SPE/IADC 67823

Through Tubing Well Construction

Gary Moss, SPE, Chris Kuyken, SPE, Frans Maessen, SPE, Shell U.K. Exploration and Production
Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. 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
The Northern Business Unit (NBU) of Shell U.K.
Exploration and Production (Shell EXPRO), operating on
behalf of the Shell / Exxon Mobil co-venture, comprises the
Northern North Sea assets of Brent, Cormorant, Tern, Eider
and Dunlin platforms and several sub-sea developments. These
mature assets with increasingly marginal accumulations to
target have required a broad approach to reduce drilling cost
and or increase the NPV from a well bore. This has been
successfully achieved by a synergetic approach of the
combination of optimising the contracting strategy,
implementation of the Deliver The Limit Philosophy and by
the speedy implementation of novel technology. One of these
technologies is Through Tubing Drilling (TTD). In the NBU
this enabling technology has been applied since 1996 both in
the form of Coiled Tubing Drilling (CTD) as well as Through
Tubing Rotary Drilling (TTRD). This has yielded a total of 8
TTD applications (6 CTD, 2 TTRD) making the NBU a
dominant North Sea TTD operator who has achieved a unique
learning curve.
The objective of this paper is to explain the TTD work
that was performed in the NBU and how this has evolved from
primarily CTD into TTRD. This change took place as a result
of major changes in the business case as well as in reservoir
conditions having a large impact on the risk of drilling these
wells both from a technical and cost perspective. The paper
covers the full NBU TTD Campaign since 1996 but the main
focus will be on the Brent CTD campaign (1999) and NorthCormorant CN18S-5 TTRD well (2000). Key learning from a
business perspective is that the CTD wells in Brent will be
challenging to drill for less than 2.5 million whilst the latest
North Cormorant TTRD well was drilled for 1.5 million with
significant scope for further cost reduction.
Introduction
A number of technologies are considered within NBU
as enabling delivery of technical-limit reserves and production,

not just the safest, fastest and cheapest well. This is done by
means of a technology challenge process. This process is
embedded in the well planning and execution processes
ensuring that for each well on the sequence there has been a
challenge in assuring that the appropriate enhancing
technologies have been considered.
Through tubing drilling is an important enabler to
reduce well costs but has to be considered in the light of other
competing techniques such as cemented completions. This is
another low cost well construction technique whereby the
production string is cemented in place, making this a packer
less completion. For example CN01 cemented completion was
delivered for low cost in 18 days. Yet even with this same well
cost reduction technique the CN18S-5 target could not have
been sanctioned as a project, because the shallow kick off
point required by a conventional hole size would put the well
cost at more than double of a TTRD application.
Through Tubing Drilling is available in two variants
i.e. CTD and TTRD. The intention for TTRD technology is to
integrate its application into normal rig operations, taking
advantage of some of the other cost reduction strategies
including the Deliver The Limit methodology. This would
enable the rig sequence to be maintained and fully utilised for
as long as possible. In areas where concurrent operations (i.e.
in addition to the main rig activity) are possible and where it is
commercially beneficial to accelerate oil production coiled
tubing drilling can be considered.
NBU Through Tubing Drilling History (1996 1998)
Early applications of through tubing drilling
technology particularly CTD aimed to prove the viability of
these operations primarily in the concurrent mode in the tight
constraints of a platform. The four CTD wells from 96-98
gave some confidence that technically it was possible to drill
through tubing wells concurrently on the North-Cormorant and
Brent platforms. It also indicated that given a rolling sequence
of wells the learning curve could bring substantial savings.
(ref. Table 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3).
The main drive in 1998/99 was the development of oil
reserves before the Brent depressurisation project progressed.
In the early years of implementing the depressurisation project,
a large number of well activities had to be performed in a
limited space of time. Using a Coiled Tubing Drilling Unit to
work concurrently with the main rig would help to achieve this
goal. Building on the previous technical successes of coiled
tubing drilling wells a project was initiated for a rolling

