.

SPE/lADC 29363
A Dynamic Model for UnderbalancedDrillingWith Coiled Tubing
Rolv Rommetveit, E.H. Vefring, and Zhihua Wang,* RF-Rogaland
and A.M. Faure, Shell Research B.V.

Research,

and Taco Bieseman

SPE Members
CcPy~ht

19%, SPEffADC Drilllng Conference.

This paper was pfepared for preaentatlon at the 1995 SPE/lADC Drflling Conference fwld in Amsterdam, 28 FebNary-2

March 1995

Thb paper wan sekcted for ~ntation

by an SPE/lADC Program CommHfea foibwlng wbw of information contained in an abatract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
ss -t~,
ha~ ml ~n
revhw
W the Intematlc+ml AYMciatbn of Drllllng Contractors w the SocktY of Pefrobum Engine8m and are WbjOCI to correction by the wthw(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessadfy refkcf any positbn of the SPS or IADC, thek officers, or members. Papem presented at SPE/lADC meetings are subject to publkatlon
revkw by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Permbsfon to cbpy is reabkted to an abstracl of not nwre thm 330 words. Iliuatrations may not be ccpfed, The abstract should
contain conspkuws ackncwbdgment of where end by whom the papsr is presented, Write Librarian, SPE, P.0, Sox 8S2S25, Rkhardw,
TX 75C@-3BSb, U.S.A. Telex, 1&3245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
A model for underbafanced drilling with coiled tubing has
been developed which takes into account all important factors
contributing to the process. This model is a unique tool to
plan and execute underbalanced or near balance drilling
operations.
It is a transient, one-dimensional multi-phase
flow model with the following components: Lift gas system
model, multiphase hydraulics model, reservoir-wellbore
interaction model, drilling model, models for multiphase
fluids (lift gas, produced gas, mud, foam, produced gas, oil,
water and cuttings). Various alternative geometries for gas
inje~!ion are modelled as well as all important operations
during underbalanced drilling with coiled tubing.
The model as well as some simulation results from its use are
presented in this paper.

INTRODUCTION
Underbalanced drilling has been utilised increasingly during
the past several years from the perspectives of economics and
practical operations. Among the economic benefits, the most
important aspect of underbafanced drilling is the prevention
of formation damage and hence increasing well productivity.
With respect to practical operations, underbalanced drilling is
an effective technique for preventing severe lost circulation
and differential pipe sticking during drilling.

References and figures at end of paper.

There are several mechanisms that can cause formation

y impairment during drilling and
With a proper selection of drilling or
~~~j~s(~~bi]it
completion fluid system, the most important factor causing
the formation damage is the invasion of solids into the
formation(1*24). This, in turn, is mainly caused by the
pressure overbalance towards the formation during drilling or
completion operations.
Fcwna:iot? ~nmn~~
i~ -a particular concern when drilling
.......=- .
horizontal wells or drainhole laterals since horizontal
wellbores have a substantially longer exposure time to the
fiuids (tith driiling artd camp!eticrt) cwnpared wi!ir t!!e
vertical wells(] 2) and they have reduced clean up velocity.
Consequently, undcrbalanced drilling is often associated with
horizontal wells and iatcrais.
Severe lost circulation can be caused by conventional
overbalanced drilling, especially in fractured reservoirs(3*7).
For example, typical horizontal wells drilled overbalanced in
Fahud field (fractured carbonate) may take 25,000 m3 of
water and 25 m3 cuttings at lhe start of the horizontal section.
As a result, it can cause a delayed peak oil production due to
the production back of drWing water (2-6 months), the
restricted production rate per well and the reduced ultimate
oil production due to formation damage. For these reasons,
trials of underbalanced drillin ~ with foam have been
conducted with conventional rigs( ).
To achieve the ultimate objective of an underbalanced
operation, two important aspects should be noted. One is the
personnel and well safety and the other is to maintain the
underbalanced condition at all times, especial] y in horizontal
wells.

A Dynamic Model for Underbalanced

Convention rigs (jointed pipe) with rotating BOPS have been

used for underbalanced drilling(34). But for safety reasons,
they have not been widely accepted.
In addition, wells
drilled in this manner are typically brought under primary
well control before making a trip. When this occurs, the
drilling fluids and solids may flow into the formation (freely
since there is no impermeable mud cake) and cause damage
to rhe formation.
Coiled tubing (CT), on the contrary, has historically been
used as a tool for live well intervention. It has the ability to
isolate the wellbore from the atmosphere throughout lhe
--.:-- -----
..
... ~h,,.-.e: I. th.a cm f.at., c-J mww-lerhaianct=d
GIIUr~
~1 ~~~
UIUS
GIlll(W1n~

OCW.J

-.v.

u---------

operation. It also avoids the requirement for killing the well

Therefore, the undcrbalanced
before making a trip.
conditions can be maintained at all times.
