IADC/SPE 27433

Coiled-Tubing Case Histories

L.J. Leising and E.A. Rike Jr., Dowell Schlumberger
lADe and SPE Members
Copyright 1994, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 15-18 February 1994.
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 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 IADC or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are SUbject to pUblication
review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

evaluating CTD technology. The learning curve makes it

difficult to evaluate a new technology with one well, and the
table shows several companies with multiwell projects that
will allow CTD to be evaluated on a competitive basis with
conventional technology. For example, drilling time to 1,000
ft decreased by 40% from 7 1/2 hr for the first well in Venezuela to 4.5 hr for the fifth well. In addition, average rate of
penetration (ROP) was doubled on a package of two shallow
wells in California.
The coiled tubing used in these applications ranges in
diameter from 1'/2 in. to 2% in. The 2-in. tubing is the most
common because of its versatility and because of weight and
size limitations for transporting the reels needed with larger
sizes.
The CTD job growth from 1992 to 1993 (as of November)
is 300% in new wells and 50% in re-entry wells (Fig. 1). The
growth in new wells resulted from the discovery that some
shallow wells can be drilled more economically using CTD
and from the use of new expendable CTD wells to probe for
pockets of shallow gas in shallow offshore sites. Although
three to four horizontal wells have been drilled per year using
CTD, the percentage of jobs represented by these wells is
steadily declining because of the large growth of jobs in
vertical wells (see Fig. 2).
The detailed experience summary for one company (Table 2) indicates that footage drilled on a typical CTD job is
about 900 ft and ranges up to a record of 4,370 ft. The
technical success rate (the objectives of the well were generally achieved) shows three problem jobs (Fig. 3) in 1992.
In one well a surface software error occurred while using
MWD tools and caused tool-face information displayed at the

ABSTRACT
The total number of coiled tubing drilling (CTD) jobs
worldwide has grown from 4 in 1991 to 11 in 1992 and will
probably exceed 25 in 1993. While CTD still represents only
a small fraction of the worldwide drilling market, the growth
rate indicates CTD is a technology that is rapidly coming of
age. This paper summarizes the jobs performed to date and
charts the applications in an effort to predict future trends.
In addition, one specific case stUdy is presented for a well
in Alaska. This well was drilled through tubing and underbalanced, thus saving the cost of pulling the completion tubing
and preventing formation invasion damage. Coiled tubing is
routinely used for live well intervention; its use allows an
accepted, safe method for underbalanced drilling.
Underbalanced drilling is appropriate for many mature and
depleted field re-entry projects and offers a method of both
preventing invasion and increasing productivity while enhancing natural flow and ultimate recovery. In addition, differential sticking is eliminated and penetration rate is greatly
increased.
INTRODUCTION
Table 1 shows an updated' summary of CTD jobs completed as of November 1993. As can be seen, the applications for CTD are worldwide and 18 operating companies are

References and figures at end of paper.

21

IADC/SPE 27433

COILED TUBING DRILLING CASE HISTORY

Table 1. Coiled Tubing Drilling Attempts To Date

CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
Elf
Paris
Jun.
1991
Oryx
Texas
1991
Jun.
Oryx
Texas
Aug. 1991
Chevron
Texas
Dec. 1991
Elan/Lasmo
Canada
May
1992
Chevron
Texas
Jul.
1992
Gulf
Canada
1992
Jul.
Imperial
Canada
1992
Jul.
Arco
Texas
1992
Jul.
Pan Canadian
Canada
Sep. 1992
Can. Hunter
Canada
Oct.
1992
Elf
1992
Paris
Oct.
Gulf
Canada
Nov. 1992
Austria
RAG
Nov. 1992
Arco
Alaska
Dec. 1992
Canada
Petro Canada
Jan.
1993
Shell-NAM
Holland
Feb.
1993
Phillips
North Sea
Feb.
1993
Petro Canada
Canada
Feb.
1993
BP
Alaska
Mar. 1993
Berry
Apr.
1993
California
Berry
California
Apr.
1993
Energy Mineral
Apr.
1993
Colorado
Arco
Jun.
1993
Alaska
Arco
Aug. 1993
Alaska
Amoco
Sep. 1993
Texas
Sep. 1993
Texas
Amoco
Texas
Amoco
Oct.
1993
Oct.
1993
California
Chevron
California
Chevron
Oct.
1993
Lagoven
Oct.
1993
Venezuela
Venezuela
Lagoven
Nov. 1993

surface to be meaningless. 2 (The software error resulted

from the use of unique CTD hardware.) In another well
(vertical), after the shoe was drilled, a hard chert stringer was
encountered which ultimately required drilling with a rotary
rig at one-eighth the normal ROP. This well was attempted
using only 500 Ibm of drill collars, and downward force from
the coiled tubing was needed. Since then, additional collars
have been used to provide the required weight on bit (WOB)
for all vertical wells. WOB is typically 500 to 1,000 Ibf per inch
of bit diameter.
Well D-4 (see Table 2 for well designations) is listed as a
partial success, because although the well was drilled to the
objective, the logging tools could only pass the top one-third
of the hole because of hole stability problems.
The success rate in 1993 builds on the experience of 1992
plus the inclusion of many relatively easy vertical wells in
1993. There are currently more vertical wells being drilled
because they are less complex and therefore less costly to

