Coiled-Tubing Drilling of Horizontal
Sidetrack in House Mountain Field, Alberta
M.R. Milligan, SPE, Shell Canada; M.T. Andreychuk,* SPE, Dowell and W.B. Lunan,** SPE,
Northland Production Testing Ltd.
Summary
In 1995, the first horizontal sidetrack successfully drilled using
coiled tubing 共CT兲 was carried out at Shell’s House Mountain
oilfield. The objective was to drill underbalanced a 3 87-in. diam by
300-m-long horizontal hole section from an existing vertical,
cased oil well. The existing well was re-entered using a conven-
tional drilling rig; a window milled in the casing, and the build
section drilled to an inclination of 90°. 2 83-in. CT was then used to
directionally drill the horizontal section underbalanced with nitri-
fied water. The zone of interest was a Devonian-age reef-edge and
limestone structure, at a depth of about 2200 m, called the Slave
Point.
A case history of directionally drilling the horizontal sidetrack
using 2 83-in. OD. CT is provided. Coiled-tubing drilling proved to
be a cost-effective alternative to drilling the horizontal sidetrack
without using a conventional drilling rig. Shorter trip times, un-
derbalanced drilling, enhanced rates of penetration 共ROP兲, and the
ability to maintain weight on bit were all achieved. ROPs in-
creased by up to three-fold while drilling underbalanced.
Introduction
The accelerating growth of underbalanced drilling in Western
Canada has led to the expansion of coiled-tubing drilling 共CTD兲.
Global applications of CTD increased exponentially from three in
1992 to about 150 in 1994. A large percentage of wells drilled
with coiled tubing 共CT兲 have been horizontals. Prior to 1995 in
western Canada, several attempts were made to directionally drill
horizontals with CT, but none with total success until completion
of the House Mountain 12-33-69-09 W5M well sidetrack in Janu-
ary 1995.
Shell’s House Mountain CTD project consisted of re-entering
an existing 4 21-in.-cased wellbore with a conventional drilling rig,
and milling a window in the production casing at 2010 m. A
bottom trip whipstock was set on a bridge plug at 2012 m and
oriented to an azimuth of 70°. After completion of the window,
the rig continued to drill the build section. The build section was
landed at 2210 m with a maximum dogleg severity of 25.3°/30 m.
The rig completed the openhole by spotting a viscous 共hydroxy-
ethyl cellulose兲 pill over the build. The rig then tripped out of the
hole and a wireline-set, retrievable bridge plug 共RBP兲 was set at
1000 m. After the rig moved off location, CT and production
equipment were rigged up to pull the RBP, and directionally drill
the 3 87-in diam. by 300 m horizontal section underbalanced.
Reservoir Background
The House Mountain field, located in north central Alberta, has
been producing from three cycles of reef growth of the Middle
Devonian Slave Point formation for over 30 years. The field is
located about 250 km northwest of Edmonton near the town of
Swan Hills. It was discovered in 1963, and unitization and pattern
waterflood began in 1965. API 42 gravity oil is produced from the
Middle Devonian Slave Point part of the Beaverhill Lake group,
at depths from 2200 to 2590 m.
*Now with Cancoil Technology Corp.
**Now with Curtis, Lunan & Assocs.
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 64225) was revised for publication from paper SPE 35127, first presented
at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, 12–15 March. Original
manuscript received for review 10 April 1996. Revised manuscript received 18 January
1999. Paper peer approved 4 February 1999.
92 SPE Drill. & Completion 15 共2兲, June 2000
The Slave Point formation is comprised of a stromatoporoid-
rich reefal and shoal complex built on a tabular stromatopoid plat-
form. The reservoir is limestone with porosity 共10%兲 and perme-
ability 共10 md兲 related to original depositional fabrics and
patterns. The reservoir has no gas cap or underlying acquifer.
Original oil in place is estimated at 60 E03 m3 with current re-
covery of 19 E06 m3 共32%兲 and a target recovery efficiency of
38%. The field produces about 800 m3/d oil from 146 wells, 20 of
which are horizontal. Horizontals produce 25% of the oil. Fifty
waterflood injectors currently support the producers.
