SPE 87240
Technical Challenges Encountered During Coiled Tubing Underbalanced
Drilling In Oman
T Hoekstra, CEng; Chris Hopkins CEng, CPhys; Petroleum Development of Oman,
A Fleck, SPE; G Bell, CEng.; Baker Hughes INTEQ.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
th
This paper was selected for presentation at the 9 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 15-18 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC Program Committee following
review of the information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper as presented have not been reviewed by the ADIPEC and are subject to
correction by author(s). The material as presented does not necessarily reflect any
position of the ADIPEC or its members. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain
conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
to ADIPEC Coordinator, GEC, P.O. Box 5546, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Fax 009712-4446135.
Abstract
This paper describes two of the major technical
achievements during the first year of operation of a new,
purpose built, underbalanced (UB) coiled tubing drilling
unit (CTDU).
The unit is designed to drill sidetracks and extensions
to existing wells to improve reservoir drainage. The
package is fully self-contained, and uses native crude as
the primary drilling fluid. Natural gas injection through
conventional gas lift mandrels is used to maintain
underbalanced conditions. The unit was built during 1998
and mobilised from the USA to Oman. Following final
construction work and commissioning, it drilled its first
well during February 1999.
This paper focuses mainly on two technical areas.
Firstly, the world-record-breaking extended reach wells,
including the challenges faced to achieve them. Secondly,
the continuing project to minimise high water cut during
initial production following workover. Details of
operations are included, with an overview of drilling
performance for the wells drilled in the first year of
operation.
After 6 months of operation it was concluded that the
production from slim hole wells drilled by the CTDU and
conventional rigs was not as expected (high water cut).
During this period a major review of the slim hole
campaign took place, concentrating on cement placement
around the 2-7/8” liner and stimulation of the reservoir
after perforating. This resulted in a major improvement of
production and ultimately the continuation of the slim hole
project.
The operator has drilled 21 wells to date with the
CTDU and 9 more wells are planned for the year 2000.
Technical contributions include:
• Improved procedures and techniques for cement
placement around a 2 7/8” liner run on coiled tubing.
• World Record for longest horizontal section drilled
with a coiled tubing (beaten twice - now at 1457m).
• Underbalanced drilling technology applied safely and
successfully.
Introduction
Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) operates over 90
fields in Oman. Total production is around 835,000
bbls/day, of which approximately 25% is produced from
the Yibal field. This field lies in the northeastern part of
Oman. It is a water-driven carbonate reservoir. Reservoir
pressure is supported by water injection and oil flows to
surface with the aid of gas lift.
Discovered in the early sixties, Yibal has a surface
infrastructure of over 440 wells that branch out into a
multitude of well conduits subsurface. It is recognised in
Yibal that the number of existing vertical wells available
for side-tracking will decline. In addition, the reservoir
model shows that further development using conventional
side-track technology will leave considerable volumes of
unswept oil in small isolated pockets. The current phase in
the Yibal field development is to utilise existing well bores
to target these small oil reserves, both by conventional
sidetracks and by sidetracks from previous side-tracks
using ultra-slim-hole (USH) technology.
Unit Specifications. The drilling unit is a highly mobile
hybrid coiled tubing drilling rig (Figure 1). It has the
capacity to pull completions, drill side-tracks and
extensions using coiled tubing and run new completion
tubulars. The package is mobilised on five heavy desert
trailers for Rig, CTD reel, Power Plant, Mud Pumps and
Underbalanced Drilling Fluids Processing Unit. Additional
trailers carry CT work reels, maintenance workshops,
office and living accommodation and storage tanks.
The drill floor incorporates a support frame for a
100,000 lbs capacity CT injector. The main pipe storage
reel is a specialised 2-3/8” drum designed for use with an
unsupported CT loop instead of a conventional guide arch.
4
The reel has capacity for 5000m of 2-3/8” e-line CT. Two
further work reels for standard (no e-line) 2-3/8” and 1-¾”
CT are also provided.
