SPE

SPE 22559

Advancements in Dynamic-Kill Calculations for Blowout Wells

(3.E. Kouba, Chevron E&P Services; G.R. McDougall,* Chevron Canada Resources;
and B.W, Schumacher, Chevron E&P Services
SPE Members A
Cop@ght lSSf, society of Petroleum Engineere Inc.

This papar was prepared for presentation at the 661h Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallaa, TX, October S-9, 1991.

This papar waa selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(a). Comema of the paper,
es pfesenmd, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subiect 10correction by the author(a). The msterial, sa preaerded. does not necessarily raflect
any positicm of the Society of Petroleum Engineera, ita officere, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject 10publication reviaw by Editorial Committees of the sozialy
of Petroleum Engineers. Pemsisaionto tnpy is reetricfad to an abstract of not more than 309 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstracf should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 633636, Richardson, TX 75663-3S36 U.S.A. Telex, 73G989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
Three simple calculation techniques are developed and ex-
plored for determining the minimum dyne&ic-kill rate. ho of
the techniques employ only single phase calculations and are
independent of the reservoir inflow performance. Despite
these limitation, these simple methods provide a usefuI
means of bracketing the minimum flow rata necessary to kill
a blowing well.
The third technique uses a simplified mechanistic model of
multiphase flow to determine a most probable minimum kill
rate. This minimum kiU rate is expected to be somewhat con-
servative because of the assumptions of homogeneous no-slip
two-phase flow.
Comparisons against limited field and laboratory data in-
dicate that the models are physically consistent end perform
quite well.
the surface directly into the blowing well in the inwell kill.
When the inwell kill is impractical, a second option is to direc-
tionally drill relief wells and iqject kill fluid into the formation
close to the blowing well. For either option, an accurate predic-
tion of the kill rate is key in planning and pmptuing for a kill
attempt. The magnitude of the kill rate may determine wheth-
er an inwell kill is practical or whether a number of relief wells
must be drilled. The size and numtxx of relief wells, amount
and treatment ofkill fluid, sise and quantity ofpumping equip-
ment, and pressure rating considerations all depend to some
degree on the magnitude of the required kill Gti.
Accurate prediction of the required kill rate is compro-
mised by uncertainties. There axe uncertainties in our knowl-
edge of the reservoir, the flow path geometry, and the fluid
properties of the formation fluids and the i@cted kill fluids.
Furthermore, a significant uncertainty can be present in the
pressure and flow rate predictions of multiphase fluids in
pipas2.

