SPE/IADC 140113

Kick Tolerance Misconceptions and Consequences to Well Design

Helio Santos, SPE, Erdem Catak, SPE, and Sandeep Valluri, Safekick

Copyright 2011, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–3 March 2011.

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

Abstract
Kick tolerance is a key and fundamental concept used in well design. It defines the appropriate number and setting depth of
casing strings that are required to achieve the drilling objectives. It is also used during drilling to determine whether it is safe
to continue drilling or if there is a need to run a casing string. Alternatively, it is used to indicate whether it is safe to circulate
a kick out of the well or whether bullheading is necessary. During development of a new well control system, a thorough
review of the fundamental concepts involved was carried out, and, in relation to kick tolerance, a few misconceptions were
identified. Among those misconceptions are issues related to the calculation of the kick volume on bottom when a BHA is
present, the effects of friction losses on the wellbore annulus and choke line, and confusion between kick tolerance and
maximum allowable pit gain, derived from the additional formation flow into the wellbore after the well is shut in
(afterflow). Another important misconception is the assumption that an approach utilizing a single bubble model and ignoring
effects of temperature, influx density and gas compressibility (z) factor in the final calculation will always result in a
conservative solution.
This paper utilizes four example wells to demonstrate the effect of each component on the final kick tolerance
calculation. In order to make it easier to understand, each effect is calculated individually using the same single bubble model
that has been historically used. The results show that some components have more impact than others, and the consequence is
not always in the same direction. Additionally, the effects on deepwater wells are more dramatic due to the long choke line.
Therefore, generalization and simplification of the kick tolerance calculation in well design is not possible.

Introduction
Even though kick tolerance is a critical and fundamental concept for the drilling industry, there is no standard utilized by any
of the operators, drilling contractors or even training institutions. Hence, there are several definitions and different ways of
calculating kick tolerance. This lack of homogeneity is one of the reasons that the subject is not well understood and,
therefore, used dangerously sometimes. Various definitions of kick tolerance exist and may be given in terms of pit gain,
mud weight increase or even underbalance pressure1. In order to illustrate the variation of definitions, a few examples are
listed below:
- Kick tolerance is the maximum allowable pore pressure, expressed in equivalent mud density such that if a kick with
certain volume occurs at a particular depth with a specific drilling fluid, the well could be closed down and the kick
circulated out safely – that is, not fracturing the weakest formation in the open hole2.
- Kick tolerance is the maximum increase in mud weight allowed by the pressure integrity test of the casing shoe with
no influx in the wellbore3.
- Kick tolerance can be understood as the capability of the wellbore to withstand the state of pressure generated
during well control operations (well closure and subsequent gas kick circulation process) without fracturing the
weakest formation4.
- Kick tolerance is the maximum height of a gas column that the open hole section can tolerate, i.e., without formation
fracture occuring. This height is then converted to a volume using the cross sectional area and geometry of the
wellbore and drillstring to derive a limited 'Kick Tolerance' in barrels or ppg equivalent5.
- Kick tolerance is the largest volume of influx that can be removed from the well safely and is again based on the
results of either a LOT or FIT. When kick tolerance is calculated the result could be best described as a
measurement of well control risk when drilling the current hole section6.
2 SPE/IADC 140113

Another point of disagreement is on how the predicted pore pressure is to be used in the calculations. Some companies
use a value above the mud weight, others use a value above the predicted pore pressure. Despite all the variations, the goal is
consistent: to use a procedure that ensures the safe drilling of a well. Often, the lack of standard and understanding of the
topic leads to uncertainty and discussions during drilling. Questions often arise of whether it is safe to continue drilling or
not. As wells are drilled in more challenging environments, such as HPHT, deep and ultradeep waters, a small variation on
how kick tolerance is calculated can lead to a premature abandonment of the well, or even worse, to hazardous drilling
environment.
With the objective of developing a more accurate kick tolerance tool, a complete review of the state-of-the-art
methodologies has been carried out. The development process will include a review of many important effects that are
typically not taken into account in today’s calculations. This review showed that what is recommended and still in practice in
the vast majority of cases is a very simplified and not always the most conservative calculation. Several misconceptions on
how kick tolerance is calculated today were identified. These are related to calculation of the kick volume on bottom around
the BHA, use of safety margin, and simplifications for temperature, gas compressibility, influx density and afterflow. Even
though some of them have a small effect on the final result it is important to have a solid and correct foundation to build on.
The ultimate goal is to provide a tool capable of being used by engineers at the office during the well planning stage as well
as operators on the rig. This will allow for a simple and direct evaluation of the safety condition to better define the
continuation of operations.
The objective is to highlight the misconceptions identified with an easy and direct comparison, reducing the amount of
involved variables to the minimum possible. To achieve this goal, current kick tolerance calculation is shown, and four
vertical wells are used for comparison purposes. An attempt was made to cover different situations to allow a broader
understanding of the different effects on each condition. For all examples, 0.5 ppg kick intensity above the mud weight, 1.9
ppg influx density, 100 psi choke operator error and 100 psi choke line friction are used. The other required data is given in
Table 1.

