Kick-Tolerance Misconceptions and

Consequences for Well Design

K ick tolerance defines the

appropriate number and setting
depths of casing strings required to
this lack of a standard and of under-
standing the topic leads to uncertainty
and discussions during drilling. Ques-
the BHA length is greater than Hmax.
Instead, Hmax must be at the top of the
drill collars. Then, calculations must
achieve drilling objectives. It also is tions often arise regarding whether be made for the volume across the top
used during drilling to determine it is safe to continue drilling. Because of the drill collars and must be taken
whether it is safe to continue drilling or wells are now drilled in more-challeng- to the bottom of the wellbore by use of
if there is a need to run a casing string. ing environments, such as high-pres- Boyle’s law, in the same way that it is
Alternatively, it is used to indicate sure/high-temperature and deep and used with the kick volume calculated at

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/64/01/85/2205768/spe-0112-0085-jpt.pdf by Kwabena Ansah-Sem on 08 September 2021

whether it is safe to circulate a kick ultradeep water, a small variation in the casing shoe. Usually, if Hmax is great-
out of the well or whether bullheading the way that kick tolerance is calculated er than the BHA length, the difference in
is necessary. During development can lead to premature abandonment of annular volume compensates the expan-
of a new well-control system, a the well or, worse, to a hazardous drill- sion of the gas when it travels upward,
thorough review of the fundamental ing situation. reducing the chances of creating
concepts involved was carried out, a problem.
and, in relation to kick tolerance, a few Kick-Tolerance Calculation—
misconceptions were identified. Current Approach Misconception 2:
The first step of a simplified kick-tol- Safety Margin
erance calculation (i.e., constant tem- The safety margin can lead to an over-
Introduction perature, constant density, and no com- ly conservative solution. This conser-
Even though kick tolerance is a criti- pressibility) is to define the maximum vative approach can lead to the use of
cal and fundamental concept for the vertical height of a gas influx Hmax at the unnecessary casings and liners in the
drilling industry, there is no standard casing shoe (assumed to be the weakest well design, especially in deep water.
used by operators, drilling contractors, point in the open hole). Hmax is deter- It has been widely accepted that when
or training institutions. Hence, there mined on the basis of fracture gradient; calculating kick tolerance, a safety mar-
are several definitions of kick tolerance mud weight; kick-fluid density; predict- gin should be applied to the MAASP to
and different ways of calculating it. This ed pore pressure; and adjusted maxi- reduce the chance of inducing fractures
lack of consistency may be why the sub- mum allowable annular surface pressure during a well-control event. MAASP is
ject is not well understood and, there- (MAASP), which is reduced by a safety calculated on the basis of fracture pres-
fore, is sometimes used dangerously. margin. What is conceptually wrong is sure at the casing shoe (assumed to be
Definitions of kick tolerance may be in that if the bottomhole-assembly (BHA) the weakest point in the open hole) and
terms of pit gain, mud-weight increase, length is greater than Hmax, the kick current mud weight above the casing
or underbalance pressure. cannot be circulated out of the well- shoe. In most cases, the safety margin
Another point of disagreement is bore because it will reach the top of the comprises three components: choke-
on how the predicted pore pressure drill collars with a kick height greater operator error, annular frictional pres-
should be used in calculations. Some than Hmax, which would induce losses sure loss, and chokeline frictional pres-
companies use a value greater than the at the shoe. sure loss. Some companies and publi-
mud weight, while others use a value cations call for the use of only the first
greater than the predicted pore pres- Misconception 1: two terms as safety margin. Although
sure. Despite the variations, the goal Kick Volume Around the BHA each well section is different, many pro-
is consistent: to use a procedure that To address this point properly, an cedures establish a fixed value for the
ensures safe drilling of a well. Often, extra calculation must be performed if safety margin to be used when calculat-
ing kick tolerance. Typical values are
150 or 200 psi. A value of 100  psi is
This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights assumed for the choke-operator error
of paper SPE 140113, “Kick-Tolerance Misconceptions and Consequences for Well and the remaining for the frictional-
Design,” by Helio Santos, SPE, Erdem Catak, SPE, and Sandeep Valluri, Safekick, pressure-loss component. Because the
prepared for the 2011 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 1–3 physical principle and rationale behind
March. The paper has not been peer reviewed. the annular frictional pressure loss and

For a limited time, the complete paper is free to SPE members at www.jptonline.org.

