lADC/SPE 35120

Comparison of Steady State and Transient Analysis Dynamic Kill

Models for Prediction of Pumping Requirements
L,W. Abel, IWC Engineering Co., and D.W. Shackelford, Halliburton Energy Serwces Inc

SPE Members
IADC Member

@ @ylklflt ! S9S, lAIXXPE Drillhg ContWame

This paper was pracwad fcf waamtatm_I at ma 19S6 IAOCLSPE DriltktgC@eranca
Or!eens, Lcwdana, 12.15 March 19SS.
ThM papar was aalactad fcf preaanfal~ by the IALXYSPE Pt ram Cornm#faa _
rnf~afii confanetf in m abstracf sub+m iffad ~ the *.MIo%). C@tWItS d the IMIXI as w-
SHIM, have nOf * rtiWd tY lfw SCCkfY 01 WOIWIM E~ItKW8
Ikm of C7W?g Ccntradcfs and are aubjscf 10 cmectmn
or m. lnlOMIiltid &c&-
aantad, does no! nacesaati rdlacf any Foshn d the 1AO%:?&%%oJkv%%%R
PaWrap,eaenttialthelAkSPEmW!mgarea.w to ~fkm review by R&id
ma of lha IAOC and SPE. Permiawcm 10 copy la reslrzfad to an abstract of not more fhan X0
words Iflualrakma may no( be ccpml. The abatracf ahou!d ccotarn ccmpcwua admmdadgmant of
where and whom the paper was praaantad Wrte Librarian, SPE, PO. Box S3339S6, f7kfMK)
am, lX7&3S3S USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to compare three methods
of calculating dynamic kill requirements for a blowout
well. The use of computers, especially desktop PCs,
has made complex analytical solutions more readily
available in solving engineering problems. The power
and capability of the computer has increased dramati-
czdly in recent years, as has the analytical complexity
and effectiveness of engineering solutions. This paper
compares three methods that have been used success-
fully in the field to dynamically kill blowout wells, ei-
ther from relief wells or through a tubular conduit in
the well. The methods to be compared and discussed
in this paper are:
Pure friction dynamic kill
Steady state two-phase flow analysis
Transient two-phase flow analysis
To make the comparisons useful to the reader,
each of these analytical methods has been applied to
the same type of well with identical reservoir condi-
tions and characteristics. The conclusions show that
the kill requirements can be estimated by using
simplified models, but to more accurately estimate
pumping schedules (i.e. volumes and pumping times) a
complex model and analysis is required. A tabular
presentation is used to show the value and limitations
of each method.
INTRODUCTION
This paper compares dynamic kill calculation methods
available to estimate kill requirements during a blow-
out. Three methods were used in this comparison: 1) _
hakj n New pure friction, 2) steady state two-phase and 3) tran-
sient two-phase models. For each analysis, the same
rawaw of
reservoir and well geometry were used so that the
comparisons would yield meaningful results. The defi-
nitions of each method are as follows:
.cmmii.
. Pure friction-The friction losses generated
by fluid flow plus hydrostatic pressure combine
to exert a pressure against the reservoir. The
design criteria is that the model estimates the
kill rate that will produce a pressure at the
reservoir that is greater than or equal to the
static reservoir pressure.
. Steady state two-phaseThe friction result-
ing from a steady state two-phase flow is such
that the compressibility and other important
non-Newtonian behavior of the fluid mix is ac-
counted for in estimating the reservoir IPR
(Inflow Performance Relationship) effects in de-
termining the minimum kill rate requirements
Transient two-phaseThis model uses two-
phase calculations for fictional losses and
phase behavior, but also estimates the time
dependency relationships of the reservoir (IPR,
changing fluid compositions, etc.) and the flu-
ids in the blowout flow path. This model is
useful in determining real-time pumping
schedules for kill operations,
PURE FRICTION MODEL
The pure friction model uses friction generated by pipe
flow through the geometry of the blowout in the well-
bore to establish an equilibrium where the well cannot
produce. When this equilibrium is established the well
is controlled. The combination of pressure losses and
hydrostatic column overcome the resemoir pressure.
The basic assumptions are shown in Figure 1. The
major assumptions are that the wellbore is filled with
kill fluid and the sum of all the pressure losses and
hydrostatic pressures combine to exert a pressure
greater than the static reservoir pressure. The analysis
assumes that pumping operations have been success-
ful in purging the blowout wellbore of reservoir fluids,
so that the kill fluid is not contaminated with reservoir
631
2 -rfson of stem Sbte W Tmn~mt AnaW
fluids. With this basic assumption pressure
calculations can be made with reasonable accuracy
using a variety of pipe flow equations (e.g., power law,
etc.) that are known to match the rheology of the kill
fluid. This approach will yield the minimum kill rates
that fit the assumptions, and allows the kill scenario
to be analyzed without sophisticated models and
computer capability. Several significant relief well
projects have been successfully solved using this
approach (e.g., Indonesian blowouts 1980, 1981). The
pumping schedules used employed pumping water
ahead of the kill weighted fluid. Using this approach
the kill rate can be increased or decreased to exert the
desired pressure profile and bottom hole pressure. One
key issue is the possibility of fracturing of the open
hole section. The changeover from a well under control
with water plus friction, to a well under control with
kill weight fluid in the hole can be achieved by altering
the pump rates while displacing with kill weight fluid.
Observations of bottom hole pressures during pumping
are usually a guide to the actual operation whereas
the calculations are used to determine the pumping
spread and hydraulic horsepower. However, the
limitations of using this method are as follows:
Hydraulic horsepower requirements are usually
very high (especially when the well is full of
water only)
. Volumes required to kill the well are not
known from the analysis
. The pressure profiles during the transition
from the well flowing and well under control by
hydrostatic pressure are not known
This method will be compared to more complex
models in the following section,
STEADY STATE TWO-PHASE MODEL
The steady state model accounts for two-phase flow
behavior in a steady state condition. The use of a com-
puter is essential to carry out this iterative method,
since many thousande of calculations are necessary.
This method accounts for compressibility of the two-
phase fluid under changing conditions of temperature
and pressure. Exit conditions are used to estimate a
pressure in the wellbore. The condition chosen is an
arbitrary value based on experience. Steady state
equations are used to backstep through the input ~
ometry of the blowout. Pressure calculations based on
the exit condition are compared b a reservoir IPR
(Inflow Performance Relationship). If the IPRs FBHP
(Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure) match within a small
tolerance of the calculated pressure profile, a solution
is reached. If there is no match the exit conditions are
adjusted and the calculations repeated. When conver-
gence is obtained the iteration stops and a solution is
reached. The software approach for estimation of a
WC Kill Models for predictionof PumpingRequirements lADC/SPE
particular blowout flowrate is described in the
flowchart shown in Figure 2.
The basic calculations shown in Figure 2 can be
used to determine kill rates required to overcome the
strength of the reservoir, This is accomplished by using
the model in a slightly different way, Kill fluid is mixed
with the produced (wellbore) fluids to determine what
mix rate is required to bring the bottom hole flowing
pressure near to static reservoir conditions, reduce the
amount of reservoir fluid in the wellbore to nil and kill
the well. Mixing ratios of kill fluid to reservoir fluid are
