WELL INTERVENTION AND CONTROL

OVERVIEW
In the last 25 years, we have witnessed the introduction of tech- Well Intervention
nology that is nothing short of astonishing—things that most
of us would never have imagined during our early days in the and Control
field and on the rigs. While the biggest effect clearly has been on additional reading
overall drilling efficiency—especially real-time information while available at the
drilling—it is interesting to look at how technology has affected SPE eLibrary: www.spe.org
the well-control aspect of drilling.
SPE 107234
Today, we have the ability to look at a computer screen that provides a virtually
“First Subrigfloor HWO
instantaneous reading of numerous downhole parameters (e.g., annular pressure
Intervention System for a
near the bit, equivalent circulating density, temperature, torque, vibration, and
Floating Vessel” by Tim
lithology). Advances in surface monitoring have lead to significant improvements
Pollock, BP plc, et al.
in computerized displays of pressures, rates, and volumes, all of which are crucial
to maintaining hydrostatic control of the well.
SPE 108408
Some may wonder how wells were ever drilled without these high-tech tools. “Fishing 10,000 ft of CT
In December 1982, there were 4,530 rigs running in the US vs. approximately From a Deep Gas Well in
1,800 rigs running in the US today. When those 4,530 rigs were drilling back in Saudi Arabia” by Hasan H.
1982, measurement while drilling (MWD) was in its infancy—Schlumberger did Al Jubran, Saudi Aramco
not complete their first commercial MWD project until some time in 1980. That
means that there were more than 4,500 rigs drilling away, mostly without the available at the
benefit of any real-time bottomhole information except for what could be derived OTC Library:
from experience-based surface observations. www.otcnet.org

Anyone remember what a computer looked like in 1982? That was the year Intel OTC 18614
introduced its 80286 processor with a blazing 6-MHz speed—the computer used “Using BOPs at Pressures in
to produce this article runs 6,000 times faster. Obviously, there were no computer Excess of the Rated Working
screens in the drilling supervisor’s office giving 24-hour graphical and numerical Pressure—A Solution for
readouts in real time. If there was a computer on site, it was probably busy with High-Pressure Wells?” by
a game of pong, or maybe a basic spreadsheet. M.E. Montgomery, SPE,
WEST Engineering Services,
Technology has allowed our industry to advance to a point where pressure is et al.
manipulated for the purposes of increasing drilling efficiency and reducing for-
mation damage. It used to be that any kind of pressure at the surface was a sure
sign of a problem. Primary, well control inherently meant the absence of surface
pressure. Now we have underbalanced drilling and managed-pressure drilling
that seem completely foreign to this long-held concept.

Numerous articles could be (and probably have been) written about the risk/reward
aspects of where technology has allowed us to venture. Sometimes it is just interest-
ing to sit back and look at where we were not that long ago. You cannot help but
wonder where continued advancements will lead over the next 25 years. JPT

David Barnett, SPE, is vice president, Engineering Services for Wild Well Control,
a company specializing in firefighting, well-control, and engineering services. He
has more than 20 years of drilling, snubbing, coiled-tubing, and well-control experi-
ence. Barnett’s experience includes work as a drilling engineer, rig superintendent,
snubbing supervisor, and well-control specialist. He has been involved with the
planning and implementation of numerous relief-well, high-pressure-snubbing, and
well-recovery operations. Barnett was a team leader in the Kuwait project and has
worked on well-control projects in many countries around the world. He holds a BS
degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Houston and serves on the
JPT Editorial Committee.

66 JPT • JANUARY 2008

WELL INTERVENTION AND CONTROL
Wellbore-Strengthening Technique for Drilling Operations
A significant increase in formation frac-
ture resistance can be achieved as a
result of a fracture sealing or plug-
ging mechanism induced by a particle
“screenout” effect resulting from the
drilling fluid being loaded with an
adequate amount of narrowly sized
granular materials. Such an increase in
formation fracture resistance is particu-
larly valuable in helping to drill through
depleted zones without losing fluid,
strengthening the weaker formations
that usually require additional casing
strings for protection, avoiding lost cir-
culation during cementing operations,
and drilling high-angle well sections
with high mud weights that normally
would not be possible because of low
formation fracture gradients.
Introduction
Lost circulation is perhaps the most
costly mud-related drilling problem.
Not only is rig time lost, but large
volumes of expensive drilling fluids
are lost to the formation. Lost circu-
lation also can lead to severe well-
control incidents. In response, several
technologies referred to as “wellbore
strengthening” (WS) are being devel-
oped to prevent or correct lost circula-
tion. WS means that the breakdown
pressure of the wellbore is greater after
the treatment than before. These meth-
ods include use of special granular
This article, written by Assistant
Technology Editor Karen Bybee, con-
tains highlights of paper SPE 105809,
“Further Development, Field Testing,
and Application of the Wellbore-
Strengthening Technique for Drilling
Operations,” by Giin-Fa Fuh, SPE, and
Dave Beardmore, SPE, ConocoPhillips
Co., and Nobuo Morita, SPE, Waseda
U., prepared for the 2007 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 20–22
February.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
JPT • JANUARY 2008
Fig. 1—Well C WS treatment design; TVD=true vertical depth,
MD=measured depth, and MW=mud weight.
material, heating the wellbore, and use
of rigid-plug-forming pills. The full-
length paper focuses on a WS method
that uses mud with special bridging
and fluid-loss formulations.
