Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference
and Exhibition held in Houston, TX, 9-10 April.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Low-permeability gas sands are often cased, perforated, and
hydraulically fractured in stages. Commingled production is
common, and coiled tubing (CT) has become the medium of
choice for opening multiple productive intervals between
fracture stages and for use as a remedial workover method.
High differential pressures in the wellbore complicate CT
intervention considerably. Bridging agents are sometimes used
to combat severe lost circulation and associated well control
problems. Calcium carbonate may be the most common
bridging agent because it is inexpensive and easy to mix;
however, removing the damage caused by calcium carbonate
slurries to the formation and proppant packs is difficult and
costly. Salt pills are widely used because they cause less
formation damage, but they are ineffective at controlling
severe fluid loss. Furthermore, to prevent dissolution of the
pill, saturated brine must be used as a workover fluid,
increasing costs and contributing to scaling problems.
A unique fluid-loss control agent has been gaining popularity
for temporarily isolating low-pressure, fractured sands. This
double-derivatized, crosslinkable, hydroxyethyl cellulose
(DDHEC) polymer leaves less than 0.5% gel residue by weight,
minimizing impact on production. It has demonstrated a regained
permeability of 91 to 93% under laboratory conditions and can be
completely removed by acid. The polymer has been used in
conjunction with 1.25- and 1.75-in. CT with a high degree of
success. It does not require expensive brines, is resistant to
solvents, and can be used with foam.
1,2

Eight field applications of the polymer have been
performed, none of which have negatively affected
production. This paper provides case histories for several of
these field applications and defines techniques and selection
criteria for applying the polymer under specific
well conditions.

Introduction
Multizone completions cause potentially massive differential
pressures in the wellbore. Some south Texas wells produce
from as many as 15 distinct sand lenses. The reservoirs are
low-permeability sand and siltstone with varied clay content,
with temperature gradients in the range of 1.7 to 2.1 F/100 ft.
These tight gas sands typically are hydraulically fractured
upon completion, and effective permeabilities are typically
high. Several perforated intervals in the well may be open at
once, with geopressure differentials as high as 8,000 psi.
Fluid dynamics can prevent control of annular velocity and
lifting efficiencies during milling and cleaning operations.
Undetected fluid losses to an upper zone reduce annular
velocity to surface and may cause cuttings to fall out of the
return fluid, eventually lodging the CT in the well. Rapid
crossflow has differentially stuck coiled tubing even in clean
wellbore environments, and solids-laden crossflow has been
responsible for critically damaging CT and tools. Kicks
resulting from annular fluid loss have led to an immeasurable
number of blowouts in the industry.
Modeling performed for drilling applications has
traditionally focused on pressure gradients, loss rates, and
fracture propagation.
3
Relatively little analytical work has
been done to quantify kicks in completed wellbores, and
workover specialists traditionally defer to drilling industry
practices for mitigating lost circulation. However, these
practices typically rely on mud-weight manipulation and use
lost-circulation materials (LCMs) damaging to producing
formations and rely on mud-weight manipulation, and neither
option is attractive to thru-tubing workovers.
4

Fluid-loss control agents have been used in workovers in
south Texas for several years. A crosslinkable HEC
developed for sand control in high-permeability formations
has found a new application in these hard-rock interventions.
During eight recent CT operations performed in south Texas,
this gel was used to mitigate crossflow and maintain well
control. The applications have varied from the mundane to the
unprecedented, and the gel has performed with a high degree
of success.

SPE 74845
Use of a Crosslinked Polymer Fluid-Loss Control Agent to Aid Well Cleanouts
M.J. Rosato, SPE, and A. Supriyono, Halliburton
2 M.J. ROSATO, A. SUPRIYONO SPE 74845
Statement of Theory
In multistage fractured environments, plugs (such as bridge
plugs, sand plugs, and slickline plugs) and a variety of
unplanned obstructions must be removed from the wellbore at
various intervals. Pressure differentials can impede the
removal of such obstructions. Positive differential pressure
(such as fluid overbalance) forces the plug downward,
complicating removal. This condition is alleviated by flowing
the upper zone to reduce hydrostatic pressure. Negative
(upward-acting) differential pressure causes the plug to kick
upon release. This situation is easily alleviated by holding
backpressure against the plug, but if low-pressure zones are
open above the plug, this may not be feasible.
Like most fluid-loss control agents, the DDHEC polymer
seals by extrusion against the formation and cannot isolate in a
negative pressure condition. Extrusion is extremely effective
when working against the pore throats of the rock matrix, even
in high-permeability formations. However, it is less effective
in a proppant pack with maximum porosity and high
permeability (several darcy). The volume of the agent must be
designed to cover the perforated interval and account for
extrusion into the pack. This is a soft science at best because it
relies on several variables:
Cement integrity (channeling, fractures)
Casing integrity (perforations, leaks, erosion,
corrosion)
Fracture connectivity (tortuosity, scale deposition,
crushing, fines, embedment)

