IADC/SPE

IADC/SPE 11375
Blowouts-A Computer Simulation Study
by D.C. Thomas and J.F. Lea Jr., Amoco Production Co.
Copyright 1983, IADC/SPE 1983 Drilling Conference
This paper was presented at the IADC/SPE 1983 Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, February 20-23,
1983. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206.
ABSTRACT
A computer simulation study of blowouts was
made using a program written earlier. This study
shows the predicted effects of various sized kicks
on a given wellbore configuration and studies the
major variables affecting kick severity in both
water- and oil-based muds. The variables include
reservoir variations (pressure, permeability,
porosity, temperature) and pumping rate at the sur-
face.
Results are shown for the effects of each of
these variables on an uncontrolled kick. The
present program does not include control procedures
but does include some examples of flow through a
choke. It was intended to show what might happen if
no control procedures were initiated and to study
the lower limits of kick detectability. Practices
are suggested that should make earlier detection of
a kick possible so that conventional kill procedures
will be more effective. Blowout simulations suggest
that pit gain is the most reliable indicator of a
kick. It is recommended that pit level measurement
systems, capable of detecting a pit gain of less
than 5.0 barrels in the entire active mud system, be
developed and be used where high pressure kicks are
common.
INTRODUCTION
A gas or gas-condensate kick represents one of
the most dangerous situations in the drilling of an
oil well. The fluid entering the wellbore is sub-
ject to expansion as it moves up the wellbore
against a reducing pressure gradient. The type of
mud used can radically affect this expansion. As
shown in an earlier paper, gas dissolving in oil-
based muds changes the surface effects of a kick.l
The earlier paper described in detail the effects of
solubilization and discussed the phenomena involved.
That paper also described a blowout simulation pro-
gram that had been written as a part of that study.
The present paper makes use of that program with
some extensions to simulate the effects of changing
References and illustrations at end of paper.
149
pump rates and the effects of the reservoir on kick
severity.
The present study was undertaken to help the
engineer visualize the phenomena that produce the
surface effects that he must deal with to success-
fully kill a well. Please bear in mind while
reading this document that the results presented are
simulations using a mathematical model. We have
attempted to account for the important variables as
we ~ them. Other unrecognized variables may
modify the results significantly. It is hoped that
our work will stimulate a new round of development
in well control methods.
BLOWOUT SIMULATION MODEL
The equations and theories used in the simula-
tion model are described in detail in our earlier
paper.l The discussion here is limited to the con-
cepts involved. A simulation of the wellbore
dynamics requires several parts: a reservoir model,
an estimate of the bottomhole pressure, a descrip-
tion of multiphase flow in the annulus, friction
pressure estimates, and gas interaction with
drilling fluids.
The reservoir model chosen was a time dependent
radial flow equation that allows the variation of
permeability, porosity, bottomhole temperature, for-
mation thickness, and formation pressure. This
model gives an acceptable simulation of the initial
drawdown of a reservoir.
3
The equivalent bottomhole pressure while circu-
lating must be calculated when no gas is present and
when gas is migrating in the annulus. The unconta-
minated mud above the gas-contaminated mixture in
the annulus was simulated using a friction pressure
model developed by Randall and Anderson.
4
The
hydrostatic head with gas present was calculated
using a holdup correlation developed for a multi-
phase pressure drop model. lIS
The annular volume was divided into numerous
segments that were assumed to be uniform in composi-
tion. The hydrostatic head and friction pressure
2 BLOWOUTS - A COMPUTER SIMULATION STUDY 11375
contributions were summed from the surface to the
bottom of the hole to account for the effects of
temperature and pressure. When free gas is present
in the annulus, its migration up the annulus and its
effect on friction pressure must be included. This
contribution was obtained by weighting together the
friction pressure due to all gas and all liquid
using a two-phase flow multiplier.
6
It must be
recognized that there are no generally accepted
models for non-Newtonian non-steady two-phase flow
in the literature. The present approach uses a cor-
relation proven with Newtonian fluids for liquid
holdup, and a correlation for pressure drop with
properties modified to approximate non-Newtonian
fluids.
The gas distribution in the annulus varies for
two reasons. As gas enters the wellbore, the hydro-
static head is lowered causing an increase in gas
intrusion. Each segment of the mud in the annulus
