Validation of Blowout-Rate Calculations
for Subsea Wells
P. Oudeman, SPE, Shell International Exploration and Production
Summary
Calculating the blowout rate of oil and gas wells is commonly one
of the first steps in environmental-impact assessment, contingency
planning, and emergency response. The blowout rate is a direct
measure for the economic and environmental damage caused by
a blowout and an indicator for the effort required to regain con-
trol over the well. Hence, a simulator was developed to estimate
blowout rates.
This simulator was validated for field cases by comparing
calculated blowout rates with estimates based on observable phe-
nomena such as flame length and heat release rates. This limited
validation to onshore- and platform-well blowouts, which are
usually governed by critical outflow conditions at surface, because
ambient pressure is usually considerably less than the wellbore
pressure just upstream of the outflow. For subsea wells, blowing
out against the substantially higher pressures at seabed, this does
not apply. The blowout rate is determined by the total system per-
formance from inflow at sandface to outflow at seabed.
To validate the blowout-rate calculations under these condi-
tions, data were collected on high-rate well flow through an annu-
lus against elevated surface pressures, resembling subsea blowout
conditions. A comparison of the measured rates with the calculated
rates demonstrated that the rates could be predicted with a high
accuracy, provided that the mechanical condition of the tubulars is
taken into account properly. Default assumptions for the hydraulic
roughness of the tubulars lead to overestimates of the blowout rates
and consequently to worst-case estimates for the environmental
and economic damage caused by a blowout.
Introduction
The number that is invariably attached to potential or actual blow-
outs is the blowout rate. In the first place, the blowout rate is a
measure for the damage caused by a blowout because there is a
direct relation with
• The loss of reserves
• The amount of hydrocarbons released to the environment, the
size of the area affected, and the cost of cleanup operations after
the event (Oudeman 2005)
• The complexity of the efforts to regain control over the well
More difficult to quantify, in case of an actual blowout, is the
impact of issues such as negative publicity and loss of reputation
and credibility. A representative example is the infamous 1979
blowout of Ixtoc-1 in the Gulf of Mexico (Lugo and de Leon
1981), which led to an oil spill estimated at 3.5 million bbl (Fig. 1,
from the archives of Emergency Response Division, Office of
Response Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration), fouling a considerable part of
the Texas coastline. Between 6 August and 13 September 1979,
approximately 24,000–32,000 bbl of oil were deposited onshore
in Texas, mainly on the beaches.
To generate an estimate for the blowout rate, some form of
nodal analysis is generally applied, matching the inflow perfor-
mance of the well to the vertical lift performance (Oudeman 1998).
For onshore- and platform-well surface blowouts, the blowout rate
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 115019) was accepted for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 25–27 August 2008, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 25 April 2008. Revised paper received
for review 11 January 2010. Paper peer approved 18 January 2010.
282
is often controlled by the sonic outflow conditions because the
pressure in the well will exceed atmospheric pressure by a factor
of two or more. This makes accurate modeling of the total system
performance less important.
This does not apply to blowouts at seabed of subsea wells.
These wells blow out against the hydrostatic pressure of the water
column at the mudline. In most cases, this pressure will determine
the flowing wellhead pressure of the blowing well. Sonic condi-
tions will not develop at the wellhead, and the total system per-
formance will have to be taken into account to obtain an accurate
estimate for the blowout rate.
The algorithms to obtain such an estimate have been incorpo-
rated in an in-house blowout-control simulator. These algorithms
are described in detail by Oudeman et al. (1993). The accuracy of
the calculations depends on two modules:
1. The routines that calculate (multiphase) pressure drop in the
reservoir and along the blowout conduit from drainage radius to
surface (or the mudline).
2. The routines that determine the blowout rate given the out-
flow conditions and taking into account the pressure drops in the
well and the reservoir.
Field tests and experience indicated that the calculations were
sufficiently accurate for wells blowing against a low wellhead
pressure, where sonic conditions prevail (Oudeman and Mason
1998). For higher wellhead pressures, evidence for the accuracy
was not available. Hence, opportunities were sought to verify the
calculations for these conditions.
Such an opportunity presented itself in the form of an acquired
data set testing an offshore gas well that had been drilled underbal-
anced and was tested by flowing it through the annulus of a 3.5-in.
drillpipe and a 7-in. casing, a typical blowout configuration. This
test and the data will be discussed in the following section. Next,
data quality control and verification of the blowout-rate calcula-
tions will be presented.
Well Configuration and Test
The data to verify the blowout-rate calculations were obtained
from a test of a well producing a small (0.15 Tcf) tight offshore
gas reservoir at a depth of approximately 2800 m (9,200 ft) located
on the Dutch continental shelf of the North Sea.
Although the field was discovered in 1972, development was
not considered attractive at that time, in view of the low produc-
tion rates expected and the limited volume of the reservoir. This
changed with the increasing price of natural gas and advances
in drilling and production technology. The field was brought on
production in March 2006.
To maximize productivity and minimize the number of wells
required, two (horizontal) wells were drilled underbalanced to
reduce formation damage, resulting in a production capacity per
well of approximately 1.5 million std m3/d, approximately five
times the capacity of conventional wells producing these 1 milli-
darcy formations. The produced gas has a specific gravity of 0.593
(air = 1) and contains little condensate (1 m3 of condensate per 106 m3
of gas) and water (12 m3 of water per 106 std m3 of gas).
The typical flow configuration to test the wells is shown in Fig. 2.
The 7-in. casing serves basically to inject gas during drilling of
the pay zone and maintain underbalance. The 3.5-in. drillstring
contains a number of 5-in. drill collars (not shown in the figure)
and a downhole pressure and temperature gauge. The gas flows
to surface through the annular space between the 7-in. casing and
the 3.5-in. drillstring.
September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Fig. 1—Aerial view of the 1979 Ixtoc-1 blowout.