Volume requirements have varied widely with wellbore
conditions. DDHEC polymer volumes as small as 1 gal/ft have
successfully sealed perforations, but other cases have required 80
gal/ft. The fluid-loss control agent is designed with excess
volume, typically at least 10 gallons per perforated foot. This
volume is considered on a case-by-case basis.

Placement Process
The DDHEC polymer can be easily mixed on location without
specialized equipment. The basic formulation requires light
brine (KCl in concentrations of at least 2%), and the additives
include the base gel and a metal oxide crosslinker. A small
amount of acid is used to assist hydration of the base gel, and
most of the pills mixed in these case histories included an
oxygen scavenger to stabilize the gel at high temperatures. All
the gels were batch-mixed in the displacement tanks of
common cement pumping trailers.
Two jobs were performed with 1.75-in. CT. The polymer
was pumped once through the CT and once down the annulus.
Friction down the 1.75-in. CT was 0.85 psi/ft at 2 bbl/min and
0.45 psi/ft at 0.5 bbl/min. These conditions have been
duplicated in yard tests.
Six jobs were performed with 1.25-in. CT. The gel was
pumped down the annulus because friction down the CT was
too high (~0.95 psi/ft at 0.5 bbl/min).
Case Histories
Case History 1, Hidalgo County. This 4 -in. monobore
completion was fractured in three stages and isolated with
sand plugs. The first and second zones differed in pressure by
6,000 psi. Another service companys CT unit took a kick on
the offset, creating over $1 million in fishing costs and lost
production. Consequently, we suggested using the DDHEC
polymer to mitigate differential pressure and clean out
the wellbore.
This job was the first application of DDHEC in a fractured
environment. High-pressure 1.75-in. CT was run into the well
with a standard wash tip, and DDHEC was pumped through
the CT and into the upper zone. Squeeze pressures reached
2,000 psi, but the resulting pressure response was unknown.
A kick did occur, but the pill stayed in place and circulation
was never compromised. The sand plug was removed
successfully, and the well produced as expected.

Case History 2, Hidalgo County. The operator of this
tubingless 2
7
/
8
-in. completion needed to mill a cement plug to
recover a zone that had been abandoned 12 years earlier. The
pressure differential between this zone and the producing zone
90 ft above was estimated to be 1,700 psi. Risk analysis
performed during the design phase indicated the potential for
the CT to become stuck during communication with the
cement plug.
The DDHEC polymer was squeezed into the upper
perforations to allow the milling operation to be performed
with sufficient backpressure to balance the lower zone. The
procedure was performed with 1.25-in. CT over 2 days. CT
foam-washed to the top of the plug on the first day; on the
second day, DDHEC was bullheaded from surface into the top
interval, and the cement was successfully milled with
unfoamed 1% KCl. Finally, a mild mud acid was injected
over the polymer squeeze, displaced with foam, and jetted
from the wellbore with nitrogen.

Case History 3, Live Oak County. This well was completed
with 2
7
/
8
-in. tubing in 5 -in. casing. Reservoir pressure was
2,200 psi at a perforated depth of 12,000 ft. The well went off
vacuum immediately after the fracturing treatment, and the
operator needed to recover a zone below this interval. A
previous service company was unable to establish circulation
with 1.25-in. CT and foamed 2% KCl. Consequently, after
calculating the bottomhole pressure at 2,700 psi while
circulating a column of foam, we recommended using
DDHEC.


During the operation, 10 bbl DDHEC was bullheaded from
surface into the perforated interval and displaced with 2%
KCl. The first treatment failed, but the second 10-bbl pill held
to a squeeze differential of 400 psi. The well was cleaned out
successfully with foam, and the operator was able to access
deeper sands within the wellbore.