Coiled tubing drilling has seen the ever increasing
applications during the past few years(57-1425). It has
grown from four jobs in 1991 to over 120 (estimated) jobs in
1994. One of the reasons is that CT drilling can offer a safe,
rig-less underbalanced drilling to greatly reduce formation
damage in horizontal wells.
From operational experience so far, the industry has realised
that there is a need for better understanding of the multiphase
flow hydraulics associated with underbalanced drilling in
order to achieve a cost effective and truly underbalanced
operation(269*10). Also, there is a need for a tool which can
be used both in the planning of the well and for training and
promoting understanding among the personnel involved in
the underiiaianced operations.

achieve a smooth
condition.

OVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL SYSTEM

A schematic representation of the physical system model led
is shown in Fig 1. In a typical operation, the drilling fluid is
pumped down inside the drillstring or CT, through the
downhole drilling motor and bit, and then up the annulus.
The drilling fluids may be liquid, gasified fluid or foam
depending upon the actual applications.
In the annuius, the driiiing fiuici may be mixed witin ariiied
cuttings, influx (formation oil, water, gas) from the
formation, and lift gas injected into the annul us. The mixture
of fluids may also be lost into the formation if wellbore
pressure is excessively large.
At surface, the annulus is closed off by stripping elements
and the fluids/mixture flow out of the well through the
regulated choke where a back pressure is maintained to

294

operation

and

the desired

downhole

During drilling, operation, new hole is generated and hole

Also for the operational
depth increases accordingly.
reasons, tripping in and out of the hole will be neeessary.
This will lead to a change in flow geometry. The resulting
flow geometry will consist of the pipe geometry (wellbore)
from the bit down to the bottomhole and the annulus from the
bit Up towards surface. While tripping, circulation may or
may not be required.
Occasionally, liquid may be pumped into the annulus via the
kill/choke line at surface to fill up the hole to increase the
hydrostatic pressure or to compensate for the severe lost
circulation.
All these physical
simulator.

GOVERNING

processes

will be modclled

in the

EQUATIONS

We assume that all variables depend on only one spatial coordinate, i.e., length along the flow line. The temperature in
the WCI1is assumed to be known. The governing equations
arc those expressing conservation of mass and momentum for
the system of fluid components present in a drilling situation:
Conservation of mass of free produced gas
~(a
lAasP PEP1
&

This paper presents an advanced simulation model developed

for simulating underbalanced drilling operations.
It offers
transient multiphase hydraulics in a realistic well geometry
and well-reservoir interaction. It allows the user to simulate
a variety of means for achieving the reduction of apparent
density and hydrostatic pressure (annular gm lift, gasified
liquid tillling, foam drNing) and realistic drilling operations.
Some simulation results from the model are also presented.

SPE 29363

Drilling With Coiled Tubing

a[A

AL

~gpl -gp + @fgp

jy%P%

Conservation of mass of free lift (injected) ga~

f3g,
]-A~g/
+qg/
&aglpgJ=-a,[
rAag,

vg

Conservation of mass of mud:

l[A(l-a)p,]=-~[A(l-a)v,
at

(3)

p1]+Arn8

Conservation of mass of dissolved gas

~[A(l-a)x,dpl]=

-~[A(l-~)xgdv,p,]+

Arng+Aq,d

(4)

Aqf.

(5)

Conservation of mass of formation oil:

~[A(l-a)xf.p,]=

-~[A(l-~)xf.v,p,]+

Conservation of mass of formation watec

SPE 29363

R. Rommetveit,

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

:[A(I-a)Xppl]=-:[A(I-a)XfiVIP,]+Aqfi

A. Faure

Rate of lift gas dissolution

05)

rn~,= Mgj
(

p, T, X8d,tX,

p81.

VI, V8, S

(17)

Conservation of mass of drilled cuttings:

Rate of produced gas dissolution
l[A(l-a
at

)x=p,]= -$[A(l-rx

)XCVC

rngp= ~gp(P*TXg@l

(7)

P,]+4.

PgP>v/!v~,L$
)

(18)

Friction pressure loss

Conservation of total momentum:
f]=

~[A(l-a)p,v,+Awgvg]=
-~[Ap]-Af,
-Af,
+A (la)pl+cxp~
[

1gcose

-~i,4(i-ajp,v~

+Aapgv~]

~,=

(8)

However, we have 20

(9)
Lift gas density
(lo)

(11)

(12)
Cuttings vel~ity

The simulator is designed for running on any UNfX

workstation with X Window System and Motif User Interface
installed.
The graphical user interface (GUI) for this
simulator is similar to that described in an earlier pape~23).

(13)

Lift gas rate

qg~=

Q@/(f)

(20)

The numerical methods employed in this model are similar to

those reported earlier@i j.
