See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240780956

Sand Cleanouts With Coiled Tubing: Choice of Process, Tools and Fluids

Article  in  Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · August 2010

DOI: 10.2118/113267-PA

CITATIONS READS

7 1,056

3 authors, including:

Jeff Li
STran onsulting Ltd.
5 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeff Li on 19 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PAPER: 2009-10-12
Sand Cleanouts With Coiled Tubing:
Choice of Process, Tools and Fluids
J. Li, J. Misselbrook, M. Sach, BJ Services Company
Abstract
Cleaning fill from wellbores is the most common coiled tubing
(CT) application. The process is a function of multiple variables
including fluid properties, flow velocities, wellbore geometry
and deviation, pipe eccentricity, particle properties, fill penetra-
tion rate and wiper trip speed. Removing fill from wells with
low bottom hole pressures (BHP) can be challenging especially
if wells are completed with smaller diameter production tubu-
lars which significantly reduce circulation flow cross-section and
choke flow(1). Such challenges are further compounded by high
deviation or horizontal well trajectories especially in large diam-
eter wellbores.
A variety of cleanout methods have been developed in the past,
often incorporating high circulation rates, special fluids, wiper
trips, or reverse circulation to remove solids. Many of these con-
ventional sand cleanout methods often apply excess hydrostatic
pressure on the formation, resulting in lost circulation in pressure
depleted reservoirs. The conventional solution to overcome ex-
cess hydrostatic pressure has been to include nitrogen to reduce
fluid density and thus lessen the hydrostatic head; however, sand
vacuuming technology using a concentric coiled tubing (CCT)
with a downhole jet pump is an alternative technique for re-
moving fill without placing a hydrostatic load on the reservoir.
This paper reviews the individual sand cleanout systems and
discusses the advantages and limitations related to each method.
In recent years, cleaning sand using the wiper trip method has
become the preferred technique. However, an appropriate pump
rate and reservoir pressure are needed to maintain a proper return
flow rate to carry the sands to the surface. For pressure-depleted
reservoirs completed with horizontal wells, a sand vacuuming
system can be used to efficiently remove the debris without cir-
culating nitrogen and without high pump rates. When the fill
cannot be removed from large-diameter deviated wellbores using
conventional low-cost cleanout fluids, then fluids with high
solids suspension capability (under shear conditions) in con-
junction with wiper tripping may be an economical option. The
main application for the reverse circulation technique is cleaning
sand from large diameter wellbores when the necessary pump
rates for conventional “forward” circulation are not achievable.
A venturi junk bailer is often used to retrieve larger or heavier
material which cannot be circulated out by traditional methods.
Field cases are provided, demonstrating how to select the proper
cleaning method and how to efficiently remove sand from a well-
bore based on both operational and logistical conditions.
Introduction
CT fill cleanouts have been in existence for over four de-
cades and today account for approx 30% of the services per-
formed with CT. Both CT and conventional jointed pipe offer two
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 1
circulation modes to remove solids: either forward or reverse circu-
lation mode. However, using conventional water-based fluids,
a conventional sand cleanout method may apply excess hydro-
static pressure on the formation, resulting in some lost circulation
to a sub-hydrostatic reservoir(2). If the losses are significant this
makes sand removal impossible. Also, such losses can damage the
formation. Nitrogen can be used to reduce hydrostatics, but this
necessitates a very specific job design and execution, and in larger-
diameter wellbores, and especially in horizontal wells, can result in
using large amounts of nitrogen with corresponding logistical and
economic consequences.
To mitigate challenges associated with large nitrogen require-
ments, a sand vacuuming technology has been developed and
proven in field operations worldwide(3). This vacuuming system
consists of a specialized downhole jet pump connected to a CCT
string. The tool can be operated in three modes: sand vacuuming,
well vacuuming and high-pressure jetting. The tool provides a
localized drawdown wherever it is positioned in the wellbore and
is effective in removing sand in the sand vacuuming mode and re-
moving localized mud damage in the well vacuuming mode.
The selection of the most appropriate sand cleanout method has
to be based on both logistical and technical issues. Factors such as
equipment cost, reel weight (string length and diameter), and avail-
ability/cost of N2 will be deciding issues in many sand cleanout
operations. Technical issues include the consideration of formation
damage potential, degree of pressure depletion, small completion
tubular and particle size/type of debris. For a wellbore with large
or heavy junk, a venturi basket may need to be deployed to clean
the wellbore(4). If large or heavy fill is associated with more nor-
mally sized fill, the cleanout may encompass elements of multiple
cleanout methods.
This paper reviews individual sand cleanout methodologies and
their advantages and limitations. Case histories demonstrate how
to select the proper cleaning method based on both operational and
logistical considerations
Sand Cleanout Methods
The use of coiled tubing to convey circulation fluids and tools to
remove material such as formation fines, drill cuttings, frac prop-
pant, scale and milling debris and so on out of the wellbore is a
routine industry practice. Several cleanout techniques have been
developed over the years, these include stationary circulation,
wiper tripping(1,2,4–18), reverse circulation(19–22), sand vacuuming
technology(23–35,36,37), and venturi sand/junk bailers(4,22,38-40).
For a typical sand cleanout process, the fluid could be circu-
lated in two different directions (Figure 1): forward circulation and
reverse circulation. In the forward circulation mode, the carrying
fluids are pumped through the CT down through a wash tool, and
they flow back to surface through the CT/completion annulus. In
forward circulation, high energy jets or drill bits run on motors
 1

Minimum Relative Liquid Velocity

0.9 Minimum erosion velocity in stationary circulation mode

0.8 Minimum velocity for wiper trip/POOH with forward circulation

0.7 Minimum liquid velocity for RIH with reverse circulation

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIGURE 1: Two typical sand cleanout circulation modes.
Deviation Angle, o
can be used to help break up and disperse any compacted fill in FIGURE 3: Effect of deviation angle on the minimum liquid velocity
the wellbore. For reverse circulation, fluids are pumped down the needed to clean the hole: a) CT RIH with forward circulation cleaning
CT/completion annulus with returns back up the coil. Options for mode; b) CT RIH with reverse circulation cleaning mode; c) CT POOH
with forward circulation cleaning mode; d) CT POOH with reverse
breaking up compacted fill when reversing are limited. Customized circulation cleaning mode.
nozzles are available that will deliver high energy jetting in the for-
ward circulation mode but will allow reverse circulation without the years the absolute success of this method has been highly vari-
incurring any pressure drop penalty. Clearly if one encounters a able. In most cases, this general approach has not delivered com-
compacted sand “bridge” when reversing it will be necessary to plete fill removal.
first empty any solids inside the CT string and then switch to for- When the tubing string is stationary, the hole cleaning time is
ward jetting mode to break up the “bridge” and then subsequently affected by fluid velocity, pipe eccentricity, deviation angle, fluid
switch back to reversing mode. For safety reasons, certain limita- properties and particle properties. The interaction of these factors
tions apply when reversing up the coiled tubing. makes it challenging to predict hole cleaning time. Fluid velocity
is the primary parameter influencing the hole cleaning process. In a
horizontal well, the sand retreat speed for a given pipe eccentricity
Conventional Hole Cleaning Method increases exponentially with liquid velocity (Figure 2). Here, the
The traditional approach to remove sand has been running in
with CT to the top of fill, increasing the flow rate and then begin-
ning penetration into the fill. The cleanout might be carried out
by continuous slow penetration into the fill followed by stationary
circulation or else penetrating, say, 15 to 50 ft of the fill followed
by moving the CT uphole over the last penetration interval and
continuing circulation while running back in hole. The operation
might continue taking “bites” of the fill and reciprocating the CT
a) CT RIH with forward circulation cleaning mode
until the target depth (TD) or bottom of the wellbore is reached.
At TD, the sand in transit to surface is intended to be circulated
out with one to two hole volumes of circulated fluids, with the CT
generally remaining stationary at TD followed by pulling out of
the hole. In some cases, the traditional cleaning method might in-
volve pumping a certain amount of fluid for every penetration in-
terval, then circulating a bottoms-up volume and then penetrating
another interval and repeating the process until TD is reached.
These stationary circulation or multi-bite methods often involve b) CT RIH with reverse circulation cleaning mode
the use of larger diameter coiled tubing, higher flow rates, and in
some cases, using more costly bio-polymer fluid systems. Over
100
Stationary hole cleaning mode
90 Inner pipe is fully concentric
ε=0
Sand Retreat Speed, ft/min