In the mid-1980s, a joint-industry
project (JIP) was conducted to deter-
mine why oil-based mud apparently
caused a lower fracture gradient than
water-based mud (WBM). Data from
this JIP were analyzed, and it was
determined that they did not fit ordi-
nary fracturing models of the time.
These researchers noted that certain
lost-circulation materials (LCMs) actu-
ally seemed to increase the pressure
required for fracture propagation to
more than what was seen with untreat-
ed drilling mud. They conducted labo-
ratory tests outside the JIP to verify
their observations. The result was the
development of a loss-prevention mate-
rial (LPM) that was found to inhibit the
extension of a fracture tip.
LPM was tested in the field several
times and was quite successful. It was
able to increase the wellbore break-
down pressure in several cases, and
subsequent application of the technol-
ogy has allowed a casing string to be
skipped in several cases. The technique
affects only the near-wellbore break-
down pressure, not the far-field frac-
ture gradient.
Case Histories
The full-length paper presents four
case histories that provide a sampling
of the various ways in which the WS
technique can be applied. Although
the optimal way to apply this tech-
nique is to drill the weak zone with the
granular material carried in the entire
mud system (the drill-ahead method),
three of the four examples are actually
cases of the formation-integrity-test
(FIT) -type method.
Case A. Wells in one field had lost
circulation zones in two sandstone
formations because neither formation
could withstand mud densities greater
than 9.0 lbm/gal. The limestone reser-
voir below them is pressured at 10.1
to 10.5 lbm/gal. The traditional solu-
tion had been to set an 8,050-ft string
of 7-in. intermediate casing, drill the
remaining 650 ft of wellbore, and then
hang a liner from the intermediate cas-
ing across the pressured limestone res-
ervoir. This approach has two distinct
disadvantages. First, if the well turns
out to be a dry hole when total depth
(TD) is reached, an expensive 8,000-ft
67
string of casing has already been run
and cemented in the wellbore. Second,
the casing/liner combination is more
expensive than a single string of pro-
duction casing.
The first attempt was to eliminate
the 8,050-ft intermediate-casing string
while drilling Well A1. The decision
was made to leave the weak-sandstone
intervals exposed to the 10.0-lbm/gal
mud used to drill the pay. In doing so,
it was assumed that the occurrence of
lost circulation was inconsistent within
the weak zones in nearby fields and that
lost circulation in this field might not
be a problem. Lost circulation occurred
into the uppermost weak sandstone,
and the resulting reduction in hydro-
static head allowed an influx of oil and
gas from the limestone producing for-
mation. Although the well control was
skillfully managed without incident,
the hazardous conditions necessitated
finding a lower-risk solution, and LPM
technology for WS was presented as a
potential solution.
Because of apprehension about the
effectiveness of the LPM concept, a
modified approach was pursued in
Well A2. An 83/4-in. hole was drilled
out from under the 95/8-in. interme-
diate-casing string at 3,500 ft. Fresh
water was used to drill to 6,450 ft, at
which point the wellbore was displaced
with a 9.2-lbm/gal LPM mud consisting
of salt gel, starch, and LPM. The LPM
was 40 lbm/bbl of 30/60-mesh walnut
hulls. As a precaution, the decision
was made to drill into the top of the
weak zones with weighted LPM fluid
and determine the effectiveness of the
LPM technology without exposing the
several hundred feet of the entire weak
interval to an excessive mud weight.
If lost circulation occurred at the top
of the weak zones and the LPM was
ineffective, the test would be discon-
tinued, and the mud weight could
be reduced to less than 9.0 lbm/gal.
The intermediate hole then would be
drilled to 8,050 ft, and the 7-in. inter-
mediate-casing string would be set as
usual. However, no losses occurred
during drilling operations when the
mud weight was increased from 9.2
to 10.1 lbm/gal with the addition of
drilled solids and salt. The well was
drilled successfully to TD at 8,700 ft,
and 51/2-in. production casing was run
and cemented. As a result, a net WS
of at least 1.1 lbm/gal was achieved in
this case.
68
For the 2,250 ft of hole that was
drilled with 30/60-mesh LPM in the
mud, 60-mesh screens were used on the
shakers to provide some mud cleaning
for that long interval. Some of the LPM
that was removed by the shakers was
recycled into the mud, and significant
additions of new LPM were made to
replace what was not recovered from
the shakers. This was operationally
very difficult for such a long section.
To avoid losing circulation during
the cement job, plans were to perform
a two-stage job—placing a 15.6-lbm/gal
cement from TD up to 8,000 ft dur-
ing the first stage and then circulat-
ing a low-density foam cement from
8,000 ft up into the surface casing. The
foam cement would limit hydrostatic
head, preventing lost circulation into
the exposed weak formations below
6,500 ft. After completing the first stage,
the differential valve tool at 8,000 ft
was opened and approximately 15 bbl
of mud was pumped before circulation
was stopped to switch from service-
company pumps to the rig pumps (i.e.,
plans were to circulate for approxi-
mately 4 hours before beginning the
second-stage foam-cement job). When
attempts were made to reinitiate cir-
culation, complete losses occurred as
the result of a pressure surge, and
circulation was never recovered. It was
estimated that at the time, the spacer
and some of the cement from the first
stage were directly opposite the weak
formations. The pressure surge from
breaking circulation caused a fracture
to develop, and because the spacer and
first-stage cement slurry did not contain
LPM, there was no way to prevent the
fracture from propagating. Fortunately,
subsequent logging indicated top of
cement at approximately 6,640 ft (near
the top of the weak sandstones), so the
producing zone was protected and iso-
lated sufficiently.
