IADC/SPE 62744
Reducing the Risk, Complexity and Cost of Coiled Tubing Drilling
Lance Portman, BJ Services.
Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper focuses on arguably the most cost-effective
application for coiled tubing drilling. The application is the
non-steered extension of an existing well in the underbalanced
state. This operation can be very fast and efficient with coiled
tubing. However, the job design must minimize the associated
risk to ensure problem free execution. This paper describes the
steps required to minimize risks and therefore costs, and
illustrates by way of example these steps in action.
Introduction
Drilling vertical well extensions with coiled tubing,
particularly in the underbalanced state, uniquely exploits the
inherent strengths of coiled tubing. These strengths are the
ability to enter into slim holes, against a live well head, with a
small equipment spread that is fast to rig up and down, and the
ability to trip quickly and maintain a steady pressure down
hole with continuous circulation.
Coiled tubing has successfully been used to deepen
hundreds of wells yet this application has received only
sporadic technical attention. There are some very important
technical considerations when drilling non-directionally with
coiled tubing that must be addressed to ensure a commercially
successful job.
When applied correctly, non-steered drilling with coil can
be a very fast and effective technology. It should not be
equated to the much more complex directional and horizontal
drilling, conducted largely with big, specialized coil units,
using sophisticated down hole equipment at costs comparable
or in excess of conventional drill rigs. Drilling vertical
extensions can often be done with a standard coil unit, as
small as 1¼”, using readily available motors and optimized
bits, sometimes taking only hours to complete.
This paper cites a recent vertical extension drilling job
carried out in Western Australia to illustrate the critical
engineering aspects of design and execution of a coiled tubing,
underbalanced, non-directional drilling job. This job was
completed for Arc Energy in April 1999 and produced a well
that stabilized at 1.1mmscf/day, where three other wells
drilled conventionally into these zones had shown only trace
amounts of hydrocarbon.
Design Considerations
Planning
In most cases, it is highly desirable to drill through the
existing completion so that the cost associated with pulling
that completion is avoided. Drilling thru-tubing also has the
advantage of not requiring a completion string to be run after
the drilling has been completed. This is particularly
advantageous when the well is drilled underbalanced and it is
counter-productive to kill the well while running a subsequent
completion.
Care must be taken not to be too ambitious when drilling
into the open formation. Coil is not good for large overpulls
and can only be used for slide drilling. It is more susceptible to
differential sticking or hole collapse. An understanding of the
formations to be drilled through is very important. For
example, drilling through over-pressurized shales into a
depleted reservoir in the underbalanced state will likely cause
hole collapse.
Mud Choice
The choice of drilling fluid is very important. The drilling
fluid must be thin enough to pass through the coiled tubing,
yet have the ability to lift cuttings back to surface at flow rates
compatible with the coil. It must be compatible with the
formation even if the drilling is underbalanced as some fluid
contact with the formation is inevitable1. It must be safe to
handle on surface and must be compatible with the down hole
tools, particularly the motor.
Bit Choice
The bit chosen must not only be compatible with the target
to be drilled, it must also be compatible with the coil used and
the motor. The bit must operate in a weight on bit (WOB)
range that the coil can deliver in a controllable manner and
within the rotary speed range of the motor2.
2 LANCE PORTMAN
Motor Choice
The motor must be configured to give enough torque to
turn the bit over the WOB range envisaged during the drilling
process. It must also turn at a speed compatible with the bit
and have a stator compatible with the drilling fluid, utilizing a
fit between the rotor and stator that matches the anticipated
operating temperature combined with any chemical swelling
effects.
Case History
Background
Arc Energy Yardarino-1 was originally drilled into a gas
zone at 7,500 feet. Beneath this zone, there are several
untapped gas reserves. Previous wells drilled into these zones
conventionally had proven unsuccessful and it was believed
that underbalanced drilling was required to construct a well
with sufficiently little well bore damage to render a
commercially viable well. The deepened well would be
referred to as Elegans-1.
The existing well had a 27/8” completion, set with a
production packer into a 7” perforated casing. The program
was to deepen the well until commercially viable gas
production was attained, or until a depth of 8,500ft.
Well Planning Issues
The formation pressure gradient was thought to be about
0.4psi/ft. Underbalance could not be achieved with a water
based fluid, but could be achieved with an oil based fluid, or
with a water/gas mixture. The customer had expressed
concerns about using a water-based fluid, even in the
underbalanced condition, for fear of well damage. The drilling
was to proceed through several gas sands, separated by shale
and coal layers.
The existing completion was small with a 2.441” main
bore and two nipples, the smallest of which was 2.197”.
Beneath the completion was 7” casing, with a cast iron bridge
plug, a casing float and shoe, and possibly other junk, making
drilling more difficult.
The problem to be solved, was how to minimize the
drilling risk and complexity, at the same time achieving
underbalance at all times.
The chosen solution involved pulling the existing
completion, and the production packer. A new 3½”
completion would be run and actually milled down through
the casing shoe. This new completion would simply be
cemented in place at the bottom, presenting an easy well bore
for the coiled tubing. This solution removed the need to mill
the nipples present in the old 2 7/8” completion, permitting the
use of a 2 1/8” motor with full fishability, and removed the
need to drill through unknown junk at the shoe with coil. Also,
the need to squeeze off the existing perforations is removed
and a bigger hole can be drilled. The hole size chosen was
2¾” and the hole was not to be lined.
The general point is that when designing the work program
to minimize risk and reduce total costs, it is very important to
consider all engineering and design options, whether they
involve solely coiled tubing or also require the use of service
IADC/SPE 62744
rigs, or in this case a simple jacking frame. Swapping out the
completion was judged a better solution than trying to do
everything with coiled tubing through the existing small
completion.
Job Execution – First Drilling Sequence
The completion and packer were pulled and the new
completion was milled down into the bottom of the existing
well and cemented in place, all using a jacking frame with
rotary capability. The coil equipment was mobilized and
rigged up ready to drill. Drilling operations commenced but
absolutely no new hole was made! The crew was demobilized
from location while the reasons for the lack of progress were
evaluated.
Lessons from the First Drilling Sequence
After this first sequence of failed drilling runs, all types of
scenarios were considered such as insufficient motor torque,
incorrect bit design, and formation swelling leading to bit
binding. However, none of these conditions were the cause of
the problems seen.
The biggest clue to the root problem came from the coil
weight indicator readings recorded. The hanging weight in
water of the 2” coil used was 21,000lb. The well was vertical
so the tubing drag should have been negligible. However, the
run-in weight was near 11,000lb and the pull up weight was
about 45,000lb. What phenomena could explain such large
drags in a vertical well, showing larger drag in the up direction
than in the down direction?
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Hanging Run in Pull out
Weight Weight Weight
Figure 1 Coil Surface Weight Indicator Readings
Further clues were gained from drift runs and lead
impression block runs. A 13ft long, 2¾” drift bar hung up at
3,350ft. A lead impression block showed junk sat in the
bottom of the hole.
IADC/SPE 62744 REDUCING THE RISK, COMPLEXITY AND COST OF COILED TUBING DRILLING 3