The objective of this work is to present some uncomplicated

INTRODUCTION
The dynamic-kill method is a proven technique for killing a
blowing well with a fluid that ie not heavy enough to kill the
well statically. Details of two succcesthl dynamic-kill opera-
tions have been reported by Blount and floeiinahs end by
Lynch et UZ.m.The main objective of the dynamic-kill calcula-
tion techiiiques is to detmnine the minimum injection rate of
available kill fluid necessary to etop the flow of reservoir fluids
inta the wellbore.
There are two basic options available forinjactingkill fluid
intothe blowing well, Fig. 1. The kill fluid is introduced &em
References and illustrations at end of paper.
methods for reliably determining the upper and lower limits of
the injection rate needed to kill a well. Furthermore, we also
present a simplified midtiphaee solution technique for estab-
Iishingaconeervative most probable minimum kill rate. In the
following discussions, we consider only the flow of fluids in the
wellbore and ignore any fluid 10ssoutside of the wellbore.
DYNAMtGKILL RATE SOLUTIONS
Detailed calculations, procedures and data were presented by
Blount and Soeiinah6 for the dynamic-kill operation of Mobil
Oil Indonesias Arun well C-II-2. We expand on this thecs&by
discussing some of the problems with. multiphaee solutions
end by extending the kill-rate calculations to bracket the
2 ADVANCEMENTS IN DVNAMIC-KILL CALCULATIONS FOR BLOWOUT WELLS
minimum kill rate, l?inally we perform calculations on the
Arun gas well blowout because it representa one of the most
complete blowout data sets available in the open Iitarature.
These data are presented in lkble L
MultlpM8. FlOW801Ut10ft:
A complete discussion of multiphase solution techniques
and models is beyond the scope of this work. Rather, we will
diecuesgeneral ideas and probIems~th muhipha~ flow solu-
tione and present a simplified procedure for determining mini-
mum kill rate, withoqt complex nonessential detail,
The distribution of gas and liquid phases can be very com-
plex in multiphase flows making computations based on liret
principles almost nonexistent. In fact most modellingcf multi-
phase flow is performed with the aid of one or more of the many
available multiphase correlations. In general these correla-
tione accmmt for the effects of phase distribution on pressure
drop. The difficulty lies in the fact that nocmrelation seems to
be accurate over the range of possible flow rates, line sizes, in-
clination angles, etc. Recently developed comprehensive mech-
anistic models, such as by AnSarilI2,offer a much wider range
of applicability and improved accuracy, but the uncertainty of
the solution is still significant. Moreover, none of the muM-
phase models predict the uncertainty of their solution for a
particular case, Therefore, often the magnitude aud sign of the
error are unknown.
The basic idea of the multiphase solution is that for any
successful kill rate, the bottomhole pressure prediction must
be greater than the sandface pressm% for any reservoir fluid
flow rate. In graphical terms, the system intake (wellbore hy-
draulic) curve must lie above or tangent to the Iflow Perform-
ante Relationship (IPR) curve. Fig. 2 show System inkke
curves and IPR for the Arun data in Table 1. For a given IPR
the minimum kill rate would result in a system intake curve
that lies just tangent to the IPR curve.
The system intake curves are generated for various combi-
nations of injection and blowout ratis by adding the pressure
losses due to hydrostatic head, friction, end acceleration to the
outlet pressure,
pwf = pm + ~ Ap%+ Ap,+ Af).
i-l ( ) ., ..,.. (1)
where the flow path has been divided into m increments.
PH
A~=~
. . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Apf= fL ~
[ dh 2&
+x
144
n K. Pm V;
j=l
*&
1 . . . . . (3)
SPE 22559
.. ---
A @mV;)
Apa =
2&144 . . . . . . . ...(4)
The parameter v in Eq. 3 represents the resistance coef-
ficient for the ithcomponentalong the flow path. For simplicity,
the sum of the resistance coefficients and the pipe fiction re-
sistance coefficient, fLdh, will be referred t4ras %.
The distribution of the gas and liquid is assumed ta be ho-
mogeneous with no slippage between the phases. This pro-
duces a simple mcdel of muhiphaee flow that is very accurate
at high flow rates. At moderati rates neglecting slippage of the
gae relative h the liquid will cause this model to underpredict
pressure loss which resuha in a conservative (overprediction)
of minimum kill rate.
The no-slip mixture properties are calculated based on a
flow rate weighted average.
Pm= PnS=p LxL+Pg% . . . . . . ...(~)
h= Mns=VL~L+ ~~g . . . . . . . . .(6)
A kill rate that produces a system intake curvejust tangent
ta the IPR for the Arun well data would fall between 80 and 85
bpm according to this model. Because this model considers the
multiphase flow in the wellbore as well as the IPR of the reser-
voir, we call this the most probable minimum kill rate solution,
Fig, 3 is acomparisonof system intake curves for three well
known multiphaee correlation and the no-slip model. All sys-
tern curves were generated for a constant iqjection rate of 80
bpm, The Aziz et al.s correlation indicates that injecting water
at 80 bpm would not come close to killing the well. The Beggs
and Brill correlation predicts much higher pressure Imses
than the nc%dipmodel at in~asing gas rates and would gen-
erally be expected to underpredict minimum kill rate. The Ha-
gedorn and Brown model agrees very well with one of the
no-slip models at these high ratea. The two rto-slip:modelsdif-
fer in the diameter used to determine friction factor for a fully
eccentric anm.due.This is discussed in more detail later, Very
different results maybe obtained for different multiphase flow
models. Although the no-slip model is expectedtobe somewhat
conservative, by itself this model does not addresathe range of
possible error in the calculation. In particular, determination
of lower and upper limits would help to establish some degree
of confidence in the prediction of minimum kill ra@
Bottomhole Iw3eure Match Solution (lower Ilmlt):
The bottomhole pressure match solution determines the
liquid injection rata necesseg to maintain the bottomhole
pressure equal to the reservoir pressureonce the well has been
killed.
%=5 R..,.,........(7)
 . . . .- ....-- ... .. .-. .
I
The accelerational pressuw drop is neglected for near in- For the zero-derivative condition,
compressible flow with a constant flow path diameter. Eqs. 2
8 PWf
and 3 maybe rewritten for a single phase liquid and substi- -. Oasqg-+O
tuted along with Eq. 7 inta Eq, 1. aqg . ...,.. . . (12)

pLv;