Horizontal Wells Background
The first five horizontal wells in House Mountain were drilled in
1993 and were sidetracked re-entries out of existing vertical pro-
ducers 共beam pump兲 equipped with 5 21-in. casing. The wells aver-
aged about 30 m3/day oil per well at low water cuts compared to
an average vertical producer of about 5 to 10 m3/day oil on beam
pump. Those wells indicated that sidetracked horizontal wells
were an attractive investment strategy for House Mountain. In
early 1994, innovative slimhole drilling technology was imple-
mented to permit sidetracks out of vertical well producers
equipped with 4 21 -in. casing using 3 87-in. ATJ-33 bits on 2 87-in.
drillpipe with special clearance tool joints. The operations went
surprisingly smoothly and production from the first four 3 87-in.
slimhole sidetracks averaged 48 m3/d oil. A total of 20 horizontal
sidetracks have been drilled. The majority of wells in House
1
Mountain are equipped with 4 2 -in. casing and, hence, the majority
7
of sidetracks are 3 8-in. The drilling fluid was filtered produced
water and with the variability of reservoir pressure due to water-
flood, some wells flowed while drilling. This was handled by drill-
ing underbalanced using rates of penetration 共ROP兲 and flow drill-
ing production equipment at the surface. However, the extra
equipment and extra procedures for flow drilling inflated well
costs.
As part of Shell Canada’s technical strategy to expand the ca-
pability to drill wells underbalanced, including sour gas wells, we
were keen to try out coiled-tubing drilling as an enabling technol-
ogy. This came to fruition with the identification of the 12-33-
69-09 W5M well in House Mountain as a sidetrack candidate. The
projected horizontal length of 300 m brought it within the bounds
of CTD capability. The reservoir pressure in the target zone was
prognosed as 25 to 28 MPa, well above the hydrostatic pressure of
produced water 共21 MPa兲. The requirement for underbalanced
drilling made it a good candidate for CTD because the CT pres-
sure control equipment at the surface permitted complete under-
balanced operations at all times including tripping. Finally, we
also wanted to check out the technical viability, costs, and claimed
attributes of drilling underbalanced with CT; namely, damage
mitigation, formation evaluation while drilling, and enhanced
ROPs.
Closed-Surface Control System
To allow underbalanced drilling and handle the cuttings, forma-
tion, and drill fluids at the surface, a closed production control
system including a special separator was employed. A skid-
mounted 7 ft by 20 ft horizontal separator with a working pressure
rating of 200 psi 共1380 kPa兲 was installed on location. The length
and capacity together with internal velocity reducers provided suf-
ficient retention time so that the four phases 共oil, gas, water, and
solids兲 could be separated and measured. The horizontal separator
was divided into three sections to separate the phases. The vessel
was designed to handle a gas flow rate to 45 mmscf/D 共1260 E03
1064-6671/2000/15共2兲/92/5/$5.00⫹0.50
 Fig. 1– Wellhead.
Fig. 2– Surface control system.

m3/d兲, liquid capacity was 150 bbl 共24 m3 ), and the separator was
designed to handle liquid rates to 25,000 B/D 共3975 m3/d兲. Gas the project of potential hazards and occurrences to expect during
metering was by orifice measurements and liquid metering by the job. The following equipment was then moved in and rigged
3
calibrated sight glasses and turbine meters. For safety during the up: fluid pumpers, nitrogen pumper, 2 8 in. coiled tubing unit, CT
underbalanced drilling, two 2 in. safety relief valves set at 200 psi reel-support unit, cranes, and additional support equipment.