Table 1. Input data for kick tolerance calculation.

Well A Well B Well C Well D

Well depth, ft 4500-11400 7000-14000 8000-16000 12000-16500

Casing depth, ft 3000 5000 6000 9800

Casing Size 16” 13-5/8” 13-5/8” 9-5/8”

Fracture grad. at shoe, ppg 15.0 14.3 15.1 17.0

Mud weight, ppg 11.5 12.0 13.0 15.6

Bit Size 14-1/2” 12-1/4” 12-1/4” 8-1/2”

5 ½”, 5”, 5”, 5”,
Drill pipe size
21.9 ppf 19.5 ppf 19.5 ppf 19.5 ppf
Drill collar size 9” x 2.875” 8” x 3” 8” x 3” 6.5” x 3”

Drill collar length, ft 900 800 800 800

Kick Tolerance Calculation – Current Approach

The first step of a simplified kick tolerance calculation (constant temperature, constant density, no compressibility) is to
define the maximum vertical height of a gas influx (Hmax) at the casing shoe (assumed to be the weakest point in the open
hole) based on fracture gradient, mud weight, kick fluid density, predicted pore pressure and adjusted MAASP (Maximum
Allowable Annular Surface Pressure). The adjusted MAASP is the MAASP subtracted by a safety margin. Hmax can be
calculated as follows:

.
………………………………………………………………..……… (eq. 1)
.

Next, volume of the influx at the casing shoe, Vshoe, can be calculated by multiplying the Hmax by the annular capacity
factor, Caa,dp, around the drill pipe.

, …………………………………………………………………………………………… (eq. 2)
SPE/IADC 140113 3

Then, the influx volume at the shoe (Vshoe) is taken to the bottom of the well and then influx volume on bottom (V1) is
calculated using Boyle’s Law.

…………………………………………………………………………………………… (eq. 3)

The sequence for calculation of V1 is illustrated in Fig. 1.

The last step, and where the problem lies, is to calculate the kick volume at bottom around the BHA, V2, and to assume
the kick tolerance is the smaller of the two volumes between V1 and V2. The same Hmax is used for calculating V2, assumed to
be at the bottom of the well, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

, …………………………………………………………………………………………… (eq. 4)

Casing Seat at 3000 ft Casing Seat at 3000 ft

Hmax = 388 ft Vshoe = 67.9 bbl Hmax = 388 ft

V1 = 50.9 bbl Hmax = 388 ft V2 = 48.7 bbl

Well Depth 4500 ft Well Depth 4500 ft

Fig. 1 - Illustration of V1 calculation. The current approach Fig. 2 - Illustration of V2 calculation – current approach.
requires calculation of Hmax using an adjusted MAASP, Calculated Hmax is applied to the bottom of the well, and
Vshoe using annular capacity across the drill pipe, and then kick volume at bottom around the BHA, V2, is calculated
taking the volume to bottom (V1). using Hmax and annular capacity at the bottom of the well.
The kick tolerance is the smaller of the two volumes
between V1 (shown in Fig. 1) and V2 (shown in Fig. 2).

What is conceptually wrong is that if the BHA length is greater than Hmax the kick cannot be circulated out of the
wellbore, as it will reach the top of the drill collars with a kick height greater than Hmax, which would induce losses at the
shoe.