& = Pco+ [ P~H+K

144
2& 1 . . . . . . . (8)
the numeratorcanbs set b zero and rearranged to solve for kill
rate,

Solving Eq. 8 for flow rata yields. L=[H*( 13)

where the gas density is determined at the average system

,L=A {[M@Pm)-PLH]%~.,..
Although this calculation was presented in Ref. 6, we would
like to emphasize that the importance of this calculation is in
determining the minimum injection rate to sustain well con-
trol once the well is killed, While an injection rate equal to or
greatar than that from Eq. 9 is a necessary condition for deter-
mining the minimum kill rate, alone it is not a sut%cientcondi-
tion to guarantee that this rate will actually kill the well.
Therefore, the bottomhole pressure match solution provides
the lower limit to the minimum kill rate.
ZerMbrfvatWe Sdutbn (uppar IlitIlt):
This solution seeks to find the kill rate for which the system
intake curve passes through a minimum in pressure as the for-
mation fluid rate approaches zero (Fig. 2).,A vanishing or zero
derivative of bottomhole pressure with respect to formation
fluid rate is therefore the criterion for this solution.
We start by taking the derivative of Eq. 1 with respect to
the formation fluid flow rate, For simplicity, the flow path is
represented as only one increment and all resistance coeffi-
cieritsare lumped into one equivalent resistance coefficient. In
keeping with the Arun example, we will consider a gas reser-
voir but the following procedure can be applied to other reser-
voirs.
ap~
= a%
+ @%) + ~(Apf)
. upper limit kill rate is the greater of the bottomhole pressure
Mg mg aw l?qg . . . ..
,,, pressure, i.e. average pressure in the wellbore. When greater
than the minimum rate to sustain the kill, the zero-derivative
flow rate provides an upper limit to the minimum kill rate.
The calculation of the derivative was oversimplified in Ref.
5 resulting in a solution that was used to determine optimum
kill fluid density. The density term in Eq. 13 indicates that
while the zero-derivative solution is sensitive to the difference
in the kill fluid and formation fluid densities, the solution is
less dependent on absolute density of kill fluid. A further sim-
plification of Eq. 13 illustrates this point.
If we assume that the gas density is much less than the kill
fluid density and can be neglected, the density terms in Eq. 13
drop out altogether,
.- 1
2&H z
q= A ~
. . . . . . . . . . . ,. (14)
11
When rearranged, Eqs. 13 and 14 indicate that the zero-
.derivative.condition is met as the frictional pressure losses ap-
proach the hydrostatic head loss.
The zero-derivative technique insures that there is at most
one intersection between the system intake curve and the IPR
curve for any kill rate greater than or equal to the zero-deriva-
tive kill rati. Furthermore, if the zero-derivative kill rate is
less than the lower limit rate necesseryto sustain the kill, then
the lower limit rate is sufficient to kill the well. Therefore, the
(10) match solution or the zero-derivative solution.

Based on the preceding analysis, we conclude that the im-

The accelerational pressure drop can safely be neglected
portance of the zero-derivative solution is in determining the
because we are particularly interested in the derivative as the
upper kill rate limit.
gas rate approaches zero. The circulating outlet pressure and
liquid density are assumed constant. Afl.ersubstituting Eqs. 2
and 3 into Eq. 10, chain-rule differentiation yields: FRICTION FACTOR CONSIDERATIONS

apWf
K
2gcA2
[(P=+Pg)qL+ 2Pgqg1 - AP H+: The following empirical relationship for friction factor from
= Jainle was used for Newtonian fluids in this study because it
a% is acmrati, explicit and includes pipe roughness.
a Pg qgqmK
1 ~~+q
(11)
[
,=p.14-210g(:+3)~
(,5,
1