80 Achievable flow rate

range with CT
70

60 POOH or RIH with reverse circulation

Inner pipe is fully eccentric, ε=1
c) CT POOH with forward circulation cleaning mode
50
Stationary hole cleaning mode
40 Inner pipe is fully eccentric
ε=1.0
30
Stationary hole cleaning mode
20 Inner pipe is partially eccentric
ε=0.81
10 POOH with forward circulation
ε=0 to 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Liquid Velocity, ft/min

d) CT POOH with reverse circulation cleaning mode
FIGURE 2: Effect of liquid velocity and pipe eccentricity on sand
retreat speed in a horizontal wellbore with different hole cleaning FIGURE 4: Typical sands cleanout methodology/process during RIH/
modes. POOH.
2 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
sand retreat speed is defined as an average solids front travelling
speed. The CT offset or eccentricity also has a significant effect on
the solids retreat speed. This is because once the CT is resting on
the bottom of the wellbore, the velocity of fluid in the “wedge” re-
gion between the CT and the completion becomes very low, which
in turn slows the entrainment of solids and their subsequent trans-
port along the hole. When the CT is lifted to a more concentric
position, the velocity profile near the bottom of the well changes
and the solids retreat speed gets higher. The plot also indicates that
the sand retreat speed for the wiper trip with both forward and re-
verse circulation modes would be higher than it is for the stationary
mode. This is especially relevant at the flow rates typically achiev-
able with CT. The sand retreat speed for run in hole (RIH)/pull
out of hole (POOH) with reverse circulation is higher than it is for
POOH wiper tripping with forward circulation.
If the pump rate is lower than the flow rate corresponding to the
minimum liquid velocity for solids transport, there will always be
fills left in the hole regardless of how slowly the CT is pulled out
of the hole. Figure 3 shows how these minimum liquid velocities
change with deviation angle. For the stationary circulation mode
(i.e., zero wiper trip speed), the absolute minimum liquid erosion
velocity for a wellbore with 30o deviation angle is twice that of
a vertical wellbore and triple for the critical angles between 45o
and 65o. The absolute minimum water erosion velocity for a hori-
zontal wellbore is only 1.5 times that for a vertical wellbore. How-
ever, extreme care should be exercised when reviewing “absolute”
values, because although the sand bed may be eroding, the actual
erosion rate may be too low for any practical use.
In the wiper trip/POOH with forward circulation mode, the crit-
ical deviation angle is between 30o to 60o. This is because of a con-
dition called the “avalanche” effect where settled solids are sliding
downward to the bottom of the wellbore. The “avalanche” effect
does not exist for deviation angles between 65o to 90o. The devia-
tion angle has very limited effect on the minimum liquid velocity
to clean the hole for the RIH with the reverse circulation mode.
FIGURE 5: Solids-cleanout/drift-BHA with PDM/mill and specialized downhole cleanout-tool.
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 3
It can be seen from Figure 3 that the minimum liquid velocity
while running into the hole with reverse circulation is much lower
than it is for stationary or pulling out of hole during forward cir-
culation. This means that reverse circulation can effectively clean
sand out of a hole with a lower flow rate than is required with for-
ward circulation.
Wiper Trip Hole Cleaning(2,4–18)
A comprehensive experimental test program conducted over the
past 15 years(7–12) has investigated solids transport for both sta-
tionary circulation and wiper trip cleanouts. The effect of multi-
phase flow, rate of penetration (ROP), deviation angle, circulation
fluid properties, particle density and size, fluid rheology, pipe ec-
centricity, wiper trip speed, and nozzle type on solids transport was
examined in detail. Figure 2 shows that wiper trip hole cleaning
has a higher hole cleaning efficiency than stationary hole cleaning
in the achievable flow rate range for most CT operations.
Based on this research, an effective solids-cleanout method-
ology/process using CT (see Figures 4a and 4c) has been devel-
oped and proven by field operations(1,2,4,6,14–18). This patented(13)
methodology is embodied in a comprehensive solids-transport
simulator(10) and the method is further enhanced by a specialized
downhole cleanout tool (Figure 5). Empirical formulas are applied
to predict surface and downhole pressures, fluid velocities, and
solids-transport efficiencies. The simulator is a powerful analyt-
ical tool that can characterize wellbore hydraulics and solids-trans-
port for various downhole conditions, especially when applying
the concept of removing solids from wellbores using wiper trip-
ping. Its use has resulted in better-designed and successfully exe-
cuted cleanouts. The detail information related to the development
of the simulator is cited in Li et al.(10).
The specialized downhole cleanout tool(6) (Figure 5) offers the
option of using downward facing, high-energy jetting nozzles or a
positive displacement motor (PDM) to ensure sufficient penetration
energy needed for harder solids depositions. Having penetrated the
targeted solids (see Figure 4a), this specialized “circulation valve”
allows the fluid pumped during the cleanout to be redirected to low
energy upward facing jets simultaneously stopping the fluid stream
through the jetting nozzle or PDM. The pressure change resulting
from the tool switching provides a surface indication of the posi-
tion of the tool for the CT operator.
By selecting the uphole-facing nozzles and controlling the trip-
ping out of hole rate, as determined by the associated solids-trans-
port simulator, settled solids can be “swept” out of the hole with
practically 100% efficiency (see Figure 4c). The cleanout fluid is
circulated through low energy uphole-facing nozzles which re-en-
train solids that have settled on the low side of the hole for sub-
sequent transport along the wellbore. The methodology/process
takes advantage of improved hole cleaning from jetting in the up-
hole direction, while tripping out of hole at a computed wiper trip
speed(14–18). “Wiper tripping,” as defined in this paper, is the move-
ment of the CT and bottom hole assembly (BHA) out of the hole a
certain distance or to surface, while continuously circulating clea-
nout fluid through the wash nozzle or circulating valve if used.
For certain more challenging cleanouts, several cleanout stages
may be required to reach the required depth(6). The process of pen-
etrating into the solids to a targeted depth and performing wiper
trips can be repeated numerous times during one run in hole. A
version of the “circulation valve” that can be opened and closed
multiple times without tripping to surface and without the use of
multiple activation balls is available.
In most cleanout applications using fluids with low solids-
suspension properties, equilibrium solids-beds would be formed
behind the BHA as the CT is run into the well. Continuously cir-
culating through the CT while tripping in causes a redistribution
of the solids in the wellbore. By definition, an equilibrium solids-
bed is formed once the velocity of the cleanout fluid is sufficiently
high so that no further solids particles can settle out, and the solids
bed cannot grow any further. The remaining solids particles will
be transported out of the hole. Solids trapped in the equilibrium
solids beds will be removed from the wellbore during the wiper-
trip phase.
In some cases, the sand can only be removed from highly devi-
ated/horizontal large wellbores by the combination of using fluids
with high solids-suspension property and the wiper-trip tech-
nology(1,11,16). For pressure-depleted reservoirs(2), nitrified fluids
have to be circulated. Wells with low BHP can be particularly chal-
lenging to clean because the introduction of nitrogen often results
in a necessary reduction in the liquid phase that can be circulated
and which consequently results in an overall reduction of the in-
situ liquid phase velocity.
Overall, proper selection of fluid type and rates, CT RIH and
POOH speeds is crucial to ensure a successful cleanout with the
wiper trip cleaning process. Effective job design is achieved by
using powerful computer simulation software developed specifi-
cally for this application.
Reverse Circulation Cleaning(5,19–22)
In some cases the forward circulation mode cannot effectively
clean the fill out of the wellbore because the size of CT limits
the achievable circulation rate required for circulation/wiper trip
methods. Because of the smaller internal flow area of CT, it is
often possible to achieve higher circulation velocities inside the
CT and, where appropriate, fill can be effectively transported by
reverse circulating up the CT.
While reverse circulating is normally conducted while run-
ning in hole, there are some circumstances where reversing while
POOH might be encountered. This situation could arise during an-
nular CT fracturing operations where sand is introduced into the
well from surface while the CT is already in the well. In this in-
stance, reversing while POOH could be a consideration for wells
with deviation angles greater than 65°. However, factors such as
the eccentricity of the reversing nozzle now become part of the de-
sign process
4 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
While reverse circulation presents an alternative cleanout mode
that can overcome some of the limitations of forward circulation,
there are some corresponding risks. The two major risks associated
with reverse circulation with CT are (a) coiled tubing collapse and
(b) an uncontrolled release of reservoir fluids if the CT breaks or
starts leaking on surface. In normal forward circulation operations,
well control is maintained in the event of a failure of the CT on
surface because the CT is equipped with a check valve to prevent
reverse flow. Clearly the check valve has to be removed or tempo-
rarily disengaged for reversing to take place.
A further technical consideration for reverse circulation is con-
trolling the rate of penetration (ROP) of the CT into the fill because
this is an additional parameter critical to success. If the fill is too
highly compacted to be broken up by high energy fluid jets, then
multiple trips with motors and mills may be necessary in between
cleaning trips (in order to remove the motor prior to reversing
operations).
Sand/Well Vacuuming Cleanout(3,23–37)
Sand vacuuming technology has been developed and proven
worldwide in operations on low-pressure reservoirs. The system
consists of a specially designed jet pump fitted on concentric
coiled tubing. The cleanout fluid, called the power fluid, is circu-
lated down the central string and returned through the coil-coil an-
nulus (between the two CT strings). The action of the power fluid,
typically water, passing through the jet pump effectively vacuums
the formation liquid and the fill out of the wellbore, and the fluid-
ized sand stream returns up the inside of the coil-coil annulus. Be-
cause of the small annular areas involved, the velocities are quite
high and under most circumstances the sand cannot settle out while
circulation is maintained. This process can be employed in wells
with low BHPs because no fluid hydrostatic pressure is exerted on
the formation.
The main components of a jet pump are the power nozzle,
throat, and diffuser. Fluids are pumped through the nozzle at high
velocities into a throat where suction is generated and then into
the diffuser, where the velocity of the fluid is gradually reduced
and kinetic energy is converted back to potential energy (i.e., pres-
sure). The re-gained pressure is sufficient to lift the fluid and en-
trained sand back to surface. As the fluid expands through the
nozzle, it creates a venturi effect which draws sand into the fluid
stream before it enters the throat portion of the jet pump. The sand
intake ports are positioned between the nozzle exit and the throat
entrance. The pump is specially designed to handle the high-vel-
ocity sand-laden fluid and has been configured to optimize both
intake rates and drive pressures, based on the fluid rates attain-
able through the internal CT string. Although the jet pump can be
driven with a variety of different liquids, a mixture of formation
water with a low dosage friction reducer is often used to improve
overall system performance efficiency(28).
The tool can be operated in three modes. In sand removal mode,
a portion of the power fluid is diverted through front and rear-fa-
cing swirl jets to fluidize the sand to allow ingress into the pump
suction. In most cases, the tool is set up to balance the jetted fluid
rate with the suction rate. In fluid recovery mode, the external swirl
jets are shut off, resulting in net fluid removal from the well. The
tool can be shifted back and forth between modes as many times
as necessary. Typically, the tool would first be run in hole in fill
removal mode and then switched at the toe of the well to fluid re-
covery mode and pulled back through the horizontal section.
The well vacuuming system provides a localized drawdown at
every point in the wellbore where the tool passes, removing local-
ized mud damage and increasing the well production(24–31). The
tool can be used to evaluate the production profile(24,28,35) (oil,
water and even sand cut) across the horizontal sections.
The third operating mode is “jetting.” In this mode, all the
power fluid is directed out of the forward fluidizing nozzles. The
increased velocities will break up virtually any compacted fill.
Once the “bridge” is broken up, the tool can be switched back to
sand vacuuming mode and the broken fill can be removed from
the well.
 The CCT strings are available in different sizes although 1.25-in. 40
in 2.375-in., 1-in. in 2-in., 1-in. and 0.75-in. in 1.5-in. are the most Biopolymer 1
35

