SPE 159175

Transitional Kick Tolerance

Helio Santos and Paul Sonnemann, Safekick

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

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
Kick Tolerance (KT) is commonly defined as the maximum volume of a given type of influx (typically gas) which can be
successfully contained and circulated out of a well using the Driller’s Method. Used properly, many companies believe KT
calculations help to quantify safety margins that exist between expected wellbore conditions and incrementally higher well
design limits. However, one big issue in the industry today is the lack of consistency about KT calculation, leading to
significant confusion and increased risk. Situations occur when drilling a well in which one company involved may argue that
there is enough KT to keep drilling, whereas another company argues the opposite. Another factor limiting the value of most
kick tolerance methods employed today stems from almost exclusive focus on the KT at the end of a hole section, without
accounting for erratic trends of pore pressure and possible deviations from the drilling program. Confusion and lack of
standards regarding KT often prevents effective use of the concept to assess the risks while drilling. After a brief introduction
describing the two most common methods used to calculate KT, the paper presents an example highlighting the limitations and
issues when using the current approach to calculate KT. In the example, KT is sufficient to meet various company policy
requirements, but control of the well is lost when a kick within original well design limits enters the well. The concept of
Transitional Kick Tolerance is then introduced, which has been developed to overcome the limitation caused by focus on
single point KT calculations and which provides substantial benefits in the context of changes that occur while drilling the
section.

Introduction
Even though there are several ways to calculate it, Kick Tolerance (KT) is commonly defined as the maximum volume of a
given type of influx (typically gas) which can be successfully contained and circulated out of a well using the Driller’s
Method. Calculation methods vary, but most use a combination of some or all of the following:
o Specific hole true vertical depth and inclination
o Specific weak point (generally last casing seat) true vertical depth and inclination
o Estimated or measured fracture resistance at weak point
o Well geometry in the open hole
o Estimated pore pressure at a specific depth (potential source of influx)
o Mud weight in well at moment of exposure to potential source of influx
o Safety factors to account for possible inaccuracy of pore pressure estimates (often dictated by regulations
and/or company policy)
o Safety factors to account for possible inaccuracy of crew application of Driller’s Method (pressure margin
for choke operator error, pressure margin for mishandling of choke line friction, etc.)

One important and key parameter to be assumed when calculating KT is the pore pressure to be used. Most of the
time the confusion surrounding KT stems from the way the hypothetical kick zone pore pressure (called here “worst case pore
pressure”) is assumed. One KT calculation method in common use references predicted pore pressure as part of the definition
of “worst case pore pressure”. While there are several, slightly different ways to do this, these methods are arbitrarily referred
to here as “Predicted pore pressure + kick intensity”, or “PP+KI” methods, since they fundamentally rely on pore pressure as a
means to quantify this worst case hypothetical kick condition.
A second type of kick tolerance calculation in common use is similarly referred to here as the “Mud Weight + kick
2 SPE 159175

intensity”, or “MW+KI” method. Again, variations exist, but these methods use fluid density as the basis for determining a
“worst case kick condition” to use while calculating concurrent, tolerable influx volumes. For this discussion, the MW+KI
method will be characterized by use of “Current Mud Density + kick intensity” as a means to quantify this worst case
hypothetical kick condition, e.g., worst case pore pressure.

Limitations and Issues Using the Current Approach to Calculate Kick Tolerance
During actual drilling operations, either, both, or neither of these methods may be in use. While some companies
recommend review and/or update of calculated kick tolerance during drilling operations, some combined field practices have
led to situations such as are described in the following, simplified, hypothetical example.
Let’s imagine drilling is taking place on a good land rig operation, with well intentioned, responsible, professional,
well-trained personnel drilling for an operator that provides on-site management using a well-experienced operator
representative familiar with local geological conditions.
The well is an appraisal well being drilled at a location some distance from the nearest relevant offset well. It has
been “Drilled On Paper” and reviewed during pre-spud meetings, with the specific well plan and the related drilling program
carefully reviewed.
An intermediate section is currently being drilled from the 13 3/8” shoe at 3,000 ft MD/TVD to an expected section
TD of 9,200 ft. A true leak off test (LOT) at 3,000 ft confirms expected formation integrity, with leak off occurring at 842 psi
while using 9.0 ppg mud, equating to a 14.4 ppg equivalent mud weight (EMW) integrity limit at 3,000 ft. We’ll assume here
that this represents the minimum open hole formation integrity to be exposed in this section.
Fig. 1 displays equivalent static density (ESD) throughout the wellbore at the moment of the LOT in the same format
as will be used throughout this paper to show downhole relationships.