For underbalanced drilling with crude oil, the process
2 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN
package consists of settling/storage tanks, transfer pumps
and high pressure pumps (Figure 2). On the return side,
the flow is first fed through de-sanding hydro-cyclones
before passing through a choke to a 3-phase separator. Gas
from the separator is fed to a remote flare. Water is
collected and fed to a holding tank for discharge to the
production flow-line. Oil is transferred to the crude settling
tank for processing and then returned to the HP pumps.
Export pumps are provided to allow for transfer of excess
produced oil to the production flow-line.
The complete unit is operated from a central control
cabin mounted at the rig floor. This cabin is a pressurised
unit, housing the main control computers and interfaces to
systems in hazardous areas. Control of the injector, reel
and mud pumps is via a control network with
programmable logic controllers. Joystick and touch screen
man-machine interfaces are used with advanced graphical
process displays.
Drilling Bottom Hole Assembly. To compliment the
features of the surface equipment, an integrated, modular
CT drilling and evaluation bottom hole assembly (BHA)
was selected. (Figure 3). This 3-1/8” assembly has a bi-
directional communication link using wireline telemetry.
The BHA consists of 9 main sections – CT connector,
upper quick connector with casing collar locator, double
ball valve deployment sub, resistivity tool, lower quick
connector, steering system, orienter, release tool and
adjustable bent housing motor. The integrated sensor
package includes multiple propagation resistivity (MPR) (4
compensated measurements for deep investigation),
gamma ray, annular pressure, internal tool pressure,
weight on bit and temperature.
To control the well bore trajectory, the orienting tool is
used to turn the bent housing motor. Inclination, azimuth
and tool face setting data are transmitted to the graphical
displays in the control cabin. The Directional Driller can
adjust the tool face while drilling via a computer interface.
Well Programme Outline. The unit was moved to the first
well in February 1999 for final acceptance testing. The
first operational run into the well was completed on 25th
February 1999.
The generic scope of work for the unit is based on 4 ½”
through-tubing re-entries (Figure 4). A window is milled
in the horizontal section of the 4 ½” liner at a TVD of
approximately 1400m. A 3 ¾” hole is drilled
underbalanced horizontally through the pay zone and a 2-
7/8” liner is run and cemented. To access the target zones,
1-9/16” perforating guns are used and the perforations are
then acidised.
Prior to the unit moving onto location and entering the
well, a well pulling hoist establishes the integrity of the
completion and annuli.
Extended Reach Drilling
Drilling in the Yibal field has developed in 4 distinct
phases. First, wells were drilled vertically in a ‘5-spot’
SPE 87240
configuration (4 producers surrounding 1 injector). This
was later extended to include 4 additional producers (‘9-
spot’ configuration). Subsequent infill drilling increased
the drainage around the injection wells and added injectors
to selected areas. The current, 4th phase involves drilling
horizontal sidetracks from existing wells. Conventional
sidetracks involve drilling 8 ½” hole from the 9-5/8”
casing, exiting in the shales overlying the pay zone.
With the build-up section lined, a 6-1/8” horizontal
section was drilled and lined with 4 ½” production liner.
This was later extended to include ultra slim holes (USH)
exiting from existing horizontal 4 ½” liners. A typical well
schematic is shown in Figure 4. The majority of the USH
sidetracks have been drilled with coiled tubing. Typically,
rotary ultra slim hole wells had been limited to a reach of
850m.
Project Planning. The well density complicates further
development drilling. Using a directional drilling database
covering over 440 wells, and a well-planning software
package, the initial well proposal is prepared. Sometimes,
the identified targets could not be accessed from near-by
wells due to current production requirements or problems
with candidate well completions or casing. Thus it was
necessary to tap these reserves from remote wells. This
increased the required reach to beyond the typical USH
side-track length of approximately 1000m. To test the
maximum extension achievable with the CTDU, a long
sidetrack was planned. Given the fact that the existing
world record horizontal reach on coiled tubing was
approximately 1000 meters, it was evident that thorough
up-front engineering was required to maximise the chances
of success. The following technical issues were looked at:
• Sliding friction is the main limiting factor for
