SPE 50405

Optimum Fluid Design for Drilling and Cementing a Well Drilled with Coil Tubing
Technology
. Svendsen, SPE, A. Saasen, SPE and B. Vassy, SPE, Statoil; and E. Skogen, F. Mackin and S. H. Normann,
Schlumberger Dowell
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 14 November 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 and are subject to
correction by the author(s). 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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper describes the strategy, design and the drilling fluid
and cement operations in the first two wells drilled with Coil
Tubing on the Gullfaks field. The strategy and design is
explained in great detail. Excellent hole cleaning was
achieved in both wells.
A serious problem of differential sticking was eliminated
by a radical change in drilling fluid strategy and design. It
was possible to successfully drill a 3 hole, log and
run/cement a 2 7/8 liner at a maximum inclination of 122o.
A virtually solids free Potassium Formate Brine/Polymer
drilling fluid with a density from 1.50 1.56 g/cc was used.
The flow properties of the drilling fluid is characterised by a
very low fluid loss due to a high extensional viscosity, a low
viscosity at all shear rates and a low degree of shear-thinning.
Introduction
The Gullfaks field is located in the Tampen Spur Area of the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The field structure is
divided into a number of rotated fault blocks with low angle
normal faults and additional smaller scale faults found in most
of the wells. The field is therefore classified as a complex
reservoir. Due to the structural complexity and the relatively
shallow depth, the field presents extraordinary challenges with
respect to well profiles.
A number of oil accumulations not suited for recovery
with the existing drilling strategies were identified in 1996.
About 20 of these targets were considered suitable for Coil
Tubing Drilling (CTD)1. A project was established to qualify
CTD as a method for cost effective drilling and to drain these
accumulations. The wells A-10A and A-19A presented in this
paper represent the first and second of the planned CTD
sidetracked wells in the Gullfaks field.

Drilling Fluid Strategy and Design

Designing a drilling fluid for CTD changes the relative
importance and priority assigned to the various criteria. There
are frequently several solutions each with strengths and
weaknesses. For these wells, the solutions adopted were a
Mixed Metal Hydroxide/Barite fluid for A-10A and a
Potassium Formate Brine/Polymer fluid for the well A-19A,
A-19AT2 and A-19AT3.
Hydraulics. Because small diameter tubulars and narrow
annuli can generate high pressure losses, the hydraulics
program is the limiting factor in CTD fluid design. Essentially,
pressure losses must allow a flow rate sufficient to operate the
down hole tools and clean the hole. At the same time one has
to keep within the limits of the equipment and the formation
Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD).
The pressure losses are determined by the fluids density
and viscosity, and by the flow rate. The attainable flow rate is
controlled by the fluids density and viscosity. The required
flow rate is controlled by its viscosity parameters. Thus, after
the required density has been determined, the effect of
obtaining the other fluid properties on the viscosity, will be the
design limiting factor.
Density. The fluid density is decided on the basis of the
formation mechanical properties. It has to be high enough to
control reservoir pressures and to prevent formation collapse.
It has to be low enough so that the annular frictional pressure
drops do not exceed the ECD limitations. Good hole stability
is required to ensure free sliding of the pipe and prevent
helical lock-up.
Hole Cleaning, Viscosity and Gel Strengths. For optimal
hole cleaning it is important that the annular frictional pressure
loss be as high as possible. This pressure loss represents the
energy expended on hole cleaning2, 3. In CTD operations the
annuli are narrow and the tubular diameters are small. High
fluid velocities are attained with relatively low flow rates, and
thus high frictional pressure losses can be achieved with low
viscosities. If the viscosity is too high; then the corresponding
pressure losses will be excessive, and the ECD or equipment
limitations may dictate the use of a flow rate too low to
operate the down hole tools or to clean the hole. Therefore, a

. SVENDSEN. A. SAASEN, B. VASSY, E. SKOGEN, F. MACKIN, S.H. NORMANN

fluid with a low viscosity or a viscosity with a highly shear

thinning nature is preferred.
Hole cleaning is complicated by the difficulty in removing
cuttings beds. This is due to the inability of the tubing to be
rotated to help in transporting the cuttings back into the bulk
flow region. The difficulty increases if the formation of an
extensive gel structure consolidates the cuttings bed3. A high
viscosity created by the addition of long chain polymers, can
cause such a gel structure to form. Furthermore, the provision
of viscosity and gels in excess of those required to suspend the
fluids own solids is not required, since the only time the fluid
must be static is when the pipe is out of the hole. For these
reasons a lower viscosity fluid is preferred.
Ensuring that the bulk flow velocity is constant across the
annulus, will minimize the rate at which a cuttings bed can
accumulate. This condition can best be met when the flow is
fully turbulent, or if the fluid has a constant viscosity. As can
be seen in Table 4., the fluid used in well A-19A had a nearly
constant viscosity. The expectation that such a fluid should
have excellent cuttings transport properties was verified in the
CTD operation.
Filtration Control. CTD is ideal for inducing differential
sticking as only slide drilling is possible and the pipe is in
physical contact with the hole wall for extended distances.
Short of drilling in under-balance, the possibility of
differential sticking cannot be eliminated. Maintenance of a
low filtration rate can reduce the severity of the problem. The
magnitude of the sticking force is a function of the pressure
differential, the contact area and the flow rate. A low filtration
rate, by reducing the flow rate, reduces the pressure
differential maintained by that flow. Also, a thinner filter cake
is generated and thus the cross-sectional contact area of the
embedded pipe is reduced.
In a clear fluid, without solid bridging material, it becomes
necessary to use polymeric additives to create a sufficient
extensional viscosity to prevent fluid from flowing into the
formation. The extensional viscosity, also called the shear
free viscosity4, is known to be the major factor controlling the
flow of polymeric liquids into porous formations5. The reason
is that the fluid resists changing to a shape similar to a rod
thickening under compression6, 4.
In Newtonian flow, the extensional viscosity is three times
the shear viscosity. Thus, for regular flow in a porous medium,
it contributes about 75% of the resistance to flow. In this case,
because the extensional viscosity and the shear viscosity are
proportional, the empirical determination of the permeability
will hide the effect of the extensional viscosity. For polymeric
liquids the case is completely different, as in Non-Newtonian
flow the extensional viscosity can be several magnitudes
larger than the shear viscosity4. Thus optimum filtration
control is achieved by the use of a fluid with a high
extensional viscosity.
Lubricity. The drilling fluid needs to exhibit a high degree of
lubricity. Excessive sliding friction will cause helical lock-up

