Understanding the Well Control Procedures for

optimizing the Well Control System during Drilling

Muhammad Arsalan Sultan, Mazhar Ahmed, Muzamil Ali, and
Gul Zaman Babar
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Understanding the Well Control Procedures for optimizing the

Well Control System during Drilling
Muhammad Arsalan Sultan1, Mazhar Ahmed2, Muzamil Ali3, and Gul Zaman Babar1
1
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited, Pakistan
2
Tianjin University, China
3
KEPCO Plant Services & Engineering Co. Ltd
Abstract
Well control is an essential part of any drilling operation. Improper well control procedure may
result in blowout, and blowouts must be controlled to ensure a smooth drilling operation. The
majority of well control incidents occur as a result of a failure to understand the fundamental
principles involved. As a result, proper training and understanding are required for a drilling
engineer. Every company in the world provides drilling engineers with training and an
overview of various well control operations. The goal of taking well control as an engineering
project is to think about and visualize the significance of well control in any drilling job. The
purpose of this paper was to understand of well control procedures as well as the selection of
the most effective well control system. The concurrent technique should only be utilized in
exceptional circumstances; in the majority of occasions, the driller method is employed.
However, if a suitable casing shoe is available, Wait & Weight method should also be used.
Keywords: Well control, oil & gas drilling, blowout preventer, artificial intelligence, lost
circulation drilling engineering, kick identification

24
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Maintaining control over the fluids that occur in the pore spaces of the formations being
penetrated by the well is important during the bulk of operations related to drilling, completing,
workover and ultimately abandoning a well. Extreme pressures and temperatures can be
applied to these fluids in-situ, but these conditions are not necessary for the fluids to cause
issues with well control (Khan et al., 2021). If these fluids are not kept under control, they may
flow spontaneously and occasionally quickly into the wellbore (Mallah et al., 2021). The
degree of pressure imbalance between the wellbore and the reservoir, along with the reservoir's
permeability, influence the rate of flow. Such a flow's beginning phase is referred to as a kick.
A blowout is the term used to describe when such a flow is uncontrolled and degrades
uncontrollably (Salehian et al., 2022).
Blowouts can have a significant negative influence on the environment, which makes them
extremely harmful to the operator (Liu et al., 2021). The early phases of a blowout can also be
extremely dangerous for workers and seriously harm nearby equipment. Costs associated with
control and recovery might range from $10 to $100 million (Muneer et al., 2021). The blowout,
however, can also seriously harm the producing reservoir by depleting it and forming preferred
water and gas flow routes. Additionally, it may have a secondary effect on the above formation,
which could become contaminated or under abnormal pressure. Long after the surface
environmental impact has been mitigated, these factors continue to have an impact on
operations (Alpak, 2022).
Therefore, it is essential that well engineering staff members understand how to manage this
risk through prevention using primary control approaches, control, and recovery - if an
underbalanced scenario does develop, how to regulate it and regain primary control (Anfinsen
et al., 2021). Secondary control measures are the actions taken to recover control over the
primary well. These seek to recover control while having the fewest negative effects on the
well's short- and long-term integrity and productivity. And more stringent tertiary well control
techniques may be used if these primary and secondary measures are unsuccessful (Ruzhnikov
& Yurtaev, 2021).

Figure 1: Well control principles (B. Atchison, 2022)