transferring weight to the bit in extended reach coil
operations. It is of the utmost importance to optimise
the well trajectory accordingly. Dogleg severities (DLS)
of less than 10 deg/30m are planned. The situation is
complicated by the existence of nearby wells and
collision risk analysis is essential. Often, as many as 5
wells are identified as collision risks. Collision risks
with a separation factor of 2.0 or less are identified and
detailed reports prepared identifying the predicted
location of minimum separation. Figure 5 shows a
horizontal section for a typical sidetrack.
• Drilling lubricants were used to reduce friction along
the well bore. Tests on previous wells showed that
down hole friction factors could be reduced by
approximately 0.04.
• Simulations were carried out to model the forces
involved in the drilling, liner running and liner clean
out phases of the programme.
• The simulations showed, assuming that lower friction
factors would be achieved, sidetracks of 1500m
horizontal length would just be achievable. The
limiting factor was usually cleaning out the liner with
the 1 ¾” CT rather than the drilling operation.
Addition of drill collars would be required in the (CT)
SPE 87240 HOEKSTRA, HOPKINS, FLECK, BELL
liner running string to provide sufficient weight to get
the liner to bottom.
Well 12. Well 12 was drilled in 1986 and developed with a
horizontal sidetrack in 1997. An USH sidetrack was
proposed to drain oil from an area identified by the
reservoir model as having significant quantities of
undeveloped oil. The sidetrack was planned to have a
horizontal length of 1200m, with the 4 ½” casing exit
planned for 1600mAHD and a TD of 2800mAHD.
Well 12 – Drilling phase time breakdown.
Operation Time (hrs)
Make up and RIH directional assy. 3.50
RIH
Drill 1640 to 2609m. Commence 151.5
with water and gas lift, change to
crude oil with gas lift.
POOH – add thruster 10.00
Drill 2609 to 2621m 8.75
POOH – remove thruster 8.75
Drill 2621 to 2808m, change over to 78.00
overbalanced mode. Drill with water
and add lubricants.
Drill 2808 to 2873m (TD) 9.00
POOH and lay down tools. 3.00
TOTAL TIME 272.5hrs,
11.35days
Drilling phase. Drilling this section took over 6 days
longer than planned. Drilling progress was significantly
slower than on previous wells with typical ROPs in the
range 2 to 10 m/hr as opposed to 40 to 50 m/hr
experienced on previous wells. The UB drilling system is
designed to re-circulate produced crude oil with an initial
‘charge’ brought in by road tanker. During initial stages of
this sidetrack, significant water production was
encountered. This required import of further supplies of
crude by road, and in the meantime drilling was continued
with dehydration water (DHW), which contributed to a
lack of lubricity in the well bore. Also, in drilling close to
the interface between the production reservoir and the
overlying shales, great care must be taken to identify the
signs of shale penetration. These are usually reduced ROP,
GR response and overpulls on picking up off bottom. With
slow progress, the concern was that the well bore was
closer to the shales than planned.
On several occasions, significant overpulls were
experienced; indicating potential reservoir exits, although
only one stuck pipe incident was recorded. The drilling
parameters used throughout drilling the well remained
fairly consistent: weight on bit ranged from 1.2 kdaN to as
low as 0.2 kdaN towards the end of the well; pump rates
were 350-400 l/min with internal string pressures in the
25,000 to 30,000 kPa range. Tubing pick-up weights
remained fairly predictable, increasing from 7,650 daN to
11,000 daN at the end of the well bore. Slack-off weights
also closely followed the load/stress model, which
3
predicted surface weights in the region of 5,000 to 6,000
daN. At the end of the well, however, weight transfer to
the bit was extremely difficult, and the surface weight fell
below zero (snubbing). It was frequently necessary to pick
up off bottom and ‘spud’ the assembly.
Considerable changes were required in the gas injection
rates (with a resulting change in wellhead pressure (WHP))
and the amount of lubricating fluid added to the drilling
fluid. Gas injection rates varied from 9,000 m3/day to
22,000 m3/day and WHP fluctuated from as low as 500
kPa to as high as 1,600 kPa. It is interesting to note that
the dynamic bottom hole pressure (BHP) stayed
remarkably constant and unusually high, in the 15,800 to
16,000 kPa range.
The addition of lubricant to the fluid being pumped
into the well improved drilling rates, but no direct
relationship can be drawn between the amounts and
concentration of lubricant used and penetration rates. It
was, under the underbalanced conditions, impossible to
predict just where in the well bore the lubricant was