At LOT conditions:
  Well is shut in at MD/TVD = 3000 ft.
  LOT pressure is 842 psi (current MAASP)

Leakoff Test Equivalent Mud Weight (LOTEMW)
  = 842 / (3000 ft x .052)
  = 14.4 psi 

The yellow curve displays this value for all 
future depths for this simplified example. 

The blue curve displays Equivalent Static 
Density (ESD) at all well depths.

Fig. 1 – Downhole display of pressure relationships at the end of the leakoff test, at which moment the Equivalent Static
Density (blue curve) at the leakoff point matches (defines) the formation strength (yellow curve). The purple curve
indicates expected pore preassure.

The on-site operator representative (Op. Rep.) confirms that the well is designed to provide > 25 bbls kick tolerance
at 9,200 ft MD/TVD. This calculation is done using an 11.6 ppg equivalent mud weight “worst case” pore pressure at 9,000 ft,
1 ppg above the 10.6 ppg EMW pore pressure expected at that depth. This is in compliance with his company’s policies, which
stipulates use of a PP+KI kick tolerance calculation method.
The contractor’s senior toolpusher (TP) does his own KT calculation to make sure the drilling plan provides sufficient
SPE 159175 3

well strength to tolerate at least a 25 bbls kick that could flow from a formation that would require kill mud weight as much as
0.5 ppg above the mud in use. This is in compliance with the contractor’s policies, which stipulates use of a MW+KI kick
tolerance calculation method. Both companies are satisfied with the result, though their calculation processes differ.
Fig. 2 shows the simplified expected pore pressure and fracture curves for this hole section. It also shows that at
6,000 ft and 9,000 ft, the well is expected to penetrate non-productive sandstone zones which have been known, in this area, to
be somewhat unpredictably overpressured, and occasionally depleted to normal pressures. The next string of casing is intended
to isolate these two somewhat troublesome zones.

       10 ppg               12 ppg             14 ppg

Well Design Details: 

Section target TD is 9,200 ft 

The purple curve displays the pore 
pressure expected prior to drilling 
this section. 
 
The red curve displays the mud 
weight planned for use while 
drilling this section. 

Sandstone formations at 6,000 ft 
and 9,000 are non‐productive, 
with historically unpredictable 
pressures.

Fig. 2 – Downhole display of Expected pore pressure (purple), planned mud weight (red) and minimum fracture
gradient (yellow) for the section to be drilled.

Changes Affecting Kick Tolerance that Occur While Drilling.

