SPE 147496

A Simplified Method to Estimate Peak Casing Pressure during MPD Well

Control
Jose E. Chirinos, SPE; John R. Smith, SPE; Darryl Bourgoyne,SPE, Louisiana State University.
Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October2 November 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract
The constant bottom hole pressure (CBHP) method of managed pressure drilling (MPD) has important advantages versus
conventional drilling, especially for well control. One is the ability to stop formation flow by increasing casing pressure while
continuing to circulate rather than shutting in the well. A requirement for applying this method is for the pressure rating of the
rotating control device to exceed the maximum casing pressure experienced during kick circulation.
This peak casing pressure is typically estimated by applying the gas law for a single bubble calculation or by using a
computer simulation. This paper describes a new, step wise method that combines gas law calculations with empirical
knowledge developed by Ohara (1996) of gas distribution and velocity based on full-scale kick circulation experiments.
The new method was applied to predict the maximum casing pressure expected during kick circulation for a range of well
geometries, kick sizes, fluid properties, and circulating rates. The results of applying the new method were compared to single
bubble calculations, transient multiphase computer simulations, and the actual pressures recorded in test wells.
The proposed method provides a simple, potentially more accurate way to predict the maximum casing pressure during
circulation of a gas kick. Consequently, it can be used to determine the surface equipment pressure ratings and formation
fracture resistance required to provide the desired kick tolerance to drill safely using MPD equipment for well control.

Introduction
The constant bottom hole pressure method (CBHP) of MPD was developed to address drilling challenges found in
conventional drilling. The applications for this method can be numerous; however, narrow margin between pore pressure and
fracture pressure is the most important. The CBHP method is based on controlling annulus frictional pressure losses in the well
with pump rate and casing pressure by adjusting a drilling choke. This combination allows the operator to keep wellbore
pressure relatively constant at specific depth in the well. This pressure control is achieved by keeping a closed circulating
system using rotating control device (RCD) and adjusting casing pressure to offset changes in annulus frictional pressure
losses when the pump rate is changed or stopped. CBHP has proven to reduce non-productive time and drilling hazards such as
lost circulation, ballooning and well instability (Grayson 2009; Hannegan 2006).
MPD well control procedures are evolving from conventional well control. New approaches have been taken to improve
kick detection and reduce kick volume. Nevertheless, increased mud return rate and increasing pit volume remain the primary
indicators of an influx.
Similarly, essentially conventional procedures are used to circulate a kick out of a well during MPD operations. All of the
procedures pursue the same objectives: prevent further kick entry, and circulate the kick out within the integrity limits of
formation, casing and surface equipment. During circulation, backpressure at the choke is imposed to compensate for the loss
in hydrostatic due to the kick fluid and to offset the initial underbalanced situation. Thus, the main objective is achieved by
maintaining constant bottom hole pressure (BHP) during the whole well control event (Watson et al. 2003).
Davoudi et al. (2010) found that several initial responses to an indicated formation flow (kick) were applicable when
using the CBHP method of MPD. They documented a complete research study of alternative initial responses to gas kicks
taken during CBHP operations. They studied nine responses, five non-circulating responses and four circulating responses.
The responses were compared based on the ability to stop formation flow, minimizing the risk of lost returns and additional
kick influx, and minimizing of the pressure imposed at surface and the casing shoe. These simulations revealed that there was
no single best initial response to all kicks. However, three initial responses were demonstrated to have broad application to
different kick scenarios. The three initial responses were: a rapid increase of casing pressure until flow out equals flow in
2 SPE 147496
while maintaining a constant pump rate (a circulating response) and a simple shut-in (SI) and an adaptation of the MPD pump
shut down schedule and SI that allowed confirmation of low rate kicks (both non-circulating responses) (Davoudi et al. 2010).
The kill procedure for a MPD operation uses the same principles as a conventional kill procedure. All initial responses
mentioned by Davoudi must be followed by applying casing (choke) pressure during kick circulation to maintain BHP in the
same way that drillers method does. However, since the MPD circulating system is a closed system, the drillers method can
be applied promptly following the increased casing pressure response and can be completed by only using additional casing
pressure as needed to keep drillpipe pressure constant. Different technologies have been introduced that mainly allow the
automation of the CBHP operation, these technologies use drillers method principles to keep wellbore pressure constant and
circulate a kick out (Reitsma and Riet 2005; Reitsma 2005; Santos et al. 2003).
Smith et al. (2011) presented a method to pre-select the best response to be used during well control event. The selection
is based on the desired kick tolerance, the equipment being used, well geometry and conclusiveness of the kick warnings signs.
They explained that one of the criteria in selecting the initial kick reaction must be the equipment available on site, specifically
whether flow out metering was being used. In addition, according to this approach, the selection of the initial response should
also consider the certainty of the well control event. As a final point, Smith explained that casing pressure during kick
circulation needs to be considered during MPD planning to determine whether the RCD pressure rating will be exceeded
during kick circulation, which would require closing annulus with the BOP (Smith and Patel 2011).
Prediction of annulus pressure can be critical during well control incidents. Weak zones and equipment pressure ratings
are important concerns during kick circulation. Maximum casing pressure is typically estimated by applying a single bubble
calculation or using a computer simulation. However, single bubble calculations generally overestimate maximum casing
pressure, and computer simulations are not always available, potentially resulting in overdesigned MPD equipment or
operations. This paper describes a new simplified method of graphs and calculations based on empirical data that allows
prediction of maximum casing pressure during kick circulation. Comparisons to full scale experiments and computer
simulations are presented to support the validity of using the new method.