Basically, these tests were carried out to test the productivity
(and sand production) of the wells, but for several reasons, they offer
an excellent opportunity to verify the blowout-rate calculations on
subsea wells of the in-house blowout-control modeling tool:
• The configuration is very similar to the configuration encoun-
tered in many blowouts, with annular flow between the drillstring
and casings/open hole when control is lost over the well (e.g.,
after a kick is taken).
• Subsea wells blow out against the pressure at seabed. Dur-
ing the tests, wellhead pressures between 70 and 220 bar were
observed, which is representative for subsea blowouts in water
depths between 680 and 2100 m.
Hence, following quality control, blowout rates were calculated
and compared with the actually measured rates.
Test-Data Quality Control
The well was tested at a number of rates, varying from 0 (closed in)
to 1.3×106 std m3/d, at flowing wellhead pressures (FWHPs) ranging
from 252 (closed in) to 67 bar. For each flow rate, the flowing tub-
inghead pressure and the flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) were
measured. This allows a distinction between the inflow performance
(the relation between the flow rate and the FBHP) and the vertical
lift performance (the relation between the pressure drop over the
tubing from top to bottom and the flow rate). Both elements of the
overall well performance will be examined separately.

Inflow Performance. One of the most popular descriptions for the

inflow performance of a gas well is the well-known Forchheimer
13.375 inCsg
in. casing equation with the A and F factors (Katz 1959), which represent the
72.00lbm/ft
72.00 lbm/ft Darcy and turbulent pressure drop in the near wellbore region:
1150 m
2
pres − pwf
2
= A ⋅ qgas + F ⋅ qgas
2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

where pres is reservoir pressure, bar; pwf is FBHP, bar; and qgas is
9.625 in.
inCsg
casing 3.500 in.
inDPdrillpipe gas rate, 1000 std m3/d.
53.50lbm/ft
53.50 lbm/ft 10.20lbm/ft
10.20 lbm/ft
A, F, and pres can be obtained basically by plotting the square of the
3340 m FBHP as a function of gas rate and fitting a second-order polynomial
3400 m
to the measurements. For the test points, however, this procedure
failed because the fit gives a negative value for A. Because A is the
Darcy-flow term, which is related to the pressure drop in the porous
permeable rock of the reservoir, this term cannot be negative because
this would imply that in the absence of turbulence, pressure would
increase in the direction of flow. This is physically impossible.
Hence, it was decided to suppress the non-Darcy F term, by
7.000 in.
inCsg
casing forcing the term to vanish. The result is shown in Fig. 3.
8.500 in.
in P 32.00lbm/ft
32.00 lbm/ft The fit gives the following result where pres = 291 bar and
4774 m
3401 m A = 26.3 bar2/(1000 std m3/d). Given the true vertical depth of the
formation (2840 m), this means that the reservoir is normally pres-
sured (0.102 bar/m). The value for A indicates that the formation
has a low permeability, in the millidarcy range.
It is noted that there is considerable scatter in the test points
(the coefficient of determination, R2, indicating the quality of the
fit, is only 0.77), particularly at rates below 800,000 std m3/d. This
can have several causes:
• Poor measurements of the FBHP and/or the rates
• Slugging in (part of) the well at low rates
Fig. 2—Well-test configuration. • Poor stabilization of the tests

