reduce the initial blowout rate,
eventually, i.e. when pumping stops, the kill fluid should have 200
sufficient weight to satisfy the following condition:

Pump rate (bpm)

X>1
ρ
150
X = 0.75
X ⋅ w =1 X = 0.5
ρ kf 100
X = 0.25

Assuming this condition is just met, which is usually favorable 50

to reduce losses (very often these same losses are the root
0
cause of the blowout) and avoid fracturing formations after the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
kill, the required minimum pump rate becomes: BO conduit ID (in)

h g Figure 1: Required pump rates vs. blowout conduit size

qp = ⋅ for X ≥ 1 ……………(8)
RBO 4 It appears from the graph that blowouts through 7”
production casing (ID 6.1”) can be controlled with pump rates
The minimum pump rate is now solely dependent on the flow less than 50 bpm. For larger diameters the required pump rates
resistance per unit vertical length in the well. This will be rapidly increase with increasing diameter. Killing the
discussed for some simplified geometries. Schoonebeek steam injector blowout2, blowing through 9 5/8”
Completion size casing (X ≈ 0.6) would have required pumping ca. 80 bpm.
As discussed the minimum required pump rate depends mainly A word of caution on the graph: the pump rate seems to be
on flow resistance in the blowout well, reduced with the independent of the depth of intersection, h, which is
hydrostatic ratio for sub-hydrostatic wells. To demonstrate misleading. In deriving the equation for the graph the
how the well geometry and required minimum pump rate are assumption has been made that the kill fluid has sufficient
related, a simple case is investigated: weight to balance the closed-in pressure at the depth of
The blowout conduit has a single hydraulic diameter intersection. This means e.g. that a normally pressured well
and flow area from bottom to top. which is intersected at half the total depth has to be killed with
There are no restrictions for in- or outflow. s.g. 2 kill fluid for the graph to apply.
The flow is highly turbulent along the blowout In summary: provided the blowout well can be intersected
conduit. at sufficient depth and kill fluids of sufficient density are
Under these conditions the minimum required pump rate for available, the main factor driving the required pump rate is the
an over-pressured well can be written as (for details see effective diameter of the blowout path. Big bore wells will
Appendix A): require high pump rates and the feasibility of pumping these
rates will be discussed next.
g ⋅ Dh ⋅ cos(α )
qp = A⋅ ………………….(9) Pumping high kill rates
2⋅ f Analysis of the required minimum pump rates to hydraulically
control blowouts has shown that killing big bore blowouts
Here A is the flow area in m2, Dh the hydraulic diameter of the may require kill rates sometimes exceeding 200 bpm.
blowout conduit in m, cos(α) the ratio of true vertical over Pumping such rates poses requirements in terms of the number
along hole depth and f the Nikuradze friction factor (fully of relief wells, pressure rating of the equipment, available
rough pipe flow, very large Reinolds numbers). pump capacity etc. These requirements will be discussed next.
In the simplest case, vertical open pipe flow so that the During the kill process, the highest pressures will be
hydraulic diameter equals the pipe internal diameter, D, the encountered at the end of the kill, when the pressure in the
equation simplifies even further to: blowout well, at the point of intersection, approaches pR. At
this stage the pressure at the casing head of the relief well is
given by:
q p = C1 ⋅ D 2.6 ……………………………….(10)
pCH = p R − ∆phydrostatic + ∆p friction
Where C1 is constant which depends on the units used. For …………..…(11)
example, C1 equals 0.442 when D is in inches to obtain the = p R − g ⋅ h ⋅ ρ kf + ρ kf ⋅ RRW ⋅ q 2p
pump rate in bbl/min.
In Figure 1 the relation between minimum required pump
rates, blowout conduit ID and pressure regime is depicted As stated, selecting the kill fluid to just balance the closed-in
graphically. pressure at intersection depth is a necessity since the well
needs to remain killed when the pumps are shut down. This
condition gives:
SPE/IADC 105612 5

