SPE 87242

UNDERBALANCED DRILLING WITH COILED TUBING

Davorin Matanovi ,University of Zagreb
Nediljka Gaurina Meimurec, University of Zagreb
Zdenko Kritafor, University of Zagreb

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was selected for presentation at the 9th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. 15-18 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC Program Committee following review of information contained in the abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper as presented, have not been
reviewed by the ADIPEC and are subject to correction by author(s). The material as presented dose not necessarily reflect any position of the ADIPEC or its members. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write ADIPEC Co-ordinator, GEC.P.O.Box 5546,
Abu Dhabi, UAE, Fax 009712-4446135
.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
The conventional overbalanced drilling of production zones
generally results in a negative effect on overall productivity
and cost, caused primarily by formation damage. As a
result, the oil industry is turning more toward methods such
as underbalanced drilling (UBD) to increase productivity
and reduce overall costs.
UBD, particularly pressure-depleted, mature reservoirs, can
minimise or prevent near-wellbore damage, often avoiding
the need for stimulation.
A clear and fundamental understanding of drilling
technology is required to design and supervise drilling
operations on an underbalanced well.
The benefits of UBD technology, the use of CT (coiled
tubing) in UBD, UBD fluid systems, control of the well
while drilling are presented.
Introduction
Successful underbalanced drilling must increase the
financial returns by creating improvements that either
reduce the cost of drilling the well or increase the overall
productivity of the well once drilled. Benefits of the
underbalanced drilling over the conventional overbalance
techniques are: (1) increased well or field productivity
because of reduced formation damage, (2) reduction in loss
of drilling fluids into the formation, (3) reduction in lossrelated drilling problems, (4) reduced risk of differential
sticking, (5) reduced completion and stimulation
requirements and costs, (6) improved formation evaluation,
(7) increased penetration rates, and (8) extended bit life.
The potential disadvantages of UBD process, particularly if
it is poorly designed and executed are: (1) wellbore stability
and consolidation concerns, (2) safety and well control
concerns in high pressure or sour environments, (3)
increased drilling costs, (4) inability to use conventional
MWD technology for through-string injection techniques,
(5) spontaneous contercurrent inhibition effects, (6)
underbalanced flow conditions, (7) condensate dropout or

gas liberation effects, (8) near wellbore mechanical damage

such as glazing or mashing, (9) increased propensity for
corrosion problems if air or oxygen-containing gas is used
to generate the underbalanced conditions, (10) creation of
discontinuous underbalanced conditions. [1]
Two main areas in Croatia that could potentially benefit
from the application of underbalanced drilling technology
are: (1) pressure depleted formations (in Panonian basin),
and (2) areas with lost circulation (Dinarides). [2]
UBD of horizontal wells through pressure depleted
formations, compared to vertical wells means that
producing strata are exposed to drilling fluid for longer
periods of time that increases the risk of formation damage.
Pressure depleted, mature reservoirs may be unable to clear
this near-wellbore damage. The main mechanisms of
formation damage are reduced permeability due to solids
blocking the pore throats and filtrate invasion changing
liquid saturation. Such formation damage can deprive an
operator of production revenue and reduce economic field
life, Since horizontal stimulation are costly, complex and
often ineffective, there may be an economic advantage for
drilling such well underbalanced.
Lost circulation due to fractured, low-pressure, or high
permeability reservoirs can increase the cost of a drilling
project substantially. Differential sticking can increase costs
because of lost rig time or lost drill strings. Drilling fluid
invasion may also cause productivity impairment, requiring
expensive remediation. UBD can help minimise or
eliminate these problems.
Creating UBD conditions
Underbalanced conditions can be achieved by varying a
number of well parameters: (1) injection fluid types, (2)
fluid ratios, (3) surface control procedures, and (4) injection
methods. The optimum choice depends upon the specific
reservoir conditions, such as: formation type, drive
mechanism, reservoir quality, formation depth, pressure,
target drawdown and other.
Underbalanced drilling is a technique where the hydrostatic
head of a drilling fluid is intentionally designed to be lower

2
UNDERBALANCED DRILLING WITH COILED TUBING
SPE 87242
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

than the pressure of the formation being drilled. The

equivalent circulating density (ECD) of the drilling fluid
can be reduced to underbalanced conditions by adding
density reducing agents to base fluid (Table 1).
Table 1. Base fluids and density reducing agents for
UBD [3]
BASE FLUID
produced water
fresh water
inhibited brine
inhibited brine with solids control
produced crude
refined crude
foams