will have a different gas-mud distribution. When
gas migrates in the wellbore, a further reduction in
hydrostatic head occurs due to its expansion. Gas
bubble velocities were accounted for using techni-
ques similar to those of Hoberock and Stanberg.
7
All the above computations are summed together
to produce an estimate of the pit gain and the flow
rate from the annulus. These observations are high-
lighted because they are the only ones readily
available to the rig crew. They depend on pit gain
and flow rate for kick detection. The results pre-
sented below show that pit gain rather than annular
flow rate is the most reliable indicator of a kick.
If the annular flow rate has increased enough to be
easily seen, the kick may be too far advanced to be
controlled easily.
The simulations shown here use the same well-
bore profile, gas condensate composition, and
drilling fluid compositions. Fig. 1 shows the well-
bore profile and the basic information about the
well. The predicted pit gain and surface flow rate
for both water-based and oil-based muds are shown in
figures. The same ECD (equivalent circulating den-
sity) is used at the start of each case.
The simplest change that can be made at the
surface by the driller is to change the mud pump
rate. If the driller suspects that a formation
change or a drilling break has occurred, he may stop
his mud pumps to check for a flow at the surface.
In the test case with an underbalance of about
375 psi (0.36 ppg) at 5.0 bpm, he would see a sur-
face flow of about 7 bbl in five minutes. Such a
flow would be readily detected. Had the driller
slowed his pumps to half speed and continued circu-
lating, his kick would have continued at essentially
the same rate as with no circulation. However, had
the pump rate been increased to 7.5 bpm, the
increased friction pressure in the annulus would
have been sufficient to shut off the well flow.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the results for water-based and
oil-based muds, respectively.
The effect of changing pump rate is to change
the concentration of gas in a given segment of mud.
Slowing the pump rate increases the underbalance and
dec
150
mixed. Both factors combine to increase kick sev-
erity. Table I shows this effect clearly when one
compares the bottoms-up times for uncontaminated
muds with the unimpeded blowout times. The decrease
in time is greater for the lower pump rates. Both
variable ECD cases and cases where the ECD's were
adjusted to constant values are shown, with similar
results. These simulations are intended to show the
frictional effects and the effects of "drilling on
ECD". (The effects of friction pressure may be used
beneficially in kick control if the kick is detected
early enough.)
Friction pressure drop techniques have been
developed for use in killing blowout wells.
2
The
technique has been successfully used several times.
It is necessary to be able to circulate the blowout
well or to establish communication from a relief
well before a dynamic kill can be accomplished.
Reservoir Effects
This section deals with the effect of the res-
ervoir on kick severity. Obviously a highly produc-
tive reservoir will produce a more dangerous kick
than a tight, low porosity, reservoir. The reser-
voir was modeled using the radial flow equations.
The basic reservoir variables are tested for their
effects in the following group of cases. Table II
gives the details of reservoir variations used.
The base case of Fig. 1 was modified by incre-
mentally increasing the formation pressure. In
Figs. 4 and 5, the effects of reservoir pressure are
modeled. The differences between water- and oil-
based muds are marked, but no surprises are seen. A
higher pressure reservoir produces a more severe
kick.
Reservoir permeability effects produce the most
interesting observations. The range of 1 mD to
100 mD is shown for both mud types in Figs. 6 and 7.
A low permeability reservoir produces a slowly var-
ying kick that, while having a relatively large
underbalance, is not spectacular in terms of pit
gain or flow rate changes. On the other hand, a
kick of the same pressure in a 100 mD reservoir
would be essentially uncontrollable. A significant
kick in such a reservoir would produce staggering
pit gains and tax surface handling equipment to
their utmost.
Porosity does not play an important part in the
initial appearance of a kick. Figs. 8 and 9 show
the results of porosity variations from 10 to 20
percent. Other simulations in the range of 5 to 30%
produce virtually identical results. However, if a
well is blowing unchecked, porosity would be the
determining factor in the amount of fluid finally
ejected from the well.
Reservoir temperature effects are shown in
Figs. 10 and 11. The effects in an oil mud are reg-
ular with the lowest temperature absorbing the most
gas and showing the least expansion. The results
for the water-based muds are less regular. It is
likely that the competing effects of gas expansion
with decreasing pressure and contraction with
decreasing temperatures produced these anomalies.
