Society of

Petrolelm EngNerI

Gulf Coast Section

International Coiled Tubing Association

SPE 36349

Hydraulics Design in Coiled Tubing Drilling

Ian C. Walton*, and Hongren Gu*, Schlumberger Dowell
'SPE Members
CopYright 1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPEllCoTA Roundtable held in Montgomery, Texas, 26-28 February 1996.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of informatton contained in an abstract submitted by the author Contents of the paper. as presented. have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pOSition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Its officers or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 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 was presented
Write
librarian, SPE, PO. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U SA, fax 01-214-952-9435.

ABSTRACT
Key design considerations in coiled tubing drilling are
associated with the wellbore hydraulics, which includes
drilling fluid types, liquid and gas injection rates, injection
method (gas injection down coiled tubing or through
paraSite string), circulation, downhole and wellhead
pressures, cuttings transport, and rate of penetration.
This paper presents a design methodology to achieve
efficient hole cleaning and maintain a specified under-(or
over-) balance, based on the use of a suite of computer
programs. Two design programs are used to determine
fluid types and injection rates, and a pump schedule is
generated.
The pump schedule is then used in a
transient computer well bore simulator to verify that all
operational requirements are satisfied for the entire
drilling operation. During the design stage, the effects of
the coiled tubing size, drilling fluid types, injection
method, overbalance or underbalance are investigated
using the computer programs. Examples are given to
illustrate the design process.
INTRODUCTION
Coiled tubing drilling (CTD) has been used increasingly
in recent years, particularly for extending existing wells
(re-entries and laterals) and for drilling underbalanced.
The economic and technical feasibility of CTD have been
discussed by Gary 1, while others have examined specific
applications of CT technology to drilling 2,3.

The design of a CTD job requires balancing a number of

factors to achieve the most efficient treatment within the
job speCifications. These factors include operational
References and illustrations at end of paper.

factors (for example, availability of certain CT sizes and

fluids), hardware factors (for example, integrity of the CT
under stress and compression loading, reach attainable
by the CT, motor performance) and hydrauliC factors.
This paper is concerned only with hydraulic factors.
Primary hydraulic considerations often include

maintaining bottomhole pressure within specified

bounds
hole cleaning
circulation pressure within the pressure limitations of
the CT
minimizing the volume of drilling fluid
maintaining sufficient flow rate downhole to power
the motor.

Optimally, the job is performed at the lowest rate

possible, not only for economic reasons, but also to
prevent exceeding the pressure limitations of the CT or
introducing excessive fatigue on the CT. To find this rate,
the engineer must consider a number of factors which
include

the geometry of the CT, wellbore and surface lines,

productivity of the well,
properties of the drilling f1uid(s),
injection rates of the drilling fluid(s)
method of injection of the drilling fluid(s)
wellhead pressure
ROP

This paper describes a design methodology which

facilitates the development of an optimal job design. In
implementing this methodology use is made first of two