September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 283

 100000
90000
80000
70000
60000

2 , bar2
50000
pwf 40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 500 1000 1500
qgas, 1000 std m3/d

Fig. 3—Fit to derive A and F from test data.

It is difficult to distinguish between these causes. Slugging
would explain that the scatter is found mainly at the low-rate points
(loading conditions), but this could also be attributed to flow-rate
measurements close to the lower limit of the dynamic range of
the orifice meter.
Alternatively, the consistency of the measurements can be
checked by examination of the vertical lift performance.
Vertical Lift Performance. For “dry” gas wells, the vertical lift
performance can be described with the Cullender-Smith B- and
C-factor relation (Katz 1959):
2
pwf = B ⋅ ptf2 + C ⋅ qgas
2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
where ptf is flowing wellhead pressure, bar; pwf is FBHP, bar; and
qgas is gas rate, 1000 std m3/d.
The B factor accounts for the hydrostatic pressure drop in the
well and depends on gas density, compressibility, and temperature.
The C factor gives the frictional pressure drop and depends on gas
density, compressibility, temperature, tubing size, and hydraulic
roughness of the conduits. By plotting (pwf /ptf)2 vs. (qgas/ptf)2 and
fitting a straight line, B can be derived from the intercept of the line
and C can be derived from the slope. This is shown in Fig. 4.
The excellent fit—the coefficient of determination, R2, equals
0.99, which also implies that accelerational terms play no role here
because these would have introduced a linear dependence on gas
rate—gives the following results: B = 1.39 (dimensionless) and
C = 0.0235 bar2/(1000 std m3/d)2.
It is noted that the scatter observed in the inflow-performance
plot is completely absent in the vertical-lift-performance plot. This
indicates that the rates and pressures have basically been measured
correctly and accurately and rules out slugging as a possible cause
for the scatter because this would certainly have given rise to a
deviation from the (pseudohomogeneous) Cullender-Smith model.
Stabilization is not an issue for the tubing flow in view of the
limited volume of the tubing and the short residence time of the
gas in the tubing (approximately 200 seconds).
This leaves poor reservoir stabilization as cause for the scatter
in the inflow data [i.e., (pseudo) steady-state reservoir flow has
not been reached for the low flow rates during the tests]. This is
typical for tight gas reservoirs, which take a long time to stabilize
(Dake 2001). Because the scatter is not systematic, the test points
can be used to verify the blowout-rate calculations, but the scatter
will be reflected in the results of these calculations.
Comparison With Calculated Blowout Rates
By comparing measured and calculated rates, two modules of the
blowout simulator (Oudeman et al. 1993) can be investigated:
1. The solution routines that, given a surface outflow pressure,
search for the matching blowout rate and downhole pressure. These

12

10

8
(pwf /ptf )2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
(qgas/ptf )2 (1000 std m3/d.bar)2

Fig. 4—Fit to derive the vertical-lift-performance parameters.

