‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬

Sudan University of Science and Technology

College of Petroleum Engineering and Technology
Project Title:

Three Well Control Methods Comparison

Including Application & Practices
Work over rigs; Jake S-9 Block (6)
Sudan (Case Study)
Graduation Project submitted to college of petroleum
Engineering and Technology at Sudan University of Science
and Technology
Practical fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
B.tech in petroleum engineering
Prepared by:
1. Abdelrahman Mansour Dosa

2. Abubaker Bashir Mohamed

3. Mohammed Almugtaba Aljack

4. Tarig 0sman Mohammed Elfadul

Supervisor:
Shazly Sayed Ahmed

October 2018
 Well-Control Methods and Practices in
Work over rigs; Jake S-9 Block (6)
Sudan (Case study)
Graduation Project submitted to College of Petroleum Engineering and
Technology at Sudan University of Science and Technology
Partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of B.tech in
Petroleum Engineering
Prepared by:

1. Abdelrahman Mansour Dousa

2. Abubaker Bashir Mohamed

3. Mohammed Almujtaba Aljack

4. Tarig Osman Mohammed Elfadul

This project is accepted by College of Petroleum Engineering and Technology

to Department of Petroleum Engineering.
The Graduation Project Supervisor: Shazly Sayed Ahmed: Signature:
……………………………………….…………………………………
Head of Department: ………………………………………………………
Signature: ………………………………………………………………
Dean of College of Petroleum Engineering &Technology:
…………………………………………………………………………
Signature: …………………………………………………………………
Date: ………../October/2018
I
 Every challenging work, needs self -efforts
as well as guidance of elders especially those
who were very close to our heart
Our humble effort we dedicate to our sweet and
loving Parents
Whose affection, love and encouragement
make us able to get much success and honor.
Along with all hard working and respected
Teachers

II
 Thanks to god first and foremost. We feel always indebted
to god, the most kind and the most merciful.
We would like to express our gratefulness and respect to our
Supervisor Mr. Shazly Sayed Ahmed for his moral, scientific
support and for valuable guidance, encouragement and co
operation.
Finally, we would like to thanks all the department of
petroleum engineering in Sudan University of science and
technology for the helpful guidance and support.

III
 ABSTRACT

Well control problems plagued the petroleum industry since it's infancy and
known as losses of valuable resources, costs increasing, environmental damages,
personnel casualties. The objective of this research is to analyzes well control case
study for work over rig; block-6.
Three different killing methods have been applied: Driller; W&W and
concurrent methods. The formation, borehole; wellhead; rig equipment and lay out
are considered as a communicating system, in which the three are influenced and
restrained by each other.
Concurrent method has been applied to kill the well. It is a complex
technique combining both driller and W& W methods; which it is not common in
the oil industry and is the first time to be applied in the Sudan for work over rig.

IV
 ‫التجريد‬
‫مشاكل التحكم في االبار المندلعه كانت معضله في صناعة النفط بسبب التكلفه العالية‬
‫والمشاكل البيئية وفقدان ارواح العاملين‪.‬‬
‫‪ Work Over Rigs‬في‬ ‫الهدف من البحث تحليل عملية السيطرة على االبار في‬
‫مربع ( ‪. ) 6‬‬
‫طبقت ثالث طرق مختلفة كاالتي ‪:‬‬

‫‪ Wait and Weight‬‬

‫‪ Concurrent‬‬

‫‪ Driller‬‬
‫مع الوضع في االعتبار ضغط الطبقة و معدات الحفاره و راس البئر باعتبارها منطومة‬
‫متكاملة‬
‫طبقت ‪ concurrent‬الخماد البئر وهي طريقة اخماد معقدة اكثر من الطريقتين‬
‫االخريتين وهي ليست شائعة االستخدام في الصناعة النفطية وهي اول مره تطبق في السودان‬
‫في الحفاره ‪.‬‬

‫‪V‬‬
 content
‫االستهالل‬
Dedication
Acknowledgement
Abstract
‫التجريد‬

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1Introduction....................................................................................................1
1.2 General Geological Description of Main Basin in Sudan............................2
1.3 Problem Statement........................................................................................5
1.4 Objective.......................................................................................................5
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theory
2.1 Literature Review..........................................................................................7
2 .2 Well Control Background............................................................................9
2.2.1 Primary control...........................................................................................9
2.2.2 Secondary Pressure Control......................................................................11
2.2.3 Tertiary Control.........................................................................................12
2.3 Well Control Methods..................................................................................13
2.3.1 Driller Method............................................................................................13
2.3.2 Wait and Weight Method..........................................................................14
2.3.3 Volumetric Method....................................................................................14
2.3.4 Pull heading Method...............................................................................15
2.3.5 Concurrent Method.................................................................................15
2.4 Kill Method Equations...............................................................................16
2.5 Concurrent Advantages..............................................................................17

VI
2.6 Concurrent Disadvantages.........................................................................17
2.7 General Information About Concurrent Method.......................................17
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Data Acquisition …..………………………………………..………….18
3.2Review Geological Description…………………………………..….…18
3.3 Drilling and Kick Data…………………………………………………23
3.3.1 Formation Data……………………………………………………….23
3.3.2 Casing Information………………………………………………...…23
3.3.3 Well Completion Profile……………………………………………...24
3.4 Kick Data……………………...…………………………………….….25
3.5 Appling kill method ……………………………………………………25
3.5.1 Driller Method…………………………………………………….…..25
3.5.2 Wait and Weight Method………………………………………….….25
3.5.3 Concurrent Method……………………………………………………25
Chapter 4: Results and discussion:
4.1 Kill Method Calculation……………………………………………...….27
4.1.1 Driller and Wait and Weight Method………………………………....27
4.1.2 Concurrent Method…………………………………………………....30
4.1.2.1 Barite Required……………………………………………...………31
4.2 Discussion of Killing Method…………………………………...………33
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................34
Reference………………………………………………...…………………..36

VII
 List of Figures
3.1 Sudan Oil Block Partition..........................................................................18
3.2 : Muglad Basin Formation Type ...............................................................21
3.3 : Well Completion Profile...........................................................................24
4.1 : Driller and Wait & Weight Kill Sheet .....................................................29
4.2: Concurrent Kill Sheet ...............................................................................32

VIII
 List of Tables
2.1: Blow Out Record off Shore Rigs ........................................................................7

3.1: Casing Information .............................................................................................23