WELL
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
new
re-entry
re-entry
new
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
new
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
new
new
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
re-entry
new
new
new
new

DEVIATION
vertical
horizontal
horizontal
horizontal
vertical
horizontal
horizontal
vertical
horizontal
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
deviated
vertical
horizontal
deviated
horizontal
deviated
vertical
vertical
vertical
deviated
horizontal
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical

CT SIZE
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.38
2.00
2.00
1.75
2.00
1.75
1.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.38
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50

HOLE SIZE
3.88
3.88
3.88
4.75/3.88
4.75
3.88
4.13
4.75
3.75
4.75
3.88
3.88
4.75
6.13
3.75
3.88
4.13
3.75
4.75
3.75/UR
6.25
6.25
4.75
3.75/UR 5.5
2.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
6.25
6.25
3.88
3.88

drill. However, underbalanced re-entry drilling of the reservoir is believed to be one of the primary applications for CTD.
The industry has approached underbalanced CTD cautiously, and until 1993 very few CTD wells had been drilled
underbalanced. Table 2 shows four wells have been c;jrilled
underbalanced by one company in 1993.
Production data from underbalanced drilling are currently
being evaluated to establish the long-term benefits and
provide a basis for economic analysis of potential candidates.
CTD PROBLEMS, CAPABILITIES, AND APPLICATIONS
CTD Problems
The problems encountered with CTD are the traditional
drilling problems:
mud motor failures
differential sticking

22

IAOC/SPE 27433

LEISING, L., RIKE, A.

Table 2: Detailed Coiled Tubing Drilling Experience For One Service Company
WELL

DATE

LOCATION

0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4

6-91
7-92
10-92
10-92

Paris
Texas
Canada
Paris

0-5
0-6
0-7
0-8A,B
0-9
0-10
0-11
0-12
0-13
0-14
0-15
0-16
0-17
0-18
0-19

2-93
4-93
4-93
6-93
8-93
9-93
9-93
10-93
10-93
10-93
10-93
11-93
11-93
11-93
11-93

Holland
California
California
Alaska
Alaska
Texas
Texas
Texas
California
California
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela

CLIENT

TECH
DRILLED
FT
SUCCESS
Elf
Yes
896
Arco
No
382
No
Can. Hunter
3
Elf
Partial
4370
Shell-NAM
Berry
Berry
Arco
Arco
Amoco
Amoco
Amoco
Chevron
Chevron
Lagoven
Lagoven
Lagoven
Lagoven
Lagoven

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TOTAL

1060
1179
1422
135
199
416
467
424
880
872
1000
1000
1005
1000
1000

COMMENTS
Cored
Whipstock set/drilled, MWO
Gel diesel mud

Software error
Hard stringer below shoe
Motors, differential sticking,
bit balling, disconnects
Liner, 11 times production increase Orienting tool
Washout 1/4 of Rotary
Bit balling
1

Underbalanced, TT
3112 times production increase
Air/mist
Air/mist
Air/mist

PROBLEMS

Off pad
Off pad
Off pad
Off pad
Off pad

drilling
drilling
drilling
drilling
drilling

Underreamer blade wear

Weight transfer
Motors
CTscale
Motor
Mud handling

Clay swelling/BHA L1H

17,710

weight transfer
bit balling
Mud motor failures occur primarily with the small 271ain.-diameter motors. Problems with shaft coupling breakage
suggest that these motors, which were designed for workover applications, are overstressed when used for routine
openhole drilling. Some component redesign ofthese motors
has taken place, but the average life is still roughly 25 hrwith
some runs lasting over three times this long. The overall flow
rate range of many of these motors needs to be increased to
match the deliverability of coiled tubing.
Figure 4 shows an example of the weight-transfer problem
with data from Well 0-4, on which a differential sticking
problem was encountered. During the period from 16:45 to
16:52 hr, surface weight on bit (SWOB) was increased to
over 2,000 Ibf with negligible increase in motor pressure.
After very short trips at 16:42 and 16:54 hr, more motor
differential pressure is evident, including a motor stall at
17:05 hr.
ROP increases most when SWOB is first increased (bottom tagged) and when SWOB or slackoff is increased over
2,500 Ibf. Both these ROP increases may be false-caused
by compression of the coiled tubing in a helical buckling
mode. A downhole ROP calculation that corrects for this
deflection may be helpful in the future.