pR
ρ kf = ………………………...…………(12) It appears from the graph that high pump rates can be
g ⋅h achieved at low formation pressures, in most cases the kill
fluids will actually be sucked into the well at the start of the
Insertion in equation (11) and some manipulation gives: kill job. At higher formation pressures, where the reservoir
pCH g ⋅ h pressure approaches the pressure rating of the relief well
q 2p = ⋅ ……………………………(13) and/or pump equipment, the maximum achievable pump rate
p R RRW drops rapidly.
This has a direct impact on the number of relief wells
The limitation on the pump rate will be dictated by the required. The kill of case II described in ref. 5, was estimated
maximum pressure that the casing head will allow, so that: to require a pump rate of more than 120 bpm. Since this would
approach the limits of the pump rate in a single well, two relief
pCH ,max h wells were spudded directly. For contingency, e.g. in case one
q p ,max = g ⋅ ⋅ ………..……..(14) of the wells would have to be cased prematurely; a third well
pR RRW was spudded some days later.
It should be noted here that in more recent years most gas
This shows that for a given pressure rating of the relief well, blowouts that were successfully controlled by relief wells were
the flow resistance per unit vertical length plays a crucial role killed with only a single relief well being started. This change
in the pump rate that be achieved. To give an idea of the flow from previous procedure of automatically starting two relief
resistance per unit length in a relief well, some figures have wells is primarily due to technology improvements in
been collected in Table 1. surveying, directional drilling and homing-in.
Pump capacity
Apart from pressure, the available pump capacity can be a
Table 1: Flow resistance of selected geometries constraint on pumping. Usually the amount of hydraulice
Geometry horsepower (HHP) readily available is in the order of a few
g ⋅h thousand HHP. Massive hydraulic kill jobs may require an
, bpm
R order of magnitude more capacity. To illustrate this the kill
rates of figure 1 were used to calculate the required HHP
9 5/8” – 5” annulus 92
assuming a maximum pump pressure of 5000 psi with:
5” drill pipe 40
p⋅q
9 5/8”-5” annulus + drill pipe 132 HHP = ………………………………..(15)
7” –3.5” annulus 39 C2
3.5” drill pipe 15
Here C2 is a constant, 40.8 when the pressure is in psi and the
7”-3.5” annulus + drill pipe 54
pump rate in bpm. The result is shown in Figure 3.
It is noted that these figures are probably optimistic since Required HHP

in a realistic situation parasitic resistances must be expected 30000

such as the connection between the relief well and the blowout
25000
well5. Hence applying at least a 10% safety factor seems
HHP pumps

20000 X> 1
appropriate. Improvement can be obtained by the addition of
X = 0.75
friction reducers. 15000
X = 0.50
In Figure 2 the maximum kill rates that can be achieved 10000 X = 0.25
for the various configurations have been plotted for a range of 5000
the ratio between the reservoir pressure and the pressure rating
0
of the relief well, pR/pCH, MAX. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Blowout conduit ID
Maximum achievable pump rate

450 Figure 3: Required HHP for the kill

400
350 9 5/8" + 5" DP The graph shows that in case of high pressure blowouts
Pump rate, bpm

300 9 5/8" - 5" annulus through a large ID conduit up to 25000 HHP may need to be
250 5" DP
200 7" + 3 1/2" DP
mobilised. Particularly in remote areas this may present a huge
150 7" - 3.5" DP challenge, but the time required for drilling and homing-in
100 3 1/2" DP relief wells will usually allow for mobilisation of this pump
50
0
capacity. This also applies to the volume of kill fluid required,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 which will be discussed in the next section.
Pressure ratio
Kill volume and time
Figure 2 : Maximum pump rate for various geometries A full-scale dedicated field test7 indicated that the kill process
proceeds efficiently when a suffiently high kill rate is pumped.
6 SPE/IADC 105612