Viscosity @ 100 sec-1, cP

common. The smaller CCT has reduced flow areas and, therefore,
higher fluid friction. The sand/well vacuuming system is versatile 30
because the jet pump nozzle and throat sizes can be adjusted to suit Biopolymer 3
both a given CCT string and specific well parameters. 25 Biopolymer 2

The existing sand/well vacuuming BHA can be 2.5-in., 2.125- 20

in. or 1.75-in. outside diameter (OD) for the different completion
15
internal diameter (ID) applications. The sand/well vacuuming can
be run in conjunction with a downhole memory gauge to collect 10 Biopolymer 4
the pressure and temperature data. The tool can also be combined
with a lateral entrance guide system to access each leg of a multi- 5
lateral well(3).
0

119
124
125
142
157
161
161
176
195
199
200
212
242
252
254
254
254
273
289
292
293
293
292
283
269
254
240
225
211
198
185
172
161
149
137
127
74
96
Temperature, ˚F
Special Fluids: Biopolymer and
Foam(1,11,16,41) FIGURE 6: Thermal stability of biopolymer gels up to 300oF.

show the wide variations in the transition and breakdown tempera-

The most common fluids used in sand cleanouts include forma-
tion water, sea water, brine, and occasionally diesel or base oil,
any of which can be co-mingled with nitrogen. However, in some
cases, because of the wellbore completion size and low reservoir
pressure, it is sometimes necessary to use fluids with improved
solids suspension capabilities; these can either be water-based
polymer systems with or without nitrogen or even foamed fluids.
The properties of the circulation fluid have a fundamental effect
on solids transport. The shear stress at the solids bed and liquid in-
terface for a near horizontal wellbore plays a key role in the trans-
port of solids. The flow regime, geometric combination of hole/CT
and eccentricity also affect the rheological state of the liquid and
have a significant impact on solids transport efficiency. There is a
need to differentiate between the superior solids suspension capa-
bilities of the liquid and its hole cleaning effect produced when in
motion. The most important concept is that, under “specific oper-
ating conditions,” the greater the solids-carrying capacity a fluid
has, the more efficiently the hole can potentially be cleaned, pro-
vided that the additional annular friction pressure does not hinder
the circulation of returns to surface. The “specific operating condi-
tions” require that once the solids settle out and form a bed within
the wellbore, one needs a method of re-entraining the solids to
transport them further along the hole.
Previously published studies(8,11) demonstrate that these types of
gelled fluids bring some advantages and disadvantages. The car-
rying capacity and suspension properties of these fluids are supe-
rior but are hindered by other geometric influences on the velocity
profile. Solids entrainment and re-entrainment into the fluid, as
would be expected, is difficult to achieve without mechanical as-
sistance. Therefore, it is critical to use the jetting effect in the wiper
trip hole cleaning process when the circulated fluid is a high gel
load polymer.
Furthermore, the polymers available with an appropriate level
of particle suspension capability and low fluid flow friction are all
subject to some level of temperature degradation, some of which
may be irreversible. Many of the common polymers degrade to
the consistency of water at 100°C. A comprehensive laboratory
test program has been conducted to study the rheology of biopoly-
mers at different shear rates (0.06­1,012 s–1), temperatures, polymer
loadings and water salinities to determine the transition and break-
down temperatures for each fluid. Results of the rheology testing
tures that occur with different polymers, gel loadings and water sa-
linities. Results also show that the high gel loadings and increased
water salinity increase the gel thermal stability.
Figure 6 plots gel viscosity at 100 1/s shear rate with a 20
lb/1000 gallon gel load in 6 ppt Na2SO3 solution. The test results
indicate that each polymer has specific optimum operating ranges
and biopolymer 1 in particular has significantly better temperature
stability than the other polymers tested. However, biopolymer 1 is
also significantly more expensive than any of the other polymers
2. Biopolymer 3 has a similar thermal stability trend as biopo-
lymer 2 but is dramatically cheaper. The cleanout designer there-
fore has the opportunity to evaluate lower-cost polymers run at
higher concentrations against higher-cost polymers run at lower
concentrations.
A set of full-scale flow loop tests were also conducted. The test
investigated the solids-carrying capacity and suspension properties
performance of each fluid through the transition temperature and
the degree to which the gel suspension properties are adversely af-
fected by temperature change. Transport data from the study was
incorporated into the cleanout simulator to allow engineers to se-
lect the optimum fluid for a fill cleanout design at specified down-
hole conditions.
The rheological properties of foam are uniquely influenced by
its physical structure. Because the structure is affected by many
parameters (e.g., foam quality, bubble size, downhole pressure
and temperature, shear rate, the choice of surfactant, the base fluid
polymer type and concentration and the method of foaming), it be-
comes very challenging to accurately predict foam flowing behav-
iour in the wellbore. The foam stability/half-life is also affected
by any contaminants in the wellbore, especially residual oil or
condensate.
Flow loop tests under real downhole conditions38 show that the
sand-carrying capacity will increase with increasing foam quality
for polymer-stabilised foam. Adding viscosifiers, such as water-
based polymers, will increase the fluid sand-carrying capacity and
the foam stability. However, test data in the horizontal position is
limited. Further investigation is necessary to reliably predict solids
transport for other deviated angles, hole cleaning time and the
wiper trip speed for the whole sand cleaning process using foam.
Currently, the primary candidates for foamed cleanouts are
vertical wells with low BHPs and large diameter completions.

Table 1: Equivalent circulation density/pressure gradient generated by different fluids.

Fluid type ECD psi/ft bar/10m Remarks

Water/biopolymer 1 0.434 0.98 Hydrostatic or higher pressure wells, generally good hole cleaning
efficiency
Diesel 0.84 0.365 0.82 Wells just below hydrostatic, water sensitive formations, poor solids
transport
Nitrified water/biopolymer 0.45 0.195 0.44 Wells below hydrostatic, lower hole cleaning efficiency than straight liquid
Foam 0.20 0.087 0.20 Very low BHP vertical wells, good vertical cleaning efficiency
Jet pump vacuuming + water 0.14 0.062 0.14 Ultra-low BHP wells, doesn’t need nitrogen, requires concentric CT string

August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 5

 0 9,000 3.0

Equivalent Circulation Density, s.g.

Wiper trip cleanout SandVac cleanout
8,000
2.5
5,000
7,000
20,607, 7,254
TVD, feet

6,000 2.0

BHP, psi
10,000
5,000
1.5
21,781, 13,871 4,000
15,000
3,000 1.0
Wells cleaned with sand vacuuming

Wells cleaned with wiper trip 2,000

20,000 0.5
1,000

0 0.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Measurement Depth, feet Job #
FIGURE 7a: Operation depth envelope in different sand cleanout FIGURE 8: Bottom hole pressure and equivalent circulation density in
applications. different sand cleanout applications.