Casing Pressure in Well Control
Depending on what type of initial response is applied to a well control event, the maximum casing pressure may occur at the
beginning of the well control operation or during kick circulation. Figure 1 shows casing pressure variation in time during
three well control operations simulated in an example slim hole situation (well X). The simulations emulate well control
operations when a 20 bbl kick enters well X with a 0.2 ppge circulating underbalance. Two types of initial response were
applied: a circulating response (red line), and a non-circulating (SI) response. After the non-circulating response was applied,
the kick was circulated out with either a reduced rate (blue line) or with a full rate (purple line). It can be seen in the figure that
during the circulating response, the maximum casing pressure occurs during kick circulation when most of the gas reaches
surface. However, when a non-circulating response is applied for this example, peak casing pressure happens at the beginning
of the well control event during the shut in period for the full rate case or during kick circulation when most of the gas reaches
surfaces if a reduced rate was used.


Figure 1 Maximum casing pressure during circulating and non-circulating responses

Single Bubble Theoretical Calculation
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time(min)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
C
a
s
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
Circulatingresponse
Noncirculatingresponse
FullRate
Noncirculatingresponse
ReducedRate
CasingPressureNonCFullRate
CasingPressureNonCReducedRate
CasingPressureCirc
Gas law and hydrostatic equations can be used in estimating annulus pressure during kick circulation, but some important
assumptions have to be made: the influx enters the well and remains in a continuous slug or single bubble throughout the
displacement; the gas remains in one phase; the influx is at the bottom of the drillstring when circulation begins; free gas
behaves according to real gas law; and annulus frictional pressure losses are negligible. (Vieira et al. 2009; Watson et al. 2003;
Bourgoyne 1991).
SPE 147496 3
The pressure at the top the bubble can be estimated by:
+__
x
2
4
+
g
om
P
bh
b
k
z I C
u
z
bh
I
bh
C
u
p =
x
2
_
x = p
bh
- g
om
( -
k
) - p
hg
:
]ont
= c
1.767-2.953L-4-

:
ccntc
= c
1.772-2.274L-4-

:
tuI
= I
sI
.(1)
Where the variable x is defined as,
.(2)

Gas Distribution Turing Kick Circulation
Ohara (1996) performed a number of full scale experiments related to gas behavior in the wellbore during well control
operations. Oharas experiments demonstrated the existence of a triangular gas distribution in the well during gas kick
circulation and proposed a triangular gas distribution profile (Figure 2) (Ohara 1996).