Figure 3 Diamond Impregnated Mill

The general point here is that the abnormal indications

from the coiled tubing weight indicator were recognized.
Using computer simulations it was possible to hypothesize
what the completion actually looked like, and hence make
Figure 2 Lead impression block showing junk down hole. engineered recommendations on how to solve the problems. In
this case the recommendations were to stay with the 2” coil,
In fact there were two problems with the well; each on add a drag reducer and accept the fact that the excessive drag
their own would have made drilling very difficult. Combined could not be economically removed, only minimized.
they rendered coiled tubing drilling impossible with the
drilling program initially proposed. The first problem was the Job Execution – Second Drilling Sequence
high drag completion, the second was a fish at bottom. Drilling was started again with the impregnated diamond
Computer modeling was conducted with BJ’s proprietary bit, and drag reducing chemicals in the mud system. Once
software Circa to investigate what conditions could produce drilling had progressed past the fish in the well into open
the drag numbers seen in practice, and based on that model, formation, the impregnated diamond bit was changed out for a
determine the best way to reduce the drag. The high drag PDC bit. PDC offered the highest potential ROP. However,
numbers could not be explained simply by large friction even in the clean formation, the completion drag prevented
coefficients. The only plausible modeling that predicted drag fine enough control of WOB. The motor continually stalled,
numbers consistent with measured values, was to model the causing very slow progress, and damaging the motor.
completion as corkscrewed or helixed. Modeling showed that
even though the 3½” CS Hydril tubing is quite well
centralized inside the 7” casing, it can still helix with a pitch
decreasing towards the bottom of the well to values close to
30ft. This degree of helix explains the friction forces seen.
Using the helixed completion model, the effect of
changing to a smaller size of coiled tubing was evaluated. This
actually makes matters worse as the smaller tubing binds up in
the helix a comparable amount, but has less tensile strength,
reducing the safety margins and forces available down hole.
The best theoretical solution in terms of reducing drag was to
add a drag-reducing chemical to the mud. A drag reducing
agent was added to the 2%KCl water used during the junk
milling operation. Oil based fluids, used for the open hole
drilling, naturally have drag reducing properties. (It should be
noted that there was not an economically viable way available
of tensioning or straightening the completion).
To address the junk in the well, a 2¾” impregnated
diamond bit was run, a bit custom designed for the milling Figure 4 PDC bit that proved too aggressive
operation combining features from a step mill and a junk mill.
4 LANCE PORTMAN IADC/SPE 62744