It would have been preferable to
avoid the lost-circulation problems
experienced during the cementing
operations. However, the lost-circu-
lation problems clearly proved that
including LPM in the drilling fluids did
prevent lost circulation from occur-
ring when drilling through the weak
formations. Complete circulation loss
during the cementing phase indicated
that lost circulation also would have
occurred during the drilling phase
because the hydrostatic head caused by
the 10.2-lbm/gal mud used while drill-
ing was greater than that estimated to
be applied in the annular space during
cementing when the lost-circulation
problem occurred.
Several significant changes were
made to the well plan before drilling
the next well. Because lost circulation
was prevented while drilling Well A2,
a more aggressive plan was used to
drill Well A3. A 77/8-in. bit was used
to drill a smaller production hole out
of the smaller 85/8-in. intermediate-cas-
ing string set at 3,500 ft. Fresh water
was used to drill through the weak
formations, and the hole was displaced
above the top of the pay at 8,500 ft with
the same type of LPM drilling fluid
used to drill Well A2. Because of the
higher formation pressure at this loca-
tion, the mud weight was increased to
10.5 lbm/gal. The shakers were bypassed
for this short 200-ft interval to allow the
LPM to remain in the mud system. No
losses were detected at any time during
drilling or casing operations, and the
well was completed successfully and
put on production. In this field case,
a minimum of 1.5 lbm/gal in WS was
achieved and use of LPM was proved
to be effective in inhibiting fracture ini-
tiation and propagation in the depleted
formations. A 15 to 20% cost savings
on this well was attributed to the use
of LPM technology. Modification of
the well plan to drill smaller holes also
resulted in higher penetration rates,
reduced drilling-fluid volumes, less cut-
tings waste, and improved wellbore sta-
bility. Another significant change made
for the Well A3 application was to
include LPM in the cement formulation
at the same concentration used in the
drilling fluid. This change prevented
lost circulation during the two-stage
cement job, yielding a competent col-
umn of cement up into the surface
casing. After using LPM successfully on
Wells A2 and A3, the technology was
used in subsequent wells drilled in the
same area. In each of the wells, the LPM
technology was used to eliminate the
intermediate-casing string and to slim
down the diameter of the wellbore.
Case C. Well C had a weak zone at
TD with high mud weight required for
shallower-zone stability. Well C is one
of many directional wells with a hori-
zontal production section drilled from a
central location in an existing field. The
81/2-in. intermediate section is drilled
with a WBM at a sail angle of approxi-
JPT • JANUARY 2008
mately 65° and into the pay with a final
inclination of 90°. Then, 7-in. casing is
run and cemented at TD. The produc-
tive sandstone reservoir is depleted in
some areas, but with the usual 9.8- to
10.0-lbm/gal mud in the intermediate
hole section, losses typically do not
occur during drilling. While running
the 7-in. casing to bottom, mud is rou-
tinely circulated at three depths to aid
in getting the 7-in. casing to bottom.
Occasionally, losses occur during run-
ning and cementing the casing.
While drilling Well C, shale caving
began to occur in a shale zone above
the pay sand. Although the intermedi-
ate-section TD was reached, the caving
hole section was abandoned and had to
be redrilled. The shale caving was con-
trolled by increasing the mud weight
to 10.0 to 10.6 lbm/gal. On the basis
of experience and annular-pressure-
drop modeling, losses were not expect-
ed while drilling to TD. Equivalent
circulating densities (ECDs) would
not exceed 11.9-lbm/gal equivalent
mud weight (EMW). But losses were
expected while running and cementing
the 7-in. casing, when ECDs would
approach 13.6-lbm/gal EMW.
After discussing the situation, the
team developed the idea of spotting
a mud pill containing an effective
amount of LPM on bottom across the
pay sand before pulling out of hole
with the drillpipe before running the
casing (Fig. 1). The concept was that
when the high ECD was applied to the
hole during circulation of the casing
on the way to TD, the WS material
would inhibit fracture growth, prevent
major losses, and possibly strengthen
the wellbore before the cement job. In
this case, getting cement 2,300 ft above
the shoe was a regulatory requirement
for this waterflood injection well.
Formulation of the WS pill to be
spotted on bottom was similar to what
had been successful before. The plan
was that the pill would stay on bottom
while the drillpipe was pulled out of the
hole and while the 7-in. casing was run
to bottom. The pill would be circulated
out of the well when the 7-in. casing
got to bottom and would be circulated
before cementing.
The main risk of this WS application
was that if the pill failed to strengthen
the pay sand, it was likely that there
would be lost circulation while run-
ning the casing or during the cement
job. This would necessitate a remedial
70
cement job because of the regulatory
cementing requirements.
The pay-sand fracture gradient varies
with local pore pressure. The reservoir
has linedrive producers and injectors.
Depending on the nature of the perme-
ability of the reservoir and its connec-
tion with either injectors or producers
at the point of penetration, the pay sand
could have a higher (or lower) than
normal fracture gradient. The fracture
gradient of the pay at virgin pore pres-
sure is approximately 13.0 lbm/gal. The
7-in.-casing shoes typically undergo
a 12.5-lbm/gal FIT before drilling the
horizontal section. Approximately one-
fourth of the wells produce leakoff
before reaching 12.5-lbm/gal EMW.
The intermediate section was
drilled to TD (15,844 ft) with 9.7- to
9.8-lbm/gal mud. Caving shale and
packoffs became a serious problem.
