Well-Control Operations
in Horizontal Wells
O.L.A. Santos, SPE, Petrobras
Summary. This paper analyzes well control for horizontal wells. It presents a computer model for predicting the pressure behavior
in a horizontal well during gas-kick removal and analyzes the simulation results for several field conditions. The paper also analyzes
the drillpipe-pressure schedule, the kick-tolerance concept, and the swabbing effect during tripping out of the hole.
Introduction
Horizontal drilling has quickly become one of the most successful
technologies of the oil industry. During the past 5 years, this tech-
nology has proved to be an efficient means to improve production
rates and recoveries.
The importance of this technology is also confirmed by the large
number of papers recently published on this topic. Although these
papers discuss several aspects of horizontal drilling, one topic re-
mains unexplored: well-control operations. This paper investigates
the important aspects of well control for horizontal drilling.
The first part of this paper describes a computational procedure
to predict the pressure behavior in the annulus during a gas-kick
circulation out of the well. The second part presents another com-
putational procedure for establishing the drillpipe-pressure sched-
ule to be followed by the rig personnel during the displacement of
the old mud by the kill mud. The third part discusses kick toler-
ance and its applications in horizontal wells. Finally, the paper
presents a simplified theory for the swabbing effect during trip-
ping out of the hole and demonstrates the hazards of taking a kick
during this operation.
Horizontal Wells
Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the example horizontal well. The well
comprises three sections: the vertical, buildup, and horizontal sec-
tions. The radius of curvature, r, of the 90° arc of circle is defined
by the buildup rate, Rbu:
r=5729.58IR bu · ................................... (1)
The length of the buildup section, L bu , can be calculated by the
following equation:
Lbu = 1.5708r. . ................................... (2)
In Fig. 1, the true vertical depth (TVD) is the sum of the vertical
section length and the radius of curvature, and the total measured
depth (MD) is the sum of the vertical, buildup, and horizontal
lengths. MD's can easily be converted to vertical depths, or vice
versa, with simple trigonometric relationships.
Mathematical Model for the Annular Space
This section describes a numerical procedure for modeling the pres-
sure behavior inside the annular space of a horizontal well during
gas-kick removal. With this numerical procedure in a FORTRAN
computer program, it was possible to simulate many field condi-
tions where pertinent drilling variables were varied to analyze their
effects on pressure behavior. Later in this section, the results of
the simulations are analyzed and discussed.
Assumptions and Considerations. Previous studies have shown
that if the gas-kick region is considered to be a plug or a single
bubble, then predicted wellbore pressures will be unrealistically
high. More realistic results are obtained when the gas-kick region
is modeled by a two-phase zone. This study assumes that the gas-
kick zone is a two-phase mixture of gas and water-based mud flow-
ing under unsteady-state conditions. This region was modeled by
the Beggs-Brill correlation that accounts for important two-phase
flow characteristics, such as gas slip velocity, gas channeling, gas
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
concentration distribution inside the wellbore, liquid holdup, and
two-phase friction factor.
The gas solubility in the liquid phase and the liquid compressi-
bility are considered to be negligible. The concentric annulus ge-
ometry is assumed to be constant along the wellbore path. The
