DC174890 DOI: 10.
2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17 Stage: Page: 1
Blowout Prevention and Relief-Well
Planning for the Wheatstone Big-Bore
Gas-Well Project
Eric R. Upchurch, Sam Falkner, Andrew House, Chinh Nguyen, and Ken Russell, Chevron Australia
Summary
The offshore Wheatstone liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in
Western Australia uses subsea big-bore gas wells as the preferred
method of producing the field. Wheatstone wells use a 95=8-in.
production conduit from the top of the gas pay zone to the ocean
floor. Wellbores of this size are necessary to match the large pro-
ductive capacity of the gas reservoirs they penetrate. This produc-
ing scenario provides the obvious benefit of yielding large
volumes of gas through the use of relatively few wells. Each of
those highly productive wells, however, also represents a source
of gas that, if accidentally allowed to flow unhindered, could pres-
ent an uncommonly difficult well-control challenge. It is for this
reason that the Wheatstone Drilling and Completions (D&C)
Team evaluated a wide range of possible reservoir- and well-
architecture scenarios to fully understand the possible scale of
relief-well responses that might be necessary in the event of a
blowout. The conclusions from this evaluation were surprising.
Our original well-design concept called for penetrating the
Wheatstone gas reservoirs with a casing shoe set 3,100 ft verti-
cally above. Our analysis indicated that three or four relief wells
would be simultaneously required to bring a blowout under con-
trol. Because of these results, both the well- and drilling-execu-
tion plan were redesigned to minimize the number of required
relief wells. In summary, the redesign amounted to setting the cas-
ing immediately (i.e.,  10 ft) above the gas reservoir before
actually penetrating it, with the resulting benefit of reducing the
required number of relief wells to two. Although this reduction is
beneficial, it should be noted that there is only one documented
subsea case where two or more relief wells have been drilled with
the intent of simultaneously pumping into both to effect a
dynamic kill. Given this fact, our well-control-related prepara-
tions for executing this project were more extensive than those of
preceding projects.
This paper chronicles the full extent of the engineering and
operational planning performed to ensure that no uncontrolled
hydrocarbon releases occurred during the execution of the Wheat-
stone Project’s subsea big-bore gas wells and, if a blowout were
to occur, that the response to such an unprecedented event would
be sufficient and robust. Covered in this paper are reservoir-deliv-
erability modeling, dynamic-kill modeling, gas-plume modeling,
relief-well trajectory and mooring planning, pilot-hole-execution
planning, a newly applied logging-while-drilling (LWD) technol-
ogy for sensing resistivity vertically below the drill bit, and a dis-
cussion of future research identified as necessary to better define
the fluid-injectivity capabilities of subsea relief wells.
Introduction
High-rate gas wells [i.e., those with a production tubing outer di-
ameter (OD) of  75=8 in.] are increasingly common in the global
well inventory, with their usage now spanning multiple continents
(Fig. 7 in Healy et al. 2012). The total count of subsea high-rate
gas wells, however, is comparatively small (Hartmann et al. 2004;
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 174890) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 28–30 September 2015, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 19 November 2015. Revised manuscript received for
review 6 December 2016. Paper peer approved 30 January 2017.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Total Pages: 15
Jenner and Hughes 2008; Upchurch et al. 2016), and is an even-
smaller percentage of the global total of subsea wells. Given this
fact, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that the well-control
mindset that guides the preparation and execution of more-tradi-
tional subsea wells might be misapplied to the preparation and
execution of a big-bore subsea gas well. The Wheatstone high-
rate gas-well design, with its 95=8-in. production conduit, repre-
sents our company’s initial attempt at implementing such a well.
High-rate gas wells with smaller tubing strings (75=8-in. OD) have
been successfully implemented by Chevron elsewhere, but the
Wheatstone big-bore well design is the largest we have yet
attempted. With that, there were many things we discovered dur-
ing the process of designing this type of well, some of them
wholly unexpected concerning the topic of well control. Because
the design team’s combined engineering and execution experience
included neither big-bore wells nor reservoirs of Wheatstone’s
productive capacity, our well-control expectations were limited to
anticipating only needing a single relief well in the event of a
blowout. However, upon the receipt of dynamic-kill simulations
performed by consulting experts in that field, a new reality
became obvious: The combination of a large wellbore connected
to the multidarcy Wheatstone gas reservoir has the potential to
easily produce more than 1,000 MMscf/D, if a blowout occurred.
Dynamically killing such a well could require up to four relief
wells simultaneously injecting 15-lbm/gal drilling fluid.
To put this revelation in context, there are no executed exam-
ples in the industry literature that are true analogs to a Wheatstone
dynamic kill. There is, however, one example from Brazil,
Enchova 19D, where two subsea relief wells were simultaneously
used to kill a single free-flowing well by means of direct intercept
(Maduro and Reynolds 1989). In that case, seawater was used to
kill the blowout, rather than a weighted fluid; the latter is required
at Wheatstone. This point is significant in that pumping a solids-
bearing kill fluid can increase the risks of piping erosion if per-
formed at high rates (discussed later in this paper). The only other
offshore examples that exist with any possible relevance are from
the 1970s. In this time frame, there were two offshore instances
where multiple relief wells were drilled and simultaneously used
to attempt killing a blowout. In both cases, surface blowout pre-
venters (BOPs) were used. Those instances were the Well Fateh
L-3 in Dubai in 1975 and Well Ixtoc 1 in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) in 1979 (Arnwine and Ely 1978; Lugo and De Leon 1981;
Oudemann 2007). In the case of those two blowouts, multiple
relief wells were drilled in the proximity of the well to be killed,
with the intent of linking into the blown-out well by means of natu-
ral or hydraulically induced fractures. In both cases, these techni-
ques failed to stop the blowout. The wells flowed for 7–10 months
and were killed only after nature provided assistance by way of ei-
ther increasing water production from the reservoir or bridging off
of the wellbore. Onshore, only one such example exists (the El
Isba 123 well kill in Syria in 1995) (Oudemann 1996, 2007). In
that case, both relief wells directly intercepted the blown-out well
near the bottom of its drillstring (Oudemann 1996). However, only
one of the relief wells was actually used to inject kill fluid, whereas
the other was used to monitor bottomhole pressure.
This exceptionally short list of well kills that use multiple
relief wells suggests not only the rarity of such events, but also
the probable difficulty of executing a true multiwell dynamic kill
1
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
Mudline 660 ft TVD
36-in. conductor
20-in. casing
SCSSV
95/8-in. liner tieback
135/8-in. casing 6,900 ft TVD
12
1
4/ -i
n.
ho
le
95/8-in. liner
97
8/ -in
Gas-pay-zone top Op .h 10,000 ft TVD
ole
gr en
av ho
el le
pa
ck
Fig. 1—Schematic of the Wheatstone subsea production well.
SCSSV 5 surface-controlled subsurface safety valve.
simply because of its rarity. Highly uncommon events do not nor-
mally have multiple fully practiced solution providers readily
available for deployment in response. Considering that even fewer
examples exist where true multiwell dynamic kills have been used
in a subsea setting (i.e., one), the expectation of a quick and confi-
dently deployable solution should not be set high automatically.
Thus, it is preferable to design wells so that only a single relief
well is ever required. Our analyses, though, suggest that it is
improbable that a dynamic kill at Wheatstone can be successfully
performed by use of only a single relief well, given the large di-
ameter of the production wellbore. We, therefore, have mitigated
the well-control risk of drilling a Wheatstone well, not by limiting
its productive capacity (i.e., reducing the well diameter), but by
optimizing casing-setting depths to minimize the number of
required relief wells; designing the well to be completely pressure
competent, even if it were totally filled with gas; and formulating
a blowout-response plan that is reflective of the complexities of
executing a two-well dynamic kill on any of the nine foundation
wells drilled at Wheatstone. In this way, we have attempted to
acknowledge and mitigate the very-considerable well-control
risks associated with drilling such wells, without adopting so con-
servative a design policy that their economic benefit becomes sig-
nificantly eroded.
Big-Bore Gas-Well-Design Fundamentals
A schematic of a Wheatstone subsea well is shown in Fig. 1. In
the Wheatstone field, all formations exhibit a simple hydrostatic-
pressure trend. In addition, no hydrocarbons have been found to
exist above the gas pay-zone top at 10,000-ft true vertical depth
(TVD). This environment, therefore, requires few casing strings
to reach the producing objective.
A 135=8-in. casing string is typically set at 6,900-ft TVD (the
point at which formation strengths significantly increase). Several
Muderong Sha
Shale
GWC 10,250 ft TVDSS
Brigadier Formation
- Interbedded-sand/shale sequences.
Individual-sand-body thickness
ranges from a few inches up to 15 ft.
Mungaroo Formation
- Channel sands. Individual sand body
thickness ranges from 15 to 100 ft.
Fig. 2—Geologic cross section of Wheatstone producing intervals.
2 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 15
unstable formations, however, exist below this depth. Setting the
135=8-in. casing at 6,900-ft TVD allows the unstable formations to
be drilled with a higher-density fluid—a density that shallower
formations would not be able to withstand. The casing string is ca-
pable of containing the shut-in pressures associated with a gas-
filled well that is connected to the gas pay zone at 10,000-ft TVD.
The 121=4-in. hole section of the well is the most challenging
to drill because of its unstable formations. The fracture gradients
of this hole section, however, are actually high enough to with-
stand the pressures of a shut-in, gas-filled wellbore. Consequently,
the 95=8-in. liner, by itself, functions as the production conduit.
During production, the liner is the primary pressure-containment
barrier and the 121=4-in. hole is the backup.
The philosophy as to the shoe depth of the 95=8-in. liner varies
between companies. Some have chosen to set the liner shoe into
the top of the gas pay zone (Hartmann et al. 2003, 2004) (i.e.,
analogously below 10,000-ft TVD in Fig. 1) to ensure that all
shales above the pay zone are isolated from the openhole comple-
tion. This ensures that gravel-pack productivity is not hindered by
the sloughing of unstable shales during completion operations. In
the case of Wheatstone, the shales immediately above the pay
zone are chemically inert; hence, there is flexibility to set the shoe
a small distance above the gas pay zone without risking the pro-
ductivity of the gravel pack. Another liner-shoe-depth considera-
tion is its effect on the quality of the cement job. At Wheatstone,
the gas pay zone has a lower fracture gradient (0.8–1.0 lbm/gal
lower) than the overlying rocks. Cementing the liner with the gas
pay zone exposed elevates the risk of losing circulation while
pumping the cement job—which, if it occurred, would diminish
the quality of the cement job.
Wheatstone Reservoir Geology and
Flow Potential
A geologic cross section of the Wheatstone producing formations
is shown in Fig. 2. All originate from the Late Triassic (i.e.,
205–230 million years ago). After deposition, these formations
were tilted, eroded, and then overlain by the Jurassic Muderong
shale. The producing formations dip at 2–3 .
The oldest and most-prolific formation is the Mungaroo. It is
composed of a series of very permeable channel sands ranging in
thickness from 15 to 100 ft. The sand packages have an average
horizontal permeability (kh) of 8 darcies and a high kv/kh ratio
of 0.9.
Overlying the Mungaroo are the Brigadier formations. These
are composed of thinner sand/shale sequences that were deposited
in a near-shoreface marine environment. Individual sand-body
thickness ranges from a few inches up to 15 ft. The average kh is
1.5 darcies and kv/kh ratio is 0.1.
Completion intervals are positioned immediately below the
Muderong shale to maximize their distance from the gas/water
contact (GWC). In addition, each completion is positioned so that
it only produces from a single geologic sequence (i.e., a group of
Brigadier
Mungaroo
Basement rock
(Nonproductive)
Example Completion Locations
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
1,800
1,600
Flow Potential (MMscf/D)
1,400
1,200
1,000 Mungaroo formation
(kv /kh = 0.9)
800 kh = 8 darcies
600 kh = 6.5 darcies
kh = 4 darcies
400
200
50° Reservoir Penetration Angle
0
0 10 20 30
Reservoir-Penetration Length (ft MD)
Fig. 3—Blowout-rate sensitivity to the amount of reservoir rock
penetrated for the well scenario shown in Fig. 4a.
layers that have similar flow properties). The purpose is to ensure
that no single layer within the completion interval becomes a pref-
erential flow path for water from the GWC. Given the structure of
the geology and the chosen completion philosophy, exploiting all
the various geologic sequences requires penetrating the gas reser-
voir at disparate positions along the interface between the Muder-
ong shale and the gas reservoir immediately below (see Fig. 2).
Because the quality of the producing rock is not necessarily good
at all points along this interface, pilot holes were used in some
instances to ensure that completions were optimally placed.