actually being placed. Two types of lubricants were tried,
one which was water-soluble and another which was not
water-soluble. Due to unavailability of the water-soluble
kind, the non-soluble friction reduction agent was
dispersed into the water based mud. This unfortunately
gave several surface problems in the tank system due to the
formation of emulsions.
The final well TD was called at 2873 mAHD, a world
record for CTD of 1233m horizontal section achieved
(Figure 6).
Completion operations. Running the liner was
simulated with the modelling software to calculate the
required number and position of drill collars. Similarly, the
model was used to check that the 1 ¾” CT could clean out
the liner without exceeding load and stress limits.
A 1300m 2-7/8” liner was run into the drilled sidetrack
with 36 joints of 3 ½” PAC drill pipe and 37 joints of 3
1/8” drill collars added to the running string. The liner was
run to depth without any significant hold-up and without
the addition of any lubricant.
Due to problems encountered during the cementing
operations, the well was not perforated. A cement bond log
showed poor zonal isolation over the target sections, and it
was decided to suspended the well to await remedial
intervention and perforation / acidisation. No subsequent
production results are available for this well.
Well 16. Well 16 was drilled as a vertical well in 1981 and
subsequently sidetracked in 1995. Again, an USH sidetrack
was proposed to drain oil from a position where the
reservoir model identified significant undeveloped oil. The
sidetrack was proposed with the 4 ½” casing exit at
approximately 1550mAHD and a target depth of
2914mAHD, giving a total drilled length of over 1360
mAHD
Drilling phase. The well was initially drilled with
crude oil and gas lift at approximately 30,000 m3/day.
With restricted crude supplies and no produced oil early in
4 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN
the sidetrack, subsequent stages of the well were drilled
using produced formation water. Where drilling was
difficult, drilling lubricants were added to the drill water;
crude oil was pumped when available.
After 735m drilling, the overlying shale was
penetrated. As well as the indications previously
mentioned, some signs of shale were noted in the produced
cuttings. It was decided to abandon this section of the well
and an abandonment packer was run. The inflatable packer
became stuck in the well bore, however, and during
attempts to release it, the coiled tubing parted at +/- 100m
below the injector. This was subsequently shown to be due
to a material defect.
The CTDU was switched to conventional pipe
operations and the lost pipe and packer running tools
recovered to surface.
Drilling recommenced with produced water as the
drilling fluid. Progress was slow and frequent wiper trips
were made. Again, signs of shale were noted and the
drilling assembly became stuck in the hole. Crude oil was
pumped and the tools worked free. Drilling continued
slowly with intermittent additions of lubricant and crude to
the fluid system. Gel sweeps and wiper trips every 50 to
70m were used to assist in removal of cuttings. The final
250m of the sidetrack from 2750 to 3001m MD took over
50 hours to complete.
Well 16 – Drilling phase time breakdown.
Operation Time (hrs)
Make up and RIH directional assy. 9.00
Drill 1546 to 1791m 7.75
Lost signal – POOH and c/o tools 6.50
Drill 1791 to 2281m 18.75
Enter shale. Sweep and log hole. 7.75
POOH
RIH abandonment packer – stuck, 18.25
attempt to work free. CT parted.
Secure well.
C/o to drawworks, fish CT on drill 36.00
pipe
RIH directional assy. Pump LCM 22.50
pills.
Drill 1545 to 2750m 145.25
POOH – motor disconnected. 3.50
Fish motor. 25.00
Drill 2751 to 3001m (TD) 52.5
Pipe stuck, work free, backream, 12.5
monitor well, POOH to surface.
TOTAL TIME 365.25 hrs, 15
days
The drilling parameters on this well also remained
fairly consistent. WOBs were if anything marginally
higher (1 to 3 kdaN) than the previously referenced well,
which would indicate greater success in transferring
weight downhole to the bit. This can be attributed to the
simpler well bore geometry (Figures 6 and 7). In
underbalanced mode, wellhead pressure fluctuated
SPE 87240
independently of the various differing gas injection rates
applied, which would once again imply that the well never
achieved a stable multi-phase flow condition for any length
of time. Drilling operations were alternated between
underbalanced and overbalanced modes: no clear
relationship could be established between the rates of
penetration achievable and the particular mode chosen.
The highest ROPs were recorded in underbalanced mode,
but so were the lowest.
In the last 300m of the well, significant quantities of
lubricant were added in 2-3% concentrations, and an
underbalanced mode was maintained.
