Mud/Gas Separator Sizing and Evaluation @.R. MacDougall, SPE, Chevron Canada Resources Lid. ‘Summary. Recent wellsite disasters have led to an increased emphasis on properly sized mud/gas separators. This paper reviews and analyzes existing mud/gas separator technology aod recommends separator configuration, components, design consideration, and 8 sizing procedure, A simple method of evaluating mud/gas separation within the separator vesse has been developed as a bass for the sizing procedure. A mud/gas separator sizing worksheet will asist drilling personnel with the sizing calculations, The worksheet provides a quick and easy evaluation of most mid/eus separators for a specific well application. A brief discussion of other mud/gas separator considerations is provided, including separator components, testing, materials, and oil-based-mud considerations. Introduction ‘The mud/gas separator is designed to provide effective separation ‘of the mud and gas circulated from the wel by venting the gas and ‘returning the mud to the mud pits. Small amounts of entrsined gas can then be handled by a vacuum-type degasse located in the mud pits. The mud/gas separator controls gas cuting during kick situa ‘ons, during drilling with significant drilled gas in the mud returns, or when trip gas is circulated up, ‘This paper discusses design considerations for mud/gas separa: tors. The purpose of this paper i 0 allow drilling rg supervisors to evaluate mod/gas separators propery and wo upgrade (if required) the separator economically to meet the design criteria outlined in this paper, and to provide office drilling personnel with guidelines for designing mud/gas separators before delivery a te drilste Principle of Operation The operating principle of a mud/gas separator is relatively sim- ple. The device is essentially a vertical steel cylindrical body with ‘openings on the top, bottom, and side, as shown in Fig. 1. The ‘mud and gas mixture is fed into the separator inlet and directed ‘a flat stel plate perpendicular to the flow. This impingement ‘late minimizes the erosional wear on te separator’ internal walls and assists with mud/gas separation. Separation is further assisted ‘as the mud/gas mixture falls over a series of baffles designed to increase the turbulence within the upper section of the vessel, The fee gas is then vented through the gas vent line, and mud is retumed to the mud tanks Operating pressure within the separator is equal to the frietion pressure ofthe free gas venting through the vent line. Fluid is main tained ata specific level (mud leg) within the separator at all times. If he friction pressure ofthe gas venting through the vent line ex- ‘ceeds the mud-leg hydrostatic pressure within the separator, 2 blow- ‘through condition will result sending a mud/gas mixture t the mod tanks. As one can readily see, the critical point for separator blow. ‘through exists when peak gas flow rates are experienced in the sepa rator, Peak gas Now rates should theoretically be experienced when, ‘gs initially reaches the separator. ‘Types of MudiGas Separators. ‘Three types of mod/gas separators commonly are used today: closed bottom, open bottom, and float ype. The principle of mud/gassepa- ration within each type of vessel is identical. Differences ean be found in the method of maintaining the mid leg, as discussed below.! “The closed-bottom separator, as the name implies, is closed at the vessel botiom withthe mud rtum line directed back othe mud tanks, as shown in Fig. 1. Mud leg is maintained inthe separstor by installation of an inverted U-shaped bend in the mud return line Fluid level canbe adjusted by increasing/decreasing the length of the U-shaped bend. ‘Commonly called the poor boy,2 the open-bottom mud/gas separator is typically mounted on a mud tank or trip tank with the bottom of the separator body submerged in the mud, as shown in enya 00 Sooty ot Perce rgoere ‘SPE Dring Engineering, December 191 ig. 2. The Mud level (mud leg) inthe separator is controlled by adjusting the uid level inthe mu tank or by moving the separa- {or up or down within the tank, Mud-tank height can restrict the ‘maximum mud leg obtainable for open-bottom mud/ eas separators. Fluid level (mud leg) is maintained in a floattype md/gas separator! by a float valve configuration, as shown in Fig. 3. The float opens and closes a valve on the mud return line to maintain the muc-leg level. Valves can be operated by 2 manual linkage sys- tem connected from the oat the valve, or the valve can be ait- ‘operated