IX
 Abbreviations

P &E Petro -Energy E & P co., ltd

GNPOC Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company
WNPOC White Nile Petroleum Operating Company
CNPC China National Petroleum Company
DQN Dqein Company
HYD Hydrostatic pressure
MAASP Maximum allowable annular surface pressure
ICP Initial circulation pressure
FCP Final circulation pressure
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
SICP Shut in casing pressure
SIDPP Shut in drill pipe pressure
BOP Blow out preventer
DST Drill stem test
RFT Repeat formation test
EOWR End of well report
FWTR Final well test report
EMW Equivalent mud weight
OMW Original mud weight
KMW Kill mud weight
SPM Stroke per minutes
SPR Slow pump rate
TVD True vertical depth

X
MD Measure depth
DP Drill pipe
HWDP Heavy weight drill pipe
DC Drill Collar
BHA Bottom hole assembly
POOH Pull out of hole
RIH Run in hole

XI
 Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
In oil industry the first step is the drilling of the wells that will produce the oil.
There is two type of drilling wells vertical wells and horizontal wells. Now days
the drilling science is develop and growth day by day and new technology has been
applied to keeping up human needs for energy that we got from oil and gas
industry. Drilling wells starts by spud the rig equipment at the location of the well
that spouse to be drill and drill the conductor hole then surface and intermediate
then production this compartment according to casing installation.
Drilling operations is some complex procedures and full of problems like stuck
pipe and low rate of penetration and hole deviation. The most dangerous problem
is well control cases.
Stuck pipe is one of drilling operation problem that we face in oil industry. The
stuck pipe cannot pull up cannot go down and cannot rotate. Stuck pipe has two
section differential and mechanic stuck.
Low rate of penetration (ROP) is putting more weight on bit with low penetration
occurs when drilling hard formation or bit selection is not suitable for the
formation.
Hole deviation is means the well is take a path different than the planed path it’s
occur due to Bottom hole design is not proper for stabilizer position or bit type.
Well control is most danger and cost drilling operation. The purpose of well
control is to ensure that fluid does not flow in an uncontrolled way from the
formation being drilled into the borehole and eventually to surface this flow will
occur if the pressure in the pore space of the formation being drilled is greater than
the hydrostatic pressure.

1
Most of drilling problem has direct relationship with geological description of
specific area (Sudan).
(Well Control Strategy Plan Block Vil –Dindir -Sudan (Case Study) ,shazly Sayed Ahmed,
2011 )

1.2General Geological Description of Main Basin in Sudan:

There are seven Main Basin in Sudan but in this research we mention the main five
that maycontain hydrocarbon as shown below
1-Blue Nile Basin:
The Blue Nile basin originated in an area of Neoproterozoic rocks aged about
750Ma that had become a peneplain, possibly during the Paleozoic era (540 -
250Ma). The basin was formed due to rifting during the Mesozoic era (250 -
65Ma). Between the Triassic and early Jurassic, about 300m of fluvial sediments
were deposited by rivers and streams
2-Khartoum Basin:
The Khartoum Basin is situated in central Sudan. The basin is essentially a simple,
elongated, faulted, rift basin. It is sub-divided into three sub-basins, the Dongola
to the northwest, the Atbara to the northeast and the Blue Nile Sub-basin to the
southeast. To the northwest, a hinge line separates the Khartoum Basin from the
Uweinat High. All other basin boundaries are an onlap of the basin sediments onto
pre-Paleozoic, probably pre-Cambrian basement massifs
3-Muglad Basin:
The Muglad Basin is a large rift basin located in southwestern Sudan. At its
nearest point, it lies approximately 600 km southwest of the city of Khartoum.
The Muglad Basin is bordered largely by basement rocks in the north, west and
southwest and by a similar intracratonic rift basin, the Melut Basin, to the east.

2
4-Melut Basin:
The Melut Basin is situated in central Sudan, to the south of the Khartoum Basin.
It is located wholly in desert terrain, between 5°N and 14°N, and 30°E and 35°E.
It is approximately 237,000 sq km in a real extent. The northern part of the White
Nile flows through the northcentral part of the basin. It is a predominantly north-
south orientated faulted rift basin, a northerly extension of the East African Rift
Valley system. It has a single sub-basin, the Kosti, which lies in the extreme
northwest. The Kosti Sub-basin shows a northwest-southeast trend in contrast to
axial trend of the main basin.
5-Red Sea Basin:
Is a spreading center between two tectonic plate the African plate and Arabian
plate? It extends from the dead sea transform fault system and end at an
intersection with the Aden ridge and the east African rift forming the afar triple
junction in the afar depression of the horn of Africa.( GANI. DS, M. G.
ABDELSALAM, S. GERA and M. R. GANI, 2008, " Stratigraphic and structural
evolution of the Blue Nile Basin", Northwestern Ethiopian Plateau",
GEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Geol ).
This topic have been selected to contribute in providing practical solutions to the
oil industry in Sudan by solving one of wells control problems in Block-6, and
especially no studies related to this subject was conducted in Sudan with the
knowledge that this problem ( well control) is one of the biggest problems facing
the drilling operations and most dangerous all over the world because it have
resulted in losses of valuable resources, increase drilling costs, environmental
damage, increased regulations, injuries to personnel and lost of life.
The objective of this research to determine the best method to kill the well of the
three methods after making calculations for all the methods.

3
Well control is consist of five method three method is main method other two is
consider as subsidiary method.
1. Wait and weight method (main method)
2. Driller method (main method)
3. Concurrent method (main method)
4. Volumetric method (subsidiary method)
5. Pull heading method (subsidiary method)

Work over operation is the maintenance operation conduct to maintain any well
deactivate for any reason such artificial problem or plugging and perforation
production zoon and etc.
Our case study is blow out happen in jack field during work over operation
Perforation of Abugabra formation.
Our topic includes five chapters as following:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background about drilling & drilling problem & work over and General geological
background
Chapter 2: Literature Review& Theory
Blowout accidents all over the world from 1955 to 2010 and Definitions of well
control & well control method and relative equipment
Chapter 3: Data Acquisition and Methodology
Data collection and geological description of Fula basin and the goal must be
achieved of three kill methods (Driller & W&W and concurrent)
Chapter 4: Results and discussion
Calculation of three kills method (Driller & W&W and concurrent)
Chapter 5: 1Conclusions and Recommendations

4
1.3 Problem Statement:
 One of most dangerous existing problems all over the world including selected
area is well control.
 JAKE S-9 w ell in block six have been selected as case study; as it includes
pressure study to determine causes of kick; kill the well by applying different
three kill methods (driller method, weight and wait method and concurrent
method) considering comparison between three methods.
1.4 Objective:
Main objective for this research is to perform kill selected well on minimum time
and safety manner, other sub goals as following:
 Apply Driller method:
Through calculate FCP, ICP, EMD, KMW, MAASP, String Volume, and
MAMW
 Apply Wait and Weight method:
Through calculate FCP, ICP, EMD, KMW, MAASP, String Volume, and
MAMW
 Apply Concurrent method
Through calculate FCP, ICP, MAASP, incensement of KMW per stage
 Make comparison between the three kill method
Find out the beast method to kill the well
To apply these methods, we need special equipment’s such Blow Out Preventer
(BOP) and its relative equipment’s. It is considered one of the main equipment at
the rig side. Also, well barriers like good cement job performed & casing and well
head.