HYDRAULICS DESIGN IN COILED TUBING DRILLING

software tools (the Solids Transport and Removal

Module (STR), and the Design Aids Module (DAM)) to
develop the design, followed by evaluation of the design
with a fully transient dynamic numerical simulator (the
Wellbore Simulator, (WBS)). Most of the software
currently available for use in CTD provides steady-state
calculations similar to those in DAM, though none is as
comprehensive 4.5. To date there appears to be only one
other transient well bore simulator that can be used for
under-balanced drilling (though not specifically for CTD),
but it does not address solids transport in deviated wells
6. There is no other software similar to STR and the
combination of all three modules is unique.
Solids Transport and Removal Module (STR)
The first of these tools, the Solids Transport and
Removal Module, predicts the fluid viscosities and rates
required to maintain solid particles in suspension and
transport them in the annulus between the CT and the
casing, tubing or open hole. By analyzing the mechanics
of the suspension and sedimentation process, the model
calculates which combinations of pump rate, fluid
viscosity and particle pickup concentration (as related to
ROP) allow the particles to be transported most
efficiently to the surface. The model determines if
bedding will occur, calculates the bed height and predicts
whether the bed will move up the wellbore, down the
well bore or remain stationary. The basis of the
calculation is that in deviated wells it is not sufficient to
transport the cuttings along the well, which is relatively
easy, but also to prevent them from falling under gravity
the short distance to the lower wall of the annulus.
Laminar flow, even of a very viscous fluid, cannot
prevent bed formation. STR assumes that the drilling
fluid is pumped in turbulent flow and calculates how
much turbulent activity is needed to prevent bed
formation. More pertinently, it will predict the combination
of pumprate, fluid viscosity and cutting concentration
needed to prevent bed formation in a well of specified
geometry and deviation. For vertical wells STR
calculates the minimum pumprate which carries the
particles vertically upwards. A more complete description
of STR and its application to CT cleanouts has been
provided by Walton.?
Design Aids Module (DAM)
The second tool, the Design Aids Module, is a suite of
plots, based on steady-state calculations, of various
parameters associated with the hydraulics of the drilling
process. These plots include

bottom hole pressure against pump rate for various

liquids

SPE 36349

circulation pressure against pump rate for various

liquids
Foam Quality Map: range of gas and liquid
pumprates that produce a foam of acceptable quality
bottomhole foam pressure against gas pump rate for
various liquid rates
circulation foam pressure against gas pump rate for
various liquid rates
bottomhole pressure against gas pump rate for
various liquid rates during gas injection through the
CT or parasite string or gas-lift valve
circulation pressure against gas pump rate for
various liquid rates during gas injection through the
CT or parasite string or gas-lift valve

Some of the plots are generated by running the WBS in

steady-state mode. While retaining some of the
complexity of the modeling incorporated into the WBS
(see below), steady-state results can be obtained much
quicker than a full transient simulation and are therefore
very well suited for scoping out parameters in the early
stages of the design phase. A more complete description
of DAM can be found in a paper by Gu and Walton 8.
Wellbore Simulator
These design modules are supported by the Wellbore
Simulator, a comprehensive numerical simulator which
incorporates the previously mentioned solids transport
model with the equations of conservation of mass and
momentum to model transient, multiphase fluid flow and
particle transport in a deviated wellbore. Combined with
these models are various submodels that mathematically
describe the movement of the CT, reservoir inflow or
leakoff or both, dissolution of gas from produced fluids,
mixing of injected and produced fluids, and other
physical processes that may occur while circulating fluids
and solids in the wellbore. WBS incorporates
movement of the CT and well depth increase while
drilling
vertical, deviated or horizontal well geometries
variable casing or tubing dimensions
tapered CT
cable inside the CT
injection and circulation of fluids (gas may be injected
through the CT or into the annulus through a parasite
string or through gas-lift mandrels)
frictional pressure losses of non-Newtonian fluids
(including foam) and two-phase fluids

pickup and possible bedding of solids; solids

transport in vertical, deviated or horizontal wells
reservoir leakoff, inflow or both

SPE 36349

IAN C. WALTON AND HONGREN GU

return of fluids lost to the formation

mixing of injected gases
mixing of produced fluids
dissolution of gas from produced fluids
pressure drop across a choke
pressure drop across the motor and the bit.

By encompassing the entire drilling process, the

Well bore Simulator models the flow of all constituents in
the wellbore, i.e., injected liquid, injected gas, original
well bore fluid, reservoir oil, reservoir gas, reservoir water
and solid particles. As a result, the Wellbore Simulator is
able to predict fluid pressure, fluid density, and solid and
bedding concentrations in any type of wellbore. A full
description of the WBS and its application to CT
cleanouts, kickoffs and drilling has been given in the
papers by Gu and Walton 910.