displacing fluid has the same density as the drilling fluid originally
in the well (driller's method). A constant temperature gradient is
used.
Fig. 2a shows the wellbore situation just after well closure. Two
regions are seen: a single-phase region that contains uncontami-
nated mud (Region 1), and a two-phase region filled with a mix-
ture of gas and mud (Region 2). Fig. 2b shows the wellbore situation
for a certain moment of gas-kick displacement. Three regions now
exist: (1) a single-phase region where the displacing drilling fluid
flows behind the gas zone under steady-state conditions (Region
3); (2) a two-phase region where the two-phase mixture flows un-
der unsteady-state conditions (Region 2); and (3) a single-phase
region where the drilling fluid flows ahead of the gas-kick zone,
which is accelerated by gas expansion as it moves toward the sur-
face (Region 1).
The bottomhole pressure (BHP) is a boundary condition with the
same value as the pressure of the reservoir that generated the gas
influx. It is assumed to be constant during gas displacement. The
initial gas concentration distribution (see Fig. 2a) is specified by
the user.
Calculation Procedure. The pressure drop across Region 3 is given
by
J.P3=ghydraLy+gfrieLm, ............................ (3)
where the subscripts hydro = hydrostatic and fric=frictional. The
power-law rheological model! was used to calculate g frie' For this
calculation, the drilling-fluid velocity is determined by dividing the
drilling-fluid flow rate by the annulus cross-sectional area. The pres-
sure drop across Region 1 is calculated by
J.p] =ghydroLy +(gfrie +gaee)L m , ..................... (4)
where gaee' the acceleration gradient, is calculated by
gaee = (0.00 I 6)(PL) [(vic -vlp)/J.t], .................... (5)
where Vic and Vip are the velocities of the two-phase mixture at the
leading boundary at the current and previous timesteps, respe«tively.
vic is also used in Eq. 4 to calculate g fric' J.t is the timestep size.
The calculation of the pressure drop across Region 2, which is
more laborious, includes the solution of a system of three partial
differential equations, an equation of state (BOS) for the gaseous
phase, and a two-phase-flow empirical correlation.
The continuity equation for the liquid phase is
(oylot) + [o(yvL)/ox] =0 ............................. (6)
The continuity equation for the gaseous phase is
o[(1-y)p g] o[(I-y)vgPg]
----"-+ =0 ...................... (7)
at ox
III
 SURFACE
VERTICAl
SECTION
RAOUS OF
KOP CURVATURE
90·
BJILDUP
SECTION HORIZONTAL SECTION
Fig. 1-Geometry of a horizontal well.
The momentum-balance equation for a two-phase mixture is
gfrie is calculated with the Beggs-Brill2 correlation for two-phase
flow. For this calculation, the drilling-fluid viscosity is assumed
to be the mud plastic viscosity. The hydrostatic gradient is given by
ghydro =0.052[YPL +(I-y)P g] cos a . .................. (9)
The EOS for the gaseous phase is
Pg =0.361'YgpiTZ. ................................ (10)
The liquid holdup, y, can be determined with the Beggs-Brill cor-
relation. In this empirical correlation, Y is a function of the well-
bore drift angle, the fluid velocity, the conduit geometry, and such
properties as density, viscosity, and surface tension.
This system of equations constitutes a nonlinear system with five
dependent unknowns: pressure, gas and liquid velocities, gas den-
sity, and liquid holdup. With solution of this system, all five de-
pendent variables are known as functions of time and position along
the wellbore; however, solution of this set of equations is not sim-
ple. Analytical solutions are not available, and numerical solutions
require iterative processes.
~arti~ differential equations can be solved numerically by the
firute-<iIfferences method, which consists. of dividing the two-phase
region into cells and solving the finite-difference approximations