5
out preventer limitation of pressure can contain is depend on the on shore or
offshore always of shore blow out preventer is higher pressure contain than on
shore blow out preventer due to deep depths of offshore wells
After finish drilling operation the next step is producing oil from the well this step
is known as completion operation in case the well is need maintenance is known as
work over operation.

6
 Chapter 2
Literature Review& Theory
2.1 Literature Review
Blow out wells is rare occurrence but some time happensThe following table
explain off shore blowout accidents all over the world, thus prove the importance
of well control due to large damage in equipment and manpower (46 cases, 22
persons killed in 1955& 2010) as table.

Year Rig Name Rig Owner Type Damage / details

1955 S-44 Chevron Corporation Sub Recessed Blowout and fire. Returned to
pontoons service.
1959 C. T. Thornton Reading & Bates Jack up Blowout and fire damage.
1964 C. P. Baker Reading & Bates Drill barge Blowout in Gulf of Mexico, vessel
capsized, 22 killed.
1965 Trion Royal Dutch Shell Jackup Destroyed by blowout.
1965 Paguro SNAM Jackup Destroyed by blowout and fire.
1968 Little Bob Coral Jackup Blowout and fire, killed 7.
1969 Wodeco III Floor drilling Drilling barge Blowout
1969 Sedco 135G SedcoInc Semi-submersible Blowout damage
1969 Rimrick Tidelands ODECO Submersible Blowout in Gulf of Mexico
1970 Storm drill III Storm Drilling Jack up Blowout and fire damage.
1970 Discoverer III Offshore Co. Drillship Blowout (S. China Seas)
1971 Big John Atwood Oceanics Drill barge Blowout and fire.
1971 Unknown Floor Drilling Drill barge Blowout and fire off Peru, 7 killed.
1972 J. Storm II Marine Drilling Co. Jackup Blowout in Gulf of Mexico
1972 M. G. Hulme Reading & Bates Jack up Blowout and capsize in Java Sea.
1972 Rig 20 Transworld Drilling Jack up Blowout in Gulf of Martaban.
1973 Mariner I Sante Fe Drilling Semi-sub Blowout off Trinidad, 3 killed.
1975 Mariner II Sante Fe Drilling Semi-submersible Lost BOP during blowout.
1975 J. Storm II Marine Drilling Co. Jackup Blowout in Gulf of Mexico.

7
1976 Petrobras III Petrobras Jackup No info.
1976 W. D. Kent Reading & Bates Jackup Damage while drilling relief well.

1977 Maersk Explorer Maersk Drilling Jackup Blowout and fire in North Sea
1977 Ekofisk Bravo Phillips Petroleum Platform Blowout during well workover.
1978 Scan Bay Scan Drilling Jackup Blowout and fire in the Persion
Gulf.
1979 Salenergy II Salen Offshore Jackup Blowout in Gulf of Mexico
1979 Sedco 135F Sedco Drilling Semi-submersible Blowout and fire in Bay of
Campeche Ixtoc I well.
1980 Sedco 135G Sedco Drilling Semi-submersible Blowout and fire of Nigeria.
1980 Discoverer 534 Offshore Co. Drillship Gas escape caught fire.
1980 Ron Tappmeyer Reading & Bates Jackup Blowout in Persian Gulf, 5 killed.
1980 Nanhai II Peoples Republic of Jackup Blowout of Hainan Island.
China
1980 Maersk Endurer Maersk Drilling Jackup Blowout in Red Sea, 2 killed.
1980 Ocean King ODECO Jackup Blowout and fire in Gulf of
Mexico, 5 killed.
1980 Marlin 14 Marlin Drilling Jackup Blowout in Gulf of Mexico
1981 Penrod 50 Penrod Drilling Submersible Blowout and fire in Gulf of
Mexico.
1985 West Vanguard Smedvig Semi-submersible Shallow gas blowout and fire in
Norwegian sea, 1 fatality.
1981 Petromar V Petromar Drillship Gas blowout and capsize in S.
China seas.
1988 Ocean Odyssey Diamond Offshore Semi-submersible Gas blowout at BOP and fire in the
Drilling UK North Sea, 1 killed.
1989 Al Baz Sante Fe Jackup Shallow gas blowout and fire in
Nigeria, 5 killed.
1993 Actinia Transocean Semi-submersible Sub-sea blowout in Vietnam. .
2001 Ensco 51 Ensco Jackup Gas blowout and fire, Gulf of
Mexico, no casualties
2002 Arabdrill 19 Arabian Drilling Co. Jackup Structural collapse, blowout, fire
and sinking.
2004 Adriatic IV Global Sante Jackup Blowout and fire at Temsah
2007 Usumacinta PEMEX Jackup Storm force rig to move, causing
well blowout on Kab 101 platform,
22 killed.

8
2009 West Atlas / Seadrill Jackup / Platform Blowout and fire on rig and
Montara platform in Australia.
2010 Deepwater Transocean Semi-submersible Blowout and fire on the rig, subsea
Horizon well blowout, killed 11 in
explosion.
2010 Vermilion Block Mariner Energy Platform Blowout and fire, 13 survivors, 1
380 injured.

(Techniques for Handling Upward Migration of Gas Kicks in a Shut-In Well by J.L. Matthews
and Jr. Bourgoyne)

Table (2.1) Blow out record in off shore rigs

There is some blow out happen in Sudan one of them is Tawakul-1 WNPOC’s
filed block 8.Another blow out happen in block 4 GNPOC Azraq field well name
Azq N-45.