CTD DESIGN
To design a CTD operation, a number of items need to
be considered. Many options exist in terms of CT
dimensions, tools, fluids and techniques. A design is
often the result of an iterative process, optimizing such
parameters as the fluid density and rheology, pump rate,
injection point and CT dimensions. Design flowcharts,
similar tc those in Fig. 1 and 2, will help in making the
proper decisions during the design process. The choice
of drilling fluid is perhaps the primary consideration. The
requirement to drill underbalanced in circumstances
where the reservoir pressure is low or the hole is difficult
to clean may preclude the use of a liquid as the drilling
fluid. In these cases foam or nitrified liquid must be
considered. However, the use of a liquid is much simpler
and cheaper than the other alternatives and should
therefore be considered where possible.

The present paper will focus on the design of CTD jobs

using either liquid or foam as the drilling fluid in
circumstances where the well is required to be drilled
above or close to balance. Under-balanced drilling
usually requires the use of foam or gas injection and has
its own very specific requirements. Discussion of the
application of the design methodology to underbalanced
drilling is therefore treated in a separate paper (Gu and
Walton B).
Drilling with a liquid

Suppose first that the well is to be drilled overbalanced or

that, if it is to be drilled underbalanced, the reservoir
pressure is not sufficiently low so as to preclude the use
of a liquid as the drilling fluid. As shown in the flowchart,
Figure 1, the choice of liquid is a major component of the

design process and should be decided early in its

development. Ideally the liquid and pump rate should be
chosen to

efficiently clean the hole

produce a bottomhole circulating pressure within
specified bounds
produce a circulation (pump) pressure within the
limitations of the pump and the CT
provide sufficient flowrate to power the motor.

The obvious first choice of fluid is water (perhaps brine

or sea water) because it is cheap and easily available.
The Flow Regime Map in STR (Figures 4, 5) shows the
minimum pump rate needed to transport the cutting in
suspension for specified CT size, hole size and cuttings
size. (Sample output from the three software tools,
shown as Figures 4-15, will be discussed more fully in
the next section when specific examples are
considered.) Near the bit where the CT/hole annulus is
fairly narrow (Figure 4) there is often little difficulty in
cleaning the hole efficiently with water even in a highly
deviated section. On the other hand, hole cleaning in a
cased section where the annulus is wider, requires a
higher flow rate (Figure 5). Water is often not a viable
option for efficient transport in the cased section,
particularly if it is deviated. Other fluids may be
investigated using the Minimum Suspension Flowrate
Map (Figure 6) in STR which provides the flow rate
required to clean the hole for a range of fluid viscosities
and cuttings concentrations. In particular, it shows the
fluid viscosity and solids concentration for which the
required flow rate is least, thereby providing estimates of
the optimum fluid viscosity and ROP. The Minimum
Suspension Flowrate Map should be run for two cases:
(i) for the largest casing ID or largest annular gap and
the highest angle of deviation of the cased section and
(ii) for the open hole and its highest angle of deviation.
Having selected the fluid rheology, ROP and pumprate, a
simple check is made to ensure that the flO'Nrate
limitations of the downhole motor are not exceeded. If
the flow rate is too high, then the availability of a by-pass
should be considered. The next step is to check whether
the chosen combination of rheology and flowrate will
generate a bottom hole Circulating pressure which
conforms with the job specifications. Figure 7, taken from
DAM, shows the bottom hole pressure for steady state
flow of the selected fluid (or a selection of fluids) at a
range of pump rates. This calculation is based on flow in
the annulus between the CT and the open hole or casing
or tubing for a specified choke or wellhead pressure.
The bottomhole pressure may then be readily compared