However, the complexity of mixing and handling foams and the
additional annular flow friction created by foamed fluids if the
completions tubulars are flow-restrictive often eliminates it as well
cleanout option.
Table 1 lists the equivalent circulation density (ECD)/pressure
gradient generated by different fluids. Nitrified fluids can have
pressure gradient as low as 0.2 psi/ft, foam 0.1 psi/ft and the sand
vacuuming system as low as 0.06 psi/ft. Based on the BHP and true
vertical depth of the well, a fluid type can be short listed.
Sand/Junk Bailers(3,21,38–40)
Over the years different types of sand bailers have been devel-
oped for use with jointed pipe, wireline and CT for the removal of
large and/or heavy particles and debris. By far the commonest type
of bailer used for coiled tubing is the venturi junk basket(4,22,38).
This tool is not dependent on hole size to work, so, for example,
a 21/8-in. OD BHA can be used to retrieve debris from 95/8-in.
casing. The materials typically cleaned using a venturi junk basket
are not likely to be circulated out with any of the previously men-
tioned cleanout methods.
Fluid pumped down the CT passes into the venturi tool, where
it exits through a forward angled jetting nozzle into the wellbore.
The jet velocity creates a pressure drop inside the body of the ven-
turi tool, which results in fluid in the wellbore being drawn into a
chamber in the tool. A debris filter screen is placed before the ven-
turi chamber to prevent debris from blocking the venturi tubes and
a hollow “basket” section with a finger type trap retains the fill.
When the tool basket is full, the tool must be POOH. The volume
of fill that can be removed from the hole is limited by the size of
the “basket.” Often multiple runs have to be made, emptying the
basket after each trip. Junk baskets are generally only practical if
the volume of fill is relatively small.
25,000
Wiper trip cleanout
Maximum Reach Depth (MD), feet
Overview of Sand Cleanout Operations
Several thousand cleanouts including conventional circulation,
wiper trip, sand vacuuming and reverse circulation jobs have been
executed worldwide since engineered wiper trip cleanouts were
introduced.
Figures 7a and 7b plot the operating depth envelope and de-
viation angle for two different sand cleanout techniques for chal-
lenging wells. These are wiper trip cleanouts in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea and sand vacuuming operations from the
American continent. The wiper trip cleanouts in Norway were in
monobore wells with 7-in. or larger completions, where annular
fluid velocities are low throughout the entire completion and solids
transport velocities are correspondingly low. The maximum depth
is 21,781 ft measured depth (MD) with a maximum TVD of 13871
ft. Because the well bore volumes are large as are the number of
hole volumes pumped, the chosen cleanout fluid was either sea
water or nitrified sea water. The pump rate varied between 2 bpm
and 6 bpm (Figure 9).
The majority of concentric CT sand vacuuming jobs(3) has
been performed below 5,000 ft MD as shown in Figure 7b. These
wells have a 95/8-in. intermediate casing with either a 7-in. or 51/2-
in. slotted liner running along the horizontal section to TD. The
deepest sand vacuuming job captured in the data shown in Figure 7
was at a MD of 13,200 ft and TVD 3,713 ft, and the average TVD
for these wells is approximately 5,700 ft. The deepest TVD well
worked on with CCT to date is 9,500 ft, although a program of
work is currently being planned at TVDs around 10,400 ft.
Figure 8 plots the BHP and the equivalent circulation density
(ECD) for both wiper trip and sand vacuuming sand cleanout oper-
ations, respectively. Compared with the wells cleaned by the sand
vacuuming, the BHP and the ECD in these wells with wiper trip
cleanout are relatively high, and the average of BHP is approxi-
mately 4,500 psi and the ECD is 1.22. The average BHP and the
180 9.0
SandVac cleanout

Reverse Circ. cleanout

Surface pump rate

160 8.0
Reverse Circ. cleanout

Wiper trip cleanout

20,000
140 7.0
Deviation Angle, o

Max depth Max deviated angle

Pump Rate, bpm

120 6.0
15,000
100 5.0

80 4.0
10,000
60 3.0 Effective return rate

40 2.0
5,000
SandVac cleanout
20 1.0

0 0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151

Job # Job #
FIGURE 7b: Maximum measurement depth and deviation angle in
different sand cleanout applications. FIGURE 9: Pump rates in different sand cleanout applications.
6 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Table 2: Summary of the feature for different hole cleaning methods.

Hole Fluid Fluid Rate CT Fluid

Cleaning Method Type (bpm) Movement Circulation Mode Remarks
Stationary circulation Water, diesel, higher is better No movement Forward circulation Needs higher flow less rate, lowest
gel, nitrified hole cleaning efficiency, longer time,
and foam fatigue life damage on CT
Wiper trip Water, diesel, gel, 2 to 6 POOH Forward circulation Needs relative low flow rate, high
nitrified fluid hole cleaning efficiency, higher
penetration capacity
Reverse circulation Water, diesel, gel 1 to 2 RIH or POOH Reverse circulation Needs low flow rate, high hole
cleaning efficiency, no penetration
capacity
Sand vacuuming Water, diesel 0.25 to 0.75 RIH or POOH Forward circulation Needs low flow rate, with certain
penetration capacity for ultra-low
BHP wellbore
Sand/junk bailers Water, diesel 0.5 to 1 RIH forward circulation Needs low flow rate to catch large
particles/junks, no penetration
capacity

ECD in the wells with the sand vacuuming are 960 psi and 0.68,
respectively. The lowest ECD is 0.09 A typical pump rate for the
sand vacuuming operation is between 0.3 bpm to 0.75 bpm (Figure
9) depending on the size and length of the CCT string.
The average depth of wells cleaned by reverse circulating is be-
tween 5,000 ft and 10,000 ft (Figure 7b). The maximum depth is
16,500 ft. The typical effective return rate is between 0.4 bpm to
1.25 bpm (Figure 9). The typical surface pump rate is between 1
bpm to 6 bpm.
Table 2 summarizes the features of different cleaning methods.
Figure 10 is a flow chart to guide the engineer to select the appro-
priate cleaning method and how to optimize the process with the
assistance of a cleanout simulator. After collecting the necessary
well data regarding the completion geometry, well survey, BHT
and fill size/type, the cleanout simulator can be run to analyze the
hole cleaning process with each option among the stationary hole
cleaning, wiper trip and the reverse circulation and optimize the
hole cleaning process. If the wellbore BHP is too low and the well
cannot be cleaned using conventional CT, then sand vacuuming
with CCT can be evaluated. For large particles more than 0.5-in. or
for metal junk, a venturi junk basket may be a viable option.
Field Cases
Over 1,000 successful solids-cleanout applications have been
completed worldwide using the wiper trip methodology/process.
More than 600 sand/well vacuuming cleanouts have been executed
in Canada, USA, Venezuela and the Middle East. More than 1,600
reverse circulation CT sand cleanout operations have been com-
pleted in Alaska, North Sea, Colombia, California and GOM. The
operations were designed and optimized using the solids-transport
simulator. Details of six solids cleanout operations with different
methods are discussed in the following section.
Case 1: Stationary Cleanout With Nitrified
Gel in Forward Circulation
The subject well was completed with a 5-in. liner between
10,745 ft and 12,152 ft and 27/8-in. tubing landed at 10,827 ft. The
BHP was estimated at 1,600 psi with a BHT of 250oF. The perfo-
rations were covered with a mixture of sand and frac proppant and
the top of the fill was tagged at 12,090 ft.
The challenge was achieving adequate annular velocity in the
liner to lift the solids while minimizing both the hydrostatic pres-
sure and annular friction losses in the production tubing. The
cleanout methods outlined in the flow chart shown in Figure 10,
namely stationary circulation with nitrified fluids, reverse circula-
tion, foam, sand vacuuming with concentric coiled tubing and ni-
trified fluid wiper tripping, were all considered.
The simulator determined that returns could be maintained
using nitrified water (0.15 bpm of water and 1,060 scfm of N2).
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 7
However, with such a low liquid ratio, the in-situ liquid velocity
was insufficient to suspend the proppant and transport it out of the
5-in. liner section with nitrified water alone.
Small-diameter concentric CT to suit intervention through 27/8-
in. tubing was not locally available at the time, and so sand vacu-
uming was rejected as an option.
Because the well was significantly below hydrostatic, then re-
verse circulation would require circulating a nitrified fluid. The
disadvantage of reversing with nitrified fluids is that gas/liquid
slippage in the annulus can result in the leading edge of the cir-
culation fluid having a slightly depleted gas/liquid ratio and hence
too high a hydrostatic gradient. This imbalance is magnified when
the fluid enters the CT (because the CT internal volume is small
compared to the wellbore volume) so it becomes necessary to es-
tablish returns by nitrifying whatever liquid is inside the wellbore.
This inevitably introduces the risk of producing hydrocarbons up
the CT. Wellbore conditions, local operating practices, regulatory
requirements and environmental considerations ruled out reversing
as an option.
Foam was considered, but the practicalities of handling foam
returns on the location, together with the lack of documented suc-
cess using foam at the specified temperature, eliminated it from
further consideration
A nitrified biopolymer gel was considered the best choice for
this well because of its excellent shear thinning properties. It has
a low viscosity when pumping through CT but exhibits high vis-
cosity with very strong carrying capabilities when it is in static or
low shear rate. The simulator predicted returns to surface pumping
nitrified biopolymer gel at 0.125 to 0.15 bpm and nitrogen at 1,060
scfm. The carrying properties of the gel would ensure the fill could
be lifted in the low shear region encountered in the 5-in. liner in
addition to being transported up the small-diameter annulus where
shear rates would be much higher.
The operation went ahead as planned with the nitrified biopo-
lymer gel. The penetration rate was designed based on the sand
cleanout software(10). After reaching the hold up depth above the
top of the fill with 11/2-in. CT, nitrified brine was circulated bot-
toms-up at the proposed cleanout pumping rates to ensure that cir-
culation without losing returns was possible. When circulation to
surface was confirmed, the well was then successfully cleaned out
using nitrified biopolymer gel at the proposed pump rates. This
was confirmed by tagging end depth after the cleanout operation.
Subsequently, the perforations were washed with acid, resulting in
the well doubling its production.
Case 2: Wiper Trip Cleanout With Water
This well is located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
A tractor run on electric wireline to set a plug and add new per-
forations could not reach the required depth because of produced
sand deposits in both the deviated and horizontal section of the
8
Start

Gathering wellbore survey and completion information

Particulates size If particle size >0.5" Using sand/junks bailer Considering the feasibility using the sand/junks bailer
Gas or oil well, production rate

If particle size <0.5"

Is the well can be cleaned with a higher Is the well can be cleaned with a higher Is the well can be cleaned with a higher
density fluid by stationary circulation? density fluid by wiper trip? density fluid by reverse circulation?
If NO

If NO

If NO
If NO

If YES
If YES

If YES
Run simulator to select Run simulator to select CT Run simulator to select CT size,
Select low Select low

FIGURE 10: Flow chart to select hole cleaning method and to optimize the process.
CT size and estimate Select low density fluids size, estimate POOH speed estimate RIH/POOH speed and hole
density fluids density fluids
hole cleaning time and hole cleaning time cleaning time
If YES

