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

net/publication/314997492

A SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF WELL BLOW-OUTS

Conference Paper · June 2003

CITATIONS READS

0 922

4 authors, including:

Paolo Andreussi Vittorio Faluomi

Tea Sistemi Tea Sistemi
71 PUBLICATIONS   2,734 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

VINESYM Project View project

MAST Multiphase FLow Code View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vittorio Faluomi on 14 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF WELL BLOW-OUTS

P. Andreussi, University of Pisa, M. Bonuccelli,

G. Morale, TEA-Group, P. Blotto, ENI E&P

ABSTRACT
A simplified method has been developed by TEA Group and ENI E&P for the complete
characterization of atmospheric blow-outs. The core of the method is a zero-dimensional
model of well flow. The model calculates the blow-out oil and gas flow rates; the throat
pressure and temperature; the outlet gas velocity; the flow conditions at the outlet section
(critical or subcritical); the fluid properties at the outlet during an atmospheric or underwater
blow-out; the droplet size distribution at wellhead; the jet height and radius; the jet mean
temperature; the air entrainment in the jet. These data allow a correct prediction of the
gas/droplets dispersion and of the extension of the area affected by oil contamination. To this
purpose droplet dispersion in the atmosphere is simulated with a ballistic approach. The
model is able to consider a standard deviation on wind direction distribution, depending on
meteorological conditions. This allows a soil contamination map to be derived. Gas dispersion
is simulated with a Gaussian approach. The correlations adopted in the model for the
simulation of well flow, for the droplet size distribution and for the jet parameters have been
developed and validated with an experimental investigation carried out at TEA’s Laboratory.

1. INTRODUCTION

The availability of validated predictive tools for application during an accident scenario is
essential. Their use should not be restricted to design activities. They generate useful
information on the evolution of an accident and should be readily applied to optimise the
emergency response.
One potentially major accident event associated with the exploitation of hydrocarbon fields is
the uncontrolled release of formation fluid from the reservoir, e.g. a well blow-out. In a blow-
out event it is essential to implement the blow-out contingency plan as quickly as possible to
minimise the potential damage, considering that for onshore wells where oil and gas are
dispersed into the atmosphere and over land, a blow-out can have a direct impact also on the
population.
To improve the evaluation of the safety and environmental consequences of a blow-out, ENI
E&P commissioned a multi-disciplinary R&D project1. This project utilises technical and
scientific support from TEA, EniData and EniTechnologie. Due to the wide range of
knowledge and expertise required by this project (e.g. safety, reservoir, drilling, completion
and well fluid dynamic, jet dynamics and atmospheric dispersion) it has been necessary to
integrate the various disciplines to ensure good quality project deliverables.
The main objectives of the project have been:
• To provide tools to evaluate the consequences of a blow-out during the various
drilling and exploitation activities.
• To supply information on the evolution of the event that can be used as a base to:
support authorisation phases, providing important and reliable information
direct to the authorities;

1
 optimise the location of the well area taking into account the possible
consequences of a blow-out right from the first step in the drilling activities;
plan and manage the emergency actions to mitigate a blow-out situation,
providing decision making tools to key people;
produce the data required to prepare the Contingency Plans.

In this context, the main project deliverables are a selection of methodologies that simulate a
blow-out. Each methodology has an associated degree of accuracy in evaluating the following
key parameters (Fig.1):
• Single phase flow-rates at wellhead during the blow-out.
• Area involved in the dispersion of gas and oil droplets for given meteorological
conditions.
• Gas and oil droplets concentration maps in the atmosphere.
• Soil contamination maps.

As the primary use of this methodology would be the management of the emergency response
to a blow-out, it is essential to optimise the response time. In order to obtain a simple and
flexible tool of management, three different approaches have been developed:
• “Short-Cut Method, SCM, used for qualitative evaluations in Early Authorisation
Phases, Early Emergency Situations and to perform sensitivity studies.
• “Standard Method, SM, used for quantitative evaluation in Advanced Authorisation
phases and during the first stages of a blow-out.
• “Best Estimate” Method, BEM, based on field and laboratory data and on 3-D
simulation of the flow field, developed during the project to validate the simplified
approaches.