共1380 kPa兲 provided pressure release on top of the vessel. High The nitrogen unit was rigged in just in case the drilling fluid
liquid level and high/low level shutdowns were also incorporated. had to be nitrified to counter lower than expected reservoir pres-
The surface control system was designed to handle the pre-job- sures. The remainder of the production testing equipment was
specified maximum liquid flow rate of 1,250 to 1,875 B/D 共200 to rigged in. The CT and production equipment were rigged in to
300 m3/d兲 with a drilling circulation rate of 0.3 to 0.5 m3/min. The drill the lateral section underbalanced with water. Project progno-
maximum wellhead shut-in pressure was estimated at 725 psi sis called for 300 m of 3 87 in. openhole horizontal lateral from
共5000 kPa兲. An emergency shutdown valve was installed on the 2210 to 2510 m.
wellhead to shut in the well at any time. The 4 in., 2,000 psi A tailgate safety meeting was held to inform personnel on lo-
working pressure well effluent lines were connected to a 4 in. cation of the sequence of events that would be undertaken for
choke manifold and sample catcher system. Chokes were used to pressure testing and pulling the RBP. Upon stabbing the injector,
control the backpressure on the well and solids were diverted into the dimple connector was installed and pressure tested along with
the sample cylinders for formation evaluation 共geologic control兲 the CT. The bottomhole assembly 共BHA兲 was assembled and
throughout the drilling operation. Solids were removed from the torqued up for pulling the RBP. The injector was placed on the
separator to a slop tank, gas was flared through a 4-in.-diam. by well and all surface equipment were pressure tested, including the
40-ft-high flarestack, and clean drilling water was transferred production testing equipment. Wellhead flanges were also pres-
through a 400 bbl tank to the pumper 共Fig. 3兲. Propane and a sure tested. The 4 161 in. BOP actuators were function and pressure
vaporizer were used to maintain pressure on the separator and for tested. Complete pressure testing procedures lasted 3 hours.
purging.
During the underbalanced drilling operations no oil production Day 3. The CT was run to 998.5 m where the RBP was tagged.
was recorded at the surface. However, formation water was pro- Weight was set down to activate the equalization valve, putting
the well in a positive pressure state. The RBP was then pulled to
duced to the surface at rates up to 1 m3/h.
the surface. The master valve was closed and the wellhead pres-
sure was bled off. The injector was then removed along with the
Operation
7 RBP and overshot assembly.
Day 1. Rigging up was started on the wellhead 共Fig. 1兲. A 2 8 in.
The crew prepared the equipment for CTD. The CTD dimple
slip and pipe ram blowout preventer 共BOP兲 and a 7 161 in. annular
connector was installed and pull/pressure tested. The wellhead
BOP were installed to allow pressure deployment of the bottom-
was re-pressure tested to regulatory 共Alberta Energy Resources
hole drilling assembly. The BOPs were installed on top of the
drilling flow spool and a 7 161 in. full opening valve. The 7 161 in.
valve was installed to allow the CTD control equipment at the
surface to be removed without killing the well. Conceptually, we
were planning on snubbing in the completion string under pres-
sure, at the conclusion of drilling. However, the well ended up
killing itself with produced formation water, so the completion
string, and rod and pump, were run conventionally. A 7 161 in.
‘‘Bowen’’ connector was installed on top of the annular BOP to
permit the installation of a wireline lubricator for pressure deploy-
ment of the drilling assembly. A specially constructed CTD sub-
structure was installed over the wellhead to facilitate handling the
lubricator for pressure deployment and installing the CT stripper,
BOPs, and injector head.
The closed-production system equipment components shown in
Fig. 2 were rigged in. Fig. 3 schematically illustrates the complete
closed system from drill bit to separator and associated production
control equipment.

Day 2. The CT crew arrived on location, and a pre-job awareness

safety meeting was conducted to inform all personnel involved in Fig. 3– Complete closed system.

Milligan, Andreychuk, and Lunan: Coiled-Tubing Drilling SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2000 93

Fig. 4– Drilling BHA.
Board兲 requirements. All pipe rams, flanges, annular, reel, surface
treating iron, and production equipment were subjected to high-
and low-pressure tests. First tested was the 4 161 in. BOP, then the
1
7 16 in. double-gate BOP, and finally, the 7 161 in. annular. Both the
4 16 and 7 161 in. slip rams were tested in tension and compression.
1
The total pressure testing procedures lasted 7 hours.