G. MOSS, C. KUYKEN, F. MAESSEN

sequence of concurrent coiled tubing drilling2. A contract was

awarded in Q2 1999 for up to eight CTD wells over two years.
The previous CTD wells drilled on NBU platforms represented
the most experience in the North Sea. The main risk with CTD
was identified correctly as differential sticking, but at the time
experience had shown that this could be recovered from by
reducing bottom hole pressure and or flowing the well to get
free.
One TTRD operation was carried out on the Brent
Bravo as part of the development strategy1 . As the activity
levels decline and the main rig has idle periods; it may become
more economic to drill through tubing side-tracks using the
main rigs. This also allowed advantage to be taken of
improvements in slim hole technology and provide a
comparison with CTD. Although a technical success there
were a number of problems during the operations that raised
concerns about exposing the main rig to the risks, such as
down hole failures and exit technology (ref. BB08 details in
tables 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3).
Brent Coiled Tubing Drilling Campaign (1998-1999)
During the course of 1998, an extensive review of
through-tubing drilling opportunities was carried out. Using
displays of well spider plots super-imposed on maps of
undeveloped oil volumes, some 50 wells not expected to play a
major role in the depressurisation project were selected for
further consideration. The mechanical status of these wells was
then examined to determine the feasibility of drilling throughtubing side-tracks in them. A number of wells were eliminated
from this screening process due to, for example, tubing leaks in
plugged off water injectors, or internal diameter restrictions in
older completions. For the remaining 40 or so wells, well path
designs were made in order to assess parameters such as kickoff point, along-hole depth and dogleg severity. Screening
parameters were based conservatively around maximum DLS
of 15 deg / 100 ft and 1,500 ft reach from a +10,000 ft KOP.
This process resulted in a portfolio of around 10 potential
candidates. Sequencing of these candidates had to take into
account issues such as existing production in the wells to be
side-tracked, accessibility concurrent with the main rig, and a
desire to build up experience on some of the easier well paths
first. However uncertainty on subsurface target definition at the
planning stage had resulted in over optimism on the number of
suitable wells. Once targets were more closely defined, reaches
of the planned wells were in excess of 2,000 ft, with much of
the pay towards the toe of the well. This resulted in substantial
reduction of the portfolio of viable wells. Only approximately
5 were achievable with the current state of CTD technology
and all these were at the edge of the envelope (ref. graph 1.6).
Brent Charlie BC15S-1 Operational Summary
The well was spudded on 12th June 99. The objective
of the well was to drill 3- horizontal section and set 2-7/8
liner that would penetrate six slump blocks in the Brent
reservoir (ref. figure 1.1). The CTD work was performed as a
concurrent operation. The equipment used included a CTD unit
with 2-3/8 coils; purpose built coiled tubing tower with

SPE/IADC 67823

knuckle boom crane and hydraulic skidding lifting frame and

CTD mud system.
The well was side-tracked from 9400 ft md and the
open hole section drilled to 9519 ft md. The bottom hole
assembly became stuck and packed off at this depth. After
attempts to disconnect from the BHA, an explosive charge was
used to cut the coil at 9320 ft md (80 ft above the casing exit).
Operations on the well were suspended and the CT surface
equipment rigged down due to main rig scheduling.
The stuck coil incident that caused the operation to be
abandoned was a result of insufficient well bore stability. The
hole collapsed after 119 ft of open hole was drilled because the
mud weight was insufficient to support the inter bedded shales
in the Brent reservoir. The largest risk during the well
planning stage was perceived to be differential sticking. This
was based on the experience of Shell Expro and also on other
overbalanced CTD operations. The selected mud weight of
500 pptf was the lowest mud weight attempted in the Brent
reservoir to date however no well bore instability was initially
expected in this well-track and the primary aim was to avoid
losses as well as avoiding differential sticking. However
substantial losses were encountered almost immediately on
tubing exit. It was concluded that the loss phenomenon was a
result of side tracking near the existing wellbore, which had
already produced large volumes of hydrocarbons. Once the
losses were cured the well drilled ahead exposing a second and
more unstable shale and became irretrievably stuck. After this
event the conclusion was that the mud weight was too low to
manage wellbore stability and that the strategy should be
changed as there was a demonstrated greater chance to recover
from a differential sticking situation than a stuck coil situation
resulting from hole instability. Subsequently the mud weight
for the next well BB20S-2 was adjusted to 600 pptf; the
minimum for shale stability, knowing the risk of differential
sticking was high.
The well was subsequently drilled as BC15S-2 in one
bit run with a rotary steerable assembly at a later stage as a
main rig activity for a cost of 2.2 million. The well was
kicked-off from a window milled in the 9 5/8 casing @ 7778
ft md. An 8 hole section was drilled with 610 pptf OBM
successfully to TD @ 11116 ft. No well bore instability was
encountered as a result of an optimum mud gradient selection
for well bore stability. No losses were encountered despite the
high overbalance of up to 2000 psi. The improvement wrt
losses compared to the CTD well is attributed to two factors.
Firstly as a result of drilling a larger hole size (8 ) better
ECD management could be exercised. Secondly the well track
did not penetrate the reservoir in the existing completion zone
that was already disturbed by large previously produced
volumes. By exiting the original well bore higher up, the well
track could be dropped into non communicated reservoir +/500 ft away from the original exit point.
Brent Bravo BB20S- 2 Operational summary
The inability to drill the Brent reservoir with coil was
confirmed on well BB20S-2, when the coil became