247

4 ADVANCEMENTS IN DYNAMIGKILLCALCULATIONS FOR BLOWOUT WELLS
Because blowouts generally involve high flow rates, thi.
Reynolds numker maybe assumed to be infhitely large for
nonitarative hand calculations with little loss in accqracy
Flow In an Ec4entric Annulua:
The hydraulic diameter (dh)is often umd as the aPPmPri-
ate length scale in calculating fictional pressure losses, Eq. 3,
$imikudy,dhis alsousedin thecah?ulationoflleynolds number
and relative roughness to determine fkictionfactor as in Eq. 16.
This is straightforward and appropriate for flow in a pipe or
concentric anmdua; but, using the hydraulic diameter can re-
suit in severe overprediction of fiction factor for flow in a fully
eccentric annulus.
A consemative estimate of minimum kill rata demands
that the friction factor not be significantly overpredicted. A
usefid alternative therefore, is to use the area equivalent di-
ameter (~) for calculating t%ictionfactor in a fully eccentric
anmdus. The area equivalent diameter is obviously a mean-
ingtld choice as the fully eccentric tubing diametir gets small-
er relative to the casing diameter. Because ~ is always larger
than dh,the fiiction factor will be smaller if% is used in rela-
tive roughness and Reynolds number rather than dh.Calculat-
ing the tliction factor with ~, we found excellent agreement
with Caetanos7 friction factor data for single phase flow in a
fully eccentric annulus.
The system intake curves in Fig. 2 were generated with the
no-slip model and a ~ determined fi-ictionfactor. The results
of the two no-slip models in Fig. 3 show the magnitude of the
difference between calculating friction factor with dh and ~.
NOtI-NWtOnlan Fluids:
The theological properties and a smooth pipe friction factor
for non-Ne@nian fluids can be determined fiwm procedures
given in API 13d3.Unfortunately these procedure ignore any
effects of pipe roughness. At very large Reynolds numbers, the
fticticii factor fora Newtonian fluid becomes a unique function
of relative roughness. Govier and Aziz 14have suggested that
the smooth pipe fiction factor fornon-Newtonian fluids can be
scaled up by multiplying the smath fiction factor for non-
Newtonian fluids by the ratio of fm.g~fsmooth for Ne*ni~
fluids at the same Reynolds number.
OFF-BOllOM INJECTION
There are some applications when the kill fluid is tobeinjected
some distance tkomthe bottom of the well, Fig. 4. Gillespie et
aL13studied the problem of off-bottim dynamic well control of
a sand-blinked gas well during workover operations to wash
out the sand bridges. A criterion for the countertlowof kill fluid
below the kill string was presented in Ref. 13,but there was no
discussion of the kill fluid volume fraction below the point of
injection (POI). Counterblowdoes not guarantee that kill fluid
will completely &spla@ all the reservoir fluid below the POI.
.
SPE 22559
We fist present the procedure to bracket the minimum kill
rate solution, then discuss a simple method to estimate the
minimum volume fraction for kill fluid below the POI. , .
Equation 1 is first modified to account for the pressure loss
I in the lower region below the POL
P ~f =PW + Aphu + APfU+ Aphe + Apfe . . . (16)
Bottomhole Preaaure Match Solution:
The bottomhole pressure match equation is developed by
m@cing the appropriate substitutions into Eq. 16 and solving
for kill rate. The frictional pressure drop below the POI is ne.
glected because the well is assumed dead,
q~=A{[144(~,-pCj -p.Hu-pmQH@]~~( 17)
where subscripts u and Q indicate upper and lower regions
respectively and HQ is the vertical distance from the point of
injection to bottomhole.
The mixture density in the lower region is the volume
weighted average of the kill fluid density and the formation
fluid density.
P GpLYu+pg YgQ. . . . . . . .. (18)
me
Ibcompletethe calculation we need to estimate the volume
fkactionof kill fluid below the POI. The lower limit kill rate will
be produced for 100% kill fluid below the POI, YLQ= 1. Assum-
ing 100% formation fluid below the POI, y~t =,O,generates a
useful upper limit to the minimum kill rate when compared
against the zero-derivative solution.
Zero.Derivative Solutton(upp?rlimit):
The determination of an upper limit kill rate is somewhat
more difficult for off-bottom injection. The zero-derivative so-
lution for off-bottom injection is still Eq. 13 but the vertical
depth, total resistance coefficient and average gas density are
determined with respect to flow path above the point of injec-
tion. Injection rates greater than or equal to the zero-deriva-
tive solution produce system intake curves that increase
monotonically with gas rate.
The zero-derivative solution is an upper limit kill rate
when its system intake curve lies above the pressure at the
point of injection that the reservoir can produce. This pressure
is csdculatid from the IPR bottomhole pressure minus the
presstire loss in the region below the POI. A conservative ap-
proximation for pressure losses in the lower region can be
made by considering only the hydrostatic head loss due titfor-
mation fluid below the POI.
The injection rate that produces apressure at the point of
injection equtil to the bottomhole IPR pressure minus the
---
Z4U
SPE -_. .
22559 G. E. KOUBA.-, G. R. MCDOUGALL
--------- AND
---- . B. W.
--- -- SCHUMACHER
------ . . .. .. 5
i
hydrostatic head loss of the formation fluid up b the POI is de- The criteria for transition between slug and bubbly flow
termined horn Eq. 17 with 100% formation fluid below the was given by Ref. 19.
POL Therefore, the upper limit kill rate foroff-bottom ir@ction
is the greater of the zero-derivative solution or the bottomhole 1 . .

