See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336587442

Real-Time Gas Influx Analysis and Control in Managed Pressure Drilling

Conference Paper · January 2019

DOI: 10.2118/198361-MS

CITATIONS READS
0 19

4 authors, including:

Kedar Deshpande Olga Bukashkina

Weatherford International Weatherford, St.Petersburg, Russia
25 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Targeted bit speed technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olga Bukashkina on 04 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-198361-MS

Real-Time Gas Influx Analysis and Control in Managed Pressure Drilling

Andrew Ilin, Sayamik Ameen Rostami, Kedar Deshpande, and Olga Bukashkina, Weatherford

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 16 – 18 October 2019.

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

Abstract
Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) usage have shown increasing demand in both offshore and onshore
market especially for wells with narrow drilling margins. MPD due to its inherent ability to maintain
desired constant bottom-hole pressure (BHP) is a clear choice when mitigating gas influx while drilling thus
increasing safety and reducing non-productive time.
MPD removes pore / fracture pressure uncertainties by measuring the drilling window on real time.
An enhanced hydraulics modeling that accounts for change in downhole conditions such as temperature,
compressibility is key component for successful MPD operations to alter the surface back pressure (SBP) to
maintain desired BHP. Aside from enhanced hydraulics model for BHP estimation, an accurate prediction
of the gas influx propagation from the bit to the surface is critical for managing BHP dynamically while
circulating influx out of annulus.
This work underscores development and usage of advanced multi-phase model to simulate gas influx
transport and its effects on BHP during MPD operations. This work elucidates recent advances in the
gas influx modeling, specifically single bubble model and kinematic two-phase model formulations are
discussed in detail. The results of the single bubble model and two-phase model are compared using industry
accepted software during gas influx control and circulation out of the well.

Introduction
During MPD operations, the BHP is maintained above the pore pressure (PP), to avoid the influx from the
formation into the well, and below the formation pressure (or fracturing pressure), to avoid fracturing the
formation causing the drilling mud losses. The BHP could be controlled by dynamically changing surface
back pressure (SBP) or flow rate of the mud pump. When the drill bit enters the kick zone with PP higher
than the BHP, influx enters the well. The immediate indication of the gas influx is the sudden increase
in the flow out at the surface measured by Coriolis flowmeters. Immediate remedial action is mandatory
to control the influx, for safe drilling operations as well as to avoid non-productive time. Fast automatic
dynamic well control system requires precise pressure control hence advanced control algorithm as well as
accurate and efficient model of the gas influx propagating in the annulus from the kick zone to the surface
[Rostami-2016].
2 SPE-198361-MS

The simplest simulation of the gas influx, such as a single bubble model, involves solution of the
ordinary differential equations (ODE) for the influx volume and depth [Aarsnes-2015]. More accurate two-
phase simulation includes Drift-Flux Model (DFM) [Gavrilyuk-1996], [Shi-2005], [Choi-2012]. Additional
complexity of the model requires more experimental data to determine empirical parameters used in the
simulations.

Influx and Dynamic Well Control

The well control definitions and procedures described in this document and implemented in the MPD control
system, are generally consistent with those specified in [API RP 59]. Variances include the following:

• Gas influx is assumed, while the fluid is assumed incompressible.

• Friction pressure loss is determined by simulation (following [API-13D]).

• Influx analysis is conducted. when annulus pressure is decrease below the PP at the influx (kick)
zone.
• The well control, using dynamic method [Kinik-2015], is intended to circulate an influx out at
constant Stand-Pipe Pressure (SPP) without interrupting operations, nor using kill weight mud.
During MPD operation influx detection and control and circulation out of well is shown by following
4 segments:
1. Detection time: Monitor Qin versus Qout till detection criteria is met: Qout > Qin + ΔQdetection (t < tdetection,,
SBP is not changed).
1. Control time: Find SBP to suppress influx (tdetection <= t < tdetection + tcontrol, SBPcontrol + BHP > PP).
2. Control to Reaching Circulation Pressure time: Increase SBP with additional safety margin: SBPsafety
= SBPcontrol + Psafety.
3. Maintain SPP constant to Circulate Influx Out: Find SBP to maintain constant SPP.

