*m..

Society of Petroleum Engineere

lADC/SPE 39305

The First Coiled Tubing Sidetrack in Norway, Gullfaks Field

R. Gaas@ (SPE), K.Gjerde, B. Samsonsen, Statoil Norway.
IADC Members
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers
identiled. Most of these pockets were unlikely to be economi-
This paper was prepared for preeenlalion at the 1S96 IANSPE Drilling confer~ce held in cally recovered using conventional drilling methods. In the pro-
Dallas, Texas 3-6 March 1998.
ject named “Let Hundred Wells Flow” (LHWF), methods for
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s), Contenk of the paper, as draining these pockets were also described. The LHWF-project
presented, have not been reviewed by the Scciety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s), ~e material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of
proposed 34 reservoir targets/ pockets, representing about 10
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, ib officers, or membem Papers presented at SPE meetings mill. Sm3 of recoverable oil, 800/0 of which was Increased Oil
are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words, Illustrations may not be Recovery-oil (IOR-oil). Four different drainage methods were
copied, The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the
paper was presented, Write Librarian, SPE, PO, Box 8333836, Richardson, TX 75083-3636 identi]ed:
● sidetracks through 5 1/2” tubing by coiled tubing drilling
U.S.A., faX 01.972-952-9435,

● sidetracks through 7“ tubing

Abstract ● conventional sidetracks (recovering the tubing first)

● new wells including multilateral wells

Statoil has recently completed a sidetrack drilled with coiled tub-

ing. The sidetrack, the first on the Norwegian Continental SheU
of its type, is 254 m and was drilled from the Gtilfaks A
plafform.
The objectives of the project were to drain a small reservoir
pocket and to qualifi the coiled tubing drilling technique. Stak-
ing out a course for further development of the CTD technolo~
was also part of the job.
This paper will describe how Statoil successfully achieved
these objectives with a small project team, intensive experience
gathering, dedicated contracting strategy, short project planning
phase, continuos dialogue with the authorities and a drilling pro-
gram based on simple and field proven solutions.
The sequence of operations started with removing the comple-
tion string tail-pipe with D-restrictions. This was followed by
isolating the existing perforations in the mothenvell and install-
ing a through tubing retrievable whipstock. A window was
milled in the 7“ liner and a 3 3/4” hole drilled to TD with a
build-up rate of 25 degrees pcr 30 m and a tangent section at 93
degrees. The resemoir was logged using coiled tubing. A 2 7/8”
liner was run to TD and cemented. The reservoir was perforated
in underbalance.
The well has produced at a rate of 400 Sm3/day (>50 YO water-
cut) from one of many oil bearing reservoir pockets in the GulI-
f&s field.
Introduction
Through tubing sidetracks were established as the predominant
method.
A pilot project was defined to establish whether or not the
coiled tubing drilling (Cm) method was viable for the Gf.dK&s
field.
Project Objectives
The CTD project was given two main objectives:
Reserves. To drain unswept oil in a Brent sandstone (Rannoch).
Further to enhance the reservoir understanding of the area.
Strategic. To establish the feasibility of through tubing side-
tracking technology with coiled tubing, from a practical and eco-
nomical point of view.
The CTD technology is applicable for several of Statoils fields,
and the proving of the technoloW was given high priority.
Experience Gathering
At the outset, no previous experience with CTD was available
within Statoils own organisation.
The project proceeded to investigate the CTD technology state
of the art. In this process, several fields, operators and contrac-
tors in Europe and America were visited. The findings estab-
lished the base for the planning and design of the first well.

In 1995/96, a concentratedeffort was made on locating remain- Project Organisation

ing oil in the Gullfaks reservoir. Pockets of unswept reservoir, at-
tics etc. with recoverable volumes of more than 50,000 Sm3 were