SPE/IADC 67823

THROUGH TUBING WELL CONSTRUCTION

differentially stuck for the third occasion, and the reduced

hydrostatic head planned by circulating base oil induced a
instantaneous bore hole failure and irretrievably stuck coil
again. (ref. Table 1.4 and graph 1.1).
CTD operations on BB20S-2 were preceded by a
phase of well intervention work to prepare the casing exit. This
work involved performing a caliper run and setting a through
tubing whipstock using 1 OD coil. The work was
performed concurrently with a well intervention coiled tubing
unit. Following the well intervention, the 1 unit was rigged
down and replaced with a 2-3/8 coil tubing unit and mud
package as was used on the BC15S-1 well.
Milling the window was completed in two runs
without difficulty. The first drilling run had to be aborted
because of failure of the Flow Activated Circulation Tool
(FACT). This was a specially designed tool to aid hole
cleaning inside the completion. The tool was also used to allow
circulation in the event of a hole pack-off below it as was the
case on BC15S-1 and this would allow a chemical cutter to be
pumped down.
On the second run the BHA became differentially
stuck after drilling 34 ft. It was successfully freed by
displacing the well to base oil. The next drilling run also
became differentially stuck before making any hole. Before the
well could be displaced, the BHA was inadvertently released
following some complex manipulations which were required to
assess the functioning of the release tool as well as determining
the stuck point. At this stage the string was left in hole and was
retrieved after four runs, with the well being displaced to clean
base oil on the final run.
The next drilling run was with a short straight BHA
with minimum hardware to minimise the differential forces
acting across the assembly. This assembly could not pass
through the window. Another milling run was required to
repair the window, which appeared to have been damaged
during the fishing. An extra stabiliser was added to combat the
differential sticking problems. This BHA drilled a further 27 ft
before being pulled out due to the Orienter failure. An identical
BHA was run and drilled 286ft, being pulled out of hole to
change the motor angle. Importantly at this point potentially
unstable shale had been drilled through. With the angle change
a resistivity tool was also added to the string, before being run
in and becoming differentially stuck almost instantaneously
without making any hole.
Attempts to free the string were unsuccessful, and
despite repeated efforts, neither the upper nor the lower release
tool could be functioned. Hole conditions deteriorated after
displacing to base oil and it was decided to rig up wireline and
chemically cut the coil. (ref. table 1.5 & graph 1.2)
Differential sticking was the main problem in this
well, due to the high mud weight required to drill the shales,
causing a large overbalance with the depleted sand formations.
The addition of the stabiliser in conjunction with running the
optimal filter cake and lost circulation properties on the mud

had a significant effect on reducing the differential sticking

problem until the addition of the resistivity tool.
The same target was drilled by the main rig as BB04
S-1/S-2. The well was kicked-off from a window milled in the
9 5/8 casing @ 7839 ft md. The 8 hole section was drilled
to 11066 ft md with 585 ppft mud but this was increased to
605 pptf after encountering shale instability. The 7 liner was
cemented in place at 10479 ft md after having to be pulled
back resulting from getting stuck +/- 300 ft off bottom.
Attempts to continue the well as a 8 / 6 hole section failed
due to shale instability even when using a 650 pptf mud
gradient. The well was side-tracked as BB04S-2 at 10329 ft
md and drilled with a 630 pptf mud to TD at 11621 ft md.
During a clean-out trip, losses were induced whilst reaming.
The losses were successfully cured prior to re- running and
cementing the liner.
Brent CTD campaign review
The two CTD wells drilled in Q3 2000 (BC15S-1 and
BB20S-2 ) both had to be abandoned due to borehole
instability problems.
However a significant number of highlights
demonstrated the advancement of the technology since the
previous campaigns in NBU. Firstly the through tubing exit
technology had matured to a very reliable level, along with a
considerable improvement with the surface equipment and
BHA reliability. The level of associated NPT was very low and
of the same order as conventional side-track technology.
Secondly the HSE record was exemplary being a credit to the
planing and to the offshore crews. A very large amount of
equipment associated to the CTD activity was accommodated
in a very safe manner in a small area. One of the main factors
behind the excellent planning and HSE record was that the
majority of the coil tubing crews were part of the existing
Brent well intervention group, as well as experienced with the
CTD equipment from previous operations. Thirdly the
planning for the BC15S-1 well was performed in a record time
of less than 6 weeks.
In 1998/1998 NBUs key drivers for coil tubing
drilling were to develop concurrent oil (as the main rig was
committed to other work) for a well cost below 2.5 million.
After the learning from 2 CTD wells and as a result of a
changed business environment, the business case for Brent coil
tubing drilling in particular became weak for the following
main reasons:
From a downhole perspective: the downhole environment
is characterised by accelerated depletion whereby there is
an incompatibility between (reducing) mud gradient
required for reservoir pressure and the remaining fixed
and often much higher gradient for shale stability. The
consequential increased risk of differential sticking and
hole cleaning difficulties when stability problems have
been induced cannot be managed with current coil tubing
technology.