JPT • JANUARY 2012 85

 chokeline frictional pressure loss are approach reduces the chances of frac- Misconception 3:
the same, the effects will be grouped turing the formation, it imposes large Simplification
together. The choke-operator-error sacrifices in the well design, leading to Current kick-tolerance calculations are
component is addressed separately, to several unnecessary casing strings. The based on many assumptions and simpli-
make sure that each effect is understood alternative approach would be to use fications. The belief is that these simpli-
and evaluated independently. this frictional pressure loss proactively fications represent the worst-case sce-
during any fluid circulation; it makes no nario, thus leading to a safe well design.
Annular and Chokeline Friction- difference to the wellbore whether the
al Pressure Loss. When fluid is cir- pressure at the bottom is coming from a Afterflow Effect. Usually, for the sake of
culated in a well during a well-control choke at surface or from friction gener- simplicity, the afterflow effect is ignored.
operation, frictional pressure loss in the ated in the wellbore. Therefore, kick tolerance is considered
chokeline and annulus will be gener- equal to the maximum allowable pit gain.
ated. The magnitude of the frictional Choke-Operator Error. The choke- In reality, the formation continues to
pressure loss will depend on well geom- operator error is intended to compen- flow until the casing pressure increases
etry and the length and diameter of the sate for expected poor manual control of enough to equilibrate the bottomhole
chokeline. In deepwater and slimhole the choke by the operator. Today’s stan- pressure to the sandface pressure at the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/64/01/85/2205768/spe-0112-0085-jpt.pdf by Kwabena Ansah-Sem on 08 September 2021

wells, the frictional-pressure-loss com- dard is to use a 100-psi safety factor. point of influx. Accordingly, when deter-
ponent can be significant. To prevent However, automated chokes are readily mining maximum allowable pit gain,
formation fracturing, the backpressure available. Automation allows better con- the additional flow into the well after
applied at surface while the well is static trol with smaller oscillations in pres- shut-in must be considered. This after-
should be compensated when the fluid- sure, and it removes issues related to flow volume may be significant, espe-
circulation rate changes. Because it is operator fatigue or error. Automated cially for deep wells with large bores.
difficult to estimate frictional pressure chokes have been used reliably in appli- Some companies use a fixed value (e.g.,
loss in real time during well-control cations including drilling, well control, 10 bbl). This simplification can lead to
events, the adopted approach has been and well cleanup. With improved con- a conservative result. However, compa-
to subtract the frictional-pressure-loss trol, the 100-psi safety margin can be nies not taking this effect into account
value from the MAASP. Even though this reduced to 20 psi or less. may encounter dangerous situations. In

REG
GISTER NOW

www
w.in
ntelllige
ente
energyyeve
ent.com
m

Organised by

86 JPT • JANUARY 2012

 this paper, formation flow after shut-in ior. Because calculating the z-factor is Influx density had a direct effect in the
is considered to be equal to the well’s not straightforward, the industry has kick-tolerance calculation.
total compressibility. assumed a constant z-factor equal to 1.0
when performing gas-behavior calcula- Combined Correction
Temperature Effect. The change in tions. In this paper, a 0.6-SG hydrocar- Effects on Kick Tolerance
temperature along the wellbore will bon gas is assumed as the influx fluid. Because some effects increase the kick
affect the density and the rheology of The pseudocritical properties were cal- tolerance while others reduce it, it is
the mud, having a direct effect on the culated using Katz’s correlations. Then, important to combine all the effects to
hydrostatic gradient and the frictional the z-factor was calculated by use of identify the overall effect on kick toler-
pressure losses during circulation. Cur- Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem correla- ance. The consequences are not consis-
rently, it is assumed that the tempera- tions combined with the Newton-Raph- tent, illustrating why it is important to
ture in the openhole section is constant; son iterative method. z-factors were cal- take all effects into account. It has been
thus, no correction to the volume calcu- culated for conditions along the open argued that the overall conservative
lation is applied. The effects of tempera- hole and were used in the bottomhole nature of the single-bubble model will
ture on influx volume are described by kick-volume calculations through the eliminate any detrimental effect pro-
Charles law, which states that the vol- real-gas law. duced by simplifications. Because the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/64/01/85/2205768/spe-0112-0085-jpt.pdf by Kwabena Ansah-Sem on 08 September 2021

ume of the gas is directly proportional magnitude of each simplification and
to the absolute temperature. Contrary Influx-Density Correction. Kick-fluid conceptual error is different, the change
to the afterflow effect, the temperature density was assumed to be 1.9 lbm/gal of the final result cannot be predicted. If
correction results in a higher kick toler- and constant along the openhole sec- it is clear that a conservative approach
ance. Therefore, the conventional con- tion. Once the z-factor was calculated, is being used, the consequences might
stant-temperature assumption results in the influx density was estimated. Using be only economical, with the end result
a conservative solution. 0.6 SG for hydrocarbon gas and the being an overengineered well. Howev-
pressure, temperature, and z-factor for er, when the scenario leads to increased
z-Factor Correction. z-factor (com- the point of interest (i.e., casing shoe risk, as is the case with calculating the
pressibility factor) enables use of ideal- and bottomhole conditions), volumes at kick volume on bottom, this simplifica-
gas equations to model real-gas behav- the bottom of the well were calculated. tion should not be acceptable. JPT

Register Now!

Oil and Gas India

Conference and
Exhibition
28–30 March 2012
Mumbai, India
Further, Deeper, Tougher:
The Quest Continues...

www.spe.org/events/ogic Society of Petroleum Engineers

88 JPT • JANUARY 2012