SPE 50405

of the pipe and prevent further progress. Also in larger

diameter wells bit torque can be a limiting factor.
Solids content. A high solids concentration increases the
probability of stuck or sticky pipe by increasing the filter cake
thickness and by reducing its lubricity. Either can cause helical
lock-up, which will slow or prevent further drilling. Also,
pressure losses are higher at high solids concentration and this
can result in having to use a less than optimum flow rate.
Drilling Fluid Design: Well A-10A
Early in the planning phase of A-10A, consideration was given
to the use of a brine-based drilling fluid with similar viscosity
and fluid loss characteristics to that later used in A-19A.
However, it was at that time not possible to agree upon a
formulation and the ideas were put on hold to the next well.
The constraints for this well were therefore that a density
of 1.50 g/cc was required and that no unusual brines would be
used. This meant that the fluid formulation would need a solid
weighting agent, which would require viscosity and gels for
their suspension. Therefore, the design criteria were good hole
cleaning, the provision of solids suspension, and protection
against stuck pipe.
The presence of solids meant that pressure loss
considerations would restrict flow rates. Hole cleaning
problems, due to low annular velocities, were considered a
significant possibility in the broader tubing to casing annulus.
To solve this problem, without exceeding pressure limitations
or further restricting flow rates, would require a drilling fluid
exhibiting a high degree of shear thinning. At low annular
velocities, the viscosity would be high and provide the desired
suspension and hole cleaning. At high annular velocities and
inside the tubing, the viscosity would be sufficiently low to
keep ECD and pressure losses within acceptable ranges.
There was also an increased possibility of stuck pipe. The
filter cakes thickness would increase and its lubricity would
decrease. To minimise these effects would require a drilling
fluid with a low filtration rate and would require the lowest
amount of added solids. Furthermore, the ability to lubricate
steel to steel, and steel to non-porous formation surfaces is
important in preventing stuck pipe.
Initially attractive because of their inherent lubricity and
thin filter cakes were the oil and synthetic based systems. But
they were rejected because they provide for only a moderate
degree of shear thinning. Hydraulic modelling indicated that
pressure loss considerations would restrict flow rates to the
extent that the flow rates might be inadequate to clean the hole
or to prevent the formation of a cuttings bed. This is due to
the high values of the high shear rate viscosities.
The Mixed Metal Hydroxide-Bentonite System (MMH),
and fluids formulated with Xanthan gum or Sclaeroglucan
gum viscosifiers all exhibit a high degree of shear thinning.
But compared to a MMH fluid of a similar viscosity, the
polymer systems have lower, slow shear rate values. As the
polymers do not exhibit a true yield stress and as their gels are
much lower, they are less effective at suspending solids and at

OPTIMUM FLUID DESIGN FOR DRILLING AND CEMENTNG A WELL WITH COILTUBING TECHNOLOGY

resisting the formation of a consolidated cuttings bed. Where

the polymer fluids excel is in their tolerance to dissolved
solids and in the provision of very low filtration rates.
Since the fluid design was stressing hole cleaning, the
MMH system with its unique viscosity profile was selected. It
exhibits an extremely shear thinning behaviour, coupled with a
true yield stress and the rapid development of a high, but nonprogressive, gel structure. This provides for good hole
cleaning without exceeding the pressure and ECD limitations.
The high values of the slow shear rate properties, even in a
low viscosity fluid, ensure improved hole cleaning at low
annular velocities. The extreme shear thinning nature of the
drilling fluid keeps pressure losses in the tubing to a minimum
and permits pumping rates to be optimised.
Settlement of the weighting agent and cuttings is prevented
by the combination of the true yield stress and the rapid
development of high gels. Without the cuttings settling out of
the flow stream, the hole cleaning is further improved. As the
viscosity is not derived from polymers, any cuttings beds that
do form, remain small, unconsolidated and easily disturbed.
With no settled material thickening the filter cake, the
tendency for the pipe to become differentially stuck is
reduced. Furthermore, though the gels formed have a high
initial value, they are non-progressive and fragile and have a
minimal effect on surge and swab pressure.
When compared to a similarly weighted Xanthan/brine
based system, the MMH system will normally have a much
higher concentration of non-dissolved solids, as it cannot
tolerate high salt concentrations. However, due to the lower
viscosity needed to suspend the Barite, the hydraulics
modelling predicted that the MMH fluid would produce lower
pressure losses and permit the use of higher flow rates for
better hole cleaning.
Chemical incompatibility makes filtration control in the
MMH system difficult. Even with the acceptable chemicals,
API filtration rates below 3 to 4 ml cannot be achieved
without significant effects on the viscosity.
Drilling Fluid Design: Well A-19A
A review of the previous well, A-10A, concluded that the
main reason for not reaching the planned total depth (TD) was
differential sticking. As the density would be 1.50 g/cc, it was
decided that primary design criteria should emphasise those
factors which would lessen the possibility of differential
sticking and which would improve the inherent lubricity of the
drilling fluid. Hole cleaning was to be a secondary design
criterion.
Without lowering the density, the most effective methods
of preventing differential sticking problems is to reduce the
filtration rate and to thin the filter cake. Since filtration rate
has a direct impact on filter cake thickness, its reduction helps
on both points. The other factor that will assist in thinning the
filter cake is to decrease the concentration of un-dissolved
solids. A Brine/Polymer drilling fluid can satisfy both these
requirements and depending on the brine and polymers
selected, one can reduce or eliminate the need for non-

