Waterjetting 37d - Underground Drilling with Waterjets

The last post showed some of the experiments that we carried out as we developed a tool for drilling "around corners", demonstrating the ability of a high-pressure water jetting system to turn from a vertical well bore and drill out a lateral well within a turning radius of about 9 inches. This was not our earliest work on drilling, and that earlier effort had been directed to the reaming of geothermal wells.

The earlier project was also funded initially by Sandia Labs, although in this case the objective was slightly different. Overall we set out to show that one could go down a vertical well bore, some 9-inches in diameter, and ream a cavity 6-feet across down in the "hot dry rock" of a geothermal deposit.

When we began we weren't sure that we could drill in stressed rock, or what those effects on drilling rate would be. So we were fortunate to get some help from Doe Run and work in one of their mines, as the following video shows.

Figure 1. Early video on Underground Waterjet Drilling

  It was this series of tests that showed how relatively quiet water jets could be in drilling, unlike the competition at the time. Below the fold I will add the second part of this program, where we demonstrated the technique we planned on using for the reaming program.

Figure 2. Reaming a Geothermal Well Demonstration

Although this program moved on to focus on other aspects of the problem (we also demonstrated that this was practical in cutting granite, which led on to the Stonehenge and Millennium Arch projects) it was not until we were tasked with reaming large scale rocket motors, some years later, that we returned to this program, and developed the tools further.

Waterjetting 27e - Borehole Back Pressure Effects

In the earlier posts on this chapter of waterjet technology I have dealt with the changes in cutting performance when a waterjet stream cuts in to material that is either under pressure, or contains internal stresses that may not be obvious at first glance. In this post I will focus, instead, on the changes in performance when the borehole becomes filled with water under pressure.

Figure 1. 12-inch cores of sandstone that have been drilled by the same jet drill, at the same speed, but at borehole pressures of 0, 500 psi, 1,000 psi, 1,500 psi and 2,000 psi. (Jet pump pressure 10,000 psi; 970 rpm; 40 inches/min ROP)

The water used in the test also contained a small amount of polyethylene oxide (Polyox) that, at the time, was the only polymer readily available to enhance jet performance under water, although there are now liquids such as Superwater that similarly help.

It can be seen that even the change in pressure to 500 psi is sufficient to dramatically shorten the distance that the jet cuts through the material on a single pass, and the range then only shortens a little as pressure further increases. But the hole drilled at 2,000 psi is barely large enough to let the high pressure lance and nozzle assembly pass.

First an explanation of the equipment that we used to run the tests. A triaxial cell was used as the basic vessel to hold the core. This is so-called since it allows pressure to be applied around the rock core, and also since the cap can slide within seals, axial pressure given the third of the orthogonal directions for loading.

Figure 2. Triaxial cell used for the drilling experiments.

A valve was fitted on the flow line of water out of the chamber (just above the pressure dial) and this controlled the fluid pressure in the cell. The diameter of the outer (reaming) jet was 0.04 inches, and the rapid decay in range with the increase in pressure led to a second experiment, to see how changing the diameter changed the results. The equipment was modified for this test, the feed pipe to the nozzle was bent, so that, as it made a single circuit over the underlying rock, it would trace out a circular path rather cut a single hole. Then the top of the sample was cut at an angle so that, with the rotation the distance from the jet to the target would vary and the range of the jet could be seen. (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Modified equipment to find the effective jet range against back pressure.

A simplified factorial experiment was run with three nozzle diameters and five back pressures, measuring the depth of cut into the sandstone in each case.

Figure 4. The resulting cut when a 0.03 inch diameter jet was rotated over sandstone with a 1,000 psi back pressure in the cell. The 10,000 psi jet was brought up to pressure with the jet at the greatest standoff (hole at the bottom) and the back pressure was set before making a single pass over the sample. The depth of cut was averaged over several readings made along its length.

The data was then plotted (with the curve smoothed here for simplicity in discussion).

Figure 5. A plot of range of jet cutting ability as a function of hole back pressure for three different nozzle diameters.