Several solutions to the weight-transfer problem have

been proposed: an unbalanced slip joint/bumper sub (thruster), a constant force extension sub, and tractors that contact the formation. Unbalanced slip joints suffer from positive
feedback; that is, as the motor begins to stall the pressure
increases, which causes the tool to increase WOB and thus
aggravate the stall. A constant force extension sub that will
eliminate the stall problem is under development, but it will
be more complicated and limited to use on the few occasions
when weight-transfer problems are observed. Many tractors
are under development, but these devices are relatively
complicated and will probably increase both the maximum
lateral reach of CTO and the sticking tendency.
There were no fatigue failures during the 20 jobs listed in
Table 2, probably because of the fatigue tracking system
4
used for these jobs. On the deviated wells listed in Table 2,
approximately one-half the fatigue life of the coiled tUbing has
been exhausted.
CTO Capabilities
Some proven capabilities of CTO are listed below:
coring
setting whipstock and cutting the window
MWO wireless telemetry with gamma ray measurement
steering tool wireline telemetry

23

COILED TUBING DRILLING CASE HISTORY

running liners and hangers

using tri-cone, POC, TSO, and diamond bits
underreaming previously drilled well bores
underbalanced drilling with gas lift, foam, or fluid
air/mist drilling
drilling through 4 1/2 -in. and 3 1/2 -in. tubing
off-pad drilling for shallow gas (barge is 150 ft from injector)
The advantages of CTO have been discussed elsewhere,1,3 but are summarized here for reference:
ability to drill underbalanced safely (well closed while
drilling and tripping)
lower environmental impact (noise, spillage, location size)
faster drilling in soft formations (no connections)
minimal washouUexcellent log quality (continuous process, no connections)
fast mobilization and rig up
ability to use wireline for high data rate
reduced crew size
increased safety (pipe handling eliminated)
On Well 0-6 the hole washout was one-fourth that of a
rotary-drilled hole and the logs were of much better quality
than conventional logs. This is probably due to the absence
of hydraulic and mechanical effects of connections, lower
hydraulics, and the continuous nature of CTO.

CTO Applications
From this analysis and discussion, several applications
can be identified where CTO should be considered:
small-diameter shallow vertical holes in soft formations
horizontal underbalanced re-entries
re-entry on offshore platform or floating production facility
without a permanent drilling installation
through-tubing re-entry in 3 1/2 -in. or larger tUbing
well deepening
exploration wells that can be plugged or completed as
monitor wells
shallow gas relief wells
drilling in urban or environmentally sensitive areas (low
noise, space limitation, spillage prevention, visual disturbance)
WELL 0-9-HORIZONTAL WELL DEEPENING
THROUGH 3 1/2 -in. TUBING
Planned Action
This well was originally drilled in April 1991 and completed
as a horizontal well with 4 1/2-in. slotted liner completion and
a tapered string of 41/2-in. and 31/2-in. tubing (Fig. 5). The
liner was set in an 8 1/z-in. hole that had been cemented and
redrilled with a 6 1/z-in. bit as a result of drilling problems. The
final setting depth of the liner was at 10,385 ft, 284 ft above
total depth (TO) of the well at 10,669 ft. The well never