From an oil production perspective : as a result of a lower

than planned voidage well requirement for the

G. MOSS, C. KUYKEN, F. MAESSEN

SPE/IADC 67823

depressurisation project the main rigs were freed-up for oil

generating activities eliminating the need for concurrent
oil generating activities.
From a scheduling perspective : A large concurrent
window of the order of 60 days is required. Significant
reduced well timings of main rig activities as a result of
the Deliver The Limit Philosophy implementation have
increased the scheduling limitation and lessened the
opportunity to operate concurrent CTD.
From a cost perspective: The current NBU main rig
operating costs are roughly similar to the concurrent
coiled tubing operation; the value added is concurrent oil
only. The projected cost of both CTD wells was over plan,
even if both operations had recovered form the sticking
incidences. The amount of expenditure present that has
very limited scope to be influenced by well engineering
(e.g. platform upgrade requirements) with the existing cost
structure is a large percentage of the overall well costs.
With a significant increase in operating performance as a
result of a learning curve the total well cost was still
unlikely to be below 2.0 million.

1.3). TTRD also demonstrated the improved hole cleaning and

overpull capabilities, as well as demonstrating the benefits of
using bi-centre bits to reduce ECDs and improve cementing
performance. The potential goal with the current rig cost
structure would be to deliver a less than 1 million TTRD
well. However the full benefits will only materialise with a
sustained campaign of wells to develop a learning curve.

In the short term the main rigs have the advantage to access
small accumulations either with a conventional side-track or
with TTRD. The risks associated with TTRD are higher than
conventional drilling and may be comparable to CTD; it
should therefore not be viewed as the total solution to the
problems experienced on BC15S-1 and BB20S-2. Although
drill pipe can manage differential pressure better than coil, its
ability to recover once stuck is limited. Each well will have to
be considered on an individual risked cost basis. This is best
illustrated by well BD46S-3. The well was drilled as a
conventional 6 hole side-track but had been screened both as
a CTD and a TTRD well. Planned in the through tubing mode
it would have been one of the longest through tubing wells
drilled (14,999 ft), with a KOP at 12690 ft md and a DLS of
25 degrees / 100 ft, clearly outside the coil tubing drilling
envelope (ref. graph 1.6). Drag was too close to the limits for
CTD and TTRD, as was torque for TTRD. Critically the
reservoir pay was only in the last 500 ft of the well trajectory
hence a high risk activity considering the uncertainty of the
modelling and the fact that most overbalanced CTD work
ended prematurely without reaching planned TD.

CN18S-5 TTRD Operations summary

Operations started on the North Cormorant on the 23rd May
2000 while the rig was still confined to another slot due to a
concurrent operation. Picking up the drill pipe and making up
the BOP was performed off-line prior to skidding. The well
was also abandoned off line through the tree with cement. At
the time this was recognised as a risk as through bore access
was not confirmed until the rig was ready run the drill string.
After an initial drift run confirmed cement stringers above the
KOP, the cement was dressed off to 10,000 ft md and a DW1
Packer set at 9900 ft as a whip stock anchor. The anchor
keyway was measured with a wireline Gyro and whipstock set
on drillpipe with the well displaced to OBM at this point. The
next run for milling the window was completed in 9hours of
milling.