Each of these reservoir penetrations is a significant source of
gas. Considering that even the lower-quality Brigadier has a
world-class permeability of 1.5 darcies, allowing any one of these
penetrations to flow unhindered would result in an inordinately dif-
ficult well-control scenario. To better define the well-control-risk
profile, reservoir/well modeling was performed to define the flow-
rate potential for both the Mungaroo and Brigadier formations.
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 3 and are derived from a
wellbore configuration like that shown in Fig. 4a; that is, a 121=4-
in. hole that is directionally drilled below a 135=8-in. casing [123=8-
in. inner diameter (ID)] and steps out 8,200 ft laterally to reach its
reservoir target. Common casedhole and openhole roughnesses are
assumed in the simulations. Both the horizontal and vertical per-
meability of the reservoir are considered, as are the completion-
skin effects induced by wellbore inclination and partial reservoir
penetration (Wong et al. 1986; Pucknell and Clifford 1991). The
entire reservoir-completion-well system is modeled by use of com-
monly available nodal-analysis software. The simulation results in
Fig. 3 indicate that both the Mungaroo and Brigadier lithologies
36-in. conductor
20-in. casing
135/8-in. casing
Gas-pay-zone top
(a)
Fig. 4—Two scenarios for drilling into the gas reservoir: (a) while drilling the 121=4-in. hole before installing and cementing the 95=8-
in. liner; (b) after installing and cementing the 95=8-in. liner.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 15
are capable of delivering large volumes of gas during a blowout
with the exposure of only a few feet of reservoir rock. We discuss
each separately in the following subsections.
Mungaroo Flow Potential. In the case of the Mungaroo forma-
Brigadier formation tion, only 3 ft of rock with kh ¼ 8 darcies need be exposed for a
(kh = 1.5 darcies) 1,600-MMscf/D blowout to be possible. Such a large flow rate
kv /kh = 1.0 from so short a reservoir penetration is only possible because of
kv /kkh = 0.1 the lack of vertical-flow barriers in the Mungaroo. Note also that
the flow capacity for this scenario does not materially change as
reservoir penetration increases. This suggests that the gas-flow
rate from the well is constrained by the size of the wellbore, rather
than by the reservoir rock. Theoretically, the reservoir provides
40 50 60 70 the most flow restraint when the flow pattern within the rock is
spherical, resulting in a 3D flow-stream convergence (which is
certainly the case with only 3 ft of penetration into the nearly iso-
tropic permeability of the Mungaroo). As the penetration length
increases, however, the reservoir-flow restraint decreases as the
flow pattern transitions to a more-2D radial pattern. Hence, if the
flow potential for this particular wellbore/reservoir scenario is
nearly the same, regardless of penetration, then the wellbore has
to be the governing system constraint. That the 121=4-in.- to 123=8-
in.-ID flow path of Fig. 4a is the bottleneck in this system speaks
to the exceptionally high flow capacity of the reservoir. Similar
results in Fig. 3 for kh ¼ 6.5 darcies indicate that the flow is
equally restricted by the wellbore. Lastly, the simulation results
for kh ¼ 4 darcies show some flow-capacity reduction from the
higher permeabilities. This lower-permeability scenario, however,
is still capable of flowing approximately 1,500 MMscf/D by
exposing only 3 ft of rock.
Brigadier Flow Potential. In contrast to the Mungaroo, coupling
the Brigadier formation with the wellbore configuration in Fig. 4a
results in a system that is constrained by the lower permeability of
the reservoir, rather than by the wellbore. This is confirmed by the
Brigadier flow potential (Fig. 3) never equaling that of the more-
permeable Mungaroo. Even though the gas-flow potential is less
for a Brigadier blowout, the well-control consequences would cer-
tainly be significant, given that this formation is capable of pro-
ducing more than 1,000 MMscf/D with only 6 ft of penetration.
The blowout-flow-potential curves for kv/kh ¼ 0.1 and 1.0 are pre-
sented to show the relative effect of vertical-permeability varia-
tions in this more-laminated formation. The value of kv/kh does
influence the flow potential of the reservoir, as evidenced by the
separation of the two curves. However, the order-of-magnitude
variance in kv/kh only results in a 21% difference in blowout
potential for a reservoir-penetration length of 3 ft, successively
decreasing to differences of 12 and 8% for penetration lengths of
Mudline Mudline
36-in. conductor
20-in. casing
135/8-in. casing
12
12 1
1 4/ -i
4/ -i n.
n. ho
ho le
le
81
Gas-pay-zone top 2/ -in.
ho
le
(b)
3
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
Table 1—Dynamic-kill-modeling results for various blowout scenarios (all assume that no drillpipe is in the hole).
10 and 16 ft, respectively. This suggests that this formation’s kv/kh
plays a smaller role than does kh in defining its flow potential.
Well-Control Implications
External experts were engaged to perform dynamic-kill modeling.
These service providers (two were engaged) were tasked with
evaluating the relief-well requirements for various combinations
of well configuration and reservoir type. The modeled combina-
tions are shown in Table 1. The two well configurations displayed
in Fig. 4 were used for most of the evaluations, with the goal of
defining relief-well fluid-injection requirements for each. At the
time, we anticipated that either well configuration would only
require one relief well. Stemming from our “one-relief-well
assumption,” it was expected that both scenarios shown in Fig. 4
would be used during the Wheatstone drilling campaign. The well
configuration shown in Fig. 4a (Scenarios 1, 2, and 2a in Table 1)
would be used either for drilling into the gas reservoir a few feet to
allow full isolation of the overlying Muderong shale behind the
95=8-in. liner or for drilling a deeper-penetrating pilot hole to con-
firm reservoir quality. Scenarios 3 and 4 represent other pilot-hole
alternatives we considered that have smaller open holes drilled
below the 135=8-in. casing to restrict the flow rate of a blowout.
The well configuration shown in Fig. 4b (Scenarios 5 and 6) would
be used for drilling through the main reservoir target in preparation
for gravel packing. Scenario 7 is derived from the wellbore config-
uration shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., a fully completed well).
The dynamic-kill modeling for each of these scenarios was
performed by use of a multiphase-flow simulator, capable of
describing the transient fluid events that occur during the dynamic
killing of a gas well. A commonly used model for simulating such
transient multiphase-fluid systems is OLGA (Bendiksen et al.
1991). Both service providers mentioned here use the OLGA
model within their respective dynamic-kill simulators, as has been
the case, past and present, for most other providers of such serv-
ices (Rygg and Gilhuus 1990; Rygg et al. 1992). The abundance
of industry literature documenting the variety of fluid systems to
which the OLGA model has been applied suggests the extent of
its acceptance as a reliable modeling tool (Tang and Huang 2010;
Jacobs 2015; Karami et al. 2016).
The reservoir-flow-potential models that were used in conjunc-
tion with the dynamic-kill simulators yielded similar results to our
own in Fig. 3. In particular, the blowout-flow rates shown in Table
1 for Scenarios 1 and 2 show good agreement with our Fig. 3
4 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 15
results (4 and 10% difference, respectively). The result for Sce-
nario 2a (a different service provider from Scenarios 1 and 2) is
less aligned with those in Fig. 3 (21% difference), but was consid-
ered sufficiently close to suggest that the reservoir/completion-
modeling technique was correct.
The output in Table 1 from the dynamic-kill modeling made it
immediately clear that a one-relief-well scenario did not exist for
most well/reservoir combinations. The only well configuration
that could confidently be controlled by use of only one relief well
was that of a fully completed well (Scenario 7 in Table 1). We
concluded that this well configuration was certainly controllable
with a single relief well because it only requires 53 bbl/min of 15-
lbm/gal fluid to complete the kill operation. We have assumed
that the maximum-possible kill rate for a single subsea well lies in
the range of 60–100 bbl/min. We have speculatively assumed this
range, rather than something more narrowly defined, because
there are no examples in the literature documenting an actual
dynamic kill performed using both a subsea relief well and a
weighted fluid (i.e., a drilling mud). Subsea relief-well-injection
rates will be discussed further in a later section of this paper. In
addition, we assume that all dynamic kills are performed with a
15-lbm/gal fluid because it represents a fluid density high enough
to substantially reduce the required injection rate of a relief well;
is a fluid density low enough that it can confidently be mixed and
maintained on-site; and contains a low-enough concentration of
solids that the risk of erosion to subsea-BOP components is
reduced. The final point will also be discussed later in this paper.
Scenarios 1 through 4 in Table 1 represent all pilot-hole situa-
tions where the gas reservoir is penetrated with the deepest
cemented pipe being the 135=8-in. casing 3,100 ft vertically above
(as in Fig. 4a). These scenarios cover openhole sizes ranging from
121=4 to 61=8 in. Across all these cases, the number of required
relief wells ranges from two to four. The 61=8-in. pilot-hole sce-
nario has the best possibility of requiring only two relief wells.
Although the smaller hole size restricts gas flow enough to make
this option theoretically possible, there are several reasons why
we chose not to pursue it. First, the unstable formations that this
hole would penetrate are sensitive to cyclic pressure surging; thus,
the elevated equivalent circulating densities associated with dril-
ling a slimmer hole are not desired. Second, the increased swab
pressures associated with slim holes elevate the possibility of
swabbing gas into the well, especially given the exceptionally
high permeabilities of the Wheatstone gas reservoir. Third, if a
blowout did occur, this scenario would require each of the two
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
Table 2—Relief-well maximum-fluid-injection rates reported in industry literature.
subsea relief wells to inject more than 80 bbl/min of 15-lbm/gal
kill fluid. We are not completely certain that more than 80 bbl/min
is achievable in this case. Although this lies within our previously
assumed, albeit speculative, 60- to 100-bbl/min single-relief-well
capability range, we are certainly less confident of achieving more
than 80 bbl/min with a 15-lbm/gal fluid than we would be for 60
bbl/min. Other companies are similarly conservative on this mat-
ter. Shell’s guidelines, for example, prohibit assuming a single
subsea relief-well’s injection capacity to be more than 70 bbl/
min*. Finally, our conservatism on this point also reflects the fact
that no documented cases exist in the industry literature where ei-
ther 80 bbl/min or a solids-bearing fluid have been used to perform
a subsea dynamic kill (see Enchova 19D in Table 2).
Scenarios 5 and 6 represent situations where the gas reservoir
is penetrated by use of an 81=2-in. hole beneath a 95=8-in. liner
cemented immediately above (as in Fig. 4b). These scenarios
require a combined relief-well-injection rate of 98–99 bbl/min.
Considering that this is just under our speculative 100-bbl/min
limit, it is prudent not to assume that this rate can be confidently
attained with a single relief well. We, therefore, assume that two
relief wells are required for this scenario.
In summary, penetrating the gas reservoir below a shallow-set
135=8-in. casing could require three or four relief wells to control a
blowout. However, penetrating the gas reservoir below a deep-set
95=8-in. liner reduces the number of required relief wells to no
more than two. The difference between these two outcomes is
completely driven by the depth that the relief well(s) can intercept
the target well that is blowing out. That intercept cannot occur
deeper than the deepest metal pipe in the target well; the metal is
necessary for relief-well ranging tools to detect its location. In
* Personal communication with D. Gala. 2015. Shell E&P Company, Houston (November).
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 15
Unknown
big-bore gas wells such as these, the resources necessary to exe-
cute a dynamic kill (such as pump horsepower and fluid volumes)
increase rapidly as the intercept depth decreases. This is because
the gas rapidly decompresses and accelerates as it moves upward
in the uncontrolled well. The faster-moving gas at the shallower
depths, in turn, requires the injection of significantly larger kill-
fluid volumes from the intercepting relief well to prevent the kill
fluid from being immediately atomized and expelled by the
upward-moving gas.
Considering that at least two subsea relief wells are required to
respond to a Wheatstone blowout and that such a response has
only been implemented once in the oil industry, it is valid to ask
why a more-direct approach to controlling a well, such as a cap-
ping stack, is not considered. Capping stacks are a valuable tool
and are available in the Australia/Asia regions. They are not, how-
ever, deployable at Wheatstone because of the shallow water
depth (400–800 ft). At these depths, the gas plume from a blowout
would emerge close enough to the vessel deploying the capping
stack, and at a high enough concentration, that it would pose a fire
hazard (discussed in this paper).
One final implication of such highly productive reservoirs is
that bridging of the wellbore during a blowout is an unlikely
mechanism for halting the blowout (Willson 2012). The energy
imparted by such large volumes of upward-moving gas is prob-
ably sufficient to transport all pieces of downhole formation that
might come free. The efficient removal of these materials mini-
mizes the possibility of them naturally accumulating and bridging
in the wellbore to restrict or stop the uncontrolled gas flow.
Reservoir-Entry Strategy
Because of the dynamic-kill results presented previously, the