The PDC bit was changed out to a natural diamond bit.

This bit has a relatively low theoretical ROP, around 15ft/hr. 14,000
However, because of the low exposure and round profile of
the diamonds, the bit is low torque and is extremely resilient 12,000
to grabbing and stalling under higher WOB. This bit drilled 10,000
very nicely, proving to be easily and effectively controlled. A
detailed description of why the natural diamond bit performed 8,000
so much better than the PDC bit is given under next section.
6,000
After drilling a further 200ft, the well started to make gas
and the drilling was discontinued while the well was tested. 4,000

Lessons from the Second Drilling Sequence (Bit Choice) 2,000

Maximizing the effective ROP for the operation is the goal, 0
not maximizing the maximum theoretical ROP of the bit for a
given formation. A balance must be struck between running
aggressive bits that have potential to make hole very quickly,
and running less aggressive bits that do not have this potential, WOB (lbf)
but are far more forgiving in their operation.
The coiled tubing operator’s job is made much easier by Figure 5 Frictional Drag as a function of WOB
using less aggressive bits. He is not faced with the task of
keeping the WOB in a very narrow operating range, too much
causing stall, too little causing inefficient drilling. Repeated
stalls are very damaging to down hole motors and lead to
premature failure. Even with coiled tubing, tripping and
switching out the motor can take six to eight hours and new
stators add to the total cost of the job.
Figure 5 shows graphically the problem of controlling
WOB when there is a large amount of friction between the coil
and the well bore. The numbers are taken from the same well
used as the case history. Consider what would happen if the
bit was so aggressive that 1,000lbf WOB would result in a
motor stall. The friction drag in the well at these low WOB
values is of the order of 4,000lbf. The problem is that this
frictional drag is not constant. It would not be uncommon for
the drag to vary by 30% between static and dynamic
conditions. 30% of 4,000lbf is 1,200lbf. The WOB then may
vary by as much as 1,200lb during what is thought to be
steady drilling conditions. A range of 1,200lbf in this example
would take the bit from not drilling at all to full-blown stall! A
bit this aggressive cannot be used to drill in a high friction Figure 6 Natural diamond Bit
environment. This is why the PDC bit did not make hole
effectively in the case study. Conversely, the natural diamond Tri-cone bits are also low torque and not prone to grab, so
bit drilled consistently. stalling the motor. They are cheaper than diamond bits and can
For high drag completions, a bit with a very wide range of sometimes be an alternative choice, particularly in larger hole
operating WOB values is required. This “WOB tolerant” bit sizes. However, small tri-cone bits, less than 4¾”, typically
will often be natural diamond. A good general diamond size is have less robust bearings and require lower rotational speeds.
6-8 stones per carat (SPC), perhaps using larger stones for Small down hole motors typically run quite fast resulting in
softer formations, and smaller stones for harder formations. 6- added risk of bearing failure and the loss of a cone down hole.
8 SPC was the stone size used for Arc Energy. The primary reason for recommending natural diamond
over tri-cone is that the natural diamond bit requires less
WOB. High WOB requires a larger coil unit at higher cost, or
the use of drill collars which slow down the operation,
particularly when drilling underbalanced. Natural diamond
bits also generate smaller cuttings, which generally make hole
cleaning easier, reducing the requirements for high flow rates
so permitting the use of smaller coil units.
IADC/SPE 62744 REDUCING THE RISK, COMPLEXITY AND COST OF COILED TUBING DRILLING
Job Execution – Third Drilling Sequence
The third sequence produced 500ft of new hole, drilled in a
single trip with a natural diamond bit at an average ROP of
20ft/hr. All the lessons from the first two drilling sequences
were applied to the third sequence, showing what can be
achieved, and what would have been achieved earlier if it were
not for unforeseen well problems.
Motor Issues
The motor used was 21/8” diameter 5/6-lobe 6-stage motor
fitted with a hydrogenated nitrile stator. This motor can run
slowly enough for the PDC bits but can also turn fast enough
for the impregnated diamond and natural diamond bits. It has a
speed range of approximately 200 to 600rpm.
During the second drilling sequence, one stator failed after
only 36 hours in the well. This stator saw many stalls when
struggling with the PDC bit. To make matters worse, the
separator system was not separating the solids from the base
oil drilling fluid effectively. Solids were being circulated
continuously through the motor. This coupled with the