for the flow equations at their boundaries. This numerical proce-
dure has been used by several investigators 3- 5 for vertical wells.
This method was modified here for use on horizontal wells.
Fig. 3 illustrates the finite-differences scheine for a single cell
of the annulus. Point 1 represents the flow properties (gas and liq-
uid v~locities, liquid holdup, pressure, and gas density) at the previ-
ous tunestep at the upstream boundary. Point 2 refers to the flow
pr~perties at the previous timestep at the downstream boundary.
Pomt 3 represents the flow properties at the current or new timestep
at the upstream boundary. The flow properties are known at Points
1,2, and 3. The finite-difference approximations are used to com-
pute the flow properties at Point 4. The following finite-difference
approximations were used for the flow equations in this paper.
For the continuity equation for the liquid phase,
(l-Fw)[(vLY)z -(vLy)d+Fw[(vLY)4 -(vLYh]
+(axl2.:it)(Y3 +Y4 -Yl -Y2 =0 ................... (11)
112
WELL CLOSED MJD DISPLACING
GAS
REGION 1
(ONE·PHASE)
REGION 1
(ONE.PHASE)
<>-- LEADING EDGE
TRAiLING EDGE
REGION 2
(TWO·PHASE) I REGION 3 (ONE·PHASE)
REGION 2
rriiir
NTlAL GAS
(TWO·PHASE) MUD DISPLACES THE
GAS IN THE ANNULUS
CONCENTRATION
m E£ SPECIFIED
a b
Fig. 2-Reglons used In annulus mathematical model.
For the continuity equation for the gaseous phase,
(l-Fw){[vg(l-y)pgh -[vg(l-y)pg]d +Fw{[vg(l-Y)P g]4
- [vg<l-Y)P gh} +(axI2.:it){[(I-y)p gh +[(I-Y)P g]4
-[(l-y)pgh - [(I-Y)P gh} =0 .................. (12)
For the momentum-balance equation for the two-phase mixture,
(0.OOI6/2ax){[vl(1-y)p gh + [vl(l-Y)P g]4
-[vl(1-y)p gh -[vl(l-y)pgh +(vL 2YPLh
+(vL 2YPL )4 -(vL 2yPL ) 1 -(VL 2YPL h}
+ (0.001 6/2.:it){[Vg (1-y)p gh +[vg (1-Y)Pg]4
-[vg(l-Y)Pgh -[vg (1-y)p gh + (vLYPLh + (vLYPL)4
-(VLYPLh -(VLYPLh} + [(P3 -P4)/ax]
+0.25(gl +g2+g3+g4)fric
+0.25(gl +g2 +g3 +g4)hydro=0, ................ (13)
where F w = time weighting factor for the continuity equations. For
fully implicit approximations, F w = 1.0. For centered-in-time ap-
proximations, F w =0.5. The fully implicit formulation (Fw = 1.0)
was used in this paper because it yielded more stable solutions. For
the momentum-balance equation, centered-in-time and centered-in-
distance approximations were used. ax is the cell length (user spec-
ified). All cells have the same length, except for the deepest cell,
which is shorter (as will be shown later) . .:it is the timestep size.
Because of the nonlinear nature of the flow equations, solution
of the. system requires use of an iterative process. The following
stepWIse procedure can be used to solve the system.
1. Estimate the pressure at Point 4, P4'
2. Use P4 to calculate gas density, Pg4 (Eq. 10).
3. Estimate liquid holdup at Point 4, Y4'
4. Calculate the liquid and gas velocities with Eqs. 11 and 12,
respectively.
. 5 .. With the gas and liquid properties, gas and liquid velocities,
liqUId holdup from Step 3, and wellbore drift angle, use the Beggs-
Brill correlation to calculate Y4' Compare this value and the esti-
mated value from Step 3. If they are sufficiently close, go to Step
6. If not, re-estimate Y4 and repeat the process from Step 3 until
convergence on liquid holdup is reached.
6. Calculate P4 with Eq. 13. Compare this value and the esti-
mated value from Step 1. If they are sufficiently close, stop the
process. If not, re-estimate pressure and repeat the process from
Step 1 until convergence on pressure is reached.
The procedure is repeated for the adjacent downstream cell (the
calculated flow properties at Point 4 of the previous cell are re-
placed with the flow properties at Point 3). The calculations pro-
ceed until the flow properties at all cell boundaries are determined.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991
 ATMOSPt£RE
------t> ~