Through Tubing Rotary Drilling applications (2000)

As a direct result on the work done in follow up to the Brent
CTD campaign, through tubing applications were looked at
with the main rig. The change in rig rates had made this more
commercially attractive, as had the improvements and learning
gained from the CTD work, such as casing exits. Given that
extensive concurrent operations were not possible due to rig
scheduling, the TTRD option was considered lower risk. The
cost profiles highlight this, but in summary the open hole could
be exposed at a lower cost with the rig than with the concurrent
CTD equipment package. (Ref. graphs 1.3 & 1.4). The TTRD
well could be substantially improved upon by using a simple
well intervention equipment package to carry out some
preparation work concurrently.
Current cost estimates for TTRD are in the order of 1.0.1.5 million. CN18S-5 was drilled for 1.5 million (ref. table

The planning for CN18S-5 involved a lot of information

sharing with other operators to get a broader picture of the
present state of TTRD technology and equipment reliability.
Part of the problems in planning such a project is the lack of
data from previous operations, to aid in risk management of the
well. Other than the well selection methodology mentioned
previously a database of other TTRD and CTD wells, was
collated. This included drilling depth, max DLS, exit system
used etc so that the well planned could be put in context of
what had been achieved previously. Two graphical
presentations are shown which put the CTD wells attempted in
the Brent campaign and the recent CN18S-5 TTRD. (ref graph
1.5 & 1.6) into perspective.

The first drilling assembly was planned to maintain

inclination and turn and drop at 10 degrees / 100 ft from KOP
eventually lining up with the top reservoir target. At this point
there was a planned trip to replace the motor and AKO setting
for a rotary tangent section. The minimum pass through for the
completion was 3.9 but a conventional 3.75 bit produced too
high an ECD to make the well drillable. A 3-3/4X 4-1/8 bicentre bit was run primarily to reduce the ECD, but this would
also improve the quality of the cement job with the planned 27/8 liner. The conservative directional planning for the well
was based around uncertainty regarding the Bi-centre bit
directional performance.
The first drilling BHA drilled from 9927 ft to 10135
ft at which point it was pulled due to excessive stalling and it
was proving impossible to follow the desired well trajectory.
Although the first BHA was designed to produce 10 degree /
100 ft with a 1.5 degree bend this was not achieved. The
resultant effect meant that increasing the dogleg of 15 / 20
degrees / 100 ft would be required to penetrate the original
targets. A change to a more aggressive bend at 2.1 degree and

SPE/IADC 67823

THROUGH TUBING WELL CONSTRUCTION

more powerful motor that was still able to rotate, dramatically

changed the ultimate outcome of the well. Although ROP was
lower than expected during the full drilling of the well, the
ability to steer with the bi-centre bit was proved, with the
second BHA performing much better. Several benefits were
observed immediately, these ranged from increased ROP, more
controllable toolface, greater differential pressure across the
motor and the ability to produce the desired dogleg. Some
periodic problems were observed with the MWD signal that
slowed drilling considerably and increased the risk of
differential sticking while attempting to get a valid survey.
Both targets were eventually hit after some aggressive steering
with the same assembly. TD was called early for geological
reasons but the second assembly had drilled 1,444 ft in 160
hours with both the motor and bit in excellent condition. (ref
fig 1.2).
The 2-7/8 liner was run on tubing as the large
internal upset on the 2-7/8 WT23 drillpipe was considered as
a risk to successful cementing. The increase in inclination, up
to 74 degrees, as a result of the directional control from the
first BHA limited the chance of getting down to wireline
perforate. An unsuccessful drift run confirmed this and the rig
was skidded off the well. The well was later successfully
perforated concurrently with coiled tubing with 1.56 guns.
(ref. fig 1.2).
Comparisons are difficult between CN18S-5 and the Brent
CTD wells because of the different geology and reservoir
pressures, but there are a number of major learning points that
point towards the weakness of overbalance coiled tubing
drilling. The most important ones are :

The TTRD wells had an order of magnitude better hole

cleaning than the CTD wells, estimating some 70 % of the
cuttings were recovered and measured from CN18S-5.
The overpulls, probably due to hole cleaning and not
differential, experienced on the TTRD well, required more
than 30,000 lbs to free and would have resulted in losing
the CTD BHA.