The graph shows that, for this set of conditions, the larger the jet the better, and that the first 500 psi of back pressure has an immediate effect on jet cutting effectiveness. Jet size should be at least 0.064 inches when drilling against back pressure in the hole. There was a significant improvement in cutting ability when the polymer (at 300 ppm) was subsequently added to the water, in a later series of tests. The small number of tests carried out, however, were too small a sample to provide more than guidance as to concentration since all three levels tested (100, 200 and 300 ppm) all showed considerably improved depths of cut (increasing to a depth of almost 2 inches against a back pressure of 2,500 psi) when contrasted with the performance levels shown above. The polymer tests were carried out with a jet nozzle diameter of 0.064 inches.

There are two parts to the effect of the borehole pressure. The first is simply one of increasing the resistance of the water to jet penetration, and lowering the effective jet pressure (since that is effectively the jet pressure less the borehole pressure).

It is important to recognize that it is not just the drop in effective pressure that causes the effect. To check that this was the case a hole was drilled with the same conditions otherwise as the left-hand rock sample in Figure 1, except that the jet pressure was dropped to 5,000 psi. Thus the differential pressure of the jet across the nozzle was less than that in the case of the other four rock samples shown in Figure 1. Yet the hole was of the same approximate irregular geometry as that shown by the left-hand core of Figure 1 even with the lower differential pressure with the prominent cone cut ahead of the bit that is not evident in the other cases.

Mike Hood has shown the effect of loss in cutting range by using back-lit shadow images of a jet at different back pressures.

Figure 6. Illustration of the effect of fluid back pressure, the shadow image of the jet shows how back pressure reduces the range.

As mentioned above, the effects extend beyond reducing the jet range, and lowering the jet differential pressure. The increased confinement on the rock will compress the grains of the rock more tightly together, making it more difficult for the pressurized water to penetrate into the rock structure. This combines with the higher pressure required to grow the cracks to effectively reduce the ability of the jet to penetrate into the rock.

At the same time, if you listen as the back pressure is increased (we used a Lichtarowicz Cell the increasing pitch of the sound shows (as does the damage induced) that the collapse of the cavitation bubbles generated around the edges of the submerged jet is becoming more intense as the pressure increases. I have discussed how this can be used as a benefit in breaking up rock in an earlier post.

Waterjetting 9d - Deepening a hole and cautions with glass

The last three posts have described what happens when a jet of water first arrives on a surface, and then starts to penetrate into the material. At a close stand-off distance the erosion starts around the edge of the jet, and continues to widen the hole as it gets deeper, until a point where the pressure at the bottom of the hole falls, and the jet stops going deeper. The lateral flow away from the bottom of the jet continues to erode material, however, and so the hole gets a little wider at the bottom. This creates a small chamber under the entrance hole and this can build up enough pressure that it can cause the material around the hole to break.


Figure 1. Progress in the high-pressure waterjet drilling of a hole in rock.

In the last post I showed where this happened with a 1-ft cube of rock that had been broken with a single pulse, but this fracture of the target can occur when piercing glass or other brittle materials. So the question becomes how to stop the fracture if one is trying to cut glass. This applies when the job calls for making an internal cut in the glass, and not when cutting in from the side, although that also has some problems that I will address in a later post.

When starting an internal cut, obviously, if it is possible, it means piercing a starter hole through the glass in a region that is going to be part of the scrap, if this is possible, as it would be, for example when cutting a sculpture. A secondary reason for that location, apart from confining any small cracks that might happen during the pierce, is that these starter holes are larger in diameter (for the reason given above) than the cut line once the jet starts to move, and that hole section would appear as a flaw on a final cut line.

Vanessa Cutler, in New Technologies in Glass discusses the process of cutting in more detail, but suggests that the starter hole be pierced at a lower pressure than that to be used in the cut. This is so that the pressure within the cavity will remain lower during the pierce, and insufficient to cause the glass to break. She suggests (and she has a vastly greater experience than I in this) that the piercing pressure be around 11,000 to 18,000 psi – this varies a bit with abrasive grit size, machine size and glass type.

Figure 2. Detail of the glass sculpture "p1", by Vanessa Cutler. (Note that these holes do not pierce all the way through the glass but all end at the same depth.)

She also recommends, when there are multiple cuts to be made on a sheet, that all the piercing holes be completed before any cutting begins. One of the reasons for this is to avoid constantly resetting the cutting pressure, which could be a problem, if you forget to lower the pressure back down before starting the next pierce. (Would I as an Emeritus Professor ever be that absent-minded? Why else bring it up?)