Figure 2 Proposed triangular gas distribution profile (Ohara 1996)
V
front
V
center
V
tail
Ohara explained that the triangular gas distribution profile is a function of the two-phase leading depth. Also, he stated
that each vertex of the triangle will move with different velocities and proposed velocity equations based on empirical data.
According to his experimental results, the front velocity (v
front
) will travel faster than the center velocity (v
center
). Also, he
observed the center velocity will travel faster than the tail velocity (v
tail
). Finally, the equations for the front, center and tail
vertex of the triangle when the superficial velocity of the liquid (v
sl
) = 1.24 ft/sec are given by:

.(3)
.(4)
.(5)

Research Method
This project focuses on the circulating phase of a well control event during the CBHP method of MPD; it provides a basis to
determine expected annulus pressure for comparison to integrity limits related to equipment design and formation strength.
Two approaches were used to study casing pressure: one involves full scale experiments (empirical data), and the other makes
use of a variety of computer simulations performed.
Well Scenarios for Evaluating Procedures
LSU #2 is a 5884deep vertical well with 9 5/8 casing. Most of the full scale results of this research were measured in and
then compared to computer simulations of LSU #2. Two additional well geometries were used to perform simulations
representative of other drilling environments suitable for MPD application: Well X is a 6 slim hole directional well with a
potential deep kick zone whereas Well Y is 12 straight holes with potential high pressure sand at the bottom. Detailed
schematics of the wells are provided in the appendixes.
Simulation Procedure
The computer simulations start during drilling operations just above the high pressure sands in well X and Y. For LSU well
#2, high pressure sand was created in the simulator to emulate real conditions. The bit would drill into the high pressure sand
where a gas kick would be taken. Two initial responses were used to stop formation flow: simple shut in and rapid increase of
casing pressure. If a simple shut in response was used, the pumps were shut down, and then the choke was closed as fast as
was practical. Shut in casing pressure was recorded and subsequently used to create a pump start up schedule for kick
circulation (Chirinos 2011). Alternatively, if rapid increase of casing pressure was performed, the well was choked back until
flow out was equal to flow in. Drillpipe pressure was kept constant until the gas was circulated completely out; the data was
recorded and analyzed using a spreadsheet.
4 SPE 147496

Experimental Procedure
In the experimental well LSU #2, drilling fluid was circulated down the annulus between the 3 and 1 tubing at the
desired pump rate, and the flow returns were taken through 3 by 9 5/8 annulus. The gas kick was emulated by injecting
gas in the 1 tubing at the desired injection rate until the desired pit gain was obtained. Subsequently, the planned initial
response was applied to stop formation flow and circulate out the kick. The influx was circulated out through a mud gas
separator where the gas was directed to the flare and the drilling fluid was returned to the mud pits. During the experiments,
the drill pipe, casing and gas-injection pressures at the surface were continuously monitored and recorded. All the data was
recorded in a personal computer where it was subsequently analyzed.

Maximun Casing Pressure Estimation
The evaluation of the casing variation during kick circulation started by developing the proposed simplified method to estimate
maximum casing pressure during kick circulation. The method is based on the gas law and empirical correlations for a
triangular gas distribution published by Ohara in 1996. The detailed procedure used to estimate maximum casing pressure
during kick circulation is described as follows (Chirinos 2010):
1. Determine the deepest depth (D
1
) where gas velocity is greater than the mixture velocity. Using Oharas empirical plots,
the depth where the gas starts migrating and moving faster than the mud can be determined solving equations 3 and 4.
During this step the gas is assumed to travel at the same velocity of the mixture until it reaches D
1
.
2. Based on Oharas experimental data, an average gas velocity plot and equations for the front and the center or apex corner
of the triangular distribution was determined (Figure 3). The average velocities come from the gas velocities predicted
from the depth of interest to the surface. Using this plot or equations 6 and 7, the average velocities (v
front
and v
apex
) from
D
1
to the surface are estimated. It is assumed that the tail corner of the triangle travel at the same velocity of the liquid
(v
tail
= v
liquid
).