284 September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

 2 2
1.8
r=0.001 in.
Calculated rate, million std m3/d 1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Measured rate, million std m3/d
Fig. 5—Comparison of measured and calculated rates, using
the default roughness.
routines are based on the same principles as nodal analysis, with
thorough modeling of sonic conditions in the well (if present), usu-
ally at wellhead (this makes the intake pressure curve, or “J-curve,”
deviate from the standard curve because the wellhead pressure will
not be constant but dependent on rate for critical rates), and model-
ing of along-well temperatures, given the considerable expansion
of the gas and the associated Joule-Thomson cooling.
2. The vertical lift calculations in the annular geometry (3.5-in.
drillpipe × 7-in. casing) that were recently improved by including
an improved description of hydraulic diameter for annular flow
(Oudeman 2007).
Correspondence between calculated and measured rates can be
expected only if both modules perform correctly in the simulator.
Calculations With Default Hydraulic Parameters. To calculate
frictional pressure drop in high-rate gas/liquid flow, a value for
hydraulic roughness, also known as sand-grain roughness, is
required because at high Reynolds numbers, this will completely
determine frictional pressure drop (Nikuradse 1933). Default val-
ues for hydraulic roughness for various materials have been
listed, but actual values may differ considerably because of the
manufacturing process and condition of the material. For gas-well
tubing, Gray (1974) determined a value of 25 m (0.001 in.) to
give the best fit to field data, and this value is used as a default
in calculations with the in-house modeling tools, although other
authors determined values as low as 15 m (0.0006 in.) in gas
wells (Smith et al. 1954).
A comparison between the measured and calculated rates for
the wellhead pressures measured is shown in Fig. 5.
It appears from this figure that
• For two wellhead pressures, 224 and 227 bar, a zero outflow
rate is calculated (i.e., it is predicted that, under steady-state con-
ditions, the well will not flow against these pressures because of
downhole liquid accumulation). However, measured flow rates
were 0.5 and 0.6 million std m3/d. Probably, this can be attrib-
uted to poor stabilization, as pointed out in the Test-Data Quality
Control section. The closed-in wellhead pressure is 251 bar, so
if the measurements were taken soon after opening up the well,
the measured wellhead pressures are not representative for stable
flowing conditions.
• The scatter in the low-rate points, which was observed in the
inflow-performance analysis, is indeed reflected in the calculated
rates.
• The blowout rates are overpredicted almost systematically by
approximately 11% on average. This suggests that pressure losses
September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
1.8
Calculated rate, million std m3/d
1.6
r=0.01 in.
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Measured rate, million std m3/d
1.6 1.8 2
Fig. 6—Comparison of measured and calculated rates, using
an adapted hydraulic roughness.
actually occurring in the well are not taken into account. This
increases the calculated blowout rates.
Calculations With Adapted Hydraulic Parameters. As men-
tioned, the hydraulic roughness used in the calculations is 0.001
in. (25 m), a value determined by Gray (1974) to give the best
prediction of tubing pressure drop in wet gas wells.
In this case, however, the inside of the 7-in. casing and the
outside of the 3.5-in. drillpipe have been exposed to drilling fluids
and cuttings and mechanical damage over a long period. Hence, it
is reasonable to assume that the hydraulic roughness of the steel
will be closer to the roughness of rusted steel [i.e., on the order
of 0.01 to 0.02 in. (250 to 500 m)]. Furthermore, the presence
of crossovers and couplings will add to the effective hydraulic
roughness of the blowout conduit.
Fig. 6 shows the result of calculations with a roughness of 0.01
in. For the highest rates, an excellent match with measurements is
obtained using this value for hydraulic roughness. On average, the
rates are underpredicted by only 2% (i.e., well within the range of
accuracy of the data). The scatter in the lower-rate points remains
because, as pointed out before, this is related to poor reservoir stabi-
lization and not to the selected value for roughness. This also applies
to the two points for which no solution for the rate could be found.
Preliminary Conclusion. From the preceding sensitivity analysis
on the effect of hydraulic roughness, it can be concluded that the
standard value for hydraulic roughness in cases such as that being
studied gives at best a worst-case estimate for the blowout rates and