Lessons Learnt & Way Forward

We have learned that CTD in a Brent downhole
environment is too challenging.
This environment is
characterised by accelerated depletion whereby there is an
incompatibility between (reducing) mud gradient required for
reservoir pressure and the (remaining fixed and much higher)
gradient for shale stability. The consequential increased risk of
differential sticking cannot be managed with current coil
tubing technology. Effective underbalancing of the well could
not be achieved.
This aspect, together with the reduced well cost for a
main rig side-track, additional rig capacity available from the
reduced number of original planned voidage wells, and the
much faster well times for main rig activities making
concurrent scheduling very difficult, has made the business
case for coil tubing drilling in Brent very weak.

The initial business case for concurrent CTD was

based on a large number of potential targets within 1500 ft.
Once matured the majority of the targets extended beyond this
figure and fell outside the coil tubing drilling operations
envelope.
The ability of TTRD to handle the drilling
environment in the Brent has not been proved conclusively, but
in the authors opinion it would be more able to handle the
risks. The two TTRD wells performed by NBU have indicated
the ability of conventional rotary pipe to better handle the hole
cleaning and differential sticking risks. Combining this with
the lower time and cost to expose the open hole and any
associated drilling problems make the strategy lower risk.
Utilising the rig and the existing crew in developing
these reserves with TTRD is the best option while the rigs
remain.
The intention is to make TTRD just another type of
development strategy, and add it to the portfolio of capabilities
of the main rigs. The imperative is to mature the technology
and gain confidence in its application.
Nomenclature
CTD
Coiled Tubing Drilling
TTRD Through Tubing Rotary Drilling
TTD
Through Tubing Drilling
NBU Northern Business Unit
BOP
Blow Out Preventer
KOP
Kick off Point
NPT
None Productive Time
DTL
Deliver The Limit
DLS
Dog leg severity
MD
Measured Depth
TVD
True Vertical Depth
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
NPV
Net Present Value
DP
Drill Pipe
CT
Coiled Tubing
OH
Open Hole
pptf
Pounds per thousand foot (gradient)
Acknowledgements
We thank Shell U.K. Exploration and Production and Exxon
Mobil Exploration and Production U.K. Ltd for permission to
publish. We also acknowledge the contribution of many
colleagues both within Shell Expro Northern Business Unit
Brent and North Cormorant Well Engineering and Sub-Surface
Teams as well as within the Service Provider Companies and
the external through tubing drilling network colleagues
involved for their valuable contributions.
References
1. I.J Scott,SPE & F.J Black, SPE Deutag Overseas (Curacao)
N.V: Slim-Hole Sidetrack Cuts Costs by 50%, paper
SPE/IADC 50578.
2. J.J. Gallagher, SPE, D.M. Kemshell, SPE, S.R. Taylor, SPE,
R.J. Mitro Brent Field Depressurisation Management, paper
SPE 56973 presented at Offshore Europe Conference
Aberdeen, Scotland , 7 9 September 1999.

G. MOSS, C. KUYKEN, F. MAESSEN

SPE/IADC 67823

TABLE 1.1 NBU THROUGH TUBING DRILLING SUMMARY

Well Name Start Date
CN-30
Jan'96
BD-38
Aug'96
BD-46
Jan'97
CN-31
May'97
BB08
Jan'98
BC-15
June'99
BB-20
Aug'99
CN18
May'00

hole size
3.875
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.875
3.75
4.125
4.125

Overbalance Footage Drilled Sticking Mechanism Activity when Stuck

Mud System
1700 psi
891 ft
Differential
Drilling
LTOBM585 pptf
2150 psi
1487 ft
Differential
Drilling
LTOBM615 pptf
2150 psi
1708 ft
Differential
Drilling
LTOBM615 pptf
1300 psi
234 ft
Differential
Drilling
K-Formate 645 pptf
?
1370ft
N/A
W/L logging
LTOBM670 pptf
2600 psi
111 ft
Collapse
Drilling
POBM500 pptf
2100 psi
356 ft
Differential / Collapse
Drilling
LTOBM600 pptf
1600psi
1674ft
None
None
LTOBM620pptf

TABLE 1.2 NBU THROUGH TUBING DIRECTIONAL SUMMARY

KOP

MD ft
TVD ft
inc (deg)
Azi (deg)

CN-30s5
12970
9229
74.8
123.2

BD-38s1
9295
8718
28
123.3

BD-46s1
10100
9185
29.9
58.9

CN-31s2
10363
9485
41.5
54.8

BB-08s2
9100
7999
45.1
218.2

BC-15s1
9400
8675
56.6
92.14

BB-20s2
10765
8743
91.72
27

CN18s5*
9875
8273
66.2
141.4

Plan TD

MD ft
TVD ft
inc (deg)
Azi (deg)