2.2Well ControlTheory:
Bore pressure can be defined depending on the general definition of pressure
as the magnitude of the pressure in the pores of formation or pressure acting on the
fluid in the pore spaces of the rock. Most of the fluids found in the pore space of
sedimentary formations contain a proportion of salt and are known as brines. The
dissolved salt content may vary from 0 to over 200000ppm. Correspondingly, the
pore pressure gradient ranges from 0.433psi/ft (pure water) to about 0.50psi/ft. The
formation pressures may be either Subnormal (less than 0.465psi/ft) or Over
pressured (greater than 0.465psi/ft). (Rabia 2002, John Ford 1999).
Usually well control problems are linked to abnormal-pressure; which lead to
uncontrolled exit of formation fluids; therefore, well control defense lines have
been divided to three stages of such operation

9
 2.2.1 Primary Control
Pressure exerted by drilling fluid to hold back the formation fluid. Trip Monitoring
is one of key success to avoid well control problems; which is defined as filling the
hole during a trip; Driller keeps checking to see if the hole is taking the correct
amount of mud; if not means two possible scenarios:
- Possible lost circulation (if much volume).
-Possible swabbing of formation fluid (if less volume).
In case of influx, the alertness in determining early warning signs in well
control is of the upmost importance to wellbore safety. Careful observance and
positive reaction to these signs will keep the well under control and prevent the
occurrence of a well flow situation. The main warning/indicators are:
- Improper fill up or displacement during trips.
-Connection gas.
- Change of drilling parameters.
- Change of mud properties.
-Increase drill string torque and drag.
- Increase number and size of cutting and decrease in shale density.
The warning signs are to help engineers in taking corrective action before a kick
takes place (not always there). However, kick indicators are:
-Decreased pump pressure/increased SPM
-Excess flow and Return flow rate.
- Pit gain and Flow from well with pumps off.
- Drilling break.
An extremely important aspect of well control is the proper selection and
utilization of the blowout preventers, chokes; choke manifolds, mud-gas
separators, degassers, mud-monitoring equipment and all other well control related
equipment. Only with properly selected equipment, which has been correctly
10
maintained and serviced successful well control procedures initiated. It has to be
realized that the BOP is only one part of the well integrity. Wellhead equipment,
casing and open hole must all be considered. Wellheads and pressure control
equipment should meet the minimum working pressure requirement.
2.2.2Secondary Pressure Control
Surface equipment that is closed to stop any further entry of formation fluid.
Secondary pressure control is the system, which provides the second line of
defense, in the event that primary well control cannot be properly maintained. This
is generally provided by the BOP system including:
A- Blind/Shear Rams - Choke and Kill Outlets
There will be at least one (1) kill and one (1) choke outlet with at least two (2) full
opening valves on each choke outlet. If the BOP stack is equipped with shears
rams, they shall be capable of shearing the highest grade and heaviest drill pipe
used on the rig (HWDP excluded).
B- Relief Lines
At least two relief lines shall be installed to permit venting of the wellbore returns
at opposite ends or sides of the rig. On land rigs a single line is acceptable.
C- Closing Unit and Accumulator Requirement
The closing unit will consist of an independent automatic accumulator unit rated
for at least 20,700kPa (3,000psi) working pressure with a control manifold, clearly
showing 'open' and 'close' positions for preventers and the pressure operated choke
line valve. It is essential that BOP operating units be equipped with regulator
valves, which will not fail open causing a complete loss of operating pressure. This
unit will be located in a safe area. Due to the large volume required to close the
annular preventer(s) and large bore diverters (such as Hydril MSP) which can
result in slow closing time, the hydraulic pressure for the initial closure of the

11
annular preventer will be set at the maximum operating pressure during normal
drilling operations. However, it must be readjusted to the manufacturer's
recommended pressure after closure and/or prior to running casing, routine
pressure testing and stripping operations.
D- Mud Gas Separators
An atmospheric or low pressure separating vessel for handling gas-cut returns must
be provided where blowout preventers are used. It must be equipped with gas vent
lines to discharge gas.
All equipment listed above is used to control the well using a method of
fivekilling methods. (Aberdeen Sch 2002, Neb 2009, Chevron center 1994)
2.2.3Tertiary Control
Techniques to control a blowout and fire accidents. In the event that secondary
control cannot be properly maintained due to hole conditions or equipment failure,
certain emergency procedures can be implemented to prevent the loss of control.
These procedures are referred to as "Tertiary Control" and usually lead to partial or
complete abandonment of the well. Unlike primary and secondary control, there
are no established tertiary well control procedures that will work in most situations.
The procedures to be applied depends on the particular operating conditions which
are encountered, and specific recommendations regarding appropriate tertiary
control procedures cannot be given until the circumstances leading to the loss of
secondary control are established. However, there are two procedures that are
widely used:
 Barite plugs
 Cement plugs.
In most cases when a well control problem occurs after cement job, cement
evaluation logs give a general idea of what happened during and directly after