It is sufficient to say that temperature effects are
small when compared to the other phenomena that are
going on.
11375 DAVID C. THOMAS AND JAMES F. LEA, JR. 3
One method of checking for an impending kick is
to shut the mud pumps down and check the annulus for
flow. If the fluid columns of mud are of equal
height in the drill pipe and casing and if the mud
is at or near the same weight in both the drill pipe
and annulus, mud will not flow from the annulus. If
gas has entered the annulus, there is a gas lift
effect and if the surface pumps are shut in, there
will be some continued flow from the annulus. If no
more liquid entered the annulus from the drill pipe,
stopping the pumps would be a very undesirable prac-
tice because gas, undiluted with mud from the drill
pipe, would continue to fill the annulus and the
blowout would proceed at a greatly accelerated rate.
However, the mud standing in the drill pipe will
continue to U-tube into the annulus while the crew
looks for flow at the surface. A complete simula-
tion of this phenomenon would include a low pressure
area building inside the top of the drill pipe and a
changing mud flow rate through downhole restrictions
as the fluid level in the drill pipe decreased with
time. Correspondingly, as the mud rate from the
drill pipe drops, a more concentrated gas in mud
mixture will occupy the lower annulus, and the kick
will accelerate. This situation is not completely
simulated in the present model; however, a simpler
model was used to approximate it. The bottomhole
pressure of the drill pipe filled with mud is known
under static conditions. Also, by knowing the gas
content in the annulus, as a consequence of running
the model, the BHP outside the drill pipe can be
calculated from the annulus gas plus liquid column
contributions.
Assuming that the differences in calculated
BHP's between the drill pipe and annulus were acting
through the drill bit, the rate of liquid flow from
the drill pipe to the annulus was calculated using
the equivalent area of three 12/32nd bit nozzles.
Since the model is not currently designed to calcu-
late this rate with time, it was held constant at
the initial calculated rate for a few minutes to
illustrate how flow from the annulus could be shown
to continue after the mud pumps are shut in.
Fig. 12 shows this simulation for the water-based
mud case in which the pumps were stopped after a
10 bbl pit gain was detected. Note that the rate
dropped to a little less than one-half of the rate
being monitored at the surface when the pump was
shut down. The annular flow rate after shutting in
the pumps is predicted to continue to increase with
time due to additional gas influx and gas expansion.
A simulation for the oil-based mud case shows the
same trends as Fig. 12.
When a kick is detected, one method of killing
the well is to circulate the gas from the annulus
through a choke. The drill pipe pressure is assumed
to be the formation pressure minus the mud hydro-
static head. The annulus pressure minus the drill
pipe pressure indicates what additional pressure
drop is needed from an adjustable choke on the
annulus to balance the formation pressure. The
pumping rate is usually cut to about one-half of the
151
normal Circulating rate while drilling ahead. If
the assumptions for this procedure are correct and
the control process is carried out correctly, the
additional pressure on the casing will shut off
additional flow from the formation, and the gas in
the annulus can be circulated to the surface and
vented through the choke. The multiphase friction
effects in the annulus is not taken into considera-
tion during the kill procedure. The significance of
this effect on the control technique can only be
studied by a model that considers multiphase flow up
the annulus as the present model does. The casing
pressure will change as the gas below begins to
expand as it nears the surface, thereby altering the
character of the annulus multiphase flow. To plan
Or analyze this control situation, parameters such
as the effects of initial gas content, rate of cir-
culation, choke size, change of choke setting while
circulating, etc., could be studied and presented as
case studies Or correlations. However, in this
paper, no such comprehensive studies are made. This
model is designed to stop when the initial gas-
bearing mud segment reaches the surface of the
annulus; therefore, expansion of gas-bearing mud
through a surface choke is not included. However,
the nature of the changing flow can be modeled as
the choke is activated and the pumping rate is
reduced. The gas flow rate can be monitored to det-
ermine if the choke setting will reduce the gas
flow, stop the flow, or overpressure the formation
as circulation proceeds.
Two examples are presented, one for the water-
based mud case and one for the oil-based mud case.
The chokes were activated three minutes into the
kick for both cases and the choke diameter is held
constant thereafter.
A 0.500 in. I.D. surface choke was small enough
to reduce the initial gas flow to zero and to