Significant improvement and
modification have been carried out to consider the long well
bore section exposed to the reservoi~22), and to simulate the
physical system shown in Fig 1 and realistic operations. The
new developments include annular gas injection system, two
phase flow inside drillstring, foam drilling, and well depth
increasing due to drilling and bit movement while tripping
and drilling.

Free gas velocity

vc(P,T,
xgd,
vp~
)

Tf-fE SIMULATION MODEL

Produced gas density

Vc

%(P~T1xg&W~v8J

one ~Mchexample is the model for frictional pressure losses,

During underbalanced drilling with lift gas and produced gas
from the formation, the frictional pressure loss is a
---; -*A luileu
l-;W . of the flow regime, fluid rates,
UJlllpllc-awu
volumetric fractions, fluid properties, and flow geometry etc.
Traditional models for multiphase hydraulics do not apply in
a annular geometry. Consequently experimental programmed
for studying multiphase hydraulics in horizontal wells during
underbalanced drilling are ongoing. A 50 m flow loop will
be used for studying this in near-horizontal wellbores, and a
X%2 m -.-..A
IV-le!l ..,A
w..I .~;II
. . . ~ il-~
..- ~Q~t~dy this in inclined
and vertical wells. Based on these studies, the models for f,
will be modified.

Liquid density

Pgp = qp(PT)

(19)

Js)

The submodels or constitutive equations are generally one or

a set of algebraic equations. Some are based rm Ftibiisited
work, and some are based on models developed at RF and
verified through experimental studies (15-20).

(aR+=ti,%,=b.x..
w, Pul P8:,vl.v8.vc.9B:.qp.qcBmw9m,l.
pBff)1. 2
To close the system, we need 12 more equations. These
equations are given by the general functional relationships or
submodels as follows:

Pgl = PJPJ)

v/$vf

Localised pressure loss

Sffilmmms
We have 8 governing equations.
gfi~figwn~:

l(p!T*xgd$a,

(14)
SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, four simulation results are presented. The
example well geometry is illustrated in Flg 2. The reservoir
data is listed in Table 1 and other necessary data in Table 2.
In the example simulations, two methods for reducing
hydrostatic pressure have been simulated:

(15)
Produced cuttings rate

q.=Q.(~,t)

(16)
295

A Dynamic Model for Underbalanced

In order to reduce the BHP further, gas injection rate is

increased from 350 to 450 sef/min at t = 28.38 min. Similar
pressure responses to those at the earlier gas injection rate
increase are observed. When rhe flow becomes stabilised, the
effect of the increased gas injection rate on BHP is very
small.

(i) Gasified fluid where the gas phase is tied in (spiked into)
the drilling fluid at standpipe while it is pumped down the
coiled tubing. In this case, the whole system is full of
gas/mud two phase mixture.
(ii) Annular gas lift where the gas phase is injected into the
annulus through a parasitic string. In this case, only the
annulus above the deepest gas injection point is gasified.

Since the higher gas injection rate does not help, the injcetion
rate is reduced back to 350 sef/min at t = 47.22 min. The
further evidence of this is that the BHPs and/or pressure
profiles within the reservoir section (Fig 5) remain akmt the
same at t = 47.1 min at Qg = 450 sef/min and t = 60.75 min
at Qg = 350 sef/min.

The gas oil ratio of the reservoir has also been varied to
For illustrative
illustrate the well-resemoir interaction.
purposes, the four simulations are designated by:
(1) Case 1A: annular gas lift in low GOR reservoir

The choke opening is then increased at t = 60.84 min. After a

short transient period the BHP starts to decline steadily albd
at an extremely slow rate.

(2) Case lB: annular gas lift in high GOR reservoir

(3) Case 2A gasified fluid in low GOR reservoir

In Lhis example, a very low GOR reservoir (GOR of 2

sm3/sm3) is assumed and throughout the simulation, the
wellbore pressure within the reservoir seetion is high and the
reservoir production is small. Consequently, the gas phase in
the wellbore system is almost 100% of the injected gas and
the well-reservoir interaction is minimum.

(4) Case 2B: gasified fluid in high GOR reservoir

It is assumed that the bit is at 950 m (MD) or 707 m TVD and
the well is full of drilling fluid initially. The hydrostatic
pressure at bottomhole is 77 bar.
The simulated operational events are the same for all four
examples. They are (1) establishing liquid circulation at a
rate of 350 l/rein, (2) starting gas injection at the designed
rate either at standpipe or at annulus according to the selected
method.
(3) adjusting either gas injection rate or choke
opening to illustrate the responses of the well in terms of
pump pressure, choke pressure, bottomhole pressure, etc.
The timing and the events are labclled in the individual
figures.
Annular

To further demonstrate the interactions among all these

parameters, a high GOR reservoir of 200 sm3/sm3 is assumed
and a similar operational sequences are applied (Case lB).