These approaches have obviously different number of input parameters required and a
different accuracy in the results. In this paper only the Short-Cut Method will be described.
This method is useful in an early emergency phase, when little information about the event is
available. In this respect, the SCM is particularly suited for sensitivity studies in order to
evaluate the reasonable variation ranges of the key parameters. Another advantage of this
method is that it can be very easily used by field operators.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCM

The SCM is able to simulate an atmospheric (Fig. 1) or underwater blow-out event. The
simulation includes the discharge of the two-phase (gas and oil) mixture from wellhead and
the dispersion of pollutants in the environment. The pollutant dispersion is estimated only for
atmospheric blow-outs.
The SCM includes various models, used to estimate the following phenomena that occur in a
blow-out event:
• Flow of the two-phase mixture (gas and oil) from the reservoir to wellhead.
• Critical (or subcritical) discharge at well-head.
• Atomisation and droplet size distribution of oil particles emitted in the atmosphere.
• Rise of gas-liquid jet and effective height of release.
• Cooling and evaporation of oil droplets in the atmosphere.
• Dispersion and fall out of oil to the ground.
• Dispersion of H2S and natural gas in the atmosphere.

2
2.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL
In the first phase of the project, about 60 blow-out scenarios have been analysed in details by
advanced numerical methods in order to have a broad database for the SCM development.
The core of the model is the prediction of well flow rates during a blow-out event. To this
purpose a simplified model has been developed. Model parameters have been determined by
means of the available experimental data and by comparison with the OLGA2 code
predictions for the reference scenarios.
The well model is a zero-dimensional momentum balance in which the simulated system is
divided into the following zones (see also Fig.2):

• Reservoir zone, where the fluid is supplied to the well on the basis of a given inflow
performance.
• One-phase well zone where the fluid is above the bubble point (OP in the following).
• Two-phase well zone where the fluid is below the bubble point (TP in the following).
• Discharge zone where the fluid is discharged to the environment in critical or sub-
critical conditions.

For high GOR, gas condensate and dry wells the two-phase zone is extended to the entire
well. In Fig.2 the main pressure values distinguishing the various zones are indicated.
Applying the momentum balance to the OP and TP zones separately it is found:

PS − PB = K RES GTOT + ρ OP H OP g + K F .OP LOP GTOT

2
(1)
PB − P0 = ρ TP H TP g + K F .G Φ LTP G 2
G
2
TOT + K C .TP G
2
TOT , (2)

where the K factors have the following expressions:

1 − x ST
K RES = (3)
PIρ O.ST
3.24 1 1
K F ,OP = 2 f OP (4)
π ρ OP 4
D DH
E
2
3.24 xTP 1
K F ,G = f TP (5)
π 2
ρ G ,TP 4
D DH
E

LTP
K C .TP = C (6)
(ρ G.TP ATPα TP )2
KRES accounts for the pressure drop in the reservoir, KF.OP for the frictional pressure drops in
the OP zone, KF.G for the “gas-only” frictional pressure drops in the TP zone and KF.TP for the
concentrated pressure drops in the TP zone. In the OP zone the concentrated pressure drop
can be neglected, while the constant C in Eq. (6) can be derived by a linear regression from
the reference data. The frictional pressure drop term in the TP zone is determined making use
of a suitable two-phase multiplier (the Φ G2 term in Eq. (2)) to correct for the “gas-only”
frictional term.
Observing that the geometrical terms HOP, LOP, HTP and LTP are correlated to the overall well
depth (HWELL) and length (LWELL), Eqs. (1) and (2) have as unknowns the bubble point
position and the total mass flow-rate GTOT. The system can be solved if the following
parameters are provided:
• Fluid properties.
• Friction factors in both the OP and TP zones (fOP, fTP).