Mud weight was increased, and some
breathing (loss of mud followed by
return of part of the lost volume when
pumps are shut off) was noted at a
10.6-lbm/gal mud weight. However, it
is believed the losses were aggravated
by numerous packoff instances. This
original hole had such bad caving shale
that a cement plug was set over the
bottom 2,000 ft. The hole was redrilled
with 10.0- to 10.6-lbm/gal mud. At TD
of the section (15,758 ft), the WS pill
was spotted on bottom to cover the pay
sand fully, with some additional volume
in case some minor losses occurred.
The drillpipe was pulled above the pill,
and 11.0-lbm/gal mud was circulated
and conditioned above the pill with no
losses. The pressure-while-drilling tool
in the hole recorded a maximum sus-
tained ECD of 11.8-lbm/gal EMW while
circulating, with spikes to 12.1-lbm/gal
EMW during packoffs.
The 7-in. casing was run in the hole,
with circulation conducted at 3,453 ft
(surface shoe), 6,945 ft, 10,420 ft, and
13,828 ft at 3 to 4 bbl/min. The casing
was reciprocated during these stops.
The casing was worked through tight
hole at 14,965 to 15,640 ft. No losses
occurred while running or circulating
casing. At TD, the casing was circulated
at 4 bbl/min, and the mud weight was
reduced from 11.0 to 10.6 lbm/gal. The
casing was cemented with a 12.5-lbm/gal
spacer and a 15.8-lbm/gal cement
slurry at 4.5 bbl/min with no losses.
The cement simulator indicated that
the maximum ECD was approximately
13.6 lbm/gal, which is well above the
normal 11.8- to 13.0-lbm/gal fracture
gradient for the pay sand. The treatment
was considered a success because there
were no losses, and a remedial cement
job was avoided.
Discussion
The mechanism of increased fracture
resistance or WS depends highly on
the LPM concentration used in relation
to the degree of formation permeabil-
ity. Numerical modeling is in progress
to analyze the effect of LPM and its
concentration on fracture propagation
during the dehydration of LPM and
mud solids. The modeling indicates
that at a low LPM concentration (i.e.,
5 to 10 vol%), the LPM dehydrates
and forms a sealing barrier around the
fracture tip (in permeable formations)
that significantly increases the apparent
fracture toughness to prevent fracture
propagation. For a medium LPM con-
centration (i.e., 10 to 30 vol%), the
LPM dehydrates at the mouth of the
induced fracture for permeable and
less-permeable formations, and acts
like a sealant and increases the rupture
strength of the borehole. At a much
higher LPM concentration (i.e., 30 to
50 vol%), the LPM would plug the
mouth of the induced fracture even
for formations with zero permeability
because of geometrical factors
All four of these case histories in
the full-length paper were conducted
in what would be described as “hard
rock.” None were conducted in uncon-
solidated sands, silts, or clays.
The drill-ahead type of application
should be the most effective because
the LPM always is available to inhibit
fracture growth. However, long hole
sections may preclude its use because
of solids buildup in the mud. Therefore,
development and understanding of the
FIT-type method is warranted.
One of the most important aspects
of either of these methods that use the
special granular material is that they are
preventive treatments. Theoretically,
the granular material will work best
only on newly forming fractures. It is
conceivable that the suitable concen-
trations of granular materials might be
more effective than other LCM mixes in
situations of induced- or natural-frac-
ture lost circulation that have already
occurred, but theoretically, and so far
in practice, they have not been able to
strengthen formations that have already
suffered large losses. JPT
JPT • JANUARY 2008
WELL INTERVENTION AND CONTROL
Wellbore Strengthening in Shale
The full-length paper demonstrates that
wellbore strengthening in shale is fea-
sible. A treatment pill was developed
in the laboratory and field tested suc-
cessfully at a US land-based location.
The treatment consisted of a blend of
particulates (known as stress-cage sol-
ids) and proprietary crosslinked gelling
polymers that set with time. Properties
of the system such as compressive
strength, adhesion to shale, and sensi-
tivity to temperature and pressure were
evaluated. Modeling work was con-
ducted to engineer the size and con-
centration of bridging solids required.
Introduction
Drilling in depleted zones, or inter-
vals where high-pressured formations
are interbedded with normally and
abnormally pressured layers, has cre-
ated the need for these strengthening
technologies. The goal is to increase
the fracture resistance of weaker for-
mations and thereby avoid mud losses,
wellbore instabilities, and the poten-
tial loss of the drilled interval. The
primary consequences of these unde-
sired events are an increase in nonpro-
ductive time and associated costs. In
addition to avoiding these problems,
the economic benefits that wellbore
strengthening can provide are the pos-
sible elimination of a casing string or,
more importantly, the ability to reach
deeper reservoir targets.
This article, written by Assistant Technology
Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights
of paper SPE 110713, “A New Treatment
for Wellbore Strengthening in Shale,” by
Mark S. Aston, SPE, Mark W. Alberty,
SPE, and Simon Duncum, BP plc, and
James E. Friedheim, SPE, and Mark
W. Sanders, SPE, M-I Swaco, pre-
pared for the 2007 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, 11–14 November.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
JPT • JANUARY 2008
One of the most popular wellbore-
strengthening technologies is induc-
ing an increase in wellbore stresses by
use of sized-particulate additions to the
drilling fluid. The common name for
this approach is “stress caging.” The
principle is to increase the hoop stress
around the wellbore by using fractures
to cause stress changes in the rock.