overpressure the formation as shown in Fig. 13. The
BHP begins to drop as the gas expands up the annulus
with the choke size being held constant. After 20
minutes the BHP dropped to the formation pressure of
14,000 psi and then continued to drop allowing some
additional gas to enter the annulus. As gas nears
the surface, with pumping rate held constant, fric-
tion pressure becomes larger as the gas expands and
the BHP increases sharply at 90 minutes. Fig. 14
shows the corresponding gas rate where gas was ini-
tially stopped, begins to flow again as the annulus
gas expands, and then stops as the expanding gas and
constant circulation rate creates a high friction
pressure drop and the BHP increases again. This
indicates that the choke should be set initially and
then be decreased in size as gas lift occurs in the
annulus. As gas nears the surface, the choke must
be sharply increased in size (if circulation rate is
held constant) to avoid overpressuring the forma-
tion. This information could be used to iterate and
determine what the surface choke setting should be
as a function of time. This information could then
be included in a completely automated system that
could maintain the appropriate choke setting as cir-
culation proceeds. This would eliminate the neces-
sity of drilling personnel manually adjusting the
choke as the circulation process is carried out.
4
BLOWOUTS - A COMPUTER SIMULATION STUDY
11375
Oil Based Mud Case
The same simulation was made for the oil-based
mud case. The pumping rate was reduced by one-half
at three minutes and a .500 in. I.D. choke acti-
vated on the annulus. The BHP and gas rate from the
formation are shown as a function of time in
Figs. 15 and 16. The figures show the same trends
as were shown for the water case with the initial
BHP reduction followed by a sharp rise as the gas
nears the surface. In this case, however, the
reduction in the BHP is caused by the volume expan-
sion of liquid with gas in solution because there is
no free gas in the annulus until the gas-laden fluid
nears the surface. Gas solubility results in a
lesser fluid expansion with time and a much longer
time for gas to reach the surface. The long dura-
tion of constant BHP and gas flow from the formation
are due to a balancing effect of lightening of the
fluid density as the fluid rises and a gradual
increase in friction as the volume flow increases.
The cases simulated for choked annulus flow are
too few to make any generalizations. They are pre-
sented to demonstrate the kind of information that
can be obtained from this type of model.
CONCLUSIONS
The simulation results shown here support our
original conclusions. When one compares equivalent
cases for water and oil-based muds, one can see that
the effects of the kick are dampened by gas solubi-
lization.
Stopping the pumps to check for flow in the
simulated case shown in Fig. 12 was sufficient to
confirm the kick after a 10 bbl pit gain. Note that
the flow rate from the annulus had increased prior
to stopping the pumps. This kick was sufficiently
large to have been detected by conventional means.
Had a smaller differential pressure been selected,
the flow rate change would have been substantially
less. The gas associated with the cuttings (usually
called core gas) will cause the well to flow slowly
after the pumps are stopped. Flow shows should be
read with caution and watched for a long period of
time (greater than ten minutes) to be sure that they
are real.
The conclusions of our earlier paper
l
are res-
tated here:
1. The most reliable indicator of a kick in both
oil- and water-based muds is the pit gain.
Fluid entering the wellbore from the formation
produces a positive volume increase that can be
detected even at very low levels.
2. Stopping the mud pumps briefly to check for
flow after a drilling break is not a reliable
method of kick detection in either oil- or
water-based muds. The initial flow volume may
be too small to detect in a 1-2 minute shut-
down. Flow should be detectable if the shut-
down period is long enough (10 minutes
minimum) .
3. Hydrocarbon gas solubility in oil-based
drilling fluids significantly alters the sur-
face responses to a kick while drilling. Gas
entering the wellbore dissolves in oil-based
152
mud and limits the volume increase seen at the
surface to that of the condensed gas. In most
cases, the net volume (gas plus mud) is
slightly less (1-2%) than the total volume of
mud and gas separately.
4. Kick detection, using conventional methods, is
more difficult in oil-based muds than in
water-based muds because of the dampening
effects of gas solubility. Since gas dissolves
in oil-based muds, the surface observable par-
ameters (annular flow rate, pit gain) do not
change as rapidly as they would in a water-
based mud. At the same time shortly after an
undetected kick, the annular flow rate change
and the pit gain are smaller for the oil-based
mud than for the water-based mud.
5. After being detected, a small kick (in terms of
pressure increases and pit gain) should be