If YES

If YES
If NO

Run simulator to select CT Run simulator to select CT size,

Run simulator to select
estimate RIH/POOH speeds
If NO

If NO
CT size and estimate size, estimate POOH speed
and hole cleaning time and hole cleaning time
hole cleaning time

Is the well can be cleaned by

sand vacuuming?
If YES

Comparing with other options

Comparing with other options

Comparing with other options

Run simulator to select CCT
size, estimate RIH/POOH
speeds and hole cleaning time
Comparing with other options

Comparing with other options

Comparing with other options

Optimize the hole cleaning process with the computer software to select the best method to clean the hole

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

well. A sand cleanout was required .The well was completed with
7-in. tubing and a 7-in. liner down to 15,715 ft. An additional chal-
lenge was a 1,119-ft section of 95/8-in. casing between the end of
7-in. production tubing and the top of the 7-in. horizontal liner.
Deviation Angle, o
The wellbore deviation angle profile and the completion informa-
tion are shown in Figure 11.
The well had been cleaned out 2 years prior with a rig assist
snubbing unit and 3.5-in. drillpipe. The cleanout produced signifi-
cant amounts of solids, including mostly produced sand with trace
amounts of scale material. Because of the large completion volume
(in excess of 628 bbl) and returns from the well being introduced
to the platform’s production system during the cleanout operation,
the use of a specialized cleanout fluid was considered logistically
impossible. Seawater with hydraulic friction reducer for increasing
the pump rate would have to be used during the entire operation.
Design work with the solids transport simulator indicated very
early that pumping the maximum possible rate through the 23/8-in.
CT stationary at bottom would be insufficient for complete solids
removal. However, a high efficiency cleanout was required in order
to perform subsequent wireline tractor work. A total of approxi-
mately 4,430 ft of wellbore from 9,514 ft to 13,944 ft had to be
cleaned, including 1,119 ft of 95/8-in. casing. A cleanout strategy
involving multiple cleanout stages using a specialized downhole
cleanout tool and wiper tripping was developed.
The original plan was to have the well flowing during the clea-
nout in order to assist the solids removal from the wellbore. How-
ever, the process became more complicated when the well became
overbalanced in the early stages of the operation because of insuf-
ficient pressure support from the reservoir. A nitrogen-seawater
(nitrified) cleanout was attempted, but the window for the required
flowing BHP was too small (approximately 150 psi) for a reliable
cleanout to be executed.
Because the reservoir pressure was insufficient to support a
column of water, a kill pill was bullheaded into the well through
the existing perforations and into the reservoir. The kill pill allowed
pressure testing of the well to a sufficient level for supporting a
column of water and some additional wellhead pressure. Simul-
taneously, the PDM and mill BHA was laid down and the spe-
cialized downhole cleaning tool was equipped with a high-energy,
downhole-facing jetting nozzle. The jetting nozzle would provide
sufficient penetration energy while creating a slick OD cleanout
BHA. (Note: because further losses might occur during the opera-
tion, the risk of getting stuck with a PDM and full-bore mill was
considered too high.)
To summarize, the cleanout in this well was challenging for the
following reasons:
1) Low BHP
2) Large completion (7-in.) and liner (95/8-in.)
3) Horizontal and deviated well
4) Expected compacted sand and scale deposits, requiring suf-
ficient forward penetration energy
The first cleanout stage was from the top of the kill pill at ap-
proximately 9,514 ft down to approximately 11,319 ft, coming out
of the 7-in. production tubing and entering approximately 919 ft
into the 95/8-in. liner. The specialized downhole cleanout tool was
activated, circulation rates increased within the same surface circu-
lation pressure and a wiper trip commenced. The wiper trip speed
inside the 95/8-in. casing section was kept between 6–9  ft/min.
With the BHA back inside the 7-in. tubing, the wiper trip speed
was increased to 16.5 ft/min. Approximately 66 ft higher, the an-
nulus above the BHA bridged off with solids. This caused a loss of
returns to surface, wellhead pressure dropping at the test separator,
and the CT pressure increasing quickly. Pumps were stopped and
the CT was found to be free to move in hole again. Having a slick
OD cleanout-BHA was clearly an advantage in that situation, com-
pared to a BHA involving a PDM and mill.
Later during the operation, it became clear that the incident was
caused by a combination of much larger than expected solids parti-
cles and increasing the wiper trip speed too fast. At the time of oc-
currence, the BHA was still inside the horizontal section and solids
particles would not tend to fall back by gravity. Because of the well
being equipped with a permanently installed downhole pressure
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 9
100 10
90 9
Deviation angle
80 Completion size 8
Completion Size, in
70 7
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
Cleaned length 4,430 ft
20 2
10 1
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
0
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Measurement Depth, feet
FIGURE 11: Well deviation angle profile and completion information
for Case #2.
gauge with surface readout, the location of the solids-plug created
in the annulus was clearly traceable to just above the BHA.
The BHA was moved back into the 95/8-in. section, circulation
re-established and the wiper trip performed to surface at a slightly
reduced speed. It must be understood that because of the lack of
annular fluid velocity in an application such as this, solids are
“swept” through the wellbore by the aid of the uphole facing jet-
ting action of the specialized downhole cleanout tool. Solids are
always located directly above the BHA, and adopting the correct
wiper trip speed, also allowing the removal of larger solids-parti-
cles, is of utmost importance.
First solids were observed at surface when reaching approxi-
mately 5,000 ft during the wiper trip. It is interesting to note that
the amount of fluid pumped during the wiper trip and before any
solids are confirmed at surface equals approximately 8–10 bot-
toms-up volumes based on the starting depth of the wiper trip. The
observation provides clear operational evidence that circulation
rates up to 5.3 bpm are insufficient for complete solids removal in
this application with the CT stationary on bottom. Wiper tripping
with the specialized downhole cleanout tool activated provides a
new dimension of cleanout efficiency and enabled the operation to
be performed with CT.
Altogether 4 cleanout stages and wiper trips (9,514 ft–11,319
ft, 11,319 ft –12,303 ft, 12,303 ft–13,419 ft, 13,419 ft–13,944 ft)
were performed in this well using wiper speeds as high as 23 ft/
min inside the 7-in. and 6–9 ft/min inside the 95/8-in. casing. No
further difficulties were encountered after the wiper trip speeds
had been adjusted to also take larger solids-particles into account.
Changes in wiper trip speed were implemented gradually in order
to allow the equilibrium solids-bed time to redistribute. The esti-
mated amount of solids recovered from the wellbore was between
13,000 lb–26,000 lb. Attention was given to avoid large solids vol-
umes reaching surface in a short period of time, which would cause
problems with chokes and separators.
In order to provide a full bore drift for the 7-in. tubing/casing
for subsequent operations, the very last cleanout stage was per-
formed using a combination of the specialized downhole cleanout-
tool together with stabilizer, PDM and mill as shown in Figure 5.
As previously mentioned, by having a stationary PDM/mill (not
rotating), the BHA can be safely pulled through the completion
during wiper tripping while pumping higher circulation rates and
without risking damage to any completion items. In fact, the well
completion includes several components (downhole safety valve,
gauge carrier etc.) with internal diameters around 6 in., which is
very close to the 57/8-in.mill used. The rearward facing jets of the
specialized downhole cleanout tool ensure that the large-diameter
BHA components (stabilizer and mill) are kept free of contacting
any solids. As the stationary mill passes through the cleaned well-
bore, it provides a drift during wiper tripping out of hole and a sep-
arate drift run can be eliminated.
After the cleanout operation, a full-bore plug was successfully
installed on CT just above 13,944 ft. Electric wireline was con-
veyed on a tractor multiple times to perform perforating and other
operations in the wellbore. Clear operational evidence has been
 100 10 software program, the hole cleaning time was estimated with var-
90 9
ious approaches. In each case, 2,500 lb of perforation sand is re-
Deviation angle moved. Reverse circulation pump rates were only 60% of the
80 Completion size 8 forward circulation rates.

Completion Size, inch

Option 1: With the CT stationary, forward circulate through
Deviation Angle, o
70 7