12
cement job. Therefore will clear cement evaluation logs. (Robert D 1994, John R.
Kozicz 1999, Erik B. Nelson 1990, Jacques Jutten1988)
2.3Well Control Methods
The objective of the various kill methods is to circulate out any invading
fluid and circulate a satisfactory weight of kill mud into the well without allowing
further fluid into the hole. Ideally this should be done with the minimum of
damage to the well. If this can be done, then once the kill mud has been fully
circulated around the well, it is possible to open up the well and restart normal
operations. This allows approximately constant bottom hole pressure which is
slightly greater than formation pressure to be maintained as the kill circulation
proceeds because of the additional small circulating friction pressure loss. After
circulation the well is opened up again and the mud weight may be further
increased to provide a safety or trip margin. There are four constant bottom-hole
pressure kill methods in common use today which are
• Driller’s Method
•Wait & Weight Method (Engineer’s Method)
• Concurrent Method
• Volumetric method.
2.3.1Driller’s Method:
Includetwo Circulations: 1st Circulation to clean out influx by original mud weight
considering only bottom up time and 2nd Circulation to complete cycle by kill mud
weight. Practice procedure for driller method as the following:
A- 1st Circulation:
1. Startups bring pumps up to kill rate holding casing pressure constant.
2. When up to speed, look at drill pipe pressure (ICP.) Hold it constant at this
value for bottom up.
3. After circulation bottom up finished, shut down the pump look for pressure.
13
 4. If annulus is clean, SICP. Will now read same value as SIDPP, If annulus is
not clean then SICP will be greater than SIDPP.
B- 2nd Circulation:
1. Startup Bring pumps up to kill rate holding casing pressure constant.
2. When kill mud reaches at rotary table, re-zero stroke.
3. When up to speed maintain casing pressure constant until kill mud is at the
bit.
4. With kill mud at bit. Switch to drill pipe pressure (FCP) and hold constant
until kill mud returns at surface.
5. It may be preferred to use the Wait and Weight procedure for the 2nd
circulation. This is in case of any influx that was not cleaned out in the 1st
Circulation.
2.3.2 Wait and Weight Method:
One Complete circulation with kill mud weight.
Practice procedure for driller method as the following:
1. Startup brings pumps up to kill rate, holding casing pressure constant.
2. When kill mud reach at rotary table, re-zero stroke.
3. Once up to speed the drill pipe pressure should equal ICP.
4. Allow drill pipe pressure to fall from ICP to FCP as kill mud is pumped to
the bit, by using drill pipe step down Pressure schedule.
5. With kill mud at the bit hold drill pipe pressure constant at FCP. Until kill
mud returns to surface.
2.3.3 Volumetric Method:
It depends on Boyle’s law; it does not kill the kicking well, but it can be used to
bring the migration gas in side casing and exclude it. Situations can the volumetric
method of well control is applied are:
- Bit is on bottom and drill string is plugged. (bit is fully choked)
14
 - Bit is off Bottom and not possible to strip or pipe stuck.
- Drill string out of hole.
- Mud pump down and not available, or failure in surface line.
- Washout in the drill string.
2.3.4 Pull heading method:
To forcibly pump fluids into a formation, usually formation fluids that have
entered the wellbore during a well control event. Though bull heading is
intrinsically risky, it is performed if the formation fluids are suspected to
contain hydrogen sulfide gas to prevent the toxic gas from reaching the
surface. Bull heading is also performed if normal circulation cannot occur,
such as after a borehole collapse. The primary risk in bull heading is that the
drilling crew has no control over where the fluid goes and the fluid being
pumped down hole usually enters the weakest formation. In addition, if only
shallow casing is cemented in the well, the bull heading operation can cause
wellbore fluids to broach around the casing shoe and reach the surface. This
broaching to the surface has the effect of fluidizing and destabilizing the soil
(or the subsea floor), and can lead to the formation of a crater and loss of
equipment and life.
2.3.5Concurrent method:
It depends on gradual increase in mud weight from the original mud to kill mud
weight.
 Sometime referred to as the circulate and weight method or slow weight up
method.
It involves gradually weighting up fluid while circulating out the kick.
 Additional calculations are required when tracking different fluid weights in
the string at irregular intervals.

15
  Sometimes crew members are required to record concurrent method data even
if this is not the method intended to be used.
Circulate out kick while gradually increasing mud weight (same as wait & weight
method except you will follow DP pressure vs. mud weight schedule as you weight
– up your mud) only used insufficient weighting material is at rig site, till kill mud
weight; which is calculated as the following:
2.4Kill Method Equations:
SIDPP
A − Kill Fluid Density = ( ) + Current Drilling Fluid Density..2.1
TVDX 0.052

Above weighting process have been processed to equalize formation pressure

through two pressure values; initial circulating pressure which is calculated as the
following
B- Initial circulation pressure (ICP) = Dynamic Pressure Loss + SIDPP ……2.2
C-Final Circulation Pressure (FCP) =
𝐾𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
∗ 𝐷𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑠……2.3
𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦

Considering Hydrostatic pressure to be less than fracture pressure; which is

indicating by value of?
D- Max. Allowable Drilling Fluid Density =
𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑂𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡
+ 𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐴𝑡 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡 ……. 2.4
0.052∗𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑒 𝑇𝑉𝐷

E- Initial MAASP = [Max. Allowable Drilling Fluid Density – Current Mud

Density] * Shoe TVD * 0 .052…….……………………………….…...…….2.5
All pressure reading are integrated with fluid volume or strokes
F- Drill String Volume = Length * Capacity …………………………………2.6
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑚
G- Pump Strokes = …………………………….….……2.7
Pump Displacement
Pump Strokes
H- Time Minutes = ………………………………… ………2.8
𝑆𝑃𝑀

16
 Current Drilling Fluid Gradein + SIDPP
I- Kill Fluid Gradient = ……….…....…2.9
TVD
𝐼𝐶𝑃−𝐹𝐶𝑃∗100
J- Pressure Decrease Value = …………………………….…2.10
𝐸

(E = Driller String Volume)

2.5 Concurrent Advantages
1- Minimum of non-circ time
2- Excellent for large increases in mud weight
3- Mud condition can be maintained along with mud weight
4- Less casing pressure than Driller’s method
5- Can be easily switched to wait & weight
2.6 Concurrent Disadvantages
1- Arithmetic is little more complicated
2- Requires more on choke circulating time
3- Higher casing and casing shoe pressure than wait & weight
2.7 General information about concurrent method
1. Is another method for killing the flowing wells
2. It kills the well in more than two circulation may be three may be more.
3. It depends on gradual increase mud weight, from the original mud to kill
mud weight.
4. Every Circ Has its own ICP, FCP, &its own step down pressure schedule.
5. The well is completely killed after the last circulation.

17
 Chapter 3
Methodology
3.1DataAcquisition
To achieve this topic objective, the following steps will be followed:
3.1Review Geological Description
The figure blow showing the blocks partition of Sudan including Block 6

 Figure (3.1) Sudan oil block partition (shazly Sayed Ahmed, 2011)

18
 Block 6 is located in the muglad – sudd Rift basin in Sudan, adjacent to the
Greater Nile Oil Project (GNOP) North. The block was initially operated by
chevron, who withdrew from Sudan in the mid – 1980 due to civil unrest.
Rompetrol, under a service agreement with Sudanese government, brought the Abu
Ghabra field on-stream in1993, in 1995, Petro Energy E&P, a consortium led by
CNPC, was awarded the block 6 license. the Sharaf and Greater Fula fields were
developed in 2003.
The Muglad Basin
Is a large rife basin in northern Africa.The basin is situated with in southern Sudan
and south Sudan .and it covers an area of approximately 120.000 km2, across the
two nations. it contains a number of hydrocar-bon accumulations of various size,
the largest of which are the heglig and unity oil fields . During the 1960s and
1970s, chevron made the first oil discoveries in the basin near the south Sudan and
muglad. Take to gather, the muglad basin account for the majority of Sudan’s
known oil reserves.
The oil fields of the muglad basin are connected to port Sudan on the Red sea by
the greater Nile oil pipeline which begins at the unity oil field .
General Geological Description (Fula Basin)
The Fula sub-basin is a fault-bounded depression located in the NE of the Muglad
Basin, Sudan and covers an area of about 3560 km2. Eleven oilfields and oil-
bearing structures have been discovered in the sub-basin. The Lower Cretaceous
Abu Gabra shale’s (Barremian – Aptian), deposited in a deep-water lacustrine
environment, are major source rocks. Reservoir targets include interceded
sandstones within the Abu Gabra Formation and sandstones in the overlying
Bentiu and Aradeiba Formations (Albian – Cenomanian and Turonian,
respectively). Oil-source correlation indicates that crude oils in the Aradeiba and