These fractures would be held open
with bridging material, thereby creating
the stress-cage effect, or strengthening
of the wellbore. This bridge of particles
across the mouth of the fracture must
have low permeability to provide pres-
sure isolation of the fluid in the well-
bore from that in the fracture, thus pre-
venting any further fracture elongation.
The degree of stress caging relative to
the native stresses is a function of both
fracture width and radius and the rock
properties (i.e., Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio). To achieve this effect,
the proper type, size, and amount of
loss-prevention material (LPM) must be
used. Using the stress-cage concept and
associated factors, drilling fluids can be
designed to maximize this strengthen-
ing effect and minimize losses and other
problems encountered when drilling
significantly above the fracture gradient.
In fact, use of these LPMs for wellbore
strengthening has led to several comple-
mentary technologies.
Although the stress-cage approach
is used widely, the application primar-
ily has been confined to permeable
formations, even though strengthening
impermeable rocks (e.g., shale) also
often is required. The key to stress
caging shale would be to design a tech-
nology (i.e., chemistry, technique, or
both) whereby once the sized bridging
particulates prop open the fracture,
they cannot be removed easily. One
approach is to transport the bridging
particulate in a settable medium that
solidifies the fracture. The solidification
will prevent further seepage of fluid
through a leaky seal on the bridge, will
prevent flowback toward the wellbore
when hydrostatic pressure is reduced
temporarily, and will help bear the
stress across the fracture. This solution
can be enhanced further if the mate-
rial also shows a propensity to adhere
to shale. In this manner, the propping
particulate can be introduced to the
fracture with the proper size and con-
centration, allowing a desired set while
avoiding undesired pressure transmis-
sion and then adhering to the shale
fracture, thus providing a permanent
bridge at the opening of the fracture.
Field Trials
BP has conducted several stress-cage
trials in shale. The previous trials car-
ried out in the US Arkoma basin were
somewhat encouraging. Pressures
greater than 5 lbm/gal above the forma-
tion fracture pressure were achieved as
long as the stress-cage pill remained in
the hole. The pill was formulated in oil-
based mud (OBM) and contained sized
marble and graphitic bridging solids,
but was of a nonsetting type.
When the pill was displaced after the
squeeze, and regular mud was circu-
lated, the strengthening effect was lost.
It appeared the bridging particles were
not held sufficiently strongly within
the fracture and subsequently were
stripped out.
Gel System. A new trial was conducted
in the Arkoma basin to test the novel
gel system, with the goal of achieving
a more permanent strengthening effect.
The test was conducted in a vertical well,
across 50 ft of Atoka shale in an 83/4-in.
hole at approximately 4,020 ft. The
shale was directly below the 95/8-in.-cas-
ing shoe. The Atoka formation is a fairly
unreactive brittle shale. An OBM with a
9.3-lbm/gal density was used.
71
Baseline Data. A 1,928-psi forma-
tion-breakdown pressure was mea-
sured, and upon shut-in, the pres-
sure was bled back to approximately
1,500 psi. As expected, the bleed-
back value coincides roughly with
the reopening pressure (1,525 psi)
seen on repressurization. The differ-
ence between initial breakdown and
reopening of approximately 400 psi
(1,928−1,525 psi) represents the ten-
sile strength of the rock.
The bottomhole shut-in tempera-
ture was logged as 107°F, which was
considerably lower than the predicted
120 to 127°F. Rather than redesign-
ing the chemistry of the gel system on
short notice, the decision was made to
extend the shut-in period. Therefore,
long shut-in times of approximately
20 hours were needed for the trial.
Pill Formulation and Placement.
The bridging package for the pill was
designed by running in-house soft-
ware that predicts fracture widths from
geophysical data. A fracture-opening
width of 640 μm was predicted, which
would allow the wellbore pressure to
exceed the minimum horizontal stress
by 500 psi. The bridging-solids blend
then was selected to cover a wide range
of sizes (approximately 2 to 800 μm),
allowing for possible variations in frac-
ture width and ensuring that a good
seal was obtained on the fracture. A
high concentration of bridging solids
included 25 lbm/bbl of coarse mar-
ble, 25 lbm/bbl of graphitic solids,
20 lbm/bbl of medium marble, and
20 lbm/bbl of fine marble.
Additional fine marble was added
as required to increase the weight
of the pill to the desired value
(10.5 lbm/gal). Laboratory work had
shown this to be beneficial, and it
would increase the compressive
strength of the set material.
A balanced-plug technique was used.
The procedure was to pump a 10-bbl
diesel spacer, followed by 16 bbl of
treatment, and then 2 bbl diesel so
that column heights/densities were bal-
anced in the annulus and drillpipe after
displacement. Foam wiper balls were
placed on either side of the treatment.
First Gel-Pill Application. In the
first attempt, the pill was squeezed for
19 hours at 2,000-psi surface pressure
(72 psi above the initial formation-
breakdown pressure). The pressure
72
held during the squeeze, but after drill-
ing out the set treatment and circulating
clean, there was only a limited strength
increase. The fracture opened again at
1,800 psi. It seemed that insufficient
squeeze pressure had been applied to
force the bridging-solids/gel system
fully into the mouth of the fracture.
Second Gel-Pill Application. The sec-
ond pill formulation and procedure
were similar to those of the first pill,
except a higher squeeze pressure was
applied. A 2,500-psi squeeze pressure
was used, which was approached in
stages over a 2-hour period while the
treatment was still liquid. The pres-
sure actually climbed to approximately
3,000 psi toward the end of the shut-in
period, most likely as a result of an
increasing wellbore temperature and
the heating of surface lines (night vs.
day temperatures). It is remarkable
that the formulated pill could hold the
2,500 psi while still fully liquid, but it
was expected that it could hold high
pressures (3,000 psi) once set.