Misconception 1 - Kick volume on bottom around the BHA

In order to properly address this point an extra calculation needs to be done if the BHA length is greater than Hmax. Instead of
having Hmax at bottom and calculating V2, Hmax must be located at the top of the drill collars. Then calculations must be done
for the volume across the top of drill collars (VDC) and this volume must be taken to the bottom of the wellbore using Boyle’s
Law (V2), in the same way it is done with the kick volume calculated at the casing shoe (Fig. 3). Kick Tolerence can be
determined by selecting the smaller volume between V1 and V2. Most of the time, if Hmax is greater than the BHA length, the
difference in annular volume compensates the expansion of the gas when it travels upwards, reducing the chances of creating
a problem. However, the final tool will take into account all BHA geometries to minimize any error in the final result.
Maintaining the objective of keeping things here as simple as possible, the BHA in the examples presented has only one
diameter, which is larger than the drill pipe.
4 SPE/IADC 140113

Casing Seat at 3000 ft

Hmax = 388 ft Vshoe = 67.9 bbl

Hmax = 388 ft VDC = 48.7 bbl

V2 = 43.8 bbl

Well Depth 4500 ft

Fig. 3 - Illustration of V2 calculation – new approach. If the BHA length is greater than Hmax, the influx must be considered at
the top of the drill collars, calculate the volume across the top of drill collars, VDC, using Hmax and annular capacity across the
drill collars, and then take this volume to the bottom of the wellbore using Boyle’s Law (V2). The kick tolerance is the smaller of
V1 (shown in Fig. 1) and V2 shown in Fig. 3.

Kick tolerances for all four wells, and for various well depths were calculated and the results are presented in Fig. 4. As
can be seen, in some cases, the current approach used by the industry can lead to higher kick tolerance volumes when
compared to the new approach. These numbers will vary depending on the well geometry and all other variables influencing
the kick tolerance calculation; therefore, no generalization can be made. Additionally, it is clear that the BHA correction
becomes more important when calculating the kick tolerance for relatively short open hole sections. As the open hole section
becomes longer, gas behavior becomes more pronounced, and V1 dominates the kick tolerance result. Even though the
difference may be small, in some situations the current approach is less conservative, which is cause for concern.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
BHA Corrected KT-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
BHA Corrected KT-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
BHA Corrected KT-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
BHA Corrected KT-Well D
17000
Fig. 4 – Effect of BHA on kick tolerance: New approach vs. Industry approach.
SPE/IADC 140113 5

Misconception 2 - Safety Margin

If, on one hand, the misconception above can lead to a more risky situation, the next topic, Safety Margin, can lead to an
overly conservative solution. This conservative approach can lead to unnecessary casings and liners in the well design,
especially in deepwater. It has been widely accepted that when calculating kick tolerance, a safety margin should be applied
to the Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure (MAASP) in order to reduce the chance of inducing fractures during a
well control event. MAASP is calculated based on the fracture pressure at the casing shoe (assumed to be the weakest point
in the open hole) and current mud weight above the casing shoe. In the majority of cases, safety margin is composed of three
components: choke operator error, annular friction loss and choke line friction loss. Some companies and publications call for
the use of just the first two terms as safety margin. Even though each well section is different, many procedures establish a
fixed value for the safety margin to be used when calculating kick tolerance. Typical values used are 150 or 200 psi. 100 psi
is assumed for the choke operator error and the remaining for the friction loss component. Since the physical principle and
rationale behind the annular friction loss and choke line friction loss are the same, the effects will be grouped together. The
choke operator error component is addressed separately, to make sure each effect is independantly understood and evaluated.

Annular and choke line friction loss

Anytime there is fluid circulation in the well during a well control operation, friction loss in the choke line and annulus will
be generated. The magnitude will be dependent on the well geometry, as well as, the length and the diameter of the choke
line. On deepwater and slim-hole wells the friction loss component can reach a significant amount due to choke line length
and smaller annuli respectively. In order to prevent formation fracturing, the back pressure being applied at surface when the
well is static should be compensated as the fluid circulation rate changes. As it is difficult to estimate friction loss in real time
during well control events, the approach adopted has been to deduct the friction value from the MAASP. Even though this
approach reduces the chances of fracturing the formation, it imposes huge sacrifices to the well design, leading to several
unnecessary casing strings.
The alternative approach would be to proactively use this friction loss during any fluid circulation; it makes no difference
to the wellbore whether the pressure at the bottom is coming from a choke at surface or from friction generated in the
wellbore. The same wells as described previously are used as examples, where the only change made is the value used for
friction loss, 100 or 0 psi (Table 2).