3
 • Multiphase multiplier in the TP zone ( Φ G2 ).
• Void Fraction and gas mass fraction in the TP zone ( α TP , xTP ).
The fluid properties (essentially fluid densities) can be evaluated with suitable Blackoil
Correlations. A sensitivity analysis revealed that a constant value for the friction factor for
both zones could be used. The multiphase multiplier3, Φ G2 , has been evaluated by
interpolating the results obtained in the analysis of to the project reference scenarios. To this
purpose recalling the definition of the Lockart-Martinelli parameter turbulent two-phase flow:
ρ G ,TP 1 − xTP
2

X =
2
, (7)
ρ O ,TP xTP
it is possible to correlate the Φ G2 with X 2 using the results of the reference scenarios to
obtain the curve reported in Fig. 3. The curve interpolating the data is:
(
Φ G2 = 1 + AX
n
)
m
(8)
The other important closure parameter is the void fraction in the two-phase zone. This
parameter can be derived from the average GOR in the two-phase zone (GORTP). In fact, if
the perfect gas assumption is made and the effects of temperature variations are neglected,
then the void fraction (assuming no-slip between phases) is given by:
GORTP
α TP = (9)
PTP + GORTP
GORTP can be easily derived from the total GOR assuming that the actual GOR varies linearly
from the bubble point to stock tank conditions.
Finally the gas mass fraction in the TP zone is correlated, still under the no-slip assumption,
to the void fraction:
1
α TP = (10)
1 − xTP ρ G ,TP
1+
xTP ρ O ,TP

In Fig.4 the results obtained with the SCM are compared with the results (in terms of total
mass flow-rates) of the OLGA code, one of the software tools used to analyze the reference
scenarios. In case of atmospheric blow-out, the mean error in the evaluation of the mass flow
rate is about 17.5%, while in case of underwater blow-out the mean error is 18%. These
results are considered to be very good, since the deviations are estimated through more than
60 reference scenarios.

2.2 DROPLET SIZE DISTRIBUTION

In a blow-out event, often the mixture velocity in the well is very high, so that at well head the
oil is atomized and flows upward in the form of small droplets. The model is able to predict
the main features of the two-phase jet and to estimate the droplet size distribution.
In the literature not many papers deal with the generation of droplets at the outlet section of a
pipe, where a high velocity gas-liquid mixture is flowing. Fortunately, the flow conditions
encountered in the analysis of an oil well blow-out present some similarities with the process
of pneumatic atomisation. Actually, the main differences between the two phenomena regard
the geometry of the system: the typical size of the exit ports of a pneumatic atomizer is a few
millimetres, while in the case of blow-out typical pipe diameters are at least ten times larger.
The other flow parameters such as the fluid properties, the gas and liquid superficial velocities
and finally the droplet size are quite similar in the two cases. This suggests the use of a
similar approach to correlate droplet size, considering that the literature on pneumatic
atomizers is quite rich. In particular, Lefebre4 suggested a correlation in which the Sauter

4
Mean Diameter D32 is expressed as the sum of two terms, one being dominated by the Weber
number (We) and the other by the Ohnesorge number (Z); that is:
D 32 G
= (B We-0.5 + CZ 0.5 ) 1 + F (11)
Dc GA
In the present work, available measurements of the Sauter Mean Diameter have been
tentatively correlated with Eq. (11)5. The coefficients B and C in Eq. (7) have been chosen in
order to obtain the best fit of available data. The results obtained are shown in Fig. 5. As can
be seen from this figure the fit obtained is satisfactory.