14151
9612
54.3
128.9

11048
9627
59.9
90.3

11808
9467
84.8
67.92

10857
10577
90
75

10528
8878
54.2
150.3

11240
8841
88.8
106.2

12418
8883
90
56.4

11730
9573
35.3
225

Actual TD

MD (ft)
TVD (ft)
inc (deg)
Azi (deg)

13360
9277
86.3
127.7

11315
9617
65
95

11712
9460
83
65

10563
9581
86.6
73.3

10458
8842
48.93
142.8

9519
8726
63
107

11101
8849
68.9
71.5

11579
9448
28.2
242.3

Plan Max

inc (deg)
DLS (deg/100ft)

85.4
21.1

61.18
15

73
20

90
34

54.2
12.3

88.8
16

90
20

67.2
10.4

Actual Max

Inc (deg)
DLS (deg/100ft)

86.8
21.2

85
14

70
22

76
33

56.1
11.7

63
8

68.9
26.1

75.1
14.8

* CN18 TD cut short for geological reasons

TABLE 1.3 NBU THROUGH TUBING COST/TIME SUMMARY

Well Name

Actual Cost

Planned Cost

Planned Prod.

Days - Actual

CN-30

CTD

2,540,952

1,884,000

2.30 MMstb

96.8 days

BD-38

CTD

3,967,803

2,954,353

0.80 MMstb

79.7 days

BD-46

CTD

3,326,332

2,958,399

1.70 MMstb

77.8 days

CN-31

CTD

2,460,000

2,500,000

W/I

55.7 days

BB-08

TTRD

3,064,000

1,682,000

1.50 MMstb

89.8 days

BC-15*

CTD

2,221,200

2,116,740

0.95 MMstb

48.6 days

BB-20*

CTD

2,800,000

2,648,000

0.88 MMstb

60.0 days

CN18

TTRD

1,500,000

1,500,000

0.93 MMstb

28.3 days

* Well Abandoned with stuck coil

SPE/IADC 67823

THROUGH TUBING WELL CONSTRUCTION

Fig 1.1 BC15 Reservoir profile showing complex slum blocks

TABLE 1.4 BC15 TIMING SUMMARY

Rig up and test Equipment

Clean up orientate- run w/stock
Mill Window
Drill 3-3/4" Sidetrack
2 7/8" liner/DB packer/clean up

Actual
(days)
16.85
1.54
3.25

Time Recorded NPT

(days)
2.96
0.35
0.59
15.23

Planned days (Including

NPT)
14.00
4.69
5.77
18.06
9.12

GRAPH 1.1

20

Actual Time

Recorded NPT

Planned (Including NPT)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

2 7/8" liner/DB
packer/clean up

Drill 3-3/4"
Sidetrack

Mill Window

Clean up
orientate- run
w/stock

Rig up and test

Equipment

% NPT(Actual)
18
23
18

G. MOSS, C. KUYKEN, F. MAESSEN

SPE/IADC 67823

TABLE 1.5 BB20S-2 TIMING SUMMARY

Rig up and test Equipment

Actual (days)
13.92

Recorded NPT(days)
0.00

Planned (Including NPT)

14.00

NPT % Actual
0

Mill Window

5.35

0.52

6.70

10

Drill 4-1/8" Sidetrack

28.33

16.50

18.88

2 7/8" liner/DB packer/clean up

0.00

0.00

8.36

Perforation & Hand over

0.00

0.00

11.43

GRAPH 1.2

Actual

Recorded NPT

Planned (Including NPT)

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00

GRAPH 1.3
BC15 CTD COST PROFILE

Perforation &
Hand over

2 7/8"
liner/DB
packer/clean
up

Drill 4-1/8"
Sidetrack

Mill Window

Rig up and
test
Equipment

0.00

GRAPH 1.4
CN18 TTRD COST PROFILE

Cumulative cost

Cumulative cost

Lost BHA

2,500,000

Rig Skid

N.B 3days of rig up not included in well

costs until rig able to skid over well

2,500,000
Rig Required

2,000,000

1,000,000

500,000

Drill 4-1/8" OH

500,000

Days
0

Clean up & Drift

Rig up Whipstock

1,500,000

Run & Cement Liner

1,000,000

Drilling

Mill Window

Whipstock

1,500,000

Milling

2,000,000

Rig Up

49

Days

29

SPE/IADC 67823

THROUGH TUBING WELL CONSTRUCTION

GRAPH 1.5 TTRD DATA BASE

FOOTAGE DRILLED VS TOTAL DEPTH

GRAPH 1.6 CTD DATA BASE

A. FOOTAGE DRILLED VS TOTAL DEPTH
B. TVD VS HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT

T TR D D ata Base

Footage Drilled vsTotalDepth (ft)