Wheatstone team decided to revamp its well-execution plan to
5
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
R L MP
x2
=L
/2
+T
DR l e
TVD
n ( i ab
D)
T 43
tio el
inc
tec of R
T T
De pth x x
De
Bi
t t
DRD DDR “Vertical Vertical Distance
Vertical Projection Look Below” to Bit
Capability
= DRD sin(inc) =R = MP cos(inc)
(a)
Fig. 5—Schematics of (a) general BHA/DDR system trigonometry and (b) a specific example at inclination 5 458 [modeled after Fig.
8 in Upchurch et al. (2016)]. inc 5 inclination.
ensure that a well scenario similar to Fig. 4a never occurs in con-
junction with gas reservoirs like those represented in Fig. 3. Pre-
venting this combination guarantees that no more than two relief
wells will ever be needed during the Wheatstone drilling and
completion campaign. The additional cost to the Wheatstone Pro-
ject in both money and schedule was not insignificant.
Why was such a decision made, considering that the probabil-
ity of a blowout ever occurring is exceptionally low? In purely fi-
nancial terms, the probabilistic cost of simply accepting the risk
of drilling three or four relief wells is much less than the guaran-
teed cost of executing our plan to minimize relief-well require-
ments to two. This is true because a blowout of such magnitude
(i.e., requiring three or four relief wells) is an event with an
exceptionally low probability of occurrence, as evidenced by the
fact that only two examples exist in the literature (Wells Fateh L-
3 and Ixtoc 1). Other factors besides cost, however, were consid-
ered in the process of risk assessing the various options for enter-
ing the reservoir. One factor that became an important point of
consideration is the risk of an event impacting our reputation as
an industry-leading safe operator.
Considering “reputation” as an area of risk acknowledges that
the costs associated with an unprecedented negative event (such as
a subsea blowout requiring three or four relief wells) would prob-
ably be much more substantial than merely the local cost of the
relief wells, lost gas reserves, and damaged assets. Damage to repu-
tation could manifest itself globally in the form of lost corporate-
stock value and lost opportunities to participate in other projects.
Assessing the cost of such global impacts is difficult. Chevron’s
health, environment, and safety and project-risk-assessment meth-
odologies, however, allow for the identification and ranking of rep-
utational issues depending on the possible degree of their effect on
both current and future business activities. Prioritizing reputational
issues in this manner was our primary method for making an
informed selection of the appropriate risk-mitigation strategies,
which, ultimately, allowed us to decisively allocate the resources
necessary to address this issue. Considering reputational impacts
as a risk (which in the case of a subsea blowout would be signifi-
cant) was a major driver that led us to the decision to revamp our
well-execution plans. Those new plans, in turn, became the founda-
tion for ensuring that no more than two relief wells would ever be
simultaneously required during the Wheatstone D&C campaign.
Implications for Production-Hole Drilling. After committing to
an execution plan that never requires more than two relief wells, a
method for fulfilling that expectation had to be established. In
essence, all well objectives, both from a completions perspective
6 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 15
L=
R 10
x2 8f MP
t =L
/2
+T
TVD T=
L
45°
ft
.1
=1
D
DR
Bi
DRD DDR “Vertical Vertical Distance
Vertical Projection Look Below” to Bit
Capability 108 ⎞
= ⎛ 43 + cos(45)
= 118.8 sin(45) ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 84.0 ft = 15.4 ft = 68.6 ft
(b)
and a well-control perspective, can be met if the shoe of the 95=8-
in. liner is placed close enough to the gas reservoir to cover most
of the overburden shale (as depicted in Fig. 4b) and drilling of the
121=4-in. hole can be accomplished without penetrating the gas
reservoir. Minimizing the amount of exposed shale between the
liner shoe and reservoir top reduces the chance of plugging
gravel-pack screens during subsequent completion operations. We
concluded that the best risk balance is struck if the 121=4-in. hole
is drilled to 10 ft vertically above the gas reservoir. We saw this
as an aggressive goal that, if achievable, strikes an appropriate
balance between mitigating well-control risks and maximizing
completion productivity and reliability. Multiple ways of accom-
plishing this level of drilling-depth accuracy were identified
(Upchurch et al. 2016). The best option, however, was determined
to be an LWD technology known as deep-directional resistivity
(DDR).
DDR technology was originally developed for geosteering hor-
izontal wells. It leverages a long-spaced transmitter/receiver sys-
tem to obtain resistivity readings lateral to the drilling bottomhole
assembly (BHA) with a depth of reliable detection ranging
approximately 100 ft (Fig. 5). (The depth of reliable detection is
the maximum lateral distance from a wellbore at which a DDR
logging system, including its inversion process, can actually
resolve geologic boundaries for a given set of measurements.)
The Wheatstone D&C Team, in conjunction with the DDR’s man-
ufacturer, took this geosteering system and adapted it to be used
as a geostopping system (Upchurch et al. 2016). The term
“geostopping” defines the use of the DDR technology as a means
of providing a “look-below” capability vertically below the depth
of the bit (Fig. 5). The DDR system’s ability to sense resistivity
fluctuations vertically below the bit allows the early identification
of formation changes, which in turn allows drilling to be halted
before penetrating an undesired geologic horizon (e.g., a highly
permeable gas formation).
Because the deep-resistivity measurements are lateral to the
axis of the BHA, there is a trigonometric limit to the DDR’s use-
fulness for geostopping. As the BHA orientation goes from hori-
zontal to vertical, there is a point at which the DDR’s resistivity
measurements do not project vertically below the bit. Fig. 5b
presents a theoretical example of the vertical-look-below capa-
bility of the DDR for a well inclination of 45 . When applied in
the field, the exact depth of reliable detection of the system
would be influenced by both the system’s deep-reading-sensor
spacing (L) and by the resistivity of the formations in which it is
logging. In actual use at Wheatstone (Upchurch et al. 2016),
the system has proved to be useful for well inclinations of 52
and higher.
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
Mudline 660 ft TVD
36-in. conductor
20-in. casing
135/8-in. casing 6,900 ft TVD
12
1/
4 -in
.h
ole
Top of cement
95/8-in. casing
9,900 ft TVD
81
Gas-pay-zone top 10,000 ft TVD
/2-i
n.
pil
ot
ho
le
Fig. 6—Schematic of the Wheatstone pilot-hole configuration.
The DDR technology was used for geostopping in seven of the
nine Wheatstone production wells. The technology worked as
planned. In all cases, the 121=4-in. hole section was drilled to
within 10 ft of the top of the target zone containing gas-pay inter-
vals, with no inadvertent gas penetrations. These were all fol-
lowed by successful installations and cementing of the 95=8-in.
liners 7 ft off-bottom. The two wells in which the DDR was not
used were drilled immediately adjacent to either a pre-existing ap-
praisal well or a pilot hole. Hence, the depth of the gas reservoir’s
top was known to an accuracy of 3 to 7 ft. Consequently, the
DDR was not necessary for the successful placement of these two
well bores.
Implications for Pilot-Hole Drilling. Relative to the production-
hole drilling addressed previously, the relief-well-minimization
solution for drilling pilot holes is less sophisticated from a techni-
cal perspective, but more involved operationally. Where the pro-
duction-hole solution is a technological application with little
schedule-related (i.e., rig-time) costs, the cost of the pilot-hole
solution is completely related to schedule and, in turn, is much
more expensive.
As mentioned previously, pilot holes were sometimes neces-
sary to ensure that a production well was placed in the optimum
location. Before we understood the relief-well implications of
Fig. 3, the Wheatstone pilot-hole concept looked very much like
Fig. 4a, with the 121=4-in. hole extending approximately 650 ft
below the top of the gas reservoir. Once the necessary reservoir
information was obtained, the 121=4-in. hole would be plugged
back with cement to the 135=8-in. casing shoe and then sidetracked
to install a liner like that shown in Fig. 4b. The beneficial simplic-
ity of this original concept, however, was quickly overridden by
well-control concerns once we fully understood the implications
of possibly needing three or four relief wells.
Fig. 6 displays our chosen solution for ensuring that no more
than two relief wells would ever be needed during the drilling of a
pilot hole. In this plan, the 121=4-in. section is drilled to approxi-
mately 100 ft vertically above the gas reservoir. Hence, geostop-
ping with the DDR system is unnecessary. Unlike a production
hole, where exposing too much shale above the pay zone presents
an increased risk of plugging the gravel-pack screens during com-
pletions, no such risk exists in the pilot hole. The hole that pene-
trates into the gas zone will simply be logged and abandoned,
with the 100 ft of exposed shale providing no additional risk.
Once drilled, the 121=4-in. hole is isolated with a full string of 95=8-
in. casing. The casing/openhole annulus is only partially filled
with cement (as shown in Fig. 6). This allows the 95=8-in. casing
to be cut 400–500 ft below the 135=8-in. shoe and then pulled out
of the well. This leaves a 400- to 500-ft openhole window that is
then filled with cement to allow sidetracking the well to the opti-
mum producing location.
This method was used in all four pilot holes drilled at Wheat-
stone. The plan worked as intended, with the exception of one
well where the 95=8-in. casing was stuck up to the 135=8-in. shoe.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 15
This forced the use of a 135=8-in. whipstock to sidetrack the well.
The sidetrack was successfully performed with the whipstock.
Both of these methods (the production-hole and pilot-hole
relief-well-minimization solutions) proved successful in mitigat-
ing the risk of requiring more than two relief wells if a blowout
were to occur. The additional cost of implementing these mitiga-
tions, however, was significant. Considering, though, the unprece-
dented relief-well response that might have been necessary
without such mitigations, and that the Wheatstone Project repre-
sents Chevron’s first attempt at drilling this type of well, this cho-
sen path for maximizing our chances of successfully controlling a
high-rate gas blowout is considered by most within our organiza-
tion to have been a prudent investment.
Relief-Well Planning
With the deployment of the previously mentioned well-control
mitigations, the process for planning relief wells becomes slightly
simpler. All planning can now proceed under the assumption that
relief wells only need to intercept the target well near the top of
the gas reservoir. Occurrences of dual-relief-well planning are
rare in the literature; however, one subsea example does exist: the
Ormen Lange Project in Norway (Hartmann et al. 2003). From a
well-control and well-construction perspective, Ormen Lange is a
good analog to Wheatstone. The production-well designs and
expected blowout rates are similar. For a well-design similar to
Fig. 4b, their specific conditions result in wells that are capable of
blowing out at 940 MMscf/D (at a reservoir permeability less than
half that of Wheatstone). This blowout rate is comparable with
Scenarios 5 and 6 in Table 1. Shell, the operator of Ormen Lange,
similarly concluded that dual relief wells, targeted to intercept at
the top of the gas reservoir, would be required. They assumed a
13.3-lbm/gal kill fluid would be used.
Water depth is a major difference between Ormen Lange and
Wheatstone (2,800 ft vs. 400–800 ft, respectively). Ormen
Lange’s significantly deeper water makes it a candidate for use of
a capping stack as an alternative method for responding to a sub-
sea blowout. No such option exists for Wheatstone, however. As
mentioned previously, the Wheatstone water depths do not allow
enough vertical distance for the subsea gas plume to laterally dis-
perse before emerging at the ocean surface. The sea-level gas con-
centration found directly above the blowout would exceed the
lower explosive limit (LEL); thus, it would present a fire hazard
to a vessel attempting to install a capping stack.
Similarly, a relief-well-drilling rig and its support vessels
should not be positioned too near a blowout. Hence, the first step
to planning a relief well is to determine a minimum-safe-stand-off
distance from the blowout, which is the distance to which any ves-
sel can approach the location of the blowout without risking the
ignition of released gases. Determining this distance requires
modeling the gas plume’s trajectory both below and above the
ocean’s surface. Subsea plume modeling is the more complex of
the two processes.
Gas-Plume Modeling. Modeling a subsea gas plume requires
correctly describing the movement of individual gas parcels emit-
ted by the blowout. The parcels are initially dominated by the dy-
namics of a concentrated gas jet protruding vertically from the
target well. At successively shallower depths, the gas jet loses
momentum and transitions into a cloud of bubbles governed by
advection (i.e., the ocean’s current), dispersion, and buoyancy.
All the while, the size distribution of the gas bubbles and the for-
mation/dissolution of hydrates must be correctly described for
each gas parcel throughout the plume. The model used for simu-
lating this complex combination of mechanisms is the MEGA-
DEEP model developed at Clarkson University (Yapa et al.
2010). One of the main sources of experimental data for calibra-
tion of the model comes from the DeepSpill joint industry project
(Johansen et al. 2001, 2003). The DeepSpill experiment consisted
of releasing oil and gas from the ocean floor at a 2,770-ft-deep
location in the Norwegian Sea, followed by tracking the ascent
rate, shape, and dispersion of the resultant plumes.
7
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 15