The responses of pressures to the events shown in Fig 7 arc
similar to those in Case 1A (Fig 3). However, the choke
pressure behaves differently. When the gas injcetion rate is
;nn.c..c.~
f.nrn
2<fi tfi A<(3 c. flrn;n
.* t - 7Q llfl m%
tht= t.hnka
,I,e, uaae
,, ,,, JJV . -J
aw,, l,lll, at . - *.
.1..1., .V ..m

Gas Liff

Fig 3 shows the pressure responses to the operations for Case

1A where a low GOR reservoir of 2 sm3/sm3 is being drilled.
When the gas injection at a rate of 300 scf/min is started, the
bottomhole pressure (BHP) starts to decrease due 10 the lower
hydrostatic pressure and the pump pressure decreases also
bceause of the U-tubing effect. The BHP and pump pressure
will continue to decrease until a steady state condition is
reached at about t = 9 min. Afterwards, the pressures change
slightly.
Up to t = 15.44 rein, no influx from the reservoir is observed.
Therefore, the gas injeetion rate is increased from 300 to 350
scf/min. Immediately after the gas injection rate increase, all
three pressures show increasing trend first. The BHP and
pump pressure then fall back to values slightly smaller than
those before the gas injection rate increase. But the choke
pressure retains the higher value. At this new injection rate,
cnm-----

rewmmir
.-.
. . ..

.infllw
. .....

ic
.

nntir.d
..s ..

ac
..

chmwn
...,
.. . .

~~

[~~

SPE 29363

Drilling With Coiled Tubing

pressure shows a steady increasing trend. This increasing

trend continues even when the gas injeetion rate is reduced
from 450 to 350 scf/min at t = 47 min and choke opening
incrcascd at t = 66 min. This may be caused by the strong
presence of formation gas as shown by the free gas void
fractions in Fig 8 and mass fraction of formation oil in Fig 9.
Fig 10 illustrates the wellbore pressure profiles at selected
times. It is interesting to observe that the wellbore pressures
just above the formation (750 m MD) remain almost the same
whereas the wellbore pressures within the formation are
reduced over the time. This will effectively increase the
production from the reservoir and in turn it will assist in
maintaining the underbalanced condition because of the high
GOR.
Fig 11 illustrates the mass fraction profiles of the various
components in the well at t = 66 min.
Gasified Fluid Drilling

rnm~ss

fraction of formation oil in Fig 4 (t = 28 rein) even though the

BHP remains greater than the formation pressure (Fig 3 and
Fig 5). Consequently, this production occurs near the heel of
the well or near the start of the horizontal section (Fig 5).
The free gas void fractions at the corresponding times are
shown in Fig 6.

296

I%rino
-w
. . ..~

.ths
..

mmifitwi
~.......

flIIid
..
.

rlrillino
. . . . . . . ..~.

th~
. ..

mm
&.u

nhac~
~.....-

{c
. infrnrlllm=d
. .. . . ..w-

into the liquid system at standpipe. Fig 12 shows the pressure

responses for the msificd fluid drilling in a high GOR
reservoir of 200 sm $/sm3 (Case 2B). The Nitrogen is spiked
in[o the drilling fluid at t = 1 min at a rate of 300 sef/min.
The pump pressure starts to increase immediately due to the
higher frictional pressure losses throughout the system and
the U-tubing effect from the wellbore towards the drillstring.
The BHP also increases due to the higher frictional pressure

SPE 29363

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

The increasing trends in the pump

loss in the annulus.
pressure and BHP will continue until the gas enters the
inclined/vertical part of the well in the annulus. The pump
pressure and the BHP will then decrease rapidly until the gas
reaches the surface and flows out through the choke as
indicated by a drop in choke pressure. Thereafter, both the
pump and bottomhole pressures show a steady and slow
decreasing trend whereas the choke pressure increases rapidly
and then stabilises.
While maintaining this set of operating conditions up to t =
49.5 rein, it is observed that the underbalanced condition
throughout the reservoir section has been achieved as
illustrated by the wellbore pressure profiles in Flg 13. The
corresponding free gas void fraction inside the drillstring and
in the annulus, and formation oil mass fraction are shown in
Fig 14 and Fig 15, respectively.
Increasing the choke opening slightly at t = 49.5 min leads to
a drop in the choke pressure initially. But it then recovers
and reaches the previous value. However, the pump and
bottomhole pressures show a small reduction.
Since good underbrdanced condition is achieved, the gas rate
is reduced from 300 to 200 scf/min at t = 56 min. This has a
significant effect on the pump pressure which decreases
considerably due to lower frictional pressure loss and the
higher hydrostatic pressure inside CT. However, the BHP
remains almost unchanged. Reducing the gas rate further
from 200 to 100 scf/min at t = 72 min results a similar
pressure responses to the earlier ones.
In this case of high GOR reservoir, once the underbalanced
condition is established with sufficiently high production
rates, small gas rate is required to maintain the underbalanced
condition during the operations.