easier to control in oil-based muds than in
water-based muds. Gas solubilization will
limit pressure rise and minimize the danger at
the surface. A very large kick will be similar
in both oil- and water-based muds.
RF. il\IIONS
It is our belief that good pit level measure-
ment systems are the key to early kick detection.
We urge the development and use of reliable pit
level measurement systems. The recommendations
stated in our earlier paperl are reproduced here:
1. Design, build, and institute the use of, a pit
level measurement system, trip tank, or other
device that will reliably detect flow volumes
from the well as small as five barrels. Such a
system would markedly increase the warning time
and reduce the seriousness of any kick through
early detection.
2. Educate field personnel to the differences
between oil-based and water-based mud response
to gas influx. Develop a consistent procedure
for kick detection based on pit gain measure-
ments.
3. When well flow is to be used as a kick detec-
tion method, stop the pumps for a minimum of
ten minutes while carefully monitoring flow
from lhe bell nipple. Use a small vessel to
measure the volume and rate of outflow from the
well.
4. Study experimentally the time rate of gas solu-
tion in oil. The data are needed to describe
gas migration in a wellbore.
NOMENCLATURE
bbl barrel (42 gal, 5.61 Cll ft, 0.159 M3 )
BHP bottomhole pressure applied by the mud column,
psi
BHT bottomhole temperature,
OF
K reservoir permeability, mD
4l
porosity
11375 DAVID C. THOMAS AND JAMES F. LEA, JR. 5
ECD equivalent circulating density, the sum of the
hydrostatic head and the friction pressure of
a mud
BPM
MW
PPG
PV
pump rate in bbl per minute
1 BPM = 0.159 M3/ min
mud weight in ppg
pounds per gallon, 1 ppg = 119.8 Kg/m
3
plastic viscosity of the mud, mPas
YV yield value of the mud, lbf/IOO f2
REFERENCES
1. Thomas, David C., Lea, James F. Jr., and
Turek, E. A., "Gas Solubility in Oil-Based
Drilling Fluids: Effects on Kick Detection,"
SPE 11115, Presented at the 57th Annual Fall
Technical Conference of the SPE of AlME,
New Orleans, La., Sept. 26-29, 1982.
2. Blount, E. M. and Soejinah, E., "Dynamic Kill:
Controlling Wild Wells a New Way,"
Oct. 1981, p. 109.
TABLE I
3. Carter, R. D. and Agarwal, R. G., personal com-
munication (1981).
4. Randall, B. V. and Anderson, D. B., "Flow of
Mud During Drilling Operations," SPE9444, Pre-
sented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Con-
ference of the SPE of AIME, Dallas, Texas,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.
5. Standing, M. B., "A General Pressure-Volume-
Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of Cali-
fornia Oils and Gases," Drilling and Production
Procedures, API, 275 (1947).
6. Beggs, H. D., An Experimental Study of Two
Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, PhD Dissertation,
The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1972.
7. Hoberock, L. L. and Stanberg, S. R., "Pressure
Dynamics in Wells During Gas Kicks - Part I -
Fluid Line Dynamics," JPT, 1357 (August 1981)
and "Pressure Dynamics in Wells During Gas
Kicks - Part II - Component Models and
Results," JPT, 1367 (August 1981).
8. O'Brien, T. B., "Handling Gas in an Oil Mud
Takes Special Precautions," Jan.
1981, p. 83-86.
Effect of Pumping Rate on Blowout Time
2.5
5.0
1
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Variable ECD
Bottoms-Up Time
334
167
Bottoms-Up Time
835
334
167
111
83.S
145
140 (.838)
220 (.263)
195 (.584)
140 (.838)
90 (.811)
68 (.814)
80 (.240)
60 (.359)
120 (.144)
80 (.240)
55 (.329)
35 (.315)
29 (.347)
* (frae.) Blowout Time/Bottoms-Up Time
153
TABLE II
Summary of Simulation Case Conditions
Underbalance K Pump Rate
Figure Pressure
~
BHT F ECD, psi P ~ l
2 913 14000 10 15 350 13087 0.0
750 14000 10 15 350 13250 2.5
379 14000 10 15 350 13621 5.0
-346 14000 10 15 350 14346 7.5
3 1102 14000 10 15 350 12898 0.0
833 14000 10 15 350 13167 2.5
372 14000 10 15 350 13628 5.0
-561 14000 10 15 350 14561 7.5
4 379 14000 10 15 350 13621 5.0
679 14300 10 15 350 13621 5.0
979 14600 10 15 350 13621 5.0
5 372 14000 10 15 350 13621 5.0
672 14300 10 15 350 13621 5.0
972 14600 10 15 350 13621 5.0
6 379 14000 1.0 15 350 13621 5.0
379 14000 10.0 15 350 13621 5.0
379 14000 100.0 15 350 13621 5.0
7 372 14000 1.0 15 350 13621 5.0
372 14000 10.0 15 350 13621 5.0
372 14000 100.0 15 350 13621 5.0
8 379 14000 10.0 10 350 13621 5.0
379 14000 10.0 20 350 13621 5.0
9 372 14000 10.0 10 350 13621 5.0
372 14000 10.0 20 350 13621 5.0
10 379 14000 10.0 15 250 13621 5.0
379 14000 10.0 15 350 13621 5.0
379 14000 10.0 15 450 13621 5.0
11 372 14000 10.0 15 250 13621 5.0
372 14000 10.0 15 350 13621 5.0
372 14000 10.0 15 450 13621 5.0
12-14 372 14000 10.0 15 350 13621
15-16 372 14000 10.0 15 350 13621
)(
X
X.
X
... ><
4-1/2"DP
X.
15,000'
ZO,OOO' WELL
x
X 13-3/8" CSG.
:
It. ... 3.500'
9-5/8" CSG.
x
X. 11 ,DOD'
FORMATION
PAY THICKNESS
PERM.
POROSITY
FL TEMP.
BHT
PRESSURE
MUD CONDITIONS
OIL BASE
Mill 13.00
PV 35
YV 10
% OIL 55
% HZO 15
% SOLIDS 30
2 '
10 md
15%
150
0
F
350
0
F
14000 psi
WATER BASE
12.83 ppg
20
15
1
71
28