[1
u q/-~ 7
pressure match solution with formation fluid below the POL ()
Sg = 0,197 + 1.@ V$L
p:
Mo81Probabie Minimum Solution: . . . (22)

The thrust of the most probable minimum solution for otT- At equilibrium conditions there should be no net flow of ~n-
bottom injection is to better predict the volume fraction of kill jection fluid downward below the P(X Thus, vs~ = O.Combin-
fluid IM1OWthe POI. Accurate prediction of yu would mquim
ing Eq. 20 and 22 yields the minimum gas rate to sustain slug
counter-current floc@ing models beyond the scope of this pres- flow.
ent work We can, however, calculate some threshold formation
fluid flow rates below which a minimum value of liquid holdup
can be established.
%y4 =o.602~ m +
Fig, 5 is a flow pattern map based on a mechanistic ZT #
modelle for gas and liquid flowing upward in an anmdus for the [1 ,. .,. (23)
Arun well conditions. The solid lines represent transition
boundaries between flow patterns. The transition boundary This transition is baaedin parton the idea that bubbly flow
between annular and nonannukir flow was developed from a can no longer exist when the liquid holdup falls below about
force balance on a droplet of liquid in a gas stream. The transi- 0.75.
tion is marked by the minimwg velocity required to suspend
a liquid droplet. Therefore, by making a gross determination of flow pat-
tern, ranges of Iiquidholdup can beset, For the different values
of minimum liquid holdup, system intake curves for the bot-

H
u (PL_PJ + tomhole pressure can be generated from Eq. 16. Figure 6 shows
Sg = 1.593 different intake curves at a fixed injection rate. If the syetem
&2 .,. .,(19) intake curve for YU = Ointersects the IPR at a gas rate below
the annular flow traneitionboundary, then we are assured that
In a number of studiesl ~ 7*19,Eq. 19 has been found to ac- the lower region has passed inta slug flow and that the liquid
curately predict the annular flow transition. In a series of field holdup is at least 0.25. Similarly, if the system intake curve for
studies, Colemaa etat.g successfully used this criteria to deter- Y@ = 0.25 intersects the IPR below the slug to bubbIe transi-
mine when low pressure gas wells would begin liquid loading. tion rate, then we know that the liquid holdup is at least 0.75.
We can proceed in this simplified approach until satisfied that
The volumetric liquid flow rate is calculated from in-situ
the injection rata will force the transition fi-omannular to slug,
superficial gas vekwity by Eq. 20.
to bubbly and finally kill the blowout.
A p Sg Fewer calculations are required in simply substituting the
qgsc = 3.056 ~T
. ...,, . . (20) transition gas rate into the no-slip model, calculating bottom-
hole pressure and comparing this pressure against the sand-
Combining Eqs. 19 and 20 yields the transition criteria in face pressure ftom the IPR.
terms of standard volumetric flow rate.
We reiterate that this solution should be conservative, i.e.
overpredict HIIrate. The assumptions of n~slip flow above the

[1
PCN,negligible fiction below the POI, and minimum liquid
qgsc =4.87~~ i holdup for each flow pattern all serve to underpredict total
Pg2 pressure drop and thus overpredict kill ra@,,
. . . . . . (21)

Below this flow rate, liquid will begin to fall downward RESULTS
flooding the region below the POI.
It ia tiortumate that there are not many blowout data of the
Bamea 4 indicates that when blockage of the gas core by a
quality and completeness of the Arun data available for dis-
large supply of Iiquidin the film causes the transition fkoman-
playing the results of these dynamic kill models. When com-
nular to slug flow, the minimum liquid holdup required to form
pared against available laboratory and lielddaw however,the
slugs is about 0.25. This aetathe lower limit liquid holdup once
models and their individual components have performed quite
slug flow has been established.
well. The calculations for the Arun blowout are presented as an