2.3 HEIGHT OF RELEASE IN ATMOSPHERIC BLOWOUT

After the discharge the gas/liquid mixture flows in the upward direction because of its kinetic
energy and the contribution of buoyancy. The effective height of release (Heff) is calculated as
the height of the source(HRT) plus the plume rise due to kinetic energy and buoyancy (∆H):
H eff = H RT + ∆H (12)
Normally the height of the source is assumed as the height of the rotary table.
The plume rise is calculated as the sum of two terms: one due to the ‘jet flux’ component
(DHj), the other due to the ‘momentum and buoyancy flux’ component (∆Hm,b):
∆H = ∆H j + ∆H m ,b (13)
The first term is estimated by a specific model, the second is calculated through the Briggs
formula6.
The jet model is valid for large vertical velocities and if the ratio between the jet vertical
velocity and the wind velocity is quite high. The jet model does not consider the influence of
the wind. On the contrary, the Briggs formula considers the influence of atmospheric
conditions on the rise and the growth of the plume, but it is not able to simulated the jet flux.
Due to these reasons, in the SCM the jet is simulated by the jet model until its vertical
velocity decreases to 30 m/s, then the Briggs formula is used.

2.4 COOLING AND EVAPORATION OF OIL DROPLETS

Once the oil particles reach the atmosphere, evaporation starts because of the relatively high
vapour pressure of some oil components. The evaporation rate depends on
• the initial temperature of the particle and the air temperature;
• the droplet size distribution (after atomization at wellhead);
• the particle settling velocity;
• the composition of oil at wellhead conditions;
• the residence time of particles in the atmosphere.
In particular, a small particle of light oil has a high evaporation rate.
In the SCM a simple evaporation model has been implemented. Oil droplets are divided in 9
classes, depending on their diameter. The volume percentage of each class at wellhead is
predeterminate, as illustrated in Fig. 6. At each class, the SCM associates a mean diameter,
according to the particle size distribution. For each diameter, the evaporation model calculates
the mass decrease due to evaporation before droplets deposition to the ground, and then the
particle size distribution at the ground. Therefore for each class, two diameters are defined:
one at wellhead, the other at the ground. An example of particles size distribution at wellhead
and at the ground is illustrated in Fig.6. In this case, the particle in the first class evaporate
completely before falling to the ground. Since the particle size reduction due to evaporation
influences the dispersion, the evaporation model should be integrated in the dispersion model.
This operation is mathematically quite complex. For this reason the dispersion model does not
consider the change of the particle settling velocity due to size reduction, but considers the
diameter of each class as constant, equal to that at the ground. In this way the particle

5
diameter decreases, and the model becomes more conservative (the particles fall at a greater
distance from the source).

2.5 DROPLETS DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION

The model calculates the most probable distance at which oil droplets are deposited. To this
purpose a ballistic approach is used:
• The particle falling velocity, v s is calculated with the equation:

4 g ⋅ d p ρ oil − ρ air
vs = (14)
3 CD ρ air

where d p is the particle diameter; g is the acceleration due to gravity, ρ oil and ρ air
are the oil and air specific gravities, µ air is the air viscosity, C D is the drag
coefficient. The drag coefficient depends on the Reynolds Number:

ρ air ⋅ vs ⋅ d p
Re = , (15)
µ air

and is calculated as:

24
CD = for Re<0.1 (Stokes’ law)
Re
24
CD = (1 + 0.14 Re 0.7 ) for 0.1<Re<1000 (Intermediate region flow)
Re
C D = 0.0445 for 1000<Re<350000 (Newton’s law)

An example of particle dynamics in the atmosphere is reported in Fig. 7. This curve is

obtained for oil specific gravity of 850 kg m 3 , air density of 1.20 kg m3 and air
viscosity of 1.81 ⋅10 −5 Pa ⋅ s .
• The falling time τ p is calculated as the effective height of release divided by the
Stoke’s falling velocity:

H eff
τp = (16)
vs
• The most probable distance d mp travelled is evaluated as the falling time times the
average wind velocity u av :
d mp = uav ⋅τ p (17)

