Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Well kill

A well kill is a procedure in oil and gas drilling operations used to stop the flow of reservoir fluids into the wellbore or prevent the well from having the ability to flow, typically by circulating out influxes and pumping higher-density drilling fluid to restore hydrostatic balance over formation pressure. This process is essential for maintaining primary well control and responding to kicks, where formation pressure exceeds the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid, potentially leading to blowouts if not addressed. Well kills are performed during drilling, completion, or workover activities, and in emergency scenarios involving producing wells or blowouts, ensuring personnel safety, equipment integrity, and environmental protection. The standard well kill procedure involves shutting in the well using blowout preventers (BOPs), recording and casing pressures, and then circulating kill fluid at a controlled rate while adjusting the manifold to maintain bottom-hole and achieve zero . Key preparatory steps include calculating the required kill mud density—typically using the formula incorporating original mud density, true vertical depth, and —to ensure the hydrostatic head exceeds formation without fracturing the wellbore. Immediate actions upon detecting a , such as stopping the pumps and closing the BOPs, are critical to minimize influx volume and facilitate safe circulation. Common methods for well killing include the Driller's Method, which circulates the influx out using the original mud density while holding constant , followed by a second circulation with weighted kill mud; the Wait and Weight Method, which weights up the mud in the pits beforehand and circulates the kill mud in a single operation while maintaining constant bottom-hole ; and the Concurrent Method, which simultaneously circulates and weights up the fluid for efficiency in certain scenarios. Non-circulation techniques, such as bullheading (pumping kill fluid directly into the formation) or lubricate-and-bleed (alternating small volumes of kill mud with pressure bleeding to displace gas), are employed when full circulation is not feasible, such as in plugged pipes or high- surface conditions. These methods adhere to industry standards like API RP 59, emphasizing monitoring, fluid density adjustments, and contingency planning to mitigate risks.

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

A well kill is the process of regaining control over a flowing or gas well by introducing a kill fluid, typically a weighted mud of increased , into the wellbore to restore hydrostatic and overbalance the formation , thereby ceasing the influx of fluids such as , gas, or water. This procedure involves pumping the kill fluid to counteract the underbalanced condition that allows formation fluids to enter the wellbore, effectively stopping uncontrolled flow without causing further complications. The primary purpose of a well kill is to re-establish primary during a —an influx of formation fluids—ensuring the safety of personnel, equipment, and the environment across various operational phases, including , , and production. It facilitates safe preparation for subsequent activities such as workovers or well abandonment by confining well fluids and preventing escalation of the incident. In essence, well kills maintain bottom-hole pressure equilibrium to mitigate hazards, with brief reliance on concepts like hydrostatic overbalance to achieve this without detailed pressure mechanics. Failure to perform a well kill promptly can lead to severe risks, including escalation to blowouts, where uncontrolled releases cause fires, explosions, or surface broaching; formation damage from high-pressure influxes; and equipment failure due to excessive pressures. Such incidents also pose threats of environmental damage through spills of hydrocarbons and potential from associated hazards like struck-by incidents or crashes in chaotic conditions. Under Recommended Practice 59, well kills are required as part of operations for any detected , which represents an influx exceeding safe hydrostatic limits, to prevent s and ensure operational integrity.

Historical Overview

The development of well kill techniques began with early challenges in controlling uncontrolled well flows during the nascent . The 1901 in marked one of the first major documented well control incidents, where the well gushed uncontrollably for nine days, releasing an estimated 900,000 barrels of oil (approximately 100,000 barrels per day) before it could be capped. This event highlighted the absence of effective pressure management tools, prompting initial experiments with -based methods in the and . fluids, commonly referred to as , were first introduced around 1913 specifically for subsurface pressure control to prevent influxes during rotary . By the , the addition of weighting agents like barite to these fluids enabled better hydrostatic balance, laying the groundwork for rudimentary kill operations. Mid-20th-century advancements formalized these practices amid growing offshore exploration in the . The introduction of blowout preventers (BOPs) in 1922 by James S. Abercrombie and Harry S. Cameron provided a mechanical means to seal the wellbore, reducing the reliance on ad hoc applications during s. Following , incidents in the during the 1940s expansion of underscored the need for specialized kill s, leading to the widespread adoption of mud engineers by the mid-1940s to optimize fluid properties for pressure equalization and well stabilization. This era saw the evolution of kill formulations with precise density control to overbalance formation pressures safely. In the 1960s, the (API) issued Bulletin D13 in 1966, establishing early standardized guidelines for BOP installation and procedures, including kill usage, which influenced industry practices globally. The 1979 Ixtoc I blowout in Mexico's exemplified the limitations of early well control techniques, prolonging the spill for nearly 10 months until relief wells succeeded. The modern era accelerated innovations following the 2010 disaster in the , which killed 11 workers and released over 4 million barrels of oil, prompting enhanced regulatory scrutiny and advanced modeling of fluid circulation and pressure responses. This event also solidified protocols as a primary contingency, with two relief wells drilled to intersect and cement the well. In the 2020s, focus has shifted to automation and real-time monitoring systems, such as managed pressure drilling technologies that detect influxes and automate shut-in responses, improving kill efficiency and reducing human error in complex environments.

Principles

Pressure Dynamics

In well control operations, hydrostatic represents the static downward force exerted by the column of within the wellbore, which acts to counterbalance subsurface formation pressures. This is calculated using the P_{\text{hydro}} = \rho \cdot g \cdot h, where \rho is the fluid density, g is the (approximately 9.81 m/s²), and h is the of the wellbore. Maintaining adequate hydrostatic is essential to prevent uncontrolled fluid influx from the formation, as it provides the primary barrier against fluids entering the well. Formation , also known as , is the of fluids within the of the rock, which can drive an influx into the wellbore if not properly overbalanced. This typically arises from geological processes and can vary, with abnormal values often ranging from 0.8 to 1 / in overpressured zones. The goal of is to achieve overbalance, where the hydrostatic from the kill fluid exceeds the formation , thereby stabilizing the well and halting any influx. Failure to maintain this overbalance results in a , defined as an unintended entry of formation fluids due to borehole falling below . Shut-in pressures serve as critical indicators of underbalance during assessments. drill pipe (SIDPP) measures the difference between the true formation and the hydrostatic in the , providing a direct gauge of the influx magnitude; it is given by formation minus hydrostatic . casing (SICP), observed on the annular side, reflects the combined effects of formation , hydrostatic contributions, and any gas migration, often exceeding SIDPP due to these factors. These pressures stabilize after closing the , allowing operators to quantify the imbalance before initiating corrective measures. Pressure conditions in a well transition between dynamic and static states, particularly during operational activities like tripping. In static conditions, pressures equilibrate with no fluid movement, relying solely on hydrostatic balance to contain formation fluids. Dynamic conditions arise during movement, where pressures—increased bottomhole pressure from running downward—can exceed formation gradients, risking losses, while swab pressures—reduced bottomhole pressure from pulling upward—can drop below pressure, inducing influxes. These swab and effects during tripping highlight the need to manage transient pressure fluctuations to prevent events, as high tripping speeds amplify pressure variations.