19
Bentiu Formations are characterized by low APIs (<22°), low sulphur contents
(<0.2%), high viscosity and high Total Acid Number (TAN: >6 mg KOH/g oil on
average). By contrast, API, viscosity and TAN for oils in The Abu Gabra
Formation vary widely. These differences indicate that oil migration and
accumulation in the Fula sub-basin is more complicated than in other parts of the
Muglad Basin, probably as a result of regional transtension and inversion during
the Late Cretaceous and Tertiary.
The Aradeiba-Bentiu and Abu Gabra Formations form separate exploration targets
in the Fula sub-basin. Four play fairways are identified: the central oblique
anticline zone, boundary fault zone, fault Terrance zone and sag zone. The most
prospective locations are probably located in the central oblique anticline zone.
( GANI. DS, M. G. ABDELSALAM, S. GERA and M. R. GANI, 2008, "
Stratigraphic and structural evolution of the Blue Nile Basin", Northwestern
Ethiopian Plateau", GEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Geol ).

20
Figure (3.2) Muglad Basin Formation Type (Dr John , 1999)

21
 Block-6 is part of Muglad basin, Block 6 generally the formation can be
divided into classification from top to bottom as follows:
- Amal Formation
- Baraka Formation
- Ghazal Formation
- Zarqa Formation
- Bentiu Formation
- Abu Gabra Formation
1- Amal formation:
This is pure unconsolidated, medium to very coarse sandstone. Has high
peremplaty may cause loss of circulation, it located between 540 to 650 m has
thickness about 380 m .
2- Baraka Formation:
This formation contains sandstones and shale, has gray color , soft minor firm ,
sticky, blocky clay stone with interceded unconsolidated fine to coarse sandstone,
problems cause mud making , tight interval caving . it located between 824 to 1031
m and thickness about 377m.
3-Ghazal - Zarqa Formation:
They are containing shale and sandstones, gray color, soft, minor firm, sticky,
blocky clay stone with interceded unconsolidated fine to coarse sandstone, problem
cause mud making, tight interval caving. it Located between 824 to 1031 m and
thickness about 377m.

22
 4- Bentiu Formation:
This formation is containing sandstone with shale, medium to very coarse
sandstone with interbedded gray color, firm blocky clays tone. Problems cause
mud leaking, tight, caving. Its Located at 1408 m and thickness about 1530m.
5- Abu Gabra Formation:
This formation the upper part contains sandstone interbedded with shale, its
located at 2938 m, and thickness about 395 m.
the lower part is shale with sand , its located at 3605 m , and thickness about 144 m
, this formation is poor to well consolidated &very fine to coarse &dirty sandstone
and dark , salty clay stone and pure , dark gray color , brittle shale . Problems cause
mud leaking deviation building,
(Dou Lirong, Cheng Dingsheng and Wang Jingchum 2013).
3.3Drilling and kick data:
3.3.1 Formation data:
Bentiu interval (1437.0-1463.0m).
Formation pressure 1575PSI
Current mud weight 8.3 PPG
3.3.2 Casing Information:

Size of top Pressure

Data Specification Color Manufacturer
flange Range

Casing head 9-5/8”×11’’ 11’’ 5000psi Red Daqing

Table (3.1): Casing Information

23
3.2.3 Well Completion Profile:

11"×5000psi well head 3-1/2” tubing hanger

13-3/8″×11"-5000psi casing head

Ground

13-3/8”casing shoe @ 299.5mKB

2-7/8’’ NUE tbg 254jts:2421.37m

2-7/8’’ NUE short tbg 6jts:6.39m

9-5/8”casing

5-1/2”Liner hanger@1519.51mKB

9-5/8”casing@1520.37mKB

5-1/2”packer: 2460.62mKB
Screen pipe: 2461.73mKB
Firing Head: 2483.77mKB
Gun: 2487mKB
Bull Plug: 2487.19mKB

2486-2487mKB AG/1m/1zone.

2560-2565mKB AG/5.0m/1zone.

2570.0-2574.0mKB AG/4.0m/1zone.

2595.5-2599.0mKB AG/ 3.5m/1 zone.

PBTD: 2609.53mKB

Final TD: 2648.7mKB 5-1/2” csg shoe@ 2647.2mKB

Figure (3.3) Well Completion Profile ( Petro-energy , Oct 2016 )

24
3.4Kick data:
1- Pump out put & SPM=0.8bbl/stk
2- MW= 8.3PPg
3- SIDPP=350psi
4- SICP=450psi
5- Bit gain=3bbl
6- Dynamic loss=320psi
3.5Appling killing methods
3.5.1 Driller Method
-Determine EMW, MAASP
-Calculate Volumes
- Calculate Kill Mud Weight
- Calculate ICP & FCP
3.5.2 Wait and weight Method:
-Determine EMW, MAASP
-Calculate Volumes
- Calculate Kill Mud Weight
- Calculate ICP & FCP
3.5.3Concurrent Method:
-Determine EMW, MAASP
-Calculate Volumes
- Calculate Kill Mud Weight
- Calculate ICP & FCP

25
Daily Report ForJaksSouth – 9
After rig DQ54 finish Jake South-7 workover well, move out to do workover
operation on Jake South-9, and the workover objective (Perforate new zone
(Bentiu 1437-1463mKB)) to be added to perforated zones (Bentiu: 1485.7-1513.1
AG: 2486.0-2487.0 2570.0-2574.0 2595.5-2599.0) and rig start operation as the
following sequences.
Rig move to Jake-S-9 on Oct 21 and rig up
12:00 on Oct 23, RIH TCP to 1463m
15:00 on Oct 23, finish depth correlation
15:00-17:30, normally circulate till fresh water returns
17:30-17:40, CNLC drop bar and perforate Bentiu:
17:40-19:30, Observer wellhead, no flow out
19:30, Open BOP; POOH one joint of tubing and 3 joints of pup joint
19:50, when break off the second tubing thread, strong blowout occurred suddenly.
Stop operation and rig crew try to close the manual BOP, but failed due to high
pressure. Then rig crew evacuate from the well site.