HYDRAULICS DESIGN IN COILED TUBING DRILLING

with the reservoir pressure. Note that any inflow from the
reservoir will assist in hole cleaning, but fluid loss to the
reservoir will reduce the solids-carrying capacity of the
flowing liquid. If the calculated bottomhole pressure is
unsatisfactory then a different fluid density or choke
setting or the use of drag reducer should be tried. Next,
the circulation pressure is checked using Figure 8 from
DAM. This is based on steady state flow in the annulus
and in the CT, assuming a specified choke or wellhead
pressure. If the pressure requirement exceeds the
pressure rating of the CT or the pressure limitations of
the pump, then steps must be taken to reduce the
pressure. One consideration would be to use a larger CT
size because this not only reduces the frictional pressure
inside the CT, but it also creates a narrower annulus
which would reduce the pumprate required to clean the
well.
All of these parameters must be varied until a fluid, pump
rate, CT size and choke setting are selected that will and
meet the job specifications without exceeding the
operating limitations on the CT. In some circumstances it
may not be possible to meet all of these requirements.
Regardless of the choice of fluid, penetration rate, well
head pressure and CT size, the pump rate required for
complete suspension may not be achievable within the
safe operating limits of the CT. In these cases, a lower
rate must be used and the bedding of solids becomes
inevitable. Then the design of the treatment must include
reciprocation of the CT or pumping a variety of fluids to
completely remove the solids. Included in this is the use
of slugs of viscous gel. Usually such gels cannot be
pumped in turbulent flow and in highly deviated wells
they will therefore only carry the cuttings a short distance
before depositing them as a bed.
The job design at this stage is based on approximate
models using local or steady state conditions and
neglecting interactions with the reservoir. The final step
in the design process is to verify that the proposed
design meets all the job specifications by testing it with
the fully transient and more comprehensive WBS. If not
all the specifications are met then further modifications
may be made to the deSign and tested by re-running the
WBS. The important point here is that the design
methodology together with STR and DAM have allowed
a very good first attempt to be made at establishing the
optimum job design before the design is fine-tuned using
theWBS.

Drilling with Foam

A liquid is the most economical and convenient choice of
drilling fluid. However, as we have seen, there may be

SPE 36349

circumstances in which a liquid cannot meet all the job

specifications and we must turn to other fluids or a
combination of fluids. Foam is frequently used for CT
drilling, particularly for drilling at or close to balance in
low pressured reservoirs or when the annulus is so large
that liquids cannot be pumped in turbulent flow (for hole
cleaning) within the pressure limitations of the tubing.
Foam is generated by injecting liquid, gas (usually
nitrogen) and surfactant through the CT. It is generally
assumed that a foam will be an almost perfect carrier of
solids provided that its quality is maintained within wellestablished limits, i.e. greater than about 55% (below
which the foam structure is too weak to support solids)
and below about 96% (above which the foam inverts to
form a mist which provides very little support to the
solids). One of the difficulties in using foam is that its
quality can vary substantially from bottom hole (where
the pressure is high and the quality low) to the well head
(where the pressure is low and the quality high). The
most important hydraulics considerations in designing a
foam CTD job are:

maintain foam quality between 55% and 96%

throughout the annulus
maintain bottom hole pressure within specified limits
maintain circulation pressure within specified limits
maintain sufficient flow at bottom hole to power the
motor.

In order to achieve these objectives the following

parameters can be varied:

injection liquid rate

injection gas rate
choke setting/wellhead pressure
liquid rheology.

The first step in the design process is to use water or

brine as the base liquid for the foam. If the frictional
pressure drops associated with the foam prove to be too
high then a drag-reducing base liquid could be tried. If
the frictional pressure drops prove to be too low then a
more viscous gel could be used. The suggested design
scheme is shown in Figure 2. Having made a preliminary
choice of water as the base liquid of the foam, the next
step is to set a choke pressure at, say 300 psi (this can
later be varied). Figure 11, the Foam Quality Map, shows
which combinations of liquid and gas rates will then
produce a foam quality within the specified bounds of
55% and 96%. The Upper Quality Limit corresponds to
96% quality at the wellhead: above that limit the quality is
too high at the wellhead. The Lower Quality Limit