Case History 4, Brooks County. On this 3 -in. tubingless
completion, 1.5-in. CT took a kick during milling operations,
leaving a 1.69-in. motor in the hole. With a pressure
differential of 4,800 psi at intervals between 11,000 and
11,500 ft, the most productive zone was still covered with
sand and proppant. The operator decided to use 1.75-in. high-
pressure CT with a flush-OD jetting nozzle to wash beside the
fish in an attempt to open production from the lower zone.
The wellbore was cleaned thoroughly with foam to the top
of the fill; then, 30 bbl DDHEC was injected down the
annulus and displaced with foam. (Annular placement was
chosen to avoid plugging the small ports of the jetting nozzle.)
Because of misinterpretation of surface pressure with a
column of compressible fluid, only 17 bbl of the DDHEC was
placed into the perforations. This volume was sufficient to
allow a squeeze pressure of 1,800 psi. The polymer pill held
for 2 two days while CT was used to wash past the fish. The
plug finally broke free, and the well was cleaned successfully.
Table 1 lists job parameters for each of the eight field
applications of DDHEC.

Conclusions
DDHEC has demonstrated remarkable utility for CT
workovers in cased and perforated multizone completions. It
has been used in fractured environments at differential
pressures as high as 7,500 psi and bottomhole temperatures up
to 337F. These treatments have not resulted in measurable
production damage, even in depleted, low-permeability
gas sands.
The DDHEC fluid-loss control agent is most successful
when pumped through CT rather than injected down the
annulus. It is also effective when bullheaded from surface, but
this procedure requires the injection of unconditioned fluid
ahead of the polymer, and it may damage the formation.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Clay Cole, Jeff Dahl, and Dwyann
Dalrymple for their help with chemistry and composition. We
also extend thanks to Halliburton for their permission to
publish this data.

Nomenclature
CT coiled tubing
HEC hydroxyethyl cellulose
DDHEC double-derivatized,
crosslinkable hydroxyethyl cellulose
KCl potassium chloride
BHP bottomhole pressure
BHT bottomhole temperature
SITP shut-in tubing pressure
DP differential pressure
MMscfd gas produced per day (millions of standard
cubic feet)
References
1. Cole, R.C., Ali, S.A., and Foley, K.A.: A New
Environmentally Safe, Crosslinked Polymer for Fluid-Loss
Control, paper SPE 29525 presented at the 1995 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, 2-3 April.
2. Hardy, Mary: The Unexpected Advantages of a
Temporary Fluid-Loss Control Pill, paper SPE 37293
presented at the 1997 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 18-21 February.
3. Petersen, J., Rommetveit, R., and Tarr, B.A.: Kick With
Lost Circulation Simulator, a Tool For Design of Complex
Well Control Situations, paper SPE 49956 presented at the
1998 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 12-14 October.
4. Ross, C.M., Williford, J., and Sanders, M.W.: Current
Materials and Devices for Control of Fluid Loss, paper
SPE 54323 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 20-22
April.

SPE 74845
3
Use Of A Crosslinked Polymer Fluid-Loss Control Agent To Aid Well Cleanouts
4 M.J. ROSATO, A. SUPRIYONO SPE 74845


Case History 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
County Hidalgo Hidalgo Live Oak Brooks Hidalgo Hidalgo Zapata Hidalgo
Upper Zone
Depth (ft)
13,838
13,965
13,096
13,492
12,000
12,010
11,155
11,229
11,632
12,435
10,074
10,230
9,203
9,223
13,096
13,492
Upper Zone
Pressure (psi)
5,400 4,300 2,200 4,200 2,000 1,800 1,100 3,600
Lower Zone
Depth (ft)
15,172
15,467
13,585
13,692
N/A 11,441
11,564
12,845
13,178
10,577
10,953
9,932
10,034
13,584
13,692
Lower Zone
Pressure (psi)
13,000 6,000 N/A 9,000 4,400 6,000 4,200 6,100
Casing Size
in. (lb/ft)
5
(23.2)
2 7/8
(6.5)
5
(18)
3
(12.75)
5
(23.2)
5
(18)
4
(15.1)
5
(23.2)
Tubing Size
in. (lb/ft)
N/A N/A 2 7/8
(6.5)
N/A 2 7/8
(6.5)
2 7/8
(7.9)
2 3/8
(5.95)
2 7/8
(8.7 and 7.9)
CT Size (in.) 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
BHA Type Wash tip Motor
and mill
Wash tip High-
pressure
nozzle
Impact
hammer
Motor
and mill
Wash tip Motor and mill
Injection Path Coiled
tubing
Annulus Annulus Annulus Annulus Annulus Annulus Annulus
Volume
DDHEC to Seal
(bbl)
10 20 20 17 15 10 10 10
Squeeze
Pressure (psi)
2,500 1,800 400 2,000 1,200 800 1,000 2,800

Table 1Field Applications of DDHEC