26
 Chapter 4
Results and discussion
4.1Kill Method Calculation
4.1.1Driller & Wait and Weight Method
Surface Leak-Off-Test = 1200 Psi

Drilling Fluid Density = 9.6 ppg

Maximum Allowable Drilling Fluid Density = Drilling Fluid AT Test+

Leak Off Test

0.052∗ Shoe TVD

1200
Maximum Allowable Drilling Fluid Density = 9.6 + = 14.2 ppg
0.052∗4983

Initial MAASP = [Maximum Allowable Drilling Fluid Density – Current Density]

* Shoe TVD * 0 .052

Initial MAASP = [14.2 – 8.33] * 4983 *0 .052 = 1529 Psi

-Calculate Volume, ICP, FCP &KillFluid Density

𝑆𝐼𝐷𝑃𝑃
Kill Fluid Density = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 +
𝑇𝑉𝐷∗0.𝑂52

350
= 8.33 + = 9.2 ppg
8685∗0.052

All above mentioned values will be include in kill sheet driller & wait and weight

27
IWCF Surface BOP KILL SHEET 1 of 2

WELLNAME: Jack-S-09 UNITS: US DATE: 26-Aug-18

FORMATION STRENGTH DATA: CURRENT WELL DATA:

SURFACE LEAK-OFF PRESSURE FROM DRILLING FLUID DATA

FORMATION STRENGTH TEST (A) 1200 psi DENSITY 8.33 ppg

DRILLING FLUID DENS. AT TEST (B) 9.6 ppg GRADIENT 0.43316 psi/ft

MAX. ALLOWABLE DRILLING FLUID DENSITY =

(A) psi / 0.052 / Shoe TVD + (B) ppg = (C) ppg

1200 / 0.052 / 4983 + 9.6 = (C) 14.2 CASING & SHOE DATA

INITIAL MAASP = [ (C) ppg - Curr Dens ] x Shoe TVD x 0.052 SIZE 9 5/8 - "5.5in

=[ 14.2 - 8.33 ] x 4983 x 0.052 M. DEPTH 4983 ft

T.V. DEPTH 4983 ft

= 1529 psi

PUMP No. 1 DISPLACEMENT PUMP No. 2 DISPLACEMENT

0.08 bbl / stk 0.08 bbl / stk
HOLE DATA

SLOW PUMP DYNAMIC PRESSURE LOSS SIZE 9.625-5 1/2 in

RATE DATA PUMP No. 1 PUMP No. 2 M. DEPTH 8685 ft

30 SPM 320 psi psi T.V. DEPTH 8685 ft

SPM psi psi

PRE-RECORDED LENGTH CAPACITY VOLUME PUMP STROKES TIME

VOLUME DATA: ft bbl/ft bbl strokes minutes

Tbg 2 7/8" 8685 x 0.006 = 52.11 30

x = + VOLUME PUMP STROKES

x = + PUMP DISPLACEMENT SLOW PUMP RATE

DRILL STRING VOLUME (D) 52.11 bbl (E) stks 651 22

21.7125 min

Tbg / 9 5/8" .. 4983 x 0.066 = 328.9 +

Tbg / 5 1/2" 3702 x 0.015 = 55.53
Cgs HOLE VOLUME (F) 384.4 bbl 4805 stks 160 min

x = (G) + stks min

TOTAL ANNULUS VOLUME (F+G)=(H) 384 bbl 4805 stks 160 min

TOTAL WELL SYSTEM VOLUME (D+H)=(I) 437 bbl 5456 stks 182 min

ACTIVE SURFACE VOLUME (J) 3 bbl 38 stks

TOTAL ACTIVE FLUID SYSTEM (I+J) 440 bbl 5494 stks

SURFACE LINE VOLUME bbl stks
CALCULATIONS CAN BE MADE USING EITHER DRILLING FLUID DENSITY OR DRILLING FLUID GRADIENT.

28
IWCF Surface BOP KILL SHEET 2 of 2

KICK DATA: Jack-S-09

SHUT IN DRILL PIPE PRESSURE SIDPP 350 psi

SHUT IN CASING PRESSURE SICP 450 psi

PIT GAIN 3 bbl 1 bbl = 42 US gallon

SIDPP / TVD / 0.052 + CURRENT DRILLING FLUID DENSITY

KILL FLUID DENSITY
350 / 8685 / 0.052 + 8.33 ppg= 9.2

CURRENT DRILLING FLUID GRADIENT + SIDPP

KILL FLUID GRADIENT TVD

0.43316 + 350 = 0.4735 psi/ft

8685

DYNAMIC PRESSURE LOSS + SIDPP

INITIAL CIRCULATING Pump 1
PRESSURE 30 320 + 350 = 670 psi
(ICP) 0 0 + 350 = 350 psi

FINAL CIRCULATING
PRESSURE KILL FLUID DENSITY x DYNAMIC PRESSURE LOSS
(FCP) CURRENT DRILLING FLUID DENSITY
30 320 = 353 psi
9.2 / 8.33 x 0 0 = 0 psi

FINAL CIRCULATING KILL FLUID GRADIENT x DYNAMIC PRESSURE LOSS

PRESSURE CURRENT DRILLING GRADIENT
(FCP) 320 = 350 psi
0.4735 x 0 = 0 psi
0.43316

(K) = ICP - FCP = 670 - 350 = 320 psi (K) x 100 = 0.4916 x 100
(E) 49 psi/100 stks
30
SURFACE LINE STKS 0
STROKES PRESSURE
800

0 670
700 ICP SHUT IN DRILL PIPE PRESSURE
100 621
200 572
300 523 600
400 473
500 424 500
651 350 fcp
700 350 400
800 350
900 350 300
1000 350
1100 350 200
1200 350
1500 350 100
2500 350
3500 350 0
4500 350
5456 350
STROKES

29
 Figure (4.1) driller & wait and weight Kill Sheet
4.1.2ConcurrentMethod:

Stage One:
𝑜.8
9.2 – 8.33 = 0.87, = 0.2 stage (Mud Mw increase)
4

MAASP = 1469 psi with kill mud 8.53 ppg

ICP = Dynamic pressure + SIDPP = 350 + 320 = 670 Psi

𝐾𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑢𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

