PO163442 DOI: 10.

2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

Page: 78

Total Pages: 10

Full-Scale Testing Shows Advantages of a

Quantitative Approach to Interpreting
Inflow Tests
R. Rahmani*, SPE, D. Bourgoyne**, and J.R. Smith, SPE, Louisiana State University

Summary
An inflow (commonly known as negative pressure) test is an important step in proving well integrity for some well operations.
Although the concept is straightforward, there are no standard
procedures for conducting and interpreting inflow tests. Recent
industry experience has shown the potential for these tests to be
misinterpreted, with disastrous results. This paper describes proper
quantitative interpretation of both successful and unsuccessful tests
demonstrated on two full-scale test wells.
Tests with and without leaks are simulated in two vertical wells
with 2,971- and 5,884-ft depths. Test results are interpreted quantitatively to distinguish successes from failures. In addition, the
impacts of leak rate and the differential pressure between the leak
source and well are investigated. The impacts of gas as a leak fluid,
different well volumes, different surface-piping arrangements, and
measuring with different-sensitivity tanks are also shown.
The success of a test should be verified with both flow and
pressure checks. For the flow check, the trend between bleed-off
pressure and volume of bleedoff can be predicted on the basis of
fluid compressibility, tubing expansion, and drainage from surface
piping. Deviations from that trend will identify the onset of a
leak. Early detection and control of a high-rate leak can reduce
the formation-fluid volume entering the well and the consequent
risks. Detecting a low-rate leak is difficult if the test duration is
too short. Therefore, a 30-minute test duration was evaluated for
detection of low-rate leaks.
The fundamental differences between a leak and no leak are
demonstrated conclusively with quantitative results. Approaches
for overcoming complications that interfere with conclusive test
results are explained and demonstrated. The demonstration test
results and the proposed interpretation methods are applicable to
vertical wells. Drilling-fluid properties, multiple fluids, and thermal expansion can also influence results, but were not investigated in this study. Nevertheless, these results should provide a
basis for improving field procedures and minimizing the risk of
misinterpreting a leak as a successful test.

extensive guideline for conducting inflow tests (API RP 96 2013).

Neverthless, potential complications associated with interpreting
an inflow test have not been discussed.
Inflow tests are widely recognized as a rigorous test of well integrity. The test is often used to confirm whether the cement in
place (e.g., squeezed cement in perforations or a cement seal at
the top of the liner) will prevent the formation fluids from entering
the wellbore. The concept of an inflow test is simple. The hydrostatic pressure inside the well is decreased below the formation
pressure outside the well by reducing the hydrostatic pressure at a
targeted position in the well as in a drillstem test (Nelson and
Guillout 1990). Typically, the test string is run into the well and
light fluid is circulated down the test string until the hydrostatic
pressure in the string is reduced to the intended amount. Then, a
retrievable packer is set to isolate the denser fluids in the annulus
above the packer from the test interval. Opening the test string
essentially makes the well underbalanced, and if there is a leak in
the cement, it can be identified when flow is observed from an
open test string and a subsequent pressure buildup is observed
when the well is closed again. A complication associated with this
test is the effect of fluid compressibility. The light fluid in the test
string is compressed during the circulation. The compressed fluid
is drained upon opening the well and can mask the occurrence of
a leak or be falsely interpreted as an indication of a leak. Experiments were conducted to demonstrate this and other complications for both no-leak and leak scenarios. The complications that
were investigated include elevated surface lines that may cause
trapped gas in the system and low-rate leaks that are difficult to
detect. Also, a proposed combination of a 30-minute flow check
and a 30-minute pressure check proved effective in detection of
most low-rate leaks even with elevated surface lines. However, it
was shown that either the flow check or the pressure check alone
may not detect a low-rate leak. In addition, a quantitative method
to account for bleed-off volume because of well-fluid decompression and tubular expansion has been proposed and confirmed with
full-scale experiments.

Introduction
An inflow test is now mandatory before unlatching the blowout
preventer at any point in the well for wells in US federal waters
that use a subsea blowout-preventer stack or wells with mudlinesuspension equipment (US Securities and Exchange Commission
2012). However, a particular design for running and interpreting
the tests is not specified in the regulations. Nelson and Guillout
(1990) have briefly explained the concepts for interpreting a negative pressure test. A document on the International Association of
Drilling Contractors website is focused on purposes of running a
negative pressure test and planning issues and concerns rather
than the test procedure and interpretation (Armistead 2011). The
American Petroleum Institute (API) recently published a fairly

Experimental Setup
Leak and no-leak scenarios were tested in two vertical wells.
Fresh water was used as the drilling fluid inside the wellbore and
also as a leak fluid. The other leak fluid used was natural gas. In
these controlled systems, any potential trapped gas from the previous experiments was flushed out before running the tests. However, an elevated surface line was added to the LSU#1 well to
investigate the effect of trapped gas in complicating test results
for some of the experiments, as explained later in this paper. Fig.
1 is a schematic of the experimental setup on the LSU#1 well.
This well was used to run the majority of the tests with liquid
leaks and also to run both gas-leak tests. The well is 2,971 ft deep
and has been completed with an 85/8-in. casing and two concentric
27/8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings. The bottoms of both strings are
closed to the 85/8-in. casing annulus. The leak source was
designed to be at the top of the 51=2-in. tubing string at the surface.
The 27/8-in. internal tubing string was used as the test string to
bleed off the wellbore fluid during the tests. A check valve is
located in a side-pocket mandrel near the bottom of the 27/8-in. internal tubing string, and it allows fluids to enter the tubing string
from the 51=2-in. tubing string, but does not allow fluid movement

Now with National Oilwell Varco

**

Now with Bourgoyne Engineering, LLC

C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Copyright V

This paper (SPE 163442) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 57 March 2013, and revised for publication. Original manuscript
received for review 8 October 2013. Revised manuscript received for review 18 February
2014. Paper peer approved 26 February 2014.