Figure 3 Average velocity front and apex
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ApexAverageVelocity
Front AverageVelocity
I
]ont
= S.1S2x1u
-8
-
1
2
- 6.28S4x1u
-4
-
1
+ S.8677
I
upcx
= 4.6u29x1u
-8
-
1
2
- 7.8S66x1u
-4
-
1
+ S.8246
.(6)
.(7)

3. The pressure and volume of gas at depth D
1
are estimated by applying the single bubble method discussed previously. The
initial pit gain is used to approximate the volume and to calculate the length of the gas at this depth (h
D1
) using equations 1
and 2. It is assumed that the pressure is the same throughout the gas.
4. Given that this method is based on the assumption of a triangular gas distribution, the length of the base of the triangle
(h
o
) can be estimated by setting the area of the rectangular distribution of the single bubble method to the area of the
triangular shape of this method (Figure 4). Notice that the single bubble method assumes a gas fraction () equal to 100%;
however, this method assumes = 66.66% as a maximum gas fraction at D
1
(equations 8, 9 and 10). This assumption is
based on empirical data from Oharas research and data from computer simulations. These two concepts are combined to
derive the equation 10:
A
cctugIc
= A
tungIc
o
(100%)
b
1
=
o
(66.66%)
b
o
2
.(8)


.(9)
h
u
= 3 h
D1
.(10)
7000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D
1
V
front
V
apex v
apex
v
front
AverageVelocity (ft/sec)
SPE 147496 5

Depth
D
1
100%
66.66%
Figure 4 Triangular gas distribution
5. Using the average velocity of the front corner of the triangle (v
front
), the time required for the leading edge to reach the
surface from D
1
estimated by applying the following equation:
t
]ont
=

1
:
]ont

upcx
=
1
+
b
o
2
.(11)
6. The depths of the apex and the tail corners of the triangle when the gas reaches surface are estimated using the average
velocities and the time found in step 5. Notice that the length of the base of the triangle is equal to the depth of the tail
corner at this moment.

- (:
upcx
t
]ont
)

tuI
=
1
+ b
0
- (:
tuI
t
]o
)
o
ucugc
=
I
upcx

.(12)

nt
.(13)
7. The gas volume (V
D apex
) is estimated at depth D
apex
applying gas law using equations 1 and 2.
8. Gas volume, annular area and depth of the tail corner are used to estimate the average gas fraction of the gas inside the
well:
A
un

tuI
.(14)
9. Using a similar approach in step 4, the maximum gas fraction is estimated relating the areas of the rectangle and the
triangle shown in Figure 5.
A
cctungIc
= A
tungIc
u
max
= 2 u
auerage
.(15)
.(16)

average
D
tail

max
Depth

Figure 5 Gas fraction relation
6 SPE 147496
10. The equivalent hydrostatic loss (P
hd
) when the apex corner reaches the surface is then estimated using the circulating
bottomhole pressure:
P
hd
= u.uS2 EHw
|(
tuI
-
upcx
) o
mux
]
2
-P
hg
CP
mux
= P
hd
+ P
0B

.(17)
11. Finally, the maximum casing pressure during kick circulation is assumed to occur when the maximum gas fraction reaches
the surface and is estimated as follows:
.(18)
After this method was defined, a broad range of simulations and full scale experiments were used to study the casing
pressure behavior during kick circulation. This method was applied in the different scenarios, and it was compared with single
bubble calculations, simulations and actual casing pressures (Chirinos 2010).

Simulations Results
A broad range of simulations were performed to compare the maximum casing pressure during circulation to the casing
pressure estimated with the new method. This section shows and discusses the application of the proposed method in full scale
experiments and in computer simulations.
Full Scale Experiments
Comparison of the proposed method was made to full scale experimental data. This data contains 15 complete kick
circulations under different conditions. Four drilling fluid rheologies, pump rates between 90 and 133 gpm, initial
underbalance between 300 and 500 psi, and kick sizes between 9 and 11 bbl were some of the variations (refer to table A2 for
more details). Finally, single bubble calculations and computer simulations were performed for each test and compared to the
actual pressures and those predicted by the proposed method.
Figure 6 compares the actual maximum casing pressures to the pressures estimated by the three methods: single bubble,
computer simulation and the proposed method. On the graph, the horizontal axis corresponds to the 15 full scale experiments,
and the vertical axis shows the maximum casing pressure during circulation (CP
max
). The purple line represents the actual
CP
max
read from the experimental data. It can be observed that single bubble estimations (blue line) over predicted CP
max
by an
average of 200 psi; this performance was expected because this technique is based on oversimplified and incorrect
assumptions. Computer simulation results (orange line) gave a better estimation of CP
max
than the single bubble technique;
however, in this particular case, it can be seen that it overestimates CP
max
by an average of 80 psi. Although it is clear that the
simulations over predict CP
max
on these experiments, this performance cannot be generalized to all well geometries and all
depths. Finally, a red line represents CP
max
estimated by the proposed method. It is shown that the proposed method achieved
good agreement with the actual CP
max
in all experiments. The average absolute value of the differences between the actual and
the estimated CP
max
were only 26.6 psi or 3.99%.
.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
C
P
m
a
x
(
p
s
i
)
13 14 15 22 23 24 25 32 33 34 35 42 43 44 45
Test
SingleB
DFD
ProposedMethod
Actual
ActualMax.CP
SingleBubble
Simulation
8.6ppg
LowRheology
8.6ppg
HighRheology
12.3ppg
HighRheology
12.3ppg
LowRheology
ProposedMethod