60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Measurement Depth, feet
FIGURE 12: Well deviation angle profile and completion information
for Case #3.
delivered that the cleanout efficiency of the new methodology/pro-
cess has allowed CT to perform the operation (instead of snubbing),
using friction reduced seawater only and providing a cleanout ef-
ficiency that allows subsequent operations to be performed in the
wellbore as planned.
Case 3: POOH With Water in Reverse
Circulation
A horizontal well in Canada (Figure 12) was planned to be hy-
draulically fractured at five different zones between 7,379 ft and
5,440 ft. The well was completed with 7-in. casing to 5,157 ft and
with a 6-in. ID liner from 4,813 ft to 7,615 ft. The total measured
depth was 7,628 ft and TVD is 4,633 ft. 2-in. CT with a specialized
BHA was used to abrasively perforate multiple cuts in each target
interval. The general operating procedure is as follows.
Rig up surface equipment and pressure test to 7,250 psi. Run in
the hole with a minimal circulation rate to 4,409 ft; at this point, the
well deviation reaches 50°. Increase flow rate and RIH continuing
to TD cleaning any left over completion debris prior to abrasively
cutting the first set of the perforations. POOH to 7,379 ft for the
first zone perforating cut (four cuts between 7,379 ft to 7,375 ft).
After perforations are made, use reverse circulation and POOH CT
to 5,233 ft to clean up the perforating sand. Move the CT up hole
to the second zone and frac zone 1 by pumping an annular fracture
treatment. Tail in the fracturing treatment with a sand plug con-
taining a lightweight sand additive. This process is then repeated
for each zone of interest. After all the treatments, CT is used to
clean out the sand plugs in the horizontal section of the wellbore.
In the following section we will concentrate only on the first
cleanout of the solids used for the abrasive perforating process.
After incorporating the latest test data into a proven computer
6
the CT. To cleanout 40% of the initial sand volume
takes approximately 4,360 minutes. Because of the
5 relatively large completion and the resulting low
4 velocity in the annulus, the redistributed sand bed
between 4,101 ft and 4,921 ft could not completely
3
removed with the optimized flow rate, as shown in
2 Figure 13.
1 Option 2: Keep the CT stationary, but this time reverse cir-
culate. Again, solids cannot be completely cleaned
6,000 7,000 8,000 out.
Option 3: Consider forward circulation again but this time
POOH from 7,375 ft to surface. Solids cannot be
completely cleaned out at the optimized flow rate.
After 170 minutes of wiper trip, the redistributed
solids are shown in Figure 14. Because of the low
velocity in the annulus, the jetting at the end of
BHA still cannot sweep the sands out of the sec-
tion between 4,593 ft and 4,757 ft (around 55o
deviation).
Option 4: Reverse circulate while CT is pulled out of hole to
the top of distributed perforation solids bed at 7,129
ft. Cleanout takes 50 minutes including the time to
sweep solids to surface through 7,545 ft of CT.
In this case, Option 4 represents the only way to clean the hole
given the large completion size. The actual job did use Option 4;
cleanout of perforation solids took 80 minutes with the CT being
pulled to 5,250 ft.
Although we have concentrated on cleaning out solids from
the abrasive perforating process, a more significant problem is
the cleanout of fracturing proppant after each treatment. Once
the stimulation is complete, the same cleanout method can be ap-
plied—namely, reverse circulate down the annulus as the CT is
POOH to the top of the fracture proppant bed, which, depending
on the fracturing process used, may well extend to the heel of the
build section.
Case 4: RIH With Nitrified Water in Reverse
Circulation
A vertical gas well in Texas was completed with 23/8-in. tubing
at 9,400 ft and 7-in. casing to TD 10,500 ft. The BHP was approxi-
mately 1,250 psi and the production rate was low because the per-
forations were covered by formation sand. Because of the small
completion tubulars, the size of CT that could be used was lim-
ited. Because of the low BHP and the sensitivity of the reservoir
to gelled fluids, only nitrified water with a high gas ratio could be
circulated. The small annular clearance between the coiled tubing

Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area

Solids in Completion (%) Solids After Penetration (%) Solids in Completion[%] Solids After Penetration[%]

Solids After Circulation (%) Solids After Wiper Trip (%) Solids After Circulation[%] Solids After Wiper Trip[%]
60 60
Solids % of Total Cross
Solids % of Total Cross

50 50
Sectional Area
Sectional Area

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Measured Depth, feet Measured Depth, feet

FIGURE 13: Predicted solids bulk cross area after 4360 minutes FIGURE 14: Predicted solids bulk cross area after 170 minutes wiper
stationary circulation cleaning time for Option 1 in Case #3. trip time for Option 3 in Case #3.
10 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
and the production tubing and the low BHP effectively dictated
the allowable nitrified water flowrate. At the restricted flowrate,
there was not enough liquid phase annular velocity to lift the sand
up the 7-in. casing. Therefore, a reverse circulation cleanout was
selected.
The general procedure/guideline for the reverse circulation clea-
nout is listed as follows:
1. RIH to top of the fill and circulate N2 and water at the prede-
termined rates based on a cleanout simulator.
2. Maintain 100 – 150 psi at choke; maintain a pump rate at less
than 2,000 psi on CT annulus; maintain constant fluid rates,
wellhead pressure and return pressure. Start penetration of
CT while monitoring the return fluid and injection pressure.
3. RIH at programmed speed.
In order to manage and minimize risk during reverse circulation,
a contingency plan has to be put in place. Pressure relief valves
set at 2,000 psi should be installed in the pump lines to prevent
coiled collapse. Additionally, the CT string used on this job was
specifically designed with heavy wall pipe on the uphole end of
the string. This design feature was employed to minimize the risk
of an erosion hole in the pipe. Also, a rotating joint with a “straight
through” flow path was used owing to erosion concerns. The bed
wrap on the reel was also inspected daily for wall thickness loss
using an ultrasound probe. Because of the limited ability to break
through hard fill, a surface manifold system has to be set up that
can be used to quickly switch from reverse circulation to forward
circulation to remove a sand bridge. Two hole volumes of kill fluid
should be on site. The CT reel should sited remotely from any ig-
nition sources.
1.5-in. CT was used for this job. The length of the string was
designed to have 500 ft over the length required to reach bottom in
the well. This minimized the flow friction up the pipe to allow for
greater pump rates while maintaining returns. A significant amount
of solid debris (1,100 ft in well) was removed out of the well. The
production of gas for this well increased more than threefold after
the sand was removed.
Reverse circulation on a well using a cleanout fluid with a hydro-
static gradient less than the reservoir pressure is not normal prac-
tice. In this instance, surface injection rates were precalculated and
subsequently maintained at such a level as to ensure that bottom
hole circulating pressure was above reservoir pressure. This en-
sured that nitrogen (and some water) was feeding to the formation
and had displaced gas away from the wellbore. Injection rates were
adjusted to continuously ensure that bottom hole circulating pres-
sures stayed above reservoir pressure. Computer analysis on loca-
tion during the job confirmed that significant volumes of nitrogen
were entering the formation and thus were displacing gas away
from the wellbore. Confirmation of the predictions was obtained
when the well was put on production, because for several hours
after the job, the well was only producing nitrogen, and at least 24
hours passed before burnable gas reached surface.
Case 5: Sand Vacuuming Cleanout
The well was drilled in an oil-producing formation in Canada.
The TVD was 1,365 ft, and MD was 6,414 ft. The BHT was ap-
proximately 284oF (as a result of steam breakthrough) and BHP
FIGURE 15: Well profile and completion information for Case #5.
sand vacuuming system was accordingly chosen for the cleanout
operation.
The CCT string consisted of 1.25-in. CT inside 2.375-in. CT.
Total string length was 7,448 ft. A 2.5-in. sand vacuuming BHA
was used on this job. The following is the operation procedure for
this job (Figure16):
Run 1
- Surface tests were performed before RIH.
- RIH in sand-vacuuming mode with the pump idling.
- Pick up pump rates to initiate the sand-vacuuming cleaning at
1,050 ft (45o deviation)
- Sand in returns at 2,264 – 2,874 ft.
- RIH weight being lost at 3,018 ft, work pipe and pick up
pump rates, some difficulty working through, no sand in the
returns.
- Large quantity of sand at 3,048 ft, continue to RIH with sand
returns, weights back to normal.
- At 3,510 ft, start seeing oil in returns.
- Continue to RIH to 4,222 ft, sand and some oil in returns.
POOH to change out tool.
Run 2
- RIH, large quantity of sand from 4,029 to 4,219 ft.
- RIH to 4,826 ft, gassy returns at 4,665 to 4,780 ft, flush
screens occasionally.
- At 4,833 ft, hold up, reach maximum set down weight, pull
back and hold up higher.
- POOH as unable to progress.
Significant quantities of sand were removed from the wellbore.
The largest quantities of sand came from the low points in the hori-
zontal section of the hole (as is typically seen). Approximately 70
ft3 of sand was reported as being recovered, which equates to 2.24
tonnes of sand.
The sand-vacuuming BHA was unable to reach TD. The hold
up depth was 4,833 ft, which is just at the start of an 8-ft climb in
TVD. It is possible that a hard bridge of sand may have built up
10 1,358
Sand removed in 1st Run
1,360
9
Sand removed in 2nd Run
1,362
8
Sand Removed, lb/ft

was approximately 226 psi. The well was completed with 85/8-in. TVD
1,364
casing to 2,441 ft with a 51/2-in. liner from 2,382 ft to TD (see 7
1,366
Figure 15). The length of the horizontal section was 4,167 ft.
TVD, feet