MJD
-
...J
f--
<J
0KNONN
8
UNKl\OWN
r--
...J 0
'------

...J ...J
W
U
0
Z .!. W
u
Z
ii: REGION 1
x ii: I- W x
<l (f) I- W
(f) (f) :::!: <l
::> en =>
:2: ...J i=
...J
::> ...J r= ::>
z -.J
...J I-
z ...J
a:: KNOWN KNOWN z cr0 « CASING
~ 0 !;i <t SHOE
I------ - 8 0 - I---

r
REGION 3

r r FLOW I FLOW
BOTTOM
HOLE

Fig. 3-Flnlte-dlfference scheme for annulus cell. Fig. 4-Sltuatlon of flow regions at certain displacement time.

The total pressure drop across Region 2, /lp2' is the difference be-
tween the pressures at the trailing and leading boundaries of the
two-phase region.
Global Calculation Procedure. A global calculation procedure was
developed to determine the pressure behavior at any point of the
annulus as a function of time. Fig. 4 shows that for a given time,
this procedure basically computes the pressure losses (as described
earlier) up to the point of interest and subtracts them from the BHP.
A timestep is taken, and the pressure calculations are repeated for
this new time. The calculations proceed until the gas kick is circu-
lated out from the wellbore. Thus, a pressure curve at the point
of interest is generated as a function of time. These points of in-
terest normally are the surface (choke) and the casing shoe.
The following stepwise procedure can be used to calculate the
choke pressure behavior.
1. Calculate the timestep size by dividing the cell length by the
gas velocity, vg 4, at the leading edge of the two-phase region. Find
the leading-edge position of the two-phase region. Determine the
current time by adding the timestep size to the previous time.
2. Determine the trailing-edge position ofthe two-phase region.
Multiply the drilling-fluid velocity in Region 3 by the timestep size
to fmd the trailing-edge advance in this timestep. Subtract this value
from the trailing-edge position for the old time to find its new po-
sition. With this position and mud velocity, calculate the pressure
drop across Region 3 with Eq. 3.
3. Find the pressure drop across Region 2 with the calculation
procedure just presented for that region.
4. Determine the mud velocity in Region I, which is equal to
the mixture velocity, vM4' at the leading edge of Region 2.
VM4 =vW4 +v g4(I-Y4)' .......................... (14)
Use Eq. 4 to find the pressure drop across Region 1.
5. Find the choke pressure by subtracting the sum of the pres-
sure losses from the BHP.
At this point, two important aspects should be noted: (1) the length
of Region 2 increases as it moves toward the surface because the
leading edge moves faster than the trailing edge; consequently, the
number of cells also increases in that region; and (2) because the
trailing edge of the two-phase region does not coincide with a cell
boundary (see Fig. 4), the length of the deepest cell is shorter than
those of the others.
Simulation Results. This numerical procedure was used in a FOR-
TRAN computer program to simulate the pressure behavior inside
a horizontal well during gas-kick removal. The simulations have
been useful in determining the main differences between well-control
operations for horizontal and vertical wells and in studying the ef-
fects of drilling variables on pressure behavior.
Fig. 5 compares the choke pressures of a typical horizontal well
(its characteristics are listed in Table 1) with those of two vertical
wells. One vertical well has the same TVD as the horizontal well
(i.e., 3,246 ft) and a shut-in casing pressure (SICP) of 330 psi.
The other vertical well has the same total MD as the horizontal
one (i.e., 5,400 ft) and an SICP of 320 psi. The other well charac-
teristics are similar to those listed in Table 1.
Note that for horizontal wells, the shut-in drillpipe pressure
(SIDPP) is equal to the SICP, if the gas remains in the horizontal
section during the pressure readings. For the horizontal well situa-
tion, both shut-in pressures were 200 psi. For the two vertical wells,
the SICP's were 330 and 320 psi and the SIDPP's were both 200
psi. Note also in Fig. 5 that for the horizontal well, the choke pres-
sure remained almost constant at a value close to SICP for a period
longer than those for vertical wells.
Fig. 6 shows the pressure curves at the casing shoe (at 2,100
ft) for three wells. Note that the horizontal well yielded the lowest

800.-------------------.------------------. 1400.------------------,------------------~
.........., HORIZONTAL
_ _ VERTICAL (SAME VE ICAl DEPTH)
_ VERTICAL (SAME M SURED DEPIH)
~

Vi
~600+---------------~~~----------------~ W1300~~~--------~--~------------------~
0::
w :J
rY V1
:J V1
V1
w
V1
0::
W400+-----~~~~~----~--~~----------~ Q.1200+---~c.~--------_1~----------------~
rY w
Q. o
w :r:
V1
::<:
o
3200t-mm~__=-----------~RR~~~r-~~~~ ~1100+-------~~~~~~~~~~~~------~
Vi
«
<.J """"" HORIZONTAL
............ VERTICAL (SAME VERTICAL DEPTH)
~ VERTICAL (SAME MEASURED DEPIH)

40 80 40 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES) DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 5-Choke pressure for typical horizontal well and two ver- Fig. 6-Caslng-shoe pressure for typical horizontal well and
tical wells. two vertical wells.