ANNULUS VOLUME: 835 BARRELS
8,000'
3-1/2" DP
7" LINER
6" HOLE
18,000'
20,000'
Fig. 1-Wellbore configuration. reservoir properties. and mud composition for the simulated
well.
100
X
/
10
/ If
:is
/ /
.a
80 / I
.E
/ ,P
dJ

f
<400
/ ,
/
20

.P
O:t!i , i , , ,1l:lI---,
0 10 <400 80 10 100 120
TIme. min
10
J
i 22.1
o I
? *
I /
:' J
j 7.' ------1))---1l:lI
b--____ -----D,....-X
I __ X-_X
x--
"
Pumprate
.6 OIPM
X UIIPM _
0 __
Il:lI

01-==4
o 20
--ll

TIme, min
Fig. 2-Pumprate effects with water-based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
10
21

!
'X
! I
'I
II
!>'<
10 1 t:.
___ __ f, )
/t.
t./
I ===-=t.-t.----
ii'
o 10 100 '10
TIme. min
Pumprlta
t:. O.IIM
X !:!.,.I!M.._
0 __
Il:lI


Fig. 3-Pumprate effects with oil-based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
2i
.a
.E

(.'J
f

I
0
a:

-i
c
c
<C(
100
/
10
' /
,l //
80
/ //
/' X/
40 , /

20
,/ /
?
OA , , , ,
I
0 10
10
21
20
,.
o 10
20 10
Time. min
1'0
TIme, min
<400 10
,
80
I'onnItIon ,.,.....
6_"
___ _
o !H!!!!'!I_ _ _
Fig. 4-Formation pressure effects with waterbased mud on an unimpeded blowout.
fI' t' /","
......... " .,..... '
100
P
I
100
!
/ I
I
/
I
80
p'
80
/x: l; X
I
I
/
I
/'
:a
I
:a
10
.1:1 eo
.CI
.S P /
.E
I


/ x:
(!J

X (!J
f.
40
/ /
f.
40
_x


I
/",,::x:"
20
20 I
/""

!
/7
/:
0:..6.l; j j
OS-:-.x A
l;
i i I i I
j j I I
0 20 40 10 10 100 120 140
0 110 100 1110 zoo
Time. min TIme. min
10
J
10
I
I
l; X
0
I
211
!
211
d
1
E