dissolved solids. To maximise the available benefits it was

decided to use a solids free brine drilling fluid one in
which the only added, non-dissolved solids are polymers. A
filtration control target was set with an API rate less than 1 ml
and an HTHP rate less than 10 ml at 110C and 500 psi
pressure differential.
It had been postulated, based on work done in Alaska, that
a solids free fluid containing a very high concentration of
Xanthan polymer would produce a viscous filter cake on the
surface of the formation7, 8. No fluid enters the pores as it is
too viscous and the filter cake is extremely thin. Powell et.al7
report that filtration control was derived from the high, low
shear viscosity and from the true yield stress of the viscoelastic
Xanthan based fluid. Thus the fluid cleans the hole and at the
same time resists differential sticking.
It is felt that this explanation was incomplete. First, a
Xanthan based fluid does not develop a true yield stress, and
second, as stated earlier, the major controlling factor is
anticipated to be the extensional viscosity of the fluid4, 5, 6, 9. Fig.
1. shows the comparison of extensional and (shear) viscosities
as a function of strain and shear rate for a laboratory sample of a
fluid with the similar composition as the fluid used on the CTD
operation.
Viscosity and Extensional viscosity (Pa s)

SPE 50405

10

0,1
Extensional
Viscosity
Viscosity
0,01
0,1

10

100

1000

Shear and Strain Rate (1/s)

Figure 1. Comparison between shear and extensional viscosity
for a laboratory sample of the CT drilling fluid.
For a porous medium the strain rate and the shear rate are
assumed to be equal. The strain rate can be illustrated as the
thickening of a rod in two directions that occurs because the
rod is being compressed in the third direction. It can be seen
from Fig. 1. that there is a distinct strain and shear thinning
profile for the fluid. This is indicative of the dominant effect
in both types of flow to be entanglement disruption, thereby
reducing the resistance to flow. There is a considerable

. SVENDSEN. A. SAASEN, B. VASSY, E. SKOGEN, F. MACKIN, S.H. NORMANN

difference between the values for extensional viscosity and

shear viscosity for the same sample. The extensional viscosity
is nine times the shear viscosity at low shear rates. It should
also be noted that the gradient of the slopes of extensional
profiles and shear profiles change relative to one another as a
function of strain and shear rate. At low strain and shear rates
the gradient for shear viscosity is much steeper than that for
extensional viscosity. This indicates that at low shear rates the
sample undergoes much more degradation due to shear than it
does under strain. This can be explained by the overall
disrupting effect the shear has on the polymer entanglements.
At higher strain and shear rates the gradients of both profiles
become comparable indicating that there is an equal amount of
entanglement disruption taking place as a result of both strain
and shear forces.
A clearer consequence of the different viscosity curves is
indicated in Fig. 2. which shows the Trouton ratio for a
sample. The Trouton ratio is the extensional viscosity divided
by the shear viscosity at a strain rate equal to the shear rate.

25

Trouton Ratio

20

15

10

5
0

100

200

300

400

Shear and Strain Rate (1/s)

Figure 2. The Trouton ratio for a laboratory sample of the CT
drilling fluid.
The Trouton ratio is the established method of comparing
extensional and shear viscositys. By definition extensional
viscosity is always 3 times greater than shear viscosity at
Newtonian conditions. Therefore a Trouton ratio of 3
indicates Newtonian behaviour. Thus, any deviation away
from 3 leading to greater values indicates that there is
viscoelasticity in the sample. Furthermore, as mentioned
previously, a deviation from 3 indicates a fluid induced
reduction in the porous media permeability.
The work reported by Powell et al7 and Goodrich et al8
took place in an area where the formation pore pressure was
low and the fracture strength relatively high, and the drilling
fluid density was low. In the Gullfaks field, none of these
conditions prevailed and the ideas that had been advanced