Fluid Mechanics

Kill fluids, essential for restoring hydrostatic balance during well control operations, exhibit specific rheological properties that ensure effective pressure management and operational stability. Density, typically expressed in pounds per gallon (ppg) or specific gravity (sg), is the primary property governing hydrostatic control, as it directly determines the fluid column's ability to counteract formation pressures and prevent further influx. Plastic viscosity, representing the resistance to flow under shear, and apparent viscosity, which accounts for non-Newtonian behavior, are critical for minimizing pressure surges during circulation and facilitating controlled influx displacement. Gel strength measures the fluid's thixotropic nature, allowing it to suspend cuttings and weighting agents when static, while yield point quantifies the stress required to initiate flow, aiding in hole cleaning by promoting solids transport without excessive torque. These properties collectively enable kill fluids to maintain well integrity, with optimal values—such as yield points around 10-20 lb/100 ft²—balancing suspension and pumpability. Influx fluids introduced during kicks complicate well control due to their distinct physical characteristics, influencing detection and migration dynamics. Gas solubility in the drilling fluid, particularly high in oil-based muds, can delay surface detection by dissolving into the liquid phase, reducing pit volume gains and masking early kick indicators. Oil viscosity from hydrocarbon influxes increases the overall fluid resistance, potentially exacerbating migration rates under differential pressures, while water cut—the proportion of water in the influx—alters emulsion stability and can lead to faster gas breakout in water-based systems, aiding but complicating real-time monitoring. These factors necessitate rapid assessment of influx composition to adjust kill strategies, as high-solubility gases may require extended circulation to fully remove dissolved components. In the annular space during well killing, flow regimes significantly affect pressure profiles and fluid performance. Laminar flow predominates at lower velocities, providing predictable friction but limited hole cleaning, whereas turbulent flow, induced by higher pump rates, enhances solids removal through increased shear but elevates friction losses. These losses, arising from viscous drag along the wellbore walls, contribute to the equivalent circulating density (ECD), which exceeds static density and must be managed to avoid formation fracturing. Transitioning between regimes requires rheological tuning to optimize ECD without compromising control. A key challenge in kill muds is barite sag, where weighting particles settle, causing localized density variations that undermine hydrostatic balance and risk well control incidents. This phenomenon is exacerbated in deviated wells and high-temperature environments, leading to potential stuck pipe or influx recurrence. Mitigation involves incorporating polymers, such as or , which enhance suspension through increased yield point and , stabilizing the fluid without significantly raising . Studies demonstrate that polymer-treated muds can reduce sag factors to below 0.53, ensuring uniform density distribution during static and dynamic conditions.

Calculations

Kill Mud Weight Determination

Kill mud weight (KMW) determination is a critical initial step in well control operations following a kick, aimed at calculating the density required to restore overbalance and balance formation pressure at the bottomhole. This calculation uses the drill pipe pressure (SIDPP), which reflects the underbalance condition, along with the original mud weight (OMW) and (TVD). The standard formula for KMW in pounds per gallon (ppg) is given by: \text{KMW} = \text{OMW} + \frac{\text{SIDPP}}{0.052 \times \text{TVD}} where SIDPP is in pounds per square inch (psi), TVD is in feet, and the factor 0.052 converts the pressure gradient to equivalent mud weight in ppg. Once the base KMW is computed, adjustments are applied to account for operational uncertainties, including the addition of a safety margin typically ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 ppg to ensure sufficient overbalance against potential pressure fluctuations. Additionally, the final KMW must respect maximum density limits to prevent formation fracturing and mud losses, often kept below 18 ppg depending on the fracture gradient at the casing shoe. Rounding up the calculated value to the nearest 0.1 or 0.2 ppg is a common practice to incorporate this margin and facilitate mixing. For illustration, consider a scenario with an OMW of 10 ppg, SIDPP of 500 , and TVD of 10,000 . Substituting into the yields: \text{KMW} = 10 + \frac{500}{0.052 \times 10,000} = 10 + \frac{500}{520} \approx 10 + 0.96 = 10.96 \text{ ppg} This value would then be rounded up, say to 11.2 ppg, incorporating a margin. In gas kicks, where influx migration can complicate pressure readings, SICP may be used for conservative KMW estimates if SIDPP is unavailable or unreliable due to gas migration effects.

Circulation Parameters

Circulation parameters are essential computations in well kill operations, determining the volumes, rates, and durations needed to circulate kill fluids through the wellbore while maintaining well integrity. These parameters rely on the predetermined kill mud weight as an input to ensure the fluid density supports pressure balance during circulation. Key calculations include volumes for the drill string and annulus, pump outputs, and flow rates optimized to prevent exceeding equivalent circulating density (ECD) limits that could fracture the formation. The total pump strokes required for a complete circulation of kill fluid are given by the formula: \text{Total strokes} = \frac{\text{Annular volume} + \text{Drill string volume}}{\text{Pump output factor}} where volumes are in barrels () and the pump output factor is in /stroke, typically accounting for pump efficiency. This ensures the kill fluid displaces the original and influx throughout the system. The pump rate, expressed in barrels per minute (bpm), is selected conservatively—often as the slow circulating rate (SCR)—to limit ECD below the formation's fracture gradient, thereby avoiding lost circulation while achieving effective influx removal. Kill volume is calculated to provide sufficient for full circulation, commonly as 1.5 times the sum of the volume and 80% of the casing capacity, incorporating a safety margin for surface lines and potential losses. The circulating time is then estimated as: \text{Circulating time} = \frac{\text{Kill volume}}{\text{Pump rate}} This provides the duration in minutes or hours for the kill operation, aiding in planning rig time and . In high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) wells, safety factors are added to the kill volume and time estimates to account for and gas effects, which can alter effective volumes under elevated conditions. To ensure adequate hole cleaning during kill circulation, annular velocity is computed using: \text{Annular velocity} = \frac{\text{Pump rate} \times 24.5}{D_h^2 - D_p^2} where pump rate is in gallons per minute (gpm), D_h is the hole diameter in inches, and D_p is the pipe outer diameter in inches, yielding velocity in feet per minute (ft/min). This parameter helps verify that cuttings and influx are transported effectively without excessive ECD buildup. Pressure monitoring during these circulations confirms the operation stays within safe limits, as detailed in pressure dynamics principles.

Primary Methods

Forward Circulation

Forward circulation is a primary technique in well control operations used to regain hydrostatic balance in a well experiencing an influx or kick by pumping kill mud downward through the and upward through the annulus to displace the lighter influx fluids. This method requires the (BOP) to remain closed to contain wellbore pressures during the process, ensuring safe circulation while monitoring for any pressure anomalies. The procedure begins with shutting in the well to stabilize pressures and assess the influx volume. Kill mud weight (KMW) is then calculated based on shut-in pressures to provide sufficient hydrostatic head to overbalance the formation. Kill mud is pumped down the at a controlled rate, typically 20-40 strokes per minute () depending on bit nozzle sizes and frictional losses, while the is adjusted to maintain constant bottomhole pressure. The influx is circulated out through the annulus returns, with pressures monitored to ensure stability until the well is fully killed and hydrostatic control is restored. Variants of forward circulation include the Driller's method, which first circulates the original mud to remove the influx before introducing kill mud, and the Wait-and-Weight method, which pumps kill mud immediately upon starting circulation; detailed procedures for these are covered in specific applications. This technique leverages existing rig mud pumps for efficient operation and is particularly effective for low-volume kicks where full displacement is feasible without excessive volumes. However, it carries risks such as potential washouts or hole enlargement in weak formations due to elevated annular velocities and pressures during circulation.

Reverse Circulation

Reverse circulation is a well kill in which kill weight mud is pumped down the annulus and returns to the surface through the , entering the wellbore at an open bit, circulating valve, or similar tool at the bottomhole assembly. This approach is particularly suitable for high-pressure scenarios where conventional forward circulation might impose excessive bottomhole , risking formation . The procedure begins by aligning the rig's pumps and manifolds to direct flow into the annulus while monitoring shut-in pressures; circulation is initiated at a controlled rate, displacing influx fluids upward through the to the surface via the standpipe or kelly hose, until the well is fully killed with kill mud. Key advantages include reduced equivalent circulating density (ECD) due to lower fluid velocities in the larger annular space compared to forward circulation's annular returns, which minimizes bottomhole pressure surges in sensitive formations. It also enables faster influx removal, lower peak casing pressures, and reduced cumulative pit volume gains, making it efficient for deep wells or gas kicks. However, disadvantages encompass the necessity for an open bottomhole configuration without packers or closed nozzles, which may not be feasible in all completions, and potential erosion of the interior from high-velocity returns carrying abrasive influx particles. During monitoring, casing pressure typically rises initially from annular friction losses as circulation starts, then stabilizes or declines as the influx is displaced and kill mud reaches the bottomhole, providing a clear indicator of progress. This method uniquely aids gas migration control by confining the lighter gas influx within the , preventing its expansion in the annulus and reducing risks to surface equipment and casing integrity. Circulation rates are constrained by annular pressures to avoid exceeding formation gradients, often requiring adjustments based on well geometry and fluid properties. Reverse circulation is commonly applied in snubbing operations, where tubing or is forcibly inserted into a pressurized well, allowing simultaneous influx displacement while maintaining through constant bottomhole pressure.