The actual operation is going smoothly, but drilling is slower than hoped (when isn’t it?), with no pressure control issues
experienced. As the bit approaches the zone at 6,000 ft, the drilling plan calls for a rapid increase in mud density to 10 ppg (0.4
ppg over expected pressure as shown by the red curve on Fig. 2). But based on the Op. Rep’s experience and fear of
consequences if the zone proves to be depleted, he proposes instead to drill carefully into the possibly overpressured zone
using 9.0 ppg mud (potentially 0.6 ppg underbalanced). As supervisors discuss the relative risks, KT is reviewed, but found to
be sufficient even if the “worst case” occurs while using this lower mud weight. This is confirmed using either the PP+KI or
MW+KI methods, so risk is acceptable to all parties.
The resulting operation is a success, as the zone at 6,000 ft turns out to have been depleted to at least less than 9.0 ppg
EMW. Drilling thereafter continues efficiently for some time using 9.0 ppg mud.
As TD is approached, the drilling plan calls for another increase in mud weight, starting around 8,000 ft, to achieve
11 ppg before entering the zone at 9,000 ft. (again, 0.4 ppg EMW over expected pressure as shown in Fig. 2).
Once again the Op. Rep, based on earlier success and operational concerns about possible differential sticking
potential proposes using a slightly reduced mud weight. Wanting to be a bit cautious, he instructs the mud engineer to begin
weighting up, but only to 10.25 ppg mud, figuring he doesn’t want to be too overbalanced if the zone at 9,000 ft is depleted
like the one at 6,000 ft. He presents the reasoning that if the pressure turns out to be as predicted, he’ll still be less
underbalanced (10.6 – 10.25 = 0.35 ppg ) and thus at less risk than he would have been if the 6,000 ft zone had been as
overpressured as originally expected (9.6 – 9 = 0.6 ppg). He believes that risk to continue to be acceptable.
As supervisors discuss this option, his plan doesn’t sound too bad to them. Everyone knows the well was designed to
4 SPE 159175

be able to handle 25 bbl of a 1 ppg KI at TD and this rig and crew are proving highly competent.
If kick tolerance calculations were to be done at 8,000 ft (which sometime occurs as a result of company policies
requiring periodic recalculation of KT), it is likely that there may be confusion as to what value of pore pressure should be
used for PP+KI calculations. Should one a) use the original expected pore pressure (9.2 ppg and trending upward)? or b)
observe no evidence of pore pressure is not trending upward and is in fact currently not greater than mud weight ESD (e.g. 9.0
ppg), a reasonable assumption since the well is not kicking with only 9 ppg mud in place and no flow is detected on
connections as the hole is deepened?
There are currently no consistent industry “best practice” answers to this question. So let’s assume for this example,
the Op. Rep. selects answer “b”. That causes KT values calculated using PP+KI to reduce from the planned value of 85.9 bbls
to a new value of 54.4 bbl.
On the other hand, users of the MW+KI method have an easier choice, and decide to base any new calculations on the
mud weight actually use (i.e. 9.0 ppg rather than 10.0 ppg). For them, this significantly changes the kick tolerance at this
depth, since mud weight in use is lighter than was planned. But the direction of change is in the opposite direction: the use of a
lighter than planned mud increases the value of kick tolerance generated by their MW+KI method from a planned value of
72.7 bbls to a new value of 118.8 bbls.
So calculations performed at this point in the example case would lead supervisors to believe the current kick
tolerance is adequate to meet both company policy requirements.
Thinking ahead, the Op. Rep. and TP both check their KT calculations to make sure that KT will still be adequate
when they reach TD at 9,200 ft using the new proposed 10.25 ppg mud weight. Using the PP+KI method, the Op. Rep. again
chooses to use a pore pressure equal to the mud weight he thinks will be adequate when reaching TD --- 10.25 ppg. That leads
him to calculate a new KT, at 9,200 ft of 26.5 bbls, just sufficient to meet his company requirement of >25 bbls KT using 1.0
ppg KI.
The TP uses the MW+KI KT at section TD, coming up with 51.6 bbls KT at 9,200 ft using 10.25 ppg mud. This
easily exceeds his company requirement of >25 bbls KT using 0.5 ppg KI. He’s also comfortable with the new MAASP value
of 647 psi. With both supervisors satisfied, drilling therefore continues.
Mud weight is intentionally increased faster than expected pore pressure, and tops out at 10.25 ppg by about 8,700ft.
At that depth, wishing to be still more cautious, the Op. Rep. instructs the Driller to slow the penetration rate from a steady
250 ft/hr and start control drilling at no more than 100 ft/hr until the pressure situation at the 9,000 ft formation can be
assessed. The Op. Rep. notes current PWD readings show bottom hole pressure, due to ECD, of over 10.7 ppg, which is more
than the expected 10.6 ppg.