SPE 50405

were modified. First, a density of 1.50 g/cc was required and

thus a brine and not water would be used. Second, to provide
filtration control and not exceed the pressure limitations,
would require the use of an ultra low viscosity type of Poly
Anionic Cellulose (PAC) polymer. This like the Xanthan
polymers would, at a suitable concentration, provide the high
extensional to shear viscosity ratio required for filtration
control to be achieved with a filter cake of minimal thickness
(or possibly without the formation of a filter cake).
Potassium Formate brine was selected because it covered
the desired density range of 1.46 g/cc to 1.56 g/cc. It is also
compatible with all the drilling fluid polymers. Other benefits
include extending the performance of the polymers under
conditions of high shear and temperature. It also inhibits
swelling of clays and the formation of scale when in contact
with connate waters. Furthermore, as a Potassium brine, its
viscosity and thus effect on the pressure losses is
comparatively low.
To use Xanthan polymer at concentrations approaching
those reported by Powell et al7 and Goodrich et al8 with a
brine of this density was not possible. Hydraulics modeling
indicated, that even with flow rates too low to operate the
down hole tools, the resulting pressure losses would be far in
excess of tubing and ECD limitations. Thus an ultra low
viscosity type of PAC polymer, at a concentration of 20 kg/m3
was used to provide the desired filtration control. Even at this
concentration, the viscosity produced was almost at the
allowable limit.
To provide the remaining viscosity and to extend the
extensional to shear viscosity ratio, a Xanthan gum polymer
was added at the concentration of 1kg/m3. This was sufficient
to impart an extra small degree of shear thinning to the fluid
without exceeding the desired pressure parameters. With this
extra shear thinning, the viscosity profile became nearly
constant, which was expected to assist in keeping the cuttings
in the bulk flow region and thus improve hole cleaning.
Compared to the MMH system used in the previous well,
modeling on the hydraulics modeling showed significantly
lowered frictional pressure drops and ECDs for the
Polymer/Potassium-Formate fluid. Furthermore, the inherent
lubricity of the Polymer/Potassium Formate system was found
to be quite good. This was mainly due to the fact that the
majority of solids in the fluid are polymers; polymers which
when wet are quite efficient lubricants.
Many of the benefits of the drilling fluid as designed were
dependent upon maintaining a low concentration of suspended
solids. The optimum concentration was less than 1% to 1.5%.
A planned maximum was set at 1.5% by volume. To achieve
this would require the optimal use of the solids control
equipment.
Disadvantages - Potassium Formate Drilling Fluid.
Concentrated Potassium Formate brines do however have
some disadvantages. It is a sophisticated and expensive brine
that require stringent procedures for the logistic cycle and a
proper housekeeping at all times. Due to earlier use of

SPE 50405

OPTIMUM FLUID DESIGN FOR DRILLING AND CEMENTNG A WELL WITH COILTUBING TECHNOLOGY

Potassium Formate drilling fluid on Gullfaks10, it was possible

to identify the necessary precautions at an early stage and
implement the necessary procedures.
One major disadvantage is that Barium Sulphate has a high
level of solubility in the concentrated brine. As Barium is
highly toxic, care must be taken to avoid or minimise
contamination10. This is a health issue and not an
environmental problem as contaminated brine can be
processed and the Barium removed. Barite should, if time
permits, be avoided in a well control situation. Testing
established that the use of Calcium Carbonate to increase the
density, to 0.24 g/cc above saturation, could be easily
tolerated.
Drilling A-10A with MMH based drilling fluid
A through tubing retrievable whipstock was set in the
motherwell11. A window was milled in the 7 liner at 2206m
and a 3 hole was drilled using 2 3/8 CT.
The MMH drilling fluid, used for both the milling and
drilling operations and had identical fluid specifications. Good
hole cleaning and acceptable fluid loss control were
emphasised. The drilling fluid was easy to maintain and the
viscosity was adjusted with additionsof pre-hydrated Bentonite
and MMH to the active system. Density adjustments were
made with addition of ligth and heavy premixes or water. The
lubricant was added up to a maximum content of 1% (by
volume) to the active system. The relevant drilling fluid
parameters are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Planned vs. Actual Drilling Fluid Parameters, A-10A

Drilling Fluid Parameter

Density (g/cc)
Plastic Viscosity (mPa.s)
Fann 3 rpm reading
Gel strength (10/10) Pa
API Fluid Loss (mL)
MBT (kg/m3)
LGS (vol %)
Ca ++ (mg/L)

Plan
1.42
ALAP
> 15
7 - 15 / 12 - 20
< 12
< 50
< 5.8
< 100

Actual
1.39 - 1.42
14 - 20
8 - 21*
4 - 10 / 14- 34

3.0 - 5.8
23 - 32
2.9 - 5.0
60 - 80

*) The 3 rpm reading was later decreased to + 10.

The inclination increased from 40o to 93o by the tangent

section. The build-up section was drilled with an optimum rate
of penetration (ROP) from 12 - 15 m/h and a smooth dogleg
severity. There were no drilling problems through the buildup section. Frequent wiper trips (every 10m) to the window
were made to enhance hole cleaning. Differential sticking was
not noted as a problem even though the dynamic overbalance
was 20 bars. During this section the drilling fluids low shear
viscosity was less than planned. However, no detrimental
effect was noted on hole cleaning.
Differential sticking became a serious problem in the
tangent section. Meters drilled as well as hours between each
wiper trip increased during the tangent section. In one
incident, to pull free required 19.5 metric tons overpull (i.e.
the maximum allowable overpull). To reduce the differential

sticking tendency the drilling fluid viscosity and weight were

reduced. Later on, 1% (by volume) lubricant was added to the
active system. This reduced hook weight by 1.4 metric tons,
but also caused an increase in the drilling fluid viscosity. The
viscosity profiles are shown in Table 2.
Hole cleaning was not an issue while drilling. In the
review, it was considered to be excellent. The fluid loss
control was better than planned. No fill was recorded. Torque
and drag monitoring as well as trend curves generated from
cuttings return measurement indicated good hole cleaning.
Table 2. Viscosity Profile, A-10A

600 300
200
100
60
30
6
3 rpm
rpm rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
58
40
32
23
--11
11
55
39
32
25
--19
19
The viscosity profile in the 1st row is representative of the buildup section whilst the 2nd row is representative for the tangent
section.