The well starts to fill up from bottom and once sufficient fluid Ixtoc no.1 was located 94 km Northwest of Ciudad del
has been pumped to form a liquid column that balances the Carmen in the Gulf of Mexico in 50.5 m (165 ft) water depth.
reservoir pressure, the inflow stops. Little kill fluid is lost June 1979, control was lost when the well had reached 3627 m
during the actual kill. Usually an additional two well volumes (11900 ft) and total losses were observed9. The well blew out
are pumped to flush any remaining gas out of the well, to after tripping out the drill string and the rig was evacuated
prevent the well coming alive again once pumping stops. when the rig caught fire. This was the beginning of a blowout
To obtain an idea of the time required for the actual kill (i.e. which lasted for nine months and twenty-two days, a period
not taking into account the extra volumes pumped after the over which an estimated 4.2 million barrels of oil were spilled
kill) with the minimum required pump rate for a simple into the Gulf of Mexico, the second largest oil spill ever after
geometry, equation 10: the deliberate release of ca. 5.7 million barrels in the Persian
Gulf during the 1991 Gulf war.
Vwell h Basically the well was blowing through 9 5/8” casing to
t kill = ≈ C3 ⋅ ……………………….(16) surface. The exact pressure regime was unknown, but the fact
q pump X ⋅ D 0.6 that total losses were experienced at 1.12 s.g. mud weight
suggests that the pressures were close to hydrostatic.
Where C3 is a constant depending on the units used, e.g. C3 According to figure 1 this requires a kill rate of ca. 140 bpm.
equals 0.0022 when h is given in feet and D in inches, to Static formation pressure, assuming a hydrostatic gradient,
obtain tkill in minutes. In Figure 4 kill times are plotted as a exceeded 5000 psi (345 bara), i.e. the maximum pump rate
function of diameter for various pressure regimes for a 10,000 that could be achieved through a well with 9 5/8” casing and
ft (3048 m) deep well. 5” drill pipe, 132 bpm (figure 2), was insufficient. At least two
relief wells were required.
Kill time
Two relief wells, Ixtoc 1-A and Ixtoc 1-B were spudded. Ixtoc
1-B intersected the blowout first and injection of seawater
40 with rates averaging 50 bpm started right away. Although this
35
had a positive effect on the amount of oil produced, it did not
30
X>1 kill the well. Rates up to 100 bpm were achieved with the
Time (min)

25
20
X = 0.75 14,000 HP available but these could not be maintained due to
X = 0.5
15
X = 0.25
the rough seas, which are common in the Bay of Campeche
10 during winter. Two months later Ixtoc 1-A intersected the
5
blowout. Attempts were made to kill the blowout by
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 simultaneously pumping down the two relief wells with mud
Blowout conduit ID (in) density up 1.8 s.g. (unfortunately the pump rates are not
specified in ref. 9.), but without success. Gradually the water
Figure 4: Kill time as a function of blowout ID cut of the produced fluids increased. Continued pumping of
seawater, possibly in combination with water breakthrough in
It appears that the most difficult kills, high pressure and large the well, finally killed the blowout on March 17 1980.
diameter, proceed quite fast, i.e. within 10 minutes. This is Fateh L-3
also observed in the field. Unsuccessful kills may for a long The Fateh L-3 offshore Dubai development well L-3 had
time indicate some degree of reduced flow, but eventually reached 1274 m (4180 ft) when the kick occurred in the 17.5”
result in the well flowing at a high water cut. wellbore10. A 30” conductor had been driven to 137 m (450 ft)
The considerations on required kill rate, pump capacity, kill and a 20” casing was set and cemented at 400 m (1310 ft).
time etc. presented in the sections above, pertain to simplified Kick control efforts were abandoned and the rig evacuated
scenarios. To demonstrate the applicability of these when gas broke around the 20” shoe and bubbled up under the
deliberations they will be compared to a number of selected platform. Eight days later the gas ignited and in two weeks the
field cases. rig and platform disappeared in the Persian Gulf.
The gas originated from the Asmari limestone formation,
Comparison with recorded field cases which had a 35 m (115 ft) gas column at the position of L-3.
To validate the considerations in the above sections on This formation is vuggy and fractured with permeabilities of
required kill rate, pump capacity, kill time etc. the results will several hundred mD. The 17 ½ inch hole was open to flow of
be compared with selected field cases of hydraulic blowout gas and water from this formation. According to equation (10)
control. Criterion for selecting the field cases, apart from all a hole this size from top to bottom would require a kill rate of
relevant data being available, is their being fairly extreme e.g. more than 700 bpm (!) and 6 relief wells. There are some
where it concerns blowout rate, number of relief wells and kill positive factors however:
rate pumped. This should demonstrate that the concepts The drill string was left in the hole, which gives an
developed are valid under such conditions. In all cases the additional resistance to flow.
reader is referred to the literature for the details of the case Flow is not directly to surface but around the 20”
histories. The focus here will be on the identified main casing shoe and through the formations surrounding
parameters for hydraulic blowout control and the relief effort the well.
required. Heavy kill fluids can be used to reduce the kill rate
Ixtoc no. 1 required.
SPE/IADC 105612 7