Gas Concentration (lbm/ft3) Gas Concentration (lbm/ft3)

0 0
0.12 0.12
0.11 0.11
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
250 250
0.08 0.08

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

0.07 0.07

0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
500 500
0.04 0.04

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02
750 0.01 750 0.01

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 0 250 500 750 1,000
Downcurrent Distance (ft) Downcurrent Distance (ft)
(a) (b)

Fig. 7—Below-sea-level gas-plume-dispersion-modeling results for (a) 800-MMscf/D gas blowout and (b) 1,700-MMscf/D gas blow-
out (during highest-ocean-current conditions, 6.6 ft/sec at surface).

Modeling gas plumes above the ocean surface, on the other
hand, is a more-straightforward process. The complexities of bub-
ble dynamics and hydrates can be ignored. In this more-simplified
environment, advection, dispersion, and buoyancy are the only
mechanisms needing to be considered.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the plume-modeling results for both below
and above sea level, respectively. The simulations were run
assuming the maximum-expected ocean-current and wind condi-
tions to define the full extent to which a gas cloud can laterally
spread. The assumed gas-flow rates bracket the range of most-
likely outcomes in Table 1.
Under subsea conditions, the maximum-lateral-plume depar-
ture from the blowout ranges from 1,070 to 1,720 ft, depending
on the flow rate. Interestingly, the subsea plume with the greatest
reach is that shown in Fig. 7a for the lower-rate blowout, whereas
the plume from the higher-rate blowout in Fig. 7b has a smaller
reach. This counterintuitive outcome is best explained as follows.
As mentioned previously, the vertical jet of gas discharged by a
blowout consists of a high-velocity core, the upward movement of
which is dominated by its momentum. As this gas jet proceeds
upward, though, there is a point at which its momentum is fully
dissipated and the flow stream breaks down into a cloud of
slower-moving bubbles, the movement of which is mostly gov-
erned by advection and buoyancy. At this point, the lateral dis-
tance that the bubble cloud travels before reaching the ocean’s
surface depends on the speed of the current and amount of time it
takes for the bubbles to float to the surface. With this in mind, let
us now reconsider Fig. 7. In Fig. 7a, the 800-MMscf/D blowout,
the gas jet breaks down into a bubble cloud approximately 200 ft
below the ocean’s surface. In Fig. 7b, the 1,700-MMscf/D blow-
out, the same occurs at a shallower depth of approximately 100 ft
because of the higher upward momentum of the gas jet. Hence,
the bubble cloud from the 800-MMscf/D blowout is exposed to
the prevailing current for a longer period of time, resulting in a
greater lateral displacement than that of the 1,700-MMscf/D
blowout. Lastly, because of Wheatstone’s shallow water depth
and its accompanying warm-water temperature, hydrate formation
within the gas plume does not occur.
The modeling of gas dispersion above the water’s surface was
performed separately from the subsea-plume simulations. A gas
source was assumed to be at sea level, emitting gas at similar rates
as previously discussed, and subjected to the maximum-expected
wind conditions. The results in Fig. 8 make intuitive sense as to
how the gas disperses into the air column. The lateral extent of
the gas plume is smaller for the 715-MMscf/D blowout and larger
for the 1,542-MMscf/D blowout, with gas migrating from zones
of high concentration to low. We express gas concentration in
Fig. 8 in terms of LEL to better characterize the risk of igniting a
gas fire within each of those concentration envelopes. Certainly,
the chance of igniting a fire within the 100% LEL envelope is
dangerously high. Representing a significantly lower level of fire
risk is the 50% LEL boundary. The 20% LEL boundary represents
the minimum concentration that would trigger a low-level gas
alarm on a vessel. At Wheatstone, we used the 20% LEL bound-
ary to conservatively define the maximum reach of the gas
plume’s high-risk region. From Fig. 8, the downwind range of this
boundary is 1,480 ft for the 715-MMscf/D blowout and 2,130 ft
for the 1,542-MMscf/D blowout.
Rig Placement and Relief-Well Trajectory. Defining the ves-
sel-exclusion zone around the blowout simply requires summing
the maximum-lateral extent of the subsea plume and the aerial
plume for each blowout rate. Defining the exclusion zone this

1,000 1,000
Height (ft)
Height (ft)

1.0 x LEL 0.5 x LEL 0.2 x LEL

1.0 x LEL 0.5 x LEL 0.2 x LEL
500 500

0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Downwind Distance (ft) Downwind Distance (ft)
(a) (b)

Fig. 8—Above-sea-level gas-plume-dispersion-modeling results for (a) 715 MMscf/D and (b) 1,542 MMscf/D (during highest-wind
conditions, 32.8 ft/sec).