Because of the sticking severity and the frequent stalling of

the motor, total depth (TD) was set 15m short of plan at
2464m due to lack of progress. The well was logged using a
2 CT. The hole was left open for a considerable time without
indications of hole stability problems. Caliper logs indicated a
smooth wellbore and no washouts. The dynamic overbalance
at TD was 30 bars.
Solids Control. The solids control system consisted of two
shakers. The solids content was kept below 150 kg/m3 by
whole drilling fluid dilution and effective shaker screen usage.
Screen sizes varied between 150mesh to 250mesh. For short
periods, 325mesh screens were used to reduce weight in the
active system.
Drilling A19A with Potassium Formate Drilling Fluid
A through tubing retrievable whipstock was set in the
motherwell12. A window was milled in the 7 liner at 1953m
and a 3 hole was drilled using 2 3/8 CT. The Potassium
Formate drilling fluid used for both the milling and drilling
operations had a density of 1.51 g/cc, and the fluid
specifications were identical for both. A low filtration rate was
emphasised. The drilling fluid was mixed offshore using
Potassium Formate brine supplied at 1.51 g/cc and later at 1.57
g/cc.
Experience showed that the polymers needed a
minimum of 16 hours to yield.
The drilling fluid properties remained stable throughout
this sidetrack. The fluid loss was indeed low for a water based
drilling fluid; a zero API fluid loss was experienced on the
majority of drilling fluid checks. Despite of having a lower
than planned concentration of PAC in the drilling fluid. The
system was easy to maintain, requiring small additions of
citric acid to keep pH below 11 (when cement contaminated)
and solid Potassium Formate for weight. The relevant drilling
fluid parameters are shown in Table 3.

. SVENDSEN. A. SAASEN, B. VASSY, E. SKOGEN, F. MACKIN, S.H. NORMANN

Table 3. Planned vs. Actual Drilling Fluid Parameters, A-19A

Drilling Fluid Parameter

Density (g/cc)
API Fluid Loss (mL)
HTHP Fluid Loss (mL)
Drill solids (% )

Plan
1.50 - 1.57
<2
< 10
< 1.5

Actual
1.50 - 1.56
0.0 - 0.6
4.4 - 6.4
0.5 - 1.6

The inclination was built from 23o to 125o. The tangent

section was then drilled further to TD at 2293m. At one point,
the drilling rate slowed down and it was decided to add 3%
lubricant to the drilling fluid system. There was no conclusive
evidence that it worked or that it was indeed ever needed. The
low ROP was believed to be the result of a formation change.
Drilling resumed and the ROP oscillated between 10 and 20
m/hr to TD.
When logging, it was found that the wellbore had
collapsed in an overpressured organic rich shale at a fault zone
near the end of the build-up at 2253m. A clean-up run with a
bit was attempted to facilitate the running of liner. It was
however impossible to pass 2166m due to collapse of the well
bore. The well was plugged back with two cement plugs.
A-19AT2. The sidetrack was kicked off at 1970m and drilled
to 2215m with the well path adjusted to avoid the shale. The
inclination was built from 23o to 105o. It was however
impossible to follow the planned azimuth because an error
caused 60o incorrect tool-face measurements to the left.
The 1.50 g/cc drilling fluid from A-19A was used for the
second sidetrack as the Low Gravity Solids content was below
the specified maximum of 1.5%. To reduce friction and help
sliding, another 3% friction reducer was added on top of the
2% already in the system. When RIH after at trip to change bit
and BHA, it was not possible to pass 2086m due to pack-off.
Overpulls at 8.6 and 5.4 metric tons were necessary to pull
free. Cavings were seen on the shakers. It was not possible to
work through the pack-off zone. It was decided to plug the
well and sidetrack.
The drilling fluid properties remained stable throughout
this sidetrack. As the amount of drill solids increased to 1.6%
at the end of this sidetrack, a slight increase was seen on the
viscosity. The relevant drilling fluid parameters and viscosity
profiles are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 4. Viscosity Profile, A19A

600
300 200
100
60
30
6
3
rpm
rpm rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
52
29
21
12
8
5
2
1
50
28
20
11
7
4
1
1
The viscosity profile in the 1st row is representative for the 1.50
g/cc fluid used in A-19A and A-19AT2. The profile in the 2nd row
is representative for the 1.56 g/cc fluid used in A-19AT3.

A-19AT3. The old drilling fluid was used to drill out

cement before displacing to new Potassium Formate drilling
fluid at 1.57 g/cc to improve the hole stability situation when
drilling A-19AT3. The final weight stabilized however at 1.56
g/cc due to Potassium Formate-salt crystallization and