DENSITY REDUCING AGENTS

nitrogen
natural gas
oxygen content reduced air
air
flue gas
low density suspended solids
low density liquids

Most common are:

1. Dry air drilling, which involves injecting dry air or gas
into the wellbore at rates capable of achieving annular
velocities that will remove cuttings;
2. Mist drilling that involves injecting a foaming agent
into the air stream, which mixes with produced water
and coats the cuttings, which prevents mud rigs
allowing drill solids to be removed;
3. Foam using surfactants and clays or polymers to form a
high carrying-capacity foam; and
4. Aerated fluids that rely on mud with injected air to
remove drilled solids from the wellbore.

Fig 1. Composition of coiled tubing unit and wellhead

equipment for UBD operations [4]
The use of coiled tubing
Conventionally coiled tubing is used for well cleanout and
kick-off, drillstem and testing, fluid spotting, stimulation,

zone isolation, squeezing etc. Recent application stresses

out the growing number of wells drilled and sidetracked
with coiled tubing.
The basic coiled tubing unit components used in UBD are
(Fig. 1):
Coiled tubing reel
Tubing injector head
Wellhead blowout preventer stack
Hydraulic power-drive unit
Control console
A coiled tubing unit is incapable to rotate tubing. Therefore
it can not be used like drill pipe, as a drive shaft for
transmitting torque to a bit. More than twenty years ago
mud motors (positive displacement motors) have been
developed that can provide power at the end of the string,
and rotate the bit without pipe rotation. The bottom hole
drilling assembly should be specifically designed. Unique to
coiled tubing drilling are the connections and crossovers to
the coiled tubing, the measurement while drilling
assembly where data and power supply is by wireline and
orienting tool that can rotate the motors bent housing to
direct the bit in oriented drilling. The tool relies on a
dedicated hydraulic line or an electric cable within the
coiled tubing to transmit control signals. Orientation should

be independent of the flow rate changes or weight on bit,

and the tool orientation should be possible in steps of 1
degree while drilling. This minimises reciprocating of the

DAVORIN MATANOVI, NEDILJKA GAURINA-MEIMUREC, ZDENKO KRITAFOR

3
SPE 87242
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

tubing and should reduce tubing and motor fatigue. A

release tool is an essential component of the coiled tubing
drilling bottomhole assembly. In the event of stuck the
wireline gives the opportunity to use an electrical release
tool that will be more precise then mechanical. The
potential bottom hole assembly for drilling with coiled
tubing is shown in Fig.2.

cuttings from the well, especially in horizontal and in

highly deviated build up section. Because of high motor
speeds cuttings are always smaller (less than 100m) than
in conventional drilling.
With sufficient pump discharge we can determine overall
pressure losses due to fluid in circulation. That includes:
frictional pressure losses in surface equipment from pump
to reel, reeled and straight tubular, pressure loss across the
bottomhole assembly, and the pressure loss in the annular.
In underbalanced drilling the bottomhole pressure is also a
limiting factor. The sum of all pressures must not exceed
the coiled tubing working pressure.
Forces acting on coiled tubing are next things for
determination. Providing calculations with data about pipe
weight, material yield strength, buoyancy, temperature,
residual bend and buckling, the maximum axial force can
be determined. The capacity of injector must be according
to these calculations.
Underbalanced drilling with foam
Injecting liquid, gas and surfactants generates foam, when
gas bubbles are uniformly dispersed in continuous liquid
phase. It can be considered as a homogenous liquid with
changing density and viscosity. Rheologically it is
compressible non-Newtonian fluid. Gaseous phase can be
nitrogen, carbon dioxide or air. Liquid phase can be water,
acid, water and methanol, water and gel, etc.