8 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007

 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
WST-3A
Relief-rig-
approach limit
9,2 WST-3C
00
ft
WST-3D
WST-3F
Fig. 9—Plan view of development well and relief-well trajectories for the WST-3 manifold.
way addresses the worst-case scenario of a fast ocean current and
a fast wind acting in the same direction to disperse gases emitted
from a blowout. By use of this methodology and the results from
Figs. 7 and 8, we determine that the 20% LEL cloud boundary
(i.e., the limits of our vessel-exclusion zone) extends no farther
than 3,200 ft from the location where the blowout is occurring.
Thus, we conclude that a vessel can safely approach as close as
3,300 ft to the location of a blowout at Wheatstone, regardless of
wind and current direction. The rig conducting relief-well drilling
(which is assumed to have a 5,900-ft radius mooring pattern) can
therefore be anywhere on a 9,200-ft radius circle surrounding the
blowout location (i.e., the subsea manifold where all wellheads
are located). Note that dynamically positioned drilling rigs are not
considered here because the water depth at Wheatstone is too
shallow for their use.
Having now defined that a relief-well-drilling rig can be
placed as close as 9,200 ft in any direction of the subsea manifold
where a blowout is occurring, the trajectory planning of all relief
wells can begin. In this paper, we use Wheatstone’s most-complex
manifold (WST-3) to describe our relief-well-trajectory planning.
Figs. 9 and 10 display the plan view and vertical-section view,
respectively, of all WST-3 development wells (production wells)
and relief wells.
Because all relief wells are targeted at the top of the gas reser-
voir (10,000-ft TVD), rather than at a shallower target like the
Sea Level
Mudline
WST-3 manifold
Reservoir targets
Relief-well-rig locations
Development wells
Relief wells
WST-3F
Fig. 10—Vertical-section view of development well and relief-well trajectories for the WST-3 manifold.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 15
WST-3 manifold
Reservoir targets
Relief-well-rig locations
Development wells
Relief wells
135=8-in. shoe (6,900-ft TVD), none of the trajectories necessary
to intercept the development wells is considered to be extreme.
For all eight of the planned relief wells (two for each development
well), the maximum-step-out distance is 12,700 ft, the maximum
inclination is 61 , the maximum dogleg severity (DLS) necessary
to build inclination is 4 /100 ft, and the maximum DLS necessary
for dropping inclination to align for intercepting a target well is
2 /100 ft. Within this envelope of maximum inclination and re-
stricted DLS, wireline surveys will be possible for any of the
designed relief wells. Thus, an appropriate balance between the
ability to intercept the target well and the surveyability of
the relief wells has been established. Limiting the relief-well DLS
to lower values than used here would, however, make it impossi-
ble to sense a target well shallow enough to allow appropriate
directional adjustments to intercept it.
Relief-rig locations are chosen to avoid both infrastructure and
shallow geologic hazards. Planning efforts also focus on minimiz-
ing the number of relief-rig locations without affecting the diffi-
culty of relief-well trajectories. In the case of this particular
manifold, an additional restriction to the placement of relief rigs
is the location of the manifold near the continental-shelf escarp-
ment (Fig. 11). This effectively removes 45% of possible relief-
rig locations from consideration at the WST-3 manifold. No such
restrictions exist at the other Wheatstone manifolds. All other
Wheatstone manifolds also have fewer wells than this one.
~10,000 ft TVD
WST-3D WST-3C WST-3A
9
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 15

Water well from the 7-in. liner by use of oriented tubing-conveyed-per-

depth
9,200-ft relief-
rig-approach
limit
WST-3 manifold
Relief-well-rig
locations
Fig. 11—Bathymetry at the WST-3 manifold.
It can be deduced from Fig. 9 that these restrictions, in some
cases, may result in some overlapping of relief-rig-mooring pat-
terns, especially in the cases of the WST-3A and WST-3F relief
wells. Depending on the specifics of the rigs used, this conflict
can be managed by coordinating the placement of anchor group-
ings to avoid individual-mooring-line clashes. Prelaid-mooring
systems can be helpful in such circumstances.
Target-Well Dual-Intercept Planning. All relief-well trajecto-
ries are planned to allow the locating and tracking of the target
well, as described by others (Flores et al. 2014; Goobie et al.
2015; Varela et al. 2015). Up to this point, the casing design of
the relief well looks like that of a pilot hole (as in Fig. 6), except
the 95=8-in.-casing shoe is set 700 ft vertically shallower at approx-
imately 9,200-ft TVD (Fig. 12). The 95=8-in. casing is set at this
point to ensure pressure competence in case the target well is pre-
maturely intercepted while drilling deeper. Once this casing string
is cemented in place, two possible options are available for form-
ing a hydraulic connection with the target well.
One option is to drill an 81=2-in. hole directly adjacent and par-
allel to the target well and install a 7-in. liner. The liner isolates
an unstable shale interval that exists across the entire Wheatstone
field. The final hydraulic connection between the relief well and
the target well is then established by perforating into the target
95
/ 8-
in
95
forating guns (Fig. 12). This option was successfully used in 1971
on the Cox No. 1 dynamic kill (Bruist 1972), although wireline
500 ft
guns were used at that time. A 10-ft-long interval of 16 1-in.-di-
1,000 ft ameter holes was created to make the hydraulic link. An 18.3-
1,500 ft lbm/gal cement slurry was then pumped at 55 bbl/min through the
2,000 ft holes with no apparent restrictions. This option has also been con-
sidered elsewhere in the literature (Varela et al. 2015).
2,500 ft
A second option is to drill the 81=2-in. hole such that it con-
3,000 ft verges toward the target well at an incidence angle of 3–5 . Dril-
3,500 ft ling of this hole is halted approximately 100 ft short of the
expected intercept with the target well. At this point the 7-in. liner
is installed to isolate the unstable shale. Afterward, a 61=8-in. hole
is drilled to intercept the target well and form the hydraulic con-
nection (Fig. 12).
Although either of these options is doable, we think the perfo-
rated junction may be the best choice for at least one relief well,
or possibly both. So why consider having a perforated junction
over the more-traditional direct-intercept technique? The choice
is driven by the desire to have complete control as to exactly
when a hydraulic link is established with the target well. That
control exists to varying degrees for both methods. We think,
however, that oriented perforating might provide a higher level of
certainty that both relief wells can be connected to the target well
simultaneously. Considering that both relief wells are required to
kill the blowout, successfully connecting only one relief well
unfortunately commits one rig to continually pumping fluid into
that one relief well, while waiting on the other rig to establish its
connection to the target well. This is a scenario to be avoided.
Once a connection is established, continual fluid injection is nec-
essary to prevent gas from migrating into a relief well from the
still-free-flowing target well. For a scenario where both relief
wells use the direct-intercept technique, if both wells are equally
ready to intercept the target well and only one successfully
accomplishes it, a situation is created where one well is now com-
mitted to continually pumping fluid into the target well, while
many days may be necessary to reattempt a connection by use of
the other relief well. We think that oriented perforating’s chance
of “one-time” or “one-attempt” success may be superior to that of
a direct intercept, especially if a sufficiently long perforated inter-
val (50–70 ft) is used. It is, therefore, our position that at least
one, or possibly both, of the relief wells should use oriented perfo-
rating to ensure that both relief wells simultaneously (or nearly
so) establish a hydraulic connection with the target well.
If oriented perforating is used in only one of the two relief
wells, a successful well kill might occur as follows. Pursue dril-
ling both relief wells simultaneously, with the intent of having the

.c
95

/ 8-
/ 8-

as
in
in

.l

in
.c

in

g
er
as
in
g

9,200 ft TVD
Ta
rg

7-i
et

(no 7-in
n.
we

nm . lin
lin
ll

ag er
er

ne
tic
)
Oriented
61 /8-

perforations
in. h

Direct
ole

intercept

10,000 ft TVD Gas-pay-zone top

Fig. 12—An example of a two-relief-well-intercept scenario for Wheatstone.