25
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

An understanding of various well control activities has been acquired during this investigation.
The Driller Method, Wait & Weight Method, Concurrent Method, and Volumetric Method are
some of the well control systems that are investigated for this purpose in order to choose the
best and most effective well control system.
2.0 DRILLER’S METHOD
After the initial kick response and the formation flow are stopped, a kick must be circulated
out of the well to allow ordinary operations to resume (Ashena et al., 2021). To prevent more
kicks, the kick must be cycled to the surface while the wellbore pressure is kept constant. The
best way to circulate an influx out of the wellbore is frequently highly contested by well control
professional (Aarushi & Krishnakanth, 2021). One of the earliest techniques for circulating
well kick is the driller's method. It is the simplest approach. A popular kick circulation
technique is called the Driller's Method. It practically requires no computations, which makes
it useful for use during traditional drilling. In this technique, the elimination of kick requires
two circulations (B. W. Atchison & Wuest, 2021). During first circulation, kick is removed
from the wellbore using the mud that is already there. Calculations are made, kill sheets are
finished, and the mud is weighted up to the necessary kill weight during the first circulation.
The original mud is replaced with kill mud in the second loop, and the drilling procedure is
continued (. et al., 2021). By keeping the bottomhole pressure constant or, preferable, just
above the formation pressure, which is adjusted dependent on the pump pressure, Diller method
circulates the kick. To do this, the choke opening is modified (B. W. Atchison, 2021).
2.1 Mud Circulation
The Driller’s Method requires two circulations,
2.1.1 First Circulation
The influx is removed during the initial circulation together with the initial mud weight.
Recirculation drill pipe pressure is kept constant throughout the first circulation to maintain
consistent BHP (Pump the kick out of the well, using existing mud weight).
2.1.2 Second Circulation
The well is put out of service by circulating a heavier mud (kill mud) in a second cycle if the
first mud weight is insufficient to balance the formation pressure (Pump the kill mud into the
well).
2.2 Steps for Driller’s Method
When a kick is detected, calculate the shut-in drill pipe pressure constant (SIDPP) and the shut-
in casing pressure constant (SIDCP) (SICP). It is important that. If you are unsure at any point
during the procedure, shut down the well, read and record the shut-in drill pipe pressure and
shut-in casing pressure, and proceed accordingly. Surface pressures are known to fluctuate
slightly due to temperature, gas migration, or gauge issues. The second statement is especially
important to remember. When in doubt, close the well! The dominant impulse appears to be to
continue circulating regardless of the consequences.
Set the pump rate. Because the mud is not weighted for the first circulation, the pump rate is
not limited by the rig's weighting material mixing capacity. However, other factors such as
increased SIDPP, the need for choke adjustment, and surface gas handling equipment limit the
maximum pump rate. Furthermore, if the choke begins to block off, pressure surges will be less
at lower circulating rates (Li et al., 2021).

26
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Bringing the pump to speed without allowing an additional influx or fracturing the casing shoe
has proven to be one of the most difficult aspects of any kill procedure. Attempts to achieve a
precise kill rate exacerbate the problem. There's nothing magical about the kill rate used to
distribute a kick (Abdali et al., 2021). Surface facilities were insufficient in the early days of
pressure control to bring an influx to the surface at a high pump speed. As a result, one-half
normal speed became the arbitrarily chosen rate for circulating the influx to the surface (Brohi
et al., 2021). However, if only one rate is acceptable, such as one-half speed, problems can
arise when the pump speed is slightly less or slightly greater than the precise one-half speed.
The potential issue stems from the fact that the circulating pressure at rates other than the kill
rate is unknown (Cusworth et al., 2021).
Examine ICP (Initial Circulating Pressure), the pressure usually needed on the drill pipe for
something like the circulation of the well first time.
𝐼𝐶𝑃 = 𝑃𝑆𝐶𝑅 + 𝑆𝐼𝐷𝑃𝑃
Where,
Initial Circulation Pressure = ICP
Slow Circulation Rate Pressure = PSCR
Shut-in Drill Pipe Pressure = SIDPP
Open the choke about a quarter, start the pump, and stop the circulation. Adjust the choke
opening until the choke pressure equals the pressure in the closed-in annulus plus the
overbalance margin. Throughout the first circulation, record the choke pressures (Thorogood
et al., 2022).
Driller increases pump rate to Kill Rate. The choke operator should keep the casing pressure at
or near the shut-in casing pressure (SICP) reading. This step should take no more than 5
minutes (Ahmed & Memon, 2018). One of the most difficult problems in any well control
procedure is getting the pump up to speed. Experience has shown that keeping the casing
pressure constant at the shut-in casing pressure while bringing the pump up to speed is the most
practical approach. Over the five minutes required to bring the pump up to speed, the initial
gas expansion is negligible. It is not necessary for the initial volume rate of flow to be exact.
Any rate within 10% of the kill rate is acceptable.
This procedure will determine the appropriate drill pipe pressure to use to displace the kick
(Francis & Ogbeide, 2021). In practice, the rate can be lowered or raised at any time during
the displacement procedure. Simply read and record the circulating casing pressure and keep it
constant while adjusting the pumping rate and establishing a new drill pipe pressure (Nedwed
& Mitchell, 2021). Because the expansion near the surface is quite rapid, changing the rate
should take no more than one to two minutes (Muneer et al., 2021).
Once the pump has reached a satisfactory Kill Rate, the Choke operator should shift his focus
to maintaining the initial circulating pressure (ICP) reading on the drill pipe pressure gauge
(Muhammad et al., 2022). Displace the influx while maintaining the measured drill pipe
pressure constant. ICP should be maintained at a constant throughout the first circulation by
adjusting the choke until all of the kick fluid has been circulated out of the well. During the
first circulation, the pump rate is held constant to Kill Rate. Record the casing pressure after
the influx has been displaced and compare it to the original shut-in drill pipe pressure (SIDPP)
recorded in Step 2. It should be noted that if the influx has been completely displaced, the
casing pressure should equal the original shut-in drill pipe pressure (SIDPP) (Mallah et al.,
2021).