I
I
example.
- .-
Z4V
6 ADVANCEMENTS IN DYNAMIC-KILL CALCULATIONS FOR BLOWOUT WELLS
The Arun data is given in Ihble 1. Eq, 9 is used to calculati
the minimum flow rate to sustain the kill. The total flow resis-
tance, K, in Eq. 9 is comprised of the flow resistances fkomfric-
tion in the annulus, mud cross, elbows and exit, The friction
factor was calculated with Eq. 15 using ~ in the relative
roughness and Reynolds number. The piping was assumed to
be new commercial steel pipe with a roughness of 0.00015 ft.
Aftar two iterations on flow rate, the value of f was 0.01448, A
resistance coefficient of 496 was calculated for ~dh, the fric-
tion resistance in the anmdus. The effective value of the other
resistances was about 2 giving a total K value of 498.
After substituting into Eq. 9, with proper unite conversion,
a value of 64 bpm for the lower limit of the minimum kill rate
was calculated. This is essentially the same value reported in
Ref. 5. The calculations differ in that Blount5 used a much
smoother 0.000054-ft roughness, an infinitely large Reynolds
number and the hydraulic diameter in the calculation of fric-
tion factor in the annulus.
The zero-derivative solution was determined flom Eq. 13.
The average system pressure was estimated to be about half
the reservoir pressure and yielded an average gas density of 9
lb#t3. This gas density was used in Eq. 13 to calculate a zero-
derivative solution of just over 84 bprn,This indicates that for
the Arm well the minimum rate to sustain the kill is ideo ade-
quat.atu kill the well. Neglecting the gas density as in Eq, 14
resulted in a conservative upper limit of 97 bpm.
As should be expected, the above minimum kill rate is in
excellent agreement with the value of just over 82 bpm from
the no-slip multiphaee model.
It was unknown if there was any flow up the drill pipe in
the Arun blowout. Assuming no significant restrictions, other
than the ti-iction of the pipe, we can calculate the maximum
flow up the drill pipe. Calculating ffiction in the normal way
for pipe resulted in a resistance coefficient of 475 for the drill
pipe. From Eq. 9 a value of 33 bpm was calculated as the maxi-
mum expected flow in the drill pipe. The maximum flow
through both the drilI pipe and annulus is then 117bpm. It is
interesting to note that the injection rate actually needed ta
kill the Arun well was 114 bpm. This may indicate that less
fluid wee lost to the formation than predicted by Ref. 5.
Calculations for off-bottom kill rates were performed on a
well identical to the Arun well but with the point of injection
2000 ft above the bottomhole. The values for H. and Ku are
7540 ftand 394, respectively.The minimum kill rate to sustain
the kill is determined by assuming 100% kill fluid below the
POI. Substituting into Eq. 17 reveals that the lowerlimit to the
minimum kill rate is about 96 bpm in the amulus alone.
The zero-derivative solution will vary from the on-bottom
injection only tQthe extent that the gas density is changed. Ne-
glecting the gas density msu+~din a conservative value of 97
bpm for the zero-derivative solution. Because the miaimum
kill rate is so new the zero-derivative solution, it is obvious
that the upper limit of the kill rate in this off-bottom kill will
bedeterminedtlom llq. 17assumingall gaebelowthePOI.The
SPE 22559
gas density in this region was calculated assuming an average
pressure of about 7000 psia. The upper limit to the minimum
kill rate from Eq. 17 was 105 bpm.
The range of the most probable minimum kill was signifi-
cantly reduced by considering the flow pattern transition
boundaries. The transition fkom annular to slug was deter-
mined to occur at about 18 MMscfld for near POI conditions,
SimilarlX the transition between slug and bubble flow ilom
Eq. 23 WW.about 1 MMecf7d.The flow pattern transition crite-
ria at the point ofinjection and the no-slip model above the POI
indicated that even the lower limit kill rate of 96 bpm placed
sufficient backpressure on the formation to reduce the gas rate
below the anm.darflow transition, Fig. 6. A value of YM= 0,25
caused the system intake curve to intersect with the IPR at
about 5 MMscfld. While this was not sufficient to guarantee
transition from slug to bubble flow using our simple procedure,
it does indicate that the flow is well into the slug flow regime
where the liquid holdup is probably high enough to move the
system intake to intersect the IPR in bubbly flow. If the range
of liquid holdup is conservatively considered to be 0.75 to 0,25,
Eq. 17 yields a range of most probable minimum kill rate be-
tween 98 and 103, bpm respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Simple procedures have been developed to predict the lower
limit, the upper limit and the most probable minimum injec-
tion rates of kill fluid needed to kill a blowing well.
The lower limit is the minimum flowrate necessary to sus-
tain the kill once the flow of fluids fimmthe reservoir has
ceased.
.
The upper limit kill rate is determined as the flow rate
which satisfies the zero-derivative condition and is suffi-
cient to maintain the kill. The zero-derivative Conditionin-
sures that there is no more than one solution, i.e.,
intersection between IPR and system intake curves,
A simple homogeneous no-slip model of the multiphase
flow was shown to provide a-accurate and conse~ative
prediction of the most probable minimum kill rate.
The calculations for bracketing the minimum kill rate have
been extended to the case of off-bottom injection of kill fluid.
Additional procedures have been presented to reduce the
bracket around the minimum kill rate for off-bottom injection,
A set of well-established flow-pattern transition criteria has
been used to &termine gas rate at which liquid will flow down
below the point of injection.
SPE 22559 G. E. KOUBA, G. R, MACDOUGALLAND B. W. SCHUMACHER 7
I
A cross-sectional area, fiz f friction, fluid
d diamehr, ft g gas
h depth, hydrostatic
dw area equivalent diameter, w d~
= (d:i-d$ i inwell, inlet, inside
dh hydraulic diameter, f~ dh = ~i - dmfor annulus 1 lower
f tkiction factor L liquid
acceleration of gravity, 32.17 ft/sec2 m mixture
g
ns no-slip
& gravitational constant, 32.17 lb~ ftAbrse~
o outside, outlet
H vertical height or depth, ft r relief well
K resistance coefficient Sc standard conditions
L length, ft t tubing
u upper
lb Reynolds number
P outlet circulating pressure, psia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
m
FR average reservoir pressure, psia
The authors thank Chevron Exploration and Production Ser-
Pd sandfam pressure, psia vices and Chevron Drilling Ikchnology Center for permission
Pti bottomhole flowing pressure, psia to publish this paper.