6
1,368
A study was initiated to evaluate cleanout strategies for this 5
1,370
well. Two cleanout strategies were investigated: pumping nitri- 4
1,372
fied water through conventional 23/8-in. CT vs. using the sand 3
1,374
vacuuming cleaning system with CCT. Because of the low BHP 2 1,376
and large volume of sand in the horizontal liner, the nitrogen re- 1 1,378
quirements for a conventional cleanout using nitrified water were
0 1,380
enormous and simply impractical. Furthermore, a tubing force
2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

analysis indicated that a conventional 23/8-in. CT string was not

able to reach total depth in this well while a 1.25-in. by 2.375-in. Measured Depth, feet
CCT could. For the sand vacuuming system, only formation water
needed to be pumped to conduct an underbalanced cleanout. The FIGURE 16: Sand removal rate and TVD profile for Case #5.
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 11
 100
90 Nipple restriction
80
70
Deviation, o
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Measurement depth, feet
FIGURE 17: Well deviation angle profile and completion information
for Case #6.
in the trough of the well at this point (see sand volumes recovered
vs. TVD in Figure 16). The force analysis predications with a com-
puter software prior to the job indicated that TD would be reached.
A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is used in slotted liner force anal-
ysis, but this number may have been too low for this particular
well. Steam breakthrough is known to cause significant hardening
of sand bridges.
The job was successfully executed as planned except without
reaching the TD. In summary:
Pumped fluid: 340 bbl
Removed sand: 5,000 lbm
Recovered drilling mud: 52 bbl
Recovered oil: 60 bbl
Total pumping time: 9.5 hrs
Case 6: Venturi Junk Basket Cleanout
A well was drilled and completed but had yet to be perforated.
The well deviation angle profile and the completion information
are shown in Figure 17. The total measured depth (TMD) and total
vertical depth (TVD) are 21,146 ft and 11,953 ft, respectively. This
well has a 60o slant section and a 75o to 90o reservoir section at the
bottom. The well was completed with a 51/2-in. tubing to 8,246 ft
and 5-in. liner at the bottom section. The reservoir is a gas/conden-
sate reservoir, with a static pressure of approximately 6,300 psi and
the BHT of 250oF.
Before deploying the perforation gun, debris in the wellbore had
to be cleaned out. A 2-in. CT string with a downhole switchable
nozzle was used to clean the hole. During the first run, a very hard
sand bridge was encountered and the jetting action of the tool was
not sufficient to break through the bridge. A downhole motor and
mill was run and it was able to break through the hard spot and
continue into the wellbore.
FIGURE 18: Debris retrieved by a venturi junk basket for Case #6.
12 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
6 The pump rate during the milling run was limited to 2 bpm be-
cause of the motor. This flow rate provided insufficient annular
5 velocity to circulate solids out of the wellbore and therefore the
Completion size, inch
milling run was followed by a second switchable jetting tool clea-
4
nout. Significant debris was removed with the second switchable
jetting tool run.
3
After cleaning the wellbore, the first gun run was carried out.
2 However, something remained in the well which resulted in the
gun failing to reach the target depth. This led to suspicion that there
1 were large pieces of debris in the well, pieces so large that the ac-
tion of the switchable jetting nozzle could not transport them.
In response to the suspicion that large junk remained in the
25,000
well, a venturi junk basket was deployed. The venturi junk basket
removed a quantity of large pieces. Figure 18 shows material
retrieved using this method. This debris included fine barite and ce-
ment, which had consolidated into a material that required milling
plus some large “rocks” that couldn’t be circulated nor swept out
with rearward facing nozzles. After the venturi junk basket run, the
perforation gun was successfully run to the setting depth.
Conclusions
This paper reviews the individual sand cleanout methodology as
well as the advantages and the limitations related to each method.
Case histories demonstrate how to select the proper cleaning
method.
In summary:
1. Solids transport in wellbores is a complex problem. A proper
sand cleanout selection process has to be followed to ensure
that solids are completely and efficiently removed from the
wellbore.
2. Compared with other sand cleanout processes, wiper trip
technology has become the preferred and most efficient sand
cleanout process, especially for deviated and horizontal well.
However, it needs a simulator to ensure that proper return
flow rates and tripping speeds are maintained to carry the
solids to surface. For pressure-depleted reservoirs, nitrified
fluids can be used.
3. Sand vacuuming systems can be used to efficiently remove
both debris and fluids from low-pressure wells without
needing nitrogen. This technique is especially useful for hor-
izontal heavy oil wells. The circulation liquid rates are usu-
ally less than 1 bpm.
4. Low-return fluid rates are needed in the reverse circulation
sand cleanout owing to the small flow cross area of coiled
tuning. Because of the lack of control of hydrocarbon fluid
returning to the surface through the CT, enough hydrostatic
pressure is required to keep the well at the overbalance condi-
tion. Therefore, the most common application for reverse cir-
culation is cleaning sand from water injection wells. In most
cases, the injection fluid rate is much higher than the return
fluid rate because much of the circulation fluid leaks into the
formation.
5. Gelled fluids with high suspension capabilities are an effec-
tive option when the debris cannot be removed from highly
deviated/horizontal large-diameter wellbores using low sus-
pension fluids such as water or diesel. However, sand can be
efficiently cleaned only when the gel systems are designed
with regard to bottom hole temperature and the effects for
thermal thinning and/or degradation, and when combined
with the wiper trip jetting effect that re-entrains solids that
have settled into a sand bed.
6. The venturi junk bailer can be a useful tool to retrieve large
particulates, especially junk, which are likely not circulated
out by all other methods.
 7. Foam could be an alternative option to nitrified polymer sys-
tems. However, because of the complexity of the fluid, its
high apparent viscosity, the additional logistical issues as-
sociated with handling it at the surface and the current lack
of reliable predictive methods regarding solids transport
efficiency in deviated wellbores, it is not common to use
foam for sand cleanouts in deviated or horizontal wells.
8. As a result of the multitude of parameters influencing the
transport of solids in wellbores, a computer software simu-
lator is the only way to balance all the variables involved in
the design and optimization of an effective sand cleanout.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to BJ Ser-
vices Company for the opportunity to present this paper. We wish
to further thank BJ Services field operation crews for the execu-
tion of these treatments. The special thank goes to Robert de Jonge,
Mounir Ababou and Robledo Barros for providing the detailed op-
eration information of field cases.
NOMENCLATURE
bpm = flow rate, bbl/min
scfm = gas rate, standard cubic feet per minute
SI Metric Conversion Factors
tonne × 1.0* E + 00 = Mg
*Conversion factor is exact.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl × 159 E +00 = litre
ft × 0.3048 E +00 = m
in. × 25.4 E–03 = m
psi × 6.895 E +03 = Pa
REFERENCES
1. Engel, S.P. and Rae, P. 2002. New Methods for Sand Cleanout in De-
viated Wellbores Using Small Diameter Coiled Tubing. Paper SPE
77204 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference, Jakarta, 8–11 September. doi: 10.2118/77204-MS.
2. Li, J., Luft, H.B., Wilde, G., Alingig, G., and Jumawid, F. 2008.
Cleanouts with Coiled Tubing in Low Bottom Hole Pressure Well-
bores. Paper SPE 113841 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 1–2 April. doi: 10.2118/113841-MS.
3. Li, J., Crabtree, A., Kutchel, M, Diaz, J., Reyes, W., Dugarte, R., and
Peña, L. 2008. Sand/Well Vacuuming Technology with Concentric
Coiled Tubing: Best Practices and Lessons Learned from Over 600
Operations. Paper SPE 115303 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 20–22 October.
doi: 10.2118/115303-MS.
4. Bartholomew, P., Portman, L., Frost, R., Nunn, P., Vause, P., Ed-
mondson, D., Andrich, L., and LaGrange, T. 2006. Near a Kilometer
of Perforating Guns, in a 7½-km, Extended Reach Well—Coiled
Tubing Shows its Mettle in New Zealand. Paper SPE 101065 pre-
sented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September. doi: 10.2118/101065-MS.
5. Li, J., Aitken, B., Jumawid, F., and Alingig, G. 2010. Cleaning Hor-
izontal Wellbores Efficiently with Reverse Circulation Combining
with Wiper Trip for Coiled Tubing Annulus Fracturing Applica-
tion. Paper SPE 130638 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 23–24 March. doi: 10.2118/130638-MS.
6. Sach, M. and Li, J. 2007. Repeatedly Increased Efficiency and Suc-
cess Rate From a New Solids-Cleanout Process Using Coiled Tubing:
A Review of Recent Achievements From Over 100 Operations. Paper
SPE 106857 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well In-
tervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
20–21 March. doi: 10.2118/106857-MS.
August 2010, Volume 49, No. 8 13
7. Li, J. and Walker, S. 2001. Sensitivity Analysis of Hole Cleaning Pa-
rameters in Directional Wells. SPE J. 6 (4): 356–363. PA-74710-PA.
10.2118/74710-PA.
8. Walker, S. and Li, J. 2000. Effects of Particle Size, Fluid Rheology,
and Pipe Eccentricity on Cuttings Transport. Paper SPE 60755 pre-
sented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas,
USA, 5–6 April. doi: 10.2118/60755-MS.
9. Walker, S. and Li, J. 2001. Coiled-Tubing Wiper Trip Hole Cleaning
in Highly Deviated Wellbores. Paper SPE 68435 presented at the
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas, USA, 7–8
March. doi: 10.2118/68435-MS.
10. Li, J., Walker, S., and Aitken, B. 2002. How to Efficiently Remove
Sand From Deviated Wellbores With a Solids Transport Simulator
and a Coiled Tubing Cleanout Tool. Paper SPE 77527 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 29 September–2 October. doi: 10.2118/77527-MS.
11. Li, J., Wilde, G., and Crabtree, A. 2005. Do Complex Super-Gel Liq-
uids Perform Better Than Simple Linear Liquids In Hole Cleaning