Table 2. Effect of friction on kick tolerance

Kick Tolerance Kick Tolerance % Difference in Kick
friction = 100 psi friction = 0 psi Tolerance
Well A at 11400 ft 4.1 27.3 566
Well B at 14000 ft 5.2 20.7 298
Well C at 16000 ft 5.6 19.8 253
Well D at 16500 ft 3.5 7.6 117

As can be seen the difference in kick tolerance can be significant, more than five times in one of the cases; assuming just
100 psi for friction. On a deepwater well, where the choke line friction can reach higher values, the consequences to the well
design are much more pronounced. Moving forward the industry should look at ways to take advantage of the friction loss
during fluid circulation.

Choke Operator Error

The other component of the safety margin is commonly known as Choke Operator Error. This margin is intended to
compensate for expected poor manual control of the choke by the operator. Today’s standard is to use a 100 psi safety factor.
However, automated chokes are now readily available from different vendors. The automation allows for better control with
smaller oscillation in pressure and removes issues related to operator fatique or error. They have been used extensively in
various applications, from drilling and well control all the way to well clean up, showing very good reliability. With an
improved control the 100 psi safety margin normally used can be reduced to, for example, 20 psi, or even less. Table 3 shows
the combined effect of reducing the operator error to 20 psi and reducing the friction loss to zero. As expected the
consequences in terms of kick tolerance are very significant.

Table 3. Effect of choke line friction in kick tolerance, and line friction related errors
Kick Tolerance Kick Tolerance
% Difference in Kick
line friction=100 psi, line friction=0 psi,
Tolerance
operator error=100 psi operator error=20 psi
Well A at 11400 ft 4.1 46.8 1041
Well B at 14000 ft 5.2 33.1 537
Well C at 16000 ft 5.6 31.3 459
Well D at 16500 ft 3.5 10.9 211
6 SPE/IADC 140113

Misconception 3 – Simplifications
Current kick tolerance calculations are based on many assumptions and simplifications. The befief is that these
simplifications represent the worst-case scenario, thus leading to a safe well design. This section presents the effects of
afterflow, temperature, gas compressibility factor and influx density on the kick tolerance calculation. The following
examples show that the assumption made by the industry that not taking into account several effects on the calculation leads
to a conservative result is not always true.

Afterflow Effect
Most of the time, for the sake of simplicity, the afterflow effect is ignored. Therefore, kick tolerance is considered equal to
the maximum allowable pit gain. However, in reality the formation continues to flow until the casing pressure increases
enough to equilibrate the bottom hole pressure to the sand face pressure at the depth of the influx. Accordingly, when
determining maximum allowable pit gain the additional flow taken into the well after shut in must be considered. The
afterflow volume may be significant, especially for deep wells with large bores. Some companies use a fixed value of, 10
bbls, for example. Once more this simplification can lead to a conservative result. However, those companies not taking into
account this effect may be exposing themselves to potentially dangerous situations. In this paper, formation flow after shut in
is considered to be equal to the well’s total compressibility. For all examples a system compressibility of 6 x 10-6 /psi was
assumed. Fig. 5 shows the comparison between the current industry approach and afterflow corrected kick tolerances. As can
be seen the afterflow effect leads to smaller kick tolerance. Therefore, if afterflow is not taken into account, it will result in a
less conservative approach and increased overall risk.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
Afterflow Corrected KT-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
Afterflow Corrected KT-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
Afterflow Corrected KT-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
Afterflow Corrected KT-Well D
17000
Fig. 5 – Effect of afterflow on kick tolerance, compared to the industry approach.

Temperature Effect
Until now the effect of temperature on the drilling fluid has not been addressed. The change in temperature along the
wellbore will affect the density and the rheology of the mud, which has direct affect on the hydrostatic gradient as well as in
the frictional pressure losses during circulation. This being said, currently it is assumed that the temperature in the open hole
section is constant, thus no correction to the volume calculation is applied.
This assumption will be considered by examining the effects of temperature on influx volume as described by the
“Charles Law.” Charles Law states that the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the absolute temperature. All other
parameters being the same, V1 for all four wells was recalculated, assuming wellbore temperatures equal to the undisturbed
geothermal temperatures. Depending on whether V1 or V2 is the dominating volume, the effect of temperature on kick
tolerance varies. Fig. 6 shows the effect of temperature correction on kick tolerance. Contrary to the afterflow effect, the
temperature correction results in a higher kick tolerance. Therefore, the usual assumption of constant temperature results in a
conservative solution.