SPE 36349

IAN C. WALTON AND HONGREN GU

corresponds to 55% quality at bottomhole: below that

limit the quality is too low at bottomhole. Since the quality
generally decreases with depth in the annulus, if the
quality is below 96% at the wellhead and above 55% at
bottomhole, it will lie between these values at all pOints in
the annulus.
Gas and liquid injection rates are then chosen which lie
in the center of the range for acceptable foam quality.
The total downhole flowrate corresponding to the
selected liquid and gas injection rates is shown in Figure
12. This plot allows a check to be made that the total
downhole flowrate does not exceed the limitations of the
motor. Next, bh circulating pressure is checked to be
within the specified bounds by using Figure 13, This plot
shows how bhp varies with gas injection rate for a
number of specified liquid rates. It should be noted that
the bhp may be reduced by increasing the gas rate (due
to reduction of
the hydrostatic component in the
annulus). However, at high gas rate and low liquid rate
frictional pressure drop becomes dominant and
increasing the gas rate actually leads to a higher bhp. A
similar plot of circulation pressure is shown as Figure 14,
but note that since the bulk of this pressure is due to
friction, increasing gas or liquid rates leads to higher
circulating pressure. With the aid of Figures 11-14 it
should be possible to select gas and liquid pumprates
which satisfy all the job requirements. If it is not possible,
then the choke pressure and/or the liquid viscosity
should be changed and the process repeated. Figures
11-14 were obtained by a steady state calculation
throughout the CT and the annulus between the CT and
the open hole, tubing or casing. The calculation takes
into account the compressibility of the foam and its
frictional pressure drop.
Finally, the complete job should be simulated using the
WBS to confirm that the design is valid even when
transient effects, reservoir interaction and the effect of
drilled solids are taken into account. Some refinement of
the job deSign may be necessary at this stage.

EXAMPLES
The following are two examples of the design process as
described above. In each of them a sidetrack is to be
drilled from an existing well bore. The well geometry and
the expected path of the sidetrack are shown in Figure 3.
The existing well is completed vertically to 6500 ft with
5.5 in ID production tubing. The extension is drilled with a
3.875 in bit on 1.75 in ID CT. The planned trajectory of
the extension becomes horizontal at 8937 ft (TVD). The
producing zone extends from 9000-10000 ft (MD).

Example 1
In the first example the reservoir pressure is 4000 psi
and ~he extension is to be drilled up to 200 psi
overbalanced. The reservoir pressure is sufficiently high
that drilling with liquid should be considered.

There are two sections that could cause potential holecleaning problems: the annulus between the CT and the
production tubing and the open hole section. The Flow
Regime Map (Figure 4) shows the minimum pump rate
needed to transport the cutting in suspension in the
drilled section where the CT/hole annulus is fairly narrow.
There is little difficulty in cleaning the hole efficiently with
water even in the horizontal section if a pump rate of 3.3
bpm can be achieved. The Minimum Suspension
Flowrate Map (Figure 6) shows that a slightly more
viscous fluid would clean the open hole section more
efficiently and require a lower pump rate: the optimum
viscosity, 8 cp @ 170 s-1 requires only a pump rate of
about 2.0 bpm. Hole cleaning in the cased section,
where the annulus is wider, in general requires a much
higher pump rate (Figure 5). Fortunately, this section is
vertical and the pumprate required to transport the
cuttings is in fact much less than in the narrower
horizontal section. In wells where the cased section is
deviated, cuttings transport there may present a more
serious problem than near the bit.. For example Figure 5
shows that 8.1 bpm would be required to clean a 60
degree deviation.
According to Leising and Newman 2 , the maximum
flowrate for the largest downhole motor for this size hole
(i.e. 3.06 in) is 2 bpm. At this flowrate we may expect to
see a small cuttings bed in the drilled section if brine is
used as the drilling fluid. On the other hand a weak gel of
viscosity 8 cp @ 170 s-1 should be able to clean the hole
at 2 bpm.
The next step is to check whether the bottom hole
circulating pressure conforms with the job specifications.
Figure 7 shows the bottom hole pressure for steady state
flow of the selected fluids at the selected pump rate. At a
pump rate of 2.0 bpm water or weak gel give bhp within
the target range of 4000-4200 psi. Note however that
there will be some fluid loss to the reservoir which will
reduce the solids-carrying capacity of the liquid. Next,
the circulation pressure is checked using Figure 8. At 2
bpm the circulation pressure is well within the maximum
allowable working pressure of the CT.
Having established the optimum fluid rheology and a
pump rate on the basis of these simple steady-state
plots, the deSign is then evaluated using the fully