This will reduce the required kill rate substantially. A more (95 m3/h) and 300 psi (20.7 bar). This seemed successful until
refined analysis taking these factors into account indicates a pumping the mud at 10 bpm started and flow from the well
kill rate of ca. 300 bpm for seawater. increased again.
Eventually four relief wells were drilled and during five kill A second kill attempt, pumping water with a friction reducer
attempts fluids (including polymers to combat fluid losses) at rates up to 66 bpm had a similar result, although the gas
were pumped downhole into the well at rates up to 230 bpm flow rate was reduced to 10% of the original blowout rate
without success. Finally the well bridged and ceased flowing, during this attempt. Eventually, a month after the blowout
ca. 7 months after the blowout started. started, the well was killed successfully with 1.26 s.g. brine,
This case demonstrates that hole size is a major factor for which exhibited 72% drag reduction in surface lines and
blowout control. Whereas high pressure can be countered by drillpipe, at an injection rate of 60 bpm.
high density kill fluids, a lack of resistance to flow will in all Arun-C-II-2
cases require high pump rates. This is also seen in the next The blowout of Mobil Indonesia’s Arun well no. C-II-2 is
case. considered the largest gas blowout ever12. The reservoir
El Isba 123 pressure at a vertical depth of 9650 ft (2941 m) was 7100 psi
March 1995 a Middle East Operator drilled into a fracture (490 bar, which gives X=1.684). The temperature was 230 oF
system in a reservoir at 3000 m depth and experienced total (100 0C). The well was blowing 0.6 s.g. lean gas through the
loss of returns and a subsequent kick5. While attempting to annulus of a 9 5/8” casing (ID 8.535”) and a 5” drill pipe.
regain control, a crater formed 100 m (328 ft) from the rig due Measured depth of the well was 10210 ft (3112 m).
to a leak in the 13 5/8” casing at 105 m (344 ft) depth. The rig In the Arun case, the required kill rate of 126 bpm was much
was abandoned. Basically the flow from the nearly higher than the 80 bpm calculated by Blount and Soeiinah12 or
hydrostatically pressured reservoir to the casing leak was the 118 bpm indicated by figure 1 (effective ID 7”, pump rate
through the annulus of the 13 5/8” casing and the 5” drill pipe. of 70 bpm multiplied by the hydrostatic ratio X for pumping
The fact that the well blowed against the overburden pressure with water in stead of the appropriate mud density). Blount
at the position of the casing leak, i.e. not directly to surface, and Soeiinah attributed this to leak off in the very high
was a mitigating factor. permeability reservoir between the relief well and the blowout
Attempts to kill the well by pumping down the drill string well. The leak off resulted in only a fraction of the kill fluid
failed. The highest pump rate that could be achieved was 42 actually flowing up the blowout well.
bpm and although this visibly reduced the flow temporarily it
was insufficient to kill the well completely. Detailed analysis The above discussion of five field cases shows that the
showed that close to 120 bpm would be required to kill the theoretical relations between well parameters, such as
well. This approaches the limit that can be pumped against geometry and pressure regime, and the actual relief effort
4000-psi reservoir pressure through a 9 5/8” casing with a 5” required are in fair agreement. This allows the final step, the
drill pipe. Hence two relief wells were spudded. As a quantification of the relief effort required for a proposed
contingency a third relief well was spudded later. Three development.
months later the first two relief wells intersected the blowout
well at depth and the blowout was killed in 12 minutes Overview of the relief well requirements
pumping water down both relief wells at a rate in excess of The information contained in figure 1, on the minimum
120 bpm. required kill rate for a particular type of well, and figure 2, on
Again the flow area of the 13 5/8”x5” annulus, equivalent to the kill rate that can be pumped down a relief well, can be
the area of an 11” ID string dictates a high kill rate combined to obtain an overview of the number of relief wells,
Sheep Mountain 4-15-H N, required to control blowouts for given geometries and
In March 1982 a CO2 well in the Sheep Mountain unit blew pressure regimes. The result is shown in Figure 5:
out while drilling a 8 7/8” hole in the CO2 bearing Dakota
sands at a depth of 2945 ft (1000 m)11. Pressure of the sands at
Relief well requirements
this depth was estimated at 1393 psi (96 bar), i.e. the well was
under-pressured (X=0.65). Flow was through the hole and 4 ½
3
“ drill string annulus, broaching to surface from the 10 ¾ “ 7" and 9 5/8"
N=1
casing shoe set at 298 ft. 2.5 N=2
Hydrostatic ratio