A Kick Occurs Causing Serious Trouble

Everything proceeds without trouble until, at 9,000 ft, when the Driller notices a sudden drilling break. Stopping after
penetrating only 5 ft, he shuts things down to flow check and, noticing a very strong flow, closes the well in with the BOP
after spacing out per his training. Pit gain is measured at 20 bbl, and SIDPP is accurately measured at 633 psi. That means
they’ve encountered a permeable zone with pressure 1 ppg EMW above what was expected. In other words, they’ve
encountered a zone with pore pressure of 10.6 + 1 = 11.6 EMW, exactly the “worst case pore pressure” that was used for
initial well planning, but with only 10.25 ppg mud in the well in place of the planned 11.0 ppg mud weight. Fig. 3 shows the
condition of the well immediately after shut-in.
Casing pressure quickly rises to 688 psi, then seems to momentarily stabilize. This is a value above the 650 psi
MAASP [(14.4 – 10.25) x 0.052 x 3,000 = 647psi].
The well is immediately perceived to be beyond its design limits, though the formation exposed, and the influx
volume taken are both no worse than were planned for in the well design (i.e. 25 bbls gain with a 1 ppg KI). The TP calculates
the required kill mud weight and concludes this is a kick of 1.35 ppg kick intensity, well beyond his KT limit. Everyone is
surprised, annoyed, and worried as they recognize they may have a tough problem on their hands, even though conditions
seemed so manageable just moments earlier.
While trying to decide what to do next, the crew wisely leaves it shut in (perhaps prepared to temporarily use simple
Volumetric Method control if needed) while town and available well control experts scratch their collective heads about the
best way to bring the well safely back under primary control.
Eventually, before pressures can get much worse or the shoe fails, the decision is made to try to seal off the kick zone
with a combination of barite and cement plugs using a combination of bullheading and circulating techniques. While the well
is eventually brought back under control in this way, the BHA, the well section, and several weeks of rig time are lost before a
successful sidetrack completes the drilling operation using a higher mud weight per the original plan.
And this is, perhaps, an optimistic view of what might happen in a situation like this; in fact, things can be terribly
and tragically worse when crews continue to apply conventional well control practices to wells that are outside of design limits
such as adhoc “Low Choke” methods or experience underground blowouts that could strain financial resources.
SPE 159175 5

Well Shut‐in on initial 20 bbl gas influx 
Surface casing pressure is 688 psi 

Wellbore pressure at 9,000 ft is exactly balancing actual 
pore pressure of 11.60 ppg EMW
 
Blue ESD curve shows wellbore pressure at casing shoe 
(3,000 ft) exceeds LOT EMW 

  ESD @ 3,000 ft = 14.66 ppg EMW
  LOT @ 3,000 ft = 14.40   ppg EMW 

Shut in conditions exceed well design limits even before 
start of circulation to remove gas kick. 

Fig. 3 – Downhole conditions immediately after shut-in. A kick thought to be within kick tolerance limits exceeds the
MAASP.

How Might This Have Happened?