Influx simulation types

The following influx simulation types are used:

• Instantaneous – when the initial Pit gain is assumed known, and equal to the volume of the influx;
the SBP gets adjusted instantaneously in order to make annulus pressure to be equal to the pore
pressure at the influx zone depth.
• Pressure driven – when the influx flow rate at the kick zone is calculated from the pressure
difference between Pore Pressure and Annulus pressure at the influx zone depth, following semi-
analytical Reservoir Model (Darcy's Law):

(1)

where k is a formation permeability, H is a kick zone height, t – time, z – measured depth, Re is a drain-off
radius, Rw is a wellbore radius. The gas potential ψ is a function of pressure P:

(2)

where μg is a gas viscosity. Gas influx density ρg is satisfied to the real gas law (found reliable for a dry
gas/Methane):

(3)
SPE-198361-MS 3

where γg is a specific density of the gas, T is a temperature, Z is a real gas z-factor, assumed hydrocarbon
mixture correlation [Dranchuk-1975].
The influx volume Volg could be estimated from the outlet and inlet mud flow rates (Qout and Qin),
integrating between detection and control time:

(4)

The mass of the influx Mg could be integrated from the mass flow rate m: ̇

(5)

Pore Pressure estimation for dynamic well control

MPD enables performing repetitive dynamic Formation Integrity Tests (FIT) and Pore Pressure Tests (PPT)
without the need to stop circulation. Dynamic FIT and PPT are performed to safely confirm the upper and
lower boundaries of the downhole pressure envelope, respectively, without causing down time. In a dynamic
PPT, the surface pressure is stepwise reduced from an initial set point until a micro-influx is observed
[Rostami-2015].
At the initial time segment, during influx detection time, for practical purposes the gas flow rate at the
kick zone could be calculated from the outlet and inlet mud flow rates:
(6)
That value of the gas flow rate could be used in the Reservoir model (1) for estimating the pore pressure
Pp(zk). The model (1) should be used with modified annulus pressure, calculated from the liquid flow rate
effected by the gas flow rate. The calculated PP at the kick zone is used in the estimating SBP for the influx
control.

Single bubble model

The gas influx is assumed bound by the lead depth zlead and tail depth ztail. That assumption means that the
gas fraction is described as

(7)

The velocity of the gas influx is assumed to be calculated from the liquid velocity Vl and slip velocity Vs:
(8)
The slip velocity is described by the Taylor bubble-rise velocity [Wallis-1969], written as

(9)

where Dh is the hydraulic diameter, g is the acceleration of gravity.

The implementation of the single bubble model requires assumption to assign the gas velocity to the
motion of the tail depth (or to the lead depth as alternative). Then the tail depth is calculated from solving
the ODE using the gas velocity:

(10)

The lead depth could be calculated from the given mass of the influx:
4 SPE-198361-MS

(11)

where Aa is an annulus cross-section area.

In the simplified version of the single bubble implementation, the influx mass integral formula is
discretized using rectangular rule:
(12)
The formula for the lead depth is

(13)

Modified implementation of the single bubble includes split of the depth domain between the tail and
lead depths into N segments, to estimate influx mass integral accurately:

(14)

The volume of the influx could be calculated from the annulus area function Aa(z) and lead and tail depths:

(15)

When the gas influx propagates from the kick zone up to the surface, the gas density goes down, while
the gas volume goes up. That influx expansion makes the volumetric rate:

(16)

The gas flow rate affects the liquid flow rate above the influx as following:
(17)
The total gas flow rate includes volumetric and the kick flow rates:
(18)
The pressure P(z) is calculated by integrating the following equation:

(19)

where f is the friction factor, θ = θ(z) is the well inclination.

Inside the gas bubble (zlead < z < ztail) the following is assumed for the friction factor: f(z) = 0, for the
density: ρ(z) = ρg(z). Liquid velocity is calculated from the flow rate: Vl = Ql/Aa.

Pros and Cons

Due to the simplicity, the single bubble model does not cover all physics behavior in the gas influx
propagation. Equation (10) assumes that the tail depth is moving from the detection time. For the initial time
segments, before the influx is controlled, the gas distribution between the kick zone zk and the tail depth ztail
is not described. As an alternative, it is possible to assume ztail is fixed at the kick zone before the influx
zone is controlled, but it would lead to underprediction of the lead depth. Also, the slip velocity model (9)
is not developed consistently with the gas flow continuity.
The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the single bubble model used for
the well control:
SPE-198361-MS 5

Pros Cons

It is a simple method, runs very fast Gas distribution in the well during influx detection is not physical

Accurate prediction for surfacing time and pressure change, when gas Does not describe gas solubility in oil-based mud
influx is controlled quickly

Easily can applied for dynamic well control The pressure change is underestimated

Two-phase model
The two-phase gas liquid model of the influx is based on the DFM in terms of Gavrilyuk and Fabre
[Gavrilyuk-1996], including mass conservation equations for gas and liquid phases:
(20)

(21)
and momentum conservation equation:
(22)
where αi, Γi is the void fracture, rate of matter transition from one phase to another; index i = g,l (gas or
liquid); S is the source term:

(23)

where VM, ρM are the mixture velocity and density.