As discussed above, planning of these wells generally
requires a detailed study of collision avoidance. It is
interesting to note that during the drilling of both of the
referenced wells, nearby well management became a
common occurrence. It was found that by opening or
closing adjacent producing wells, and by opening or
closing nearby injector wells, significant differences could
be made to drilling performance. The process was not a
simple one, however, as each well path passed close to or
crossed a number of wells (both injectors and producers)
and predicting the effects that each well had on the
performance in the well being drilled was extremely
difficult. Varying delays were noted between opening and
closing nearby wells and the pressure response and flow
characteristics of the current well.
The final well TD was called at 3001 mAHD, a further
extension of the world record for CTD from 1233m to
1457m horizontal section achieved (Figure 7).
Completion operations. During installation of the
liner, the string became stuck at 46m off bottom, and the
decision was made to cement the liner in place. The
cementation was carried out without incident with
predicted displacement volumes being attained. The coil
string was changed out to 1 ¾” and a mud motor was run
in the hole to clean out the liner and to drill the shoetrack
to within 14m of the shoe. The well was then perforated in
two runs and selectively acidised.
Subsequent production was above average with very
encouraging base solids and water content.
Learning Points Extended Reach CTD. On completion
of the 2 extended reach wells, the following learning points
were noted:
• Extended reach USH wells are possible up to 1500
mAHD on coiled tubing under certain conditions;
• Drilling lubricants are effective but water soluble
products are preferable due to the adverse effect on
surface systems of non-water-soluble products;
• The use of simulation software, once calibrated, is
critical to the success of extended reach CTD
operations;
• The critical operation with respect to weight transfer is
cleaning out of the liner after cementation rather than
drilling the hole;
• Underbalanced drilling does not always give the best
reach. The simulation software was not able to model
SPE 87240 HOEKSTRA, HOPKINS, FLECK, BELL
this correctly;
• Proper management of nearby production and injection
wells is essential for achieving extended reach in
producing fields;
• Operational time is reducing as experience is gained,
Figure 8.
Minimising Initial Water Production
About half way through the 21-well campaign, production
analysis showed that the USH well net oil production rates
were below expectation with high water cuts. A study team
was formed with the task of identifying possible reasons for
the poor performance and implementation of remedial
actions.
The Yibal field is highly fractured and faulted.
Conventional drilling experience is that lost circulation up
to 40m3/hr is a major problem. However, with
Underbalanced Drilling, lost circulation zones are not
easily identified during drilling operations. The production
liners were run in overbalanced mode, assuming any loss
problems were tackled after drilling and before running the
liner.
It was concluded that the disappointing production
results from the ultra slim wells were mainly due either to
lack of zonal isolation behind the 2-7/8” liner or to non-
selective stimulation of the perforations (over stimulation
of the lowest pressure zone). In order to evaluate all
parameters involved in the well’s completion process, a
matrix was drawn up showing all liner running,
cementing, perforation, acidisation and initial production
results. This matrix immediately illustrated that liners
cemented with tubulars in the running string had worse
cement displacements than the wells where the liner was
run on CT only. This problem was investigated and pump
tests with various cement displacement darts were
executed, ultimately resulting in the presently-used 4-fin
dart design (Figure 9).
Curing Lost Circulation. Lost circulation creates a
situation where zonal isolation by cementation is very
difficult and the well cannot be subsequently stimulated
effectively. The current conventional methodology is to
drill overbalanced to identify the loss zones accurately.
Attempts are then made to cure losses before drilling
ahead. In underbalanced drilling, there is no effective way
to identify any loss zone. Attempts were made to identify
loss zones using pressure logs (an integral part of the
BHA’s standard capabilities), but the results were not fully
conclusive.
Following loss treatment and liner cementation, cement
bond logs were initiated to assess the effectiveness of the
cement placement. It was found that significant areas of
the liners were being left with little or no cement. This was