27
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Consider the U-Tube Model in Sketch 1 and compare it to the U-Tube Model in Sketch 2. If
the influx has been properly and completely displaced, the conditions in Sketch 1's annulus
side are identical to the conditions in Sketch 2's drill pipe side. If the frictional pressure losses
in the annulus are negligible, the conditions in Sketch 1's annulus side will be similar to those
in Sketch 2. As a result, once the influx has been removed, the circulating annulus pressure
should equal the initial shut-in drill pipe pressure (Chagas et al., 2021).

Sketch 1

Sketch 2

Figure 2: U-Tube Model (Wen et al., 2021)

If the casing pressure is equal to the original shut-in drill pipe pressure recorded in Step 2, close
the well by maintaining a constant casing pressure while slowing the pumps. If the casing
pressure exceeds the
original shut-in drill
pipe pressure, continue circulating for an additional circulation
while maintaining the drill pipe pressure constant, and then shut in the well while maintaining
the casing pressure constant while slowing the pumps (Nissanka & Yapa, 2016). If the shut-in
casing pressure exceeds the shut-in drill pipe pressure, repeat Steps 2.2.3–2.2.8. 2.2.10 If the
kick is no longer in the hole, close the well and begin preparing the kill mud. This is usually
assumed prior to the start of the second circulation (Graham et al., 2022).
Prepare Kill Mud for the Second Circulation. Increase the density of the mud in the suction pit
to the density determined in step 10. Calculate the number of strokes to the bit by dividing the
drill string capacity in barrels by the pump capacity in barrels per stroke.

28
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Half-open the choke, start the pump, and stop circulation. Set the pump to Kill Rate. As the
driller raises the pump, the choke operator should keep the casing pressure at or near the shut-
in casing pressure (SICP) reading. Read and record the drill pipe pressure after pumping the
number of strokes required for the kill mud to reach the bit. When the Drill Pipe is filled with
mud, two options are used to maintain constant BHP.
Casing pressure is maintained constant while pumping kill mud from the surface to the bit, and
drill pipe pressure is maintained constant until kill mud is observed returning to the surface.
Alternatively, during the second circulation, a drill pipe pressure schedule can be calculated
and followed while pumping kill mud from the surface to the bit, and drill pipe pressure is then
maintained constant. Typically, a graph is drawn from ICP to FCP to examine how the drill
pipe pressure drops as Kill Mud moves down to the bit without moving the choke. Kill Mud
moves down the pipe toward bit as it is added. When it reaches the bit (bottom), the drill pipe
pressure is just enough to circulate the Kill Mud around the well (Eren, 2018). As the kill mud
begins to flow down the drill pipe, the drill pipe pressure drops below the initial circulating
pressure, eventually reaching the final circulating pressure when the kill mud reaches the bit.
Following that, the drill pipe pressure is maintained at the final circulating pressure by
gradually opening the choke as the kill mud moves up the annulus. This FCP value is equal to
SCR pressure and increases slightly when Kill Mud is added (Chen et al., 2018).