123
2 The First Coiled Tubing Sidetrack in Norway, Gullfaks Field
Project team. A dedicated team was formed with a defined
mandate:
Q build CTD competence
● candidate wells selection
● select contractors/contractual strategy
● build project organisation
● define technology strategy
● project execution
The team consisted of a project manager, a completions en-
gineer and a drilling engineer. After contract award, a repre-
sentative from the lead contractor, Schlurnberger Dowell, was
incorporated in the project team, working directly from Sta-
toils oftice.
Project Strategies. The group was given 6 months to plan
and execute the project. Three major strategies were stipulated
shortly after project start:
● use only field-proven, simple solutions
● mobile, stand-alone operation
● perfoml the operation as an established, standard drilling
operation with reference to lines of commantireporting
lines
Contracts. Four companies were evaluated initially as the
CTD contractor. Only the Schlumberger Dowell/Anadrill
group was approached for bid submittal, and the contract was
awarded to Dowell as the lead contractor. In addition, existing
contracts on the Gullfaks Field were used for window estab-
lishment technology, liner and TCP perforation (Baker Oil
Tools) and logging operations maritime Western Atlas).
Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis Methods (RA) were intensively
used in the planning phase. The major objective of the RA
was to ensure that Safety, Health and Environmental Issues
were dealt with in a professional manner. Having the opera-
tional crew members participate in RA-sessions also provided
the added benefit of ownership, both to the highest HSE stan-
dards and to the technical challenges. The National Authori-
ties (NPD) has requiretnents to risk analysis in the Rules &
Regulations.
The HAZID (Hazard Identification) and the HAZOP (Haz-
ardous Operation) methods was extensively used on the Drill-
ing and Completions Programme, and on special critical
operations.
HAZOPS addressing the following topics were performed:
● Cutting tailpipe
s Installing whipstock
● Differential sticking
c Handling of influx
Safe Job Analysis were conducted for the following
operations:
124
SPE 39305
● Rigging up
● Mud Mixing with portable Mud Processing Unit
● Handling and running of Liner
The RA sessions generated a total of 92 recommendations,
programme amendments and other action points, all of which
were processed and “closed out” prior to starting the
operation.
Authorities
A direct communication line was established with Oljedirek-
toratet (OD, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate). The OD was
kept informed of all the cential considerations with reference
to well control, barriers etc. The OD made a review of the pro-
ject operation onshore and offshore, with no major findings.
A considerable work was performed by the team to bridge
the apparent gap between roles & regulations pertaining to
standard drilling operations and rules & regulations pertain-
ing to well maintenance operations. This applied both to inter-
nal and governmental regulations,
Well Selection
The LHWF-project defined a range of wells as candidates for
CTD sidetracks. The final selection was based on:
s production potential
● motherwell production status
● motherwell completions desigtistatus
● sidetrack completions requirements
● slot access (other drilling or workover activities)
Three wells were included in the final evaluations. Two
were selected for final design. For these two wells, Drilling
and Completions Programmed were produced and submitted
to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate ND) for approval.
A IOA Well Design
Reservoir Target. The A1OA well was designed to access and
produce a pocket of unswept oil trapped between a tight fault
and the A lO motherwell (see figure 1).
Completion requirement. The lower Brent sands typically do
not require sand control, as it is well cemented and has me-
dium to low permeability and porosity. Further, zonal isola-
tion was a requirement as part of the wellbore would penetrate
gasbearing and waterflooded sands. Thus a conventional ce-
mented liner was chosen as a completion string.
Perforation method selected was coiled tubing deployed
guns in underbalance.
Ezit point. The governing criterion for the exit point was that
it had to be positioned so that window milling avoided casing
collars or casing centralizers. Further, the exit point shodd
give a reasonable build rate and it shodd be in the same’
SPE 39305 R. Gaas@, K.Gjerde, B.Samsonsen
pressure regime as the rest of the sidetrack. And finally, adequate
space had to be available for a back up window above the pri-
mary whipstock,
Well Trajectory. The mothewell has an inclination of 40 de-
grees at the exit point. A rapid build to horizontal was desirable