78

May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

Page: 79

Total Pages: 10

LSU#1 WELL EXPERIMENT SETUP

P1
GATE VALVE

SMALL
PUMP

PRESSURE GAUGE
PLUG VALVE

MEASURING
TANK
2 -in.
Tubing
78

P2
AUTOMATIC
CHOKE

5-in.
Tubing

P3
CONSTANTPRESSURE
LOOP

85 8-in.
Casing

MD = 2,750 ft

TRIPLEX
PUMP

MUD
PITS

MD = 2,791 ft

Fig. 1Schematic of the experimental setup on the LSU#1 well. (MD 5 measured depth.)

in the reverse direction. To mimic a constant reservoir pressure, a

flow loop was designed by use of a triplex H-400 mud pump, an
automatic choke, and mud pits. The mud pump provided the
required pressure in the loop, while the automatic choke regulated
a constant upstream pressure by throttling the flow traveling back
to the mud pits. A line from this constant-pressure loop was connected to the top of the injection line, simulating a constant reservoir pressure behind a potential leak zone. For leak demonstrations,
the gate valve for the 51=2-in. tubing string on the tree was kept
open, allowing fluid to enter to the wellbore through a needle
valve upstream of the gate valve. Pretest pressurization of the test
string was performed with a small high-pressure air-operated
pump to pressure up the well, either from the 27/8-in. tubing string
to demonstrate a small wellbore volume or from the 51=2-in. tubing string for a larger wellbore volume. This pressurization was
performed to simulate pumping light fluid into a test string and
then trapping the pressure at the top of the test string to be bled
off to conduct an inflow test. In addition, the small pump was also
used to provide a constant, low-rate leak through the 51=2-in. tubing string to demonstrate detection of very-low-rate leaks in some
of the experiments.
A longer (84-ft) return hose was used for some of the tests,
and the bleed-off valves were positioned at the bottom of the

Elevated return hose

hose. The hose was also elevated approximately 25 ft above the

tree and the return measuring pit (Fig. 2). This was done to simulate the effect of longer, elevated surface lines in complicating
interpretation of the tests (i.e., which might mask the occurrence
of a leak or cause false indication of a leak) in real operations.
Fig. 3 is a schematic of the experimental setup used on the
LSU#2 well. The well is 5,884 ft deep and has been completed
with a 95/8-in.casing string, concentric 31=2- and 11=4-in. tubing
strings, and a parallel 23/8-in. perforated tubing, which was not
used in these tests. The bottoms of all tubing strings are open to
the 95/8-in. casing annulus, which makes the wellbore volume
much larger than in the LSU#1 well. This well was pressured up
with a triplex HT-400 pump through the 31=2-in. tubing string.
Also, the bleed-off procedure was performed from the same 31=2in. string through surface lines connecting to the mud pump and
the measuring tank. Because the expected bleed-off volume for
this well exceeded the 50-gal volume of the measuring tank that
was used for the tests on the LSU#1 well, a 10-bbl-capacity
cement-unit measuring tank was used. The leak source for the
tests on this well was a small air-operated pump connected to the
top of the 11=4-in. tubing string. In addition to a fairly large wellbore volume of approximately 400 bbl, the length of the return
line from the well to the measuring tank was approximately 350
ft. Most of this length was elevated above the wellhead and the
measuring tank (Fig. 4). Consequently, the line could drain during
bleedoff and complicate the interpretation of the test results, providing an example of similar complications that might exist in
actual tests in the field.

Measuring tank
LSU#1 well

Fig. 2Experimental setup with elevated hose on the LSU#1

well.

Experimental Procedure
The inflow-test experiments on LSU#1 were performed with the
following procedure:
1. Close the bleed-off valve and start pumping water into the
27/8-in. tubing (test string) at a slow rate to build up to approximately 2,000 psi of trapped pressure. This will simulate the
trapped pressure caused by displacement of the drilling fluid from
the test string by a less-dense fluid in a real case.
2. Shut down the pump and wait for pressures to stabilize.
3. For tests conducted with water as the leak fluid, start the triplex
pump and adjust the automatic choke to provide 300- to 700-psi pressure upstream of the choke (P2 in Fig. 1). Isolate this pressure from
the well with the gate valve on the 51/2-in. tubing (annulus) for a noleak test. For a test simulating a downhole leak, open the gate valve
and adjust the needle valve to simulate the leak path. Because the

May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

79

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

Page: 80

Total Pages: 10

LSU#2 WELL EXPERIMENT SETUP

GATE VALVE
PRESSURE GAUGE

PLUG VALVE

SMALL
PUMP
1-in.
Tubing
PERFORATED
TUBING

3-in.
Tubing

95 8-in.
Casing

TRIPLEX
PUMP

MUD
PITS

MD = 5,816 ft
MD = 5,852 ft

P1
MEASURING
TANK

MD = 5,882 ft

MD = 5,884 ft

Fig. 3Schematic of the experimental setup on the LSU#2 well.

hydrostatic pressures in the test string and the annulus are similar for
the tests in which water is used as the leak fluid, the surface pressure
on the annulus will act as the pressure in excess of the hydrostatic
pressure in the test string that would cause flow through a leak. For
tests in which the leak fluid was gas, the annulus is filled with gas
and the surface pressure applied to the annulus is increased to provide a downhole pressure at the check valve greater than the hydrostatic pressure in the test string.
4. Slowly open the bleed-off valve to the measuring tank and
continuously monitor and record the volume of bleedoff vs. the
pressure on the test string (P1 in Fig. 1) until the pressure drops to
essentially zero (flow check). Compare the actual volume of
bleedoff with the expected bleed-off volume caused by fluid compressibility and surface-line drainage.
 Successful flow test: If the measured bleed-off volume is
as expected and if the flow stops accordingly, it is an indication of
a successful flow check. Continue the flow check for an additional
30 minutes after the flow has stopped to make sure that there is no
additional flow. Then, proceed with Step 5.
 Failed flow test: If the return flow does not stop and/or
exceeds the expected volume, then there is an indication of a leak,
the flow check is a failure, and Step 5 should be implemented.
5. Fully close the bleed-off valve on the return line and observe
for a pressure buildup (pressure check) for 30 minutes.
 Successful pressure check: After a successful flow check
has been performed, if there is no pressure buildup, then the test is
confirmed as successful.