After drilling out, survival tests
were carried out. For each survival
test, mud was circulated for a set
period and the bottomhole assembly
was rotated and moved up and down
through the strengthened shale to
avoid washout. The survival was then
assessed by formation-integrity-test
(FIT) testing. The FIT pressure was
taken to 1,400 psi initially to establish
a baseline, and then to 1,700 psi in
Tests 1 through 3 (175 psi above the
fracture-reopening pressure), and up
to 2,080 psi in Test 4 (555 psi above
the fracture-reopening pressure).
Tests 1 through 3 show that a
strengthening effect was indeed
achieved, and that the treatment could
survive increasing periods of mud cir-
culation. The total circulation time at
the end of Test 3 had been 2.75 hours
at half the normal circulation rate—
220gal/min. Even more impressive
is Survival Test 4. In this final test,
the circulation rate was increased to
440 gal/min for a further 2 hours, and a
final series of FIT tests was performed.
The surface pressure was increased
in stages and reached an impressive
2,080 psi before the test was termi-
nated. This is approximately 150 psi
greater than the original formation-
breakdown pressure (1,928 psi), and
550 psi more than the fracture-reopen-
ing pressure. This value is in fact close
to the original design value for the pill.
The drilling team preferred to leave the
formation in a strengthened condition,
and so it was not possible to increase
the pressure further to determine the
actual breakdown point.
Discussion
The slope of the shut-in curves for
the various FITs was quite variable.
Accordingly, obtaining a low-pressure
(1,400 psi) baseline for each FIT test
was desirable because this is less than
the fracture-reopening pressure and
can be used as a reference point; doing
so helps avoid erroneous conclusions.
Some pressure decay on shut-in is nor-
mal and can be caused by a number of
effects, including temperature changes,
seepage of fluid into the fracture, or
leaks introduced in the equipment.
Hence, variations between different FIT
tests might be expected.
Survival Test 3 produced a remark-
ably flat shut-in pressure, and the big-
gest contrast with this was Survival
Test 4 where there was a fairly steep
slope on shut-in. The slope in this final
test does not change significantly as the
pressure is increased and, most impor-
tantly, is similar to that of the reference
test (1,400 psi). Therefore, the authors
concluded that the slope does not
imply failure of the stress cage and is
most likely caused either by differences
in the cooling of the well as a result of
differences in circulation times or by a
leak in the system introduced between
the different circulation stages.
Conclusions
1. Shale can be strengthened reliably
by use of stress-cage techniques using a
settable pill containing bridging solids
with sufficient compressive strength
and shale-adhering qualities.
2. Proper design and field implemen-
tation of this technology are essential
to creating stress cages successfully
in shale.
3. Wellbore strengthening through
stress caging can be accomplished
without the dependence upon fracture
collapse caused by leakoff, by maintain-
ing a bridge at the mouth of the fracture
and preventing additional fluid leakage
into the fracture.
4. The demonstration of the feasibil-
ity of the application of stress cages to
shale opens the door for further devel-
opment and application of stress cages
in shale. JPT
JPT • JANUARY 2008
WELL INTERVENTION AND CONTROL
Hydraulic Blowout-Control Requirements
The full-length paper presents equa-
tions and guidelines for determining
requirements for pump rates, number
Pump Rate, bbl/min
of wells, and kill fluids required to kill
a blowout. A comparison with selected
field cases demonstrates that the for-
mulated guidelines match the require-
ments to actually kill these blowouts.
This comparison gives confidence that
the guidelines presented are a good
starting point for contingency plan-
ning. Several blowout scenarios for a
giant North Sea gas field are exam-
ined to demonstrate application of
the guidelines.
Introduction
Because of advances in drilling and
production technology, blowouts have
become an increasingly rare phenom-
enon. A report published by the United
Nations Environment Program that cites
statistics from the US Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) and the North Sea shows the
probability of shallow-gas blowouts in
exploration wells to be approximately
one in every 200 wells; for workover
operations, one in every 2,500 wells for
oil wells and one in every 1,000 wells for
gas wells; and for infill wells, less than one
in every 10,000 wells drilled. Because of
this, blowout prevention is a top priority
in drilling and well intervention. A con-
tingency plan must be formulated before
spudding development wells to limit the
consequences of a blowout by prescrib-
ing an adequate emergency response to
a possible well-control incident. On the
This article, written by Assistant Technology
Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of
paper SPE 105612, “Hydraulic Blowout-
Control Requirements for Big-Bore and
HP/HT Developments: Validation With
Field Experience,” by P. Oudeman,
SPE, Shell Intl. E&P, prepared for the
2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, 20–22 February.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
JPT • JANUARY 2008
250
200
150
100
50
0
4 5 6 7
Conduit ID, in.
Fig. 1—Required pump rates vs. blowout-conduit inside diameter (ID).
basis of the emergency-response plan,
preparations can be made to take action
rapidly after an incident is reported. Such
preparations would include ensuring the
availability of a nearby rig for drilling a
relief well, sufficient tubular-goods stock
to complete a relief well, and pump
capacity to kill the blowing well. With
these elements in place, relief efforts can
be started quickly, thus reducing the
time to regain control of the well. The
plan should consider the possible modes
of failure and the response to these fail-
ures to restore well integrity.