The average wind velocity is calculated through the wind velocity profile between the ground
and the effective height of release. The wind profile is estimated by the ‘power low
equation’7:
p

u ( z ) = u ( z0 ) ⋅
z
(18)
z0

6
where z is the vertical coordinate, z 0 is the measurement height of the surface wind, u ( z 0 ) is
the measured wind velocity, p is the power law exponent. The parameter p depends on the
atmospheric stability class and the roughness of the ground.
For each particle class, the model calculates a separate deposition distance.
The model interpolates also the results for the single classes, and obtains a curve of deposition
in terms of distance from the source. Then the model is able to consider a standard deviation
on wind direction distribution, depending on meteorological conditions, in order to simulate
the lateral spread of the oil contamination. These capabilities permit to obtain a soil
contamination map, referred to particular meteorological conditions chosen by the user.

2.6 GAS DISPERSION

The model is able to evaluate the dispersion of H2S and natural gas in the atmosphere. H2S
mass flow is evaluated at wellhead, while the total natural gas flow is calculated as the
quantity estimated at wellhead plus the mass of oil evaporated.
The SCM includes a simple Gaussian model for estimating gas dispersion. This model does
not consider the effect of orography on dispersion. According to this model, the concentration
at the generic receptor far (from source) x in downwind direction, y in crosswind direction
and z over the ground level, is calculated as:
y2 (z − H eff )2 (z + H eff )2
− − −
G 2⋅σ 2
2⋅σ 2
2⋅σ 2y
C ( x, y , z ) = ⋅e ⋅ e +e
2 ⋅ π ⋅ σ z ⋅ σ y ⋅ u (H eff )
y y
(19)

where G is the gas emitted; σ z and σ y are the standard deviations of the Gaussian
distribution along z and y direction, z is the height of receptors, H eff is the effectice height
of release, u ( H eff ) is the wind speed at the height H eff .
Eq. (19) assumes total reflection at the ground ( z = 0 ), and unlimited mixing height. These
assumptions lead to realistic results for the local scale, i. e. for a maximum distance from the
source of few kilometers. The dispersion coefficients σ are functions of the distance of the
source, the atmospheric stability class and the surface roughness of the ground.
A tuning of the SCM Gaussian dispersion model has been made, in order to reduce the
differences with Calpuff, the reference model used in the Standard Method. Eight different
reference scenarios, with different characteristics, have been selected for tuning, and the
comparison has been made with particular regard to the concentration peak, the distance from
the source and the lateral spread of the cloud. Table 1 shows that the deviation between the
SCM and Calpuff, in the reference atmospheric condition, is quite small, with a mean
deviation of 11.7% for peak concentration and only 4.5% for the distance from the source.

3. MODEL VALIDATION

In order to validate the model, a simulation of a real blow-out event has been made. The event
simulated refers to a light oil blow-out lasted about 36 hour. The hydraulic model estimates a
mass flow rate of 87.3 kg/sec of the two-phase mixture (7.4 kg/sec gas; 79.9 liquid) and a
well-head temperature of 139°C. The flow, at the exit section, is critical, and the exit velocity
is evaluated to be 111.9 m/sec. The oil is atomized in small droplets characterized by a Sauter
mean diameter (D32) of 70 microns. The evaporation model estimates that about 7% of the oil
mass evaporates before reaching the ground, so that only 73.3 kg/sec of oil particles fall to the
soil.
The available measurements of soil contamination allow to compare the results of the
simulation with the consequences of a real blow-out. This comparison can be made only for
oil, because gas dispersion was not measured during the event.