Bullheading

Bullheading is a non-circulating well kill technique that involves pumping kill-weight (KMW) directly down the tubing or to displace the influx back into the formation, achieving overbalance without requiring returns to the surface. The procedure begins by connecting high-pressure pumps to the tubing head after shutting in the well using the (BOP), ensuring all connections are secure and pressure-tested. KMW, calculated to provide sufficient hydrostatic overbalance as detailed in kill mud weight determination, is then pumped at the maximum allowable rate—typically limited by equipment and formation fracture gradient—until either returns are observed at the surface or stable overbalance is confirmed by stabilized pressures, with no annulus returns necessary during the process. Monitoring of tubing and casing pressures is critical throughout to ensure the operation stays within maximum allowable annulus (MAASP) limits. This method finds primary applications in live well interventions and workover operations, particularly when the annulus is plugged or circulation paths are obstructed, preventing conventional methods. The required volume of KMW is generally the tubing capacity plus an allowance for formation absorption to ensure complete displacement of the influx and establishment of overbalance. It is especially effective for high-rate gas wells, where rapid pumping outpaces gas migration to maintain control. Key risks include formation fracturing if the pumping rate exceeds the fracture gradient, potentially leading to losses or underground blowouts, necessitating careful rate selection based on pre-calculated limits. A distinctive signature during successful bullheading is a linear increase in tubing , reflecting the progressive buildup of hydrostatic head from the pumped KMW without significant influx migration. Following the incident, bullheading principles were applied in top kill attempts on subsea stacks, pumping through and kill lines to counteract severe inflows, as described in subsequent static kill operations.

Specialized Techniques

Lubricate and Bleed

The lubricate and bleed technique is a secondary method employed to manage gas influxes when full circulation is not feasible, such as during stripping or when pipe is stuck across the (BOP). It involves iteratively injecting small volumes of kill-weight into the annulus to displace lighter influx fluids downward, followed by controlled bleeding of the influx at the surface to restore pressure equilibrium. This process leverages the difference between the kill and the influx, allowing the heavier to sink and gradually replace the gas without establishing conventional circulation. The procedure begins with shutting in the well and recording shut-in pressures. Small slugs of kill , typically 5-10 barrels, are then pumped slowly into the annulus, increasing surface pressure as the mud compresses the gas bubble per (P₁V₁ = P₂V₂). After allowing time for the mud to swap positions with the gas—usually monitored via pressure stabilization—the operator bleeds off an equal volume of influx fluids at the manifold until the surface pressure returns to the hydrostatic equivalent of the injected mud volume, often 50 increments. This cycle is repeated, with each iteration reducing the gas volume until the influx is fully displaced or surface pressure falls below the maximum allowable surface casing pressure (MAASCP). If mud appears during bleeding, the process stops to avoid further influx. Key advantages include minimizing fluctuations that could damage snubbed pipes or equipment during live well interventions, making it suitable for underbalanced operations or wireline where maintaining well integrity is critical without full kill. Unlike passive methods, it actively removes gas, reducing annulus buildup and preventing sustained casing issues. The is particularly effective for handling gas caps or migrating influxes, as it allows controlled surface disposal of hydrocarbons while preserving balance as detailed in pressure dynamics principles. Monitoring focuses on maintaining bottomhole pressure 50-100 above formation to avoid further influx or fracturing, achieved by tracking rises (indicating remaining gas volume) and ensuring bleed volumes match lubricated slugs. Flow checks and pit volume totals confirm no additional influx, with operations halting if pressures exceed MAASCP or if the volumetric method proves more appropriate for passive gas migration.

Volumetric Method

The volumetric method is a secondary technique designed to manage migrating gas influxes in situations where conventional circulation is impractical, such as pump failures, stuck pipe, or off-bottom conditions, by maintaining constant bottomhole pressure through passive surface interventions. This approach allows the gas to migrate to the surface under controlled conditions without inducing further influx or formation damage. The procedure begins with shutting in the well, stopping the pump, and closing the while recording initial pressures and volumes. Operators monitor casing and volume gains as the gas migrates upward and expands; a controlled increase (typically 50-200 safety factor plus a increment, e.g., 100 ) is permitted to account for . To restore to the target level, a calculated increment is bled from the annulus through the manifold into a measured volume device, equivalent to the volume displaced by the expanding gas. This step is repeated cyclically—waiting for the next rise before again—until the gas reaches , indicated by a sudden and flow changes at the . volumes are monitored for gains due to gas expansion. Once the influx is cleared, the well is , and a primary kill , such as the driller's , is initiated to restore full . Key advantages include the absence of active pumping, which minimizes stress on weak formations and reduces the risk of lost circulation, while enabling safe handling of gas migration in constrained scenarios. The method relies on surface monitoring to adjust for gas expansion, with the migrated gas volume at surface approximated by the formula V_{\text{surface}} = V_{\text{initial}} \times \frac{\Delta P}{P_{\text{surface}}}, where V_{\text{initial}} is the initial influx volume, \Delta P is the pressure differential from the influx depth to surface, and P_{\text{surface}} is ; this derives from for behavior under isothermal conditions. Limitations of the volumetric method include its relatively slow pace for large-volume kicks, as the cyclic process can take hours, potentially allowing prolonged pressure exposure; it is best suited for minor influxes in shallow gas zones or when pumping equipment is unavailable. Precise measurements of volumes and pressures are essential, as inaccuracies can lead to over- or under- and compromise bottomhole pressure control. This technique is standardized in Recommended Practice 59 for operations, particularly for subsea systems where choke line dynamics must be considered, and it proves particularly effective for minor gas influxes by preventing escalation without circulation.

Applications in

Driller's Method

The Driller's Method is a two-circulation forward well-kill technique employed during operations to regain after detecting a , where the influx is first circulated out using the original weight (OMW) while maintaining constant bottom-hole pressure, followed by a second circulation with kill weight (KMW) to restore hydrostatic balance. This method relies on data from the initial , such as shut-in drill pipe pressure (SIDPP), to determine KMW without delaying circulation for preparation. It is particularly suited for scenarios requiring immediate action to prevent further influx migration. The procedure follows these key steps:
  1. Upon kick detection, shut in the well using the blowout preventer (BOP), record stabilized SIDPP, shut-in casing pressure (SICP), and pit gain, then establish circulation at the predetermined kill rate using OMW while holding drill pipe pressure constant at initial circulating pressure (ICP = SIDPP + slow circulating rate pressure, SCRP) to maintain bottom-hole pressure.
  2. Circulate the influx out of the wellbore, monitoring and adjusting the to keep drill pipe pressure constant as the lighter influx (e.g., gas or formation fluid) is displaced to the surface; once the influx is removed (confirmed by stable pressures and no further pit gain), cease circulation briefly to mix and prepare KMW based on SIDPP data from the first circulation.
  3. Resume circulation with the newly prepared KMW at the kill rate, holding drill pipe pressure constant at ICP until the kill mud reaches the bit, then transitioning to maintain final drill pipe pressure constant at FCP until the kill mud returns to the surface, verifying control with zero pressures before resuming operations.
Advantages of the Driller's Method include its simplicity in initial calculations and execution, as it uses existing OMW for the first circulation without waiting to mix heavier , allowing rapid establishment of circulation to minimize gas and bottom-hole increases. It is also easier to train personnel on, requiring fewer complex schedules during the influx removal phase. Disadvantages encompass the extended total operation time due to the two separate circulations and elevated surface casing pressures, particularly from gas expansion in the annulus during the first loop, which can approach or exceed equipment limits if not managed carefully. The schedule begins with an initial circulating equal to the sum of SIDPP and the slow circulating rate (e.g., 1,270 for a 520 psi SIDPP and 750 psi circulating rate), held constant on the during the first circulation while allowing casing to vary with influx movement. In the second circulation, pressures transition to a final circulating (FCP) = SCRP × (KMW / OMW), for the increased hydrostatic from KMW while maintaining losses, culminating in stabilization at the KMW hydrostatic once full displacement is achieved. This method is often preferred for gas kicks, where delays in mixing kill mud could allow significant migration and expansion risks, and its total time is approximately twice that of a single-circulation approach due to the phased operations.