In the majority of cases, “capping”
of the well (i.e., replacing the damaged
wellhead) is the most efficient method
to stop flow from the well. To illustrate,
most of the more than 780 wells that
were sabotaged and set on fire during
the 1991 Gulf War in Kuwait were
brought under control within 8 months
by capping. With this success, well-
control companies demonstrated that
even under harsh post-war conditions,
capping technology could deal with
almost any form of wellhead damage.
Unfortunately, capping is of little use
when the wellhead is not the point of
X>1
X = 0.75
X = 0.5
X = 0.25
8 9 10 11
outflow, is inaccessible, or is damaged
to the extent that repair is impossible.
Examples of these situations include
the following.
• Underground blowouts, where the
flow of hydrocarbons enters a shallow
low-pressure zone (e.g., through a cas-
ing leak). In the case of a shallow leak,
the fluids may reach the surface some
distance from the well.
• Subsea wells.
• Wells and platforms that have suf-
fered such damage that a safe position
cannot be created for staff to work on
the well. The Bay Marchand incident,
with 11 wells on fire on a single plat-
form, was an example of this situation.
In these cases, to restore the mechan-
ical integrity of the well, inflow must be
inhibited by balancing the pressure of
the producing formations with a fluid
column in the well or by blocking the
entry of oil and/or gas into the well
by saturating the near-wellbore region
with water or brine.
The latter method, called “flooding,”
requires the injection of large amounts
of water into the near-wellbore forma-
tions through one or more relief wells
73
and is usually a cumbersome and time-
consuming process. To illustrate, in Bay
Marchand, this required drilling wells to
within 25 ft of each of the blowing wells.
Ten of the wells were killed this way. One
remaining well had to be capped after
100,000 bbl of seawater was pumped
without any noticeable effect. Hence the
first process, hydraulic blowout control,
usually will be the preferred option.
For successful hydraulic blowout
control, often referred to as “dynamic
kill,” it is essential that kill fluids be
pumped downhole into the blowout
well at such a rate that the well can no
longer lift oil and/or gas to surface and
the well ceases to flow once sufficient
pressure has built up at the sandface.
This means that for contingency plan-
ning for a new well, two primary ques-
tions need to be answered.
1. What kill fluid should be pumped
into the well and at what rate to control
the well flow when mechanical control
is not an option?
2. Will it be technically feasible to
pump this rate into the well given the
limitations of the kill string and pump
equipment?
For normally pressured, medium-
sized oil and gas wells, the feasibility
of hydraulic blowout control has been
proved in a large number of reported
cases. Considerably less experience is
available in areas such as high-pres-
sure/high-temperature wells, big-bore
gas wells, and highly prolific wells such
as long horizontal wells.
Answering the primary questions
of hydraulic blowout control for these
types of wells, with their high blowout
potential and associated potential dam-
age, is of utmost importance. Here, the
answers will be sought by applying the
validated knowledge obtained in killing
“conventional” well blowouts to less-
conventional wells. This approach will
indicate particular areas of concern and
provide general guidelines for the design
of a relief well and the kill job. These can
be considered a good starting point for
the relief-well and kill-job design.
The full-length paper presents simpli-
fied equations for the minimum pump
rate required to kill overpressured wells
and big-bore wells, required hydraulic
horsepower of the pump, and required
pumping time.
Comparison With Field Cases
Ixtoc 1. Ixtoc 1 was 58 miles north-
west of Ciudad del Carmen in the
74
GOM in 165 ft water depth. In June
1979, control was lost when the well
reached 11,900 ft, and total losses were
observed. The well blew out after trip-
ping out the drillstring, and the rig was
evacuated when it caught fire. This was
the beginning of a blowout that lasted
for 9 months and 22 days, a period
over which an estimated 4.2 million
bbl of oil were spilled into the GOM,
the second-largest oil spill ever after
the deliberate release of approximately
5.7 million bbl in the Persian Gulf dur-
ing the 1991 Gulf War.
The well was blowing through 95/8-in.
casing to surface. The exact pressure
was unknown, but the fact that total
losses were experienced at 1.12-specific
gravity (SG) mud weight suggests that
the pressures were close to hydrostatic.
According to Fig. 1, this requires a
kill rate of approximately 140 bbl/min.
Static formation pressure, assuming a
hydrostatic gradient, exceeded 5,000 psi
[i.e., the maximum pump rate that could
be achieved through a well with 95/8-in.
casing and 5-in. drillpipe, 132 bbl/min
(Fig. 2 in the full-length paper), was
insufficient]. At least two relief wells
were required.
Two relief wells, Ixtoc 1-A and Ixtoc
1-B, were spudded. Ixtoc 1-B intersected
the blowout first, and injection of sea-
water with rates averaging 50 bbl/min
started right away. Although this had a
positive effect on the amount of oil pro-
duced, it did not kill the well. Rates as
high as 100 bbl/min were achieved with
the 14,000 hp available, but these could
not be maintained because of the rough
seas, which are common in the Bay of
Campeche during winter. Two months
later, Ixtoc 1-A intersected the blowout.
Attempts were made to kill the blowout
by simultaneously pumping down the
two relief wells with mud density as
great as 1.8 SG, but without success.
Unfortunately the pump rates are not
specified in the literature. Gradually,
the water cut of the produced fluids
increased. Continued pumping of sea-
water, possibly in combination with
water breakthrough in the well, finally
killed the blowout on 17 March 1980.
Fateh L-3. The Fateh L-3 develop-
ment well offshore Dubai had reached
4,180 ft when the kick occurred in the
171/2-in. wellbore. A 30-in. conduc-
tor had been driven to 450 ft, and a
20-in. casing was set and cemented
at 1,310 ft. Kick-control efforts were
abandoned and the rig was evacuated
when gas broke around the 20-in. shoe
and bubbled up under the platform.