 Failed pressure check: If there is a pressure build-up, the

test is a failure.
Note that an inflow test is only confirmed as successful if (and
only if) both the flow check and the pressure check are successful.
Some examples in this paper show that a leak (e.g., at a low rate)
might not be detected during one of these checks, but is normally
detectable with completion of both steps.
Test Calculations
The volume of fluid expected to be bled during the flow-check
portion of an inflow test can be predicted with calculations. Water
compressibility was calculated by use of Eq. 1 (Craft et al. 1991):
DV cf VDp; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
where DV is the change in fluid volume as a result of the fluid
compressibility cf, V is fluid volume, and Dp is the change in fluid
pressure. The water-compressibility factor was assumed to be
3.0106 psi1.
Relaxation of the pipe expansion in the test string because of a
decrease in pressure during bleedoff can also contribute to the
volume of bleedoff. This was calculated with Eqs. 2 and 3 (Peng
2003; Roylance 2001):
eh
and
ea

Surface line to pump

and LSU#2 well

Measuring tank

LSU#2 well
location

1
dh  da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E
1
da  dh ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E

where eh is hoop strain, ea is axial strain, dh is hoop stress, da is

axial stress, E is the elasticity modulus, and t is Poissons ratio.
Hoop and axial stresses were calculated with Eqs. 4 and 5,
respectively:
dh

qD d
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2h

and
da

Fig. 4Experimental setup for the LSU#2 well.

80

qD d
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4h

where pD is differential pressure across the pipe wall, d is the average pipe diameter, and h is the pipe thickness. The volume
May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

2,500

2,500

2,000

2,000

Page: 81

Total Pages: 10

20

1,500

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,000

10

Volume, gal

1,000

Pressure, psi

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,500

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

15

5
500

500

Return line closed, no change

Return line closed, no change

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time, minutes

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0
70

Time, minutes

Fig. 5No-leak test on the 27/8-in. tubing string of the LSU#1

well.

Fig. 6No-leak test on the 27/8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings of the
LSU#1 well.

change caused by hoop and axial strains of metal, respectively,

was then calculated in field units as follows:

Calculations performed for this test are provided as an example in Appendix B. Calculated fluid expansion for the test in Fig.
5, where only the tubing was pressurized, was 4 gal, which was
based on a constant water-compressibility factor (cf) of 3106
psi1. Furthermore, the volume change because of hoop strain was
calculated to be 0.48 gal, while the axial change in volume was
found to be only 0.05 gal. Therefore, the total bleed-off volume
was expected to be approximately 4.5 gal. The actual bleed-off
volume (pit gain) for this test was slightly more than 4.6 gal. Fluctuations on the order of 0.4 gal were observed in the pit-gain plot
during the flow check, whereas there was actually no flow during
that period, indicating that this difference was within the repeatability and sensitivity limits of the pit-level indicator used for this
test. The bleed-off volume for another test with similar setup was
4.3 gal, again within the measurement limits. It should be noted
that the fluid was bled off into a 50-gal measuring tank for both of
these tests, and, therefore, these measurements were more sensitive than would be possible with the use of regular rig equipment.
Effect of Wellbore Volume on Bleed-Off Volume. A no-leak
test was also conducted with a larger wellbore volume, where fluid
in both the 27/8- and 51/2-in. tubing strings was compressed to
2,020 psi (Fig. 6). The estimated fluid compressibility in this case
was 15.35 gal, proportionately larger than for the test of the tubing
only. The total return volume, including pipe-expansion effects,
was estimated to be approximately 19.1 gal. The actual bleed-off
volume (pit gain) for this test was 18.34 gal. A 30-minute flow
check followed by a 30-minute pressure check confirmed that there
was no leak. Note that the step changes in the actual pit-gain plot
were because the minimum change that the pit-level sensor could
detect was on the order of 1 gal in the 50-gal measuring tank. The
accuracy of the readings decreased substantially by switching to a
larger-sized measuring tank. A similar test measured 4 gal less
return volume than expected with a 10-bbl measuring tank, which
reinforces the advantage of selecting a measuring-tank size that
allows accurate measurement of the predicted volume.
Effect of Surface Piping on Bleed-Off Volume. The effect of
a longer, elevated return line (Fig. 2) on the test results was investigated in a second set of tests. The total return-hose volume was
13.7 gal, which was much smaller than the 60.7-bbl wellbore volume. Therefore, the expected compressibility effect of the surface
return line was very small. However, 28 ft of the return hose, with
a 4.5-gal capacity, was inclined downward toward the measuring
tank (Fig. 2). It was likely that this part of the hose would drain
fully during a flow check. Water in another 10 ft of the hose
upstream of this part could also potentially drain another 1.6 gal.
Therefore, to obtain an accurate estimation of the effect of surface
lines on the test results, only the return line was pressured up to
the test pressure, keeping the gate valve on the tree closed. The
water volume used to fill and pressure up the hose was measured
accurately and compared with pit gain after opening the bleed-off
valves. The test started by injecting 6.25 gal of water until the pressure on the line reached 2,140 psi. Once the pressure stabilized,