Fig. 2 Bottom hole assembly for drilling with coiled tubing

[5]
To ensure that the coiled tubing is capable of performing
the required tasks (to drill, to sidetrack) it must have certain
capabilities that are in connection with desired well design.
To optimise drilling it is essential to optimise rate of
penetration, trip time and hole cleaning. To reach
maximum rate of penetration we must optimise hydraulic
and the mechanical power on the bit. Depending on coiled
tubing size and the wall thickness, force on bit and the
allowed torque can be the limitation. Same problem persists
with depth of the hole, because of tension limits.
To evaluate the technical feasibility, for any well we drill, it
is obvious that we first determine and calculate the annular
velocity of drilling fluid and pump output and pressure that
are necessary.
They are calculated using desired size of coiled tubing,
known casing or hole dimensions and with 80% of the
maximum flow rate through the motor. Annular velocity
will indicate possible fluids that can carry out drilled

It is generally assumed that a foam is an perfect carrier of

solid particles provided that its quality is maintained within
well-established limits; greater than about 55% (below
which the foam structure is too weak to support solid
particles), and below about 96% (above which the foam
inverts to form a mist that is a very little support to the
solid particles. The main difficulty in using foam is that its
quality varies substantially from bottom hole (high pressure
low quality) to the well head (low pressure high
quality).
The most important hydraulics considerations in designing
foam coiled tubing drilling are lit:
maintain sufficient flow at bottom hole to power the
motor.
maintain foam quality between 55% and 96%
throughout the annulus
maintain bottomhole pressure within specified limits
maintain circulation pressure within specified limits
Down hole motor performance is a function of drilling
fluid, bit type and weight on bit. When used with nitrified
fluid, motor will operate in the range of 60% - 80%
efficiency (based on mechanical power) [6], depending
upon the ratio of liquid to nitrogen and the effective fluid
flow through motor. The equivalent volume flow rates are
determined during Moineau motor testing, at the motor
inlet pressure and temperature. When powered by nitrified
fluid, tests have shown that motor rotation increases and

4
UNDERBALANCED DRILLING WITH COILED TUBING
SPE 87242
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

torque decreases to those computed for incompressible

fluids. Great impact on motor performance has the bit.
Fixed cutter bits are easier to stall motors, so the optimum
weight on bit is difficult to obtain. With coiled tubing,
especially in horizontal wells, determination of real weight
on bit must be determined correctly. Not only to prevent
motor staling, than much more to know the real working
conditions of entire string.
Possible design scheme is shown in Figure3.
SELECT WELL HEAD PRESSURE,
LIQUID VICOSITY AND DENSITY

SELECT GAS AND LIQUID

FLOWRATES TO OBTAIN DESIRED
FOAM QUALITY

NO
IS THE TOTAL FLOW
RATE WITHIN THE
MOTOR SPECS?
YES
NO

IS BOTTOMHOLE
PRESSURE WITHIN
SPECIFICATIONS?
YES

NO
IS CIRCULATING
PRESSURE WITHIN
SPECIFICATIONS?

YES

RUN WEIGHT ON BIT UNTIL ALL

SPECIFICATIONS ARE MET

Fig. 3. Coiled tubing foam drilling design flowchart [7]

Foam quality with suspended solid particles is the ratio
between gas plus particle volume to the total volume.
Quality depends upon pressure and temperature change,
and the amount of solid particles in it; equation (1):

Fq =

Qg + Q p
Qg + Qw + Q p

(1)

Rheologically foam can be considered as a Bingham fluid,

[8] or as a fluid that behave according to power-law
model. [9]
Additional rheological models that ca be used are HerschelBulkley model [10] and scale-up model. [11]
Foam viscosity is the most important characteristic during
the circulation. It depends on foam quality. When foam

quality is below 55% foam is a Newtonian fluid with

viscosity between 0,01 Pas to 0,02 Pas. It rises with the
rise of foam quality. Because of the structure and viscosity
foam is a good solid particles carrier. Most often used
mathematical models for foam viscosity determination are
Mitchells model [8], Reidenbachs model [12], and Harris
and Reidenbachs model [10]. Viscosity of foams with solid
particles differs depending on solid particles diameter. Semi
empirical correlation for Newtonian fluid suspensions, for
various diameters of solid particles (from 0,1 to 435 m),
developed by Thomas [13], is acceptable for foams. But
with foam quality over 96% carrying capacity of foams
drops significantly and is than dependable only on gas
velocity.
There are some more factors that determine foam rheology.
When dealing with nitrogen it is important to determine his
factor of compressibility. Good way is the use of
Storrbridges term that is based on laboratory testing and is
a virial equation of state. [14]
Compressibility factor for water is also a function of
pressure and temperature, but his influence on calculations
is negligible.
Foam hydraulics
The Bernoullis equation (energy balance) defines the
steady state of mechanical energy in fluid flow for
isothermal conditions. To be used for foam circulation it is
necessary to divide the well on enough segments that will
have equal isothermal conditions. To calculate pressure
drop in the pipe or in the annulus, it is first necessary to
determine the density and the hydrostatic head for one
segment. The most suitable method for pressure drop
determination with computer is Bingham method [15, 16,
and 17]. It differs for laminar, turbulent or transition flow
region. Because of fluid acceleration in each segment from
starting point to the end, it is necessary to determine the
coefficient of acceleration [16]. When solid particles are
circulated with foam (mostly in annulus) there is an
increase of friction between the solid particles and the walls
of the borehole. [9, 17]
The ability of foam to carry solid particles is called carrying
capacity. Lagging of solid particles in fluid or foam flow
depends on difference in density, flow characteristics,
particle shape, etc. When talking about drilling or washing
out with foams the term solid transportation (Eq. 2), must
be 0,5 to obtain that solid particles are carried out with the
velocity that is greater or about half of the foam velocity.