Eight days later the gas ignited, and in
2 weeks, the rig and platform disap-
peared into the Persian Gulf.
The gas originated from the Asmari
limestone formation, which had a
115-ft gas column at the position of
L-3. This formation is vuggy and frac-
tured, with permeabilities of several
hundred md. The 171/2-in. hole was
open to flow of gas and water from
this formation. A hole this size from
top to bottom would require a kill
rate of more than 700 bbl/min and
6 relief wells. However, the drillstring
was left in the hole, which gave an
additional resistance to flow. Flow was
not directly to surface but around the
20-in.-casing shoe and through the for-
mations surrounding the well. Heavy
kill fluids could be used to reduce the
kill rate required. A more refined analy-
sis taking these factors into account
indicates a kill rate of approximately
300 bbl/min for seawater. Eventually
four relief wells were drilled, and dur-
ing five kill attempts, fluids (including
polymers to combat fluid losses) were
pumped downhole into the well at
rates as high as 230 bbl/min without
success. The well bridged and ceased
flowing approximately 7 months after
the blowout started.
This case demonstrates that hole size
is a major factor for blowout control.
Whereas high pressure can be coun-
tered by high-density kill fluids, a lack
of resistance to flow will in all cases
require high pump rates.
Arun-C-II-2. The blowout of Mobil
Indonesia’s Arun C-II-2 is considered
the largest gas blowout ever. The res-
ervoir pressure at a 9,650 ft true verti-
cal depth (TVD) was 7,100 psi. The
temperature was 230°F. The well was
blowing 0.6-SG lean gas through the
annulus of a 95/8-in. casing and 5-in.
drillpipe. Measured depth of the well
was 10,210 ft.
In the Arun case, the required
126-bbl/min kill rate was much high-
er than the 80 bbl/min calculated or
the 118 bbl/min indicated by Fig. 1.
Previous authors have attributed this
to leakoff in the very-high-permeability
reservoir between the relief well and
the blowout well. The leakoff resulted
in only a fraction of the kill fluid actu-
ally flowing up the blowout well.
JPT • JANUARY 2008
 The discussion of the field cases
shows that the theoretical relations
between well parameters, such as
geometry and pressure regime, and
the actual relief effort required are in
fair agreement. This allows the final
step, quantification of the relief effort
required for a proposed development.
Contingency Planning
To illustrate application of the princi-
ples presented in the full-length paper,
the case of the Ormen Lange gas field,
offshore Norway, will be examined.
The Ormen Lange field, discovered
in 1997, is in the Storegga slide area.
Water depth is 2,789 to 3,089 ft. It is
the second-largest gas field in Norway.
With gas reserves of close to 13 Tcf
and development costs of approxi-
mately USD 0.5 billion, Ormen Lange
ranks as the largest development in
the European offshore arena. The res-
ervoir is approximately 24 miles long
and five miles wide, approximately
10,000 ft below the surface of the sea
and 6,600 ft below seabed level.
Anticipated production capacity is
approximately 38,000 to 53,000 B/D
w w w.s p e .o r g /c twi0 8
JPT • JANUARY 2008
condensate and 2,500 MMscf/D gas
to be produced by 24 subsea wells in
four seabed templates. Condensate/
gas ratio is estimated at approximately
18 bbl/MMscf; water production is con-
sidered negligible. The 150-ft-thick sands
with an average permeability of 500 md
are normally pressured (4,200 psi).
A subsea well at a depth of 2,788 ft
below mean sea level will blow out
against a surface pressure of 1,270 psi,
assuming seawater SG of 1.03. This
means the effective reservoir pressure
is 2,930 psia. For a vertical distance of
6,562 ft between the reservoir and the
wellhead, this gives a hydrostatic ratio,
X, practically equal to one.
Several scenarios were examined,
and predictions were made by use of
the equations and figures presented in
the full-length paper. Scenarios 1 and
2 were blowouts to the seabed during
production through 95/8-in. tubing and
7-in. tubing, respectively. Scenario 3
was a blowout during light interven-
tion. Scenarios 4 and 5 were blow-
outs to the seabed during drilling with
133/8-in. casing set at 6,890 ft TVD and
with 95/8-in. casing set right above the
The Woodlands Waterway Marriott
Society of Petroleum Engineers
www.spe.org
top of the reservoir, respectively. Two
subcases were considered for Scenarios
4 and 5.
Of the scenarios considered, Scenario
2, blowout through 7-in. tubing during
production, will have the highest resis-
tance to flow and will have the lowest
required pump rate. The method pre-
sented in the full-length paper indicates
that 70 bbl/min of seawater will be
required to kill this well. A single relief
well will be sufficient, and 6,000 hhp
will be needed.
The worst case is Scenario 4 with
133/8-in. casing and flow in the open
hole/casing annulus with no drillpipe
in the hole, and relief-well intersection
just below the 133/8-in. casing. This
scenario requires 310 bbl/min. Three
relief wells would be required. High-
density kill fluids could reduce this
to two wells. Only when the reservoir
pressure drops to less than 2,470 psi,
reducing the hydrostatic ratio to less
than 0.4, would a single relief well be
sufficient to kill the blowout. Early
development with big-bore wells will
have to be considered carefully in
this case. JPT
1–2 April 2008
Hotel & Convention Center
Houston, Texas, USA
Register Now!
www.icota.com
75