the case even with 300% excess cement volumes. It was
concluded that two areas had to be studied to improve
zonal isolation – loss treatment and cement placement.
A number of LCM trials were conducted with
magnesium cement, cross-linking polymer gels and
5
diesel/oil/bentonite (DOB, also known as Gunk).
Additionally, PDO formulated a thixotropic low
compressive strength cement to tackle medium losses. The
primary objective for these materials was to isolate loss
zones, but it was also a requirement that the materials be
suitable for placement through the CTD string and BHA
(2-3/8” CT with e-line).
Results to date have been varied and further work and
trials are ongoing to achieve a better understanding of the
behaviour of these products in low and medium loss zones.
Displacement through the CTD string and tools was tested
and no particular problems encountered. To reduce the loss
rate to a manageable level (~10m3/h), the procedure
currently adopted is to use magnesium cement or
thixotropic cement when the loss rate is between 10 and
20m3/h. Above 20m3/hr loss rate, DOB, which is not
permanent, is used and subsequently sealed in with
magnesium or thixotropic cement.
Improved Cementing Techniques. The absence of cement
was found to be due mainly to untreated loss zones and
over displacement during the cement job. The mechanics
of the cement jobs were investigated and several
recommendations were put in place to ensure that cement
placement was executed as intended. The prime
recommendations were:
• In the past, the displacement philosophy was ‘pump to
bump’ if a liner wiper plug shear was observed.
However, it became clear that the dart can be by-passed
by displacement fluid hence the cement displacement
volume should never exceed the volume of the running
string used (e.g., 2-3/8” work coil and/or drillpipe/drill
collar combination) plus the volume of the liner and
shoe track;
• Cementing is attempted only if the loss-rate can be
reduced to less than 10m3/h. Experience has shown that
when losses are less than this a reasonable cement job
can be achieved;
• Over-displacement was reduced by accurately checking
the volume of all the sections of the cementing string
(CT, drill collars, liner) and the introduction of a new,
specially designed 4 fin wiper dart. Improvements were
made to the detail of the pumping procedure, including
the addition of a high viscosity spacer behind the 4-fin
dart;
• Additional losses were attributed to the high ECD
created when cementing ultra-slim holes. To reduce the
equivalent circulating density (ECD), a 3 ½” x 4 1/8”
bi-centre bit and a reaming while drilling (RWD) bit
were used to drill a larger hole. The hole gauge was
measured at slightly over 4 inches on 2 wells with
calliper logging tools. Figure 10 shows the results from
a multi-finger calliper tool which measured the hole at
slightly over 4 inches diameter;
• The calculations suggested that fracturing was
occurring during cementation at rates in excess of 250
l/min and pumping rates were limited to this value.
This results in plug flow rather than turbulent flow.
6 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN
Plug flow did not appear to have an adverse effect on
the cement bond;
• The volume per joint of 2-7/8” liner is very small;
therefore, in order to create a safety margin against
over displacement, the shoe track was increased from 2
to 10 joints;
• A cement bond log is now run as standard to check the
cement placement and optimise the position of
perforations.
Improved Stimulation Techniques. Non-selective
stimulation had been shown to allow early water
breakthrough as the most permeable zone is over
stimulated. This allows the acid to interconnect the
fractures and create very high permeability. Even if these
fractures are not connected to a water-bearing zone, this
high permeability in the oil bearing zones could potentially
allow early water breakthrough as the oil will drain
rapidly. As the other zones have not been stimulated, the
well will predominantly produce from the stimulated
fractures. Previous problems with selective stimulation
tools in slim wells resulted in a move to ‘poor boy’
acidisation – bull heading the treatment from surface. It
was concluded that:
• Stimulation should be carried out selectively. This was
achieved initially with a wash cup tool, but it was later
replaced with an inflatable straddle tool due to poor
reliability. (Tools failed to hold test pressure and
become stuck in hole. The rubber packer elements
disintegrated downhole, possibly due to debris);
• A philosophy of acidising from top to bottom was
initiated due to concerns about the durability of the
bottom wash cups and straddle packers;
• A better understanding of the stimulation technique
was required. Acid concentrations, volume, squeeze