AP, change in pressure due to acceleration losses, psi

REFERENCES
A~ change in pressure due to fkiction losses, psi

A~ change in pressure due to hydrostatic head, psi 1. Ansan, A. M,, Sylvester, N. D,, Shohan, O,, and Brill, J. P.:
A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-
% production gas flow rate, ft3/sec Phase Flow in Wellbore, paper SPE 20630 presented at
~ gas flow at standard conditions, MMscf7d the 1990 SPE Annual ikchnical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Dallas, Sept. 23-26.
~~ liquid injection rati, ft31sec
2, Ansari, A. M.: A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for
h mixture rate; ~ = qL+ ~ Upward Ih-Phaee Flow in Wellbores, MS thesis, The
University of lldsa (1988).
T temperature, R
3. Whe Rheology of Oil-Well DrilEng Fluids, API Bulletin
v velocity, fWec 13D, 2nd cd., (May 15, 1985).
v% superficial gas velocity, fVSSC; W+g. WA 4. Barnea, D.: A Unified Model for Predicting Flow-Pattern
VSL superficial liquid velocity tise~ vsL. qJA Transition for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations, Int,
J. Multiphase Flow, 13(1987) 1-12.
Y~ liquid holdup; YL = 1 yg
5, Blount, E. M. andsoeiinah, E.: DynamicKill: Controlling
Yg gas holduw y~ = 1 yL Wdd Wells a New Way: WorZdOil(October 1981) 109-126.
z gas compressibility factor 6. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H, D.: lluo-Phase Fiow in Pipes,
short course textbook, University of lklsa, Tulsa, OIL
Greek Third Edition (1978) 3-11 through 3-62,
pipe roughness, ft 7. Caetano, E.: Wpward Vertical Two-Phase Flow through
specific gravity an Annulus, PhD dissertation, University of Tulsa,hdsm
surface tension, dynesfcm OK (1986).

no-slip gas holduw ~ / (qL + C@ 8. Clark, A. R. and Perkins, T. K.: Wellbmw and Near-Sur-
fice Hydraulic of a Blown-Out Oil WellVJ. Pet. ZkCh.(No-
no-slip liquid holdup; w/ (qL + @
vember 1981) 2181-2188.
density, lb#t9
9. Coleman, S. B., Clay, H.-B., McCurdy, D, G., and Norris,
PL-Pg
H. L.: A New Laok at Prediction Gas-Well Load-UpT J.
viscosity, cp Pet. 2kch.(March 1991) 329-33.
StMCripts 10. Dodge, N. A.: Friction Lasses in Annular Flow, ASME
63-WA-11, Winter Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA
a acosleration (Nov. 17-22, 1863).
c casing, circulating
11. Dodge, D. W. and Metzner, A. B.: lhrbulent Flow of Non-
Newtonian Systems~AIChE J, 5 (June 1959) 189-204.