The relationship between the mixture parameters and those of the liquid and gaseous phases is established
by the equations:
(24)
(25)
For the liquid and gas volume fraction, the following trivial relation would be correct:
(26)
In accordance with the Zuber-Findlay formula, the gas velocity may be represented as:
(27)
where C0 is the parameter of the Zuber-Findlay formula, which reflects the relationship between the
velocities of gas and liquid flows; V∞ is the velocity of the gas phase in a liquid at rest. The parameters C0
and V∞ depend primarily on the volume fraction of the gas phase, well slope and some other parameters
[Shi-2005, Choi-2012].
For further transformations, it is convenient to transform the formula (27) as follows:

(28)

where

(29)

The formula (27) could be also an implementation of the [Wallis-1969] slipping velocity model, using
C0 = 1, and V∞ = (1 − αg)Vs.
6 SPE-198361-MS

The total mass of the gas influx, calculated by the following formula, should be conserved:

(30)

Pros and Cons

Two-phase model covers more physics effects in the gas influx propagation. It could be extended to gas
solubility behavior in the oil-based mud. The model describes better gas distribution during initial time
when the influx is not controlled.
The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the two-phase model used for the
well control:

Pros Cons

Pressure change could be estimated more accurately It is a more complex method than a single bubble

Could be implemented for the Oil-based mud with gas solubility Need more experimental data for the implementation

The gas distribution in the well during influx formation is more physical

Single bubble model results comparison with two-phase model results

The single bubble model is currently implemented in the influx analysis module of the Weatherford
Intelligent MPD software [Weatherford-2019]. The results are compared with the commercial available
Drillbench Dynamic Well Control software [Drillbench-2019] utilizing two-phase model. For the testing
configuration the following input data were used:

• Well depth zBH = 17500 ft, vertical

• Annulus diameters: HID = 12.35 in, POD = 5"

• Fluid: water based, density ρl = 10 ppg, rheology – Newtonian, viscosity μ = 24 cP

• Influx gas: methane

• Initial Influx volume Volg(0)= 9 bbl

• Flow rate Ql = 200 gpm and 750 gpm

• Initial SBP = 150 psi was applied to bring BHP to the PP and control the influx

The results of the test for Q = 200 gpm of the Weatherford MPD software are demonstrated in the figure
below.
SPE-198361-MS 7

Figure 1—Output plots of the Weatherford MPD software, utilizing single bubble influx model for the test case.

The comparison of the results of the test for the single-bubble model and two-phase models are
demonstrated in the figures below for Q = 200 gpm.

Figure 2—Comparison of the Pit Gain (Influx Volume) results for the single bubble model and the
two -phase model implemented by the commercial software for the well control for Q = 200 gpm
8 SPE-198361-MS

Figure 3—Comparison of the SBP results for the single bubble model and the two-
phase model implemented by the commercial software for the well control for Q = 200 gpm

The single bubble model predicts less influx surfacing time by 10%, higher pit gain by 20%, the same
SBP change for the well control.
The comparison of the results of the test for the single-bubble model and two-phase models are
demonstrated in the figures below for Q = 750 gpm.

Figure 4—Comparison of the Pit Gain (Influx Volume) results for the single bubble model and the two-phase
model implemented by Weatherford and the commercial software Drillbench for the well control for Q = 750 gpm
SPE-198361-MS 9

Figure 5—Comparison of the SBP results for the single bubble model and the two-
phase model implemented by the commercial software for the well control for Q = 750 gpm

The single bubble model predicts higher influx surfacing time, pit gain and SBP change for the well
control.
Comparison of the influx speed, calculated by two models for different flow rates is demonstrated below.

Figure 6—Comparison of the gas influx speed calculated by a single bubble model
and two -phase model implemented by the commercial software for different flow rates

The comparison indicates that a single bubble model underpredicts the influx propagation speed
comparing to the two-phase model for the practical range of the flow rates (Q > 500 gpm).
Comparison of the maximal pit gain calculated by two models for different flow rates is demonstrated
below.
10 SPE-198361-MS

Figure 7—Comparison of the maximal pit gain calculated by a single bubble model
and two-phase model implemented by the commercial software for different flow rates

Comparison of the maximal SBP change, calculated by two models for different flow rates is
demonstrated below.

Figure 8—Comparison of the maximal SBP change calculated by a single bubble model
and two-phase model implemented by the commercial software for different flow rates

The comparisons indicate that a single bubble model predicts higher maximal Pit Volume and the maximal
SBP than the two-phase model.