You will notice, with abrasive cutting into glass, that there is not the belling at the bottom of the cut that there is with plain waterjet cutting, and that the hole tapers with depth, as the cutting effectiveness reduces with the fall in pressure with depth, and the jet is less able to cut into the side walls of the opening at these lower pressures.

Stepping back from the cutting of glass to the more general condition where the jet runs out of power at the bottom of the hole, the main reason for this is the conflict between the water in the fresh jet coming into the hole, and the spent water trying to make it out of the hole at the same time.

One way of overcoming the problem is to interrupt the flow of water into the hole. Back in my grad student days we tried doing this by breaking the jet into slugs, so that one slug would have enough time to travel to the bottom of the hole, cut a little, and then rebound out of the hole, before the next slug of water arrived. There was relatively little sophistication in the tool we designed to do this. Simply it was a disk, with holes drilled in it at an angle.


Figure 3. Interrupter disk placed in the path of a continuous jet. (My PhD Dissertation)

The reason for the angled holes was to make the disk self-propelling as it rotated under the jet, since the angled edges of the hole forced the disk to continue rotating once started. (On a minor note the disk would rotate at several thousand rpm, and the noise that it made was loud enough that I was instructed to only carry out the tests after the staff had left for the evening).


Figure 4. The penetration of a waterjet into sandstone with the jet running continuously (black), with the jet interrupted (red) and with the jet rotated slightly off-axis (green). (Brook, N. and Summers, D.A., "The Penetration of Rock by High Speed Waterjets", Intl. Journal Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, May, 1969)

As can be seen in figure 4, with the pulsating jet more energy was getting to the bottom of the hole, without interference, and the hole continued to deepen over time. However the interruption tool had a number of disadvantages, apart from the noise and that the disk would be very rapidly destroyed under an abrasive jet. It was wasting a significant portion of the energy, in a more optimized design, that I won’t discuss further, the energy loss was about 50%.

But if the jet was moved slightly over the surface, and in these early tests the easy way to do this was to have the target rotate with the jet hitting the rock just offset from the axis of rotation. (At the time high-pressure swivels weren’t yet available). This gave the upper curve in figure 4, and a much more rapid penetration of the target.

In more modern times the nozzle is moved, either by causing it to move slightly around the hole axis, or by causing a slight oscillation or “dither” in the nozzle while the pierce is taking place. This is generally a feature of the control software that drives the cutting table. But the reason for the movement is to get the water flowing in such a way that the water going out of the hole does not interfere with that going in, and so there is a reduced risk of pressure build-up in the hole, with the consequent cracking that this would cause.

Deepwater Oil Spill - the hundredth day

Admiral Allen held a press conference in the Gulf region (rather than recent ones held in Washington), in which he noted that the news of the rapid disappearance of the oil already emitted by the Deepwater well is raising questions as to how long to retain the different parts of the fleet assembled to deal with it. Well pressure continues to slowly build, and there are no signs that the well integrity has been breached. The problem of the skimmer fleet, and the distributed lengths of boom are non-trivial. Should a hurricane appear then the oil-contaminated boom segments can become polluting sources themselves if they are carried inland. And so they must be collected, cleaned and stored, if there is no longer a need. (Or if they are too contaminated they may need to be disposed of as hazardous waste).

The Admiral also discussed the continuing developments with both the top static kill, (waiting on the cementing of the relief well) and the progress of the relief well itself. The packer sealing the well has been released and recovered, and the well is now being cleaned, before operations restart.

They removed the subsea containment device—which they call a packer—that was put in to protect the well while they evacuated the site before of the severe weather.

After that (was) done, they will run another drill string clear to the bottom of the relief well, and then they're going to flush the entire wellbore out to make sure there's no particles or anything—sediment from the formation. When that is done, they will be ready then to put the casing pipe in. The casing pipe is the last structural member that will go into the relief well and cement that in place.

Once that is done, that will be the cue to start the static or the top kill we've talked about, which will happen next week. Following that—then we'll be in a position, once the cement dries, to go ahead and drill into the annulus and begin the bottom kill sequence of events as I've briefed before.

Note that once the RW is cased and cemented then it is not necessary to have the cement harden before doing the static kill, though it will be necessary for the relief well operation to complete.