with rig air. Mud-leg height can be controled by adjast- ‘ng the float assembly. “There are some inherent problems inthe use of float-ype mudigas separators. The manual linkage separator has experienced prob- [ems with linkage failure resulting in improper opening of closing of the mud-return line valve. Air-operated valves fail to fonction if rig air s lost, resulting in no control of fluid level within the separator. Mud-retur-line valves ate prone to plug with solids, preventing mud flowback to the mud pits ‘Because of these problems, float-type mudl/gas separators ae not recommended and a closed-botiom separator i preferred. Open: bottom separators are acceptable; however, one should be aware that they are restricted to a maximum mud leg, somewhat lower than the mod-ank height. Although float-type mud/gas separators are strongly discouraged, these separators can be modified easily for disconnection of the float, removal of the valve, and install: tion of a mud leg in the mud return Tine For the purpose ofthis paper, « closed-bottom mud/gas separa- tor wil be considered forall separator designs. Sizing the Mud/Gas Separator ‘Table 1 shows a mud/gas separator worksheet to assist with the sizing calculation. The mud’gas separator illustrated in Fig. 4 will, be evaluated for sufficient sizing in this paper. Peak Gas Flow Rate. As discussed previously, the eritical time for separator blow-through exiss when peak gas flow rates are ex- petienced. Mud/gas separator blow through is defined as inefficient Separator operation resulting in a mud/gas mixture returning tothe ‘mud tanks through the mud retura line. "Two situations can cause separator biow-through. |. Friction pressure of the gas venting through the vent lin ex- ceeds the mud-leg hydrostatic pressure, resulting in evacuation of| {uid from the separator. Friction pressure ofthe mud trough the ‘mud retura line is considered negligible because ofits short length, 2. Vessel ID is too small, causing insufficient retention time for the gas to separate efficiently from the mud. This situation is com- monly called insufficient separator cut "To estimate a peak gas flow rate propery, we must consider a “typical” kick. The typical kick will depend on the wel location, depth, type size, and component ratios of influx. Kiek data should be based on previous offet well data and shouldbe a realistic worst- case gas kick. The well and kick data in Fig. § wil be used in this Paper. "The volume and pressure ofthe gas upstream of the choke must first be calculated. Using the drilling applications module Dril- xEES wo « ons unrue wo Cas Fig. 1—Closed:-bottom mud/ges separator. pro™,S we concluded that Pex ol ‘The driller's method was used for calculation purposes. Use of the waitand-weight method would result in a lower peak gas flow rate. Dile's method calculations provide a worst-case well control scenario for mud/gas separator sizing ‘The following equation calculates the time necessary to Vent gas: = Veous! 9h 3 minutes, “ With Boyle's gus law,? calculate the volume of gas downstream of the choke, V. Assume an atmospheric pressure of 14.7 ps.® Neglect the effects of gas temperature and compressibility. 750 pst and Veeue =75.9 2 therefore, V-=(1,750%75.9)(14.7)=9,036 bbl Calculate the peak g88 HOW rate, Guan: 8 @) Convert barrels per minute to eubie feet per day, 157.2 8,085.62, 887,806 f2/D. oun ‘Vent-Line Friction Pressure. The formula ued by this paper to calculate friction pressure of gas trough a vent line i derived fom the Atkinson-modified Darcy-Weisbach equation:” hy =fslg 5.24 If we assume an empirical friction factor for smooth, straight, ste pipe—10% 10" Tome-min2/t¥ and gas density =0.01 lm al®—the following much simpler equation can be used 27 ~5.0*10- PL oa ) Effective length? Zs can be defined asthe tot vent-tne length plus equivalent length for various bends, comers, ete. (Table 2), for the mud/ges separator shown in Fig. 4. The vet line consists ‘0200 ft of a7-in-ID circular stel line with thre sarp right bends. 1, can be calculated 3s Lp HL Leg =2004BXT)=AO Bes eereeeeeree Ventline fiction pressure is (5.0 10-2 4102,887,806)2/7.05 = L.0 pai Note that effective venttine lengths will be significamily affect ed by the installation of flame arrstrs or some auto-igniters.® The cffect of this addtional backpressure shouldbe included inthe cal calation of ven-line fiction pressure. 