A similar simulation has also been run for a low GOR
reservoir of 2 sm3/sm3. The pressure responses to operations
are shown in Fig 16. The wellbore pressures, free gas void
fractions in the annulus, and formation oil mass fractions at
selected times are shown in Figs 17 to 19, respectively.
In general, similar responses in the pump and bottomhole
pressures are observed. However, at lower gas rates, the BHP
shows an increasing trend @lg 17) due to less free gas in the
annulus (Fig 18). During the most part of operation, on]y the
start part of the horizontal section has achieved underbalanced condition and produced oil and water.
The
production itself does not help to maintain the underbalanced
condition. As the BHP increases with the decreasing gas rate,
the mass of formation oil in the well system also decreases
due to production at surface and less influx at bottomhole.
Annular Gas Injection Vs Gasified Fluid Drilling
it has been observed from the above sirriuiation resuits that
for a given well, reservoir, drill fluids and other parameters,
to achieve a certain pressure reduction at bottomhole, a lower
gas rate is required in the case of gasified fluid drilling
compared with annular gas injection. This may be attributed

297

to two factorx (i) total vertical depth of drilling fluid in the

annuhrs being lifted with gas and (ii) frictional pressure loss.
In the case of annular gas injection using parasitic string, only
part of the annulus above the deepest injection point is
gasified and a higher gas injection rate may be required to
achieve a similar pressure reduction. The higher rate, in turn,
will also cause larger frictional pressure losses. On the other
hand, in the case of gasified fluid drilling, the entire system is
gasified and a lower gas rate will lead to a smaller frictional
pressure loss.
In the example simulations, the well TVD is 707 m and the
gas injection point in the case of annular gas injection is at
550 m TVD. With a Mling fluid density of 1100 kg/m3,
and a gas density at downhole conditions of about 55 kg/m3,
the extra gasified TVD of 157 m will lead to a hydrostatic
pressure reduction of 1.6 bar at a gas void fraction of 10%,
3,22 bar at 20%, and 4.83 bar at 30%, respectively.

OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
In this section, we intended to discuss briefly about the
operational considerations based upon the above simulation
results. We shall concentrate only on two issues here, i.e. (1)
knowledge of reservoir properties and (2) pump start up
procedure.
It is obvious from the simulations and operational side that
reservoir fluid properties, especially gas-oil ratio, will have
considerable effects on the underbalanced drilling operations.
Indeed, the gas production rate from the reservoir will affect
the lift gas volume and rate requirements as demonstrated by
the example simulations. The exact extent of the effect will
depend
upon many parameters,
reservoir
properties
(permeability, GOR, water saturation, etc.), wellbore length
exposed to the reservoir, pressure undcrbalance and wellbore
trajectory, for example.
During underbalanced drilling operations, it is important that
the well is maintained at the desired underbalanced
conditions at all times. This is particularly important during
the pump (both liquid and gas pumps) start-up stage. In both
of the systems simulated, the BHP increases when the gas
injection is started, especially in the case of gasified fluid
drilling (Fig 3, Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 16). As a result, in the case
of gasified fluid drilling, the pumps will be required to start
circulation when the bit is high up in the vertical/inclined
section depending upon the liquid level in the well.
Another consideration is the flow rate out of the well. Fig 20
compares the liquid flow rates out of the well for high GOR
reservoirs between the gasified fluid drilling (Case 2B) and
the annular gas injection (Case 1B). In both cases, the liquid
pump rate is maintained at 350 l/rein before gas injection
commcnccs and the choke position remains unchanged. it is
seen clearly that in the case of annular gas injection, the
liquid flow rate out of the WCI1increases rapidly before the
gas reaches lhe surface and decreases sharply when the gas
breaks out at the surface. This may overload the surface
processing equipment temporarily.

A Dynamio Model for Underbalanced Drilling With Coiled Tubing

mix

CONCLUSIONS
%~
An advanced simulation modei has been ~~~~i~-~d
The model
simulating underbalanced drilling operations.
accounts for transient multi-phase hydraulics, reservoir-well
various
interactions associated with underbalanced drilling,
diiiiifig cperatiwts.
gas iift SySteinS,
d

NOMENCLATURE

The authors are grateful to Norske Shell for supporting the

project developing the simulator. We thank AS Norske Shell
m,...d..d .n...-...
sc~nrt.h
fm
LO publish the
zmd RF - nu~.aaa
.. . p.w.issiQn
paper.
We are ~i~o grat~fui
LO he Norwegian Research Council
(NFR) for partial funding for writing the paper (Project No
101032/420).

REFERENCES
1.

Expert Share Views on Formation Damage Solutions,

JPT, November 1994, P936-940

2.

Leising, L.J. and Rike, E. A.: Underba[anced Drilling

With Coiled Tubing and Well Productivity, paper SPE
28870 presented at the 1994 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, London, Oct.. 25-27

3.