When Kill Mud reaches the surface via the bit, stop pumping, close the well, and confirm that
it is dead. Close the well by maintaining constant casing pressure while slowing the pumps.
The shut-in drill pipe pressure and the shut-in casing pressure should be read and recorded.
Both pressures must be zero. Check for flow by opening the well. Repeat the procedure if the
well is flowing. If no flow is observed, increase the mud weight to include the desired trip
margin and circulate the system until the desired mud weight is reached throughout.

29
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Figure 3: First and Second Circulations Plot (Vajargah et al., 2014)

3.0 WAIT & WEIGHT METHOD OR BALANCED METHOD
The Wait & Weight method, also known as the one circulation method, entails circulating the
kick fluid out while the original mud is displaced concurrently with the kill mud. It is also
known as the 'Engineer's Method.' It does, in theory, kill the well in a single circulation. The
well is closed while the mud is weighted to the required kill weight, calculations are performed,
and kill sheets are prepared.
3.1 Steps for Wait & Weight Method
The well is sealed and the necessary data is recorded.
Make Kill Mud and determine the Initial Circulating Pressure.

The choke is opened, and the pump is started to interrupt circulation. Bring the pump to Kill
Rate, and the choke operator keeps the casing pressure at or near the SICP while the drill is
pumping up. Choke operator should maintain the ICP on drill pipe pressure gauge after the
pump is at Kill Rate, and as Kill Mud proceeds down the drill pipe, drill pipe pressure is allowed
to drop from ICP to FCP by choke adjustment. The choke is cracked open and start pump to
break circulation.

Adjust the choke to keep this pressure for the duration of the operation. As kill mud enters the
annulus, the SICP decreases, increasing the overall hydrostatic pressure in the annulus. SICP
and pit volume will increase as the influx reaches the surface. When the kill mud reaches the
surface via the bit, stop pumping and close the well. If some SICP value is still recorded,
continue to circulate mud until all remaining influx is removed from the well.

30
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Figure 4: Wait & Weight Method Plot (Jahanpeyma & Jamshidi, 2018)
4.0 VOLUMETRIC METHOD
The volumetric control method is not a kill method; rather, it controls bottom hole pressure
until provisions can be made to circulate or bullhead kill mud into the well. Volumetric control
allows for controlled expansion of the gas bubble as it migrates up the hole (Sule et al., 2019).
Gas bubbles are allowed to expand by bleeding off mud at the surface while maintaining
constant casing pressure. Only when the mud is being bled off is the casing pressure held
constant; otherwise, it is allowed to rise naturally. Each barrel of mud bled off at the surface
alters the wellbore environment in four ways (B. W. Atchison & Sarpangal, 2022).
 The gas bubble to expand by one barrel
 The hydrostatic pressure of the mud in the annulus to decrease
 The bottom hole pressure to decrease
 The surface casing pressure to stay the same
4.1 Steps for Volumetric Control
Volumetric control is achieved through a series of steps that cause the bottom hole pressure to
rise and fall sequentially. We allow the gas bubble to rise, causing the bottom hole pressure to
rise. The bottom hole pressure decreases as we bleed mud from the annulus. Then we let the
gas bubble rise, followed by mud bleeds, and so on. Bottom hole pressure is thus kept within a
range that is both high enough to prevent another influx and low enough to prevent an
underground blowout (Van Noort et al., 2022).
4.1.1 Calculations
Before a volumetric control procedure can be executed, three calculations must be completed.
The Safety Factor, Increase in pressure and increase in Mud level
4.1.1.1 Safety Factor
The safety factor is an increase in bottom hole pressure caused by natural gas migration up the
annulus. Allowing the gas bubble to rise in the annulus causes the bottom hole pressure to rise.
It is critical that we allow the bottom hole pressure to rise above the formation pressure so that
we do not become unbalanced when we bleed mud from the annulus in later steps. In most
cases, an appropriate value for the safety factor is in the 200 psi range. It may take several
hours for the gas bubble to rise sufficiently to increase the casing pressure, depending on the