HYDRAULICS DESIGN IN COILED TUBING DRILLING

transient WBS. The output from the simulator shows that

the wellbore pressure in the producing zone is about
4100-4200 psi, still within the design specifications.
However, as Figure 9 demonstrates, this overbalance
generates some leakoff of about 0.2 bpm. This reduces
the carrying capacity of the designed flow to a level just
below that required to transport the cuttings completely in
suspension. In fact Figure 10 reveals that a shallow
cuttings bed is built up in the deviated section, even
though most of the cuttings are successfully transported
to the surface. If pumping continues after drilling has
ceased at 10000 ft, the bed is eroded and eventually all
the cuttings are transported to the surface.
In this example, it is debatable whether or not the design
is satisfactory. Certainly the well can be cleaned, but it
may take some time and reduce the effective ROP. The
design could be improved by decreasing the bhp by
adjusting the choke setting to prevent leakoff or by
reducing the actual ROP to reduce the cuttings
concentration in the annulus.
Example 2

In the second example the reservoir pressure is 1900 psi

and the extension is to be drilled close to balance. The
reservoir pressure is too low to permit the use of a liquid
as the drilling fluid so foam is to be used.
Setting a choke pressure of 300 psi allows Figure 11 to
be generated. This shows the range of gas and liquid
flow rates that will produce a foam of acceptable quality
throughout the annulus. A point in the acceptable region
should be chosen, for example a liquid rate of 0.75 bpm
and gas rate of 750 scfm. Figure 12 then shows that this
combination of f10wrates provides a total downhole
f10wrate of just under 2.0 bpm, the maximum flow rate for
the motor. From Figure 13 it can be seen that the bh
circulating pressure which corresponds to these
f10wrates is about 1900 psi which is close to the required
value. Figure 14 shows that the corresponding circulation
pressure is about 1500 psi, well within the pressure
limitations of the CT.
The next step is to check the design out with the WBS to
ensure that all the job specifications are met when
transient effects and reservoir interaction are taken into
account. The job was simulated by drilling ahead from
6500 ft to 10000 ft at a rate of 1 ftlmin and flow rates as
specified above. It was found that the foam quality was
within bounds and varied from a fairly steady 63% at
bottom hole to 96% at the wellhead. The hole was
cleaned efficiently and all cuttings were removed to the
surface. However, the bottom hole pressure in the

SPE 36349

producing zone (9000 ft-10000ft) was only about 1800

psi (Figure 15). The 100 psi underbalance generated
some inflow from the reservoir. If this inflow is
unacceptable it is suggested that the choke pressure be
increased to 400 psi, but otherwise the job design is
satisfactory .

CONCLUSIONS

An optimal design of the hydraulics of CTD treatments

can be achieved by using a design methodology and the
new computer tools. The steady state design tools, STR
(Solids Transport and Removal module) and DAM (the
Design Aids Module), allow a quick first approximation to
be made to a design that meets all the job specifications.
This preliminary design is then evaluated in the context
of a full description of the operation (which involves
transient effects and interaction with the reservoir) by
using the transient Wellbore Simulator (WBS).
The design methodology has been successfully applied
to CTD jobs in which liquid or foam is used as the drilling
fluid. Application of the methodology to CTD jobs using
gas injection will be described elsewhere 8 .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Schlumberger Dowell for

permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

1.

Gary,S.C.: ''Technical and Economical Feasibility of

Coiled Tubing Drilling," paper SPE 30490 presented
at the 70th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October, 1995.

2.

Leising,L.J. and Newman,K.R.: " Coiled Tubing

Drilling," paper SPE 24594 presented at the 67th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, D.C. ,4-7 October, 1992.

3.