Kitsios, E., Kamphuls, H., Quaresma, V., Rovig, J.W.,

and Reynolds, E.: Underbalanced Drilling Through Oil
Production Zones With Stable Foam in Oman, paper
SPE 27525 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Daiias, Feb. i5-iil

4.

Ercsman,
D.: Underbalanced
drilling guidelines
improve safety, efficiency, Oil & Gas J. (Feb. 28, 1994)
39.

s.

Faure, A. M., Zijlker, V.A., van Elst, H. and van Meisen,

R.J.: Horizontal Drilling Wi[h Coiled Tubing: A Look at
PotentiaI Application to North Sea Mature Fields in
Light of Experience Onshore The Netherlands, paper
SPE 26715 presented at the 1993 SPE Offshore European
Conference, Abcrdccn, Sept. 7-10

6.

Missclbrook,
J., Wilde, G. and Falk K.: The
Development and Use of a Coiled-Tubing Simulation for
Horizontal Applications, paper SPE 22822 presented at
the 66th Annular Technical Conf and Ex. of the SPE,
Dallas, TX, (Oct. 6-!9, i99 i j

7.

Ramos, A.B. Jr., Fahel, R. A.,

K. H.: Horizontal Slirnhole
Tubing, paper SPE 23875
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
i W?)

8.

MacDonald, R.R. and Crombic, D.L.: Balanced Drilling

With Coiled Tubing, paper SPE 27435 presented at the
1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 15-18

9.

Dorcmcus, D.: Review of the State of Coiled Tubing

Drilling in the North Sea, paper presented at the 1st
European Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Aberdeen, Oct. 1819, 1994

cross sectional area

f,

frictional pressure loss term

fz

localised pressure loss term

gas dissolution rate

rng

total gas dissolution rate

mass inflow rates

qgl

mass inflow rate of free lift gas

qfgp

mass influx rate of free produced gas

pressure

distance

time

temperature

velocity

mass fraction

Symbol
a

gas void fraction, or

*fi*ml
fro. .,nifi
LUw, ~..

fnm-tinn
.. .,....

density

hole inclination

~gi

+~
liP

Subscripts
c

cuttings

fo

formation oil

fw

formation water

gas

gd

dissolved gas

gl

lift gas

8P

produced gas

liquid

mixture

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To achieve and maintain tile underbalanced ctmditiofi is z

~~mpie~ p~es~
due to the interactions among many
parameters. The simulation model is an important tool for
designing such CT underbalanced drilling operations.

SPE 29383

Chaffin, M., and Pulis,

Drilling With Coiled
presented at the 1992
New Orleans, LA, (Feb.

lo. Eidc, E. and Brinkhorst, J.: CT Drilling on the

Barenburg Field, Germany, paper presented at the 1st

298

SPE 29363

.. .

R. Rommetveit, E. H. Vefring, L. Wang, T. Bieseman, A. Faure

European Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Aberdeen, Oct. 1819, 1994

Table 1. Reservoir

11. John, R.: CT Drilling Onshore in the UK., paper

presented at the 1st European Coiled Tubing Roundtable,
Aberdeen, Oct. 18-19, 1994

Properties

Depth (MD)

800-950

Permeability

1500 md

Porosity

20%

Pressure

65 bar

Temperature

50 c

Oil density at SC*

897 kg/m3

Water dcnsitv at SC* I

1050 ktim3

II

Gas density at SC*

0.68 kg/m3

12. Tracey, P.: CTD with MWD in Underbalanced Wells,

paper presented at the 1st European Coiled Tubing
Roundtable, Aberdeen, Oct. 18-19, 1994
13. Leising, L.J. and Newman, K.R.: Coiled-Tubing
Drilling, SPE Drilling& Completion (Dec., 1993) 227

14. Leising, L.J. and Rike, E.A.: Coiled Tubing Case

Histories, paper SPE 27433 presented at the 1994
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 15-18
15. GlasO, 0.: J. Pet. Tech. (May 1980), PP785-795
16. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems, 8dr cd., Dallas, 1977.
17. Hall, K.R., and Yarborough, L. : Oil and Gas J. (June 18,
1973), pp 82-86

*SC:standard conditions

18. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) pp
607-6i7

Tah!~ z Additional Data fnr Example Simulations

19. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R. and Burrows, D.B.: Trans.

AIME (1954) 264-272

24. Vennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B.: Underbalanced Drilling

of Horizontal Wells: Does it Really Eliminate Formation
Damage?, paper SPE 27352 presented at Lhe SPE Intl.
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, Febr. 7-10, 1994.
25. Love, C. L., Eagle, T. M., Adamson, S.: Coiled-Tubing
Drilling in Kern County, Cahfornia: A Case S(udy,
paper SPE 27879 presented at the Western Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, March 23-25,
1994.