FCP = ∗ 𝐷𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

8.53
FCP = ∗ 320 = 328 𝑃𝑠𝑖
8.33

From zero strokes to 163 stokes

670−328
Stroke gerident : = 2.09 Psi
163

Stage Two:

MAASP = 1417 psi with Mud weight 8.73 ppg

ICP = 328 Psi

8.8
FCP = ∗ 320 = 331 𝑃𝑠𝑖
8.53

With 326 strokes

670−331
Stroke gerident: = 2.07 Psi
163

Stage Three:

MAASP = 1366 psi with mud weight 9.0 ppg

30
ICP = 331 psi
9
FCP = ∗ 320 = 332 Psi
8.8

With 489 strokes

680−332
Stroke gerident: = 2.06 Psi
163

Stage Four:

MAASP = 1314 psi with mud weight = 9.13 ppg

ICP = 332 psi

9.2
FCP = ∗ 320 = 331 𝑃𝑠𝑖
8.9

With 652 stroke

670−331
Stroke gerident: = 2.08 Psi
163

4.1.2.1 Barite Required

35.05∗( Wf−Wi )
B=( ) * VI
35.05−𝑊𝑓

B = Amount of Barite to Add, Ibs

Wf = Desired Mud Weight, Ib /gal
WI = Starting Mud Weight, Ib/gal
VI = Starting Volume of Mud, gallons
35.05∗( 8.53−8.33 )
Barite required for stage One: B= ( ) * 13 = 3.43 Ibs
35.05−8.53
35.05∗( 8.73−8.53 )
Barite required for stage Two: B =( ) * 13 = 3.46 Ibs
35.05−8.73
35.05∗( 8.93−8.73 )
Barite required for stage Three: B =( ) * 13 = 3.49 Ibs
35.05−8.93
35.05∗( 9.2−8.93 )
Barite required for stage Four: B= ( ) * 13 = 4.7 Ibs
35.05−9.2
31
STROKES PRESSURE
0 670
800
100 470
163 328 ICP SHUT IN DRILL PIPE
700 PRESSURE
200 328
300 328
600
328 331
400 331
500
489 332 fcp
600 332
400
652 331
1052 331
300
1452 331
1852 228
200
2252 228
2652 228
100
3052 228
3452 228
0
3852 228
4252 228 STROKES

4652 228
5052 228
5452 228
5494 228

Figure (4.2) Concurrent Kill Sheet

32
4.2 Discussionof Killing Methods:
Driller Method has a Very few Calculation and Simple to teach and understand
and reduce sticking and gas migration.
Wait & Weight has lowest casing and casing shoe pressure and Less lost
circulation, has Shortest circulating time (one circ.), More time to organize
crew.
Concurrent has Excellent gradually mud increase also Can easily be switched to
wait and weight. And its Need special mud tanks compartment, and its Need
high crew experience.
After making the comparison between driller & weight and wait & concurrent
we found out the best method to apply well control is concurrent considering
mud system compartment and capacities and experience rig crew.

33
 Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1Conclusions and Recommendations:
 The main purpose of this research was to analyze well control problem for Jake
S-9 well; determine factors have a significant effect on choke pressures and
gas-return rates for various kick scenarios.
 The variables were kick size, true vertical depth of the well, circulation kill rate,
hole sizes, and kick intensity.
 The Three different well control methods have applied to kill the well: driller;
wait and weight and concurrent methods; calculations have been completed to
each method individually.
 The Driller’s Method does offer some distinct advantages over the W&W
Method. The W&W Method may be advantageous to achieve lower shoe and
surface pressures. Due to gas migration and hole geometry, many times shoe
pressure may not be lower at all with the W&W Method. Application of the
W&W Method may even give us higher shoe pressures if the drill pipe pressure
schedule is not calculated and followed properly.
 The W&W Method may be difficult to follow properly in complex, deviated
wells and/or with tapered drill strings. The Driller’s Method is a preferred
method when hole problems are significant and any long non-circulation times
could further compound the problems.
 The concurrent method is a preferred method for this study due to circulation
system limitation; considering this method offer advantages for both driller and
wait and weight.

34
 Main constrain to apply concurrent method is the low experience level of rig
personnel, limited field practice with this method by a majority of experienced
personnel. In addition to rig lay out limitations.
 Finally this study has covered many parts of the Jake S-9 well control problem,
but there are still some questions unanswered in this endeavor, such as is there
is team to integrate all field work each to other (as nitrogen injection effect to
other near production well); more over all workover specs to consider killing
operation needs to safe equipment’s and personnel as well.

35
 References:
 Aberdeen drilling school, 2002, " well control for rig site drilling team
training manual" , class ш electronic document, revised edition.
 Baker Hughes INTEQ, 1993, " Well Site Geology", Baker Hughes INTEQ
Training & Development - 2520 W.W. Thorne - Houston, TX 77073 -United
States of America.
 Chevron Drilling Technology Center, 1994, "Chevron Drilling reference
serious, Well control and blow out prevention", Vol 11&15,USA .
 Dou Lirong , Cheng Dingsheng and Jingchum, 2013
 Dr. John Ford,1999, "Heriot watt institute of petroleum engineering
references", Version1.1, Drilling section, electronic document.
 GANI. DS, M. G. ABDELSALAM, S. GERA and M. R. GANI, 2008, "
Stratigraphic and structural evolution of the Blue Nile Basin", Northwestern
Ethiopian Plateau", GEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Geol.
 Hussien Rabia,2002,“Well Engineering and construction”,
EntracConsulting, PP- 01- 48, Alberta, Canada.
 John R.Kozicz, 1999, "Sedco Forex Well Control Manual", HQS-PO-OPT-
01 rev 0, electronic document.
 Robert D. Grace with contributions by Bob cudd, Richard S carden and
Jerald L Shursen, 1994, "Advanced blow out and well control", Gulf
Publishing Company – Houston – Texas – U.S.A.
 Well Control Certification committee with members from CAPP, CAODC,
ERCB, PSAC, SEPAC & NEB,2009, "Second Line Supervisor Well Control
Manual", Canada.
 Well Control Strategy Plan Block Vil –Dindir -Sudan (Case Study) , shazly
Sayed Ahmed, 2011

36
 Petro-energy Drilling Section Committee ,Oct 2016 ,Blow out Report ,
Incident Investigation Report IIR

37