Leising,L.J. and Rike,E.A.: " Underbalanced Drilling

with Coiled Tubing and Well Productivity," paper
SPE 28870 presented at the
SPE European
Petroleum Conference, London, U.K., 25-27,
October, 1994.

4.

Taylor,J., McDonald,C. and Fried,S.: "Under

balanced
Drilling Total
Systems approach,"
presented at the 1st International Underbalanced
Drilling Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, 2-4
October, 1995.

SPE 36349

IAN C. WALTON AND HONGREN GU

5.

Falk, K. and Wilde, G.: "Coiled Tubing Computer

Model," presented at the CIM/AOSTRA Technical
Conference, Banff, Alberta, 21-24 April, 1991.

6.

Wang,Z., Rommetveit,R., Vefring,E.H, Bieseman,T.

and Faure,A.M.: "A Dynamic Underbalanced Drilling
Simulator," presented at the 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague,
Netherlands, 2-4 October, 1995

7.

Walton,I.C.: "Computer Simulator of Coiled Tubing

Wellbore Cleanouts in Deviated Wells Recommends
Optimum Pump Rate and Fluid Viscosity," paper
SPE 29491 presented at the 1995 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April
2-4.

8. Gu, H. and Walton, I.C.: " DeSigning Under- or NearBalanced Coiled Tubing Drilling Using Computer
&imulation Tools," to be presented at the 1996 SPE
Western Region Conference, Anchorage, Alaska,
May 1996.
9. Gu, H. and Walton, I.C.: "Development of a
Computer Wellbore Simulator for Coiled Tubing
Operations," paper SPE 28222 presented at the
1994 SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Dallas,
TX, July 31-Aug. 3.
10. Gu, H., Walton, I.C., and Brady, B.H.G.: "A
Computer Wellbore Simulator for Coiled Tubing
Cleanout Operations," Proc., Eighth International
Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, Morgantown, WV (1994).

select liquid density, whp, CT

select best ROP, viscosity and

flowrate for hole cleaning

yes

no
flowrate within motor spec?
is larger CT available?
is other whp possible?
is other fluid density available?

yes
bhp within spec?

yes

no

no

circulating pressure within spec?

yes
esign for slugs or
eciprocation or
use foam

Fig. 1 -

CTD with liquid design flowchart.

HYDRAULICS DESIGN IN COILED TUBING DRILLING

SPE 36349

select whp, liquid viscosity and density

Use Foam Quality Map to select gas

and liquid flowrates

no

is the total flowrate within

the motor specs?
yes

no
is bhp within specs?
yes
no

is circulating pressure with in spec?

yes
Run WBS until all specs are met

Fig. 2 -

CrD with foam design flowchart

..

caSIng

~---

coiled tubing

6500 ft

drilled section
8400 ft

/
reservolf

8600 ft

Fig 3--Well profile

SPE 36349

3.5

_bed "STiafn-g- up
;-----.........

--

. "'

.. "'; ,; '

./ ....';-'/
h

/.

4200
4180

.~~

u.

Q.

2.5

.0

stationary bed

::J

III
III

~
ns

./

1.5

n::

C1)

"0

J:

::I

oC')

o<X)

r--

<0

----water

4040
4020

1.2

Ol

1.4

1.6

_.I~ed

--

.............

"/

,,/,

,-'" ,/
,/

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Uquid Rate, bpm

Fig--? Bottom Hole pressure in liquid circulation

~--------------------------------~ 10
9

,'/

--- ---

III

Flow Regime Map for water at the bit

---

---~gel

4080

deviation, degrees

Fig. 4 -

--- ---

4100

E
0
:t: 4060
0

c..

0
o

--- ---

4120

r:l.

Q.

0.5
o

----- ---

4160

e 4140

Q.

bed sliding down

IAN C. WALTON AND HONGREN GU

sfiding-Li

- -----

4000

- - -

E
Q.

6.0

stationary bed

0)

51ii
...

./

/.'

Q.

3.r
bed sliding down

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,

3500

3000

weak gel

___ ---

---water

'"

.[ 2500

2000

1500

,.