With Coiled Tubing? Paper SPE 94185 presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, TheWoodlands, Texas,
USA, 12–13 April. doi: 10.2118/94185-MS.
12. Li, J. and Wilde, G. 2005. Effect of Particle Density and Size on
Solids Transport and Hole Cleaning with Coiled Tubing. Paper
SPE 94187 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference
and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 12–13 April. doi:
10.2118/94187-MS.
13. Walker, S.A., Li, J., and Wilde, G. 2006. Coiled Tubing Wellbore
Cleanout. US Patent No. 6,982,008.
14. Ovesen, M., Sach, M., Laun, L., Gill, G.E., and Juel, H. 2003. Effi-
cient Sand Cleanouts in Larger Wellbores Using Coiled Tubing: A
New Approach Making an Old Problem Simple. Paper SPE 81727
presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, Texas, USA, 8–9 April. doi: 10.2118/81727-MS.
15. Hobbs, D. and Liles, C. 2002. Technique, nozzle enhance coiled-
tubing wiper-trip efficiency. Oil & Gas Journal 100 (13): 52–56.
16. Gilmore, T., Leonard, R., and Steinback, S. 2005. Software, Fluids
and Downhole Tools for Successful Sand Cleanouts in Any Wellbore
Geometry Using Small Coiled Tubing. Paper SPE 97080 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12
October. doi: 10.2118/97080-MS.
17. Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Anazi, M.A., Balto, A., Proctor, R., and
Saleh, R.M. 2006. Challenging Wellbore Cleanouts with Coiled
Tubing Made Easy with Computer Modeling Technology. Paper
SPE 100129 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Confer-
ence and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4–5 April. doi:
10.2118/100129-MS.
18. Li, J., Bayfield, I., and Paton, G. 2006. Effective Heavy Post-Frac-
turing Proppant Cleanout With Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study
and Field Casing History. Paper SPE 101235 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 24–27 September. doi: 10.2118/101235-MS.
19. Li, J. and Luft, B. 2006. Fills Cleanout with Coiled Tubing in the Re-
verse Circulation Mode. Paper SPE 102661 presented at the IADC/
SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Bangkok, Thailand, 13–15 November. doi: 10.2118/102661-MS.
20. Crabtree, A.R., Li. J., and Luft, B. 2007. Reverse Circulation Clea-
nouts With Coiled Tubing. Paper OMC 094 presented at the Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 28–30
March.
21. Michel, C., Stephens, R., Smith, D., Crow, W., and King, G.E. 2004.
Reverse Circulation with Coiled Tubing – Results of 1600+ Jobs. Paper
SPE 89505 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 23–24 March. doi: 10.2118/89505-MS.
22. Kumar, S.P., AI-Amri, B., Kouli, P., Gisbergen, S.V., Shidi, S.,
Ferdiansyah, E., and Mowat, P. 2005. Coiled Tubing Reverse Circu-
lation-An Efficient Method of Cleaning Horizontal Wells in a Mature
Pressure Depleted Field. Paper SPE 92804 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 5–7 April.
doi: 10.2118/92804-MS.
23. Falk, K. and Fraser, B. 1995. Sand Cleanout Technology for Hori-
zontal Wells. Paper SPE 9597 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Meeting, Calgary, 7–9 June. doi: 10.2118/95-57.
 24. Heikkinen, B.K., Kuchel, M.P., Stang, Q.S., Misselbrook, J.G., Sudol,
T.A., and Lillico, D.A. 1998. Drilling Damage Removal Using Multi-
point Drawdown along the Horizontal Wellbore. Paper SPE 46011
prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundt-
able, Houston, 15–16 April.
25. Clancy, T.F., Falk, K.L., and Duque, L. 2000. Concentric Coiled
Tubing Well Vacuuming Technology for Complex Horizontal Wells
in Easter Venezuela. Paper SPE 60696 presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, 5–6 April. doi: 10.2118/60696-
MS.
26. Figueroa, J., Hibbeler, J., Duque, L., and Perdomo, L. 2001. Skin
Damage Removal Using Coiled- Tubing Vacuum: A Case Study in
Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt. Paper SPE 69532 presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, 25–28 March. doi: 10.2118/69532-MS.
27. Ali, S. A., Hibbeler, J., and Di Lullo, G. 2002. Coiled Tubing Vacuum
Remove Drilling Induced Damage. Oil & Gas Journal 100 (13): 43–
47.
28. Hibbeler, J., Duque, L., Castro, L., Gonzalez, A., and Romero, J.
2002. Underbalanced Coiled-Tubing Technique Leads to Improved
Productivity in Slotted Liner Completions. Paper SPE 74846 pre-
sented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 9–10 April. doi: 10.2118/74846-MS.
29. Selle, C., Ansari, A., and Portman, L. 2002. Removing Mud Damage
from Depleted Horizontal Wells Using Jet Pumps and Concentric
Coiled Tubing. Oral presentation SPE 77210 given at the IADC/SPE
Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta,
9–11 September.
30. Benzaquen, I., Romero,J., Zambrano, J., Henao, P., and Ortiz, A.
2006. Cleaning Effectivity of Concentric Coiled Tubing in Horizontal
Wells, Cerro Negro Area, Carabobo Field, Venezuela. Paper SPE
102436 presented at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Beijing, 5–7 December. doi: 10.2118/102436-MS.
31. Putra, R.A., Azkawi, A., Bharti, S., and Oyemade, S. 2007. Well
Cleanup Issues in Field with Sand Coproduction Philosophy in
Oman. Paper SPE 107677 presented at the SPE European Forma-
tion Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May–1
June. doi: 10.2118/107677-MS.
32. Portman, L. 2003. Reducing the Cost of Coiled Tubing Cleanouts by
Conducting Them Without Nitrogen. Paper SPE 81744 presented at
the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
8–9 April. doi: 10.2118/81744-MS.
33. Kuchel, M., Clark, J., and Marques, D. 2002. Horizontal Well
Cleaning and Evaluation Using Concentric Coiled Tubing: A 3 Well
Case Study from Australia. Paper SPE 74820 presented at the SPE/
ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 9–10
April. doi: 10.2118/74820-MS.
34. Rafferty, P., Ennis, J., Skufca, J., and Craig, S. 2007. Enhanced
Solids Removal Techniques From Ultra Low Pressure Wells Using
Concentric Coiled Tubing Vacuum Technology. Paper SPE 107010
presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention
Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 20–21
April. doi: 10.2118/107010-MS.
35. Kutch, M. 2007. Evaluation of the Inflow Profiling of the Well-
bore with the CCT Vacuuming. Paper SPE 110161 presented at
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 30 Oc-
tober–1 November.
36. Skufca, J. and Li, J. 2009. Cleaning Large-Diameter Proppant in
Low-Bottomhole Pressure, Extended-Reach Wells with Concentric
Coiled Tubing Vacuuming Technology. Paper SPE 121498 presented
at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference
and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 31 March–1 April. doi:
10.2118/121498-MS.
37. Gunther, O., Higgins, G., Li, J., and Lambert, M. 2009. Ultra-Low
Pressure Wellbore Cleanouts Using Micro-Vacuuming Technology
and Concentric Coiled Tubing. Paper SPE 13168 presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, 7–9 De-
cember. doi: 10.2523/13168-MS.
38. Haughton, D.B. and Connell, P. 2006. Reliable and Effective Down-
hole Cleaning System for Debris and Junk Removal. Paper SPE
101727 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September. doi:
10.2118/101727-MS.
39. Grassick, R. 2007. An Electric Line Solution for Sand and Debris
Removal. Paper presented at the ICoTA European Chapter Working
Lunch.
14 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
View publication stats
40. Hansen, B. 2004. New Wireline Tractor Tools Reduce Light Well
Intervention Costs. Oil & Gas Review: 1–6.
41. Chen, Z., Ahmed, R.M., Miska, S.Z., Takach, N.E., Yu, M., Pickell,
M.B., and Hallman, J. 2006. Experimental Study on Cuttings Trans-
port with Foam under Simulated Horizontal Downhole Conditions.
Paper SPE 99201 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Miami, Florida, USA, 21–23 February. doi: 10.2118/99201-MS.
This paper (SPE 113267) was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eur-
opec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome, 9-12 June, 2008,
and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 22
June 2009. Revised paper received for review 22 April 2010. Paper peer
approved 28 April 2010. 
Authors’ Biographies
Jeff Li has been a senior project leader with
BJ Services since 1996. His particular ex-
pertise is with multi-phase fluids flow and
solids transport studies in sand cleaning,
gravel packing and drilling process. He
holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from Xian
Jiaotong University, P.R. China. He also
holds M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in mechan-
ical engineering from the University of
Saskatchewan. Li has published over 30
technical papers and holds several patents,
and is a technical reviewer of SPE Drilling and Completion. He is
a member of SPE and ICoTA.
John Misselbrook is Senior Advisor for
Coiled Tubing for BJ Services. He is a
“Mechanical Sciences” graduate of Cam-
bridge University (Masters Degree) and has
worked continuously in the coiled tubing
service industry since joining Nowsco Well
Services in 1977. He took up his current
role following Nowsco’s merger with BJ
Services in 1996. During the past 30 years
he has worked in various operational, en-
gineering, research, business develop-
ment and management roles involving coiled tubing in areas as
diverse as the North Sea, Canada, South East Asia and the USA.
He has been intimately involved with many of the coiled tubing
technologies developed by BJ and was one of the original team of
engineers directly involved in the development of improved engi-
neering techniques for under-balance drilling in Western Canada
in 1991. He subsequently became responsible for Nowsco’s ini-
tiative to develop under-balance drilling technology using coiled
tubing. More recently, he has been actively involved in the de-
velopment and exploitation of BJ’s coiled tubing fracturing tech-
nologies. Misselbrook is the holder of several US patents and is a
former chairman and lifetime honorary member of the Interven-
tion & Coiled Tubing Association. He has written several SPE pa-
pers, served on numerous SPE Forum and Conference committees
involved with coiled tubing and is a member of the JPT editorial
committee.
Manfred Sach is the manager of the Tech-
nical Support Services at the BJ Services
Coiled Tubing (CT) Research and Engi-
neering Facility in Calgary, Alberta. He
has worked in several international loca-
tions and has been directly involved in the
development and application of several CT
technologies, ranging from CT drilling,
spoolable connectors and CT wiper tripping
for achieving increased cleanout efficien-
cies. He holds a M.Sc. degree in petroleum
and fluid mining engineering from the German Technische Uni-
versität und Bergakademie Freiberg. He is a member of SPE and
ICoTA.