280 Fig. 2—Openhottom mudigas separator. ‘Mud Leg. As previously discussed, mud-leg hydrostatic pressure -mustexcoed vent line friction pressure to prevent a separtor blow. through condition. Minimum mud-leg hydrostatic pressure would ‘cur if an oilgas kick was taken and the mud leg was filled with 10.26 psi oil.® This minimum condition may of may not occur, ‘depending on the wel location. Offset well data shouldbe evaluat- ed to establish a minimum mud-leg fuid gradient. For example, the 0.26-psi/t mud-eg gradient would be considered extremely con- servative if dy gas were expected forthe sample problem. A more realistic estimate would approach the gradient of whole mud for the dry-gas case. A realistic mud-leg gradient for a gas/water kick ‘would be the gradient of native salt water. In this paper, a worst-case scenario is considered with « mud leg fluid gradient of 0.26 psi. If we assume a 7-ft mud leg, Prt hint 70.26% 1.8 psi © where Py >Py(1.8> 1.0 psi Therefore, a blow through condition doesnot exist when vent-line fiction pressure is calculated at peak gas flow rates Separator ID. A blow through condition may exist because a small vessel ID result in insufficient separator cut. Several complicated ‘models exist describe gas movement within a liquid. A sim- plified approach, taken in this paper, states thatthe gas migration rate upward within the separator must exceed the liquid velocity ‘downward within the separator to give 100% separator cut and to prevent a separator blow-through condition. Gas migration rate is estimated at 500 fh, or 8.4 fmin,? within the separator. This estimation is conservative and more realistic values would be higher; however, the slow gas migration rate serves as a worst-case scenario, Ligud flow rate through the separator can be estimated 1s 2qu; for this paper 2%3=6 bbl/min. This factor of two was ‘determined from gas volume at depth calculations (Boyle's law) using Drilpro™ for various depts and kick sizes. Correlation of| the data shows that the mud flow from the well approaches wie the mud flow into the well kill rate) for various kick size, kill rates, and wellbore geometries. A more accurate determination of ‘mud’ flow from the well can be incorporated into the design procedure. By calculating the liquid velocity downward within the separator w=2ailCe o where Cyy=d?/1,029 DOL. IF we assume a 36-in, separator, vp =10X3)362Y/1 029=4.8 Amin. SPE Drilling Bapneerng, December 1991FESS uo cas mxrune BE wo TO os Fig. 3—Float-type mudl/gas separator. ‘We find thatthe gas migration rate is greater than the liquid veloc- ity in the separator, 8.4>4.8 fUmin. Therefore, a blow-through condition caused by insuficient separator cut does not exist [Note that a separator cut < 100% frequently exists with mud/gas| separators, and under some conditions, is not a major concern. AS stated earlier, the mud/gas separator is designed 0 provide effec- ‘ive separation of mud and gas with small amounts of entrained ‘gas handled by a vacuum-type degasser located inthe mud pits Therefore, large active pit volumes may tolerate < 100% separa~ tor cut, Sizing Conclusion, Having evaluated sizing criteria fr the mud/gas separator (Fig. 4), we may conclude tat the separator is sized sufi- ciently to handle’ our worst-case kick properly. (Oll-Based-Mud Considerations ‘The effects of oil-based mud on the operation ofthe mud/gas sepa- fation can signifiantly affect sizing and design requirements." ‘These concems are currently being evaluated. However, some con- clusions can be made at this stage. 10 ‘TABLE 1—MUD/GAS SEPARATOR SIZING WORKSHEET ‘Slow pump rate Informatlon, Gace ‘strokes per min 33 ps 90 Bolstroke 0.081 bliin 30 ‘Mudigas separator data ‘Separator body 1D in 98 Ges venti ID, din, 70 Gas ventsine effctve length, Lgntt Log, bag fom Table 2, ft 410 ick data (Old mud weight, vga! 182 Inia shutinclipipe pressure, ps 520 Iniialshutin easing pressure, pst 640 Pit gain, bol 28 ‘Ts vertical depth, t 14.400 Peak gas-iow rate calculation eras fF crilr’s method, psi 1780 \Veiuine of gas upetream of choke, Vena. BB 759 ‘Time fo pump gas out of wel, Vena ldagn, MNOS 253 Volume ef gas downstream of choke, Ve =PenusVena/Pes Dbl 9.096 Peak gas Tow flo, Gnu = Ve8085.61,°1 2.887.808 Venttine ticven-pressure calciation Pm (5.0% 10~ FHL NA)", PL 10 Miciog ealeulation Minimum mud leg required, ny ft 38 Separator ID calcusaton Minimum separator ID, 15:56 [ancy (Bblmin), in, 27 Ifthe mudgas separsior does not meet te sing citra refer tothe section on troubleshooting for suggested modicatons. 