In the latter case, since the cemented casing will act as a springboard to allow the drill to advance the last one hundred feet to meet the 7-inch casing of the original well, accuracy in positioning is still critical to success. The RW is planned to run alongside the original well, slowly chewing through the original cement annulus and finding out whether that is the source of the oil, or whether its integrity is still sound. (And with lots of opinions there is yet little real data on which to give a definitive answer.)

In regard to the static kill, he answered a question on the chances of success by noting

One of the things that, as you know, has been a subject of a lot of controversy or discussion, I would say—maybe not controversy, but discussion, spirited discussion among the science team, BP engineers, and so forth—is why the pressure was so low when we capped the well itself, down in the 6,000 range.

The competing theories from that are we have depletion in the reservoir that caused the pressure to be lower or there could potentially be a leak down there.

One of the things we're going to find out when we start to put the mud in for the static kill—if there's a precipitous drop in pressure, we'll know we have a well integrity issue at that point. If there is not, and we fill that well with mud right away, and it holds pressure, I think we'll know a lot more about the condition of the well.

One of the big concerns with injecting fluid into the well lies with the strength of the rocks in the bottom of the existing well. There is some concern that if the mud injected into the well is too heavy, then it can raise the pressure in the bottom of the hole to the point that the surrounding rock fractures. At this point the build-up of pressure in the well is relieved, as the fluid can now flow into the crack generated (and there is the precipitate drop in pressure that the Admiral refers to). That (because the rest of the well is lined with a cement and steel jacket or casing) is most likely to occur in the lowest section of the well, where it was not lined with both steel and cement, but rather a full-well-length steel tube (the production casing) was cemented into place, with cement only at the bottom of the well. Further the oil bearing rock tends to be weaker than the rest.

It is thus down around the zone of the producing rock that this fracture and leakage – the loss in well integrity – is likely to occur. And it is that zone that will be penetrated by the relief well. Thus if there are problems that arise during the static kill from the top of the well, then they will likely be remediated by the following arrival of the relief well in the critical region.

Now I think there may be another complexity (and in reality there are many in this process) and that relates to the possible injection of cement at the end of the static kill as a way of sealing the well. My concern is that while the static kill will displace oil and gas in the well by pushing them back into the formation, from which they earlier escaped, that is not true with the mud. The oil and gas, having flowed out of the rock with the differential pressure having the well pressure lower, can flow back, when the well pressure is higher. Mud on the other hand, bear in mind, is designed in part to line the well and provide an impermeable liner to the well during drilling. Thus to inject cement with the intent of driving some of the mud that the cement displaces into the formation may require higher pressures that with the oil and gas. This may, in turn, bring the well pressure above that at which the formation fractures. It is for reasons such as this that I expect the process to be carried out somewhat slowly, and in stages, rather than as a sudden “magical” flourish to end the crisis.

Further comments on the Gulf of Mexico oil well disaster

The oil spill in the Gulf is continuing to get worse, and there are some questions that have been raised on what could have gone wrong, and how it can be fixed. I am in the same position as most, in regard to getting information – it comes from news reports, in the main. But there are some points that can be picked out as the focus of those reports switch to the impact that the oil is going to have on the coast and businesses that are going to be severely damaged. But there is enough information now available to draw some conclusions.

Pictures of the oil flows (Drillingahead )


Firstly, in regard to the post that I put up earlier about the blow-out preventer not working effectively, an early story noted that the BOP had recently been tested (thanks Gail).

Mr. Hayward said the blowout preventer was tested 10 days ago and worked. He said a valve must be partly closed, otherwise the spillage would be worse.

There are a number of things that can go wrong with a blowout preventer, said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas, which provides training for the industry.

The pressure of the oil coming from below might be so great that the valves cannot make an adequate seal. Or in the case of a shear ram, which is designed to cut through the drill pipe itself and seal it off, it might have encountered a tool joint, the thicker, threaded area where two lengths of drilling pipe are joined.

Still, Mr. McCormack said, “something is working there because you wouldn’t have such a relatively small flow of oil.” If the blowout preventer were completely inoperable, he said, the flow would be “orders of magnitude” greater.

However oil is now flowing through the BOP and out into the water immediately above the well site on the sea bed. When the site was visited by a small remotely operated vehicle with cameras they showed(see below) that the riser, the pipe that normally carries the oil from the sea bed to the surface, had kinked over when the rig sank, and oil was coming from three places:

The Coast Guard said it had not detected oil coming from the well Friday and assumed post-accident efforts to activate the blowout preventer “a huge stack of valves sitting atop the wellhead on the sea floor” had been successful.