SPE 50405

screening out over the shale shakers. The sidetrack kicked off
at 1976m and was successfully drilled to the planned TD at
2309m. The inclination was built from 23o to 122o. The
drilling fluid properties remained stable throughout this
sidetrack. The relevant drilling fluid parameters and viscosity
profile are shown in Table 3. and Table 4.
Stalling of motor was experienced in some formations. At
one pack-off the overpull was 10.4 to 11.3 metric tons. In
open hole when drilling, an underbalance at 20 bars in the
shale and an overbalance at 52 bars in a sand formation was
experienced. However, no differential sticking or stick-slip
occurred. A 2 7/8 liner was RIH to TD using a 2 CT and
cemented.
Problems noted during drilling was a combination of low
drilling rate in shale/coal-like sections, bit balling and
transfer of weight to the bit.
Hole cleaning.
Hole cleaning were found to be excellent in all three sidetracks
in A-19A. Although frequent wiper trips to the window were
performed, there is no doubt that the Potassium Formate brine
based drilling fluids exceptional flow properties are the major
contributing factor.
Low ROP and bit balling. In all sidetracks we experienced
hard formations with a very low ROP. Balled up bit and
BHA were observed several times when pulling out of hole.
The balling incidents are associated with organic rich shales.
The balling material appeared to be a compaction of ultra
fine particles adhering to the bit and BHA surface. The
problems diminished when a formation change occurred.
Analysis have determined the balling material to consist
of coal like shale cuttings in a matrix of ultra-fine dispersed
non-swelling clay minerals. An exact cause and a remedy
have yet to be determined.
Solids Control. The solids control system consisted of 3
shakers and one centrifuge. A high speed centrifuge was
necessary in order to keep the drill solids content less than the
planned 1.5%.
Two shakers were used and handled the drilling fluid
volume adequately. The screen design was 80/100 mesh top
screens and 250 mesh bottom screens. The centrifuge was run
continuously after the first circulation and controlled solids
build up in the drilling fluid. Due to the flow set up on the rig,
the centrifuge could only be run when pump rates exceeded
250 LPM. The surface volume was centrifuged when tripping.
Barite solubility. A risk analysis on the different aspects of
Barite solubility in the Potassium Formate drilling fluid was
carried out and the recommended actions were implemented.
Chemical analysis of the drilling fluid samples showed a
Barium content of 231 mg/l before milling and 350 mg/l
during drilling. These values are well below any hazardous
level and compare well with earlier use of Potassium Formate
based drilling fluid on Gullfaks10.

SPE 50405

OPTIMUM FLUID DESIGN FOR DRILLING AND CEMENTNG A WELL WITH COILTUBING TECHNOLOGY

Liner running in A-19AT3

Running of the 2 7/8" liner on 2" CT was considered to be
quite a challenge due to the rather extreme inclination of 122o.
The limited slack-off weight available was a disadvantage
compared to ordinary liners run on drill pipe, but the
continuous running speed was a great advantage.
The 443m long liner was run to TD at 2308m. Though the
running of the liner in the open hole progressed unhindered at
a running speed of 15 m/min, the slack-off weight decreased
significantly after the well inclination exceeded 90o. The
running speed was increased to 19 m/min from 2245m where
the well inclination reached 118o, and resulted in the slack-off
weight then becoming almost constant. Quite possibly, this
indicated that the higher running speed was closer to optimal
for this operation.
There was no indication of weight loss as the centralisers
passed through the window and no significant increase in open
hole drag forces as the centralisers went into open hole. The
liner had no hanger and was set on bottom of the well.
The Cementing Operations
Setting kick-off plugs. Both wells, the A-19A and A-19AT2,
were plugged back and sidetracked. Setting cement plugs
using CT requires extremely good volume control and
planning to be successful. The plugs had to be set using a 2"
CT; unsuccessful plugs may have resulted in several days of
rig time when changing CT reels.
A total of three cement plugs were set of which two were
placed on top of each other in well A-19A. The length of the
plugs varied from 88m to 124m. For all three plugs the spacer
and cement slurry used was the same as the ones planned to be
used for the 2 7/8" liner, i.e. a turbulent spacer and a 1.80 g/cc
gas-tight cement slurry.
The cement plugs were set by pumping approximately 1/3
of the slurry volume out into the annulus. The string was
pulled out to the top of the plug at a steady pulling speed while
pumping the remaining slurry out of the CT at a pump rate
adjusted to the pulling speed. The cement plugs were tagged
nearly on the spot and the sidetracks were drilled.
Design of 2 7/8" Liner Cementing in A-19AT3. The design
was based on a turbulent spacer ahead of the cement to
remove the drilling fluid in turbulence flow. 10 centralisers
were placed at the most critical parts of the liner. These were
rigid centralisers with an Outer Diameter (OD) of 3.625". The
centralisers were part of the collar joint itself. It was expected
that the regular collars on the liner with an OD of 3.25" also
would contribute to the centralisation. In gauge hole the
standoff was 86% at the centralisers, and 43% at the collar
joints.
The critical pumprate to achieve turbulent flow in gauge
hole at the centralisers were 213 LPM and 275 LPM for the
spacer and cement respectively. The same critical pump rates
at the collar joints were 463 LPM and 688 LPM respectively.
Because of the low rigidity of the small OD pipe, the liner
would fall down to zero stand-off in between the centralisers.