DVh

1 eh 2  1di2
L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1; 029:41

and
DVa

ea di2
L; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1; 029:41

where DVh is volume change because of hoop strain, DVa is volume change because of axial strain, di is tubing internal diameter,
and L is tubing length. Therefore, the total volume change
because of fluid and metal expansions (DVT) was calculated as
DVT cf VDp e2h 2eh ea

di2
L: . . . . . . . 8
1; 029:41

In these calculations, an average elasticity modulus of 29106 psi

and Poissons ratio of 0.3 were used for steel in the test string.
Because the wellbore fluid was not displaced in these experiments,
temperature effects were not included in the calculations for the reason that the string temperature was in equilibrium with external temperature before the start of the test. However, temperature effects for
tests in which fluid has been circulated in conducting the test should
be considered when calculating predicted bleed volumes.
Discussion and Results
Several tests, as summarized in Appendix A, were conducted with
different well geometries and surface piping as well as different
leak scenarios, including liquid vs. gas leaks, different leak sizes
(rates), and different differential pressures between the leak
source (simulating formation pressure) and the hydrostatic pressure in the tubing.
Successful (No-Leak) Tests. Fig. 5 shows the results of a noleak test with an initial tubing pressure of 2,000 psi. Also, a constant pressure of 700 psi was applied to a closed gate valve (the
potential leak point) on the injection annulus, isolating that pressure from the well. The test started with slightly opening the
valves on the return line from the tubing. This caused a fast drainage of liquid from the wellbore that stopped in less than 1 minute.
Also, the pressure on the tubing dropped to essentially zero. The
well was observed for a period of 30 minutes without receiving
any additional return flow. This is indicative of a successful flow
check. The small tubing pressure recorded in Fig. 5 was confirmed
to be a minor instrumentation error by observing it with the well
fully open to atmosphere. To confirm that the test was successful,
a pressure check was also conducted by closing the return valves.
The closed well was observed for another 30 minutes with no
pressure buildup. Both the flow check and the pressure check confirmed that the tubing was isolated successfully from the external
pressure and that the test was successful.
May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

81

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

30

Stage:

Page: 82

Total Pages: 10

180

2,500

2,000

160

15
1,000
10
Tubing pressure (psi)
Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)
Surface line effect (gal)

500

10

15

20

100
Tubing pressure (psi)
Injected volume (gal)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,000

80
60
40

Return line closed, no change

0
0

120
1,500

500

140

25

20
0

Time, minutes

Volume, gal

20

Pressure, psi

1,500

2,000

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

25

50

100

150

Time, minutes

Fig. 7No-leak test on the 2 /8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings of the
LSU#1 well with elevated return line.

Fig. 8No-leak test on the LSU#2 well.

verifying that there were no leaks, the bleed-off valve was opened
and the pressure bled off rapidly. The final volume of bleedoff was
5.9 gal. The difference between the volume pumped and the bleedoff was approximately 0.35 gal, which was larger than expected,
but still within previously measured repeatability limits. This test
was used to demonstrate that the effect of this longer, elevated surface line would be approximately 6 gal more bleed-off volume than
expected on the basis of system compressibility. This effect was
considered in the interpretation of the subsequent tests on the same
well with a similar surface lineup. It should be noted that the pressure vs. volume pumped for these tests was very nonlinear because
of the need to fill the line before pressure increased and to drain
fluid after bleeding off the pressure. Although the pressure vs. volume pumped in was not linear, the volume bled off during a successful test still equaled the volume pumped.
Fig. 7 shows results of a no-leak test in which the fluid in the
27/8- and 51=2-in. tubings and in the return hose was compressed to
2,000 psi. The 6-gal expected effect of draining the surface line
was added to the estimated wellbore fluid and tubing compressibility of 19 gal to predict a total pit gain of 25 gal for this case.
This expected bleed-off volume matched well with the actual
bleed-off volume (pit gain) of 24 gal. The 1-gal difference is
larger than the previous measurement sensitivity, but is not considered significant. A flow check confirmed that there was no leak, but
no attempt was made to conduct a pressure check because the purpose of this test was primarily to see how return-line volume and
height can complicate the test interpretation.
The last no-leak test was performed on the LSU#2 well, which
is deeper and has a larger casing, as shown in Fig. 3. The volume
of the surface lines for this well was more than 75 gal. Therefore,
the effect of the surface lines on interpretation of the inflow-test
results on this well was expected to be significant. However, as a
result of a leaky gate valve on the tree of this well at the time these
tests were conducted, it was not possible to pressure test the surface

lines only. Instead, positive pressure tests were conducted on this

well, including the surface lines, before running the inflow tests.
Fig. 8 shows the results of a no-leak test on LSU#2. Approximately 155 gal was pumped into the tubing string to pressurize
the well to slightly more than 2,000-psi surface pressure. The
pressure was held for approximately 15 minutes to stabilize. This
was also to confirm that a positive pressure test was successful.
Then, the return valve was partially opened to bleed off a total
volume of 158.3 gal over a time period of 42 minutes. At that
time, the return flow stopped completely and was observed by the
test crew for approximately 10 minutes without any additional
flow. Although this pit gain was significantly larger than that
based on the calculated system compressibility, excluding any
surface-lines effect, it was very close to the injected volume, and
therefore, it was almost certain that the flow check would be successful. However, the well was monitored with a pit-level recorder for an additional 33 minutes. An unexpected complication
is that an indicated instantaneous 10-gal gain was recorded at 92
minutes, as shown in Fig. 8. The well was not being monitored
visually by the crew at that time, and there is no independent confirmation that this resulted from flow from the well. It is likely
that this was an instrumentation-system error. In any event, this
experience reinforces the fact that the flow should be observed
continuously by test crew throughout a test. The bleed-off valves
were closed 43 minutes after flow had stopped, and the well pressure was monitored for another 40 minutes without any pressure
buildup. Therefore, the test was confirmed as successful.