1. Gas kicks in oil-based mud can approach ‘possibly soluble" conditions while the kick is eiculated from the well. 2. Gas kicks in oil-besed mud that pass through the gas bub- blepoint while being circulated from the well can experience higher Pemax 308 Very Vales than were calculated fr a Kick ofthe same inital pit gain in a water-based mud. This results in higher peak {gs flow rates through the separator and thus the requirement for ‘more stringent separator design. 3. Gas kicks in ol-based mud that do not pass through the gas bubblepoint until the gas is downstream ofthe choke will severely affect mud/gss separator sizing and design. Peak gas flow rates wll be extremely high relative to those calculated for water-based mud wo Dos Kw aang x80 12.20 & Fig. 4—Muaigas separator sizing ‘SPE Dring Boginecring, December 1991 2aFEE] woe ons uocune Beno -coTuse, sie — 8 CONTRACTION, expansion, | 1 ‘eau ——_ EXPANSION, 10 ME wo TC as ae rator components. 6—Mudigas Closed-bottom mud/gas separators should be designed with a minimum I-ft sump a the botiom ofthe vessel. The sump will help prevent solids from setling and plugging the mud-return-line outlet. ‘A lower manway shouldbe located onthe lower part ofthe sepa stor to permit sump cleanout or unplugging of the mad retura line. as cutined in this paper. Additional evaluation ofthe separator sizing should be completed if these well conditions exist thor Mud/Gas Separator Considerations'“® Fig. 6 shows other separator components. A minimum in -D mad ‘eur line is recommended for losed-bottom separators. Smaller lines may encounter problems with solids plugging the line. A larger- ID line would be considered beneficial. The impingement plate should be perpendicular to the separator inlet line and field replaceable. Balfles within the separator should be located in the upper part ofthe separator and may continue into the lower part of the vessel ‘Typically, baffles consist of near-horizontal plates. The plates may be sold or have holes in them. The baffles should not impede the flow ofliguid through te separator, which would cause ud buld- "up above the beffles. Solids buildup in the baffles can also be a problem if the beffles are too restrictive, "An upper manway shouldbe located on the upper part ofthe sepa- rator to permit visual inspection of the interior ofthe separator. ‘The manway shouldbe large enough to permit replacement of the impingement late and equipped witha replaceable rubber seal to prevent leakage. ‘The manway should be equipped witha replaceable rubber seal to prevent leakage. ‘The mud/gas separator should be equipped with a valved inlet con te lower section of the vessel to permit mud to be pumped into the separator. Mud ean be pumped into the lower section of the separator during operation to decrease the possibilty of solids Settling inthe mud return line. The valved inlet also permits clean- ing solids from the lower portion ofthe separator, especially after separator use. ‘A siphon breaker or antisiphon tube may be required to prevent having to siphon mud from the separator into the mud tanks, espe- cially with configurations that require the mud return ie to be ex- tended below the separator elevation to allow mod to return tothe ‘mud tanks. The siphon breaker i simply an upward-directed open ended pipe attached 10 the highest point of the mud retum line. All separators must be builtin compliance withthe ASME Boil- er and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. VIM, Div. I with all materials meeting requirements of NACE Standard MRO1-75-84' (1980 Revision. All welding on the vessel must meet ASME requirement. Fig. 7—Effect of clrulating kill rate on minimum separator ID. | Fig. 8—Ettect of kil rate on ventine fiction pressure. am SPE Diiling Engineering, December 191) “ a 4 oe al eng to S—Etfect of mud-eg height on mudsieg hydrostatic pressure. New mud/gas separators should be hydrostatically tested to 188 psi to give a maximum working pressure of 150 psi, as recom- ‘mended by ASME." Periodic nondestructive testing should in- clude radiographic examination of wall thickness and ultrasound ‘verification of weld continuity. At each intial hookup, every separator should be circulated through with water atthe maximum possible flow rate to check for possible leaks in the connections. Frequency of testing should depend on anticipated and historical tse of the separator. ‘Bracing the mud/gas separator has always been @ major prob- Tem. When gas reaches the surface, separators tend to vibrate and, iftnot properly supported, can move, resulting in nea-catastrophic problems. Thus, its critical that all mad/gas separators be sufi- ently anchored and