10 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007

 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
95=8-in. casing string cemented in both in a similar time frame.
Next, install the 7-in. liners in both wells. Whichever 7-in. liner is
installed first should be made of nonmagnetic material. This will
minimize confusion when magnetically locating the target well
during the drilling of the hole for the second 7-in. liner. Prefera-
bly, the nonmagnetic liner would be the liner with the shallower
intercept (i.e., the perforated one shown in Fig. 12). Next, install
tubing-conveyed-perforating guns in the “oriented-perforations”
relief well and stand by until the “direct-intercept” relief well
establishes communication with the target well. Once the direct
intercept is accomplished, the other relief well can then be perfo-
rated to form its own hydraulic connection. Executing a dual-
relief-well plan that has a high chance of success in connecting
both relief wells nearly simultaneously to the target well is the
key to avoiding a prolonged and continuous fluid-injection opera-
tion on a single well.
Defining the Injectivity Limits of a
Subsea Relief Well
The Wheatstone project was executed on the premise that two
relief wells would be necessary to adequately respond to a subsea
blowout. That premise is the byproduct of, first, dynamic-kill
modeling and, second, our aforementioned assumption that the
injectivity limit of a subsea relief well is 60–100 bbl/min (assum-
ing a 15-lbm/gal fluid). The first of these is the result of detailed
and independently verified engineering analyses. The second,
however, is founded only on a very-small set of semianalogous
industry results; hence, its broadly defined range reflects our lack
of confidence in its accuracy.
Since the Bruist (1972) publication that first detailed the exe-
cution of a dynamic kill, only eight other dynamic kills have been
chronicled in the industry technical literature (Lewis 1977;
Arnwine and Ely 1978; Blount and Soeiinah 1981; Lugo and De
Leon 1981; Lynch et al. 1985; Maduro and Reynolds 1989; Flak
et al. 1995; Oudemann 1996, 2007). In Table 2, we summarize
the reported-maximum single-well fluid-injection rates and fluid
types used in these kills. Some blowouts have more than one entry
on Table 2 because multiple fluid types and rates were used to
perform the kill. Table 2 also lists the relief-well BOP types. The
instances where solids-free fluid was injected are shown sepa-
rately from those where solids-bearing fluid was used. We have
done this mostly to highlight that there is a limited number of
reported dynamic kills that actually used a solids-bearing fluid. At
rates more than 60 bbl/min, there is only one, the Fateh L-3 in
Dubai. This is a point to be leveraged in our discussion on erosion
later in this paper. It is worth noting that nowhere in the literature
is erosion a topic of discussion in relation to planned or executed
dynamic kills.
Dynamic Kills by Means of Surface BOPs in the Literature.
Of the nine dynamic kills discussed in the literature, eight of them
were performed by injecting kill fluid through surface BOPs. Of
these, only one was executed at injection rates greater than 60
bbl/min, the Fateh L-3. The Fateh L-3 well kill, far and away, had
the highest single-well fluid-injection rates of any in the literature.
The first of its four relief wells injected water at 160 bbl/min and
11.5-, 14-, and 18-lbm/gal drilling fluid at 190, 156, and 115 bbl/
min, respectively. In terms of solids-bearing fluids, the next-high-
est injection rate was that of the Cox No. 1 well kill, which
injected 18.3-lbm/gal cement at 55 bbl/min. The Fateh L-3 well
kill used an undetermined number of pumps on two barges and at
least one service-company marine-pumping vessel. The land-
based Cox No. 1 well kill used 12 HT-400 pumps for its opera-
tion. For each of these well kills, the manifolding of the numerous
fluid streams to converge into one or multiple points of injection
at the BOPs (which is undefined in the literature) could have
occurred in a variety of ways to ensure that the erosional risks of
pumping solids-bearing fluids at such high rates were fully miti-
gated. Hence, the benefits of performing a dynamic kill by means
of a surface BOP are many, because of the numerous fluid-injec-
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 15
tion configurations that are possible. This is true simply because
of the easy access to the surface BOP and the ready availability or
manufacturability of surface-piping components.
Whereas pumping drilling mud or cement at more than 60 bbl/
min through surface BOPs only occurs once in the literature
(Fateh L-3), the pumping of water or brine at more than 100 bbl/
min through surface BOPs is a common practice. Four of the six
blowouts listed in Table 2, where water or brine were injected
through surface BOPs, used pumping rates of 100 bbl/min. In
addition, all water-based dynamic-kill attempts were executed at
injection rates of 60 bbl/min.
Dynamic Kills by Means of Subsea BOPs in the Literature. In
contrast to surface BOPs, the same body of technical literature
contains only one case study (Maduro and Reynolds 1989) docu-
menting a dynamic kill performed through subsea BOPs (Enchova
19D), with that kill being performed by use of seawater. Besides
this sole field-executed example, there exists one other paper
(Leraand et al. 1992) documenting the drilling of a subsea relief
well in the North Sea, but the well was never actually used for a
dynamic kill. There are also a few publications (Lage et al. 2006;
Yuan et al. 2014) that summarize dynamic-kill planning for sub-
sea relief wells, with stated intentions to inject 180 bbl/min of
water or 72 to 88 bbl/min of approximately 17-lbm/gal drilling
fluid. These numbers are driven by both dynamic-kill-simulation
results and by the frictional-pressure limitations associated with
their respective scenarios. These planning documents do not,
however, address erosion as a limiting design factor in the deter-
mination of their subsea relief-well-injection rates.
Subsea-BOP-Erosion Risks. Relative to surface BOPs, the flexi-
bility of mitigating erosion concerns in subsea BOPs is much-
more limited. Whereas the piping that transmits injected fluid into
a surface BOP can have a variety of configurations that ultimately
converge to a few BOP entry points, subsea BOPs have no such
readily exercisable flexibility. Because the marine riser above the
subsea BOP is not designed to be pressurized, all injected fluid for
a dynamic kill must be pumped through the chokeline and kill
line attached to the marine riser (Fig. 13a). Upstream of the
chokeline and kill line at the rig, various options are available for
the routing and manifolding of lines from the numerous fluid
pumps necessary to conduct a dynamic kill of a high-rate gas
well, similar to the flexibility noted for surface BOPs. However,
downstream of the chokeline and kill line, no such flexibility read-
ily exists. All fluids moving through the chokeline and kill line
must pass through their associated flex loops (Fig. 13) before
entering the BOP and proceeding down the annulus. It is the flex
loops that we think may provide the greatest erosional risk if
high-rate pumping of a solids-bearing fluid is attempted.
For clarity, pumping kill fluid through the drillpipe of a relief
well is, theoretically, an additional option for executing a dynamic
kill. Use of this option can reduce the volume of fluid needing to
pass through the chokeline and kill line. The drillstring BHA in a
relief well, however, usually contains restrictions (e.g., poppet
valves and turbines in measurement-while-drilling/LWD systems
and nozzles in drill bits) that, although suitable for allowing suffi-
cient fluid-passage rates during the normal drilling process, are
too constraining to accommodate the much-higher kill-fluid-pas-
sage rates required during a dynamic kill. In addition, during the
execution of a dynamic kill, most operators prefer to monitor the
static surface pressure of the drillstring as a means of directly cal-
culating and tracking the bottomhole pressure at the bit. Hence,
the best, and usually only, paths for substantially injecting into a
subsea relief well are through the chokeline and kill line.
The piping and manifolding at the rig and the straight choke-
line and kill line leading down to the subsea BOPs are not consid-
ered by us to be an area for erosional concern when pumping at
high rates. The flex loops, however, have short radius turns that
could result in accelerated erosion. A homogeneous solids-free
fluid moving through a continuously curved conduit, like a flex
loop or a reel of coiled tubing, will establish a different flow
11
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 15

Chokeline
Kill Line

Marine
Riser
Flex loops for
Radius of curvature
chokeline and kill line
= 1.5 ft

Upper-annular
preventer

Radius of curvature
= 3.4 ft
Lower-annular
preventer
Radius of curvature
= 1.5 ft

(a) (b)

Fig. 13—Side view (a) and top view (b) of a subsea-BOP lower-marine-riser package. Chokeline and kill-line flex loops are shown in
green.

pattern than that of a straight conduit because of the continuous
rotational acceleration being imparted on moving fluid. Shah et al.
(2004) explain this difference. Rather than the highest-velocity
sector of fluid being in the middle of the flow path (Fig. 14a),
when a lateral acceleration is continuously applied by means of
rotation, the highest-velocity sector of the fluid is adjacent to the
wall of the pipe (Fig. 14b).
When a solids-bearing fluid is moving through a continuously
curved conduit, the work of Shah et al. (2004) also indicates that
the solids contained in the fluid become highly concentrated on
the conduit wall nearest the high-velocity-fluid stream as a result
of centrifugal force. Other researchers (Rosine et al. 2008; Shah
and Jain 2008) have estimated internal-erosion patterns as a result
of the near-wall concentration of solids and have determined that
erosion rates are elevated in that area. These findings are obtained
by use of fluids of a different rheology than a drilling fluid; that
contain solids of a different size, concentration, and hardness
from those found in a drilling fluid; and that are traveling eight
times slower than fluid passing through a BOP flex loop during a
100-bbl/min dynamic kill (i.e., 50 bbl/min through each chokeline
and kill line). Thus, the reported erosion rates will not be the
same as what might occur in a flex loop with a 15-lbm/gal drilling
fluid passing through it at 50 bbl/min. However, the basic finding,
that greater erosion will occur in a continually curved conduit
than in a similar straight conduit, will still hold true.
If erosion of a flex loop is a possibility when performing a
dynamic kill at high injection rates with a solids-bearing fluid,
then estimating the amount of that possible erosion should be an
industry goal, especially in the case where no information is pub-
licly available regarding the actual performance of such a kill.
The logical first step is to build computational-fluid-dynamics
(CFD) models for predicting such erosion. Other sectors within
the industry (such as fracture packing) that pump solids-bearing
fluid at high rates have performed such analyses (Clem et al.
2010, 2014) to understand the erosion of downhole-service tools.
Those sectors realize that a theoretical CFD model by itself is
insufficient for the task. CFD models must be calibrated against
laboratory-erosion-testing results to ensure their predictive accu-
racy. The papers referenced here (Clem et al. 2010, 2014) make
this connection clear. The erosional pattern for a fluid containing
a significant concentration of solid particles is not the same as the
erosional pattern for a fluid with a very-low solids concentration.
Hence, the simplified models that pertain to erosion of pipe sys-
tems for oilfield-fluids processing (which handle low-solids-

46.4

40.6

34.8
Centrifugal force caused by
29.0 rotational acceleration
46.1

41.5
39.2
34.6

23.2
25.5

32.5

37.1

41.7

46.4

17.4

11.6

5.8

0
ft/sec
(a) (b)

Fig. 14—Velocity contours of water flowing at 10 bbl/min through 2.063-in.-ID coiled tubing that is (a) straight and (b) bent at a ra-
dius of curvature 5 4.6 ft [modeled after Figs. 2 and 3 in Shah et al. (2004)].