Ideally, one would need two centralisers per joint to be able to

centralize the liner properly.
ECD and pump pressure simulations showed that the ECD
was of no concern for this job and that the pump pressure
(maximum 278 bars at surface) would be the limiting factor
for the displacement rates. Simulation executed prior to the job
showed that a pump rate of 290-300 LPM was achievable.
With this rate, both spacer and cement would be in turbulence
flow all around the pipe in a hole size up to 4". The idea was
that at least at some length above and below each centraliser,
one should obtain good drilling fluid removal and good
isolation. This was determined to be sufficient to isolate the
different formations from each other.
Cement Slurry. The cement slurry used for cementing of the
2 7/8" liner in A-10A was a 1.90 g/cc gas-tight slurry. For the
liner in A-19AT3, the density was decreased to 1.80 g/cc,
purely to get a lower viscosity. Gas-tightness and slurry
stability were obtained with Silica Fume. Stability and fluid
loss properties were exceptionally good and at the same time
the slurry had an extremely low viscosity. The slurry was
tested at Bottom Hole Static Temperature (BHST). The reason
being that there is only a minor cool-down effect during
circulation/pumping. In addition, even if some cool-down is
obtained, BHST is reached again very fast due to the small
hole size.
Chemical Wash. A chemical wash was used as part of the
drilling fluid removal program in A-10A. The intention was
to thin the drilling fluid and remove it in turbulence flow. In
A-19AT3, it was not deemed necessary to use a chemical
wash because the drilling fluid had a very low viscosity. In
addition it was not expected that such a low-density fluid
would work satisfactory in this highly deviated well.
Spacer. The spacer used for this cementing was based on a
standard turbulent spacer. Laboratory tests showed that the
spacer had hardly any sedimentation even after 24 hr aging at
static conditions. This was possible due to the use of very
small Manganese Tetraoxide particles used as weighting
agent. The result was a spacer with an extremely low
viscosity. With a drilling fluid of 1.56 g/cc, the spacer density
was selected to be 1.65 g/cc. Although a turbulent spacer by
design, the higher density would also contribute to drilling
fluid removal due to density differential effects.
Compatibility tests between the spacer and drilling fluid,
spacer and cement and cement and drilling fluid were carried
out. The tests showed that the spacer was compatible with
both fluids, but that the cement was incompatible with this
drilling fluid system. The thickening time of the cement
increased when contaminated with small quantities of the
drilling fluid or the spacer.
Execution and Operation. The object was to cement the
liner in its entire length from the liner shoe to the top of the
Polished Bore Receptacle (PBR) at 1865m in order to achieve

. SVENDSEN. A. SAASEN, B. VASSY, E. SKOGEN, F. MACKIN, S.H. NORMANN

zonal isolation, especially between two reservoir sand

formations. A single dart/wiper system. No caliper log was
run in track A-19AT3, but the cement volume was based on
the caliper run from the first sidetrack in addition to the
experience gained while drilling the well. It was decided to
use 240% excess cement based on gauge hole or equivalent to
an open hole diameter of 5.3". The volume was chosen so that
some excess cement was expected above the top of the liner.
With the liner on TD, bottoms up was circulated with a
low pumprate, 100 - 150 LPM. The ball was dropped and the
ball-seat sheared out. The pump rate was then increased to 250
LPM. Due to the extremely thin drilling fluid, conditioning of
the drilling fluid and excessive circulating was not neccessary.
The cement was mixed "on the fly" and transferred to a
batch tank for storage while 4m3 of 1.65 g/cc spacer was
pumped into the reel. Then 4.5m3 of 1.80 g/cc cement was
directed into the coil. The dart was dropped and the cement
was displaced using the cement pump to achieve the best
possible volume control. The cement was displaced with
1.5m3 of 1.80 g/cc spacer followed by 1.56 g/cc drilling fluid.
Full return was observed during the entire cementing
operation. Maximum ECD was at 1.70 g/cc as compared to an
estimated formation fracture gradient of 1.80 g/cc.
The purpose of the heavy spacer pumped behind the
cement was two fold: First to have the liner filled with a
spacer with the same density as the slurry preventing any
excess cement from entering the liner when disengaging the 2"
CT from the liner. Second to avoid any of the formate drilling
fluid to contact the cement slurry when circulating out excess
cement. The amount of 1.80 g/cc spacer was sufficient to fill
the liner and in addition leave 170 liters in the 2" CT.
The displacement rate was maximum 280 LPM dropping
to 250 LPM at the end. The pump rate was adjusted so that the
maximum allowed pump pressure of 278 bars was not
exceeded at any time.
When circulating bottoms up, all of the 1.65 g/cc spacer
came back to surface followed by approximately 1m3 cement.
A spot of the heavy spacer was also observed on surface. The
volume of cement in return indicates an average open hole
diameter of 4.75". A clear cut between the liquids in return
indicated a good fluid displacement and hardly no channeling.
Evaluation of Cement Operation. The objective was to get
good cement all the way from the liner shoe to the top of the
liner so as to stabilise the hole. Further on isolation of gas and
water along the well trajectory. The liner was to be cemented
in its entire length, i.e. from TD to the top of the PBR. The
design was based on a 3 3/4" Open Hole for ECD simulations.
A Cement Bond Log (CBL) was run 16 days after the
cement job. The log was run in sea water and the well was
pressured up to 103 bars to counteract the decreased static
pressure in the well (after displacing out the drilling fluid).
Very low readings throughout the cemented interval was seen
on the log. However, it is also possible to see an improvement
in the centralized section, see Figure 3. at the end of the
paper.