Wait and Weight Method

The Wait and Weight Method, also known as the Engineer's Method, is a well control technique used during drilling operations to manage influxes by circulating out the kick and displacing the original mud with pre-mixed kill-weight mud (KMW) in a single forward circulation pass. This approach integrates the "wait" phase for mud preparation with the "weight" phase for pumping the heavier mud, distinguishing it from sequential methods by combining influx removal and mud weight adjustment simultaneously. It is one of the most utilized methods according to IADC well control guidelines, which provide standardized killsheets for its implementation in surface and subsea operations. The procedure begins with shutting in the well upon detection of a kick, allowing pressures to stabilize, and recording the shut-in drill pipe pressure (SIDPP) and shut-in casing pressure (SICP). Next, the kill mud weight is calculated using the formula KMW = OMW + (SIDPP / (0.052 × TVD)), where OMW is the original mud weight and TVD is the true vertical depth, ensuring the mud is heavy enough to balance formation pressure without fracturing the wellbore. The required volume of KMW is then mixed and prepared at the surface. Circulation is established at the predetermined kill rate, starting with an initial circulating pressure (ICP) equal to SIDPP plus the slow circulating rate pressure (SCRP), while holding the drill pipe pressure constant until the KMW reaches the bit. As the KMW displaces the influx down the string and out the bit, the drill pipe pressure follows a scheduled decline on the kill sheet until it reaches the final circulating pressure (FCP = SCRP × (KMW / OMW)), after which it is held constant until the influx is fully circulated out and the returning mud weight matches the KMW. The well is then flow-checked to confirm stability, and additional conditioning may be performed if needed. This method's pressure profile begins at the SIDPP for initial reference but transitions to during pumping, with drill pipe pressure gradually decreasing as the denser KMW reaches the bit and reduces hydrostatic pressure in the annulus, potentially dropping to near zero overbalance once balanced. The unique kill sheet plotting involves a detailed schedule of drill pipe pressures versus pumped volume, accounting for capacity and annulus geometry to guide operators in real-time. Advantages include faster overall kill times and lower total mud volume pumped due to the single-circulation process, which can reduce exposure of equipment to high pressures and minimize the risk of formation at the casing compared to multi-circulation alternatives. It also lowers stress on rig components by shortening pump duration. However, it requires precise initial calculations for KMW and the pressure schedule; inaccuracies can lead to under- or over-balancing, potentially causing lost circulation or further influx. The need to wait for mud mixing introduces a delay if preparation is not rapid, offsetting some time benefits in urgent scenarios.

Special Scenarios

Top and Bottom Kills

Top and bottom kills represent advanced techniques employed in the control of severe , particularly in subsea environments where standard methods prove insufficient. The top kill involves pumping heavy mud or fluid from the surface through the (BOP) stack to counteract and overcome the upward flow of hydrocarbons. This method relies on achieving sufficient hydrostatic pressure and frictional forces to halt the influx, often serving as an initial emergency response before more permanent measures. In contrast, the bottom kill requires drilling a to intersect the blowout well subsurface, allowing kill fluids or cement to be introduced from below the formation to plug the source directly. These approaches are typically reserved for uncontrolled flows where the well is venting uncontrollably, adapting principles like bullheading for top kills in high-stakes scenarios. The top kill procedure pumps dense drilling mud—often weighted to 16 pounds per gallon or higher—at high rates, up to 80 barrels per minute, through the kill line into the wellbore to build against the formation. Success depends on accurate estimates and BOP integrity; if the influx rate exceeds pump capacity, the mud may be ejected rather than circulating downward. Industry assessments for subsea applications indicate a success probability of approximately 60-70%, as estimated prior to attempts on major incidents like the 2010 blowout, though actual outcomes vary with well conditions. This technique has been applied in various blowouts, emphasizing the need for robust surface equipment to handle pressures up to thousands of . Bottom kills, by comparison, are more definitive but resource-intensive, involving the precise interception of the well by a , typically within 100-200 feet of the target zone. Once intersected, heavy or is pumped from the to fill the blowout wellbore from the bottom up, neutralizing the pressure and securing a permanent seal. The process demands advanced seismic monitoring and , often taking weeks to months due to the complexity of subsurface navigation and the need to avoid further complications like bridging material in the annulus. This method ensures isolation of the formation, preventing resurgence, and is considered the ultimate fallback for deepwater s. Distinctions between static and dynamic variants further refine these kills: a static kill employs high-density fluids to establish hydrostatic overbalance in a non-flowing well, effectively plugging the formation without circulation, while a dynamic kill circulates weighted fluids during active flow to incrementally increase annular and frictional pressure until the influx stops. Top kills often begin dynamically to overcome initial flow but may transition to static if partial control is achieved, whereas bottom kills via relief wells frequently incorporate dynamic elements to manage ongoing discharge during intersection. In the Deepwater Horizon incident, a dynamic top kill attempt from May 26-28, 2010, failed due to underestimated flow rates exceeding 60,000 barrels per day, leading to a static kill on August 3-4, 2010, after capping, and culminating in a bottom kill on September 19, 2010—finalizing control approximately 66 days after the capping shut-in on July 15, 2010, and over four months from the April 20 blowout.

Workover Kills

Workover kills are specialized procedures performed during intervention operations to safely suspend production while preserving the integrity of downhole completion and the formation. These kills typically involve pumping compatible fluids into the wellbore to overbalance pressure, allowing access for tasks such as tubing repairs or replacements without risking uncontrolled influxes. The primary goal is to minimize formation and ensure straightforward reversal after the workover, distinguishing these operations from high-pressure crisis responses. In workover scenarios, brine-based or oil-based kill fluids are selected for their compatibility with existing components and fluids, reducing the risk of , formation, or . Brines, such as solutions of (CaCl₂) at 10–40% concentration or (NaCl), provide hydrostatic control while maintaining clarity and low reactivity. Oil-based fluids, including inverse water-in-oil s with densities ranging from 0.950 to 1.420 g/cm³ (approximately 7.9 to 11.8 ppg), are preferred in water-sensitive formations to inhibit clay swelling and enhance during tool deployment. For wells equipped with tubing-conveyed tools, bullheading—pumping the kill fluid directly down the tubing to force influx back into the formation—is a common non-circulating method, particularly effective in gas wells where it leverages permeability to achieve static conditions. Alternatively, reverse circulation may be employed via to evacuate fluids and debris from the annulus, avoiding direct contact with sensitive perforations. Key challenges in workover kills include avoiding damage to and managing buildup, which are particularly acute during recompletions or electric submersible pump () replacements. Perforation damage can occur from fluid invasion or incompatible additives plugging tunnels, potentially reducing productivity by up to 20–30%; this is mitigated by using hydrophobic or acid-soluble compositions that restore permeability to 80–100% post-kill. Scale accumulation, often from incompatible brines reacting with formation minerals, exacerbates flow restrictions in aging wells, necessitating acid-based treatments integrated into the kill fluid to dissolve deposits without eroding equipment. These issues are unique to workovers, as they involve navigating pre-existing completions rather than open-hole environments, requiring precise fluid placement to prevent solids bridging in during ESP pulls or recompletion sidetracks. Fluid selection emphasizes low-solids or solids-free systems to minimize into the formation , with densities typically ranging from 8 to 12 ppg, adjusted to provide overbalance without excessive agents. Clear brines and emulsions with total limited to under 6% by volume prevent clay or fines , which could impair near-wellbore permeability in reservoirs. For instance, solids-free fluid-loss control systems using modifiers maintain viscosities below 3 cp, enabling overbalanced interventions while preserving flow paths and avoiding the need for chemical breakers. This approach has been successfully applied in over 80 workover jobs, including ESP replacements, demonstrating regained permeabilities exceeding 90% after cleanup. In complicated wells, such as high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) environments exceeding 80°C and 25 , pre-kill simulations using coreflood testing or dynamic modeling are mandatory to predict fluid behavior, optimize volumes (e.g., 2.0–3.0 m³ per meter of pay ), and ensure integrity during bullheading or reversal. These simulations, validated through experimental setups, have shown to increase post-workover oil production by 5–10 m³/day while reducing water cut by 20–30% in field applications.