But later trips by the remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s), discovered oil shooting from the end of the pipe-like riser that had connected the rig to the blowout preventer.

A second, smaller leak was found in a section of drill pipe near the wellhead.

That 21-inch-diameter riser had become detached from the rig when it sank. In the process, it was folded over at a 90-degree angle just above the wellhead, which had the effect of kinking it like a garden hose and constraining the flow of oil from the well. It now sits in a long, meandering mess on the ocean bottom. This helps explains why oil was not initially thought to be seeping.” . . . . . . The preferred option, he said, is still to find a way to engage the blowout preventer. That fix, if it works, could be handled in a matter of days, he said.

But if that doesn't work, the other option is to drill a deep “relief” well into the damaged well and stem the flow of oil, though that option could take several months, Suttles acknowledged. He said his team would spend the next several days trying to determine the best method.

The problem lies, in part, with the capabilities of the ROV’s and their ability to get access to the well site on the sea-bed.
There is a report from a survivor (h/t Fractional Flow) that says that the well was shut in and they were going through the process of separating the rig from the well, and moving it off. They began by cleaning out the drilling mud from the riser, replacing it with sea water. However, when they re-opened the valves at the top of the well, the pipe in the well had become filled with gas from the well, under considerable pressure, and this “Kicked” the well as the valve opened. Gas, as the pressure gets less as it moves up the pipe, expands much more than oil. And unfortunately in the process of disconnection, the pressure to hold the gas, which comes from the density of the drilling mud in the riser initially, had been removed as part of the disconnection process.

So the high pressure gas was able to blow all the sea water in the riser out onto the deck of the rig. (This happens extremely quickly, well below a minute) The gas then followed, and as it flowed out of the pipe at the top of the well there was some hot source that caused it to ignite. (This could even be from a static electricity spark). Because of the depth of the well, the pressure in the bottom of the well was in the 30-40,000 psi range.

Part of the problem that arises with flows at that pressure is that any abrasive particles (such as small pieces of rock) will cut through metal at the speeds at which it is carried. (Such jets were used to remove the damaged tops of the wells in Kuwait after the Gulf War, for example). So that it is possible that as the BOP started to function the high-velocity flow may have eroded part of the system to allow some fluid to bypass the plug that the BOP inserted. If that happened then the continued flow would just enlarge the passage again fairly quickly, so that the BOP will become ineffective.

However there are pictures of the leaks available.

Pictures of the oil flows (Drillingahead )

At this stage there does not appear to be that great a driving pressure for the oil coming out of the well. (If there were the flow would be more directed horizontally) This suggests that the BOP did at least partially function, and that the passage may have been eroded by the particles in the gas and oil now escaping.

There is a recent report that the accident may have been caused by a poor cementing job by Haliburton:

After an exploration well is drilled, cement slurry is pumped through a steel pipe or casing and out through a check valve at the bottom of the casing. It then travels up the outside of the pipe, sheathing the part of the pipe surrounded by the oil and gas zone. When the cement hardens, it is supposed to prevent oil or gas from leaking into adjacent zones along the pipe.

As the cement sets, the check valve at the end of the casing prevents any material from flowing back up the pipe. The zone is thus isolated until the company is ready to start production.

The process is tricky. A 2007 study by the U.S. Minerals Management Service found that cementing was the single most-important factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period. (But) . . . .
But at the time of the accident, "well operations had not yet reached the point requiring the placement of the final cement plug, which would enable the planned temporary abandonment of the well," the Halliburton statement said.

However it is hard to see from what is known, that this was a cause in this case.

Oil well pressures - what brings out the oil

Michael Lynch would have it believed that those who follow this site are relying purely on “anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum,”, so I’m here again proving him wrong. Here, on Sundays I give a little of the technical background so that those interested can understand more about the realities of production. The posts are a simplification of what goes on, but give enough detail that, hopefully, it is understandable (and if not then you should ask questions). The posts build on an original set I wrote for The Oil Drum four years ago, but are a bit expanded. Interestingly four years ago Michael was spouting the same sort of stuff and getting it wrong back then too.