24

IAOC/SPE 27433

produced to its expected potential, and it was suspected that

formation damage from the drilling fluid (oil-based mUd) and
cementing operations during the drilling and completion
phases caused the poor production. Several stimulation jobs
were performed without success prior to selecting this well
as a CTO candidate. Production from the well was less than
300 BOPO.
Preparation
The well was prepared for CTO operations by milling out
a profile nipple in the 31/2-in. production tubing with coiled
tubing to allow passage of a 23!4-in. bit. A pack-off bushing
and aluminum bull-nose guide were also drilled to allow
access to the 8 1/2-in. hole beyond. The gas-lift design was
modified to allow the well to be gas lifted during drilling
operations to create an underbalanced drilling condition.
Equipment mobilized to the wellsite included a 71/win. blowout preventer (BOP) stack (Fig. 6), choke manifold, 21/z-lbm/
bbl Biozan drilling fluid, a two-phase separator (Fig. 7), and
collection tanks to hold the usable fluid before returning it to
suction tanks for reuse.
Field Operations
In August 1993 a coiled tubing unit with 2-in. coiled tubing
was moved onto the well and a 23/ a-in. downhole motor and
23fa-in. bottomhole assembly (BHA) were used to clean out
the 81/z-in. well bore to its previous TO. The drilling assembly
consisted of the following equipment:
2%-in. bit
downhole motor
drop-ball circulation sub
drop-ball disconnect
dual check valve assembly
weld-on coiled tubing connector
The entire assembly was picked up and connected/disconnected within a lubricator by using coiled tubing. The
assembly followed the original 81/2-in. wellbore; this was
confirmed by a multishot survey conducted at 10,669 ft. After
reaching the old TO, new 2%-in. wellbore was drilled for an
additional 199 ft to a final TO of 10,868 ft (Fig. 8). There was
no control of the wellbore angle or direction during any phase
of the operations because of the small sizes of BHA elements
and the decision to evaluate slimhole BHA reactions with coiled
tubing in the area. After 199 ft of new wellbore had been drilled,
the final survey showed that the newly drilled interval consistently dropped angle-at approximately 31/2/100 ft (no information was gathered regarding azimuth changes during this
interval as it was not critical for this job).
It quickly became apparent that the annular pressure
losses resulting from the use of 2-in. coiled tubing in 3 1/z-in.
production tubing were quite high and prevented the desired
underbalanced condition (13/4-in. coiled tubing was not con-

IADC/SPE 27433

LEISING, L., RIKE, A.

increase in this case study is 3 1/2 times that of the well before
deepening at a cost one-fourth of a rig workover.
Technical success rate has improved drastically from the
early years of CTD. The largest problem area currently is the
reliability of 27/a-in.-diameter and smaller downhole motors.

sidered because of the large size of the previous wellbore8 1/2 in.). In addition, the returning fluid had lost its initial
viscosity and yield point (YP) as a result of unidentified
contamination downhole (fluid loss was not as adversely
affected). This poor fluid quality and large diameter of wellbore from previous drilling operations caused severe
"stick/slip" reactions by the coiled tUbing and weight transfer
to the bit could not be achieved by slowly lowering the tubing
into the well. Instead, it was introduced in small, quick
increments. When the lack of motor pressure reaction indicated BHA sticking, the entire string was picked up and
lowered to bottom to restart the drilling process. This inability
to effectively transfer WOB was anticipated (from the coiled
tubing buckling in the 8 1/2-in. open hole) and proved to be
the single largest problem encountered during the operation.
Despite these constraints, penetration rates started at 6
fUhr and reached as high as 18 ftIhr during some intervals;
the average was 10ft/hr.
After the operations were completed, well production
reached 1,075 BOPD. The operation is credited with successfully cleaning out 285 ft of uncased 8 1/2-in. hole and
creating 199 ft of new 2%-in. wellbore. The overall cost for
the coiled tubing operations was approximately one-fourth
the cost of moving in a rig to perform this work with a
production increase of 3 1/2 times that of the well before the
coiled tubing operations were performed.
A specialized work platform (Fig. 9) to be placed on top of
the arctic wellhouse has been developed for future operations to provide a wind shield and movable work surface.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Dowell for permission and encouragement to publish this paper. We also thank the many people
at Area Alaska Inc. who helped make CTD efforts successful;
in particular, we thank Lamar Gantt, Curtis Blount, Steve
Ward, Dave Hearn, Arvell Bass, and Dan Venhaus. Special
thanks are also extended to Denny Doremus of the Dowell
CTD task force. Excellent job execution was the result of
efforts by AI Mahoney, Eloy Muniz, AI Maynard, and Dave
Duerr of Dowell Alaska. We also thank Elf Aquitaine, Berry
Petroleum, and Lagoven for use of specific well data.
REFERENCES
1. Leising, L. and Newman, K.: "Coiled Tubing Drilling," SPE
Drilling Engineering (December 1993).
2. Hightower, C.M., Blount, C.G. and Ward, S.L.: "Coiled
Tubing Sidetrack: Slaughter Field Case History," paper
SPE 26335 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 3-6.
3. Faure, A.M., Zijiker, VA and Herman van Elst: "Horizontal Drilling with Coiled Tubing: A Look at Potential Application to North Sea Mature Fields in Light of Experience
Onshore The Netherlands," paper SPE 26715 presented
at the 1993 Offshore European Conference, Aberdeen,
September 7-10.
4. Newman, K.R. and Newburn, D.A.: "Coiled Tubing Life
Modeling," paper SPE 22820 presented at the 1991 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 6-9.