added and a steady state equilibrium is calculated.
This is represented by the flow diagram of Figure 3.
TRANSIENT TWO-PHASE FLOW MODEL
The transient two-phase flow model calculates changes
in bottom hole pressure at successive intervals as fluid
is pumped in. Increases in hydrostatic pressure plus
frictional pressure cause a rise in flowing bottom hole
pressure. The IPR is then used to calculate formation
fluid flow volume into the wellbore during the time
period selected. The normal approach is to calculate
the time from the incremental volume and pumping
rate of fluid pumped into the flowing wellbore. This
allows the model to step through a kill using, for ex-
ample, 20-barrel increments. Once the solution to the
kill is determined at 20-barrel increments, a second
run can be made on the well using 10-barrel incre-
ments. If the estimated well response agrees closely for
both cases, there is no need to go to smaller incre-
ments. If there is a significant (approximately 10%)
difference in estimated well response, then a fimther
reduction should be made to 5-barrel increments. This
continues until an accurate description of expected well
response is achieved.
If long flowing times are thought to affect the prob-
ability of a successful kill, an actual formation recovery
curve can be built into the model. The worst case
situation is for a formation to recover instantaneously,
and this is assumed in the first calculations. If the
well can be killed in this worst case, then the well can
be killed regardless of the actual recovery time. Should
the model show that a steady state condition is
reached and the well is unloading all the pumped-in
fluid at the same rate it is being injected, then a
reservoir recovery time should be examined to see if the
well kill can be successful.
This program normally plots variables such as tub-
ing pressure, casing pressure, gas flow out, and mud
flow out versus volume pumped. This allows a chart to
be used during pumping to monitor job progress inde-
pendent of time. In this way, a moderate change in
pump rate from that estimated does not invalidate the
chart as a guide to job performance. Since pumped-in
volume is normally recorded and displayed in real-time
during a job, the monitoring is easier than if some cal-
632
IADCJSPE L. W. Abel and D. W. Shackelfod
culated amount such as elapsed time is used to judge
job progress.
The model can be used to look at various injection
rates or to look at different kill fluids or kill fluid
weights. It is also convenient when comparing the ef-
fects of different production rates from the well, since
these changes can be plotted as a family of curves prior
to the job. If one of these matches the well response
from the pumping job, then the chances are greater
that the model is accurately describing well response.
COMPARISONS
To compare the three methods outlined above, two
well types have been analyzed using the pure friction,
steady state and transient analysis techniques.
Figure 4 shows a wellbore diagram for Example 1.
This was an actual case where transient analysis was
used to determine the kill requirements. The chart
shown in Figure 5 compares calculated well response
with actual data measured during the pumping job.
The tubing pressure measured is less than that calcu-
lated for the first portion of the job, as a friction re-
ducer was used in the water during this period. A de-
crease in friction of 50% was assumed while the actual
reduction was around 65%. During the job, the actual
choke pressure was dropped more rapidly than the
calculated choke pressure. This is the result of the
formation not recovering pressure instantaneously as
was assumed for the worst case analysis.
Figure 6 shows the wellbore configuration of a relief
well where the reservoir maximum deliverability
(Absolute Openhole Flow AOF) was 900 mmscfld. All
three methods of analysis were employed for compari-
son. Table 1 shows results from each method for two
types of wells: a snub in kill (Figure 4) and a relief well
(Figure 6).
Figure 7 is a plot of BHP and Gas Rate versus vol-
ume pumped for the second example shown in Figure
6. This shows that the transient analysis wili suggest
lower pumping rates can be used than the steady
state model, but higher volumes of fluid will be
required as the rate is reduced.
Table 1 shows that a pure friction kill requires
higher pump rates as compared to the steady state
and transient models. However, one does not know
this unless all three analyses are performed. Table 1
suggests that there may be little difference between
the steady state and the transient models for the es-
timated kill requirements for pumping rates and hy-
draulic horsepower. However, the transient model
yields more information for actually running the job in
the field, such as estimated volumes required to kill
the well and the surface pressures while the kill is un-
derway. The conclusion made with the limited study of
this paper is that the steady state model will yield
633
3
adequate results for design purposes while the tran-
sient model is a refinement useful during actual field
operations. Both the steady state and the transient
two-phase models yield more information and reduced
horsepower than the pure friction model in dynamic
kill calculations.
COMMENTARY
One basic problem with using computer models is that
assumptions must be made. In a blowout well many
things may be unknown. Exploration wells do not have
test data that can be used to determine reservoir
characteristics. More importantly the flow path of the
blowout is never precisely known. The connective path
to the relief well and its corresponding choking of flow
cannot be known for certain. The leakoff of the kill
fluid to formation is also uncertain. The list goes on
and on. If reasonable estimates of the unknowns are
not made, the results may not match real world condi-
tions. Under-estimation of kill requirements could lead
to disastrous results as there may be only one oppor-
tunity to pump to kill. Overkill can waste resources
and cause missed opportunities to kill the well due to
the extreme logistic requirements of bringing extra
pumping horsepower to the wellsite.
Complex models such as the steady and transient
two-phase models can be very sensitive to certain in-
put variables, such as Gas/Oil ratio (GOR), gas com-
position (e.g., C02 and I-$S content) and many others,
Therefore the model should be tested to determine its
reaction to small changes in certain input parameters.
The authors suggest that many such sensitivity runs
be performed for those input values for which exact
values cannot be determined.
This is a staggering proposition due to the wide
range of possibilities in the field, causing the designer
to examine multiples upon multiples of scenarios. Fur-
thermore, as the complexity of the model increases
more data is needed, including compressibility, tem-
perature profiles, precise hole geometry, formation fluid
composition, etc. These input values may have serious
impacts on the solution. Complex phenomena such as
two-phase flow, even in the best of controlled circum-
stances, sometimes do not behave exactly as the model
estimates. In the blowout well nothing is constant and
many parameters change dramatically with time,
All this leaves the designer with serious dilemmas
in how to achieve an accurate solution. The only an-
swer to this is experience. The computer clich6 of GIGO
(Garbage In Garbage Out) applies here as well. To
avoid GIGO, the designer must have extensive expe-
rience in real world solutions. The experience factor
the engineers ability to make the proper estimates
and assumptions-cannot be overstated.
This problem of experience is further exacerbated by
the fact that blowouts are very rare and killing them
4 Canpaieon of Steady State arid Transient Analysis Dynamic Kill Models for Preckticm of Pumping Requirements IAIXYSPE