Rs = 1

vs
v an

(2)

Whenever there is a relative movement between solid

particles and the fluid, friction between them must be
determined. In foams with changing density and viscosity,
change in velocity to so-called dragging coefficient depends
on particle shape (round, flat). Next thing to be considered
is the penetration rate while drilling. To obtain the
equilibrium of solid particles volume (same amount that

DAVORIN MATANOVI, NEDILJKA GAURINA-MEIMUREC, ZDENKO KRITAFOR

5
SPE 87242
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

comes to annular is going out on the top) one has to adjust

the rate of penetration according to settling density of the
particles in used fluid. To simplify the calculations it is
good to assume that the concentration of solids in foam is
equal in the entire annular space. Finally the hydraulic
diameter and the eccentricity can greatly influence the
pressure drop in annular.

Because of continuous calculating process, it is obvious that

some sort of computer program is necessary. Possible
procedure my be in dividing the system on (1) flow in pipe,
and (2) flow in annular space. [18]

(1) For flow in pipe, procedure anticipate:

determination of compressibility factor for gaseous
phase, and pressure and temperature on the bottom of
the hole,
computation of volumetric factor for water on the hole
bottom,
determination of gas and liquid volume for a time unit
for bottom-hole conditions,
choose of segment length according to pressure
difference; this determines the number of segments,
summing the segment calculations starts from the
bottom of the hole,
determination of average segment length,
determination of average segment temperature,
determination of average segment pressure, factor of
compressibility, and water volumetric factor for given
pressure and temperature conditions,
determination of liquid and gas volume, and foam
quality for flow conditions,
determination of gas, water and foam density,
determination of average foam velocity,
determination of average foam viscosity,
determination of flow regime (laminar turbulent),
calculation of pressure drop; if it is within allowed
values, calculations are repeated by varying overall
length until the top is reached.
(2) In annulus:
determine hydraulic diameter and eccentricity,
determine volumetric factor for water at the bottomhole (for given pressure and temperature),
determine factor of gas compressibility, and gas and
liquid volume in the time unit for the bottom-hole
conditions,
calculate allowed rate of penetration (iterations)
because the viscosity has to be corrected for drilled and
washed out material, that is expressed with given
(allowed) concentration on the bottom-hole and also
depends on particle settling velocity,
choose of segment length according to pressure
difference; this determines the number of segments,
summing the segment calculations starts from the
bottom of the hole,
determination of average segment length,

determination of average segment temperature; that is

the function of hole depth,
determination of average segment pressure, factor of
compressibility, and water volumetric factor for given
pressure and temperature conditions,
determination of solid particles volume,
determination of liquid and gas volume, and foam
quality for flow conditions,
determination of foam quality, according to the amount
of solid particles in total volume,
determination of gas, water, foam and mixture density,
determination of average foam/mixture velocity,
determination of average foam viscosity with respect
for solid particles correction,
determination of particle settling velocity,
because of that there is a need for correction of particle
concentration in mixture,
determination of flow regime (laminar turbulent),
determination of the drag coefficient for solid particles
and foam,
calculation of pressure drop; if it is within allowed
values, calculations are repeated by varying overall
length until the top is reached.