Prior to deploying BHA 1 共Fig. 4兲, a safety meeting was held to
outline the procedures and potential hazards of the actual CTD
job. ‘‘Section 1’’ of BHA 1 was pre-loaded in the lubricator. The
lubricator was positioned above the wellhead and stabbed on top
of the 7 161 in. annular. The lubricator was pressure tested. The
wellhead lubricator pressure was equalized and ‘‘Section 1’’ was
then deployed into the well until the wireline bulkhead bottomed
out onto the wireline head seat. ‘‘Section 1’’ was lifted a mea-
sured distance of 30 in. and then the 7 161 in. slips and 7 161 in.
annular were closed on the nonmagnetic drill collars 共NMDC兲.
The crew bled off the lubricator pressure and rigged out the lubri-
cator. At this point, Slim 1 关measurement while drilling 共MWD兲
tool兴 was loaded into the NMDC. A temporary kelly cock was
placed on top of ‘‘Section 1’’ to prevent any possibility of the
well flowing due to the failure of the floats above the motor.
‘‘Section 2’’ of BHA 1 was loaded into the lubricator and posi-
tioned above the wellhead. ‘‘Section 2’’ was then lowered onto
‘‘Section 1’’ and torqued up. The lubricator was made up. The
wellhead/lubricator pressure was equalized, and then the 7 161 in.
annular and slips were opened. The tools were deployed until the
wireline head was set, then the string was lifted 30 in. and the 7
1
16 in. slips and annular were closed once again on the flow-by
housing. The lubricator pressure was bled off and the lubricator
was rigged out and laid down. BHA 1 was now totally deployed
into the well. Deploying the entire tool string took 4 hours, in-
cluding making up the injector to the wellhead.
Prior to running in the hole 共RIH兲, drilling fluid 共water兲 was
pumped at 0.32 m3/min to test the tools to ensure they were func-
tional. Toolface and survey pulses were strong and clear, hence,
the string was RIH to total depth 共TD兲 at 2210 m. On tagging at
the end of the build section, a full survey was taken to correlate
the new survey tools with the original well surveys. The initial
speed of RIH for the string averaged 18 m/min for a total 2 hour
trip time.
94 Milligan, Andreychuk, and Lunan: Coiled-Tubing Drilling
Fig. 5– BHPÕBHT data.
Drilling was started using water at a flow rate of 0.33 m3/min.
The rate of penetration ranged from 5 to 8 m/h. At no time did the
well start to flow while drilling. Surveys were initially taken every
7 m and on average they took 3.5 minutes each.
Day 4. Drilling continued to 2261.9 m. It was clear that the well
would not flow on its own because the reservoir pressure was
lower than that prognosed. The reservoir pressure was, in fact,
lower than the hydrostatic of the drilling fluid 共water兲, which ac-
cording to the downhole memory gauges was, at maximum,
21 600 kPa 共including annular friction pressure兲. Incidentally,
the bottomhole-pressure/bottomhole-temperature 共BHP/BHT兲
memory gauge was not run in BHA 1. The BHP/BHT data 共Fig.
5兲 were obtained from running the memory gauge in the second
string. The memory gauge failed after 13 hours due to vibration.
In an attempt to decrease the annular hydrostatic pressure, ni-
trogen was added to the drilling fluid at 6 std m3/min. Nitrifying
the drilling fluid created a downhole nitrified fluid quality of 10%.
According to the memory gauge run in BHA 2, the bottomhole
nitrogen volume factor was approximately 144 m3/m3. That was
based on 20 000 kPa bottomhole pressure 共12 000 kPa annular
pressure plus 8000 kPa pressure drop across the tools兲 and 87°C
bottomhole temperature, which were very similar to the values
predicted on location while drilling with BHA 1. The fluid rate
remained at 0.34 m3/min. The total bottomhole flow rate with
nitrogen and water combined was 0.38 m3/min. Lower water rates
were used as the nitrogen rate increased. That prevented the bot-
tomhole flow rates from exceeding the maximum allowable flow
rate for the 2 87 in. mud motor. The maximum allowable flow rate
for the 2 87 in., 5/6 rotor/stator was 0.5 m3/min with a bypass nozzle
in the rotor. At 18 std m3/min of nitrogen, the corresponding fluid
rate was 0.3 m3/min for a total combined bottomhole flow rate of
0.425 m3/min.