What could have gone so wrong on this “good” operation? Weren’t the crew and supervisors “listening to the well”? Was
there a well planning failure? Was there a supervision failure? Was there a communication failure? Was this just bad luck and
“part of the cost of being in this business”?
Part of the answer may relate to the way many in our industry either use, or perhaps more commonly, ignore kick
tolerance calculations during drilling operations. For many, such calculations belong only in the office for purposes of well
planning. For others, lack of understanding or confusion over calculation logic prevents them from “buying into” the results of
their calculations. Inconsistent industry definitions, practices, beliefs, and risk management objectives further contribute to the
problem, often resulting in diametrically opposed recommendations for how to limit related drilling risks.
Initial success achieve after modifying the mud weight plan might have given everyone the false impression that the
plan might have been unnecessarily conservative. But without a full reassessment of the ways in which information gained
while drilling the upper zones would be likely – or perhaps unlikely – to affect well plan parameters in the lower zones, the
tendency to “play with” plan details that may be complex or poorly understood can lead to problems like this.
It is worth noting that the MW+KI method used by the contractor in this example for KT calculations, has limited
value by itself in helping to avoid operational problems like those mentioned. In my example situation, the KT value
calculated by this method never falls below 50 bbls of kick tolerance, thus failing to identify the approach of a potentially
unmanageable situation. When KT is based exclusively on the mud weight in use, with no formal link to expected or actual
pore pressures, crews can easily be misled into continuing operations that could contain serious risks recognized and perhaps
mitigated by proper drilling plan design. The not-uncommon temptation or field practice of failing to raise, or even reducing
mud density to maintain or increase MAASP and/or related KT values can increase likelihood of exposure to greater
hydrostatic underbalance which can make well control problems much worse than they would have been had the same kicking
formation been encountered while using heavier mud called for in the drilling plan.
Companies that choose to use this KT logic are encouraged to ensure that their field personnel make a continuing
additional effort to obtain and review the best and most current pore pressure prognosis. While drilling supervisors on-site and
off-site may well be monitoring and reviewing mud weight versus pore pressure, it is unwise to simply assume they are doing
so correctly. It should be unconscionable to allow a driller to drill into a formation known, by someone else, to potentially
greatly exceed mud density while letting the driller feel “comfortable” because he knows he has adequate tolerance to manage
a less extreme, perhaps acceptable condition.
On the other hand, when using the PP+KI method, it is still necessary to quantify the effect of using current mud
6 SPE 159175

weight in the event of exposure to such a worst case formation pressure. A key point here is the fact that conventional kick
tolerance calculations, whether applicable to a single well depth or a range of depths, generally use a single, specific, planned
mud weight as one of the key parameters. What is often overlooked is the way mud weights change or are modified during
operations as illustrated in the example. Resulting changes to KT values during operations may or may not have been
anticipated by well planners, who of necessity must use planned, rather than actual, current mud weights.
Regardless of which method is used, the fact that MAASP always stays higher when the mud weight is kept lower
might be another contributing factor to a false sense of safety, encouraging crews to keep the mud weight as low as possible.
The lower mud weight is also beneficial in helping to reduce likelihood of differential sticking and can help maintain
penetration rates. But whenever using mud weight lower than specified in the drilling program, one should always evaluate the
associated risk to the well plan; use of kick tolerance in real time can be helpful in alerting crews to potentially elevated risk.
This use of KT while drilling is probably not done on most of the wells being drilled today, perhaps because of confusion and
variation in the use of conventional KT definitions and calculation methods as illustrated here.

Transitional Kick Tolerance

It is unreasonable to expect our industry to suddenly change its many current practices regarding kick tolerance. Instead, a new
concept is presented here, Transitional Kick Tolerance (TKT), which is compatible with various existing kick tolerance
approaches, but might help bridge the gap between stakeholders using various current calculation methods. Hopefully, TKT
can help crews avoid the kind of surprise described in the earlier hypothetical example.
Transitional Kick Tolerance (TKT) is proposed as a way to display constantly changing kick tolerance values through
the entire hole section. By highlighting easily misunderstood trends resulting from expected changes in depth, mud weight,
fracture strength and pore pressure during the hole section, supervisors may become much more sensitive to the way these
trends may be impacted by unexpected changes which occur during operations. Furthermore, by possibly showing the output
and underlying assumptions of various kick tolerance calculation methods on the same display, TKT may help bridge the gap
caused by current uncontrolled reference to methods which provide widely diverging results.
The output of TKT calculations is therefore not a single kick tolerance value such as “25 bbls, with a 1 ppg Kick
Intensity at 12,000 ft TVD”, but rather a graph of all such values using, as a starting point, the varying open hole depth, pore
pressure, formation strength, and mud weight relationships specified in the original well plan and drilling program.
On a single display the user can see the consequences of different parameters including depth, mud weight and use of
safety factors. To help understand why the existing methods work so differently, the same display can include a graphic
representation of “worst case pore pressure” that underlies each method. This can be much more useful than a discussion of
what kick intensity should be used, when the industry can’t settle on a consistent definition of KI. With greater understanding
and agreement on the appropriate definition of “worst case pore pressure”, users may find it much easier to understand and
apply KT concepts. Additionally, the focus on potentially challenging pore pressures helps all involved avoid complacency
that can occur when one calculation method provides overly comforting results.
Figs. 4a and 4b show an example of a TKT display which shows planned KT values for all depths of this hole section
using both the PP+KI and MW+KI methods. On Fig. 4a, new curves have been added to the well planning graph showing the
“worst case” pore pressure values at each depth that are used by each of the calculation methods. Fig. 4b shows planned KT
values calculated for each depth, thereby providing a basis for comparison with values calculated during drilling operations
using actual, rather than planned conditions. It also shows how the drilling plan is expected to keep KT above accepted
minimums throughout the entire process of drilling this section.
This graph can and should be updated as information becomes available during the drilling operation (i.e. pore
pressure plot can be redrawn to reflect actual observed pore pressures or revised pore pressure predictions made in light of
well data received to the current time, and actual mud weight used can be substituted for planned mud weight). Evidence
collected during drilling can, for example, support decisions to change “worst case” assumptions to those relating to P10, P50 or
P90 values representing pressure relationships of unexposed formation predicated on presence or absence of pressures found in
exposed formations.
SPE 159175 7