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991 113

 TABLE 1-TYPICAL HORIZONTAL WELL
600,------------r--~------_.------------,
FOR ANNULUS MODEL

TVD, ft 3,246
Total MD, ft 5,400
Casing-shoe depth, ft 2,100
Horizontal-section length, ft 1,500 W400T--------.r--H~~--~._~----------~
0::
Buildup rate, degrees/100 ft 5 ::>
(f)
Wellbore diameter, in. 8.5 (f)

Drillstring 00, in. w

5 0::
CL
Mud density, Ibm/gal 9
Flow behavior index 0.9 w
6200;.. .~~~~-r--------~_i~~~----__l
Consistency index, Ibf-sec n /ft2 0.0003 I
Plastic viscosity, cp 15 u
Surface tension, dynes/cm 70 '*""'" HOR. LENGTH = 1500 FT.
Gas density, Ibm/gal 0.7 ~ HOR LENGTH = 2700 FT

Mud flow rate (for kick dispersion), gal/min 150

SIDPP,psi 200 0+0~~~~~nT4HO~~~~~~8~0~~~~~~,2C
SICP, psi 200 DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)
Pit gain, bbl 15.5
Initial gas fraction, % 75
Cell length, ft 150 Fig. 7-Effect of horizontal-section length on choke pressure.

casing-shoe pressure. For the simulated conditions, it can be con-
cluded that for the underground fracturing at casing-shoe standpoint,
horizontal-well conditions are the least severe.
Figs. 7 through 12 show the effects of different drilling varia-
bles on the pressure behavior. Fig. 7 shows the effect of horizontal-
section length on the choke pressure. It compares a typical well,
which has a horizontal section of 1,500 ft, with a well with a 2, 700-ft
horizontal section. All other characteristics are identical on both
wells. The horizontal-section length has little effect on the choke-
pressure behavior.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of buildup rate on choke pressure. Two
wells, one with a buildup rate of Is o /100ft and casing shoe at 2,864
ft and another with a buildup rate of 30.5° /100 ft and casing shoe
at 3,054 ft, were compared with a typical well. According to the
simulations, buildup rate has little effect on the pressure behavior
inside the wellbore.
Fig. 9 shows the choke pressure behavior for a well with an an-
nulus cross-sectional area smaller than that of the typical well. The
wellbore diameter was 4.887 in. and the drillstring 00 was 2.875
in. As expected, the smaller geometry yielded a lower displace-
ment time and a higher choke pressure. Thus, washouts increase
displacement time and decrease choke pressure.
Fig. 10 shows the choke-pressure response to different displace-
ment flow rates. Higher flow rates increase the choke pressure and
decrease the displacement time. Both effects are moderate.
Fig. 11 shows the effect of the kick size on the choke pressure.
As expected, bigger kicks cause higher choke pressures. The kick
size showed a major effect on the choke-pressure magnitude.
Another variable that affected choke-pressure behavior was the
mud density at the time of gas influx. Fig. 12 compares two wells
with different mud densities. For both wells, the formation pres-
sure was 1,900 psi. In one situation, the mud density was 10 Ibm/gal
and the pressure differential (formation -wellbore) was 380 psi.
In the other case, the mud density was 9 Ibm/gal and the pressure
differential was 210 psi. As can be seen, larger pressure differen-
tials at the time of the gas kick result in higher choke pressures.
Mathematical Model for the Drlll.tring
This section presents a simpler mathematical model for calculat-
ing the drillpipe-pressure schedule while kill mud is pumped to the
bit.
Fig. 13 is a schematic of the drillstring conditions for a certain
pumping time. It is useful in the derivation of a mathematical ex-
pression for the drillpipe pressure, Pdp' as a function of pumping
time.
Pdp =Pbh -Pbit - ghydro,aLvo +gfric,aLmo -ghydro,tLVk
+gfric,kLmk' .................................. (15)
where the subscripts 0 and k refer to the old and kill muds, respec-
tively. P bh is the BHP, which is constant and equal to the pressure
of the formation that generated the kick. Pbit is calculated with the
following expression 1 :
Pbit=( PLq 2/IO,859A2) . ........................... (16)