Plastic viscosity

11.5cp

Yield point

2.0 lbf/100 ft2

Gas

Nitrogen

Liquid pump rate

350 l/rein
. .-,. ,.-
I r/lw It

Tempcralure gradient

21. Ekrann, S. and Rommetveit, R.: 8ASimulator for Gas

Kicks in Oil-Based Drilling Muds, paper SPE 14182
presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conf. and Ex. of
the SPE, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.. 22-25, 1985

23. Vefring, E. H., Rommetveit, R. and B@rge, E.: An

Advanced Kick Simtdator Opera[ing in a User-Friendly
. . .. ..
X-Window System Environment, paper SPE 223 i4
nrecentml
Computer Conf.,
~.v-...-- ~~ ~h~ &h ~PE. P~~cIILMm
Dallas, Texas, June 17-20, 1991.

I 1100kg/m3

I Mud density

20. Rommetveit, R., Blyberg, A. and Lie Olsen, T.: The

Effects
of
Operaling
Conditions,
Reservoir
Characteristics and Control Methods on Gas Kicks in Oil
Based Drilling Muds, paper SPE 19246 presented at
Offshore Europe 89, Aberdeen, Sept. 5-8.

22. Vefring, E. H., Wang, Z., Gaard, S. and Bach, G.F.: An

Advanced Kick Simulator for High Angle and Horizontal
Wells - Part I, paper SPE 29345 presented at the 1995
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterd~m, Feb. 28 March 2, 1995

.Llauld

Q,

Qf

@SSifkd

Fluld

.Foam

9
i

. ......
.Gas(lnpctad
&
!=!
I
I
donw
.lWlllrIm
Ulll
+

ad

IIIk

Produowd}

. . ... .. .. .Fluids
-----

. Disaolvad

tiS

.Form800n

011

.Formation

Walar

.Cunings

-l&,

FormalIon
Influx

VM

A
4
lQhl

Fig 1 Schematic Representation of the Physical System

SPE 29363

A Dynamic Model for Underbalanced DrillingWith Coiled Tubing

Wellbore
ID

S In

From Oto 7S0 m

Fmm 750 to %0 m

4 3/8In

OD

Gas fnjecton
@5SOm

3 1/4 In

Drill collar
CT

I.a@h

ID

100 m

1 4/5 In

2 2/S In

850 m

2 In

Mm

Reservoirtop

52Oeg

R.servdr bottom
TD@%Om

~w

TVD.

Csslng hoe@ 750 m

I
10,02

707 m

0.00

I
I
40,00
20.W
Preeeure (bara)

I
20.00

Fig 5 Wollbom

Fig 2. Well Geometry Used in Example Simulations

9W.w

&

!lj

Pressure

I
W.00

I
W.w

Profilos e4 Seloetod limos

1
#

.ZuxO+

4omo

i
&

40.00

0.00

II

(Ces@ 1A)

I
Oco

1
?O,m

+
p-J

t.
t.
t.
t.
t.

l.1~ tin, ChokeSOI1837!4

2,47 tin, Stan w Inlmti t 300 Wtlmln
8.22InIn,Crlahoad1031 %
1s.44InIn, lnmvn9 *S mm from 30010350 Sdltin
2e.n mhl, In
es mh from 2E0 10 4s0 MM.
t. 47.22&,
OW18U9 w tab from 450 to 350 =Vmtn
t . 40.e4 InIn, crick* sol 103s%

1.,5.26-

l.m.om

-coo.oo

0.00

20.00

40W
7ime (mm)

eaoo

Fig 3 Preeeur.

Rosponeos

to Oporaflorml

Ev.nts

-Iooc.m

4000

1.47,90.A

-,-

1.

O,w

0.10

M,75..

Fig 6 Free G*o Void FrecUons t Seleded

(Cass 1 A)

m.co

I
I
I
0,40
0,20
O.za
Free Ges Void Fmaion

Oow.mu

ClmR. -.