completions
In an open 8 7/8” hole to surface the kill would require 2 N=3
pumping ca. 80 bpm water, but the presence of the drill string Ixtoc (2 RW)
1.5
and the resistance to flow of the fissures between the 10 ¾” Fateh (4RW)
casing shoe and surface were assumed to reduce the required 1 Isba (2 RW)
rate, so that it was considered feasible to kill through the drill 0.5 Sheep M. (1 DP)
string although this had an ID of only 2 7/8”. Arun (1 RW)
0
During the first kill attempt, 2,200 bbl (350 m3) of water, 5 10 15 20
treated with a friction reducer, were pumped at an average rate Blowout conduit ID, in
of 55 bpm (520 m3 /h) and 4,200 psi (290 bar). The water was
followed immediately with 2,380 bbl (378 m3) of 15.5 ppg
(1860 kg/m3) mud at 28 bpm and 5,400 psi (372 bar) and then Figure 5: Number of relief wells required
by 120 bbl (19.1 m3) of 15.5 ppg (1860 kg/m3) mud at 10 bpm
8 SPE/IADC 105612

To obtain the figure, it was assumed that at most 120 bpm can pressured (290 bar, 4200 psi) at temperatures ranging from 86
be pumped down a single relief well. As discussed this will be to 93 0C (186 to 200 0F).
feasible in most cases in a relief well with 9 5/8” casing and a A sub-sea well located at a depth of 850 meters below mean
5” drill string. It is furthermore noted that figure 5 is a highly sea level will blow out against a surface pressure of 88 bar
generalized overview, i.e. it should not be utilized to replace (1270 psia), assuming a sea water density of 1.03. This means
detailed calculations for specific cases. Its main purpose is to the effective reservoir pressure is 290 – 88 = 202 bar (2930
demonstrate how the main factors for the required pump rate psia). For a vertical distance of 2000 meters between the
affect the number of relief wells required. reservoir and the well head, this gives a hydrostatic ratio, X,
For reference the positions of the case histories discussed practically equal to unity.
above have been indicated with estimated effective blowout For blowouts the following scenarios were considered:
conduit diameters. The encadred area indicates the position of Blowouts during Production:
most “conventional” wells, with 9 5/8” and 7” production Scenario 1: Blowout to seabed through 9 5/8" tubing.
casings and liners and pressures between 0.5 and 2 times Intersection just above top of reservoir.
hydrostatic. It appears that most of these wells are located to Scenario 2: Blowout to seabed through 7" tubing.
the left of the 1 relief well line (N = 1), so that in the majority Intersection just above top of reservoir.
of cases 1 relief well will in principle suffice to kill the Blowouts during light Intervention:
blowout. Special circumstances such as extreme downhole Scenario 3: Blowout to surface through 9 5/8" tubing
losses may increase the number of relief wells required. and further up 7 1/4" ID workover riser. Intersection just
For normally and over-pressured wells, completion size is the above top of reservoir.
main factor determining the number of relief wells required, Blowouts during Drilling:
e.g. it is improbable that a blowout through 10 ¾” tubing can Scenario 4: Blowout to seabed through 13 3/8" casing
be killed with a single relief well, unless the well is set at 2100m TVD.
considerably below hydrostatic. Contingency plans for such I: Flow in annulus. 5 1/2" drillpipe in hole.
developments should take this into account. Intersection just above top of reservoir.
For under-pressured or depleted wells the relief well II: Flow in open hole/casing. No drillpipe in hole.
requirements drop. For example, in the Groningen gas field, Intersection just below 13 3/8" casing.
where pressure has dropped to less than half of hydrostatic, a Scenario 5: Blowout to seabed through 9 5/8" casing set
blowout through a 10 ¾” tubing can still be controlled with a right above top of reservoir. Intersection just above top of
single relief well. Lift and liquid loading problems will reservoir.
however often dictate smaller tubing sizes in this stage of I: Flow in annulus. 5 1/2" drillpipe in hole.
depletion. II: Flow in open hole/casing. No drillpipe in hole.
The case of a giant North Sea gas field will now be considered
to illustrate application of the contingency planning frame Of these scenario’s, scenario 2, blowout through 7” tubing will
work that has been developed in the previous sections. have the highest resistance to flow, and will therefore require
the lowest pump rate, some 70 bpm (pumping sea water)
Application to a North Sea gas field according to figure 1. A higher density kill fluid and deviation
To illustrate application of the principles discussed in the of the blowout well will reduce this requirement further. A
previous sections, the case of the Ormen Lange gas field, single relief well will suffice and some 6000 HHP will need to
offshore Norway, will be discussed here. be mobilized.
The Ormen Lange field, discovered in 1997, is located in the The worst case is scenario 4 II, with the well blowing to
Storegga slide area 120km west of Kristiansund. The water seabed through a 13 3/8“ casing. This requires a kill rate of
depth is 850m to 1,100m (2789 to 3089 ft). It is the second 310 bpm according to equation 10.
largest gas field in Norway after Troll, which has
Relief well requirements
approximately 1,300 billion cubic metres (43 Tcf) recoverable
gas. With gas reserves of close to 400 bcm (13 Tcf) and 3
O
r
m
e
n
L
a
n
g
e