31
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

depth, angle, and fluid in the well. Depending on how close the shoe is to exceeding its fracture
pressure under initial shut-in conditions, a safety factor less than 200 psi may be recommended.
Any increase in bottom hole pressure will result in an increase in shoe pressure as well. If the
shoe is nearing its fracture pressure, the safety factor must be reduced accordingly (Nasir &
Durlofsky, 2022). If you calculate that a 200-psi safety factor will break down the shoe, a 100-
psi safety factor would be more appropriate.
4.1.1.2 Pressure Increment
The pressure increment is the decrease in hydrostatic pressure that occurs each time we bleed
a given volume of mud from the annulus (Echeverría Ciaurri et al., 2021). The Drilling
Foreman should choose a pressure increment those results in a decrease in hydrostatic pressure
equal to one-third of the initial safety factor value (rounded to the nearest 10 psi). For example,
if a 150-psi safety factor was chosen, the pressure increase should result in a 50-psi decrease
in hydrostatic pressure (i.e., one-third of 150 psi).
PI = SF / 3
Where,
Pressure Increment = PI
Safety Factor = SF
4.1.1.3 Mud Increment
The mud increment is the volume of mud that must be bled from the annulus to reduce the
annular hydrostatic pressure by the amount determined above. The mud increment can be
calculated using the right-hand equation. It is critical to have some way of measuring the small
volumes of mud that are bled off from the annulus.

PI = Pressure Increment (psi)

ACF = Annulus Capacity Factor (bbl/ft)
MW = Mud Weight (pcf)
4.1.2 Allow Casing Pressure to Increase Establish Safety Factor
After the calculations are completed, the next step in Volumetric Control is to wait for the gas
bubble to migrate up the hole and cause an increase in the shut-in casing pressure. (In reality,
this would happen while you were doing your calculations.) Allow the gas bubble to rise until
the casing pressure rises by an amount equal to the safety factor. Because no mud has been bled
from the annulus, the hydrostatic. While the Gas Bubble Moves

The bottom hole pressure has increased by the safety factor at this point, and the well should
be safely overbalanced.
4.1.3 Hold Casing Pressure Constant by Bleeding Off the Mud Increment
The first mud increment can be bled from the well after the safety factor overbalance is applied.
The way the mud is bled off the annulus is critical; it must be bled in such a way that the casing

32
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

pressure remains constant throughout the bleeding. This is done to ensure that the bottom hole
pressure is reduced solely by a loss in mud hydrostatic pressure and not by a loss in surface
pressure as well (Feo et al., 2020). During the bleeding process, the pressure increment reduces
the hydrostatic pressure while holding the surface pressure constant, so the pressure increment
also reduces the bottom hole pressure. While the Annulus is Bleeding Mud

When we bleed mud out of the annulus, the gas bubble expands to fill the space left by the mud.
According to Boyle's Law, the pressure in the gas bubble decreases as it expands.
4.1.4 Wait for Casing Pressure to Rise as the Gas Bubble Migrates
Each mud bleed from the annulus reduces the bottom hole pressure by the pressure increment.
This reduces the overbalance of our safety factor. We simply wait for the gas bubble to migrate
up the annulus to restore the full value of overbalance to the well. As the gas bubble migrates,
both the surface and bottom hole pressures rise, just as they did when the safety factor was
applied. We wait for the gas bubble to rise until the surface casing pressure rises by the same
amount as the pressure increase. We have also increased bottom hole pressure by the amount
of the pressure increase, and the well is now fully overbalanced (Raza et al., 2019).
4.1.5 Hold Casing Pressure Constant by Bleeding Mud from the Annulus
We can safely bleed another mud increment from the annulus once we have our full overbalance
back on the well. This step, like the first, is completed while maintaining constant casing
pressure. Because a similar amount of mud hydrostatic pressure has been bled from the well,
the bottom hole pressure is reduced by the amount of the pressure increment. As a result, the
gas bubble has expanded by the volume of the mud increment.
4.1.6 Wait for Casing Pressure to Increase as the Gas Bubble Migrates
After the bleed, we wait for the gas bubble to migrate as the well is shut down. The bottom
hole pressure will return to its fully overbalanced state (Elgibaly, 2019). We can tell when
this has happened because the casing pressure has increased by the amount of the pressure
increase.
4.1.7 Alternate Holding Casing Pressure Constant and Letting It Rise
The rest of the volumetric control procedure is simply a series of bleeding and migrating,
bleeding and migrating, bleeding and migrating, until the gas has finally migrated to the surface.
When we bleed, we lower the bottom hole pressure; when we migrate, we raise the bottom hole
pressure. We allow the gas bubble to expand during each bleed step, lowering the pressure
inside the bubble. The gas has expanded by the time it reaches the surface.
4.1.8 Lubricate Mud into the Well
After the gas has reached the surface, the casing pressure should stop increasing. The well is
stable at this point, but before proceeding with further well work, you should bleed the gas
from the well and replace it with mud. This step entails bleeding gas from the well in order to
reduce casing pressure by a predetermined amount. The well should then be pumped with a
measured volume of mud to increase the hydrostatic pressure in the annulus by the amount of
surface pressure lost when the gas was first bled off. These steps should be repeated until gas
cannot be bled from the well any longer.