Reversal and Restoration

Reversing the Kill

Reversing the kill involves the controlled reduction of hydrostatic in the wellbore to from an overbalanced condition to underbalance, allowing fluids to resume while preventing uncontrolled influxes. This process typically begins after confirming well stability post-kill, where kill fluids are gradually displaced with lighter or fluids to lower the mud weight equivalent. Operators monitor pit volumes, pressures, and indicators throughout the underbalance to detect any early signs of formation influx. The procedure follows a sequenced approach to ensure safety and efficacy. Initial steps include bleeding off excess from the annulus and tubing to establish a stable static condition, often while verifying no residual through flow checks. A swab test is then conducted by pulling tubing or using tools to simulate reduced hydrostatic , assessing the well's response and confirming overbalance margins before full . initiation proceeds by opening surface valves or continuing fluid , with continuous to maintain bottomhole just above formation until stable is achieved. Key risks during include the potential for a re-kick if underbalance is induced too rapidly, as swabbing or abrupt pressure reduction can lower bottomhole pressure below formation pressure, allowing influx . This is particularly critical in high-pressure/high-temperature environments or depleted reservoirs, where gas or can escalate quickly if not monitored via pressure and volume indicators. In dead or loaded wells post-kill, nitrogen lift provides a specialized reversal method by injecting inert gas via to unload kill fluids and reduce hydrostatic pressure, thereby restoring natural flow while minimizing the risk of stuck pipe associated with mechanical swabbing or aggressive circulation. This technique has been successfully applied in interventions for depleted gas wells, enabling economical production restoration without formation damage.

Post-Kill Procedures

After completing the well kill operation, verification procedures are essential to confirm well stability and prevent recurrence of influx. Operators typically conduct tests on the (BOP) system and casing strings to ensure they can withstand anticipated s, with low- tests at 200-350 followed by high- tests to 70% of the rated working . Flow checks are performed by shutting down pumps and observing for any influx over 15-30 minutes, verifying zero drill pipe and casing s to indicate a dead well. runs, such as production logging tools (PLT) or noise logs, may be deployed to assess zonal isolation and detect any residual flow paths, while inflow/outflow surveys using spinner and temperature logs help identify uneven contribution from formations post-kill. Optimization focuses on restoring well productivity while maintaining , beginning with mud reduction plans that involve gradual dilution of kill-weight to original weights, monitored via continuous flow checks to avoid underbalance. Chemical treatments, such as acidizing with hydrochloric or systems, are applied to mitigate formation from kill fluids, targeting near-wellbore permeability impairment caused by solids invasion or emulsions; for instance, in reservoirs, 15% HCl treatments dissolve filter cakes to restore pre-kill productivity. These steps ensure long-term stability before resuming or production, with target restoration to pre-kill inflow performance verified through buildup tests. Documentation of the kill operation is mandatory for , including detailed kill reports filed with authorities like the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) within 15 days of a loss-of-well-control incident, covering pressures, volumes, procedures, and outcomes. For offshore operations, post-2010 regulations stemming from the incident require mandatory remotely operated vehicle (ROV) inspections of subsea BOP stacks after well-control events involving shearing, ensuring functionality before retrieval; these were further updated in the 2023 BSEE Well Control Rule to enhance BOP systems and safe drilling practices. Potential complications include trapped gas pockets in the wellbore, particularly in or high-angle sections, where causes gas to accumulate in washouts or the high side, potentially leading to unexpected surges during checks. Additional bleeds may be required, with slow annulus (e.g., 1 barrel increments) to release trapped without destabilizing the hydrostatic column, as outlined in standard practices.

Safety and Best Practices

Equipment Requirements

Core equipment for well kill operations includes high-pressure pumps, kill lines, and (BOP) stacks with annular preventers. pumps, capable of delivering pressures between 5,000 and 15,000 , are essential for circulating kill fluids into the wellbore under high-pressure conditions. Kill lines, typically featuring an internal (ID) of 3 to 4 inches to accommodate adequate flow rates, connect the pumps to the BOP stack, enabling the injection of weighted mud to counteract formation pressures. The BOP stack incorporates annular preventers, which provide a flexible seal around irregular pipe profiles or open hole, facilitating initial shut-in and fluid circulation during kill procedures. For mixing kill mud, dedicated mud pits serve as reservoirs for blending weighting agents like barite, while shear mixers ensure rapid and uniform dispersion to achieve the required . Unique to kill mud preparation, degassers—such as or poor boy types—are critical for removing entrained gas from gas-cut , preventing volume inaccuracies and potential blowouts during circulation. Monitoring systems are vital for real-time oversight during well kill execution. Pressure gauges on the standpipe, annulus, and choke/kill lines track circulating pressures to verify kill mud effectiveness and detect anomalies. Pit volume totalizers (PVT) continuously measure mud tank levels, alerting operators to gains or losses that could indicate kicks or losses. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) detectors, often electrochemical sensors integrated into the rig's systems, monitor for toxic gas influxes in sour reservoirs, ensuring personnel . Following the 2010 Macondo incident, BSEE regulations, including the 2016 Well Control Rule and incorporation of , enhanced requirements for subsea BOP systems on deepwater rigs, including dedicated kill lines to improve redundancy and intervention capabilities.

Regulatory and Training Standards

Regulatory frameworks for well kill operations emphasize prevention of uncontrolled pressure releases and ensure standardized responses during kicks or blowouts. In the United States, the () Recommended Practice 59 (API RP 59) provides guidelines for operations, including kill procedures to regain pressure control under pre-kick conditions and manage influxes safely. Complementing this, () outlines requirements for the installation, testing, and operation of blowout prevention equipment systems on drilling rigs, ensuring reliability during well kill activities. Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) implemented the in 2016, with revisions in 2019 and 2023, mandating enhanced blowout preventer (BOP) testing, real-time data monitoring, and incorporation of well control simulations in operational planning to improve response efficacy. In the , the Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU) addresses major accident prevention at onshore facilities handling hazardous substances by requiring risk assessments and emergency plans. Additionally, the EU Offshore Safety Directive (2013/30/EU) sets minimum standards for offshore operations, mandating oversight and major hazard reporting to mitigate risks like uncontrolled well releases. Training standards for well kill proficiency are globally coordinated through programs like the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) WellSharp accreditation, which establishes comprehensive curricula covering detection, shut-in, and kill methods for personnel. WellSharp incorporates simulator-based drills for techniques such as the Driller's Method and Wait-and-Weight Method, allowing trainees to practice kill operations in realistic scenarios without risking live wells. The program defines tiered competency levels—Introductory for awareness, Driller for operational execution, and Supervisor for oversight and decision-making—ensuring personnel match training to roles in response. These levels require passing written exams (minimum 75% score) and practical assessments (minimum 70% score), with certifications valid for two years and renewable through refresher courses. Best practices in well kill operations prioritize proactive risk management and redundancy to enhance safety. Pre-job risk assessments, as recommended in API RP 54, involve evaluating hazards like formation pressures and equipment integrity during crew briefings to inform kill planning and mitigation strategies. Central to these practices is the two-barrier philosophy, where at least two independent barriers—such as the mud hydrostatic column and BOP system—must prevent formation fluid influx, as outlined in IADC guidelines and NORSOK D-010 standards for well integrity. This approach ensures that failure of one barrier does not compromise well control, applying across all phases from drilling to abandonment.