Figure 6 Peak CP comparison actual/single bubble/simulations/proposed method
Figure 7 shows difference in percentage and pressure between actual and estimated CP
max
for each test. It is shown that
CP
max
was estimated within 10% and 60 psi of the actual peak casing pressure; these estimations are good enough to confirm
the application of this method to approximate circulating pressure in a well control event, at least for this hole size and range
of pump rates. For the LSU#2 well geometry, the proposed method gave a consistently more accurate estimate of peak casing
SPE 147496 7
pressure than either a single bubble calculation or a commercially available multiphase well control simulation. However, it
should be noted that this well geometry is the same well geometry used by Ohara in 1996 during his experiments on
distribution; therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the method will have the same performance in all operational
conditions. Consequently, it is recommended this method be used only as an indicator until further evaluation with a wider
range of real data can be performed.

Figure 7 Error analysis versus full scale experiments
Computer Simulations
Computer simulations were used for a larger variety of well geometries and kick conditions to allow more general evaluation
of the proposed method. Three well geometries were simulated under different operational conditions; eight scenarios for each
well are presented in this section in which CP
max
was computed to compare to the proposed method. Single bubble estimations
were also performed for comparison of all three techniques.
Figure 8 illustrates CP
max
comparisons for the three well geometries. The graphs in the left column show the CP
max

relationship between simulations and estimations with the proposed method. The red solid lines correspond to the best linear
fit to the relationship between the two techniques, and the green dashed lines represent a reference of the ideal ratio between
the CP
max
evaluations. The plots in the right column give comparisons between CP
max
estimated by the three techniques:
simulation (purple line), single bubble (blue line) and the proposed method (red line); the vertical axis shows the CP
max
estimated, and the horizontal axis indicate the specific test conditions.
The first two graphs refer to the simulations run for LSU #2. On the left graph it can be seen that the linear fit of the
relationship between the simulated and calculated CP
max
is close to ideal. However, when the plot on the right is observed,
differences between simulations and the proposed method estimations are visible. During these simulations, the maximum
difference in pressure was 111 psi or 9.79%; yet, the maximum difference was 11.25% which corresponds to an 88 psi
difference; these scenarios correspond to a 20 bbl pit gain with an initial underbalance of 0.5 ppge and 1.9 ppge respectively.
The average absolute difference for this well geometry was 7.04% and the average difference was 67 psi; both represent a
good approximation to the simulation results. Alternatively, single bubble estimations over predicted CP
max
based on the
simulation by an average of 80.9 psi and 8.97% CP
max.
.
Well X, characterized by a slim hole geometry, is the second well shown in Figure 8. The left graph shows that the
relationship between the simulations, and the proposed method is not as close as it is in the well LSU #2. However, if the plot
on the right is observed, it is possible to distinguish that the proposed method gave estimates for the 2 and 10 bbl scenarios that
are similar to the simulation results. The approximations of CP
max
for these cases were within 100 psi of the simulation results,
which is considered very good. Conversely, the proposed method did not compare well in the 20 bbl kick scenarios; the
average difference on these tests was 272 psi. Although the disagreement between the estimates for the 20 bbl kick scenarios is
undesirable, the overall average absolute differences for the eight scenarios were 140 psi and 13.7% which can be adapted to
be an acceptable approximation as explained below. In addition to this information, the graph also shows that single bubble
technique did not perform well under these operational conditions; it over predicted CP
max
by an average of approximately 650
psi.
The third well shown in Figure 8 is well Y. It can be observed from the two graphs that the proposed method compared
very well with the predicted CP
max
throughout all the simulations. The maximum differences during these simulations were 74
psi and 14.68%, and the average absolute differences were only 33 psi and 5.33% which are considered good. Alternatively,
8 SPE 147496
single bubble estimations were all high; the minimum by 100 psi and the maximum by 580 psi.
From the Figure 8, it can be concluded that the proposed method of approximating the maximum casing pressure during
circulation corresponds relatively well to simulation results. However, comparisons indicate that 20 bbl kicks and slim hole
geometries tend to decrease the disagreement between the new method and the simulation results.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2bbl 10bbl 20bbl 2bbl 20bbl 2bbl 10bbl 20bbl
C
P
m
a
x
(
p
s
i
)
Test
DFD
SB
ProposedMethod
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
C
P
m
a
x
(
p
s
i
)
2bbl 10bbl 20bbl 2bbl 20bbl 2bbl 10bbl 20bbl
Test
DFD
SB
ProposedMethod
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2bbl 10bbl 20bbl 2bbl 20bbl 2bbl 10bbl 20bbl
C
P
m
a
x
(
p
s
i
)
Test
DFD
SB
ProposedMethod
W
e
l
l