33
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

5.0 CONCURRENT METHOD

This method is the most complicated and unpredictable of the three. Its main advantage is that
it combines the driller's and engineer's methods, allowing the kill operation to begin
immediately upon receipt of the shut-in pressures. Rather than waiting until all of the surface
mud has been weighted, pumping begins at the kill rate right away, and the mud is pumped
down as the density increases. The rate at which the mud density is increased is determined by
the mixing facilities available and the crew's capability. The main drawback of this method is
that the drill pipe can be filled with muds of varying densities, making calculation of the bottom
hole hydrostatic pressure (and drill pipe pressure) difficult.
This can be a very efficient method of killing a kick if there is proper monitoring,
communication, and understanding of the procedure. Figure shows the variations in drill pipe
pressure with kill mud volume brought on by the mud's various densities. The shut-in process
is the same as what was previously described. The pumps are steadily triggered until the starting
circulating pressure is obtained at the chosen kill rate after all kick data has been recorded. In
order to warn the choke operator as the mud density changes in the suction pit, the mud should
be weighted up as quickly as feasible. When the new density is pumped, the choke is adjusted
to suit the new drill pipe circumstances, and the total number of pump strokes is monitored on
the drill pipe pressure chart. With this technique, circulation starts right away and the mud
progressively becomes heavier as circulation continues. This will go on until the well is dead
and the last amount of kill mud necessary has reached the surface.

Figure 5: Concurrent Method Plot (Jahanpeyma & Jamshidi, 2018)

5.1 Procedure
 Calculate the ICP, kill mud weight, and FCP with the well shut down.
 Determine the pressure reduction required in terms of incremental mud weight until the
final kill mud is circulated rather than stroke increments from surface to bit. Over several
circulations, the mud weight will be increased while the drill pipe pressure will be reduced.

34
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

 Adjust the choke to bring the pump up to a slow circulation rate while ensuring the drill
pipe pressure is equal to the ICP.
 As the mud density increases, the drill pipe pressure is reduced through the choke in
accordance with the step down chart.
 Drill pipe pressure decreases with each incremental increase in mud weight. The drill pipe
pressure should be at the FCP when the final kill mud is at the bit.
6.0 CHOOSING THE BEST METHOD
The time required to execute the kill procedure, the surface pressures from the kick, the
complexity relative to the ease of implementation, and the downhole stresses applied to the
formation during the kick killing process are all factors to consider when determining the best
well control method for most situations. Before deciding on a procedure, all points must be
considered.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following list summarizes the industry's general opinion on these methods.
 In most cases, the Driller (one circulation) method should be used.
 If a good casing shoe is available and there will be a delay in weighting up the system, the
Wait & Weight (two circulation) method should be used.
 The Concurrent method should be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as a severe
(1.5 lbm/gal or greater) kick with a large influx and the possibility of developing lost
circulation.
REFERENCES
Z., Ansari, U., . H., Ahmed, I., & Ahmed, M. (2021). Developing Well Performance Analysis
for Improving the pump capacity of Jet Pumps using SNAP software. International
Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 11(02), 168–172.
https://doi.org/10.14741/ijcet/v.11.2.4
Aarushi, A. K. S., & Krishnakanth, V. V. (2021). A Review on Onshore Drilling for Oil and
Gas Production with Its Safety Barriers and Well Control Methods. Advances in
Environment Engineering and Management: Proceedings of the 1st National
Conference on Sustainable Management of Environment and Natural Resource
Through Innovation in Science and Technology, 29.
Abdali, M. R., Mohamadian, N., Ghorbani, H., & Wood, D. A. (2021). Petroleum well
blowouts as a threat to drilling operation and wellbore sustainability: causes,
prevention, safety and emergency response. Journal of Construction Materials|
Special Issue on Sustainable Petroleum Engineering ISSN, 2652, 3752.
Ahmed, M., & Memon, M. K. (2018). Oil Production Optimization with Gas Lift Method.
8(6), 1628–1634.
Alpak, F. O. (2022). Simultaneous Optimization of Well Count and Placement: Algorithm,
Validation, and Field Testing. SPE Journal, 1–26.
Anfinsen, B.-T., Mosti, I., & Szemat-Vielma, W. (2021). Well Control 4.0: Integration of a
Transient Model in Automated Well Planning Workflows. SPE/IADC International
Drilling Conference and Exhibition.

