Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
The relief well has traditionally been a
last resort when other surface kill efforts
fail. This has changed with increasing
technology requirements for horizontal,
deep, offshore, hostile environment, or
high pressure wells. Questions arose
whether blowouts of some wells could
be killed at all, especially with the
possibility of under ground blowouts.
Fortunately, relief well advancements
paralleled this period of technology
growth and now provide viable blowout
control options. The operator of a blowing well will likely consider surface capping
methods before snubbing or relief well options. Some of the events influencing
choice include:
If a well clearly cannot be capped, the decision is simple-drill a relief well. But if it
is uncertain whether the well once capped can be killed, then additional options
remain. These include (1) rig up a snubbing or coil tubing unit to run a kill string
and perform a circulation kill, (2) drill a relief well, or both. A planning team must
quickly evaluate each option, associated safety risks, pollution, escalating
severity, logistical obstacles, public concern, available resources, and other
factors that might override preferred strategy. Complex, informed decisions must
be made, especially when considering parallel surface and relief well operations.
To make a decision, the operator must be aware of changes in technology,
applications, planning technique, and demonstrated success. Starting a relief well
plan is not only cheap insurance should initial strategy fail, but a demonstrated
means of efficiently killing blowouts.
EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY
A change in relief well technology has always prompted a refinement in
application strategy, often broadening the range of uses. Strategy has become a
tool in itself, supported by software models and complex decision analysis.
The original purpose of a relief well was to relieve pressure on a blowing
formation by drilling a vertical well around the blowout and producing it (them) at
high rates.
A directionally drilled relief well on a prolific cratered blowout near Conroe,
Texas, in 1933 marked the first mile stone in relief well development. New
Specialty kill fluids. In 1976, specialty fluids were used during a unique cratered
blowout in the Persian Gulf from a high permeability gas section of the Asmari
formation at 3,500 ft. Hole size was 17-1/2 in. With casing at 1,100 ft. Four relief
wells gained hydraulic communication with the borehole, but were unable to
control the flow with conventional kill fluids. This resulted in first use of polymer
systems as kill fluids. Two polymer types were pumped through separate relief
wells. An extremely viscous, cross-linked guar gum was pumped into salt cavities
above the reservoir, and a high molecular weight HEC polymer was pumped into
the reservoir matrix. The guar filled the cavities and decreased gas flow while the
HEC blocked off loss of kill fluid to the vuggy, fractured reservoir matrix.
A similar technique was successful on Mexico's offshore Ixtoc blowout in 1980.
Dynamic kill. In 1978, Mobil Oil documented the technique of "dynamic kill" on a
prolific gas blowout in Arun field, Indonesia.4 The technique involves circulating a
light initial fluid, such as water, with sufficient friction pressure to kill the blowout
(hence the name "dynamic"), followed by mud with sufficient density to contain
reservoir pressure. Advantages include its use when kill pressures in the well bore
must be developed in a controlled manner to prevent formation fracture; simple
hydraulic calculations; and use of the relief well drillstring for real time
measurement of BHP during pumping. Disadvantages include high hp
requirements for killing a well with a light fluid. This technique laid the foundation
for future engineered kill procedure designs.
Electromagnetic casing detection. In 1980, another blowout in the Gulf of Mexico
led to commercial development of the first electromagnetic "active" ranging
instrument. By applying AC electric current to the blowout tubulars, a wireline
instrument in the relief well can detect the induced AC magnetic field. Instrument
sensors measure field direction and intensity, providing data for calculating
relative distance.
A blowout in 1982, using a modified technique with downhole current injection,
demonstrated that casing could be detected at a range of at least 200 ft. The
technique efficiently located blowout tubulars for a direct intersection. Casing
detection and other developments in surveying and MWD proved a technique for
triangulating the blowing well, reducing plugging and sidetracks. This again
changed basic strategy for designing relief well trajectories. Accuracy meant
savings; few blowouts after this date involved two relief wells.
Borehole surveying technology and procedures began to advance in the 1980s.
Small diameter north-seeking rate-gyro systems, with greatly increased cased
hole survey accuracy, became commercially available in 1982. MWD technology
advanced rapidly in this period, particularly with respect to reliability,
WHAT'S AHEAD
Blowout contingency plans were instituted for many international operators int
he early 1990s. These plans document general emergency procedures, apply
newly developed control strategies to specific wells and offshore structures, and
provide a basis of examination. The process has helped define and address critical
problems that might be encountered in controlling a blowout with a relief well. It
also allows for continuous strategy refinement.
Horizontal drilling activity has resulted in BHAs capable of producing controllable
dog-leg severity rates >20 deg/100 ft, increasing options for relief well trajectory
design, particularly for shallow blowouts. Rugged rate-gyro survey sensors
provide instrumentation for steering tools used while drilling with a mud motor.
This is especially useful for drilling a relief well next to casing in a vertical blowout.