7
The mass of oil dispersed on the ground estimated by the analysis of the area was about
13800 m3, while the mass estimated by the model is 11330 m3. The deviation between the
measured value and the model is about 18%.
Actual meteorological data during the event have been used to generate the contamination
map. As shown in Fig. 8, the contaminated area computed with the model has the same shape
as the actual contaminated area (see Fig.9), but the model gives a larger area, and a generally
larger contamination. This is due to the intrinsic conservative characteristics of the model and
to the fact that in the real blow-out, the two-phase jet rise was partially thwarted by the
drilling structures. Furthermore, when the blow-out event happened, it was raining and
particles struck by rain tend to deposit on the ground earlier.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The main results and capabilities of the Short Cut Method developed for the simulation of
blow-out events can be summarized as follow:
• The SCM is able to simulate a blow-out event on the basis of few input data, with very
small computing time and good results.
• It simulates the flow of the two-phase mixture (gas and oil) from the reservoir to
wellhead estimating the fluid-dynamic aspects and the atomisation of the liquid phase
at well head.
• It simulates the rise of the jet in the atmosphere.
• In case of atmospheric blow-out, the SCM is able to simulate the gas dispersion in the
atmosphere.
• The SCM estimates the ratio of oil evaporated in the atmosphere and the deposition of
oil droplets on the ground.
The SCM is a simple tool, very easy to use, essential to plan and manage the emergency
actions to mitigate real blow-out situations, providing decision making tools to key people.
Moreover, the SCM allows to produce the data required to prepare the Contingency Plans and
to support the authorisation phases, providing important and reliable information to the
authorities.
The application of the SCM to a real blow-out demonstrates that the models developed are
effective and can be safely applied in future scenarios.

8
 Fig 1: The blow-out phenomenon Fig 2: Generic system schematization

14000
Atmospheric Scenarios

12000 Underwater Scenarios

Calculated with SCM model (kg/s)

10000
+ 20%

8000
- 20%

6000

4000

2000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Calculated with OLGA (kg/s)

Fig 3: Two-phase multiplier versus Lockart- Fig 4: Comparison between the OLGA
Martinelli Parameter prediction and the SCM model
results of the total mass flow-rate

9
 90.0
Particle size distribution

80.0 Water Dc=21 mm 20

D32 Calculated with Lefebvre

18
70.0 Water Dc=10 mm
16 Well-head

Mass fraction (%)

60.0 Oil Dc=10 mm
correlation 14 Ground
50.0 12

40.0 10
8
30.0
6
20.0 4

10.0 2
0
0.0
<14 14-22 22-32 32-43 43-55 55-70 70-85 85-105 >105
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Particle diameter (microns)
D32 measured

Fig 5: Comparison between calculated Fig 6: Example of particle size distribution

(Lefebvre correlation) and measured D32 at wellhead and at the ground

1000

100
Settling velocity (m/s)

10
Stokes' law
1

0.1
1 2 3
0.01

0.001 Intermediate Newton's law

region flow
0.0001

0.00001
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 100000.0
Diameter (micron)

Fig 7: Particle dynamics in atmosphere

10
Fig 8: Blowout simulation – Soil contamination map (Approach 3 model)

Fig 9: Real blowout event – Soil contamination map

11
 Tab. 1: Deviation between Approach 3 Dispersion Model and Calpuff

REFERENCES
/1/ Blotto P., Andreussi P., Bonuccelli M., Galinetto R., Podenzani F., “An Integrated Methodology
for the Evaluation of the Safety and Environmental Impact Associated to a Blow-out Event”, SPE
61192, 5th SPE Int. Conf. On Health, Safety & Environment, Stavanger, 2000.
/2/ Bendiksen et. al.,”The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application” SPE
Production Engineering, (pp 171-180), May 1991.
/3/ Butterworth D., Hewitt G.F., Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer, Harwell Series, Oxford
University Press 1977.
/4/ A. Lefebvre, Progr. Energy Combust. Sci. 6, pp. 233-260, 1980
/5/ Andreussi P., Bonuccelli M, Faluomi V.. Ansiati A. Blotto P., “Analysis of blow-out of oil wells”,
10th International Conference “Multiphase ‘01”, Cannes, France, June 2001.
/6/ Seinfeld J. H. “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution”, Californian Institute of
Technology Pasadena, California, 1985.
/7/ Scire J.S., Strimaitis D.G., Yamartino R.J., “A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model”,
January 2002.

12

View publication stats