35
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Ashena, R., Ghorbani, F., Mubashir, M., Nazari Sarem, M., & Iravani, A. (2021). The Root
Cause Analysis and Successful Control of an Oilwell Blowout in the Middle East. Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference.
Atchison, B. (2022). Automated well control: A step change in safety. Digital Chemical
Engineering, 3, 100022. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DCHE.2022.100022
Atchison, B. W. (2021). Automated Well Control: From Automated Detection to Automated
Shut-In. SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition.
Atchison, B. W., & Sarpangal, V. (2022). Automated Well Control Versus Traditional Well
Control: A Human Error Comparison Process. IADC/SPE International Drilling
Conference and Exhibition.
Atchison, B. W., & Wuest, C. (2021). The Integration of Managed Pressure Drilling MPD
and Automated Well Control Technology. IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling &
Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition.
Brohi, M., Ansari, U., Shams, B., Ahmed, M., & Soomro, Z. (2021). Optimizing the Residual
Oil Recovery By Investigating the Influence of Sensitivity Analysis Over Injection
Rate During Alkaline Surfactant Polymer ( Asp ) Flooding. 02, 800–807.
Chagas, F., Ribeiro, P. R., & Santos, O. L. A. (2021). Well Control Simulation With
Nonaqueous Drilling Fluids. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 143(3).
Chen, X., Yang, J., Gao, D., Huang, Y., Li, Y., Luo, M., & Li, W. (2018). Well Control for
Offshore High-Pressure/High-Temperature Highly Deviated Gas Wells Drilling: How
to Determine the Kick Tolerance? IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition.
Cusworth, D. H., Duren, R. M., Thorpe, A. K., Pandey, S., Maasakkers, J. D., Aben, I., Jervis,
D., Varon, D. J., Jacob, D. J., & Randles, C. A. (2021). Multisatellite imaging of a gas
well blowout enables quantification of total methane emissions. Geophysical
Research Letters, 48(2), e2020GL090864.
Echeverría Ciaurri, D., Moreno Beltrán, G. A., Camacho Navarro, J., & Prada Mejía, J. A.
(2021). Improved Well-Control Progressive Optimization with Generalized
Barycentric Coordinates and Manifold Mapping. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, 24(04), 940–951.
Elgibaly, A. (2019). Well control during drilling and workover operations. Journal of
Petroleum and Mining Engineering, 21(1), 104–120.
Eren, T. (2018). Kick tolerance calculations for drilling operations. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 171, 558–569.
Feo, G., Sharma, J., Santos, O., Williams, W., & Ogunsanwo, T. (2020). Multiphase flow
characterization and modeling using distributed fiber optic sensors to prevent well
blowout. Optics and Photonics for Sensing the Environment, EM3C-5.
Francis, M., & Ogbeide, P. O. (2021). Analysis on the Impact of Losses of Well Control
During Offshore Drilling. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied
Sciences (JETEAS), 12(4), 109–113.
Graham, R., Cadd, M., Theresia, A., & Polkinghorne, J. (2022). Kick Tolerance Ë—A Risk-
Based Strategy to Enhance Well Control in Narrow Margin Wells. SPE/IADC
Managed Pressure Drilling & Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition.