       10 ppg               12 ppg             14 ppg
This graph shows the “worst case” pore 
pressure graphic before the section is 
drilled. 
Curve “a”
Curve “a” shows worst case pore 
pressure if using PP + KI method. 
Curve “b”
Curve “b” shows worst case pore 
pressure if using MW + KI method. 
 
The purple curve displays the pore 
pressure expected prior to drilling this 
section. 
 
The red curve displays the mud weight 
planned for use while drilling this 
section. 

Fig. 4a – Worst case pore pressures – curves a and b – using PP+KI and MW+KI methods respectively for KT
calculations.

Transitional Kick Tolerance in Barrels
0 50 100 150 200
5000

5500
Planned using PP+KI 
6000
Planned using MW+KI
6500
TVD in Feet

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

Fig. 4b – Planned TKT values for each of the methods in common use today by the industry.
8 SPE 159175

Figs. 5a and 5b show the TKT that would have been calculated while actually drilling the example well. Note that the
well planning graph in Fig. 5a now includes a curve showing the actual mud weight used at each depth, as well as the changed
values of “worst case pore pressure” that result from use of those mud weights in place of the planned mud densities. The
graph therefore presents a relatively comprehensive picture of the parameters affecting kick tolerance, increasing awareness by
users of the basis for the calculations and the possible consequences of changes from the original well plan.

       10 ppg               12 ppg             14 ppg

Curve “c” This graph shows the “worst case” pore 
pressure while section is drilled. 
Curve “a”
Curve “c” shows the actual mud weight in 
the well while drilling at the depth shown. 
Curve “b” Curve “a” shows worst case pore pressure 
if using PP + KI method. 
Curve “b” now shows worst case pore 
pressure if using MW + KI method. Note 
that this has changed from the earlier 
curve “b” which was calculated using the 
planned, not the actual mud weight. 
The red curve displays the value of 
planned mud weight specified for drilling 
this section. 

Fig. 5a – Downhole conditions during actual operations showing effect of change of mud weight from original drilling
plan.

0 50 100 150 200

5000
Transitional Kick Tolerance in Barrels
5500
Actual using PP+KI
6000

6500
TVD in Feet

7000 Actual using MW+KI

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

Fig. 5b – TKT values under actual conditions using each of the methods in common use by the industry today.
SPE 159175 9