Z-Factor Correction
Z-factor, also known as compressibility factor, is a useful property that allows for using ideal gas equations to model real gas
behavior. Since the calculation of z-factor is not a straightforward task that a driller can perform using his hand-held
calculator, the industry has assumed a constant z-factor equal to 1 when carrying out gas behavior calculations. In this paper,
SPE/IADC 140113 7

a 0.6 sg hydrocarbon gas is assumed as the influx fluid. The pseudocritical properties were calculated using Katz’s7
correlations. Then, z-factor was numerically calculated by using Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem8 correlations combined with
Newton-Raphson iterative method. Z-factors were calculated for conditions along the openhole and were introduced in the
bottom hole kick volume calculations through the real gas law. In order to demonstratre the individual effect of z-factor on
the kick tolerance, a constant (1.90 ppg) influx density was used. Fig. 7 shows the results when the smaller of z-factor
corrected V1 and V2 (calculated from Hmax) is selected. In some situations, the correction is shown to be significant.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
Temperature Corrected KT-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
Temperature Corrected KT-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
Temperature Corrected KT-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
Temperature Corrected KT-Well D
17000
Fig. 6 - Effect of temperature correction on kick tolerance, compared to the industry approach.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
z-factor Corrected KT-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
z-factor Corrected KT-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
z-factor Corrected KT-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
z-factor Corrected KT-Well D
17000
Fig. 7 - Effect of z-factor on kick tolerance, compared to the industry approach.

Influx Density Correction

So far, kick fluid density has been assumed to be 1.9 ppg and constant along the open hole section. Once the z-factor has
been calculated, it is easy to estimate the influx density. Density of the hydrocarbon gas can be calculated as:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………. (eq. 5)

Using 0.6 for hydrocarbon gas specific gravity, and pressure, temperature and z-factor for the point of interest, i.e.,
casing shoe and bottom hole conditions, volumes at the bottom of the well for all four wells were calculated. Influx density
has a direct effect in the kick tolerance calculation. Equation 1 states that the greater the gas density the more influx the well
can tolerate. Using Well A as an example, the influx density based on casing shoe conditions is 1.16 ppg. This is almost 40%
8 SPE/IADC 140113

less than the assumed density of 1.90 ppg. As influx density is used in the Hmax calculation it affects the Hmax and obviously
the consequent volume calculations. Giving Well A as an example again, and doing calculations for a depth of 4500 ft, Hmax
is 388 ft when 1.90 ppg is used for influx density. On the other hand, when the correct density (1.16 ppg) is used Hmax is 361
ft, a reduction of 7%. Consequently, maximum allowable influx volumes at the shoe are 67.9 and 63.1 bbls. Similarly, the
volume on bottom is also affected. While the influx volume at shoe with 1.90 ppg density results in 50.9 bbl bottom hole
volume, 1.16 ppg gas density results in 47.3 bbls. Bottom hole volumes V1 and V2 were calculated using the estimated
density, and kick tolerance was taken as the smaller of the two. Fig. 8 shows the difference between the adjusted the influx
density and the constant desnity approach.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
Density Corrected KT-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
Density Corrected KT-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
Density Corrected KT-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
Density Corrected KT-Well D
17000
Fig. 8 - Effect of density correction on kick tolerance, compared to the industry approach.

Combined Correction Effects on Kick Tolerance

So far, the various factors affecting the final calculation of the bottom hole influx volume and kick tolerance have been
discussed, and their individual effects have been presented. As some effects increase the kick tolerance and others reduce, it
is important to combine all the effects together to see the overall impact on kick tolerance. Excluding the friction and choke
operator error effects used for safety margin, all the other effects have been combined and the resultant kick tolerance
presented in Fig. 9.

Kick Tolerance, bbl

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000
Well Depth, ft

Industry Approach-Well A
10000
All effects-Well A
11000
Industry Approach-Well B
12000
All Effects-Well B
13000
Industry Approach-Well C
14000
All Effects-Well C
15000
Industry Approach-Well D
16000
All Effects-Well D
17000
Fig. 9 – Comparison of kick tolerance. Industry approach vs. all previous effects combined,
except safety margin (choke operator error + friction).
SPE/IADC 140113 9

As can be seen the consequences are not monotonous hence illustrating why it is important to take into account all effects, as
a conservative result is no guaranteed. One might argue that the overall conservative nature of the single bubble model will
eliminate any detreminal effect produced by these simplifications. Unfortunately, this has been the rationale used in many
cases in our industry, not just with respect to kick tolerance. But as the magnitude of each simplification and conceptual
error is different, one will never know in which direction the final result is move. If it is clear that a conservative approach is
being used, the consequences might be just economical, with the end result of an over-engineered well. However, when the
scenario leads to increase risk, as it is the case of how the kick volume on bottom is calculated today, this should not be
acceptable. It is important for the industry to realize the possible flaws in all the steps employed when designing and
operating a well and quickly correct them.