that, using an appropriate value for roughness, blowout rates can be
calculated with high accuracy. This conclusion, however, is based
on this single case and leaves the possibility that, for example, an
erroneous calculation of the pressure loss is corrected by adapting
the hydraulic roughness. To exclude this possibility and confirm
the preliminary conclusion, the blowout-rate calculations were
also tested against the results of an earlier test. This is discussed
in the next section.
Testing the Preliminary Conclusion
In 1994, a dedicated field test was set up to study the dynamics of
the hydraulic kill of a blowing well by injecting kill fluid down-
hole in a 5.5-in. well through 1.75-in. coiled tubing. This test in a
Groningen gas well is described in detail in Oudeman and Mason
(1998). The flow configuration is shown in Fig. 7.
The configuration is somewhat less representative for an actual
blowout situation, where the inner pipe would usually be a 3.5- or 5-
in. drillstring. The gas/liquid ratios (GLRs) during the tests ranged
285
 Though for the purpose of the test this was of limited value,
the measurements were valuable for validation of the calculations
on pressure drop in multiphase flow in an annular geometry
(Oudeman 2007).
To illustrate the remarks made previously on stabilization of
the reservoir during the tests, the inflow performance of this well
was also analyzed in terms of the Forchheimer A and F factors.
The result is shown in Fig. 9.
A second-order-polynomial fit to the data resulted in a small but
negative F factor. Again, this is physically impossible but indicates
5.500 inTbg
in. tubing that in this case the F factor is too small to be determined reliably.
9.625 in.
inCsg
casing
17.00lbm/ft
17.00 lbm/ft Hence, the F factor was suppressed, and the data were fitted to
53.50lbm/ft
53.50 lbm/ft
2800 m a straight line, with the result that Pres = 163.4 bar and A = 0.304
2700 m
bar2/(1000 std m3/d).
Some remarks on this result can be made:
• Given that the true vertical depth of the perforations is 2800 m,
the well is considerably underpressured (0.058 bar/m) because of 25
years of depletion (initial pressure of the reservoir was 358 bar).
• The A factor is almost two orders of magnitude less than the
1.750 in. coiled
A factor of the previous well. This is consistent with the fact that
1.750 in CT
tubing the permeability of the Slochteren reservoir is on the order of 100
2.17 lbm/ft
2.17lbm/ft
to 200 md, whereas the permeability of the reservoir discussed
7.000 in.
inCsg/Hgr
casing/hanger previously is on the order of 1 md.
2800 m
32.00lbm/ft
32.00 lbm/ft • The scatter in the data points is minimal. During the tests,
2950 m proper care was given to stabilization, and the high-permeability
reservoir stabilizes rapidly.
P Perforation Analysis of the lift performance in terms of B and C factors does
2810 m not give a meaningful result in this case because the Cullender-
Smith model assumes the fluids to have a constant composition
(i.e., a constant LGR).
Fig. 7—Blowout-test configuration. The results were used to test the blowout-rate calculations. A
comparison of measured and calculated (using the default value for
hydraulic roughness) blowout rates is shown in Fig. 10.
from 1300 to 3700 std m3/m3 (7,000 to 15,000 scf/bbl), which is Although at the highest rate there is 2% overprediction, the aver-
representative for rich-gas or volatile-oil systems. And, as pointed age error in the calculated rates is only –5% ± 5% (i.e., most rates
out in (Oudeman 1998), oilwell blowouts usually produce at GLRs are slightly underpredicted within a narrow range). This indicates
considerably exceeding the GLR at normal production conditions that the default value for roughness, 0.001 in., is appropriate for
because of gas coning and gas breakout in the reservoir. this system consisting of smooth coiled tubing and clean produc-
A number of kill attempts failed (i.e., injection of kill fluid tion tubing. The slight underprediction could be a consequence of
did reduce the rate in the well), but after a short period, the well the fact that the calculations assume a natural flowing temperature
stabilized, producing at a lower rate and higher liquid/gas ratio gradient in the well, whereas the actual flowing temperature gradi-
(LGR) (this illustrates the statement made before that tubing flow ent in the well is influenced by the cold kill fluid pumped down
stabilizes typically in approximately 10 minutes). An example of the kill string. The reduction in temperature reduces the volumetric
such a test is shown in Fig. 8, which shows how the gas rate and gas flow and consequently the frictional losses, which gives rise
FWHP reacted to the injection of brine. to somewhat higher gas rates than those predicted.