development costs of about NOK66 billion (US$0.5 billion),

2.5
the Ormen Lange gas field ranks as the largest development in
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
'
s
r
a
n
g
e
Hydrostatic ratio

2
the European offshore arena. The reservoir is around 40
kilometers long and eight kilometers wide, approximately 1.5

3000 meters (10,000 ft) below the surface of the sea, i.e. 2000 1

m (6600 ft) below seabed level. 0.5

The foreseen production capacity is: 0
Condensate: 6000 to 8500 m3 per day (38000 to 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
53000 bpd) Blowout conduit ID, in
Gas: 70 million sm3 per day (2500 MMscf/d).
To be produced by 24 sub-sea wells in four seabed templates.
Figure 6: Relief wells for the defined blowout scenarios
CGR is estimated ca. 100 m3/106 sm3 (18 bbl/MMscf), water
production is considered negligible. The 50 m (150 ft) thick Figure 6 demonstrates what this means in terms of relief well
sands with an average permeability of 500 mD are normally requirements. Whereas for blowouts through production
casings up to 9 5/8” a single relief well will suffice, a blowout
SPE/IADC 105612 9

through a 13 3/8” casing will require three relief wells (!). ft2 × 9.290 304* E-02=m2
High-density kill fluids could reduce this to two. Only when ft3 × 2.831 685 E-02=m3
the reservoir pressure drops to less than 170 bar (2470 psi), lbf × 4.448 222 E+00=N
reducing the hydrostatic ratio to less than 0.4, a single relief lbm × 4.535 924 E-01=kg
well will suffice to kill a blowout through a 13 3/8” production psi × 6.894 757 E+00=kPa=0.01 bar
casing. Hence early development with big bore wells will have *Conversion factor is exact.
to be considered carefully in this case.