Conclusions
Even though kick tolerance is a foundation of any well design, it is still a concept surrounded with confusion and inconsistent
application. The lack of standard often lead to discussion during the operations, between drilling contractors and operators,
on what steps are safe to be taken. A state of the art review of the topic has been carried out and several misconceptions were
identified. The assumption made by the industry that not taking into account several effects on the calculation leads to a
conservative result may not be true depending on the well configuration and parameters used. It has also been shown that it is
difficult to generalize the outcome of any particular effect. Therefore, in order to produce a truly conservative or if desired
more aggressive approach it is important to consider all possible effects influencing the results.
With the computing power available today and the increased acceptance of computers being used on rigs, there is no
excuse for the industry to continue to rely on simple calculations. Accurate tools should be used not only during the planning
stage of the well, but also in real time to guide the operational personal towards safe drilling practices. These tools should
provide additional insight in case of a well control event, indicating whether it is safe to circulate the kick or whether
bullheading is the safer option.
Another important aspect observed during the review, is the use of a safety margin to account for the manual choke
control error and the friction losses generated during circulation. With the availability of automated chokes it should be
possible to reduce this safety margin. Likewise, by taking advantage of the friction pressure generated during fluid circulation
a further reduction in the safety margins can be obtained. As the wellbore does not care whether the additional pressure being
applied at a certain depth comes from a choke located at the surface or from the friction loss generated above that point.
Because of this it is unnessecary and unreasonable to reduce the MAASP. For a deepwater or slimhole well the benefits in
terms of well design will be even more significant due to reduction of casing strings needed as the kick tolerance should at
least double compared to the current approach employed.

Nomenclature
BHA : Bottom Hole Assembly
HPHT : High Pressure High Temperature
MAASP : Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure
MW : Mud Weight, ppg
TVD : True Vertical Depth, ft

Caa,dc : Capacity of the open hole annulus around the drill collar, bbl/ft
Caa,dp : Capacity of the open hole annulus around the drill pipe, bbl/ft
Hmax : Maximum allowable kick height in the open hole section, ft
PP : Pore pressure, psi
Pshoe : Pressure at the casing shoe, psi
R : Universal gas constant, (psi-gal) / (0R-lbm-mole)
T : Temperature at the point of interest, 0F or 0R
V1 : Influx volume at the bottom of the hole (calculated from gas laws), bbl
V2 : Influx volume at the bottom of the hole (calculated from Hmax), bbl
VDC : Influx volume across the top of drill collars, bbl
Vshoe : Influx volume at the casing shoe, bbl
z : Gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
γg : Gas specific gravity, dimensionless
ρk : Influx density, ppg
10 SPE/IADC 140113

References
1. Aldred, W., Cook, J., Bern, P., Carpenter, B., Hutchinson, M., Lovell, J., Rezmer-Cooper, I. and Leder, P.C.: “Using
Downhole Annular Pressure Measurements to Improve Drilling Performance,” Schlumberger Oilfield Review (Winter
1998) volume 10, issue 4.
2. Aadnoy, B., Cooper, I., Miska, S., Mitchell, R.F. and Payne, M.L.: Advanced Drilling and Well Technology, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX (2009) 582.
3. Redmann, K.P.: “Understanding Kick Tolerance and Its Significance in Drilling Planning and Execution,” SPE Drilling
Engineering (December 1991), 245-249.
4. Santos, O., Adasani, I., Azar, J.J. and Escorihuella, F.: “Determination of Casing Setting Depth Using Kick Tolerance
Concept,” paper SPE 30220, presented at the Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, TX, 11-14 June 1995.
5. The Driller’s Club.: “Casing Design and Kick Tolerance,” retrieved from web, <http://drillingclub.proboards.com/
index.cgi?board=wellcontrol&action=display&thread=758#ixzz137glMfQz> on 14 October 2010.
6. Equilibria Services Ltd.: Well Control Manual, Equilibria Services Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand (2009), Section 3, page 8 of
9.
7. Sutton, R.P.: “Compressibility Factor for High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases,” paper SPE 14265, presented at the
1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22-25 September.
8. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: “Calculation of Z-Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State,” JCPT
(July-September 1975), 34-36.