This post is going to deal with some of the problems that a driller encounters as he reaches the layer of rock (the reservoir) in which the oil or gas is being held. And what I want to talk about is something called Differential Pressure, but to explain that, I need to drag you back to High School for just a minute.

Let's, in fact, go back to Newton's Three Laws. And, for those who slept through that part of the Physics class in school, don't be too ashamed - I have seen the desk where Newton whittled his name, being similarly bored. Let's start with the first law, which is probably the most relevant.

Every object in a state of (rest or) uniform motion tends to remain in that state of (rest or) motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Except that I want to change external force into pressure (which is force divided by area) since it is the way we normally think of it. (Note: I added rest which is a special case of uniform motion since that is specific to the oil we want to talk about). In other words, nothing is going to move unless something pushes it. It is what does the pushing and what does the moving that this is all about.

And now our drill, is down through the casing, drilling the well open hole and using the circulating mud to carry away the cuttings as it continues to go deeper. I had stopped progress last week just before we went down to total depth (TD) of the well, or into the pay. And the reason I did has to do with this differential pressure. But first, the bit about how you calculate pressure.

As you go deeper into the earth, the rock at any layer is carrying the weight of all the rock vertically above it. For rough calculations we generally consider that this rock weighs 144 lb a cubic foot. So that 10 ft down the weight of the overlying column on a square foot would be 144 x 10 = 1,440 lb/sq ft. But through convention we reduce the area that we talk about to a square inch (144 sq in= 1 sq ft) so with this division the weight on a square inch would be 10 lb. A remarkable resemblance to the depth number (grin). This means that we can assume, as we go deeper into the earth, that the pressure on the rock increases by 1 lb/sq. inch (psi) for every foot we go deeper. This means that at 6,000 ft, the rock is under a pressure, from the rock above it, of 6,000 psi.

Now water does not weigh as much as rock, but can be approximated to roughly half the weight. So that, by the same argument, under water, for every foot of depth the pressure goes up roughly half-a-psi. So that at 6,000 ft under water the pressure is 3,000 psi (roughly twice the water pressure in the wand you use at a car wash). Now because we have increased the density of the fluid in the well (the mud) to help lift the cuttings out of the hole it weighs a bit more than water, but for the sake of working the example I'm going to use the half-psi measure for now. We are now at the point where the actual amount that it weighs becomes important.

Simplified sketch of an oil bearing layer in the ground.

I have made a very simple sketch of the layer of rock that we are going to drill into. In order to trap the oil it is shaped into a dome, and the sketch shows a vertical slice through that dome, viewed from the side. It has a layer of oil in it (the reddish layer), but above that is a layer of gas that has diffused from the oil (brownish), and below it is water (bluish) which may have been there when the algae died and which has stayed with the remains as they turned into oil under the temperatures and pressures deep in the rock. Oil floats on water, and gas is lighter than oil, so we have the three layers. At the moment the well has not arrived and all three fluids are sensibly in equilibrium at the same pressure.

Now why do we need to know this before we reach our layer of oil-bearing rock? Well first let's go and interpret that first law a little more.

If a person on either side of you pushed you with equal force at the same time, you don't move, because the two forces balance out. It is only if there is one force, or if one of the two pushes harder, that you move. In other words, where there are a number of forces acting on a body, it is the size of the difference in pressures, and the direction of that difference, that controls the movement.

Consider, here we are drilling merrily away (and have cased the well near the surface, and hit no more fluids on the way down) and at 6,000 ft. we penetrate the rock that is capping the well, and enter the rock with the oil in it. The oil (in the rock) is at some fraction of the overburden pressure, since it is trapped in the rock, and for the sake of this example I am going to say that it is at 5,000 psi , the fluid in the well is at 3,000 psi, the height of the mud column.
There is a difference of 2,000 psi. We are drilling a hole some 6-5/8th inches in diameter. That has an area of about 34.5 square inches. The total force we have suddenly applied to the bottom of the well (bit and fluid) is thus (area x pressure difference) 34.5 x 2,000 = 69,000 lb (or 35 tons). Oops!

Oil rig blowout in Turkmenistan (Energy Industry Photos)

Sadly most catch fire and the rig is destroyed (there are more pictures of such damage at the EIP site)
It's called a blow-out, and they still happen.