Concluding remarks References

For contingency planning for a new development the 1. "Environmental Management in Oil and Gas Exploration
parameters of hydraulic blowout control (the and Production, an overview of issues and management
“dynamic kill”), such as the required number of relief approaches." , joint UNEP IE and E&P Forum
wells, kill rate and fluid, pump capacity etc. should publication, ISBN 92-807-1639-5, 1997
be known prior to spudding the wells. For
unconventional developments such as HPHT and big 2. Oudeman, P. :"Oil Fallout in the Vicinity of an Onshore
bore wells these requirements can not be derived Blowout; Observations on Field Case", Paper IPTC
from experience. 10392, presented at the International Petroleum
The requirements depend on a number of factors such Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November
2005
as the pressure and depth of the producing
formations, fluid properties and flow resistance of the 3. Bou-Yabes, A.A., Akbar, S.H., Kuwait Oil Co. : “The
foreseen wells. Aftermath of the Kuwaiti Oil Fires”, SPE 25699-MS
By grouping these factors general guidelines for the presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
dynamic kill requirements can be derived. 22-25 February, Amsterdam, Netherlands
A comparison with field cases shows that the derived
4. Miller, Robert T., Shell Oil Co.; Clements, Ronald L.,
guidelines match field experience and can be
Shell Oil Co.: “ Reservoir Engineering Techniques Used
considered a valid starting point for detailed planning
To Predict Blowout Control During the Bay Marchand
for a specific well. This is illustrated with an example Fire”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1972,
of a North Sea gas field. Pages 234-240
Nomenclature 5. Oudeman, P. :”Analysis of Surface and Wellbore
Symbols Hydraulics Provides Key to Efficient Blowout Control”,
A Flow area, m2 SPE 36485, presented at the 1996 Annual Technical
C Constant depending on unit system Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
D Diameter, m USA, 6-9 October 1996
f Friction factor, dimensionless 6. Oudeman, P., Ter Avest, D, and Baaijens, M.N.: "
g Gravitational acceleration, m/s2 Modelling Blowout Control by Means of Downhole Kill
h Depth, m Fluid Injection," SPE 26732 presented at the 1993
p Pressure, Pa Offshore European Conference, Aberdeen, 7-10
q Flow rate, m3/s September
R Flow resistance, m-4
t Time, s 7. Oudeman, P. and Mason, D.: "Results of a Field Test to
V Volume, m3 Improve Hydraulic Blowout Control Calculations," SPE
X Hydrostatic ratio, dimensionless 50577, presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum
Greek symbols Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22
α Deviation angle October 1998.
ε Hydraulic roughness, m 8. Rygg, O.B. and Gilhuus T.: "Use of a Dynamic Two-
ρ Density, kg/m3 Phase Pipe Flow Simulator in Blowout Kill Planning."
Subscripts SPE 20433, Presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
BO Blowout well Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 1990.
kf Kill fluid 9. Ulloa Luga, O.L. and Osorio de Leon, I.:"Ixtoc No. 1,
h Hydraulic Blowout and Control Operation", SPE 9697, presented at
R Reservoir the 1981 Deep Drilling and Production Symposium of
RW Relief well the SPE, Amarillo, Texas, April 5-7
s Surface
w Water 10. Arnwine, L.C. and Ely J.W.:"Polymer Use in Blowout
wf Flowing well bore Control", SPE 6835, Journal of Petroleum Technology
May 1978.
SI Metric Conversion Factors 11. Lynch, R.D., McBride, E.J., Perkins, T.K. and Wiley,
ft × 3.048* E-01=m M.E.:"Dynamic Kill of an Uncontrolled CO2 Well", SPE
10 SPE/IADC 105612

11378, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,

New Orleans, Feb. 20-23, 1983
12. Blount E. M. and E. Soeiinah, "Dynamic kill: Controlling
wild wells a new way," World Oil, Oct. 1981, pp 109-126

Appendix A: Flow resistance of a tubular geometry

The flow resistance in a conduit has been defined as:

∆p friction
R= ……………………………….(A1)
ρ ⋅ q v2

With the expression for frictional pressure loss in the well:

2
⎛q ⎞ h
∆p friction = 0 .5 ⋅ f ⋅ ρ ⋅ ⎜ v ⎟ ⋅ ………(A2)
⎝ A ⎠ Dh ⋅ cos(α )

Where A is the flow area and cos(α) is the virtual angle that
corrects for the difference between AHD and TVD (h).
This gives for the flow resistance:

0.5 ⋅ f ⋅ h
R= ……………………..(A3)
A ⋅ Dh ⋅ cos(α )
2

Which gives for the term dominating the pump rate:

h Dh ⋅ cos(α )
= A⋅ …………………….(A4)
R 0.5 ⋅ f

Hence for a pipe for which the hydraulic diameter is equal to

the actual diameter:

h π 2 cos(α )
= D 2.5 ⋅ ⋅ ………………….(A5)
R 8 f

Here the friction factor, f, has a small dependence on 1/D, as

can be seen in the Prandl-Karman equation for fully rough
wall flow:

1 ⎛ D ⎞
= 2 ⋅ log10 ⎜ ⎟ + 1.74 …………….(A6)
f ⎝ 2 ⋅ε ⎠

For the range of pipe sizes and hydraulic roughnesses, ε,

commonly encountered, this can be represented with fair
accuracy as:

−0.21
⎛ D⎞
f = 0.081 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ .………………………(A7)
⎝ε ⎠
Together with equation (A5) this explains the power 2.6
dependence of flow resistance on conduit diameter.