600.---------,-------_.---------,--------, 800,--------,,--------.--------,---------.

- WELL ORE OF 8.5 IN

~500+_--------r_--~~HIT~------~------~ ......... WELL ORE OF 4.887 I
C'
Vi (f)
CL ~600+---~~r-r--------+--------~------~

w400+_--------r_~~--_+~~~--~------~ w
0:: 0::
::> ::>
(f) (f)
(f)
~300~------~~~----_+----~~~------~ ~400T---~---Tr---~---+----~--~------~
0::
CL CL
W w
6200~~~jF~r-------_t--------~~~. .~ ~
o
I
u ~200ts~mm~~R_------_t--------_r--~~__1

20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES) DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 8-Effect of buildup rate on choke pressure. Fig. 9-Effect of wellbore geometry on choke pressure.

114 SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991

 6oo.---------.--------.---------,--------, 700
,........, MUD FLOW RATE = 150 GPM
~ MUD FLOW RATE = 100 GPM
~5004-------~~----~~~~M~U~D~F~L~OW~R~~~E~=~19~0~G~P~M~~ 600
~

Vi Vi
~ (L
~500
w4004_----~~~~~--_4--------~--------~ w
a::: ~
:::J
(!) ~ 400
~3004_--~~--~*_~--~r_------~--------~
(!)
w
~ ~
(L (L 300
w
~

§! 200
U
1004_--------~------_4---------+--------~
100

O~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~~~~~~ 0
o 40 80 120 160 0 20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES) DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 10-Effect of mud flow rate on choke pressure. Fig. 11-Effect of kick size on choke pressure.

The position of the interface between muds can easily be found
by mUltiplying the mud velocity inside the drillpipe by the pump-
ing time.
This method was also used in a computer program. Fig. 14 shows
the computer simulation results for the horizontal well described
in Table 2. The figure shows pumping pressure as a function of
pumping time (drillpipe-pressure schedule), and compares this
horizontal well with a vertical well with the same MD (6,300 ft).
It is easy to recognize that well-c;ontrol operations are harder to
implement on horizontal wells. For vertical wells, the calculations
are very simple because the drillpipe-pressure schedule is a straight
line. For horizontal wells, however, the drillpipe-pressure sched-
ule is a computer-generated curve because hand calculations are
lengthy and tedious. Note that the drillpipe curve for a horizontal
well has a minimum value before the kill mud reaches the drill bit.
Other Considerations
This section presents two important aspects of well control in
horizontal wells.
where Pfrac = fracture equivalent density. For a horizontal well, the
gas-kick vertical length is practically zero if the gas kick remains
in the horizontal section of the wellbore. Consequently, the sec-
ond term of the right side of Eq. 17 vanishes. Thus, the kick-
tolerance equation yields greater values for horizontal wells than
for vertical wells. This implies that horizontal wells have a greater
ability (tolerance) to take a kick safely without fracturing the weakest
formation at the moment of the well closure.
Swabbing. Tripping out of the hole is more critical in horizontal
wells than in vertical wells because the pore or formation pressure
does not change over the length of the horizontal section. During
tripping out of the hole, however, the pressure drop caused by swab-
bing is a function of the measured length of the drillstring.
To demonstrate numerically the effect of swabbing on a horizontal
well, a steady-state approximation for the pressure drop caused by
the swabbing action was used.