with a relief well is even more rarely done. This leaves PPG Pounds Per Gallon
a limited few with multiple-well experience for dynamic P, Pressure of the reservoir static
kill calculations. Fortunately, these experienced engi-
PSI Pressure per square inch
neers are in the consulting and service segments of the
business and their experience can be obtained on a PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
job-by-job basis. In these life and property-threatening Q, Gas flow rate
situations, it is the wisest solution to get experienced Pump kill rate
Q
personnel onboard the project team as soon as the
TBG Tubing
need arises.
TVD Tme Vertical Depth
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WT Weight
The authors wishes to thank Halliburton Energy AP Delta (change) pressure due sum of all hydro-
Services of Duncan, Oklahoma for their cooperation static, friction, etc.
and participation in this article. The editorial
assistance was essential and the permission to use
HES material is greatly appreciated. Mr. Jerry S1 Units
Winchester and Don Shackelford of HES Well Control Bbl Barrels X 1.58984 E -01 =m
Division deserve recognition for their valuable
Gal gallons X 3.78533 E -03 = m
assistance and contributions to this article.
IN Inch X 2.54 E+OO =cm
FT Foot or feet X 3.048 E-01 =m
References
FT3 Cubic foot x 2.831685 E -02 = m3
1 Fire#ighting and Blowout Control, Abel, L.W. et al, PPG Pounds per gallon X 1.19829 E +02 = Kg/m3
ABEL Engineerin~ell Control Co,, Houston, Texas, PSI Pressure per sq. in. x 6.894757 E +00 = kPa
504 pages, 1994.