35

2,500

30
2,000

1,500

20
15

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,000

500

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

25

10
5

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time, minutes

Fig. 9Leak test on the 27/8-in. tubing string of the LSU#1 well.
82

Failed TestsLiquid Leak. Fig. 9 shows the results of an inflow

test on the LSU#1 well in which a leak was detected. In this case,
only the 27/8-in. tubing-string volume was compressed and the surface piping was minimal. Therefore, approximately 4.3 gal of
bleed-off volume was expected. However, when the pressure was
bled off, flow never stopped and caused a 29-gal pit gain (see the
red curve) during a 38-minute flow-check period before the return
valve was closed. Even though flow indicating a leak was evident
long before the end of 30 minutes, the return rate was low, decreasing from 0.8 gal/min at the start of the bleedoff to 0.55 gal/min.
Consequently, the leak rate was not excessive, and the extended
test demonstrated that the leak was continuing. The tubing pressure
(blue curve) built up after closing the return valve until it reached
the leak differential pressure and remained constant afterward. In
this case, both flow and pressure tests confirmed the occurrence of
a leak. Similar behavior was observed for a leak with a larger wellbore volume. Fig. 10 shows leak-test results in which fluids in both
the 23=8- and the 51=2-in. tubing strings were compressed. In this
test, the return-flow rate dropped from 0.83 to 0.68 gal/min before
concluding that a significant leak was occurring and closing the
return valve. Subsequently, the shut-in pressure again built up to
equal the leak differential pressure. The fluid leaking into the well
was water in both of these tests. Despite the relatively low leak
rates of 0.5 to 0.7 gal/min, these inflow tests on a small-volume
May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

2,500

Stage:

30

Page: 83

Total Pages: 10

10

2,500

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,000

500

10

Pressure, psi

15

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

20
1,500

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

2,000

1,500

8
7
6
5
4

1,000

Volume, gal

25

2,000

3
Return valve closed, gradual change

500

2
1

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

20

40

Time, minutes

60

80

Time, minutes

Fig. 10Leak test on the 27/8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings of the
LSU#1 well.

Fig. 11Low-rate leak test in the 27/8-in. tubing string of the

LSU#1 well.

system demonstrate the basic expected leak behavior (i.e., a detectable and continuing flow when pressure is bled off and a pressure
buildup on the test string when it is shut in).
Detection of Small, Low-Rate Leaks. The low, but still significant, flow rates relative to the wellbore volumes in the preceding
examples made it easy to differentiate a leak from no leak. However, interpretation of the test in the case of a very small leak is
more difficult. Fig. 11 shows an example of a low-rate leak
designed to be on the order of 0.1 gal/min. The test started by partially opening the return line, which caused a rapid decrease in the
tubing pressure. The flow rate, measured manually with a quartsized mud cup 3 minutes after the start of the test, was 0.13 gal/
min. The bleed-off valve was fully opened 6 minutes into the test,
but the return flow was more like drops than a continuous flow.
Flow declined to 0.06 gal/min after 13 minutes and to less than
0.04 gal/min at 33 minutes from the start of the test. The well was
shut in after 42 minutes when the flow was barely noticeable.
Except for a sharp increase in pit level when pressure was initially
bled off the well, the pit-level indicator did not show any change
during the 40-minute duration of the flow check. After the well
was shut in, the pressure started to build up at a very slow rate.
The pressure built to approximately 50 psi over a period of
approximately 40 minutes. Despite the low leak rate, the volume
of bleedoff was twice as large (9.6 gal) as expected (4.4 gal), and
the 30-minute pressure check indicated a leak. It is notable that
shorter test periods might have allowed a false conclusion that no
leak was occurring. Conversely, comparison of the actual to the
calculated bleedback volume, very careful visual monitoring of
the return flow, use of an appropriately sized measuring tank, and
use of minimal surface-return piping all contributed to the detection of this leak.
Fig. 12 shows the results of a leak test on the 27/8-in. tubing
string by use of the longer, elevated return line. The well was shut

in, and the pit gain stopped increasing at approximately 19

minutes after the flow-check period began. The pressure buildup
was only 25 psi for the first 8 minutes of the pressure check, but
the buildup rate then increased, and the well reached an equilibrium with leak pressure 18 minutes after being shut in. The very
slow initial pressure-buildup rate at the start is apparently because
of the flow having to fill the drained volume in the return line
before causing the pressure to build. Detection of the leak is conclusive, but the complicating effect of the longer, elevated return
line, especially on the pressure buildup, is evident.
A similar test was performed for a larger wellbore volume.
Fig. 13 shows a leak test on the LSU#1 well with the elevated
return line in which both the 27=8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings were
tested. Pressurizing the well for the inflow test is literally a positive test of the well. The system (i.e., fluid and tubing) compressibility of the well was checked during this positive test by
measuring the volume pumped into the well while only the well
volume was pressurized. The well took 19 gal of water to pressure
up to 2,000 psi, which is the same as the calculated bleed-off volume based on the system compressibility and this initial pressure.
The test preparation was continued by opening the gate valve on
the tree and also pressurizing the return line. Then, the bleed-off
valve was opened to start the inflow test, and the pressure was
bled off over approximately 10 minutes. As the tubing pressure
decreased, the rate of return flow dropped from 3.75 to 0.19 gal/
min over a period of approximately 22 minutes. At this time, the
rate was not decreasing (i.e., it equaled an apparent leak rate) and
the gain was approximately 4 gal more than expected on the basis
of the system compressibility and the previously measured surface-drainback volume. Consequently, a leak was suspected, and
the well was shut in. It is noteworthy that after closing the well, it
took at least 15 minutes to see any pressure buildup. The difference between the buildup rate for this test and the previous test on

20

1,500

15

1,000

10

500

0
0

10

20

30

40

25

2,000

50

Time, minutes

Fig. 12Leak test on the 27=8-in. tubing string of the LSU#1 well
with elevated return line.

Pressure, psi

Tubing pressure (psi)

Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)
Surface line effect (gal)

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

2,000

30

2,500

20
1,500
15
Tubing pressure (psi)
Leak differential pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Injected volume (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)
Surface line effect (gal)

1,000

500

Volume, gal

25

2,500

10
5
0

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time, minutes

Fig. 13Leak test on the 27/8- and 51=2-in. tubings of the LSU#1
well with elevated return line.

May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

83

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

2,500

250

2,500

2,000

200

2,000

1,500

150

Page: 84

Total Pages: 10

35

Tubing pressure (psi)

Injected volume (gal)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

500

0
0

50

100

50

25
1,500

20
Tubing pressure (psi)
Leak pressure (psi)
Actual pit gain (gal)
Fluid expansion (gal)
Fluid and pipe expansion (gal)

1,000

15

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

100

1,000

Volume, gal

Pressure, psi

30

10

500
5

0
150

Time, minutes

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time, minutes

Fig. 14Leak test on the LSU#2 well.