to avoid the waterzonc. An azimuthal change of 35 degrees was
needed to line up the tangent section. The dogleg severity was
limited to 25 degrees per 30 meters, to allow the installation of a
conventional liner,
Drilling& Completions Programme. A “standard” Drilling&
Completions Programme was prepared and submitted to the NPD
for approval.
Operational Phase
Mobilisation. The equipment mobilisation was a critical factor,
considering the start-up date was early in the month of February,
often a time of extreme weather conditions in the North Sea Re-
gion. The maximum unit weight (2 3/8” CT reel) was around 40
t. The operation waited for almost two weeks on favorable
weather conditions for this single lifi.
Rig Up. The conventional drilling rig was out of service at the
time. The equipment was rigged up in the main drilling tower.
The safety aspects of operating within the environmentally well
protected drillfloor was highly valued. The access to the rigging
winches etc. that this location offered was an added bonus. The
injector head and the strippers was placed over the drillfloor,
leaving the BOPS below the floor (see enclosed figure 2).
Well Preparation. Tailpipe cutting was necessary as the tailpipe
had a nipple profile with 3,687” ID. The required dfi diameter
was 3,8”. The tailpipe was successfully cut and dropped using a 3
5/8” JRC explosive tool.
Isolation of the motherwell perforations was done with a high
expansion ratio slips-type PES plug.
Due to the presence of H2S, two complete hole volumes of
seawater was bull-headed back into the motherwell reservoir
prior to setting the isolating plug. Visplex weighted mud (1,42
s.g.) was displaced into the well after the plug setting.
Window Establishment. Installation of the Baker Retrievable
Through Tubing Whipstock was done utilising the Anadrill Vi-
per BHA. The whipstock was oriented high side. Accurate depth
correlation for setting depth was enabled by utilising the GR-
sensor in the Viper assembly
Baker Oil tools one trip milling system was utilised. Seven
trips were necessary to establish the window, and the following
learning points were identified:
125
3
1. The inclusion of a jar/accellerator in the milling BHA was
discovered to be detrimental to the milling operations. When
pressure was applied to the system (pumping), the jar gradually
stroked out, causing too much weight on mill and consequential
Stallout.
2. With excessive hours of milling/stallout the whipstock was
probably severely worn and the exit point was measured to be 30
degrees right of high side. It is recommended that the whipstock
is set left of high side to compensate for the natural tendency of
the mill to “walk” off to the right.
3. Depth control was poor. Conventional flagging technique
did not prove adequate. There was no intelligence (GR or CCL)
in the milling BHA for this purpose. Depth correlating devices
should be included in milling BHA.
Open Hole Drilling
Drilling. The build section was drilled problem free, with opti-
mal penetration rate and a smooth dogleg severi~.
The drilling of the tangent gave a near perfectly straight hole.
The..Vipertool h~ .W otien~gx. sub..M?l.rn?YlQ@t?_?PV[inWus!Y
at approximately 1 RPM. The tool was rotated continuously in
the tangent section resulting in a completely straight hole. The
snakelike wellpath created by conventional steerable systems was
thus avoided and a more desirable wellpath profile for subsequent
completions operations was created.
Differential sticking became a considerable problem. Sliding
while pumping gradually became impossible, and TD was set 15
m high due to lack of progress.
Drilling Fluid Performance. The Visplex drilling fluid system
pe~omed well. Hole cleaning was excellent. Cuttings return was
monitored continuously, as well as torque and drag.
The mud weight was designed to be statically in overbalance.
With a maximum flow rate of 2,5 bbl/min, the overbalance was
observed to increase with 15-20 bar (220-300 psi). This overbal-
ance was enough to cause differential sticking, probably due to
the high solids content of the mud and the properties of the filter
cake.
Logging. Though operationally successful, the logs needed con-
siderable reprocessing (several days) onshore before they codd
be interpreted. The logging tools were of outdated technology.
However, subject to availability, the only choice.
Liner installation and cementing. The shoulders of the external
couplings of the liner was bevelled to 45 degrees to prevent the
shoulders to hang up.
Centralisers were not installed, to avoid creating too much drag.
The external couplings were considered to provide a certain de-
gree of centralisation in the 3 3/4” hole. The liner was installed
and cemented with standard plug/dart liner running system.
 ..... .— .— .-—