-A-

Plmo

I
0,%

I
O.w

7hnea (Cam 1A)

pmun

pu,u

t.tsti,ohdnsotmw%
mmienlnlAOn
8t2WccfMn
t.7.slral, ctldm88tms4%
l.lwnJn,
hcmmD@cmwhOm
a0e10220psmmm7mmaae 104s8c2mAl
t.mOtlin,

t.47.0*,
docmo88e-mmti hm4.50m22e M
t.660tin,
Umka9mm3S%
t.2.0nh

1
E

a,w

-1

OOO.CO

O.w

I
0.cQ
w

Fig 4 Mau

I
I
0.04
Fmaion of F&%fion

Fracfions of Formation

I
0,C4

,,wL-J

I
010

Oil

Oil t Sekcted

Ow

I
2000

7imeD (Caee 1A)

FW 7 Pmseum

300

Roepmees

I
40.00
Time (rein)
to Op.ratbnei

I
moo

I
moo

Evente (Caee 16)

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

SPE 29363

f~
-mom
t,

.moam

O.m

Fig 8 Freo Gas Void Freofions

at B.I.etad

I
033

I
I
I
040
0,20
0,20
Free Gee Void Fracrion

I
0.10

(Case 1 B)

..-!)

&

+com

016
0,12
Mass Fmctkm of Form~icm Oil

Fmctiorre of Form~ion

t. O.stnln, ehokesu 1035%

t. 3.0 mm, wws su MOdJ.n am sc.thnin
1.49.5 tin, *C4W sot to as%
I.
%.0 tin, dmrsns w mb lmm 300 to ml sotlmln
t. 72.0mln,.JWW8SC
SSSme tramml m 100scrrmln

40.m

II

CM*

-&-

Pump

LJ

p.

Wnw

o.m

0.20

Rosponees

?m.m

ao.m

40,m
m w
Time (rein)

mm

Fig 12 Premuro

Oil @ Seieoted Times (Cme 1S)

to Opamtiond

Events

(Case 26)

!~

6
1

.... EEl

\\

o.m

0.0s

0.04

Fig 9-

rzvmt -qWnm

,W

Bj

-T15cT15c

t
0,00

irr the Well (Cese lB)

!!
~{k:

---------%
L.

-4C.3.CO

Componmsts

lm.m

--Y

of VmknM

I
0.20

I
O.*5

I
0.10
Mess Freclions

Fig 11 Mess Fractions

limo.

0.0s

0s0

nom

o.m

lo.m

Flg 10 Wollboro

I
zo.m

40.m
30.m
P1eSeure (bsm)

Pressure

Pmfilss

I
so.m

st Selected

I
Woo

0.0

10.0

70.m
Fig 13 Wellbore

Tlmos

(Csee

1 B)

301

2Q.O

30.0
Pressure

Pr.eeure

40.0
(bara)

Profllos

So.o

st Setectod

m.o

So.o

Tlm88

(Csee

2B)

L
k
&

~m

*
El

T.2a26m

T.

,.7225-

S4.2 m.

T.101-

-lOOOW

0,40

O.za

OCQ

Vod Frac4ion
Fig 14 Froo Gas Void Fraztions

lndd6 CT nd in tfw Annulus (Cno

2B)

~m,o
0.0 10.0 2s)0

200
Pressure

Flg 17 Wollbcw

Prsssur6

(bra)

Profiles

at Solaetsd

Timss

(Ca9s

2A)

Om

om

Flg 15 Msss Fractions

mm

040

030
0.20
Mass Fraction

0.10

of Formation

0S2

0.60

010

000

0.50

C&mVcid Fra%n

011 at Sebowd

Times (Case 2S)

Fig 18 Frse Gas Void Fraction in Annulus t Sdect4d

llms

(CEC4 2A)

60.m

8
k
~
;

il
40.m

o.

Event
sequonms

t .0.44 ml, Shorn 901w 3s%

1.1.64 n#n, SlusSlcPulw *I SOOSCW411
t-3s26mln, ctw4uNtt0S4%
t. Eb.45mln, Aau
gn mlo rrem 30010 ZOO seionh
t.
72.4 tin,tiomauW*mbtmmS0010
100 sotmln

2000

o.oo~
O.m

2000

40.m

Fig 16 Pressuro

Rosponsss

Woo

80 m

-1O@ .m
I moo

?
o.m

&
I

0.10

0.s0

030

0.40

Mm..
,., -..

Time (mifij

to Opsratiorml

Events

(Caso 2A)

FW 19 Mess Fraction

Profiles

Cra,-limne
!.., ,-.

of Formation

Oil (Ca8s 2A)

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

SPE 29363
14000

920C0

1lm.o

Hl@l GOR Rc-

a-w

A181LW0.

Ilum

emw
W.SlOfl

22

(c.

!0)

(C.

SoOo

In
~

,0

400.0

\ ,

200.0

00

100

200

300

400

Soo

Time (mm)
Fig 20 Liquid Flow-out

Rates During

Early Stag.

of Operation

11