Fig. 15Gas-leak test on the LSU#1 well.

the 27=8-in. tubing was evidently related to the leak rate. The leak
rate in this test was slightly less than 0.2 gal/min compared with
the average leak rate of 0.75 gal/min in the previous test. Presumably, this slower leak rate required a longer time to refill the return
line. Approximately 15 minutes after starting the pressure check,
the pressure started to build up in this test at a very low rate,
reaching roughly 100 psi in 35 minutes while continuing to build
up toward the leak differential pressure.
Comparison of leak tests for cases with and without a surface
line indicates that the pressure-check phase of an inflow test is
more sensitive and conclusive if the pressure gauge is located on
the well tubing and the valve used to shut in the well is on the
well close to the gauge, as was the case for Test 6 (Fig. 10) on
well LSU#1. In contrast, conducting a similar test with elevated
surface lines (Test 9, Fig. 13) significantly reduced both the magnitude and the rate of pressure buildup.
A liquid leak was also simulated on the LSU#2 well (Fig. 14).
As already explained, the large well and surface volume of this
system makes it more difficult to detect a leak in an inflow test.
The leak rate for this test was designed to be 0.6 gal/min, which is
a fairly low rate relative to the well volume of more than 400 bbl.
The test preparation began by pressuring up the well to more
than 2,000 psi with 155 gal of water. After the surface pressure
stabilized, the bleed-off valve was opened to begin the inflow test
by bleeding off pressure for a flow check. At a time of 54 minutes,
the pressure was almost completely bled off, but the volume that
bled back exceeded the total volume required to pressurize the
system, indicating the likelihood of a leak. The return flow continued at a rate of at least 0.6 gal/min, which was equal to the known
leak rate, and the total pit gain at 90 minutes was 199 gal, which
was approximately 1 bbl (28%) more than the expected return
volume. Consequently, the flow check was considered a failure,
and the well was closed in to do a pressure check. However, it
took an additional 38 minutes to see a pressure change. After that,
the pressure started to increase gradually up to 100 psi at 58
minutes after closing in the well. The 38-minute elapsed time
without change in pressure is likely a result of the drained volume
of the surface lines that had to be filled before pressure would
build up. It shows that for wells with large surface volume, even a
30-minute pressure check may not be long enough to observe a
pressure buildup. However, a warning from a failed flow check in
this test justified the longer pressure-check period. Additional evidence for occurrence of a leak was the difference between the
injected volume during the positive pressure test, equivalent to
the bleed-off volume following a positive pressure test, and the
pit gain during the inflow-test flow check. A time-saving alternative to extending a pressure check for an unknown time could be
to install a pressure sensor below a valve at the top of the test
string to allow pressure to be monitored in a liquid-filled system
that is isolated from the surface piping.

potential for gas to leak into the tubing during an inflow test on
the 27/8-in. tubing string (Fig. 15). The check valve between the
injection annulus and the tubing allowed for maintaining the gas
pressure below the wellbore pressure at the start of the test without water from the tubing entering the annulus. Similar to the liquid tests, trapped pressure on the tubing was bled off during the
flow-check portion of the inflow test until the tubing became
underbalanced relative to the annulus at 2 minutes into the test.
This allowed gas flow through the check valve, simulating a gas
leak near the bottom of the tubing. The relatively rapid gas flow
once an underbalanced condition was reached caused the leaksource pressure, equivalent to a formation pressure, to decrease
during the flow check, as seen in Fig. 15. It was not practical to
reduce the wellbore pressure to zero in this case because the
return flow rate, and therefore the leak rate, would be excessive.
The return flow rate (approximately 2.7 gal/min) and the pit gain
(25 gal more than expected) were both clearly indicative of a substantial leak within a few minutes after reaching the underbalanced condition. A gradual increase in wellbore pressure was
observed even during the flow check. This was likely caused by
rapid influx and subsequent expansion of gas in the small wellbore
volume that caused additional backpressure at the surface because
of increased flow through the fixed opening of the return valve.
Surprisingly, when the return valve was closed just before 10
minutes, the pressure-buildup rate decreased. A repeat gas-leak
test with the same setup confirmed occurrence of this behavior.
Subsequently, surface pressure began increasing more rapidly,
apparently as the gas-migration velocity increased. Detection of
the gas leak at a moderate rate into the small tubing volume with
minimal surface piping was relatively easy from both the flow
check and the pressure check.

Failed TestGas Leak. A gas leak was simulated in the LSU#1

well by filling the 51=2-in. injection annulus with gas to create the
84

Quantitative Approach to Leak Detection. Early detection of a

leak that minimizes flow through the leak path and volume of formation fluids in the wellbore is an advantage. Flow through a leak
generally causes a less restrictive leak path. An increased volume
of formation fluid, especially if it is gas, makes its removal more
difficult and potentially more dangerous. Having an effective
method for early leak detection is potentially most valuable for
wells with large downhole- and/or surface-piping volumes that
require longer times to interperet conclusively and have bleedback volumes that are both larger and harder to predict.
A quantitative approach for predicting the bleed-off volume
(expected pit gain) vs. the surface pressure can provide a benchmark trend for the bleed-off behavior that can be compared with
the actual pit gain (volume of bleedoff) to improve leak detection.
A deviation from the benchmark trend can aid early identification
of a possible leak.
Fig. 16 shows the expected pit gain (dashed line) vs. the tubing
pressure during bleedoff for an inflow test on the LSU#1 well
with minimal surface return piping. The expected trend is compared with the very-low-rate (0.06-gal/min) leak test (red line)
and a no-leak test (green line) on the same well. The well became
May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:29 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

Stage:

Total Pages: 10

2,000

2,500

Expected expansion+surrface line

Leak test
No-leak test
Expected expansion

Expected expansion

Tubing Pressure, psi

2,000

Tubing Pressure, psi

Page: 85

1,500

1,000
Return valve closed

0
5

10

15

20

25

No-leak test

1,000

m surface lines
Drainage from

500

500

Leak test

1,500

30

Pit Gain, gal

Fig. 16Expected and actual tubing pressure vs. pit gain in the
LSU#1 well (27/8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings).