2 Dynamic Kill: Controlling Wild Well A New Way,

Blount, Elmo. et al, WORLD Oil, pp 109-126, October
1981.

Nomenclature
AOF Absolute Openhole Flow
Barrels 42 US gallons
BHP Bottom hole pressure
BPM Barrels per minute
CSG Casing
DC Drill collar
DP Drill pipe
FBHP Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
ft Foot or feet
fts Cubic feet
Gal Gallons
GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
HES Halliburton Energy Services
HHP Hydraulic horse power
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship
in Inch
Million standard cubic feet per day
Pc Personal Computer
P, Pressure combined due to all AP
P, Pressure due hydrostatic

634
iADC/SPE L. W. AIM and D. W. Shackeiford 5

Blowout fbwpath IS Resewoir parameters

Pressure v. Depth
determirwd ars deterrnir!.ed (estimated):
(estimated) IPR, press, temp, PVl data
0
+
im %
~- ~ Assutrw exit ccditions
:0 (sonic, or sub-sonic)
s
:* 0
is &

w
:ILl
I Set exit conditions to I
: w
~;
;*
:*
:C
:<
;m Program back steps through the geometry
:-! from the ex!t to the reset-vow cakulated

1
;=

R ;0 Exk velocity
(fbwrate) is
bdju.stad up or dowr
as needed
!
@
::
-.:
:.
:.