36
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Jahanpeyma, Y., & Jamshidi, S. (2018). Two-phase Simulation of Well Control Methods for
Gas Kicks in Case of Water and Oil-based Muds. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Technology, 8. https://doi.org/10.22078/jpst.2018.2834.1471
Khan, J. A., Irawan, S., Thurai, A. S., & Cai, B. (2021). Quantitative analysis of blowout
preventer flat time for well control operation: Value added data aimed at performance
enhancement. Engineering Failure Analysis, 120, 104982.
Li, C., Jin, Y., Guan, Z., Dang, Z., Jin, J., & Zhang, B. (2021). New quantitative risk
prediction method of deepwater blowout: Case study of Macondo well accident.
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 1–20.
Liu, Z., Ma, Q., Cai, B., Liu, Y., & Zheng, C. (2021). Risk assessment on deepwater drilling
well control based on dynamic Bayesian network. Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, 149, 643–654.
Mallah, Z. A., Khan Memon, M., Ahmed, M., Brohi, M., & Liaquat Arain, A. (2021). Dry
Gas Reservoir Management With Integrated Asset Modeling Approach. International
Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 03,
2582–5208. www.irjmets.com
Muhammad, M. J. U., Shaarawi, A., Iturrios, C., & Kadadha, A. (2022). Reducing Rig Days
& Optimizing Overall Drilling Process by Implementing Managed Pressure Drilling
Technique in Unconventional Reservoir Field. SPE Symposium: Unconventionals in
the Middle East-From Exploration to Development Optimisation.
Muneer, S., Zubair, M., Ali, M., Rehman, H. U., & Ahmed, M. (2021). Enhancement of Oil
Recovery By Using Wag-Co2 Injection in Heterogeneous Reservoir. 03, 904–913.
Nasir, Y., & Durlofsky, L. J. (2022). Deep reinforcement learning for optimal well control in
subsurface systems with uncertain geology. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2203.13375.
Nedwed, T., & Mitchell, D. (2021). Advanced Well Control Reduces Risk of a Blowout.
International Oil Spill Conference, 2021(1), 687221.
Nissanka, I. D., & Yapa, P. D. (2016). Calculation of oil droplet size distribution in an
underwater oil well blowout. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 54(3), 307–320.
Raza, M. A., Salehi, S., Ghazal, S., Ybarra, V. T., Naqvi, S. A. M., Cokely, E. T., & Teodoriu,
C. (2019). Situational awareness measurement in a simulation-based training
framework for offshore well control operations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 62, 103921.
Ruzhnikov, A., & Yurtaev, V. (2021). Risk Management Approach: Drilling and Completion
Projects. SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference.
Salehian, M., Sefat, M. H., & Muradov, K. (2022). A robust, multi-solution framework for
well placement and control optimization. Computational Geosciences, 26(4), 897–
914.
Sule, I., Imtiaz, S., Khan, F., & Butt, S. (2019). Risk analysis of well blowout scenarios
during managed pressure drilling operation. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 182, 106296.
Thorogood, J., Robertson, E., Castillo, D., & Sawaryn, S. (2022). An Assessment of the Kick
Tolerance Calculation, its Uncertainty and Sensitivity. IADC/SPE International
Drilling Conference and Exhibition.

37
American Journal of Computing and Engineering
ISSN 2790-5586 (Online)
Vol.5, Issue 2, pp 24 – 38, 2022 www.ajpojournals.org

Vajargah, A., Buranaj Hoxha, B., & van Oort, E. (2014). Automated Well Control Decision-
Making during Managed Pressure Drilling Operations. Society of Petroleum
Engineers - SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference 2014.
https://doi.org/10.2118/170324-MS
Van Noort, R., Spriggs, P., & Arseneault, L. (2022). Influx Management Decision Tree for
Deep Water Managed Pressure Drilling Operations with a Below Tension Ring
Surface Back Pressure System. IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and
Exhibition.
Wen, Y., Wei, P., Ding, J., & Zhao, L. (2021). Study on well control and killing in deep well
drilling. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 859(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/859/1/012059

38