Test 2, pumping 0.243 m3/min

Rate, MMsm3/d FWHP, bar
1,4 98
1,35
96
1,3
1,25 94
1,2 92
1,15
1,1 90
Start
1,05 88
pumping
1
86
0,95 Time
0,9 84
20:45 20:52 21:00 21:07 21:14 21:21 21:28

Gas influx FWHP

Fig. 8—Example of a failed kill attempt.

286 September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

 26750
26700
26650
26600

2 , bar2
26550

pwf
26500
26450
26400
26350
26300
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
qgas, 1000 std m3/d

Fig. 9—Fit to derive A and F for the blowout test.

2 Summary. The results of the calculations on the tight gas well

Calculated rate, million std m3/d

discussed first (using an appropriate value for hydraulic roughness

1.8 for the tubular) and the calculations on the Groningen gas well
1.6 (using the default value for roughness for the clean tubular) can
be combined in a single graph, Fig. 11.
1.4 The graph illustrates that
• For both geometries, the blowout rate can be calculated with
1.2
high accuracy, provided that the appropriate values are selected
1 for hydraulic roughness reflecting the mechanical condition of the
tubulars in the blowout path.
0.8 • The scatter in the results for rates less than approximately
800 000 std m3/d is mainly the result of poor reservoir stabilization
0.6
during testing of the first well, as demonstrated with an analysis of
0.4 the inflow and vertical lift performance of the well.
• This also applies to two test points for which no solution
0.2 could be found: The combination of high wellhead pressure and
0
high rate may persist for a short period, directly after opening up
the well, but both rate and pressure will decline to a steady-state
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 value, the condition modeled with the blowout simulator.
Measured rate, million std m3/d Hence, for a given wellhead pressure, an accurate estimate for
the blowout rate can be made. This leaves the question whether
Fig. 10—Comparison of measured and calculated rates for the the mudline pressure against which a subsea well blows out equals
blowout test. the hydrostatic pressure, in view of the presence of a plume of oil
and gas in the water. This will be discussed next.

Overview of all results

2
Calculated rate, million std m3/d

1.5

3.5×7 in.
1 1.75×5.5 in.

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Measured rate, million std m3/d

Fig. 11—Combined results of two tests.