References

  1. [1]
    kill - The SLB Energy Glossary
    To stop a well from flowing or having the ability to flow into the wellbore. Kill procedures typically involve circulating reservoir fluids out of the wellbore ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Recommended Practice for Well Control Operations
    The goal of this voluntary recommended practice is to assist the oil and gas industry in pro- moting personnel and public safety, integrity of the drilling and ...
  3. [3]
    Standard Well Kill Procedure | Oil and Gas Drilling Glossary
    Any of industry's proven techniques to control a flowing well wherein well control is obtained through pumping drilling fluid of increased density.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] WellSharp Definitions Reference Document - IADC
    Kill method that involves first circulation out the influx and secondly circulation kill mud around the well. A significant increase or decrease in the rate of ...
  5. [5]
    Oil and Gas Extraction - Hazards | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    ### Summary of Well Control, Kicks, Well Kills, Blowouts, and Related Risks in Oil and Gas Operations
  6. [6]
    Well control has come a long way since the days of oil gushers ...
    Nov 2, 2009 · Recall the famous Spindletop blowout in 1901. It took nine days and lost a half-million barrels of oil before a shut-off valve could be ...
  7. [7]
    The Defining Series: Drilling Fluid Basics - SLB
    Mar 1, 2013 · Often referred to as mud, drilling fluid was first introduced around 1913 for subsurface pressure control. The 1920s and '30s saw the birth of ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
  8. [8]
    Drilling Mud: A 20th Century History - AAPG Datapages/Archives:
    Jun 25, 2011 · The first major changes to drilling mud occurred in the 1920s with the addition of weighting materials (barite, iron oxides) and usage of mined ...
  9. [9]
    The Defining Series: Blowout Preventers - SLB
    Jan 1, 2016 · In 1922, Harry Cameron and Jim Abercrombie designed and manufactured the first blowout preventers (BOPs). Assemblies of valves and other devices ...
  10. [10]
    Muddying the Waters - Permian Basin Oil and Gas Magazine
    Jul 15, 2016 · Drilling mud, invented by the Hamil brothers, is a drilling fluid used to enhance drilling speed, control gas pressure, and seal off porous ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] New Regulations and Impacts on Well Control
    Since API S53 4th edition has been published, industry now has one international document for standardized inspections, testing, and maintenance on blowout.
  12. [12]
    '79 Gulf spill leaves sobering lessons for BP - NBC News
    Jun 4, 2010 · There were no quick fixes for Ixtoc: It took 10 months to stop the leak, with Mexico's state-owned oil company, Pemex, trying methods similar to ...
  13. [13]
    Modeling Under Pressure - Eos.org
    Mar 25, 2020 · In June 2010, all that Paul Hsieh knew about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was what he had read in the news.
  14. [14]
    Does Automatic Well Control Exist? - Enhanced Drilling
    Jul 9, 2024 · The future of plug-and-play well monitoring looks promising, with advancements in technology driving further automation and integration.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s<|control11|><|separator|>
  15. [15]
    [PDF] IADC Driller's Method Worksheet
    Well Control classes. The IADC, its employees or others acting on its behalf ... Hydrostatic Pressure (kPa) = Fluid Density (kg/m3) x 0.00981 x TVD (m).
  16. [16]
    Formation Pore Pressure - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Abnormal formation pore pressure usually ranges between 0.8 and 1 psi/ft. Formation pore pressures can be predicted by a geophysical method before a well is ...
  17. [17]
    Kicks and their significance in pore pressure prediction
    A kick is here defined as an unexpected influx of reservoir fluid (oil, water, or gas) into the wellbore due to borehole fluid pressure less than the formation ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] formula sheet—field units | iadc
    May 7, 2018 · FORMATION PRESSURE (psi). = Hydrostatic Pressure in Drill Stringpsi + SIDPPpsi. (also referred to as Bottomhole Pressure at Shut In). 14. MUD ...
  19. [19]
    Shut In Drill Pipe & Casing Pressure - Drilling Manual
    Feb 3, 2023 · Shut-in drill pipe and casing pressure indicate the difference between formation pressure and the hydrostatic pressures in & out of the drill pipe.
  20. [20]
    Shut in the well and get pressure data (driller's method)‎
    Sep 1, 2010 · After the well stabilizes, you will know how much shut in casing pressure (SICP) and shut in drillpipe pressure (SIDPP).
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Effects of Tripping and Swabbing in Drilling and Completion ...
    Jul 17, 2017 · modelling dynamic swab pressures that occur when tripping pipe into the well to explain the reported incidents. Such incidents could also ...
  22. [22]
    Modeling of Swab and Surge Pressures: A Survey - MDPI
    High tripping speed corresponds to higher pressure fluctuations and can lead to fracturing the well formation. Low tripping speed leads to a slow operation, ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] General Computerized Well Control Kill Sheet for Drilling Operations ...
    First the mud properties (rheology and density), borehole and pipe geometry, and flow rates are used to calculate the pressure loss through the surface ...
  24. [24]
    A critical review of drilling mud rheological models - ScienceDirect
    The rheological properties of muds include gel strength, plastic viscosity, yield point and apparent viscosity. Tracking mud rheological properties under ...
  25. [25]
    Drilling Mud Properties Guide In Oil & Gas Wells
    Mar 2, 2022 · Gel Strength Properties Of Drilling Mud; Filtration ... The yield Point is the 300 RPM shear stress reading minus the Plastic Viscosity.Missing: kill | Show results with:kill
  26. [26]
    Rheological Properties of Oil Based Mud and Optimization of Hole ...
    May 27, 2022 · Oil Based Mud samples with higher viscosities tend to have more gel strengths and can also have a good hole cleaning efficiency at an average flow rate.<|control11|><|separator|>
  27. [27]
    [PDF] AADE-17-NTCE-132 The Effects of Gas Kick Migration on Wellbore ...
    According to Velmurugan et al. (2016) influx detection in oil based mud is complicated due to complete dissolution of gas and relative delay in surface kick ...
  28. [28]
    An Experimental Study of Gas Influx in Oil-Based Drilling Fluids for ...
    Aug 5, 2025 · In this work, we have experimentally determined the effect of gas absorption on saturation pressure, density, and viscosity at temperatures up ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Kick Detection at the Bit: Early Detection via Low Cost Monitoring
    Jun 7, 2016 · This drilling fluid density reduction because of formation fluid dissolution is also known as “cut” and is usually specified by the contaminant ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] AADE-17-NTCE-042 Transitional and Turbulent Flow of Drilling ...
    This paper investigates frictional pressure loss of drilling fluids in transitional/turbulent flow, using five different fluids and comparing results to ...Missing: killing | Show results with:killing
  31. [31]
    Frictional pressure loss of drilling fluids in a fully eccentric annulus
    The obtained results show that in the laminar flow regime, the annular frictional pressure loss in a fully eccentric annulus is considerably less than a ...Missing: killing | Show results with:killing
  32. [32]
    A Data Driven Approach to Predict Frictional Pressure Losses in ...
    Mar 4, 2019 · In this paper, a data-driven approach is proposed to precisely predict frictional pressure losses for polymer-based fluids. A flow-loop was ...Missing: killing | Show results with:killing
  33. [33]
    Barite Sag Occurrence and Resolution during Angolan Completion ...
    Oct 30, 2011 · During drilling, barite sag is usually identified by a changing mud weight; as solids drop out of the mud, returned mud at surface will have a ...Missing: kill polymers
  34. [34]
    [PDF] AADE-04-DF-HO-21 A Unique Technical Solution to Barite Sag in ...