251
8

12, Fredrickson, A. G. and Bird, R, B.: Won-Newtonian Flow

in Annuli, Znd & Engn Chcrn.,50 (March 1958).
13. Gillespie, J. D., Morgan, R. F. and Perkins, T. K.: Study
of the Potential for an Off-Bottam Dynamic Kill of a Gas
Well Having an Underground Blowout? paper SPE 17254
presented at the 1988 IADC Drilling Conference.
14. Govier, G, W. and Aziz, K.: The Flaw of ComplexMirturea
in Pipes, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1972.
15. Hawkins, M. F. et al.: Methods for Determining Vented
VolumesDuring Gas Well Blowouti: DOE/BETC/2215-l
(October 1980)+
16. Jain, A. K.: An Awurate Explicit Equation for Friction
Factor: J. Hydraulics Div. ASCE, 102(May 1976).
17, Leonard, J.: Single Relief Well Kills Arun Blowout, Oil
and GcMJ. (Jam 8, 1979) 73-76.
18. Lynch, R. D., McBride, E. J., Perkins, T. K., and Wiley, M.
E.: Dynamic Kill of an Uncontrolled C02 Well, J, Pet,
!fkCh. (July 1985) 1267-1275.
19. Ttitel, Y., Barea, D, end Dukler, A, E.: Modelling Flow
Pattern Transitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow
in Vertical IMIss,AIC!hE J., 24 (May 1980) 345-354.
20, Iimner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G. and Dukler, A. E.: Analysis
and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous
Removal of Liquida from Gas Wells: J. Pet. Zkh. (Nov.
1969) 1475-82; !lhzns.,AIME, 246.

S1 Metric Conversion Fectors

tibl X 1.589 873 E-01 = nf

Cp x 1.0 E-03 = Pa. s
PSI X 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
fr x 3.048 E-01 = m
ft2 X 9.290 304 E-02 = m
w x 2.631 685 E-02 = m3
Ibf X 4.448 222 E+OO = N
Ibm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
R 0R/l .8 . K

252
..
~PE 22559

Blowing Well Relief Well

WAY 1
09fa for Awn Lflawout

GII.2 Sb3wuf WM C-II-S Rdw Wau

7100
Rti PW4UMW
@d
ROWIVWIanqwahm F 234
sbmpil raw, MMacfld 370

BbwcufmffOm pt4awm, F4h 6100

0.6
spn@h2gfavlfyof
rwI@
S41fkntendon,@Y&crn 30
(Wd4fw @ r~if m~bd

EafimsfedlPR- ~ 102.8(pd - p,?) ln

CaaIqIID, ff 0.7113 0.7113

0.4167 0.2917
--,ff
LMHIP@lD,fi o.35e3 0.2493
AIWWIV8
d, n 0.2946
NKUIIUS
~. n 0.5784

Anwlus area! n? 0.20096
0.00015
P@ roughness,H
Mea6uradd@ffI, if 10210 10900
TW Vwf!ealdacth,ff 9650 9540
KUIfkJHdetWfY,L%I@ 61
8.155 . ..>
(fraahwaferaf lSOF,3#gal)
_alul injeSbn kill We, @m 114
Fig. 1 Schemtic of bfowoutwell showingtwo possibleoptionsof
Dda adknabdt?/mllfwrs dynerniceilykiilingthe well, imveiiand reliefwell injection,

lo-

8.

7-

= 6
z
~5
F

3-

2-

1-

0
0 m m 3W w
~ (MMeof/d)

Fig,2 Pmdidedinffowperiommsmd systeminfakecuweefof

eeverelinjeolionreteefor Arunbfawout.

Zes
 4--- %
%+ qL h .
i

Fig.3
2

1-
+ no slip&~
+ f10-S@ & dh
A EtqgS 6 Brill
x Hagadorn
Azizatal.

q (kiii%ofld)

Comparisonof five muitiphaaemodelsat a constantin~tion

rate of 80 @m.
& Brown

Ffg,4
1 Pointof injectio~

Off-bottominjectionof kill fluid

lM. D18PER8ED
B~BBLE

10=

g, BUBBLY
e
u
.ANNUIJ 1:
0.100
: =x

O.oto
~

0.605? I I 1 11111 I I 1 111111 1 I I 11

0.1 10 q (MMacf/d)
~ (MMscf/d)

Ffg.5 FfowpetternmapforupwerdWw-@eae Fig.6 Inflowperformanceand systemintakecurvesfor off-bottom kill exempft%

flow in annulusof Am well.

2s4