4 The First Coiled Tubing Sidetrack in Norway, Gullfaks Field SPE 39305

Perforation. Two zones of 20 m each was perforated with 2“

4 shots per foot, 7 g charge guns in underbalance.

Production. The well was initially produced at the expected

rate of 400 Sm3/D, but with more than 50°/0watercut. The
watercut has, despite of ill expectations, remained at this
level. The well has produced about 50.000 Sm3 to date
(nov.97) and continues to produce around the given rate.

Learning Points

Risk analysis. Using risk analysis to assess the project from

an Health, Safety, Environmental and Economical side is
critical to success.
Drilling Fluid. The drilling fluid needs to be optimised from a
Werential sticking point of view.
BHA for Milling. Accelerator and jar should not be included
in the milling assembly.
Stand alone operation. The stand alone operation was
successfid.
Separate Drilling fluids Module. This module was a chal-
lenge with respect to health and working environment. Using
the platforms existing system should be evaluated,

Conclusions
The CTD project met all the given objectives within the given
timeframe.
The CTD technology is qualified for the Gullfaks field and
for Statoil.
Coiled tubing drilling in underbalance is the natural direc-
tion to go to be able to fully utilise the potential of the method.
The method can then really become an inexpensive alternative
to conventional drilling.

Future Plans
On the Gullfaks Field, two wells will be side-tracked with
CTD end 1997/early 1998. Late 1998 another two wells will
be side-tracked with CTD.
From the middle of 1999, a permanent CTD-operation will
be started with a level of 5-7 sidetracks per year.
On the Statfjord and Yme Fields, each have plans for 1-3
CTD sidetracks per year from 1998.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Den norske stats oljeselskap
AS (STATOIL) and the Gullfaks License Group for permis-
sion to publish this paper.

References

1. Vikane, E., Samsonsen, B. and Lorentzen, K.E.: Through

Tubing IMIII Drilling as a Method for Increased Oil Recovery
on the GullfAs Field” SPE 39358, IADC/SPE Dallas 1998.

126
I
5
sPE 39305 R. Gaasa, K.Gjerde, B.Samsonsen

PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATIONAFTER DRILLING/LOGGINGA-1OA

1750
9750
. ..— —

?800
$800

1850
1850

1$00
<900

OP!PE E kiA Bm04, I

Fig. 1. Reservoir interpretation

~

127
 6 The Firat Coiled Tubing Sidetrack in Norway, Gullfaks Field SPE 39305
~

Client LHBS CTD

Coiled Tubing Drilling Sewices - NORWAY Installation: Gullfaks A
Well: GFA-10
WELL CONTROL STACK - STATOIL Gullfaks A
Date: 24 Jan. 1997
Created by: T.W. Staal

$ Radial Stripper 5118”-IOK

Radial Stripper 5 l/8”-10K
1 X-over :Bowan CC44 Box to 5118” 10K
t X-over :Bowen CC44 Pin to 5 1/8” 10K
rl~
t
1,3 m

m
Triple BOP 5 l/8w-10K
1
Pmre FlowCress 51/8”-1OK
$
0.4 *
Drill
—-—.
RKa
Fbor- .-- —_- ~r~----------

Riser 5 1/8”-1 OK

Riser 5 l/8”-10K

II

Riser 5 1/8”-1 OK

9/
X-0v8r31/16’ -2l/l6’
i’
Annular BOP 5 1/8”-1 OK
x-over 2111a--2”
1,0
1s02
/

0,8

0.7

283m RK8
.-—_— .--—
5
—— BOP_____
H _ __-__– ~------
Riser 7 l/16”-10K
X-Over 7 l/16*-5K to 7 l/16”-10K
( 6 3/6” tapered bore)
32,* RKS 3.4
-— --
--——-

Tree 7 l/l f3”-5K top flange

I Fig.2. Well Rig up on A-IOA

128
I SPE 39305 R. Gaas@, K.Gierde, B.Samsonsen 7

PRINSIPP KOMPLETTERING 34/10-A-10

STATUS PR, 2G. Of. 97
m

1
-

I I . I
6.OM 4,778 5 1/2- Pm hk 17 * 20 b/ft

.
3
}
6.535
4.770
+,8a7 cm-
Flow CW91M0
5 1/2- T& Wc.nk *W.
I
~

-
~

Jl~l 102 I 4 ?7b

4.
x
.W
.m w
x
X-Q%
)

I 1

l’~,1 i Iaw.0 I 5,.945 I 4,1700 I +0 Cunco s 7*< w- 20’ st,tie I

I I
,I I !
I
,--- ---- 1
1 !

1 I I --- I —-. I

I
..
—..
I I I I ! I
I , I I
r t
. ....
-.-. — . .. 1
-+ I ! 1 I

I
,
.—.
I

. ..-
I
1
1

I
I I
.,--L I
)
—
4 s
.. . . . . . ..-. —-..
>~ I

k [ !

I , 1
4~—’1———
I MERKNADER,

I I eRONN 34/10-A-10
0s b Trmmmu I

I . l’”In

I Fig. 3. Well schematic, A-10 motherwell

129