CONCLUSIONS
The CTD yearly job count has grown at a rate of approximately 2 1/2 times the previous year for the past 2 yr. The
largest growth has been in shallow new wells. Deviated and
horizontal wells account for one-third of CTD jobs.
Underbalanced re-entry drilling of the reservoir is a proven
important application, but its use is progressing more slowly
than shallow wells, because of the higher technical difficulty
and a cautious approach to underbalanced CTD.
Underbalanced drilling is optimum from a formation damage standpoint; however, drilling is also enhanced without
differential sticking and with higher ROP.
A case study is presented of a horizontal deepening
through 3 1/ 2-in. tUbing with a 23/ 4 -in. hole. The production

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

bbl
ft
gal
in.
Ibf
Ibm
psi

x 1.589 873
x 3.048 1
x 3.785 412

x 2.54 1
x 4.448 222
x 4.535 924
x 6.894 757

1Conversion

25

factor is exact.

E -01 m3
E -01 = m
E -03 = m3
E + 00 = cm
E + 00 = N
E -01 = kg
E + 00 = kPa

IADC/SPE 27433

COILED TUBING DRILLING CASE HISTORIES

Year
Fig.1 Distribution of new and re-entry coiled tubing drilling jobs

100
80

-'i

1 1 1 1 1 I I ~I I .I I .l i.I! I I ~1 I .I~ I ~I

60

Vertical

Deviated

III

Horizontal

~
o 40

""')

20

o
1991

1992

Year
Fig. 2 Deviation of coiled tubing drilling jobs

26

1993YTD

as of 11/93

IADC/SPE 27433

LEISING, L., RIKE, A.

o Objectives not met

o Partial sucess

16
14
rn 12
.c

Technical success

.2. 10
o

L-

CD

.c

::::J

8
6
4
2

0+--1991

1992

as of 11/93

1993 YTD

Year
Fig. 3 Coiled tubing drilling technical success rate of one company

Time
hr

16:42
16:43
16:45
16:47
16:48
16:50
16:52
16:53
16:55
16:57
16:58
17:00
17:02
17:03
17:05
17:07
17:08
17:10
17:12
17:13
17:15
17:17
17:18
17:20
17:22

Hole
depth
m

ROP
mlhr
1<0

!Tubing load
Ibf
10, 1<0

964:

SWOBCirc press. Run speed Bit position

Ibf
psig
mlmin
meters

10,000 <0

4,000> <3,000

4,200> <-1

Fig. 4 Drilling log of Well D-4

27

1> <950

Flow out
liter/min

970> <100

i:

200)

IADC/SPE 27433

COILED TUBING DRILLING CASE HISTORIES

-t_f4Yz-in. tubing

U-!13Yz-in. tubing

4Yrin. slotted liner @ 10,386 ft

(90 deg~.

\.

BYrin. hole

/(90deg)
2o/4-in. openhole
10,868 ft MD
(83.4 deg)

-----------------~

/ ..'-,...

...1

./

7-in. @ 9,790 ft
(87 deg)

Fig. 5 Well D-9 wellbore schematic

lIog ~"_h'"
....-.stuffing box

'-7-in. riser

41ft.-in. 10 CT BOP stack

10,000 psi working pressure
Flanged fire resistant
kellvl10se to dual
choke/mainfold Manual valve__ HCR

~..;.~~@@)~"~=~~::.-----JA:P~P~ro~x~im~a~t:e~to:p~O:f
wellhouse

"";;........
...

AIlignment guide flange'-~::::::::::::::li

Returns from well
Manual swab valve Plant flow line

Emergency
kill line

Manual master valve - - _

Tubing hanger

_.re:==~

13f.-in. annulus

Fig. 6

Arctic coiled tubing drilling wellhead

28

IAOC/SPE 27433

LEISING, L., RIKE, A.

Dual choke

manifold wI bypassr.:7"7.':""---,

Wellhouse

Wellhouse

r---tt--:\.....,

~1~~~ ~um~~m ~.~

Coiled
tubing
unit

well flowline

tr

liquid
returns
nk

1---==m:::::!..!:;J;:=:...J

Separator
skid

Fire

Ext.

2 dual filter
with bypass

Fig. 7 Arctic coiled tUbing drilling surface equipment schematic

Horizontal displacement (ft)

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0
-1,000
-2,000

-3,000

.c

-4,000

'tlI

1j -5,000

:eCD
>

-6,000

7-in. liner
(87 deg)

-7,000

""'"

CD

:::I

"

'"

-8,000
-9,000

",
"

10868ft MD

",--' (83.4deg)

-10,000
41/2-ln.
slotted liner

Fig. 8 Well 0-9 hole configuration

29

81/2-in.
openhole

23/4-ln.
openhole