As shown on Fig. 5b, only the “Actual using PP+KI” curve, updated to reflect current mud density in use, indicates
the condition of the well at the time the Driller in the example encounters the kick zone at 9,000 ft. A system to monitor and
alert operators when the TKT reached the minimum acceptable value could have helped our hypothetical supervisors on the rig
recognize the increased risk of wellbore failure that resulted from their seemingly rational choice of mud weights.
Values shown as points on the TKT curve can be calculated and plotted manually. But it is easy to see the benefit of
having on-site a continuously up-to-date computer model that can provide the initial TKT graphs and can also readily update
those graphs in (or near) real time as related information becomes available while drilling.
One key difference introduced by TKT is the understanding that KT is not just a single number used for well design,
but a concept that must be used in real-time, at each foot drilled. And it must be integrated with everything else in drilling, so
that any change made to the parameters being used, such as depth, mud weight, pore pressure and formation strength at the
weakest point, results in an immediate update of the KT calculation. As important is a KT display showing the calculations
ahead of the current well depth, so that the people involved and responsible for the operation know the risks not only at that
particular depth, but also in the next hundred feet ahead.
In this example, pressure safety factors have not been mentioned, which companies may require or wish to apply per
internal or regulatory policy. These can easily be added by using them to modify displayed down hole formation strength (the
yellow line in each well planning graph), as they often simply involve reducing such values by specified increments (i.e. 100
psi to accommodate for choke operator error. Inclusion of such safety factors can be achieved by showing a second fracture
limit curve, or a “banding” used to display the impact of selection of such safety factors on formation strength limits displayed.
There are several other factors involving KT that need to be addressed, but are beyond the scope of this paper.
Questions such as: “Is the well designed to permit or even ensure that losses to formations in the open hole will reliably occur
before pressure limits of casing or BOP equipment are reached?” and “How much kick tolerance is enough?” are equally
important and not commonly addressed today. Another important possible future use of KT would be to guide the selection of
kill methods once the kick is in the well and the volume and kicking pore pressure are known.
The concept of kick tolerance is critical and unfortunately not used today while drilling as often as it should be. Kick
tolerance is often and mistakenly used as a number that must be used as a limit to allow drilling to proceed or not. Instead, it
should be used as a guide to how carefully drilling should proceed, highlighting risk, but not dictating behaviors. A big KT
number may suggest the situation is very comfortable. A small KT should indicate the situation requires high attention, with
extra precautions is place, and not that drilling must necessarily stop. A similar comparison can be made to a driver: When on
a flat and straight highway with plenty of space on each side of the road, it is obvious that a higher speed may be safely used.
However, when on a very narrow and tortuous road, extra attention and caution must be in place. But that does not mean that
the driver must stop driving there. As mentioned before, these are all subjects beyond the scope of this paper and will be
addressed in a future publication.

Conclusions
Even though a critical concept KT is, unfortunately, not used as often as it should be to assess well construction risk. A few
indications of this include: lack of standard, confusion with different ways of assuming the parameters to be used in the
calculation, especially pore pressure, and, lastly, an industry understanding that this concept is mostly applicable to well
design.
A new KT concept has been introduced, called Transitional Kick Tolerance (TKT), that displays the changing kick
tolerance limits that can be expected to apply in the context of transient conditions as the well is deepened TKT could be of
significant help in ensuring continuing crew awareness and respect for the relationship between well design limits, operational
(drilling) plans and actual rig operations which almost inevitably include adaptations to prepared plans that are necessary to
meet real world drilling challenges.
It is important that well construction risks be assessed in real-time, to prevent avoidable degradation of risk mitigation
strategies used in the design process. But such assessments must be done with proper understanding, not simple compliance
with numerical targets or policy that has caused the abandonment of many wells that allegedly lacked sufficient KT, but which
could likely have proceeded with the inclusion of extra precautions. What currently exists in the industry is a conflicting
situation where in some cases excess caution is used, leading to money spent unnecessarily, while in other situations, high
risks remain unrecognized due to lack of understanding of how to properly assess these risks in real time.

References
Materials from well control schools, well control manuals, and experience from the authors have been used in the paper. No
specific reference is made as details of the methods vary, but underlying concepts are well accepted in the industry as accepted
practices.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Erdem Catak, Thomas Barbato and Sandeep Valluri for the valuable discussions and
suggestions made during the discussion about Transitional Kick Tolerance.