    A new polymer-coated barite weighting agent for oil- based drilling fluids has been developed to minimize the sag potential whilst maintaining low rheology.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Barite sagging: Polymer Integrated Drilling Mud Design Analysis
    The sag factor is required to be between 0.45 to 0.53 for sagging to be under control. ii. The sag test results after 2 days confirm that polymers, XG and CMC, ...
  36. [36]
    Kill Mud Weight Calculations In Oil & Gas - Drilling Manual
    Dec 18, 2017 · Kill Mud Weight is the density of the drilling fluid that is required to make an overbalance to control the well after having a kick.
  37. [37]
    Kill Weight Mud‎ - Drilling Formulas and Drilling Calculations
    May 3, 2011 · Kill weight mud or kill drilling fluid density is the mud weight required to balance formation pressure.
  38. [38]
    Well Control Calculations – Sigma Quadrant
    Kill mud weight (ppg) = original mud weight, ppg + (shut-in drillpipe pressure, psi /0.052 x vertical depth, ft) + overkill safety margin, ppg. Initial ...
  39. [39]
    Extra Increments of Pressure or Mud Weight Safety Factors Added ...
    Oct 6, 1974 · During well-killing procedures, however, these extra increments of pressure from mud weight may cause problems in well control.
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Formulas-and-Calculations-for-Drilling-Production-and-Work-over.pdf
    a) Surface to bit strokes: Strokes = drill string volume, bbl ÷ pump output, bbl/stk ... Strokes = annular volume, bbl ÷ pump output, bbl/stk. Bit to ...
  41. [41]
    ECD In Drilling: What You Need To Know
    May 30, 2021 · Ensure well control in the drilling process with ECD/Equivalent Circulating Density ... Limit the speed, pump rate, and rpm. The speed of ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Cross-Reference Tool WORKOVER and INTERVENTION WELL ...
    Forward Circulation. (Driller's) Method. Definition,. Application, and. Calculation. Explain forward circulation. (driller's) method. D. E. H. L. O. PE. S.
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Well Control for Subsea Operations Curriculum, Course Delivery ...
    Forward Circulation Method (1st Circulation. Driller's Method). Explain what Forward Circulation Method (1st Circulation Driller's. Method) is and when it would ...Missing: manual | Show results with:manual
  44. [44]
    Test questions Flashcards - Quizlet
    ... forward circulation ?, During th2 1st Circulation of the drillers method , the pump speed was reduced from 40 spm to 20 spm while holding TP constant. What ...
  45. [45]
    (PDF) well completion design and best practices - ResearchGate
    3 FORWARD CIRCULATION. This is similar to reverse circulation, except the kill fluid is pumped into. the production tubing and circulated out through the ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Development and Assessment of Well Control Procedures for ...
    ... well kill procedures. Note that we can also see BHP and formation pressure ... Reverse circulation procedures are most often used during workovers and completion.
  47. [47]
    Computer Simulation of the Reverse Circulation Well Control ...
    Dec 1, 1992 · Reverse-Circulation Procedure · Reverse circulate the well by pumping fluid down the annulus, up the drillstring, and through the choke. · Pump ...Missing: method | Show results with:method
  48. [48]
    Calculation and Application of Reverse Circulation Well Killing ...
    Calculation is carried out for a reverse circulation killing example. The results show that the casing pressure is the highest at the beginning, and after the ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] SNUBBING CORE CURRICULUM AND RELATED JOB SKILLS
    Constant bottomhole pressure (BHP) methods (forward or reverse circulation) ... Perform well kill operations. ▫. Identify reasons for performing snubbing ...
  50. [50]
    Bullheading In Drilling Oil & Gas Wells Full Guide
    Oct 20, 2021 · Bullheading is, however, a relatively common method of killing a well during workover operations when there is adequate reservoir permeability.
  51. [51]
    Bullheading Well Control Method‎
    Jun 22, 2014 · Concept of bullheading is to pump kicks back into formations by using kill weight fluid. People usually use this method when normal circulation is impossible.
  52. [52]
    Well Control - Bullheading - Drilling For Gas
    Bullheading Procedure · Establish injection pressure by pumping down the annulus at a slow rate. · Injection pressure shall not exceed MAASP. · If pressure ...
  53. [53]
    Bullheading Calculation Example‎ - Drilling Formulas
    Jul 12, 2015 · For the bullheading operation, pumping pressure on surface is equal to summation of all frictional pressure and formation pressure minus hydrostatic pressure.Missing: absorption | Show results with:absorption
  54. [54]
    [PDF] An Experimental Study of Bullheading Operations for Control of ...
    Jan 21, 2001 · The bullheading technique used in the research well was to inject mud at a constant rate. Prior to injection, the gas in the well was at the ...
  55. [55]
    Bullheading Well Control Method in Drilling Operations - All Things ...
    May 22, 2024 · Eliminate Surface Gas: If gas is present at the surface, use Lubricate and Bleed procedures before starting bullheading. Pump Kill Fluid: ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and ...
    Also known as a momentum or dynamic kill, a top kill involves pumping heavy drilling mud into the top of a well through the BOP's choke and kill lines, at ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] On Scene Coordinator Report Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
    Sep 20, 2011 · static kill or bullhead kill. Like the top kill, the static kill involved pumping heavy drilling mud into the well in an effort to push the.
  58. [58]
    Lubricate and Bleed in Well Control‎
    Oct 20, 2013 · Lubricate and bleed procedure is the way to remove the gas when the circulation is impossible to conduct. The basic theory is the same as ...
  59. [59]
    Lube and Bleed | Well Engineering Glossary by Wild Well Control
    Lube and bleed is a well control technique that replaces an influx with drilling fluid by pumping kill mud and bleeding off excess pressure.
  60. [60]
    Lubricate and Bleed Example Calculations‎
    Sep 14, 2015 · The concept of Lubricate and Bleed is to remove gas at surface when the circulation cannot be performed. With this method, bottom hole pressure ...
  61. [61]
    (PDF) Well Control of Sustained Annulus Pressure - Novel Lubricate ...
    May 10, 2025 · Nevertheless, displacing the gas with a safe liquid such as water remains achievable through the lubricate and bleed technique. This paper ...
  62. [62]
    Volumetric Well Control Method: A Step-by-Step Guideline
    May 16, 2024 · Step 1 – Perform Essential Calculations · Step 2 – Allow Casing Pressure to Increase · Step 3 – Maintain Casing Pressure Constant While Bleeding ...Step 1 – Perform Essential... · Step 2 – Allow Casing... · Step 3 – Maintain Casing...
  63. [63]
    Volumetric Well Control Method For Gas Kicks - Drilling Manual
    Dec 22, 2017 · Let kill and choke line pressure equalize · Open kill line stack valves. · Pump slowly into the kill line. · Pump 3.6 bbls mud into the annulus.
  64. [64]
    Wait and Weight Well Control Method (Engineer's Method)‎
    May 2, 2011 · Steps of the weight and weight method for well control are as follow: 1. Shut in the well. 2. Allow pressure to stabilize and record stabilized ...
  65. [65]
    Well Control Committee - IADC.org
    IADC has developed killsheets for the Wait & Weight Method (both Surface & Subsea Stacks), the Bullheading Method, and the Driller's Method. Each type of ...Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
  66. [66]
    Advantages and Disadvantages of Wait and Weight Method‎
    Jul 18, 2011 · Advantages of Wait and Weight Method: When compared to driller's method, the wait and weight will generate lower pressure at casing shoe while circulating.Missing: IADC manual procedure
  67. [67]
    Pros and Cons of the Wait and Weight Method in Well Control
    The Wait and Weight Method minimizes pump time and lowers the mechanical stress on pumps, valves, and other rig components. Unlike the driller's method, which ...Missing: procedure steps IADC
  68. [68]