Once the well was converted over to nitrified fluid, the ROPs
increased to 11 to 14 m/h. Intermittent inflows of salt water but no
appreciable oil returns were recorded. At this point obtaining sur-
veys required circulating over the hole volume to water to obtain
MWD pulses back to the surface. This procedure initially took
approximately 48 minutes. On completion of obtaining a survey,
the hole was circulated back to nitrified fluid to continue under-
balanced drilling. A complete survey cycle took 50 minutes of
pumping time from nitrified fluid to nitrified fluid at bit. Drilling
continued while accumulating surveys to prevent downtime.
The increase in ROP led to an increase in nitrogen rate. The
nitrogen rate was increased, respectively, from 6, 9, and 18
std m3/min with corresponding increases in ROP. The most
prominent ROPs recorded varied from 17 to 25 m/h, which was
clearly indicative of underbalanced drilling. Toolstring orientation
of the tool face initially took approximately 2 minutes per rotation
共30°). As drilling progressed, progressive increases in effectively
accumulating surveys and toolstring orientations were achieved.
Operator familiarization was one of the reasons for the continuous
improvement.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2000
 Fig. 6– Survey data.
Day 5. The pre-agreed bit 共Hughes ATJ-33 tricone兲 life was 24
hours based on previous drilling experience in House Mountain.
After 24 hours of circulating and drilling, a bit trip was run from
the TMD of 2380 m. Trip time from drilling to surface for the bit
change back to bottom drilling was approximately 9 hours. The
used bit looked very good and only one cone sounded ‘‘rough.’’ It
was suggested that the bit had 4 to 6 hours of life left. During the
bit change, the memory gauge was installed, a jet was replaced in
the orientation tool, the pulser was inspected on Slim 1, and the
2 78 in. motor was inspected for wear. BHA 1 intermittently in-
dexed when a survey was being taken. To alleviate the problem,
14 13
the jet in the orientation tool was downsized from 32 in. to 32 in. in
BHA 2 to create a higher-pressure drop across the tool. That in-
creased the operating window 共pressure-wise兲 between the pres-
sure drop requirement to obtain surveys and pressure drop re-
quired to index the string 30°. Underploying the tools—2 hours—
simply involved the reversal of the operation explained in Day 3.
Deploying the tools back in the hole a second time around took
only 3 hours rather than 4 hours—a significant improvement.
On completion of the bit change, drilling continued. Attempts
had been made to increase the ROP and create a more underbal-
anced condition by increasing the nitrogen rate to 27 std m3/min
and decreasing the fluid rate to 0.25 m3/min. However, the ROP
increase at that nitrified water value was negligible. The porosity
of the zone decreased around the same time 共chert in returns at
2483.1 m兲, substantially affecting comparative ROP results.
Fig. 7– Coiled tubing force overlay.
Milligan, Andreychuk, and Lunan: Coiled-Tubing Drilling
Fig. 8– Coiled tubing life „%….
Day 6. Porosity became more inconsistent. Nitrogen rates were
maintained at 27 std m3/min and fluid at 0.25 m3/min 共total bot-
tomhole flow rate of 0.44 m3/min兲 to 2500 m. The porosity of the
zone declined, and the well was at TD on geology at 2500 m. The
ROP directly prior to 2500 m averaged 7 m/h. At TD, the well
was circulated ‘‘bottoms up’’ and the string was pulled to the
surface. Deploying the tools out of the well and complete rigdown
of all drilling equipment were accomplished in 4.5 hours. Fig. 6
illustrates the actual well profile drilled with CT.
Conclusions
1. CTD proved to be a viable and practical method for drilling
a directional horizontal slim-hole 共⬍6.25 in.兲 re-entry.
2. Drilling underbalanced with CT proved relatively straight-
forward. However, detailed upfront planning and teamwork were
required to make it a success.
3. ROPs increased by two- to three-fold by going underbal-
anced.
4. Trip times were shorter than during conventional drilling in
the underbalanced condition.
5. Toolstring orientation using mud pulses was effective.
6. Accumulating survey data 共direction and inclination兲 and
tool face via measurement while drilling proved successful.