SPE 50405

Due to the relatively big average hole diameter of 4.75",

there was no way any of the fluids used could attain
turbulence flow all around the liner throughout the open hole.
The reason for still obtaining a very good cement bond can be
attributed to several factors:
Very low viscosity drilling fluid with a thin filter cake and
an extremely low gel strength.
Relatively large amounts of spacer with a higher viscosity
and density than the drilling fluid.
Relatively large amounts of cement with a higher
viscosity and density than the drilling fluid.
Both spacer and cement slurry had a very low viscosity
It is reasonable to believe that the well had quite a few more
small doglegs than shown on the directional surveys and that
the hole diameter varies. This may lead to the fluids possibly
obtaining full turbulence flow in some intervals. However, this
can not explain the good cement in the other intervals. The
reason for the good cement bonds in these intervals is
probably due to the difference in density and viscosity for the
fluids being pumped.
Conclusions
Two CTD sidetracks have been drilled on the Gullfaks field;
the first was horizontal (93o) and the second reached 125o. In
both wells excellent hole cleaning was achieved.
Differentiated from from other reported CTD operations,
the drilling fluid used in A-19A was a solids free Potassium
Formate/Polymer brine based fluid with a density of 1.50
1.56 g/cc. The drilling fluid is characterized with a low
viscosity at all shear rates, a low degree of shear thinning and
an extremely low fluid loss. In A-19A, the low viscous
drilling fluid is the major contributing factor in achieving :
Excellent hole cleaning
No differential sticking as opposed to the A-10A drilled
with a weigthed MMH drilling fluid
Successfull setting of cement kick-off plugs
Running of liner without problem
Excellent zonal isolations when cementing liner
The fluid operations presented demonstrates that the
extremely low fluid loss is due to a high ratio of extensional
viscosity to shear viscosity at low shear rates.
The fluid operations performed in A-19A demonstrate a
general principle: For most formation pressure regimes, a
brine based solids free drilling fluid with the same viscosity
and fluid loss properties as used in A-19A can be formulated.
Such a drilling fluid is well suited for drilling highly deviated
slim hole wells where hole cleaning and differential sticking
represent major challenges.

SPE 50405

OPTIMUM FLUID DESIGN FOR DRILLING AND CEMENTNG A WELL WITH COILTUBING TECHNOLOGY

Nomenclature
CTD = coil tubing drilling
MMH = mixed metal hydroxide-bentonite
ECD = equivalent circulating density
ROP = rate of penetration
TD = total measured depth
PAC = poly anionic cellulose
RIH = running into hole
LCM = lost circulation materials
LPM = liters per minute
OD = outer diameter
BHA = bottom hole assembly
Ackowledgement
The authors would like to thank the managements of Den
norske stats oljeselskap ASA (Statoil), Norsk Hydro ASA,
Saga Petroleum ASA and Schlumberger Dowell for their
permission to publish this paper. The Authors would also like
to thank Niall Young, Dept. of Biotechnology of the Technical
University of Denmark for the measurements of extensional
viscosity.
References
1. Vikane E., Samsonsen B. and Lorentzen K. E.: Through Tubing
Infill Drilling as a Method for Increased Oil Recovery on the
Gullfaks Field, paper IADC/SPE 39358 presented at the 1998
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, March 3-6.
2. Saasen, A., Eriksen, N.H., Han, L., Labes, P. and Marken, C.D.:
Good Hole Cleaning - Is Annular Frictional Pressure Drop the
Key Parameter, Oil Gas European Magazine, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.
22-24, 1998.
3. Saasen, A.: Hole Cleaning During Deviated Drilling The
Effect of Pump Rate and Reology, paper SPE 50582 to be
presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference held
in The Hague, Oct. 20-22. 1998.
4. Barnes, H.A., Hutton, J.F. and Walters, K.: An Introduction to
Rheology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989.
5. Durst, F., Haas, R. and Interthal, W.: The Nature of Flows
Through Porous Media, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics,
vol. 22, pp. 169-189, 1987.
6. Young, N.W.G. and Muhrbeck, P.: Comparision of Shear and
Extensional Viscosity Characteristics of Starch Pastes, Ann.
Trans. Nordic Rheology Soc., vol. 5, pp. 40-43, 1997.
7. Powell, J.W., Stephens, M.P., Seheult, L.L.C.J.M., Sifferman, T.
and Swazey, J.: Minimization of Formation Damage, Filter
Cake Deposition, & Stuck Pipe Potential in Horizontal Wells
Through the Use of Time-Independent Viscoelastic Yield Stress
Fluids & Filtrates, paper IADC/SPE 29408, presented at the
1995 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February
- March 2, 1995.
8. Goodrich, G.T., Smith, B.E. and Larson, E.B.: Coiled Tubing
Drilling Practices at Prudhoe Bay, paper SPE 35128 presented
at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New
Orleans, March 12-15.
9. Enevoldsen, J., Rasmussen, H.K. and Saasen, A.: Pressure Drop
Through Gravel Packs, Ann. Trans. Nordic Rheology Soc., vol.
3, pp. 45-47, 1995.

10. Svendsen ., Toften J. K., Marshall D. S. and Hermansson C. L.:

Use of a Novel Drill-In/Completion Fluid Based on the First
Open Hole Completion in the Gullfaks Field, paper
SPE/IADC29409 presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, Feb. 28-March 2.
11. Gaas R., Gjerde K, and Samsonsen B.: The First Coiled Tubing
Sidetrack in Norway, Gullfaks Field, paper IADC/SPE 39305
presented at the 1998 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
March 3-6.
12. Samsonsen B., Jacobsen B.G., Skagestad T. and Kerr S.P.:
Drilling and Completing a High-Angle Well With Coiled
Tubing Technology, paper SPE 48941presented at the 1998
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct.
6-9.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bar x 1.0*
psi x 6.894 76
bbl x 1.589 73
lbm x 4.535 92
lbm/gal x 1.198 26
ft x 3.048*
gpm x 0.264 18

E+05
E+00
E -01
E -01
E+02
E-01
E +00

Conversion factor is exact.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Pa
kPa
m3
kg
kg/m3
m
LPM

10

. SVENDSEN. A. SAASEN, B. VASSY, E. SKOGEN, F. MACKIN, S.H. NORMANN

Figure 3. Cement Bond Log, A-19 AT3

SPE 50405