underbalanced, and the leak started in the leak test when the tubing pressure dropped below 700 psi. Therefore, similar trends for
the leak and no-leak tests and the prediction were expected at
pressures greater than 700 psi. Although these trends were not
identical, they had similar slopes, indicating that the compressibility and well volume in each test was as expected. In addition, the
total-recorded pit gains at 700 psi for both tests were almost identical and were close to the expected bleed-off volume. At lower
pressures, the trend for leak test deviates from the expected trend,
the leak volume exceeds the predicted volume, and, ultimately,
the pressure builds up after the well is shut in on the leak. As seen
in this plot, the leak test deviated from the expected plot at
approximately 19-gal pit gain, but the well was kept open until it
was finally shut in after a 29-gal pit gain. This example shows
how deviation from the expected trend could help in early detection of the leak before having an excessive pit gain, and how a
pressure buildup after shut-in can also be shown as a leak indication on this same plot. Fig. 17 shows the same approach applied
to a test on the LSU#1 well with an elevated return hose. The leak
differential pressure in this case was 300 psi, the leak rate was
only 0.2 gal/min, and drainage from the elevated return hose
exceeded the volume predicted solely on thebasis of the well volume (dashed blue line) for both the leak (red line) and no-leak
(green line) tests. However, the volume bled in the no-leak test
matched closely with the prediction (solid blue line) that
accounted for the total volume because of both well compressibility and surface lines. Nevertheless, the drainage from the surface
lines masked the early flow from the leak. The leak test did not
deviate from the no-leak test or the prediction until the volume of
bleedoff exceeded the predicted total bleed-off volume. However,
the leak bleed-off rate continued, whereas the bleedoff from the
no-leak test stopped when the line had drained. Consequently, the
leak bleed-off volume exceeded the prediction. The pressure
increase at the right side of the plot is indicative of the pressure
buildup after shut-in, confirming the presence of a leak. Similar
behavior was observed for the leak test on the LSU#2 well, and
applying this approach to higher-rate leaks gave even more conclusive early detection of the existence of the leak. This example
also shows a potential practical advantage of conducting a positive pressure test and measuring the bleed-off volume vs. tubing
pressure, if volumes and fluid compressibilities are similar or corrected for, as a basis for predicting the bleed-off behavior of a noleak test.
Conclusions
1. The traditional understanding of a successful inflow test (i.e.,
that the return flow stops after pressure is bled off during the
flow-check period and that no pressure buildup is observed during a subsequent shut-in and pressure check) is exactly correct
for a test under ideal conditions (i.e., negligible surface-piping
volumes and adequate test duration).

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Pit Gain, gal

Fig. 17Expected and actual tubing pressure vs. pit gain in the
LSU#1 well (27/8- and 51=2-in. tubing strings with elevated return
line).

2. A means to account for the bleed-off volume resulting from the

decompression of fluid(s), the relaxation of expanded tubulars,
and the drainage volume from surface piping is valuable for
interpreting flow-check results properly (i.e., comparing actual
to expected bleed-off volumes).
3. The return-flow volume during bleedoff, resulting from decompression of the fluid in the pressurized part of the well, can be
calculated on the basis of well volume and fluid compressibility.
4. The bleed-off volume caused by tubular expansion as pressure
is bled off can also be calculated, and represents 12 to 20% of
the total bleed-off volumes measured during the tests outlined
in this paper. This pit gain is mainly a result of circumferential
strain resulting from hoop stress.
5. The relationship or trend of bleed-off volume vs. tubing pressure can be predicted with the calculations of fluid compressibility and tubular-expansion effects.
6. Drainage from large-volume and/or elevated surface lines
increases the bleed-off volumes during the flow check, and the
resulting lines, which are no longer full, delay pressure buildup
during the subsequent pressure check. These effects complicate
test interpretation and may mask occurrence of a leak in the
well during both flow checks and pressure checks. Calculation
of these effects is very dependent on the geometry of the piping
and where the piping may contain vapors rather than liquids.
Measurement of actual drainage volumes is practical and is a
useful way to predict the effect on a flow check.
7. Conducting a positive pressure test on the exact surface piping
and downhole volume that will be pressurized during the inflow
test and recording the injection and bleed-off volumes vs.
applied pressure both verifies the basic pressure integrity of the
system and provides a calibrated pressure-vs.-volume trend for
the subsequent bleedoff during the inflow test.
8. Plotting the actual vs. anticipated (as from calculations and/or a
positive pressure test) trends of tubing pressure vs. bleed-off
volume can help significantly in interpreting inflow-test results
to quickly identify a leak by detecting a trend toward a largerthan-expected bleed-off volume at any pressure on the trend.
Detecting and stopping a high-rate leak quickly can reduce the
formation-fluid volume entering the well, enlargement of the
leak path, and the consequent risks.
9. The proposed combination of a 30-minute flow check (after
flow stops) and a 30-minute pressure check proved effective in
detection of most low-rate leaks. However, it was shown that
either the flow check or the pressure check alone may not
detect a low-rate leak, even if the check duration is more than
30 minutes. The techniques described in previous conclusions
for predicting bleed-off trends and minimizing the impact of
surface volumes on pressure checks can minimize the detection
time needed for a conclusive inflow test. Most importantly, the
30-minute flow check is not relevant once flow indicating a
potential leak is detected. The bleed-off and/or flow check

May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:30 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