12 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007

 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
content fluids) are not appropriate for assessing flex-loop erosion
under the conditions being considered. Only physical laboratory
testing combined with calibrated CFD models are sufficient to
fully assess the possible erosion risks associated with a subsea-
BOP flex loop.
Lastly, previous authors have suggested the concept of provid-
ing an additional fluid-injection path to the standard chokeline/
kill-line scenario. A third path for injecting fluid into a relief well
reduces the amount of fluid passing though the chokeline and kill
line (and, in turn, the flex loops), thereby reducing the risk of pre-
maturely eroding the flex loops. The previous ideas proposed
include use of a large ID Coflexip line connected directly to the
subsea BOP (Hartmann et al. 2003) and use of a specially built
marine “injection riser” that has a large ID injection conduit
mounted on the marine riser (Warriner and Cassity 1988). Con-
cepts such as these would require significant BOP and/or marine-
riser modifications to be deployable in the field. In addition, if
such modifications are not started until the need for a relief well
manifests itself, the time necessary to implement them could
cause unacceptable delays in the drilling of the relief wells. A
more-recent development, however, discussed by Oskarsen et al.
(2016), is that of a modular relief-well-injection spool that can be
placed between the BOP and wellhead of a subsea relief well. The
concept has the same benefits as that proposed by Hartmann et al.
(2003), with the exception that no BOP modifications are neces-
sary. Hence, the response time for deploying such a device would
be much shorter, similar to that of a capping stack.
Closing Discussion
The Wheatstone Project had, at the time of initial writing, com-
pleted drilling and casing all nine of its wells to the top of the gas-
pay interval, as shown in Fig. 4b. The completion of that work
scope also included the successful drilling and abandoning of four
pilot holes, as shown in Fig. 6. Immediately afterward, the “drill
reservoir and install completions” phase of the rig campaign was
executed, which had its own set of well-control risks, one of those
risks still being the need to drill two relief wells if a blowout
occurred. As described in this paper, various methods and tech-
nologies were deployed at Wheatstone to not only ensure that no
more than two relief wells would be necessary during the comple-
tions phase of the project, but that no more than two relief wells
would be necessary during any phase of the project. Attaining this
goal required a significant investment in time and capital. That
investment, however, was considered necessary to ensure that, in
the event of a Wheatstone high-rate gas-well blowout, a two-
relief-well response could be deployed with full confidence of
its success.
Proceeding through the process of blowout prevention and
planning for the Wheatstone Project has uncovered risks and limi-
tations that were heretofore not fully appreciated by the Wheat-
stone D&C Team. From a “risks” perspective, for example,
concerns were raised as to the possible risk of prematurely erod-
ing a subsea-BOP’s flex loop if subjected to the high velocities of
a solids-bearing fluid during a dynamic kill. Considering that the
industry literature contains no case studies documenting such a
kill nor any other studies as to the robustness of a subsea BOP
subjected to such conditions, we are naturally concerned as to
how well the industry understands the possible limits it would
impose during a dynamic-kill operation. In response to this con-
cern, it is proposed that laboratory erosion testing and CFD mod-
eling be performed to provide a better understanding of the
erosional characteristics of a subsea-BOP’s flex loop when sub-
jected to high-rate flow of a solids-bearing fluid.
Alternatively, from a “limitations” perspective, use of a cap-
ping stack to stop a blowout is, in many deeper-water scenarios, a
usable option in addition to relief wells. This option, however, is
not possible at Wheatstone. At deeper-water depths, escaping gas
has ample time to disperse before reaching the water’s surface,
thus allowing a vessel to safely deploy a capping stack while posi-
tioned vertically above the free-flowing well. At Wheatstone,
however, shallow-water depths (400–800 ft) combined with
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 15
exceptionally high gas-blowout rates will result in flammable gas
at the ocean’s surface, which, in turn, precludes any possibility of
deploying a capping stack. Relief wells are, therefore, the only
workable option for bringing a Wheatstone blowout under control.
Or, more specifically, dual relief wells are the only workable
option for controlling a Wheatstone blowout.
The fact that our blowout-response plans are completely de-
pendent on successfully drilling two relief wells elevates the risk
profile that is usually associated with this activity. The drilling
of dual relief wells is not, by itself, an unusual response to a
blowout. Many blowouts have had two (and sometimes more)
relief wells drilled in response, with the intention, however, of
using only one of them to effect the dynamic kill (Varela et al.
2015). The number of times, however, that dual relief wells have
been undertaken, where both relief wells are required for suc-
cess, is small. Further restricting this discussion to the subsea
realm reduces the number even further, with only one (Enchova
19D) mentioned in the literature. Hence, there is nothing that
can be considered commonplace about the Wheatstone relief-
well execution plan. As discussed previously in this paper, we
think a critical aspect of executing dual relief wells, when both
are required for the dynamic kill, is to ensure that the relief wells
hydraulically connect to the target well as simultaneously as
possible. The method of maximizing the chance of successfully
making this happen can come in two different forms: by either
increasing redundancy or increasing reliability. “Increasing
redundancy” is meant to imply that more relief wells are drilled
than are actually required, thereby increasing the chances of at
least two of the relief wells intercepting the target well in a simi-
lar time frame. This method strikes us as a path to unnecessary
investments in rig and well equipment, which also increases the
overall complexity of intercepting the target well with each new
relief well added to the scheme. Therefore, we have instead pur-
sued “increased reliability” as the basis for our target-well-inter-
cept planning. We suggest that the reliability of simultaneously
establishing a hydraulic connection between two relief wells and
a single target well is increased if at least one of the relief wells
has a perforated junction with the target well (as shown in Fig.
12). It should be noted that the Enchova 19D dual-relief-well
dynamic kill was successful without use of a perforated junction
(i.e., both relief wells directly intercepted the target well). We
do not think, however, that the Enchova 19D success is alone
sufficient evidence to alter our recommendation for use of at
least one perforated junction when executing a dynamic kill
through two relief wells. Considering the enormous gas-release
rate from a Wheatstone blowout and the environmental damage
that would accumulate because of it, our recommendations lean
toward processes that, from our perspective, provide the highest
chance of successfully attaining a hydraulic connection with a
single attempt.
Conclusions
1. The Wheatstone well design and plan of execution, as por-
trayed in Fig. 4b, are intended to minimize the number of
required relief wells to two in response to a blowout.
2. A capping stack is not a viable method of response to a blow-
out at Wheatstone because of the shallow water depth.
3. No studies or case histories exist in the industry literature that
reflect the erosional robustness of subsea-BOP systems under
conditions similar to those predicted for a Wheatstone relief
well. Because of this lack of information, our estimated maxi-
mum-allowable kill-fluid-injection rate for a relief well is con-
servatively low (60–70 bbl/min).
4. Because of the lack of public information concerning the ero-
sional robustness of subsea-BOP systems (in particular, their
flex loops) when subjected to high-velocity solids-laden fluids,
we suggest that laboratory erosion testing and CFD modeling
are necessary to better define the risks associated with such
conditions. The results would provide a clearer understanding
of the range of fluid-injection rates that are actually attainable
with a single subsea relief well.
13
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
5. The plan for executing dual relief wells, when both are simul-
taneously required to effect a dynamic kill, should ensure that
both relief wells can be hydraulically connected to the target
well as close to simultaneously as possible.
Nomenclature
kh ¼ horizontal permeability, darcy
kv ¼ vertical permeability, darcy
L ¼ DDR deep-reading-sensor spacing (distance between Tx
and Rx2), ft
MP ¼ distance from bit to DDR measurement point, ft
Rx2 ¼ long-spaced DDR receiver location
T ¼ distance between bit and Tx, ft
Tx ¼ DDR transmitter location
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Chevron and the Wheatstone Project
partners for supporting the publication of this paper. Thanks are
also owed to Roger Bartlett, leader of the Wheatstone Subsurface
Group, for his support and consultation during the planning and
execution of the Wheatstone drilling campaign. We also thank
Michael Collins and Jim Murdoch of Shell for sharing their
knowledge and perspectives related to blowout prevention and
preparedness for the Ormen Lange Project, and Deepak Gala for
providing insight into Shell’s subsea relief-well-design standards.
References
Arnwine, L. C. and Ely, J. W. 1978. Polymer Use in Blowout Control. J
Pet Technol 30 (5): 705–711. SPE-6835-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/
6835-PA.
Bendiksen, K. H., Maines, D., Moe, R. et al. 1991. The Dynamic Two-
Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application. SPE Prod Eng 6 (2):
171–180. SPE-19451-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/19451-PA.
Blount, E. M. and Soeiinah, E. 1981. Dynamic Kill: Controlling Wild
Wells a New Way. World Oil 193 (5): 109–126. October.
Bruist, E. H. 1972. A New Approach in Relief Well Drilling. J Pet Tech-
nol 24 (6): 713–722. SPE-3511-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/3511-PA.
Clem, N. J., Hammer, A. C., O’Connell, M. M. et al. 2010. The Science
Behind Erosion Qualification Testing of Frac Pack Tools. Presented at
the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston,
Texas, 5–6 October. SPE-137087-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/137087-
MS.
Clem, N. J., Silva, Z. S., McGuire, A. M. et al. 2014. Modeling and Pre-
diction of Frac-Pack Tool Erosion in Multizone Wells. Presented at
the Offshore Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 25–28 March.
OTC-24760-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/24760-MS.
Flak, L. H., Muhanna, G. A., and Al-Qassab, M. 1995. Case History:
Relief Well Control of Underground Blowout in Bahrain. Presented at
the Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 11–14 March. SPE-29859-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/29859-MS.
Flores, V., Dailey, P., Todd, D. et al. 2014. Relief Well Planning. Pre-
sented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort
Worth, Texas, 4–6 March. SPE-168029-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
168029-MS.
Goobie, R. B., Allen, W. T., Lasley, B. M. et al. 2015. A Guide to Relief
Well Trajectory Design Using Multidisciplinary Collaborative Well
Planning Technology. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, London, 17–19 March. SPE-173097-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/173097-MS.
Hartmann, R., Møllerstad, H., Bysveen, J. et al. 2003. Blowout Contin-
gency for Deep Water High Rate Subsea Gas Wells. Oral presentation
given at the IADC International Deepwater Drilling Conference, Rio
de Janeiro, 12–13 November.
Hartmann, R. A., Vikeså. G. O., and Kjærnes, P. A. 2004. Big Bore, High
Flowrate, Deep Water Gas Wells for Ormen Lange. Presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 3–6 May. OTC-16554-
MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/16554-MS.
Healy, J., Sanford, J., Reeves, D. et al. 2012. Design, Installation, and Per-
formance of Big Bore (95=8-in.) Completions: Mari-B Field, Offshore
Israel. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
14
ID: jaganm Time: 13:32 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 15
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–17 February.
SPE-151770-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/151770-MS.
Jacobs, T. 2015. The New Pathways of Multiphase Flow Modeling. J Pet
Technol 76 (2): 62–68. SPE-0215-0062-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/
0215-0062-JPT.
Jenner, G. P. and Hughes, G. 2008. Large Bore Subsea Production Sys-
tems for Woodside’s Gas Developments. Presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia,
20–22 October. SPE-116927-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/116927-MS.
Johansen, Ø., Rye, H., and Cooper, C. 2003. DeepSpill – Field Study of a
Simulated Oil and Gas Blowout in Deep Water. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull.
8 (5–6): 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(02)00123-8.
Johansen, Ø., Rye, H., Melbye, A. G. et al. 2001. DeepSpill JIP – Experi-
mental Discharges of Gas and Oil at Helland Hansen–June 2000.
Technical Report, SINTEF Applied Chemistry, Trondheim, Norway.
Karami, H., Torres, C. F., Pereyra, E. et al. 2016. Experimental Investiga-
tion of Three-Phase Low-Liquid-Loading Flow. Oil and Gas Fac 5
(2): 45–56. SPE-174926-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/174926-PA.
Lage, A. C., Jacinto, C., Martins, F. et al. 2006. Blowout Contingency and
Risk-Reduction Measures for High-Rate Subsea Gas Wells in Mexil-
hao. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida,
21–23 February. SPE-99164-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/99164-MS.
Leraand, F., Wright, J. W., Zachary, M. B. et al. 1992. Relief-Well Plan-
ning and Drilling for a North Sea Underground Blowout. J Pet Technol
44 (3): 266–273. SPE-20420-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/20420-PA.
Lewis, J. B. 1977. The Use of the Computer and Other Special Tools for
Monitoring a Gas Well Blowout during the Kill Operation – Offshore
Louisiana. Presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 9–12 October. SPE-6836-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/6836-MS.
Lugo, O. L. and De Leon, I. O. 1981. Ixtoc No.1, Blowout and Control
Operation. Presented at the SPE Deep Drilling and Production Sympo-
sium, Amarillo, Texas, 5–7 April. SPE-9697-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/9697-MS.
Lynch, R. D., McBride, E. J., Perkins, T. K. et al. 1985. Dynamic Kill of
an Uncontrolled CO2 Well. J Pet Technol 37 (7): 1267–1275. SPE-
11378-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/11378-PA.
Maduro, W. P. and Reynolds, J. 1989. Enchova Blowout: Record Relief
Time. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
28 February–3 March. SPE-18717-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/18717-
MS.
Oskarsen, R. T., Rygg, O. B., Cargol, M. et al. 2016. Challenging Offshore
Dynamic Kill Operations Made Possible With the Relief Well Injec-
tion Spool. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completion
Conference, Galveston, Texas, 14–15 September. SPE-180279-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/180279-MS.
Oudemann, P. 1996. Analysis of Surface and Wellbore Hydraulics Pro-
vides Key to Efficient Blowout Control. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6–9 October. SPE-
36485-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/36485-MS.
Oudemann, P. 2007. Hydraulic Blowout Control Requirements for Big
Bore and HP/HT Developments: Validation with Field Experience.
Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 20–22
February. SPE-105612-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/105612-MS.
Pucknell, J. K. and Clifford, P. J. 1991. Calculation of Total Skin Factors.
Presented at SPE Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 3–6 Sep-
tember. SPE-23100-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/23100-MS.
Rosine, R. S., Blanco, I. L., and Bailey, M. 2008. Comparison of Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics of Erosion in Coiled Tubing to Field and Test
Data. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Interven-
tion Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 1–2 April.
SPE-113619-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/113619-MS.
Rygg, O. B. and Gilhuus, T. 1990. Use of a Dynamic Two-Phase Pipe
Flow Simulator in Blowout Kill Planning. Presented at the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 Sep-
tember. SPE-20433-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/20433-MS.
Rygg, O. B., Smestad, P., and Wright, J. W. 1992. Dynamic Two-Phase
Flow Simulator: A Powerful Tool for Blowout and Relief Well Kill
Analysis. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October. SPE-24578-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/24578-MS.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
 DC174890 DOI: 10.2118/174890-PA Date: 9-May-17
Shah, S. N. and Jain, S. 2008. Coiled Tubing Erosion During Hydraulic
Fracturing Slurry Flow. Wear 264 (3–4): 279–290. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wear.2007.03.016.
Shah, S. N., Jain, S., and Zhou, Y. 2004. Coiled Tubing Erosion During
Hydraulic Fracturing Slurry Flow. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled
Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 23–24 March. SPE-
89479-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/89479-MS.
Tang, Y. and Huang, W. S. 2010. A Combined Well-Completion and
Flow-Dynamic Modeling for a Dual-Lateral-Well Loadup Investiga-
tion. SPE Prod & Oper 25 (1): 9–18. SPE-129199-PA. https://doi.org/
10.2118/129199-PA.
Upchurch, E. R., Viandante, M. G., Saleem, S. et al. 2016. Geo-Stopping
With Deep-Directional-Resistivity Logging-While-Drilling: A New
Method for Wellbore Placement With Below-the-Bit Resistivity Map-
ping. SPE Drill & Compl 31 (4): 295–306. SPE-173169-PA. https://
doi.org/10.2118/173169-PA.
Varela, R., Iturrizaga, F., Patino, D. et al. 2015. Multiple Relief Well Plan-
ning for an HPHT Blowout in Southern Mexico. Presented at the SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, London, 17–19 March.
SPE-173160-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/173160-MS.
Warriner, R. A. and Cassity, T. G. 1988. Relief-Well Requirements to Kill
a High-Rate Gas Blowout from a Deepwater Reservoir. J Pet Technol
40 (12): 1602–1608. SPE-16131-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/16131-
PA.
Willson, S. M. 2012. A Wellbore Stability Approach for Self-Killing
Blowout Assessment. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and
Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 20–21 June. SPE-156330-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/156330-MS.
Wong, D. W., Harrington, A. G., and Cinco-Ley, H. 1986. Application of
the Pressure Derivative Function in the Pressure Transient Testing of
Fractured Wells. SPE Form Eval 1 (5): 470–480. SPE-13056-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/13056-PA.
Yapa, P. D., Dasanayaka, L. K., Bandara, U. C. et al. 2010. A Model to
Simulate the Transport and Fate of Gas and Hydrates Released in
Deepwater. J. Hydraul. Res. 48 (5): 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221686.2010.507010.
Yuan, Z., Hashemian, Y., and Morrell, D. 2014. Ultra-Deepwater Blowout
Well Control Analysis under Worst Case Blowout Scenario. Presented
at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galves-
ton, Texas, 10–11 September. SPE-170256-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/170256-MS.
SI Metric-Conversion Factors
acre  4.046 856 E01 ¼ ha
bbl  1.589 911 E01 ¼ m3
 