frequent stalls made life very difficult for the motor.
A change was made to the motor for the final drilling
sequence. The motor was fitted with a rotor that was 0.010”
undersize. This reduction in fit between the rotor and stator
reduces the abrasive wear when gritty fluids are pumped. The
risk of a looser fit motor, however, is that it could be more
prone to stalling. Nonetheless, the final motor run with the
undersize rotor proved very successful. The motor was in the
ground for 65 hours, drilling for 25 hours. The likely reason
for the good performance in the adverse conditions was that
the looser fit was partially compensated for by some elastomer
swelling, and also the denser, more viscous drilling fluid
rendered the motor much less likely to stall.
Separator Issues
An effective separation system is normally a requirement,
both in terms of preserving motor life, but also to preserve
underbalance. In the case of Arc Energy a small production
separator vessel was used. This separator proved unable to
separate the very fine cuttings generated by the natural
diamond bit.
The drilling fluid used for the open hole section was a light
hydrocracked mixture of paraffins with negligible aromatic
content. This fluid was chosen, as it was safe, having a flash
point of over 91°C, while being light enough to achieve
underbalance without the extra costs and risks associated with
pumping gas. It was also believed to be non-damaging to the
formation.
During the Arc Energy operation, it actually proved
possible to maintain underbalance without an effective
separation system! Underbalance could be maintained in the
well by virtue of sufficient gas production during drilling, of
the order or 0.7mmscf/day. This was despite the base oil
density rising from 7.6 pounds per gallon (ppg) to 9.4ppg due
to cuttings loading. The motors were modified to render them
5
more tolerant of abrasives passing through them and did not
give any further problems.
Another advantage of very fine cuttings is that they
typically cause less damage to motors and also separation
facilities, relative to larger cuttings. In many cases the ideal
separator package will be a centrifuge when drilling with
natural diamond bits.
Conclusion
This well, deepened by 700ft for Arc Energy, demonstrated
how quick and efficient underbalanced drilling with coiled
tubing can be, as shown in the third drilling sequence. Yet at
the same time it showed how time consuming it can be if the
equipment set up does not match the well conditions.
In this case study, the true well conditions were not known
ahead of time, creating delays in the overall project. However,
using computer modeling, the root causes of the problems
were deduced and solutions were implemented based on a
systems engineering approach involving the completion,
coiled tubing, mud, motor and bit.
To generalize the experience, the following
recommendations are made:
1. If there is any suspicion of junk in the well, run lead
impression blocks prior to commencing coiled tubing
drilling operations. If there is a fish, run a bit designed
to handle junk or a junk barrel.
2. Run computer simulations and correlate them
concurrently with the job to detect problems early and
redesign the job accordingly.
3. Design the job to optimize the efficiency of the total
drilling package as a whole. For example, do not pick
a bit based solely on the rock, a motor based solely on
the bit, or a coil size based solely on the mud. All the
components work together.
4. Use drill bits that do not require fine control down
hole if there is significant friction in the well bore,
These bits will accommodate different WOB values
and different rock properties.
5. When designing a coiled tubing drilling job, consider
combining coil operations with workover rig
operations to achieve the best work package.
This well was drilled with a 2” coil unit. If the high drag
had not been present, this well could have been drilled with
1½” coil. This type of application, using smaller coil units, no
complex directional equipment and easy to operate drill bits
represents a cheap and relatively risk free use of coiled tubing.
The application discussed refers to a vertical well but
could also be applied to extending a deviated or horizontal
well without directional equipment, or even sidetracking a
well, creating a “blind lateral”. This lateral would not be
controlled and its exact position would not be known during
drilling, although it could be surveyed after drilling.
6 LANCE PORTMAN IADC/SPE 62744

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Arc Energy for their help with this paper.

References
1
SPE 27352 “Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal Wells:
Does it Really Eliminate Formation Damage?"” D.B. Bennion,
F.B. Thomas.
2
SPE 60754 “Bit and mill Selection and Design for Coiled
Tubing Applications”, Lance Portman, Bill Short.