I
j-
20
0
1
..
20 X
!
I
!
I d
i: !
0

I
!J: (
I
It
111
I.
111
PermeabiUty

i I

I
.a
fonndon""""" .
A tOMe
:::t Ii' ,,_ ..

c
10 J J4
I
x
c
____
c
10
-<
P!!f!lI!!!I ______
c:;
/
Cl
____
-<
I

X
Ill; - .. c=x:-D:.:=x.::::::6- -- ._- ..
II >11
......./
l;
01
01
i j
i i I i I I I j j
0 20 .. 0 eo 10 100 120
'"'0
0 110 100 1110 200
TIm min Time. min
Fig. 5-Formation pressure effects with oilbased mud on an unimpeded blowout. Fig. 7-Formation permeability effects with oil based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
100
!
100
i
l1

X

10 I
80
I
I
:a
10
I
/
li
80
J
.CI
X .1:1
-i
)
/
.E
/
"
(!J
/
..
..0
/
if
40
is:
/l<
I
/'
./
/ /'
20
; /
20
11
,
/"" l;.f::,_I1
A
o ==;:11
j j j I I I
0 20 40 10 80 100 0 10 20 10 40 110
Time. min Time. min
10
I 211
E
I X
J
I
D-
o
X
.1:1
20 I
I
!
!
I
i
0
111
J
Perm.ability
It
/
l; 1.0MD
10
,i
/
x __
C
I Cl
____ c:;
I
-<
I
-'
ft.
II
-C--
X
l;-f::,-f::,
10
I
I
211
I
!
I
i
20
If::,
0
II
II:
18

J
Porosity
.a
:::t
l; 10ll'CT. c:;
Ii:
10
-< X 20 PCT. _

01 I I i I i
0 20 40 10 eo 100
Tim min Time. min
Fig. 6-Formation permeability effects with waterbased mud on an unimpeded blowout Fig. 8-Formation porosity effects with waterbased mud on an unimpeded blowout,
100
10
10
2.
E
.8-
20
!
x

I


,.
I Porosity

1
A 10 peT.
::I
15 10
c:: X 10PCT. _
c
<I(

X X-X-A-X-)A
01 I I I I
, ,
I
0 20 40 10 10 100 120 140
TIm min
Fig. 9-Formation porosity effects with oil-based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
E
.8-
,;
....
i

.
::I
"!I
c::

10
21
20
"
10

01
0 2b "0 4'0
Tim min
"0
Temperature
A 210'
x HOL __
Cl 410 ,, _____ _
Fig. 10-Bottomhole temperature effects with water-based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
10
:1
o
TIm min
TIm min
Temperature
A 210"
x !!C!L __
Cl 410 ,, _____ _
Fig. ll-Bottomhole temperature effects with oil-based mud on an unimpeded blowout.
8
7
e
e
.8' 1
f
,g 4
u..

.2
:::J
g 3
'I(
2

o a I 12 11
Tim., min
Fig. 12-Annulus flow rate after stopping the mud pumps to check for flow with a
water-based mud.
11000
11000
14000 -:::.....".-----Form.tlon .. , ... ur.---
..
11000
a.
a:
l:
III
12000
at
j
0
iI:
11000
10000
1000
1000
a 20 40 eo 10 100
Time. min
Fig. 13-Flowing bottomhole pressure with actuation of a C.5-in. choke and 2.5 BPM pumping
in water-based mud.
1100
1000
4100

4000
U
en
::&
31500
..
...

a::
1000


" 1100
:::t
0

C

2000
...
c
...

.e
1100
1000
100
0
0 20 40 .0 10 100
Time. min
Fig. 14-lnstantaneous gas rate for the Fig. 13 case.
11000
11000
14000
iii
13000
a.
a:
l:
III
at
12000
.Ii

0
iI:
11000
10000
1000

o 215 150 71 100 121 1150 17' 200 2215 210
Time. min
Fig. 15-Flowing bottom hole pressure with actuation of a C.5-in. choke and 2.5 BPM pumping
in an oil-based mud.
1000
1000
fi!
u 4000
U)
::&
,;
...
!

1000
tI

:::t
0

C
...
C
2000
...

.e
1000

o 10 100 110 200 2150
Time. min
Fig. 16-lnstantaneous gas rate for the Fig. 15 case.
113?5