Recent advances in borehole survey technology provide small diameter full
inertial navigation systems, using both steel and laser gyros capable of mapping
borehole trajectory with an uncertainty approaching 1 ft/1,000 ft of hole depth in
a fraction of the usual gyro survey time.
Electromagnetic detection advances have reduced uncertainty in relative
distance measurements by using better measurements of the electromagnetic
field.
Direct measurement of distance now is possible independent of the amount of
current flowing in the target at distances up to 30 ft with uncertainties of +5% of
the distance. Another tool, providing measurement along the z-axis, enables
placement of a vertical relief well over a horizontal blowout or other high
approach angle situation. Where surface access of the blowout is possible, such as
a simultaneous snubbing operation, an AC electromagnetic source can be
deployed by wireline in the blowout well. A sensor in the relief well measures the
induced magnetic field and determines distance and relative direction with
uncertainties less than +10% of the distance. These casing detection options
support a broader range of relief well design possibilities.
Specialty fluids today. Two blowouts in 1993 resulted in further refinement in
application of specialty kill fluids when conventional fluids (water, brine, weight
mud) did not work. Conditions that call for a special fluid, or a two part reactive
fluid mixture, that can set up quickly and plug off and/or separate two flowing
zones include:
High flow potential gas reservoir s with low fracture strength and/or very
high permeability with vugs and caverns
Blowout flowpaths at vertical depths that will not allow a static kill without
fracturing the formation
Two or more zones flowing which cannot be practically killed
simultaneously
Supercharged recipient zones in underground blowouts which unload the
kill fluid above, lowers hydrostatic below, and again allows reservoir flow.
Fluid types used include crosslinked and linear polymers, with gel time and
strength controlled by temperature and pH. Other two-fluid reactive mixtures
must be pumped separately or in slugs similar to pumping a gunk plug for lost
circulation. Soft plugs (diesel oil, bentonite and cement that react with water) can
be successfully used in specific situations. Chemicals that will form hard plugs
when properly mixed can seal off a borehole or aid in the killing process when
combined with heavy mud and/or cement. Such a plug controlled a prolific gas
blowout in Argentina in 1993.
If the well cannot be capped, the relief well(s) can then start as soon as possible.
If the well can be capped but not killed, then use a snubbing or coil tubing unit for
a circulating kill, or drill a relief well, or start both operations simultaneously.
Planners complete basic snubbing and relief well evaluations and identify
weaknesses. Blowout snubbing operations that require fishing or have high gas
flowrates have a high incidence of problems. If there is major uncertainty in
snubbing success, then a relief well should be started parallel with snubbing.
Advantages of either may be altered by overriding factors such as pollution,
safety, etc.
It may be more cost effective to drill a relief well rather than snub if:
Task force. Organize a dedicated task force for planning and executing the relief
well. Depending on project size, this may be a few people or a large organization.
The leader should be a senior drilling engineer or drilling manager from the
operating company. There may be an office planning team and a field execution
team. Teams are normally broken into two functions, one planning the kill
operation and the other planning the drilling and intersection pro gram. At least
one relief well advisor and one senior drilling engineer should be assigned to each
group. Support personnel are added as needed depending on project size.
Initial decisions. Once the task force is formed, it should at least consider these
questions:
Surface equipment
Hydraulic design
Kill procedures
Relief-well geometry
Borehole uncertainty
Survey sensors
Geographic location
Borehole attitude
Instrument uncertainty model
Instrument calibration data
Field quality assurance
Survey comparisons
Surface location
Coming Next
Well control incident management and critical alliances. The final ariticle in this
series on blowout control, summarizing the contents of the series and providing
insight as to the future of blowout control.
Next Article
Literature Cited
1. Bruist, E. H., "A new approach in relief well drilling," SPE 3511, New Orleans, La., 1971.
2. Morris, F J., R. L. Walters and J. P Costa, "A new method of determining range and direction from a relief
well to a blowout" SPE 6781, Denver, Colo., 1977.
3. Arnwine, L. C. and J. W. Ely, "Polymer use in blowout control," SPE 6835 Denver, Colo , 1977.
4. Blount, E. M., and E. Soeiinah, "Dynamic kill: Controlling wild wells a new way " World Oil, October 1981.
5. West, C L., and Kuckes, A. F., "Successful ELREC logging for casing proximity in an offshore Louisiana
blowout," SPE 11996, San Francisco, Calif ,1983.
6. Flak, L. H. and W C. Jr Goins, "New relief well technolngy is improving blowout control" World Oil, Dec. 1983
and January 1984.
7. Leraand, F., J. Wright, M. Zachary and B. Thompson, "Relief well planning and drilling for a North Sea
underground blowout," JPT, March 1992.
The authors
John Wright's photo and biography appeared in Part 1 of this series. Please see
World Oil, Nov. 1993, page 78.
L. Flak is a former John Wright Company employee.