85

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

should be terminated with the well shut in as soon as a potential leak is detected.
10. The pressure-check phase of an inflow test is most conclusive
if the pressure gauge is located on the well tubing and the
valve used to shut in the well is on the well close to the gauge.
This minimizes the volume of the surface lines that a leak
would have to refill and minimizes the time required to
observe a pressure buildup.
11. Instrument errors and inaccuracy, especially in pit-gain measurements of bleed-off volumes, can be a significant source of
uncertainty in interpreting test results. The return flow should
be visually monitored continuously during the flow-check period as the most-positive indication of whether a leak is
occurring.
Nomenclature
cf fluid compressibility factor, Lt2/m, psi1
d pipe diameter, L, in.
di internal diameter, L, in.
E elasticity modulus, m/Lt2, psi
h pipe thickness, L, in.
L length, L, ft
p pressure, m/Lt2, psi
pD differential pressure, m/Lt2, psi
Dp pressure change, m/Lt2, psi
V volume, L3, bbl [gal]
DV volume change, L3, bbl [gal]
DVa axial volume change, L3, bbl [gal]
DVT total volume change, L3, bbl [gal]
DVh hoop volume change, L3, bbl [gal]
ea axial strain, dimensionless
eh hoop strain, dimensionless
da axial stress, m/Lt2, psi
dh hoop stress, m/Lt2, psi
t Poissons ratio, dimensionless

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Louisiana State University (LSU) Petroleum Engineering Research and Technology
Transfer (PERTT) laboratory for allowing and supporting these
full-scale experiments. We would especially like to thank the student workers, colleagues, and staff who helped in conducting the
experiments. We also acknowledge the contribution of Brian F.
Towler, professor at the University of Wyoming, in advocating
the relevance of understanding and demonstrating the proper
interpretation of negative pressure tests.

References
API RP 96, Deepwater Well Design and Construction. 2013. Washington,
DC: API.
Armistead, G. 2011. Negative Pressure Test. IADC Well Control Committee Meeting Minutes, Chevron, Houston, Texas (10 February 2011).
Craft, B.C., Hawkins, M., and Terry, R.E. 1991. Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, second edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Nelson, E.B. and Guillout, D. ed. 1990. Well Cementing. Sugar Land,
Texas: Schlumberger.
Peng, L.-C. 2003. An Interpretation on Pressure Elongation in Piping Systems, Peng Engineering. http://www.pipestress.com/papers/PressureElong.pdf (accessed 18 October 2012).
Roylance, D. 2001. Pressure Vessels. Mechanics of Materials course module (Sec. 311, Fall 1999), Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts (23 August 2001).
US Securities and Exchange Commission. 2012. Oil and Gas and Sulphur
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf. Final Rule, 30 CFR Part
250, US SEC, Washington, DC (22 August 2012). Federal Register 77
(163): 50891.
86

Stage:

Page: 86

Total Pages: 10

Appendix A
See Table A-1.
TABLE A-1SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
CONDITIONS

Leak
Test Figure(s) Well Fluid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

5
6, 16
7, 17
8
9
10, 16
11
12
13, 17
14
15

1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

Test
Type

Water
No-Leak
Water
No-Leak
Water
No-Leak
Water
No-Leak
Water
Leak
Water
Leak
Water Low-rate leak
Water
Leak
Water
Leak
Water
Leak
Gas
Leak

Strings Elevated
Tested Return
(in.)
Line
27=8
27=8; 51=2
27=8; 51=2
All
27=8
27=8; 51=2
27=8
27=8
27=8; 51=2
All
27=8

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Appendix B
Tubing external and internal dimeters were 2.875 and 2.441 in.,
resepectively, with a total lentgh of 2,750 ft. Therefore, the total
compressible fluid volume was calculated as 668.5 gal. Fluid
compressibility according to Eq. 1 was then calculated as
DV 3  106  668:5  0  2000 4:0 gal:
                   B-1
The hoop and axial expansion of the tubing was also calculated with Eqs. 6 and 7, respectively, considering a conversion
factor from barrels to gallons as
DVh

1 3:59  104 2  1  2:4412

2; 750  42 0:48 gal
1; 029:41
                   B-2

and
DVa

8:45  105  2:4412

2; 750  42 0:06 gal:
1; 029:41
                   B-3

Reza Rahmani is a project leader at National Oilwell Varco in

Conroe, Texas, where he has been employed since February
2013. Rahmanis current focus is on fixed-cutter drill-bit performance modeling and cutter/rock interactions. Before joining
National Oilwell Varco, he gained more than 3 years of industry
experience as an offshore rigsite supervisor and drilling engineer, and also served as a well-control instructor and
researcher at LSU in addition to his primary research on drill-bit/
rock interactions, especially in shale. Rahmani holds a PhD
degree in petroleum engineering from LSU, an MS degree in
petroleum engineering from Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, and a BS degree in mining engineering.
Darryl Bourgoyne is a full-time consultant, working primarily on
projects in association with Bourgoyne Engineering LLC. Previously, he held the position of director at the PERTT laboratory
at LSU for 10 years. Bourgoyne has been responsible for statefunded research on well-control training as a principal investigator and, most significantly, has worked closely with a wide
range of drilling and well-control professionals as part of the
specialized well-control training classes offered to the drilling
industry by the PERTT laboratory. Over the last 20 years, he has
designed and instructed well-control classes, worked as a rigsite supervisor, participated in deepwater well-control research
May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:30 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

PO163442 DOI: 10.2118/163442-PA Date: 14-May-14

projects, and assisted with the development of internal wellcontrol policies and procedures. Bourgoyne holds a BS degree
and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from LSU.
John Rogers Smith is a Campanile Professor and an associate
professor in the Craft and Hawkins Department of Petroleum
Engineering at LSU and is a registered, professional petroleum
engineer in Louisiana. He has more than 20 years of industry
experience in drilling, production, research, and reservoir
activities. At LSU, Smith teaches courses on drilling engineering

Stage:

Page: 87

Total Pages: 10

and prevention of oil and gas blowouts as well as other drillingand production-related topics, and his research interests are
focused on drilling and well control. Smith holds a BS degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin
and an MS degree and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from LSU. He is a Lifetime Member of SPE, having volunteered to the Society for more than 40 years. Smith was an SPE
Distinguished Lecturer on the challenges of deep drilling, and
continues to be active as a volunteer, speaker, presenter, and
author.

May 2014 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 15:30 I Path: S:/3B2/PO##/Vol00000/140007/APPFile/SA-PO##140007

87