pressure, displacement volume and placement
techniques were clarified. A thorough review of current
stimulation procedures was conducted and revised
guidelines were produced;
• Perforating intervals are now chosen to be no closer
than 30 meters from fractures, faults or water features;
• Drilling Supervisors received specialist training to
execute stimulation jobs. A Petroleum Technologist
was assigned to the rig to supervise stimulation jobs
when new Drilling Supervisors were on site.
The above findings will not guarantee the prevention of
early water breakthrough. Even with selective stimulation,
the fractures within the perforated interval may still be
over stimulated which can lead to early water
breakthrough. However, using selective stimulation will
enhance the chance of maximising production from the
ultra slim wells. The importance of correct stimulation was
highlighted when production tests were performed on an
open hole well (Well No 14), after perforating and then
after stimulation. In the first case, 99% BS&W was
observed, and the gross increased 20% between the last
two tests. The improvement in initial production can be
seen in Figures 11 and 12, comparing wells 1 to 12 (before
SPE 87240
implementation of all recommendations) with wells 13 to
21.
Results and Conclusions
• Underbalanced, ultra slim wells have been drilled on
coiled tubing up to a world-record horizontal length of
1457 m. This is a great technical achievement which
pushes the technological boundaries associated with
CTD back significantly.
• If extended reach is required, thorough planning
(engineering and modelling) is essential. This
feasibility study should include not only the drilling
phase but also the liner running and clean-out
operations.
• Drilling progress decreased - as expected -
dramatically towards the end of the well in extended
reach operations. A clear economical justification
therefore is required for each incremental 100m length
being planned for future wells. Figure 13 shows the
time verses depth curve for Well 16.
• CTD ultra-slim wells are targeted typically at relatively
small pockets of residual oil and the success of the well
depends heavily on the accuracy of the reservoir model
and geological knowledge of the target zone.
• The study to minimise water production has been
effective. Relative well performance is illustrated in
Figure 11. The results of both the cementing and the
stimulation sub-studies have been positive, considering
the changes were being progressively implemented
from Well 13 to Well 21.
• Over 18,000 meters of new hole were drilled on coiled
tubing in the first 21 wells.
• The full benefits of underbalanced drilling have been
found to be less clear cut as was thought. Definite
benefits are gained with the technique when the coil is
stuck - especially differentially stuck. There are
benefits in rate of penetration improvement, but this is
often overshadowed by the time spent curing losses
before running the liner. It has also been found that lost
circulation material is often removed during
underbalanced operations, negating any benefit gained.
In some parts of the Yibal field small increases in ROP
are observed underbalanced while in others the opposite
is true. To fully realise the benefits of the
underbalanced system, the wells should be lined and
cemented without treating the loss zones.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Oil and Gas of
Oman, Petroleum Development Oman and Baker Hughes
INTEQ for supporting the publication of this paper. The
authors also thank all other staff (operator and service
companies) involved in the Coiled Tubing Project to date
whose hard work and dedication have ensured a safe and
successful operation.
References
1. Schoenmakers, J.M.: “Introduction of Game-changing
SPE 87240 HOEKSTRA, HOPKINS, FLECK, BELL
Drilling Technology,” paper SPE/IADC 37635
presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, (March 1997).
2. Surewaard, J, et al.: “One Year Experience With
Coiled Tubing Drilling,” paper SPE/IADC 39260
presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference, Bahrain, (November 1997).
3. Johnston, C.A. et al: “Coiled Tubing Parabolic Loop
System - A New Approach to Tubing Handling”,
paper SPE 50584 presented at the 1998 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
(October 1998).
7
4. Saville, P et al.: "Well Engineering Aspects of a 2
7/8in Ultraslim Lined Well Campaign", paper SPE
52849 prepared for the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (March
1999).
5. Van Venrooy, J. et al. : “Underbalanced Drilling with
Coiled Tubing in Oman”, paper SPE 57571 prepared
for the 1999 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, (Nov
1999).
8 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN SPE 87240