Conclusions
This work demonstrates formulation of single bubble and two-phase model to simulate gas influx circulating
out of well and its effects on BHP during MPD operations. With the comparison of the results of the
single bubble model and two-phase model, both in-house development and implemented by the commercial
software, it is observed that differences in the models can be attributed primarily to influx transport velocity
formulation and equation of state for gas.
The single bubble influx model predicted pit gain and surface back pressure in close match with
commercially available software in the industry. With the two-phase hydraulics model, wellbore pressure is
SPE-198361-MS 11

precisely managed throughout influx detection, control and circulation of dynamic well control operation.
Other than the flow difference on the surface, and SPP as reference of change in downhole condition, the
hydraulics model provides accurate estimation of bottom hole pressure as well as location of influx while
circulating out of annulus.
As per above, despite the simplicity of the single bubble model and less computational cost required
to run, it does underestimate the influx propagation speed and overpredicts the pit gain increase and
consecutive pressure change. On the other hand, the two-phase model provides more accurate pressure
estimating also the gas distribution in the well during influx formation is more physical, however its complex
and require more experimental data for implementation.
Further work is in progress to obtain field data with influx management to compare against single bubble
and two-phase kinematic model.

Acknowledgements
Permission granted by "Weatherford" to publish this work is greatly appreciated.

Abbreviations
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
DFM Drift-Flux Model
FIT Formation Integrity Test
MPD Managed Pressure Drilling
ODE Ordinary Differential Equation
PP Pore Pressure
PPT PP Test
SBP Surface Back Pressure
SPP Stand Pipe Pressure

Nomenclature
A Cross-sectional area of the conduit
C0 Zuber-Findlay parameter
D Diameter
f Friction factor
g Acceleration due to gravity
H Influx (kick) zone height
k Permeability
M Mass
ṁ Mass flow rate
P Total pressure
Q Volumetric flow rate
R, r Radius
S Source term
t Time
T Temperature
V Velocity
Vol Volume
Z Real gas z-factor
z Measured depth
α Void fraction
12 SPE-198361-MS

Γ Rate of mass change

γ Specific gravity
θ Inclination
μ Viscosity
ρ Density
ψ Gas potential

Subscripts
a annulus
BH bottom hole
e drain-off (Earth)
g gas
h hydraulic
i phase index
k kick-zone
l liquid
M mixture
n node index
p pore
s slip
w wall, wellbore

References
Aarsnes, U. J. F., Ambrus, A., Karimi Vajargah, A., Aamo, O. M., van Oort, E. (2015) A simplified gas-liquid flow model
for kick mitigation and control during drilling operations. In: Proc. ASME 2015 Dynamic System Control Conference,
Columbus, OH, USA.
API RP 13D, Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-Well Fluids, fifth edition. June 2006. Washington, DC: API.
API RP 59, Recommended Practices for Well Control Operations, first edition, August 1987, Washington, DC: API.
Choi, J., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., Park, C., and Kang, J.M. (2012) An Efficient Drift-Flux Closure Relationship to Estimate
Liquid Holdups of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes. Energies, 5, 5294-5306.
Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, H. (1975) Calculation of Z Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State. J Can
Pet Technol 14 (3): 34. PETSOC-75-03-03
Drillbench Dynamic Well Control site (2019) dhttps://www.software.slb.com/products/drillbench/drillbench-dynamic-
well-control
Gavrilyuk, S.L. and Fabre J. (1996) Lagrangian Coordinates for a Drift-Flux Model of a Gas-Liquid Mixture. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow. 22 (3), 453-460.
Kinik, K., Gumus F., Osayande N. (2015) Automated Dynamic Well Control with Managed-Pressure Drilling: A Case
Study and Simulation Analysis, SPE-168948-PA, SPE Drilling and Completion, 30, 2.
Rostami, S. A., Kinik, K., Gumus, F., & Kirchhoff, M. (2015) Dynamic Calibration of the Empirical Pore Pressure
Estimation Methods Using MPD Data, OTC-25953-MS, In: Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, 4-7 May,
Houston, Texas, USA.
Rostami, S. A., Gumus, F., Simpkins, D., Pobedinski, I., Kinik, K., & Rajabi, M. M. (2016) New Generation of MPD
Drilling Software - From Quantifying to Control, SPE-181694-MS, In: Proc. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 26-28 September, Dubai, UAE.
Shi, H., Holmes, J., Durlofsky, L., Aziz, K., Diaz, L., Alkaya B., Oddie, G. (2005) Drift-Flux Modeling of Two-Phase
Flow in Wellbores. SPE Journal, 10, 24-33.
Wallis, G. B. (1969) One Dimensional Two-phase Flow, Chaps. 9 and 10. McGraw-Hill
Weatherford Intelligent MPD site (2019) https://www.weatherford.com/en/products-and-services/drilling/managed-
pressure-drilling/intelligent-mpd/

View publication stats