Y
0.18ppg UB 0.69ppg UB 1.00ppgUB
W
e
l
l

L
S
U

#
2
W
e
l
l

X
0.2ppgUB 0.75ppg UB 1.10ppgUB
0.5ppg UB 1.90ppg UB 2.77ppgUB
y=1.2357x 150.41
R=0.8996
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
C
P
m
a
x

D
F
D

(
p
s
i
)

CP
max
ProposedMethod(psi)
DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method
Relationslope=1
Linear(DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method)
y=1.0707x 86.669
R=0.9912
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
C
P
m
a
x

D
y
n
a
f
l
o
w
d
r
i
l
l

(
p
s
i
)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CP
max
ProposedMethod(psi)
DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method
Relationslope=1
Linear(DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method)
y=1.037x 0.1224
R=0.958
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
C
P
m
a
x

D
F
D

(
p
s
i
)

CP
max
ProposedMethod(psi)
DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method
Relationslope=1
Linear(DFD(Simulations)vsProposed Method)
SingleBubble
Simulation
ProposedMethod
SingleBubble
Simulation
ProposedMethod
SingleBubble
Simulation
ProposedMethod
C
P
m
a
x

C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
s
i

C
P
m
a
x

C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
s
i

C
P
m
a
x

C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
s
i

CP
max
ProposedMethod,psi
CP
max
ProposedMethod,psi
C
P
m
a
x
,

p
s
i

C
P
m
a
x
,

p
s
i

C
P
m
a
x
,

p
s
i

ComputerSimulator
ComputerSimulator
ComputerSimulator
CP
max
ProposedMethod,psi

Figure 8 Comparison simulation vs. single bubble vs. proposed method
Analysis of Results
The results from computer simulations and full scale experiments indicate that the new method can be used to estimate
maximum casing pressure during kick circulations. However, additional consideration is appropriate before the method is
applied in well planning and well control events. Figure 9 illustrates the difference in the pressure estimated with the proposed
method versus simulations and actual pressures for the tests performed in this research. Tests are categorized by pit gain sizes
and type of data: simulated and experimental.
The graph (Figure 9) on the right shows the full scale experiment results. It provides evidence that the proposed method
predicted CP
max
within 60 psi, which is considered very good. However, this performance cannot be extrapolated to all well
configurations or kick sizes, and more real data is needed to generalize its application.
On the left side of Figure 9, simulation results are plotted. This graph shows that the proposed method underestimated
CP
max
for most of the 20 bbl simulation cases, and the comparison was worst for Well X. Also, it can be observed that the 10
bbl simulations were under predicted by an average 72 psi. Conversely, 2 bbl kick simulations were overestimated by an
SPE 147496 9
average of 44 psi for all well geometries. In general, the estimates made using the proposed method are good. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that these comparisons are being made to results from a commercial simulator. Although the simulator was
shown to over predict pressures for the LSU#2 well, it is assumed that it generally provides a good assessment of the casing
pressure during well control operations.
Application of a safety factor is recommended when the proposed method is being used. Table 1 shows the proposed safety
factor to apply to the CP
max
estimated with the proposed method. The values of the safety factors are based on the performance
of the method under different conditions, and they are intended to keep the calculated CP
max
greater than the simulation or
actual results.