Kick Tolerance. Kick tolerance for a gas-kick containment after

the well closure is the difference between the maximum allowable
formation pressure (in terms of equivalent density) against which
the well could be closed without fracturing the weakest formation
and the mud density in use. The mathematical expression for the
kick tolerance for containment in a vertical well is
where vout =drillpipe withdrawal velocity. This equation was used
for the conditions listed in Table 3. Table 4 and Fig. 15 show the
calculation results for the BHP as a function of horizontal section
length. Fig. 15 also shows the pore pressure at TVD. It can be seen
in Fig. 15 that for wells with horizontal-section lengths greater than
about 2,100 ft, the formation would produce when pulling of the
drillstring from the bottom of the hole begins.

800.---------,--------.---------,--------,
""'*'" MUD DENSITY = 9 LB/GAL
..........., MUD DENSITY = 10 LB/GAL
700+---------~------~._-------+------~
~

Vi
~600f_--------~--~~~--~~--1-------~
w
~ KIL L MUD
~500+---------~~--F--+--~---4~------~ MEASURED LENGTH
(!) KILL MUD
w VERTICAL
~ ...J
...J
(L400~~~~~t_~F---~------~_r--~~~ LENGTH
w ~
~
~300~--------+7~-----1--------~~----~
u OLD MUD
INTERFACE MEASURED LENGTH
200~~~~--~-------+--------~--~~~
BIT
OLD MUD
VERTICAL LENGTH OLD MUD BHP
20 40 60 80
DISPLACEMENT TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 12-Effect of pressure differential on choke pressure. Fig. 13-Schematlc of drlllstring model.

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991 115

 900 1940-:r-----,-----y-----,------,

Vi 800 ~ - HORIZONTAL WELL

--... VERTICALWELL 1920~
~ BonOMHO E

\~
~
~ESSURE
w
1900 .i-----l---=::"."."-----··+--~F=O=fS±~A"""TI""O.,.,N---I
IX
~ 700
/'-.. I Vi
~ -......-. PREc SURE

~ ~ I
C/)
w W ""'-
IX CS 18BO~---_+----t__.::::,.,.,,~--I-----I
CL
<..? 600
z .".
J
~
g: 1860.i------I-----+-----I-....:::,."<:~:----I
""'-~
0::
i
::;; i
I
:::>
CL 500 1840.}.-----+----+-----I-----I
!I
:!
,
400
o 10 20
, 1000 2000 3000 4000
PUMPING TIME (MINUTES) HORIZONTAL SECTION LENGTH (FEET)

Fig. 14-Slmulatlon results for drlllstring model. Fig. 15-Swabblng effect on BHP In a horizontal well.

Conclusions Nomenclature
1. For horizontal wells, SIDPP and SICP are roughly equal. Fur- A = bit jet area, in. 2 [cm 2]
thermore, it was found that the choke pressure in horizontal wells d = diameter, in. [cm]
remains constant and at a value close to SICP for a longer period Ds = casing-shoe depth, ft [m]
than it does in vertical wells during kick circulation. Also, the simu- D Vt = TVD, ft [m]
lations showed that pressures at casing shoe in horizontal wells are F w = weighting factor
lower than those in vertical wells. g = pressure gradient, psi/ft [kPalm]
2. The length of the horizontal section and the buildup rate have K = kick tolerance, lbm/gal [kg/m3]
minor effects on the pressure behavior inside horizontal wells. The Lbu = buildup length, ft [m]
wellbore geometry and the mud flow rate have moderate effects, Lds = drillstring length, ft [m]
and the kick size and the pressure differential have major effects. Lm = measured length, ft [m]
3. Well-control operations are harder to implement for horizon- Lv = vertical length, ft [m]
tal wells because of the complicated shape of the drillpipe pressure p = pressure, psi [kPa]
as a function of time. For vertical wells, this function is a straight !:.p = pressure drop, psi [kPa]
line. q = mud flow rate, gal/min [m 3 /min]
4. Horizontal wells have a greater tolerance than vertical wells
r = radius of curvature, ft [m]
to take a-kick without fracturing the weakest formation at the mo-
Rbu = buildup rate, degreesllOO ft [rad/m]
ment of well closure.
f = time, seconds
5. Tripping out of the hole is more critical in horizontal wells
flf = timestep size, seconds
than in vertical wells.
T = temperature, OF [0C]
v = velocity, ft/sec [m/s]
TABLE 2-TYPICAL HORIZONTAL WELL x = position, ft [m]
FOR DRILLSTRING MODEL
y = liquid holdup
Y = yield point, Ibf/l00 ft2
TVD,ft 3,146
Z = compressibility factor, dimensionless
Total MD, ft 6,300
Horizontal-section length, ft 2,500 a = drift angle, degr~s
Buildup rate, degrees/100 ft 5 'Y g = gas specific gravity
Drillstring ID, in. 3.826 po = plastic viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
Mud density, Ibm/gal 10 p = density, lbm/gal [kg/m3]
Flow behavior index 0.9
Consistency index, Ibf-sec n /ft2 0.0002
Mud flow rate, gal/min 200 Subscripts
Area of bit nozzles, in.2 0.2784 bh = bottomhole
SIDPP, psi 300 c = current
dp = drillpipe