<JJ

,.
,. ,.

,.
/

___ ---

---

---

,./
/

r:l.

1000

500

('")

"<t

LO

a<X)

<0

o L-________________________________

Ol

Liquid Rate, bpm

deviation, degrees

Fig. 5 -

<0

Flow Regime Map for water in the casing

0.18

.5-6

1:]4-5

'"

0 3- 4

It")

jg
C1)

u
0

<JJ
Cl

~==========~~----~o

0.16

-.i

1:] 1-2

Fig--8 Circulation Hole pressure in liquid circulation

It")

.2-3

'"

C()

E::J
U

'E

-=:.
.l!l

-0.05

0.14

0.12

Q.

-0.1 ~

0.10

.l!l
~

~ 0.08

III

"0

III

- - - solids rate out

0.06

-0.1~

""~'"

- - - - - 'Ieakoff rate

0.04

-0.2

0.02
3

12

15

18 21

24

27

viscosity @ 170 s-l

0.00 L-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...J -0.25

0

Q)

Time, min

Fig. 6 - Minimum Suspension Flowrate Map showing

pump rate contours

Figure 9--Leakoff Rate and Solids Transport Rate

SPE 36349

HYDRAULICS DESIGN IN COILED TUBING DRILLING

__________________

1.8
1.6

'0
>

~
;It.

18

10

----------,,-----...

solids cone at 1750 min

.;

-. - - solids cone at 1900 min

12 ;

1.2

u
c:

10~
c:

..
:g
....
u

'0

VI

Q.

0.8

0.6

0.2
0.L.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

t>

'C

---I~:.._

_ _ _ _ _____t0

4643

..... -

..

.....

c..

2500

"'

:I:

'0

2300

E
0

2100

III

1900

:=0

"

1700

_--,---------

600-_

..
E

CI

...

2000

500

.......

- . -

- 20 bpm

--

....
'

..

--- --- ---

600

700

----

-.- --'
---'" ----

........ . -.

900

800

- -- . - '

. ' . - .. .' -

. -.

- . -..

'

Il.

c:

1500

500-

---Upper
Quality Limit

:;

1000

400 -

- - - - . Lower
Quality Limit

..

1.0 bpm

- .15 bpm

- . -2.0 bpm

500
0

300 __ ,.
0.2

.... .... ....

......

2500

..f!
VI

c:

~
Z

400

3000

::s

0::
CI>

......

- - - 10 bpm
. . . . . . 1.5 bpm

3500

Q.

.... ....

......

Figure 13-- Bottom Hole Pressure in Foam Circulation

'iii

700 ..

......

Nitrogen Rate, bpm

800

'E
u
en

... ...

......

~
300

c:

ii:

, .....

_ _ _ 0.5 bpm

1500

Figure 10--Suspended Solids Concentration and Bed

Fraction

'

2700

9000

well depth, ft

900

2900

.,.,"

..

~
4 ..
:g
2 '0

0.4

::s

.2

...

3100

CI.

c:

---Area of bed at 1750 min

3300

14~::s

1.4

..... ....

3500

16

300

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

Liquid Rate, bpm

400

500

600

700

800

900

Nitrogen Rate SCF/min

Figure 14-- Circulation Pressure in Foam Circulation

Figure 11 --Foam Quality Map

3.5

-.-

_ -. ---. -- ----. ---.

_
.. .. - .. - ..
---

3
E

Q.

.c

..

0::

~
0

u::

- - ----

...

2.5

--- --- -----

- --

1.5

..

...

---

-===-=..05 bpm-

- - - 1.0 bpm
- . - - . 1.5 bpm
- - - - 2.0 bpm

0
LL.

0.5

~ "------.~----

a
300

400

500

600

700

800

Nitrogen rate, SCF/min

900

1ffD ~---------------------~ 84CO

1243 1342 1442 1541 1641 1740 1834

Tirre, min

Figure 12-- Downhole Flow Rate in Foam Circulation

Figure 15-- Downhole pressures in Foam Circulation