This is why we approach the oil/gas producing zone of the rock with caution. And bear in mind that the driller that is controlling the progress of this well is at the surface, trying to guide the bit at the bottom of the hole, with, historically, little immediate information to help.

Based on the surveys that brought the crew to the site in the first place he knows roughly how thick the layers of rock are, and probably what rock they are, but the only real information on where the bit is in that sequence, is from the returns (cuttings) that come out of the well, and there is the lag, we mentioned before, while those chips make their way up the 6,000 ft pipe. (This is why Measurement While Drilling [MWD] has been such a relatively recent boon to the industry ( though not all rigs have it).
By monitoring a number of pressure gages the driller can gain a sense of what is happening at the bottom of the well.

If he senses that there is going to be a problem, then he can do one of several things, based on the way the well is set up.
The first thing is to increase the density of the mud. By making the fluid in the well weigh more, the difference in the pressure across that face is reduced, and the change in conditions is easier to handle. However weighting up the hole has the disadvantage that it becomes much slower to drill with a heavier mud (it is a poor bottom-hole cleaner among other things). And, if done during drilling, bear in mind that once the heavier mud is added to the well it won't be fully effective until it has had time to get down to the bit and then fill back up the annulus between the drill string and the casing all the way to the surface.

So that is an expensive and slow option. Let us take the game a little more interesting and say that there is a gas pocket above the oil, and that the hole is going to go into the layer at A. Gas will enter the well at the down-hole pressure, but as the bubble rises, that pressure is reduced, and the gas expands, pushing the mud above it out ahead of itself. Another potential source for big-time trouble. And this one (which is known as a kick in the well) happens much faster, so there is less time to react.

How do we handle this? The answer is to invert the problem. Gas or oil flows into the well because the well is at a lower pressure than the fluid in the rock. The fluid in the well is, initially at the pressure created by the depth, and by the weight (density) of the mud in the hole. However, if we put a restriction on the flow of fluid out of the well (such as when you put your finger over the end of a garden hose so that the stream becomes smaller and shoots out further) we can increase the pressure in the well.

For those who want to know why, if the same volume has to go through a smaller hole in the same amount of time it has to go faster. This means it has to be pushed harder. Bernoulli explained it, and there is an animation available that helps explain it.
What it means is that by adjusting the flow out of the hole, the driller can adjust the internal pressure, and thus "kill the kick", or if gets to be too much of a problem, “kill the well”. But it is not completely that simple. Bear in mind that there is all the drilling and rotating equipment on the rig floor connected to the drill pipe at the top of the well. None of this can stand much pressure. So we need to place another piece of equipment between the drilling rig, and the top of the well.

Blow-out preventer (Schlumberger )

This is the Blow-out Preventer(BOP), which is essentially a ram that very rapidly shuts off fluid flow at the top of the well. These have to be well designed, since they are generally the line of last defense against a blowout, and when they fail as the pictures show serious problems arise. They also form the basis for the well-known structures, often referred to as Christmas Trees, that sit at the top of producing wells. By themselves, however, these aren't enough, since their main function is just to slam the door shut, before all the oil gets out and we have a gusher.

The more critical tools are the chokes on the well. (Below the rams in the picture above). There are generally several, both hydraulically operated and manual (in case the power dies) which are simply large valves that can be turned to increase or reduce the size of the flow path out of the well over to the mud pits. By adjusting these, in real time, the driller can control the well pressure, and thus the dynamics of the behavior at the bottom of the well. And after the rig leaves, an operator can adjust well pressure, and thereby the production from the well and its long-term performance.

If the operator is well trained (and you find drilling simulator equipment in Petroleum Engineering Departments so that students can understand how to do this (I last tried some decades ago) the well pressure will be controlled, so that any kicks can be handled, and the drill can now penetrate safely into the rock containing the oil/gas, which we call the reservoir, or the pay.

And you think the hard part is over?

Once the drill has penetrated through the layer, and the well has been completed, it is the controlled difference in pressure between the fluid in the rock and that in the well that will move the oil into the well, up and out into the pipeline. But we’ll talk about that when we talk about well completions and production in future posts.

As usual comments, questions and criticisms are welcomed. BTW if you're impatient with the speed of these posts, there is a lecture series on all this available from Rigzone, with videos. I haven't seen it, but I noticed it while looking for sources of pictures.