TABLE 3-WELL CONDITIONS FOR TABLE 4-BHP REDUCTION OWING TO SWABBING

SWABBING·EFFECT STUDY

Drillstring OD, in. 5 Horizontal

Well bore diameter, in. 8.5 Section MD Ap BHP
Withdrawal velocity, ftlsec 2
Plastic viscosity, cp 40
(ft) ~ (psi) (psi)
Yield point, Ibf/100 ft2 0 5,000 104.1 1,929.8
Vertical-section length, ft 3,200 1,000 6,000 124.9 1,909.0
Buildup-section length, ft 1,800 2,000 7,000 145.7 1,888.2
TVD,ft 4,346 3,000 8.000 166.6 1,867.3
Mud density, Ibm/gal 9.0 4,000 9,000 187.4 1,846.5
Formation equivalent density, Ibm/gal 8.35

116 SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991

 g= gas Author
k= kill
kc = kiek Otto Lulz A. Sant08 Is head of
1= leading Petrobr8s Training Center's drilling see-
L= liquid tlon In Brazil. He holds a BS degree In
M= mixture civil engineering from Bahia Federal U.,
and an MS degree from the Colorado
0= old
School of Mines and a PhD degree from
p= pressure Louisiana State U., both In petroleum en-
w= wellbore gineering.

Acknowledgment
I thank Petr6leo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobnis for permission to pub-
lish this paper.

References cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's

dynes/em x 1.0* E+OO mN/m
I. Craft, B.C., Holden, W.R., and Graves, E.D.: "Well Design: Drilling ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
and Production," Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1962).
2. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 m2
Pipes," JPT (May 1973) 607-17; Trans., AIME, 255. gal x 3.785412 E-03 m3
3. Nickens, H.Y.: "A Dynamic Computer Model of a Kicking Well," in. x 2.54* E+OO em
. 2 x
m. em 2
SPEDE (June 1987) 159-73; Trans., AIME, 283. 6.4516* E+OO
4. Starrett, M.P., Hill, A.D., and Sepehmoori, K.: "A Shallow-Gas-Kick lbf x 4.448222 E+OO N
Simulator Including Diverter Performance," SPEDE (March 1990) Ibm/gal x 1.198264 E+02 kg/m3
79-85. psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
5. Santos, O.L.: "A Dynamic Model of Diverter Operations for Handling
Shallow Gas Hazard in Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling, " PhD disser-
tation, Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge (1989). 'Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. t4, 1990. Paper accepted for publica·
51 Metric Conversion Factors tion AprilS, 1991. Revised manuscript received March 25,1991. Paper (SPE 21105) first
presented at the 1990 SPE Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference held In Rio
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol de Janeiro, Oct. 14-19.

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991 117