300
ComputerSimulations
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
D
i
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
p
s
i
)
LSU#2
WellX
Figure 9 Pressure difference in simulations
Table 1 Safety factor recommended
Kick Sizes (bbl) Safety Factor
1 5 1.05
5 15 1.1
15 above 1.2

Conclusions
The proposed method provides a means to approximate maximum casing pressure (CP
max
) during kick circulation
with relatively good accuracy. The method relies on the application of hydrostatic pressure and gas law calculations,
and it includes empirical information related to gas distribution in kick circulation published by Ohara in 1996. This
model can easily be programmed in an Excel spread sheet and used during well planning for MPD or conventional
well control with the drillers method.
The proposed method predicted the maximum casing pressure within an absolute average error of 4% and a
maximum error of 9.15% for fifteen full scale experiments in the test well used by Ohara. It gave a more accurate
prediction than the computer simulations for all but one of the tests.
The accuracy of this method for a larger range of annulus geometries, annular velocity, and kick sizes is less certain.
Although it gave results that were very similar to simulations of kicks in a 12.25 inch hole and to small kicks in a 6
inch hole, larger differences were observed versus simulated 20 barrel kicks in the 6 inch hole. Use of a safety factor
based on kick size was generally adequate to account for these differences.
Single bubble calculations consistently and significantly overestimate the maximum casing pressure during kick
circulations.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge all of the previous researchers of the MPD consortium, especially Majid Davoudi who
completed the study of the best initial responses to kicks taken in MPD operations. His contribution was essential to the
conclusions reached in this work and are very much apprecialted.
We thank SPT Group for providing licenses and technical support for the Dynaflodrill simulator, which was used
extensively for this study. We also thank the consortium members: Chevron Energy Technology Corporation, Total E & P,
ConocoPhillips, Shell E & P Company (SEPCO), At Balance, Secure Drilling, and Blade Energy Partners for their
financial and technical support for this research. Note that their participation in the consortium does not indicate endorsement
of this work or the conclusions reached.
Finally, we thank the faculty and staff of the Craft and Hawkins Department of Petroleum Engineering, especially PERTT
Lab personnel, for their assistance in this research.

WellY
300
FullScaleExperiments
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
p
s
i
)
FullScale
9 11 bbl
20bbl 10bbl
2bbl
ExperimentsLSU#2
10 SPE 147496
Nomenclature
p = Pressure, psi
g
om
= Mud gradient, psi/ft
p
bh
= Bottom hole pressure, psi
h = Gas kick height, ft
D = Depth, ft
T
bh
= Bottom hole temperature, R
v

= Velocity, ft/sec
P
AF
= Annular friction
A = Area, ft
2
t = Time, sec
V = Volume, ft
3