.,, ,/ $
P=

Figure 1

S&out fbvmsth k Re$sr-mr pararnstem

detminsd ~ Ire dstenr+-dd
(estwnated) SIR, WSM, mmp, PVT datz

J Figure 2
*sumexit c0ndlv0r6
I (Sink, w sub+cmac)
I Qk
4
S41 exit ccnditii to
vtwmrwy V.IW (e.g.
flowrate fixed)
Blowout
well
L-. 13-31V CSG
Prcqram bck steps tfwwugh the
b g-try fem the exit !. the *
msewdJ estmmii pmmre PrOfSe
I
1 Em vekcny
Ubw7ate) Is
adjustad up or dcwl
aareadsdto
Convares to a

\
SCMOrl
L

1
2-1/16 TBG
(tokrmm 1
- Isw.j A 13-3/8 @ 2010 Kill String
L
DP leak @ 2020 Gas flow area
p,

Solution is raacfwd M nd
mmsure am estmawd
lot
a ?-
Kill rate is
UKreawd, new 4
exit condtt uns
dctenmmed Kal rate m adJuswd
upwards from hst

M
ym 7-518* DC
sduE10ni9mach@rbw
\
u M fm the akulatedM

Q9
Figure 3 Figure 4

635
6 Comparison of Steady State and Transient Analysis Dynamic Kill Models for Prediction of Pumping Requirements lADC/SPE

12

.- \ Gas Flow into Wellbore (relative)

\
%\
10 ~n
\ a
\ ~rs
\
\
t Calculated Tubing Pressure
I
\
-# ----

-e-
,- -
/--
Measured Tbg Press -c #- o ;HP
n

norm onnoon . ..--

----- -
-%%
-\
-w
\\
2
%
~xx- x .- ~ Calculated Choke Pressure -\
----- -- --------- -------- .-, ___ \
w MOI>XX2Z %xx.x.x x,x %
-- *------
Measured Choke Press ------- -_ N
xJ+=x+gx,x ......x.+__.........+.._.._...+_ _+-.~:=\_.
0 ........ .. .... ......... .....+...... .............+... .. ............ 4-. . . .
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
VOLUME PUMPED - BARRELS

Figure 5

Y
NFLOWPSl~RMCE REUllONSiPb
au N?Tlmn D

...... ,~- \

JW
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . Flwh@osOnl
Iuoh.uwd

Figure 6

636
 lADCLSPE L. W. Abel and D. W. Shackelford 7

~RA~~l~w *MALY~l;Note: Rate based on 10,000 psi maximum tubing I essure and is

1400

120Q
&L___ Bottom Hole Pressure

I om

~ 8C0
g
2
: Gas Flow Rate
a 600
&

400

200
*

0 I
o 200 400 600 800 lWX) 12CCI

Volume Pumped InBarrels

Figure 7

Table 1 Kill Comparisons

EXAMPLE 1 ~ HHP
TVD = 10,875 ft : BHP ! Mud Wt ! Ok ; (horse
Pr = 6700 psi : (psi) ~ {ppg) ~ (bpm) ~ pwr)

Pure Friction i 6700 ! 8.44 : 21.5U ~ 2087

...................................+ .......................... ..... ...............+................. .....................
Steady State ! 2700 : 12.5 : 3.0 j 530
,.,..,.,,.!,.....!....,......-..+ .......................... ....... .-..
..!..!.:.... .............. ..................
Transient : 2700 to \ 12.5 :, 3.8- ~ 930
6700 :

EXAMPLE 2 ~ HHP
TVD = 4920 ft ~ BHP ~ Mud Wt ;Qk: (horse
Pr = 1300 psi : (psi) ; PP9) ~ (bpm) ~ pwr)

Pure Friction j 1300 ; 8.44 ! 68.7: 2287

...................................>.+..
......................... ............ ............ ...........+.....................
Steady State ~ 992 : 9.2 : 16.4 + 680
................4....
................. ........................... ........................... ...............c.y....d...............
Transient ~ 992 to ~ 9.2 ~ 12.9 ~ 440
1300 :

Note: Assumes instantaneous formation pressure recovery BHP = static

Note: Not possible due to high friction loss, list for comparison only

Note: Annulus pressure loss only (e.g. theoretical value only)

637