properly braced to prevent movement ofboth the separator body and the lines. ‘Trouble-Shooting an insufficiently Sized Separator Frequently, the situation arses where a magus separator is picked ‘up with the rig contract, andthe dling rig supervisor and engi- ‘cer must evaluate the suitability ofthe separator fr the well loca- tion. This evaluation typically should be conducted during the rig bid analysis process. If the separator is insufficient or marginal, itmay be more economical to upgrade the existing separator to meet the sizing eriteria as an alternative to renting or building a suitable ‘Small Vessel ID. We frequently do our calculations and determine that our vessel ID is too small. Reducing the Kil rate will improve this situation; eg., if the kill rate forthe previously sized separa- tor were reduced from 3 to 1.5 bbl/min, then from Eq. 7 vp =[2X1.5)362/1,029=2.4 funn Thus, reducing the kil rate also reduces the liquid velocity rate inthe separator, which increases the mod/gas retention time and improves the efficiency of mud/gas separation. ‘Also note that a gas migration rate of $00 fbr (8.4 fin) is ‘ worst-case scenario and values could be higher. Therefore, when vessel ID is considered, a marginal separator probably would be sufficient because ofthis buil-in safety factor. Higher gas migra- tion rates may also be used inthe sizing procedure, as previously discussed. Fig. 7 shows the effect of kill rate on the calculation ‘of minimum separator ID for different gas migration rates ‘Vent-Line Friction Pressure Exceeds Mud-Leg Hydrostate Pres- sure. Another area of concern is vent-line friction pressure exceod- ing mud-leg hydrostatic pressure, py >. Several options exist to help alleviate this problem. 1. Reduce the circulating kil rate, As discussed previously, 3 reduction inthe circulating kill ate may improve a sepurator's op- tration when vesse ID is considered and also when excessive vent- line frition pressures are considered. This reduction in kill rate ‘may be the most economical solution to the sizing concern, For SPE Drilling Eogincerng, December 1991 | Fig. 10—etfect of effective length on ventsine friction | pressure. l Fig. 11—Effect of ventine ID on vent-line fiction pressure. example, ifthe kill rate forthe previously sized separator were re- ‘duced from 3to 1.5 bbVmin, the peak gas How rate would decreas. Combining Eqs. 1 and 3 and converting, we obtain 15.91, and dinar =9,036050.6= 1,443,908 19/D. ‘This decrease in peak gas flow rate would significantly decrease the excessive vent-line fition pressure and improve the operation fof the separator (Eq, 4), ‘pg(5.0X10-¥2 410% 1,443,903)2/7.05 =0.25 psi Fig. 8 shows the effect of kil rate onthe calculation of vent-line fiction pressure forthe previously sized separator. 2, Increase the mud leg. Another solution may be fo increase the height ofthe mud eg. For example, if we increased the previously sized separator froma 7-ft mud leg toa 10 mud leg, the mud-leg hydrostatic pressure should increase (Eq. 6). Pri=10X0.26=2.6 psi ‘Ths, the mud-leg hydrostatic pressure increased from 1.8 102.6 pi, allowing the separator to operate more efficiently "Fig. 9 shows the effect of mud-leg height on the calculation of smud-leg hydrostatic pressure for different mud-eg gradients. Note that the mud-leg height cannot exceed the separator height. The ‘ud leg may aso be restricted by bel-nipple elevation. Ifthe mod Jeg ishigher than the bell nipple, additional surface equipment may be required to permit the separator to operate when drilling with significant gas in the mud returns, 3. Adjust vent-lne bends. As shown in Table 1, the type and number of bends in the vent line significantly affect the effective vent-line length, which in turn affects the calculation for ven-line fiction pressure. If we were to replace the targeted T-bends on ‘the previously sized separator with right-rounded bends, the ci 283 0.6 rinere @.R. MacDougall is adriling engineer ft Chevron Canada Resources Ltd. In Calgary. Previously, he was an engineer ft Chevron Services’ Drilling Technolo- ‘9y Contre, He holde @ BS degree in min- ing engineering from the Technical U. of Nova Scotia ‘ulations for the effective length (Eq. 5) and vent-line friction pres ‘sure (Eq. 4) would change: 1,=200+(3%1)=203 ft ‘and py =(5.0% 10-12 x203 x2,887,806)2/7.05=0.5 pai Hence, a ventline frction-pressure decrease from 1.0 to 0.5 psi increases the efficiency of the separator for a given mud leg. In ‘addition, the vet-lin friction pressure increases proportionally