P
hyd
= Hydrostatic loss, psi
EMW = Equivalent mud weight, lb/gal
P
UB
= Initial underbalance, psi
CP
max
= Maximun casing pressure, psi
References
Bourgoyne, A. T. 1991. Applied drilling engineering.SPE Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum Engineering of AIME,
Dallas, Tex.
Chirinos, Jos Eduardo. 2010. A Simulation Study of Factors that Affect Pressure Control during Kick Circulation in
Managed Pressure Drilling Operations, MS, Petroleum Engineering Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Davoudi, M., J. R. Smith, B. M. Patel, and J.E. Chirinos. 2010. Evaluation of Alternative Initial Responses to Kicks Taken
during Managed Pressure Drilling. Paper IADC/SPE 128424 presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2-4 February, doi: 10.2118/128424-MS
Grayson, Michael B. 2009. Increased Operational Safety and Efficiency With Managed Pressure Drilling. Paper SPE
120982 presented at SPE Americas E&P Environmental and Safety Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 03/23/2009,
doi: 10.2118/120982-MS
Hannegan, Don M. 2006. Case Studies--Offshore Managed Pressure Drilling. Paper SPE 101855 presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, doi: 10.2118/101855-MS
Ohara, Shiniti. 1996. Improved method for selecting kick tolerance during deepwater drilling operations, PhD Dissertation,
Dept. of Petroleum Engineering., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge LA.
Reitsma, Don. 2005. Development and Application of Combining a Real-Time Hydraulics Model and Automated Choke
To Maintain a Relatively Constant Bottomhole Pressure While Drilling. Paper IPTC 10708-MS presented at
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 01/01/2005, doi: 10.2523/10708-MS
Reitsma, Don, and Egbert van Riet. 2005. Utilizing an Automated Annular Pressure Control System for Managed Pressure
Drilling in Mature Offshore Oilfields. Paper SPE 96646 presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, United Kingdom,
01/01/2005, doi: 10.2118/96646-MS
Santos, Helio, Christian Leuchtenberg, and Sara Shayegi. 2003. Micro-Flux Control: The Next Generation in Drilling
Process. Paper SPE 81183 presented at SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-
of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 01/01/2003, doi: 10.2118/81183-MS
Smith, John Rogers, and Bhavin Patel. 2011. A Proposed Method for Planning the Best Response to Kicks Taken During
Managed Pressure Drilling Operations. Paper 143101 presented at IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling and
Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 01/01/2011, doi: 10.2118/143101-MS
Vieira, P., M. A. Arnone, F. Torres, and F. Barragan. 2009. Roles of Managed Pressure Drilling Technique in Kick
Detection and Well Control -The Beginning of the New Conventional Drilling Way. Paper SPE/IADC 124664
presented at SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 10/26/2009,
doi: 10.2118/124664-MS
Watson, D., T. Brittenham, and P. L. Moore. 2003. Advanced Well Control.SPE textbook series v. 10, SPE, Richardson











SPE 147496 11
Appendix


Figure A1 - LSU #2 Well schematic


Figure A2 - Well X Schematic (Davoudi et al. 2010)
PBTD @ 5884' TVD
End of 3-1/2" Tbg
@ 5852'TVD
End of 1-1/4"Tbg
@ 5822' TVD
End of Observation
Tbg @ 5816' TVD
CasingShoe@5884 TVD/MD
95/8 Casing
81/2Bit
3DP
Simulated Actual



14 Casing 106.7#: 12.5 ID
8 DC, 400
6 5/8 DP, 14280
150 ft Air Gap
Mud Line @ 250
Casing set @ 13780 ft MD/TVD
FP about 18.3 ppg
High Pressure Sand @ 14960 ft MD/TVD
PP about 17.3 ppg
6 5/8 HWDP, 280
12.25 Bit
Planned TD @ 15865TVD/MD
Figure A3 - Well Y schematic


Table A1 - Simulated Kick Scenarios

Well X (190 gpm) Well Y (760 gpm) LSU #2 (195 gpm)
Static BHP (psi) 10186 13275 2617
Circulating BHP (psi) 10706 13464 2942
Friction (psi) 520 189 325
Simulated Cases X1 X2 X3 Y1 Y2 Y3 L1 L2 L3
P
f
(psi) 10860 11289 11555 13606 14000 14245 3096 3525 3790
Static UB (psi) 674 1103 1369 331 725 970 479 908 1173
Circulating UB (psi) 154 583 849 142 536 781 154 583 848
Kick intensity (ppge) 0.20 0.76 1.10 0.18 0.69 1.00 0.50 1.91 2.77
12 SPE 147496
Table A2 - Summary of tests with Water Base Mud
Test # Mud Wt PV YV
10s/10m
gels
Pump
Rate
(gpm)
Kill Circ
Rate
(gpm)
1-3 8.6 8 2 90 90
1-4 8.55 8 2 4/4 90 133
1-5 8.6 7 2 3/2 133 90

2-2 8.75 24 19 20/14 0 90
2-3 8.7 23.5 22 21/15 90 90
2-4 8.7 24.5 23 20/16 90 118
2-5 8.7 25 19 21/17 106 90

3-2 12.5 22 5 9/6 0 90
3-3 12.3 20 4 8/6 87 90
3-4 12.4 20 3 8/6 90 94
3-5 12.4 19 4 9/6 110 90

4-2 12.35 37 13.5 19/13 0 90
4-3 12.4 35.5 14 19/12 88 90
12.3 33 13 17/15 86 133 4-4

4-5 12.3 32.5 12.5 18/12 110 90