    Well Killing Technology before Workover Operation in Complicated ...
    Jan 28, 2021 · Well killing uses blocking compositions to preserve filtration before workover, using new hydrophobic fluids to regulate BFZ filtration ...Well Killing Technology... · 2. Materials And Methods · 3. Results<|separator|>
  69. [69]
    Recipes for success - Drilling Contractor
    Sep 3, 2014 · “While most completions are still done in a brine environment, we are looking at ways of using oil-based fluids throughout the completion to ...
  70. [70]
    SPE-222625-MS Implementing a Solids-Free, Non-Damaging Loss ...
    Nov 7, 2024 · After this, a forward circulation test confirmed whether loss control was achieved at acceptable values. In Southern Iraq, typical ...
  71. [71]
    Well Workover - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Well workover is an invasive technique for oil and gas wells, like wireline, to repair, restore, or enhance hydrocarbon production.
  72. [72]
    Reservoir Formation Damage; Reasons and Mitigation: A Case ...
    Aug 17, 2021 · Solid control in drilling, completion and kill fluids will help to minimize formation damage caused by solids invasion. 6. Thorough cleaning ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] DRILLING, COMPLETION & WORKOVER FLUIDS 2015 - World Oil
    Impact's enhanced shale inhibitor additives produce better quality drill cuttings, improved wellbore stability, reduced dilution rates, reduced waste volumes ...
  74. [74]
  75. [75]
    Well Interventions in Depleted Gas Wells Made Economical with ...
    Apr 5, 2011 · Well # 6, Acid stimulation with 28% HCl, 3,081 (10,108) ; Well # 7, Nitrogen lift, N/A ; Well # 8, Salt wash and nitrogen lift, 3,020 (9,908) ...
  76. [76]
    The Defining Series: Well Intervention—Maintenance and Repair
    Sep 9, 2015 · Crews fill the well with kill weight mud to contain the formation pressure during an intervention. Kill weight mud is a dense fluid that creates ...Missing: restore | Show results with:restore<|control11|><|separator|>
  77. [77]
    A New Chemical Treatment to Remove Multiple Damages in a Water ...
    May 25, 2005 · A 15 wt% HCl acid treatment was performed in an attempt to remove drilling mud filter cake and improve wellbore to formation connectivity, ...Missing: kill | Show results with:kill
  78. [78]
    30 CFR 250.188 -- What incidents must I report to BSEE and ... - eCFR
    You must report the following incidents to the District Manager immediately via oral communication, and provide a written follow-up report.
  79. [79]
    [PDF] 4310-VH-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Safety and ...
    This rule implements safety measures for oil and gas operations, amending regulations for well-control, including new casing, cementing, and BOP requirements.
  80. [80]
    Trapped Gas in Horizontal Wells - Edwin Ritchie
    ### Summary: Trapped Gas in Horizontal Wells
  81. [81]
    WELL SERVICE PUMPS - Woolley Tool
    Woolley Tool offers three triplex pumps: the 5K TEE, JWS-340, and SPM TWS-600S, with the TEE being popular for hot oil and well-kill applications.Missing: 5000-15000 | Show results with:5000-15000
  82. [82]
    Triplex Unit Pump by Regoms Engineering on Run In All Energies
    The triplex pump has a 15000 psi pressure, 6.100m length, 2.44m width, 2.480m height, 4" plunger, 7.5 bpm max flow, and is for high pressure well kill, ...
  83. [83]
    Drilling Spools Choke and kill lines may be connected either to side ...
    Nov 13, 2023 · Wells with an MASP of greater than 5000 psi shall have 3 in. (7.62 cm) ID or greater for choke lines. Wells with an MASP greater than 3000 psi ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Attachment A-Well Control Equipment
    The diverter, BOP stack, and choke manifold will be designed in accordance with API RP 53" Recommended Practices for Blowout. Prevention Equipment Systems for ...
  85. [85]
  86. [86]
    Main Components of a Blowout Preventer Stack - BOP Products
    Apr 26, 2024 · Annular preventers are an essential component of BOP stacks. ... well), heavy fluids are pumped through the kill line into the wellbore.
  87. [87]
    5-Stage Drilling Fluid Purification of Mud Circulating System
    Mar 21, 2025 · Jet Mud Mixer. The Jet Mud Mixer is often used to blend additives like barite, bentonite, or polymers into the mud system. It uses a venturi ...
  88. [88]
    Mud gas separator for Drilling Fluids System - solids control equipment
    Mud Gas Separator also known as poor boy degasser is a special tool designed particularly for degassing gas-invaded mud effectively in the first grade.Missing: kill | Show results with:kill
  89. [89]
    Vacuum Degasser - GN Solids Control
    A vacuum degasser treats gas in drilling fluids, removes gases from gas-cut mud, and is a mud/gas separator, also called a mud/gas separator.Missing: pits | Show results with:pits
  90. [90]
  91. [91]
    Pit Volume Totalizer (PVT) | Pason Systems Inc.
    The PVT measures tank volumes and flow rates, alerts to well control events, and monitors mud volumes during drilling, tripping, and casing operations.
  92. [92]
    Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Gas Detectors - RC Systems
    Our configurable hydrogen sulfide detectors offer continuous monitoring and feature electrochemical sensor technology for reliable gas detection.Missing: control pressure PVT
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Final rule - Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
    Apr 29, 2019 · This final rule revises requirements for well design, well control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring (RTM), and subsea containment. These ...
  94. [94]
    API STD 53 - Well Control Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells
    Dec 1, 2018 · The purpose of this standard is to provide requirements for the installation and testing of blowout prevention equipment systems on land and ...
  95. [95]
    [PDF] Well Control Final Rule Fact Sheet - BSEE.gov
    Increases the reporting of BOP failure data to BSEE and the OEMs. o The final regulation adopts the voluntary industry reporting protocols for reporting.Missing: kill post-
  96. [96]
    Industrial accidents - Environment - European Commission
    The Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU) entered into force on 13 August 2012. It aims to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences and harmful impacts ...
  97. [97]
    Safety of offshore oil and gas operations | EUR-Lex - European Union
    The directive stipulates that an exploration well cannot be drilled before the public has had an opportunity to be fully informed and to make its views known on ...
  98. [98]
    IADC WellSharp® - IADC.org
    IADC's WellSharp accreditation program provides comprehensive well control training standards for the global drilling industry.Sample Exams · WellSharp® Live · WellSharp® University · WellSharp® Plus
  99. [99]
    WellSharp® Live Courses - Wild Well Control
    The IADC WellSharp® Driller level course offers basic, fundamental well control knowledge for crew members involved in day-to-day drilling operations including ...
  100. [100]
    Instructor-Led - Training Courses - Well Control School
    Well Control School provides both IADC WellCAP and IADC WellSharp certified courses in Introductory, Driller and Supervisory levels.
  101. [101]
    IADC WellSharp Driller Level Well Control (Surface & Subsea)
    Successful completion of the course and a minimum score of 75% in the written assessment and 70% in the practical skills assessment will result in IADC ...Missing: competency | Show results with:competency
  102. [102]
    [PDF] Occupational Safety and Health for Oil and Gas Well Drilling ... - API
    This API document is a recommended practice for occupational safety and health in oil and gas well drilling and servicing operations. API does not guarantee ...
  103. [103]
    [PDF] Well Control Barrier Philosophy - IADC
    - A Well Control Barrier can be defined as any physical component(s) or operational practice that prevents formation fluids from flowing unintentionally from a ...
  104. [104]
    [PDF] An Introduction to Well Integrity - Offshore Norge
    Dec 4, 2012 · NORSOK D-0101 specifies that: “There shall be two well barriers available during all well activities and operations, including suspended or ...