to the effective length (Fig. 10). “4 Increase vent-line ID. Increasing the vent-line ID is generally ‘the most expensive alternative but may be the only adjustment pos- sible to increase separator efficiency. Larger-ID vent lines will ‘decrease the vent-line friction pressure calculation. For the previ- ‘ously sized separator, if an 8.0-in-ID vent line were used, the cal- ‘culation for vent-line friction pressure (Eq. 5) would change to (Py =(8.010~!2<410%2,887,806)2/7.05 =0.5 pai ‘Again, a vent-line ftiction pressure decrease from 1.0 100.5 psi ‘ill increase separator efficiency fora given mud leg. Fig. 11 shows the effect of vent-line ID on the calculation of vent-line friction pres- sure for the previously sized separator. Conclusions 1. The principle of mud/gas separation within most commonly ‘used mud gas separators is identical. Differences can be found in the method of maintaining the mud leg. 2. A closed-bortom mud/gas separator is the preferred configu- ration. Open-bottom and flost-ype separators work well but are ‘subject to limitations and prone to failure. 3. Sizing ofa mud/gas separator should be specific to individual ‘well conditions. 44. Modeling of gas flow through a mud/gas separator can be ap- proximated by a simple procedure in a limited time. '5. A complete list of mud/gas separator components and con- siderations was compiled 1o assist with the design of mud/gas sepa "ators. ‘6. A trouble-shooting guide was developed to address econom- cal upgrading ofan existing insufficiently sized separator to meet sizing guidelines as an alternative to building or renting @ new separator. Nomenclature A = cross-sectional area of gas vent line, t2 separator capacity, BbI/t f= empirical friction factor, Hom-min?/¢ ar = mudeg fod gradient, pit Ihny = mmad-leg height, "E = gas ventlne length, ft L, = gas Yentlie effective length, f 24 Log = equivalent length of bends, Pe = pressure of gas downstream of choke=atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psi Pens ~ Pressure of gas upstream of choke, psi "Py = B88 vent-line friction pressure, psi Pm = mud-leg hydrostatic pressure, psi "9 = gas flow rate, bbV/min 94 = Kil rate, Bolmin eax = peak gas flow rate through mud/gas separator, ‘oVmin or 83/0 Qitow = slow pump rate, psi '5 = gas vent-line perimeter, ft 1 = time venting gas at surface, minutes vz = liquid velocity in the mud/gas separator, feimin V, = volume of gas downstream of choke, bbl Vewx = Volume of gas upstream of choke, bbl f Acknowledgments | thank Chevron Services Co., Chevron Canada Resources, and ‘Chevron’s Drilling Technology Centre for their assistance and per- ‘mission to write and publish this paper. References 1. Tumer, EB. ““Well Control When Deiling With Oil-Based Mud,” Oftthore Technology Report OTHBG260, UK. Operations & Safety, Dept. of Energy, Landon (Oct. 1986). 2, Bulchko, D. ef a: “Design of Atmospheric Open-Bottom Mud/Gas Sepuruors,” paper SPE 1348 presented the 1985 SPEIIADC Dring Conference, New Orleans, March 5-8 3. Grigg, P.C.: "The Poor Boy Degnser asa Well Control Too,” paper pesca at the 1980 IADCICAODC Dring Tecnology Conference, Dallas, March 17-20. 4, Swaco Mud Gas Separator Operation and Serle Manual, Report No. (0880-0250, Dresser Industries Ine. (April 1982), 5. Brewton, J., Rau, W-E., and Dearing, H.L.: "Development and Use ‘ofa Drilling Applications Module fra Programamibe Hand-Held Cal ‘alstor,” pope SPE 16657 preseated at the 1987 SPE Annual Techni ‘al Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-20 6. Engineering Data Boo, ninth edition, Gas Processors Supplies Aso, ‘Tulss (1979) Chap. 16, 141 17, Hartman, H.l.: Mine Veeilation and Air Conditioning, Joba Wiley 48 Sons Inc., New York City (1982) 131-61 8, Spec 12, Speciation for Oil and Gat Separators, sixth ein, API, alas Gune 1, 1988), 9. Rede, D.W., Bourpoyne, AT. and Ward, RH. ‘Bubble Rise Velcty of Gas Kick 10, O'Bryan, PL. and Bourgoyoe, AT: “Methods for Handling Drilled Gas in Oi-Based ailing Fis," SPEDE (Sept. 1989) 257-46. 11, Baler and Pressure Coe, Seton VIN Ds. I, Pesure Vessels, ASME, Dalles (Dec. 1989) 101-36. 12, Standard MROI-75-84, Material Requirement, Sud Stress Cracking Resistant Metalic Material for Oil Field Equipment, NACE, Houston (an, 198). $1 Metric Conversion Factors actors Affecting "IPT (Stay 1978) 371-84, bol x 1.589.873 B-01 Ax 3088" E-O1 WO x 2.831685 E02 gal x 3.785 412 in, x 2.548 E+00 bm x 4.535924 E-O1 psi x 6.894 757 E+00 SPEDE. gererememmrneninte.s me nensoent ian Ze ilpnat aaa ake SPE Driling Engineering, December 1991