Fo o tag e Dr illed
0

Footage Drilled (ft)

10 00 2 00 0 3 00 0 40 00 50 00 60 00 7 000 8 00 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0
1,000

2 000

2,000
4 000

3,000
4,000

6 000

5,000

M ostBrenttargets
defined at2000-3000ft
O H length

10 00 0

CN 18S5

Total Depth

6,000
8 000

7,000
8,000

12,000
13,000

16 00 0

14,000
15,000
18 00 0

BC15

10,000
11,000

14 00 0

Plan
PDO Yibal

9,000
12 00 0

Actual

BB20

10

G. MOSS, C. KUYKEN, F. MAESSEN

SPE/IADC 67823

Fig 1.2 Directional summary of CN18S-5 TTRD

C N 1 8 s5 T T R D D ir e c tio n a l R e v ie w

M o to r C ha n ge at 10 1 35 ft M D 1 .50 d eg /be nd to 2 .1d e g b en d

2600

-2 4 0 0

2800

PL AN V IEW

3000

3200

-2 4 0 0

Sc ale (1 i n = 200 feet )

T ie -In
Ve rtic al S ecti on V iew

8000
-2 6 0 0
T ie -In 6 6 .2 7

-2 6 0 0

9900 M D

8500
-2 8 0 0

-2 8 0 0
T o p B re n t (0 0 0 4 0 4 )

9000

T o p B re n t (0 0 0 4 0 4 )

CN18s4

-3 0 0 0

-3 0 0 0
T o p B re n t v 2

B a s e B re n t (0 0 0 4 0 4 )
B a s e B re n t (0 0 0 4 0 4 )
)

9500
-3 2 0 0

P ro p o s e d T D3 5 .3 1 1 1 7 3 0 M D
A c tu a l T D2 8 .7 1 1 1 5 7 9 f t

P ro p o s a l
S u rv e y

-3 2 0 0

B a s e B re n t

T D cu t sh o rt for
G e o lo g ica l rea son s

10000

TD

2500

3000

3500

4000

-3 4 0 0

-3 4 0 0

2600

B IT P E R F R O M A N C E H u g he s C h riste nse n B i-c en tre ST R W D 3 2 43 .25 (3-3/4 * 4 -1 /8 )

K O P -1 0 13 5 ft (20 8 ft)
G rad e P ilo t 0 0 N o A X 1 N o B H A
R eam e r W in g 0 0 N o A X 1 N o B H A
1 01 3 5ft-1 1 57 9 ft (14 4 4ft) G ra d e P ilot 01 W T G X 1 N o T D
R ea m e r W in g 0 2 W T G X 2 C T T D

2800

3000

3200

EA ST > >>

GRAPH 1.7 TIME DEPTH CURVE FOR CN18S-5 TTRD

N o r th C o r m o r a n t

C N 1 8 s 5 - T T R D S id e tr a c k

T im e V s D e p th
D a te
1 9 /0 5

2 4 /0 5

2 9 /0 5

0 3 /0 6

0 8 /0 6

1 3 /0 6

1 8 /0 6

2 3 /0 6

2 8 /0 6

9500
R ig u n a b le to s k id o v e r
w e ll d u e to c o n c u r r e n t
ops

M o to r C h a n g e 1 .5 d e g b e n d
to 2 .1 d e g b e n d

Best
W E P E P P la n
A c tu a l

10000

Drilled Depth (feet)

C o n tin g e n c y B H A
C hange

10500

C T w e ll In te r v e n tio n
p o s s ib le f o r W e ll
p r e p e r a tio n
R O P 3 5 0 f t/d a y

T D c u t s h o r t f o r g e o lo g ic a l
re a s o n

11000

11500

12000

B e s t tim e b a s e d o n
th e o r e tic a l p e r f o r m a n c e .
E s t W e ll C o s t + - 9 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 - 1 /2 D a y s f o r
L o g g in g in p la n

2 d a ys fo r C T
p e r f o r a tin g in p la n