F ( F–32)/1.8 ¼ C
ft  3.048* E01 ¼ m
gal  3.785 412 E03 ¼ m3
lbm  4.535 924 E01 ¼ kg
md  9.869 233 E04 ¼ mm2
psi  6.894 757 Eþ00 ¼ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 13:33 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170007/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170007
Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 15
Eric R. Upchurch is a senior drilling superintendent for Chev-
ron’s subsea Frade Redevelopment Project in Brazil. He previ-
ously held a similar position with Chevron in Australia,
overseeing D&C planning, engineering design, and opera-
tional implementation of the subsea Wheatstone LNG Project.
Upchurch has 32 years of experience in drilling, completions,
and production engineering in the GOM, California, Alaska,
Thailand, Angola, Australia, and Brazil. He has authored sev-
eral papers covering the fields of petroleum engineering, me-
chanical engineering, system dynamics, and fluid mechanics
and holds two US patents in the areas of drilling-rig design and
rock-fracture mechanics. Upchurch is a registered professional
engineer in the states of California and Texas. He serves on the
SPE Editorial Review Committee, was chosen as an SPE Out-
standing Technical Editor in 2012, and has assisted in the plan-
ning of several SPE conferences. Upchurch holds a bachelor’s
degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa, a
master’s degree in mechanical engineering from California
State University, and a PhD degree in aerospace engineering
(specializing in fluid mechanics) from the University of Southern
California.
Sam Falkner is a drilling engineer with Chevron in Perth, Aus-
tralia. He has 10 years of industry experience in the drilling,
completions, and well-testing fields, and previously worked for
ExxonMobil and Weatherford. Falkner’s interests include well-
head fatigue, mooring design, and relief-well design. He holds
a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering from the Uni-
versity of Western Australia.
Andrew House is a petroleum engineer at Chevron based in
Perth, Australia. He has 15 years of exploration-and-produc-
tion-industry experience across various disciplines, including
drilling, completions, and production-engineering aspects of
design, construction, and operations readiness for subsea oil
and gas developments in West Africa and Australia. House
has authored or coauthored more than 10 technical papers
focused on research in offshore geotechnics. He holds bache-
lor’s and PhD degrees in civil engineering from the University of
Western Australia.
Chinh Nguyen is a well-safety examiner for Chevron in Bakers-
field, California. His responsibilities involve providing technical
assurance for Chevron in its San Joaquin Valley business unit to
ensure that well containment and well control are maintained
at all times in all well designs, well constructions, and workover
operations. Nguyen has 20 years of industry experience and
specializes in well construction and project management. He
has been working for Chevron for 17 years in six countries, and
is responsible for many well-construction projects, including
offshore exploration, development, factory slimhole, and big-
bore gas-well construction. Recently, Nguyen focused on pro-
ject risk and cost management and other aspects of project
management in major capital projects. He is a project man-
agement professional certified by the Project Management
Institute. Nguyen holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical en-
gineering from the University of Technology in Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam, and a master’s degree in project management
from Curtin University, Australia.
Ken Russell is a senior drilling engineer with Chevron, joining
the company in 1989 in Aberdeen. Russell had worked as a
drillsite manager in eight countries before locating to Perth,
Australia. Since 2011, he has held the position of drilling engi-
neering team lead for the Wheatstone Gas Project. Russell
holds a bachelor’s degree in mining and petroleum engineer-
ing from Strathclyde University, Scotland.
15