Conclusions
Using underbalanced drilling with coiled tubing we can
save two ways: first significantly reducing drilling costs,
and secondly increasing production. The key to selecting
appropriate reservoir candidates for UBD is achieving a
balance of technical, safety and economic factors. Properly
designed and executed underbalanced drilling operations
can eliminate or significantly reduce formation damage,
drill solids and fluid invasion, lost circulation, fluid
entering and trapping effects, and potential adverse reaction
of drilling fluids with the reservoir matrix or in-situ
reservoir fluids.
The use of coiled tubing gives something more, a
continuing process, with excellent pressure control.
Limitations exist if some project is poorly prepared.
Definition of hole size, depth and horizontal reach defines
the possible CT, motor and bit combination. Improved
manufacturing and control during production and
determination of possible CT life have expand the use of
such technology.
Nomenclature
Fq = foam quality, nondimensional
Qg = gas volume in flow for a time unit, m3s-1
Qp = solid particles volume in flow for a time unit,
m3s-1
Qw = water volume in flow for a time unit, m3s-1
Rs = ratio of solid particles carrying off,
nondimensional
vs = solid particles lagging velocity, ms-1
van = flow velocity in annular, ms-1SPE 87242

6
UNDERBALANCED DRILLING WITH COILED TUBING
SPE 87242
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

References
1. Matanovi, Simon,K.,Kritafor, Z. and GaurinaMeimurec,N.: Application of Horizontal Wells for
Increasing Productivity from Partially Depleted
Reservoirs in Croatia, Proceedings of Conference and
Exhibition, Modern Exploration and Improved Oil and
Gas Recovery Methods, Krakow, Poland, Sept. 12-15,
1995, pp. 1-9,
2. Gaurina-Meimurec,N.,Matanovi, D.:Gas
application in drilling, Workover and Completion
Operations, Proceedings, 2nd International Scientific
and Professional Conference Power and Engineering
and Process Plants, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 22-24,
1996, pp. 559-566,
3. Bennion,D.B.: Reservoir Screening Criteria for
Underbalanced Drilling, Pet. Eng. Intern, February
1997,
4. Melvan,J.: Coiled Tubing Fill Clean Outs, 2nd
International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled
Tubing Technology, Operations, Services, Practices,
Houston, Texas, March 4-7, 1996, pp. 1-6,
5. Eide,E. at all: Further Advances in Coiled Tubing
Drilling, SPE paper 28866, European Petroleum
Conference, London, 25-27 October 1994, pp. 11-19,
6. Graham,R.A.: Planning for Underbalanced Drilling
with Coiled Tubing? The feasibility study and
computer modelling., Paper SPE 46042, presented at
the 1998 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable,
Houston, Texas, 15-16 April 1998, pp. 181-190,
7. Walton,I.C., Hongren,G.: Hydraulics Design in Coiled
Tubing Drilling, Paper ICoTA/SPE 96027,
SPE/ICoTA Roundtable, Montgomery, Texas, 26-28
February 1996, pp. 1-10,
8. Mitchel,B.J.: Test Data Fill Theory Gap on Using
Foam as a Drilling Fluid, Oil and Gas J, September 6
1971, pp. 96-100,
9. Gidley,P.C. at all: Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing, SPE Monography, 1989, pp. 177-222, and
394-396,
10. Haris,P.C.,Reidenbach,V.G.:
High
Temperature
rheological study of foam fracturing fluids, JPT, May
1978, pp. 615-619,
11. Melton,L.L., Malone,W.T.: Fluid Mechanic Research
and Engineering Application in non-Newtonian Fluid
System, Paper SPE 739, 1963,
12. Reidenbach,Z.G.,Harris,P.C.Lee,Y.N. and Lord,D.L:
Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing Fluids Using
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide, Paper SPE 12026,
1983,
13. Jeffrey,D.J., Archivos,A.: The Rheological Properties
of Suspensions of Rigid Particles, AIChE Journal,
Vol. 22. No.3, May, 1976, pp. 417-432,
14. Storbridge,T.R.: The Thermodynamic Properties of
Nitrogen Foam From 114 to 540 deg R Between 1.0
and 5000 Psi, National Bureau of Standards Technical
Note No. 129A,

15. Hanks,R.W., Pratt,D.R: On the flow of Bingham

Plastic Slurries in Pipes Between Parallel Plates,
SPEJ, December, 1967, pp. 342-346,
16. Perry,H.R., Green,D.: Perrys Chemical engineers
Handbook, International Edition McGraw-Hill, 1984,
pp. 520-568,
17. Chen,N.H.: An Explicit Equation For Friction in
Pipe, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 18, No. 3, 1979,
pp. 296-297,
18. Cimi, M.: Simulation of Wellbore Foam Wash-Out
Process, Naftaplin (16) 2, 1996, Zagreb, Croatia, pp.
51-70