Figure 1 Hybrid Coiled Tubing Drilling Rig with

parabolic loop system.

Figure 2 Underbalanced drilling fluids handling

package – from left, oil storage tanks and
centrifuge, 3-phase separator, hydro-cyclone solids
separators.

Figure 3 CTD BHA.

SPE 87240 HOEKSTRA, HOPKINS, FLECK, BELL 9

Figure 4 – General well schematic of USH sidetrack.

Figure 5 – Sample well plan and deviation

10 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN SPE 87240

-100m -100m

1100m 1200m
N
or
th
(m
) 1500m
1500m East (m
)
13
70 00
0m m
-100m -10 -100m -1
0m 00
m

Figure 7 Well No 16 - KOP 1544m, TD

Figure 6 Well No 12 - KOP 1640m, TD 2873m, 3001m, 1457m sidetrack
1233m sidetrack.

50.00

DAYS
45.00
TOTAL W ELL TIM E

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21

Figure 8 - Operational time for Ultra Slim Hole wells - note wells 10 and 17 excluded (workover not
completed)
 SPE 87240 HOEKSTRA, HOPKINS, FLECK, BELL 11

Figure 9 – 4-fin dart used in current USH cementations

Figure 10 – Calliper log of hole drilled with

‘Reaming While Drilling’ bit.

Initial P r o d u c t i o n
( C T U l t r a S l i m H o l e)
11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21
1

Figure 11 Relative production of Ultra Slim Hole wells averaged over first month. Wells 1 to 11 – before
cementing and stimulation improvements and wells 13 to 21 after. (Data for wells 20 and 21 is initial
production, not average for first month)
12 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING COILED TUBING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING IN OMAN SPE 87240

Average Production Preformance

S lim - D o w n a v e Conventional ave U ltra Slim H o l e a v e

Figure 12 - initial production for Ultra Slim Hole wells compared to average initial production for
Conventional and Slimed Down wells

T im e v s D e p t h C u r v e W e ll 1 6
9

5
Days

0
1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100
D e p th (m)

Figure 13 - Time versus depth curve for Well 16.