September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 287


Fig. 12—Outflow at seabed (schematic).
Additional Considerations
Up to this point, it has been tacitly assumed that the pressure
against which the subsea well blows out is the hydrostatic pressure
at the point of outflow:
pambient = patm + seawater ⋅ g ⋅ Z , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
where pambient is pressure against which the well blows out, Pa;
patm is atmospheric pressure, Pa; seawater is seawater density, kg/m3;
g is gravitational acceleration, m/s2; and Z is water depth at the
outflow point, m.
There are some complications, however:
• Above the well a bubble plume will form of rising expand-
ing bubbles, breaking out of the water at surface, as illustrated
by Fig. 1.
• This bubble plume will entrain the surrounding water and
create currents in its vicinity to replace the entrained water.
• These currents will create pressure gradients in the water.
Fig. 12 schematically depicts the situation. The situation is
most conveniently analyzed from the “supply side” (i.e., the flow
of seawater toward the blowing well), rather than the “demand
side” (i.e., the complex multiphase flow of the bubble plume). At
a point some distance away from the blowing well, the pressure
at the depth of the outflow will be the hydrostatic pressure at that
depth. A pressure difference between that point and the outflow
opening would be the consequence of the water flow between
these two points.
For this water flow, it is important to note that in this situation
the flows are not confined. This means that the amount of water
actually displaced in the vertical direction by the bubble plume is
limited because the water will tend to move sideward rather than
upward, and the flow of water toward the well is not limited by
the presence of solid surfaces, as in a well (i.e., the “inflow per-
formance” can be considered practically infinite).
This suggests that the “drawdown” of the well in the seawater
will be very small, and the ambient pressure at the point of out-
flow will be equal to the hydrostatic pressure at the depth of the
outflow opening.
Conclusions
Blowout rates, calculated with a blowout-control simulator (Oude-
man et al. 1993), were compared to measured rates, collected
during a special production test of a gas well. The comparison
demonstrates the following:
• Using the standard value for the hydraulic roughness of gas-
well tubulars, 0.001 in. (25 m), the calculated blowout rates
exceeded the measured rates by an average of 11%. This was
most pronounced for the high-rate data points. For the lower
288
rates, quality control had already indicated poor reservoir stabi-
lization, resulting in considerable scatter in the data.
• By increasing the hydraulic roughness to a value appropriate
for rusted steel, 0.01 in. (250 m), an excellent match between
calculated and measured values was obtained (2% average
error).
• Given that the steel of the conduits, a 7-in. casing and 3.5-in.
drillpipe, had been exposed to drilling fluids, cuttings, and
mechanical damage, an increased hydraulic roughness is to
be expected, as compared with the roughness of standard
tubulars.
• Comparison of the calculations with an earlier test flowing the
gas/liquid mixture through the annulus between a (clean) 5.5-in.
production tubing and a smooth 1.75-in. coiled tubing showed
that for this system the default value for hydraulic roughness,
0.001 in., gave excellent results.
Hence, in blowout-rate calculations for subsea wells, it is
important to consider the condition of the tubulars in the flow path.
By using appropriate values for hydraulic roughness, accurate rate
estimates can be obtained.
Nomenclature
A = linear (Darcy) coefficient of the inflow equation, bar2/(1000
std m3/d)
B = hydrostatic coefficient of the Cullender-Smith equation,
dimensionless
C = friction coefficient of the Cullender-Smith equation,
bar2/(1000 std m3/d)2
F = quadratic coefficient of the inflow equation, bar2/(1000 std
m3/d)2
g = gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2
p = pressure, bar
q = rate, 1000 std m3/d
Z = depth, m
 = density, kg/m3
Subscripts
atm = atmospheric
gas = gas flow
res = reservoir
wf = flowing bottomhole
tf = flowing tubinghead
References
Dake, L.P. 2001. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, revised edition,
No. 36, 417–422. Amsterdam: Developments in Petroleum Science,
Elsevier Publishing Company.
Gray, H.E. 1974. Vertical Flow Correlation in Gas Wells. In User Manual
for API 14B Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Pro-
gram, Appendix B. Washington, DC: API.
Katz, D.L. 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Lugo, O.L.U. and de Leon, I.O. 1981. Ixtoc No.1, Blowout and Con-
trol Operation. Paper SPE 9697 presented at the SPE Deep Drilling
and Production Symposium, Amarillo, Texas, USA, 5–7 April. doi:
10.2118/9697-MS.
Nikuradse, J. 1933. Strömungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren. VDI-Forschung-
sheft 361 4 (B): July–August 1933.
Oudeman, P. 1998. Analysis of Surface and Wellbore Hydraulics Provides
Key to Efficient Blowout Control. SPE Drill & Compl 13 (3): 163–173.
SPE-51179-PA. doi: 10.2118/51179-PA.
Oudeman, P. 2005. Oil Fallout in the Vicinity of an Onshore Blowout:
Observations on a Field Case. Paper IPTC 10392 presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21–23
November. doi: 10.2523/10392-MS.
Oudeman, P. 2007. On the Flow Performance of Velocity Strings To Unload
Wet Gas Wells. Paper SPE 104605 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
and Gas Show, Bahrain, 11–14 March. doi: 10.2118/104605-MS.
Oudeman, P. and Mason, D. 1998. Results of a Field Test to Improve
Hydraulic Blowout Control Calculations. Paper SPE 50577 presented
September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
 at the European. Petroleum Conference, The Hague, 22–22 October. Pieter Oudeman is a senior production technologist at Shell
doi: 10.2118/50577-MS. International Exploration and Production (E&P) in Rijswijk, The
Oudeman, P., Baaijens, M.N., and ter Avest, D. 1993. Modelling Blow- Netherlands. He joined Shell E&P Research in 1981 on comple-
out Control by Means of Downhole Kill Fluid Injection. Paper SPE tion of a PhD degree in molecular physics at Leiden University.
26732 presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 7–10 September. doi: Oudeman’s first projects were the development of sand-
detection equipment and supporting the early flow and heat-
10.2118/26732-MS.
transfer modeling efforts, which encompassed large-scale
Smith, R.V., Williams, R.H., and Dewees, R.H. 1954. Measurement of field tests for model validation in The Netherlands, Germany,
Resistance to Flow of Fluids in Natural Gas Wells. J Pet Technol 6 (11): Brunei, and offshore UK. Gradal-flow and heat-transfer mod-
41–48; Trans., AIME, 207. SPE-376-G. doi: 10.2118/376-G. eling became the core of his activities over a broad range of
subjects such as sand transport in multiphase flow, liquid load-
ing in gas wells, hydraulic blowout control, bullheading of live
gas wells, and prediction of loads for casing design, such as
SI Metric Conversion Factors annular fluid expansion. Lecturing all over the world on these
subjects and teaching Shell production technologists to use
ft × 3.048 E–01 = m the in-house well performance simulators were important parts
ft3 × 2.831685 E–02 = m3 of his activities in later years. Currently, he leads the advanced
°F (°F–32)/1.8 = °C well-flow-modeling team, which focuses on subjects such as
psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa well diagnosis, production event detection, and analysis of the
performance of smart and unconventional wells.

September 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 289