7. The wireline pressure deployment system proved an effec-
tive method of handling the BHA.
8. The drilling structure was easy and fast to assemble and
disassemble.
9. CT forces experienced coincided relatively well with pre-
dicted values 共Fig. 7兲.
Fig. 9– Usage of time to pull the RBP and CTD.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2000 95
 10. Circulating pressures were under the predicted values.
Lower circulating pressures greatly decreased the percentage of
CT life consumed to drill the lateral section 共Fig. 8兲.
11. Short rig-up/rig-down times enhanced project operations.
Quick bit trips also contributed to a decreased project cost. Fig. 9
illustrates the percentage of time used accomplishing various tasks
throughout the project.
Recommendations
1. Participate in more underbalanced CTD projects to refine
and enhance operations. Continual CTD exposure will result in
better productivity, lower daily costs, and increased efficiency.
2. Configure surface drilling equipment only to CTD opera-
tions. Specializing in a CTD service will enhance location layout
and operational effectiveness.
3. Develop a BHA that is functional when drilling with gas,
nitrified fluid or foam, and be capable of providing surveys and
orientation in real time. Electromagnetic 共EM兲 or wireline tech-
nology will greatly enhance the effectiveness of underbalanced
directional drilling with gasified fluids.
4. Structure the BOP stack for CTD operations only. Running a
dual combination quad stack will shorten rig up and pressure test-
ing time. It will also enhance deployment operations.
5. Cross train directional drillers and CT operators. Training on
CT operations would also be beneficial.
6. Implement the use of nitrogen-generating units on location;
especially for wells requiring large amounts of nitrogen to be
drilled.
7. Enhancing CTD operations and equipment 共wellhead con-
figuration, EM/wireline BHA兲 will greatly increase the profi-
ciency of the operation and further reduce costs.
8. Obtaining annular BHP/BHT in real time is critical with
regard to calculating mud motor volumetric requirements.
Followup Observations
The following observations were compiled in January 1999—
some four years after the underbalanced CTD of the horizontal
sidetrack at House Mountain. The CTD operation itself was an
outstanding technical success. Unfortunately, the well only pro-
duced water when put on production at 50 m3/d on beam pump.
96 Milligan, Andreychuk, and Lunan: Coiled-Tubing Drilling
Shell Canada has not pursued CTD opportunities elsewhere,
primarily due to competitive pressures from low-cost conven-
tional drilling in Western Canada, and difficulties quantifying the
advantages of underbalanced drilling in terms of reduced forma-
tion damage and increased well productivity. Nevertheless, it is
the authors’ opinion that CTD does have a niche especially for
underbalanced applications. Reduced CTD costs and improved
quantification of the advantages related to formation damage re-
duction would stimulate its application.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of Shell Canada, Dowell Div.
of Schlumberger Canada, and Northland Production Testing Ltd.
for permission to publish. In addition, we thank John Ramalho,
Shell Canada drilling foreman for his enthusiasm, support and
onsite supervision of CTD operations.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl ⫻ 1.589 873 E⫺01 ⫽ m3
in. ⫻ 2.54 E⫹00 ⫽ cm
ft ⫻ 3.048 E⫺01 ⫽ m
ft3 ⫻ 2.831 685 E⫺02 ⫽ m3
psi ⫻ 6.984 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPa
SPEDC
Mike Milligan is Chief Production Engineer with Shell Canada
in Calgary. e-mail: michael.milligan@shell.ca. He champions
the introduction of new technologies geared to business
need. Milligan holds a degree in mechanical engineering
from Willesden College of Technology. Mark Andreychuk
is President of Cancoil Technology Corp. e-mail:
andreychuk@cancoil.com. He previously was with Dowell. An-
dreychuk holds a degree in mechanical engineering from the
U. of Manitoba. Brian Lunan is President of Curtis, Lunan, &
Assocs. e-mail: blunan@compuserve.com. He previously was
with Northland Production Testing Ltd. Lunan holds a BS de-
gree in metallurgy and an MS degree in petroleum oil and gas
exploration, both from the U. of Aberdeen.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2000